Daryl
Senior Member
It's not just the software we're licencing, it's the recordings. Two different things. One is covered by re-sale law, the other isn't.Only up to us whether or not we accept the EULA and license the software.
It's not just the software we're licencing, it's the recordings. Two different things. One is covered by re-sale law, the other isn't.Only up to us whether or not we accept the EULA and license the software.
Yeah, I believe Spitfire do at least. Maybe others.the other thing I believe is an issue with libraries, is dont they pay royalties to players? does this not complicate matters in the same way audio recordings do?
Yes, and now if you want to sell that licence, you have to remove all the audio recordings, you've so far used from your music. Is that now OK?Right. Let’s just call it “the product”. We’re buying a license to use the product, i.e. sound recordings AND a way to utilize them.
Yeah, I believe Spitfire do at least. Maybe others.
Yes! I get that and I don't fight about the fact that it is the way it is currently. All I am saying is:And this is the problem. You think it is about music. It's not. It's about the Copyright contained within a recording, not the musical, or otherwise, content. Two different Copyrights.
Well, fellow Brit here!
The key difference here is - with the Behringer, and any other physical product - you have to return it to the shop before you get a refund. It's a clear relationship between consumer and company.
Large companies like NI, with copy protection systems, can afford to allow a license resale. If your license is transferred, Native Access will (I assume) stop foul play. A smaller developer by contrast, has no such way of knowing if you're still going to use the library. This at least muddies the waters?
There's also the "fit for purpose" argument to consider. A washing machine that doesn't wash clothes is not fit for purpose. But a sample library (as proven by hundreds of threads on the subject) is either "not fit for purpose", or the "best buy ever", depending on the ear of the beholder.
Sure, but in the UK the rules that govern tangible goods and digital downloads differ in some ways. At least last time I looked!Actually, 'fit for purpose' is not an actual requirement to return something. You can return something within x time, no matter what the reason is, if you are not satisfied with your purchase. It's consumer protection, at least it is in my country.
Sure, but in the UK the rules that govern tangible goods and digital downloads differ in some ways. At least last time I looked!
As for the issues regarding resale of licenses and copyright/royalties - I'm not informed enough to pass judgement and it seems like it's a moving target anyway.
But at the risk of making myself unpopular <takes deep breath> - I actually agree with the no-resale policies of sample library developers: Piracy, the need to pay musician royalties on sales, the cost of any DRM are all significant hurdles to overcome for any developer and a no-resale policy as an alternative seems reasonable to me.
I'll admit - the bigger the companies get and the more resources they have to manage this stuff - then the less valid this argument. But I think the extensive walkthroughs, demos, videos, manual downloads etc etc are enough to make an informed buying decision outside the requirement for a demo or option to resell. I don't feel short changed or tricked by the developers.
I get that many would disagree, that's cool. Some good points have been made to the contrary.
I'll get my coat...
A
It's about this point in these threads that someone says "it's a shame TrySound never developed properly". That was as good an answer to these dilemmas as I've found. (sorry if someone got there before me and I missed it).
if i understand correctly, try-sound is like a virtual pc session with the software in it?
But at the risk of making myself unpopular <takes deep breath> - I actually agree with the no-resale policies of sample library developers: Piracy, the need to pay musician royalties on sales, the cost of any DRM are all significant hurdles to overcome for any developer and a no-resale policy as an alternative seems reasonable to me.
2) The fact that sample libraries (sustains and short notes type of sample libraries) are legally treated like musical recordings seems to be a very fragile idea IMO ...