I typed up a long response but I guess the system ate it. I want to thank everyone who responded, between this discussion and some research I did on my own (check out the debate on reselling e-books, I have to say my awareness has been raised on this issue. I all ways thought that licensing issues on software were there to protect the creator from piracy and other legal concerns. I now understand that in many cases they are worded to remove the consumers rights, rather than protect a creator from theft or damages. Let me give you an example, I own a copy of Stephen King's the Stand. I know that I cannot take what he has written from the book and present it as mine. I can't photocopy it and give the copy away or sell it because it is Stephen King's copyrighted material. However, Mr. King cannot stop me from re-selling the copy I paid for, or keep me from lending it out or giving it away. Licensing however changes the game. If I licensed my copy of the Stand with a Renderosity style (or standard software) licensing agreement,Mr. King or his legal instruments could keep me from re-selling it or giving it away. And the best part is I would have to agree to giving up my consumer rights, before I could even crack the cover to see if it was worth reading. Pretty dumb on the consumers part, huh? Some of you probably already knew this, and think I'm pretty silly for just now getting it, but I never thought the intent of a licensing agreement was to screw me out of my rights. -Not saying the merchants are intentionally doing this but thats pretty much what a licensing agreement does. I applaude those vendors who say that it is okay to do a one time legal transfer of their material, if the original file is deleted ect. I've got a lot more investigating and reading to do before I decided what exactly this means to my poser habit, but it is a bummer to know that legal it would be impossible to recoup part of my 'investment' should I ever choose to get out of the poser game.