[simmsimaging]

I say:
If you are going to do things the honest way... do it all the way!

I'm with you all the way on that one Leonardo - but don't confuse the right ethical thing to do with the what is the legally possible thing to do.

It is very convenient to also confuse the *purpose* of student licencing with sly ways of using the software to avoid paying the appropriate licencing fee for your usage. Whether or not student licensing is good advertising is entirely beside the point - and I believe Leonardo's point is that that just because there is a loophole does not make it "right" to exploit it.

If you use it to make money then pay the commercial license - period. Anything else is ethically if not legally questionable, and no one appreciates the same "principle" being applied to them and their own work do they?

Okay - rant complete
b

[Bubbaloo]

^^Agreed^^

Arrr! I hates pirates...

[dilbert]

Whether or not student licensing is good advertising is entirely beside the point

b

No, it is not. It is highly relevant. Software companies compete for the right to have their product used exclusively in schools and colleges. At the engineering school I went to, it was mandatory to take CAD drafting classes, and the only software they would allow you to use for the class was Autodesk products. This forces you to use a certain software as a requirement to fulfill your degree, hence the necessity of a student license. Once you graduate, you are only skilled in Autodesk products, which forces you to either relearn other software, or seek a job in a company that uses the software that you are accustomed too. This is precisely why Autodesk (and others) do what they do as it generates students who are somewhat dependant on their software to get a job in the working world.

Check out the Art Center College of Design curriculum, which is arguably one of the top schools for industrial design and automotive design. You are forced to learn Autodesk Studio Tools as part of your degree requirements. This is great as it's a fantastic software, but a commercial license of Studio Tools is $25,000.00, which means that if you want to freelance upon graduation, you have to make an instant $25,000 investment to be able to get some work. This is not a reality for most graduating seniors, which is why many use their student licenses for work.

The way I see it, the software companies are being paid for their product (whether it be directly from the student, or indirectly from the schools that endorse them), and the more people who use the product in the working world creates revenues for the company. By the way, all the software I own is fully licensed, I'm just arguing a point.

[simmsimaging]

The way I see it, the software companies are being paid for their product (whether it be directly from the student, or indirectly from the schools that endorse them), and the more people who use the product in the working world creates revenues for the company. By the way, all the software I own is fully licensed, I'm just arguing a point.

No one is arguing that student licensing is a charitable effort on the part of software companies, but it exists for a specific purpose and in terms of the licensing structures that exist; the potential sales generated by student use, and the fairness or not of the software cost remain beside the point - although you can argue their particular merits however you choose.

If you don't like the 25K pricetag coming out of school then don't buy it - simple as that. If someone get surprised by a bill like that and aren't ready for it then they didn't do your homework well enough before getting into it. Many professions, if not most, have an upfront cost. Often much steeper than that. You want to go into a line of work it is your problem to provide the tools you need. Why should your software be free or cheap just because you just came out of school? What entitles you to that? If it takes you a couple of years to pay it off then so be it - it's part of the price of admission. Ask a dentist how much their start up cost is and how long it takes them to pay it off, or a mechanic - or whatever.

I am not saying it's fair, or easy - I don't really care either way because they don't enter the equation on that level. That's just how it is IMO.

As far as being forced to use one product or another in school - what choice does the school really have? practically speaking that is? Regardless of that: no one is stopping anyone from learning other programs on their own time/dime, and student licences are cheap enough. Hell, if you just want to learn how to use the software then go ahead and steal it for all I care - but don't try to profit off it. That's where I draw a firm line, but you'll draw yours where you see fit - it's the beauty of being adults in free (ish) countries

b

[JDHill]

Using academic software when you are not currently a student is no different than making an insurance claim when you have no damage.

'My insurance company is in the business of paying claims, so I'm making one. In fact, it's like free advertising for them when I get the check - my boss might see the envelope and decide to upgrade our company's coverage. Besides, I'm only making a claim because I was forced to use this insurance company, due to the structuring of my employer's health-care program. If I got to choose my own, I probably wouldn't make false claims.'

Please.

[mverta]

Using academic software when you are not currently a student is no different than making an insurance claim when you have no damage.

'My insurance company is in the business of paying claims, so I'm making one. In fact, it's like free advertising for them when I get the check - my boss might see the envelope and decide to upgrade our company's coverage. Besides, I'm only making a claim because I was forced to use this insurance company, due to the structuring of my employer's health-care program. If I got to choose my own, I probably wouldn't make false claims.'

Please.

QFE

_Mike

[Bubbaloo]

WTF is QFE...

[mverta]

Quoted For Emphasis. Like +1.

_Mike

[hothpicas]

Using academic software when you are not currently a student is no different than making an insurance claim when you have no damage.

'My insurance company is in the business of paying claims, so I'm making one. In fact, it's like free advertising for them when I get the check - my boss might see the envelope and decide to upgrade our company's coverage. Besides, I'm only making a claim because I was forced to use this insurance company, due to the structuring of my employer's health-care program. If I got to choose my own, I probably wouldn't make false claims.'

Please.

Of course, making a claim when you have no damage is fraudulent and against the law, as is violating the EULA for a student license.

[dilbert]

No one is arguing that student licensing is a charitable effort on the part of software companies, but it exists for a specific purpose
b

So what do you think that purpose is?

I think they are running a business, with investors and shareholders, and they did the cost-benefit analysis and found that giving out their software cheap to students profits and grows their company. They know full well that students are going to use it for commercial work (they are not stupid, or I assume they are not), and figure that factor into the equation.

You can't possibly think that companies like Autodesk did not ask the question "What if a student benefits financially from their student license ?" before they decided to sell it off cheap to the masses. My guess is that they did, and that the answer was that it profits them in the long run to do so.

[simmsimaging]

The purpose is not hard to figure out: finding the best way to sell more product and make more money. That is not, nor ever has been at question - as far as I can see, but if you think companies like Autodesk don't "care" about illegal use of their software I think you are mistaken. Look at it this way: if they didn't care there wouldn't be two-tiered licensing.

Companies are willing to risk being ripped off - and that's what it is, no mistake - because the alternative is too costly. It's just like anything else. We all have to accept that some crimes will be made possible because it's too hard/costly to police things all the time - but that doesn't make it right though. You are correct though: they are not stupid and they do expect it, but factoring that into their cost/benefit plans does not mean they accept it happily. What it does mean is they crank up the price for the rest of us who actually pay the appropriate license fees to compensate. Thanks very much

However you look at it: if the licence says: "no commercial use" then I'm inclined to think they actually mean "no commercial use". How much clearer can it be?

Whether or not the companies may profit "more" down the road through illegal use of their software is not the point, and the permissions and uses that may or may not "justify" is not for the end user to decide: that privilege is not included in the sticker price (especially the student price )

b

[dilbert]

Point taken. Like I said, all my software is licensed, which is probably why I'm arguing this point in the first place. To this day I have around $45,000 invested in software alone, so I'm definitely not one of those "taking advantage". I guess I just have no sympathy for software companies as in my experience they very rarely meet up to their promises, and can be downright customer unfriendly when it comes to support. I can't tell you how many times I've invested literally thousands of dollars in a software, only to find that it is unstable, and unsupported, but is still advertised as the next best thing since sliced bread. That's probably why I have no problem in having a student make money off something they purchased (even if they did purchase it at a fraction of the price).

[simmsimaging]

Oh, I hear you on all counts there: I never said it wasn't tempting I am still getting over the sticker shock of 3D software. Now I just fondly remember the days of thinking $800 for Photoshop was robbery!

Sigh.

b