Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=35869#35869

darn...

Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=35866#35866

Attached Link: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/09/16/2110217.shtml

what, you got your doorstopper already?

S-C-A-R-Y!

Attached Link: http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/08/12/020812opgripe.xml

The more I read about EULA's, the more I don't like them. (see link, EULA for dead tree books)

MadYuri You should read the P4 EULA. It is far more restrictive than the P5 one. The P4 one you could not do anything accept look at what you made on your computer. If I was CL, since so many people are complaining, I would go back to the P4 EULA. Ron

The P4 security system!!! ;=]

Well till now I regarded EULA's as funny little stuff you don't have to heed. There are some precedence cases in Germany which abolish the concept of shrinkwrap licenses and EULA's (Microsoft was not amused, Az.: 1 ZR 244197). ;D
This doesn't derogate copyrights, only those little extra clauses in EULA's are invalid.

But if EULA's are binding in the USA it is only a question of time till this comes to Europe too. In my book EULA suddenly advanced from a minor annoyance to a big problem.

Prediction: It will get MUCH worse before (IF) it gets any better. The way things are going, M$ or some other 'biggie' will soon be inserting clauses in their EULAs giving THEM exclusive full rights to anything YOU create,and giving you NONE. Wait till M$'s new "Longhorn" OS is introduced in '05 and you have to pay monthly in order to use the OS and will have to accept 'automatic' login to M$ EVERY time you boot up for "authorization" to open the OS, or be cut off from all your own files. (Betcha those monthly fees will be 'ever-increaing' too.)

I think some EULAs demonstrate the INsecurity prevalent in too many areas of our society today.

The EULAs appear to have a life of their own and, unfortunately, seem to be growing in size, content, complexity, and the problems that they create.

Just a few of those potential problems are listed (and linked) in this thread.

In the end, the only ones who will benefit from the EULAs are the lawyers. It will keep them employed; not that they needed any additional incentive. JMVHO!

NO cheers, (for this one)
dr geep
;=]

My guess is it'll stop just before someone decides food should come with EULAs. After all, what company wants to retain ownership of food after it's been used?

My dog would Chuck. And he's a trend setter. I've been discussing this with him all day. Thinking how this world would be different without reverse engineering and with this sort of blind madness concerning EULAs. The US would probably still be a backwards country. MacDonell Douglas would be owned by RollsRoyve, the only airplane manufacturer would be a british firm. So would Microsoft. The only cars with jet injection would be the Jag... I could go on and on... Q

"After all, what company wants to retain ownership of food after it's been used? " Um - now THAT bought about nasty visions to my just woken mind :P Shiver... Shrink-wrapped EULAs should be illegal. It would be like buying a house, and then the original owner of the house bringing you a EULA and saying, "Now you have the house, anything you build in the house belongs to us." Damn now I have "All your Base belong to us" running through me head again... huff There are a number of court cases running through US right now in regards to treating EULA agreements as Fraud, however it will take a really nasty EULA for the US government to do something about it. I don't have a problem with EULA's - IF those EULAs are shown BEFORE someone buys the product. IE, it is printed on the manual, and you can look and read the manual before you load the product. This would mean that the EULA in the software can not be altered after original purchase however. Because it appears if your name is Microsoft, you can change the EULA whenever you feel like it :) In defence of Curious Labs, they did this - it was a really brave thing for the company to do by putting their EULA in their manual and then allowing people to download that manual before buying their software. And for all the disagreements I have against their security system, I have to give them full credit for their sencerity for releasing their EULA to the public. I might not agree with everything in the EULA - however they don't try and surprise it on you. And yeah, the P4 EULA is a lot more restrictive then the P5 EULA... Doesn't make it any better though :) sigh - I can't get the vision of a company asking for their food back, or writing a EULA that goes something like, "Anything you create 24 hours after using our food product belongs to us." EWWWS! :)

WinC They all come shrink wrapped these days even the dog fool. LOL! Ron

... and you know what they say, "A dog fool and his money are soon parted."

Geep always part with my money and have great interest in those who do not. Put your money where your mouth is! Ron

ronmolina, In a way, those who refuse to buy P5 for whatever reason are putting their money where their mouth is.

Huh?

Um isn't that just "A fool and his money are soon parted" Where does the dog come into it :P WiNC

WiNC, See #16 and #17 above. ;=] My "Huh?" was to ron. ****************************** ron? Me no understand what you said. (#18 above) ;=] *********************** Hey, this "chat room" works pretty good. ;=] (just kidding, don't get your knickers in a twist!)

"A contract is something that no one in their right mind would ever sign. Unfortionately, usually, there is no Sanity Clause." - TJ I like the ones that say that you can return the product if you don't agree with the EULA but when you get to the store they say that if you opened the package it's yours.

Biker - yes and this is one of the reasons why it is being seen as faurd. Because the contact isn't presented until after you buy the product, and most people don't know that an EULA will be included. The thing is not all software companies use them - though a number are now. One game company put in their EULA that it is not their responablity to provide patches, even though they wrote the bloody thing. Many people returned the software because it was buggy, however most were told, "Sorry you opened it - you can't return it." Here in New Zealand we are kinda protected from this type of thing because we have a 7 day right of return if the product doesn't do what we expected it was supposed to do. However we have software companies, and businesses trying to revoke that against software (which I can understand a little bit why - but they should come to the party also and show us everything that is wrong with the program before we buy it :P) We also have a 30 day right of warrenty in New Zealand - so if we buy a program which isn't working correctly, we are in our right to return it and request it to be fixed, and if they can't they have to replace :) New Zealand is sweet in most cases, but I feel sorry for UK (who are starting to get harsher Copyright laws soon also) and US who are just really insane rules as it is :P WiNC

I knew there was a reason I liked New Zealand.

No - you can't all move to NZ :P

.......................... PLEASE!!!!!!! ;=]

Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=39850#39850

There is a interesting discussion at Slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/10/03/1249222.shtml).

Quote:
House representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Digital Choice and Freedom Act. Perhaps the most interesting section is the part that invalidates 'non-negotiable shrink wrap licenses' (EULAs) that limit rights.

Hmm, maybe we need something like this.

(The above link goes, like usual, to the PoserPros EULA thread). ;)

... kinda like buyin' a "pig in a poke," aint it?

... without bein' able ta see the pig FIRST ???

Just a thought ................... ;=]

Attached Link: Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002

WINC, It's too late - we're already there in spirit - can the body be far behind? - TJ

"(f) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) apply where the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord of a work in a digital or other non-analog format, or any person authorized by such owner, sells or otherwise disposes of the work by means of a transmission to a single recipient, provided that the owner does not retain his or her copy or phonorecord in a retrievable form and that the copy or phonorecord is sold or otherwise disposed of in its original format.. " Please tell me I'm wrong here - but - doesn't this act state that the owner of the original 'software' has the right to sell/give away their copy as long as it is in 1) original format 2) to a single recipient. If so - please tell me how Curious Labs are getting away with the Ebay scandal? In where they have removed sales of Poser from EBay, and contacted the people in question stating they are not allowed to sell their software. Or how can certain members of the market place get away with telling people they can not give away the products they buy, or give them to people as gifts? SteffyZZ comes to mind here... Arn't they breaking the law?

Has this act been past yet? The press release was on the 2nd of October...

Attached Link: US Copyright Law, Section 109

"109(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."

Since CL is a company, and the auctions are generally run by individuals, I think that Ebay just presumes that the company knows more than the individual. Plus, the company would probably have more resources to bring a lawsuit vs the individual. However, in this case, it would seem that both CL and Ebay are wrongfully limiting the rights of consumers based off federal laws.

WinC No it hasn't been passed & the articles I've read don't hold out much hope for it in this Congressional session. However something I noticed was if you read the full text you'll find... (c) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: A digital work is any literary (EXCEPT A COMPUTER PROGRAM), sound recording or musical work, or dramatic, motion picture or other audiovisual work, in whole or in part in a digital or other non-analog format. A digital media device is any hardware or software that converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible, or retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to such hardware or software." The 'except computer programs' jumped right out at me. I've emailed Rep. Lofgren (zoe.lofgren@mail.house.gov) to find out if software is specifically excluded from the amendment or simply defined by different terms.

Cooler - thanks for picking that up - because I missed that one - yeah that isn't a nice thing to have in there unless it is covered under another section - especially since her own statements claim she is trying to protect consumers against EULAs... I don't remember buying a music CD with a EULA on it (unless they are hiding them in the words of the songs... um maybe I should delete that - it might give them ideas :P)

CyberStretch - If I remember my readings correctly - the problem is that the coyright law doesn't cover electronic medium like Software as a part of that legistration - I though there was a seperate act in which software companies are able to screw us... I mean protect us :)

Attached Link: WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

"1's" and "0's?"

Dr. Legume

.................... "0's" and "1's?"

Seriously though ...

I guess my question is, re: software ...

If I use a C compiler (i.e, mfgr's software)to create code (i.e., my software program), the manufacurer of the compiler neither owns nor has any control over MY code, no?

Relating this to Poser, I DO NOT have the right to redistribute, sell, give away, etc. any direct piece of code that I have received with Poser, (e.g., Posette, .obj, .cr2, .bmp, .jpg, (textures), etc.

But, I should have every right to distribute, sell, give away, etc. anything that I create (my code) with Poser (CL's code). That is, a rendered picture, an original figure or prop, or a unique MT, etc.

Your thoughts?

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

May I have your permission to turn on my 'puter and use your one's and zero's? Puhleeeeeeeze??????

NO. I only have a few left and I was planning to party this weekend.

Must gonna be a purdy WILD party !!!

geep: I dont think their EULA forbids you from selling your own stuff - infact they state in their EULA you can sell it. You just can't sell something that is going to be in compitation with Curious Labs Poser 5... now - there is another thread I started (trust me :P) that brings in to question "what is classed as competition" and can rendered art be classed as competition when the reason for the art is to produce a method of being able to do Poser 5 like art without owning Poser 5... (um - I think I confused myself on that :P) I think the EULA debate here should be more aimed over things like 1) Copying the CD for your own backup use 2) Selling your software if you don't want to continue using it 3) Illegal or unfair use of EULA which removes a consumers rights of fair trade 4) Replacement or refund of software which does not fulfil the specifications (ie - software creators have to finally accept that if they write shit code, they get it back) Right now software companies are able to 1) Create unfair EULA which can prevent you from using their product as you forsaw 2) Create misleading advirtising, and not have anything done to them about it 3) Create software which isn't stable, and can cause damage to your machine, and they don't have to do anything about it 4) Create software which doesn't work correctly, and they don't have to do anything about it 5) Can refuse to refund your product if you do not like it and it doesn't fulfil your expected specifications 6) Can include extra software on your computer to a) spy b) disable c) just sit there and use up memory - withing informing the end-user of including the software, or allow choice for the end-user to remove that software themselves (or not even install it) There are a number of other things software designers can do to your system which, right now, the end-user isn't protected against. Prime example... Kazaa and another one of those software products released a version of their software in which it would monitor and change the ID code which is used by some "shopping" websites so that they would get the credit for the sale, instead of the intended software/website which had the original link to the "shopping" site. This should be totally against the law, they are preventing the rightful people from getting 'credit' for the reference, and taking that credit themselves - which usually equals cash... But according to the EULA which comes with Kazaa - you are giving them rights to do this. So if any company complains, they can say, "It was the end-users choice". Those types of software should be illegal as it is - but that is a moral statement, not really a legal one :P Curious Labs - in present format - can close their doors tomorrow, and leave everyone with a piece of software which will be faulty, and unuseable because of the security code. The thing is, there is nothing legal the end-user can do about it. I know - I have tried. When the creators of Calpyso went under I started a big campaign to get our money back. We had only had the software for almost 2 months, and their latest version which included all the bells and whistles we wanted was full of bugs... they closed their door, and suddenly that version was unuseable anymore anyway because you had to contact their homepage to get activation. They released a free version (which was cut down - removing things they sold off to other companies) but those of us who had paid for it lost out. Legally there was nothing we could do about it... illegally - there was :) I finally moved to Outlook 2000/Xp anyway - so it became a mot point, but the same thing can happen to others... and with present law - there is nothing we can do... Anyway - I think this is long enough, and I should start my business communciation assignment... Talk later... :) WiNC

"1) Copying the CD for your own backup use 2) Selling your software if you don't want to continue using it 3) Illegal or unfair use of EULA which removes a consumers rights of fair trade 4) Replacement or refund of software which does not fulfil the specifications (ie - software creators have to finally accept that if they write shit code, they get it back)" Points 1-3 are covered by Copyright Law. Point 4, I am sure, is covered by other laws; although I would have to look it up. "There are a number of other things software designers can do to your system which, right now, the end-user isn't protected against." Not necessarily true. Many of the 6 Points above this quote are covered by existing laws, and I think you could make a case for any of the Points you raised; especially in a Class Action type of setting. "This should be totally against the law, they are preventing the rightful people from getting 'credit' for the reference, and taking that credit themselves - which usually equals cash..." I imagine that this is, or soon will be, challenged in a court of law; if it is not already. "Legally there was nothing we could do about it..." One of the legal reasons for "reverse engineering" is for this purpose. If a company goes out of business and there is no successor, then it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer around any protection scheme to ensure that legitmate users can still use the software if an alternative has not been presented.

Attached Link: http://www.purrsia.com/freefall/ff800/fv00707.gif

There are legal reasons for Reverse Engineering; despite what comanpies/EULAs say. The same goes for the laws. Software companies seem to think they can rewrite the laws to their benefit. I encourage people to read the applicable laws and do a few net searches. There is a lot to learn if you open your eyes to read it. :o)

now reading would me I would have to stop assuming - that really doesn't sound like fun :P

heh. But you will get so much more out of it if you do. Most people seem to be "confused" as to what legal rights companies and consumers have. By reading the laws, etc, even if you do not totally understand them, you get a better idea as to what is/is not legal in company-consumer agreements. It is upon this premise that I believe many of the "dissenters" of the P5 EULA are tasking CL with clarifying the EULA within the allowable parameters of the law. Hopefully, CL will follow through and rewrite the EULA so that everyone's rights are protected. I do not believe that anyone wants to deny CL their right to protect their Intellectual Property, just not at the expense of the consumers' rights under the same laws.