...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

Ok, let's try again...the answer is because no one in either industry is interested in changing the status quo. Absent a compelling (read monetary) motivation for changing to a transferable License System the software industry will not change.Bob alluded to this fact in his posts. :(

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

Bob, I thought I was clear in one reason why licenses should not be transferrable. The reason is that the industry profits by NOT permitting the transferring of licenses. The profit gained by keeping the rules as they exist today currently outweighs the cost of discontent within the customer base.How is there any confusion?Bob B(PS...Ron I hadn't noticed your post...we just said the same thing, sorry for repeating the message.)(PPS...its kind of refreshing to agree with you on something! I told you that might happen if we live long enough!)

Bob, I thought I was clear in one reason why licenses should not be transferrable. The reason is that the industry profits by NOT permitting the transferring of licenses. The profit gained by keeping the rules as they exist today currently outweighs the cost of discontent within the customer base.How is there any confusion?Bob B(PS...Ron I hadn't noticed your post...we just said the same thing, sorry for repeating the message.)(PPS...its kind of refreshing to agree with you on something! I told you that might happen if we live long enough!)

Ha Ha, I suspected as much as well Bob. :(

no one has been able to say why licences should not be transferable.

Because there is legal precedent for loss of said license/product/property rights if you allow the consumer to do as they wish with something they don't own.You can't sell the license because you don't own the license. It can be revoked. You've been granted (read that word, look it up) a license, not sold one. The license itself remains the sole property of the developer. It's all in the EULA.

I know you all think I am an idiot. I really do "get it". I was just thinking out loud. No harm in that, is there?Bob

I know you all think I am an idiot. I really do "get it". I was just thinking out loud. No harm in that, is there?Bob

No harm at all in "thinking aloud". :( The author of this thread did the same with no harm done. :( After factual answers have been given it should be acknowledged that the discussion has moved from hypothetical to pragmatic though. :(

Hello,

You can't sell the license because you don't own the license. It can be revoked. You've been granted (read that word, look it up) a license, not sold one. The license itself remains the sole property of the developer. It's all in the EULA.

All good then.I just spend sometime on the Eaglesoft pages.Nowhere I can read a line about the EULA.(or it is deep burried in very small font somewhere ?)So for read the EULA I must buy (sorry .. lease) the product ....Strange practise .. sign the contract and read it after :)Regards.Gus.

The EULA is displayed as part of the installation process.We also ofter a refund, with no questions asked.You're well protected.

I just spend sometime on the Eaglesoft pages.Nowhere I can read a line about the EULA.(or it is deep burried in very small font somewhere ?)So for read the EULA I must buy (sorry .. lease) the product ....Strange practise .. sign the contract and read it after :)

You cannot read the EULA for any Microsoft product until you've paid for it, taken it home, broken the shrink wrap and opened the box.Of course the retail store won't refund the product because you've broken the shrink wrap and opened the box so you could read the EULA......and you think we're strange? :(

Hello,All good then.I just spend sometime on the Eaglesoft pages.Nowhere I can read a line about the EULA.(or it is deep burried in very small font somewhere ?)So for read the EULA I must buy (sorry .. lease) the product ....Strange practise .. sign the contract and read it after :)Regards.Gus.

Gus, not strange at all. In fact it is Standard Operationg Procedure in the software industry. The primary difference between Eaglesoft and some other vendors is our 30 Day, No Questions Asked, refund policy. :(

Hello,

In fact it is Standard Operationg Procedure in the software industry.

This procedure must be urgently changed.It's not a standard to sign a contract and read it after .. it's inaxeptable.It is a exeption ... the software market.Consummer must be able to read the EULA before buy or beginning the install of a software product.It's not cause it's a Microsoft standard procedure had coming a law .. that's this a good procedure or law.Also .. some things must be modified in EULA's .. like the very limited responsabilities of the softwares producers ... in fact they are not responsables for anything can happen with the use of their softwares...I wonder what are the EULA's of some softwares installed for EG fly by wires control in civil aviation ....It's just some laws applyied cause corporates lobying and pressures.That's can be changed ... when and if the consummers will not be more considered or acting theirselfs as good quiet sheeps.Softwares war must begin :)Regards.Gus.

Hello,This procedure must be urgently changed.It's not a standard to sign a contract and read it after .. it's inaxeptable.It is a exeption ... the software market.Consummer must be able to read the EULA before buy or beginning the install of a software product.It's not cause it's a Microsoft standard procedure had coming a law .. that's this a good procedure or law.Also .. some things must be modified in EULA's .. like the very limited responsabilities of the softwares producers ... in fact they are not responsables for anything can happen with the use of their softwares...It's just some laws applyied cause corporates lobying and pressures.That's can be changed ... when and if the consummers will not be more considered or acting theirselfs as good quiet sheeps.Softwares war must begin :)Regards.Gus.

Well I gotta say-reading Eula's put my eyes/mind in a glaze and I have a feeling only lawyer's get into them.However, I think as pointed out above, history is what makes it make sense -as in all matters in life.There was a time software publishers just produced their software. People copied it , passed it on, reintalled it on multiple computers including those of their friends etc. After all why not?-except the software producers were losing a huge amount of income from something they had produced thru hard work. How frustrating to work long hours and not get paid-I expect to be paid for my hard work-do you?So Eula's were made that put an end to this in a legal sense, and strict parameters were legally spelled out for the end user to use such software.However, since most end users like me, eyes glaze over after 5 pages of reading the Eula-not much changed....So what needs to be urgently changed?-protection for the software producers who work long hours on their product and hope to be paid for such effort- or rational for the end user whose eyes glaze over at the eula , don't really care about it and just want to get the software going and perhaps make a few copies for themselves and friends.I think hard work deserves to be compensated...period. We should respect the eula-perhaps even take the time to read it/understand it...

Hello,All good thenNevertheless it's to remind about fact.The Copyright law(s) was long time ago writed black on white in plain legal paper before one was thinkink about the words "informatic software"Copyright law(s) provide cover from the clothes brands to the drugs brandsSo why the "software industry" needed suddenly new law(s) to be added ?And still some points .What about producers responsabilities regarding softwares used at large in the industry or other public and economic activities ?Are there also under the big EULA umbrella like the one we usually know ?Regards.Gus.

Gus, this will not be resolved in a public flightsim forum.Long ago, software developers and their bank of legal advisors lobbied for legal protections of which EULAS are but one small part.Those protections are entrenched in law to such an extent that have become the norm or SOP.Sorry, but this ship will not be turned around either quickly or easily...Try even a class action suit against MS over a simple EULA and you'll see an army of lawyers at their beck and call who will devote however many reources it takes to defeat you. :(

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.

Actually, if you re-read the thread and my posts carefully, you'll see there's not much left from a simple "altruistic" idea. If it was altruistic in the first place, because it's essentially about individuals selling software they don't use anymore, not sure how altruistic that is... And let's face it, although plenty of people like the idea, I doubt there would be large volumes involved.Again, I've presented plenty of concessions. It's always up to the dev whether he or she participates. Middle men are in control. There's a percentage for the middle man and for the developer. There's a ban on secondhand selling in the first x months after release. How on earth can anyone automatically assume that such a system would constitute a loss of profit?! A secondhand market is obviously not gonna make you rich, the firsthand one isn't even doing that... And while I'm not kidding myself into thinking it would solve piracy - nothing will - it might turn some "casual" pirates back from the dark side.You know, ever since piracy came into play, the rights and freedoms of the legitimate consumers have been on the decline. There are already those who say no to elaborate protection schemes. I have recently said no myself to Rise of Flight and its continuous internet connection requirement. It will only get worse with this bright idea of cloud computing. I wonder if devs are worried about a loss of profit in that context.