Sample libraries resale and music written with them

[Harzmusic]

Of course it is ridiculous to take down or audit all your music because you want to sell your license. Noone will ever do that.

Therefore the clause effectively amounts to "If you have used this product in a commercial context, you can no longer resell it". And that is actually in my opinion a pretty fair policy - though practically impossible to enforce.

Buy a library, and get completely disappointed by it, never use it in anything - well at least you can resell it and cut your losses. If you're a hobbyist that is just playing around and end up giving up the hobby or needing the cash - fine, you can sell it.
If you bought it for a specific project and then never need it again, you do not get to pass the product on, recoup most of the price and effectively use it in a commercial project for 10$.

That protects hobbyists and disappointed impulse buyers alike, but puts a lid on everyone passing used licenses of sample packs around indiscriminately.

Also it protects the potential buyer of a used copy and puts the legal burden on the seller - if you have bought a used copy of a library, you get to keep it, you bought it fair and square. If the seller was not allowed to sell it, *they* are liable for not taking down their commercial releases.

That's different from the situation where if you bought a second-hand Spitfire license in the end you actually don't own the license, because it was non-transferable. In the latter situation you have to go after your cash, in the former you got a legitimate license and the company goes after the seller (if they want). Pretty cool mechanism, actually.

 

[wst3]

it seems to me there are a couple things going on here, and they are related.

The first, obviously, is the terms of the agreement into which you knowingly and willingly entered. Most such agreements treat the library as software, that is, you have a right to use it, but you don't own it.

The second is people's interpretation of the agreement. Unless you have a law degree, and are willing to back up your interpretation in court you do not have the right to interpret, you need to follow the letter of the law, not the spirit.

Of course that is one of the problems plaguing the US economy rigth now, but that would be a tangent.

Actually, there is, possibly, a third - what did the developer intend, and did the EULA properly express those intentions.

I'd wager that almost nobody likes copy protection or restrictive clauses in an EULA. I don't. But I still buy licenses to those libraries with the full knowledge that I need that copy protection and I can't re-sell, if that's the case.

Do I appreciate developers that allow resale? Absolutely, and not just as a seller but as a buyer. I've picked up a couple of "used" licenses over the years, and saved a bundle in the process. Now mostly I buy used if I am not sure that I'll ever get any use out of the tool. And I have been right about that a couple of times (cue sad music and an image of money going up in smoke).

How does this get resolved? I am not sure it does, but I am absolutely certain that I have no right to dictate terms to a developer. I can make suggestions, even ask for features (such as resale rights), but I can't dictate my terms.

Many of you know that I provide technical support for Realitone. In the (how many?) years I've been doing it I can count on one hand the number of people that have complained about the EULA. Why? Because Realitone does give you a way out if you don't like the library. Within the first 30 days you can get a refund for any reason at all, or no reason.

Do people abuse that privilege? I suspect yes, but we can't control customers any more than they can control the company.

Have people pirated the libraries? Not recently, that I am aware of, but I long ago stopped spending time running them down.

I happen to think Mike has the right idea, especially for a smaller developer (staff, not height!). He has more than enough to do. He treats the customer with respect. He knows, we all know, that no library is perfect for everybody (although he is still trying.)

I held off joining in this little party because I have an obvious conflict of interest. So take everything I say with a grain of salt. If you disagree that's cool. It's actually been sitting in an edit buffer for about a day!)

If a mod wants to delete this please remember how many keystrokes went into it!

 

[hazenut]

To provide an answer to the background question, I finally got the email reply from Ableton:
"
The termination of the contract refers to the point at which you purchase the product.
Ownership of an Ableton licence is not required to publish music made in the software.
Transferring your licence to another owner only means you will not longer be able to use the software.
"
So that's really cool!

I think in the end it's less about whoever thinks the product is worth it or not, as a justification of the stance, but more about, from the perspective of the purchase, to prevent surprises and know my rights as a customer, just like any other marketed aspect of the product. I've been waiting for this email for many days before I started installation because I would like to know that I will be treated fairly in various imagined scenarios, even if it's hardly likely that I will resell the product. So even if some developers may say, we hold the eula's interpretation in legally the most strict way, to win customers, they will need to know what customers really want and it's naturally forseeable that some additional terms will be negotiated (e.g. to provide a separate license to hold the rights to samples in previous music for a fair price), so that in the end, the gap between original legal interpretation and the general expectation is patched. This is all market in action.
Also it's best interest of customers to get hold of the information and potentially negotiate instead of being caught in a situation later on. That information, is also factored into the purchasing decision. I'm glad the developers know this and clarified on this issue so customers can make intelligent choices!

 

[MaxOctane]

I'm very impressed they replied. Good job tracking down this info.

 

[Jeremy Spencer]

This effectively means that you have to pull all your music published on every website containing those samples if you do resell, which is quite drastic.

Could you imagine the logistics of the "sample library police"? It would be impossible to go through millions of tracks and verifying with the composers and developer(s) that they still owned the licenses. Not only that, but being able to surgically pinpoint (within a mix), without a doubt, which sample libraries were used.