This is the problem that occurs in the CI industry. I was recently soliciting a new client (an AMX authorized dealer) for some programming work and during our lunch he asked me this same question.

Any lawyer will tell you...it has to be in the contract!

For those not familiar with AMX or Crestron, giving out the code does and cannot include the software. The software is protected and would violate the dealer agreement from either. It would have to be modified by a authorized dealer.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

That's not true either. You have to be an authorized dealer to sell those products and have the ability to program them as well. So it's not fair to segregate us Crestron/AMX dealers as the only ones who could leave a client in the lurch if we go out of business.

I'm not talking about giving the consumer any right to get into the software themselves -- just the ability to give code to another authorized dealer so they don't have to reinvent the whole-house control system from scratch when a consumer wants to add a single dimmer to the AWAY scene.

If it is Crestron or AMX source code, this ability needs to be included in the contract with the originally dealer providing the programming. If the original program contains proprietary graphics and programming code, the source code should be priced and or licensed to the customer accordingly.

I don't program AMX or Crestron. I only program URC remotes. That being said, you know I'm just a small time guy. We have a retail establishment, and have been around for many years, and hope to be around for many more. We service our clients needs, after the sale, usually at a discounted rate, or free. I do not however, just give the clients the file for the remote they have purchased.

The programming software for URC is protected, and only given to authorized dealers. I'm sure, however, that it can be found around the internet, although I have never looked for it.

When I program a remote for a client, most of it is drag and drop from other files, and other clients remotes. Even the UI is pre-programmed stuff, from the URC software. I can program a remote pretty quickly and get stuff working. The extra time comes in when I start moving stuff around, and changing button bmp's, wording on the buttons, etc. including macros that work, and client supplied bmp's for backgrounds on pages.

If the client asks for a copy of the software, I password protect it, and hand it over. I do not provide the programming software from URC, nor do I provide my password. I explain to them that it is simply a back-up copy of the working remote, in case they try to tinker, and make catostrophic mistakes. It is useless without the programming software from URC. Moreover, given the learning curve of programming remotes, even those that are not AMX and Crestron, makes it prohibitive for the client to DIY the remote himself.

I feel pretty strongly about this issue. The client does not pay for all my time, learning, and storing my codes, and macros. So, they don't get to "own" it. If they get the programming software by some means other than me, and tinker with the remote, they can re-download my working program. Password protection on my file, permits this, but it does not permit reading the macros, and codes I have installed. This protects me from the next CI guy getting my education at no expense, so he can copy and use my work. (the password is only 4 characters, but at least it's something...lol)

I agree, with most CI's here, that any article printed, should consult one or more copyright attorney's opinion on the matter. To present an opinion of your's or your magazine's without such input by professionals would be less than prudent. You need to realize that people tend to believe what is printed, and take it as fact. And without facts presented by professionals, the article would do a disservice to CI's, and consumers alike.

It's been mentioned here before, and poo-poo'd but I agree with this sentiment.....you paid for the soup...not the recipe.

just my 2 cents

mike

Julie-
I agree that a dealer needs to provide a Backup of the code, I know with AMX you can provide this with out the actual proprietary modules the touch panel files are a different story. Client should be able to request these files or put them in escrow (I am with 39 cent on the code bank).
Now here is where you, Julie, are getting silly, how is buying Control4 (or any of the other companies you referred to) is any better, do you know how many PHAST system are out there with out any replacement parts, the dealer is still around the code is there but NO Parts, at least with AMX, Crestron and Lutron you have track record what does C4 have, 3 years of existence, how about home logic. I can give you a list of product and companies that promise the world (some you actually wrote about with admiration) and are now gone with clients stuck with no help or spare parts.
This is a public form and you are supposed to be a non bias editor, you starting to sound like a spokes person not consumer advocate.

Over the past couple of years, we've found ourselves working for several wealthy customers that have had $100K plus systems installed in previous homes. In one case, the customer said he would not even talk to us if we proposed a Crestron or AMX system. He had been burned in the past by an a..h... installer who held his system hostage, then disappeared "I've got a box of worthless stuff that I paid $100K for"

The second customer has the same box of stuff, but from two homes, by two different installers. One went out of business, the other will not return his calls. He chose us because Crestron was not in our list of products.

A third customer is a home owners association in a nice condo complex downtown. they can's use the system in their entertainment room. No code, and no more installer.

I'm not saying that all Crestron or AMX dealers are like this. We all know differently. The fact is, my business is benefiting from the crappy ones, and the ones that don't provide their codes. The arrogance, greed and bad business management of some is directly benefiting me. By all means, please continue to hold on to your precious intellectual property, I'll pick up your customers when they drop you. (yes, there's a hint of sarcasm in my voice.)

I just have a hard time taking myself that seriously. About the last thing I worry about is someone stealing my ideas. I do right by my customers. The like me, they like the people around me. I fix stuff when it goes haywire. Their systems work. They tell their friends.

There are definitely some interesting legal issues here, and I am pursuing them, but that's not what this story is about.

It's not what RIGHTS the client has or what they're ENTITLED to. It's about knowing the issues before you hire an installer.

Currently, the thought would never occur to a customer that all programming could be lost, and systems rendered useless, if they can't provide the source code to a different installer.

As a consumer, I would like to know that this is an issue I should bring up with the contractor, and that there are some programmers that WILL release the code (for a fee, in escrow or whatever) and others that will not part with it in any circumstances.

I personally would base my selection of integrators on this issue.

I think that most of the posters here have staked out a position without considering what the real issue is.

The fact is that both sides have a point, the issue/problem is contract verbiage and disclosure. The client should know up front what he is buying and what the ramifications of his purchase are. If both you and the client agree that for X price he gets why Y, then no problem.

There is also no reason that this could not be used as a new profit center, why not word your contract so that for an additional fee that client gets the source code?

Personally I have always given my client's the source, I'd rather keep them with good customer service as opposed to holding them hostage. So if any of you guys inherit a job where all the source code is in a jump drive zip tied to the processor, it was probably mine;)

Hopefully this would only be a small part of the equation. I think some more important issues would be to look at what the individual companies in your area are providing.

You walk into shop #1 and they are pitching an AMX system and the GUI looks like a 4 year old did it and requires instruction from the salesman on how to turn on the TV but they will give you all your code when the system is done.

You walk into shop #2 and their AMX touchscreen in the waiting area is beautifully designed and you are able to instantly walk up to it and easily find your favorite song and play it without speaking to a single person. However during the meeting you discover that they consider their GUI and programming to be company intellectual property and you are only receiving the right to use it..


Question... Do you go with the company that has the shitty GUI and system that most likely reflects the inner workings of the company itself? Or do you go with the company with the well thought out design that likely has years of experience and developement behind the design, and most likely the same applies to the daily operations of the company as well?

Will company 1 or 2 most likely be around to service you in the future? If company 1 closes, which could be very likely from what you have seen what good does it do to own the right s to a turd of a program? Hopefully as a consumer you have also done additional homework and checked references and so on and your decision has left you working with a reputable company, (that by the way most likely will not be the cheapest) with many happy past and current clients that will promote the company in the future and holds a strong position in the community.

Then again, anything can happen..

YES EXACTLY

even URC's is easy to find.



Universal Remote Control, Inc. End User License Agreement

IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY
This End User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legally binding agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Universal Remote Control, Inc. for the Universal Remote Control software that accompanies this EULA ('SOFTWARE'), including all updates, revisions, subsets and supplements of the original SOFTWARE and the accompanying documentation if any. By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms herein. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE.


GRANT OF LICENSE
Universal Remote Control, Inc. grants you a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use the SOFTWARE only in accordance with the programming manual and solely in combination with the appropriate Universal Remote Control device that has been obtained through an authorized source.

RESTRICTIONS
Universal Remote Control, Inc. grants no rights of ownership. You may not disassemble, reverse engineer, decompile, translate or otherwise convert the SOFTWARE to any form that can be read and/or understood by humans to the extent that the contents are revealed. The SOFTWARE may contain Trade Secrets. Unauthorized use or disclosure of the SOFTWARE may cause irreparable harm to Universal Remote Control, Inc.

THIS SOFTWARE MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRADED, DISTRIBUTED FOR A FEE OR DISSEMINATED TO OTHERS BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.

COPYRIGHT
The SOFTWARE is protected by U.S. and international laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold.

WARRANTY
This product is provided "AS IS" and without warranty of any kind, neither expressed nor implied.

LIMITATION OF REMEDIES
UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ALLEGED TO ARISE FROM USE OF THIS SOFTWARE EVEN IF NEGLIGENCE CAN BE ESTABLISHED. IN NO EVENT SHALL UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) FOR DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, OR LOSS OF REVENUE OR PROFITS, LOSS OF BUSINESS, LOSS OF INFORMATION OR DATA, SOFTWARE OR APPLICATIONS OR OTHER FINANCIAL LOSS ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABILITY OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE TO THE FULL EXTENT THESE DAMAGES MAY BE DISCLAIMED BY LAW.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Universal Remote Control, Inc. may, at its sole discretion, provide limited technical support, training, documentation and/or other forms of information applicable to the SOFTWARE. In every case, the technical support, training, documentation and/or other forms of information are offered "AS IS" and are governed by the terms of the WARRANTY and LIMITATION OF REMEDIES as indicated above.

APPLICABLE LAW
This EULA is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

If all your article is simply saying 'make sure if you go with Crestron or AMX that part of your installation includes getting a copy of the program at the end', I have no issues with that sentiment. However, if you plan on making an entire article out of this, I can't really see how you'd be able to fill a page except to convey the horror stories of not getting the code and hence shedding a negative light on the founders of this industry, which IMO is a major conflict of interest if you are the editor of both the consumer mag and the trade mag. For example, I seem to remember an artical in the past you did on the Control4/Sony factory built whole house rack that if IIRC you were very much FOR the idea of the CI fading out of the picture (not those words exactly and I also can't seem to find the article). Now you're about to do an article that furthers that position. This shows favoritism to certain manufactures you highlight on the the trade side, while also promoting them also on the consumer side. One has to naturally wonder if you are getting something on the side to do so. Sorry if I got the article reference wrong.

Added: Or is this just a matter of who has the most advertising dollars? If thats the case, every page in both mags should have a foot note that says 'paid advertisement'.