Activations of a product purchased from the marketplace were taken away - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Maybe after so many pages you have forgotten - no one has taken valid activations - real activations on different "hardware".
every product on the market has in the product description -- Activations: 10 (number specified) -- i.e. the sale promises that the product will have 10 activations.
nowhere in the rules does it say that there are real activations and bonus activations or any other classification of activations -- it says clearly -- 10 activations and that's it.
on what basis a customer who bought a product -- now only has 5 activations.
Moreover, he was told that he is "so-and-so", that you received a service, that you were given a gift, that you were given a freebie and so on.
where does that come from?
Once again, no one has taken away valid activations (those that have worked, activated by the buyer).
Once again, no one has taken away valid activations.
Let's put it this way: not given, taken away the opportunity to activate as many times as was paid for
Once again -- no one has taken away valid (triggered, activated by the customer) activations.
I bought a "kitchen sponge" in the shop -- there are 6 of them -- it says "20% bonus", i.e. one sponge is given on top as a bonus.
I go to the cash register, pay -- then the receptionist comes up to me and takes one sponge away -- and says, "it's gone, it's gone".
they say, how come -- and they tell me -- "if they had already been consumed, no one would have taken the 6th sponge" -- and they add, "we didn't take the five sponges, we just took the bonus 6th one"
p.s. even so -- it wasn't the administrator who took it, it was the manufacturer.
I go to the administration -- and the administration says "so 5 sponges were guaranteed to you by the shop, what are the claims"
Somehow the discussion is zigzagging in radically opposite directions. If I may, I will try to focus the discussion on the essence of the conflict that has arisen.
Under the terms of the "marketplace" service, not five (or any other number of) copies of a software product are sold, but only ONE, with the number of possible activations of that copy not exceeding the number of times specified in the terms of sale. Thus, the good faith execution of the offer by the buyer should look like this - one copy is installed and used for work (trade, research, experimentation) on one terminal, while he has the opportunity to reactivate the same single installed copy when upgrading the hardware or reinstalling the system several times (the number of activations, agreed upon the sale). In other words, the number of activations should not be confused with the number of multi-user licenses. On this basis, in the situation described by the starter, he clearly violated his part of the terms of the offer.
But on the other hand, both the service "market" and the seller of the product, in my opinion, are wrong in not recognizing the number of activations initially declared as an integral feature of the product sold. It makes sense that the properties of the product (or price, or number of activations, or any other parameters) changed by the seller during the sale should only apply to the product purchased after such changes. And a breach by the buyer of terms agreed upon at the time of purchase (by the way, and not fixed or proven unequivocally) is not an excuse for the opposite side of the conflict.
I will now try to get to the constructive points:
1- I believe that in this particular case it is worth the service to return the activations agreed at the time of his purchase to the topstarter;
2- In order to avoid future violations of the terms of the sale, it would be reasonable to slightly adjust the protection mechanism of the sold products so that each subsequent activation would invalidate the previous one.
It's like that, but not like that - read the rules at https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/rules:
4.10. An individual protected version of the Product is automatically created for each Buyer, allowing use only on the equipment (computer hardware configuration and operating system type) from which the purchase request was made.
The Product is bound to specific devices and a specific copy of the operating system. Therefore, the protection prevents the Product from running even if the hardware is changed to a completely similar one or if the operating system of the same type is reinstalled.
4.11. The fact of the purchase of the Product is recorded in the Buyer's account.
4.12. The fact of creating a secured version of the Product for the configuration of the Buyer's equipment is called Activation.
4.13. The number of free Activations of the Product available to the Buyer on other equipment after the purchase of the Product shall be determined by the Seller. The minimum number of such Activations is 4.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that the Buyer who purchased the Product for personal use cannot use the Product on two different computers at the same time.
That's right, but not that - read the rules:
4.10. An individual protected version of the Product is automatically created for each Buyer, allowing use only on the equipment (computer hardware configuration and operating system type) from which the purchase request was made.
The Product is bound to specific devices and a specific copy of the operating system. Therefore, the protection prevents the Product from running even if the hardware is changed to a completely similar one or if the operating system of the same type is reinstalled.
4.11. The fact of the purchase of the Product is recorded in the Buyer's account.
4.12. The fact of creating a secured version of the Product for the configuration of the Buyer's equipment is called Activation.
4.13. The number of free Activations of the Product available to the Buyer on other equipment after the purchase of the Product shall be determined by the Seller. The minimum number of such Activations is 4.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that the Buyer who purchased the Product for personal use cannot use the Product on two different computers at the same time.
I wonder if he has read rule 4.13.
Paragraph 4.13
4.13. The number of free Product Activations available to the Buyer on other equipment after the purchase of the Product shall be determined by the Seller. The minimum number of such Activations is 4.
-- it is not said that the number of activations may be reduced after the purchase of the Product.
And that is the problem that is being discussed and that is the problem stated by the topicstarter.
I wonder if he read rule 4.13.