Spectrasonics license transfer fee - unkindness behavior?

[blaster78]

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."

that seems a bit mad then, and i guess pretty much precludes the spectrasonics from use in all but high cost studio sessions. i presume that there are studios all over the place with a couple of hundred copies of atmosphere and trilogy in a cupboard gathering dust, especially give the number of artist quotes i've read where the spectrasonics stuff was listed as gear they used. (hmm right, and there really is a tooth fairy )

still i guess you pays your money and makes your choice and without knowing what the multi license deal is like i'd find it difficult to draw conclusions.

does seem a bit draconian though and i'm not sure its something i've ever heard of in the software world before.

steve.

[cleverr1]

Looking at the Spectrasonics FAQs; there is a workaround to the use of e.g. Atmosphere on a clients track:

Client writes part, provides studio owner (licencee) with MIDI file, studio owner produces .wav file from MIDI file using Atmosphere etc. (using whatever degree of "creative input" that is required to satisfy whatever clause in the EULA), studio owner sells the .wav to the client as part of the studio time deal, client decides that the .wav is just what's needed on that middle 8.

That must be what every studio does then? yeah right....

This to me just illustrates how silly and unworkable the EULA is.

[JonHodgson]

Multiple license packages are available by contacting your Spectrasonics distributor."

My guess, knowing that Eric has been dealing with professionals and high end studios for so many years, is that studios have license agreements which are workable and affordable to them, these may depend on the nature of the client.

Spectrasonics definately aren't idiots, and from my personal experience, they're also genuinely nice people.

[cleverr1]

Multiple license packages are available by contacting your Spectrasonics distributor."

My guess, knowing that Eric has been dealing with professionals and high end studios for so many years, is that studios have license agreements which are workable and affordable to them, these may depend on the nature of the client.

This is why the advertised licencing options surprise me. I would have thought that big studios would require a "hardware synth equivalence" licence. This is not the same as a multiple licence package. The cost of a copy of Atmosphere for example would be significant even when tagged on to the cost of a session at pro studio rates.

I would suggest that Spectrasonics are anything but idiots if they can enjoy their level of success whilst maintaining such a restrictive EULA.

[blatanville]

All EULAs remind me of the waiver my company issues to clients.
In my day job, I work for a high-end travel company.
In order for someone to take part in one of our trips, they have to sign a "release and indemnity waiver" that basically says, "If you get hurt on our trip, or die, neither you nor your survivors can sue us."
We demand that people sign: they can't travel with us without signing it! We'll send you home and refuse to take you on the trip.
But here's the kick: it won't stand up in court. We know this. And yet, simply making people sign it, we're trying to proactively "shut down" any attempted legal action against us. (aside: we do run safe trips, but we can't account for every eventuality, right?)

The lawyer who drafted most EULAs KNEW VERY WELL that s/he couldn't truly claim for the company the "rights" they demanded in their EULA, but they put them in there anyway, to make people think "well, it's in legalese, it must be the law, therefore I have no recourse against the agreement because I "agreed to it""

again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_license

points out that none of the legality of a EULA, especially one you can't read or agree to until AFTER you've opened/downloaded the software, has been fully determined.

I don't want to sound like I've been picking on Spectrasonics, here. This issue simply came up in a forum for some of their software after my reading several other posts about licensing.
I think Spectrasonics is probably operating in the same way as most other respectable and legitimate developers.

My issue is with the "industry norm" that prevails, and the acceptance on the part of the public for these perverse "agreements" and transfer fees...

peace,
out,

bud

[blatanville]

well, that killed that, didn't it?

thread-killing,
on demand,

bud

[spectrum]

You guys always crack me up!

As has happened many times before, there's a bunch of incorrect notions about our software licensing floating around in kvr threads. It's really not all that complicated:

Spectrasonics has a per user license (like 99% of all other software/soundware licenses)

What's different is that Spectrasonics allows multiple computer use, where most companies only allow single computer use at a time. We also allow unlimited installs. This is way MORE generous than most software EULAs.

We have all sorts of producers with pro studios around the world that use our instruments every day with multiple systems. It's very common.

If multiple people in a facility are working on different projects and want to use the same instrument on their own computers, then of course they'll need to arrange a multi-user license.

So that's a Draconian policy?

If you think so, then your problem is not with Spectrasonics EULA, it's with every software/soundware companies EULA. I don't know of too many that aren't standard single user licenses.

Cheers!

spectrum

PS. License Transfers from Spectrasonics are not "crippled" in any way. They are in fact full licenses, with full support, update, upgrade and usage rights.

The ONLY difference is that License Transfered versions cannot be resold/transferred yet again and we will always give the best paid upgrade pricing deals to original users.

[spectrum]

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."

That doesn't look like the correct wording of our policy at all. Can you point me to a link that has this working on our site?

We'll update that wording if that's what it says on the site. It's possible that not every page has the current wording.

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.....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?

Blasting people with unfair upgrade fees? When have we ever done that?

It seems very presumptious to be questioning our morality based on something we haven't ever done...don't you think?

You're making some huge assumptions there.

[ATS]

The ONLY difference is that License Transfered versions cannot be resold/transferred yet again and we will always give the best paid upgrade pricing deals to original users.

well I won't say crippled but you obviously can't get the same upgrade price as the original owner so in that way it is not as good.

[spectrum]

again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_license

points out that none of the legality of a EULA, especially one you can't read or agree to until AFTER you've opened/downloaded the software, has been fully determined.

Well of course, but before attacking us on this, you do realize that our license agreement is on the outside of the disc packaging, printed in multiple languages, with easy to understand FAQs, and posted all over our website...right?

We have never turned down a return based on people not agreeing to our license agreement. In fact, we're legally required to accept these returns.

I don't want to sound like I've been picking on Spectrasonics, here. This issue simply came up in a forum for some of their software after my reading several other posts about licensing.
I think Spectrasonics is probably operating in the same way as most other respectable and legitimate developers.

My issue is with the "industry norm" that prevails, and the acceptance on the part of the public for these perverse "agreements" and transfer fees...

I don't exactly see what's "pervese" about our license agreement. Spectrasonics is widely considered one of the most generous licenses with the best support in the business.

Our license entitles the user to a lot of extremely valuable services. That's why it's worth something.

For example:

In addition to the future product upgrade path, all the free software support updates, the sound recording licensing rights, and the full staff of trained toll-free technical support we do, we also offer ongoing video tutorials to registered users. Stylus RMX now has over 9 hours of tutorials we've created and make available to authorized users for FREE. Many other companies charge for these kinds of educational materials.

In addition, our full support includes the physical discs themselves. If a customer loses or scratches their discs, we ALWAYS send out a full set of brand new discs to them at no charge....and we do this service every week. This service would also be available for any License Transfer user as well - since they have full support.

So for those thinking that the software licensing model has no benefits, try comparing the above services to a hardware company.

"perverse?" I think not....



Cheers,

spectrum

[spectrum]

The ONLY difference is that License Transfered versions cannot be resold/transferred yet again and we will always give the best paid upgrade pricing deals to original users.

well I won't say crippled but you obviously can't get the same upgrade price as the original owner so in that way it is not as good.

Of course it's not as good!

That's exactly what we are saying and we are very clear about that. We absolutely want to encourage users NOT to resell their instruments...not only because license transfers are a huge hassle for us, but because we want to keep that person as a customer and someone getting rid of a Spectrasonics instrument is a really foolish and shortsighted thing to do. Especially since there are so many amazing things in the works for all our instruments. When people license transfer their instruments, they are missing out on this incredible future and we think they are really going to regret selling them.

I'm pretty sure that the act of rewarding our loyal users with the best pricing is hardly "immoral", "unethical", "perverse" or "crippling".

[ATS]

The ONLY difference is that License Transfered versions cannot be resold/transferred yet again and we will always give the best paid upgrade pricing deals to original users.

well I won't say crippled but you obviously can't get the same upgrade price as the original owner so in that way it is not as good.

Of course it's not as good!

That's exactly what we are saying and we are very clear about that. We absolutely want to encourage users NOT to resell their instruments...not only because license transfers are a huge hassle for us, but because we want to keep that person as a customer and someone getting rid of a Spectrasonics instrument is a really foolish and shortsighted thing to do. Especially since there are so many amazing things in the works for all our instruments. When people license transfer their instruments, they are missing out on this incredible future and we think they are really going to regret selling them.

I'm pretty sure that the act of rewarding our loyal users with the best pricing is hardly "immoral", "unethical", "perverse" or "crippling".

I never said it was immoral or anything like that. Just sucks for the new buyer.

[spectrum]

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."

You're drawing the wrong conclusion.

That's only about "rental use" or if the producer is not creatively involved with the project. If the licensed user is involved in the project, then there's no problem with collaborative use on the same system for the same project.

It's simple really...we license to a user, not a computer or a facility.

[cleverr1]

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."

That doesn't look like the correct wording of our policy at all. Can you point me to a link that has this working on our site?

We'll update that wording if that's what it says on the site. It's possible that not every page has the current wording.

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.....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?

Blasting people with unfair upgrade fees? When have we ever done that?

It seems very presumptious to be questioning our morality based on something we haven't ever done...don't you think?

You're making some huge assumptions there.

from http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/atmos_faq.html
How would I obtain a license transfer and how much does it cost?
The vast majority of sample libraries and sample-based virtual instruments on the market do not allow license transfers of any kind. However, at Spectrasonics we realize that there are certain circumstances where it can be a legitimate transaction. Because circumstances can vary so much, we only grant up to one license transfer on a case-by-case basis to the original owner. 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. Depending on the circumstances, when a license transfer is granted, there is often an additional fee involved that covers the transfer all the rights to the new user to use the core library sounds, to receive full tech support and continuing support update rights, issuing a new serial number and account, etc. If you have more questions about obtaining license transfers, how much it costs and what the limitations are of license transferred versions, please contact us directly at info@spectrasonics.net

"The ONLY difference is that License Transfered versions cannot be resold/transferred yet again and we will always give the best paid upgrade pricing deals to original users."

Best for original user vs. worse for (penalising) the second user. I can't see a difference.

Before a transfer you had the one user to update/upgrade. Since the transfer you're $50 (minus any admin cost) to the good and you've still got one user, but now they're not going to get the "best paid upgrade pricing deals" in some as yet unspecified and unprecedented way. Yes I do question the morality of that position.

The restriction on second transfers is made absolutely clear so that is a clear decision that the potential second user has to make prior to getting involved.

Spectrum,
Now that you're on, do you do anything that gives a studio owner a hardware synth equivalent licence so that paying studio customers are allowed to use Spectrasonics stuff in that context?

Thanks.

[spectrum]

I never said it was immoral or anything like that. Just sucks for the new buyer.

Huh...what are you talking about? Why?

That guy's getting an incredible deal!

He's getting a brand new quality instrument with full service priviledges AND an upgrade path to amazing new things....PLUS he's paying a fraction of what it would cost for him to buy it new in the store!

Show me how it "sucks" for him....I don't see that at all.