Loading...
> >

You've been heard. Response re: 4.9 and Encryption

1…5557596061

Comments

  • frogimusfrogimus Posts: 200

    I seem to recall there was a bill that would allow circumvention as long as you were not using it to actually violate the rights of the copyright holder. It never got passed.

  • RobotHeadArtRobotHeadArt Posts: 917
    Richard Haseltine said:
    lx said:
    mjc1016 said:
    TesseractSpace said:

    Well there are some new suggestions and questions await either answer or dismissal. 

    I still want to know if exporting a DRM'd product to another software for use there could be considered a violation of the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA. Kinda troubling given the DMCA doesn't seem to cover the idea that there might be parts of a DRM'd content item that aren't themselves DRM'd at least that I could find. And it doesn't seem to matter if the  'circumvention' isn't being done for infringement. I worry that it could be held to standards set by the RIAA and MPAA instead of the normal uses of content in this field. While it may not affect personal use, it could be a factor in professional use.

    That is a very tricky question...because, we've been told that all our export options are working and fine to use.

    As it stands, the EULA currently allows for exporting to other programs.  The advertising and promotional materials stress how usable the content is in other programs...it's almost expected to be used in more than just Studio.

     

    Right but from what I've been reading, adding DRM to any product places it under an entirely different set of laws independant of the EULA or who 'owns' the product, etc.

     

    (I believe this was linked here earlier: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/51292-cory-doctorow-a-whip-to-beat-us-with.html )

    This would require Daz to initiate action against people doing what the Daz EULA grants them the right to do - all the cases I could find cited involve the rights holder initiating action, this isn't somethng an over-zealous DA or equivalaent can do in defiance of the hoder's wishes - which is not going to happen, and not is going to succeed if by some freak concatentation of events it does. Of course if someone made a circumvention tool to remove the DRM from content wihthout permission then it might happen, but that is totally separate from authorised use.

    Edited to insert correct quote

    Probably the closest is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd.  Elcomsoft had created a tool that would remove Adobe's DRM to allow people to use the PDFs as they wish (interoperability with screen readers for the visually impared for instance).  "Adobe withdrew its complaint, but United States Department of Justice prosecutors (under the authority of local U.S. Attorney Robert S. Mueller, future Director of the FBI) declined to likewise drop the charges."  So if someone made a tool that extracted the raw, decrypted .duf so Carrara could use it, something similar could play out.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 107,872
    RobotHeadArt said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    lx said:
    mjc1016 said:
    TesseractSpace said:

    Well there are some new suggestions and questions await either answer or dismissal. 

    I still want to know if exporting a DRM'd product to another software for use there could be considered a violation of the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA. Kinda troubling given the DMCA doesn't seem to cover the idea that there might be parts of a DRM'd content item that aren't themselves DRM'd at least that I could find. And it doesn't seem to matter if the  'circumvention' isn't being done for infringement. I worry that it could be held to standards set by the RIAA and MPAA instead of the normal uses of content in this field. While it may not affect personal use, it could be a factor in professional use.

    That is a very tricky question...because, we've been told that all our export options are working and fine to use.

    As it stands, the EULA currently allows for exporting to other programs.  The advertising and promotional materials stress how usable the content is in other programs...it's almost expected to be used in more than just Studio.

     

    Right but from what I've been reading, adding DRM to any product places it under an entirely different set of laws independant of the EULA or who 'owns' the product, etc.

     

    (I believe this was linked here earlier: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/51292-cory-doctorow-a-whip-to-beat-us-with.html )

    This would require Daz to initiate action against people doing what the Daz EULA grants them the right to do - all the cases I could find cited involve the rights holder initiating action, this isn't somethng an over-zealous DA or equivalaent can do in defiance of the hoder's wishes - which is not going to happen, and not is going to succeed if by some freak concatentation of events it does. Of course if someone made a circumvention tool to remove the DRM from content wihthout permission then it might happen, but that is totally separate from authorised use.

    Edited to insert correct quote

    Probably the closest is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd.  Elcomsoft had created a tool that would remove Adobe's DRM to allow people to use the PDFs as they wish (interoperability with screen readers for the visually impared for instance).  "Adobe withdrew its complaint, but United States Department of Justice prosecutors (under the authority of local U.S. Attorney Robert S. Mueller, future Director of the FBI) declined to likewise drop the charges."  So if someone made a tool that extracted the raw, decrypted .duf so Carrara could use it, something similar could play out.

    According to that article Adobe did not wish to press charges against the individual but did wish to go ahead with the prosecution of the company for which he worked while others potenially affected (the publishers of books) continued to support the case. So I don't think that counts strongly against my understanding. Unless we have lawyers specialising in the field among us I don't think we can take the discussion further.

  • frogimusfrogimus Posts: 200
    Richard Haseltine said:
    RobotHeadArt said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    lx said:
    mjc1016 said:
    TesseractSpace said:

    Well there are some new suggestions and questions await either answer or dismissal. 

    I still want to know if exporting a DRM'd product to another software for use there could be considered a violation of the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA. Kinda troubling given the DMCA doesn't seem to cover the idea that there might be parts of a DRM'd content item that aren't themselves DRM'd at least that I could find. And it doesn't seem to matter if the  'circumvention' isn't being done for infringement. I worry that it could be held to standards set by the RIAA and MPAA instead of the normal uses of content in this field. While it may not affect personal use, it could be a factor in professional use.

    That is a very tricky question...because, we've been told that all our export options are working and fine to use.

    As it stands, the EULA currently allows for exporting to other programs.  The advertising and promotional materials stress how usable the content is in other programs...it's almost expected to be used in more than just Studio.

     

    Right but from what I've been reading, adding DRM to any product places it under an entirely different set of laws independant of the EULA or who 'owns' the product, etc.

     

    (I believe this was linked here earlier: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/cory-doctorow/article/51292-cory-doctorow-a-whip-to-beat-us-with.html )

    This would require Daz to initiate action against people doing what the Daz EULA grants them the right to do - all the cases I could find cited involve the rights holder initiating action, this isn't somethng an over-zealous DA or equivalaent can do in defiance of the hoder's wishes - which is not going to happen, and not is going to succeed if by some freak concatentation of events it does. Of course if someone made a circumvention tool to remove the DRM from content wihthout permission then it might happen, but that is totally separate from authorised use.

    Edited to insert correct quote

    Probably the closest is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd.  Elcomsoft had created a tool that would remove Adobe's DRM to allow people to use the PDFs as they wish (interoperability with screen readers for the visually impared for instance).  "Adobe withdrew its complaint, but United States Department of Justice prosecutors (under the authority of local U.S. Attorney Robert S. Mueller, future Director of the FBI) declined to likewise drop the charges."  So if someone made a tool that extracted the raw, decrypted .duf so Carrara could use it, something similar could play out.

    According to that article Adobe did not wish to press charges against the individual but did wish to go ahead with the prosecution of the company for which he worked while others potenially affected (the publishers of books) continued to support the case. So I don't think that counts strongly against my understanding. Unless we have lawyers specialising in the field among us I don't think we can take the discussion further.

    Good call. "I read it on the internet" will be a poor defense for someone that stumbles because of our speculation and incomplete understanding of the law.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited February 2016
    mjc1016 said:
    TesseractSpace said:

    Well there are some new suggestions and questions await either answer or dismissal. 

    I still want to know if exporting a DRM'd product to another software for use there could be considered a violation of the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA. Kinda troubling given the DMCA doesn't seem to cover the idea that there might be parts of a DRM'd content item that aren't themselves DRM'd at least that I could find. And it doesn't seem to matter if the  'circumvention' isn't being done for infringement. I worry that it could be held to standards set by the RIAA and MPAA instead of the normal uses of content in this field. While it may not affect personal use, it could be a factor in professional use.

    That is a very tricky question...because, we've been told that all our export options are working and fine to use.

    As it stands, the EULA currently allows for exporting to other programs.  The advertising and promotional materials stress how usable the content is in other programs...it's almost expected to be used in more than just Studio.

     

    Edit

    Deleted dur to Richard's post.

    I would like clarification though; from those legal representatives.

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • argel1200argel1200 Posts: 760
    edited February 2016

    In order to sue in the US you need to have standing. In the DRM circumvention scenario that would be DAZ and the US Federal Government (because it has an interest in upholding/enforcing the law). If Utah has any DRM circumvention specific laws they would also have standing, and ditto for any state where the circumvention was deemed to have occured (so e.g. if California had additional applicable laws and the circumvention was deemed to have occured in CA, then CA would also have standing).

    Even if Adobe had decided to drop the case completely the US federal government still had standing to pursue it. That is not speculation because the US Federal Government always has standing to enforce US Federal law. It is also a matter of court record in the Adobe case because the US Federal Government could only be a party to that lawsuit if they had standing (edit: i.e. it is an establisahed fact). Edit2: Not stating they would or would not have, or would have sued on their own, just stating that they had standing if they had wished to do so.

    Post edited by argel1200 on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 107,872

    Looking at the US Copyright Act, paragraph 2 - immediately after the thou shalt not paragraph 1 - reads

    (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

    (A)

    is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

    (B)

    has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

    (C)

    is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

    none of which applies to the export functions in DS. So, although I am no more qualified to make legal assertions than any other poster to or reader of this thread (and less so than any qualified and registered legal practioner posting to or reading this thread) I feel personally confident that there is zero risk that the export functions or their use in accordance with the EULA would carry any risk to myself. You must of course form your own opinions, or consult your lawyers if you are concerned.

  • KickAir 8PKickAir 8P Posts: 1,865
    edited February 2016
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Looking at the US Copyright Act, paragraph 2 - immediately after the thou shalt not paragraph 1 - reads

    (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

    (A)

    is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

    (B)

    has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

    (C)

    is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

    none of which applies to the export functions in DS. So, although I am no more qualified to make legal assertions than any other poster to or reader of this thread (and less so than any qualified and registered legal practioner posting to or reading this thread) I feel personally confident that there is zero risk that the export functions or their use in accordance with the EULA would carry any risk to myself. You must of course form your own opinions, or consult your lawyers if you are concerned.

    IANAL/TINLA:  DRM complicates this because breaking DRM, even if a EULA or other laws allow you to, can still be considered a crime -- even if you win such a case you're still out a huge amount of money and years of your life.  I have no confidence whatsoever that DAZ ran this particular aspect (legal impact to themselves?  Sure.  Legal impact to their customers?  Ha!) past their lawyers.  As for consulting my own attorney, that's expensive, which then further reduces the value to me of DRM-impaired products that have already had their value to me whittled down past zero.

    Post edited by KickAir 8P on
  • Robert FreiseRobert Freise Posts: 4,569

    OK who woke up the forum gremlin 

    Having to log on every time I open a thread 

  • argel1200argel1200 Posts: 760

    In the US you really need to look at the DRM circumvention sections of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and the subsequent laws that have amended it. In one of the early DMCA rules the Judge even stated (paraphrasing) that the DRM circumvention provsions had nothing to do with how the content was subsequently used, which is why it may be legal to use (e.g fair use) DRM stripped content but be illegal to remove the DRM itself.

  • argel1200argel1200 Posts: 760

    From earlier in the thread, why TOr dropped DRM and how two years later they say it worked out for them:

    http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bea/article/62577-bea-2014-why-drm-is-the-problem.html

    “After discussing it with authors and readers, it became pretty clear that DRM was not much of a problem for the sophisticated pirate, but it was, however, a meaningful problem and an annoyance to many of our readers,” Doherty told the audience. “So, we went all in.”

    “So far, the lack of DRM has not increased the number of Tor e-books online illegally, nor has it visibly hurt our sales,” Doherty said. “We decided that if we play fair with [our customer] they will play fair with us. And, you know, it's working.”

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 107,872
    KickAir 8P said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Looking at the US Copyright Act, paragraph 2 - immediately after the thou shalt not paragraph 1 - reads

    (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

    (A)

    is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

    (B)

    has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

    (C)

    is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

    none of which applies to the export functions in DS. So, although I am no more qualified to make legal assertions than any other poster to or reader of this thread (and less so than any qualified and registered legal practioner posting to or reading this thread) I feel personally confident that there is zero risk that the export functions or their use in accordance with the EULA would carry any risk to myself. You must of course form your own opinions, or consult your lawyers if you are concerned.

    IANAL/TINLA:  DRM complicates this because breaking DRM, even if a EULA or other laws allow you to, can still be considered a crime -- even if you win such a case you're still out a huge amount of money and years of your life.  I have no confidence whatsoever that DAZ ran this particular aspect (legal impact to themselves?  Sure.  Legal impact to their customers?  Ha!) past their lawyers.  As for consulting my own attorney, that's expensive, which then further reduces the value to me of DRM-impaired products that have already had their value to me whittled down past zero.

     

    argel1200 said:

    In the US you really need to look at the DRM circumvention sections of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and the subsequent laws that have amended it. In one of the early DMCA rules the Judge even stated (paraphrasing) that the DRM circumvention provsions had nothing to do with how the content was subsequently used, which is why it may be legal to use (e.g fair use) DRM stripped content but be illegal to remove the DRM itself.

    The quote comes from the linked page, which is on circumvention - that's why I quoted it. If you get a legal opinion saying otherwise by all means post it, but I don't think you will and the dicsussion has gone at least as far as it usefully can otherwise.

  • argel1200argel1200 Posts: 760
    edited February 2016

    http://drm.web.unc.edu/relevant-law/dmca/major-cases/

    ...the court did state that “the DMCA targets the circumvention of digital walls guarding copyrighted material…, but does not concern itself with the use of those materials after circumvention has occurred.”

    Edit: fixed large font size. See also the MGE UPS Systems, Inc. v. General Electric case at that link.

    Post edited by argel1200 on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 107,872
    argel1200 said:

    http://drm.web.unc.edu/relevant-law/dmca/major-cases/

    ...the court did state that “the DMCA targets the circumvention of digital walls guarding copyrighted material…, but does not concern itself with the use of those materials after circumvention has occurred.”

    Edit: fixed large font size. See also the MGE UPS Systems, Inc. v. General Electric case at that link.

    What is that meant to prove? It certainly has no relevance to the supposed danger of the US suing Daz or its users fro using the export tools to "circumvent" the encryption, since the case was brought by the rights holder. Please drop this unless you get a direct legal pronouncement from a specialist.

  • ByrdieByrdie Posts: 1,783

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 107,872
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    You don't need a lawyer - I was saying that the discussion has run into the buffers, not that we actually need to get expert advice.

  • KickAir 8PKickAir 8P Posts: 1,865
    Richard Haseltine said:
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    You don't need a lawyer - I was saying that the discussion has run into the buffers, not that we actually need to get expert advice.

    You should put a "I am not a lawyer - this is not legal advice" disclaimer on that.

  • frogimusfrogimus Posts: 200

    He's a non-attorney spokesperson.

    For those outside the US, that's a disclaimer on a lot of our television commercials advertising anything to do with legal stuff.

    Now, back on a non-legal topic.  I wonder if anyone at Daz has given careful consideration to the survey proposed earlier? A clearer understanding of everyone's misgivings about DC could help Daz put together a path that meets their needs and most of ours.

  • lx_2807502lx_2807502 Posts: 2,996
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    Crayola are just waiting for you to fall into their trap, then they'll be coming after you.

    Seriously though reading all this makes me want to go "okay time to just do everything myself in Blender and never go near other peoples' content."

  • ByrdieByrdie Posts: 1,783
    edited February 2016

    Crayola's a trap eh? Well, the best crayons I ever had weren't Crayolas at all, they were Whitman. I wonder if that brand's still around, haven't seen any of 'em in at least two dog's ages. Nor the Peacock, those were pretty good crayons too, so much brighter than the Crayola ones back when I was a kid.

    I downloaded Blender but haven't installed it yet. Still trying to get everything set up on the new computer and it is going very slowly --- I think I have way too much content. blush

    Post edited by Byrdie on
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 15,084

    Don't be a sucker for Big Wax!

     

  • father1776father1776 Posts: 982

    This thread is sinking fast...bye thread

  • Silver DolphinSilver Dolphin Posts: 1,638
    edited February 2016
    lx said:
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    Crayola are just waiting for you to fall into their trap, then they'll be coming after you.

    Seriously though reading all this makes me want to go "okay time to just do everything myself in Blender and never go near other peoples' content."

    It would be nice is someone skilled started making charaters for Blender that were opensource. I would pay for skins and clothings as well as morphs. A blender model shop would also be great idea. It could be like a 3D craigslist without the adult stuff and skimpy clothing. Send everyone to regular 3D sites for the adult stuff.

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • lx_2807502lx_2807502 Posts: 2,996
    edited February 2016
    Silver Dolphin said:
    lx said:
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    Crayola are just waiting for you to fall into their trap, then they'll be coming after you.

    Seriously though reading all this makes me want to go "okay time to just do everything myself in Blender and never go near other peoples' content."

    It would be nice is someone skilled started making charaters for Blender that were opensource. I would pay for skins and clothings as well as morphs. A blender model shop would also be great idea. It could be like a 3D craigslist without the adult stuff and skimpy clothing. Send everyone to regular 3D sites for the adult stuff.

    Well there are multiple sources of morphable rigged figures for Blender now - not in the refined stages of Daz/Poser, but certainly enough for a modeller to work with. As far as I know there aren't really any other programs that have the technical ease level of fitting/conforming clothing, etc. that DS and Poser offer. If you just want to buy characters and outfits, these are by far the best options (that I know of.) If you're getting more into doing things yourself though, there are a wide range of unrestricted free options.

    I've seen a few stores with free and purchasable shaders for cycles: I can only imagine it won't be that long before someone makes a store with premade and dressed characters for use, too.

    So while I don't think that these things can replace what users of DS and Poser tend to want right now, the potential is certainly there if customers are pushed too far away.

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited February 2016
    Silver Dolphin said:

    It would be nice is someone skilled started making charaters for Blender that were opensource. I would pay for skins and clothings as well as morphs. A blender model shop would also be great idea. It could be like a 3D craigslist without the adult stuff and skimpy clothing. Send everyone to regular 3D sites for the adult stuff.

    http://www.blendswap.com/blends

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • NovicaNovica Posts: 23,923
    frogimus said:

    Now, back on a non-legal topic.  I wonder if anyone at Daz has given careful consideration to the survey proposed earlier? A clearer understanding of everyone's misgivings about DC could help Daz put together a path that meets their needs and most of ours.

    Nope. I suggested it, there was one or two comments about the skill of creating one (which I had already mentioned) and that was that. It's a very effective tool and the forum members would have an organized way to provide input IMO. 

  • lx_2807502lx_2807502 Posts: 2,996
    Novica said:
    frogimus said:

    Now, back on a non-legal topic.  I wonder if anyone at Daz has given careful consideration to the survey proposed earlier? A clearer understanding of everyone's misgivings about DC could help Daz put together a path that meets their needs and most of ours.

    Nope. I suggested it, there was one or two comments about the skill of creating one (which I had already mentioned) and that was that. It's a very effective tool and the forum members would have an organized way to provide input IMO. 

    While I agree with you and think a survey would be an excellent idea (and some of the suggested questions later on were also great) you have to think that the time for the survey was well before now, and that it isn't really a miraculous concept to come up with one.

    Which suggests that either a survey was sent out to a small select group earlier, or no survey has been sent out to the customer base in general because the results are expected to be unfavourable, or not relevant to decision making.

    I mean, you can call that speculating if you want; if anyone has any reasons why a survey was never sent to customers, I'd love to hear them.

  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,157

    I can not see most of the image

    AnotherUserName said:

    I will not purchase through connect. I will not purchase encrypted product. The decryption utility sounds like more of complication than a solution. I will only buy .zip files.

    I hear you, same here.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited February 2016
    Silver Dolphin said:
    lx said:
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    Crayola are just waiting for you to fall into their trap, then they'll be coming after you.

    Seriously though reading all this makes me want to go "okay time to just do everything myself in Blender and never go near other peoples' content."

    It would be nice is someone skilled started making charaters for Blender that were opensource. I would pay for skins and clothings as well as morphs. A blender model shop would also be great idea. It could be like a 3D craigslist without the adult stuff and skimpy clothing. Send everyone to regular 3D sites for the adult stuff.

    But they would get made and distributed somewhere; they would sell.

    Other than no replies to some questions posed; not much is happening now; I hate to let the thread die as it may be taken as a sign of acceptance - or at least indifference.

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • KickAir 8PKickAir 8P Posts: 1,865
    edited February 2016
    nicstt said:
    Silver Dolphin said:
    lx said:
    Byrdie said:

    All this fuss is making me think I should go back to crayons. They don't have DRM and I don't need to consult a lawyer or any other expert than maybe a 5-year-old as to their use. cheeky

    (I would have said pencils but at least I can see crayons!) 

    Crayola are just waiting for you to fall into their trap, then they'll be coming after you.

    Seriously though reading all this makes me want to go "okay time to just do everything myself in Blender and never go near other peoples' content."

    It would be nice is someone skilled started making charaters for Blender that were opensource. I would pay for skins and clothings as well as morphs. A blender model shop would also be great idea. It could be like a 3D craigslist without the adult stuff and skimpy clothing. Send everyone to regular 3D sites for the adult stuff.

    But they would get made and distributed somewhere; they would sell.

    Other than no replies to some questions posed; not much is happening now; I hate to let the thread die as it may be taken as a sign of acceptance - or at least indifference.

    Silence (enforced or otherwise) doesn't equal consent, exhaustion doesn't equal acceptance, ten years & way to much money spent here make it really hard to be indifferent.

    Post edited by Chohole on
This discussion has been closed.