Read The Fine Print.

[beegee]

This article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Platform/Buyers-beware-of-the-fine-print/2005/05/23/1116700623796.html?oneclick=true) is important reading.


But you will need to subscribe to Fairfax Digital to read it.

Extract>

The real eye-opener is the clause that stipulates users allow Autodesk access physically, or electronically, to their systems and premises. This is to allow Autodesk to conduct an audit of customers' systems. Under the same clause, Autodesk indicates its intent to recover (unspecified) costs for the audit.

[aaronrumple]

...basic corporate communism.

[trombe]

I got that article sent to my vendor for comment.
Thanks BeeGee.
F#!&%*** outrageous.

trombe

[GuyR]

I like the bit at the end...

Autodesk is considering a response.

Pretty scary stuff. What choice do you have? Agree or don't use the software... Would be interesting to see what the Commerce Commision would say about the licence.

Guy

[Joef]

It is very odd but I would wager the people who dislike Autodesk the most are their own customers. But who cares!! Profits are up!!

[Kroke]

This is why so many of us were/are so p!ssed off of Adesk getting ahold of Revit.

[Chad Smith]

Wow, there it is in the EULA, Point 9.5 - Audits. While I don't read the EULA every release, I do make it a habit to read it every 2-3 releases. Looks like this one slipped through.

This is fairly outrageous stuff. I just don't see how this could be considered a lawful activity. I think I will be forwarding this topic on to our legal department and management.

[Chad Smith]

One other thing. How is this new clause supposed to help reduce unauthorised copies?

Consider this,
If a company has just one license, then that allows Autodesk the 'right' to audit.

But... if that same company has say 2 more licenses which are unauthorised, then all the company has to do is cancel their current authorised license, which will void the audit clause.

This now means that:
A. Autodesk has just increased the number of unauthorised copies.
B. Autodesk has just lost revenue from the upgrades of an authorised license.

Sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me. :screwy: But I guess the key to this was that you weren't supposed to realise the addition.

[Scott Hopkins]

I don't have anything to hide, but I can assure you that if Autodesk's brown-shirted thugs showed up at my office door, the only way they would get in is over my dead body! With the advent of Revit I was just starting to warm up to Autodesk, now I have gone back to hating them.

[hand471037]

This is nothing new. Simply read some horror stories about the Business Software Alliance...

Now do you see why I talk so much about Open Source software? ;-)

[irwin]

I suppose I'm asking for it, but my conscience won't let me hold my tongue here...

While policies like these might be overkill, would it not be appropriate to reserve at least some of the ire for the people who steal software? Their dishonest behavior is what forces a response from software companies, making things more of a nuisance for honest users. Furthermore, piracy forces software companies to charge more -- anything that discourages piracy keeps the prices lower for legitimate users.

I won't accuse anyone on this forum of ever having used unauthorized copies of software, but please recognize that if you've condoned this behavior by others then you have contributed to the problem.

OK, I've got my flame suit on. Fire away.

[beegee]

There is no argument about stopping piracy. There is concern that the EULA is a massive over -reaction to the problem, with respect to the audit provisions, as well as an infringement of basic rights. There is further concern that Autodesk and its resellers chose to make these EULA changes without properly informing its customers. Yes, you could argue that we should read every word of each EULA we agree to, but the reality is that that doesn't always happen.

[Scott D Davis]

I still make the argument that the success of DWG is attributed directly to the rapant piracy of AutoCAD up to r14. It was so extremely easy for anyone with a set of a dozen or so floppy disks to make a functioning copy of AutoCAD. Yes, it was a horrible problem, but one that was not easily handled with technoogy then.

I do not condone the piracy, but it did play a major role in DWG becoming the "standard" and has contributed to the success of Autodesk just because of shear market dominance of DWG.

[Chad Smith]

I certainly don't have a problem with software companies looking after their intellectual rights. And I'm sure that Autodesk wouldn't enforce this agreement unless there was evidence to do so. And while Autodesk won't comment on how they carry out their auditing, I bet it involves searching through PC's to confirm unauthorised software use.

What I do have a problem with is this setting new standards for other software companies. Just image little Joe Amature down the road who develops a small program which is being used in say a doctors or legal office, and he has that agreement in the EULA. Now lets say Joe Amature isn't the most moral person in the world and uses this opportunity to start spying while carrying out his auditing.
I mentioned this to my partner last night who is criminal defense solicitor, and she certainly was not impressed.

Also, I'm guessing that the average office probably uses about 30 different software packages. If all of them use this agreement and choose to carry it out, just image the downtime in auditing. This would cost $$$.

This is a huge invasion of privacy rights and confidentiality.

[Kroke]

Yeah, even if they did show up here, they'd have to be accompanied by the local sherrif with his search warrant, otherwise, they'll be tied up for a while (probably in local court to examine and honor the EULA), they don't wear badges so I wouldn't HAVE to let them into my home where I work, and I wouldn't.

It just gives people more reason to pirate, less hassle, not worth the headache.

[hand471037]

Your EULA is the deal you've made. When you paid for software, you're only paying for permission to use the tools someone else owns, under the terms they dictate, and that's all your paying for.

Ever read the EULA for Microsoft's FrontPage that alludes to it not being OK to make web pages critical to FrontPage using FrontPage?

Or the EULA for Hotmail that states that anything you send via Hotmail could become property of Microsoft?

You've always got choice. Is the value of the tool high enough to warrent the deal I have to make in order to get the tool? Or is there a tool that I can make myself, or get for free, that will do a good enough job? In the case of Revit, the answer is a big Yes, it's worth it. In the case of, say, an office suite, it's a big No, for I can use Open Office instead- it's good enough, and a better deal for me to make...

Always read the fine print!

[Joef]

Jeffrey, you are right it is worth it. The question is: why should we be made to feel like we are making a deal with the devil? Is this the type of customer/client relationship that Autodesk is looking for? Apparently it is.


Joe

[hand471037]

Joe, Autodesk's EULA isn't one of the best (you can't even give the product away!) but it's far from the worst.

But until there is something larger than Autodesk threatening it, I doubt we'll see much change. The vast majority of the people out there never read their EULA's or raise much stink about them. So it would be hard to get enough users to pressure Autodesk to change. And the only real competition to Revit isn't ( ;) ) and isn't open-source, so there isn't any pressure there either (for it's probably not going to loose users over it's EULA's).

[Chad Smith]

...making a deal with the devil?
In the words of the late great Bill Hicks:

Luckily, Satan's d**k has many heads, so all these little demon piglets can nuzzle up and suckle all at once.
Looks like Autodesk has pulled up a seat next to Microsoft. :wink:

[BWG]

First, they have to give you reasonable notice. After that, the EULA is pretty standard with the other major software vendors. Autodesk probably wouldn't do the audit anyway, it would more than likely be the BSA on behalf of Autodesk. If you are not cheating, it would not be a problem. BSA would want to do this for Autodesk because since they are there, they could check for any software on your computer. That way, they have a better chance of hitting a jackpot by casting their net.

Of everyone ****** about this, how many have been audited by Autodesk/BSA or have been informed they are getting audited?

Start the count now:

[J. Grouchy]

Yes, you could argue that we should read every word of each EULA we agree to, but the reality is that that doesn't always happen.

correction: ...that doesn't ever happen.

[iru69]

Just because in the last century, many European immigrants to the United States "agreed" to be indentured servants doesn't make it acceptable. That's why we have civil rights and protections. Autodesk can put in their license agreement that I owe them my first born son, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to do so just because I use their software. The simple notion that I "agreed" to it because I “choose” to doesn't hold water. “Choice” is rather subjective when it comes to software standards and investment. What if all the cad software publishers have similar license agreements? Is it really a “choice” to just not to use a computer in business?

Unacceptable provisions in this "agreement" probably wouldn't hold up in court, but Autodesk knows it doesn't have to worry about it because most individuals and small companies don't have the financial or legal resources to fight such a legal battle. The DMCA has attempted to strip many basic civil rights from consumers. Corporations that fill the pockets of Congress are now asking for law-enforcement powers and privileges in order to expedite the railroading of our civil rights.

There will always be people who will refuse to pay for software. Ultimately, it's their loss. Companies do not "lose" money to piracy (you can't lose it if you didn't have it in the first place). All the bogus statistics that the BSA releases about "losses" amount to a b.s. compaign - they have no idea of how many people are actually using unlicensed software and no idea how many people would have paid for it if they had no other means of getting it. This idea that we are all paying for piracy is completely baseless as well - Autodesk product pricing bares no connection to piracy - Autodesk charges as much for their products as they think the market will bear. They either have enough paying customers to make a profit or they don’t.

When you really take the time to research and think about the issues, what’s quickly becoming the modern day take on intellectual property (that corporations are shoving down the throats of uninformed consumers and politicians) bares little resemblance to the original intentions of IP law. We have slowly entered a world of corporate entitlement.

Please don’t write this off as hyperbole. If you haven't been following these issues closely, it's not too late to start doing so. Check out www.eff.org (the Electronic Frontier Foundation) for a start. There's lots of good journalism on this subject on the web - you're just not going to find it on Fox news or CNN, etc. Certainly go ahead and write Autodesk with your objections, but really more importantly, write your Congressional Representatives (or parliamentary reps, whatever system you've got going). Let them know that you’re paying attention, and that the rights of corporations don't take precedent over the rights of individuals. This is not a partisan matter - here in the U.S., there are both Republicans and Democrats on the wrong side of this issue - Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina – recently retired) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) are just two. You do have a voice - use it.

[bsuccar]

I would like all to know that this issue is circulating quite rapidly (in Australia at least) and is starting to take a potentially ugly shape. As a case in point, an RAIA (Royal Australian Institute of Architects) official has contacted me requesting clarifications and comments. It seems he has been contacted in turn by other industry figures inquiring whether some kind of 'action' is needed. I hope Autodesk understands the potential damage this issue might cause all stakeholders and thus take prompt action.
Bilal

[Scott Hopkins]

I suppose I'm asking for it,
OK, I've got my flame suit on. Fire away.Irwin

Lets say that instead of a company selling software it is a company selling underwear. In fact, lets say that the company is Victoria's Secret (a U.S. manufacturer of ladies lingerie). Lately Victoria's Secret has been concerned with cheep Chinese knock-offs of their patented "Wonder Bra" so they have instituted an end user license agreement for the use of their products. Their lawyers have written up an agreement that allows them to "audit" your wife's clothes to verify if there are any illegal Wonder-bras present.

Someone has placed an anonymous tip and when you get home from work you find police tape across you door and 3 members of the investigation squad riffling through your wife's drawers and sniffing her panties. You say to yourself, "This is a really good thing! We are fighting corruption! I don't blame these guys, I blame the people making the illegal Wonder-bras. Because of this, next year wonder-bras will be a lot cheaper! O joy!"

[Joef]

If, as some have stated, software prices are higher because of piracy, then the victims of the piracy are not the software companies, because they have already recovered their losses through higher prices. The victims are the customers who have paid extra for their software. They are the only ones who have actually lost money. Any monies paid to Autodesk in fines should be then transfered to the victims. This is a windfall (not a budgeted item already factored in pricing) that should be paid out to the customers.

[dg]

I don't agree that software prices are so high due to piracy.
Check out the main players and the prices are roughly the same - but the user base and pirated use of the software varies widely. In addition the software has been around for so long now, that I would suspect development costs have been recouped, so most of the cost now is 'gravy' to the likes of Autodesk.

The prices are purely market driven.

In the UK, I don't know how well this clause would sit with our 'Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

I really can't see how this clause would be enforceable in either the large or small practices.

But the interesting bit is the reference to recovering the costs of the audit. How would these be worked out and agreed? I would suspect a counter claim for lost time and production would be in order too.

It seems that the implications and negative aspects of any such audit, would far outweigh any possible gains. Unless there is some mass piracy at the firm, then basis of any possible piracy compensation claim would be very difficult to establish

[Joef]

I was responding to this comment.


Furthermore, piracy forces software companies to charge more

I'm not sure I agree with it, but if it is true then the companies that charge more are not suffering because they have recouped their losses through higher prices.

[David Conant]

That statement assumes that software companies have not lost any potential sales due to the higher prices or reduced functionality. Since the primary cost in software is labor, a software company must divide the development cost across the number of paid sales before they can make any money. More seats = less development cost per seat = potential lower price per seat. Would conversion from traditional AutoCAD to ADT or Revit be faster and more widespread if the price was cut by 50%? Alternately, would 50% more functionality per release draw in new customers?
If the software company has made back their development cost, then paying users have lost either the extra amount charged per seat, or the extra functionality that could have been built with more resources.
Someone loses in the end, it will always be the paying customer. Only the pirates get away with something for nothing.

[Joef]

That statement assumes that software companies have not lost any potential sales due to the higher prices or reduced functionality. Since the primary cost in software is labor, a software company must divide the development cost across the number of paid sales before they can make any money. More seats = less development cost per seat = potential lower price per seat. Would conversion from traditional AutoCAD to ADT or Revit be faster and more widespread if the price was cut by 50%? Alternately, would 50% more functionality per release draw in new customers?
If the software company has made back their development cost, then paying users have lost either the extra amount charged per seat, or the extra functionality that could have been built with more resources.
Someone loses in the end, it will always be the paying customer. Only the pirates get away with something for nothing.
\

This model of cost per seat pricing would mean that as Revit gets more popular and more seats are sold, the price should drop. This is of course based on a fixed number of labourers. Or perhaps as more seats are sold we get increased functionality and support. (More likely scenario).

[iru69]

If, theoretically, Autodesk could reduce piracy to zero, and double the amount of paying customers, does anyone here seriously think Autodesk would lower its prices? Many economists would argue that a certain amount of piracy keeps prices in check. Did TurboCAD, along with too many others to remember, never make it because of all those software pirates? Somehow, AutoCAD, “despite” being pirated left and right, became an industry standard and Autodesk made a lot of money.

While in the larger scheme of things, product sales will ultimately determine Revit’s fate, the current pace of development of Revit is not directly tied to its sales. While in simple theory, company develops product, people buy product, and company reinvests in product - in reality, it's much more complex, especially for a company the size of Autodesk and the kind of products they produce. I have no idea whether the sales of Revit pays for its own development, but if the company believes that their future profits hinge on the product, they will invest money as necessary to be competitive with the marketplace. If Autodesk realizes that there will never be enough of a market (or their product isn't competitive enough) to make a profit, then they will drop the product. You can cut piracy to zero, and it won't ultimately change either the marketplace economics or whether the productive is competitive. Since “lost sales” to piracy is an unknowable factor in the equation, it is pointless to take it into consideration.

The development pace of Revit is limited not by its sales, but by how commercial software development works in actual practice. You can't just throw more money and programmers at a software project. If it did, Longhorn would be here by now.

I’m not encouraging software piracy. I think companies should be rewarded for making good products. I like Revit, and I hope it sticks around (especially since I’ve convinced our firm to upgrade all our AutoCAD licenses to Revit). Autodesk has reached the limit in what it can reasonably do to stop piracy – all the authorization code / hardware profiling nonsense. In some respects, it’s already gone too far. Stop trying to keep score about the winners and losers and who’s getting something for nothing. Enough already – it’s really childish.

I know I’ve now written more than my fair share on this topic, but it’s one that I think is terribly important. Think of this topic as a microcosm of a country. The business can be thought of as a government, the customers as the citizens, and the license agreement as the country’s constitution. When you read over the license agreement, what kind of government would Autodesk be?

Edit: P.S. - one more thing. I know this forum isn't here for bashing Autodesk, and I want to make clear that's not my point. Whether I agree with David (or anyone else at Autodesk) on some of these issues, I certainly respect and appreciate his participation in the dialog and hope it continues in the future.

[Wes Macaulay]

Software makers can speak out of both sides of their mouth:

"piracy costs the company more because illegal copies are not contributing to the company's bottom line"
"we can't charge less because we could be sued for being anti-competitive"
So even if piracy was zero, they "couldn't" lower the price of their software. But they could give a big sweet dividend to the stockholders. ;)

While Autodesk may well be motivated by greed, they have some altruistic notions as well - the latter being held more on the development side, of course. It's not like the big A is unique in this regard. And they really are doing things right, more or less.

[aaronrumple]

Not only do you get an audit:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=4564716

You get put on the sex - whoops - software offenders list. Maybe these people shold wear GPS ankle braclets for life - at least in Florida.

[irwin]

I have taken off my flame suit since (of course) all responses were polite. This forum is great. :-)

First, let me point out that the provision in question is not new. I checked Revit 7.0 and 6.1 and both had it. I don't know exactly how far back it goes. (I suspect it's been around for ages in the AutoCAD EULA.) Here is the exact wording:


To ensure compliance with this Agreement, You agree that upon reasonable notice, Autodesk or Autodesk’s authorized representative shall have the right in inspect and audit Your Installation, Access and use of the Software. Any such inspection or audit shall be conducted during regular business hours at Your facilities or electronically.

Regarding the economic issues:



Furthermore, piracy forces software companies to charge more
I'm not sure I agree with it, but if it is true then the companies that charge more are not suffering because they have recouped their losses through higher prices.
Companies don't suffer -- only people suffer. The people could be the customers, the stockholders, or the employees. There are many relationships between different quantities. If a company raises prices, usually fewer people buy. If they spend less and development slows then fewer people buy. If they raise prices then competitors will often raise prices. If they have less profit then they get less access to capital and can't spend as much on development of future products. There are many more such relationships and constraints. It all gets put together and some equilibrium point is reached. Software piracy shifts that equilibrium so that everyone involved (except the pirates) is hurt to some degree, the honest customers, the stockholders, and the employees.


This is a windfall (not a budgeted item already factored in pricing) that should be paid out to the customers.
Actually, I think that Autodesk does budget for a certain amount of revenue from anti-piracy action. However, the main reason it is done is not for the revenue it directly generates, but for the fact that it discourages piracy. Many people who would have pirated the software end up buying it legitimately.


While in the larger scheme of things, product sales will ultimately determine Revit’s fate, the current pace of development of Revit is not directly tied to its sales.
Certainly Autodesk is investing in part based on future expectations, but current sales are considered in deciding how much to budget for revit development.


Someone has placed an anonymous tip and when you get home from work you find police tape across you door and 3 members of the investigation squad riffling through your wife's drawers and sniffing her panties.
Scott, I am an advocate for privacy rights and civil liberties, so I share your concern. However, there are different expectations about privacy in a business from a private residence. Having an inspection of a business during normal business hours and with reasonable notice is different from an unannounced inspection of a private residence.

The policy makes me uncomfortable, and I am not defending it. But I can understand it. Suppose that company X is using 200 seats of AutoCAD but only paid for 50. Autodesk gets a tip about this from a former employee of company X. Autodesk reminds the company that they need to pay for all the seats in use, but gets no response. I can understand the desire on the part of Autodesk's lawyers to include a right to audit in this case into the EULA.

As far as I know there is no problem of widespread piracy of Revit. Unfortunately the Revit EULA includes this clause because of a long legacy of AutoCAD piracy.

[Batman]

You know, there were never any IP or copyright laws in effect when Shakespeare wrote or when Van Gogh and Da Vinci painted. IP protection obviously isn't something that should be akin with creativity and the need to create only if remuneration is involved.

I don't mind paying for any software, but when the prices are as high as they are now, knowing of the gigantic profits which the companies generate from the sales and not seeing any reduction in pricing nor considerable leaps in the software advancement then it not hard to understand whats going on is it. We've become nothing more than resources for the host to feed off. They give us only what we need to survive so that they can keep feeding.

The notion that you create something and keep earning off the same thing indefinitely is nothing more than simple greed.

I find it hard to understand how PC prices keep going down yet software is always on the up?? Obviously not enough competition.

Shouldn't Autodesk at least offer reasonable discounts on its products to its shareholders. Many large corporations do this, why doesn't Autodesk?

I for one wouldn't mind purchasing a bundle of shares in return for a voice in the development of the product and a further additional return on my investment. Better yet, I wouldn't mind becoming a member in a larger shareholding group that would have serious clout at share holder meetings.

The amount of money, through retirement and investment funds, that is available in this industry is immense. Coupled with professional and customer associations voices will be the only way that Autodesk is ever going to start to 'care' about its clients.

[zulu5d]

We paid in blood ( not literally of course!!) to afford buy our few copies of Autodesk products and I'll support the issue of copyright to the death! BUT Irwin has missed the whole point of the argument, namely that NO company has the right to look at what we have produced with the software, our files are ours. We deal with specific Government departments and their need to ensure complete file privacy, What's Autodesk going to do when we loose commissions on that basis? I'm sure the carefully worded EULA takes care of that as well.

HOW DARE a company have the right to retract a users legal right to use legitimately paid for product.

HOW DARE a company make it illegal to cross a country's border and continue to use that legitimately paid for product. Give the wording of the EULA we will not, and cannot, support the continued use of Autodesk products, ( gee, I'm sure Autodesk cares :( )

[PeterJ]

This is a very interesting arena to have entered.

Before I did some work to filter spam from my inbox I used to receive messages for CDs to be used as 'backup' for my software. I am pretty certain I recall seing Revit 4.5 and 5 offered through these mails, alongside everything else one might want to lay one's hands on. I also heard that Revit 7 was pirated. Whether there is much uptake of the piracted copies is dependent on the potential user base and is also dependent on what gets done with the tool.

I suspect that AutoCAD was so widely pirated for so long because

It was costly;
It was the de-facto standard;
It was easy to pirate;
there wasn't a lesser substitute
there wasn't a 2D drafting package that looked and felt the same.
What is not clear to me is whether the majority of piracy took place in the commercial area or in the private area. I suspect that there are plenty of companies who have found it easy to play fast and loose with licenses, figuring that an extra installation for a month would ease a peak in workload and then they would get back to be being correctly licensed. I would bet that the unlicensed installation was then never removed. Despite those issues I suspect that more pirate copies of software circulates amongst students, people wanting to practice their skills and people doing little priavte jobs after hours.

A number of the reasons that AutoCAD might have been pirated have faded with LT, student licenses, more complex copy protection and so on. As Revit grows in popularity it may become more widely pirated. If you look at the list that Aaron published it is clear that Autodesk's interests are not in students and kitchen table architect's, those jobbing technicians making pin money by working on extensions after hours, but in businesses flouting their contractual arrangements with Autodesk and with those actively supporting piracy.

I'm not happy about a draconian EULA but on the other hand you have to look at whether those holding the whip hand seek to utilise their wider powers under that EULA. I have broken the Revit EULA by using a copy on a laptop in a country other than the one I purchased it in. My mother-in-law was delighted but we didn't build the extension and Autodesk won't pursue me but there are no doubt good reasons from their perspective why they would have a ban on such use.

I haven't smoked for many years but I was no more put off by the health warning on a pack of fags (yes, UK usage) than I am by a heavy-handed EULA - I didn't think it would happen to me!

[Lashers]

So I have agreed to the EULA . . . you can check my computer, but you can't enter my premises!

Just being stupid, I haven't read the EULA (I will now), but from what I have read here, the EULA gives them the right to inspect, but not the right of entry . . . please correct me if I am wrong.

Wouldn't it be funny . . . you are moving office, as soon as you walk out the door with your computer an AUTODESK inspector jumps out of the bushes . .

[bowlingbrad]

Tom Cruise will be getting a book with a tape wedged inside it. He plays it...."This is your assignment if you choose to accpet it".... "This tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds"...

[Batman]

I think many are missing the real point in the SMH article. Piracy is not the problem of the end user, its the problem of the greedy developer. They cannot be made allowed to enforce such agreements upon us under the privacy banner or any other banner for that matter.

I'd say that this is a very serious issue as this is a trend that is being set and will be followed by all software developers. It was started long ago and Adesk was by no means the first. There are many, many others and unless you have time to read every single EULA for every piece of software (yes even the little web plug-ins) then you cannot enter into any contract with any organisation or government department that, whether directly or by default, requires any form of confidentiality in the provision of any service to them.

What's even more concerning is that in many instances the same contract with a Gov. Dept. that requires confidentiality will also stipulate the use of certain Adesk products. This privacy and security risk should be addressed by these government departments that support the use of these products.

Just like in Michael Moore's documentary about the Patriot Act, they use fear and intimidation to get what they like.

[beegee]

9.5 Audits. To ensure compliance with this Agreement, You agree that upon reasonable notice, Autodesk or Autodesk's authorized representative shall have the right in inspect and audit Your Installation, Access and use of the Software. Any such inspection or audit shall be conducted during regular business hours at Your facilities or electronically. If such inspections or audits disclose that You have Installed, Accessed or permitted Access to the Software on Computer(s) in a manner that is not permitted under this Agreement, then Autodesk may terminate this Agreement immediately and You are liable to pay for any unpaid license fees as well as the reasonable costs of the audit. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit any legal or equitable remedies available to Autodesk for violation of this Agreement or applicable law.




>>The policy makes me uncomfortable, and I am not defending it. But I can understand it. Suppose that company X is using 200 seats of AutoCAD but only paid for 50. Autodesk gets a tip about this from a former employee of company X. Autodesk reminds the company that they need to pay for all the seats in use, but gets no response. I can understand the desire on the part of Autodesk's lawyers to include a right to audit in this case into the EULA.

>>.


What does reasonable notice mean?

How often can they demand an audit, and is it fair for them to do so if they have no particular reason to suspect you of not being in compliance?

And what's this about conducting the audit electronically?



Compare AutoDesk’s EULA with Adobe Photoshop, which states …


13. Compliance with Licenses. If you are a business, company or organization, you agree that upon request from Adobe or its authorized representative you will within thirty (30) days fully document and certify that use of any and all Adobe software at the time of the request is in conformity with your valid licenses from Adobe.



Much more reasonable, I feel.


Does Adobe suffer less piracy than Autodesk ??

[zulu5d]

Just received this......

I'm glad Autodesk promises to behave, and that we've got it all wrong :)


Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 91 006 741 340
Level 4, 13-15 Lyonpark Road North Ryde NSW 2113 Australia
www.autodesk.com.au
PHONE +612 9844 8000 FAX +612 9844 8044
Thursday 26 May 2005
Editor ‘NEXT” The Age 250 Spencer Street Melbourne, Victoria
Dear Sir
Autodesk has 6 million users worldwide, and customer satisfaction is a key imperative at Autodesk. We have built a reputation for providing leading edge software solutions developed in conjunction with our users’ requirements.
Our business process has as a cornerstone the requirement to work closely with our users, listening to their comments about what they need and then taking that information to our R&D processes to build products that match those needs.
We spend many weeks and millions of dollars each year communicating with our users through surveys, conferences, user groups, direct mail campaigns etc.
Given our commitment to our customers’ satisfaction, we are concerned that the comments raised by Mr. Waddington in his letter which appeared on Page 6 of NEXT the IT section of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, May 24, 2005, which imply that Autodesk’s standard licensing terms and conditions undermine our customers’ rights. Such fears are, quite simply, unfounded. The isolated license terms he has highlighted have been taken out of context and may give a misleading impression.
On his complaint that there is a lack of transparency in our licensing terms, Autodesk’s licensing policies are open and readily available for viewing at www.autodesk.com.au/licensing. Users of our software are advised to read the terms of the end-user agreements accompanying the software. The preface to our standard Software License is an explicit request to the customer to read the terms and conditions carefully before agreeing to them; and provides further that if the customer does not agree to the terms, the software may be returned within 30 days for a full refund.

Any customer wishing to seek clarification of our terms and conditions may of course also contact us directly. In this regard, we have in fact previously replied directly to Mr. Waddington on the allegations he raised in his letter.
We believe our terms and conditions reflect both industry practice and a careful balance of the benefits and risks to all parties inherent in transactions of this nature. Autodesk’s licenses are priced on the basis that they are issued solely to the license holder for use in a particular territory. Our licensing policy recognises exceptional situations that arise, however, and provide mechanisms for customers’ requests in legitimate cases for transfer of licenses for use in another territory.
Autodesk has to date not conducted an audit pursuant to the audit clause raised by Mr. Waddington. Given piracy problems that plague our industry, the right to conduct an audit is however a mechanism used by many software companies to protect the intellectual property rights in their software. The contractual right to conduct an audit cannot subvert any rights or protections a customer may have under the law.
The suggestion that Autodesk may exercise this right in an invasive manner on legitimate users that may compromise the security of their work created by using our software is unjustified. It is clearly not in Autodesk’s interests to do so. What had been overlooked in Mr Waddington’s letter is the fact that Autodesk’s terms expressly provide that an audit can only be conducted after reasonable notice to the customer is given. The costs arising from such an audit would only be claimed if the audit reveals infringement has been committed.
As a reputable software company Autodesk relies on its license terms and conditions with the aim of protecting its intellectual property rights; not to compromise the interests or rights of its customers upon whom the success of the company rests. The good faith of a contracting party may be evidenced in the manner it has exercised its rights. In this regard we do not believe that Autodesk has ever unreasonably resorted to its contractual rights against a customer to warrant an imputation of such lack of good faith.
Yours sincerely,
Autodesk

[Batman]

Are we reading the same thing buddy??

Where is the promise to behave and what do you think we have wrong?

From my reading they still have the power, the right, to look into your PC and your office/home wherever your PC is.

Does anybody see anything wrong with this?? This isn't a government that is doing this its a corporation. Since when are such powers afforded to the likes of such entities that exist primarily and perhaps solely for the extraction of profit. Would you give these powers to a religious group.

And if your not worried yet you will be when every tom, dick and harry has the right to do whatever they want. These guys aren't going to stop, they just keep getting worse and worse.

Quote from Adesk;

"We believe our terms and conditions reflect both industry practice and a careful balance of the benefits and risks to all parties inherent in transactions of this nature. "

Industry practice; means most are and soon they're all going to do it. Benefits and risks; I am taking the risks by being forced into these 'agreements' and they are getting the benefits from all of the power afforded to them.

[beegee]

Possibly Zulu5d was using satire?

I know that I feel a whole lot more reassured now after hearing this from Autodesk.


Are we reading the same thing buddy??

Where is the promise to behave and what do you think we have wrong?

From my reading they still have the power, the right, to look into your PC and your office/home wherever your PC is.

Does anybody see anything wrong with this?? >>

[zulu5d]

I hope satire isn't a dying art!
The first line certainly was meant to tongue in cheek.....

[beegee]

Alive and well this end.

[Joef]

The contractual right to conduct an audit cannot subvert any rights or protections a customer may have under the law.

Which means what? I think it means if it against the law to rummage through a persons computer without their permission, then they cannot do it. Of course they will say that you have given them permission as part of your contract.
"Oh no I didn't."

Oh yes you did."

"Did not!"

"Did so!"

[Damo]

Surely Autodesk needs to have proof that there is something amiss before invoking this clause.

A policeman (or policewoman) cannot just stop a member of the public and search them in the hope of finding something illegal, and then arrest them if they find something. The Police have to have reasonable cause before apprehending a suspect.

Surely this is also the case with software manufacturers, they cannot just give notice and enter a company’s premises in the hope that they might find some illegal software??

[ejburrell67787]

A policeman (or policewoman) cannot just stop a member of the public and search them in the hope of finding something illegal, and then arrest them if they find something. The Police have to have reasonable cause before apprehending a suspect.

Maybe off topic but this is no longer the case under recent terrorism laws - suspicion is enough. USA PATRIOT Act (stands for: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) is even more intrusive than UK laws.

[Lashers]

Hmmm . . for a contract to exist both parties need to sign up to the contract and money to change hands, correct? What if a third party loads up the software I bought?

I haven't seen the contract? In fact I haven't bought anything cause it is leased? I haven't signed anything . . . the third party that loads up the software may have entered into this "contract" without my expressed permission.

By agreeing to the terms of the contract, does not in my mind MAKE a contract, it is just stating that "if" a contract like that was put in front of me to sign I would sign it!

My mind is overcooked at the moment, but it would be interesting if any legal minded person would clarify if a contract in enacted by clicking the "I Agree" button - or if it would be arguable in court?

[ejburrell67787]

Lashers - might be more in the realm of copyright law rather than contracts per se...

[zulu5d]

I guess this thread is just about burnt out and enough has been said.

Let me summarize:

Autodesk should make the EULA publicly available on their website to view before purchase

Autodesk should acknowledge that the USA is NOT the centre of the universe. This is the 21st century and people move globally.

That the EULA gives the the wrong impression to companies. Our's for one have been advised by our legal council to be very wary signing any government contracts requiring guaranteed confidentiality. AND I MEAN GUARANTEED!!!.We will need to use alternative cad software for these contracts!

Autodesk needs to acknowledge the differing needs of their users by offering better licensing models.

Above all, how about listening to the 6 million users that allow Autodesk to exist?

[dg]

For UK users..

I was talking to a guy recently on the subject of the EULA generally, and the fact is that the EULA is not legally enforceable in the UK. Nor Germany apparently. This applies to software generally and not just Revit.

There is no contract between the end user and Autodesk as the basic contract formation is not satisfied.

[Lashers]

Lashers - might be more in the realm of copyright law rather than contracts per se...
I see your point! I was only wondering from the point of view of the "contract" between the provider and user regarding - active - enforcement, rather than the copyright which is the intellectual right of the provider.

[MartyC]

So, if I give you this thing you need, you must agree that to be allowed to use it, I can inspect what is in your underwear. But please let it be known that I dont really intend to inspect your underwear.........but, only if I suspect that there is something of mine in there!

In Court.............Please Sir, I need this thing, andI signed on the basis that I understood that he didnt really intend to look!

Judge......It appears that you have clearly and formally agreed that this person has the right to look at any time, at any place of the the other parties choosing..... that is what is expressly stated in this agreement. Furthermore, you have agreed that by personally and identifiably clicking the 'I Agree' button, you have agreed that the button is acceptable to you as being the means of agreeing personally to the terms and conditions of this agreement/contract. I am sorry sir, bend over, the other party has decided it now intends to have a look!!!!

Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy

CheersM

[beegee]

And something else you may not know…



5. Can I use a software that has been purchased outside my country?

Autodesk only allows use of the software in the country that it has been purchased. This is a very important restriction on the use of Autodesk software.

For example, if you purchase Autodesk software outside of Singapore, then you will not be able to use the software in Singapore unless you are authorised by Autodesk to do so. This will require you to apply for a transfer of license from the country of purchase into Singapore for use. A transfer fee will be charged for the transfer of license if approved by Autodesk. The transfer fee will be fixed by Autodesk from time to time. The current transfer fee for each software is US$1,000.

LINK to Autodesk FAQ on Autodesk Software Licensing (http://south-apac.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=1157326&id=4898452)

[Roger Evans]

What a ridiculous cost to impose ... & there was me contemplating expanding my horizons ..
Elrond you listening ?
Forget Purchase until you reach the country of your choice.

In my next life I want to come back as a rich person

[Chad Smith]

What a ridiculous cost to impose ...
What a friggin' ridiculous clause to start with :razz: . If you buy a product, what the hell does it matter where it's used.

[Roger Evans]

Totally agree but I was being fair to Autodesk in accepting there may be some administration costs incurred .... to their shame it is not reciprocated.

[Chad Smith]

Sorry Roger, I wasn't having a go. I totally agree that if a charge MUST be incurred, then it should be far less.

[Roger Evans]

No harm done put it down to Beegee / Autodesk pressing one of my buttons ...

sometimes it's better not to tell the children ..

[beegee]

Not pressing any butons, just reporting " the facts ".

[ppelegrin]

From a resellers point of view:

First, the Autodesk EULA is obviously worded badly - I concur, and probably relate some of this to Copyright Lawyers - legal people. However no one in here should fear Autodesk pursuing them (electronically or in person) unless they are using or selling illegal software - at least that is our experience today. Has anyone here directly experienced these 'potential' problems? The legal system would not necessarily automatically agree with all points in this EULA agreement, potentially making some of them null and void - and that is much more important to this story. I suspect there is more bluff than you realise, albeit it still causes angst to Autodesk customers. The irony of this thread, it took quite some time for anyone to pick up on these issues, therefore are they real concerns?

Secondly, using licences purchased from overseas. There is a case to be made to remove any fees (and I have successfully done this for several clients with Autodesk software) for people/businesses that genuinely used software in one country and then moved at a later stage to another country. The purpose of this restriction is to stop people from purchasing software overseas, soley to avoid fees, taxes and using potential price disparities (lets not argue the price of rice in the U.S.A versus China - please). While you may say this is fair in a global economy, I have also received calls from people expecting support and help when they purposely purchased from overseas - needless to say, they were never happy that we refused their request - but thats all fair in a global economy right? Believe me there are many many laws that the Govt's of the western world (not just private industry) have put into place to prevent global wholesale distribution of goods (say China to the U.S.) - Cars, TV's, Building Supplies, Music CD's, Drugs, Food, Software (why is software so different?)

Oh and by the way, in Australia we do not have the above restriction, regardless of any EULA agreement. It is via the parallel importation laws.

Thirdly, at least in Australia, please consider the Anton Pillar laws, which do allow parties to enter a site (with a warrant) give 1-2 hours warning and check their computers for illegal software. I have seen this used first hand on a site that was selling illegal copies of AutoCAD.

Lastly, I appreciate the concerns listed in this thread, but at least for now, Autodesk appear to have made no attempt to act on these above activities accept in severe cases of proven illegal activity. I suspect Autodesk will not even go close to activating these activities on the average user, probably because they would have no legal avenue to do so (regardless of any EULA agreement) and the potential embarrassment and revenue loss would probably be too great.

Regards
P Pelegrin

[Shaun v Rooyen]

Well ADESK have implemented the piracy thing here in our country. For the last year, teaming up with the dealerships they ran a number of campaigns to end piracy. Starting with a formal invitation from the BSA to own up, to piracy and get a special deal to turn legit, to sending "heavies" around to known abusers. It is still on going.

Look we are so squeaky clean here, and have a company policy that, any pirate software found on your PC, could have reason for dismissal. We also have an incredibly high piracy problem in the country, that it was time something needed to be done.
What does **** me off, is that we are all trying to make a living, We pay large dollars for being legit, and the guy next door who is competing for the same work, uses cracked Revit 7. He should not be allowed to practice until he has the license to do so.

I have really high values when it comes to piracy and will not support it at all.
As for the purchase and use in country of origin thing. Well, here it applies to most things. Porche (in our country) will only grant customer support and service if the vehicle is purchased locally.I suppose too many people were climbing on the import band wagon.So alot of what you all have issues with is pretty much the norm here, and has been for a while, and I think it actually benefits our economic climate. for example,For the dealerships this piracy campaign has noticeably boosted their annual turn over figures.


If you are legit what do have to worry about, what are you all moaning about. They are all welcome to pay my offices a visit and I will gladly grant them access. I have nothing to hide! Except the "giggle twig" in the drawer, oh and above the toilet. jeez where did i put that other........

[ejburrell67787]

What a ridiculous cost to impose ... & there was me contemplating expanding my horizons ..
Elrond you listening ?
Forget Purchase until you reach the country of your choice.

In my next life I want to come back as a rich person
Hmm yes, I hear you Roger. Perhaps it is dirt cheap (relatively speaking!) in some countries - like if people in the UK used their £££ to buy a copy in NZ where the £ goes 3 times further while intending to use it back here in the UK. I thought Autodesk have circumvented by their local prices anyway though...!

[beegee]

Paul,

I understand what you are saying.

In the context of law, If a law exists on the statute books and it’s a bad law, it should be repealed, regardless of the fact that it has not been used by the authorities for a long period of time and that we are assured, by them, that it would never be used in this day and age. I don’t feel comfortable that these powers exist , even with the assurance that they would never be used. Quite simply, if they will never be used – get rid of them.

I would just like to live in a world where EULAs accurately reflected their author’s concerns and intentions, as well as the reality of existing law and did not resort to unnecessary and draconian threats to cover any contingency either perceived or unforseen. That’s obviously a naïve position to take.

There are software companies who are aware of what is reasonable and what is not, in framing their EULAs. We all need to be more aware, as users, of what these EULAs contain and , if we feel they are unreasonable, we should do what we can to make the software company aware of our concerns as customers.


From a resellers point of view:
First, the Autodesk EULA is obviously worded badly - I concur, and probably relate some of this to Copyright Lawyers - legal people. However no one in here should fear Autodesk pursuing them (electronically or in person) unless they are using or selling illegal software - at least that is our experience today. Has anyone here directly experienced these 'potential' problems? The legal system would not necessarily automatically agree with all points in this EULA agreement, potentially making some of them null and void - and that is much more important to this story. I suspect there is more bluff than you realise, albeit it still causes angst to Autodesk customers. The irony of this thread, it took quite some time for anyone to pick up on these issues, therefore are they real concerns?
Secondly, using licences purchased from overseas. There is a case to be made to remove any fees (and I have successfully done this for several clients with Autodesk software) for people/businesses that genuinely used software in one country and then moved at a later stage to another country. The purpose of this restriction is to stop people from purchasing software overseas, soley to avoid fees, taxes and using potential price disparities (lets not argue the price of rice in the U.S.A versus China - please). While you may say this is fair in a global economy, I have also received calls from people expecting support and help when they purposely purchased from overseas - needless to say, they were never happy that we refused their request - but thats all fair in a global economy right? Believe me there are many many laws that the Govt's of the western world (not just private industry) have put into place to prevent global wholesale distribution of goods (say China to the U.S.) - Cars, TV's, Building Supplies, Music CD's, Drugs, Food, Software (why is software so different?)
Oh and by the way, in Australia we do not have the above restriction, regardless of any EULA agreement. It is via the parallel importation laws.
Thirdly, at least in Australia, please consider the Anton Pillar laws, which do allow parties to enter a site (with a warrant) give 1-2 hours warning and check their computers for illegal software. I have seen this used first hand on a site that was selling illegal copies of AutoCAD.
Lastly, I appreciate the concerns listed in this thread, but at least for now, Autodesk appear to have made no attempt to act on these above activities accept in severe cases of proven illegal activity. I suspect Autodesk will not even go close to activating these activities on the average user, probably because they would have no legal avenue to do so (regardless of any EULA agreement) and the potential embarrassment and revenue loss would probably be too great.

Regards

P Pelegrin