Stevesong:
I have to admit you have interesting points.

But one thing that bothers me is this:

@Another User said:

Having identified the fact that, at least in developed countries, the largest group of perpetrators are young people and students - - a great majority of whom do not engage in theft in ways other than using pirated software, music or video - - companies have developed a strategy of offering full versions of their software to educational institutions and/or students in “educational,” “student” or “student/teacher” editions (the last in recognition of the fact that in some countries, such as the United States, teachers often have quite moderate salaries.) whose price is a fraction of the course of the normal retail price. (E.g. The normal retail price AutoDesk’s AutoCAD is $4,695, while the “student edition” of the same is $159.95 - - while upgrading the “student edition” to the “commercial edition” is $3599.95; the normal retail price (pre-order) for Adobe’s CS 3 Master Collection is $2474, the “student edition” of the same is $989.95. Not all companies offer such large discounts. For example the current price of the EWQLSO Platinum bundle is $2995 while the educational version of the same is $2790).

This sends the wrong message. The ONLY way to defeat piracy is by a direct and strong attack, not by avoiding it. I don´t see why schools or manufacturers would make a bad reputation for ¨being anti'piracy¨cops.

Any school-university will not tolerate certain conducts, such as sexual harassment, cheating on tests, bribing, etc. Why can they not incorporate a strong anty-piracy policy as well? I mean, students must learn why piracy is wrong, and how it affects R&D, and the whole industry in general.

Sorry for this extreme example, but wouldn´t offering software or libraries to students with a special disccount in order to avoid piracy be like a father giving drugs to his kids in order to avoid the kid to go and get them on the street by himself?
I don't think that's the solution.

I am saying this with all due respect to you. It's obvious your intentions are good.
It's just too bad students tend to be smart-asses sometimes.

@cm said:

dbudde, as you already mention: the license is not transferable - not with and not without money flowing.
also you have most probably *used* the licenses for receiving discounts on extended libraries of vienna instruments collections ....

if you upgrade from cubase 3 to 4 or logic 6 to 7 this clearly means you cannot *sell* the version you have upgraded from - why should it be different for VSL products?
christian

Christian this makes absolute sense to me. It would be nothing short of dishonest and stealing to sell an old version when you got the discount price for upgrading.

Miklos.

@Miguélez said:

Sorry for this extreme example, but wouldn´t offering software or libraries to students with a special disccount in order to avoid piracy be like a father giving drugs to his kids in order to avoid the kid to go and get them on the street by himself?
I don't think that's the solution.

I am not sure that software products which are used productively are exactly analogous to illegal drugs which have an inherently socially destructive effect.

In any case, I merely cited the practices of a number of large software companies. Evidently working on the assumption that everyone using pirated software is a potential future customer, these companies seem to have determined that it is not in their interest to attempt to populate correctional institutions with potential future customers. They have, instead, enhanced copy protection (making piracy more difficult) and, taking into account the demographics of piracy, made it easier for students to become legitimate users by offering lower priced "student editions" of their software (making piracy less tempting.)

Rather than becoming members of a "software police force," teachers can - and do - make ethical arguments that will often persuade students to purchase licenses for the software they use. I know that I have been able to do this very effectively with my students. However, I must say that availability of "student editions" of software at affordable prices, very likely enhanced my success. The result is that, instead of being members of an furtive community of outlaws, these students have become members of the open community of legitimate users - - which, among other things, allows them to make valuable creative contributions in dialogue with the companies whose software they work with. And, they have become more aware of their obligations to others.

I explicitly make no recommendation regarding what the best policies would be for VSL. As I said earlier in this thread, only the folks at VSL can determine what is in the best interest of their company. I am sure they hope to reduce piracy and increase the size of the user base, but only they can determine what is the best way to do that. I've offered alternatives in a spirit of good will and constructive discussion - as a friend offers his or her input to a friend. My intent has been to provoke thought and discussion, not to judge or prescribe. I certainly don't think I have the answers.

Regarding dbudde's original question and cm's answer, everybody in the USA is governed by federal law outlined in section 109 of the Copyright Act. You can read some understandable background at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Simply put, just because VSL says their EULA removes your first sale rights, doesn't make it so. The problem is that the issue hasn't been resolved by the Supreme Court, and there have been conflicting judgements in the various Circuit and Appeals Courts where this has been argued. So, if you want to sell your old copies, you can because existing federal law voids the EULA provision that appears to forbid you from doing so. However, since VSL doesn't care about federal law in the USA, they would remove authorizations if they discovered the software had been sold. Or they might file a lawsuit for damages. They would make the whole experience as painful and expensive for you as possible. So for a few hundred bucks of software, it isn't worth the battle. Someone that has the time and money will eventually get this settled. But that probably isn't any of us.

Eventually this will reach the Supreme Court and get resolved. EULAs are getting more restrictive and even pre-emptive, and the most greedy companies will provoke action. For example, the agreement for Vista allows Microsoft to install their "malware" software with the OS. If it finds any software on your PC it doesn't like, it can remove it without asking.

For now, keep your old files. When the issue is resolved, its likely the courts will find that you purchased the software; that it was a sale under the terms of the UCC and not a lease or a right to use. You'll then get back your first sale rights.

Interesting, Peregrine--

Except for one thing: we purchased the license under specific terms of agreement. My questions are only rhetorical, but:

Would such a SC judgement be retroactive or from the date of judgement? Would we not be bound to the terms of the license agreement, regardless of what the laws of one or more countries may state?

As mentioned, I'm not challenging your argument but just wondering... even an unwritten handshake agreement is legally binding if those terms can be verified. Would it not be outside the "spirit" of the law to, in effect, break a promise?

@Peregrine said:

Regarding dbudde's original question and cm's answer, everybody in the USA is governed by federal law outlined in section 109 of the Copyright Act. You can read some understandable background at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Simply put, just because VSL says their EULA removes your first sale rights, doesn't make it so. [...]

You're mixing up _licensing_ and _buying_. In principle, you could sell the DVD's your library was delivered on, but not the right to use the content on it.

peregrine, it is very clear what is covered by section 109 and what not.
if [insert major film studio here] is producing video-DVDs and you purchase one you have the right to _view_ it (alone or in a private surrounding with friends).
although in case of a video you are allowed to sell it (the DVD, not the film) - without keeping a copy of it of course - you are not allowed to eg. rent it, use it for public performance or use the material contained on the DVD for re-publishing in any other media (eg. offer it at youTube or MySpace), broadcast it, ect.
this is the deal and it should be according to all known laws worldwide.

in case of VSL you can create anything you like using the licensed samples and do whatever you want with the derived work (according to the license agreement) - what you cannot do is re-license the library means you as licensee cannot decide who else will receive a license to use the library.

anyway this question is still different from donating a product which is the basic prerequisite for an upgrade in which case one would loose the condition for eligibility to upgrade (= receive discounts).

christian

btw: this thread is close to be closed ...

I get this all the time in my work. People just don't want to pay for the product because they don't want to pay. Sometimes I just look at people and say, well, you are free to go elsewhere. They pay. Some people want something for nothing. All this discussion, and it's really simple.

VSL makes product.
Users want to use said product.
VSL sells them license to use it.
They want to upgrade to new product.
VSL allows this at discounted price (VSL Pro -> VI path)
Users want to get their money back on the first version.... ah, I don't think so.

I'm with cm and VSL on this one.

To change the tone.... Once again, Thanks to the VSL team for the libraries! They're awesome, most of us could not live without them!! We really appreciate all the hard work.

Best Regards,
Miklos.

Please close this thread. It has gone way off topic. Never was the discussion intended to be about selling anything to a third party.

I second that notion...

@dbudde said:

Please close this thread. It has gone way off topic. Never was the discussion intended to be about selling anything to a third party.

dbudde:

I think you're right that this thread went off course recently - - the original question had absolutely nothing to do with re-selling licenses. However, I also think that you provoked a lot of constructive discussion - - so you don't need to feel badly that the discussion took an unforeseen turn. Obviously, we are not all going to agree about everything, but having a discussion elicits many observations about the issues - - which can hopefully be useful to everyone. So I don't think that it's necessary to close this thread - - even if I might disagree strongly with some of the ideas presented.

Again, I'm grateful to the folks at VSL for making a fantastic product - - and also for allowing far-ranging discussions on its forum. Christian, in particular, has been incredibly patient as he, very articulately, presented VSL's viewpoint. Thanks for doing that.

I don't feel badly. I just don't think this particular discussion is productive. If you want to pursue it, start another thread.

Well, I want to pursue it. [:)] A sample library is a recorded work. You can't sell it because it doesn't belong to you. The product is the license.

It took me a while to get to this point, but it is the reality.

Back to the original point: I find being able to get at the scale runs from the original version very useful, because you can time-stretch them easily.

It has to do with requirements for a valid contract. One of those requirements is that the terms and performance of the contract (in this case, the EULA) must be legal actions. If a contract contains a requirement that is illegal under federal law, or within any state jurisdiction, that requirement is void. It wouldn't matter when you agreed to the clickwrap.

If you were to research this issue, you would quickly find numerous U.S. cases that illustrate just how divided it is. Many courts have upheld section 109 first sale rights. But there are a few that have been decided in favor of the copyright holder. I think its safe to assume this won't be resolved for at least several years.

Sorry - I just went back through this thread and am finding it seems to be really irritating some people for some reason. The original question was about selling or donating VSL products. The original answer was that you can't do that because the EULA says you didn't buy a product; you just purchased a license to use it. What I'm adding here is that several US Appeals Courts have decided you are in fact buying a product, and that a copyright holder can't prevent you from reselling (or donating) your software by EULA limitations of your first sale rights. OK? You all have a nice day.

Many valid ways to say the same thing - all of it common sense... Anyone who tries to explain it as another way, include donating things... is only sorry to say, trying to avoid paying for something. It's easy to give away other people's property but not your own... [:)]

Miklos

Here's another way to look at it: you are buying a license to use the new version of the recorded work when you update to the latest version. The previous version is still the recorded works you licensed; you're not just giving someone the discs, you're still giving away the recorded work if you donate it to a school. Or a friend.