There are a lot of people who support Curious Labs totally on blind faith. Or they are just against the voices who are upset about their present Security System in Poser 5. I can understand that some of you tired of the topic, and probably just wish it would disappear. I ask you to please just take a moment and think about the possibility that even though this is boring, or a possible waste of your time that you are misguided in your views and opinions of the situation and arguments and please give me this moment to explain why. I know I have personally spent the last few days thinking seriously about your arguments. I have debated extensively with my partner, with my friends and with others in the community both for and against the arguments that many of you have put forth. I can now see where some of the hostility has come from, and how best to probably try and calm the tensions. Firstly, Im not saying you are wrong to support Curious Labs, or that they are getting unjust treatment. However, I ask that you consider that not all of us are out here voicing are objections just because we want to hurt Curious Labs, or are anti Poser. Some of us are truly attempting to bring to light a issue which could cause our beloved community harm, and we feel it needs to be dealt with. We are not asking Curious Labs to rewrite their whole software; we are not asking Curious Labs to remove and never have copy protection in their software; we are not blind or are ignoring issues that Curious Labs will face with this situation. What we ask for, and have always asked for, is for the possibility for our views to be recognised, and that discussion commence between Curious Labs and the Poser community regarding both Poser 5 Program security, and future security for the end-users of Poser 5. Our requests have been that Curious Labs revisit their present security scheme and acknowledge that there are possible flaws with this system which could hurt and undermine the End-Users requirements. Our issues have been with 1) Users who are not able to use Internet and are not in a convenient position to contact Curious Labs by Phone, Fax, Email, or Mail. Especially for those outside of the United States of America. 2) Concerns with the hardware in which has been used to get the challenge code, since it means that each time you reinstall your C drive (each time you do a fresh install of your OS) you will need reactivate Poser 5. 3) Concern that there is only 3 times that you can reinstall Poser 5 and get reactivation before one has to directly contact Curious Labs for permission to reinstall. 4) That if Curious Labs should happen to close, there is no legal documentation that states that Curious Labs will present licensed users with a means to circumvent the activation process and still be able to use their software. 5) That Curious Labs please open constructive dialogue with the community so that some manner of closure can be made in regards to these issues. 6) That this security system present unneeded issues with some end-users, however will present no problems for the warez community when they get hold of a copy of the software. As it stands right now, none of our requests and concerns have been acknowledged by Curious Labs. At any stage in the Petition against the Present Security system, or in previous threads Steve Copper or any of the Curious Labs team could have come in to the thread, contacted me directly, or started a new thread which would start discussions regarding their security system, discuss our concerns, and even work with us to look at some possible options that might settle this matter. Most of us want to see these issues (as well as all bugs, and EULA concerns) dealt with as soon as possible, and dislike the continued pressure and disturbance this causes the community. However, it is only the poser community who can cause change in this situation, and therefore it must be the Poser Community who need to voice their concerns about the present security system. cont...

While there are a number of people who are extremely anti Curious Labs at present (which can be seen clearly by some of the responses on this forum recently) I, and a number of others, do NOT want to see Curious Labs go bankrupt. I am a supporter of Poser and believe it is one of the best programs out for what it does. It is also a project which deserves the credit that its fans give it. Most of those against the present security scheme are NOT against software protection, and we are not in support of warez, or any other form of illegal copying of software. We are however against a software protection system that has a high risk of causing certain customers major problems, and has a HIGH risk of rendering the software unusable if the worse should happen to Curious Labs. No company has the right to put their clients at risk, and we feel that Curious Labs is doing this with their present security system. Again, Steve Copper has already admitted that Curious Labs is/has suffered money problems, and the past history of Poser is that it has been shut down more then not - (even if Curious Labs might be the original owners or not, without money there is no business). The consumer base for the product doesn't allow for any type of decrease in their customer base. And yet - already - we can see at least 60-75 people in the petition who will not buy Poser 5 because of one reason or another. Curious Labs can not afford to drop possible customers like this, and I for one would like to see Curious Labs survive, but not at the expenses of our consumer rights. A lot of avid supporters have asked, so what if they close, someone else will take over Poser. You may well be correct, and some other company might buy the software if the worse happens. However, can you guarantee the community here and now that this new company will not alter the software; will even continue supporting the software; or that you are 100% sure that Poser will be bought by another company at all. My question to you is, why take that risk? Why risk your hard earned money against an uncertainty. If Curious Labs do what we ask, and come to the table to discuss our concerns, and we organise a method of securing the end-users ability to use the software if they go bankrupt, there will be no risk for Curious Labs, or for the end-user. Again, the support message from Steve or any Curious Lab representative in these forums is not a legal binding agreement; no commitment has been legally made to protect the user if the company goes bankrupt. This commitment needs to be included in the EULA, so that end-users can know they are protected in case of bankruptcy. Many of these issues can be circumvented almost instantly if Curious Labs would start communication regarding the issues. There are also arguments from members of the community that if we dont like it, we shouldnt buy it. Yes, it is their software, and if we dont like it we dont have to buy it and most of us are not going to buy it. With present admittance of financial problems, and with the present results of the petition, do you think that Curious Labs can afford to lose the revenue that we do not present? If you do, then there is no way I can convince you to think otherwise, and I will stop wasting my time. However, it only takes 60 people not to buy a Pro-Pack Upgrade for Curious labs to loose over $7700.00. There is over that amount who has signed the petition against the security system. Maybe another 5 to 20 people maybe after reading this post, another 50 -70 in another couple weeks after reading the bug issues. Do you think that this lost revenue will not hurt Curious Labs? One is left wondering if us not buying Poser 5 is also in your best interest. I would think that if you really are supporting Curious Labs, you too would like to see these issues resolved, so that Curious Labs continues to produce fine and upstanding software for this community. And so that most people will buy the software and Curious Labs will be around to make a Poser 6. I do apologise for the length of this thread but I feel strongly that it is in the best interest of the community to get these issues resolved, before the unthinkable happens, and before the community is left with a worthless piece of software. We have waited long for Poser 5 let us not lose it now because of blind localism. Curious Labs please, open communication with us regarding our concerns and lets end these issues so we can worry about more important things. Like if Dork and Posette will try and kill off the new comers in jealousy (yes I too want to get back to creating) Yours WiNC

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=867537

We have waited long for Poser 5 let us not lose it now because of blind loyalism. (sigh - even after getting three people to read this that got past :P) WiNC

I have made previous posts about not liking the security system presently used. I have said that I will not be getting Poser 5. One reason is I'm getting a new computer soon. I don't know what problems may arise with a new system. I will have to get used to how the update in the technology will play out for me. My fear is that I may have crashes before I get used to my new 'puter. How many, I don't know. But if they exceed what CL feels is reasonable...I will be out to lunch. I too do not want to see CL go under. I've spent too much money on Poser related stuff. I'm sure they are not pleased with the community's reaction and I hope that they will be able to address all the concerns and eventually reply to the many and varied messages.

As it stands right now, none of our requests and concerns >have been acknowledged by Curious Labs. Untrue. They've been addressed in these forums by CL employees. I share many of your concerns, but your campaign is a real turn-off because you've been so condescending, single-minded, and have lost self-control. You've made your petition very well-known. If you really want a direct response to your campaign from CL, take it to them. If they refuse to respond, that is their perogative. Many people have offered very articulate reasons for why they have no problem with the new registration policy. For you to write those defenses off as "blind loyalism" is frankly insulting. If you aren't getting the momentum on this issue that you want ... maybe there are some good reasons for that besides apathy or blind loyalty.

.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Maybe I havent been reading the posts all that well, but I havent seen alot of postings from CL employees since after Poser 5 came out.

If you're so unhappy with the security system, then buy Poser 5 so you're supporting Curious Labs, and put the unopened box on your shelf. Then download the free warez version with all the security and copyright protection removed. And there you go.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have seen several posts by different employees of CL since Poser 5 came out. Steve Cooper has posted quite a bit, and Anthony, Tori, and possibly a couple of others. They may not be in here all the time; but I wouldn't expect them to be here to the extent of keeping them from doing their job. I would hope that people here would be a little patient instead of expecting their every whim to be fulfilled immediately. Most, if not all concerns have been addressed by the CL employees. They may not have the answer at the moment; but they are working towards that end. As to the protection scheme -- just about everything has been said. No one is going to change anybodies opinion at this point.

So I guess that means we're stuck with this "security" system. That's a shame.

Before the general release a CL employee (not Kupa ... sorry, I can't remember the individual's screen name) went to great length to address these concerns and delineate CL's position. It was clear that they expected controversy and understood what the issues would be. Perhaps that employee could be kind enough to repost that exegesis here or at some website. Indeed we are all entitled to our opinions. By no means does a dissenting opinion or critique of tactics imply a desire to censor. I'd encourage anyone who agrees 100% with WiNC's position AND tactics to go ahead and sign his/her petition. I will decline because I find the means of conveyance to be presumptuous and insulting. Like WiNC, I dislike the new registration requirements, but they won't stop me from buying P5 as soon as I can afford to. I also hope that CL will re-think their tactics for reasons already stated very well by many others. I don't want to see this distrustful, invasive trend spread. However, I recognize CL's need to protect themselves from the realities of massive global piracy. In the case of Poser/CL, I'm willing to put up with something I disagree with as a sign of good faith in CL and because I want my toy, darn it. In the case of WindowsXP, no thank you. Those people can't be trusted.

I'm sorry but I think most of the hostillity comes from the "issues" being based on What If's rather than actual instances of problems with the security system. Even those who have had problems with p5 have not had any problems with the security system. Most of you also seem to ignore, that as long as you are using the same hard drive, your codes(which are given to you in a printable page) can be reused with out calling home.

The biggest thing that bothers me from the petition is the incorrect info being repeated over and over. I read where several of the signees stated they were unhappy that they wouldn't be allowed to install on more than one computer, which is false. Or that if they had to format their HD and do a re-install they would have to re-activate; which while technically correct, they would already have the code to activate without ANY contact with CL. I can't say that I like to have this type of protection, but it isn't the end-of-the-world thing people are making it out to be. I do wish they had found another method, though.

I,ve taken my choice and ordered the new XL 8 bundle today. I,ve to pay more money, but I,m sure I will have not less fun. and no Lokana, from my opinion this would mean that I would let me corrupt from this and this isn,t it worth. btw. yesterday I talked with a small group of people about this and only one of five was willing to buy P5 with this protection scheme. This isn,t surely representative but it,s something to think about. There are two 'loud minority' of pro,s and contra,s and one 'majority' no one knows what they will do or how they think about this. Robert

WiNc: "No company has the right to put their clients at risk, and we feel that Curious Labs is doing this with their present security system." I'm not a "client." I'm a purchaser. And I put myself "at risk." Nobody twisted my arm to buy P5. And I really wonder how many of the people currently claiming they won't buy Poser 5 hadn't actually planned on buying it in the first place. WiNC: "Curious Labs please, open communication with us regarding our concerns and lets end these issues so we can worry about more important things." I think Curious Labs HAS communicated with you. They've said that the copy protection scheme is going to stay as it is. The issue has ended. Go worry about more important things. Case closed. Buh-bye. --jjsemp.

Man I must say you people who are bitching must not own any good 3d programs. Heck in a couple more years you will only have out dated software to play with because all the major software makers are moving in this direction. Ron

Quote: "I share many of your concerns, but your campaign is a real turn-off because you've been so condescending, single-minded, and have lost self-control. You've made your petition very well-known. If you really want a direct response to your campaign from CL, take it to them. If they refuse to respond, that is their perogative. Many people have offered very articulate reasons for why they have no problem with the new registration policy. For you to write those defenses off as "blind loyalism" is frankly insulting. If you aren't getting the momentum on this issue that you want ... maybe there are some good reasons for that besides apathy or blind loyalty." And I say "amen" to that! WiNC had been blathering and foaming at the mouth over this for days. Then he "apologizes" for being such a horse's ass at people who didn't bow down to him and follow him like sheep, so the immature, selfish, spoiled little sh** can get other's help with him trying to have his widdo way. Now he's right back at it again. Looks like that so called "apology" he made, was just to get people who started ignoring his posts, to take a chance and start reading them again. One mistake I won't make again. At this point, the guy really needs to seriously shut-up and grow up. Don't bother responding to this 'WiNC'. I'm not reading anything else from you, and If you send me an IM through this forum, I'll try to have you banned from here for harassing me. I'm absoutely sick of your BS, and I wish you'd just 'F'n' leave!

Or that if they had to format their HD and do a re-install they would have to re-activate; which while technically correct, they would already have the code to activate without ANY contact with CL.

Yes, but the "challenge" is tied to the disk. (Perhaps using its hardware serial number?). You don't need to get a new response code from CL after reformatting, but you do if you replace the drive. Even if you keep the same computer for a few years that tiny 120Gb drive is likely to start feeling cramped after all those hi-rez raytraced Poser pics you've generated. ;-)
I can understand a concern over what happens if CL goes under. On the other hand, there's already evidence that the code has been cracked... in which case options remain. (If CL does go under, and you bought a copy, then using a cracked version could hardly be called illegal -- or even immoral.)

In the "big software" world, where large companies are betting their business on software from some vendor whose future they doubt, the critical info (often including the full product source code, and certainly information to get around security measures) are escrowed somewhere, to be released "in the event". Now, if CL is strapped for cash they probably wouldn't consider that now. On the other hand, if they're serious, this is something that would ease many of the legitimate concerns.

Meanwhile, despite how much I'd love to get my hands on P5, I get the luxury of just sitting around and watching how all the hubbub settles out. They don't even want my money yet, because they aren't taking Mac preorders.

I know you mean well (or at least it seems liek you do) but your concerns have been addressed... you jsut don't liek the answers.

While I am not CL, I'll try it again.

WiNC - 1) Users who are not able to use Internet and are not in a convenient position to contact Curious Labs by Phone, Fax, Email, or Mail. Especially for those outside of the United States of America.

There are certainly people who may not be able to use Poser because of these factors... though I personally cannot see an even remotely common case where this would be true.

You are postulating someone who:

• Has no online access
• has no friends who have online access
• Has no libraries who have online access
• Can afford a multi hundred dollar program AND the system hardware to run it, yet cannot place an international phone call

I am a little lost as to where you would find such a person. And while I am sure they exist, I doubt seriously the case is common enough to base a major architectural issue on.

**WiNC -**2) Concerns with the hardware in which has been used to get the challenge code, since it means that each time you reinstall your C drive (each time you do a fresh install of your OS) you will need reactivate Poser 5.

Actually, the technique that seems to be employed by CL uses the manufacturers drive identifier, in other words it will NOT change on a  re-format. I believe someone from CL mentioned that.

Further, having to re-install your OS often indicates a fairly serious problem with your setup, your software or your OS. I suggest you go to a combination of those that doesn't result in them being common. Windows 98/95 had those issues - but those OS are long gone now... you might want to try upgrading.

Still in all, the problem is not a big one ... CL will simply need to streamline their support for re-setting the code count. This has not been a problem for WindowsXP or 3DS Max.

**WiNC -**3) Concern that there is only 3 times that you can reinstall Poser 5 and get reactivation before one has to directly contact Curious Labs for permission to reinstall.

Certainly that number is a concern. Maybe your crusade would be more effective in convincing CL to alter this count.

**WiNC -**4) That if Curious Labs should happen to close, there is no legal documentation that states that Curious Labs will present licensed users with a means to circumvent the activation process and still be able to use their software.

I can certainly agree with this. It would be cool if CL were to make some sort of official statement that if they cease to exist and do not transfer Poser to someone else that they might give us a "universal unlock". However I am not that worried... there will always be cracks to be found.

**WiNC -**5) That Curious Labs please open constructive dialogue with the community so that some manner of closure can be made in regards to these issues.

I think they have. They have responded. They just haven't given in or answered the multiple threads and multiple rantings.

"open dialogue" does NOT mean you get what you want, and it seems like nothing less will be considered open by you.

**WiNC -**6) That this security system present unneeded issues with some end-users, however will present no problems for the warez community when they get hold of a copy of the software.

I have problems with the assumptions here.

I think the protection is "needed" and as such there will inevitably be some problems for a small number of users. Those problems are unfortunate, but not "unneeded".

Who cares about the hardcore "warez" community? The simple reality is that strong protection DOES prevent some casual piracy. You continually present the idea that since there is a crack that the protection is worthless - this is untrue.

Curious labs will sell software to people who might otherwise have copied it because of the protection. They will also lose some sales because of it. The only relevant question is what number is higher.

Looking around here it seems like Poser5 is selling reasonably well, it has more penetration than an major upgrade usually has (for instance, many more Poser users went to Poser 5 than Max people went to max 5 it seems... as a percentage).

So despite all the issues it looks like Poser 5 is a success.

WiNC -"The consumer base for the product doesn't allow for any type of decrease in their customer base. And yet - already - we can see at least 60-75 people in the petition who will not buy Poser 5 because of one reason or another. Curious Labs can not afford to drop possible customers like this, and I for one would like to see Curious Labs survive, but not at the expenses of our consumer rights."

You DO realize that the Poser installed base is much, much larger than the people here on R'osity right? 60-70 people is not really a huge number.

WiNC - "With present admittance of financial problems, and with the present results of the petition, do you think that Curious Labs can afford to lose the revenue that we do not present? If you do, then there is no way I can convince you to think otherwise, and I will stop wasting my time."

Yes. I do. I think that overall the acceptance of Poser5 is large and strong, and that in the end the number of people who are not purchasing it due to the protection system is fairly small.

To ME it looks like Poser5 is going to be the hit that CL needs it to be. Companies who never considered Poser before are taking a chance on it now (this is from personal knowledge). The real issues now for CL are:

• Fix the bugs with a timely patch
• Give us an export path to the major software systems

If they do those, they can dramatically expand their user base to markets who previously wrote Poser off. And that is much more important I think.

Jcleaver - "The biggest thing that bothers me from the petition is the incorrect info being repeated over and over."

Yeah, I noticed that too. The only thing I can imagine is that this is for some people an emotional/political issue as opposed to a technical concern.

jjsemp - "I'm not a "client." I'm a purchaser. And I put myself "at risk." Nobody twisted my arm to buy P5. And I really wonder how many of the people currently claiming they won't buy Poser 5 hadn't actually planned on buying it in the first place."

Or had purchased Poser 4. It is an open secret that given the piracy number sin the world a fair number of folks in the R'osity forums for software systems did not purchase them. There is no way to pretend this isn't so.

My "risk" is nil with Poser. It is already making itself a profitable and productive piece of software here. Well worth the retail value. It could evaporate tomorrow and still have been "worth it" to me.

jjsemp - "I think Curious Labs HAS communicated with you. They've said that the copy protection scheme is going to stay as it is. The issue has ended. Go worry about more important things. Case closed. Buh-bye."

it seems that the concept of "open communication" means "give it to me my way".

I am confused about something in this great debate. How can both these arguments be simultaneously true - 1. Software protection schemes for Poser will always be cracked and may have already been cracked. 2. We need to be protected from the software protection scheme in the event that CL closes. I am a complete legal software purist and have no illegal software on any of my computers. However, IF CL goes bankrupt and IF Poser 5 is the best software available for my needs and IF I upgrade my computer and can't register it THEN I would consider using a cracked version. In the meantime, I will quite happily use my legal copy.

Well done soulhuntre.

Good post, soulhuntre.

Thanks WiNC. Your passion for this community is fantastic.

CL does need to look into some sort of escrow setup. I don't expect them to go belly up and leave everyone in the lurch, but stranger things have happened in the software world. I don't see this as an immediately pressing issue however. Remember, that this is something they would definitely have to sort out with the folks in germany. As to the activation issue, I respect the feelings of WiNC and those who agree with him, but at this point, it really seems to have been reduced to more of an religious issue than anything else. Idon't think that CL will make anything more than minor changes in the system and then only if the negative response is significant. That train has already left the station. Exercise your rights, make your petitions, but I think in the end, you should just reconcile yourselves to not purchasing Poser 5 and leave it at that. Enjoy Poser 4 as many of us still do. Check out Catharina's recent post on her latest experiment with textures, P4 can do amazing things we haven't even seen yet. Be happy. As the fox said, "those grapes were probably sour anyway."

I have been shown a possible reason why there is some confusion. Firstly I have been confused why people keep telling me that you don't need to get a new responde code if you format your main drive, while I have read it in their FAQ that you do need a new response code.

The reason for this confusion is pretty clear:

What if I need to reinstall Poser 5?

Go ahead and reinstall. If you have not re-formatted your hard drive, you will not need to get a new key. Poser 5 will display the same Challenge Code unless you have changed your computers main hard drive or re-formatted it. Simply enter your original, saved Response Code. You will not need to unlock Poser 5 again or contact Curious Labs.

What if I reformat my hard drive?

The Challenge Code is stored on and based on your computers main hard drive. If you re-format your main drive, you will need to unlock Poser 5 again. If you are using the same hard drive you used before, Poser 5 will create the same Challenge Code as it did before. In this case, simply re-enter your saved Response Code. You will not need to contact Curious Labs unless you did not save your original Response Code.

The first one states that you will use the same Challenge Code unless you have changed your computer's main hard drive, or re-formatted. In which case you will need a new Response Code because your Chellenge Code has changed.

While the second one states that the same Challenge Code will be used as long as you don't replace your main hard drive. Therefore you will not need to contact Curious Labs to get a new response code

It would really be nice to know which is correct - has anyone seen any response from Curious Labs which gives indication which is the correct one?

WiNC

WiNC, to borrow a line from the Bard, "Me thinks thou protest too much" >>No company has the right to put their clients at risk<< Well, let's how good M$ does at protecting its 'clients' Just THIS year I've read about about a dozen bug reports and 'security issues' involving M$ software, some of which could lead to you computer being hijacked and used in DOS attacks on some other system. Entire companies has been started and are devoted just to correcting and/or repairing the messes left behind by M$. Don't try to use that line on the users here, it don't wash. Maybe you're doing all this whining because you have a number of 'clients' of your own that you can't help since you can't get around the anti (casual) pirate security feature? >>What if CL closes?<< What if Gateway closes?, What if Dell closes?, What if someone goes ballistic at the crappy way M$ treats its customers and rams a 2 ton bomb into the headquarters and blows most of it into Puget Sound? What if someone breaks into your home and rips off your system? What if... What if... What if... QUIT LOOKING FOR TROUBLE!!WiNC, to borrow a line from the Bard, "Me thinks thou protest too much" >>No company has the right to put their clients at risk<< Well, let's how good M$ does at protecting its 'clients' Just THIS year I've read about about a dozen bug reports and 'security issues' involving M$ software, some of which could lead to you computer being hijacked and used in DOS attacks on some other system. Entire companies has been started and are devoted just to correcting and/or repairing the messes left behind by M$. Don't try to use that line on the users here, it don't wash. Maybe you're doing all this whining because you have a number of 'clients' of your own that you can't help since you can't get around the anti (casual) pirate security feature? >>What if CL closes?<< What if Gateway closes?, What if Dell closes?, What if someone goes ballistic at the crappy way M$ treats its customers and rams a 2 ton bomb into the headquarters and blows most of it into Puget Sound? What if someone breaks into your home and rips off your system? What if... What if... What if... QUIT LOOKING FOR TROUBLE!! All you bunch of whiners that have been raising a stink about CL's security code set up have already been, and are still subjected to much more intrusive stuff from M$ and anyone that says they don't have a choice in dealing with M$ is both a fool and a liar for there are ALWAYS choices. You don't like the way CL is protecting ITS property then DON'T BUY it! But don't go demanding that they take the locks off the door because it's inconvient. If you got to blame someone when you have to reinstall or reformat twice or more times a year then bitch out the idiots that wrote the frafggin' OS in the first place and don't take it out on a small company trying to protect their investment.

Poser has transitioned from Fractal Design to MetaCreations, and now to Curious Labs. If need be, I'm sure it would do it again. What other graphics program has a community built around it like this one? Poser isn't going to go away. I also think Steve Cooper and company are way too passionate about the product to leave the end users without an unlock if they were forced to drop out of the picture. All this concern over having to reformat your hard drive has gotten rediculous. Reformat it, and if you've passed your limit, you can run it for seven days while you send them an e-mail and say "Hey, it's me, your customer, I want to unlock my software," and I'm sure you'll get a new code. Like any other company, CL wants to help and serve the people who buy the product. All of your bitching and demanding resposes would probably get more attention if you WERE a customer, but since you haven't bought Poser 5 from them, they have no obliagtion to you. Telling us all to go fuck ourselves probably didn't help either.

Here's the problem, you can argue this back and forth all day long and say this is good and this is bad, etc., but what is really at the heart of the matter?

First let me ask/state the obvious: CL has adopted this present security system primarily as a means to regulate access control of their software. I think we could all agree on this.

Next, let me ask, (again the obvious): Why has CL decided access control of their software is needed? A no brainier. Apparently they have experienced loss of revenue due to theft and/or illegal use of their product and have decided to do something to curtail it.

Alright, now for the sixty-four dollar question. Who is CL at risk from? The persons who purchases and legally uses their software? Again a no brainier. Obviously, the risk (to them) are the folks making illegal use of their software.

Does this present security system effectively address that risk? If the answer is yes, than it meets one of the basic requirement of any good access control system. There are some other basic requirements it should meet as well, but this one is most crucial. If the answer is no, then CL needs to scrap this and find an effective countermeasure to employ.

True, it is sometimes necessary, when incorporating protective measures, to place some level of inconvenience or restriction upon the otherwise honest and law abiding. However, there is all to often the tendency to make this the first (and sometimes only) line of defense because it is easier to regulate the honest guy rather than target the law breaker who refuses to cooperate. This is bad policy. A good security measure should always have a direct impact on the target it is meant to address and not just impact on in the environment in general.

Okay, agreed, sometimes ease of implementation is a real world necessity. So the good guys and gals get called in to help shoulder the burden. A pain, but a necessity. However, when a security measure is implemented but fails to effectively solve or address the problem for which it is created, it places an increased and undue burden on the people (who are not the problem and who are expected- actually needed - to help maintain a desired level of security), the countermeasure should be done away with. It is ineffective and damaging to morale. It is bad policy. It makes for lousy feelings. And lousy feelings can make for lousy behavior - in even otherwise good people.

There are many reasons why people and companies adopt this "regulate the good guy" mindset when creating security control measures. Most of the time it stems from either ignorance or laziness - or both.

The issue at hand is simple loss prevention. That equates to Dollars and Common Sense. The question to ask: What does CL stand to gain by implementing the countermeasure and what does CL stand to lose by implementing the countermeasures? Weighed in the balance, on one side of the scale we have loss of revenue, via theft of product. On the other side we have loss of revenue, via customer boycott and loss of good consumer morale as a result of an unpopular new access control measures. How does this balance out in real Dollars and Common Sense? Because in the end that is what it is all about.

If good sales can be maintained and the new countermeasures effectively curbs a sizeable portion of the loss of product as experienced in the past, than the countermeasure is ultimately a sound one - regardless of whether or not it is a popular one. If, however, higher total loss occurs (because of changes made to either side of the balance) due to the implementation of these measures, the measures should be abandoned and a new system found. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is bad policy. So is snubbing your loyal consumer to spite the criminal, particularly when the criminal is laughing and giving you the finger and continuing to do exactly as he/she was before.

Well, I am not getting paid for my two-cents at the moment, and since this is what I do for a living I will shut up now. Hopefully, CL will address the Dollars and Good Sense of the issue and chose the most prudent course of action to ensure the continued success of Poser.

In the meantime, we can do our part to continue to voice our concerns and to not let business run rough shod over us and infringe on our rights in an effort to protect their own. Both sides have to stand up for their rights. One side will not do it for the other. Achieving the right balance can be a tricky thing and sometimes it comes about via trial and error and a lot of shouting and screaming. :O)

Also, let's not forget the real root of the problem, and that is the criminal behavior that has lead up to the need for this sort of security measures. It is an old saying, but a true one. You can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. So much of what goes on in any social order depends on you and how committed you are to doing what you know to be right, even in the face of adversity. Drop the ball and the other side will score. Sit on the sideline, watch and do nothing, and you are not even in the game.

Cheers,

shadownet - nice post. I can't say anything more about the topic matter, because I basically have said all I can. I can continue to voice my feelings, but all that is going to do is drive more people to either not buy Poser 5, or argue against me :) I passed the ball on to others yesterday and stated that I had pretty much been in the highlight for long enough - it is now their turn :) The thing that is frustrating is that Curious Labs haven't and don't communicate with people when the real issues come up. And no matter what I, Norbert, Tempus Fugit or anyone else argues at the end of the day the only people who can solve this issue is Curious Labs. Whatever happens, I hope that my worries about Poser 5 and my fears regarding the stablity of Curious Labs are wrong. Because I certainly would like to continue seeing the program live and survive, and the Poser community not 'disappear' into the background like so many software communities do after a company has fallen. So if anything - here is to hope. And in my book - no hard feelings... Fare well - WiNC(Tracey-Anne) (norbert - take note - I'm not a guy :P)

In retrospect, It's glaringly obvious.

Have to say that was a bit of a cheap shot Norbert, if I take your meaning correctly. But hey, people say stuff in these forums that they would refrain from saying in person -just my opinion. As to Shadownet's point, you can certainly argue the effectiveness of any security scheme, all of them being imperfect. Unfortunately, if CL implemented a "more" secure scheme, e.g. a hardware dongle, even more people would be upset. I don't see giving up and having no security as a viable solution however. Poser is in a unique position. I agree that many of the people who download MAX or Maya probably don't use them much and would probably not buy them, so no loss. Poser has a greater practical appeal (yes naked people) and is easy enough to use for the basics. It is also priced reasonably enough that a number of people could afford to buy it. CL has to at least try to protect themselves while not making things too onerous for legitimate customers. Neither they nor we can determine the answer to the essential equation losses prevented vs sales lost. Finding fault with them for trying doesn't make sense to me. I really don't think the relatively minor inconvenience is the problem. Having your drive crash would seem to make that pale in comparison. Some people simply object to the concept that they might have to go through the process. They are willing to be scanned, frisked, questioned and scrutinized at an airport even though we all know that a smart, determined terrorist can get through anyway, but they accept the legitimacy of the process because they value their lives over inconvenience. Each person simply has to determine if they value Poser 5 over the inconvenience.