License transfer thoughts. secondhand addons?!".

[EngineRoom 205]

Think about this from the viewpoint of the author or the publisher. Do you think they would rather you buy a new or a used copy of their product?

Exactly. There has been a lot of talk among the PC-gaming crowd recently that the DRM used on many of the latest game releases which only allows a handful of activations is the big game publishers' way of killing off the second-hand PC games market, which they don't make any money from.A second-hand copy or license of an addon contributes zero to a publisher/developer's bottom line, so in that respect it's not much different to a pirated copy.

[Guest belga1]

Hello,This is all very good. Now, consider the person who dies and by will bequeathed to a nephew (nerd of FS) these addon's ... The nephew is the new legal owner of the licenses .. How can it possibly reactivated if necessary cause some weird protections ?Regards.Gus.

[WarpD 824]

It can't... the EULA doesn't allow for it.I realize you have a personal loathing for software licensing belga1, however... the license is non-transferrable. That means you can't give it to someone else... you can't sell it to someone else.

[red1 0]

It can't... the EULA doesn't allow for it.I realize you have a personal loathing for software licensing belga1, however... the license is non-transferrable. That means you can't give it to someone else... you can't sell it to someone else.

Can someone explain why there is a big difference between the book example and software. I can not think of why these two need to be different...

[Guest belga1]

Hello,

It can't... the EULA doesn't allow for it

Well .. all good then.So .. what must be in his final will ?He can't give the license ...He can't give the productc itself.Where are going those non bequeathed goods ..?To the state ?What will be the decision of the lawyer making the testamentary disposition?The software manufacture must be legally warn ? (I don't read that in EULA's) and collect the goods?If the manufacturer don't more exist and have no more family ... or had stop business ?That's interesting.Regards.Gus.

[n4gix 4,949]

Can someone explain why there is a big difference between the book example and software. I can not think of why these two need to be different...

It's rather obvious actually...A book is physical, once you've given or sold it to someone else you no longer have it on hand to reread it...Software is not physical, even if you give it away or sell it, you can easily keep a copy on hand to use yourself! :(

[N400QW 205]

Besides being tangible a book does not need to perform a task. Software does need to perform a task (read run its routines or perform its functions).Eulas are legally binding on the parties and as has been mentioned are not transferrable from a legal standpoint.

[Mike... 7]

I can't help but get the feeling that where pirates are on one far end of the spectrum, developers are really on the other, both equally open-minded, with legitimate users pretty much stuck in the middle.If piracy is greed, then what says the constant "what's in it for the devs" about developers? And well, pirates and certain devs are certainly not unfamiliar with the concept of disdain.Just because the system is as it is, doesn't mean it's good as it is. I think more than pirates and users, devs need to start thinking outside the box and stop looking for excuses.Or go into selling books.:(

[bobbyjack 61]

Besides being tangible a book does not need to perform a task. Software does need to perform a task (read run its routines or perform its functions).Eulas are legally binding on the parties and as has been mentioned are not transferrable from a legal standpoint.

Seems to me that both books and software have a task to perform. Both are ment to be opened and read. I have both books and software on the shelf in my office that have never been opened. The software is still sealed. Both are waiting untill the next time I clean and will be thrown out. I could make a copy of both the book and the software, and it would be illegal.Bob

[N400QW 205]

I can't help but get the feeling that where pirates are on one far end of the spectrum, developers are really on the other, both equally open-minded, with legitimate users pretty much stuck in the middle.If piracy is greed, then what says the constant "what's in it for the devs" about developers? And well, pirates and certain devs are certainly not unfamiliar with the concept of disdain.Just because the system is as it is, doesn't mean it's good as it is. I think more than pirates and users, devs need to start thinking outside the box and stop looking for excuses.Or go into selling books. :(

Piracy is theft. Theft is an illegal act. Theft is prosecutable and punishable.Long ago, software makers became aware of their vulnerability to theft and we have all seen legal remedies since that time.No illegal use of software is supported by law. Plain and simple.It appears that some are attempting to rationalize their ideas and thoughts while totally ignoring legal precedent. :(

[Mike... 7]

Your deflection couldn't be plainer and simpler, Ron. And it confirms a great deal of what I said. Although entirely true, that is not being discussed here... nor is it being challenged by anyone as fas as I can tell, least of all by me.I'm going to install round 6 of AIG's Su 09 flightplans now.:(

[bob.bernstein 0]

If piracy is greed, then what says the constant "what's in it for the devs" about developers? And well, pirates and certain devs are certainly not unfamiliar with the concept of disdain.I think more than pirates and users, devs need to start thinking outside the box and stop looking for excuses.Or go into selling books.:(

Your feelings are understandible, but I think you must realize that you are asking companies in a capitalistic society to fore-go profits for altruistic reasons. Its not greed when a capitalist chooses against altruism, its following a strategy that places the needs of the shareholders above the needs of others. Or perhaps, it is greed to maximize profit, yet that is the normal mission of capitalism. Of course, there are examples of companies choosing to behave in a socially conscious manner, although there is commonly some return for even those companies in their marketing messaging or assurance of vendors continued supply of quality materials.You have the power of the market to voice your opinion about the rules of the road. That is, to reduce the demand for the product by not buying it. That's pretty much it unless you wish to become an activist. Still, to be a successful activist, you'd need leverage sufficient to embarrass the industry. Seems unlikely in this regard, especially as no such effort has made a dent in the big boys in the industry that are positioned to set market norms, companies such a s Microsoft.Your feelings are shared by many, and there have been many anti-profit efforts made over the years. Your phrase, devs need to "stop looking for excuses" is interesting. Do you think that altruism is overwhelmingly admired by so much of society that to choose against it, one would have to make excuses? Don't think that's how it works!Best,Bob

[bob.bernstein 0]

So...Why is software licensing so different from ,say, a book? If I want to sell or give away an old book, why is that OK, but not for an addon? I don't own the original book, but a copy of it. Remember that it is illegal to photocopy a page from a book. I think it is safe to say that we have all done that. I think Mike's idea of some way to transfer unused software is a good one. Bob

@ BobbyJack...I suspect the software industry sees no advantage in tailoring their license structure to mimic books. Their consumers tend to purchase their products with the eulas as presently written. The only reason the industry would change is if they lost their customers. Customers that wish the software world was similar to books, or customers that think its greedy to not allow secondary commerce ...are still customers. Until that changes in significant numbers, the industry viewpoint is healthy for them. Motive to change is missing.Bob

[N400QW 205]

Your deflection couldn't be plainer and simpler, Ron. And it confirms a great deal of what I said. Although entirely true, that is not being discussed here... nor is it being challenged by anyone as fas as I can tell, least of all by me. :(

Hmm, difficult to understand how factual information on the subject at hand has somehow become "deflection" or as someone else has posted "making excuses".Bobs post does speak to the facts in an even more convincing fashion. There is currently no motivation for software writers/publishers to follow the proposals set forth in this thread.Writing and/or creating software is a laborious venture and we doubt you'll ever see your dreams about a secondary market come to fruition on a legal basis for the simple reasons already outlined. :(

[bobbyjack 61]

Writing and/or creating software is a laborious venture and we doubt you'll ever see your dreams about a secondary market come to fruition on a legal basis for the simple reasons already outlined. :(

Many a famous author spends years doing research for a book, and more years writing them. And may not see a dime in their lifetime.Of course consumers buy products with the "eulas as presently written" because they don't have a choice. My guess is that most don't read them anyway.I am not a developer, nor have I ever purchased an addon for my sim. So I don't have a "dog in this fight". I don't care if eulas change or not. I am more interested in the thoughts going on in this thread. Other than "that is the way it is", no one has been able to say why licences should not be transferable. Yes there would be some paperwork involved. Some have said that would be a nightmare. Maybe no more of a nightmare than some people trying to reinstall addons they already own.Bob