Can I obtain offline activation in the future?

[Ognyan]

After losing communication with Matt,Felice advised me to post here.I already know about the ''life cycle''autodesk decided to invent.And i got a message from the corporate council trough Matt which was:

''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.''

-----------------------------

In the message It says ''Autodesk is not restricting users from perpetual rights of the use of our software''

1) Yet, when the date of lets say march 2022 comes and for some reason I need to reinstall my Maya 2019 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'' 

2) 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 all the times i want..

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

3) 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.Autodesk has no rights over my hardware to dictate how long its software will live!

4) Perpetual licenses aren't services. Additional offerings might be, but the license at the core of it, is a product and Autodesk can be expected to ensure its accessibility (which includes activation) at a reasonable cost to Autodesk. This will include some fluctuations and "unexpected" events. Especially increased costs resulting from Autodesk failing to prepare for reasonably expectable events or discontinuing systems set in place earlier at any point in time, can't be a reason to discontinue activation support without offering an alternative.

And I am not getting any alternative here.All I require is a offline activation tool from Autodesk or a written permission that in the future, if I need to activate my software due to new system upgrade and Autodesk still doesn't provide new activation codes, than I need to be granted with a written document that permits me to activate the software the way a find best for me in order to take advantage of it and use it as intended.

5) Previous version rights are not an additional service in the first place, but an inherent right.No maintenance or subscription should be required for that.

As so, in my legal rights i continue to demand a offline activation tool if Autodesk decides to not honor our legal contract or a written permission to activate the software the way a find best for me in order to take advantage of it and use it as intended.

6) 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

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024

''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.''

Now I just typed a full wall of legal rights here that were provided to my by legal authorities.What it will take for Autodesk to acknowledge that there is something wrong with its current actions? Especially as i wasn't provided with a alternative to keep using my perpetual in the future?

[jcdeblok]

I'm pretty sure the corporate lawyers have forbidden Autodesk forum people from commenting on this by now. I've posted similar stuff a few weeks ago with zero response from AD. Which is good I guess because they know we have a good point here 🙂 

[Ognyan]

I saw your post mate.That is why I decided to do it again and will wait for a competent Autodesk employ answer for a ''limited time period'' because not winter, but the mother of all storms is coming and they know it.

[rkmcswain]

@Ognyan wrote:

In the message It says "Autodesk is not restricting users from perpetual rights of the use of our software"

It seems as if they just omitted the ending to that, which should say "unless you have to reinstall the application, at which time you will not be able to obtain an activation code from Autodesk"

[nico]

(13)

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. Someone at Autodesk is probably going like: "Wait? Wat? They are protected from our unethical plans?" Cheers for looking up the document number, hadn't found it yet but I was also looking 😉

[Ognyan]

Also I forgot to say but, points 14 and 15 too give us protections and the rights to use the software;

(14)	A person having a right to use a computer program should not be prevented from performing acts necessary to observe, study or test the functioning of the program, provided that those acts do not infringe the copyright in the program.

(15)

The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.

Now what Autodesk? This was written and accepted in 2009.Even autodesk users from this period are under protection of their rights.

I still demand a Autodesk employs answer!

Will we get or not a offline activation tool?

If not,than even better:

Will we get a written permission from Autodesk that grants perpetual users to activate their software, when the time comes, by our own means in order to use the product as it was intended?

[pendean]

"...Will we get a written permission from Autodesk that grants perpetual users to activate their software, when the time comes, by our own means in order to use the product as it was intended?..."

If you believe that will ever happen, I have a bridge in London I'd like to sell you, cash only, amazing discount good for today only, ready to go right now 🙂

[rkmcswain]

@Ognyan wrote:

Will we get a written permission from Autodesk that grants perpetual users to activate their software, when the time comes, by our own means in order to use the product as it was intended?

I'll take "Things that will never happen, for $200 Alex"

[kris]

In the past, the EU has laid down some pretty hefty fines when companies like Google tried to strong-arm its users.  Hopefully they do the same here... and levy a fine that's big enough to get Autodesk to back off.

Even if they do, it'll probably take so long that Autodesk would effectively win, regardless.

Kris.

[Ognyan]

Given the current situation, I don't see anything funny..Still, Pendean and rkmcswain, out of curiosity, what perpetual Autodesk softwares do you own?

[matts.adsk]

Hello again @Ognyan !  The Previous Version FAQ and the DM’s we exchanged do address most of your points.

“And I am not getting any alternative here.” – The software will run continuously provided the environment in which it is running does not change.  The alternative I suggest is to back up your hardware and install your Maya 2019 on that hardware, get a code now and keep it for future use on that backup machine.

“All I require is a offline activation tool from Autodesk or a written permission that in the future, if I need to activate my software due to new system upgrade and Autodesk still doesn't provide new activation codes, than I need to be granted with a written document that permits me to activate the software the way a find best for me in order to take advantage of it and use it as intended.” – Autodesk will not be developing an offline activation tool and I wouldn’t expect Autodesk to provide the written permission you are asking for here.

“Here is the legal law document:” – Autodesk Legal is familiar with the law and is confident that our terms are compliant.

The Product Support Lifecycle does not preclude your use of the Maya 2019 software.  I respect that you interpret this differently.

[jcdeblok]

Yes, AD is probably not in violations of that law, but neither are we when we start cracking software to be able to use it once AD stops activation. (if you have a valid lic and are in the EU etc. ). 

What we do like is some acknowledgement from AD that they will respect our rights to do so and do not release the flying monkeys on those who go down that road. 

[Ognyan]

Glad to hear from you mate.

It is not only me that is interpreting this differently as all most everyone is thinking the same way.I can give you right now a link on cgpress where close to a 100 more are on the same thought, not to mention the ignored people here on these forums.Everyone below my thread is not ok with this.

´´Autodesk Legal is familiar with the law and is confident that our terms are compliant.´´

You know, a few days ago I saw a movie where a bunch of soldiers and captains were watching on a monitor some guys that they wanted to attack really bad.The captain asked the president:

-how much of the law can we afford to infringement and still attack them?

This is what is happening right now.Autodesk layers know the law and its loop holes and are doing a infringement litle by litle to see where they can get to.

´´The software will run continuously provided the environment in which it is running does not change. ´´

Autodesk doesnt have the right to link its software to my hardware life.Its 50/50 and the other 50>my hardware is mine and autodesk cant use it as a excuse.How much clear do i need to say it?

´´The alternative I suggest is to back up your hardware and install your Maya 2019 on that hardware, get a code now and keep it for future use on that backup machine.´´

Back up the hardware?You can install it only once on a pc.A backup means a copy of the software on a external hdd which is just a exe that will not work past the date.And Autodesk allready said that we can stock on keys but they will not work so what is the point?

[pendean]

It is funny you are under the impression Autodesk, after 30+ years, is going to turn into a charity and give away software like that.

Since you use 2019 software, are you not on the pay-to-stay (or did you leap to the pay-to-play option?) scheme, and already consuming the Autodesk kool-aid? Not sure what you are trying to achieve here, other than something to do after work.

Good luck either way.

[Ognyan]

Ive never asked for charity and never thougth about something like that.I payed and continue to pay each year.And perpetual was never pay to stay.I will respect the way you express yourself for this situation mate.

You still haven't answered my modest question.What perpetual autodesk software/s do you own?(if any)

Apart from being a autodesk affiliate.

Cheers

[juangea]

Here are happening one of three things:

1.- Or Autodesk did false advertising and sold "Perpetual" licenses as "Time Limited" licenses

2.- Or Autodesk is violating our rights as consumers and in bad faith they included some hidden clause in those EULAS that you MUST accept when you install new software (a clause that since it has not been clearly advertised it will be removed by any judge).

3.- Or Autodesk is trying to convince me that when I purchased a license at some point they told me that my license would be perpetual as long as I maintain my hardware, something they never did because it was not the case.

My licenses are "Perpetual", I have them since Max 9, and I have never been warned that my license were going to be time limited or hardware tied in the case I took an upgrade, you don't have the right to force me to keep my hardware as it is.

Please, can you tell me why are you saying that I MUST not upgrade my hardware because you don't want me to?

Thanks.

[kris]

Trying to get Autodesk to clarify the point is ... meaningless.  They will say what their lawyers tell them to say.  They think they have it within their rights to do whatever they want, and so they will do that.  History is full of examples of that exact thing happening... that's why a) there are laws, and b) why companies like Autodesk retain law firms to try and force things their way in spite of those laws.  Especially when many of those laws are ambiguous, and subject to interpretation.   Even where they know they are flat out wrong, they will calculate the cost/reward, and do whatever they think they can get away with.  It is usually much cheaper for them to send a swarm of lawyers against their users than the other way around, at least relative to income.  

History shows - be it Autodesk, Microsoft, Google, etc. - that the *only* way they will change is when there's a punitive decision that will go against them.  And, even then, they will appeal it as long as they can.  And, even then, they will eventually come around and do it again.

Take Microsoft.  They were slapped on the wrist hard for forcing users to install IE with Windows, and trying to 'convince' users not to install Chrome.  Now, a few years down the line, they're doing *exactly* the same thing with Edge, but for whatever reason no one is holding them to account.  And, thus, they won in the end.

The advantage of class actions (and similar suits) is that the burden of the legal costs are typically not borne by the victims of the aggressor.  It may take a few bucks to get the ball rolling, but if it can be shown that there is a winnable case, there are many law firms who'd take it on for the possible after-the-fact payout.  That the best (and most winnable) laws exist in the EU may be problematic to that end, but there are a lot of users...

Maybe talk to a firm or two, and find out how much it would cost for the groundwork.  Then do a gofundme or similar to roll a ball...

Kris.

[Ognyan]

I get the logic and I agree with it.Still, if we stop trying, than what are we worth as humans?I know we have to place limits in order not to fall in the pit though.

On the other hand i was told that if a similar case to this already existed (being that with autodesk or another company)that mimics the situation we are in, than the case number of that case can be used and add significant pressure.Problem is I am searching for such a precedent for days and barely find similar topics.Anyone knows any famous similar cases?

For example I do know that Adobe did something like that with CC customers but in return they offered them a offline activation.I just cant find the page/case about it 😞

[kris]

I'm not saying quit.  Just saying that trying to get Autodesk to admit to anything in our favor is pointless.

Adobe did something very different.  They didn't threaten to take away the permanent licenses.  They let users **keep** their permanent licenses, and offered a discounted subscription plan, regardless, which was cheaper than the previous suite.  I still have my permanent master collection license.  I can still activate it.  Adobe didn't try to take anything away from me.

Previous to the change to subscription, I felt I was getting value from the Master Collection upgrades.  Then, going forward, I generally (weakinging of late) felt I was getting value, and so kept paying.  Overall, I trust that Adobe isn't trying to screw me.  They didn't increase the cost of subscription for almost six years.  I do not feel betrayed by Adobe in the process.  When I reach out to them, they are positive, responsive, and pleasant to deal with.

This is the key element that Autodesk missed.  They saw Adobe's profits, and asked themselves, "how can we force as many users as possible to switch, so we can see a maximum increase in our profits".  Not once did they stop to think that what their users though about the process.  Not once did they realize that if they gave users choices, they would actually increase brand loyalty.   That they would retain more customers, convert more customers, and thus be more profitable with a stronger user base.  That by letting users keep their permanent licenses, permanently, they would instill the trust that would allow those users to eventually come back into the fold, rather than forcing them in to the hands of the competition.

Instead, they took the antagonistic route.  They told the users what they were going to do, and that they would like it, or "there's the door".  They promised, virtually guaranteed, how much better things would get as a result of the change.  Then they utterly and completely failed to deliver.  Then continue to harden their stance, to try and force more change.  Seemingly oblivious to the fact that if they destroy brand loyalty, they will have destroyed the only salable thing they actually have...

Greed.  It makes for stupid decisions.  In the end, it won't matter to us, because they are growing markets in places where there are no permanent licenses (fusion360).  At the end of the day, the DCC market will probably fade for Autodesk, and they just don't care - after all.  Easy to kill something when it's not making money.  The fact that it's not making money is because they themselves undermined the possibility will not matter, as they only look to the next quarter.

To topic, the next quarter is how change happens.  One user here or there really doesn't matter.  A $150M+ class action suit, however, they'll notice that.  

Kris.

---

[rkmcswain]

@Anonymous wrote:

Adobe ..... let users **keep** their permanent licenses, and offered a discounted subscription plan, regardless, which was cheaper than the previous suite.

Autodesk did the same thing, they too offered deep discounts to move to rental and give up the perpetual licenses and many people did so, but I'm guessing that the adoption rate still did not match their predictions, so this latest move is simply the next step towards making that happen.

Mr. Agagnost did say "If you don't see value in subscription, you should probably find another software solution" - and it appears their intent is that every user of Autodesk products (past, present, or future) shall pay annually.