You are not forced to accept the EULA. If you do not like the ruling or the terms of the agreement, then simply click 'I Reject' and do not install the software.
It's funny because it is true.
By clicking 'I Agree' then you agree to the terms of the EULA, and thus agree that the license is leased to you and cannot be transferred to another party. It's all right there in black and white. The EU ruling is not enforceable because the activation system prevents the license from being activated. To allow it would also be to allow piracy. Because I could obtain a serial number and just explain that I 'bought' it from the original owner and need to activate it. Unrealistic.
Anyone who thinks buying software from somebody is a good idea must also think buying a Rolex off the street is a good idea. Otherwise, if you want to prove you have aquired it legally per the conditions of the TOL and pay the transfer fee, then by all means do so.
>>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.
You are correct that the EU ruling does not apply to the US software market. As a US citizen, I find it disapointig that the EU has more respect for consumer property rights than the US, despite our clinging to the mantra that the US is the bastion of freedom. IIRC, SCOTUS did not directly affirm the ruling in Vernor v Autodesk, rather they refused to hear the appeal. Same result for now though.. then too, SCOTUS has made many rulings that are disagreeable -- as a matter of law, the Dred Scott decision was never over-turned, and the Citizens United ruling has done more damage to democracy than anything else in recent memory.
Tranfer of license happens now, in the event of the purchase of a company -- but not for individuals. It's difficult to think of a valid reason (other than rent-seeking mentality) for that not being allowed. Frankly, Autodesk is saying that their software product is worthless, eg has no value since no will pay anything for my existing seat. If a thing is worth what somewone will pay, then installed software is worthless..
>>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.
uhmmm, it's called subletting? or agreeing to vacate an apartment in favor of another party? pretty common in a lot of places. In this instance, the vendor still 'owns' the software, copyright would still protect it from being wantonly abused, and they could generate additional revenue via a transfer fee and charging for support. Enabling the re-sale of a license is not the end of the world for software vendors, and would probably result in improved sales of the front line product, since the product would now have a re-sale value on the secondary market. I have'nt noticed that used car sales have destroyed Ford's ability to produce and sell new cars....
And please -- piracy of software is grossly overrated as a problem. 80% of Acad functionality is available for free today. And to get to 90%-or-better functionality is available at a moderate cost. Why pirate?
It's not hard to make the argument that not enabling the resale of licensed software is not in the long term interests of Autodesk, its stockholders, or the users of the software. combined with the subscription program and an annual release cycle, we are seeing mediocre improvements, fresh problems with each release, ongoing bugs that never seem to get fixed, few service packs, etc. Autodesk no longer has a reputation for producing quality software, and that 'lack of quality' makes the competition much more interesting moving forward.
If a vendor was placed in the position of actually competing with his own installed base, we might actually see a more stable application, with compelling upgrades and features that work as expected. Short-term might suffer, but I don't have a 'this quarter is the only thing that matters in the universe' mentality. My designs are expected to last in the real world for decades without problems . I'd like softare that I can count just as reliabily - and I don't see it happening today. Certainbly ther's no compelling reason to move from 2012 to 2013, and lots of reported problems. Which is one of the reasons my 2013 subscription upgrade is sitting on the shelf, and was never taken out of the box, installed or authorized.
We live the real world, one full of people looking for all sorts of ways to get around restrictions (in some cases expending time, energy, and money well in excess of what is saved) which includes faking, duplicating, or outright hacking of software, all justified by variations on "I don' wanna!".
In an ideal world, or one full of idealists, a simple license transfer protocol would be workable since the distributor of the software could trust the product was acquired properly. What happens when somebody sells the same license to 10 different purchasers? 100? How to defend in court when the authorization codes are given to the first sale and then the other 99 purchases start demanding theirs? The seller is likely in a different jurisdiction or even continent leaving the distributor the (more profitable) target of the inevitiable cries of "SUE THE B'TRDS!".
Under such circumstances I can't see anything working well other than the current restricted system, even if it is considered heavy-handed.
dgorsman, I agree.
JGerth, you are playing fiddle to a biased emotion. You only see how you benefit from such a policy rather than how everyone benefits as a whole - dgorsman makes a perfect point here.
In the US, we protect intellectual property rights. And comparing how SCOTUS has ruled unfairly in the past leads no credibility that by comparison, the EU has ruled favorably in this case. SCOTUS didn't have to rule on this case because they did not disagree with the lower court's ruling. Thus it was upheld by proxy.
And as for your subletting argument, you are still wrong. I said nothing about a renter subleasing the apartment. I said the renter selling the property. But again, you refuse to see what is in black in white to favor some sort of argument that the EULA is in the wrong. It is not. This is the way it is - just as the sky is blue.
You do not have to agree with the policy. However, if you do, then you simply agree that you cannot resell the software or purchase the software from another consumer who is currently leasing it. Period. End of story. No additional complaints will change that and nothing the EU can say can be enforced here. The United States does not recognize foreign laws and rulings.
Just want to add that in this talk of 'idealism', the notion that these EULA's are the outcome of a benevolent corporation simply looking out for the end user is equally as fanciful.
I've heard FORD are looking at putting in a similar system when they sell you a car. If someone wishes to change their software then they no longer use the old one, anf if someone else wants to buy it second hand then what is the problem. If autodesk has such a problem with this then instead of giving reduced rates for an upgrade why don't they do a part exchange for the old software (I'm pretty sure a similar system has been working for a while now). And as far as someone selling their software on to 100 different people, I think that might be illegal.
Dgorsman – there’s a lot of merit to your statements, and certainly a lot of SOBs who are more interested in what they can get away with rather than what they produce. Many of whom wear suits and spiffy leather loafers to court. Generally speaking though, Autodesk’s bread and butter customers are corporate entities in business for the long run. That’s not an environment where rampant piracy of software is acceptable, especially considering the statutory penalties for copyright infringement.
But, while setting up a robust transfer of license mechanism is not a trivial exercise, neither is it an insurmountable technical obstacle. A software vendor’s primary interest is ensuring that they receive compensation for each seat of their product that is in use. If a vendor can sell at full price to person A, and receive appropriate compensation from an eventual secondary purchaser, then their interests are met. Say that a year’s email/web support is bundled with the ToL fee, without automatic upgrade rights, and there’s a revenue stream that the vendor currently lacks.
Actually, the technical side of a license transfer between original purchaser and secondary purchaserwould seem to be possible for Adesk to implement relatively easily -- since they've already done 95 percent of the work for recent versions of their software. the Portable License Utility will remove the authcode from a PC, store it on an Adesk server, and then provide a fresh auth code for a different PC.
Connect that to a registration database, collect a fee for the transfer of license ownership, and rock on.
Since they will have to accomplish that in the EU, it would seem reasonably do-able to extend that to the rest of the planet. Older version wouold be trickier, but also possible.
Forcing vendors to compete against their own product is probably the best way to encourage compelling upgrades and fresh purchases. Certainly the current software ecosystem is not conducive to real progress or robust software. Heck, R14 was the best AutoCAD for years – it took until the 2004 release IMO to see a compelling reason to upgrade from that. 2002 was OK, but that was about it, 2000i and 2000 weren’t even worth taking out of the shrinkwrap..
TravisNave, you keep harping on ‘leasing’. But that’s not what’s happened. I did not lease my software, and am not renting it. As customers, we purchased a perpetual use license to use the software on however many seats we paid for. I can cheerfully run my 2012 seat for the next decade or two if I chose, installing it on a new machine every few years, and Adesk would gain no revenue from it, just the costs incurred from providing me nerw auth codes as I change out machines.
Adobe is certainly seeing no revenue coming in from the Photoshop 4 seat I’ve got. On the other hand, If I was able to resell it (my license to use the software that is) three years down the road, I might be interested in buying a new seat of the 2016 version, if it was compelling. Or if not compelling, go with a competitor. Or go into a different line of work.
And yes, subletting is pretty good equivalent to reselling a software license. you would be selling the right to use the software, exactly equivalent to transferring a lease to live in the apartment. Renter A is out, and Renter B is in.
I can’t sell the apartment because I don’t have title to it, just as the EU ruling does not enable a German resident to go into business selling multiple copies of Oracle when he only is licensed for one. But I can sell my lease, and the right to live there. The building owner’s interests are met, because he is still receiving compensation, and he’d be entitled to additional charges to cover his administrative costs, maybe an addition pet charge if the new guy has a puppy.
Agreed that it’s not currently possible in the US, and it’s frustrating that the EU courts are demonstrating better regard for liberty and personal rights that my own country. If you think that’s a good thing, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
It's a little more complicated than that. The license itself is indeed a lease and such was reaffirmed by US courts. That notwithstanding, even if the EU has ruled otherwise, it many cases it still may not be possible to resell your old software. For example, if you own Inventor 2012 under Subscription and you have received 2013 as part of your auto-fulfilled upgrade, the license itself has been upgraded leaving no such thing to transfer on the old version. Even if you sold the 2012 media, it would not be possible to authorize that license to another user because you still techically lease the current version. The same would be true on any manual upgrade or crossgrade to a new seat. Even so, if you were reselling the current version, there is no implication that such a transfer would necessarily be free to the consumer, simply that it is now allowed in the EU. I would suspect that any compliance to the ruling would result in an expansion of the TOL with an additional cost of the new customer to the license. This is true even in legal acquisitions of the software now. Just as if I sold you my car, you would still have to pay additional fees to the gov't for the title and registration of that vehicle from the original owner to the new owner. I do not think that to be unreasonable. Regardless of how we agree or disagree, this is all speculation.
Access a broad range of knowledge to help get the most out of your products and services.