Topic: Getting rid of the "Educational product" message

[Dilbert]

  What would be the purpose of this I wonder?  Are there entities that come with the educational package that don't come with the full version?  I just can't see why that would be an issue on Autodesk's part.

The issue is that the Educational version is either very low in cost or even at times free depending on the situation. As a result, some companies or consultants will attempt to purchase them instead of actually buying a version of the software. This may sound like Autodesk is being greedy, but in reality Autodesk states upfront that you are getting this software at the cheap price because you are not going to use it for financial gain... just to learn the product and to produce drawings for school, etc.  They put this educational "stamp" in the drawing to keep people from using it for financial gain when they agreed to not use the program in that way.  Yes, the way mentioned in this thread does work since it pre-dates the educational stamp... but as stated in the EULA, doing it this way can create legal issues since technically your firm shouldn't be profiting from work created in such a version even if it was not created specifically by your firm.

[Dilbert]

who really owns these files? Autodesk?

You own the content and the file, but you also agree to use this data in a non-profit way and agree to keep the stamp on the file if any of the data was created in an educational version.

[Keith™]

I have an interesting question.
If you take a drawing with a single line created in an educational version, then insert that drawing into a new drawing, the new drawing becomes infected. What happens when you delete and purge the offending block from the drawing? Is the content of the original non-educational version now tainted with the educational version stamp?

Incidently, one fact that I do know is that there is no seperate binaries for Educational version or full version. The version you get is based upon the serial number and authorization code used. I remember reading something a while back that reported the different versions were locked or unlocked based on that information. Of course they may have changed that for the newer versions.

[Maverick®]

.....This may sound like Autodesk is being greedy, but in reality Autodesk states upfront that you are getting this software at the cheap price because you are not going to use it for financial gain... just to learn the product and to produce drawings for school, etc. 

   
  I don't think this sounds like they are being greedy.  That part makes sense.  But I would think that when someone purchased a full price seat it would automagically be able to take that stamp off since you now have paid for the full price version. 

... but as stated in the EULA, doing it this way can create legal issues since technically your firm shouldn't be profiting from work created in such a version even if it was not created specifically by your firm.

  But this is just silly.  The firm is profiting from the knowledge gained from using that version also.

[rkmcswain]

What happens when you delete and purge the offending block from the drawing? Is the content of the original non-educational version now tainted with the educational version stamp?

Yes.

[Keith™]

Then one could argue that the software is indeed flawed.
Lets look at it this way ... I work hours upon hours on a drawing, (we have an educational version in the office for training purposes) A noob in training inadvertently opens and saves a block from our block library. (This block is xref'd into thousands of drawings). So, we unknowingly already have a reference to an "educational version" block in all of our drawings. Since all of our plots are done automagically, we wouldn't know they are infected until we plot them. Mind you, we did nothing more than use the licenses consistent with the EULA, (as consistent as you can anyway, forgoing the "cannot profit", as by learning the software you incur a defacto profit), but now we have a serious problem. All of our drawings are now corrupted. Sure, we could attempt to isolate the block(s) affected and remove them from the server, but that will be a monumental task.
I have a serious problem with this scenario as it could conceivably happen. Following the EULA to the letter, yet still falling victim to the dreaded plot stamp.

[Dilbert]

Then one could argue that the software is indeed flawed.

The concept is to keep you from buying one legal version and 29 student versions for the rest of your staff. Then at the end of the project simply importing it into your legal version and your Student stamp is removed.

This forces you to be a stricter manager in terms of licenses and managing your standards, but it keeps your firm legal. Its not a flaw, its designed to keep your firm's software/licensing more within the letter of your contractual agreement with Autodesk. (I understand your way of viewing it, this is just the reason they've implemented it... and typically it hasn't been a huge issue in most offices over the past decade.)

[CADaver]

And how far do you have to go to re-create these?

To comply with EULA, from scratch.

who really owns these files? Autodesk?

It not a question of ownership of the file, but the version from which the file was created.

[CADaver]

But I would think that when someone purchased a full price seat it would automagically be able to take that stamp off since you now have paid for the full price version. 

Then one could contract hundreds of drawings on educational versions and pay for a single seat to upgrade them all into compliance.

... but as stated in the EULA, doing it this way can create legal issues since technically your firm shouldn't be profiting from work created in such a version even if it was not created specifically by your firm.

  But this is just silly.  The firm is profiting from the knowledge gained from using that version also.

Autodesk is offering educational versions of the product at extemely low (or no) cost with the stipulation that those using that product will not compete commercially with guys, like you, that have paid for the full use of the product.  The other option afforded Autodesk in protecting your investment, is charge full price for educational versions.

A nearby university used educational versions of the product and student users to under-bid a small local engineering firm for a retail outlet center design.  By the time the state put a stop to the effort, (for violations of several dozens state statutes) the small engineering firm had laid-off 2 designers.  Fortunately for those guys, the heavy industry in the area is booming and they went right to work elsewhere.  Unfortunately that left the small firm scrambling for qualified help to accomplish the task.  There's plenty of competition from outsourcing to third world countries, we don't need to compete with educational versions as well.

[rkmcswain]

Ditto CADaver's comments.

Then one could argue that the software is indeed flawed.
Lets look at it this way ... I work hours upon hours on a drawing, (we have an educational version in the office for training purposes) A noob in training inadvertently opens and saves a block from our block library.

That is a management problem. EDU versions have no business in a commercial office environment. Regardless, Autodesk gives you one chance to make a mistake.

[Keith™]

FYI .. I do not have an edu version in my office. I used the scenario merely to spark discussion on the subject. The simple resolution should be that Autodesk should never ever let an educational version be purchased by a commercial establishment period. If they wished to maintain some semblance of uniformity in the marketplace, a better solution would be to limit the importation of these drawings into full versions. I know for a fact that if AutoCAD can notify a user that the drawing is from an educational version, then the software should be able to easily prevent one from importing such into a drawing created by a fully licensed version. Clearly that is not the case and to a degree they (Autodesk) are exacurbating the problem by allowing it to happen. Of course for those who will use it in a commercial business, they don't care anyway. It is only those of us who actually care about the licensing issues and attempt to remain within the EULA.

[LE]

I had never seen or would like to have in here any of those virus alike protections via the educational product message, what it is interesting, is that appears that they have a better success applying that virus and not protecting the real software better.... but it may be marketing politics.... )

[Jeff_M]

Keith, while I have never had one of these infected drawing to test with, it's my understanding that, starting with version either 2006 or 2007, Autocad now at least warns the user they are about to use a drawing from the educational product. I think it even advises what the consequences will be if they continue (i.e. the watermark). This is far better than what it was before where there was no warning whatsoever.

[CADaver]

FYI .. I do not have an edu version in my office. I used the scenario merely to spark discussion on the subject. The simple resolution should be that Autodesk should never ever let an educational version be purchased by a commercial establishment period.

They don't "let" a commercial establishment purchase the program, though they don't forbid it either.  They "allow" students to buy fully functional programs at a much reduced cost.

If they wished to maintain some semblance of uniformity in the marketplace, a better solution would be to limit the importation of these drawings into full versions.

That would have been nice, but they chose to inform users instead.  Which is a step up from earlier methods where you didn't know there was a problem until you plotted the file.

I know for a fact that if AutoCAD can notify a user that the drawing is from an educational version, then the software should be able to easily prevent one from importing such into a drawing created by a fully licensed version. Clearly that is not the case and to a degree they (Autodesk) are exacurbating the problem by allowing it to happen.

Probably, however, you are responsible for protecting your files.  Knowing this is an issue (and has been for some time) one should take all the necessary steps to protect one's files.

Of course for those who will use it in a commercial business, they don't care anyway.

Some do, some don't.  Sometimes it's just a case of a guy building a couple of blocks at home on his edu version then bringing them to the office.  Nothing malisious, just too unprofessional to read his EULA.

It is only those of us who actually care about the licensing issues and attempt to remain within the EULA.

And Autodesk is using us to police this problem.  Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the current status.

[iliekater]

Oh boy ! When I started this topic I din't image the magnitute it would take . Anyway , here are some things I'd like to share with you :
1) If you enter any object of an "infected" file into a good one (no matter how : copy-paste , as block or a Xref) you get a dialog box conform which you have to confirm its insertion , while it warns you that if you do that , the file from now on will have the "educational bla bla bla" stamp . Thus , one cannot insert anything my mistake .
2) I am not going to use those blocks for financiar purposes . I am going to give them for free .