Selling an account instead of paying transfer fees.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Well, hopefully you won't get the choice to do it here

But why not? You are looking at it only from one-side. I own the software, it is mine free and legal to transfer. What you are suggesting is that KVR helps developers to circumvent the law.

I'm not seeing it from one-side, and no...you don't own the software

You made it very clear in your post that the legalities and enforceability vary depending on location, but you see fit to take advantage of those grey areas and grant yourself total freedom to do as you wish. But then you make a clear-cut statement about developers circumventing the law.

My feeling is that your interest in the legalities of the issue only go as far as to inform you that you'll get away with it, whatever you decide

[simonden]

I'm not seeing it from one-side, and no...you don't own the software

You made it very clear in your post that the legalities and enforceability vary depending on location, but you see fit to take advantage of those grey areas and grant yourself total freedom to do as you wish. But then you make a clear-cut statement about developers circumventing the law.

My feeling is that your interest in the legalities of the issue only go as far as to inform you that you'll get away with it, whatever you decide

Not really, it is more so people understand that there are always differing opinions/legislations/cultures. In my eyes, things like 'lifetime licences' are grossly unfair and I believe would fail our Equality (Age) Regulations, but that is unlikely to ever be tested. Although I do understand that 'lifetime licences' are the norm in other countries. People just need to remember that the rest of the world does exist with differing opinions (and yes I do think that your comments are one-sided).

A far as I am concerned, I do own the software, I do not rent software, I buy it. I do not license usage, I own the copy that I have purchased, regardless of what any EULA says (which particularly in the case of boxed software is not available until after purchase, so I cannot agree to it anyway). The EULA cannot override local laws.

There is nothing 'to get away with' and I am not taking advantage of any 'grey areas'. For the avoidance of doubt, I am pretty sure I have never sold/transferred any account (yet, I think I will dig through my software now though as I have loads of doubles).

But the question is, why should KVR be the judge here?

And I 100% agree with supporting developers, I will just be supporting developers that support their customers.

[medienhexer]

What I do think should be implemented is some kind of scaling. If it is the case that companies are trying to recoup money against the lost sale of the transferred license, then the fee should be scaled up or down, appropriately. This would definitely make the FXP situation a little bit more 'acceptable'

Agreed. That would be reasonable. But then again, it's still their business, their decision. Unless they break any laws, then it's not. But the fees have been around unchanged for a very long time so I don't think it will happen.

Just for context, I count 8 BFD expansions with a regular price of 45€. So none of them can be sold, really. With a 50 bucks transfer fee, you'd pay a premium of 20 - 30 bucks for the right to not own a license anymore.

I count another 12 expansions with a regular price of 65€. Let's say you only pay a 10 - 15 bucks premium on those. Still not sellable.

The Groove Expansions (MIDI packs) are a regular 22 - 35€. You would go broke transferring those licenses.

That's 29 products you can never sell with their fee. And the rest is in most cases valued at sales price minus the buyer's 'I know you need the money' discount.

And I think that these considerations may be the basis for those account-selling situations. Seeing how emotional some users get about tools/vendors they feel have wronged them, they can't even give away their account for free to mentally rid them of the connection to that company going by the EULA. And some people can't stand to just not use something, they need to get rid of it.

Picking up the Waves argument, Waves Mercury is list priced about 8k. It has been on sale for as low as $1,200? Now, in order to transfer it, you used to pay $240 for the WUP upgrade, but now it's an additional max fee of $150 to transfer. That's $390 to transfer your license.

On KVR, you'll be hard pressed to sell anything over $1,000. More likely, you'll receive several offers in the $500 range. On other platforms, you may receive a realistic offer. But then, PayPal take their share, as well. So yes, you can theoretically sell Waves Mercury, but you'll recover anywhere between 0 and maybe $400.

In the initial purchase decision, the resale worth may have played a role to push you towards Waves.

Again, I get that argument about lost sales due to used sales. But then again, that $500 forum member would never have bought the bundle new and the initial customer may never have bought that bundle at a higher price if these fees had been in existence back then. So in that situation, Waves gets a sale they would never have gotten plus a license transfer of $390 they would never have gotten.

I don't know... it doesn't look as black and white to me.

On the other hand, we have some developers here who just create products that are so good that you will never want to part ways with them. But if you ever have to, there are almost never any sales, so the resale value is higher. And there is no fee. So you never see any account takeovers for their products. Feels like the more customer-friendly policy to me.

[medienhexer]

Oh, and perhaps to contrast things with an equally insane point on the opposite end, in every KOMPLETE thread, someone feels the urge to ask if they can sell the KOMPLETE-bundled titles they don't want. Thinking that they can buy the bundle at 50% off in a sale and then sell on parts later to make a profit.

Of course, even if it were possible, I don't think that customers should have the right to do that.

I mean: where does it end, sell everything you don't watch on Netflix?

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

There is nothing 'to get away with' and I am not taking advantage of any 'grey areas'. For the avoidance of doubt, I am pretty sure I have never sold/transferred any account

I'm not saying you've acted upon this. However, you have already resolved that it would be within your conscience to do so. My point about grey areas is that underneath the cloud of uncertainty, regarding which companies (and trading from which countries), you've decided that none of it is a concern. If you were interested in the legal ramifications, surely you'd make it your business to know which companies are within their lawful rights to enforce these practices, and which aren't. i suspect you haven't done so, which is why i suggest that your law-talk is one-sided i.e only used to explain why you feel ok to not follow their conditions, should you ever be in the position to do so .

But the question is, why should KVR be the judge here?

It's not about being 'The Judge!'. It's up to the customer to make themselves aware of what's involved in buying and installing software, before they do so. You wanna take on some big legal fight, then good. The clarity would definitely help. But until then, I personally think that KVR's position should be to uphold the law of EULA/contract, as it's presented, until something changes.

And I 100% agree with supporting developers, I will just be supporting developers that support their customers.

Are you claiming you've not received support from companies that also happen charge license transfer fees? Have you noticed a trend? Did you not get what you paid for, that when you've got bored with the software, you think they should be completely out of a license sale?

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

What I do think should be implemented is some kind of scaling. If it is the case that companies are trying to recoup money against the lost sale of the transferred license, then the fee should be scaled up or down, appropriately. This would definitely make the FXP situation a little bit more 'acceptable'

Agreed. That would be reasonable. But then again, it's still their business, their decision. Unless they break any laws, then it's not. But the fees have been around unchanged for a very long time so I don't think it will happen.

Just for context, I count 8 BFD expansions with a regular price of 45€. So none of them can be sold, really. With a 50 bucks transfer fee, you'd pay a premium of 20 - 30 bucks for the right to not own a license anymore.

I count another 12 expansions with a regular price of 65€. Let's say you only pay a 10 - 15 bucks premium on those. Still not sellable.

The Groove Expansions (MIDI packs) are a regular 22 - 35€. You would go broke transferring those licenses.

That's 29 products you can never sell with their fee. And the rest is in most cases valued at sales price minus the buyer's 'I know you need the money' discount.

And I think that these considerations may be the basis for those account-selling situations. Seeing how emotional some users get about tools/vendors they feel have wronged them, they can't even give away their account for free to mentally rid them of the connection to that company going by the EULA. And some people can't stand to just not use something, they need to get rid of it.

Picking up the Waves argument, Waves Mercury is list priced about 8k. It has been on sale for as low as $1,200? Now, in order to transfer it, you used to pay $240 for the WUP upgrade, but now it's an additional max fee of $150 to transfer. That's $390 to transfer your license.

On KVR, you'll be hard pressed to sell anything over $1,000. More likely, you'll receive several offers in the $500 range. On other platforms, you may receive a realistic offer. But then, PayPal take their share, as well. So yes, you can theoretically sell Waves Mercury, but you'll recover anywhere between 0 and maybe $400.

In the initial purchase decision, the resale worth may have played a role to push you towards Waves.

Again, I get that argument about lost sales due to used sales. But then again, that $500 forum member would never have bought the bundle new and the initial customer may never have bought that bundle at a higher price if these fees had been in existence back then. So in that situation, Waves gets a sale they would never have gotten plus a license transfer of $390 they would never have gotten.

I don't know... it doesn't look as black and white to me.

On the other hand, we have some developers here who just create products that are so good that you will never want to part ways with them. But if you ever have to, there are almost never any sales, so the resale value is higher. And there is no fee. So you never see any account takeovers for their products. Feels like the more customer-friendly policy to me.

I am very familiar with the FXPansion situation. A few months back, I enquired about selling my copy of Geist2, and if there was any possibility of transfer fees to be waived on expansions, if i sold them separately.

I was informed that at that time, all single products would need a separate license transfer, regardless of value. I knew this when I bought them, but I thought to check given that in the interim period Roli had bought them out. I thought things might've changed.

They hadn't.

So, that was that. I accepted it, and priced the bundle (with Geist 2) in such a way as to make it a quick sale, and that was that.

I don't begrudge them the $50 transfer, They have made it clear that it is to discourage people f**king around, and to recoup some money agains the loss of a potential sale. My only issue was that there was no scaling, for value. But in the end, like I said, those were also the terms when I bought them. Moreover, I don't think I paid full price for any of them, so...

Familiarise yourself with a companies practices and policies, before you buy, and buy elsewhere if you don't agree.

[v1o]

The UN and the International Criminal Court (ICC) should settle these legal grey areas in selling 2nd hand software across borders on the internet. It's like no one really knows what to follow.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Oh, and perhaps to contrast things with an equally insane point on the opposite end, in every KOMPLETE thread, someone feels the urge to ask if they can sell the KOMPLETE-bundled titles they don't want. Thinking that they can buy the bundle at 50% off in a sale and then sell on parts later to make a profit.

Of course, even if it were possible, I don't think that customers should have the right to do that.

I mean: where does it end, sell everything you don't watch on Netflix?

Well, this is definitely a different issue. I draw the line, at least in this case, at permission granted. If a company allows members to do so, then they should feel perfectly fine to do so. Of course, in this case, it is not permitted

[perpetual3]

I ended up buying a plugin from someone who did not explain before hand that they were transferring an account. I assumed that they would transfer and the license would be legally in my name. However, after payment the person just sent me their login details. When I brought the issue the up, they just suggested to change the details in the account and refused to refund my money.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

I ended up buying a plugin from someone who did not explain before hand that they were transferring an account. I assumed that they would transfer and the license would be legally in my name. However, after payment the person just sent me their login details. When I brought the issue the up, they just suggested to change the details in the account and refused to refund my money.

Report them

[simonden]

There is nothing 'to get away with' and I am not taking advantage of any 'grey areas'. For the avoidance of doubt, I am pretty sure I have never sold/transferred any account

I'm not saying you've acted upon this. However, you have already resolved that it would be within your conscience to do so. My point about grey areas is that underneath the cloud of uncertainty, regarding which companies (and trading from which countries), you've decided that none of it is a concern. If you were interested in the legal ramifications, surely you'd make it your business to know which companies are within their lawful rights to enforce these practices, and which aren't. i suspect you haven't done so, which is why i suggest that your law-talk is one-sided i.e only used to explain why you feel ok to not follow their conditions, should you ever be in the position to do so .

Not really, I know my interpretation of the local law and if an EULA is not in line, then it is pointless. All 'law' talk is one-sided until it is specifically decided by courts, I can only act on my understanding.

But the question is, why should KVR be the judge here?

It's not about being 'The Judge!'. It's up to the customer to make themselves aware of what's involved in buying and installing software, before they do so. You wanna take on some big legal fight, then good. The clarity would definitely help. But until then, I personally think that KVR's position should be to uphold the law of EULA/contract, as it's presented, until something changes.

But this is the issue, you are asking KVR to make a judgement call based on one side.

And I 100% agree with supporting developers, I will just be supporting developers that support their customers.

Are you claiming you've not received support from companies that also happen charge license transfer fees? Have you noticed a trend? Did you not get what you paid for, that when you've got bored with the software, you think they should be completely out of a license sale?

Here is the thing, they are not 'out of a license sale' they have sold a 'product' and if I want, I can sell that 'product' on. It is this distinction that i was referring to earlier, some countries see it as a license to use, others as a transfer of ownership of that copy of the product. Your argument for KVR to make a decision is only based on the former.

[Hink]

There is nothing 'to get away with' and I am not taking advantage of any 'grey areas'. For the avoidance of doubt, I am pretty sure I have never sold/transferred any account

I'm not saying you've acted upon this. However, you have already resolved that it would be within your conscience to do so. My point about grey areas is that underneath the cloud of uncertainty, regarding which companies (and trading from which countries), you've decided that none of it is a concern. If you were interested in the legal ramifications, surely you'd make it your business to know which companies are within their lawful rights to enforce these practices, and which aren't. i suspect you haven't done so, which is why i suggest that your law-talk is one-sided i.e only used to explain why you feel ok to not follow their conditions, should you ever be in the position to do so .

Not really, I know my interpretation of the local law and if an EULA is not in line, then it is pointless. All 'law' talk is one-sided until it is specifically decided by courts, I can only act on my understanding.

But the question is, why should KVR be the judge here?

It's not about being 'The Judge!'. It's up to the customer to make themselves aware of what's involved in buying and installing software, before they do so. You wanna take on some big legal fight, then good. The clarity would definitely help. But until then, I personally think that KVR's position should be to uphold the law of EULA/contract, as it's presented, until something changes.

But this is the issue, you are asking KVR to make a judgement call based on one side.

And I 100% agree with supporting developers, I will just be supporting developers that support their customers.

Are you claiming you've not received support from companies that also happen charge license transfer fees? Have you noticed a trend? Did you not get what you paid for, that when you've got bored with the software, you think they should be completely out of a license sale?

Here is the thing, they are not 'out of a license sale' they have sold a 'product' and if I want, I can sell that 'product' on. It is this distinction that i was referring to earlier, some countries see it as a license to use, others as a transfer of ownership of that copy of the product. Your argument for KVR to make a decision is only based on the former.

we do not act as judges, I have no idea where you get that from. We clearly lay out the rules for selling on our forum, we honor companies eula's and the laws of other countries. Now you come here and suggest that we help companies circumnavigate the law and furthermore you think it's ok for you to circumnavigate the company's policies to which you had ample time to review and you agreed to?

The Main Rules

You may not sell/trade anything that you are not legally entitled to, whether due to license restrictions, not owning the original in the case of software (cracks, warez, etc.), or any other bizarre reason that would make it illegal to sell the item.

If selling software you must obtain permission to transfer the license from the developer before advertising it for sale, failure to do so will almost definitely be in breach of the license agreement. Sample CDs and sample based instruments have notoriously restrictive license agreements so check before you try to sell.

NOTE: You may not agree with the license agreement, and you may plead that it is illegal/immoral/invalid in your country, but that's not for us to decide, if a license agreement states that you can't resell/transfer it then you can't sell it here.

that's the rules, deal with it or find another place to sell and if you use our site to sell illegally we wont be having further discussions and to sell legally here you must have the permission from the developer. (that includes an illegal transfer)

If you are concerned about transfer fees the time is before you buy the software, inquire about the fees, if they are too high tell the developer that's why you're not buying the software. If you buy it, then complain about the fees here the devs aren't gonna give it a second thought as they already got their money.

Yet you want to make it sound like we are doing something wrong by giving members a forum like this to sell and buy in.

[original flipper]

Hi

If music software was only purchased by professional musicians/studios then developers would not be in business - this is an absolute certainty.

So, they rely on sales to hobbyists who by default are fickle - it would seem to me to be only reasonable to allow sales of software although I accept that an admin charge would seem reasonable.

I actually thought that not allowing the sale of software was now considered an infringement of the buyers rights...?

I think that buyers should carefully consider their purchases though, there is a constant flow of threads on peoples 'beefs' with copy protection, sales, fees and what not.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Here is the thing, they are not 'out of a license sale' they have sold a 'product' and if I want, I can sell that 'product' on. It is this distinction that i was referring to earlier, some countries see it as a license to use, others as a transfer of ownership of that copy of the product. Your argument for KVR to make a decision is only based on the former.

They are out of a sale because you are selling a license the buyer would've otherwise bought from the developer.

The KVR decision would be the safest, lowest-common-denominator, position i.e to assume that EULA is legally binding, upon purchase, and later while installing. you are just as guilty of making a one-size-fits-all decision i.e the one that best serves you, because "some countries see it as"...

Again, if you had any interest in the observing the law, then you'd know exactly which companies were justified in demanding fees, and be happy to pay them (Were you ever to need to).

[simonden]

we do not act as judges, I have no idea where you get that from. We clearly lay out the rules for selling on our forum, we honor companies eula's and the laws of other countries. Now you come here and suggest that we help companies circumnavigate the law and furthermore you think it's ok for you to circumnavigate the company's policies to which you had ample time to review and you agreed to?

?? Extremely confused by this. You appear to be agreeing with me, i.e. don't change anything.

I have not said that KVR are currently acting as judges or attempting to circumnavigate the law, what I said was the exact opposite. There was a suggestion that this thread would change KVR policy, which I disagree with.

that's the rules, deal with it or find another place to sell and if you use our site to sell illegally we wont be having further discussions and to sell legally here you must have the permission from the developer. (that includes an illegal transfer)

If you are concerned about transfer fees the time is before you buy the software, inquire about the fees, if they are too high tell the developer that's why you're not buying the software. If you buy it, then complain about the fees here the devs aren't gonna give it a second thought as they already got their money.

Yet you want to make it sound like we are doing something wrong by giving members a forum like this to sell and buy in.

I am not concerned about transfer fees, and I have never sold anything illegally (on here or otherwise).

I absolutely do not want to make it sound like KVR are doing something wrong, exactly the opposite, sorry I am just really really confused about your comments.