(noobish question) re-use traktor on another computer?
yeah i know this is a noobish question but since its my first time with digital stuff please bare with me 
is it possible to activate a version of traktor then like on lots of software out there deactivate it then reactivate it somewhere else or even same computer later on ? 
muchos thanks and gracias
You can have Traktor installed on 2 machines at one time.
All you need to do is uninstall Traktor from a machine to regain that installation.
Just run Service Center after uninstalling and it will unregister it from the machine.
This does not Unregister your account it just unauthorsises Traktor from the particular machine.
Hope that helps
great thats exactly what i need ! i have been using demo for 10 days now on a desktop till i can get a decent laptop which will be my main pc
but that was soo annoying 
thanks alot karlos you once more save my day ! <3
No worries bro.
Btw: iām using one tsp on my vaio and on my mac both with the same serialā¦
ā¦
just to clarify:
you can re activate it on the same machine again, correct?
as long as you have one of the 2 āslotsā free
What do you do if you live in a country where youāre legally entitled to install as many copies of purchased software as you like on any computer you own?
you moan about the unfairness of it all I imagine. not that thatās ever going to help.
Which country..?
The EULA that covers Traktor is is an agreement that you make at the time of installation.
You would still be breaking the EULA with NI so they have the right to cancel your account.
Iām just curious if NI will unlock their software in order to comply with consumer protection laws.
Not with you..?
What consumer protection laws..? You are alluding to something obviously although rather purposely cryptically .
I doubt NI are breaking any laws allowing 2 Installations. Its pretty standard practice.
indeedā¦ I find it somewhat unlikely that NI can sell you 2 licences which magically become unlimited in a different country.
and consumer protection? are you threatened by the limited number of installs? itās hardly a case for the courts lol!
In many jurisdictions they donāt actually get to sell licenses, but must sell products. Thereās a bunch of legal distinctions, but itās been banned in many countries for historic reasons (abusive trade practices, basically).
Itās certainly been a case for the courts in the past! Iād love to see this go through the courts again w/ a bigger company, so the expectations and obligations become more clear.
Explained it better below. I was musing early-morning before coffee. Now Iām coherent
There are a bunch of things that are standard practice in software development/sales that arenāt actually legal in much of the world. EULAs, shrink-wrap licenses, some DRM constraints, resale prevention. Itās very murky water indeed.
Last I checked, Germany, France, Norway, Iceland, Chile. There are others, but I donāt have an encyclopediac reference offhand - lawyer friend of mine specialises in the topic (academic lawyers FTW). It was a common clause in the mid-2000s wave of copyright reform (when they legalised ripping discs to iPods and so on).
EULAs arenāt actually valid contracts in most countries (with the notable exception of the US). Theyāre agreed to after purchase, a bit like selling someone a car then refusing to give them the keys until they sign a contract. Also, most jurisdictions donāt accept clicking āI agreeā as a valid indicator of intent (like a signature or a witnessed statement).
The standard format for consumer protection laws is basically a non-contractable implicit mandatory contract: all retailers guarantee you a set of rights (which vary from country to country) when they make a sale. Non-contractable basically means that retails cannot contract out of any of their obligations: so even if you sign a waiver absolving them of consumer obligations itās not valid. The upshot of this means that anything in NIās EULA that breaches their consumer obligations (whichever laws apply) is automatically void.
NI canāt actually cancel your account without breaching their legal obligations (I suspect in pretty much all countries, certainly in NZ and Australia). In some jurisdictions they may be entitled to cancel your account if they provide a full refund, but thatās not the case in all.
The complex question is jurisdiction. Native Instruments are bound by German laws (which are quite good), but if you buy from a local retailer (say for me, the Rockshop in New Zealand) they are bound by local laws, and NI has no direct obligations. This gets kind of tricky: what it usually means is that the limit of a local retailerās capacity to address rights issues is providing a full refund.
So for example, if I buy Maschine from a local store, and NI had imposed some illegal-in-NZ restriction on it, Iād be entitled to get a full refund from that store, unless they could convince NI to fix the problem.
My brain started to reboot half way through that last post!!! Not sure what you are trying to ascertain!! Just accept that you CAN install it on 2 computers. 
Honestly?
Iām mostly just frustrated that A: Software companies (esp. music software which is very old-model) treat their customers badly/illegally, and B: that those customers donāt necessarily realise that their legal rights are being breached.
Frustrated with NI in particular right now because recently Iāve seen lots of complaints on forums about them doing things theyāre definitely not allowed to do (refusing to authorise second-hand copies, for example).
I guess I should write a āyour legal rightsā FAQ or something.
Surely there must be a legal distinction between a car and a Traktor licence. Selling someone a car with no contract does not mean that they can sell/offer for download infinite copies of that car to whoever they wish, or indeed to themselves. Selling software with an unlimited licence is financial suicide for any companyā¦
I must say I canāt profess to be an expert on the specifics of international and local licensing laws, so suffice it to say that it is unjust for a software company to be obliged to sell its products with unlimited licences. That would be carte blanche for piracy. If it isnāt law then it should be.
Please, if you do, give proper legal citationsā¦ Somethingās just not ringing true about this.
There is a law in the UK stating that all English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy. This is not enforced because it is ridiculous. If there is complaint about NI limiting the licensing of their products, I would argue not that they should release it on an unlimited licence but rather that the law be changed.
Not really. A copy of Traktor is basically like a book: no license is involved. You own that particular copy, but copyright law limits your capacity to make further copies of it (you may be able to make copies for personal use, but not to distribute, for example).
Native Instruments will try to assert that theyāre not selling a copy but a license, but this is specifically forbidden in many jurisdictions (itās something con artists used to do to circumvent fair trading laws).
Many companies sell software without DRM preventing installation on multiple computers. Itās not financial suicide at allā¦ it saves the cost of implementing DRM (which doesnāt work: itās trivial to pirate Traktor for example), and has a positive impact on sales (DRM-free products are better). Trying to limit the # of computers is a very oldskool approach now, but the music software industry is extremely backwards-looking.
Filesharing (what you call piracy) is an interesting case. Conventional wisdom suggests that it undermines profits: evidence suggests it has no impact whatsoever. Either way, itās not reasonable to undermine consumer protections to (ineffectually) combat something that is A: inevitable, and B: not a big issue (go read Geist and Lessig if you want the gnarly facts and details).
Most of the things software companies do to prevent filesharing are actually about the second-hand market. Second-hand markets are usually legally protected, but DRM to āstop the evil piratesā does a good job of shutting them down anyway.
Of course. Iād need to look up the specifics for a bunch of different countries, as well. Iām only explicitly familiar with NZ law. I suspect Iād just end up referring to Geist (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/) and (Please welcome lessig.org back from its slumber - LESSIG).
Sure, but thatās an ancient and silly law. What Iām discussing are recent (within 10 years) laws that were carefully considered, and were specifically to address behaviours by the software industry that were considered unacceptable.
There are many things that software companies would like to be true that arenāt in the interests of the public in general. We have regulation and so on to prevent them from doing anything they like.