Attention, Synths-presets.com does not allow license transfer!

[ghettosynth]

I think the OP was upset that the dev threatened of resorting to legal measures,
when he could have simply said, I'm sorry, perhaps you are unaware of
our terms of service, but we do not allow transfers.

I don't know of the full exchange, but I would agree that that kind of response
would be counter productive, and offensive to a customer who truly was unaware
of the policy. Of course, a sterner warning would be warranted, if met with
resistance after the initial "friendly" exchange. "sent to legal counsel for monitoring"
is definitely "NOT" friendly.

Yeah, and a little bit funny really.

TOS agreements are enforceable, but really, the only realistic recourse on the part of
the dev would be to deny service, and maybe get a cease and desist if the OP persisted.
Pursuing a civil case would cost a lot of (for all intents and purposes) irrecoverable money.
Even with the "shaky" click through acceptance of the terms on the part of the customer.

Yes, but it's still in poor taste to complain about that specifically on KVR. OP would have more grounds for his point if he hadn't tried to claim that the TOS weren't easily found. Also, if he doesn't know that it's SOP not to resell preset packs, then he does now.

Giving credit where it's due here, I can also see how maybe devs get a bit tired of people whining about things which are, and frankly should be if they're not to anyone in particular, quite clear. To that point, I'm not really convinced that people "don't know" nor do I give much leeway for "english isn't my native language." There's no room for OP to play victim here regardless of whether or not the dev's response was a bit over the top.

[Sparky77]

Yes, but it's still in poor taste to complain about that specifically on KVR. OP would have more grounds for his point if he hadn't tried to claim that the TOS weren't easily found. Also, if he doesn't know that it's SOP not to resell preset packs, then he does now.

Giving credit where it's due here, I can also see how maybe devs get a bit tired of people whining about things which are, and frankly should be if they're not to anyone in particular, quite clear. To that point, I'm not really convinced that people "don't know" nor do I give much leeway for "english isn't my native language." There's no room for OP to play victim here regardless of whether or not the dev's response was a bit over the top.

Yes, have to agree.

Isn't there a dedicated thread for "Vendors allowing license transfers".

Seems that this (Music Related) is the wrong forum for the topic anyway.

EDIT: I sent a PM to D.H. Miltz about this.

[pekbro]

Perhaps emotions got the better of "both" of them here, personally, if
anyone ever even hints at threatening me with legal action, I am going
to get exceedingly offended. Although, I do enjoy it when lawyers
do that to me in person, as 9x out of 10, they are full of shit.

But yeah, posting it here, was a fairly shitty thing to do.

Fortunately for both of them, like everything else around here, it will be forgotten about
in no time at all. Perhaps they will learn something useful from it. Like "don't be a dick",
if you can possibly avoid it.

-Cheers

[Arno2016]

I think the OP was upset that the dev threatened of resorting to legal measures,
when he could have simply said, I'm sorry, perhaps you are unaware of
our terms of service, but we do not allow transfers.

Exactly, you nailed it.
He threatend me and this was bit over the top for my taste.

Normally I wouldn´t make this thing public, I pm´d SteveWZ but he never answered.
So I decided to make it public, so that everone could see about his behaviour with a customer. I know a lot of people hated this, especially the ones who love his work, but so it goes. Now the ball is rolling...

[Arno2016]

Current News!

Steve WZ has still replied to me.
He said "...my assistant sent you the warning while I was away.
My apologies if you found this excessive but she did what she thought was right."

I accept his apologize but I also told him that I still need clarity about the legal question
wether licensing from third plugins is legal or not.

So, if it´s legal I would accept it and things stay as they are.
If not, he have to change his company policy and stop licensing presets but his business will be preserved yet.

We´ll see.

[D.H. Miltz]

Isn't there a dedicated thread for "Vendors allowing license transfers".

Seems that this (Music Related) is the wrong forum for the topic anyway.

EDIT: I sent a PM to D.H. Miltz about this.

I'm not sure about moving a multi-page thread into that thread.

I think it is okay here. However, I'm sick and distracted, so I'll pass it up to Ben to see what he thinks.

[aMUSEd]

Isn't there a dedicated thread for "Vendors allowing license transfers".

Seems that this (Music Related) is the wrong forum for the topic anyway.

EDIT: I sent a PM to D.H. Miltz about this.

I'm not sure about moving a multi-page thread into that thread.

I think it is okay here. However, I'm sick and distracted, so I'll pass it up to Ben to see what he thinks.

I think it's a separate issue - it's very rare that sound content providers allow their material to be sold again because unlike most plugins and software it's much harder to protect or prove that a copy has not been made before selling it on (except in the case of Kontakt libraries and a couple of others that have some form of protection built in). In other words it's the norm, not the exception.

[Gamma-UT]

I accept his apologize but I also told him that I still need clarity about the legal question
wether licensing from third plugins is legal or not.

So, if it´s legal I would accept it and things stay as they are.
If not, he have to change his company policy and stop licensing presets but his business will be preserved yet.

We´ll see.

Wait, what?

How is someone selling presets going to clarify a legal position?

And what's your argument? That plugin developers can somehow forbid a third party from making and selling presets? Is that your argument?

[ghettosynth]

I accept his apologize but I also told him that I still need clarity about the legal question
wether licensing from third plugins is legal or not.

So, if it´s legal I would accept it and things stay as they are.
If not, he have to change his company policy and stop licensing presets but his business will be preserved yet.

We´ll see.

Wait, what?

How is someone selling presets going to clarify a legal position?

And what's your argument? That plugin developers can somehow forbid a third party from making and selling presets? Is that your argument?

I don't know what his argument is, however, he seems emboldened by Steve's effort to do damage control. I'm gonna make some popcorn.

[Gamma-UT]

I think I've figured it out. It's possibly more insane than the original though so I'd kinda ruled it out before. The idea from the OP seems to be that once someone makes a preset and offers it for sale it blocks anyone from making the same preset - because they can't use it without licensing it. That obviously can't be true. So selling presets is therefore illegal. And Socrates is a cat. All of which are grey.

In this respect I ask myself wether presets from third part plugins are eligible for licensing at all?
And if so, you can never use the same preset without buying it from any licensor?
I think that would be really crazy and I can´t imagine this could be legal.

[AnX]

The OP only has himself to blame. He didnt read the terms, and broke them. Then he has the nerve to try and publicly shame Steve.

Pretty pathetic really. Common sense would tell you is very unlikely you can resell presets/samples, and if you were not sure, you would find out first

[MFXxx]

Easy error if not hit it before with 3rd party presets. A subtle PM would have probably been suffice, public shaming is likely to, and did, evoke public emotions/displeasure.

Either way, everyone now knows where each party stands and how each feel about it publicly. End of really.

[Sparky77]

Isn't there a dedicated thread for "Vendors allowing license transfers".

Seems that this (Music Related) is the wrong forum for the topic anyway.

EDIT: I sent a PM to D.H. Miltz about this.

I'm not sure about moving a multi-page thread into that thread.

I think it is okay here. However, I'm sick and distracted, so I'll pass it up to Ben to see what he thinks.

I think it's a separate issue - it's very rare that sound content providers allow their material to be sold again because unlike most plugins and software it's much harder to protect or prove that a copy has not been made before selling it on (except in the case of Kontakt libraries and a couple of others that have some form of protection built in). In other words it's the norm, not the exception.

Out of curiosity, I just checked the several preset sellers I have been buying from in the past.
All of them have the same policy.

Synth-Presets seems to have the same policy everyone else has.

If the OP has an issue with the law, why focus this on one company and try to discredit them on a public forum.

Seems kinda down handed.

[thecontrolcentre]

I presumed the OP was pissed off coz he had the presets in question up for sale in the marketplace, and SteveWZ posted in that thread that he wasn't allowed to sell his license. This was after I had posted asking the OP if he was allowed to transfer the preset license.

[Arno2016]

I think I've figured it out. It's possibly more insane than the original though so I'd kinda ruled it out before. The idea from the OP seems to be that once someone makes a preset and offers it for sale it blocks anyone from making the same preset - because they can't use it without licensing it. That obviously can't be true. So selling presets is therefore illegal. And Socrates is a cat. All of which are grey.

... can´t be true?

This is exactly what a license is made for. If you licensing a product or a techical device or whatever,
no one in the world can copy or use it without a license. That´s the meaning of a license.
So if you want to use the same preset like synth-preset has created, technically it would not be allowed without a license from them. And in this case it would be really absurd and impracticable.
Licensing must have its limitations and this limit has been exceeding imo.
But I´m not familiar with the US Law. That is the reason why I want to have clarity in this legal issue.
I hope my intentions are clear now.