c.bennet doesnt look like hes legit, no links to commercial business or anything

It's pretty much the wild west over there.

lots of companies allow you to transfer the license to another user if you sale. EU is just making it universal so that everyone is not keeping track of a million different EULAs for something so basic. In fact, of the most common software I use, Sonar is the only one that does not allow me to sell.

The title of this thread in essence is slanderous as mentioned before they have a TOS to deal with this and they don't encourage nor profit from these illegal transactions. Furthermore I have witnessed them deal with these type of threads in a swift and diligent manner WHEN THEY ARE NOTIFIED.

Why not tell KVR whats going on and let them handle this matter prior to taking it off site to this forum.

end rant.

I'm certainly glad that there was no one around like this to slander me when a client managed to sneak in copyrighted material under my nose. I would have been accused falsely despite the fact that I was just as much the victim.

If you published copyrighted material because a client failed to tell you, you are not a victim, you are liable. 

Linear Phase


Being able to sell a product after you have used it is a, "basic civil liberty," what?

By that style of logic, if you have an infectious disease, it is your right to sell Kleenex after you have used them to wipe your nose.

Well that's definitely not a liberty of any sorts.

Your logic is badly flawed.  Cakewalk's restrictions are exactly the same as the sales contract for a new car stating that it cannot ever be sold to a new owner.  Outgrow your car or just want something nicer and your only option is to send it to the junkyard.


Cakewalk is the only company that I purchase software from that has this policy.  Their products are valuable enough to me that I will tolerate this nonsense; apparently enough people agree for them to run a business.
It is my understanding that in the EU, such provisions in software licenses are null and void.  Both of the posters you linked to claimed EU residency, so your concern is misplaced.

It is a mistake to conflate reselling software with piracy.  It is quite clear from the referenced threads that the individuals were selling licenses to software that they no longer used.  It is nothing like the fiends that sell $50 copies of Sonar on eBay.  


And, finally, while the health department (or more likely, the absence of buyers) might have something to say about you reselling your used Kleenex, it is certainly isn't any business of the Kimberly-Clark company.

rabeach...not according to our attorney who was smart enough to protect us against being deceived. It is impossible to know 100% of the songs published in history. We required this client to sign a contract certifying that the music he used belonged to him and that he would be liable if he were lying. The moment we discovered the client lied, we pulled the product instantly. There is a huge difference between being complicit with a violation and still being deceived despite taking many precautions. By your statement Youtube would be liable every time someone posted copyrighted material whether they removed it or not.

Question.

Has anyone, including the OP, contacted Meffy about this apparent violation? He is one of the mods there...and, if I am not mistaken, there have been numerous threads shut down in marketplace for just this very thing...