Great conversation on Second Life's Reddit led by SL/RL designer Penny Patton, stemming from her recent sidewinder blog post spelling out all the reasons why selling content set to "no modify" are bad, just as are all the justifications for doing so.
For instance:
"It protects my work against content thieves/copybot!"
For over a decade this was not only the most common reason given, but the only reason given. There's one major flaw in this argument however: It is entirely, 100% false. It is simply not true. At no point was it ever true. The people who cling to this justification for no-mod simply do not understand how SL or "copybot" works. Some of those still clinging to this justification today know it's not true but are unwilling to admit they were wrong.
She also rejects "I don't want my customers ruining my artistic vision!" as an explanation for No Mod, and there I somewhat disagree, at least in the sense that it's understandable why a virtual world creator would feel that way -- since most SL content is simultaneously a kind of 3D graphics sculpture, as well as a utilitarian, functional enhancement for avatars. Then again, in the real world, few fashion designers, architects, and other creators of artistic but utilitarian items can set their works to "no mod". If you buy a house designed by Zaha Hadid, can she forbid you from adding a third bathroom?
It's the same group of linux hippies and entitled "i'm not gonna use it but i want it this way" assholes from SLU there. They will shut everyone who dares to express different opinion.
Posted by: Ugh | Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 12:55 PM
Penny Patton is right. The No Mod permission has been set too many times for no good reason (where good means logical, rational reasons, and based on the evidence). It is ok for demos (whichever they are shapes or items, in order to prevent the costumer to turn them into fully usable products) or in limited cases to reduce cheating during races or battles (it's not always the case though), and little else.
Posted by: Pulsar | Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 01:24 PM
"Then again, in the real world, few fashion designers, architects, and other creators of artistic but utilitarian items can set their works to "no mod"."
They do all the time via "you've voided your warranty". Fear of voiding warranty prevents people from tampering with things they've bought if they have an expectation of receiving support.
Penny addresses support that designers have to offer, but she sums up the solution up as box items so that there's backup copies. Most of us obviously already do that, and if things were that simple, there'd be no reason for redelivery terminals in-world and a lot of customer service positions at stores wouldn't exist.
Figuring out ways customers have made your product stop working as intended can take up a lot of time even when they're sold no-mod. When we make products no-mod, sometimes there's problems with customers confessing that they modified it at all. It's very common customers look to blame the product and designer instead of something they may've done.
Also customers do innocent and great things like ask for tweaks to a mod product to make whatever they're trying to do with it more feasible. Good stuff but an unpaid for time sink all the same.
I'm not saying the cons of no-mod outweigh the pros of mod, but it's not an epiphany to suggest boxing items so customers have backups. I wish things were that simple.
No-mod does help reduce customer support because it reduces customer's breaking their products.
Posted by: seph | Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 02:27 PM
There's probably different reasons for other segments of the market but for the most profitable one, clothing, the reason is simple: money. Creators want customers paying for different colors and textures instead of modding items themselves. That's why some clothing creators sell single colors no-mod and fatpacks mod. It's not very consumer-friendly, but it makes business sense.
Posted by: Taylor | Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 02:31 PM
This has been well hashed out over on the SL forums so no real reason to go into all the arguments. I will say that there are a LOT of clothing and shoe designers (and even jewelry) that are currently packing the "fatpack" as THE item. Meaning that you get a big hud with lots of choices of colors and patterns for what you would pay for one skirt or pair of boots.
So that "they only want more money" argument while possibly valid for some people is fading a bit. And that was the current bottom line over on the forums. If customers stop buying no mod items then perhaps their popularity will decrease. There was a time when most all clothing was no copy, then that was mostly for H and G, NOW most things are copy -- partly because we lose so much of our stuff through no fault of our own (Chic waves hands madly).
My items are all mod. The often look like they are no mod because of scripts, but I test about three times before they go out to an event to make sure they can be resized etc.
That is MY choice, but I fully support the rights of other creators to do what they darn well want to with their products. THEY are the ones that spent all the time making something for pennies so that non-creators can look good and play house :D.
Posted by: Chic Aeon | Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 06:04 PM
Mahalo Chic Aeon... I appreciate your great philosophy and practices. And I agree a designer can set perms as they wisgh, but.... all I can say is that when I get my new purchase rezzed in my SL home or office and discover my guestimate of the item's size in relation to the proportions of my spaces was not close enough and it looks seriously "wrong". It is too big, too small, whatever... I am sooooo disappointed when there is no re-size script. PLEASE folks, no designer is so perfect that every decor creation or building or plant will be the right size for everyone. Give us a break already! "Yes" Mod 'em or script 'em!
Posted by: Gwenette Writer Sinclair | Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 11:42 PM
It stops customers screwing up the scripts.
I sell firing ranges, they come in two parts. A modifiable style and a no-mod base. The base is no-mod because the scripts expect and require certain prims to be in certain physical and link-set locations. If I sold the base mod, some purchasers would relink it, link it to other things, delete scripts, add scripts, delete prims, add prims and generally bugger things up and come crying to me when it doesn't work any more.
There are good reasons for selling things no-mod, no matter what Penny Patton might think.
Posted by: Talwyn Mills | Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 02:53 AM
That's not a good reason for selling things no-mod in and of itself, although I'm sure it cuts down on things.
However, I'm of the opinion anything that is *not* some kind of finely-balanced, mess-with-it-at-your peril item should be mod, and even the balanced stuff should have a mod option (and a warning to KEEP THE GODDAMN BOX, if copy.)
Posted by: Aliasi Stonebender | Friday, January 19, 2018 at 04:22 PM