My apologies if i offended, it was not my intent. it was mearly an observation of current posts at the time. Cant believe this thread is still going tho..lol
just got off work and blam top of the charts! People will always be all across the board on this thread as it mixes alot of personal belief with facts.

I thought about this.. but do you really think Crestron wants to put themselves in a position where they have to choose sides?

In cases where the CI is gone forever.. the customer would be happy and Crestron would be the hero.

In cases where theres a billing dispute or a court case or whatever reason for argument people can come up with :) .. They either make the end user or the dealer angry.

I simply gave my opinion on the topic at hand.




Your completely useless, and rude, response has accomplished what?

Business is tough, and all kinds of companies are looking for a new revenue stream...

So Julie, call AMX and Crestron directly and see if they would be willing to offer an escrow service to the clientele for an annual charge.

Who better to hold the code than the people the client will wind up calling when his integrator falls off the map? :)

(I paid a lot of money for your equipment, and now I can't upgrade it!)

Wrong answer.

I should replace my 6 yr old DVD player with another exact match so I don't need to change the code??

Sources are disposable, and the technology of video distribution, CCTV, and other technologies mean that upgrades involove new gear.

I want to replace a DVD player with a Blu-Ray player (or media server)... Start over.

I want to upgrade my video matrix distribution from component to HDMI... Start over.

I want to replace my baseband quad CCTV system with a digital DVR system.... Start over.

I want to add my iPod into the system... Start over.

The source code needs to be available down the road, even if that it as a price (then or now).

Seems to me, that this thread consists of 2 viewpoints:

1. Customer Centric: The customer should have access to the source, so that modifications are straight forward if a piece of equipment fails or is upgraded, the original company goes out of business, or loses the source themselves! (Yes, it was a CI in this forum that posted about this occuring.)

2. Installer Centric: The user only has a license to use the software. If they need an upgrade, equipment change, etc, they need to go back to that source. The thinking being that giving the customer the source code, means that other CI firms could profit from the original CI's code being used on other jobs.

Seems to me, that no educated consumer is going to pick #2. They either are not thinking about what can happen (source code lost in a fire at the CI's house, etc), or they are not aware this is an issue in the first place.

The only real argument the CI's have as to why not to give out the code, involves the fact that they may use modules, which are developed by them, and therefore their property.

Solution:

Grant owners a license for the code, with the ability to change and recompile, as long as no module is used at any other physical address. The owner would be supplied a disk at the time the system is completed, and signed off as complete, and payment in full is received by the installer.

Some CI's may believe this still does not protect them. They argue that other firms may copy the work anyway. This is a possibility. I would suggest having customers sign a document, that states they are responsible for ensuring the code is not used at other addresses, and that any breach of this duty, shall be compensated for by paying $ "insert amount here" as liquidated damages. I suggest installers then sprinkle traceable customer unique values in the modules in various locations, so identifying the source of a code infringement becomes fairly easy.

Note that my experience with software, and some discussions I've had with lawyers in this area, have brough up the following points.

1. Copyright for a work is generally considered as owned by the author. This is subject to a case of a "work made for hire". Here the person for whom the work was made is deemed to be the author unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.
(So those CI's who feel they own the work, and have not supplied a license for the software, well... you just gave away your rights.)

2. If you value the code as your work product, take ownership. Put copyright statements in the source, and probably one should be viewable in the completed system if at all practical. Not doing so may impair your ability to enforce copyright.

3. Maintain a complete list of licenses. Failing to do so in a complete and consistent manner, impunes your credibility with a court, and may hurt your ability to enforce copyright.

4. Not granting a license with clear terms, may violate "Fair Use" copyright stipulations. For example, one might argue in court that after paying $50,000 to automate a home, that it is reasonable to expect that when they wish to replace a DVD player, that another CI firm not have to start "from the gound up", and redevelop all code. Not granting clear terms would invoke fair use.

There are many more, as I am not a legal expert in copyright. It is clear that after reading most of the responses in this forum, that most of the CI's who feel they "own" the code supplied to customers, have not taken the steps to protect that code. They are relying on the ability to keep the code a secret.

This brings me to an important idea:

How often do you run into a situation where the source is not available, and changes to the code are therfore not possible?

How much would customers typically pay, to have this remedied?

I'm pretty good at hacking security systems... :-)

Would this be a useful service?

No, because there is nothing to hack. The only code on the control systems is the compiled code. Nothing can be done with it. The source code itself is still in possession of who ever wrote it, it's does not get loaded onto the control system in the case of AMX and Crestron.

Before some nincompoop :p wants to argue the point, yes it is possible to store the source code on the system, but it's rarely ever done and would have to be purposely done by the programmer.

I think this whole thing is a recipe for disaster. If there is one thing I have learned over the years it is that people hear what they want to hear and everything is subject to interpretation. Julie I just cant help but think that you will be doing both sides of the equation a disservice by even bringing this up. I for one can tell you that not one of my clients is going to read anything you come up with, however I bet allot of guys out there are not in the same situation. You can't seriously come into this installers forum ask our opinions, then tell us you are on the side of the consumer and trying to be certain they are "informed". It is just not your place to tell any of us how to do business nor is it your place to tell consumers not to do business with people that don't agree with your opinion.

If you had even the slightest clue about what it is you were talking about then I am certain you would feel differently. The kind of people that buy a system that requires $50k worth of programming are the same type of people that piss away 10 times that on an annual basis. The people you will reach are the type of people that know just enough to be a pain in the ass.

If a client asked, YES I would give them the code/file.
If people feel it’s the end users right to have a copy of the file that is running their system then is it fair to add a “deadbeat” function?
Say a timer shuts down the system after 120 days if not disabled by the programmer. If the client hasn’t paid in full then the CI wouldn’t give the docs/files and the client would be forced to call.

I’m tired of clients holding balances over my head to feel comfortable that I would return to change favorites or do additions.

Actually, I am aware that the source is very likely not present. I have written "Inverse Compilers". Typically the code will be more difficult to view, as variables will have meaningless names (although I can allow the person viewing the inverse compile the option of changing variable reference names).

If someone then knows about what they are looking for, and about where to look for it, it is possible to update the code and recompile.

People keep adding all sorts of red herrings that have nothing to do with the issue. No one has suggested you have to provide all the code before you are paid in full.

Vincent,

You sure are engaging in a lot of strong launguae just because someone (Julie) has a different option. Are you going to accuse me of not understanding the issue because I happen to (generally) agree with Julie. I say generally because neither she or I have fully elaborated on our beliefs in this thread and we may not be in total agreement. Anyhow, does not seem like a very effective way of informing her if you think she is uninformed.

You also sure do seem threatened by the idea of consumers being informed about this.

I think, if it were possible, that I would give a client my program file in a "load only" format, with maybe a document that shows the macros and such.

Personally for things like small URC and RTI systems, this point is just silly. Where it becomes an issue is with custom built graphics and written code that the client receives but probably isn't being charged for the actual time it took to build those graphics or code.

I know that Crestron/AMX system modules are where this area really b/c sticky b/c the client is not being charged for 100 hours for a single module that you perfected a year ago.

Sure you can write up a copyright, but how in the hell would you enforce it or ever find out, really.

I think how you sell the system can also determine who owns the programming, if you are charging hourly to put together a program, to me that's very similar to being an employee of a company that you write software for and they own.

On the other hand, if you sell a complete fixed price control system that you have developed the layouts and graphics for and the customer is simply purchasing an end product, well that's it.

Is either way right, I don't know, but I don't think that WE should just give away our creativity and time spent in developing custom, creative graphic sets or well written modules.

The problem with having the client purchase it, is that THEY won't be the one using it. It will be another CI company there tweaking and now having full access to all of your labor FOR FREE!

I do have to say this, if you are gonig to B!T<|-| About giving away your programming software. YOU DAMN WELL BETTER NOT BEING STEALING/DOWNLOADING MUSIC, MOVIES, & SOFTWARE FROM PEER-TO-PEER SITES!

I don't think that anyone here doesn't want the consumer to be informed. The problem is that if you only give one side or don't fully show both sides then the consumer isn't fully informed. The consumer NEEDS to also know why we don't want to just give OUR work up like it's worthless. My clients haven't paid me for the THOUSANDS of hours I've spent making templates or bitmaps so they HAVE NOT paid for the complete programming. What about the ideas that didn't work out that I spent time on. If I hadn't been doing the programming on my dime then I might not have known that the design didn't work right until I tried it on the clock on a clients remote. If it takes me 30mins to program a clients remote because I have a proven easy to use template made up should they only be charged for 30mins? Nope they get billed for what it would take to create a new remote. I'm sorry a business is not a charity and therefore we are in business to make money.

The problem is that if this article is written and I charge an extra fee for the program that's on the remote and the guy down the street doesn't then I lose business and quite honestly it doesn't matter if he is a horrible programmer. So now they have a horribly programmed remote and they tell their friends it's the worst thing they ever bought. Now it makes it that much harder for me to get people to buy the one thing that will make their system the easiest to use.

Prime example is that I have a client whose house was on the COVER of Electronic House. They are going to be building another house in the next two years and they have already said that they will not get another distributed A/V system because the whole house audio is too complicated to use and they spent way too much money on it. I am trying to talk them into letting me change out the keypads but they don't want to put anymore money into the system. A good system programmed badly is very bad for our industry.

An escrow system would work great!! I have purchased all the domain names that I think would work well for an AV escrow company and will have something up soon. It won't be cheap but at least there will be a middleman. Oh wait what if I go out of business? Then we're back in the same boat. Ehh oh well I guess.

Do I have permission to add this to my list of all time ridiculous business ideas? Let's see:

1. You are in the business so you are ostensibly asking your competitors to store their code with you.

2. This is just who people want to store their code with - a brand new business with 0 experience and 0 infrastructure set up for it.

There are already any number of established companies set up for this type of thing. Also, the good ones also have a system in place if disaster were to befall the escrow company (one of your points I did not quote) so that's a red herring too.