Attached Link: http://www.sparkchaser.net/blather/penglatest.html

http://www.sparkchaser.net/blather/penglatest.html Part II of summarizing the little explosion @ PPros... /P

Interesting...kind of makes you wonder if they've never heard the saying "why can't we all just get along..."

Very good summary and commentary, /P.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

...I have no personal interest in that stuff at PPros, but I hope we can keep one thing in mind. Bipolarism can be creepy, or wacky, depending how you want to look at it. Little true story: My wifes gay (not that there's anything wrong with that ;) bipolar godfather is a brilliant man who's been hired and fired from more high profile jobs than anybody I've ever heard of. 10 or 20 years ago he was involved in a very sensitive job involving our (USA) relations with the Chinese. Well, he was in his manic phase when he called the Secretary of State and told him, "This place (the pentagon) is crawling with commies", with considerably more dramatic attachments. Needless to say he got canned. It's a very 'funny' story (especially the full version) but probably not so funny for those involved at the time :) He always lands on his feet, though. Today his name is on the masthead of one of the biggest publications in the country. Anyway, I hope we keep in mind that the health issue shouldn't be overlooked. I hope we don't hang the individual at the center of that little fracas without giving that point consideration.

The "interesting times" just keep rolling right along....... I prefer "boring times".

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Can't blame you. 'course, life happens like that sometimes. /P

.......although I can't seem to recall any "boring times" ever happening in the Poser universe........and yet I continue to hang around. I must be conflicted. Need counseling.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I've been following this and have finally come to one conclusion... I simply don't really care about copyright infringment. If I buy something that turns out to have something copyrighted included wrongly, I don't really care and I will use it if I want. If I didn't know there was anything wrong and I bought it in good faith, that's good enough for me.

...yikes. Don't get in any legal situations. An attorney would have a field day quoting you to yourself and the judge ;)

Interesting. Let's see what your stance on that is when someone steals from you.

I've got $387.93 in my bank account right now... I've already blown all my money on Poser so what do I care :)

and people have indeed stolen from me, I've found my stuff being sold on Ebay and posted to other websites several times. Sure I hate it, but I knew it would happen before I put it online, it's a price of using the internet that one must accept or go crazy when it inevitably happens.

Pengy, that was a well-written piece.

(shakes head in bewilderment at Farside) The merchants here seem to be very patient. For some reason a lot of people seem to feel that stealing software/content on the net is 'easy and convenient' so it's ok. I often wonder how people who steal software would feel if I sent a hundred ugly construction laborers to their house in the middle of the night to trash it. I could just explain to them later, "Well. What the heck. It was 'easy and convenient'".

Message edited on: 02/02/2005 13:52

Good summary. But I think you missed a step between #4 and #5. After the announcement that Mehndi was stepping down, we all thought the problem had been fixed. Then the three admins all announced that they were quitting. That's when the general stampede toward the exits started.

just imagine if Poser was found to have a line of stolen code in it tomorrow... does Renderosity shut down and do we all delete the program immediately and never use it again? Personally I'd still use it because I bought it in good faith thinking it was fine. That's all I'm saying.

randym77: "Then the three admins all announced that they were quitting. That's when the general stampede toward the exits started." I'd thought of adding that, but there are credible murmurings that may lead them into possibly returning. I won't jeaopardize it by going into detail... sorry. Still thinking about adding the missing part, though. May toss it in anyway. Farside: "does Renderosity shut down and do we all delete the program immediately and never use it again?" If that were the case (doubt it, but...) then a patch would be released to remove the offending code. End-users (which I assume you are) can still use products in the private sense, because it was purchsed "in good faith." Merchants and artists selling bits of stolen goods on a commercial basis (like in renders or in products) OTOH are pretty much required to stop using the offending stuff, or face lawsuits themselves. I look at it as a ethical thing, myself. Even if I don't sell it or any derivative bit of it, I'd rather not continue to insult the real copyright holder by using it. /P

I wouldn't hestitate to continue to use an item with copyright violations involved -- for my own private purposes. For my own amusement/practice/whatever. I would not, however, post a render based upon such an "in-violation" item into a public gallery.......nor would I otherwise publish any artwork using the product.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

"If that were the case (doubt it, but...) then a patch would be released to remove the offending code." Technically, even if the offending code was removed wouldn't everything produced using Poser to this point have to be removed since it all was derived from a copyright infringed source?

No. Software is treated far differently from artwork and art product when it comes to copyright. As someone mentioned earlier, DOS 6.20 had a monster copyright violation in it, but there are still people not only using the software, but can still copyright everything made in it or by using it. /P

In the DOS issue: Microsoft followed a historic pattern of theirs:

1.) Agree to a relationship with a "strategic partner," and then change their mind.

2.) "Appropriate an item" and turn it into theirs.

Microsoft had a temporary alliance with Stac Electronics (the makers of Stacker, a program that compressed files on your hard drive to effectively "double" your storage space.)

Microsoft incorporated the product into their DOS version, and was sued. Microsoft then released "Double Space."

Boy. That sure brings back old memories of times when hard drives were measured in Megabytes, rather than Gigabytes.

Microsoft did practically the same thing when they got involved with IBM on OS/2. Eventually Microsoft pulled out of the product, and made it harder and harder for OS/2 to keep its compatability. Then Windows 95 was introduced.

Message edited on: 02/02/2005 15:09

DOS 6.2? What's that? I seem to have a vague memory of it from a different life......perhaps it was a dream.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I just might still have all the DOS floppies around, as well as the original Poser version 1 floppies, and maybe even Windows 3.1 floppies. I do have the Windows 95 Upgrade CD which won't work without the Windows 3.1 floppies.

I still have DOS 6.0 on my #3 computer and use it to balance my checkbook, which is done in a old-fashioned type spreadsheet in a program called V.P. Planner. V.P. Planner's creators were sued by Lotus, incidently, as they claimed it was a clone of Lotus 2.2, never did hear how that came out.

Anyway, to get back on subject, as someone who gets sinned against quite a lot (my stuff is fairly popular with the warez guys, plus my mesh has been borrowed by "others" at least twice), let me say, in spite of what some people seem to think, there are no "copyright police" crusing around, looking for infringments. The copyright laws just give you a legal right that can be inforced (perhaps) by taking someone to court (assuming the nasty letter/email doesn't work).

Message edited on: 02/02/2005 18:27

I agree with farside. If I buy something in good faith, use it in a render that I sell, I am not going to re-do the work and try to append a done deal. I cannot afford such bs.

I often wonder how people who steal software would feel if I sent a hundred ugly construction laborers to their house in the middle of the night to trash it. I could just explain to them later, "Well. What the heck. It was 'easy and convenient'".

I get tired of otherwise knowledgeable people referring to copyright infringement as "theft". It is not. Legally, a test whether or not something is theft is 'loss of use'.

In the example of someone trashing your house, or stealing your car, you suffer loss of use. If someone copies your software, you do not suffer loss of use because you still have the use of the software.

It is an important distcinction. If you are going to opine on issues of legality, you should be careful in your use of terminology. I did like the punctuation though. Nice to see people correctly using quotation marks. Message edited on: 02/02/2005 19:03

Message edited on: 02/02/2005 19:04

Message edited on: 02/02/2005 19:05

But if you're the copyright owner, you've lost the use of the money you would have earned, had they bought the software instead of swiping it.

"But if you're the copyright owner, you've lost the use of the money you would have earned, had they bought the software instead of swiping it." Very true. I was going to address that but forgot to. The difference is that you don't claim the copyright violator "stole" the money, you claim he stole the software. Loss of potential income (after all, the copyright violator might or might not have bought the software if he had to pay for it, so it was potential ) is not the same thing legally as theft. Nor is loss of use the same thing as loss of income. In a real court, loss of use is a real test of whether something is theft or not. Copyright violation does not pass the test.

"I get tired of otherwise knowledgeable people referring to copyright infringement as "theft". It is not. Legally, a test whether or not something is theft is 'loss of use'." Of course it's theft. Taking something without permission, which belongs to someone else is theft. Loss of use is a side issue. There are several ways in which something can be stolen without loss of use, more so now that a digital copy can be easily made. If you don't believe me, check out FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), a UK based organization which was started by software and music publishers in an attempt to kill off piracy. Your definition of theft may differ due to where you live. Copyright infringement most definitely is theft in UK law.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

...theft is theft to me. I don't care about the semantics of what label the law applies to a particular form of theft.

check out FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), Thank you for the link, I did check it out. I understand that emotions run deep on this issue, and I was not trying to offend anyone, or to defend copyright infringement. But it has been my experience that the more emotional an issue has become the less helpful misleading statements are. I was not aware that in the UK people charged with copyright infringement are actually charged in court with theft and if convicted sentenced on charges of theft rather than copyright infringement. I stand corrected. I guess I am not the only person who labors under the misconception that theft requires loss of use, a quick google turned up, "The biggest problem with the spokesperson for the RIAA's statement is that there was absolutely NO theft going on. Copyright infringement, perhaps, but not theft (or thievery). Theft has a strict definition as does copyright infringement. The xxAA continues to hammer home the idea that they are equal. In neither moral nor legal terms are they so. Theft requires a party to deprive another party of the use of something. For instance, if I steal your TV, you no longer have the use of the TV. If I download the latest song from whatever crappy band is hot right now, there is no loss of use of that song by anyone much less the RIAA/Label/Band. Of course, the media continues to let the xxAA get away with muddying the water by using theft as a synonym for copyright infringement."

...qualien. That's just one guy trying to sell his take on things for his benefit. Stealing music is stealing music. There's no way to rationalize ones way around that. At the end of the day it's still stealing, regardless how much we try to wrap it in semantics.

Message edited on: 02/02/2005 22:04

Actually, in law, there are all sorts of words for theft: Robbery, burglary, conversion, etc., all with nuances and tests to be met. If I walk onto your land with a chainsaw and cut down your trees and sell them for firewood, is it theft? No, it is conversion, because I have converted your property for my own use. If I take a potted tree from your porch and put it on mine is it conversion? No, it is theft. But if I enter your dwelling to steal that potted tree, it is something else again... depending upon whether you were inside sleeping at the time! Is moving a boundary marker a different crime than simply building on part of your land? Yes. Same effect, but different crimes against the owner. Most of us prefer the simple words of theft and stealing to describe people taking what isn't theirs. With copyright, proving loss of use and loss of income is harder... but if the artist was selling prints or doing commissions, there are some numbers which can be handed to the judge. Carolly

With copyright, proving loss of use and loss of income is harder... I've been avoiding this issue since I became aware of it two days ago, as I have been trying not to get involved. For the record, I do feel it is a very tragic situation, yet it could have been avoided. It is always wisest to err on the side of caution if there is ANY question of copyright. That being said, the thing that makes this case bizarre is that there is no "loss of use" or "loss of income" on the part of the original copyright holder. So how could damages be assessed in that case?

Actually, in law, there are all sorts of words for theft: Robbery, burglary, conversion, etc., all with nuances and tests to be met..." Perfectly correct. I was only trying to point out that "copyright infringement" is not one of those words. 'Theft' and 'stealing' are words used in the context of copyright infringement for their emotional impact, not their accuracy or correctness, I understand. When emotions are already high on subject, it is sometimes a good idea to look at things more objectively and precisely. I did not mean to suggest that victims of copyright violation suffer no loss (as it would be incorrect to say that victims of identity theft suffer no loss, though the loss is certainly not of their identities, which they retain). As a professional writer (member of the Authors Guild of America, contributor and contributing editor to magazines), I obviously do not condone copyright violation, but I do condone using words, especially inflammatory words, correctly. The subject of copyright is certainly an interesting one in the context of Poser. Our legal systems (even that of the UK, where copyright infringers are charged in court with theft) will have to evolve as we all spend more of our lives in the virtuals worlds where unlimited numbers of perfect copies of valuable entities such as software programs (and Victoria 3s) can be made by anyone with a computer. I often think that new kinds of intellectual property licensing are evolving here, right before our eyes, in the readmes and license agreements of Rosity freebies and MP products. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

One thing about the nautical image that you've got at the top of your blather page, Peng.........

The small lifeboat looks like it might still be able to float.......

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

I definitely agree with Qualien that the legal system is behind the curve in the digital world. Unfortunately (as alweays), many of the laws being enacted are pretty much written by industry groups with big lobby money and little incentive to change the way they do business to meet new technology. The movie and music industries should have been on the forefront of digital content distribution, developing it into a viable business model. Instead, they've ended up fighting a losing battle against technology.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

With the advent of P2P software like Kazzaa, Overnet and Bittorrent it is increadibly easy for someone to get hold of the software, Part of my day job is to look after a 15Tb storage system for a large multi-national. I spent most of the xmas break removing nearly 1Tb of "Warez" - mostly films and the latest games etc - and P2P software as well as adding yet more rules to our firewalls to stop the P2P access. I'm sure that most of you are aware that when you purchase software such as Poser, you are not buying the software but a license to use the software. In real terms you own the media and a right to install and run the software but you have no rights to the software itself, and most of theses licenses are non-transferable. Case in point, I purchased a couple of PCs and a stack of CDs at a company liquidation a few weeks ago, some of the CDs contained installs for V3 and her clothes etc. After posting here and reading the EULA I found that technically I was not able to use her without purchasing her from Daz (Which I did). But what if I had purchased a copy of say HalfLife2 from a store and had then lost my license key. I now own a license to use the software but cannot install it, in the real world all i would probably have to do is contact the puplisher, provide proof of purchase and ask for a replacement key, but how many people just jump onto Overnet and search up "Halflife2 cd-key". They own the licence and original CD-key but have resorted to taking anothers because it was far quicker than emailing the publishers and waiting a few days for a reply. Whilst typing this I've just done an filedonkey search for Daz3d - it returned just over 1000 results. Thats 1000 seperate pieces of Daz software that within a couple of hours I could start downloading straight to my PC, no credit card required. I guess what I'm trying to say is that its like giving someone the keys to a bank vault and asking them not to take any money while you are out. Most of out copyright laws were written to cover printed and other "physical" media, they are wowfully out of date for the digital age.

Vicky 3 & Mike 3 have been free for several weeks now.

" One thing about the nautical image that you've got at the top of your blather page, Peng......... The small lifeboat looks like it might still be able to float......." That's the idea ;) "And I say unto the light, let us not forget... there is Hope." /P

Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37253

Let's hope that it works out for the best for all concerned.

Seen it - I figure I'll wait to find out who that new owner is before yapping about it :) /P

Gee... everybody ELSE is speculating! ;) I don't think it is another brokerage, because they all have various cultures, and combining cultures can kill both, but the hint about infrastructure indicates that it is more than an individual. What is valued there? The store? There are several stores. I suspect that the real value is the forums and tutorials where all the knowledge is stored and organized. Carolly

In that light, CL seems to be the most likely prospect.

I'm hoping the rumor about PoserWorld is true...given Lyrra's hint of hope earlier this week, it seems almost possible. These are folks I'd put my trust in...and that's what PoserPros needs right now (not just for me personally, of course, but for everyone who has gotten discouraged). Heck, I'd even buy from PP again if that's true....I've not felt comfortable on the site for a year but this could turn it around for me (but I speak for no one but myself and my thin wallet). Yeah, I know, nobody cares what I think. That's okay. I still have credit cards who haven't had limits maxed out on them yet.

In my estimation, the two entities are from entirely different worlds. PoserWorld is a great subscription site, and they genuinely value their customers. PoserPros on the other hand, is one great big free for all, where people have little regard for the consequences of their actions. I'd hate for Poserworld to lower itself to such an atmosphere. On the other hand, they might decide to make PoserPros a friendlier place.

Message edited on: 02/04/2005 17:05

...anybody know if Mendi is doing ok?

It looks as if Mehndi has been checking in here and I think someone said at PoserPros as well (not posting but logging on). You might want to drop her a line...I imagine she wouldn't mind a friendly note.

We're pretty friendly at pp, Ron. You just tend you get yourself beat up alot, regardless of the forum.

Tirjasdyn
http://michellejnorton.com

Friendly people don't beat people up.

Just curious, but has anyone made any purchases at Poserpros in the last day or so? I need to buy something there, but with all that's going on, I'm thinking of waiting until this whole thing calms down a bit. Thanks for keeping us updated Peng, I appreciate it. SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

 

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.