I was unable to find an actual statement from AutoCAD, so I could be wrong.
#AUTOCAD 2005 LICENSE LICENSE#
At one point our AutoCADs started shutting down because our license was up (it was paid for, but they wanted us on AutoCAD 2010). We have more recent versions of AutoCAD, but we just don't like them. We're still using 2007 at my office for various reasons, and this caused us some trouble since we had a subscription. I'm pretty sure you can't legally buy anything that's more than 3 versions old. ^- that's the deal with AutoCAD and it's licensing. You get the same thing no matter what the source, even if it's an AutoCAD license that someone else previously used and has now moved on so they want to sell their old license, which they're not using anymore, on Ebay. It's not like an i-phone knockoff with cheaper parts. It's not like the Chinese vendor is using cheaper/inferior paper to reprint a book, or eliminating color and making it cheaper by printing black and white. There is no loss in copying, no matter how many times it's copied. Sometimes, as is the case with Ebay, it's the exact same CD and box you get from the original distributor. It's probably the exact same 1s and 0s (unless a middle-man added content).
#AUTOCAD 2005 LICENSE DOWNLOAD#
You can also download a pirate or copy your friend's pirate. You can also get it from Ebay, or a street vendor in China. You can get it directly from Autodesk (maybe, I'm not sure) or your local reseller, or newegg. You can get that copy of AutoCAD from multiple sources for multiple prices. This is perhaps part of the reason why our legislators apparently lack the competence to write reasonable laws. I would also like to point out the flaws in the "you get what you pay for" comment. Obviously you should be prepared for the possibility of being punished for doing the right thing.
#AUTOCAD 2005 LICENSE SOFTWARE#
Until the courts agree that purchasing software is a transfer of property rather than a limited license, non-violent disobedience is acceptable because it's the government that screwed up, not you or the guy on ebay. I would suggest you define 'right' and 'wrong' by asking me, since I tend to not be as self-centered and greedy as other organizations.
However, they're designation of 'right' and 'wrong' is generally developed to serve their own interest. You probably have a local church or aristocracy that would be happy to define that for you.
At some point you have to determine the difference between 'right' and 'wrong.' It's usually best to do the right thing. I should clarify the "morally justifiable" part. After all, people like AutoCAD or the MPAA/RIAA can afford do buy laws whereas people like you or me likely can't. It's just that the people who wrote the laws didn't think through how ownership should work and neglected the end user. You're willing to fairly compensate the product owner and everything. So if you can't buy a legitimate version of AutoCAD from Ebay, then it's morally justifiable to pirate it.
0 kommentar(er)
