| From: | Neil Bothwick |
| Date: | 2 Aug 2000 at 08:43:17 |
| Subject: | Re: Cinema4D |
Sheila Waller said,
> Hi Neil
>> Quite a few programs require serial numbers, NetConnect, PageStream, and
>> C4D of course.
> But not when put on mag disks.
It was the *full* version, a direct copy from the commercial CD
distribution. If SoftLogik ever decided to give PAgeStream3 away, the
same would apply.
> I do not know about NetConnect but the
> version of PageStream that I got from a magazine did not though,
Because that was PageStream 2, which never required you to give a serial
number.
>> 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.
On this matter, there was one mistake. The number should have been
printed, it wasn't.
>> 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.
It's an imperfect World. People make mistakes and they are generally
rectified the following issue. AACDprefs didn't work on some machines at
first, it does now because we could put a fixed version on subsequent
CDs.
> 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.
That's not it at all. I'd quite happily give out the number if HiSoft
hadn't instructed me not to. but they have, so know amount of arguing or
posturing about what they allow on "their" IRC channels is going to
change that. The fact is that HiSoft did ask me not to distribute the
number and I respect that request. If people have a problem with me
respecting the wishes of one of the few remaining Amiga dealers, then it
is their problem.
>> > 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.
A lot of people did, The first I knew about the missing number was when
EMAP phoned because because subscribers had been phoning 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.
What is the relevance of that? The serial number omission was a mistake,
and oversight, the decision to provide the full version of the program
rather than a limited, cut down program was deliberate.
>> 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.
Of course mistakes shouldn't happen, but they do. In an environment
where the consequences of mistakes are critical, checks are in place to
make sure they are caught. Not to make sure they don't happen, but to
catch any that do. But having to make a phone call before you can run
some "free" software is hardly life and death. Maybe if the staff
weren't trying to finish the magazine and look for new jobs at the same
time, it wouldn't have happened, but it did.
>> 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.
Because it was obviously the next question, once you get past the
installer error.
> It is a question that may well emerge in the
> future again.
Which is why I was trying to warn people that the answer isn't here.
That's all there really is to say on the subject, it's been done to
death over the last two years. The number *is* available, legally and
otherwise, but not here.
> I understand your frustration
Do you? You seem to think this is it isn't.
> but you could have simply said, as did Gerald Mellor, try EMAP.
Except that I don't know whether EMAP still have the number after all
this time.
> I have emailed them and shall be interested to see if they have an answer.
As would I, let us know what happens.
Neil
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails