Remotely disabling a paid product should lead to proper sanctions
Kore Jardberg
This feature request comes as a consequence of this recent event: a creator with an MP store, remotely disabled a consumer's product that was bought on MP after they had an argument in IM.
The creator apparently planted a script in their product to control whether customers can use their product or not. This type of server query is typically done to check for e.g. product updates and serves here an illegal purpose.
This should not be tolerated.
Log In
Darling Brody
I have had a product on Marketplace since 2007 that can be remotely disabled.
I installed a remote disable so that I could give a refund and effectively take back the product.
As the product became more popular I added an acceptable use policy which allowed me to disable the product if they were using it to disrupt my servers, support group, forum etc.
I also use it to disable buggy or obsolete versions of my products after delivering updated ones to all of the customers.
Finally I use it to disable copies of the products being used by people who obtain them through a permission exploit. Ie. Theft.
I have never disabled a product without refunding it because such behavior would be fraud under the abuse report system.
Robotshaz Resident
if i bought a faulty product I would always contact the creator or seller first and ask for the product to be fixed and redelivered. Then if the product doesn't get fixed I would make the decision to not buy from that seller ever again. I think it is really bad business to sell faulty and broken items personally. Reminds me one time when I was buying plantpet seeds off marketplace and i bought some seeds that were outdated and unusable and broken. Those sellers never did get back to me but thankfully I didn't lose a lot of money anyway but they lost me as a customer when I found out they were selling faulty old seeds that wasn't working. So sometimes you have to be careful especially if buying breedables like plantpets off resellers but also if your buying gachas and other tradables off people that are reselling items that they haven't even created themselves.
Kore Jardberg
This new FR was posted as one potential software solution: https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/make-scripts-open-source
Darling Brody
Kore Jardberg all creators have the option to make their scripts open source using the permissions. forcing scripts to become open source will instantly kill second life as all the creators will leave if they're intellectual property is given away!
Beatrice Voxel
I agree with this issue, UNLESS it was a minigame or other service that came with its own Acceptable Use Policy.
An example would be the Muffins Milkers system, which is only available inworld, and is only sold to those wanting to start a dairy/stable of their own (landowners) - participants can get everything they need for free from any participating dairy.
There have been multiple instances where farm owners set up scripts and bot accounts to 'automate' the game, such that they shoot to the top of the production leaderboards without anyone actually playing the game. And there is a very clear "no cheating" clause in the AUP for the game. No bots, no scripted auto sitters, no invisible guides around the pony circles, none of that. What's the penalty if you get caught? Muffin deletes your dairy from the game's external database, and bans your account from participating in OTHER dairies. No refund, no second chances, it's "Bye, Felicia."
And people bitch and moan and complain to LL and even threaten real-world legal action, because they got busted cheating in an SL minigame and kicked off the system.
So, for LL to step in to sanction content creators for 'turning off' someone's purchase, there had better be a high bar to reach to prove that this wasn't due to the purchaser attempting to pull some shenanigans of their own - i.e. hacking the product, reverse-engineering the product, incorporating the product into something they sell to others, all of that. The complainant had better bring receipts that they were wronged, and if the content creator brings receipts that the disabling of Product X was done for valid reasons, the disable/delete/ban should stand, and that Resident being put on notice for wasting LL Customer Service's time on a frivolous or malicious complaint.
Kore Jardberg
Beatrice Voxel Hi, I understand your point. In the case mentioned here, it's not a game, it's a wearable item.
Kore Jardberg
Beatrice Voxel I am not sure if there is a policy that prevents people from naming store on Canny, so I am giving the link to the store. This post will be removed if necessary: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/en-US/stores/14584
Beatrice Voxel
Kore Jardberg Understood. I still would like to see some kind of rigor in checking out the situation, before punishing a vendor. If it is a capricious vindictive thing, then yes, sanctions are warranted. But let's be sure that the surrounding drama isn't more than a personal disagreement first.
sprightlysprite Resident
Beatrice Voxel The only way this would work is to provide an exception for products that specifically note they are subject to a secondary use policy. There is still plenty of potential for such sellers to take advantage of their customers, but it's then clearly not an issue for Linden Labs to resolve if they do. At least buyers will have been warned they they should consider whether they trust the seller to deal with them fairly.
Moo Boo
Beatrice Voxel The muffin milkers system is an excellent example of why LL needs to provide a better way for licensed goods to be labelled as such on the marketplace than they currently are. Too many people have invested tens of thousands of lindens into this system, only to be bullied by the creator approaching them in a hostile manner with allegations of foul play.
One farm by a friend of mine was confronted about suspicion of botting as their community was very dedicated to the system, and upon finding out that the system creator's own farm was being beat fair and square, this smaller licensed farm was instructed to "fix it or else", despite everybody there playing by the rules.
The shoppers of SL should NOT have to suffer under the inadequacies of the store owners, that the product is not able to keep up with demand should NOT yield an ugly surprise that the investment will be taken away indefinitely.
Moo Boo
With how server queries in SL currently works, it's going to be borderline impossible to find any inworld solution for something like this, as changing or updating any code would terminate literally millions of products due to obsolescence (every kittycat, every teegle horse, etc)..
With that said however, I do believe that it'd be very beneficial for the marketplace shoppers if additional disclaimers were present when an item's availability relies on either licensing manners or remote connectivity.
Items that rely on external connectivity (outside of SL), could feature a little "📶This object requires service connectivity" text present somewhere with the product,
Items with availability directly tied to purchase licensing could have a more prominent text referring to the available pdf feature on marketplace listings..
The availability of items from the marketplace's something often really overlooked, unless it directly states (no copy) we're to expect that what's purchased is ours to keep indefinitely when this is clearly not the case. Let's hope this one isn't brushed under the "buyer beware" carpet and that the marketplace gets an update matching today's trends.
Kore Jardberg
Moo Boo Thank you. Yes, I believe informing consumers about the type and reasons for external communication should be part of a product description. It's well known that products can invade user privacy, spy on them or, now in this case, being rendered unusable, by using external communications.
Michelleawesome1994 Resident
agreed, this kind of thing is just plain fraud from the seller and should be sanctioned by Linden Labs
Yorkie Bardeen
It's not only a source of potential fraud. Items that communicate with external servers, especially without the knowledge of the user, are a data security risk, and LL should enforce a flag on the MP where items use these features.
Kore Jardberg
Yorkie Bardeen Thank you. Yes, and adding details about the type of external communications that happen and why in the product description. Because some might be legit and useful whilesome are clearly not acceptable.
Scylla Rhiadra
I am, to put it mildly, not optimistic LL will take this one up, or even give it more than a moment's notice, as they have long taken the view that fraud -- which is what it is, if you've purchased an item in good faith, and it is
deliberately
disabled by the creator for any reason -- is an instance of "interpersonal disputes," and therefore not the company's responsibility. There are zero protections for consumers in SL, and this isn't going to change that.That said, wouldn't it be nice if, just for once, LL signaled that it actually
did
care about fair treatment for consumers?Kore Jardberg
Scylla Rhiadra Thank you. You are correct, that's the typical answer they give to Marketplace issues support tickets.
Jennifer Boyle
I agree with the concept, but I think it could be difficult to implement. Any scripted product that relies on communication with an external site can be disabled unintentionally by problems with that site.
Tjay Wicken
Jennifer Boyle I believe just letting potential customers aware of the risks and the fact that the item is dependent on external sources would be a good start and easily implemented.
Kore Jardberg
Tjay Wicken Good point. This type of disclaimer could be added to the list of types and reasons why an item use external communications such as: "declaring external communications for the sole purpose of checking for product updates" or "declaring external communications to feed new textures in the hud", etc.
Kore Jardberg
Jennifer Boyle Thank you. This is true, a product can be rendered unusable by such an accident. As Tjay points out, this could be a (useful) warning in the product description. In the case mentioned here, after the product was intentionally rendered unusable, the product displayed a message in local chat asking the consumer to contact the creator. Had the message been something along the lines of "Cannot connect to server", it would have been less obvious that it was the sole responsibility of the creator for the product to stop working. Regarding a software solution to this, one would be to force scripts to be open source by removing the 'no mod' permission. This way, the user could know what's really inside their items.
Madi Melodious
File a AR report for fraud. Not sure it will do anything but at least it will get the name to somone that might do something.
Kore Jardberg
Madi Melodious I agree. A report was submitted by the original buyer. A support ticket was filed too.
Load More
→