Discussion in 'SAMPLE Talk' started by Carles, Oct 28, 2012.
Orange Tree Samples doesn't allow reselling of Kontakt Player libraries:
Spectrasonics was easy for me to deal with when I sold Omnishphere last year. I was grateful.
I see "Best Service (one time reselling, €40 fee)"
That's quite the fee...and I'm not sure that applies to a lot of BS stuff, for instance the Tone2 synths, which are something like 20 US for transfer (and the BS site is where you can both buy and resell Tone2 synths...but maybe that's simply a "Tone2 thing").
I'd need confirmation from members here, but I read that you can resell your Chris Hein stuff, but if that fee applies I can't imagine anyone getting rid of it easily (not to mention the fact that it's a freeking excellent instrument imo).
The current transfer fee for most (if not all) Best Service libraries is €25. This applies to products released by BS (including Chris Hein's libraries), but not those simply sold by BS. Hope that helps.
Strezov does not allow re-sale!
Xsamples does - "Xsample Kontakt Edition and Xsample Player Edition You purchase a personal license to produce music with the Xsample product. This license is valid once you have completed the purchase by PayPal. A transfer of the license is possible if you pass the corresponding PayPal transaction number to the new owner. The process of re-registration at Xsample is free of charge."
Drum Direktor Cinematik?
I was under the impression that Camel Audio was bought by Apple a couple of years ago.
Is Musical Sampling allowing resale?
edit: they don't
The fact that some are so willing to allow reselling for free, and some are not at all willing, makes me want to call BS on any justification for not allowing it. Why such a disparity between companies? Orange Tree seems to be a much smaller company when compared to Spitfire. Yet OT no problem, and free. SF, no go. The way I see it is this, those companies who don't allow it simply want to make sure they always get some money out of each unique user. Smart in some way I suppose, though kind of....
You cannot really compare physical hardware to digital media. Hardware cannot be so easily duplicated, and therefore you could make an even stronger case for not reselling physical hardware -- yet physical hardware is yours to sell and do with it what you will. The manufacturer still owns the patents on the hardware. Why are they not demanding a cut in your reselling fee?
I could see it as more justified if these companies had good demo versions available, but many do not. There's only so much you can learn from watching Vids and hearing demos. The Devs can work around the faults and shortcomings, and why would they to showcase the faults anyway, right? And I'm sure they may even do this without thinking about it. There are a few libraries which I bought thinking I would use them a lot. Nope. I was wrong. Not that they were bad libraries. Over time I just discovered that I just didn't need them like I thought I would. So everyone is talking about the protection of the companies, but what about the protection of the buyer? Are they going to be stubborn and force a buyer to keep a license they won't use, and keep them from transferring to a new user who will use it? Over the lifetime of the license it would still retain a single license holder. That's why I see it as stubbornness and a seeming amount of money grabbing. Why not allow it at least with a fee?
The other concern is regarding obsolete companies or products.
I bought Camel Space/Phat bundle when it was on sale a while ago, before Camel Audio was bought by Apple. Thought I had the serials saved somewhere. Well, somewhere between transferring all of my software from my old laptop to a new PC, I lost the one for Camel Phat. What did I do? Had to resort to piracy...well, sort of. I knew I bought a license before, so it didn't weigh on my conscience at all.
The ironic thing is that if a company made hardware synthesizer in the 80's let's say, and never made another one, that synthesizer may be worth thousands now. If I buy a software license, if that company goes under, the product may be unusable at some point in time, and thus be rendered worthless.
Honestly I just think there are stronger cases to be made for selling/transferring digital media over hardware. The digital media market is more volatile and unpredictable, and thus should have protections for not just the seller, but the buyer as well. For gosh sakes, just allow a transfer with a fee, at the very least.
The fact that a library has resale value often speaks for its quality.
A vintage Strat is worth its weight in gold because of a reason. The resale price just confirms it.
An interesting thing about Waves. Their policy is 5% of product retail price. Well, Waves Gold retail is $800. Its on sale for $200, and I got it for $175. So, to sell it, the transfer fee would be $40. I would actually like to get my money out of my Waves plugs, but I got them all on sale at a significant discount off retail, so the transfer price would be a significant percentage of the purchase price. Not a big deal, not a lot of money at stake here, but as I said, an interesting side effect of a product catalog where street price is 25% of retail.
While its possible to passionately debate the morals and merits of these things, I think the bottom line is that the purchaser has a contractual relationship with the vendor (there is no property right here outside of the contract) and is constrained by the terms of the contract. As a libertarian, I treasure the freedom that people have to voluntarily enter into business agreements, and if one doesn't like the terms of the contract, one need not sign it. Is the vendor's contract imprudent for them, against their larger interests? That's their problem.
PS. Just for the fun of it. At 8.5 pounds for an ash body strat, and gold at $1,293 an ounce, that would be $175,848 for the weight in gold of a strat.
I can't find any resale info on Production Voices. Anybody know?
That actually seems like a good deal with WAVES, at least you would get something out of it. This is especially good if you upgraded to a bundle and have a lot of duplicate plugins that are just superfluous and useless. I'm with you. I lean more libertarian as well. But I think that also means, shouldn't we have more freedom to sell off our license to another if it didn't pan out for us? Granted, all I'm saying is that at the very least shouldn't they all allow it for a fee (like Waves)? I'm not saying they are evil for not allowing it. I just don't understand it, and the only way I can get my head around it is the money aspect....which is why, just do it for a fee. You will make multiple parties happy, and everyone gets something out of it.
Separate names with a comma.