ableton says no to selling operator

glitchrock-buddha · Post by **glitchrock-buddha** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:34 am

I could swear I remember Adonis posting his operator for sale, and than selling it to someone. And I thought it worked because I also think I can remember him saying that he sold it.

Adonis?

woodie · Post by **woodie** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:54 am

kuniklo wrote:Live itself is a great package and I think the new features in the last few upgrades have justified the price.

On the other hand, I don't see the value in the bundled instruments at all. If anything, they're *less* useful because of their integration with live compared to third party instruments:

1. no session view automation recording
2. ui squeezed into tiny plugin strip instead of larger free-floating window
3. can't use them in any other hosts
4. now, apparently, you can't resell them either

All of this would be tolerable if they were cheap, like $50 each, but at their current prices, comparable to far more powerful third party instruments with none of the above handicaps, I don't get the appeal at all. I bought Operator just to show Ableton some support although I never use it now and I wanted to like Sampler but had to admit after a few days with it that it's 1/10th the instrument that Kontakt or Emulator X2 are for a roughly comparable price.

right on man....and to pay US$149.00 for Operator and it being forever connected to Live?? OUCH! Go to KVR and ye shall seek many MANY good alternatives that you can use in whatever host.

And being already built-into Live is another reason it should just be "part of the package" with roughly the same price as we buy it without it. I could totally understand if Operator was a VST like all the others and that Ableton wanted to sell it separately for others to use in a variety of hosts in the marketplace, but with no flexibility of that sort....hmmm....it just doesn't make any sense to me. But whom I kidding? I don't have Operator and don't intend to get it unless Ableton one day wraps all their "goodies" into Live and price it the same as the other hosts with all their "goodies".

Like kuniklo said....there's just too many really good alternatives out there already.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:24 am

for contrast consider MS Windows . you can't even transfer it to a new PC. it's effectively a PC tax. The only way to transfer it is to sell the whole PC.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:26 am

Please, Woodie and Kuniklo, let us not turn this thread into an "Operator VS. the World" thread.

We need to help John out here.

So, who wants his Operator, and has the same version of Live as he does?

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:33 am

I got dibs. If it'll make the Abes feel any better I'll pay him full price for it.

robbmasters · Post by **robbmasters** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:01 am

nolus wrote:for contrast consider MS Windows . you can't even transfer it to a new PC. it's effectively a PC tax. The only way to transfer it is to sell the whole PC.

Surely that's only true for the (heavily discounted) OEM version? And even then you could transfer it with, say, your motherboard rather than your whole PC...

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:32 am

Hi

The problem with software is that, as already been adressed, you can't sent a proof you have uninstalled it.
Software it's not a piece of Hardware. Software is licenced, not sold. Read the Licence agreement guys. We users of software never became legitimate owners of the software we buy. We buy a usage grant and all that's included in the licence. If you read carefully thru the MS EULA you find that anytime MS is entitled to revoke the licence to the grantees (ourselves)....
Other companies use USB dongles (that seems to drain CPU power) to protect themselves, and still there are dozen of cracks to be downloaded from the net.
The danger is the ability to commit fraud. If I sell an authorized software I have to receive a deautorization code from the seller so that I can move ownership to another user that in turn will authorize its own copy. Sometimes, due to limitation in the challenge-response procedure it's not possible to separate one component from the other. In the Ableton Faq, it is explained how you can transfer a copy of Live, not Operator. If you have already unlocked Operator and sell it to a user you sell only one out of two unlocks. Actually there's no way to divide Operator from Ableton Live. You might dislike it but these are the facts.

Let's take for granted that as promised the Abes will adress this, hopefully enhancing, but not changing the clean unlock procedure they have inplace today.

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:35 am

personnaly, i wouldn't like to exchange my Live with anyone else's in order to buy an operator licence.
my Live works very well, i've been taking care of it for one year, and i wouldn't know what the seller has done with it. maybe some hard-tek or drum'n'bass. maybe he used it to control lightning and stuff....
no no no. i'll keep MY good working Live.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:36 am

peeddrroo wrote:maybe he used it to control lightning and stuff....

Only God... or Mother Nature... or Thor... can control lightning. Even the Mighty Abes can't do that!

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:44 am

hambone1 wrote:
peeddrroo wrote:maybe he used it to control lightning and stuff....
Only God... or Mother Nature... or Thor... can control lightning. Even the Mighty Abes can't do that!

maybe Mother Nature uses Live to control ligthning...
be careful if she sells her licence.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:45 am

peeddrroo wrote:[maybe Mother Nature uses Live to control ligthning...
be careful if she sells her licence.

robbmasters · Post by **robbmasters** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:55 am

There have been some interesting discussions about the legality of software license agreements over recent years.

In the UK (and no doubt many other territories) a contract comes into effect when a customer pays for and receives their goods. Once this contract has come into effect no changes can be made to this contract without the agreement of both the seller and the customer.

The customer is invariably asked to accept any software license agreement AFTER purchasing the product. Since they have not had the opportunity to review the terms of this license agreement before purchase, it is not part of the original contract, and therefore its legal status is very dubious.

If you don't agree to the license terms, the seller (or manufacturer) is fully entitled not to give you any support or not to allow you any updates / upgrades (as these were not part of the original contract either). But they are not legally entitled to prevent you from using the product. And under EU law they're not legally entitled to prevent you from transferring ownership of this product either.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have taken software manufacturers to task over attempting to unilaterally modify the contract after it has come into effect. So there appears to be no precedent. And Microsoft, for example, have been able to bully those traders who sell second hand licenses into paying huge "fines" - as such traders have realised that even if they're in the right, they can't afford to defend themselves against Microsoft.

Note the similarility with the way the RIAA/BPI extract "fines" from alleged filesharers. Like Microsoft, the RIAA/BPI aren't the law, and their targets may not be guilty of actually breaking the law (we can't say for sure without precedent - especially given the law's provisos for "fair use" or "fair dealing"). But their targets cannot afford to defend a legal case, so invariably have to give in.

So software manufacturers are effectively able to get away with making changes to the contract that a customer has with the seller - even though they were not even a party to that contract! (When you buy software you only have a contract with the seller; you do not have ANY contract with, or obligations to, the manufacturer).

Of course, if you buy from the manufacturer (as is quite likely with Live) the manufacturer and seller will be the same. But they still cannot legally modify the terms of the contract after purchase.

However, if you buy online and are asked to accept the license agreement as part of the purchase procedure (before you've parted with your money) then the license agreement is legally binding.

Of course, some parts of a software license are covered by law anyway. Copyright and intellectual property law prevent customers from selling duplicate copies of the software, even without a license agreement. But there rest of a typical software license seems to have no legal standing.

But I'm not a lawyer.

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:45 am

Machinate wrote:Please, Woodie and Kuniklo, let us not turn this thread into an "Operator VS. the World" thread.

We need to help John out here.

So, who wants his Operator, and has the same version of Live as he does?

Damn, what a big story! Though I never cared for Operator, probably cause i never liked any FM, I can do it,mainly to:
1.cut this debate
2. maybe there is something to operator- I swear only reason to give it a chance is your high opinion about it Machinate!
Of course the price must be sensible.
So John and Ableton if you still need me to solve this matter pm or Email me.

p.s. I am not sure about legalities but while some companies are "nice" to customers some not, Spectatronics is not ,so though their products are superb I will never buy any shit from them ever again, since I am against such policies.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:53 am

I'm not sure that "the same version" sale would work either. No-one from Ableton has said this is the case. IE : that if both parties have the same version the sale can go ahead. That was suggested by a user.
What was said is

Robert Schulz wrote:I am sorry, but selling Operator separately is not possible, since it
belongs to the Live license (it is not a separate license).

which seems to imply that it is an adjunct of your own specific Live serial.

Unless Robert S. has misunderstood - and thinks you want to sell it to someone who doesn't own live

mercyplease · Post by **mercyplease** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:06 am