# Right to sell uses softwares ruling



## Elfen (Oct 7, 2009)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ftware.ars

I"m wondering if this will have impact on the samples and software developers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 7, 2009)

If so the impact hasn't been felt yet, and that was 17 months ago.


----------



## lux (Oct 7, 2009)

this is important. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 7, 2009)

Sampled instruments are never sold. The recordings of a sampled instrument will never change ownership so that the user can re-"sell" them. A user of a sampled instrument licenses the rights to use a recording that he does not own the copyrights to. Same as in the music library business. If you license some music from a music library you will never have ownership of the music.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 7, 2009)

I read the whole article and if the ruling stands, there will be no more music licensing. Composers can start to look for other work right away. Sound recordings are governed by the same copyright laws as compositions, and music in any form.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 7, 2009)

maybe, Hans. 

But part of the decision depended on the language in AutoCad's website referring to "sales" rather than purchasing licenses, and another part of the decision depended on the yard-sale guy not having been the original purchaser and never having installed the software in the first place.

These issues would not obtain in many software library or music library cases, provided that the wording on the web site and contract are tightened up.

Unsettling, no doubt, but this ruling sports some features that make it narrower than a case that would fatally undermine all licensing of intellectual property.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 7, 2009)

This is a low-level court ruling. If you have ever had any experience with the American court system you probably know how many unqualified rulings by low-level court judges are overturned by appeals court all the time. Also, the ruling was in regards to a second "owner" reselling the software without having installed and viewed the license. (Just like if you buy a stolen bike it is yours to sell if you didn't know it was stolen) - Which introduces a middle man to remove liability under copyright law. 

Elfen was wondering what impact this could have on the sample developing business. Well, if the ruling would stand up to scrutiny in a higher court it would have the impact that sample developers must move towards dongle protected soundware, which can not be multiplied by reselling. A dongle-protected software can be re-sold without the same multiplying effect as when someone installs a software and then passes it on for a fee. 

Another way for a sample developer to protect his business if the ruling stands up is to have downloadable products only. The law referred to in the ruling only applies to hard copies. 

Having said this, I think it would be worth reading the actual court opinion before drawing any conclusions about its impact.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 7, 2009)

All good points.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 7, 2009)

All good points.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 7, 2009)

Good point, Hans!

The story with a dongle is the same when you resell a synthesizer with included samples.


----------



## nikolas (Oct 7, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> Elfen was wondering what impact this could have on the sample developing business. Well, if the ruling would stand up to scrutiny in a higher court it would have the impact that sample developers must move towards dongle protected soundware, which can not be multiplied by reselling. A dongle-protected software can be re-sold without the same multiplying effect as when someone installs a software and then passes it on for a fee.


Yes Steinberg, EW, VSL and others are negative (or maybe VERY hesitant) to allow reselling. Same goes for Synthogy (which is dongle based now). 

Logic, dispite the move from most developers, has removed its iLock and NI allows reselling, even without a dongle. Same goes for Garritan.

It's a mixed case and the dongle, although logical, does not change much I'm afraid! :(


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 7, 2009)

What happens if a buyer, lets say from EW, is dying. Is the sun from him then allowed to use it? :-D


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 7, 2009)

nikolas @ Wed Oct 07 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Thu Oct 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Elfen was wondering what impact this could have on the sample developing business. Well, if the ruling would stand up to scrutiny in a higher court it would have the impact that sample developers must move towards dongle protected soundware, which can not be multiplied by reselling. A dongle-protected software can be re-sold without the same multiplying effect as when someone installs a software and then passes it on for a fee.
> ...


Logic is owned by Apple (if I am not mistaken) and is a selling argument for Mac computers. Since Apple removed Logic from the PC platform you are required to buy a Mac to be able to use it. A rather large expensive "dongle" you might say. For a sample developer it is important that the sold copies do not multiply after the sale. If resale can not be legally prohibited, dongle will do the trick. Only one person at a time can use a dongle-protected product.

All legalities aside, you might want to consider what religions and philosophers have been teaching for centuries. Treat others as you want to be treated yourself. If you want to make a living off intellectual property as a composer, respect those that are trying to make a living off intellectual property other than music. Or as John lennon put it: "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." 8)


----------



## nikolas (Oct 8, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> All legalities aside, you might want to consider what religions and philosophers have been teaching for centuries. Treat others as you want to be treated yourself. If you want to make a living off intellectual property as a composer, respect those that are trying to make a living off intellectual property other than music. Or as John lennon put it: "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." 8)


I don't care about philosophers and religions at all really, but regardless of that, I actually do abide with the teaching you mentioned!

I AM, actually, making a living as a composer and I respect the intellectual property of others! Where on earth did you get the idea that I don't? Considering a reselling option for sample developers is completely off to NOT respecting the ones that are trying to make a living of intelectual property, regardless of medium. I don't own any cracked software and I don't download mp3s (I do watch youtube though and other streaming software. Try to solve this riddle, since I have paid my tv license, which states that I AM allowed to watch TV online!)

And since we're at it, you might want to check on other threads of mine and the music that I share with everyone, along with scores, teachings, advice, etc. I would think that I'm one of the most open people in this and any other forum, so actually if I am so open, as to share my scores with everyone and my music and my recordings, I would like the same for others! 

Somehow I think you got the wrong idea on my previous post. All I said is that companies do use dongles, but still do not allow reselling and this is, obviously, not for copyright or copying or piracy reasons. I am not against dongles per se (although sometimes they do make life difficult). I own plenty of software (only 1 dongle though), and I don't mind the piracy protection. I have never considered selling any of my sample libraries and the only thing I wanted to do is to give away for free, to a friend, a piano library. Never used it really, so I thought "what the heck". I was not allowed to do that (legalities), and thus the guy doesn't use the piano, he won't buy it of course and I'm not using the piano either. "...The EULA states that..." was their response. Well done on being completely unfriendly and unsupportive!


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 8, 2009)

nikolas @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Thu Oct 08 said:
> 
> 
> > "...The EULA states that..." was their response. Well done on being completely unfriendly and unsupportive!


I wouldn't characterize it as "completely unfriendly and unsupportive" that you would be expected to hold up your part of an agreement. 

I am sorry if you felt singled out. That was absolutely not my intention. I just wanted to point out that composer or sample developer - we're all in the same boat. That's all.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 8, 2009)

0oD


----------



## nikolas (Oct 8, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> I am sorry if you felt singled out. That was absolutely not my intention. I just wanted to point out that composer or sample developer - we're all in the same boat. That's all.


Ok, sorry for my fast worded reply as well! The wording in your post seemed aimed at me (because of the quote), thus... :-/

On the unsuportive, etc... I judged it based not on the legality of this (either way it's obvious and clear in the EULA), but based on my experience with other developers and people I know in the sampling industry. Everyone pretty much states that they can't resell the libraries, but some do, indeed, allow it, if you ask them. That's all I was saying in my first post.

It's always worth questioning if one way or another is 'better' in terms of business. Some offer completely logical and user friendly support... They may offer free products, they offer reselling, upgrades "forever" and whatever else... Others offer completely insane prices, huge products, no reselling options, and far less friendly customer care. Yet the first remains tiny and the other is huge. Do these things play an important part? If the customers (like me) love so much the first company, why is it that it isn't any bigger? (In other words, maybe refusing reselling option is better for business...)


----------



## Stevie (Oct 20, 2009)

Okay, so being able to sell a product that I don't use anymore is a bad thing for sample developers?

Let's say a composer dies and the wife has to sell all his equipment due to lack of money and because she doesn't 
really feel like starting a composer career. Regarding the EULAs of certain developers this would be illegal. So this is the way it should be?


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 20, 2009)

Stevie @ Tue Oct 20 said:


> Okay, so being able to sell a product that I don't use anymore is a bad thing for sample developers?
> 
> Let's say a composer dies and the wife has to sell all his equipment due to lack of money and because she doesn't
> really feel like starting a composer career. Regarding the EULAs of certain developers this would be illegal. So this is the way it should be?


You are making a very strong argument for dongle protection. A dongle protected software would not need this limitation, because the license follows the dongle.


----------



## Stevie (Oct 20, 2009)

Oh wait, so the only concern is that the seller keeps a personal copy for himself? Hmm,
I don't think that's the issue with East West, since all new products are dongled. They still don't allow the selling of your own license.


----------



## nikolas (Oct 20, 2009)

dejavu... Sorry Hans, just taking your words and quote, to mention something (I've already done I think in this thread).


Hans Adamson @ Tue Oct 20 said:


> You are making a very strong argument for dongle protection. A dongle protected software would not need this limitation, because the license follows the dongle.


This is the problem. EULA still do not allow reselling, dispite the fact that they use dongles! EW, Steinberg, VSL and others do not premit reselling... 

As I've mentioned here or elsewhere, I doubt I'd sell anything. I would probably donate something if I didn't use it (I have done already once), but other than that... So it's not personal. But the idea that you can't "ctrl+x" a buy seems bizzare at some point, especially when we are talking several hunderd $ and not a hammer of 5$!

I wonder if it can be proven, from a marketing point of view that allowing resells will not hurt the company, but even add to the sales (if they, for example allow reselling and EULA transfer with a small transfer fee. And the customer feels secure they can use the library and then sell it, thus making the sale easier...). But I'm a composer, not a marketeer, so I wouldn't stand a chance to research on that.

Anyone else willing to research and "repair the universe" of sampling industry? ... heh...


----------

