re: my previous post - license transfer

Questions, comments and suggestions regarding Capture One 6.x, 5.x and 4.x for Mac and Windows

re: my previous post - license transfer

Postby NN201113UL » Sat May 24, 2008 8:11 am

Since the mods unreasonably closed the previous thread, I'm going to re-open a new one. Why? Because an important, and morally, and legally correct decision was made in US courts very recently - in the case Timothy S Verner vs Autodesk. It found that the first sale doctrine covers software too. See here:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/22/195233

and here:

http://aecnews.com/news/2008/05/21/3414.aspx

This poses, at least at this point of time, pending appeals by various software companies who choose to try to rip off their customers by removing their rights illegally and immorally I might add, that it is illegal for software vendors to attempt to restrict resale of software. I'm pretty sure you'll find that this applies to pretty much any other civilised country that respects the rights of individuals and doesn't bow to the corporate beast's bribes.

You can delete this post, ban me from these forums, but you will only strengthen the fact that I am RIGHT.

Dave
NN201113UL
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:57 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Ulf » Tue May 27, 2008 12:35 pm

Hallo

I wont go in to much in to this when it can be a long argument what is right and wrong in different persons minds. However I would like to point out one thing in this which is very important and which differentiates the court cases you have linked to.

The case here refers to a person that has sold a package with unused software.

We completely allow anyone to sell a unused Capture One in anyway they see fit as long as it is a genuine valid license between two parties and not fraud of course.

At that point the software is \"ownerless\" and also no license agreement has been accepted.



The question comes once you have a used the license.

Some kind of license policy must be in place for any company that produce software, that much I am sure we agree.

Under what type of license agreement the software is sold under might be where we disagree.
As you referred to in a previous post a GPL license is simply not something that works for a company that make a niche software.

When you install the software you can accept or refuse the license agreement.
Once accepted you can even try the software for 30days with out activating the software. If it is not activated it is not \"used\" and by that you can still resell the software.

I would like to add that this is common practice.

Adobe
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdf ... 7_1651.pdf

Corel
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/ ... 6553879115

Microsoft Office 2007
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Office Professional_2007_English_8ae484ee-6fa1-40a2-b74b-9ec339fc543d.pdf

To mention a few...

When it comes to the moral aspect then I would like to compare it to the situation photographers are in:
In the software industry we experience a lot of piracy which is hurting the bottom line.
Same time photographers are loosing revenue due to orphan images, vendors ignoring the photographers rights when it comes to use and re-use (which is photographers version of piracy) etc. etc.

We are in the same boat asking for the same thing.
Kind Regards
Ulf Liljegren
Phase One
Ulf
Crew
Crew
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Postby NN201113UL » Wed May 28, 2008 10:27 am

I respectfully disagree - no other consumer product works by the same rules that software companies do - which is hijack the customers rights. Just because other software companies try the same EULAs doesn't make it either right, or legal. As an example (a far fetched one), just because someone robs another person doesn't make it legal for everyone else to do so.

Furthermore, the case in question was about unused software, but from my research, the judge indicated that whether he'd used the software or not was irrelevant.

The problem is (especially in the US) the legal system is VERY expensive. Software companies have lots of money, ordinary users like me have little to average amounts of money, certainly not enough money to viably take on software companies in most cases. This is why you see the EULA issue not generally being challenged in a lot of cases - simply because of monetary restrictions on the plaintiffs part. All it takes is ONE case to go through, and that will set a legal precedent and make it a lot easier for others with the same issues.

EULAs are incredibly unpopular, and many more people are disgusted with software companies tactics in using them. This is why Richard Stallman created the GPL, and why it is becoming increasingly more popular. No one is saying that you can't have a private licence, but many are now arguing that, the software vendor, has no legal right to restrict sale of the software, just as occurs in every other type of consumer group.

I personally intend to raise this with the ACCC, and formerly lodge a complaint with the Australian governor general, including my local federal MP to be raised in parliament. For too long software users have been treated with disdain, and this is not acceptable. We are consumers as well, and we have rights. When software companies start realising this, things will start to look healthier for the software industry.

That's my honest personal and legal take on this issue.

One other thing, there was a report done in the UK that found exactly what I've been saying, most EULAs are illegal, and breach local consumer laws in many areas, including limitations of resale. Corel was amongst one of them listed, and the legal researchers were absolutely horrid at their particular EULA! I'll try and find the article/PDF and link to it.

Cheers,

Dave

edit: sorry, I missed your comment on software piracy - I think you'll find that software piracy is due to several things:

1. overpriced software - let's take Adobe for example. compare the costs on educational and non educational versions of Photoshop. Need I say anymore?
2. lack of morals of end users - I personally abhor piracy and most certainly will not champion it under ANY circumstances. It is plain illegal, no ifs, buts or maybes. Sadly, this is the direction that society is going in, and it is very sad.
3. Software that is of poor or average quality, and customers find it hard to justify the asking price. I do think a lot of software is very average, and I do think a lot of software companies charge ridiculous prices that do not merit their R&D costs etc. Just my honest opinion.

that said I do belive Capture One Pro offers good value for money - a license to use on both Windows & Mac (concurrently), 2 upgrades to future major versions. I have in the past lauded Phase One for this.

I know you guys have to make money, I don't have a problem with it. Selling software 2nd hand does not damage you by any means - if you treat the new customer right, and offer a good product, at a reasonable value, they will continue to use your product, even if it means paying for a new update/upgrade etc. Software is a long term investment in the customer - treat them right and they'll remain faithful to you. Treat them wrong, and they'll go to competitors, and worse, they'll give you bad press, which is quite often more damaging than a bad review from my experience.
NN201113UL
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:57 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby NN201113UL » Wed May 28, 2008 10:42 am

NN201113UL
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:57 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Ulf » Wed May 28, 2008 4:49 pm

There is several aspects of this discussion I agree with and also disagree with you on.

Your critique does not seem to be a specific to our company but to software industry as a whole.
So maybe It is not really a discussion to have in this user to user forum but in a some kind of general forum for software, but I do understand your point and it might be good to discuss stuff like this once in a while.


When it comes to software pricing there is two aspects to consider,
1. Piracy as we talked about, this is just as insurance prices increased as it is abused. Anyone using pirated software is a direct contributor to increasing pricing. Software development is extremely expensive which takes me to the second point
2. Most people have no problem paying for hardware, at least this is something you can touch and feel, software is not. Resell is easy when you have sold the device you don't have it anymore, but with software you can still have a copy of it.
We have no way of checking that you have actually uninstalled software on your computer, so no you have sold your software to someone else and this person is buying it from you instead of buying a new license. So it will affect sales in a negative way. This is why software companies include this.

The option is instead to use dongles to run the software (Which I believe Autodesk is using) , this we did a few years ago but customers really hated this and when they where asked on what they would prefer then the current system was by far the preferred one.

I looked at the link you provided and they are criticizing the complexity of the license agreement and I think our is less complex, simpler written, much shorter and less restricted then most of the ones NCC is criticizing.


I would like instead to bring it back to photography when this is the business we are in. You are promoting that it is not correct that you can not do what ever you want with the software. I am not sure if this include a software companies liability.

Should you sign away all your rights when you sell an image to a publish house? Should they be allowed to use and reuse and modify your image anyway they want? If you include liability in your statement then should you be financial responsible for a publish house misprint of your image when it was a color management issue on their side?

The software industry has very similar challenges as the photographers has so I believe photographers can better relate to the challenges we face then other groups.

As I said previously, we are in the same boat asking for the same things.
Kind Regards
Ulf Liljegren
Phase One
Ulf
Crew
Crew
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Re:

Postby Samoreen » Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:59 am

Hi,

Just reviving this discussion because there's another discussion about license transfer that recently started on a local forum in my country...

Ulf wrote:We have no way of checking that you have actually uninstalled software on your computer...


I had to handle this problem in the past as a software developer and editor. Technically, this is not a big issue. I wrote an uninstaller that asks the user if the uninstallation is final (software returned or license transferred to another user). In that case, re-installing with the same license key is no longer possible on any system, and the uninstallation software creates a ticket that can be sent to the software editor to prove that the software was definitively uninstalled. If the software is transferred to another user, the buyer can send the ticket to the sales dpt. and get another license key. This way, he can be registered as a new user.

This allows to comply with the european rules.
Samoreen
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:09 pm
Location: Samoreau, France


Return to Capture One 6.x, 5.x and 4.x Software



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests