I'm in no way a specialist in law-issues, and I give this answer solely as my PRIVATE OPINION.

An example: You're in a video-producing company, and you want a chart-hitting song for the title. You will contact the owner of the rights in this song, make an agreement, and pay for it most likely a lot of money. IOW: You licensed this song to use it as a part of you own creative work. You will be allowed to sell this work, and the song as a part of it. (In reality, you will have to agree on a certain time frame, local restrictions of distribution and so on).

But: You _don't own_ this song, and you're not allowed to sell your license to someone else who would use it for _his_ video-production, or anything else - which is quite understandable, I'd say.

The same principle goes with software like the VSL's: You licensed the usage of the material, but you don't own it.

I hope you get the picture.

/Dietz

Samples are unique because you're actually incorporating copies of them into your own works, compared to traditional pieces of productivity software where you may be using the software to create works but no creative content in the software is being copied into your work. So it's definitely a novel issue and there are good arguments on both sides. But I would fall back by saying that sound economic policy (on a national level) favors consumer resale rights in virtually all cases. At least that's the intent of US laws - I am not sure about EU. In other words if you give up all your rights in something you purchased to someone else, you should be allowed to do that.

Of course practical considerations greatly muddy the "perfect economic picture' - how are you to ensure that someone doesn't copy the library to the hard drive, and sell the DVDs to someone else? Then we get into obnoxious copy protection, which we see in video games, tethering the use of the product to the CD, or activation codes like Windows XP, etc. Do we want that for VSL and every other piece of software we buy?

Further, non-transferability better enables upgrading. It would make no sense for VSL to offer you an upgrade from Opus 1 to the Pro Edition if you could just then go sell your Opus 1 to someone else. An upgrade program just wouldn't be possible.

So my answer is still the same: if you're really serious about wanting or needing to resell, get a legal opinion. As for me, these restrictions are ubiquitous for sample libs, and it's never stopped me from buying them before before, so it won't now, but it would be nice to be able to sell my old libs that are now obsolete thanks to VSL. [:)]

@peter0302 said:

Further, non-transferability better enables upgrading. It would make no sense for VSL to offer you an upgrade from Opus 1 to the Pro Edition if you could just then go sell your Opus 1 to someone else. An upgrade program just wouldn't be possible.

An upgrade program generally does not allow one to sell their original version of the program. One must keep this to use the lower-cost/free upgrade. This is how it works in most software upgrade programs. You need to insert the original copy to enable the upgrade installation for instance.

Now take the case where VSL comes out with a new product that is cheaper, smaller, better and obsoletes an existing product, at least for some customers. Like Horizon, for instance. In this case, where there is no upgrade path from 1st Edition to Horizon, then the ability to sell 1st Edition and buy Horizon only serves to enhance VSL's customer base. The person buying Horizon gets a new piece of software for a better price (because he can sell 1st Edition). A new customer to VSL gets 1st Edition for a discounted price since it is sold second hand and market forces will work to lower this price which is a good thing for all. Admittedly, VSL does not get any money for the new customer ... YET. But this new customer is much more likely to come back for more products at a later date. This is a win-win situation for everyone.

My view of VSL is that it is a software company and not a traditional sample provider. They are doing way more than just providing sampled sounds (e.g., performance tool, MIR, etc). I understand the motivations that have driven their policies. I just disagree with them and think they are short sighted with regard to growing their business.

And you will be able to resell MIR, at least in the United States, I think, just like you can resell a video game or piece of software. But the samples are not computer programs, they're DESIGNED to be copied. Well copying is an exclusive right, so it can only be done under the copyright owner's conditions. And they're not doing anything differenlty, in that case, than any other sample lib company, and I think it's silly to pick on them for that.

@peter0302 said:

And they're not doing anything differenlty, in that case, than any other sample lib company, and I think it's silly to pick on them for that.

I'm not intending to pick on them. I've made some constructive observations as a new customer and have seen some issues in other threads about similar concerns from other customers. I'm offering an alternative idea that is in my opinion a better business policy than the existing one. VSL is free to do whatever they want. But it seems they have been fairly responsive to customer issues in the past.

If you go to www.northernsounds.com and search the archives, you'll find at least one five mile long thread debating the same issue.

Until recently, my personal feeling has been that it would be to everyone's advantage if you could transfer the license after a few years. The seller would have money to spend on new libraries, and the buyer would be getting into the game.

But that was based on the assumption that libraries will continue to become outdated every few years (so the developer wouldn't be selling very many libraries anyway), and I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Sampling has improved by leaps and bounds, and it seems unlikely that the VSL is going to be out of date in a few years unless physical modeling takes its place - and that's a tall order for orchestral emulations. There will always be great new libraries (I hope!), but nobody else is going to go out and record 6 billion samples ever again!

Regardless of speculation and opinions, though, the license agreement is what it is. I can't imagine a lawyer telling anyone to ignore it. But I do understand dbudde's feelings. After all, you can resell a keyboard that comes with ROM samples, so how is this different? The answer is that samples are considered a recorded work.

It is illegal to use the library professionally without a license to do so. That ought not to prohibit me from selling it. I wish companies realized that if you sell something without the license, that the purchaser would need to buy a new license to use the samples, and simultaneously deactivate any new uses from the previous license holder with the same serial number.

But they typically worry about rampant copying which is indeed a concern. But to penalize the user for the criminals out there is not the ethical thing to do. If they allowed reselling and transferring of licenses then the only purchases they would get would be from legitamate users. But isn't that what you want anyway?

And would it be so hard to think of a customer as a non-criminal?

It falls into financial burden to make someone endure the hardships of defunct products. It is negligent of VSL to not provide an exit solution in a social environment where money indoctrinates policy.

I am now a PRO EDITION owner and have no further need for the FIRST EDITION. I guess in part the VIP upgrade price is a nice gesture which takes into account that I own something I no longer need. But at this point I have spent exactly as much money as it costs to buy the PRO EDITION. So what do I do with this heavy anchor sitting on my shelves called the FIRST EDITION? I have no further need for it.

Very confusing. it seems for the amount of money we shell out to VSL that it ought ot come with some freedom. For instance LOGIC has one of the best copy protections out there, and yet that should mean that if tehre isn't any copying going on that the price of it should be much less since they don't have to make up for lost revnue from rampant piracy. However, for some reason both as VSL and at Emagic, their polices and copy protections have done nothing for teh consumer except drive up prices, restrict the user, and treat all owners as equal criminals.

Evan Evans

Couple of comments. First, license policy and copy protection are orthogonal issues. VSL's license certianly does not preclude someone from stealing and using the samples. So let's not confuse the issue in this thread about copy protection schemes. If that needs to get discussed put it in a different thread. I don't believe VLSL's non-transfer policy is intended to enforce copy protection. I think they believe, for whatever reason, that the current policy will maximize their profit.

Second, there seems to be the notion that sampled data is similar to an audio recording as opposed to software and as such it ought to have a different licensing scheme than software. I disagree. Besides, if I go buy an audio CD, I am free to resell that CD if I have no use for it anymore. What's the difference. The only difference is VSL has chose to license their technology this way. They could choose to license it some other way. I am just pointing out that it would be to their benefit to license it like software for the reasons in my first post.

To me the VSL library is a software tool that is used to create music. The sample library is of no real use by itself. One needs to use the library and the software tools that come with it to create a recording. This is no difference to a software program like Logic which is also a tool to create musical recordings. Or Final Cut Pro which is a tool to create movies.

And just so there is no confusion, the only thing I have an issue with in the license policy is if one has no use for the library, one ought to be able to transfer the license.

@dbudde said:

And just so there is no confusion, the only thing I have an issue with in the license policy is if one has no use for the library, one ought to be able to transfer the license.

Thanks. I sure would like to sell this useless jewel here. perhaps VSl will buy it back from me for $1000 of something. Full First Edition. Mint Condition.

Evan Evans

You don't like it (the license agreement) don't use the product, SIMPLE.

Really, just because you disagree with the company policy doesn't mean you have the right to DISREGARD it!

If you really want to do your thing go ahead, see how well it holds up in court.

Ben H

Oh, if you broke the seal or agreed to the terms and conditions on the install YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.

Ben H

@evanevans said:

[...]
I am now a PRO EDITION owner and have no further need for the FIRST EDITION. I guess in part the VIP upgrade price is a nice gesture which takes into account that I own something I no longer need. But at this point I have spent exactly as much money as it costs to buy the PRO EDITION. So what do I do with this heavy anchor sitting on my shelves called the FIRST EDITION? I have no further need for it. [...]
Evan Evans

The answer is simple - if you would be allowed to re-sell the library, there would be _no_ reduced upgrade fee. Voilá - just pay the full price for every product!

... YOU would be the first to shout out LOUD!!! :-]

/Dietz

Interesting Debate.

I would like to chip in.

The Library is not a software tool* - it is simply a library of samples. As such international copywrite law and agreements view this exactly the same as published printed matter - just like a book -

Regardless of whether you read it or not the agreement on purchase is that you cannot re-sell it without the express permission of the Publisher. This law is every bit as binding on the purchaser in the US as it is in Europe. And it makes perfect sense that it is applied to Sample Libraries.

*The Performance Tools are software tools but these are only available to registered users in any case.

tattie

You all seem to be making incorrect assumptions, on both sides. Let me try to correct a few things:

1) Not all "contracts" or "licenses" are enforceable, in whole or in part.

2) Using samples creates derivative works based on them, which is an exclusive right given to a copyright holder which he can license out, for the most part, as he sees fit. It is not the same as reading a book. You don't create derivative works by reading the book.

3) On the other hand, VSL is also very much like a hardware syntehsizer. You can certainly resell those, and using them creates derivative works based on the copyrighted samples. The difference is VSL can be copied, and the synth cannot. So to discourage people from buying, copying, and reselling without deleting, reselling is restricted by the license, because the right to make derivative works with the samples (i.e. use them) is nontransferable.

I'm making no final judgement as to whether the policy is legal, just trying to point out all the conflicting factors that go into this question.

@Another User said:

- just like a book -

Regardless of whether you read it or not the agreement on purchase is that you cannot re-sell it without the express permission of the Publisher.

There's a huge market for used books. Are all these people breaking the copyright laws?

Such a hopeless discussion. There is a difference between content and medium. Book is a medium - you can sell the tangible item to anyone you want. The VSL DVDs are a medium - you can sell the tangible items to anyone you want. You use a book by reading it. The copyright owner has no right to control someone's reading of his work. So anyone who possesses it can read it. You use VSL by creating derivative works from it. The copyright owner DOES HAVE A RIGHT to control that. That right can only be granted through contract, hence, the VSL license.

Why is this so hard to understand?

@Another User said:

Really, just because you disagree with the company policy doesn't mean you have the right to DISREGARD it!

No one is advocating disregarding the license or doing anything illegal. Peter is questioning the legality of the license, but this is not disregarding it.

You don't have to agree with the road traffic laws but if you intend to use your drivers license you have to abide by them.

Otherwise can you imagine someone going for their license and then reaking havoc because they don't want to signal, or stop at a red light, or stick to the speed limit.

Can you imagine the defense to the copper who pulls you over. Sure I have a license I just don't agree with what it says.

I know its a bit extreme but my point is just like a drivers license if you chose to use the VSL product you MUST abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of their contract.

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that you were disregarding the licensing agreement simply that someone could not choose to disregard it if they didn't like it.

Ben H [H]

Those who have studied contract law and have a degree in law, please raise your hands..

No one? thought so. [6]

Terms and conditions are not binding per se. It would depend on a number of things, even the country someone lives in. No answer can be given which is applicable to every situation, period. However, to say that *no one* can sell their copy is just unfounded. [:)]

Jean (who has his LL.M in a few months)

this is a no brainer! can you imagine what ebay would look like with all of those "disgruntled" VSL users . whats to stop you from selling your dvds and using the library from hard disk? i am amazed that given the price of this product we dont have to deal with dongles and authorization issues.
no offense if your a hobbist get a cheaper library!!
about 3 or 4 monthes before VSL was release i purchased GOS lite for $249. i used it ONCE. after i bought VSL i thought . gee what a waste of money. so i harrased the developer to get permission to sell it. in which i got a inconclusive answer. i had to ask myself one question . was willing to completly delete GOS from my hard drive if i sold it?
much to my surprise i found myself debating this with myself!! SO THE POINT IS I WAS BEING SELFISH!! so for now i''ll regretibly keep it. maybe you should take a look at your motives.