Is DXO license legal?

A while back I purchased a DXO license primarily for its perspective correction features. I use a Nikon D300 body and my main post-production software is Lightroom. DXO only gets loaded once in 6 months, but then it is quite useful.

Recently I saved up and added a Nikon D700 body to my kit bag. I then discovered that the DXO software that I had purchased does not allow me to process any images from my D700, unless I pay an extra $100 to DXO. This is in spite of no extra features and in fact not even higher pixel count - as the D700 has the same number of pixels as the D300, just that it is FX not DX.

I have logged a complaint with DXO, quoted below:

================================
Dear DXO,

I have recently spent considerable amount of my cash to add a Nikon D700 body to my D300 outfit. I now find that DXO expects me to pay another $100 for the privilege of using the software that I had already got and paid for! This is totally unacceptable. Especially as the D700 has the SAME number of pixels as the D300. So you are demanding that I pay you more money just because the pixels contents are cleaner?!

That's like VW charging me more if I get into my VW Golf wearing a suit than if I get into the car wearing jeans!

I do not think this is legal. It is simply extortion. You have provided a software product, which I have paid for, and now I am prevented from using. This sounds illegal and is certainly unethical.

Unless you upgrade my license at no extra cost, I shall put this complaint on DPREVIEW and every other photo blog I can find, to warn people about the way DXO does (or tries to) business.

In contrast my Lightroom product keeps on getting better with each upgrade, and I was more than happy to pay for the extra functions with version 3. In contrast to DXO, where I am expected to pay just to use the same features, purely because I bought another camera body.

==============================
I am curious as to their response, if any.

I wonder what rights a software vendor has over the use of its product by people that have paid for the program.

Will they add a surcharge if my images contain more then three faces, or if the images have commercial value? Or perhaps if the ISO falls outside a certain range, or if I used a tripod? Surely this is ridiculous and I can't see how it can be legal.

I would like to hear your opinions, and if you should agree with me , then I encourage you to complain to DXO.

Merry Christmas, people,
--
paul szilard
http://photos.remektek.com.au

I am sure it is legal and that DXO will justify it. I believe that almost all software houses do this in some form or another - starting with Microsoft. Whether it is morally justifiable depends on your perspective but until restrictive practices are illegal software companies will use this method to maximise profits.
Claude

DxO Labs sels two editions: Standard and Elite.

Both have the same features, the only diference is that Elite covers the high-end cameras and all other cameras covered by the Standard one.
Go to: " http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/for_your_equipment "

and click on "Standard or Elite?" to verify in which version your cameras are located.
Obviously there is a difference in price between the two.
--
gianni44

The other thing that people seem to forget is that it takes a lot of work for companies like DXO and Adobe to offer support for new cameras. The fact that Adobe gives you free updates to ACR as long as you have the current version of Photoshop puts Adobe ahead of the pack here.

Camera companies generally provide little help to companies like DXO or Adobe when it comes to them supporting the new cameras. This means Adobe and DXO and others have to take the files apart and figure out how they work. This takes time, man power and money especially if it is going to be done right. Add to that that DXO also has to ad lens support for all of their automatic processing features and you have an even larger expense for them.

Hell some companies take more than a year to add new camera support if at all and often times when they do it isn't that good.

The other thing ones need to realize is that none of these companies are under any obligations to do any of this. They could all tell you to use the 99% of the time poor software that ships with the camera and if you need something more than what it offers saving as a TIF or JPEG and then load it in.

People need to stop expecting so much for free. I have no idea where people got the idea that so much should be for free when at no time in history has anything of value been free.

Either that or you all need to start expecting poor quality results if you expect companies to do all of this backwards engineering for free.

Frankly you all come across as a bunch of cheap whiners.

Robert
--

TSA: You can't see London and you can't see France, until we see your underpants.
TSA: If we did our jobs any better we would have to buy you dinner first.
TSA: Touch, Squeeze, Arrest.
TSA: We are now free to move about your pants.

Yes even Q-image has discoverd that this (life-time free upgrades) cannot go on forever.

Paul,

Gianni is right. Unless you purchased the Elite edition, you have to pay what they want which is crazy because if you bought the standard and now paying 100.00 more then for that that total amount, you could have bought the Elite version. I know nothing about this company as I do not use them.

Good luck to you Paul.

--
Melissa
PBASE Supporter

RobertBarnett said:

. This means Adobe and DXO and others have to take the files apart and figure out how they work. This takes time, man power and money especially if it is going to be done right.

Click to expand...

it does not - there are very few (if any at all) changes... just check sequential releases of dcraw to see how many changes there are in fact, you will see very little code added... most of the work is to build color profiles (and lens profiles), which involves shooting targets, etc

--