I think both svdl and pnevai have a good point here. Companies that use graphic software and content for business cannot work with pirated software. The risk gettin caught or destabilzing their work base is far too high. Pirated software and content is mainly used by amateurs. If they don't get it for free only a very low percentage will buy it. So is the hassle the graphic software vendors have with copy protection really worth the money? Is the DRM way with lower prices coupled with usage restriction really the better way than a flat rate approach (buy it and use it for your work on your PCs). I don't think so. Complicate things will be paid in the end by the consumer one or the other way. Microsoft didn't care for pirated Windows software for a long time. So Windows at the Home PC became very popular and today Microsoft is earning a lot of money. Assume that Maya is free for non-professional use. A lot of people would work with it and train their Maya skills. The companies would find a lot of skilled artists on the market and Maya would be the preferred 3D program, because a lot of people know how to handle it. They may loose some money in the beginning, but they could concentrate on features and stability instead of DRM and copy protection and the user base would grow to make it the most used 3D software by the special effects companies, which brings a lot of cash in the end. That's how the success story of Microsoft began... ...Think about it...