PDA

View Full Version : Another reason not to buy Autodesk...



Dodgy
09-12-2010, 01:22 AM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine

Just wait till all other media start doing it as well....

Cougar12dk
09-12-2010, 02:03 AM
Well, another reason not to buy any of their software (unless you're filthy rich and don't care what you spend money on).

Captain Obvious
09-12-2010, 02:24 AM
Meh, loads of software companies do that. Even with Luxology, you can't just sell your software. You have to ask them nicely to transfer it. Which they apparently do, though.

Surely you appreciate the difficulty of "reselling" something that is actually just data on a hard drive? Sure, you can get Maya on a DVD from Autodesk. But you can also buy it as a download-only, I believe. How the heck would selling this actually work, if it does not ship with a hardware lock (like LW)?

Nangleator
09-12-2010, 02:42 AM
Come to the Light side...

If this corporate evil spreads, I will live in a shack in the woods rather than comply.

meshpig
09-12-2010, 02:45 AM
Meh, loads of software companies do that. Even with Luxology, you can't just sell your software. You have to ask them nicely to transfer it. Which they apparently do, though.

Surely you appreciate the difficulty of "reselling" something that is actually just data on a hard drive? Sure, you can get Maya on a DVD from Autodesk. But you can also buy it as a download-only, I believe. How the heck would selling this actually work, if it does not ship with a hardware lock (like LW)?

I bought the CS5 master collection recently as a download and yeah it's a funny feeling to spend 4k on something which doesn't really exist... the misers slugged me another $50 to have it shipped on disc as well.

- FPrime too doesn't run on 64 bit mac and I've mailed Worley several times about selling what I can no longer use and have had nil response.

geo_n
09-12-2010, 02:46 AM
I guess if another company steps up to deliver powerful software like AD then studios have little choice but to buy AD software. It sucks I know to have AD monopoly in 3D software especially since jobs depend on what software you use.

meshpig
09-12-2010, 02:48 AM
Come to the Light side...

If this corporate evil spreads, I will live in a shack in the woods rather than comply.

Resistance is futile...:devil:

Captain Obvious
09-12-2010, 03:11 AM
- FPrime too doesn't run on 64 bit mac and I've mailed Worley several times about selling what I can no longer use and have had nil response.
I haven't had any response from Worley the last few months at all, about anything. Which is unusual. I'm thinking of giving them a call, but... can't be arsed.

meshpig
09-12-2010, 03:54 AM
I haven't had any response from Worley the last few months at all, about anything. Which is unusual. I'm thinking of giving them a call, but... can't be arsed.

I got a mechanised response when re requesting the key about a month ago, not sure if I give much of a **** either. The VPR does the basic stuff and radiosity is so quick it's redundant now anyway.

JBT27
09-12-2010, 04:00 AM
I haven't had any response from Worley the last few months at all, about anything. Which is unusual. I'm thinking of giving them a call, but... can't be arsed.

We can't be arsed, they can't be arsed ..... sod it ..... let's go build those shacks in the woods ..... :D

Julian.

pooby
09-12-2010, 04:10 AM
I can't understand why people get so up in arms about companies like Autodesk's licencing.
Yes it might not be an ideal situation if you might want to sell it on.
However, if you're using it to make a living, switching or abandoning software is a pretty rare occurence.

I suppose, for a hobbyist who buys software but then doesnt really get on with it so wants to swap it for some new software, Autodesk would be a complete nightmare.

Their software is aimed at professionals for whom the functionality in the tools and exciting career it enables, far outweighs the annoyance of not being able to claim some money back when you decide that particular career avenue had come to an end.

If the issue is 'the principle', well, I think there are things going on in the world that make Autodesks computer graphics selling policies look like an odd and trivial target to effort your protests toward.

cresshead
09-12-2010, 04:30 AM
I haven't had any response from Worley the last few months at all, about anything. Which is unusual. I'm thinking of giving them a call, but... can't be arsed.


apathy would rule if it could be bothered to :)

cresshead
09-12-2010, 04:33 AM
I can't understand why people get so up in arms about companies like Autodesk's licencing.
Yes it might not be an ideal situation if you might want to sell it on.
However, if you're using it to make a living, switching or abandoning software is a pretty rare occurence.

I suppose, for a hobbyist who buys software but then doesnt really get on with it so wants to swap it for some new software, Autodesk would be a complete nightmare.

Their software is aimed at professionals for whom the functionality in the tools and exciting career it enables, far outweighs the annoyance of not being able to claim some money back when you decide that particular career avenue had come to an end.

If the issue is 'the principle', well, I think there are things going on in the world that make Autodesks computer graphics selling policies look like an odd and trivial target to effort your protests toward.

:agree:

and of late, Autodesk are seemingly working harder than they ever have to deliver advancements and meaningful updates and 'advantages'.

yup you can moan..but well all have choices.
for me 3dsmax is a good choice, so is lightwave...all depends on what you need.

as for the thread title 'another reason not to buy autodesk' well buying it is not the issue is it!
or using it...

it's more like NOT using it...in which case people already know what's gonna happen when they read the EULA but they choose to NOT read it or ignore it then get all upset later on....

Dodgy
09-12-2010, 04:50 AM
I can't understand why people get so up in arms about companies like Autodesk's licencing.
Yes it might not be an ideal situation if you might want to sell it on.
However, if you're using it to make a living, switching or abandoning software is a pretty rare occurence.

You're not thinking big enough. This ruling basically means any copyright owner can now put a license on any item they produce to stop you selling it on. Dvds, books, cds. No more second hand bookstores, dvd shops, or even you selling it in a garage sale. Meanwhile the lessor has no responsibility to you. No bug fixes, software updates etc. They don't anyway, but this keeps tipping the scale their way with no counterbalance to the consumer. If your car breaks down, the manufacturer has a warranty up to a certain time, and then you can get it repaired wherever you like, or sell it if it doesn't suit you. Not so with software. It's an erosion of a right we've taken for granted up till now, and you seem happy to give up that right. I don't think it's unreasonable to rent software, as long as it's actually renting, with all the contract law renting would entail, the responsibility to fix or replace broken parts etc. The problem is they want all the advantages and none of the balances.

jay3d
09-12-2010, 04:53 AM
:agree:

and of late, Autodesk are seemingly working harder than they ever have to deliver advancements and meaningful updates and 'advantages'.


like the useless node editor they introduce with 2011, a big advantage over lw's one

RebelHill
09-12-2010, 04:53 AM
Yup... I agree with Pooby too on this.

But for those of us here, in sydney, denmark, gb... in fact anywhere outside of these "9 affected states"... this ruling is utterly irrelevent anyhow... it may as well be a fatwa!

Dodgy
09-12-2010, 04:58 AM
If the issue is 'the principle', well, I think there are things going on in the world that make Autodesks computer graphics selling policies look like an odd and trivial target to effort your protests toward.

So you're going to roll over until someone threatens your life? Or allow AD to make up their own laws which conflict with actual sales laws by calling it a 'license'. I've protested against other stuff, but I figure this actually might concern people in this industry, hence posting it here. But I guess not.

cresshead
09-12-2010, 05:16 AM
like the useless node editor they introduce with 2011, a big advantage over lw's one

toxik now bundled with 3dsmax as max composite
iray
physX
new material presets that work across apps like revit etc
substance shader
C.A.T intergration
biped [character studio]
solids import export
quicksilver renderer
modeling toolset from polyboost and now intergrated in 3dsmax.


[go z] [works with 3dsmax...still waiting for lightwave ]

Cageman
09-12-2010, 05:16 AM
I'm actually more concerned with AD building an empire of CG-software where fewer and fewer choices are avaliable outside AD.

This has absolutely determined for me that I will continue to support NewTek and third party developers as long as the tools I get are allowing me to do my job.

cresshead
09-12-2010, 05:22 AM
I'm actually more concerned with AD building an empire of CG-software where fewer and fewer choices are avaliable outside AD.

This has absolutely determined for me that I will continue to support NewTek and third party developers as long as the tools I get are allowing me to do my job.

The day someone offer's me a 3d software app that can DO everything that 3dsmax does today and it's cheaper, i'll defo take a long hard look at it...currently there is no option.

note...not just a lame feature list but actually works as well as 3dsmax in production use.

it maybe core or blender down the line..but right now nothing comes within a mile of 3dsmax.

for me it's

features of the app
implementation of those features
workflow
speed
ease of use/understanding
results

Cageman
09-12-2010, 05:38 AM
for me it's

features of the app
implementation of those features
workflow
speed
ease of use/understanding
results

Yeah... but it's also quite clear that the tool isn't the magic button, it is the operator. If you find Max being the answer to everything you do, then that is what you should use. If you have learned to master an application, wether it is LW, C4D or Max, you will be able to put those words to it.

I'm not sure why you would go into a defense mode here, since my concernes are about a healthy and competative CG-market... if AD buys all the competition it will end up bad for the customers. Thankfully, NT, Maxon, Luxology and a few others are still a competitive force out there...

3D Kiwi
09-12-2010, 06:13 AM
Another reason TO buy Autodesk (Check out the video link below)

• Lagoa Materials Multiphysics Simulation Framework
• ICE for artists — a new ICE module menu toolbar facilitates building common ICE effects: particles, deforms and kinematics. Using the menu structure, artists can see nodes and compounds connect automatically in the ICE Tree, and create or modify Lagoa Multiphysics materials and other preset effects.
• Stereoscopic 3D support — new stereo camera rigs for stereoscopic productions and in-viewport stereoscopic viewing of 3D scenes
• Softimage Composite — a high-performance, high dynamic range (HDR) compositor with support for stereoscopic production pipelines; Autodesk Softimage Composite will include advanced keying, color correction, tracking and 3D compositing tools and will be compatible with Autodesk Maya 2011 Composite and Autodesk 3ds Max 2011 Composite.
• Polygonizer operator — will help create smoother polygon meshes for liquids
• Maya nCache — Maya nCache format reading and writing will be supported in Softimage
• Autodesk MatchMover toolset— a high-quality professional camera tracker
• Other enhancements: new shader compounds, ray traced shadows for infinite lights, improved OpenGL sprites, the ViewCube functionality and two new real-time shader wizards

http://www.the-area.com/blogs/marks/introducing_softimage_2011_5_with_lagoa

jay3d
09-12-2010, 06:28 AM
in other words another reason to use cracked AD products (which are plenty and 90% or the industry actually om cracked copies that works even faster) ;)

cresshead
09-12-2010, 07:29 AM
only idiots use and promote the use of stolen software

erikals
09-12-2010, 07:31 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to rent software, as long as it's actually renting, with all the contract law renting would entail, the responsibility to fix or replace broken parts etc. The problem is they want all the advantages and none of the balances.

agree, how can we own something and not be able to sell it?
(is that even possible?)

AD should state what's right, that they're not actually selling you the software, they're letting you rent that particular version for an unlimited time.

erikals
09-12-2010, 07:35 AM
only idiots use and promote the use of stolen software

not true, AD has actually at times, believe it or not, promoted the use of "stolen" software. they see it as a trial i guess, which often leads to the person buying their software.

cresshead
09-12-2010, 07:40 AM
not true, AD has actually at times, believe it or not, promoted the use of "stolen" software. they see it as a trial i guess, which often leads to the person buying their software.

point me to a web page showing that...
you can use the waybackmachine for old websites.

autodesk has a 30 day trial
used to have a ple version of maya
and Have really cheap options for students.

erikals
09-12-2010, 07:49 AM
it's of course not an official statement.

Captain Obvious
09-12-2010, 07:49 AM
toxik now bundled with 3dsmax as max composite
Is Toxik any good, though? I mean... how does it compare to... say... Fusion or Nuke? Obviously it's not a fair comparison because Nuke and Fusion cost about as much as 3dsmax itself. But since I already have Fusion, Toxik would need to do something that Fusion doesn't for that to be a compelling reason.


Though I can of course see the point for people who don't already own compositing software.

Captain Obvious
09-12-2010, 07:50 AM
AD should state what's right, that they're not actually selling you the software, they're letting you rent that particular version for an unlimited time.
Yes, that's how software licensing works.

jay3d
09-12-2010, 07:55 AM
only idiots use and promote the use of stolen software

Thank you!

Lamont
09-12-2010, 07:56 AM
point me to a web page showing that...
you can use the waybackmachine for old websites.

autodesk has a 30 day trial
used to have a ple version of maya
and Have really cheap options for students.All Autodesk software is free to students and the currently unemployed. License is given directly from Autodesk and takes about 10 minutes from application to getting the serial. Good for everything minus commercial use of course.

cresshead
09-12-2010, 08:14 AM
All Autodesk software is free to students and the currently unemployed. License is given directly from Autodesk and takes about 10 minutes from application to getting the serial. Good for everything minus commercial use of course.

Exactly...some people's perception is totally out of orbit to where reality is.
:thumbsup:

Cougar12dk
09-12-2010, 08:16 AM
So would one just contact AD to get a download link then?

I suspect they will need proof of unemployment somehow?

cresshead
09-12-2010, 08:18 AM
Is Toxik any good, though? I mean... how does it compare to... say... Fusion or Nuke? Obviously it's not a fair comparison because Nuke and Fusion cost about as much as 3dsmax itself. But since I already have Fusion, Toxik would need to do something that Fusion doesn't for that to be a compelling reason.


Though I can of course see the point for people who don't already own compositing software.

toxik used to see for around $5000 and was positioned up from combustion
not having used the others it's difficult say how it compares to nuke etc...but as a freeby it's very welcome...no need for me to upgrade my combustion 2 licence to the latest now that autodesk GIVE me a compositor with 3dsmax.

Lamont
09-12-2010, 08:39 AM
So would one just contact AD to get a download link then?

I suspect they will need proof of unemployment somehow?Just go to the online application, if anything stands out, maybe they will contact you. 99.9999999% chance they will not.

But this thread is about this new turn of events with their software. Some of the $100 apps I bought are like this. But I am sure if I emailed some of them, they'd allow me to sell it.

pooby
09-12-2010, 08:58 AM
So you're going to roll over until someone threatens your life? Or allow AD to make up their own laws which conflict with actual sales laws by calling it a 'license'. I've protested against other stuff, but I figure this actually might concern people in this industry, hence posting it here. But I guess not.


I guess your problem really then is with the governing laws, not Autodesk themselves. They can't be blamed for taking a position and letting the law decide.

I don't really understand the logic path you've followed to imply that I'm rolling over until someone threatens my life, so there's not much I can say about that.
Maybe If you really wanted to know all the percieved moral implications of everything you pay for, and apply if necessary a self-imposed ethical embargo on those you didnt agree with , and that range encompassed not only things like like 3rd world sweatshops and child labour but stretched right down to details like software licensing policies, You'd end up having quite a fretful time whenever you go shopping.

If I really could see not only a dry logic path but a likely path from this, to all the second hand bookstores closing down etc as you can, then maybe I'd be a bit more alarmed too, but, taking into consideration a common sense judgement, I'd have to conclude that my alarm-bells-trigger appears to be a little less sensitive than yours.

erikals
09-12-2010, 09:55 AM
All Autodesk software is free to students and the currently unemployed. License is given directly from Autodesk and takes about 10 minutes from application to getting the serial. Good for everything minus commercial use of course.

that's cool, and very good, as for cresshead's orbit, not sure what to say.

Intuition
09-12-2010, 10:15 AM
There is always this, seemingly intended, confusion about this issue.

On one hand you have this idea that you own the software you buy. Which isn't true, and never has been true, and most people here know that instinctively.

What we assume we are buying is the one copy and or license of the software. We realize we can't start selling maya copies just because we own one copy. Software companies were originally defending this right and I think we all agreed that if that right wasn't defended no software company would make any profit or have any success.

What the real argument is over is the ONE copy or one LICENSE that is purchased of the software. In previous cases the courts favored the consumer saying that the consumer is buying the license or copy of the software and has the right to sell that license or copy at its deemed value.

It has now been reversed and will probably be reversed again.

The 11 judge court will overturn this if they are smart. Consumers just have to stop buying software for a short time to get the software companies to comply to this. Really, if you could get people to stop for a month even you could get this changed by consumer will alone.

Our forefathers fought in world wars (bullets, bombs, tanks, planes) to have the rights they wanted and we can't even stop purchasing software for a little while just so we can get the measly $3500 we spent on a 3d app?

I don't mind rewarding AD or NT or luxology for their software but I would like the right and dignity to have some say over my purchased asset.

Hopefully though, before any govt intervention is needed, the private market can beat this with classic capitalist competition. If enough smaller software companies offer "resellable" licenses while AD does not, maybe people will start looking other places. Ultimately this would be the ideal way this problem is solved. In a competitive marketplace. This would hopefully make AD comply after a while.

The only problem with this scenario is that AD has both maya and max which are in such high market saturation that it would be tough to fight. The only saving grace being that max and maya haven't really had huge changes to the overall apps over the last 3 versions that you could still get by with the old versions and just not upgrade.

But, you see the problem here is that I live in a fantasy world where the consumer is smart and would know how to hold a company responsible for product policy. This consumer would reward for smart decisions and punish for stupid decisions. ;)

Titus
09-12-2010, 10:18 AM
I can't understand why people get so up in arms about companies like Autodesk's licencing.

Maybe for a Max license this is non issue, but for a Flame or an Inferno system...

I can remember a studio I was working like 10 years ago, they had to invent a legal maneuver to buy an used Flame from a recently broke company, because Autodesk (or the company name at that time) wanted them to pay full price again.

sampei
09-12-2010, 11:26 AM
All Autodesk software is free to students and the currently unemployed. License is given directly from Autodesk and takes about 10 minutes from application to getting the serial. Good for everything minus commercial use of course.

huh free? you sure? I got teh student autodesk suite (maya,max,xsi and mudbox) for around 100 £ a couple months back...I think it was from escape studios. Well at least the box looks nice on my shelf :D

Titus
09-12-2010, 12:59 PM
huh free? you sure? I got teh student autodesk suite (maya,max,xsi and mudbox) for around 100 £ a couple months back...I think it was from escape studios. Well at least the box looks nice on my shelf :D

As an Animation Mentor student I got my free Maya license three months ago.

Elmar Moelzer
09-12-2010, 01:14 PM
I am software developer and the ADs licensing model is one of the main reason why we do not want to port VoluMedic to any of ADs products.
I find their policy absolutely ludecrous and I would never buy any of their products for that reason, as long as there are alternatives. We explicitely allow our users to resell the software.
If I buy a book, am I not allowed to resell it? Maybe that is the next thing to change? How about cars? Maye I will only be buying the license to drive the car, but I wont be allowed to sell it later? I think that a decision like this, by a court that is obviously victim to some sever lobbying going on here, is opening a whole can of worms. I think it is a dangerous situation.

sampei
09-12-2010, 01:24 PM
As an Animation Mentor student I got my free Maya license three months ago.
and is that a permanent license ?
OT_would you say animation mentor is worth the money ?

Captain Obvious
09-12-2010, 01:54 PM
How about cars? Maye I will only be buying the license to drive the car, but I wont be allowed to sell it later?
I remember reading about an american car company that wanted to put locks on the bonnets and not give the keys to buyers, only to certified mechanics (who would obviously have to pay for it). I can't remember who it was, though, and it was never implemented. But hey, the idea's been out there!


And to be perfectly fair, it's a lot easier for LW and its plugins to be managed in terms of reselling, what with the dongle and all.

Elmar Moelzer
09-12-2010, 02:19 PM
And to be perfectly fair, it's a lot easier for LW and its plugins to be managed in terms of reselling, what with the dongle and all.
There you go, thats why I like the dongle so much. It allows us to do all this and in the end the customer wins.

cresshead
09-12-2010, 03:20 PM
If I buy a book, am I not allowed to resell it?

no your NOT...if it's a ibook or kindle book which is software based like...err..software! :D

Cougar12dk
09-12-2010, 03:24 PM
And AD will respond, "Because we want our customers to pay full price instead of what the reseller will charge."

Oh... I see....

".....and be stuck with the older versions of our software with NO WAY to resell unless we give the okay" :neener:

:newtek: is good that way. I DID have a bit of trouble with my dongle (or so I thought)....but it turned out to be because I had an old version of the Sentinel installed. That made LW think my license had expired. But once I got that figured out, *EDIT* and installed the version in Registration*EDIT* there were no more problems.

Elmar Moelzer
09-12-2010, 03:26 PM
no your NOT...if it's a ibook or kindle book which is software based like...err..software!
This is why I prefer physical books over this stuff. I like owning things. I dont like renting and I dont like paying A LOT of money for something that I wont own afterwards. I also find the way that AD, Adobe and the likes is "selling" their software very untruthful in the sense that they are claiming that they are selling something, when in reality they are not. This is an expensive rent at best and it is not made clear to the customer that it is. I personally think that this is not a good business conduct and that is why I am not doing business with them and I am not going to invest my money into any of their products.

Elmar Moelzer
09-12-2010, 03:35 PM
But then AD will argue that these can be cracked as well.
Which is true of any copy protection mechanism. AFAIK, MAX is the 3d package with the most cracks, so their current scheme sure does nothing to stop that from happening.

Elmar Moelzer
09-12-2010, 04:03 PM
Let me give you another example:
I think that nobody will argue that printed books have been a very successful media. So nobody in the right mind will argue that reselling a book that I finished reading, or lending it to a friend, something people have been doing for centuries, will put publishers out of business.
Anyway, the last book that I read was Ferdinand Sauerbruch: Das war mein Leben". The autobiography of the medical doctors that developed thorax surgery to the point that it was actually survivable.
It is a good read, I an strongly recommend it. I got that book from my father (who recommended it to me) and he in turn got it from somewhere else. The book itself was printed in 1956, just so you understand that. In that time it must have gone through a lot of hands (and it is still in near new condition, really). The publisher of the book, to the best of my knowledge, is still in business and in hundreds of years that book print has been arround, no book publisher has ever tried to prevent reselling of books, from what I know.
So why, why, why, should the reselling of a software product, which is IMHO very comparable to a book, not be allowed? There is no reason and therefore a ruling like this is ridiculous.

zapper1998
09-12-2010, 04:08 PM
I bought the CS5 master collection recently as a download and yeah it's a funny feeling to spend 4k on something which doesn't really exist... the misers slugged me another $50 to have it shipped on disc as well.

- FPrime too doesn't run on 64 bit mac and I've mailed Worley several times about selling what I can no longer use and have had nil response.

you might have to do like that one lady did , she drove her little station wagon, and made a physical appearence. then she filled out the paper work in person.
So she could get the problem solved, after repeated attempts to get a hold of them online and could not. So she Dorove cross country to get er done..


Michael

cresshead
09-12-2010, 04:35 PM
This is why I prefer physical books over this stuff. I like owning things. I dont like renting and I dont like paying A LOT of money for something that I wont own afterwards. I also find the way that AD, Adobe and the likes is "selling" their software very untruthful in the sense that they are claiming that they are selling something, when in reality they are not. This is an expensive rent at best and it is not made clear to the customer that it is. I personally think that this is not a good business conduct and that is why I am not doing business with them and I am not going to invest my money into any of their products.

i do believe you have a bit of a point in that Autodesk should be 100% clear to that of licensing and not buying software.

you are buying a licence to use the software not buying a copy of the software
of course the EULA tells you that but many people think/believe they are buying it to do with what they want but this is not the case as we all know.

i knew this back in 1999 when i bought 3dsmax 2.5 [bought the licence!]

cresshead
09-12-2010, 04:44 PM
And what about music CD's or movie DVD's? What will happen with that. The way this ruling is worded and may be interpreted, these may come under the same reasoning. That's why THIS particular ruling - because of the greed of AD - may be a severe problem for other media in the relatively near future. It's quite obvious that this isn't about any sort of copy protection since we all KNOW that this can be hacked - it's about GREED.



Precisely!

well depends on what apple what to happen...they want you to RENT movies and tv shows from itunes..remember they DRM them too so not lending/watching them on other people's computers/apple tv's

the only reason apple stopped DRM of music was competition from amazon's mp3's really.

so if apple get their way....
books will only be from apple, only work on ipads/ipods and not transferable.sellable

movies will only be rentable at 720p not HD.

music will be over priced on itunes as per ususal.

you may think autodesk is annoying...at least they are up front about it in their EULA

APPLE have a large scale plan...ring fenced consumerism:cursin:

Titus
09-12-2010, 04:58 PM
and is that a permanent license ?
OT_would you say animation mentor is worth the money ?

No, it's a 1 year license but this year they changed the subscription and as a student just go to their site, enter you rname and download your files. And yes, AM is worth the money ;).

Netvudu
09-12-2010, 05:03 PM
All Autodesk software is free to students and the currently unemployed. License is given directly from Autodesk and takes about 10 minutes from application to getting the serial. Good for everything minus commercial use of course.


...:thumbsdow... This is the exact example of Autodesk ways.
For starters, an statement which isn´t true at all. Not only Autodesk software for students isn´t free (when not in production I work at a CG training center) but they just raised unacceptably the price of student licenses.
I know it for sure because the place I work part-time for is suddenly having to face a BIG payment they weren´t expecting at all. The dealer gives no other reply apart from "Well, they didn´t warn us either".

And then of course, some other guy jumps to support the false statement with a

Exactly...some people's perception is totally out of orbit to where reality is.
:thumbsup:

well...reality check guys. You´re in Autodesk marketing planet, where everything is false.

Cageman
09-12-2010, 06:09 PM
you are buying a licence to use the software not buying a copy of the software

The interresting thing here is... why is AD so reluctant of transfering a license from user A to user B?

Obviously because they want to earn money directly. They seem to not think about it further than that. User A in this case have reasons to transfer the license over to user B; be it lack of interest or whatever. While the license transfer will not give money to AD, the new owner might upgrade when the time comes. AD have, in this case, recruited a user that they might never had if they didn't allow for transfering of licenses.

I hope I made my point understandable to everyone...

:)

jameswillmott
09-12-2010, 06:09 PM
So why, why, why, should the reselling of a software product, which is IMHO very comparable to a book, not be allowed? There is no reason and therefore a ruling like this is ridiculous.

Welcome to capitalism. Empty your wallet at the door please.

Now you know why the big companies want to restrict reselling of licenses.

Dodgy
09-12-2010, 06:35 PM
I guess your problem really then is with the governing laws, not Autodesk themselves. They can't be blamed for taking a position and letting the law decide.
They chose this position though. The guy was just trying to sell some copies he'd purchased. He wasn't trying to sell pirate (in the more traditional sense) copies, or even opening his own torrent site. He was just doing what people have been doing under the first sale doctrine since 1909. Things have changed, we can now distribute software without physical media, but the fact that AD wants to push this issue means they surely can be blamed for this. If another company chose to do it, they would be the one with the responsibility, it just seems to be to be symptomatic of AD's view of the consumers of its software.


I don't really understand the logic path you've followed to imply that I'm rolling over until someone threatens my life, so there's not much I can say about that.

You said there were things in the world far more worthy of protest, which suggests you would only protest if you were subject to one of those things. You didn't even say that though, so I guess that might not even be the case. I brought this subject to attention because I was concerned for the ramifications, and thought others might be too, especially in light of other recent trends. If you're not concerned, fair enough, XSI is a good piece of software that's your choice. Perhaps others will think differently given this turn of events.


Maybe If you really wanted to know all the percieved moral implications of everything you pay for, and apply if necessary a self-imposed ethical embargo on those you didnt agree with , and that range encompassed not only things like like 3rd world sweatshops and child labour but stretched right down to details like software licensing policies, You'd end up having quite a fretful time whenever you go shopping.

You're absolutely right, but believe it or not, some people do! They actually choose 'Fair deal' foods and clothing over cheap as chips, and sometimes this pushes commercial companies into doing the right thing. Sometimes they do this without even fretting, because it's right there on the label! It's a shocker! Of course a lot of companies don't, and it's your or my right to go on buying without any thought to the consequences.


If I really could see not only a dry logic path but a likely path from this, to all the second hand bookstores closing down etc as you can, then maybe I'd be a bit more alarmed too, but, taking into consideration a common sense judgement, I'd have to conclude that my alarm-bells-trigger appears to be a little less sensitive than yours.

As it is your right, but who ever said commercial companies ever act with common sense? The fact is by enabling copyright holders to pop a notice into their 'copy' that the thing you're buying isn't yours to sell again, they could hope to hope to stop the second hand market dead. (like they piracy warnings on the front of bought dvds are obviously stopping piracy) Computer games producers have already started introducing steps like one time only activation, or less severely, additional content for the first activator of a game, or online play for only that activator. It has been stated several times by those companies that the second hand market deprives them of sales, whereas the reality is more complex, and second hand sales may even encourage the consumer to buy first hand when otherwise they may have been put off by high prices for games which may only last a day or less.

Swinging the other way, I've seen blue ray discs now with 3 versions included, the blue ray version, the dvd version, and an installable avi/mpg/whatever.

I guess Autodesk must really be feeling the strain on their pocketbooks from all the second hand copies floating around. Bugger, they only pulled in $456 million in revenue last year.

Anyway, like I said, I only really wanted to bring this to the attention of those people who might be concerned, so feel free to ignore me :)

BigHache
09-12-2010, 10:28 PM
For anyone that has researched AD's licensing, it's pretty clear that they don't authorize the resale/transferring of a license. Someone buys an old disc of AutoCAD R14, installs it, and can't upgrade it or even open newer DWG files. It's pretty much useless. Is someone actually doing production work with this? I doubt it. What unseen enemy is AD actually fighting here?

For the original issue with Mr. Vernor, I don't think AD forcing the absence of a man's entire monthly income was justified. Neither do I think how eBay responded with AD was justified. AD should have contacted Mr. Vernor directly, with a cease and desist notice if they were so upset about it. Really, what did this guy sell an R14 disc for, $50 at most? Oh my goodness AD might go bankrupt.

AD blew this whole thing way out of proportion I and do hope it adversely affects them.

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 02:46 AM
The interresting thing here is... why is AD so reluctant of transfering a license from user A to user B?

Because without a dongle it is much harder to control and track where the licenses go, if you just allow people to resell them like that.

Autodesk and Adobe are in control of their respective markets. Because of that, they can get away with things, that I personally consider incredible.
The other problem is that their competition is not creative enough to see a niche in providing less restrictive and more userfriendly licensing schemes and if they do, many customers are expecting the same crap that AD and Adobe do anyway and wont even realize the advantage.
Even on this board, I hear people wanting a system like Adobe has. Clearly not a well informed request.
Personally, I think that licensing schemes like those used by Adobe, Autodesk and others, actually cause more pirating than less. Same for music and vidoes. I have a very large collection of DVDs and CDs. They do represent a value (at least for me). I can - theoretically- always go and sell them, or borrow some to a friend. I dont think that I would have spent that much money on them, if I was not able/allowed to do that anymore.

Now, some Autodesk software costs as much as a small car. Imagine not being able to sell your car, once you want to move on to a new model (or a model by a competitor). It is in a sense the same thing. The car is the intellectual property of the manufacturer, but the actual car is still yours.
I can assure you that no car manufacturer would get away with simply licensing the car to the driver. Why? Because there is plenty of competition that wont do the same crap.

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 02:46 AM
For anyone that has researched AD's licensing, it's pretty clear that they don't authorize the resale/transferring of a license.
Yes and that is a bad thing, IMHO.

cresshead
09-13-2010, 03:02 AM
just to throw a handful of loose soil into the pond...

Autodesk have in the past transferred licences, a student of mine bought a second hand 3dsmax licence and Autodesk transferred it to him.

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 03:11 AM
I can assure you that no car manufacturer would get away with simply licensing the car to the driver.
Actually... if I got upgrades along the way.... :D
Then again, there are system that do just that, car shares or even just plain simple rented cars (the equivalent of pay-per-use software).

Cheers,
Mike

meshpig
09-13-2010, 03:16 AM
Welcome to capitalism. Empty your wallet at the door please.

Now you know why the big companies want to restrict reselling of licenses.

... "Ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property"... the thing about software is so much the better if the property is "intellectual" as if to crystallise the saying "possession is nine tenths of the law".

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 04:30 AM
Actually... if I got upgrades along the way....
Why? You can always sell your old model and "upgrade" to a new one. Looking at the cost difference that results from that, you pay about an equal percentage you are pay to upgrade your software now.
A car also is the intellectual property of the manufacturer, yet I dont have stupid laws like that.

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 04:35 AM
A car also is the intellectual property of the manufacturer, yet I dont have stupid laws like that.
Maybe it's because you're not licensing a car for use either...

And even for CDs/DVDs you're not entirely free on what to do with them either, there's still licensing restrictions (such as renting, public performance or broadcasting, just to mention a few on the first CD that I grabbed).

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 05:11 AM
Maybe it's because you're not licensing a car for use either...
Yeah, because you actually OWN the car, like you should actually OWN the software package that you BOUGHT. What is the difference between the car and the software package?
A car is the intellectual property of the manufacturer, just like the software is. I am not allowed to make a copy of the car, either. That is fine, but I am allowed to resell it, even to rent it out, if I want to. I can not use it myself, while I am doing that, so it is my own loss, no?
Now the car manufacturers might argue that they are loosing business because I am renting out my car to people, instead of them having to buy it. But they dont? Why? Please someone explain to me the difference, because I do not get it. I just dont. I am a software developer myself and I dont get it.


And even for CDs/DVDs you're not entirely free on what to do with them either, there's still licensing restrictions (such as renting, public performance or broadcasting, just to mention a few on the first CD that I grabbed).

Yes, the public performance and renting makes sense, to some extent, though I do not find them 100% aggreeable either.
Strangely enough it is perfectly legal to rent out books. I wonder why that is.
I, for myself anyway, have decided that I do not want a Kindle, or crap like that. I will continue to buy physical books. They cause me a lot less anger and griev than this stupid digital crap with its stupid and pointless laws.

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 05:18 AM
Do you pay for loaning a book at the library? Or are you thinking about actual renting of books? Because I've never heard of that. That of course does not mean it couldn't exist somewhere.

Captain Obvious
09-13-2010, 05:20 AM
The problem with this debate is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have physical property rights at the same time as intellectual property rights. They're mutually exclusive.

If I have full unrestricted ownership of every physical object in my possession, that means I can do whatever I want with the data on said objects. If I can claim ownership of abstractions like information, patterns or methods, that means that I'm denying other people ownership of their physical property.

You cannot have a system of law that respects both physical and abstract property "rights," it simply does not work. So we have some weird compromise. I'm not convinced it works very well at the moment, but both the extremes make even less sense than the current mess.

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 05:21 AM
Do you pay for loaning a book at the library?
Depending on the library, yes and that is perfectly OK. Strangely enough the publishers of these books that you can rent out at the libraries are not whining and complaining and crying foul and claiming to go bankrupt any day now because of the evil libraries renting out their books.

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 05:23 AM
You cannot have a system of law that respects both physical and abstract property "rights," it simply does not work. So we have some weird compromise. I'm not convinced it works very well at the moment, but both the extremes make even less sense than the current mess.

Again, it works for books and it has worked for books for centuries. Now please explain to me, why all of a sudden a written content, like a software is so very different?
It is not, it is just made that way by certain interest groups that have found a very convenient way to maximize their profit without having to invest any additional work. Perfect plan!

meshpig
09-13-2010, 05:28 AM
Maybe it's because you're not licensing a car for use either...

And even for CDs/DVDs you're not entirely free on what to do with them either, there's still licensing restrictions (such as renting, public performance or broadcasting, just to mention a few on the first CD that I grabbed).

Cheers,
Mike

That's a facile argument because DVD's don't have an innate or use value much beyond their prescribed purpose whereas cars and software obviously do.

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 05:47 AM
Depending on the library, yes and that is perfectly OK. Strangely enough the publishers of these books that you can rent out at the libraries are not whining and complaining and crying foul and claiming to go bankrupt any day now because of the evil libraries renting out their books.

I was merely baffled by reading that you pay to take a book out at the library :)

I don't know how the library system works, but I am fairly sure that here, they get money from the state to pay for the books they buy and loan out and to run the place. Might be another story in the capitol though. Over there they fling money at any damned thing.

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 05:49 AM
That's a facile argument because DVD's don't have an innate or use value much beyond their prescribed purpose whereas cars and software obviously do.
Such as? What value does software have beyond its prescribed purpose?

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 06:11 AM
I don't know how the library system works, but I am fairly sure that here, they get money from the state to pay for the books they buy and loan out and to run the place. Might be another story in the capitol though. Over there they fling money at any damned thing.

It completely depends on the library. There are public libraries and private libraries and some charge, others dont. You can be sure though that someone pays the salary of the librarians...

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 06:17 AM
Ah, yes... of course :)

I haven't heard of privately owned libraries that are accessible to the public before. Not in Denmark. But that (again) doesn't mean they don't exist and (again) they might be somewhere far, far away from me. Who knows...maybe mr. Banana?

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 06:20 AM
Some of the most impressive libraries of Austria are owned by the catholic church (in several abbies across the country). There is limited public access to their content....

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 06:29 AM
Ah, well I suppose they have to get money for maintaining buildings from somewhere.

Our libraries get them from the state, and the state of course get the money via taxes.

Anyway...back to the AD discussion :)

Dodgy
09-13-2010, 07:28 AM
And you have of course your standard video rental place. They pay a higher value for their dvds than normal, for the pleasure of lending them out. Whether that keeps going is doubtful, but I like going to them to find odd things I haven't heard of let alone seen, so I hope there's a place for them!

meshpig
09-13-2010, 09:09 AM
Such as? What value does software have beyond its prescribed purpose?

Cheers,
Mike

Prescribe as in authorise. An unauthorised DVD is a frisbee if you can't use it, unauthorised software or an unlicensed car on the other hand are still usable.

meshpig
09-13-2010, 09:40 AM
And you have of course your standard video rental place. They pay a higher value for their dvds than normal, for the pleasure of lending them out. Whether that keeps going is doubtful, but I like going to them to find odd things I haven't heard of let alone seen, so I hope there's a place for them!

The "NBN" man, bjesus you live here!!?:)

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 09:42 AM
Prescribe as in authorise. An unauthorised DVD is a frisbee if you can't use it, unauthorised software or an unlicensed car on the other hand are still usable.
Unauthorised software doesn't run, nor does a car unless you short-circuit it (or whatever you can do to more modern cars).

I do wonder what an unauthorised audio CD looks like though...

Cheers,
Mike

Shnoze Shmon
09-13-2010, 10:06 AM
This decision was made by the 9th "Circus" court. It goes without saying if Tyranny has a side their on it.

Not only is their a cost to AD student licenses, but the student license come with a built in virus. I had an AutoCADD 2000 student license for college courses I was taking. It printed "Made with student license not for commercial use." on the boarder of every drawing. OK, no big deal. Asked someone with a commercial license (at a large corporation)to print a DWG on their big plotter for me. It printed the statement on the boarder, ok no big deal. But then that statement started printing on ALL the drawings from at least that computer (cant remember if he said it was network wide or not). It took his companies techs over six hours to fix the problem (which had every characteristic of a virus.)





Welcome to capitalism. Empty your wallet at the door please.




So very true. AKA... GREED without integrity.

This is NOT capitalism! Capitalism can fix this issue if the market is allowed to work properly.



... "Ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property"... the thing about software is so much the better if the property is "intellectual" as if to crystallise the saying "possession is nine tenths of the law".

That's why calling it "intellectual" is a fallacy that needs to be corrected. This would make it clear the "copy" of the software IS owned by the consumer.



Why? You can always sell your old model and "upgrade" to a new one. Looking at the cost difference that results from that, you pay about an equal percentage you are pay to upgrade your software now.
A car also is the intellectual property of the manufacturer, yet I dont have stupid laws like that.

A car is NOT "intellectual" property, and neither is software.



The problem with this debate is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have physical property rights at the same time as intellectual property rights. They're mutually exclusive.

If I have full unrestricted ownership of every physical object in my possession, that means I can do whatever I want with the data on said objects. If I can claim ownership of abstractions like information, patterns or methods, that means that I'm denying other people ownership of their physical property.

You cannot have a system of law that respects both physical and abstract property "rights," it simply does not work. So we have some weird compromise. I'm not convinced it works very well at the moment, but both the extremes make even less sense than the current mess.

The abstract so called "rights" need to be done away with simply because they ARE abstract and software is a concrete product. You can have it in your possession and it can be used to produce measurable benefits.

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 10:11 AM
This is NOT capitalism! Capitalism can fix this issue if the market is allowed to work properly.
But it is. Capitalism is based on the concept of ownership of capital - and that goes beyond purely physical means.

You're free to purchase from another vendor though or even develop your own competing product with any license terms you'd want to attach. Look at Blender as an example.
In that sense the ruling has strengthened the idea of capitalism, as it put an emphasis on the ownership of the product and the rights of the manufacturer.

Cheers,
Mike

meshpig
09-13-2010, 10:48 AM
I do wonder what an unauthorised audio CD looks like though...

Cheers,
Mike

Me too but black to air would be a start.

Intuition
09-13-2010, 12:56 PM
A Capitalist market does allow for the ownership and that can go to both the owner of software on OR licenses. In this case the rights of having somthing of value that you actually purchase and own is the right to use ONE license and the ability to sell that ONE license.

The govt can come in and help companies decide if they are allowed to limit/extend this concept. Overall, AD can probably put the limit of resell on thier licenses within legal means and the only way that it would be reversed is if the market shifted to purchasing software that allowed for resell of aquired licenses. IF people stopped buying AD until they allowed for resell of license I guarantee they would reverse the policy really fast.

That is the power of Capitalism. The consumer can really decide what they want to feed into. But, this kind of power really needs the consumer to be smart and discerning. Which sadly does not always happen.

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 01:32 PM
That is the power of Capitalism. The consumer can really decide what they want to feed into. But, this kind of power really needs the consumer to be smart and discerning. Which sadly does not always happen.
The problem is that both AD and Adobe are almost in the position of monopolists. They can dictate whatever they want. The same government hat allowed AD to do this, allowed them to purchase most of their competition. Bad choices all arround.
I do not see how the forces of the market will ever be able to correct this.

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 02:02 PM
Yes. Of course...I wasn't saying we aren't paying for it AT ALL, just that we pay through the tax and don't have to pay from our wallets. I said so in another post (#85)

Red_Oddity
09-13-2010, 02:06 PM
The problem is that both AD and Adobe are almost in the position of monopolists. They can dictate whatever they want. The same government hat allowed AD to do this, allowed them to purchase most of their competition. Bad choices all arround.
I do not see how the forces of the market will ever be able to correct this.

That we never understood.
We where looking for an alternative for Maya, and XSI seemed like the prime choice, just when we wanted to switch, AD was allowed to take over Softimage/XSI, so basically the FTC handed Autodesk the monopoly position they have right now.

(Some serious 'donations' must have left hands in those lobbies.)

[edit]

Also, are people seriously happy with Adobe license system? Because we get pretty pissed off a couple of times a year when we have to call Adobe to please please please let us use the software we paid dearly for because their license system thinks we used up all of our activations because of a system reinstall.
Seriously, the one who came up with that system should be kicked in balls repeatedly...for a month at least...with iron tipped boots...

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 02:09 PM
No.

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 02:14 PM
No, I think that they just don't really understand what is going on. I truly don't think they realize the potential problems that they have created by allowing this to happen. How many full packages do we really have left? LW, C4D, Blender & *odo? What else is there? And these are all not really companies that can pose a serious threat to AD. Do you think the FTC "really" understands the implications? I don't give them that much credit really. :)
We're talking about a niche market here. Heck, most plugin developers for LW are a monopoly, and the FTC isn't concerned either (same thing, just an even smaller market). ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 02:17 PM
@Megalodon: Read your reply before mine and try to figure it out. Don't be an ***.

Cougar12dk
09-13-2010, 02:21 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood.

I meant no, nothing is free. As you implied in your post.

I am just too used to people not being fully up to speed on what I mean when I say something, at work for example... I work at a Toyota dealership as an extra hand, for various things, like driving customers to work when their car needs a bit of work or driving to other cities to get parts we need for fixing a car.
One mechanic in particular, can sound like the biggest condecending prick, because seldom does he realise my memory isn't as good as it used to be (that has little bearing on this discussion, so don't think that's why I write this) and so he thinks he has to talk to me like a 5 y.o. child for me to understand what he means.
Most of the time he's a good guy though....it's just when he asks me to do something, he sometimes choose the kiddy-talk talk when he adresses me, which piss me off.

Because of him, and various people I meet during everyday life, who don't know me and my glitchy memory and get angry if I don't remember what they said 2-3 minutes ago, I tend to get very defensive for very little.

Again. Sorry for any misunderstanding due to lack of proper wording.

Qexit
09-13-2010, 03:13 PM
just to throw a handful of loose soil into the pond...

Autodesk have in the past transferred licences, a student of mine bought a second hand 3dsmax licence and Autodesk transferred it to him.You are not wrong, I know 'cos I was the person he bought it from and, for the record, I had previously bought it from someone else and Autodesk transferred the license to me at the time too. The second transfer happened way back in 2004 and these were the terms stated in the Autodesk License Transfer Request Form:

'Autodesk Ltd

<Address and phone numbers deleted>

REQUEST FOR LICENSE TRANSFER

REGISTERED END-USER (“TRANSFEROR”) hereby waives all rights, including those under the Autodesk, Inc. Software License Agreement, to posses and use the Autodesk software product listed on the reverse side of this form. Transferor hereby relinquishes all rights to use the above-mentioned software and certifies that s/he has removed the software from his/her computer, and has surrendered to the Transferee below all media and documentation which accompanied the original Autodesk software product. Transferor also warrants that s/he has the authority to request this license transfer. The limitations of liability appearing in the Software License Agreement shall survive this transfer.

NEW END-USER (“TRANSFEREE”) acknowledges that it has lawfully acquired the software product listed on the reverse side of this form, and hereby assumes and shall comply with all the obligations contained in the Autodesk, Inc. Software License Agreement (a copy of which has been provided by Transferor). To the extent permitted by law, Transferee waives any and all rights make any claims against Autodesk or its affiliates of any nature, and waives the warranty provisions in the Autodesk Software License Agreement.

Approval of this Transfer Request is subject to Autodesk’s sole discretion. In the event Autodesk disapproves this transfer request, the foregoing waiver and assumption of rights and obligations shall be null and void and the Transferee shall return the Autodesk software product to the Transferor.

AUTODESK RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT LICENSE TRANSFER REQUESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS POLICIES.'

However, they refused to transfer the license for a third time when the person I sold it to came to try and part with it. It was 3DMax 3.1 and Character Studio which I sold back in 2004 when they still used a parallel port dongle. Sad person that I am, I still have copies of all of the associated documentation :screwy:

Elmar Moelzer
09-13-2010, 03:13 PM
I don't think that ANY plugin developers make the kind of money that AD does. Niche market it may be, but it is a BIG market in terms of cash.

I think that the market requirements for plugins are easy enough to allow a good and steady flow of competition whereever a possibility exists to make money.

The situation for software like LW, MAX, MAYA, or also products like AutoCAD and Photoshop is very different. Here we have a large amount of know how and a rather big workforce of experts that is necessary to make a product and even then it takes years (as we could all observe in recent examples).
In addition to this the market is actually already pretty crowded. I dont think that there is room for much more software in this market and quite frankly, Autodesk owns 3 of the 6 top products. You would have a hard time finding investors willing to invest into a new product for this market.
This causes a very difficult situation for the consumer. On one had consumers are unhappy with the situation, on the other, they are facing limited choices for alternatives. It is a shame that NT has been unable to take advantage of this situation.

Captain Obvious
09-13-2010, 04:41 PM
Again, it works for books and it has worked for books for centuries. Now please explain to me, why all of a sudden a written content, like a software is so very different?
Because when you can copy and distribute something for free and with no quality loss, the idea of a book being a physical thing goes out the window.

Captain Obvious
09-13-2010, 04:50 PM
(...) Autodesk owns 3 of the 6 top products.
Those six being... which ones, out of curiosity? Maya, Max and XSI obviously being owned by Autodesk, but the other three? Lightwave, Houdini and... Cinema 4D? Blender? EIAS? :D

Netvudu
09-13-2010, 05:08 PM
Those six being... which ones, out of curiosity? Maya, Max and XSI obviously being owned by Autodesk, but the other three? Lightwave, Houdini and... Cinema 4D? Blender? EIAS? :D


pssst, you don´t call it XSI, you call him Dr.Jones....uh...I mean, Softimage.

But don´t worry, even Autodesk people forgets about it and still call it XSI sometimes...

Lightwolf
09-13-2010, 06:32 PM
I had no idea that Houdini was a complete piece of software - it has a modeler?
Yup: http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=973&Itemid=9

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
09-13-2010, 07:13 PM
Depending on your needs, Houdini isn't actually all that expensive. $2k for the version without dynamics. $100 for the unlimited, non-commercial version.

cresshead
09-14-2010, 01:36 AM
Those six being... which ones, out of curiosity? Maya, Max and XSI obviously being owned by Autodesk, but the other three? Lightwave, Houdini and... Cinema 4D? Blender? EIAS? :D

other 3?...Hmmm


carrara pro
blender
hash animation master?
:devil:

Elmar Moelzer
09-14-2010, 03:51 AM
Because when you can copy and distribute something for free and with no quality loss, the idea of a book being a physical thing goes out the window.
And? What does making an illegal copy of something to do with the reselling, renting, etc of the legal copy of the item?
These are two completely different things. Nobody here was talking about making illegal copies of the item in question. IMHO, this is a completely separate discussion with no place in here.


Those six being... which ones, out of curiosity? Maya, Max and XSI obviously being owned by Autodesk, but the other three? Lightwave, Houdini and... Cinema 4D? Blender? EIAS?

The other three being LightWave and Cinema4D obviously, plus one of the others that has been listed (market share of these is changing quite often and it is hard to know which one is ahead, I would think it is Modo, which is very close to a complete app already, could also be Houdini). It used to be Truespace, before it was cancelled.

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 04:39 AM
And? What does making an illegal copy of something to do with the reselling, renting, etc of the legal copy of the item?
These are two completely different things. Nobody here was talking about making illegal copies of the item in question. IMHO, this is a completely separate discussion with no place in here.
Actually, it does make a massive difference. As the cost of production (or re-production) decreases, the emphasis on usage rights and licenses is increased.
And there's a difference between design and production - i.e. software development is 99.9% design (writing code) and little production (compiling).
Even the book market has been hit by this is you look at the row that google had/has with publishers concerning google books (something that only came up because google has the infrastructure to OCR books on an industrial scale).

However, if you must compare, then compare like things: Downloadable books, downloadable movies and software (there aren't that many boxes you can buy in a shop anymore).
And then look at the attached licenses.

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
09-14-2010, 09:01 AM
Actually, it does make a massive difference.
Not, it does not make a difference. How can the prevention of theft (the illegal copying) affect the rights of the LEGAL user? It should not!
IMHO, the law should strictly separate the two issues. I am all for preventing theft and for preventing illegal copying, but restricting the rights of the legal user will not prevent that.
In contrary, I can even see how it would increase the amount of illegal copies going arround, since users are not willing to buy into such a scheme.


However, if you must compare, then compare like things: Downloadable books, downloadable movies and software (there aren't that many boxes you can buy in a shop anymore).
And then look at the attached licenses.
No, I am not going to do that because their licensing is just as ludicrous as the one by AD and I am not buying into that crap either.
A pure CPU renderer will definitely be more flexible and simpler.

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 11:41 AM
Not, it does not make a difference. How can the prevention of theft (the illegal copying) affect the rights of the LEGAL user? It should not!
It's not about what should, but about what is ;)

If you could easily copy a book prior to re-selling it, the licenses would change.
Actually, if you look at eBooks you will see that they have.
Just as laws have changed to make breaking copy protection mechanisms illegal (in this case mainly pushed by the music and movie industry).

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
09-14-2010, 01:13 PM
If you could easily copy a book prior to re-selling it, the licenses would change.
In fact, you can do that, but books are also very reasonably priced and so going through the whole effort of copying them does not make sense at all. Most software already has some sort of copy protection that prevents the "casual" copying of software, which would be the cathegory, your example falls into.
Also cracked software is readily available anywhere, either way. Someone who wants to used cracked software, can get it without having to go through the process of aquiring a legal copy first, then cracking it and then reselling it. It is a completely pointless exercise to do that. The same way I can get pretty much any book, I want in a "ripped" version, if I want to. Someone, somewhere went through to the pain of scanning in every page and uploading it somewhere. The thing is, that I dont want it. I want my legal software and I really, really like my nicely bound books in my bookshelf.
This is also why I think that purely digital distribution of software is counter productive. It gives people less incentive to aquire the legal copy.
Back in the days, when I was buying the first PC- games, boy did they come with a lot of extras. Not the collectors editions, mind you, the regular boxes. There were posters in there and role play games had maps that were printed on cloth (not paper). There were even little tin figurines, etc. Just really nice stuff. Today, games have not gotten any cheaper, but you can find yourself lucky if you get a DVD- box...
Anyway, to get back to the topic, preventing the reselling of software wont reduce the amount of illegal copies that are floating arround. I even think that it does quite the opposite.
IMHO preventing customers from reselling the product, thus signifficantly reducing the value of their purchase, will do nothing to prevent the spread of illegal copies and it will only anger your legal customers. Thus this court decision was bad, no matter what angle I look at it.

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 03:26 PM
Which is why this ruling is only because of the GREED of AD - plain and simple.
Some would say it's greed that makes a free market work in the first place ;)

Just to make it clear:
I certainly see why a license restriction like that can annoy people and I certainly wouldn't like it either. I've got plenty of issues with many of the attempts to license works already.

However, I also think it is up to AD to dictate their terms. If you don't like it, don't buy the product. If you haven read the EULA prior to licensing, blame yourself, that's what it's their for (which is incidentally why we have a checkbox on our downloads where the license is acknowledged before a download).

Depending on the jurisdiction (which dictates when it comes into play) a license if a legally binding contract between the user and the publisher (or the vendor, again, depending on the jurisdiction, it's different in the EU compared to the US). And in general there is the concept of contractual freedom.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 04:26 PM
AD knows that people NEED their software and has them bent over a barrel - and they use this to get as much money as possible, regardless of the end consumer.
If that was the case then they'd have no reason to bundle software or not increase their prices (or even drop them in some cases).

And they do.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 04:36 PM
But considering the past... i won't be surprised. :D
Well, have a look at the additions to their packages for the subscription release that's coming up. None of them are to shabby. Third party? Yup, many of them. But so what.

I the end it shows that even mighty AD have their limits - or maybe just good business sense.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 04:54 PM
You're probably right about that - good business sense. Give them so much that they end up FEELING like it's really great, even if they never use them. :devil:
See, it's different with LW users. They get stuff they never need and then complain. :)

...and then they buy AD products ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
09-14-2010, 04:59 PM
Ouch. :cry:
:devil: :D

:beerchug:
Cheers,
Mike

Red_Oddity
09-14-2010, 05:05 PM
I like some of the tools we get as a bonus to our subscription on Maya, can't complain about that.
I'm still curious as to how the substance procedural textures are going to work though (my guess it will be rather useless without Allegorithmic's Substance Studio, but, hey, maybe they'll surprise us)
Now the Craft animation tools are the really cool, at least they work as advertised.
As for the EOL crap they added with 2010, Toxik has seen no updates since they first released it as Maya Composite, since we haven't been able to get any versions since then to start up on ANY of our machines yet, Matchmover is okay (i don't think it has seen an update since ADSK has taken it over from RealViz), guess you're better of getting Syntheyes, Boujou or Matchit if you want a matchmover that is being maintained.

Still, if you don't own any of these or similar tools in your pipeline , or if you're a student going freelance or starting your own little company, it is really hard to pass over these bundles.

BigHache
09-14-2010, 11:30 PM
However, I also think it is up to AD to dictate their terms. If you don't like it, don't buy the product.

I do completely agree with this. That's part of what makes a free market what it is.

I don't think AD was right in any form with their recent case. They apparently still feel they are right and should be able to do whatEVER they please, and that is what's dangerous.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 02:56 AM
Well, we here, as a small plugin developer, try to do everything possible to make our customers happy and to treat them fairly. I think- and I am quite proud of that- that we do succeed at that. I just want to treat our customers the same way I would want to be treated as a customer of any other software company. I think that this is a good philosopy and if we, as a small company can do that, so should Autodesk. To us here, the customer is king, for Autodesk it seems more like the other way round: They dictate their customers with an iron fist. That just does not seem right.
It is quite amazing how willing to suffer AD and Adobe customers are, that they will willingly accept, sometimes even defend, this sort of treatment. Like cattle willingly going to the sloughterhouse, really.
I for my part will rather quit this industry all together than accept such a treatment for lack of an alternative.

Red_Oddity
09-15-2010, 03:09 AM
Well, we here, as a small plugin developer, try to do everything possible to make our customers happy and to treat them fairly. I think- and I am quite proud of that- that we do succeed at that. I just want to treat our customers the same way I would want to be treated as a customer of any other software company. I think that this is a good philosopy and if we, as a small company can do that, so should Autodesk. To us here, the customer is king, for Autodesk it seems more like the other way round: They dictate their customers with an iron fist. That just does not seem right.
It is quite amazing how willing to suffer AD and Adobe customers are, that they will willingly accept, sometimes even defend, this sort of treatment. Like cattle willingly going to the sloughterhouse, really.
I for my part will rather quit this industry all together than accept such a treatment for lack of an alternative.

When every serious univiersity and Arts school teaches with Adobe and ADSK tools only, i don't think much will change.
Sure you can try using other software during or after school, but that is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot on the job market.

And Adobe and ADSK have an even bigger iron fist when it comes to schooling (almost to the point of unfair use of their monopoly positions)

meshpig
09-15-2010, 03:25 AM
Well, we here, as a small plugin developer, try to do everything possible to make our customers happy and to treat them fairly. I think- and I am quite proud of that- that we do succeed at that. I just want to treat our customers the same way I would want to be treated as a customer of any other software company. I think that this is a good philosopy and if we, as a small company can do that, so should Autodesk. To us here, the customer is king, for Autodesk it seems more like the other way round: They dictate their customers with an iron fist. That just does not seem right.
It is quite amazing how willing to suffer AD and Adobe customers are, that they will willingly accept, sometimes even defend, this sort of treatment. Like cattle willingly going to the sloughterhouse, really.
I for my part will rather quit this industry all together than accept such a treatment for lack of an alternative.

The expression around here is the big firms "think their a** is so high off the ground... so high off the ground they can't be kicked". The car industry too makes me want to walk or catch public transport...:)

pooby
09-15-2010, 04:05 AM
It is quite amazing how willing to suffer AD and Adobe customers are, that they will willingly accept, sometimes even defend, this sort of treatment. Like cattle willingly going to the sloughterhouse, really.


This whole Autodesk thing. I felt like 'BOOOO' when XSI joined autodesk, but to be honest, it hasn't made a scrap of difference to me and I have realised that my 'boo' attitude was really me just being swept along with the general consensus.
I have no basis for attitude toward Autodesk except through others going on and on without cease upon about how terrible they are. And personal experience hasn't really backed that up.
I'm not defending them. Quite frankly I have no reason to feel anything one way or the other. What really IS bad though is people missing out on great sofware just becasue they anticipate that they might have problems with some big company, based upon the general noise they hear about them in forums.
I know its fashionable to knock down the top dog. Apple was all cool until they got big and successful. Now the 'militant, Big company X SUCK' brigade have turned on them too.

"Like cattle willingly going to the sloughterhouse" my arse.

For goodness sake. Its not the 3rd Reich. Get a bit of perspective.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 04:38 AM
What really IS bad though is people missing out on great sofware just becasue they anticipate that they might have problems with some big company, based upon the general noise they hear about them in forums.

Sorry, but I just can not agree with that. I think it is a stupid attitude and the reason why AD is so successful even though they are treating their customers, quite frankly, like ****!


Apple was all cool until they got big and successful.
Never bought into the whole Apple thing. Actually, to me they have become more attractive recently, since they finally are about to get a marketshare that makes developing for them interesting.
They are in no way better than MS though (and I would never claim they are, nor have I ever).


And personal experience hasn't really backed that up.
Good for you. Others obviously have had very different experiences from you.
IMHO, you are just nice talking things for yourself ("it wont be that bad"), to supress your fear of having made a bad investment with XSI.
Sorry to say that.

robertoortiz
09-15-2010, 04:51 AM
There is an old internet axiom that when a thread has run it course, the Nazi are brought up.

Anyway...
:)


There are many rational reasons why a lot of people don't like Autodesk.
If we want to hear a community controlled by them with a ton of grumbling
Lets start with the easy one:
Monopoly (it is not only a game)
A lot of people have a problem with the idea of dealing with a monolithic monopoly that can dictate at a whim the trends of the market, instead of the market guiding them. (for an example of this practice look at the total control of Autocad has had on that market, and how they are looking to dictate the next gen architecture format ). There is a reason why Google sketchup is catching on in the architecture circles.

Hell even Microsoft, the big bad guys for a lot of folks, had to deal with Linux and Apple back in 90's.

Innovation through acquisition (Aka the brute force approach)

This company has done the tried and true practice of innovation through acquisition.
Maya, Motion Builder,Studio Tools, Mudbox, Softimage all were technologies that were brought in, not developed in house.
Nothing wrong with this, but lets no lose sight that their core their "babies" are Autocad, and Max.


There are other reason that I can bring up like
Licensing scheme
Software audits

and the big one...

Honestly what is the big deal of supporting a bit of competition?

But I have to get back to work.

Later,



-R

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 05:42 AM
There is an old internet axiom that when a thread has run it course, the Nazi are brought up.
True, I hate it when that happens.


This company has done the tried and true practice of innovation through acquisition.
Maya, Motion Builder,Studio Tools, Mudbox, Softimage all were technologies that were brought in, not developed in house.
Nothing wrong with this, but lets no lose sight that their core their "babies" are Autocad, and Max.

Uhm, IIRC, the old 3d Studio was developed by Autodesk, while MAX was originally developed by Kinetix(?) and bought by Autodesk...
A few years later, the "Dreamteam" (the developers of Max) sold themselves on Ebay, because Autodesk had fired them all.
That is, if my memory serves me right (which I am not always sure about lately).

pooby
09-15-2010, 05:42 AM
to supress your fear of having made a bad investment with XSI.


You could not be further from the Truth and I could not be more delighted in my investment or more excited about its future.

As you so rudely remarked about my 'stupid opinion',
I presume that you think that I should have boycotted Autodesk products and stuck with Lightwave for all my needs?

Thats a rhetorical question. I couldnt possibly have stuck with Lightwave any longer. Although looking back. I did try to for about 5 years after I noticed the defiencies in the CA toolset. I will admit that, that WAS stupid.

Lamont
09-15-2010, 06:14 AM
This whole Autodesk thing. I felt like 'BOOOO' when XSI joined autodesk, but to be honest, it hasn't made a scrap of difference to me and I have realized that my 'boo' attitude was really me just being swept along with the general consensus.Agreed. I knew of the EULA before I went from Maya 8.5(Alias) to 2009(Autodesk). I really just don't care. There's work to be done. I had that "F-you" Autodesk attitude when they got Alias. But it really didn't change much other than the start up screen and color scheme, they started putting some features from 3DS max into Maya, which I think is great. I made the mistake with my 3DS Max 6 lic when they didn't allow previous version on the machine, I got pissed and eventually went to Maya. Now my lic is sooooo far behind, to upgrade is the cost of a new lic. 12lb paperweight (books and box). I would throw it away but that big arse blue box set me back $4,200. I'd probably be a 3DS Max/LW user if I had kept my cool that week.:devil::devil:

Quite frankly I have no reason to feel anything one way or the other. What really IS bad though is people missing out on great software just because they anticipate that they might have problems with some big company, based upon the general noise they hear about them in forums.An attitude like this is to be expected on software specific forums. But, I must admit, my attitude was like this in the beginning. :thumbsup:

Lightwolf
09-15-2010, 06:18 AM
Uhm, IIRC, the old 3d Studio was developed by Autodesk, while MAX was originally developed by Kinetix(?) and bought by Autodesk...

Not quite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUIi7zo04RA

Cheers,
Mike

Titus
09-15-2010, 08:14 AM
As you so rudely remarked about my 'stupid opinion',
I presume that you think that I should have boycotted Autodesk products and stuck with Lightwave for all my needs?


How can anyone think you have stupid opinions when clearly you know what you're talking about. Greg Mutt is a very solid argument.

robertoortiz
09-15-2010, 08:19 AM
One thing that should be mentioned there is nothing wrong with the Autodesk Products
Softimage, Maya, Motion Builder, Mudbox are awesome products.
But keep in mind that
Caveat emptor.

-R

Shnoze Shmon
09-15-2010, 08:21 AM
There is an old internet axiom that when a thread has run it course, the Nazi are brought up.


Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi :D:D:D




Innovation through acquisition (Aka the brute force approach)


Borg Borg Borg Borg Borg Borg Borg Borg Borg :D

Red_Oddity
09-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Godwin's Law is still true i see.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 11:43 AM
As you so rudely remarked about my 'stupid opinion',
I never said that. This is a totally incorrect and unfair quotation of what I said.
I may admit though, that I find your obvious promotion of AD products on the NewTek board at least problematic to the point that you are asking to be flamed. In this regard my response was actually quite tame.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 11:55 AM
Not quite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUIi7zo04RA
Ok, seemingly it was the same people behind MAX and 3DS, my fault (its been decades, so please forgive my lack of memory). I was right though about Autodesk only being the publisher at first until they bought it. So again innovation through aquisition. I was also right about them letting go the entire MAX development team in 2004 (you can do a search and find plenty of info on that).
Make out of that whatever you want.

Lightwolf
09-15-2010, 12:01 PM
Ok, seemingly it was the same people behind MAX and 3DS, my fault (its been decades, so please forgive my lack of memory). I was right though about Autodesk only being the publisher at first until they bought it. So again innovation through aquisition. I was also right about them letting go the entire MAX development team in 2004 (you can do a search and find plenty of info on that).
Make out of that whatever you want.
Hm, what's the history of LW like again, starting with Videoscape? .... :hey:

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 12:04 PM
Uhmmm, that was much earlier though than AD aquisition of MAX was.
You have to admit that.

Lightwolf
09-15-2010, 12:09 PM
Uhmmm, that was much earlier though than AD aquisition of MAX was.
You have to admit that.
So? Are you trying to say that NT started the history of innovation through acquisition and was then copied by AD? ;)

On the other hand, the lux team also left a lot later (and the Yost group didn't develop a competing product either).

If you look at the early copyrights of LW, the question of wether NT was "just" a publisher or not gets tricky enough to answer as well.

Cheers,
Mike

robertoortiz
09-15-2010, 12:10 PM
You know what is a good reason for me not to like Autodesk?

What they did to the AGUA meetings @ SIGGRAPH should be considered a sin to the cg world.
Back in the 90's the Alias User group meetings at SIGGRAPH were simply incredible.
(and yes back in day I played with Maya 1.0)
The Sunday before the conference you HAD to be there.
Softimage, was quite aware of this, and ran a counter meeting trying to keep up with them.

It was simply a ton of fun, and honestly they were the heart of the SIGGRAPH conference.
Wavefront founder, Mark Sylvester knew how to showcase Maya..

And the demos by Duncan Brismead were always showstoppers.
(Long, but geeky fun)


And then Autodesk came like a conquering army.
, first the meetings became more corporate (SIGGRAPH 07, the one with the party at the Aircraft Carrier lives in infamy) and then nothing.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 12:15 PM
So? Are you trying to say that NT started the history of innovation through acquisition and was then copied by AD?

On the other hand, the lux team also left a lot later (and the Yost group didn't develop a competing product either).

If you look at the early copyrights of LW, the question of wether NT was "just" a publisher or not gets tricky enough to answer as well.

You are splitting hairs a lot lately, are you?
Anyway, lets just keep LW and MAX out of the discussion and admit a draw here, shall we?
That still leaves a lot of things where AD did innovate through acquisition.
Some of these things actually ended pretty badly and some others were totally run into the ground. Anyone remember LightScape?

cresshead
09-15-2010, 12:22 PM
Ok, seemingly it was the same people behind MAX and 3DS, my fault (its been decades, so please forgive my lack of memory). I was right though about Autodesk only being the publisher at first until they bought it. So again innovation through aquisition. I was also right about them letting go the entire MAX development team in 2004 (you can do a search and find plenty of info on that).
Make out of that whatever you want.

the headline masks the facts :stop:

autodesk moved development offices from usa to canada for 3dsmax and combustion..some moved to another country other chose not to.

there are enough talented people that they could hire in new developers and have for sometime now had THE biggest development team behind 3dsmax ever.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 12:26 PM
the headline masks the facts
autodesk moved development offices from usa to canada for 3dsmax and combustion..some moved to another country other chose not to.

Actually, they fired everybody and then rehired some of the developers that were willing to move to Canada (from Europe, IIRC).


there are enough talented people that they could hire in new developers and have for sometime now had THE biggest development team behind 3dsmax ever.
Yeah, most of them are in India now, IIRC.

probiner
09-15-2010, 12:28 PM
Maybe it's me, but you are being a bit unfair with pooby, Elmar.
I think he (like many other LW users that now use other softwares, with or without LW) promotes solutions to problems he struggled within LW, but now has found a good workflow for him.

Wich is different of what is stated in the Moderation Policy (Promotional messages and material for competing products)

Yes, sometimes some of those users can be a bit rude and taunting, but most times they keep people here honest and aware of whats going on "out there", and that is good.

As for the topic, apparently most AD users here are aware of the terms even though they might not agree with, but they comply and it's working for them.
Let's just hope CORE and others can make a stand, both in policy and in results that can compete more with them. Otherwise, why would things change?

The issue i think i see creative ppl having these days, is to pay subscriptions and get payed with Consignation sells, like it happens with agriculture producers that ship tons of goods to the big resellers to only see the payment later, of what might have been sold. The risk is totally to the producer.

Cheers

geo_n
09-15-2010, 12:28 PM
You are not wrong, I know 'cos I was the person he bought it from and, for the record, I had previously bought it from someone else and Autodesk transferred the license to me at the time too. The second transfer happened way back in 2004 and these were the terms stated in the Autodesk License Transfer Request Form:

'Autodesk Ltd

<Address and phone numbers deleted>

REQUEST FOR LICENSE TRANSFER

REGISTERED END-USER (“TRANSFEROR”) hereby waives all rights, including those under the Autodesk, Inc. Software License Agreement, to posses and use the Autodesk software product listed on the reverse side of this form. Transferor hereby relinquishes all rights to use the above-mentioned software and certifies that s/he has removed the software from his/her computer, and has surrendered to the Transferee below all media and documentation which accompanied the original Autodesk software product. Transferor also warrants that s/he has the authority to request this license transfer. The limitations of liability appearing in the Software License Agreement shall survive this transfer.

NEW END-USER (“TRANSFEREE”) acknowledges that it has lawfully acquired the software product listed on the reverse side of this form, and hereby assumes and shall comply with all the obligations contained in the Autodesk, Inc. Software License Agreement (a copy of which has been provided by Transferor). To the extent permitted by law, Transferee waives any and all rights make any claims against Autodesk or its affiliates of any nature, and waives the warranty provisions in the Autodesk Software License Agreement.

Approval of this Transfer Request is subject to Autodesk’s sole discretion. In the event Autodesk disapproves this transfer request, the foregoing waiver and assumption of rights and obligations shall be null and void and the Transferee shall return the Autodesk software product to the Transferor.

AUTODESK RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT LICENSE TRANSFER REQUESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS POLICIES.'

However, they refused to transfer the license for a third time when the person I sold it to came to try and part with it. It was 3DMax 3.1 and Character Studio which I sold back in 2004 when they still used a parallel port dongle. Sad person that I am, I still have copies of all of the associated documentation :screwy:

How is it that you're able to sell it? I asked at work and the people doing the buying said its not transferable atleast over here. You and cress bought used 3dmax? I'm interested.

Captain Obvious
09-15-2010, 12:33 PM
(SIGGRAPH 05, the one with the party at the Aircraft Carrier lives in infamy)
That was '07, not '05. And it was all sorts of awesome.

robertoortiz
09-15-2010, 01:08 PM
That was '07, not '05. And it was all sorts of awesome.
I was not usre if it wa 05, or 07, thanks for clearing that up. (I fixed it on the original post)
The party that year was great...
Great music, great food, filled, it was so packed that we filled multiple decks of an aircraft carrier.
I am amazed how the irony of the venue of the party escaped them...then again maybe it did not.
After all this was shortly before the Softimage Sale.

Here is the think about that night,
Do you remember the presentation in the hotel BEFORE the party?
And BTW how was the Party this year? Oh I forgot, there was no user group meeting this year.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 01:08 PM
Maybe it's me, but you are being a bit unfair with pooby, Elmar.
Hmm, maybe I was a little harsh and I appologize. I just have a real, real problem with people appologizing for really bad customer treatment. It makes me really upset. I am a software developer myself and involved with more than just one software project and I can absolutely not accept maltreatment of customers, no matter what lame excuse they pull out of their corporate butts. It is horrible customer service and they would have never grown that big, had they done that from the start. No they waited until they were big enough, with almost no competition (and even less that are not equally bad) until they changed their policies.
Again, no matter what copy protection argument you bring, it is nothing but a lame excuse.

pooby
09-15-2010, 01:28 PM
Hmm, maybe I was a little harsh and I appologize. I just have a real, real problem with people appologizing for really bad customer treatment. It makes me really upset. I am a software developer myself and involved with more than just one software project and I can absolutely not accept maltreatment of customers, no matter what lame excuse they pull out of their corporate butts.

I didn't notice you being particularly harsh so don't worry about that.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was apologizing for autodesk though. I thought I was pretty clear that I had no experience of their behaviour either way, good or bad, except for reading about them on forums such as this.
The day I feel taken advantage of I might change my tune, but so far, personally I have no cause for complaint. I don't see how that can be seen as anything but fair.

Lightwolf
09-15-2010, 01:37 PM
You are splitting hairs a lot lately, are you?
Well, the thing is, reading your description of the history as Max on that level is the same as reading that of LW. Simplification can sometimes make an entirely different point ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 01:42 PM
I just can't imagine anyone really LIKING it enough to defend it. But... that's me.

No, it is not just you. It is me too.

pooby
09-15-2010, 01:47 PM
But then I wonder how you would feel if AD decided to discontinue XSI? I don't think that that possibility is too far-fetched. Max and Maya seats probably far outnumber seats of XSI. They might offer you a deep discount on Max or Maya should that happen to placate the XSI anger. They did that with MotionBuilder standard - asking hobbyists to upgrade for $2k to a Pro version where they were spending about $495 for the standard version. It will be interesting to see how certain attitudes may change should something like this happen.

I'd obviously be very fed up if they decided to ditch XSI.
However that's really not likely. I dont fear that happening. It's outperformed all sales estimations lately and it's user base is growing more than ever.
Many of the larger studios are waking up to xsi, mainly because of ICE, it really is a generation ahead of Maya and Max, and will take some time, to be gradually absorbed, but You mark my words, Softimage has a very bright future indeed.

Captain Obvious
09-15-2010, 02:04 PM
Do you remember the presentation in the hotel BEFORE the party?
Possibly the most underwhelming thing I've ever seen. They spent like 20 minutes demonstrating how you could click to reposition the action centre while in editpoly mode. I remember it more clearly than I thought, what with the binge drinking that took place afterwards. I still have the little toy car they handed out (http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=88122&stc=1&d=1284580933).




And BTW how was the Party this year? Oh I forgot, there was no user group meeting this year.
I've only been to Siggraph once, in 2007. I've been meaning to go there again, but haven't gotten around to it. It keeps colliding with other things. This year I went to a bunch of music festivals in Sweden, last year I was in Japan, 2008 I was supposed to get sent by the company I was working for, but they told me a few weeks beforehand that they weren't sending me there anymore. So I quit. :p

robertoortiz
09-15-2010, 02:22 PM
Yep that is the car they gave out...
I am VERY sorry you had to endure that presentation.
(Still the car is kinda nifty)
My point was for anyone who had attended AGUA meetings under Alias,
it was a bad wakeup call of the people now in charge.

Yog
09-15-2010, 02:26 PM
Pooby
It's getting really worrying how much I have been agreeing with you lately, first about Core and now XSI - normally I'm too grumpy and cynical to agree with anyone :grumpy::D

I'm often amazed at how often I hear people say "I would use that ... but I wont because it is owned by Autodesk". My first reaction is "Idiot", you would deny yourself the potentiality best tool for the job "just" because you have an irrational dislike of the parent company ?

I say "irrational dislike", because there is very little to separate Autodesk from other companies, other than they appear to be more successful than most.
Common objections I have heard about Autodesk :
1) They don't innovate, they only acquire. Lightwave 7.0 and 8.0 anyone ?

2) They tie you in with a subscription program. Admittedly it is my least favourite part of owning Autodesk products, but it's optional, and is now being followed by Newtek (amongst others).

3) Customer support is bad. I've actually found it to be far superior to other companies (not a million miles away).

4) You can't sell their licences second hand. I've never actually wanted to sell one of their products, so I couldn't really count it as a reason not to buy the product in the first place.

Elmar described Pooby's arguments as attempting to justify his purchase, but as a user of software from several developers, it's Elmar's comments that strike me as self justification, or at least someone attempting to protect his market :question:

robertoortiz
09-15-2010, 02:35 PM
2) They tie you in with a subscription program. Admittedly it is my least favourite part of owning Autodesk products, but it's optional, and is now being followed by Newtek (amongst others).
:

It is Apple and oranges to compare the subscription model used by Newtek with the one used by Autodesk.

As of now, (and guys feel free to correct me) a LW10 license will not stop working if you don’t upgrade. And you are not renting the software, meaning that the program will NOT require a yearly upgrade (AKA extension money) to continue working.

the only thing that you would be panelized is that if you decide to upgrade at a later version the price will go up.

This is similar to what Adobe does right now.

Yog
09-15-2010, 02:48 PM
As of now, (and guys feel free to correct me) a LW10 license will not stop working if you don’t upgrade. And you are not renting the software, meaning that the program will require a yearly upgrade (AKA extension money) to continue working.

Ah yes, the other often mis-quoted piece of nonsense. Autodesk licences don't stop working if you opt out of the subscription program.
For various reasons I have had to opt out of AD subscription for a while and at no time did my software stop working.
And you more than anyone should know that us users never "buy" software, we merely lease the right to use it. Go read your LW licence.


The Newtek subscription is FAR different from AD. Newtek doesn't penalize you for skipping several upgrades. Actually yes they do. If I don't keep up my subscription of Newtek's Core, it will cost me substantially more to upgrade next time. On the other hand when I had to let one of my Autodesk subscriptions slide, I was allowed to re-start it with minimal pain.

I seriously don't want to come across as an Autodesk appologist, because I have leant the hard way that it is much better to be software agnostic, it's just that I get a little riled when I see such BS being flung around.

Captain Obvious
09-15-2010, 03:16 PM
Yep that is the car they gave out...
I am VERY sorry you had to endure that presentation.
(Still the car is kinda nifty)
My point was for anyone who had attended AGUA meetings under Alias,
it was a bad wakeup call of the people now in charge.
Hmm? Were you involved in the presentation?

Yog
09-15-2010, 03:16 PM
Wrong. If you are talking about CORE, they have offered a special deal. If you choose to get in on the deal, you get it cheaper. After CORE ships... anyone who wants to upgrade (who is not in hardcore) will pay the same upgrade pricing as everyone else - and that's if you have version 5 or version 9. You do NOT get that same upgrade deal with anything AD. Or does AD allow you to upgrade from Max2 or any version at the same price? I didn't think so. ;)
Hey, you can't refute a counter-argument by refering to clauses you didn't make in your opening statement :neener:
Just pointing out that it wasn't as black and white as you made it seem.

Elmar Moelzer
09-15-2010, 03:20 PM
Elmar described Pooby's arguments as attempting to justify his purchase, but as a user of software from several developers, it's Elmar's comments that strike me as self justification, or at least someone attempting to protect his market

Uhm, no. I used to be a MAX user myself for more than a year, in which while working at one of Austrias leading animation houses of the time, I worked myself up from the newby to the leader of production (among other things, doing commercials for Mazda, Coca Cola, Pedigree, etc). This was quite a while ago (11 years) and actually at the time AD was still treating their users A LOT nicer.
Things have changed at AD since then however and THE FACT, that they do not let you resell their software is proof of that.
In contrast NT lets you buy used licenses without problem. My first commercial license of LW (I only owned the student license before that) was one that I bought second hand. NT transferred the license, no problem, no strings attached, no questions asked. I remember very fondly talking to Chuck about it back then. Very polite handling of all this.


You can't sell their licences second hand. I've never actually wanted to sell one of their products, so I couldn't really count it as a reason not to buy the product in the first place.
Lucky you, but some businesses shrink to a healthy level, when they are facing tough times. In that case they will be happy to get some cash from selling the now unneeded licenses especially when they have been VERY EXPENSIVE to buy in the first place (as is the case with all AD software).


Admittedly it is my least favourite part of owning Autodesk products, but it's optional, and is now being followed by Newtek (amongst others).

Admittedly I find NewTeks new licensing model both convoluted and stupid, especially since they are facing up to AD. IMHO they should try to separate themselves from ADs business practices as far and as vehemently as possible. Be the shining light in the dark world of AD (good idea for an add there- NT).

That said, NTs model is currently still much nicer than ADs, though I am somewhat worried about what the future may bring here. So far things are still good though.

Qexit
09-15-2010, 03:49 PM
How is it that you're able to sell it? I asked at work and the people doing the buying said its not transferable atleast over here. You and cress bought used 3dmax? I'm interested.I think you may have missed some of the detail in my explanation. To expand and summarise:

I bought a 3D MAX 3.1 license secondhand back in 2002 (or thereabouts)
Autodesk were perfectly happy with this, all that was required was the original owner and I to fill out a License Transfer Form

I 2004 I sold the license on to another user, one of Cress' students. Again Autodesk were quite happy with this and all that was needed was for both of us to complete a License Transfer Form.

The final transfer was, I think, attempted last year or possibly back in 2008. I can't track down the emails right now. This time Autodesk refused to transfer the license unless it was first upgraded to a full license of the current version at a cost of £2,000-3,000. As the current owner was only hoping to sell it for £50-100, this was simply not going to happen. And that is where it finished. I hope that helps.

Titus
09-15-2010, 11:03 PM
Here is the think about that night,
Do you remember the presentation in the hotel BEFORE the party?
And BTW how was the Party this year? Oh I forgot, there was no user group meeting this year.

That party was great, really great. The presentation reminds me a timeshare sales meeting. Oh! and that lady from Chrysler (or Ford?), I felt very offended.