nvm

[AstralExistence]

an interesting thread topic ruined by fanbios, and people that can't see the big picture. as long as the people who buy software allow developers to continue to open and close shop, developers will continue to open and close shop, with no fear of repercussion. in the same way that, although a drastic example, airline flights will continue to have a certain timeframe in which they can hold passengers on a plane. its only when people speak up, that new laws are put into place that will make companies think twice before closing.

aka nvm

[chroma]

what 'real world liability'? my camel audio software & soundbanks work just as well today as they did yesterday. there are people even now who would like to buy it, knowing that the company is going under. because the software works, whether the company exists or not.

i mean, i could imagine some arguments that are a little more valid, but can't find any real damages in the above. maybe you want to be more clear about how you are damaged by them closing?

in the real brick-and-mortar world, if i walk into a store and buy a shirt, and the next day they close their doors, they don't owe me anything, and i still have a nice shirt.

[vurt]

if you buy product a, and product a works as advertised (which alchemy does btw) and the company you purchaded from go out of business for any reason afterwards then there is no problem. the problem or deception comes if a company sells a product they know wont work then disappears, and thete are laes that cover tbis in the real and software world, theyre fraud laws. however these laws do not apply to ca as they have not comitted any fraud or deception.

[Tricky-Loops]

why are their no software laws that protect the buyer vs the many laws that protect the seller?

Because you haven't bought the software, you've only bought a license to use it...

If you buy a t-shirt in the real world, you bought a t-shirt, not a license to use it...

[trimph1]

Sigh.

It is the start of the weekend.

[whyterabbyt]

let me ask a pondering question. in the brick and mortal, 'real' products world, if you buy a product sold by false/exaggerated, premises, and or, a product that was advertised as being existent when sold, yet, the company knew full well, for a certain time period that the product they were selling was going the way of the dodo, and they were, in no nice term deserved, being extremely deceptive (which i don't think you can argue with this based upon them still selling ca products when they knew damn well the company as a whole wasn't making nearly enough profit to stay afloat) and knowing very soon there going belly under and grabbing every penny they could even if it meant f u to the consumer.

why are their no laws protecting software buyers from such deceptive practices, in the same way that their are many laws protecting brick and mortar, online, non software retailers? money doesn't grow on trees, should the buyer get a full refund, vs the developer going into profitable bankruptcy. im sure ca made a nice profit in the time they knew they were closing down shop, and im sure that even though ca is now closed, the developers, still have an at least minimal bankroll. should they not be forced to split that last profit bankroll into refunding all the consumers they deceived. its not about about protecting the developers pockets, and they for sure weren't worried about your own.

should software companies not suffer some kind of at least minimal penalty, and at the highest penalty, give back all money made for a certain time period (that being the time they knew they were going under soon. to be decided by a court.

also, do you want to invest any more money in a company that does such deceptive practices? i know many people have a soft spot for ca and the developers behind the ca products, but really, this was quite deceptive and purposeful and if the deceptiveness was minimized, the company, must have known sooner then later that they were going under.

why are their no software laws that protect the buyer vs the many laws that protect the seller?

disingenous nonsense.

[MFXxx]

You have the opporunity to demo software unlike many products tbh. Dont know many people whobought bricks and mortar and then asked for a refund on their property because the brick company went out of business...very different.

SAAB cars went out of business, recently Citylink couriers. Business is a harsh world, consumerism is not god like or golden, it is thwart with pitfalls and wonders.

why are their no software laws that protect the buyer vs the many laws that protect the seller?

Because you haven't bought the software, you've only bought a license to use it...

If you buy a t-shirt in the real world, you bought a t-shirt, not a license to use it...

Try demoing a pair or y-fronts and taking them back after using them for the weekend!!!!

[Kriminal]

why are their no software laws that protect the buyer vs the many laws that protect the seller?

Because you haven't bought the software, you've only bought a license to use it...

.

Oh.... thats awkward.... how do you get the software then? You've bought a licence to use it, seems a shame to see it go to waste.

[trimph1]

That's just it. You bought the license to get the software.

Would be nice to see people use them on occasion...

[ariston]

Oh goody, another Camel Audio thread.

Your post is full of unfounded accusations. You know nothing, and yet you pass judgement. Where's the "real world" liability for that? Don't even get me started about entitlement issues and misconceptions about digital goods and trade in general.

<Insert your favourite facepalm here.>

[Sendy]

What's the matter? Got the hump?

I'm sorry, that was unforgivable!!

[vurt]

i bought a tshirt once.

true story.

[penguinfromdeep]

cool story bro

[KBSoundSmith]

Aww, the angry and entitled little child wants attention....

You're so CUTE (*^-^*)

**pats on head**

It's okay, someday you'll learn how business works.

[AstralExistence]

my final word about this ^