The nouve' of them!

[Terry Wetzel]

This comment will most likely be misunderstood by most of you as well as the majority of young folks who have grown up in a world dominated by corporate thinking but here goes. I find it ludicrous that software companies have assumed the right to regulate the use of their wares once they've been sold to the customer! In what other business does this practice exist, let alone is legally allowed? I understand that the intent is to protect the artistic license of the "creator" of the product, but if one looks around, the entire software business it's easy to see that they all "barrow ideas" from each other! If I buy a car and then decide to sell it or trade it for a newer model, it's my right as the legal owner of the car! What would any sane person think if suddenly the original car dealer appeared and announced that "You can't sell that car because I own the rights to the engine! Recording artists have failed in their attempts to control the rights to the songs they created and the government continues to support the theft of their music. No one bats an eye! Abstract thinking by an old grouch? Maybe but I'd like to hear your comments.

[mesaone]

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel

In what other business does this practice exist, let alone is legally allowed?

The entertainment industry.

[Southsidemusic]

This is IMHO the reason why:

Probably the fact we don't "own" the software.

We have a "license" for the product and the developer still owns their software. If we buy a car we own it straight out or any other physical gear unit but software licenses lets the developer own the proprietary software and sell us licenses for the use of said software, hence why there are different restrictions of what the end user can and can not do with it.

I agree it's confusing but thats the way of this new era of music ITB production.

Love it or hate it but we have to comply with the rules and make the best of it.

And don't get me started on the theft issues for our music! I am soo pissed off at the whole situation I could cry ..

Best Regards
Christopher

[Terry Wetzel]

mesaone. I assume from your response, ("the entertainment industry"), you are referring to royalties paid for the use of music created by artists and musicians. If I'm wrong please elaborate. I don't see the analogy here. Paying someone for music they created,(small pittance as it is), in my opinion is not the same as a corporation assuming the right to collect money from their customers for the work and efforts of their software engineers who created the product and do not receive compensation other than their paycheck! If I didn't understand your response please elaborate. Thanks.

[Terry Wetzel]

Christopher, Southside music. OK. So I buy a car and I have a license to drive it. I can continue to drive the car as long as I maintain the license but, If I do not renew the license or if for any reason it is revoked or suspended, I no longer have the right to drive the car! Is that what your saying? Drivers licenses are a government regulation,(i.e.) law! So I guess the Software companies have assumed the role of government and have passed laws via their board of directors that they control the use of their products after being paid for same! Comments welcome.

[mesaone]

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel

mesaone. I assume from your response, ("the entertainment industry"), you are referring to royalties paid for the use of music created by artists and musicians.

I'm referring to how buying music/movies/etc does not entitle the customer to alter or distribute. Much like buying a software license does not mean you own the software itself, buying a record does not mean you own the music itself. You have purchased access, it is not unrestricted, and the original work is protected.

Likewise, none of this means your access can be altered or revoked unless you agree. On the other hand, the purchase alone is not carte blanche.

[JCBigler]

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel

Christopher, Southside music. OK. So I buy a car and I have a license to drive it. I can continue to drive the car as long as I maintain the license but, If I do not renew the license or if for any reason it is revoked or suspended, I no longer have the right to drive the car! Is that what your saying? Drivers licenses are a government regulation,(i.e.) law!

Not really the same thing. The driver's license is a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, and you don't need one to own a vehicle.

You can own a vehicle and not have a driver's license (as long as you don't operate it on public roads). You employ a chauffeur to drive you, or you own your own private track etc...

You can also have a driver's license, and not own a vehicle. I.e. you drive a delivery truck or as a chauffeur, etc...

You can even own a vehicle and drive it on a farm, or a closed track without having a driver's license.

But, I'm with you on the software licensing thing. One the one hand, they (Avid and other software companies) want you to think that their software is just like hardware. I.e. if you loose (it it gets stolen) the license authorization or dongle that it requires, then you should buy a whole new license at full price just like you would have to if your guitar or microphone was lost or stolen.

BUT, on the other hand, they insist that THEY own the software and you are just allowed to use it at their pleasure, in they way that they intend. And they have the right to revoke that license at any time, for any reason.

Just wait until Avid finishes their implementation of all the new meta data features in Avid Everywhere and they are able to start charging royalties on any media content that was produced with THEIR software which they allow you to use.

[Bill Denton]

Forget the car analogy...it really doesn't fit...

Think of the way PC software of all types used to be sold in the pre-download era.

Whether you bought software that came in a box on a DVD, or if you bought a movie that came in a box on DVD, here's what you got...

• Some packaging...a box, the shrink-wrap around the box.
• Some other junk...an advertisement for additional products, maybe a sticker or a picture.
• A plastic disk (DVD) with some digital data recorded on it.
• A license to use the digital data on the DVD under specific conditions.

For example, you are not allowed to "reverse engineer" the information on the computer program DVD, and you aren't allowed to show the DVD movie in public (like a restaurant or bar) without obtaining an additional license.

And there is really nothing new about this process...people and companies have been purchasing licenses to use patented "products" or copyrighted books since the US first began. And this has been done since before the United States even existed.

Since you're at least close to my age, you may not have ever heard of "tuners", who hot-rod todays cars. Back in our day, we hot-rodded by putting two four-barrel carburetors or dual exhaust on our cars. Now, everything on a car is controlled by computer chips, and the "tuners" buy computer chips that have been modified to make the car go faster or otherwise have improved performance.

So, the companies who wrote the original software and licensed that software to the car manufacturers, are now going after the guys who have reverse engineered the original software and modified it to make the car go faster for violating the terms of the software license.

So, I guess maybe that car analogy wasn't that far out after all...

[Terry Wetzel]

Thanks cristopher, Southside music. "Love it or hate it but we have to comply with the rules and make the best of it". Rules are not laws! The rules in question here are nothing but company policies. This is follow the leader thinking!

[Terry Wetzel]

Bill Denton. Thanks. ("Forget the car analogy...it really doesn't fit"..."So, I guess maybe that car analogy wasn't that far out after all"...)
So, Do you agree or disagree?