@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.

@Another User said:

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

*Raises hand*

Copyright law too.

It's the only profession I could choose that could eventually guarantee to fund my expensive habits. [:)]

@Another User said:

whats to stop you from selling your dvds and using the library from hard disk?

The fact that this is stealing. Look, I pay for all my software. But I also get into situations where I find I no longer need a piece of software so I remove it from my disk and then sell it when that occurs.

The whole point of this thread is that VSL is leaving money on the table because there are customers who won't buy their product because of the license restrictions. VSL should consider changing this to expand their market.

If Herb comes in and says "Hey, we considered all these issues, we are comfortable with our policy and our customer base. We don't have any foreseeable plan to change the policy", then fine. But they should at least hear from a few potential customers whether a change makes sense before dismissing the idea.

@Another User said:

whats to stop you from selling your dvds and using the library from hard disk?

The fact that this is stealing. Look, I pay for all my software. But I also get into situations where I find I no longer need a piece of software so I remove it from my disk and then sell it when that occurs.

The whole point of this thread is that VSL is leaving money on the table because there are customers who won't buy their product because of the license restrictions. VSL should consider changing this to expand their market.

If Herb comes in and says "Hey, we considered all these issues, we are comfortable with our policy and our customer base. We don't have any foreseeable plan to change the policy", then fine. But they should at least hear from a few potential customers whether a change makes sense before dismissing the idea.

fair enough. i really dont think they are lossing money on this issue. i do think eevntually well start to see authorization implemented if people start selling it

Yeah and I still have Windows 3.1, 3.11, Windows 95R2, Windows 98SE, lying around my house in boxes, not to mention all the incarnations of DOS.

All of these I purchased legit. Does that mean because I don't have use for them anymore I can sell them off? NO.

Really just cos you don't need/want them anymore doesn't hold any credability. Just make wiser purchasing decisions. Decide if you will really USE something rather than just buying it out of lust.

And if you do have something you don't like. GET OVER IT!!! Maybe the next time that developer may be able to use your money towards something new and exciting that you DO like.

Ben H

@Another User said:

Just make wiser purchasing decisions.

Thank you, this is excellent advice and is exactly why I am pursuing this licensing issue. The product meets my technical requirements. It currently does not meet my licensing requirements.

Once I determine whether this issue can get resolved to my requirements then I'll make a purchasing decision beyond what I have already made. If the licensing issue is not resolved then I may still decide to buy, then again I may not. But at least I'll have addressed the issue to my satisfaction.

There is nothing wrong with raising legitimate concerns about the product or its license restrictions.

@Another User said:

Once I determine whether this issue can get resolved to my requirements then I'll make a purchasing decision beyond what I have already made. If the licensing issue is not resolved then I may still decide to buy, then again I may not. But at least I'll have addressed the issue to my satisfaction.

There is nothing wrong with raising legitimate concerns about the product or its license restrictions.

Well and fairly said. I don't see that you've given anyone anything to complain about. The Pro upgrade is why I bought the complete 1st Edition, but the current license isn't a reason to buy -- it's a reason NOT to buy. I took stock of my investment in the 1st Edition and VSL's attitude toward my investment, and haven't put any more money into VSL since. I'm not implying that you (or anyone else) have a problem with VSL's attitude per se, just that it (as realized in the license terms) is gating my purchase of Pro upgrade & recent extension products.

Thanks for starting a calm, rational, non-rant discussion of the license issues which gate VSL sales. You've done an admirable and professional job of keeping the discussion centered.

dot

OK. well this rasies a few question. Are there any quality sample libraies that allows the end users to transfer their license??

if so how are they protected?
I realy don''t know of any product that is unprotected that allows you to transfer ownership.

consider WAVES plug ins for example. you can transfer your license BUT the second user has to pay an Xtra $150. Also the program has the most insane authorization protection i have ever seen.

you woud have to provide protection in order to provide the ability to transfer ownership. HOW CAN THAT BE DONE WITH SAMPLES??

regards

Well, I'd rather not get into copy protection in this thread, but I'll give the obvious answer. For the EXS version there is the XSKEY. The VSL performance tools are already authorized this way. No reason the sample libraries can't be. Emagic has the best copy protection scheme on any DAW. It has never been cracked since they have gone to the XSKEY. I assume there are similar ways on the PC to provide good protection.

By the way, I'd maintain the the VSL library is really most useful when used with the performance tools anyway, so there already is some protection in the EXS version.

@Another User said:

consider WAVES plug ins for example. you can transfer your license BUT the second user has to pay an Xtra $150

Actually, I forgot to add that to my earlier post when I said that until recently (with the possibility of libraries that don't get outdated) I always felt it would be to everyone's advantage to allow the license to be transferred after a few years. There absolutely should be a transfer fee.

The point where I definitely disagree with this kind of a license is when Patchman Music comes out with a chip of custom ROM programs for a synthesizer (Yamaha VL-70m). To me it's ludicrous to stipulate that you can't sell the instrument with that chip in it. No way is a single person going to pay any attention to that, so why even make the attempt?

And yet Patchman is such a good programmer that I'd still pay the $350 in a heartbeat if I had a VL-70m (instead of a VL1). That's a small amount to pay for the amount of time he took to produce those programs, and the market is tiny. But I do think the license conditions are cheeky.

Sorry for the OT.

Edit: note that it's a replacement chip, not even an add-on chip.