Phil Deakins

Snow is beautiful when it's fresh, but it gets boring fast, either because it gets dirty, or it becomes too inconvenient - or both. We're expecting more significant snow here in the UK in the next few days and I'd much rather it didn't arrive. Fortunately, it never stays on the ground too long.

Czari Zenovka wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: MyAlt4099 wrote: If I were to copybot something and not sell it, I am not depriving the creator of anything. Not even a sale they otherwise would have made, since I'd still need to buy the item to copy it. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. Thank you for posting this, Phil. I have wrestled with copy vs transfer for my furnishings. When I first started selling my items, I made them mod/trans because, as a customer, I liked being able to give an item to someone else if I didn't want it anymore or *coughs* held a yard sale. Then I started hearing people in the forums complain about trying to mod an item and essentially "breaking" it or not being able to get it like they want and stating that if an item is sold as mod, it should be sold as copy so a fresh version is always available. I then did a small survey here in the forums to see if people preferred mod/copy or mod/trans and if a home furnishing item was mod/copy would they pay more for it than a mod/trans. The responses were mixed. With the asset server sometimes "eating" inventory, I like having a copy of anything I purchase tucked away so I sold my items mod/copy The copy vs trans "debate" is still stuck in my head, however. The reasons you mentioned above are what plays into leaning toward trans perms. Especially for the low prices of my products, I think going back to mod/trans is prudent for me. I never had to debate the copy / trans issue when I started to sell furniture because, at the time, I had a skybox rental business and selling the furniture was just a little sideline. So I was well aware of the potential of selling one sofa, for instance, to one person, and copies of it ending up in dozens of rental homes. So I've never sold anything in my store with the copy permission. Actually, that's not totally true. I do sell a cushion that's copy. I often got people in the home rental business asking for copy items, and they offered 2 or 3 times the normal price, but I never did it. Instead I offered quantity discounts - 20% for 5+, 25% for 10+, and a third off for 20+. That satisfied most of them. When people have tried to modify something, and made a mess of it, I've always helped them out, either by doing it right for them or by replacing the item. That doesn't happen very often though and when it does happen, it's usually that they've tried to texture something else and accidentally textured the item instead and I just need to put the original texture back. I don't think I've ever had anyone get in touch because the item was 'eaten' by the system. People do get in touch when they think they've lost things because they don't know about coalesced objects, and I've always helped them to recover stuff. So, in all the years I've been selling furniture, the fact that it's no copy has never been even a slightly significant problem. Furniture is not like some other stuff, such as clothes. Selling clothes with the copy/no trans permissions is fine because one avatar can't wear 2 instances of the same dress simultaneously, but multiple copies of a piece of furniture can be used simultaneously and, in some cases, a great many copies of it would be used simultaneously. ETA: Some years ago I made and sold a temp rezzer. It demonstrated itself in the store by rezzing various sets of furniture in a living room situation. But temp rezzers for furniture need the furniture to have the copy permission, and I didn't sell any copy furniture. For some time, I debated in my head about that and eventually stopped seliing the temp rezzer, because it was silly that a furniture store didn't sell any furniture that was suitable for the temp rezzer, especially since the rezzer was demoing with furniture.

Bernie Shippe wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Just a quick reply... If the desired colour/pattern isn't offered, don't buy it. It's not a justification for circumventing the permissions. Just out of interest... Some of my furniture is sold in fixed colours or fixed textures, and they are priced at a certain amount. I also do the same items in colour/texture-changing versions that are priced a little higher. if the color/pattern i want is offered in the color/texture changing version, i'd buy that one. if it's not (and i can't find a suitable product elsewhere), then i'd buy either the fixed or changing one depending on what interested me. then if i could break the perms i would to change it to what i wanted. don't like people owning your products? don't sell products. I do like people owning my products. That's why I sell them. You've got it the wrong way round. It should be, "don't like something about the product? Don't buy it."

Bernie Shippe wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: You are totally wrong. If you were to copy something that you don't have permission to copy, you'd have two instances of the thing but you'd only have paid for one. That's theft. If you have two instances but you'd only paid for one, the seller will have lost a sale. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. nope. there's a difference between multiple copies in inventory and multiple copies rezzed. i buy your couch. i break the perms. i keep a copy of the original because i don't trust LLs inventory and i want the original to go back to in case i mess something up. i make a copy and shrink and fudge with it to make it the way i want. i rez and use one instance. you think that makes me a theif. well good for you, but i frankly don't care. Ok, you don't mind being a thief. I can't argue with that. As I said in the post that you quoted, if an item isn't exactly what you want (in this case, if it's no copy) don't buy it. It's perfectly simple. Or you could ask the seller to sell you a 'copy' version and perhaps offer more for it. But if you buy a 'no copy' item and circumvent the permisiions so that you can copy it, and then you do copy it, you're a thief.

Maelstrom is Britiish. To be more precise, he is British/English. Not being British is not an option for him - i.e. he can't opt out of it - so he is British. For the interest: The fastest BB speed we have here in the UK at the moment is 120Mbps but that's only available to Virgin Media customers and most BB users aren't their customers. VM was a British company until a couple of days ago when an American company (Liberty Global) bought it. I wouldn't say that BB is "government mandated" although it does appear that the government does provide grants for it.

I think you'll find that the problem is with you, Schaeler. SL is not getting laggier. If things are slowing down for you, then it's down to you.

Bernie Shippe wrote: and what if someone wants the item in a color/pattern not offered? Just a quick reply... If the desired colour/pattern isn't offered, don't buy it. It's not a justification for circumventing the permissions. Just out of interest... Some of my furniture is sold in fixed colours or fixed textures, and they are priced at a certain amount. I also do the same items in colour/texture-changing versions that are priced a little higher.

MyAlt4099 wrote: If I were to copybot something and not sell it, I am not depriving the creator of anything. Not even a sale they otherwise would have made, since I'd still need to buy the item to copy it. You are totally wrong. If you were to copy something that you don't have permission to copy, you'd have two instances of the thing but you'd only have paid for one. That's theft. If you have two instances but you'd only paid for one, the seller will have lost a sale. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can't sell L$ until a certain amount of time has elapsed but I don't know how long it is. I'm sure that someone will post details for you. I'm curious though. Why, in the space of 2 days, would you want to buy L$ and then sell L$?

LOL! I don't get around so it would surprise me if you see me on your radar. I'm logged in when I'm awake but I don't go anywhere. Maybe you're mistaking me for a red admiral (it's a butterly).

Where are you from? UK (Yorkshire). When did you join SL originally? December 2006. What have you mainly spent your time doing in SL in the past? Running a furniture business. How are you planning to spend your time in SL in 2013? Avoiding nekkid female judges

LOL. It's been winding down for about 3 years already.

Venus Petrov wrote: One must do more than just offer low prim furniture to attract buyers. Quality, customer service, and appeal of the shop (inworld) are all factors. While your competition 'won' on the name, he must have lost due to other factors as well. You're probably right, Venus. I do know that he got bad publicity wherever it was discussed but most users wouldn't have been aware of it, so that probably didn't make a difference.

I'm proud to have had your custom, Dillon and Treasure, but there's no need to buy more to keep it going becaise it's been my desire to close it as soon as it's no longer worthwhile, and it still is my desire. You can be sure of one thing though. There will be no closing down sale or anything like that. I've always seen sales (selling things cheaper than other people bought them for) as a sort stab in the back to customers who paid the normal price, and I won't do that. Having said that, I don't suppose I'd mind keeping it going at the current level ad infinitum, but it won't happen. I won't be doing anything to help keep it going so it'll get below the threshold and that'll be that. I don't know why the other guy crossed my mind today, but he did, and it made me feel like writing a potted version of the story - more for me than for anyone else. I suppose it could have the benefit of warning those who have a well-known business name that the name could be legally hijacked. If the guy hadn't been so silly and asked LL to stop me using the name because he'd applied for a trademark, and if someone at LL hadn't written to tell me what he's doing, I wouldn't have known until it was too late. So if anyone does have a name worth holding onto, it might be good to get a trademark on it. It only costs $300.

Nice of you to say that, Jadeclaw, but on its way out, it is. However, don't miss the point of this thread - that the guy who stole (legally, but morally stole) my trading name failed to even compete when my store was being left to run down even before he started his. And don't forget what I decribed in the second post in this thread. I thoroughly enjoyed that part

Et tu, Czari? With all this conspiring against me, I'm going to have nightmares :catfrustrated:

They probably didn't want the world's population to go into a panic. Good for them!

So it's your fault that nothing happened last year! The brown dwarf obviously saw your dwarf catcher and decided it was too dangerous. Since it's now behind mars, it's obviously moving away from Earth, and you've spoiled the fun for everyone. Shame on you!

Ty, Porky Yep. He put a significant amount of real money into it, only to fail It had a good ending.

Ah yes. That's what it was all about lol. You have a very good memory But you lot are all talk and no action, so I don't need to be concerned about it

A nice little extra... During the time when he did have his inworld store, he tried hard to get top search rankings for it. But he must have got frustrated because other stores were pushing him down all the time. What he didn't know was that I was resposible for that. Before I started with SL, I did search engine optimisation. I was well-known in that field. So I knew how to get top rankings, and I knew how to push other people's stores up the rankings, and that's what I did. The owners of the other stores didn't know I was doing it but it was of benefit to them. Every time the guy's store climbed a little, I would push other stores up so that his store was pushed down again. At one time, I was personally responsible for most of the top 20 results for 'low prim furniture', which ensured that he stayed down. I enjoyed playing that little game for a while, but even that got boring.

Actually, I've forgotten what the audition was for. Can you remind me? I do know that it involved me getting naked but I don't remember why.

For some reason, this is floating through my mind just now so I thought I'd post it. About 5½ years ago, back in 2007, I started a low prim furniture store as a little sideline to my skybox rentals business, and I called it 'Prim Savers'. I would have prefered the name 'Prim Misers' but I mistakenly thought that Americans would spell it 'Prim Mizers' so I didn't use that name. It was extremely successful, which astonished me. Then, after a couple of years, I got bored with it, and with SL, and I decided to let the store run dowm so that, when it was no longer earning enough RL money to make it worthwhile, I'd close it. It's been running down ever since then. It's taking a very long time to become not worthwhile, but it's getting there. Not long after I'd started to let it run down, I discovered another Prim Savers in SL, also selling low prim furniture. I spoke with the person who owned it and he told me that he started up 2 months earlier and that he hadn't been aware that there was already a Prim Savers in the same field. He also said that it was too late to change to another name. He was wrong about that, of course. He just didn't want to change for obvious reasons. At the time, my store was extremely high in the search rankings for many searchterms concering low prim furniture, including 'low prim furniture' itself, so I didn't believe that he wasn't aware of my store when he decided to use the name. The situation was discussed in various puiblic places, including this forum (the original one), and nobody believed him. Everyone agreed that he was trying to capitalise on the success of an existing business name in the same field. During those public discussions, he employed a lawyer to advise him. Then he applied to register 'Prim Savers' as a trademark, and included such names as 'PrimSavers' as well. All this cost him real money. The trademark application cost him $300 and I've no idea what the lawyer cost him but it wouldn't be just a couple of dollars. As soon as he'd applied for the trademark, he asked LL to stop me using the 'Prim Savers' name. But he'd only applied for the mark. It hadn't been granted, so LL wouldn't stop me using the name. What they did was email me to tell me what he was doing. That was very good of the person at LL. I could have submitted an objection to him getting the mark, and I would have won due to my proveable prior use, but that would have cost me $300 and, since I was letting it all run down anyway, I didn't bother. It took quite a few months but he eventually got the mark, and I had to change from 'Prim Savers' to my original preferred choice, 'Prim Misers'. And now the reason for writing all this... Some months ago, someone told me that the guy no longer had an inworld store. Apparently he only trades on the marketplace. Today I thought I'd check and, sure enough, after all his unscrupulous efforts, he couldn't make a success of an inworld store, not even when hijacking a successful 'brand'. He failed. I've been waiting all this time - years - for my inworld store to stop making money so I can close it down, and he couldn't make his store profitable at all. I think that's rather nice :) If you read this far, well done! I didn't expect anyone to read this far.

Marigold Devin wrote: Add me to the spankers list please. I'll give him ice cream afterwards. Enjoy being on the list, Marigold, but they are useless at organising the audition, so don't hold your breath

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I hadn't thought of upload fees. That's paying LL directly and that would make a person a customer. Starting a group is another way to pay LL directly, and it would also make a person a customer of LL. So there are more Basic users that I'd though who are actually LL's customers. (emphasis is mine) yes ! you said it !!! :smileywink: So im a LL customer !!!! And still.... no customer support !!! End. (and well, you are just admiting half of your mistake, but well, its already a step, and i will aknowlelge you did a step... keep this way Phil, you are almost good :smileywink: but since you have been pretty studborn, you will be spanked at the end of the audition and not only one time.. but by Czari, 16 and I.... i hope you will learn from this lesson for next time :smileywink:) Hmmm. I always said that paying to LL makes a person a customer of LL. I'd forgotten about those small payments, and the large one (paying LL for a private sim) that's all. But it doesn't change the point I've been making - that nobody is an LL customer unless they pay LL and those who are not customers don't have any right to customer service. Also, it's pobable that most basic accounts don't pay LL at all. The audition will never happen. You three can't organise it, so I'm safe from that particular spanking. But if you want to practise your spanking technique, just in case you three get it together, let me know.