Reason 12.7: goodbye Authorizer, hello Reason Companion!

[LaLivre]

If they would at least update the sequencer....

[imrae]

Holy goalpost-move, Batman. We're talking about activation here, not demanding patches for weird edge cases.

The same rules apply for authorization, of course. That's all just software as well. All that is subject to change, as is your OS.

There's no "of course" about it. An activation service controlled by the developer is a very different problem from a user OS change.

As I said in the other thread, a responsible developer would plan ahead for this and offer a workaround. Others have done so in the past.

[jlgrimes11]

I think Rs should make it as easy as possible for those old users.

Also I'm not sure why they decided to retire the dongle.

It would have been a perfect use case for this scenario.

Piss off enough legacy users, they will be less inclined to upgrade to future versions when/if they finally decide to bite the bullet or invest in REs.

[FarleyCZ]

I'd still own a peerpetual license for R7 which grants me the right to use the software forever.
I can of course not expect it to work on the latest hardware, but I can expect it to always work on the hardware I bought.

No, not at all. Nobody can guarantee you that unsupported software will always work, even on the same hardware. Such a guarantee is totally unrealistic and impossible to give. Somebody who gives you such a guarantee is a swindler.

Lol. No. If you make sure the system is exactly the same as when you bought the software, you should be able to run the software. Your point is invalid.

Yes. When Apple spoils the party and throws in an API change, then you can't expect the developer of the software to work for free to edit the software (btw that's one of the reasons I still like Windows better, tbh), but if you make it so the computer and the system did not change, then the software should stay working as well. As simple as that.

Using online licensing service is the developer's descision. Cutting existing customers with purchased software off from that licensing service is also their concious descision. And throwing those customers under the buss by not offering any way to keep the software working from that point on is extremely shady practice. If for any reason some customers can't or don't want to update the computer/OS (other legacy software for example) then (and I do not like or recommend this) Reason Studios conciously got these particular customers into a situation, where piracy is the only way to keep the product working. It's wrong. It's wrong on so many levels. Other devs should be mad as well. Reason Studios pretty much indirectly validated piracy. That's f*cked up. Very bad precedent for the future.

[Trancit]

...Reason Studios pretty much indirectly validated piracy. That's f*cked up. Very bad precedent for the future.

I know, my opinion isn´t really popular but for me this isn´t piracy...

If a user bought an unlimited license and the company steal this unlimited license of that person without any reason of misbehave etc... it´s just fair to get it back...

Reason Studios are the guilty part here... not the user protecting his "property" ...
Perhaps there are some (for me illegal) parts in the EULA basically allowing any company to steal from you what they want but then it´s them stealing not you...

Piracy is for me if you use a software and not buying it/supporting the dev...
Making your owned license you did pay for work again because the company throw you out for their own benefit is not piracy at all as you have payed for it and I bet noone buys a software if the company holds you a red sign in their face:
You can buy a license ... but remember this well... whenever I think it´s the right time, I can take it away from you and say go and f*ck yourself...
Everybody would say: Well, then go you and f*ck yourself!

This is shady business and illegal laws perhaps protecting companies doing so doesn´t make it better...

You steal my property from me... I ´ll get it back... that easy!
You have to make changes to the always working protection scheme which makes my license unuseable... you have to compensate me... period... give me a license instead which works!
You wouldn´t have any loss if you give me an old version license which is still useable... it doesn´t matter if this affects 1000 customers or just one...
It doesn´t cost you anything and is just blind stubborness not doing so...

[Trancit]

Nobody can guarantee you that unsupported software will always work, even on the same hardware. Such a guarantee is totally unrealistic and impossible to give.

Hmmm, very strange that the cr*cked version still does the job...
It´s not that the software stops working for a technical reason or being outdated if the "other" version still works...
It´s the company having it destroyed on purpose... If you destroy other people's property, you have to replace it, don't you?
That's called liability... try to get away with it as a private person!

[Atlatnesiti]

I think a lot of people here don’t understand the basics of software licensing.
A Software License Agreement is a contract that allows a licensee to use software, but not own it.

[jens]

Using online licensing service is the developer's descision. Cutting existing customers with purchased software off from that licensing service is also their concious descision. And throwing those customers under the buss by not offering any way to keep the software working from that point on is extremely shady practice. If for any reason some customers can't or don't want to update the computer/OS (other legacy software for example) then (and I do not like or recommend this) Reason Studios conciously got these particular customers into a situation, where piracy is the only way to keep the product working. It's wrong. It's wrong on so many levels. Other devs should be mad as well. Reason Studios pretty much indirectly validated piracy. That's f*cked up. Very bad precedent for the future.

This - and with reason apllied, to be frank I don't think there is any other way to see it.

[jens]

I think a lot of people here don’t understand the basics of software licensing.
A Software License Agreement is a contract that allows a licensee to use software, but not own it.

What could you possibly be on about?

A perpetual license is perpetual - there's no two way to see this, so your point is entirely moot.

[imrae]

I think a lot of people here don’t understand the basics of software licensing.
A Software License Agreement is a contract that allows a licensee to use software, but not own it.

And seemingly some people don't understand that even if something is legal it can still be a socially recognised as a dick move and criticised.

[Trancit]

nevermind...

[Atlatnesiti]

Meantime Reason 12.7.1 released! (non cracked version)

We're happy to announce the release of Reason 12.7.1. Reason 12.7.1 will also be immediately available in the Reason+ subscription.

Here's what's new in 12.7.1

Features

Reason 12.7.1 installer is now fully Apple Silicon native

Added option to open Reason Companion from the Reason menu (macOS) / Help menu (Windows)

Changed name from “Your Products” to "My Account" in the Reason menu (macOS) / Help menu (Windows)

Bug fixes

Fixed a crash bug on Windows that occurred when trying to quit Reason while dragging a device

Fixed an issue where audio recording failed when recording in a document saved on a network drive

Fixed an issue where aftertouch on Arturia KeyLab mk2 didn’t work properly

Fixed a bug where the Additional I/O sockets used by VST3 plugins were named "Unspecified" when no cables were connected to them

Fixed a bug where the MClass Maximizer delay compensation value was wrong and reported even when the device was off

Fixed a bug in Reason Rack Plugin on macOS where text boxes turned completely dark when system was set to dark mode

Fixed an issue where a bounce including some VST3s wouldn't keep notes sustained

Various other bug fixes, optimizations, and improvements

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

[Kr3eM]

I think a lot of people here don’t understand the basics of software licensing.
A Software License Agreement is a contract that allows a licensee to use software, but not own it.

Don't think it's that simple, neither do I believe there's any legal precedend to support your claim in the way you put it.

https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835- ... ropaganda/

A license is a right to use a property or intellectual property that belongs to somebody else. When you read "this software is licensed, not sold" in a software EULA, whether it's for an OS like Windows 10, a game, or an application, "this software" refers to the software Intellectual Property and not the copy of that intellectual property that you've purchased via a software license. Software licenses and the instances of a software's intellectual property that they represent are indeed and obviously sold. Both of the following phrases are simultaneously true: This software (IP) is licensed, not sold; This software (instance / license) is sold, not licensed or leased.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 5f3ff05bcc

On 16 September 2021, The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgment in The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd (Case C-410/19) EU:C742, ruling that the supply of computer software by electronic means, together with a grant of a perpetual licence, falls within the definition of “sale of goods” for the purposes of Article 1(2) of the Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC). The judgment followed a request for a preliminary ruling from the UK Supreme Court.

The Directive is implemented in Great Britain by the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, which remain in force as retained EU law and provide significant protections to commercial agents, including compensation rights upon termination of the agency agreement."

The decision is significant as it was previously uncertain whether the activities of agents appointed to sell software supplied by electronic means (and not on tangible medium) fell within the scope of the Directive. Given the request for a preliminary ruling was made before the end of the transition period, the Supreme Court is now expected to apply the CJEU’s ruling with the effect that commercial agents selling software supplied by electronic means, along with the grant of a perpetual licence, will be protected by the Regulations.

For more detail, read the CJEU’s judgment here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 2019CJ0410

Personally I don't care what any law says, if I have bought something I own it. I own it in the same way I own a book, which I have no legal right to print copies of and sell. So with that said I will not spend any time having a discussion about it, there is no way I will ever change my position on the issue.

[Trancit]

...
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 5f3ff05bcc

On 16 September 2021, The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgment in The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd (Case C-410/19) EU:C742, ruling that the supply of computer software by electronic means, together with a grant of a perpetual licence, falls within the definition of “sale of goods” for the purposes of Article 1(2) of the Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC). The judgment followed a request for a preliminary ruling from the UK Supreme Court.

...

Personally I don't care what any law says, if I have bought something I own it. I own it in the same way I own a book, which I have no legal right to print copies of and sell. So with that said I will not spend any time having a discussion about it, there is no way I will ever change my position on the issue.

Interesting finding...

This means that Reason Studios are even more in the "thieves" corner...

If they ruled that under these circumstances it´s like sale of goods i.e. like a book or a car, no seller has the right to come afterwards and take it away from you or destroy the possibility of using it no matter what any fictive EULA says...

[chk071]

I think a lot of people here don’t understand the basics of software licensing.
A Software License Agreement is a contract that allows a licensee to use software, but not own it.

What could you possibly be on about?

A perpetual license is perpetual - there's no two way to see this, so your point is entirely moot.

It's a perpetual license to use the software as it is, not a guarantee that the software will work forever. Again, no one can give you such a guarantee, thus no one can assume that the software will always work no matter what.

And, all this is not a justification to use warez, nor does it mean that you can't authorize the software at all anymore.