• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

DMCA Notice Received from Aurora Graphics

Joe Diaz

New Member
Yes that's the main problem Joe but to be honest ... what do you think would happen to them in the marketplace if they were upfront with their policy?
Personally... as a buyer... I have no problem with that policy. I probably wouldn't buy from Aurora anyway, which doesn't have anything to do with their terms or policy. Because, when I buy art, I don't intend to pass it along. But... That's just me... I know that is not how others are, so I would imagine if made public, (which we are doing now:wink:) that policy would potentially hurt their sales.

I've never understood why some company/artist have stuck to the disc only methods of selling art anyway. I think the individual download is the way to go.
 

Pat Whatley

New Member
Prohibiting transfers does nothing to reduce piracy.

No kidding. To me that would just increase the amount of pirated art.

Fred, out of curiousity, I was wondering if you knew of a case where someone had actually been prosecuted for doing that with a graphics package. I'm just having a really hard time believing it would EULA would hold up in court if you are transferring the originals you legally purchased. It would seem to me that if they won't let you sell them they would have to be required to buy them back from you.
 

Replicator

New Member
Personally I think it's BUNK !

If I buy something, then I own it, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it, and if someone doesn't like that then TOUGH CRAP !

I will never buy an Aurora Graphics Product . . . EVER ! ! !

and now back to your regularly scheduled company bashing . . . !
 

Pat Whatley

New Member
If I buy something, then I own it, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it, and if someone doesn't like that then TOUGH CRAP !

I will never buy an Aurora Graphics Product . . . EVER ! ! !

and now back to your regularly scheduled company bashing . . . !

Wait...now that you put it that way it sounds like the same thing our customers say about using their sign artwork for a logo.
 

Replicator

New Member
Wait...now that you put it that way it sounds like the same thing our customers say about using their sign artwork for a logo.

If they bought the artwork and not just the sign, then that's their right . . . but if they didn't buy the artwork, then they're screwed !
 

Flame

New Member
If they bought the artwork and not just the sign, then that's their right . . . but if they didn't buy the artwork, then they're screwed !

Check out istock Replicator, they have 2 kinds of licenses... just as one example.

You are basically paying for the right to USE their artwork, not own it. You do not actually OWN their artwork, you are simply being allowed to use it.
 

Fred Weiss

Merchant Member
No kidding. To me that would just increase the amount of pirated art.

Fred, out of curiousity, I was wondering if you knew of a case where someone had actually been prosecuted for doing that with a graphics package. I'm just having a really hard time believing it would EULA would hold up in court if you are transferring the originals you legally purchased. It would seem to me that if they won't let you sell them they would have to be required to buy them back from you.

The EULA is a contract like any other and will definitely hold up in court if someone is determined to pay the expense of pursuing it. I can't name any cases but most amount to complying with a cease and desist demand.
 

Fred Weiss

Merchant Member
I've never understood why some company/artist have stuck to the disc only methods of selling art anyway. I think the individual download is the way to go.

The reality of widespread piracy and illegal duplicates dictates that only a fool would master a CD or DVD and put all his work in a ready to reproduce form for any one willing to pay for one. Downloading of individual images reduces both the expense of delivery and ones exposure to major loss through piracy.

It's pretty much the only way we will be publishing in the future.
 

Fred Weiss

Merchant Member
Wait...now that you put it that way it sounds like the same thing our customers say about using their sign artwork for a logo.

I am constantly amazed at the separation many artists make mentally between protecting their own artwork and not protecting that of others.
 

Techman

New Member
I think aurora abused the DMCA in this case. Yes, none of us wants to get into a contest over something like this. However, there is fair use exemptions that could apply. I am no legal authority but it could be something to know.

Case in point. The DMCA was used against an Ebayer who sold music cd's. He was constantly attacked by the music industry and Ebay removed his posts several times. In the end he won his case and got a nice check. The ruling said resellers could do whatever they wanted with the cd content since it was legally purchased. Even though the labels and licenses said not for resale. They ruled the DMCA does not apply to the "resale" of copy righted content no matter what the label or license said..

Plus...
If I remember right..

Shrink wrap licenses are illegal in some states. Shrink wrap means you automatically accept the license terms when you break the wrapper. But, you cannot read the license until you break the shrink wrap makes it non bindable.

On another point. There is a way to slow down the passing along of cd's full of content.
I did it with my dvd I sold a few years ago. It was made so that any unauthorized copy would shut off ofter a certain period. I know it worked because I got a couple calls on those trying to replace them.
 

iSign

New Member
that's it... I'm pissed too, this company's schitt ain't welcome in my toolbox anymore either... F-um... I'm seriously going the brown box route too. Since they've already gave Fred grief, I'm not going to post about my complete DVD here, with their entire 6 CD library that will go for free with the sale of the brown box... but I'll be dammed if I hold onto that crap anymore...

...in all honesty, it's paid for itself a few times over already, & I even used it last week for the woodgrain in my yellow page ad... but screw 'em... I'm going to find some place to sell an f'n brown box for $425 just to dump that DVD as fast as I can move it out of my collection.

I would've got a lot more use out of it too... but not now. Them self centered losers can rot in hell with their deceptive policies. Anyone with a good idea where, outside of signs101, that I can dump this brown box with a free butload of aurora crap... PM me. I'm through with Aurora!
 

B Snyder

New Member
Shrink wrap licenses are illegal in some states. Shrink wrap means you automatically accept the license terms when you break the wrapper. But, you cannot read the license until you break the shrink wrap makes it non bindable.

With regards to Aurora, the interesting part about Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. is that the decision specifically pertains to Kansas law, where Aurora Graphics is located.

Want more?
Google



.
 

Deaton Design

New Member
I agree that they should have let it be known that from the start. Thats withholding info that would make a big difference. But I can see their point about reselling the cds. Anyone can buy the disc, put it on their hard drive or copy it, make a copy of the book or booklet, and sell it again. If that person has integrity and removes the files from thier computer, etc. then its no problem. They are trying to protect their product and sales, albeit in a wrong fashion, but I understand their point. Piracy is rampant.
 

iSign

New Member
I agree that they should have let it be known that from the start. Thats withholding info that would make a big difference. But I can see their point about reselling the cds. Anyone can buy the disc, put it on their hard drive or copy it, make a copy of the book or booklet, and sell it again. If that person has integrity and removes the files from thier computer, etc. then its no problem. They are trying to protect their product and sales, albeit in a wrong fashion, but I understand their point. Piracy is rampant.
Good points John, & one's that I agree with completely, in the sense that piracy is wrong, and distributors of valuable commodities have a right to try to protect them. And of course, I also agree that their chosen method should be above board.

The problem I have with it is pretty much what Fred said, but deserves to be said again. Because I bought an Aurora collection, for several hundred dollars, and I've used like 2% of the files... I might wish to sell it off some day, at which time I certainly wouldn't keep copies. If I wanted copies, I'd just keep the originals and not sell anything... and I honestly think I represent the majority of their consumers. Of course there are pirates who don't mind selling copies... but does anyone really think those people will stop pirating because of the license agreement? The prohibition against transferring ownership only punishes the honest folks. I don't mind the fact that I have paid about $15,000.00 for all the software I own. and I probably won't bother trying to sell any of it ever... EXCEPT this Aurora crap now, because I resent their policies & wish to boycott them now!
 

Fred Weiss

Merchant Member
I agree that they should have let it be known that from the start. Thats withholding info that would make a big difference. But I can see their point about reselling the cds. Anyone can buy the disc, put it on their hard drive or copy it, make a copy of the book or booklet, and sell it again. If that person has integrity and removes the files from thier computer, etc. then its no problem. They are trying to protect their product and sales, albeit in a wrong fashion, but I understand their point. Piracy is rampant.

As a former authorized reseller for Aurora Graphics software, I can offer some insight into this which may have an effect on your position.

Aurora Graphics products such as Print Craft Suite, Monster Wrap Fills, Print Craft, Print Craft 2, Millennium Gold, Platinum, Sign Blanks, Raven, 3D Metal Machine and others do not include any printed documentation which display the contents of the collection or provide instructions for use. Until recently, none of these collections included a PDF user guide ... although my understanding is that PDFs are now available. The EULA was contained in a read me file on each CD or DVD ... which has now been replaced by a printed EULA on the outside of the packaging.

So for a number of years, Aurora's software was sold with no mention of the license restrictions unless you actually opened the packaging and inserted the CD into your drive and opened the read me file containing the license. In addition, Aurora took no steps to create a file naming scheme which would require a user guide to efficiently use their data. They just lumped their files onto a CD/DVD with no effort to display, instruct or protect.

By comparison, when you license any Plotter Art™, OCA, Smart Designs or Vector Art collection, you receive the data on a media disk(s) along with a printed user guide and gallery. The media disk(s) are in sealed containers or envelopes and the licensee is directed by labels to the fact that the data is covered by a license and that breaking the seal on the media is legal acceptance of the license. The user guide contains the EULA and other terms such as warranties and clearly states to the licensee that if they do not agree to the license to return the product to their selling dealer for a full refund.

What is important here is that the licensee is given the opportunity to read the license, warranty and other terms and conditions as well as preview the contents of the media disk(s) without having to break any seal or access the data on the media disk(s).

The files on the media disk(s) follow a naming strategy which is tied to the user guide display of the images. On their own they are just letters and numbers which provide no clue to what the file is unless you first look it up in the user guide. While far from perfect, this approach helps considerably in preventing or reducing illegal duplication and redistribution of the data.

Aurora Graphics decided early on that they did not want to provide a user guide or follow any of the above described approaches to protect their products. That may have been a measure to save on the cost of production or it may have been for more insidious reasons. That choice and the lack of a fair presentation of their license has left them wide open to misunderstandings on the part of licensees, widespread instances of keep a copy and sell the originals activity and outright piracy.

Now Aurora Graphics seeks to invoke the DMCA and force any third party such as Signs 101 to enforce their obscure EULA for them and prevent their customers from exercising what they believed to be their right ... to transfer their rights to a new licensee.

Signs 101 has a zero tolerance policy against software piracy and other issues of copyright infringement. We recently banned a merchant member for selling duplicated copies of Aurora Graphics products and refunded his subscription fee. We had no reluctance to do that because it is clearly the right thing to do.

Serving as a policeman, however, to protect the rights of a publisher who has not taken appropriate steps to protect himself or be upfront and fair with his customers is a whole other matter. The restriction on transfer in their EULA punishes the many honest buyers of their products while doing little to prevent piracy.
 

Bigdawg

Just Me
It's the assumption with a EULA like they have that all their customers are crooks. Insulting to say the least. Do they not realize if I was a crook I wouldn't give a two shakes about their licensing????

Will not ever purchase their products and I'll make damn sure anyone I know considering buying them knows what they can expect.
 

sarge

New Member
i am a big advocate to protecting against crooks and piracy .. it has been discused on this forum a couple times that i know .. lots of different views about art and software .. there was a big deal made about making copies of dongles .. if you understand the premis of dongles you understand why the software engineer develope them .. that software was someones art and they dont want it priated .. if you dont like the rules then dont use the stuff .. but, i am with fred about hiding the rules .. that is wrong . however, what is just as wrong is selling that stuff and knowing it is misleading .. sounds like a used car saleman .. or a big fat scam
 
Top