Companies with Ridiculous Transfer Fees (Edited title)

[AnX]

That's different. A driver license is not a commercial exchange.

Really? Mine costs me $50 a year so it's more of a subscription model, I suppose.

$50 for what exactly?

[sfd]

If you don't own the code you don't own the software.

It's that simple.

[JunSev]

If someone (developer/company) creates a product and you're buying that product, the product is yours, yes there is an agreement and we have to respect the agreement, the same as any sort of devices we have that also has its own terms and conditions:
You Get the product but of course you can't do everything you want with it.

The same as a laptop, smartphone, pc or countless of examples; it has its terms and conditions and we have to respect it, but the product is yours, you paid for it; there are exceptions between companies and different terms, and this trending of software is not yours is not general in all the cases is very exaggerated.

I mean for real, no one loves this idea of "you don't own the software" and exaggerate its meaning more than companies that wants to makes the users completely dependent and without sense of ownership of what they have and their investments = subscription models, completely dependent to company softwares and similars.

Let me just add yet again that even some developers of many softwares says to the users and speak to the user in exactly the same way: Your Product. So all of this about you don't own the software... is not really the same in all the cases, because some developers respect you and your investment, and despite you don't own the code or can do everything you want with it, they recognize is Your Product and you paid for it.

[sfd]

As I explained here and also mentioned here software is code.

But let's make it a bit easier for some people who have some difficulties getting it.

You copy "your" software to your external hard drive and other places. In case of a crash you still got a copy of "your" software.

Obviously thinking that the copies of "your" software are yours too.

But the fact is that you do NOT own that software.

Let's try it.

(hypothetically ) Give away "your" software on the web.

You do that and you'd know you'd be in trouble.

The argument that it was "your" software would be the company's lawyers.

So, what prevents you ?

It's the simple fact that this product have been licensed for you to - use.

It's the difference between digital / intellectual property and physical property.

You buy a CD with my music.
The CD (physical property) is yours.
But the music ( intellectual / digital property ) is not yours.

It's not your music. It's mine. You can't say the music on the CD is your music. It's mine. You can listen to it or, if it's a software, use it. But you don't own it.

[Rivanni]

If you don't own the code you don't own the software.

It's that simple.

Yesit is. You own a license to use the software. The privilege to use it is yours. Just like cds. You don't own the music, you only bought a license to listen to it (and a plastic disc).
I can sell my license for the CD or even give it away for free, without paying a transfer fee. With software, and particularly plugins that's often not the case.

[sfd]

Exactly !

And as for the transfer issue - don't know. I've to give it a thought

[david.beholder]

It would be nice if someone would file license transfer fee case in european court.

[Aloysius]

McDonald's

[JunSev]

Is crazy how in these days there is a trending of people that thinks they are "smart" or seems very "intellectual" and at the end are simply unable to use their reason the right way.

This is why not always "education" equals wisdom.

But I doubt some people does that because they are very convinced of those things sometimes, more as if they need to seek something and because their intentions are hiding something or defending their own interest. Lawyers use their "education" in their own conveniences all around the world too in order to manipulate in any possible way facts or distort what is right in their own conveniences to defend their own interest, wouldn't be surprised..

My point and proves still stands:

If someone (developer/company) creates a product and you're buying that product, the product is yours, yes there is an agreement and we have to respect the agreement, the same as any sort of devices we have that also has its own terms and conditions:
You Get the product but of course you can't do everything you want with it.

The same as a laptop, smartphone, pc or countless of examples; it has its terms and conditions and we have to respect it, but the product is yours, you paid for it; there are exceptions between companies and different terms, and this trending of software is not yours is not general in all the cases is very exaggerated.

I mean for real, no one loves this idea of "you don't own the software" and exaggerate its meaning more than companies that wants to makes the users completely dependent and without sense of ownership of what they have and their investments = subscription models, completely dependent to company softwares and similars.

Let me just add yet again that even some developers of many softwares says to the users and speak to the user in exactly the same way: Your Product. So all of this about you don't own the software... is not really the same in all the cases, because some developers respect you and your investment, and despite you don't own the code or can't do everything you want with it, they recognize is Your Product and you paid for it.

[fedexnman]

Transfer fees suck .

[BONES]

A solution for the Waves problem would be to simplify their approach. So say the Scheps Omni list price is $75, instead of the fictitious $150 that nobody pays. On the occasional sale it goes down to $50. On BF it goes half off to ~$38. Transfer fees are $10 for processing. No WUP.

They obviously do what works of them and have a much better handle on it than you possibly could.

The company would be better off. The plugin would sell as much as it has and at a higher price point than their $30 lows. And the customers would be happier with the more reliable pricing scheme.

You cannot possibly know that. OTOH, they know exactly what sells and what doesn't and at what price.

But regardless, the point is that the mess they have right now is clearly intended to bamboozle people with fictitious list prices, permanent "going out of business"-like sales, complete with hidden WUP fees that nobody knows how to calculate. If you think this is not afoul of our consumer protection laws, take a closer look.

Well take 'em to court and see how you go. There is no such thing as "our" consumer protection laws. Every country has it's own and they are all different.

> I am going to say this for about the 4th time, but if a EULA doesn't breach the law
That's the point of divergence here. You are assuming that this way of doing business is not breaching the law. Just like Fallout 76 thought they had a right to deny refunds.

The thing is, in every country in the world except one, they probably do have that right. They didn't suddenly change their policy globally, they only changed it for one market. The Nanny State has some of the most onerous consumer laws anywhere in the world. It makes it very hard for a lot of companies to do business here so some just don't bother, while others add the famous "Australia tax" to cover the higher cost of complying with Australian law. Does that make us better off? I don't think it does.

And you are hanging your entire case on something that has no application here. ZeniMax had to issue refunds because Fallout 76 was a buggy, unplayable mess and the law says "when a consumer has purchased a product that has a fault which amounts to a major failure, the Australian Consumer Law provides them with the right to ask for their choice of either a repair, replacement or refund.". It had nothing whatsoever to do with their EULA.

Here we are talking about products that work exactly as described. It's a completely different scenario so unless you can point me to the part of the law that says selling a non-transferable license is illegal, then you don't have a leg to stand on because the practice of selling software licenses with a EULA is well established and will stand up to pretty much any challenge. Just because you want software to be seen in the same way as a physical product doesn't mean it ever will be.

[BONES]

It would be nice if someone would file license transfer fee case in european court.

And if they won the case, you know what the result would be? No more license transfers at all. Companies that charge a transfer fee would just start selling non-transferable licenses and kill the second hand market for their products dead. Would we be better off then?

[david.beholder]

And if they won the case, you know what the result would be? No more license transfers at all. Companies that charge a transfer fee would just start selling non-transferable licenses and kill the second hand market for their products dead. Would we be better off then?

Stop smoking and melting please.
Software is sellable on second market under EU law.

[Russell Grand]

Devs that demand huge transfer fees probably just want customers to really think about it before making a purchase. Makes sense to me.

[BONES]

Stop smoking and melting please.
Software is sellable on second market under EU law.

Only if it is sold in perpetuity. To legally get around this all that is required is for the license to be time-limited. And given that this ruling basically say that no part of a EULA is enforceable after sale, you can bet companies are going to protect themselves from having someone put a serial no. up on their FB page where millions of people can use it. I imagine this is a big driver for companies to adopt a subscription model. If customers have to pony up every month or every year, companies can enforce every legal clause in a EULA. Again, does this sound like a better outcome for users?