What's new

Ethic with NFR plugins, VST and sample libraries.

juliandoe

youtube.com/juliandoe
Hi everyone,
I have a YouTube channel and I usually do demos and video test of plugins, sample libraries and virtual instruments. Lately, I started to receive some NFR from some companies and I was wondering what's the right way to use the NFR?
Should it been seen as a gift, donation or compensation for the work done, so use it normally without any trouble?
Or it should be seen as something that is meant to be used only for the purpose of the demo/test and shouldn't be used in everyday works and sent back when the review is done?

what's your opinion about that?

Thanks for your time
Julian
 

ChromeCrescendo

Senior Member
From my understanding, NFR means Not For Resale and, as such, you can use it is as you wish in your production, the only limitation being you cannot resell the library
 
OP
juliandoe

juliandoe

youtube.com/juliandoe
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #3
Yes, I know. The "ethic" problem to me is that the developers send me the NFRs because of my YouTube channel and they clearly want a demo/test/review of their product.
Do you think it's correct to use the product behind the original scope of the license?
 

Living Fossil

Senior Member
Yes, I know. The "ethic" problem to me is that the developers send me the NFRs because of my YouTube channel and they clearly want a demo/test/review of their product.
Do you think it's correct to use the product behind the original scope of the license?

One reason behind giving away NFRs is the hope to receive positive reviews.
(So basically it's a kind of "soft bribe")
The only two problems in my opinion are 1)where a reviewer praises a piece of software that is clearly faulty.
The other one is where somebody who receives NFRs praises them in a forum without putting the scenario in context.
("this compressor plugin is so great, it replaced all my UAD compressors" – in case somebody received the praised plugin as a gift/NRF for review etc. – this statement would be problematic in my opinion)

However, since lots of reviewers aren't exactly what i would call competent, it's quite easy from a user's perspective: just focus on reviewers you know are really competent in their area. Usually they will do frank & honest reviews.
Also, if somebody praises a plugin an then adds that he has received free stuff from that company, you can be quite sure he's honest. That's why he doesn't hide that piece of information.
 
OP
juliandoe

juliandoe

youtube.com/juliandoe
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #7
Also, if somebody praises a plugin an then adds that he has received free stuff from that company, you can be quite sure he's honest. That's why he doesn't hide that piece of information.
on YouTube there's the "included paid promotion" function that let the viewers know that info. Is up to the content creator and his ethic to disclose it
 

wst3

Lunatic - it's really that simple
Moderator
Different developers have different rules - when in doubt ask. I have a couple NFR licenses which I can not use in commercial work, the rest are unfettered. In truth, if I had a commercial project in which I used an NFR license I'd pay for the license anyway, just a good idea.

I don't think demos or reviews count as commercial applications, but your mileage may vary. When in doubt, ask. (did I already say that?)
 

bill5

Senior Member
Yes, I know. The "ethic" problem to me is that the developers send me the NFRs because of my YouTube channel and they clearly want a demo/test/review of their product.
Do you think it's correct to use the product behind the original scope of the license?
? Why wouldn't you? It's ridiculous to give someone a gift and then dictate how they use it. If they didn't want you to, they'd say so, but even then IMO it's debatable whether or not it's "unethical" to use it how you want. As stated earlier, obviously it's a bribe of sorts, and this is no doubt why most online reviews (please understand I'm not including you, general observation) are entirely positive and glowing and companies know that, hence the gift...and why most reviews should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
 

bill5

Senior Member
Also, if somebody praises a plugin an then adds that he has received free stuff from that company, you can be quite sure he's honest. That's why he doesn't hide that piece of information.
It's a better bet, but not a given. Just because he was up front about that doesn't guarantee an objective review.
 

Living Fossil

Senior Member
It's a better bet, but not a given. Just because he was up front about that doesn't guarantee an objective review.
You are right. I was thinking of some persons i know, whom i trust when they are praising software they received as NFRs, and this experience made me write my statement.
This includes the fact that i tend to ignore obvious shills.
...so, my above statement has to be taken with the necessary grain of salt. ;)
 

bill5

Senior Member
In fairness, some shills are better about not being obvious :) Just in my experience most of them say mostly the same thing and it's all how wonderful the product is.
 
OP
juliandoe

juliandoe

youtube.com/juliandoe
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #14
It's ridiculous to give someone a gift and then dictate how they use it.
I agree with you but I don't consider an NFR a gift. It's something that I've received for a specific purpose. Imagine giving a gift to someone and say: "ah btw you have to make a review about it!"...
 

bill5

Senior Member
I agree with you but I don't consider an NFR a gift. It's something that I've received for a specific purpose.
If the giver didn't clearly say so, then we're back to the not-so-subtle bribe thing. No, sorry, if you give me something and don't specifically say "I'm just giving you this because..." I'll do with it what I want. Don't like it? Then don't give it to me. Don't pretend to be gracious when really you're just being self-serving. Which is OK btw, as long as you're up front about it.

Imagine giving a gift to someone and say: "ah btw you have to make a review about it!"...
Kind of silly isn't it? Which is my point :) It's either a gift or it's not.
 
OP
juliandoe

juliandoe

youtube.com/juliandoe
Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #16
This is why my issue is more ethical and not pragmatical. When you receive a plugin with NFR it comes with a mail that says "I really like your work... blablabla... can you review this product?"
Do they say "do not use it in any other way than that the review"? No, why would they? These are the more friendly and flattering emails you will ever receive.
But I see a tight connection between NFR and review.
So from my point of view, it's pragmatically possible to use the NFR as you like but is it ethically correct?

I'm also concern about reliability, recallability, upgrades and compatibility.
 

bill5

Senior Member
This is why my issue is more ethical and not pragmatical. When you receive a plugin with NFR it comes with a mail that says "I really like your work... blablabla... can you review this product?"
Do they say "do not use it in any other way than that the review"? No, why would they?
? Why WOULDN'T they, if that is their intent? Which I frankly doubt. To each their own; I know if I liked it I'd use it.
 

Polkasound

Senior Member
So from my point of view, it's pragmatically possible to use the NFR as you like but is it ethically correct?
It's fine. Unless the developer stipulates an exception, there are generally just two ethical guidelines to follow when you receive an NFR copy of a library:

1. You can neither sell nor freely give the license to anyone else.
2. If you receive the library to review but you fail to review it, you forfeit your privilege to use it and therefore you're obligated to delete it.
 
Top Bottom