Fox-Mulder, I appreciate your passion for this issue, I really do. But I think your passion is blinding you to the pragmatic point that Lord Derik is making. Before I get into that, I will point out that Lord Derik said he was totally against piracy. I think accusations relating to Nazism and gangsterism are unfair and bordering on the histrionic. Onward. Theft of information is somewhat different from theft of property or money, in that having illegal possession of it doesn't prevent legal possession of the same information. The theft is just as immoral, but we are talking pragmatics here now - and in that sense the consequences of the theft are different. If someone steals a car, or robs a bank, that stolen property is unavailable to anyone else. When someone steals Poser, Poser is still available for legal exchange. The pragmatic point that Curious Labs needs to address is to what degree the theft of Poser is affecting that legal exchange (and the profit they make from it). I've no doubt that legal sales are dented by illegal exchange. I also have no doubt that every illegal copy in possession out there does not represent a lost sale. I read Steve Cooper's reckoning that there are as many illegal copies as there are legal ones. I think that is way too conservative. My impression is that there are WAY more illegal copies than legal ones. As Lord Derik pointed out, most of the people in possession of warez are engaging in some strange form of 'collectivitis'. My nephew and nearly all his (computer using) school buddies have a cracked copy of Max, either on CD or, less often, installed on their hard disks. As far as I'm aware, none of them actually use it. It's just a question of being able to bluster "oh yeah, I've got Max3.1, no biggie". It soon gets bumped off to make way for a new game, or something. (Strangely enough, the games are nearly always legal versions. Is it more difficult to 'crack' games?) Now, it is morally and legally wrong for those boys to have Max. It isn't fair to those who have paid thousands that those brats can even open the program to look at it. It is similarly unfair to those who have worked on the thing. They just shouldn't have it, period. But, pragmatically speaking, how many actual lost sales does that represent to the owners of 3D Studio Max? None. Those boys are just pissing about. They're not gangsters, this is the modern day equivalent of scrumping apples, except in this case the farmer doesn't lose any apples. There is no way any of those lads would have paid four thousand quid to buy Max. If it weren't easy 'sport' for them to get hold of it, they just wouldn't have it. Either way, the creators of Max haven't lost any money. In fact, there is a vague chance that one kid might get into 3D, become a pro and buy the package. Now, to turn my argument on its head and kick it right up the arse, it's a perverse fact of life that companies like Curious Labs, who market good value 'consumer' software, are much more badly hit by illegal use than outfits like Discreet (or Kinetix, or whatever it is they're called). It is much more likely that someone will actually want to use the program in the first place, and it quite likely they'll be prepared to spend a couple of hundred on it if there is no other easy way to get it. So yes, Curious Labs do need to be worried and proactive about illegal use. They are losing revenue, and it doesn't come much more pragmatic than that. As to the degree, I obviously have to bow to their wisdom on the issue. My suspicions are that most of the lost sales come from people installing the same copy onto the computers of friends and family, rather than out and out warez downloading. I think a fairly 'gentle' level of security will stifle that exchange. As far as warez and cracking are concerned, I predict that the next software-dongled release from 'Labs will be a little later appearing 'on the streets', but only a little. A product that acts as a plugin to Max is going to join that strange scene that is pubescent and post-pubescent piracy. Max seems special to them - don't know why. As I said in the debate in the 'complaint and debate' forum here, actions like the simple proviso of removing the manuals from direct access on the 'Labs website might have as much impact against 'casual' illegal use as draconian locks on the program will. (Locks that associate themselves with hardware setups worry me, as I'm frequently fiddling with my hardware.) I also feel sorry for third party developers like DAZ and Anton. Their stuff is cheap, and I've no doubt that many of the people using illegal copies would have made a purchase if it wasn't easy to get hold of stuff via other means. Vigilance by them and their fans is possibly the only protection in the short to medium term. So Fox, I agree with you and disagree with you. I care about the survival of Curious Labs and most of the third party providers. For them, there needs to be a cool and ongoing pragmatic approach to the issue of illegal use. Attacking those areas that do the most harm, while minimising 'collateral' damage to legal users is an efficient use of resources. Getting all melodramatic or losing sleep isn't. The rest of us can do our bit, according to the resources and passion we can spare. There are more useful ways to be intolerant of theft than to turn the Poser using communities over to a witch hunt.