Autodesk piracy where you might not expect it

[rkmcswain]

Guess I don't understand why Autodesk doesn't instead simply (quietly) modify the pirated software to no longer work on detection?

In the absence of facts, we have to make up our own....

I suspect Autodesk would rather pursue this for monetary gain, as opposed to just simply eradicating the problem.

I'm hoping the article/story is about a rare situation, and that this isn't a common daily thing.

[cadtag]

Guess I don't understand why Autodesk doesn't instead simply (quietly) modify the pirated software to no longer work on detection?

That would be a pretty blatant violation of Federal law, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. One could make a case that a vendor scanning a personal computer for other installed applications is in and of itself a violation of the Act, since it's improbable that the operator of the PC gave explicit permission to authorize that action, so that scan could be construed as unauthorized access, a direct violation of that law. Not to mention an person has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' using their own hardware in their own premises,

[Tom Beauford]

That would be a pretty blatant violation of Federal law, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

From the article "Installing the legal studio licenses engaged the built-in “phone-home” tools and alerted Autodesk to the infringement." I'm guessing allowing that scan was somewhere in the EULAs (that would take a team of lawyers two days to read) they had to check [I agree] to during the installation.

[cadtag]

Reminder -- EULAs are not contracts. At best, they are contracts of adhesion, which are generally illegal.

[BlackBox]

Guess that is why I am not a lawyer.

Perhaps this is why I keep being told I should have been. Haha

[BlackBox]

That would be a pretty blatant violation of Federal law, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. One could make a case that a vendor scanning a personal computer for other installed applications is in and of itself a violation of the Act, since it's improbable that the operator of the PC gave explicit permission to authorize that action, so that scan could be construed as unauthorized access, a direct violation of that law. Not to mention an person has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' using their own hardware in their own premises,

I don't like it personally either - but all of this fails to consider that Negative Opt-In is lawful (regretfully).

[Edit] - Google and Facebook, etc have been doing this for many years, BTW.

[rkmcswain]

I'm guessing allowing that scan was somewhere in the EULAs (that would take a team of lawyers two days to read) they had to check [I agree] to during the installation.

I would agree with that guess.

Reminder -- EULAs are not contracts.

You're missing the bigger picture here. That is irrelevant. These companies do careful planning with the EULA language, etc. to make sure they can tie you up in court for so long that paying their penalties will be cheaper.

[cadtag]

True enough

[MalayalamKeyboard]

Companies pay lawyers to create complex agreements so the layman can't decipher it.

[madcadder]

This is all getting a little stupid and appears to be "Autodesk is never happy".
Back in the day, you had the product key and pirated copies got around from people sharing product keys, stolen keys, hacked keys, etc.
So Autodesk went to a subscription service. That was great for everyone. Prices went down and Autodesk got more money in the long run from the number of legit subscriptions.
Now if my company has a subscription and I call in sick, but they really need me to fix something real quick, then I should be able to sign in at home and work from home.
To me... The only time there should be an issue is if two people were signed into the same sign-in and both using the product at the same time.
To me... If my work has a subscription assigned to me... Then I should be able to have it installed on my workstation, my laptop, my home PC, and any place else where I might need it, just as long as I'm only using one at a time.