By using this product you agree to the following * You will not redistribute in whole or in part any of the files included within the archive, nor the archive itself. . * You will not offer said archive or files for download on your site unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product * You will not offer this archive or files on cd unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product. * You will not offer this archive or the files on any peer to peer program that is available now or in the future. You are granted the rights to use this item: * to create non- commercial renders and images * to create commercial renders and images Thunderstorm Creations believes that you have the right to use the images in the way you wish. If you have the opportunity to sell your artwork please do without fear that we will hunt you down :)

This applies to all of Thunderstorm Creations products, that we are creating and have created in the past. :) btw Sharon is coming very soon :)

my lord Sharon is absolutely lovely. :) Jess

The hair in the picture is Reika hair by minerva! Not Rei hair by Kozaburo. Mazak

Google+ Bodo Nittel 

OOOPS.. Thanks Mazak. I will correct it S

Hint hint sharon is in freestuff NOW S btw what are your comments on the EULA and S what are your download times for Sharon?

She's very pretty. But, i don't think that part about "all past thunderstorm creations is enforceable. also, for a free charactor, she requires a lot of stuff...i'm thinking all she needs is free, yes?

Poppi Yes she is free. And She requires a lot of stuff but all of it is freestuff found on the web. Nothing you have to buy. Except Victoria herself.

Actually as copyright holder on my items S i can change the terms by allowing people to insert the EULA into the zip files they already have. Also i haven't changed the terms Just made them more readable. All my items have always had this EULA and restrictions.

From the base look of it, I'd say your EULA is quite reasonable, and asks nothing that wouldn't be common sense anyway. It places no undue restrictions, and asks for no unreasonable conditions (credit on any work created with the product, for example. I won't say who currently uses such a condition, but I won't be buying any of her work). It's also written in plain English, which makes it that much easier to read and understand. Well done.

Actually as copyright holder on my items S i can change the terms by allowing people to insert the EULA into the zip files they already have. Is this what steffyzz did when that whole blackhearted thingey broke out a while back? i have victoria, of course, but very little stuff from other folks...well, a few "necessities" from daz....and, i do LOVE eowyn's textures, bebop's too. anyway...she's really a nice looking model...and you did a beautiful job on the ad.... hummmmm...so, now i can see why some are boycotting daz...doh....cause they can put their new eula in their new purchases, and, if what you say is true...they can effectively stop folks from creating their own poser clothing to fit the m figures.... yayyy!!! i just learned something. booo, not too sure i like what i found out.

Poppi.. it's different. I can change my terms because 1. the items are free, 2 because the EULA is the same as has always been. Daz can't because 1 you pay for it and 2 they would be CHANGING The terms. I am not Changing anything at all.

well, changing from license / readme in the file to calling it an end users license agreement. otherwise it is the same. exactly the same restrictions and permissions we have in all our items archives. if there is one of our items that restricted use to non commercial only ( really don't think so ) then by putting the EULA as written into the archive you have, you are removing said restriction, with our permission. both of us have always tried to only restrict redistribution for our items.

Did not want to start a controversy with this.. Sigh Open mouth insert foot. Just meant that the EULA is voluntary. for our items if you prefer the older terms (which are the same) then you can keep those or if you prefer these terms you can use these with our permission.

hey that is very well written, straight forward and easy to understand. can I copy that to include with my stuff? (a copyright on copyright terms? are we getting ridiculous yet?)

Storm...noooo...your eula is sweet and to the point. and, you seem to be knowledgeable about eulas. as you know, some of us think that of late, there has been some abuse of them. so, basically, if i downloaded an old file of yours...back in 1999, and, i had a "readme" file...that would be my eula, yes? but, if i downloaded your new lovely lady...would my old file terms change? or, could i choose to change the terms of usage by using that "readme...errr...eula" as my new terms? can you retroactively change the eulas of the past with a new eula? like i said..you seem to know a good bit about this...and, you might be the one to clarify alot of the issues that have lately bewildered us....('cuz chad smith didn't say anything much but double talk)

If more folks could write like that we could rid the earth of that vile species, lawyers.

shadowcat S sure you can :) You have our agreement to use our copyrighted copyright terms LOL ;) Poppi.. Anything of mine, and Thunderstorm Creations If you find one without these terms you can go ahead and add this into your file. Not that there likely is one out there without these terms but still S Yes for TSC items and items by Stormrage you may change the EULA it does change (by my permission)whatever terms were written in the Readme of all items that I have made (as long as you want to change it:)) Yes You can retroactively change the eula's in this form because it is a voluntary thing and the EULA is giving you freedom to do basically anything but redistribute the file. Now as for items you buy. No it can't be changed that easily. Again this is done on a Voluntary basis. You can change the terms by including the above EULA in my zips old or new. You do it on a voluntary basis. Can daz do it? Yes they could but it would Have to be done on a voluntary basis. Meaning the buyer agrees that they want it in there on their older files. They canNOT however change the terms to more restrictive terms retroactively. They can send out a EULA with new terms but You have the right not to accept them. You cannot be forced to accept new terms, especially on items you buy. You can however accept terms that are better. Which I believe ours are clearing up a lot of issues on whether you can use our stuff commercially. You can accept them or reject them as you want to :) now this EULA only applies to items by Stormrage or Thunderstorm Creations, it DOES NOT change the terms on anyone elses items.

Pablo, one of the states made legalese illegal. requiring all legal documents and communications to be in plain english. I think it was texas, but not sure. ~L~ gee and I only posted the eula to show a good clear exapmle and remind people the we don't restrict use, only redistribution. but that's ok. don't think anyone will be upset at being able to alter our terms to it, since it makes sure they can do anything but redistribute they want with our props or characters.

Storm...i thank you. why? because you have clearly put all that daz has been double talking about. i will d/l your character...she's gorgeous...and, lol...even make a render with her...have not shipped up a render to this place since march....you have clarified alot, here. i will go about my modelling, as usual....i deleted so much, over this last daz stuff....so many hours...not to mention the hours spent, after work, learning how to model, and, then conform...and, finally just to uvmap and texture...then, that bit from daz...well, i basically gave up. i am so glad you posted this eula thread...i still have my models on my machine at work...yaayyyy!!!!! i still don't understand chad's daz double talk. i understand what you are saying. thanks, again. Poor, precious Poppi

If you don't mind, I'm going to save this for my future free stuff contributions, since I couldn't have put it nearly as clearly as you have. In fact, I think it's actually a free stuff item itself.....(wanders off muttering about circular reasoning and its effects on weak minds.....)

For anyone who wants it. Here is 2 agreements one the Freedom EULA posted above and the other Restrictive Non-commercial agreement Just copy past into notepad and save then use when you want S Storm EULA- Freedom -----------------------------Copy------------------------------------------------------------------------ Company(or Personal Name) Copyright date By using this product you agree to the following * You will not redistribute in whole or in part any of the files included within the archive, nor the archive itself. . * You will not offer said archive or files for download on your site unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product * You will not offer this archive or files on cd unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product. * You will not offer this archive or the files on any peer to peer program that is available now or in the future. You are granted the rights to use this item: * to create non- commercial renders and images * to create commercial renders and images COMPANY NAME believes that you have the right to use the images in the way you wish. If you have the opportunity to sell your artwork please do without fear that we will hunt you down :) --------------------------------------------ENDCOPY----------------------------------------------------- EULA- Restrict 1 - Non commercial Work ----------------------------------------------COPY---------------------------------------------------------- Company or personal name copyright date By using this product you agree to : * You will not redistribute in whole or in part any of the files included within the archive, nor the archive itself. . * You will not offer said archive or files for download on your site unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product * You will not offer this archive or files on cd unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product. * You will not offer this archive or the files on any peer to peer program that is available now or in the future. *You will not use this item in any work that is commercial in nature.(ie you get paid for it) You are granted the rights to use this item: * to create non- commercial renders and images ----------------------------------------------------------END COPY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asshole EULA Company or personal name copyright date By using this product you agree to : * You will not redistribute in whole or in part any of the files included within the archive, nor the archive itself. . * You will not offer said archive or files for download on your site unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product * You will not offer this archive or files on cd unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product. * You will not offer this archive or the files on any peer to peer program that is available now or in the future. *You will not use this item in any work that is commercial in nature.(ie you get paid for it) * You will not use this item in any work that is Non commercial in nature * You will not use this item for public display * You will not use any of the items in the archive at all * You will not install any of the files onto any computer less than a 7 ghz Pentium 9 computer * You will not View any image contained in the archive * You will not create any derivative works out of any of the files in the archive * You will not download this archive at all

help!!!! we've created a monster!!! and I have to live with her!!!! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

you forgot to add.... "thinking about downloading these files will require you agree to future compensation which will be determined & collected solely at the discretion of the creator"

sadly, we are getting quite a few assholeula's

Cooler LMAO

here's a couple of good additions for that assholeula *You will be sold into slavery *You will send us $1000 every month for the rest of your life *By reading this EULA you are agreeing to all terms included even the downright strange ones

7 minutes to d/l bit slow for me today, got 128k connection, was d/l at 13k per sec, so much for tweaking the connection :) thanks for Sharon Stormi, I'll have a play later soon as I get a spare 1/2hour. Rob

The legality of this is questionable. Your position seems to be that you think the license comes into force when the user uses the item, whether or not he/she has read the text. This cannot be the case, or all sorts of stupid scams would be possible, along the lines of the jokes posted above. They are not jokes. If your EULA has legal force, so would the jokes have. In practice, neither have legal force. I don't agree to anything just because you tell me I do. The only thing that has legal force in this case is ordinary copyright law. As it happens, all your terms are already covered by copyright law, so your "license" is unecessary. I suggest you get rid of it.

Phantast, I'd almost agree with you. This license is basically covered by copyright law. Clearly stating that both commercial and non-commercial images are ok is good and saves answering questions... and reiterates that it is their right to give such permissions. However, there are a lot of idiots out there who don't know what copyright law covers. I've had to go to court too many times because of publishers who thought they could take and mangle and use without paying. Would spelling it out prevent theft? Maybe. Among kids and the illiterate. At least they would know what was allowed and what was forbidden. I've had to talk to opposing lawyers and found them refreshing: rather than being assholes (to follow the jargon above), they usually understand the legal importance of each word... and don't let emotion or wishful thinking get in the way. Instead of rewriting the law, I'd rather refer to established law and know that the courts will accept those phrases as legally binding. People tend not to like legalese, but it exists for our protection, too. What I would choose to do for myself might not be serviceable for people who have had other experiences or who are in other markets or who are responsible for others. On a further note: I respect someone who speaks cautiously when representing a company. Chad or Steve or Dan can't breezily rewrite the law to please people who aren't lawyers: not when they have a company full of people whose livelihoods depend upon the laws as written and as decided in court for a couple of centuries. If someone has difficulty with an explanation, maybe they should judge by actions? Until the road to Draper resembles the entrance to Vlad Dracul's fortress, I'm not going to worry. Carolly

Well - you can't rewrite the law (just as well, too), and phrases are not legally binding if they are not accepted by both parties, and merely asserting that the user agrees to something doesn't make it so. "Forbidden" is a strong word. You can forbid people to do this, that and the other in a readme file as much as you like, but don't imagine this has legal force. It is better to think of the conditions in a readme as a request, which the user certainly ought to respect (otherwise the donor gets pissed off and goes away). But the conditions of use in a readme file only have real force in so far as they are backed up by existing law. So if you say "Please do not redistribute this file without permission", and someone does, you can get them for copyright violation. But if you put in "This model may not be used in religious artworks", or "It is forbidden to use this file if your first name begins with P", you have no recourse in law at all if someone disregards this.

Phantast, Actually, all agreements come into force when you INSTALL the item whether or not you have read the text files included. That is why Daz's, DSI, and other installers have the agreement first, this includes software. YOU agree to these agreements when you click the agree button on the software, same thing with zip files whether or not you have read the agreement. That one I do know because I have gone to court on it. But since you did raise a valid point. I think I will start making exe files with the agreement clearly stated before you install the product So you can agree or disagree and if you disagree to it the product won't install

I recently found out it is very inportant to read the EULA before installing anything, MS recently released an upgrade to mediaplayer & in their EULA it states the user agrees to giving MS automatic admin access rights on their pc, I didn't find out till after I installed as I didn't read the license, who does tho? Rob

PLUS the upgrade does actually sets it up without telling you it's doing it, because you've already agreed to it by installing the patch. Rob

clairification.,.. You are right though that rediculous terms such as the asshole EULA are not enforceable, because you cannot restrict such under copyright laws. but the non-commercial and the freedom EULA can be enforced.

Rob, exactly That's why it's important to read everything in the installer when you Install anything. May be time consuming and annoying as hell, but you learn important things about what they are truly asking. Same thing as with TOS on sites when you sign up for a website. Free or not. You never know when you could be giving them the right to download your art and use it on their sites.

actually that might not be a bad idea, they can download my art any time they like :) doubt they'd want it tho, I need a lot more practice before I get anywhere near your standard. Rob

Your work's not bad at all. Mine isn't all that great.. Just stuff I throw together. Mine isn't really anything to set a standard by :)

:) thanks, I do try but I need to find more time to practice & my imagination is a little rusty from underuse for a long time. Rob

Rob, I'm glad my comp has linux on it. the gpl doesn't have any wierd rights for people in it. ~g~ it boils down to: I can do anything I want with the program(s), as long as I include a copy of the gpl when redistributing it. and I make available the source code for the program. the graphics suite I'm working on for the linux os is a gpl project. that means that it comes with the source code, when it is finally released. ( which means when it's functional ) your download times for sharon probably be faster, since I have the x-server running. it was probably when the comp went into powersave mode when it was that slow. yes, sharon is on server on my laptop, the comp I'm using to post this. ~g~

I hate to sound like a total dork here, but where exactly is this figure available? I mean, she looks nice and all, but a link would help. Unless, of xourse, it's a state secret. LOL mac PS Storm, good work, as always!

Attached Link: http://24.83.218.51/sharon.zip

mac, she is in freestuff here, which links to this url

:) Thanks Mac.. got a new bunch of characters in the works.. Hope people will like these just as much

Boy, that was quick service!! I'm d/ling her now. thanks mac

Stormrage, (a) I don't agree that clicking a button means I agree to anything even if it says I do. If I say "by turning off your computer, you agree to pay me $100", does that mean you owe me $100 next time you switch your pc off? (b) Even if clicking a button did mean anything, it's up to someone else to prove that I clicked it. The fact that a bit of software is installed on my computer is not proof that I installed it. My next door neighbour could have come in and clicked the button.

"The fact that a bit of software is installed on my computer is not proof that I installed it. My next door neighbour could have come in and clicked the button." That sounds like a dodgy premise to me, Phantast. If your neighbor planted child-porn on your computer, or explosives in your basement and they caught you, do you think they'd believe you? Generally, a person is held to be responsible for the contents of his own personal property. "it's up to someone else to prove that I clicked it" And THAT statement is even dodgier! mac

Phantast.. Whether you agree or not If you buy and install 3d Max, or poser, or any software you agree to their agreement, whether you have read it or not. It's a contract between you and the company. Once you click agree.. or your neighbor or your dog, and it is on your computer then you are responsible for upholding that agreement. Doesn't matter WHO installed it and who clicked agree. It is a legal and binding contract. If you bought a new computer with win xp on it or any version of windows on it, whether or not you agree to the agreement, since you didn't install it, by using that computer and everything on it YOU are responsible for upholding the agreement. Plain and simple. ANY copyright lawyer will tell you that. That's why all boxed software usually comes with a print out of the liscense agreement, and no matter if you read THAT or not it is still binding if you install the software. Try your excuse on a judge and he'd laugh and tell you to research the laws, plain and simple. This is a matter of copyright law. So it is governed by Copyright laws. Now under the copyright law what any software company or any body doing when they give something away for free is allowing you to use their copyrighted item under a specific agreement, It doesn't matter what You believe is right but if you use an item without reading the text files, liscense agreement,et all you are still responisible for them. Whether you have read it or not. If you have pirated copies of programs on your computer, and the police bust in and grab your comp whether or not you agreed to the liscense in the software where it states you will not install "warez or illegal software" YOU are still charged with piracy. and under copyright law be taken to court for damages. I take back my earlier statement that the asshole EULA can't be enforced. It can actually, not all of it, but some of it can be UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW. Remember ignorance doesn't matter when it comes to law. License. A license is a contract in which a party with proper authority (the "licensor") grants permission for another party (the "licensee") to do something that would otherwise be prohibited. (Online Law) taken from http://www.siia.net/piracy/copyright/law.asp The Law in the United States Software is automatically protected by federal copyright law from the moment of its creation. The rights granted to the owner of a copyright are clearly stated in the Copyright Act, Title 17 of the US Code. The Act gives the owner of the copyright "the exclusive rights" to "reproduce the copyrighted work" and "to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work" (Section 106). It also states that "anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright" (Section 501), and sets forth several penalties for such conduct. Those who purchase a license for a copy of software do not have the right to make additional copies without the permission of the copyright owner, except (i) copy the software onto a single computer and (ii) make "another copy for archival purposes only," which are specifically provided in the Copyright Act (Section 117). The license accompanying the product may allow additional copies to be made; be sure to review the license carefully. Software creates unique problems for copyright owners because it is so easy to duplicate, and the copy is usually as good as the original. This fact, however, does not make it legal to violate the rights of the copyright owner. Although software is a new medium of intellectual property, its protection is grounded in the long-established copyright rules that govern other more familiar media, such as records, books, and films. The unauthorized duplication of software constitutes copyright infringement regardless of whether it is done for sale, for free distribution, or for the copier's own use. Moreover, copiers are liable for the resulting copyright infringement whether or not they knew their conduct violated federal law. Penalties include liability for damages suffered by the copyright owner plus any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the copying, or statutory damages of up to $100,000 for each work infringed. The unauthorized duplication of software is also a Federal crime if done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain (Title 18 Section 2319(b))." Criminal penalties include fines of as much as $250,000 and jail terms of up to 5 years. The Law in Canada Software is automatically protected by federal copyright law from the date of creation. The rights granted to the owner of a copyright are clearly stated in the Copyright Act, R.S.C 1985, c. C-42. The Act gives the copyright owner the sole right to produce, reproduce or publish the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, and to rent out the computer program (Section 3). It also states that "copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything that, by this Act, only the owner of the copyright has the right to do" (Section 27(1)), and that a copyright shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who sells or lets for hire, distributes, exhibits in public or imports for sale or hire into Canada any work that infringes copyright (Section 27(4)). Persons who purchase a copy of software have no right to make additional copies without the permission of the copyright owner, except for the right to make "a single reproduction for backup purposes" and "a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying or converting the computer program or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that (i) the reproduction is essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer, (ii) the reproduction is solely for the person's own use, and (iii) the reproduction is destroyed forthwith when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer program (Section 27(2)(l) and (m)). Software creates unique problems for copyright owners because it is easy to duplicate, and the copy is usually as good as the original. This fact, however, does not make it legal to violate the rights of the copyright owner. The unauthorized duplication of software constitutes copyright infringement regardless of whether it is done for sale, for free distribution, or for the copier's own use. Moreover, copiers are liable for the resulting copyright infringement whether or not they knew their conduct was in breach of the law. Penalties include liability for damages suffered by the copyright owner plus any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the copying (Section 35). In addition, copiers who knowingly infringe copyright may, on conviction on indictment, be fined up to $1,000,000 and imprisoned for a term of up to five years (Section 42). Use of Software Anyone who purchases a license for a copy of software has the right to load it onto a single computer and to make another copy "for archival purposes only." In Canada, the purchaser of a licensed piece of software has the right to load it onto a single computer and to make another copy "for backup purposes." It is illegal to load that software onto more than one computer or to make copies of that software for any other purpose unless specific permission has been obtained from the copyright owner or otherwise permitted in the license accompanying the software program. The law applies equally, for example, to a $25 game and a $750 project management program. Each product reflects a substantial investment of time and money by many individuals. Software development involves a team effort that blends the creative talents of writers, programmers and graphic artists. Piracy diminishes the value of a program and further, deprives the developers of fair compensation. Software piracy inhibits innovation. The software industry is filled with new developers trying to break into a crowded market. They can survive only if their products are purchased. Each theft makes staying in business more difficult. Rental of Software It has always been illegal to rent unauthorized copies of software. However, concern over the fact that the rental of authorized or "original" software frequently resulted in the creation of pirated software led Congress to enact the Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650), which prohibits the rental, leasing, or lending of original copies of any software without the express permission of the copyright owner. The same situation prevails in Canada. In 1993, Parliament amended the Copyright Act to include the rental of software as a distinct right which cannot be exercised without the express authorization of the copyright owner. These provisions came into force on January 1, 1994. Use of Software by Schools Public or private educational institutions are not exempt from the copyright laws. To the contrary, because of their unique position of influence, schools must remain committed to upholding the copyright laws. Just as it would be wrong to buy one textbook and photocopy it for use by other students, it is wrong for a school to duplicate software (or to allow its faculty or students to do so) without authority from the publisher.

Actually, using an exe could solve the pcf problem as well. If you don't have the required obj file, it won't install. The tradeoff is people's (somewhat justifiable) fears about running downloaded executables.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

...only somewhat justifiable? ::shudder:: This beastie may be the Internet scapegoat, but letting it accept and run executables would be like printing a menu for the upcoming carnage. Besides, I do almost all my art on a Mac. Executables don't infect, er affect, Macs. There must be other ways to check for a required seed file without pulling up the entire plant, or sowing weeds. Carolly

I was being somewaht sanguine by using somewhat :-) Unfortunately, virus writers are like the famous Willie Sutton, they go for the PCs cause that's where the money (or in this case, the most targets) are. I keep forgetting all the Mac folks, so an exe would not be a viable solution anyway. The current soultion(s) work fine but it would be nice to be able to click a pcf and have it decode without the file searching hassle. Now if CL built decryption into Poser so that you could "sign" a file for distribution and Poser would only open it if the required keyfile were available... But then I shouldn't give them ideas.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

But this is what I am saying - copyright law is copyright law. Breach of copyright is breach of the law, whatever the situation, EULA or no EULA. Suppose that, at the bottom of a long EULA, you put in a statement "Under the terms of this agreement, any property belonging to the person installing this software automatically becomes the property of the vendor of the software." Do you believe you could enforce this if the user clicked "I agree" without reading the full text? If you believe that any terms become legally binding if the user installs something, then, well, an easy way to riches surely opens up before you. You only have to nail a few people like this to be on Easy Street. All your copyright law above does not cover this. I don't dispute that any creation is the copyright of its creator, and I uphold that absolutely. What I don't see in any of the law posted above is that the terms of an EULA give the software vendor any rights over and above standard copyright law, and that such additional rights are enforceable just because the user installs the product. If such a law did exist, it would be assinine, because so easily liable to abuse as in the previous paragraph. The point about who clicked a button seems to have been misunderstood. If I sign an agreement, it's enforceable because it's quite evident that I, myself, put my name to it. With installed software that is not the case. If I have software that I didn't install, how can it be said that I entered into an agreement? And of course, this is common, since most PCs come with some software preloaded. If you think that ANY TERMS (not just copyright) are enforceable just because someone buys a PC with that software loaded on it, then again, the possibilities for abuse are opened up. Don't imagine I'm knocking copyright, I'm not. I am against the idea that, for example, Microsoft have the right to control the contents of any document written using Microsoft software. (It's rumoured that the MS Office EULA contains, or will contain, a clause prohibiting the use of said software to write anything derogatory about Microsoft.)

the company I worked for till recently got round that one quite easily, in the past customers had to sign an agreement, recently it was decided legally that just by using the service they agreed to all the terms in the agreement whether they sign an agreement or even read it. Rob

Actually Phantast, you have a point there. Sorry, I misunderstood your previous post. My apologies. In the case of pre-installed software, I agree with you. My point was, if you have pirated software on your puter, you can't just say "Oh, I guess my neighbor installed it when I wasn't looking" I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright law has been built up over a long period of time, using precedents. EULAs? I have no idea what their legal status is. mac

An eula is a contract by the owner of the item and the person who downloaded it/bought it. Violating the End User License Agreement (EULA), which comes with most software, is also against the law. EULAs tell the owner, among other things, how many computers the software can be installed on and how many copies can be made. Some software, such as Netscape Communicator is freely available, but is still protected by copyright. As in the case of Netscape it may be illegal to distribute certain freely available software packages. EULA's can and are enforced. They can be used to install spyware on your computer when you are installing something else, they can be used to remove your rights of your products without you knowing it (geocities and the public 2000), It can be used to grant rights to install programs even virus' that you don't want or need on your computer. Taken from TechTV.com What is the basic law regarding making archival copies? The short answer to that question has two parts: one part involving copyright law, the other involving contract law. First, under a provision of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 117, if you care to look it up), you have the right under copyright to make an archival copy of a computer program you lawfully own a copy of, subject to some conditions. For example, you must destroy the archival copy when you no longer own the original copy of the program. The second part of the answer is that although the underlying copyright law sets forth the default position, this can be affected by a contract between the vendor and the user. Generally, PC software is distributed pursuant to end user license agreements (EULAs). These EULAs often take the form of what is called a "shrink-wrap" or "click-wrap" agreement, where a user shows his or her assent to the contract by either breaking the shrink-wrap or clicking through an agreement when he or she installs the program. The EULA for a particular piece of software may restrict users' rights to the software, including their right to make archival copies. Under some EULAs, users do not even own their copy of the software, but merely receive a license from the vendor to use the copy. The EULAs for individual software vary, so read the EULA for the software in question for details. Why is most software distributed under EULAs? EULAs are somewhat specific to computer software. Most other forms of intellectual property are not distributed pursuant to a license. You don't have to assent to a license agreement when you buy a book or music CD, for example. EULAs began as a practice by software vendors in part because there were doubts in the early days of software programming (pre-1980) as to whether computer programs were copyrightable subject matter. Some people thought that copyright should and would be limited to more creative and nonfunctional works such as literary works, and there were some doubts as to whether copyright applied at all to computer programs. The software industry used contracts to try to protect computer programs, fearing copyright law would not cover its work. Today, this practice continues even though it is now well established that copyright law does cover computer programs. Is it OK to break copy protection schemes to make archival copies? No. A provision put in place by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act expressly forbids the circumvention of effective technological copy protection (17 U.S.C. 1201). This is in addition to and separate from the copyright and contract law questions. A defense to copyright infringement, such as making archival copies, is not necessarily a defense to the prohibition on circumvention of copy protection. There are exceptions to the general prohibition on circumvention of copy protection, including for the purposes of creating interoperable programs or for encryption research, but these exceptions are rather narrow. Please note that this brief overview is a general discussion of the legal issues surrounding archival copies. It is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice on specific questions. Because of the generality of this discussion, the overview may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific advice based on particular circumstances. For example, individual situations may differ depending on the specific terms of an EULA and on other applicable state and federal laws. Now that is just on archived copies of software but it does point out that EULA's can restrict your right to make copies EULA's are enforcable under contract and copyright laws. They come in several forms but most are called click wrap eula's or Shrink wrap eula's ----Another website Lost the page info- HOW EULA came in existence? In the early days software development focused on the creation of customised software for mainframe computers and other computers. Contracts for this type of custom software were few, and involved two distinct parties whose lawyers could discuss all the terms of such agreement between them. This model changed when personal computers and their accompanying software became mass-market items and available off the shelf. In such market, the number of users increases by big numbers. The software programmer and the user could not face to face for the license negotiate terms. Thus the terms of such licenses had to be standardised and concise. The software license agreement needed to be presented to the customer in a fashion that would allow for mass distribution of software, yet would draw the customer's attention to the conditions under which the publisher offered to allow use of the software The standardisation also arose because of the provisions of the Copyright Act and other Acts in USA. SHRINKWRAP EULA The most commonly used EULAs are of the "shrink-wrap" or "break the seal" variety types. EULAs in this form are printed: On product packaging, A diskette or CD-ROM container (such as an envelope or a plastic case), A card inside the package, A page of the user manual. The user is asked to "accept" the terms of the agreement by performing a certain action designated on the package or in the EULA, such as: Tearing open the plastic wrapper covering the box, Breaking the seal on the diskette container Installing or using the software. The user can refuse to accept and enter into the agreement by returning the software product for a complete refund. CLICKWRAP EULA Software programmers also have EULA via media other than paper. One popular method displays the EULA on the computer screen the first time a user operates the software. The user can then accept the EULA's terms by pressing a certain key, clicking on a "yes" button icon or by clicking I Accept icon or taking some other specified action. This form of contract is popularly known as Clickwrap agreement Presenting EULAs via the computer screen is especially important now that more software is being distributed electronically through Internet and other media. For this form of distribution, the EULA often appears on the user's screen before the software is downloaded to the user. If the user assents to the on-screen EULA (usually by typing "yes" or "I accept," clicking on an icon with similar words, or simply pressing the "Enter" key), the user may install the software. Some features of EULA explained. I. It grants normally a nonexclusive, nontransferable personal license to the user by the software owner to use the software subject to the agreement. II. It is not a sale of Software. The licensee does not get rights as that of the purchaser of goods. III. It prohibits user to do certain things for example Reverse engineering, Decompiling, making additional copies, renting, leasing etc. IV. The software owner disclaims certain warranties. V. If the terms of the EULA are not acceptable to the consumer then the software product can be returned to the vendor and license fees will be refunded to the buyer in case of off the self-product. VI. In case of online media the license terms should be disclosed in advance of a buyer's purchase of the product or service. In such case of online EULA, the consumer if not accepting the terms will not be required to make any payment. A principal concern for computer software producers is providing adequate protection for their programs. Generally, software is written by a programmer in source-code form, which is in a language understandable by humans. Once the source code is completed, it is processed through a compiler that produces the object code. The object code is comprehensible to the computer on which it runs but not to humans. Because of this unique way computer programs are created, the programs are susceptible to "reverse engineering" or "decompiling." The user of a program may take the object-code version of the program and process it through a decompiler, which produces a higher-level source-code version of the program. Humans can with some effort, understand this source-code version. Thus, the secrets of the software producer can be discovered by anybody who is willing, or who has a financial incentive, to go through the process of reverse engineering. As a result, software producers include an express provision prohibiting disassembly or reverse engineering in their EULA. Warranty Disclaimers Vendors, through the use of shrinkwrap licenses, seek to disclaim both implied and express warranties by including a provision claiming that the program is provided "as is" without any type of warranty. Other licensing agreements limit the warranty for a specified amount of time, usually for ninety days, one year, or both. These provisions will be subject to the laws of land. Shrinkwrap License may broadly cover following provisions. Product name (the "Software") Limited Nonexclusive, personal License Restrictions on copying No Reverse engineering, Decompiling, making additional copies, renting, leasing etc allowed. Limited Warranty Limited Remedy No Incidental or Consequential Damages Termination Entire Agreement, etc. General clauses Jurisdiction EULA's ARE enforcable. It's based on contract and copyright law and is enforced by law you can go to court on them however and you MIGHT win but usually unless the terms are completely rediculous usually not

um, netscape can be re-distributed, netscape has available customisation kits to allow you to alter the home page, and bookmarks that come with netscape, the boot splash screen and logos displayed. then it makes a copy of netscape for the express purpose of you giving it away. want a renderosity netscape? get the app from netscape and make the boot splash, the still and animated gif for the top right, pick a bookmark file and make it. phantast, why are you arguing about our eula, when we only restrict redistribution? it's not like we are trying to stop you from making a buck if possible.

Stormrage, Thanks for the info and for clearing up the EULA situation. I, personally, have no problems with someone prohibiting re-distribution, That seems the very minimum to ask if you're making your work available for free. As a professional photographer, I know that images are protected by a very strict and long-established series of copyright cases, but even there the law changes after years. In a famous case in Italy, a photographer (Oliviero Toscani - Benetton, Stefanel, etc) took a company to court (and won) because he disagreed with the MORAL use to which they had put his pictures. That set a new precedent. So if I do a shoot for you and you use those pics to promote porn or racism, I can sue under copyright law. Fascinating subject. mac

Several companies have gotten in trouble with things like that. Not sure which company it was but one of the graphic companies put a no "porno" use in their agreement and it was shot down. The thing to remember with EULA's is that they cannot go against the Fair Use laws. taken from : http://www.cetus.org/fair5.html The Fair-Use Statute The following is the full text of the fair-use statute from the U.S. Copyright Act. Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -- 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. (Emphasis added) The Meaning of the Four Factors While fair use is intended to apply to teaching, research, and other such activities, a crucial point is that an educational purpose alone does not make a use fair. The purpose of the use is, in fact, only one of four factors that users must analyze in order to conclude whether or not an activity is lawful. Moreover, each of the factors is subject to interpretation as courts struggle to make sense of the law. Some interpretations, and their subsequent reconstruction by policy-makers and interest groups, have been especially problematic. For example, some copyright analysts have concluded that if a work being used is a commercial product, the "nature" factor weighs against fair use. By that measure, no clip from a feature film or copy from a trade book could survive that fair-use factor. Similarly, some commentators argue that if a license for the intended use is available from the copyright owner, the action will directly conflict with the market for licensing the original. Thus, the availability of a license will itself tip the "effect" factor against fair use. Neither of these simplistic constructions of fair use is a valid generalization, yet they are rooted in some truths under limited circumstances. Only one conclusion about the four factors is reliable: each situation must be evaluated in light of the specific facts presented. The fair Use statue from the US. Copyright website (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fairuse.html) Fair Use One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of fair use. Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the authors observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported. Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. Fair use though is one of those things that you have to go to court over to find out if you or the owner is right. Not a lot of people want to test that. A liscense is the legal mumbo jumbo of a agreement an eula is the fair use of that product. I have seen a lot of people violating the fair use statute, Especially in the poser community. Basically what it boils down to is I can tell you what not to do within reasonable limits. Such as redistributing and warezing. I can tell you you can only put it on 1 computer at a time. But I cannot limit your use of the item (ie I can't release a character and tell you you can't do porno with her, I cannot tell you that if you buy my software that you cannot sell it to your friend for 10 bucks. I can't tell you that you can't give it as a gift to a friend) I Can however tell you that you cannot duplicate that software and sell it to 50 friends.

The one conclusion I draw from this is that lawyers and their illegitimate offspring, politicians, have made the world far more complex, frustrating and expensive than most would like. Whether it's necessary, I don't know. Human nature and technology would seem to dictate that you can't run a modern society based on the Golden Rule alone but it sure would be nice.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Jacqui, the only argument I have against your EULA is that it isn't needed, as all its provisions are already covered by copyright law. Stormrage, the rub is what terms are considered "ridiculous". Having rights to install virus software on the host computer strikes me as ridiculous, but you tell me that is upheld. What about having the right to sell the licensee's house and pocket the proceedings? There is a very big grey area here. If this is the law in your country, it strikes me as very bad law.

Phantast, but without it, people would argue that the coprights aren't applied. a eula ensures that everyone knows that the copyrights exist and applies to the files in the archive. and the rights Stormrage is talking about are for the United States. those are the laws she is quoting.

Phantast.. Microsoft EULA that c1rcle mentioned was upheld by one court and then defeated in another, now it is being considered by another court. Their terms are what you would consider ridiculous, and yet one court said it was perfectly reasonable.. and this is in the US. Spyware is being installed if you use such programs like gator, kazaa or a host of other software and yet as soon as you click agree on the install agreement, YOU ARE ALLOWING THIS and it's upheld by the court. You can't get damages paid to you for this because YOU AGREED TO IT. Ridiculous or not this is US law. and it's being allowed every day. Shrugs No matter what you want to believe, it's there. Not sure where you are from, but I am sure it's the same kind of situation wherever you are. Since most countries take their copyright law from the US or at least have international agreements on copyright laws.

Jacqui, that argument would not work. Copyright is ALWAYS in force, whether you advertise the fact or not. The only exception is if you explicitly relinquish copyright, or explicitly permit redistribution in ways that otherwise would be breach of copyright. The law is quite clear on this in most if not all western countries. Stormrage, you illustrate perfectly what I mean by bad law. It's actually bad law in two ways, one because it dangerously imperils the rights of the individual, and two, because it's very badly defined, which is why the courts can disagree in the way you describe. Consider an EULA with any of the following terms: 1. This item may not be used for commercial purposes. 2. This item may not be used for erotic purposes. 3. This item may not be used for religious purposes. 4. This item may not be used for Jewish religous purposes. 5. This item may not be used by Jews. Which of these would be considered enforceable in a US court? I presume not number 5, which is offensive and probably illegal. But the boundary between each is rather narrow.

actually Phantast 2,3, 4, and 5 are not enforceable because it is limiting the fair use of the item. 1. is enforceable because it can effect the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Hmm. Assuming erotic or religious art counts as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research ... for nonprofit educational purposes".

Sighing But it doesn't count as that Phantast. Erotic or religious art is Art. You cannot release a set of pinup poses, and say I can't post the rendered character in that pose on Rotica. Nor can youtell me that I can't do an image with a character who is naked in your pose. You cannot put up a cross prop and say I can't use it to do the cruxifiction of Christ with it. You can tell me that you don't want me to use something for commercial work. or that I can't put it on more than one computer. Or that I can't redistribute the item. Or that I can't warez the item Is it honestly that hard to understand? The law is pretty clear and the grey area isn't as grey as some laws in the US. They aren't bad laws either, they allow people to let others use their copyritten item. Without penalty. If you couldn't image the freestuff area. Ohhh it would be there but a hell of a lot less stuff than there is now.

Oh, people can and do add this sort of stipulation (like no erotic use) to their readme files. I agree with you that they shouldn't. I agree that if they do, it can't be enforced. The point of my previous post was that "fair use" has nothing to do with it. Fair use, as I well know, consists of reproducing verbatim, text or pictures that are copyright, with acknowledgement of the source, but without permission of the copyright holder. This is permissable in reviews, for example, or in academic work. I know of one game fan site where the owner posted a lot of game screenshots. This would normally be of questionable legality, but he put very short game reviews on the same pages so that he could claim fair use. So, of my five-point EULA, you can certainly object to numbers 2-5, but you can't claim that they are inadmissable because they restrict fair use in the legal sense of the term, because they don't.

Actually yest they do and are inadmissable under us copyright laws. And fair use laws. It has to be reasonable and 2-5 are not reasonable. Now why do people have eula's AND licenses? Because it is the year 2002 and we are online. EULA's are not a license but they are a contract. You can stipulate that by downloading this product you agree to all agreements within, you can stipulate that by installing this product you agree to the agreements. That's legal. Fair use is the use of an item as described above. but you cannot restrrict someone from using an item. Only from certain things they might do with it.

Now we are coming to the real point. You've quoted a lot of copyright law, but as I see it, copyright law is not really relevant, what is at issue is contract law. Copyright and fair use govern whether you can redistribute something, and have absolutely nothing to do with what you can or can't do with it in terms of use. All my clauses 1-5 are to do with use of an item, not with redistribution of it. Copyright is irrelevant to this issue. (Oh, and my example of the game site was misremembered - it was a site with stills from Hollywood films. Most film companies try to stamp down on such sites, but if the film is reviewed, it's "fair use".) If you had a written contract between vendor and licensee, than all of 1-5 would be admissable in law (except probably 5 and possibly 4 as being in breach of other legislation). All sorts of other clauses can be valid in a signed contract, including payments, liabilities, and the right for the vendor to send people round and inspect your computer. If downloading a product consists of a legally binding contract, then, as far as I can see, all clauses should have the same force as in a written contract. The issue of "reasonable" hardly arises. If I have a contract with you which contains a clause saying that, for services rendered, you will pay me $1000 a month, and you sign it, that's legally binding no matter how small my services to you actually are. If you put a similar clause in an EULA, the only difference is that the user does not sign the contract, and may not read all the clauses. This would not be the case, though, if the legislation, under contract law, contains specific and clearly-defined cases of what may or may not be included in a non-written ("clickable") contract. For example, it may say that a EULA may control how the product is used but may not contain clauses requiring extra payment for the product. If this is the case, I doubt that the law specifically permits an EULA clause that the vendor may install spyware on the user's computer. Now, if you can find the relevant bit of contract law, we'll have a solution to the whole debate, at least for the US.

Phantast, the whole issue is your not liking us putting an EULA in out products. not our problem, we will put it in no matter what your opinion is. you think it needs to be examined, you go over contract law yourself. all software companies do include an EULA and a lot of the 3D model companies do also. might as well get used to having an EULA in files you download, since most people liked the idea and several others are also planning on putting them in. or else just don't download anything to avoid the EULA

Phantast.. not going to go over it again. This subject is quickly dying because we are rehasing things over and over. Simply put. EULA's are legal, certain things are allowed in the eula certain things aren't they can be used to get you to install spyware. whether or not you believe this.. it's your decision.

"EULA's are legal, certain things are allowed in the eula certain things aren't they can be used to get you to install spyware." And which things are allowed are not clearly defined, or are badly defined. (Badly, because if they ARE allowed to install spyware, they SHOULDN'T be. There is a difference between what is allowed in law and what is morally correct.) Jacqui, I only said that your EULA is redundant, because all its terms are already covered by legislation. Where EULAs are actually useful is where they give the consumer additional rights (not give the vendor additional rights). For instance, in specifying how many copies the user is allowed to make (e.g. copying to a laptop). What might be more useful to you would be a copyright declaration. I know that Dendras has done some research in this area and come up with a template document. It doesn't change the status of anything, but makes the copyright situation clear in the correct legal terms.

laws don't have morals Phantast. Never did. Maybe it would be better if they did but they don't. What is useful to us we use. What we doesn't pertain to us we don't use. Everyone has their ways of doing things. Dendras does buisness his way, you do buisness yours and we do buisness our way. We don't and won't copy anyone while doing buisness. I Hapen to prefer EULA's rather than a copyright declaration. Because as you have said it's redundant. but since it seems people want a mile of paperwork in each item.. might as well eh? We are in the process of redoing our license and EULA thanks to this discussion.