Dessault Systems Solidworks/CJCH sols - copyright infringement threats

[stunned_monkey]

Hi All, hopefully you can advise me on a sticky spot I’ve just landed in.

 

I’ve had what I believe to be a perfectly genuine threat-o-gram from a firm of solicitors representing Dessault Systems, makers of the Solidworks CAD package.

 

 

They’ve correctly identified that I’ve used their software without a licence, but erroneously connected it with my very small business operation for which I own a domain and sell a few bits and pieces online.

 

 

I manage my website, email etc on the same PC that on which I have Solidworks installed.

The two uses are wholly independent.

 

I’ve seen the template letter on the CAB website and will be sending off a request for them to comply with Pre-action protocol and prove when I used it.

 

 

They probably can (whether they do or not remains to be seen).

What they most definitely can’t do is connect it to my small business, other than via my ISP.

They’ve put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.

 

I would like to add something to this effect in my response

- asking them to prove I used it for my business and pointing out that they will find this impossible.

 

 

What do you think?

Thanks in advance

[stunned_monkey]

Thank you for your replies everyone. I wish it were an ambulance chaser but they’ve specifically identified me as a user of the software and connected it to me via my website. I’m not sure how (actually, I have an idea, but it would be very ‘enterprising’ of them).

Yes, I’m one of those leeching so-and-so’s using an industrial package worth thousands to design a few bits for model aircraft. There are no excuses, except that it was a great way to learn the software!

The reason it “makes any difference” is that, if it is genuine, they’re making a case based on assuming my use of the software to be for-profit. I believe they have to prove a “loss” associated with my use in order to make a claim.

I’ll do some more background and if replying, will demand they follow pre-action protocol (the letter already breaks it at least once)

[stunned_monkey]

http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2015/11/law-firm-clinches-major-deal-to-fight-international-software-piracy/

 

Yep, that's them

[stunned_monkey]

can we see it?

 

Yep, will need to do from home. Am in my day job at the mo.

If it is like mine it will be a static IP. I do use a hosting service and and requested a static IP. This is how they think they have nailed you

 

Any reason for not buying a license apart from the cost if you are continuing to use the programme? None of my business I know. Are you going to use the programme? If not, i would be inclined to remove the programme and all traces of it from the computer. there are programmes out there that can do this very efficiently and wipe all traces. I suppose I should not tell you this. I am used to the copyright issues of graphics and digital art. It is a nightmare.

 

I would not respond to the threat-o-gram it is a fishing expedition and hope you will take the bait. If they send another missive to you, they will have to have proof that you are continuing to use the programme unlicensed.

 

My home ISP is independent from my domain host.

 

My reason for not buying it is it isn’t sold for home use and costs many thousands.

The tacit understanding by home users is they won’t come after you for using it, and that it is so easy to pirate for a reason (they wouldn’t be the first *cough*Microsoft*cough*).

 

 

Pirating by home users just encourages mass adoption, and the money flows from companies who adopt it.

I think Bill Gates has said as much, hasn’t he?

 

Interestingly the link posted above does talk about going after commercial users.

There really is no point in chasing me as they won’t find any money made off the back of my using their software.

 

CAB seem to think it’s unwise to simply ignore,

but a reply demanding they stick to the pre-action protocol is probably a good idea.

 

 

I would like to specifically request their evidence that their software has been used in a commercial capacity… because it hasn’t.

[stunned_monkey]

I wasn’t suggesting the home use as a tactic at all, just attempting to justify my transgression. I have no excuse, it’s piracy and I’m guilty.

 

However, I have not used it for a commercial purpose and this is what they’re implying. I am not the problem they’re trying to tackle.

 

I will ask them for their evidence in line with the pre-action protocol and suggest they’re barking up the wrong tree wrt commercial use.

 

Thanks for the input.

[stunned_monkey]

Update:

Original message (was actually over email but contained my name and address) was from the law firm mentioned in the article linked above. They gave me 2 days to respond. I had no intention of doing so given the law in pre-action protocol

 

However, after 2 days I was contacted by someone from the software company offering to “help” and again reiterating strongly the commercial misuse.

 

I replied saying I have never used their software in connection with my business, that this should be obvious, and if they wanted to discuss further, they should do so in writing.

Their response was to pass me onto their UK reseller.

 

Then the UK reseller got in touch,

still pushing the commercial misuse and saying he was “here to help me avoid legal action”.

 

 

This is textbook debt collector stuff with which I’m quite familiar and against whom this forum was immensely helpful a few years back.

Different law though, obviously.

 

 

I replied with pretty much exactly the same email but this bugger wouldn’t give up, ringing twice a day and emailing incessantly using a lot of capital letters.

 

 

I blacklisted his domain from my email server and set my call control app to pickup-and-hangup any calls from his list of numbers (they all started with the same 3 digits).

 

Then I got paranoid,

decided to mail the first contact and set out exactly what I have for you good people given that I “do not trust you to perform your own due diligence”, and suggested that anyone with 5 minutes online would see that my business is unlikely to use cad, and that my website hasn’t changed since long before my misuse of their software started.

 

 

I suggested that given the several months they waited to drop their bombshell, they were probably waiting for the work I was doing to gain sufficient value that they could twist my arm into purchasing a licence – but that in my case there is no value.

I also suggested they don’t appear to chase private/home use (quite a lot of people saying this online).

 

I concluded by suggesting they send me a “cease and desist” but that it’d be a bit redundant as I already have, and any communication would need to be in writing.

 

So far no more calls or emails.

[stunned_monkey]

Hi stunned_monkey,

 

I'm aware of the SolidWorks package - and yes, it costs many $$$s.

 

I'm interested to know how they have made a connection to yourself, was it:

- Their software reporting usage via an IP address. The obvious defense here would be to claim open wifi

- You uploaded a solidworks file to your website, and the file contained details of the license used.

- Some other method?

 

The strength of that connection would help construct a defense argument.

 

Thanks

 

This was also part of my response.

 

 

I connect to the internet via EE but host my domain independently.

The only connection they could have made would've been through an IP address connected to my home address connected to my domain ownership connected to my website.

 

 

I have not shared any models publicly (any files would record the licence but not the external IP address since this should be invisible to the cad package unless they're doing something crafty).

 

 

Coincidentally even the EE account is in my wife's name.

 

 

I invited them to tell me how they had made the connection in writing according to PAP law, and told them that as I haven't used it in connection to my business, the connection "is obviously tenuous".

[stunned_monkey]

Another update:

 

After a week or more of silence I got a letter, registered post from the lawyers, STILL banging on about commercial misuse. Within this letter was a connection between a mac address and my domain. It is indeed the mac of my network adapter, but they can't know that.

 

I emailed a response (as invited) in which I asked them how they made this connection, in accordance with PAP. Apparently the software sniffs out non-personal information and reports it in accordance with EU law (which I checked).

 

Then it gets more interesting.

 

A reply email tried to suggest that a cad package could be used for parts management (ie like a shop - my little on-line shop offers about 15 items for sale) which is daft, and that their connection with my domain was sufficient to prove commercial use. Then something really laughable: They pointed out my email header and their software had logged the same machine IP address, and cited a 192.168 address. As a former IT engineer, this was immediately preposterous and is somewhat akin to the use of 555 phone numbers in american movies. Most home routers serve 192.168 addresses, and many will serve the same address to the first/only machine on the network.

 

This is somewhat moot as I haven't tried to deny the use of their software, just truthfully letting them know it hasn't been for commercial use. But maybe this will be useful to future visitors.

 

I replied saying that all they had was evidence of a shared machine being used to collect email. I stated again that I wasn't using SW for commercial use, that they were wasting their time yet there didn't seem to be anything I could do to convince them otherwise. I told them I couldn't afford the software and that it isn't of much value to me other than to learn it (true). Also politely suggested that they should avoid citing 192.168 addresses in future.

 

Silence now for 2 days.

[stunned_monkey]

Perhaps worth instructing them to read the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and then for them to consult a qualified lawyer versed in such matters.

 

In the meantime, I can recommend HeeksCAD as a worthwhile alternative for 3D CADCAM and it won't cost you a penny.

 

Much obliged on both counts

[stunned_monkey]

Hi Sparty. What follows is my opinion -please take my advice with due caution. I'm no legal eagle!

 

Firstly, you're in the right place. Just try and ignore those who basically say "well, you made your bed, you lay in it" because the advice from others will have value that you wouldn't even get from a solicitors. I speak from past and present experience. I wouldn't have known to look up exactly how many times they've actually taken anyone to court over this (zero - see previous post on this thread), and also knowing examples of successful, big cases resulted basically only in forcing the infringer (is that a word?) to buy a license. Someone else further up very helpfully explained how heavily weighted the law is in (y)our favour.

 

It's also pretty common knowledge that SW is easy to pirate and isn't available for a reasonable cost to people like you and me - I certainly would buy it if it were. They aren't interested in chasing down the little guy, but I think they're taking the approach of pushing as many scary buttons as possible to make you cough up.

 

If they put you in touch with their UK reseller, that guy is a total so-and-so. He acts just like a debt collector and I blocked his email and phone numbers after the first day (I use call control for android to deal with the phone calls). If you have admitted using it, just make it very clear that the software has little value to you - ie you've generated little of value with it - this is something they need to show in order to claim damages - and that you couldn't afford it anyway. You may wish to do this n writing, although I did it over email with the solicitors after they sent me a copy of all the emails in the post.

 

Read up on pre-action conduct, what they must tell you and when. Ignore the "you must reply within 3 days" as this is clearly outside that law. I asked them to tell me how they'd made the connection with my business, and they had to admit all they had was a shared machine being used to collect email. He also tried to tell me they already had adhered to PAC but it's right there in black and white what they need to do and they hadn't. That and the citation of a 192.168 address pretty much confirmed for me that they were just employing scare tactics.

 

If you've told them you aren't using it, stick to your guns and force them to tell you why they think you are. All they';ll have is a mac address collected by their software and your domain. They can't prove it's your mac address, and they won't know how many people have email addresses attached to your domain. It could be anyone, right?!

 

I've also now blacklisted the solicitors email domain so they can't contact me other than in writing. I suggest you do the same. There;s a reason for insisting things are done in writing and that is because by law you can consider it as having arrived if sent. I have found this to take the pressure off considerably. If they really care, they'll write.

 

[i've mentioned debt collectors a couple of times now - this is how I originally found CAG several years back and the people on here were invaluable and empowering me in dealing with them. Eventually I had many thousands written off by following the advice here and forcing my creditors to stick to the law. I'm now comfortably in the black and finding my experience then has apparently left me with a healthy level of cynicism towards legal threat-o-grams! If you come through this as a result of CAG, please do as I did and drop them a donation ]

[stunned_monkey]

So far I've had only the one letter from them. I recommend you force them to tell you exactly how they've connected you to the use of their software. If, like me, they've sniffed an email connection and went after the owner of the domain, you have an easy argument that many people have emails on that domain.

[stunned_monkey]

Spanish number but English Chap, right? Was it to the number on your website or the number you have in the phone book stacked to the address to which your domain is registered?

 

He then passed me to the ****er at their UK reseller

[stunned_monkey]

Sorry for not replying sooner.

 

I too received the letter recorded delivery. In it was all their "evidence" and when I pushed them to comply with Pre-Action protocol, they said it did (it didn't because they didn't declare the value of the infringement that they would claim).

 

I replied stating categorically that I would not be buying a license because I was not using the software commercially and couldn't afford it anyway and they had no evidence to the contrary. I also told them I was blocking all their email addresses (I have). I also said "I suggest in you do not cite a 192.168.x.x non-routable IP address as evidence in future".

 

I haven't heard anything since.

[stunned_monkey]

Oh yes - he tried to suggest that as my email had come from the same IP address as they had logged, it proved it was me - that IP was 192.168.8.1 I think which is common to all the ADSL routers like mine (pretty generic ISP-supplied one!)

 

In a former life I was a roving engineer for a network solutions provider setting up firewalls 'n' stuff. Didn't tell him that of course.

[stunned_monkey]

Hi All,

I received an email about a week ago telling me that "their clients" have elected not to pursue the case as they don't believe I've been misusing it commercially.

 

 

He also went on patronisingly to warn me they'd be monitoring my mac address for future use (time to get Windoze to spoof it then) and absurdly insisted that a 192.168 address correlation could be used in evidence. I'm not doing their job for them by telling him this is daft and that I know what I'm talking about (much as I was tempted).

 

I made a mistake in replying to them in the first place and not denying I was using the software.

 

 

Has ANYONE received a threat-o-gram who ISN'T the registered owner of the domain to whose email the threat was sent? Don't think so... this is really the only "evidence" they have.

 

A final word.

... Any software company has a right to make money and protect their interests within the law.

Much as people troll the debt forums telling people to stop keep trying to wriggle out of paying their debts, this is a situation where however guilty we may be, simply demanding they stick to the applicable laws and making demands witin those laws will make the majority of these threats go away.

 

Or in this case just ignore/block them. You can't threaten someone who can't hear you.

 

All IMO of course

[stunned_monkey]

I would like to emphasise my question from an earlier post, and I suspect this is the way they're "finding us":

 

Do you personally own the internet domain to whose registered address they've sent the letter? Do you use the same computer to collect/send email?

 

This is, I believe, the connection they're making - they're recording the machine’s MAC access, and sniffing email traffic (this is easy, it's unencrypted), then doing a lookup on that domain and if the name you tack onto your emails matches the owner of the domain, they shout hooray and send a threat-o-gram to the domain's registrant at its registered address.

 

The funny thing is, this approach is likely only to “catch” one-man-bands because larger companies will be behind firewalls with mail servers handling email etc.

 

I suggest the primary defence is: “I am not the only user of this computer and I/my company does not use Solidworks” (your teenage kid installed it and was using it for school without you realising it wasn’t a trial version or something – solidworks DO tacitly encourage this ‘misuse’.)

 

All IMO, take with pinch of salt

[stunned_monkey]

Hi, I think the headline is that you aren’t the prey they’re searching for. It was an oversight on your part and you’re very sorry and have now activated the license *you already owned*.

 

As much as they shout and scream and stamp their feet and threaten to advise their clients to commence court action, my experience suggests these are all just scare tactics. I suggest you write to them and state categorically you will not be buying an additional license, but will continue to use the license(s) you already had and have now correctly activated. This is something very easy for them to check, you may wish to invite them to do so. You might want to throw in some suggestion of jumping ship for another CAD provider if they don't bugger off.

 

 

The bottom line is yes, you made a mistake, but it didn’t actually *cost* them anything other than the time they’re now wasting chasing you.

 

Just my 2p…

 

 

Hello.

 

We are a very small company (only two people). And We have 2 Solidworks legal licenses. But one of our computers came from another part of Europe with a version of Solidworks without a license.

For some weeks we have used this version, finally we noticed the problem and activated the legal license that we have.

 

The problem is that as indicated by other people in the forum they contacted us about the use of a fraudulent license. The contact was from the reseller and from CJCH.

 

The most ironic thing is that, although we could have used the unregistered license for a few weeks, we have legal licenses.

 

I do not know how they found us, I am not familiar with the subject, but here we are connected to a very large network. I do not know what evidence they have, but it really could have been any other person I think ...

 

 

We have spoken with the CJCH studio and they have not cared about this situation and they want to force us to buy a license in 30 days (even though we already have the licenses).

 

But reading the forum information I think there is still some hope.

 

 

What do you think? What is the method to follow?

 

Thank you very much.

[stunned_monkey]

Hi there!

 

My questions:

- Do you guys (stunned_monkey, sparty0_0 and others) have received a letter to pick up to post office from solicitor? Did they collect it?

 

- Did someone pay something to Dassault?

 

Thanks

 

I received mine by post and email. It sounds like you're in the same situation as a previous post: You're a legal user and they're trying to press you on a technicality. Tell them to **** off or you'll switch to a different package and let the licence you do have lapse. You aren't the droids they are looking for.

 

For people like me wanting to do non-commercial stuff with SW I suggest an independent windoze install on a dual boot machine. In the SW-only installation, disable the network adapter.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Andyorch
edited