This sounds dodgy… I would pursue this legally. You must definitely make a complaint about it in writing.
Just to say, this is really fun. Did you know autodesk actually spends more money to pay their anti-pirate-fight section, then what they earn by selling their(sh…y)products there? That’s at least what I heard.
My guess is that they made a list of every business and individual in the area that is working with 3d, then assumed that 90% of those were using Autodesk products and that 90% of that software was pirated. After they assembled the list they just went to each place and started shaking the trees to see what falls out.
Yes, this is the usual practice. In Spain, the BSA takes public lists of professionals related to a particular software, and send intimidating letters to those that no appear in their clients lists. They pay a visit to some of them, probably the most prominent ones. Many offices just buy one or two seats just to appear in clients lists when in fact they are using more copies.
Anyway I don’t think this is a case of Autodesk going after Blender users. They have more important things to do.
Thirded, start this thread at cgtalk as well. The target audience there is soo much larger than us open source people only. And I’m pretty sure the majority of them wouldn’t really approve of what autodesk did.
That’s nothing compared to the motionbuilder standard fiasco.
People went to the FTC about it. It was all over the motionbuilder
forum on cgsociety a couple years back. Since they discontinued it,
they tried to make it so that if anything happens like a new computer
build, or a hard drives dies, anything, you can no longer install and
use the software.
They are evil, and think they can get away with anything. They got
taken to court, along with microsoft, by a small Texas firm,
for stealing IP property. They lost, and the Texas firm won.
Imagine that - they do just what they don’t want anybody to do
If Ton decides to come to my house to see what software I am using I will give him some good American beer.
well, here are those conversations if you want to see that:
especially see post #56 on that second link, which has the l
ink to the article about microsoft and autodesk getting sued
It turns out that all the software I want to go with is either open
source, or was created by small groups of people not big evil
corporations - like messiah and silo.
It’s better, methinks.
juan_cataly Wow, so you’re not just using blender, but you’re helping other studios use it as well. It sounds like you’re in a very good position to sell blender if autodesk is cracking down on pirated copies. You should just follow them and at every business they stop leave a card advertising “free software you can’t go to jail for”:eyebrowlift: Seriously though, it sounds like this is a general crackdown that will help you more than anything.
Wow! This entire piracy thing is so intense. Before this I didn’t even realise how complex all this is. I followed Tyler’s link and eventually arrived at Autodesk site and downloaded the Max EULA. This stuff is amazing. Don’t these people understnd basic consumer rights? Or don’t Max user’s understand they’re getting gypped?
What are the terms we use when we buy software? Buy, purchase etc right? Wrong! For instance, If you’ve just bought a copy of Autodek’s 3DS Max then you have probably blown more than a lakh of rupees on something that is a dead asset in terms of an investment.
Download the EULA (End User License Agreement) of 3DS Max here and read it:
You don’t own your copy. Therefore you cannot sell, lease or rent it in any way or form. The terminology used by all reseller is “Buy the Software!” But it should actually be “Rent it!”. The EULA says…“The Software and User Documentation are licensed, not sold.”
By becoming a registered user of the product you actually give Autodesk’s representatives complete rights to raid your premises (with reasonable notice of course! ), conduct an audit and install software on your systems. What’s more, all this will also be at your cost. If you were a pirated user on the other hand, they’d have to get a Government order to come anywhere near the place. Strange huh?
You forgo any legal benefit or option specific to your jurisdiction. Even if the law does work to your benefit, it will still work to the benefit of Autodesk.
Even though you’ve paid for it, you cannot use the software outside the territory that it was bought in. If you use your laptop in midflight even… you’re a criminal!
Autodesk’s limited warranty covers the functioning for 90 days after it was bought. Even though they will still continue actually owning it, they disown responsibility for the software’s functioning after 90 days!
The reliability and output of the software’s functioning is NOT GUARANTEED. In fact YOU are responsible for the efficient functioning of the software, not them. See this “PERSONS USING THE SOFTWARE ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING THE ADEQUACY OF INDEPENDENT PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF ANY PROGRAM OUTPUT, INCLUDING ALL ITEMS DESIGNED BY USING THE SOFTWARE.”
You cannot use the software anymore if you go Bankrupt. Yup. If you shut shop you lose the software, and probably have to buy a fresh copy if you start another business. Autodesk actually nullifies your license (No money back) if you go Bankrupt, insolvent or if you have to liquidate everything.
If you have created anything at School with an educational version of the software you cannot use it commercially. Since Portfolio’s are a large part of actually getting a paid job, the clause actually means showing your portfolio to a client is illegal, if you’ve used an educational version to create it.
If you decide to create a tutorial internally it is illegal. Autodesk does not allow for derivatives of it’s user documentation in any form. Wow.
The best for the last! After all of the shenanigans above the cherry on the cake is this. “AUTODESK DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE.”
If you have paid for an upgrade to 3DS Max (Say a .5 upgrade), you automatically loose rights over your previous purchase and have to destroy it and return all documentation to Autodesk at your cost within 120 days etc.
Here’s the logic…
you invest Rs.100 in something
Then another Rs.50 to augment or upgrade…
You automatically stand to loose the original 100. Though an upgraded version still has previous functionalities, the idea is you still loose. How?
Say autodesk has changed some key functionality in the upgrade. But you’re halfway through a project and the new functionality is cutting into your project time because of the learning curve… you cannot use the old version even if it’s more efficient.
You have to both live with the new changes (updates!) as well as loosing your money on the original purchase.
Yowza! Are people so blind tha they cannot see all this or are people who pay for software like these actually helpless?
Juan, I don’t know what your experience is, but these EULAs are pretty common in the industry for propietary software, I have been reading that kind of stuff since the eighties, and yes EULAs is one of the reasons of FOSS existence.
With these EULAs they don’t try to harm their users base but just to keep certain control over the licensed software.
You know… most of this stuff won’t hold up in court. It’s like the stuff they put in your contracts here that says you can not go work at a an office that competes with your current employer. That would mean that if you work in 3d, you could never switch employers cause they all compete… you’d have to “switch careers”… law suits based on stuff like that just don’t make it.
This is standard procedure for software but just because it is written in the EULA does not mean that it is automatically legal. It all depends on where you purchase your copy. E.g. Here in Germany you are actually allowed to resell your copy if you have purchased the disk, cd with booklet etc… You own the disk, cd etc… even if you do not fully own the software. The German law still gives you the right to resell it. If you obtained your copy from the internet it is a whole different story which is still being faught for in court but currently it seems to be illegal to sell licenses from the internet as you have not a physical medium the license is on and you only own the physical medium. So to sum it up every point in an Eula is subject to the jurisdiciton it is sold in so check with a laywer to actually see what this means in India. Also note just because one point in the EULA isn’t legal doesn’t make the rest not applicable.
All I can say that this passus would be illegal in Germany as the company can not obtain access to private property without permission just by selling a service, product etc… so if you officially bought the software they still have to ask you for permission to raid your property. If they come without permisson they are liable to legal penalties. Again check with your local authorities if this is the same in India.
This is also suspect to the above sayings.
now this is tricky as a plane often is considered to be the territory of the country it is stationed in. So an Amercian plane is considered Amercian soil at least as long as it is in the air.
This also depends on the jurisdiction you are in. Again in Germany liability only ends to a certain degree.
This is a normal quote in any software EULA since no programmer in this world can actually guarantee a flawless software. This is more insurance passus and does not apply if you can proof that damage done to your computer was caused by a not properly tested software. (At least here in Germany) Now how to proof this a totally different matter.
Now this is something I can’t really say too much about but if your company is a legal person and that person bought the software then with the bankruptcy the legal person terminated and therefor the contract with the software is terminated. This again is perfectly normal. If a real person buys the software the license extinguishes when the person dies.
I do not think that showing a reel is actually considered commercial use but then again ANAL. I think this passus is more geared towards actually selling the stuff you made. So showing is allright selling is a big nono. Can’t really blame them for wanting to make money with their software.
How is a internally created tutorial a derivative of user documentation from Autodesk? This is FUD and you should first of all clear up what a derivative is.
See point 6
Now this passus is pretty ridiculouse although I cannot definetly say if it is illegal here in Germany. But I can’t really accept it to be legal that an upgrade automatically invalidates an earlier copy of the software. I think this is more to prevent you from selling an old copy or giving it away to somebody else or running the old copy along the new one. Remember one license per machine and with the upgrade you have not obtained a new license. If you do not use the new software and run the old one you are only using one license. Keep in mind installing a software is often considred using it.
If the software is faulty you have the right that it is corrected or else you can get your money back or rollback to a previouse version at least here in Germany.
Now to the point if it is smarter to use Open Source Software. In some cases it is as OS (at least with the GPL) gives you rights as a User which prevent you from being locked into vendor or becoming dependent on them.
Does this make Autodesk a mean and evil company? I do not think so I just think that the EULA is a standard legal document written by some smart a… lawyers to prevent people from sueing Autodesk. A lot of the stuff in the EULA is actually legally invalid and can not be enforced. (At least here in Germany)
Does this make Autodesk a mean and evil company? I do not think so I just think that the EULA is a standard legal document written by some smart a… lawyers to prevent people from sueing Autodesk
spot on. Also I believe that these EULAs have been no proved in court many times yet, and many EULAs include disclaimers about not application in some countries, because many legislators consider some of their articles abussive.
Today, September 11 made me realize how fast time goes by. Five years, ten years … as they say: “Time flies”.
It would be nice to revisit this post in ten years. Where will Autodesk be in ten years from now and where will a business model based on what they have chosen to build on lead them in only 10 years?
My reply might not make much sense today but thanks to google, this topic might make an interesting read … down the road
History books will start that chapter like this : “The Great War for world domination started in Bangalore…”
Just kidding. As a matter of fact I hold softs like Max, a bit, but mostly Maya, SoftImage, Lightwave in high esteem. Those people had a dream and made it true and beautiful, just like we do… although there was also a Ferrari in theirs.
Does this make Autodesk a mean and evil company? I do not think so I just think that the EULA is a standard legal document written by some smart a... lawyers to prevent people from sueing Autodesk
I think stealing IP from a small firm, doing exactly that which they don’t want anybody
else to do to them, makes them evil.
Here’s another interesting link:
The Man Who Dared to Sell AutoCAD R14 on eBay
I had a rather nightmarish experience myself, with Digital Fusion. I decided to sell
my copy of newtek’s video editing program (VT3), along with the capture card.
Since my copy of digital fusion was tied to the card it was no use to me so I
included that in the ebay auction. I called up Digital Fusion in advance to find
out if there would be any problems with transferring ownership, and they said
no problem. So after the auction is done, come to find out they want to charge
me $200 just to make the data entry change in their computers. They did not
inform me of this beforehand. $200 for something that would take one of their
CSR people 2 minutes to do on their system, and I should feel lucky that they
even allow me to sell it to someone else.
Needless to say, I was not a happy camper, and the situation went up to the
sales manager, who decided that I was just a horrible person. Well, they put
me in a very bad position.
The things they do to protect themselves go to the point of torturing their
customers, and it’s just wrong.
I folowed the link on the ebay guy and found an interseting coment on his story. Apparently a ruling actually upheld the fact that a License to use is in fact a sale!and as per US copyright laws a user can in fact make copies (although with restrictions!)
Yes, a case was won recently (Autocad), but the case was particular, and wont held as a general rule.
And no, it dont allows copies, but to resell the single original media and its license you got.