| From: | Sheila Waller |
| Date: | 2 Aug 2000 at 07:07:52 |
| Subject: | Re: Cinema4D |
Hi Neil
On Tuesday, August 01, 2000 10:16 PM you wrote:
Subject: Re: [amigactive] Re: Cinema4D
> Sheila Waller said,
>
> > This was just the point I was trying to make. It was not piracy of which
I
> > also disapprove. I had subscribed to the magazine for some time and had
a
> > legitimite right to use any programme on the disk. It was simply that
> > programmes on Amiga disks do not usually require serial nos to install
and
> > run.
>
> Quite a few programs require serial numbers, NetConnect, PageStream, and
> C4D of course.
>
But not when put on mag disks. I do not know about NetConnect but the
version of PageStream that I got from a magazine did not though, of course I
have one for it now because I followed up that disk and now have both the
Amiga and PC latest versions.
> > There was, as far as I can see, no obvious comment in the magazine (and
> > I looked again last night) that such a number was needed.
>
> There wasn't. The number should have been printed in the magazine but
> it didn't happen. One of those last minute glitches that happen when
> you're trying to publish an issue and close down the magazine at the
> same time :(
>
There seem to have been mistakes all round.
> > If it had I would
> > have found out how to get it even though at the time I could not or did
not
> > want use Cinema4D it at that time.
>
> You'd also have got it if EMAP hadn't closed CU, because they could have
> printed it in the subsequent issue.
>
That should not have been needed.
Isn't this the real problem for you? You are justifiably annoyed with EMAP
and, so are we all, that they closed down CUAmiga. But please do not take it
out on those of us who supported the magazine, particularly the subscribers.
I still
have the mag and disks and read and use them.
> > I think it was one of the times my
> > computer was down. And I had only just got on the internet. CUAmiga was
> > discontinued and I think that someone commented yesterday that HiSoft
wanted
> > the number off the web site.
>
> That was me. I don't know why, I put the number on there and was asked
> to remove it.
>
> > And what about people who at that time were not
> > on the internet, how were they supposed to get that number?
>
> By phoning or writing to EMAP/CU. I spent far too much time talking to
> people at EMAP about this, even though it wasn't my responsibility to
> include the serial number in the first place and I wasn't being paid for
> clearing up their problems. The phone calls only stopped when I hinted
> that I'd invoice for my time if it went on my longer.
>
Who would think to phone EMAP? The magazine was defunct so we could not
phone them.
> > It would have
> > been better to put a light version on the disk or an older version and
if
> > you wanted to upgrade you paid a fee in the usual way. Then we would not
> > have been having this controversy.
>
> That's not the issue. A full version was arranged, the upgrade offer was
> for the manuals.
But they did not want the manuals for the programme they could not use
because they did not have the serial no.
> It was simply a production error that resulted in the
> serial number being omitted. This sort of thing happens all the time,
> but no one is bothered in the normal course of events because a
> correction is published the following month.
>
Well it should not happen all the time. Such an attitude could have
disastrous effects in some areas if everyone adopted it. It certainly would
have in the field in which I spent my 30 years off professional life.
> This is not the CU list, the people responsible for the omission of the
> serial number are not here. However, HiSoft specifically asked me to not
> distribute the number online, so I'm honouring their request. If you
> need the number, ask EMAP, ask HiSoft, ask somewhere else, but don't ask
> here. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but this has been going on for almost
> two years now and I've run out of nice ways of saying it.
>
>
It's a forum where people ask questions. No one asked for the number, you
brought that up yourself. It is a question that may well emerge in the
future again. I understand your frustration but you could have simply said,
as did Gerald Mellor, try EMAP. I have emailed them and shall be interested
to see if they have an answer.
Enough said on this topic as far as I am concerned.
Regards
Sheila
Sheila Waller
westryde@apanet.com.au
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails