PDA

View Full Version : consumers vs. autodesk! the winner is....



jin choung
05-22-2008, 10:11 PM
http://aecnews.com/news/2008/05/21/3414.aspx

WOO FING HOO!!! take that draconian eulas!

jin

Dodgy
05-22-2008, 11:07 PM
Excellent....

AbnRanger
05-23-2008, 09:05 AM
You can bet that Autodesk is going to appeal...but they KNOW they are going to lose that too! First of all, regardless of their clever attempts to veil a license as something other than what it truly is, by claiming to sell "an agreement/contract"...THERE IS NO SUCH COMMODITY! In commerce, you either selling one of 2 things...
1) Product
2) Service

In this case, software falls under the "products" category. Call it intellectual property...call it your mother if you want, but it IS a product (something PRODUCED for resale)! I'm surprised that the judge was not more forceful in his ruling in regard to AD's attempt to thwart the state's laws (right of first sale) so openly. Too bad there aren't some sort of heavy punitive damages mentioned in that ruling.

AD's ridiculous attempts to categorize their software as a "Contract" is worse than Bill Clinton questioning what the meaning of the word "IS"...is :confused: For all of Bush's guff's...Bill set the bar of stupidity pretty high with that one. A bar which Autodesk is obviously trying to raise even higher.
"Uh...were not selling a product, you see, but, uh...uuuuhhh....hhhhmmm...oh yes, a Contract, your honor...that's it. It's a $3500 Contract. :foreheads

Hopper
05-23-2008, 09:42 AM
Too bad there aren't some sort of heavy punitive damages mentioned in that ruling.
That would be an entirely different set of filings, but I'll bet it's coming soon.

This really brightened my day. I guess I just need one of those "In your FACE" kind of moments. Thanks Jin.

Why did I enjoy that article?
- I've never liked AutoDesk or how they run their business.
- Their support sucks.
- Their products are overpriced and underdeveloped.
- Gerald Fanton is a complete idiot. (One of AD's billion development managers).

DIE AutoDesk DIE

I think if you are forced to use AutoCad since version 1.5, any bad-mouthing of AD is completely justified. (yes, I had one of the first Herculese Graphics Adapter's for Mono monitors)

kyuzo
05-23-2008, 09:53 AM
"DIE AutoDesk DIE"

If you have an opinion, don't hold back... I mean, please tell us what you're REALLY thinking..

:D

Totally agree with ya though

Steamthrower
05-23-2008, 10:00 AM
I've been enslaved at work for the past 2 years in using AutoCad. I am cackling fiendishly in happiness at this news.

Makes me want to buy a pallet of Autodesk non-transferable software from liquidation.com and then set up a "Super AutoDesk Blowout" eBay store.

Steamthrower
05-23-2008, 10:01 AM
How about a community film project, a 30-second anti-Autodesk advert? That'd satisfy my need for blood.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 11:44 AM
"Uh...were not selling a product, you see, but, uh...uuuuhhh....hhhhmmm...oh yes, a Contract, your honor...that's it. It's a $3500 Contract. :foreheads

yup. totally. if i buy, it's fing mine.

jin

ericsmith
05-23-2008, 12:11 PM
Not that I agree with AD's policy in any way, but couldn't a case be made that they are "renting" the property for an indefinite period of time?

I mean, there are all kinds of IP issues with something like software, where you're not paying thousands of dollars for something that costs under a dollar to actually manufacture. It's the CODE on the CD that you're paying for, and you certainly don't own that, right?

If I were an AD user, I'd be afraid that their next step in retaliation would be to just stop selling the product, and instead have a subscription service for the software where you'd have to pay a fee every year to keep using it.

Eric

hazmat777
05-23-2008, 12:33 PM
I think that AD are moving to subscriptions only. The campus software reseller here can only get the one year versions of Max academically now. We used to be able to order the perpetual license too, up until a couple weeks ago.

AbnRanger
05-23-2008, 12:36 PM
Not that I agree with AD's policy in any way, but couldn't a case be made that they are "renting" the property for an indefinite period of time?

I mean, there are all kinds of IP issues with something like software, where you're not paying thousands of dollars for something that costs under a dollar to actually manufacture. It's the CODE on the CD that you're paying for, and you certainly don't own that, right?

If I were an AD user, I'd be afraid that their next step in retaliation would be to just stop selling the product, and instead have a subscription service for the software where you'd have to pay a fee every year to keep using it.

EricEric, Auto Insurance is not a product that you can physically lay your hands on, yet it is deemed a PRODUCT nonetheless. Leasing or Renting means you ARE NOT HAVING TO BUY THE PRODUCT OUTRIGHT!...but are, instead paying a much smaller fee to USE the product.
Autodesk is trying to have it both ways and pretend that they are doing neither.
They are playing semantic games with their customers by charging you full price for the product, but then trying to bind you to an illegal agreement, which is a clever attempt to strip you of the legal rights of ownership to that COPY of their software...like I said, call it what you want, but it won't change the fact that they are selling a COPY of their product...and that copy you LAWFULLY OWN!
No matter what form it comes in...downloadable or by CD/DVD, software IS a product and by law, can be re-sold.
Just like training material....I violate copyright laws if I RE-PRODUCE a copy and sell it...but violate nothing if I sell what I originally purchased. That's IP, and it's the same principle. AD is already ticking off it's customers enough already. If they want to RENT...that's fine...they just have no justification to charge $3500 for the initial purchase, in such a case.
Just because a large corporation like AD wants to find creative ways to screw it's customers by inventing a new spurious category of commerce, doesn't exclude them from the same laws everyone else has to abide by. Nice try.:devil: They got by with it long enough, and I hope they really take it in the shorts on this one.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 12:45 PM
I mean, there are all kinds of IP issues with something like software, where you're not paying thousands of dollars for something that costs under a dollar to actually manufacture. It's the CODE on the CD that you're paying for, and you certainly don't own that, right?

i don't own the rights to the words of a book either but if i buy a book, it's fing mine to do with as i please.

all the ip bullsh1!t is just that, bullsh!17.

jin

Steamthrower
05-23-2008, 12:52 PM
all the ip bullsh1!t is just that, bullsh!17.

True, but also realise that the Newtek forum doesn't censor the word ********. :D

AbnRanger
05-23-2008, 01:11 PM
I think that AD are moving to subscriptions only. The campus software reseller here can only get the one year versions of Max academically now. We used to be able to order the perpetual license too, up until a couple weeks ago.Subscriptions are perfectly fine...and to be honest, I think most studios would welcome it...except, AD would legally HAVE to stop charging the initial purchase price of $3500 if they insist on stripping users of any ownership rights to the COPIES they purchase.

Autodesk has not attempted to call their practice a lease...if they did, they wouldn't be able to charge an intitial purchase price so steep. They are effectively trying to sell you a home as it were, and then TREAT that purchase as if you were indeed leasing it...retaining ownership rights to your copy. So, you can see the how they have cleverly tried to have it both ways.

What's bad is that the FCC has let this practice go on, knowing that their EULA is a blatant violation of the laws of each state (especially their home state).
What a nice way to end the week..with a victory for the little people!

ericsmith
05-23-2008, 02:09 PM
Meh. I really don't want to get tangled up in a pointless argument here. As I said earlier, I think AD's policy is lame.

But I do think it's a bit grey from a LEGAL point of view. The fact that you're paying for a "license to use" rather than a product complicates user's rights. And I don't think that the price tag or the fact that it's paid once up front instead of in regular intervals has anything to do with it.

I know this kind of apples and oranges, but consider a driver's license. I paid for it, and it's mine, but I can't just sell it. What I am really paying for is the right to use. Of course, a driver's license requires that you prove you are capable of using it safely, which doesn't apply to 3d software (although that's an interesting though...), but what we're really talking about is the rights of a seller vs. the rights of a buyer. Maybe the insurance example is closer to the mark. I certainly doubt that I could get away with selling my auto insurance to someone else.

Ultimately, I hate to see buyer's rights trampled, but I also hate to see the government step in and tell business how they can and can't run their businesses, providing they're not doing anything to put the public in any kind of physical danger.

I would prefer that this kind of policy be addressed by consumers refusing to buy the product in the first place. Then, the company would either go out of business, or change the policy and survive. Either way, problem solved.

Eric

P.S. One more thought. What about when we as artists sell an image to a client, but only for limited use? If they buy it, isn't it "fing theirs to do with as they please"?

AbnRanger
05-23-2008, 02:30 PM
Meh. I really don't want to get tangled up in a pointless argument here. As I said earlier, I think AD's policy is lame.

But I do think it's a bit grey from a LEGAL point of view. The fact that you're paying for a "license to use" rather than a product complicates user's rights. And I don't think that the price tag or the fact that it's paid once up front instead of in regular intervals has anything to do with it.

I know this kind of apples and oranges, but consider a driver's license. I paid for it, and it's mine, but I can't just sell it. What I am really paying for is the right to use. Of course, a driver's license requires that you prove you are capable of using it safely, which doesn't apply to 3d software (although that's an interesting though...), but what we're really talking about is the rights of a seller vs. the rights of a buyer. Maybe the insurance example is closer to the mark. I certainly doubt that I could get away with selling my auto insurance to someone else.

Ultimately, I hate to see buyer's rights trampled, but I also hate to see the government step in and tell business how they can and can't run their businesses, providing they're not doing anything to put the public in any kind of physical danger.

I would prefer that this kind of policy be addressed by consumers refusing to buy the product in the first place. Then, the company would either go out of business, or change the policy and survive. Either way, problem solved.

Eric

P.S. One more thought. What about when we as artists sell an image to a client, but only for limited use? If they buy it, isn't it "fing theirs to do with as they please"?

it is if the law says it is, and BTW, those attempts to circumvent the law is no better than warez users doing the same to you, right? And the auto insurance is a policy based on your individual driving record and vehicle....like you said apples and oranges.
A drivers license is NEVER sold. You have to pay the state a fee for producing it...again it's specifically tied to the individual and couldn't possibly be transferred. That's not the case with software, a book, a painting,etc. right?

jin choung
05-23-2008, 03:31 PM
One more thought. What about when we as artists sell an image to a client, but only for limited use? If they buy it, isn't it "fing theirs to do with as they please"?

i haven't yet sold an image that is for "LIMITED USE"... ??? they hire me to do it, it's fing theirs. you make a shot for a studio, guess what? it's fing theirs! its much much much more theirs than it is YOURS.

and don't consider a license. consider a book. consider my book. it's fing mine.

jin

Hopper
05-23-2008, 03:40 PM
... their next step in retaliation would be to just stop selling the product...
Oh, we can dream can't we ... That would be fan-f-ing-tastic.

ericsmith
05-23-2008, 03:49 PM
I've never been in a position to execute a "limited use" clause either, but I can understand the concept.

The fact is, sometimes we as artists charge much less than market value simply because a client can't afford what the big companies can. But if you don't include a limited use clause in a situation like that, you could get conned into selling your work much cheaper than you should.

It's based on the concept of selling creative work at a cost that's more about end-market value rather than labor cost.

But getting back to the point, the real issue here is that both artist and client agree to the parameters and sign a contract to that affect. That makes it okay in my book.

And when you buy a copy of 3D Studio Max, the contract you agree to states that the LICENSE is non-transferrable. No one's going to stop you from selling the CD or manual, but they won't honor the new buyer's attempt to re-license the product.

Now let's take the book analogy one step further. Let's say you write a novel, or screenplay, and option it to a publisher or studio. Do they have the right to turn around and sell that option to another publisher/studio? Not if you explicity state that they don't in the option contract.

Eric

jin choung
05-23-2008, 03:52 PM
well, while i'm a fan of maya, such a retaliatory move would be laughable...

first, what else would they do? second, boofinghoo... there are 50 guys lined up behind them to take their place.

this kinda "i'm gonna take my ball and go home" proposition by software companies as a result of things like piracy or even legislation is always always always funny.

GO! LEAVE! BLOW!

don't you see the legions behind you waiting to take your place? if nature abhors a vacuum, the nature of software development doubly, triply so. you will not be missed....

jin

jin choung
05-23-2008, 03:54 PM
Now let's take the book analogy one step further. Let's say you write a novel, or screenplay, and option it to a publisher or studio. Do they have the right to turn around and sell that option to another publisher/studio? Not if you explicity state that they don't in the option contract.

Eric

why look at it in this way rather than as the more compatible comparison with buying a book at a store?

i BOUGHT THE BOOK. it is MINE. if i choose to sell it or give it away afterwards, it is COMPLETELY and entirely within my rights to do so.

i'm not salvaging the technology embedded in max and maya, scrounging out the source code and selling the tech encompassed by that source code.

the ebay example is MUCH more akin to my example than yours.

jin

jin choung
05-23-2008, 04:10 PM
No one's going to stop you from selling the CD or manual, but they won't honor the new buyer's attempt to re-license the product.

that's NOT true. autodesk tried to stop this fellow from selling the cd manual and box on ebay. they failed but they tried.

as for re-licensing, as long as the product still works, then i'm fine with that. if it's a hardware dongle and ad says we don't recognize you as an owner and will not support you or allow you to upgrade - cool.

as long as the buyer still HAS THE THING - the ad product that is functional and is not criminalized and can even sell it again if he wishes.

considering the bad pr and the ramifications of having legal but completely unregistered products floating around (ownership, registration, title and membership serving as a very strong incentive not to pirate or to allow your disk to be pirated), i would imagine autodesk would have to be the one to cry uncle.

jin

JohnMarchant
05-23-2008, 04:33 PM
Stuff Autodesk, Kick them where it hurts.

Thats Me :):)

Andyjaggy
05-23-2008, 04:42 PM
True, but also realise that the Newtek forum doesn't censor the word ********. :D

Your loving that aren't you. :)

mattclary
05-23-2008, 05:01 PM
Not that I agree with AD's policy in any way, but couldn't a case be made that they are "renting" the property for an indefinite period of time?

I mean, there are all kinds of IP issues with something like software, where you're not paying thousands of dollars for something that costs under a dollar to actually manufacture. It's the CODE on the CD that you're paying for, and you certainly don't own that, right?

If I were an AD user, I'd be afraid that their next step in retaliation would be to just stop selling the product, and instead have a subscription service for the software where you'd have to pay a fee every year to keep using it.


When you buy a book, even though the ideas inside aren't yours, you bought that book. You can't sell copies of that book, but you can sell that book whenever you want. Same thing. Just because you can do more with software doesn't change the fact that it is just information. Information that you bought.

And yes, the industry is try VERY hard to move to "software as a service" model. They very badly would love for you to have to pay rent on software.

Did you hear how the game "Mass Effect" for the PC will only allow 3 activations? The consensus is that this is more about limiting the resale of used software that fighting piracy. And it is the reason I won't be buying the game.

I don't rent, renting is for suckers.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 05:10 PM
yup,

actually, commercial software didn't have much to fear from OSS but it seems like all this draconian rights stepping is gonna drive more and more people to it.

i never really understood the need for linux but the more all this "********" ( :) ) drm stuff gets stuffed into commercial software and windows, the more i'm thinking linux will be an inevitable part of my future in computing.

jin

Verlon
05-23-2008, 05:12 PM
Actually, ericsmith, the book analogy is very good. Book companies tried the same thing in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, with some license deal on the inside cover so you could not resale the book. That law was slapped down. The way the software companies ressurrected the idea had to do with the fact that your computer COPIES the information from floppy disk/tape (see how old this is?) to system ram.

It was crap then, and it is crap now. They are trying to have an a la carte where they take all the advantages of license AND product, but none of the responsibilities and/or drawbacks for either.

I am always tempted to fill out in the 'comments' section of my registrations "By registering this software, you agree to give me (anything from full rights to my software to $1 million, depending on how much I love the software company)"

Then play the same game with them in reverse since most registrations are auto-generated anyway.

mattclary
05-23-2008, 05:14 PM
But I do think it's a bit grey from a LEGAL point of view. The fact that you're paying for a "license to use" rather than a product complicates user's rights. And I don't think that the price tag or the fact that it's paid once up front instead of in regular intervals has anything to do with it.


The problem is, you are complacent and have allowed them the alter your perception of how things work in the real world. You have become so used to "licensing software" that you just accept it.

This complacency is why I fear for our society. When you start letting people convince you that what you have given them money for does not belong to you, it's pretty sad.

edit:
"The price of apathy towards software licensing is to be ruled by evil corporations."

Matt Clary

Titus
05-23-2008, 07:07 PM
When you buy a book, even though the ideas inside aren't yours, you bought that book. You can't sell copies of that book, but you can sell that book whenever you want. Same thing. Just because you can do more with software doesn't change the fact that it is just information. Information that you bought.

The book analogy doesn't work very well here, because many times there is some IP involved in software and hardware. When my university "bought" its first Cray supercomputer 15 years ago for USD$7 M they really bought a license to use the hardware, after a period of time they had to destroy and return all the electronic components back to Cray, they empty shell is collecting dust now.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 07:14 PM
The book analogy doesn't work very well here, because many times there is some IP involved in software and hardware.

WHAT??!?!?!?!?!

do you know what IP stands for?

all a book is is ip and dried ground up tree mash with ink.

jin

Titus
05-23-2008, 07:17 PM
do you know what IP stands for?

Yup, I took a business course on IP lat year ;).

jin choung
05-23-2008, 07:23 PM
so then how does a book not have ip? that's ALL it is.

jin

Titus
05-23-2008, 07:28 PM
so then how does a book not have ip? that's ALL it is.

jin

Who said a book has or not has IP? the license in the case of a book (copyright) is different from the software/hardware.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 07:30 PM
The book analogy doesn't work very well here, because many times there is some IP involved in software and hardware.

in this statement, you are saying that the difference (and the reason the anology doesn't work) is IP is involved in soft/hard and not in a book.

that is CLEARLY incorrect.

jin

jin choung
05-23-2008, 07:32 PM
perhaps what you meant to say was:

"The book analogy doesn't work very well here, because many times there is some LICENSE involved in software and hardware."

jin

mattclary
05-23-2008, 08:24 PM
The book analogy doesn't work very well here, because many times there is some IP involved in software and hardware. When my university "bought" its first Cray supercomputer 15 years ago for USD$7 M they really bought a license to use the hardware, after a period of time they had to destroy and return all the electronic components back to Cray, they empty shell is collecting dust now.

Yes, they call that a "lease" and was in the contract. if Autodesk wants to require you to return the software in a year, that would be a viable contract.

As stated in this article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html), their site clearly says "buy now".

The problem is, Autodesk doesn't want to go that route, because they know few people will "rent" software for the prices they charge.

AbnRanger
05-23-2008, 08:26 PM
The whole point is that Autodesk knowingly skirted the law by fabricating a license agreement that strips a buyer of their legal rights...by simply clouding the issue of what they are truly selling. That a customer PAY THEM $3500 for an agreement to USE, not OWN....THAT'S RENTING...and nowhere is it stated that you are leasing/renting the copy of their software.

Why?...probably because they know most customers won't go for leasing software for $3500...so AD has to make it look like a purchase while still maintaining all the fundamental elements of a lease agreement. Again, they are trying to have it both ways. They want to receive FULL purchase price, but give the customer PARTIAL benefits (that a purchase generally entails). Too bad there's not a CG artists Union. They'd have union members boycotting AD for crap like that.
Much Kudos to companies like Newtek, who do it right :thumbsup:...instead of trying to pull the wool over your eyes

AbnRanger
05-23-2008, 08:28 PM
As stated in this article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html), their site clearly says "buy now".

The problem is, Autodesk doesn't want to go that route, because they know few people will "rent" software for the prices they charge.beat me to the punch, Matt :D

Hopper
05-23-2008, 08:51 PM
Yup. Just because someone puts something on paper, it doesn't automatically make it true and/or legally binding.

My favorite example:

"Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for broken windshields" - on the back of rock haulers.

My response is always.. "Make a bet sparky?"

RTSchramm
05-23-2008, 09:14 PM
I agree with everyone one this issue, but I somewhat confused by what Autodesk is trying to do. Are they trying to stop software piracy? What are they trying to accomplish?

Here's my two cents....

I don't think that RENTING software would go over very well when the cost is as high as a product like Maya unlimited. I wouldn't mind paying about $200 a year for such a product, but the whole point about renting or leasing is that the monthly payments are usually way below the price of actually owning the product. Most people subscribe to newspapers, magazines, web pages, and other services, so this isn't a new concept.

Although some lightwave users hate the dongle, I think it is the best method so far in controlling software. There are hacks to work around it, but not many users are that savvy in installing these. When you decide to sell LW, you just give them the toggle with the software. The biggest problem I have with LW's implementation is that you still need to connect to the Internet to get a license key.

The biggest problem I have with Internet authentication is what happens when the company goes out of business and your computer crashes? You now have a $1000 or more application that your business depends on and you can't reinstall it.

RIch

Hopper
05-23-2008, 09:26 PM
The biggest problem I have with LW's implementation is that you still need to connect to the Internet to get a license key.
I'm not sure what version you're using, but I've never seen LW require an internet connection. As a matter of fact, I just installed LW 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, and 9.3 on a stand-alone system just fine.

When I first installed 8.0 I simply called up Newtek and they gave me my license information over the phone. Now if you don't write it down somewhere, well .. that's not their fault. And if NewTek ever went out of business, you wouldn't need any "new" keys anyway.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 10:34 PM
The biggest problem I have with Internet authentication is what happens when the company goes out of business and your computer crashes? You now have a $1000 or more application that your business depends on and you can't reinstall it.

RIch

this isn't much of a problem for apps that merely authenticates - as opposed to needing an online connecton to work at all (mmorpg's).

just get the crack. the day authentication is foiled by a commpany going under is the day you install the crack without a moment's thought or qualm.

jin

Hopper
05-23-2008, 11:00 PM
just get the crack. the day authentication is foiled by a commpany going under is the day you install the crack without a moment's thought or qualm.
I'd have to agree. I have no issues with purchasing software and licensing it the correct way, but if a company goes out of business... screw it. There's no one there to care. Crack it, copy it, and hand it out to all your friends if you feel like it. And especially if you've actually bought software and have no way of activating it.

Red_Oddity
05-24-2008, 03:56 AM
I'd have to agree. I have no issues with purchasing software and licensing it the correct way, but if a company goes out of business... screw it. There's no one there to care. Crack it, copy it, and hand it out to all your friends if you feel like it. And especially if you've actually bought software and have no way of activating it.

Problem is you're probably still breaking the law by doing that, and when the BSA comes knocking, expect to be fined.

Verlon
05-24-2008, 07:04 AM
I read somewhere that there was some other reason (not just sale price) that software companies wanted to straddle the fence of ownership versus renting with the license. I jsut forget what it is.

I think it had to do with how they would have to support/provide updates., but I can't find it now.

Steamthrower
05-24-2008, 07:17 AM
Problem is you're probably still breaking the law by doing that, and when the BSA comes knocking, expect to be fined.

When a company goes out of business and doesn't support their software anywhere, I always considered the app to then become termed "abandonware". It's a grey area of legalities, but nobody's going to get in trouble for that.

Remember Lifthransir's Bane? That RPG released in 1993? I think the floppy image of that game has been passed around my circle of friends for years. Yet if anybody came "knocking on my door" and wanted to press charges I'd laugh in their face. Or if the software was from a defunct company that only died two years ago, for that matter.

Matt
05-24-2008, 10:02 AM
I really hope AutoDesk spent a fortune on lawyers.

Hopper
05-24-2008, 10:34 AM
Problem is you're probably still breaking the law by doing that, and when the BSA comes knocking, expect to be fined.
Nope. I can do it all day every day. No laws broken. Been there, done that.

AbnRanger
05-24-2008, 11:43 AM
Have to give kudos to Newtek for not trying those kind of tricks on their customers...very open and honest.
:thumbsup:

mattclary
05-24-2008, 02:01 PM
I agree with everyone one this issue, but I somewhat confused by what Autodesk is trying to do. Are they trying to stop software piracy? What are they trying to accomplish?



They don't want you to go out and pick up a two year old version of their software (that in actuality, meets all your needs) at the expense of them making a new sale.

mattclary
05-24-2008, 02:05 PM
The biggest problem I have with LW's implementation is that you still need to connect to the Internet to get a license key.


Your key is posted on the internet. Once you write that down, you don't need to get on the internet again. Ever. This is apples and oranges to "online authentication".

Hopper
05-24-2008, 02:39 PM
This is apples and oranges to "online authentication".
Man that would suck wouldn't it... I can picture it now...

"Ok guys, we have 4 hours to get this thing finished and to the customer and ... huh? what? What do you mean we can't work because our internet connection is down?"

jin choung
05-24-2008, 03:28 PM
They don't want you to go out and pick up a two year old version of their software (that in actuality, meets all your needs) at the expense of them making a new sale.

right, but this is where they're being dumsh!1ts about it.

it's an OPPORTUNITY to get more users into the fold and get them matriculated into your upgrade cycle...

adobe is smart about this. you totally CAN purchase a two year old version and not only register it to yourself and use it to your heart's content but upgrade to the current version at ONE PRICE.

this not only gets more customers but engenders good will from people like me who would otherwise rail at the ludicrous price of photoshop retail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

as for the BSA knocking... puh leez... if you OWN THE PROGRAM but the company went out of business and you lost your code key, you think someone is going to care that you cracked a software app that you OWN by a company that is DEAD?

pfft....

jin

dennis1234
05-24-2008, 04:55 PM
I feel that when purchasing software we have a level of expectation to a license agreement of reasonable expectation however I do feel that under any contract agreement this should be disclosed prior to obtaining the product and not hidden in shrink wrap. This would be no different then in purchasing (out right, lease or otherwise) and having to wait until after the transaction to look in the glove compartment to see what you have purchased and what your obligations are.

I really think that there should be some kind of standard set that is fair to the consumers and the vendors as to what each party is responsible for, for example I would agree to a license that is bound to me as an individual as long as there was not limit on how many pc's that I owned I could install it on and that the product worked with in reasonable expectations.

What does not make sense to me is that there is a limited amount of time to return the software to the vendor if it does not work properly if you can return it at all, how is fair to the consumer I have yet to see a software recall if it doesn't work as advertised.

Riff_Masteroff
05-24-2008, 07:22 PM
In truth, autodesk is recognized by constitutional interpretation as being a single person (corporate entity, fictitious person, what ever). As a person (remember "we the people"), autodesk as the constitutional right to petition the congress. As a person recognized by the United States Constitution, autodesk also has the right of free speech (can use money to purchase whatever they want). The United States Congress listens carefully with pockets wide open to the free speech of their constituents.

The result: This ruling is only a temporary setback for a major corporate entity. That entity can and will use the money you have provided to write legislation to temper the rule of law to their own needs. Through lobbying autodesk can provide your money for passage into legislation and then into the USC. Living, breathing citizens of the United States cannot overcome this behavior.

We simply do not have the money to purchase legislation in our favor.

Riff Masteroff

jin choung
05-24-2008, 10:18 PM
and that is a shameful flaw in our system of government. every single person at autodesk should get a say.

the corporation should NOT.

jin

p.s. but one way or another, they can't win. they can appeal but they won't win.

AbnRanger
05-24-2008, 10:46 PM
They know they will lose the appeal...for one they hassled the guy for violating copyright laws...knowing full well that he did no such thing. He was selling legitimate original copies. Just because AD didn't approve of him re-selling it did not constitute the guy RE-producing illegal copies. So they were trying to stop him using a law that doesn't even exist, so that they can shuck the one that clearly does exist (right of first sale). And they think one single word allows them to circumvent that law...the magical word called "license". Like the eye of Sauron in LOTR keeping tabs on the Ring. :devil:

Riff_Masteroff
05-25-2008, 07:09 AM
Folks,

Autodesk, based in the United States of America, has become too big to fail. All three branches of the US government deeply support and respect corporations that have become too big to fail and are labeled as such. Of course, in this matter failure is not in question but. . .

Once an American corporation is in the "too big to fail" classification, it (the entity) will reap or score US government support over all else. Once again, the kind of people that the american revolution was fought over, are now not recognized as worthy of US federal government consideration.

Take a look at the URL below. Apply the liberty and freedom bestowed on Exxon (by the Cheney energy policy coming to fruition?) to another highly regarded person, the corporate entity known as Autodesk. The constitution is misinterpreted as existing for corporate entities to pursue happiness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html?hpid=topnews

mattclary
05-25-2008, 12:33 PM
and that is a shameful flaw in our system of government.

Prospector:bowdown: would never let this happen. :thumbsup:

mattclary
05-25-2008, 12:42 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html?hpid=topnews

let me put a different spin on this:
This is the second article in as many days that I have read that detail how thin margins are at the pump. The competition is actually really cut-throat. Keep in mind that a delivery of gas costs 10s of thousands of dollars, and your competition lives across the street and is watching for you to change your price.

Now, the Exxon stations have to compete. But why should they try? The competition (IMO) is much less back up-stream.

So, what to do about it? Close the stations. What's the best way to do that? Keep sucking the blood out of them. Either you are going to increase your profit (at the franchisees expense) or they will close the station.

Basically, Exxon is tired of the filling station business.

jin choung
05-25-2008, 03:23 PM
Folks,

Autodesk, based in the United States of America, has become too big to fail. All three branches of the US government deeply support and respect corporations that have become too big to fail and are labeled as such. Of course, in this matter failure is not in question but. . .

Once an American corporation is in the "too big to fail" classification, it (the entity) will reap or score US government support over all else. Once again, the kind of people that the american revolution was fought over, are now not recognized as worthy of US federal government consideration.

Take a look at the URL below. Apply the liberty and freedom bestowed on Exxon (by the Cheney energy policy coming to fruition?) to another highly regarded person, the corporate entity known as Autodesk. The constitution is misinterpreted as existing for corporate entities to pursue happiness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html?hpid=topnews

meh...

big tobacco and microsoft are examples of large companies that have had big huge rulings against them for the sake of consumers. riaa doesn't seem to be doing to well either.

sure, they've got money and that's a huge (shameful) advantage in the american system but there are grassroots ways to take them on and you get ground up mobilizations like ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS FOUNDATION.

so yeah, autodesk's victory is far far far from inevitable.

finally, in terms of software, in whatever ways the law and our system of checks and balances fails, you get a balancing factor from... errr... civil disobedience movements.... : )

re: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/book-review-2008-05.ars?bub

actually, your faith in the unwavering and unjust sway of money in the system is probably a pretty powerful argument for the existence of pirates... and at the very least paints the picture as not good vs. evil but evil vs. evil...

jin

Riff_Masteroff
05-25-2008, 10:04 PM
Sorry, I still need to figure out how to work the forum's quote from others system.

Mattclary wrote:
". . .This is the second article in as many days that I have read that detail how thin margins are at the pump. The competition is actually really cut-throat. . . "

The news story was just that: well written journalism and not opinion. Contained within the story were sections that point to pure federal government sponsored monopoly that are subject to interpretation by my or your opinion.

From the news story, the competition used to be cut-throat:
"Historically, gasoline marketing has been a low-margin business. For decades, when oil was plentiful, margins were kept low to move as much crude oil through the system as possible. Now, major companies don't have to fight to move product, but they are still battling for nickels and dimes at the pumps."

From the news story Exxon controls both the supply, end user pricing and outlets. The wholesale pricing is NOT per free market conditions but sheer monopolistic gouging:
"But he (Daggle) still cannot fathom how the oil company can charge him different wholesale gasoline prices for each of the five Northern Virginia stations he owns. The stations all sell the same Exxon-branded gasoline, delivered from the same terminal in Newington, where it arrives via the same pipeline. Sometimes, Daggle said, it's even dropped off by the same truck and driver hours apart on the same day."

To Jin Choung:
Agreed. I hope that living breathing people (NOT CORPORATE ENTITIES) are currently able to rule their own country through their chosen representatives. At least thats what the US Constitution is all about. You are a wonderful optimist and I hope you are correct.

Riff Masteroff

jin choung
05-25-2008, 10:19 PM
You are a wonderful optimist and I hope you are correct.


L... O... L... !!!

i have literally NEVER (ever) been called that (or anything remotely resembling that) in the history of my existence on planet earth.

now you take that back! : )

jin

Dexter2999
05-25-2008, 10:34 PM
Too bad there's not a CG artists Union.

CG artists are covered in the IASTE Animators Guild.

If you are a freelance artist I recommend looking into the Union to help with medical benefits and a retirement fund.

http://www.animationguild.org/

jin choung
05-25-2008, 11:16 PM
they CAN be covered under IATSE... if you work at a union shop....

cough cough....

jin

Hopper
05-25-2008, 11:17 PM
All three branches of the US government deeply support and respect corporations that have become too big to fail and are labeled as such.
Yeah, you know ... like ENRON. Phhhtt. Please. That's a load.

jin choung
05-25-2008, 11:57 PM
but how much did the government help them GET TO THE TOP?

sure, everybody bails when it becomes unpractical from a public relations standpoint but they probably owe their rise to the government that deregulated and then shut their eyes tight.

same thing with subprime loans and the banking industry.

the point is that in the u.s. money is the thing that probably more than any consideration of right, wrong or fairness determines outcomes and that is true.

shame on us.

jin

Hopper
05-26-2008, 12:09 AM
Yeah, I guess you're right. The blind eye treatment was in affect until it became so painfully obvious to the public that it was too big to ignore, thus Sarbanes Oxley was born and now we all have to pay the price.

SOX audits suck. They're almost as bad as SAS70. They "kinda" had the right idea, then went overboard and screwed every IT organization in the country regardless of the impact on financial liabilities or lack thereof.

They really pissed in my Cheerios with that one.

jin choung
05-26-2008, 01:14 AM
until it became so painfully obvious to the public that it was too big to ignore

right... it's all about fair-weather friends in politics.

as long as the public doesn't know and doesn't really care, politicos will lie cheat and steal for well heeled "contributors" and gladly take their money for the privelege...

but you reach a certain level of negative "critical mass" and not a politician in the world is gonna stick... all hands abandon ship at that point.

ah, such wonderful qualities politics can teach our children.... : )

jin

jin choung
05-26-2008, 01:22 AM
They "kinda" had the right idea, then went overboard and screwed every IT organization in the country regardless of the impact on financial liabilities or lack thereof.

They really pissed in my Cheerios with that one.

yeah, that's another big thing... most governments seem incapable of MODERATION or "preventive medicine".

they can ONLY ACT by CATASTROPHIZING (and sometimes not even then - coughkatrinacough)....

equivalent of - don't watch your weight and exercise and eat well... that's BOOOOOOORRING!

just let things get ridiculously out of hand, start incurring LIFE THREATENING conditions and then GO NUCULAR on dat sumbitch!

break out the chemo and the rads and the pharmos and all the other ridiculously lethal and EXPENSIVE solutions when it becomes too big an issue to ignore.

actually, as per the analogy, it's not just governments... that's people in general.... we are evolutionarily wired to focus on the novel and spectacular threats like terrorist attacks and not the mundane, common and everyday (like driving while applying makeup, shaving, talking on the cel phone and eating simultaneously).

even though a TINYTEENYWEENYITSY bit of moderation and regulation on the everyday stuff would make all the difference.

sigh.

jin

LastofTheLarrys
05-26-2008, 12:36 PM
A quick story.

Years ago I spurned the opportunity to get a cracked copy of Maya 4.5. I believe you should pay for your software. People work hard to make it, they should be rewarded. So I dug deep and bought the license bundled with Shake for $2k.

A couple of years went by, bought a new Mac, and tried to get my license moved over to Tiger on a G5. Alias said they wouldn't transfer the license because they don't sell 4.5 anymore, it wouldn't work on Tiger anyway, and I would have to buy an upgrade (this is before Autodesk bought them). Since I was more than two upgrades back, I would have to buy a new license for another $2k.

Keep in mind, this is only 2 years later. So I kept my Dual G4 Powermac just to run Alias.

Long story short, I needed to clear the clutter and move the Powermac G4. I bundeled the G4 and license of Maya 4.5 on Ebay hoping to get enough of a return on Ebay to pay for most of a new Maya license.

A couple of days go by, and I get an email from Autodesk attorneys telling me they've had my Ebay listing removed, and any further attempts to sell my license of Maya on ebay would result in my being sued by Autodesk.

I contacted Ebay "customer" service, and they said if I listed it again they would permanently ban my account. Autodesk had told them I had an illegal version of Maya that I was trying to sell on Ebay.

The result. Due to autodesk's upgrade policies, licensing model, and general antipathy towards their clients, we're purchasing Lightwave and Modo in the division I now supervise. Perhaps XSI down the road.

Autodesk is dead to me.

Hopper
05-26-2008, 12:45 PM
At that point ... I would have had to send them a giant bag of hermetically sealed cat turds.

AbnRanger
05-26-2008, 01:56 PM
Just be aware that Luxology doesn't allow you to sell your modo license, it is non-transferable. Once you buy you're stuck with it. In case you didn't know... I think their upgrade policy is the same as NewTek's, which is upgrade from any version at current upgrade price.

On the other hand you can use it freely on any system you wish, at any time, Mac or PC. Completely hassle free.

NewTek allows for license transfers. Though you are locked to your dongle you are otherwise free to move around between workstations as you wish, Mac or PC, 64-bit or 32-bit.

Both of these companies offer way better licensing and upgrade policies than the Evil Autodesk Empire.This ruling would have some bearing on that policy, then.
They can't continue to say "BUY NOW" and say at the same time..."oh, by the way, you're just paying us to use it (RENTING)." It seems this ruling all but stamps out any attempt of software makers to place their licenses somewhere in between. Either a purchase (ownership of the copy itself) or a lease.

mattclary
05-26-2008, 02:16 PM
The result. Due to autodesk's upgrade policies, licensing model, and general antipathy towards their clients, we're purchasing Lightwave and Modo in the division I now supervise. Perhaps XSI down the road.

Autodesk is dead to me.

I love it. Totally sporting wood right now. Could we get a :sportingwood: emoticon?

Elmar Moelzer
05-26-2008, 03:16 PM
Being in the software business myself, I applaud NewTek and its policy regarding the licensing of LightWave 3d.
We here at MSG use the same model for VoluMedic as well, as we think it is the fairest and most userfriendly model. It is also the model that is the easiest to understand.
Personally, I have a real issue with spending money on something without owning it afterwards. I rarely rent DVDs, I prefer buying them, same goes for software.
Having payed 3500 USD for a product from Autodesk and then not being able to resell it, if I have to, is unacceptable for me. I mean it basically makes their product worthless! If you buy something you want to get a value for it that you can later turn back into money, if you want to, or have to.
So personally I do not think we will ever make a port of VoluMedic to MAYA or MAX, just for this reason.
I did not know Modo uses the same model, not so userfriendly after all, I guess.
CU
Elmar

cresshead
05-26-2008, 03:41 PM
just to play devil's advocate here....
you don't HAVE to buy autodesk products...there's a choice.
i bought 3dsmax as the app offered what i wanted...i walked in with my eyes open knowing i could not resell it down the line...

it did stuff back in 1999 that other apps STILL dream of doing...
it's not perfect...bit it's pretty darn good.

still using it...and lightwave of course!

Elmar Moelzer
05-26-2008, 03:50 PM
Was using MAX 3.0 in 1999 (I believe) and LW 5.6 at the time. I had to use MAX because I was working at a MAX- only facility. Their Booleans back then were worse than LWs even...
From what I saw most other users there do back then, it looked more like MAX was a good platform for lots of plugins, nothing else.
Not trying to start an app- war here though. To each his own. For me it is not doing what I need, nor does the license model appeal to me.

The license model is currently the biggest turnoff for us though. We have quite a few people requesting ports of VoluMedic to MAX or MAYA and we have been considering it. With this license model, it will need a lot more convincing though for us to support these two apps, I am affraid (after all, we would have to buy licenses of these apps as well in order to make the port, and this licensing model really ups the risk of doing that quite a bit).
CU
Elmar

Lightwolf
05-26-2008, 03:54 PM
...after all, we would have to buy licenses of these apps as well in order to make the port, and this licensing model really ups the risk of doing that quite a bit...
About 1300€ per year for all Autodesk products (per developer). These are development licenses though.

Cheers,
Mike

Elmar Moelzer
05-26-2008, 04:03 PM
Yeah, thing is that if you want to support your products for longer than a year, you will have to renew the licenses year after year...
CU
Elmar

cresshead
05-26-2008, 04:10 PM
def not trying to start an app war at all as i use max and lightwave equally.

well back in 1999 with max2.5 they had drag n drop colours whilst animating, instancing, referencing ffd lattices, non destructive stack based workflow...that darned beast called character studio [still love it!..yeah it's restrictive..but it awesome too!]

when i was at silicon graphics in london they demo'd all the 3d apps on their new silicon graphics 320 and 540 hardware...lightwave, sofimage, maya and 3dsmax...that's where i made my choice at that time...then later added lightwave 7.0 [and updates of course!]

lightwave still doesn't have native instacing, render proxies, ffd lattices, drag n drop, geometric [poly] bones so you can 'see' their orinetation/volume in the 3d viewport....

Lightwolf
05-26-2008, 04:11 PM
Yeah, thing is that if you want to support your products for longer than a year, you will have to renew the licenses year after year...

Only if they upgrade as well. Then again, they are used to that so you can adapt your licensing to the host apps (having a different licensing than the host can be very confusing).

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
05-26-2008, 04:20 PM
Only if they upgrade as well. Then again, they are used to that so you can adapt your licensing to the host apps (having a different licensing than the host can be very confusing).

Cheers,
Mike

just for info>>
with subscription [which went up 27%this year...ouch!] for 3dsmax you get a @home and @work licence so i can have it installed on 2 workstations one at home and one for traveling/at work [laptop] there's no 'dongle' anymore...as of max4.0 it's been software locked...but you can move your asoftware key to another pc if you want to.

personally max 2008 and 2009 arn't waaay better than max9.0...well not for what i'm using them for as yet...though mental ray has been imporved and we have mr render proxies plus fur is a bit better too.

i've not even installed max 2009 as yet!...just ran the demo...the boxed version is sat on the shelf currently!

cresshead
05-26-2008, 04:25 PM
not to go off topic too much but the 'app on the move' seems to be blender...looks to be getting more stuff with every minor .01 update than max has with full point updates!

and their lisencing scheme is jaw dropping!....FREE
just got their BBB [big buck bunny] dvd on saturday...amazing work done in that animation!

jin choung
05-26-2008, 11:43 PM
speaking of which, this is pretty dang nice hair.

http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=124839

jin

sadkkf
05-27-2008, 11:54 AM
From the news story, the competition used to be cut-throat:
"Historically, gasoline marketing has been a low-margin business. For decades, when oil was plentiful, margins were kept low to move as much crude oil through the system as possible. Now, major companies don't have to fight to move product, but they are still battling for nickels and dimes at the pumps."


That's true of gasoline stations, not the gasoline industry. When they record record profits and pay out $400,000,000 (that's 400 million!) pensions, that's high-margin.

Let's also not forget who was also responsible for the utter destruction of the first usable fully electric vehicle. :mad:

Oil companies suck. Big business sucks. Sorry. Money breeds power breeds selfishness.

cresshead
05-27-2008, 04:32 PM
oh no not more petrol ravings/rants!...

GET a bicycle or a skateboard!..or learn to walk!

Verlon
05-27-2008, 04:32 PM
right... it's all about fair-weather friends in politics.

as long as the public doesn't know and doesn't really care, politicos will lie cheat and steal for well heeled "contributors" and gladly take their money for the privelege...

but you reach a certain level of negative "critical mass" and not a politician in the world is gonna stick... all hands abandon ship at that point.

ah, such wonderful qualities politics can teach our children.... : )

jin


I know it has its shortcomings, but I really believe that the US government is the best that money can buy (and, unlinke autodesk licenses, senators can be sold too! Does that make them better?).

I believe the example of the Maya 4.5 transfer is something that they would have to support if the button said 'license now' instead of 'buy now.' I am not a loawyer, it was just something I am trying to recall from an article a while back. There are reasons they straddle the fence on this issue, and I think that is one of them.

jin choung
05-27-2008, 07:32 PM
I know it has its shortcomings, but I really believe that the US government is the best that money can buy

actually, in the very sentence where you state your case, you make mine. : )

your wording could not have been better. and that's the problem with our government. the influence of money.

i used to think the u.s. had the best system of govt too... but that's without any real knowledge of how other govts. function.

how many other governments are you familiar with? i'm not familiar with any...

but i'm betting canada might be pretty good.

would LOOOOOOOOOOVE the kinda verbal sparring necessary by the brit gov.

gwb wouldn't have last a day.

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 12:20 AM
actually, in the very sentence where you state your case, you make mine. : )

your wording could not have been better. and that's the problem with our government. the influence of money.

i used to think the u.s. had the best system of govt too... but that's without any real knowledge of how other govts. function.

how many other governments are you familiar with? i'm not familiar with any...

but i'm betting canada might be pretty good.

would LOOOOOOOOOOVE the kinda verbal sparring necessary by the brit gov.

gwb wouldn't have last a day.

jinFunny...that's what the pundits thought when Gore debated GW for the first time. GW whooped him so bad, looked like Gore fell into a bucket of rouge! :D Came away looking like a clown...literally.
Then Kerry...well he always looks like one, so....

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:14 AM
Funny...that's what the pundits thought when Gore debated GW for the first time. GW whooped him so bad, looked like Gore fell into a bucket of rouge! :D Came away looking like a clown...literally.
Then Kerry...well he always looks like one, so....

and the cherry on top of it all? the astounding success in war, peace, prosperity, lack of corruption and croneyism, lack of willful disregard of u.s. and military law, excellent handling of national emergencies.

the whole package.

gwb has proven himself again and again as "the man". and even now, his approval rating shows how the american people are so spectacularly, elatedly glad they made the choice they did.

gwb will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest presidents the u.s.

NO!

the WORLD has ever known.

jin

jin choung
05-28-2008, 02:20 AM
btw, got any choice clips from that debate?

all i get is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaY8wzwxWTc&feature=related

when you're right, you're right. the man is a brilliant orator, light on his feet, sharp as a tack. he'd be great in the british parliament....

jin

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 03:53 AM
btw, got any choice clips from that debate?

all i get is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaY8wzwxWTc&feature=related

when you're right, you're right. the man is a brilliant orator, light on his feet, sharp as a tack. he'd be great in the british parliament....

jinMy point isn't that he's the brightest bulb in the bunch, but each time a liberal has had a good shot at taking him down...they failed. Even in debates. Come on Lib's...you're supposed to have all the brains and are far more articulate, right. Why did you then get soundly thumped in the debates as well?

cresshead
05-28-2008, 04:33 AM
are we in 'off topic land' now?

:^)

AbnRanger
05-28-2008, 04:49 AM
are we in 'off topic land' now?

:^)You're right...sorry about that. Just couldn't resist. I think that's why liberals hate him so much. He's stupid often enough...just not when it counts...dagnab'it! :D

Verlon
05-28-2008, 12:04 PM
I heard GWB was an autodesk user :devil:


And really, about the only way to make the EULA from autodesk worse would be to have a provision requiring you to surrender your immortal soul "click here to sign in blood."

Red_Oddity
05-29-2008, 03:35 AM
I heard GWB was an autodesk user :devil:


And really, about the only way to make the EULA from autodesk worse would be to have a provision requiring you to surrender your immortal soul "click here to sign in blood."

I doubt the devil is stupid enough to use shrink wrap contracts...oh wait, we're still talking about Autodesk..They only wanted my firstborn, never read anything about my immortal soul (though Adobe owns that one.)