Autodesk & reselling
mod
http://www.osnews.com/story/22260/Autodesk_eBay_Seller_in_Court_Over_Reselling_Software
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars
I haven't been able to read this yet, beyond a cursory glance, but I thought this might be interesting to read
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars
I haven't been able to read this yet, beyond a cursory glance, but I thought this might be interesting to read
Replies
I wonder if this will cause Autodesk to implode...
wonder how & if this could be related to the resale of games in the used market. People can be pretty vocal about EB & other's trends to pick up on used game sales... this seems somewhat related. It kind of skews how used games could be viewed, especially with that book analogy in the article. Then again, it is productivity/creativity software vs. entertainment software.
The first link had an edit.
EDIT: (pun unintended)
In the meantime. Hah! Take that you monopolistic bitches, buying up all the competition so you can control the market.
Oh if only blender could get its act together with a good workflow and gui.
Back in may I remember hearing a report on NPR about "shovel ready projects" and how that the slow down in construction and the economy at large, Autodesk was looking to pull in cash any way it could. It sounded kind of bleak, so I seriously wonder what the landscape is going to look like after Autodesk?
fixed.
fixed
So how would that work? The software would become un-usable after a certain period? Kinda like a demo?
Could work I suppose.....how come no ones done it before?
Maybe it's because they fear people would use pirated sofware on a project for 6 months and hire legal sofware for one month to cover their butts, so if confronted they just claim they completed their work within a month....
It would have been so much better if they worked with modules you could buy. You buy Max/Maya Core module, the base program, and then you extend it with a modeling module, a rendering one, animation, etc.
So basically you only pay for what you actually use. In my case I'd just need to buy Core+Modeling and be done with it.
But hey, why would they ever implement that.... They are charging people loads of money for stuff they dont even need and no one says a word about it...
Because the profit margins wouldn't be worth the costs of implementing such a system.
Or Autodesk just really don't give a shit about freelancers.
As far as I can remember (this was years ago) I sold my Cubase program for a pittance on ebay because Steinberg said the license was given to the original program owner and therefore is not transferrable. Other companies do this in other mediums too, so personally I think Autodesk were right in their actions but should have worded it better
No where does it mention you are leasing an app, it says "buy" everywhere and you only pay for it once and you have it forever. The were just mad they weren't making money off this guy selling their app. And how does people selling used apps make them seem unimportant? That's a silly argument.
Autodesk has no prestige, their tech support sucks/basically non existent, they buy new apps and companies instead of upgrading their own, maya has needed an overhaul for years now and all they've done to it in the last 5 years is shove random plug'ins and what not into it.
Yeah, prestige definitely isn't the right word to use in the same sentence as Autodesk.
As for these other companies in other mediums, are you talking about within the entertainment art industries, or just generally? I'd like some examples of when a large corporation extorting money (or inhibiting a means of livelihood) from an individual, based on a poorly-worded licensing agreement, doesn't constitute corporate strong-arming.
Also, your first comment makes no sense.
ALSO: people, I linked to an article in which it's said that Autodesk lost in the first post. Stop posting ''oh look at this link I found, looks like they lost'
No matter what they put in the EULA, it A) does not apply to people who have not agreed to it (like the guy in these articles), and
In order to get around it, perhaps Autodesk really could lease out their software by making you pay monthly charges and demanding it back when you decide to stop using it, although I think that would probably put them out of business.
True, but isn't it only against the law due to the manner in which their EULA has been worded? Surely some jiggery-pokery by Legal, and hey presto! A perfectly binding, legal agreement in order to use their software.
I don't speak Lawyer, so I've only been keeping a layman's eye in the situation - if I've missed something crucial, then please, everyone just keep moving. Nothing to see here, save the drooling idiot in the corner, missing the point.
Not saying I agree with how Autodesk have behaved in this situation, but surely they won't just roll over and die because of one loss in court?
No, it is based on the actual conditions of the sale. Not the words they use.
It is like having a EULA that says you sell yourself into slavery. It doesn't matter how it is worded, slavery is slavery, and any contract that turns you into a slave is not enforcible.
Ah, okay. Cool.
Your explanation, not slavery. Or Autodesk.
That was stopped because it was apparently too expensive for studios to license the dev kit to build gamepacks. Seems to be a common theme with Autodesk that... killing things for the sake of cash.. mind you I suppose they have to recoup money somehow after spending all that cash buying up the major 3D apps and what have you.
Wait! Are you telling me, or asking me?
For your information I purchased this software from a professional retail music shop for around £460, that was over 5 years ago. This program was the full Steinberg Cubase SX, comes with 12 discs, an instruction book as thick as your arm and lifetime commercial license. It wasn't some cut down, limited use, waste of time disc in a paper envelope you see glued on the daily mail.
I lost the dongle, or it got knicked:poly127: This dongle IS the license, asked for a new one from the retailers, they said ok, it will cost you £460! No-one could supply me a new one for free or even small cost, even spoke to the manufacturers and they couldn't help.
So, even though I was the owner of the software and it was registered and licensed to me, I was told that if I sell it as licensed this would be illegal. The terms of use stipulated that this license is not transferrable after registration but posession of the dongle means the right to run the program. The last part and cost for replacing the dongle were not stated.
Years later I have come to realise what big corporate entity's are trying to do as in this case. They are protecting the company image by making sure their license is maintained to the individual, not just anyone. Afterall, why would anyone want to sell their software and license? This is the greatest software around, isn't it?
I think you're overestimating the importance of image in relation to the seller.
What they're trying to do is maximize profit by ensuring that anyone that wishes to purchase their software has to do so at full price. If someone wants to buy a full version of, say, Maya Unlimited, and you're selling your (legitimate) copy for £460, they've just lost about £2,000 of initial purchasing revenue, plus whatever they charge for subscriptions for support and upgrades. Figures are probably a little off, but my connection's crap this morning, and I can't be arsed waiting an age to verify the numbers.
Sure, they don't want their image tarnished by people selling their software at flea markets, but profits are their primary concern.
Given your experiences with the intricacies of licensing agreements with that CuBase situation, I'm even more puzzled why you'd be supportive of corporate practices like the one detailed in the articles.
I'm quite comfortable saying Autodesk got what they deserve, especially after the trouble they gave us over 'licenses' we were sold by an authorised dealer a while back!
Not being supportive of Steinberg's practises regarding the dongle as it personally cost me but Autodesk have always given me good quality service.
If Autodesk lost too many sales and became bankrupt due to guys like this reselling their software at cut rate prices, I'm sure people would change their tunes as alot of us rely on this software.
That sounds to me like either Cubase fucked up (possible), or you bought a NFR copy - which would be a crime by the person who sold it to you.
Doesn't matter, though, I was going on the information you gave me. And it's got no relevance
"If Autodesk lost too many sales and became bankrupt due to guys like this reselling their software at cut rate prices"
Aaaand that's where I bow out, as you're obviously just trolling.
and thus reducing their market base.
if by cutting the price with 1/3, you quadruple your marketbase, you're actually making more money than when selling your product at a higher price. its very simple economics.
how can pixologic sell their software at 1/10 the price of autodesk, provide massive updates every version, tons of features, and still remain alive and thriving?
henry ford was constantly cutting the price of his model T, because he was discovering new methods of producing the vehicle cheaper and cheaper.
and every time the price was cut, he increased his potential market, thereby making more money. its very basic economics.
Don't forget, they bought Softimage after the economy started falling. So, I have absolutely no sympathy if they are now loosing money for bad business practices of attempting monopolies versus offering a better mousetrap. Heard something once around the line that a company has started to loose its originality when it starts buying up other companies of the same type.
We already saw this with Adobe and Macromedia (RIP).
Lots of money flowing around people get stupid, lazy and get focused on all the wrong things.
It's what happens when you give a lot of money to a bunch of dorks who feel like they missed out on their party years. Or people who do whatever it takes to continue funding their lifestyle.
Use newly acquired companies as leverage, to barrow more money, to acquire more companies to... oh shit we're out of companies, hey where did our CEO go?
Sure love watching these fat cat companies sitting on their patents nose dive. Lets hope the future's brighter because of it.
http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars