AutoCad removes perminent licenses from amputee making own hand

[Salvinorin]

 

A few days agoAutoCad has recently updated their products to follow a subscription based model, and has retroactively updated all users to the subscription model, ignoring the fact that users already bought a permanent time license for their software. This has removed access for a youtuber who is trying to make a fully mechanical prosthetic hand, that he can eventually produce more hands (or other prosthetics) for other people. He has already made a working fully mechanical hand, and has helped make other people working prosthetics for their own injuries you can see the original short below.

 

Quote

 

 

 I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that companies revoking licenses without warning should be illegal, why this kind of behavior isn't treated as theft continues to baffle me. 

[jagdtigger]

17 minutes ago, Salvinorin said:

companies revoking licenses without warning should be illegal

There is no "should", it is illegal. IDK why some companies think they are Darth Vader and can do anything and get away with it.....

[Salvinorin]

14 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

There is no "should", it is illegal. IDK why some companies think they are Darth Vader and can do anything and get away with it.....

If it isn't enforced is it really illegal?

[DigitalGoat]

It is not illegal (immoral maybe), you agree to the licence conditions/ terms of service by using the software.

Buried somewhere in those terms is a clause allowing the developers/ providers to change conditions with very little to no notice needed and stating that they retain ownership of the software.

The story linked by the OP is sad and frustrating but the company did not target a disabled user, the change applies to all users.

 

It might be possible for people who bought a licence under the original terms to ask for a refund if they no longer want to use the software, this might be backed up by local consumer protection laws or it might not, but worth a try.

 

This is happening to more and more software as the companies producing the apps realise they can make more money with a subscription model than selling a one off licence, it makes perfect sense from a long term profit viewpoint, even though it may well alienate a small percentage of the user base.

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 minutes ago, DigitalGoat said:

It is not illegal (immoral maybe), you agree to the licence conditions/ terms of service by using the software.

Buried somewhere in those terms is a clause allowing the developers/ providers to change conditions with very little to no notice needed and stating that they retain ownership of the software.

Wrong, a EULA is not carte blanche for one contract party to alter the deal however they see fit, regardless of what clauses they put in the fine print. The law always trumps a EULA.

[NeverNotExhausted]

And this is why I use FreeCAD

[DigitalGoat]

18 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Wrong, a EULA is not carte blanche for one contract party to alter the deal however they see fit, regardless of what clauses they put in the fine print. The law always trumps a EULA.

It is still not illegal to alter the terms of any contract, however if the terms change then you should have an option to cancel/ opt out of the contract if you do not agree to the changes. The laws pertaining to contracts are different depending on where you live and also on where the contract originates.

An EULA is not a contract and will almost certainly not be treated as one by most law makers.

[Avocado Diaboli]

5 hours ago, DigitalGoat said:

It is still not illegal to alter the terms of any contract, however if the terms change then you should have an option to cancel/ opt out of the contract if you do not agree to the changes. The laws pertaining to contracts are different depending on where you live and also on where the contract originates.

An EULA is not a contract and will almost certainly not be treated as one by most law makers.

The contract is already established. Someone paid money for a perpetual license. The transaction is complete. It is illegal to invalidate a perpetual license that has been paid for after the fact. Also, you flat out contradict yourself here, first claiming that whatever the EULA contains means it's not illegal and now you're backpedalling that the EULA has no legal weight. Pick one, both can't be true.

[WereCat]

Blender can't bring the CAD features soon enough. I know it's not priority for them but it will be probably very welcome for many people. 

[Holmes108]

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

The contract is already established. Someone paid money for a perpetual license. The transaciton is complete. It is illegal to invalidate a perpetual license that has been paid for after the fact. Also, you flat out contradict yourself here, first claiming that whatever the EULA contains means it's not illegal and now you're backpedalling that the EULA has no legal weight. Pick one, both can't be true.

 

And the original no doubt has a clause protecting itself. Perhaps that you have perpetual licence for that "iteration" of the software (whatever that means) or something equally sneaky. I'm not saying it's cool to do that, but to just declare something "illegal" is overly simplistic until it's tested in court. It's going to vary case by case depending on the circumstances. Similar to declaring "fair use" confidently. It's not necessarily so.

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 minute ago, Holmes108 said:

And the original no doubt has a clause protecting itself. Perhaps that you have perpetual licence for that "iteration" of the software (whatever that means) or something equally sneaky. I'm not saying it's cool to do that, but to just declare something "illegal" is overly simplistic until it's tested in court. It's going to vary case by case depending on the circumstances. Similar to declaring "fair use" confidently. It's not necessarily so.

Which is what this topic is about: Someone getting their perpetual licence for that iteration of the software revoked and forced to change to the subscription model. That is illegal. Necessarily, positively, absolutely illegal.

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just for clarification, if anyone else deems it necessary to chime in and claim that this is somehow not illegal or that the EULA has a provision for this, here's the relevant license agreement from Autodesk for Autodesk Product Design Suite 2013: https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY13/suites/LSA/lsa.html

 

The detailed license types are listed at the end under Exhibit B

 

While there are fixed term licenses available, these fixed terms are way shorter than the 10 years this license has reasonably been active for. So for all intents and purposes, this is a perpetual license, as defined by the license agreemet drafted by Autodesk themselves. So not only did they break the law, they also broke their own terms.

[Holmes108]

50 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Which is what this topic is about: Someone getting their perpetual licence for that iteration of the software revoked and forced to change to the subscription model. That is illegal. Necessarily, positively, absolutely illegal.

 

What does "iteration" mean? This might be a new version. Again, not defending it. Just saying there are ways around it (bullshit ways, to be sure, but still). I have a lifetime Plex Pass, but they could make "Plex 2" come out tomorrow and I'd be screwed, I expect.

[Avocado Diaboli]

5 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

 

What does "iteration" mean? This might be a new version. Again, not defending it. Just saying there are ways around it (bullshit ways, to be sure, but still). I have a lifetime Plex Pass, but they could make "Plex 2" come out tomorrow and I'd be screwed, I expect.

First off, did you not watch the video and conclude that this is about the 2013 version of Product Design Suite? Second, did you not read my other post where I linked to the relevant license agreement of that very version of that software?

[LogicalDrm]

 

5 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Wrong, a EULA is not carte blanche for one contract party to alter the deal however they see fit, regardless of what clauses they put in the fine print. The law always trumps a EULA.

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Just for clarification, if anyone else deems it necessary to chime in and claim that this is somehow not illegal or that the EULA has a provision for this, here's the relevant license agreement from Autodesk for Autodesk Product Design Suite 2013: https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY13/suites/LSA/lsa.html

 

The detailed license types are listed at the end under Exhibit B

 

While there are fixed term licenses available, these fixed terms are way shorter than the 10 years this license has reasonably been active for. So for all intents and purposes, this is a perpetual license, as defined by the license agreemet drafted by Autodesk themselves. So not only did they break the law, they also broke their own terms.

Do we know which country has the license been purchased from since Autodesk has different set of rules which they say to be following depending on country of made purchase. And if its US, I will gladly read any Californian law you can dig that supports this being illegal.

 

As for what I've read, here's the "Exhibit B":

Quote

1.             Stand-alone (Individual) License.  - - Stand-alone (Individual) License is for a perpetual term, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

From Section 9.13:

Quote

9.13      Entire Agreement.  - - Licensee acknowledges and agrees that Autodesk may add to or change the Subscription Program Terms and the Services Terms from time to time, provided that Autodesk will provide written notice of the additions or changes (and may allow Licensee not to renew, may permit Licensee to terminate, and may offer other options with respect to Subscriptions or Services) before the additions or changes are effective as to Licensee.  - -

("- -" means its snippet)

 

Then after some more digging, this article from year ago https://asti.com/blog/end-of-activation-for-autodesk-versions-2011-2014/

Quote

As of July 1, 2022, Autodesk will no longer support perpetual license activation for its software versions 2011 to 2014. Autodesk has stated, “Our teams are best equipped to help customers on supported previous versions, and we are matching our practices to our policy.”

 

Somewhere at the beginning of that EULA its stated that Autodesk does not sell anything, they license. So as conclusion, this guy renewed license last year, either not reading popups or community news saying that perpetual licenses are discontinued. And now their licensed time is up.

 

So overall, yes, its shitty thing to do. But you have hard time finding law they actually did break. The original EULA states that by installing you agree that terms may change at any time and your only right is to receive notice of it 30 days prior to license being cut or other changes to be made. There might be civil suite in there somewhere. But its highly unlikely to gain enough traction to go anywhere. Most of Autodesk customers are bigger companies that are on more modern versions and annual service contract.

 

Current license definitions for any version prior to 2018 https://www.autodesk.com/company/legal-notices-trademarks/access-use/subscription-offerings

[Holmes108]

3 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

First off, did you not watch the video and conclude that this is about the 2013 version of Product Design Suite? Second, did you not read my other post where I linked to the relevant license agreement of that very version of that software?

It was simply an example of a million ways for them to potentially get out of it. That's all. 

[jagdtigger]

16 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Somewhere at the beginning of that EULA its stated that Autodesk does not sell anything, they license. So as conclusion, this guy renewed license last year, either not reading popups or community news saying that perpetual licenses are discontinued. And now their licensed time is up.

Misleading (to put it mildly) the consumers no matter the way or asterisks and fine prints are also illegal so they are in it to the neck regardless of their methods.

[Salvinorin]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Misleading (to put it mildly) the consumers no matter the way or asterisks and fine prints are also illegal so they are in it to the neck regardless of their methods.

Ya this is my take too, what what point in selling a perpetual license is it false advertising to just change your mind on the whole issue, even if you write it into the EULA.

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Misleading (to put it mildly) the consumers no matter the way or asterisks and fine prints are also illegal so they are in it to the neck regardless of their methods.

Again, citation needed. It's in the original terms, so there's no false advertising. False advertising would apply if they knew at the point of sale that it wouldn't be permanent. This is same as with the "trust me bro" warranty. You want something that company doesn't need to honor anyway.

 

Also first time I've heard that fine print is outlined as illegal. Again, it would be different matter if the part I quoted from the terms would have been in another document, either hidden elsewhere or not even written out. Also if this user can prove that they have not been served notice about the terms changing.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, LogicalDrm said:

Again, citation needed.

No citation is needed, if something is misleading it is misleading. And since it is codified in law the corpo rats can wipe their butt with their EULA.....

[Salvinorin]

8 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Again, citation needed. It's in the original terms, so there's no false advertising. False advertising would apply if they knew at the point of sale that it wouldn't be permanent. This is same as with the "trust me bro" warranty. You want something that company doesn't need to honor anyway.

 

Also first time I've heard that fine print is outlined as illegal. Again, it would be different matter if the part I quoted from the terms would have been in another document, either hidden elsewhere or not even written out. Also if this user can prove that they have not been served notice about the terms changing.

If the EULA states that the product can change to a subscription model it should never have been allowed to advertise as a perpetual license anyways.
The law was seemingly set up to be confusing and I think more of this argument should be about legislation over specific companies doing shitty things, at this point not only is it hurting progress, but its actively hurting the people who would actually need help, this change only lines pockets, and the only people that can use this kind of software are now people that can afford it, from my point of view it's greed eating a company to a slow death and trying to hurt as many things as it can on the way down to try and prop itself up (a corporate crab-bucket). This almost always leads to a massive failure that damages everyone even tangentially involved in some way and it needs to be legislated and regulated to stop before API owners start overcharging everyone as we saw with reddit, and twitter. How is it that people can be so mad at these companies for doing literally the same thing but when another company does it almost always feels like it gets ignored

[LogicalDrm]

10 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

No citation is needed, if something is misleading it is misleading. And since it is codified in law the corpo rats can wipe their butt with their EULA.....

Actually, it's needed. You (all) make claims that something is illegal as in against written law. Let me either read said law or some decided court case that applies.

 

I read our laws regarding this (Kuluttajansuojalaki 38/1978, § 27). While it's stated that changes in terms shouldn't have negative effects, such changes are allowed when customer is informed well in advance and given chance to cancel.

 

Also, I emphasise that Autodesk doesn't sell products, it leases licensed software. That's first line of those terms. Even if it's "lifetime" license, it's still license.

 

So I'll wait for citations.

[Salvinorin]

1 minute ago, LogicalDrm said:

I read our laws regarding this (Kuluttajansuojalaki 38/1978, § 27). While it's stated that changes in terms shouldn't have negative effects, such changes are allowed when customer is informed well in advance and given chance to cancel.

In today's day, the updates are specifically designed to be as difficult and shitty to read as they can be, they are also in part designed to be confusing.
It is possible if not easy to inform a customer, while completely obfuscating what the change they are making is, its also easy to miss an email, or another single notification.

What defines the customer being informed? Is the legal necessity a reasonable requirement for the customer (for which the business selling the product/service should be responsible for as they are the ones making the money off of the customer)?
 

There's a lot of "trust me bro" being thrown around here but its not even that, the only time I have seen a company work to update users about EULA updates are youtube's most recent update for content creators, why is this not the norm?

Why would it be my fault for not reading the EULA that says that the company can just change their mind about how much money I owe them for their product. Why cant they EOL something and start a new v2? Why is it not mandated that EULAs need to be legible to the average person.

You are right in that its a legal issue, its a legal issue now because global company culture has taken the get rich quick approach, quickly draining as much money as they can on an often unstable footing (thanks silicon valley), instead of having any kind of real consumer protection in place. These laws need changing, it should hurt companies as they clearly are making short term gains off of people that cant afford it, and if they cant take the heat of being reasonable to their own customers they shouldn't be allowed to take on any more.