NFR - but why?!

[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?

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

Ok, rephrasing, have you never bought a (i.e.) Steam/Origin/Uplay game? These cannot be sesold.

Have you ever bought an operative system, like Windows? It's not allowed to be resold.

The list for software that can't be resold can be made pretty long. The music software industry is probably quite unique where most developers allows the user to sell their licenses second hand.

Also, I cannot understand why it is more important for some poeple that they can re-sell their plugins, than the survival of the developer. Most developers don't make millions of dollars every year, and can most likely not live only by developing software.

[chk071]

Have you ever bought an operative system, like Windows? It's not allowed to be resold.

Actually, you can resell Windows. Even volume licenses, which aren't supposed to be resold.

[fluffy_little_something]

Who could prevent me from selling my anonymous Windows CD?

[starflakeprj]

Have you ever bought an operative system, like Windows? It's not allowed to be resold.

Actually, you can resell Windows. Even volume licenses, which aren't supposed to be resold.

I'm sure I have read in the license agreement that you are not allowed to re-sell the license. Maybe I remember wrong, or maybe they have changed it.

[starflakeprj]

Who could prevent me from selling my anonymous Windows CD?

Who can prevent me from downloading cracked software and install on my computer?

[BBFG#]

... I cannot understand why it is more important for some poeple that they can re-sell their plugins, than the survival of the developer. Most developers don't make millions of dollars every year, and can most likely not live only by developing software.

Because in relationship to their customers, they're the oligarch.
Most of their customers don't make millions either and often considerably less. Fact is, life changes can make selling off what the customer owns a necessity. So the idea that the developer's bottom line is negatively affected by transfers in comparison to the individual's life is just obtuse.

[chk071]

Have you ever bought an operative system, like Windows? It's not allowed to be resold.

Actually, you can resell Windows. Even volume licenses, which aren't supposed to be resold.

I'm sure I have read in the license agreement that you are not allowed to re-sell the license. Maybe I remember wrong, or maybe they have changed it.

You can definitely buy used Windows keys (legitimately) on the internet here. You gotta watch out though, because some sellers sell NFR beta keys, or from other odd sources, which always can be deactivated by Microsoft.

[starflakeprj]

... I cannot understand why it is more important for some poeple that they can re-sell their plugins, than the survival of the developer. Most developers don't make millions of dollars every year, and can most likely not live only by developing software.

Because in relationship to their customers, they're the oligarch.
Most of their customers don't make millions either and often considerably less. Fact is, life changes can make selling off what the customer owns a necessity. So the idea that the developer's bottom line is negatively affected by transfers is just obtuse.

There are a lot of good free software you can use instead of buying, or you can choose to buy software you are allowed to re-sell. I see what you mean though. But why should the music software developers think different from other software developers? I have never heard any whining about not being able to sell graphics software, or games from Steam for that matter. People seem to accept the fact they simply can't.

[fluffy_little_something]

Who could prevent me from selling my anonymous Windows CD?

Who can prevent me from downloading cracked software and install on my computer?

Very different thing. I bought my legal Windows CD from a computer shop.
If that Windows key were used on two different computers, MS would probably notice, anyway. And I am a fair person. When I sell a used license, I no longer use it. So, I might as well have kept it and installed it on my new computer, MS could not tell the difference whether it is installed on my new computer or someone else's computer instead of mine.

[starflakeprj]

Who could prevent me from selling my anonymous Windows CD?

Who can prevent me from downloading cracked software and install on my computer?

Very different thing. I bought my legal Windows CD from a computer shop.
If that Windows key were used on two different computers, MS would probably notice, anyway. And I am a fair person. When I sell a used license, I no longer use it. So, I might as well have kept it and installed it on my new computer, MS could not tell the difference whether it is installed on my new computer or someone else's computer instead of mine.

I was more leaning to what the agreement says. If it says (it apparently didn't though) you are not allowed to re-sell, I would respect that, even though I "could" sell it, because no one would notice.

[BBFG#]

... I cannot understand why it is more important for some poeple that they can re-sell their plugins, than the survival of the developer. Most developers don't make millions of dollars every year, and can most likely not live only by developing software.

Because in relationship to their customers, they're the oligarch.
Most of their customers don't make millions either and often considerably less. Fact is, life changes can make selling off what the customer owns a necessity. So the idea that the developer's bottom line is negatively affected by transfers is just obtuse.

There are a lot of good free software you can use instead of buying, or you can choose to buy software you are allowed to re-sell. I see what you mean though. But why should the music software developers think different from other software developers? I have never heard any whining about not being able to sell graphics software, or games from Steam for that matter. People seem to accept the fact they simply can't.

My main gripe is when they don't do it clearly upfront and hide the policy in the third set of contract legalise or arbitrarily decide after the sale to make it that way.
Which is my major gripe of those incorporating iLok/PACE also. It really speaks to the idea that they know perfectly well what a screwed up thing it is to do but do it anyway.

[starflakeprj]

My main gripe is when they don't do it clearly upfront and hide the policy in the third set of contract legalise or arbitrarily decide after the sale to make it that way.
Which is my major gripe of those incorporating iLok/PACE also. It really speaks to the idea that they know perfectly well what a screwed up thing it is to do but do it anyway.

I agree with you here, all developers should have this included in their FAQ page. But I think if they do, it should be respected.

[evilantal]

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.

This is it...

However, many sample library developers have found a loop hole by saying that you only own a license to use the samples not own the samples themselves. Treating the samples as any other "audio recording".

[SMH]

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'm not sure that's the best example you could pick. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/re ... index.html https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/

[ATN69]

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'm not sure that's the best example you could pick. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/re ... index.html https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/

I choose that analogy because you buy a service. Look at your ticket as a license. I am a frequent flyer so I know how shitty it can be just as these articles mention, but the point is you get money back or some kind of compensation at least. A software developer claiming NFR takes away any chance you have to get some money back or any kind of compensation. That's my point.