"Chinese Citizens Rise Up in Protest..." On CAD Weblog!

After Randall Newton wrote about "Chinese Citizens Rise Up in Protest Against Placement of Maglev Train", his AECnews.com weblog received 40 comments, most of them from Chinese Citizens Rising Up in Protest Against Placement of Maglev Train.

A swarm of 40 comments must be a record of sorts for a CAD blog. Curiously, the same article that Randall posted to his 3D CAD News blog has 0 comments.

I guess Dassault will see the light, and not permit their design software to be used for this project any longer.

Not.

This is an issue I've discussed before: what should CAD vendors do when their software is used to design morally questionable projects? One approach is to be agnostic about it. But then their marketing departments are hardly agnostic when it comes to positive-sounding projects, like green-colored roofs and better wheelchairs.

Kind of like politicians: they take for themselves all credit for the good, and hope no one finds out about the bad.

Comments

[Randall Newton]

The article is a bit off-topic for AECnews, but I thought there were newsworthy aspects appropriate to the audience. One, anytime there are 2,000 Chinese taking to the streets against a government action, it should be news. Maglev trains are a new technology that require the best IT can offer, both in design and in construction. Also, I know the person who was my primary source for the article. He has been a friend to AECnews in the past; I figured I owed him a favor. I'm a little surprised western mainstream media has yet to report on this. Outside of AECnews, I have only seen reports from online sources that specialize in news about China but are written elsewhere (Singapore, Taipai, Berkeley). As a rather well-known writer acquaintance of mine said when I shared the item with him, "Nice to know Luddism is alive, well and illegal to report."

Let's imagine for a second that AutoCAD is used to design the maglev infrastructure. Chances are, they do use something like that for a/e/c related work.

Let's imagine for another second that the maglev design team happen to use one of the excelelnt AutoCAD books by Mr. Grabowski to help them use AutoCAD properly.

Exactly what would Mr. Grabowski be prepared to do about it?

[ralphg]

I'd make an effort to block it.

(I put my name next to my assertions, unlike "Anon.")

[Stefan Boeykens]

Would you like some form of censorship included with your software license? What if Autodesk would disallow the use of their software by someone who writes critic reports on it?
Would this license limitation work in other contexts? Would Mercedes disallow someone to drive their cars (such as a dictator - to reflect on one of your other posts)? Would the cell phone network provider limit subscription based on your job, actions or religious belief?

The CAD vendor (should) license you the software to use 'for any purpose'. Can you use a certain software tool to create products/drawings/graphics for a competitor?

[ralphg]

If you were to read the EULA included with CAD software, you would learn there are all kinds of restrictions imposed by the seller on you. Some of these include:

-- in which countries, and on which computers they permit you to operate the software
-- what you are permitted to do with the software once you no longer need it.

Some of these are now being contested in the courts as infringing on the rights of citizens.

Beyond the EULA, CAD vendors engage in further acts of censorship. Here are examples:

-- threatening law suits against CAD journalists (I've been threatened four times in the past ten years).

-- publications work under the fear of having advertising pulled by CAD vendors unhappy with negative editorial content.

-- eliminating some third-party developers, so that other developers tow the line.

-- denying contract renewals to resellers so that customers can no longer deal with their preferred retailer, as well as serve as a warning to the remaining resellers.

I am sure others can come up with additional examples.

[ChrisH]

Ralph,
I believe that the moral issues pertain to how the people make and sell their products, and how they themselves use them. But there is no moral dilemma for them with how others use them. A good example is a car manufacturer: let's assume that they are morally sound in the process of their manufacturing and corporate dealings. Is it their problem if someone buys one of their cars, and runs someone over with it? I say 'No, it's not the manufacturer's problem'. But if the manufacturer sells its product knowingly to a criminal, then they are morally culpable. An example of this was IBM, who sold 'computers' to Hitler with full knoweldge of the fact that they were being used to track pogram victims. Some of the scenarios may be a bit more 'gray', but generally it's a black-and-white issue for me. Cheers ... Chris H