Buying an old version of XSI

[Draise]

What would you guys think of the legalities of SI, even the older version, being used as "abandonware"?

I know it's all very grey in the digital world... even if the terms and conditions are relatively black and white.

[Helli]

Well companies can do whatever they want as long as you dont sue them or they dont sue you.

[luceric]

Abandonware is something completely made up that people are trying to give legitimacy to by writing a Wikipedia article about. It's the wisdom of the crowd at work. It's nothing but a portmanteau from the 90s and has no real definition.

Anyway, if I were going on your journey to purchase some used Softimage copies, I'd probably try to get in touch with a local reseller. They would know who is going out of business and whether they can transfer the license.

[FXDude]

Abandonware is something completely made up [...]

You mean like rules about not being able to sell what you technically "baught"?

Any references to actual ownership is being phased out anyways, so problem solved.

[Hirazi Blue]

Abandonware is something completely made up that people are trying to give legitimacy to by writing a Wikipedia article about. It's the wisdom of the crowd at work. It's nothing but a portmanteau from the 90s and has no real definition.

Personally I think that's a rather glib remark (not saying that’s a bad thing BTW) and for once (!) not doing the writers of a Wikipedia article justice. "Abandonware" once very much was “a thing”, predating Wikipedia quite a bit actually, a legally heavily contested one with a clear outcome that it’s now generally viewed as being illegal. But the initial reasoning was rather interesting and IMHO in no way trying to deliberately pretend something illegal to be legal. Like the Wikipedia article states, it can be seen as part of the equally murky “orphan works” debate.
;)

That said: Autodesk declaring Softimage abandonware... (sadly)

edit: fixed an erroneous word order...

[luceric]

Abandonware is something completely made up that people are trying to give legitimacy to by writing a Wikipedia article about. It's the wisdom of the crowd at work. It's nothing but a portmanteau from the 90s and has no real definition.

Personally I think that's a rather glib remark (not saying that’s a bad thing BTW) and for once (!) not doing the writers of a Wikipedia article justice. "Abandonware" once very much was “a thing”, predating Wikipedia quite a bit actually, a legally heavily contested one with a clear outcome that it’s now generally viewed as being illegal. But the initial reasoning was rather interesting and IMHO in no way trying to deliberately pretend something illegal to be legal. Like the Wikipedia article states, it can be seen as part of the equally murky “orphan works” debate.

ok, which court or organization has given a definition to Abadonware and why are these references not on wikipedia?
"Shareware" is an actual thing, it was used and defined by several industry entity and it is found in dictionaries like Meryam Webster. AFAIK Abadonware is first and foremost a contraction of Abadonned and Software that adds nothing, it has no definition. It just means whatever anyone wants it to mean, and often time these things end up as wikipedia article to try to make them into a legitimate term and force a specific meaning for them there. The article starts by saying that "the definition vary", which is a big red flag.

[Hirazi Blue]

Ah well... An interesting topic for another day (and another context) as far as I am concerned.

edit: but this is my opinion as a participant in this little discussion, not some Administrator verdict. Anyone who cares to carry on this little side-quest, feel free to do so...

[luceric]

Oh and to all the people are thinking of replying some more without looking at the previous pages for context, the reason I wrote about abandonware and wikipedia, is because someone specifically asked what people thought of the legalities and linked to wikipedia article.

[Draise]

Thanks Luceric..

How about a new thread discussing the terms and conditions, ethics and implications of using "abandoned" eol software still with Copyright in the installation?

I know Studio GPU left their Mach Studio Pro 2 (GPU renderer for SI, and other things) for free, Caligari with their trueSpace 7.61 beta 8, and other entities I could easily search for. These software are now available for free, but the terms and conditions are exactly the same, the copyright is still the same - yet.. the companies left them for free as freeware/shareware (yet with copyright in the terms and conditions).

I know Autodesk didn't leave most versions of Softimage free, but the ones from Avid, or even XSI Mod Tool 7.5... wouldn't they be considered "shareware" even if they still have the copyright just by the fact that they aren't on the market, are EOL'd, aren't being developed and technically "abandoned"?

It's crazy how bits and bits of 1's and 0's on transistors become such a "this is mine! you can't do that" mentality from a commercial standpoint.

It's all still so new....

I wish there were some kind of user right to access un-active "orphan" or abandoned software - modify, develop and even earn a living off them when the publishers and copyright holders cease to sell or support said software.. even if they still have copyright.

Unlike a piece of dirt, software are just 1's and 0's set by electricity that will fade away and be forgotten unless backed up and continually being copied and shared. If ceased, it would waste thousands of man hours of many and then spoil the access to the history of many pieces of art - which could be.. like woodwork niches using a hammer and saw - instead of a nailgun and chainsaw to create certain styles of "antique" woodwork. There should be some right to continue using old tech for great produce - like the right to be a software Mennonite or something. The right to continue using and sharing and even repairing and privately "developing" paint brushes (even if someone else made them originally and doesn't want anyone else to even use or make or share said brushes - even old and used ones).

It seems so strange to put a concept that a hammer can't be used to build anything, nor be shared, nor acquired, because the previous owner who made it said no-one could anymore (because he's selling nailguns that need rented compressed air to work instead). The hammer still works. It will work for quite some time..

Why is there a copyright on something you ceased and desisted.. and no right to copy said EOL software?

It's all too new to just leave it like that in the law books, just my two cents... kudos for wanting to create a term valid, there are no working "old" user rights concerning digital copyright in my opinion. It's too new to say that is way it has to be - just a rant... meh. I'm young and too idealistic.. Sorry.

[FXDude]

[...]

I wish there were some kind of user right to access un-active "orphan" or abandoned software - modify, develop and even earn a living off them when the publishers and copyright holders cease to sell or support said software.. even if they still have copyright.

Unlike a piece of dirt, software are just 1's and 0's set by electricity that will fade away and be forgotten unless backed up and continually being copied and shared.

If ceased, it would waste thousands of man hours of many and then spoil the access to the history of many pieces of art - which could be.. like woodwork niches using a hammer and saw - instead of a nailgun and chainsaw to create certain styles of "antique" woodwork.

There should be some right to continue using old tech for great produce - like the right to be a software Mennonite or something.
The right to continue using and sharing and even repairing and privately "developing" paint brushes (even if someone else made them originally and doesn't want anyone else to even use or make or share said brushes - even old and used ones).


It seems so strange to put a concept that a hammer can't be used to build anything, nor be shared, nor acquired, because the previous owner who made it, said no-one could anymore (because he's selling nailguns that need rented compressed air to work instead).
The hammer still works. It will work for quite some time..

Why is there a copyright on something you ceased and desisted.. and no right to copy said EOL software?

It's all too new to just leave it like that in the law books, just my two cents... kudos for wanting to create a term valid, there are no working "old" user rights concerning digital copyright in my opinion. It's too new to say that is way it has to be - just a rant... meh. I'm young and too idealistic.. Sorry.

___________________

I think this is very well said.

Indeed for many Soft users, Softimage isn't just 100mb of code or a bunch of patents, ... what has been almost completely un-considered, is what may have been the 'human' aspect.

Or how it may not just loosely have represented entire chunks of people's lives.

Which for many involved vasts amount of time both invested in the software, or eventually invested in efforts replacing ways of doing things, or entire pipelines.

(with -many- things to an certain extent becoming somewhat more technical, often convoluted, sometimes experimental, or just longer to do, notwithstanding some advantages, and some improvements of different packages.)

That's if or when lines of work weren't changed entirely altogether.



But regardless, it now comes FREE!!**
**with every ~4000$ full commercial Maya license purchase, for a limited time & conditions apply.
which of course can be excellent depending on needs, budget, or expected 'ROI'
(specially that its not just for Soft that it's a last chance).

But that can also be an extremely high price if mostly looking to preserve software no longer being worked-on,
which soon won't be available at-all, and for many of these users, if they would still do 3D and rather use the software that always worked best for them, or was like 'just right', who is to say otherwise?

I think long time softimage users should have much less restrained access, or much more rights for what they have been using for a long time,

- as simply buying it on it's own is not possible,
- buying it with something else is the price of fully supported/updated high-end commercial software (many thousands of dollars),
- there is no 'Apprentice' or 'Hobbyist' version (like so many other VFX packages, Nuke, Fusion, Houdini, ...)
- and even the alternative of buying 'previously used' is also blocked,

which is really like blockades at every avenue, while quite a few would be happy to pay a -fair- price for rights to use the software used throughout years if not decades.

But after all that's happened, what is to be expected anyhow.