Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 NewWhat is KVR? Submit News Advertise

I am very surprised.

13477 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany

Postby chk071; Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:29 am

hibidy wrote:I don't care for the idea that a product that I bought into on the premise of "small/local" developer that didn't deliver on fixing a basic problem (where the problem became he said/she said) doesn't have a resale policy because of the reasons outlined which seem to be "pirates are bad so all suffer".

But that's totally normal in society. Otherwise we wouldn't need traffic signs or doorlocks. The big misunderstanding of some people that have posted in this thread is that they think with such a policy everyone would be assumed to be a thief, which is as wrong as it can get.

And tbh, arguments like "But what if person A wants to sell the product to person B has never asked for any support and will never do" are pretty naive. The next day the product could stop working on his computer or person B has install issues, and then support will surely come into play. Same with the argument that we are all so nice and morally integer people that we will surely uninstall our product when we sell our license. The point is that there are people who aren't so morally integer. If you feel like complaining about the way you are treated, do it to these people, no company is to be blamed for their behavior.

Postby deleted; Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:42 am


Postby ObsoleteAcc99; Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:41 am

mutools wrote:At the header of each post, at the left of where it says "Posted...", right-click that icon ;)

wow thank you so much, finally. it IS tiny, no wonder i never saw it.

Carry on fellas! (and fellarettes) :hihi:
13477 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany

Postby chk071; Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:56 am

michi_mak wrote:i really like the way you complain about others constructing very very very peculiar single cases but do the same with your "what if the computer failed the next day"...

Just giving an example of how support could come well into play, despite thinking that it is never needed. :shrug: The point isn't any single cases anyway.
5887 posts since 4 Dec, 2004

Postby LawrenceF; Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:08 am

Maybe I'm stating the obvious (I do have that bad habit :) granted) but anyone wanting to sell their software could really just turn over their account details (login / pass) to the buyer and be done with it.

Obviously, companies do strongly prefer people not do that... and obviously, people prefer that there be a legitimate and official way to transfer a license to another person ... but the reality is, it's not very hard to get around any of it if you really want to. Not that I want to.

Rather than debate the legalities of it all in that case, if I were adamant about selling something, I'd just sell the software (sorry mfgs :() and hand over my account login details to the buyer... after I changed all the relevant info that I didn't want the buyer to have... like my mailing address and phone number and all that.

Once he gets in and changes the password, I'm locked out of the account, it's his.

Is it ethical? No. :( But it's probably easier than filing a class action lawsuit or studying Westlaw for a loophole. :)

Postby ObsoleteAcc99; Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:39 am

On the contrary if i have been denied a transfer and it was in the EU, i would think that IS ethical, and i am doing it now.

If it was a situation like MCDSP where their demo (and the same, full installer's, even the latest one) EULA clearly states the software CAN be sold, then i buy it with a rude shock to have non transferrable ilok assets, then if i could find a way to put that stuff on an ilok and sell the ilok, i think that's perfectly ethical also.

I think the ones not being ethical, are in this case, IL and McDSP. Mcdsp especially so for contradicting their own EULA and not changing it no matter how much i have pointed it out, and IL for banning all transfers to begin with, but more so cause i have products that don't work properly on my machine, and have been trying in desperation for FIVE years to get the problems fixed, they still haven't been, yet they won't grant me official access to sell. What is ethical about THAT? :?

241 posts since 25 Apr, 2011

Postby Albert.VST; Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:30 am

And how about a buy-back scheme for companies that won't allow reselling. Within a fixed number of weeks if you do not like it, without any discussion(to avoid this, they could first give a temporary license, if you change it for the permanent one you have bought it non transferable terms).

And when you discover a repeatable bug, and the manufacturer doesn't want to solve it, they buy it back from you against a fixed refund scheme (let's say -3% per month, so in little less than 3 years the value is 0, which could be fair as the economic value of the original not updated software due to OS updates etc. is gone).

Just some thoughts, though you likely will get into the discussion if it is a bug (you say it is, manufacturer says it isn't). How to define, but in this case some effort from a manufacturer to prove you wrong should be expected as you are still the first owner that they need to support.

Postby deleted; Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:40 am

User avatar
9763 posts since 5 Jun, 2012, from Portugal

Postby fluffy_little_something; Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:04 am

Maybe there should be a price limit, say 100 Euros. People in Europe who buy such software in the first place are usually not so broke as to HAVE TO sell a 30 or 50 euro license. But when you have hundreds of euros worth of IL software that you just can't stand anymore because of their stupid browser and what not, you should be able to get rid of it legally. If IL did a better job with their stuff, people wouldn't try to sell their software.
Plus, software is always new, without tear and wear, why not sell a new product you don't need anymore?
It is up to IL to think of a mechanism to prevent more than one person using the same license. Shouldn't be to difficult for good programmers to accomplish. I understand that some people might try to abuse that new regulation, but most people are still honest, and they should not be stuck with obsolete software because of IL's paranoia and incompetence.
7018 posts since 7 Mar, 2003, from Climbing the walls inside my mind

Postby Amberience; Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:41 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:they should not be stuck with obsolete software because of IL's paranoia and incompetence.

Why not? They're obviously stuck with obsolete viewpoints! :roll:
12118 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds

Postby pdxindy; Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:00 pm

michi_mak wrote:
pdxindy wrote:
I assume then you do not buy software that needs a serial number or has other copy protection...

Also, if you had a small retail business, I am sure you would never lock the door at night because that would be calling all current and potential customers a thief!!

i can't recall argueing about copy protection!
sure there are thieves but i don't suspect / accuse everybody to be a criminal mind...

edit : and there are other small devs who look at customers the good way and don't suspect them to be evil by nature ( which my whole arguing is about ).

you lock the door at night because you know there is a percentage of people who would steal, not that everyone would.

a developer uses a serial number or other method of protection for the same reason, not because they think everyone is a thief

you are making something personal that isn't
12118 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds

Postby pdxindy; Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:04 pm

dalor wrote:LOL.. Majority here must be underage with no responsibilities and living at home? Lol

at 17 I looked around and saw all the 'responsible' adults looking miserable under the burden of all that crap... so I decided to live free of being 'responsible'. Decades later I can look back on that as one of the best decisions in my life.

And of course I live at home, everyone does who has a home :)
12118 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds

Postby pdxindy; Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:49 pm

TheoM wrote:
samsam wrote:^ Why don't you read the rest of the thread where the dev is discussing other options?

I read every page.. and i'm taken by the assumption that all his customers who if ever wanted to sell would keep and use the software. With even a basic understanding in English it is clear that that is precisely what Mr Mutools insinuated.

He is not assuming that... you just have a vested interest cause you a prince of buying and reselling.

It is fine with me if developers have a no transfers policy. If I were a developer, I might have a no transfers policy (disregarding the legal side for the moment) simply because I would be annoyed to be spending my time keeping track of all that stuff.

If I sell a hardware synth, I do not have to keep track of every time it is sold to someone. I am free of all that. Do you think Korg knows who possesses each Korg Z1? They don't have to put any resources to who currently owns any of their synths that are past warranty. Their old stuff that is past warranty is now 'in the wild'

With software, the developer has to keep track of every sale because that is the only way to know who are the current customers who get support and upgrades. This never ends because there is no warranty expiration.

Hardware is also self contained. Software is dependent on computer hardware and OS so it must be continually updated. With software there is endless future work for which the developer will not get paid.

If I buy a used hardware synth past warranty, there is no expectation of support. But with software that is still sold, every copy is always new. Every person who buys a used softsynth expects full support, upgrades, etc.

And if legally I, as a developer, am forced to offer such support forever, no matter how many times the particular license is sold, then that is very good reason to never be a software developer!
12118 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds

Postby pdxindy; Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:53 pm

Ghostwave wrote:
TheoM wrote:@ Ghostwave, i have a question.. do you think the fee Andy of cytomic proposed to me was fair? He said his set of skills gets him $300 per hour.. it takes ten minutes to complete a transfer from a-z, so the fee should be $50

do you think $50 is fair for a $99 product? just curious
I'm on your side here. $50 is plain ridiculous as it doesn't take the same level of skill to program DSP code and transfer a licence.
If his time is so precious, he could hire someone to deal with the transfers for a much cheaper fee.
For a $99 product, anything up to $10 is acceptable to me.

Sure $10 is acceptable to you... but it is not acceptable to the guy doing it... and hiring someone has other costs and headaches

$50 is not ridiculous. $50 is how that person values their time. If you don't want to pay $50 then don't buy the product in the first place. The developer should not be forced to do work at a price he is not happy with.
User avatar
9763 posts since 5 Jun, 2012, from Portugal

Postby fluffy_little_something; Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:54 pm

With most music software developers support has been outsourced to message boards anyway. There it is usually customers helping customers for free...

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)