So yes, I can sell any software I wish on ebay with all activation codes.Things are different here. James

I wouldn't test that if I were you. :( Your laws do not cover purchases made outside of Germany, which if you took the time to check... any online purchase is considered as having happened in the country of the seller, not the purchaser.

If you wish your idea to be legal, you must look at it from the viewpoint of the Companies and give them a good reason to participate.

Of course I'm talking about a legal system or I wouldn't be discussing this here. And of course it would require changes from the devs. I'm not looking to maneuver a secondhand market into a place where there's obviously no room for it.Well, assuming there would be a ban on the secondhand selling of newly released products, thus protecting the firsthand market, there's an opportunity for the developer to basically grant the "same" license "twice". Where he doesn't haven't to support that second sell beyond installation issues to boot. In addition to that, I think it would pull some people away from the piracy scene.There are initial costs of course, but the same applies to any new thing. For example the hacker detection. So what remains is, what will the benefits be? With a secondhand market there will at least be additional sales, or not... Hacker detection may reduce piracy, but it will not necessarily increase sales... If the results of both approaches are uncertain and perhaps negligible, I find it curious that devs almost blindly follow one path and automatically dismiss the other.If you add to that the draconic measures taken that make it more difficult for the legitimate user to enjoy his addons/software. And stunts like the one Orbx pulled which really only affected their legitimate users, then I'd say developers are heading down the wrong path.The balance is not a balance anymore and instead of only losing some sales to pirates, you're also losing sales to legitimate users, not to mention their support.

Congrats! You've begun to analyze the issue from the company's point of view. Well done!

Well, assuming there would be a ban on the secondhand selling of newly released products, thus protecting the firsthand market, there's an opportunity for the developer to basically grant the "same" license "twice". Where he doesn't haven't to support that second sell beyond installation issues to boot.

From what I understand so far, the company fails to gain profits from the "second" license grant, yet incurs the cost of "installation issues". Did I get that wrong? Clearly if I understand it correctly, this would be a non-starter. The company would much prefer just selling those customers a "first" license for full retail price.

In addition to that, I think it would pull some people away from the piracy scene.

Interesting concept. But if the secondary market provides no profit to the company, why are they better off with pure piracy or the secondhand market. Neither one provides profit. Perhaps you are thinking that the code would include some trigger that would go off upon a license transfer that would force the secondary customer to pay something for installation? Is that what you are thinking? I don't know if that is possible, but it is a thought.

There are initial costs of course, but the same applies to any new thing. For example the hacker detection. So what remains is, what will the benefits be? With a secondhand market there will at least be additional sales, or not... Hacker detection may reduce piracy, but it will not necessarily increase sales... If the results of both approaches are uncertain and perhaps negligible, I find it curious that devs almost blindly follow one path and automatically dismiss the other.

Good thinking to ask what the benefits would be, and unless you have some mechanism like above for the company to profit, I see fewer sales. You did say ", or not"...you also realize that the gains are unknown. Your second sentence is worth a thought, its about taking risk. How certain must the returns be to change strategy? "It depends" is the only real answer. Some businesses are more risk averse than others. This may be one risk that the business owner can't reverse course on if he/she hates it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can be impossible to stuff it back in. Business risk is often explored in mini-experiments, but I don't know how that could be done with your idea. Perhaps there would be a way. Keep in mind that fsaddon business does not provide for comfortable revenue. When you are scraping the barrel for revenue it tends to make one more risk averse.

If you add to that the draconic measures taken that make it more difficult for the legitimate user to enjoy his addons/software. And stunts like the one Orbx pulled which really only affected their legitimate users, then I'd say developers are heading down the wrong path.The balance is not a balance anymore and instead of only losing some sales to pirates, you're also losing sales to legitimate users, not to mention their support.

I get it that you think the value you received for software you purchase was not a fair exchange for the money you paid. Good job changing your head around to explore the company's viewpoint. Just answer me one question, if you were right that the secondary market would be good for software business, why do you think Microsoft missed this opportunity to become more wealthy. IMHO, they don't miss many tricks.Best,Bob

The sole purpose of a commercial developer is income. To expect a developer to provide something at no cost is unrealistic.Your 'secondary market' has a cost to it for the developer. It also requires the developer to change their licensing to a format that promotes far more significant legal issues than you might think.Right now... you, the customer don't own the license, you don't own the software. It's not yours to control outside the scope of the EULA. In fact, the EULA states that the developer make revoke the license for cause. It even explains what defines 'cause'. It's a very complete and rather concise layout of exactly what is and isn't. When you purchased the software product, what you actually paid for was for the developer to grant you the use of a license. Not ownership.You can not legally sell what you don't own without express permission from the actual owner.

Is the horse dead yet?Joe

To be more precise, a customer owns a licensed copy of software.The EULA, agreed to prior to installation, sets forth what the customer can/cannot legally do with his licensed copy of software. :(

Is the horse dead yet?Joe

When the author "gets it" the horse will be officially dead...at least we hope so. :(

EULA:"1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights:- Installation and Use. You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."It doesn't give the customer ownership to a thing. :(

It appears the OP gets it, and accepts that current rules outlaw his idea. IMHO, he's headed on the right track to imagine how to approach a company with a proposal. Nobody does anything really well until they practice.It would be foolish to presume change will never happen, and it could be with the right tone and practice analyzing business, the OP will someday present an awesome proposal to a company that gets adopted for the good of all. I think after three pages, there has been some learning, and that's a good thing. No reason to re-iterate the current legal limits.

Hello, everyone.I am reading this thread and I cannot believe the goop that comes out of it.NOBODY is buying / selling the CODE. You are buying a program, app., utility, etc., distributed on some medium. You can do anything you want with it, you paid for it. Give it away, sell it, shelf it, what ever you want. If you want to sell it and the original vendor will not give you the key to reinstall it, or refund your money, SUE them.This is a bunch of GOOP, you people need to stop trying to sell things if you are not ready to give the customers the rights that they deserve. Better yet, the people need to stop buying goop from these fly by night make my own rules bunch.I want to see one of you guys that profess that you are selling the Code, define it, I bet that most of you don't know the difference. You have some idea about some programming, start writing something and then you think you are going to make a killing, by taking away the rights of the customers. This needs to stop. And yes, I know about the Programming, and Code and Business and Rights. TV

There's a percentage for the middle man and for the developer.

From page two.Bob

From page two.Bob

Thanks Bob...the OPs thinking makes more sense with that added idea.

I want to see one of you guys that profess that you are selling the Code, define it, I bet that most of you don't know the difference. You have some idea about some programming, start writing something and then you think you are going to make a killing, by taking away the rights of the customers. This needs to stop. And yes, I know about the Programming, and Code and Business and Rights. TV

25+ years as a software developer. You really think I know nothing? If you are all-knowing... who wrote the first EULA? :(

Just want to remind everyone to keep this thread civil and productive. :(

Found in a license agreement, under other rights and limitations;"Software Transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA, provided the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA."That's why it was so simple for me to gift to a fellow FS'er some of the software I had bought for FS9. Nothing in the entire license agreement precludes me from asking him to buy me a cold beer as payment.Some developers are in the business of developing, some are more in tune with debating. The line above comes from a developing Developer.

And to show how we word ours:" Distribution of this software by the licensee is NOT PERMITTED."