No one is pissing or moaning. Disputing it I am. Something is not the law just because someone (AutoDesk) says it is. Try this some time. Put a for sale sign on your car. When someone buys it and hands you the money, tell them that, before you will give them the keys, he will need to agree that you actually still own the car. In addition, if at any time you decide that you don't want him to drive it any longer, he has to cease driving it. Also, he can not sell it. All AutoDesk claims is perfectly leagle IF you sign agreement to that BEFORE the sale. Once the sale is made, you can't change the conditions.
Which particular type of law should we all be listening too. Statute Law, Contract Law or the laws of legal precedent. I am pretty certain that Autodesk aren't breaking any specific laws made by your government or mine (Statutes). Their EULA, purchase contract, was written by those lawyers you are so fond of, so will be pretty bullet proof. That leaves legal precedent. Well there are no precedents that can be used to challenge what Autodesk (and indeed most other commercial software companies) do, so what is needed is someone to sue them. When the courts decide in your favour we will know that you were right.
If the courts decide you were wrong of course you will be putting the "for sale" sign on not just your car but your house too.
Just how sure are you that you are right?
Good Luck!
PS.. In case you wondered.. I hate Autodesk too, and find them dreadful to do business with.
My last post on this, then we'll have to agree to disagree. ;)
The car analogy simply doesn't work with this topic, IMO. Maybe compare it to leasing a car. Think a dealer would mind if you sold the car you leased from them? You can do it. It's certainly possible. Problem is, both the seller AND BUYER in that circumstance could find themselves in a legal predicament.
Bottom line is this: Anyone who is considering 'buying' an already registered version of AutoCad from it's original purchaser should do a bit of research and consider their decision very carefully. Their very business could be at stake. For $3K dollars, is it really worth the risk? How much would it take to defend yourself, assuming that you are legally correct?
I won't say you're right or wrong in your legal assessment. What I will say is that anyone should be very careful about this whole issue. Personally, I don't want to be the test case.
TOMD IS RIGHT. YOU ARE BUYING A ***LICENSE*** TO ***USE*** THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE NOT BUYING THE SOFTWARE TO DO WITH WHAT YOU PLEASE. IT'S AS PLAIN AS THE EULA.AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T BUY FROM AUTODESK!!!!
DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL COPY OF AN AUTODESK PRODUCT? DID YOU OBTAIN IT SECONDHAND? DOES AUTODESK KNOW ABOUT IT? I DIDN'T THINK SO, BUT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM TELLING OTHER PEOPLE TO DO IT.
Why do people "Copy Software"? Because software houses like the rest of the world are rip off merchants!
-- TheWizard [ snipped-for-privacy@myplace.org ] email is faked to deter spammers ......................................... Vivat vox populi, via veritas vtae Sic transit gloria mundi, sic itur ad astra
: >
: > WRONG AGAIN. YOU ARE ONE STUBBORN PERSON. : >
: > TOMD IS RIGHT. YOU ARE BUYING A ***LICENSE*** TO ***USE*** THE : > SOFTWARE, YOU ARE NOT BUYING THE SOFTWARE TO DO WITH WHAT YOU PLEASE. : > IT'S AS PLAIN AS THE EULA.AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T BUY : > FROM AUTODESK!!!! : >
: > DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL COPY OF AN AUTODESK PRODUCT? DID YOU OBTAIN IT : > SECONDHAND? DOES AUTODESK KNOW ABOUT IT? I DIDN'T THINK SO, BUT YOU : > HAVE NO PROBLEM TELLING OTHER PEOPLE TO DO IT. : :
Quite right, German copyright law prohibits such restrictive licencing as practised by Autodesk. You wouldn't own the software either but you would be allowed to transfer your right to use it to another person if you have a full version (not an educational or bundled version, of course). So, in Germany, if a company goes out of business, the proprietors (or their assignee in bankruptcy) would be acting perfectly legally if they transferred their right to use the software, and Autodesk would have to honour it.
In general, it doesn't really matter what the EULA says. If the EULA violates existing laws - in this case the national copyright law - the EULA (or at least the part that violates the law) is void. It is actually illegal to impose an EULA upon users if that restricts or limits rights which the users are granted by law. Any company that does business in a specific country automatically agrees to work within the framework of the national law of that country. If they don't like it, they are free not to do business there. ;-)
I'm not familiar with UK or US copyright law, so I can't say which rights users have to challenge certain paragraphs in the EULA or if they can simply ignore certain paragraphs in the EULA that are clearly not compliant with UK or US copyright law.
I know, however, that Microsoft has been trying to impose their EULA on customers as well, and here in Germany they have been slapped on the wrist for that, too. It doesn't even matter whether you click on the "I Accept" button when you install the software; the EULA is still void and non-binding for customers. The reason is very simple: Anything that you don't sign upon purchasing the software licence is considered a unilateral subsequent modification of a legally concluded sales agreement. And such a modification is void as you never have a chance to decline it (you can only read the EULA if you open the box (i.e. the vendor won't take an open box back and refund your money if you choose NOT to accept the EULA), and you can't install the software without clicking on the "I Accept" button. So the chronological order is very important here: Only those parts of a licence agreement which are presented to the customer upon concluding a licence purchase and agreed to by the customer, either by paying the purchase price and/or signing a licence agreement become legally binding for the customer. Anything that restricts such agreements _ex post_ or modifies them to the customers disadvantage is non -binding and void. This would be the situation under German copyright law.
Maybe the OP can check whether or not such regulations also apply in his own country.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.