radio
Guest
you are perfectly right, of course depends on the sw, in the case of cads (3d especially) still we are not there; but office free offer everything you need at no cost.
drake
Guest
We were also in these terms, but we were not told that we would be retaken within 7 days. perhaps communications "customs you by customer"
I agree with you. the change of "regime" of the last periods is evident. I don't even want to hear it no more! use with extreme satisfaction both openoffice and libreoffice. only that some functions of various software you can not use them if you did not install in the pc a ms office package and this I think should be made non-legal. other thing you should impose on software houses is to prepare their software, especially professional ones, x different operating systems. but this I think remains pure utopia, unfortunately.
radio
Guest
-- update --
after my email yesterday to the guy "sam engagement specialist software asset management & compliance team" (all a bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blah to say "what matters licensing"), where I made explicit our feelings of "satisfied" users; I got a response where it makes clear that participation in the "counting programme" is voluntary.
until yesterday they stormed us of mail (another time, I want to specify it) in which a time frame was specified to "fit", and now "discover" that we can avoid; Guess what I said.
I now await a further communication of the type: "Okay, don't you want to do that? but we send you the lawyers, the gdf, the CIA, the police dogs and the horsemen. "
after my email yesterday to the guy "sam engagement specialist software asset management & compliance team" (all a bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blah to say "what matters licensing"), where I made explicit our feelings of "satisfied" users; I got a response where it makes clear that participation in the "counting programme" is voluntary.
until yesterday they stormed us of mail (another time, I want to specify it) in which a time frame was specified to "fit", and now "discover" that we can avoid; Guess what I said.
I now await a further communication of the type: "Okay, don't you want to do that? but we send you the lawyers, the gdf, the CIA, the police dogs and the horsemen. "
radio
Guest
What did I tell you?
"However, please note that organizations that do not take part in this activity may be contacted in the future by microsoft licenses & contract compliance or by the microsoft legal office for a more formal review of licenses for microsoft products in use. "
"However, please note that organizations that do not take part in this activity may be contacted in the future by microsoft licenses & contract compliance or by the microsoft legal office for a more formal review of licenses for microsoft products in use. "
rinato
Guest
1st the corkscrews, it seems, will be our next daily bread, so let them do, while you get ahead with the adjustment of the taste buds.
2nd want to check? Come in. the burden of proof is for those who accuse, in the real world. that then in Italy some chores turn in a surreal way is however a fact. and if to control they keep me busy, with their staff, my machines, logic would want me to send the invoice for the machine stop... but I am a gentleman and I will be satisfied that they sprinkle the head of ash.
2nd want to check? Come in. the burden of proof is for those who accuse, in the real world. that then in Italy some chores turn in a surreal way is however a fact. and if to control they keep me busy, with their staff, my machines, logic would want me to send the invoice for the machine stop... but I am a gentleman and I will be satisfied that they sprinkle the head of ash.
TECNOMODEL
Guest
after an exact month since we received the famous letter from autodesk in which they said that we would be retattated within 7 days yet no one heard/seen.
I begin to think it's a scam.... .
I begin to think it's a scam.... .
Stechi
Guest
I find myself in the same situation as those who opened the post. They are blackmailing me for a software that was installed about 10 months but used you are no 5/10 hours in everything to do only test and know it better. then I preferred my initiative to uninstall it to avoid unnecessary problems. the problems have however arrived as they were made to feel after 6 months. of the software there was no trace, not even the shadow as all reformed. they want to "regulate" a past use of the program... with the most expensive package purchase
the situation is not nice at all.. .
the situation is not nice at all.. .
ceschi1959
Guest
with intangible assets is very difficult to understand. without any controversy try to replace software with car and it turns out a story more or less like this: I took a car not mine and I kept it in garage 10 months using it yes and no 5/10 hours to see how it worked.. . .
Cristallo
Guest
I don't know if the comparison fits. a soft house sells you a particular use of your hardware. The machine is yours. They sell you assistance to drive it.
So the fact that you have assistance that you do not use, presupposes that you are not limiting the use of well-labeled (assistance) to another (as it would be with the car).
Tristus
Guest
a serious software house does not claim that the alleged reo purchases pirated "presumption" software.
what should be done is to inform the "reo" of the illegal action committed and what he goes to meet, then it is also free to invite to purchase. invite.... don't demand.
I do not think it is an orthodox procedure. I would therefore investigate the seriousness of this software house. also read disclaimer and license conditions at the time of installation could help, to realize better.
what should be done is to inform the "reo" of the illegal action committed and what he goes to meet, then it is also free to invite to purchase. invite.... don't demand.
I do not think it is an orthodox procedure. I would therefore investigate the seriousness of this software house. also read disclaimer and license conditions at the time of installation could help, to realize better.
Stechi
Guest
the software house is quite important... they said that they came to know that I had installed and I was using their own licensed software and informed me of the implications that it entailed. inviting me to contact them to define "friendly" the question etc. then to the request for clarifications I attach data in which to them is a usage started over a half year before and finished 6 months ago... and if it was an employee who had kept me in the dark of everything? installing and uninstalling hidden? that I know of it since I have all the clean pcs and nothing comes out, any other person could interpret it as a scam attempt.
As for the comparison with the car it would be better to say that I took it and kept it for 10 months using it almost never, in the meantime the master was unaware or preferred to silence hoping that I used it so much more to insinuate that I used it to him except to realize that for six months I had already put it in his garage. so it makes his voice heard because someone told him that...
I understand their desire to protect their work and it is right that it is, but in my case I think they are arguing an attempt to extort.
As for the comparison with the car it would be better to say that I took it and kept it for 10 months using it almost never, in the meantime the master was unaware or preferred to silence hoping that I used it so much more to insinuate that I used it to him except to realize that for six months I had already put it in his garage. so it makes his voice heard because someone told him that...
I understand their desire to protect their work and it is right that it is, but in my case I think they are arguing an attempt to extort.
exxon
Guest
software is as good as any other. must be purchased regularly.
made the necessary premise, it must also be added that extortion is crime as much as the theft, therefore the action described above deserves the same bias reserved to those who use illegal software.
to ask 50,000 euros as a "good" solution to the installation of any pirate software is pure extortion and a toned judge would certainly express themselves in these terms. the aggressive and intimidating attitude is already proof of itself.
There are so many metropolitan legends on the gdf that is "sended" by someone at someone's house... are legends: gdf does not move on indications of companies that boast supposed credits, but independently or on indication of the inquirent magistrate.
Guy accuses me of using his software unduly? Well, try it. What brings as proof, a list of ip and mac address? And what proof is this? any Trojan is able to read the mac of millions of pcs, while the ip is a public information that any portal receives from all the pcs that access you.
those above are not direct evidence (i.e., to immediately demonstrate a fact without any logical operation), but indirect evidence, those that we all know as "individuals". a clue doesn't prove anything. only if the clues are numerous, serious, precise and agreeing, the judge (only him) can arrive at the presumption of crime. from here to a condemnation the road is really long.
the test would be if, during an inspection visit of the gdf for different verifications, inspectors found the software installed, or maybe someone at the time of its use. possession of the only ip and mac address can not even remotely be considered evidence, but it could be considered a simple clue, useful to constitute a legal presumption in case it was supported by other precise and agreeing serious clues, otherwise it is not worth anything.
In this case, if the company is challenged to have indebtedly used in a specific period such software falls, and from the analysis of the accounting data of the same it turns out that in the period in question it has turnover plans attributable to such software, signed contracts that previewed the delivery of files produced with the same, and perhaps the testimony of an employee who under oath confirms to have used it, here, these are serious precise and agreeing clues that they can convince judge.
in case that such software has been installed to... lightness, but not actually used, the extortors who ask 50,000 euros to settle "good" the question, deserve to be condemned for extortion, causing worse than the worst tirapiedi to comparison of which fabrizio crown can be defined as an amateur.
made the necessary premise, it must also be added that extortion is crime as much as the theft, therefore the action described above deserves the same bias reserved to those who use illegal software.
to ask 50,000 euros as a "good" solution to the installation of any pirate software is pure extortion and a toned judge would certainly express themselves in these terms. the aggressive and intimidating attitude is already proof of itself.
There are so many metropolitan legends on the gdf that is "sended" by someone at someone's house... are legends: gdf does not move on indications of companies that boast supposed credits, but independently or on indication of the inquirent magistrate.
Guy accuses me of using his software unduly? Well, try it. What brings as proof, a list of ip and mac address? And what proof is this? any Trojan is able to read the mac of millions of pcs, while the ip is a public information that any portal receives from all the pcs that access you.
those above are not direct evidence (i.e., to immediately demonstrate a fact without any logical operation), but indirect evidence, those that we all know as "individuals". a clue doesn't prove anything. only if the clues are numerous, serious, precise and agreeing, the judge (only him) can arrive at the presumption of crime. from here to a condemnation the road is really long.
the test would be if, during an inspection visit of the gdf for different verifications, inspectors found the software installed, or maybe someone at the time of its use. possession of the only ip and mac address can not even remotely be considered evidence, but it could be considered a simple clue, useful to constitute a legal presumption in case it was supported by other precise and agreeing serious clues, otherwise it is not worth anything.
In this case, if the company is challenged to have indebtedly used in a specific period such software falls, and from the analysis of the accounting data of the same it turns out that in the period in question it has turnover plans attributable to such software, signed contracts that previewed the delivery of files produced with the same, and perhaps the testimony of an employee who under oath confirms to have used it, here, these are serious precise and agreeing clues that they can convince judge.
in case that such software has been installed to... lightness, but not actually used, the extortors who ask 50,000 euros to settle "good" the question, deserve to be condemned for extortion, causing worse than the worst tirapiedi to comparison of which fabrizio crown can be defined as an amateur.
stevie
Guest
Well, how did you get this software?
I imagine you've been given a trial version, registered and then used it with some craggy key? How did they get back to your email?
Are you sure it's not a phishing attempt?
Tristus
Guest
I think we should consider what conditions of use were at the time of installation. and you should also see what are the fields of application of the software in question.
the conditions of use in fact can quietly vary from software to software.
For example, there are applications that are provided with a limited license. i.e. in practice the software may have limitations both in functionality and as regards terms of use.
in the sense that, while limited in functions, I can use that software for personal but non-commercial use.
in this case, talking about piracy leaves the time it finds. an account is to install a software "cracked" and another account is to install it and then do not comply with the terms of use. In my opinion the second case is much less serious than the first.
In essence, in order to better assess the situation we should know what software we are talking about and what conditions of use were.
the conditions of use in fact can quietly vary from software to software.
For example, there are applications that are provided with a limited license. i.e. in practice the software may have limitations both in functionality and as regards terms of use.
in the sense that, while limited in functions, I can use that software for personal but non-commercial use.
in this case, talking about piracy leaves the time it finds. an account is to install a software "cracked" and another account is to install it and then do not comply with the terms of use. In my opinion the second case is much less serious than the first.
In essence, in order to better assess the situation we should know what software we are talking about and what conditions of use were.
In fact speaking of piracy could be excessive, even in view of the fact that the software in question was used little. asking for disproportionate figures is absurd, although we know that sometimes they are on a person to discourage another 100. But that cannot be tolerated.
Stechi
Guest
It is a cad-cam downloaded as a torrent with its crack. strange however the fact that only by typing on google the name of the program followed by crack you open a world of sites with the embarrassment of choice... They seem put there on purpose to fish some wild fish like me... possible then that they crave the indispensable and forget to radiate the signalling system towards the owners? I certainly do not want to deny piracy, I also live in the sweat of my work and understand what it means when copying the models.. .
however closed this parentheses I have to say that period of use, type of crack and mac pc from them reported corresponded. . .
having formatted the pc 6 months before their call, this does not present anything and there is no work file (partprogram) from it generated in the company. Let's say that if the cabbage had been made to my unconscious by some employee I would really fall out of the clouds thinking of a scam attempt but it is not so unfortunately... .
however closed this parentheses I have to say that period of use, type of crack and mac pc from them reported corresponded. . .
having formatted the pc 6 months before their call, this does not present anything and there is no work file (partprogram) from it generated in the company. Let's say that if the cabbage had been made to my unconscious by some employee I would really fall out of the clouds thinking of a scam attempt but it is not so unfortunately... .
Utente cancellato 70856
Guest
Of course you're just weird
you complain about the software house that breaks you because you used their hot sw
you complain because google scans all the sites of the world and even those where you find sw tarocco
you complain about the turtles who do not do the job as you should and get caught by the owners of the sw taroccati
quoto totally what wrote exxon
not enough for their lawyers to write on a piece of paper your ip mac address etc. and sue you and win the cause
unless you confessed to them by email what you wrote here and then you're screwed
We must always deny the evidence
Cristallo
Guest
I'll never understand. you change in 15 seconds.. .
It's like saying, "I have proof, the killer is you because you were wearing a green pants."
Mah!
exxon
Guest
Not only.
mac address is considered a personal data for all effects within the meaning of Community and national data protection regulations. Therefore, its use by unauthorized third parties is to be considered crime.
curious is the paradox for which the company that bought a package from such softwarehouse, has certainly signed a release on the use by the latter of its personal data (including the mac address) and cannot hold this weapon.
On the contrary, the pirate user who has not signed anything in favor of the softwarehouse, may accuse you of having obtained, stored and used personal data without any authorization.
little counts that the end is their protection and that the user has either committed the crime of theft against the softwarehouse: the end does not justify the offence of the latter and the two offences do not eliminate each other. Indeed, it is probable that such "proof" is not even presentable in case of legal action.
not by chance, in many of the examples reported who is accused is already a customer, to whom the use of licenses in excess of those purchased.
seems much more like a cowboy marketing method, than a legitimate protection of its intellectual property.. .
mac address is considered a personal data for all effects within the meaning of Community and national data protection regulations. Therefore, its use by unauthorized third parties is to be considered crime.
curious is the paradox for which the company that bought a package from such softwarehouse, has certainly signed a release on the use by the latter of its personal data (including the mac address) and cannot hold this weapon.
On the contrary, the pirate user who has not signed anything in favor of the softwarehouse, may accuse you of having obtained, stored and used personal data without any authorization.
little counts that the end is their protection and that the user has either committed the crime of theft against the softwarehouse: the end does not justify the offence of the latter and the two offences do not eliminate each other. Indeed, it is probable that such "proof" is not even presentable in case of legal action.
not by chance, in many of the examples reported who is accused is already a customer, to whom the use of licenses in excess of those purchased.
seems much more like a cowboy marketing method, than a legitimate protection of its intellectual property.. .
ceschi1959
Guest
ask and you will be given... I had the need to evaluate a very expensive software (30k), I sent a request to the software house, signed some cards and after a couple of days came the license file that was worth three months. two conditions: the first I could not use the software for profit purposes, the second I could not have asked for further proof of the same package.
so why risk when just ask?
so why risk when just ask?
Tristus
Guest
search engines like google have algorithms whose function is to put on top of the search results list the sites that contain the words you type, and form this list according to the number of links that refer to that site. The greater the number and the greater the chance that those sites will figure at the top of the list.
It is for this reason that when on google we type "September 11" at the top of the list we appear the sites that treat the attack of twin towers.... and not, for example, the sites that talk about what happened on September 11 any (in the thousand-year human history there will be also a September 11 of a year that will have meaning something). In practice we are navigators, with our researches, to determine which sites will be on top of that list. and so it also works with the word containing the name of the program that interests us. Unfortunately for the software houses are many navigators who are interested in a specific program by typing also the words that identify the "medicine" (as they say in jargon).
to reach that system there would be a firewall, with which to block Internet access by adding exceptions concerning the files of that program if these files tried to connect to the internet. But that's illegal, of course.
I have no doubt about that.
I would point out that the program was used very little and more by a cheating employee, and that unfortunately there are no software that can monitor and block illegal installations. It's hard to do similar monitoring on a single computer at home, it's even more 'when the computer is out of the house and there are so many users.