Companies with Ridiculous Transfer Fees (Edited title)

[plexuss]

Sometimes BONES gets carried away with the smell of his own farts. In those cases it's best to just walk away.

[JunSev]

A dishonorable mention of 2C Audio has to be made:
Transfer of licenses cost 20% of their (quite high) retail prices.

The worst of it is that it also becomes NFR. So if you were to buy Aether second hand it would be a $50 fee plus NFR. Should be one or the other.

Policies like that are like living in the dark ages. Companies need to look at what Valhalla or Goodhertz do for license transfers.

As I said before everything is about context, sometimes we can question the why, but we can't just jump in a bad conclusion in all the cases:

Is also important to note that not all companies with some high transfer fee are necessarily "bad", I mean it might be there but sometimes there is a difference with the treatment and how they treat their customers.

I agree and I'm against some cases where some big corporations does business (more like a dirty move) in order to make money from the copy protection yearly fee, dongles or in case you loose your license you would need to pay an Exaggerated amount of money if you want "your liscences" again. Examples:viewtopic.php?f=16&t=504402&p=7071973#p7071973

But some independent developers can't be really considered as "bad guys" for good reasons:

1. The transfer fees is an agreement we choose from the very beginning; so if you know how the company/developer operates then why would you complain about the company about the transfer fee if you decided to Agree in first place? some companies/developers don't like the idea to deal with constant license transfer and offers the demo, is almost always available in many cases. sometimes we can question that, but not always we should have a bad conclusion about that.

2. The Treatment with their customers. How affordable they offers those products even with intro prices, sales and affordability in some cases, lifetime free updates, constant support ext.

3. No dependency of third party "license managers" or copy protection that makes the user completely dependent of the company in order to use the software they already paid for = No Product. So there is a big difference.

That's why even when I do buy from some companies perhaps with some high transfer fee, I can't complain about some of then for understandable reasons.

[BONES]

Let's do the CD thing. If I buy a CD at the store and listen to it in the car for 6 months until I'm bored. Then I give my friend a ride in the car and he pops the CD and likes the band, I can just choose to gift him the CD, he can take it home. I didn't pay a transfer fee, he didn't pay a transfer fee. Why? Because I already bought the thing, it's mine to sell it or give it away if I please.

Yes, and your point is? That's the agreement you made when you bought the CD. When you purchase a license for a software application you enter into an entirely different agreement. The word "license" should be a clue. You can't transfer your driving license to a friend, can you? Or your gun license or any other kind of license because a license is an individual agreement made between you and another entity (company or government, etc.). And different licenses endow you with different rights. Some let you install on as many computers as you like, others insist on it being installed only on one or two machines.

These are the rules of nature, and also the rules of man.

This volatile paradox can never stand. Do I win a prize for guessing the next line? It's from Frontline Assembly's Plasticity.

We never gave these rights up, the laws still allows you to sell or gift your stuff away.

READ YOUR EULA - you do not own the product, you are merely granted a license to use it. If the EULA says it is non-transferable, then you cannot legally sell it or give that license away under any circumstances.

But software companies have found clever ruses to get in the way for their own gain. Because they think that if you are bored of that CD, then the CD should go to a landfill, and your friend needs to buy his own CD because they would prefer to make more money vs letting you have the right to gift or transfer the stuff you own.

Yes, and wouldn't it be a shame if the artist who made it got a bit of money out of it, too? I'd never give away a CD by any artist I liked, I'd insist my friend buy his own copy.

But this is not a software company's call to make. Humanity already decided that's not the way we do things.

The courts representing "the people" would see it differently because they acknowledge your responsibility as well as the vendor's. If it doesn't suit you, don't agree to the EULA and don't install the product. Up until the time you install and license the product, you can sell it on as many times as you like. But once you activate that license, you bought it and it's yours. Kind of like opening a bottle of milk in the supermarket and taking a sip. Once it's open, it's yours whether you like it or not (unless there is something wrong with it, of course).

Can you imagine the same rules applied to other stuff? Siblings can't inherit clothing because that shirt is only licensed to the older brother?

I imagine that if there were rules like that, shirts might be a bit cheaper than they are now because the cost to the vendor of that stuff is built into the price of the shirt.

A transfer fee if you want to gift your gf your copy of Don Quixote?

Why would you be gifting a book to a gluten-free? Gluten-frees can't read.

[jochicago]

> You can't transfer your driving license to a friend
That's different. A driver license is not a commercial exchange. It's there to help prove you can drive a metal machine and you have been trained to not kill someone. My friend needs his own license as a civic responsibility.

> READ YOUR EULA
Unscrupulous businesses can write whatever they want in a service agreement, that doesn't guarantee that it stands or is even legal. That's why most contracts have a clause around the end that reads the like of "if any clause here is found untenable then we cut that out but the rest of the contract stands".

This is particularly true with worker protections and consumer protections because the big machine is always trying to eat the little guy. Ultimately, the problem here is that many of these modern software products have not been properly litigated and hashed out into law. The laws we have are still mostly oriented to things like CDs, that are physical and easy to understand. So software companies can get crafty with some language and try to get away with calling an apple an orange and trying to hide behind orange rules for the apple.

>The courts representing "the people" would see it differently
I don't think so. Just about any class action suit I can think of has found against corporations trying to get fancy with consumer abuse, they get handed fines and the system ends up with new rules.

For instance, the most recent example I can think of was Fallout 76 deciding they don't do refunds. In Australia they were taken to court and the court ordered that they must provide refunds regardless of what their dammed made up policies were and that they made their consumers agree to the EULA that included this BS policy. And pretty much any other court will rule the same.

> But once you activate that license, you bought it and it's yours. Kind of like opening a bottle of milk in the supermarket and taking a sip.
Yes. And I pay for it and I can take it home. I can share the milk with my family, I can put a bowl out for the neighborhood cat, and I can take what's left to my neighbor's house so he can teach me how to make a party drink. No transfer fees, no multi-location fees.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that businesses should get 0 protection. Of course they need a way to guarantee fair use, that people are going to buy the plugin and not abuse the system making copies, or giving a license slot to a friend, running multiple copies at the same time, etc. But it's also fair that the consumer doesn't get abused either, whatever rights we have with things we purchased/own, there's no need to lose those rights just because companies would rather skin us for more money.

[JunSev]

READ YOUR EULA - you do not own the product, you are merely granted a license to use it.

You are partly very wrong here; this is one of the biggest lies of this century.

Some software companies says in their own website: Download Your Product or does mentions of the products you bought in the same way.

Use your mind the right way and stop spreading this big exaggerated lie because this is not the same in all cases.

With all respect Bones.

[yellowmix]

I'd never give away a CD by any artist I liked, I'd insist my friend buy his own copy.

Do you oppose libraries? They lend out books, music (not just CDs, but digital streaming these days), movies, museum passes, and more.

[BONES]

That's different. A driver license is not a commercial exchange.

Really? Mine costs me $50 a year so it's more of a subscription model, I suppose.

> READ YOUR EULAUnscrupulous businesses can write whatever they want in a service agreement, that doesn't guarantee that it stands or is even legal.

But if it is legal, then it is absolutely binding and in a court case it would be up to you, I think, to prove that it's not legal.

This is particularly true with worker protections and consumer protections because the big machine is always trying to eat the little guy.

No, that shit exists so politicians can get elected. In a free market it would not be necessary because the market would weed out the dodgy operators. We have seen it in action here in Australia over the last 5 or so years. 10 years ago every company selling cars here offered the same one year warranty. Then someone started offering a 2 year warranty and sold more cars, so everyone else put theirs up to 2 years as well. And so it escalated until today, where pretty much everyone offers a 5 year warranty and some brands are doing a 7 year warranty. None of it required any regulation or legislation, the companies fell over themselves to offer it because that's what the market wanted.

Ultimately, the problem here is that many of these modern software products have not been properly litigated and hashed out into law.

Right because no-one has ever tried to take Microsoft or Apple to court. I recall a case against Autodesk, back when I was working of them, where someone sued because their EULA was only printed on the box and no reasonable person would expect to read a legally binding document on the packaging of a product. I can't remember who won but the judgement was that the EULA on a box was not binding but making you press the "ACCEPT" button during installation is good enough for a court, obviously providing that the contract itself is legal.

The laws we have are still mostly oriented to things like CDs, that are physical and easy to understand.

No, nothing could be further from the truth. Contract law is a massive part of the legal machine and probably keeps more lawyers employed than any other branch of law.

I don't think so. Just about any class action suit I can think of has found against corporations trying to get fancy with consumer abuse, they get handed fines and the system ends up with new rules.

Sure, if they break the law. But if their EULA is legal, and the user presses the "ACCEPT" button, then the user is legally bound by the agreement, as is the vendor.

For instance, the most recent example I can think of was Fallout 76 deciding they don't do refunds. In Australia they were taken to court and the court ordered that they must provide refunds regardless of what their dammed made up policies were and that they made their consumers agree to the EULA that included this BS policy. And pretty much any other court will rule the same.

That ruling was made because the complainant was able to show that it wasn't possible to know what they were buying at the time they accepted the agreement. You'd be hard-pressed to do that with a VSTi or even something like Cubase, where you can try an unlimited demo for a period of time to determine the suitability of the product before you purchase it.

Yes. And I pay for it and I can take it home. I can share the milk with my family, I can put a bowl out for the neighborhood cat, and I can take what's left to my neighbor's house so he can teach me how to make a party drink. No transfer fees, no multi-location fees.

No but if you fail to refrigerate it and make someone sick, you'd be legally liable for the consequences of that. Nothing comes without strings attached.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that businesses should get 0 protection. Of course they need a way to guarantee fair use, that people are going to buy the plugin and not abuse the system making copies, or giving a license slot to a friend, running multiple copies at the same time, etc. But it's also fair that the consumer doesn't get abused either, whatever rights we have with things we purchased/own, there's no need to lose those rights just because companies would rather skin us for more money.

Sure but the two things aren't related. What if, instead of charging a $20 transfer fee, a company instead decided to charge an extra $20 for their product? Would that make you happy? Because it would piss me off because I'm never going to sell a software license so I don't see what that possibility should be built into the price I pay. Or maybe they could just have different tiers - non-transferable license - $99, transferable license - $129. Would that be more acceptable to you? It's a tiny bit more upfront honest but the result is still the same.

[LeVzi]

WTF on both, especially acoustica, basically transfer fees are to make the price the same as a new plugin, so no one can actually get a bargin there, what the actual FK ?

Why should Acoustica, or anyone else, facilitate you getting a bargain? Especially one that robs them of another sale.

these companies got no excuse for these ridiculous transfer fees.

How do you know? What if they rejigged their prices and put everything up $50, just to cover the loss of revenue from second-hand license sales? Would that make you happy? Personally, I would rather a) support the developer and buy a new license, whilst b) not paying more than I really need to. So if I don't like the full price of something, I'll wait until there is a sale. Buying second-hand software is like buying cut-out CDs, LPs and books, it's not right. You should be happy to support the people who make things that you enjoy using, not looking for ways to screw them over.

How in the hell are they losing revenue if someone else buys a license of someone and then pays to keep the plugin updated ? And is there a transfer fee for buying a secondhand CD ? Nope. You get the same music at a lesser price because its 2nd hand. Kinda the whole point of buying something second hand. I am not against a small transfer fee for administration work, but not bumping the actual price up to nearly the price of a new plugin.

[jochicago]

> What if, instead of charging a $20 transfer fee, a company instead decided to charge an extra $20 for their product?
That's really not the point. The point is when companies play silly games with hidden and BS fees specifically to make life harder on the consumer, specifically because they are trying to prevent you exercising your right to sell the thing you bought. Like the Waves thing with the plugins worth near $0 on resell. It's not an unexpected coincidence, they drew some spreadsheets and came up with a convoluted deal schedule + hidden fee structure to cheat you out of your right to sell the license. So address that disgusting mess instead of painting broad strokes around the palatable stuff.

> In a free market it would not be necessary
This is where we deviate too far into politics so let's not go down that rabbit hole, but there is no such thing as a 100% free market. In a 100% free market the corporation with the most resources and the meanest attitude eats everyone else for breakfast via monopoly, buying politicians and never having to answer to the law. See: the Wall Street crash of 2008. When you deregulate fully, you are just giving monsters free reign to eat us all, then each other, then themselves.

> That ruling was made because[...]
Because the company's policies broke consumer protection principles and laws, regardless of all users having signed the terms. It's not about the specifics of that case, it's the overarching point, which was that companies can claim whatever they like, and make up some elaborate excuses for their behavior around licenses and usage limits, but in the end just signing the agreement doesn't mean consumers sign off their legal rights.


> Or maybe they could just have different tiers - non-transferable license
No. No games. Same rules for things. If I buy a 1073 hardware preamp on ebay I can then sell it or gift it to whoever I please. If I buy a 1073 vst I should be able to sell it or gift it to whoever I please. Anything else that tries to stand in the way is just nonsense. I make allowances because the transfer mechanisms are different, so I'll accept having to have an account somewhere and having to deal with some licensing dashboard, even some modest transfer fee if the process is truly an imposition to a small vendor (like if they handle the transfer by hand). But malicious schemes to prevent us from disposing of our property are just unacceptable (and I believe also illegal).

Don't imagine more scenarios of what could be. Let's just use the simple one that already exists and we already accept for everything else. What I buy is mine to use within reason. If I no longer want it I can transfer it to someone else. Simple, and 100% fair to all parties. Vendors are losing nothing in this arrangement. They got paid for a license and a license is what's being used. Any restriction beyond that is consumer abuse.

[sfd]

BONES do have a point.

You don't own a software. You are granted a license to use it. Even free and open-source software comes with a license.

While you can own a unit of a hardware you can't talk about software in term sof units. There's a good reason why there there's no unit numbers for software.

Technically speaking - it's not that they upload unit 5 fro you to download. Once downloaded (e.g copying what was on the server) you already end up with a different "unit".

To actually own a software you've to own the code.

What you get is a piece of code, you don't own.

The outcome of that code is called software.

You might think that you own the outcome of that code for your "unit".

You don't. Not only because in the digital world there' sno such things as "units" ain the same sense as in the hardware world.

But more simple put. If that was the case you'd know that form the license agreement and EULA.

The fact that some developers speaks about "your product" is more of semantic thing rather then juridical.

Just ask them and you'll see

[BONES]

Do you oppose libraries?

Authors get a royalty whenever a book is borrowed from a library. I assume it's the same for music so why would I object to that?

How in the hell are they losing revenue if someone else buys a license of someone and then pays to keep the plugin updated ?

That' assuming they do, which may or may not be the case. It's also a lot less money that an upfront purchase followed by incremental update charges.

And is there a transfer fee for buying a secondhand CD ? Nope. You get the same music at a lesser price because its 2nd hand. Kinda the whole point of buying something second hand.

Yeah and if it was a fridge or a car, I really wouldn't care but music is something a little more precious to me and the fortunes of those who make it is often far more precarious than of whitegoods or car manufacturers. I feel a certain desire to do what I can for people who bring my life so much joy, be they artists who make great music or developers who make great instruments.

I am not against a small transfer fee for administration work, but not bumping the actual price up to nearly the price of a new plugin.

And if people stopped buying that company's products, maybe they'd do something about it? That's the thing, the power is in our hands to do something about it if it's really so onerous.

[BONES]

The point is when companies play silly games with hidden and BS fees specifically to make life harder on the consumer, specifically because they are trying to prevent you exercising your right to sell the thing you bought.

But you didn't buy it, you bought a license to use it under conditions set out in the EULA. It's like a rental agreement - if the lease says no pets and they catch you with a dog, you're out on your arse, fine print be damned.

Like the Waves thing with the plugins worth near $0 on resell. It's not an unexpected coincidence, they drew some spreadsheets and came up with a convoluted deal schedule + hidden fee structure to cheat you out of your right to sell the license. So address that disgusting mess instead of painting broad strokes around the palatable stuff.

OK, Waves is a good example. Their products are constantly on sale for ridiculously low prices. How do you think they stay in business doing that? Would you be happier if they always sold their products at full price and didn't charge a transfer fee? How would you and I be better off?

And sales are another big issues for developers - people buy plugins when there are big discounts on offer specifically so they can resell them later at a profit. Don't developers have a right to protect themselves from that kind of thing? The alternative is not to have sales and, again, how are you and I better off if that happens?

In a 100% free market the corporation with the most resources and the meanest attitude eats everyone else for breakfast via monopoly

That's an entirely different issue, not at all what we are talking about here.

Because the company's policies broke consumer protection principles and laws, regardless of all users having signed the terms.

Yes, precisely, but that's not the case here, as we have access to fully functioning demo versions of most things so we have no excuse not to know what we are getting into. If you buy a synth and it turns out not to be fit for the purpose you bought it for, that is not the company's problem if you could have spent 30 days with a fully functioning demo but chose not to. The gamers got their money back because they couldn't have reasonably known what they were buying when they agreed to the EULA, we can and should. It's an entirely different situation.

It's not about the specifics of that case, it's the overarching point, which was that companies can claim whatever they like, and make up some elaborate excuses for their behavior around licenses and usage limits, but in the end just signing the agreement doesn't mean consumers sign off their legal rights.

I am going to say this for about the 4th time, but if a EULA doesn't breach the law, then you have no recourse and a company has the right to impose any license fee it chooses to, as long as they let you know up-front in the EULA. In the case of who owns the software, it has been well established for decades that it isn't the end-user. Plenty have tried to change that but all have failed.

Same rules for things. If I buy a 1073 hardware preamp on ebay I can then sell it or gift it to whoever I please. If I buy a 1073 vst I should be able to sell it or gift it to whoever I please.

Why, because you say so? Sorry, pal, that won't hold up in court. Airlines have been doing this for years - pay $49 and you get a seat on a specific flight. Want to change the flight? That will cost you an extra $59, thanks. When you protest they point out that if you had chosen the $99 fare instead of the $39 one, you'd have bought a fully flexible fare which you could change for free. Same seat, same flight, different conditions. All perfectly legal.

But malicious schemes to prevent us from disposing of our property are just unacceptable (and I believe also illegal).

Believe whatever you like but believing doesn't make you right and in this case you are wrong. You don't have to take my word for it, make an appointment and have a lawyer tell you.

Let's just use the simple one that already exists and we already accept for everything else. What I buy is mine to use within reason.

Not within reason, within the law. If you have freely entered into an agreement that tells you that you cannot resell your license, then the law says you cannot resell your license. To win the case you'd have to prove that the company was deceptive or that the clause was onerous or unreasonable. All the defence would have to do is use the airline example and you're blown out of the water. The company would say that you got what you paid for, a non-transferable license, they would read out the relevant clause of the EULA you agreed to and that would be the end of it.

If I no longer want it I can transfer it to someone else. Simple, and 100% fair to all parties. Vendors are losing nothing in this arrangement.

Of course they are. If there was no second-hand market, they would sell more licenses. Nobody can doubt that. If they sold more licenses, they might be able to lower their prices and remain profitable. Or maybe they'd be able to afford to employ more and/or better people and do even more amazing things. Either way, we'd all be better off. As it stands, they have to factor in those lost sales and set their prices accordingly so those of us buying a new license are, in a way, subsidising the second-hand market and I don't think that's fair, do you?

They got paid for a license and a license is what's being used. Any restriction beyond that is consumer abuse.

That's not how I see it as a customer, and it is certainly not how the law sees it. When I hit "ACCEPT" I understand what I am getting into. If you don't, you're a fool because it's all there in black and white. If the terms don't suit you, don't accept them and don't install the product. It's pretty simple, really.

[yellowmix]

Do you oppose libraries?

Authors get a royalty whenever a book is borrowed from a library. I assume it's the same for music so why would I object to that?

From what I understand of Australia, it's a one-time payment you must apply for based on number of books (CDs aren't eligible). Do they actually track number of loans? It doesn't seem so: https://www.arts.gov.au/funding-and-sup ... ing-rights

In the United States, that is not how it is done. Public libraries simply bought books and other items like any regular customer or in bulk. Now libraries were able to negotiate a library rate. Royalties were always a one-time thing (and library rate is unfortunately less than retail), no one is tracking number of loans for the purpose of royalty payments: http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2016/0 ... ary-books/

Since you oppose providing authored content bound to a physical medium to other people without additional royalties, what libraries do is an egregious example as books, CDs, and movies can be loaned hundreds of times. Logically it follows you would oppose this more strongly than your individual example of refusing to give a physical CD to a friend.

[jochicago]

> if the lease says no pets and they catch you with a dog
I actually did this with a cat. The landlord smirked and said "well, it looks like a well-behaved cat".

> Would you be happier if they always sold their products at full price and didn't charge a transfer fee?
A solution for the Waves problem would be to simplify their approach. So say the Scheps Omni list price is $75, instead of the fictitious $150 that nobody pays. On the occasional sale it goes down to $50. On BF it goes half off to ~$38. Transfer fees are $10 for processing. No WUP.

The company would be better off. The plugin would sell as much as it has and at a higher price point than their $30 lows. And the customers would be happier with the more reliable pricing scheme.

But regardless, the point is that the mess they have right now is clearly intended to bamboozle people with fictitious list prices, permanent "going out of business"-like sales, complete with hidden WUP fees that nobody knows how to calculate. If you think this is not afoul of our consumer protection laws, take a closer look.

> I am going to say this for about the 4th time, but if a EULA doesn't breach the law
That's the point of divergence here. You are assuming that this way of doing business is not breaching the law. Just like Fallout 76 thought they had a right to deny refunds. We've covered the legal murky water about the plugin industry on this and other threads. At a minimum a lot of these companies are using deceptive advertisement, and unreasonable fees. I'm accusing some of them of inventing schemes to deny the consumer their rights in how they can use and transfer the product.

> If you have freely entered into an agreement
This is what I addressed with the Fallout 76 example. The "agreement" can say whatever it wants but there are consumer rights that cannot be modified by any "agreement". The business has no right to deny them and you are not entitled to sign them away even if you wanted to. This is how consumer protection works.


> Airlines have been doing this for years
Service vs product. They have different rules/laws because implementation is different, burden on the business is different, delivery is different.

A plane flight is a service. They have to manage the plane and staff. You are getting a small piece of the space for a brief window of time. They rely on a number of things beyond their control like air traffic control and the weather, so they have to manage many moving parts to provide you this brief service.

A 1073 vst is a product. It is self contained, needs no servicing once installed, doesn't have to be managed by them in order to operate. The enjoyment of the tool is completely severed from the mothership. Nobody has to plan schedules around it, nobody's service is affected by how you use it.

Compared to a plane flight service, a 1073 vst is nearly identical to a hardware 1073 in its use, application, and the intent of the laws governing its commerce.

A couple key questions that help shape the definition:
- if my friend buys one at any point, is it identical to mine?
- can it be stored and used again with the exact same result?

Software companies want to pretend their products are services so they can get away with complex rules/licensing for their product that would benefit them more. But calling an apple an orange doesn't make it so. And the distinction is important, because consumer protections are more flexible with services because they don't want to hinder the complexities of delivering a high quality service. Products/goods on the other hand are easier to regulate because we all know what to expect: you buy it it's yours, you use at your leisure, you dispose of it at your will.

https://keydifferences.com/difference-b ... vices.html

[AnX]

seems like we have some legal eagles in the house.... better get my notepad