Thanks for the answers, hopefully something positive comes out of here that benefits us all.
Some proposals:
1- Increase detection and control measures.
There are many signs that betray the cheats, you just have to be a little careful to notice. And in this we can all collaborate.
- Users with a large volume of published models / day (with exceptions, such as large studies or portfolio transfers from another site such as TS for example)
- Very low prices or not according to quality (here every time you notice less)
- Models without native format
- Inconsistency in software formats and versions.
- Portfolios without coherence (much difference in the topology and quality of the models)
- Models with logos or watermarks of others.
- Models without clear captures of the mesh or the UV map. Showing our meshes is a good way to protect our models.
- Models of apparent quality but with many negative comments (absence of textures, Chinese characters in the names of the objects, poor seller support ..)
Tracking these points especially in new vendors and models would help a lot to early detection. This is the part that would take more work, especially at the beginning, but once the detection mechanisms are automatized and prohibit returning to the already identified cheats, everything would flow much better.
Controlling software licenses in addition to helping to have fewer stolen models would also help regulate prices.
Something as simple as the fact that the real name was always accessible, would help a lot because it would prevent known cheaters from camouflaging themselves.
2- Improve communication channels for infractions and reduce response time
Regardless of whether CGT improves detection methods, we must also inform when we detect infringements, also the legitimate owner so that he can assert his rights. Logically you have to gather evidence to prove it, but that will facilitate and expedite the procedures (or should). It is necessary to facilitate communication, removing the button to report infractions does not help people to collaborate.
If the infraction is well documented, it should not take long to resolve. As in the previous point, the greatest effort will be at the beginning, but if the detection systems work, the number of infractions will decrease quickly.
3- Harden the sanctions
There may be a penalty period that prohibits opening a new account. This period will be higher the higher the percentage of non-original models and permanent for those who have 100%
You can seek legal advice. There are more and more laws and countries that fight against cyber crime and defend copyright and intellectual property rights. There is an agreement on cybercrime signed in Budapest in 2001 and ratified by 23 countries and surely there are users in CGT from anywhere in the world, we can take advantage of that in our favor and extend a large network to catch all the cheaters, even if they are in any part of the planet.
You can also look if it is possible to create a kind of collaboration agreement with other 3D markets that show concern about the issue. They have the personal data of all the sellers and could cross the data of confirmed cheats, so the effectiveness would be greater. The name and surnames are not usually protected by data protection laws because they are public data that can be freely accessed through guides, censuses ... again legal advice would be needed. You have to do things well.
If it were viable, it would duplicate the resources dedicated, and avoid the swings, because each time they are caught they become more clever and the next time it may be more difficult to detect it. So those who come bounced elsewhere, may here go unnoticed or the other way around.
Noise can be made by sending complaints to internet providers of pirated websites that distribute user models here.
You could create a project, as in the job offers, where to outline the steps to be followed and exposing the progress, with an economic fund that CGT could guard, to deal with legal expenses for example.
@ acera17: what I say is the opposite, the seller is the one who sells the pirate model and the buyer who claims for lack of textures or whatever, but receives no response from the seller, (because the seller is not interested in help, just keep publishing stolen models) and also may not have opened the file, and as I downloaded from the pirate website posted here. It is one of the points mentioned at the beginning, they are all really related.
I think that having more people can be difficult, maybe it is easier to change the priorities, that is, the same people stop doing other less important things for a while, to dedicate themselves to this. It is also important that we all collaborate. What you mention about the verification steps seems like a good idea to me.
@CGPitbull You have to do things well. We can not do the same as them and less if they are the same things we intend to avoid.