Look.
If I was to upgrade my current version (Sonar 7) to Sonar 8.5
I would then no longer have any use for Sonar 7.
I would completely uninstall Sonar 7 from my computer.

LOOK.  you're missing the points.
1) if you UPGRADE then you're not paying full price for 8.5.  you're paying a price that's based on the fact that at some point in the past you HAVE paid for a full price and you're now allowed to upgrade for a smaller price.  IF you paid full price for sonar 8.5, then there might be reason for argument that you should be able to sell version 7 (if you paid full price for it as well).  but you're not.  you're paying an upgrade price.  therefore you're not entitled to sell the FULL VERSION 7 because you would be paying LESS than full price for version 8.5 by doing so.

2) you made an agreement.  that's the killer in these arguments.  have the integrity to abide by the agreement you made.  if you don't want to abide by that agreement - then don't make it and don't buy the software.  I've never understood why people have so little integrity that they will agree to anything to get what they want (installation of the software in this case), but then immediately determine that those rules did not apply to them.

PH68


Look.
If I was to upgrade my current version (Sonar 7) to Sonar 8.5
I would then no longer have any use for Sonar 7.
I would completely uninstall Sonar 7 from my computer.

As pointed out before: morally speaking, if you paid the full price for Sonar 8.5 then you should be able to do whaterever you want with Sonar 7.  But you know that with software that is not the case.
Better yet; why don't you treat the discount you get when you update/upgrade as a trade-in value for your old version?

edentowers

PH68


As long as the other person gets the serial number and the registration number they can use Sonar XX quite happily.
If you have downloaded any updates, copy them onto a disk and the new owner can then install and use these as well (again as long as you give them the relevant serial/registration numbers)

The only thing they can't get acces to is any future software updates, or upgrade offers.
Just make this clear in the sale info.


So, yes you could sell any version of Sonar (they do come up, and do sell, on eBay), as long as you don't tell Cakewalk themselves!
Personally, I'd have no issue selling on my current version should I ever decide to upgrade.

In what other ways do you recommend someone breaks the law? Are you an advocate of reckless driving? Do you think that carrying a knife is OK as long as it's in self defence? Is stealing from a large chain store OK because they make big profits?

So now you've told Cakewalk your point of view I wonder whether you'll still be eligible for any upgrades?

who cares about a local us law that is not enforcable in most other states of the world???
if i want to sell sonar - i just sell it - i would sell the software and the serial - thats it - what cakewalk LATER does with the new owner of the license isnt my problem...
its so freaking amazing that all those "freedom loving" us guys here whine about a "law" - damn the license agreement of a software is NO law - its just a contract - and btw - not everything written in a contract has to be "right" (infact very often contracts contain a lot of ilegit restrictions that would not withstand a trial in court)
 
also your funny remarks about eligibility for upgrades - c´mon are you kidding - were you raised with the psycology of the "monster under yopur bed" ? i think its always amazing to see how people like you advocate against their own personal freedom - its just absurd...but if it makes YOU happy :-)

info@tomflair.com

 thre is no songle reason to treat a license differebtly than a material good in this case - and if you are proud of being so moral that you advocate the (ripping off) limitation the bakers incude in their eula - then i just can say "good night"   btw.. this has been discussed so often here that i would be happy to see someone in europe to go to a court in order to have the (non valid restriction) formally removed from the eula (did you know that stuff like this happens on a daily basis - because big companies try to enforce unlawful agreements in their contracts...? well - probably you didnt...)

Then I suggest you take them to court, have the EULA removed and then you can proudly tell me how wrong I am.  otherwise, the EULA is still there for Europeans and non-Europeans alike and if you agree to it then you should have the balls to stand by your agreement.
 
What would be funny (to me) would be if you took them to court to have the EULA removed and won.  then cake decided it was no longer in their interest to sell their licenses in Europe.  How fitting an ending would that be?

Well someone on here compared knives to software, so did you have a go at them as well?
No?
why not?

CJaysMusic

If I buy a new car, my old one does not clutter up the driveway... it gets sold on so someone else can make use of it.

I cannot explain why some people do not understand the difference between buying and purchasing a licence to use a program. Is it me or are some people ignorant???
PH, software is not a car. Your comparing apples to oranges. You never owned sonar. You owned your car..

well so enlighten us cj - pleas diversify the two  concepts of ownership and licensing in this case - what makes it different with a software (and if it was so - why is there a ton of software that is transferable) in both cases you pay in order to get a product that can be used ...
do you actually own a book? or a cd? do you own your clothes - well a good questuion - partially you own it partially not - because you only own the right to act with the sngle good as you like - never you own any of the rights of the inventors or the patent holders --- but no one is claiming that they want to modify their copy of sonar ... teh just want to get rid of it (for exampkl) so just in case i never OWNED sonar i then still OWNED my single license for it - and now please explain me why i shouldnt be entiteled to sell my license???

 

Beagle

to make a silly example: i sell you something and in the contract here is a small passus that says that you have to kiss my back - well guess what - that "agreement" will never be valid - even if you agree with it -  but the rest of the contract will be (unlike thie whole contract itself is against the law)
 
so what i will continue to state here: the unkind and legally questionable restriction in the eula comes from the bakers - they just should rethink their policy because there is no "real" material justification or need for such a restriction - that point of the eula doesnt respect the freedom of the buyer - hell - why do i have to explain the concept of freedom to americans - i thought freedom was the highest value there? 

the problem I have, still, is that if you don't agree with the EULA then the best way to get it changed is not in court because of non-American laws, but to do it with your money.  if you don't agree to the EULA then don't buy the software.  if enough people agree with you in non-American countries, then cakewalk will get the point.  that's the way democratic economics work.  vote with your wallet.

where do we go if i buy a product that has by definition to "die" at the first owner??? its just absurd...imagine other industry branches actinbg like that (no you cant sell your buick . we just sold you the car with a single driver "license" ) ....gosh!!!

and as has been pointed out so many times; intellectual property is not the same thing as physical property.  make your case using analogies that are relevant. 

hi beagle - sorry but you just dont get to the core of what i want to say...its not a "cakewalk" thing its a general approach to the right of contracts - actually cakewalk should then clearly point it out on the box "non resellable version" because once i have opened the box - no one would take it back if i say .."i only saw the eula during istallation"
also its a matter of freedom of disposal...the concept is and remains "something stated in a contract isnt "just" therefor a undisputable truth" - i actually dont know much about the economic-legal aspects of us legislation - but since there you can sue mcdonalds for burning yourself with hot coffe - i guess that probably someone fighting the eula in an american court would also win...
 
btw: as for the "choice with the wallet" thats a valid point on on hand but on the other its not - if i like the product and i think tharts its the best choice than thats my motivation for a purchase - not some side aspects - and thats what european legislature takes in consideration: the main part of the transaction mut be congruent and legal in order to "exist" - minor side asopects have to be one by one analized in the context of the laws about commercial transactions...
 
and as for the examples about material possesion or intellectual property: as i stated above - where do you draw the line: when you buy a book (from the point of view of the defenders of "intellectual property" then ONLY the buyer should be allowed to read it - and he shoulöd not be allowed to reaell it - you see that that would be totall rubbish - cos extending the rigts of the seller over the point of the transaction (buying the book) would result in absurd and very unjust limitations - btw.. in the extreme "book example" one could also question the fact if the owner and reader of the book is entiteled to TELL about the story ... you see where this leads?
its useless to construct some legal craziness in order to enslave and rip off customers - i dont care if wht i buy is an apple, a book or a dvd ...
dont you see that this is going into a fatal future? think about monsanto making patents on plants and living organisms - this is just a real legal immorality - the very old concept of "sell-buy" has evolved over 3500 years - and now some nasty lawyers try to introduce new "tricks" that have the only goal to magnify the companies profit and to subdue the customers...
 
hell - there must be something like "consumer laws" or "consumer protection laws" in the us - or at least an understanding for what i am trying to communicate here ??
 
 

hi beagle - actually this what i am reporting (the way the donkey part can get removed here also AFTER agreeing on it ) is just a part of the european law concepts - except if the donkey was the main reason for settimg up the contract - so its probably just two different approaches how to handle things - and i agree with you that its of no further use discussing it :-)

one thing i didnt get is your analogy with sharing music...i erned quite well on roilties BEFORE mp3 ruined the market so i feel what you say - but - actually i never implied that i am in favour of sharing music - still as for other goods of trade i am obviously of the opinion that i shpuld be allowed to privately sell a cd i have bought and listened (in theory only if i havent made a copy of it - obviously)
making this big conceptual difference between material goods and intellectual property is very problematic - because it opens pandoras box - just consider m,y example of the book - if installing sonar for a licenser is only allowed on ONE daw - the equivalent would be that your wife isnt allowed (formally) to read a book You bought...and then we reach the absurd very easily.  the concept of intellectual property is just that the original owner of his righths isnt outperformed by others who might steal his idea - its not the concept that a sold article has a sort of genetic dependency to its creator - i am not advocating any modification or additional profit to be made wirth sonar - but genuinely it makes no sense for me that a license that i paid for "expires" in my hands  - i deeply feel that this is not legit - as it doesnt keep in mind the basic rights of a buyer to use what he has bought as he likes - from that point og vie i see not - how selling the licenses would inflict any damage on the intellectual property of cakewalk ....ands i am not saying this only to argue - its my deepest conviction - and i am always curious when other people have a totally different point of view...

cheers

oh funny - cos now it seems to show that we even dont speak about the same thing in the end -  i agree with you on the uodfate dilemma - actually selling an old version would make the cheaper uodate somehow obsolate for the company - that is something we can clearly agree on - i was only talking about selling "the whole package" (means only the latest versuion) i never thought about my old versions anymore they rust in the cupboard and actually i would even throw them in garbage...
i was definitely only refering to the "total" transfer of everything - not he oartial resale of all my previous versions... but probably also this isnt enough for you ;-)   cheers

you see - in the end we agree - probably i always missed the point that people talked about the old versions - lol

so lets go on to something else :-)

regards

I still don't see where it says in the EULA that the license is not transferable? Am I not reading the correct thing?

4. Ownership:
The foregoing license gives you limited rights to use the Cakewalk Product. You do not become the owner of, and Cakewalk and its suppliers retain title to, the Cakewalk Product.

The term Cakewalk product is defined as the software so what is being granted is the right to use the software. I don't see where it says that that right is not transferable? I see that ownership of the product is retained but not the right to use it. I see that the right to use it is apparently limited but I don't see where it says exactly what those limitations are.

Isn't most software that has a transferable license require a dongle?

info@tomflair.com

Beagle


justification.  that's what everyone who does something illegal, immoral or unethical always does to qualify their actions.

But... we only agree to the license when we actually install the software.
If the software is fully uninstalled is the license still valid?

YES!  apparently you didn't read the EULA (even though you agreed that you did).  the license is sold to YOU and you are not allowed to transfer it.  and you agreed to that EULA when you checked the 2 boxes in the installation process.  again - you agreed to the license which is explicitly stated in the agreement that it is not transferrable.  show enough integrity to follow through with the promise that you made.  If you don't agree with it, then don't buy any more cakewalk software and don't ever agree to that EULA again.  but keep the promises that you made otherwise you're just a cheap liar. 

The thing is if I upgrade, then I'll still have Sonar 7 in a box doing nothing.
The software will no longer be installed on my PC.
It will be in a box gathering dust.
Some folks probably have versions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in boxes, uninstalled, doing nothing, gathering dust!

by this reasoning then you should pay FULL PRICE for all of your versions and never pay upgrade price. 

that's exactly why cakewalk doesn't allow transfer of licenses - because they offer upgrade prices for full versions.  if they didn't offer upgrade prices then it would follow that license transfers would be completely appropriate.  but you're still getting "something for nothing" when you pay upgrade price, but sell your used FULL version.

you have an fascinating narrowminded view of what "laws" are for - also you probably have no clue about the relevance of singel resrtrictions contained by a major contract ...without going into detail - because i didnt study law in english but in german (and therfore its hard to be precise in this language) you are somwehow completely wrong bevause you talk about stuff like integrity and morality and so on - from that point of view i just could counter (and so does european jurisdiction) that the restriction we are talking about here is "immoral" ---- but why do i always feel the need to join in into this stupid discussion? thre is no songle reason to treat a license differebtly than a material good in this case - and if you are proud of being so moral that you advocate the (ripping off) limitation the bakers incude in their eula - then i just can say "good night"   btw.. this has been discussed so often here that i would be happy to see someone in europe to go to a court in order to have the (non valid restriction) formally removed from the eula (did you know that stuff like this happens on a daily basis - because big companies try to enforce unlawful agreements in their contracts...? well - probably you didnt...)

We are all well aware of how you feel about CW and Sonar-So sell all your c**p and go away. You "ALL" know what a software license is, so go justify your theivery somewhere else. It just P**s'es me off when I hear crap like this post. Why do you morons think we "MUSICIANS" have the strictest copyright baloney in the world. Because the companies figure all musicians think like you and PH and the others. Get real-Wake up and smell the "Pace"-You deserve it big time! Dongle! Sad thing is-most of us don't!
Very sore subject with me-Can you tell?

Beulah, the first nationally broadcast weekly television series starring an African-American in the leading role, ran on ABC from 1950 to 1953. The role had originally been created by white, male actor Marlin Hurt for the Fibber McGee and Molly radio program and the character was spun off onto "her" own radio show in 1945. After Hurt's untimely death in 1946, Hattie McDaniel played the role on radio until her death in 1953. Ethel Waters played the character on television during its first two seasons and Louise Beavers in its third year.
A half-hour situation comedy, the program revolved around the whimsical antics of a middle-aged black domestic, Beulah, the so-called "queen of the kitchen," and the white family for whom she worked--Harry and Alice Henderson and their young son, Donnie. Beulah's boyfriend Bill Jackson ran a fix-it shop, but managed to spend most of his time hanging around Beulah's kitchen. Beulah's other black companion was Oriole, a feather-brained maid who worked for the white family next door. Storylines tended to involve Beulah coming to the rescue of her employers, by providing a great spread of Southern cuisine to impress Mr. Henderson's business client, teaching the awkward Donnie how to dance jive and impress the girls, or saving the Henderson's stale marriage. Beulah's other major obsession was trying to get Bill to agree to marry her. A regular comedic feature of the show involved Bill hyperbolically proclaiming his devotion to Beulah, while always finding a reason why the two could not wed just yet.
As one of the very few images of African-Americans on prime-time television in this period, the program came in for a certain amount of criticism for perpetuating comic black stereotypes. The show was panned in the The New York Times and condemned by widely syndicated television critic John Crosby who singled out Ethel Waters for censure. Waters achieved great renown as a vocalist, actress (particularly for her work in the Broadway production, A Member of the Wedding), and as an author with her brutally honest rags-to-riches autobiography. Yet her work in Beulah was considered by Crosby--and some critics in the black press--as a betrayal of her other exemplary accomplishments. Actor Bud Harris, who had been contracted to play the role of Bill, quit the series a few months into its run, complaining that the show's writers were forcing him to play the character as an "Uncle Tom" and engage in comic activity he found degrading to his race.
Despite these examples of controversy, Beulah never generated the amount of heated debate that Amos 'n' Andy provoked. The latter series joined the television airways a year after Beulah and became a flashpoint for organized protest. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), at its June 1951 annual convention, condemned both shows for depicting black people in a derogatory manner which "tends to strengthen the conclusion among uninformed or prejudiced peoples that Negroes and other minorities are inferior, lazy, dumb and dishonest." The organization, however, chose to engage in a consumer boycott only of Amos 'n' Andy's sponsor, and not Procter and Gamble, the sponsor of Beulah.
Beulah is significant in that it was part of a phenomenon in early entertainment television programming which saw more diversity in ethnic and racial depictions than would be seen again at any time until the late 1960s. The portrayals may have been stereotyped--as they were in other early 1950s ethnic sitcoms such as The Goldbergs and Life with Luigi--but at least African-Americans were visible in prime-time hours. After Beulah left the air in September 1953, no programme would star a black woman again until fifteen years later in 1968 when Julia appeared.

2

stratman70

info@tomflair.com

Beagle


justification.  that's what everyone who does something illegal, immoral or unethical always does to qualify their actions.

But... we only agree to the license when we actually install the software.
If the software is fully uninstalled is the license still valid?

YES!  apparently you didn't read the EULA (even though you agreed that you did).  the license is sold to YOU and you are not allowed to transfer it.  and you agreed to that EULA when you checked the 2 boxes in the installation process.  again - you agreed to the license which is explicitly stated in the agreement that it is not transferrable.  show enough integrity to follow through with the promise that you made.  If you don't agree with it, then don't buy any more cakewalk software and don't ever agree to that EULA again.  but keep the promises that you made otherwise you're just a cheap liar. 

The thing is if I upgrade, then I'll still have Sonar 7 in a box doing nothing.
The software will no longer be installed on my PC.
It will be in a box gathering dust.
Some folks probably have versions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in boxes, uninstalled, doing nothing, gathering dust!

by this reasoning then you should pay FULL PRICE for all of your versions and never pay upgrade price. 

that's exactly why cakewalk doesn't allow transfer of licenses - because they offer upgrade prices for full versions.  if they didn't offer upgrade prices then it would follow that license transfers would be completely appropriate.  but you're still getting "something for nothing" when you pay upgrade price, but sell your used FULL version.

you have an fascinating narrowminded view of what "laws" are for - also you probably have no clue about the relevance of singel resrtrictions contained by a major contract ...without going into detail - because i didnt study law in english but in german (and therfore its hard to be precise in this language) you are somwehow completely wrong bevause you talk about stuff like integrity and morality and so on - from that point of view i just could counter (and so does european jurisdiction) that the restriction we are talking about here is "immoral" ---- but why do i always feel the need to join in into this stupid discussion? thre is no songle reason to treat a license differebtly than a material good in this case - and if you are proud of being so moral that you advocate the (ripping off) limitation the bakers incude in their eula - then i just can say "good night"   btw.. this has been discussed so often here that i would be happy to see someone in europe to go to a court in order to have the (non valid restriction) formally removed from the eula (did you know that stuff like this happens on a daily basis - because big companies try to enforce unlawful agreements in their contracts...? well - probably you didnt...)

We are all well aware of how you feel about CW and Sonar-So sell all your c**p and go away. You "ALL" know what a software license is, so go justify your theivery somewhere else. It just P**s'es me off when I hear crap like this post. Why do you morons think we "MUSICIANS" have the strictest copyright baloney in the world. Because the companies figure all musicians think like you and PH and the others. Get real-Wake up and smell the "Pace"-You deserve it big time! Dongle! Sad thing is-most of us don't!
Very sore subject with me-Can you tell?

 
wow - you must be sad guy :-) if you just dont get what the discussion is about just shut  up - i am not willing to discuss serious legal aspects of a contract with someone who is a narrow minded and obviously  little vulgar person - since i am very close to my master degree in law i think that i know what i talk about and your childisch and unreasonable angry emotions are completely a waste of time - if you feel sick because you lack of knowledge - than i feel sorry for you - but certainly i wont accept you posting such a diffamatory garbage - what do you know about "how i feel about sonar" and about anything else i do ? - you bring in the term "thievery"... are you on dope  - (should i send you a picture of my original software boxes???) you are just one of those "soldier mentality -guys" or one of those "simon says jump" and your only concern is "how high" ... if you just lack any notion that would entitle you to discuss about the rights of contracts and you also lack the capability of abstraction - please just stop making a fool of yourself - go just on and be a "musician" if thats what your good at ... btw: since you seem to be one of those "neighbourhood watchmen" why dont you just report my heresy to cakewalk - so that they can sue me for my twisted thoughts??? - you just make me laugh... probably its folks like you who "feel the moral need" to stick to disadvantaging sideagreements because you have no clue about what a legal system is there for but on the other hand you would probably sue mac donalds after you got fat from eating a million of burgers - intelligence bigtime i guess - congratulation !