Sure. Like all companies that do sample-licensing, we have a single-user, unlimited lifetime license.

We have to clear each one, because we deal with enormous amounts of piracy, illegal activity, fraud and all kinds of fun stuff like that.


Then they can't transfer their license.


I don't think so. The license comes with a lot of rights and priviledges, so it's important that it's a legitimate transaction.


Sure!

Here's just a couple:

• A reviewer from a magazine trying to sell his review copy to make some extra money, after he agreed to send it back to us.

• A store salesman trying to sell an NFR copy

• Someone that is selling a license that belongs to their former employer

• An ex-wife selling her husband's instruments because she's angry at him

• A customer got a special free upgrade from us that they agreed not to resell and now they are trying to resell it.

etc, etc, etc

At least 50% of the transfers that come in are complicated situations like these (and much worse).


See above.


As I've said, it's way more involved than that. Feel free to disagree with me and run things how you like in your own business, but it's complicated for lots of different reasons.


I agree. And that's why we offer the same level of support and service - including sending out replacement discs for no charge. We treat them exactly the same.

With every license transfer we do, we have only received a small percentage for the license that we received from a new customer. However, the used customer basically gets the exact same product, privileges and level of service. In some cases, perhaps that user would have never bought it new, so that's fine. But in many cases, it's taking a sale away from one of our dealers.

That's why it's tricky to find the right balance. I don't think there's a perfect answer for everyone involved and for every situation. We do our best to make it work as best we can and to offer excellent service to all our customers.
Last edited by spectrum on Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

I think he just wasted $300. in support answering your dumbass questions...

I think this illustrates why it's not likely that you will understand my POV and we won't get too far in our discussion.

It would certainly be a wonderful thing if the 500 professional singers we recorded all over the world, the venues and pro studios we hired, the mountains of gear we bought, the Grammy-winning engineers, the hundreds of professional musicians and the army of the industry's best sound designers, editors and software developers who worked for thousands of hours for 6 years was all available to us for free....but it may surprise you that - believe it or not - there's indeed a little overhead involved to produce a product like this.

The discs and the box are beside the point, which is why it's no big deal for us to replace them. The value is all in the license, not the physical media.

I think I've said about as much as can in this thread about how and why we do what we do regarding our license transfers. Not everyone is going to agree with these policies, so there's not too much point in a debate about hypotheticals and stuff.

I do appreciate the feedback and the discussion...thanks!

Cheers,

spectrum

Eric,

You are truly more patient than myself. It is beyond me why many people think that the production of these kinds of products are somehow free for developers and therefore the end product should be next to free.

That is one of the main reasons people feel piracy is justified. They have no idea how much products like these cost the developer. In some cases, like yours, it can cost hundreds of thousands to possibly MILLIONS of dollars. The developer has to somehow recoup that cost and (ghast) possibly make a profit. Don't forget all the salaries that have to be paid to musicians, designers, engineers, support staff, etc, utilities to be paid and the physical product to be created, not to mention the marketing dollars necessary to let people know the product exists.

Yep, it's beyond me entirely. It bothers me to no end when people want this sound and that synth FREE FREE FREE!

Mike

I agree. It's probably quite frustrating to work so hard for so long on something, all to see people completely miss the point of what it takes to run a business like that of Spectrasonics. It's absolutely the most absurd thing in the world to think there is "no overhead" in software, nonetheless software with the complexity and logistics that Omnisphere likely has. Those who think the only costs are in disks and duplication are clearly out of touch with reality.

I think people just like finding every small "what if" situation to try and justify an argument, but ignoring all the other scenarios that make such policies essential.

Eric, you are very patient. I think no matter what you do, as you know, people will find a way to complain.

Brent

I don't think anyone is talking about piracy or expecting Omnisphere for free. The fact of the matter is most consumers want the same rights with software that they get with hardware, a CD, or a DVD:

1) The right to sell it to someone else if they no longer wish to own it.
2) The right to buy it used.
3) The right to do this without compensating the company.
4) To have the same rights and support/warranty that the original buyer had.

Some software companies claim this isn't possible, that software isn't like hardware, and that software can be pirated. However, none of these arguments hold water.

1) There are software companies who don't have software go NFR, do free (or very cheap) transfers, and give full support to licensees regardless of where they made their purchase.
2) DVDs and CDs can be pirated, yet these are bought and sold used quite freely.
3) Why should a software synth company prevent me from selling their synth, when Roland isn't allowed to prevent me from selling one of theirs?

Because it is in their legal right to do so.

If you don't like the policy of a company, don't buy their product. If you buy it, you automatically accept their policy and agree to abide by it.

It really is that simple.

Mike

The argument that "some companies don't do it that way" doesn't hold any water either. So what if there are companies out there that do things differently. Does every company have to have the same policies? And just because one company does allow something, does that mean that it's the best option? Are you making the assumption that because one company with a policy is successful, that others would be as well?

It's simple. Spectrasonics have their policies. They are very clear and well known. They aren't hiding them trying to lure people in. If you don't like them, you don't buy. Fortunately for them, they make some of the top quality products on the market, and plenty of people use their products every single day in the highest and lowest levels of production, all without feeling screwed over in any way. Believe it or not, there is a world outside of KVR who doesn't concern themselves with the tiny details of a resale policy.

As a matter of fact, outside of internet forums, when talking amongst other friends and professional colleagues, I can't remember the last time anyone even commented on a resale policy.

Brent

It's a different animal than hardware or consumer CDs/DVDs, for this reason primarily:

A sample-based instrument includes sound recordings that are licensed to a single user for use in their recordings.

This is a license to use the company's copyrighted sound recordings (samples) to create their own sound recordings (of music) and sell/distribute these new recordings with no extra license fees.

These types of licenses are universally single user agreements. This is why sample libraries are almost never transferrable to another user. Check around and you'll find that this is true.

Spectrasonics instruments are the rare exception that allows this on a case-by-case basis. There are other examples too, but its still a minority of the sample-based products out there.


With an Ownership based product (like hardware), this is a fundamental right.

With any licensed product, this is NOT a fundamental right.

(The difference between something you own, versus something you are granted permission to use)

A licensed product is not sold to the end user. The licensed user is granted permission to use the product under the terms of the license agreement.

If you don't agree with the terms of the agreement, the you of course have the right NOT to buy it/accept it. This is the fundamental right of the consumer.

We always give a full refund to a person who buys the product, but then doesn't accept the terms of the license.

But if you accept the terms of the agreement, then you don't automatically have the right to break or change the terms.

This is true of all licensed products and services.


Again, this is a desire, not a right.

It is a right with ownership-based products.


You do not have the right to use the creator's copyrights to create 'derivative works' without compensating the creator. These are not fundamental consumer rights with Intellectual Property.

What is the basis of this right you are claiming? I'm not aware of any law that supercedes the rights of the original creator.

The "rights" that we base our business on is the Sound Recording Copyright law, that allows the creator to own and control how their recording is used.


This is a desire, not a right. It's up to the individual creators to determine how they will grant the rights to the users. There is a wide range of approaches by different creators.

As I have said, I agree with creating a way for as much of this to be possible as possible, which is why we have a license transfer system setup. And one that tries to address the needs of all parties: Buyer, Seller, Creator, Artist, Dealer, etc.

Every used sale takes away from the musicians and artists that rely on the royalties that come from the sales of our instruments.

Every used sale is potentially a lost sale for one of our authorized dealers.

If you favor companies that put the interests of consumers over the original artists and musicians, then you should should support those companies. Maybe they don't pay royalties to their artists, so it's not an issue for them....maybe they don't have dealers, so they don't have to consider them either.

For us, we feel a more balanced approach is more fair to everyone involved in our business. Other companies have it setup differently or have different types of products that don't have the same concerns.


It's well established that all software and intellectual property based products are quite different than hardware products - they each have pros and cons.

Note that nearly 100% of software and intellectual property-based commercial products are based on a licensing model and not an ownership model. This includes millions of products now. As you pointed out, almost 100% of hardware products are based on an ownership model - so that's a major difference right there. ...and it's not hard to list dozens of other key differences between the two.


That's great. But it's clearly not something that every company can do. There are lots of different types of products and businesses.


Sure, but you are confusing consumer products and professional sample-based products, which offer totally different rights to the user.

CDs and DVDs are consumer products for entertainment purposes only, NOT products which allow you to create new products based on those products. (the legal term is "derivative works"). Apples and Oranges.

Try using some footage from the 'Lord of the Rings' DVD you "bought" in your next high-profile music video or sampling some nice hooks from a Beatles CD that you "bought" for your next hit song to find out how well that works for you.

Spectrasonics products (and thousands of products by other sample developers) include many copyrighted sound recordings (samples) that are licensed to single users to create as many "derivative musical works" as they wish over their lifetime - instead of having to license them one by one for each project.


Actually, Roland does have numerous single-user, non-transferrable sample-based products that are restricted for resale.

Even their hardware products have license agreements in them now. All their hardware stuff is resellable though....but not their software or sample libraries.

Eric, you are ever a voice of calm, reasoned argument on KvR (often in a gale of BS).

Still not found enough reasons to buy Omnisphere yet though

Firstly I think poor Eric is getting a way hard time here!

My thoughts on this as a consumer

I think a one time transfer is fine, i.e. it's becomes NFR after one resale, but the second customer should get exactly the same support as the first, that way the second hand buyer knows what he is getting and isn't paying full price anyway.

The Stylus RMX 'Time Designer' Update was not fair in that I had to accept NFR to install that update, even though it was a needed feature that many had asked for.

This bit I don't understand on any license -

Say for example you have bought Trilian and you and a mate decide to collaborate on a tune on the PC that Trilian is installed on, so you fire up Trilian and browse the patches, then you both agree on one, your mate then goes 'give me the mouse a minute' and tweaks a setting on Trilian or plays/records a bassline using Trilian, has this violated the agreement, if so this is daft, he was using it on my pc(please note* Example only, hasn't happened)

I also understand why C/R & Dongles exist but it does not stop the crackers or crack users, I think that all GUI's should just display the license payers name on it - that's all I think copy protect should be, and maybe the license payers name embeded somewhere else and let them install on all their laptops/pc's they own without restrictions(even though they may be able to illegally share software with friends), but if their name is on the GUI someone would think twice about sharing as it may get distributed and they will become liable. I think it's better to trust your paying customers than to treat them as potential fraudsters...the only problem with the name on gui is if your laptop for example got stolen...but this maybe could get reported to the company involved....

I sometimes have to work away and take my laptop with me(not my studio pc), I hate having to take my Cubase Dongle(but I do, I worry about loosing or breaking it though) but only install certain software when I do that doesn't have all the C/R & Dongles as it's all a pain in the butt, I just want to install and use my software...

Most of your problems with loss of revenue are with Crack users, the Crackers and file sharers, not your customers!

BTW I like Trilian, alot better than Trilogy

It's not so bad:

From Spectrasonics' FAQ:

Does this mean that I can't use Omnisphere when working on someone else's project?
This type of use is very standard and not a problem at all. The "single user" is defined as the person who is licensed to use the software instrument. This means that the licensed user can use it on an unlimited number of musical projects they are involved in. This can be a person's own project, a project where they are acting as a producer or engineer for another artist, as a session musician performing on someone else's project live or in the studio, etc. The main point of our license agreement is the concept of a single licensed user. If a licensed Omnisphere user is not musically involved in a project, that is where there is a restriction - hence the inability to simply rent the instrument or rent "time" to use the instrument as part of a studio's services. Most of our customers use their Spectrasonics instruments on many different kinds of musical projects for different artists and collaborations.



Better this way......you could find a burnt piano in your bed next time you wake up.

Nice strawman argument...

Obviously when I said "produce" I meant the actual act of producing the discs and packaging, and getting the product itself to the customer.

I am obviously aware that Omnisphere didn't fall out of thin air into Eric's lap, and that a huge amount of work went into creating it.

The point I was making was that whether Omnisphere sells a thousand copies or fifty thousand, the cost of actually producing the discs and packaging are not higher, per sale... Nothing to do with the actual creation of Omnisphere.

So you shouldn't have a problem with my stating WHY I disagree with their policies then? Or is that verboten on this forum?
As for:

What is that supposed to mean? That you KNOW that MOST owners of Omnisphere will never sell it, or won't care if they can sell it?




But Eric seems to be very concerned about the possibility of losing new sales to second hand sales. I myself said that I thought the vast majority of buyers of Omnisphere wouldn't want to sell it. Perhaps he knows otherwise.

I disagree with Spectrasonics policy. Are we not allowed to talk about it? What if most of his customers agreed with me? Wouldn't that be important to know? Isn't it important for him to know what prospective customers feel?