Am I the only one who thinks that...?

scott f.scott f.
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I've been really feeling over the past few years that software developers need to rethink their liscensing strategies. Why...?



If I buy a DVD... is it only good for ONE of my DVD players...? If I get a phone-line, do I need a seperate number for EVERY phone I have...? No...



Well... why should I have to buy THREE copies of Photoshop at over $500 per copy just because I own 3 Macs...? I'll tell you this... I don't! I am a legitimate consumer. I have purchased ALL of my software... hig-end stuff too... FCP3, DVD Studio Pro, Lightwave, all your typical design stuff; PShop, Illustrator, Freehand, Dreamweaver, After Effects... Why on GOD'S GREEN EARTH should I have to TRIPLE my expenses to be able to have a choice as to which machine I want to use...?



I can understand that in the early days... barely ANY households had a computer... NEVERMIND more than one... but now-a-days... some homes have 3, 4, 5... up to 10 computers in them... all networked together.



For us HONEST people... it should NOT be considered "Illegal" to have multiple copies of software installed on multiple machines. It doesn't bother me to see PShop pop-up and say: "Ummm... No way José... someone else on the network is using this serial number..." because I am the only user. I have no need to run multiple iterations of the same app. at the same time on different computers.



So why is that still considered illegal...? That just bugs the crap out of me.



Am I alone on this one...? What logic would be valid for me having to buy THREE LightWave packages at over $1k per version...? *sigh*



EDIT: Typos



[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Scott F. ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Its actually very easy. Everytime you have used -lets say FCP - on your MacOne you uninstall it and then when you fire up your MacTwo you install it there.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    I doubt software companies are THAT worried about individuals installing a single licensed app on more than one of their own machines (for example, if you have a laptop and desktop and you never use both of them at the same time).



    The reason for the sort of security you're talking about, though, is so that a big design company with 100 desks, doesn't cheap-out and buy a single license of Photoshop that they'll run simultaneously on every desk all day long.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    graphitemangraphiteman Posts: 428member
    What you're doing is not illgeal, since you're using only one license at once (by running the software). What is illegal is to have more than one person use the software at the same time on more than one computer.
  • Reply 4 of 8
    scott f.scott f. Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by graphiteman:

    <strong>What you're doing is not illgeal, since you're using only one license at once (by running the software). What is illegal is to have more than one person use the software at the same time on more than one computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hmmm... maybe I'm wrong then... I was under the impression that "technically"... I was not supposed to have it INSTALLED on more than one computer using the same registration/serial number.



    But... this does tie-into the OS realm of things... Why should I not be able to run the OS on all 3 computers without paying an additional $60...? I DO run all three machines at once. The tower stays on 24/7 and checks for mail every minute (I work from home). The laptop stays on but "Sleeps" alot... and I keep the old iMac running because I'm about to set-it-up for LightWave's ScreamerNet for Network rendering.



    Oh well... maybe I'm just overreacting.



    - Scott
  • Reply 5 of 8
    spotbugspotbug Posts: 361member
    [quote]Originally posted by graphiteman:

    <strong>What you're doing is not illgeal, since you're using only one license at once (by running the software). What is illegal is to have more than one person use the software at the same time on more than one computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It depends on the license. That's a good, common sense (and, thankfully, not too rare) license. I've seen really restrictive licenses that don't allow that, though.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    imudimud Posts: 140member
    Ever read a M$ license? The one for their media player thingie said they could update the software remotely at any time without notification and that they could not be held responsible for anything bad that happened to your files because of this...



    Personally I don't like things that contact other machines either on my home network or the internet without my knowledge. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 7 of 8
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    Everybody knows (or should know) that shotgun EULAs are not enforceable in court e.g. the little stub that you get in parking structure that says they are not liable for anything that happens so it doesn't really matter what MS says. This has not been specifically tested in court though, to the best of my knowledge.



    On PCs, most software gives you options to turn on/off the auto update function. There are also sharware solutions out there like zonalarm that does even a better job.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    not unlike myselfnot unlike myself Posts: 2,037member
    [quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:

    <strong>The reason for the sort of security you're talking about, though, is so that a big design company with 100 desks, doesn't cheap-out and buy a single license of Photoshop that they'll run simultaneously on every desk all day long.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, you mean like the company I used to work for?
Sign In or Register to comment.