Calling all KVR lawyers, pro or amateur, about license transfer within EU

[IncarnateX]

Oh yes...I forgot: Since no kvr lawyers have shown up yet to provide some useful legal perspectives you are all welcome to derail the trail any way you want.

Cheers

[tony tony chopper]

i really like the way each and any member of IL pretends to be a nice guy ( ignoring the official IL guide lines of suspecting every user to be a criminal mind ) ...

It's a company, not a sect. I'm too a consumer & I'm too for being allowed to resell anything I buy. If I was deciding on this stuff, I would definitely allow license transfers (& again, wouldn't do free updates), & would do a demo ("lite" as it's called on iPad) version of FL Mobile, but I don't, it's not my job.
You can write to IL if you want "official" info on license transfers.

However it should apply to all companies equally, that's all I was saying. The fact that this supposedly "law" is only debated about around audio software-related circles, while it should normally have a much much bigger impact on companies like Apple, tells me that such a law doesn't really exist (or what's your explanation?), except in the mind of the many lawyers who obviously wander around audio-related forums. Yes, we've read the same articles, I don't think that anything can be concluded from them by common mortals, people more seem to be interpreting them as they like.
But as a consumer, I wish there will be such a law, or better, that distribution platforms go further & allow trading (what Steams says to allow, but not really).

[deleted]

DELETED

[tony tony chopper]

Oh yes...I forgot: Since no kvr lawyers have shown up yet to provide some useful legal perspectives you are all welcome to derail the trail any way you want.

There has to be ombudsman services or whatever, that you can contact about this.
Obviously every KVR reader is a lawyer & has answered already, the law exists.

[deleted]

DELETED

[tony tony chopper]

the official IL info is "we are sure you would use a pirated copy of our products after we transfered your license, so NO" ( like a mantra )...

I don't see why, as we can technically arrange that.
To me, the problem is the lifetime updates. If there were thousands of users reselling their FL version 3, there wouldn't be any customer lost. But the same thousands of users would be reselling their FL <latest version>, even if it's version 3 that they bought, and that definitely means lost customers.
It's also the reason why more are interested in reselling FL than other software. If I had bought software 5 years ago, I wouldn't bother selling it on ebay for just 2 bucks, it's not worth it. But reselling it for the same price, or nearly? That's more attractive.

If you could resell FL, but with no free updates for the buyer, would that be ok? If you say yes, then you should realize that you won't find a buyer, & you will have to sell it for very cheap (who would buy an FL that they can't upgrade later?). If you say no, then it's basically admitting that what you're reselling isn't really the software, but the lifetime updates, the part of the license that has the most value, as it doesn't age.
To me IL should definitely allow license transfers with no lifetime updates, you would still get a few bucks (just not as much as you think) out of your old licenses, and IL might get new future customers who would re-buy the next version, that would be good for both.

[RunBeerRun]

I would like to sell my IL Maximus, it's not FL, and has only been updated like once.

[sjm]

i really like the way each and any member of IL pretends to be a nice guy (ignoring the official IL guide lines of suspecting every user to be a criminal mind ) ...

Given the fact that IL use a pretty user-friendly copy protection, I don't think that's completely fair.

However it should apply to all companies equally, that's all I was saying. The fact that this supposedly "law" is only debated about around audio software-related circles, while it should normally have a much much bigger impact on companies like Apple, tells me that such a law doesn't really exist (or what's your explanation?), except in the mind of the many lawyers who obviously wander around audio-related forums.

I've seen this debated with regards to apple/itunes and there was a massive thread on steam on this very subject (as steam also refuse transfers), so that's simply not true.

I think this is more down to the fact that a lot of audio software developers rely on more restrictive copy protection schemes that make it more difficult for people to transfer licenses though, hence it not being such a big debate elsewhere. If you have a CD/DVD or downloaded exe that just requires installing and you're ready to go, it's no big deal transferring your license to someone else. Dongles and other restrictive CP schemes simply aren't that popular outside the audio world. The app store and its ilk are relatively new concepts, but yes, there is already a fair amount of debate about transferring app licenses. Just that at $1 a pop, most people probably don't care that much.

And remember, the original ruling was about database software.

[t3toooo]

I myself have bought an OEM version (I think the correct name was System Builder) of Windows 7 here in Germany, installed it on my old system and used it for a year or two, and then upgraded my system to better hardware.

As the license was "bundled" to my old system by activating it on it, of course it didn't activate on the new set of hardware I had. I contacted Microsoft, they told me "everything's fine ... contact the one you bought it from, he is forced to issue you a new license". So I did contact the guy who sold me this OEM version, and he did issue me a new OEM license to use on my new hardware.

a bit ott,


i had never a issue activating a windows oem license.
after three times activating a oem cd you need to call microsoft and all they'll ask, on how many computer the software is installed.
obviously the software might be installed only on one computer and on only one hard drive.
never heard about "forcing to issue a new license". that's really odd.



actually,i like image lines business style and because of that it's one reason they get my money from time to time.

regarding cubase and ableton,i think the upgrade price is too expensive.
i mean i don't use those daws but i maybe would be use it more often if i have more freedom in trying and working with it.



i hope that image line will reach the upgrade to the x64 plugins,i read it isn't an easy task,that's because of the coding language.

however,i'm positive that image line will provide a x64 vocoder for example,even if it must be a new written one and a small upgrade fee for existing costumers,i would pay it.

other than that,the existing plugs working well bridged but it still is bridged and it's not charming for the overall performance.

another aspect is value.

as a musician i do not think about selling image line vst's,so i'm biased.


i don't like the cubase business model.
sweating on every upgrade and possibly reading that this and that isn't supported anymore,i wait for the day vst 2.4 is closed.
vst 3 improvements is mostly good for cubase users (well would i use those features anyway?).

i can go on.

so,no there wont be my money for cubase (steinberg read it!).
although i have an e-licenser dongle which i vastly prefer over ilok.

worst business model on the planet is apple with toy apps polluting "the market".

my dear friend,there are some people on this planet not sitting in the evening in front of a tv and playing "games" or chatting facebook and whatnot.

considering you use those pills just for a limited amount of time at horrendous costs using weak cpu's is a very bad value ratio.
android is not better in this regard.

tabletting is a toy world,useless for any serious work,maybe for controlling some stuff via osc,hopefully your midi timing is improved one day as that is so windows 98 and mac ox9.

[t3toooo]

did i say "midi timing"?

[Resonator63]

I would like to sell my IL Maximus, it's not FL, and has only been updated like once.

That was the point I was making earlier in the thread.
Whilst FL Studio itself gets regular free updates,the plug-ins such as Maximus,Poizone etc don't.
Therefore lifetime updates where the plug-ins are concerned is meaningless,because they don't get updated.
When was the last update on any of the Maxx Claster plug-ins?

[tony tony chopper]

i hope that image line will reach the upgrade to the x64 plugins,i read it isn't an easy task,that's because of the coding language.

We have a guy (http://www.zgameeditor.org/) on it, he's doing a great job at adapting all the assembler, & we'll have a few 64bit VST's soon (Harmor/less first, Vocodex surely in the future)

[t3toooo]

i hope that image line will reach the upgrade to the x64 plugins,i read it isn't an easy task,that's because of the coding language.

We have a guy (http://www.zgameeditor.org/) on it, he's doing a great job at adapting all the assembler, & we'll have a few 64bit VST's soon (Harmor/less first, Vocodex surely in the future)

well,image line is worth the money.

[Resonator63]

i hope that image line will reach the upgrade to the x64 plugins,i read it isn't an easy task,that's because of the coding language.

We have a guy (http://www.zgameeditor.org/) on it, he's doing a great job at adapting all the assembler, & we'll have a few 64bit VST's soon (Harmor/less first, Vocodex surely in the future)

That's the info we need.If the updates are in progress it's good to know.

[IncarnateX]

The fact that this supposedly "law" is only debated about around audio software-related circles, while it should normally have a much much bigger impact on companies like Apple, tells me that such a law doesn't really exist (or what's your explanation?)).

Afaik it is not about whether such a law exist but about the range of precedence of a verdict already given within EU law. And that is an issue for lawyers to deal with and not pseudo-lawyers like the rest of us.