tylerzambori
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Nevada
me for defamation. (actually libel)
He claims that he now has an "affiliate" office in the U.S., but as far as I know,
his corporate offices are in New Zealand and Europe.
Ok, I bought a rendering software from him. I have two licenses. The software is still in beta so there is no warranty, as I understand. At some point he decided that he was having too much trouble with software piracy, so he decided to implement a DRM measure that would require a constant internet connection. Here's the official announcement about it:
So the language is pretty clear that the DRM measure of requiring an internet connection is being done to prevent piracy, right? This was posted in a public forum for all to see by someone other than myself, so I can't be faulted for taking a somewhat private announcement public.
It does apparently include some big secret added functionality which he does not talk about. The problem is, he then started telling people they were imagining things by thinking he's implementing this required internet connection for DRM or piracy prevention purposes. And this is where I started having a problem with him. He started saying that when version 2.3 comes out, everyone will love the new added features very much, and denying the piracy prevention. So I pointed out the problem with his thinking,
and his reaction was he was too busy too deal with it. I have since figured out this is his standard response.
After a couple more questions on my part, on his private forum, he banned me form the forum and even from being able to see his web site, and he deacitvated my account. He e-mailed me to say that when 2.3 comes out,
he wwould re-activate my account and give me forum access. He did not do that.
I haven't said a single word to him since then, until today, when he wrote me with his threat of a defamation suit.
Ok, what I have done, is to warn people on a few forums about this upcoming DRM measure, so that they would not buy into it without being aware it was going to happen. Some of the people who bought it before the announcement were suddenly in difficulties because of living in small towns without a constant internet connection, or because of having clients that stipulate no internet connection period on the computer that their work is being done on. So at first I didn't even say "I don't recommend it," but rather "you should know this before you buy." I eventually got to "I don't recommend it," because of the owner's rather awful customer service skills.
And I'm not the first person to notice the rather awful customer service skills, which I learned more about as I went along, from other people's stories.
Ok so now, he has apparently noticed my comments on forums, and he wrote me this letter:
And he is once again trying to claim that he is not implementing any anti-piracy or DRM measures. His whole letter is based on the claim that I am lying; that I am putting forth a "silly DRM story based upon poor speculation."
(continued)
me for defamation. (actually libel)
He claims that he now has an "affiliate" office in the U.S., but as far as I know,
his corporate offices are in New Zealand and Europe.
Ok, I bought a rendering software from him. I have two licenses. The software is still in beta so there is no warranty, as I understand. At some point he decided that he was having too much trouble with software piracy, so he decided to implement a DRM measure that would require a constant internet connection. Here's the official announcement about it:
*** (software X)will require network connection for use ***
Hi all,
I'm writing this post to explain a few things about what we're currently doing while working on beta 2.3,
and some of it's new concepts/features, which are moved from beta3 to 2.3 and changed a bit due to recent/massive piracy of (software X).
We have decided to not invest any time nor money into anti-cracking technologies to combat piracy.
These things not only cost us time and money but also present a burden to people that pay for a license,
and in the end it will get cracked anyway, so we have come up with an alternative.
Although I cannot at this time talk in detail about our plans, as we would like exclusivity until we release them,
and our competition is watching us closely, i'll explain grosso-modo what we will do, and more importantly, what it requires.
(software X), as of beta 2.3, will require an internet connection to be used.
This gives a lot of new possibilities for great new features, workflow and cooperation community-wise,
allow for floating licenses (eg lock your license on one machine and unlock it on another),
and enjoy tightly integrated updates and sharing of content between users.
I understand having to use an internet connection to run (software X) (the GUI version, command line versions for renderfarms in the future
won't) can sound like a bad thing, but i think the benefits it gives, including the complete elimination of piracy,
will certainly be appreciated.
Especially once you've seen what we've been working on, (software X) is looking very different now than 2.2 here, and you'll be able to see that soon yourself with the coming intermediate release.
It's very important for us to do this now, and there are no alternatives or 50/50 solutions, off-line mode possibilities, etc...
We've already put a lot of thought into this.
Simply put, if we don't stop piracy of octane with this solution, which is going to make the workflow and licensing easier for
legitimate/paying customers, and give a lot of unique new features and freedoms, we won't be able keep developing (software X) at a higher rate,
and we might even not be around anymore next year.
One thing to note is that we'll be having a multiple server (multi-datacenter) redundant backend, so you don't have to worry about not
being able to use (software X) due to a server failure. We have done awesome business during the last 6 months and have a lot of reserves, so you can count on the online service being available for a very long time still.
That's it, if anyone has any serious issues with our decision, please contact us via email and we will try to find a solution to your
problem.
We have explored all other alternatives and have taken this decision after much thought, so it's not up for discussion anymore,
so discussing and presenting alternative solutions in this topic won't be of much use at this time, but we do appreciate the time taken by people who write complementary suggestions to what i've just explained.
So the language is pretty clear that the DRM measure of requiring an internet connection is being done to prevent piracy, right? This was posted in a public forum for all to see by someone other than myself, so I can't be faulted for taking a somewhat private announcement public.
It does apparently include some big secret added functionality which he does not talk about. The problem is, he then started telling people they were imagining things by thinking he's implementing this required internet connection for DRM or piracy prevention purposes. And this is where I started having a problem with him. He started saying that when version 2.3 comes out, everyone will love the new added features very much, and denying the piracy prevention. So I pointed out the problem with his thinking,
and his reaction was he was too busy too deal with it. I have since figured out this is his standard response.
After a couple more questions on my part, on his private forum, he banned me form the forum and even from being able to see his web site, and he deacitvated my account. He e-mailed me to say that when 2.3 comes out,
he wwould re-activate my account and give me forum access. He did not do that.
I haven't said a single word to him since then, until today, when he wrote me with his threat of a defamation suit.
Ok, what I have done, is to warn people on a few forums about this upcoming DRM measure, so that they would not buy into it without being aware it was going to happen. Some of the people who bought it before the announcement were suddenly in difficulties because of living in small towns without a constant internet connection, or because of having clients that stipulate no internet connection period on the computer that their work is being done on. So at first I didn't even say "I don't recommend it," but rather "you should know this before you buy." I eventually got to "I don't recommend it," because of the owner's rather awful customer service skills.
And I'm not the first person to notice the rather awful customer service skills, which I learned more about as I went along, from other people's stories.
Ok so now, he has apparently noticed my comments on forums, and he wrote me this letter:
This is a rather threatening letter. My impression about is that it's "a lot of yelling." He even attached a map of my neighborhood to the e-mail, as if to say to me "I know where you live." I think that is harrassment.Your factually severely incorrect smear campaign is directy legally
provable and is already documented in great detail, with provable
correlation in losses that surpass 4 zeroes.
We have signed printouts of the forum founders where you undertook
these activities.
'for them it will never be enough'. (software X new features) is the best feature ever now, all our customers love it, as they know now what it is
instead of your silly DRM story based upon poor speculation.
This is called in legal terms 'defamation trial', easy to arrange with
our new american affiliates's lawyers.
They are in fact easily initiated from overseas, where libel trials
are a day to day operation in corporate legal affairs.
Defamation, Libel, and Slander Per Se
(it's possible in nevada)
(He inserted my name and address here....)
even if this is incorrect we'll get a subscription access and contact
COX internet to get your real identity, history and location.
Since i'm not the evil person you tried to convince everyone about,
and i can have a bailiff serve you an affidavit in 2 days,
who don't do these things unless there's no chance you'll get fined
the 4 zero+ damages (in euros), plus the reputation damages,
i'm willing to help you and your family,
as i'm an honest person.
But the choice is up to you, pick anyone from these 2, no reply in 48
hours and i will engage solution 1.
Solution 1: misery, pain, debt, defended by a cheap lawyer. any
infomation about this private mail, our company or any of our
employees, will also add a 'slander' charge.
you'll also receive an IRS audit and a lot of other checks from your past.
Solution 2: you remove all your posts, on our forums, on all other
forums, blogs etc... about (software X)(any piece of text with the
word (software X) in it that's out there typed by yourself, and i
will reactivate your account, and write a post that (software X new features) is not what you thougt it was, but it's great (which it really is) after
you've played with 2.3 v4 for 1 day when you're forum post is
reactivated after you've done the prior mentioned tasks. (on all
forums involved) but it will be your (re-activated) account will
be indefinately if i find only one post anywhere. we shake hands and
you're off.
Solution 1+2 = you agree to solution 2, backstabbing me instead, which
will then automatically revert to solution one. (plus the slander
charges)
I await your answer. This is'nt a forum flamewar you can log out off,
this is monday morning doorbell **** that will put you in a lot of
trouble.
If you decide to go with option one, i'll give you a headstart, so we
don't pound you down, get a lawyer quickly, dig into your savings.
Sorry but people who work 12+ hours a day 7 days of the week for there
customers don't deserve what you have done, and i need to pay my rent
and food too, including my new 2 developers.
And he is once again trying to claim that he is not implementing any anti-piracy or DRM measures. His whole letter is based on the claim that I am lying; that I am putting forth a "silly DRM story based upon poor speculation."
(continued)
Last edited: