Please pardon me if I have the terminology wrong......I can't find any info on this but someone mentioned to me that it's rumored to be keylocked (or whatever it's called) where you can't install it on more than 1 computer...is this true and does that mean I won't be able to install it on my Laptop too?

according to Curious labs poser5 manual you can legally put it on both machines as long as only one person uses poser5 at a time. Use it like a book.

Oh geez...last week (no, not last week, about 12 days ago) I had Poser 4 open in my desktop working on an image and also open in my Laptop working on a scene that was too big and slow for my desktop to open....so I can't do that anymore with P5....I don't get it, if my computers are not connected to the internet or to each other, how can my laptop know that I have P5 open on my desktop or visa versa...

Then in that case it would be on the honor system. However,

I must say ... since network rendering is not being provided with this release (like most 3D apps, even Bryce now, have) I think working on a scene on one computer while another renders an animation (or scene) is not an unreasonable request. However, unforunately, it appears that if your computers are networked (which all of mine are) you won't be able to do this.

Regards,
Tim

It can't - it depends on your honesty not to use the same license on different computers that are "electrically" separated.

I was wondering how long it'll take until someone asks this question. What you refer to is usually called "virtual dongle" or (to use a more professional term) "activation key".
It was once supposed to be introduced with the first ProPack bugfix release, which caused a firestorm and eventually was withdrawn a couple of weeks later.

Because of that experience I would assume that it won't come back "through the backdoor" again, so if the manual doesn't state clearly that you need an activation key, it is probably safe to say that it doesn't.
However, an assumption is an assumption is an assumption (Gertrude Stein :-)

Even the suggested PPP protection would have allowed to install on 3 computers, so if anybody know for sure about P5, I'd appreciate to get the information.

cross-reply with timoteo1... I'm referring to Dizzie's last post :-)

But as long as only one person is using one copy, I don't see it should be a moral problem to use it on more than one machine. I'm another laptop user, but I only use the laptop for Poser when away from home.

Zone Alarm can be and is used by many to block Poser 4.03 attempts to check your PC and Network for other instances of Poser. It may work similarly for P5. This is usefull in the Mobile/Desktop situation or Internet PC/Poser Workstation network or if you have 2 instalations of Poser on 2 different drives on the one machine i.e. working on two seperate projects at the one time. Regards STORM

Curious Labs said in another string that P5 will need an activation code, or more accurately will need a "response code" to a "challenge code" that will be generated when you install. Frankly, it's one more mark against P5 and another reason I may not upgrade. OK, I pay you $200 for this program, and then I have to ask your permission to use it? The hell?

The response and challenge always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Though the reasons may not apply to CL as much as other small companies using this method. Essentially it goes like this: I install the program and it generates a new code and needs a new response. I contact the company and get the proper response. 4 years later I buy a new computer as my old one died. I re-install and it generates a new challenge code which I need a response for. The company went out of business so therefore my application is now useless. This now leaves to to simply hacking the application and vowing to never again use software that uses this type of protection, or if I do, hell just hack it to begin with, forget the company. Protection schemes like this should always be built with a crisis plan in mind, but companies rarely ever think they will be out of business. Any company that does this should build the patch with the application to disable this feature. Release this patch only in a crisis situation as when the company folds. Hoprfully this would never happen but it is always a possibility.

Interesting thoughts, KattMan. Perhaps Renderosity could serve as the designated 'executor of the estate' in case CL dies. Something similar has happened at various times in the auto industry. For instance, when Studebaker folded in 1966, a group of former employees set up a business to supply owners and collectors with parts, and inherited enough of the company's tooling to continue making new parts when needed.

That's one of my fears Kattman.....after my last reformat, I decided to see about upgrades for several programs I use alot and they ended up being "gone, no more, caput"....there's NO WAY I'm going to spend several hundred dollars for a program that I have to get permission from the company before I can use it....every time I have to reinstall it or put it on my laptop...this just SUX.....

Since probably some hacker will defeat the copy protection anyway, this scheme raises the interesting moral question as to whether it acceptable to pay for a legit copy and then download a hacked version to save yourself problems when hardware upgrade time rolls around?

It's really a problem. But i just think, if the company was disappared, that means the copyright owner disappare, so if someone use some crack file to hack that program, is this breaking the law?

What makes you think Renderosity will be here? I don't want my ability to use a program I paid for to be in the hands of another company that may go belly up as well. I for one am NOT going to worry about it. Not that I'm rich, but I just don't have the energy to worry about something we aren't even sure they are implementing. Let's make sure they are doing the deed BEFORE we hang them. Someone from CL should look in and answer these questions before this thread gets totally out of hand. Marque

On the network rendering issue: since FireFly is a bucket render (from the man), they should be able to distribute each tile of a image across a network. Which means that network rendering would speed up the process of rendering a single image. So, people who don't animate should want this also. I mainly use max to render animation, but this would be a nice feature to have in Poser.

Odd that reference to bucket rendering. I picked it up from the manual, but it seems somewhat inconsistent with the Reyes algorithm which usually renders one object at a time. Bill

The moral problem is with these software developing pirates. It's like a record company telling a consumer you can only play the music CD you just bought on your home stereo, but you need to buy a separate copy if you want to play it on your car stereo or a movie studio saying you can only play a videotape or DVD on one player. And music CDs and videotapes don't cost $200-2000. Development costs? I doubt any software ever cost more than "Pearl Harbor" to develop.

Marque, We are SURE Poser5 is using this sort of protection scheme. The instructions for how to authorize P5 using the Challenge and Response code system is in the manual being distributed at CL's web site. [End direct to Marque] It does NOT say, however, whether there is a grace period in case you're unable to get a response code quickly, how many times you may request a response code before CL challenges your legitimacy, or what types of computer system upgrades would requie a new response code. If I have a catastrophic computer failure and ask for 5 response codes in the period of 3 days, it's a pain in my butt if CL challenges my legitimacy as a user, but a failure of their protection scheme if they do NOT challenge me. If they aren't going to ever demand proof that we're valid owners, then why bother making us ask them for a code to begin with?

Well, the point is mute. CL is using the tool. It is a done deal at this time. Just remember guys, when you buy software, YOU DO NOT OWN THE PROGRAM. You are buying a LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. That is why these companies can place limitations on the ability to resell the software. It is a fact of the business. Yes, there will be cracks out there that can be used to bypass the scheme. Yes, they are illegal, at least in the US. However, if it makes you feel better, download a crack, save it to disk, and keep it as a last case. I do not want to debate the ethicality (is that a word?) of this, but it is most likely your only recourse in the "what if" category. Oh yeah, regarding the person above who thought that when a company goes under that the copyright is no longer valid... That is completely and utterly wrong. If a company goes bankrupt, odds are good that one of the creditors will obtain ownership of the copyright, and can do with it as they want. If the company just goes out of business, teh copyright will most likely fall into the hands of the majority partner, owner, etc. who can do with it as they want. The copyright is still valid and enforceable. - Ray

"Just remember guys, when you buy software, YOU DO NOT OWN THE PROGRAM. You are buying a LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE." Ray, before I start, I want to make it clear that I am NOT singling you out. It's just that you've perfectly summed up why I don't like the response codes we've been talking about. I pay a good deal of money for a license to use the software, and yet I am still at another person's whim as to whether I CAN use it. If the company went under, I would still have the license and the right to use the software, but if I had to reinstall for some reason, I might not have the ability anymore. That is not right. I personally suspect that measures like this do more harm than the pirates themselves. Most, of the pirates would probably never by the program anyway, so the company would not get any money from them either way. However, these measures do chase away potential customers who would have bought the product otherwise. That is the exact and most major reason I have not upgraded to Windows XP. I doubt any of the PTBs will listen to this hypothetical, so I'll vote with my wallet.

The response code is in itself a major pain, but I hope that CL chose to leave the cydoor out of it. THey used this is Avatar Labs and it killed the floppy drives in a lot of computers that run Windows XP Pro. I speak from experience, it happened to my. The cydoor is, basically, a piece of software that sets itself up as hardware device, uses an IRQ, and must be present for the program to run. Unofrtunately, in XP Pro, the IRQ that it uses is the one assigned to the floppy drive. It was nasty. CL never provided a fix for it. Just pointed people to the manufacturer of Cydoor for the patch.

I'll vote with my wallet too. That is why I didn't upgrade my win2000 pro and microsoft office 97 to XP when MS introduced activation code. I would rather spend money on other 3D softwares to get the enhanced features in Poser6.

Responding to #23, if that is what you must do, then so be it. It all comes down to economics - of Money, time, whatever. CL is trying to find a way to protect its economic investment in the development of its products. It is obtrusive, yes. It is annoying yes. It penalizes the honest user, yes. BUT - it also thwarts the average "hacker/thief" - the regular person who would copy the software and pirate it. Yes, I know there will be cracks and patches for it available almost as soon as the program is released, and most of the hardcope warez-monkeys will have a copy immediately. That happens to all software regardless of value. But this will deter the average person who is not hooked up to all of the warez groups, etc. You are free to vote with your wallet, just as CL is free to put software protection in. That is a personal choice. In my mind, that can be limiting, as you may miss out on some great features at a great price. In this I am also referring to other apps, such as WinXP. With WinXP, Microsoft actually got many things right - including fantastic memory management. It is your loss. I understand your frustration, but I find the sulking attitude humorous (again, my opinion). This is just a hobby. Regarding the "cydoor". I guess most of you have not dealt with the "big boys" in the 3d world. Things like C-Dilla, hardware dongles, etc. Makes CL look like a cakewalk. - Ray

I do not own a copy of WinXP. That should tell you what I think of a response code. Bad stuff happens requiring reinstalls. I can't halt my life for a permission to use the softwear every time life happens!

Referring to #24. This is what I do all day: Local Hardware locks: 20/20 Design Lectra U4ia -each dongle must be licensed individually Datacad Predator Lightwave Network Dongles: MasterCAM Lathe MasterCam Mill MasterCam Wire FlexLM: GibbsCAM Unigraphics Arc/Info Catalog A few othere that I cant remember cuz the kids are waiting to leave and are driving me batty. =) The only savior I have at work is the unlimited licenses of Autodesk and Microosft Products that require only a serial number and no other copy protection. In short, I know all about the licensing headaches of these products at my employment, and I refuse to go through it at home too.

If CL goes bust, the copyright on P5 does NOT disappear. The receivers will take it over in the first instance.