"Extract: "Cooler then how do you explain other figures able to accept V3 and V2 maps that are not rte-encoded?" Comment: Answered well before the question was asked." Where? please quote, since I ahve read this thread back to front and not found that information. also - "Comment: After reading this, I contacted my contract law person, and she was quite specific, pointing to established case law and Federal and Utah court rulings and established that yes, indeed, those FAQs are legally binding, and it is quite apparent they are intended to be so. It is not part of the EULA, true, but that does not make them any less binding" causes a false representation since this information is NOT present in the EULA as the user is presented with it and has to be specically searched out by the said user. if it to be legally binding should it not actually be IN the EULA that the user is presented with and not in a totally seperate location of which the user is not actually informed about? eg : nowhere in the EULA is a statement like "This Document is not complete, please refer to http:daz3d.comFaqEULAddons.HTML" sorry there is a strong case there of misrepresentation!