Dennis Bathory-Kitsz writes:
> Now, not too tangentially: Tobias, you seem certain Makemusic would have to
> support this product into the future. Why?
The FAQ that Tyler posted here should answer this, read the section
about the maintenance release.
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
__
David H. Bailey wrote:
>I read with interest Tyler's Q/A post, where Finale2004 will have a
>maintenance release that will include the ability for us to "transport"
>the registration code to a different machine -- that is EXACTLY the
>garbage that Sibelius does, and depending on the required me
On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 08.08.2003 23:41 Uhr, Tobias Giesen wrote
Even if Coda is bought by Sibelius and they drop Finale, the new
owner still
has the same obligations to Finale customers.
Even if it was illegal, the danger of having to fight over it i
Relative to the issue of re-registration, David wrote, in part
> I read with interest Tyler's Q/A post, where Finale2004 will have a
> maintenance release that will include the ability for us to "transport"
> the registration code to a different machine -- that is EXACTLY the
> garbage that Sibe
Brad Beyenhof wrote:
This assumes, however, that in the unlikely case of MakeMusic's demise
there will also be a concurrent need for software re-registration. In
most cases, the failure of MakeMusic or its computer systems will have
absolutely no effect on currently-running computers with
At 02:19 PM 8/9/03 +0200, Tobias Giesen wrote:
>> but most end-user licenses I have ever read contain
>> a clause which removes all liability from the
>> publisher of the product.
>
>Yeah but those clauses aren't valid, they are void. At
>least in Europe, but it should be similar in the States.
At 06:49 AM 8/9/03 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
>I'm not sure it's not illegal, it's just not prosecuted. While
>currently that means the same thing (courts have interpreted the law to
>allow such use) there could well come a landmark decision by some
>maverick judge that reverses previous case
> but most end-user licenses I have ever read contain
> a clause which removes all liability from the
> publisher of the product.
Yeah but those clauses aren't valid, they are void. At
least in Europe, but it should be similar in the States.
Cheers,
Tobias
> ... a clause which removes all liability from the
> publisher of the product ...
In addition, if software activation is stopped after
a few years, then that is purposeful sabotage on the part
of the publisher, and no license agreement in the world
can make that legal. They are liable, sure they
I can't find finale's end-user license, but most end-user licenses I
have ever read contain a clause which removes all liability from the
publisher of the product. Here are some quotes from Finale 3.5 upgrade:
[bracketed words are my remarks.]
2. OWNERSHIP. [snip] This License Agreement is NO
> Several months may mean the end of your business.
Not at all. All ya gotta do is reinstall Windows and Finale once a month. If
your business depends on it, you will probably be able to have a separate
machine for this. But not even that is necessary. There are lots of ways to
abbreviate it, so t
At 09:31 AM 8/9/03 +0200, Tobias Giesen wrote:
>If Coda stopped the software activation at some point in the future, they
>would
>a) void the original sales contract
>b) cancel the license agreement
>c) violate your property rights
> etc.
>This would be against all rules of trading.
They are in
Hi,
a) Win98 does not need activation codes, so Microsoft
can phase it out and not worry about it any more.
b) as Benjamin pointed out, making your product unusable
by refusing activation codes at some point in the future
is illegal in the States as well as in Europe.
It is therefore cr
At 12:45 AM 8/9/03 +0200, Tobias Giesen wrote:
>I haven't played around with this, but
>there are definitely ways. AND there will be forums where these ways are
>discussed. If needed, anonymously.
Turning you into a criminal already, and they haven't even shipped it yet! :)
IP Ethix Lite, Chapter
I'm not sure it's not illegal, it's just not prosecuted. While
currently that means the same thing (courts have interpreted the law to
allow such use) there could well come a landmark decision by some
maverick judge that reverses previous case law and allows successful
prosecutions.
In any ev
On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 05:24 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
My non-lawyer interpretation is that it would still be illegal,
although if you own a legal copy that is unhacked, they would have a
hard time prosecuting you, just as the record companies can't
prosecute people for making cassette
My non-lawyer interpretation is that it would still be illegal, although
if you own a legal copy that is unhacked, they would have a hard time
prosecuting you, just as the record companies can't prosecute people for
making cassettes of their legally purchased CDs even though that right
is NOT i
On 08.08.2003 23:41 Uhr, Tobias Giesen wrote
> Even if Coda is bought by Sibelius and they drop Finale, the new owner still
> has the same obligations to Finale customers.
Even if it was illegal, the danger of having to fight over it in court
(which would almost certainly take several years) may
> Now, not too tangentially: Tobias, you seem certain Makemusic
> would have to support this product into the future. Why? Can
> you point me to any law which requires Makemusic or its successor
> to provide license keys? ...
I don't think it would require a specific law. They sell you the soft
The question of registration code hacks is interesting to me. You own the
Finale software (it's licensed, but American law is very clear that you
actually own the copy you bought), and no bankruptcy, etc can take that
away. Is it still *illegal* to use registration code hacks (assuming that
they ap
20 matches
Mail list logo
