Kev999


I believe that Cakewalk would benefit from allowing their products to be resold.  They could even profit from such sales by offering an online licence transfer facility and making it chargeable.  IK Multimedia does this.  Even without charging they would still gain a new registered user who might potentially upgrade or purchase further CW products.  I sold my copy of Reason 4 because I hardly ever used it.  Hopefully its current owner is making much better use of it than I did.

IK make it not worth while to transfer things, been there / done that.. their fees are a joke.. as are their fee's for re-downloading.

Linear Phase

Jonbouy

Linear Phase



The law basically can not pass in America.  Unless we are really getting off our path.  Basically this is government saying to private business, "anybody can sell the products you create."

So you as individuals prefer to be dictated to by business that tells you that you can't sell something you bought?

You are OK with that but not a law that prevents it?

Sorry no.  I'd rather do business with the companies I want to do business with.  If I don't like their policy, than I don't have to buy their products.  If I bought the product without being aware of what the, "warranty and limitations were," than that is my fault.


I don't celebrate every time a law is passed.  In America we have something called precedent.  Laws are a chain reaction.  You could have congress pass a law like this, and you have no idea what the impact will be, until years later when they pass a law that really infringes on freedom somehow, and cites the precedent.


It is a political thread for me.  I can't really explain my thoughts without really breaking the TOS.  And I quite like my Cakewalk music stuff.  I'm dropping it.


Peace

It's not politics btw it's legality

I get what you are saying about freedom of choice, but when all commercial interests jump on the same bandwagon it creates a kind of monopoly where there is no choice.

I think it's fair to say if somebody is actually 'selling' something to you be it a license or a brick there should be something that passes into ownership of you the buyer.

The point here is that these licenses are more like a leasing model than a sale and the court here has made that judgement.

I doubt in the long term the end-user at the bottom of the food chain will gain any benefit but it does help bolster the idea if you want to 'sell' me something there ought to be at least some principle of 'ownership' involved, otherwise just be upfront and call it a rental agreement or subscription service, neither of which I am opposed to in principle as I already have rental agreements and subscription services that I've already chosen to sign up for and enjoy the use of.

Companies know that customers largely prefer to 'buy' something outright which is why they are making use of the idea of making a 'sale' without providing what the term normally bestows on a buyer, including disposing of it in the same way you would any possession that you consider yourself to be the owner of.  So basically here commerce is claiming to make a sale which doesn't involve you ever having rights over it like you do with anything else you actually 'own'.  How can that be right?  The European court has judged here that it isn't.

But as you imply as with any law the principle may be right but the consequences of passing it as law may indeed not have the desired effect.  Time will tell here because the precedent has already been set.

Who are the liberty takers?  Me personally I have little faith in commerce ever doing the right thing as it is always by it's nature attempting to maximise it's own advantage and often to the detriment of it's own customers, and because of it's failure to regulate itself it invites intervention by law when it continually seeks to push it's powers at the expense of any choice.  Can I even say 'bankers' here these days?

If it was part of human nature to be fair there'd be no requirement for the administration of law to adjudicate.  I totally get what you are saying though and think I agree with it to some extent.  To be clear I'm neither pro or anti the judgement, I'm just trying to fully understand it and the likely implications of it.  I'm certainly interested in seeing how it pans out.

The entitlement issue is one of if I sell you something do you then expect me to still retain rights over what you do with it?  2nd hand markets are always beneficial to a free economy also, check out eBay that contributes fairly well to free enterprise, no?

I'm suspecting for the majority of the plain unwashed such as myself it will just mean more of the same ol', same ol' as well funded legal departments find their feet in another damage limitations excercise that sees end users out of pocket again due to the costs involved in finding the next set of loopholes they can exploit.

But hey, I'm all for that, that's the game we're all involved in us capitalists.  Long may it continue it's kind of fun.  You try something on in your interests (Oracle) I oppose it in mine (UsedSoft Gmbh).  It's only movement and momentum, that's what keeps the counters rolling.

And what do all you lawyers think would happen to the price of Sonar. I would imagine that CW would have to at least "triple" the intial price since they will be selling way, way less products. Do you really think people are going to remove the software before they sell it? Yeah right. It's called imaging.
So you buy it, install it, image the hd it's installed on and sell, sell, sell.
 
Great logic for a disaster

For now, when you give someone money, and they hand you a box with a dvd and a EULA, you haven't bought anything. They've only granted you a license to use it. If you want, you can use it as a frisbee, a coaster, or a tree ornament. But you can't sell it. You can't even give it away. The copyright act provisions on the right of first sale just don't apply.

Actually the copyright isn't the issue here anyway, it's still illegal to duplicate, you can only sell on the materials provided under license to use the software for its intended purpose at the point of the first sale.

And the point is now in Europe you can resell any license that is sold to you.  Whether anyone in the US likes it or not.  It isn't a debate anymore about the rights or wrongs of doing so, it's become law in the EU since this judgement. 

In fact it became law in 1991 it's just that nobody had contested the wrangles vendors have been exploiting since then.  Nobody contested it here, Oracle lost a case they were trying to bring to defend the common exploits (excuses) that many vendors have been using for the last 20 years to get around the law.

The only vendors not affected here are the ones that permit the free transfer of licenses to a 2nd user already.  I have some products already offered under these terms, the software retains a decent resale value and the vendor doesn't mind having an ex-customer on the database that may well return as a customer in future, as well as a new customer in the fold and on the upgrade trail that they may not have had had the software not been a bit cheaper for them than a new purchase.  It seems like a win, win to me.

Bottom line is I can now legally sell my software licenses that are not subject to a subsription or rental agreement.  If anybody was to challenge me in court for doing that it would likely be very costly for them and even more likely they'd lose the case.  Period.

Thing is though I ain't got anything I want to get rid of.

The only debate left is whether those customers outside of the EU will be happy to have non-transferable licenses when those inside the EU can sell theirs freely and legally.  Vendors might now actually get a chance to see what their customers really want when they are given the choice and whether indeed there is actually a benefit to them in freely allowing transfers to a 2nd user.

This is nothing to do with piracy, it involves a legitmate license that is no longer being used being transfered to another user to be used in exactly the same way as the first user would be doing had he elected to continue using the product.

Beagle

Bottom line is I can now legally sell my software licenses that are not subject to a subsription or rental agreement. If anybody was to challenge me in court for doing that it would likely be very costly for them and even more likely they'd lose the case. Period.

regardless of what you believe the law has ruled for the case you linked to in the other threads, would it not bother you to digitally sign an agreement knowing you do not agree with it?

personally, my ethics prevent me from selling cakewalk software, for example, simply because I agreed not to when I installed it.  I feel I must keep my integrity in tact, even while others are throwing theirs out of the window (no accusation toward you or anyone else - I'm only speaking metaphorically). 

same goes for the TOS of this forum (not stating you or anyone else is violating it - this is just another example) - I agreed to it before I was allowed to have a login, just like everyone else.  but how many people believe they don't have to follow the TOS even though they agreed to it before they were allowed to log in?

To me, for my part - I am not going to agree to the EULA (or TOS) and then knowingly and willfully disobey it.  regardless of what a court ruled about other software in another country.

IF cake were to make a public statement that they have changed their EULA to follow the ruling of this court, THEN I would consider myself released from the agreement I made when I installed the software.  Otherwise, I must stand by my agreement with cake that I knowingly and willfully accepted when I installed the software.

I am bound by my word, not some "out" that I'm looking for in the courts.

FWIW I don't want to sell my software, me personally I was happy enough with the EULA I read to abide by the terms of it, and still am, even though it isn't legal here today.  I'm in a position of choice to do the gentlemanly thing and abide by those original terms, I am however no longer compelled to.  The Cakewalk boys have always been fair enough to me and approachable in the case of any dispute or concern I have.  It don't view them as villains here all of sudden because of this judgement and I feel confident they will be one of the firms that do the best thing for their customer base in light of this new judgement. It will affect them though because they trade in Europe.

I'm also bound by the terms of the TOS of this forum (which incidentally isn't 'sold' to me).

I don't think anyone here is looking for an 'out' provided by this judgement, but I think it is healthy and relevant to discuss the likely ramifications of it. 

Some of the rulings on downloads particularly regarding recorded media originated in the US which isn't my country I don't have a problem with those either because I choose not to steal movies or music.  I do think the citing of the origin of the law here is funny especially when the major principles of US law are still of European origin.

The point is boxed product has been allowed to be resold in Germany under the legislation of 1991 because quite simply you can't return software when the seal has been broken and you can't read the EULA in this case until you've broken the seal and everyone is OK with that?....go figure.

Oracle will have been aware of this when the tried to overcome it in relation to first user licensed downloads against a German firm, they likely realised they'd have a better chance in the European court than the German one, I'd say that idea backfired spectacularly.

To be clear this isn't new legislation this is a judgement under existing law that has now become a  precedent.

I did also feel that the software forum would be a better place for this discussion which is why I had previously started a thread there on the subject before this one appeared here.

 

but not in the US or other countries. this is exactly why I feel it's important to point out that this court ruling is not necessarily binding as a precendent to the US or any other country other than the country (EU) where it was decided. I think it's "funny" myself for anyone to believe that a ruling in the courts of the EU will be a legal precedent in the US or other countries. It might be a starting point, but it's not binding to the other countries' courts in any way.

It is binding if a US company is trading in the EU, as US based Oracle have found out already.

I'm not saying it sets a legal precedent in the US but when customers are seeing one rule for one large user base and a different rule for others then expect some changes and implications even if it's just those companies that sell into the EU.  Just, as I already said, we fall in line to with other judgements made in the US but don't normally start beating the 'land of the free' kind of drum when those judgements actually make sense to business and customers alike.

I find it 'funny' because I observe there are many of your fellows that truly and clearly believe that the 'World' starts and ends at the boundaries of the US, many of course are more intelligent than that particularly those that sell into European markets currently and contribute greatly to the US economy by doing so.

I reckon you'd see it as 'funny' too from where I'm sitting, especially when they readily quote principles of freedom they enjoy as right, and the basis of those main principles of individual liberty indeed also originated in Europe during the 13th century.

One correction to my observation earlier that Oracle likely took this to the ECJ instead of the German court it actually seems like the German court originally found in favour of Oracle it was only when UsedSoft referred it back under appeal that it got returned to the ECJ and the appeal was upheld.

All that is detail now though, the precedent has been set in the EU, the full implications which will be more interesting, are still to follow.

You'll also notice that I've declared I too am honouring the EULA I signed up for because I originally was happy to do so, I have no argument with that principle of gentlemanly conduct.  When I shake hands on a deal I tend to honour it.  The only point here is that I'm no longer legally bound by it which for me as far as Sonar is concerned is just a technicality as I expect to continue using it.  But make no mistake whatever jurisdiction you live within if you are actually 'selling' software or merely a license to use that software to me as a European you give up the right to dictate how I choose to dispose of it.

That isn't what is going to happen that is the case now!

Sorry Reece but I'm not stereotyping I stated that many of your fellows are more intelligent than to believe the rhetoric.  You are here totally agreeing with my observations yourself (it is not bias, I love America and many Americans).  There are examples of it in this very thread.

Don't put words into my mouth on that subject please.

yes, I agree there are many of "my fellows" who believe that the US is the only place in the world that matters.  I did not say that nor did I imply that.  your statements, however are biased against US citizens because of stereotyping all US citizens who "beat" the "land of the free drum."  we are not all the same, but what does that really have to do with whether or not it is legal to resale software? 

It isn't about this nor have I attempted to make it about this, there are plenty of defensive stances about this ruling that reflect it though, and no not necessarily on this forum particularly.  Had they not been visible enough to observe in the first instance it wouldn't have even been mentioned.  I'm saying what I'm seeing is all.

And yes I've already said it changes nothing in the US and Oracle unless they are selling into Europe why are you repeating that when I'm obviously already clear on that subject?

Beagle


ok

That was pretty low Reece, I would have thought you of anyone here would actually know me and my views on the US and it's citizens better than that.

Beagle

Jonbouy

Beagle


ok

That was pretty low Reece, I would have thought you of anyone here would actually know me and my views on the US and it's citizens better than that.

I don't understand JB.  I simply said "OK" 
 
I accepted your last post as clarification.  how was that "low" of me?

I clearly wasn't refering to the OK part was I?  For clarification if you did in fact need it, the 'low' bit was the accusation of bias and stereotyping levelled at me which is so far removed from anything that I'm am about I'm suprised that you have all people would have dragged the discussion into that area.

Pointing out a specific consensus of feeling that is actually tangible enough to notice isn't stereotyping, I did also point out that there are those or your nation able to see beyond knee-jerk rhetoric, and I would consider myself more pro-American than most other English citizens that I come into contact with, ergo I'm not biased either.

Mean it?



If so apology accepted, let's move on.

Jonbouy


Mean it?



If so apology accepted, let's move on.

I do not apologize without meaning it.
 
Saying you expected better of me is really the reason I got defensive.  I do know you're not like that, that's why I didn't understand the comments I outlined above which sounded to me like you were being prejudiced.  aparently I misinterpreted, which is a relief to me since I really did not want to believe you were.
 
yes, I sincerely apologize for misinterpretting your comments.

keith


I don't care what you want to call it... a license to use, lease, rental, subscription, whatever... I have a customer relationship with a company, until I don't . When I no longer care to have that relationship, the value of thje relationship doesn't just disappear into thin air. That unused relationship is of value to someone, and gee it sure would be nice to sell my relationship to somebody that wants to purchase it from me -- I get compensated for (typically) 100's or even 1000's of dollars in license purchases, the buyer takes ownership of the relationship at a significant discount, the company has a new customer who is most likely very much interested in upgrades and new purchases. How is that not a win-win-win for everybody?

Arguments about "govt telling companies how to run their business" miss a very important reality: without the consumer laws that we do have on the books today, we'd all be getting screwed over in one way or another, because many companies that sell goods and services simply don't have the self control to be "fair" to the customer. You'd have all sorts of bait and switch, false advertising, hidden fees, price fixing, etc. etc. That's not to say that all goods and services companies are evil... but let's be real here: the bean counters are most often found in a back room counting the beans, not standing out front greeting customers. The days of mom & pop grocery store are long gone.

So whatever the govt can do to look out for my interests as a consumer, then I'm all for that. Otherwise, there is largely no collective power when 90% of the population is simply willing to not fight for what they think is fair. Boycotting cans of tuna fish only goes so far when it's just you and your neighbor standing on the street corner with a sandwich board.

Amen to that.

It's nice to know I'm not the only one in the herd that takes objection to being expected to line up and regularly fleeced without having some say in the matter because someone who is trying to pass something on as being 'sold' isn't in fact selling me anything.

Like I said I don't mind rental agreements I'm signed up for a few, but if they ain't an actual 'sale' don't advertise them a such.  Don't put 'buy now' put 'for rent' or 'subscribe now'.

It seems that simple to me.

I've been really baffled, and frankly scared over recent years the more iSee (pun intended) the trend of end-users backing a corporate stance over the rights of an individual, even to the point of becoming over-heated about defending it, rather than even bear the thought of some valid rumblings that may be directed at their favourite vendor. To be clear I don't mean with Cakewalk particularly as I said they seem to be a reasonably customer oriented bunch compared to many.

Vendors also have notably become more aggresive and dictatorial as the stakes have got higher, many of them don't mind incurring a few people with genuine complaint when they know for each one of those they get 10,000 just prepared to go along with them.  It may be good news financially for vendors but it's garbage for end-users unless they are perfectly happy with everything they purchase being of a 'main-stream' mass appeal with no notion of ever being a 'valued' customer that has some contribution and bearing to the shape of the end-product.

It's become largely a numbers game just now.

Also, can somebody actually write in "pirate"?

Pirate? I though it was Geordie.