Spectrasonics license transfer fee - unkindness behavior?

[Keith99]

I am really not sure if it is legal for them to charge a fee. I suspect if a case about software resales was to go through the EU thay would not approve a fee. Surely if you purchase something you should be able to sell it on? What other product requires extra expense to the original compnay when you sell on? The only reason they can do this is due to the nature of software. Hmm. I know that wehn you buy software you buy a license to use it not actually the software but even so.

[nanotone]

No disrespect, but isn't the point that if you're selling the software you're not a loyal customer? So it's not about them punishing customer loyalty, as you say.

I don't think there's anything disloyal about selling some software you're no longer using. Shouldn't the emphasis be on giving you a satisfactory experience so that you'll want to come back? So that you'll tell all your friends about this cool synth from this cool company?
THAT's creating customer loyalty, not shackling them to their license when they no longer want or need the software (a la Cakewalk), or charging them exorbitant transfer fees for what amounts to a simple change in their database and the exchange of a few emails.

Software companies have found a way to get what hardware/physical goods companies have probably been wishing for...not only to you have to sell your software at a loss (has it deteriorated in some way?) when you sell a "used" copy of the soft, but you also have to pay the original vendor a fee to do so.

If you sell a CD you no longer want/need to a used CD store, you take a hit on the price you paid because the item's used, and that CAN mean something relevant to the condition of the item. But you don't have to pay Sony/BMG a transfer fee for the right to re-sell it...but they certainly wish you did.

I fully agree with you!

[jeffb01]

yes, it's a little frustrating - $50 is a lot. That's what Fxpansion charges too, It seems excessive, but at least it went smooth as opposed to NI, who I had to email 3 times to remove my s/n (though it was free). I took a bigger loss on bfd but in the end, if you're not going to use the software anyway, $150 isn't bad money towards your korg. Hardware depreciates in value, too, but at least it's yours to do what you want with (as opposed to software which is just 'licensed'). That being said, stylus rmx is probably my favorite piece of software and the last I would sell.

[nanotone]

I am really not sure if it is legal for them to charge a fee. I suspect if a case about software resales was to go through the EU they would not approve a fee. Surely if you purchase something you should be able to sell it on? What other product requires extra expense to the original company when you sell on? The only reason they can do this is due to the nature of software. Hmm. I know that when you buy software you buy a license to use it not actually the software but even so.

This is exactly what I'm saying - within the EU reselling of software is allowed by law. I can even sell my Windows (there is only one exception if that version was bundled with hardware).

Due to the fact I bought Stylus RMX in Germany and we covert by EU law Spectrasonics would have to transfer my license without any fee.

Cheers
Frank

[DevonB]

Software companies have found a way to get what hardware/physical goods companies have probably been wishing for...not only to you have to sell your software at a loss (has it deteriorated in some way?) when you sell a "used" copy of the soft, but you also have to pay the original vendor a fee to do so.

And Software companies suffer from something hardware companies don't suffer from at all; you can keep a copy of the goods AFTER you sell it (legal and moral issues aside, it's still a fact.)

(this next part is not aimed at your blatanville, but the whole thread)

I'm no fan of the transfer fee either, but almost *EVERY SINGLE* sample based instrument or sample library out there does NOT allow you to transfer your license, period, end of story. You only buy the RIGHT to use the sounds, you do not OWN the sounds. So the fact that they are essentially lenient, AND put trust in you that you will remove said samples/software off of your PC afterwards I think is great.

Devon

[poonna]

Well, as for selling hardware, the vendor who produces the hardware does not have to get involved with your sale. It's a physical product. On the other hand, transferring license puts burden to the software company (however little it is) to make the necessary changes. And, as Devon said, they run the risk of people continuing to use the software even though it is sold. So, involving a fee is not so bad in and of itself, in my opinion.

[JonHodgson]

yes, it's a little frustrating - $50 is a lot. That's what Fxpansion charges too, It seems excessive, but at least it went smooth as opposed to NI, who I had to email 3 times to remove my s/n (though it was free). I took a bigger loss on bfd but in the end, if you're not going to use the software anyway, $150 isn't bad money towards your korg. Hardware depreciates in value, too, but at least it's yours to do what you want with (as opposed to software which is just 'licensed'). That being said, stylus rmx is probably my favorite piece of software and the last I would sell.

There are two costs to the developer involved with making a transfer.

The first is making the transfer, which although it may seem like a simple process can actually take an inordinate amount of time, because it falls outside of their standard workflow.

The second is additional support for the new user, especially on more complex products. Support isn't cheap, if you want somebody knowledgable, intelligent and experienced at the end of the phone/email, then you have to pay them a salary commensurate with someone who is knowledgable, intelligent and experienced.

On average I wouldn't be surprised if that $50 was less than the costs incurred, I'm pretty certain they're not raking money in from it.

[funkster1]

The second is additional support for the new user, especially on more complex products. Support isn't cheap

But then you must not forget that you DON'T get Support or the right to future upgrades with Spectrasonics product upon license changing!!!

Regards
Raphael

[loachm]

I am really not sure if it is legal for them to charge a fee. I suspect if a case about software resales was to go through the EU they would not approve a fee. Surely if you purchase something you should be able to sell it on? What other product requires extra expense to the original company when you sell on? The only reason they can do this is due to the nature of software. Hmm. I know that when you buy software you buy a license to use it not actually the software but even so.

This is exactly what I'm saying - within the EU reselling of software is allowed by law. I can even sell my Windows (there is only one exception if that version was bundled with hardware).

Due to the fact I bought Stylus RMX in Germany and we covert by EU law Spectrasonics would have to transfer my license without any fee.

Cheers
Frank

...that's the problem with software - the difference between owning a physical good and a revocable licence. actually, you are allowed to sell what's yours, i.e. the dics, but Spectrasonics can deny to grant the buyer a new licence. I can understand that software developers have to protect their products - the whole licencing, copy-protection crap would be obsolete if people wouldn't use illegal versions or copy their software and sell them again (I'm in no way indicating you're doing either of this!). This seems to be the way things go and one has to live with it - too bad, that it punishes the legal buyer sometimes, so you have my smypathy. It's also not reasonable that software devalues so much when you try to sell it (sometimes about 50%) - it makes no sense since second hand software runs as good as a newly purchased one. Again, this seems to be the way of the world and I hope you'll find a solution for yourself. However, I remember that IK wanted to have 99 Euro + 25% VAT (for Italy) for EACH of the THREE products of my ONE IK Multimedia Bundle when I wanted to sell it - paying about 375 Euros transfer fee to a european (!) company for a product that has costed me about 700 Euros back then! I admit, IK has changed since then (I sold the bundle anyway) - but maybe this shows that your situation isn't so bad at all. I can understand Spectrasonics policy and in fact, I find it quite reasonable (though the fee could be a bit cheaper). Software companies don't earn from second-hand sales, but they cause them additional work. This situation is just another example that you'd better inform yourself about the respective companies policy (I have also made that lesson) - best would be always to ask them directly before the purchase...

[blatanville]

...that's the problem with software - the difference between owning a physical good and a revocable licence. actually, you are allowed to sell what's yours, i.e. the dics, but Spectrasonics can deny to grant the buyer a new licence. I can understand that software developers have to protect their products - the whole licencing, copy-protection crap would be obsolete if people wouldn't use illegal versions or copy their software and sell them again (I'm in no way indicating you're doing either of this!). This seems to be the way things go and one has to live with it - too bad, that it punishes the legal buyer sometimes, so you have my smypathy... ...This situation is just another example that you'd better inform yourself about the respective companies policy (I have also made that lesson) - best would be always to ask them directly before the purchase...

I bought a license to the music on my CD, too. I don't own the songs.
I don't have to pay a transfer fee, however, when I sell the CD to a used CD store. AND I could still have made a copy of the CD, so I can continue to (illegally) listen to the music.
The difference is a cultural one, I think: the lawyers for the software companies were able to get in there early enough and write this kind of restriction into the "license." Whereas music, as a product, has been around since before the lawyer epidemic, and hence this kind of restriction can't be appended to the music-buyer's license for the goods.

There are two costs to the developer involved with making a transfer.

The first is making the transfer, which although it may seem like a simple process can actually take an inordinate amount of time, because it falls outside of their standard workflow.

The second is additional support for the new user, especially on more complex products. Support isn't cheap, if you want somebody knowledgable, intelligent and experienced at the end of the phone/email, then you have to pay them a salary commensurate with someone who is knowledgable, intelligent and experienced.

I hate this phrase, but it's truth: "The Cost of Doing Business"
You wanna make money? You gotta spend some money.

If you're a little one-person shop, where you code, maintain the web site, answer the phone and take out the trash, you might view these transfers as a big drag on your time. But at the same time, you chose to enter the marketplace.

If you're a bigger organization, then you should have people in place to deal with this kind of stuff. You already expect you're going to get technical service calls ("How do I...?"), you SHOULD expect you're going to get CUSTOMER SERVICE calls, too.

And Software companies suffer from something hardware companies don't suffer from at all; you can keep a copy of the goods AFTER you sell it (legal and moral issues aside, it's still a fact.)

And software companies don't have to keep much inventory around to service the inevitable break downs that happen to hardware.
Automobile manufacturers, at least in N.America (my Dad worked for Ford for 30 years, so I've heard a lot of this stuff) are required by law to manufacture or make available the parts for every car they've made in the last ten years.
Korg may have stopped production on synthesizer "Foobar," but if they want to maintain respectability in the market, they'd better make sure you can still get the custom volume slider for "Foobar" a few years after it goes out of production. Whether they do or not will tell you how much they value their LOYAL customers.
And warehousing all those parts costs a lot more, I'm willing to bet, than paying some Customer Service Monkey an hourly wage to answer the phone, email, and punch a few keystrokes into the database...

[johnny2johnny]

the lawyers for the software companies were able to get in there early enough and write this kind of restriction into the "license."

yep...


this website deals with only buggy software, but there are many in the same vaine of what you are saying, some explain why this is, and that is, and etc.

[johnny2johnny]

4 got link

http://www.badsoftware.com/

[JonHodgson]

There are two costs to the developer involved with making a transfer.

The first is making the transfer, which although it may seem like a simple process can actually take an inordinate amount of time, because it falls outside of their standard workflow.

The second is additional support for the new user, especially on more complex products. Support isn't cheap, if you want somebody knowledgable, intelligent and experienced at the end of the phone/email, then you have to pay them a salary commensurate with someone who is knowledgable, intelligent and experienced.

I hate this phrase, but it's truth: "The Cost of Doing Business"
You wanna make money? You gotta spend some money.

If you're a little one-person shop, where you code, maintain the web site, answer the phone and take out the trash, you might view these transfers as a big drag on your time. But at the same time, you chose to enter the marketplace.

And your customers chose to license your software according to your terms.

If you're a bigger organization, then you should have people in place to deal with this kind of stuff. You already expect you're going to get technical service calls ("How do I...?"), you SHOULD expect you're going to get CUSTOMER SERVICE calls, too.

Yes you should, and you do. But when it comes down to it you can approach the cost of handling transfers in one of three ways (or a combination thereof), you can either make everyone pay for it, by upping the price, or you can make the person who wants to transfer the license pay, or you can absorb the cost in the belief that you will gain in the long run (maybe the new customer will like it so much he'll buy the rest of the range new).

When it comes down to it, if money coming in doesn't exceed the cost of doing business, then you go bust. Different companies choose to approach this in different ways, I couldn't say which is the best, all I am trying to point out is that companies charging for license transfers are not pocketing money for no work.

[JonHodgson]

Korg may have stopped production on synthesizer "Foobar," but if they want to maintain respectability in the market, they'd better make sure you can still get the custom volume slider for "Foobar" a few years after it goes out of production. Whether they do or not will tell you how much they value their LOYAL customers.
And warehousing all those parts costs a lot more, I'm willing to bet, than paying some Customer Service Monkey an hourly wage to answer the phone, email, and punch a few keystrokes into the database...

Actually spares and servicing can be quite a profitable business, rather than a cost.

[blatanville]

And your customers chose to license your software according to your terms.

Which, is most often NOT revealed until you've paid your money and are in the process of installing the software...

It's called shrink wrap licensing. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract

My recent example, which I've shared in several other threads now, was installing Music Creator 4. I happened to actually read most of the legalese this time, and that's when I discovered that I couldn't re-sell the product. No license transfer allowed.
This isn't the behaviour of a company that wants to earn more of my business.

I'm respecting your opinion here. We just happen to disagree.

peace, out,

bud