CMBDJ
djnanite wrote :
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if your client wanted the existing lighting arrangements, but just wanted to change the date/location, what difference does it make it if it was her (or her sister) who was using the lights? The lights had been paid for already.
Maybe she had requested a refund, or maybe your lights were already booked out on that new date, or maybe you had an agreement to only give partial refunds for changes less than 2 weeks before an event. But unless you had a 'no refunds' clause I can't see how you would have lost out here.
CMBDJ wrote :
I have a simular situation that has given me cause to add a line to my client agreements. I scheduled a lighting only event with a client for September 15. Client paid in full upon booking and signed an agreement. Basically, a week and a half before the wedding, the bride called to reschedule the wedding to March 9, saying there were family problems or something. In truth, the wedding was called off, and her sister's wedding was scheduled for March 9th and she wanted to "sell" the lighting that she had paid for with me to her sister's wedding. But she wasn't telling me that, I had to do my own investigation.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if your client wanted the existing lighting arrangements, but just wanted to change the date/location, what difference does it make it if it was her (or her sister) who was using the lights? The lights had been paid for already.
Maybe she had requested a refund, or maybe your lights were already booked out on that new date, or maybe you had an agreement to only give partial refunds for changes less than 2 weeks before an event. But unless you had a 'no refunds' clause I can't see how you would have lost out here.
First, I would have lost out by giving up two dates for the price of one. Second, The contract was with the first bride, not her sister. (and this is what related this topic to the post) Third, cancellations within 30 days are required to be paid in full; which it was paid up because she paid in full when she booked. Had she not paid in full when she booked, I would have been screwed.
geposted Mon 08 Oct 12 @ 8:05 pm
the SOUND INSURGENT
discobrian24 wrote :
My only opinion on this matter is directed at Pro users who have controllers to sell that come with the LE version. I feel that if you or I were to want to sell said controller we should be allowed to "Unregister'' the LE version in our profile and then be able to pass that software along to the new user. I only agree with this if it is a licensed Pro user as VDJ isnt out money with this, and potentially has the ability to sell MORE Pro versions to these users.
I have seen many of posts by pissed off people who have bought a controller off EBay expecting VDJ to be included.
These are only my views, and doesnt affect my Pro use.
I have seen many of posts by pissed off people who have bought a controller off EBay expecting VDJ to be included.
These are only my views, and doesnt affect my Pro use.
This is what I'd also like to see. I've since sold my RMX to a buddy and I so wish he could register it and update his software. I would even pay to have it removed.......
geposted Mon 08 Oct 12 @ 8:53 pm
vjscott
As the person who posted this original subject that got locked, I'm sorry if I opened up a hornet's nest but perhaps this is a good topic for users to discuss.
I want to point out that if VDJ offered a full trial of the Pro software, even for just 7 days, this discussion would be a moot point for me.
As someone else correctly pointed out, the Pro version has many features not found in the free Home version. The most important for me is the ability to output video content to another monitor. I can't see paying $350 without knowing for sure my laptop will be able to take advantage of the external monitor option in VDJPro. I think I have the proper system to do it, but you never know for sure until you try. I guess I'll just have to choose another software that offers a trial with this feature or look for a cracked version of VDJPro.
I also think the argument about paying for VDJPro from the money you'll make doing gigs doesn't hold water because if you buy the software and it can't do what you expected, you won't be getting any gigs.
I do have a few questions though:
If you buy VDJPro and your hard drive or computer dies, can you reinstall it on another?
Are you allowed to change your email address and other personal info, other than your name?
If the answer to the above two questions is "yes" then it seems like it would be fairly easy for someone to sell their copy of VDJ. I'm not trying to give anyone ideas on how to cheat the company... just pointing out the obvious and how futile it can be to enforce "no resale" laws. Companies should just offer a "transfer" fee, or perhaps sell older versions of the software at a reduced cost, with an upgrade fee to the latest version.
I want to point out that if VDJ offered a full trial of the Pro software, even for just 7 days, this discussion would be a moot point for me.
As someone else correctly pointed out, the Pro version has many features not found in the free Home version. The most important for me is the ability to output video content to another monitor. I can't see paying $350 without knowing for sure my laptop will be able to take advantage of the external monitor option in VDJPro. I think I have the proper system to do it, but you never know for sure until you try. I guess I'll just have to choose another software that offers a trial with this feature or look for a cracked version of VDJPro.
I also think the argument about paying for VDJPro from the money you'll make doing gigs doesn't hold water because if you buy the software and it can't do what you expected, you won't be getting any gigs.
I do have a few questions though:
If you buy VDJPro and your hard drive or computer dies, can you reinstall it on another?
Are you allowed to change your email address and other personal info, other than your name?
If the answer to the above two questions is "yes" then it seems like it would be fairly easy for someone to sell their copy of VDJ. I'm not trying to give anyone ideas on how to cheat the company... just pointing out the obvious and how futile it can be to enforce "no resale" laws. Companies should just offer a "transfer" fee, or perhaps sell older versions of the software at a reduced cost, with an upgrade fee to the latest version.
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 11:00 am
PhantomDeejay
vjscott wrote :
As someone else correctly pointed out, the Pro version has many features not found in the free Home version. The most important for me is the ability to output video content to another monitor.
As someone else correctly pointed out, the Pro version has many features not found in the free Home version. The most important for me is the ability to output video content to another monitor.
You can output video on another monitor with Home FREE but only for 10 minutes. You can use advanced audio configuration but only for 10 minutes. You can work with controllers but only for 10 minutes. In other words all PRO features are there but only limited to 10 minutes per launch. Also all LE users have the right to activate a 20 days PRO FULL trial period, which should be more than enough to demo the abilities of PRO
vjscott wrote :
I also think the argument about paying for VDJPro from the money you'll make doing gigs doesn't hold water because if you buy the software and it can't do what you expected, you won't be getting any gigs.
If you are about to quote me then please use my exact words. I talked about reselling the product after 2.5 years (or even more) of usage. I didn't talk about a product that failed to fulfill my expectations. I guess that if a product doesn't work the way it's supposed to, or the way it's advertised to, we would talk about a "refund" and not reselling.
vjscott wrote :
If you buy VDJPro and your hard drive or computer dies, can you reinstall it on another?
Are you allowed to change your email address and other personal info, other than your name?
Are you allowed to change your email address and other personal info, other than your name?
The answer to both questions is yes, but your license is still tied with you.
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 11:34 am
cesarcastillo
djnanite wrote :
First sale doctrine allows for the resale of any bought item, right?
THIS IS AN STUPID QUESTION... Who's doctrine is that? maybe its your father doctrine. Not All Items are covered by this principles. You must read the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT that it is not allow to resale the VDJ Period. Every company has their own licensing agreement to the end user and we should respect to that.
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 4:58 pm
djnanite
cesarcastillo wrote :
THIS IS AN STUPID QUESTION... Who's doctrine is that? maybe its your father doctrine. Not All Items are covered by this principles. You must read the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT that it is not allow to resale the VDJ Period. Every company has their own licensing agreement to the end user and we should respect to that.
djnanite wrote :
First sale doctrine allows for the resale of any bought item, right?
THIS IS AN STUPID QUESTION... Who's doctrine is that? maybe its your father doctrine. Not All Items are covered by this principles. You must read the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT that it is not allow to resale the VDJ Period. Every company has their own licensing agreement to the end user and we should respect to that.
First Sale Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine
Read up on it. It's a law designed to prevent companies from writing End User License Agreements that override the actual law, and has wider applications than just copyright.
For example, imagine if I had an End User License Agreement that included a clause that allowed me to break into your house and take anything I wanted. Just because you sign that End User License Agreement with me doesn't mean I really *can* (legally) break into your house and take anything I wanted.
It's important, it's law, and it's there for a reason.
JUST TO CLARIFY: I'm not suggesting Virtual DJ are breaking the law by preventing their license from being resold. This is just an interesting discussion as to the merits and drawbacks of their current sales model. If the discussions made in this topic encourage Virtual DJ to try a different sales model, event just as an experiment, that'd be great!
There's no progress without change.
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 5:10 pm
Martin FourS
I've been following this discussion from the start. It is becoming somewhat amusing and it can fill my evenings with readable stuff. It somehow wonders me that 2 of the points stated in the EULA has never been mentioned:
1- This license does NOT allow you to:
- rent, lease, sell, lend, distribute, publish, bundle or sublicense the Software or any part of it.
2- ----- VirtualDJ End User License Agreement -----
By clicking on "I accept" you agree to be bound by the following terms. If you don't, please click on "cancel", remove all copies and return the product to the place of purchase within 30 days of your purchase for a full refund.
Somewhere in the process you've clicked "I agree" and now it's time to start to argue the EULA. I really don't get it. The write-off of your car is way higher. If you would stop your job as a DJ, use it at home, put it on Automix and let it fill your birthday-party without having to look at it for the entire night....
Hobbies cost money, nothing new... ;)
1- This license does NOT allow you to:
- rent, lease, sell, lend, distribute, publish, bundle or sublicense the Software or any part of it.
2- ----- VirtualDJ End User License Agreement -----
By clicking on "I accept" you agree to be bound by the following terms. If you don't, please click on "cancel", remove all copies and return the product to the place of purchase within 30 days of your purchase for a full refund.
Somewhere in the process you've clicked "I agree" and now it's time to start to argue the EULA. I really don't get it. The write-off of your car is way higher. If you would stop your job as a DJ, use it at home, put it on Automix and let it fill your birthday-party without having to look at it for the entire night....
Hobbies cost money, nothing new... ;)
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 5:32 pm
djnanite
Martin FourS wrote :
I've been following this discussion from the start. It is becoming somewhat amusing and it can fill my evenings with readable stuff. It somehow wonders me that 2 of the points stated in the EULA has never been mentioned:
1- This license does NOT allow you to:
- rent, lease, sell, lend, distribute, publish, bundle or sublicense the Software or any part of it.
2- ----- VirtualDJ End User License Agreement -----
By clicking on "I accept" you agree to be bound by the following terms. If you don't, please click on "cancel", remove all copies and return the product to the place of purchase within 30 days of your purchase for a full refund.
Somewhere in the process you've clicked "I agree" and now it's time to start to argue the EULA. I really don't get it. The write-off of your car is way higher. If you would stop your job as a DJ, use it at home, put it on Automix and let it fill your birthday-party without having to look at it for the entire night....
Hobbies cost money, nothing new... ;)
1- This license does NOT allow you to:
- rent, lease, sell, lend, distribute, publish, bundle or sublicense the Software or any part of it.
2- ----- VirtualDJ End User License Agreement -----
By clicking on "I accept" you agree to be bound by the following terms. If you don't, please click on "cancel", remove all copies and return the product to the place of purchase within 30 days of your purchase for a full refund.
Somewhere in the process you've clicked "I agree" and now it's time to start to argue the EULA. I really don't get it. The write-off of your car is way higher. If you would stop your job as a DJ, use it at home, put it on Automix and let it fill your birthday-party without having to look at it for the entire night....
Hobbies cost money, nothing new... ;)
This discussion isn't so much about us trying to disagree with the EULA, but whether the EULA is even (1) fair, and (2) legal in the first place.
The legality of this type of EULA, and many other similar ones like it, is being debated right now: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04
I guess this discussion is broadly asking "Is there a better way to sell stuff?".
Or, even more broadly, "Who owns your stuff?".
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 5:40 pm
cstoll
Now, I have kept my hat off as a representative of Atomix and VirtualDJ throughout this thread - but for this post only I am putting that hat back on.
Ok ... first off, I have most likely let this conversation go on longer than it should. But it has stayed constructive with good dialogue.
Second - if people want to participate, use Google if you don't know about something. Don't come in not knowing anything about something that you are trying to comment on. It does not make you look like a contributor to the discussion and only opens the door for a war of words and that will go nowhere.
Third - if you can't keep the dialog respectable by not using words or names like 'fool', 'idiot','stupid', etc. Then don't bother participating - because you are not contributing to the 'constructive discussion'.
Ok ... first off, I have most likely let this conversation go on longer than it should. But it has stayed constructive with good dialogue.
Second - if people want to participate, use Google if you don't know about something. Don't come in not knowing anything about something that you are trying to comment on. It does not make you look like a contributor to the discussion and only opens the door for a war of words and that will go nowhere.
Third - if you can't keep the dialog respectable by not using words or names like 'fool', 'idiot','stupid', etc. Then don't bother participating - because you are not contributing to the 'constructive discussion'.
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 5:50 pm
cstoll
HAT BACK OFF
@djnanite --
Like a previous analogy, your last one is not even close to the issue. I don't know of any license agreement by a software company ( or any agreement by any other type of company or even individual ) that says it is OK to steal from someone else. Again, I know the point you are trying to make. But no one would right an agreement that would say it is OK to break a law and so it is just a bad example.
And if the discussion isn't "about trying to disagree with a company's EULA" then what is it about? Even in finishing your sentence you ask if the EULA is "fair and legal". Sounds like a question of disagreeing with it and that is how court cases get started in the first place - a disagreement.
And to further your question about "Who owns your stuff?" that is the real issue - and it really is an issue of "What stuff do you really own and what stuff is in your possession do you NOT own?" Which is the real debate.
You might own your software license and your copy of the software - but do you own the benefits that a company gives you by being that owner?
Did you pay for those benefits to where you own them?
Do you have the right to pass on those benefits?
Or do you only have the right to pass on the software, but nothing else that comes as a benefit that you do not and did not pay for?
@djnanite --
Like a previous analogy, your last one is not even close to the issue. I don't know of any license agreement by a software company ( or any agreement by any other type of company or even individual ) that says it is OK to steal from someone else. Again, I know the point you are trying to make. But no one would right an agreement that would say it is OK to break a law and so it is just a bad example.
And if the discussion isn't "about trying to disagree with a company's EULA" then what is it about? Even in finishing your sentence you ask if the EULA is "fair and legal". Sounds like a question of disagreeing with it and that is how court cases get started in the first place - a disagreement.
And to further your question about "Who owns your stuff?" that is the real issue - and it really is an issue of "What stuff do you really own and what stuff is in your possession do you NOT own?" Which is the real debate.
You might own your software license and your copy of the software - but do you own the benefits that a company gives you by being that owner?
Did you pay for those benefits to where you own them?
Do you have the right to pass on those benefits?
Or do you only have the right to pass on the software, but nothing else that comes as a benefit that you do not and did not pay for?
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 6:21 pm
djnanite
cstoll wrote :
HAT BACK OFF
@djnanite --
Like a previous analogy, your last one is not even close to the issue.
@djnanite --
Like a previous analogy, your last one is not even close to the issue.
Sorry, I must have missed that. Which previous analogy are you referring to?
cstoll wrote :
And if the discussion isn't "about trying to disagree with a company's EULA" then what is it about? Even in finishing your sentence you ask if the EULA is "fair and legal". Sounds like a question of disagreeing with it and that is how court cases get started in the first place - a disagreement.
OK, but if it is found that this type of EULA is not legal, then whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant - the EULA is not enforceable.
This is what I meant about in my analogy of including something illegal in an EULA. Just because you agree to something, doesn't mean you can legally do it.
The big issue here is that this kind of EULA has always been accepted without question. Now some people are beginning to question theirs, to the extent that it is now being tested for the first time in court. Atomix (as a company that enforces a similar kind of EULA) should:
1. Listen with interest to the outcome of that court case, as it could have an impact on your current and future customers.
2. Ask whether this is the best way to protect their assets.
I (personally) have no plans to sell/transfer my license. My original question was hypothetical, but with a point. I am interested to know why Atomix forbids the resale/transfer of their product when Traktor apparently don't have this restriction, despite marketing a similar product. My earlier point about whether a company thinks it's customers are trustworthy (and vice versa) is relevant here. The *impression* (whether real or perceived) is that Traktor are happy for their customers to transfer their license, even though there is nothing stopping their customers from pirating Traktor in the same way that Virtual DJ is sometimes pirated.
If Atomix are worried that by not enforcing a strict user license then people will copy their software with impunity, then fair enough. But as I suggested in an earlier reply, if you make a pirated version less attractive than the genuine thing, then people will have no reason to pirate it. But you have to maintain a balance between making your product as affordable as possible and yet still turn enough profit to make development of it worthwhile - I understand that. Hence my suggestion about lowering the price to attract more custom. If you saturate the market, it won't matter if your product is cheaper than the competition - you will make up for lost profits through increased sales.
cstoll wrote :
And to further your question about "Who owns your stuff?" that is the real issue - and it really is an issue of "What stuff do you really own and what stuff is in your possession do you NOT own?" Which is the real debate.
You might own your software license and your copy of the software - but do you own the benefits that a company gives you by being that owner?
Did you pay for those benefits to where you own them?
Do you have the right to pass on those benefits?
Or do you only have the right to pass on the software, but nothing else that comes as a benefit that you do not and did not pay for?
You might own your software license and your copy of the software - but do you own the benefits that a company gives you by being that owner?
Did you pay for those benefits to where you own them?
Do you have the right to pass on those benefits?
Or do you only have the right to pass on the software, but nothing else that comes as a benefit that you do not and did not pay for?
Agreed. I wish I could give you an absolutely correct answer, but mine are just an opinion amongst many different opinions.
I will say that I find it depressing that many companies now use the 'license to use, but not to own' model as their default sales model. I'm happy to pay a small flat fee for a product and pay a small amount for each future update. That way, if I never paid for an update again I could still use the original (non-updated) product.
It's a complex issue, which is why there's no simple answer. I appreciate you keeping this topic open - it's a worthwhile discussion. Thanks!
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 10:17 pm
cstoll
Your comments seem to be under an assumption that Atomix is not aware of what is happening globally in the legal arenas, not aware of their market share in the industry, and does not have an economic model that they are following and/or monitoring.
As for comparing companies ...
------------------------------------
Atomix EULA for VirtualDJ --
Section 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The software is protected by the copyright laws of the U.S. and other countries.
If any part of this agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms will stay in effect.
This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Delaware, USA.
------------------------------------
Native-Instruments EULA for their products -
Section 15 Applicable Law
All contracts with us are subject to the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany to the exclusion of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CSIG). The contractual language is German insofar as nothing else is agreed in writing.
------------------------------------
Two different legal binding systems and until there is a Universal Platform of Legalities that governs or supersedes all individual countries (or they all agree to the same legal implementations) ; I think there will always be this discussion across the continental divides.
As for comparing companies ...
------------------------------------
Atomix EULA for VirtualDJ --
Section 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The software is protected by the copyright laws of the U.S. and other countries.
If any part of this agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms will stay in effect.
This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Delaware, USA.
------------------------------------
Native-Instruments EULA for their products -
Section 15 Applicable Law
All contracts with us are subject to the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany to the exclusion of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CSIG). The contractual language is German insofar as nothing else is agreed in writing.
------------------------------------
Two different legal binding systems and until there is a Universal Platform of Legalities that governs or supersedes all individual countries (or they all agree to the same legal implementations) ; I think there will always be this discussion across the continental divides.
geposted Tue 09 Oct 12 @ 10:46 pm
wildcountryclub
EULA is un-enforceable? go ahead and put that one to the test for us. let us know how it works out.
i've been reading this thread from the get-go and the other one that kicked it off, and i keep thinking that i signed ("digitally agreed to a contract") an agreement or contract that stated i would abide by the rules. when we pride ourselves as being a civilized society under "rule of law" does that mean we bend it as we see fit everytime we want those rules to work in our favor?
what is to stop someone from re-selling software other than whatever built in securty measures VDJ has? their conscience maybe?
sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud old fuddy duddy, but its alot more black and white on this issue for me and probably for others as well.
i've been reading this thread from the get-go and the other one that kicked it off, and i keep thinking that i signed ("digitally agreed to a contract") an agreement or contract that stated i would abide by the rules. when we pride ourselves as being a civilized society under "rule of law" does that mean we bend it as we see fit everytime we want those rules to work in our favor?
what is to stop someone from re-selling software other than whatever built in securty measures VDJ has? their conscience maybe?
sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud old fuddy duddy, but its alot more black and white on this issue for me and probably for others as well.
geposted Wed 10 Oct 12 @ 7:17 am
nitebeatdisco
It would seem that software that has never been registered could be sold.
I wonder about the case of a company that purchases the license and the company changes hands.
I can think of ways it could be done, but wont detail those here in public.
I suppose Atomix could transfer licences if it wished, by deleting keys and issuing new ones to the new owner and could charge a fee for this.
For me I've always regarded the no transfer of licences as the other side of the coin for free lifetime updates.
yeah tractor allows transfer of license but also charges for updates .... I know what I prefer :)
Just remember that the free lifetime updates policy is not in the eula or terms of sale, and although you may own the software
the additional benefits such as the forum, the addons, and free upgrades are provided as a courtesy not as a right.
I for one hope that Atomix right to sell in the way they do is upheld, or we may find the free upgrade policy changing,
How many times do you want to pay for your software during your working life??/
I wonder about the case of a company that purchases the license and the company changes hands.
I can think of ways it could be done, but wont detail those here in public.
I suppose Atomix could transfer licences if it wished, by deleting keys and issuing new ones to the new owner and could charge a fee for this.
For me I've always regarded the no transfer of licences as the other side of the coin for free lifetime updates.
yeah tractor allows transfer of license but also charges for updates .... I know what I prefer :)
Just remember that the free lifetime updates policy is not in the eula or terms of sale, and although you may own the software
the additional benefits such as the forum, the addons, and free upgrades are provided as a courtesy not as a right.
I for one hope that Atomix right to sell in the way they do is upheld, or we may find the free upgrade policy changing,
How many times do you want to pay for your software during your working life??/
geposted Wed 10 Oct 12 @ 7:47 am
GadgetMan
All,
I remember reading once - many years ago - the EULA for Windows 95 - I was so shocked by what is said I checked agreements for Word and Excel which said exactly the same thing.
Now it's been many years so the exact words fail me, but the gist of one the very first clauses was: "This software is not intended to allow you to do anything, perform any activity, yada, yada, yada..."
I got several work colleagues to read it themselves to which they all agreed I was correct and were completely dumbfounded. Basically, Microsoft were disowning the product you had just paid good money for and were basically saying if it doesn't work - it's not our fault.
I think the "doctrine" you promote is basically targeted at these kind of licence agreements.
Now, here in the UK a popular car/auto servicing company offers FREE lifetime replacement brake shoes and pads - for as long as you own the car. You paid for the initial work, but you cannot pass on this benefit to the next owner!
OK, its not the same (that would be like putting the original brake shoes back on before selling the car) but it shows that benefits of a sale do not get passed on - unless explicitly stated in a purchase contract - like warranty/free servicing!
If you have ever downloaded one plugin, one skin, one effect from this web site or logged in via the Internet tab in the software itself, then you have already taken advantage of additional services that are offered to YOU as an individual as the owner of a licence key.
Heck, you could purchase a software licence but never download or install the software! It is the software licence which is, in effect locked to you. That licence then unlocks the features in the software.
Cheers,
Roy
I remember reading once - many years ago - the EULA for Windows 95 - I was so shocked by what is said I checked agreements for Word and Excel which said exactly the same thing.
Now it's been many years so the exact words fail me, but the gist of one the very first clauses was: "This software is not intended to allow you to do anything, perform any activity, yada, yada, yada..."
I got several work colleagues to read it themselves to which they all agreed I was correct and were completely dumbfounded. Basically, Microsoft were disowning the product you had just paid good money for and were basically saying if it doesn't work - it's not our fault.
I think the "doctrine" you promote is basically targeted at these kind of licence agreements.
Now, here in the UK a popular car/auto servicing company offers FREE lifetime replacement brake shoes and pads - for as long as you own the car. You paid for the initial work, but you cannot pass on this benefit to the next owner!
OK, its not the same (that would be like putting the original brake shoes back on before selling the car) but it shows that benefits of a sale do not get passed on - unless explicitly stated in a purchase contract - like warranty/free servicing!
If you have ever downloaded one plugin, one skin, one effect from this web site or logged in via the Internet tab in the software itself, then you have already taken advantage of additional services that are offered to YOU as an individual as the owner of a licence key.
Heck, you could purchase a software licence but never download or install the software! It is the software licence which is, in effect locked to you. That licence then unlocks the features in the software.
Cheers,
Roy
geposted Wed 10 Oct 12 @ 9:16 am
Tim Bennett
EULA? is that the box that pops up right before you install? I just tick "I agree" and act like a responsible human being from there forward.
I can't believe this debate rages on. The man done told ya, "NO, you cannot resale it!"
I can't believe this debate rages on. The man done told ya, "NO, you cannot resale it!"
geposted Wed 10 Oct 12 @ 10:01 am
vjscott
PhantomDJ: I don't see an easy way to quote other users in this forum, but in reference to what you posted:
"You can output video on another monitor with Home FREE but only for 10 minutes. You can use advanced audio configuration but only for 10 minutes. You can work with controllers but only for 10 minutes. In other words all PRO features are there but only limited to 10 minutes per launch. Also all LE users have the right to activate a 20 days PRO FULL trial period, which should be more than enough to demo the abilities of PRO."
I wish I knew this from the beginning because I never would have started the original post. This information is not on the VDJ website, or if it is I could not find it. Logically you would think it would be on the comparison page:
http://www.virtualdj.com/products/comparison.html
In any case, thank you for the info and I will try it out.
"You can output video on another monitor with Home FREE but only for 10 minutes. You can use advanced audio configuration but only for 10 minutes. You can work with controllers but only for 10 minutes. In other words all PRO features are there but only limited to 10 minutes per launch. Also all LE users have the right to activate a 20 days PRO FULL trial period, which should be more than enough to demo the abilities of PRO."
I wish I knew this from the beginning because I never would have started the original post. This information is not on the VDJ website, or if it is I could not find it. Logically you would think it would be on the comparison page:
http://www.virtualdj.com/products/comparison.html
In any case, thank you for the info and I will try it out.
geposted Wed 10 Oct 12 @ 11:33 am
cstoll
Scott --
I think if you would have asked that original question straight up front in your post you would have gotten the answer. Instead, your post was 95% about not spending the money and wanting to resell it if you didn't like it. You did ask the question - but it was surrounded by statements that gave a totally different meaning to what you wanted to really know.
I think if you would have asked that original question straight up front in your post you would have gotten the answer. Instead, your post was 95% about not spending the money and wanting to resell it if you didn't like it. You did ask the question - but it was surrounded by statements that gave a totally different meaning to what you wanted to really know.
geposted Wed 10 Oct 12 @ 11:55 am