"Actually, one of the next steps is downloading the software to whatever computer your at and paying a rental fee to use it." - Hoo boy! In a pig's eye. Yes, thankfully there are some very good freeware and open-source applications to be had out there, in the face of such hooey. Netherworks - bleeding-heart Liberal, smoker, and consumer.

...They live in denial. They'll never admit their(sic) doing something wrong. Yes, using a cracked program even if you have a legitimate copy is probably illegal. I assume that by "wrong" you mean illegal otherwise you are once again stating opinion only. But illegal is not necessarily the same thing as unethical. Laws are theoretically enacted to protect us from unfair harm or loss. So tell me... if I use a cracked version of a program for which I own a legitimate license how has the publisher been harmed? What monies have they lost? In just what possible imaginable way is their livelihood or continued survival threatened? Any student of law would probably die of old age if trying to enumerate all the laws that have been subsequently overturned, modified or repealed. These laws are tested daily in our courts. Some survive- some do not. This is why the concept of precedence is so vital to our legal system. These days, merely to say something is illegal without explanation/justification is not really saying very much. - Jack

I resent being called a porographer because I wish to put frames together and use it to tell a story using motion ; something Poser was made to do. Shonner, you have said your piece. You will buy the program as is, are happy with it, suits your needs and think that everyone else should shut up and don't buy the program if they aren't happy. We have heard you. Unless you plan on buying all remaining copies of P5, could you stop insulting people who have different needs than you do.

A quick question about a single user running Poser on two machines at the same time. What is the CL view on this? If P5 animation renders take many hours to complete then it means that whilst the software is working I am not. Result:- a tendency not to use Poser to it's full capacity. Solutions:- 1) Buy two copies of Poser 5. Result: CL is very happy. My bank manager is not! 2) CL allows me to run Poser on two machines at the same time. Result: I am very happy. CL keeps a dedicated Poser user who will certainly upgrade again when the time comes. So what does CL have to say on this issue?

Sorry Anthony got news for you, if going by the Avatar Lab is any example, reformatting the hard drive does require re-activation, since that is exactly what happened, I reformatted my harddrive with Avatar Lab on it, and after reinstalling, the challenge code was new, and the attempt to re-register it, was greeted with the response this product is already registered, and cannot be registered again. Now I simply have had neither the time or patience to get into the rest of it, an email marathon to re-activate it. The end result, was that formatting left me with an unuseable Avatar Lab, and by appearances, much more significant steps involved to re-activate it. Not something in my opinion paying customers should be subjected to.

That is what I want to know isaac!

J Hoagland, yup you are legal, with most of the time, some funtionality ripped from the app. that's why the warez apps are not worth using. buy the app, download the keygen crack, you can always use the bought legal version, if you need to re-install, the keygen will give you what you need to use app. the cracked version would have sections the hackers deem useless ripped out.

Shonner, try to keep things constructive, nothing you have said up to this point has helped CL. If Steve, Anthony or any of the other good people at CL tried to argue their case like you have there would most certainly never be a poser 6.

OK! I'm glad to hear how this works. My hardwear changes constantly and I can't live my life at someone elses convenience. When a USB-dongle version becomes available I'll buy it and pay $100 more for it. Until then my wallet remains closed. I do not own WinXP for the same reasons.

That's an interesting legal question about keygen. You have bought the software, so you have a legal version. You install it in the numbers of machines allowed. You don't modify the software. So if you use keygens you don't do anything "legally" wrong ??????

My question is why reactivation? Why not do something similar to what 3ds Max 4 and 5 have used. From what I can tell this has been included because CL doesn't trust its paying customers to use the product on one computer at a time. Or if they use it on more than one computer they want to know about it. CL - are you becoming Microsoft in your old age? WiNC

I know you are all upset, confused, frustrated and fighting about this and desperately want an answer. Really quick..It is a 3 day weekend and NONE of are working. Nosfiratu (anthony) and I will both probably be off the forums all weekend spending time with our families. Kupa is also away for the weekend, the poor man needs to spend some time with his family away from the office. Anthony posted that thread trying to do service to the community and clear something up...but it seems at this point it has gone above and beyond all of us and we obviously need to come in here and straighten some stuff out. PLEASE, as much as I can beg...let this issue sit until Tuesday when we are all back in the office and can get you clear answers. There is so much heresay and misinformation in this thread it is out of control and I am not the person to clear it up...but I cannot watch this get any further out of control. Please...we will get you answers...don't tear us apart for the next 3 days when we can't clear things up. Thank you... (I will NOT be checking this thread of these forums anymore until Tuesday morning...I desperately need family time myself...) Patience...a wonderful virtue...and since Poser 5 isn't even here yet...PLEASSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE Have patience... tori

"Actually, one of the next steps is downloading the software to whatever computer your at and paying a rental fee to use it." - Hoo boy! In a pig's eye. If you think about it this may not be a bad idea if a suitable billing mechanism and price was established. Imagine that you download the program to your system once. If the program is updated your installation will be automatically, with your permission, patched. You would be charged for each session and it would be time limited, maybe 2-4 hours. Let's assume a per session charge of ten cents. If run four times a day, five days a week over a three year period this would cost you about the same as buying P5 at $329. This has several advantages for the user: 1. you can spread your financial investment over an extended period of time. 2. if you discover that the program is not really very useful to you, or your needs change, your monetary loss is minimal, if any. 3. if you need a program for just one or two projects it will not cost as much as an outright purchase 4. it is an inexpensive means to "test drive" a program without any limitations or time limit 5. you will always be running the current version- no need to upgrade For the publisher: 1. a continual cashflow 2. would be able to "sell" to people who can not afford a cash layout of several hundred but can afford $20 a month 3. generate a modest income from those who like to play with a program to see what it is all about but will never really otherwise use or buy it. 4. "sell" to people who only need it once in a while 5. possible piracy reduction. Who would steal just for pennies a day? There are probably many other advantages as well for both sides. Of course, we need a payment system where the transaction cost is not more than the fee charge. Perhaps one could buy "blocks of time". If there are sufficient transactions this is undoubtably possible. I could go for something like this and suspect that the legitimate user base would be much larger. This seems to make some sense so will probably never happen. - Jack

Oh look Questor changes hardwear as often as I do. My expirenceis that Hardwear is far from reliable enoph for these kinds of security sceems at this time.

Yes, Jack it might be worth deeper thought :) To me, it has that little annoying nickle-and-dime panging. Maybe it would be a good "option" if choices were given. As for breaking it up into a monthly fee - you could do that with a credit card already (but I know how nasty those little buggers are - mine are in pieces somewhere).

Jeezzzz....

Since hardly anyone will bother to read this far into the thread, I won't go through a detailed deconstruction of the illogic that oozes from a certain percentage of the membership here on security and related issues every time they are raised. But a few things should be noted. [Although I should not have to note this, I will state at the outset that I have never even met a CL employee, let alone been one.] What I will point out is that CL is far, far, far more responsive to the opinions, desires and outright whims of its customer base than MS, or just about any software company you would like to name. The fact that Mr. Hernandez posts messages here like the head msg in this thread, undoubtedly knowing what would follow, is indisputable proof of this point. I have no illusion that Mr. Hernandez, or Mr. Cooper, or anyone else from CL does so out of pure altruism. But their near-masochistic willingness to air these issues in forums like this does say something about their business savvy and their business ethics. I think that CL does treat its customers well, and does inform them of CL's problems. Unfortunately, there is always going to be a vocal (but probably fringe) segment that will complain unless CL gives their product away for free, and has kupa install it personally. And suggesting that CL is like Enron or Worldcom is not only unfair, it is probably libel. I will also point out that CL's costs of doing business are our costs. This is basic economics. When you buy something at a store, you are indeed (as at least one person above figured out) paying extra to cover the cost of shoplifting. BTW, many stores have security cameras; are the people who are going to avoid P5 also avoiding stores which treat them like suspects in this way? The lock analogy: Yes, the dedicated warezer will probably crack P5, just as the pro thief can bypass the lock on your door. Yet I wonder how many of the folks who claim they won't license P5 have locks on their homes or cars...and use them. Maybe they tell realtors or landlords or car dealers that they will not buy or rent or lease a place or car that has gasp locks, but I doubt it. Finally, if you search the forum, I believe you'll find that network rendering is "on the horizon" for P5... Bravo to JDK, Virus, Chris and the others here who seem to have a keener grip on reality.

PS: Isn't everyone here paying a monthly fee for internet service?

The thought that a warez user will have an easier time installing Poser 5 than us legitimate users is true. A car thief doesn't have to pay for his car, honest car owners make monthly payments. Life isn't fair sometimes. EITHER BUY THE SOFTWARE OR DON'T!!!! Just shut up about it already! Holy Cow!!!!

I don't think I can even upgrade, don't want to attempt it. It states in a thread somewhere here at Renderosity, that Poser 5 is not supported for Windows NT. I use Windows NT, mainly because it does not crash continually like other windows products. Have used it for years and don't want to change operating systems and have to install tons of software all over again. Do I want to spend $200 to upgrade and then find out that the product will not work at all on my computer and then go through some kind of hassle with a company like this.. I doubt it.. I can't afford a new operating system on top of the upgrade. I would have to build another computer just for Poser 5.. Doubt this will happen in the near future.

As someone said earlier, "locks were made to keep honest people honest." Let's quit whining and hope CL decides to ship P5 early, like next week, so we can get it soon. BTW, I guarantee 98% of the whiners will have Poser 5, eventually. God bless, Ben

"Actually, one of the next steps is downloading the software to whatever computer your at and paying a rental fee to use it." (and) "This has several advantages for the user:" (etc...) You forgot one other "advantages" to that online software scheme there, and it's one that's already being used to the hilt. Pop-up and/or windowed ADVERTISING all over the applications that you're trying to get WORK done with! Don't try to tell me that it won't be like that. You know damn good and well that it will. Golly. Can hardly wait for that.

...You forgot one other "advantages" to that online software scheme there, and it's one that's already being used to the hilt. Pop-up and/or windowed ADVERTISING all over the applications that you're trying to get WORK done with! I know this happens with "free" software. But I'm talking about "rental" software. Are you saying that something similar to the scheme I blue-skyed already exists? I'd love to take a look at it. - Jack

To those of you who say this scheme will stop "casual" piracy, you are right. It will probably stop some. But it's gotten much easier lately for the "casual" computer user to acquire warezed software than it used to be. And it keeps getting easier. And not all warez is ripped. Any deterance by this might well be offset by the people who would have bought it, but will now seek alternative methods to get it. To those who say it's no big deal: okay, so maybe it isn't. But look at it this way...to quote a CL employee, "Curious has utilized a third party that has a staff of scientists that stay on top of these issues and have tools that have a long running history of doing their job." I wonder how much that cost? I wonder if the money would have been better spent on network rendering? Or multi-processor support? Or better magnets? Or improved animation tools? The list could go on an on. What would you rather have? One of these features/improvements? Or a whiz-bang copy protection scheme (that won't work)?

Hopefully, on Tuesday CL will have a good answer for that, too. After all, that't what people will be paying for, along with Poser 5.

Hey glassylady - just for your information, Microsoft has already announced that it will not continue to support NT. I'm not sure if this support will end this year or not - but it will end. So... you'll be able to run your applications you've got for now, but soon you'll have to upgrade to something because new programs that you may want won't be running on NT. Like many (if not most) programs now won't run on Windows 3.1. Good luck.

...I wonder how much that cost? [copy protection] Actually, I think that CL's production costs or methods are none of our business. All I'm interested in is how my use of P5 will be affected by this protection scheme. I'm not even really complaining about it. I'm just stating what it will take for me to buy P5. I would think that is something a publisher would like to know. - Jack

To those people who say this is just whining - it isn't. This is a issue which needs to be resolved... and to those that say 98% of us whiners will buy Poser 5 anyway. I can swear right now that if Poser 5 uses this security messure I will not be buying Poser 5... and the money I'm saving will go towards another software product that is a lot more conciderate towards its users. (Yes they may have been in the past - however if this type of protection is introduced, they won't be in the future.) WiNC

Whew! Gee, I take off one day and traipse downtown to Renderosity-Con (where I met Valendar handing out leaflets) and look what happens (grin). Took me nearly an hour to read and digest. The business people at CL, IMHO, have analyzed the situation and obviously made a decision that assumes/predicts the number of people who will not buy P5 due to the security messures will be LESS than the number of copies warez'ed (i.e., lost sales) without the scheme. I think it's that simple. Pure business. It's their right and duty as they struggle for a profitable company. Me? I don't like it. Don't like anything like that. But, like a lot of other things in life I put up with, I'll probably put up with that. I'll probably buy P5 (and still be just as unable to "make" art as I am now...hehe). I don't seem to have to format my HDs as much as a lot of other people so I don't think I'll have much of a problem. I don't have a desktop AND a laptop, but I will install a copy @ work and @ home (where I follow the intent of the licensing agreement, though not strictly). I certainly won't be using it at the same time (and NO one @ work will be able to use it while I am at home...they are even dumber than I am about that kind of stuff). If I DO run into problems and it somehow gets de-activated and turns into a re-curring nightmare, I'll step a bit outside of the law and find a "keyless" copy somewhere and install it instead. Like someone stated above, while technically against the law, CL is not out any money since I purchased a legal copy...and I believe that is their main concern. I certainly wouldn't worry about them "coming after" me for it. And I would NEVER give any software away to anyone. As to the annimation rendering times and running on 2 machines at the same time? I think CL needs to address that. I wonder if people who need that ability would consider it worth ponying up an extra $50 (give or take) for some sort of additional "simultaneous rendering" license. Or if CL can produce a free "rendering" utility that does only that. And, though not really an imminent worry, the remarks about any company going out of business is of some concern. It'd be nice if CL had a little utility to send every legal owner to "turn off" the security measures in the event they DO go under. As to "renting" software in the future? I believe that is the way MS (who drags the rest of the software people around by their digital nose) is heading. I'd hate to see it. I'd hate to wait for the overhead of paying and logging my time and fetching latest fixes and such over a dial-up connection each time I used a product of that type. It also leaves the people who have PCs in a standalone mode without a solution. If the major software companys DO resort to that method, I think they will lose out in the long run. I think it also sets the table for an upstart smaller company to grab some customers who want to pay once and use the software as much as they like. But, hey, what do I know? (smile) But I can tell you where I'll be sitting (or standing) tomorrow @ 10 am...in the P5 show and tell @ Renderosity-con. So, off to bed for me. PS: I think I saw Syyd there, too. Gotta go make sure!

I think if a single copy of Poser is installed on multiple computers and used by several people then CL deserves adddtional money via multiple licensing. But if someone installs it and uses it simultaneously on several computers for their use only I see no reason to pay extra. If I want to do a character setup on one box while doing a render on another why should I pay extra? After all, I bought Poser so I could use it, not just to keep my computers happy. So what if I, not someone else, use it on two computers at the same time? I think there would be a storm of objection if I suggested that someone who uses Poser 10 hours a week should pay more than someone who uses it only five hours a week. How is posing on one computer while rendering on another really any different? Tie the license to the user, not the computer. - Jack

I think this installation system sucks. It would be great if it would prevent piracy of Poser 5, but let's face it, this will end up as just another hassle for the legitmate user. It will be cracked readily by hackers, leaving us real users as the only ones who are put out. Maya 3.5 has a similar system, at that's exactly what happened. Reports of it being cracked hit newsgroups only days after its release. Maya's installer generates some kind of a Challege Code based on the MAC address of your computer's ethernet card. The same week Maya was released, a fake 'Maya License Generator" exe was already in circulation. Probably an inside job, or possibly a really clever hacker. Either way, it proves the point. Even software with USB dongles have been cracked. hackers find a way to replicate the dongle response with software, or circumvent the calls to the dongle altogether by editing the software at the assembly code level. it's been done for a decade, and no anti-piracy measures have ever been 100% successful (or even close). And the tip about installing on a P5 different hard drive? Anthony, you've probably already said too much. I'm guessing there's some geek somewhere already trying to figure out exactly what characteristic of the hard drive is being used as the seed to generate the challenge code... -Adam

I for one don't condone warez software, but I also don't condone strict limitations about regristation of software.
Once I plop down my hard earned bucks for it, it's my choice how I use it and install it, provided I don't infringe on copyright laws.

Until I can load P5 without CL strong arming me into contacting them to register it, no dice.
Also, rumor has it that P5 has GAIN hooks and other spyware integrated into it.
And you expect me to pay for that?

Get real CL...

I know a 16 year old kid who has hacked copies of almost every popular graphics program, including PPP, 3d Studio, Lightwave, PS, you name it. Obviously, the security measures taken by those companies were useless. I look at software registration and security codes like those teeny little brass locks on a childs piggy bank. Sure, it keeps it closed, but with a flick of your wrist you can tear it right off. It only keeps an honest man honest. I think it odd that CL wants so much info from me and yet it does not trust me to be that honest man. From personal experience with CL over registration numbers - Mr. Hernandez WILL have CL's lawyers on you before he even bothers to see if there is an error. I promise you if they get they're information screwed up concerning your serial number, as they did with me, you will be getting email from some boob who calls himself the "Pirate Killer". Thankfully there are cooler, more insightful heads at CL than Mr. Hernandez, and all was made well after I proved to them I was indeed a registered owner of Poser. All I can see is that if you make things more difficult for the people who desire to do the right thing, you take a great risk in losing their good faith. If you are going to be in the business of writing softeware, then, like Ironbear said, you have to accept as a consequence of the business that you are going to be pirated. It's truly sad that people feel they need to steal everything they can get their hands on, but that's the world.

God, did that really happen? With a CL employee? This "Pirate Killer" guy sounds like a zealous warez-nazi to me. Any customer service person harassing and accusing a legitimate customer in that manner should be fired on the spot. It should be obvious to anyone (company and customer) that that kind of response is intolerable. I'm surprised this guy didn't ask you to settle the matter with him personally, in cash. That's how Napoleonic law usually plays out in practice, right? -Adam

My 2 cents on this........ I think for the price I paid for P5 (got it dirt cheap! $129.00 for upgrade.) I don't care if I have to wait for someone from CL to show up and install it! They gave us a break on pricing, so I don't see a problem with the security. Don't throw any rotten tomatoes at me! That is just my opinion :)

While I don't condone CL's newest plan to thwart piracy, because as others have said in this thread, it probably won't work and will be more of a pain in the butt for the real users than the pirates, I doubt CL cares at this point what this community or anyone else thinks of their new scheme.

Many have said, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Okay, we belong to a community that has a great forum for Poser. How many people are going to buy this product in a store, or on a website because they saw a render from it somewhere without benefit of knowing the license? It's not exactly going to say on the box the provisions involved in registering it. Nor will there be a banner that says "NOW WITH ACTIVATION REQUIRED SOFTWARE PROTECTION TO PROTECT US FROM PIRATES!" It isn't going to happen and if it does, you got to know it will be in the finest print available.

Once they get to the point of finding this out, they've already opened the box and thus cannot take it back to the store they got it from. Will CL offer refunds for people that are unhappy with the scheme? I somehow doubt it. I also know that once you try to install it, very few actually quit at the EULA if they read it at all. So that theory of don't buy it if you don't like it doesn't really apply.

Curious Labs knows their market very well. I doubt they invested this money lightly. They know that really no matter what they do under the guise of "Otherwise we'll go out of business" will be accepted, maybe with grumbles, but accepted by those who make up their market. Just as many have said above that they still plan to buy Poser 5, despite this, and that is enough to make it chrystal clear for CL that their market is secure, despite the bad PR. They also know that those that don't buy it now, upon seeing the great renders, will probably give in eventually. After all, did you see Pentium 3 send Intel into bankruptcy because of the serial numbers? Nope, in the end, no one really cared as long as it was compatible enough to run what they wanted. Poser holds a place that few software companies reach. It has found a niche market that it does better than any other, and has created a community that is just short of addiction to support it. Not to give them ideas, but I'd be willing to bet that if they charged a monthly fee to use Poser 5, people would still use it. It has become the user's favorite tool, their artwork, their passion and CL knows that very well...

The whole software licensing deal and how it takes rights away from consumers, while giving more rights to the companies is beyond this thread, but I guess my point is, this is not surprising. It's also not surprising that people will accept it without question. It's human nature and CL can cash in on that...

My 2c. Will I buy Poser 5? Probably. Because when all is said and done, I want to use the new features and like most, I'd probably just wind up accepting it anyway not to be left behind...

PS: The above is not a statement against those that are speaking out. I think people should speak out and spread the word as loud as they can so that people can make informed decisions about the software they buy and not just raked in without knowing and if it changes CL's mind, then even better! After reading the post above about the "Pirate Killer", I'm not so sure I want to buy Poser 5. Don't need the hassle from some over-zealous person and I know really well how small companies can mess up accounting in these situations. What protections do we have from CL on how these numbers are to be stored and implemented in the future so that when we call to get our "new" codes that we can get them without being accused of everything under the sun??

"Liberals always think the that world owes them for some reason. It's always grab and take with them." FYI shonner, I am a card carrying liberal and proud of it. I do not however share some folks indignation at CL's protection scheme. Your attempt to categorize people is as inaccurate as it is offensive. I may not agree with what many are saying but condeming anyone who doesn't agree with the system is a tired tactic that we are seeing way too much of these days. Next, you'll be calling people terrorists. To those folks whose HDs are crashing on a daily basis, seriously and no disparagement intended, your first priority should be getting you system sorted out, not Poser 5's copy protection. In 20 years, I haven't had to do a crash recovery reformat as many times as some people say they have done in a week and I don't think that's just random good luck. You've got some serious hardware issues.

"And suggesting that CL is like Enron or Worldcom is not only unfair, it is probably libel." Kbade, get a grip. I'm the one who suggested it and I'll say it again. CL is a BUSINESS, just like Enron, Worldcomm and Nabisco (you left that one out from my original quote) -- they are in it to make a buck. PERIOD! Nothing wrong with that. But we still get to vote with our dollars. And if we don't like the way they conduct business, then we don't have to buy the product. They are not our buddies. Chatting us up in the forums is good BUSINESS. I for one, WILL buy P5. I don't really give a hoot about the protection scheme. I had no problem with Microsoft doing it for XP (which I use happily and willingly). What I WON'T do is behave as if Curious Labs and Daz are my "best friends" and that everything they do is okay. Sometimes in their quest for PROFIT, they'll overstep their boundaries JUST LIKE ENRON, WORLDCOMM AND OTHERS (there, I said it again!) and then they have to be put in their place by US the users. I salute everybody who has complained in this thread. It's our right as buyers to do so. And I DARE anybody to sue me for speaking out! Hah! -(name withheld to avoid lawsuit ;-)

You're paying for a "license to use" someone's software. You never own the software Bull. I'm buying a product, pure and simple. You can spout EULA all you want, but the fact remains that I have bought a product. How I use that product, what I do with it when I finish with it, how secure I choose to make it, should be completely up to me. This whole "license" thing is absurd: what's CL gonna do, fly to Calgary and take it away from me? I kinda doubt it. So let's kindly dismiss that little piece of smoke-and-mirrors, shall we? I dont really care what the EULA says: I have purchased a product, not a lease.

What I will point out is that CL is far, far, far more responsive to the opinions, desires and outright whims of its customer base than MS At the risk of sounding cynical, of course they are. They have to be. They have a much smaller market that is far more tightly networked. They don't have the luxury of being as cavalier as MS or Adobe.

"These were the products my company used on a regular basis. We had it installed on 26-30 machines and had each and every copy liscensed. Then the problem with the Activation Code (CL's Challenge code it sounds a lot like) started."

It sounds to me like you should have looked into the corporate, site licensed versions of those software programs. Microsoft makes versions of all their programs that do not require WPA to install. This is SPECIFICALLY so that larger customers don't have support problems.

"Rep. makes comment about Activation scheme and how many times you have installed."

Let me guess, you used the same number for each isntallation? Of course the system had a problem, ... a legitimate problem. You're software was installed on more than 25 machines.. and if you used the same AC for them all how was it supposed to know you weren't pirating it?

If you had a license for each system then you either had

1. a corporate AC that would allow a large number of installs
2. a separate AC for each system... that you should have used.

No offense, but it sure isn't Microsoft's fault.

"SO those who say this is not a big deal, you are wrong, it is a big deal because it is just not this one software, it is the acceptance of a flawed security system that instead of protecting the software makes users abandone software they have paid for."

You know, doom was predicted when XP shipped with WPA. The tales of woe were waiting to be told - the countless throng were up in arms about what a nightmare it would be.... and guess what? It isn't. Not even close. All told I have upgraded or installed probably 70 XP machines since it shipped and not one... NOT ONE has had an activation problem, either online of on the phone. I have upgraded RAM and motherboards, I have formatted and re-installed hard drives and all the rest of it, and have never had WPA get in the way of any of it.

In fact, there is only ONE tangible reality brought to the world with WPA (Windows product activation) - the casual copying of Microsoft XP is radically reduced.

Of the home users I know I would say that previous to XP's release maybe 10 our of 40 or so actually purchased Windows98. The reason was simple.... they could simply burn a copy from a friends CD-ROM and use the same activation serial key.

They can't do that anymore. WPA won't let it happen. So the purchased XP Home. Oh, they scammed big-time. I know one guy who bought three identical computers just so WPA wouldn't notice he had 3. I know most of them purchased OEM versions of XP Home for abut 65$ - grey market because it "came with" a $5 mouse they then paid $65 for and got a "free oem" Windows XP.

Overall, by and large some 35 out of 40 have purchased XP home. And some of them have purchased (gasp!) a copy for each computer they run it on! You know, like the license says you should?

Why don't they just pirate it from the web? Because most casual copiers (rightly) don't want cracked software on their machine. They want a "clean" copy from a original CD-ROM from someone they know or someone they trust on the web. Not some pirate version with god knows what in it.

And this will be true of Poser as well.

• Will it be cracked? Of course.
• Will "serious" pirates get a copy? Yup.

But that isn't the issue... the important points are...

• Handled correctly, product activation does not cause any problems for any significant percentage of end users
• Product activation absolutely does cut down on casual piracy.
• It absolutely does drive up sales numbers.
• It absolutely does help enforce licenses on concurrent use.

So you can hate it or not. Boycott it if you want to. But it is here, and it will stay here... in poser and/or other software. Because it works.

Well...you guys have forever changed my definition of "a few words"....:) Beav

Confirmation via webcam alright? Now where should I get this tatoo? :D Challenge code is nothing, the real tragedy is I'm gonna have to wait a month before it will get here :{ April, card carrying soon to be tatooed P5 groupie :D

soulhuntre Some of your information is totally incorrect - certain aspects of upgrades of hardware and even certain reinstalls of WindowsXP will cause the reactivation system of windows to become active again. I know - I do a LOT of reinstalling of windows XP not only on my own computer, but also for customers who have bought the OS themselves. Also if you do not have access to CALL microsoft for the activation you have to email them, or mail them for the activation information. Unlike most countries - SOME countries do not have 0800 numbers for reactivation, and SOME PEOPLE (surprise surprise) DO NOT HAVE INTERNET!!! Now in regards to the CL activation - if it is anything like their previous attempts that I have seen, any upgrade of any major componant (CPU, Harddrive, or just a reinstall) could cause the user to have to reactivate their product with a new activation code. Secondly you say that WindowsXP hasn't suffered - I beg to differ. I don't know what site you got your information from - but Microsoft's present Activation code programming scheme is causing issues with Windows XP sales - especially in Corp and small Businesses (but also in a lot of cases of home users). Watch TechTV, look over many of the news websites and look at polls which state that WindowsXP has lost at least 10% of its market share and I know of places were customers refuse to have their system sold to them with WindowsXP (rather changing for WindowsME or WIndows2K or now Linux) Why? Because a lot of these people don't want a security system in which forces them to reactivate their system everytime they want to do something that could 'risk' causing the present activation code to become invalid. I agree with your arguement about that activation code security messures work... Yes with correct implementation of activation code the software can be protected at least a little better than just a general serial number like what Poser 4 has now. However, taking that unique number from a part of the computer, which could alter at any time, or could change with each reinstall of hardware/OS - is STUPID. Again - though people who do not have Internet, or live outside of US are going to suffer... WiNC

"It has found a niche market that it does better than any other, and has created a community that is just short of addiction to support it." Well all said and done - no they don't own a niche market. Unlike Microsoft, who have little compitation to their OS (there is of course Linux but unlike Microsoft - it doesn't use Windows software very well), there are a far number of business's out there doing bone amination and morph type programs for their full products - and can be argued that they are far better than Poser 5 can do. For the more expensive - Lightwave, 3dMax Character Studio, Maya - just to name a few. Then you can look at the cheaper programs, and addons to programs. It is a matter of money - for some people who are having to spend the big bucks anyway - the difference between Poser, and Lightwave isn't as much as first thought - or even looking at some of the cheaper 3d Products. The question is - can CL afford to loss 8-10% of its market share over this? Because so far I have seen enough people say they won't get it - and spend their money on other things (me included). Then again - a lot of people might still buy it anyway... OR! What will probably happen is a lot more people who would have been honest will get the warez version... which pushs more sales away from CL, and will push them into bankruptcy... These are all things CL need to think about - they have to take the good with the bad, and the good is they protect their software - the possible bad is they loss business. Again warez people will crack it - it is a fact of life. Hell if they can crack WindowsXP and even the new SP1 which isn't even out yet - then honestly - why make us honest people suffer... ---- because - they don't turst us honest people... at least that is the way it is making me feel right now... WiNC

Renderosity, Renderosity, how do your poser threads grow? Why... exponentially, my dear 'Bear. snicker ScottA: "You guys just don't know what's really going on at CL. Everything is just hearsay.And that seems to generate a lot of avoidable problems. " So clear up the missapprehensions and speculations Scott, and tell us what's going on on the inside, dude. ;] Then we won't waste time on useless arguments... [and if you buy that one, I got some beachfront property ah'll sell yas REAL cheap. ;)] "If you guys were a bit closer with the company. You'd have a better understanding of the problems they have to deal with. And why they do what they do." Possibly correct. Might... but why should it matter? A customer pays money to buy a product - the companies problems or having sympathy for them is totally irrelevant. The customer pays for a product or service - their concern is "does it work? And does it give good value for the dollar? And what does it require to work?" Last I checked, CurousLabs, MicroSoft, Adobe, Discreet etc weren't paying their customers to really give a rats about the companies problems - it's only relevant insofar as in making a purchase decision based on wether the company can deliver and support the product. Spike: "Lets look at the facts shall we: If CL did not put in a good protection, they would have to bring the cost up to offset the warez and fraud. This is simply a part of bussness. Take your pick. " You're making the presumption, Spike, that warez is an indication of dollars lost to people that would otherwise buy it. It's not... it's an accountants worldview of "Oh.. x # of copies out = y # of dollars we lost!". You don't ever lose dollars that a pirate wouldn't spend on you... it's a fallacious argument. It's also fallacious that the consumer should pay for the actions of pirates in either costs or inconvenience. Does "presumed innocent til proven guilty" ring any bells? This is "presumed guilty just because we can't seperate out the innocent"... Phantast: "Incidentally, isn't there a slight irony in the fact that CL wish us to trust them with our personal data, but they clearly don't trust us with their software? " Heh heh. Yup. Ya noticed that, didya? ;] JCleaver: "CL could have used much worse copy protection, be glad they didn't! " Sorry, jcleaver... I don't buy that. Giving up a little bit of freedom is like being a "little bit pregnant", to carrry the ananlogy to an etreme. And companies bank on just that mentality: "oh well.. at least they didn't... ". Untill it's next time and they do.... VirtualSite: As long as you won't blast me for still owning Photoshop 2 and WordPerfect/QuattroPro for DOS... ;] I hear what you're saying, and I think you're correct. We're buying a product, not leasing it. The concept that we're only leasing software is a legal fiction that became embedded at some point in the late 80's... I'd have to check dates. It wasn't a common assumption prior to that. Shonner: I recognise that quote, and I'm a conservative libertarian, not a liberal. Grab a dictonary. ;] When I pay money for something, using it's not a "privelege", it's a right I paid for with my dollars. The concept that something is a privelege and we should be happy to eat crap for it is a "liberal" concept. By the way, just from curiousity, what major software company are you a shill for? ;] Megalodon: Ah... never mind. I just gave you more attention than you rate by typing your name... ;] Multiple sources: "Locks are only there to keep honest people honest." Honest people don't need locks. If they do, they're not honest by defintion. And I've lived in towns wher you could go shopping, get more stuff than you could carry, stop and set the bags down in the back of the pickup truck, and come back two hours later and all your stuff would be untouched - not isolated instances: that was the norm for those places. Honest people are honest because that's the way they like being. Potential thieves need locks. Jack: Don't bite yer tongue, it's painful and it's to no real avail. ;] Kbade: "Since hardly anyone will bother to read this far into the thread, I won't go through a detailed deconstruction of the illogic that oozes from a certain percentage of the membership here on security and related issues every time they are raised. " Don't kid yourself. I read ALL the freaking way through the thread to your post and past that. Some of us read everything and weigh the input. "CL is far, far, far more responsive to the opinions" No... someone is "responsive" when they listen to the feedback and then modify accordingly if it's overwhelmingly negative, as the bulk of this is whenever this question arises. If not, it's not responsive, it's a "like it or not" announcement. Shadowwind: "They know that really no matter what they do under the guise of "Otherwise we'll go out of business" will be accepted, maybe with grumbles, but accepted by those who make up their market." That's probably the gamble, and if it's true... that's a damned shame. As far as any copyright protection scheme "stopping" warez partially: bull. One cracked copy on p2p = indefinate cracked copies. Once it's cracked once, the protection scme is useless. That's how software protection is different from the "car alarm" analogy: the car alarm stops every theif except the one that breaks in, and when/if you recover the car, it also stops the next one who can't figure out how to bypass it. On code, once it's bypassed, it's gone - like exposing photographic film. That's also the flaw in the "stops Junior next door" argument: once the pro cracks it, Junior doesn't have to know how to code, he/she can borrow pop's internet connection and download the one cracked by someone else. Finally... again: Warez is a cost of doing business for software manufacturers. Going after the roots of the problem "Why people steal and how do we make it prohibitive in penalties and enforcement", companies take the route of passing the aggravation to the purchaser because a) it's easier and less expensive to THEM, and b) they generally figure the purchasers will grumble and accept it as ShadowWind suggested. It's a very simple equation: It's more cost effective to put in a sop that placates stockholders and inconveniences purchasers than it is to go after p2p users and software pirates. Doing the former, they make money off of people who grumble but still buy, doing the latter it's just money spent, no shortterm reccompense.

What ever happened to the old saying, customers are always right when serving them from a business point of view. I had my own business for 35 yrs and that is the motto I tryed to abide by when serving the customers who bought my products. It worked for me. I know a lot of you will not agree but it is the customer who pays the bills to keep software vendors in business. I removed XP from two new computers and installed 98 SE because of all the hazzle with activation and all the junk that isn't needed in XP to run an operating system. I cancelled my back order for poser 5 because of the same reason's I am reading in this thread. I am only one of a million but if we all stick together and let the vendors know we are not going to buy the product then who looses the most. I will be glad to pay extra to have a copy of poser 5 that is hazzle free and is like the older versions which can be used without actavation when you replace hardware or reinstall a new system on new hard drive.

IB-- I think I've already said too much. ;-) You either care about the company. Or you don't. ScottA

I'm going to hold my fire and wait to hear from Steve on Tuesday. Maybe we can all go and bomb the crap out of some Iraqui children or kill some poor people and call 'em terrorists until then. Just thinking about it seems to work. The bloodlust is satisfied. Get a grip guys. You've asked for an explanation of this policy, you've been told you would get one. Wait until you get both sides of the story before announcing your earth shaking decisions. Till then go get layed. It's a weekend. Q