[NeoVXR]

I can understand the reasons of Audio Ease, but from what I can read here and in the other thread, I think it is a very difficult situation, and in many countries this kind of agreement may not be effective.

An agreement that makes program material proprietary by using a certain device during its production is very questionable. It seems to belong to the encoding world, e.g. the GIF, divX or mp3 problem.
If you commercially distribute content that is encoded, you must have a license agreement with the makers of the encoder.
Same might apply at pre-processed convolution impulses.

So it is the question whether my own music becomes part of the agreement that I have with a plug-in company, when I run it through their plug-in or when I use software from this plug-in (which the impulses in fact are) together with other plugins to process my music.

From what I understand, users record their impulses, and then encode them with Audio Ease technologies, so they become software that can technically be used with other devices. It is clear that users are holding rights in this "software", but whether the tool-makers have rights, too, is difficult and could depend on national, complex laws.

It is not so, and must never be so, that a simple act of buying stuff (shrink-wrapped or online by very few mouse-clicks) can enforce any type of exotic agreement. It has to be a very simple standard situation defined by law, for all times, else making business becomes nearly impossible because no one can afford the dangers and the costs of these law suits, when suddenly one of the contractors has the idea to make a hit with something written in small letters. Law should be on the side of the customer, because production is not something on its own purpose, but to fulfill needs of others.

So, I think, Audio Ease might be better on, making their pre-processor a distinct product with good reputation, easy rules and a good price. It may be of importance that they did _not_ encrypt the impulse data for only use in their system.