Encryption discussions go here

nicstt · December 2015

mambanegra said:

nicstt said:

DAZ_Rawb said:

Richard Haseltine said:

mambanegra said:

lx said:

There are still physical files - I'm not 100% on this but you should be able to physically copy the files from the mac to the PC via local network and then only need to download your key on your PC (assuming you can run it on 2 - not sure about that.) It'll still probably be a hassle of course but it should be doable without double downloading.

Well, as it is right now, I just make the copy (or even render directly off the mounted runtime from my mac...both work about as well) and it works with almost no real effort on my part. Adding in the extra step of having to activate each purchase on the other machine could become really annoying. Reminiscent of those awful installers which required click-click-click over pages of junk, when renderosity let me just extract zip files.

If they tied the product encryption to my account, I wouldn't be so concerned, but if it's machine based...that's a real nightmare when it's time to get a new computer if you have a lot of Connect based content, since it won't be portable to the new machine.

There has been some discussion of people using multiple machines, and I think it amounted to "you will be OK" though I can't recal the details. The amount of content doesn't matter, just register the new machine and your backed-up Connect-only content will work.

The details are this:

Any content encrypted on your system is encrypted using a per-user key so content can be shared between machines on the same account without problems. Your per-user key is encrypted with a machine specific key to store it locally, as is your saved email address and password (if you have those boxes checked when you login). So if you restore from a backup onto a new machine you will have to login once in order to get your user key but all of your encrypted content will work without having to download anything.

Additionally if you do use multiple machines the server side of Daz Connect will typically allow more than one active connection from a user. So if you are one of many users that use a laptop for posing and preparing the scene and a desktop for rendering you should be able to leave those both connected at the same time. Our documentation on this only specifies that you can have one connection at a time because if this is abused we may limit individual accounts.

Should be able to? Why the qualification? I would hope that there is no should at all, although why I'm bothering asking as no intention of using. :)

I understood that to mean that as long as things don't change due to folks taking advantage of the loop hole, people using more than one machine will not have any trouble. But, that's purely my interpretation.

Good point.

But it can be hard to be sure what you think they're doing is really what they are doing.

Not an issue for me, so was merely curious.

Valiska · December 2015

I don't buy DRM'd information, except in two cases:

I don't expect to have any use for it in about five years;
I could readily break the DRM, if I needed to, to use the data.

I buy software with activation procedures because I expect it to be useful for one or two operating system releases, but probably not much more. (~3-6 years, maybe; if a particular version of a program is useful for 7 years, that's unusual longevity). I have had software orphaned early; but usually it works for about as long as I've expected to.

However, I haven't been buying Daz models on the theory that they'd only be useful for ~5 years; I've been expecting at least some of them to be useful for longer than that. I realize Daz models are inexpensive, as 3D models go; but they'd have to be significantly cheaper for me to think them good bargains for me, if I only expect to get a handful years out of them.

I never expect DRM'd goods to be supported indefinitely.

Software isn't.

Back before the Amazon Kindle, companies were selling electronic texts in other formats. They often had DRM. Many of these vendors had names you'd recognize, and they survived and prospered in other businesses -- but they often got out of the encrypted-text-selling business and shut down their authentication servers, because it wasn't worth it commercially to continue. This orphaned all etexts that required authentication to open on a particular computer. People who bought those files either found out how to break the DRM, or lost access to them.

I am not one of the people who lost a text collection. I was already avoiding buying DRM'd data.

So I won't be buying DRM'd models. I may buy some more models that don't have DRM -- provided I can tell that they don't. If the store descriptions don't distinguish between DRM'd and non-DRM'd models, then I won't be buying at all. If they do, I'll stick to the non-DRM'd stuff.

I didn't realize that some of the products in the store are scripts, and that they're presently encrypted. I have limited to no interest in altering or moving scripts, and expect them to have limited lifespans the way software does; nevertheless, I will now be paying more attention and will probably purchase fewer scripts, or no scripts. If I can't identify them, I may generally avoid products I think likely to be comprised of scripts. If I don't avoid a particular script, it will be because I expect to produce something with it -- e.g., geometry -- that I can export and use elsewhere without the script.

Thus, I don't expect to be in the market for Daz goods going forward, except in a minor way.

If the Platinum Club prices haven't increased too much -- my membership has lapsed and I now can't see them -- I will probably rejoin for a month, in a few months, and pick up some of the old models I still want. But I'm not expecting to buy much new; future new models, especially the major releases, are likely to be encrypted.

I feel for the vendors about piracy -- it must be frustrating, perhaps infuriating. But I don't think encrypted files would serve my ends very well, so I'm just not part of the market for them.

I might've taken up Poser, but I wasn't too thrilled with hearing about Poser Game Dev deactivating itself when it failed to phone home. And I need to make some of my own models anyway.

I'm exporting my models now. My targets are Blender and modo -- they both run on Linux, and Studio was the last piece of software pinning me to Windows.

I guess I'll be able to buy unencrypted stuff as long as I have a Windows installation.

Kerya · December 2015

Kcoady: thank you for your message - I am feeling very much like you and you voiced your opinion well!

As for PC prices - even if you don't understand German you can follow this thread:

http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/948115/#Comment_948115

Scroll down to PC+-Artikel and you will see two prices - the first for the 30% it's new sale and the second for the later, permanent price.

(I let my PC membership lapse too)

DAZ_Rawb · December 2015

kcoady said:

I don't buy DRM'd information, except in two cases:

I don't expect to have any use for it in about five years;

I could readily break the DRM, if I needed to, to use the data.

I buy software with activation procedures because I expect it to be useful for one or two operating system releases, but probably not much more. (~3-6 years, maybe; if a particular version of a program is useful for 7 years, that's unusual longevity). I have had software orphaned early; but usually it works for about as long as I've expected to.

However, I haven't been buying Daz models on the theory that they'd only be useful for ~5 years; I've been expecting at least some of them to be useful for longer than that. I realize Daz models are inexpensive, as 3D models go; but they'd have to be significantly cheaper for me to think them good bargains for me, if I only expect to get a handful years out of them.

I never expect DRM'd goods to be supported indefinitely.

Software isn't.

Back before the Amazon Kindle, companies were selling electronic texts in other formats. They often had DRM. Many of these vendors had names you'd recognize, and they survived and prospered in other businesses -- but they often got out of the encrypted-text-selling business and shut down their authentication servers, because it wasn't worth it commercially to continue. This orphaned all etexts that required authentication to open on a particular computer. People who bought those files either found out how to break the DRM, or lost access to them.

I am not one of the people who lost a text collection. I was already avoiding buying DRM'd data.

So I won't be buying DRM'd models. I may buy some more models that don't have DRM -- provided I can tell that they don't. If the store descriptions don't distinguish between DRM'd and non-DRM'd models, then I won't be buying at all. If they do, I'll stick to the non-DRM'd stuff.

I didn't realize that some of the products in the store are scripts, and that they're presently encrypted. I have limited to no interest in altering or moving scripts, and expect them to have limited lifespans the way software does; nevertheless, I will now be paying more attention and will probably purchase fewer scripts, or no scripts. If I can't identify them, I may generally avoid products I think likely to be comprised of scripts. If I don't avoid a particular script, it will be because I expect to produce something with it -- e.g., geometry -- that I can export and use elsewhere without the script.

Thus, I don't expect to be in the market for Daz goods going forward, except in a minor way.

If the Platinum Club prices haven't increased too much -- my membership has lapsed and I now can't see them -- I will probably rejoin for a month, in a few months, and pick up some of the old models I still want. But I'm not expecting to buy much new; future new models, especially the major releases, are likely to be encrypted.

I feel for the vendors about piracy -- it must be frustrating, perhaps infuriating. But I don't think encrypted files would serve my ends very well, so I'm just not part of the market for them.

I might've taken up Poser, but I wasn't too thrilled with hearing about Poser Game Dev deactivating itself when it failed to phone home. And I need to make some of my own models anyway.

I'm exporting my models now. My targets are Blender and modo -- they both run on Linux, and Studio was the last piece of software pinning me to Windows.

I guess I'll be able to buy unencrypted stuff as long as I have a Windows installation.

Thank you for your well reasoned, written and civil post about your concerns about the encryption system we have in 4.9.

For your primary point about content under DRM going away I completely understand. History has many examples of companies larger than us abandoning previous DRM formats and leaving the buyers to fend for themselves. Microsoft did it with the Zune store, WallMart did it with their DRM'ed online music store. In the physical media realm Circuit City had DVD's with bonus DRM called Divx which shut down along with any physical content you had purchased from them.

Systems shutting down like this is why we have built "poison pill" software that we will release if we ever take the server-side of the encrypted software portion down. This "poison pill" will run though and decrypt every piece of content you have installed. This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

I will additionally let you know that even encrypted content can be fully exported to use with Modo, Blender or whatever else you want. So even if you make the switch to those pieces of software you won't be restricted on this store to what is/isn't encrypted.

mjc1016 · December 2015

DAZ_Rawb said:
This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

Darn it...there goes another idea!

Daikatana · December 2015

DAZ_Rawb said:

kcoady said:

I don't buy DRM'd information, except in two cases:

I don't expect to have any use for it in about five years;

I could readily break the DRM, if I needed to, to use the data.

I buy software with activation procedures because I expect it to be useful for one or two operating system releases, but probably not much more. (~3-6 years, maybe; if a particular version of a program is useful for 7 years, that's unusual longevity). I have had software orphaned early; but usually it works for about as long as I've expected to.

However, I haven't been buying Daz models on the theory that they'd only be useful for ~5 years; I've been expecting at least some of them to be useful for longer than that. I realize Daz models are inexpensive, as 3D models go; but they'd have to be significantly cheaper for me to think them good bargains for me, if I only expect to get a handful years out of them.

I never expect DRM'd goods to be supported indefinitely.

Software isn't.

Back before the Amazon Kindle, companies were selling electronic texts in other formats. They often had DRM. Many of these vendors had names you'd recognize, and they survived and prospered in other businesses -- but they often got out of the encrypted-text-selling business and shut down their authentication servers, because it wasn't worth it commercially to continue. This orphaned all etexts that required authentication to open on a particular computer. People who bought those files either found out how to break the DRM, or lost access to them.

I am not one of the people who lost a text collection. I was already avoiding buying DRM'd data.

So I won't be buying DRM'd models. I may buy some more models that don't have DRM -- provided I can tell that they don't. If the store descriptions don't distinguish between DRM'd and non-DRM'd models, then I won't be buying at all. If they do, I'll stick to the non-DRM'd stuff.

I didn't realize that some of the products in the store are scripts, and that they're presently encrypted. I have limited to no interest in altering or moving scripts, and expect them to have limited lifespans the way software does; nevertheless, I will now be paying more attention and will probably purchase fewer scripts, or no scripts. If I can't identify them, I may generally avoid products I think likely to be comprised of scripts. If I don't avoid a particular script, it will be because I expect to produce something with it -- e.g., geometry -- that I can export and use elsewhere without the script.

Thus, I don't expect to be in the market for Daz goods going forward, except in a minor way.

If the Platinum Club prices haven't increased too much -- my membership has lapsed and I now can't see them -- I will probably rejoin for a month, in a few months, and pick up some of the old models I still want. But I'm not expecting to buy much new; future new models, especially the major releases, are likely to be encrypted.

I feel for the vendors about piracy -- it must be frustrating, perhaps infuriating. But I don't think encrypted files would serve my ends very well, so I'm just not part of the market for them.

I might've taken up Poser, but I wasn't too thrilled with hearing about Poser Game Dev deactivating itself when it failed to phone home. And I need to make some of my own models anyway.

I'm exporting my models now. My targets are Blender and modo -- they both run on Linux, and Studio was the last piece of software pinning me to Windows.

I guess I'll be able to buy unencrypted stuff as long as I have a Windows installation.

Thank you for your well reasoned, written and civil post about your concerns about the encryption system we have in 4.9.

For your primary point about content under DRM going away I completely understand. History has many examples of companies larger than us abandoning previous DRM formats and leaving the buyers to fend for themselves. Microsoft did it with the Zune store, WallMart did it with their DRM'ed online music store. In the physical media realm Circuit City had DVD's with bonus DRM called Divx which shut down along with any physical content you had purchased from them.

Systems shutting down like this is why we have built "poison pill" software that we will release if we ever take the server-side of the encrypted software portion down. This "poison pill" will run though and decrypt every piece of content you have installed. This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

I will additionally let you know that even encrypted content can be fully exported to use with Modo, Blender or whatever else you want. So even if you make the switch to those pieces of software you won't be restricted on this store to what is/isn't encrypted.

Would it be possible to have the EULA re-written to include the part about the "poison pill" option. This way, it would make it part of a legally binding agreement so that if DAZ decides to shut up shop or take the "family-friendly Brazillian themed hibachi food truck" option, we customers have some sort of protection and will be guaranateed access to our content or at least the option to download everything and make sure we have solid backup copies?

lx_2807502 · December 2015

I'd still like to know what's actually going to happen. Is all new content going to be introduced as Connect-only? Is it a PA choice whether a specific product is? Or a Daz choice? Or do you actually have no idea at all yet?

Will DIM become useless for anything except older content? (that'll be sad.) I can accept the idea of encrypted content if it's good enough to make me want to buy it anyway, but I don't really like Connect. Even if the files are encrypted to me only I still want control over the actual product zips for backups.

I can only speak for myself but things announced in advance tend to be a lot less jarring compared to sudden 'here is the new way everything works" type changes.

nicstt · December 2015

lx said:

I'd still like to know what's actually going to happen. Is all new content going to be introduced as Connect-only? Is it a PA choice whether a specific product is? Or a Daz choice? Or do you actually have no idea at all yet?

Will DIM become useless for anything except older content? (that'll be sad.) I can accept the idea of encrypted content if it's good enough to make me want to buy it anyway, but I don't really like Connect. Even if the files are encrypted to me only I still want control over the actual product zips for backups.

I can only speak for myself but things announced in advance tend to be a lot less jarring compared to sudden 'here is the new way everything works" type changes.

We'll know when it happens. :)

Petercat · December 2015

DAZ_Rawb said:

Systems shutting down like this is why we have built "poison pill" software that we will release if we ever take the server-side of the encrypted software portion down. This "poison pill" will run though and decrypt every piece of content you have installed. This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

Okay, I am not a programmer. I build computers, I use them, but that's about it.

If there is a "poison pill" option, what is to prevent hackers from creating their own "poison pill" software to take advantage of that? They wouldn't have to hack every new release then.

It seems that having a "poison pill" option would defeat your anti-hacking efforts. Or am I missing something?

Richard Haseltine · December 2015

Petercat said:

DAZ_Rawb said:

Systems shutting down like this is why we have built "poison pill" software that we will release if we ever take the server-side of the encrypted software portion down. This "poison pill" will run though and decrypt every piece of content you have installed. This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

Okay, I am not a programmer. I build computers, I use them, but that's about it.

If there is a "poison pill" option, what is to prevent hackers from creating their own "poison pill" software to take advantage of that? They wouldn't have to hack every new release then.

It seems that having a "poison pill" option would defeat your anti-hacking efforts. Or am I missing something?

The content has to be decrypted for use anyway, so it's always potentially possible for someone to get around it. Nothing is or can be guaranteed to block the pirates, this is meant to make their aims at least somewhat harder to achieve.

nicstt · December 2015

Richard Haseltine said:

Petercat said:

DAZ_Rawb said:

Systems shutting down like this is why we have built "poison pill" software that we will release if we ever take the server-side of the encrypted software portion down. This "poison pill" will run though and decrypt every piece of content you have installed. This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

Okay, I am not a programmer. I build computers, I use them, but that's about it.

If there is a "poison pill" option, what is to prevent hackers from creating their own "poison pill" software to take advantage of that? They wouldn't have to hack every new release then.

It seems that having a "poison pill" option would defeat your anti-hacking efforts. Or am I missing something?

The content has to be decrypted for use anyway, so it's always potentially possible for someone to get around it. Nothing is or can be guaranteed to block the pirates, this is meant to make their aims at least somewhat harder to achieve.

I'm wondering how long it will take for someone crack it?

argel1200 · December 2015

I was looking at "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" and paused to consider whether this new encryptian scheme is going to break it for encrypted content. And the other day I was using Send in the Clones, and a big question to ask for existing scripts is if the PAs will actually even update older products that are affected. I thikn the long and short of it is this change is going to kill selling script based content, even ones that are probably safe. I mean, never had to stop and think about it before, and now I'm left hesitating, to the point that I will probably pass on "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" when in the past I would have just thrown it in the cart. I guess if there are fewer script based products there are fewer products that can be pirated. Great job DAZ!!

lx_2807502 · December 2015

.

argel1200 said:

I was looking at "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" and paused to consider whether this new encryptian scheme is going to break it for encrypted content. And the other day I was using Send in the Clones, and a big question to ask for existing scripts is if the PAs will actually even update older products that are affected. I thikn the long and short of it is this change is going to kill selling script based content, even ones that are probably safe. I mean, never had to stop and think about it before, and now I'm left hesitating, to the point that I will probably pass on "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" when in the past I would have just thrown it in the cart. I guess if there are fewer script based products there are fewer products that can be pirated. Great job DAZ!!

Well, no, because they convert Genesis 2 content and existing store items won't be encrypted and I doubt there are going to be a whole lot new Genesis 2 figures in the future. You can buy that one safely.

As for the general sentiment about scripts, yup this is another one of those customer focused decisions. I mean if no one wants any of it anymore it really does stop the pirates, so you're right there~

Crescent · December 2015

Unless there are massive fixes to the current systems, I absolutely will not buy anything that is DRM-based.

1) Backwards compatibility. I've bought enough products in the past that couldn't be used when a new version of DS arrived. I can just imagine how much worse it's going to get when things are encrypted so people can't post hacks on how to keep the products functional after a new DS release.

2) DIM is quite dim. Unless Connect is a helluva lot smarter, it won't be usable for me.

Every time I would use DIM to download a purchase, it would download every single manifest file for every product I own. It didn't matter that nothing had changed on those files. Sure, each manifest file is small, but having several thousand redownloaded every time adds up on the bandwidth usage. My ISP started threatening to charge me for bandwidth overages. I stopped using DIM and my bandwidth issues went away.

I have a tightly organized file structure, several folders across with several subfolders. DIM wants each one of those listed as a separate download path. Needless to say, I'd need 40+ paths in DIM since I can't pick download locations on the fly.

I've changed some of the folders around over the years. I can't update the file locations in DIM, so it thinks I need to re-download the files to the (now) non-existent locations. I have to either redownload the items to their new locations so DIM know where they now belong (a huge waste of bandwidth) or try to ignore the files, but then I can't tell if the product has been updated and needs to be re-downloaded, or if it's just having a hissy fit because the file was moved.

3) I don't want to use a system that forces its organizational system on me. I need things organized my way. I want to see all of my stuff and I want to figure out what goes where. I don't want it deciding not to show a piece of clothing because the clothing is for V4 and I have a G3 figure selected. (I haven't use Smart Content in a long time. If this has significantly changed, or if Connect doesn't force use of Smart Content, then this isn't an issue.)

4) I hack files on occasion to fix things or add functionality. I won't buy anything that I'm locked out of, except for things like advanced script systems because they're really more software than content.

5) I don't want to be forced to have my computer go online. Sure, with my current setup, my graphics computer is online a lot, but that's because I want it to be online, not because I'm forced to put it there. I know people who go online with a barebones, wiped often system, never their production boxes as a precaution. If I change to that setup, I won't be able to use any DRM content.

6) With all the keygens on the web, the DRM is only going to slow down honest users after the first week of it being put in use. I don't like being penalized for being honest and purchasing my stuff.

7) If the DRM encrytpion gets cracked, will DAZ then impliment a new DRM? If so, what happens to the content with the old encyrption? Will we have to download new versions with a new encryption scheme? Will stuff under the old scheme be rendered undecryptable?

8) DAZ_Rawb said: "Additionally if you do use multiple machines the server side of Daz Connect will typically allow more than one active connection from a user. So if you are one of many users that use a laptop for posing and preparing the scene and a desktop for rendering you should be able to leave those both connected at the same time. "

Why would I want both connected at the same time? Do I need to keep them connected? If I have 2 computers, do I have to have each one connect to DAZ to verify that they're allowed access to each DAZ item I own? That is, if I purchase an item via my laptop and put it on my network storage, do I have to have my desktop connect to DAZ to get permission to use that item?

I'm probably missing a few points, but a lot of others in this thread have covered a lot of ground as well. I go back to the days before DAZ was even a gleam in a Zygote's eye. I'd rather not switch to another software program, but I probably will if DAZ goes the full DRM route.

V3Digitimes · December 2015

argel1200 said:

I was looking at "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" and paused to consider whether this new encryptian scheme is going to break it for encrypted content. And the other day I was using Send in the Clones, and a big question to ask for existing scripts is if the PAs will actually even update older products that are affected. I thikn the long and short of it is this change is going to kill selling script based content, even ones that are probably safe. I mean, never had to stop and think about it before, and now I'm left hesitating, to the point that I will probably pass on "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" when in the past I would have just thrown it in the cart. I guess if there are fewer script based products there are fewer products that can be pirated. Great job DAZ!!

Hello. Thank you for raising this question that a few may have ! But you can be confident :

1. Compatibility with encrypted or not encrypted Genesis 2 content = YES : "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" will work for any type of genesis 2 content you have, encrypted or not. These are scripts which work on the properties of what is in your scene, not on what is in your content. Even if cloud encryption changes on the future, it will remain compatible, since it is disconnected from the content side, working only on figure properties in the scene.

2. install my product using DIM for any Daz Studio version bellow 4.9.0.54: One important thing to now is that in this case (bellow 4.9.0.54), "Iray Smart Converter and Advanced Skin Managers for Genesis 2" needs to be installed using DIM or product library. Do not install my product using cloud

3. install my product using whatever you want including cloud for Daz Studio being 4.9.0.54 (or above).

In brief : no issue for G2 figures encryption or not, the converters and the managers eat them all !!!!!

Richard Haseltine · December 2015

Hi Cres, Merry Christmas.

Crescent said:
2) DIM is quite dim. Unless Connect is a helluva lot smarter, it won't be usable for me.
Every time I would use DIM to download a purchase, it would download every single manifest file for every product I own. It didn't matter that nothing had changed on those files. Sure, each manifest file is small, but having several thousand redownloaded every time adds up on the bandwidth usage. My ISP started threatening to charge me for bandwidth overages. I stopped using DIM and my bandwidth issues went away.

I have a tightly organized file structure, several folders across with several subfolders. DIM wants each one of those listed as a separate download path. Needless to say, I'd need 40+ paths in DIM since I can't pick download locations on the fly.

I've changed some of the folders around over the years. I can't update the file locations in DIM, so it thinks I need to re-download the files to the (now) non-existent locations. I have to either redownload the items to their new locations so DIM know where they now belong (a huge waste of bandwidth) or try to ignore the files, but then I can't tell if the product has been updated and needs to be re-downloaded, or if it's just having a hissy fit because the file was moved.

I may be misunderstanding your issue, but DIM will (unless you've checked Delete after Install) keep the zips so you can uninstall and reinstall at will. Daz Connect doesn't, currently have an equivalent option but you can back up the \Data\Cloud folder for the product after installation and replace it from the back-up rather than redownloading - once this goes live I intend to look at writing a script that will let you select one or more products in a content view and have them automatically copied to a new location (not sure how easy it will be to zip them, but I believe all the other needed steps are scriptable). Of course the promised off-line packages will also be a way to avoid redownloading.

Connect should reduce bandwidth use in general as updates need to download only the updated file(s), not the whole zip.

Crescent said:
3) I don't want to use a system that forces its organizational system on me. I need things organized my way. I want to see all of my stuff and I want to figure out what goes where. I don't want it deciding not to show a piece of clothing because the clothing is for V4 and I have a G3 figure selected. (I haven't use Smart Content in a long time. If this has significantly changed, or if Connect doesn't force use of Smart Content, then this isn't an issue.)

Although the structure of files and folders in the Cloud folder, the actual Product files, is rigidly constrained it is now possible to create pointer files that can be freely organised and seen in the standard file-based views. This is done by dragging-and-dropping from the CMS view to a file view within, but I'm pretty sure it could be done with a modified version of the back-up script mentioned above too - select one or more products, set a target folder and the pointer files will be created (with sub-folders) there.

Turning off the Filter by Context check-box in Smart Content will cause it to show all files, not just those compatible with the selected item, which should address the second issue.

Crescent said:
5) I don't want to be forced to have my computer go online. Sure, with my current setup, my graphics computer is online a lot, but that's because I want it to be online, not because I'm forced to put it there. I know people who go online with a barebones, wiped often system, never their production boxes as a precaution. If I change to that setup, I won't be able to use any DRM content.

In theory you would need to go online only once, to register the machine, but that requires the as-yet-unavailable off-line packages. You don't, however, need to be online unless you are downloading a product or checking for updates - none of the basic operation requires a connection.

Petercat · December 2015

nicstt said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Petercat said:

DAZ_Rawb said:

Systems shutting down like this is why we have built "poison pill" software that we will release if we ever take the server-side of the encrypted software portion down. This "poison pill" will run though and decrypt every piece of content you have installed. This way even if Daz changes direction and switches it's business into a family-friendly Brazilian themed hibachi food truck you will still be able to access all of your content forever.

Okay, I am not a programmer. I build computers, I use them, but that's about it.

If there is a "poison pill" option, what is to prevent hackers from creating their own "poison pill" software to take advantage of that? They wouldn't have to hack every new release then.

It seems that having a "poison pill" option would defeat your anti-hacking efforts. Or am I missing something?

The content has to be decrypted for use anyway, so it's always potentially possible for someone to get around it. Nothing is or can be guaranteed to block the pirates, this is meant to make their aims at least somewhat harder to achieve.

I'm wondering how long it will take for someone crack it?

Slysoft usually breaks the encryption on new blu-ray releases within 24 hours. They've even developed a way around Cinavia.

The Command and Conquer III DRM was cracked in 48 hours, and EA is still using it. Little effect on piracy, giant ongoing "f**k you" to the customers.

If there is a "poisoned pill", then it will be on the pirate sites in a short time, and this entire DAZRM plan will be pointless. But it will continue, regardless.

Sort of like attending a school where, if one student cheats, the whole class gets an "F".

Have any moderators responded to the comments about the constant use of qualifiers such as "currently", "at this time", etc?

Regardless, I'm with you, nicstt. No DRM for me. My wallet will appreciate it. But the vendors won't, their 50% of what I've spent so far is over $2000.00, and that spigot will be shut off as soon as DAZRM is turned on. Small potatos, I know, but they're MY potatos to pass out as I see fit.

Richard Haseltine · December 2015

Petercat said:
Have any moderators responded to the comments about the constant use of qualifiers such as "currently", "at this time", etc?

What is there to respond to? No one knows what the future may bring, it would be very foolish to say never or always to anything - those are the strongest terms that can sensibly be used. And yes, that has been pointed out already.

Petercat · December 2015

Richard Haseltine said:

Petercat said:
Have any moderators responded to the comments about the constant use of qualifiers such as "currently", "at this time", etc?

What is there to respond to? No one knows what the future may bring, it would be very foolish to say never or always to anything - those are the strongest terms that can sensibly be used. And yes, that has been pointed out already.

No, there are plenty of things that one can say "never" or "always" to without being foolish.

"I will never drive a Ferrari" is a good example, as the odds of my getting behind the wheel of a Ferrari are indistinguishable from zero.

But just to keep you happy and make that statement absolutely true, if I am offered an opportunity to drive a Ferrari, I will turn it down. And if I fail, you can call me a liar for breaking my word.

You could easily say "DAZ3d will never require an always-on internet connection". If, in the future, you go back on your word, a lot of people will call you a liar for breaking your word..

But when you say things like "At the present time, no one is planning to make DAZ3d always-connected", then people will naturally believe that it will happen sometime in the future.

We've been trained that way by other people who have made the same type of qualified statement.

And no amount of explaining in carefully vetted, indistinct sentences will change that perception or expectation.

nicstt · December 2015

Petercat said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Petercat said:
Have any moderators responded to the comments about the constant use of qualifiers such as "currently", "at this time", etc?

What is there to respond to? No one knows what the future may bring, it would be very foolish to say never or always to anything - those are the strongest terms that can sensibly be used. And yes, that has been pointed out already.

No, there are plenty of things that one can say "never" or "always" to without being foolish.

"I will never drive a Ferrari" is a good example, as the odds of my getting behind the wheel of a Ferrari are indistinguishable from zero.

But just to keep you happy and make that statement absolutely true, if I am offered an opportunity to drive a Ferrari, I will turn it down. And if I fail, you can call me a liar for breaking my word.

You could easily say "DAZ3d will never require an always-on internet connection". If, in the future, you go back on your word, a lot of people will call you a liar for breaking your word..

But when you say things like "At the present time, no one is planning to make DAZ3d always-connected", then people will naturally believe that it will happen sometime in the future.

We've been trained that way by other people who have made the same type of qualified statement.

And no amount of explaining in carefully vetted, indistinct sentences will change that perception or expectation.

It doesn't mean we're right, only that the concerns are valid. It is a lot of effort to put into something you wont use; that is what those carefully worded statements imply.

We're customers, but not especially stupid ones. :)

lx_2807502 · December 2015

I don't really get why people are getting so hung up on the wording. If you don't trust that they have no plans for online-only, then why would you believe them if they said they weren't going to do it? Someone said awhile ago they wanted to see a legal contract, but even I wouldn't enter into a contract swearing I would never use an online-only system to distribute content, and I hate online-only and don't even sell content. Personally I think it would be a stupid idea that isn't remotely feasible for the vast majority of their customers even if they wanted to buy into such a system.

I still think the encryption idea is dumb, too, and will and have pointed out many reasons it's completely pointless and harmful to customers, but I don't see what the point of getting hung up on accusing them of being sneaky about the future will do. If they're going to be sneaky, they're going to do it anyway: the only thing you'll get is the self-satisfaction of being able to say "I told you so," which is pretty lame.

Petercat · December 2015

lx said:

I still think the encryption idea is dumb, too, and will and have pointed out many reasons it's completely pointless and harmful to customers, but I don't see what the point of getting hung up on accusing them of being sneaky about the future will do. If they're going to be sneaky, they're going to do it anyway: the only thing you'll get is the self-satisfaction of being able to say "I told you so," which is pretty lame.

People are getting hung up on the wording because we have heard similar weasle words used in the past by employers, companies, politicians, and others who later claim "But we never promissssed...". As I said before, we have been trained to expect the worst when we hear qualifiers like that.

Companies can and do make absolute statements. I had to find the letter, but in response to a similar controversy, my phone company sent out a letter saying that they would "never" raise rates without giving 30 days notice. My auto insurance company has said that it will never cancel my contract while it is paid up. Companies often make absolute statements when it will reassure their customer base that rumored bad things are not going to happen. I have to wonder why no one at DAZ will say that the various bad possibilities will not happen? Such a statement, relating to DAZRM, would have only a positive effect, no negatives (as long as it's true). So why not do it?

To repeat: We have been trained by experience to associate qualified statements (and DRM itself) with Future Bad Things. That's why the controversy. If no one at DAZ wants to address those concerns in clear, unambiguous terms, then their customers will continue to expect a knife in the back at some point in the future.

lx_2807502 · December 2015

Fair enough. I suppose the difference in my viewpoint is that I don't really care what they promise or don't, because words are just words. There will always be some sort of loophole or change of circumstances.

I'm not too worried about an always connected system because it doesn't really make any sense for them to do. They already made an expensive piece of software free and saw a benefit, and have a voluntary subscription (PC+) that easily pays for itself in customer value. It just isn't really feasible in the expected future.

Of course they could fly in the face of all logic and try to self destruct by changing to an "all content is online must always be connected pay to view over time" model, but if they do, then I'll certainly opt out.

I just think that the announced changes are more worrisome than any concerns of what they might one day change.

Petercat · December 2015

lx said:

Fair enough. I suppose the difference in my viewpoint is that I don't really care what they promise or don't, because words are just words. There will always be some sort of loophole or change of circumstances.

I'm not too worried about an always connected system because it doesn't really make any sense for them to do. They already made an expensive piece of software free and saw a benefit, and have a voluntary subscription (PC+) that easily pays for itself in customer value. It just isn't really feasible in the expected future.

Of course they could fly in the face of all logic and try to self destruct by changing to an "all content is online must always be connected pay to view over time" model, but if they do, then I'll certainly opt out.

I just think that the announced changes are more worrisome than any concerns of what they might one day change.

We are in complete agreement on your point.

I must clarify one thing, however: I was using always-on as an example, not as the limit of my concerns. My concern is the entire DAZRM plan, and DAZ representatives have used the qualifiers that concern me and others when discussing the entire plan. That's why we are upset, no one expects DAZ to become always-on, that was just an example.

And those qualifiers are concerned with future expansion of the already worrisome announced changes.

nicstt · December 2015

lx said:

Fair enough. I suppose the difference in my viewpoint is that I don't really care what they promise or don't, because words are just words. There will always be some sort of loophole or change of circumstances.

I'm not too worried about an always connected system because it doesn't really make any sense for them to do. They already made an expensive piece of software free and saw a benefit, and have a voluntary subscription (PC+) that easily pays for itself in customer value. It just isn't really feasible in the expected future.

Of course they could fly in the face of all logic and try to self destruct by changing to an "all content is online must always be connected pay to view over time" model, but if they do, then I'll certainly opt out.

I just think that the announced changes are more worrisome than any concerns of what they might one day change.

There seem to be a number of folks posting about issues to the RC; there doesn't seem to have been much activity the last few days, so hoping it isn't released without further testing. Although, I've no incentive to upgrade atm. And the DRM issues suggest I have a reason to not upgrade.

I was looking forward to the next release after 4.8; I mean IRAY had been so awesome, what goodies were they planning? Well, the crash to earth was painful. I hope 5.0 restores my enthusiasm. It will be interesting to see the state of DazRM by then. :)

lx_2807502 · December 2015

nicstt said:

lx said:

Fair enough. I suppose the difference in my viewpoint is that I don't really care what they promise or don't, because words are just words. There will always be some sort of loophole or change of circumstances.

I'm not too worried about an always connected system because it doesn't really make any sense for them to do. They already made an expensive piece of software free and saw a benefit, and have a voluntary subscription (PC+) that easily pays for itself in customer value. It just isn't really feasible in the expected future.

Of course they could fly in the face of all logic and try to self destruct by changing to an "all content is online must always be connected pay to view over time" model, but if they do, then I'll certainly opt out.

I just think that the announced changes are more worrisome than any concerns of what they might one day change.

There seem to be a number of folks posting about issues to the RC; there doesn't seem to have been much activity the last few days, so hoping it isn't released without further testing. Although, I've no incentive to upgrade atm. And the DRM issues suggest I have a reason to not upgrade.

I was looking forward to the next release after 4.8; I mean IRAY had been so awesome, what goodies were they planning? Well, the crash to earth was painful. I hope 5.0 restores my enthusiasm. It will be interesting to see the state of DazRM by then. :)

Yeah, I haven't tested the latest version, but each beta had a ton of bugs without feeling like a noticably better program, just that it sort of had a framework for new things added.

Honestly, the shop design and Connect could have been implemented to be WAY more invasive, and it's clear attention was paid to make them interfere with your privacy as little as possible. Experience has shown that most companies planning to take over your life haven't concentrated on these things so much. So that's a positive.

- 4.9 does not force you to log in, nor does it auto log you in even if you want it to. If you tell it not to ask, it won't ask until you try to do an online activity.
- The shop only loads items when you specifically have the tab open, and its "recommendations" are only it loading the relevant section when you open say "wardrobe" in Smart Content.

Does this make DRM okay? No, of course not - but if we're worrying about Daz's vaguely worded intentions, then you need to pay equal attention to these actions. So many programs have added online connectivity to suit themselves over customers, and clear attention has been paid to not do so here. I was expecting targeted store suggestions to fill my library (this happened in other programs) but absolutely nothing of the sort is in place, and the coding that has been added behaves in a way that suggests it's deliberately against those sorts of things.

Will any of this change? Sure it could, but why bother coding it all like that now if you have the opposite intentions? It's not like most people are even going to notice.

Petercat · December 2015

Well, call it serendipity, but I just had an example of why I don't want my art computer to get online, even once.

I use my laptop to get online. It has some powerful antimalware on it, and the same OS (Win7 Pro) as my desktop.

I have it set to check for updates, but let me decide whether or not to install them.

I just turned it on, and got the "Installing Updates" message. Without my permission.

When the desktop finally showed, I wasn't looking at my desktop background, I was looking at a giant Windows logo. Instead of 20+ icons and folders, my desktop showed six. My not-windows web browser? Gone. My desktop folders containing all of my renders, scenes, custom characters, etc? Gone. Everything I've done to customize my computer to meet my needs and desires is FREAKIN' GONE!

(Okay, just gone from the desktop, not the computer. But hunting it all down and re-customizing is a real pain).

Like I said, I've got some serious anti-malware to prevent evil people from doing ugly things to my computer.

But apparently nothing can prevent Microsoft from doing ugly things to my computer, except staying offline.

So no, DAZ, telling me that I have to hook my art computer up "just once" is not acceptable. Because allowing you to make one little change to my computer will allow Microsoft to make as many changes that it wants, with no way to prevent it.

No thanks. Not going to happen. Snail Mail me a CD, and I might say okay. But force me online and I will say goodbye.

nicstt · December 2015

Petercat said:

Well, call it serendipity, but I just had an example of why I don't want my art computer to get online, even once.

I use my laptop to get online. It has some powerful antimalware on it, and the same OS (Win7 Pro) as my desktop.

I have it set to check for updates, but let me decide whether or not to install them.

I just turned it on, and got the "Installing Updates" message. Without my permission.

When the desktop finally showed, I wasn't looking at my desktop background, I was looking at a giant Windows logo. Instead of 20+ icons and folders, my desktop showed six. My not-windows web browser? Gone. My desktop folders containing all of my renders, scenes, custom characters, etc? Gone. Everything I've done to customize my computer to meet my needs and desires is FREAKIN' GONE!

(Okay, just gone from the desktop, not the computer. But hunting it all down and re-customizing is a real pain).

Like I said, I've got some serious anti-malware to prevent evil people from doing ugly things to my computer.

But apparently nothing can prevent Microsoft from doing ugly things to my computer, except staying offline.

So no, DAZ, telling me that I have to hook my art computer up "just once" is not acceptable. Because allowing you to make one little change to my computer will allow Microsoft to make as many changes that it wants, with no way to prevent it.

No thanks. Not going to happen. Snail Mail me a CD, and I might say okay. But force me online and I will say goodbye.

I have a SSD for long renders, as although I use 8.0; there's no guarantee that the occasional requests to upgrade to 8.1 will not change to something else. So it never connects. I don't trust companies to not mess stuff up. It's not aimed at Daz, but all of em. Companies do what's best for them, what's best for them is profit. As an individual, my chance of influencing anything is about the same as winning the lottery. So I know things will happen I don't like, all I can do is protect the setup I have. The fact I don't like em doesn't make them bad, or stop many others from liking them - it doesn't, however, mean my opinion is wrong; it is merely that it relates to me.

ArchSenex · January 2016

Odds are good I'm repeating a question that's been asked and answered, but there's just a dizzying amount of info here to try and track as somebody who hasn't been following for the last few months.

The one thing I want to confirm is this. Often content comes out without templates, and I sometimes want to make modifications, usually to transparency maps but sometimes to the textures themselves, using photoshop. I do this usually by applying the Texture normally in DS, and then looking at the surfaces tab to find the path to the image, making my modification, and then applying the updated texture/map on the surface tab.

Based on my understanding, those paths will no longer be on the file system, and will no longer be browseable in this manner. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Will I no longer be able to make my own modifications to these files.

As far as the organization, my only complaint will be having to switch over to a new method when before just dragging the files up one level out of the folder named after the artist was really easy. Can you just make a policy that people can't insist on putting their product inside a folder with their name on it that has no other purpose other than to put all their products in folders with their name on it?

mjc1016 · January 2016

ArchSenex said:
Based on my understanding, those paths will no longer be on the file system, and will no longer be browseable in this manner. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Will I no longer be able to make my own modifications to these files.

No...the content IS still on your drive/your filesystem. Yes, you can still browse to it and still edit texture files to your heart's content.

ArchSenex said:

As far as the organization, my only complaint will be having to switch over to a new method when before just dragging the files up one level out of the folder named after the artist was really easy. Can you just make a policy that people can't insist on putting their product inside a folder with their name on it that has no other purpose other than to put all their products in folders with their name on it?

It's been a while since vendor named folders were 'vanity'.

Notifications

Encryption discussions go here

Comments

Adding to Cart…