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.