What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

I am very surprised.

Plug-in hosts and other software applications discussion

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

KVRAF
 
18925 posts since 4 Sep, 2001, from Melbourne Australia

Postby TheoM; Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:26 pm

Pdxindy, They can charge fees for an official transfer but they can't block the seller form selling it if he doesn't agree with the fee.. by providing buyer with his account or the product for example.. and the dev can not block the buyer to authorize if it is C/R for example.

make sense?

Hope i explained correctly.
"Just call me shitload, cause I own a shitload of plugins!"
KVRAF
 
8614 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds
 

Postby pdxindy; Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:07 pm

TheoM wrote:Pdxindy, They can charge fees for an official transfer but they can't block the seller form selling it if he doesn't agree with the fee.. by providing buyer with his account or the product for example.. and the dev can not block the buyer to authorize if it is C/R for example.

make sense?

Hope i explained correctly.


Is the developer expected to give support to the unofficial buyer?
KVRAF
 
18925 posts since 4 Sep, 2001, from Melbourne Australia

Postby TheoM; Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:21 pm

he doesn't have to, he just can't block the buyer from authorizing the software, that would go against the eu ruling.

That's the way i understand it.

gotta find that old topic when this first came up, there was great info in there
"Just call me shitload, cause I own a shitload of plugins!"
KVRAF
 
8614 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds
 

Postby pdxindy; Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:32 pm

TheoM wrote:he doesn't have to, he just can't block the buyer from authorizing the software, that would go against the eu ruling.

That's the way i understand it.

gotta find that old topic when this first came up, there was great info in there


so the developer has to allow authorization... what about updates? can the developer offer updates only to official buyers, not unofficial ones?
KVRAF
 
18925 posts since 4 Sep, 2001, from Melbourne Australia

Postby TheoM; Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:41 pm

i really don't know.. it gets tricky there..

that' s why we will all know for sure when the first audio software case goes to court.
"Just call me shitload, cause I own a shitload of plugins!"
KVRist
 
177 posts since 25 Apr, 2011

Postby Albert.VST; Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:51 pm

michi_mak wrote:
Albert.VST wrote: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.


what if i decide to stop making music or going hardware AFTER this preiod?

edit : why do you seem to insist on non transferable licenses?


No, I absolutely don't. Just wantend to see if there were alternatives for reluctant manufacturiers.
KVRist
 
177 posts since 25 Apr, 2011

Postby Albert.VST; Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:11 pm

pdxindy wrote:
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!


Well said! Btw, I have one of these Z1-s.
I'm thinking one of the issues is we expect low prices for software, but with that almost infinite support, right to resell and transfer. If developers would raise prices to cover these costs we would not be happy. But couldn't it be fair to give up some of our rights to keep prices down, instead of forcing developers to raise prices to cover costs. Not that I like it, but I recognise developers need to earn money for a living too, as we all do.
deleted
 

Postby deleted; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:17 pm

DELETED
KVRAF
 
5028 posts since 6 Oct, 2004

Postby glokraw; Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:06 pm

Unless some dev(s) shows you their tax return, and accounts, you have no clue
as to any prosperity. Some have more than one job, some hit it big
once, and can coast, a few may even do it because they love it.
Some create something that they, or a friend, needs, and then choose to
make it available.
User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
17038 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin
 

Postby Urs; Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:40 pm

What a mess.

I wonder if people who are in favour of this ruling actually see the ramifications?

What's transferrable is just the license to the software at the state of the license transfer. Thus anyone who buys an EU license second hand should be aware that *by law* he's not entitled for support or updates. That's a primal sucker.

How about the point of sale? We live in the age of internet. European vendors could simply use American servers and resellers and *whoop* the sale happened in the US. I guess some sales processors are already working on the move to legal safe havens. Thus, there'll be even less rights left for European software users in the long run.

Furthermore, some developers already allow for a number of installations. Bang. These licenses may not be transferable at all by this court ruling.

Lastly, the overall consensus is that this ruling forces EU software distribution to move into the cloud. Sooner or later no-one can shield his studio machine from trojans, viruses and sloppy wifi drivers because a huge amount of software will need to be internet enabled.

I find that pretty disturbing :-?

That said, we still allow for free license transfers after 9 months and we have no plans to enter the subscription business. Haven't had much of a problem there at all :)
KVRist
 
488 posts since 20 Jun, 2012

Postby robotmonkey; Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:25 pm

koalaboy wrote:It's astonishing how many people will argue until they're blue in the face that software piracy isn't theft (as there's no tangible asset loss - it's copyright infringement) and at the same time demand the right to sell this non-tangible asset to someone else.

.


Well, now there you have it. This is the problem: when it comes to copyright infringement then the software makers *always* argue that infringement is theft equal to that of physical product (you would not steal the car, would you?), but when it comes to user rights they *always* argue that software is not like a physical product, and that the same rules do not apply. You can not have it both ways without loosing integrity of the argument.
No signature here!
KVRist
 
488 posts since 20 Jun, 2012

Postby robotmonkey; Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:40 pm

Urs wrote:What's transferrable is just the license to the software at the state of the license transfer. Thus anyone who buys an EU license second hand should be aware that *by law* he's not entitled for support or updates. That's a primal sucker.

Furthermore, some developers already allow for a number of installations. Bang. These licenses may not be transferable at all by this court ruling.

Lastly, the overall consensus is that this ruling forces EU software distribution to move into the cloud. Sooner or later no-one can shield his studio machine from trojans, viruses and sloppy wifi drivers because a huge amount of software will need to be internet enabled.
)


First, I think no-one expects to have support for second hand products after their warranty period is expired. So I can not see how this could be any problem at all.

And second, I'm pretty sure that as software developers move toward more and more restrictive software policies they are undermining the whole industry. In the end they might just end killing themselves and no amount of blaming piracy would create any sympathy in the general public.

Just one recent example. Microsoft Office 2013 can only be installed on one machine and it is tied to that machine forever. So all I can say FU Microsoft, and it is 100% sure I will never buy any Office products again with that kind of licensing. The new, free and open source LibreOffice 4 that came out couple of days ago is just great. Only in very very specific cases is there now a need for MS Office and the older versions just do fine for those.
No signature here!
User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
17038 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin
 

Postby Urs; Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:16 am

robotmonkey wrote:First, I think no-one expects to have support for second hand products after their warranty period is expired. So I can not see how this could be any problem at all.

Many people specifically ask whether they're entitled for upgrades or not when they inquire about license transfers.
And second, I'm pretty sure that as software developers move toward more and more restrictive software policies they are undermining the whole industry. In the end they might just end killing themselves and no amount of blaming piracy would create any sympathy in the general public.

Well, they can blame current EU laws *and* piracy ;-)

I can see that from a users point of view all the dev moaning about piracy is nuts. That's certainly related to the overall exaggeration on all sides, including the pros and cons of the whole abomination of the cease & desist fee industry.

But in our little world on KVR we don't have that. We have real developers with real world experience. Even though I'd take everything with a grain of salt, there have been great examples discussed here that IMHO render all excuses for piracy delusional. What strikes me most about the sometimes spiteful way people talk about developers here is, that most people here are authors themselves. Out of all communities on the net, the people on KVR should be aware of the implications of piracy. And indeed, most are. Just some are, for whatever reason, not.
User avatar
KVRAF
 
2515 posts since 2 Jul, 2007, from Oxycontin Acres, Georgia, USA

Postby SODDI; Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:19 am

I'm an American and I view these threads with a kind of detached bemusement.

We don't have laws/judgements that allow/permit us to re-sell software. Therefore I am very, very careful what I buy and who I buy it from.

I think there's a kind of unspoken "rule of engagement" that some folks are missing. The EU court ruled that you have the right to resell your software. But when push comes to shove, without any rigorous and stringent enforcement mechanism, software vendors don't have to carte blanche honor that right; and they certainly don't have to make it EASY or CHEAP for you to resell your software. That is the way it is.
KVRian
 
1484 posts since 15 Nov, 2003, from London, UK

Postby quincy; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:03 am

michi_mak wrote:HILLARIOUS :roll:

then please tell me why other devs are able to prosper AND allow transfers?!?!
:roll:


The truth is that a lot of developers don't prosper, they just about get by in what is a very competitive market.

Another truth is that most consumers have ZERO idea how much time and effort goes into designing, developing, coding, testing and marketing plugins and music software.

I think it is partly to do with the (IMO nasty, greedy) trend that intangible items e.g. MP3, software don't have as much value as a tangible item e.g. a toaster or a printed book.

I work for FXpansion, so for the last 2 years I have seen, first-hand, how much work is involved in the development of products like Tremor, Geist, DCAM Dynamics, Etch etc. It is significant, and it involves a number of people working full-time for a significant period. And then the support takes over, and you have to deal with all sorts from hobbyists who simply haven't read the instructions to professionals who are reliant on the software for their living.

The point is, as I think someone above has said, that to expect an infinite lifetime of support for any number of users for the single initial product cost is just not a viable business model for most companies doing this professionally. Few people are getting rich in this business, I can assure you, so most do it for the love of it.

It's a business like any other, and the model has to work, or the work can't continue. Ask any number of the indie devs from around here who have fallen by the wayside. If you want professional products, carefully designed and developed, and the support you need to use them, you have to pay a reasonable price and accept that most things in life aren't free, for good reason.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

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