Bear wrote: "I am kinda curious, STORM: just which of the two groups of consumers do you wish to protect the rights of? Those who purchase it under the contract with the intention that it meets their needs to use as a manufacturing step, and fully accept the stated contract? Or those consumers that would like to browbeat, threaten, and coerce Morris into meeting their terms at any costs? Which of those two are you prepared to trample the rights of to "protect" the other group? You've already established you have no problem with using colour of law to step on Jeni's rights. At what point do rights to property take precedence over force of law for you? If any? This is an important question. This is really the only important question. "Morris, it seems Storm and others here feel once they buy your packs they can damned well do as they wish with them. Give them away, make another pack etc. Otherwise its restrictive business practice. I don't agree of course, I feel they signed a contract when they bought the kit and that contract restricts their rights to do as they please." - Now that is painting me into a corner I did not and have no intention of supporting or arguing bear ;0) No way do I, or have I, ever condoned theft or illegal use and I think you know that from our past discussions. And no, I do not own the product in question. This is a debate about the restrictions one can place on a product. All I have been arguing is that the restriction to "Commercial only" redistribution is IMHO illegal because it goes against internationally practiced legislation on restrictive business practices. And I believe you will find that Australian and European and US law largely mirror each other in this area because of international trade requirements. So the "colour" of the law is probably similar around the globe. Because the product was offered for sale to consumers it cannot escape business laws. No ammount of "colouring" changes that basic fact. If the business laws say the "Commercial only" tag is a restrictive practice then that is what it is and thus illegal. If the business laws in the US mirror the rest of the world (which I think they do)then there is no argument that this is a restrictive practice. And I am by no means trying to step on Jenni's rights. I have bought many of her products and support her work. However, I really believe that the clause is illegal under the law and it is for her sake as much as out of an intrest in copyright/business law that I am discussing the matter. The grass is getting longer and the wife is getting louder ;0) STORM

Actually, Byrdie it is quite simple on one level.

Copyright Law protects your ownership rights. If someone abuses them, you can get court protection and damages. If you change your 100% no reproduction to say limited reproduction and redistribution e.g.30% that is fine too. If someone exceeds the 30% you have a legal redress.

Contract law is the agreement between you and the seller (the EULA). This is fine too so long as it does not contradict Business law or Consumer law and Consumer rights. However, once a clause is put into the contract that does engage in a breach of business law or consumer law/rights, that bit is generally deemed to be illegal and unenforceable.

Because of international trade it is hugely important that countries worldwide have similar business law and practices. The USA has been one of the strongest proponents of this as it seeks - as a trading nation - to get access to markets for the sale of its goods. Thus, we have all sorts of harmonisations and agreements of legal frameworks across the globe seeking to have the same free competition laws in place in all countries. Restrictive business practices on the globe are legally and politically contested by the USA more than any other nation.

Copyright restictions on commercial products only allow you to protect your work from illegal reproduction e.g. 100% or 70% or whatever. Copyright law or entitlements do not allow you to determine which part of the market is entitled to buy your product or how it may legally (within the % copyright protection) use your product. To try and introduce a "Commercial only" restriction on a commercially sold product is, IMHO, illegal under business law and restrictive practice law, both nationally and internationally.

Natoli: Morris gave redistributive rights to the product. That is fine, that is her right. The product was advertised and sold on that basis. Morris also included a stipulation that such redistibuted products using her Merchant resource pack could only be "commercial".
Sorry but that is wrong and a restrictive business practice. Copyright has nothing to do with it. Contract has nothing to do with it. It is an illegal practice under business law IMHO (the restriction to commercial only). That is what some of us are discussing.

Message edited on: 04/21/2005 11:01

Spiritbro77 wrote:
I agree with IB, its her work and she has the ultimate right to extend what rights she wishes to purchasers of her hard work. If you don't agree, don't buy the kit in the first place.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Many of you seem to be of the opinion that copyright entitlement allows you to restrict the market and business practice. This is not a copyright issue; nobody is attacking copyright or ownership.

What we are saying is copyright does not allow you to determine how the market works weather you are Disney, Shell, Coca Cola, Macdonalds or Janie Doe who sells Merchant Resource kits. In addition, that you are almost certainly getting into illegal and restrictive business practices which could land you or the retail site (the RMP) in a court and at the expensive side of a legal decision.

The laws on this have been adopted almost universally and restrict business practices, which attempt to carry out this kind of manipulation of the market. A very short look at Google will demonstrate this. Just type in "restrictive market practices" and see what happens.
(http://www.google.com/search?q=restrictive+market+practices&hl=en&lr=&rls=DVXA,DVXA:2005-16,DVXA:en&start=50&sa=N)

I have no problem seeing how these legal principles, practices and laws could easily be applied to the current issue and I am sure any commercial lawyer can do the same. (BTW a freebee provider can most probaly argue that they are a market competitor to the market retailers in the RMP. They just do not seek financial return for what they produce at the moment, but they might in the future when they become established. This is important in relation to what follows).

Once you start to sell goods for money or kind you are governed by business law and consumer protection law. Being an artist or a copyright holder or a patent/trademark owner does not exempt you from the law governing fair business practice. Ask Microsoft!

Here is a tiny selection from my quick look

From "Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair and Restrictive Market Practices" necessary mainly because of Hungary's integration into the European Union and its need to harmonise its laws with the EU.
(http://www.hidasi.hu/menu_5_eng.htm)

" Competition law is traditionally divided into two main parts: 1) struggle against the unfair practices of the fellow competitors against each others, to which consumer protection has been connected at a later time, 2) the elimination of the restriction of competition, which has been divided into the following three areas: a) antitrust law (prohibition of agreements restricting competition), b) abuse of dominant business position, c) interlocking of undertakings.

At the fundamental elements we have to mention two types of cartels: 1. horizontal cartel, which may be established between fellow competitors, 2. vertical cartel, which is established between the parties being at different levels of the market-system. (for example producer ~ dealer)."

The above gives an outline of the general scope of such law.

"The scope of the Act shall extend to the market attitude of legal entities, of unincorporated economic associations and of natural persons displayed in the territory of the Republic of Hungary, and to the market attitude displayed by Hungarian undertakings abroad, if the effect thereof prevails in the territory of the Republic of Hungary."

Further on:
" In accordance with the Act agreements between undertakings and co-ordinated practices, which are aimed at the prevention, restriction or distortion of economic competition, or which may or do display such an effect, are prohibited. The act orders general prohibition of cartels: both horizontal and vertical cartels are prohibited."

In relation to exemptions:
"Those relieved agreements are also prohibited which together with other similar agreements cause the exclusion, limitation or the distortion of the competition."

Read the full article it gives a good intro to the subject and gives a good idea of the law across the EU.

From Australia:
Anti-competitive conduct and restrictive trade practices
(http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/259608/fromItemId/6106)

"Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (see Link to the Act in Related documents box) covers anti-competitive practices that limit or stop competition. It fosters the competitive environment necessary to give consumers a choice in price, quality and service. It prohibits commercial conduct that substantially lessens competition in a market, as a lack of competition might allow some traders to push prices up and lower the quality of the goods and services they offer to consumers.

Some anti-competitive conduct is prohibited outright (e.g. price fixing), while other types are prohibited only if they substantially lessen competition. A substantial lessening of competition is apparent when the ability of buyers to shop around for a deal that suits them is significantly diminished.

There are some circumstances in which a refusal to supply is unlawful under the Act. These include a misuse of market power, third line forcing, boycotts, resale price maintenance, and placing limitations on resellers. Further information on these restrictive trade practices can be found in the ACCC publications, Refusal to deal, Summary of the Trade Practices Act, and Small business and the Trade Practices Act (see Unfair business practices publications in Related topics). Also see the Related topics, Resale price maintenance and Problems obtaining supply.

If conduct falls into one of these illegal categories, then the business or individual affected can take their own court action or complain to the ACCC. When considering whether to take action, the Commission must give prime importance to promoting competition in the particular market as a whole. It will look at all relevant information, including matters that may not be directly related to the complaint."

Note above particularly: price fixing and resale price maintenance, and placing limitations on resellers.
I bet if I looked hard enough I would find similar Federal Laws in the USA.

Have a look at this also from Australia:
NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY - TRADE PRACTICES COMPLIANCE MANUAL (http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/tpa/tpcm3.htm)

From Canada Competition Bureau:
Restricting the supply and use of products
(http://cb-bc.gc.ca/epic/internet/incb-bc.nsf/en/ct01068e.html)

There are 926,000 pages in this section covering practically every country in the world. I don't have the time to look up and cite the US stuff, but I know from a quick look there are hundreds of Federal bills covering and limiting restrictive practices.

The bottom line is that the laws apply to the RMP just as much as they do do to any business, large or small. Restrictive business practices are legally contested by consumers, governments and business organisations themselves world-wide, because such practices destroy open markets and the ability to compete. Exceptions to this are generally not allowed or condoned because of the precedents they set for all business.

I have been saying similar things for some time in Poser-related sites. It is not bullsh*t or argument for the sake of it, (I have better things to do with my time and the grass needs cutting ;0) and "she who must be obeyed" is getting impatient).

However, sooner or later, (as the poser-related world grows commercially) these kinds of issues are going to hit the courts unless merchants and retailer sites start taking these issues seriously.

STORM

"If Renderosity wanted to step up, they should offer some licensing templates for their merchants to choose from and attach to their products. Renderosity should run the templates by a lawyer or two prior to use, or even get a lawyer to write them in the first place (I figure they've got a laywer on the payroll to some extent) - I think this would clear up many problems." A very good suggestion Unzipped. 'night all

Spanki wrote:
"I happen to think it's enforcable, but let's assume for a moment that it isn't. Again, I'm no lawyer but what normally happens in that case is NOT that the entire license is considered void, only those parts that might contradict local/state/or otherwise governing law. So you through out that clause and what are you left with...? The standard Renderosity license, which allows Zero (none, nada) redistribution."

Nope!

The RMP sold that product as "a redistributable product" (clearly advertised) within certain copyright limitations. So the "commercial only" bit gets thrown out and you are left with the redistibution bit. It could not revert back to the standard Rendo licence because that is in direct contradiction of a redistributable product.

Where I live it would be highly unlikely to revert to the " standard Renderosity license," instead the "commercial only" bit would probably be deemed to be illegal and unenforcable. Everything else would probably stand. If this did not happen the customer would probably be deemed to have been ripped off and could possibly mount claims against the RMP for misleading product advertising.

We have an Advertising Standards Authority which fines and takes cases against retailers and companies which mislead customers. They operate on the basis of consumer complaint. I doubt if a court would put Rendo into that situation (of reverting to the standard licence) or if Rendo would elect to go there.

Message edited on: 04/20/2005 19:23

The issue is not one of copyright. No one disputes Morris's copyright and how she restricts that e.g. 30% etc.

What is is question is whether she can restrict redistribution (within the copyright limitations compliance) to "commercial" only.

I and others argue that she cannot, as this comes under a completely different branches of law and her restriction to "commercial" only may be in breech of elements of this legislation or at least unenforcable.

Message edited on: 04/20/2005 18:27

Spanki wrote: "A simple texture kit, yet highly detailed, that you may use in your own commercial projects!" ...and then gets into more detail afterwards. That seems pretty clear to me. I don't see any "Redistributable!!" tag-line in the ad." That is redistribution rights! That is why most people would have bought the product!

Hit the nail on the head unzipped. Nice and clear.

"In truth this is all heresay because until a case like this goes to court and gets ruled on, everything is speculation - even by experienced knowledgable lawyers."

Well in Europe there are lots of anti-cartel and anti-price-fixing cases that have resulted in this kind of clause being deemed illegal. Consumer watchdogs and officials tackle this kind of stuff on a daily basis and win in most cases. I don't know about the US.

Spanki wrote:
"Since the product is not restricted for sale to "Merchants only" the Store does not have a leg to stand on"

Eh? Non-merchants are welcome (and encouraged) to purchase her (and others) products, but that doesn't mean that non-merchants can ignore the license. You lost me there."

Here in Europe consumer and business legislation and enforcement works to protect consumers from illegal, un-competitive and other acts by retailers. (in this case the merchant through the RMP-no reflection on Morris, just the way a legal row might interpret it)

As such, restrictions in this way are unlikely to be upheld in cases arising e.g. a manufacturer trying to restrict usage of a redistributable product, or cases are likely to be deemed to be in a position of attempting to price-fix by restricting the market or to be in a position of a cartel, again restricting the market.
This issue would not arise if the product did not have redistributive rights. Again I believe similar law exists in the USA and also as a cosequence of the various international trade agreements.

Message edited on: 04/20/2005 17:54

Message edited on: 04/20/2005 18:00

Spanki wrote:
"What Jenni (and many other merchants) did was extend 'additional' rights to the purchaser, related to distribution and those extensions may or may not come with wording spelling out exactly what is being granted - I guess I'm still unclear on why people object to this(?)."

The product was marketed as having redisributive rights.
What we are discussing is the limitations that can be placed on such a product marketed as such. In addition, weather the redisributive rights can be limited to "commercial only" products, and weather such a limitation is legal and enforceable as this can have serious implications under business and competition law.

This does not have implications for the majority of products, which do not have redistributive rights. Presumably, the people that bought this product saw one of the attractive factors as the possibility of using it for redistibution through further product. The question is can that be restricted to only commercial so long as the purchaser follows all other copyright rules? Others and I would argue it cannot be restricted in this way on this issue.

Spanki wrote: "One last thing I wanted to clarify my position on (relates somewhat to your statements above)... I personally have a problem with a merchant adding RESTRICTIONS to thier product's license... for example, there have been cases where merchant X adds something like "can't be used in commercial renders". The problem with that is that the standard Renderosity license (that merchants are obliged to include with any product sold here) states just the oposite. However, I have no problem with merchants EXTENDING the rights of the license (granting you more than the license normally grants), either with or without additional 'restrictions' on those 'extended rights'. "

Under European consumer law, the Store is the body resposible for problems. The basic rule is if you sell it (commercial outlet like RMP), you are responsible for all defects, problems etc. The law and the courts tend to enforce this rule against merchant outlets making them responsible for all problems and misunderstandings associated with the product.

So using that logic it is up to the store to make sure that products descriptions are clear. In this case, if a store sells a product that has redisributive rights it should (under European law) make sure that those rights are upheld. It risks getting into serious legal trouble if it agrees with and supports unenforceable restrictions over the consumer (i.e. anyone buying that product).

Since the product is not restricted for sale to "Merchants only" the Store does not have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, trade to trade restrictions are closely regulated by the contract between the bodies and more importantly by consumer and business law. A contract in breach of consumer/business and anti-competitive law will be deemed unenforceable and illegal. Any price-fixing/Cartel-type arrangements that reduce competition are illegal under European, and I believe US law. The RMP needs to get itself up to speed on this one.

As to why I downloaded it?
I did so for the readme after reading the first posts in this thread because copyright issues interest me. I do feel for Morris as a fellow human. However, this issue is one of legal interpretation and enforcement. As such, it has much bigger implications for all merchants, users, the RMP and freebee uploaders.

Message edited on: 04/20/2005 17:23

Well I am a big admirer of Morris and have many of her products. I think it is unfortunate that she should be caught up in this brewing row over Merchant resources and the restrictions being placed upon them.

However, a number of points need to be noted in this case.

1. In the "Notes & Requirements" Digital Dreamers said that the product was created and intended for the commercial market but, that following a change of mind, they were releasing it for free.

2. It is stated in the readme:

"Ownership statements or list of licensed source material:
All of this product's content was created by Digital Dreamers using the following Merchant Resources:
Make up created using Lisbeth & Dtigerwoman's Make up magic resource, manipulated to create the required effects
Base texture created using Morris Light Texture Pack
Eyes created using Look Up eyes by Lisbeth
Tattoos created using Jungle Art brushes by Helen Payne & Bowens Photoshop Brushes."

Now let's get real and real-world here for a moment. If you buy any product weather copyrighted or trademarked that allows you a commercial redistribute function in whole or in part you cannot be stopped from doing so. Nor can you place a restriction on the price. That is anti-competitive and apart from infringements on basic constitutional rights and consumer rights, all sorts of business law and other regulations and international agreements forbid it. The only exceptions are trade to trade only agreements, but the RMP is not such a marketplace despite the words Merchant Resource.

Spanki wrote:
Suppose she allowed people to create packages (using her textures) that could be given away for free... so someone buys her product, adds some makeup or a few tattos and then gives it away... someone else adds tattos in a different location and gives it away... eventually, you download enough freebies to assemble the original, unaltered Morris product. What incentive do you (general Poser product customer/consumer) then have to purchase Morris' product, when you can basically get it for free? Wouldn't that be self-defeating, as a merchant?

Yea and if you bought enough Commercial products using the resource kit you (using the same logic) would also have the kit for free without ever buying it.

The US government places embargoes on certain militarily sensitive technologies going to some countries. It is a moot point weather this is actually legal or not, and in which jurisdiction. The RMP is an international market!

That apart, I very much doubt that any product with a redistributive permission can be restricted to "only commercial."

Just think about it, a charity buys nails to build a storage house for emergency supplies to a famine stricken country in Africa and are then sued or restricted by the nail company because they gave the nails away for free.

Get real!

"That to me sounds like exaggerating the whole problem. By now I've created a full comic in P6 (it's on it's way way to the printer as we speak for a first series of 5500 to be printed) and I'm working on a second comic by now. But of course that's nothing serious at all."

Everyone uses Poser in different ways for different kinds of work. I have managed to reduce the memory bug issue by various means (posted at RDNA) and that works fine for low resource intensive scenes. Start adding figures (and I don't mean 20 V3s) clothing, hair, props and a few other goodies to the scene and it is a no-go.

I don't know your work requirements or your system or even how you work. (I have my own solutions such as multiple renders of partial elements in the same scene with Photoshop composition as the solution for the final image). However, I can render much more stuff in P5 in one pass without a Memory Bug problems than I can in P6.

That is a serious problem that needs to be fixed and it is no exaggeration to say it is one. And I am not scared to push the limits, the problems are the lost time and file defragmentation that results with a major Poser crash.

Message edited on: 04/14/2005 16:48

Everyone suffers from the memory leak bug, some just don't use the program in a way that exposes it frequently or have systems that are more robust in dealing with it. But it exists and until it is fixed it is a major impediment to doing anything serious with P6.

CL may have released a less buggy version in P6 than they did in P5, but they still risk being tarred with the same brush unless they fix this problem soon. At the end of the day, the customer will not forgive them if the problems still persist in a few weeks time, particularly as CL knew about the bugs when releasing P6. That fact will come back to haunt them unless they fix the problems soon.

Frequent information updates from CL as regards progress of the fix will re-assure customers. Silence will only increase the speculation and anger.