|
|
Post by keymod on Apr 22, 2014 4:26:04 GMT -6
I have to agree with Kcat. The sellers are the ones who did the wrong here. Pace unwittingly enabled that scenario, so they should not punish the purchasers. Imagine the huge amount of positive PR Avid and Pace could gain if they went after the sellers but did allow the buyers to keep the licenses. Not sure of the legal ramifications of accepting stolen property though, even though un-knowingly. Would it be different if someone purchased a stolen piece of hardware? I'm pretty sure that the hardware would be returned to the rightful owner. I guess the buyer would have to go after the seller in Court to recoup losses. Fat chance of getting anything out of it after the Lawyers take their share.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 22, 2014 8:35:22 GMT -6
Stolen property ?  As the law is still evolving about what paying money to use a license affords the buyer as rights, I wonder if the legal implications are very unclear ? That is why i referenced Slate's direction to buyer. It is very clear that the buyer has limited rights and if i continue to use a license i purchased but sold , has the original owner stolen actual property ? CUS I never owned it in the first place ? I think European and US law are diverging on this question currently with European law recognizing greater buyer evolving rights ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 22, 2014 10:00:59 GMT -6
My understanding is that Pace just supplies a toolkit to the developer. The developer decides all policy about transfers and even how invasive a protection technology to employ.
I suspect we will see many developers moving to Sonnox's policy of no transfers that aren't confirmed by them with a registration fee paid. Pace could even start requiring it. In this case the seller should still have a legal license they could transfer to the buyer.
People are also confusing the need for sync repair which can make licenses disappear with this issue. I suspect this is just an intentional smear along with claims that Pace doesn't deserve a transfer fee from the seller. Pace has obviously screwed up but they also get piled on at every turn by folks who seem to think they are entitled to free software.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 22, 2014 10:58:45 GMT -6
Not sure of the legal ramifications of accepting stolen property though, even though un-knowingly. Would it be different if someone purchased a stolen piece of hardware? I'm pretty sure that the hardware would be returned to the rightful owner. I guess the buyer would have to go after the seller in Court to recoup losses. Fat chance of getting anything out of it after the Lawyers take their share. The problem i have with this is, the purchase went through Pace with a $25 transfer fee attached to it, they are the official sanctioned gate keeper, they essentially put their "word, product and reputation" on the line and said to the buyer "your good". They are solely responsible for the losses of the buyer, in this case they said, whoops our mistake, fuck you! This kind of thing happened to someone i know when buying a new car, they ran her credit, she put down $5,000, then she drove away with the car. A couple weeks later, they came back to her and said "there was a mistake with your credit approval, we tried, but we cant get you the financing for the car", they gave here her MONEY back with apologies, and took the car. thats how a bad situation can be resolved ethically, even though she'll never buy a car from that dealer again. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 23, 2014 9:37:32 GMT -6
The problem with this theory is that Pace was a taxicab driver who got paid a $25 fare by the seller to deliver the license according to the developer's policy on transfers. The transaction was entirely between the buyer and seller under a transfer policy set by the developer. Pace was not a party to the transaction beyond providing transportation for a fee paid by the seller and their responsibility to their customer who is the developer.
Unfortunately the internet enables easy fraud along with the easy looting of intellectual property. Of course Pace screwed up by creating a duplicate from a demo but it's up to the seller and not Pace to make good by providing a legitimate license or refunding the buyer's money. I suspect Pace only took away licenses from people who were not registered owners because they had never registered their transfer with the developer. The lesson here is to always register transfers. The keys to a car are not the title.
|
|
