Can we sell our plugins since that new european law came into effect?

V0RT3X4 307 views6 posts
  • Users avatarV0RT3X

    Hi I would like to resell my Permut8 & bitspeek licences. What do I need to do for this?

    Thx

    Btw these are excellent plugins, I just have focused on different things now.

  • Users avatareXode

    FYI: As there seems to be some misconception regarding a certain ruling by the EU court. The EU court does not make an actual judging, they only rule how EU law should be interpreted, but it's still up the German Federal Court (in the case of Oracle vs UsedSoft) to make the final ruling. I do not know if the German Federal Court have made a ruling yet in that particular case yet.

    My main point is that this is one ruling in one case concerning two specific companies in Germany and it does not automatically equal law throughout the entire EU (for the time being).

    That said, I do not know what Sonic Charge re-sell policy is, I just thought that I'd help clarify the misconception that there's a certain law throughout EU that is in effect.

  • Users avatarLazylefteye

    - eXode wrote:
    That said, I do now know what Sonic Charge re-sell policy is, I just thought that I'd help clarify the misconception that there's a certain law throughout EU that is in effect.

    and the Sonic Charge re-sell policy is?

  • Users avatareXode

    - Resonator wrote:
    and the Sonic Charge re-sell policy is?

    Sorry, was a typo. I do NOT know the re-sell policy. Talk about picking the wrong word to misspell. :)

  • Users avatarMagnus Lidström

    Sonic Charge does not currently allow license transfers. We did for a short time earlier this year as a test after not allowing them for nearly ten years. Unfortunately it caused us a lot of work. The floodgates just opened wide as soon as the word hit KvR. But let me elaborate a bit on the EU law before I share my thoughts further on resales.

    I am far from an expert but the way I understand it is that there is no new law, only a ruling in a specific case that sets a precedent on how to interpret an existing law (concerning software on physical media) when applied to "downloads". It basically makes a "download" equivalent to a CD/DVD and therefore EU customers should be allowed to sell their "downloads" second hand just like they are allowed to sell used DVDs. I also think eXode may be correct in that the case isn't even settled yet and that media jumped a bit quickly on this.

    These laws are (as so often) a few years behind in the rapid changing world of technology and no one knows how to apply them to modern software markets like mobile app stores or to games that are tied to specific user accounts (e.g. WoW, Minecraft). DRM and copy protection is not within the scope of the law or the trial in question. If a company employs a challenge response protection there is nothing that forces the company to implement a technology for transferring licenses. This makes the law toothless and personally I have a feeling that despite its noble cause (strengthening consumer rights) this whole deal might run into a bit of a dead end. Most of what you do today on a computer is more or less online already and in the future I think software will rarely be viewed as something you pay to own (delivered to you on a DVD or via download), but rather something you pay to use (either with money or with ads).

    The latter is actually how I (and many other software developers) have thought about software for a long time already. I almost regard a sale as entering a mutual contract. You buy our "blessing" to use our programs for a reasonable one time fee and in return we regard it almost as an "obligation" to offer support and updates so that you can continue to use what you payed for as long as you need it. (Yes. I am sorry about the late 64-bit ports. They are coming.) We have actively supported our small product catalogue with free upgrades and content for nearly 10 years now and we do not intend to quit.

    However, the main reason why we do not allow license transfers is because we do not have the technical means to actually deactivate a license. We wanted to keep the copy protection hassle-free, simple and not requiring a dongle or internet connection. Our "short" registration keys are personal and based on your real name and email address (emphasising that they constitute your personal right to use our software). Most of our upgrades haven't even required you to enter a new serial number to use the new version (the only exception being MicroTonic 3.0, but it was still a free upgrade). As things are, each transfer needs to be made by hand. A fully automated public procedure would be too easy to abuse.

    We simply feel that our current copy protection solution isn't good enough to support the amount of transfers that we saw earlier this year. But don't view this as our final word. After all, we want 100% satisfied customers. For example, we are (somewhat reluctantly) thinking of giving in and implementing a challenge response system. That would put this entire issue in a different perspective.

    ** Update 2016-08-26: Can I transfer my Sonic Charge plugin license? **

  • Users avatareXode

    Yes, a lot of media have jumped the gun. They have made comments without actually understanding how the EU Court of Justice works in these matters. I've seen loads of references to judgmenets which are completely wrong. I hope you don't mind my semi rant on the subject but there is A LOT of misconception spread about this on the net.

    The EU Court does not judge the case but give a preliminary ruling as a form of legal advice to the court in the country that the case is taking place. Here's a link to the official EU page of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

    Point 1 of types of cases in the link provided above states this:

    1. Preliminary ruling procedure
    __
    The national courts in each EU country are responsible for ensuring that EU law is properly applied in that country. But there is a risk that courts in different countries might interpret EU law in different ways.
    __
    To prevent this happening, there is a ‘preliminary ruling procedure’. If a national court is in doubt about the interpretation or validity of an EU law, it may – and sometimes must – ask the Court of Justice for advice. This advice is called a ‘preliminary ruling’.

    In other words, the Court of Justice gives legal advice on how EU law should be interpreted, but the final judgment is made by the court that have asked for the advice.

    I hope that helps! :)

You need to be to post a reply

Sign In / Sign Up


First time here? Just enter your current email and sign up.
×