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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
That is a absolutely silly thing to say. Streaming is one of the things people LOVE to use the Internet for. The cloud is becoming more popular for both backing up and being able to share files between different devices. Saying that those things will "kill" the Internet is as silly as saying that the airlines will kill the travel industry. Your personal dislike has no bearing whatsoever on what's actually happening in the real world.
I got my copy of LightWave 9 by purchasing a "second hand" licence. The whole process was done above board with NewTek sales department performing all the behind the scenes stuff. It paid out for them as I updated to 11 within a couple of months. I don't know if DAZ have a similar policy - I'm guessing not, but I would think that there is as much incentive for them to adopt one as there isn't.
Unfortunately, the lightwave example is not applicable here... Daz Studio is still free so you would be selling a free license? I think the user wants to sell his content which represents breaking all of the separate agreements with each vendor that he purchased from using Daz3d as an exchange.
We don't own anything! Only the company DAZ3D and the creators of the content own the 3D material! The software here belongs to Daz3d. What we get is a license to use the software and 3D content. This is why I think it was very smart business wise for DAZ3D to give away the license for Daz Studio pro for free! It is like the people at the grocery store giving away samples! The way it works is if the sample is good you will buy more. Now I understand why we are only granted a license for software! It takes knowing how to write software to create 3D programs but on the other hand models and clothes can be made by anybody and charging such large amounts of money for something that has no inherent value is like throwing away money. The content we purchase here at Daz3D is like throwing away money because the Eula here makes it almost impossible to make any money with it! No this is not a rant this is the truth. We are supporting DAZ3D and they should be more conscious of the fact that we are purchasing items that have no inherent value and they should charge accordingly. The Platinum category is good start & so is the Value category but I still think most of the items here at Daz are still too over priced for something we only are getting a license for!
Just my 2 cents.
Just wondering...
What if a company purchases some content (strictly speaking a license to use the content), and that company gets taken over, or demerged, or undergoes some other kind of restructure. Is the content (license) transfered or does it just vanish into the void?
I know you may not have meant it this way, but as someone who can program and create content, I see that as a huge insult to the content creators.
Both take knowledge, time and effort. Both also take varying degrees of art. Both are works of craftmanship and skill.
It's also wrong because people who shop here clearly do see the value of the content and do pay money for it.
Actually, this is more like Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Windows, or any software. You don't own the software. Even the freebies you get out in the net like Blender clearly state you don't own the software. You own a license to use the software, which is really what's important. What you produce with the software is yours (within certain parameters) falling under derivative works.
I've earned money from the art I produced using DAZ and the brokered items here for projects and my own creator owned comic, and those are certainly within the EULA. And certainly, there are people here who have earned far more than I using DAZ, Bryce, Hexagon, etc. While I agree any company should take care of their customer base (because what company survives for long if they don't?) and some of the items here are a little overpriced, I'm not sure why you would say it's impossible to make money with DAZ products and services. :coolhmm:
AFAIK, the license agreement is still valid. Company b cannot change the original agreement company a made, even if they absorbed it, and they are obligated to honor it. They may change the parameters for future releases or modifications based on that content, but the ones already out there still stand.
I fail to see the difference. What you essentially are buying is the bits and bytes and the license to use them, how they are delivered is (or should be) irreelevant, technically. Many companies (including Microsoft) also offers the choice between a download and a physical version (or both) these days.
As for those who do not allow resale of digital content I am forced to accept the terms if I want the products, but I don't find them fair or logical as long as you can freely resell all kinds of other things, including some types of digital content.
I don't think anyone would find it fair either if they suddenly made laws that prohibited reselling cars or houses?
And to any arguments that there is a difference between digital "machines" and physical machines I can only say I disagree. Both are items doing some kind of service for the user, and that service is what it's all about. What the "machine" doing the service consists of, be it metal or bytes, is technically irrelevant to me. What I essentially pay for is the service the item can do for me, the item itself has no value to me at all without that service.
Speaking of digital machines, what about genetic engineering? Custom designed DNA to make a plant rot resistant. Is there a license fee to be paid for each new crop from the seeds of the previously licensed seeds? Or in the case of animals how about modification of sperm, egg or embryo to fix a deficient gene to avoid multiple-sclerosis. The child survives disease free and reproduces, does the license fee for the product require renewal for the subsequent generations?
Yeah, it sounds like an absurd idea but somewhere along the line without proper laws, somebody's going to try to capitalize on it.
The problem with digital goods is that they are not physical items and therefore can be replicated very quickly and easily, without any aditional costs.
With just with a single push of a button you can multiply an e-book or a software intaller and voila - in a few seconds you have not just dozens but hundreds of them. If you are allowed to re-sell them without problem, who prevents you from selling just one if you can sell thousands? Of course the proper way to re-sell digital content would be to sell just one copy and delete your own, so that the only remaining copy is the one which your customer now has. But how many people would really do that?
If you own a car or house and then sell it, you do not have the car / house anymore. You cannot hide a copy of the car in your pocket and use it later to drive to a cinema. You cannot copy the house you just sold and move the replica several miles away, so you can keep on living in it. But you can do such things with your digital content. You CAN sell it and still HAVE it. And no-one (except for your own conscience) can prevent you from doing it.
So those who produce digital content - like DAZ company and others - protect their products the way they do.
Yes, actually there is a payment of some sort of GM products. According to Wikipedia, one of the giants in GM products market, Monsanto, forbids you to save seeds you grew so you'd have to buy the license again if you wish to plant them next year.
"For example, Monsanto's typical bailment license (covering transfer of the seeds themselves) forbids saving seeds, and also requires that purchasers sign a separate patent license agreement"
Also here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Intellectual_property
It's already happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent
"Genetic use restriction technology, colloquially known as "terminator technology", produces plants that have sterile seeds. If put into use, it would prevent the spread of those seeds into the wild. It also would prevent farmers from planting seeds they harvest, requiring them to repurchase seed for every planting, although they also need to do this for hybrid seeds, because second-generation seeds are inferior, and in cases of patented transgenic seeds, where patent-holders like Monsanto enter into contracts with farmers who agree not to plant harvested seeds as a condition of purchase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Proxima Shining Said:
It all comes down to trust. Most suppliers do not trust their customers to follow these rules so they prohibit any re-selling. But the people who would not follow the rules are the ones least likely to stick to any re-selling restrictions and most likely to use any cracking or decryption tools they can find to break copy protection.
I know a lot of people are unhappy about the number of illegal copies being made but there is no way of knowing how many actual sales are lost. A lot of people who would pay a few pounds for an illegal copy of photoshop would never consider buying it at the legal price.
It is wrong for people to be using your stuff without paying you but we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm well aware how these things work, but those who pirate don't care about the EULA anyway so it doubt it helps much.
Perhaps, but not having a EULA is not an option either. Pirates are going to exist, regardless of what any company does. There's always going to be someone out there who's going to spread anything that isn't nailed down (and sometimes, even when it is). But not all of them get away with it, so having the EULA gives a legal right to bring the hammer down when that happens. Besides, the EULA also protects the customers from being taken advantage of, as it limits what the company can and can't do as well as establishing what the customers get for what they pay for.
It's already happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent
"Genetic use restriction technology, colloquially known as "terminator technology", produces plants that have sterile seeds. If put into use, it would prevent the spread of those seeds into the wild. It also would prevent farmers from planting seeds they harvest, requiring them to repurchase seed for every planting, although they also need to do this for hybrid seeds, because second-generation seeds are inferior, and in cases of patented transgenic seeds, where patent-holders like Monsanto enter into contracts with farmers who agree not to plant harvested seeds as a condition of purchase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Seems like an easy and logical answer for plants but suppose you yourself are the product of genetic manipulation that enabled you to survive to breeding age. How would you feel about having to pay a license fee upon producing a child of your own just because someone claimed to own your genes?
It makes an interesting albeit extremely dystopian cyberpunk/SF setting.
It makes an interesting albeit extremely dystopian cyberpunk/SF setting.
Very similar to this concept http://www.amazon.com/Unincorporated-Man-Dani-Kollin/dp/0765327244
It makes an interesting albeit extremely dystopian cyberpunk/SF setting.
An interesting idea for a novel. ;-)
Very similar to this concept http://www.amazon.com/Unincorporated-Man-Dani-Kollin/dp/0765327244
I thought more about traditional lines of "people as property/androids/tools" but this is interesting as well
An interesting idea for a novel. ;-)
Didn't turn out terribly cohesive, though. It would have been better as a series of short stories.
An interesting idea for a novel. ;-)
Didn't turn out terribly cohesive, though. It would have been better as a series of short stories.
Actually yes, an anthology, - connected by the same setting, which could develop and show various aspects of this idea - would be cool
Well I'm not biting. No cloud stuff for me. I know many others feel the same way.
Ditto...not when it's product like 3D or major investment software.
What would you do when in job requirements you'd see CS 8, which would be (say) cloud-only?
Would you lose a chance of employment?
What would you do when in job requirements you'd see CS 8, which would be (say) cloud-only?
Would you lose a chance of employment?
My employer provides any software I need for work and as I don't work in 3D but education it's not likely to come up. Luckily for me it's not an issue I have to consider but I can see how for some it might be.
What would you do when in job requirements you'd see CS 8, which would be (say) cloud-only?
Would you lose a chance of employment?
My employer provides any software I need for work and as I don't work in 3D but education it's not likely to come up. Luckily for me it's not an issue I have to consider but I can see how for some it might be.
Good boss - hope you won't lose such place )
What would you do when in job requirements you'd see CS 8, which would be (say) cloud-only?
Would you lose a chance of employment?
Very few companies would require in-depth knowledge of cloud-only applications, largely because most if not all have desktop equivalents. Right now, Cloud services have a few pitfalls, the most obvious of which is that if your connection to the Cloud goes down for any reason, you've potentially lost a lot of business since all of your important apps and data were stored on it. You can argue of the scarcity of such situations, but they've already happened before and it effectively renders most if not all computers in the office worthless shells.
Furthermore, similar to things like Onlive, some services simply don't work terribly well across the internet. Try as you might, there's no avoiding the fact that there will always be a delay between cause and effect. Play Onlive and move the mouse in a FPS game and there's a noticeable lag before any effect is noticed. Put that in the context of a tablet-drawn application, and the slight delay can be incredibly frustrating.
I fall into the non-cloud userbase. I absolutely despise delays between action and effect, and I have a deep loathing for hollowed-out shells of PCs which act purely as a front-end to someone else's computer. I didn't purpose build a machine to not make full use of its CPU capabilities, only to use a watered-down equivalent on a distant server. I don't even use cloud backups, preferring to create my own personal backups on an easy-to-reach Blu-Ray.
Perhaps I fall into the minority, but I think home content will always be around. Cloud based services won't erase it completely.
Maybe not completely but I'm pretty sure all major and important software like Adobe and Autodesk - and video games, which I play quite a bit - will switch to a cloud sooner or later.
I'm not a fan of the cloud either but I simply don't see how corporations - which are all about money and more money - will refuse such a magical way to make more of them. If your software won't hit cloud, good, but my major working software (Adobe) is already hitting it. And I'm pretty sure older versions won't be usable forever because sooner or later the OS will be updated to keep up with hardware and older programs will no longer work.
This very site is already using some of cloud - Amazon CloudFront, - although for websites it is probably not much relevant as they has to stay online to be reachable anyway.
Maybe not completely but I'm pretty sure all major and important software like Adobe and Autodesk - and video games, which I play quite a bit - will switch to a cloud sooner or later.
Well in the end it's the consumers who have the last word. If the majority refuses to use the cloud services, they won't be profitable. And there will always be alternatives, I'm quite sure that there are companies that will use the opportunity to make some good ones for those who refuse to shift to cloud based services.