R
RFR
Well-known member
You obviously never had to deal with an ilock.Well fuck...I never considered that my plugins or converters could kill me..
**Did You give focusrite permission to enter your home or studio???
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I use iLok for some of my stuff.
I made it clear that I could easily live without it, and I would smash the little fucker with a hammer if it tried anything funny...and so far, it's playing nice.
I made it clear that I could easily live without it, and I would smash the little fucker with a hammer if it tried anything funny...and so far, it's playing nice.
R
RFR
Well-known member
Lucky.
My ilock tries to kill me on a daily basis.
But I can't live without the little fucker either.
My ilock tries to kill me on a daily basis.
But I can't live without the little fucker either.
cyrano
Member
It isn't about piracy, but about illogical and customer unfriendly wording in license agreements. License agreements that have no power, legally, as far as the consumer is concerned.
It might be boiler plate legalese, but it's stupid. If the customer doesn't read it, it's of no use. And if the customer does read it, it might lead to buying another brand the next time.
Clear enough?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah...but what's that got to do with software that kills...and music that doesn't?
So if the customer doesn't read the software licensing, it's on them (I sure never bother, and as I said, I think all the concern some have here is blown out of proportion).
If they do read it and get all freaky (like some here)...then they can go by another brand...but OH WAIT...
...everyone else has a similar licensing agreement to protect their intellectual property.
So if the customer doesn't read the software licensing, it's on them (I sure never bother, and as I said, I think all the concern some have here is blown out of proportion).
If they do read it and get all freaky (like some here)...then they can go by another brand...but OH WAIT...
...everyone else has a similar licensing agreement to protect their intellectual property.
Tom Paul
Member
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
IANaLb, I'm pretty sure every court case has found that EULAs are legally-binding provided they don't contradict existing laws.
They won't inspect your home studio if they don't suspect you're participating in wide-scale piracy because it's not worth their time, but they probably still could.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
I don't have any personal issue with any licensing agreement. It only an issue if you violate the terms right?
Never had issue with Ilok myself, though I know some have. In fact by having Ilok I have some of my favorite plugs that I use regularly that were introduced for free. I also updated them to the full versions.
Now, if someone is one that feels that it is ok/fair you use pirated software, then you can go fuck yourself because you are the reason for the higher cost of the good stuff to others and why these agreements even exist in the first place.
Purchase license agreement for your software and create great music. I just do not see the concern here...
Never had issue with Ilok myself, though I know some have. In fact by having Ilok I have some of my favorite plugs that I use regularly that were introduced for free. I also updated them to the full versions.
Now, if someone is one that feels that it is ok/fair you use pirated software, then you can go fuck yourself because you are the reason for the higher cost of the good stuff to others and why these agreements even exist in the first place.
Purchase license agreement for your software and create great music. I just do not see the concern here...
cyrano
Member
Not over here. From the Wordperfect corp. one, many years ago, to recent ones that were refused because the user "signed" them by opening the box containing the agreement. Plenty of examples.
That's also why it is not very smart to have illogical statements in a EULA. Illegal ones render the entire EULA unenforceable automatically, illogical ones end up before a judge. That doesn't stop the industry from trying.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
Dang! Where is this utopia?
cyrano
Member
Europe.
The WP case was in The Netherlands, over 20 years ago. It was the first I can remember and it has been followed by many since.
It's not black and white, either. If a manufacturer specifies that use of their software isn't safe with certain machines, it is legal and will limit the manufacturer's liability. The user is still free to proceed using that unsafe combination, but he can't blame the manufacturer.
It's a question of logic. Hence the example of an audio CD I mentioned before. If the CD publisher would state you can't listen to it on a certain brand of CD players, he would be laughed away. OTOH all CD licenses state that the use of the CD is for private listening only, not for public or broadcast. That's an accepted and logical use of a license agreement. Once you want to broadcast, there's no longer an EULA, but a real contract, signed by lawyers.
The industry has fi tried to limit 2nd hand sale of CD's video and software. That limit in the EULA has been thrown out by many courts if the product resides on a physical carrier. That's why I also said it would need to be revisited by the courts for streaming and that software publishers are moving to subscriptions which avoids the problem. But even when fi a video rental stops doing business, they can resell the tapes legally. If the buyer uses them for private viewing, there's no problem. If he wants to use the tapes to rent them out again, he'll have to renegotiate a contract with the rights holders.
That's also why piracy hasn't got anything to do with it. Piracy is illegal. There's no EULA for pirated goods, is there?
You can't legally resell fake gucci handbags or other physical goods either. There's no consumer or other legal protection for those and it doesn't matter if you're a private person or a company. Consumers returning from fi Bangkok with a fake gucci bag will see it confiscated at the border. They wil not be fined for it if it's only one or two bags. If there's suspicion of commerce, like someone with 20 fake bags, they will be fined. And if it is a business importing those fake bags, they will be prosecuted, fined and they risk jail time.
EULA's you agree to by opening the box that you can't read without opening said box are simply not accepted at all. Kinda logical you can't agree to something you can't read is it?
Likewise a EULA like the one from Focusrite that allows entry to your home or business, is generally not accepted because that area is governed by law. If a software maker wants to check if a person or a business is running pirated software, they have to ask the court for permission and hire a bailiff to get in. Of course, if you don't let them in, police will let the bailiff in.
The only exception I can think of, is public parties, where a representative of the rights holders collection agency can enter to check if the playlist has been declared and paid. Usually, these bills aren't paid before the party and he will draw up a bill on the spot. That can get out of hand, as schools have been billed for playing music, which is education, not a party. And education is a clear legal exception.
The right holders at times cross the line of legality and logic. Atm, for instance a few of them are claiming rights to the works of Beethoven and many other classical composers over on Youtube. These works have been in the public domain for a long time. But the industry claims recording rights, even when the music is played by and the recordings are made by the people putting up the music on YT. That's a flaw in the automatic detection algorithm being exploited by the industry.
The WP case was in The Netherlands, over 20 years ago. It was the first I can remember and it has been followed by many since.
It's not black and white, either. If a manufacturer specifies that use of their software isn't safe with certain machines, it is legal and will limit the manufacturer's liability. The user is still free to proceed using that unsafe combination, but he can't blame the manufacturer.
It's a question of logic. Hence the example of an audio CD I mentioned before. If the CD publisher would state you can't listen to it on a certain brand of CD players, he would be laughed away. OTOH all CD licenses state that the use of the CD is for private listening only, not for public or broadcast. That's an accepted and logical use of a license agreement. Once you want to broadcast, there's no longer an EULA, but a real contract, signed by lawyers.
The industry has fi tried to limit 2nd hand sale of CD's video and software. That limit in the EULA has been thrown out by many courts if the product resides on a physical carrier. That's why I also said it would need to be revisited by the courts for streaming and that software publishers are moving to subscriptions which avoids the problem. But even when fi a video rental stops doing business, they can resell the tapes legally. If the buyer uses them for private viewing, there's no problem. If he wants to use the tapes to rent them out again, he'll have to renegotiate a contract with the rights holders.
That's also why piracy hasn't got anything to do with it. Piracy is illegal. There's no EULA for pirated goods, is there?
You can't legally resell fake gucci handbags or other physical goods either. There's no consumer or other legal protection for those and it doesn't matter if you're a private person or a company. Consumers returning from fi Bangkok with a fake gucci bag will see it confiscated at the border. They wil not be fined for it if it's only one or two bags. If there's suspicion of commerce, like someone with 20 fake bags, they will be fined. And if it is a business importing those fake bags, they will be prosecuted, fined and they risk jail time.
EULA's you agree to by opening the box that you can't read without opening said box are simply not accepted at all. Kinda logical you can't agree to something you can't read is it?
Likewise a EULA like the one from Focusrite that allows entry to your home or business, is generally not accepted because that area is governed by law. If a software maker wants to check if a person or a business is running pirated software, they have to ask the court for permission and hire a bailiff to get in. Of course, if you don't let them in, police will let the bailiff in.
The only exception I can think of, is public parties, where a representative of the rights holders collection agency can enter to check if the playlist has been declared and paid. Usually, these bills aren't paid before the party and he will draw up a bill on the spot. That can get out of hand, as schools have been billed for playing music, which is education, not a party. And education is a clear legal exception.
The right holders at times cross the line of legality and logic. Atm, for instance a few of them are claiming rights to the works of Beethoven and many other classical composers over on Youtube. These works have been in the public domain for a long time. But the industry claims recording rights, even when the music is played by and the recordings are made by the people putting up the music on YT. That's a flaw in the automatic detection algorithm being exploited by the industry.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
There are many...many...software and computerized hardware manufacturers in Europe...and they almost all include the same licensing agreements.
Some that don't get too "clause-y" are the small, single owner/developer types...but even they have some sort of agreements that you have to accept in order to use their products.
That's the point here...it's not some rare/odd situation that people would be shocked and surprised by...like the OP in this thread (who has never come back).
AFA what would happen in a court of law if/when some agreements are challenged...it's kinda pointless to speculate here, and it's also pretty pointless to toss out endless "what ifs" to try and formulate some opinions....
...but I see some people prefer to do that instead of sticking to the actual discussion.
Some that don't get too "clause-y" are the small, single owner/developer types...but even they have some sort of agreements that you have to accept in order to use their products.
That's the point here...it's not some rare/odd situation that people would be shocked and surprised by...like the OP in this thread (who has never come back).
AFA what would happen in a court of law if/when some agreements are challenged...it's kinda pointless to speculate here, and it's also pretty pointless to toss out endless "what ifs" to try and formulate some opinions....
...but I see some people prefer to do that instead of sticking to the actual discussion.
cyrano
Member
As a consumer, you'd expect to own what you buy. Apparently, what you buy from Apple's media store isn't your property and Apple can delete it if you store it in Apple's cloud:
Apple can delete purchased movies from your library without telling you | The Outline
Another reason why you should read license agreements and why these should be logical and readable.
Apple can delete purchased movies from your library without telling you | The Outline
Another reason why you should read license agreements and why these should be logical and readable.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Why is this even a conversation anymore?
Just asking honestly as it is just tiring and personal opinion that nobody really cares to listen to on a home recording forum. Or maybe it just me that doesn't give a shit about discussing these rights and terms as a discussion...
Just asking honestly as it is just tiring and personal opinion that nobody really cares to listen to on a home recording forum. Or maybe it just me that doesn't give a shit about discussing these rights and terms as a discussion...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Why don't you get on that and see if you can force some changes across the entire industry.
I think if you repeat yourself to "them" enough times about how you think it should be, "they" might listen to you...unlike anyone here.
Really.
It's not like the entire software industry is hanging on every word in this thread.
VomitHatSteve
Hat STYLE. Not contents.
It's debatable as to whether or not that's even illegal. (The illegal part being the distribution, not the consumption)
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Not sure how any of these ended finally...but don't say that "private" individuals are absolutely free from prosecution.
Jury orders student to pay $675,000 for illegally downloading music - ABC News
Top 4 Fined Cases For Illegal Downloads In USA
Illegal Downloads: What Are the Penalties? - FindLaw Blotter
C
cecerre
New member
A lot of ‘people’ mocking this. I remember in the 90s companies, and individuals, blew off all that ‘boilerplate’ ‘stuff’...right up until about 10 years ago when MS started showing up at business, large and small, to ask for very detailed information on licensing for their Windows products. When times got tough for the company MS, they leveraged the ‘boilerplate’ language that every one tossed aside, hell, we even joked about it in IT, and they began making money hand over fist from small companies and large alike who were not prepared to provide the level of detailed documentation or any infraction they deemed requiring monetary restitution.
It’s alsways hilarious until some corporation decides they need the extra cash or 15 minutes of fame to bolster their income or bond rating.
This was not a post about some laughable situation that will never happen, it does happen. Rather, it’s about how some companies, and people for that matter, simply place what we they want in these agreements knowing that people like those mocking it, will just assume ‘it will never happen to me’ and move on...until it does happen. Frankly it shouldn’t be acceptable for any company to place this type of powerful legal language in an agreement unless they insure you as the consumer are aware. This tactic has become typical amoral behavior, especially in the US where certain like-minded people simply sluff off the little things until there are enough little things to present a very large problem.
Tsk tsk.
It’s alsways hilarious until some corporation decides they need the extra cash or 15 minutes of fame to bolster their income or bond rating.
This was not a post about some laughable situation that will never happen, it does happen. Rather, it’s about how some companies, and people for that matter, simply place what we they want in these agreements knowing that people like those mocking it, will just assume ‘it will never happen to me’ and move on...until it does happen. Frankly it shouldn’t be acceptable for any company to place this type of powerful legal language in an agreement unless they insure you as the consumer are aware. This tactic has become typical amoral behavior, especially in the US where certain like-minded people simply sluff off the little things until there are enough little things to present a very large problem.
Tsk tsk.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Interesting. I think I heard 'Pirate Bay' was shut down so a bunch of Torrent sites were also shut down. Not that I give a shit because all of that free sharing of illegal software just pisses me off.
I remember about 9 years ago a friend gave me a bunch of software on a DVD. Thought nothing of it. Then later realized it was illegal cracks of software. New to the computer shiz I didn't know at first what I was dealing with. That PC had so many issues....
Once I realized how fucked up it was-being a musician and a business owner, I threw that shit away, built a new recording PC and started over.
Ironically, I did get a chance to work with every Waves plugin made back then. I now only actually use 4 of them (legally) now. It just is not morally correct to steal music or software. It makes it more expensive for us that have the decency to pay for product.
If you can't afford a Ferrari, then you need to make the money it takes to have that ability. Stealing $100 software and maybe making money from it is petty theft, but it is pathetic and lame laziness...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
But you/we ARE aware of it.
How many times during the very first step of any software installation have you seen the "Terms" pop-up...and you have to check either "Accept" or "Not Accept", because you can't proceed with the installation if you don't accept...and 99.999999999999% of the time, everyone just clicks "Accept" without EVER reading the terms agreement.
Don't make it seem like they secretly force you to agree to things you would consciously not agree. It's actually just the opposite...you agree without reading because you want the product no matter what. Then down the road, after the fact, we get these "shocked" perspectives from some people - "How dare they include all this stuff that I was not aware of!!!"
And for the millions...make that billions of people who use software products every second of every day, who have clicked on that "Accept" button without ever really reading or disputing anything in the agreement BEFORE going forward...few if any have seen their home or place of business invaded for a surprise inspection by the vendor of the software or have had legal issues from normal, every day use of that software.