Digital Art Zone

 
   
5 of 6
5
The Can or the Bottle
Posted: 11 February 2013 12:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
fixmypcmike - 11 February 2013 12:14 AM

The problem with moving the EULA to the check-out process is that DAZ 3D is switching to zips, so if you redownload something you purchased in the past and get a zip, and you never ran the old installer, you haven’t agreed to any EULA.

And the problem with blocking access to old content unless users agree to alter previous agreements remains exactly the same. As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself. I doubt almost anyone does. It’s the fact that it’s retroactive, and that attempts are being made to force customers to accept it in order to access content purchased under a different agreement that’s the problem. It’s not a question as to which is better. Even with the best of intentions, coercion is still coercion and a terrible precedent.

The issue here could be entirely avoided while still accomplishing everyone’ goals here.

First: Change the retroactive bit of the EULA presented on the downloads page, so it applies only to future downloads/purchases. This way customers aren’t forced to alter previous agreements to gain access to one single piece of content, but if they do choose to use your servers to download another copy of a zip file, they will have agreed to the terms of the new EULA regarding it. There’s a little room for contention here, if someone’s made a purchase just before the change and didn’t have time to download it before the new EULA went into effect, but that could be handled through support offering limited downloads of the installer versions.

Second: Set the current EULA to be agreed to at checkout. Customers would be required to accept the retroactive agreement if they chose to make any new purchases, while still retaining the ability to access their old content, if so desired, without agreeing to a new EULA for anything but the new copies of files.

No more property or old agreements being held hostage, while also no issues with customers gaining access to files without agreeing to an EULA.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8972
Joined  2007-11-06

So if the text were changed to make clear that the new EULA only applies to files you download from this point forward, but not to installers you’ve downloaded in the past, would that resolve this issue?

 Signature 

PostgreSQL CMS FAQ
Tutorial: Adding Surfaces in DS
Product Updates: Non-Genesis/G2 DIM Zips
Non-Genesis Items with Metadata
Updated Genesis Products

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 07:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10

It would as far as I’m concerned. The only issue I see is that people are prevented from accessing any files at all unless they agree to something that encompasses all of them. I have no problems with the rest of the EULA; we were in dire need of some updates.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 05:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
Jazzmin - 10 February 2013 11:34 AM
LordHardDriven - 10 February 2013 10:48 AM
Jazzmin - 10 February 2013 12:00 AM

As I understand you can’t copyright themes, such as Steam Punk, Victorian, SciFi, nor can you copyright a can opener, coffee maker, chair, etc, and if you’re going to copyright anything you better dam* well properly file it with the copyright office if you want to have it enforced, if needed, later on down the road.  With regard to the new EULA, it’s all fine and good that DAZ wants to protect their business, however I don’t believe it’s legal to hold hostage product previously purchased under a previously agreed upon EULA.  It would be okay if the product(s) were free, but money was exchanged and when you’re talking about an exchange of money you get into a whole new ballgame of laws and consumer protection. 

As far as US law goes, ex post facto law is a huge NOT GONNA HAPPEN when a potential conviction concerns punishment.  These laws have to do with criminal and not civil issues.  It’s also known as retroactive law, which is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.  That’s basically what this, and any other EULA drawn up AFTER the purchase of a product(s) and agreed to BEFORE this, or any other agreed upon EULA, is.  This is why there are consumer protection laws, US Constitutional laws as well as the Constitutions of each state.  That’s why the US Constitution provides for protection from the abuse of power by the government and if it’s a criminal charge against a customer, it’ll apply here.  You can’t keep changing your agreements and expect your customers to go along with it or be forced to agree to it.  But, no matter, nothing is going to happen to make this right for both DAZ and their customers unless some sort of litigation is brought.  Actually, all our bitc*ing isn’t going to change a thing unless there is a court decision.

You may be right but I’m not sure enough to say definitively that you can’t apply a retro active clause to an existing EULA if it pertains to something like a new technology that didn’t exist when the original EULA was written, such as 3D Printing. I don’t think the laws are so rigid as to be able to force a company to have to leave themselves unprotected on all purchases made prior to that new technology. Now the holding hostage part I am inclined to believe is illegal and if not in the very least it is poor form. Since I don’t know for a fact it is illegal though I’ll not make a statement that it definately is. Yes there are consumer protection laws to keep companies from substantially changing the rules on a customer after they got their money but to protect copyrights from a new way they might be infringed upon isn’t substantially changing a rule or it’s intent it’s merely expanding it. Just look at Credit Card companies for example, they’re always changing their privacy policies on existing accounts. By your view they shouldn’t be able to and should be forced to honor the policy in place when the account was first opened, yet they are not. Sure the government protects consumers but they were protecting business first, protecting consumers was an afterthought.

I’d have to do some legal research, but I’m leaning way over on the side of the consumer here.  This is the nature of 3D, new technology is developed every day.  The customer entered into an agreement with DAZ when the customer gave DAZ money… to change the terms of the contract after new technology is developed, which DAZ was well aware, is unfair to the customer and it’s bad business.  It’s fine to change the EULA for products sold from this point forward, but to make it retro is a “Gotcha,” it’s ex post facto and that’s what I object to.  Something else to consider here… the EULA is a contract and contract law is very rigid because it’s a written agreement.  For one party to change the terms after money has been exchanged is, well, unethical and I believe it could be challenged with a win in court, if it came to that.

How is it gotcha, to say you’re restricted on how you can use Daz products with a 3D printer? When you bought all the old stuff there were no options for 3D printing, so you could in no way have had any expectations to use Daz products on a 3D printer unrestricted. As far as everything you expected when you agreed to those old EULA’s, nothing is different.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
Kyoto Kid - 10 February 2013 02:52 PM
LordHardDriven - 10 February 2013 11:03 AM
Kyoto Kid - 10 February 2013 03:03 AM

..so basically, let’s say I want to create a physical 3D figure “print” of my namesake based on the work I’ve done using Daz figure and clothing meshes along with he MAT textures for use as a personal mini figure in an RPG game, I would need a special licence form Daz even though it would just be for my own personal use?

As long as you are not distributing the original meshes or the original meshes can’t be extracted or reverse engineered from what you are distributing. Games create a unique scenario though in that it is near impossible to prevent some risk to the copyrighted material and so to that end game developers have special licensing which usually is substantially more expensive to help offset the potential loss the inherent risk may cause.

You say though it would only be for your use so in the game it might mean you could only implement your unique character in a way that is visible to you and that other participants in the would see the default character. Now if by RPG you mean the older real world kind like Dungeons & Dragons, you could have your physical representation of your character using Daz meshes because the other players in the game couldn’t extract the mesh or reverse engineer it from just seeing it. You would have to give them a copy of your physical representation to take home with them, that then would be illegal but then it also would no longer be just for your personal use.

...actually this was in reference to 3D printing as it opens the door for P&P RPG players to have custom figures that are exact representations of their characters rather than having to “approximate” using an “off the shelf miniature” bought at the local gaming store.

I don’t do MMOs as I have slow to spotty connectivity and 3D CG is already enough of a time sink for me (albeit a more productive one).

Okay then, well I don’t see where it’s a problem for you to make your own figures for yourself but you might be in violation if you made figures for other people and gave them away or sold them. Also there could be an issue if you had to use a third party for the actual printing and you supplied them with the meshes. If you had your own printer though and made a customer figure to match the character of an RPG and only you had that figure then the way I read the 3D printing portion of the EULA there should be absolutely no problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

So you would rather go back to the old, more restrictive EULA.  So click to accept the new one, and then only download installers, don’t use the DIM to download any of the new zips. Then, when you run the installers you can click to accept the older EULA, the MORE restrictive one.  Kevin has said if people really want to be governed by the older EULA, that is fair enough. You want be forced to use any of the new less restrictive terms.

I really do wonder how many people actually read the old EULA before they clicked to accept it.

The problem is that they don’t want to click the new EULA that is blocking access to the downloads of the old installers. They believe that Daz is trying to trick them into something they don’t want to do. Near as I can tell all of the hysteria came from the wording that suggests they may have to delete all their old products if they don’t agree to this new EULA. As I understand it that has been changed but the hysteria persists because some have claimed that they never clicked the new EULA but now have access to their downloads back. So at least in the case of some people it seems like they’re being restricted in ways that others are not.

I could be wrong but that’s what I get out of what people have been saying.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
fixmypcmike - 11 February 2013 12:14 AM

The problem with moving the EULA to the check-out process is that DAZ 3D is switching to zips, so if you redownload something you purchased in the past and get a zip, and you never ran the old installer, you haven’t agreed to any EULA.

Well why not just have the EULA blocking access to the downloads be the old EULA and then put the new EULA at the checkout? That way all new purchases are covered by the new EULA and access to the downloads is only blocked by the same EULA they would have agreed to back when they intially bought the product. Then there would be no way that anyone could slip thru a crack because they never ran the installer back when they bought the item and by the time they did install it they ended up getting the zip.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 06:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  16351
Joined  2003-10-09

There is no way anyone went to the download page without accepting the EULA, Not at all sure where that idea came from. To download you either clicked the EULA that is shown before the Download page appears, or you click the EULA when you install the DIM, to download that way.

 Signature 

Chohole’s Space        NeilV’s Freebies and stuff        Autumn Bryce Rendering Challenge        October Freebie Challenge
My DAZ 3D Gallery    11915

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 06:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
Agent_Unawares - 11 February 2013 12:52 AM
fixmypcmike - 11 February 2013 12:14 AM

The problem with moving the EULA to the check-out process is that DAZ 3D is switching to zips, so if you redownload something you purchased in the past and get a zip, and you never ran the old installer, you haven’t agreed to any EULA.

And the problem with blocking access to old content unless users agree to alter previous agreements remains exactly the same. As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself. I doubt almost anyone does. It’s the fact that it’s retroactive, and that attempts are being made to force customers to accept it in order to access content purchased under a different agreement that’s the problem. It’s not a question as to which is better. Even with the best of intentions, coercion is still coercion and a terrible precedent.

The issue here could be entirely avoided while still accomplishing everyone’ goals here.

First: Change the retroactive bit of the EULA presented on the downloads page, so it applies only to future downloads/purchases. This way customers aren’t forced to alter previous agreements to gain access to one single piece of content, but if they do choose to use your servers to download another copy of a zip file, they will have agreed to the terms of the new EULA regarding it. There’s a little room for contention here, if someone’s made a purchase just before the change and didn’t have time to download it before the new EULA went into effect, but that could be handled through support offering limited downloads of the installer versions.

Second: Set the current EULA to be agreed to at checkout. Customers would be required to accept the retroactive agreement if they chose to make any new purchases, while still retaining the ability to access their old content, if so desired, without agreeing to a new EULA for anything but the new copies of files.

No more property or old agreements being held hostage, while also no issues with customers gaining access to files without agreeing to an EULA.

What you are missing is first that there is no binding agreement/contract from just the purchase because the EULA is in the installer. So if you bought something but haven’t installed it, you haven’t made that contract yet. Now what fixmypcmike is suggesting is somewhat of an out of the ordinary circumstance that does in fact sometimes happen.

So for example, lets say 4 years ago you bought a really cool looking prop. You downloaded it but then something came up that distracted you for several weeks and so you never installed the new prop. When you finally get back to it you’ve lost interest in what you were planning on doing with it so rather then installing it you just put it wherever you store the installers you download. 4 years go by and it’s today, you’re looking thru the Daz site for something to finish off the scene you’ve been working on and you come across this old prop. It’s exactly what you need to complete your scene. You remember that you bought it previously and so you go to find it in your runtime but it’s not there. Then you remember you never installed it. So you look for it in your stored installers and can’t find it there either because two years ago you were reorganizing where you store your installers and accidentally deleted that file without realizing it. You’re puzzled why it’s not there but you’re certain you bought it which you confirm by checking your order history. So you shrug your shoulders and just assume that you only thought you download it and you reset the download. Except now all the installers have been changed to zips and since the zips don’t have a way of forcing you to agree to an EULA you end up installing this prop without ever once having agreed to an EULA.

Now while I agree that this does create an unitended situation I do have to wonder about places like Renderosity, Runtime DNA, Content Paradise and countless other stores selling 3D content packaged in zips where the EULA is there within the zip. Is it being suggested that anybody who ever bought content from those places aren’t bound to any EULA because they were never forced to click on something saying they accept it? It seems more likely that just by virtue of installing it and the EULA being in the zip they are bound to it and it’s their fault for not bothering to read the EULA that got placed on their hard drive when they unzipped those zips.

If so then a more easy solution would to be to just include an EULA in the zips like everyone else does.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
chohole - 12 February 2013 06:22 AM

There is no way anyone went to the download page without accepting the EULA, Not at all sure where that idea came from. To download you either clicked the EULA that is shown before the Download page appears, or you click the EULA when you install the DIM, to download that way.

Well I know of at least one person who says they were blocked and never clicked on the EULA, then they heard Daz stopped blocking things and so they checked and they were no longer blocked. I’m not sure if that was some sort of site glitch or if that person clicked the EULA without realizing it or what? Frankly I don’t see what the problem is except for the fear created by the language that said they had to delete everything they ever bought if they choose to not accept the new EULA.

Keep in mind, I have no problem with the new EULA and clicked it the first time I saw it, after reading it of course. None of it really matters to me because as a pure hobbyist that will only ever be using this stuff to make images for myself or to post online to show my artwork to others, there is no chance I’ll ever come into violation of the old or new EULAs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 08:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8972
Joined  2007-11-06

I think there’s some confusion because originally you were blocked from any of your account pages if you didn’t agree to the EULA, whereas now only the downloads are blocked.

As for whether DAZ 3D’s lawyers are right that just putting the EULA in the zip, rather than having the user actively agree to it, is something that would make a difference if it came to enforcing the EULA, not only am I not a lawyer, I doubt I can read fast enough to keep up with an argument between DAZ 3D’s lawyers and the lawyers working for other brokerages.

 Signature 

PostgreSQL CMS FAQ
Tutorial: Adding Surfaces in DS
Product Updates: Non-Genesis/G2 DIM Zips
Non-Genesis Items with Metadata
Updated Genesis Products

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
LordHardDriven - 12 February 2013 05:54 AM
chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

So you would rather go back to the old, more restrictive EULA.  So click to accept the new one, and then only download installers, don’t use the DIM to download any of the new zips. Then, when you run the installers you can click to accept the older EULA, the MORE restrictive one.  Kevin has said if people really want to be governed by the older EULA, that is fair enough. You want be forced to use any of the new less restrictive terms.

I really do wonder how many people actually read the old EULA before they clicked to accept it.

The problem is that they don’t want to click the new EULA that is blocking access to the downloads of the old installers. They believe that Daz is trying to trick them into something they don’t want to do. Near as I can tell all of the hysteria came from the wording that suggests they may have to delete all their old products if they don’t agree to this new EULA. As I understand it that has been changed but the hysteria persists because some have claimed that they never clicked the new EULA but now have access to their downloads back. So at least in the case of some people it seems like they’re being restricted in ways that others are not.

I could be wrong but that’s what I get out of what people have been saying.

That’s not what’s going on at all. The problem is DAZ won’t allow access to any old downloads unless customers alter previous agreements relating to all of them. The actual content of the new EULA [besides the retroactive bit] is irrelevant to the issue.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2013 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  665
Joined  2006-11-10
LordHardDriven - 12 February 2013 06:30 AM
Agent_Unawares - 11 February 2013 12:52 AM
fixmypcmike - 11 February 2013 12:14 AM

The problem with moving the EULA to the check-out process is that DAZ 3D is switching to zips, so if you redownload something you purchased in the past and get a zip, and you never ran the old installer, you haven’t agreed to any EULA.

And the problem with blocking access to old content unless users agree to alter previous agreements remains exactly the same. As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself. I doubt almost anyone does. It’s the fact that it’s retroactive, and that attempts are being made to force customers to accept it in order to access content purchased under a different agreement that’s the problem. It’s not a question as to which is better. Even with the best of intentions, coercion is still coercion and a terrible precedent.

The issue here could be entirely avoided while still accomplishing everyone’ goals here.

First: Change the retroactive bit of the EULA presented on the downloads page, so it applies only to future downloads/purchases. This way customers aren’t forced to alter previous agreements to gain access to one single piece of content, but if they do choose to use your servers to download another copy of a zip file, they will have agreed to the terms of the new EULA regarding it. There’s a little room for contention here, if someone’s made a purchase just before the change and didn’t have time to download it before the new EULA went into effect, but that could be handled through support offering limited downloads of the installer versions.

Second: Set the current EULA to be agreed to at checkout. Customers would be required to accept the retroactive agreement if they chose to make any new purchases, while still retaining the ability to access their old content, if so desired, without agreeing to a new EULA for anything but the new copies of files.

No more property or old agreements being held hostage, while also no issues with customers gaining access to files without agreeing to an EULA.

What you are missing is first that there is no binding agreement/contract from just the purchase because the EULA is in the installer. So if you bought something but haven’t installed it, you haven’t made that contract yet. Now what fixmypcmike is suggesting is somewhat of an out of the ordinary circumstance that does in fact sometimes happen.

So for example, lets say 4 years ago you bought a really cool looking prop. You downloaded it but then something came up that distracted you for several weeks and so you never installed the new prop. When you finally get back to it you’ve lost interest in what you were planning on doing with it so rather then installing it you just put it wherever you store the installers you download. 4 years go by and it’s today, you’re looking thru the Daz site for something to finish off the scene you’ve been working on and you come across this old prop. It’s exactly what you need to complete your scene. You remember that you bought it previously and so you go to find it in your runtime but it’s not there. Then you remember you never installed it. So you look for it in your stored installers and can’t find it there either because two years ago you were reorganizing where you store your installers and accidentally deleted that file without realizing it. You’re puzzled why it’s not there but you’re certain you bought it which you confirm by checking your order history. So you shrug your shoulders and just assume that you only thought you download it and you reset the download. Except now all the installers have been changed to zips and since the zips don’t have a way of forcing you to agree to an EULA you end up installing this prop without ever once having agreed to an EULA.

I didn’t miss anything. The now-bolded bit was there to address this exact concern.

 Signature 

Old post count: 3,394,206

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2013 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
Agent_Unawares - 12 February 2013 08:10 PM
LordHardDriven - 12 February 2013 05:54 AM
chohole - 10 February 2013 05:44 PM

So you would rather go back to the old, more restrictive EULA.  So click to accept the new one, and then only download installers, don’t use the DIM to download any of the new zips. Then, when you run the installers you can click to accept the older EULA, the MORE restrictive one.  Kevin has said if people really want to be governed by the older EULA, that is fair enough. You want be forced to use any of the new less restrictive terms.

I really do wonder how many people actually read the old EULA before they clicked to accept it.

The problem is that they don’t want to click the new EULA that is blocking access to the downloads of the old installers. They believe that Daz is trying to trick them into something they don’t want to do. Near as I can tell all of the hysteria came from the wording that suggests they may have to delete all their old products if they don’t agree to this new EULA. As I understand it that has been changed but the hysteria persists because some have claimed that they never clicked the new EULA but now have access to their downloads back. So at least in the case of some people it seems like they’re being restricted in ways that others are not.

I could be wrong but that’s what I get out of what people have been saying.

That’s not what’s going on at all. The problem is DAZ won’t allow access to any old downloads unless customers alter previous agreements relating to all of them. The actual content of the new EULA [besides the retroactive bit] is irrelevant to the issue.

The change isn’t really a change it’s an addendum to address an issue that didn’t exist at the time the original agreement was made. Since there are scenarios where no agreement has been made because someone may not have installed something they bought in the past it’s not unreasonable for daz to try to correct the situation by forcing people to a blanket EULA. In order for it to be considered illegal in court Daz would have to be trying to change something they allowed in the previous agreement like if they said you could sell your renders in the intial EULA and then changed it to you can’t sell your renders in the new one. That then would be illegal. To address 3D printing which didn’t exist on the open market when the old agreement was drafted is not illegal and since nobody bought those older items with the expectation to be able to use them on a 3D printer with absolutely no restriction then Daz isn’t doing something that’s unfair to the customer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2013 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
Agent_Unawares - 12 February 2013 08:12 PM
LordHardDriven - 12 February 2013 06:30 AM
Agent_Unawares - 11 February 2013 12:52 AM
fixmypcmike - 11 February 2013 12:14 AM

The problem with moving the EULA to the check-out process is that DAZ 3D is switching to zips, so if you redownload something you purchased in the past and get a zip, and you never ran the old installer, you haven’t agreed to any EULA.

And the problem with blocking access to old content unless users agree to alter previous agreements remains exactly the same. As I said, I have no problem with the EULA itself. I doubt almost anyone does. It’s the fact that it’s retroactive, and that attempts are being made to force customers to accept it in order to access content purchased under a different agreement that’s the problem. It’s not a question as to which is better. Even with the best of intentions, coercion is still coercion and a terrible precedent.

The issue here could be entirely avoided while still accomplishing everyone’ goals here.

First: Change the retroactive bit of the EULA presented on the downloads page, so it applies only to future downloads/purchases. This way customers aren’t forced to alter previous agreements to gain access to one single piece of content, but if they do choose to use your servers to download another copy of a zip file, they will have agreed to the terms of the new EULA regarding it. There’s a little room for contention here, if someone’s made a purchase just before the change and didn’t have time to download it before the new EULA went into effect, but that could be handled through support offering limited downloads of the installer versions.

Second: Set the current EULA to be agreed to at checkout. Customers would be required to accept the retroactive agreement if they chose to make any new purchases, while still retaining the ability to access their old content, if so desired, without agreeing to a new EULA for anything but the new copies of files.

No more property or old agreements being held hostage, while also no issues with customers gaining access to files without agreeing to an EULA.

What you are missing is first that there is no binding agreement/contract from just the purchase because the EULA is in the installer. So if you bought something but haven’t installed it, you haven’t made that contract yet. Now what fixmypcmike is suggesting is somewhat of an out of the ordinary circumstance that does in fact sometimes happen.

So for example, lets say 4 years ago you bought a really cool looking prop. You downloaded it but then something came up that distracted you for several weeks and so you never installed the new prop. When you finally get back to it you’ve lost interest in what you were planning on doing with it so rather then installing it you just put it wherever you store the installers you download. 4 years go by and it’s today, you’re looking thru the Daz site for something to finish off the scene you’ve been working on and you come across this old prop. It’s exactly what you need to complete your scene. You remember that you bought it previously and so you go to find it in your runtime but it’s not there. Then you remember you never installed it. So you look for it in your stored installers and can’t find it there either because two years ago you were reorganizing where you store your installers and accidentally deleted that file without realizing it. You’re puzzled why it’s not there but you’re certain you bought it which you confirm by checking your order history. So you shrug your shoulders and just assume that you only thought you download it and you reset the download. Except now all the installers have been changed to zips and since the zips don’t have a way of forcing you to agree to an EULA you end up installing this prop without ever once having agreed to an EULA.

I didn’t miss anything. The now-bolded bit was there to address this exact concern.

No you are missing things, in your bolded part you suggest the change should only apply to new purchases but the change needs to be made for the older purchase even more since the older purchases run off an agreement that didn’t address the 3D printer issue. As it stands now if people don’t have to agree to the new EULA then technically they have no restrictions on using that old content with 3D printers. So Daz is trying to just take care of it all in one shot with one EULA. I agree with you and others who feel their old purchases are being held hostage because I just really don’t see enough people being able to afford to use 3D printers to necessitate such an insistent way of correcting the problem. Far more copyright protection breeches happen daily and have been for years with piracy then I ever see happening from supplying a 3rd Party with 3D meshes in order for them to print something up for a customer.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5