NFR - but why?!

[chk071]

I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?

Really? If I buy a plugin and then sell it to you, the developer will get their money once, even though the price was paid twice. For NFR plugins, revenue always goes to the developer, even though the overall sales might be smaller due to that restriction.

A middle road solution is a license transfer fee, that some developers have which is a nice solution as long as it's reasonable.

I have no problem to pay a transfer fee and agree with you. But again, a company which does not allow resale will never see my money. Best example from twitewhite are the sample libraries.

TBH, you won't find many companies which allow infinite resales of their plugins. Most have a "one resale then NFR" policy. And, TBH, i can understand it. Most companies are either one-man businesses, or consist of just a handful of people. And even when they are bigger, support is a big expense, especially when you have to give the same support dozens of times, for the same sold copy.

[bigcat1969]

Just a note that this is quite common in this digital internet era thingie, I can't sell my Steam games, I can't sell my digital books and other similiar things. Arguably I don't actually own anything on my computer as I'm sure Microsoft will tell you they own my OS and Firefox owns my browser, etc... and they could all take them away if they chose. The consumer has virtually (haha) no rights at least where I live when it comes to software and EULAs. Basically if you don't agree to the terms of the agreement don't buy it is your only option. I think the EU has some ideas that humans should have some fraction of the rights enjoyed by corporations, but this is controversial.

[chk071]

I guess, hailing from a time where you couldn't give back ANYTHING, i have a different view on all this. Back in the days, when you brought back something to the supermarket, because it was half rotten, and demanded your money back, they looked at you, as if you were from another planet. And software resale? Non existant. Don't think they even thought or considered something like that, back then. In comparison, we live in absolute paradise nowadays.

[ATN69]

And even when they are bigger, support is a big expense, especially when you have to give the same support dozens of times, for the same sold copy.

Isn't that's one of the reasons why developers charge a transfer fee? I know that we as license owners doesn't own the software so there is no need to drag out that worn out argument. I own the license, which mean the right to use the software. What I sell is not the software but the license, i.e the right to use the software.

If I buy an airplane ticket I can, for a fee, transfer that airline ticket to someone else. I can sell it to someone else. I don't own the airplane but still I can sell the ticket. It's the right to have a seat on a certain flight.

I know everyone are different but personally I needed support a handful of times over the years. Mostly related to software bugs, which I as a user can't really do much about. I totally understand that support is a cost for developers but it comes with the territory. As a product manufacturer you also have support issues, even for products that are being sold second hand. There is nothing new about that and something that every serious company would budget for.

The truth is that the software industry in general enjoy a lot of protectionism that doesn't exist in other markets. I bet all companies would love to tell their customers that they are not allowed to resell the products. That would increase their revenue. The software business is the only I can think of that utilize this approach. They have the power to do it and they are not shy to do it either.

Feel free to disagree with everything I said. So far I never sold any license.

[chk071]

Well, much of that will probably be down to software not being a physical product, and, that you don't actually own the software (if you did, you could change the code, remove copy protection, or reuse the code, and claim your new software would be entirely your own unique creation). Also, how do you want to treat a copy of a software? A developer can give out infinite copies, while hardware is being manufactured in quantities. And, you also don't have to fear people replicating the hardware, and giving it away to friends and family, for nothing. It's a different market, succumbing to different laws.

I agree though, that a general transfer fee would be an idea. I have no actual idea though how much the support for transferring a license really costs. Imagine you maybe have missed writing in your manual how you install the software, and the license gets transferred 10 times, and you have to tell people to install the software 10 times, for one single time you sold a license. Bummer.

[ATN69]

Since I work and live in Hong Kong these days, and travel to mainland China quite often, I can tell you that there are a lot of replicas on the market even for hardware such as cars, furniture, and everything else you can think of. Even company logos and brands are copied. Copy protection is also something that the world wide industry have to suffer and safe guard, not only software. I do realize it's easier to copy a piece of software than a car, but it's still happening. Now you might think that what's happening in China doesn't matter so much but it's one of the biggest markets in the world and many people have made a lot of money in China. Just go to any major city in Europe and you will see a flood of rich Chinese tourists.

One example just for the fun of it,
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/102 ... cturer-too

[sjm]

As I’ve had it explained to me. That software isn’t yours and you don’t own it.

That's at best misleading; it's a conflation of multiple points into a single one that doesn't reflect reality.

It's actually really easy. Software, at its heart is source code. That's what the developers write, and that source code is in essence "the software that you don't own". What the license does is grant you the right to run the compiled results of that source code. There are two things to distinguish here: the source code that creates the final product, and the product that is sold (the license or executable software itself). When you buy software, you are buying the final packaged product, not the underlying source code. So your rights only apply to that, which in the case of a VST will be a DLL (and associated files). You essentially own the DLL (or right to use it if you prefer), but not the secret sauce required to make the DLL.

That might sound convoluted at first glance, but it's actually not. It's exactly how a book works too (and films etc. etc.). The words in a book do not belong to you; the art design of the cover page does not belong to you. But you own the pages those words are printed on and you own the cover in which they are bound. What that means is that you cannot take the words or cover art, and sell them, because you don't own the rights to them. You don't own the content, only the full package as is. I'd assume that makes perfect sense to you as well...

So that means you can give away/sell the book as you see fit. The book belongs to you. And once you get rid of the book, you will no longer have access to its contents. Again, this is the same as with a plugin (or any other software), that you can no longer access without the necessary files.

And just like you can't legally share your copy of a VST with a friend, you can't legally photocopy/scan the book and send it to a friend either.


===========================

My answer to the OP is: because at least some people go along with it. I don't know if this is likely to change elsewhere, but EU law treats software exactly the same way as a book*, which means you are free to sell your licenses all you like. Other areas are less progressive in this regard.

I've never sold any software I own second hand btw, but I totally agree with the EU interpretation, and think it's the only fair approach. Either you are selling a product, or you are not selling a product; you can't have your cake and eat it, no matter how greedy you are. "Because piracy" is a nice argument, but actually a strawman. The same set of rules have to apply to both buyer AND seller, and that means ALL the rules; you can't pick and choose the pieces of legislation you like most and ignore the rest.

* To preempt the invariable "that's not true" responses that always arise on this subject: Please, before posting some random stuff that is your opinion, go and read up on the actual facts and quote the legislation. Otherwise it's your word vs the canon of EU legislation, and I will invariable trust the latter over random uninformed internet poster #3291. GIYF, it's all online and easy to find. It's also mentioned in the KVR rules somewhere.

[martinjuenke]

TBH, you won't find many companies which allow infinite resales of their plugins. Most have a "one resale then NFR" policy. And, TBH, i can understand it. Most companies are either one-man businesses, or consist of just a handful of people. And even when they are bigger, support is a big expense, especially when you have to give the same support dozens of times, for the same sold copy.

... and then there is Plugin Alliance who sells constantly cheap via sales and vouchers and makes a big chunk of money afterwards with the transfer fees ...

[starflakeprj]

What could be the reason why a number of plugins cannot be resell after you buy them?
I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?
I will never buy a software licence from a plugin developer who does not allow resale.
What about you?

You have never bought any games?

[Halonmusic]

I've only resold one plugin that I've ever bought and only because it didn't work. So a NFR policy doesn't really bother me. If I buy something I pretty much intend to keep it.

Yes pretty much this.

Also, i really dont get this whole 're-sell' thing. Ive never any intention of 're-selling' any of my plugins to other people. Its just silly to me. So NFR i totally understand.

[twitewhite]

Well, much of that will probably be down to software not being a physical product, and, that you don't actually own the software (if you did, you could change the code, remove copy protection, or reuse the code, and claim your new software would be entirely your own unique creation). Also, how do you want to treat a copy of a software? A developer can give out infinite copies, while hardware is being manufactured in quantities. And, you also don't have to fear people replicating the hardware, and giving it away to friends and family, for nothing. It's a different market, succumbing to different laws.

I agree though, that a general transfer fee would be an idea. I have no actual idea though how much the support for transferring a license really costs. Imagine you maybe have missed writing in your manual how you install the software, and the license gets transferred 10 times, and you have to tell people to install the software 10 times, for one single time you sold a license. Bummer.

I highly doubt the actually transfer costs much at all for any reasonably sized company. These companies will have automated systems to handle transfers, and the system will be able to transfer the license easily. By the way, "transferring" licenses possibly involves deleting the old license from the system and assigning a new one to the new owner, so it may not actually be a transfer at all! For smaller companies, perhaps they will have to do more work by hand, but certainly not 50 dollars worth of work (or whatever the typical license transfer fee is).

I think license transfer fees more exist to prevent people from buying licenses of software and then becoming unauthorized retailers of the softwares, selling it through their websites and basically driving traffic to their site instead of the actual developer's. These sites might increase the price of software to make a profit from uniformed consumers or try to make money selling other things to customers or spamming them with junk advertising emails or even malware. Even if they follow good business practice, developers should have the right to control who sells their stuff, so having a license transfer fee prevents this, and having plugins NFR after being license transfered prevents people from buying them up cheaply and then selling them for a higher amount.

[BBFG#]

Let's not forget those developers we bought from that it wasn't NFR when we bought them, but then "changed their policy without notice" to make them such...

I understand the license thing with the car analogy... i.e. your license to drive is yours and cannot be transferred to anyone else, but then that begs the question of where do they get off charging you close to the price of the vehicle?

And for that price, the argument that "they're just a small company" really doesn't make sense either. Except in the sense of just being greedy little coders that argue being in business is too hard.

Anything that high of a price, should be able to be resold. Even the courts want this when it comes to liquidating your assets!

[enCiphered]

What could be the reason why a number of plugins cannot be resell after you buy them?
I don´t really get it, what could be the benefits of such a business strategy?
I will never buy a software licence from a plugin developer who does not allow resale.
What about you?

You have never bought any games?

I´ve bought a few games in my life and I´ve all resold them. Every single one

[wagtunes]

This whole conversation is why I am personally not thrilled with this whole "licensing" crap for music software.

When I went to the store and purchased a CD of "Might And Magic VI" (a video game) that CD was mine. As long as I had an operating system that would play it and the CD itself didn't break, I could play that game forever EVEN if the company itself went out of business. I could also put that CD up for sale in a garage sale if I wanted, of course with the fact that I would no longer own the physical CD and could therefor no longer play it unless I went out and bought another one. The only thing I couldn't do was try to sell that CD as my own creation (make copies and try to market it). Anything else was pretty much fair game.

That's the world I grew up in. That's what I expect with my music software. If I buy it, it should be mine. I shouldn't have to worry about a company going out of business and, if for some reason my PC dies and I have to get a new one, having an install fail because it can't phone home to the web site to validate a serial number. To me, that's bull shit.

Why I and everybody else put up with this crap is beyond me. But we do. One day, it is conceivable that every piece of music software that we own will no longer function.

My Might And Magic VI still works 20 years later and will continue to work whether or not 3DO went out of business (defunct in 2003) or not.

[fluffy_little_something]

Maybe developers just want to prevent their licenses from being passed from one buyer to the next to the next to the next. With every such second-hand sale, the developer loses one new sale.

I am not sure though whether such a limit is legal in the EU