BarcodeBrian

So don't hide it. Limit it to those that are already in the database, so their biting abilities are disabled until it is deactivated. Doesn't any reputable business also keep databases of users, even if it includes do not contact, or banned, etc.?

Remember that the Garlic Necklace was created for a reason. And since a player does not permanently leave their database, note that they can be hidden from its disclosure because the necklace works both with the unbitten AND active players when activated: someone not yet bitten should not get solicited, and someone in the database will not show up nor be able to bite. When deactivated, both cases are reverted. There is no harm in requiring someone in the database to wear and activate a garlic necklace while on your property other than their perception of indignity (some will look at it that way, some will not). Neither will it hurt to suggest others wear and activate them to prevent the solicitation.

Since those notifications are from groups you belong to, you can go to the group's info and get the notification from there. Those links will work even though they sometimes do not work from the notification sent to you.

It does sound to me like the same bug mentioned in the newer jira that you linked to from here. The OP did state "or the destination is not accepting it.", which suggests where the problem lies - with the receiver, not the senders. The problem as noted in the jira states that they will receive from the same sim, but stop receiving from others until the wearing into another sim and dropping after returning fix that you described.

I will add that there are various ways if you are using rlv and open collar. If open access is not an option, there still may be a way to limit actions allowed, although I don't stay up to date with their functionality. One option for that is to have an object owned by the collar owner that serves a dialog to whoever touches it with animation options that are included in the collar. I believe any object owned by the collar's owner will have the same ability to give chat commands (as on channel 1 so that it is not seen) that the owner has. Open collar keeps lists of chat commands available on web for reference. I don't have their links offhand, but they are not hard to find.

Yes. For some reason, (it seems to me) you are assuming that sitting or attaching are required for animating avatars. They only provide for automatic granting of permissions. Any script, including one in a hud a different user is wearing, is capable of asking for, and receiving permission to animate.

You were optimistic if you ever signed on to SL in the first place. It has been loudly proclaimed to be little more than a beta test since inception, with risk of closing down without notice. This has been very well-known to anyone who did not bury their head in the ground. I would say it is definitely an improvement and clarification over the IP rights controversy. I also believe the wording in the second paragraph of 2.3 might satisfy outside creators, since a reasonable expectation of how content would be used in SL had to exist from the start, however, this does not mean that anyone who has cut ties with SL will change their minds.

Drongle McMahon wrote: The acid tests will be (a) do we see Chosen Few back here? (b) Do those sites that explicitly prohibited upload of their content to SL after the August 13 changes repeal those prohibitions. I was thinking specifically of these two as acid tests also. And you did not always have to agree to ToS to sign on the forum. LL required it shortly after that change, which is why Chosen Few was able to post and acknowledge that he could not agree to it - for a short while.

While the OP might not have the latest gadgets with their added complexity and resource usage, it's still not necessarily true that their present system needs updating or that it is outdated. If it works just fine as it is and its operation is well understood and acceptable, any replacement options are purely discretionary.

A support ticket is not needed. AR the objects' owner(s), and since you are on mainland, you can now return encroaching objects. Of course they won't show in your land controls since they are rezzed on a different parcel, but you will have the option from a right click on the object.

I am a little surprised that you are all spending lindens for this. I am pretty sure that a purchase of anything on MP for $L0 will do the exact same thing.

I agree; accounting for credit card commissions is tricky for merchants. Still you can find discounts for cash and minimum purchase requirements to do the same thing. You can't single out the cards (most of the time) for a different rate and still be allowed to accept them, but you can still price your goods and services according to costs.

There really is no sense in a back and forth "this means this" / "this means that". inflated price Inflating a price does not mean simply "raising" it. You can have your MP prices higher than anywhere, including an inworld store, as long as there is rational reason for it. Posting on the MP doesn't have a cost, nor does it have a profit. Selling on the MP however, has a cost. Raising a price if you see a need to compensate is perfectly fine. Again, inflating prices is not a synonym for raising prices (nor is inflating a synonym for raising).

Inflated or inflating is irrelevant here - a higher price doesn't mean it is inflated, and raising prices doesn't mean inflating them. The SLMP does not allow inflating them, and that is normal marketing practice and terminology. Without this rule the MP would be ripe with high priced items and sales being directed away from MP (in-world store, personal website, third party sales outlets of any kind). They can't survive as a free advertising service. I believe most merchants will likely have less costs with MP than an in-world store, but that still doesn't mean there is anything wrong with factoring prices according to perceived costs. The MP rules do not forbid this - they forbid inflating them; blowing up beyond a normal fit.

Excerpt from letter: [...] focus on whether there may be an approach to address the concerns [...] without reverting to the prior wording. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ And there is the problem. I am pretty sure the majority of complaints specifically insist on reverting the wording to what it was. This looks like a belligerent refusal in guise of a compromise.

Chelsea Malibu wrote: Another part of the new TOS which personally, I am very uncomfortable with, limits what you can do in the enforcement of rights. It states that only Linden Labs can enforce your rights, not you and that you give them the full authority to do so. This means in short, that you cannot go after anyone for piracy, only they can. Since they too own the rights to your content, they would be the ones who need to make the decision to enforce those rights with regards to Second Life. [...] So the questions remain, will they enforce copyrights for the creator of that content? What will be their policy to protect your revenues and your content? I have a problem with anyone, especially if they have legal experience, coming to this conclusion after reading the TOS. Fist paragraph of section 2.3: You retain any and all Intellectual Property Rights you already hold under applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to the rights, licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any underlying rights of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use or modify. Last paragraph of section 2.3: Linden Lab has no obligation to monitor or enforce your intellectual property rights to your User Content, but you grant us the right to protect and enforce our rights to your User Content, including by bringing and controlling actions in your name and on your behalf (at Linden Lab’s cost and expense, to which you hereby consent and irrevocably appoint Linden Lab as your attorney-in-fact, with the power of substitution and delegation, which appointment is coupled with an interest). You enforce your own rights, (as the law already allowed you to do). Linden Lab only expects to take full control of these issues regarding THEIR rights with respect to your content. Chelsea Malibu wrote: As for those of you selling full permission content, this appears to negate your agreements to your buyers as I see no method of enforcement that will work at present. If another lawyer does, please feel free to post it in this thread. Though you can make and state any agreement between you and your customers, in the end it will be up to Linden Labs to validate it and enforce it. I see no reason why they would enforce your agreements since they also state in the TOS that this is between you and the person you did business with. Meaning, it now becomes little more than a hand shake but this has always been the case. Second paragraph of section 2.7: You acknowledge that the Content of the Service is provided or made available to you under license from Linden Lab and independent Content providers, including other users of the Service ("Content Providers"). You acknowledge and agree that except as expressly provided in this Agreement, the Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab and other Content Providers in their respective Content are not licensed to you by your mere use of the Service. You must obtain from the applicable Content Providers any necessary license rights in Content that you desire to use or access. You have every right to your own EULA for your content, provided it does not conflict with SL ToS. LL still claims DMCA protection and has published procedures for you to follow for making a claim against violations. In the end, disputes between users will stay between users - LL involvement will be limited to what they see DMCA protection requires of them; nothing more. I agree that this has always been the case. If content piracy and protection is your area of expertise, then you should know that losing DMCA protection would be the single most damaging action that could befall an online service provider that accepts user content in such large scale quantities. The alternative, having to defend themselves against each accusation of infringement, is something that no provider could take on and expect to stay in business for very long. This inability however, is not by itself the determining factor for being eligible for protection. I would be curious to see the outcome of court challenges in this nature, because the distinction between being the service provider and the actual infringer is being eroded by their own choosing. When uploaded pirated content is known to happen at the levels it does in Second Life, and by anonymous users, attempting to fall back on blaming the user instead of 'us' as the infringer probably won't survive the first court challenge (in this case of claiming far-reaching rights). Sure, the uploader is guilty, but so are you. Now you are trying to repeat the failed arguments that brought down file-sharing services, with the addition of owning the content also. Turning a blind eye toward known illegal activity will only bite you in the ass in the end. I believe the most complications will involve 3rd parties. Texture providers have and always have had their own terms. They normally would have no reason to monitor SL TOS, or any other company's TOS, nor do they have to know of these companies' existence. LL has no authority to decide what rights they have. The only reason they may have needed to comment on usage in SL after this TOS change is because they had already published specific guidelines allowing usage in SL; they basically had to retract the permissions they had previously given their users in writing. I don't think LL has any intention of directly profitting from user content to the extent the ToS seems to now allow; I don't think they would make it to first base in an attempt to fall behind DMCA protection if they did. The real question I have is whether or not the ToS wording alone is enough to endanger that protection.

Inflated prices has its own definition in marketting, which is not simply a 'higher price'. Inflated prices are those which are blown up out of proportion to what might be reasonable. A small increase due to what a seller sees as his/her costs is completely acceptable. To not allow this would be legally challengeable; to simply not allow a seller to have a higher or lower price somewhere besides SLMarketplace might in itself be a violation of anti-trust laws. Whether or not what anyone else believes a merchant should consider when pricing their items, they are free to determine their own business models. Nobody knows what someone's land costs are for an in-world store - they might have a friend offering some free space, or have other reasons for land which has nothing to do with their store. As long as LL charges for marketplace sales, there is a real cost that any seller can choose to account for in their expenses. I think allowing for gifting is why some charge for demos; not really sure. I don't see it as necessary either.

It is easy to see that you are relying on the uploader's automatic generating of lower LODs and not choosing or uploading a physics model, which almost guarantees the highest LI results. But in fairness, that is only secondary to this case. The main problem is that you are expecting to get high detail with a phenominally high polygon count for a flower that should only be maybe half a meter tall in SL. That's the opposite of what makes quality mesh for a game engine to render. Even if you were to optimize by uploading lower LOD and physics models, you still have the initial model for people to rez when up close - over 13k triangles for a small flower. Someone who has created flowers might offer you better insight, but if I were to try making some myself, I would think that trying to stay within a couple hundred triangles for the high poly model is not an unreasonable goal for something that will be that small. Get more detail with textures and materials and less with geometry.

It is not possible for you to withdraw that permission, but you can always go to a different sim so that you won't be affected by it. If you know who the avatar is that is operating it, you can always ask them to stop and even AR them for it. Just remember to never accept requests to animate unless it is from an action you initiated and trust. If you make a new account, you can only transfer those things in your inventory that allow transfer.

Not that the touch_start() event handler is the main point of this thread, but my understanding (and last time I tested) is that the bug is seen when you do NOT have the handler in some states, while it exists in others. That is why there are alternative work-arounds: use touch() or touch_end() instead; or use an empty touch_start() event handler in states that do not need it. As long as there is a touch_start() in every state, the bug should not be seen. ETA: Not intending to single anyone out to replly to either. I agree that the simplest solutions not using any more states or events than necessary is always best. There are those rare times however, when the different functionality that distinguishes those events might be needed.