Kind of like being married - you don't have to agree but you *do* have to live with it. Fighting tooth-and-nail just ends up with both sides in a bad mood.
As a married man and a Revit user, I agree. Where else do you voice your opinion on these matters though.
The Vernor vs Autodesk Inc. ruling has rather widespread implications for 'software'.. Will this be the end of all second hand gaming software resellers? What happens to non-commercial users that may have depended on low-cost second hand software to function such as community outreach training centers and transitional training facilites. Not that either ruling effects me directly, but I'm kind of a principles guy.
For this board, its all a moot point once Autodesk shifts to an entirely cloud based product interface. Hope no one here will be stuck in a 3 year T1 contract when that happens. Ahh.. dependencies.
Lets take note of the ruling by the Ninth Circut, perhaps primarily of all factors "(3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers;" Anyone care to place a wager and revisit this thread in 3-5 years?
>>>...second hand gaming software resellers...<<<
It is sad when anyone loses a job, even more sad when whole classes of businesses disappear, but it happens as we progress through the times we are in (video rental stores, comic book stores, music stores, etc.).
>>>...Not that either ruling effects me directly....<<<
And that's the point of this thread, which seems to have drifted into saving the 'unknown' little guy when it reality it is more about protecting the truly little guy who thinks he's buying real software for real money on eBay (or name your source) only to find out he cannot activate it or use it and is truly out of pocket a large chunk of money.
>>>..."(3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers;"...<<<
That usually means pricing will not sky rocket any faster than it could: anyone who thinks it means prices will drop is not grasping reality too well
I might say that the buisiness that you mention that have fallen by the wayside have done so due to changes in media format rather than Intellectual Property issues, but its a valid point.
Honestly, I had no qualms with Autodesk until the TOL issues was looked into. Our reseller is great, provides top notch support and is generally really on top of it. In light of other software, the initial investment was reasonable and I consider the Subscription fee to be a good value considering all that comes with it. It was just that $1000 fee that seemed exorbitant. That being said, I think it is good to let Auodesk consider recommendations from the resellers and evaluate these instances on a case to case basis to see if the terms of the TOL are applicable to some smaller firm adjustments.
going to file any anti-First Use, or End User License agreements in the 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' category.
Topically, the EU's top court has ruled that the first sale doctrine applies to software, whether sold via physical media or download, and that the original publisher cannot block the sale. Noted in the decision is that the fiction of selling a license, not the software, is a distinctionwithout a diference.
So Vernor can sell his used R14 seats in Europe, legally. Now if the US courts would get their heads out of the sand, we might be able to see real progress in software upgrades, instead of the minor tweaks and fresh bugs we've been seeing.
Sure, anybody can sell you a used disc. But that doesn't mean Autodesk will honor its licensing regardless of what the EU says.
"After further review, the ruling on the field stands. The EU will be charged one time out. They have no more challenges remaining."
Sure, even if the US we've been able to resell the disc -- although the license to run the software did not go with the disk. That 'non-transferrable' clause in the EULA. The physical media is irrelevant to the EU ruling - the specific question revolved around downloaded licenses, and affirmed the purchaser's right to resell the software.
the top court in the EU has ruled that such non-transferrable clauses for perpeptual use licenses are not legal, nor binding, and that the riight of the vendor to control the sale of the software ends at the first sale. It's possible that a vendor could attempt to refuse to issue authorization codes, but based on this ruling, they are unlikely to succeed, and likely to be fined in the EU.
Proactively, a smart vendor whould establish a license transfer mechanism, with a appropriate fee to cover their administrative costs, overhead, and profit ont he license transfer. Otherwise the purchaser of the used software would be legitimately entitled to hack the software as required to run it. and of course, those hacls would get in the wild and simply expedite piracy.
Autodesk does provide a TOL in instances where a license transfer was done as a legal acquisition of software, rather than reselling. As for the EU ruling, the jurisdiction does not extend to the USA and thus ultimately is powerless in this situation. The SCOTUS has already upheld the licensing practices of Autodesk. And the penalty for software piracy would pretty much also favor Autodesk. The bottom-line is that Autodesk owns the license and simply leases its use to the consumer. Otherwise it'd be like the allowing apartment renters to sell the property rights to new owners regardless of the fact that the building is owned by their landlord. Equally ridiculous.
Access a broad range of knowledge to help get the most out of your products and services.