Bloody hell, David, not you as well :-D

This is software we're talking about, software that could previously be bought as a perpetual licence, so if Allegorithmic can run a fair system, why not Adobe?  Because they don't want to, right?

Which is precisely why they should not be patronised.  If the world was run like Adobe do things, that would be a world where you work, and work, and work, and work, and NEVER own what you f@cking worked for, so how would you like a world like that?

Eh?

Sounds like first rate slavery to me, but hey, some of us can see these things and some of us can't.  Everyone who feeds that disgusting greed-machine, is supporting a mechanism that suggests you work and work and never own what you pay for.  What they are doing ought to be illegal, it's disgusting and demeaning.  What people have worked hard to pay for, should be thiers - period.   And greedy bastards like Adobe should NEVER be alllowed to dangle a carrot in front anyone and threaten to take away what they worked hard to pay for!

It is utterly disgusting and demeaning to the hardworking man (and woman).

For crying out loud, stop acting the clown and grow up, and that goes for Shane as well.
Good god, talk about suckers!

@Keith
That carrying a bunch of albums thing has never had any interest to me, even when I used to use an MP3 player.  If I'm out for a walk, there are 60, 90, and even 120 minute cassettes out there, that's good enough for me (although I never use 120 cassettes personally).  If I don't want to listen to a ready-made album, I just pull out a couple of Vinyl albums and record specific songs from each of them, all onto the same tape (this is commonly called a mixtape).

One other nice thing about doing it that way, is that all my tracks have automatic EQ, because I adjust all that for each track before I record to tape.  My deck is a three head model, so I can actually hear what the recording sounds like as I'm recording it, I get perfection.  Then, because I already pre-adjusted the EQ for every track, when I'm out with the Walkman, I never need to reach into my pocket to change the EQ settings, they're all done automatically in the recordings themselves, just how I like them.

People who've been brought up on digital will never understand the appeal of actually doing the recording process with quality gear, the pleasure it gives.  To them, all they know is a digital byte-for-byte copy of music, the concept of analogue is completely alien to them so they don't understand how a person can enjoy recording.  The only ones that find out, are those that go out and buy some good quality analogue gear; good turntable, quality amp with bass and treble knobs, quality 3-head cassette deck or open reel so you can hear the recording as you make it.

It's lovely stuff, and at the end of it all, you're rewarded with something personalised and far superior to any digital recording.

BTW, here's my 3-Head baby, she's my treasure, and she's very well behaved and only ever hisses at me if I want her to!
Click Here to see her, and then get back on topic cause the slightest little hint starts me off again :-D

Pumeco, you haven't said a word about how Poser content providers are supposed to prevent their work from being pirated. That's what this thread is supposed to be about. And I'm sorry, but shipping their products on CD is not a solution no matter how many times you say it. Simply repeating yourself isn't persuasive.

I don't know, Moriador, I really don't, but all I'm saying is that tangible goods are a proven system that works.

Off the top of my head, the only thing that I think will help the situation, is a good quality, preferably ring-bound user guide.  And to make it even more enticing to purchase, they need to show a photo of the manual in the photos, so that people can see that it's ring-bound and they can see that it's a nice chunky manual bursting with information on how to use the thing.  Granted, such a thing isn't going to completely wipe-out piracy of a software product, but it will help, especially with programs as sophisticated as Poser is.

Like I said, off the top of my head, that's all I can think of, but they need to be more inventive, just like Portishead are.  With that boxset I pointed out, there's more than one reason people parted with money for it.  If it were just music, they would have been faced with the same problem the Poser vendors are facing.  They only beat the pirates because they created a tangible product that was enticing enough to sell-out, and like I said, that exclusive Portishead USB key will have helped to sell the boxset as well, that was a stroke of genius, because it's both product and even use-related to not only include an exclusive key, but also to preload it with music.

Haven't got a clue what a vendor would do, and I sympathise with absolutely everyone who has their livelyhood stolen from them by these assholes, but "catching pirates" isn't the answer, beating them at their own game is the answer, and you can only do that by creating something they cannot share over websites at the click of a button.

Whatever the genius answer is for software, it lies somewhere in the area of being tangible.  And I said this before, and no doubt it just gets casually read over, but the bit that's most important is this: no matter how hard you try, no matter where on the internet you go, you will not find that boxset being pirated.  The fact that it's not possible to pirate it and that every copy they made had to be purchased, is proof enough that tangible goods is the answer.

How a software vendor would do that, well now that is the question we should be debating here, isn't it, because if anyone can find a solution to that one, the vendors piracy problem would be solved.

Subscription based software is currently the only answer. Software that cannot be cracked because it requires a component hosted on remote servers in order to function. When you're dealing with digital content, there is no other way to prevent it from being pirated, other than hosting some vital component of that content on remote servers that have to be accessed with security clearance - that security clearance being your membership to that site. I know a lot of people don't like the idea of having to be connected to the internet in order to access "their" content and software, but it is not "their" content to begin with, and if more people would be willing to participate, they would be helping to actually support their favorite digital content providers - be it content artists or software designers or film/music, etc. So far there is still no software that is 100% piracy proof, but the subscription model has diminished piracy of that software significantly. I don't mind having to be connected to the internet in order to use it. My machine is always on the internet anyway. The only time I mind is when my internet goes out but that is pretty rare, and so far I haven't had a problem with any software not working because the net is out. 

Hard copies are not the answer because hard copies are what were being ripped and pirated before most things went digital to begin with. I love Portishead - one of my favorite bands. But they aren't doing anything new. Artists have been including bonus goodies in their works for years now, as an attempt to get more people to buy their work and dissuade piracy. From limited edition art prints to key chains and calendars and all of it. It hasn't done anything to prevent the core of their work - in this case the music - from being pirated. Even records can be ripped with a midi feed. In the end, all that extra content is just for true collector fans that want to support their favorite artists. The music itself is still being shared on pirate sites among people who don't care about those extra items that come along with the album, or the movie, or whatever media it is that's being distributed. 

People rent apartments or houses their entire lives. Some do it because they can't afford to buy a house outright, but many who can easily afford to buy a house, especially people in big cities, still rent for convenience. They never own the property. They can't do whatever they want with the property. Sometimes they can't even paint the walls whatever color they want. When they die they can't leave it to their relatives. That apartment they've lived in for the last 40 or 50 years just goes back on the market, at whatever the current rates are. There is a trend here in the US of more young people preferring to rent than to buy because they don't want the added burden of property maintenance, even when renting is often more expensive now than a monthly mortgage payment, as is the case in the area I live. When you're renting those things are taken care of for you as part of your rental contract. The grass gets mowed, the plumbing gets fixed, the AC gets cleaned out, all you have to do is buy your groceries mop your floors and pay your monthly bills. Convenience is traded for ownership. Personally I prefer to own my own place and my own transportation. But when it comes to software, which I never own to begin with and am usually limited on how many PCs I can install that license on, I don't mind renting it to use it. Most software cannot be legally transferred when you buy a license. Poser doesn't allow it. Most other software doesn't allow it either. So you're stuck with it, whether you're using it or not. Just more plastic to pollute the environment with. There's plenty of software I've wasted good money on over the years that I never use, some of it I don't even know where it is anymore. Others won't work because it's too outdated and no longer functions on the OS I use. Waste of money. I don't mind renting it. It's a cost saver to me. I don't have to worry about my PC dying one day and having to buy a new license for all the software that's on it because that license has already been used. I just log into a site, deactivate the old machine and activate the new machine and it costs me nothing - other than the cost of a new machine of course. And if I'm making enough money then the cost of that software is deducted every year, so in essence I'm almost getting it for free.  And if a subscription service helps me support actual artists and prevent piracy then I'm all for it. And over time these subscription models will become more accommodating to more people. Just like the internet, 20 years ago when so many people were against it. Today those same people will look at you strange if you don't use it.  

Pumeco, by not using the latest distribution technology, they haven't beaten the pirates, they've admitted defeat. They can't figure out a way to sell digital content, so they aren't selling it at all. That's not a victory; it's a total surrender. But I don't think we should give up so quickly.

A ring bound copy of a vendor's readme isn't going to impress anyone. People don't buy digital content for the box it comes in. Period. And almost no one reads the Poser manual as it is. They certainly aren't going to pay extra for it. LOL.

A "solution" that works for a couple of bands who sell to niche markets of loyal fans isn't a solution for everyone in all circumstances. If it were, everyone would be using it already. It's not as though it's a new idea or that out of the 7 billion other people on the planet, no one else ever thought of it. But there's a reason it's not being done. And it wouldn't surprise me to find this band going back to digital distribution -- or 365 day tours -- as soon as they've sold all the special box sets the market can stand.

--

Like I said, you can't completely eradicate digital "piracy". But it may be possible through a combination of methods to reduce it enough that small businesses can still make a living. The "pirates" are like cockroaches. You don't just throw up your hands because there's no way to kill every cockroach on the planet. You just do what you must to make sure that there aren't very many (or any, depending on where you live) coming into your home. And if you do see a few in your kitchen, you don't just surrender and move out just because there will always be roaches somewhere, bothering someone. :D :D

I agree, Shane.

It's not unlike cable TV. You pay a monthly fee that permits you to watch television broadcasts. But that fee doesn't give you ownership of the programming. It just gives you the access that lets you watch it. For convenience, you can record it, but you don't own your recordings, so you can't share them (though of course people do loan DVD's to each other). For some reason, this isn't considered strange at all. But if it's software, rather than television shows, that's different somehow. 

--

Tbh, I don't like the idea of usage licenses that do not permit you to transfer them. That's the real issue. If you can't sell your license on the secondary market, then it doesn't matter if you own a physical CD or have a permanent license, you don't own anything. Ownership means you can sell something you have or give it away to someone else. If you can't sell or give away something, you don't own it. So 99 out of 100 licenses you "buy{, whether by subscription or paid all at once, don't give you ownership of the license. You're just leasing it. 

It's not a trend I like to see because it won't be long before it applies to most tangible goods as well. Not just apartments and cars and software. But electronics, furniture, clothing -- why not? There's a lot of money in the secondary market, and manufacturers would LOVE to get their hands on it. 

I give-up, I have to cause I'm worried my head will explode.

I hate to admit that I was a proud member of the file-thieving community for many decades.  Starting way back in the early 70's with 'shared' copies of Fortran compilers(?), then getting onto the Microsoft bandwagon in the late eighties with Windows 2.0, I've used hacked copies all the way to Windows XP and boasted that I'd never paid for any piece of software.  I got into games at some point and became hooked on Half-Life.  About this time I went back to school part time and learned a lot, not the least of which was how our economy works.  I also came to realize that programmers and developers where just regular people who also had mortgages to pay and kids to put through university.  I bought the entire HL (then HL2) series and felt good about supporting them.  I'd been dabbling in Daz for a few years and jumped into it when the HL2 series petered out ("C'mon, Gabe, where the hell is episode 3?!").  Although I snooped around my old file-stealing sites, I bought the content I used.  I finally moved from Daz to Poser when it went on sale last year.  I've been making items for a couple of years now but refuse to release them as I don't want to feed the punks.

The file-stealing punks have a funny mind set.  They love to use vacuous phrases to justify their thievery and associate themselves with journalists being censored in oppressive regimes. When the RIAA/MPAA (or other group) sues a torrent site or gets a file-sharing site shut down, they scream bloody murder about freedom and democracy without understanding what either of these two words mean.  There is no such thing as a copyright monopoly.  Any person who creates anything original automatically holds a copyright on it (in Canada anyway).  Every silly shot you grab on your cellphone camera is copyrighted by you. How is this a monopoly?  There is simply no excuse for file-sharing since consumers already have a mechanism to fight perceived overpricing or gouging.  By simply not buying an item and letting the manufacturer know why your not plunking down your money, you can exert a powerful influence, particularly if consumers ban together and boycott something.  Poser and Daz stuff is the ultimate expression of freedom since you can make your own stuff.  The tools are all free and there must be a billion tutorials available.  All it takes is time and a bit of skull sweat.

I took a beginners marketing course a few years back (needed a break from anthropology) and the class examined file sharing as part of the problems facing retailers.  I had a unique viewpoint as a longtime pirate and discovered that the biggest reason folks pirate stuff is simply because they can.  It's there, free for the taking, so people do.  Whining about lack of money is no reason.  You can't walk into a store and take stuff just because you wouldn't otherwise have bought it.  Requiring payment for anything is a powerful force for getting people off their arses and getting an education so that they can get a decent job and contribute to the worlds economy and culture.  and again, you can always make your own.

I'm gratified that this thread has taken off with so many well presented arguments against file-sharing.  I started it in the other vendor's forums and it was either derided or ignored.  While there doesn't appear to be anything that can be done about it; after all, if the huge economic power of the RIAA and MPAA can't stop it, what hope do we have.  I feel that being a small, niche provider plays into our hands. All content creators and their supporters can make ourselves known in the torrent and stealing sites.  Be polite but pointed; let them know that they're only cutting their own throats by stealing stuff.  The artists aren't making big money and seeing the items that they put so much time and passion into making being traded freely is a slap in the face.  I would dearly love to sell some items but will not tolerate it being stolen.  I've gone so far as to buy a few items of vintage clothing (quite cheap on eBay) so that I can photograph the lace and embroidery for some vintage wedding gowns.  Therefore I don't think that it's too much to ask that people pay a few lousy bucks for my item.  I know of two others who have stopped selling because of piracy and I wonder if this is the reason so many burgeoning content creators sell one item then disappear.  It infuriates me that a hobby I've come to love is being kicked in the head by short sighted, immature, uneducated and selfish file-stealing punks.  I spend a few minutes every day in one of the sites persuading folks to buy stuff and trying to educate them.  I wish the heck the rest of the community would join in vice throwing up our collective arms and crying that there's nothing we can do.  Moriador, your cockroach analogy is excellent.  There will always be a few under the floorboards but I'm sure we can 'turn' many of them.  I'm a perfect example of a success story although like a reformed smoker, I've probably gone too far.

I agree, Shane.

It's not unlike cable TV. You pay a monthly fee that permits you to watch television broadcasts. But that fee doesn't give you ownership of the programming. It just gives you the access that lets you watch it. For convenience, you can record it, but you don't own your recordings, so you can't share them (though of course people do loan DVD's to each other). For some reason, this isn't considered strange at all. But if it's software, rather than television shows, that's different somehow. 

--

Tbh, I don't like the idea of usage licenses that do not permit you to transfer them. That's the real issue. If you can't sell your license on the secondary market, then it doesn't matter if you own a physical CD or have a permanent license, you don't own anything. Ownership means you can sell something you have or give it away to someone else. If you can't sell or give away something, you don't own it. So 99 out of 100 licenses you "buy{, whether by subscription or paid all at once, don't give you ownership of the license. You're just leasing it. 

It's not a trend I like to see because it won't be long before it applies to most tangible goods as well. Not just apartments and cars and software. But electronics, furniture, clothing -- why not? There's a lot of money in the secondary market, and manufacturers would LOVE to get their hands on it. 

 

I agree with your comments on the restriction on the transfer of something if you have paid outright for the license.  Many sites sell versions of software that are older than the current version at a discounted price.  If I upgrade to a new version of software and I have paid for the license of the older version why should I not be able to sell the old version in order to off set some of the cost of the upgrade.  That is exactly what I would do if I was buying a new car.

Pirating wise, I have never supported it in any form and all my software, music and videos have all been purchased.  Sure I have converted all my vinyl to MP3 but I still own the physical record so I think that is fair as it just allows me to use what I have purchased where and when I like. 

I have no real problems with companies that employ different methods to try and stop piracy, I don't even mind having to be connected to the Internet but I do want to know, up front, what they are doing in relation to piracy so that I can make an informed choice on weather to buy or not. 

 

 

Hey Moriador ... this one is called "All Mine" ... and one has to wonder if they're referring to the income they get from every Vinyl they sell  :-D
One can only hope that others will follow their jolly spiffing example of physical analogue distribution, instead of "surrendering" to iTunes and torrents.

And in case you're wondering, I'm only talking 'posh' to match that gent in the attached clip.
It's not really old, it's just made to look like that, it's just Portishead being Portishead :-P

Damn, this track really ought to be used on a James Bond movie, it really should - talk about classy and off-the-wall!
It's great when musicains actually have talent, both in their musical abilities and their business sense ;-)

"I already 'own' a full legal license to CS4 design premium, which I got back in 2009 and does me no good when applying for jobs today that require CS6 or CC - more commonly CC. And most jobs available, whether it is full time studio work or freelance gigs, require Adobe software more than any other software out there. Once in a while you'll see Corel, but mostly it's Adobe. "

True,................ the BIG problem is doing any type of collaborative work

with others

I worked in offset Printing industry for 19 years, as Graphic

Designer, before going freelance.

I have witnessed (and endured) the nightmare

of trying to handle Files from clients when our company owner

is too cheap to upgrade the the latest version of Adobe illustrator

that breaks compatibility with Older versions.

It is embarrassing to try to present yourselves as a"professional Design Studio" when you are constantly asking clients to 

"backsave" to version 9 ,or whatever, because you cant open his rush job files to even send it to press.

Its not so much a problem for us freelancers to use Old software ( as I do)

when you are originating all the work on your end.

and delivering the finals to the client.

A client who does not even have Illustrator,poser or Cinema4D

does not care what older version was used to design his logo or create & render his animation

but if you are trading native Adobe files back and forth you really need the latest versions to open their files.

And if that means Adobes subscription based model,then you need to accept that reality or go into another business

"And yes... I worked in broadcasting for about 25 years as a producer and audio engineer. I know what different equipment sounds like.

I'm willing to bet there are people in this thread who would love to go back to tube type amplifiers."

Indeed With $500 birchwood "attenuators"( aka Volume knobs)

because they "Sound better"

" Amazon and their Kindle, virtual books,"

On the matter of analog books,  

we, of the over fifty demographic, Appreciate

being able to enlarge text on our kindles instead of books that

have hard copies where publishers assume everyone will always have 20/20 vision for life and be comfortable with 10 point typeface

Paper books & Cardboard Album jackets kill trees

I Like my Oxygen

besides....paper is flammable ;-).

Wolf, you are agreeing about something that is not the same thing as piracy.

Neither Shane, or you, or Moriador, or David, or in fact anyone else can give a reason why Adobe's system is fair in comparison to one that is a subscription, but also get's you a permanent licence.  You can't do it, because you know what you're supporting is wrong.  All Shane is doing is trying to avoid admittance that Adobe's system is a greedy unfair one, and the reason for that is because he either feeds them his own money, or is planning to.

For the final time, one of these systems is fair and reasonable, the other is greedy and disgusting - and ought to be illegal:
Now then children, let's put chalk to the board shall we, can you guess which one is fair and which one isn't?

Ok ... here we go ... and no cheating either ... no looking over your friend's shoulder:

Method 1 (as used by Allegorithmic and other decent software publishers)

• Pay a monthly subscription.
• Get a permanent licence as soon as you have covered the cost of one.

Method 2 (as used by greedy manipulative bastards like Adobe)

• Pay a monthly subscription.
• No permanent licence, ever.
• Pay a monthly subscription.
• No permanent licence, ever.
  ...
• Pay a monthly subscription.
• No permanent licence, ever.
• Stop paying the subscripton and lose everything you paid no matter whether that is $20 or $20.000.00 to infinity.
• Sorry, no licence for you, I don't care how much you paid, sucker.

If you want any credibility, then kindly tell me how Method 2 is better than Method 1 ... tell me how that greedy Adobe version is better.
I'm waiting ... start talking if you're capable of answering that one at all.

Cheers.

Why is renting software any different than renting anything else? What you create with it is the only part that matters. 

And, why do you care anyway? You have gimp and blender and all the other freeware out there that you're so fond of. What difference does what Adobe is doing make to someone who doesn't use Adobe? If you don't like them don't use their software. Pretty much as simple as that. 

I don't care about Adobe, not at all.

You did say that you'd "prefer" all sofware vendors to take-on the Adobe way of doing things, so naturally I'm just curious why you "prefer" being constantly sucked-on like that by a bunch of corporate parasites.  I'm merely wanting to know why you hope others will adopt the same greedy version of the policy as Adobe are using.

As was pointed out, there are good, honest, decent ways to implement these things, and then there's the way the greedy bastards at "Adobe" do it.
"pretty much as simple as that" - why do you prefer the system Adobe uses over the one I pointed out, the one Allegorithmic uses?

Still waiting ...

Someone could spend their time making a model like a commercial model and giving it away for free. That could be their market approach. But that's their choice, their work, and their gamble. It would surprise me if any of the serious poser / ds vendors start working on a model they intended to license to others without doing some sort of search to see if someone else made something just like it. That influences us on what we do next. For example, I considered making some Lovecraft monsters many years ago, until I saw the great work Sixius1 does; we went ahead and did themed buildings instead.

So, to summarize, the business model depends on the basic theory "God, I hope no one does anything different from we do or we're screwed"?

No, that wouldn't summarize a thing Ive written. Ive said as little as possible about my business because it is a competitive market.
Any kind of product or business model is at risk of something that comes along and either obviates the need for it, or replaces it with a different paradigm.

The internet has made delivery of digital goods extremely fast, efficient, and with greater possible anonymity. Piracy has existed longer than that, and physical media, even then, wasn't a complete solution. I find it hard to blame the means of delivery itself for human character flaws; it is easier to blame other business models that exploit the weakness in people to take something that they do not have the right to take. Even if the labels are different, and penalties are different, taking physical goods without permission and taking a digital good without permission are both crimes. With the latter, its much, much harder to get caught.

The argument that it should be harder to steal is victim blaming.

As a creator, I have rights under the laws of various countries and terms of contracts as to what happens with the things I create. If I want to give them away for free, Ill do so (and some things I do give away for free). If I want to charge for them, put limits on usage rights, etc, that's all in line with the grant of those rights. With the granting of those rights, I have a reasonable expectation of those rights being legally enforceable. Now if the laws change, surely, I have to change my expectations too.

There are different paradigms for content creation out there that represent rival business models to the types of licensing that content vendors currently do - for example, look at character creation. There are online character generators that mix and match heads, bodies, riggings, poses, etc. There are free solutions that generate complete character geometry, like MakeHuman. These in themselves do not violate anyone's legal rights, yet they are alternatives to solutions like Poser or DAZ Studio and the content creators who make characters for those platforms.

Why is renting software any different than renting anything else? What you create with it is the only part that matters. 

And, why do you care anyway? You have gimp and blender and all the other freeware out there that you're so fond of. What difference does what Adobe is doing make to someone who doesn't use Adobe? If you don't like them don't use their software. Pretty much as simple as that. 

I think there's nothing wrong at all with renting software, however there are problems with this, and Adobe in particular:

1. Fair Trade Arguments. Adobe achieved market dominance in several key, traditional software markets. They have the ability to force their customers onto a new business model from the previous business model as a result of that. It is an unfair advantage. The US has historically been rather tolerant of that, other places less so. But then, my feeling is that Adobe should NEVER have been able to acquire Macromedia - simply selective products of Macromedia, like Flash (which is what they wanted anyway).

2. Data is Smart Now. What I make in Photoshop is not simply a jpeg or png. It is a file that's full of data that is not transferable outside of the ecosystem where it exists. A great example of this is the painfully slow death of Fireworks. Fireworks uses pngs, but pngs that incorporate additional, proprietary information you cannot exploit outside of Fireworks. If you've spent many, many hours working with non-destructive layers in Fireworks, applications of effects, etc, you know what I am talking about.

3. #1 & #2 = ability to lock you out of your IP investments which are infrastructural. Again, some places, this seems to be okay. There was a case I was told about in Canada, where a company that rents accounting software that was metered made it so that it wasn't possible to actually export your data from their software. They were sued, and ordered to allow companies that no longer use their software to able to access at least some functionality. The facts of #1 and #2 together have real world business ramifications.

Ive always been content to upgrade when an upgrade includes either a feature I need or solves a compatibility problem. My contentment, much like the contentment of other users of mature products, is one of the top reasons why software companies are moving to this new model. When software is first made available and in high demand, you sell a lot of full licenses. Then as the market gets "full" of your offerings, your revenue shifts over to upgrade revenue. But then as the market matures, you end up competing against previous versions of products you've made - in some cases it being self inflicted if you've instead of adding new features to existing products, instead added those features to brand new products. That's where Adobe is. That's where Microsoft is on Windows and Office.

Pumeco, you're arguing about several things all at the same time. But let's go with the Adobe subscription one first.

I have a copy of CS5 that I bought on a 24 hour educational discount sale. I also have a copy of Photoshop 6, that as far as I know, won't run on Win 8 -- but even if it does, I have no desire to use it.

In five years, assuming I do not use Adobe's subscription service, how is my "permanent license" to CS5 going to benefit me? It will allow me to run an outdated version of software that I don't really want, just like Photoshop 6. In other words, it's very valuable for a year or two or maybe three, but as time goes on, the value is rapidly depleted until it reaches 0.

What would I have if I had been paying for Adobe's subscription over those same 5 years? 5 years of using the most up to date software -- only when I needed it ... in much smaller chunks of money that are much easier to claim for tax purposes.

So, while I agree in principle that not selling a permanent license is bad policy, as long as that permanent license does not permit transference of ownership, it makes no difference: I've lost exactly nothing by changing the method by which I pay for my usage of that license. And that's all the subscription model does: it changes how and when you pay. That's all it does. ALL. If you believe it does anything else, then the people selling you a so-called "permanent license" have taken you for a real sucker. :D No such thing exists. If it did, I'd still be playing the original Master of Orion without needing an emulator, and I'd be sure that the floppies it came on would still install. I'd be using Word Perfect 4 and, if I wanted to, I'd be browsing this site with Mosaic.

A couple of comments:

Viability of solutions - When coming up with a solution, the solution should, ideally, be one that can be applied very well to the existing market, without having to reformulate large portions of it. For example, we couldn't use a "tangible product" distribution method for current e-goods. The current market is not structured to sell "tangible products" and virtually nothing in the category of products we're talking about is distributed tangibly. (A few exceptions include high-end 3D packages requiring dongles.)

Renting Content Creation Software - I have a problem with "limited term license" (rented) software in that the content or products that I might create with it will be inaccessible to me should I fail to continue my subscription. That accessibility isn't determined by predictable events, like an OS that may be incompatible, but due to simple reconstruction of a standard economic model that creates a "captive audience" for the producer - Fail to continue your subscription and you can never access content that you created, yourself, with the product. That could be content vital to your business, which makes your business a "captive audience" to a third-party, who can raise their price whenever they wish.

Here's a possible solution: Login authentication and encrypted content.

The way this would work is fairly simple, but requires a new content scheme in the base software. Content would be installed using the software, itself. It would be stored on the user's machine in an encrypted form and would be decrypted upon loading into the workspace. (This already takes place, so it's not a novel mechanism.) In order to install a product from a distributor, the user would purchase it as normal, online, then use their software to contact the server of the distributor. They would upload their purchase and authentication code (one long alphanumeric number) and the product would be transmitted, in an encrypted form, and installed to the content directories in an second, filtered, encrypted form, creating a user signature associated with that encrypted content in the process. Unencrypted content could also be transmitted as well, like UV maps, readme files or for merchant resource packs and the like. A central server for login authentication is not necessary because this scheme would require the distributor to register with the program's publishers. Upon registration and a nominal fee, the disributor would receive their own distributor key, which enables the generation of product keys using a proprietary key generator. Basically, DAZ3D and Smith Micro. Distributors would get their own signature key that is compatible with the software, providing traceability, and would get the ability to generate their own keys for their products. Not only would every distributed product have traceability in that its keys are dependent upon a distributor's key signature (which would be partially included) but, upon installation, the file is further encrypted/built using the user's own license key for the software.

In essence, a program like Poser would be able to decrypt these files on the fly, much like it does with .obz files. (Proprietary format, not really encrypted, but used for example.) But, because the files are specifically encrypted... very well encrypted.. they would be useless to anyone without the key and the authenticated software that encrypted them - The purchaser's own licensed copy of the software (A registered copy of Poser, for instance.) used to recrypt them into its content directories. Also, installing them would be difficult, since any installation would have to decrypt them and interface with the program in order to install them. (Internally, the program could keep a verified list of verified content.)

Foolproof? No. Nothing is foolproof encryption in the electronic world. At least, not yet. (But, it's getting closer to being a reality. An expensive reality, but reality nonetheless.) However, one thing this does do is help to provide the foundation for the publishers and distributors to form a working arrangement with each other in order to safeguard the market that they all depend upon. It also doesn't significantly alter the current distribution scheme. But, it does require cooperation between software manufacturers in this market. (Smith Micro and DAZ3D) At worst, even if they didn't cooperate, but chose to use this scheme, distributors/resellers for this sort of content would simply have to pay two license fees in order to acquire key signatures in order to distribute encrypted content. And, if they didn't want to pay that fee or be "married" to distributing encrypted content? They would simply continue distributing the content as they do, today. Though, I'd warn that if the publishers decided to use this scheme, they'd likely phase out accepting current formats, eventually.

@Moriador
Again, how is Method 2 better than Method 1?

Still waiting ...

Yeah, listen pumeco, you're such a dumbass sometimes!!!

This is how to make people think twice about patronising greed-machines, it's really easy!!!

Tell them to visit Google Images!!!
Tell them to search for images of "Adobe CEO" !!!
Tell them to take a long hard look at him so that they know who is behind the greed!!!
Remind them that he's quite happy to constantly suck on their wallet as long as they're dumb enough to let him!!!
Remind them that no matter how much money he sucks from their wallet, he will never give them a permanent licence in return!!!

If they contine to support Adobe's greed after that, you're wasting your time, there's only so much you can do to make people see sense!!!
I do the same all the time about Vickies and stuff, but people ignore me and they keep supporting DAZ people instead of Poser people!!!

There's only so much you can do, so leave them to it, they will learn in the end, and it's not you that is getting sucked on, so chill!!!
Click Here to see another good way of dealing with greed-machines like Apple and Adobe!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl With Blade

You're right, and I'm so proud fo you, Roxie, I really am.
You're growing-up to have real morals and a cool, no-nonsense way of dealing with those that don't have any.

You're so bloody cool, it's freezing!

Thank you pumeco!!!
And thank you Seachanasaigh for the render!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl WIth Blade

" They have the ability to force their customers onto a new business model from the previous business model as a result of that. It is an unfair advantage."

How is this an "It is an unfair advantage"???

I wonder how many of the people who rail

in online forums against the evils of companies like Autodesk

and Adobe have ever had an actual job in a real  U.S./Western business.

Do you people realize that a real business

would never buy& own a $200,000 Digital Printing press

or a fleet of delivery trucks etc. because leasing them is fully deductible as business expense thus reducing their tax liability??

Most serious business owners NEVER purchase their cars

or other office equipment.

they lease them to their incorporated businesses

which gives them the advantage of getting the newest model

every year.

Adobe is the industry standard because their software is Better

and Designed to be used in Professional graphics& image editing environments

The same is true for Autodesk in the area of Movie VFX & Game dev.

All of the people I see, in web forums ,crying about the new subscription based systems of Adobe & Autodesk can never show us any proof that they use these programs to make their primary living in an incorporated business where the software is vital.

Their Shrill opposition is entirely theoretical

and they are upset over "the principle"of the thing.

Yet  their actual lives are not affected in any tangible way by

what Adobe et al is doing.

"ability to lock you out of your IP investments which are infrastructural. Again, some places, this seems to be okay."

Forgive me sir but you get "locked out of your IP investments"

all the time by simple advances in software and hardware.

The examples are to numerous to mention but here is a "teachable moment" for you:
 DAZ GENESIS!!.

By your Logic, any merchant making pre -genesis poser content

has now suffered a "serious business ramification"

by being forced to adopt Daz's business model of content  creation... or

Languish in the wasteland of the non genesis content  market not sure which third party female figure hopeful  will save his little virtual doll clothing& prop business. 

"The US has historically been rather tolerant of that, other places less so. But then, my feeling is that Adobe should NEVER have been able to acquire Macromedia - simply selective products of Macromedia, like Flash (which is what they wanted anyway)."

Why not ????

Show me one case where their was actual Harm to THE GENERAL PUBLIC by Adobe's Aquiring of Flash.

And yes I Understand the need for U.S. Anti trust laws that protect the public from the tyranny of monopolists who could control our fundamental human services Like water,Power etc.

But for all the bloody, online caterwalling about Adobe/flash it turned out that 

the advent of mobile touch screen internet devices made

flash and its "mouse over" based interaction somewhat moot

hence HTML5 etc. 

"Ive always been content to upgrade when an upgrade includes either a feature I need or solves a compatibility problem. My contentment, much like the contentment of other users of mature products, is one of the top reasons why software companies are moving to this new model. When software is first made available and in high demand, you sell a lot of full licenses. Then as the market gets "full" of your offerings, your revenue shifts over to upgrade revenue. But then as the market matures, you end up competing against previous versions of products you've made - in some cases it being self inflicted if you've instead of adding new features to existing products, instead added those features to brand new products. That's where Adobe is. That's where Microsoft is on Windows and Office..

No argument with this.^

which is exactly why I, ( as a freelancer), ran poser 6 for so long

and still run Adobe CS3

After effects CS3

Maxon Cinema4D Studio 11.5

I have already decided not to upgrade my newly purchased

Iclone 5.5  to version 6 as the new bridge to indigo is the only new feature 

and does not interest me as I have my own rendering pipeline in place.

Still waiting ...

Post deleted for personal attacks.

Drop it Pumeco. The issue has been explained to you why some of us prefer the subscription model. You are free to use whatever software you choose and you can disagree with software all you like but personal attacks will not be tolerated in these discussions. 

There was no "personal attack" - I said if.

And you have explained nothing, neither you, or Moriador, or Wolf have answered the ultra-simple question that was put to you.  I'm not asking you whether subscription models work, cause like I said, I actually like the idea when it's done in a fair manner (Allegorithmic for example).  So what I'm asking you, is why you think Method 2 (the greedy Adobe method) is better than Method 1 (the fair Allegorithmic method).

Why do you prefer the Adobe method that doesn't earn you a permanent licence over the one Allegorithmic uses, that does earn you a permanent licence?

Can't make the question any clearer than that, Shane, you create these conflicts by saying stuff and then avoiding the invevatable questions that are sure to come about by what you say.  When you say stuff like you prefer the Adobe policy and you hope the rest do the same, it's obvious you're gonna get some flak when you're seen to be favouring corporate greed over the good of your fellow public.

How about we pack content in a .exe and no matter what button ya click to un pack it ,it's the wrong button.

outlook is driving me crazy cause I hit the wrong button.

no it wouldn't stop piracy but it would drive the pirates crazy.

@RorrKonn
That sounds similar to what's going on with YouTube lately - lol

I've noticed that media companies have been hiring people to upload fake movies, it's obvious the media companies are doing it because they're the only ones who think they'll benefit from doing it.  They have it wrong of course, cause people tend not to buy stuff unless they have an idea of what it's about.  I very rarely buy a movie unless I've seen at least some of it to get an idea of what it's like, so every film I've not been able to see, has simply cost them a genuine sale.

It's like what they do to people's videos, they have the sound removed, a clear indication of how backward the media companies actually are, cause obviously, if a song cannot be heard, you're not going to know about that song so there is absolutely no chance of a sale.  On the other hand, if the song hadn't been silenced, they might or might not have made a sale.

Point is, them possibly making a sale is a lot better than them having no chance of making a sale due to us not knowing the song even exists!
Just another example of corporate greed that has reached a level so profound, they've actually started thinking backward :-D

Quick RorrKonn start an OT thread about weird erotic fantasy art to distract pumeco from this overly argumentative thread! With the stipulation that every post contains the following items:  :)  and  ;).

Sorry pumeco, in this instance I have to agree with Shane about Adobe (as I agreed with his assessment of the importance of Jackson Pollock in another notoriously deleted thread). Also, I agree with Wolf about Photoshop being the best/ industry standard image editor out there, and in terms of digital art media overall photoshop is the top piece of software, bar none.

I think that Adobe's subscription move was a good one, no argument.

Yay! I have off from work today/tonight...(Fires up Photoshop, Poser, Wings3d, and ZBrush).

Nevermind trying to sway me with erotic threads, but you should go ahead and tempt me if you want :-P

Like I said, I like the idea of subscriptions, I'm merely wanting to know why Adobe's policy of never giving you a permanent licence is better than Allegorithmics policy of giving you one once you covered the cost of one in subscription fees.

That's all I'm asking, and there is nothing wrong with the question I'm asking :-D

BTW, I get that Shane feels he needs the Adobe thing to do what he needs to do, and that's fine of course, he should do whatever he must.
That's not what I have an issue with, it was the favouring of corporate greed over much fairer policies that I have an issue with!

Wonder if anyone ever used :-P as a forum name?

To answer your above question, pumeco...

Because life is not fair. And this cannot be argued with.

I already explained to you why I prefer it, in two other posts. It saves me money over time and I get a better deal for the money I spend, #1. It helps make piracy more difficult, #2. It makes industry standard software much more affordable to low-income artists trying to make it in an already highly competitive industry #3. (Sure, they could use pirated software, and many of them likely do, but when they're found out, it's not a good day for them or their reputations). Having a license that will be useless in a couple of years is pointless to me. Why do I care about a license? So I can have some extremely expensive shiny drink coasters sitting on my desk in 5 years? I'd much rather pay less every year and always have the software up to date and available to me where ever I am. $3,000 up front is not affordable to me. $50 a month with constant updates is very affordable to me. For the same $3,000 I would have spent on CS6, I get 5 years of "always on" software, 5 years worth of updates, 5 years worth of cloud storage and web hosting, should I choose to use it. Or I can go spend $3,000 one time and have about a year or two worth of viable use out of the software before I have to drop another $1200 to $1500 for upgrades for the entire suite  - or be stuck with out-dated software - the way it used to work. The way most software works. Personally I think Adobe is being much more generous with their pricing structure than they ever used to be, and apparently some 3 - 4million other users feel about the same way or they wouldn't be paying for the service.  I don't care about having a license. My subscription fee is my license, and I can turn it on and off at will. If I want to pay month to month, it will cost me more per month, but I'm not strapped into anything, so if I can't afford it this month, or just don't want to pay for it because I won't be using it then I can turn it off, just like cable tv or a magazine subscription - where you pick up the phone and say 'hey, not gonna be here this month, so suspend my service til I get back'.

*edited for repetition

**Yes, I could choose to use other, inferior software, and make my work twice as difficult and take twice as long. 

That doesn't answer the question, sorry.

I'd rather not have a permanent licence to Photoshop through subscription than have a permanent licence to Photoshop through subscription, because ...
Basically, all I'm asking, is for you to complete that line in a single sentence.

I'm not asking you to compare products (I'm not knocking Photoshop), I'm asking you to compare policies.  I'm sorry Shane but you know very well why you don't want to answer it, and you know very well that I know why you don't want to answer it.  I could go on trying to get it out of you, but I suppose at this stage it wouldn't prove anything more to onlookers than constantly avoiding the question has already done anyway.

No need to answer the question above now, because continuously avoiding it has effectively done that for you.

Good luck with it, I just hope you don't ever find yourself needing it when the subscription fees become epic and your income becomes impossible.  If or when that happens, your Photoshop will disappear in a cloud of smoke, and they couldn't care less how much cash you fed them for it - you're left with nothing.

I've answered it 3 times now. I don't know what part of what I said in those 3 different posts that you don't understand. 

Buying a license is more expensive up front and provides you with no access to future upgrades without paying more. Even on a monthly payment plan - which is all that Allegorithmic is offering, it's not a subscription - you still aren't getting upgrades without paying more. 

The subscription plan is cheaper and provides you with constant updates. You never have to worry about your software being outdated and it doesnt' cost a small fortune to upgrade. You're paying for those upgrades through your subscription. 

A one time license to the CS suite is $3,000. That does not include updates. It's $3,000 as-is. And next year, if you want to upgrade (pretending they were still upgrading CS for sake of argument), it would be an additional $1200 to $1500, and that would go on perpetually.

With a subscription, that same $3000 gets you 5 years worth of the use of that software at their current rates, including all upgrades. Based on the old model, in 5 years time you would have paid $3,000 initially, and approximately $1200 to $1500 every 12 to 18 months if you intend on staying current, putting your grand total at the end of that 5 year period somewhere around $6,000 to $8,000.

Assuming their fees will go up exponentially is just baseless fear-mongering to make them sound greedy. So far their subscription fees have only DECREASED since the release of CC. 

And a subscription model to any software, makes pirating that software much more difficult. 

I can't make it any clearer than that. 

If you don't like that model, that's fine. No one is forcing you to use it. But the idea that they're a greed machine is your opinion. My opinion is that their current model is more favorable and more affordable to more people than it ever used to be. 

I'd rather not have a permanent licence to Photoshop through subscription than have a permanent licence to Photoshop through subscription, because ...
Basically, all I'm asking, is for you to complete that line in a single sentence.

I'm not asking you to compare products (I'm not knocking Photoshop), I'm asking you to compare policies.  I'm sorry Shane but you know very well why you don't want to answer it, and you know very well that I know why you don't want to answer it.  I could go on trying to get it out of you, but I suppose at this stage it wouldn't prove anything more to onlookers than constantly avoiding the question has already done anyway.

No need to answer the question above now, because continuously avoiding it has effectively done that for you.

Good luck with it, I just hope you don't ever find yourself needing it when the subscription fees become epic and your income becomes impossible.  If or when that happens, your Photoshop will disappear in a cloud of smoke, and they couldn't care less how much cash you fed them for it - you're left with nothing.

pumeco,

If someone gives you an answer, and it is incomplete or not to your satisfaction. Get over it.

Personal choice is just that. Personal.

You can hate Adobe's business model all you want, most of us don't really care that you do. It is your personal choice.

Others have different choices, again, get over it...

Pumeco, here's my answer: Reread my posts. There's absolutely no reason to repeat what I already said only to have you repeat what you already said. If you don't find the answer persuasive, I don't care. Your opinions on these matters are simply not important to me in any way. The fact that the forum is dying and good members are leaving because the only active threads are repetitious circuses full of personal attacks and insults over topics that have already been done to bloody death does -- or did -- matter to me. 

But, as the millennials are so found of saying,... whatevs.

Like I said, the sentence is there, highlighted in red to help you focus, waiting to be completed and you can't complete it, none of you can.  You're insulting people's intelligence by suggesting you answered it, when it's clear you have not.

You're discussing this with me, not one of the gullible idiot brigade, and I'm well aware of the politician-style method of answering you're using.  All three of you have proven time and time again that you're incapable of answering exactly what you have been asked.  Fact is, it's absolutely impossible for a system that doesn't earn you a permanent licence, to be better or fairer than one that does, it's as simple as that.

BOTH are subscription models, one is perfectly fair and acceptable, the other is the polar opposite and ought to be illegal.

Fair enough. 

Now drop it before I hit you with a forum disruption. 

Quite happy to drop it now.

Any ways being 8192x8192 was the biggest 3D map ,never thought any larger. 

MS5 will do 30,000 x 30,000. if I go 40,000 x 40,000 I get a memory warning.

in what ever app u use and would be helpful if ya say which app photoshop,corel paint etc etc.

what size do you all paint in ? what size do you all get a warning ? 

I'm learning about printing n ppi's n all is why I'm asking.

" They have the ability to force their customers onto a new business model from the previous business model as a result of that. It is an unfair advantage."

How is this an "It is an unfair advantage"???

I wonder how many of the people who rail

in online forums against the evils of companies like Autodesk

and Adobe have ever had an actual job in a real  U.S./Western business.

I'd like to respond from a "business owner's" perspective. I have owned an incorporated manufacturing company that produced technical products and have dealt frequently with complex business issues relating to concerns in my industry. There's a very simple principle that I have learned and most business people will tell you: When your business becomes dependent upon factors that the business does not control, risk is dramatically increased.

There are always certain "conveniences" that businesses and owners can take advantage of. Tax dodging using loopholes in corporate tax law is never a primary concern, but asset ownership, corporate-wise, may be and certain durable goods, real estate, equipment and other asset considerations may be an addressable issue that, given certain regulations, could produce opportunities for savings and risk/liability reduction.

But, these are specific issues, not industry-wide concerns. They're to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

However, whenever a company becomes beholden to third-parties and becomes reliant on them for key operations, decision making capability is taken from those most intimately concerned with it and placed in the hands of others that, by definition, have no intrinsic interest in the welfare of the company. This is basic "Business Reality 101" that is not always taught in "buzziness skool" and is even not always addressed in MBA programs. An example of this that anyone should be able to understand is "What if" the Federal Government changed regulations dealing with a certain business market? Everyone in that market, relying on the previous regulations, would be effected. "What if" a software manufacturer changed the specifications for their software? Everyone reliant on it would, in turn, be forced to change their own operations/work in some way.

I don't hate anyone, don't really care too much about subscription models in software and am, now, only barely effected by it. However, one must understand that this is a relatively "new" dynamic. While there are anologues with tangible and durable property and services, these anologues are not broadly comparable, since we're also dealing with a relatively new medium.

However, I will say that taking certain issues and placing them upon the end-user, like end-user subscription models for non-business use, is, perhaps, moving certain sorts of products outside of the reach of common consumers. Businesses may prefer this sort of model because it precludes the necessity for site-licenses, which can be expensive, and certain manufacturers have made allowances for businesses in order to make their product desirable for them, since they're large consumers and industry-drivers.

But, it's the "little guy" that gets screwed. Largely, that's "us." We don't get tax considerations, mostly, for our continued payments to a third-party. I, for instance, wouldn't get tax considerations by paying a monthly fee to Autodesk, since it's just a hobby for me. However, I would get tax considerations for paying for a Microsoft Office subscription, since I'm also a writer.

The ones most damaged by creative software subscription models are the "hobbyists." And, since in this medium, hobbyists have extreme impact on the sort of content produced and innovations that are made within it, a subsciption model for end-users isn't a desirable thing. And, it wouldn't be desirable in any industry that had end-users that made such creative impact.

PS - I have no interest in whatever discussion you may be having with others in the thread. I'm just addressing the issues you raised in your above post. While they may be warranted in certain situations, they aren't, necessarily, broadly relevant, relating to general interests here. That's just my opinion, though, and everyone's got one.. :)

Morkonan Wrote:
But, it's the "little guy" that gets screwed. Largely, that's "us."

This is why, when I see people like Moriador and Shane siding with corporate greed-machines, I find the behaviour unbearably repulsive.
Anyway, it was nice to hear an opinion from someone who actually runs a business.

How did we get from Bollywood's rather empty threat to the overheated debate on whether or not Adobe's current subscription method is "fair"?  Must have missed it...

Through the natural flow of conversation, one thing leads to another on a forum, just as it does in a face to face conversation.

I really, really object to locked threads. But I'm tired of reading pointless insults. If I want that sort of conversation, I'll go hang out with 1st graders. We already did the subscription model topic to death.. Please lock the thread, Shane.