Is This Fair?

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Terry - your analogy is flawed. One can measure a car in the car yard etc. One cannot size up software without installing it. 2 very different scenarios. And that said, even if we took what you've said at face value, the retailer must either offer an equivalent product that works to the customers satisfaction, or they must provide a credit to the same value.

Dave

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Astrobserver99

I am astounded he thought the incident so important that he wanted to hurt me professionally and personally!

Astounded? You use it you pay for it. Plain and simple.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Terry - your analogy is flawed. One can measure a car in the car yard etc. One cannot size up software without installing it. 2 very different scenarios. And that said, even if we took what you've said at face value, the retailer must either offer an equivalent product that works to the customers satisfaction, or they must provide a credit to the same value.

Dave

I'll try ths next time I finish reading a book I didn't like much, I'll take it back to the bookstore and tell them to give me my money back the plot wasn't what i was expecting.
BTW I'll a software developer for a large Multinational.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Ken - with all respect - of course you want the customer to buy the software (even if it doesn't suit their needs) - it keeps you in business.

Please, if my thinking is so flawed, why do most software vendors allow trial versions of their software? They do so for exactly the reasons that I've outlined in my previous posts. Tell me, can you get a demo of the software attached to the book in question?

I can go into a music store and pre listen to CDs before I buy. Do I have to pay copyright/licence fees to the artists/label just for that priviledge? I walk into JB hi fi and play with the MacBook that I'm interested in - it doesn't force me to commit to buy it, and nor do I have to pay for that priviledge.

As I've said several times in this thread (I'm a FSF guy, so you're never going to convince me otherwise I might add), software developers get away with Blue murder these days imho. They continuously remove user rights, and charge vastly over priced amounts for what is, in most instances, poorly written bloatware with bugs that do not get fixed. I know I'm generalising here, but it's pretty damn true from my eyes.

Dave

PS - the interesting thing is that several reports have clearly shown that Open Source developed software has less bugs per 1000 lines of code than proprietary software, and by a considerable margin I might add.

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Terry - your analogy is flawed. One can measure a car in the car yard etc. One cannot size up software without installing it. 2 very different scenarios. And that said, even if we took what you've said at face value, the retailer must either offer an equivalent product that works to the customers satisfaction, or they must provide a credit to the same value.

Dave

Your right that analogy is flawed!!! wish I could of burnt a copy of that
car. Besides there is generally enough info on software pandied about
the internet to give you a pretty good idea of what it will probably do
for you. But I suppose it would be impossible to prove to any software
company that you uninstalled the software after you test installed it, I
would like to see how this is done??? especially when the package has
been opened.

Cheers,CS

[TrevorW]

A Notarised Certified statutory declaration clearly showing that your computer, person and all known haunts, place of residence, have been thoroughly searched and all known associates interrogated to ensure that the so mentioned software does not exist on any device fixed or move able or otherwise belonging to or used by the so signed declarer or any of his or her known associates, friends, family or otherwise,

[CoombellKid]

LOL gotta love the o'l Stat Dec!

Cheers,CS

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by marki

Peter, I bought my copy from an oz telescope shop.

Mark

Ok, it wasn't clear from your post this was the case. If the product has been mis-represented....ie specs/salesman says it does something it doesn't, then you have rights to a full refund. No "ifs"or "buts".

If you simply don't like how well it does something...humm...things are less clear.

As for expecting Oz consumer rights when purchasing off shore....

...... I recall a scene in "Spies like us" Chevy Chase proclaims to a Bedouin group "We're Americans!!" Cut to next scene: him gagged, bound and dangling upside down.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

A Notarised Certified statutory declaration clearly showing that your computer, person and all known haunts, place of residence, have been thoroughly searched and all known associates interrogated to ensure that the so mentioned software does not exist on any device fixed or move able or otherwise belonging to or used by the so signed declarer or any of his or her known associates, friends, family or otherwise,

From a legal point of view, this is quite satisfactory.

In reality, most retailers are quite flexible (at least in Australia). Let's use one more example - say, my mum goes out and buys me some new shoes. She gets a size 8 (which I am) and brings it home. Now, as we all know, clothing and shoe sizes are not static - they vary from country to country, manufacturer to manufacturer, and there's no laws making it compulsary for them to standardise. She brings said shoes home, I try them out, they're a bit too tight and pinch my toes etc.

Now - in my example above, several things have happened:

1) item was purchased (in good faith)

2) item was tried out

3) item was found to be unsatisfactory

I guarantee you that if you have a receipt, and you're within a reasonable period (by law, 7 days), a decent retailer will refund/swap without any question. A more disresputible retailer will try and wriggle out of it, and if you take them to fair trading, you'll win hands down, every time. Most of the larger retailers are pretty flexible - even if you're out of the initial 7 days since date of purchase time frame, they'll usually swap it over etc.

Now - you could argue that I could have eye balled the shoes and not have put them on and decided they were too small. Or got out a ruler, caliper, etc and measured them, and then my feet, etc. All of that instead of wearing them. Is that *really* reasonable? I do not think so, and I doubt that any fair trading department in Australia would disagree with me (nor would the law to be honest).

Software is a tangible product - it can only be really tested by installing it. Plain and simple. You can look at the specs on a car all you like - mpg, etc etc. It won't tell you what it's like to drive.

I am constantly amazed at how little commonsense some people seem to use when thinking about issues like this.

Dave

[marki]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Ok, it wasn't clear from your post this was the case. If the product has been mis-represented....ie specs/salesman says it does something it doesn't, then you have rights to a full refund. No "ifs"or "buts".

If you simply don't like how well it does something...humm...things are less clear.

As for expecting Oz consumer rights when purchasing off shore....

...... I recall a scene in "Spies like us" Chevy Chase proclaims to a Bedouin group "We're Americans!!" Cut to next scene: him gagged, bound and dangling upside down.

In my case Peter I did want to use the program and had no intention of sending it back. I got a nasty email from the publisher after I registered the product which came with a brand new copy of the book I bought from an oz scope shop. I was accused of being a thief for buying the book new off the shelf and installing the software (my legal right even by their own EULA). The email was not about finding out why the program had been previously registered but rather straight for the throat threatening all sorts of rubbish. His tone only changes after I told him to get stuffed as I had every right to install and use the program.

Mark

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by KenGee

I'll try ths next time I finish reading a book I didn't like much, I'll take it back to the bookstore and tell them to give me my money back the plot wasn't what i was expecting.
BTW I'll a software developer for a large Multinational.

Hell, I'm taking back my copy of Win XP because I didn't like the colour
scheme once it was loaded.

Cheers,CS

[Kal (Andrew)]

From a legal viewpoint consumers in Australia are protected by the Trade Practices Act. However, the question of wether a software licence (you only ever buy a licence with software) is considered as 'goods' or a 'service' under the Act is still a grey area, and it is an important discernation because different amounts of protection are provided for each.

The arguments about shoe sizes and car colours or reading books that don't satisfy are all useless - the only important aspect is what is claimed will be provided, and wether the product (or is that a service?) delivers on those claims.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Andrew - of course its goods. Again, law and legislation seem to lack any degree of common sense. But that stems from the fact that politicians lack any real world common sense too.

Dave

[Kal (Andrew)]

The physical media that the software is contained on can be regarde as goods, but the software content itself is only intellectual property. As such you only get a license to use it. An analogy would be if I patent an invention, then license the use of that patent to you. You are not covered by the trade practices act with regards to the purchase of goods, you are covered by the purchase of a service. You can see how this is a grey area with regards to the laws governing it?

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by dpastern

>snip
I am constantly amazed at how little commonsense some people seem to use when thinking about issues like this.
Dave

Whilst the use of analogies such as motor vehicles and shoes can be useful in helping illustrate a point of view, their use can be limited and not tell the whole story. In particular, software has a special characteristic that makes it unique – in the real world it can be easily copied, pirated and distributed illegally across multiple systems and users; cars and shoes cannot.

Speaking in general terms, as I’m certain the OP did not intend any mischief, what you describe as common sense may not appear so to the supplier or software author.

From the supplier’s perspective, they are contacted by the purchaser to say they don’t want the book/software yet when the goods arrive, they are opened and installed which is quite contrary to the communication received. Maybe the supplier has a case for being concerned about this change in behaviour or intent?

From the software author’s perspective, it is common sense to protect their intellectual property as it puts food on their table and pays the family bills. If someone says they don’t want the book/software and then subsequently breaks open the package and installs it, what is the software author to conclude?

So in this case, common sense is not common across the supplier, software author and purchaser because each is operating in isolation with quite differing needs and requirements.

Note that the above observations are generalizations of discussion; they are not questioning the integrity of the OP nor do they condone the tone and response of the supplier.

Cheers

Dennis.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Kal

The physical media that the software is contained on can be regarde as goods, but the software content itself is only intellectual property. As such you only get a license to use it. An analogy would be if I patent an invention, then license the use of that patent to you. You are not covered by the trade practices act with regards to the purchase of goods, you are covered by the purchase of a service. You can see how this is a grey area with regards to the laws governing it?

I have a very strong disliking of IP. It's a horrid thing. I personally believe that software patents are blatantly illegal. The whole process is a total joke. The DMCA is a laugh, and corrupts the original US copyright act and removes consumer fair use. Extensions to copyright period are an atrocity, and I believe that the original founding fathers of America would roll over in their graves at what has happened in regards to these areas.

Current patents give manufacturers blatantly more rights than consumers, and I'm dead against this.

Dave

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Dennis

Note that the above observations are generalizations of discussion; they are not questioning the integrity of the OP nor do they condone the tone and response of the supplier.

Cheers

Dennis.

The response of the supplier is atrocious, and as I said earlier, I suspect that they'd be in serious trouble legally if a libel/slander case was actioned against them.

Dave