[GordLacey]

brobdingnagian, except that's not what they're doing. Had Loch not provided the updated scripts on his site, Kagi wouldn't have been able to update, market, and sell the new app to the list of customers they compiled from previous lists. What Kagi has done is wrong, and likely illegal.

What Kagi has done is sliiiiiiiimey.

[bastion]

ReggaeFire, on 16 August 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

henryhbk, on 16 August 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

Well, so is abandoning customers who have paid for an application... I agree charging without giving something for the developer is not great, but then again they're on the hook as the person you paid for this application to work...

It's not like he was selling this two months ago and left new customers in the lurch. The application worked just fine for three years (and in fact, will continue to work fine if you use the free updater the developer created) after he stopped developing it, to me that hardly counts as abandoning users.

As noted in the article, the issue is that he didn't really provide an "updater." He provided a few files and instructions on how to manually install them. I'd have no problem doing this; my next-door neighbor would. It seems what Kagi is selling for $5 is not a product - they don't even appear to be bundling his content - but a service. They're selling an app that automates the download, extraction and installation of those files. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. I haven't seen the e-mail so I don't know if I have a problem with how it's presented. It should have been clear to anyone that read the mail that this application was a convenience being offered by Kagi and not something from the application developer. But the key there is that the customer should bear the responsibility of actually reading; sadly, many don't.

[bastion]

wardoggie, on 16 August 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

mretondo, on 16 August 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

wardoggie, on 16 August 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Seems like a sleezy thing for Kagi to do. If the updater app would break even at $5/copy, they'd be way ahead if they just said, "Sorry, we don't support that application." I wonder what the Mac App Store TOS has to say about situations like this?

Sleezy, really, give me a break. They created a Value Add product and deserve to get paid for it. That product save me time and money and potential problems, well worth the $5. I supose you think Red Hat Linux shouldn't get paid either since it's just a install wrapper for Linux which you could do yourself. Red Hat, you sleezy bastards.

From the Techspansion site:

Quote

"vHub Updater" makes unauthorized use of our copyrighted code.

From RedHat's website:

Quote

Today Red Hat is the world's most trusted provider of Linux and open source technology.

See the difference?

The problem is this: The user is supposed to download the files and install them into the VisualHub application package. That, as far as I can see, is what the "vHub Updater" tool is doing. It downloads the files provided by the developer and installs them into the package. So is the argument that the only "authorized" use of these files involves certain approved tools to retrieve them and install them? Seriously? So if I use Terminal to install the patches instead of Finder I'm doing it wrong? What about PathFinder? What if I use wget instead of a "proper" browser for the download?

This is silly.

[bastion]

simonsterdotcom, on 16 August 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

As far as I can tell, Kagi is actually distributing (selling) Loch's copyrighted files (AppleScripts) without his permission. If this is the case, it's definitely illegal.

Then you didn't read:

According to Nethery, Kagi's software “downloads his patches, and we also download the new ffmpeg,”

Frankly, Kagi's tool could just be a shell script that uses standard shell commands to retrieve and unzip the files and move them into a copy of the app bundle.

[marcotor]

"Less is better"

Especially when "less" sends money into our bank account.

[the_guy]

I noticed Prince stopped using that name to release albums under. Since he abandoned it, I'm going to start making new albums and start touring under the name Prince. His fans have been left in the lurch, and I'm just satisfying a market hungry for new material.

Am I getting this right?

[DavidFischettio51g]

Or just use Handbrake... its free.

[Jason Snell]

Kee Nethery responded to us:

Quote

As of August 17th, Techspansion has committed to building their own updater to VisualHub. This is good news for all our mutual customers and it is good news for Kagi.

Techspansion has committed to creating their own automated updater to VisualHub before mid-September. Sales of the Kagi vHub Updater are being discontinued in anticipation of the Techspansion updater. When the Techspansion updater for VisualHub is available, VisualHub should inform the user of the update when VisualHub is launched.

Until then, our mutual customers can always do a manual update to VisualHub by following the instructions on:
http://www.techspans...com/vhlion.html

PLEASE NOTE: If you are going to attempt the manual update, please take advantage of what we have learned while providing support to previous vHub Updater customers. The latest update tips will be posted at: http://www.vhub.biz by August 18th. The current update tips are:

1. Make a backup copy of your existing VisualHub before you start modifying it.

2. Know that the update files don't work on all past versions of VisualHub. The most recent VisualHub from 2008 is 1.34.1 and the manual update does work on that version. Prior versions, when updated, can produce an ugly looking AppleScript error. If you see that AppleScript error when you launch your modified VisualHub, the manual update was not for your earlier version of VisualHub.

3. The newer and faster FFmpeg does appear to work for many users but ... some have reported problems. We don't know exactly what the cause of the problems are; FFmpeg, VisualHub, vHub Updater, or something in the Mac OS. If you are going to update FFmpeg, please make a backup copy of that Techspanion folder located in /Library/Application Support/Techspansion before you update it so that you can revert to the 2008 version of FFmpeg if needed.

[wardoggie]

bastion, on 17 August 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

The problem is this: The user is supposed to download the files and install them into the VisualHub application package. That, as far as I can see, is what the "vHub Updater" tool is doing. It downloads the files provided by the developer and installs them into the package. So is the argument that the only "authorized" use of these files involves certain approved tools to retrieve them and install them? Seriously? So if I use Terminal to install the patches instead of Finder I'm doing it wrong? What about PathFinder? What if I use wget instead of a "proper" browser for the download?

This is silly.

I don't know. Are you paying Kagi $5 to use Terminal or wget to do these things? All I did was post what was on the Techspansion site and contrast it against what's on RedHat's site to refute mretondo's assertion that what Kagi does is the same as what RedHat does. I assume that the guy who wrote the application in question, and the patch in question, would know better than you or I as to why he claims what Kagi did "makes unauthorized use" of his code.

[DocNo]

CouchGuy1, on 16 August 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

Kagi should have told people they could do the update for free and provided a link. I'm happy to pay $5 for the convenience of an updater -- but everyone should gave been told and allowed to make their own decision.

Yeah... that sounds nice, but how many people are there that will take the attitude that by them linking to it they are endorsing it and therefore should support them for the "free" solution? May seem trivial to you, but support isn't free or easy. I don't blame them in the least for not linking to the free solution. I think their analysis is spot on - those who can do the free solution on their own can find it on their own.

[bastion]

wardoggie, on 17 August 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

bastion, on 17 August 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

The problem is this: The user is supposed to download the files and install them into the VisualHub application package. That, as far as I can see, is what the "vHub Updater" tool is doing. It downloads the files provided by the developer and installs them into the package. So is the argument that the only "authorized" use of these files involves certain approved tools to retrieve them and install them? Seriously? So if I use Terminal to install the patches instead of Finder I'm doing it wrong? What about PathFinder? What if I use wget instead of a "proper" browser for the download?

This is silly.

I don't know. Are you paying Kagi $5 to use Terminal or wget to do these things? All I did was post what was on the Techspansion site and contrast it against what's on RedHat's site to refute mretondo's assertion that what Kagi does is the same as what RedHat does. I assume that the guy who wrote the application in question, and the patch in question, would know better than you or I as to why he claims what Kagi did "makes unauthorized use" of his code.

In fact, I think you *are* paying Kagi $5 to (effectively) use wget and Terminal to do the update for you. As I wrote elsewhere, it appears that the entire Kagi patcher could be written as a shell script that uses tools included with the stock OS X install. I think the guy who wrote the application in question is being a twit. (That's informed in part on previous use of one of his products and the general tone/attitude of the accompanying documentation.) He provided files with the intent that the users download them and copy them into their copy of an app. That's what this tool does. I don't see any rational way to assert that it's somehow "unauthorized" unless he plans to claim that only certain tools are acceptable mechanisms to perform that download and installation. Beyond convenience, there's no difference between his web page of instructions, Kagi's app and a shell script that invokes the command line tools.

What if Kagi's app had only done the download, requiring the user to manually do the install?
What if Kagi's app had only done the install, requiring the user to manually download?
What if Kagi's app had down the download and the install, but as separate steps requiring the user to unzip in between?

Is any of those scenarios somehow less unauthorized than what it's actually doing? Would it even make sense for there to be a difference?

[KroSha]

This is really bad behaviour from Kagi.

They abused their position of trust by using customer emails to promote their own sales.

It has absolutely no bearing on the case that development had ceased. Progress halted over 2 years ago. You use the app until it breaks and then you find a replacement, as with so many things in life. I don't recall Bantam books replacing the paperbacks that have fallen apart over the years, nor Sony replacing all my PS2 titles when I bought a PS3. OS updates may break apps and we all know it. If that app is out of production, tough.

I'd be surprised if Loch doesn't get a big settlement from this.

This post has been edited by KroSha: 18 August 2011 - 01:19 PM

[bastion]

KroSha, on 18 August 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

I'd be surprised if Loch doesn't get a big settlement from this.

I wouldn't. After all, he's suffered exactly no damages as a result. Perhaps some buyers of VisualHub might make a case that their contact information was used inappropriately. But the developer? No; can't see it.

[atl2pxr]

This is no different than paying someone for the convenience...except for the fact that the customer wasn't aware they were paying for convenience. Kagi assumed the role of the developer when they didn't disclose their role as a developer of the installer and not the patch.