**Did You give focusrite permission to enter your home or studio???

T

TankAudio

New member
In 2018, For anyone preparing to purchase a Focusrite product, look what was found in the License Agreement.

"2.2 You must permit the Licensor and his representatives, at all reasonable times and on reasonable advance notice, to inspect and have access to any premises, and to the computer equipment located there, at which the Software or the Documentation is being kept or used, and any records kept pursuant to this Licence, for the purpose of ensuring that you are complying with the terms of this Licence."


Do not put up with this at all!! Take more responsibility over your buying power when your audio interface provider tells you when they are coming in to your personal safe zone.
 
So like....you really think they're going to show up at your place to see if you're complying with their license agreement...? :facepalm: :laughings:

You know....you could just use something different if it's going to keep you up at night waiting for them to kick down you door...but TBH, many companies that *license* products have some sort of clause that allows them to perform compliancy checks....but to date, I have never once heard of anyone getting a visit from Focusrite or any other company. They just put that in there in case they notice someone is violating the license agreement, so they can legally inspect the situation.

Trust me...you're not on their radar. :D
 
Rupert lives just down the road a little ways, he is more than welcome to come visit. :)
 
They came by my place last week.

But I was busy Manscaping my pubes and come to find out, they didn't wanna look around.

They said they'd be back after they checked all the other users of every copy ever sold.
 
LOL.

Someone, forgot who, has a thing up on his site you have to agree to to get to the content. In it, you agree that every cent you own and your firstborn child is his to keep. 98% of the visitors agree to it.

Needless to say it isn't enforceable. But it is bad, however you look at it.

I write about food. I was threatened by a lawyer when I wrote about a yoghurt brand that purports to be organic. Their name suggests it, their packaging suggests it, their advertising suggests it. Needless to say, their products are not organic, but as industrial as the rest.

Still, there's freedom of speech?

Well, no. I choose to remove the page, because a lawsuit would have cost me an awful lot of money and time. Both of which I didn't have. I would have liked to take a principal stand against that kind of bullying, but there was no way I could afford it.

So maybe we shouldn't buy from a company that sends out these ridiculous messages?
 
A lot of people are making fun of this. A lot of people are talking about how this is just 'normal'
What's pathetic is that we as a society have just so blindly accepted all these invasions to our privacy and are 'agreeing' to their terms to buy something or get a service. To that I may add, all these corporations profit handsomely off of.
I'm sure focusrite is a benevolent company, and will never actually invade your house.
But.....the fact that they 'could' and you agreed to it knowingly or unknowingly (seeing how most don't read what they are agreeing to ) is appalling.

No, the morons in any such case are us. We willingly let these corperate powers take away out rights.
No pushback, no opposition.
It's our own damn faults.
 
Gosh, I hate to play Internet Lawyer, but it's only fair I pass on a few things.
Law isn't (nor should it be) scary. But a few punks and thugs out there have tried to make it that way.

cyrano said:
Still, there's freedom of speech?

Well, no. I choose to remove the page, because a lawsuit would have cost me an awful lot of money and time.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's still plenty of Freedom of Speech.
There woulda been no lawsuit. There woulda been no cost to you.
His job was to sound intimidating. It worked! His job, what the client paid him for, was to bully you into submission. It worked!
In reality, they strut and posture and talk big, but when it actually comes down to lowering the boom, nope. One reason is because they have to PROVE DAMAGES. That means you get to look at their books. They have to lay them out for all to see. They don't wanna do that. Besides, most judges will pound right back when they see this thuggish behavior.
So they just bully people and get away with it.
Their chief weapon is "Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur" or He Who Is Silent Consents. They bully you, making claim and accusation, and if you sit silently without responding (via the same communication method they used, like mail) then they were right.

RFR said:
But.....the fact that they 'could' and you agreed to it knowingly or unknowingly (seeing how most don't read what they are agreeing to ) is appalling.

No, the morons in any such case are us.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment and certainly support your concern. It needs much more visibility and observance in the public arena, too.
But this is a dance, not a war.
For instance, let's just have a real look, a legal-like look, at the text, eh?
TankAudio said:
"2.2 You must permit the Licensor and his representatives, at all reasonable times and on reasonable advance notice, to inspect and have access to any premises, and to the computer equipment located there, at which the Software or the Documentation is being kept or used, and any records kept pursuant to this Licence, for the purpose of ensuring that you are complying with the terms of this Licence."
Click to expand...
Here are some (very few) questions that come to my mind that they're gonna hafta satisfy first:
1. Who is this Licensor or representative? The janitor? The regional rep? his secretary? Who makes this ID? And where is it established and publicly held so that we, the users, can be certain?
2. "reasonable times" is often considered "customary business hours" but that's not what they said, is it? I work until late at night. "reasonable" NOW means 3 a.m. No other access is available, sorry.
3. "reasonable advance notice" is again, openly interpreted as anything from 24 hours to 90 days. Who makes this interpretation? Who says?
4. What is being inspected? That's several pages, right there.
5. Who says the Software is on THAT computer? You? Prove it! I say it's not on there. Prove to me otherwise. Unless you seize the computer - which ain't gonna happen from a corporation - I say you're wrong.
6. And wow... let's get into the "terms of this licence". Talk about an avalanche of open interpretations!
7. Must be a British spelling: Licence, not License. So more-likely this is all a British thing that has zero to do with the good ol' USA. You know, where they have no 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th Amendments? And cops are routinely used as a private force? Maybe that's possible over there. If so, it's a tempest in a teapot. They got LOTS of other infringements so this hardly even counts.

There's no problem, at least for me. In America, there's no such thing as them knocking on your door and saying, "Hey, you checked the box. We're here to inspect software that we think is still ours." Lots of safeguards already in place, not the least of which is a pesky, ongoing, hardly settled question of ownership of the software. Aside Property Rights (landlord stuff) no one can enter or inspect anything without Public Sector involvement (warrant) which cannot occur unless they can show your Focusrite was being used to threaten "national security" or "the common good". Sorry. No chance.

In Europe, I dunno.

P5
 
EULAs and ToSs should either be standardized (like F/OSS licenses or Creative Commons) or banned.

It is unreasonable to expect any individual in a modern software environment to be reasonably-well-informed about what they have agreed to in all these things.
 
Ponder5 said:
Gosh, I hate to play Internet Lawyer, but it's only fair I pass on a few things.
Law isn't (nor should it be) scary. But a few punks and thugs out there have tried to make it that way.


Yes, there's still plenty of Freedom of Speech.
There woulda been no lawsuit. There woulda been no cost to you.
His job was to sound intimidating. It worked! His job, what the client paid him for, was to bully you into submission. It worked!
In reality, they strut and posture and talk big, but when it actually comes down to lowering the boom, nope. One reason is because they have to PROVE DAMAGES. That means you get to look at their books. They have to lay them out for all to see. They don't wanna do that. Besides, most judges will pound right back when they see this thuggish behavior.
So they just bully people and get away with it.
Their chief weapon is "Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur" or He Who Is Silent Consents. They bully you, making claim and accusation, and if you sit silently without responding (via the same communication method they used, like mail) then they were right.
Click to expand...

They weren't threatening to sue me for libel or defamation. It wasn't about my opinion. It was about the use of their brand name. An entirely different story. And I've been there before. Cost me around 5.000 €. And yes, I can sue for costs. But in trademark cases, the amount awarded rarely covers the real cost and it never covers the time lost, or the worries. I'll never use that lawyer again. My current lawyer advised against the lawsuit as I had nothing to gain. The choice was between removing the brand name from the article, or deleting the article from the site.

And the lawyer threatening me, would have sued. That's what they do. TM litigation. And only that.

Trademark laws are kind of weird. If you have a TM, you must defend it, or loose it. That's why Apple sued a diner in Luxembourg, called "Der Apfel"...


I agree with your sentiment and certainly support your concern. It needs much more visibility and observance in the public arena, too.
But this is a dance, not a war.
For instance, let's just have a real look, a legal-like look, at the text, eh?

Here are some (very few) questions that come to my mind that they're gonna hafta satisfy first:
1. Who is this Licensor or representative? The janitor? The regional rep? his secretary? Who makes this ID? And where is it established and publicly held so that we, the users, can be certain?
2. "reasonable times" is often considered "customary business hours" but that's not what they said, is it? I work until late at night. "reasonable" NOW means 3 a.m. No other access is available, sorry.
3. "reasonable advance notice" is again, openly interpreted as anything from 24 hours to 90 days. Who makes this interpretation? Who says?
4. What is being inspected? That's several pages, right there.
5. Who says the Software is on THAT computer? You? Prove it! I say it's not on there. Prove to me otherwise. Unless you seize the computer - which ain't gonna happen from a corporation - I say you're wrong.
6. And wow... let's get into the "terms of this licence". Talk about an avalanche of open interpretations!
7. Must be a British spelling: Licence, not License. So more-likely this is all a British thing that has zero to do with the good ol' USA. You know, where they have no 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th Amendments? And cops are routinely used as a private force? Maybe that's possible over there. If so, it's a tempest in a teapot. They got LOTS of other infringements so this hardly even counts.
Click to expand...

It is a storm in a teacup. Over here, when it comes to software, the copyright's holders interests are defended by the BSA (Business Software Alliance). And these people do not sue private parties. And they only sue businesses that are way over the line and have lots of infringing software really installed on more than one PC and are using it for business. A pretty sensitive approach.

But even if there isn't a direct problem, maybe we should vote with our wallets?

There's no problem, at least for me. In America, there's no such thing as them knocking on your door and saying, "Hey, you checked the box. We're here to inspect software that we think is still ours." Lots of safeguards already in place, not the least of which is a pesky, ongoing, hardly settled question of ownership of the software. Aside Property Rights (landlord stuff) no one can enter or inspect anything without Public Sector involvement (warrant) which cannot occur unless they can show your Focusrite was being used to threaten "national security" or "the common good". Sorry. No chance.

In Europe, I dunno.
Click to expand...

It has alreadu been declared by several courts in Europe and the EU High court that licence agreements don't count. Starting with Wordperfect Corp. trying to stop their customers from reselling the software as a secondhand package, more than 25 years ago.

I still prefer a company with friendlier wording, not using a boilerplate text. It's not very professional to use boilerplate texts, as the only use is to threaten people, potentially.

But, yeah, a storm in a teacup.
 
I'm surprised at some of the overreaction to this....and the OP has posted this same thing elsewhere, but in the end, he admits he may be taking all too literally. :D

Did You give focusrite permission to come inside your home or studio??? - diyAudio

Yes...he's taking it WAY too literally.

This is an agreement. No one has to buy the product if they are not happy with the agreement.
Have you guys ever looked at some bank loan agreements, or car leasing agreements, or the shit you sign off on when you to get some hospitalization...etc..?
Have you really read ALL the pages of fine print before signing...or you just wanted the keys to that new car so you could get going?
Even if you did read all the fine print...would you then say "no thanks" because of the clauses in the agreement...or would you still get the car...or still buy that Focusrite interface...? :)

Heck...in most places, if you rent an apartment in a bigger complex, there's some sort of written agreement...and you're probably agreeing that the owner/landlord has a right to inspect the apartment with reasonable, advance notice, while you rent from him.
It's really not about invading privacy...no one is going to kick down your door in the middle of the night or show up when you don't want them, without any notice, but as the owners of whatever it is you're using or whatever kind of procedures are being done by them to you, etc...they want some protection of their rights too, for their property that you are licensing.

We accept that day in and day out, without even realizing it...and it's just how it is.
You can be a homeowner, on your property...but start shooting off some fireworks in the middle of the night, and the cops will show up, because your neighbors also have rights.
Even the internet you are using at this moment has agreements that you probably never read...that gives the ISP some rights to how you will use their services, etc.

I mean really...our everyday lives are all about agreeing how to do things relative to others. If that's a concern, and you want all the rights in your court...move to Montana, way up there where there are no roads, get off the grid, throw away your cell phone and computer. ;)

Here's another one...the whole thing. You see this almost word for word with just about every piece of computers software/hardware these days:

SELLEREXPRESS END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT
 
Miro it’s not normal to require access to your home in order to buy stuff. They get money, you get a product, and that’s where it should end. You only have the rights you can protect and if you surrender them without even thinking, you’re doubly fucked because not only do they have better lawyers but now they’ve got your consent to fuck you.

Do you realize how many companies now are sneaking in arbitration clauses that *waive your constitutional right to a jury trial*, as a condition of employment *after* you’ve already accepted a job offer? Don’t be ignorant just to be contrarian- this kind of benign-looking legalese is a weapon made to be used against us.
 
Elephant in the room says 'why the fuck would they come in to your house if you did nothing illegal'?...

I assume that is the point of the agreement is if you somehow pirated or somehow built an interface using their software, they have the right to investigate.

I personally don't give a shit because I have licenses and receipts for all of my gear. No worries here.

Though, every member here gets a flogging every 12 years as stated in the agreement. I'm just about up for mine. Even mods get flogged...


LOL
 
easlern said:
Miro it’s not normal to require access to your home in order to buy stuff. They get money, you get a product, and that’s where it should end.
Click to expand...

You're mixing up buying a product VS paying to license a product.
These particular agreements are referring to the licensing of product. In case you think you actually "own" any piece of software...check again.
You own a license to use a copy of that software...and for that, you have to agree to use it according to their rules....not your rules.

The real point here (or as Jimmy said, "elephant in the room") is that this will never apply to the single license user...not to you and me, with our copies of XYZ software, etc...or some piece of hardware that has software technology built in.
So these licensing agreements are there so they "can" come inspect things, if it appears someone is violating the license. I mean...if you made one copy of a CD and passed it to one person (even though technically that's copyright infringement), no one will come visit you about it...it's if they suspect someone is making a lot of money off illegal use of the license...that's really when those clauses come into play.
Speaking of copyright infringement...how would you feel if someone was selling copies of your music after they bought one copy for themselves....?

That's really what it is about.
The part about them requiring access to where the license is being used...is just there for the extreme cases, and I'm sure it's done with all proper notice and all that. I'm sure you can have your lawyer present. ;)
I have not heard of a single instance where Johnny User got a knock on his door with a visit from some software company to do a surprise inspection.
So all this moaning and groaning here about the "possibility" of that happening...is a bit over the top. :p
 
miroslav said:
You're mixing up buying a product VS paying to license a product.
These particular agreements are referring to the licensing of product. In case you think you actually "own" any piece of software...check again.
You own a license to use a copy of that software...and for that, you have to agree to use it according to their rules....not your rules.
Click to expand...

I think that too is (industry standard but still) BS. If I buy a piece of software, that should be the end of it unless there is ongoing support plan.

They shouldn't be allowed to demand I waive my rights from First-sale Doctrine.
They shouldn't need to specify that I won't violate their trademarks or copyrights.
Their liability if their software breaks my computer should be something to be settled by the courts rather than waived entirely.
 
miroslav said:
You're mixing up buying a product VS paying to license a product.
These particular agreements are referring to the licensing of product. In case you think you actually "own" any piece of software...check again.
You own a license to use a copy of that software...and for that, you have to agree to use it according to their rules....not your rules.
Click to expand...
You're mixing up understanding the concept with commenting on the subject.
"Ownership" takes on a lot of definitions and they all have to conform to Title1 law, etc. This is why it's been contested over the years, but now is not.
I agree that it's "not your rules". And no, it's not YOUR rules, either.

For instance, You are incorrect about "licensing of product" as a private citizen. You own what you own -- and stick with me on this -- INCLUDING the agreement that came with it. So if that agreement says you must stand on your head, then you as the owner of that agreement may choose to enforce it or not. If that agreement says they own it and you do not, then you as the owner of that agreement may choose to enforce it or not. If that agreement says you can't sell it to anyone else, you may choose to enforce it or not. In other words, you just made an agreement with YOURSELF. This legal reflexive subtlety is real and has been ruled on since the 1960s with near-complete uniformity.

You can, as I have done, go into the menus and change things. You can change icons. You can change the splash screen. And yes, you can makes stacks and stacks of copies. It's yours, first, and "licensed" as much as you decide it is. They (the company) can scream, stomp, and hold their breath till their face turns blue, but there's not a darned thing they can do about it.

But then things can also get sticky. If you sell it in an "improved" state, then you suddenly become an "author" or "manufacturer" (depending on how they come after you) and the issue can be litigated (though very unlikely prosecuted). "Improved" can be as simple as it being on a non-factory CD or no disc at all (electo-copy). Bad things can result.

Oh, yes, there will be many that "know" better than that and will offer debate, which is why I'm so reluctant to engage in legal conversations, but no matter what the agreement might say, it's been superseded long ago. The precedent is firm, if not widely published.

Also as an apportioned entity or corporation, then the rules change somewhat. What applies there, perhaps to your studio, is a different matter and yes, it can get messy because it's no longer shielded by Private Property Rights with it now being held by a business entity. Almost magically, every word in that agreement becomes more-or-less binding -- if your company owns the software, or the computer it's running on, or, in some cases the building it's sitting in. Lots and lots of wrangling in that and many possible interpretations. Very messy.


miroslav said:
So all this moaning and groaning here about the "possibility" of that happening...is a bit over the top. :p
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree 100%
Proviso: in a global marketplace, i don't know WHAT they might do. Britain? It's to the point I'm surprised at nothing i see about trampled rights over there.

But here, you can still rest easy.
 
All of that ^^^ is not different than song copyright. Intellectual property is not like buying a toaster oven. :)

When you buy a CD...your rights are basically limited to being able to play/listen to the CD.
Same with software....that it works per intended use.

Is that "fair" to the users...? Well, that point can be debated endlessly here, without a decision...but with intellectual property, most of the right are with the creators, not the users...same as with music.
Of course...these days, the younger generations have blurred all that, and there is the belief that they have more rights to the intellectual property than that creators...which is why the value of music keeps going down. So that's why software companies have such involved licensing agreements...that you can easily opt out of by simply not buying a product.
I'm sure everyone here has been on line or on their computers when that window pops up "Do You Agree to the Terms?"...and you have only one option if you want to go forward. There is no "I agree, but with some exceptions". ;)

AFA the concern about what these licensing agreements mean to the end users and how much will be actually enforced...it's really not much of a concern at all, unless you're trying to obviously steal something and/or profit from improper use of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top