I am very surprised.

[pdxindy]

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.

Lots of people do expect that... I am confident to say that a majority of second hand buyers (at least on KVR) would expect a bug they encounter to be fixed. If there were an update that fixed some bugs or addressed compatibility with an OS change, they would expect to obtain it. If that update somehow caused their current installation to have some new problem, they would expect it to be addressed by the developer. How many user complaints have I witnessed about these things right here on KVR? Lots!

Is there a warranty that expires for software instruments and effects? I don't remember seeing such a thing on the EULA's that I have read. It is not like an original purchaser no longer expects support after one year. They expect OS updates and bug fixes... even years after initial release.

[deleted]

DELETED

[quincy]

...
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...

so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???

Perhaps I didn't explain clearly. It isn't about punishing the legitimate users, of course that would be wrong.

The point I was trying to make is that a brand new user buying the license is not the same as an existing user continuing to use the product. If a new user gets most of their needed support in the first short period of owning the product (setting it up, compatibility with host, understanding the features etc) then they will likely still need some occasional support after that but nothing significant.

If the license is then sold, the new user is a brand new entity with a brand new set of support needs. The company probably has to go through many the same motions with each new user. That takes time and costs money.

To put it another way, for example, one user having he product for 3 years is not the same as 3 users each owning it for a year then selling it on. The support load/cost is far more for 3 users than it is for the one original user for 3 times the duration.

[Urs]

...
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...

so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???

Experience?

I implemented the 9-month restriction after I experienced that groups of people would just transfer a software from one person to the other, all within a couple of days. Then, when a new plugin came out, the same guys did the same thing.

It's not about punishing the legit user, it's self defense against the shitholes.

So please don't blame *us*, blame *them*.

Or do you blame Microsoft/Apple for having to type in your password a few times a day? - It's because there's so much criminal energy in designers of malware. *They* are to blame.

[quincy]

So please don't blame *us*, blame *them*.

Well said.

[robotmonkey]

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.

Lots of people do expect that... I am confident to say that a majority of second hand buyers (at least on KVR) would expect a bug they encounter to be fixed. If there were an update that fixed some bugs or addressed compatibility with an OS change, they would expect to obtain it. If that update somehow caused their current installation to have some new problem, they would expect it to be addressed by the developer. How many user complaints have I witnessed about these things right here on KVR? Lots!

Is there a warranty that expires for software instruments and effects? I don't remember seeing such a thing on the EULA's that I have read. It is not like an original purchaser no longer expects support after one year. They expect OS updates and bug fixes... even years after initial release.

I think the Waves model is one possible way to do it. You have one year support plan included with software. During that time you get all the updates (and new plugins added to the bundles) and support for free. After that you have to rely on community support or renew your support contract. I know that Waves has got some hate here because of that, but this is a very common practice with a lot of specialty software in other fields.

Another option would be to make it much clearer that software is supported until the next big version comes out.

Supporting bug fixes and such is kind of much easier if you compared what it means in a physical world. If your physical product is broken, it would usually mean recall for all copies and replacing them with good ones. From a business perspective this means a lot of trouble. With software you can often fix bugs in a couple of days and you release it all once. I think this is often the reason why many companies these tend to release broken software.

Also, even though I'm sure there are a lot of dumb users who contact support with questions like "where's my VST plugin folder" and such, I think that there are not much reasons why people would contact support at all. If I think back all those years I have used music software, absolutely 100% of the cases where I have had to contact devs have been related to issues with copy protection. I have had to ask new hardware keys, beg for re-activations, license transfers, or there have been cases where the CP mechanism itself has been buggy. But I can not remember a single time where I have had issues with core functionality of any music software in a such way that it has made me contact support.

[deleted]

DELETED

[Urs]

i don't blame this *us for demanding respect - i just don't understand why some devs can live with granting transfers and others refuse to grant transfers although both "kinds" of devs have the same issues with piracy ...
and moreover i can't understand why some consumers insist on NOT having granted rights...

I don't know why others don't do license transfers.

I do not believe though that those granted rights will persist, nor do I believe that the ruling is really all that positive. I think in the long run it would be beneficial for both developers and users if certain methods such as license transfer fees were allowed. Otherwise I believe that some of the things I posted before will inevitably happen.

[dalor]

Finally, someone makes sense in here.

[pdxindy]

...
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...

so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???

Experience?

I implemented the 9-month restriction after I experienced that groups of people would just transfer a software from one person to the other, all within a couple of days. Then, when a new plugin came out, the same guys did the same thing.

It's not about punishing the legit user, it's self defense against the shitholes.

So please don't blame *us*, blame *them*.

Or do you blame Microsoft/Apple for having to type in your password a few times a day? - It's because there's so much criminal energy in designers of malware. *They* are to blame.

i don't blame this *us for demanding respect - i just don't understand why some devs can live with granting transfers and others refuse to grant transfers although both "kinds" of devs have the same issues with piracy ...
and moreover i can't understand why some consumers insist on NOT having granted rights...

So what you want is every developer to do exactly the same thing and never make any different choices in life... how boring...

The very last thing I would like to see is a subscription model... I would rather the developers have more freedom to choose what they want (and I am always free to choose not to buy under the conditions they set) regarding transfers and the like than see them pushed towards the subscription model...

[glokraw]

A developer that allowed license transfers, could impose
a condition that support requests of second party purchasers,
would be presented only in a companies
public forum, or a subforum for such users, based on sales records.

This way, the full userbase and potential new customers would possibly
benefit from any exchanges, and proposed solutions, and an occasional
troublemaker could be culled.

Bugs reported by second hand owners, still have inherant value
when solved for the original, and future purchasers.

@pdxindy: freedom and variety are indeed fundamental to enjoying life,
running a successful business, and having a country that enemies
don't lightly mess with.

[Amberience]

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

Ever hear of a little thing called venture capital?

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]