I am very surprised.

Plug-in hosts and other software applications discussion
classic
KVRAF
1561 posts since 26 Jul, 2004

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:40 am

Everybody suddenly starts to sell their Image Line account and nobody says something like " You cant sell it ...."

Did something change at the Image Line license transfer policy recently or what did I miss????


cheers
classic.

Meffy
Skunk Mod
20464 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from Pony Pasture

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:48 am


hibidy
KVRAF
42539 posts since 21 Dec, 2005

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:33 pm

classic wrote:Everybody suddenly starts to sell their Image Line account and nobody says something like " You cant sell it ...."

Did something change at the Image Line license transfer policy recently or what did I miss????


cheers
classic.
I dunno, but mine is for sale :) Theo's post is pretty explanatory (what's next, sonar! :o )

User avatar
dalor
KVRAF
2488 posts since 2 Dec, 2004 from Sydney, Australia

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:15 pm

Hmmm didn't we have a heated discussion about this a while back with IL?

Good on KVR for being neutral in this and leave it up to the users to decide.

However, IL made very clear they don't allow this. :?
Cowbells!

db3
KVRAF
1849 posts since 22 Aug, 2012

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:23 pm

IL will not stop anyone applying EU guidelines and passing their account to a new owner. They just won't support the transaction.

t3toooo
KVRAF
1892 posts since 25 Dec, 2005

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:24 pm

the eu judgment is not yet a law.

a part from the market place forum rules:
If selling software you must obtain permission to transfer the license from the developer before advertising it for sale, failure to do so will almost definitely be in breach of the license agreement. Sample CDs and sample based instruments have notoriously restrictive license agreements so check before you try to sell.

it is illegal to sell the image line account without their permission (obviously)
it is not a law (yet).end of story (at the moment).

User avatar
masterhiggins
KVRAF
1824 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from People's Republic of Minnesota

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:30 pm

I guess that's the best thing about using hardware. If Mackie told me I wasn't allowed to sell my mackie control I'd tell them to shove it up their ass. It's also probably wise to avoid non-transferable software in the first place.

hibidy
KVRAF
42539 posts since 21 Dec, 2005

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:31 pm

I pulled mine from the bid. Seems as though EU even has it's downfall, but it's double bad for non EU. Over it. I just wish I could forget I have it, ah well, sonar, FL, thou cash thy tidith toith

User avatar
rod_zero
KVRAF
2877 posts since 28 Jan, 2011 from MEXICO

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:53 pm

The judges had to base their sentence on some law and also created jurisprudence by doing so, no need for an specific law.

The problem is that in order to enforce this you probably will need to fill a suit against the company.
dedication to flying

ObsoleteAcc99
Banned
22486 posts since 5 Sep, 2001

Post Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:50 pm

t3toooo wrote:the eu judgment is not yet a law.

a part from the market place forum rules:
If selling software you must obtain permission to transfer the license from the developer before advertising it for sale, failure to do so will almost definitely be in breach of the license agreement. Sample CDs and sample based instruments have notoriously restrictive license agreements so check before you try to sell.

it is illegal to sell the image line account without their permission (obviously)
it is not a law (yet).end of story (at the moment).

well kvr have spoken, and IL can take it up with me personally if they like. Sue me. I don't care.

I have put up with the plugins not working properly on mac for FIVE YEARS

rentboyrenton
KVRist
86 posts since 7 Jul, 2012

Post Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:56 am

let this be a lesson to you as it was once for me

never buy audio software you can't sell again

deleted

Post Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:39 am

DELETED

mutools
KVRAF
9543 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe

Post Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:14 am

MuLab & MUX User Keys are personal and not transferrable.

The reasons are these:

1) A MuLab & MUX User key is a personal key and may not be given to anyone else. IF user keys would be transferrable, there should at least be an admin fee for creating a new personal user key and updating the database.

2) If the original user has got support on using MuLab / MUX, and the new user would also ask for support, then we're doing bad business for that's 2 times support for the price of one. And where would that end if that second hand user also transfers his user key, and so on and so on. That would mean that, at least theoretically, selling 1 user key could lead to supporting many people, and would cost us much support for almost no income. That would simply not be fair, not to MuTools and not to all users as they will implicitly suffer from that bad business. (e.g. slower development) So in fact IF user keys would be transferrable, there should also at least be an renewed support fee. (in addition to the admin fee)

3) It is impossible to verify that if a user transfers his user key that he/she effectively erases all copies of this MuLab / MUX user key and that he/she does not use it again. I don't want to be negative, and i'm confident that there are many honest people, but at the other hand one has to be realistic too.

4) Summing all the above reasons and related costs simply leads to the conclusion that it's totally fair to ask a new user to buy his own personal MuLab / MUX user key. Certainly taking the low prices into account!

Hope you can understand and agree.

User avatar
rod_zero
KVRAF
2877 posts since 28 Jan, 2011 from MEXICO

Post Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:53 am

Why I don't understand is why developers want to go around LAWS.

IMHO they don't show respect by going around stablished regulations with their bogus EULA's. It's insulting in a democracy.

I know they are small, I respect their work and pay for the software as it must be.

But why they are not willing to comply to the same laws as everyone else? what makes them feel so special that they want to be over a supreme court decision?

I really hope they never see themselves in a class action suit and having to expend money on a lawyer, it could mean bankrupcy.
dedication to flying

Amberience
KVRAF
7018 posts since 7 Mar, 2003 from Climbing the walls inside my mind

Post Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:15 am

rod_zero wrote:Why I don't understand is why developers want to go around LAWS.

IMHO they don't show respect by going around stablished regulations with their bogus EULA's. It's insulting in a democracy.

I know they are small, I respect their work and pay for the software as it must be.

But why they are not willing to comply to the same laws as everyone else? what makes them feel so special that they want to be over a supreme court decision?

I really hope they never see themselves in a class action suit and having to expend money on a lawyer, it could mean bankrupcy.
It's not a law, no matter how many ttoz's insist that it is. It was a judgement, which still has to be tested in court before it can be applied as a legal regulation.

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