KVR Audio

deleted · Post by **deleted** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:21 am

DELETED

dalor · Post by **dalor** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:30 am

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

softska · Post by **softska** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:32 am

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

Responsible adults dont' come to KVR

dalor · Post by **dalor** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:37 am

softska wrote:
dalor wrote:LOL.. Majority here must be underage with no responsibilities and living at home? Lol
Responsible adults dont' come to KVR

+999

t3toooo · Post by **t3toooo** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:53 am

No need for a new law, judges based their decission on existing laws.

this sentence in the current form is not 100% the same as it was 1996.

it's rather difficult for me to understand the english wording but what do i know about the image line statutes?
however this would be particularly important to know,i think there are some exeptions in this judgement,so no it is not clear at all.

since we don't know about il's business model and i think it isn't the business model oracle is using (i guess you can buy and sell oracle software but it will be outdated soon or it is already outdated,so you need to renew the license and pay for the upgrade),
we need to follow the eula assuming it was/is correctly controlled by lawyers at this time.

imagine you bought a copy of fl studio many years ago for a low price,you couldn't hardly sell it for 30$ now but you put it on the marketplace,luckily everything is updated and you point to the current price,not the price you bought it for.

that's what people doing and they are fine with it.

therefore,"breaking the law assaults" and all other "forum opinions" against image line are just speculations.

to undermine the eula is not allowed and i think illegal since i don't know any other word for it.

Goseba · Post by **Goseba** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:01 am

To undermine the law is not allowed and I think illegal since i don't know any other word for it.

t3toooo · Post by **t3toooo** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:09 am

Goseba wrote:To undermine the law is not allowed and I think illegal since i don't know any other word for it.

the eula must be based on the law,yes of course.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:49 am

cron wrote:I've never used Mutools, but I had a look at your website and point 3 would have left a very nasty taste in my mouth were I a customer. You clearly state that one of the reasons that I can't sell my copy of the software is because you cannot be sure that "he/she effectively erases all copies of this MuLab / MUX user key and that he/she does not use it again".

If you really think that most of your users are honest and that this type of piracy would have negligible impact, why mention it at all? Buying the software, selling it, and keeping the install is a pretty complicated way of going about things when the bay of pirates is a mere click away.

I agree with this.

For what it's worth, your prices are so low that I probably wouldn't look at buying a second-hand license anyway. I'd rather support the developer at those kind of prices. But if I was a customer, why should customer X's illegal actions impact customer Y's rights as a consumer?

Having any kind of copy-protection on software is an overhead. This overhead impacts all users, while we all assume that most users are honnest. The same indeed applies to unlocking your home, your car etc. It's all overhead only because there is a small (we assume (what are the scientific stats? i don't know)) group of people that are not honnest.

Damn this is not an easy topic. It's good to talk this thru, it brings some extra aspects into the spotlight, at least the sensitivity of the topic.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:51 am

hibidy wrote:I wonder, did mutools ever fix the valhalla/recabinet/whoever preset/gui issue or is still the "plug ins" fault.

I propose we talk this thru in the MuTools forum, it's off topic here.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:55 am

rod_zero wrote:The whole point of this topic is that courts around the world are saying: NO, it's not different, Costumers can resell. Developers need to understand this. An EULA can't go beyond any law, in fact Nobody can resign to his own rights being them liberties or consumer rights or rights to social services. It's a basic and very important principle in democracies.

I don't agree with this. I don't think it's the essential point of this discussion. The legal aspect is just a format, a package. Imho the essential point is: Is it fair that a user key is marked as personal and thus not transferrable? I think it is fair to do so if you communicate this clearly beforehand.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:02 am

samsam wrote:Unless you lose a ReFX dongle, then all of a sudden the value of the software suddenly appears to lie 100% in a physical dongle, which is IMO absolute nonsense and an example of _some_ software devs trying to have it both ways. Anyway, no IL, reFX or Mux for me, aye.

FYI: MuLab and MUX don't use a dongle. If you loose your user key, or you have a HD crash or alike, you can email me and i'll resend your user key. That happened several times already, and those users have been treated perfectly well, they could continue using MuLab / MUX.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:11 am

Ok so based on all the posts here i see that it is not very 'appreciated' that a user key is not transferrable. Now i have this question for you guys: If i would make user keys transferrable but would charge a fee for transferring it, would that sound more fair to you? If yes, who should pay the fee: The seller of the user key or the buyer?

Goseba · Post by **Goseba** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:22 am

I am not a Mutools customer, but in general I think a nominal transfer fee is acceptable.

From the developers point, I would have thought it better to have the new customer pay the fee, therefore ensuring you have their details.

samsam · Post by **samsam** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:26 am

mutools wrote:
samsam wrote:Unless you lose a ReFX dongle, then all of a sudden the value of the software suddenly appears to lie 100% in a physical dongle, which is IMO absolute nonsense and an example of _some_ software devs trying to have it both ways. Anyway, no IL, reFX or Mux for me, aye.
FYI: MuLab and MUX don't use a dongle. If you loose your user key, or you have a HD crash or alike, you can email me and i'll resend your user key. That happened several times already, and those users have been treated perfectly well, they could continue using MuLab / MUX.

Thanks for responding. I wasn't including you guys in the dongle thing, I know you don't use one. I just found your suspicion of the people who, against the odds, choose to buy software a bit uncool.

And FWIW after reading your continued discussion here, you've gone up in my estimation.

Sincerely, good luck with working out a policy that's good for you and your users (IMO that would mean charging a fee for license transfers).

Cheers

twisted-space · Post by **twisted-space** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:34 am

mutools wrote:Now i have this question for you guys: If i would make user keys transferrable but would charge a fee for transferring it, would that sound more fair to you? If yes, who should pay the fee: The seller of the user key or the buyer?

Does it matter, as long as you get your transfer fee and the buyer and seller are both in agreement (as they must be for the sale happen at all)?

I am very surprised.