No, you are not wrong, Bruno.

When I make models for sale at Cornucopia, I often click on the "Forbid Export" setting in the "Edit Object" window, ... if I do not want the purchaser to use the model in a program other than Vue.

In my case, I do this because I always sell models placed at Cornucopia at a deep discount. That is, all models that I sell at Cornucopia, I price for much, much less than the cost to me of textures, my time and my software-hardware costs. I then may make other copies of the model in *.obj file format, and sell them at places like The3DStudio or Turbosquid for a "normal" price.

My reasoning is that if a customer wants to use the model in any and all applications that can import an *.obj model, such as what happens when a model is sold on sites other than Cornucopia, they certainly should be allowed to, but then they should pay a normal (market) price for the model.

When we model builders sell a model in the normal market place, we do have to take into account our software, hardware, research and texture purchase costs. Our models have to be priced in such a way that we can cover these costs, or we cannot afford to make models. Most freelance model-builders that I am aware of are either working at cost, or are making perhaps a 5-percent to 10-percent profit - just so that you know. In my case, I usually am taking a 35-percent or greater loss in models that I place at Cornucopia. I usually take a 25-percent loss in models I place here at Renderosity. In both cases (Rendo and C3D), I do this because I feel that I am part of the fellowship of Vue users.

(All this information is just so that you know how some of us model-builders reason through our use of "Locked To License" and "Forbid Export" settings.)

And, as you said, vendors at Cornucopia should write in the product description that a model cannot be exported, if they have assigned the "Forbid Export" setting to the model. But some vendors may forget or be so lazy that they do not provide this information.

The "Forbid Export" setting has no association with the "Locked To License" setting that we vendors choose to place on our models sold at Cornucopia.

There are two advantages of the "Locked To License" setting for the customer. One - such models can be purchased with a Cornucopia Voucher, and two - such models are priced more cheaply than any models that are not "Locked To License."

Even though a model may be "Locked To License", and be cheaper for the customer, the maker of the model receives the same amount of revenue for the model, whether it is "Locked To License" or not.  The vendor takes the loss in the price of "Locked To License" models.  An Unlocked model is priced higher, and this is the price the Store and the Vendor split. A Locked model is priced less - the Store takes the same amount as if the model were "Locked" and maker of the model receives a little less than if he or she had caused the model to be "Locked To License."

The original purpose of the "Locked To License" mode was to provide a good and very secure method of copyright protection for the model-builder. If a model is locked to your Vue license on your machine, you cannot transfer it around freely to other Vue users, and thus, it cannot fall into bad hands and be pirated easily.

Vendors like me who use the "Locked To License" setting often do not provide the same model in a "Standard" mode. So, like Bruno, I am confused as to what is meant by the screenshot provided by Mazak. When I place a model into Cornucopia in "Locked To License" mode, I mean for it to be that way.  Like Bruno, I'd like to check on this too, but I believe that Cornucopia cannot convert a model from "Locked To License" to "Standard" mode without the consent of the original model maker. So, I suspect that not every model can be converted to "Standard" mode as the screenshot suggests.

http://news.techworld.com/security/3265970/uk-pc-users-hit-by-huge-fake-antivirus-attack/

Nice work, Mary!

Maybe this is what we all should be focusing on, instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html?_r=1&partner=EXCITE&ei=5043

You're welcome.  Let's hope Injustice will be avenged.

I've just re-installed my old traffic analysis software, and I can see it happening in real time.

It is 0346 here MST, just poking around because I can't sleep, and thought of something to do. Don't know anything else - sorry.

My best guess  as to the reason why was stated earlier. The software to mount a DOS attack is now widely available. I'm guessing it is just some disgruntled immature person. You can see one or two like this around here, so not such a rare thing.

Software competitors generally have better things to do, so I'd guess that is a remote possibility. Some jerk is more likely.

E-On and C3D are experiencing a  denial-of-service attack.  Web site traffic tracing program I am running indicates this is so.

Anyone else who has traffic analysis software, or who can locate and download the same can confirm this.

E=On and C3D   ARE    experiencing a denial-of-service attack.  This is confirmed.

Anyone else who has traffic analysis software, or who can locate and download the same can confirm this.

Normally, if the customer data files have been compromised by an intruder, the company involved sends personal e-mails to everyone on its client lists. Since no such thing has been sent out, and since e-on easily has that capability, we've seen it many times, it seems unlikely that dww25 has anything to be concerned about.

Bruno is correct.

I just performed a network traffice trace on their IP addresses between 0600 and 0715 MST. They are receiving a lot of page requests, but not enough to suggest a DOS attack at all. Looks like an ordinary (semi-heavy) traffic load. Could be all the above is wild speculation (including my earlier posts), that they are indeed down for maintenance, but ran into some unexpected delays in bringing the system back up online.

In concept only, the way to do this is to have or create a large mass of individual rocks, each of which can be animated moving in a single direction. The camera must follow the direction of the moving mass. During the sequence of the animation, individual rocks on the outer edges of the mass should have their animation slowed or stopped altogether. This gives the effect of portions of the comet peeling away during the movement. The rest of the work is in applying appropriate materials and glows.

That would be the good story - that the staff is just doing maintenance and has run into something that has taken a little longer than expected.

Yes, Bruno.

I can see a bunch of them, too. But am not wanting to point that out or discuss it much. E-On is aware of most of them, I think.

Personally, I'd be willing to contribute $ to the approx $450 cost of the network  software for the E-On staff that can find the geographic location of page requests. Anyone else?

Among other things, it would be a fairly simple matter to compare the IP addys of the DOS attackers with the IP addys of all registered members of the E-On customer base. That would help to identify any attacker that was somehow a disgruntled customer.

I swear this DOS attack is going to end up raising the price of Vue and C3D items for all of us, in the end. Pisses me off, rather!

A denial-of-service attack occurs when many computers (or computer processes) attempt to access a site all at once. The receiving web site servers attempt to respond by opening a page to each "computer" trying to read the site, but if the requests come too quickly and too fast, the receiving sever bogs down. It reaches a point where it cannot process any more requests to open pages.

So, this is not the same kind of "attack" as when someone hacks into a web site, reading files and stealing data. It is a much more simple kind of thing.

During the recent Wikileaks episode, eBay, Amazon and several banks refused to accept donations to the Wikileaks site. Some of the banks, and Amazon froze the accounts of Assange.

In return, a group of people going by the name of "Anonomous" made available to anyone, a small and very simple program that can create a denial-of-service attack. The program works by you, the user, typing in the web adress of the victim site, and then executing the program. The program sends several hundred requests to the target web site per minute. The "request" simply is a request to read the front page of the site.  That is, to "open" up a page. The intent of Anonomous was to get as many people as possible to try to bombard the web sites of eBay, Amazon and the named banks - to retaliate for those site freezing the accounts or refusing to accept donations for Wikileaks. This is a denial-of-service attack.

Problem is, now that little piece of program is now available to any stupid kid who wants to use it for any purpose. Almost anyone following the events of the Wikileaks mess knows about it and where to get it. It's still there for the downloading.

And, I say "stupid" since the IP address of the person using that little program to send the attack is written into every "request." How hard is it to capture one of the send requests, and trace back to the source? - Not hard at all, since every commercial server automatically captures the IP address of any incoming requests. Plus, now the request message itself carries the IP address. Plus, if you are a network tech, you probably are already using a software program that traces IP addresses to their physical location around the globe.

The most common way a denial-of-service attack is delt with is for the site managers to switch to a new set of IP addresses. But, you either have to have already obtained these for use in an emergency, or you have to purchase them. Sophisticated web sites, such as Amazon, have many server sets on line, and they can switch their files and programs to new IP addresses every minute - another way that DOS attacks are commonly thwarted. Also, the big sites have IP trace-hunter programs that automatically trace back every so many "open requests", and either bombard the originating IP in return, or do some other things I won't go into to kill the source of the DOS attack.

All this is expensive, and probably has not been necessary on the e-on web sites to this point. If e-on is forced to armor their web sites, we all are going to pay for it in the end - in terms of more expensive products, among other things.

Nice! Yes?

Still being attacked.

It appears that the last two versions of Vue have been pirated. I can see them freely available on two of the most heavily used pirate sites. I believe that e-on was attempting to have the pirated copies deleted from both Rapidshare and MegaUploads. Probably this has something to do with the current attack.