Important information regarding transferring Traktor licence's bundled with F1

Does this mean that S2/S4 owners also have their serials keys bound to their hardware? I'm believeing like someone said earlier, that we could just preregister our original copy and sell that one and just use the one from F1. Any one done this yet?

Interesting.
I'm trying to track down an Australian precedent for this sort of case at the moment so if anyone knows of something let me know.

Unless it falls within the OEM section... although OEM software is generally resell-able if it's unused over here, for example all the versions of Windows/Office on eBay.

I always thought it was only educational software that wasn't able to be re-sold.

Really? Has this been tested?

I'm not doubting you, man, I'm genuinely keen to hear that Microsoft have been told they have to allow people to pass on a license that's been used as part of an upgrade path. I'd just like some evidence that isn't simply bitching on a messageboard.

Again my point is that these companies have no legal leg to stand on with that other than "we're a big goddam company so what are you gonna do about it." And that pisses customers off. Which probably isn't the best thing for the company.

I believe you're confusing the license and the software. I'm not talking about the software -- as you acknowledge, NI is preventing you from transferring is the *license* that you paid for or otherwise acquired legitimately. And that's what people are unhappy about, justifiably so I believe. If I buy a license to use any other software I can legitimately transfer that license to anyone as long as I delete whatever registered copies I have off of my own hard drive.

Does this mean that S2/S4 owners also have their serials keys bound to their hardware? I'm believeing like someone said earlier, that we could just preregister our original copy and sell that one and just use the one from F1. Any one done this yet?

OEM software being resold isn't the same thing as OEM software being generally resellable. The same provisions as academic software likely applies - you were given a non-transferable license to the software on the basis that you have *this* piece of hardware (/are eligible for an educational discount).

EULA's suck, innit.

That's not what I said. If it's part of an upgrade path I'm pretty sure they're within their rights because otherwise there would be two licenses out there when they only sold one. We're talking about a license that isn't part of an upgrade path; either you pass it on or it sits unused, and what I'm saying is according to first sale doctrine of US copyright law, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. And no it hasn't been tested because these companies have expensive legal staffs and nobody's going to go to war with them over a $200 license.

Really? Has this been tested?

I'm not doubting you, man, I'm genuinely keen to hear that Microsoft have been told they have to allow people to pass on a license that's been used as part of an upgrade path. I'd just like some evidence that isn't simply bitching on a messageboard.

I believe you're confusing the license and the software. I'm not talking about the software -- as you acknowledge, NI is preventing you from transferring is the *license* that you paid for or otherwise acquired legitimately. And that's what people are unhappy about, justifiably so I believe. If I buy a license to use any other software I can legitimately transfer that license to anyone as long as I delete whatever registered copies I have off of my own hard drive.

Per my comment above; the "license to use" issue is entirely beside the point. At least in the U.S., courts have protected consumer's rights to transfer any such product as long as the owner does not keep a copy themselves. The same reason you can give away or sell your used CDs, you can give away or sell your used copy of Microsoft Word (regardless of what rights the EULA claims). Legally in both cases you are supposed to destroy any digital copies you made when you sell those things. Sorry, but a license cannot contravene rights established in common law, no matter what NI believes. They can enforce it technologically (which just drives people to "crack" it), but if they were to try to enforce it in U.S. courts (against a well-heeled opponent, at least), they would have trouble. (Of course, they would have legal staffs and their opponents probably wouldn't, but that's a different issue).

They could write a EULA that says you have to agree to sell your first born into slavery in order to unlock the features of the Remix decks and some people would probably defend it here. But that doesn't make it legal or enforceable.

You can do that, but whoever you give the software to will need the Launchpad to unlock the non-crippled version.

edit: or rather, will need the serial number.

FWIW, NI isn't the only company that does this. I had to jointly register Ableton and my Launchpad together.

Yes but what they should not be allowed to do (and are not permitted to do, at least under U.S. copyright law) is limit the right of resale. You can resell (or give away) anything else you "purchase a license to use" as long as you delete your existing copies of it. NI is laying claim to a different level of control when they claim the right to limit your transferring of software that you legally purchased, and it's understandable that it pisses off some legitimate users of NI products. Once again, regardless of whether you agree with it, this is hurts NI's bottom line in the long run.

Then in theory at least, so would the software. I believe what he's objecting to - and I kind of agree - is the idea that NI can enjoin you from transferring a product that you own in a legitimate transaction. Besides the fact that NI's stance is unenforceable (at least in a legal sense), it's a poor PR move as it makes things harder for legitimate users of their products, and may even push some such users to acquiring the software illicitly, which is just not in NI's interest, whatever your feelings about the piracy itself.