Encrypt your database

[mschroeder]

Does Revit have a security API (perhaps not exposed) to encrypt/decrypt or even write-protect and authenticate digital signatures and certificates?

I think I know the answer to this one, but thought I would ask.

Why? Issues have been raised regarding IP and having a single file containing all project information that is easily accessible and portable. This is both a blessing and a curse.

P.S. We use 3rd party encryption software - but it native support would be better for us.

[aaronrumple]

No - however it should be a priority for Autodesk.

I can't let my client have the model if I know that it might end up in the hand of another architect.

There needs to be administrative rights for viewing, printing and workset access.

There should also be a way of "copyrighting" families. This would lead to quite a bit of content creation. I'd love to build families for suppliers, but right now there is no way to really control the content.

[gibson.tim91884]

There should also be a way of "copyrighting" families. This would lead to quite a bit of content creation. I'd love to build families for suppliers, but right now there is no way to really control the content.

I've been thinking about this a bit lately, and here's one of my concerns. As I download more and more families, I find that in princple they're great, but there are occasionally a few tweaks to get families from different sources to look right in our drawings, or to add parameters that I care about. How would we deal with this is families were "locked"?

I'm not even convinced that there needs to be a way to lock families. After all, there's tons of CAD content out there, and those files are wide open.

Food for thought?

[mschroeder]

There needs to be administrative rights for viewing, printing and workset access.
There should also be a way of "copyrighting" families. This would lead to quite a bit of content creation. I'd love to build families for suppliers, but right now there is no way to really control the content.

I can only speculate that Autodesk's position is to use DWF as the vehicle for sharing BIM (including owners). Currently we are tossing around BIM models between our structural team, and soon MEP, that's a lot of IP flying out the door in a single package.

As for content creation: Somehow I feel this needs to be more open or at least somewhat modifiable - it needs some thought. revitalizing the i-drop is a good move and I think it will pay off with lot's of new manufacture content to come.

[aaronrumple]

As for content creation: Somehow I feel this needs to be more open or at least somewhat modifiable - it needs some thought. revitalizing the i-drop is a good move and I think it will pay off with lot's of new manufacture content to come.
Manufacturer's have the most at stake under BIM if they can't control content. I make doors. They come in 10 sizes. Only 10 sizes. Some architect downloads my content and makes an 11th size. Puts it in a project. Super BIM adds my door to the spec. Super BIM generates a BOM for the contractor. The contractor calls at the 11th hour for the 11th size door which I can't deliver and now this fast track project is delayed as they go back and redesign.

As a manufacturer - I should be able to control what my BIM object can communicate to the rest of the design team. Right now the CAD blocks are so stupid, they really don't add much intelligence to the project. In the future they will and the author needs to be in charge.