If all Spectrasonic products are sample based then what they say is most likely true, this ruling does not apply. If you have made music using those sample based synths and you then sell the synth you no longer have a license to use the sounds packaged with the synth, since they count as samples and samples are not software - so this would now make a nice legal mess around the tracks you already created. I would be surprised if they granted many license transfer requests. I wonder under what circumstances they would? Not likely that "I just want to sell it because I no longer use it" would suffice.OneOfManyPauls wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:17 pm https://www.spectrasonics.net/support/k ... egoryID=78
I've heard that unrestricted license transfers/used sales are legal in some countries in Europe. Is this true?
No, but it's a common misunderstanding of the laws. Spectrasonics Virtual Instruments come with two licenses - one for the software and one for 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 in the same way throughout the world.
It doesn't answer the original question, however, which was "how can a software developer get away with making a license NFR in light of this ruling?" The answer there I think is that if the software was free (e.g., an initial offering where the first X users get it free, or for whatever reason you are given the software as a gift by the supplier) then making it NFR may well be acceptable despite the ruling. Since you technically did not purchase the software you don't get the right to sell it. I don't know if this would in fact be true and you might have a good legal basis for challenging it (provided you are an EU citizen or permanent resident.)
What I do think would be covered by the ruling is that if you bought something second hand, I know some suppliers make it NFR at that point, i.e., only the original purchaser can sell it. That's iffy at best and would probably not be allowed according to that ruling. And obviously if you are the original purchaser.
Almost certainly not. See my explanation above.
