RagDoll Lemon

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: RagDoll Lemon wrote: Perms were NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts), Transfer Updated products are NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts, NoTransfer. So basically you're bent out of shape because you want to unload a product that you bought that you say doesn't do what it's supposed to do and you can't because it's no longer transferable. In other words, you'd like to be able to pass it on to another sucker. At the right price, of course. Does that sum it up? No. I would acutally prefer that the company rollback their products to their original advertised functionality.

You ever heard the expression "if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is"? Greed? Who's greed are you talking about? Greedy people are easily scammed by greedy people. Sorry, I'm not sympathic. I'm not looking for sympathy. I looking for visibility without violating forum rules. And I'm hoping for a Linden to wonder by and connect my thread to the multiple ARs although I know that's a long shot. I appreciate you taking the time to respond honestly. I'm not actually as greedy as you might imagine but your opinion of me is not important to my being here.

Innula Zenovka wrote: RagDoll Lemon wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Ethics has nothing to do with it. A creator has the right under the TOS to sell an item under any terms they wish to specify. It could not be otherwise as the creator always retains full IP rights to their products and when you buy their creation, you are only buying the right to use it in SL under the terms specified by the creator. The Linden ''permission system" is set up as a convenient way for creators to enforce their terms but a creator may use any other means to do that too. If you read section 7 of the TOS there is no requirement there that the permission system be the only way to set the terms of use. A consumer has the right to buy the product or not. If you don't like the permissions, don't buy the product. Yes, but when the creator forces a product upgrade the removes the original permissions the product was sold under and also disables the earlier version from working with the external server, I believe the fine gray line between creater's rights and buyer's rights has been crossed. What were the perms on the item when you bought it, and how do you say the alteration in them has lessened its value to you? And what, if anything, was said at the time of sale about compulsory updates and changes? Perms were NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts), Transfer Updated products are NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts, NoTransfer.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: RagDoll Lemon wrote: I've already stated that ARs have been filed and ignored. That should tell you something. Yep. It tells me to make more noise in more places until heard! :smileyvery-happy:

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Ethics has nothing to do with it. A creator has the right under the TOS to sell an item under any terms they wish to specify. It could not be otherwise as the creator always retains full IP rights to their products and when you buy their creation, you are only buying the right to use it in SL under the terms specified by the creator. The Linden ''permission system" is set up as a convenient way for creators to enforce their terms but a creator may use any other means to do that too. If you read section 7 of the TOS there is no requirement there that the permission system be the only way to set the terms of use. A consumer has the right to buy the product or not. If you don't like the permissions, don't buy the product. Yes, but when the creator forces a product upgrade the removes the original permissions the product was sold under and also disables the earlier version from working with the external server, I believe the fine gray line between creater's rights and buyer's rights has been crossed.

Rival Destiny wrote: RagDoll Lemon wrote: My OP was about the ethics of a product and rather or not such a violation of ethics is against TOS. If someone buys a land parcel from a private estate owner and pays for 2 months in advance and then the owner shuts down the sim and keeps the rent, we should tell that person "Gosh sorry its only $15, get a life!"?!? In that example, multiple people would have been taken for a ride and the person simply repeats the land scam with an alt. Is that ethical and is it against TOS? I do believe the answer is yes based on previous posts in the forum. I suppose LL can't fix that problem either? Yes this is a crusade. It would be nice if there was a better mechinism within the LL properties to lay out our case but there is not. AR's are being ignored. Landowners are being cheated. Rag Doll You are comparing apples and potatoes here. You inquired about the ethics of selling a product no permissions and whether no permissions is against TOS. How is this, in any way, the equivalent of ripping someone off? Now if you are saying that the vendor/creator of this 'product' is stealing/ripping people off, then you should be filing a ticket with LL. From what has been said, this product has a group with over 5k members. If the product is stealing/ripping them off, then I'm sure they would all be filing AR's with LL. I've already stated that ARs have been filed and ignored. And I don't think my comparison is that far off base. Particularly when older versions of products are made disfunctional by the external servers they talk to forcing the buyer to upgrade to a working version only to discover that the updated product's perms have been changed to nocopy, notransfer. That seems fishy to me. Rag Doll

My OP was about the ethics of a product and rather or not such a violation of ethics is against TOS. If someone buys a land parcel from a private estate owner and pays for 2 months in advance and then the owner shuts down the sim and keeps the rent, we should tell that person "Gosh sorry its only $15, get a life!"?!? In that example, multiple people would have been taken for a ride and the person simply repeats the land scam with an alt. Is that ethical and is it against TOS? I do believe the answer is yes based on previous posts in the forum. I suppose LL can't fix that problem either? Yes this is a crusade. It would be nice if there was a better mechinism within the LL properties to lay out our case but there is not. AR's are being ignored. Landowners are being cheated. Rag Doll

@16 True. But there's a difference to the end user of objects mixed parts together and creating a nocopy, notrans item vs the product coming directly from a company rigged to be nocopy, notrans. Even worse if they are actually changing functionality of the product over time and not allowing people to sell to product when the functionality no longer matches what they bought the product for and have no way to sell out. And please understand, this is actually a group of interconnected products that often cost land owners 10s of thousands of lindens in investment. Rag Doll

If a company is selling something that is fairly expensive, say 4000L plus the object charges a percentage fee for every transaction, is it ethical for the object to be rendered nocopy, nomodify and notransfer? And since the objects communicate with an off-world server, their functionality can be modified by the company outside of the owners control. Is this ethical? If you were a landowner, would you invest in such an object based on the promise of increased traffic? What if it doesn't deliver on that promise. You can't sell it because its no tranferable. Does this seem fair? Inquiring minds want to know! Rag Doll