« Taking the Law Into Their Own Hands | Main | Hotel Second Life »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Carl Metropolitan

What total and complete nonsense.

Assuming that the transcripts give to you are correct, Stroker Serpentine is clueless about both copyright law and the SL secondhand market.

I have no trouble believing Candace Sullivan bought ten of the SexGen beds secondhand. I have a good friend who operates a resale store. I help her with it regularly. During the last few months, she's bought and sold at least four of the "SexGenBurl" beds--as well as a number of other SexGen products. People offer them them to resellers all the time.

Even more bizzarely, Serpentine seems to think that copyright law makes the resale of legally purchased items illegal. He's way off base. He needs to get introduced to the "First Sale Doctrine"(as codified in Section 109 of the US Copyright Act).

Wikipedia summarizes "First Sale Doctrine" as, "the doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, lawfully made copy of the protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."


Prokofy Neva

Yes, it truly is insane, Carl, and you've summarized it very nicely. First Sale Doctrine might be debated and challenged by those with overreach -- but it *is* doctrine. It *is* upheld.

People in SL can be very amateurish. Their belligerence can increase with their amateurishness. The more there is competition, including from RL business, the more there are stresses and strains on the economy from the patches messing up or texture theft cases, the more there is hysteria around these things. It needs to be dispelled. People need to grow up.

Nowhere does Stroker say in his letter or chat that in fact he may have released his product by accident. That happens; I've done that. Too bad for me -- I can go on selling it, and people might go on buying it, but if I've released it into the wild, so to speak, too bad for me. I can beg and plead with the community to give it back to me, but...too bad for me. I can pay better attention next time. Like the land releases that happen despite all the warning menus now, it's not THAT easy to accidently set permissions wrong. I always test them on alts and I'm not even some big "content creator".

Yet note that Stroker doesn't say that either he sold his product with perms by accident or that someone has somehow imitated or reversed engineered or faked his product -- he is queried about that several times by Candace.

That means that he's fishing, and bullying, and evidently from all the information presented her, trying to muscle other people from selling his products outside his store and domain. If he wants it that way, click "no transfer" and shut up.

And if he does that, and I am faced with the choice of buying a possibly breakable, and easily outdated product that has no copy, only the original, and no transfer, then *I won't buy it*. I believe strongly in the free market, selling things at yardsales, and encouraging resale to help newbies enter the economy. It's the only reasonable and sane way to have an economy given the huge discrepancies in wealth and talent and the huge gap in the job market and entry level for new, unskilled immigrants to SL.

I refuse to participate in their guild economy. They can sell to each other and collapse of their own weight with that attitude.

As already stated, even if we find facts here that are at odds with the situation as presented here, the manner in which he made his concerns known represent bullying, harassment, and invocation of Lindens which is specious and false.

I also noted that his letter cleverly creates the impression that some lawyer is involved, but isn't actually FROM a lawyer, and the lawyer cited isn't on this ostensible case, but merely filed his copyright.


This is a known scammer. I found her selling my freebies, selling copyable versions of other people's stuff, all sorts. I don't know the truth of this matter, but she was selling items that appeared to be exploited in a yard sale some weeks ago. That is, items NOT made by her, which are being sold with restricted permissions by their creators, but which she appeared to own in copyable transferable versions.

If the bed was made full perms by the bug or an exploit, then Stroker cannot be expected to know what perms are on the bed she has in her inventory. Only LL can find that out.

I'd be mad as hell if someone was selling copyable versions of things that I set to no copy, and so I won't judge anyone for getting angry. The scammers in SL who think they can rip off the creators and their customers need to be made accountable, somehow.

Prokofy Neva

I disagree. There's nothing "known" about this scammer. YOU may believe she is a scammer, but I am going to refuse to believe the SL rumour mill and treat someone as innocent until proven guilty.

If she is "selling your freebies", Caliandris, TURN OFF TRANSFER. That's right, people DO get to sell freebies if you do NOT turn off transfer/resell.

If you don't like the idea of selling freebies, you have a choice:

1) don't offer them, sell things normally.
2) check off no/transfer

Stop trying to posture and get reputational credits for being a friend to humanity and giving away freebies, and make them:

1) for sale, even at a low price
2) not transferrable if you are so squeamish about having a free economy.

That's it.

As for "selling copyable versions of people's stuff," then...they need to not make them copy/transfer. End of story. Make sure they do not copy/transfer.

Really, it's time to end this little girls' clique called Second Life where you all pass around stuff to your girlfriends and then get all skittish and mean and bitchy because someone who isn't on your approved girlfriends' list sells your stuff.

They are LEGALLY able to sell your stuff. FULL STOP. The Lindens support this; common sense supports this; real life supports this; the client and its features support this.

If you don't like it:

a) don't give away free stuff
b) make it non-transer.

Be mad as hell all you like, hon. We're mad as hell, TOO. We're tired of your posturing, your threats, your thuggishness, your Net-Nannying, and your creator-fascism. Get out of the newbie economy. Stop harming newbies that you claim to help. Stop harming the economy. SELL STUFF. and if you GIVE IT AWAY, put NO TRANSFER and SHUT UP.

Prokofy Neva

Re: "If the bed was made full perms by the bug or an exploit, then Stroker cannot be expected to know what perms are on the bed she has in her inventory. Only LL can find that out."

I don't see that any bug can be blaimed for this. And Stroker doesn't claim that, eh? Sounds like he has either "freebie remorse" or just didn't UNCHECK transfer if that's how he feels about it. He has that option. He didn't use it. If he made a mistake and released it by mistake, he hasn't claimed that, eh?

Honestly, this bullshit totally needs to stop.


"Stop trying to posture and get reputational credits for being a friend to humanity and giving away freebies, and make them..blah blah blah."

Reputational credits for being a friend to humanity???????


You say that like helping people is a BAD thing.

Ripping people off is a bad thing. I saw with my own eyes that Candace had copyable and transferable versions of things which are not copyable and transferable when sold by their owners, and I abuse reported just that. I am not using the SL rumour mill for my information, I was told she was selling my freebies, saw she was selling freebies from Help island too, as well as the things which appear to be exploited.

In 2 years I have followed up a lot of things which I have seen at Yard Sales and inventory sales. Sometimes people do make innocent mistakes - some people buy copyable transferable things at Yard Sales, not realising that the item is an exploited or freebie item, and they are grateful if this is brought to their attention and immediately stop selling. In my experience, and I have travelled around a lot, that's the majority of people. Most people are decent, don't want to profit from a mistake etc.

You chose the wrong person to hook your bandwagon to, in Candace, as she is not a simple reseller of goods bought in an honest fashion.

Sometimes, you have to stand up for what you think is right, not because you win "reputational credits" but because it IS what you think is right. I don't insist that everyone should see things my way; but don't distort the facts to fit your case.

I make freebies for people because sharing things has always been a great pleasure in my life, and I want it to be a pleasure in my second life too. I *won't* make my things no transfer just because there are a couple of people who like to sell things they didn't make ... I would like a transfer/no resell or something which makes the limit for reselling no more than the original item cost.

If helping and sharing are such terrible things in your view, I feel very sorry for you. I have always shared any land I owned, and the things that I own, and I have made some very dear friends as a result of that.

Prokofy Neva

Yes, reputational credits, Caliandris. They're the coin of the realm in SL. Don't you like being loved for giving out freebies?

Ok, be MORE loved and sell them for a low price, and forget about what people do next with them. It's not your business! and if you MUST give them away, make them NO TRANSFER.

Helping people is a good thing. But guess what -- YOU don't get to define what a good thing is, hon. A good thing is not giving somebody a free thing they cannot modify, sell, or change. So make it mod/transfer/no copy and SELL IT.

Or, make it no copy and TRANSFER it so the person can make a buck when they're done. THAT is help.

Caliandris, why would I take what you see "with your own eyes," when I know you to be tendentious, cranky, and filled with hatred of those outside your own caste (like Anshe). I have no reason to do that, do I? No.

Furthermore, you're not answering the question: how did these items get to be copyable?

If they were free and copyable, TOO BAD if she is selling them. THAT IS HER RIGHT.

If they were released by mistake -- well, where's the notice about that? Nowhere. So again, too bad.

I don't Candace. But I know one thing: she has the right to sell anything that comes in her possession that is copyable and transferrable. End of Story. That's all she wrote

All you're trying to do is substitute morality and moralizing for legality -- legally, she can sell whatever can copy and transfer or be a single copy and transfer. That's the reality of our virtuality. You will not be changing that. You need to adjust to it.

This is a free market. More people are entering it. It's not just the FIC and your little guilds anymore. Make all the Sellers' Guilds you want, bully and harass all the people you want, but they'll be fighting back, because what they are doing is their RIGHT.

I love how you characterize me as "hitching my wagon." See, that's how you think, Caliandris, in your guild mentality. But I don't know Candace. I'm not hitching any wagons. I'm merely standing up for a principle here: that what she does is legal and right because she CAN do it. You can moralize all you like -- she is free to ignore you, and I'm free to defend her.

I'm standing up for what I believe is right. Furthermore, I have the actual features of the platform backing me up on this -- it's on copy, it's on transfer, that baby is selling or transfering, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Unhappy? Don't put it out like that. Made a mistake? Pay attention next time or plead with the community.

Make freebies all you like if that floats you boat, the rest of us who take a weather eye to freebies, who see it is merely about loss leading back to your store to buy the more expensive stuff, and only say, put it on no-transfer and STFU.

Or let it go, and help the newbie economy like it REALLY needs to be helped -- not how you IMAGINE it needs to be helped!

See, in your position of false and hypocritical moralizing, you imagine that you get to decide what is "selfless" and you get to decide what "helps". How does it help newbies to have a lot of junk cluttering up their inventory??? How can it help them even learn if they pull it apart, yet can't modify or resell it better than they found it???

You imagine that you have a hammerlock on the definitions of "help" and "freebie" and "selfless". You do not. We're here to tell you: put it on no-transfer and show yourself to be what you really are -- somebody trying to clutch somebody else into your commerce circle -- or shut up.

Sharing is only sharing if you do not clutch at it, and define how it is to be used. Sharing your freebies? Great. Then SHUT UP if they are resold. Be glad someone at least values them and gets something from it. After all, they are providing another sales venue for you rent-free, giving you brand and name recogntion. So either put on no-transfer -- or shut up!

Go on then, keep blasting, on the forums, on the blogs, that YOU define what "help" and "share" is and that we, who can see what REAL help is, do not.

Holier than thou!

Yumi Murakami

I think this is a rather odd position from you, Prokofy. I have always understood that you were an opponent of people who wanted to do things in "tekkie" ways and to use technical solutions in place of social ones.

The argument in these cases I think is that the act of "giving permission" is a social thing which humans do to other humans. Using computers to give it or deny it or enforce it is an optional thing. By that logic, if I do not want to give you permission to do something, then I should lose my legal right because I did not follow a particular technical procedure in order to deny you that permission.

If it was really the case that setting an item with copy and transfer permission could be taken to mean that it could be copied and transferred without limit then texture vendors would be up a creek without a paddle, as would several other vendor types. I've been trying to write scripts to address this issue in the case of my own objects but, even though I am a scripter, I agree that people should not be required to script protection systems in order to put conditions on the use of their property that might not fit within the rather limited framework that Linden Labs provides.

Prokofy Neva

Yumi, you're being literalist and tekkie yourself.

I'm all for NOT having technology limit you and force you to behave in the way that some social engineer wants you to behave. Definitely!

But what this issue of "transfer" does is *approximate the normal organic status of real life*. Which is a GREAT THING. Whenever the technology can ensure the FREEDOM of RL, GREAT!

In RL, if I take all the free milk creamers for the coffee from McDonald's and re-sell them in my deli for 5 cents a piece TOO BAD! McDonald's, should it care (and it would never care) would have to get over itself!

If I'm that hard up. If I take the free pen set my bank gave me when I opened up a bank account and resell it for $5 at a yard sale TOO BAD for that bank if it had the LUDICROUS idea it could reach into my life and govern what I do with its freebie. It's oppressive overreach, of the kind that heavy-handed state's and elitist social classes oppressing others do. It has no place in a free country.

Yumi, what country are you in? What age are you? What culture do you live in? If you don't wish to answer these question, I understand, I don't wish to invade your privacy, but I wonder WHERE DO YOU GET THESE CULTY IDEAS? Did Marxist professors in college instill it? Did you read it on the Internet? Did somebody in the game just tell you "that's how it is, shut up"????

This is as basic as American apple pie: if you own something, YOU CAN RESELL IT. In fact, I'll let you in on a secret -- it's as basic as Russian pierogis, too, and Russians LOVE second hand and LOVE reselling stuff.

So where does this oppressive cult belief come from?

I don't know why people turn off their common sense coming into Secomd Life.

Please find me an example where freebies handed out by a store as some loss leader couldn't be sold on ebay or your yard sale within minutes without any repercussions.

Furthermore, admit it honestly: what real-life situation has AS MANY idiotic prima donnas giving away freebies? Engrossed in the Cult of the Newbie seeing themselves as the Goddess Mothers of the Metaverse???


Seems to me you're just trying to think up something obnoxious to say, something tekkie and literalist to play "gotcha" with, because for some reason you subscribe to this utopian belief, too, that there should be all these selflessly given freebies, and everybody should never sell them.

Well, bullshit. Of course they should. And when enough of them get sold, and these creator-fascists get angry enough, they will TURN ON NO TRANSFER. Or get overthemselves and REALLY HELP NEWBIES.

The texture thing hardly convinces me AT ALL. Because textures on NO-TRANSFER BUT COPY are put in things all the time, or sold by themselves, and you just have to keep putting that texture out of your inventory on to that prim face. It's on copy, but not mod and not transfer. You can't use texture picker. It's annoying having to put it on faces. But that's how people sell it.

I don't see why the world has to be nerfed and warped around texture makers, anyway. Many of them merely copy other people's textures and photos off the Internet anyway so it's laughable. If they have original items they put them on no transfer. If they need to wholesale them to some furniture maker, they can license their use. That furniture maker can then put no transfer.

I have artists who have licensed me items for sale. Their items are on no-mod. I have to copy each one out of my inventory into the world, and put each individual one for sale. I can't put it out in the world on "copy" and "sale" precisely because their textures aren't on "next owner can copy". This is done all the time.

Honestly, the permissions as the Lindens have conceived them approximate reality, and that's actually a rare thing.

If anything, I should turn your argument right back against you. In real life, I can xerox and resell a book. There's no "no copy/no transfer" on a book! So if I do that, sure, somebody can sue me, but I can literally do it.

In SL, the technology inhibits that pass-along through no-transfer.

Honestly, Yumi, what the hell is this clutchiness and desire to control other people and their commerce all about?

It's like Puritans about sex; it's like the same idiotic sectarian oppressive belief system that strangles land.

Where did you GET this stuff from? Communism?

forseti svarog

Here's the issue I would like to get cleared up by a lawyer (and I don't expect to get the answer here): you as an individual can go and buy a toaster and sell it to someone else without permission, absolutely. However, my understanding is that a distributor cannot go and buy 100,000 levis jeans and then resell them to resellers or end customers without permission from levis. You have to negotiate a licensing and distribution agreement with Levi's, and if they change their mind and want to stop you from selling their product, they can.

*If* the latter case is legally correct, then is the difference that between an individual versus a corporation? between a single-sale and a recurring sale?

Continuing with the assumption that my base scenario is correct, then how do you apply it to a virual world where individuals vs virtual companies is such a blurry area?

Personally, I'm all for yard sales. When I mark something as transfer, I am prepared to have it transferred. However, I also think that it is appropriate that if someone wants to resell a product on a frequent and recurring basis, they should strike an agreement with the creator.

One of these days I'll have to choose a lawyer friend to bother about this.


Candace is NOT a scammer. She works endlessly to ensure the things she resells are not freebies. However, there are SO MANY freebies in SL, that some slip past her attention. If you see something in Candace's yard sale that should be marked free, simply tell her so, tell her how to verify it's a freebie so she can then tell her yardsale pals too.

And Stroker's bed was not full perms. Candace never had a full perms version of his stuff. She was given a few, and bought a few from people looking to unload them. He was insinuating that she had managed to procure a full perms copy and that would explain WHY she had so many copies for sale. Well, no, she had so many copies because people got rid of them.

Lastly, I'm all in favor of resale of items, it stimulates the economy, and it's hella good advertising. There are a few resalers who make damn sure to the besrt of their ability that their stock is 'authentic' and complete, and fairly prices. Candace is one of them.

Prokofy Neva

Forseti, I don't see any evidence that you are right about that.

Go in the city where you live, go in the garment district, talk to the store owners at the TO THE TRADE ONLY wholesale places, and ask them how they do it, please.

People order up wholesale in bulk ALL THE TIME. Example: go down to the kitchen wares/lamps area on Broadway. You can buy these giant boxes of napkins/creamers/coffee mate/coffee thingies -- 444 per box.

You can have an event at your school or neighbourhood, let's say a bakesale, where you put these coffee/creamers out for 25 cents.

If I want to buy up 100 dresses, I can resell them in my boutique for whatever I can get them for. This is done all the time.

I don't know where you people get your crazy ideas from. I think it's simply lack of practical experience, lack of actually working jobs in sales, inventory, etc.

If Candace goes and buys 10 beds by scouring yardsales and resells them, what of it?

If Stroker advertises his bed as a freebie and somebody comes and gets copies and resells, too bad for him, if he didn't put on no-transfer! Any judge in the land -- assuming they'd even take up a ludicruous case like this -- would deny it.

There are several problems here. One is the HUGE overabundance of freebies. RL has no such freebies, my God. This is a peculiar SL-based phenom that grows out of the whole tekkie-wiki utopian mindset, the "someone will make everything" mantra where all these wealthy people, or people with time to burn, from among early adapters, just worked up stuff for free everywhere. It's often the case that tekkies working in a wikie are hugely imbued with the notion that they are selfless, helping mankind, not willing to take money for what they do because they just do it for fun or the interest level of solving technical problems, blah blah blah.

This mindset goes very deep. In real life, there are all kinds of checks and balances on it. If somebody gets a government grant to work on the cure for some disease, they are paid, and work overtime selflessly, but nobody thinks that at the end of the line isn't a medicine or a surgical tool or a something that isn't going to get licensed and SOLD and SOLD FOR A PROFIT.

If you don't like that idea, well, figure out a society where you can get your rich uncle in America to pay for everything *shrugs*.

Talk to your lawyers all you want, Forseti. Meanwhile, I bet you've never had to buy anything bulk in RL in your life, and never had to resell it. So you don't know what you are talking about.

This freebie mania in SL is a direct, direct, DIRECT descendent of the tekkie concept of software. They love it to be opensource. Knowledge wants to be free! Until...it's not and they want business out of it LOL. Then they want you to pay $500 for a lousy copy of Word for Windows and Microsoft Word. Then if you copy it illegally, they want to sue your ass.

This culture of horridly utopian freebies tekkies and their horridly grasping rapacious capitalist IT bosses has spawned the whole SL freebies mania.

But freebies in SL are girl's underwear, not software. They may take software to make, as in the stuff in the SL client. They may take PSP and skills to make. But at the end of the day, they are little virtual things, not software. And they have much more kinship with things that are meatworld-like in the RL than with software.

Honestly, this insanity has just got to end. We have to help bring it to and end.

Rez Menoptra

This has probably been mentioned before, but I think one of the problems with reselling things in SL vs RL is that in RL, things degrade, or depreciate. It would be very unlikely for someone to be able to buy a pair of underwear in RL and wear it for a year, and then sell it as if it were new. The same is not true of SL -- if I buy something and use it for a year, it's still (barring new updates that break it) going to be just as good as the first day I pulled it out of the box on my head. In that way, I do think that the things sold in SL are more akin to software, as opposed to meatworld-like.


And there's a way of addressing this: designers and content creators can simply choose to make their items no transfer. But they don't. Why I wonder? Could it be that their customers prefer transferable items? Yes. They WANT to be able to sell the stuff when they tire of it. They WANT to be able to give it away as gifts without trying to get in contact with the creator.

And if you think RL panties devalue with time, I suggest you google for vintage underthings. The prices are insanely high. -.-


I have been told by someone who knows the person in the article, that I am wrong about her activities, and that she is a genuine reseller, not a scammer. I am always willing to apologise and say I am wrong if I am wrong, and will be willing to do so in this case too. I trust the person who has told me this, although as noted above, I had reasons to believe that I was right to say it was quite possible that the bed was exploited and not resold. The information I have received has given me reason to doubt that I am right, however, in which case I regret having posted it publicly, of course.

forseti svarog

prok, I actually thought for a time that you were getting better at having a civilized discussion...

I said in my comment above that I could be wrong, that I was stating a QUESTION. Off you go making assumptions again, which are invariably snide and invariably wrong.

You want to know where I got my impression? I have not been a distributor or reseller but have certainly worked with them a lot.

For example:

Those documents imply that some products cannot be resold without authorization.

I won't state a definitive answer because I am not a lawyer and don't have time to research this.

I am willing to admit that I am not an expert and could be wrong. You don't *really* know what you are talking about either but refuse to admit that possibility.

In a lot of cases, the push to become an "authorized" reseller is driven by economics, because it's hard to compete when you're reselling retail-bought goods yet pricing against companies who have bulk-discounts. The unique dynamics of SL complicate this situation. However, I'm not convinced there isn't some law here as well.


I think if there were a law to this effect in SL, it would have been enforced, at least at some point or another. The only thing preventing freebies from being resold with gusto is community pressure on those caught reselling them.

And I don't think it's a big deal for someone to take the time sorting through all the crap that is passed out as freebies (just HOW many copies of a twelve foot attack penis does one girl need anyway?) and box it up, set it out on the land they pay tier for, and ask 1- 10 Lindens for it.

So IF YOU FIND 200 freebies sorted through and boxed on Candace's land, set for sale for a few Linden, yell at ME; I'm the one who told her that SL residents would be respectful of her time spent offering these things.

I think it's kind of odd that content creators release freebies into SL and make them full perms anyway, expecting them not to be resold. Mod/copy/no transfer, or mod/no copy/transfer gets the job done very well, you still get your work out there, in fact, people now have to come to you to get the goodie rather than some yard sale, and you don't have to worry about someone else making money off your work so frequently.

Though, simple truth is, if you set something to transfer, after you sell it, it's not yours, period. Stroker's not got a reason in the world to bitch or bully or any other sort of histrionics (and the lawyer bit is just laughable). The beds are mod/transfer/NO COPY, I've seen them, Stroker is the creator, and Candace is the owner. Owner, not renter.

Sounds like someone read The Fountainhead one too many times.

Prokofy Neva

Forseti, you really need to have done with this notion that you shape my behaviour with little incentives or disincentives, like little judgemental admonishments of the type, "I actually thought for a time that you were getting better at having a civilized discussion."

You don't say you are wrong AT ALL. Instead, you do something far more violent and far more arrogant and condescending, which I'd really like you to take a look at.

What you do is question common sense and common understanding itself!

You have absolutely no reason to call into question the NORM of resale of goods. Look at your tag sales and second-hand sales in the lobby of your apartment building. Look at craig's list. Look at ebay. These are all second-hand sales, approved, without any lawyers or licensings or judicial decisions!

Look at the concept of bulk purchasing. Done all over town. Bulk wholesale, retail sale. No special lawyers, licensing, or judicial decisions.

Why on earth would you cook this up? Huh? Because you simply instinctively wish to protect a caste of yours in an online world, the creator-caste? Because you think somehow instinctively that "this is on computers on the Internet and related to software so I get to behave as if this is software".

Says who? The Internet Senate? The Internet police?

Your strange notions that you can invoke received wisdom, recognized authorities, odd Writs and Councils, is what I really, really have to question here.

You come into this conversation, and you cannot concede common sense and common practice.

Instead, you come up with what we can only understand as crazy bullshit: "Here's the issue I would like to get cleared up by a lawyer (and I don't expect to get the answer here)".

The idea that you NEED A LAWYER is at the heart of the problem. Millions of people on ebay don't NEED A LAWYER. For that matter, thousands of people on Second Life don't NEED A LAWYER, they resell their already-received goods, and everyone is happy except this tiny clique of overreaching creators who think they can put this over on us. They cannot. Why are you making common cause with them?

The other piece of your arrogance here is this concept that "I don't expect to get it here". You mean because it's a blog? But some lawyer in SL may have an opinion. Any reasonably educated and intelligent adult can render an opinion on first-sale doctrine and its applications to SL -- as Carl came along and did -- and as many of us can.

Do you REALLY think you can go dredge up a lawyer somewhere who will look at all this and say, "Oh, sex beds in SL are really like software and no one can ever sell them except their creator unless he has licensed them fully? Huh???"

You give a website for Hewlitt Packard. On it, HP concedes that you can do something like take your Deskjet printer and resell it. Well, that's big of them! Of COURSE you can! Geez, what, they're going to take you to prison??? Of course you can take an item you are the end-user of, and transfer it and sell it to another end-user at your tag sale.

They then go on to speak about special "business development packages" -- i.e. if you were, say, a duplicating company that opened up a shop with a full suite of equipment that you'd use on a commercial basis. Looking at their materials, there, I see it involves SOFTWARE. So like most big companies handling software, they wish to license it and charge a fortune for it. This is something that is debated, as you know, whether this is good or bad, but I am actually not interested in that debate. Because the debate here is about software, and using large-scale, heavy-duty equipment for commercial/business use in a commercial setting.

That's not AT ALL what we're talking about in Second Life and you know it. A bed purchased from Stroker isn't for business -- althoug I suppose a call girl in a brothel may make constant use of it with multiple partners.

That fact is, these goods, the equivalent of durable or perishable goods in RL, are goods are not software.

For anyone to think of furniture, clothing, vehicles etc. as "like software" in SL means they are merely embarking on a specious and highly ideological journey. They've decided that because software is needed to make these things, both the software of Second Life, the software of the Internet connection, the software of PSP, etc., that therefore the thing itself is merely like a little widget added to software, and therefore "licensable" and "not to be copied" or "not to be sold without permission" (I'm hazarding a guess that this is where their mindset comes from, but I bet they've never actually pulled out the logic of their deeply-held belief on this as I'm doing now).

Underwear isn't software. It's a good, a commodity. It cannot power anything or cause action on something else, it's a creation that is the end result of the creative process, *not a process itself,* say, like your computer or your printer that you might upgrade and use for a business.

Rez's idea that virtual goods are infinitely durable and therefore not equivalent to RL goods isn't really the case. We're all familiar with vendors in SL who endlessly send up updates of everything because it constantly requires re-doing -- due to inadvertent changes in the Linden's main software for SL. A simple thing like a rental box's timer or a door's ability to keep its angles can be thrown off.

If something is scripted in SL does that mean it has in a sense some tiny piece of software-equivalent in it, the thing that empowers it? I don't really think so. The LSL merely apes what the RL mechanics would do if metal arms or rubber bands or electricity were used, that's all. Just as a bicycle in RL isn't software, a scripted object in SL that is a bicycle that can only behave like a bicycle isn't software, seems to me, but I'm happy to have a further debate about "what is software" and "what can therefore be forced upon us as a product that requires licensing that we cannot resell ever."

The goods in SL wear out for other reasons, too -- fashion is the main one. Prefabs that seemed the cat's miaow 2 years ago now look quaint. The prefab field as you know has gone through a huge boom of development. Houses without window tinters are usually not sold these days; the camera angles of a house really have to be good for people to buy them now, and they pay much more from them; the kinds of stairways that I could see tenants enduring in their houses they themselves bought a year ago are scorned by them now, and they either have fabulous stairs like Desmond's of TPs.

The houses then that were somebody's first-ever prefab when they got in the business, with av-trapping stairs and lousy bouncing camera-angles, are fit for the delete button, or possibly to be sold to a newby at a yard sale for $50. To characterize these goods as durable forever just because they can remain in my inventory, when they have no end use, is to ascribe a false eternity for theological reasons having to do with tekkie notions, rather than to admit the ephemeral and non-durable nature of something that in fact has no more end use.

These are really important discussions to KEEP OPEN, Forseti, and not find this or that lawyer who will pronounce on them, as lawyers often do, or even judges. This field of virtual worlds isn't at all developed, and you cannot pretend that it is, merely because you wish it.

I do, too, know what I'm talking about, Forseti, because common sense and RL experience is on my side. I can sell my junk on ebay and my tag sales. My SL junk is no different in nature.

Caliandris, you're entirely missing the point. You're merely continuing in the same guild vein here, deciding suddenly now you bless this person Candace, not because of any matter of principles, but just because somebody has vouched for her whom you trust.

This sort of thing is really evil -- trust circles that do no go by real principles, principles open to all, principles above individuals and their whims, principles to which we can all ascribe. In its place, is the evil subjectivity of the tribe, the tribe that pronounces, "We think this one is ok," or "This one isn't for us" -- based on whim, caprice, tribal interests, false information, arrogance -- who the hell knows?

The principle at stake here is as follows: you either can sell or you can't, full stop.

We've established that you can sell freebies. Yes, you are free to sell them. There is no law against them, and no physical obstruction.

Those who don't want freebies sold need to turn off transfer. We'll then of course adjust our purchasing patterns.

Now, the issue isn't whether Candace did or didn't sell freebies -- that's what you're trying to do here, to resurrect her good name on the basis of now making a claim that she does NOT sell freebies, when yesterday you were just as eager to claim that she DID sell freebies -- as if selling freebies is wrong.

But selling freebies is not wrong. And that's what you have to grasp, despite your moral squeamishness and indignation. Candace is right, and legal, regardless of whether she sells freebies or not.

Right now, Stroker has a bed advertised in the top Classifieds no. 1 spot, for $80 US, a whopping cost for an inworld ad, saying he has a FREE bed, and you should come get it from him, and not buy from scammers, etc.

Well, if that FREE bed has transfer on it, then anyone who wishes is welcome to go sell it at a yard sale, and Stroker can do nothing but scream on the forums and try to use moral persuasion if he likes.

If he doesn't like people doing this, he needs to TURN OFF transfer on that bed.


Don't have time to read all this (going on vacation), but:

1. Prok, there really is a problem with textures, and what you said about them isn't the solution.

The textures stores, where people sell textures, need to have a way so that builders (and anyone who wants to sell something) can put the texture they buy on a prim and sell that, while at the same time not be able to sell the texture itself, as in an entire bundle of textures taken and resold over and over because textures have to be copyable.

Now I REALLY want this problem fixed, because I am a builder, and I do not want to go into the texture-making business. I want other people to be in the texture-making business, so that I might enjoy purchasing their textures and putting them on the things I build to sell.

2. It's tiresome to me the way people go on so over reselling. Somebody on the SL forums had a resale shop, where they started out charging a bit more than they paid for a thing, then going down a set schedule of lowered prices the longer the thing remained unsold.

A wonderful idea, a fun idea, and one based on real life. And not something the guy would get rich on anyway. If he had had something of mine, I would appreciate the exposure (he's since quit under the barrage of criticism, however).

3. When I put copy on something, I make it no-transfer. When I make it transfer, I don't enable copy. Seems simple enough to me and saves a lot of wear and tear on the system from seeing one's freebies sold.



"And if you think RL panties devalue with time, I suggest you google for vintage underthings. The prices are insanely high."

Oooo, Simone, you mean I'm not the only one who's done that? And the negligees and things! So much fun to look at!



(Reading further)

Not that I know, at ALL, but I think what Forseti may be thinking of is something known as "licenced retailer" or "licensed dealership."

That would mean that Hoover or IBM does have a deal with these sellers, and the consumer can feel extra secure about buying from them, maybe get better service agreements or something, or get a faulty item repaired or traded in easier, I don't know exactly.

But aside from that, NO, I don't think there is any such thing.

I mean, take clothing. The designer generally wants the items wherever they can go, and sells wholesale to Macy's or whoever wants any. ONLY if a designer wants to be unique, and sell them only in their store, in which case they decide to sell only to individuals in their showroom and not ship the goods to other stores. (Once the individual has bought the dress, of course, the designer's claim over it and control over its future is nil.)

Or take cars. Of course there is only one Ford and there are licenced Ford dealerships. BUT - there are also oodles of used car lots, with oodles and oodles of Fords on them, and there is no law saying there can't be. They do NOT have to check with Ford after they have purchased from an individual for permission to resell it, or even dozens of Fords.

Likewise, if the guy owning Ye Old Antiques purchases an antique from the Sam's Antiques store down the street and then puts the item out for sale in his own antique store, for a higher price, there is no law saying he can't do this, either.

The only thing he CAN'T do is claim that he is a "licensed Sam's Antiques Dealer," because no such arrangement was ever made.



Forseti's right, some manufacturers lisence only certain distributors for resale of their items.

Prok's right, too, this is not so common that 'most everyone' does it.

And no, there should be no need to refer things to a lawyer every time we look crosseyed in a new direction. This is a mindset very prevalent on the East Coast; unfortunately, it's spreading. I'm not so sure when people abrogated their rights to practice common sense in favor of the opinions of lawyers, but... =/ That's another rant, I think.

Wait, back up, Stroker's giving away his bed because Candace had 10 copies of it for sale? *chuckles* That's...special. :D Maybe now he can quit having his friends harass Candace as well, now that he's found his own solution to the resale of his items?

I know one thing. I'm sure not gonna freak out every time one of my items show up in a yard sale. I'm going to SMILE, and hopefuly the yard saler will put a landmark if my sstore in with the item, to boot :O)

Prokofy Neva

Coco, I simply don't buy this idea that builders who want to resell stuff with textures have some overwhelming problem. Huh? They have a licensing arrangement with that texture maker, who is a wholesaler. They might have a similar licensing arrangement with, say, a door-script maker. They get the right to make unlimited copies but when they set their item such as a house to sale, they DO NOT check off that the next person can keep on copying.

So the texturer makes a copyable texture; the prefab puts it into his product; he checks off "sell copy," but he then DOES NOT check off that the NEXT person, the end-buyer, can sell.

I have copies of numerous prefabs, some of which copy, some of which don't. They all have textures in them. I can't sell these items unless it's a single item in which the creator has checked off that I have transfer.

I don't get why this posing the problem that it is. The problem likes in texture makers coming to agreement with builders, furniture makers, vehicle makers, etc. That's not the consumers' problem. It's their problem.

You're saying that the middle-man creator, instead of abiding by a licensing arrangement, resells a bundle of textures.

Well, of course he does! Because he can! So either those texture makers have to live with that, and realize some of their textures will be resold in bundles by middle men, as they sell both wholesale, in a sense, and resale.

OR they have to sell only to the wholesale trade. They have to license each sale -- and reduce the numbers of their sale. Then the onus is on that middle-men creator, or sub-creator to keep to his word.

This isn't the consumer's problem, nor should anyone solve it on the backs of a consumer no should there be any legal or moral pressure or sanction against the buyer of textures, the end-user consumer in this equation.

The texturer makers need to come to a bargaining agreement not with Linden Lab to make it somehow watermark stuff better, tho that might be pursued as a long-term strategy, and not harass consumers at the end of the equation, but police their own ranks -- their own sub-creators. That means they must be willing to sell less while they take the time to negotiate licenses.

As Foolish Frost put it on the forums, too, if these major craftsmen want to police their next-level or minor craftsmen who buy textures in bundles, then they have to be willing to pay for the policing -- either pay for Linden policing or pay in time or real cash for the work of informally policing on their own.

Who are the texture "thieves"? Endusers who buy a texture bundle and build their own house, and then put that bundle out in a yardsale. But they CAN. Again, if texture makers want to sell broadly and have a huge market, they have to be willing to either make their product not-copyable, so that it must be put one by one on every prim face, or shut up.

If the "thieves" are middlemen, let's say, furniture makers, well they have to work it out with them through licensing.

It's very hard to understand ther reality of this situation when there is so much hysteria around it. One or two cases on the forums pitched at the maximum shrill amplitude make people think it's a widespread problem when it isn't.

What, Coco, you buy a bundle of textures and you're not willing to pay a licensing fee of some sort to use them in houses? Of course you are. And they need to upgrade their marketing so that rather than attempting mass market to thousands of end users, some of whom resell their goods and make them angry, they create packages for creators like yourself that they sell for a greater amount, and sell with a licensing fee.

I really do understand this issue, Coco. I have 4-5 products I sell that I conceived, gave the ideas for, then commissioned the scripters, creators, or texturers for. I sell these items out of my inventory one by one, having to put a price on each one. Or they copy out of my inventory, but then the person who buys from me can't copy them because "copy" is NOT checked off. I paid a fee for the creation, and in some cases of licensing fee. More of this will have to be done in SL, it's like RL. Banging on yardsalers is ridiculous.

The idea that a reseller would be browbeaten on forums like that really makes me mad. The solution is just to go on having yard sales over and over again in SL and keep trying to push open the limitations on these normal freedoms.

Prokofy Neva

Simone, "the discussion really has to be: re: some manufacturers lisence only certain distributors for resale of their items -- WHAT KIND OF items.

Distributing software is something like this. But I think we can readily concede that the goods in SL aren't software or anything remotely equivalent to it.

Even if you're going to try to invoke some series of arguments to say the goods in SL are "like" software or are "copyrighted" in the same way and can only be distributed "with licenses," you'll not find the law on your side.


Here's some of the *past* law that this decision reiterates re: foreign markets:

"The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy. The Supreme Court first adopted the first sale doctrine in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the exclusive right to sell copyrighted works only applied to the first sale of a copyrighted work. 210 U.S. 339, 349-350. While the copyright owner retained the underlying copyright to the expression fixed in the work, the copyright owner gave up his ability to control the fate of the work once it had been sold."

Why are we having to repeat 1908 in Second Life???

I don't know if the bed Stroker offers is the same one Candace is selling, but either way, if it isn't on "no transfer," he's got only himself to blame.


P.S. Likewise, there is a system of making an exclusive contract, wherein Jacqueline Smith agrees to sell her designs only through K-Mart, or Martha Stewart agrees to sell hers only through K-Mart as well as her own online site - or whatever agreement the parties come to.

In either case, NO ONE can stop people from reselling these items on E-Bay, and for more than the original purchaser paid! (Happens all the time.) What is stopped is Jacqueline Smith selling her things to anyone but the flagship K-Mart, until such time as the contract runs out.

Reselling, in other words, is a whole different thing from producing. You can't mass produce and sell exact copies of something you didn't create.

And as Prok points out, where the real world has laws against this (and has to make judgements on how similar the items really are), we in SL have (a) the exact dimensions grayed out of something no-mod and (b) the option to make an item no sell/transfer.

The only thing we need now is the option of transfer but no sell.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad



  • Ads Text
    google.com, pub-2776838938932602, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0