Spectrasonics license transfer fee - unkindness behavior?

[blatanville]

No, that doesn't make sense. My reasoning is that multiple people are getting potentially unlimited use out of the same product while Spectra has only been paid only once (besides the minor transfer fees.)

ah...but only one person at a time, right? We're assuming purchaser#1 didn't duplicate the library before selling it. If Spectrsonics is justifying their price partly based on the assumption of wrong-doing on the part of the initial purchaser, that's just as egregious as the transfer fee.

and before we go down the path of "well, we all know people could copy CDs/DVDs before they sell them!" That means you don't accept that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Which, besides being counter to most legal systems, is also a shitty foundation for good customer service...

[ATS]

From the Spectrasonics faq:
"Any license transferred versions of this software do not have all the same upgrade privileges as standard new units purchased at an authorized Spectrasonics dealer."

So the 2nd buyer has paid $50 for the licence transfer and he's probably going to get blasted for a bigger upgrade fee when the time comes. Sprectrasonics are effectively charging $50 and also devaluing the licence by whatever additional amount they choose to charge the 2nd user for the upgrade when the time comes. IMO if Spectrasonics choose to charge extra to 2nd users upgrades this would be an abuse of the licence transfer process. They've already had the original price and $50, and the above implies that it doesn't end there. Surely that is just plain wrong from a moral perspective?

I kind of agree with this. If they are going to allow a license transfer and charge 50 dollars for it they shouldn't make it a crippled license

[zircon]

No, that doesn't make sense. My reasoning is that multiple people are getting potentially unlimited use out of the same product while Spectra has only been paid only once (besides the minor transfer fees.)

ah...but only one person at a time, right? We're assuming purchaser#1 didn't duplicate the library before selling it. If Spectrsonics is justifying their price partly based on the assumption of wrong-doing on the part of the initial purchaser, that's just as egregious as the transfer fee.

and before we go down the path of "well, we all know people could copy CDs/DVDs before they sell them!" That means you don't accept that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Which, besides being counter to most legal systems, is also a shitty foundation for good customer service...

To me, it doesn't matter whether it's one person at a time. I don't think there needs to be any assumption of wrongdoing. Maybe it's easier to understand this when you are the businessperson, but generally speaking, when you have a product, you want each person who's going to be using it extensively to pay you for it.

Say I need a bass sound on my song. I buy Trilogy, use it, then say, OK, I'm done. I have gained a net benefit already, and the money I spent was worth it. But now I sell Trilo to another person, making a good chunk of that initial investment back. That second person then uses it on several of their songs, gets a net benefit, sells Trilo... etc. A number of people could all make use of the product and get a net benefit of some kind. The benefit of the product does not necessarily even end with the sale, as you could have used Trilogy (or Atmo or RMX) extensively on a variety of songs which all may be generating revenue for you.

To me, this is not really fair to the developer, who (license transfer fee aside) has only made ONE sale. This is why I think Eric is being quite generous by allowing transfers at all, and why I think he runs such a great operation.

It's easy to say (as a consumer) "Why do I have to pay $50 just to transfer it?!" but you're not thinking about how the transfer impacts the developer. Whoever receives the product is receiving the full value of someone who paid FULL PRICE to the developer for it, yet in this case the latter is only receiving a fraction of the price via the fee. This is also why it makes sense that support/upgrade paths are more limited. Why should you - someone who has only paid $50 to Spectrasonics - get the same service as someone that paid $300?

[blatanville]

Say I need a bass sound on my song. I buy Trilogy, use it, then say, OK, I'm done. I have gained a net benefit already, and the money I spent was worth it. But now I sell Trilo to another person, making a good chunk of that initial investment back. That second person then uses it on several of their songs, gets a net benefit, sells Trilo... etc. A number of people could all make use of the product and get a net benefit of some kind. The benefit of the product does not necessarily even end with the sale, as you could have used Trilogy (or Atmo or RMX) extensively on a variety of songs which all may be generating revenue for you.

to toss this back to you with another perspective:

"Say I need a bass sound on my song. I buy a Fender Jazz Bass, use it, then say, OK, I'm done. I have gained a net benefit already, and the money I spent was worth it. But now I sell my Jazz Bass to another person, making a good chunk of that initial investment back. That second person then uses it on several of their songs, gets a net benefit, sells the Jazz Bass...etc. A number of people could all make use of the product and get a net benefit of some kind. The benefit of the product does not necessarily even end with the sale, as you could have used the Jazz Bass (or Precision or Mustang) extensively on a variety of songs which all may be generating revenue for you." (whew!)

I respect your position, I just don't agree.

peace,

bud

[tevoka]

Say I need a bass sound on my song. I buy Trilogy, use it, then say, OK, I'm done. I have gained a net benefit already, and the money I spent was worth it. But now I sell Trilo to another person, making a good chunk of that initial investment back. That second person then uses it on several of their songs, gets a net benefit, sells Trilo... etc. A number of people could all make use of the product and get a net benefit of some kind. The benefit of the product does not necessarily even end with the sale, as you could have used Trilogy (or Atmo or RMX) extensively on a variety of songs which all may be generating revenue for you.

to toss this back to you with another perspective:

"Say I need a bass sound on my song. I buy a Fender Jazz Bass, use it, then say, OK, I'm done. I have gained a net benefit already, and the money I spent was worth it. But now I sell my Jazz Bass to another person, making a good chunk of that initial investment back. That second person then uses it on several of their songs, gets a net benefit, sells the Jazz Bass...etc. A number of people could all make use of the product and get a net benefit of some kind. The benefit of the product does not necessarily even end with the sale, as you could have used the Jazz Bass (or Precision or Mustang) extensively on a variety of songs which all may be generating revenue for you." (whew!)

I respect your position, I just don't agree.

peace,

bud

This isn't the same. With hardware (e.g. rack equipment, guitars, etc.) there is wear and tear on the product. Most electronics will fail, require repairs, or maintenance overtime. With software this is not the case. It is brand new and works the same whether it is straight from the box or five years old. With software, as long as you have a compatible system, there is no worry about whether it will work or not. When using hardware it's a possibility the product could break and be unusable or you would have to invest more money to get it to work. With quality software companies you don't have this worry about this and to date Spectrasonics has never charged for a software update.

[ckatrun411]

and to date Spectrasonics has never charged for a software update.

upgrade, or update?

I think they charge for upgrades, dont they?

[tevoka]

From the Spectrasonics faq:
"Any license transferred versions of this software do not have all the same upgrade privileges as standard new units purchased at an authorized Spectrasonics dealer."

So the 2nd buyer has paid $50 for the licence transfer and he's probably going to get blasted for a bigger upgrade fee when the time comes. Sprectrasonics are effectively charging $50 and also devaluing the licence by whatever additional amount they choose to charge the 2nd user for the upgrade when the time comes. IMO if Spectrasonics choose to charge extra to 2nd users upgrades this would be an abuse of the licence transfer process. They've already had the original price and $50, and the above implies that it doesn't end there. Surely that is just plain wrong from a moral perspective?

From the Spectrasonics license transfer FAQ it appears they agree with you to some extent - a copy purchased used is not as good or the same as purchasing it new. This is not being hidden from the customer so if you don't like it wouldn't it be best to either buy the product new or not purchase it at all? I'm not sure if this would be considered an abuse since no one is forcing you to buy the product. From their FAQ:

Is a license transferred "used copy" of a Spectrasonics instrument just as good as a "new copy"?
No. It's important to note that license transferred versions of our software instruments do not have all the same upgrade pricing privileges as standard new units purchased at an authorized Spectrasonics dealer. In this respect, a "used copy" is definitely not as good a deal in the long-term as a "new copy".

To some of the people who disagree with any type of license transfer fee. What are your thoughts on this scenario:

Lets say license transfers of sampled software/plug-ins from Spectrasonics were allowed for free. Then a person A could legally purchased the product and use it in their productions. Later person A decides to "license transfer" the product to a new person B and that person could produce with it. But after a while the original owner, A, wanted to use the plug-in again. The product could now be "licensed transferred" back to them at no cost and they could use it again in production. Then another friend C who wanted to use the software for their music had the product "licensed transfered" from A. The developer producing the product has now lost two additional sales while still providing support and updates to all three customers.

Additionally, $50 is almost nothing compared to what it costs to develop products and support customers. Another example will outline this:

Assume the original owner of the product required some technical support and used the virtual instrument in their productions. By buying the product they paid for the right to use those sound recordings (quality sound development is not easy or cheap) and took advantage of the technical support that is offered for the life of the product. After some initial hurtles most customers are up and running and usually need minimal help in the future. But if they sell the product the new customer could need additional technical support that the original customer would not have required. This is in addition to that person being allowed to use the sound recordings in their musical productions. Also consider the time it takes for the admin department to research and process a license transfer if it is approved and for software development.

[tevoka]

and to date Spectrasonics has never charged for a software update.

upgrade, or update?

I think they charge for upgrades, dont they?

Update.

Only one upgrade has ever been offered for their virtual instruments - Classic Stylus to Stylus RMX. For the original owners of Classic Stylus the maximum that was charged was $99 USD and I think most people would agree it was a pretty substantial upgrade.

[aquar]

I kind of agree with this. If they are going to allow a license transfer and charge 50 dollars for it they shouldn't make it a crippled license

Agreed.

[blatanville]

To some of the people who disagree with any type of license transfer fee. What are your thoughts on this scenario:

Lets say license transfers of sampled software/plug-ins from Spectrasonics were allowed for free. Then a person A could legally purchased the product and use it in their productions. Later person A decides to "license transfer" the product to a new person B and that person could produce with it. But after a while the original owner, A, wanted to use the plug-in again. The product could now be "licensed transferred" back to them at no cost and they could use it again in production. Then another friend C who wanted to use the software for their music had the product "licensed transfered" from A. The developer producing the product has now lost two additional sales while still providing support and updates to all three customers.

Additionally, $50 is almost nothing compared to what it costs to develop products and support customers. Another example will outline this:

Assume the original owner of the product required some technical support and used the virtual instrument in their productions. By buying the product they paid for the right to use those sound recordings (quality sound development is not easy or cheap) and took advantage of the technical support that is offered for the life of the product. After some initial hurtles most customers are up and running and usually need minimal help in the future. But if they sell the product the new customer could need additional technical support that the original customer would not have required. This is in addition to that person being allowed to use the sound recordings in their musical productions. Also consider the time it takes for the admin department to research and process a license transfer if it is approved and for software development.

I don't see how any of this invalidates the "reversal" that I pitched back to zircon.
In your above paragraphs, substitute "a physical instrument" every time you wrote "software" or "sound recording." Then see if you can still agree with your statements. If not, then you have to examine WHY it is that software instruments are accorded some different status from hardware/physical instruments. And if that idea doesn't boil down to a clever bit of reasoning/obfuscation advanced by a software company's lawyer, I'd like to hear it.

[nanotone]

You're ignoring that two people have now owned the product. Spectrasonics has received, say, $300 + $50, but the first buyer may have written 10 hit songs using that purchase before selling it.

just to play devil's advocate with your reasoning:

doesn't that mean that a sample license sold to a person that DIDN'T write even one hit song was unearned income for the sample company?

No, that doesn't make sense. My reasoning is that multiple people are getting potentially unlimited use out of the same product while Spectra has only been paid only once (besides the minor transfer fees.)

The '10 hit songs' was an example of how someone could get a great deal of mileage out of it, sell it to someone else, and end up with a net gain of 10 hit songs AND most of the money back from their initial purchase. Now another person has the potential to get tons of use out of the some software, while Spectrasonics has really only been fully compensated once.

What's about hardware? My Korg M3 has got a lot of samples in it.
There is now license transfer to pay - Korg will paid only once.
Where is the difference between hardware and software instruments?
I can make 10 hits with both (or not).

For my opinion it a question of possibilities - for hardware there is no registration needed and there is now way to charge a transfer fee. It's so easy for software companies to earn additional earn money and some "good" reasons for that behavior are found airy.

Cheers
Frank

BTW: Even with hardware I could record the samples to my PC and use after selling the hardware.

[cleverr1]

Say I need a bass sound on my song. I buy Trilogy, use it, then say, OK, I'm done. I have gained a net benefit already, and the money I spent was worth it. But now I sell Trilo to another person, making a good chunk of that initial investment back. That second person then uses it on several of their songs, gets a net benefit, sells Trilo... etc. A number of people could all make use of the product and get a net benefit of some kind. The benefit of the product does not necessarily even end with the sale, as you could have used Trilogy (or Atmo or RMX) extensively on a variety of songs which all may be generating revenue for you.

To me, this is not really fair to the developer, who (license transfer fee aside) has only made ONE sale. This is why I think Eric is being quite generous by allowing transfers at all, and why I think he runs such a great operation.

I'm unable to draw the distinction between something hardware and something software in this context. I don't see why it's any different to a builder buying a ladder, using it whilst setting up a successful business and then selling the ladder on. If it was a Spectrasonics ladder they'd presumably cut a couple of rungs off the top during the transfer.

Another problem with Spectrasonics which I consider unreasonable is the bit in the EULA about only the licencee being able to use it. If I buy a hardware synth and leave it in a studio for paid customers to use that's cool. However, if I buy a Spectrasonics equivalent then it's cool only if I play it and get accredited on any subsequent release. So if there's a project running with several programmers having a bash then they all have to go and buy the same piece of software to be "legal" - I don't know anybody in the real world that wouldn't just say f**k that under those circumstances. If this is just a price thing then why don't they advertise a studio licence or a personal licence so that it fits properly into the above scenario?

[wrack]

Coding database system's for HM Government is not fun, but pays stupidly well.

+1

[blaster78]

I'm unable to draw the distinction between something hardware and something software in this context. I don't see why it's any different to a builder buying a ladder, using it whilst setting up a successful business and then selling the ladder on. If it was a Spectrasonics ladder they'd presumably cut a couple of rungs off the top during the transfer.

not that i necessarily agree with the eula or anything else but an important thing to remember is that you also don't expect to be sent a better ladder every time one is developed. nor do you expect the ladder to be fixed if and (inevitably) when it breaks.

Another problem with Spectrasonics which I consider unreasonable is the bit in the EULA about only the licencee being able to use it. If I buy a hardware synth and leave it in a studio for paid customers to use that's cool. However, if I buy a Spectrasonics equivalent then it's cool only if I play it and get accredited on any subsequent release. So if there's a project running with several programmers having a bash then they all have to go and buy the same piece of software to be "legal" - I don't know anybody in the real world that wouldn't just say f**k that under those circumstances. If this is just a price thing then why don't they advertise a studio license or a personal license so that it fits properly into the above scenario?

again not the same at all. surely it's not that people can't use the software as long as its installed on the same computer? so you could leave your laptop for paying customers to use the software on, you just can't install multiple instances on different machines. the eula doesn't say that they have to buy one copy per customer, just that they can't have multiple copies being used at the same time. if it does, it's completely bonkers and studios all over the shop are breaking the law (no surprise there i guess)

and if theres a project running with multiple programmers "having a bash", everyone i've ever worked with/projects i've been involved in, no one said f*ck that, we just bought the multiple licenses and got on with it.

as i say, not agreeing/disagreeing with the eula.

cheers,

steve.

[cleverr1]

Surely it's not that people can't use the software as long as its installed on the same computer? so you could leave your laptop for paying customers to use the software on, you just can't install multiple instances on different machines. the eula doesn't say that they have to buy one copy per customer, just that they can't have multiple copies being used at the same time. if it does, it's completely bonkers and studios all over the shop are breaking the law (no surprise there i guess)

Unfortunately that's exactly what it says.

http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/atmos_faq.html

"As a studio owner, can I include Atmosphere on a rental or studio computer for studio clients to use on their projects?
No. The standard license to use Atmosphere is only granted to the buyer. We have a "single user/multiple computer" lifetime license policy. If it is your own recording project that you are producing, of course that isn't a problem...but your studio clients aren't licensed to use it for their own projects, and Atmosphere use can't be "rented". Multiple license packages are available by contacting your Spectrasonics distributor."