VFX Studio Software Garage Sale!

[esi]

Hi all,

Here is a link to a PDF showing some software that our studio is no longer requiring. It is all registered, and can be transfered. All pricing open to offers.

http://www.enigmastudios.ca/Garage_Sale_07.pdf

Cheers
m/

Mark

[Dynedain]

I don't believe Autodesk permits license transfers....

[esi]

I don't believe Autodesk permits license transfers....

According to the EULA. It states that yes you can not sell, rent etc etc to anyone unless concent is given by autodesk. We will see, I have done this many moons ago, with no problems. However I did contact them about it, so I plan to do the same thing.

Thanks for bringing it up, always good to be sure on these things, I find most software developers allow this, so long as they know exactly what is going on, and they can trace the license.

[Morbid Angel]

vray license are non transferable non reselable, just a headsup.

[esi]

vray license are non transferable non reselable, just a headsup.

Thanks Dmitry,

Im not attempting to sell VRAY thought

But for future reference, Can Vlado confirm that the idea of selling software without prior written concent is a no no. However if you get the concent is it ok?

Just so everyone is 100% clear.

[biglolly]

So Enigma, what are you moving to from Max? Also, why is the vray license non-transferrable? I've always wondered why that restriction was imposed. I don't see who it is harming? Perhaps someone can educate me otherwise...

[percydaman]

well I dont know exactly why people dont allow transfers, vlado could give an explanation, but I'm sure its just because everyone else does it this way. Why do they do it this way? Well you have one person with a license and one person that needs one. Quite simple, if you dont allow transfers, that person that NEEDS the license will most likely purchase one. From the company. So now chaos, autodesk etc gets the money from person B instead of person A getting it.

I wouldn't call it necessarily greedy, but from their perspective, someone purchasing their product, should pay THEM for it, not someone else. Remember software doesn't depreciate per se. It's always a 'like new' product, unlike a car or a blender :P

[esi]

well I dont know exactly why people dont allow transfers, vlado could give an explanation, but I'm sure its just because everyone else does it this way. Why do they do it this way? Well you have one person with a license and one person that needs one. Quite simple, if you dont allow transfers, that person that NEEDS the license will most likely purchase one. From the company. So now chaos, autodesk etc gets the money from person B instead of person A getting it.

I wouldn't call it necessarily greedy, but from their perspective, someone purchasing their product, should pay THEM for it, not someone else. Remember software doesn't depreciate per se. It's always a 'like new' product, unlike a car or a blender :P

Overall, if you purchase software it should be considered an Asset of the company. If this policy of just purchasing but not being able to sell the right to use the license is used, then you do not have an asset any more but you are simply leasing or renting the software. This way you right off the value like any other lease, but you do not have it as an asset on your books because as soon as you purchase it has no value. This should be considered an option to full purchase, but renting or leasing the software from the company. It makes it cheaper to get as an end user, the company selling gets better renvenue streams etc.

However, I think most companies look at it as a way to make sure they contact them to follow the license and make sure all is above board. don't forget, if the person selling is not interested in the product, they will not upgrade and the person purchasing will most likely do so. No, it is not a new purchase, but it is better than nothing, cause the person buying is looking for a deal. But there is an argument that they may want this stopped so that everyone purchases, but this is a funny way to run it, due to my prior comment above.

Just my thoughts.

[dellis]

I think it all comes down to the fact that software really isn't an asset...in the ownership sense. It's kind of like selling someone you're leased car without permission from the lending agency. As far as i have always understood it the creator always owns the program, we're just renting, so any selling or transferring must be agreed to by the owner. That means Vlado and the boys are just loaning us VRay....for a bit of money.

[EricCamper]

Sheeww...Thank goodness I downloaded my vray license from DaForce...Cheap too!!

[esi]

I think it all comes down to the fact that software really isn't an asset...in the ownership sense. It's kind of like selling someone you're leased car without permission from the lending agency. As far as i have always understood it the creator always owns the program, we're just renting, so any selling or transferring must be agreed to by the owner. That means Vlado and the boys are just loaning us VRay....for a bit of money.

Yup, that I will agree with. I was just pointing out the two ways this could be viewed.

[DaForce]

Sheeww...Thank goodness I downloaded my vray license from DaForce...Cheap too!!

Oi , leave me/our "arrangements" out of this