Slashdot Mirror
eBay Seller Sues Autodesk for $10 Million
Miasik.Net writes "A lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court (US District Court for the Western Washington District C07-1189 JLR) that alleges Autodesk, Inc maker of the industry standard AutoCAD software and their attorney Andrew S. Mackay have devised an illegal scheme to have used copies of their software removed from the eBay site using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Finally someone decided that non-transferable licenses must be stopped." While proving $10 million in damages might prove difficult, the reasoning behind the case is pretty sound.
The attorney is either an idiot and didn't know this was illegal, or it's simply not illegal. Sure, unethical, maybe I could see that. But I don't understand why eBay is obligated by law to have auctions on their site which they don't want -- no matter what the reason they don't want the auctions. And.. 10 million bucks? Good luck.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
A far more relevant statement would have been: The plantiff has filed a complaint about Mackay with the California State Bar Association for his actions in this matter. The merits of the complaint are unknown.
Furthermore, the plantiff lacks standing. In the state of California, to sue for fraud, party A must alledge that party B defrauded party A. If A claims that the money comes from C, then he has no standing to sue, even if his statements are correct.
1) Buy software from eBay
2) Copy onto hard drive
3) Re-sell on eBay
4) Profit!
Easy enough for me!
...lawyers bother taking on lawsuits under $10 million these days - they can't make enough money on the small claims.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Which is it:
1) Does the seller have the "burden of proof" to prove that he uninstalled his copy and is not violating his license or
2) Is the seller to be given the "benefit of the doubt" and assumed to have uninstalled his copy, unless information is found to indicate otherwise?
note: I am probably using legal terms like "burden of proof" incorrectly. but you get my question.
IT's about time that some stands up for the First-sale doctrine. Now we need to get the right to move windows from system to system or owner to owner.
I had an auction of mine canceled by Motorola. I was selling some radio cryptography devices that are not classified or secret in any way (they are used by security companies, etc.)
Motorola had their legal dogs tell eBay to cancel my auctions because they violated their "VeRO" program policies. The "VeRO" program is for people violating someone's IP rights or the DMCA. They would have a legitimate claim if I was selling knockoff items or bootleg copies of their software which is what the program is for, so the manufacturers or IP holders can ask eBay to take down their auctions.
Well, the asshats at Motorola are sour on the fact that their stuff is getting sold for cheap on the 'bay, so they are using the IP/DMCA shit as a front to have the eBay folks try to kill the after-market. When I investigated why they did this, of course they quoted to me all kinds of "law enforcement only" bullshit, and even invoked the "T" word (yes, TERRORIST!!) - total bullshit! Naturally, not wanting to get hauled away and locked up in some foreign jail or GitMo, I didn't make waves about them canning the auction, but I really thought that sucked extra hard, hiding behind false claims of IP to prevent an after-market sale.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons...
I see nothing wrong with the $10 million figure. Companies have used the DMCA to try to recover "damages" of ridiculous proportion in the past (RIAA as our most favorite). Why shouldn't the DMCA work for consumers in the same fashion? In which case, the $10 million figure seems just as "reasonable"
I hope the guy wins all $10 million... perhaps the companies who lobbied for the ridiculous penalties that got included in the DMCA will think the next time they lobby for such laws.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Software (the medium it is contained on) is a physical object, able to be bought and sold at the owner's discretion. How do they plan on truly, once and for all, stopping that, or, for that matter, how can anyone?
By reading this post you are agreeing that any posts you make are property of CowboyNeal, along with any devices used in manufacture and transfer of said posts. This includes your keyboard, computer, and that whole series of tubes called the internet.
I apologize that this EULA isn't 50 pages long, and can be understood by a human being, but I'm not a real lawyer.
I've been involved with software licenses that restrict transfer of the license; most often it's allowed, but the purchaser has to pay a fee, usually one that makes the transfer cost more than an original purchase. It seems that breach of contract would be more appropriate here, but Autodesk has always been a nasty company to deal with.
You know, that's a battle of Windows' addon software too.
I think one of the main features of Norton Ghost that keeps it selling to IT departments is that it can copy Windows so that it will run on (slightly different) hardware. Windows has a copy protection feature that ties an installation to a specific hard drive adapter. Ghost overwrites that info with the info of the machine that restores the backup.
Now this means that you can't restore from backup on one machine and then plug that drive into another machine, even if the second machine was the original.
You will find this information nowhere in Ghost's documentation. They don't risk mentioning that they're breaking some of Window's copy protection.
Microsoft's solution? Vista comes with backup software. They're hoping you won't buy Ghost.
Similar problem with virtual machines. Running a virtual machine, you CAN just move an installation of Windows from hardware to hardware.
Microsoft's solution? Vista won't run under virtualization.
I've always thought this was a bit fishy...if I call and ask for an AD product, the vendor takes my CC# and sends me a box. Why should I be prohibited from reselling it if I don't want it. Hell, even if I install it and then switch to Bentley, why can't I then sell my unused SW? Supposedly, the only way to sell your license in AD's good graces is to sell your entire business (or your immortal soul, if you personally registered it, I suppose).
Now, AutoCAD does have the potential seller by the short hairs, since they can deny any future upgrade pricing, but since I know lots of shops who upgrade every 4-5 years, and AD phases out any upgrade discount by then (you can pay $800/yr for maintenance, or $800 x n years since your last version to upgrade; sweet, huh?).
I just know that at this point, I've got a $4000 piece of software in which I only use $800 worth of functionality. How do I know? Because the rest of my licenses are ACAD LT, and they work just as well for what we do as the Architecture.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I believe that if someone wants to sell their copy of whatever; music, movie, software, etc.; and they don't have backup copy somewhere the other person should inherit all of the rights and privileges associated that music, movie, software.
1) Does the seller have the "burden of proof" to prove that he uninstalled his copy and is not violating his license or
Guilty until proven innocent?
2) Is the seller to be given the "benefit of the doubt" and assumed to have uninstalled his copy, unless information is found to indicate otherwise?
Innocent until proven guilty.
So which one is applied by the modern court system?
Ummm... "Guilty until proven innocent?" ;-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Software, especially expensive software is a valuable asset.
I am constantly amazed that so many people put up with software companies wanting to sell you their software for lots of money and then you can't do anything with it when you don't want/need it anymore. What the heck are you supposed to do, buy an extra plot at the cemetary and when you die they'l bury it there next to you?
Imagine if it were that way with your old dishwasher, or your car. "You can get a new car, but you have to keep the old one out back. You can't sell it, ever".
Outrageous.
When people put their foot down and demand ownership of expensive items, or else if you don't own it you should be paying dramatically less for it, this will all change. I'd offer Autodesk $19 for their software, if I don't own it. It can't be worth much more than that. You don't own it, remember?
I heard a story about a company that was bought out by another company, and one of their software providers wanted them to buy the software again. Same desks, chairs, computers, people, building, and software. But the software, that couldn't be "sold".
Outrageous. Any expensive asset should be just that, an asset.
.
I've been wondering where to find used recent versions of software. Anyone know of an auction site that caters to this niche? Maybe such a site needs to be created... Biz opportunity!
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
I know that with my AutoCAD 2004 (at work), it phones home every time you start it up, with identifiable information such as your serial number. I saw it in my Snort logs. So if 2 people get it 'phoning home' with the same s/n but different IP's, obviously someone has copied something somewhere...
I admit that I don't use Microsoft Products, so I don't know what the users agree when they turned on their computer the first time after a new windows installation. However, it would be interesting to see if the same is true for Windows. What happens if I buy an OEM windows and install it to my computer? Later, when I sell my computer, do I need to remove windows then (if the ownership is not transferable that is)? What about windows that comes preinstalled with the computers people buy at tech stores? Are we also supposed to remove windows from them when we sell them?
A friend of mine who I work with who has a legit version of AutoCAD, but he never installed it and downloads the cracked versions from P2P or Bittorrent (the ones that also doesn't require the dongle, even though he has a legit one.) While it seems obvious that many people won't pay for this software simply because it is very expensive, you can't help but think that practices like this, that don't allow you to resell you software that you don't use anymore, only contribute to people pirating software. I mean, what if he got it for a company he worked for and then the company tanked a few months later? It's a completely unrealistic expectation. Unfortunately, we have another program requiring dongle keys that is even more expensive that isn't widespread enough for hackers to worry about, so we have to bother calling the company every 6 months to get our extra keys reactivated, as well as being locked into the software, because it was too expensive to abandon, but the learning curve is too high on this type of designing software to switch to another without a major drop in productivity and a huge initial investment.
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
lawyers bother taking on lawsuits under $10 million these days - they can't make enough money
It's sad that justice is only available to people with millions of dollars to burn. Autodesk is sure to run the costs of this trial into multiples of that amount and burn years of many people's career that could be spent doing useful things. You and I pay for all of that waste whenever we do business with a firm that has paid for drafting that uses Autodesk - that is every day.
I could rant on about how Autodesk has used software patents and other anti-competitive practices to keep out competitors and artificially drive up the cost of CAD to such levels that there's virtually no savings from the move to commodity hardware, but that's a different set of rip offs. It all comes back to legal corruption though.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Back in the day ... if one company wanted to sell/give/transfer a license to another company, they had to send a letter to Novell on company letterhead stating which company was transferring which licenses to which company along with contact names, phone numbers and addresses.
It worked for me. When I started the job I'm at now I checked their licenses with Novell and found they had a license that was not registered to them. So I ordered them a replacement.
Now, this only works if the software company trusts its users and the users trust the software company.
But it would work a lot better than their system in TFA.
It's not a copy protection feature and you can get to work on other adapters that are just about the same also there is tool out there that will try to reset it.
Vista is better with this and can fall back to generic driver to try to boot up.
And ghost was build to help you with roll out of alot of the same or (slightly different) hardware or for a easy restore and even then you may need to do a reboot or 2 for it to fully pick up the hardware.
When you have bigger changes that you need a new image just for that system.
You can sue anyone for anything, but the amounts are totally meaningless.
Anyhoo, the plaintiff's home state Sale of Goods Act is what matters.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Can anyone point me to any Creditable Standards body National and Industry that requires the use of an Autodesk product?
Maybe along with references to Mircosoft "Industry Heavyweight" would be a better phrase.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
A few years ago, we bought several copies of Combustion. Because of some project reshuffling, we wound up with an extra one, so we put it up on eBay. It was a completely legitimate sale, never installed, with the seals on the software completely intact.
It was taken down within 24 hours.
It was a bummer, but I can also see how this issue can be a can of worms for a software company. We had a valid copy, but how could we prove it to Autodesk without them personally inspecting the seals on the software? It's impossible for them to do that, and if they let one person sell it on eBay, then everyone gets to sell it.
Ostensibly this is to prevent pirated goods (fashion items, Foakley sunglasses, etc.) from showing up, but you can buy a GENUINE designer handbag at Macy's, sell it on eBay, and the company will have your auction taken down despite your having every legal right to sell that GENUINE item.
This has nothing to do with law, and nothing to do with the DMCA... its simply eBay policy, part of their VERO program.
This space available.
Fuck AutoCAD Buy IntelliCAD
.dwg file specifications: http://opendesign.com/
AutoCAD compatible software consortium: http://www.intellicad.org/
AutoCAD compatible CAD for MS Windows and Linux: http://www.bricsys.com/download/downloadForm.jsp?product=BCAD
Before everyone and their mother found out about the Internet, Ebay was soo awesome.. You could buy pot, a gun, and a kidney.. And you could give feedback to whoever you wanted whether or not they even made a sale with you.. You had maybe a 50% chance of actually getting what you paid for.. but then again, you had about 50% chance of actually attempting to pay them.
The Internet used to be a frontier, man.. Now I gotta grow my pot.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
In the real world, outside of software, there are plenty of non-transferable licenses. Buy a "lifetime" membership at your local gym, and then try selling it someone else - it isn't allowed since it is stated in the contract at the time of sale. Same thing with Autodesk's software. If someone doesn't like Autodesk's licensing terms they are free not to buy Autodesk software.
Some people are arguing that it matters when you opened or used the software and once you do so you are bound by the agreement. It doesn't matter what the agreement says if the language is no enforceable. It could say that "once you open this box you must send your first born to AutoDesk." This would be an illegal contract since it is against the law to enter into a contract where you sell a human. So, just because an agreement makes claims or statements does not mean that the claims will hold up in the court of law. There are laws and judicial rulings concerning "fair use" and transfer of license. Garth Brooks made a similar claim several years ago when he tried to stop second hand stores from re-selling his CDs. Of course his claim did not hold up. Imagine if you bought a car and the software that powers it has a non-transferable license and it was against the law to sell that license to another party. So, we shall see what the ruling is if this case indeed goes to trial and is not settled out of court. My guess is AutoDesk has more to lose than gain by going to jury trial.
Or, perhaps, like how some neighborhoods dislike black people, and thus have homeowner agreements that require that black people never be allowed to purchase the property?
So, of course, if you don't like Microsoft's terms, you shouldn't buy the software, and if you have a problem with having a legally-mandated white neighborhood, you should live somewhere else.
Microsoft's solution? Vista won't run under virtualization. FUD. Runs fine (though probably a tad slowly, but just turn Aero the fuck off and you'll be right) under virtualisation. And the license only says that you can't use the same license you used for the host in guest machines unless it's Ultimate or Enterprise edition.
There's plenty of real things about Vista to bitch about, so stop making shit up.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Would people rather Autodesk do what Synopsis does with their high end licensing agreements? Instead of selling software, they rent software. I suppose it makes the "what to do with software when you're done with it" clause easy, but still...
Then again IBM was doing something like this in the past...
Wait... that was intentional? I thought that was a design flaw in Window's driver model. You are saying it's not a bug, it's a feature? (I recently bought a new computer and kept my Windows XP install... wasn't easy.)
Centralization breaks the internet.
I agree completely. This is all about selling "property" that is "owned". How does mankind originally describe "Ownership", that's right, we are talking about LAND. I work in the Land Business as Professional Landman In Oklahoma, USA (laws vary state-to-state), notably in the Oil and Gas Mineral Ownership portion of the Landman business. In my line of work, we have tried and true legal documents called "Deeds". Typically these deeds convey what we affectionately refer to "ARTI" or "All Rights Title and Interest" to whatever is being Deeded, Transferred, Sold, Conveyed, Forever, To all future Heirs, forever and ever and ever and ever, etc... between 2 or more Parties. Surface Ownership, AKA "REAL Estate" and Mineral Ownership AKA "Land Mineral Rights" are vastly different things. Surface ownership is described in real world Physical dimensions that a person, as the owner, could take a real string and tie it all around their land plot corner survey markers and have a real geometric shape around their actual land. Mineral Ownership is described as "undivided" interest that started out as a physical surface land description but has since become split into fractions among many owners bearing the same physical legal land description of the initial whole. For example, Joe Sr. owns 160 acres of Surface Land and 160 acres of undivided of mineral interest. These would bear the same exact legal description Such as the NW/4 of SectionXX-TownshipXX-RangeXX, where "XX" represents numbers in the Jefferson Land System effectively describing a "Square Mile" or a 640 Acre Square. Joe Sr. owns 160 acres described as the Northwest Quarter of SectionXX-TownshipXX-RangeXX (640/4=160). If, He "Deeds" his Son, Joe Jr., 1/2 of his total undivided mineral interest. Now things are described in NET MINERAL ACRES for the Mineral interest with the same Surface Legal description. So, Joe Jr. AND Joe Sr. Now both own 80 Acres each of Undivided NET Mineral Interest for a 160 Acre plot described legally as NW/4 of SectionXX-TownshipXX-RangeXX for which Joe Sr. owns 160 Acres of surface ownership. My point? For well over a hundred years we here in the USA have had a well-established system for describing actual real property (land surface) and virtual property (mineral interest). "Ownership" of this virtual and real property is kept track of through legal documents we call "Deeds". Why cannot Software be "Deeded" to another person for an exchange of Capital or other good considerations just like land or mineral interest? IT CAN, BUT: The fact is, SOFTWARE CAN ONLY BE SOLD, IF AND ONLY IF, IT HAS A LEGAL OWNER WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO SELL IT. We are taking about someone selling a single licensed copy of software. The Word License gives the whole thing away. You never hear about Someone selling a "Licensed copy of their House" DuH! You want the DEED to the house. Here's WHY: Software is no longer being SOLD to the users... it is being LEASED. Hence, in my so-succinct analogy, 100% of the Surface and Mineral ownership (Software Physical Media its software Content) is retained by Party A (Software Vendor/Author). And Anyone using it default agrees to the terms of their LEASE to be using it. And there are NO SALES Rights granted under the terms of the Lease. I fully agree with "Neanderthal Ninny (1153369)", however, those rights to sell convey or otherwise were waived as part of the initial EULA. This is the same as if you Lease/buy a plot of land surface and want to drill an oil well on it... You do not own the rights to do that. You must first purchase those mineral rights OR enter into an Oil and Gas Lease with the mineral rights Owner/s thus granting you those rights with plain terms. Finding out who owns "stuff" keeps food on my table. The crux of this argument, is that most of us do not "own" ANY of our software, we are LEASING it under the terms of the EULAs. The same is true for Linux, free use under a license, NOT AN OWNERSHIP DEED of the said software. This entire argument would be moot if there were not EULAs or Licenses for software because it woul
Replace "asset" with "service".
In the future, I see Autodesk selling software as a service and not a product. The media is free or even so free to download ISO's from their website. However, you must have a purchased serial or encrypted file which limits how long you can use the program for. Kinda like Anti-Virus programs.
Life is not for the lazy.
Autodesk became as big as it is because for many years they turned a blind eye to people copying their software. More "unofficial" users playing with AutoCAD meant more marketshare later because CAD tends to be fairly complicated to learn and use effectively. Built-in familiarity with the interface and basic features also helped a lot - "I can draw stuff with AutoCAD, therefore I am a draftsman"-type qualifications.
Some people simply do not need to upgrade to or buy the latest, greatest version of software (unless they are forced to due to license expiration or having to stay compatible with customers).
I seem to recall that Autodesk tried a subscription model at one time but it didn't work out as they liked, as users didn't want to be caught in a "ransom"-type situation whereby they'd be forced to make payments without any guarantees of later software improvements. Engineers tend to be a practical lot.
As with all software, there comes a point when good enough is good enough. A lot of new software releases these days (at least in some industries) seem to be mostly sizzle and little steak.
I use AutoCAD 2005 daily as a platform for 3rd-party 3D plant design software. It's good enough, and switching to a newer version would likely break the way I do things now. Even these days with quite powerful computers (ACAD R14 on a 486DX was the first truly useful Windows-based AutoCAD, IMO) there are still things that cannot be done, so drawings have to be manually edited. As soon as you manually edit a deliverable you've lost the advantage of automatic extraction of detailed fabrication drawings and you end up with a hybrid document that can easily turn into a time bomb (so to speak) in the field.
After all this rambling I guess my point is that ever-increasing complexity (and the associated cost, of course) in software can be more trouble than it's worth unless designs can be output directly to a machine or robot to build the thing you're imagining. If your work involves actual human beings constructing things in an outdoor environment, 2D drawings are still needed. Ergo, 2D CAD is often good enough and I don't see why selling obsolete (but still useful), paid-for copies of software should be not permitted. Hell, monitoring sales could be a great indicator of what the market actually wants, rather than foisting the next upgrade on everyone.
> This is the "dude" that some people want to be the next President of the United States.
:)
No, the column quoted above by the troll is by Dr. Walter Williams not Sen Obama. Obama would never make that much sense.
> ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office -- he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran
Again, you are so wrong you are a discredit to the Conservative side. You are confusing Senator Obama with Representitive Keith Ellison who did indeed swear his Oath of Office on a Koran. However since Rep. Ellison is openly Muslim this would be expected. Sen. Obama is a member of a bigoted African nationalist fringe church that looks for all the world like a clone of the Nation of Islam, but it IS nominally Christian, not Islamic.
Democrat delenda est
{{unreferenced}}
Oh sorry, wrong site.
Either you are misinformed or just trolling. Anyway no, Ghost doesn't break any copy protection scheme. The windows which can be used with Ghost is Corporate Edition and doesn't have activation crap.
I'm running Vista just fine under VMWare.
They only changed the EULA, if anything.
The engineering firm I work for used to shell out $1500-ish canadian each for licenses of the craptabulous AutoCAD Light ... for use by our engineers who just need to view files and do very simple things, while our geomatics department does the heavy lifting with for AutoCAD and Civil3D (and several other modelling and GIS softwares).
AutoCAD Light is USELESS. It is a pathetic joke that gives you so little functionality as to be a total waste of money. Our Engineers constantly came across simple things that they could not do.
Solution: Intellicad for roughtly $100 canadian. It reads autocad files just fine, it has very similar command line commands, and all the familiar buttons etc.
And best of all, for the price of one useless AutoCAD Light license, it will keep 15 Engineers out of my hair until they need real work done.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Do you suppose John Wilson had in mind anything akin to this kind of AD predatory and possibly dishonest conduct when he wrote "The Final Days of Autodesk"?
They considered allowing the home versions of Vista to be permitted to run under virtualization, but they decided against it ultimately. Only business and ultimate versions of Vista may be legitimately run under virtualization. So Vista "can" run under virtualization, but you'll pay through the nose for the privilege and there is no technological reason why the cheaper versions couldn't.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
it comes to the visual effects industry this is common practice, they love dongles and locking you into support contracts. Most of the companies who supply software for this industry make it either impossible or a pain in the ass to obtain previous versions.
:D.
Take film archival for instance, there have been a small number of films which were stored on a "new at the time" format "disk, tape, etc.." that the storage company went out of business not to long afterwards. The studios had no way of retrieving the archived film from backups since only a handful of storage read/write units were ever produced. It got to the point some places now vault the reading/writing machines so that in the future they could rest easy that they would have a method of obtaining archive material. Don't even mention the fact will anyone know how the to run the damn things anyways, hope they included a manual
Take a major film today and how many FX shots it has, all that data that gets archived and stored away in a vault. Todays film archives not only store the final images but all that 3d data, scripts, custom tools, and so much other data I could bore you to death but I won't. Just as with the troubles of having a storage medium tank you have the same thing with all this data. Will a studio be able to retrieve the data and open scene 01602 shot 50 sequence 9 in the future? Sure they can archive the software but as I said dongles are LOVED in this industry, good luck opening your archived version of Maya 5.0 scene in the year 2050 when it is licensed to a dongle.
I'm really tired of all this you don't own the software your borrowing it from us. Not only does this piss me off in the present time but your jeopardizing the future as well.
It's about time AutoCAD and other proprietary software companies with very harsh and restrictive user licenses stop saying they are "selling software" but admit they are "leasing software". It is becoming a joke, it looks like a lease is works like a lease and has all the restrictions of a leased product DUH! I know its a "lease".
An ex coworker of mien made a HUGE stink when he read the 3dsMAX (also an Autodesk product) EULA, noticing that the EULA allowed the user to use that license of max on not just THAT MACHINE but THAT MACHINE CONFIGURATION. Technically, according to the EULA, of you so much as upgraded the video card it was a new box and as such warranted a new licesne.
In professional circles, Autodesk is Big F*cking Money. Meaning you pay to play, or you don't play, at all. They're vastly worse than Adobe in that respect, though Adobe is definitely taking cues.
In the context of the license as my coworker understood it, you were "licensed" for one seat on defined hardware. In MY opinion, if you sell that hardware (and the software), you sell that license with it. Since Autodesk - on paper- won't f*cking LET YOU transfer that license to new hardware - even if it's the same box with a new vidcard - WHY are they shitting on licensed users for selling off kit with a software license they can't - technically, legally - transfer?
Forget google, forget Adobe, forget Microsoft - Autodesk is the real Software Evil.
It's not a mere reset.
For instance. My old laptop need to be restored from a backup but I was having trouble with my DVD drivers in Ghost, so I did the restore on a desktop machine using an adapter that allowed me to plug the miniature HD in.
The restore wouldn't boot.
I did the same restore inside the laptop (it took a long time for the DVD to load, but it eventually made it through).
Then it worked.
Doing the restore on a different machine didn't "reset" the driver, it fucking set it to the wrong adapter.
Doesn't Autodesk also own Alias?
Well my experience IS dated. I can talk about Win 2K and the old DOS-boot Ghost.
I know less about the current licensing.
...and wins big. The same thing happened to me. I tried to sell a legitimate, legal, uncopied, in-the-box copy of ACAD2000 and had the sale pulled by Ebay. Ebay threatened to pull my account if I ever tried listing AutoDesk software for sale again. I thought about auctioning a drafting pencil and giving away a copy of ACAD2000, but never did it.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
For example, from the main post:
Hmm, yes. And the legal basis as to why the reasoning is 'sound' is...?
I'm not saying this is a baseless suit. But it's funny how everyone around here (99% computer/tech geeks of some flavour or other) is able to deduce why it's 'plainly' legally correct or incorrect to do whatever suits the common agenda here (free IP good; big companies bad; little guy good; etc etc etc).
IAAL. Newsflash: legal work is hard. Lawyers get paid a lot partly because legal issues are often very complex and challenging. You cannot determine whether something is 'sound' or not based on 4 minutes of absent-minded evaluation.
Read Pynchon.
Er, you read the part about how you dont get to see the liscence until AFTER you open the box, right?
The tool can be downloaded from MS homepage here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/Utilities/NewSid.mspx
MS does actually try to help customers.
Does the license still apply if I don't read the whole post. (You may have already answered this, but I just skimmed your post.)
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
In Germany licenses can't be "untransferable" - If you buy something you can sell it - you can do anything you want (except violate its copyright) with it, because you OWN that copy - Microsoft tried to forbid reselling of Windows licenses here once, but the lawsuit failed in court
it's the same reason why we are also allowed to install all vista versions in VMs...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Yes, and?
The cost of the Ultimate, Enterprise, etc. disks and packaging is the same, but the prices are different. It's called market segmentation, and it's normal.
The law may be illogical, but it is MEANT to be logical. It is sold to the populace as logical and reasonable. That it is drafted in complex ways is partly because of the adversarial system and partly because, for the solicitors, there's no downside to it, they get paid whether they win or lose.
The soundness of the argument is one you can take to "the man on the street" (which is why we have a jury of peers):
I bought Autodesk Software. Paid for. Signed, sealed, delivered. It's mine.
I no longer want to use this software, so I'm selling it.
Autodesk have tried to stop me selling it.
Right or wrong?
Wrong.
Simple. Sound. The *law* may say "ah yes, but the law here says..." and the response is "that was written to stop someone bootlegging millions of copies and selling them retail. Such a criminal may be able to get away with just 'selling bootleg materials' so you made a law making penalties easier to apply so that you could nail them. It wasn't written with someone selling their purchased copy no longer wanted".
Laws are argued for with "we need it to stop _this_" but never written with "this law is to stop _this_". And that's the illogical and (to the man on the street illegal) bit about the insane laws we have on books.
See how the DMCA was abused to stop someone making a garage door opener (try to explain why the DMCA would be written for this. Can't, can you. It was still used as an argument, though).
put that clause in BIG LETTERS on the FRONT of the damn BOX!!
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Autodesk sucks. That's a fact. For instance, the Autodesk Videoconverter is widely know as the buggiest software ever. Ever since they bought Alias I've been expecting Maya to go downhill. It isn't that they've really gained that much in tracktion since the takeover, which is a bad sign.
If you need a good 3D programm and Blender doesn't offer enough industry compliance I recommend Lightwave. Affordable, an insane amount of features, an impressive feature production track record and a high profile industry standard throughout the world. AFAICT it has the most widespread use in the industry. LW does come with a dongle, but at least Newtek (LWs producer) doesn't act like a bunch of dickheads. I bought a used LW licence from a guy on Ebay and they transferred it without a hassle and even did a cheap upgrade for me allthough I wasn't entitled.
Bottom line:
Blender and then Lightwave for all things Blender doesn't handle well (or not at all). And stay away from Autodesk.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Attention attorneys, the ESRI GIS software is being removed from eBay too!
Our lawyers, Glock40, Ruger44 and SW357 always manage to put holes in the opposing legal teams despite the opposing lawyers arguing that our case is nothing but hollow points. As the legal clerk, JD Backhoe (Often called "John Deere, please do this by the staff") said, JD just helps our legal team to dig big holes for the opposing attorneys and plantiffs to bury themselves in. This is the secret to why noone ever sucessfully sued us and they always seem to take long vacations afterwards. It's even rumored that some of them have strange sleeping habits "They sleep with the fishes". Who would want to sleep with a fish? Yuck.
I was curious about how Windows handles resales, so I looked up the XP EULA:
13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms.
Looks to me like you have to right to move Windows XP. I haven't read the Vista License; perhaps it's more restrictive?
On another note, I'm curious about the legal argument for using the DMCA against eBay. Is Autodesk claiming that, by allowing their software to be resold, eBay becomes a "contributory infringer?" Clearly the copyrighted work itself was not available from eBay, unlike a video uploaded to YouTube. It sounds like this argument attempts to extend the Grokster decision. I would think eBay's passivity with respect to the potential infringement would exempt them from any copyright liabilities. Regardless of how the First-Sale/EULA issues are resolved, the application of the DMCA to this case seems rather implausible to this NAL.
Does nobody here deal with licensing of old UNIX operating systems? Does nobody here have to deal with _real_ engineering, modeling, and simulation software? Autodesk products are child's play compared to things like Fluent, Patran, Nastran, UG/NX, Teamcenter, and CATIA. Read some of the licenses for products like these.
I am in charge of license control for an engineering program used (legally) in over 45 countries by companies and universities. We use a dongle for licensing with heavy encryption on the key and in the program itself. We sell floating (network) licenses and node-locked licenses (software only runs on the computer that has the dongle in it). If you don't want your software any more, you can give it to someone else (with the dongle) but they will have to request and purchase maintenance and support when then dongle expires.
Older versions of our software used software license control which was easily cracked. Audacious "software wants to be free" zealots actually will call our support line requesting help, freely giving us their name, phone number, and email address, and then when we look them up and inform them that they are not a customer and thus not entitled to support, they get defensive and upset.
Damn kids, get off my lawn.
found this in the original blogpost:
:D
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=197074
man, this guy must love me now
Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
You cannot use Vista under ANY type of virtualization unless it's Ultimate or Enterprise edition.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
...and it sounds like you're only growing bunkweed too.
A user commented that "It was decided that the process of loading software from media into the computer's RAM constituted making a copy of the software, therefore a license is required in order to run the software."
That was the original legal theory behind the EULA, however, that theory is fundamentally flawed, and no longer pertainent.
In other words, buying the software (Adobe vs. Softman - if it walks like a sale, it is a sale). Quoting Adobe vs, Softman -
In other words, there's a good chance this case will be permitted to go forward - there's plenty of case law both sides can attempt to use.
You're a few years off (59), it is unconstitutional for courts to enforce these agreements. Shelley v. Kraemer (USSCT 1948)
IAA3YLS (sitting in Trusts and Wills class)
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
I am constantly amazed at this issue.
When somebody buys software media, it's their media! Reselling it is their deal, not the producer of the media.
Software vendors can validate online, so there are no worries about media right?
Where all these stupid ass agreements are concerned, the law is clear there too. Did the buyer sign to enter into the contract?
If yes, then all the terms apply.
This is what the software company I work with does. You actually sign a license agreement and all is good.
If no, then fuck off.
In the "no" scenario, vendors are saving a lot of money by not having to deal with the contracts.
This is not hard stuff. The only way it's getting hard is the software vendors are trying to assert rights they just don't have.
Blogging because I can...
2) ???
3) Sell on eBay as original
4) Profit!
Bastards.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
for several reasons.
1) post-sale contract terms
2) untenable terms
3) a contract of adhesion
4) no reciprocal benefit
5) actual illegality as a contract (e.g. Germany)
and many, many more.
Once the publisher has sold the item, they no longer have any say. The copyright owner has a say in actions covered by copyright (and distributing copyrighted works is not a copyright controlled action).
The original licensee may have got a bulk buyers discount, but it still won't be "wholesale" will it. And once sold, the original sellers have had 100% of the profit they expect from the sale. So no, not valid there either.
Second, some terms are interesting.
2.1 License Grant. Autodesk grants You a non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to use copies of the Software in the jurisdiction in which you acquire the Software, in accordance with the applicable User Documentation, within the scope of the License Parameters. Autodesk's license grant is conditioned on Your continuous compliance with all license limitations and restrictions described in this Agreement. If You violate any of these limitations or restrictions, the license grant will automatically and immediately expire. The license descriptions in this Section 2 define the scope of rights that Autodesk grants to You. Any usage of the Software outside the scope of the applicable license grant constitutes an infringement of Autodesk's intellectual property rights as well as a material breach of this Agreement.
What kind of contract is this? It's a licence, of course. And why are giving this licence to operate in a specific COUNTRY? (the jurisdiction in which you acquire the Software) Does it mean that, if I travel with a laptop loaded with a legal copy of Autocad 2006 (the license for Autocad 2008 isn't available) from Chile to the States, I have to pay another CLP$ 2.000.000 to keep my legal status?
9.2. Choice of Law. This Agreement and any disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by California law without reference to conflict-of-laws principles and excluding the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
9.4. Severability. If and to the extent any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable in whole or in part under applicable law, such provision or such portion thereof shall be ineffective as to the jurisdiction in which it is illegal, invalid, or unenforceable to the extent of its illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability and shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to conform to applicable law so as to give the maximum effect to the intent of the parties. The illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability of such provision in that jurisdiction shall not in any way affect the legality, validity, or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement in any other jurisdiction.
That is, if your country doesn't have a sane conflict-of-law statute and doesn't forbid you transferring jurisdiction to California, you are essentially screwed.
9.1. No Assignment; Insolvency. This Agreement and any rights hereunder are non-assignable and any purported assignment shall be void. The Agreement and the licenses granted hereunder shall terminate without further notice or action by Autodesk if You become bankrupt or insolvent, make an arrangement with Your creditors or go into liquidation.
See what your legislation says about what we call "adhesive contracts" (contracts where one part writes the contract, and the other one, with a lower power to negotiate conditions, only signs. One kind of these "adhesive contracts" would be shrink-wrap contracts), and look carefully if THIS ONE IS FORBIDDEN. Why do they require your solvency? Is it relevant?
6.3 Educational Institutional and Student Versions. WORK PRODUCT AND OTHER DATA CREATED WITH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL VERSIONS AND STUDENT VERSIONS OF THE SOFTWARE CONTAINS CERTAIN NOTICES AND LIMITA
You can literally find HUNDREDS of stories of upset people who tried to list auctions on eBay for Microsoft operating system or application software they *never opened*, but MS had their lawyers demand a takedown from eBay based on the "VeRO" program.
(They argue that end-users are illegally trying to resell OEM software products that weren't intended for resale, etc. etc. But no matter how they'd like to spin it, it seems to me if you received a copy of an OS or Microsoft Office product with your new PC purchase, and then decided not to ever use it, you should be perfectly ok attempting to recoup some money by selling it to another person. I love how MS tried to "enforce" their B.S. by affixing the OS CD key stickers to the sides of the hardware itself. As if that suddenly makes you say "Oh yeah, this software really IS just part of the physical hardware and isn't possible to separate. My bad.")
Or, to be even more obvious, just because Autodesk puts something in an agreement doesn't mean that it's a legal thing to put in an agreement.
It seems to me that this Eula transfer restriction is similar in theory to the GPLx restrictions on what may be done with the software after downloading. Isn't each contract saying essentially: "You may use this software, but it's not really yours and so there are restrictions on what you may do with it."? This may be considered flamebait, but I think the comparison is valid.
I can't own it so I can't buy it.
I only need a license to copy. If I no longer want to copy, I don't need a license. So I can sell the license (unless it is personalised, possibly) and the media (since I own both) and the person buying now has a license to copy. If I were to copy the program (like, for instance, by running it or installing from backups), I would be breaking copyright law, since I don't have a license. I sold it.
If I must have the license, then why do I need one for each machine? Why is it only for one machine? It is now supposed to be a license for me to run the program. Nothing about installing it or running it on different computers, just running it.
I think Autodesk is technically and ethically within the rights of the law and I think their issue is less about ringing up more sales and more about preventing piracy.
Their license is no different than you might see for high cost software like the Electronic Design Automation software that a company might purchase from a company like Cadence. Cadence does not allow users to transfer licenses to other users, why should Autodesk? The only difference is the way the companies choose to market their products. Autodesk makes their software more accessible, but they pay a price for that in that users can purchase a legitimate copy, install it, then sell the discs to recoup some of their costs.
That is technically and ethically theft. Autodesk is simply trying to protect themselves.
Autodesk software uses an activation process which authenticates a particular user and (in some cases) a particular machine. This is part of the license agreement and is required. Anyone purchasing a used Autodesk product from eBay will be sorely disappointed to learn that they will not be able to re-authenticate a license to a new user. So, in this sense, Autodesk was doing potential buyers a favor by requesting the takedown of these adds preventing buyers from getting ripped off.
A legitimate purchaser of Autodesk products will be aware of this and should have no problem with these requirements and, in fact, Autodesk does offer mechanisms to legitimately transfer licenses.
Also, for the record, not only am I not a lawyer, I also have no affiliation with Autodesk other than I use some of their products.
is how you do it:
LEGALLY, afaict...
The buyer needs to buy out the company SELLING the copy. So, the seller needs to form an entity for the purpose of offloading that one or more copies. The buy acquires the assets stipulated, and then the buyer dissolves the rest of the old entity. Transfer the assets to the books of the new owner.
The resellers will boohoo because they'll feel cheated out of potentially higher income, and A/D will not really like it, but as long as no illegitimate copies are around or in use by the original holders, then who should care? The biggest hassle will be formation and dissolution of entities, the act of which could trigger all sorts of audits, incur costs to both or all parties, and unnecessarily give income to local government offices that will likely touch the paperwork only once a year, if that.
But, users of CAD software can also shop elsewhere. Personally, I want to buy VariCAD and other software more suitable by design (not by bolt-on) to what my hobby entails.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Interestingly enough, and I have not seen anyone post on this issue yet....Autodesk has a subscription package fee applied to your license as well. Once you have purchased the software from them, you are given the option to purchase a subscription (just over a thousand bucks a year) that entitles you to service packs and upgrades for the next 12 months. If you don't purchase said subscription your upgrades cost you a significant portion of the full package price. Really, they are not loosing anything in second hand sales, as pretty much you are required to get a subscription to keep your software current.
with regards to my previous statement:
what I meant to also say is that if eBay takes down an item *under the premise of VeRO* and eBay is then shown the item does not violate their VeRO policy, then the seller should have the right to have it reposted without having to pay any extra fees.
eBay, as a private internet auction house, is free to refuse to sell whatever they like, but if they engage in a pattern of discriminatory refusals to post certain auctions (e.g. because certain big companies complain about individuals who happen to be re-selling their stuff), then eBay might have some explaining to do.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Easy example something worth money on a balance sheet, but worth a fraction in reality: used diamonds.
Many estates include the apprised value of diamond jewelery items. When sold, these item are recovered for only a small fraction of the appraised value. The appraisal value is really for insurance purposes, not resale.
It's about time TPB move to a more modern, Web 2.0-style name & slogan.
I vote for "pBay - New & 0-day ROMs, applications, games, OSes, movies & more at no prices"
Yes.
But that purchase was a couple of years in the future at the time my coworker was making a fuss about the MAX EULA.
I made an error there - I mean Macrovision and not Macromedia. The above AC has a link, and yes they do seem to hate everybody if you ever have the misfortune of trying to get some support from them especially via somebody else.
I was not talking about SIDs. Nice try through.
I used to sell operating systems. I was very generous with my time helping the users configure their hardware and software to make the operating system work correctly. Many of my clients pirated my software and called back for installation support multiple times for a single license. In the case where a software vendor licenses a product to a user at a company, they may have to hold the hand of the user at first. If the license gets transferred to another user, a fee is not unreasonable as the installation support was already given once in good faith . Just how many times should a software vendor be required to give the same support for a single license? It is hard to determine whether a reinstall is a legitimate instance or a pirate instance. In my opinion, a modest fee for a license transfer is reasonable. At least the procedure allows for the company to transfer a license from one employee to another as needed. Anything else could be very unfair as people come and go. I have seen licenses agreements that allow for transfer and they usually explain about the original licensee not keeping media and uninstalling the product at the time of the transfer. If people do this ethically, it makes perfect sense to me.
If the law is so complex that we need specialists just to interpret it for us, how are we supposed to obey it?
We have the right, no, the duty, to try to read and interpret laws that either affect us or interest us for whatever reason.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... is scary, stressful, gut wrenching, and costly, then I fail to see how you can say that not all lawyers are greedy scumbags.
I can't think of many fields in which such discription could be applied.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Read thread: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=280655
Post on page 2 by Paulo (who has the little Windows "Microsoft Employee" flag):
You lose.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".