Posts by reelstuff

Ok, that makes sense then I was just having a look at the TOS , to see how it might apply to the different products, and came across that particular phrase which was a little disturbing, perhaps they should stipulate the product reference, otherwise, it could create some legal issue in the future, where no really exists.

I have a good question about the licensing terms as stated in the website

(j) If the whole, or part, of the Work has been created using materials which are the subject of a GNU General Public License (GPL), your use of the Work (or part Work) is subject to the specific terms of the GPL in place of the foregoing conditions (to the extent the GPL applies).

As part of making a purchase here using the terms of service, or the license terms, how do we know if someone has used any GNU or GPL component to develop products for sale here.

For example, if someone that produces music, has created that music using a GPL product, then this would create a serious legal issue for us and our clients, a Risk that we are not willing to take.

Is there some disclosure in the submission process that disclaims the failure to warrant the user from a failure to disclose any material GPL work for sale here?

That would be of interest because our clients require works that are free of any GPL copy left works, and with those terms it does not specifically spell out any relief that we or our clients may have in regards to the failure of a provider or vendor to disclose GPL materials.

I too would really like to understand the pricing model here, I understand the professional pricing model that this company has chosen to apply here, but not the compensatory model.

In other words, the object is to make money right? or is that some secondary afterthought?

You see as a developer, you can very quickly and easily reproduce almost any code based application at a fraction of the cost that your model calls for, which tells me one thing it is not working.

Not for you and not for your clients or customers.

This makes Zero sense to me as a customer or a client.

Why not compete, because as it is your not doing that, I can go on just about any service and compete, at half the cost of your over priced model.

This over priced model that you have adopted will never succeed because of your competition, even odesk runs at half the cost.

If you really want to see this extended license model work you will have to compete and that means a pricing model that works for both your clients and your customers clients.

So far I dont see that working and none of the service providers have seen it succeed either.

Just saying, perhaps its time to take a second look at the extended pricing model

Thanks for the spirited discussion, one final note…

If you have seen the movie the butterfly effect, you know what this means.

In the movie one little change, always had these really horrible unintended consequences.

One time the poor guy woke up and had no hands, ouch, terrible result, my main point here was that flash den was doing really great, and they changed the way they do business on a lot of different levels.

This creates unintended consequences.

Do what you will, you can ignore this and it will go away, but if you are on here and you do not have a valid license to produce adobe flash files then you should take down those files, as soon as you can, get them off because you do not want to be the guy they make an example of in this situation.

Adobe is a juggernaut, just a friendly warning nothing more.

This communication is intended for the use of the authors at flash den.net any other use is strictly prohibited, serious, thats it folks, as porky pig once said…

Not sure if its the same for you guys, but for the op, how did you come up with the idea of looking at the licensing to make sure that all this is correct.

You spend $6500 on your lawyers just to make sure that you, out of the 208,000 users wont be selected for something that’s never going to happen, and will be somehow traced down, and be told that you can no longer use the files downloaded…

Something smells a little fishy…

Not sure this deserves a reply, but if you really want to know, I am a software engineer, in the past, I used to buy files from flash den, and I was free to use them once I converted them to my own use, in other words, I purchased the rights to use the flash files and then produced my own files system.

Basically it was to my advantage because it saved me in development time and effort, however now because of the changes, I can no longer do this,

As a commercial vendor of software I have to have legal advise, that legal advise was clear do not use files from flashDen.net

It is a simple as that, if you smell fish then that is a problem with your upper lip…

sorry I could not resist…

But seriously, folks, these legal issues are becoming more and more important as the economy shrinks it leaves lawyers with nothing to do but chase leads like this one, and all I am saying is nip it in the bud before it becomes an issues,

Fix it now, not later, that is all I am saying, it is real and has nothing to do with fish…

Yes, indeed, I really did not mean to start a war here, I wanted to help because I know that in any legal situation like this, there is a period of time where all can be forgiven, and usually this is over a few words here and there, in the license terms.

But and this is one big Butt, the longer things go the more damage is done in regard to the plaintiffs rebuttal, there is still time to correct this issue with adobe before any additional problems arise.

@MSFX You are exactly right on your point, that is where the main issue is, with regard to legally purchased versions of adobe software because even in the trial version it plainly states that you cannot sell or license files derived from a trial version of adobe software.

As far as a binary reader, plain text is all that is needed, the output files are encoded and can be easily recognized as edu or retail, the code is in the output of the file itself, just open any, flash file in a plain text file and take a look at the language, you will see right away exactly what was used to compile the file system.

I just wanted to clear a few things up. First off, I can assure you that our licenses are legal. To suggest that we’d create new licenses without consulting lawyers is a little silly. Of course you can sell files created with Adobe products. Most importantly, no buyer could be sued for buying a file under any of our licenses.

Hi, lance thanks for your input, but as you know, the laws of your country and the laws of the USA are very different, I know you have obtained opinions from lawyers in your own country, but I can tell you with full assurance that adobe in indeed very interested in your company, I am just trying to help you as I suggested in an email to your company last week.

There is a reason that big websites like craigslist has the legal language they use for the use of their websites.

If you examine that from an “International” point of view and not just from Australia, I think you would see that I am really the good guy here, your new licenses are a disaster waiting to happen and I hope that you can clear this up with Adobe soon.

As I would like to begin purchasing files again in the future once adobe signs off on your new license terms.

Again your fight is not with me but adobe and I think if you check with your legal department you will find that adobe has or will very soon be contacting you in regard to this issue.

With all respect, I really am trying to help you guys.

I guess what he’s trying to get across is that Envato is responsible, since they have applied the new licensing terms, for all of the content on this site, whether it be legal or illegally distributed. And because of that, if Envato wants to maintain their current licensing, they would do well to make sure that the products sold on these markets are sold under legitimate terms.

Bingo Yes, Totally, I wanted to have a rational discussion, and I think we are headed in the right direction, thank you for your valuable post.

Well then we are in agreement, All that I am saying is that if I spend 10 or 50 times the price for a standard file, then I as a buyer of that file should be entitled to the assurance that the file is a valid commercially licensed file legal for sale in the United States.

And yes you can tell easily by reading the file in a binary reader, you can tell right away if the file is legal or not, because it is part of the adobe piracy supplement, sorry I know this was not the best way to meet you and I apologize if that puts you off, I knew this would be a hot topic, but I also knew that as a seller you want to make the most out of your work.

I have a legal team that I work with they are paid $6500.00 every year, even if they sit on their hands and do nothing, so when I need legal advice about my business online, I ask and I thought I would share that valuable information with the community because it is something that could be a real problem, I think it is very important, and I strongly feel that at least 50 percent of the providers here are in direct violation of the license terms of adobe software inc.

One thing to remember is that if an individual provides a license file, adobe probably will not care what happens, right,

The problem comes when a third party in this case Envato, provides a license based on authors, then it becomes a very real thing because then adobe is interested, because they may win a lot and they stand to get a lot in the back end here on the sale of licensed version of their software, after all pirated software, costs them billions of dollars every year.

My only point was that individuals are not a target, but companies are…

Apparently, not all of the authors here are using a valid version of Adobe products, which is required in order to produce files for sale commercially.

Educational versions and pirated versions of adobe software cannot be used to distribute adobe based files.

This is a huge problem and it only came to a head when Envato changed the way they licensed the files they sell here, as long as they stated that the user is responsible for the files they sell, and they them selves did not provide a license policy, then all was well.

But then Envato began to license files as a third party to the adobe license agreement, which is prohibited by the adobe agreement, if you dont believe that call adobe and ask them that is what I did.

Distributing third party files that are derived from educational versions of the adobe software and pirated versions of the adobe software is not a legal distribution.

This is why I cant take a chance on buying files here, because I have no way of knowing who has a valid license to distribute adobe files here and who does not,

so technically what you are saying is that you will never buy anything in digital form from the internet? People could be using illegal operating systems, word, excel, photoshop, flash to name a few. You cannot tell what a user is using, it is not your responsibility either. If people are selling here you must assume they have the correct license, you cant tell??!! For all we know the BBC could have a cracked version of dreamweaver??!?

The problem you are stating is true of all digital marketplaces, not just here…

You should be concerned not mad, think of it, the most recent new license that was presented just yesterday, what if you ended up in the middle of a fight between two big companies, would you really want to be there?

I am not the one you should be mad at,