UAD still worth it?

[LoveEnigma18]

As an FYI, unfortunately, UA plugin licenses cannot be resold/transferred. It is only possible to transfer the plugin licenses if you have and are selling a UA hardware.

[jamcat]

As should always be the case with all software licenses and other IP usage rights.

Could you imagine... someone licenses your song to use in their independent film. After they release the film, they turn around and sell the license to use your song to another filmmaker to use in their release.

They get their money back, your song is used in two films, and you got paid only once and have no control over where rights to your IP are going. Quite ridiculous, don't you think?

But, OK, now imagine you are a software developer. someone licenses your software to use in their production. After they release their songs, they turn around and sell the license to use your software to another music maker to use in their release.

They get their money back, your software was used by two producers, and you got paid only once and have no control over where rights to your IP are going. So the first case is wrong but the second case is OK?

If you think of a software license as what it actually is—the right to utilize someone else's IP in your own work—and you consider that after using that IP YOU HAVE CONSUMED IT, then you see why it should not be allowed to be transferred to another. It's not about using it right now. It's about having used it and whatever derivative works that were created with it, which you have already done by the time you try to sell it. And the buyer has not actually purchased rights to use the intellectual property from the IP holder, who is the sole entity that can grant such rights.

Each license must be unique to the content creator who uses it, because it is a contract between the IP holder and the IP user which covers whatever content that may be created with the IP.

[elxsound]

And here is when the thread derails.

Many fatalities will be reported.

[_leras]

Each license must be unique to the content creator who uses it, because it is a contract between the IP holder and the IP user which covers whatever content that may be created with the IP.

Hold up... So you're saying I need to email NI every time I want to use one of their synths in a track?

Synths, DAWs etc are more akin to tools, like hammers, that can be used as the owner decides, and can be sold when the owner chooses. This is in fact law in the EU.

You must be the one person here than approves of software subscriptions that you never own...

(That said yes UAD are still worth it... though should allow individual license resales. Perhaps their workaround is you can sell and transfer your entire account with All plug ins.)

[martinjuenke]

As should always be the case with all software licenses and other IP usage rights.

Could you imagine... someone licenses your song to use in their independent film. After they release the film, they turn around and sell the license to use your song to another filmmaker to use in their release.

They get their money back, your song is used in two films, and you got paid only once and have no control over where rights to your IP are going. Quite ridiculous, don't you think?

But, OK, now imagine you are a software developer. someone licenses your software to use in their production. After they release their songs, they turn around and sell the license to use your software to another music maker to use in their release.

They get their money back, your software was used by two producers, and you got paid only once and have no control over where rights to your IP are going. So the first case is wrong but the second case is OK?

If you think of a software license as what it actually is—the right to utilize someone else's IP in your own work—and you consider that after using that IP YOU HAVE CONSUMED IT, then you see why it should not be allowed to be transferred to another. It's not about using it right now. It's about having used it and whatever derivative works that were created with it, which you have already done by the time you try to sell it. And the buyer has not actually purchased rights to use the intellectual property from the IP holder, who is the sole entity that can grant such rights.

Each license must be unique to the content creator who uses it, because it is a contract between the IP holder and the IP user which covers whatever content that may be created with the IP.

Please provide a TL;DR.
Thanks

[jamcat]

Each license must be unique to the content creator who uses it, because it is a contract between the IP holder and the IP user which covers whatever content that may be created with the IP.

Hold up... So you're saying I need to email NI every time I want to use one of their synths in a track?

No. As long as you have a license, your IP that uses their IP is covered. That’s the point of perpetual non-extinguishing licenses.

And if you only want to use their plugins for a limited period of time, there is a solution for that: a subscription.

Universal Audio has one too.

[bmanic]

As should always be the case with all software licenses and other IP usage rights.

Could you imagine... someone licenses your song to use in their independent film. After they release the film, they turn around and sell the license to use your song to another filmmaker to use in their release.

They get their money back, your song is used in two films, and you got paid only once and have no control over where rights to your IP are going. Quite ridiculous, don't you think?

But, OK, now imagine you are a software developer. someone licenses your software to use in their production. After they release their songs, they turn around and sell the license to use your software to another music maker to use in their release.

They get their money back, your software was used by two producers, and you got paid only once and have no control over where rights to your IP are going. So the first case is wrong but the second case is OK?

If you think of a software license as what it actually is—the right to utilize someone else's IP in your own work—and you consider that after using that IP YOU HAVE CONSUMED IT, then you see why it should not be allowed to be transferred to another. It's not about using it right now. It's about having used it and whatever derivative works that were created with it, which you have already done by the time you try to sell it. And the buyer has not actually purchased rights to use the intellectual property from the IP holder, who is the sole entity that can grant such rights.

Each license must be unique to the content creator who uses it, because it is a contract between the IP holder and the IP user which covers whatever content that may be created with the IP.

Bad analogy. Software products are tools, they aren't music. There is a very clear and easy to understand distinction here. You can sell tools.

[bmanic]

As an FYI, unfortunately, UA plugin licenses cannot be resold/transferred. It is only possible to transfer the plugin licenses if you have and are selling a UA hardware.

This will probably change, at least for EU residents as this goes directly against EU law. If enough people take it up with the governing bodies, UA will not be able to keep selling things to EU residents or have to change their policy.

With their UAD hardware they had a loophole they could use. This is no longer true when selling software only.

[plexuss]

As should always be the case with all software licenses and other IP usage rights.

Could you imagine... someone licenses your song to use in their independent film. [snip...]
But, OK, now imagine you are a software developer. someone licenses your software to use in their production.

Bad analogy. Songs are content. Software are tools. Very different and require very different licenses. A driver's license is a very different thing than, say, an HVAC licenses, etc. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[comfybread]

I will say they are worth within the sale they keep having now a days (especially with the native ones), other than that I would just personally wait & even check out alternatives (there are few good options now a days for that)

[dionenoid]

UA said they’ll be doing that sale directly.

Yes, i just read an UA rep saying that they will send out e-mails soon.

[LoveEnigma18]

UA said they’ll be doing that sale directly.

Yes, i just read an UA rep saying that they will send out e-mails soon.

Already received the email from UAD. Unfortunately, the thank you code cannot be used with those coupons.

[Download SOphist]

yeah, it looked too good to be true

[jamcat]

UA said they’ll be doing that sale directly.

Yes, i just read an UA rep saying that they will send out e-mails soon.

Already received the email from UAD. Unfortunately, the thank you code cannot be used with those coupons.

What sale? Which coupons?
The Audio Essentials Bundle Upgrade from Free LA-2A?

[roman.i]

Can someone confirm if the essential bundle for $49 issues a thank you coupon?