CGTalk - Ars Technica: Autodesk sued for $10 million after invoking DMCA to stop eBay resales

Flog

09-13-2007, 10:49 PM

mech7

09-13-2007, 11:08 PM

all i know is that you can't resell Autodesk software. you know this when you buy them legally. i think he is out for a quick buck.

This depends on the country laws, i don't think the EULA will hold up in many courts.

Szos

09-13-2007, 11:22 PM

GOOD!

AutoDesk (and quite a few other companies) should have been sued years ago for their BS scheme of not allowing the reselling of licenses.
ANY other product that you can buy - be it a car, a computer, a house, or anything else - you can then resell to someone. Why the F is software any different.

I would be willing to go so far as to say that one of the reasons that there is soooo much piracy out there, is because of these BS schemes. There is no outlet for cheap (but legal) software. You can't say, buy a release or 2 old copy of something for 50% of the cost of the new item. You can with most every other product out there. Can't afford a new car? You can buy a used one for a fraction of the cost of new.

<-- uses AutoDesk products on a daily basis and is sick of their BS.

BUZZFX

09-13-2007, 11:35 PM

I think Autodesk is at fault here. I created a website for a client and this client didn't pay me for 8 months, so I thought I'd just pull his site (the one I created for him), but a lawyer said if I did that I could be liable for any lost revenue from the website when it was down. I was going to take him to court but the lawyer said it would draw things out even further. The long and short of it is I was at this client's mercy.

So if this guy was selling legal copies of Max, then IMO Autodesk should have taken him to court instead of pulling his ebay account and causing him to lose business. Even if Autodesk was right about this guy selling illegal copies IMO they went about it the wrong way.

I don't condone piracy. Sure it sucks that software is so expensive, but anyone who uses warez or stolen software is stealing just like stealing a car or other stuff. What incentive will companies have to make good software if everyone steals it.

My two cents :)

Kabab

09-14-2007, 12:56 AM

Jhonus

09-14-2007, 12:57 AM

I dislike Ebay for this very reason. Ebay will pull any auction at the behest of a corporation regardless of the facts. I think if your auction gets pulled three times (regardless of whether you are lawfully selling or not) then your account will be suspended until you send a letter to them promising to never do it again.

Essentially you should just use another auction service.

charleyc

09-14-2007, 01:06 AM

BillSpradlin

09-14-2007, 01:19 AM

"Vernor is asking for $7,000 in lost sales, $350 in legal fees, and $10 million in punitive damages."

It is not his lost sales. I suppose the 10 million is to cover the stress and embarrassment of the whole ordeal.

It is probably meant to raise the status of the lawsuit somehow.

Thanks for pointing that out as I didn't read the article =)

gurubvin

09-14-2007, 01:44 AM

I've actually just bought a copy of xsi on ebay. Brand new, never registered, still in case.
Awhile back though I was looking to buy a used copy of winxp on ebay, and in my research I came across something called the "first sale rule".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

People have sold "used software" based on this. What do you guys think?

-Arvin

Szos

09-14-2007, 01:55 AM

Something which no one has actually mentioned is...

When you purchase most Autodesk products you don't actually own it you are renting the right to use it from Autodesk (read the eula) so how can you resell something you don't own?

This doesn't just go for Autodesk either its standard practice for many software vendors.

This case won't go anywhere.

That is only a (relatively) new development... so software companies could cover their asses for this very issue... doesn't make it any more "right".

However, even then the way these companies work is BS - if the software hasn't been registered yet (like was posted above), it doesn't have an "owner/renter" yet either... which means it should still be able to be resold/re-rented (however you want to word it).

Jhonus

09-14-2007, 04:55 AM

Kabab is right. We are licencing (think leasing) the product, not buying it. Can you resell a car you are leasing?

I think thats a flawed analogy aswell, you can transfer car leases to another person. (and house leases and gym memberships etc etc).

Kabab

09-14-2007, 04:58 AM

I think thats a flawed analogy aswell, you can transfer car leases to another person. (and house leases and gym memberships etc etc).
Yes but only if your lease contract allows it ;)

Jhonus

09-14-2007, 05:46 AM

Yes but only if your lease contract allows it ;)

fair enough, i guess we are back to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability

Kabab

09-14-2007, 05:56 AM

fair enough, i guess we are back to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability
Yeah i totally agree but who the hell wants to goto court with Autodesk to prove their Eula wrong?

davius

09-14-2007, 07:03 AM

Well, I believe this kind of discussion can generate pretty good results (or, at the very least, give some others perspectives of this legal issue). As we all know, laws change, and the concept of "moral" or "ethics" can also suffer evolution from time to time.

But we must see this problem from two (in the minimum) points of view.

1º - The developers claim they spend millions of dollars, months (if not years) of development, and also have a crew they must permanently have in order to continue the production of new versions and also give us support for problems we may run in to when using their software. So, an argument they use is that, if any of us would like to "own" the software we should pay a lot more, since they spent a gazillions of dollars in R&D to finally bring their babies to stores.

Thinking deeper, once the soft is finished, what's left to do? Print DVDs!! This last step is cheap, fast, and easily repeated; so the biggest investment is made in the intellectual part of the job. Where is this different from the LCD panels industry? Or the cars industry? Or even the Books (knowledge) industry? Oh yes! In the end of their laborious design they still had to deal with manufacturing processes - all of theses industries often require modifications of the production line and/or implementation of new (and sometimes expensive - blu ray?) technologies in order to make real something that only existed in some people minds.

So, how can they make profit? Obviously, they earn it in the long run, as the processes become cheaper and more and more people buy their products.

2º - The costumers. Of course, if you wanna buy a Jaguar XK convertible, you must pay for the materials and energy used to make the car and, in some extent, the costs in R&D employed in that specific model. If you can't afford that Jaguar you can buy another model/brand, cheaper and probably not as yummy as the Jaguar, or you can RENT the XK for the period of time you can pay for it. So, if I find this Jaguar used, but still working for a bargain price, and I buy it, doesn't I own it? Also, the concept of "rent" has some notions of time inherited to it. What is this license Autodesk gives us? A one-pay-forever-rented? Is may be written as "lease" or "rent", but in practice, you pay once, you use as long as you want.

They may put any name they want, but is looks like a buy. It acts like a buy, as Shakespeare once said:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

For me, it just seems wrong to let the company decide that the issue is one thing in the paper and another in real life.

A hint - if Autodesk want it to be rented it should charge, say, US$ 20.00 per day of use ( :argh: ) and sell it for the price they're already selling. Just my (utterly) humble opinion.

cem

09-14-2007, 07:20 AM

Autodesk break there own EULA anyway on it, it says you can use their software on two computers for node locked licences as long as they are only used by the licence holder and not at the same time. Try doing that with Maya and they will tell you to get lost no where in the EULA is there mention of Maya having separate restrictions on node locked licences.

el_diablo

09-14-2007, 07:40 AM

Is there a computer game you cant sell after you get bored of it? Why is the EULA of a software product like a game different in that respect from a content creation program? Dont they follow a similar development path?

Srek

09-14-2007, 07:43 AM

When you purchase most Autodesk products you don't actually own it you are renting the right to use it from Autodesk (read the eula) so how can you resell something you don't own?.
And this is where the problems starts, the EULA can only be read after the purchase, since it is in the sealed box.
How about reselling the sealed box? The first buyer would not have to read or agree to the EULA to do this. How do you as a buyer know that you are not buying a product but only renting it without ever seeing or signing a contract on this?
Regardless if the claim of software beeing only rented not bought holds up or not, the moment a company sells something without the buyer knowing the terms of the sales do speak against the companies claim.

Cheers
Björn

Kabab

09-14-2007, 08:48 AM

And this is where the problems starts, the EULA can only be read after the purchase, since it is in the sealed box.
How about reselling the sealed box? The first buyer would not have to read or agree to the EULA to do this. How do you as a buyer know that you are not buying a product but only renting it without ever seeing or signing a contract on this?
Regardless if the claim of software beeing only rented not bought holds up or not, the moment a company sells something without the buyer knowing the terms of the sales do speak against the companies claim.

Cheers
Björn
Not true, if your going to invest in some Autodesk software and you ask to read the EULA before you purcahse they will let you its just most users and companies are far to lazy to care.

Your Eula arugement being in the box holds more water for things like games which you just by off the shelf..

Pretty much all Autodesk sales go through a sales channel which exists to answer things like EULA questions for you before you commit to a purchase, if people are to lazy to do research before they make significant investments is it really Autodesk's fault?

My expierence with Autodesk is that they are more fair when you talk to them about such issues and you are up front, there are a few things they won't budge on but overall they are fair.

I think the bigger picture problem is that software companies in this marketspace don't make back enough money for every $$$ invested in R&D if they did they probably wouldn't be quiet so strict.

Srek

09-14-2007, 09:25 AM

Not true, if your going to invest in some Autodesk software and you ask to read the EULA before you purcahse they will let you its just most users and companies are far to lazy to care.
"Ask to read the EULA"? As long as beeing informed is only optional and not a requirement to buy the software, the argument stands.
This is the main reason for all those "I Agree" buttons on websites and installers, they make sure that people can only get to certain parts after agreeing to specific terms.

Cheers
Björn

Kabab

09-14-2007, 09:28 AM

"Ask to read the EULA"? As long as beeing informed is only optional and not a requirement to buy the software, the argument stands.
This is the main reason for all those "I Agree" buttons on websites and installers, they make sure that people can only get to certain parts after agreeing to specific terms.

Cheers
Björn
But you still have the option to read the eula before you buy the software you are not being forced to use or buy the software to start with...

I'm not a big fan of eula's personally either but i can understand why they exist.

09-14-2007, 09:34 AM

beaker

09-14-2007, 09:48 AM

E_Moelzer

09-14-2007, 10:18 AM

I am so glad that NewTek is so much fairer to their users. I have myself bought a legal and used copy of LightWave3d from a user and the license transfer and everything else was easy and non- problematic. This is one reason why we are glad we went with them when we made the choice of what base- app to support with VoluMedic.
Having VoluMedic for Autodesks products would be much more complicated for us, since we are selling bundles of both and the user has now two Eulers to deal with. If there were to wastly differing licensing schemes for both, it would be quite hard to manage.
Now I can understand Autodesk to some extent, but I still dont like it from a users point of view and the client should always be king, IMHO.
Personally I have an aversion to the thought that the stuff I spent thousands of Euros on does not even belong to me.
CU
Elmar

_mg_

09-14-2007, 10:20 AM

For what it's worth, when i was winding up my business some years back, i had a spare license of 3ds Max. I approached Autodesk directly explained my situation and asked if i could sell the license on. Within 48hours autodesk had sent me a form allowing me to sell the software on and transfer the license holder. The ironic thing was i couldn't find anyone who wanted to buy it!

As Kabab said, the eula explains that they are selling you the right to use their software. period. that's it. You can't sell an apartment that you're renting, (and sub-letting usually has to be done by agreement ;)

Kabab

09-14-2007, 10:38 AM

Kabab - the point is that an agreement already exist the moment a vendor takes your cash.

Of course, if you disagree with the EULA you could refrain from installing and carry the whole thing back to the vendor. But the moment you pay and receive the item, it's yours.
The point is you have the chance to read the dam thing before any money changes hands if your to lazy to do so then its at your own risk.

I am so glad that NewTek is so much fairer to their users. I have myself bought a legal and used copy of LightWave3d from a user and the license transfer and everything else was easy and non- problematic. This is one reason why we are glad we went with them when we made the choice of what base- app to support with VoluMedic.
Sure the Newtek model is nicer and i agree the user should be king but lets look at the actual economic landscape and its quiet clear that Autodesk is in the dominate position sure this does not all come from having strict Eula agreements but it all plays a part.

In the end i'd rather have 80% of the market (or whatever it is Autodesk has) and a few pissed off users then 2% of the marketplace.

For what it's worth, when i was winding up my business some years back, i had a spare license of 3ds Max. I approached Autodesk directly explained my situation and asked if i could sell the license on. Within 48hours autodesk had sent me a form allowing me to sell the software on and transfer the license holder. The ironic thing was i couldn't find anyone who wanted to buy it!
See they are not all evil you just have to go about it the right way :) just remember these guys are as passionate about 3d as you are but they also have to meet a financial reality to make sure the products are sustainable and grow.

Srek

09-14-2007, 10:54 AM

The point is you have the chance to read the dam thing before any money changes hands if your to lazy to do so then its at your own risk.
"The chance to read" an EULA is simply not sufficent to enforce it. If you can get the product legaly without accepting it, it's of no use at all.
Currently Autodesk offers the option to read and accept the EULA before purchasing the box, but it's only that, an option not a requirement.
It's simply not legal to enforce an optional contract. If you can legaly get the product without accepting the contract you have no contract beside the stuff covered by laws regarding general sales.
It's completely up to the seller/manufacturer to make sure that the product is only sold if the buyer agrees to a specific contract, if he fails to do so it's his loss, not the buyers.
Cheers
Björn

Kabab

09-14-2007, 10:59 AM

"The chance to read" an EULA is simply not sufficent to enforce it. If you can get the product legaly without accepting it, it's of no use at all.
Currently Autodesk offers the option to read and accept the EULA before purchasing the box, but it's only that, an option not a requirement.
It's simply not legal to enforce an optional contract. If you can legaly get the product without accepting the contract you have no contract beside the stuff covered by laws regarding general sales.
It's completely up to the seller/manufacturer to make sure that the product is only sold if the buyer agrees to a specific contract, if he fails to do so it's his loss, not the buyers.
Cheers
Björn
See here we have a another problem legal where? In the USA, Germany, Australia, Japan etc etc what is legal in one country may differ in another.

This is a very complex problem the current solution while not perfect still gives the user a chance to understand what the are getting themselves into before committing to something..

Admittedly not perfect but can you suggest something better?

Many of these sales laws where never designed with software in mind because it simply didn't exist i think the problem is more at government policy level.

Srek

09-14-2007, 11:17 AM

Well, it's actualy not too hard. If you want to restrict resales you can do so legaly in most western countries, all you have to do is set up a contract that states the restriction and have the buyer sign it. In germany for example there is a difference between privat and commercial buyers. Privat buyers are protected by law so sales contracts are limited in many ways. For commercial sales however there is the so called "contract freedom" which allows buyer and seller to set up a binding contract that would not be legal for private customers.
Example: In germany it's legal to restrict sales and resales according to specific requirements. This is for example the purchase of a student version of a software. The buyer is not entitled to resell the software to someone who does not meet the original requirements.
If however the restriction is not specific it does not apply to private customers.

In the end thats not the main problem here, the current lawsuit is basicaly independent from the subject (software). It's about the enforcement and legality of contracts.
The central question as i understood it is: Is a contract binding even though it was not neccesary to know about or agree to it to buy the goods.
I think thats a question that will make many lawyers happy for some time ;)

Cheers
Björn

Kabab

09-14-2007, 11:24 AM

" Well, it's actualy not too hard. If you want to restrict resales you can do so legaly in most western countries, all you have to do is set up a contract that states the restriction and have the buyer sign it."

I'd have to disagree, its a hell of a lot of work to carefully examine the laws in every single country you sell in to have country specific contracts in place, then what the heck do you do in situation where companies have global floating licenses etc.. In the end that cost is just going to be passed onto users...

"I think thats a question that will make many lawyers happy for some time ;)"

Hahaha no truer words have been said! but i wish it was us 3D people cashing in not those grubby lawyers :)

FunkyCowie

09-14-2007, 01:43 PM

I think everyone is some what skirting around the issue of the fact that Autodesk write their EULA and the user has to abide by it so you can't compare it to a car or whatever, its down to the individual company involved as to what they will let the consumer do once they don't want the item anymore.

BigPixolin

09-14-2007, 02:51 PM

Venkman

09-14-2007, 02:58 PM

I can see the guy's point, but unless he really is some god-like ebay user, there is no way he should get 10 million dollars!

If he was making that amount of money on eBay, then I need to consider a career switch. ;)

NME-Se7eN

09-14-2007, 03:11 PM

As much as I hate to take a position here, I must. I tend to favor the side of the dealer. Mainly because I've had one of my own Ebay auctions pulled... AFTER THE TRANSACTION WAS COMPLETE.

Essentially I sold FFXI for PS2 with Hard Drive. After payment was received, the buyer got an email telling him the auction was cancelled. After a long and elaborate ordeal, the core of the complaint was the registration codes for FFXI hindering the sales. And so I purchased a PC copy of the game with fresh codes to legitimize the sale.

Now this dealer locks like a power seller who primarily handles estate sales and such. And so it is very likely he snagged this copy for a bargain thinking nothing of EULA. And frankly, EULA hurt the consumers. A vast majority of them are stashed away until after the software/game is purchased and you're no longer in a position to disagree with it. I myself tried to return a copy of Battlefield 2102 or whatever when one of the clauses in the EULA was that the game will use tracking software which may capture passwords, credit card numbers, and more. Couldn't take it back to Best Buy, just got stuck with a $50 coaster.

Now do I agree with the $10 million? Nope.

nemoo

09-14-2007, 03:16 PM

very happy about this news, i hope autodesk will have to pay.

it is really a shame that people nowadays accept being taken the right to resell without a second thought, without trying to do do something against it.

edit: if you dont agree with the 10 million you should change your coutries law system

KnickKnack

09-14-2007, 03:35 PM

Can people stop arguing about the legality of the EULA agreement? It's obvious that Autodesk are legally correct in their stance but the point is, do we agree with the law?

Personally, I can see why Autodesk want to prohibit the resale of any software. If 100 people bought the software direct from Autodesk and, after a year, sold it on to 100 other people, Autodesk have lost 50% of their potential revenue. If those 100 people sell it on to another 100 people, they've potentially lost 66% of their revenue.

300 people have used autodesk software at a discounted price (because when they sell the software on, they recover some of their initial costs from buying it) and only 100 have actually paid Autodesk for the privelage.

However, I'm sure there could be some kind of agreement between sellers wishing to re-sell the software and autodesk, whereby some of the sale goes to Autodesk sort of like a residual fee, as and when the licence is transferred.

attanze

09-14-2007, 03:50 PM

Something which no one has actually mentioned is...

When you purchase most Autodesk products you don't actually own it you are renting the right to use it from Autodesk (read the eula) so how can you resell something you don't own?

This doesn't just go for Autodesk either its standard practice for many software vendors.

This case won't go anywhere.

WHAT? AFTER YOU WILL PAY MORE THAN 3000 DOLLARS FOR A COPY OF 3DMAX YOU WILL NOT BE THE OWNER OF YOUR COPY? THATS INSANE. TO COURT WITH THIS CAUSE. AUTODESK NEED A LESSON. If I will buy a car, I will be the owner of the car, if I will buy a house, I will be the owner of the house, if I will buy a phone, I will be the owner of the phone, but if I will BUY an autodesk product, I will NOT be the owner of the product?

BUZZFX

09-14-2007, 03:56 PM

Limbus

09-14-2007, 04:42 PM

Kabab is right. We are licencing (think leasing) the product, not buying it.
Buying software is not like leasing it. I buy the right to use the software. It is only right that I can sell this right to someone else since it belongs to me. And just because something is writen in an EULA it is not automatically legally binding. At least not in germany and I guess it will not be much different in other countrys. Microsoft lost a big lawsuite in germany in which they wanted to forbid the resale of used licenses. The court ruled that this part of the EULA was not legally binding.

But htis action really shows how much Autodesk cares about theyr customers once they forked over the money.

Florian

inguatu

09-14-2007, 05:05 PM

So let's give up selling used cars, used homes, used clothing, used computers, used video games. Why not just chunk all pawn shops out the window. Oh and goodwill is evil!! Get them out the door. We should forget buying anything used and only buy new stuff. Forget recylcing and reusing.

dude.. it's not that black and white. Used homes, cars, clothing, and blah blah blah you figured you'd add to your argument... all of those things don't have licensing agreements. If Autodesk does in fact state with the licensing of each software that it's non-transferrable, then the person is screwed. Hell, some software isn't transferrable amongst workstations if the first one dies, without paying a fee.

As other people have mentioned, this guy sells everything and probably his mother and her kitchen sink to make money. Again, this isn't black and white like you make it out to be.

This dude won't get $10mil. There wasn't $10mil worth of punitive damages he suffered. Loss of sleep? Mailbox too full from letters received from Autodesk? I doubt it. He just wants a payout instead of selling old crap on ebay that should go to Goodwill

inguatu

09-14-2007, 05:09 PM

And just because something is writen in an EULA it is not automatically legally binding. At least not in germany and I guess it will not be much different in other countrys. Microsoft lost a big lawsuite in germany in which they wanted to forbid the resale of used licenses. The court ruled that this part of the EULA was not legally binding.

But htis action really shows how much Autodesk cares about theyr customers once they forked over the money.

Florian

Just because Microsoft lost 1 lawsuit doesn't mean others won't win. Different factors go into if and how a case is won. One factor is simply the judge. Believe it or not.. judges do show bias and it seems to be a common fact that Microsoft doesn't have too many fans in the EU.

Autodesk cares about customers at least they do me. I've never had problems with them years I've dealt with them, including transferring a license of Maya from one agency to another.

Apoclypse

09-14-2007, 05:36 PM

Kabab is right. We are licencing (think leasing) the product, not buying it. Can you resell a car you are leasing? Software companies make their money by selling us the right to use their software under a specific set of rules. We are leagally bound to them if we agree to the EULA and Autodesk is doing nothing out of the ordinary here. Ebay is the one who disabled the account and they are the ones who would be liable for this mans lost revenue. But I am certain that this did not happen without warning. The guy pushed the system and got burnt. It is his own fault and now he wants to make money off it.

yes that is what we are doing, but that doesn't mean that the EULA is actually legally binding. In fact I doubt it would hold up in court and if that is the case them all software companies with EULA's might be in for a rough time. EULA cannot supersede law adn in this case I think autodesk is overextending its rights in-order to force users to upgrade. EULA is not law, its a contract, contracts can be broken if they try to supersede the law.

I might be wrong though. Who knows.

bluecanvas

09-14-2007, 05:49 PM

Something which no one has actually mentioned is...

When you purchase most Autodesk products you don't actually own it you are renting the right to use it from Autodesk (read the eula) so how can you resell something you don't own?

If you poke through Autodesk's online store

http://store.autodesk.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?SiteID=adsk&Locale=en_US&Action=DisplayHomePage&pgm=12938000&ThemeID=516200&Currency=USD

you will see plenty of references like "software purchases", "review and buy", "reasons to buy". I don't see terms like "rent" or "lease" anywhere that I've looked.

If the EULA states that you are not buying the software but rather renting or leasing it, then this entire online store is one massive fraud.

rendermaniac

09-14-2007, 06:01 PM

... I will buy a house, I will be the owner of the house...

Except if you buy leasehold of course - when you reach the end of the contract, the freeholder still owns it. However you can sell the lease on to someone else.

Simon

Wizdoc

09-14-2007, 06:04 PM

The problem with EULAs is also that they're usually buried into the installation phase - that is, you are asked to agree to them after you've already paid and purchased the software. When you walk to a store and buy a software, they don't ask you to sign a contract to lease a software or tell you that you don't actually own the thing you buy.

davius

09-14-2007, 06:12 PM

If you poke through Autodesk's online store

http://store.autodesk.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?SiteID=adsk&Locale=en_US&Action=DisplayHomePage&pgm=12938000&ThemeID=516200&Currency=USD

you will see plenty of references like "software purchases", "review and buy", "reasons to buy". I don't see terms like "rent" or "lease" anywhere that I've looked.

If the EULA states that you are not buying the software but rather renting or leasing it, then this entire online store is one massive fraud.

That's a common practice from these kind of companies. They just try to give different names to known things but, in the end, a buy is a buy, doesn't matter if you bought the software or the right to use it.

The argument about Autodesk losing money from people re-selling to other people can't be taken as a "reason" to prohibit this practice. What about the people who would prefer to buy a used copy instead of downloading warez versions of the software? If Autodesk permitted the reselling just by adding a little fee (like US$ 20.00) they would even make money from this "garage sale"!

Also, it is correct to say that a contract can't hurt laws. If a clause of the contract is considered abusive or against what the law preaches, then such clauses are invalid.

I hope Autodesk looses this matter, so they re-think their EULA.

XLNT-3d

09-14-2007, 06:28 PM

Man it would suck to have so much hatred toward a company for very little reasons.
It's just a tool not your wife.
I for one hope this guy loses miserbly and has to pay all his own lawyer fees and court costs.

I work in this system. This guy is a plaintiff. Plaintiff attornies are working for free until they settle or win. Then they take about 30%. They put a high dollar in the initial lawsuit in hopes of settling for less. You ask for 10 Million and maybe you will get $500K. We usually work for the deep pockets which are regularly sued for double digit millions. Most settle for far less. Its a balance of what the insurance will pay and at what point is it cheaper to settle than pay the defense fees. The plaintiff's are balancing on how much to settle for in case the court systems decides a smaller number is more appropriate.

He might legitimately get his lower number of lost revenue. However, Ebay may be responsible for that as they actually pulled the plug. Autodesk addressed Ebay not the seller. Usually no one wins any money, but they are allowed to sell again and possible sell the product that was being blocked.

BigPixolin

09-14-2007, 06:42 PM

I work in this system. This guy is a plaintiff. Plaintiff attornies are working for free until they settle or win. Then they take about 30%. They put a high dollar in the initial lawsuit in hopes of settling for less. You ask for 10 Million and maybe you will get $500K. We usually work for the deep pockets which are regularly sued for double digit millions. Most settle for far less. Its a balance of what the insurance will pay and at what point is it cheaper to settle than pay the defense fees. The plaintiff's are balancing on how much to settle for in case the court systems decides a smaller number is more appropriate.

He might legitimately get his lower number of lost revenue. However, Ebay may be responsible for that as they actually pulled the plug. Autodesk addressed Ebay not the seller. Usually no one wins any money, but they are allowed to sell again and possible sell the product that was being blocked.

Thanks
I was actually reffering to this guys cheerleaders.

_mg_

09-14-2007, 06:51 PM

I don't think that Autodesk or any software co. need to be 'taught a lesson'. I do think it is encumbent upon all software providers to be clearer and more up front about this however. Yes 3d software is expensive, but then again most professional tools are.

Think about the your potential earnings from that software and you'll be able to put the initial outlay in perspective. Also consider, that without that tool (think any 3D software made by anyone other than you) none of us wouldn actually be able to work in this industry. Unless of course, we happened to write our own tools.

Don't get me wrong, i'd love to be able to sell on software if i no longer needed it. I posted earlier about my experience, with Autodesk but it seems that only 1 person picked up on this. Perhaps if there was less assumed aggression towards the software providers and a bit of understanding on the part of anyone trying to do this type of thing, the outcome may be slightly different.

I also think that software rentals or short-term upgrades to things like maya unlimited from complete for example, is something that all software companies should be doing If you're freelance, and you need to fit into someone else's pipeline it would be a sensible approach for all and a good money maker for the software manufacturer.

Modelworks

09-14-2007, 07:48 PM

I think companies need to start putting the Eula in more prominent positions.
Instead of hitting the person with it when they install the software or open the box, how about a seal on the box stating that once you break the seal you are agreeing to the terms of the eula at web address xxxxx.

The problem is the eula thing had slowly crept into software over time.
I can remember years ago never seeing anything about a eula when installing software.
It needs to be put in the customers face so to speak where it can't be missed.

On an expensive package like Max, if I were autodesk I would require every sale to have a signed copy of the eula when the software is bought. This way the customer is informed and autodesk protects there rights.

The problem I have with this situation is autodesk stance on not allowing license to be transferred. Other software companies that sell very expensive software allow it and its not hurting there business.

If I have a version of Max5 and I never continued on with max, how is it stealing to sell that to someone else ? Thats like a hollywood studio telling you , you can buy a movie, but only you can watch it and must destroy it after you have if you never intend to use it again.

heavyness

09-14-2007, 08:02 PM

we are also forgetting they let you upgrade your software for a lower price. there are people with 8 copies of 3ds max out there, but they didn't pay full price for each [they simply upgrade for a couple hundred bucks each time].

now, can this person sell his 7 old versions of 3ds max to people? you can say it's like trading in your car for another car, but unlike 3ds max, you don't get to keep your old car for backup.

i'm not saying i agree with autodesk [and for any other software company]. i feel once you buy something, you own it, you can mod it, you can do what you want. BUT, it's in their EULA [end-user license agreements], you know it before you buy it, and if you don't like it, don't support the company and buy it.

in the end, i still don't think this guy is in the right [even though i don't care to much for autodesk's EULA].

charleyc

09-14-2007, 09:06 PM

This is very much like leasing a car (or renting a house/apartment). They are selling you (you give them money) the right to use the car as you wish within the agreed upon restrictions they conceived. And it is different depending on the company you are leasing through. It is not your car/house/apartment, but you can use it like it is, but you don't really own it. That is exactly what most EULA are. A License Agreement. As for the argument about upgraded copies, unless things are different for others, I keep the same serial number for each version, so I technically don't have several copies of max, I have an agreement to use the different versions. And it is not only Autodesk that does this, Windows does, I am sure MacOS does, Adobe does...this is common software practice. If you don't understand this, it is not Autodesks fault. It is up to us to understand what we are spending thousands of dollars on.

The fact that this guy has raised issues with Autodesk at least 5 other times says to me that he is trying to make a buck off this stuff rather than recoup the costs of buying it. I feel that it is his own fault his account got suspended and seeking action against Autodesk is simply trying to milk the system.

And about the comment of changing the laws in our country if we don't like this stuff...You can't really legislate against people abusing the system. When it is tried, the innocent generally get burnt as well. Chalk this up to another case of someone overcome with half a brain and a full helping of greed.

attanze

09-14-2007, 09:38 PM

This is very much like leasing a car (or renting a house/apartment). They are selling you (you give them money) the right to use the car as you wish within the agreed upon restrictions they conceived. And it is different depending on the company you are leasing through.........

Ok. But dont forget the BIG diference between renting and selling. Ant this difference is THE PRICE. You cant charge the same price for renting a car as for selling the same car. You cant pretend a car is rented if you have paid the entire price for that car. If you rent a car, you are renting for a reasonable price. The software companies that are SELLING products, cant pretend that the software you have paid is only rented to you. You buy a full copy of the product. So, like all the products in the market you NEED TO HAVE the right to resell, donate or make whatever you want with your PURCHASED copy of the software. If autodesk is only renting software, they NEED TO EXPLICITELY STATE THIS IN HIS WEBSITE IN ALL THE ADVERTISEMENT MATERIALS THEY MAKE! Beacouse they cant charge the same price for renting as for selling! In place of BUY the product they need to write RENT the product in all advertisements they make. And they CANT charge the same price for renting as for selling. Dont have much importance what they stated in the EULA, a SELLED product is a selled product. PERIOD. Is like, when you go to purchase a car, you pay the entire price of the car, but in the contract the seller is stating that the car is only rented. THATS INSANE.

NME-Se7eN

09-14-2007, 10:05 PM

The argument about Autodesk losing money from people re-selling to other people can't be taken as a "reason" to prohibit this practice. What about the people who would prefer to buy a used copy instead of downloading warez versions of the software? If Autodesk permitted the reselling just by adding a little fee (like US$ 20.00) they would even make money from this "garage sale"!

THANK YOU! This is a factor everyone forgets when dealing with discussion of software piracy. It's assumed that, should the software be stolen and not purchased, this is money lost. However, who's to say the money was there to begin with? It's an assumption that holds no water. However, if the hobbyist or student in this particular field can find a full retail version just a few iterations older but for 50%-70% off the retail of the current version, then that person is much more likely to PURCHASE the used product.

Now, not that I support software piracy but that is the often ignored issue. The solution on how to control or even profit from aftermarket sales is naturally Autodesk to take a cue from Sony. SOE to be specific. There were people essentially goldfarming and such. So rather than let those transactions, which will take place no matter what you do, enter a world where it's unsecured and unpoliced, they set up their own in house auction system that THEY maintain and enforce. They get a cut, naturally. So why can't Autodesk act as a License tranfer service and charge something like $100-$200 per license transfer. I'm certain the arguement of "Well, they lose money to aftermarket sales" is greatly reduced the moment a company like this begins a business practice off of it.

To me, there is no reason why most of Daz Studios previous software is either very cheap or free with discounts to upgrade (I find this common in a lot of programs, actually) and yet the biggest apps are locked down like this.

twedzel

09-14-2007, 10:25 PM

Now for the lease analogy, its all fine and good if you have the option to buy or lease. If I lease/rent I pay a lowered cost per lease period than the cost of ownership. That is why you lease. Ussually I would lease if I could not afford ownership or I simply do not need to own the item. The downside is I do not own it and will have nothing showing for my investment of cash over a period of time. Now somebody tells me with software I am paying the upfront cost of owning the program, I have no lease terms, I will be able to use it indefinitely... all things that indicate ownership, but yet I am only leasing it? That is screwed by the simple definition of screwed. Seems like all the advantage of this policy goes to the software developers and none to the consumers. Which is ass backwards. All this copyright crap is getting way out of hand.

charleyc

09-14-2007, 10:32 PM

Ok. But dont forget the BIG diference between renting and selling. Ant this difference is THE PRICE. You cant charge the same price for renting a car as for selling the same car.

The rented price of a car is set by the person who is doing the renting. If you were not wise to the actual cost of the car, then who is to say whether or not you paid that price when leasing. We have no idea what the true cost of this software is. As was mentioned earlier, it is no doubt in the millions when you look at the man hours that have been invested. We are not buying the software, we are buying a license to use it. If you cannot understand that, then sorry, but read the EULA.

As for Autodesk loosing money on resales, it is unlikely that is the root of this decision. I would bet that way more often than not, Autodesk would allow an uninstalled version to be resold if you went through the proper channels. But once the product has been used, there is no way for Auotdesk to know whether or not you have faithfully unistalled the product. Therefore, you may get people that buy the software, install and authorize it, and then attempt to resell while keeping their version running. I find it funny how many people assume that Autodesk is doing this to be dishonest. It is no doubt because there are so many other dishonest people out there that the others have to be so constrained. The fact that so many pirate their software gives credence to the idea that there are a lot of people who are quite willing to take advantage of Autodesk. So thank them when we get slapped with rules we don't like.

cresshead

09-14-2007, 11:54 PM

factorblank

09-14-2007, 11:56 PM

Thats like a hollywood studio telling you , you can buy a movie, but only you can watch it and must destroy it after you have if you never intend to use it again.

Actually, there were some studios pushing for the Flexplay DVDs (the self-destructing kind) a few years ago.

imashination

09-15-2007, 12:15 AM

It's obvious that Autodesk are legally correct in their stance but the point is, do we agree with the law?

No its not, in fact its reasonably clear based on other companies trying, and failing to pull the same crap that it isnt legal at all.

If 100 people bought the software direct from Autodesk and, after a year, sold it on to 100 other people, Autodesk have lost 50% of their potential revenue. If those 100 people sell it on to another 100 people, they've potentially lost 66% of their revenue.

So? there is no law in any land that guarentees a company must make profit. I buy a book for £100, sell it for £90, thats my choice, the original company has no right to demand tribute from me selling it

the only question here is has the person purchased the software so that they own it and can do what they like with it, or are they renting a licence.

Your suggestion that any company could demand a percentage of second hand sales is utterly ludicrous.

beaker

09-15-2007, 12:16 AM

Actually, there were some studios pushing for the Flexplay DVDs (the self-destructing kind) a few years ago.Also there was Divx, which you bought a dvd and then had to pay every time you wanted to play it.

beaker

09-15-2007, 12:35 AM

No its not, in fact its reasonably clear based on other companies trying, and failing to pull the same crap that it isnt legal at all.Are you a lawyer? In reality we know either way whether it's legal or not (otherwise companies wouldn't still be doing it). I think we should let the courts decide. :)

cresshead

09-15-2007, 12:43 AM

Flog

09-15-2007, 12:46 AM

bottom line is if you don't like autodesk's business model then don't spend money on their products...there are alternatives...blender, wings3d, lightwave, cinema4d,modo etc

i prefer to have 3dsmax in my toolset...i also have zbrush, lightwave and vue.

and aren't we happy there are alternatives? Thank goodness for competition.

Here is a question about the EULA....what if i have someone under 17 years old install it?

Legally a 17 year old and under cannot come under any legal agreement without parental permission. So if someone under 17 installs it that means the EULA is not contractually obligated because you cannot come in legal contract with a minor without parents signature. :)

Love loopholes

cresshead

09-15-2007, 12:59 AM

and aren't we happy there are alternatives? Thank goodness for competition.

yup!
that's why i bought 3dsmax...just fell in love with character studio back in 1999
with max 2.5...there was no decent alternative..i looked at max, softimge, maya and
lightwave back then and max ran rings around them at the demo in Silicon Graphics
demo day in London all running on silicon graphics 320's and 540's.

and 8 years later...there's still nothing like max/cs except for another max plugin
called CAT...ohh or automatron also...

fully fledged fanboy!....though i use lightwave and other apps also!

amannin

09-15-2007, 01:38 AM

if he really cared about his "business" he would have stopped attempting to sell the autodesk product(s) and focused on his other assets -- meanwhile still investigating the Autodesk issue, but without potential consequence(s).

And as it was already mentioned, the reason this EULA exist, is because Autodesk--like many other companies--allow for full upgrading at a (very much) discounted price.

alvin-cgi

09-15-2007, 02:02 AM

:thumbsup: Agree!!

Ok. But dont forget the BIG diference between renting and selling. Ant this difference is THE PRICE. You cant charge the same price for renting a car as for selling the same car. You cant pretend a car is rented if you have paid the entire price for that car. If you rent a car, you are renting for a reasonable price. The software companies that are SELLING products, cant pretend that the software you have paid is only rented to you. You buy a full copy of the product. So, like all the products in the market you NEED TO HAVE the right to resell, donate or make whatever you want with your PURCHASED copy of the software. If autodesk is only renting software, they NEED TO EXPLICITELY STATE THIS IN HIS WEBSITE IN ALL THE ADVERTISEMENT MATERIALS THEY MAKE! Beacouse they cant charge the same price for renting as for selling! In place of BUY the product they need to write RENT the product in all advertisements they make. And they CANT charge the same price for renting as for selling. Dont have much importance what they stated in the EULA, a SELLED product is a selled product. PERIOD. Is like, when you go to purchase a car, you pay the entire price of the car, but in the contract the seller is stating that the car is only rented. THATS INSANE.

Kabab

09-15-2007, 02:46 AM

Lets get something straight here.

A copy of 3dsmax or Maya etc at 3-4-5k what ever it is in your region is stupidly cheap.

Whether you like to accept this or not all the software packages in this marketplace are way under priced.

Not only does this hurt the software vendors it hurts the users in the end as well.

The less profit that gets made the less that goes into R&D also the smaller margins make it much harder for the small players to make a buck so they end up getting bought out by the big guys or going bust, this also reduces competition.

If you don't believe me simply compare the cost of say Maya to MS Office then compare the R&D costs and market size.

It becomes painfully obvious that these DCC 3d packages are far to cheap so i find it hard to sympathize with people complaining about price.

Even a mechanic pays more for their tools then we do.

Now the whole thing about not being able to transfer licenses is to protect revenue, for example say there is a games studio with 100 seats of 8 and they upgrade to 9, if they had the right to resell and they put up all 100 seats for like $200 each or something stupid and they all get bought up Autodesk has lost about 500k in revenue + ongoing subs etc.

This can seriously undermine the profitability of the software and believe me its in your best interest the that 3d package your using is making lots of $$$$ because that means the tool you have invested hundreds / thousands of your own time learning is going to have a sustainable long term future.

As for piracy and hobbyist's etc there is no excuses these products are professionals level tools made for industry not for people tinkering around at home. If you want to do this as a hobby there are plenty of tools around at the right price point or even free (blender).

Jon A. Bell

09-15-2007, 03:23 AM

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I'm reciting this from memory.

There was a court case in California a few years back where a man won the right to resell a software package that he'd purchased. If I'm remembering correctly, the judge ruled that a software package (which consisted of box, manuals, and install disks) constituted legally-owned (and transferable) property, which the original owner could dispose of as he wished. In effect, it ruled most software companies' EULAs (whereby end users are only "renting the right to use a software license" and cannot legally resell it), as null and void.

HOWEVER (and here's the catch), this doesn't mean that a software company owes the new owner the right to authorize the software, since he didn't buy it from a recognized dealer or the parent company itself. So, the new buyer may simply find himself the proud owner of an expensive doorstop.

-- Jon

P.S. Some software companies, such as NewTek, used to allow resales of their software, and would transfer the license to the new owner for a fee. However, they're a private company, and can do as they want; the business restrictions on publicly-owned companies (with nervous shareholders) are MUCH more odious (for instance, there are literally rules whereby companies cannot legally offer free functionality upgrades to software; they have to charge for them. Stuff like this just makes my neurons short out.)

davius

09-15-2007, 03:42 AM

a book doesn't need 'activation' or 'support' or further development or patching and you can't upgrade a book whereas you can software such as 3dsmax so your analogy is flawed...

with a book you need to buy a new one each time...max 6 book, max 7 book..your not allowed to 'upgrade' are you with printed books?

actually ebooks are tied to YOUR pc and connot be transfered..

Actually, it's not as flawed as you think. The WIPO Copyright Treaty, in its Article 4, states that "Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression." This way, one can assume that "computer programs are automatically placed under copyright, which grants the copy owner normal rights use, and others fair use of the computer material." (Wikipedia)

So, it's clear that there are differences between books and softwares, but whatever you buy - if it's the software itself or the license to use it - it is yours, and you can do with it anything you want, unless the law states the contrary (i.e. you shouldn't use your books to start a fire within a hospital, but if you're in your backyard and want to torch it that's Ok, one less book to collect dust in your shelve). Also, it should be stressed that an EULA isn't, by any means, a law.

cem

09-15-2007, 04:35 AM

With a dongle you can use a node locked license on multiple machines just fine.

Yes I am aware of that but in their EULA it specifically states node locked licences and says nothing about the use of dongles to receive that funtionality. Some Autodesk products do not have the option of a dongle so it's a given that their policy includes all Autodesk products as there are no clauses to say that certain products are excluded.

NME-Se7eN

09-15-2007, 05:39 AM

As for piracy and hobbyist's etc there is no excuses these products are professionals level tools made for industry not for people tinkering around at home. If you want to do this as a hobby there are plenty of tools around at the right price point or even free (blender).

In other words, "I don't want all those dirty poor people in my industry... they're yucky.":)

Kabab

09-15-2007, 08:12 AM

In other words, "I don't want all those dirty poor people in my industry... they're yucky.":)
No not at all..

There are differnet tools at different price points depending on what your going to do..

Does an amature golfer use the same equipment as Tiger Woods? probably not.

Bercon

09-15-2007, 12:25 PM

Does an amature golfer use the same equipment as Tiger Woods? probably not.

Thats probably because it would cost a lot to make the same equimpent that Tiger Woods uses. This is really poor analogue since it costs virtually nothing to copy a software. Software isn't a physical object, stop treating is as such.

Recursive

09-15-2007, 01:47 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_first_sale#Computer_software
The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license) (EULA). The courts have issued contrary decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_%26_Cie._v._O%27Donnell) and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus) are two U.S. Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court) cases that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the scope of copyright and patent, by calling it a license. Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code) (UCC) at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed-and-not-sold argument is held mostly in the 8th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit) and 7th Circuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit) while other circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit) Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems%2C_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology) and Fifth circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit) Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software) as opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_v._BnetD) (Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc. (2004)), which have not been resolved by the Supreme Court.

More specificaly:

Federal district courts in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) and Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novell%2C_Inc._v._CPU_Distrib.%2C_Inc._%282000%29&action=edit) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale.

beaker

09-15-2007, 03:07 PM

Yes I am aware of that but in their EULA it specifically states node locked licences and says nothing about the use of dongles to receive that funtionality. Some Autodesk products do not have the option of a dongle so it's a given that their policy includes all Autodesk products as there are no clauses to say that certain products are excluded.Do you have a link to the webpage that states this? I'm just curious.

BTW, a dongle is a node locked license.

Kabab

09-15-2007, 03:15 PM

Thats probably because it would cost a lot to make the same equimpent that Tiger Woods uses. This is really poor analogue since it costs virtually nothing to copy a software. Software isn't a physical object, stop treating is as such.
But there is a cost of sale and support..

Just because its easy to copy doesn't mean the company should be forced to sell it really cheap or its justifiable to pirate it.

Its very easy to discount a product but its almost impossible to increase its price without causing outrage.

These products are cheap enough as is releasing a super cheap low end version isn't really in their interest.

NME-Se7eN

09-15-2007, 04:56 PM

But there is a cost of sale and support..

Just because its easy to copy doesn't mean the company should be forced to sell it really cheap or its justifiable to pirate it.

Its very easy to discount a product but its almost impossible to increase its price without causing outrage.

These products are cheap enough as is releasing a super cheap low end version isn't really in their interest.

And I'm forced again to ask, why not? Many people I know use the license from their jobs on the hobby stuff. Likewise, plenty of people out there stand never to make a single dime off their 3D endeavors and do it simply for fun. Now I ask you, when Student versions of this software can be made affordable for the "broke ass" college student but with limits on WHAT you can do with the license (read: Not make money), why can that business model not be applied to the hobbyist as well. Or better yet, the self learners, who cannot prove they are enrolled in a formal training program, thus ineligible for the Student version.

Look, I'll bust it down this way. To an average industry person, certain packages are cheap (especially compared to Creator...). But that's an average industry person. To an average comsumer, PS3 is too expensive. See the scale here? Now let's say the average consumer, who has about as much interest in this as he does his Gundam Model Kits or RC Helicopter goes to a store to read up more on this particular field and want's to buy several books. What are the packages that almost all the books cover? Is it 3DSM, or Maya, or these cheaper alternatives you mentioned? Because I'll be honest, I visit the 3D section of both my Borders and Barnes & Nobles quite often and I've only seen 1 Lightwave book and 1 SoftImage book my entire life. Let's say he goes online for help. What are most of the tutorials in? Frankly speaking, once you set yourself up as an industry standard, you've effectively positioned yourself as the package people want to learn. So it's ultimately up to that company to provide a service for all levels.

Now if you even sit here and tell me a further stripped down version of Maya or 3DSM available for Hobbyist with License restrictions (content created with this version is not sellable, etc) for $500 is going to somehow destroy their market instead of taking a chuck out of the percentage of people with pirate copies, then I'm truly amused.

davius

09-15-2007, 06:36 PM

(...) Now if you even sit here and tell me a further stripped down version of Maya or 3DSM available for Hobbyist with License restrictions (content created with this version is not sellable, etc) for $500 is going to somehow destroy their market instead of taking a chuck out of the percentage of people with pirate copies, then I'm truly amused.

I couldn't agree more.

windarr

09-15-2007, 06:58 PM

Wow, you know I'll admit I wasn't even aware that the EULA indicated you couldn't resell the product. That doesn't really seem to be protecting the companies copyright, seems to be protecting their bottom line more. But as I think some other people pointed out it doesn't really protect their bottom line because pirated software does definitely proliferate more due to the expensive price (I don't condone it, I've never used pirated software), which then eliminates some potential legit sales. Sorry Kabab, but yes it is expensive and I agree with NME-Se7eN, they should make some hobbyist or starting freelancer prices, or why not just give a 1 year license like their student versions, up the price point and leave out some stuff to make it more affordable. I'm sure the majority of their income comes from professional companies that purchase licenses in bulk, so how could it hurt them to increase the number of non professional or small freelance customers? More users=more mind share for Autodesk, which means even more users of their software in the future.

I have to say this article really pissed me off, so much so that I am writing a complaint to Autodesk, if you feel the same maybe you should also write to them so they know their customers don't like this policy. I went to: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1073231

This is what I wrote:

"How dare you infringe on our ability to resell your software after use. I have just read this article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070913-autodesk-sued-for-10-million-after-invoking-dmca-to-stop-ebay-resales.html. Which is in regards to Tim Vernor who was reselling your software on eBay. I have been a loyal follower of 3DS Max since 3.1 which I learned in school and bought an educational version which cost me $1000. Your software is insanely expensive and I can not believe that you would prohibit me from trying to recoup some of my expenses on the software by reselling it. I would like to note that in the interest of being "green" prohibiting such resales is ridiculous, have you never heard of "Recycle, Reduce, Reuse"? Reuse, being the key part of this. Just because software is old doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose and for many of us we don't have the thousands of dollars needed to buy new. So we buy old until someday when we hopefully can buy new. However you appear to be trying to infringe on that...and therefore new customers. Just because you have the market on 3D software doesn't mean you can't pay attention to customers. Maybe you are too big for your own good, maybe there should also be a class action lawsuit brought against you for being monopolistic. Don't alienate your customers, and stop being so corporate. Bottom line is you have pissed me off (and I'm sure many others)...one of your paying customers.
Might I also add that I have never pirated any software in my life so I am one of those customers you do not want to lose."

Can you tell I was pissed? ;-) Might I also add, that though I thought Kabab made some very valid points, I think the bottom line is that even if Autodesk is in the right to restrict resales, the question is: Should that be allowed? I personally think it should not, and they should change their stance.

DuttyFoot

09-15-2007, 11:02 PM

how come they dont go after a site like this, thats selling max and maya and other autodesk products for a fraction of the cost...

http://www.cheapsoftwares.info/index.php?target=products&product_id=28

subtlebluetones

09-15-2007, 11:04 PM

cem

09-16-2007, 04:17 AM

Do you have a link to the webpage that states this? I'm just curious.

BTW, a dongle is a node locked license.

I know a dongle is a node locked license but they don't specifically mention that you need one to get that funtionality of moving between two computers by their definition or lack of acknowledgement of the dongle it would imply that you can do it without one.

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=4793581

This is also mentioned in their FAQ pages and there is no mention of different products being excluded here either.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but that is the gist I got from reading those pages.

Kabab

09-16-2007, 05:27 AM

Now if you even sit here and tell me a further stripped down version of Maya or 3DSM available for Hobbyist with License restrictions (content created with this version is not sellable, etc) for $500 is going to somehow destroy their market instead of taking a chuck out of the percentage of people with pirate copies, then I'm truly amused.
Whilst this sounds like a nice idea how in the hell do you intend to police it? there would be no possible way in the world you could make sure people don't use it to make money...

If they wanted to do a cheap version they would probably keep the license agreements as is but strip down the features like XSI foundations, but from a business prospective i really doubt they want to be flogging off software that cheap cause it would probably loose them money.

I'm sorry for the people who think this stuff is expensive it simply isn't, before making such claims perhaps do some research into what it actually costs to write and support this stuff and then look at how large the market segment is.

subtlebluetones i think what you say is true but do you really expect any software company ever to publicly endorse piracy?

NME-Se7eN

09-16-2007, 06:18 AM

Whilst this sounds like a nice idea how in the hell do you intend to police it? there would be no possible way in the world you could make sure people don't use it to make money...

Well, one of the lead ways is to remove certain functionality. Or at least adjust it. Like every render created gets a "for noncommercial use only" watermark. Also, when people sell stuff, they obviously require payment and real names. Thus it'd be pretty easy to verify the level of the license. And yes, it requires some work on their part but hey, if Nintendo can hire someone to order cease and desist letters to a Suicide Girl who puts "I looove Pikachu. So Kweeeewt!" then I don't see how Autodesk, with the additional revenue of this untapped market, can't afford someone to find instances of license breakers. They obviously pay someone to scour Ebay already.

If they wanted to do a cheap version they would probably keep the license agreements as is but strip down the features like XSI foundations, but from a business prospective i really doubt they want to be flogging off software that cheap cause it would probably loose them money.

I'm sorry for the people who think this stuff is expensive it simply isn't, before making such claims perhaps do some research into what it actually costs to write and support this stuff and then look at how large the market segment is.

Keeping the license agreements the same could obviously be one idea. But also, aren't we currently living in a world with Photoshop Elements? I mean, I'm the Maya user so I know the changes made there, how about this idea? Remember how features in the Unlimited kept being part of the standard package whereas the Unlimited keeps being upgraded? How about, for the "Elements Edition," you simply roll back those features? I mean, why can't Maya have three packages to acocidate different markets. In case you missed it, Standard was created to accomidate game studios who have no need for the advanced functionality of Unlimited. So why not take it a step further and release Maya Hobbyist, Maya Standard, and Maya Unlimited.

And by the way, this stuff is expensive to an average consumer. And this is who we're talking about. Your average consumer isn't going to "research" to get a better idea of why things are priced the way they are. This is the World Of Walmart. We are a very bargain driven society and facing facts, for a hobbyist, the $2000 minimum is NOT a bargain. For a game studio, yes. For a production company, yes. For a professional 3D freelance artist, yes. For someone who saw Eye Drops on TechTV and thought "hey, it would be cool to do something like that," it's not. Period. And that's who we're talking about.

Do you really think the people doing majority of the pirating are the professionals? Nope, they are hobbyist. These are not the people trying to get the contract for the next Coca Cola commercial or developing the latest FPS. These are the people adding Invader Zim to Unreal Tournament. And frankly speaking, if companies like Autodesk would take the time to try and market directly towards these consumers instead of ignoring them as a strictly pirate market, they WOULD see growth. I know it costs a lot to develop this software but hey, they ask a lot too. And legal copies can, unfortunately, be beyond the reach for many, many people. So limit the software and lower the shelf. Someone who wants to make an X-Men mod of Half-Life 2 will not see a single dime for his efforts. So why should he be forced into the same market as the people who will?

Kabab

09-16-2007, 07:18 AM

Well, one of the lead ways is to remove certain functionality. Or at least adjust it. Like every render created gets a "for noncommercial use only" watermark. Also, when people sell stuff, they obviously require payment and real names. Thus it'd be pretty easy to verify the level of the license. And yes, it requires some work on their part but hey, if Nintendo can hire someone to order cease and desist letters to a Suicide Girl who puts "I looove Pikachu. So Kweeeewt!" then I don't see how Autodesk, with the additional revenue of this untapped market, can't afford someone to find instances of license breakers. They obviously pay someone to scour Ebay already.
This is a hell of a lot of work to sell something really cheap the costs of doing this may well out weigh the revenue.

There already is a completely free version of maya with watermarks anyway so why not just use that?

Keeping the license agreements the same could obviously be one idea. But also, aren't we currently living in a world with Photoshop Elements?
And just compare how many seats of PhotoShop Adobe sells every year to Maya/Max

And by the way, this stuff is expensive to an average consumer. And this is who we're talking about. Your average consumer isn't going to "research" to get a better idea of why things are priced the way they are. This is the World Of Walmart. We are a very bargain driven society and facing facts, for a hobbyist, the $2000 minimum is NOT a bargain. For a game studio, yes. For a production company, yes. For a professional 3D freelance artist, yes. For someone who saw Eye Drops on TechTV and thought "hey, it would be cool to do something like that," it's not. Period. And that's who we're talking about.
Thats all good and well but have you considered maybe they don't want to be a consumer / hobbyist application?

Do you really think the people doing majority of the pirating are the professionals? Nope, they are hobbyist. These are not the people trying to get the contract for the next Coca Cola commercial or developing the latest FPS. These are the people adding Invader Zim to Unreal Tournament. And frankly speaking, if companies like Autodesk would take the time to try and market directly towards these consumers instead of ignoring them as a strictly pirate market, they WOULD see growth. I know it costs a lot to develop this software but hey, they ask a lot too. And legal copies can, unfortunately, be beyond the reach for many, many people. So limit the software and lower the shelf. Someone who wants to make an X-Men mod of Half-Life 2 will not see a single dime for his efforts. So why should he be forced into the same market as the people who will?

Also the piracy rate in a professional environment in most western countries is something like 30%...

They address the issue your talking about with Gmax but well it wasn't all the popular so they canned it.

Just remember what you want and what their larger scale business goals are maybe something completely different.

To be honest i'd love to see some Autodesk people chime in :)

davius

09-16-2007, 07:30 AM

I must say I'm really happy to read and learn a lot from this discussion - I had a few things to say but NME-Se7eN already said them and I doubt I could elaborate better then he did.

Just to finish, this is a subject that reaches lots of fields, from legal ones to moral ones (and they're not the same thing!!) and the ideas I see coming through this forum makes me a proud member of it.

Srek

09-16-2007, 08:47 AM

how come they dont go after a site like this, thats selling max and maya and other autodesk products for a fraction of the cost... [Link Removed]
Posting links to warez sites is maybe the second fastest way to get banned from CG Talk, the fastest is to offer it yourself ;)
Cheers
Björn

subtlebluetones

09-16-2007, 09:33 AM

Heh. i thought the fastest way was to be an xbox or sony fanboy.:scream:

Lord knows thats how they got me!:)

NME-Se7eN

09-16-2007, 02:34 PM

Posting links to warez sites is maybe the second fastest way to get banned from CG Talk, the fastest is to offer it yourself ;)
Cheers
Björn

Wait, that was Warez? My assumption from looking at that site is that it was somehow left over copies during the changeovers. Especially considering how there isn't a single app on there that was the current version.

There already is a completely free version of maya with watermarks anyway so why not just use that?

Even when someone is going to school fulltime, do you know anyone who learned how to be proficient in Maya in 90 days? Now for a hobbyist, it's doubtfull he'll get his first rig completed by that time. Not saying the personal learning edition is a crappy idea, but it's primary focus is to introduce the software, not become a viable solution for the hobbyist market.

Thats all good and well but have you considered maybe they don't want to be a consumer / hobbyist application?

Okay, seriously... have you SEEN the books they put out themselves. They have a very full lineup of titles focusing on anyone from the casual user to the professional level. To say Autodesk doesn't want the Hobbyist market is like completely ignoring the fact that this company not only had sponsored a bunch of tutorials on the DVD version of Unreal Tournament 2004, but they also packed in the PLE. It's a market they are definately targetting through advertising as well.

Srek

09-16-2007, 02:57 PM

Wait, that was Warez? My assumption from looking at that site is that it was somehow left over copies during the changeovers. Especially considering how there isn't a single app on there that was the current version.
I checked and they offer current versions of other apps than Maya for 1/3 to 1/4 of the normal price.
Basic rule, if a deal looks to good to be true, usualy it is ;)

Cheers
Björn

DuttyFoot

09-16-2007, 04:37 PM

i didnt realize posting the link could get me banned....my bad.
how is it they go after that guy for selling the programs on ebay but not the people on that site for selling there programs much cheaper.
also the versions of maya and max were not old versions either.

windarr

09-16-2007, 07:51 PM

NME-Se7en: very well put.

Whilst this sounds like a nice idea how in the hell do you intend to police it? there would be no possible way in the world you could make sure people don't use it to make money...

Well they do offer educational versions, which besides the initial agreement, the pop up screen at the start of the program and the window header that states educational version, there is no way to discern content produced via an educational version of 3DS Max vs. the professional version (no, I haven't done that, just pointing it out), so they appear to be comfortable with the agreement signed at purchase that professional content will not be produced. So therefore it would make plenty of sense for them to release a hobbyist version with a similar agreement and maybe reduced content just to make sure.

software piracy should be seen as a good thing for autodesk. They get their money from businesses in the industry. fx houses, game studios ad agencies etc...

How could it possibly be a good thing, pirated software is not always very stable, so for those that use it it could very well cause issues on your system or cause you to lose hours of your precious work. If Autodesk did release a cheap version for hobbyists it could introduce additional revenue for them that they aren't currently receiving. Yes the more users the better (greater consumer mindshare), but that can be achieved by issuing a cheaper hobbyist version, since not everyone can go enroll in college just to get a new educational version of the software.

Nice disclaimer by the way, covering your bases I guess ;-) .

DuttyFoot

09-16-2007, 09:14 PM

i guess gmax was a way to curve piracy, and help hobbyist learn max.
i wish they continued to support it. right now xsi has mod tool, which is basically like gmax. the learning editions are a step up from programs like gmax because you can learn everything about the program. the only drawback for hobbyists would be the watermark. is it possible that autodesk will do a ple version of max.

bluecanvas

09-16-2007, 10:50 PM

And just compare how many seats of PhotoShop Adobe sells every year to Maya/Max

You can buy 10 Photoshop CS3 licenses for the price of 1 Maya Unlimited. I don't really understand why you compare products that cost 3.5K and 7K with a $650 product.

Kabab

09-16-2007, 11:23 PM

Even when someone is going to school fulltime, do you know anyone who learned how to be proficient in Maya in 90 days? Now for a hobbyist, it's doubtfull he'll get his first rig completed by that time. Not saying the personal learning edition is a crappy idea, but it's primary focus is to introduce the software, not become a viable solution for the hobbyist market.
There is no time lock just a watermark.

Okay, seriously... have you SEEN the books they put out themselves. They have a very full lineup of titles focusing on anyone from the casual user to the professional level. To say Autodesk doesn't want the Hobbyist market is like completely ignoring the fact that this company not only had sponsored a bunch of tutorials on the DVD version of Unreal Tournament 2004, but they also packed in the PLE. It's a market they are definately targetting through advertising as well.
Their product pricing doesn't really reflect this, anyone can write and release a book.

Well they do offer educational versions, which besides the initial agreement, the pop up screen at the start of the program and the window header that states educational version, there is no way to discern content produced via an educational version of 3DS Max vs. the professional version (no, I haven't done that, just pointing it out), so they appear to be comfortable with the agreement signed at purchase that professional content will not be produced. So therefore it would make plenty of sense for them to release a hobbyist version with a similar agreement and maybe reduced content just to make sure.

Vast majority of edu seats are sold to schools and uni's which are always very diligently adhere to license agreements.

You can buy 10 Photoshop CS3 licenses for the price of 1 Maya Unlimited. I don't really understand why you compare products that cost 3.5K and 7K with a $650 product.
The comparison is to show the true value of the product...

You can be sure as hell that CS3 sells way more then 10 times as much Maya Unlimited and its no where near as complex to code and support, so this highlights that Maya Unlimited is really worth more then what they sell it for.

Apoclypse

09-16-2007, 11:56 PM

There is no time lock just a watermark.

Their product pricing doesn't really reflect this, anyone can write and release a book.

Vast majority of edu seats are sold to schools and uni's which are always very diligently adhere to license agreements.

The comparison is to show the true value of the product...

You can be sure as hell that CS3 sells way more then 10 times as much Maya Unlimited and its no where near as complex to code and support, so this highlights that Maya Unlimited is really worth more then what they sell it for.

Well, I'll argue and say that Maya WAS hard to code. The same cannot be said now, which is why the price of the product is so greatly reduced from when it first came out, The price is supposed to reflect the amount of work put in to the product, that is not the case now, in fact the last release was extremely disappointing lacking anything functionally new. 3dsmax is notorious for tacking on functionality with plugin after plugin, So what are you really paying for everytime you upgrade? Sometimes I think the 3d industry gets away with far too much when other industries such as music seem far more reasonable when it come to software pricing, A license of Logic costs $499 (now) has far more functionality than Photoshop out of the box, can arguably be more complex to program for than certain aspects of 3d software and yet it is still a fraction of the price. But I guess that's apples to oranges.

Kabab

09-17-2007, 12:56 AM

Look at the size of the market it all comes down to how many people are going to buy it vs the cost of developing it.

NME-Se7eN

09-17-2007, 03:32 AM

There is no time lock just a watermark.

Their product pricing doesn't really reflect this, anyone can write and release a book.

Really? That changed in the PLE then. It used to be 90 days. Can you export from it? Or even save?

Also, you misunderstood me when I mentioned the books. This isn't "anyone" writing and releasing these books. This is Autodesk authoring and distributing these books.

Kabab

09-17-2007, 05:23 AM

You can save but you can't export its locked to its own format.

lebada

09-17-2007, 06:05 AM

software piracy should be seen as a good thing for autodesk. They get their money from businesses in the industry. fx houses, game studios ad agencies etc...

If people are training with their software for free, guess what software they will buy when they need it for a money making project... The more users (legally or not) the better. Because the people that HAVE to pay for it, will choose their software...

Thats my take on it anyway. If this post is thought of as inflammatory or irresponsible i will remove it. I dont use pirated 3dsmax as i work at a games dev, but i still think that it helps the companies out in the long run. I specifically look for companies that use 3dsmax, because its all i know. I learned max at uni, so that again, was legal licenses but you get my drift....

bingo. much like musicians purposfully but not publicly release theire "unreleased" song on the net first and then proceed with it through the media. its literally free advertising to the masses.

Ive used pirated software before, then i bought it if i thought it was useful. Theres no way for example for me when i started ifddling with 3D apps at the age of 14 to afford $7000 for maya, but today here i am at school and guess what im using and what ill be buying when i start making my way into contracts or jobs.

people who do use these types of software and were/are pirated either end up buying it or treat it as a hobby and lose interest inside a few weeks/months. Ive found most students usually never buy licenses as well bc the school provides them so that issue is solved as well.

piracy is, at least in this case, proving to be a positive paradox.

that said the EULA and the renting/leasing issue i do dislike. if i paid $1000 for something that is physical, i own. period. much like music cds or DVDs. you dont have the rights to the intellectual property, but you own what you bought. software should be no different. then there's companies that pull off things like this and ask why piracy is ongoing.

which reminds me of EA NHL 2008 for the pc...people actually bought the game for $50 only to find out the major upgrade of the game is a roster update with worse graphics than the previous game. The REAL game (next gen) is only for consoles (ps3/360) but EA "forgot" to mention that on their site. Just another example of a company fueling that everlasting fire and treating real customers as a joke.

windarr

09-17-2007, 07:00 AM

Vast majority of edu seats are sold to schools and uni's which are always very diligently adhere to license agreements.

True, but it is still available for student purchase, so again, they can't be all that concerned.

bluecanvas

09-17-2007, 07:20 PM

Look at the size of the market it all comes down to how many people are going to buy it vs the cost of developing it.

Autodesk owns 3DMax, Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder, FBX, Lustre, Combustion, Flint/Flame/Inferno + the AutoCAD family of CAD/CAE tools.

Avid owns XSI, Pro Tools, Alienbrain + a huge lineup of film and broadcast editing and finishing solutions.

Nemetschek owns Cinema 4D, ArchiCAD, AllPlan and the Vectorworks family of CAD products.

None of these companies do "cheap" in any of their products, which is why professional 3D software prices are permanently stuck over the $3,000 mark and you can't get anything resembling a "hobbyist" or "small user" license.

The only real hope for lower prices is that a more consumer-friendly company like Adobe enters the 3D market with a solution priced for the mass market. That would change a few things.

specxor

09-18-2007, 12:26 AM

Autodesk owns 3DMax, Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder, FBX, Lustre, Combustion, Flint/Flame/Inferno + the AutoCAD family of CAD/CAE tools.

Avid owns XSI, Pro Tools, Alienbrain + a huge lineup of film and broadcast editing and finishing solutions.

Nemetschek owns Cinema 4D, ArchiCAD, AllPlan and the Vectorworks family of CAD products.

None of these companies do "cheap" in any of their products, which is why professional 3D software prices are permanently stuck over the $3,000 mark and you can't get anything resembling a "hobbyist" or "small user" license.

The only real hope for lower prices is that a more consumer-friendly company like Adobe enters the 3D market with a solution priced for the mass market. That would change a few things.

It may be the case that Autodesk SoftImage(Avid) etc.. Don't do cheap, although most of them offer affordable student versions, there is of cause a fantastic free alternative that is blender, and I would suggest hobbyist start by looking there.

My two cents worth..

Cheers
Dave

beaker

09-18-2007, 01:08 AM

Autodesk owns 3DMax, Maya, Mudbox, Motionbuilder, FBX, Lustre, Combustion, Flint/Flame/Inferno + the AutoCAD family of CAD/CAE tools.

Avid owns XSI, Pro Tools, Alienbrain + a huge lineup of film and broadcast editing and finishing solutions.

Nemetschek owns Cinema 4D, ArchiCAD, AllPlan and the Vectorworks family of CAD products.

None of these companies do "cheap" in any of their products, which is why professional 3D software prices are permanently stuck over the $3,000 mark and you can't get anything resembling a "hobbyist" or "small user" license.

The only real hope for lower prices is that a more consumer-friendly company like Adobe enters the 3D market with a solution priced for the mass market. That would change a few things.Softimage has a $500 version of XSI. Also there are many healthy full 3d packages for under 3k: Lightwave, Modo, Cinema4d, etc...

Shenan

09-19-2007, 12:49 AM

It's just amazing how many people are willing to let corporations run over their legal rights however they want. It's simply an outrageous concept to me that any of you would think that it's ok to prohibit someone from reselling a $3000+ item that they legally purchased.

Anyway, AFAIK Softimage allows you to resell your copies of their software (except XSI Foundation I believe). Someone mentioned Newtek does as well and possibly Maxon too. I also know for a fact that Adobe and many other software companies allow this too.

Thanks but no thanks, Autodesk. You can keep your software.

charleyc

09-19-2007, 01:40 AM

DuttyFoot

09-19-2007, 03:41 AM

wow, i found a rather interesting post on this whole thing. if anyones interested check it out. http://www.cgarchitect.com/news/newsfeed.asp?nid=3855

Shenan

09-19-2007, 05:25 PM

It just amazes me how many people would put out $3,000 without knowing what they are buying. And just because you spend money on something does not mean you own it. So even though you made a legal purchase, you have to know what you purchased to know what rights you may or may not have with it. Whether it is outrageous or not, it is in fact that way Autodesk does things.

There's that tricky "buying" word. The prevailing, established law of this country is that once you "buy" something it becomes your property and you can resell it however you please (First Sale doctrine). Autodesk and other software companies that have this kind of restriction should be required to use the words "renting" or "leasing" clearly on their store instead of "buying".

I just went on the Autodesk website and noticed that they do indeed just use the word "buy" to obtain the software. There is no mention of this restriction anywhere, or even a link to the EULA that I could find. Actually, I spent about 10-15 minutes looking for any mention of this or a copy of the EULA text on their site and couldn't find any.

attanze

09-19-2007, 08:06 PM

attanze

09-19-2007, 08:12 PM

Flog

09-19-2007, 08:15 PM

Agree. Autodesk and other software makers need to CLEARLY advertise the customers that they are RENTING the software for $3,000 and not BUYING as the customers are thinking. Autodesk CAN and NEED to be sued about this. Is an UNACEPTABLE situation, beacouse they dont advertise the customers that they are renting and not buying the software.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif You know it should say "RENT NOW" instead of "BUY NOW" when you put it in your shopping cart.

I mean technically they are lying when they say by now!

charleyc

09-19-2007, 11:36 PM

Not really, you are buying a license. It should technically say, 'Buy License'. But I was never under any other impression when I bought the software. My reseller let me know this before I bought, and that was back in R4. Autodesk is not the only software that does this, and in fact the real issue is not your ownership as even lightwave and others mentioned are only selling licenses, the issue is resale of the license. As it is an agreement between two parties, I don't see where we think we have any power of the other party. Our power is to not enter into the agreement.

I could understand this lawsuit if this was the first time for this guy, but by the time Autodesk complains to you 5 times, I would think you would understand their stance and refrain from doing what you are doing. By continuing on and then claiming that he didn't know the EULA because he didn't open the box is absurd. 5 times he was contacted about this. At this point he is looking to make money by targeting a big fish. If Autodesk does not want their licenses resold, they will find a different way to do it even if the court rules against them on this. What we will end up with is more hoops to jump through in order to purchase the product, or we will have to download only the product.

I recently got a new laptop and it did not come with a disc of Windows. You have to burn a restoration disc on your own in order to have a 'backup' of the laptop in its shipping state. This is what we will get because of lawsuits like this. More and more inconveniences thanks to the greedy.

Srek

09-20-2007, 07:31 AM

I would think you would understand their stance and refrain from doing what you are doing.
But why should he accept their stance?
If you were to buy something from me and afterwards i tell you

"Hey, look at that piece of paper i put at the bottom of the sealed box you bought. It says that you can only use the item from Monday to Friday, the use on Saturdays and Sundays is forbidden. If you don't follow that binding contract we have i'll sue you".

Do you think that piece of paper realy is a binding contract? Why would voicing the claim outside the original sales process make any difference? What chance would this claim have in court?
Cheers
Björn

charleyc

09-20-2007, 08:40 AM

Autodesk is the second party in the license agreement, and it is they who issue them. If they told me once or twice that I cannot resell the license, then I would expect something to happen if I continued to do it. 5 times this guy caused complaints and yet decided to keep on, and now we are to be shocked that his account was suspended and feel like Autodesk owes him for all his trouble? Like or dislike Autodesk and their EULA, this guy seems to be abusing the system. If he really cared about the legal issues concerning this, he would have filed suite when he was fist made aware of this, not 5 times down the road after e-bay suspends his account for it.

Srek

09-20-2007, 08:50 AM

If they told me once or twice that I cannot resell the license, then I would expect something to happen if I continued to do it. 5 times this guy caused complaints and yet decided to keep on,
Ok, than i tell you five times that you are not allowed to use the item i sold you on saturdays and sundays. Does it make a difference? You are still not required to confirm to the contract before buying the item, so why should you care?
The point is that Autodesk DOES NOT REQUIRE the first buyer to sign/confirm the EULA before buying. This makes the EULA completely pointless.
I don't know for sure what happens in this case in the US, but in germany the basic laws on sales kick in and are the only rules that apply effectively.

Cheers
Björn

charleyc

09-20-2007, 09:10 AM

Srek

09-20-2007, 09:16 AM

Except that what is being sold here is a license. Which is a 2 party deal. Regardless of who buys, Autodesk has got to honor it for it to be any good. So if they tell me I cannot resell it, then what am I going to do? Do it anyway and act surprised that there were consequences?
The difference is that only the person to unpack and install the product is required to comply to the EULA. If the product has not been used by the original buyer no contract with Autodesk has been established. From how i understood it in the US Autodesk maybe has a claim on the person who has to confirm to the EULA, but that is only the person that opens and uses the package, not neccesarily the person who bought the package in the first place. If Autodesk were to make the EULA a part of the original deal to buy the package they might have a claim on the buyer (not only the user), but they didn't and so they haven't.

Cheers
Björn

charleyc

09-20-2007, 09:50 AM

As it is a license, then a) Autodesk has to agree to it, and b) someone else will eventually agree to it. Therefore, Autodesk always plays a role (the most important role) in whether or not this license is valid. So they are saying that only they (and their appointed resellers...at least for now) are allowed to sell these licenses. I don't see how someone can think that they do not have to honor Autodesks authority over this, regardless of whether or not they have agreed to the EULA, as they obviously are not the end user, since it is technically Autodesks license.

But the fact remains that this man, knowing full well what he was doing, did something Autodesk told him (5 times) was not allowed with their license. And chose only to act when actions were finally taken against him. And then to act to the tune of wanting 10 million in punitive damages. He is not simply suing over the issue of the legality of Autodesks stance, he is trying to make a few (million) bucks in the process.

Just to clarify, I am not arguing that Autodesks decision to not allow resale of their licenses is good or bad. Frankly, I could care less if you can sell them or not. But many people act as though this is breaking news and that Autodesk is somehow using this to screw people out of money. Autodesk has stood on this issue for years (as have many other software companies) it shouldn't be news, and in at least some cases made exceptions to this rule when approached about it before hand. What I am saying is that; a) It is a license we are getting, not exclusive rights to the program code b) Even if this guy didn't know initially that Autodesk didn't want him doing this, he certainly did by the time they got to 5 and c) is it really necessary to seek punitive damages for 10 million dollars? My entire life is not worth that much money, how can a disabled e-bay account create such trouble?

If Autodesk ends up settling with this guy, chances are that he will live a very comfortable life all because he chose to not follow the rules. A great example of the US legal system at work.

Srek

09-20-2007, 10:03 AM

As it is a license, then a) Autodesk has to agree to it, and b) someone else will eventually agree to it. Therefore, Autodesk always plays a role (the most important role) in whether or not this license is valid.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.
The only problem is that Autodesk made a one sided offer to anyone to buy the package under certain rules. This is the most common sales offer. At the time of sales they did not limit the rights of the buyer in any way that would prohibit a resales. So yes, they made a contract with the buyer, but no it does not keep the buyer from reselling the product.
Only on unpacking the package and installing the software a second contract, the EULA, becomes available and effective. We have a two part deal here covered by two different contracts of which the original buyer in this case only has to comply to the first part.

I think our discussion here shows how important it is for a company to create clear and easy to access sales contracts. Once it becomes hard for a potential buyer to determine what he realy is paying for and what rights he has to the bought product the fault is with the seller. It's his obligation to provide usefull terms of sales.

Cheers
Björn

WoolyLoach

09-20-2007, 09:37 PM

It's pretty hard to believe that the reseller didn't know about Autodesks "used software" sales policy, it's been around for years - although I guess if you're not into 3D you'd be ignorant of the Way Of Things(tm). I agree Autodesk should have taken it up with the seller, but I suspect they figured eBay could be pushed to act faster.

There are plenty of less-draconian-licensed products out there that are as good (or better, in some ways, depending on your workflow preferences) than Max. Only if your clients are interested in you owning a specific app (or if you're trying to get a job based on your experience with a specific app) should anything other than the final output matter. I guess in some places having a Max license is like having a Pro Tools rig, it's not the best for the job, but it's an "industry standard" that might get you an extra job or two.

I doubt he'll get his ten million or anywhere near it, but you never know.

When in doubt, vote with your money. It's the only thing a business understands.

charleyc

09-21-2007, 01:34 AM

The article on CGArchitect made is sound like it was AutoCAD.

Kabab

09-21-2007, 02:25 AM

Given the wider perspective Autodesk licensing isn't that strict, there are companies out there which make you pay a large upfront fee and then a large yearly fee to use the software and if you don't pay the yearly fee they turn off your license.

And this is widely used software in the Automotive and aerospace industries.

Srek

09-21-2007, 07:46 AM

And this is widely used software in the Automotive and aerospace industries.
Usualy such software is not bought of the shelf but in fact a special contract is made that exactly defines the connection between the software maker and the company that uses the software. Those contracts usualy include maintainance and customer specific additions/changes so it's not realy comparable to the sales of standard software. It's much more like a work/service contract than a software sales.
Cheers
Björn

Kabab

09-21-2007, 08:12 AM

Usualy such software is not bought of the shelf but in fact a special contract is made that exactly defines the connection between the software maker and the company that uses the software. Those contracts usualy include maintainance and customer specific additions/changes so it's not realy comparable to the sales of standard software. It's much more like a work/service contract than a software sales.
Cheers
Björn
No its bought via a sales channel very much like 3dsmax its very much a out of the box solution like max/maya.

Last time i checked 3dsmax wasn't bought off the shelf either.

DuttyFoot

09-21-2007, 08:55 AM

i have seen max at compusa for sale once. i think it was version 7. it came in a blue box. right now the only thing you can buy off the shelf is autocad LT.

jbradley

09-24-2007, 02:37 PM

Pretty much all Autodesk sales go through a sales channel which exists to answer things like EULA questions for you before you commit to a purchase, if people are to lazy to do research before they make significant investments is it really Autodesk's fault?

I haven't gone through this entire thread yet, but this post stood out to me.

A few things Autodesk has going against it in this lawsuit:

1. It is absolutely true that you can resell any Autodesk software in an unopened box. You do not agree to the EULA until you actually open the physical box, unless you are on a maintenance plan and have access to the downloadable version - in which case you agree to the EULA prior to downloading.

2. Autodesk is in a catch-22 scenario because they violate their own EULA on this matter. You can, by contacting Autodesk and at their own discretion, resell their software to another user. You will be required to sign an agreement that you will no longer use the software and that you will decomission the installation. This does not happen on a regular basis, but it does happen and there are case studies on the topic.

The same goes for their flagship Flame and Inferno systems. If you owned an SGI version and upgraded to the Linux version, they require you to decomission the machine. I'm waiting for someone to sue them on that too - because you paid for it (the solution is a physical solution, not software only, so it's a bit different).

jbradley

09-24-2007, 02:50 PM

What I am saying is that; a) It is a license we are getting, not exclusive rights to the program code b) Even if this guy didn't know initially that Autodesk didn't want him doing this, he certainly did by the time they got to 5 and c) is it really necessary to seek punitive damages for 10 million dollars? My entire life is not worth that much money, how can a disabled e-bay account create such trouble?

If Autodesk ends up settling with this guy, chances are that he will live a very comfortable life all because he chose to not follow the rules. A great example of the US legal system at work.

#1 Depends on where you live, selling software as a licensed solution is against the law. When you purchase software in some locations, you are considered the owner of the software (Europe?). This varies widely from region to region.

#2 You are purchasing the right to use the software for however long you are alive. In some cases, the license is transferrable - EULAs are not completely enforceable on the stance of transferrability. If it is brought up in court that Autodesk itself allows transfer of licenses between individuals (which is does), they're going to have a heck of a time defending themselves.

#3 You can purchase Maya and Max from Autodesk and resell it if you do not open the package. You are not bound to any agreement to resell the software until it is opened and installed on your machine. In many cases, you have to open and install it to get your 'license' - node locked or not. For most people, this is not the case though.

#4 What rules? If you don't agree to the license, you have no recourse! If you purchase the software, and in many cases are issued a license, you have no recourse as Autodesk considers the transaction non-refunable. This is made possible by the fact that in many casees (again) that you have to open the product to agree to it.

I think all of you wondering about this should check out the recent case of Apple vs. some guy who resold Final Cut Studio software. The case proved that the end user had no knowledge of the transaction requirements and was legally not bound to any license contained in the box. He was able to sell the software.

Most Autodesk software is for "sale" not for "rent". This isn't a Unigraphics system were talking about here - and Autodesk may definitely be in some hot water. It all depends on how the guy got the product and what process he follows.

As far as the amount of punitive damages - $10 M is probaby a valid number to shoot for. $10M may be better than risking a class action lawsuit for all the people in the past that tried to sell the software and got blocked by Autodesk.

trfalk

09-30-2007, 08:19 AM

That's one thing that's part of the court case that's not included in much of the thread - Ebay's involvement. The claim is that Autodesk talked to Ebay.. and Ebay turned off this guy's entire merchant account. That's the claim, minus some details I would certainly like answered. (q. was the plaintiff notified by Autodesk to cease and desist? q. was the plaintiff warned by ebay to cease the auctions? did Ebay perceive that warnings were ignored by the plaintiff? was the plaintiff violating some terms of his Ebay agreements that Autodesk had to remind Ebay about?) It is appearing to me that Autodesk talked to Ebay, and Ebay complied to Autodesk's request... that resulted in an overkill effect of 100% disabling this man's means of income. Sure, I would be sore with ebay of this, just like I was sore with them disabling my account when someone attempted to exact payment from me without my consent (I liked that) but forced me to prove my identity via phone calls and faxes (I did NOT like that process) Ebay was the "means" to the ends = stopping this man from reselling. Guy cannot wisely pull Ebay into court - it's is income.

Do I have problem with the price of 3D Max? yeah, out of my range
Do I think the price is too high? NO
Do I think there are cheaper alternatives? Yes (mmmmm, the much cheaper C4D, thank you, Maxon)

Someone mentioned reselling console games? Yes, plenty of that going around. Lots of stories in my town that take back used games and sell them again cheaper. But I think there is a difference - Max and Maya are tools for people to MAKE those games. MoH: Airborne used Maya for animations, and hasn't Halo series always loved 3D Max (Havok anyone?)

As to the EULA arguement...
In 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997) in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997)[2] (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Novell_v_NTC.html) purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement. Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder upon transfer of title.

One thing I think and believe about Autodesk's licenses... you can use them as much as you want (30 day trials of fully functional software! wheeeee!) but you May Not make money off your work using those programs without that lincensed OK from Autodesk (obtained by purchase) The 30 day trial has been a HUGE benefit for Autodesk marketing - "try it as much as you want, don't make money with it yet.. buy it and make TONS with your career." It is somewhere in the DMCA document - "thou shall not" make derivative income off someone's copyrighted product without first paying to the copyright holder. Autodesk's asking price is the retail sale value of that software they say it is.

I know some other pro-Autodesk things, but I have to check my facts before telling the tale.

attanze

09-30-2007, 08:58 AM

#1 Depends on where you live, selling software as a licensed solution is against the law. When you purchase software in some locations, you are considered the owner of the software (Europe?). This varies widely from region to region.

#2 You are purchasing the right to use the software for however long you are alive. In some cases, the license is transferrable - EULAs are not completely enforceable on the stance of transferrability. If it is brought up in court that Autodesk itself allows transfer of licenses between individuals (which is does), they're going to have a heck of a time defending themselves.

#3 You can purchase Maya and Max from Autodesk and resell it if you do not open the package. You are not bound to any agreement to resell the software until it is opened and installed on your machine. In many cases, you have to open and install it to get your 'license' - node locked or not. For most people, this is not the case though.

#4 What rules? If you don't agree to the license, you have no recourse! If you purchase the software, and in many cases are issued a license, you have no recourse as Autodesk considers the transaction non-refunable. This is made possible by the fact that in many casees (again) that you have to open the product to agree to it.

I think all of you wondering about this should check out the recent case of Apple vs. some guy who resold Final Cut Studio software. The case proved that the end user had no knowledge of the transaction requirements and was legally not bound to any license contained in the box. He was able to sell the software.

Most Autodesk software is for "sale" not for "rent". This isn't a Unigraphics system were talking about here - and Autodesk may definitely be in some hot water. It all depends on how the guy got the product and what process he follows.

As far as the amount of punitive damages - $10 M is probaby a valid number to shoot for. $10M may be better than risking a class action lawsuit for all the people in the past that tried to sell the software and got blocked by Autodesk.

Yes, in Europe, once you are buyed something, you ARE the owner of the product and can make whatewer you want with him.

Its insane to be FORCED to agree with an EULA AFTER you has purchased the product! I see this like an INTENTIONALLY BAD ATITUDE from the autodesk side. Autodesk can loose the cause beacouse of this. They are forcing the customers to agree with something (eula thing) AFTER they are buying his products!! When you buy something, BEFORE to make the change (product for money) you need to know ALL the transaction condition and agree or not. After the product is buyed, any other further FORCED agreement is VOID.

Gurki

09-30-2007, 11:37 PM

What use is a abandoned license for Autodesk? They won't get any money. If it
gets sold to an new active user and this user updates to the newest version, then
Autodesk makes money.

I made this with a lot of packages:
C4D 7 XL + BP 2 used from Ebay, updated to R10 + AR. No problems at all.
The Maxon support was nice and friendly and even accepted R7 also the
support (and update) time for R7 was over ...
LW 9 + Vue 5 bundle used from Ebay. Reregistered with Newtek and E-on,
also no problem at all.
OK: Newtek didn't get a buck from me (until now there were free updates to
9.3, mmaybe on LW10;) but E-on sold a Vue inf. 6 update to me (and some content)

In the past I also did this with Carrara and Amapi Pro(in the old Eovia days...)

Zbrush 2 was also easy to transfer the license. No update, as ZB3 was free.
But I bought the box and book (ok, it was so cheap, i'm in doubt they earn
something with it... )

So I got a nice collection of 3D apps to chose from and most of the software
companies got some money from me. If this would not have been possible, I
surely would concentrate on one 3d app, that gives me the freedom to use
it as I want: Blender

BTW: I also supported Blender Foundation with buying their books...

The market share of Autodesk in the high end DCC market and CAD may be
quite high, but look at SGI and you know what will happen to former market
leaders that don't understand the times are changing...