Selling an account instead of paying transfer fees.

[Hink]

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.

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.

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

[simonden]

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).

Again, the issue is the license vs product issue. I doubt we are going to agree and I get that. Like I was saying earlier, different ways that different people are used to.

The account I was considering transferring allows transfers and has zero transfer fees (Izotope). I have 2 accounts and I bought the same software twice about 8 years ago (common with me, I 'collect' music software rather than using it, just found a 2nd Cubase license from 5 years ago that I never even opened the email). But hey, I will sell the products individually instead.

[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.

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.

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

Exactly, I was saying don't change the rules to make KVR the judge, not that they currently are.

[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).

Again, the issue is the license vs product issue. I doubt we are going to agree and I get that. Like I was saying earlier, different ways that different people are used to.

The account I was considering transferring allows transfers and has zero transfer fees (Izotope). I have 2 accounts and I bought the same software twice about 8 years ago (common with me, I 'collect' music software rather than using it, just found a 2nd Cubase license from 5 years ago that I never even opened the email). But hey, I will sell the products individually instead.

This is totally different to the whole premise of this discussion, which is about members trying to circumvent the paying of fees by swapping out account details

But hey, I will sell the products individually instead.

Or perhaps write to Izotope and ask them what they suggest

[Gamma-UT]

I get why some people might do this because of high fees, but if it is against the EULA then I think its probably a major case of BUYER BEWARE.

What do you think?

Is it worth it?

Fwiw I dont think if should be allowed..

I don't think this has been covered in the thread yet, which quickly veered off into "don't tell me what to do, you're not my mother!" territory.

One thing that came up a few months ago was the seller getting in touch with the supplier and getting the account switched back to them because they had the purchase details attached to their original email, stiffing the 2nd-hand buyer in the process. I think it's buried in the bargains gossip thread somewhere.

So, yes, buyer beware.

You might also get the situation where no-one has the licence in the end because the vendor may claim breach of ToS if they are alerted to what happened.

OTOH, if you're feeling lucky, the prices for account transfers do often often pretty low. Whether they price in the risk is another matter - given these issues don't turn up very often, the buyer getting stiffed doesn't seem to happen very often.

[simonden]

This is totally different to the whole premise of this discussion, which is about members trying to circumvent the paying of fees by swapping out account details

True, but I did say:

Although, I think all the accounts I want to transfer allow it anyway.

Will check the other two later, I know they are free transfers, but can't find my login details.

But my overall point was more general rather than relating to me, if someone buys a product (I am being key about product here, that includes so called 'lifetime licences'), then they should be able to sell/transfer it without hinderance.

Here is an interesting one though, other than fixes to make the product work as intended/originally sold, i also don't think that the buyer should get free updates. In an ideal world it would be something like: Transfers allowed, no fee, no support, no downloads allowed (backup your installer) no updates (other than to fix the product as intended/originally sold). If the buyer wants these features then a reasonable fee.

[Hink]

fixed your quote simonden

[vurt]

you can have my kvr account for 20 quid

[revvy]

you can have my kvr account for 20 quid

Does it come with access to your 'weird pm' collection?

[Hink]

sorry, that's my pension plan

[revvy]

Publish and be damned!

[Hink]

shhh dont tell vurt

[sambaji]

Today's allowable EULAs in the US have given companies way too much control over consumer rights and behavior. It hasn't always been the case. For example, in the past, when you bought software on a CD, you were able to resell/give the CD to someone, with the registration/serial number, as long as you uninstalled the program on your own computer. Remember when you could buy second-hand software CDs in Thrift Stores?

Now most companies have transferred over to a purely abstract license model, where consumers don't even really own anything, which can allow companies to charge large transfer fees or even prevent users from reselling their license/account. The fact there are companies such as Ableton, and I believe Native Instruments, that allow transfers and do not charge for them shows that it is possible to do so and still be profitable.