Does "Paradise" automaticly connect to the web when you install P5?, and can you turn it off? I know you do not have to use it, but can you turn it off.

If by no other means, it should be possibleby using external systems like a firewall. Of course, for the "normal" user, if they used, say Internet Explorer's internals, for the Paradise room, it may be more difficult to filter out the traffic or prevent it from connecting.

Would I still be connected when I closed Poser5? You would think CL would give you the option of connecting or not. I don't like the idea of being constantly connected. It seems to be a open back door to your system. I am not a computer expert, and that kind of thing makes me nervous. I understand CL view on "Protection with registion", but I donot understand why I should be forced to have a net connection I donot want. What about "protection" for me? Maybe I'm jumping the gun, is there anyone who can clarify things? I believe I should determine whether I am web connected or not(no matter how safe that connection is supposed to be. If the connection is supposed to be for my benefit, why force it on me by having a consrant connection? I'm not saying do away with paradise, I will proabilty use it, just give me the option of turning it off.

Well, hypothetically, it should only open the connection upon request and close it when you are done. However, there may be some "state recording" information (ie, maybe a cookie) that would allow you to go to the previous state you were in when you last visited; like a particular store or section you visited. To me, the description sounds kind of like browser-integration that has been done in other software packages. Since most firewall users want to surf the net, they usually let their browser connect and/or allow traffic on port 80 (http) for net connections through the firewall. As these are more or less "trusted" ports, they can be easily manipulated for "less legitimate" purposes. It is theorhetically possible that CL/P5 may keep an "open door" via the Paradise room; however, when people find out this is the case, it would turn into more of a ruckus than the activation scheme currently being debated. I am sure someone with enough knowledge will run P5 with some form of packet sniffer (something that records and analyzes network/Internet traffic) and see just what information can be gained/is transmitted by both the activation scheme and/or the Paradise room.

Cyberstretch wrote: "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." Well said!! At the insistance of a friend and potential vendor to AniMotions asked me to look at the new EULA and asked if this would affect the Freestuff and online store area's of the Community sites and if the vendors and online stores were required to pay royalities to Curious Labs. (see pg. 13 entitled Content Distribution). Admittedly, I didn't think that this is the case. But after reading their subsections C, D and E, I am not so sure. Granted I am no lawyer (but will be having one looking this over come Tuesday) but according to this, nothing in .CR2 format(and all of the other Poser 5 formats) can be copyrighted. Which leaves all of the vendors and freestuff contributors UNPROTECTED FROM THE SAME WAREZ KIDDIES that resulted in Curious Labs adding this Challenge Code for. I could be wrong, but the way it reads to me is those people who run Online Stores or make product to support Poser 5 and themselves, they will no longer have the means to combat warez and must bite the bullet if their own products are in Poser 5 formats are copied, resold, warezed, used commercially without permission or given away and are subject to paying royalties to Curious Labs for the use of such formats. Like I said, I am not a lawyer and I admitt being really friggen confused when reading this new EULA and have sent an e-mail to Kupa asking about it. But if I am reading this right, I wont be supporting Poser 5. Jack PS - Aleks, NICE ONE!! Your anology of having the Software company calling you to get bank information was so funny I sprayed Mt Dew all over my keyboard!! :o)

Jack, Thanks for the acknowledgement/compliment. I was beginning to wonder if I had become "hyper-critical" in my, er, "old age". Although I am not a lawyer either, I have been involved at several places ensuring that our licensing was "legal" and attempting to stop illegal software, etc, from company systems. Therefore, I have become exposed, over time, to a number of different contracts and legal documents and one can very easily spot something that appears not to have been written by a legal-minded professional. (Think legalese, ie incomprehensible words you need a dictionary for, and highly repetitive/cross-referenced wording; among many other "distinctions".) Also, I am definitely biased to consumer vs corporate advocacy, and I openly acknowledge that. I will "defend to the death" consumer rights because, quite frankly, corporations have shown a severe and growing disregard for their source of income (consumers) and frequently corporations, or their officials/employees, prove to be their biggest liability; not the consumers or even the non-consumers. The once famous adage, "The Customer is Always Right!", now seems transformed into "The Customer is Never Right!!!". Hopefully, there is a bastion of companies, like CL and others, that will prove once again that by treating customers as their top priority they can overcome even the "significant" losses due to illegal activity.

thanks, jack ;o) i hope it wasn't the nonsense in the last sentence that made you clean your monitor. it should read "after 30 days you'll have to write me a letter, where you send me your new adress (different then last one - ok, maybe i'll allow three times the same adress ;)), and i shall send you my new phone number - the old one is obsolete - to ask me about your money." if someone turns these protection around like this, one sees the absurdness of that all. why, i also want to protect my money! ;o) i'd really like to know if there are some seriuos researches somewhere about this problem, if this "protection" really protects software companies from warez theft and how much.

Cyber: You're right, the "Customer is always right" has indeed changed in the times we now face. And in fact you have to go through 20 minutes of computerized switchboards before you can talk to anyone live to clear up (if you are lucky) a problem with most companies these days. Fortunately, CL hasn't entirely gone to this and I suspect after much public outcry they will rethink their strategy. The bottom line is they need us, more than we need them, and to keep us they will have to make concessions to keep their consumers happy. It's just the nature of business. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to protect their IP, but when that protection begins to impede the protections of others or becomes to much of a hinderance for their consumers, something is going to have to be done. Aleks: Yep it was the last line, though not because it was written wrong but because you really pointed out the absurdness of this protection scheme. In some regard, the companies are going to have to trust it's consumers, no different than some consumers have to learn to trust some companies. Trust is a two way street. Jack

Attached Link: IDC - Software Piracy: How Big Is the Threat?

lol, thanks, cyber. well, it's one way to cover your costs! :)