Upcoming EULA changes, round 3

Quote
Kraellin wrote: FF for use in your models, if you dont submit them to the FF library, there is no user eula covering you.

Let's be careful with words -- the EULA (End User License Agreement) covers ALL your use of the software. This is usually true for any software that presents EULA to the users before installation.

What you refer to is the Upload License, not the EULA. The Upload License is presented to you during the submission process, so if you don't submit filters, you're not bound by the Upload License. However, the proposed restrictions are intended for the EULA, not the Upload License.

Again, please be precise and careful when interpreting legalese.

All I can say is this should of been sorted out from the word go, as you sell a product and you say the filters are free then the restrictions should of been in place.

I am going to remove any textures that I did not rework properly.
I have a couple that are really old from when I did not know what I was doing from the start, my new texture sets are settings that are my own in filter forge, so they don't use the randomizer button.

You better warn everyone that has bought a copy of this program then, and especially over at Renderosity, I don't have any sets there at all.

They need to know especially some top vendors that your copyright lawyers are about to descend on them

And you better be prepared for massive refunds. As for me I would never have bought a commercial product that had this much restrictions, Genetica does not and for that I thank the guy that made it.

Thats all I am going to say on the matter you legal representation should of seen this forthcoming in the future, especially as you suck in people with the Free Filters to get them to buy the program.

I would of been willing to pay for the filters this way the filter maker also makes money.


And while you at it, you might want to troll through ShareG and get them to remove the countless of free sets people have been posting

Hang on a minute

So you saying we cannot sell any texture sets we make with Filter Forge even the ones I have put my own settings in, as I don't use the randomizer button is this Correct?

If so I need to know and I will remove all the ones that don't use the randomizer too, and I want a refund.

Please answer the question so I can get on with my life.

Therein lies the problem. Even if you take the time to dial in your own versions instead of using the presets, someone is going to assume that you did not.

Quote
3Dillusions wrote: Well I have removed those tile sets too. So what pray tell can we use the program for?

You can use them for any purpose allowed in the EULA. This should include such sites as renderocity. Were I you, I would argue my case with them and/or publish your renderings in other places.

What you are caught in the middle of is the emerging business model of sites setup to sell digital art that rely on the artist uploading the artwork. Such sites includes iStockPhoto, Dreamstime, Fotolia, ShutterStock, Renderocity and a few others. They are able to amass millions of images and do very little in the way of screening uploaded work. Instead they rely on complaints to single out copyright infringements. When they receive a complaint, their easiest way to handle it is to assume you are a violator and take your work down.

Quote
3Dillusions wrote: So what pray tell can we use the program for?

How about making filters and submitting them to the library??

The way I see it, you are allowed to use the photo manipulation filters in your art work but using the pre-made filters for textures for any other use than personal use is going to be frowned upon (and already is by many folk here).

I know people are saying I can make textures for 3D work but these people do not understand how textures are put onto 3D models. Textures are made with a flat image. That image can be opened up by anyone and the textures extracted. Therefore the textures can be used by a third party as seamless tiles. It would take a bit of work on their part but it is possible. I do not see any difference between this and the texture packs 3Dillusions has made for sale.

I have bought texture packs in the past but I wanted to use FF to create textures without any copyright concerns. However, with the new EULA it looks like I am going to be constantly hassled about staying within the guidelines and I really do not want to be known as a parasite, even if unintentionally on my part. Therefore I will stick to just about every other filter on the market (which does not have these silly restrictions) and work happily in the knowledge that my work is completely above board.

It matters a great deal to me that my work does not infringe on anyone else's copyright and the whole reason for purchasing filters like FF is to free oneself of this worry. However, this does not seem to be the case with FF now.

I really do not think FF can survive on the market without having some free filters as standard which can be used without restrictions. Genetica offers thousands of free filters which can be used as is or adapted at will. The filters third parties offer should be extra and labelled as personal use only. Also the bait of free programs for filter makers should be abolished. This should only be for payment for filters which can be used without restrictions.

Also what is the point of the lower versions of Filter Forge? They can only use the filters from the library and cannot even modify them. The filter makers have been complaining about people using their filters to reproduce their textures but perhaps these people have the lower versions of FF and can do nothing else. Labelling them as parasites seems very unfair when it is the restrictions in these versions that have made them produce what they have.

Forgot to add if you need any Tartans I am your girl for textures these are made with a commercial plug in which has no restrictions just look at the other poser stores and you will find me lol

Quote
The way I see it, you are allowed to use the photo manipulation filters in your art work but using the pre-made filters for textures for any other use than personal use is going to be frowned upon (and already is by many folk here).

Yeah, but thats the point of a filter to use it in a creative way, people use them like a design tool and just like effects in PS so i don't get your point sorry, how someone can render out someone elses work and take credit then think of themselves as a good artist i don't know, not saying that you would do this but im making a general reply plus seeing how FF is well known on the web these days i don't see why anyone would want to buy a poser model etc with a FF filter stuck on it as im guessing it's easy for most people to do this themselves, if however you make a nice unique and original filter thats yours and is not all over the web already people probably would be interested in it.

Quote

I know people are saying I can make textures for 3D work but these people do not understand how textures are put onto 3D models. Textures are made with a flat image. That image can be opened up by anyone and the textures extracted. Therefore the textures can be used by a third party as seamless tiles. It would take a bit of work on their part but it is possible. I do not see any difference between this and the texture packs 3Dillusions has made for sale.

It depends how it's done plus im guessing people would want something more complex than a seamless tile put on a model but thats just my opinion.

Quote

I have bought texture packs in the past but I wanted to use FF to create textures without any copyright concerns. However, with the new EULA it looks like I am going to be constantly hassled about staying within the guidelines and I really do not want to be known as a parasite, even if unintentionally on my part. Therefore I will stick to just about every other filter on the market (which does not have these silly restrictions) and work happily in the knowledge that my work is completely above board.

I don't get it though make your own work and everythings cool, a parasite would be someone rendering out others work and taking credit for them, maybe if it was part of a scene say a wood for a wooden frame with a paint material for a door and some grunge filter work for decay and realism effects etc it would be fine though because at least then it's not someone elses hard work rendered as-is and re-sold although one just has to take a trip over to renderosity etc to see how happy some 'so called good/pro artists' (cough) are to do this, so i for one are pleased to know things will be changing with this type of thing.

Quote
It matters a great deal to me that my work does not infringe on anyone else's copyright and the whole reason for purchasing filters like FF is to free oneself of this worry. However, this does not seem to be the case with FF now.

Didn't Crapadilla already say this though -

It should be evident that, unless you happen to be a texture reseller directly selling unmodified or insubstantially modified results from filters on the filter library, the proposed EULA restrictions won't affect you in any way.

So whats the problem, i thought Filter Forge was a program to apply effects to images and 'build your own filters'? if you stick to the rules then things will be fine.

Quote

I really do not think FF can survive on the market without having some free filters as standard which can be used without restrictions. Genetica offers thousands of free filters which can be used as is or adapted at will. The filters third parties offer should be extra and labelled as personal use only. Also the bait of free programs for filter makers should be abolished. This should only be for payment for filters which can be used without restrictions.

Well i agree there should be a set of ready to use filters, i think where FF went wrong is the fact it relied on users filter rather than starting out with a set of commisioned or developer made filters and i think you will find thats what Genetica does, Geneticas user made textures are not free to be used and the artist has the rights to them as far as i know. The free copy program has resulted in a lot of good filters but also loads of not so great (imo) filters too, But remember all programs like this are designed to make your own stuff with but lots of people don't use them like that for some reason which imo gives them a bad name and people parasite and leech off Genetica too but at least there library is not based on user content like FF, it brought good things but also problems and even though theres now lots of content it might have been better with a slower process and quality control plus avoid problems but thats what the EULA will do hopefully and good if it gets rid of people that like to profit from others as thats not the point of the program its a artist and designers tool to create your own things.

Quote

Also what is the point of the lower versions of Filter Forge? They can only use the filters from the library and cannot even modify them. The filter makers have been complaining about people using their filters to reproduce their textures but perhaps these people have the lower versions of FF and can do nothing else. Labelling them as parasites seems very unfair when it is the restrictions in these versions that have made them produce what they have.

As far as i know the limited non editing versions only came recently but thats a good point, imo the super limited versions probably are not worth doing and create issues as you have said.

Sorry for the big reply, and it's not directed just at you btw but a general reply as it allowed me to share my views on the topic.

Quote
3Dillusions wrote: I did all those dial spinning but its still not good enough for the EULA,

----According to every version of the Eula I've seen that is in fact "good enough". Have you tried contacting anyone from FF directly and asking them about what it is you want to do, as from everything I can tell in this thread, what you are doing is perfectly fine and is being done by us all. *shrug*

jffe

I actually modify it allot, not just a little bit but when they Say a blanket EULA statement like No Seamless Tiles may be sold, then for me I have no choice but to abandon a perfectly good program because somebody decided at a later date to change the EULA on what kind of things may or may not be made

For me this sucking in people with free filters and not doing this from the start will mean allot of people abandoning the program.

Quote
Ever seen a UV Map?

Yeah whats your point?

I guess maybe i said something that annoyed you, If a texture that was made by someone else is rendered out and stuck on a cube it's not suddenly someone elses work if thats what your trying to argue?

Quote
maybe if it was part of a scene say a wood for a wooden frame with a paint material for a door and some grunge filter work for decay and realism effects etc

Quote
What you said above does not make sense for 3D model texturing.

Thats because i was not even talking about 3D model texturing. I was refering to a composite of 2D textures.

Ah, then please don't quote me and answer me with something contrary when I was talking about 3D model texturing. My point was that the new EULA may prevent this too and that is what I would have wanted to do with Filter Forge.

Quote
Ah, then please don't quote me and answer me with something contrary when I was talking about 3D model texturing. Big grin My point was that the new EULA may prevent this too and that is what I would have wanted to do with Filter Forge.

Well personally i think making a more complex composite is fine and from what i understand doing this is fine with original or modified content/filters i did not argue this, i said -

"it would be fine though because at least then it's not someone elses hard work rendered as-is and re-sold"

What i was arguing against is when people render a direct or not very edited texture, that part about compositing is what imo i think is acceptable but as far as i know that would be modification making a door etc out of base textures and the EULA is ok with that.

I see that there is still some confusion around the EULA change and we are back to:

"Ah, that means this."

"No, this means that."

"You´re both wrong! That means that!"

My modest advice: wait until OFFICIAL word comes out and everyting is explained by the only people that can do so correctly.

Personaly, I find no problem with the PROPOSED restrictions, nor do I think they will hurt FF that badly in the long run.

Althought Amethyst and 3Dillusions mentioned a couple of points that I also was concearned about when this all began.

Take Tartan, for instance. We have them in the library but there are plenty more programs out there that do the same thing. So when you see tartan textures for sale, you can bet that some people will say: "Oh, they stole it from the library!" Not to mention that if someone buys FF and builds a tartan filter from scratch, then sells the renders, they might get the same reaction.

Another case is that even if users add dials and modify the existant filter, sure enough someone will rise and say "Well, that´s not modified enough!" So the user buys FF, complies with the EULA restrictions and still risks the possibility of having filter authors after them. Now THIS will hurt FF far, far more than the proposed restrictions.

Quote

As for Officially waiting that is a joke, how long does it take to ratify this so called EULA I have had the program for a long time now, every time they think of a new rule change I am supposed to except this, when I bought it they and I quote told me yes I could sell textures, now they say I cannot. I have every right to be angry . This is a program that is supposedly commercial yet has restrictions put on it at a later date, never has I seen this done with any program.

I think FF did the wrong thing at the start all the EULA is doing is fixing that, why should you be angry anyway you have a nice program to use and can build whatever you want with it, or do you mean that you are angry because you can't render out something another person made to sell, and i don't mean to question you i don't know what your doing with FF it just sounds like the reason you are angry is because you won't be able to do this, the EULA won't stop you from making your own content so why not do that.

Quote
To bad I did not read the warning on the Net about this program before I threw my money at it. And as for calling us texture makers parasites at least I paid for the program all the filter makers did was make a popular filter and they got the program for free.

People will call people rendering others hard work out parasites and thats a good tag imo and exactly what they are doing if they did nothing but hit randomize and wait for it to render then sell it as there own. Texture Makers are people building there own stuff hence the tag 'Makers' and it's there work and they can do whatever they want with it. A program like FF is designed to build your own stuff not re-sell others work anyway but you sound like you think have wasted your money on it?

The free copy thing should have been limited time only imo. Seems some plan to make a filter in the hope they can get the app to re-sell others work seems odd, but as for paying for it you got what you payed for a building tool program you are free to create with, theres also a free trial available to see the tools available so i don't get your point if you are a texture maker sorry.

Quote

Genie wrote: Take Tartan, for instance. We have them in the library but there are plenty more programs out there that do the same thing. So when you see tartan textures for sale, you can bet that some people will say: "Oh, they stole it from the library!" Not to mention that if someone buys FF and builds a tartan filter from scratch, then sells the renders, they might get the same reaction. Another case is that even if users add dials and modify the existant filter, sure enough someone will rise and say "Well, that´s not modified enough!" So the user buys FF, complies with the EULA restrictions and still risks the possibility of having filter authors after them. Now THIS will hurt FF far, far more than the proposed restrictions.

Excellent points, Genie. I am still waiting for the answer to your first point. Where does my gingham stand? Can someone copyright gingham? Can I use the gingham I made? There are also very many basic filter in the library and the textures they produce can not possibly be copyrighted as it is quite possible that millions of others can come up with the same combination that gives the same results. I did and I had only been using the program for a day or two.

Your second point makes all of this nonsense and is the reason I am not purchasing Filter Forge. Let the guys (used in the universal sense to mean guys and gals) make their filters. When nobody is here to see them, never mind use them, who will care?

Quote
Your second point makes all of this nonsense and is the reason I am not purchasing Filter Forge. Let the guys (used in the universal sense to mean guys and gals) make their filters. When nobody is here to see them, never mind use them, who will care?

What is that suppost to mean? trying to make the devs feel bad in the hope they make it a 'free for all render crazy, get rich quick money making profit party' won't work In fact it will probably have the opposite effect and bring back the serious texture makers that left due to to there work being plastered all over the net, or maybe make new users feel more secure in the knowledge that this is less likely to happen to them now. Bye bye parasites and welcome back serious users of the app is more likely to be the case, but thats just my opinion.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: [...] the impact is mostly emotional, not financial. However, I still feel that it is necessary to deal with the problem somehow. Due to the Mac version, the whole EULA thing is currently on hold, and we hope to re-evaluate the situation with a fresh look when we get back to it.

Vlad,

if the impact of the problem is not a financial one for Filter Forge Inc., then it might be a better solution for all concerned parties to just drop the proposed EULA changes entirely. The problem could be tackled from a different direction: Orchestrate a broad marketing effort with the release of the Mac version to inform a broader spectrum of people about the existence of the product.

Informed people are less likely to fall prey to blatant texture reselling, and that quagmire will dry out sooner or later. This would also take the 'threat' off of any tile publishers that sell unique work created with the tool, and who might feel discriminated against.

Whatever you do, it should be made very clear here on the forums what the official statement of Filter Forge Inc. is, so that this quagmire of a discussion is put to a definite end (a dedicated sticky & locked thread with a clear official statement might be immensely helpful). Otherwise people will continue to stumble upon the often confusing (and partially inflammatory) threads on these forums regarding the subject, and there will continued doubt and confusion as to the future of the product.

Quote

James, you seem to continually miss the point. That was an example of a very basic filter and was made within a day or two of me having the program. It was not difficult to do. I have no filter experience so must have been very easy! The problem is, if my skills had grown I could quite possibly produce, without even knowing if I didn't check out the libraries, other filters. We have limited tools at our disposal so the results are bound to be repeatable. It is not magic.

No, and i know it was a basic example but the point was stuff like that is so common if someone made something like that and sold it they are not likely to be bothered enough to go searching through all the marketplace sites looking for people to say stole from them.

And yeah i agree a lot of stuff is very similar but i guess you make me repeat what i said above -

Quote
I think the case of people getting bothered is with high detail and complex textures that didn't take 2 mins or less to make. Like the ones that are Featured Filters and you see all over the web because it's ovious how good they are.

So basically high quality textures that took alot of time and effort. Complex stuff built from the ground up is much less likely to get exactly remade unless the person is trying to copy it and goes through a trial and error process to reproduce the look.

And again i don't think it was done correctly from the start due to there not being a EULA like that in place and replying on a user made content library so it was bound to run into problems. What you see is people aware of this that do care pull out and people who don't mind continue to produce filters.

I agree the basic versions don't make sense really with the EULA but im not sure why people would want them too much anyway other than the super low cost. Part of the appeal to apps like this the satisfaction of making your own creations rather than using others to profit which is what im against and i don't think i miss the point at all rather the other way around if i have to let you know as you seem totally against the fact they might change it so you cannot render another work for profit, thats not the point of the app and should not be the appeal, maybe some people come to FF because they read a make fast money on the web ebook but for a lot of people FF is a development tool. Sure you can make simple examples of where there might be problems but basic ones like that can be made in a load of different apps and you seem to just be saying things like that in the hope the EULA will get dropped but it's a tricky thing really as it's quite late into the game now which im guessing is why the devs are holding on this.

Vladimir, it seems like you have three types of users here.

1. Those who wish to create filters but are unable to write a filter from scratch themselves.

2. Those who are more interested in the end result and wish to have a program to help them achieve it.

3. Those who are interested in the end result but also like the idea of being a bit more daring and diving into the filter making process. (I include myself in this category).

The Starter and Basic versions of Filter Forge probably appeal to group 2.

The Standard version probably appeals more to group 3.

The Professional version probably appeals more to group 1.

I have seen a lot of insults hurled at group 2 and 3 but the same could be said for group 1. If they wish to really make filters for Photoshop they should be creating them from scratch. Learn the programming language and build up the filter from there.

To the graphic artist, the actual filter is the code in the example above and the end result is the texture which is just the beginning. They then use the texture in their projects and it is this project that is the end result. The texture making up just a small part of it.

Some people may abuse this but I would be willing to bet that many more people use the filters for the purpose they were designed. Over saturating the market with the same textures is not going to make those people vast amounts of money in any case.

If you bring your changes into force you will have to abandon the Starter and Basic versions or make it more possible to make filters in these versions and then what additional features will you offer in the Standard and Professional versions to attract people to buy them?

Really you need to decide who you are aiming this program at. Is it the filter makers or the artist looking for help with creating textures? If it is the first, allow them to sell their filters. If it is the second, then provide them with some filters they can use without restrictions in their projects with the option of creating their own so as their knowledge of the program develops they will be more able to create their own textures. Making the program too difficult to use to a first time user and surrounding it will legal restrictions will not bring sales and all the bitching throughout the different forums is not a good advert for potential customers.

Quote
Amethyst wrote: Really you need to decide who you are aiming this program at.

Quote
3Dillusions wrote: you cannot make up your mind about this EULA

----I kind of agree at this point, like kinda 75% or so. I've felt all along that the Pc version was just one long "beta", and Vlad's been waiting to promote FF til the Mac version was out (and now it looks like, until they make 110% sure it runs good for people, and until they update the Pc version with the new code they need to get), and perhaps the same goes for the rules/EULA. That said, as much as I am into "post modern pseudo fairness" and all, and as much as I am a filter maker myself with many in the library, if FF filter output cannot be used 100% without restrictions to legally licensed purchasers/earners of FF, then it is a dead program. I encourage Vlad to step up and just say that there are no restrictions on usage except for with the demo, ie = unless you buy/earn FF, then anything output with the demo cannot be used commercially, otherwise 100% of anything can be. End the controversy/questions now Vlad, before it ends your product.

jffe

P.S. You really ought to just put up a statement like Genetica has and be done with it. Maybe pay Crapa/Constantin/whoever a few bucks for some good new filters and let sleeping dogs lie. Hell, put that statement that FF renders can 100% be used commercially, and then put links to Renderosity and Can Stock Photo Inc. showing people who already have used it. That serves a dual purpose, it shows there's not much value in being 90,000th to the free texture stealing party, and it shows on the other hand that yes, they really don't take legal action against people who do that ha-ha.

Vladimir, it seems like you have three types of users here.

Quote
1. Those who wish to create filters but are unable to write a filter from scratch themselves.

Lol so you think that anyone who disagree's with you is required to C++ etc code the filters themselves otherwise it's not valid, ok then from what you have been constantly saying the same applys to you so why aren't you decompiling the code that was used to make someone elses work so that you can re-render it and use it freely.

Quote
2. Those who are more interested in the end result and wish to have a program to help them achieve it.

That applys to group 1 also anyway, people make filters and use them too.

Quote
3. Those who are interested in the end result but also like the idea of being a bit more daring and diving into the filter making process. (I include myself in this category).

Well if your willing to make filters then good, the whole time i have been saying the EULA would be fine if your doing that but you seem to have some huge issue with that 'fact' so im guessing you are already selling some featured filters maybe but i have no idea. You say 'who are interested in the end result' but when used creativly thats fine and i don't think anyones been saying otherwise or by that do you mean someone elses work that looks good?

Quote
I have seen a lot of insults hurled at group 2 and 3 but the same could be said for group 1.

No i don't think so, a lot of insults what using the term parasite you mean, i think i said it as a general term for people happy to profit from others but thats what they are doing anyway so i don't see why it would be a insult to anyone unless they fell under the catagory and was not pleased there little scheme might not be able to carry on for ever, so they constantly keep replying by saying things that have already been said and try to confuse the situation more in the hope it might benifit them. But i don't think i directed my post at anyone directly just using a general term that seems to work well

Quote
If they wish to really make filters for Photoshop they should be creating them from scratch. Learn the programming language and build up the filter from there.

Ok so you want to use filter forge also right? so get coding too then!

Quote
To the graphic artist, the actual filter is the code in the example above and the end result is the texture which is just the beginning. They then use the texture in their projects and it is this project that is the end result. The texture making up just a small part of it.

If it's a small part of something bigger then thats fine imo, i just think it's kind of stupid when people just render a flat seamless tile and sell it as-is thats what i have been saying over and over but people seem to ignore that for some reason.

Quote
Some people may abuse this but I would be willing to bet that many more people use the filters for the purpose they were designed. Over saturating the market with the same textures is not going to make those people vast amounts of money in any case.

Yeah i agree as i have done with some of your other points, so we just have the EULA stop the re-selling of a filter direct from FF with no mofication like has been said over and over, let them be used creativly and then it's all good right.

Quote
If you bring your changes into force you will have to abandon the Starter and Basic versions or make it more possible to make filters in these versions and then what additional features will you offer in the Standard and Professional versions to attract people to buy them?

Agreed the super low cost can't edit things versions should go, standard and pro should be the main versions, in terms of features whats wrong with whats available i see lots of good modules to make great filters with.

Quote

Really you need to decide who you are aiming this program at. Is it the filter makers or the artist looking for help with creating textures? If it is the first, allow them to sell their filters. If it is the second, then provide them with some filters they can use without restrictions in their projects with the option of creating their own so as their knowledge of the program develops they will be more able to create their own textures. Making the program too difficult to use to a first time user and surrounding it will legal restrictions will not bring sales and all the bitching throughout the different forums is not a good advert for potential customers.

There is filters you can use and free to modify, just don't render out as is as said then it's fine, plus what real/good artist would use someones project as there main work? I don't remember any of the good artists i know just hitting a render button, if however they use things creativly in a bigger work it's fine and is using the program as a creative tool which is what im guessing it was originally planned to be for.

Quote

P.S. You really ought to just put up a statement like Genetica has and be done with it. Maybe pay Crapa/Constantin/whoever a few bucks for some good new filters and let sleeping dogs lie. Hell, put that statement that FF renders can 100% be used commercially, and then put links to Renderosity and Can Stock Photo Inc. showing people who already have used it. That serves a dual purpose, it shows there's not much value in being 90,000th to the free texture stealing party, and it shows on the other hand that yes, they really don't take legal action against people who do that ha-ha.

I like that idea, sounds like a good way to show how creative a so called pro/artist is and how dedicated to there interests they are and how much of there hard work and time they are willing to put into things.

Some royalty free commisioned filters that 'artists' can use to express there creativity sounds like a good idea too, then the creators get payed and are happy, and a 'pro artist' can express there creativity and skills by setting a output size and hitting render, great idea.

Edit -

By the way dropping the EULA would probably just mean the thing happens over again sometime or appears somewhere else after someone finds there filter on Renderosity etc plus im guessing theres constantly new users so it could be a bigger issue. My opinion is it should just happen sooner than later to avoid problems, people will always argue against it so just give the rights of a filter to the original creator then it's there choice what to do with the worst thing being someone gets a texture taken down etc which probably happens all the time anyway, plus if theres not loads of money to be made like some arguing say then it wouldn't be the end of the world for them plus the fact that its the users choice means theres less chance there pack will get taken down anyway. And for everyone using the program as it should be has nothing to worry about anyway. But yeah thats my thoughts on the matter in general and the current EULA seems perfectly reasonable.