XMOD 1.8 - Lornecash Tunaman hear me out!

I'm not really sure where to put this post because of the subject matter so I guess that Paintball Talk would be appropriate.

I am just letting the community know that I just recently purchased a set of 2 EMAG Lowers with XMOD 1.8 BETA software installed on both. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here but I want to make sure that all parties are justly compensated for their time and efforts especially Lornecash for developing such great software.

With that being said, now that I own 2 EMAG lowers with XMOD am I supposed to purchase 2 programmers from Lornecash (one for each copy of the software) to validate that the software was acquired through legal means? I have been doing a little research here on the forums and I did not realize that the unjust possession of the XMOD 1.8 BETA software has been a hot-topic debate which is why I want to be completely transparent here.

Now my intent is not to implicate anyone on just pure speculation but I would like to know what I need to do now to avoid any negative repercussions from obtaining the software second hand.

I know I am fairly new to this forum but the short time I have been here I have experienced nothing but good things in terms of its members being honest, helpful and open minded. Therefore, I make this post so I can do my part as a constructive member of this community.

So Lornecash or Tunaman, please let me know the appropriate protocol now for purchasing XMOD1.8 BETA from a 3rd party.

Best Regards,
-Fred

So you bought 2 sets of emag lowers that already had Xmod beta 1.8. As far as I know you don't have to do anything. I have an emag that I bought that has Xmod beta 1.8 on it and I've never heard about having to do anything.

It's not like you purchased the software from some dude in a back alley and are building your own data cables and selling copies of it. Or are you? If you are doing that then I could see a problem. But buying a set of lowers with the software already on it should t be an issue.

wat if he bought them both in a back alley...haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancecst

So you bought 2 sets of emag lowers that already had Xmod beta 1.8. As far as I know you don't have to do anything. I have an emag that I bought that has Xmod beta 1.8 on it and I've never heard about having to do anything.

It's not like you purchased the software from some dude in a back alley and are building your own data cables and selling copies of it. Or are you? If you are doing that then I could see a problem. But buying a set of lowers with the software already on it should t be an issue.

---

Actually Lornecash posted up some time back that because of people buying 1 system and uploading the programming on several guns that he was basically being cheeted out of his $ and that he was done making the system as a result. He requested that anyone who purchased a lower without the programmer send him $50 for his time and work for each lower they had it on.

I can kinda see both sides on this. He isn't getting paid for the extra guns that it was uploaded on. On the other hand people like me with a mac based computer system cannot use the programmer and he has made no progress to accomodate the mac users. (Oh...and by the way I don't own anything with his system on it. Never have)

License intent was per individual, not marker. License yourself once via the $50 fee, and you can have it on as many markers as you like.

PayPal: pniedfeldt@gmail.com

I just spoke with him and bought a programmer (yes, he still has some) a few months back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nak81783

License intent was per individual, not marker. License yourself once via the $50 fee, and you can have it on as many markers as you like.

---

This has been said before and will be said again, but it doesn't really vibe with the First-Sale Doctrine - as long as the seller is not left with access to the software, they can sell it to a new user and the developer is entitled to absolutely nothing. If the seller has two markers that he/she has paid to be flashed to Xmod (through the appropriate means) and chooses to sell one, technically they have purchased two licenses and are losing access to one of them, so again the developer would be entitled to no part of the sale price.

Technically if someone owns a set of lowers that has been flashed to Xmod through the proper channels and acquires a second set of lowers with an identical generation of the software or has a second set of lowers flashed "the wrong way", they would not owe anything to the developer. That's where it gets hairy; either they need to sell both sets to the same person (and so on and so on) or flash the second set back to stock when selling the first.

To the OP: you shouldn't have to pay a dime. It is up to the seller to ensure that Lornecash is or was properly compensated. Paying Lornecash multiple times for the same program on the same marker is just forking over money for no reason. I'd love to set up a business model where multiple people send me money for one delivered product.

I admit that I do not know the legality of it. My last post was the "intent" of how it was to work. I was fortunate. My situation was clear. The marker I bought didn't have XMod, I wanted XMod, so I had to pay for XMod.

I take the following approach:

1. Lornecash did those with multiple markers a favor by requiring an individual license rather than a marker license. Did that allow him to be paid by multiple people for the same software install as the markers changed hands? Yes.

2. I think it's safe to assume there are far more markers with unpaid software than people who have purchased a marker with the software on it and paid him for it. Is it the buyer's responsibility to pay for the possible piracy of the seller? No, if the buyer does not know of its piracy or has good reason to believe it was installed legitimately.

3. At this point, it's a gut feel thing to do what's right with the information available to you. There are so many possible scenarios, it makes it difficult. One I struggle with is a person that bought a programmer, installed it on multiple markers, and sold those markers. Does the purchase of the programmer cover them all? Do all but one of the buyers need to pay? If so, which of the multiple buyers? Lornecash made great software that he was never going to get rich from, and I certainly don't think his intent was to get paid for the same software multiple times. That was just a byproduct of how he set things up (keep in mind the benefit from this in #1) that, lets be honest, probably didn't happen too many times.

The seller should have flashed the markers back to what they were before 1.8.

If the seller sold you the markers with the programmer, your fine. If not, send lorencash a email. I'm sure he'll work with ya.

Edit:
Best way to get it flashed to 1.8 for free. Find out where Loren is going to be playing next. Wait till he gets plenty drunk and leave your prized emag unattended with its vintage AGD software. It will miraculously have 1.8 on it before the nights over. :eek:

the Ando method only works when you spout that the AGD software is better than Xmod and Beemer is with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat15k

To the OP: you shouldn't have to pay a dime. It is up to the seller to ensure that Lornecash is or was properly compensated. Paying Lornecash multiple times for the same program on the same marker is just forking over money for no reason. I'd love to set up a business model where multiple people send me money for one delivered product.

---

You mean like the government who collects sales taxes on used cars?

I kind of agree with the above. It's unfortunate the way this all ended up for LC, but I also don't see whay as a buyer it should be my responsibility to pay someone for software already installed or spend the money to have to send it back to someone to downgrade it to stock software. If it was as easy as flipping a switch, maybe. But it's not. I've owned 3 sets of lower along the way and all of them had Xmod on them. I have no idea if any was "legal" or not and no way to verify. To be quite blunt, the first two sets I bought I didn't even realize there was any controversy regarding compensation or pirating etc. I only read something about it after I had owned them for over a year or more.