Krazik, The conjecture statement was for those who are not CL employees. Since not all employees identify themselves, it is difficult to state that something is conjecture for everyone except X, Y, and Z. I am sure you understand... Although I do seriously appreciate your effort and those of other CL employees on this, and presumably, other sites for getting "into the trenches" with the users, I still have not seen a fully detailed explaination of CL's challenge/response system that answers the majority of the issues that have been conjectured by the users or potential consumers. I have read the low-res version of the manual, which I only knew about by reading through the threads here, and I would suggest that the EULA appears to have been written very vaguely and can easily be misinterpreted depending upon the individuals' previous experience, etc. For instance, if I read correctly, even the mere mention of "reverse engineering" the product constitutes a violation of the EULA (ref: Page 12, Section G, final sentence) which is a flagrant disregard for First Amendment rights (granted, they were written stating that the government could not restrict speech, but they are widely interpreted in other scenarios as well) as well as serious legal, ethical, technical, and other discussion points. I would highly doubt if this clause would be enforceable anywhere in the "free world", and it further demonstrates - to me at least - the presumption of guilty before proven innocent mentality that these types of protections are supposedly developed to prohibit. I would suggest having some legal entity look over the bulk of the EULA and ensure that the wording properly reflects CL's intentions, as well as ensuring that those intentions themselves are legally binding before using this in a commercial setting; for CL's and the end users' benefit. There are many other questions that are raised by the EULA alone, disregarding any further discussion about the registration process. However, I would still like to see a publicly available official statement by CL or one of its designated officials as to the process and procedures under which new registrations must be obtained and some further clarification as to the process itself before committing any financial investment in the product. I am sure many other users, based off some of the discussion here, feel the same way and this type of disclosure, again, would only serve both CL and the consumers. I am not trying to nit-pick, but a complete understanding by both parties has to exist before any agreement can be considered legally binding. As of this moment, I would say that many potential customers do not have a complete understanding of the registration process. Due to the vague nature of the documentation, I would hate to see either CL or the consumer suffer due to any misconceptions or misunderstandings.