I talk to a lawyer every friday. A couple weeks ago we talked about copyright and trademark that was obviously not related to this case. There were a couple things I took away from that conversation. Just because a contract exists does not make it binding. Most contracts even say that if part of the contract is found non binding, the rest of the contract remains in place and is enforceable. Why? Everyone has their own opinion, and that includes judges and juries. A contract may say you can not do something with a product you bought, but it is non binding, as the intended use of the product would logically lead one to assume that certain things would be done with the product. If you were to use the actual physical coded properties of any file, which would nearly require reverse engineering of the original products code, then that would be copyright violation. If, however, you use the knowledge of certain physical characteristics, and independently duplicate an original product without using any code of the original, this is a derivitive work and is normally allowed by the courts. The best defensive question is : How legal is it for a company to put restrictions on its products. I have downloaded lights and poses where the author put a restriction on the use of the files. I could simply read his attributes and duplicate the same myself. There is no copyright violation. The DAZ issue is like Microsoft saying we have to purchase electronic stamps to send email. I thought about the purchase of some of the DAZ products in the past and was turned off by the restrictions. I didn't want to think if it is okay to one thing, but not if I use another character. The best way for all of us to solve this problem is to vote with your money. Don't buy DAZ products. They will give up their restrictions or go out of business. That means DON'T download their FREE stuff either. I haven't, and won't, for the same reasons we all are talking about this. Just had to put in my two cents worth!