Spectrasonics license transfer fee - unkindness behavior?

[zircon]

Spectrasonics is pretty much the best sample developer out there, not only in quality of product but quality of service/support and general policies. I've been a customer for years now and I have never had anything less than an amazing experience. To attack them for adding a license transfer, which many other companies do, and is STILL far more lenient than quite a few other sample developers, is ridiculous. Keep in mind, if you sell your product to person B, who uses it then sells it to person C, now THREE people have used the product (possibly in commercial songs earning lots of money) while Spectrasonics has only been paid once for it.

Frankly, if you didn't look into the issue of license transfer fees before buying the product, and that's an issue that you care about, it's not exactly Spectrasonics' fault. You could have called or emailed them, or asked here on KVR. You would have gotten a straight answer. Eric has always been frank and upfront on this issue in every instance that I've seen him posting about it.

[Radek]

It's users fault... we vote with our wallets. If something is unacceptable don't buy whatever possible.

[psychematic]

Actually, with Spectrasonics' stuff, you're buying the legal right to use their samples in a commercial product... not the software itself. This right is given to you with the one-time fee that they charge (buying the discs).

I'm surprised they are even letting you transfer a license, so feel lucky there. Try selling their Xpansion discs on eBay and you'll find your listing removed in a day or so because it violates your Licensing Agreement.

Specrasonics' stuff is in a little bit of a different category because they are a rompler company selling samples.

[blatanville]

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

touché.

[loachm]

...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.

...that is right. you can sell the music cd and the buyer can use it without having to get in contact with the owner of the licence to get the cd to play in his cd player. with software with c/r codes it's different - you need to get in touch with the owner of the licence to use your software. that's when we talk about a new licence which according to his terms of use the developer can refuse to grant...

[ew]

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

You do raise a valid point here.

Personally, I'd like to see if whenever you bought a piece of software, be it online or through a retail outlet, you'd have to read the EULA and agree to it before they'd sell the software to you. Of course, with retail outlets, this would involve printouts of the EULA for any software they sell...

ew

[DevonB]

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

You do raise a valid point here.

It might be valid for some (I haven't installed every software product on the planet. ) but certainly not for Spectrasonics. That big white envelope with the HUGE sticker with the EULA on it (or was it a shortened version, it's been awhile since I've looked at mine?) is pretty obvious. Other software isn't quite that obvious, I agree, but plenty do say 'if you install this, you are bound to the terms and agree', but it's during installation. In fact, I haven't seen any one that doesn't say that that has a license agreement that I can think of?

Devon

[tevoka]

But then you must not forget that you DON'T get Support

That's not true. With a license transfer you get full technical support for as long as you own the plug-in and free maintenance support updates (this is listed on their license transfer FAQ).

or the right to future upgrades with Spectrasonics product upon license changing!!!

Correct - you don't get to take advantage of any special upgrade pricing they might offer (e.g. the update from Classic Stylus to Stylus RMX).

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

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think when you purchase a music CD you are buying a license. You are purchasing the right to own the physical product and listen to it for entertainment. Buying the CD doesn't allow you to reuse those sound recordings in your own musical production. You have to buy a separate license for that and it is usually very expensive to sample other people's sound recordings (ask Biz Markie about that). When you buy a sample library of sound recordings you are given a license to use those sounds in your own musical production. You also have to keep in mind that a sample based product and a synth (mathematical calculations in real time) are two different things.

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.

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.

You need to distinguish between a software license and a sound recording license - they are two different things. This issue is also covered on the Spectrasonics license transfer FAQ:

I've heard that unrestricted license transfers/used sales are legal in some countries in Europe. Is this true?
No. Spectrasonics instruments come with two licenses - one for the software and one of the sound recordings (core library samples). Some countries in Europe such as Germany and Denmark have laws which allow the unrestricted resale of consumer software and used consumer music CDs. However, these laws do not apply to professional samples/virtual instruments like ours that are used in the creation of new musical works/recordings. So the license agreement for all Spectrasonics products is applicable and the same throughout the world.

[ew]

You've got a point as well, Devon.

Unfortunately, with a lot of people you have to beat them over the head with the obvious before it sinks in...

ew

[koolkeys]

I think Spectrasonics should just stop allowing transfers. I mean, that's what almost ALL of the sample library developers do.

Then nobody could complain about the fee. Problem solved.

Brent

[blatanville]

It might be valid for some (I haven't installed every software product on the planet. ) but certainly not for Spectrasonics. That big white envelope with the HUGE sticker with the EULA on it (or was it a shortened version, it's been awhile since I've looked at mine?) is pretty obvious. Other software isn't quite that obvious, I agree, but plenty do say 'if you install this, you are bound to the terms and agree', but it's during installation. In fact, I haven't seen any one that doesn't say that that has a license agreement that I can think of?
Devon

Having not installed any Spectrasonics products, I can't say what their EULA looks like (and how gross does "Eula" sound, spoken as a word? "Dude! your Eula's showing!")...
I was making reference to the EULA contained INSIDE my Cakewalk MC4 purchase. A License I couldn't read until I'd paid my $40, downloaded the software, and set about installing it. ONLY THEN did I learn that I was going to be stuck with this software forever. And there's NO trial/demo version of this software, so I was going in doubly-blind (there's also precious little information on the web. I looked.)
Today I went looking on the Cakewalk web site, and couldn't find any reference to the purchaser's inability to re-sell their license...so I couldn't have been forewarned of this situation. the wikipedia article I linked to suggested that their restriction of my rights with this licensing language hasn't yet been settled in the courts.
I've learned my lesson where Cakewalk is concerned...it might be the only money they ever get from me.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think when you purchase a music CD you are buying a license. You are purchasing the right to own the physical product and listen to it for entertainment. Buying the CD doesn't allow you to reuse those sound recordings in your own musical production.

A clarification is in order here: I meant that I was buying a license to listen to the music contained on the CD, not that I owned any right to do anything else with it. I feel like the license is bound to the object (the CD), and hence goes where the disc goes. I don't have to write an email to Warner Music to ask them if it's okay for me to sell my use of this CD to another party. The reason I can "get away with it" right now is that the kind of legal thinking that produces overly restrictive EULA and created the possibility of "transfer fees" didn't exist, or was dismissed when music recordings were first packaged and sold to the public. Since nothing was explicitly restricted at the time, the possibility of a second-hand market for Records (starting with 78s and descending on down to our current technologies) was created.
After decades of that market existing, it's too late for the Recording Industry to "claw back" those rights (to control how a license to listen to music on a delivery medium), if they ever really existed.
But the Software industry, with the benefit of the Recording Industry's experience, early on created their licenses to explicitly control every right they could ever conceive of for the disposal of the software.
The internet, and electronic-only delivery of purchased software licenses and code, has only compounded the ways in which they can control your ability to dispose of the software.

I can appreciate that there's a difference between re-selling a license for a sound library and a license for a softsynth/host. That's relevant to the initial post, certainly, and I should have realized I was talking about a parallel issue.

[dougsyo]

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.

The way they manage to be a bigger organization and cover those expenses is to raise the prices. Would you rather have paid more for RMX up-front to make up for them not dinging you for a transfer fee after the fact?

A transfer generally does require some involvement at the vendor end - either to service a non-customer, or someone that is selling to a non-customer - someone that they might have possibly sold a product to if not for the transfer.

If 5% of customers transfer their software, why charge more to the other 95% ? Why not just charge for transfers instead? They DO have to cover the costs somewhere, your dislike of the "cost of doing business" explanation notwithstanding.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for your position. Several of my instruments and hosts (All of my Cakewalk stuff, for example - Sonar, DimPro, P5, Rapture, etc) don't allow transfers. Others have transfer fees. In most cases, I knew this up-front and I'm ok with it - and the ones that added fees after the fact were just nominal.

Doug

[Meffy]

If only there were a big ol' forum packed with knowledgeable, helpful people where we could ask existing customers about licensing issues before deciding whether or not buy... ah well, I do tend to dream. :-}

[Touch_the_Universe]

Ive had two license transfers from them within two weeks. It took a few days for one of them. Overall it went well enough. NO complaints whatsoever, very solid.

[hibidy]

One thing that just occurred to me is that IF/WHEN they come back out from the mad scientist "resident evil" underground, it will probably be very exciting to be able to upgrade to whatever concoction they stir up!