VueSCAM!

[Jeff Randall]

IF and ONLY IF Joe tried the VueScan demo with his scanner and images
and it worked without the lines problem and after registering, VueScan
did not work, then he wasn't scammed or ripped off. He still hasn't
answered the *key* question if he did or did not test VueScan before he
purchased a license.

Jeff Randall

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

IF and ONLY IF Joe tried the VueScan demo

I don't think so. Ed's disclaimers in respect of refunds are certainly
not sustainable under UK law, and I suspect EU and US law too, and would
fail in any court of law if challenged. Disclaimers, by law, are not
permitted to infringe a purchaser's statutory rights.

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1968 and subsequent updates, a product must
be fit for purpose (note that does not mean fault free) and it must
deliver the claims made for it by the manufacturer or supplier.
Suggesting "test before use" does not invalidate the obligations of the
vendor to deliver what is claimed.

Some of Ed's claims are very questionable in factual terms, for example:
"VueScan gives you improved color accuracy and color balance, increases
your productivity and saves you money"

It clearly doesn't deliver the first of these if it creates lines that
aren't present in the native scanner's software, consequently it also
fails to deliver the penultimate and final claims too.

The purchaser may well have tested the product and found it failed to
deliver the promises yet, believing the claims, paid for the full
version in the hope that it overcame the problems he had found. We all
know that certain features of Vuescan are not available to the
unregistered user, so full "testing" is simply impossible in any case.
No disclaimers or free testing of full or crippled modes infringe the
buyer's statutory right to a full refund if the product fails to deliver
the claims made for it.

Bart's example earlier in this thread, from Canon, is interesting. I
was one of the main UK protagonists against Epson when they had a
similar problem with their printers a few years previously, and it
really comes down to what was claimed for the product. When they
launched the 870/1270 printers, Epson claimed that their prints could be
handled just like ordinary store photos and would not fade for 27 years.
Like Canon users now find, these dye prints fade under certain
atmospheric conditions (free air movement across a high gloss micropore
print surface caused oxidation of the light cyan dye) in only a few
days.

After denying the problem existed, Epson were eventually forced to offer
to buy back all of the printers and refund all of the purchased
consumables worldwide to avoid major court cases in several countries.
The series of printers which had been sold with the generic "fading"
claims was withdrawn and a new, virtually identical series the
890/1280/1290, was released but with limited claims. Epson no longer
claim their prints can be handled like normal photos or refer to a
generic fade time. They invented a new term "lightfastness" - which
means the fading effect caused by light alone. Since the dye prints
were fading due to atmospheric oxidation (as are Canon's) this
effectively absolves Epson from that particular responsibility. One
good point is that this debacle encouraged Epson to switch to pigment
inks, and eventually resin encapsulated pigments rather than dye inks,
and now offer light fastness of over 100 years. They also have
extremely good atmospheric oxidation fastness, but Epson don't claim
that - once stung...

I don't know what claims Canon made for the printers, papers and inks
that Bart bought, but if they made the same mistake as Epson did then
the best recourse is to the small claims court to recover your personal
costs and, if enough users can get together, through a joint court
action - Canon would probably settle out of court as a cheaper
alternative to a full product recall, as Epson did. However, given the
publicity that the Epson debacle received, I would be surprised if Canon
had made such wide ranging claims for their product in the first place.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Bart's example earlier in this thread, from Canon, is interesting.

Actually, it was ThomasH's example.

Bart

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

SNIP

Actually, it was ThomasH's example.

Yes, you are right of course - sorry about that. Same principle applies
though.

 

[Jeff Randall]

Kennedy: You have convincingly presented the legal perspective, but
there often is a big difference between what is legal and common sense.


jr

I don't think so. Ed's disclaimers in respect of refunds are certainly
not sustainable under UK law, and I suspect EU and US law too, and would
fail in any court of law if challenged. Disclaimers, by law, are not

permitted to infringe a purchaser's statutory rights.

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1968 and subsequent updates, a product must
be fit for purpose (note that does not mean fault free) and it must
deliver the claims made for it by the manufacturer or supplier.
Suggesting "test before use" does not invalidate the obligations of the
vendor to deliver what is claimed.

Some of Ed's claims are very questionable in factual terms, for example:
"VueScan gives you improved color accuracy and color balance, increases
your productivity and saves you money"

It clearly doesn't deliver the first of these if it creates lines that
aren't present in the native scanner's software, consequently it also

fails to deliver the penultimate and final claims too.

The purchaser may well have tested the product and found it failed to

deliver the promises yet, believing the claims, paid for the full
version in the hope that it overcame the problems he had found. We all
know that certain features of Vuescan are not available to the
unregistered user, so full "testing" is simply impossible in any case.
No disclaimers or free testing of full or crippled modes infringe the

buyer's statutory right to a full refund if the product fails to deliver
the claims made for it.

Bart's example earlier in this thread, from Canon, is interesting. I

was one of the main UK protagonists against Epson when they had a
similar problem with their printers a few years previously, and it
really comes down to what was claimed for the product. When they
launched the 870/1270 printers, Epson claimed that their prints could be
handled just like ordinary store photos and would not fade for 27 years.
Like Canon users now find, these dye prints fade under certain
atmospheric conditions (free air movement across a high gloss micropore
print surface caused oxidation of the light cyan dye) in only a few
days.

After denying the problem existed, Epson were eventually forced to offer
to buy back all of the printers and refund all of the purchased
consumables worldwide to avoid major court cases in several countries.
The series of printers which had been sold with the generic "fading"
claims was withdrawn and a new, virtually identical series the
890/1280/1290, was released but with limited claims. Epson no longer

claim their prints can be handled like normal photos or refer to a
generic fade time. They invented a new term "lightfastness" - which
means the fading effect caused by light alone. Since the dye prints
were fading due to atmospheric oxidation (as are Canon's) this
effectively absolves Epson from that particular responsibility. One
good point is that this debacle encouraged Epson to switch to pigment

inks, and eventually resin encapsulated pigments rather than dye inks,
and now offer light fastness of over 100 years. They also have
extremely good atmospheric oxidation fastness, but Epson don't claim
that - once stung...

I don't know what claims Canon made for the printers, papers and inks

that Bart bought, but if they made the same mistake as Epson did then

the best recourse is to the small claims court to recover your personal
costs and, if enough users can get together, through a joint court
action - Canon would probably settle out of court as a cheaper
alternative to a full product recall, as Epson did. However, given the
publicity that the Epson debacle received, I would be surprised if Canon
had made such wide ranging claims for their product in the first place.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when

replying)

 

[Don]

IF and ONLY IF Joe tried the VueScan demo with his scanner and images
and it worked without the lines problem and after registering, VueScan
did not work, then he wasn't scammed or ripped off.

That's just patently wrong!

Whether he tried it or not is totally irrelevant. VueScan *claims* to
work but it *doesn't*. That's all there is to it. Case closed.

Even the fact that both Minolta and Silverfast *do* work is legally
irrelevant. VueScan makes several false claims and that's what counts.

Indeed, there are cases where manufactures even put on disclaimers but
still lose the case because the product was inherently unsafe.
Otherwise, they could put a disclaimer on a dangerous product and then
blame the customer.

Sort of like what VueScan and its proponents do... As clearly
demonstrated by your message. And that's without a disclaimer!

So he was absolutely right to call it VueSCAM!

Don.

 

[Jeff Randall]

I don't think so. Ed's disclaimers in respect of refunds are certainly
not sustainable under UK law, and I suspect EU and US law too, and would
fail in any court of law if challenged. Disclaimers, by law, are not

permitted to infringe a purchaser's statutory rights.

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1968 and subsequent updates, a product must
be fit for purpose (note that does not mean fault free) and it must
deliver the claims made for it by the manufacturer or supplier.
Suggesting "test before use" does not invalidate the obligations of the
vendor to deliver what is claimed.

<SNIP>

Kennedy: You have convincingly presented the legal side of this
problem, however there often is a big difference between what is legal
and common sense.

Jeff Randall

 

[Don]

Kennedy: You have convincingly presented the legal perspective, but
there often is a big difference between what is legal and common sense.

And that common sense should've told you that you can't evaluate
VueScan by looking at a heavily processed image whose main purpose is
to *hide* those very bugs.

You need to scan raw and that's disabled in the trial version.

Therefore, you can wiggle all you want but the facts remain:

1. "VueSCAM" *is* buggy.
2. You can't fix those bugs by blaming the customer (or anyone else).

The buck stops (literally, because he apparently never gives refunds)
with the author who demonstrably misrepresents the product.

Don.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Kennedy: You have convincingly presented the legal perspective, but
there often is a big difference between what is legal and common sense.

Would the common sense approach be to test the evaluation software
(which is partially crippled), discover a problem, ask if that problem
had been resolved in the uncrippled version (or just look at the "fixed"
statements in the version update) and then pay your money in the belief
that you are going to get what you want?

How exactly does that differ from the legal perspective that the vendor
is responsible entirely for the claims made for the product?

Irrespective of how many caveats Ed puts on his software, if someone
buys it and it doesn't do what he says, he *should* refund the payment.
In many countries that is a legal obligation. Ed has already stated
here that he blocks a whole host of registration keys for his software
at every new release, having scoured the Internet for people who are
passing them on, so adding a few more registration keys to that list,
for the people who want refunds, shouldn't be a problem.

I don't have a problem with Ed or his software, but this sort of shady
practice has no place in legitimate business, and Ed is doing himself no
favours being associated with it.

 

[drietow]

Somthing interesting here that I would be interested in knowing is,

Q) What is the exact Minolta Model scanner you are using?

Q) How well does your scanner work with the Minolta software?

Q) Who else has this scanner and is using it with Vuescan?

Q) Is the problem consistent with everyone who owns this scanner and
has tried Vuescan?

Answers to these questions may shine some light on the problem.

 

[Don]

Somthing interesting here that I would be interested in knowing is,

That has already been discussed here a lot. If you check the archives
there are reams of messages on the subject.

Q) What is the exact Minolta Model scanner you are using?

It's well known that, for all intents and purposes, VueScan doesn't
work with the 5400. There have also been occasional reports of the bug
on other scanners, and that's not only limited to other Minoltas.

Q) How well does your scanner work with the Minolta software?

It's also well known that Minolta software - and indeed Siverfast -
don't have this problem. It's a strictly a VueScan bug.

Q) Who else has this scanner and is using it with Vuescan?

Several people have written about it. VueScan has had this bug for
*two years*!

Q) Is the problem consistent with everyone who owns this scanner and
has tried Vuescan?

Yes, it is consistent, although many people may not notice it because
they don't care. This is not a criticism but not everybody views the
image at 100% (or more) magnification or cares for quality. So if
someone scans only for web or to print they may not see the bug, but
it's there all the same.

Answers to these questions may shine some light on the problem.

It clearly and unequivocally points at VueScan as the sole culprit.

Don.

 

[Wilfred]

Yes, it is consistent, although many people may not notice it because
they don't care. This is not a criticism but not everybody views the
image at 100% (or more) magnification or cares for quality. So if
someone scans only for web or to print they may not see the bug, but
it's there all the same.

This is not true. I used to have scan lines but they've gone since
VueScan 8.1.12 or so. That said, it seems to be true that VueScan has
this problem with certain units and the Minolta software hasn't. I don't
know about SilverFast because hardly anybody ever reports on SilverFast
in this newsgroup. Rumor has it that LaserSoft does not allow SilverFast
users to speak freely on public forums (perhaps it's in the EULA?).
I do agree that, from what I'm reading in this newsgroup, VueScan
doesn't work well with certain DSE 5400 scanners, and that -apparently-
the software is in need of improvement. "Works for me", yes, but it
would be better if it would work for any DSE 5400 user.

 

[Fernando]

VueScan 8.1.12 or so. That said, it seems to be true that VueScan has
this problem with certain units and the Minolta software hasn't. I don't
know about SilverFast because hardly anybody ever reports on SilverFast
in this newsgroup.

I've tried Silverfast 6 AI and it works very well with my 5400; no
clipping, no streaks. Plus, I happen to love the manual focus interface
of Silverfast.
BUT, I hate their pricing, their update policy, the fact that they did
not reply to my emails about a problem I had with a previous trial
version, the clogged and difficult to read user interface, a certain
tendency to crash or to "pause" forever in the middle of a scan...

No software is perfect, I guess; but from an image quality standpoint,
Silverfast impressed me.

BTW, later this evening I'll try again some tests on Vuescan 8.1.35 and
my Minolta. We'll see; who knows...!

Fernando

 

[degrub]

Rumor has it that LaserSoft does not allow SilverFast

users to speak freely on public forums (perhaps it's in the EULA?).

Pure speculation. For that matter, you don't find too many people
posting in this group from the drum scanning newsgroups either.

 

[Wilfred]

Pure speculation.

Not purely: http://tinyurl.com/4mpuz

For that matter, you don't find too many people
posting in this group from the drum scanning newsgroups either.

Are you suggesting that SilverFast brings any scanner up to the level of
a drum scanner, and that Siverfast scvanning results are so good that no
one bothers to post here?

 

[Dierk Haasis]

a certain tendency to crash or to "pause" forever in the middle of a scan...

Had this, more than once with the 5400 and Minolta's software; even
once with Vuescan.

After fiddling around a bit I decided to stray away from Firewire and
try out the USB. Much better since than, but still one incident of
stalling/crashing.

As long as it was only the FW connection I put it down to slightly
insufficient cables - in fact my overall cable length (Minolta to
Plextor DVD to OneTech HD to Notebook) *was* exceeding specs. With the
one incident of stalling everything with a short and direct USB2
connect I am not so sure anymore.

It may not be Lasersoft's problem.

 

[Fernando]

Well, I deinstalled the Silverfast demo (and don't want to re-install
it: any time I install/deinstall Silverfast, my Minolta Scan Utility no
longer works, complaining about a "missing profile", and I have to
re-install it) so I can't test it anymore, but Vuescan never
crashed/freezed once, in 2 years, on my machines, including the XP one
that drives the SE5400... without the awful streaks , I would love
it.

Fernando

 

[Don]

This is not true. I used to have scan lines but they've gone since
VueScan 8.1.12 or so.

They are there all right, but are just masked. Not to be confused with
fixed, because that would eliminate them for everybody.

Like the saying goes: "You can fool some of the people all of the
time..."

Rumor has it that LaserSoft does not allow SilverFast
users to speak freely on public forums (perhaps it's in the EULA?).

And that's all it is: a rumor. Where did you see it? Unless, of
course, you're trying to start a rumor... ;o)

That goes against so many laws including plain common sense... It's
just nonsense.

It's probably been started by some VueScan user, or maybe even the
author because he's been suffering from people jumping over to
Silverfast.

The only "company" I have ever seen here trying to "restrict" messages
is, well... VueScan! Of course, when the author responds to objective
fact with obscenities it's self-defeating.

I do agree that, from what I'm reading in this newsgroup, VueScan
doesn't work well with certain DSE 5400 scanners, and that -apparently-
the software is in need of improvement.

Both massive understatements... ;o)

Don.

 

[Don]

Are you suggesting that SilverFast brings any scanner up to the level of
a drum scanner, and that Siverfast scvanning results are so good that no
one bothers to post here?

I think he's simply suggesting that VueScan is not in the same league
as Silverfast. It certainly doesn't have as many bugs as VueScan.

But, then again, judging by all the messages no software seems to have
as many bugs as VueScan...

Don.

 

[Wilfred]

They are there all right, but are just masked. Not to be confused with
fixed, because that would eliminate them for everybody.

In that case, the Minolta software and SilverFast probably mask these
lines too. What's the point if you can't see them?