No encrypted for me.
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
They can tell if the person who bought a product buys Carrara-only content as well, whether they've bought successive versions of Carrara, whether they buy DS-only shaders and lights. It's not foolproof, but they can certainly get an idea. If someone has never purchased any version of Carrara or any Carrara-only products they can be pretty certain it isn't being used in Carrara.
True, but also, I don't buy anything for Carrara because of the silence surrounding the product. I already put my money out to buy the actual product - I'm not going to invest even more on something that is showing no visible signs of life.
Let me see...
Piracy only affects a company's income if the people engaging in the theft would otherwise have purchased the product.
I would suspect that pirates and their customers hate DRM even more than the customers here on the forum do.
I doubt if many pirates or their customers are buying encrypted products now.
So are enough thieves purchasing the new encrypted products to make up for the loss of sales to regular customers? Somehow I doubt it.
Lets find out.
Daz, take a popular, high demand product like the trenchcoat... sell it as encrypted through the normal new product high sales period, say a month.
Then offer it as unencrypted, for the same price, and see how many regular customers snap it up.
That's how many sales you've lost due to the product being encrypted.
Now tell us if you believe that you gained enough sales to thieves to make up for that loss.
DRM isn't about the bottom line- it's about ego. "Someone's stealing our stuff! We have to stop it! Even if it costs us total sales."
Only it's not going to stop piracy. They don't even have to unencrypt the individual items. All the pirates have to do is figure out the one-time key. Or the Poisoned Pill. Which they will do!
There have been several existing customers here who have claimed that they will never purchase encrypted content. I am one of them.
Even though a moderator has told me that making absolute statements would be foolish, I guess I am a fool, because here it is:
I will never purchase encrypted products fot Daz, except by mistake, as others have already done.
If the trenchcoat is offered DRM-free, I will purchase it.
Is there a thief out there who bought the encrypted trenchcoat to make up for the loss of the sale to me? I doubt it. They're waiting for someone to crack the encryption. Which will happen.
So, Daz, DRM is costing you money and customers, and slightly inconveniencing the pirates. I suppose it's worth it, right? Right?
So the solution is to do nothing and continue to let pirates give away (or even charge in some site membership cases) products that some people DO download rather than buying? This argument is getting old.
If the DRM doesn't stop piracy and costs the company a lot and upsets customers, it doesn't mean that the solution is to do nothing at all. It just means that DRM isn't the right answer.
"Hey come buy this spikey belt to stop the rain! It doesn't actually stop the rain but obviously we have to do something to try and stay dry so buy it!" - The solution to this is not to do nothing, but rather to find a raincoat or umbrella.
I would also love to see some sort of evidence that would be pirates are buying encrypted content because they can't pirate it.
The pirates who make the content available are not going to buy it, but the problem really is when people come across 3D content and *might* have bought it if they didn't just find it for free. Many here are quick to assume that no one who downloads pirated software or content would ever have considered buying it lawfully. How many people who refuse to buy an encrypted product here would download the thing if they came across it online unencrypted with the justification of sticking it to DAZ for encrypting it in the first place?
I've yet to hear a substantial argument against DRM for 3D content; every one is "if" this or that happens and wild guesses as to what DAZ's plans are.
Thank you, Ix.
Actually, most of the ones who make the content available for free did buy it themselves (this does not make it okay.) Supposedly there are secret underground pay sites that use fraud to steal the content from the Daz store, but I haven't heard anything concrete on that one way or the other, and I'm not about to go digging for that sort of site.
As for whether people -might- have bought it if they didn't find it for free - that's really complex and as far as I know there is no possible way to measure this (short of asking every person that downloaded a pirated file if they would have paid for it if it wasn't available free, which isn't going to happen.)
I'm not saying doing nothing is the answer, nor that no one should look for answers, nor that piracy is okay. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that implementing DRM is going to help anyone achieve anything. There is a mountain of evidence showing that these schemes by the biggest of companies have not stopped piracy. Saying it does without evidence is sheer speculation.
It seems the assumption is that DRM doesnt work?
Why is that nearly all OS Platforms, DVD players, Gaming Consoles, Phones all have DRM in them. The largest game distributor has support for DRM. The largest movie companies use DRM. The largest manufacturers of computers and electronic devices use DRM. Most professional grade software has DRM. Most browsers are built to support DRM.
I think it's hardly a proven point that, flatly DRM doesn't work. It's just one opinion among many.
It actually seems more the norm to have or support DRM not the reverse.
Ix: Saying that 1 person bought an item then distributed it to ten thousand others illegally is really small comfort.
It's not supposed to be comfort. That's why I said it wasn't okay right after it. It was in response to someone saying the person distributing didn't buy it, that's all.
All of those things you listed are widely available in pirate form and have been ever since they were released. That suggests to me that no, it doesn't work. If it did, there wouldn't be so many pirated versions of almost everything online.
99% of people doing the wrong thing to solve a problem does not mean the problem is solved.
The issue is not whether there is a substantial argument against DRM it's whether there is a substantial argument for it!
Anyway, what's done is done. DRM is here to stay and only DAZ will be able to gauge the efficacy of the approach. I musn't speculate.
And, if the whole point of the encryption is to stop piracy then encrypting something that has been available without encryption is pointless.
Again I ask if what you're saying has been proven beyond all doubt, why do the leading industries continue to use it if the only outcome is financial ruin.
It doesn't really add up to me.
There is also a difference between solution and mitigation... Air bags in a car are not a 100% guarantee of survival of a crash, but they do improve your odds somewhat.
Why did Apple drop it for most of the iTunes catalogue then?
I actually meant to suggest that a pirate wouldn't likely be buying encrypted content, but yeah many do buy stuff and then redistribute it.
No, both arguments have validity but DAZ almost certainly has more information that we don't know about to justify their decision. They would not do this just for something to do.
Yes, and I would be puzzled if any currently unencrypted content is later encrypted. What needs to happen, if this is going to be effective at all, is to encrypt all new releases. Why DAZ is encrypting some and not others is odd to me.
Apple is still one of the biggest DRM providers, regardless of the changes to Itunes music.
Have an AppleID by any chance? What happens if Apple gets attacked by Godzilla I wonder...
I didn't say it led to financial ruin, nor do I know exactly why each company makes the choices it does.
These are the facts you can actually measure:
Fact: Many companies employ DRM to attempt to protect their product from piracy. (This does not mean I approve of this.)
Fact: Almost all of these products are freely available in an illegal format. (This does not mean I approve of this.)
Fact: DRM does inconvenience customers. We know this because we can read customer feedback.
Fact: If one pirate cracks a DRM system, that system can now be compromised by everyone via sharing. This means that mitigation isn't happening via this way.
If you implement something, you have to show that it was worth implementing, not make everyone else prove that it wasn't. I have yet to see any measurable data on this being a success.
But you don't know that. You are only speculating. Speculation is probably the single largest outcome of this whole DRM project! Oh, wait, that's speculation as well.
I'd be speculating, but a lot of fanbois would probably commit suicide.
The reality is that it doesn't matter how good arguments are for or against DRM being in place.
For me as a consumer to buy an encrypted product (approving or not) it needs to be able to do something that I do not already own, cannot buy from another store, nor make myself. None of the currently shown encrypted products do this.
VUE charges less for 'controlled' content. If I did buy DAZ encrypted content, I'd expect an option to pay more for unencrypted content and thus expect cheaper encrypted content. This is really the purpose of the whole exercise: to use encryption as some kind of sales template... prices or subscriptions... whatever. Pompey thought he stopped piracy in the Mediterranean. As long as any barter system is alive, piracy will live. This isn't about piracy.
The question is... how will I the customer be rewarded financially for using DAZ encrypted content?
"Fact: If one pirate cracks a DRM system, that system can now be compromised by everyone via sharing. This means that mitigation isn't happening via this way."
This isn't what mitigation means, mitgation doesn't deal in absolutes. Mitigation is attempting to influence percentages to affect an outcome. Putting a lock on your door doesn't guarantee that you can never be broken into, if it is broken from then on it wont keep anyone out until it is repaired or patched. Do you use locks? The lock helps to mitigate the risk.
Using the applied theory your drawing as a conclusion here. You could ask, why use money if it can be stolen, why build banks if the can be robbed, why build prisons if they can be escaped from, why live if you can be killed. In none of these situation has anyone ever said well, it can be broken so it's useless. In every instance mitigation is applied to reduce the likelihood of the worst case happening. That fact that you can die doesn't mean you give up living, everyday you mitigate the associated risks of dieing even though there is no guarantee you will be successful on each and every day. And it is a fact that one day you won't be.
None of this discusses the impact of DRM on a customer which is gauged by how put out through procedure or the level that usage is impacted by the protection. it's just attempting to explain why DRM, and why it is employed regularly by most successful businesses. Nor will it effect you if you decide that locking and unlocking your door every time you leave your house is to much trouble. If you don't like locks you don't need to have them. You just accept that you won't be using that mitigating factor to protect your house and assets. I'm not sure if the lock company will mind.
Sorry SnowSultan but I really dislike this argument. Lets say my car was stolen one day by thieves... I buy a new one and as a precaution I shoot everyone dead who comes within 20 metres of the new car, regardless of how innocent they might be. Now, would you say that my solution was a good idea because its better than doing nothing?
You can't just say that doing something is better than doing nothing - it totally depends on what that "something" is and who its hurting.
Edit:
Also, your comment of "How many people who refuse to buy an encrypted product here would download the thing if they came across it online unencrypted with the justification of sticking it to DAZ for encrypting it in the first place?" - is another great reason why DRM has the potential to harm Daz.
No, what I would do is insure the car, lock the doors and install a security system. None of these are 100% guaranteed all the time. They do mitigate the risk though. Even if I need to remember to unlock it, Carry around my key, pay my insurance and make sure the alarm doesn't consistantly wake my neighbours at all hours.
The one thing I wouldn't do is, leave the keys in the ignition and the doors open while I went to the movies.
Exactly, so you are admitting then that just because I came up with a solution that was "better than doing nothing" it doesn't mean that it was the right one. Other solutions were available that didn't hurt/inconvenience anyone else and they were better than the one I proposed.
Also, bear in mind that Daz isn't encrypting their content because we're all worried it might get stolen from us by thieves - they're encrypting it because they believe that any one of us could be a potential thief. Its more like selling someone a car that they can only unlock if they call the dealership and ask permission every time.
Right, well mostly, except these are all inconveniences associated with the other solution I proposed, most would say acceptable inconveniences:
Even if I need to remember to unlock it, Carry around my key, pay my insurance and make sure the alarm doesn't consistantly wake my neighbours at all hours.
Your really comparing Daz Encryption to cold blooded murder over a new Prius? ...
I was merely illustrating that doing something is not always better than doing nothing. An extreme example was the easiest way to illustrate that point with the greatest impact. Obviously I'm not equating DRM to murder.
And as I pointed out above... you're not remembering to carry around a key. You're having to call the dealership every time you want to use your car and asking them to unlock it for you.
The other thing about mitigation is the measure of how effective that mitigation is. It's rare for mitigation to be 100%. The fact that there are releases in the store today that are not DRM'd makes me wonder about that measure. I mean, if the problem is as large as has been stated, then shouldn't ALL new releases be DRM'd? Otherwise, why bother?
Anyway, I don't want to speculate about the effectiveness of this particular mitigation. I'll leave that to DAZ. I know what I am prepared to accept as a customer for this type of product, and it's no DRM. So the equation is very simple for me:
IF ProductName IS ENCRYPTED THEN WillBuy = FALSE
In the long run, how will encryption affect 3rd party vendors who sell Genesis content at other stores? Will they all eventually have to sell through DAZ's store?