Capture 1 and Pentax 645D

[Dan Bellyk]

I have been informed by Capture 1 in writing and by phone that they do not support the Pentax 645D because it is direct competition to there brand so I was wondering if I can deactivate the product and sell my copy?
I was previously using it with Nikon.
Dan

[Doug Peterson]

Are you asking if it's legal, technically possible, or moral?

Legally: it's against the EULA to sell/transfer your license.

Technically: your license is tied to your email address, so you'd have to coordinate with the buyer and work around the way the system is set up to function.

I won't comment on the morality; that's up to you to decide.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8)
======================================================

[Dan Bellyk]

Why would it not be moral to deactivate the product and sell it? By deactivating the product on my computer I will no longer be using it.
People by and sell used software and do it the legal way at least that's what I try to do! I have spent a lot of money on my software not like many who hack it all, so I would think that if I legally purchased this software and no longer plan on using it or if it even meens signing a release I should be able to sell it.

[Dan Bellyk]

I fired off an email to Phase One to ask them the rules

[BernardLanguillier]

I have been informed by Capture 1 in writing and by phone that they do not support the Pentax 645D because it is direct competition to there brand so I was wondering if I can deactivate the product and sell my copy?

Argh... I guess that they won't support the D800 either then.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Bellyk]

Well Doug you were right, Phase One replied and my hands are tied even though I don't agree with it

[JohnTodd]

Dan,

We live in this odd world where software developers don't sell us a *product* - they sell us a *licence to use* a product. Therefore, from their point of view, you no more have the right to transfer your software licence to someone else than you do to transfer your driving licence to someone else - it isn't 'yours' as such.

I don't comment on the rights, wrongs or common sense of such behaviour - I'm just offering up the worldview that you're dealing with.

:-)

[Doug Peterson]

\We live in this odd world where software developers don't sell us a *product* - they sell us a *licence to use* a product. Therefore, from their point of view, you no more have the right to transfer your software licence to someone else than you do to transfer your driving licence to someone else - it isn't 'yours' as such.

I don't comment on the rights, wrongs or common sense of such behaviour - I'm just offering up the worldview that you're dealing with.\

An odd gripe for a photographic forum. Many photographers make their living licensing the result of their technical expertise and creativity to a 3rd party. When the third party is done using the image they cannot readily sell it's use to another third party.

Just saying :-)

[Dan Bellyk]

An odd gripe for a photographic forum. Many photographers make their living licensing the result of their technical expertise and creativity to a 3rd party. When the third party is done using the image they cannot readily sell it's use to another third party.

Just saying :-)

Why an odd gripe Doug? The software is a tool just like a camera, so how would you feel if the camera companies said we are no longer allowed to sell are cameras or lenses, once you buy it your stuck with it. Do you think people would be buying as much gear and how would that hurt sales. Maybe I should have read the enduser aggreement and if I would have I would not bought the software and wasted over $400 because Phase One does not support my brand of camera.
  Sorry for the rant but if someone asks me what I think of Capture One guess what my answer will be.
What peeves me off is that fork out the money to buy this software not like many who steal it and now it costs me double!

[Schewe]

Why an odd gripe Doug? The software is a tool just like a camera, so how would you feel if the camera companies said we are no longer allowed to sell are cameras or lenses, once you buy it your stuck with it.

Actually, that's not true..."buying" software is a license of intellectual property not the sale of tangible property. That's a big difference. When you licensed Capture One, to agreed to an end user license agreement–something you should have read when you agreed to it. Yes, it's a click through agreement and I agree most people don't bother to read them (let alone understand them) but you did agree to the license even if you don't know the terms.

Some software companies DO allow a transfer of license–Adobe allows a user to transfer a license after doing the proper paperwork. Phase One apparently doesn't. But if you had read and understood the EULA you would have known.

The fact that a photographers is complaining of a license agreement is, I think what Doug was talking about...and he's right.

[Fine_Art]

There has been a US court case where the Judge ruled software is not a licence even if they say it is. There is no rental fee, no method of return after a duration, etc. The case may have caused the widespread push for cloud computing where the software stays on the company's server. If there is no agreement for return after a period of use it is a product sale not a licence to use. Of course they retain copyright.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/vernororder.pdf