# Resale/License transfer LIST



## Carles

------------------------------------------

Collected so far (sorted alphabetically):

*Reselling friendly
- *Addictive drums (free, easy)
- Ample Sound
- Arturia (seems to be free)
- AudioEase (?)
- Best Service (one time reselling, €25 fee, BS own products only)
- Camel Audio (slight fee)
- Chocolate Audio (read their FAQ)
- Chris Hein - seller pays €25 fee (sources: VI Thread, VI Classified, Best Service)
- Embertone (Name/address/phone/email needed)
- FXpansion ($50 fee)
- iZotope (free)
- Libre Wave - (source: Libre Wave https://librewave.com/knowledge-base/do-you-allow-resale/ (knowledge base))
- Native Instruments (possibly some exceptions)
- Orange Tree Samples (free, easy - possible exception for KPlayer libraries?)
- Output (conflicting reports, but seems yes)
- Project Sam (one time reselling, €25 fee, easy)
- Samplemodeling
- SampleTekk
- Soniccouture - Kontakt Player products only, €25 / $25 fee (source: Soniccouture support page)
- Sonuscore - Allows The Orchestra resales, possibly other Kontakt Player products.
- Steinberg (free, easy)
- Toontracks (one time reselling, conditions may apply)
- Triple Spiral Audio
- U-He (free, easy)
- VSL (requires a fee)
- Xsample

*Case by case* (product specific or other factors)
- Fluffy Audio - Not by default, but possible in a case by case basis (source: VI Thread)
- FrozenPlain (possibly allows some case-by-case exception, source EULA)
- Heavyocity* (usually not, but products partnered with Native Instruments are transferable via NI support)
- Impact Soundworks (not by default, but possible in a case by case basis)
- Soundiron
- Spectrasonics (software instruments only, case-by-case basis, transfer fee in most cases)
- Virtual Sound Stage 2 - Programmer said believes VSS2 is resellable but "don't quote me on that".
- Wave Alchemy

*No friendly*
- 8dio
- ArtVista
- Auddict
- Audio Bro
- Audio Imperia
- Bela D Media (stated in EULA)
- Big Fish Audio (source: EULA)
- Cinematic Strings
- Cinesamples
- EastWest
- Fable Sounds
- Garritan
- Ilya Efimov (source: EULA)
- In Session Audio (source: EULA)
- Light and Sound (source: EULA)
- Loops de la Crème (source: EULA)
- Musical Sampling
- Orchestral Tools
- Performance Samples (source: EULA)
- Realitone (but has 30 day refund policy)
- Red Room Audio (source: EULA, this thread itself)
- Sample Logic (stated in EULA)
- Sonokinetic
- Spitfire Audio
- Strezov Sampling (source: VIControl thread, EULA)
- Vir2
- Virharmonic
- Wallander Instruments
- Zero-G (stated in EULA)


(list updated eventually)

Many are missing I know, so please, add more if you know about.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano

gsilbers @ Mon Oct 29 said:


> spectrasonics will let you transfer with a personal request and explanation.



At the moment, I am in the process of that license transfer (as the new owner) and it is FAR from easy to do. After 1 month, it is still not transferred. The seller even said to me that he was going to give me back my money, but I stated that he should keep trying for another week


----------



## spectrum

RobertPeetersPiano @ Mon Oct 29 said:


> At the moment, I am in the process of that license transfer (as the new owner) and it is FAR from easy to do.


That's not the case actually. I've now looked into it and I'd like to clarify this situation so people don't get the wrong idea. We've worked really hard here to get our license transfer customer service improved and the turnaround time reasonable. However, we deal with tons of fraud cases and so we have to investigate each request on a case-by-case basis...and that does take some time.

The seller in this transfer is in the transfer process with Spectrasonics and we never received any communication with Robert (the buyer)...so he didn't really know what was happening...except what the seller communicated to him.



> After 1 month, it is still not transferred. The seller even said to me that he was going to give me back my money, but I stated that he should keep trying for another week



The delay is essentially because a company tried to sell Robert a license that doesn't belong to them. It belonged to a former employee of the company. As most of you know, we license to individual users...not companies/corporations.

When the company contacted us and we discovered that the license was owned by a former employee, we told the company that only the employee could sell it since he is the licensed owner of the product.

They returned the product to the employee who sent us pictures showing he had possession of the discs yesterday, and so now that the ownership has been properly established, the license transfer was submitted to our administration to transfer this yesterday. Once we have ownership properly established, it really doesn't take that long to get an answer if the license is transferrable.

All parties are all now well aware of our licensing at this point and understand the delays - they just did not communicate that accurately to Robert (the buyer).

These are the kinds of issues that come up in many transfer requests, hence why we need to handle them on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano

spectrum @ Tue Oct 30 said:


> RobertPeetersPiano @ Mon Oct 29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, I am in the process of that license transfer (as the new owner) and it is FAR from easy to do.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the case actually. I've now looked into it and I'd like to clarify this situation so people don't get the wrong idea. We've worked really hard here to get our license transfer customer service improved and the turnaround time reasonable. However, we deal with tons of fraud cases and so we have to investigate each request on a case-by-case basis...and that does take some time.
> 
> The seller in this transfer is in the transfer process with Spectrasonics and we never received any communication with Robert (the buyer)...so he didn't really know what was happening...except what the seller communicated to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 1 month, it is still not transferred. The seller even said to me that he was going to give me back my money, but I stated that he should keep trying for another week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delay is essentially because a company tried to sell Robert a license that doesn't belong to them. It belonged to a former employee of the company. As most of you know, we license to individual users...not companies/corporations.
> 
> When the company contacted us and we discovered that the license was owned by a former employee, we told the company that only the employee could sell it since he is the licensed owner of the product.
> 
> They returned the product to the employee who sent us pictures showing he had possession of the discs yesterday, and so now that the ownership has been properly established, the license transfer was submitted to our administration to transfer this yesterday. Once we have ownership properly established, it really doesn't take that long to get an answer if the license is transferrable.
> 
> All parties are all now well aware of our licensing at this point and understand the delays - they just did not communicate that accurately to Robert (the buyer).
> 
> These are the kinds of issues that come up in many transfer requests, hence why we need to handle them on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...


I should rephrase myself: Spectrasonics offers a very good service, the seller didn't quite tell me all the details, so sorry Spectrasonics!


----------



## kitekrazy

I thought there was a law passed in Europe that allows licences to be sold and transferred.

BTW, there is a forum in KVR on resales and licenses.


----------



## Daryl

kitekrazy @ Tue Oct 30 said:


> I thought there was a law passed in Europe that allows licences to be sold and transferred.


It only applies to software, not sound recordings.

D


----------



## Vartio

Daryl @ Wed Oct 31 said:


> kitekrazy @ Tue Oct 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought there was a law passed in Europe that allows licences to be sold and transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> It only applies to software, not sound recordings.
> 
> D
Click to expand...


wouldn't that be a bit pointless tho. i mean the audio is part of the software.
you're not buying different licenses for the programmed patches and the audio content. you buy a license to a software. even if the software contains audio, its still under the same license.

the law should be in effect even if a company doesn't have a physical presence in EU. all it takes is for the company to do business in EU. They trade in the European countries, so must abide by the trading laws there.

Im no expert, so I might be completely wrong of course. so correct me if it's so. o[])


----------



## Daryl

Vartio @ Wed Oct 31 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Oct 31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kitekrazy @ Tue Oct 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought there was a law passed in Europe that allows licences to be sold and transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> It only applies to software, not sound recordings.
> 
> D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wouldn't that be a bit pointless tho. i mean the audio is part of the software.
> you're not buying different licenses for the programmed patches and the audio content. you buy a license to a software. even if the software contains audio, its still under the same license.
> I might be completely wrong of course. so correct me if it's so. o[])
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are wrong. There is certainly a software portion of the product, but the important thing to realise is that you are buying a licence to use the audio, and that is not covered by the European re-sale law, which only covers software.

D


----------



## Vartio

Daryl @ Wed Oct 31 said:


> you are buying a licence to use the audio, and that is not covered by the European re-sale law


Yeah. You're right. I missed that.


----------



## mk282

Carles @ 29.10.2012 said:


> - U-He (free? easy?)



Quite easy, in most cases it's free - however if you want to sell a product you purchased within the first 6 months of purchasing it, you will have to pay a small fee per day left to end the 6 months period. Or something like that.


----------



## spectrum

Carles @ Tue Oct 30 said:


> Let's say that you can use a library for 5 years before becoming obsolete (it's just an example)
> You produce 10 profitable tracks in 2 years. You sell your copy and another artists will produce 20 tracks in 3 years. Isn't the same that if you alone have produced 30 profitable tracks in 5 years? where is the difference?


The problem for the developer is this:

The basis of the pricing of the license to create derivative audio works from their copyrighted sound recordings (i.e.: using the devs sound recordings in your music recordings) is based on a "single user" professional model. Essentially, if the user is able to use it once, then the pricing is justified.

The lifetime use for the single user is considered a special privilege extended by the license, that means that you have unlimited rights to use the samples as much as you like...but just for YOU. Otherwise, the entire business model falls apart and prices have to go way up.

Here's a real world example:

• Sting prominently uses a drum loop of mine from Liquid Grooves on a hit song. I didn't get called to do that session and neither did my drummer. We got our $99 once for Sting buying the product. It's actually a great deal for him, because it was far cheaper than hiring our team and our drummer for the session. Our drummer did get his royalty, so at least he made something for appearing on Sting's record, but it's a very small amount.

Sting uses a number of other loops from that same product over the years on various projects, making more and more money without having to pay us a royalty. We still make the same amount, just paid once.

Sting's used the library a number of times over the last decade and he's creatively done with that library. 

Our audio recordings are now embedded in many of Sting's albums....a big honor for us of course, even though it wasn't a big financial gain.

No problem so far. Everything is functioning as it should. The way this kind of single user license is setup is to be very generous to the end user.

• Lady Gaga wants to use the same drum loop library of ours now.

If she buys it legitimately, more hits are made with it. We get our $99 and the drummer gets his royalty. She has the right to use it for her lifetime too. A lot of money is getting made by these artists on our work, but it's ok because the license is setup to work for any single user for their lifetime.

However, if Sting sold her the library...now the creators and the original musician gets nothing. Hardly fair....right? She should pay the musicians and the people who contributed to her album...especially if she's using their audio recordings...right?

With digital data you can extend this scenario very far, with one paid copy being used by many, many people.

If I only get paid once for lots of artists using and profiting from my work, then I would either have to charge an insane amount of money....which would only allow my work to be used by the very top pros, or stop producing these kinds of products completely (which would be much more likely)

The "single user/royalty-free lifetime license" model we have in the industry now is a very good one, because the prices are set so that they are accessible to any serious music producer. It's a win-win for everyone:

The developers win because they can reach a larger audience and sell larger quantities, the serious hobbyist/semi-pros win because they have access to the same tools as the pros, and the pro music producers win because they get access at an incredibly low price for unlimited usage.



> Your argument could make some sense to me if you buy a product by 500 credits and you sell it by 500 credits or if both are using the product simultaneously. Otherwise make no sense to me.
> 
> As soon as you sell your 500 credits product for 350 credits you already paid for your corresponding part of usage and I don't see any ethic conflict on that.


One person's usage of that license is 500 credits....it's not based on a certain number of years. The license pricing that all developers base their pricing on is based on any use by the licensee at all.

For example, one vocal phrase in Vocal Planet was used by Mark Isham in the score to Crash as a primary melody of the score. He didn't have to hire the singer, which would have cost much more than the price of the library (which includes 500 singers and thousands of recordings he's can use for his lifetime) So the price of the library more than paid for itself for just one usage.



> Also your argument makes unfair the fact that one composer can produce 50 cues in 5 years while other composer can produce only 20.
> Should the vendor of the library claim an extra payment to the lucky one that produced 100 cues?


No. That's why all sample library licenses are based on "single user, single lifetime fee for any use". 

That's why the deal is such a great one for end users!

In the past, you had to license samples PER project, per track and you could only use them once for a LOT of money! ($10,000 to $250,000 per use!)

The sample library licensing model is already extremely generous to end users....and this is why license transfers are problematic for many developers.



> perhaps should return the full value to the unlucky composer who produced 0 cues?
> Should it be completely free for me who as amateur don't make any money out of it?


That's certainly a risk that any user takes when requesting a lifetime license for a professional sample library.

Most good companies will work with you however if you really can't use what you purchased. That's just good customer service.



> just consider that you've been paying for a renting time and it becomes fair enough automatically


It's definitely not rental. In fact, the license you accepted and legally agreed to probably states that it's not a rental service. So trying to think of it that way is already breaking your agreement with the developer.



> Do you feel the same with your hardware?


And here is where you are not understanding the primary difference:

Samples are copyrighted sound recordings.

A license allows you to take those recordings and make NEW musical recordings of your own with them and distribute them. Legally, this is called creating a "derivative work"....which is NOT the case with hardware.

The sounds that are generated by hardware are not protected by copyright law, so you are free to use them in your own recordings. However, you are not free to use copyrighted sound recordings in your own recordings unless you have a specific license to do so.

This is the key difference and why so many get confused between hardware and sample-based products like sample libraries.



> Perhaps there is a huge difference between a pro and an amateur at this regard


I think this is a really important point.

What we are talking about here are professional sample libraries that have licenses designed for professional use. Non-pros also have access to them, but they have to abide by the same license terms. 

Sometimes, developers have different types of licenses available for different kinds of users. We have an educational license for example that's far cheaper and designed especially for teaching our instruments in the classroom, but the license terms are far less flexible than our standard license for music producers.

Hope that's helpful.


----------



## Carles

spectrum @ Thu Nov 01 said:


> Carles @ Tue Oct 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say that you can use a library for 5 years before becoming obsolete (it's just an example)
> You produce 10 profitable tracks in 2 years. You sell your copy and another artists will produce 20 tracks in 3 years. Isn't the same that if you alone have produced 30 profitable tracks in 5 years? where is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> The problem for the developer is this:
> 
> The basis of the pricing of the license to create derivative audio works from... (etc)
Click to expand...


Indeed, much appreciated. Very useful explanation, much informative and pretty fair in my opinion. In fact to the point that makes me feel embarrassed by starting this topic.

But, I think we have to agree that "the rules of the game" are made for people who take profit from these products (and not necessarily at Sting's level).

Still is deeply unfair that same rules applies to pro beginners and even less to amateurs.

I'd be pleased to get an amateur license which strictly restrict the use for personal usage and accepting sever penalties if used in any commercial project, cheaper and also reselling friendly (from amateur to amateur of course) but you know what, such license doesn't exists and I do believe that never will do.

The most similar thing I could get is an educational discount but I'm not student and nor teacher.
So should I to pay the fee to get enrolled in a course which I never will actually use in order to get a certificate?
Or, should I ask for instance in my children's school if they could gently cheat and print out a certificate stating that I'm either student or teaching a course just to get access to a license a bit more close to my actual position as amateur?
Well, that's to me the same ethically incorrect as if I go directly to the underground and grab an illegal copy (the last option is even cheaper as it is completely for free).

That's one of the more sad things.
The current policies invites to either, leaving your beloved hobby because the market is aiming to pros only or becoming an illegal user or at least break your ethics cheating somehow in order to get a more fair policy.

That really make no sense.

While we are apples and oranges here the developers only provide solutions for oranges, and that's why some people agree with the current policies and some deeply disagree, we are different genres under an unique set of rules.


That's what I'm trying to state here.
For let's say oranges (amateurs) the list above is at the moment the best way to avoid that a permanent mistake will happen over and over, unfortunately with the restrictions that it implies, but still (for me) the best option is not to purchase anymore from any non "seller friendly" vendor, sadly.

Said that, I much appreciate those vendors who are amateur or low income composers friendly, and I'd encourage them to please don't change their policies as they are the single viable possibility for those who don't want to use illegal copies or leaving the hobby.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Synesthesia

Hi everyone.

Its a complicated issue. Spectrum (Eric) has given some great information on the background to it.

Our prices, musician royalty structure and business model are based on a customer buying a single non transferable license that enables them to make music recordings using our IP - namely the samples contained in our libraries. Transferring a license from one person to another via the NI system is not impossible but is time consuming and thus has a cost to us. There is an issue with the fact that once someone has transferred a license they no longer hold the right to include our IP in their derivative recordings. Also we would be giving product tech support to people who had not generated any income for the company, which eventually adds up to a further loss in some way.

If we wanted to allow resale in the future we would have to revise our prices upwards to account for the percentage loss in sales and thus royalties to our musicians, and to account for the extra time and cost in dealing with ownership transfers.

We prefer to keep our prices keen, make great products that hopefully no-one would wish to part with, and spend our limited time and resources on giving gold standard customer service to our customers.

Aside from all this - and as a composer myself - I take pains to make very very detailed (some might say waffly and interminable) youtube videos with simple naked demos of the library's patches - so that you absolutely know what you are getting when you buy, as far as humanly possible.

I'm not into carefully crafted demos mixed and produced up the wazoo, I absolutely don't want to have to deal with upset customers who thought they were getting one thing and received another.

We try really really hard to be a good company, fair to our team, our musicians, (these people are all our friends) and to our customers - many of whom we know personally.

We make the tools that we would want to have for our own work, and we hope that our taste translates to others.

I hope thats helped explain our position. There is another super long thread about this as well back a few months as mentioned.

All the very best,

Paul


----------



## dpasdernick

Eric's post was interesting regarding samples. The funny thing is there are samples used in hardware now (even large samples libs like in the Kronos) and you can resell one of those. I'm also confused at how some companies, like Spectrasonics, sample the heck out of everything out there to make their libraries but do not allow you to sample a chunk of their libraries. 

Case in point. Isn't it illegal to sample a Roland D-50 becasue of the sampled waveforms? But I see the D-50 was used in Omnisphere. Eric can you explain this?

I spent close to $600 bucks on a library (on the no sell list in this thread) last year and wish I had my money back. It sucks enough to shell out that kind of money and then maybe get to resell it for 2/3 to 1/2 of what you paid but to not be able to resell at all hurts. (I'm not rich) I guess in the future I will be more mindful of companies that do not allow a transfer.

And God Bless Try-Sounds, ven with the chirping birds , it's a great place to evaluate a llibrary.


----------



## MacQ

dpasdernick @ Mon Dec 24 said:


> Case in point. Isn't it illegal to sample a Roland D-50 becasue of the sampled waveforms? But I see the D-50 was used in Omnisphere. Eric can you explain this?



It's simple to explain: Eric was hired by Roland to do the original patch design for the D-50, and most likely licensed Spectrasonics recordings to Roland for use in the D-50. No double standard, it's just that Eric has been in this business for a LONG time.


----------



## Alex W

Hi everyone, I would just like to clarify this issue. We have not changed our terms and conditions with respect to existing customers.

The T&C have always stated that it is at our discretion whether or not to allow a licence transfer. Please note the paragraph "The Licensee may NOT, without first obtaining the express written consent of CS, assign their rights and obligations under this Agreement, or copy, redistribute, encumber, sell, rent, lease, sublicense, or otherwise transfer their rights to the Software Product. *If permission is granted by CS*, license transfers can be applied for via Native Instruments’ support at..."

We were in fact happy to help out one or two customers in the past, but this statement in the T&C in no way guarantees the blanket right of a licence-holder to transfer their licence. Ultimately, we have decided to withold our permission, as we found that some users were trying to take unreasonable advantage of our goodwill; we found the process was being abused and the whole thing was becoming too time-consuming for us.

If anyone has any further questions on this issue, please contact me through the support form on our website.

Cheers,
Alex


----------



## Vin

Orange Tree Samples doesn't allow reselling of Kontakt Player libraries:



> Bear in mind that certain products cannot be transferred:
> 
> 
> NFR (not for resale) copies.
> Kontakt Player libraries--serial numbers cannot be transferred.
> Products that are discontinued or otherwise not for sale.
> Products purchased less than 6 months ago.
> Products received as transfers within 6 months.


----------



## JamesNilesJoyal

Parsifal666 said:


> I see *"Best Service (one time reselling, €40 fee)"
> *



Hey Parsifal,

The current transfer fee for most (if not all) Best Service libraries is €25. This applies to products released by Best Service (including Chris Hein's libraries), but not those simply sold by Best Service. Hope that helps.


----------



## Garry

This is a really useful thread. Is there a secure, reputable place that people would recommend where license transfers can be bought and sold?

Sorry if this has been asked many times before?


----------



## jtnyc

Garry said:


> This is a really useful thread. Is there a secure, reputable place that people would recommend where license transfers can be bought and sold?
> 
> Sorry if this has been asked many times before?



https://vi-control.net/community/forums/for-sale-music-gear-classifieds-free-service.66/


----------



## Mike Greene

Carles (the OP of this thread) felt this thread was becoming unwieldy, and many of the posts in its 12 pages were now moot, or sometimes of the attack nature, which he was uncomfortable with, especially since the thread is a sticky. After scanning through the posts, I think Carles is right.

The original purpose of this thread was informational, so people could easily see which companies have friendly resale policies and which don't, so he asked me if we could either start a new "clean" thread for just the list (minus the debates), or clean up this thread. I suggested cleaning up this thread would be the best option, if for no other reason than starting a new thread would start the debate all over again and we'd once again wind up with a _new_ 12-page monster that no one actually reads. (Interestingly, many of the "debate" posters in the last few pages of this thread started their posts with the words, _"I haven't read this entire thread, but ..."_)

So ... I edited the thread. Admittedly, it was with an ax rather than a surgical knife. This is a case where (IMO) less is more, so I deleted just about all posts (over 200) that I didn't think were really important.

I apologize to the many people whose perfectly valid posts were removed. I understand that people put thought and effort into their posts, so I really, really do hate to delete them. (FWIW, I also deleted all of my own posts.) However, most posts were many years old, and as I said, no one was reading the entire thread anymore, since it was so dang long. Plus the thread had unfortunately drifted into ugliness with snippy back and forth arguments in a few places, including the first page.

I did keep a number of posts which I believe offer valuable insight. Admittedly, they're mostly from the developers' perspective, and I may catch heat for that, but I think the information is worthwhile, so I kept them. Before I get accused of playing favorites, though, I'll point out that I'm keeping this thread a sticky, even though my own company is in the naughty section.

I'll also point out that anyone is free to start a new thread debating the merits of resale policies. That's totally fine. VI-Control has always been first and foremost a members' forum, not a developers' homefield. However, in _this_ thread, we'd like keep things strictly informational. If you have info on whether companies have friendly or unfriendly resale policies, then please do post. If you want to debate the policies, though, then please post elsewhere on the forum.

Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## Carles

Thanks Mike!


----------



## kimarnesen

Auddict allowed reselling for me just recently.


----------



## X-Bassist

This is a shame. The first post was never updated and many posts were adding to the list, so now all that info is gone. I don’t expect someone to read a long thread, but updatung the list on the first post before trashing it all would have made this post useful. Now it’s a sticky post with a list from 6 years ago, a tad short and outdated at best.

I asked the OP years ago to update the list, he said he didn’t have time but would let the site owner know. Now it’s all moot. I even feel bad about wasting the time I put into adding names and researching some of this and posting. it’s all gone. What a site. Would have takien me only a few hours to extract the names and create a list to add to the first post (I’ve been through 12 page threads before), but because no one but the OP can change the list, it’s become an almost useless thread as time goes on.

Why not take the sticky off and let it die? Unless there is going to be a list that is updated or can be edited by more than one guy, it’s a pointless endeavor. Plus, being at the top I keep checking it to see if the first post is updated (last time was maybe 3 years ago?) and leave disappointed every time. Perhaps it’s time to let it go or give us an option for a group post/list. Thanks.


----------



## Erick - BVA

Just to be clear, if you die, Spitfire will allow your spouse or another member of the family to use your licenses.


----------



## kimarnesen

Sibelius19 said:


> Just to be clear, if you die, Spitfire will allow your spouse or another member of the family to use your licenses.





X-Bassist said:


> This is a shame. The first post was never updated and many posts were adding to the list, so now all that info is gone. I don’t expect someone to read a long thread, but updatung the list on the first post before trashing it all would have made this post useful. Now it’s a sticky post with a list from 6 years ago, a tad short and outdated at best.
> 
> I asked the OP years ago to update the list, he said he didn’t have time but would let the site owner know. Now it’s all moot. I even feel bad about wasting the time I put into adding names and researching some of this and posting. it’s all gone. What a site. Would have takien me only a few hours to extract the names and create a list to add to the first post (I’ve been through 12 page threads before), but because no one but the OP can change the list, it’s become an almost useless thread as time goes on.
> 
> Why not take the stick off and let it die? Unless there is going to be a list that is updated or can be edited by more than one guy, it’s a pointless endeavor. Plus, being at the top I keep checking it to see if the first post is updated (last time was maybe 3 years ago?) and leave disappointed every time. Perhaps it’s time to let it go or give us an option for a group post/list. Thanks.



I agree although it was updated by the mods in February. What if you create a new similar thread which can replace this one?


----------



## ajptaurus

You wouldn't have Wavelore Pedal Steel that you would like to sell would you?

Desperately need to get my hands on it, but thier website has no support after sale I.e. Theyre still selling it, but not sending download links etc after sale which is a real pain.


----------



## GearNostalgia

Carles said:


> List updated (please feel free to fix me if something is wrong).
> 
> Also, not sure if anyone interested, but just in case, please developers feel free to use this distinctive if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Carles
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Collected so far (sorted alphabetically):
> 
> *Reselling friendly
> - *Addictive drums (free, easy)
> - Ample Sound
> - Arturia (seems to be free)
> - AudioEase (?)
> - Best Service (one time reselling, €25 fee, BS own products only)
> - Camel Audio (slight fee)
> - Chocolate Audio (read their FAQ)
> - Embertone (Name/address/phone/email needed)
> - FXpansion ($50 fee)
> - iZotope (free)
> - Native Instruments (possibly some exceptions)
> - Orange Tree Samples (free, easy - possible exception for KPlayer libraries?)
> - Output (conflicting reports, but seems yes)
> - Project Sam (one time reselling, €25 fee, easy)
> - Samplemodeling
> - SampleTekk
> - Steinberg (free, easy)
> - Toontracks (one time reselling, conditions may apply)
> - U-He (free, easy)
> - VSL (requires a fee, easy)
> - Xsample
> 
> *Case by case* (product specific or other factors)
> - Heavyocity* (usually not, but products partnered with Native Instruments are transferable via NI support)
> - Impact Soundworks (not by default, but possible in a case by case basis)
> - Soundiron
> - Spectrasonics (software instruments only, case-by-case basis, transfer fee in most cases)
> - Wave Alchemy
> 
> *No friendly*
> - 8dio
> - ArtVista
> - Auddict
> - Audio Bro
> - Bela D Media (stated in EULA)
> - Cinematic Strings
> - Cinesamples
> - EastWest
> - Fable Sounds
> - Garritan
> - Musical Sampling
> - Orchestral Tools
> - Realitone (but has 30 day refund policy)
> - Sample Logic (stated in EULA)
> - Sonokinetic
> - Spitfire Audio
> - Vir2
> - Virharmonic
> - Wallander Instruments
> - Zero-G (stated in EULA)
> 
> 
> (list updated eventually)
> 
> Many are missing I know, so please, add more if you know about.
> 
> Cheers,
> Carles



Missing Fluffy Audio, looking by their website they should be placed in the bottom tier. https://fluffyaudio.com/licensing/


----------



## paoling

Bottom Tier, but we often allow it, as you see from the occasional sales here on vi-control. We prefer to apply a stricter rule and have a lax approach on it, than leaving the potential for abusing it. How do you know that when a user sells a library he actually deletes it?


----------



## GearNostalgia

paoling said:


> Bottom Tier, but we often allow it, as you see from the occasional sales here on vi-control. We prefer to apply a stricter rule and have a lax approach on it, than leaving the potential for abusing it. How do you know that when a user sells a library he actually deletes it?



From my first and very resent experience with a totally rigid inforcement of a no resale/tradein/refund policy I will stay away from all brands with such policies. There is no way for me as customer to know if I will buy a flawed product if I can not try a demo or return it if it turns out bad after a purchase. And there is no way to separate companies that enforce the policy with a blunt no in every way or that have a lax policy and my offer a reasonable solution.

Seems to me that it there is no working serial, activation check for the libraries you should take that up with Native Instruments. After all there are quite a few like me that just got Kontakt for the purpose of using libraries. Or develop something like Play from EastWest that only lets the user play the libraries when the fee is paid. I also like companies that have the new model when you pay a monthly fee for a certain time and then after that you own the copy.

Something has to be done about this cause this is like somebody said like buying a car and then realise that the breaks or something is bad. Would you not expect that to be fixed or to return the car?


----------



## paoling

In the case there’s any kind of incompatibility, we try to come up with a fix and if we can’t we offer a refund.
Do you think that’s an easy route to develop your own player?

We have the rights to choose the rules that makes us more confortable with our job and our customers have the rights to decide if they are willing to buy from us or not. For example, whenever we can we offer upgrade paths by discounting all the retail price of the original product, even if it was bought on sale. (just an example of something which not always happens with any developer).
Or in some cases I have discouraged a customer to buy a library from us and invited him to consider a competitor’s one that was maybe more suited to his purpose.

I’ll stress about this, because some users tend to think that we (the developers) are offering a kind of service (even before buying anything from us) and everything should be due to them.

While I prefer to think that it’s a kind of honest relationship where we try to make our best to give our customer the most pleasant experience possible. 

And I dislike some kind of marketing for the lack of honesty with their customers... but that’s stuff for another topic :-D


----------



## GearNostalgia

paoling said:


> In the case there’s any kind of incompatibility, we try to come up with a fix and if we can’t we offer a refund.
> Do you think that’s an easy route to develop your own player?
> 
> We have the rights to choose the rules that makes us more confortable with our job and our customers have the rights to decide if they are willing to buy from us or not. For example, whenever we can we offer upgrade paths by discounting all the retail price of the original product, even if it was bought on sale. (just an example of something which not always happens with any developer).
> Or in some cases I have discouraged a customer to buy a library from us and invited him to consider a competitor’s one that was maybe more suited to his purpose.
> 
> I’ll stress about this, because some users tend to think that we (the developers) are offering a kind of service (even before buying anything from us) and everything should be due to them.
> 
> While I prefer to think that it’s a kind of honest relationship where we try to make our best to give our customer the most pleasant experience possible.
> 
> And I dislike some kind of marketing for the lack of honesty with their customers... but that’s stuff for another topic :-D



Since NI already have made a player I think they have the skills to add some subscription/licensing bit too it. In fact I thought they have or maybe they do. I have bought one library from OrangeTree that appears in my NativeInstruments Native Access. Seems to me that it handles the licenses in some way, not sure if I could play that library if I unistall the license. Well anyway as a third party dev bringing a lot of content to their platform I would bring it up with them if you don't have the means to make a VTS on your own like EastWest or AmpleSound (or partner with them?).

Yes, you are right. You can have any kind of policy you like. But this is a sad policy that cause a lot of grief unless so I think you need to be pretty upfront with it. And in your cause I think it is rather visible and not as hidden as when I got tricked into a bad deal. This is why this forum and others need to have a clear thread like this so we as customers can stay away from bad policies and bad companies(which may or may not be the same depending upon how the policy is enforeced).

As a company you are offering a product and with said product it is usually expected that there is some kind of support and issues management for it. It is in fact all up to you. If you write policies that totally disengage yourself from that kind of normally expected responsibility it needs to be very clear. But we have been through that now 

It sounds to me that you handle these kinds of issues with some sensitivity and honesty. I would like to put you to the test, but I really can't. Dominus was an option for me, but I bought the wrong horse from 8Dio, which was a huge and sad loss of the majority of my "music hobby funds". I am grateful that NI stepped in and gave me a good offer to upgrade to Komplete from the Kontakt I bought to play the library. There are a lot of nice instruments in there that will keep me going (just no choir). If I knew what I know now I wish I had picked Dominus. Hopefully it would have worked out better and if it had not that you would have allowed me a trade for some other product or resale/refund. if 8Dio had sense to let me off the hook I would have tried some other library, maybe yours...


----------



## paoling

Well the cost of releasing libraries with NI system is pretty high and it makes sense only for certain libraries (like OrangeTree guitars that please a wider audience than many orchestral libraries).

In anycase if someone is malicius he can find a way around Kontakt licensing and keep the library working even if he sells the license to someone else.

We don’t mind to miss a sale, again, we are not in this job to squeeze money out of our customers, instead I believe that a honest way of interacting with them is the best way to conduct our business. I reapeat, the chances of someone buying a library, reselling and keeping it on his hard drive are pretty high, so we have a rule that prevent it. But as I said we have always handled this rule in a very lax way depending on the circumstances. And if something is clearly broken for him, we’ve always looked for a solution or offered a refund.


----------



## paoling

By the way, as far as I know NI won’t change their model regarding Kontakt very soon. They seem fine with how it’s working now.

Also I dislike subscription models. From a customer point of view, because all these subscriptions add up to a point that they can be unsustainable and for us it would convert our customers in thousand of mini-bosses who rightly pretend us to release new content on regular time frame. It would also ruin the happyness of releasing a very cool library (like Dominus or Rinascimento) and see a spike in the sales that tells us that we are heading in the right direction.


----------



## GearNostalgia

paoling said:


> By the way, as far as I know NI won’t change their model regarding Kontakt very soon. They seem fine with how it’s working now.
> 
> Also I dislike subscription models. From a customer point of view, because all these subscriptions add up to a point that they can be unsustainable and for us it would convert our customers in thousand of mini-bosses who rightly pretend us to release new content on regular time frame. It would also ruin the happyness of releasing a very cool library (like Dominus or Rinascimento) and see a spike in the sales that tells us that we are heading in the right direction.



Well that is your opinion. I used to feel it was always best to pay the full price and own the license, but that only applies if I won it so I can sell it when I don't need it. So I see the value for a rental system instead of this library license trap.

NI won't change their way unless you tell them it would boost sales. And you will not change your model either until the day enough users like me have gotten burned and all swapped over to EW or VST solutions. Basicly drivning you out of business. That will happen some day if this goes on I am sure. EW have changed the game.

As for the pleasure of seeing a spike in sale on release that reminds me of Ahrefs videos about blog spikes. Basicly it appeals to the human mind to get instant gratification and see a big change, but in the long term it is better to get a constant inflow of new loyal followers to a blog. It builds up more over a long time a growing mass as opposed to a one time spike that fades away. As for hundreds of small bosses I am not sure what you imply, but compared to free to play games there are models for buying small add ons that seems to generate better economics than selling the main game. So I guess it could be better to release small parts of a library gradually even.

As for potential hackers pirating software, well Microsoft has been hacked for ages and they are still around. So if enough people think the product is good it will work.

This business model with zero resale policy is unfair and unsound to me.


----------



## kimarnesen

You see subscription models more and more now for plugins (Waves, Slate Digital, Izotope, Eventide, Mathew Lane, Exponential Audio, Softube, and more), so it's just a matter of time until it's the standard for libraries. I guess the ones who adjust to this early is the ones who will succeed the most because they are establishing a large customer list.


----------



## X-Bassist

Not sure I agree. If you add up all the plugins and instruments I have, it would add up to 100’s of companies I’m paying each month. Now let’s say I could get that down to my favorite 30 companies, say averaging $20/month, that’s $7200 a year. Not terrible, but every year, as long as I want my sessions to work.

Right now I own them all for as long as I want, no extra money involved. Maybe I’ve spent that much in the last couple of years (or a little more). But I’m done. I’ve got enough to write for years.

Now for those starting out who want to test the waters, and are unwilling to wait for sales (or have a big gig lined up) perfectly understandable that a monthly fee would work. I just can’t see doing it across so many companies for years and years. East West, Spitfire, Project Sam, Cinesamples, Performance samples, Fluffy Audio,.... Did we mention plugins? Slate, Fab Filter, Sound Toys, Waves, Kush Audio, .... It would force you to stick to less companies or pay outragous montly fees. Yet I find many companies who are great at one thing (or one area) and not great at others (or they don’t offer every product needed). 

I’d hate to see my monthly bill. More than all my other expenses combined... and I live in Los Angeles!


----------



## X-Bassist

Athough Output’s new model of subscribing to new sounds each day yet you keep what you have when you quit sounds good. I’m just not sure I’d use the sounds (almost too overproduced).


----------



## GearNostalgia

X-Bassist said:


> Not sure I agree. If you add up all the plugins and instruments I have, it would add up to 100’s of companies I’m paying each month. Now let’s say I could get that down to my favorite 30 companies, say averaging $20/month, that’s $7200 a year. Not terrible, but every year, as long as I want my sessions to work.
> 
> Right now I own them all for as long as I want, no extra money involved. Maybe I’ve spent that much in the last couple of years (or a little more). But I’m done. I’ve got enough to write for years.
> 
> Now for those starting out who want to test the waters, and are unwilling to wait for sales (or have a big gig lined up) perfectly understandable that a monthly fee would work. I just can’t see doing it across so many companies for years and years. East West, Spitfire, Project Sam, Cinesamples, Performance samples, Fluffy Audio,.... Did we mention plugins? Slate, Fab Filter, Sound Toys, Waves, Kush Audio, .... It would force you to stick to less companies or pay outragous montly fees. Yet I find many companies who are great at one thing (or one area) and not great at others (or they don’t offer every product needed).
> 
> I’d hate to see my monthly bill. More than all my other expenses combined... and I live in Los Angeles!



Wow, you really got a lot of stuff to use there. Just looking at EastWests Libraries they say that they are priced at 15000 total and cost 25 bucks per months. That makes 500 months of use until payback. If we wait like forever and manage to buy it all at 50% discount that is still 250 months. Equals about 25 years of usage. I am glad you have confidence you will still love and use your products and dont feel any need for new products 25 years from now. I think they will and I assume they will also add products to their service as we go along which potentially will make them even more worth subscribing to. But most of all I think that if they see a better inflow of steady revenues they will stopp selling permanent licenses and cut off that branch in the future.

As for me personally using these products on a hobby basis I see more and more benefits of the rental model. There are a lot of months when I don't have any time to dabble with music. Months that I can unsubscribe and get back in later when I want to play again.

And most of all I don't get stuck with flawed products I dislike and can not even sell.


----------



## X-Bassist

GearNostalgia said:


> Wow, you really got a lot of stuff to use there. Just looking at EastWests Libraries they say that they are priced at 15000 total and cost 25 bucks per months. That makes 500 months of use until payback. If we wait like forever and manage to buy it all at 50% discount that is still 250 months. Equals about 25 years of usage. I am glad you have confidence you will still love and use your products and dont feel any need for new products 25 years from now. I think they will and I assume they will also add products to their service as we go along which potentially will make them even more worth subscribing to. But most of all I think that if they see a better inflow of steady revenues they will stopp selling permanent licenses and cut off that branch in the future.
> 
> As for me personally using these products on a hobby basis I see more and more benefits of the rental model. There are a lot of months when I don't have any time to dabble with music. Months that I can unsubscribe and get back in later when I want to play again.
> 
> And most of all I don't get stuck with flawed products I dislike and can not even sell.



I understand, but truth be told, you’re only going to want to play the top 30 percent of any developers inventory- tops. For me, with East West for example, I have Hollywood Orch Diamond for the strings and brass, Stormdrum 3, Silk, and Symphonic Choirs. Nothing else from them interests me at all, but I’d still have to pay monthly to use just those few. But for trying out what they have (especially on a free trial) it’s excellent.


----------



## GearNostalgia

X-Bassist said:


> I understand, but truth be told, you’re only going to want to play the top 30 percent of any developers inventory- tops. For me, with East West for example, I have Hollywood Orch Diamond for the strings and brass, Stormdrum 3, Silk, and Symphonic Choirs. Nothing else from them interests me at all, but I’d still have to pay monthly to use just those few. But for trying out what they have (especially on a free trial) it’s excellent.



I can agree with that. I expect that I will only use a few of all their products as well and would prefer a model where the price has some relation to how many instrument I download and install and actually use. But for me I am fine with EW rental model. 25bucks is a reasonable price. I will buy a month when my vacation starts and and put as many of EastWest stuff to the test as I can in that period. And when that is over I can end it temporarily,


----------



## Matt Riley

Output definitely does NOT allow resale of their licenses. I emailed them today about transferring my REV license and got this response: 
"Unfortunately, we can't offer to transfer the license to another user as a part of our Licensing Agreement. We apologize for any inconvenience. If anything else comes up just let us know and we'll be glad to help. 

Best,
Scott"


----------



## Quasar

Matt Riley said:


> Output definitely does NOT allow resale of their licenses. I emailed them today about transferring my REV license and got this response:
> "Unfortunately, we can't offer to transfer the license to another user as a part of our Licensing Agreement. We apologize for any inconvenience. If anything else comes up just let us know and we'll be glad to help.
> 
> Best,
> Scott"


"Unfortunately, we can't" is a lie. They can. They just don't want to. So from their point of view it's not unfortunate. A much more candid response might read:

Fortunately, we don't have to offer a license transfer due to our licensing agreement. Any inconvenience this may cause you is not our problem. If anything else comes up just let us know and we'll be willing to decide whether or not to help.


----------



## Parsifal666

Quasar said:


> "Unfortunately, we can't" is a lie. They can. They just don't want to. So from their point of view it's not unfortunate. A much more candid response might read:
> 
> Fortunately, we don't have to offer a license transfer due to our licensing agreement. Any inconvenience this may cause you is not our problem. If anything else comes up just let us know and we'll be willing to decide whether or not to help.



QFT


----------



## Erick - BVA

Matt Riley said:


> Output definitely does NOT allow resale of their licenses. I emailed them today about transferring my REV license and got this response:
> "Unfortunately, we can't offer to transfer the license to another user as a part of our Licensing Agreement. We apologize for any inconvenience. If anything else comes up just let us know and we'll be glad to help.
> 
> Best,
> Scott"


Everyone who works there needs to be on the same page. Or they must have changed their policy recently. Yes, it says it in the EULA (that they don't allow it), but they allowed me to transfer 2 licences just a few months ago. The only benefit of not allowing a transfer would be that it would not be considered an asset for tax purposes (since you can't convert the license to money). So we are simply paying to borrow a license to use their product. If we actually owned a license we would be able to transfer it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Does this argument ever advance?

The thread started in 2012, and I remember the exact same thread on NS at least 15 years ago.

Multiple times.


----------



## Quasar

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Does this argument ever advance?
> 
> The thread started in 2012, and I remember the exact same thread on NS at least 15 years ago.
> 
> Multiple times.



Struggles against injustice never end until such time as the struggle has been won and the injustice has been redressed.


----------



## KarlHeinz

Output seems to be one of the WORST companies in this case. I had the same trouble with movement, bought it on kvr, both, buyer and seller, in good faith, and then it does not work in my environment, wrote to the support, the odysse begun....in parallel selling cases on the same forum: no problem. It took me hours and lasted for weeks, then we agreed to just divide the damage, he give me 50 % of the sales price back and now I just use it with a workaround but different people from the same company talk with differnt tongues, thats absolutely no good.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Quasar said:


> Struggles against injustice never end until such time as the struggle has been won and the injustice has been redressed.



I have mixed feelings about whether you should be allowed to re-sell software licenses, but injustice? Really?

To me injustice is babies in cages, voter suppression, innocent black people being killed by police...


----------



## Quasar

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I have mixed feelings about whether you should be allowed to re-sell software licenses, but injustice? Really?
> 
> To me injustice is babies in cages, voter suppression, innocent black people being killed by police...



We could argue over what constitutes an injustice vs. what does not, and further quibble over matters of scale if we want to, but I wasn't trying to address any of that here.

Your comment was about the persistence of the complaint over a broad expanse of time, and my response was simply that this persistence can be counted on until such time as the issue (whether great or small, real or perceived) has been rectified. It's only natural to assume that a complaint will remain a current event as long as the object of the complaint remains in effect.

Personally, the right to resell - though I am in favor on principle - doesn't matter much to me, and I regard it as trivial in comparison with Draconian CP such as dongles or mandatory online activation.

Whether or not injustice in the sample library arena in any way belongs in the same conversation as the controversial issues you allude to above is probably better suited to a political forum. But the problem is that everything is "political", especially in areas that have anything to do with commerce...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What?


----------



## Quasar

Nick Batzdorf said:


> What?


Okay, I will try this another way LOL.

An injustice doesn't become something less than an injustice simply because you can compare it to something worse.

The Nazi Holocaust was a crime. If I steal my neighbor's lawn mower that is also a crime. Though any sane person would agree that the latter pales in significance to the former, it doesn't make the lawn mower theft any less of a crime.

I have read numerous justifications for the current sorry state of end-user software rights, the excuse being that it's unimportant when compared to babies in cages, voter suppression and innocent black people being killed by police. It's a bogus argument.


----------



## Matt Riley

Does anyone know if Embertone still allows transfers. I’ve sent them two emails over the past 3 days and haven’t received a response.


----------



## Quasar

Matt Riley said:


> Does anyone know if Embertone still allows transfers. I’ve sent them two emails over the past 3 days and haven’t received a response.


I still see them for sale sometimes on the classifieds here, so I would guess they do. I've dealt with Embertone's customer support before (though not about reselling) and they are really nice people, very easy going, one of the coolest devs around IMHO. 

They may be overwhelmed with their current summer sale at the moment, but I'm certain they don't purposefully blow off email inquiries.


----------



## Parsifal666

Embertone were super friendly with my resale, really nice people imo.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt

Audio Imperia - not resale friendly. 
https://www.audioimperia.com/pages/license-agreement


----------



## richardt4520

Going back a few posts up regarding Output, I've seen them allow resells so I tried with REV since I hadn't found much use for it in the year I owned it, even after purchasing the addons. They wouldn't allow me to resell since it had been over a year but did allow me to trade it for Analog Brass which I really did want. That did make me a very happy customer so I don't have anything but good things to say about them for that. Not sure if they'd do that for anyone else but it was worth it for me to ask if they would. Wish more vendors would be willing to do something like that, especially the pricier ones, since it's a bigger loss on the purchaser's end. They keep a customer happy, don't lose any money, don't have to worry about transfer issues with other end users, and don't have to worry about devaluing their software due to resellers undercutting them.


----------



## Quasar

richardt4520 said:


> ...did allow me to trade it for Analog Brass which I really did want. That did make me a very happy customer so I don't have anything but good things to say about them for that.



That is cool. Kudos to Output


----------



## robgb

I think the whole no return, no resale thing is borderline criminal.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

Does anyone know if VSL has limits on how often you can resell?


----------



## Leo

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Does anyone know if VSL has limits on how often you can resell?


how many times do you want, the process is so complicated that I have the problem to sell 1lib. per 5 months..and I have best price...
The worst thing is that you must send the dongle key by post to the other side of the world,
10% fee from full price seems in this perspective like kinderparty.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

Leo said:


> how many times do you want, the process is so complicated that I have the problem to sell 1lib.


Sorry, I don't quite follow you. Are you saying you can resell VSL as many times as you want (but it's a pain to do)?


----------



## Mason

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Sorry, I don't quite follow you. Are you saying you can resell VSL as many times as you want (but it's a pain to do)?



I would say it's sometimes impossible to resell VSL even if it's allowed. You must buy a new KEY for $40 or something, wait for it to be shipped. Send the key with the library to the buyer (expensive shipping around the world) and also minimum $50 to VSL or 10% of their price. So with some libraries, you spend more than what you are getting paid, so now point selling.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

Mason said:


> I would say it's sometimes impossible to resell VSL even if it's allowed. You must buy a new KEY for $40 or something, wait for it to be shipped. Send the key with the library to the buyer (expensive shipping around the world) and also minimum $50 to VSL or 10% of their price. So with some libraries, you spend more than what you are getting paid, so now point selling.


Thanks. So maybe the original post here should be changed, since it currently describes VSL as "easy" and "reselling friendly".


----------



## Mason

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Thanks. So maybe the original post here should be changed, since it currently describes VSL as "easy" and "reselling friendly".



Yes, but the original post is so dated and is never being updated, so perhaps a new thread should be created by someone that can keep it updated.


----------



## CT

Mason said:


> I would say it's sometimes impossible to resell VSL even if it's allowed. You must buy a new KEY for $40 or something, wait for it to be shipped. Send the key with the library to the buyer (expensive shipping around the world) and also minimum $50 to VSL or 10% of their price. So with some libraries, you spend more than what you are getting paid, so now point selling.



I don't think you *have* to buy a new key to resell a library. You only have to do that if you have other licenses on the same key that you aren't selling. I guess that probably is the case for most people though.

I've been trying to sell my SE Strings for months now, and I've had to limit it to buyers in the United States thanks to the high shipping costs you mentioned. Between that, and their high transfer fee... yeah, it is honestly a pain in the ass. I can't say that my experience with VSL has been great, on any front.


----------



## Leo

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Sorry, I don't quite follow you. Are you saying you can resell VSL as many times as you want (but it's a pain to do)?



ye, international shipping, example from EU to US cost ..from 90EUR - to 200, just for 1 tiny small dongle...
and surely people do not store at home x new keys for each license..
It is interesting that VSL have this obstruction, and they are on same security engine like Steinberg.


----------



## Mason

miket said:


> I don't think you *have* to buy a new key to resell a library. You only have to do that if you have other licenses on the same key that you aren't selling. I guess that probably is the case for most people though.
> 
> I've been trying to sell my SE Strings for months now, and I've had to limit it to buyers in the United States thanks to the high shipping costs you mentioned. Between that, and their high transfer fee... yeah, it is honestly a pain in the ass. I can't say that my experience with VSL has been great, on any front.



Yes, people might ship the key they have but they might have libraries they want to keep. They should really make it possible to resell without the Shipping, as you can perfectly do with any iLok library.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

My adds to the resell list:

*Can Resell*
Chris Hein - seller pays €25 fee (sources: VI Thread, VI Classified, Best Service)
Libre Wave - (source: Libre Wave https://librewave.com/knowledge-base/do-you-allow-resale/ (knowledge base))
Soniccouture - Kontakt Player products only, €25 / $25 fee (source: Soniccouture support page)
Triple Spiral Audio (source: VI Thread)

*Case by case (product specific or other factors)*
Fluffy Audio - Not by default, but possible in a case by case basis (source: VI Thread)
Sonuscore - Allows The Orchestra resales, possibly other Kontakt Player products. (Source: VI Classifieds, Best Service.)
Soundiron - EULA states that do not allow license transfers.
Virtual Sound Stage 2 - Programmer said believes VSS2 is resellable but "don't quote me on that".

*Can't Resell*
Aaron Venture (source: below post)
Big Fish Audio (source: EULA)
FrozenPlain (possibly allows some case-by-case exception, source EULA)
Ilya Efimov (source: EULA)
In Session Audio (source: EULA)
Light and Sound (source: EULA)
Loops de la Crème (source: EULA)
Musiclab (source: below post)
Performance Samples (source: EULA)
Red Room Audio (source: EULA, the post below)
Strezov Sampling (source: VIControl thread, EULA)


----------



## Crowe

I just looked it up and sadly Red Room Audio doesn't allow resale.

As a sidenote, I don't think that's going to stop me from getting Palette anyway.

EDIT: Aaaand I just found out you'd already noted that and now I feel like an idiot XD. Oh well.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

Shiirai said:


> I just looked it up and sadly Red Room Audio doesn't allow resale.
> 
> As a sidenote, I don't think that's going to stop me from getting Palette anyway.


Looks like Sonuscore allows resales, at least in the case of The Orchestra.


----------



## Guitarman76

I know this topic has been discussed many times, and people on different sides will never agree.
But personally speaking, the fact that some developers are quite happy to allow reselling totally blows a hole in the argument used by those that don't allow reselling that it would make their business not economically viable.


----------



## axb312

Can Chris Hein Libraries bought from the Chris Hein/ Wizard store be resold?

https://www.chris-hein-shop.com/


----------



## Jean Phi

Synesthesia said:


> Also we would be giving product tech support to people who had not generated any income for the company, which eventually adds up to a further loss in some way.



The new owner of a second hand licence will not cost extra time/cost for tech support since he will replace former owner that originally bought and deserved lifetime support. Since he will no longer use it, it is still for you about dealing with life time support for one person. Buying a second hand licence is also buying tech support service in addition of permission to use samples for commercial purposes . an exception : a 88 years old sells to a 20 years old : you loose money over the lifetime support ! In that case , check seller and buyer age and charge proportional product support extension based on average lifetime.. Could be simple.
On the other hand : 20 years old who sells to 80 years old : you save money over lifetime support !
And if you automate procedure on an user friendly web site, costs to deal with transfer are reduced.
And one more thing : maybe the seller wants to get rid of an old product to buy your new products  there is an income for you there...and everybody is happy : Amateurs and beginners can have can have fun with nice old pro toys , and pros can have fun with latest pro toys !


----------



## 667

Sibelius19 said:


> Just to be clear, if you die, Spitfire will allow your spouse or another member of the family to use your licenses.


Hey is this verified somewhere because that has actually stopped me from purchasing things sometimes. When I was 20 it was not even on my radar. But now every purchase is questioned in the sense of-- is this $200 I can afford to burn forever if I'm hit by a bus tomorrow? If it could go to my estate on the other hand that would be awesome.

I guess this is something software companies will have to seriously start dealing with in a few years. I mean aren't they going to get suspicious when my great grand children are updating that same Cubase license for 100 years..?


----------



## Jaap

Saw this topic coming up on a FB group post and wanted to share that with Triple Spiral Audio (as stated in the FAQ) I allow reselling for both the Kontakt libraries as with the soundsets.


----------



## Crowe

Is there any interest in doing a list with products/companies that do demo's (as in software, video doesn't count) or cheaper versions of their software for testing?

I'm not one for reselling an sich myself, but I do now limit my software purchases to things I can actively test.


----------



## Crowe

Does anyone know what Audio Modeling's terms are?

Also, "Aaron Venture" does not allow resale :(


----------



## Andrea

Shiirai said:


> Does anyone know what Audio Modeling's terms are?
> 
> Also, "Aaron Venture" does not allow resale :(


Hi,
we haven't a public SWAM demo to download but we can provide evaluation licences to interested users.
Evaluation demo requests should be issued to [email protected]


----------



## brynolf

Just found out there is no transferring of licences allowed on Music Lab products. So no reselling of RealGuitar and the like.


----------



## VeePo

I wanna give a HUGE shout-out to Embertone for allowing and facilitating license transfers. I've acquired two of their licenses lately and the process has been simple and seamless. (Thanks, Lizzie!) So now I've got a Joshua Bell and a Walker D and I love them both. (Whereas a few of my other libraries are gathering dust, wasting away, being used by no one, because they don't work for me and I can't transfer them to someone else. I know, I know ... it's complicated. Just sayin' )


----------



## AndreBoulard

just commenting for future references


----------



## premjj

I couldn't see Kirk Hunter on the main list. 

This is what is says on the website about license transfer:

_"... Unlike your musical gear, music CDs, or even software, you cannot give away or sell this software to someone else without prior clearance from us. Remember, you did not purchase the library. You purchased a license to use our sound recordings in your music. This license cannot be transferred by you. "_
Does this mean they allow resale? If yes, then what is the transfer fee involved?


----------



## samy

Quick question, a friend of mine got an Orchestral Tools library in a sale for a project that never really happened. He actually never used the libraries and it is not even activated in Kontakt (so the serial can still be registered for the first time). He is based in the EU and I wanted to ask if he is allowed to sell the library to someone else? I read lots of different answers from that Orchestral Tools does not allow that, to that it is no problem to re-sell software within the EU. Would love to hear your opinions on that.


----------



## easyrider

Plugin Alliance needs to go in the list



https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/transfer-license.html


----------



## premjj

Does Soundtoys allow license transfer?

Edit: Also wondering if this thread is still being updated.


----------



## Akcel

You can add* MusicalSampling* in the list of *no-accepted resale*. 

source : https://www.musicalsampling.com/licensing/


----------



## Technostica

premjj said:


> Does Soundtoys allow license transfer?


Yes but there’s a fee as they use iLok.


----------



## creativeforge

Carles said:


> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Collected so far (sorted alphabetically):
> 
> *Reselling friendly
> - *Addictive drums (free, easy)
> - Ample Sound
> - Arturia (seems to be free)
> - AudioEase (?)
> - Best Service (one time reselling, €25 fee, BS own products only)
> - Camel Audio (slight fee)
> - Chocolate Audio (read their FAQ)
> - Chris Hein - seller pays €25 fee (sources: VI Thread, VI Classified, Best Service)
> - Embertone (Name/address/phone/email needed)
> - FXpansion ($50 fee)
> - iZotope (free)
> - Libre Wave - (source: Libre Wave https://librewave.com/knowledge-base/do-you-allow-resale/ (knowledge base))
> - Native Instruments (possibly some exceptions)
> - Orange Tree Samples (free, easy - possible exception for KPlayer libraries?)
> - Output (conflicting reports, but seems yes)
> - Project Sam (one time reselling, €25 fee, easy)
> - Samplemodeling
> - SampleTekk
> - Soniccouture - Kontakt Player products only, €25 / $25 fee (source: Soniccouture support page)
> - Sonuscore - Allows The Orchestra resales, possibly other Kontakt Player products.
> - Steinberg (free, easy)
> - Toontracks (one time reselling, conditions may apply)
> - Triple Spiral Audio
> - U-He (free, easy)
> - VSL (requires a fee)
> - Xsample
> 
> *Case by case* (product specific or other factors)
> - Fluffy Audio - Not by default, but possible in a case by case basis (source: VI Thread)
> - FrozenPlain (possibly allows some case-by-case exception, source EULA)
> - Heavyocity* (usually not, but products partnered with Native Instruments are transferable via NI support)
> - Impact Soundworks (not by default, but possible in a case by case basis)
> - Soundiron
> - Spectrasonics (software instruments only, case-by-case basis, transfer fee in most cases)
> - Virtual Sound Stage 2 - Programmer said believes VSS2 is resellable but "don't quote me on that".
> - Wave Alchemy
> 
> *No friendly*
> - 8dio
> - ArtVista
> - Auddict
> - Audio Bro
> - Audio Imperia
> - Bela D Media (stated in EULA)
> - Big Fish Audio (source: EULA)
> - Cinematic Strings
> - Cinesamples
> - EastWest
> - Fable Sounds
> - Garritan
> - Ilya Efimov (source: EULA)
> - In Session Audio (source: EULA)
> - Light and Sound (source: EULA)
> - Loops de la Crème (source: EULA)
> - Musical Sampling
> - Orchestral Tools
> - Performance Samples (source: EULA)
> - Realitone (but has 30 day refund policy)
> - Red Room Audio (source: EULA, this thread itself)
> - Sample Logic (stated in EULA)
> - Sonokinetic
> - Spitfire Audio
> - Strezov Sampling (source: VIControl thread, EULA)
> - Vir2
> - Virharmonic
> - Wallander Instruments
> - Zero-G (stated in EULA)
> 
> 
> (list updated eventually)
> 
> Many are missing I know, so please, add more if you know about.
> 
> Cheers,
> Carles



How about Ivory I and II by Synthogy? I could not find information on this.

Thanks!


----------



## Mark Schmieder

That one's a can of worms. If you are EU, the answer is "maybe". Otherwise, I advise to not even contact them, as it's probably the strongest "no" of anything on the list.


----------



## Leo

creativeforge said:


> How about Ivory I and II by Synthogy? I could not find information on this.
> 
> Thanks!



In the EU, re-sale and transfer of a software license is allowed. A few things you should know:

1. Yes, iLok transfer requires our approval. PACE charges a $25 transfer fee per license.

2. Synthogy also charges a transfer fee. Ordinarily this fee is $50 for the license transfer, but in the case of an Ivory 1 license, the fee would be $25. If you wish to proceed with a sale/transfer, payment can be made via Paypal. Please provide a valid Paypal email address for an invoice.

3. Ivory 1 is more than 10 years old now. It is no longer supported on recent operating systems. However, an Ivory 1 license owner may upgrade to Ivory 2 at a significant discount ($129). They do not need the old media or sample set, but they do need a valid Ivory 1 serial number.


----------



## creativeforge

Leo said:


> In the EU, re-sale and transfer of a software license is allowed. A few things you should know:
> 
> 1. Yes, iLok transfer requires our approval. PACE charges a $25 transfer fee per license.
> 
> 2. Synthogy also charges a transfer fee. Ordinarily this fee is $50 for the license transfer, but in the case of an Ivory 1 license, the fee would be $25. If you wish to proceed with a sale/transfer, payment can be made via Paypal. Please provide a valid Paypal email address for an invoice.
> 
> 3. Ivory 1 is more than 10 years old now. It is no longer supported on recent operating systems. However, an Ivory 1 license owner may upgrade to Ivory 2 at a significant discount ($129). They do not need the old media or sample set, but they do need a valid Ivory 1 serial number.



Hi Leo, sorry for the delay in replying... 

Here is the reply from Synthogy to my inquiry:

-------

_Dear Andre,

As with many software products, the Ivory software may not be sold or transferred to another user. The Synthogy End-User License Agreement that you accepted when you installed and registered the product does not permit resale or transfer of ownership, and the right to use the software is granted solely to the original owner, specifically and exclusively (see Section 2 of the Ivory EULA, included below).

Regards,

Synthogy Support_

-------

*So, Ivory can never be resold, ever, transferred, ever. Another huge bummer in my day.*

Hope this helps,

Andre


----------



## AkashicBird

Is it truly impossible to resell Strezov's plugin? Can't you just sell your Strezov account pass and log?


----------



## Technostica

AkashicBird said:


> Is it truly impossible to resell Strezov's plugin? Can't you just sell your Strezov account pass and log?


In theory you could do that with most libraries, but if it's against the terms of the license it's clearly not allowed or supported. 
There is also the issue that some licences use Native Access, so wouldn't you also have to 'sell' your Native Instruments account alongside it?


----------



## AkashicBird

Technostica said:


> In theory you could do that with most libraries, but if it's against the terms of the license it's clearly not allowed or supported.
> There is also the issue that some licences use Native Access, so wouldn't you also have to 'sell' your Native Instruments account alongside it?


Indeed 😅


----------



## SteveC

I think Toontrack stuff is no longer NFR after reselling.


----------



## propianist

UVI should go on the friendly list.
Easy transfer via iLok license - just need to pay iLok's annoying $25 USD iLok license transfer fee.

Within about 24 hours of request, the product then shows up in your UVI account to download, with all the newest updates, instruction pdfs, etc, exactly the same as if it was full retail product.


----------



## Ciochi

What about Kirk Hunter?


----------



## vinnie2k

I just got confirmation from Rigid Audio that you can transfer their licences.

PS Got an answer in 2 minutes on a Sunday. WOW.


----------



## thereus

Does anyone know where Soundiron stand?


----------



## Marcus Millfield

thereus said:


> Does anyone know where Soundiron stand?


From their help page:

LICENSE TRANSFER AND RESALE POLICY​We can arrange for license transfers between users on a case-by-case basis. This process includes a re-licensing fee and requires both the original owner and recipient to contact us directly for verification and authorization prior to exchanging the license. Users may not transfer data directly. We will handle delivery of a new license via download through our system upon approval of transfer. Soundiron reserves the right to deny license transfer requests for any reason, at its own discretion.


----------



## philh27

I logged on intending to pose a question regarding sample library licences and whether there were any resale options. Surprisingly, reading this thread, there are more than I thought, though sadly it seems, not Spitfire nor Orchestral Tools.

I’m still fairly new to this aspect of music making and I’m enjoying the journey and learning all the time. However as a guitar player by trade it is frustrating that you can not properly try a sample library to check if it fits with what you want to do and if not, sell it on and try something else, in the same way that I can do with amps and especially effects pedals.

You can watch/ read/ listen to as many official walkthroughs and user demos as you like, but until you play it yourself, incorporated with your own gear you will never really know if it will work for you.

I’m confident buying a pedal, knowing that I can recoup at least a proportion of the cost if it doesn’t work out. Sadly not the case with many sample libraries and it therefore represents a significant financial risk to invest in certain products. I certainly have a couple which are fine libraries, but not really for me. They sit on my hard drive doing very little.

I appreciate the developers have to protect their interests, but it could be that they'd actually sell more product if it were easier to sell on libraries, as prospective buyers- certainly me- would be more comfortable taking the plunge knowing there was a safety net if it didn’t work out.

I do see that many developers do seem to make it easy to sell on/ transfer licences and bravo to them. How about everyone else?


----------



## Tralen

To add to the list:

- Audio Modeling -> Yes (FAQ)
- Aaron Venture -> No (EULA)


----------



## Petter Rong

There's obviously a lot that goes on behind the scenes that neither I nor most other customers fully understand or have insight in (royalties, future-proofing business plans, piracy, safety etc.). It's understandable that developers have no way to check if non-player Kontakt libraries are still being used by the 1st owner after transfer. It's also understandable if every Stings and Lady Gagas of this world just buy second hand licenses of eachother that the whole product becomes worthless to the developer at some point. But that begs the question: if this couldn't be achieved without going bankrupt, why are there developers that are doing it? If it was all about loosing money, you would expect that big players like Spectrasonics or Spitfire would be the only ones that can afford it. While in fact, it's the opposite.

Specifically in response to Eric's old answer: It's not like every sample loop you make have the potential of being used on the next *insert popular artist here* single. Treating a sample as a traditional recording session make very little sense. Sure, if for whatever reason you became the only drummer and producer that could deliver drum tracks to people, then maybe. But that's not something you should base your business on. So comparing those scenarios seems a little odd to me. Certainly seems like most don't think of it like this.

Doing audio and video demos, no matter how dry and naked, can only tell you so much about a library. As composers, musicians, engineers etc. it all has to do about how the tools we use fit us, and that really can't be determined before you have it in front of you, in your system, in your workflow, through your signal chain, under your fingertips. Again, you would expect that the big players would be at the forefront on this, handing out trials or tasters etc., and again, it's the opposite. Although there were more sides to that debate that are unrelated to this, the HZ Strings controversy wouldn't have blown up like it did if Spitfire made sure that the customer got what they we're expecting, or more precisely: expected what they got.

When communicating with big developers, that says that they offer great support and in videos present themselves as understanding and caring personal friends of customers, it can end up feeling as slow and difficult as emailing your local tax office. While contacting the small developer that probably barely can afford their own e-mail system can feel as cosy as messaging a tech-saavy version of your grandmother. Why is that, and how does that hold up to the argument that resell hurts the business when they offer lifetime support (especially since they neither loose nor gain anything by offering support to a new owner, unless the original owner had one foot in the grave)?

One of the arguments mentioned is the time and money costs for managing transfers. Is this was such a huge deal that they give it out to be, no one would do it. For any license situation. Yet, we see it everywhere, and not only in the music and audio market. What is the reason for this? The most obvious guess: the developers haven't made a proper system that does this efficiently enough, and probably won't until they actually consider doing resales. So if this is the case, the argument is kind of pointless. There might be something about the license for audio specifically that could make this a manually labor intensive process, but again, considering that developers with far smaller teams and staff make it work, I very much doubt that.

Also marketing and sales. Criticizing Spitfire's marketing is almost a trend at this point, but IMO it's not unjustified. Why is it that the developer that offer no try-outs, no resales, dressed-up radio ready audio demos (although great video demos, to be fair) and relatively high prices, are the same that does heavy marketing with lots of over-hype, time limited products and a very Waves-ish pressure to remind you that NOW is the best time to buy (where "buy" is replaced with "investing", "taking part of something big" or "join this new journey"), before the honest reviews and reports on lots of bugs that don't get repaired for years (if ever) comes out?

The best argument I've seen is the fact that resale policy can be exploited. Dealing with lots of fraudulent support tickets, while trying to filter out the valid ones, is something I don't have the first clue about how works with sample libraries (or how frequent it is). I hate to repeat myself, but again, developers out there still have a resale policy, and some don't. What are some of them doing to survive exploits, and what stops the others?

I'm not afraid to be proven wrong to the point of humiliation, but I think I'm presenting some real questions in this post that people have, and that haven't become more understandable over the years that this thread has lasted. I'm aware this thread is old and probably ready for the grave, but is anyone willing to shed a light on why there is a disconnect between the larger developers explanations of "behind the scenes", and the reality of what we're seeing in the broader sample library market?

(I'm not attacking any developers. I love what they develop and own products from many of them, and despite my issues with some of them that I share here, will probably keep buying)


----------



## veranad

Petter Rong said:


> I'm aware this thread is old and probably ready for the grave, but is anyone willing to shed a light on why there is a disconnect between the larger developers explanations of "behind the scenes", and the reality of what we're seeing in the broader sample library market?


This thread is definitely not "ready for the grave". I do care a lot when I make a purchase about this matter. I am not an impulse buyer: I only buy what I can resell, even if I do not end up reselling the vast majoritu of what I buy. Exception: if something is so cheap that I do not care (for example, I bought Anthology from 8DIO for 40EUR or something like that).

I do this because I think it is really unfair that most developers do not allow resale, and I am not interested in supporting their business model (and there are lots of developers to choose from anyway).

As to why the "disconnect" that you mention: the reason is that we customers allow them to get away with it, which IMO we shouldn´t. And the amount of digital goods that we buy and use is only going to increase, so I think we should care.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Petter Rong

veranad said:


> This thread is definitely not "ready for the grave".


I based that comment on the fact that it has mostly gone months or years between posts, with some of them saying that a new and updated thread should be started (maybe there is one, I have no idea), and the information available here seems rather sparse, making me think that this thread has one foot in the grave already, and we're only doing light CPR at the moment



veranad said:


> I do this because I think it is really unfair that most developers do not allow resale, and I am not interested in supporting their business model (and there are lots of developers to choose from anyway).


As you have every right to do. But to me, choosing sample libraries are very different than choosing your milk or your bread. Or what supermarket you go to. I've never owned a sample library where I've thought "already have that". Sure, all the string libraries have legatos and pizzicatos and whatnot, but none of them sound the same. If they did, they would probably be DOA. If you gave me two glasses of milk I've been drinking forever, I couldn't guarantee I could tell the difference. Not even if I could point out if one was better than the other. Put up a blind test with CSS vs SSS vs CineStrings vs Century Strings, I bet I could describe and name them after a few notes

I would really like developers to put in a better effort to make resale easy, or at least possible, but it's not what I base my purchases on.



veranad said:


> As to why the "disconnect" that you mention: the reason is that we customers allow them to get away with it, which IMO we shouldn´t. And the amount of digital goods that we buy and use is only going to increase, so I think we should care.


I was hoping for a more specific answer to the points I brought up. It seems a bit too easy to me to just discard everything they say and maybe even boycott them. I don't think that's in my best interest, nor fair to any developer


----------



## Tralen

Is @Carles still active here to update the thread?


----------



## Gruust

I just recently read that Omnisphere can only be sold by the original buyer.


----------



## dunamisstudio

I know some care about the ability to resell. But any time I see it requires something north of 10-15 bucks I don't think it's worth it. Cause most are going to want you to sell it much cheaper than companies on sale price and with large fees practically eats up your profit.


----------



## MusiquedeReve

I wanted to subscribe to EW Composer Cloud but I recently purchased HOOPUS - I contacted EW about some sort of discount or the ability to return or sell HOOPUS upon my paying for a 1-year subscription to CC but that request went nowhere


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma

If a Best Service product is purchased through an official third-party merchant like Time+Space or Audio Plugin Deals can it still be resold? I wouldn't expect buying from Audio Plugin Deals to count as "second-hand"....


----------



## jesussaddle

X-Bassist said:


> Not sure I agree. If you add up all the plugins and instruments I have, it would add up to 100’s of companies I’m paying each month. Now let’s say I could get that down to my favorite 30 companies, say averaging $20/month, that’s $7200 a year. Not terrible, but every year, as long as I want my sessions to work.
> 
> Right now I own them all for as long as I want, no extra money involved. Maybe I’ve spent that much in the last couple of years (or a little more). But I’m done. I’ve got enough to write for years.
> 
> Now for those starting out who want to test the waters, and are unwilling to wait for sales (or have a big gig lined up) perfectly understandable that a monthly fee would work. I just can’t see doing it across so many companies for years and years. East West, Spitfire, Project Sam, Cinesamples, Performance samples, Fluffy Audio,.... Did we mention plugins? Slate, Fab Filter, Sound Toys, Waves, Kush Audio, .... It would force you to stick to less companies or pay outragous montly fees. Yet I find many companies who are great at one thing (or one area) and not great at others (or they don’t offer every product needed).
> 
> I’d hate to see my monthly bill. More than all my other expenses combined... and I live in Los Angeles!


If I was paying the typical subscription fees for just 6 companies I would not have been able to purchase well over 9/10ths of what I've placed in my arsenal. I feel like a car mechanics shop, with tools that usually are tucked away. One day a customer comes in and I can barely remember if I have the specific part or solution for that car. But If I was tied to those 6 brands then that customer would also be tied to only certain mechanics - who might also be constrained in their skills and experience. Subscription models are forcing round pegs to re-design themselves into squarer and squarer holes.


----------



## Marcus Millfield

This is interesting for people wanting to sell Strezov Sampling licenses:

Post in thread 'Strezov Sampling - Balkan Ethnic Orchestra' https://vi-control.net/community/th...g-balkan-ethnic-orchestra.128568/post-5160339

Not confirmed by Strezov Sampling btw, but still.


----------



## Guido Pannekoek

"Heavyocity* (usually not, but products partnered with Native Instruments are transferable via NI support)"

This is not right. I bought NOVO in 2017 via the NI website, more exactly the registration code for NOVO. When I asked NI if I can resell/trasnfer this license to somebody else they send me to Heaviocity and their they say: NO, you can not transfer this license. 

So here I'm sitting with software worth 500€, don't use it because to complex en not able to sell it at half the price to somebody who can use it. 

[email protected]


----------



## Petter Rong

Guido Pannekoek said:


> "Heavyocity* (usually not, but products partnered with Native Instruments are transferable via NI support)"
> 
> This is not right. I bought NOVO in 2017 via the NI website, more exactly the registration code for NOVO. When I asked NI if I can resell/trasnfer this license to somebody else they send me to Heaviocity and their they say: NO, you can not transf
> 
> So here I'm sitting with software worth 500€, don't use it because to complex en not able to sell it at half the price to somebody who can use it.
> 
> [email protected]


Their Komplete products, the ones that were made and sold through NI and not in a campaign partnershit are transferrable, which is what I assume the mentioned comment is referring to. Whenever NI is doing a campaign, it usually very clear that they are doing a spotlight campaign related to NKS-supported stuff and not a co-op partnership release of a product. On the NI website it says clearly, under the FAQ for non-transferrable licenses, that one of the non-transferrable licenses are: "
Your product is a third party product – transfers are handled by our partners​If you want to remove a third-party license from your NI account or transfer it to another user, you have to contact the manufacturer of the library directly. Most manufacturers make the deregistration themselves. If you are referred to Native Instruments, please obtain a written approval from the manufacturer (as pdf-document). We need this document to legitimize the release of the license of a third-party product."

(https://support.native-instruments....-Transfer-Why-Is-My-Product-Not-Transferable-)
And as you said, Heavyocity does not do license transfers for their products. I think even if you bought one of the originally NI/Heavyocity co-op releases from the Heavocity website, like Damage and Evolve, you would still not be able to transfer them as they are part of the Heavyocity no-transfer-license at that point. I think there's more at work than just cynical capitalism. Licensing isn't free, and comes with huge risks that unfortunately a lot of developers that don't have access or funds to licensing systems have experienced. Obviously any company is ultimately interested in making money, but I think we should refrain from speculating in intentions that we know nothing of. I know that's not what you said directly, but capitalism itself isn't the problem here. In fact, if not for capitalism, most developers wouldn't even exist.


----------



## Guido Pannekoek

Petter Rong said:


> Their Komplete products, the ones that were made and sold through NI and not in a campaign partnershit are transferrable, which is what I assume the mentioned comment is referring to. Whenever NI is doing a campaign, it usually very clear that they are doing a spotlight campaign related to NKS-supported stuff and not a co-op partnership release of a product. On the NI website it says clearly, under the FAQ for non-transferrable licenses, that one of the non-transferrable licenses are: "
> Your product is a third party product – transfers are handled by our partners​If you want to remove a third-party license from your NI account or transfer it to another user, you have to contact the manufacturer of the library directly. Most manufacturers make the deregistration themselves. If you are referred to Native Instruments, please obtain a written approval from the manufacturer (as pdf-document). We need this document to legitimize the release of the license of a third-party product."
> 
> (https://support.native-instruments....-Transfer-Why-Is-My-Product-Not-Transferable-)
> And as you said, Heavyocity does not do license transfers for their products. I think even if you bought one of the originally NI/Heavyocity co-op releases from the Heavocity website, like Damage and Evolve, you would still not be able to transfer them as they are part of the Heavyocity no-transfer-license at that point. I think there's more at work than just cynical capitalism. Licensing isn't free, and comes with huge risks that unfortunately a lot of developers that don't have access or funds to licensing systems have experienced. Obviously any company is ultimately interested in making money, but I think we should refrain from speculating in intentions that we know nothing of. I know that's not what you said directly, but capitalism itself isn't the problem here. In fact, if not for capitalism, most developers wouldn't even exist.


Whatever I buy, a bike, a PC, clothes, a toothbrush, a cd, socks, a car,... I can choose to resell it or give it away.

If some companies do a license transfer for free, others ask a fee and some don't allow a resell than the latter are greedy because their logica is that if somebody wants their product than he has to pay the full price or half price is a sale but we cannot permit somebody to has our product to resale /her/his/X license to someone else because in the case of NOVO that's 250€/500€ that we don't recieve. That's greed, plain and simple.

Imagine you cannot resell your car, give away your cd's, can not donate your clothes to an organization that's works with people in poverty because the makers don't allow you to do that. People would boycott this companies and makers immediatly. But for some people that make VST libraries this is not the case. People just swallow it and find it completely normal that a license can not be transferred/reselled. I call it [email protected] Or greed.


----------



## Petter Rong

Apples and oranges. I know what you're getting at, but physical items are a totally different from software licenses. You don't actually own any software at all, in contrast to physical items you bought. You have been licensed to use it. Files aren't generally hard to get hold of, and if they are, someone has done lot of investment to prevent you from getting them, or at least from using them in any meaningful way. And that investment is way larger than the measley 250/500 euros you lost because you were expecting something less complex (which you can hardly blame Heavyocity for, seeing that every part of the library is heavily covered in walkthroughs). And what a developer would loose would be way higher than that again. Not every developer can afford this step.

It's the legality of using the files that's at issue. You are allowed to sell your physical item because there are laws that govern every part of that, from the moment it's manifactured to it's final resting place in the landfill. And a lot of those laws are still being discussed to consider both the seller and buyer in every step. Laws that would set a hard rule for license transfers would most likely cripple the developer community, hence why they don't exist, IMO. When you buy anything, you agree to the terms. The terms for physical items can indeed have some restrictions as well, but the nature of licenses (which is not only limited to software) makes it a totally different kind of product that you can't compare. 

The only part I can sort of agree with you here, is that there has to be greed involved on the part of those that have invented a licensing system, and it costs crazy amounts for a developer to even consider using that solution. The only solution is that someone invents an affordable licensing system, but of course those that do or has done so would naturally just charge more because they can.


----------



## Guido Pannekoek

Petter Rong said:


> The only part I can sort of agree with you here, is that there has to be greed involved on the part of those that have invented a licensing system, and it costs crazy amounts for a developer to even consider using that solution. The only solution is that someone invents an affordable licensing system, but of course those that do or has done so would naturally just charge more because they can.


There are companies that do license transfers for free, others ask a fee. So in your logic they have another kind of licencing because it does not seem licensing costs them that much as the companies that do not allow license transfers. And that's the whole point you keep on missing.

But ok, it's me that is to stupid to understand why NI doesn't ask money for a license transfer, Soniccouture asks a 25€ fee and Heaviocity and others don't allow licensetransfers. It's all about the expensive licensing developpers have to pay...


----------



## Petter Rong

Guido Pannekoek said:


> There are companies that do license transfers for free, others ask a fee. So in your logic they have another kind of licencing because it does not seem licensing costs them that much as the companies that do not allow license transfers. And that's the whole point you keep on missing.
> 
> But ok, it's me that is to stupid to understand why NI doesn't ask money for a license transfer, Soniccouture asks a 25€ fee and Heaviocity and others don't allow licensetransfers. It's all about the expensive licensing developpers have to pay...


I get the point that there seem to be inconsistencies in how some developers can afford while others can't. I pointed out the same confusion in an earlier comment. Some of them can afford automatic systems, some of them can't. Some of them actually doesn't care, or say that they "trust" their customers (which basically means they can afford the potential losses). NI have been doing the licensing stuff in-house for ages, so for everything they do themselves, they can afford at this point to have it all free. Keep in mind they are one of, if not the, largest plugin and sample library developer in the world at the moment (especially after partnership with iZotope and Plugin Alliance). Not only that, but everything that will be registered in Kontakt with serials, goes through NI licensing, and it's not free. It's the reason why most Kontakt instrument developers simply don't have license transfers at all, as they have absolutely no security other than your word on compliance with the EULA and some form of watermarked files to ensure you're not distributing the files, which anyone that owns full Kontakt can use without any licensing, keys, serials or anything, without ever being caught. Even those that can afford NI licensing for the most part, will have smaller libraries that are not NI registered because the price of admission is ultimately not worth it. Soniccouture probably deals with this manually, which means a person has to look at the ticket and manually do the transfer, hence the fee. iLok also sells their service, which means fees all around. There are a lot of in-house low-key licensing systems, that are easily cracked. Some even the big players used in the beginning, but have since moved to iLok or similar. Those that have licensing, but not license transfers, I'm not entirely sure about the details of the arrangements with NI, but I would guess that it doesn't go through the normal NI automatic proceedings, and that they don't see the long term benefit of setting up such a system.

After considering a bit more on your comments, for those big players, like Heavyocity or Spitfire, I would have to partially agree that, especially after having been so long in the game, they should have invested in some kind of process, fee or not, to allow transfer. And by not doing that, they are showing that they don't want people to be able to resell their libraries and that they might not bee worth the asking price or deliver according to the hype-marketing. And as much as I love Spectrasonics products, Eric Persings comments here were of high snobbery caliber IMO and reflects a seriously outdated view on software licenses.

I think we fundamentally agree here (other than the comparison of physical products and software licenses), just that we look at it from different angles.


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

DOes someone know a list of companies that allow me to sell the license if needed?


----------



## davidnaroth

You can add Naroth Audio on there as *Reselling friendly (Free) *


----------



## dunamisstudio

Emanuel Fróes said:


> DOes someone know a list of companies that allow me to sell the license if needed?


Check the first post.


----------



## Orpheus Glory

As a somewhat new member to the VI community, I have noticed something interesting: the prices on used libraries are.... kinda bonkers. On the big/known libraries, it barely reaches the sale prices. Is it not ironic that we accuse the companies for greed, while also assuming we can get almost full sale-price back on their products, second hand? This is just an observation and not meant as critique. Digital products don't age or wear down over time like physical goods. But buying a huge library on a BF sale, then reselling at basically no losses a few years later? That is usually not how the world works.

With that being said, I agree more/all of companies should allow it, at least once.


----------



## Technostica

Orpheus Glory said:


> As a somewhat new member to the VI community, I have noticed something interesting: the prices on used libraries are.... kinda bonkers. On the big/known libraries, it barely reaches the sale prices. Is it not ironic that we accuse the companies for greed, while also assuming we can get almost full sale-price back on their products, second hand? This is just an observation and not meant as critique. Digital products don't age or wear down over time like physical goods. But buying a huge library on a BF sale, then reselling at basically no losses a few years later? That is usually not how the world works.
> 
> With that being said, I agree more/all of companies should allow it, at least once.


Many of these libraries are only half price for a couple of weeks per year, which is why the second hand price can be similar. 
If you can't afford to wait months for a sale, half price seems fine to me. 
I don't have an issue with this as a buyer.


----------



## muziksculp

Hi,

Question regarding selling a Steinberg e-licenser (Dongle) authorized product.

It instructs me to delete the e-licenser registration, which would mean that all licenses stored on the HW e-licenser dongle would be un-authorized. to be able to transfer the license that I want to sell to a private party. But what happens to all the other registered licenses I have on the e-Licenser dongle I deleted ? Do they get transferred to their new Cloud e-Licenser system, and my licenses still show up in my Steinberg account, but not attached to the dongle anymore ?

Any feedback to clarify this would be very helpful, and appreciated.

Thanks,
Muziksculp


----------



## Angus

Has anyone tried taking a licence transfer case to the Ombudsman (UK)? I assume it would be a pointless endeavour, but curious what their interpretation of consumer rights laws would be in the sample instrument niche.


----------



## daychase

Regarding bundles, is it common practice to only allow transfers for the entire bundle, or to allow transfers on individual libraries?


----------



## dyross

Anyone know if @AcousticsampleS allows license transfer?

I don't see any mention here: https://www.acousticsamples.net/terms_conditions

Is the default answer "yes" or "no" if not called out in EULA?

EDIT: I see some references to iLok, and some instances where this is on sale second hand. So that seems to answer!


----------



## asprog

dyross said:


> Anyone know if @AcousticsampleS allows license transfer?
> 
> I don't see any mention here: https://www.acousticsamples.net/terms_conditions
> 
> Is the default answer "yes" or "no" if not called out in EULA?
> 
> EDIT: I see some references to iLok, and some instances where this is on sale second hand. So that seems to answer!


Altought AS authorize iLok license transfers, they can't do any product transfers from an AcousticSamples account to another : that means that the buyer will have to rely on the seller to get the library files he needs


----------

