Autodesk Perpetual LIcenses suddenly not perpetual anymore


Guys, I have started gathering people on discord so that we can start towards the end of the week to exchange legal info, lawyers info etc. towards our perpetual licenses rights . If someone wants to join in, send me a private message so that I can friend add you.

After speaking for 2 weeks with Autodesk and even getting a answer from their corporate council im determined to do what I can to protect my investment.Here is what the corporate councils message was by the way…


Our policy has been consistent with the terms of our license agreements, although we have only loosely upheld the product activation policy in the past. What’s new is our intent to align our practices with our stated policies and Terms and consistently uphold them. Autodesk is not restricting users from perpetual rights of the use of our software, and at the same time, we are no longer agreeing to continue to offer product activation for legacy versions when the environment in which the software had been used has changed by events outside of our control.

My answer:

So, is this a answer from the Corporate council? If so, I don’t see any meaning behind it.From this moment over I demand my legal right to continue this conversation with the Corporate council as things will need to go more deeper and private.Please keep this conversation if i need to speak with you again in the near weeks.

From here below I start my conversation with the Corporate Council and expect them to reply to me directly and on time.And also provide a name with the person I will be speaking to.

In the message i received It says ‘‘Autodesk is not restricting users from perpetual rights of the use of our software’’

Yet, when the date of lets say march 2022 comes and for some reason I need to reinstall my perpetual license due to workstation fail or new equipment I will not be able to.I will be RESTRICTED by Autodesk.This completely CONTRADICTS what you are saying to me and there is no solid background behind.What one thinks and wants (in this case Autodesk) doesn’t mean its still legal to do and achieve by the current law.

In the message i received It says ‘‘we are no longer agreeing to continue to offer product activation for legacy versions when the environment in which the software had been used has changed by events outside of our control’’

I am the owner of the software and NOT my computer and I am in my right to renew my equipment and to reinstall the software that i use and own.

This completely contradicts ‘‘Autodesk is not restricting users from perpetual rights of the use of our software’’

Also, the life of a hardware can not be linked to a software by law.Completely illegal and there is no connection at all between the two.

As so, in my legal rights i continue to demand a offline activation tool if Autodesk decides to not honor my legal contract.

I have said it before and will say it again.As a citizen of the European Union

Here is the legal law document:

Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs

Points 13,14 and 15


The exclusive rights of the author to prevent the unauthorised reproduction of his work should be subject to a limited exception in the case of a computer program to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful acquirer. This means that the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of a copy of a program which has been lawfully acquired, and the act of correction of its errors, may not be prohibited by contract. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, including when a copy of the program has been sold, any other act necessary for the use of the copy of a program may be performed in accordance with its intended purpose by a lawful acquirer of that copy.

What are we going to do from now on? Lets start a meaningful topic.

Thank you.


So Autodesk has decided to show their true face.


Sadly, this has always been their face. You probably didn’t live through the era when Maya cost $16k for a single seat or when its predecessor lived on SGI workstations that no individual user could afford. ADSK talks a good game, but they have always put studio users first and will likely continue to do so in the future. Think about it.

If you’re a matriculating student at an accredited institution then they’ve got your back. You have access to a free, non-commercial EDU license to anything in their toy chest. If you’re a studio user, well, don’t worry about what it may all cost because your boss has you covered. If, however, you’re an indie, a hobbyist, or a low volume freelancer then you just might be out of luck.

As a hobbyist or aspiring artist looking to one day go pro, there’s little way that you can afford the $4k+ for a 3 year license. It’s a lot of money no matter how you slice it; Far worse if you choose to go the monthly route, which is decidedly more expensive.

If you’re a low volume freelancer, the money you stand to make down the line will pay for the subscription cost. That’s true. However, it takes money to make money and that could be a problem early on. Same issue if you’re an indie developer or startup. In fact, anybody earning less than $100k per year might take issue given the sheer number of subscriptions that must be balanced just to fill out a basic artist’s toolbox. Being a pro artist in 2019 just ain’t cheap.

Live in a part of the world where you’re lucky to make $4k a year? Sorry. Try Blender.

If you’re in any of those groups, ADSK doesn’t care about you. Wait. I’m not being mean. Don’t worry. They never cared about you. There’s nothing new about that.

Studios have always been their core audience. That goes as far back as some 25-30 years and the days of them catering to Hollywood films, where the cutting edge CG tech lived. They were never going to cater to individual users or hobbyists back then because there was no money in it. Home users didn’t have the hardware, the financial resources, or technical know how to make any of it worth their while. It’d be a sales failure and support nightmare. Accordingly, they made the smartest possible business decision for the time.

However, it isn’t 1995 anymore. Even with a massive price drop, they haven’t widened their core audience. They still only are about the studios and the students who may soon work in one. Like I said, they make a good show of it. Releasing Maya LT, for example, sounds great on paper. “Hey, indie. Come get Maya. Nice and cheap.” Except, what you get is pretty much the difference between a fully loaded Ferrari and one that’s been stripped by car thieves. It might still technically be a Ferrari, but it sure as hell doesn’t drive like one. You pay more for Maya LT than Blender, yet somehow get far less.

Beyond price, if there were any doubts about who their real audience is and how they want to continue to suck them dry in perpetuity, just look at their history and this thread. Look at the progression of DRM and licensing.

  1. We have this great app. Let’s sell some copies and make bazillions!
  2. D’oh! The software is getting pirated. Let’s add serial numbers.
  3. Hmm. The serial number got copied. Let’s hard lock it.
  4. They found away around that? Okay. Let’s also force them to activate and check in with remote servers.
  5. They hacked that too? Let’s go to subscriptions. That’ll show them.
  6. They’re sticking with the old perpetual versions? We can’t have that. Let’s change the rules and somehow invalidate those old copies.

Next stop? Crystal ball says…

  1. Great. Computers and internet connections are now super fast. Let’s force them to stream the app. No copy will ever be stored on the client side.

If you’re a studio, you’re probably going to (maybe) give in and do what they ask. You’re making millions (or more) on your end product. Who cares if the DCC app is costing “x” or changing its license in “y” way. The risk is FAR outweighed by the reward. ADSK will keep on pushing the limits because they know (or think) that they’ve got the market cornered.

If you’re in a desert and I’ve got the only bottle of water, I can charge whatever the heck I want. I can even charge you per sip if I know that you’ve got deep pockets. If you’re pockets are (to me) bottomless, I’ll keep on charging you per sip instead of chasing the guy who only has $2 and might never come back. I’m following the money and making the rules, which you’ll follow because you need me and are rich/dumb enough to do what I say.

Like I said, ADSK isn’t showing their true face. We’ve always known what it looked like. We just like it less now than ever before. That’s the risk that ADSK is taking. Companies like Ubisoft and Epic Games are, imo, testing the waters with their investments in Blender. If they invest enough money and can nudge development in the direction that they want, they’ll effectively get the tool they want for a fraction of the cost in dealing with ADSK long term.

ADSK isn’t the only one looking to make the most profit with the least effort. Game companies are going to want to maximize their bottom line too - even more so than they currently do. If Epic & Ubisoft’s investments pay off, expect other developers to chip in to the Blender fund. Their money will silently buy them say in how it gets developed and, ultimately, the community will have a tool that is $0 for everybody (forever) and does more than what ADSK has been gouging them for, also in perpetuity.

To put a slightly political spin on it, ADSK is chasing the big state voters and ignoring the little guys in the middle of hillbilly nowhere. It’s dangerous to ignore any vote. To put it back in art terms, ADSK cannot afford to think solely of the studios. It’s a gamble that may just bite them in the ass. Like I said above, they need to change their licensing and pricing structure going forward. Otherwise, they’re either going to encourage piracy and abuse of the EDU system or outright alienate a large swath of the art community, forcing them into the waiting arms of 3rd party apps.

Will ADSK do that? No. As I outlined above, they only care about studios. They just haven’t considered what would happen if and when the studios stop caring about them.

We see ADSK’s true face. We’ve always seen it. They’ve always shown it. Now, the danger comes in individuals AND studios possibly (one day) turning their collective backs on it.


Well, I was advised by a autodesk employee to start a topic, so here it is.If anyone wants to join in or just hit that like button it will be a greatly appreciated contribution to the others there

Thank you guys


Not much has happened in the past weeks apart from autodesk employees mysteriously being offline for some time.Out of curiosity ,some of you are in the big companies and have perpetuals all over the place.Any insider of a upcoming lawsuit decisions?

Are companies even aware of this?If they are, and no one is saying anything, it only makes me think that the bigger guys got a under the table deal, because if not we loud have heard of them by now …


Repeat of how Autodesk handled perpetual Softimage licenses after the hostile takeover years ago.

They could certainly, and easily have made patches removing the activation need (and thus save some $ on security software) for aging software versions with perpetual licences.

There really is no large risk for AD’s business, as the main users of “historic” versions (in AD’s lingo any sw > 2 years) will be hobbyists, students etc.

Would have reflected positively back on AD instead of this rather negative way of low respect for customer’s earlier purchases and expectations.