AutoCAD Educational Stamp

[Organic]

Organic: I got to stop here. My point is that at least by reporting the offense to AutoDesk I'd salvage some dignity out of the situation and walk away with my head held high. People choose their own course of action based on many factors. Your choice might be different than mine. I understand that even though I may not agree with it. The end. Peace out.

 

My point was that the business of Autodesk is not my first interest and it is not my job to enforce their interests. E.g. if I see someone jaywalking across the road [which is illegal under the law] I do not stop to take their photograph, get their details and report them to the police etc. That is not my job, even if I personally do not jaywalk.

[SLW210]

Simple, you work on the file. Anyone who says otherwise would be "silly".

 

Why would you say that?

 

Let's see the options here..

 

1. Work on the file and continue employment, but documenting and holding said activity for future leverage against employer.

 

2. Refuse to work on the file and get fired for not doing an illegal activity and either becoming financially independent from the lawsuit or, seeing the error of their ways, the company reemploys

you at higher salary and position, not to mention your Autodesk reward and the ability to hold this over your employers head.

 

At any rate, the employer is at the disadvantage.

 

I see neither as idiotic or silly.

 

Fortunately, I have always had employers that demand proper software licensing, as already mentioned, the stamp can occur without ill intent, in that case I can see going through proper channels and cleaning them up.

[f700es]

Just to be clear....I was not responding to your thread. No offense meant and none taken on my part. True, things do not always go as one thinks they might.

 

I took no offense sir, it's all good

[f700es]

the stamp can occur without ill intent, in that case I can see going through proper channels and cleaning them up.

 

It can indeed which is why I think it's important to have this discussion. I also recognize the need to sometimes just fix the file in a rush and keep rolling to get the job out the door on time. If it becomes habitual then I think it's time to look at options.

[Organic]

Why would you say that?

 

Let's see the options here..

 

There are more than the two options you listed.

 

2. Refuse to work on the file and get fired for not doing an illegal activity and either becoming financially independent from the lawsuit or, seeing the error of their ways, the company reemploys you at higher salary and position, not to mention your Autodesk reward and the ability to hold this over your employers head.

 

In a perfect world or a HR textbook it may work similar to that, although in the real world it would rarely work out that well for the employee.

[Organic]

as already mentioned, the stamp can occur without ill intent, in that case I can see going through proper channels and cleaning them up.

 

It can indeed which is why I think it's important to have this discussion. I also recognize the need to sometimes just fix the file in a rush and keep rolling to get the job out the door on time. If it becomes habitual then I think it's time to look at options.

 

Exactly, it can occur without ill intent. From reading these forums I have heard that there is a way to fix it by saving the file as a dxf. I have also heard that there is (or used to be? - I think I read it was discontinued?) a removal tool offered by Autodesk through the resellers.

 

Saving as a dxf takes 10 seconds, while contacting the reseller and getting said tool (if it still exists) will take a minimum of 24 hours or more... for most employers and employees, who are both time sensitive, I would have thought it was a no brainier given both methods basically achieve the same result.

[PotGuy]

It comes down to circumstances really. If you have no other alternative (No jobs locally, other companies not hiring) then you would not want to jeopardize your only income, unless you KNOW in doing so the company would straighten up, rather than go bankrupt and leave you without a job.

 

I would wager that companies that do this only do so because A) They're cheap and B) They cannot afford the real deal. Well know AutoCAD is the most expensive CAD program of the lot, but if AutoCAD has features they simply cannot live without, then the company would have to go around things illegally.

 

I don't agree with a company doing this, but conversely I can see why they would do it.

[rkmcswain]

Unless things have changed there was a free edu license and a pay edu license.

I believe that is still true.

 

Downloading a warez copy or using a crack to authorize a copy seems different to using a student copy on a commercial job. Yes both are wrong.

I am done.

 

Say that "John Doe" has an opportunity to do some side work (for profit) at home on the weekends.

How are the following any different in the eyes of Autodesk (the entity who creates and sells the software)

 

* John Doe finds an AutoCAD download and applies a crack s/n.

* John Doe legally downloads an edu copy

* John Doe brings home his work laptop that contains AutoCAD licensed to his employer

* John Doe copies the install media (from a license his employer owns) onto his flash drive and installs and activates it at home (under the guise of it just being another install for the company)

* John Doe uses an NFR copy he obtained from an inside source at Autodesk (or via ADN, etc.)

 

In every one of those scenarios, Autodesk is losing potential income from the sale (or rental) of an AutoCAD license, while John Doe makes money using a product that he has not paid for.

 

I'm kind of looking for debate here (not arguments ). I bet a lot of people have done #3, and maybe #4 and #5.

 

 

We are getting into samantics so I will stop as to not get into a useless, endless debate.

Agreed.

[Murph_map]

I believe that is still true.

 

 

 

Say that "John Doe" has an opportunity to do some side work (for profit) at home on the weekends.

How are the following any different in the eyes of Autodesk (the entity who creates and sells the software)

 

* John Doe finds an AutoCAD download and applies a crack s/n.

* John Doe legally downloads an edu copy

* John Doe brings home his work laptop that contains AutoCAD licensed to his employer

* John Doe copies the install media (from a license his employer owns) onto his flash drive and installs and activates it at home (under the guise of it just being another install for the company)

* John Doe uses an NFR copy he obtained from an inside source at Autodesk (or via ADN, etc.)

 

In every one of those scenarios, Autodesk is losing potential income from the sale (or rental) of an AutoCAD license, while John Doe makes money using a product that he has not paid for.

 

I'm kind of looking for debate here (not arguments ). I bet a lot of people have done #3, and maybe #4 and #5.

 

 

 

Anything I have done with an EDU version, NFR or company own was not for a profit. For weblogs yes, for helping some one in a discussion group yes. So unless we call gaining experience and reputation a profit.

[Organic]

It comes down to circumstances really. If you have no other alternative (No jobs locally, other companies not hiring) then you would not want to jeopardize your only income, unless you KNOW in doing so the company would straighten up, rather than go bankrupt and leave you without a job.

 

We were talking about another company sending your company a education stamped file, although even if it was your own company using questionable software, it would still be in the employees favour to do what is required (e.g. use the software) to keep their job.

[Organic]

I believe that is still true.

* John Doe finds an AutoCAD download and applies a crack s/n.

 

Obviously dodgy. I don't know what 's/n' means?.

 

* John Doe brings home his work laptop that contains AutoCAD licensed to his employer

 

I see no problem with this one what-so-ever. The license is for use 24 hours a day, not just the 8 hours the business may be open a day etc. It is certainly no concern of Autodesks. Johns employment contract will say something along the lines of he shouldn't use company equipment for personal use although them issuing him with a laptop kind of nullifies that and it is to be expected.

 

Given there is a license share utility between work and home for users, this is also a moot point.

 

* John Doe copies the install media (from a license his employer owns) onto his flash drive and installs and activates it at home (under the guise of it just being another install for the company)

 

I'm not sure that works although if John is required to do work from home occasionally then this could be justified. Given he has to pay for his own computer, power, heating etc to perform the work, a fair trade off is that he can do his own drafting in the software also, given it has already been paid for.

 

* John Doe uses an NFR copy he obtained from an inside source at Autodesk (or via ADN, etc.)

 

Assuming NFR means 'not for release' or similar, then it could be argued that John is actually doing the source a favour by acting as an alpha/beta tester and testing the software etc.

 

I'm kind of looking for debate here (not arguments ). I bet a lot of people have done #3, and maybe #4 and #5.

 

My opening and closing statements would be about the softwares use in China, India, Iran etc where it is unusual to find a legal version and how some foreign governments don't even acknowledge the copyright at all. Yet here is one of the worlds largest software companies trying to gouge John for using the fully paid up AutoCad that his employer paid for, to earn $50 more a week doing side drafting projects to pay for his daughters ballet lessons etc...

 

We're probably starting to get off topic a bit. Perhaps this discussion should be split off into a separate thread?

[nestly]

The question was mostly rhetorical, as all 5 examples would certainly constitute mis-use of the Autodesk software license agreement. If you have a genuine interest in knowing what the license agreement says, I'll happily provide the reference material and applicable sections, however if it's not going to change your mind about what is/is not appropriate use of the software, I'd appreciate if just say you're not interested in license agreement says, and I won't waste my time.

 

BTW, S/N = Serial Number and NFR = Not for Resale

[Organic]

The question was mostly rhetorical, as all 5 examples would certainly constitute mis-use of the Autodesk software license agreement. If you have a genuine interest in knowing what the license agreement says, I'll happily provide the reference material and applicable sections, however if it's not going to change your mind about what is/is not appropriate use of the software, I'd appreciate if just say you're not interested in license agreement says, and I won't waste my time.

 

I'm not a lawyer and am not particularly interested in the specific legal statements contained within the EULA

 

However, if the software is installed on a work computer (or laptop as in the example above 2 posts above) it is typically not installed by the user who is to use it (except in small firms). It will be someone in the IT department that is clicking yes and agreeing to the EULA. The actual cad operator of the software won't see it even (let alone even read it for those who do see it during installation) so I would think it would be hard to hold the cad operator responsible (for using the software for private business outside of work) if they had not seen, nor acknowledged the EULA.

 

If it is NFR then I can't see how the user doing side jobs in AutoCad with it violated that provided they don't actually resell the software. If they are doing side jobs, they are selling their professional services.

[nestly]

1) in other words, "If you don't get caught, it's not a crime" followed by "but Officer, I didn't know... "

 

2) If I told you NFR is for evaluation and demonstration purposes ?

[rkmcswain]

The question was mostly rhetorical, as all 5 examples would certainly constitute mis-use of the Autodesk software license agreement.

 

Exactly. Thanks.

[rkmcswain]

Anything I have done with an EDU version, NFR or company own was not for a profit.

 

Agreed Murph. I certainly wasn't trying to call out anyone, just saying in general that it probably does occur.

[rkmcswain]

'm not a lawyer.....

 

However, if the software is installed on a work computer (or laptop as in the example above 2 posts above) it is typically not installed by the user who is to use it (except in small firms). It will be someone in the IT department that is clicking yes and agreeing to the EULA. The actual cad operator of the software won't see it even (let alone even read it for those who do see it during installation) so I would think it would be hard to hold the cad operator responsible (for using the software for private business outside of work) if they had not seen, nor acknowledged the EULA.

 

If it is NFR then I can't see how the user doing side jobs in AutoCad with it violated that provided they don't actually resell the software. If they are doing side jobs, they are selling their professional services.

 

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the spirit of the EULA, if not the finer points.

Your second paragraph misses the entire point completely.

NFR copies are given to people for use in tech support, application building, etc., and using it for profit is explicitly prohibited.

[Organic]

Exactly. Thanks.

 

Well I don't agree with that view. Especially in regards to #3.

 

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the spirit of the EULA, if not the finer points.

 

I've never read the EULA of any software program I've installed. Given I've never installed AutoCad (IT always do it) I've never even had the chance to read the AutoCad one. Most people don't read these.

[nestly]

... all 5 examples would certainly constitute mis-use of the Autodesk software license agreement.

 

Exactly. Thanks.

 

Well I don't agree with that view. Especially in regards to #3...

 

... I've never read the EULA of any software program...

 

So you've decided what is/is not legal use of the software based on having never read the license agreement?

Edited November 10, 2013 by nestly

[rkmcswain]

I've never read the EULA of any software program I've installed. Given I've never installed AutoCad (IT always do it) I've never even had the chance to read the AutoCad one. Most people don't read these.

 

It doesn't matter if YOU have physically read and agreed to the AutoCAD EULA. You're employer has and you are acting as his agent. I suppose if Autodesk were to pursue a case like #3, your employer would be held responsible.

 

I've never read an Adobe EULA, but that doesn't mean I can take home a work computer with Creative Suite on it and use it to open a graphic arts business.