I am very surprised.

Audio Plugin Hosts and other audio software applications discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

rod_zero wrote:
mutools wrote:
Hey i don't want to start a legal discussion here (we're musicians not lawyers right?!) but just want to tell you that even if that european ruling would be a real law, then i'm sure it's quite easy to bypass that, which is perfectly legal. So lets please focus on the essence.

I understand the user point of view. I hope you also understand this devs' point of view, cfr my earlier post. I think it should simply be the freedom of the dev. Of course it should be made clear somewhere on the product specs whether things are transferrable or not. That's user protection.
Easy to bypass a law? Yes, you can go ahead and enforce your EULA, until some customer challenges you on court, then you will see if it is "easy" to bypass it.

For good or bad we don't live in world where an EULA has precedence over national or international laws, sorry it's just the ways work in a democracy and you have to comply with those rules.

Just imagine how abusive it will be if all companies made ad hoc EULA for any products, imagine it in pharmaceuticals or professional equipment. In fact don't imagine just look around and see what banks do with mortgages and how many of those contracts content have been declared ilegal.

Yes I am taking the argument too far, and I don't believe developers are evil. Because of that I trust them and happily buy their products when their EULA doesn't go against the law, I hope the same in exchange.
+100

EULAs should finally be regulated by law. One cannot put just anything there and expect it to be a binding contract. There should be equality on both sides and consumer's rights must be protected.

One good example is Apple's EULA regarding OS X - that you cannot install it on devices not bearing Apple's logo. I'm still surprised that this has not been challenged by the EU Commission. This kind of EULA is like saying: "You can have this apple but we are telling you exactly how to eat it and if you don't comply with our 'suggestions' then you're breaking the law...our law that is".

Software is a product. Just like a car, a book, or potatoes. You sell a product, get your money and that's it. Whatever the buyer does with it later is their business (as long as they don't infringe your intellectual property of course). Just like manufacturers cannot prohibit me from selling the car second hand the same should apply to every other type of business / product, including software.

I just hope that this will be regulated EU-wide at some point...this seems to be one of a few things that EU is actually useful for ;)

Post

rod_zero wrote:Easy to bypass a law? Yes, you can go ahead and enforce your EULA, until some customer challenges you on court, then you will see if it is "easy" to bypass it.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about ignoring the law or abusing it. Bypassing a law is not illegal. It means that the law does not apply to that case. Anyway, that's just a legal format issue. That's work for lawyers. The essence of this topic stays the same. I think the essential question is: How can developer and user have a respectful business relation? I think if everything is neat and clear beforehand, the user can choose in all freedom.

Let me add that i think that european court took a right decision in that specific case (as far as i know the case). But i think it made a wrong conclusion in extrapolating that to all software EULAs. Just my humble opinion. Of course in the end i'll conform to the law where necessary.

Last but not least: I stepped in in this topic because i wanted to show you some reasons on the other side i.e. the devs side. At the same time i understand your reasons too. It's about a balance. Again, i think that most importantly things should be clear beforehand. MuTools uses a low price strategy. That's part of the reason why i prefer to work with personal user keys, as explained here.
Last edited by mutools on Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

michi_mak wrote:in dubio pro reo...
Please don't shoot the pianist. Illegal copying is part of the reality. I did not invent that.

Post

DELETED

Post

Software can be licensed, and licenses do not have to be resold. Anyone complaining about software sales is just pushing developers more towards pure licensing.

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.

You can't resell MP3s that you've bought.

There's a reason people invest money in gold, for long term wealth.

The world has gone entitlement-mad these days, and it's just going to get worse. Still, at least in the future we can all moan about how we used to be able to actually buy things in the olden days, and not just have to pay for services... which is where it's going.

This also demonstrates the oft-used 'First World problem' phrase. We live in such a throw-away society. :(

</rant>

Just remember when there are no more 'quality' developers, that they were driven away because nobody wanted to pay them directly for their work.

WTB a house and support for a family.

Post

t3toooo wrote:
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).
You are very wrong here. It is not illegal as there is no law (at least not in any EU country) that makes this kind of transactions illegal.

You can say "this is against their terms & conditions" and it would be true but their policies/EULA/etc do not automatically constitute law. If they (IL for example) are not happy with it they can go to court and try to enforce it on every single individual. End of the story.

Post

michi_mak wrote:but you still insinuate that users do this on a regular basis...
but suspect me to be a thief by nature...
Quote me.

Post

tenshin111 wrote:You can say "this is against their terms & conditions" and it would be true but their policies/EULA/etc do not automatically constitute law. If they (IL for example) are not happy with it they can go to court and try to enforce it on every single individual. End of the story.
This.

Based on recent EU verdicts, IL will probably lose and would have to pay all processing costs with the risk of being counter sued.

Post

koalaboy wrote:Software can be licensed, and licenses do not have to be resold. Anyone complaining about software sales is just pushing developers more towards pure licensing.

You can't resell MP3s that you've bought.


The world has gone entitlement-mad these days, and it's just going to get worse. Still, at least in the future we can all moan about how we used to be able to actually buy things in the olden days, and not just have to pay for services... which is where it's going.

No, it has to comply with law, when law changes then I will have to agree with that. Until then any consumer can challlenge this bogus EULA on court.

About MP3, well you can http://blogs.computerworld.com/19707/le ... ol_records

Since when Rights are entitlements? Consumer protection laws took protests and a legislative process to become a reality, they prevent abuses from companies.
dedication to flying

Post

koalaboy wrote:Software can be licensed, and licenses do not have to be resold. Anyone complaining about software sales is just pushing developers more towards pure licensing.

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.

You can't resell MP3s that you've bought.

There's a reason people invest money in gold, for long term wealth.

The world has gone entitlement-mad these days, and it's just going to get worse. Still, at least in the future we can all moan about how we used to be able to actually buy things in the olden days, and not just have to pay for services... which is where it's going.

This also demonstrates the oft-used 'First World problem' phrase. We live in such a throw-away society. :(

</rant>

Just remember when there are no more 'quality' developers, that they were driven away because nobody wanted to pay them directly for their work.

WTB a house and support for a family.
The fact that software can be licensed doesn't mean it should be like that. It doesn't actually make a difference - if I buy a copy of software product / a license for it then it becomes my property and should I decide to sell it at some point it - it is my decision and no one can prevent me from doing that. It is that simple.

The same should apply to MP3 and anything else. I can buy a CD with music and then sell it back, cool. I can also make 1 million copies of it along the way but still there is no legal issue with selling it (the original CD) second hand. Now, I can buy MP3 as well, make million of copies of them yet according to current practices I cannot sell it back to someone else. Where's the logic?

If you want to speak in terms of licenses then it is fine - people buy licenses, people should be able to sell them second hand. Sure, if you want to live in a world where content manufacturers and corporations tell you what you can and what you cannot do then it is your choice. I guess most people prefer when their basic rights are protected by "the system".

Post

rod_zero wrote:
koalaboy wrote:
The world has gone entitlement-mad these days, and it's just going to get worse. Still, at least in the future we can all moan about how we used to be able to actually buy things in the olden days, and not just have to pay for services... which is where it's going.

Since when Rights are entitlements? Consumer protection laws took protests and a legislative process to become a reality, they prevent abuses from companies.
That's the point.

I don't think anyone would like to go back some 120 years back in time and work 12 hours a day seven days a week in a factory - because that is what the factory owners decided to be their "EULA".

Post

mutools wrote:
michi_mak wrote:in dubio pro reo...
Please don't shoot the pianist. Illegal copying is part of the reality. I did not invent that.
People that use a few hours labor to pay for that which loads in
a few seconds, disrespect that which takes years to create.
Ownership whiners, most of whom would require
many years of expensive education,
and then many years of in-the-trenches experience, to make any
competing product (while maintaining a day job in the interim)
are merely spoiled brats.

Post

DELETED

Post

Lock while I split off the HPC-worthy part of the thread.

[edit] Done. Anyone who wants to discuss politics, th' gummint, and so forth please do so in the forum where that's appropriate: HPC. http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5245261

Post

michi_mak wrote:BUT i WILL NEVER ACCEPT being called a thief a priori!!!
Who did call you so? If you think i did (i did not) then please quote the part of my post that made you think i did so we can cleanup the confusion.

Post Reply

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