[math]

i got original painter classic ehre (from my wacom) wiv serial of course. anybody wants?
_________________
quit pro quo

[sweetums]

I don't know if it makes any difference to you, ethics wise, but it is "illegal" for you to give away or transfer your Painter Classic. It is only licensed to be used on the hardware it was packaged with (usually Wacom tablets). Although your generousity is to be commended, it is illegal for you to give it away as you are offering, similar to giving away an old PC with Photoshop still installed.
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[math]

hm but i thought about sending the original cd. i dont got painter classic installed cuz i got painter 8 =P
_________________
quit pro quo

[sweetums]

That's not the issue. You were provided the CD as part of the hardware. It cannot be distributed WITHOUT the hardware, i.e. without the Wacom it came with. If you read your EULA, you'll see that.
The only reason I know this is that a gentleman in my SQL class had broken his CD of Painter 6, and I offered him my Classic as a replacement. Even though he owned 6, and I owned 7 & 8 (which I did not offer, as that would have been unethical and illegal), he declined, because he did not have a Wacom, and just happened to be a member of a local EULA group that works very hard to educate the public on why "giving away" licensed software applications is hurtful to everyone.

Lesson learned on my part. It's similar in a way to someone giving away copies of your art without your permission. It happens, people make all kinds of reasons to justify it, but in the end, it's still just wrong.
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[neff]

ehr wait... there are some logical problems...
if u want to use painter classic, u need a wacom, if u have a wavom, you get painter classic with it... so what should someone do with 2 copys of painter classic?
_________________
*

[sweetums]

It does not matter if you have 100 wacoms, and are only using one copy of Painter Classic, or if you have One Wacom, and have purchased the full use version of Painter 8. You are NOT allowed to redistribute/give away Painter Classic, as it is a License that you are provided, NOT ownership.

You do not OWN the Painter Classic provided with your Wacom, you are only LICENSED to use it. You CANNOT legally re-distribute it, as Painter Classic is ONLY issued as an attached application for Wacom tablets, regardless of whether or not you purchase or own Painter.

You are GIVEN Painter Classic when you purchase a Wacom. IF you purchase the full version of Painter, that does NOT authorize you to redistribute your free version of Painter Classic, as it is NOT yours to share.
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...

[cheney]

My question is....... what are you doing with two Wacoms?
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[stacy]

So, how long were you in the Stasi ?

[spooge demon]

I abide by the EULA that I enter into. I actually read them most times.

Morality or fairness has little to do with it; it is a contract that is entered when both parties agree to it.

That being said, I feel the leverage that companies have in this arrangement is occasionally being abused. I want to buy a wacom, I do not want painter classic. I was not "given" Painter, I was forced to buy it as a bundle.

The only legal and moral answer that I have is not to buy a Wacom. That is a little extreme, but as companies push this model more and more, at a certain point, I will not buy a wacom. And how hard they can push is dictated by what they see as my reasonable alternatives. If they are few, they can push pretty hard. Maybe they will bundle a whole bunch of crap that no one could possibly use and drive the price up even more.

Microsoft tried to force corporate users to upgrade their software every year instead of every other year as many had been doing. They did this by greatly raising the price on those doing it every other year. It was entirely legal for them to do this, but many users began exploring alternatives to Microsoft.

Conceivably Adobe might use its activation policy to time limit Photoshop. The license you buy would be good only until the next version came out. It is a good bet that this might happen. Since I have built my business around photoshop, I hope Adobe doesn't find this out and start charging me %30 of my annual gross to use their software. They would be perfectly within bounds, legally and morally, to do this.

Does anyone know whether it is legal to charge more for something in different markets? Can you price something higher because you have prior knowledge of need and ability to pay? It is done all the time, I suppose, but I bet in some aspects it is illegal.

Controlling piracy does help both creator and consumer, but those same controls can be abused, leading some to feel that piracy is a defensible position. But it isn't - just don't use the product if you feel like you are being jacked.

[Jimmyjimjim]

I guess this falls within "rights of ownership". Since software companies don't sell you their software, but the license to use it, they have every right to terminate the license after the terms of the contract are fulfilled.

As per the terms of a license, I believe that under most circumstances a software license is transferable to a new owner unless otherwise noted. If you wanted to give away a piece of software, you are not giving away the software itself, but the license to use it. If a person was inclined to do this, they could probably call Corel and inform them of the transfer.

And yes, it is a total pain in the ass. I had to do it when I sold my copy of Lightwave [6], but there were no legal issues with the transfer whatsoever.

Personally I feel that software companies use licensing to protect their intellectual property more than trying to stick it to the consumer. I can't imagine a product being successful if they took royalties for content created with it.

This being said, I recently had an eye opening experience. When I took my Sony TRV 900 DV Cam to get repaired, I mentioned off hand to the person at the counter that I do the odd video production job with it. I was informed that it is illegal and against the sales contract to do professional work with a piece of equipment sold as consumer gear. The clerk couldn't tell me exactly why this was the case. So what rights of ownership do I have? Why is it illegal to use a piece of equipment that I paid for to make money? I personally feel that when money is exchanged for ownership of a product (not a license), it is my every right to do do as I please with it. Will Sony soon sell only the license to use a camera? There are many people out there that buy digital cameras every day for professional use. This level of control by Sony over its product has made me less likely to buy Sony again. As consumers, that is the strongest message we can send.

[spooge demon]

The academic and OEM version are non-transferable, according to the EULA. The full version is transferable.

I am a little surprised that it is. It is a sale out of their pocket.

I think eventually this will change industry wide, making price discrimination more effective. In areas of low elasticity of demand, they will take your left nut, and where elasticity is high, they will give it away. Exactly the way airlines price things.

I kind of wonder why this is not being done already. There must be some kind of law preventing it. Most software companies have a natural monopoly on the markets they have created.

Eventually the technology of activation will support the technical enforcement of license agreements that go Poof after a set period.

[sweetums]

I don't believe it is being done yet simply due to the jockeying for position in the marketplace.

Corel and Wacom struck a good deal by including Classic in with the purchase of a tablet. It got consumers familiar with a painting app that was NOT Photoshop, and which would encourage purchase of the Full Version app.

The ethics of End User Licensing Agreements has nothing to do with the Stasi, Stacy. It is part and parcel of the respect for other people's art, their intellectual as well as physical property, and the legalities you agree to when you purchase and use hardware and software. It's the attitude of "no one will know if I do this or not, so it doesn't matter that it's illegal" that helps contribute to piracy of software, piracy of artworks, and the general decline in honesty and ethics overall.

And owning more than one PC could very easily necessitate the ownership of more than one Wacom tablet, as could a size/model upgrade.
_________________
Life is short. Expect nothing, enjoy everything.
That which does not kill you should make you wiser...