List of sample developers terms of sales and issue management policies

[GearNostalgia]

Updated 2019-09-16

Buying a sample library is not an easy task. In most cases there are no demo versions to test and many developers do not allow refunds, trade-ins, transfer(reselling) of a purchased library (even if it is flawed or not working).

This is a list with current information about companies terms of sales. It does NOT factor in actual product quality or how they communicate with their customers. The only factors included are their written terms affecting the consumers rights to recover money(or getting other compensations) from a purchase. Companies are listed in broad groups to give a fast overview. For minute details about terms you have to read the fine print on their webpages.


Each developer will be listed in one of three tiers- Customer friendly terms, Reasonably customer friendly terms or Customer unfriendly terms. Each developer will be placed in the highest tier they can meet enough criterias for. Developers that I have just noticed but had not time to read their terms yet will be listed under - Unclear and unlisted. As soon as possible when new information comes in I will update the list.


Customer friendly terms
Companies listed here give customers good options to test products or to recover the expense of the purchase if the customer wants to. Developers listed here comply with one or more of the criteria listed under Terms of Sale.

Terms of sales
T1 - Provide fully working demos of their products (time limited "cippleware" is ok)
T2 - Allow full refund of products (minimum of once per product)
T3 - Allow free reselling/transfers of licenses (minimum of once per product)
T4 - Provide short time rent model that can the customer can leave at will
T5 - Allow customers to exchange products for other products of same value


Sales statements

S1 - Statement to discuss refunds for unsuitable/malfunctioning products
S2 - Statement to resolve problems or make settlements to compensate the customer
S3 - Statement to handle and aid customers to sell or transfer licences to other users
S4 - Statement to fix and update technical flaws or sound defects in the product


List of companies

• EastWest , soundsonline.com (T4)
• Bestservice (T1, T6)
• Rigid Audio (T1, T2*) *14 days money back guarantee
• Native Instruments (T1,T3, S2)
• Steinberg (T3, S2)
• Arturia (T3, S2)
• ProjectSam (T3, S2)
• Chocolate Audio (T3, S5)
• AmpleSound (T1*, S3*) *demos only available for some products *statement is posted on KVR)

Reasonably Customer friendly terms
Developers in this don't have terms of sale that offer full demos of all products or give customers rights for refunds or to sell their license to another user. They have statments that indicate that customers cases will be considered and that they might grant refunds or other settlements. Many list the a strict No refunds EULA as their terms of sale. Developers listed here state one or more of the Sales statments.

Terms of sales
T6 - Allow reselling/transfers of licenses for a transfer fee
T10 - Terms of sale(EULA) stating no refund/reselling/transfers of products

Sales statements

S1 - Statement to discuss refunds for unsuitable/malfunctioning products
S2 - Statement to resolve problems or make settlements to compensate the customer
S3 - Statement to handle and aid customers to sell or transfer licences to other users
S4 - Statement to fix and update technical flaws or sound defects in the product
S5 - Statement that refunds may be granted for manufacturing defective products
S6 - Statement that transfer of licenses for reselling may be considered and allowed by the developer
S7 - The customer may get an unsuitable product exchanged for a product of equivalent value


List of companies

• Soniccouture (T6, S7)
• Orange Tree Samples (T10, S2, S6)
• Zero-G (T10, S2, S4)
• Vienna Symphonic Library (T10,S6)

Customer unfriendly terms
Developers listed below states that they will not issue any refunds.

Terms of sales

T10 - Terms of sale(EULA) stating no refund/reselling/transfers of products


[/size]

List of companies

• Soundiron (T10)
• sonokinetic (T10)
• 8Dio (T10)
• Panda-sound (T10)
• Bigfishaudio.com (T10)
• Corybrunnemann (T10)
• Spitfireaudio(T10)
• Strezow sampling (T10)
• Impact Studios (T10)
• Heavyocity (T10)
• FluffyAudio (T10)
• Audioimperia (T10)
• Impactsoundworks (T10)
• Audioollie (T10)
• Insession Audio (T10)
• http://www.evolutionseries.com (T10)

Unclear and unlisted
Developers in this tier are placed here until there terms have been sorted out. This is just an inbox.

Terms of sales
- Unclear, no terms listed or T10

Sales statements
- Uncertain, no reports from customers.

List of companies

• Spectrasonics (T10?)
• Wave Alchemy (T10?)
• Realitone (no terms listed?)
• Orchestral Tools

Please pitch in facts and I will update the list ASAP.

[jancivil]

I have sold three things by OTS that cost me nothing and the developer was perfectly easy to deal with. A really, truly nice guy.

[Mikelo]

I have transferred two licenses for ProjectSam libraries with no problems. Excellent customer service.

[GearNostalgia]

I have sold three things by OTS that cost me nothing and the developer was perfectly easy to deal with. A really, truly nice guy.

Sounds nice, I will edit the position for Orange Tree Samples now

[GearNostalgia]

I have transferred two licenses for ProjectSam libraries with no problems. Excellent customer service.

Nice, I also see they have a clear section about it in their EULA.

-----
https://www.projectsam.com/EULA/
6. LICENSE TRANSFER
ProjectSAM allows one license transfer per product license to a different individual. ProjectSAM requires information from both the original licensee and the new licensee, which needs to be provided using the license transfer PDF form. A license transfer fee applies.
----

[JoelS]

You're on quite the crusade.

I think at the very least, it is wholly misleading to combine licensing issues, customer service, and customer interactions into your 'very customer friendly,' 'reasonably customer friendly' and 'customer unfriendly' classifications. I suggest that for clarity's sake, if you are going to continue this 'project' of yours, you maintain separate lists for EULA policies vs. 'customer service.'

I also find it hard to take seriously any lists like this that make a sweeping declaration on customer service based on one opinion, or a few. Again, at the very least you should disclose how many data points you're basing your subjective assessments on. You do not seem to be doing any comprehensive survey of users, which really limits how accurate your 'findings' are. Even assuming you get a large response here, it seems to me that people on internet forums are more apt to complain than voice contentment. That's an opinion, of course... but it's not an opinion to state that drawing conclusions from small samples of data will not yield useful results.

Reporting the terms of various EULAs is one thing, that's (mostly) easy to figure out objectively - though some developers are more flexible than their stated EULA. It is also occasionally hard to parse the language in a very legalese heavy EULA. Such distinctions may not be apparent simply by reading the document, though again I don't have a problem with reporting the contents of EULA documents as long as it is done rigorously. It is certainly worth considering (and noting in your list) that those documents are generally there to provide legal protection to the developer, and do not reflect every instance of how a developer interacts with their customers.

___

There are developers with EULA terms you do not agree with which I have had very good interactions with from a customer perspective.

For instance, after purchasing Dominus from Fluffy Audio and using it a bit, I had some thoughts about additional features I felt would improve the library. I emailed them. Paolo responded within a few hours, mentioned they were working on some of what I had requested already, and pointed out that one feature I wanted was in fact already in the library and I had missed it. This, to me, is fantastic 'customer service.'

I've had similarly good experiences when contacting Orchestral Tools regarding issues I had with one of their libraries and also commercial concerns about a particular discount code. In both instances they replied quickly, resolved the discount, and pointed me to the information I needed regarding the library. They update their products, as well. Their EULA forbids resale. Does this qualify them as 'unfriendly?'

I've even had good experiences with 8Dio. They resolved an issue with my account on their site without any trouble, and developer Colin O'Malley has responded directly to suggestions I have made regarding their libraries. I have, on occasion, gone to their website to use the live chat system to ask some questions about their libraries and received answers quickly. Your experience is not universal or absolute. Neither is mine, of course. But it is real. 8Dio also offers free 'try packs' of some of their instruments. You may dispute their value for evaluating the whole of an instrument, but they exist, they have the full interface implemented, and give a representative look at how the product operates.

___

Your second criteria for Product Support, "P2 - Commits to fix and update bad recording/soundediting" is a very subjective topic. Even in the thread you got locked/removed on VI-C, it was clear that there was not universal agreement -at all- that what you defined as 'bad recording' was in fact that. Even among those that felt it was not perfect, there was a spectrum of opinion on whether it should be updated/changed or not. What one person does not like the sound of is not always 'bad recording' in any objective sense. No developer should be beholden to the opinion of one customer who thinks a thing sounds bad and demands that it be changed. If there is a wide consensus that a thing needs changed, it probably will be changed or that product will fail commercially.

___

Finally, there is the issue of why EULAs are the way they are in the sample library/VI industry. It is a big topic, and there are real factors that necessitate the policies that 98% of the industry use. It's great that some developers feel they can adopt different policies, but their willingness to do so is not proof that their approach will work for every developer. Demonizing those that have 'no resale, no refund' policies is reductive and ignores the reality of the market. If an industry-wide 'no restrictions, full refund' situation existed, you would almost certainly see far fewer small developers and innovative products due to far greater financial risks to the developers.

____

If your intent is to provide a fair, comprehensive, rigorous look at the policies and practices of developers in the industry, you have a lot of work to do.

[GearNostalgia]

You're on quite the crusade.

I think at the very least, it is wholly misleading to combine licensing issues, customer service, and customer interactions into your 'very customer friendly,' 'reasonably customer friendly' and 'customer unfriendly' classifications. I suggest that for clarity's sake, if you are going to continue this 'project' of yours, you maintain separate lists for EULA policies vs. 'customer service.'

No, it that would not make the picture any clearer from the customer perspective. The list is intended to make it clear from who you can buy stuff without risk, with some risks or when you take the full risk as customer.

You're on quite the crusade.
I also find it hard to take seriously any lists like this that make a sweeping declaration on customer service based on one opinion, or a few. Again, at the very least you should disclose how many data points you're basing your subjective assessments on. You do not seem to be doing any comprehensive survey of users, which really limits how accurate your 'findings' are. Even assuming you get a large response here, it seems to me that people on internet forums are more apt to complain than voice contentment. That's an opinion, of course... but it's not an opinion to state that drawing conclusions from small samples of data will not yield useful results.

Yes I agree. There is not much data about the customer service, but this is the best available method and as always with everything on the web - take it for what it is - with a few grains of salt.

You're on quite the crusade.
Reporting the terms of various EULAs is one thing, that's (mostly) easy to figure out objectively - though some developers are more flexible than their stated EULA. It is also occasionally hard to parse the language in a very legalese heavy EULA. Such distinctions may not be apparent simply by reading the document, though again I don't have a problem with reporting the contents of EULA documents as long as it is done rigorously.

Yes, they are put up for a reason. If they are complex and hard to understand, well it is the responsibility to state them as plain and clear as possible if they don't intend to decieve. I will not go over them minutely. if anybody spots clauses in the EULAs that will benefit their customers i will lhighlight that part and see if it qualifies them into a better tier.

It is certainly worth considering (and noting in your list) that those documents are generally there to provide legal protection to the developer, and do not reflect every instance of how a developer interacts with their customers.

There are developers with EULA terms you do not agree with which I have had very good interactions with from a customer perspective.

Yes, totally agree. It seems like some developer have the strictest of EULAs as final retreat, but in general discuss and make good settlements with discontent customers. That is why I decided that it would be a better and more fair representation of this to include that aspect in the ranking. If you look at the terms a developer with the strictest EULA that applies a will to settle matters will rank up as much as one that have a less ridig EULA terms. This may very well need some fine tuning and settle in only after some time. But as you know, I am quite a crusader


___

For instance, after purchasing Dominus from Fluffy Audio and using it a bit, I had some thoughts about additional features I felt would improve the library. I emailed them. Paolo responded within a few hours, mentioned they were working on some of what I had requested already, and pointed out that one feature I wanted was in fact already in the library and I had missed it. This, to me, is fantastic 'customer service.'

That is nice, have they delivered those features yet? What features was it? I really like that approach, but it is not a part of this list that is about how to handle products that does not suit the customer. Asking for extra features is something outside the scope of this list.

I've had similarly good experiences when contacting Orchestral Tools regarding issues I had with one of their libraries and also commercial concerns about a particular discount code. In both instances they replied quickly, resolved the discount, and pointed me to the information I needed regarding the library. They update their products, as well. Their EULA forbids resale. Does this qualify them as 'unfriendly?'

No, as the list is constructed that would rank them in the Reasonable tier. I will put them there now.

I've even had good experiences with 8Dio. They resolved an issue with my account on their site without any trouble, and developer Colin O'Malley has responded directly to suggestions I have made regarding their libraries. I have, on occasion, gone to their website to use the live chat system to ask some questions about their libraries and received answers quickly. Your experience is not universal or absolute. Neither is mine, of course. But it is real. 8Dio also offers free 'try packs' of some of their instruments. You may dispute their value for evaluating the whole of an instrument, but they exist, they have the full interface implemented, and give a representative look at how the product operates.

Since I made my post I have been aware of a few more cases like mine. As long as there are new bad cases coming in the verdict stands. But I am very open to changing if I get reports about settlements of cases and some added policy of a will to discuss settlements or limited license transfers. As for offering a few limited packs that is more advertising that helpful in testing the true and full nature of a product like you can with a months subscription to Eastwest or full product demos what will time out.

Your second criteria for Product Support, "P2 - Commits to fix and update bad recording/soundediting" is a very subjective topic. Even in the thread you got locked/removed on VI-C, it was clear that there was not universal agreement -at all- that what you defined as 'bad recording' was in fact that. Even among those that felt it was not perfect, there was a spectrum of opinion on whether it should be updated/changed or not. What one person does not like the sound of is not always 'bad recording' in any objective sense. No developer should be beholden to the opinion of one customer who thinks a thing sounds bad and demands that it be changed. If there is a wide consensus that a thing needs changed, it probably will be changed or that product will fail commercially.

___

Finally, there is the issue of why EULAs are the way they are in the sample library/VI industry. It is a big topic, and there are real factors that necessitate the policies that 98% of the industry use. It's great that some developers feel they can adopt different policies, but their willingness to do so is not proof that their approach will work for every developer. Demonizing those that have 'no resale, no refund' policies is reductive and ignores the reality of the market. If an industry-wide 'no restrictions, full refund' situation existed, you would almost certainly see far fewer small developers and innovative products due to far greater financial risks to the developers.

I know we live in a situation with piracy and other malicious criminal offenses, but to use that as an excuse to enforcing a bad situation upon the honest buyers that actually spend the money that keep developers in business is bad for the customer. This list is intended to give due credit to the developers that have the will and capacity to adopt good terms and service and make it clear who are not willing to treat their customer well.

If your intent is to provide a fair, comprehensive, rigorous look at the policies and practices of developers in the industry, you have a lot of work to do.

Maybe, I hope I will get some aid from the lurking crowd to send me details and reports enough to update it. I will not read every nitty bit of all EULAs. I welcome the crowd(including developers) to explain if some specific EULAs include parts in favour of the customer.

Time will tell how much "data" this thread and how often I will have to update it, but I hope I can keep up.

BTW, I would like nothing more than to confidently move as many developers as possible from the unknown or unfriendly sections into the top two tiers and make state with pride in what way the serve the customers well with refunds, trades or full demos.

[JoelS]

I would not expect developers to touch this thread with a ten foot pole, because no good will come of petitioning someone who is in total opposition to standard industry practices to put them on a 'nice' list.

Your use of inflammatory, subjective labels is not helping people make up their own mind based on factual, unbiased information, it is leading them on and manipulative. A plain statement of whether a developer's EULA allows resale or refunds is more than enough to let someone decide whether that's a problem to them.

Sorting someone like Strezov into a category labelled 'customer unfriendly' when you are basing your categorization on nothing other than the EULA is not helping anyone. Have you read complaints about Strezov libraries not living up to expectations? Have you read stories of people receiving bad treatment from him? Do you have firsthand knowledge of his customer service practices or his products?

Personally I have bought several of his libraries, have zero complaints, have used the free libraries he offers, and find his willingness to participate in forums a credit to openness, even if it is probably just exposing him to trolling and is more trouble than it's worth.

Same thing with Impact Studios, a very small niche developer who I've only seen mentioned in a positive light, and whose products aren't even bank-breaking. What justification do you have to declare them 'customer unfriendly' when their sole offense against your scale is that they have a EULA you don't like?

Declaring yourself judge and rendering a verdict with only hearsay as evidence, then presenting it on a widely read public forum as a black mark against a business is not only of questionable use to anyone, declaring them 'customer unfriendly' is taking a shot at their reputation. You're on really shaky ground.

If your intent is to keep this up, and you have an honest desire to present useful information to people that is not rooted in your personal grievances, do it in a way that is objective, is based on verifiable facts, and if you are offering opinions up: label them as such clearly.

[GearNostalgia]

I would not expect developers to touch this thread with a ten foot pole, because no good will come of petitioning someone who is in total opposition to standard industry practices to put them on a 'nice' list.

Your use of inflammatory, subjective labels is not helping people make up their own mind based on factual, unbiased information, it is leading them on and manipulative. A plain statement of whether a developer's EULA allows resale or refunds is more than enough to let someone decide whether that's a problem to them.

Sorting someone like Strezov into a category labelled 'customer unfriendly' when you are basing your categorization on nothing other than the EULA is not helping anyone. Have you read complaints about Strezov libraries not living up to expectations? Have you read stories of people receiving bad treatment from him? Do you have firsthand knowledge of his customer service practices or his products?

Personally I have bought several of his libraries, have zero complaints, have used the free libraries he offers, and find his willingness to participate in forums a credit to openness, even if it is probably just exposing him to trolling and is more trouble than it's worth.

Same thing with Impact Studios, a very small niche developer who I've only seen mentioned in a positive light, and whose products aren't even bank-breaking. What justification do you have to declare them 'customer unfriendly' when their sole offense against your scale is that they have a EULA you don't like?

Declaring yourself judge and rendering a verdict with only hearsay as evidence, then presenting it on a widely read public forum as a black mark against a business is not only of questionable use to anyone, declaring them 'customer unfriendly' is taking a shot at their reputation. You're on really shaky ground.

If your intent is to keep this up, and you have an honest desire to present useful information to people that is not rooted in your personal grievances, do it in a way that is objective, is based on verifiable facts, and if you are offering opinions up: label them as such clearly.

The current situation is a mess. A lot of developers use the same strict EULA. Some enforce them stricly to the letter and some are in fact very gracefully in handling unsatisfied customers. Without any statments of their stance like for instance Zero-G have the customer can only guess what to expect. Customers will benefit from knowing clearly what to expect. All the developers with a friendly and graceful attitude should get credit for it (which they don't if there is no way of knowing it). They will win from this. If anybody feels hard about beeing listed for unfriendly terms, they are more than welcome to post and employ other terms and policies. The list will be updated and that applies to all.

[chk071]

This is almost TheoM-esque.

[GearNostalgia]

This is almost TheoM-esque.

Ok, can you clarify that?

[GearNostalgia]

I
Sorting someone like Strezov into a category labelled 'customer unfriendly' when you are basing your categorization on nothing other than the EULA is not helping anyone. Have you read complaints about Strezov libraries not living up to expectations? Have you read stories of people receiving bad treatment from him? Do you have firsthand knowledge of his customer service practices or his products?

As for Strezow and Impact Studios or any other big or small devs that gets listed for Customer unfriendly terms. This lis a list of which companies that have good or bad terms of sales from a customer stance, to make this extra clear all tiers ar now labeled with terms. Until there are reported cases of great or not so great experiences the terms have to speak for themselves(and they clearly states NO REFUNDS) and each customer have to make the choice to take a leap of faith or to buy from a vendor that allow refunds tobe safe IF a product does not deliver as expected or if he wants to sell if for any other reason. Ideally you should be able to do whatever you want with your product when you want to. Maybe you get sick and need to recover money to pay medical bills.You may own a few super great and flawless libraries, but that would not matter one bit if you can not sell them in that situation, right?

[chk071]

This is almost TheoM-esque.

Ok, can you clarify that?

All i'm saying is that this is time which could be used for something far more useful.

[GearNostalgia]

This is almost TheoM-esque.

Ok, can you clarify that?

All i'm saying is that this is time which could be used for something far more useful.

It is as it is. Sometimes things don't work out as expected or as they should. I wish that none of this even had come to happen. That I never bought the wrong product from the wrong developer. If I had found a list like this a month ago it would have saved me some time, money and sadness that I could have spent making music or something else. I am doing this for all future customers and also to give due credit to the developers that have good terms of sale. I have found a few in the process and I hope to be able to add as many as possible in the future. For every message from a silent grateful message I get I feel it is very much worth the effort.

[jancivil]

As to Impact Soundworks, a for instance here is I had bought Sitar Nation way back in the day, not more recently than 2009 and there was an update last year. My account did not reflect this (old email account/login and rebuilt website). I mentioned it here, and Andrew sorted me ASAP.

So here's two where I KNOW better than this list... and I've really rather avoided doing more here. Life is short and I'm old.

TheoM was banned repeatedly (then finally, permanently) for too much grief and petulance basically. Rants.

You're making easy-to-avoid mistakes here in your zeal. I would recommend cutting it out. This forum exists because of product and there's a nice balance (cf Vi Control, which IME lacks in). This is not balanced.
This gives fuel to the people like BONES in the 'NFR, why' thread.

I have had the very best support from VSL with no need to wonder about selling it. I could, there's a fee for it which isn't the lowest but that being the single consideration for user-friendly doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Hearsay on EULA because 8DIO is going too far, I recommend to check your facts and your impulses.