Slashdot Mirror


Trying To Lure Suckers, Company Resells Open Source Blender

sylphsama writes "A company named 'IllusionMage" deceptively resells a 3D open source animation package (Blender) and claims it as their own. The software, dubbed IllusionMage, portrays flagrant similarities with Blender, although outdated compared to the original. The website itself is a patchwork of sorts, using renders from different users and numerous other packages as a way to impress its visitors. Not only is that a breach of copyright, but they intentionally hide that the software is distributed under the GNU GPL license, rendering it free to use. The Blender Foundation itself has spoken out through its chairman Ton Roosendaal." I love that they promise "Free Updates For Life. All From the Thriving Open Source Community, This Software is Forever Improving."

185 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Legit by RobDollar · · Score: 2, Informative

    What he's doing is completely legal. Quite how much money he makes would be interesting to see, anyone buying a 3d package would surely do a small amount of research. Law of averages will prevail I suppose.

    He's been doing this for ages, and does it with various other software packages.

    1. Re:Legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What he's doing is completely legal.

      Legit?? Uhmm, thought I saw Blender Copyright 2008 in a *lot* of images; that's copyright infringement.

    2. Re:Legit by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What he's doing is completely legal.

      His customers appear happy, and given that he's marketing to die-hard Windows & Mac users (no Linux version mentioned), the fee probably makes them feel more comfortable. It's a feature...

      " Wow this software is incredible. I have owned Maya, 3DMax and PoserPro. I can tell you, this is by FAR, the easiest software to use."

      Isaac Oneil - Marion, NC

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Legit by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, what they are doing is not legal. They are taking non-free images and using it on their own site while claiming it is their own. There's nothing wrong with someone taking Blender, remaking it, licensing it under the GPL and creating a website and selling it. But that isn't what these people are doing, they are trying to deceive others and not crediting the images they use to promote their product.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering that the site has the same layout and colours to many other scam sites (Warcraft Levelling Guide, How To Pick Up Girls Waay WAY Hotter Than Your Ex, Buy These Meds They Will Fix Everything In Existence), one can safely assume that the customers do not exist.

    5. Re:Legit by artor3 · · Score: 1

      But information wants to be freeeeeee!~

      Seriously though, they did add notes to all of the images naming the source. Maybe they asked permission, and that was all the creators asked of them? I'd advise we hold off on the lynching until one of the artists comes out and complains.

    6. Re:Legit by LetterRip · · Score: 4, Informative

      His customers appear happy, and given that he's marketing to die-hard Windows & Mac users (no Linux version mentioned), the fee probably makes them feel more comfortable. It's a feature...

      " Wow this software is incredible. I have owned Maya, 3DMax and PoserPro. I can tell you, this is by FAR, the easiest software to use."

      Isaac Oneil - Marion, NC

      He creates false testimonials (I reported him to one of the corporations he was using in a false testimonial - he had fabricated the individual and testimony.)

    7. Re:Legit by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seriously though, they did add notes to all of the images naming the source. Maybe they asked permission, and that was all the creators asked of them? I'd advise we hold off on the lynching until one of the artists comes out and complains.

      No they did not ask permission. We specifically denied them to use of some of the images and of our videos (some are CC licensed and thus we have no control over, but many are not). However he has ignored most of the requests from the Blender Foundation.

    8. Re:Legit by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Um, no they didn't. The only thing is that it says on the site is that "Images supplied by: GPL Released Wiki's " which they aren't. Because of the images cited on the page that Blender shows the artist's page which have all rights reserved to them.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:Legit by artor3 · · Score: 1

      No they did not ask permission. We specifically denied them to use of some of the images and of our videos (some are CC licensed and thus we have no control over, but many are not). However he has ignored most of the requests from the Blender Foundation.

      Well, if that's true, fuck 'em. And the more I look at "reviews", the more I'm inclined to believe you're being honest. That site screams scam.

    10. Re:Legit by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought artists didn't deserve copyrights anymore and lived on a "failed business model".

      Always hard to always stay up to date on the current common wisdom of Slashdot.

    11. Re:Legit by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I'm saddened that your rebuttal is that it was fine to steal the images but the crime was that they didn't properly cite their stolen property.

    12. Re:Legit by angus77 · · Score: 1

      "Stealing" from the public domain? You might want to reread what Darkness404 wrote.

    13. Re:Legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a legitimate stance that fraud is a worse crime than copyright infringement.

    14. Re:Legit by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      I think that the 'stolen' that they're referring to is that a work being out of copyright doesn't mean you can claim ownership or creation of it.

    15. Re:Legit by pipatron · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    16. Re:Legit by ExploHD · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I thought artists didn't deserve copyrights anymore and lived on a "failed business model".

      Always hard to always stay up to date on the current common wisdom of Slashdot.

      It's not that artists don't deserve copyrights on their own works, they need to eat too, it's the fact that a copyright is now automatically granted for life PLUS for another 70 years after death. Also, it's not the artist who live on a failed business model, it's the companies who produce and distribute those works that are. The cost of recording, editing, and distributing are now minimal; artists can do it themselves and keep a better portion of the profits.

    17. Re:Legit by t2t10 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Always hard to always stay up to date on the current common wisdom of Slashdot.

      The GPL is an attempt to use copyright against itself. So, GPL license holders are going to insist on having their copyrights enforced, even though they disapprove of the current copyright system. There is nothing new about this strategy, it's been the same for more than 20 years; I'm sorry you haven't been paying attention.

    18. Re:Legit by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that anyone who has used Maya or 3DMax would fail to look at this and instantly see the Blender interface, and seeing it, wouldn't buy it because it's FREE. I have the Windoze version on the very PC I'm typing this from.

    19. Re:Legit by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > it is fraudulent for me to claim that I used Microsoft Paint to paint the Mona Lisa in an advertisement for Windows (assuming it wasn't parody).

      Why? This guy really DID paint the Mona Lisa with Microsoft Paint !

      "How to paint the MONA LISA with MS PAINT"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU

    20. Re:Legit by Plekto · · Score: 1

      And, of course, there is nothing to say that you cannot take a GPL program and package it with other programs, a few utilities, some nice value-added extras, and sell it for a profit. This happens all the time. RedHat and Wine being notable - open source but it's worth buying the CD and support, IMO. Especially if you are in a multi-user environment where a CD helps immensely.

      Now, the program in question is really doing nothing that wrong, legally(borderline fraudulent advertising tactics aside, of course). They just are doing a piss-poor job of it that nobody in their right mind would pay for. There is no "added value" and their customer support stinks from what I can gather.

    21. Re:Legit by calmofthestorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no logical inconsistency in objecting to plagiarism but not copyright infringement.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    22. Re:Legit by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Now, the program in question is really doing nothing that wrong

      No, it isn't. Did I say anywhere that it was?

    23. Re:Legit by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Nope. But it is amazing how many people get their shorts in a knot over this stuff. A little common sense and an understanding of basic legal issues goes a long way - or would for most of the people here.

    24. Re:Legit by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Prove it. ... shit ...

          There are 9 "Isaac Oneil"s in the US, and none have lived in North Carolina. None when searching for "O'Neil". Well, it could be an alias. Who would believe a review by BeerStud3, especially after they found out he's a middle manger at a Cleveland department store.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    25. Re:Legit by crackspackle · · Score: 1

      No, what they are doing is not legal. They are taking non-free images and using it on their own site while claiming it is their own. There's nothing wrong with someone taking Blender, remaking it, licensing it under the GPL and creating a website and selling it. But that isn't what these people are doing, they are trying to deceive others and not crediting the images they use to promote their product.

      Legal or not, they are only civil violations and not something he's likely to go to jail for unless he ignores a court order to stop. Unfortunately this guy is no different than so many people today who are willing to stoop to any level to make a buck so long as they can avoid prison. This guy just came up with a way that doesn't require an Ivy League MBA to perpetrate.

    26. Re:Legit by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      An overwhelming majority of people who used Maya or 3DMax used pirated versions, and have no idea what other 3D software exists.
      Among the remaining minority, a majority are "graphics artists" who only know what was spoonfed to them in their courses. They would not recognize Blender as a 3D modeling software if it was in front of them, being used.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    27. Re:Legit by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      You can distinguish between genuine trolls and Microsoft marketing people?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    28. Re:Legit by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      What he's doing is completely legal. Quite how much money he makes would be interesting to see, anyone buying a 3d package would surely do a small amount of research. Law of averages will prevail I suppose.

      He's been doing this for ages, and does it with various other software packages.

      Yeah, he bundles the software with tutorials and such. In this case "300 hours of videos and tutorials included with IllusionMage" - or "IllusionMage & Blender contains the software, a complete 250+ page illustrated digital manual, tutorials, and over 8 hours of video training, tutorials and examples"

      I guess, mostly, people need to read and decide if the tutorials are worth the price.

    29. Re:Legit by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I thought the CC licence doesn't immediately allow unrestricted commercial use? Or are there different variants?

    30. Re:Legit by Dark_Oppressor · · Score: 1

      It's "O'neill", with two L's. :-P

    31. Re:Legit by dingfelder · · Score: 1

      terms and conditions:

      Last updated: July 12th 2010 :: DISCLAIMER / TERMS & CONDITIONS ::

      This website is owned and managed by IllusionMage, IllusionMage.com and it's group companies.

      By using this website you agree to be bound by this disclaimer and these terms and conditions and by any other terms and conditions, rules or guidelines which appear on this website. We may amend these terms and conditions from time to time without notice so please check for changes on a regular basis.

      Relationships:

      IllusionMage is not endorsed and/or related to any 3D Animation Software, Software House or any other company in any way shape or form. Images are licensed under creative commons and attribution is provided in the image. Full source and credits are available upon request.

      GNU GPL:

      IllusionMage is proudly part of the Open Source movement. Open Source software gives you more flexibility in regards to how and where you can use the software. Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license. As a note please be aware that IllusionMage is a trademark and although this code is released under a generous open license the name and logo are not.

      Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 .

      Source code of these content and files is available to be downloaded from here

      As per the license agreement, please note that there is no warranty for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide the program “as is” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

      Intellectual Property Rights:

      IllusionMage is copyrighted under the United States and other World Wide Patents. Any recreation of this site without permission is prohibited.

      IllusionMage is a trademark and can not be used without express permission by IllusionMage.com, or it's subsidiaries

      Images are either under GPL or released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Screenshots are attributed to Blender.org.

      Email Contact :

      Purchasers / Members will receive an e-mail message with your product registration and login information. Periodically IllusionMage may send you information on product updates and information on related products and services. You understand that you may unsubscribe from these messages at any time.

      From time to time there will be new releases or updates available. These will be primarily fixes of software "bugs" and typographical errors but may also include additional materials. Customers in good standing may download updates at no additional charge. Customers will receive Updates of the version they purchased and will not be entitled to receive materials from other packages or UPGRADED versions of the course they purchased even if they are offered and sold on the same page. Customers who have purchased UPGRADED versions of the course will receive free Updates of the version of the course they purchased.

      100% Guarantee:

      The 100% Guarantee applies only to downloadable version of the software and is valid for 60 days from the date of purchase. We will ask an exit question so we can better guage software issues or find enhancements that could be made.

      Availability:

      The site is provided on an “as is” basis. At times, this website may not be available or may be affected by faults or maintenance, or by conditions outside our control. No warranty is given about the quality, functionality, availability or performance of this website or any content on this website. To the fu

    32. Re:Legit by dingfelder · · Score: 1
    33. Re:Legit by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you need to do is to send him a C&D and then a serious lawsuit. If you don't have funding then please announce that and we will provide. I now pledge 100 Euro on actual instigation of a court action against him for a specific GPL violation if you need it and provided that you demand appropriate damages (as with the BusyBox cases).

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    34. Re:Legit by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Well, without considering the teenagers who pirate one app, consider it the greatest app ever and never even understand that there are other apps available...

      I was actually studying to be a game artist a few years back (at a school that had approx. 500 applicants per year and took in 30 or so students every year, several companies recruited people straight from the school without waiting for them to finish their degree. So no, this wasn't "Joe's garage and game development school").

      In my experience most people who use Maya or 3dsmax tended to have at least dabbled with a few other pieces of 3D modelling, animation and rendering software but most ended up using Maya or 3dsmax simply because they were the most complete and user friendly (with "user friendly" not meaning "big easy-to-spot buttons to click" but rather "scriptable, extensible and with tons of keyboard shortcuts that you can customize") as well as having good 3rd party plugin support and good workflows. I myself switched between Maya and 3dsmax a lot back then while also toying with early versions of zbrush, trying out blender every few months to see if it had stopped being a pain in the ass (which I have been doing since the NaN days, it's definitely gotten better but I still don't see any really good reason for me to start using Blender beyond "it's free") and of course all the other minor more specialized apps like Rhino.

      But hey, feel free to pretend that people who use 3dsmax and Maya "would not recognize Blender as a 3D modeling software if it was in front of them, being used.".

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    35. Re:Legit by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      There are variants. CC is a set of licences. I think all require attribution. You may allow or disallow derivitives, you may allow or disallow commercial use, and may allow or disallow "share-alike" (i.e.only allowed in products if you allow others to modify those)

    36. Re:Legit by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      There's an app for that. ;)

    37. Re:Legit by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      Depends under which license the pictures were released. I did not dig that deep, but yes, the images could become expensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    38. Re:Legit by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      Well, if you want to get nasty:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement. The lawsuit might actually pay for itself...

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    39. Re:Legit by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      The other one's got no sense of humor at all.

    40. Re:Legit by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      Maybe he believes in eternal copyright, and therefore thinks that governments proclaiming that works can "fall into the public domain" is, in itself, a form of "theft"?

      There are more ideas about what copyright is and/or should be than there are people who actually think about the issue, it seems to me.

    41. Re:Legit by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      What he's doing is completely legal. Quite how much money he makes would be interesting to see, anyone buying a 3d package would surely do a small amount of research.

      Uh, hello? He's obviously not selling things to people who do "small amount of research". These pages have scammy salesman tactics all over the place. Awesome package creator guy's personal endorsement, quotes from happy random users, obviously bogus slashed prices, available for three days only, so get it now. (* offer may be available perpetually in certain planets.)

      It's legal in that it fulfils the requirements of the licenses, but not exactly the most ethical way to distribute software. Customers should know what they're getting. They should know that they're buying a piece of free software that has worthwhile stuff added to it - again, material that may come from many free sources, but you can't download a printed book, now can you? They should be saying "gee, this looks pretty good for a free software package, but no way I'm going to download gigabytes of videos and textures, and that printed manual sounds sweet. Send me one, I'll just download the software and toy with it until the package arrives."

    42. Re:Legit by TheMidget · · Score: 1

      None when searching for "O'Neil"

      That's expected. The single quote between the O and the N crashes the search database...

    43. Re:Legit by durrr · · Score: 1

      Using Fiverr or similar sites or services where people prostitute themself for money you can buy a heap of testimonials and reviews for a couple of dollars.
      As for the site it's very much a standard layout for internet marketing, with every single factbox and cliche in use.

      The worst part is that it's probably quite lucrative.

    44. Re:Legit by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is possible that this is not legal. He's claiming that downloading the software means agreement to be
      bound by New Zealand law; my guess would be that this additional clause is counter to the GPL which does not
      allow this form of restriction.

      Mostly, though, this is funny.

    45. Re:Legit by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Hi, could I speak to Fred Bloggs please?
      I'm afraid nobody of that name works here
      He doesn't work for you?
      No, sir
      That is Acme Inc, isn't it?
      Yes, sir
      Is it possible he's just left the company?
      No sir, nobody of that name has ever worked for us.
      Oh. I must have made a mistake. Sorry to have troubled you.

    46. Re:Legit by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone" that used to be quoted as loving every piece of shit movie that came out? You used to see quotes all the time like "'Highlander 2 is so goddamn awesome it made me have an orgasm,' raves Peter Travers of Rolling Stone!" He was actually a real person, believe it or not. He was just infamous as a quote whore who conveniently loved almost every piece of shit movie with a major studio attached. He was even named CriticWatch's "Whore of the Year" several times.

      Maybe Isaac Oneil is the Peter Travers of Marion, North Carolina.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    47. Re:Legit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The site is listed as malware by web filters like BlueCoat.

    48. Re:Legit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Blender has a steep learning curve, but if you put a solid 3 months into it you get there. The scripting engine is Python. As I understand it, it's supposedly the fastest, best-designed 3D software for the task; but also the most difficult, complex to use software for the task, and thus hard to learn. I'm not into 3D so I only played with it for a few months, rendered some cute stuff (rooms, dice, dolphins, etc), then gave up because the only thing of interest when I brought this skill up on IRC was "SWEET MAKE GIANT 3D PENISES!"

    49. Re:Legit by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Anyone using a several hundred dollar program like that with enough proficiency would know better than buying some no-name cheap commercial 3D package. There's a lot of legitimate dreck in that category that you would never want to use. Either you fork out for the real deal or you go with the completely free alternatives, anything in between usually lacks the expertise and manpower to compete.

      This stuff is targeted at lay people who have never used 3D software and want to start with that. They don't know what's available and think what the stores sell is the right option.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    50. Re:Legit by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If this package is not sold with a GPL license, then the copyright holders have the choice to sue for statutory damages of $150,000 or for actual damages. Actual damages would be whatever money the software was sold for.

    51. Re:Legit by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That's only true for music. Its not true for most other forms of copyright.

      Besides, subverting income to artists is hardly a way to show support for the artist. Which oddly enough is the majority's backward logic. Even more so, ignorantly, most people are actually advocating socialism or at the very least anti-capitalism with their piracy. The cost of product almost never has any bearing on the consumer price in a capitalist market. Suddenly its become popular to circumvent the capitalistic market price and "create your own" (which is usually free) all supposedly to support the artist by ensuring he doesn't get paid for what been "consumed", so as to shaft those who ultimately pay the artist.

      And consistently when asked, pirates say being paid for copyright is wrong but absolutely refuse to pay the several magnitudes more for purchases which are otherwise required without the copyright model.

      I suspect most pirates don't really realize they are advocating socialism or at the very least anti-capitalism. Furthermore, I doubt they are advocating a huge price increase on the extremely reasonably priced good they are currently giving a finger too.

      And if, as you assert, the real contention is about longevity of copyright, how is punishing the live artists going to change things when you beef is with the long dead artists, to which you're supposedly railing against.

    52. Re:Legit by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      You should probably consider trying out Maya and 3dsmax before stating that Blender is "the fastest, best-designed 3D software for the task; but also the most difficult, complex to use..". That sounds like what the open source zealot Blender fans have been saying for a long time (since it was open-sourced basically). I've heard countless times from people who at the most have installed blender once and toyed with it a bit that it is better than Maya because it has plugins (because obviously Maya doesn't have those...), keyboard shortcuts (yeah, not a single one of those in Maya...) and is somehow better in every other imaginable way (even though Maya and 3dsmax actually have the same features).

      Sorry if I sound a bit cranky but every time I mention that I don't see any clear advantage to using Blender short of it being free and open source someone seems to drag out the old myths about 3D software that isn't Blender...

      Basically, the learning curve for Maya and 3dsmax to use them properly is pretty much as steep as the Blender learning curve (if not steeper depending on what tasks you are trying to perform). They're also very competent software packages and I've been hearing that Blender kicks Maya and 3dsmax's collective asses since back when Blender wasn't anywhere near comparable to those two so I have a healthy amount of skepticism when someone tells me that Blender is amazing, it's the open source version of Steve Jobs' infamous reality distortion field, if there's an Open Source application that does foo then it's the best application that does foo regardless of any other facts such as actual features, user interface and such thing.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    53. Re:Legit by bonch · · Score: 1

      Not only is it legal, but for Slashdotters to imply it's not is bizarre considering how many anti-copyright posts appear on Slashdot. Apparently, we're in favor of copyright law when it benefits GPL software and against copyright law for anything else.

    54. Re:Legit by heypete · · Score: 1

      What's the deal with all the scammy sites having the same 20-page-long main page layout? They all seem to have the same basic format, such as having random testimonials interspersed throughout, random bolded sections, etc. It comes across as the seedy late-night infomercial of the internet.

      Is there some sort of "Make your own scam site!" template that's been going around for years? I can't believe that anyone has ever purchased anything from such a site, but I'm sure enough people have to make it worth their while.

    55. Re:Legit by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      At the same time, I know I wouldn't want them to use my name/company's name on their shitty website. Especially when it makes it look like I approve of a product I've never used.

    56. Re:Legit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That is as I understand it; there's a reason I didn't bother with other 3D softwares. I just don't care. The comparison between learning curve and efficiency of interface is not an inherently perfect trade-off; you can do the same thing in one or the other, it's faster in one but harder to learn to do that, is the trade-off worth it? When you're rusty, you sort of have to re-learn. The justification that it has a non-intuitive interface because they wanted an efficient interface is a valid justification for making something less intuitive; it's not automatically better for all purposes.

      And you mentioned the others were scriptable, so I felt the need to point out that so is Blender. This is not a feature missing from Blender.

    57. Re:Legit by angus77 · · Score: 1

      I think you'd better read it again. Darkness404 was saying it was fraudulent to claim such ownership. im_thatoneguy was saying that it saddened him to read that it's the fraudulent claim that would be wrong but that "it was fine to steal the images".

    58. Re:Legit by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Methinks that we also need to talk to his payment processor (clickbank) and ask them to stop processing his payments (and/or freeze his account). ...but if he's in Auckland NZ, I'm happy to drive up there (it's only an hour) with a few... goons... and sort this guy out. I'm sure WLUG, AuckLUG, NZLUG, NZOSS and so one will have plenty to say about his activites.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    59. Re:Legit by dingfelder · · Score: 1

      a drive from hawkes bay is too far but I dont mind adding my complaint as a kiwi if it helps

    60. Re:Legit by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      Number One: Caveat Emptor!

      If a piece of software is available somewhere for free, it's to the buyer's advantage to be knowledgeable and investigate before buying it from somewhere else. How many times have you seen the warning "Don't pay for this software it is meant to be free at...". As far as legality is concerned This from the GNU GPL site explains it all:

      The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

      When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish) , that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

      All emphases are mine

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    61. Re:Legit by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily anything to do with open source. If you made 3D renders for a living and suddenly saw a website using them without having permission from you, how would you feel?

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  2. Hide what? by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

    At the bottom of the page it clearly says:

    Released Under GNU GPL. Source code available for download

    1. Re:Hide what? by Microlith · · Score: 2

      That and the link to the tarball is held off of their "Disclaimers" page. But from all appearances they're trying to sucker the unsuspecting into paying them for a copy of Blender with no real improvements.

      The summary is wrong that they're in violation of the GPL, but it is very deceptive.

    2. Re:Hide what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The source code is free to use, but not what he's using for the website. That work is copywrited. Nor, as Roosendaal's states, is luring users into thinking this is a cracked version of Autodesk 3D Max.

    3. Re:Hide what? by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it seems like he just recycled another page's FAQ:

      "Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 ."

    4. Re:Hide what? by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      what about the examples gallery? looks like copyright infringement to me, though they do display the blender foundation copyright on them.

    5. Re:Hide what? by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      I've been telling Ton about scams like this since 2006 when they were cropping up on ebay. In fact, the old link used to be http://www.blender.org/cms/Re-branding_Blender.545.0.html . He's well aware about them, so It's good to know that he's is actually speaking out about it now.

    6. Re:Hide what? by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While the site and sales pitch are sleazy, it appears what you're really paying for are the video tutorials which, unless I'm mistaken, were produced by the guy running the site.

      TBH, it looks more like someone's trying to drum up faux controversy to get their site linked from the front page of Slashdot.

    7. Re:Hide what? by LetterRip · · Score: 2

      Most of your emails probably went to me :) We are aware of the assorted scammers, some are scams others are misleading.

      The biggest complaint I have is that he uses misleading advertising that violates our copyright.

      Also he does spamming via facebook, twitter, and SEO spam farms.

    8. Re:Hide what? by drolli · · Score: 1

      they even provide a mirror of the corresponding blender sources, so *legally* the are on the safe site, i guess.......:

      http://www.illusionmage.com/source/blender-2.50a1.tar.gz

    9. Re:Hide what? by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      I didn't think Ton used screeners since NaN's bankruptcy. Then again, searching ton at blender.org brings up his email way too often, so it makes sense. Plus the English seemed a little too American and not enough British. I know he's not British, but Brits and Americans speak and spell the same language differently, and proximity to the Brits would make more sense.

    10. Re:Hide what? by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      What is interesting though is that they claim to include video training. So, while they may not really have done anything with blender, they do have a new product here if you count what they've included. Their tutorials may not be that bad, and who knows, they might help people get into Blender. Depending on how you look at it, to some may be worth the $47 they're charging.

      That said, they are being extremely deceptive. They could have just distributed a "Blender training CD" or something, or at the very least openly referred to the Blender site.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    11. Re:Hide what? by LetterRip · · Score: 1

      Nope I'm not a 'screener' but most emails are via blenders web forms (it takes a bit more effort to find the email addresses than to fill out the webforms), of which I handle most of them, if you sent it directly to a blender.org address then it went to whoever you mailed it to.

    12. Re:Hide what? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      The English used is a bit of a toss-up to identify whether or not a Dutchman wrote a certain piece of text. By default, Dutch schools teach British English, however Dutch culture is closer to American culture, and TV and Hollywood do their fair bit to make sure that most Dutchmen with a fair command of English tend to use American spellings and idiom (if they don't use their own idiom consisting of highly amusing literal translations from Dutch).

      I can generally pass for British if I put my mind to it, and I'm fairly sure I'm an exception. Most of my countrymen, excepting those active in international government work, couldn't.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    13. Re:Hide what? by dsavi · · Score: 1

      There has already been controversy on the Blenderartist.org forums and on Blender mailing lists (IIRC). As Ton Roosendaal (Blender Foundation chairman) concludes in the press release Rebranding Blender, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". It was probably with this in mind that someone submitted this /. story.

    14. Re:Hide what? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Free with purchase != free.

    15. Re:Hide what? by binkzz · · Score: 1

      What is interesting though is that they claim to include video training. So, while they may not really have done anything with blender, they do have a new product here if you count what they've included. Their tutorials may not be that bad, and who knows, they might help people get into Blender. Depending on how you look at it, to some may be worth the $47 they're charging.

      The videos arent their own, I believe they're the free Blender tutorial videos. I did find it amusing that they claim their 3D product requires no technical skills whatsoever, but they do have 300+ hours of tutorials for you to learn how to use the product.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    16. Re:Hide what? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Yup, I find it difficult to trust Seth Avery "3D Enthusiast & Creative Director". As for the money-back guarantee, I question the ability of a composite character and stock photography to honour this kind of promise. Besides, Seth is busy selling coffee: http://home.nbl.fi/~nbl2417/scratch/Rode.jpg

        "Seth" is selling the same product under two different names, and has a habit of doing this with other open source packages (Flight Gear). He's using legal yet very cheesy and misleading techniques, and offering nothing that can't quickly be found for free. For example, one of the amazing books he's offering with his ripped-off flight sim is freely downloadable from the FAA site.

      He really is going for the low hanging fruit with lines like "as seen on Google". Hell, anyone who sees that as nothing but comical would likely pay a premium price for a DVD fashioned out of genuine atoms! Yup, these people are hucksters who will likely earn a decent bit of scratch from people who try to research this product, but likely find nothing but bogus reviews run by affiliates. Google really need to fix this kind of stuff in their searching. It's too easy to swamp search results with these bogus blogs.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    17. Re:Hide what? by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      The source has to be made available to whoever obtained/purchased the binaries from you, it can be free or you can charge for it (the source). However, you can't restrict re-distribution.

      For example: I can create a GPLv2 program, sell it, and charge my customers $10 for a DVD copy of the source. My customer can then put the source on their public FTP server for anyone to download & I wouldn't be able to legally stop them.

    18. Re:Hide what? by MukiMuki · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's perfectly legal to sell GPL software. However, if you're re-branding it as well, you're not allowed to use promotional materials for that software unless stated otherwise. In addition, you can't use art created by anyone with their explicit permission, commercial uses or otherwise. The creator straight-up ripped off Blender Artists and put various pieces of their users' work up.

      The "GPL software can be resold by anyone" argument comes up more often than the "Is modding a game system legal" argument whenever these types of articles come up. They seem to always ignore than the issue isn't re-selling the software (or modding a system), it's usually about re-selling content that you don't have the legal right to re-sell (such as including "free" games with that modded system).

      Quake 3 is GPL. None of its 3D models, textures, music, or sound are. So while you can re-sell any game you make on the Quake 3 engine, you can't just package Quake 3 for Mac OS X and sell it without repercussion.

    19. Re:Hide what? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Luring users into thinking this is a cracked version of Autodesk 3D Max is not free to use? Might want to proofread the text, there... ;)

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  3. Easy? by ogfomk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I knew it wasn't Blender because the commercial said it was "easy".

  4. Also been done with OpenOffice by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative
    Anyone else remember, a few years ago, how there were web sites that offered, for something like $50, a copy of OpenOffice?

    Now this isn't to say that it's wrong to sell GPL software - even RMS and the GPL v3 licenses say that you can sell it for whatever you can get for it - but that anyone else is free to do the same with the copy you sell them, so the price quickly drops to zero.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    They're doing the "sucker born every minute" thing.

    1. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by blair1q · · Score: 1

      "so the price quickly drops to zero"

      The price was zero in the first place, so getting "whatever you can get for it" implies that the price is not really zero. It's just zero if you market it by saying "you can have it for free but buy it from me anyway."

      I wonder how many marketing schools tell their students not to do that.

    2. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem isn't that they are reselling it, that is perfectly legal. But they are using the Blender Foundation's copyrighted images and other people's copyrighted images to do so.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by msauve · · Score: 2

      It's just zero if you market it by saying "you can have it for free but buy it from me anyway." I wonder how many marketing schools tell their students not to do that.

      Obviously not the one Red Hat uses, and they've been pretty successful, doing pretty much the same thing as the company mentioned in the article (charging for free software, and implying that it's their own). CentOS seems not to have significantly hurt their profits.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      According to RMS, this is the way developers are _supposed_ to make money with GPL software.. GPL--keeping lawyers employed since 1989!

    5. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Obviously not the one Red Hat uses, and they've been pretty successful, doing pretty much the same thing as the company mentioned in the article (charging for free software, and implying that it's their own).

      To be fair, Red Hat employs a lot of developers, and they've contributed a lot to that free software, even if they didn't write it from scratch.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Indeed - and they prevent people giving away Red Hat or free by invoking trademark protection on the name "Red Hat", hence the existence of CentOS, or "Red Hat without the Trademark Infringement".

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    7. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by afabbro · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone else remember, a few years ago, how there were web sites that offered, for something like $50, a copy of OpenOffice?

      Yeah, they were calling it "Star Office" or something like that.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    8. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the original staroffice, but sites that offered to let you download openoffice for a one-time fee.

    9. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I spend at least half of my time at work writing GPL software. I work for a hardware manufacturer, and all my employer wants from GPL software is to have its hardware supported.

      The models with software being sold to consumers, or written before having any idea of its application, then expecting a commercial success by selling expensive boxes, work very poorly with software. When unwashed consumer masses are involved, nothing ever gets accomplished without a massive marketing battle with everyone else in the same market. When any large and expensive piece of software is produced, the first user will turn it into a service-like model just by the virtue of being different from developer's stupid idea of what users want to use. In the end. While people like you, love to fantasize about running a highly profitable game studio or starting "the next Microsoft/Adobe/Oracle", both models had exhausted themselves already.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    10. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

      Plagiarism is independent from copyright infringement -- it is a form of both libel and fraud. The fact that existing (massively fucked up) law conflates the two and makes copyright the only protection against plagiarism, does not make it dependent on the justification for current copyright laws. GPL openly uses copyright to achieve goals that are the opposite to the goals of people who created current copyright-related laws, and even shitheads like yourself stopped screaming about it being some kind of hypocrisy, so I recommend shutting up and writing something about Gimp not supporting CMYK.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Large companies that buy $2 million software generally wouldn't use a free version even if one were available, they will want a support contract and someone to blame if it breaks (even if the license explicitly disclaims any warrantee as most do)...

      There are many companies out there making good money selling various networking appliances that are based on linux (or in some cases bsd), and the most any of these companies will have done is to put their own branded frontend on top of whatever underlying open source is running the show.

      In fact, a lot of consultants hate the idea of "free software" and will often try to associate it with malware, however they are completely ignorant of the fact that the expensive products they sell are based on open source code.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    12. Re:Also been done with OpenOffice by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      There is no hypocrisy in using tools of evil to do something good.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  5. People have been doing this on ebay for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Type in "3D software" at ebay and you'll see many many examples of misleading repackaged Blender.

  6. Re:They have released source code by blair1q · · Score: 1

    I'm not even sure it's illegal to do it without telling anyone they're buying GPL'ed software until they open the box...

  7. I can see them already by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    Given that they must have a very low IQ to do this, I suppose they'll be like: "I can haz your work and call it mine?"

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    1. Re:I can see them already by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are Chinese? (Or pirates :D)

  8. FlightGear by U8MyData · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Same, nearly identical, treatment for flightprosim.com knock off of flightgear.org. Shame....

    1. Re:FlightGear by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      ... until someone gets smart and updates the meta tags for flightgear.org to add "free flightprosim clone download", etc.

      ... and someone else registers freeflightprosim.com and redirects to flightgear.org

    2. Re:FlightGear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like FlightGear's FAQ about the issue: http://www.flightgear.org/flightprosim.html

      It's very polite.

    3. Re:FlightGear by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      Damn! It isn't identical treatment, it's the same treatment!

      Look!:

      Availability:

      The site is provided on an “as is” basis. At times, this website may not be available or may be affected by faults or maintenance, or by conditions outside our control. No warranty is given about the quality, functionality, availability or performance of this website or any content on this website. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all warranties, terms and conditions implied by law in relation to the performance of this website or otherwise are hereby excluded. FlightProSim reserves the right to modify or withdraw content of this website at any time.

      You must not damage, interfere with or disrupt access to this website or its content, nor do anything that may impair its functionality or interfere with another person's access to or use of this website or its content. You must not use this website or content in any way that is unlawful or damaging to FlightProSim or any other person.

    4. Re:FlightGear by chipschap · · Score: 1

      I'm sure others have noticed that these rip-offs, whether it's software or books or what have you, are very formulaic in their presentation. You can practically look at the copy layout and tell what they're up to. And the confirming proof is a fake series of markdowns and a promise that the price will be raised after the initial sale is over.

  9. Re:They have released source code by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

    Essentially what they are selling is the training video, the software is included as a "service" and like you said they do say that it's open source, though a bit sheepishly of course. Just someone looking for something to get outraged about, nothing to see here.

  10. Legal, under current US law. Not cool to most. by h00manist · · Score: 1

    "Legit" under standard current US law. That's not the only social circle most people are a part of, and not the only code most anyone abides by. There are rules galore in society - company policies, group behavior codes, clubs, game rules, social morals, principles, culture, tradition, decency, politics, neighborhoods, philosophy, religion, heck, just name a group, and they will have their body of rules, and some sort or another of enforcement or lack thereof. I'll wager this guy breaks a tad too many of these rules for a bunch of people, and is taking his chances. Some might be lawyers, skilled in the art of interpreting laws into purposes they were not meant for. Some might have more respect for other policies and codes, and other enforcement forms. I know I wouldn't want to be in this business with him.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  11. Somebody's Law: by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    There's nothing so shameless that no one would do it if they could make a buck.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Somebody's Law: by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  12. crime by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    the only crime here is that site's design. eww. must. wash. eyes.

  13. Not the greatest web site, either by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
    When you get down to the part where the website talks about the price:

    Thats right. Your investment for the entire course is only $47 (this launch offer will closed anytime after February 25, 2011 ) And when we reach that point, I'll withdraw this offer immediately and not apologize for it.

    So you have to go through several pages worth of text before you get to the price, which has a grammatical error in it's explanation. And then a vaporous promise to increase the cost later:

    First I'll bump it up to $97.00...then to $197.00 and more...and it'll still be a bargain for what you're getting. So don't waste any time! Take action right now:

    Although I really love how they have a 60-day trial; which apparently you pay full ($47) price for. I guess the figure after 60 days if you realize that you just paid for open source software, you won't be willing to take the initiative to ask for your money back. If you go to the order form, you find a "special offer" where they throw in some additional software for a "low additional cost!".

    This reminds me a lot of the operations that take the free utilities for unlocking the Wii, and sell it at a random price promising "extras".

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by MaggieL · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...which has a grammatical error in it's explanation...

      BZZZZT Game over, thanks for playing. ;-)

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
    2. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...which has a grammatical error in it's explanation...

      BZZZZT Game over, thanks for playing. ;-)

      The "apostrophe - s" there shows possession. If the explanation belonged to John, we would say "John's explanation". Here I was using the informal "it" to refer to the company or product, hence "it's explanation" as the explanation belonged to it.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by FilthCatcher · · Score: 2

      BZZZZT - ok so you've thought about it but you're still wrong.

      http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophe

      Be aware of the its/it's trap. Use an apostrophe with the word "it" only when you want to indicate a contraction for "it is" or "it has." It is a pronoun, and pronouns have their own possessive form that does not use an apostrophe. For example, "That noise? It's just the dog eating its bone."

    4. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by pz · · Score: 1

      ...which has a grammatical error in it's explanation...

      BZZZZT Game over, thanks for playing. ;-)

      And that's why I check incompetent each and every time I use the word.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    5. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by Pokey.Clyde · · Score: 2

      ...which has a grammatical error in it's explanation...

      BZZZZT Game over, thanks for playing. ;-)

      The "apostrophe - s" there shows possession. If the explanation belonged to John, we would say "John's explanation". Here I was using the informal "it" to refer to the company or product, hence "it's explanation" as the explanation belonged to it.

      Wrong.
      It's is a contraction for it is or it has. Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.

    6. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      which has a grammatical error in it's explanation.

      Curse you Muphry! Curse you!

    7. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by Confusador · · Score: 2

      Nope, sorry. The rule to remember is "Possessive pronouns do not have apostrophes." So: mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs

    8. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Note to self: just never reply to a grammar thread. No matter how many times you reread it, you won't see the problem till after you post.

    9. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      unfortunately it's/its is an outlier and does not follow that usual convention.

      simple way to remember is it's = it is and its = possession.

      http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000227.htm

      disclaimer: I am not a grammar nazi.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    10. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by Blymie · · Score: 1

      Here's a great way to keep it straight.

      Long ago, I assume he's became hes, then his. At the same time, her's became hers, and it's became its.

      So:

      he's -> hes -> his
      her's -> hers
      it's -> its

      So, when you realise that "it" is a non-gender specific pronoun, the apostrophe sort of makes sense.. or lack thereof.

      As an aside, this is why I *hate* the use of she or her as a change in the non-gender specific use. Some languages use female, and others male as the non-gender specific, and English uses male. However, if we must protect the easily enslaved female mind and change the non-gender specific to save her, then let's do it right.

      I've been using "it" in that capacity now for a decade. This is no more incorrect than using the female "her" when we do not know the gender, and in fact we know "it" was used this way in the past. For example, when someone knocks on the door, we say, "Who is it"? We do not think that a piece of rock, or a horse knocked; we know a human was at the door.

      So, "it" at one point was the accepted non-gender specific, and we should use it again.

    11. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by The+Chaotician · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't take constructive criticism well, either. But the parent's correct. The possessive form of "it" is a special case. See http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/its.html or just Google "its vs. it's". Basically, "it's" *always* means "it is" or "it has", never possession. You meant "its".

    12. Re:Not the greatest web site, either by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I love /. 22 replies correcting you. Grammar is fun!

  14. 2 Hours or less by denn1s · · Score: 2

    Want to create Pixar and Dreamworks In 2 Hours or Less? Easy! just ripp off this already free software, then ripp off some illegal Pixar models on the net and you are set! BEAUTIFUL Animations With Minimum Effort...
    There's no way to make a decent animation in two hours, unless your movie is based on a bouncing ball in a squared box, heck even that would take more than two hours in blender, Producing 3D Animations & Graphics Ha[s] Never Been THIS EASY

  15. Try it for how long? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I just noticed that their main page says you can try it "risk-free" for 60 days. However the order form tells you that you can try it risk-free for 8 weeks.

    I also find it interesting that they don't offer a Linux version; as there is of course a Linux version of Blender...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Try it for how long? by weeb0 · · Score: 1

      60 days ~ 8 weeks no ? I also like very much the sentence" As seen on facebook " ????? and something I don't get : "IllusionMage is copyrighted under the United States and other World Wide Patents." We can sell a gpl software and we can get patent on it ? In the disclaimer, they says that the image are from blender.org and the filename to download is blender 2.5a1 ... is it an alpha version ?! ... Next!

    2. Re:Try it for how long? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      60 days ~ 8 weeks no ?

      Close, but not exactly the same. Last I checked, 8 7-day weeks makes for 56 days. 56 is generally not accepted to be the same as 60.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Try it for how long? by Saroful · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't go to public school. If you had you would know that 60 days = 8 weeks = 2 months.

  16. Re:Typo in summary by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ugh. No. The trailing dot is perfectly correct and it should be there. It's actually a hack that the trailing dot is implicitly assumed in domain names.

    "It's a little-known fact, but fully-qualified (unambiguous) DNS domain names have a dot at the end."

    http://www.dns-sd.org/TrailingDotsInDomainNames.html

  17. I've been doing 3d since 3dsr3 Dos. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    I've been doing 3d since 3dsr3 Dos. It's a life long learning adventure. 2 weeks my ass :)

    1. Re:I've been doing 3d since 3dsr3 Dos. by JamesP · · Score: 1

      I guess that's the first time I used 3D software as well... (it was on DOS, I'm sure)

      What bothers me is that the speed looks like it's the same =P (of course the DOS version didn't have particle systems, etc)

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  18. Quote from their disclaimer page... by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

    GNU GPL:

    IllusionMage is proudly part of the Open Source movement. Open Source software gives you more flexibility in regards to how and where you can use the software. Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license. As a note please be aware that IllusionMage is a trademark and although this code is released under a generous open license the name and logo are not.

    Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 .

    Source code of these content and files is available to be downloaded from here.

    As per the license agreement, please note that there is no warranty for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide the program “as is” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

  19. Re:Your douchebag's name is Arnell Johnson by Zordrak · · Score: 1

    Oh.. I forgot the disclaimer. Must add one RIGHT at the bottom somewhere.. so here's some content: http://waatp.com/people/arnell-johnson/5326936/ ...... ...... And now for the DISCLAIMER: It might not be Arnell Johnson. The views of this slashdot member do not represent anything other than common sense and editorial content.

  20. Re:louboutin by Zordrak · · Score: 1

    New low, dude. New low.

  21. They say it's blender under GPL and provide source by nathanator11 · · Score: 1

    See the disclaimer page.

    "GNU GPL:
    IllusionMage is proudly part of the Open Source movement... Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license... Source code of these content and files is available to be downloaded from here (link to Blender source file).
    "Intellectual Property Rights:
    Images are either under GPL or released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Screenshots are attributed to Blender.org."

  22. Re:Typo in summary by bk2204 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Any browser (or other DNS-using software) that does not accept a terminal period on a domain name is broken. The root of the DNS is ., and this domain could just as well be written as "news.slashdot.org.". In fact, using a terminal . may speed up access if anything because it prevents the use of any "search" statements in /etc/resolv.conf.

  23. Legit? by angus77 · · Score: 2

    You missed the bit where the software is being promoted using copyrighted artwork.

  24. Layout by drb226 · · Score: 2

    Legit or not, you gotta love the layout of that website. Someone should make a wordpress theme called "scam" that looks like that...

    1. Re:Layout by snookums · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this style is so popular is because everyone running these types of sites bought the same get-rich-quick e-book from a website that looks exactly like the one linked in this story.

      Part of the package they bought was "proven website designs optimized for maximal conversion".

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    2. Re:Layout by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Yeah, by the end I was really confused: should I fork over money for 3D modelling software, an iPhone unlock, or a special set of DVDs that will turn me into an awesome guitarist in just over three weeks? Whichever way, I'm pretty sure that there's an awesome bargain here that I don't want to miss out on.

    3. Re:Layout by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Worse is that it's just a frame to a site on "clickbank.net" which was blocked by my content blocker. They really went all out getting the scam components.

  25. For $47 might the tutorials be worth it? by darkjohnson · · Score: 1

    I mean - that part is original material, right? Seems to me there is a value he's added to this mix and yes the Software is just Blender but so what? And if the images were made with Blender, then they're legit too, no?

  26. And here I worked so hard to pirate it. by makubesu · · Score: 1

    I would switch to the real thing, but where's the thrill?

  27. Audio Hounds? by TzaGear · · Score: 1

    Maybe find out what song(s) him and his alter ego http://www.3dmagixpro.com/ are using and if they don't have the rights sick the audio hounds on them?

  28. Philosophical Question by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    Ignoring the specifics of this case (as they've been explored in other comments) I'd like to get back to the fundamental question here:

    Is it "ok" to repackage open source software and sell it at greater than zero?

    Under what circumstances is it ok? Do you need to add some significant "value"? Do you have to tell anyone who asks (or who didn't) where you got the source from or just your customers?

    Don't quote me the GPL or the law.. I want to hear your opinion.

    Are businessmen who buy hats for $1 and sell them for $12 morally superior because they transport the hats? Should they be required to tell their customers the cost price and where they got them from?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Philosophical Question by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That might be why you would choose to buy the hat at $12 instead of at $1, but that presumes you actually know where to go buy the hat at $1. Are you saying the retailer has a moral responsibility to tell you where to get it wholesale? If not, then why does the blender repackager? (and again, don't quote the GPL to me).

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Philosophical Question by stinerman · · Score: 1

      It should be legal for these guys to sell unmodified GPL software, but it is immoral. Same goes with taking GPL software and bundling it with spyware or making it adware.

      There must be some minimal value-add over and above what I could get from at least a free distro, much less upstream. Just mirroring the software and asking for someone to pay for it, isn't enough. Spyware bundling is a value-subtract.

      The businessman who buys hats at wholesale and sells them at significant mark-up is morally superior because he's got the value-add. As the AC says below, he provides a single, local, human point of contact if I'm unsatisfied with my purchase. I can try on the hat free at his store. I can't do that over at the warehouse.

    3. Re:Philosophical Question by Draek · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, it's OK as long as you neither pretend it's the only option, use low-rate psychological tricks to prevent your customers to evaluate your offer rationally, or violate the law in any other way.

      These guys undoubtedly violate the last two criteria, and YMMV on whether they violate the first or not though I think their mentions of Open Source software make them, if not ideal, at least tolerable on that account at least.

      As for the hat businessman, no they're not morally superior merely on the account of their transport, and while I don't think they should be *required* to tell their customers the cost price, I do think that if they don't they should have no recourse if somebody calls them a bunch of greedy assholes either, regardless of what effect it may have on their business.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    4. Re:Philosophical Question by microphobe · · Score: 1

      Legal? yes. Ethical? No, unless they add additional junk like support models they have made for you to play with etc.
      The biggest issue I have isn't the company selling the software, they are selling the pretty box and commercially made CD presumably a manual of some variety they can justify charging a fee for that sort of thing. the big issue is that they are using other peoples property, (pictures not software) and claiming them as their own. that is fraud. The nice people have let us use their creation (program) for free for that we give them props and donations if we can afford them but they don't ask for more. The sad part is that this is covered under the GPL and shouldn't need to be reiterated ad nauseam.

      --
      YES, dammit.. I am well aware of the irony.
    5. Re:Philosophical Question by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      I think it's OK to sell free software, under any circumstances, provided you never mislead anyone -- for example, by making it look like what you're selling is not freely available via other channels, if it actually is (it's possible it's not, for example if it's some old obscure software that hardly anyone is interested anymore). In any case, you should also never mislead anyone into thinking that *they* would be unable to further distribute it.

      I don't see how you'd manage to tell just your customers; you'd have to tell the truth about what you're selling *before* making the sale, otherwise it seems clear you're being unethical.

      The businessman example is a little more complicated. In principle, I'm inclined to say that it's OK to buy hats for $1 and sell them for $12, even without adding any value (transportation or whatever). In a perfect world, it would not be a problem: only people who *wanted* to pay $12 for a hat would buy from him, because someone else would realize this situation and start competing for the profit of reselling hats, until the profit is nowhere near as abusive as $11 per hat (as seems to be the implication of your example). This, as I understand, is the promise of the "free market".

      In practice, however, there are many factors that can prevent this competition from happening -- it might be very expensive to start a hat reselling business, or the first businessman might have an exclusive contract with the hat maker, or all of the businessmen reselling hats might agree to fix a price higher than what would be reached by competition, etc.

      I don't think it's OK for the businessman to abuse any of these factors to make more profit than promised by the ideal "free market".

      But none of these complications seem to apply to the sale of free software, so I don't think it's bad.

    6. Re:Philosophical Question by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      (Dammit, I just wrote a long reply to your original post, and now I realize I mostly missed the point -- now I see the point you're trying to make.)

      My view is that, when you buy a hat in the store, you don't necessarily know where the store bought it, but presumably you know other stores that sell the same hat (or a similar, if you're not interested in the exact model). So, you can compare prices and see if the first store is asking for an abusive price.

      The case of the Blender repackager seems (to me) equivalent to a store that sells, at a high price, cheap imitations of an expensive hat, i.e., they're misleading the customer into thinking that the price is reasonable. The analogy is not perfect because a "cheap imitation" indicates low quality, which might not be the case of Blender, but the essential point is that the seller is misleading the customer into paying more than they would otherwise.

  29. Money back guarantee!!! by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    But you're getting a 100% Risk Free Unconditional Money-Back Guarantee, what could be ethically questionable about that?

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    1. Re:Money back guarantee!!! by RicardoGCE · · Score: 1

      The GPL is ethically questionable?

  30. UI Vey by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    If they replaced the "unusual" UI of Blender with something more natural, I'll fucking pay!

    1. Re:UI Vey by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Someone has to do it someday.

      The blender team lives in the DOS days. In their world there is no such thing as a standard way. They just do it the way they feel like. Which is mind bogglingly bad. You can't even select an item from a list with a double click.

      Just brain dead, in no way better.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:UI Vey by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Some say it's a very useful interface once you master it, but for us newbies, it's confusing as hell.

    3. Re:UI Vey by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, nobody will ever invent a 'do-what-I-mean-nicely' gui.

    4. Re:UI Vey by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Some say Word Perfect for DOS was the best word processor ever.

      Even if you accept that they are better in some way, there is simply no excuse for not using GUI standard ways to use simple, standard things like menus, open file dialogs etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  31. Wow... by natehoy · · Score: 1

    This many posts, and no one has asked the question...

    "Does it blend?"

    (sorry, couldn't resist)

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  32. ProFlightSim/FlightProSim... by TSpec · · Score: 1

    ...is doing the same kind of scammy crap to the FlightGear project. They've taken a very old build and are selling it for an absurd amount of money. Some people have been taken for over $100 with the scam. Clickbank seems to help them out too.

    See http://www.flightgear.org/flightprosim.html for more info. If you spot these jerks on Facebook, please report their page as a scam.

    tnx.

    1. Re:ProFlightSim/FlightProSim... by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out above, these are the same people.

      http://www.illusionmage.com/disclaimer.htm

      Availability:

      The site is provided on an âoeas isâ basis. At times, this website may not be available or may be affected by faults or maintenance, or by conditions outside our control. No warranty is given about the quality, functionality, availability or performance of this website or any content on this website. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all warranties, terms and conditions implied by law in relation to the performance of this website or otherwise are hereby excluded. FlightProSim reserves the right to modify or withdraw content of this website at any time.

      You must not damage, interfere with or disrupt access to this website or its content, nor do anything that may impair its functionality or interfere with another person's access to or use of this website or its content. You must not use this website or content in any way that is unlawful or damaging to FlightProSim or any other person.

      Looks like they forgot to edit the disclaimer page when they copy/pasted it from their FlightProSim page.

  33. It IS unethical to let a sucker keep his money. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    He and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  34. Special launch offer expires in Date() + 3 days by dk3nn3dy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This part is awesome:

    Your Dinky One-Time Investment Is Only $47!
    (This is a special launch offer only, we're only opening this for the next 3 days only before the offer closes forever!)
    Thats right. Your investment for the entire course is only $47 (this launch offer will closed anytime after February 26, 2011 )

    Where February 26, 2011 is:
    days = 3; // How many days to add to today
      d = new Date();
    now = d.getTime(); // Add 10 days
    d.setTime(now + days * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000);
    document.getElementById("offerEnd1").innerHTML = formatDate(d);
    function formatDate(d) {
    var months = new Array("January", "February", "March", "April", "May", "June", "July", "August", "September", "October", "November", "December");
    return months[d.getMonth()] + " " + d.getDate() + ", " + d.getFullYear();;

  35. This is a MASSIVE Compliment. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

    The Blender contributors should be very proud!

  36. Re:Typo in summary by dermoth666 · · Score: 2

    Actually the problem isn't with browsers, but rather some Web servers that see a difference between "example.com" and "example.com." IIS is one of them, which makes the "issue" quite visible.

  37. Why not a viable and moral marketing idea? by Clay1985 · · Score: 1

    So the guy did actually make some how-to videos, as far as I understand (unless the videos are also ripped off from the Blender project -- anyone willing to buy them and find out? lol). What would have been so bad about making a clean website to advertise just his how-to videos? Like so: "There's this awesome free software called Blender. It's a little bit complicated, so I've made some how-to videos. You can download Blender for free, and I've provided some supplemental videos in addition to the videos the Blender team has created. If you'd like to purchase my videos, which are more new-user-friendly and go into further detail than the Blender videos do, you can also purchase those from me here." Completely truthful about what the software is, and you could actually get frustrated users to buy your videos. It may even help them out. Woah. Everyone wins? Also, the source link in the disclaimer is a binary file. Even if someone using windows or mac finds the disclaimer page, they're not going to have any idea what to do with that file. Though, if they don't understand what source code is, a quick google search takes you to the wiki page that explains it. Is just providing the binary enough, legally speaking?

    --
    You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. -Plato
    1. Re:Why not a viable and moral marketing idea? by Clay1985 · · Score: 1

      People are disgusting.

      --
      You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. -Plato
  38. The "game"? by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 .

    "...the game,"? What the fuck are they talking about? Apparently they [re]sell more than just blender and accidentally used the same verbiage. Good job, assholes.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    1. Re:The "game"? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      The game.

    2. Re:The "game"? by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think it's the same guy as one pestering flightgear.org guys. See http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/FlightProSim

    3. Re:The "game"? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Yes. They've lost the game.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:The "game"? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Blender Game Engine

      Insert your foot into your mouth.

      Granted, I think it's much more likely that you're correct :)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  39. It's all copied/stolen material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    An unhappy IllusionMage client showed me the full download package, and all (100%) of material has been copied from other resources. The Blender binaries are just renamed copies of blender.org releases. Most of the copied videos are also very old (5-6 years). Probing some of the people who made this material showed me they never were contacted nor gave permissions.

    A fun side note is that the 3Dmagix contact (who at least replies mails, but never updates his site) claims that IllusionMage "stole" his website. Attempts to contact IllusionMage via their website failed sofar.

    Exposing these kind of unethetical practices - which is not a GPL violation - is best way to tackle it. I rather not get into a legal copyright fight... not worth the hassle.

    Ton Roosendaal, Blender Foundation

  40. Not 'selling Blender', selling tutorials by artao · · Score: 1

    This has been gone over repeatedly over at blenderartists.org .... Basically they're selling tutorials (many if not most of which are also freely downloadable) and including Blender, making brief note of the GPL as required. Not quite a scam, not quite legit, but legal ..... but also not really a problem ultimately because, as mentioned, it is NOT the most up-to-date version; nor are the tutorials and plug-ins. Kinda sux, but what can ya do? And who's really going to buy it anyhow? ... meh :D

  41. Re:Why are you all complaining? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    Naturally nobody wants to see other fine people getting ripped off, less so with disfigured work they put devotion into. It feels like a personal attack, no?

    Contributing to a OSS project, you still want to see any money go to the real project itself, to build better infrastructure: build servers, hosting - giving back to the project community.

    That's what it's about: giving back. Not just taking, taking, taking.

  42. Blender Foundation: What can we do? Not much? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    But we can:

    Find reviews for this software, and comment about it. Link back to the Blender Foundation Post [http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/press/re-branding-blender]

    Please refrain from using strong, cursing or bad language if you do. Don't be hostile. Respect FOSS.

    If IllusionMage provides something that users will pay for, then users will still buy it, but at least make them aware of this so they have the option.

    We can't tell users what they can or cannot buy, that is their choice.

  43. 2 hour Pixar course by octogen · · Score: 1

    "Learn how to create cutting-edge 3D animations like Pixar and Dreamworks in the next 2 hours or less..."

    Well, if that IllusionMage homepage had slashdot's "score" feature, this statement would certainly deserve a "+5: funny". They can't be serious!? I've never seen anyone who has created something more exciting than a couple of textured spheres and cubes in no more than 2 hours after starting to use Blender for the very first time.

  44. "resells" by binkzz · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be just "sells" ?

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  45. Re:They have released source code by boristhespider · · Score: 1

    people are getting in a tizzy about the copyrighted images on the site. i think it's a reaction rather than the original reason, of course -- oh my god he's reselling open source the CUNT but i can't complain since it's legal oh shit oh shit oh thank fuck he's breached copyright on the pictures. which it seems he probably has.

  46. Re:They have released source code by boristhespider · · Score: 1

    (also, to be fair, the whole site really has been set up as a scam, and is a typical internet vendor thing. i don't actually like it either. but it seems the main argument people had other than "i don't like this" -- which would be uncontroversial since there's little to like here -- was "he's stolen copyrighted images". which is true enough, but kind of misses the main point.)

  47. Re:Your douchebag's name is Arnell Johnson by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure it's him.
    http://www.facebook.com/people/Arnell-Johnson/1217436323
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/arnell-johnson/2a/bbb/626
    http://swom.com/people/99009-arnell-johnson
    http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Arnell_Johnson#more-information

    He crops up in quite a few strange places. For example, in some of his blog posts he links to angrybirdsgames.com (currently parked) and targetnichemarket.com. These are registered to:

    arnell johnson
    1112 loveland lane
    virginia beach, Virginia 23454
    United States

    He's up to his eyeballs in Internet get-rich-quick schemes. He's the kind of person who's probably totally legal, but will make his greatest and most well-received contribution to this world on leaving it.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  48. Depends on if GPL software is involved by judeancodersfront · · Score: 1

    If the GPL is involved then you will see an angry mob here demanding lawsuits. If it is a case of music or game piracy you will see endless excuses for pirates and anger at any group that tries to take them to court. Contradictory? Yes of course, but this is Slashdot.

  49. Horrible site by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    Don't think I'd be suckered into buying it, even if I didn't realise it was Blender.

    When they use all those caps, bold bits, underlines, yellow highlights, "now YOU can blah" (signed by the director of course) etc all in one big wall of content, unless you're already a known guru who just overdoes this style (Steve Gibson), I will automatically think it's spammy crapware anyway and steer well clear anyway.

  50. it's free...... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

    You mean I paid for something I could have gotten for free???? DOH!!!!!

    --
    FragHARD or don't frag at all