What a morally repugnant bunch we simmers have become: We accept only those agreements whcih suit us, we question the rights of developers to sell stuff to us, yet gladly take it from them. We obey the laws of the land only if it suits, or if the chance of being caught is small.In answer to Dave's original question. If the license agreement permits that sale then yes, you may legally and morally sell it on. However, if the software is serial-bound you may find that others are using it illegally - not your problem, but certainly it could come back to you, much in the manner that `possession` of a stolen car gives the driver no rights to `ownership`. Under those circumstances I expect that software vendors would be perfectly withn their rights to bar access to the product registration, even though the sale was made legally. It's simply a question of checking the agreement you entered into on each piece of software, and if necessary checking wth the vendor. Most reasonable vendors will respond favourably to someone who takes the time and trouble to contact them, I'm sure. Quite whether those vendors would wish to do business with some of the other posters in this thread, I'm not so sure. If you don't like the agreements (which are almost always visible in a window before download) then don't buy the product.Allcott

>And talking about the legality of selling your software license, >what about those developers who tell you that because you are >buying electronically they will not give you a refund under any >circumstances? I generally agree with the no refund policy, as long as the customer can view the no refund policy prior to making the purchase.The general premise in obtaining a refund is that you return the product in exchange for the refund. You buy a phone that doesn't work, you bring the phone back, and if the store is satistfied you have returned the entire prioduct (which they can verify), they give you a refund.But electornic software there's really nothing to return. The only way to return it is to make a copy and send it to them. Then it would be up to your honesty to remove the product from your system.Unlike the phone example, there is no practical way to verify you no longer have the product you are requesting the refund for. It would be quite foolish to give refunds in those instances. You'd have people purchasing the product immediately putting in for refunds, in effect getting a free copy.Its a bit different if you have to return the box, CD, printed manuals, etc, etc. In those instances a proving refund is more reasonable. But for electronic purchases providing refunds normally doesn't make much sense.>Stick to freeware, that's what I say.Agreed, if you can't accept the payware terms, do not purchase payware. Stick with freeware only, there's plenty of good freeware out there.Regards.Ernie.

>I generally agree with the no refund policy, as long as the>customer can view the no refund policy prior to making the>purchase.Despite what you say it is illegal within the European Union, and possibly other countries as well, to refuse a refund under any circumstances. A vendor cannot take the purchaser's statutory rights away and this cannot be altered by informing the purchaser of such a policy beforehand. I am currently in the process of taking steps to stop one such developer doing this.David

>Despite what you say it is illegal within the European Union, and >possibly other countries as well, to refuse a refund under any >circumstances. A vendor cannot take the purchaser's statutory >rights away and this cannot be altered by informing the purchaser >of >such a policy beforehand. I am currently in the process of >taking steps to stop one such developer doing thisIf EU distributers are no longer able to have a no refund policy for electronic sales.Developers would have no choice but to find new distributers outside the EU, probably in the U.S.When the EU see's their trade deficit go up, it wouldn't be very long before that law goes out the window or at least an exception made for electronic sales (if there isn't one in place aready).Regards.Ernie.

So what you're saying Ernie, is that the US can be regarded as the `safe haven` for thieves and despicable types who defy the laws of other lands? Because that's what you seem to be saying.The previous poster is right. EU law demands the consumer has the right of redress against the vendor. Nothing in any downloaded or written agreement can take that away, if the vendor is EU-based. If you truly believe that a `no refund` policy is a valid way of going about electronic business, you are effectively saying that you endorse the impression - as some developers clearly believe - that all simmers are latent crooks who will fail to return electronically-purchased product. Whatever happened to `innocent until proven guilty?!` And are you really telling me that all electronically provided product is honest and truthful? I can think of at least six pieces of software I have had on my hard drive which has either failed to live up to the claims of the manufacturer, or which has subsequently proved to have been `tainted` by sleaze in some way, shape or form. Needless to say, those developers were the very ones who refused refunds or ignored correspondence or threatened in vague or explicit terms. So perhaps a simple policy is not to buy from any vendor that tries to take away the consumers rights? After all, to do so is tantamount to an admission of guilt on the developers part and a clear expression of the regard in which they hold their paying customers. Allcott

>So what you're saying Ernie, is that the US can be regarded as the >`safe haven` for thieves and despicable types who defy the laws of >other lands? Because that's what you seem to be saying. Hay, you can spin and twist it anyway you want but...I want verification the customer no longer has the product and has not transferred it to someone else. If I cannot get that verification then I'm not giving a refund.If I can't get that in the EU, then I'm setting up shop somewhere else where I can get that. >If you truly believe that a `no refund` policy is a valid way of >going about electronic business, you are effectively saying that >you endorse the impression - as some developers clearly believe - >that all simmers are latent crooks who will fail to return >electronically->purchased product. "Trust but Verify" , a phrase I believe uttered by a former American president loosely translated from a Russian proverb.No verification, no refund. Makes perfect sense to me.>And are you really telling me that all electronically provided >product is honest and truthful? I'm not telling you that.I'm telling you don't buy the electronically provided product if you don't like the refund policy.Why is this so difficult ?>I can think of at least six pieces of software I have had on my >hard drive which has either failed to live up to the claims of the >manufacturer, or which has subsequently proved to have been >`tainted` by sleaze in some way, shape or form. Needless to say, >those developers were the very ones who refused refunds or ignored >correspondence or threatened in vague or explicit terms. So then basically what you are saying is all developers are 'latent crooks' ??Why is it that you insist all customers be fully trusted, but developers cannot have this same level of trust you insist theyto give to every customer ??Stealing and defrauding can be done equally by the developer or the customer. Each should have a right to protect themselvesfrom the other.But you seem to only want the customer to have these rights, but don't seem to care if the developer takes losses. I do not agree with that view.Are you really telling me that every customer that asks for a refund is doing so because they were not satisfied with the product ?The stores are full of clothes worn by people once who then return them in for refunds, so then can buy another article of clothingwear it once and return it for refund as well, etc, etc.Or return products that were perfectly fine when purchased, but the product was broken by the customer , but the customer brings it in claiming it was broken when the package was opened demanding a refund.Happens every day.>So perhaps a simple policy is not to buy from any vendor that tries >to take away the consumers rights? What right is being taken away ? You are told about the no refund policy beforehand. You don't like it, don't buy the product.There is no right taken away, there are plenty of other places with refund policies, go there instead if that is important to you.>After all, to do so is tantamount to an admission of guilt on the >developers part and a clear expression of the regard in which they >hold their paying customers. Products delivered electronically are different, they can easily be copied. You cannot verify the customer no longer is using theproduct after recieving the refund.It makes perfect sense why many developers would have a no refund policy for electronically delivered products.Regards.Ernie.

Software Buys have !more rights then most people realise.Most software Vendors Licences are not valid outside the USA. In fact many of the terms in the licences breech the Trade Practices Acts in many counties! Australia for example!If a software company writes anything into its Licence that breeches the Australian Trade Practices Act, then the vender is committing an offence under the Australian Act, and this makes there contract invalid!I was reading up on it a few months ago in Australian PC Magazine. They claim the 99% of vendor Licences are invalid in Australia because of breeches! That's way many companies can't do Jack! or sue!Now I don't Pirate! I love supporting companies like PMDG and Eaglesoft! I just wanted to let some of you know that you have rights!Pete

I must join this discussion as software EULAs really annoy me.I feel a lot of the restrictive EULAs have arisen historically when software was primarily for businesses who seemed to accept that s/ware didn't always work, or didn't work as intended.From my cynical point of view this gave the s/ware developers the green light to produce s/ware of any quality because there was no comeback and to safeguard their interests they tightened the EULAs even more.When MS introduced their new licencing agreements a few years back there was uproar about the new EULA which basically said MS now 'owned' your PC and could do with it as they wished, installing any s/ware they wished, checking what s/ware you had installed, etc.Despite the uproar the business community still went ahead and purchased the latest version of Windows with hardly a whimper.Now I appreciate Ernie's point of view as well as that of a customer but the 'no refund' stance does not sit well on me.Taking our own hobby, there are more and more complex aircraft being produced, all promising the Earth and taxing systems to the hilt. How does a customer know if that aircraft will work as advertised and work on his system without first buying it?So he buys the aircraft (or whatever) and finds it is a bag of s&*^ or it crashes his system or he gets 2 FPS.He asks for a refund, "Sorry, didn't you see the 'no refund' policy?"The developer has money in the bank, IMHO morally fraud, the customer is pi^&ed off and out of pocket.There must be a way in this day and age to protect a developer's IP without linking the s/ware to hardware but linking it to the purcahser. If that could be done then I see no reason why an end user could not be given a right to transfer the s/ware and licence.Rgds

>So are all those people selling off their old games etc on Ebay >doing something illegal?<>>>>>In several cases they are illagal. It depends on the license agreement for the software.But just cause it illegal doesn't stop people from trying to sell it on Ebay anyway.<<<<

>>>>>>>So he buys the aircraft (or whatever) and finds it is a bag of s&*^ or it crashes his system or he gets 2 FPS.He asks for a refund, "Sorry, didn't you see the 'no refund' policy?"The developer has money in the bank, IMHO morally fraud, the customer is pi^&ed off and out of pocket.<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ernie:>>If EU distributers are no longer able to have a no refund policy >>for electronic sales.>>>>Developers would have no choice but to find new distributers >>outside the EU, probably in the U.S.Not if they want to comply with US law as well. The UCC also prohibits such "No refunds under any circumstances" policies."Project Magenta", for example, say that they have this policy. If anyone wanted to fight it, they could win easily in a US court. Since PM aren't in the US, getting the judgement enforced would be a different question however. Distrubuting a 'crippleware' demo, and then telling customers that if the real program doesn't work, well, "tough luck", does not comply with US law, no matter how many times they tell prospective buyers that it does.There are plenty of ways to allow a download customer to try a program and get a refund if it doesn't work. One example is on/off access codes. The client downloads the software without paying, and installes it. Before the end of the 30 days, if you want it, you clic "register" software, and a registration option in the software generates a registraion code. The vendor uses this registration code to generate a key that they email to you. If at ay time in the future you want to move the software to a different computer, you select a move option in the software, which deactivates it, and generates a new code that saisfies the vendor that the origial version has been deactivated, and they give you a key for the new install. This has been common even for physically purchased versions for a while for expensive programs such as CAD suites, and I see it moving down the market in the future.Richard

Ernie:>>What right is being taken away ? You are told about the no refund >>policy beforehand. You don't like it, don't buy the product.>>>>There is no right taken away, there are plenty of other places with >>refund policies, go there instead if that is important to you.Sorry, but yes there is a "right being taken away". Both US and EU laws give the buyer the right to a product that is "fit for the intended purpose". If the product is NOT fit, then the buyer has a legal right to a refund - regardless of what 'policies' the vendor advertises. If a vendor suspects that some customers may attempt to get a refund even though the product *is* fit, then it's the VENDORS problem to come up with a way to satisfy himself he's not being defrauded WITHOUT infringing upon the customers right to a legitimate refund.Richard

The way I look at this isI want developers such as PMDG to produce there up coming 747-400 and other future aircraft! A major part of my hobby is thanks to such companies as PMDG and yes even Microsoft! So I support them 110%. I don't hesitate handing them my money! and I honour there licences.But what I am sick of is,These other companies that release total crap! That does not even come close to freeware files. Then when you expect a refund they play games and ignore you! I think they promote piracy when they act like this! Once stung twice shy kinda thing!Pete

>>Developers would have no choice but to find new distributers >>outside the EU, probably in the U.S.>>Not if they want to comply with US law as well. The UCC also >prohibits such "No refunds under any circumstances" policies.>Richard,In most U.S. States a no refund policy is legal, and stated so in law.Most U.S. States have 'Refund Policy Disclosure' statute.The statute requires establishments to post their refund policy in plain sight so the consumer can view the refund policy before making a purchase. It is the establishment that determines whether a refund is given in the U.S.I've checked many U.S. consumer protection laws, and really so far I have yet to find a U.S. State thus far where a no refund policy is illegal.>"Project Magenta", for example, say that they have this policy. If >anyone wanted to fight it, they could win easily in a US court. Sorry, you are mistaken, Project Magenta's 'no refund' policy is legal in the U.S.Here are some linkes to relevant US statutes.http://www2.state.ga.us/GaOCA/retail1.htmhttp://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/da/refunds.htmhttp://www.state.ct.us/dcp/Tips/Refunds.htmhttp://www.njlaws.com/consumer_rights.htmhttp://www.state.hi.us/dcca/consumerdial/7101.htmlRegards.Ernie.

Its unlikely you got a refund from Perfect Flight.More likely what happened is the bank simply removed the charge from your account, thus the Bank took the hit.No big deal to the bank because they are gonna get it back from all the other customers in the form of higher fees and interest rates.The bank just wrote it off as a fraudulent transaction that's all.,Perfect Flight likely didn't lose anything on that deal.Regards.Ernie.