Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
VSL's Unethical Business Practices Regarding ViennaKeys
Last post Sun, Dec 11 2011 by Errikos, 55 replies.
Options
Go to last post
3 Pages123>
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 02:14
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
I have been engaged in a long and fruitless discussion with VSL concerning their policies regarding USB Licensing Keys, specifically their policies concerned with the loss of said keys. It is my firm conviction that VSL's practices are unethical. I urge everyone, but especially those who have fallen victim to these practices, to join me in decrying them.


Unlike many of you, I'm sure, I am through-and-through an amateur. I purchased the Vienna Imperial despite its being way out of my league -- not to mention a ludicrously extravagant purchase for someone on my budget. When I moved earlier this summer, I lost my Key. I've now gone three months without access to the software I purchased, since I cannot afford to pay the ransom VSL is demanding.


As I've said, I think VSL's practices with respect to their Licensing are unethical. I have compiled a list of statements that I take to be true. I have sent them to VSL, asking them to determine which, if any, of the statements are false, and if any are false, why. I include the statements below. If you think I'm right, I urge you to make your voice heard, perhaps by copying-and-pasting these statements and sending them to VSL yourself. If you think I'm wrong, I welcome any effort to correct my errors.






The following statements are true:






(1) VSL has an ethical obligation to inform its customers regarding the nature of their purchase(s), including VSL’s policies regarding Licenses and USB Licensing Keys. Should VSL fail to do so, it has an ethical obligation both to take responsibility for that failure and to take steps to remedy it.




(2) VSL’s eLicensing system works in such a way that, once a License is installed onto a USB Licensing Key (in which case I will refer to the USB Licensing Key as “enabled” with the License), that License is then non-transferrable, meaning that the Customer who purchased the software (and the License) cannot on his or her own subsequently transfer said License to another USB Licensing Key.




(3) The above, (2), is true despite the fact that VSL’s web-site states the following:



“Use the eLCC software (eLicenser Control Center) to copy your licenses onto your USB protection device once you’ve received them with the product box or via email. Later on, you can also move the licensing information from one ViennaKey to another, but you can’t store the same product license on two ViennaKeys at the same time.”



Source: http://www.vsl.co.at/en/.../442/395/561/562/251.htm




(4) The above statement, in (3), explicitly allows that customers can in fact transfer Licenses from one USB Licensing Key to another, on the condition that they are not simultaneously in possession of two or more USB Licensing Keys enabled with the same Licenses.




(5) If customers lose their USB Licensing Keys, it is VSL’s contention that they have thereby lost their Licenses. They are unable to transfer their Licenses onto another USB Licensing Key since, for all VSL knows, they did not in fact lose their original key. Customers are then required to pay 50% of the cost of the software to purchase a new License.




(6) It is VSL’s expectation that customers will be informed of these policies solely through having read Item 6 of the Terms of License.




(7) Item 6 of the Terms of License states that, should a ViennaKey be lost, VSL is under no obligation to replace the Key. It then states that, upon learning of the loss of a ViennaKey, VSL reserves the right to block any Licenses that were stored on the ViennaKey. The third and final sentence of Item 6 states: “Lost or stolen Licenses cannot be replaced free of charge by Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH.”




(8) It is VSL’s contention that Item 6 is sufficient to ensure that its customers are informed regarding the policies outlined above, in (2) and (5). Nowhere else, whether on VSL’s web-site or in any of the documentation or communications that accompany purchases or are involved in the licensing process, does VSL state these policies: nowhere else does VSL state that the relationship between ViennaKey and License is such that to lose the former entails losing the latter.




(9) VSL intends customers to glean the policies outlined above, in (2) and (5), on the basis of the second and third sentences of Item 6, and their relation to each other. Customers are to understand the following: If, upon being informed of a lost ViennaKey, VSL “blocks” the License(s) on the Key, then those License(s) would have to be replaced. But in sentence three, we’re told that VSL will not replace Licenses free of charge. It is this “blocking of Licenses” that underwrites the move in Item 6 from discussing lost or stolen “ViennaKeys” to discussing lost or stolen “Licenses”: if the loss of a Key entails that VSL will “block” the License(s) it contains, then to loss the Key entails losing the Licenses.




(10) There is a prima facie conflict between Item 6 and VSL’s statement quoted above, in (3). In the above-quoted passage, VSL assures customers that they can transfer their License(s) from one ViennaKey to another on condition that they are not simultaneously in possession of two ViennaKeys engaged with the same License(s). It is natural to assume that this applies also in the case of having lost a ViennaKey, since in that case, the customer would not simultaneously be in possession of two ViennaKeys engaged with the same Licenses.




(11) Given (10), there is a prima facie conflict between (a) an apparently straightforward claim made by VSL on a prominent web-page, one likely to be visited by customers, and (b) an ambiguous set of claims buried in the Terms of License. It is far more likely that customers will read (a) than that they will read (b), in which case VSL will have misled them, violating (1).




(12) Item 6 does not outright state the policies outlined above, in (2) and (5). It says nothing to the effect that the loss of a ViennaKey entails the loss of the License, nor does it state how much money it will cost customers to acquire a new License. Rather, the policies in question are to be inferred from what Item 6 does say, as demonstrated above, in (9).




(13) As a matter of fact, VSL is unable to block Licenses in the manner discussed in Sentence 2 of Item 6. Were VSL able to do so, then the policy described in Sentence 3 would be unnecessary, for if VSL were able to block Licenses, then they would be able to block the Licenses on lost or stolen Keys, rendering the Keys useless, thereby eliminating the possibility that lost or stolen Keys remain in use (which is the rationale for the policies in question).




(14) Sentence 2 was inserted into the Terms of License because VSL hoped to develop the ability described. It remains in the Terms of License because VSL does not wish to pay for the Terms to be redrafted.




(15) As shown above in (9), Sentence 2 is required in order to underwrite Sentence 3. Yet as shown above in (13), the ability Sentence 2 attributes to VSL vis-à-vis ViennaKeys would render Sentence 3 unnecessary.




(16) Given (9), VSL’s inability to “block” Licenses stored on ViennaKeys entails that the Licenses on lost ViennaKeys are not in fact “lost”: it is only the ViennaKeys that are lost. A customer who lost a ViennaKey still possesses a valid License, but not the Key onto which it was downloaded. Thus, he has not lost the License.




(17) Given (9)–(16), Item 6 is ambiguous at best, incoherent at worst, and certainly an insufficient alternative to simply stating the policies in question.




(18) Given (17), it is reasonable to suppose that, even were a customer to read Item 6, they very well might come away from it without an understanding of the policies outlined in (2) and (5).




(19) It is generally the case that people do not read legal fine-print.




(20) Given (1) and (17)–(19), VSL has failed in its ethical obligation to inform its customers regarding the nature of their purchase(s); VSL has an obligation to take responsibility for that failure.



(21) As part of taking responsibility for their failure to inform their customers, VSL should provide those Customers who lost their ViennaKeys as a result of their ignorance of the releveant policies with the means to use the software they paid for.
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 05:54
by Mac jones
Joined on Sun, Apr 24 2011, Posts 10
Nice rant

There are many, many, software products that use this exact same licensing scheme: You have to be in possession of a license to transfer it.

Your problem, is that the product is very expensive, so the loss of the key (loss of 50% of the product) is a devastating blow. But to claim that VSL is in some ways unethical is ridiculous. Perhaps the entire software industry is unethical.

I'm sorry about the loss, and frankly I hadn't even thought about this aspect of the licensing myself (as perhaps is your case: just guessing), but that doesn't make VSL responsible for my lack of foresight, if I happened to lose something.

good luck
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 06:00
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
I'd hardly characterize my post as a "rant." It's quite cold and analytical, I'd say.


Anyway, your argument seems to be that VSL can simply presume that its customers are already familiar with the whole system because other companies use the same system. But that strikes me as ridiculous. I, for one, have never purchased any products from those other companies; nor do I see it as plausible that I should be expected to have already purchased products from those companies before having purchased a product from VSL. Why does VSL make zero effort to ensure that its customers are informed? It would not be difficult for them to do so.


Basically, you think (1) -- my first statement -- is false. But... really? You really think that VSL has no ethical obligation to ensure that its customers are informed about the nature of their purchase? That's quite the pill to swallow! It's not a question of my "lack of foresight"; it's a matter of their utter failure to inform me of their policies.
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 06:32
by Mac jones
Joined on Sun, Apr 24 2011, Posts 10
I understand your frustration. I've had similar experiences. Almost exact. The only difference was that the product was far less expensive, so when I called tech support, they issued me another key. But here, because of the cost of the product, I believe the rules regarding this are much stricter.

So the bottom line, is: you believe this company is negligent in not providing enough warning labels. Well sue them. Maybe you can find enough people who will support you who will not care if VSL goes belly up, so they will eventually lose their product, key and all from lack of support. I'm skeptical that you will find a lot of these supporters here. But i've been wrong before. And after all, they are musicians, so who knows.
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 16:51
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
First off, you're saying that VSL issued you a new key when you lost yours? They've claimed to me, repeatedly, that their policy is absolutely firm, that they make no exceptions for anyone, ever -- that's obviously one more lie!




"So the bottom line, is: you believe this company is negligent in not providing enough warning labels."




No. I believe the company is negligent in NOWHERE stating the relevant policies regarding Licenses and ViennaKeys. NOWHERE. Read my original post: even the Terms of License are at best ambiguous, at worst incoherent. Again, if I'm wrong in any of the 21 statements I make, then please, show me where I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong in any of them, then VSL has an ethical obligation to take responsibility for their utter failure to inform their customers regarding their customers' purchases.




"Maybe you can find enough people who will support you who will not care if VSL goes belly up, so they will eventually lose their product, key and all from lack of support."




This is deeply, deeply unfair. All I want from VSL is for them to provide me with the means to use the software I paid for! Were they to do so, they would be in no danger of going "belly up" as a result.
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 17:02
by kanon
Joined on Thu, Oct 07 2004, Scotland, Posts 91

 This may have been raised before but is it possible to insure against the loss - through negligence or fully reported theft - of the USB key which of course can hold thousands of pounds worth of licences?

I understand there may be issues with insuring software.

Re unethical practices - VSL have to be able to protect their product. If it was relatively straight forward to get replacement licences there

would be a huge black market in VSL products which would benefit nobody in the long term and possibly put the company out of business or make their products prohibitavely expensive.

They are already bloody expensive!

Kanon

Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 17:19
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
"Re unethical practices - VSL have to be able to protect their product. If it was relatively straight forward to get replacement licences there would be a huge black market in VSL products which would benefit nobody in the long term and possibly put the company out of business or make their products prohibitavely expensive."




Ultimately, this is beside the point. My statement #1 is that VSL has an ethical obligation to inform its customers regarding the nature of their purchase. Do you disagree?




I have no problem with VSL "protecting their product." I understand that the purpose of the USB dongle is to ensure that hackers not post their software online for thousands of people to use for free. I also understand that VSL should not be expected to simply hand out Licenses willy-nilly. What I am saying is that they should not treat their customers like criminals who are out to rob them. What I am saying is that they should inform their customers about the nature of their purchases. They could do all of this without in any way risking the future of their company!




Again I ask: Anyone who disagrees with any of the 21 Statements, please flag the false statements and tell me why it's false.
Posted on Wed, Sep 28 2011 17:35
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
VSL has now refused to respond to any of my questions. And I quote:


Dear Roger,


I'm sorry to inform you that after speaking with the CEO of the Vienna Symphonic Library about your case, we've decided that we will not be able to respond to you any more regarding this topic because everything has been said already in the eleven emails that we wrote to you until now.


Kind regards,


Stefan Steinbauer






I would happily make my e-mail exchange with VSL public, should anyone doubt the following: VSL's "eleven emails" in no way, shape, or form address the issues in question. They flatly refuse even to acknowledge that there is an issue to address. Now that, with my 21 True Statements, I have closed off all the ways in which they could sidestep the issues, they have refused to respond.


I ask that anyone who agrees with me send the following to





In order to allay the suspicion that VSL’s business practices with respect to Licenses and USB Licensing Keys is unethical and that, by way of said practices, VSL is unfairly taking advantage of their customers, I ask that VSL review the following 21 statements. If any of the statements are false, I ask that VSL identify the false statements and explain why they are false.



(1) VSL has an ethical obligation to inform its customers regarding the nature of their purchase(s), including VSL’s policies regarding Licenses and USB Licensing Keys. Should VSL fail to do so, it has an ethical obligation both to take responsibility for that failure and to take steps to remedy it.



(2) VSL’s eLicensing system works in such a way that, once a License is installed onto a USB Licensing Key (in which case I will refer to the USB Licensing Key as “enabled” with the License), that License is then non-transferrable, meaning that the Customer who purchased the software (and the License) cannot on his or her own subsequently transfer said License to another USB Licensing Key.



(3) The above, (2), is true despite the fact that VSL’s web-site states the following:


“Use the eLCC software (eLicenser Control Center) to copy your licenses onto your USB protection device once you’ve received them with the product box or via email. Later on, you can also move the licensing information from one ViennaKey to another, but you can’t store the same product license on two ViennaKeys at the same time.”


Source:



(4) The above statement, in (3), explicitly allows that customers can in fact transfer Licenses from one USB Licensing Key to another, on the condition that they are not simultaneously in possession of two or more USB Licensing Keys enabled with the same Licenses.



(5) If customers lose their USB Licensing Keys, it is VSL’s contention that they have thereby lost their Licenses. They are unable to transfer their Licenses onto another USB Licensing Key since, for all VSL knows, they did not in fact lose their original key. Customers are then required to pay 50% of the cost of the software to purchase a new License.



(6) It is VSL’s expectation that customers will be informed of these policies solely through having read Item 6 of the Terms of License.


Source: Paul Steinbauer, Product Manager for VSL; personal e-mail correspondence with Roger Eichorn, 12 August 2011.


Source: Stefen Steinbauer, Sales Manager for VSL; personal e-mail correspondence with Roger Eichorn, 29 August 2011.



(7) Item 6 of the Terms of License states that, should a ViennaKey be lost, VSL is under no obligation to replace the Key. It then states that, upon learning of the loss of a ViennaKey, VSL reserves the right to block any Licenses that were stored on the ViennaKey. The third and final sentence of Item 6 states: “Lost or stolen Licenses cannot be replaced free of charge by Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH.”



(8) It is VSL’s contention that Item 6 is sufficient to ensure that its customers are informed regarding the policies outlined above, in (2) and (5). Nowhere else, whether on VSL’s web-site or in any of the documentation or communications that accompany purchases or are involved in the licensing process, does VSL state these policies: nowhere else does VSL state that the relationship between ViennaKey and License is such that to lose the former entails losing the latter.


Source: Stefen Steinbauer, Sales Manager for VSL; personal e-mail correspondence with Roger Eichorn, 29 August 2011.



(9) VSL intends customers to glean the policies outlined above, in (2) and (5), on the basis of the second and third sentences of Item 6, and their relation to each other. Customers are to understand the following: If, upon being informed of a lost ViennaKey, VSL “blocks” the License(s) on the Key, then those License(s) would have to be replaced. But in sentence three, we’re told that VSL will not replace Licenses free of charge. It is this “blocking of Licenses” that underwrites the move in Item 6 from discussing lost or stolen “ViennaKeys” to discussing lost or stolen “Licenses”: if the loss of a Key entails that VSL will “block” the License(s) it contains, then to loss the Key entails losing the Licenses.



(10) There is a prima facie conflict between Item 6 and VSL’s statement quoted above, in (3). In the above-quoted passage, VSL assures customers that they can transfer their License(s) from one ViennaKey to another on condition that they are not simultaneously in possession of two ViennaKeys engaged with the same License(s). It is natural to assume that this applies also in the case of having lost a ViennaKey, since in that case, the customer would not simultaneously be in possession of two ViennaKeys engaged with the same Licenses.



(11) Given (10), there is a prima facie conflict between (a) an apparently straightforward claim made by VSL on a prominent web-page, one likely to be visited by customers, and (b) an ambiguous set of claims buried in the Terms of License. It is far more likely that customers will read (a) than that they will read (b), in which case VSL will have misled them, violating (1).



(12) Item 6 does not outright state the policies outlined above, in (2) and (5). It says nothing to the effect that the loss of a ViennaKey entails the loss of the License, nor does it state how much money it will cost customers to acquire a new License. Rather, the policies in question are to be inferred from what Item 6 does say, as demonstrated above, in (9).



(13) As a matter of fact, VSL is unable to block Licenses in the manner discussed in Sentence 2 of Item 6. Were VSL able to do so, then the policy described in Sentence 3 would be unnecessary, for if VSL were able to block Licenses, then they would be able to block the Licenses on lost or stolen Keys, rendering the Keys useless, thereby eliminating the possibility that lost or stolen Keys remain in use (which is the rationale for the policies in question).


Source: Paul Steinbauer, Product Manager for VSL; personal e-mail correspondence with Roger Eichorn, 11 August 2011.


Source: Stefen Steinbauer, Sales Manager for VSL; personal e-mail correspondence with Roger Eichorn, 22 August 2011.



(14) Sentence 2 was inserted into the Terms of License because VSL hoped to develop the ability described. It remains in the Terms of License because VSL does not wish to pay for the Terms to be redrafted.


Source: Stefen Steinbauer, Sales Manager for VSL; personal e-mail correspondence with Roger Eichorn, 22 August 2011.



(15) As shown above in (9), Sentence 2 is required in order to underwrite Sentence 3. Yet as shown above in (13), the ability Sentence 2 attributes to VSL vis-à-vis ViennaKeys would render Sentence 3 unnecessary.



(16) Given (9), VSL’s inability to “block” Licenses stored on ViennaKeys entails that the Licenses on lost ViennaKeys are not in fact “lost”: it is only the ViennaKeys that are lost. A customer who lost a ViennaKey still possesses a valid License, but not the Key onto which it was downloaded. Thus, he has not lost the License.



(17) Given (9)–(16), Item 6 is ambiguous at best, incoherent at worst, and certainly an insufficient alternative to simply stating the policies in question.



(18) Given (17), it is reasonable to suppose that, even were a customer to read Item 6, they very well might come away from it without an understanding of the policies outlined in (2) and (5).



(19) It is generally the case that people do not read legal fine-print.


(20) Given (1) and (17)–(19), VSL has failed in its ethical obligation to inform its customers regarding the nature of their purchase(s); VSL has an obligation to take responsibility for that failure.


(21) As part of taking responsibility for their failure to inform their customers, VSL should provide those Customers who lost their ViennaKeys as a result of their ignorance of the releveant policies with the means to use the software they paid for.
Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 05:32
by Mac jones
Joined on Sun, Apr 24 2011, Posts 10
No it wasn't VSL. It was another software company.
Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 07:03
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
"This is not the software company you're looking for..." lol

I assume this post is a response to a PM I sent you. Still, I encourage you to e-mail VSL asking them to address my questions.
Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 17:19
by ralf
Joined on Sat, Feb 22 2003, Ennetach/Germany, Posts 57

 Hi there!

This is a tricky one!

Fist: You have to talk to VSL fist. If that's not gonna work and you think VSL is wrong then talk to a person with law experiences. You could as well start a petition regarding hardware dongles, that is your choice.

I for myself don't like this key-stuff at all and in fact I am quite worried what could habben if something should happen to my key. As far as I understand it right now, my key is more valuable that it's weight in platin! And yes - that is crazy. I hope for a much less risky solution for it in the future.

But as of right now I simply have to take care of my key and hope it wouldn't brake or something.

So no one here can really help you I'm afraid. I do feel with you though. Since you are a customer to VSL and not a copycat you should be supported by the company and not be punished over limit for loosing a little plastic thing that could be remotely dissabled as soon as it connects to the web.

Sorry for not being much help...

Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 18:15
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
Thanks for the response!


I have in fact talked with VSL. They have refused to respond to my 21 Statements. What I am trying to do is urge others to send the 21 Statements to VSL in order to encourage them to respond. In that way, people up here can absolutely help me.


Demand that VSL explain themselves!
Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 19:44
by delavagus
Joined on Thu, Aug 05 2010, Posts 13
Again, I urge people to send a copy of my 21 Statements to VSL, asking them to respond to the statements by pointing out which, if any, are false and why.


In the meantime, I'm going to develop a web-site devoted to this issue. The web-site will address the following concerns:


(1) The general problems with VSL's eLicenser technologies. There are alternative systems they could implement, ones that would be better both for their customers and for VSL themselves, since -- as attested by some responses here, and responses I've gotten from others elsewhere -- many people refrain from purchasing VSL products because of their eLicensing technologies.


(2) VSL's refusal to address the common problem of customers not understanding the technologies as they are currently implemented. As far as I can see, there are only three possible explanations for VSL's refusal to take a few simple steps to ensure that their customers are informed:

(a) Sheer stupidity or stubbornness.
(b) They do not want to lose the revenues generated from dupes like me.

(c) They do not want to scare away potential customers who might think twice about purchasing a VSL product did they understand how VSL's eLicensing technologies work.


(3) VSL's overall disdain for their customers, whom they systematically treat as potential criminals and whose questions are ignored.


I'll post back here when the web-site goes live, which should be sometime next week.
Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 20:41
by Reality Check
Joined on Thu, Sep 29 2011, Posts 1
delvagus -

Scenario 1: I buy a piano from Steinway for a lot of money. I do not insure it. While moving house the piano is lost. I contact Steinway and tell them I have lost the piano and ask for a replacement. They offer nothing other than confirmation of registration of my piano and its serial number.


Scenario 2: I buy a piano from Steinway for a lot of money. I do insure it. While moving house the piano is lost. I contact my insurer, they investigate and I get the piano replaced.


Scenario 3: I buy a piano from Steinway for a lot of money. I do not insure it. While moving house the piano is lost. I contact Steinway and tell them I have lost the piano and ask for a replacement. They offer to provide you with a new piano that is exactly the same for 50% of list price.


If you are to argue that a physical piano that is mine is not the same kind of thing as a physical dongle that is mine, I disagree.


Scenarios 1 and 2 are realistic. Scenario 3 would take an extremely charitable company. Personally I am surprised and grateful that Scenario 3 might be possible with VSL, should I be in such a situation the future.


Posted on Thu, Sep 29 2011 23:20
by mschmitt
Joined on Mon, Jan 01 2007, Posts 149
Reality Check wrote:
delvagus -
Scenario 1: I buy a piano from Steinway for a lot of money. I do not insure it. While moving house the piano is lost. I contact Steinway and tell them I have lost the piano and ask for a replacement. They offer nothing other than confirmation of registration of my piano and its serial number.

Scenario 2: I buy a piano from Steinway for a lot of money. I do insure it. While moving house the piano is lost. I contact my insurer, they investigate and I get the piano replaced.

Scenario 3: I buy a piano from Steinway for a lot of money. I do not insure it. While moving house the piano is lost. I contact Steinway and tell them I have lost the piano and ask for a replacement. They offer to provide you with a new piano that is exactly the same for 50% of list price.

If you are to argue that a physical piano that is mine is not the same kind of thing as a physical dongle that is mine, I disagree.
Scenarios 1 and 2 are realistic. Scenario 3 would take an extremely charitable company. Personally I am surprised and grateful that Scenario 3 might be possible with VSL, should I be in such a situation the future.

That's not a proper analogy.A proper analogy would be: You buy a Steinway piano that is locked with a key and Steinway only gives you one key to unlock your piano. One day you lose your key or it is stolen, and now you can no longer use your piano. You contact Steinway and they tell you, "Sorry you lost your key. We'll send you a new key for half the price you paid for your piano!" If Steinway did that they would be out of business in days!

VSL needs to protect their software from piracy, but they also need to protect their customers. The best way to do this would be to have the dongle contact VSL every 60 - 90 days and the user enter a unique password to verify that they are the original purchaser. After the password is verified the dongle would be good for another 60 - 90 days. This could be optional as some people who only use their software in their own studio my see it as a hassle. But for someone that is out gigging or traveling with their VSL products this would be great.

Full Cube and lots of other stuff
Posted on Fri, Sep 30 2011 03:47
by Cyril Blanc
Joined on Thu, Dec 19 2002, Paris France, Posts 2664
mschmitt_25212 wrote:

VSL needs to protect their software from piracy, but they also need to protect their customers. The best way to do this would be to have the dongle contact VSL every 60 - 90 days and the user enter a unique password to verify that they are the original purchaser. After the password is verified the dongle would be good for another 60 - 90 days. This could be optional as some people who only use their software in their own studio my see it as a hassle. But for someone that is out gigging or traveling with their VSL products this would be great.

This is a good idea but you can say that your dongle was stolen and sell it to somebody else

THE solution :

Every 60-90 days, VSL check if the dongle is not reported as stolen,  If a dongle is reported as stolen, it is erased, the IP is given to the police.....

I have start to check for an insurance, the answer is  : your dongle will be re-emburse  but not it's contains because it is dematerialized

The insurance man was saying that what does VSL is not legal, and I should take an "Legal insurance" to be able to sue them if  lose my dongle

In France the law allow you to do a private copy of any dematerialized stuff like software, music you buy on line....... as you have bought a license to use the product you should be able to restore the product.

MacPro 2010 12 core 2.93 ghz 64 GB Mac OS X 10.11 2722 Rocket Raid Sata III card with 8 x ssd
VSL lib on a Raid 0 of 4 x 256 GB ssd Sata III - Raid 0 of 4 x 64 GB for other libs
System on a 1 TB ssd
Audio Motu PCI system 84 ins / 64 outs
Kbd : P80 Yamaha, S88 and S25 Komplete Kontrol, DX7
I-Controls Pro, 2xMidi expression pedals
Synth : many....
---
Macbook pro Retina 2.7 ghz 16 GB
---
Mac Mini server 10.10 (server, Itunes, WEB, and Backup )
--
Logic X , Dorico, Band In A Box, ORB Composer
VSL : MIR PRO, Appassionata Strings I, Solo strings , Wind and Brass Complete, Dimension Brass, Big Band Orchestra series
Kontakt, Omnisphere, QLSO, QLSC, CS 80, Arturia V5, Maximo, Realivox Blue. CS 80 V3, The Orchestra 2, Art Conductor 5, Genesis Children Choir, Lunaris, Lacrimosa

Final Cut pro
Camera full HD
Posted on Fri, Sep 30 2011 04:02
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5514

 This entire thread is wrong.

VSL is not unethical.  They are using industry standard copy protection.   This guy who wrote the thread is trying to attack that, by attacking VSL.

I find it irritating, because the company is a fine group of people who have created a tremendous artistic tool.  They should not be subjected to this kind of attack because it is inappropriate and wrong.

Posted on Fri, Sep 30 2011 04:35
by Cyril Blanc
Joined on Thu, Dec 19 2002, Paris France, Posts 2664
William wrote:

  the company is a fine group of people who have created a tremendous artistic tool.  

I agree with you, but VSL have to improve there system of copy protection so in case of a lost, fire and steel you can recover your licenses

MacPro 2010 12 core 2.93 ghz 64 GB Mac OS X 10.11 2722 Rocket Raid Sata III card with 8 x ssd
VSL lib on a Raid 0 of 4 x 256 GB ssd Sata III - Raid 0 of 4 x 64 GB for other libs
System on a 1 TB ssd
Audio Motu PCI system 84 ins / 64 outs
Kbd : P80 Yamaha, S88 and S25 Komplete Kontrol, DX7
I-Controls Pro, 2xMidi expression pedals
Synth : many....
---
Macbook pro Retina 2.7 ghz 16 GB
---
Mac Mini server 10.10 (server, Itunes, WEB, and Backup )
--
Logic X , Dorico, Band In A Box, ORB Composer
VSL : MIR PRO, Appassionata Strings I, Solo strings , Wind and Brass Complete, Dimension Brass, Big Band Orchestra series
Kontakt, Omnisphere, QLSO, QLSC, CS 80, Arturia V5, Maximo, Realivox Blue. CS 80 V3, The Orchestra 2, Art Conductor 5, Genesis Children Choir, Lunaris, Lacrimosa

Final Cut pro
Camera full HD
Posted on Sat, Oct 01 2011 03:18
by Cyril Blanc
Joined on Thu, Dec 19 2002, Paris France, Posts 2664

What is the law in Austria about demateralised things (software, Music you buy on Itunes, Samples.....) ? 

What is the law in your different countries ?

Are you allowed to do a private copy ?

As I said before in France the supplier has to offer a way to do it

Sony was condammed in France because there music could not be backup by the user and could only played on there player ? http://www.leparticulier...-condamne-pour-tromperie (sorry it is in French)

Apple had to change there copy protection too ?

MacPro 2010 12 core 2.93 ghz 64 GB Mac OS X 10.11 2722 Rocket Raid Sata III card with 8 x ssd
VSL lib on a Raid 0 of 4 x 256 GB ssd Sata III - Raid 0 of 4 x 64 GB for other libs
System on a 1 TB ssd
Audio Motu PCI system 84 ins / 64 outs
Kbd : P80 Yamaha, S88 and S25 Komplete Kontrol, DX7
I-Controls Pro, 2xMidi expression pedals
Synth : many....
---
Macbook pro Retina 2.7 ghz 16 GB
---
Mac Mini server 10.10 (server, Itunes, WEB, and Backup )
--
Logic X , Dorico, Band In A Box, ORB Composer
VSL : MIR PRO, Appassionata Strings I, Solo strings , Wind and Brass Complete, Dimension Brass, Big Band Orchestra series
Kontakt, Omnisphere, QLSO, QLSC, CS 80, Arturia V5, Maximo, Realivox Blue. CS 80 V3, The Orchestra 2, Art Conductor 5, Genesis Children Choir, Lunaris, Lacrimosa

Final Cut pro
Camera full HD
Posted on Sat, Oct 01 2011 04:18
by mschmitt
Joined on Mon, Jan 01 2007, Posts 149
Cyril wrote:

What is the law in your different countries ?

In the US I know you are allowed to bypass security on software you own if the company that made it has gone out of business. If the company is still around I don't know. Looks like it's time for us to contact our insurance companies and knowledgeable attorneys in each of our countries.

Full Cube and lots of other stuff
3 Pages123>
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.