Propellerhead Rack Extensions ARE Transferrable

[whyterabbyt]

Allow me to bring attention to EULA for Propellerhead software:

3.Transfer. You may not rent, lease, or sublicense the Software. You may, however, transfer all your rights to use the Software to another person or entity, provided that you transfer this Agreement with the Software.

This specifically grants the licensed owner of Propellerhead Rack Extensions the ability to sell them.

What you quote is from the End User License Agreement, but its actually the Third Party Product End User License Agreement which specifically relates to Rack Extensions.

This Rack Extension Product End User License Agreement (“License”) governs your use of a Rack Extension Product (“RE Product”) and related explanatory materials (“Software”)

Since PH specifically make that differentiation, there's nothing which indicates that the 'main' EULA would be relevant to any RE, so no this section of the EULA doesnt 'specifically grant the licensed owner of Propellerhead Rack Extensions the ability to sell them'

On the other hand, THIRD PARTY are in fact restricted for sale, under the Third Party End User License Agreement, a document unrelated to the general EULA, and states:

3.No transfer. You may not transfer, rent, lease, or sublicense the Software.

This is correct. The TP-EULA, which covers REs, specifically states that REs may not be transferred.

However, this is contradicted in the following clause:

7.1 Certain Products available through the Services are developed by third parties and contain third party terms and conditions that govern your use of such Products (“Third Party Terms”). For Rack Extension Products such Third Party Terms can be found here. Any dealings between you and such third party are solely between you and the third party. Propellerhead is not responsible or liable for any aspects of such dealings.

This clause comes from a different document again; the Terms of Service. All this does is point out that Rack Extensions are covered by a specific EULA, the TP-EULA, there is no 'contradiction' here despite what you claim.

Therefore,

The logic you're using to make your conclusion is flawed. Each clause comes from a different document, and of the three, the only one which comes from a document which specifically relates to REs is the one which says that REs cannot be transferred.
The two clauses (3. of the UELA, 7.1 of the ToS) you are using to support your conclusion are effectively taken out of context, but in their actual context do not in any way repudiate the clause (3. of the TP-EULA) that you claim they do; the EULA clause does not cover RE's, the ToS clause only points out that its the TP-EULA which applies to RE's.

Your conclusion is not validated by the evidence you've presented for it. In fact the opposite is true; the evidence you've given explicitly states that REs may not be transferred.

[Mivo]

perhaps the question should be which EU country allows a business to operate outside of their own terms of service. What is your point here, did you read the terms of service?

You had referred to the Oracle case, which was unrelated to PH's TOS and touched on the general issue with software licenses. The thing with EULAs is that you're not getting your rights unless you take the necessary steps. You can bark at their customer support or post on forums, but if you want to bite, you need to involve an attorney or take it to a court. It's not murder or tax fraud where the organs take action by themselves (or when notified).

I don't disagree with your cause. I have almost a thousand games in my Steam account (accumulated over a decade) that I would love to be able to sell or even give away. Valve/Steam's response to the Oracle case was to turn their EULA into a "Subscriber's Agreement" which simply declares that customers are now renting the games (in form of an infinite subscription).

[KarmaShaman]

Whyterabbit, you are incorrect.

Firstly, it is not 'my validation'. The ToS is there to read. Its not my problem that you are unable to read it correctly.

The EULA is for Propellerhead software. In the instance of the document, 'software' relates to both the DAW and the RE technology.

The Third Party EULA is for third party developers.

Propellerhead are not a third party. Therefore Propellerhead Rack Extensions do not fall under the Third Party EULA.

This is the most simple ToS I have ever seen. I'm not sure how you are not comprehending it. At a guess, the common English used would suggest that this wasn't even prepared by qualified legal counsel.

[Burillo]

ummm. you mean to say Softube RE's aren't third party?

Props EULA is about the RE technology, not RE's themselves. VST technology is owned by Steinberg and is governed by its EULA. Third-party VST plugins, built using said technology, are governed by their respective EULA's, not Steinberg's EULA.

[KarmaShaman]

ummm. you mean to say Softube RE's aren't third party?

I can only surmise that as 'stock devices', (you are referring to the amp sims I assume) the ownership of the intellectual property Is Propellerhead.

According to the store categorisation and the subfolder filing, it is a Propellerhead software product, therefore may be transferred to another user.

I will purchase someone's guitar amp sim for $20 and initiate the transfer (and the inevitable consumer fraud case when the transaction is rejected. I am ready to challenge the ToS with a legitimate transaction in place.

[KarmaShaman]

Props EULA is about the RE technology, not RE's themselves. VST technology is owned by Steinberg and is governed by its EULA. Third-party VST plugins, built using said technology, are governed by their respective EULA's, not Steinberg's EULA.

do you mean to say that a Propellerhead RE is a third party software? Who then is the second party? Please explain.

[Burillo]

i realize my previous post may have come off wrong. what i was meaning to say was, the EULA on Reason itself, and EULA on RE's are two different things - the former is governed by Props EULA, the latter - by third party EULA (which specifically prohibits resale, unlike the general Reason EULA). i.e. you can sell the software itself, but can't sell RE's. kinda like with IK Multimedia.

but yeah, there's lots of non-Props RE's in the RE store - Kuassa amps, for example. Props' RE's may be somewhat gray area (although it's still separate from Reason, hence governed by a separate EULA), but those other RE's clearly aren't.

[whyterabbyt]

Whyterabbit, you are incorrect.

Firstly, its 'whyterabbyt', not 'Whyterabbit'. Please get that correct.

If you wish to insist that your logical conlusion is not faulty because the clauses mean what you claim, then provide supporting evidence that they do mean what you say.

Firstly, it is not 'my validation'. The ToS is there to read. Its not my problem that you are unable to read it correctly.

No, but unfortunately for you, it is your problem if you are unable to read it correctly. And I think that that is the case.

Its very telling that part of your 'argument' boils down to 'this clause contradicts that clause.' According to you, that contradiction means that one specific clause is effectively voided. Which means that you think that your interpretation of that document is correct, even though you're relating parts which you say are contradictory.
I'd contest that, as a legal document, it is not actually going to be contradictory. That its your interpretation of specific clauses that introduces those alleged contradictions. Your interpretation is flawed, though. There are three documents, covering specific sets of things. What you're doing with them is selectively conflating parts of them where that is not appropriate, and saying that it proves something.

The EULA is for Propellerhead software. In the instance of the document, 'software' relates to both the DAW and the RE technology.

Firstly, 'RE Technology' is a different thing from 'RE Extensions'. The documents make no mention of 'Re Technology', so clearly you are unable to read it correctly.

Secondly, the EULA does not state that it covers RE Extensions. It specifically tells you what it does cover and RE Extensions are not on that list.
It is your interpretation that it also covers PH-made RE Extensions, but you have failed to provide proof of that.

The TP-EULA does state that it covers RE Extensions. Despite the name, it does not explicitly state that it only covers Third-Party made Extensions.

In fact, the first line of the TP-EULA, it states

'This Rack Extension Product End User License Agreement (“License”) governs your use of a Rack Extension Product (“RE Product”) and related explanatory materials (“Software”).

In other words, the TP-EULA refers to itself as the 'Rack Extension Product EULA'. It does not exclude PH REs in any of its wording.

You have failed to provide proof that it excludes PH RE's from Clause 3 which says that REs may not be transferred.

You are effectively claiming that the title of a legal document defines its scope, and that that titular definition trumps any scope actually detailed within the document. That is a nonsense.

The Third Party EULA is for third party developers.

Propellerhead are not a third party. Therefore Propellerhead Rack Extensions do not fall under the Third Party EULA.

What's provable is that the 'Third Party EULA' refers to itself as 'The Rack Extension Product End User License Agreement' and that no other document refers separately to conditions associated only with REs made by Propellerheads.
Your claim that that means that PH RE's fall under the different set of conditions that you claim, is not sufficiently supported.

This is the most simple ToS I have ever seen. I'm not sure how you are not comprehending it.

If its so 'simple' why are you having to rely on 'this contradicts that' as the basis of your logic.

Its simple; either those contradictions do exist as you claim, and thus your argument hinges on your reading of a contradictory document, or the contradictions dont exist, and your argument that they do is entirely your reading.

Either way, you do not have a solid foundation for your logic, which seems to consist of 'I have interpreted specific clauses to imply things not explicitly stated, so I will assume that those implications are facts and base my conclusions on them'.
What you say is stated, though, is arguably not even implied in the document.

At a guess, the common English used would suggest that this wasn't even prepared by qualified legal counsel.

On the contrary, at a guess, the common English used would suggest it was prepared by very qualified legal counsel.

[MachineClaw]

The Prop's store and user account does not have the functionality to separate out rack extension purchase and transfer those to another account. Props stated they were not going to work or address the functionality.

Prop's have stated, several times, that an entire props account can be transferred but that Reason and any rack extensions tied to that account must be transferred as well. Individual rack extensions can not be transferred.

Only a court can make a determination and judgment against propellerhead.

arm chair lawyering isn't going to allow you to sell your rack extensions to another user

[KarmaShaman]

If you wish to insist that your logical conlusion is not faulty because the clauses mean what you claim, then provide supporting evidence that they do mean what you say.

I will do better than that. Sell me a Propellerhead Rack Extension for $20, or I will sell you one for $20, and I will attempt to set a precedent.

According to you, that contradiction means that one specific clause is effectively voided.

I am stating that the former contradicts the latter, while you are claiming the latter contradicts the former. Either way, it's flawed - and amounts to the same outcome.

I'd contest that, as a legal document, it is not actually going to be contradictory.

I'm contesting that it's not a very good legal document.

The TP-EULA does state that it covers RE Extensions. Despite the name, it does not explicitly state that it only covers Third-Party made Extensions.

There is not 'despite the name' allowance in such a document. You are making assumptions. You are referring to an element of the Third Party EULA. By definition, it refers to Third Parties. Propellerhead are not the Third Party.

In other words, the TP-EULA refers to itself as the 'Rack Extension Product EULA'. It does not exclude PH REs in any of its wording.

Refer to the explicit definition of "The Developer". Propellerhead make the definition in reference to Third Party developers, under the Third Party EULA. The documentation does not refer to Propellerhead as "The Developer".

You have failed to provide proof that it excludes PH RE's from Clause 3 which says that REs may not be transferred.

What requirement is there to 'provide proof' when the legal document is online, for all to read?
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements/

You are effectively claiming that the title of a legal document defines its scope, and that that titular definition trumps any scope actually detailed within the document.

Therefore you are stating that the title is exempt from being a contributing definition? This arguement in itself lends itself to the fact that it's a poorly conceived document.

What's provable is that the 'Third Party EULA' refers to itself as 'The Rack Extension Product End User License Agreement' and that no other document refers separately to conditions associated only with REs made by Propellerheads.
Your claim that that means that PH RE's fall under the different set of conditions that you claim, is not sufficiently supported.

The body of the Third Party document refers to "The Developer" in a context other than Propelleheads. Therefore, Third Party = The Developer by definition.

There are three parties involved, perhaps you might match the first set of descriptors to the second set of definitions, for the benifit of those reading the thread.

1. First Party
2. Second Party
3. Third Party

A. The End User
B. Propellerhead Software
C. The Developer

If its so 'simple' why are you having to rely on 'this contradicts that' as the basis of your logic.

Again, It's a poorly conceived document.

Its simple; either those contradictions do exist as you claim, and thus your argument hinges on your reading of a contradictory document, or the contradictions dont exist, and your argument that they do is entirely your reading.

The crux of my suggestion, beyond the present discussion of a contradictory document structure, hinges on Propellerhead software enforcing a policy that contradicts both EULA's.

[KarmaShaman]

arm chair lawyering isn't going to allow you to sell your rack extensions to another user

Let's be clear on something. I have no interest in selling Rack Extensions, apart from sacrificing one to test the validity of the service agreement (or buying one to do the same). I do not use another DAW (although that may change) so there is no 'cross platform' concerns on this end.

[MachineClaw]

arm chair lawyering isn't going to allow you to sell your rack extensions to another user

Let's be clear on something. I have no interest in selling Rack Extensions, apart from sacrificing one to test the validity of the service agreement (or buying one to do the same). I do not use another DAW (although that may change) so there is no 'cross platform' concerns on this end.

I really do not understand your motivation in this discussion then.

Propellerhead has stated that an individual can transfer an account to another user and that individual rack extensions cannot be transferred to another user. period. they have make their decision.

The title of this thread as well as many of the assumptions that you state of the EULA are an assumption that you have made. those assumptions are incorrect - I state that not as a dig against you personally - Propellerhead have made a company decision on how things are done and those policies do not support your assumptions.

if you feel very strongly about this subject, which it appears that you do, the only way to resolve and get a final determination is in a court of law, sue Propellerhead and show some kind of harm has come to you personally. Only a court can make a judgment.

Currently as it is today - individual rack extensions are NOT transferable.

[Burillo]

According to you, that contradiction means that one specific clause is effectively voided.

I am stating that the former contradicts the latter, while you are claiming the latter contradicts the former. Either way, it's flawed - and amounts to the same outcome.

it doesn't contradict anything. those are different license agreements.

The TP-EULA does state that it covers RE Extensions. Despite the name, it does not explicitly state that it only covers Third-Party made Extensions.

There is not 'despite the name' allowance in such a document. You are making assumptions. You are referring to an element of the Third Party EULA. By definition, it refers to Third Parties. Propellerhead are not the Third Party.

no, it's not "by definition". what it refers to is listed in the document, not in its title. the "despite the name" doesn't have to be allowed - it's not stated anywhere that the document's name is what defines what the document is about.

You have failed to provide proof that it excludes PH RE's from Clause 3 which says that REs may not be transferred.

What requirement is there to 'provide proof' when the legal document is online, for all to read?
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements/

that's not proof. that's like saying, Jews did WTC, just see the videos of the towers falling. well, the video is there, but what you are trying to state, isn't actually in the video. same here - just pointing to the legal document doesn't remove your burden of proof. you still have to show how what you're stating is actually the case.

You are effectively claiming that the title of a legal document defines its scope, and that that titular definition trumps any scope actually detailed within the document.

Therefore you are stating that the title is exempt from being a contributing definition? This arguement in itself lends itself to the fact that it's a poorly conceived document.

nope. this only means you have a poor understanding of these matters. i could create a VST plugin and name my EULA "Frobulating Hatstand" - this would, despite its name, still be an EULA - because i say so *inside the actual document*. what it's named doesn't matter.

[whyterabbyt]

If you wish to insist that your logical conlusion is not faulty because the clauses mean what you claim, then provide supporting evidence that they do mean what you say.

I will do better than that. Sell me a Propellerhead Rack Extension for $20, or I will sell you one for $20, and I will attempt to set a precedent.

You can have Pulsar for a nonrefundable $100. $20 for Pulsar, $80 for my trouble.

According to you, that contradiction means that one specific clause is effectively voided.

I am stating that the former contradicts the latter, while you are claiming the latter contradicts the former. Either way, it's flawed - and amounts to the same outcome.

Actually I am stating that the latter only covers what the latter explicitly states it covers, and the former only covers what the former explicitly states it covers. And that that amounts to the opposite outcome to that which you claim.

The TP-EULA does state that it covers RE Extensions. Despite the name, it does not explicitly state that it only covers Third-Party made Extensions.

There is not 'despite the name' allowance in such a document. You are making assumptions.

You're trying to argue that the name of a document does take precedence in defining its scope, then?

Because that's the assumption.

You are referring to an element of the Third Party EULA. By definition, it refers to Third Parties. Propellerhead are not the Third Party.

Correction : By title it refers to third parties. By definition, given that it actually provides a definition of its scope, the scope that it covers is the scope that it defines.

In other words, the TP-EULA refers to itself as the 'Rack Extension Product EULA'. It does not exclude PH REs in any of its wording.

Refer to the explicit definition of "The Developer". Propellerhead make the definition in reference to Third Party developers, under the Third Party EULA. The documentation does not refer to Propellerhead as "The Developer".

Are you saying that unless it had said 'The Developer (btw that includes us too)' that Propellerheads are excluded from being a Developer?

You have failed to provide proof that it excludes PH RE's from Clause 3 which says that REs may not be transferred.

What requirement is there to 'provide proof' when the legal document is online, for all to read?
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements/

Well, the requirement would be for the part of your argument where you say 'although the EULA does not specifically say that it covers REs it must do, and although the TP-EULA specifically says that it covers REs, it must not cover them all.
You know; the interpretation you made of the document that's there for all to read.

You are effectively claiming that the title of a legal document defines its scope, and that that titular definition trumps any scope actually detailed within the document.

Therefore you are stating that the title is exempt from being a contributing definition? This arguement in itself lends itself to the fact that it's a poorly conceived document.

No, it just lends itself to the fact that its a poorly titled document. But its probably only you who prioritises the importance of its title rather than its contents.

The body of the Third Party document refers to "The Developer" in a context other than Propelleheads. Therefore, Third Party = The Developer by definition.

Quote the context it gives which specifically excludes Propellerheads themselves, then?

Its simple; either those contradictions do exist as you claim, and thus your argument hinges on your reading of a contradictory document, or the contradictions dont exist, and your argument that they do is entirely your reading.

The crux of my suggestion, beyond the present discussion of a contradictory document structure, hinges on Propellerhead software enforcing a policy that contradicts both EULA's.

You have fun with that then. But the crux of your suggestion boils down to:

PH say REs cannot be transferred
PH's EULA does not explicitly say it covers REs, but you claim that it does cover PH RE's
PH's Rack Extension EULA does explicitly say it covers REs, but you claim it doesnt cover PH RE's.
Thus you know more than PH, PH's lawyers, and anyone else who notices what is and isnt explicitly stated as to whether REs can be transferred.

If you think you have a solid legal founding for 'I interpreted two entirely different legal clauses and decided that their scope actually extended in two entirely different ways to include that which was not explicitly stated, and on that basis, I inferred a loophole in which something specifically denied is actually permitted', then god save you.
However, like, say, various Freeman of the Land nutters, Im pretty sure the only result is going to be of the 'I lost my case because that judge didnt know the law proper like what I does' variety.

[Numanoid]

Despite the legion of Propellerhead devotees blurting out the same second hand hearsay rather than do their own investigation, we need to make clarification for those who wish to go beyond the words of a few cult members who misleadingly speak with the lofty sense of their own self-worth.

How many insults do you manage to get into a paragraph?