Thanks,

BiggD.

Have a look at her textures and see how she's mapped-that should tell you who she is for.

EDIT:  I just came across this..

http://www.daz3d.com/i/3d-models/other/absinthe-the-green?item=8672&cat=676&_m=a

It is for V4 and THE GIRL 4

Here's yours:

https://secure2.bondware.com/~syydr30/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=3191

Cheers,

Rod

Well, that wouldn't be old, since it was just released if it's also for Girl 4...

Make sure you contact DAZ about the models. I am not sure, but in the past you had to get permission to Transfer Products. Doing so otherwise is a violation of the EULA for the product.

Well, if it's for Girl 4, she hasn't even been released yet!

It sounds like you may have only one part of the Rendo version, which came as two files, which would explain why it doesn't work.

Cheers,

Rod 

Thanks for all the attention and response. I am more of an artist (self proclaimed)  than a content developer. I look for things that will work in a compostion. As far as transfer, most of
the user license agreements I have read allow outright full transfer. I certainly hope no one
has a problem with this because I see that it is no longer for sale. Thanks allot everyone.

thought for now: Software and computers are tools, and they should know a hammer is a dangerous weapon...BiggD.

Extracted from a current DAZ licence agreement:

"User does not have the right to pfrovide the 3-D Model(s) to others in any form or on any media." (sic)*

"...provided that you may not in any case: (a) separately publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any 3-D Model(s) or any part thereof; "*

In other words, your friend was not entitled to give you his collection.

Not only that, how can it be an older no longer sold product, if the item that iit's actually for hasn't even been released yet?

Not only that, the product IS still for sale at Artzone as well. Just follow that link provided.

Transfer of software licenses is an issue the courts will need to resolve, as copyrighted physical materials are covered by the Doctrine of First Sale, which says that the original purchaser may transfer the item. I thought it might be clarified in the AutoDesk case, but they settled this past Autumn.   In that case the Federal Court in Seattle in a preliminary ruling said that if you 'purchase' software, with no defined license term, you actually ARE purchasing it, regardless of what  the EULA says, and is thus covered by the Doctrine of First Sale.  Of course, the software in question was boxed copies of AutoCAD, not downloadable models.

Note; I'm not a Lawyer, and this is not intended as legal advice, but is for entertainment purposes only. Your mileage may vary.  Results may not be typical.

**Gareee,

**It is a product formerly sold at Rendo, but is no longer-that's what's 'old' about it.  It obviously was updated for DAZ..

Cheers,
Rod

What proof do you have that it is actually updated? Time, it looks like the exact same thing, just soild at a different store.

At any rate, this looks to me like someone with an illigitimate copy of content, wanting to redistribute it for profit, when it's already available for sale elsewhere.

No matter how you slice this, it looks like producing a copyright infringment with an illegally transerrred product.

Quote - What proof do you have that it is actually updated? Time, it looks like the exact same thing, just soild at a different store...
.

It obviously wasn't originally equipped with morphs for The Girl 4. 

Anyway, he has the information he asked for.

Cheers,

Rod

PS, I've always wanted to use this smiley... :woot:

Quote - Transfer of software licenses is an issue the courts will need to resolve, as copyrighted physical materials are covered by the Doctrine of First Sale ...

Actually, most license agreements for software and data sets (and that's really what you're buying with a Poser figure, is a set of data files) do not grant ownership of the materials. They grant a license to use the data or software. Ownership actually remains with the original seller.

I haven't read the license agreements from DAZ all the way through (really, who does?) but you might check through them once, just for fun.

Legally, buying intellectual property is typically handled much differently from purchasing real property, be it a car or a box of Corn Flakes.

Quote -
Legally, buying intellectual property is typically handled much differently from purchasing real property, be it a car or a box of Corn Flakes.

The Doctrine of First Sale is well-settled law, and originally  pertained specifically to intellectual property, namely books.  It may or may not apply to 3d-models.

The Autodesk decision is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3077102/Vernor-v-Autodesk-No-071189-WD-Wash-May-20-2008:

It will take a decision by the Supremes to clarify things, at least until the next technological advance comes along.  However, since Autodesk settled,  the suit, they won't deal with this case.

Cheers,

Rod

The (box + media) for a computer product is what the "Doctorine of first sale" applies to.
The license you need to actually make use of whatever is on the media is a completely different matter.

Actually, (and this isn;t defending the first poster, since he still received software without valid tranfer) I seem to remember this as a set sold for V1 or V2 (maybe even Posette, but I don;t have stuff that old still installed) many years ago. He even said that he tried it on V4 and it wouldn;t work. Looking at the thumb he posted it is similar to the DAZ product in style but not exact, the clothing shown is different.

My bet is he has a copy of the original V2 product sold from here several years ago. The DAZ product is probably a new update of the older product.

Still the actual act of transfer, i.e. his freind "giving" him older products is a bit questionable depending on the exact wordng of the license Rendo had in effect at that time. But I doubt this is the DAZ file and tend to believe his story...

DAZ use to allow Transfer to another User with approval. They changed that with the new License. I do not think any of the Rendo Licenses ever allowed Transfer of License of download Content. I could be wrong.. I checked my oldest file from Rendo that I purchased and it does not seem to allow it, but I am not a lawyer.

She was created by Damage Inc  (aka IgnisSerpentus)

LOL guys... shes old, but new. She used to be sold at RDNA, but I took her with me when I left. I recently revised it, added in G4 morphs (as Gareee said) and sold it to DAZ. You can get it as part of March Madness. Heres the linkie: http://www.daz3d.com/i/3d-models/0/absinthe-the-green?item=8672&cat=&_m=d

PS: Shes for G4 and V4.2

"Old models" for The Girl 4??

**How can you people produce anything and spend this much time and effort talking about nothing?  I'll learn to keep my damned trap shut. As far as me, I asked an honest if somewhat un-informed question. But regardless of what the courts or anyone else say's; If I buy something, and that thing is not wanted or is of no more use to me and I want to give it to someone else, then there is no wrong there, If you don't agree you can kiss my..... well, I'll not be asking anything else, of anyone, anywhere here.

So long, and thanks for all the fish...

BiggD.**

Bigg...

I am sorry that you're upset that everyone is discussing this at length - but it is and has always been an issue in the Poser community, and a very gray area not all can agree on. So people tend to discuss controversies and issues as they come up at length, to see if anyone can shed better light on it.

I must admit, I didnt find the story odd... it didnt bother me at all that someone may give away their content to someone else, if that is indeed the case. Coz as a matter of fact, you wont be able to use it anyway, unless u buy the update from DAZ. The injects in that specific version were created for V4.0 - not V4.2, whereafter they transferred the morphs to delta system, as opposed to being on the CR2 itself. When I updated it for DAZ, I updated it to work for V4.2.

What I did find a bit strange was that you had the promo for it (the old one, to boot, which is no longer shown anywhere, since it has been revised for DAZ) I do know that warez sites have a tendency to snag the promos to post when theyre posted for downloading - and they also have equal tendency to NOT post relevant information, such as what model its for.

Does that mean its cut and dry the case here? Nah.... why I chose to say nothing. But most of these guys prolly picked up on that too, and its sorely frowned upon (esp by merchants) Your reaction to them discussing it is not making you look much better tho. Just my .02 cents... for what its worth.

Oh and PS: Legally that is incorrect. When you buy software or any relevant content for it, it is subject to the end user license agreement (EULA) which that website where you purchased has supplied. It would hold up in court.... by hitting I agree, you accept and agree to those terms upon installation.

In your particular case, you have even less rights.... you never bought it.

Of course we can't know the true facts, but those of us who have been around the forums for a while have seen the same old pattern time after time. A new member's first post claims that they got something "off a friend" - the variations on that theme are quite entertaining sometimes - and after a bit of banter from others, the member disappears after a heated outburst. You could call it the balance of probabilities, I suppose.

IgnisSerpentus is being monumentally tolerant, given that I found Absinthe on a well-known site of ill repute very easily - including a version with that promo picture.

"I'll not be asking anything else, of anyone, anywhere here."

Since you like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quotes: "who will that inconvenience?" :)

Claims in the End User License Agreements (EULA) that the software is licensed not sold is nonsense. It certainly will not hold anywhere in EU. There are only some backwards courts in US that still allow it, due to ignorance. The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion in US only.

But not very much longer. As the rest of the world doesn't allow such EULAs, neither will US.

BiggDevo,

As long as you have the orginal receipt (or a receipt from your friend) you're in the clear.

You realize that you contradicted yourself there Vintorix?  If "some backards courts in the US still allow it", then having a receipt does not leave one "in the clear".

You can never protect yourself wholly again incompetent laywers and judges etc. Or do you think you will win a case only because you are right? lol

Stay out of court altogether, that is my best advice.

Anyway, I don't think mr bigg has any receipt. ;)

Quote - Oh and PS: Legally that is incorrect. When you buy software or any relevant content for it, it is subject to the end user license agreement (EULA) which that website where you purchased has supplied. It would hold up in court.... by hitting I agree, you accept and agree to those terms upon installation.

In your particular case, you have even less rights.... you never bought it.

Curiously, in the Autodesk ruling I cited above, ( http://www.lawupdates.com/pdf/postings/copyright/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc..pdf ) the Judge ruled that not only could the software be transfered regardless of what the EULA stated,  but also that the EULA was probably not binding on the transferees, but only upon the original purchaser, which was (to me) a totally unexpected conclusion, and is probably why Autodesk settled (the Court did not rule on it definitively because it was outside the scope of the motion).  This case does of course differ in that it involved physical Software disks.

I have to say that there was a bit of piling on-I tend to assume that most people are telling the truth when they describe a situation.  I had posted an RDNA link above that had the preview in question, which I found via Google (along with some links to warez sites!). If he did indeed get it from a friend,  any alleged EULA violation is a contract violation, and is thus a civil matter.

I'm not a Lawyer, and this is not intended as legal advice.

Well to be honest, I wouldnt bother taking it to court anyhow. If he had pirated 1000$ software, it might be worth my while LOL Tying up my time and money over a 15$ pack isnt. Especially when that version doesnt work right anyway ;o)

All I know is, if EULA didnt hold up in court, no company would bother to use it at all. All these brokerages, all these software companies... they all continue to use it. To me, its not scare tactics... showing up at someones door with a shotgun is LOL (I jest... Im not that much of a psycho hehe) That doesn't mean that its not tricky to be able to win a case, tho... you have to be able to prove the person obtained the product via illegal means, and downloaded it with malicious intent.

Things are not always how they seem....

Also, yeah I know that the image you posted was from RDNA. It also occured to me that he could have gotten the promo image there, since its still technically live (it just cant be purchased). However, had he gotten it from there (or even my own store, where it was sold for a short time) he would have known it was for V4, from the store page requirements that are still listed (not to mention, he would have known where it was sold to begin with) Again, not so cut and dry.

Quote -
Also, yeah I know that the image you posted was from RDNA. It also occured to me that he could have gotten the promo image there, since its still technically live (it just cant be purchased). However, had he gotten it from there (or even my own store, where it was sold for a short time) he would have known it was for V4, from the store page requirements that are still listed (not to mention, he would have known where it was sold to begin with) Again, not so cut and dry.

If it was acquired illegally, then it would be a criminal issue.  Much civil law depends on folks being...civil, as it's usually not worth the trouble to bring a suit, as you note.

Since it didn't work, and it sounded like he must not have the Readme, I suspected that he only had one of the two zip files that make up the product.  I guess we'll never know...

Cheers,

Rod

Making customers sign for something that will not hold in court has a name.
It is called "sharp practice".

From Merriam-Webster

"sharp practice"
One entry found.

Function: noun
: the act of dealing in which advantage is taken or sought unscrupulously

Its not unscrupulous... there is no other way to sign something digitally, than an I accept or I dont accept agreement. So what, you think coz its digital it shouldnt have have the same rights that normal merchandise has??

Just because I said one (1) part of the EULA is unscrupulous does't mean that the WHOLE of it is. Most stuff are legal and binding as in any other contract. But the paragraph about that software is licensed not sold, THAT is sharp practice, as sharp as they come IMO.

But as this is a subjective matter you are entitled to another opinion.