Sorry if the identifiability of the purchaser issue was not clear, I am not saying that the program is the means of that identification at all, it is a code issued to the user, specific to the user. The program does nothing, at least in my very limited issue identification summary. I attempted to point out that it is the user that is lost here, and could be identified through purchase records. The program without the enhancements or the program pre-curious labs enhancements is a whole separate issue. The focus is on the enhancements-keep track of legitimate new purchasers idea through customer database/interaction. In my view as a user I would buy into a subscription to updates, upgrades and enhancements as a way of supporting my product as opposed to being securitied into limbo when I botched my system up. The chances of me changing my system are pretty good, and with ongoing customer verification I should not have a problem convincing CL that I am part of their legitimate user base. To me that is what is being argued here, that the customer is taking more of a risk that they are not even going to have the non-upgraded program to use after botching their system or upgrading their system. Assuming CL is operational and there is a customer recognition, I should not have a problem getting my program code on explanation of why I need a new one. The alternative that I am trying to point out is that the codes might be tied into the enhancements only, the patch would not install but the base program would. That kind of thing, or a gold-club approach where the user base that wants to subscribe to enhancements whistles and bells purchases them as plug ins, the base program allows for the plug in feature. The user then has more control over the enhancements/features that they want depending on their level of expertise. I would add that I am in no way capable of understanding the programming wizardry that goes into the upgrade/enhancements. but it seems like PPP is a step toward a whole program approach. the problem of bugs and fixes is to me part of the need to generate ongoing income to survive as a business....so as a user I tend to be more tolerant of such things but I am not pushing poser to the high end-modeling/morphing link with lightwave/3dMax potentials of the program. I see that as an enhancement issue, I use poser as a stand alone...and find Konan's truepose program to be great to allow me to now learn truespace. As is pointed out the other packages just are too expensive for me and unless and until I can make money and justify a large capital expenditure as an investment in the business of 3d modeling with poser I am satisfied to use poser as a standalone. I would like to see more lower level morphing ability so I can avoid the learning curve of the 3d modeling, but learning is just a matter of time. I do agree that changes are hard to deal with especially where it appears the change will jeopardize the freedom to use the program without checking in or having the program out of order until the next business day. I know if my program is not useable I am going to be very cranky ....no really cranky...I use it all the time...so I WILL go through withdrawals......that is a reality for me.