"I for one, don't want their estimate tacked onto the price." Using common business sense, this is already done, just like the retail scenario, insurance premiums, credit card charges and nearly every other form of commerce. As stated elsewhere, the software industry seems to be the only one that have been taking drastic measures to reduce piracy, with the exception of the digital music industry in recent years. If someone can build it, 20 others can destroy it. Anti-theft is a losing battle on all sides, but a fact of doing business. However, making the legitimate consumer the recipient of additional measures to "ensure" a decrease in theft that will never happen is a very poor business model. Even the CD code can and has been broken, so that option does not provide any protection either; except maybe from the casual Joe and Jane User. CDs are touted as being nearly indestructible, yet they can and do fail; which would leave people in a lurch until it can be replaced.

I, too, appreciate Nos' and CLs' participation in these discussions and showing that at least they are willing to engage their customers in active dialog in order to overcome any obstacles. So, for what it's worth, thanks Nos and CL for providing the information that you have in these discussions.

I have to agree with jval on the "solution" to the problem. There are certain expense items that all companies must face as a fact of doing business. Since the anti-piracy movement is ineveitably due to fail regardless of the security scheme implemented, it seems to me an unnecessary expense to add on top of a software development and distribution system. Not only does it cause headaches for the people who purchase the product, (and provides momentary "amusement" for those who do not) but I am sure that it increases administrative costs - if nothing else - of the software company as well. Therefore, by diverting the resources away from the anti-piracy money pit and concentrating on your core business to ensure that you offer the best product(s)/service(s) you possibly can, you will reap the benefit of increased sales simply because your product excels over the competition. There are inevitably more honest than dishonest people in the world, otherwise no software company would exist for very long. By providing a superior product/service combined by exceptional customer service/relations, any company will make more than enough money to survive. After all, even if you have the absolute best product/service, without customers to purchase the product, the whole business model goes out the window. Take care of your customers and they will take care of you.

I may, eventually, buy P5, but I want to see what others experiences are with it first.

"I can judge whoever and however I want. Get used to it." Ahh, the voice of maturity and morality all rolled into one. So glad that someone is offering respectable and responsible insight into an issue that so many seem to care about. BTW: My Poser figure can beat up your Poser figure! LOL

Attached Link: Microsoft's Activation information

IMHO, there is still a degree of vagueness in the process that needs to be discussed. However, seeing as how CL seems to be either unwilling or unable to disclose this information, I have made my decision not to purchase P5 or any other versions that contain this type of security scheme until it is either removed or revamped and discussed properly so I, as a paying consumer, can fully understand my legal rights and obligations in the process. A lot of posts liken this to Microsoft's Activation scheme. However, if you view the link, Microsoft goes through a full disclosure of the process and explains it in a manner that people can understand. I recently purchased a copy of XP Pro, and I will activate it because the process is fully described and documented. Therefore, if anything goes wrong there is a baseline of information I can use at my disposal to request compensation or other remedial actions. To this point, CL has shown me that it is unwilling to trust the legitimate users with pertinent information regarding this "simple" process (ie, just what *will* trigger a new activation? how many times can you reactivate without being hassled? etc). I have P4 and ProPack and I was excited about all of the new features in P5 that would make my life easier. However, in my opinion, the lack of information and reassurance by CL to quell the legitimate concerns of its consumers causes me to question the true underlying reasons for this activation scheme. In addition, there are several points in the EULA that are unclear and, quite possibly, not even legally enforceable. I will wait to see what the other consumers think after they have had the product for awhile before re-evaluating my decision. Chances are, if I wait long enough, I can probably get the full version at a greater than 5-6% discount currently offered by preordering as well - a double bonus.

Krazik, The conjecture statement was for those who are not CL employees. Since not all employees identify themselves, it is difficult to state that something is conjecture for everyone except X, Y, and Z. I am sure you understand... Although I do seriously appreciate your effort and those of other CL employees on this, and presumably, other sites for getting "into the trenches" with the users, I still have not seen a fully detailed explaination of CL's challenge/response system that answers the majority of the issues that have been conjectured by the users or potential consumers. I have read the low-res version of the manual, which I only knew about by reading through the threads here, and I would suggest that the EULA appears to have been written very vaguely and can easily be misinterpreted depending upon the individuals' previous experience, etc. For instance, if I read correctly, even the mere mention of "reverse engineering" the product constitutes a violation of the EULA (ref: Page 12, Section G, final sentence) which is a flagrant disregard for First Amendment rights (granted, they were written stating that the government could not restrict speech, but they are widely interpreted in other scenarios as well) as well as serious legal, ethical, technical, and other discussion points. I would highly doubt if this clause would be enforceable anywhere in the "free world", and it further demonstrates - to me at least - the presumption of guilty before proven innocent mentality that these types of protections are supposedly developed to prohibit. I would suggest having some legal entity look over the bulk of the EULA and ensure that the wording properly reflects CL's intentions, as well as ensuring that those intentions themselves are legally binding before using this in a commercial setting; for CL's and the end users' benefit. There are many other questions that are raised by the EULA alone, disregarding any further discussion about the registration process. However, I would still like to see a publicly available official statement by CL or one of its designated officials as to the process and procedures under which new registrations must be obtained and some further clarification as to the process itself before committing any financial investment in the product. I am sure many other users, based off some of the discussion here, feel the same way and this type of disclosure, again, would only serve both CL and the consumers. I am not trying to nit-pick, but a complete understanding by both parties has to exist before any agreement can be considered legally binding. As of this moment, I would say that many potential customers do not have a complete understanding of the registration process. Due to the vague nature of the documentation, I would hate to see either CL or the consumer suffer due to any misconceptions or misunderstandings.

"If you have a web connection it take less than a minute to unlock your app." This is very presumptuous in and of itself. Presuming that the challange/response generator is not something that needs human intervention (ie, a script, program, etc) there are a myriad of things that can prevent legitimate users from obtaining the required response code from a myriad of technical aspects at any given point in time. Just the apparent onslaught of preorder P5 purchases alone may be enough to overwhelm the registration process. Of course, all of this is just pure conjecture on our part, but CL seems to be quite "vague" if almost non-responsive regarding the many requests to describe the process so people can determine if the upgrade would be worth the additional security verification. I, for one, would like to read an "authoritative" discussion on the topic from those in the know in order to sway my decision one way or the other. So, how about it CL? Are you prepared to make an official disclosure or potentially lose more money in legitimate sales than you probably would have due to piracy?

Likewise, any business already has a line-item for "broken, damaged, or stolen goods" which is intended to cover the anticipated cost of reduced revenue due to these scenarios and is built into, or should be, the overall purchase price of the item. It is a sad but true cost of business that, IMHO, if all "piracy" or stealing were to hypothetically end tomorrow, I highly doubt that you would see much difference in the current pricing schemes of any software produced by any company. Therefore, you only serve the purpose of annoying legitimate customers with no true benefit to either the company or the community at large.

Attached Link: Curios Labs P5 More Info page.

"Place your preorder today and Get Poser 5 Full Version for $329! Thats a $20 Savings!" (Refer to the link) $329 + $20 = $349 by my best estimations. ;0) Suggested retail, just like retail/wholesale prices for automobiles, is generally an "unrealistic" figure, again, set to make the consumer feel as if they are getting a bargain. It is all a matter of using marketing and psychologicasl ploys to get people into feeling that they are getting more than what they are.

Before anyone decides to flame: I am only going off the information I have seen in this thread, the referenced thread, and my own observations about the preorder section of the CL site. Below is my "humble" opinions, and is not to be construed as legal advice, etc, or anything other than personal opinions regarding the preorder process involved at CL. [Insert applicable legal fine print and disclaimers here.] ===== "Preorders will be charged in full", IMHO, does not satisfy the obligatory requirements to fully describe the policies and procedures surrounding the preorder purchase process. In fact, the statement, as quoted, is very vague in that it does not indicate: 1) What the definition of "preorder" in that context is. (It may seem obvious, but being overly descriptive can only benefit CL in the case of any "legal discussions".) CYA rings a bell. 2) Exactly who, what, where, when, why, how, and how much (intended exaggeration) the charges will show up on the credit card and any remedial actions available to the consumer(s) regarding complications that may arise during the preorder/fulfillment process. === As for the legality issue: I did a net search and could not find any specific information regarding the legality of making charges to credit cards prior to the fulfillment of the order. However, the majority of the sites listed when searching for "credit card preorder" do, in fact, state that the consumer will not be charged until such time as the product is shipped. Therefore, it would seem that the generally acceptable "best business practice" for CL would be to follow suit; unless explicit information is provided during the preorder process. === In this day and age of computerized billing systems and electronic transfers, I find it highly unlikely that any one person, or compnay for that matter, would have to call the credit card company(~ies) and individually verify each and every purchase (or pre-purchase) that has been made. If this was the case, I would not expect too many companies would even bother with the process, as it would be far too labor- and time-consuming to add that "convenience" for their customers. === Any company worth their salt does not rely upon preorder purchase transactions in order to fund the release of any product. If the company is that strapped for cash that they have to depend upon this source of income to release a product, buyers should beware. === The reference to a "special price", again IMHO, is not that special. $20 off a $349 valued software package hardly qualiies as "special pricing". That amounts to approximately a 5-6% discount; much less than "sale" prices from normal retail/wholesale outlets. In the grand scheme of things $20 in reference to $350 is hardly a dent; I pay more than that in local sales taxes for normal purchases. === Personally, I think CL saw a chance to increase its coffers by allowing a preorder of P5 and the preorder was meant to be nothing more than a "tickler" for the Poser crowd who are all excited about the release of P5. The one thing that this does offer CL is approximately 1-2 months' worth of advanced interest on the preorder purchases that they normally would not have recieved. Therefore, it is more of a give-and-take situation: They give you the option to preorder to ensure you get a copy, and they take your money early and earn more interest, etc, on it than they normallly would have received. For instance, using basic math and purely hypothetical figures: If CL gets 500 users to preorder P5 at $329, the total before taxes, etc (presuming any would be applicable) would be 500 x $329 = $16,450. Since they do not allow you to see the shipping costs associated with the order until you sign up for an account, I will presume that the shipping is $10/order, adding another $5,000 to the kitty. Therefore, in preorder cash alone, they have amassed $21,450 in revenue. If this money is placed in an interest-bearing account/investment, providing a yield of 3% per month ($643.50), this would net CL a total of $22,093.50 of extra income in one month ($22,756.31 for two, etc) that they normally would not have. Although this may not seem like much, to a company that is concerned with bookkeeping, fiscal reports, etc, it could be used to "fluff" figures for the month(s) prior to the official release or provide some needed revenue for whatever purpose it may suit them. Of course, this scenario does not include all of the financial possibilities available, simply because I am a geek and not an accountant or economist. ;0) So, you see, although preordering is a "nice gesture" by CL to the Poser community, there are benefits on both sides. Although I have nothing personal against CL, its affiliates, etc, all businesses try to make the consumer feel as if they are the center of attention and the sole benefactor of any such "generosity" on their behalf. However, companies are not in the practice of doing anything that does not offer themselves a direct benefit in the process. That is capitalism at its best.

I have clicked into it a couple of times, and it seems to be a collection of articles for sale. Since it is separated from the Marketplace, I would suppose there is some "difference", but I am not actually sure of what that "difference" is.

Attached Link: An Introduction to Iridology

Perhaps you could increase your researching by using Google's and other "image" search engines? I found this document (ref: link) by using "sclera veins" as the search phrase on Google's image search, in 0.23 seconds. :0)

Is that it or just the beginning? If that is the whole structure, I guess I don't know it. ;0)

The funny thing is sometimes you cannot trust Commercially released software either. I tried loading NSW2002 on a W98SE system along with another new application and, between the two of them, they trashed my system. I had similar issues with NAV in the past. Regardless of the source, it is a question of ethics and economics.