Attached Link: http://www.curiouslabs.com

I would like to personally apologize for any concerns that have arisen as a result of the Poser 4.0.3 updater and as well would like to address some issues related to the updater and it's serial number checking process. Contrary to posts that have been placed on the various Poser forums, we are not attempting to "skim email addresses" or place a Trojan Horse in any Poser user's system. In the 4.0.3 updater, we have implemented a serial number checking routine that searches across a local area network only, to inquire if duplicate serial numbers are being used in that network. If it detects a duplicate serial number, Poser will prompt the user to save and will exit the application. The intent of this process is to control the illegal use of multiple copies of the same serial number at the same time. It is not illegal for you to install multiple copies of Poser on multiple machines, but to run them at the same time is. We are a very small group dedicated to keeping Poser alive and we need to protect Poser from rampant illegal duplication. We were in error for not clearly stating that the 4.0.3 updater incorporated the serial number checking routine. For that I am truly sorry. We are trying to juggle a great number of things and in the process of doing so; I personally overlooked the creation of informative copy for the download area of our web site. When we were testing the updater prior to its' public release, we were not running firewall software on any of our local area network test machines. As a result we did not foresee that the various firewall applications would create a warning dialog when we broadcasted our serial number data across your LAN. Unfortunately, all of the commonly available firewall applications do not provide very much detail about our network query, they display LAN access requests in the same fashion that they treat an Internet access request via their single umbrella dialog window. In this checking process, no data is being transferred, via any means, to us or to anyone one else. We will be immediately looking at implementing a system that conducts the serial number check in a manner that does not trigger a warning dialog from your firewall applications. I hope this clarifies any issues related to problems with the Poser 4.0.3 updater. I will continue to monitor the boards and add comments as needed. Thanks for your understanding and patience. We're grateful for your loyalty and value your commitment to Poser immensely. Sincerely, Steve Cooper President, Curious Labs, Inc. www.curiouslabs.com

That works for me Steve, I can fully understand how you missed this. Thanks for clarifying the situation. Regards PhilC

Works for me too... although I really was hoping it was some arcane & devious plot to track down illegal serial numbers :-) Having been in a service industry for a long time I understand how difficult customer service can be, so thanx for taking the time to "step into the breach" & explain more fully.

I'd rather it not be something devious myself since I truely do love the Poser application. Has this been posted at PFO, the mailing list and the newsgroup as well? As for me; I still plan to research into the IP numbers it gave in my logs. But so far all I've come up with is that that is the broadcast IP address. I believe it is normally used for Lan traffic but I'm not sure. I like to have technical proof. Current events have shown us recently many efforts by online businesses to raid our desktops and our privacy. Some of these have results in legal challenges. As a result of that the user base is growing very wary of anything that even remotely seems like a security issue. Modern company's need to address this upfront and in very direct language with accompanying technical details were appropriate in order to gain or regain the trust of a suspicious public. Big Brother is not coming in the form of jack-booted government agents. But a more subtle corporately branded big brother concept is a potentially legitimate fear these days.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

Ok... I'll buy Poser 5 now. Is it ready?

My Thanks Master Cooper, well explained.. and I do understand being under a deadline, with still more to go... I hope things get bettre and things start looking up again ) Cheers, Wizzard

Ive never dealt with any other company that thought they had to check my passwords and Im not starting now. I have bought every version of poser (even tho I dont use it that often) since it came out, and find it very dis-heartening that the first new touch would cause my firewall to freak out. so still no p4.0.3 or p5+ for me... but Im glad others like the explanation... still see no real accomplishment by putting such a check on any system..its easy to stop and I just dont get why it would be done when such things (meaning any kind of broadcast) in the past have been recieved so negatively in the past. This is probably the #1 program used with Bryce on the whole as a community...tis sad indeed... well...nuff from me... Im sure Ive made it clear that this is not acceptable to me in any form... BT Deborah C. Bishop brycetech@yahoo.com http://www.brycetech.com/

I don't like it either.Curious Labs was WRONG and they know it.That is why it took Curious SO long to come up with a response.Curious Labs should do something to make ammends.I LOVE Poser4 but I am STILL mad about what was done.It was a Trojan,plain and simple.Curious Labs owes it's supporters something for putting up with this intrusion.

You're making a big assumption about Curious Labs' response time. A reasonable alternative explanation would be that the key personel were away at a CGI convention... I'm not convinced a local area network serial number checking system can fairly be defined as a Trojan. For example, most demo versions of programs have an operating system registry checking method whereby they can tell if the user is attempting to re-install the demo after the previous installation expired and was removed. Is that a Trojan? I don't think so. The only problem with this particular effort from Curious Labs was that it wasn't tested with any firewall programs, and it wasn't mentioned in the documentation. Both were reasonable things for users to expect from the company, and this has been acknowledged by them, and an apology made. I'm certainly not expecting anything else from them. I can understand people getting worried and hot under the collar when a situation is confused and debatable, but once a thorough explanation, apology and assurance have been given, continued spite starts to look just a little bit silly.

Deborah, Please understand, we are only checking to see if a Poser serial number is in use, at the same time, on another machine, on your local area network (this means networked computers in your home, not the internet). This is a practice that Adobe, Quark and File Maker as well as a huge number of other software developers have implemented to prevent unauthorized copies of their software from running across multiple machines. We are not checking passswords. There is no data about you or your computer transmitted to us or to anyone else. Jim Artist3D, Everyone at Curious Labs was attending Siggraph in New Orleans, with most of us returning back home to California on late Sunday. We needed time to see exactly what the problem was and decide what could be done before issuing a statement. Officially, I know that our implementation of a network serialization check that prevents the illegal use of a single license of Poser across a network of multiple machines does not constitute any wrong doing on our part. Sincerely, Steve Cooper Curious Labs

REALLY, Please make 4 window interface.

Dunga- Have you read about the Poser Pro Pack, it adds that and a lot more.

Coop, thanks for taking the time to clear this up for everyone. The timing was a bit unfortunate, what with y'all being away in N'awlins at Siggraph, and folks panicked when they didn't get an immediate response. Folks around here seem to get themselves whipped into Chicken Little mode pretty quick, and they've had the better part of a week to lather up. To everyone who doesn't know Coop: Steve Cooper's a pretty straight-up guy, and if he says that this was NOT some devious plot, well, dammit, I believe him just as I would Jack or Ed. Right now his whole future is riding on the success of the upcoming Poser 5, and he deserves our support; if it weren't for the hard work of Steve Cooper and Larry Weinberg, there wouldn't be a Poser, and thus no Renderosity.com for us all to come and hang at. And I'd hazard a guess that the majority of us wouldn't even be able to create Jack Shit if it weren't for Poser. For those of you who say you won't do business with them, let's all see what tune you sing when you see all the cool shit folks will be making with Poser 5 when it hits the stores ;] Steve's explained the situation satisfactorily, he's apologized for the misunderstandings, and that's good enough for me. Thanks, Steve, yer awright. Save me a copy of 5.

Deborah, You & I do not feel quite as strongly about this. However, the patched Poser is not checking passwords. It only wants to be sure that another copy of itself is not running on the same network at the same time. Nor does it cause firewalls to "freak out". These firewalls are deficient in their reporting methods in that they reported an internet connection attempt where none existed. Effectively, the firewalls caused us to freak out. It is as if you lost your own reputation due to the false gossip of others. The same thing happened to me. The only difference was that I was curious rather than particularly angry. Curious Labs neglected to inform of us of this aspect of the patch. Ideally they should have and have apologized. I'm not certain an apology was actually necessary but at least they recognize our concerns and fears. But other companies have used similar methods, also without prior advisement. It is an unfortunate but legitimate security method. It is not a trojan, which is usually characterized by a deliberate intent to do harm. In this case, the check only enforces something which you've already agreed to in the initial program license. I think that most of us believe that the Poser team has been relatively forthright with us in the past. They certainly have been more communicative than most other software publishers. When I weigh the history of their past behaviour against this single incident, I can readily forgive or excuse any misunderstandings. After all, surely everyone is entitled to at least one mistake (and this mistake is more in the nature of public relations than ethical misbehaviour). Until the day that they actively work against my legal use of the program and ease of use I will continue to trust them as I have in the past. I do not expect that day to arrive. While it is true that not everyone has your best interests at heart, eventually you have to trust someone based upon their past behaviour. If you never do, the universe will forever seem a very evil place indeed.

Please Tell me the link I really havent heard about it

Read about the Pro Pack here: http://www.curiouslabs.com/press_7_24b.html

Really thank you Lemurtek

If what Steve says is true,I understand.Like I said in my Original post,I LOVE POSER4.The fact that a serial number checker was installed without telling us originally was what got me upset,and I had EVERY right to feel that way.Reading all the other posts here and in a few other places I got the impression from more Experienced Artists that it was a Trojan.If that was wrong, then they are wrong, and they should "chill".BUT and I repeat BUT,it was WRONG to put it in there WITHOUT explaining it.THAT is what got everyone suspicious.It seemed like Curious was "hiding" something.Since Steve explained it wasn't on purpose,I choose to believe him,since, like I said,I do Love Poser4,and I am sure he is a decent guy.Just next time,EXPLAIN EXACTLY what is in a download.And to everyone else here,at least give Curious a chance.I know I will now.Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.I'm sure Larry,Steve,and Curious Labs all have our best interests at heart.So we should support them.

well..I dont give a rats ass what its doing or not!!! a trojan horse is defined by any hacker worth the lead to write his name as: "any program that is that does harm OR monitors a system without user knowledge" you did not tell me it was there! and the current dl does not either! and why was my posted comment to the main page not posted?...ok to to have an opinion about this as long as its not negative? my site has been updated to show whats happening and the users can contact you directly for whats happening. btw...I do not appreciate ANYONE calling my concerns about any kind of "Big Brother" activity 'silly' or not founded. I wash my hands of this now and will not support Poser anymore. The current BtoP tute may be removed (gotta consider the Brycers first) and the one that removes the mystery about the creation of poser characters for anyone will not to be finished (you saved me some work)! IF you think me silly..read all the uproar that the disclosure of the adlink tech that cuteftp and such impose. I will stick to p4 and be happy. Sometime in the future when I find that things have changed then ok..but for now...nah..too much for this girl. and to quote my index page: **************************************** Two parents stand graveside...parent one says to parent two..."My little Johnny didn't know the gun was loaded..I'm terribly sorry" Parent two says: " That's OK, at least he knows now." **************************************** Granted the attack on our computers was not as drastic, the illustration above serves only to illustrate that sometimes "sorry" is not enough.... oh..and just because everyone else does it..does not make it ok! its your bed..lay in it... debbie PS those that know me...KNOW I do not use my name anymore in posts...so you have evidentally hit a NERVE!

Point 1.) Let us be clear here, what was installed as part of 4.03 was, indeed, a trojan. Why? Because it was a program or sub-program designed to act outside the expected bounds of the program we thought we were installing which was surreptitiously installed without our knowledge or approval. While CL has every right to protect their intellectual property, we have every right to know what is being installed on our systems. Point 2.) The fact that Steve Cooper has come forward to apologize for and explain this unannounced installation is commendable. Point 3.) I have no reason to doubt the word of Steve Cooper. And he is highly praised by some who I have grown to respect a great deal in this forum. But Steve and CL have to understand where we stand. While they were away in New Orleans, explanations were offered by someone at CL that did not jive with the evidence being presented. That increased the level of mistrust more than a bit. Point 4.) Contrary to what has been stated, it was not a "...Chicken Little..." mentality that caused this. It was a combination of an admiited lapse on the part of CL, the well publicized behavior of many other software companies in the recent past, the recognition by many that if they do not safeguard their systems no one will and Point 3. That is not behaving like Chicken Little. That is being safe with your system, your data and your privacy. That is also being cognizant of the low moral threshold too many in this business operate with. Point 5.) Curious Labs was also a victim of that low moral threshold spoken of in Point 4. Because we have been had by the likes of Radiate, Real Media, NetZip, AOL and many others, we have been forced into an almost "fortress" type mentality. And that damages companies like CL who may innocently make a mistake or just plain forget something. I understand that. My company is comprised of 4 over-worked humans, three spoiled dogs, two lazy cats and two "getting too big" sharks. We have been known to "drop the ball" on occassion. Point 6.) I think when they begin digging into the code, the folks at CL will realize that some rather poor coding was used to impliment their serial number checking. And it was that coding, not necessarily the firewalls, that caused the firewalls to sound the alarm. Conseal, in particular, is rather good and it even believed it was an Internet access attempt. It has been a few years since I was involved at the end, but, I just think CL will find that the coding implimenting this was below par. Point 7.) It may involve some additional work on the part of the folks at CL and the user if they wish to move Poser from one machine to another, but, may I suggest they investigate hardware locking keys for future versions of Poser? I have yet to see a successful pirate version of any program where I used hardware locking keys. It gives the developer protection and should eliminate privacy concerns on the part of the user. However, like I said, it does entail additional work if a customer wants to move his/her Poser to another machine. You have to weigh the cost/benefit factor. It was also just a suggestion so please spare me the flaming arrows and red hot pokers. But I get pretty peeved when I see uploading copies of Poser and Zygote stuff onto the net. I almost always drop a note to Zygote letting them know so that maybe they can nail one of the less careful or stupid pirates. I would be glad to do the same for CL and Poser. Point 8.) My friend has yet been able to take the time to dismantle Poser 4.03 and I haven't had the time myself so my "paranoia meter" is not completely pointing at 0. However, based on their past and the respected opinions of some within this community (... and we ARE a community, a diverse community) until such time as there is another "slip," I am willing to give Steve the benefit of the doubt. But I will install the patch after we tear it apart. (Trust the Lord but tie the camel.) Point 9.) Actually, I once did create "Jack Shit" for an art project. ;) Point 10.) I tried, but, there is no Point 10. And I a too dang tired to try and think of one. Sorry. Take care and Godspeed.

THe patch addition was supposed to check locally I.e. on the Lan for duplicated serial numbers... that's it.. when a match was found presumably it'd shut one or both down.. fair enough... I have Poser on one computer.. and 3dMax on another.. and just pass models from one to the other.. no probs.. It dinnae try to dial out.. nor load a transmission pachet... And I can see the point of the other side.... cannot we call this one a case of miscommunication Like Legume said... simply bad timing.... at least it isn't grabbing adverts off the web and plagueing us with cookies ne? In peace, Wizzard

Christmas 2000- This just in. Little Billie and Susie got an unpleasant surprise this Christmas morning, when reaching into their Christmas Stockings, the little tykes found large metal bracelets clamped onto their arms, instead of expected candy and toys. One irate parent, trying to calm a crying braceleted toddler, was of the opinion that this was a very dissapointing developement, from a normally trusted source. Concerned parent's call's into Santa's Workshop were first met with denials, but finally, After Santa's return from his Wonderland 2000 conference, the following statement was made: "We here at Santa's workshop have always enjoyed making toys for good little boys and girls. But lately, it seems, many more of these boys and girls have been naughty, many more than we can really be happy with. Regretfully, we felt it was time to take a stand. Which is why we introduced our new Naughty Monitor 2000 technology. While wearing this festive, stylish accessory, the child's every naughty act is recorded on our special list. Next year, Santa will not only know who's been naughty and nice, he'll have all the relevant details. It's unfortunate that Santa must resort to this- if only the boys and girls out there would just be nice." In a statement from an raindeer who asked not to be identified, it was remarked that preparing the naughty monitor 2000 required so much time and effort that the production of toys had to be delayed till next year. Regards- Lemurtek, whose naughty monitor is beeping like crazy

I have a number of applications that perform this type of serial number checking. The most notable are Adobe products, Photoshop, in particular. I don't see what the big deal is. If you use the products legally, you'll never have a problem. But, thanks, kupa, for the timely explanation. It must suck to have to periodically kiss the collective butts of the users of this forum. I would find it demoralizing. People sure seem to want a lot for a couple hundred bucks. --ratta

It ain't a case of having to "...kiss the collective butts of the users of this forum." It's a case of alleviating the concerns, the UNDERSTANDABLE concerns, of those CUSTOMERS who have purchased YOUR product. Especially when those concerns were caused by an admitted failure on the developer's part! And it isn't "...demoralizing." It is called good customer relations. And it would not matter one ounce of doggie putty if it was "...a couple hundred bucks..." or a couple thousand or just a ten spot! Paying customers have a right to know what you are putting on their system. Steve has acknowledged that and apologized for CL's failure, an honest mistake it appears, to disclose. So before everyone starts trying to one up each other in some kind of "I'm the Most Loyal Curious Labs Customer" competition, understand where we, I believe someone called us "...knee-jerk reactionaries..." elsewhere, were coming from. And remember it the next time someone like a Radiate, NetZip, Double-Click, AOL or some other "trusted" or "respected" company does, in fact, betray your trust and invade and infest your system. Okay. Unless I find something to contradict what Steve has told us when we tear 4.03 apart I am through with this thread. I refuse to let anyone ruin the fun I have in this community just because we disagree on what should have been said or done in regard to a potential privacy-security risk. Take care and Godspeed.

I have a number of applications that perform this type of serial number checking Almost all professional apps do this kind of thing, one way or another. I fyou want to play with these kind of toys, you deal with it. The fact that Poser now does this doesn't effect my intentions toward either using the current version or buying future versions. That doesn't mean we have to like it, especially when it's sprung on us cold. >I don't see what the big deal is Here is the big deal. Poser has never used this kind of thing before, no mention was made of their intention to do this, and they posted a new patch, with no indication on their web page of this. Given the circumstances, with Siggraph and all, this was understandable, but still it caught people off guard. Curious Labs couldn't have introduced this in a poorer fashion if they had deliberately tried. >If you use the products legally, you'll never have a problem. Not necessarily true. Honest paying customers of Real Networks have had their names, addresses, email and even credit card numbers transmitted, in the clear, to Real. I'd call that a real problem. And since we had no forewarning on the Poser thing, nobody really knew what to think. When Curious Labs announced Poser 4.0.3, people were intrigued. Most people assumed there might be new goodies and/or bugs fixes. Considering the past disappointment with Metacreations, this was exciting news. And when the 4.0.3 patch showed up, a lot of people probably felt like maybe we were getting an early Christmas present. The fact that no mention of what the patch contained made it even more intriguing. Thus it was doubly disappointing when it turned out to be the same 4.0.2 patch, with the Curious Labs branding, AND of course, to find your firewall triggered because of Poser was not a happy surprise. A cynical mind might find all this quite deliberate. Get people excited about a new verison, but don't specify any thing concrete. Slip your network serial check in, then post the new patch, knowing that many of your customers will download it expecting new features or bug fixes. Of course, had they programmed the serial check better, no one would have been the wiser. Ok, I don't think that's what happened. Curious Labs is a small startup company, they had Siggraph to worry about, and you can see how this kind of thing could have happened. But calling people paranoid and Chicken Little because they have honest and justified concerns about their privacy is wrong. >It must suck to have to periodically kiss the collective butts of the users of this forum And as far as Kupa kissing but, well, Curious Labs chose to put this code in, and they chose to post it with no explanation. They have an excuse, but being busy doesn't abdicate your responsibility. And battling Piracy is not an excuse for wasting your legitimate customers time on a wild snipe hunt, when all this could have been avoided with a few simple paragraphs before hand. >People sure seem to want a lot for a couple hundred bucks. It's about respect. Curious Labs wants (and has a right to expect) people to respect their Software License. At the same time, Curious Labs should have respected the privacy concerns of their customers. In my (not very) humble opinion Regards- Lemurtek

Your tinfoil hat has a hole in it! Time to make a new one.

Brycetech, I am sorry if using your real name offended you. I only did so because, contrary to your words, it did appear in your message. Nor did I intend to call you or your fears silly. I thought I clearly mentioned that I was also caught up in this thing. It is just that my previous experiences with Steve Cooper & the Poser team were sufficiently positive that I was not prepared to become unduly concerned just yet. You are correct in your definition of trojan. However, it is usually preceded with the word "malicious". As this patch attempts to enforce the program license but makes no attempt at punitive reprisal I do not view it as a trojan. But then, I'm not a hacker so what do I know? You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am entitled to mine. I tried to reply to you in a civil manner and regret that you appear to think I was making light of your concerns or dismissing them. That was not my intent. I am the type who needs more than a single incident before I fully trust someone. Likewise, I need more than a single incident before complete distrust sets in. This does not mean I do not lock my doors whenever I leave home :-)

To Steve Cooper: I appreciate the honesty and your news release regarding the situation. I would've been disappointed had we not received one and can understand the length of time that it took in which to look into it and come up with an answer. To everyone (including Steve Cooper): Is there a need for this kind of check on Poser? Most definately, we have all been in the forum's and seen the amount of "warez" requests that come in. There is already one circulationg out there for the Poser Pro Pack, piracy is very real, and finding ways to overcome it (like shoplifting) always effects the customers who pay, it's sad, but a fact of life. Also, the idiom holds true: "Locks are only made to keep honest people honest"... Renderosity would not be what it is if not for the Poser Program, but it will never mean me getting on my knees and kissing ass as someone suggested, BUT what I will do is offer myself and all of my resources to insure that things turn out for Poser and help to insure it survival. Am I satisfied with the explanation, for now, yes I am. I do have some questions regarding some things, but those are between me and the parties involved and only meant for personal satisfaction. Which is to be expected, after all, I have had hackers use Port 80 on my machine reformat my hard drive... so after being screwed by one, we tend to be wary... don't fault people for that... that too, is life. Just my thoughts Jack

Here is another question, just for us HONEST people who have to do work using Poser, is Curious Labs going to offer a Corporate Licensing Agreement to users who do make a living or help Curious Labs using Poser (namely Renderosity, PFO, Big-i and others)? Perhaps this should also be discussed. Jack

casamerica and Lemurtek: Thanks for addressing my post. Maybe I'm just naive. I don't really worry about privacy stuff. I suppose I should. The ubiquitous 'they' have had 50 years to get whatever it is there is to be gotten about me, so if Curious Labs wants to insure I'm a legal Poser user, that's ok by me. Just don't crash my machine while doing it. After reading your posts, I see the need for informing the users about what's going on behind the scenes. Also, the 'butt-kiss' remark wasn't PC. I'm old. It's how I talk. I'll never learn. --ratta

signing my name above was simply my way of saying this is the creator of Brycetech and I do not in any way/shape/form or fashion support this kind of "behind the scenes" stuff. I do not disagree with curious wanting their logo, upgrades, whatever in the poser program. Heck they own it! If Id have paid big bucks for a program, Id want some return fast too. BUT not at the expense of the loyal users of the program. Ive said it before, poser is probably the #1 used program in association with Bryce. In my experience, anyone that uses poser has a "love/hate" relationship with it...but people still buy it and make very intriguing images with it. I would never say that there is no need for some kind of guard, my concern is this wasnt announced. ever heard the saying: once burned, twice shy ? so I guess this all spawns from a similar experience to Jack's where I have been attacked by people getting into open ports and scanning my stuff. One time a person called me by name and they had no idea what it was!...they just read it from my computer. it was mentioned above very eloquently... a few short paragraphs could have averted this whole deal. kupa did email me personally about this and I find that very nice indeed...at least an attempt to do some damage control from the president of a company does show a little caring about the customer. BT

Jack, Maybe you don't understand the 3D graphics related industry... Poser is now being offered to studios using Lightwave and MAX via the ProPack. They must purchase multiple licenses to operate the program on more than one machine. It really has nothing to do with Warez. All the major companies do this, it nothing new. -JH.

Jeff- Jack has a valid point, many high end companies have site license policies that can provide a company with multiple seats at a savings over just buying separate individual packages. Of course, most of these packages cost thousands of dollars, and Poser even with the ProPack is a fraction of these kind of prices, so Curious Labs may not see the need to do this. Regards- Lemurtek

That's a market they want, it's their business not ours. -JH.

Jack, We will continue, as Meta did (and frankly as most every software manufacturer does), to offer site licenses of Poser and the Pro Pack for corporate, academic and goverment users. These generally start with a 5 user license and go up from there. If you or any members of this forum have a need to discuss site licensing, please feel free to email me directly to request pricing information. Is the serialization check neccessary? Absolutely. Estimates are that between high volume warez duplicators, ill-informed end-users, ignorant or unscrupulous corporate users, and international bootlegging, Poser was impacted, at Meta, to the tune of just over 1 million dollars in lost revenue. That is for Poser alone. And suprisingly, a great number of these serialized versions had multiple users try to register the same serial number. Do I stand behind our decision? Yes. The only alternative is a hardware based dongle that plugs into your keyboard's adb, serial, ps2 or usb port, which is expensive and extremely inconvenient to change from machine to machine, and if lost or stolen, generally represents a full purchase price for replacement. Sincerely, Steve Cooper Curious Labs

Steve, I appreciate answering my question, which I felt was important, expecially Jeff when we have to test products out before putting them into the online store. I have three personal computers which Ed, Diane and I work off of, testing product almost 8 hours a day, for Diane it is close to 12 hours a day. So for me it would be important to get a multi-site license which would be better than a $1,200 price tag, which we can't honestly afford. Please make no mistake that I am not faulting your decision for the serialization check, actually that is the best thing that you could do and would also help to take care of some of the "requests" that venture here and on the PFO, and again, any help that we can offer in that area let us know!! Jack

First of all debbie is right!!! Also CL is lying THE PATCH does attempt to access the internet and specifically Curious lab and thier website attempt's to ping back in a attempt to identify the PC. Regardless ot the reason they implemented this, That THEY LIED is Unaceptable.

Attached Link: http://www.curiouslabs.com/labReport/index.html

Alcatraz, We did not lie to you. The Poser 4.03 updater does not attempt to connect to the internet, it merely querries your local area network to assess whether the same serial number version of Poser 4 is running simultaneously on that LAN. No information is transmitted to us or any other party about you or your email address, your hardware, your serial number. We do not ping back via our website. This is an absolute fabrication. For more information on our upcoming security measures please check out the URL with this reply. Check out the "Locks and Updaters" story. Steve Cooper President, Curious Labs

Ok, I've read the article at the link you posted, Steve, and I have a question. What happens if someone orders the software over the phone or is given the software as a birthday/graduation/Christmas/Channukah/insert holiday here gift and plans to install it on a computer that is not connected to any sort of network? Example: My nephew does not have internet access since his parents consider it a waste of money and won't allow it to be installed in their home and won't allow their telephone to be used for that purpose so his computer doesn't even have a modem installed. Now, suppose you have the security stuff in place and I buy him a copy of Poser as a birthday gift. How would you handle that sort of situation? Would he even be able to use the program? Kate

You would simply contact us via email or regular mail, or phone call within the grace period, with the challenge code generated by the Pro Pack installer, and we would furnish an unlock code. After the grace period has expired, we can unlock the application as well via the same processes. Steve Cooper

OK Poser 4.03 doen't hit the net?? Dose ProPack

Oh good, then you DID plan for that eventuality. Glad to hear it, and thanks for the speedy reply, Steve. :) You would be so surprised at how many companies would NOT have taken this possibility into account. My 9 yr old nephew who lives with me (who also doesn't have internet access - I feel he's still too immature for it) has some educational stuff that wants to access the internet every time he starts the program. Drives the poor kid nuts. :) Auntie Kate

Pro Pack does not currently access the net for security purposes. The registration process for the "soon to be released" updater to Pro Pack will use the net for registration after installation only. Steve Cooper

I understood that the current programs didn't need net access. I was only concerned about FUTURE programs and upgrades after reading the article you so kindly pointed out to us. And I am very happy to learn that you had taken into account the fact that not everyone has internet access when working out your future security measures. Kate

Okay, now I'm confused. You mean that if I don't have a network at home and don't have an internet connection at home, then the software cannot be used at home unless I call and get an unlock code? Will I have to enter the unlock code everytime I try to run the program?

BAM, I'm pretty sure you will only need to enter the code once every time you install the software. Kinda like a serial number, but a serial number will work with any copy of Pro Pack...the code you get from CL will only work with that particular installation of the Pro Pack.

BAM, JKeller is accurate. But here's a little more detail from our end. There is a grace period during which our protected/locked applications can run without registration. So if you do not have an internet connection for the machine you've installed the application on, you can still run that application for a limited period of time. During the grace period you will need to send us an email, snail mail or phone call to get the unlock code and enter it the next time you start up the app. Then you are unlocked and registered, and don't ever need to connect with us again, unless you want to do another install on another machine. After the grace period has expired, if you haven't registered before that time, you will need the unlock code to use the application again. The simplest registration/unlocking process will be for those who install the application on a internet connected machine. The access to our server to unlock the app will occur instantly. And the unlocking code only gets generated that first time you register, hence you only need to connect to us once to unlock the app. The unlock code is then securely stored on your hard drive and it is referenced when you run the app the second, third, fourth time you run the registered app. Steve Cooper

Ok, another stupid question. (I know, that sort of question is my specialty g) I'm assuming that you have to go through the entire registration/unlock process if you replace the hard drive in your computer as well as if you install it on a new machine. Am I correct? Kate (who goes through hard drives like a hot knife through butter)

Steve, I completely and utterly back every reasonable attempt to protect your rights, but - frankly - this is a nightmare. I give you an example: I made the mistake to buy the German RDS 5.0.2 in MetaCreation times. Sadly, it crashes with OS 9, so MetaC did a 5.0.4 patch fixing it, but only for the US version. Then they exploded within a day. Since then, I'm locked - no German 5.0.4 patch, no 5.5 upgrade any longer, no MetaC support, no new owner of RDS. OK, this is my risk with every software - the company might crash. At least I can boot with OS 8.6 till the end of times and use RDS there. However, your plans are worse. Believe me - my hopes & wishes for the success of CuriousLabs are overwhelming, and I wish you the best of luck for eternity. But this is the real world, and you might crash by the next weekend - and then zillions of Poser users are stuck whenever they need a new harddisk? Do you expect us to pray for a pirate then, who will crack it for us??? I have never seen a community like this before - whenever someone tries to cheat you, there is a public outcry and the vast majority of Poser users tries to protect and assist you in your fight against warez and piracy. Please don't pay honest users back by kicking them this way. I never used block letters for a whole sentence before, but I do it now: PLEASE RE-CONSIDER THIS STRATEGY, OR THE RESULTS MIGHT BE DISASTEROUS! With the best wishes, MartinC

PS: Apart from a private end-user's fears, I've forgot to mention another very serious issue. From my experience, Poser is already used by a great number of serious 3D artists, and it is constantly growing from once-toy into already-pro. Many 3D professionals have deadlines, and they need reliable protection - often they have a 24 hour hardware insurance, which guarantees immediate replacement in case of a crash, because otherwise they might be liable to significant penalties. Do you think they will trust that your server is always online and working? We all know how often servers are down, we all know how often the Zygote/DAZ server is down the whole bloody weekend, whenever they release a new Vicki on Friday evening...!!! :-) I can't think of a single serious worker who would entirely rely for good & desaster on such a thing completely out of your own control. This scheme might work for a computer game which is hip today and forgotten in two months, but it may well be the end of Poser as a professional tool used by professional companies.

I do just have the teeeeeeeeeensiest little question: WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? WHAT HAPPENS IF I REPLACE MY HARD DRIVE?????? Just wanted to be sure that the "geniuses" who came up with this "system" saw the question.

One more thing: How much money will you LAY ON THE LINE as an absolute bonded air-tight escrow GUARANTEE that your server will be up AT ALL TIMES for this fackackta security measure that your "geniuses" have come up with? Or is it just a matter of "screw you, if we're down, it's your problem"?

As I understand it, when you replace your Hard Drive, the PPP embeds a new code on the new hard drive when installed. Then, if you're connected to the net, PPP automatically grabs the unlock code for you you. If you're not connected, you call for your new unlock code. You are limited to a certain number of installs (please, Steve, tell me this number is more than 3)

Server downtime isn't really an issue. As I understand it, the PPP only has to connect to the CL site once to get the unlock code. And if the CL site happens to be down when you first install the PPP, you have 30 days before it locks up on you. The CL site is bound to up and running at some point before your 30 days is up.

Martin, I agree with you about the problem that would be caused if CL went out of business. Certainly none of us want to see that happen. Certainly the folks at CL don't want to even think about that happening. But it would be nice to know there is some sort of worst-case-scenario plan...just in-case.

As long as there are no self-modifying CDs, there can't be a limit for installs - all that can happen is that you have to re-register every time you install. Let's say I'm a professional designer, it's Friday evening, and I have a deadline on Monday. If my disk crashes now, I need the code now. If CuriousLabs can't be reached or their server is down - or my internet is down, I can't work over the weekend - which could be my ruin. Will I start to use such a tool as a professional? NO! Unless CuriousLabs is willing to pay me any damage that may result out of this, and has a deposit for it which will survive their own possible crash. Read my lips - this would be the end of Poser as a professional tool.

Kupa, Okay, let's say that I have 3 computers in 3 different places and all 3 places are on the Internet. Will I still be able to install the software on 3 computers or will it only allow me to have 1 install? I thought software license agreements allowed me to install it in as many places as I wanted, but if I only owned one copy of the program then I could only be running it on one computer at any one time. Is that still true?

Martin,
True, as long as CD's cannot self-modify, the CD can't limit the number of times you install, but CL can limit the number of times that they unlock your code.

Now I'm shooting from the hip here, so if Steve can verify or deny that would be great, but if your disk crashes now you need the code sometime within the grace period. As I understand it, as long as CD's cannot self-modify, you have (I said 30 days in my last post, I have no idea where I got that number from now) that grace period after each install.

So all that a pirate needs to do is to re-install Poser every 30 days? And they will do this rubbish JUST FOR THAT !!??? It would be interesting to know how many potential Poser users already delayed their planned purchase, because they read this thread :-( Mr. Steve Cooper - support by your users is an important aspect in fighting warez, maybe the most important aspect of all. If anyone posts a crack that makes Poser install without a serial now, there will be an outcry. People will report it to you, people will flood the server with protest mails, etc. pp. If you do THIS, and someone posts a crack, he/she will be a HERO, and normal honest users will be happy to get it, "just to feel a bit more secure". As I said before, this is nothing but a nightmare, and I hope for CuriousLabs' sake, that it will stop before it causes REAL damage.

BAM, Yes you can intall the app on three different machines right away if that's what you want to do, but for a potential fourth install you'll need to explain why to us before a fourth unlock code will be issued. MartinC, The grace period is less than 30 days, i cannot disclose the exact time here, and once it has expired on a specific machine, even if a pirate attempts to re-install that same app, the app will not run without registration and an unlock code. If you have regsitered your first install, you get a new grace period for each subsequent install, covering you for the weekend, should you not be abl;e to unlock via our server. For reference, professional 3d tools such as Max 4, Lightwave, etc, have equally deep security measures, and all are moving to the system we use. I understand your apprehension, but we cannot go forward, with any new software releases, without protection. This system is the best we've found, and we've looked long and hard. Dogface, Do another install on the new hardrive, and just re-register under the grace period.

Martin, I just purchased Lightwave 6.5. It uses a hardware dongle, plus you have to call, e-mail or register on-line to receive an unlock code. CL's method is actually much easier and you don't have to worry about a hardware dongle breaking.

Jeremy, if the hardware dongle breaks (I'm using QuarkXPress - not broken yet) I'm dependent on the company's mercy. If the Poser install breaks, I'm dependent on the company's mercy - EVERY BLOODY TIME!!! Steve, I don't know about the other software you mentioned, but I suppose if they do so, they have told people about it, so that they can avoid buying it. I read a lot of national computer magazines here, and whenever a piece of software includes some "protection" which makes you dependent on the creator like this, they will mark the review with a clear "not recommended" and an advice not to buy it. This is fair, because people know it, and if they accept it, fine! I don't think it is fair to release a "Poser Pro Pack" full of awful bugs as a "normal" software (where user think they have proper rights), and then release the necessary bugfix like this! The least you could do is to release the bugfix the proper way, and reserve this new activation key for Poser5 - with a warning! By the way - I am not sure if this could even violate local consumer rights. Microsoft has just lost a court procedure in Germany with OEM bundles. If there is a hardware lock which forces a bundled Windows to a specific CPU, they must give everyone a full licence now, or the user can claim the money back for the whole machine. I don't compare the technical background, of course - I compare the principle. A company did something that the court rated "unfair", so the seller has to pay back to the customer, and Microsoft has to pay back to the seller. If a user can't work with PPP because of a serious bug, and if the fix will violate his usual consumer rights, there might be a chance to sue the software seller - at least if it was a local one. For me, all this is something close to the worst day since MetaCreation exploded. I spent two years now working for Poser utilities which I freely shared with the whole community. In order to do this work and the necessary support for my users, I'm working with OS 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.5.1, 8.6, 9.0, 9.0.4 and 9.1 so far, and I have a heap of older Poser CDs now, where I do constant installs/re-installs to test their behaviour, and to find out about the many bugs which I try to fix with my tools as good as I can - like this horrible way how textures are handled on Mac. This will stop now, of course - how could I go on with 3 installs and a grace period of 30 seconds (Oh yes, if CuriousLabs has mercy it could be up to 5 minutes). I have already reserved some future time now to fully update my tools for ProPack. But I also want to work with Poser, and I can't risk to damage my precious once-in-a-lifetime install, probably. I was supplied with a free Poser4 by MetaCreation's Klaus Busse - and I'm still thankfull for his support till today. I was supplied with a free PPP now (thanks to Larry Weinberg) to support updating my tools - and I was more than happy again. Apart from this, I have spent a nightmare amount of money into my tools nevertheless. So all that is probably left now for me is to stick with Poser3 and Poser4, and to hope that as many people as possible will stick to them as well. Thank you all.

Martin, We going a little longer than 30 seconds, actually 90 8-) And in my pre-coffee blur this morning I misspoke. Once you have registered and unlocked on a specifc machine, you never again need to re-register and re-unlock on that machine, even if you re-install again and again. Actually, even if you reformat the drive, the code generated the first time you registered is preserved on your hard drive. Maybe if we didn't supply you with software, you'd be more of an ally ;-)

If I had spent my own money for PPP I probably would be really panicking now instead of just complaining a bit... :-) :-) :-) OK, this already sounds a bit better now, although I must confess that I don't understand it. If I reformat my drive, it is gone with the wind. Finito. Kaputt. Zeroed. NULL. I truly hope you're not going to mess with my parameter RAM...??? (panic creeps again :-) And - believe it or not - I am an ally. I replied to this thread, because I'm pretty much concerned about your future - you might call this presumptuous because it's not my business at all, but I'm simply a normal user who watches software and company success for over a decade now, and I can see some patterns. Ten years ago some software got copy-protected discs with limited installs, and every office I knew of avoided this - because they knew that the floppies will give up after some time, and the chance that the company is no longer around then was too frightening. Some of those companies stopped using the protection soon after, and the remaining ones died. That's a fact. Now we have the Quark/Adobe battle. Every person in the print business will tell you that InDesign is a load of rubbish, and Quark works brilliant in comparision. Still, InDesign is taking some money off Quark - because of the dongle. If you ask me, this is stupid, because companies can easily live with the dongle - it is not much different to any other hardware related risk. If my Quark crashes, I can re-install it any time - WITHOUT QUARK! Still, many professional companies are so concerned about the possibility that the dongle might fail in 7 years, and Quark is gone in 7 years, that they consider to switch to this toy program by Adobe. If you tell them that they rely on you for every new harddisc... oh dear! I would be eternally sad if I ever read that CuriousLabs has followed poor Joey Ramone to join the great gig in the sky, simply because you kicked too many honest users in order to hurt much fewer villains. PS: Why don't you use a dongle??? Give me dongle and the personal key for it to be entered. When I'm on a lonely island without the internet. PPS: Hmm... do you want me to send back my PPP now? :-) ?

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: Poser 4.0.3 Serial Number Checking