McCabe Maxsted - 28/Jul/07 11:41 PM This would be a wonderful feature to have, and certainly make my sl life better. Voting.

liao manga - 12/Oct/07 03:15 PM Since there is no way to protect Modify objects from scripted reading of primstats and duplicating, I stop selling them. This allows me to sell some of my items with No-Modify permissions. Voting.

Bill Friis - 30/Jan/08 02:59 PM This is exactly what I need. I have an object I want to make available, without making it modifiable, but which people would want to use at a wide variety of sizes and proportions, from locket to wall size, from short and wide, through square, to tall and thin. There are complex ways to do this through scripting, but it would be so nice if people could just grab handles and drag to the size they need.

Hern Worsley - 25/Mar/08 08:40 PM This would certainly help put a stop to the single biggest issue in SL! Without any kind of consequences to the moronic few that do steal and profit from others hard work we need to have this option to help make it a lot lot harder for them. This would be a very well recieved and loved feature if it were brought into action and i belive would seriously reduce content theft in SL Vote now!

Melchoir Tokhes - 25/Mar/08 08:46 PM For that matter, if you do go through with it set aside an additional 63 bits or so for attibutes for future use; one never knows what flexibility we'll need in the future. If you need to save disk space, try only using two digits for the year :)

Ian Scott - 26/Mar/08 02:40 AM I've been wanting a feature like this for years now. I am somewhat surprised it hasn't come up sooner. Avatar customization is one of the biggest areas of prim design and it requires the flexibility of end user resizing, but should not necessitate full mod rights to propriatary designs. I am fine with competition reverse-engineering my designs the hard way, taking a few hours to remodel it from the ground up, but I am not alright with the easy of adding a parameter stealing script that can rebuild an identical match of my design in a matter of seconds. This problem has caused me to mostly design for myself and close friends only and forego marketting much of my work. I am sure I am not alone on this, this feature should of been a part of the Second Life interface from day one rather than requiring a community supported vote several years later.

Terry Toland - 26/Mar/08 01:46 PM A resize-only option would be nice, especially if something is made to come only in one color. However, there are other items, that people want to change up just a bit. That's why I love copy/mod/no transfer. Yet people abuse this, so many items are becoming copy-only. I think resize-only is a good start, but I wouldn't mind seeing no-content mod or resize/color-texture change only.

Cyia Kanami - 26/Mar/08 02:16 PM I would love, love, love for this to go through. Would make Second Life business much more effective and help stop this major problem we have all been having with the content theft issues. Please vote!

Ran Garrigus - 26/Mar/08 06:41 PM This is already being handled by some scripts. Personally, I think it's an all-around poor approach to things, since many people need to adjust individual prims (say, in a hair) to get the right fit. Also, as far as I know, a relatively basic client-side hack would make this permission rather meaningless when it comes to preventing theft. Better would be to allow an option to prevent the object from accepting content into its inventory (such as the common copying scripts), which should deal with most casual thieves (who tend to use such scripts) without causing undo problems for legitimate users.

Hern Worsley - 26/Mar/08 08:48 PM You may well be correct Ran the real reason behind many of these votes i imagine is to register some kind of blip on LL radar about creators concerns with such issues. I feel we should at least make the ability to copy others work by any means not part of the fabric of SL itself. Id support any form of well thought out action on LL part on this as would many others im sure.

Candy Flanagan - 27/Mar/08 05:07 AM I would hate to see this implemented and widely used. Often I need the ability to edit single prims to fit a piece to my avatar, far beyond the capabilities of the resize scale. Each avatar is unique and I will not conform to a standard shape. Take away my right to modify a piece to fit my unique avatar and I will shop elsewhere.

McCabe Maxsted - 27/Mar/08 05:34 AM - edited Where in the feature request does it say only linksets, and not single prims, could be resized? Ran, I don't think preventing modify-enabled prims from accepting scripts is a viable solution. Modify permission assumes the prims its contents can be modified, so it'd be incompatible with a new "no modify contents" flag unless the meaning of modify were to change (something I doubt). This is an SVC issue, too; the change wouldn't be client-side.

Alexandria Ellison - 27/Mar/08 06:23 AM What about linking/unlinking, changing textures or resizing that one piece that just needs to be moved up a smidge? I have a charm I want to add to a necklace but, I can only shrink/grow it. Maybe I want to combine a tail with a belt that I have cause theres not enough attachment points? Maybe I got this crappy tiara, that could use a little of this and a little of that and now I have something I actually want to wear. This is a temporary solution to a problem that haunts content creators, there has to be better ways where the consumer can actually get what they pay for. No one wants to buy a red car and have to keep it red, no one wants to buy a house without being able to add to it or change a wall. I am one to customize things and change them into something totally spectacular or what I envision... im getting bored lately at the lack of innovative content, maybe this is the only solution for now. But is protecting creators content going to satisfy? What value do you put to someones work so that it is reasonably priced? Voted, but it was a very tough decision to a problem that isn't easily solved, and still won't be with this option.

Diricial Dagger - 27/Mar/08 08:59 AM I agree with Alexandria, and unfortunately, simply can't bring myself to support this request because of it. There are too many legitimate uses for full modify rights to limit them due to the risk of theft. Ran's suggestion would make a far better request - perhaps a JIRA for it could be started instead? While I won't go into it too much, with hair especially, full modify rights are a necessity - I frequently need to move prims around, in addition to resizing, in order to fit my avatar's shape, and accommodate my glasses. Also, deleting prims that I find unnecessary, like the tangle of bangs/tendrils that many hair makers put around the face of otherwise beautiful styles (or adding new prims, if a style is sparse). Finally, I re-texture almost all the hair a buy to a texture I made and uploaded to match my RL hair, for continuity. This change would remove all of these abilities, that I think are vital to the vibrancy of avatar customization that makes this metaverse so appealing.

Chez Nabob - 27/Mar/08 12:56 PM While I don't disagree with some of the users who've commented above that making objects resize only could be an issue for those wanting/needing to tinker with products to get them to fit their AV, I think it's important to remember that this would be an optional permission and would not replace the full-mod permission. If a creator chose to make their product resize only, and you don't like not being able to make more mods than that permission allows, you can always vote with your wallet and buy from someone else who does allow it. Voting for this doesn't mean voting against full-mod perms. It's just another option that could help cut down on content theft.

Gordon Wendt - 27/Mar/08 01:07 PM - edited Chez, yes this may cut down on content theft but at what expense, this is just another step away from allowing the buyer fair use of what they've bought, obviously for some things fair use does not copy over because in real life you can't just rip the pattern off the wallpaper and stick it onto the furniture but concerned sellers who have only one interest in mind and that's their profit margin (I don't think you'll deny that) and possibly those of their fellows that they share a common thread with are only one side of the equation, there are concerned buyers (i'm both a content creator and a buyer but mostly a buyer) who don't want to slip away into a world where every little object is either no mod or essentially no mod. You say that people can vote with their wallets and it's an optional tag, you're right there but considering the panicky comments that I keep seeing from content creators who are quite frankly paranoid at this point, rightly or wrongly, about the scourge of content theft that they'd probably vote to get rid of the mod and transfer tags all together if it was up on the JIRA. I can't blame them for being concerned but I have serious doubts in this as being a proper solution.

Montana Corleone - 27/Mar/08 02:27 PM Best suggestion ever. Ad if Linden Lab do anything about it, it will show they really do care about their customers and their IP rights.

sonnet Trilling - 28/Mar/08 03:04 PM Finally something to help us SL Designers ! This is a fantastic idea. Having had many of my ideas and items copied or stolen I really hope they pass this, for it will protect all of the designers in sl and stop those who try to profit through other's creativity. sonnet Trilling

Chez Nabob - 28/Mar/08 08:07 PM - edited @Gordon Certainly content creators are concerned about lost revenues from ripped merchandise. If that's their only concern, I don't really blame them. I'd say it's definitely cause for concern. Apart from that I'd also say that many are concerned because they feel violated that someone has come in, and, with little effort, taken something that required a great deal of effort, time talent and skill on the part of the content creator to bring to market in the first place. Part of the reason the vast majority of content creators produce goods in SL is the satisfaction of doing so. Sure, they want to be compensated for their efforts. That's part of the incentive, but there's a certain joy that comes from knowing someone liked something they created enough to sacrifice a few $L for the privilege of owning a copy. Don't you think content creators want their customers to be satisfied with their product and feel that they're getting the most they can out of it? What I'm getting at is that simply because the option for resize-only perms exist, doesn't mean that suddenly everything will be made resize only. Full-mod perms will still exist, and as I said in my comment above, I believe the market (ie customers) will determine what perms creators ultimately set for their products. Are there panicked creators out their who want to lock their content in a vault so no one can get at it? I'm sure there are, just as I'm sure there are those at the other extreme end of the spectrum who think everything that gets produced should be free for the taking to all comers. But guess what? Neither of those things work in the marketplace for very long, and if they do they hold a VERY small portion of said market. The vast majority fall in the middle just like everything else in life, and those are the people who set the tone for the market. Is a resize-only perm the last piece of the puzzle that will prevent content theft? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not a piece of the puzzle and doesn't have merit. The fact of the matter is is that not everything in SL needs full-mod perms. There is no reason why something that doesn't need full-mod perms should get full-mod perms if another option is available. If someone tries to sell items without full-mod perms when those items need full-mod perms they'll have to provide a service where the creator makes the item work for the individual, moving and modifying prims to suit the customer's needs after purchase. Otherwise they'll risk losing customers to creators who recognize the fact that full-mod perms are necessary for a similar product and sell that product will full-mod perms. I am absolutely all for satisfying my customers, as I think the vast majority of creators are, but the fact is not everything needs full-mod perms, and there's no reason another option like this shouldn't be made available. It's not the end-all-be-all-perfect solution, but many things aren't. If LL would change the TOS to outlaw prim replicators maybe something like this wouldn't be on the table. And to make a final point, if so many of content creators are "panicky" and "paranoid" as you say, why hasn't one of them put up a JIRA request asking for mod/trans rights to be revoked as you suggest they would? Basically the market will sort itself out if this ever comes to fruition, and the extremists on either side of the issue will end up being marginalized.

Delerium Hannibal - 29/Mar/08 09:13 AM Ok, after reading the comments here, I would like to add some of my own since I originally posted this feature request. A bit about my background. I have worked quite a bit with the libsl library and learned alot about the way assets are handled with regards to SL. When it comes to an outside source like the open source viewer, or libsl, yes you can get whatever info you need to recreate any primset you can see. Is this as easy as some would think? probably not. I think it takes someone VERY familiar with either the open source viewer or libsl in order to do this. Neither of them are very well documented and figuring things out is simply a matter of trial and error. So that limits that theft option to a fairly low percentage of people who could actually pull it off. Secondly, the whole point of security is not to lock things down so even the best hacker out there can't get in. The point of increasing security is to decrease the amount of people who ARE capable of getting in. This goes the same with SL. It's impossible to lock things down completely, nor should we try. But it is possible to make security better so that we don't have a hypothetical Joe Bob who can barely open a word document stealing our creations because he found this cool neato script that does it for him. Security goes two ways. Any time you increase the security of software you risk reducing the usability of the software. So you want to try and get to the point where you have the most security you can without sacrificing the ease of use and functionality of your software. Ultimately what I think would be best is to have a full range of "locks" across the entire object. Putting checkboxes next to each modifiable setting in the object details that allows us to set if this particular setting can be changed or viewed. These settings likewise would only get transferred upon object focus so wouldn't get transferred during normal server-client object sending for rendering. Meaning, it wouldn't create any additional lag in that regard. Either way, I believe that the solution for IP issues in SL is for LL to put the proper tools in our hands to combat it, and that starts with better control over the permission system which hasn't really been looked at or modified since it's inception.

Gigs Taggart - 16/Apr/08 11:56 AM - edited Setting an object no modify does not prevent copying. Prims can be trivially copied regardless of the permission bits. Edit- Yeah I really do mean trivially. I could create and distribute a client that can do it with very little effort. It doesn't take any obscure knowledge, it's extremely basic.

Delerium Hannibal - 16/Apr/08 01:06 PM That may be true, but do you consider yourself part of the majority? How many visitors to SL do you think can? I'm not saying what you speak of isn't possible, but then why don't you just tell linden labs to completely remove all security because it's obviously not secure? Like I said before, just because it's possible with things like hacking the client or using libsl doesn't mean we can't make it harder for the average joe.