# Sample Library Depreciation thread



## NYC Composer (May 10, 2019)

The moment that you press the “buy” button on most sample libraries, your investment depreciates to...wait for it.....

$£€0.00

Why? Because you can’t re-sell it. Its value in your hands is whatever it is, but in real currency terms, your investment has lost all worth.

Maybe that’s why I really appreciate user demos and honest opinions. It’s good to have every resource available to judge the worth of a library-professional demos, user demos, walkthroughs, opinions, critiques. All welcome. Maybe if everyone just processed all the information that came in and made their own determinations instead of arguing about whether people are being mean to their team...

My personal opinion-quality control could improve at most companies... a LOT. Some notable exceptions of course-Cinematic Studios, VSL, Audiobro, a lot of small companies. 

Hey-maybe companies could do what Mike Greene does-money back guarantees! Or how about user trials!!
SOME accommodation should be made for an investment that immediately goes down to....well, you know.

Or...not. Probably wouldn’t be as profitable. Impractical. Probably.

But why?


----------



## tack (May 10, 2019)

Yes, mad respect to any developer with the sense and sufficient confidence in their product to have not just a resale policy, but a _return_ policy.

The sad thing is, this shouldn't have to be an exceptional case.


----------



## puremusic (May 10, 2019)

Tax write off?


----------



## tack (May 10, 2019)

puremusic said:


> Tax write off?


If you're in the lucky group of those you can write off sample library purchases, you get, what, 15% back?


----------



## dpasdernick (May 10, 2019)

If I could sell every library i have ever bought and then buy back the ones I truly use i would be a very rich man. Ironically most of the ones I would keep allow resale. (Spectrasonics, Project Sam)


----------



## Lee Blaske (May 10, 2019)

If you're a working composer, and have used the libraries on tracks, you've got value in that that keeps on giving. And most likely, you wouldn't be ready to negate that content. 

Buying a library is licensing content. It's similar to a production company licensing footage for a video production. What they paid for is in their finished product.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 10, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Hey-maybe companies could do what Mike Greene does-money back guarantees! Or how about user trials!!
> SOME accommodation should be made for an investment that immediately goes down to....well, you know.


I'm all for it.


----------



## tack (May 10, 2019)

dpasdernick said:


> Ironically most of the ones I would keep allow resale. (Spectrasonics, Project Sam)


I daresay that's not a coincidence.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 10, 2019)

Lee Blaske said:


> If you're a working composer, and have used the libraries on tracks, you've got value in that that keeps on giving. And most likely, you wouldn't be ready to negate that content.
> 
> Buying a library is licensing content. It's similar to a production company licensing footage for a video production. What they paid for is in their finished product.


So you’ve never made a purchase you regret and wish you could return? 

Being well over 100 years old I don’t work all that much these days, but I’ve worked in the music industry full time since 1973 and my first libraries were on the Akai one shot floppy disk sampler. I’m in for hundreds of thousands over the years. You can certainly disagree, but mine is not an uninformed opinion, and I’ve thought that “try before you buy” is a good idea for a very long time.


----------



## bigcat1969 (May 10, 2019)

What I need in my life is a time back refund for things that turn out to be crud after I've spent far to much time messing with / watching them. Ironically many of the folks who have downloaded my instruments agree with me! ;P


----------



## chillbot (May 10, 2019)

I'm curious what is with this trend of bitching and complaining about this stuff recently. Not this post specifically.

OK let me put on my old man pants. Dammit I'm not over 100 I'm only 42, I don't really feel that old. I'm old enough that I didn't get an email address or a cell phone until college. So that makes it real fun for me to try to be a parent these days. And yes I walked to school every day of my life and it was in Minnesota so occasionally it was through a miserable amount of snow. (Not uphill, though. There are no hills in MN.) So I remember paying $2k for EWQLSO and loving every bit of it. And I still use it, today, in Kontakt nonetheless! And I paid what, $1,200 for LASS? Shit I paid $500 for a 5 CD set of samples for my Emu ESI-32, among other such purchases.

So when I was a kid we didn't have a VCR, though maybe once or twice a year my parents would rent one from the local store and I would binge watch Star Wars on repeat for a whole weekend. That's because VCRs cost like $1,200 bucks (in today's money: about a million bucks). But the thing was, you bought one, and it lasted 25 years, literally. And if it broke you got it repaired. I know people that had the same VCR for 25 years. The same vacuum and microwave, too. So now days you buy a DVD player for $30 bucks and when it malfunctions after two years you toss it and get another one.

You can get Albion ONE for a ridiculous price right now. So you can't resell it? Who cares! Toss it and get another one! I just wander around in wonder of the samples that we have available to us. Here is a sick brag but I have probably spent $XXk on samples that I have never used. Oh well.

We download huge GBs of samples now in a matter of minutes. The internet has made selling samples profitably enough to bring the cost down to at least a 1/10th of what we used to pay for FedEx to deliver the boxes to our houses. So I feel like we are in the age of "throwaway DVD players". OK even that shows my age, I guess they are now BluRay players and no one uses those any more either.

Bad analogies are like oatmeal, they are just white and starchy. So I'll stop. And I'm also not going to make a smarmy "sample appreciation thread". But sincerely I don't get all the complaining that goes on around VI-C about the samples we have access to, at the price we can get them for. You could buy FIVE libraries and if you find one to be amazing it will easily pay for the other four that you toss.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 10, 2019)

I don’t get relentless fanboyism either, and I’m not complaining. I’m telling it like I see it. YMMV and obviously does.
That’s coolio with me.


----------



## erica-grace (May 10, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> The moment that you press the “buy” button on most sample libraries, your investment depreciates to...wait for it.....
> 
> $£€0.00
> 
> ...




Exactly why I like hearing the opinions of someone like re-peat. Ok, _the most unusable instrument ever released in the history of mankind _may be taking things a bit too far, but overall, he has provided some great insight to a very many number of things. I want to hear both sides - yes, I also want to hear why people like a certain library, but I also want to hear the other side. Not disrespectful bitchin' and moanin', but an in depth analysis of what is bad, why it is bad, and that comes with audio exs. Gives me a better idea of whether or not I want to buy a library. Sure, walkthroughs by the developer help, but they are trying to sell a product. Nothing wrong with that, but the end user who says_ this library is great! _or_ this library doesn't work for me and here's why_ isn't trying to sell anything. Which is why I value all opinions, and those who choose to try and stifle negative comments should be shunned.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 10, 2019)

The no-reselling thing is 100% a business strategy that takes advantage of GAS, I'm sure. No other reason for it.


----------



## Confuzzly (May 10, 2019)

Personally, I don't think resale is the way to go. It seems too punishing for developers, especially smaller ones who can't necessarily afford to regularly lose sales to people selling "used" copies.

With that said, I also don't feel like clicking the checkout button should feel like a gamble between being a happy customer with a shiny new toy, or lighting my money on fire. Out of everything I own, both physical and digital, I don't think I've ever had that feeling outside of buying sample libraries.

I test drove my car, I tried on my clothes, I can return my Amazon packages. My video games have Steam's return policy and some have demos. My DAW and notation program had demos. I could go on...

At the end of the day, I just wish there was a better way to make a more informed decision on purchasing a library. Whether that is trials, returns, or something else doesn't matter much to me. I doubt it will happen though. It's not even an issue of greed so much as it is simply extra work for companies for minimum gain. 

I've lost track of what point I was going to make, and it's late and I should probably stop typing. So I guess this post is just a long way of saying "+1".


----------



## dzilizzi (May 10, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Exactly why I like hearing the opinions of someone like re-peat. Ok, _the most unusable instrument ever released in the history of mankind _may be taking things a bit too far, but overall, he has provided some great insight to a very many number of things. I want to hear both sides - yes, I also want to hear why people like a certain library, but I also want to hear the other side. Not disrespectful bitchin' and moanin', but an in depth analysis of what is bad, why it is bad, and that comes with audio exs. Gives me a better idea of whether or not I want to buy a library. Sure, walkthroughs by the developer help, but they are trying to sell a product. Nothing wrong with that, but the end user who says_ this library is great! _or_ this library doesn't work for me and here's why_ isn't trying to sell anything. Which is why I value all opinions, and those who choose to try and stifle negative comments should be shunned.


+1 to this.

Your why may not be mine. So I like the whys and why nots as to whether a library works for you. It helps me decide whether I can live with spending money on something that may only partially work for me because the part that works is what I need. 

I have spent a lot over the years on stuff that only partially worked for me. Okay, barely worked. And like @chillbot says, I remember when I couldn't afford a decent DAW because they cost thousands and required hardware. Now you can crossgrade to Cubase for less than $200. So, yeah, I'd like all that money I spent on useless stuff because now I can buy so much better stuff for a quarter of the price or less. 

I just don't think we can complain now.


----------



## bengoss (May 10, 2019)

Lee Blaske said:


> If you're a working composer, and have used the libraries on tracks, you've got value in that that keeps on giving. And most likely, you wouldn't be ready to negate that content.
> 
> Buying a library is licensing content. It's similar to a production company licensing footage for a video production. What they paid for is in their finished product.


Yes it’s similar to company licensing footage but there is a huuuuge difference The company pays for whatever gets used in the finished product and also licensing fee will depend on where the product will be used. 
On the other side you have to buy let’s say a Spitfire license for strings $1200 no matter if you use them for a no budget student short or a blockbuster or trying to get work)

DEFINITELY TRY BEFORE BUY! 
Or another great thing would be to pay a licensing for the project you worked on and got paid for.
Hope something will change in the future.

Ben


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 10, 2019)

I’ve just been burned - again - with an essentially useless paid “upgrade” to a library. I won’t encourage the pitchforks by naming them here, but have elsewhere. Of course, I blame myself - this company has form here, I should have known better. It was at least a cheap upgrade in a sale, and I am extremely fortunate in that - unlike so many others - money is not outrageously tight for me, but the principle that I’ve been had yet again still stings.

There is an obvious way forward here. If a company lets me down, dong buy from them again. I have an increasing list of companies who operate a strict sold-as-seen policy, all very big on slick marketing and very small on QC, meaningful fixes and improvements. To all of these, I wouldn’t say never again, but I’m at the 90% discount level with them. If that gives me an occasional use, great, if not I’ve not lost too much.

Fortunately, there are other companies with a stellar reputation and have policies where the customer comes first. It shouldn’t leave me impoverished to only focus on them.


----------



## scoringdreams (May 10, 2019)

From a business perspective here (not hardcore theory, just personal thoughts),

1. excessive discounting ruins relation-building
2. poor relation-building leads to public criticism
3. poor management of criticism leads to ruined brand image
4. ruined brand image requires rebuilding (and that costs a lot)
5. depleting resources brings us back to point 1 to regain sales (till bankruptcy)

Maybe a subscription service like EastWest is the upcoming point-of-parity business model?
"You don't like the way a product turned out, you just cancel the subscription..." costs less in the short-run? helps keep competition standards high too IMO

Having some firms create return policies now is going to be akin to puncturing a hole in their revenue streams, and product life cycle comes into play too


----------



## lux (May 11, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Sure, walkthroughs by the developer help, but they are trying to sell a product. Nothing wrong with that, but the end user who says_ this library is great! _or_ this library doesn't work for me and here's why_ isn't trying to sell anything. Which is why I value all opinions, and those who choose to try and stifle negative comments should be shunned.



I have to say I disagree with that. On a personal standpoint, walktroughs made by skilled mockupers and naked demos are the key to understand if a product will work for me or not. 99% of times that is enough. I tend to refer to user opinions only to spot programming bugs or other technical difficulties, and that is really useful.

About demos, I believe that the whole concept of "well, he's good so he makes everything sound good" is somehow wrong. To me, knowing that someone is able to create an illusion and make a product sound great, that is "exactly" what I'm after. I'm an illusionist myself. I have a problem when even skilled mockupers can't make a product sound good, THAT is different. I also have to say that "in context" demos are nowadays less informative and I tend to kinda ignore them and just look for the word "naked" in the audio demos.

So, in my book, "it has a dreadful tone" means nothing. On the contrary, "the legato has a problem on fast sequences as you can hear a weird noise in the transitions" means gold to me, as it is something which may affect my ability to create music, whatever that is.


----------



## tomosane (May 11, 2019)

The idea that a customer could buy a sample library and then do whatever they want with it is probably never going to catch on in this business

Personally I'd *much* rather deal with the "no resales" policy and the occassional bad purchase than with other kinds of measures some companies have devised in order to protect their IP. (see: VSL)


----------



## Stanoli (May 11, 2019)

Yeah and I hate that they never send me flowers after I buy something.
What is this bu!!$&it?

This <me-me-me everything for free> attitude is kind of asocial.
Adapt to the rules of the mercandiser or leave it,
but please stop whining about and depreciating a great company.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

This has been a constant problem of the digital age and selling products that are just basically data...its like food products...once someone has consumed it, taking it back is complicated. You don't know if they ever really got rid of it. If you give permission to resell it, again, did they keep a copy for themselves? Did the resale experience go well? Do bad experiences with resale negatively impact the product and brand? There are just a lot of weird things to consider that no one has really sorted out well with digital content.

I can't say I've been 100% satisfied with everything I've bought, but I try to find purpose and use for the things I get, even my less favorite ones. I do encourage the subscription model though only if it covers all products from a company. While I rarely go back to using EastWest as much recently, I appreciate that when they release something new, my subscription lets me try it and for as long as I have the subscription, I know those tools are in my arsenal. I have a problem with the "pick 10 products" type of subscription like waves do, because it's hard to change the products in that subscription sometimes, and you still don't get the benefit of using that subscription to try new products when they come out, so it's as risky as buying really. If anything it's just deferred payment. 

I hope the subscription model picks up more.


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 11, 2019)

I guess threads like this show us the mentality being the hobbyists and the professionals. 

The hobbyists will buy a sample library, use it, complain about its weaknesses, then look to buy another sample library.

The professionals will buy a sample library, use it, determine its strengths, and then push the samples to their maximum before buying another sample library.

It is time to understand where you are in your journey.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> I guess threads like this show us the mentality being the hobbyists and the professionals.
> 
> The hobbyists will buy a sample library, use it, complain about its weaknesses, then look to buy another sample library.
> 
> ...




Isn't that a bit over generalized a statement? Doesn't it somewhat depend on what kind of professional you are and the nature of your job? If you're pushing out volume and just want a consistent setup, then yes you probably won't spend a lot of time searching for new libraries because you just want to work. As a professional artist and a creator, where the focus is not only on getting out projects in volume but rather about making each project unique, I cannot stand how incredibly stale some people's creations become when they constantly use the same libraries and tricks for everything they do. Particularly in my market, where stale, almost template based music making put out in mass is just too familiar. There are merits to both sides. If my business was to basically fulfill someone's order to make something like a work that is already out there, but different enough so as not to be sued for plagiarism then yeah, I might choose to have my everyday tools with little experimentation and focus on the things I'm used to that work for me. If I need my project to stand out, and be different, and new...then there is absolute value as a professional to continually seek out new sounds.


----------



## Stanoli (May 11, 2019)

It depends from which angle you look at it:
From your money or from the quality of the product.

Years ago as a professional you could only dream of the price and quality of the Spitfire products.
So you see the money spent also as an investment into the future of the company that they are able to continue their outstanding work.

Hobbyists do not earn money as music is not their number one occupation (Job, other hobbies, family, vacation are on the same importance level) so the quality of the music is therefore not as good that professionals would hire them.
So I see their resale point but it is a stupid and destructive one.

Rant over


----------



## scoringdreams (May 11, 2019)

So many interesting *perspectives* here...

Thinking deeper, I believe that once we made the decision to purchase something, it's akin to us accepting the product for what it was presented as; and that's where the concept of v2 upgrades come from, or as SFA managed to pull off quite well - re-branding/bundling (Sable to Chamber, Mural to Symphonic Series etc)

...and if not what we had initially expected, we could demand a fix which of course depends on the existing capabilities and capacity of the developer, and this is where it gets touchy when we are expected to pay more to get our fixes; makes costing sense for developers to charge us, but it betrays our value expectations which results in pages of complaints on forums...it's a matter of how much businesses want to pay to get their customers, and if the exchange is going overboard/unreasonable for the dev, there is the choice of re-shifting their target segments to customers who are willing to pay (to maintain the value exchange)...


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 11, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> I guess threads like this show us the mentality being the hobbyists and the professionals.
> 
> The hobbyists will buy a sample library, use it, complain about its weaknesses, then look to buy another sample library.
> 
> ...



Poor Larry. A lifetime in the business full time working day in day out on superb music, and he still hasn't reached the giddy tier of "professional". In your eyes.

I'll leave you all to it, nothing more to add. Here, anyway.


----------



## Eptesicus (May 11, 2019)

Personally, i think demos/trial periods should be far more prevalent. Especially for big and expensive libraries.


----------



## Henu (May 11, 2019)

Me said:


> The professionals will buy a sample library, use it, determine its strengths, and then combine the strenghts with other sample libraries.


----------



## muk (May 11, 2019)

Warning: long rant follow.



Stanoli said:


> Yeah and I hate that they never send me flowers after I buy something.
> What is this bu!!$&it?
> 
> This <me-me-me everything for free> attitude is kind of asocial.
> ...



What a heap of neo-liberal bullshit. “Stop whining, simply don’t buy it if you don’t like it. Vote with your wallet. Never connect with other people, all you can do is to adjust your own behavior”. Well, I think that people absolutely should connect on forums and voice their dissatisfactions. Because as a group people can actually achieve something. If enough people are dissatisfied and let a company know it, they can make companies improve their products, change their course etc. Whereas an individual never will.

Another problem: “Simply don’t buy it if you don’t like it”. Sure, I never would. The problem is that with most sample library developers you can’t know beforehand, because there is no way to properly test a library. It’s basically a leap of faith. And afterwards you are stuck with your purchase, because many developers don’t allow resales.

Resales, that’s the next problem. In the EU, after the 2012 Oracle ruling, it is dubious for sample developers to forbid resales to say the least. It may be an unlawful policy in their EULA that might be legally void. But we don’t know until somebody tests it before court. It’s one thing to demand individuals to not enter a EULA they don’t agree with. But you could just as well demand companies not to put things in it that are potentially unlawful and might not stand before court. I know, that’s not what neoliberalism wants, because all the burdens should be on the individual while companies should be able to do whatever the heck they like.

As it stands, buyers are at a large disadvantage. They can’t properly assess a sample library before buying it, because most developers don’t make any sort of demo available. You can not try before you buy. Neither do they allow returns during a certain period of time. And if you have bought it, you are stuck with it because they don’t allow resales. That’s a deeply flawed system that puts buyers at a huge, unfair disadvantage.

In my opinion there can never be enough negative talk about these unfair business practices. The more people voice their concerns about this the better. Yes, do adjust your buying behavior and vote with your wallet. But also let the companies know about it. Connect, ‘whine’ on forums as much as possible. And never let any ill-considered internet bully tell you that you can’t achieve anything if you connect as a community.

So no, I won’t let you shut me up. If I find a library or a developer to have issues with quality control, bugs, or substantial shortcomings I will say so. And I thank everybody who does the same, because it is the only way to get crucial information about sample libraries. Because at the moment I think the sample library business is deeply flawed.

As long as sample developers EULA’s are as they are now, we do need as many frank assessments we can get. We need as many people as re-peat, Guy, NoamL, AlexanderSchiborr, Daniel James, NYC Composer and others who are delving deep into libraries and showing us their findings. Not through the rose-tinted glasses of the many fanboys frequenting this forum. But by the point of view of seasoned professionals who don’t toy with these libraries, but depend on them as professional tools to earn a living.


----------



## Daryl (May 11, 2019)

muk said:


> Resales, that’s the next problem. In the EU, after the 2012 Oracle ruling, it is dubious for sample developers to forbid resales to say the least.


That ruling has no hearing on sample libraries, as long as they use recorded audio samples. If the product uses no samples, and is 100%physically modelled, then it is covered.


----------



## Peter Williams (May 11, 2019)

Stanoli said:


> It depends from which angle you look at it:
> From your money or from the quality of the product.
> 
> Years ago as a professional you could only dream of the price and quality of the Spitfire products.
> ...


 Note: this response is to an earlier post regarding the "superior" work of professionals, presumably doing soundtracks.

I have to agree with you, for the most part. But most professionals are really focused on commercial production, and the most successful are part of a production team. Some of the very best music comes from academics, amateurs and fringe artists who just can't help themselves. The movie/game industry is where the money is, and some of it's participants show great creativity and imagination, but most of the most interesting stuff is probably happening elsewhere. Too bad most of us will never experience it.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

muk said:


> Warning: long rant follow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




isn't it relevant to first consider the nature of this expectation? im not saying its wrong to want samples, and trials...and some have done that to a degree. If i recall AmpleSound has done a free version of their software, and I think 8Dio had a few as well. It's not impossible, but its also not easy. its also incredibly risky for smaller developer groups. Anti-Piracy was a major focus for a lot of developers and trying to avoid software just being tossed around for free. Being able to resell is possible with valid license procedures but it can make support for resale products incredibly troublesome. There is a solution out there and the industry should consider what its options are, but i dont think its fair to say that the industry is somehow predatory just because it hasn't found a suitable method to satisfy everyones needs yet.

i dont mean to sound dismissive, but it just irks me sometimes because valid criticisms are often expressed in a tone that just comes off as hyperbolic around these parts.


----------



## muk (May 11, 2019)

It's a tricky one Daryl. If I am not mistaken Oracle argued that they don't sell the software, but a personal license to use it. Therefor it wasn't a tangible good and they don't have to facilitate a license transfer. The court didn't follow that line of argument. Now sample library developers are taking whata looks to me like a similar stance to Oracle: we don't sell a software consisting of recordings plus a code and GUI to use them in a certain way. No, we sell personal licenses to use our audio recordings. I see certain similarities to the Oracle case. But I am no lawyer and I don't know how the differences would affect the legal situation. In any case, as long as nobody tests these policies before court they have to be respected by customers.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

muk said:


> It's a tricky one Daryl. If I am not mistaken Oracle argued that they don't sell the software, but a personal license to use it. Therefor it wasn't a tangible good and they don't have to facilitate a license transfer. The court didn't follow that line of argument. Now sample library developers are taking whata looks to me like a similar stance to Oracle: we don't sell a software consisting of recordings plus a code and GUI to use them in a certain way. No, we sell personal licenses to use our audio recordings. I see certain similarities to the Oracle case. But I am no lawyer and I don't know how the differences would affect the legal situation. In any case, as long as nobody tests these policies before court they have to be respected by customers.



I would say that's a necessity for them to make sure people aren't just taking their recordings and making new libraries and reselling them. from an anti-piracy, legal standpoint their stance makes sense. Its a theme of the digital era. We aren't dealing with physical products now, so your only hope is to protect the intellectual property and its components. I know it sucks when compared to how we normally view our purchases in our day to day lives, but what other reasonable standard is there?


----------



## muk (May 11, 2019)

@chocobitz825 I agree. Piracy is certainly a huge problem, and I agree that developers have a right to protect themselves. However, currently they are often offloading the complete risk on their customers. Take VSL as an example. They require their customers to use a dongle. The dongle has no practical use for the customer. It simply has to be there to protect VSL from piracy. That is completely fine in my opinion. What I don't agree with is that if a dongle is stolen, or destroyed in a fire, the customer has to rebuy the libraries. It puts all the risk on the customer. And VSL's solution is to sell an insurance to their customers! The right solution would be, in my opinion, for VSL to buy an insurance themselves that protects them from the losses through piracy. It should not be on the customer to insure themselves against a risk that VSL offloaded onto them. 

Interestingly it's often the smaller developery that offer much more customer friendly policies.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

muk said:


> @chocobitz825 I agree. Piracy is certainly a huge problem, and I agree that developers have a right to protect themselves. However, currently they are often offloading the complete risk on their customers. Take VSL as an example. They require their customers to use a dongle. The dongle has no practical use for the customer. It simply has to be there to protect VSL from piracy. That is completely fine in my opinion. What I don't agree with is that if a dongle is stolen, or destroyed in a fire, the customer has to rebuy the libraries. It puts all the risk on the customer. And VSL's solution is to sell an insurance to their customers! The right solution would be, in my opinion, for VSL to buy an insurance themselves that protects them from the losses through piracy. It should not be on the customer to insure themselves against a risk that VSL offloaded onto them.
> 
> Interestingly it's often the smaller developery that offer much more customer friendly policies.




I totally agree. this has kept me out of VSL. I feel like iLok is the better alternative for this since iLok itself tends to have better options for the sake of the the customer. Still i feel like this is where the conversation breaks down. Developers say they'll do a dongle, and a lot of people say they absolutely won't buy if its a dongle system because its inconvenient. So then some do the official Kontakt method but put the additional cost into the product's retail price and people hate that too. I feel like where smaller developers get criticism is the price of their libraries, which i suspect end up a little bit higher in cost than usual because they dont have the protections and they're just hoping people will honestly buy and not pirate. i personally dont mind iLok anymore now that its offered a cloud option. I would be happy if more library trials were available with iLok.


----------



## Stanoli (May 11, 2019)

muk said:


> What a heap of neo-liberal bullshit......
> As it stands, buyers are at a large disadvantage. They can’t properly assess a sample library before buying it, because most developers don’t make any sort of demo available.....
> So no, I won’t let you shut me up......
> But by the point of view of seasoned professionals who don’t toy with these libraries, but depend on them as professional tools to earn a living.



When you find it neo-liberal bullshit when I suggest to look at the the good things you get from Spitfire and other developers nowadays instead of whining about a resale policy, so be it.

And about not knowing what you get:
There are so many videos to watch and mp3 to listen to, I mean, really???
I never bought anything that I was diasappointed with after the proper research.

Well I am making a living with music and I do not want to shut you up
(It did not work anyway, did it?).


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 11, 2019)

Try these out for free: https://vstbuzz.com/freebies/


----------



## cyoder (May 11, 2019)

I do agree that VI purchasing is a pretty risky thing for consumers, and I'd love to see more solutions to correct that, but there is also a balance that the consumer unfriendly policies (if you feel that way about most EULAs) have allowed for the saturation and price drop of libraries in the last few years. I imagine if more risk is consolidated into sample library development, the bar of entry to produce them would increase, thus less new ones would hit the market and the price would increase to offset the risk. Just recording the audio is an expensive endeavor, detailed QA takes a looong time, effective marketing is not only expensive but also a long game, and so especially for small teams, that's a lot of sustained risk before anyone even has a chance to purchase, if they even hear about it or are interested in the least. I'm not blindly pro-developer and I'd be interested in seeing the status quo shift more toward demos and resale if possible, but there is a balance between price and quality/resale/scope. I don't think it's possible to have it both ways, or at least, I think to change the norms of the market to make it more consumer friendly will have an effect on the market in terms of pricing and projects attempted.

Maybe it's worth the trade though. And maybe I'm wrong...but there's my 2 cents at least.

Best,


----------



## JoelS (May 11, 2019)

There was a very long, very heated argument about this exact topic here on this forum just last year. You could probably save yourself about twenty pages of rehashing identical stuff by unearthing it, but if you watch movies you might surmise that reanimating the dead usually doesn't end well. The other thread got locked, eventually. This one probably will, too, about seventeen pages from now.

I don't think there are a lot of good answers to 'should a developer allow resale.' Developers face a lot of challenges.

What can be said, though, is that the current ecosystem is one where developers are now almost forced to put their products on _extremely_ deep discount sales to compete. They pretty much all do it, at this point. So, if you are really concerned about the quality of a library and all the reviews and forum opinions aren't enough to say to you 'this will be worth my money,' then.... maybe just wait?

Is the absolute monetary value of a library now to be judged by its...

Pre-order discount price
Loyalty discount price
Stated retail price
Seasonal discount price
Black Friday OMG WE HAVE TO SELL THIS NOW price
After seeing how absurdly discounted things got last November, I decided that this year I would not buy anything until Black Friday unless I need it right away for a project. I'm pretty happy with this decision so far. The few libraries I have bought were on discount sales, anyway.

As a former 'small developer' myself, I can also say I am glad to no longer be one.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

JoelS said:


> There was a very long, very heated argument about this exact topic here on this forum just last year. You could probably save yourself about twenty pages of rehashing identical stuff by unearthing it, but if you watch movies you might surmise that reanimating the dead usually doesn't end well. The other thread got locked, eventually. This one probably will, too, about seventeen pages from now.
> 
> I don't think there are a lot of good answers to 'should a developer allow resale.' Developers face a lot of challenges.
> 
> ...



It’s quite tough lately because people want/expect more for less. There has to be a better middle ground where developers can protect themselves, and their business and customers can protect themselves from disappointment and wasted investment.


----------



## scoringdreams (May 11, 2019)

Indeed, business is a complex art form that creates constraints as you progress.


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2019)

I do have a few libraries I didn't like. In every case they were hasty purchases. Only one company used to put out what I thought were misleading demos; not even sure if they do that anymore as I haven't bought from them for some time.

For me, patience has been my friend.

Just to throw in a little for the developers: I feel sorry for the level of piracy they face, almost instantly, when they release libraries that clearly took months of work to produce. The first (and often the second, third, fourth etc.) result that comes up on my search engine if I search "Spitfire [library name]" is torrent downloads. That really bugs me.

I don't like wasting money either, but when I think of over $4k for the original EWQLSO, I think things are great today. (not that I regret that purchase one bit -- it reenergised my willingness to write after a hiatus when I just couldn't face another day / year of feeble samples.)


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

JohnG said:


> when I think of over $4k for the original EWQLSO, I think things are great today. (not that I regret that purchase one bit -- it reenergised my willingness to write after a hiatus when I just couldn't face another day / year of feeble samples.)



On a personal note I wish I had something like that to get me out of the same kind of hiatus right now


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Try these out for free: https://vstbuzz.com/freebies/



https://audioplugin.deals/synths-dx-by-karanyi-music-free-download/?utm_source=APD+Subscribers

also free for subscribers i believe


----------



## richardt4520 (May 11, 2019)

Plenty of developers allow resale so saying they can't do it is bunk. They just don't want to lose out on another sale, which is understandable. For all the touchy-feely PR stuff they do (and it is much appreciated for sure!), they are software companies trying to make a profit. 

I've bought a few pricey libraries that I thought were wasted money but upon revisiting them, have found great use for most of them. So my interest in this isn't exactly personal. If they are going by the argument that sample libraries are sound recordings and should be protected as such, they are eventually going to lose that battle. Because the intended use of the product is not what they're trying to argue it is: Sound recordings for listeners' enjoyment.

The intended use of a sample library is the exact same thing as a software synth using waveform oscillators. It's a tool for the end user to make musical works with. It really makes no difference that the sound generation in the software is coming from oscillators, FM, or samples, the intended use of the product is the same. And according to the EU's ruling, if I'm not mistaken, is that soft synths with non-recorded methods of sound generation fall under the ruling. 

Any attorney or prosecutor on the opposing side to the software companies would see this argument within a few minutes of looking at that claim of protected sound recordings. The recordings themselves are designed for a completely different use than what the developers are claiming they are intended for in that argument.


----------



## WhiteNoiz (May 11, 2019)

Some good points here. To add: Other than resale, there are also the right to repair (if dev goes out of business should they be obligated to make the product available in a recoverable, workable state? example: ilok with encrypted samples?), ownership (do you actually just license sounds or do you also need the software to put them in a usable state and make them the product you actually bought?) and losing your license outright (a few devs actually have that). You could say it's cheap enough I can buy an extra license. But should you have to make that argument in the first place? Also considering that "affordable" is relative. And also some that charge you again to re-download (warranty, plus warranty in digital vs physical terms, as in paying to fix something that requires more materials, planned obsolescence and re-providing a download whose the cost is just the bandwidth it uses, licensing for use vs licensing for publication, as in offline collaboration in the same space and getting extra licenses if you put someone's name on a publicised product who wasn't an original licensee; that goes for using the sound recordings, not the program or a shared pc to compose, but that has [unnecessary] managerial costs). Rent-to-own is a good by-product. And subscription being a recurring service vs a product you buy once (even trickier).

It's a difficult situation. Indeed, professionals could probably bare any extra costs compared to hobbyists but to what extent should even they be expected to? On the other hand, this has allowed for a massive drop in prices, offsetting costs and increase in accessibility (which in turn makes music cheaper and you have to make up for that value loss in other ways; better quality samples help in that, but also adjust expectations of finished product). But, way I see it, the law should definitely be modernised. For example, sure you must have a responsibility to maintain your stuff, but should your hardware fail, should you completely lose access to something you paid for (no matter what amount and no matter what the EULA says [what was said about things being in EULAs in the first place])? I feel it's mostly an issue of accessibility and morality, if not practicality. If a dev goes out of business is piracy justified for example? In absence of demos, is piracy justified if you end up buying anyway? Some good arguments here. What about pressure to fix and innovate if you're "guaranteed" an income?

(Another thought: EastWest has adopted a hybrid of subscription and buying licenses, albeit with DRM, which is diversifying their income streams and seems to be succeeding [even if they recycle and restrict a lot; you have a choice to a big extent])

Games as a service is a really good equivalent for this, it reminded me of this:

 (Replace game with program or VST)

(I don't think he makes THE best analysis, but it's decent) A good solution is to support/buy what you feel you can actually afford potentially burning money into (but even then there are arguments for failsafes and roads to accessibility). I realise a lot of this is a bit salad-y, but mostly wanted to throw some thoughts out there for people to consider.


----------



## MartinH. (May 11, 2019)

chillbot said:


> I'm curious what is with this trend of bitching and complaining about this stuff recently. Not this post specifically.



On youtube it seems like most major releases of entertainment stuff nowadays are followed by more complaints than anything else. I believe part of that is because the algorithms these sites run on figured out that negative content keeps people hooked for longer.

I've seen a youtuber complain about how the algorithm keeps deliberately showing people that hate him his content, because they can't help but watch till the end, and that's "great user retention" in the eyes of the algorithm, so it keeps doing it.

Here's an interesting video on the brain-side of the issue:



Spoiler


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 11, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I don't like wasting money either, but when I think of over $4k for the original EWQLSO



And guess what? There was no return or resell policy. I think I paid just over $2k for my old EW Complete Composer Collection (40 DVD's). I still use many of those instruments over ten years later! I think I paid $1000 for Hollywood Strings. Bought the 8Dio Adagio bundle a couple years ago for $400.....on a selfish impulse. I hated it! However, I pulled my head out my ass a while ago and really dug deep into the library, it's actually not too bad and I now appreciate it. In hindsight, it was well worth what I paid.

I don't see any shortage of demos/walkthroughs from developers and users these days, I don't get all the bitching and whining. My recent purchase of Spitfire Studio Strings and Brass paid for itself already, an easy recoup of $270! Plus, a tax write off. Even for a hobbyist, the prices of some of these libraries are incredible, we just take everything for granted. $225 for Albion One? $20 month for EW Composer Cloud? Come on, that's like two coffee's at Starbucks. There are so many great deals out there.


----------



## WhiteNoiz (May 11, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> On youtube it seems like most major releases of entertainment stuff nowadays are followed by more complaints than anything else. I believe part of that is because the algorithms these sites run on figured out that negative content keeps people hooked for longer.



That's true, but I also try to keep myself from falling in the other trap that all of it is unjustified or useless or whiny for the sake of it. I make a conscious effort to see if there's something in everything I can keep, if I choose to engage with it.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

WhiteNoiz said:


> Some good points here. To add: Other than resale, there are also the right to repair (if dev goes out of business should they be obligated to make the product available in a recoverable, workable state? example: ilok with encrypted samples?), ownership (do you actually just license sounds or do you also need the software to put them in a usable state and make them the product you actually bought?) and losing your license outright (a few devs actually have that). You could say it's cheap enough I can buy an extra license. But should you have to make that argument in the first place? Also considering that "affordable" is relative. And also some that charge you again to re-download (warranty, plus warranty in digital vs physical terms, as in paying to fix something that requires more materials, planned obsolescence and re-providing a download whose the cost is just the bandwidth it uses, licensing for use vs licensing for publication, as in offline collaboration in the same space and getting extra licenses if you put someone's name on a publicised product who wasn't an original licensee; that goes for using the sound recordings, not the program or a shared pc to compose, but that has [unnecessary] managerial costs). Rent-to-own is a good by-product. And subscription being a recurring service vs a product you buy once (even trickier).
> 
> It's a difficult situation. Indeed, professionals could probably bare any extra costs compared to hobbyists but to what extent should even they be expected to? On the other hand, this has allowed for a massive drop in prices, offsetting costs and increase in accessibility (which in turn makes music cheaper and you have to make up for that value loss in other ways; better quality samples help in that, but also adjust expectations of finished product). But, way I see it, the law should definitely be modernised. For example, sure you must have a responsibility to maintain your stuff, but should your hardware fail, should you completely lose access to something you paid for (no matter what amount and no matter what the EULA says [what was said about things being in EULAs in the first place])? I feel it's mostly an issue of accessibility and morality, if not practicality. If a dev goes out of business is piracy justified for example? In absence of demos, is piracy justified if you end up buying anyway? Some good arguments here. What about pressure to fix and innovate if you're "guaranteed" an income?
> 
> (Another thought: EastWest has adopted a hybrid of subscription and buying licenses, albeit with DRM, which is diversifying their income streams and seems to be succeeding [even if they recycle and restrict a lot; you have a choice to a big extent])




I think some of the points are valid, but at the same time there are real world examples of the similar concepts. Not being able to resell is probably the only thing about digital products that cant be attached to a real world equivalent, however in any situation if you bought something and the maker goes out of business, you can no longer get parts, you no longer receive service and thats just the way it goes. 

if you bought a water cooler and it went out of business, and you no longer receive water every month, another business cant just come in and say they'll pick up where the old company left off and start servicing that brands cooler in its place. realistically, that brand would be decommissioned and you'd be expected to get an alternative cooler and service from someplace else. 

I dont think its unfair to still limit how the products are legally managed after that fact. i mean if a car manufacturer goes out of business, it doesnt really give you the right to repackage it and sell their designs as a new car brand. i feel like thats the argument being made when people want to take the scraps of a decommissioned library and make something new with it. If for personal use, sure, but for distribution, you really have no ownership over something you didn't actually create. Love it or hate it samples are like loops. They can give you permission to adjust them for your own use, but none of them give you permission to take the work they did and make a new product for yourself to sell at their expense. 

so is piracy justified? i mean, does it ever feel like it should be? if someone pirates songs from your catalog with the promise to buy eventually, is that satisfactory for any creator? in the same way i think we should also consider that samples are like songs. people are obligated to royalties for the sales of libraries and to encourage piracy and free distribution would create all kinds of problems for the companies and the people who were involved in making the samples. that may also factor into why its hard to give a trial on some libraries. its complicated and of course could be better, but i dont think its really that bad for most companies, despite some reallllllly bad ones.


----------



## Syneast (May 11, 2019)

Confuzzly said:


> Personally, I don't think resale is the way to go. It seems too punishing for developers, especially smaller ones who can't necessarily afford to regularly lose sales to people selling "used" copies.


Developers should be punished for making products that make people want to return them. How else do we push for quality products if we can't vote with our money?


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

Syneast said:


> Developers should be punished for making products that make people want to return them. How else do we push for quality products if we can't vote with our money?



Bad reviews? YouTube can be a killer


----------



## Syneast (May 11, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> Bad reviews? YouTube can be a killer


You don't think sales would be further affected if all developers started releasing trials? If I see a trial I know the company is confident enough in their product. Having no trial seems to me like the developer is scared of letting us try their library.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 11, 2019)

Emotional Violin is 25% off through tomorrow, and has Try-Sound, where you can give it a test drive. And allows license transfers.

Toontrack released a very reasonably priced orchestral perc library that allows license transfers.

Life is good. Just keep your eye on the ball and try not to catch this nasty bug that seems to be going around.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

Syneast said:


> You don't think sales would be further affected if all developers started releasing trials? If I see a trial I know the company is confident enough in their product. Having no trial seems to me like the developer is scared of letting us try their library.



Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be trials, I’m just saying it’s difficult because no one seems to agree on the conditions. Giving out a free library may not be doable with royalty agreements and so many people demand a trial but demand it be without the use of a dongle system...it’s not really doable with current kontakt and it’s costly to make a stand-alone VI. plus people tend to dislike stand-alones and often demand it be kontakt or compatible with some other popular sampler.


----------



## Robert_G (May 11, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Emotional Violin is 25% off through tomorrow, and has Try-Sound, where you can give it a test drive. And allows license transfers.



Lol.....EV is one of those that would shock me if anyone regretted their purchase..


----------



## Confuzzly (May 11, 2019)

Syneast said:


> Developers should be punished for making products that make people want to return them. How else do we push for quality products if we can't vote with our money?



I don't know if you are confusing my use of resale with refund, but resale has no indication on the quality of a library.

Lets say I buy a library. I then proceed to spend 6 months writing a score that will make me a boat load of money with that same, great library. Afterwards, I decide I don't need the library anymore. Next, you come along and decide that you would rather buy from me at a slightly reduced cost instead of buying directly from the developer to get your own copy. I get some money back after using a library for 6 months of good use, you get a reduced cost, and the developer gets nothing except for a lost sale (your copy) and maybe a small transfer fee. That doesn't seem fair to me. The big companies can probably handle it, but I don't know about the smaller developers where individual sales could be of notable consequence.

I guess theoretically, one could have a time limit for resales, but at that point you might as well just have a return policy assuming that both a equally possible.


----------



## halfwalk (May 11, 2019)

Stop buying samples. Buyer's remorse eliminated.


----------



## Daryl (May 11, 2019)

muk said:


> It's a tricky one Daryl. If I am not mistaken Oracle argued that they don't sell the software, but a personal license to use it. Therefor it wasn't a tangible good and they don't have to facilitate a license transfer. The court didn't follow that line of argument. Now sample library developers are taking whata looks to me like a similar stance to Oracle: we don't sell a software consisting of recordings plus a code and GUI to use them in a certain way. No, we sell personal licenses to use our audio recordings.


No, it's totally different and comes under different laws, because you are not using software per se, you are licencing a sample of an audio recording to use in your own music. What you are saying is:

I agree that XXX TV company can use one of my tracks on their film. Then when they've finished using it they can sell that right to another company to use my track on their film with no further payment to me.

It is established beyond doubt that this would be illegal.


----------



## gpax (May 11, 2019)

Do I have to choose appreciations and depreciations in two different locales? Can I put a different spin on this?

My frequent interactions with, and imploring of developers in the past few years, has taken a different direction altogether as I go blind. Whether I have the options of trying before buying, reselling later, or in most cases, neither of those, have all taken a backseat to imploring developers behind the scenes to simply consider creating more accessible workflows, if not common sense GUIs, particularly as there are quantifiable standards being ignored in the sample library sphere. Progressive blindness sucks on this count.

The point being, all sample libraries go partially unused, or are partially unusable. For me, some of the best sample content I purchase is regrettably inaccessible, as I then scramble to off-load to other workflows, which is to say, work around a developer’s particular point of view. All too often, a developer’s (dark, brooding, mood-attempting) interface becomes my impediment to overcome.

If I were to get angry or bitter - which I hope I am not - they would most all owe me my money back in various ways. But even before the visual acuity decline of the past two years intensified, I have always felt that my investment of the past eighteen years amounts to one giant sample library, the sum of its parts how I prefer to create the “perfect” orchestral sections, anyway. Like so many others, I’ve shed off outdated approaches, have resold some of the few that allowed this, and fine-tune that giant ball of creativity each time something new is released - if, I determine I can use it at all.

Maybe I’ve just been doing this long enough that when I listen to developer walkthroughs and demos, I can almost immediately detect what is being masked, what is being pushed forward to hype, and what usable aspects are apparent to me. The beautify of this forum is in cross-referencing those things in discussions, but where this weird sense of those who need others to divine on their behalf, saving them from a purchase, has never made sense to me.

I am not trying to preach, but humbly offer personal perspective here. For me, its not just about sample quality, or licensing druthers: adaptable and accessible solutions have been a venture unto itself, and I could fill this post with multiple pages of examples of how developers are responding, and even affecting change. As in my daily surroundings, I find people tend to have some rudimentary sense, if not presupposition about those who are completely blind, yet have no working vocabulary for the 300,000,000 million visually impaired worldwide, which constitutes a broader range of what it means to develop tools that are accessible for them.

Analogous to the broader discussion here, there are developers who are receptive to change; some who actually implement it per the digital content standards I share, which quantifiably measure what is universally accessible. But there will always be those developers who either ignore me, or defend their GUI as being suitably exclusive for “most” of their user base. And sometimes, though it may feel like it, it’s not intentionally personal.

While there is a temptation to depreciate and shame (and I am writing an article about the lack of universally accessible design perspective itself in music production) the majority of receptive feedback falls in the appreciation category, even as I still find myself clicking into a dark mixer window, on sample library, where I have to guess where the elements are before they then sort of light up.

BTW, if anyone wants to raise up a chorus of what can actually - and readily - be fixed, I will not object. How these are licensed will still be debated, perhaps after I cannot effectively see them at that point; an accessible interface for next year’s rollout is attainable, and arguably rant-worthy, for those so inclined to communicate that way.

We each have our realities, and reasons for why we want change. Relating this back to the ethos of the discussion about licensing and purchasing options (or lack thereof), might I caution against inferring that a pro/hobby distinction be leveraged here? As was intimated recently in another contentious thread, people who bought a particular library were being implicated as complicit in developer mediocrity, which no matter how valued or erudite that assertion was, did not adequately speak to the nuances and specific realities of why we each settle for, or advocate, or rally against things like an EULA, let alone live with, and creative with, disparities in sample library qualities all the time.

For those who value such select erudite opinions so highly (and there is nothing wrong with that), or have this perception that a so-called fanboy faction is spoiling honest discussion, hence a need to counter/depreciate, I think there is also an argument to be made for some to strip out the language of (perpetual) victimhood when making their case. That we’ve all been burned by a purchase is not unique, though perhaps that is the point of advocating change that would benefit many.

As for appreciating what was once depreciated, I was delighted during the first two weeks of Logic Pro X’s release, years ago, when both a member of LPX development and Apple’s accessibility teams responded to set up a conference call, as I pointed out how so many customizable options I’d relied on for accessibility through the years, had been stripped out in the name of a so-called “modern” interface in LPX. That design trend, unfortunately, was then emulated in myriads of ways by other developers I’m sure we could all name.

My developer depreciation, then, if there is such a condition, is for those who advocate low contrast design, dark elements on darker backgrounds, and the use of micro fonts (not to mention skeuomorphic intentions gone bad), which are the daily realities I have to figure out, irrespective of the investment itself.

The public feedback after a Kontakt 5.X release a couple of years back comes to mind, as a kind of change-of-course success, as I watched forums full of users, with presumably much better visual acuity than me, let NI know what was not acceptable in the GUI (and which NI took to heart). And yet, as I recall, some in this forum were content to host a pissing contest about who could see better (“looks perfectly fine to me,” some said), even as I realized I would never win such a contest, particularly as their mode of talking about these things had no bearing to my reality. I see that mindset as a variation of faction-building consensus which is not, I pray, what this forum is ultimately about.

The moral of the story I share with various developers of my ongoing discussions about libraries is simple: when you come out with an update, or redux, or version x to replace what was, please don’t take something away (from me) that was accessible before. If you are trending toward low contrast, and dark on darker elements, or convinced that skeuomorphic buttons and knobs are ideal, be prepared to also defend what functional benefits these things actually provide. At the very least, consider digital content standards which actually exist for digital creators, where a boost to contrast ratios can go a long, long way, if not overhaul the design itself.

In terms of appreciated changes I can, and do routinely invoke, six months after the LPX release discussion, a lighter background option for the MIDI editor was added (in direct response to me telling them I simply needed a way to turn the lights back on), and there have been incremental accessibility improvements since. Incremental seems to be the thing I hope for, even as eyesight time is now at a premium for me.

At the risk of sounding cheesy, turning the depreciations into a workable appreciation is an ongoing project for me. Begging your forgiveness for nuancing this with the discussion about hoped-for licensing options, even as I totally am on board with that discussion as well, I can only add that pejorative naming schemes, or thread titles, have only ever gained limited traction for me, personally, though maybe it works better for some.

Greg


----------



## Sean (May 11, 2019)

I think at the least sample companies should allow some sort of demo. I don't care as much about reselling or returns, I think a demo would be consumer friendly enough. If your library is as great as you say it is, then a demo should make my decision to purchase easier and provide more sales for you. If your library is not so good, well then who's fault is that? I've definitely held out on buying a lot of libraries because I couldn't demo them when in reality if I could've demo'd them I probably would have bought them.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 11, 2019)

For clarity’s sake, I want to say this:

Various posts in this thread would suggest that one should make lemonade out of lemons, as in, they find uses for purchases they originally regretted. Some posts bring up anecdotal pricing, like John G.’s comment about the initial pricing of EWQLSO.

If I had wanted to start a thread of developer appreciation, it would be easy. I too am an EWQLSO Platinum owner, upgraded through various cycles, and I loved it and Symphonic Choirs and Silk and HB and HS and and and from EW. I could fawn over Eric Persing all day (starting in the 80s). Alex Walbank, Andrew Keretzes. Spitfire SCS, awesome, many others.

However, this thread wasn’t about anecdotal matters or appreciation, and truthfully I think those matters are off topic. My purpose was to talk about the downside of policies that affect all who purchase licenses to use sample libraries and the policies that companies use to maximize their profitability at the purchaser’s expense. These policies are not written in stone, they are business decisions.

So, in counterbalance to some of the deep appreciation expressed by customers here, I find it instructive to explore the problem, as I see it, of developer policies as well.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> For clarity’s sake, I want to say this:
> 
> Various posts in this thread would suggest that one should make lemonade out of lemons, as in, they find uses for purchases they originally regretted. Some posts bring up anecdotal pricing, like John G.’s comment about the initial pricing of EWQLSO.
> 
> ...



this is hard because this is a landmine discussion for developers. I mean even if more developers gave us clarity into why they choose to do what they do, regardless of profit incentive, I get the feeling that the message would be twisted and used to further a false narrative. 

in my mind, Native Instruments is really the one with the responsibility to help provide a demo option for developers. if thats not an option, then can we agree that we would settle for iLok standalone libraries for the sake of providing trial periods on libraries? If we cant at least accept the terms of the current situation, I think ultimately this conversation will go nowhere because Trials are not realistically possible system-wise if NI doesnt change, or if users refuse to use the options available.


----------



## JoelS (May 11, 2019)

If there was a 100% secure and convenient way to preview a library that delivered a flawless end-user experience, I think developers would probably jump all over that. 

I've not used TrySound, but I'd be surprised if it gave a perfectly representative experience of how a library would perform on your specific machine(s). It's certainly a better option than no demo at all, for those who can access it and want the libraries that are available to be tested on it.

EastWest has offered trial periods for certain libraries that have timed, iLok'd licenses. I don't know if that covers all security concerns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they really only started doing that after their Composer Cloud service was active. I don't know how their Cloud service interacts with potential piracy concerns. They may just not care anymore, the whole subscription model is probably a reaction to piracy in a way, since the sub fees likely make up a lot more of their income now than selling individual licenses. That's just a guess, though. I assume Adobe (and lots of 3D software developers) came to the same conclusion. Subscription models would probably work well for the big developers with huge catalogs, but a lot of people hate subscriptions and probably don't want that to become a dominant business model.

The discount culture is all part of it, too. Sure, you have to wait a while if you miss the pre-order discount, but another deep price cut is always on the way. It seems almost crazy to buy a full price library now. That is probably sustainable for the top dogs, but it has to be making life harder on smaller developers.

For anyone developing 'big' sample libraries, they have to contend with...

- initial production and development costs
- a very saturated market
- the expectation of deep discounts or comparatively low pricing
- immediate piracy, and costs associated with combating it (iLok, NI, whatever)

Nobody's really coughing up the figures from the dev side on what all that costs vs. their income, so it's open to speculation.

I wish sample libraries were perfect out of the box and devs were able to swiftly and efficiently address any problems that come up. That would be great. Some libraries (and devs) have more issues than others. Maybe I'm just lucky that I've not run into anything I found unusable... or I'm more forgiving of libraries I got at 50% off.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 11, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> this is hard because this is a landmine discussion for developers. I mean even if more developers gave us clarity into why they choose to do what they do, regardless of profit incentive, I get the feeling that the message would be twisted and used to further a false narrative.
> 
> in my mind, Native Instruments is really the one with the responsibility to help provide a demo option for developers. if thats not an option, then can we agree that we would settle for iLok standalone libraries for the sake of providing trial periods on libraries? If we cant at least accept the terms of the current situation, I think ultimately this conversation will go nowhere because Trials are not realistically possible system-wise if NI doesnt change, or if users refuse to use the options available.


Maybe, but aren’t all Kontakt libraries cracked almost immediately? (Or so I’ve been told.)

Clearly, a lot of people pay for libraries.


----------



## dzilizzi (May 11, 2019)

This is one of those price things too. If I buy an 8dio library for $28, even if it only is half good, I'm very happy. I guess that's why they call it a no-brainer. 

Now when I bought OT's WW's, even though it was 40% off, I did a whole lot of research, because it was still very expensive to me. I didn't think their strings or brass was worth the price because I had HWO Diamond for less than the cost of the OT WWs. On sale. Probably good for me they didn't offer a demo. I'm happy with the winds, but for me? I really didn't need them. They aren't that much better than HWWs to me. 

However, it sounds like the new setup OT is planning on will allow for a lot more picking and choosing, so less complaints. Not that I hear many on their stuff.


----------



## dzilizzi (May 11, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> this is hard because this is a landmine discussion for developers. I mean even if more developers gave us clarity into why they choose to do what they do, regardless of profit incentive, I get the feeling that the message would be twisted and used to further a false narrative.
> 
> in my mind, Native Instruments is really the one with the responsibility to help provide a demo option for developers. if thats not an option, then can we agree that we would settle for iLok standalone libraries for the sake of providing trial periods on libraries? If we cant at least accept the terms of the current situation, I think ultimately this conversation will go nowhere because Trials are not realistically possible system-wise if NI doesnt change, or if users refuse to use the options available.


I thought @EvilDragon said NI offered the ability to do demo libraries for Kontakt?

There maybe other reasons they don't do it.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> I thought @EvilDragon said NI offered the ability to do demo libraries for Kontakt?
> 
> There maybe other reasons they don't do it.



ah i think you're right. this would be for all libraries that are officially supported by kontakt right? i recall you could load up libraries not yet registered in native access and it gives a certain amount of time to try the VI, but im not sure about how well protected these libraries are from piracy in that method.honestly i forgot all about it because i dont think ive ever come into a situation that uses it on purpose as much as i think i had pirated software from a decade ago that i gave up on as I became a professional who could and should buy it the right way.


----------



## gpax (May 11, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> However, this thread wasn’t about anecdotal matters or appreciation, and truthfully I think those matters are off topic.


My apologies for veering somewhat from the point.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 11, 2019)

gpax said:


> My apologies for veering somewhat from the point.


No problem-I might be one of the most tangential beings on the forum


----------



## MartinH. (May 12, 2019)

30 day money back refund policies are much friendlier to developers than resale. Resale is worse than piracy for devs because it takes the money from people willing to spend it on legit products entirely out of the income stream of a developer, where a pirate wasn't planning to pay anything to anyone in the first place. The loss of profits through that and the gain of profits through people that only buy libraries that can be resold are not easily quantifiably though, so who knows if or how it affects the bottom line... 




chocobitz825 said:


> ah i think you're right. this would be for all libraries that are officially supported by kontakt right? i recall you could load up libraries not yet registered in native access and it gives a certain amount of time to try the VI, but im not sure about how well protected these libraries are from piracy in that method.honestly i forgot all about it because i dont think ive ever come into a situation that uses it on purpose as much as i think i had pirated software from a decade ago that i gave up on as I became a professional who could and should buy it the right way.


NI once sent out links to updates of one of their player libraries (NI Symphony Series Essentials) out in a way that looked like they were giving it away for free and I downloaded and installed it. It ran in "demo mode" (15 minutes before it goes silent and needs to be reloaded if I remember correctly) in Kontakt because it wasn't registered through the NI service center app (nowadays native access). For those libraries, they could just make the installer available to all for demoing. I think the protection against piracy is low, but the stuff is probably showing up on pirate sites as soon as it's released anyway, so what difference does it make? 
For what it's worth, I later bought the full set of NISSC.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 12, 2019)

lux said:


> I have to say I disagree with that. On a personal standpoint, walktroughs made by skilled mockupers and naked demos are the key to understand if a product will work for me or not. 99% of times that is enough. I tend to refer to user opinions only to spot programming bugs or other technical difficulties, and that is really useful.
> 
> About demos, I believe that the whole concept of "well, he's good so he makes everything sound good" is somehow wrong. To me, knowing that someone is able to create an illusion and make a product sound great, that is "exactly" what I'm after. I'm an illusionist myself. I have a problem when even skilled mockupers can't make a product sound good, THAT is different. I also have to say that "in context" demos are nowadays less informative and I tend to kinda ignore them and just look for the word "naked" in the audio demos.


Absolutely. What the library is ultimately capable of in the right hands is the absolute marker for me, assuming I intend to use the library in the same way. 

I go on the assumption that they’ll be a few issues with any library and that the demo makers will have side-stepped them. Which is exactly how I work. 

To that end, I don’t put much credence into little naked noodles etc, because any flaws that they expose is something I’ll just work around or avoid during writing.
I don’t think I have *any* library that doesn’t have a couple of sounds that annoy me. It’s part of the challenge and I try not to be absolutist. 

The only library I regret buying was Edna Earth. Not because it isn’t great, simply because I’ve never put the time into it and used it properly. That one I guess is on me.

This is only my own set of criteria of course, and everyone should use their own.
A

(Edited for clarity.)


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 12, 2019)

For me, demo pieces and mockups are pretty uninteresting. I rarely even listen to them. I think it's totally backwards to base purchases around that.
I'm trying to distill any useful information from walkthroughs, since demo versions are rarely available.

It's completely irrelevant what "can be done" with a library. What it does _for me _is the only thing that matters. Everyone has their own way of working, and most importantly, their own kind of headspace when working with this stuff. When I'm able to actually play the patches, see and feel how they're scripted, get a feel for how the samples are edited, and sequence something on my own system, in my own workflow etc., that's when I can really tell if a library works for me or not.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 12, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's completely irrelevant what "can be done" with a library.



So if you're looking for a library with certain traits (ie; performance legato), how do you know how it sounds without watching a developer demonstrate?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 12, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> So if you're looking for a library with certain traits (ie; performance legato), how do you know how it sounds without watching a developer demonstrate?



Stuff like legato is especially tricky and almost impossible to evaluate without having it under your fingers.
But what I said is that I don't find much use in listening to demo pieces, and in fact prefer at least walkthroughs/patch demonstrations if I can't try out the stuff myself.


----------



## Bluemount Score (May 12, 2019)

_daily "WTF" moment goes to..._


NYC Composer said:


> Being well over 100 years old


*106!*


----------



## kitekrazy (May 12, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> I thought @EvilDragon said NI offered the ability to do demo libraries for Kontakt?
> 
> There maybe other reasons they don't do it.



Kirk Hunter did it. ProjectSAM use to release small working demos.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 12, 2019)

I don't regret my purchases as much as regretting too many purchases. I don't complain about NFR. Most of the time mine choice are based on impulse. (You should see my DAW collection). This is the way it is with digital content. Try to use them anyway. If you are into PC gaming getting burned far outweighs any DAW software.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 12, 2019)

Isn't this a rehash of similar thread.


----------



## Michael Antrum (May 12, 2019)

I've just downloaded a 30 day trial of Iconica Opus from Orchestral Tools and Steinberg. It was 190gb I think, and I'm quite enjoying it so far.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you sell this on later if you want too.....

Just saying...


----------



## jaketanner (May 12, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Or how about user trials!!



I couldn't agree more. if there is no resale option, then the developers need to either stand by their product, or offer trials. I bought a few things from 8Dio based off their trial pack...sounded so good, I could imagine how the rest sounded...so I did. 



lux said:


> "the legato has a problem on fast sequences as you can hear a weird noise in the transitions" means gold to me, as it is something which may affect my ability to create music, whatever that is.



This can also be the fault of the user...you need to take into account the experience of the person saying that. If Andy Blaney had said it...of course would mean more than if someone who hasn't really worked with sample libraries or did lots of mockups, or even own any other library to compare against. Also context and perspective (what the person's expectation of the library is), has a lot to do with it as well. 

The bottom line, is that only you can determine if what someone else is experiencing, is going to affect your style and way of composing. Someone might complain about the tone, but if they only have one mic, and no good reverbs to put it through, then that's something to consider when deciding if you are going to buy or not.

Also, a three day money back guarantee would be cool... All in all...agreed about a few things you said.


----------



## EgM (May 12, 2019)

I guess I should count myself lucky since I don't regret any of the purchases I've made. Granted, I'm a responsible shopper who's able to wait for sales or crossgrades. I've never pre-ordered anything and don't plan to.


----------



## scoringdreams (May 12, 2019)

As some people have mentioned here, I feel that bite-sized freebies could be one way to allow trial-before-purchase.

Walkthroughs and reviews are not interactive and thus won't do the job. Instead, these tend to play on skill and our falsely formed perceptions of the product's potential.

Or perhaps some system where you can book an appointment to trial the full product via a remote connection to somewhere (similar to chrome remote desktop). It used to exist but I don't really know of what happened to this concept.


----------



## quantum7 (May 12, 2019)

Confuzzly said:


> At the end of the day, I just wish there was a better way to make a more informed decision on purchasing a library. Whether that is trials, returns, or something else doesn't matter much to me.



This is what I've wished for many years now. I've spent between $30k and $40k on music software/samples/synths since around the early 2000's. Sadly, nearly half of my purchases have been long-term disappointments in which I never ended up using the software. $15k - $20k of wasted money! I personally believe that many sample developers truly do not want their libraries be demoed beforehand, as they know it would allow people to make more informed decisions on whether the library is right for them. Developers count on well dressed demos and impulse buys. I'm 50 years old though, so maybe I'm just getting cynical in my advancing age. All I know is that years ago I decided that I would do whatever it took to either track someone down who has the library, as to get to use it myself first, or what until at least 2 or 3 reviewers whom I trust give me their opinions on it. I'm a working musician who has made my money back on my investments, but no other investment _except software_ has wasted more of my hard-earned money. That's my take on all of this.


----------



## scoringdreams (May 12, 2019)

quantum7 said:


> This is what I've wished for many years now. I've spent between $30k and $40k on music software/samples/synths since around the early 2000's. Sadly, nearly half of my purchases have been long-term disappointments in which I never ended up using the software. $15k - $20k of wasted money! I personally believe that many sample developers truly do not want their libraries be demoed beforehand, as they know it would allow people to make more informed decisions on whether the library is right for them. Developers count on well dressed demos and impulse buys. I'm 50 years old though, so maybe I'm just getting cynical in my advancing age. All I know is that years ago I decided that I would do whatever it took to either track someone down who has the library, as to get to use it myself first, or what until at least 2 or 3 reviewers whom I trust give me their opinions on it. I'm a working musician who has made my money back on my investments, but no other investment _except software_ has wasted more of my hard-earned money. That's my take on all of this.



Blame consumer behaviour and planned obsolescence! Especially the latter.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 12, 2019)

scoringdreams said:


> Blame consumer behaviour and planned obsolescence! Especially the latter.



Yep! Spending $20K on wasted software is definitely a consumer issue.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2019)

Apologies if someone has already said this - I haven't read all five pages. But...

There's this idea that instruments always get better. Actually, the same applies to all tech things.

Often, but not necessarily! I mean, yeah, streaming - Gigasampler - was a huge advance. But it's not like the first good sounds were released last week.

What I resent having wasted money on is hard drives. Instruments that are good when you get them stay good.


----------



## Quasar (May 12, 2019)

I'm just an amateur, a hobbyist, and while I regret a few purchases, I am happy with most of them.

But nothing in my world is ever _appreciates_ or _depreciates_. I pay rent or buy food or buy a VSTi and the money goes away. That's all it is. If you go to the theater and don't like the film you don't get your money back. People spend thousands of dollars taking vacations to Disney World or wherever, have a terrible time, and they don't get their money back either.

The only thing that bothers me about the virtual instrument and effects software universe is the apparent majority acceptance of fascistic copy protection and the lack of community outrage over the now standard human rights violations of privacy and autonomy. Dongles & mandated online activation are locking me out of almost everything, to the point where I've simply lost interest in new products and tech developments.

In comparison to the now dominant control-freak CP realities, issues concerning price/returns/resale/trial/ policies are absolutely trivial.


----------



## patrick76 (May 12, 2019)

chillbot said:


> You can get Albion ONE for a ridiculous price right now. So you can't resell it? Who cares! Toss it and get another one! I just wander around in wonder of the samples that we have available to us. Here is a sick brag but I have probably spent $XXk on samples that I have never used. Oh well.



I'm certain that many other forum members may not have the resources to adopt such an outlook regarding hundreds or thousands of dollars spent on products that are not what they appeared to them. I just think that as others have suggested, it would be great if more developers would offer trials before purchase. 

I guess I haven't read all the negative threads you have referenced, so I don't have the full background on the animosity that seems to be floating around on this subject. So, I will leave it at that and hope it does not escalate to drama zone proportions!


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 12, 2019)

I'll add this about the library demo idea:

I've done a number of student films and along the way met a lot of student composers at the same colleges. Tons of them use pirated libraries almost entirely, if not entirely, and I've found that the process for pirating a library is stupidly easy. The cracks completely ignore any authorization, allowing the use of any and all libraries with basically no fuss.

Sure Kontakt has that "Demo Mode" functionality, but you take that same library file and load it up in a cracked Kontakt and it works flawlessly. Nothing about the libraries themselves is special. Hell, any of you could give your fully official purchased version of your library that you downloaded to anyone with a crack and they could use it immediately.

All I can for sure say about all this is that Kontakt is NOT a safe platform for handing over timed demo versions of libraries.


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2019)

Quasar said:


> acceptance of fascistic copy protection



I guess if you come from the perspective of, "all property is theft," I can't argue with you.

But if not, how do you see things? It seems that without copy protection of some kind, piracy would be even worse. It's already rampant, as @Paul Cardon points out above, and if everything gets pirated -- no more libraries at all.

The privacy issue I agree is sick but I think that's a little off target for v.i.s -- no?


----------



## kitekrazy (May 12, 2019)

Quasar said:


> I'm just an amateur, a hobbyist, and while I regret a few purchases, I am happy with most of them.
> 
> But nothing in my world is ever _appreciates_ or _depreciates_. I pay rent or buy food or buy a VSTi and the money goes away. That's all it is. If you go to the theater and don't like the film you don't get your money back. People spend thousands of dollars taking vacations to Disney World or wherever, have a terrible time, and they don't get their money back either.
> 
> ...



That doesn't stop people from making music. The no dongle crowd is quite huge and they still crank out music. As the competition grows we've also seen a lot of flexibility in being authorized friendly. A one time one license meant one machine.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 12, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> That doesn't stop people from making music. The no dongle crowd is quite huge and they still crank out music. As the competition grows we've also seen a lot of flexibility in being authorized friendly. A one time one license meant one machine.



I’ve had my elicenser and iLok plugged in for years, and the authorization process is quick and painless these days. Easy peasy.


----------



## Quasar (May 12, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I guess if you come from the perspective of, "all property is theft," I can't argue with you.
> 
> But if not, how do you see things? It seems that without copy protection of some kind, piracy would be even worse. It's already rampant, as @Paul Cardon points out above, and if everything gets pirated -- no more libraries at all.
> 
> The privacy issue I agree is sick but I think that's a little off target for v.i.s -- no?



Whether I share Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's perspective is another subject, but it's not needed here. Your point that "piracy is already rampant" successfully makes the case that the current model does not work.

What do you mean by off target? In terms of using these tools, what could possibly be more fundamental than the right to pursue one's creative aspirations in an atmosphere of privacy and autonomy, in a workspace of one's own choosing, away from the prying eyes and cacophony of a globally connected web?

That so many otherwise intelligent people are not outraged by the systemic implementation of human rights violations on this level - solely to serve capital - staggers me. But it does not surprise me because I read history, and history amply demonstrates that people, en masse, can adapt and become enured to any cultural "norm" imaginable, regardless of however pathological it might obviously seem when viewed from the outside.


----------



## scoringdreams (May 12, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I’ve had my elicenser and iLok plugged in for years, and the authorization process is quick and painless these days. Easy peasy.



I live in constant paranoia and anxiety that my e-licenser would one day fail me; which is why I use Logic (from Cubase) and software relying on device authorisations nowadays...

I guess if NI moves to the dongle, it would create enough pressure for smaller developers to move as well?


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 12, 2019)

sorry just a quick check, does anyone know if kontakt still allows demos?

I just tried today with a few libraries I hadn't registered yet and now when i try to open them it says that it cant load them because its a file from an uninstalled library...so if it doesnt let you open them, how can you demo them?

anyone know?


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 12, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> sorry just a quick check, does anyone know if kontakt still allows demos?
> 
> I just tried today with a few libraries I hadn't registered yet and now when i try to open them it says that it cant load them because its a file from an uninstalled library...so if it doesnt let you open them, how can you demo them?
> 
> anyone know?


You can't open licensed "Player" libraries without installing and authorizing them in Native Access. The only times you get a "Demo Mode" is when you try to open a non-Player library in the Player version of Kontakt or if your machine authorization has been broken and previously authorized libraries are de-authorized. Can happen if you change parts in your computer. You can't just use Demo Mode on anything by default.



Quasar said:


> Whether I share Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's perspective is another subject, but it's not needed here. Your point that "piracy is already rampant" successfully makes the case that the current model does not work.
> 
> What do you mean by off target? In terms of using these tools, what could possibly be more fundamental than the right to pursue one's creative aspirations in an atmosphere of privacy and autonomy, in a workspace of one's own choosing, away from the prying eyes and cacophony of a globally connected web?
> 
> That so many otherwise intelligent people are not outraged by the systemic implementation of human rights violations on this level - solely to serve capital - staggers me. But it does not surprise me because I read history, and history amply demonstrates that people, en masse, can adapt and become enured to any cultural "norm" imaginable, regardless of however pathological it might obviously seem when viewed from the outside.


And not to be rude but this is wildly out of the scale of the conversation here, right?


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 12, 2019)

So then theoretically trial kontakt libraries would only be possible in the free kontakt player or with stripped down free samples?


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 13, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> So then theoretically trial kontakt libraries would only be possible in the free kontakt player or with stripped down free samples?


There may be other demo functionality I don't know about. It's just no one uses it.

And yes, most devs that do demos just release stripped down versions with a limited patch or two.


----------



## Crowe (May 13, 2019)

Man. You can tell pretty much exactly who is American in this thread and who isn't. See, on this side of the water, we expect laws to protect consumers above companies, not the other way around. No-return and non-resale policies are *not* normal.

Also, 'stop bitching cause shit is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago' is not a valid argument. The Behringer model D is also 10 times cheaper than the Moog Model D is, even right now. But if you don't like it, you can still return it. Or resell it. Which is as it should be, because that's how the market works.

"Allowing resale or returns will kill smaller developers" is nonsense. Or, it can absolutely be true, but that really shouldn't be the consumer's problem. You're allowed to resell and return absolutely everything other than software, but software really isn't special, even though developers/publishers would *really* like it to be and they will forever fight tooth and nail for the right to exploit their customers.

It's just that it's so much easier to sell stuff online than it is to do so in the physical world. It's also much easier to deny your customers basic commercial rights.

Maybe, just maybe, if your company can't exist while being honest and consumer-friendly, maybe your company isn't supposed to exist.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> You're allowed to resell and return absolutely everything other than software...


This is not about software. It's about the copyright contained within recordings. There is a huge difference.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

Daryl-agreed, but one buys a license to use the software. Why shouldn’t the license be resale-able? (Some companies do it, so it’s just a matter of business policy/EULA, yes?)


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Maybe, just maybe, if your company can't exist while being honest and consumer-friendly, maybe your company isn't supposed to exist.



putting the weird american stereotype comment aside, I agree with this statement, but I disagree with the notion that every developer is out there trying to scam their customers. Maybe because I generally feel like I'm getting what I paid for, or because I'm happy when developers try hard to do something new, innovative or creative with their products. Maybe because I dont think of any of the current developers outside of Native Instruments as huge powerful companies with the massive staffing and and predatory sales method. Honestly Native instruments is the only company I've ever felt had just confusing predatory methods for how it sells its products....and given that they make one of the standard platforms for VIs, i think that negative image bleeds out to some of the developers that play by NI's rules.

Maybe we'll never all see eye-to-eye on this, so I'd like to pose a question. Say, for example, iLok becomes standard. Now every developer must design their own players/samplers, or use a current iLok compatible sampler. If this shift in business model allowed for trial periods, but came with the unfortunate need for developers to further increase the cost of sample libraries, would that be an acceptable trade off?


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Daryl-agreed, but one buys a license to use the software. Why shouldn’t the license be resale-able? (Some companies do it, so it’s just a matter of business policy/EULA, yes?)


No, you buy a licence to use the samples in your music.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

Ok. Why can’t you sell the license to someone else to use in their music?


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 13, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Man. You can tell pretty much exactly who is American in this thread and who isn't. See, on this side of the water, we expect laws to protect consumers above companies, not the other way around. No-return and non-resale policies are *not* normal.
> 
> Also, 'stop bitching cause shit is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago' is not a valid argument. The Behringer model D is also 10 times cheaper than the Moog Model D is, even right now. But if you don't like it, you can still return it. Or resell it. Which is as it should be, because that's how the market works.


Well, fellow Brit here!
The key difference here is - with the Behringer, and any other physical product - you have to return it to the shop before you get a refund. It's a clear relationship between consumer and company.

Large companies like NI, with copy protection systems, can afford to allow a license resale. If your license is transferred, Native Access will (I assume) stop foul play. A smaller developer by contrast, has no such way of knowing if you're still going to use the library. This at least muddies the waters?

There's also the "fit for purpose" argument to consider. A washing machine that doesn't wash clothes is not fit for purpose. But a sample library (as proven by hundreds of threads on the subject) is either "not fit for purpose", or the "best buy ever", depending on the ear of the beholder.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Ok. Why can’t you sell the license to someone else to use in their music?


So if you licenced one of your tracks for use in a film, you'd be quite happy for that film company to sell that licence onto another film company for use in their film, with no further payment to you?


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

I know the analogy you’re making, but I think the argument is circuitous. Yes, both involve sound recordings, but one is a tool.

In any case, I know you own products from VSL and other companies that allow a license transfer, so obviously it is up to the owner of the sound recordings and possibly the sample player they’re used in as well.


----------



## FriFlo (May 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Well, fellow Brit here!
> The key difference here is - with the Behringer, and any other physical product - you have to return it to the shop before you get a refund. It's a clear relationship between consumer and company.
> 
> Large companies like NI, with copy protection systems, can afford to allow a license resale. If your license is transferred, Native Access will stop foul play. A smaller developer by contrast, has no such way of knowing if you're still going to use the library. This at least muddies the waters?
> ...


That is usually not the reason, people refer to. Usually it is, you already used the samples on compositions which still are there for you to use and potentially make money with them. I find both reasonings highly doubious! If you bought a mini Moog 35 years ago, you could have hundreds of tracks made from those sounds - all of these can potentially still make money for you, even if you decide to sell the Moog!
The difference with samples is, they are recordings of people. Well, they are! But the sound of a Moog Synthesizer is also the result of people having spent much time into creating that sound. So, if people keep telling that libraries are a differente story then software or physical products, they have to realise, it is only a legal consideration and it might change any time, if someone would sue for it successfully. It might not change, but that is not a certainty! It will be the result of legal debate, but it is by no means set in stone, like the declarations n of human rights.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> I know the analogy you’re making, but I think the argument is circuitous. Yes, both involve sound recordings, but one is a tool.
> 
> In any case, I know you own products from VSL and other companies that allow a license transfer, so obviously it is up to the owner of the sound recordings and possibly the sample player they’re used in as well.



so maybe the question is, how many kontakt based libraries allow license transfer?


----------



## FriFlo (May 13, 2019)

Daryl said:


> So if you licenced one of your tracks for use in a film, you'd be quite happy for that film company to sell that licence onto another film company for use in their film, with no further payment to you?


The difference clearly is ... a piece of music is a piece of music. A sample library is a bunch of sustains with different intensities and transitions and what not, but by no means a composition. Only phrase based libraries may come close to that ...


----------



## FriFlo (May 13, 2019)

And now imagine Bob Moog saying: My Synthesizer is not actually a "thing". It is really a composition of sound possibilities from my imaginations, packed into a box of wires. I am not selling you the box, but I am selling you the license to use that box in order to get those sounds I composed into your recordings.
Welcome to the world of legal BS talk!


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

FriFlo said:


> And now imagine Bob Moog saying: My Synthesizer is not actually a "thing". It is really a composition of sound possibilities from my imaginations, packed into a box of wires. I am not selling you the box, but I am selling you the license to use that box in order to get those sounds I composed into your recordings.
> Welcome to the world of legal BS talk!



but i dont think you're breaking this down to its most reasonable equivalent. No one would give you permission to strip down the contents of a moog and creator a new instrument form it. You couldn't just tear out the internal parts and take what you like to make something new and say that just because you bought the instrument, you have free right to use it's individual proprietary components for your own commercial use. you have right to use the components, but not right to resell the components in most cases. 

the other thing I believe is an issue with libraries, is dont they pay royalties to players? does this not complicate matters in the same way audio recordings do?


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> I know the analogy you’re making, but I think the argument is circuitous. Yes, both involve sound recordings, but one is a tool.


Actually that's your interpretation, but its not a fact. The fact is that you apply for a licence to use sound recordings in your own music, and the terms and conditions of that licence is set by the Copyright owner of the recordings. The law doesn't care what is on the recording. It makes no distinction between one note or a whole symphony.


NYC Composer said:


> In any case, I know you own products from VSL and other companies that allow a license transfer, so obviously it is up to the owner of the sound recordings and possibly the sample player they’re used in as well.


Yes it is up to the owner, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not up to us.It's up to the Copyright holder of the recordings.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> the other thing I believe is an issue with libraries, is dont they pay royalties to players? does this not complicate matters in the same way audio recordings do?


My guess would be that they pay a royalty when a copy is sold. Assumably, they’d still be selling copies.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

FriFlo said:


> The difference clearly is ... a piece of music is a piece of music. A sample library is a bunch of sustains with different intensities and transitions and what not, but by no means a composition. Only phrase based libraries may come close to that ...


And this is the problem. You think it is about music. It's not. It's about the Copyright contained within a recording, not the musical, or otherwise, content. Two different Copyrights.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Actually that's your interpretation, but its not a fact. The fact is that you apply for a licence to use sound recordings in your own music, and the terms and conditions of that licence is set by the Copyright owner of the recordings. The law doesn't care what is on the recording. It makes no distinction between one note or a whole symphony.
> 
> Yes it is up to the owner, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not up to us.It's up to the Copyright holder of the recordings.


Only up to us whether or not we accept the EULA and license the software.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Only up to us whether or not we accept the EULA and license the software.


It's not just the software we're licencing, it's the recordings. Two different things. One is covered by re-sale law, the other isn't.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 13, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> the other thing I believe is an issue with libraries, is dont they pay royalties to players? does this not complicate matters in the same way audio recordings do?


Yeah, I believe Spitfire do at least. Maybe others.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

Right. Let’s just call it “the product”.  We’re buying a license to use the product, i.e. sound recordings AND a way to utilize them.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Right. Let’s just call it “the product”.  We’re buying a license to use the product, i.e. sound recordings AND a way to utilize them.


Yes, and now if you want to sell that licence, you have to remove all the audio recordings, you've so far used from your music. Is that now OK?


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Yeah, I believe Spitfire do at least. Maybe others.



I recall cinesamples talking about how they did too


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

I thought about that. You’d definitely have to lose MIDI re-creations. If it was something you’d used a lot and you routinely print everything that’s another thing, but if you were happy enough to use the product a lot, why sell it?

Where I see this as a more useful exercise is avoiding buyer’s remorse through re-sale/license transfer early on.


----------



## FriFlo (May 13, 2019)

Daryl said:


> And this is the problem. You think it is about music. It's not. It's about the Copyright contained within a recording, not the musical, or otherwise, content. Two different Copyrights.


Yes! I get that and I don't fight about the fact that it is the way it is currently. All I am saying is:
1) Law is a matter of human interpretation- some ideas are very firm and last for centuries, others are fragile and debatable and can therefore change quickly!
2) The fact that sample libraries (sustains and short notes type of sample libraries) are legally treated like musical recordings seems to be a very fragile idea IMO ... it is highly debatable, wether they are recordings of music. The legalities for audio recordings have been designed without anyone anticipating sample libraries ...
3) The reason that recordings have other legalities than physical objects is that those recordings always were about artistic content (music, entertainment, etc). This intellectual property has to be protected for the producer, as its his intellectual creation and not tied to its physical form. In the case of those sample libraries, it is not about intellectual properties, if they don't contain any music. A sample library is clearly much closer to a synth plugin in its sense that it is a tool to make music. The fact that it contains recordings of instruments is made an argument to apply different rules, because it suits the developers of these libraries, not because it makes a lot of sense.
Of course, that doesn't mean I am in favour of using the recordings from a sample library I bought to release another sample library (that is clearly theft!).
But I can see no reason why a sample library should not be resellable, if a synth or plugin without samples is ... that is just how it is right now. Could change any day, if you ask me ...


----------



## Crowe (May 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Well, fellow Brit here!
> The key difference here is - with the Behringer, and any other physical product - you have to return it to the shop before you get a refund. It's a clear relationship between consumer and company.
> 
> Large companies like NI, with copy protection systems, can afford to allow a license resale. If your license is transferred, Native Access will (I assume) stop foul play. A smaller developer by contrast, has no such way of knowing if you're still going to use the library. This at least muddies the waters?
> ...



Actually, 'fit for purpose' is not an actual requirement to return something. You can return something within x time, no matter what the reason is, if you are not satisfied with your purchase. It's consumer protection, at least it is in my country.

I actually *get* the no-resale policies. We are mostly talking about licenses here. I don't particularly mind them. But the no-return policies on sound libraries is bizarre and unethical, especially because often, the only way to listen beforehand is by listening to (usually) processed demos that don't particularly sound like the base product. *Which is false advertising, whether you like that statement or not*.

I understand that most companies are not actively trying to screw over their customers, but that doesn't stop them from doing it anyway.

EDIT: People seem to choose to interpret this as me saying sample-library producers go out of their way to scam people. To which I say, learn to read, that's clearly not what it says. They're not trying to, but it happens anyway.

And don't get me started on how unethical invasive DRM is. If I get a license to do anything, like a license to drive, I get checked every so often. Gonna need that license to not go to jail and stuff. But the government does not put shit on my car to make sure that only I can drive it, or make my car immovable when I lose a usb stick. I'm just no longer allowed to drive if I don't have license. *That's what licenses are*. The fact that it's really hard for companies to check whether your sample use is licensed or not is very sad for them, but completely irrelevant.

Smaller companies can't put DRM on their libraries? Tough luck, that's the situation most indie Game Developers are in. You can still return your bloody games though.

I can't believe how willing people have become to just let companies do whatever the hell they please and actually justify behavior just because it's the easiest way.


----------



## muk (May 13, 2019)

****Tangent on EU court ruling concerning resales of copyrighted material*********

Reading this, there seem to be similarities to sample libraries:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d1ff4369-afcc-4879-97fa-7a8afd8b3380
_
"Under the EU's software copyright law (Software Directive 2009) the first sale in the EU of a copy of a computer program by the right-holder, exhausts the distribution right (provided by copyright) within the EU of that copy. Oracle argued there was no sale as its licensees did not own the copy on their servers but were merely licensed to use it. The CJEU said a sale was "an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him"._

Now, sample library developers are taking the same stance as Oracle: you do not own the copy of the recordings contained in a sample library, you simply bought a license to use them. There are differences between software and recording copyrights. But be aware that the code of a software program is just as well covered by a copyright as musical recordings are (albeit by a different one). 

_"It means software licence agreements and all their terms and conditions (not just the one prohibiting transfer) can be ignored by European courts if the licence period is indefinite, and probably even if it is tied to the lengthy period of copyright in Europe - 70 years after death of last surviving programmer. Such a licence will be regarded as a simple sale and sales of personal property cannot be tagged with conditions on how the property can be used."_

The decisive factor, apparently, was that the license for usage of the software was granted for an indefinite period. And that is exactly the same for sample libraries. So there is a possibility that sample developers cannot tag libraries with 'conditions on how the property can be used'. At least this rule applies explicitly to software that is protected by copyright law. 

So, in the EU users can resell a personal license that grants usage of copyrighted software. Maybe the same reasoning also allows resales of personal licences that grant usage of copyrighted recordings. Maybe. It depends on whether any of the differences between software and sound recording copyrights have any bearing on the case. That's for lawyers to discuss, and judges to decide (I'm no lawyer, and I am *not* giving counsel nor advice). Until there is a court ruling we simply do not know.

********************************************************************

Apart from this, I very much agree with what @Shiirai wrote.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 13, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Actually, 'fit for purpose' is not an actual requirement to return something. You can return something within x time, no matter what the reason is, if you are not satisfied with your purchase. It's consumer protection, at least it is in my country.


Sure, but in the UK the rules that govern tangible goods and digital downloads differ in some ways. At least last time I looked!

As for the issues regarding resale of licenses and copyright/royalties - I'm not informed enough to pass judgement and it seems like it's a moving target anyway.

But at the risk of making myself unpopular <takes deep breath> - I actually agree with the no-resale policies of sample library developers: Piracy, the need to pay musician royalties on sales, the cost of any DRM are all significant hurdles to overcome for any developer and a no-resale policy as an alternative seems reasonable to me.

I'll admit - _the bigger the companies get and the more resources they have to manage this stuff - then the less valid this argument._ But I think the extensive walkthroughs, demos, videos, manual downloads etc etc are enough to make an informed buying decision outside the requirement for a demo or option to resell. I don't feel short changed or tricked by the developers.

I get that many would disagree, that's cool. Some good points have been made to the contrary.
I'll get my coat...
A


----------



## muk (May 13, 2019)

Really hope there is no problem with stating an opinion respectfully as you have done Alex.

In my opinion no matter how extensive the walkthroughs, manuals, sound examples etc. For me it is not enough to make an informed decision. I would never buy an instrument simply based on specs, manual, videos, and sound examples. I wouldn't buy a midi keyboard without playing it first either. And yet, with sample libraries we have to. And after we can not even return or resell it.

No matter the technicalities behind, I find these terms to be very onesided, unfair, and punishing to the customers. And yet, in years, sample developers - and especially some of the large players - haven't shown the least inclination to change any of that.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Sure, but in the UK the rules that govern tangible goods and digital downloads differ in some ways. At least last time I looked!
> 
> As for the issues regarding resale of licenses and copyright/royalties - I'm not informed enough to pass judgement and it seems like it's a moving target anyway.
> 
> ...




i agree.

still this is one of those things that bothers me when I see developers talk about their upcoming releases here and everyone starts dropping their personal wishlist of features that should fit only their workflow, and then when it doesnt do everything that everyone wants, there's hell to pay.

I get the desire for resale if you're not happy...and I understand the desire for wanting trial periods, but for all this good talk about the laws and rights of consumers, i dont see many people offering reasonable ideas for how that actually works. its not really the burden of the consumer to figure this out, I'll admit, but lets be fair, many developers are also in the same business of music creation, scoring etc., as their customers. aren't we a community? does it not benefit us all to be fair and figure this out?


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 13, 2019)

It's about this point in these threads that someone says "it's a shame TrySound never developed properly". That was as good an answer to these dilemmas as I've found. (sorry if someone got there before me and I missed it).


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> It's about this point in these threads that someone says "it's a shame TrySound never developed properly". That was as good an answer to these dilemmas as I've found. (sorry if someone got there before me and I missed it).



if i understand correctly, try-sound is like a virtual pc session with the software in it?


----------



## thesteelydane (May 13, 2019)

The elephant in the room with regards to comparing sample libraries to physical goods, and re-selling, is that there is no wear and tear on a library. You're getting exactly the same product as if bought "new" from the developer. A used car....not so much.

In that sense, as someone else pointed out, reselling is worse for the developer than piracy. The pirate was probably never going to buy anything from me anyway, but someone reselling one of my products is robbing me of the single most valuable thing to a developer: a person who has a need for one of my products, and is willing to pay for it.

This is my current thinking on the matter, it may evolve as I learn more about the business. Right now, I don't think allowing resales is a wise business decision for small developers. Apart from that I am of course interested in having only satisfied customers. The suggestion that developers don't allow resales in an attempt to trick or con customers is ludicrous- if I was in the business of scamming people, I wouldn't bother doing it with sample libraries - it's FAR too much work creating these things to be worth it, and I think there are far more effective ways of scamming people out there.

This is a labor of love for me, but it's also a business that pays the bills - I'm trying to balance those two facts best I can, as I believe most small developers are.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 13, 2019)

A good solution to the "try before you buy" issue is the Complete Patch Walkthrough Video (™)
For example, if you're so inclined, you can listen to several hours of someone demoing every single patch in Spitfire's eDNA library. Such a thing is easy and cheap to produce for any developer and (imho) goes some way to solving the issues mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 13, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> if i understand correctly, try-sound is like a virtual pc session with the software in it?



Yes. It still exists, run by Best Service - https://www.bestservice.com/try-sound.html - but sadly it seems the only products on it now are their own and VSL SEs. I remember it was instrumental in my decision to buy Symphobia 1. You booked a 20min session, and played the instrument in their servers. Latency was high and there was birdsong over the output, but was happy with both of these compromises.

I'd have thought today the tech is a lot simpler and smoother than 10 years ago. Devs should look into this, no reason why they couldn't set it up themselves.


----------



## Crowe (May 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> But at the risk of making myself unpopular <takes deep breath> - I actually agree with the no-resale policies of sample library developers: Piracy, the need to pay musician royalties on sales, the cost of any DRM are all significant hurdles to overcome for any developer and a no-resale policy as an alternative seems reasonable to me.



Pretty much. There's also some legal stuff going on with copyright on samples. I get all that. And I don't *actually* mind not being able to resell plugins.

What I find unacceptable is being unable to return the product (or basically, terminate the contract and receive a refund) when it turns out a product is not what was promised or what you expected. All purchases should have a testing period.

And no, watching other people use soundbanks or software isn't a good substitute for this. You don't ask a car salesman to drive the car around for a bit before you buy it. There's no point. You need to test-drive it yourself.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

FriFlo said:


> 2) The fact that sample libraries (sustains and short notes type of sample libraries) are legally treated like musical recordings seems to be a very fragile idea IMO ...



But again you make the same mistake. You talk about musical recordings. It has nothing to do with music. The content of the recording is irrelevant. It can be anything. Sound effect libraries are equally protected.


----------



## Brian Nowak (May 13, 2019)

I've just gotten into the habit of being very choosy about what I buy anymore. I talk with people who use it if it's old enough to have users with experience in it. I am fortunate to be able to be on relatively good terms with some pros. I heed their advice as they generally know what I'm after.

Every library is going to have some regrettable aspects to it. Buyer beware on any new stuff. You are a guinea pig and whether or not you like it, the current status quo is that if you hate the library you're basically screwed. So proceed with caution. 

Just remember - in 90% of the cases where you find a library objectionable somebody, somewhere, is using it to make music. And there is a very good chance somebody is making money with it. 

I was "disappointed" with cinebrass because of some of the problems I have with the library. It flew in the face of a lot of pro people who told me it was absolutely wonderful. For a while I was pretty upset because it didn't do what I wanted it to do. Felt like a waste of money. 

But then I figured out that when I use it for what it's very good at, it's an exceptional experience. And that's how I treat all my libraries - different developers and products existing on a spectrum of capability and flexibility. So I don't have any real "regrets" so far, and I avoid developers with a truly terrible reputation. There are a couple that I know grease the wheels on their demos push the envelope on honest representations of their stuff.


----------



## Crowe (May 13, 2019)

I find it unnerving how people keep repeating they've "gotten used to it" and have "learned to deal with it", how they try to minimize the damage, making excuses for the companies.

Kinda in the same way someone may talk about an abusive spouse.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> I find it unnerving how people keep repeating they've "gotten used to it" and have "learned to deal with it".
> 
> Kinda in the same way someone talks about an abusive spouse.



i think the problem is that many people don't consider this abuse. I've gotten used to nothing because its been a non-issue to me. i Imagine some might have just gotten used to it because they found ways to grow with their libraries.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 13, 2019)

Wary of saying anything else in this thread, but fwiw:

1. If you can't demo or trial a product, and can't refund it if you are unhappy with it, it is inevitable that some customers will be pissed off if it doesn't meet their expectation. Complaining about unhappy people in this inevtiable situation is futile.

2. Price of sale is irrelevant.

3. Some developers operate policies that mitigate this, such as:
i) allowing refunds
ii) allowing resales
iii) demo licenses
iv) services such as Try Sound
... while others offer nothing at all. All this should be - and usually is - clear upfront.

4. For those that don't offer any options in (3), we all rely on a combination of:
i) promotional material
ii) user feedback inc demos and walkthroughs
iii) our prior experience with the company in question.

5. Legally, there is no precedent that covers consumers in this area.

Given all that, we all pays our money and makes our choice.


----------



## FriFlo (May 13, 2019)

Daryl said:


> But again you make the same mistake. You talk about musical recordings. It has nothing to do with music. The content of the recording is irrelevant. It can be anything. Sound effect libraries are equally protected.


I think my full post answers exactly what is missing by only quoting that part of my post ...


----------



## Ashermusic (May 13, 2019)

It's pretty simple. Different developers have different policies that they have arrived at for their reasons. They are not stupid. They ALL know most people would love it if they could return or re-sell their products.

So if it matters to you, you vote with your wallet. That is the only factor that has the potential to change their mind. Words written on a forum will not. It's equivalent to passing gas in an open field.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 13, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> I find it unnerving how people keep repeating they've "gotten used to it" and have "learned to deal with it", how they try to minimize the damage, making excuses for the companies.
> 
> Kinda in the same way someone may talk about an abusive spouse.


I see the point you're trying to make, but domestic abuse is another thing entirely.

I really don't believe that we're "victims" in anyway. Being unhappy about a purchase is more about having your expectations not met, assuming the library isn't a complete dud. And sometimes those expectations are out of whack with reality anyhow.

Ultimately, we vote with our wallets and any developers that have seriously dubious practices get called out here. Guy's post above sums it up nicely. I can't put it any better.
A


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

FriFlo said:


> I think my full post answers exactly what is missing by only quoting that part of my post ...


It doesn't, because you still don't accept that this is nothing to do with music. What you are asking for is that an audio recording, of less than a certain length, should not be protected under audio recording laws. If you want changes, you have to be clear about them.


----------



## muk (May 13, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> So if it matters to you, you vote with your wallet. That is the only factor that has the potential to change their mind. Words written on a forum will not. It's equivalent to passing gas in an open field.



You are very wrong here in my opinion Jay. The actions of an individual have very little repercussions, especially so if you keep quiet about it. Discussing on a forum can lead to a much stronger effect, because it can inspire others to act similarly. And collective action is incomparably more powerful than individual action.

Anyway. I can't think of one single field that had similarly punishing terms for
customers than sample libraries. I don't know of one single business where you can't try a good or license before buying it, can't return it within a certain period, and can't resell it. Not a single one. Shouldn't that make you pause and think? I find it should. And I especially find it should make sample developers think.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2019)

muk said:


> customers than sample libraries. I don't know of one single business where you can't try a good or license before buying it, can't return it within a certain period, and can't resell it. Not a single one. Shouldn't that make you pause and think? I find it should. And I especially find it should make sample developers think.


Some of that is correct. Some of it is flat out wrong, as I've already told you.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

So....this has been a fruitless discussion huh?


----------



## JohnG (May 13, 2019)

There are some fairly extreme positions hereabouts!

First, returning or reselling products in other spheres is not as bright a line as people are arguing. Microsoft, for example, only _sort of_ allows transfers of Windows 10 (see below). Second, sometimes if an industry practice emerges, there's a pretty good chance that the cost of transfers (policing them, and as @thesteelydane pointed out, lost sales) are so high in aggregate that hardly any company allows them. Put another way, the economics just don't permit it.

Sample library companies are "teeny-tiny" as my kids used to say. We are not talking about Oracle or even Symantec. Just because Some People own a fancy car doesn't make it nefarious.

I really like my libraries and am willing to put up with what appears to be an industry standard in order to use them. Having a dongle so that, when I install the software it will work, hardly feels like an invasion of privacy to me, especially in view of the fact that none of my sample computers is on line. So I'm not being constantly surveilled, as someone was arguing.

*Returns? Not so Clear-Cut*

The ONLY reason that stores will take returns of physical goods is because their competitors do it. Even then:

1. Many retailers reject returns if the product is no longer in a condition for sale -- not every store does that but plenty do;

2. If you're returning a shirt, for example, they know that you can't have, secretly, stashed a perfect copy of the shirt at home to use as much as you like while getting all your money back;

3. Other products, like cars (just bought one after an accident totaled the old one) allow only the most cursory "test drive," a sort of goofy tradition that is insufficient to reveal flaws that only appear later, with use. It won't tell you that the exhaust or transmission system won't last five years, for example. A test drive won't even reveal things like an engine that makes a lot more noise after a long drive than it does toodling around for 20 minutes or so (the duration of a typical test drive).

*Software Re-sale and Transfer? Not Universal Either*

Other software restricts transfers too -- it's not just samples. Here's the Windows 10 transfer stuff:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/Useterms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

*4. Transfer.* The provisions of this section do not apply if you acquired the software in Germany or in any of the countries listed on this site (aka.ms/transfer), in which case any transfer of the software to a third party, and the right to use it, must comply with applicable law.

*a. Software preinstalled on device.* If you acquired the software preinstalled on a device (and also if you upgraded from software preinstalled on a device), you may transfer the license to use the software directly to another user, only with the licensed device. The transfer must include the software and, if provided with the device, an authentic Windows label including the product key. Before any permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software.

*b. Stand-alone software.* If you acquired the software as stand-alone software (and also if you upgraded from software you acquired as stand-alone software), you may transfer the software to another device that belongs to you. You may also transfer the software to a device owned by someone else if (i) you are the first licensed user of the software and (ii) the new user agrees to the terms of this agreement. You may use the backup copy we allow you to make or the media that the software came on to transfer the software. Every time you transfer the software to a new device, you must remove the software from the prior device. You may not transfer the software to share licenses between devices.


----------



## FriFlo (May 13, 2019)

Daryl said:


> It doesn't, because you still don't accept that this is nothing to do with music. What you are asking for is that an audio recording, of less than a certain length, should not be protected under audio recording laws. If you want changes, you have to be clear about them.


I am saying it is a question of definition and legislation. And that may change, but you seem to be convinced it is a natural right or basic human right, don’t you? I think not in the case of sample libraries as the special rights due to the fact that these contain recordings seem grotesque to me. Think about it that’s way:
Sample Modeling may prohibit the resale of their products, as all of them contain samples.
Audio Modeling may not, as it is software (physical modeling), although a musician was recorded just as long as for Sample Modeling to study the way he/she plays the instrument and emulate that.
Modern developments sometimes make legislation of the past absurd in certain circumstances. I am sorry, if that bothers you, but from my POV that is clearly the case with this example. It leads to unfair conditions between different developers with alternative approaches.


----------



## JoelS (May 13, 2019)

JohnG said:


> 2. If you're returning a shirt, for example, they know that you can't have, secretly, stashed a perfect copy of the shirt at home to use as much as you like while getting all your money back;


That's the part that I find most relevant. If sample libraries were delivered to the end user in a perfectly secure container (whether digital or physical) that could inviolably hold the data, then it would make perfect sense from the developer side of things to allow resale or returns. There would be a guarantee that the customer could not keep the data in any way and continue to use it. But that doesn't exist, and attempts at engineering DRM have so far led mainly to punishment on the consumer side of things.

If you buy a hardware synth and resell it, you can't continue to use the hardware synth since it's gone. It's completely different with digital sample libraries made of infinitely reproducible files.

Maybe there's some blockchain based solution to be found here, where licenses are stored on a distributed, public ledger... (edited this in: ) though I guess that wouldn't solve the problem of the sample data still being locally stored. Maybe when internet speeds are higher the actual data could be streamed and libraries would be a service rather than a product. Spotify for 100GB sample libraries. Lot of problems any way you look at it.

Personally, I like that there is a vast diversity of products available in the virtual instrument market. I think that a situation where resale/returns were completely available would heavily favor the larger business entities because they could afford to absorb the hit that comes from all the dangers and risks associated with that policy. I believe it would limit diversity (and thereby innovation) if smaller developers faced substantially higher risks. My opinion is that large business entities are more likely to maintain a status quo and continue to deliver 'safe' products rather than innovate or cover esoteric niche demands.

It seems to me that the current situation where a variety of licensing practices exist allows for small developers to have a chance while offering the consumer choices based on their own risk tolerance.

(whether small devs can ultimately compete in the Discount Wars ecosystem is another question)


----------



## Brian Nowak (May 13, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> So....this has been a fruitless discussion huh?



I mean, is that not the telltale sign of being on VI-C? 

Honestly, "forum discussion" probably doesn't mean a huge amount to developers anyway, since there are people with completely unbalanced, off-kilter and extreme opinions here. Especially in threads like these. Further, it's a totally mixed bag. I see a handful of actual professionals on this forum, and then loads of amateurs with more money than they have common sense. Those amateurs waste no time complaining about even the slightest trifles. Calling something "UNUSABLE" is a pretty common laughing point for most people outside this forum. 

Reality lies somewhere in between the extremes for most users of any software. It's pretty rare that any library comes out that is a true dud. There are some libraries I wouldn't touch with a burning ten-foot pole, and yet people are out there using them and getting paid for high-end trailers. So...


----------



## StillLife (May 13, 2019)

JohnG said:


> There are some fairly extreme positions hereabouts!
> 
> First, returning or reselling products in other spheres is not as bright a line as people are arguing, for starters. Microsoft only _sort of_ allows transfers of Windows 10, for example (see below). Second, sometimes if an industry practice emerges, there's a pretty good chance that the cost of transfers (policing them, and as @thesteelydane pointed out, lost sales) are so high in aggregate that hardly any company allows them. Put another way, the economics just don't permit it.
> 
> ...


Great post, putting things in perspective.


----------



## Alex Fraser (May 13, 2019)

JohnG said:


> There are some fairly extreme positions hereabouts!.


What's new? 

I remember having to order "Sample CDs" blind from the back of a magazine, relying on descriptions alone: _"Over 45 minutes of phat, drumming smoking audio!" ..._in the hope that I'd find something usable.

I'll take walkthroughs over that any day!


----------



## Henu (May 13, 2019)

Yep, I don't buy anything anymore without watching at least a couple of walkthroughs- usually as many as I can.

It has saved me a lot of money and frustration this way and if there's something I'd tell myself a couple of years ago, it would be that advice. I think that with a decent walkthrough- say, something @Guy Rowland has done with the Project Sams for example- is worth ten dressed and sugar-coated demos easily.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 13, 2019)

We need a sub forum called "Let's Beat Another Dead Horse" so we can dump this one there.


----------



## Quasar (May 13, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> We need a sub forum called "Let's Beat Another Dead Horse" so we can dump this one there.


True, the same or similar ground tends to get covered over and over again, ad nauseam. On the other hand, as long as the issues remain current and unresolved they also remain relevant.

In terms of sub-forums, when talking about VIs in terms of their musical or technical aspects, the general forums are fine. But whenever the topics veer into the economic arena: marketing claims, copy protection, licensing, terms of sale etc. it's impossible to have a discussion without venturing into the political, because such subjects are inherently political in nature, and thus should probably be moved to that area.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

I don’t think my premise has anything to do with politics whatsoever. It has to do with business policies and practices of the purveyors of sample libraries.

As a result, “Sample Talk” seems an apt place for it


----------



## kitekrazy (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> I don’t think my premise has anything to do with politics whatsoever. It has to do with business policies and practices of the purveyors of sample libraries.
> 
> As a result, “Sample Talk” seems an apt place for it



Unfortunately it always steers to comments on piracy which is also a beat the dead horse.


----------



## halfwalk (May 13, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> We need a sub forum called "Let's Beat Another Dead Horse" so we can dump this one there.



Or stay classy and call it "Perennial Favorites," or "Timeless Classics," or "Vintage Reissues," or even "D.C. al coda"


----------



## Michael Antrum (May 13, 2019)

halfwalk said:


> Or stay classy and call it "Perennial Favorites," or "Timeless Classics," or "Vintage Reissues," or even "D.C. al coda"



Or perhaps, 'once more with feeling....'


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

Michael Antrum said:


> Or perhaps, 'once more with feeling....'


So you guys are happy with the present way of doing things then?


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> So you guys are happy with the present way of doing things then?



I think we all agree it could be better but if you consider the developers comrades instead be overlords then we all want to think of the beat balance of cost, usability, and practicality for both sides concerns.

I’ve not seen many orchestral libraries on the UVI platform but I would be totally fine if more developers moved away from kontakt to UVI/iLok to offer 15 day trials or what not.


----------



## Michael Antrum (May 13, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> So you guys are happy with the present way of doing things then?



Au contraire, I'm with you on re-sale and refunds of libraries. Funnily enough one of the few developers who offers this is VSL, who are regularly given a kicking here over pricing and their new dongle insurance policies.

I just don't this changing anytime soon....


----------



## NYC Composer (May 13, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I think we all agree it could be better but if you consider the developers comrades instead be overlords then we all want to think of the beat balance of cost, usability, and practicality for both sides concerns.
> 
> I’ve not seen many orchestral libraries on the UVI platform but I would be totally fine if more developers moved away from kontakt to UVI/iLok to offer 15 day trials or what not.





Michael Antrum said:


> Au contraire, I'm with you on re-sale and refunds of libraries. Funnily enough one of the few developers who offers this is VSL, who are regularly given a kicking here over pricing and their new dongle insurance policies.
> 
> I just don't this changing anytime soon....





chocobitz825 said:


> I think we all agree it could be better but if you consider the developers comrades instead be overlords then we all want to think of the beat balance of cost, usability, and practicality for both sides concerns.
> 
> I’ve not seen many orchestral libraries on the UVI platform but I would be totally fine if more developers moved away from kontakt to UVI/iLok to offer 15 day trials or what not.


Good lord-overlords? Where did I say anything like that?

I appreciate the creative work that developers do to help me in mine. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a business aspect to all of this, and these are business matters I’m trying to address.
To reiterate, they involve license transfer and trials. Some do, some don’t. I think all should. I also think quality control could improve across the board, with some obvious exceptions.

Look. The competitive nature of the business has resulted in pricing coming down. That’s good for the consumer. However, if QC also suffers, it’s kind of a wash. 

Also, if libraries are released at a furious pace and one buys more of them (with less QC) the gross profits are the same for a company. Instead of buying a $600 library, you buy three $200 libraries-same same.

If companies REALLY wanted to be consumer friendly, they’d address this license transfer/trial period idea. The fact that they don’t says something about their priorities.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 13, 2019)

Michael Antrum said:


> Au contraire, I'm with you on re-sale and refunds of libraries. Funnily enough one of the few developers who offers this is VSL, who are regularly given a kicking here over pricing and their new dongle insurance policies.
> 
> I just don't this changing anytime soon....



I suspect the dongle is precisely why they can do that. How many developers offer transfers, resell and refund? how many of those use a dongle? that might give more context to why it is this way.


NYC Composer said:


> Good lord-overlords? Where did I say anything like that?
> 
> I appreciate the creative work that developers do to help me in mine. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a business aspect to all of this, and these are business matters I’m trying to address.
> To reiterate, they involve license transfer and trials. Some do, some don’t. I think all should. I also think quality control could improve across the board, with some obvious exceptions.
> ...



I imagine this might be related to 8Dio which often gets criticism for the volume of their releases as well as the quality. Again I think we all want the same goal, i just wish someone would actually speak about the practicality rather than just the flat desire for developers to make it happen. Maybe its naive and too optimistic but i just don't think a lot of these developers here are going into this with the profit as their only incentive you know? I get the feeling that even the times when they make something I don't love, they're still doing it with a certain level of quality and passion behind the concept. Quality Control matters and I don't know if i feel like thats been lacking lately (except with maybe Auddict....sorry...) its ok...i suppose we've run the course of this topic. I stand by the idea that moving away from kontakt is probably good, and could also maybe solve this issue.


----------



## scoringdreams (May 13, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> It's about this point in these threads that someone says "it's a shame TrySound never developed properly". That was as good an answer to these dilemmas as I've found. (sorry if someone got there before me and I missed it).



Never knew it was called TrySound...

I only knew it as the 'chrome remote desktop' feature.



Guy Rowland said:


> Yes. It still exists, run by Best Service - https://www.bestservice.com/try-sound.html - but sadly it seems the only products on it now are their own and VSL SEs. I remember it was instrumental in my decision to buy Symphobia 1. You booked a 20min session, and played the instrument in their servers. Latency was high and there was birdsong over the output, but was happy with both of these compromises.
> 
> I'd have thought today the tech is a lot simpler and smoother than 10 years ago. Devs should look into this, no reason why they couldn't set it up themselves.



Agreed, it could replace the experience of travelling over to a friend's to try out a library you are interested about. Maybe VI Control, as a community, can try to start one based on existing users allowing trial of their own libraries? Some serious software development efforts required here....


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 13, 2019)

scoringdreams said:


> it could replace the experience of travelling over to a friend's to try out a library you are interested about. Maybe VI Control, as a community, can try to start one based on existing users allowing trial of their own libraries? Some serious software development efforts required here....



Interesting idea, but I don't think it could be based on existing users. It would need to be set up as a dedicated service, and require developers to grant NFR licenses. It would make sense to pool resources though rather than devs doing it individually.


----------



## kitekrazy (May 14, 2019)

Michael Antrum said:


> Au contraire, I'm with you on re-sale and refunds of libraries. Funnily enough one of the few developers who offers this is VSL, who are regularly given a kicking here over pricing and *their new dongle insurance policies.*
> 
> I just don't this changing anytime soon....



That's my only beef with them. I like you can grow an orchestra collection starting with special editions.


----------

