Here's some software news...

This Changes Everything!!!

"Rental" would imply that the item would cease functioning or have to be returned after a pre-determined period of time unless a renewal fee were paid.

The time period would also need to be relativly short in order to provide distinction from an outright sale.  So a software house couldn't build in a 10 year shutdown and then claim the "purchase" price was actually a ten year rental as most software is out of date after 4 or 5 years anyway...

The EU limits the enforceablity of licensing agreements with regard to software. The court refers to Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16) the relevant points summarized as: 

"Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible 
– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement
granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder 
sells the copy to the customer and  thus exhausts his exclusive  distribution right. Such  a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence www.curia.europa.euagreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy." 

The EU had already recognized the right to sell a software license notwithstanding the claim of the licensor that the license agreement (contract) frobids such a transfer.  The main reason this became an issue three years later is the subtle difference in the way the copy of the software was being transferred to the owner of the second hand license. They were actually downloading a copy from the original licensor's (Oracle) website, not receiving it from the person (UsedSoft) who had sold them the license. Oracle could not claim that the second hand licensee or the seller of the second hand license could not use the software it had licensed. So Oracle attempted to say that although the new licensee had a right to use the software, it had no right to make a copy of the software (the actual code that makes the license valuable) because that copying was forbidden by EU/German copyright law. This argument was rejected by the court.

The earlier directive has determined that a permanent license was in effect a sale for some purposes. This ruling extends the earlier rejection of the "licensed not sold" argument to permit the legal copying (therefore downloading) of a licensed piece of software. It would likely still be possible to license software for a short period (truly rent it) with payment received monthly for example, or renewable to the original owner for a nominal sum with language that would make the nominal price of such a renewal non-transferrable. 

An unintended consequence might be to end the permanent licensing of software. And of course, there is a growing tendency in this country at least not to rely on copyright at all to protect intellectual property, but to substitute technical methods (digital rights management) to prevent transfer. That has been sort of effective in the e-book and music area.

The sooner Cameron gets his arse into gear and gives the UK the Referendum a lot of people want, the better.

I 4-1 will be voting to leave the EU totally.

Karyn


"Rental" would imply that the item would cease functioning or have to be returned after a pre-determined period of time unless a renewal fee were paid.

The time period would also need to be relativly short in order to provide distinction from an outright sale.  So a software house couldn't build in a 10 year shutdown and then claim the "purchase" price was actually a ten year rental as most software is out of date after 4 or 5 years anyway...

I see the trend toward subscription services anyway, this just provides extra momentum toward that.

Kind of like a 'pay per view' system like premium subscriptions that are already paid to media companies in order that you can recieve certain channels.  It's really easy to restrict access to software stored locally by means of needing online authorization to use it already, unless you renew your subscription the software simply wont work.  AV companies already use this idea very effectively and the more we migrate to mobile devices the more inevitable it  becomes.

Buying software to own as a concept will be as dead as the desktop computer in a few years time.  Mark my words.

bapu

Jonbouy

Mark my words. 

I do all the time.


That's why I can't hardly comprehend most of what is on the internests. My screen is all marked up.

You don't need no steenking internests other than to recieve my mecurial wisdom.

(Hint: print out this statement and paste it on your wall!)

Buying software to own as a concept will be as dead as the desktop computer in a few years time.

Hmm... A desktop computer can be completely replaced by a laptop if you are willing to pay twice as much for the same performance and attach a full sized keyboard and monitor and external backup drive, and I/O interfaces. In which case you have invented the three-times-as-expensive desktop computer. Or by a Windows 8 tablet machine if you are willing to gesture through a list of sixty odd programs to get the one you want to start.  Unfortunately I agree that is the wave of the future. 

For years Microsoft et. al. have been looking for a way to rent you their software. That way they can evict you, even if some court decides they have to return your data in CSV format. Cloud computing with everything leased on their servers is the current paradigm. The inherent latency of that model will make it impractical for audio work for decades to come, so hold onto your desktop dinosaur. Computers are not working machines for the majority of users but entertainment centers. 

So do any of you actually read ... the licensing agreements

I read one occasionally.  In short. Once you click accept you are f****d.

craigb


So do any of you actually read Bapu's FSF the licensing agreements or just hit "Accept" and continue?

The implication of reading the FSF infers that you are not of sufficiently sound mind to enter into any form of binding agreement.

Therefore anybody is entitled to add to that already steaming pile of monkey poop.

The Bouy has ruled!

slartabartfast

 Cloud computing with everything leased on their servers is the current paradigm. The inherent latency of that model will make it impractical for audio work for decades to come, so hold onto your desktop dinosaur. Computers are not working machines for the majority of users but entertainment centers.  

Apple has already taken a step in that direction w/ Logic. So far, for me, it's only been advantageous. 


First, the price. When Apple acquired eMagic, Logic used to sell for almost 1k and came w/ a dongle. Now it can be downloaded directly from the app store for $200. That's the full version of Logic, w/ all the plug-ins and synths and over 40 GB of additional material, not some "essential" or "elements" version. 

I can download and install the software on as many machines as I own. Same for MainStage. 

Whenever I log into the app store, it automatically detect any update or additional content that's not installed on the machine I'm using. So if for some reason I have to re-install everything, I only need to log into the app store and all my stuff will be waiting for me there.

So, for the time being, it is kind of the best of both worlds, for me at least. It is similar to cloud computing in a sense, w/ the aforementioned advantages in mind, but, the application itself and all the work reside on your hd. Which is pretty much the only option if they are to venture in the pro audio market, at this time.

Now, as to what may not be so positive... I'm not sure there will be an upgrade option to the next version when it comes out. Just like there was no upgrade path from Express to Pro. But seeing the price tag on the full product is roughly equivalent to others' upgrade prices, that doesn't concern me much. Version 9 has been out for 3 years and we still receive free updates and patches. 

I guess if you take the upgrade option out of the equation, then you pay the full license every time. So in theory, in such a model, you could re-sell your old versions, because you have to pay the full license every time. Though I'm not quite sure how this could work w/ Apple - they're obviously not very vocal about things like license transfers. 

Logic used to sell for almost 1k and came w/ a dongle. Now it can be downloaded directly from the app store for $200.

Years ago Phillipe Kahn was buying up companies that had gone belly up trying to sell very expensive software and began re-marketing the same software at a fraction of the price. Some very good products that no one thought were worth the price became available at attractive rates, and began to sell. Mass marketing of reasonably priced software is intrinsically more profitable than boutique pricing. The largest cost (development) of marketed software has been spent when the first unit goes out the door. When that cost is paid, most of your sales are profit. If you plan to sell only a few units, then each must be priced in the stratosphere, which pretty much ensures that only a few units will sell. 


A reasonable price is also the best insurance against piracy. 

Jonbouy


The Bouy has ruled... 

...these forums since the 4th day of the 14th month of the year 2008.