Piracy, Warez, & Cracks Oh My!

[Scott Hopkins]

Recently I was browsing the web looking for a review of Revit 6.1 to show a colleague who is interested in switching to Revit. Near the top of the Google list were a bunch of links to cracked versions of Revit and Warez sites containing thousands of cracked programs. The procedure is to send a Western Union money transfer to some site in the Ukraine and they send you a disk. Fat chance of that!

This really pisses me off. I pay an exorbitant cost to AutoDesk to buy the software legally while some cheater buys the same software on the black market for a few hundred dollars. The amazing thing is just how blatant these sites are. They seem to operate with impunity from the law. I am sure that every pirated copy is factored into the expensive cost of Revit. I did notice that they only offer 5.0. Maybe AutoDesk has finally found a way to stop it. The other side of the coin is that, knowing AutoDesk, less piracy may not mean cheaper prices for consumers but simply more corporate profits.

[gregcashen]

Scott, the BSA (Business Software Alliance), of which Autodesk is one of the first, largest and most prominent members, is dedicated to putting a stop to software piracy here and overseas. They just did a crackdown and a big-time Malaysian pirate was arrested.

Recent News Story (http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2004&dt=0409&pub=Utusan_Express&sec=Home_News&pg=hn_07.htm)

BSA Members (http://www.bsa.org/usa/about/BSA-Members.cfm)

[FK]

Disclaimer: I don't know how exactly our products are priced. Autodesk is committed to fight piracy.

If someone steals a copy of Revit, they don't get phone support, they don't get to tell us what they'd like in a future release, they don't get timely upgrades, they only get problems with the law. If they don't have the cash to buy the product anyway, what you pay is not affected. If they could have bought it but weasel out, then everybody loses.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

a big-time Malaysian pirate was arrested.


I heard they just signed Johnny Depp to play him in the movie version :wink:

I'm also one of those few who actually pay for software that I use. I do have objections to the pricing policies of some software manufacturers however. They very rarely seem to reward loyal users and often the thresholds for 'large' account status, and the discounts that go along with it, are so ridiculous that only governments need apply.
I've said it before in this forum, I think Autodesk is on the right track (with Revit anyway) with the fully functional free trial version. That is realistically the only way you can evaluate software of this depth without the financial risk of buying (or stealing) a copy.
Now if only we could get an additional seat license to a resonable cost...

[Joef]

Before CAD (B.C.), to become a drafter all you had to have was your skill as a drafter to get a job. Now you have to know AutoCAD, Microstation, Architectural Desktop, Revit, ArchiCad, Vectorworks, and a half dozen other programs. Explain to those kids in small towns where nobody teaches anything but small engine repair that they have to shell out 50 grand to learn this stuff and you will see where the demand for cracked software is coming from. Before you condemn every "pirate" who downloads a "crack" ask youself how many ads your company has placed that says "will train".

Joe

[Scott Hopkins]

Hey big Joe,

Anyone can download a non-expiring demonstration copy of Revit to learn on. You can use it to do anything except save a drawing. I think many other companies have similar promotions. So much for your excuse… Basically, the way I see it is if you steal software from AutoDesk you are taking money out of my pocket.

[gregcashen]

I agree with Joe. It is not possible to do a pilot project on a non-saving version of Revit for most people. Unless you keep the Revit session open non-stop, it will just be a bunch of one-off tutorials, which is nothing like doing a whole project.

I personally believe that the standard should be the same as for any other civil damages claim...are there damages? If so, sue 'em, if not, forget about it. In the case of self-training on software, if the vendor doesn't provide a fully functional educational version at a discounted price, then more power to the kid that downloads a crack and teaches himself. Anyone that says that you can teach yourself in 30 days or 60 days while holding down a job or school is being somewhat unrealistic. And students are not to be expected to pay $3500 for software. And the cad labs have not got Revit in them for the most part. And...

Now, if that kid graduates and starts up a business and uses the software without paying for it, and makes a profit , then there are damages, and he is in trouble. But if it is just for educational use or self-training, I don't think it affects your bottom line negatively at all...in fact, it helps it. That kid is now trained, in the job market and looking for work. You don't have to train him or pay to do so. He effectively makes the software more valuable to you because there is a larger skilled workforce that can utilize it. It is imperative that we have a skilled Revit workforce in order for our business models to work. If we have to train someone, to some degree, the increased productivity that we expect from using Revit will be lost to training...which is not billable.

[Scott D Davis]

It's kind of a double standard: AutoCAD became the defacto-standard because it was so easily copied/pirated form computer to computer. There was no 'install.' Just copy the AutoCAD directory to floppies (several) and copy onto next machine. Everyone had AutoCAD when I was in school. Everyone learned AutoCAD, because you could get it for "free", take it home and put it on a 286, and draw your projects.

But like Greg said, there really were no "damages" because we were drawing school projects, not making a profit from it, and preparing ourselves for employment where if you didn't know AutoCAD, forget finding a job.

[AbigayleAEC]

I'm thrilled that Autodesk extended the fully functional trial mode from 30 days to 60 days. 60 days is probably enough time for a busy CAD Manager to complete the tutorial. Keep in mind though, that this time period is only meant to evaluate the software to determine if it's worth purchasing. The trial is not intended for long-term use in order to be fully trained or for completion of a pilot project, because that is considered revenue generating production.

Student licenses are significantly cheaper than commercial licenses, because Autodesk understand students are not generating revenue with their software, they are simply learning in order to become a productive employee once hired.

[ita]

Lets not get off on some wild goose chase on a non issue.

Autodesk provides educational versions of most of their products.

In Oz students can by a full academic version of Autocad or ADT for around A$275 - thats a pretty low price to pay for learning software that is a fully functional current version. The only limitation is in plotting - plots have a printed border stating the plot is from an academic version. I am sure it is the same globally.

I know of this because my daughter attended the School of Architecture and Design @ Curtin University (Western Oz) and we paid academic prices for her PC, Windows 2000, MS Office etc etc and Autocad. My experience is that most software suppliers/developers etc provide academic version for their products for very low prices. The cost of the academic version relates to the cost of distribution and licencing - otherwise the cost is zero.

I can empathise with the sentiments of small town inaccessibility and distance education, but given the accesibility of web based courses and the cost of the products there is no excuse for not having a licensed version of any software.

[Scott Hopkins]

Greg,

Well said. I can certainly sympathize with life on a student budget. However it sounds like the student version of Revit may be even cheaper than a cracked Russian version. I think it is misleading to imply that the majority of illegal users are students or others using the software for "informational" purposes. I have known many firms (some with 50 or more employees) in which there was only one legal copy of AutoCAD. A large part of the reason the software is so expensive comes down to piracy.

[gregcashen]

So much for your excuse… Basically, the way I see it is if you steal software from AutoDesk you are taking money out of my pocket.

Scott,

I was simply addressing your comment above. I do not think that Joe's point is without validity, as you stated it was. I think there is validity in the idea that some people use cracked software to learn on. I am not trying to belabor the point, but I think it is worth looking at both sides of an argument.

If anyone knows of a good place to get an educational version of Revit 6.1, please let me know. My understanding is that edu versions are not eligible for upgrades...so that makes them fairly useless.

G

[Wes Macaulay]

Despite what Autodesk or Graphisoft or anyone would like to make you think, merely buying the software is not where the real expense lies. Shelfware, anyone?

The REAL value in any piece of software is someone's ability to use it properly. Getting to the point where you can use a piece of software on a project probably costs you more than the software itself. I wonder if the software vendors forget that...

I've heard it said that piracy is the ultimate try before you buy. The piracy of AutoCAD has contributed to its success; too bad there are not legal means to spread Revit out in a similar fashion. The notion of software piracy is troubling; the notion that people can't learn a great piece of software because they have no way to do so is also troubling.

[PeterJ]

I recently advertised for help - in association with Rhys, who also posts here - stating that we used Revit. He and I took the view that if someone had the requisite construction industry skills then the learning curve with Revit was so short that we would carry that cost.

I suppose that this is really the test of a good piece of software in many respects, i.e. does it do what I want and can someone get what I want from it in a short period of time. Yes on both counts for Revit. That wont prevent people wanting to pirate it though.

[PaulB]

Pete,

Did you get someone ?

[PeterJ]

Pete,

Did you get someone ?

Pending

[Kroke]

Yes I would like an edu version of Revit 6.1 as well. My little sister goes to high school and they aren't even teaching acad there, it's even a worse cad package. In other areas they teach rhino even, now I think that's awesome. My sister has to use some lame 2 dollar product because, hey, fits the budget... Why even teach old technology in hi schools anymore, it's time Revit made it's way to the colleges/hischools accross the lands.

my .02

[Kirky]

Unfortunately many of the products we buy are not linked to their actual cost but what the user will pay.
When a product is new and top of the heap there is a tendency to price strip and to maximise profits,
as demand for the product diminishes then price incentives can be re-established with all sort of deals.
The largest cost in marketing is getting them (the user) onboard in the first place a ratio of about 25:1 of every marketing dollar spent. The effect putting ridiculous lengthy passwords, sealed certificates, stickers on the outside of computer with holographic images all say one thing "Please steal me" like putting the cookie jar on the top shelf so to speak. That "strategy" to get people to steal your product is a legitimate method of marketing but not one that is admitted to, or even realised by some.
If you are using a premium product expect to pay big bucks for it. The higher the cost of the software the greater the incentive to steal it. However I don't see this as the real issue, there will always be people that steal software, but I don't think that those people are every going to be serious users anyway. If it not worth stealing it certainly not worth buying? The dilemma in a global market, is it better to have price zoning which discourages theft but is grossly unfair to certain users. e.g. As I understand I could fly to the US buy another licence of Revit, have a holiday and still be better off. grumble, grumble. :( Certainly I think they need to look at other pricing models e.g. a licence that is linked actual printer output?($x for a number prints), or short term subscription, reduced price for additional copies etc. This tendency to get as much money as fast as you can has left a bad taste in the industries mouth. It seems to me that most offices here are reasonable happy still drawing lines on AutoCAD Lt. As yet Revit is not the must have software and sadly I find it hard to get other people to even look at it yet alone steal it. I think this will change not with the amount of "illegal copies" in circulation, but with added value to the user in areas of local content, building science and life cycle costing.

[cphubb]

I have to agree with Kirky. About 4 years ago I saw a news program on the growing software piracy problem in which they interviewed Carol and Bill. Both agreed that piracy is cutting into their bottom line but each stated seperatly that if you are going to steal software steal theirs. Both MS and AD who are the founding members of the harassment agency BSA use software piracy as a marketing tool to snag new users. I have heard some statistics that indicate a majority of pirates purchase full versions but I cannot recall the percent.

I agree that for companies to buy 1 copy of a product and install it all over the place is wrong, but so many of us are getting caught in the licensing maze and spending unbillable time just to find out your not legal despite your best efforts. It is really bad. Just wait until BSA talks to RIAA and starts spying on us via the internet.

Sorry to get off the subject, but if software companies want to reduce piracy they need to make their software more accessable to all users and much simpler to license, upgrade and manage.

There will still be teenagers trading illegal software just like music but the amount will be greatly reduced if companies can see a clear advantage to purchasing the correct amount of software.

Chris

[gregcashen]

Software companies expect us to believe that they can create software to securely allow us to vote electronically, manage our bank accounts and run the world's mission critical infrastructure...but they can't make a software key that can't be cracked in 5 minutes by a teenager. It is Target's responsibility to bring the outdoor displays in at the end of the ngitht to make sure they don't get vandalized or stoled. It should be software (or music) companies' responsibility to protect their software without negatively impacting my ability to use it. Any time I spend setting up license servers or troubleshooting installation issues should be billed out to the software company that made the software.

[FK]

Ahem. Something tells me it's way more than five minutes, and not just any teenager.

The thing is, if you've got the program on your machine there is no way to stop you from taking it apart and circumventing the licensing. It can be made very obscure, but never impossible. The DCMA and TCPA are an attempt to make it impossible, but I personally doubt their efficacy. Physical access rules.

Anyway, remember: the big thing is this (http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3445&highlight=).

[gregcashen]

Go search online. You will find a million cracks, hacks, warez, etc. There are a lot of young, motivated crackers that desire to prove their worth by cracking the latest adobe, autodesk, microsoft, etc software. It is usually cracked before it is released. That is the problem. If they want to avoid piracy companies should focus on better security (except for Microsoft, which has top-notch security built in to every program ;) ) not on going after legit businesses that have lost track of a license or two. Revit had it right until they switched to the autodesk licensing thing, IMO. It was easy to use, transparent and had little to no problems. Now it is cumbersome and it requires a knowledgeable person to manage the licensing aspects.