I did initially post something about this in the Coffee House.

There is a new judgement that has been found against Oracle which may affect the long term implications enabling the sale of previously 'non-transferable' software licenses that could have an impact globally.

The first MI vendors I have found to fall in line are DiscoDSP

Check their new policy re license transfer after sale.

An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his used licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet as stated at Court of Justice of the European Union Press Release 94/12.

http://www.discodsp.com/faq/

In the short-term it's probably good news for consumers, in the long term it could mean different licensing terms issued by vendors and thus bad news for consumers.  Either way it's likely to be big news among software developers in the coming months, and maybe a glut of now perfectly legitimate 2nd hand software for sale in the EU at least.

The full PDF of the actual press release is here.

http://curia.europa.eu/jc...2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

 Sounds like a fair law to me to be sure. I believe software should be the same as hardware.
I read EULA sometimes and to be honest they all pretty much sound the same to me. The jist of it is you really own nothing and you are just renting the ability to use their software. I believe software should be under the same guidelines as hardware IMO. If I buy a toaster I can sell it if I choose. Should be no different for software.

ohgrant


 Sounds like a fair law to me to be sure. I believe software should be the same as hardware.
I read EULA sometimes and to be honest they all pretty much sound the same to me. The jist of it is you really own nothing and you are just renting the ability to use their software. I believe software should be under the same guidelines as hardware IMO. If I buy a toaster I can sell it if I choose. Should be no different for software.

I completely agree with this...once I've bought the license...I own it...and should be able to sell (transfer) it to whomever I choose.


Piracy is always going to exist....laws are made to protect criminals  - because honest people really don't need them...so that's really
a very poor excuse on the part of the vendor...

Software is a commodity...and should be treated as such....if you buy it...you should have the right to trade it or sell it as you see fit....

Thanks for the link Jonbouy.  

Cakewalk may need to introduce "the dongle" ala Propellerheads and Steinberg.  If I was a software developer I wouldn't pay much heed to the court's opinion that "the original acquirer of a tangible or intangible copy of a 
computer program for which the copyright holder’s right of distribution is exhausted must make
the copy downloaded onto his own computer unusable at the time of resale."

 A dongle makes it enforceable. 

backwoods


Thanks for the link Jonbouy.  

Cakewalk may need to introduce "the dongle" ala Propellerheads and Steinberg.  If I was a software developer I wouldn't pay much heed to the court's opinion that "the original acquirer of a tangible or intangible copy of a 
computer program for which the copyright holder’s right of distribution is exhausted must make
the copy downloaded onto his own computer unusable at the time of resale."

A dongle makes it enforceable. 

???

This has nothing to do with copy-protection or anti-piracy.

This judgement says software vendors cannot refuse the transfer of a sold license you own to anyone that you decide to sell it to.  Propellerheads unlike many others have always made their licenses transferable and have never tried to levy a fee for that.  It essentially enforces all software companies that don't currently allow that transfer to behave in the same way.

Selling pirate copies of software is as illegal as it has always been.

This is to stop vendors preventing the resale of something they've sold to you or even charging for the transfer of the license you originally purchased.

This isn't merely the courts 'opinion' that you can pay no heed to, it is a judgement that has already been passed that means if you are a software developer that tries to oppose the resale of something you've already sold then you will be breaking the law.

As I say it's law in the EU but it is likely to have wider consequences when you consider that for example Europeans could have the ability to sell their used copies of Sonar legally (regardless of what Cakewalk's EULA may currently state) and the rest of the world can't.

Sorry JonBouy but you are dead wrong about Propellerheads.

Rack extensions are not transferable. Neither are downloaded refills " Prior to downloading, as part of the download process, you may (depending on what ReFill you're buying) be required to accept a user agreement. Please note that there is no 30 day return policy on downloadable products and that ownership can not be transferred to another person. "

 For software vendors it has EVERYTHING to do with copy protection and piracy. Propellerheads uses a dongle, so does Steinberg.  Why do you think that is JonBouy? Steinberg happily allows license transfer BECAUSE OF THE DONGLE. 


      

backwoods


Sorry JonBouy but you are dead wrong about Propellerheads.

Rack extensions are not transferable. Neither are downloaded refills " Prior to downloading, as part of the download process, you may (depending on what ReFill you're buying) be required to accept a user agreement. Please note that there is no 30 day return policy on downloadable products and that ownership can not be transferred to another person. "

For software vendors it has EVERYTHING to do with copy protection and piracy. Propellerheads uses a dongle, so does Steinberg.  Why do you think that is JonBouy? Steinberg happily allows license transfer BECAUSE OF THE DONGLE. 


    

Erm, no I ain't.  Propellerheads have tried to launch RE's in the last 2 weeks with non-transferable licenses, now they have to think again on that one.  Refills are soundware and very few licenses there have ever been transferable, that will have to change too now.

I've sold a Reason license before they even thought of the Codemeter stick they approved the license transfer themselves and have never charged for it.  I did that because I wanted to start my license afresh and the difference between selling V4 and buying R5/Record duo was a better deal to me at the time than a straight upgrade from 4 to 5.  No complaints, no fuss, no charge from the Props the license was indeed transferable as I actually did it way back then.

This isn't to do with copy protection because quite simply whether the license is protected by dongle, serial number or masonic handshake it doesn't matter the original vendor now HAS to honour the transfer in the EU regardless.  If you sell me a license for software it is now completely legal for me to sell that on. Period.

Tell me what aspects of any of that you are still having trouble understanding and I will try and find a picture instead if that will help.

Thie is going to be interesting. It may be good for the consumer for a while, but in the end may be a major headache to us all. One area I do not think this is going to apply to is virtual instruments such as the ones I mostly use. The ruling as I understand it applies to software but in VI's you are buying 2 things- 1. Software and then 2. sound recordings.  You have in essence two things here, one covered under the ruling and then one that is not covered in the ruling. The ruling has nothing to do with sound recordings which is what samples are. There is some seriously hot debate going on other places right now. The danger I see is that this is going to drive prices up and perhaps make developers increase security on their products.

It may be good for the consumer for a while, but in the end may be a major headache to us all.

Agreed, I'm thinking subscriptions rather than sales further down the line.

"Propellerheads unlike many others have always made their licenses transferable..."


Hello. I've pointed out you are dead wrong and you are too arrogant to see it :)