'reFX license transfers not allowed'

[Glassback]

I get the same thing as W/R. The paragraph that Chris quotes is actually 10.1, but it ends with the word 'outstanding'. Nothing about seizing products.

[Sascha Franck]

But why is it so bad that license transfers aren't allowed? Many other companies don't allow it either, even in other industries.

Because it is. When I buy whatever instrument, regardless whether it's hard- or software, I want to be able to sell it whenever I feel like not needing it aynmore. As simple as that.

[Bonteburg]

I tend to side with Sascha. Haven't been in such a situation yet (like i own more than two music apps *lol* and anyway I get attached )
BUT: I'd be really annoyed if I couldn't, and I wouldn't buy from a company that doesn't let me, or respectively just do it anyway by way of sticking my middle finger up to them.

Marco

[mensturbation]

But why is it so bad that license transfers aren't allowed? Many other companies don't allow it either, even in other industries.

+1

Because it is. When I buy whatever instrument, regardless whether it's hard- or software, I want to be able to sell it whenever I feel like not needing it aynmore. As simple as that.

[Hink]

I tend to side with Sascha. Haven't been in such a situation yet (like i own more than two music apps *lol* and anyway I get attached )
BUT: I'd be really annoyed if I couldn't, and I wouldn't buy from a company that doesn't let me, or respectively just do it anyway by way of sticking my middle finger up to them.

Marco

I'm in between, I agree in theory but have to admit that price and how badly I wanted it would be the primary deciding factors. Though it would also be might be what tips the scales as well...

[eduardo_b]

So is the issue really about selling or about transferring title? There's really nothing stopping you from selling to someone else if they are willing to accept that they will be unable to update the software -- unless per chance account information is also included in the sale. If it's about recouping some of the money spent on the software, then tranferring is basically an issue for the buyer. Of course, I suppose without tranferring title, someone could sell and re-sell the same software over and over, as could those who bought it.

Yes, the EULA may say one is buying a license to use but not to own the software, but it's essentially unenforceable, isn't it, unless the software is tied to server authentication each time, which isn't really possible given how many DAWs are not connected to the Internet. So, if you sell ReFx software to someone and delete it and any backup copies from your system, and if the buyer is happy to have the current version at the price paid, go ahead and sell it. What is Michael going to do -- file a lawsuit, and for what purpose?

[diverdee]

I don't like the idea of not being able to sell / transfer software etc. but understand that's a decision some vendors / developers make.
What bothers me in this instance is the apparent lie that is being told to the person making the inquiry as to whether he can sell / transfer, the answer being akin to 'no you can't, but it's not my decision, it's one that's been forced on me by share-it', when in fact other developers use share-it & allow sales / transfers.
If you are not going to allow sales / transfers at least have the balls to explain your decision / state your position without dissembling & attempting to blame it on others.
I could be wrong, but that's the question I would like to see answered / position I would like to see clarified, although I doubt it will be.

[Reverse Engineer]

It'd be a horrible situation if a software company cut a deal with the likes of muse research to have a branded receptor (such as the komplete one, or the BFD turbo) and enforced a rule like that.

[farlukar]

share-it specifically say, on the one I see, that that's their regulations based on German law, and that local law may override any parts of it.

odd that

[DevonB]

I see no problem with not being able to sell licensed software. These facts are pretty out in the open and have been an 'industry' norm for at least a decade now. If you don't like it, don't buy it, simple as that. There are *SO* many options out there, go buy something you can sell later if it's that so critically important to you.

There are so many things we 'buy' that we can't resell; car insurance, home owners insurance, cable service, phone service, cell phone service, renting a house, apartment, car, boat, etc. We 'buy' into it on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis, but we don't 'own' the 'product', just the right to use the 'product'. If you don't like 'leasing' a car and want to 'own' it, you pay the price. In this case, you can buy a hardware synthesizer for significantly more in most cases, but you OWN it, and can resell it.

Maybe vendors should start selling a non-transferable license and a transferable license at a price point that suits them (say $50-$100 more, if not more...) so suit everyone if they wish to do that, and pays for their time to deal with the license transfer.

Devon

[Reverse Engineer]

If you don't like it, don't buy it

This argument has never sat comfortably with me. I'm sure you have heard of a little thing called a 'patent', which means a company (generally pharmaceutical companies though) can patent something, then f**k you over left right and centre, because they know there may never be an alternative for you to choose. I know were only talking about software here, but the same applies.

[eduardo_b]

I see no problem with not being able to sell licensed software...There are so many things we 'buy' that we can't resell...

This analogy may seem valid to you, but it doesn't really make sense to me. You're comparing a product with services, and then saying not being able to resell them is accepted. Renting, leasing, monthly service fees and the like are obviously not resellable for consumers, but software most certainly is. As for how much the charge should be for transferring registration, given that the developer has acquired a new customer to replace the previous "owner" of the software, the fee should be minimal or none. It's called customer service, part of the cost of doing business.

[chicken muffin]

you know what i think about refx current popularity (or lack there of) when marcus left refx thats when things seemed to go down the toilet. marcus was responsible for most or all of the filter algos in vanguard (one of the best if not best selling vstis of all time) and anybody who knows a thing or two about synths, no filter, no sound.

that would definitely explain the popularity of firebird vs the unpopularity of nexus...

[liars&ashes]

----The only thing that matters (legally, if not all around on this subject), is the terms under which you bought said product. If they change the terms with no notice, and no way to terminate your side of the agreement and be compensated/refunded, then they are in the wrong. As far as companies selling non-transferrable software, I'm pretty sure that's entirely their choice, as long as it is in the terms, and specifically brought to potential customers attention before the point of purchase, then it's 100% your choice as well. The only problem I had with ReFx was that they changed the terms from under me. I didn't really even care so much that they flat out lied about it and blamed ShareIt! for a non-existant problem with license transfers. Anyways, I'd say get out now, sell your ReFx licenses and don't look back, or shut up and go use the software happily.

Jeff

[jens]

Additionally a license agreement/EULA is never above the law. So where I live in the Netherlands e.g. Microsoft's EULA can be mostly ignored.

that's a very important point which is often not considered by frightened customers - both private persons and companies are used to threaten with lawyers to enforce their personal idea of justice - and often the threats (and what else are many of the EULAs who disrespect the actual law) are hilarious at best - but instead of laughing people get scared and give in...