Digital Art Zone

 
   
22 of 48
22
Carrara 8.5.0.172 Beta Now Available for Download
Posted: 19 November 2012 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 316 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8079
Joined  2009-07-13

ahh head wax headwax

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 12:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 317 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2125
Joined  2008-01-28

yes yes you can see how I screwed up up
http://vimeo.com/7978329

 Signature 

http://andrewfinnie.blogspot.com.au/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 12:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 318 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2125
Joined  2008-01-28

anyway we better stop chatting, we are getting in the way of Joemama antangganganionising Andy…....

make that attempting to antangonise Andy smile

 Signature 

http://andrewfinnie.blogspot.com.au/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 01:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 319 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8079
Joined  2009-07-13

my browsers playing funny buggers since the nvidia driver update a few hours ago
had to download your vid to watch it
is there meant to be sound with that scary dental work display?

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 01:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 320 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8079
Joined  2009-07-13

Joe who? I was thinking it odd Andy talking to himself so extensively about EULA’s and crap

only joshing, do not have JM2000 on ignore but to those who do, this is how it would look LOL!!! trollololol0lol tongue rolleye

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 01:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 321 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2125
Joined  2008-01-28

sorry Wendy, it was a wip. It was an add for wooden teeth, for all those people with steel teeth that had rust problems, I thought wooden teeth would become a cheap viable sustainable alternative - but I was wrong. We quickly realised after the first prototype that lip splinters would be a major concern, espacially with the under fiftyfives when they were making out or just kissing their mother in lasws goodnight… you know how bad lip splinters can be, especially if left untreated. They can turn core and cantakerous. So the whol wooden teeth t hing was an abject failure and the advertising company never got around to providing us with a sound track. I was hoping for something catchy by Elvis, but apparently he is dead…?

Joe? Oh I had him on my ignore list for a week or two but I kept peeking to see who he was insulting next…. so I eventually gave up and put him on my must read list….. we all make mistakes, eh?

Non, je ne regrette rien

http://vimeo.com/2049367 smile

 Signature 

http://andrewfinnie.blogspot.com.au/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 322 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1828
Joined  2004-08-24

Non, je ne regrette rien

http://www.daz3d.com/forums/smileys/#

Thanks, ..needed a good belly laugh.

smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 323 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2125
Joined  2008-01-28

Heh, pleasure Andy. Life is nothing if there is no laughter. wink

 Signature 

http://andrewfinnie.blogspot.com.au/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 324 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  157
Joined  2008-05-12

so has anyone from daz said how much this .5 release is going to cost?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 325 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8079
Joined  2009-07-13

no

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 326 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15

Okay, in an attempt to reverse my dismissive attitude concerning Andy’s comments, and to give the comments the respect they deserve, as well as make sure that the issues and the facts are clarified, I’ve reviewed the discussion to try to understand and address those issues and concerns.

Now it all began with Andy saying “…no Beta software should be sold, as that’s entering into a (grey) legal area between the retailer, and the rights and expectations of the paying customer”. Now, clearly, the “no Beta software should be sold” statement is incorrect, and I gave clear examples of how beta software is sold all the time. And then he said the reason it shouldn’t be sold is because of a “(grey) legal area”. Again, I showed in subsequent discussion clear evidence that there is no grey legal area.

And then he morphs the discussion away from the initial “no Beta should be sold” to now focus on a particular incident where the 8.5 beta was apparently (and mistakenly?) offered for sale on the DAZ website. It appears his concern was that there were no “terms of sale” listed on the website and associated with the purchase. I then clearly explain why “terms of sale” don’t apply to a licensed software product, and that his terminology and expectations are incorrect. And in fact, his proposal that there are implied “terms of sale”, based on product packaging and placement and signage and price and description was incorrect, since the DAZ License Agreement states that the License Agreement is the ONLY agreement between DAZ and its customer, and there are NO OTHER implied or specific agreements, including implied terms of sale. They don’t exist.

And then he morphs the discussion to customer expectations for the software to be “fit for purpose” and “fit for retail”. And I explained how DAZ clearly states in its License Agreement, which we all accept, that the software is offered “AS IS”, and they make no warranty whatsoever regarding “fit for purpose”, or “satisfactory quality”, or fit for anything, including any other warranty. Furthermore, when any customer downloads and installs the software, and accepts the license agreement, that customer is EXPLICITLY WAIVING his expectation for “fit for purpose”, or any other expectation. They are accepting the software “AS IS”, no matter how it is.

And then he morphs the discussion to what were, apparently, his concerns about the listing for the “for sale” 8.5 beta not being clear in terms of what you’re getting for your money. Nothing to do with the original discussion involving selling betas. And he still seems to maintain that there is an expectation of “fit for purpose”, an expectation which is clearly waived by users when accepting the license agreement.

So, fine. If a software product is listed, but there isn’t enough information for you, then yeah, it might make you upset. But I see that all the time. As a matter of fact, I was just discussing a plugin for Carrara that has virtually NO useable information about its functionality included with its listing. But is that against the law? No. Is it a “grey” legal area? No. A company is not obligated to provide a certain amount of information about a product for sale. Especially when you are getting merely a license to use something that is offered “AS IS”. Many companies (like DAZ) do go the extra mile and provide demo versions of their software that you can try out, making it very clear to customers what the software includes. But if that doesn’t provide enough information on the actual version on sale, then that’s kinda too bad. But there’s not a lot you can do other than send an email to DAZ asking for clarification. But it is NOT, in any way, a legal matter, grey or otherwise.

Now, if there is an issue with the advertising of the product, making false claims, or the product not meeting the description, etc., then there are laws regarding that. In the US we have “Truth in Advertising” laws. But I don’t think this applies. In fact, most companies are extremely conservative about making claims for their products, and it’s extremely rare that you’ll see companies making claims about their products that are (prove-ably) misleading and illegal. 

And to be very clear, since it seems to be such a major consideration in the discussions, there IS NO expectation of “fit for purpose”, or anything else, associated with “AS IS” software. It does not exist. DAZ specifically states it doesn’t exist, and when you accept the agreement you agree it doesn’t exist. Now you can expect whatever you want, but DAZ is in no way obligated to comply. Of course, most companies DO accept an obligation to provide a certain quality, but are not legally obligated to provide a certain fitness or quality.

Which is why I suggested you read the Uniform Commercial Code. It specifically allows companies to erase the requirement/expectation for “fit for purpose”, or any other requirement/expectation, by claiming it is offered “AS IS”. Although you need to follow the procedures they outline in order to claim that (which, BTW, is the reason some verbage in the License Agreement is all capital letters). I know it seems logical that customers have expectations that the products are clearly described and are “fit for purpose” and are as we expect. However, that is not necessarily the law. Not every reasonable expectation that customers might have are backed by law. But often people tend to assume “well, it’s reasonable and it makes sense, so then that’s what the law requires”. Well, not really. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 07:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 327 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1828
Joined  2004-08-24

Joe smile

The End user “Licence” agreement,. is the Licence to Use the Digital media ...

The “product” you purchase,. contains the Digital media, and the User licence (agreement).

SO the FEE you PAY to the company, is for the Digital media assets (3D models or software) and the Legal Licence to use that product in the way it was intended to be used” (under the terns of the licence agreement)

In order to be able to install, and Use the digital media part of the product you’ve purchased,.
you must First agree to abide by the terms of that Licence of USE which you’ve purchased

If you don’t agree , then the software will not be installed.

Again, .. you’re stuck on the USE licence, since it’s apparently an agreement,..

but it’s a completely different thing… it’‘s the licence which allows you to use the software and posses a copy of it.

It doesn’t say anything about Which Product you’re purchasing,...
It doesn’t say anything about how much you paid for the product.

Those terms,.. are what you NEED to know, and understand,.. before you can reasonably make the decision whether to Purchase the item,.. or not.

EG: What do I get for my money. 

The EULA, is only available to you at the point if installation,.
Not at the “point of sale” .. so,.. it cannot be seen in any way, as a terms of sale,..  since it’s only available to you after sale.

what’s being offered to you, for money, ...and what do you expect to receive for that money.
(those are the basic terms of sale) (simplified)

EG: What item is being offered to me,.. for the money I’m paying.

You Need to have a description of what you’re buying, and what you should expect to get,. and what fee you’re expected to pay.

If you don’t know (what you’re purchasing) ...(what it actually includes), and how much you will be paying for that,..

then you cannot reasonably be expected to enter into such an unclear agreement.

The part about this End user “licence” agreement (superseding) all previous licence agreements…. Refers to any previous EULA you may have agreed to, for a previous version of that product.

in simple terms,
if this is your first product, this licence covers it’s terms of use. (since you have not agreed to any previous User licence)

If this is an update to an existing purchase, to which (presumably) you’ve already agreed to the previous terms of the EULA,. when you installed it.
then this NEW agreement, nullifies that old one. and is now the main licence.

this is a legal mechanism to allow the terms of the EULA to be changed, altered and updated. ..as technology may change.

It supersedes any previous (End User Licence Agreement) for the use of the product. which you may have agreed to previously.

 

The Product fitness for purpose issue, is again something from the USER licence.

but generally these are a bunch of “cover all possible scenarios” which are exempting the company from any legal action taken against them.

As I mentioned in the last post,.. this is an (Expectation) that the product will work as intended,.. and it’s a Shared Expectation.
You expect it to work, ..and so does the retailer…

No company intentionally sets out to sell you badly made, faulty goods.

Sometimes even products made by robots in a factory have flaws and errors,. since humans are involved at some level,.
so even from the highest quality manufacturing processes,
you MAY occasionally get something that doesn’t work as it was intended to,..

This is as much of a disappointment to the Manufacturer or retailer as it is to the paying customer,. and is usually dealt with swiftly, and the company usually accepts the costs involved in resolving that issue.

They do that because the Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer, all want to sell you the best products,. which are Fit for Purpose, and Fit for Retail,.
because it’s in the interests of both parties to make things work, and keep you as a happy customer.

These are all parts of the EULA,.  and they’re all perfectly valid. and clear, but they have noting to do with the way in which the Sale or products are presented to you,.. and those Need to be Clear. to allow you to make a purchasing decision.


If you were buying the product,.. (as seen)

Which version did that price entitle you to. ? and would you expect to receive a valid serial number, which would not expire. ?

or,.. was this payment for use of the software until that serial number expires, ....and then you purchase the next version ?
until it expires ?

What about any included content,. since this is a PRO version, of the Beta,.. it should include the Carrara native content..
(which isn’t supplied as part of the beta testing program)... ?

Again,.. these are the terms offered to you by the company, at the point of sale, which allow you to decide if the Product, (As it’s being presented to you) ...(as Seen) ...with that description, ...and at that price, is the type of sales offer which you are willing to enter into.

I’m going to leave it there, because you’re confusing the Licence, (to have, and to use the product)
with the way that it’s presented for sale to you,..which are the terms of what you’re getting for your money,.. and your ability to make a decision about that proposed sale based on the information supplied to you. before you part with your payment.

Not a licence (which is part of the product) to USE the “digital assets” of the product, which you can only possibly agree to, after you have parted with you payment for the product.


On the “Beta” and updates etc,,..

That example of how most companies who choose to create development income by making their software available for sale (usually at a reduced fee) ,.. Normally have “terms of sale” which will offer the customer the full Licence for the Final software, if they purchase the licence NOW, and are willing to wait while the product develops,..

There is NOTHING wrong with that,. since the terms are clear to the customer, at the point of sale.

The Licence you’re paying for,. will have terms which you will have to agree to, and is the “legal licence” which allows you to use the software. (under the terms laid out in the agreement)

There’s nothing wrong with selling anything in any condition,. as long as the customer is aware at the time of sale what they are purchasing.

Selling Beta software, in a way in which could be perceived as a “normal store product” is wrong, since that would be misleading.

smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 328 ]
Addict
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4863
Joined  2004-07-01

moving on

Image Attachments
1_horse.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 329 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15

Never mind, Andy. I was right the first time.

There’s no reasoning with the unreasonable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 November 2012 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 330 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8079
Joined  2009-07-13
bigh - 19 November 2012 08:31 PM

moving on

that horse is not dead???

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
   
22 of 48
22