Upcoming EULA changes, round 3

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: send an email to a spotted merchant and thell them, hey, you're in violation.

Exactly.....although jffe is right in that you're not going to stop everyone.....but the most popular sites would respect the new EULA.....and alot of participants wouldn't risk it and being banned from those sites....

Quote
jffe wrote: You wanna make some real rent money, get with Fred, or someone like him, someone who already has the path paved.

I would like to see FF start paving that "path".....compete with Fred and others.....and keep authors here.....

Quote
Frank2 wrote: Steve, have you spoken to Vlad about all this?

My Hotline to Vlad got disconnected..... .....

I wish that I did have some influence.....but I'm just a 'wart on a tick's arse' in all of this.....

I'm sure that he has read at least one of my "rantings" on this issue.....since I've posted them all over the forum.....

jffe, there's no convincing you otherwise, eh???

I don't think you are going to need a lawyer to enforce the result-copying restrictions of this EULA with popular reputable sites.....who will certainly remove violations if it is brought to their attention with just an email.....

Granted, you're not going to be able to stop all of it.....but it will put a hault to a good overt chunk of it.....especially at the sites that have given rise to this issue with authors here.....

As it is with everything else that can be hijacked on the web.....it's the amount of "honest" business that keeps things like this viable on the web.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I don't think you are going to need a lawyer to enforce the result-copying restrictions of this EULA with popular reputable sites.....who will certainly remove violations if it is brought to their attention with just an email.....

----I haven't had much luck with that kind of thing. If someone has, then good on them, stand up for yourself, just don't expect some random email to solve any real problems is all I'm saying.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Sure, there's a lot of things out of our control, but that's not a justification for neglecting the little things that are IN our control.

----I guess if you're only concerned about Renderosity because you sell there, then perhaps you can nag them enough to keep your stolen/un-permission-granted stuff off of one site. Not really the issue, but if you feel that undoing the damage of that one battle is winning the war for you, then that's your opinion and you certainly have a right to it etc.

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Maybe you had some kind of illusions of your sphere of influence extending a lot farther then it really does and now are burnt and jaded finding out that you don't have the power you thought you did.

----Not sure what that means. If anything, I'm just trying to interject some reality into these kinds of discussions. I won't apologize because or if you don't know the realities of having intellectual property (in the form of digital media in these troubled times) stolen constantly, and not being able to stop it, or even really dent it in most cases. I doubt I 'influence' anyone here even, in this little tiny forum in some never discovered corner of the internet, with what, 12 regs if that really ? I'm only speaking up because no one else here is issue-ing any real warnings to people who obviously want to go in some (relevant to my 'nihilistic' advice) directions. Feel free to ignore me, or better yet, look into what I'm claiming and disprove me, if only for yourself/selves (dear constant reader, all 2 or 3 of you etc.).


----The more I have to deal with the internet and it's rampant thievery, the more I'm starting to think I'm going to be leaving it in a few years here. I've seen a decade of it, and it's turned into 1 part mall, and one part LA riot smash & grab loot-fest. My best advice, is still to get with a distributor, if they only offer 10%, then make sure they don't keep the rights in perpetuity, and watch the other myriad of contract details (or better yet, sell out up front, take the $2000 and run, you'll be lucky to get that at $200 quarterly over 3 years). Selling texture packs for $5.99 ain't gonna buy ya lunch let alone pay yer rent, and once they're up and popular at all, they're torrented, so all the better to let the grown ups worry about 'losses', get paid then walk away from it, I hope to be ready & able to walk away from it all one way or another myself in a couple years.

jffe

Quote
jffe wrote: ----I guess if you're only concerned about Renderosity because you sell there, then perhaps you can nag them enough to keep your stolen/un-permission-granted stuff off of one site. Not really the issue, but if you feel that undoing the damage of that one battle is winning the war for you, then that's your opinion and you certainly have a right to it etc.

Well, hon, even wars are won one battle at the time.
But, I'm not on a war path. I just like to keep my own back yard clean.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Vlad's paying jffe to break our wills and get us to give up on it..... LOL....

LOL, out of luck there... I'm a Taurus... Dig my heels in and let challenges bounce off a brick wall...

Roar

I don't think lawyers were ever needed for this.....

[Deleted}

Basically.....

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Do you seriously intend to implement this new EULA.....or have you reconsidered doing it???

Yes, we certainly do -- as I stated before. Our plans regarding the EULA haven't changed. Compared with the latest proposed version I posted earlier in this thread, there will be two changes: an additional clause in the definition of "Insubstantially Modified Image" (very hard to formulate but potentially very effective) and a clause in 4.3. Exceptions that lets filter authors specify that they don't mind texture reselling in the filter description.

LOL, I just noticed/thought of something. It looks like eally good looking filters which take a long/longer time to render are not subject to being quickly rendered and images sold.
Maybe we can add in a setting or two that will slow down a filter render... and only those whom bother to get to know the software a little bit and get past merely rendering out presets will know how to turn that *ahem* 'feature' off.

yeah, make a fast filter, then turn antialiasing up to 15 or something like that, that will make the filter realllllly slllllow. I don't remember them off the top of my head, but I know there are couple other things that really don't change quality all that much, but make the filters slooow.
Anyone that bothers to learn the basics will soon figure out how to turn that feature 'off', and the total leeches whom want to put no work into it other then harvest filters should find it frustrating.

Sort of like putting a governor on a carburetor to artificially lower the horse power, and make it more fair.


(I know, I know, there's a lot of drawbacks to that idea... I'm being tongue-in-cheekish here more then anything else)

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: Well before you get too carried away with creating a bad user experience, consider this thread at my sign forum.

Oh, relax, that wasn't a serious idea.
I'm not that stupid to think it's something that should actually be done.

You did read this, right:

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: (I know, I know, there's a lot of drawbacks to that idea... I'm being tongue-in-cheekish here more then anything else)

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: Oh, relax, that wasn't a serious idea. I'm not that stupid to think it's something that should actually be done. You did read this, right:

Never thought it was and yes I did. I was just taking the opportunity to make a related point.

BTW, in case you didn't read the thread all the way to the end ... the original poster was told how to cut his rendering time down to a few minutes with Filter Forge by yours truly but eventually found a more ideal solution using Snap Art from Alien Skin which delivers acceptable results instantaneously.

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: The connection to what I thought I was saying to what I think you seem to be saying is thoughtfully obscure

Ok...totally unrelated to EULA stuff, but this has to be one of the best quotes I have read in a long time LOL

Rawn

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: The connection to what I thought I was saying to what I think you seem to be saying is thoughtfully obscure.

Speaking of being thoughtfully obscure, my dear kettle, much like you, I was making a related point.
It's kind of funny when you go wagging your finger at people for doing the same thing you are doing - at the same time. Are you purposelly obscure, or really don't have that much of a handle on how you come across?
Either way, you're not fooling anyone.

Well, you did come across rude and like you were attempting to ridicule what I was saying. I'm not *that* nice prim and proper that I'm not going respond in kind.

You and I aren't exactly best pals, and for the most part when I see your posts I've come to expect negativity, If you wish for things to be understood as you inteded them, make sure you communicate clearly.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: You guys sound like a happily married couple to me..... .....

I'd divorce him and take half his textures with me

LMAO..... My work is done here.....

Will you forgive me if I try to hijack this thread back to its topic?

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Vladimir Golovin wrote: Exceptions that lets filter authors specify that they don't mind texture reselling in the filter description. That's a great idea.....let authors distinguish wether or not they want the new EULA restrictions to apply to their filters.....good alternative to the "dual library" suggestions.....

Yes, it's not a Dual Library per se, but a good workaround. If this is implemented, the Dual Library becomes essentially a list of links to filters with permission to resell. Maintaining such a list is way easier than implementing the actual Dual Library, and can be done by the community.

Also, the authors could agree on a keyword, say "reselling_permitted", and include it into Keywords of any filter they want to make available for free reselling. This way, such filters can be searched for via our regular search.

Maybe there would have to be 3 levels
- Reselling_Permitted
- By_Negotiation
- Not_Permitted

Quote
Redcap wrote: Would arthurs ever retain the right to go back and change their filters to be "not_permitted" as it were in say a future update of the filter?

Good point. We'll have to keep the old version with permission archived as a proof.

Quote
Redcap wrote: Also what about selling filters that use components from other filters or snippets. Lets say I look at the guts of a filter, see how to make a radial gradient and

See the definition of "Insubstantially Modified Filters", the first post in this thread, page 1.

Quote
Carl wrote: Maybe there would have to be 3 levels - Reselling_Permitted - By_Negotiation - Not_Permitted

Yes, I think an author could include an explicit description detailing what kinds of activities are permitted -- or more precisely, which restrictions to waive.