Everybody's abandoning iLok

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Greg's statement "Just let us know and we'll give you a new license..." well, with all due respect, that's very Greg statement. Greg is cool. But most developers are much weirder than that. Try doing that with Sonnox or one of those uptight, paranoid weirdos. No dice.

First, thanks for the kind words, and the feeling is mutual. That said, I really do think *most* developers who use iLok would be equally as cool and responsive to a genuine request for a new license, but I have no data to support that so I could be totally out in left field.

But in any case, if you've got a 'paranoid, weirdo' company that refuses to help you out when you get stuck, I'd say your issue is with them and not with Pace. The paranoid weirdo is the one who should bear the burden of remedying your situation, because you're the paying customer who supported their business and bought their product.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[jeremy.c.]

Originally Posted by u b k

This is one of those things where I suspect that the true nature of the client relationship causes confusion and frustration.

Namely: software users & iLok purchasers (i.e., everyone on this thread) are not Pace's customers. Pace's customers are the companies that implement their technology to protect their software from piracy.

Pace doesn't give a damn what any of you want or need, because their business does not depend on your satisfaction. You could argue that indirectly your support of ilok-protected products is necessary for them to survive, but that actually comes down to the Kush's and Soundtoys of the world; as long as we make products people want and as long as do what it takes to make sure our customers are happy, Pace doesn't care what you think of them.

Conversely, as long as Pace's scheme remains robust and actually delivers on its promises, it's in my best interests to continue using Pace. Even though I'm losing some sales because some folks don't/won't/can't do the iLok thing, the only other option is losing shitloads of revenue to piracy. If I can find a price-to-sales ratio whose sweet spot tilts that balance in the opposite direction I'll jump on it, I'm not a purist. But for now, Pace is the 800-lb. gorilla and I am a lowly banana vendor.


Gregory Scott - ubk

There should be a happy medium in there somewhere. I love the concept of the ilok and it generally does what it should, but it's another link in the chain of things that get janked up regularly and the only company responsible for it should be... responsible for it.

[Franco]

I have my old Waves license (API bundle, which I regret buying because I rarely use it) on my 1st gen iLok, then I bought the VCC which came with the second generation iLok free (thanks Slate) and I've had absolutely zero issues.

Then again, I'm working with a Desktop I've built, not a laptop like many users who complain that having a USB stick sticking out of its side interferes with their grande frapuccino which isn't "swag".

The only Native effect I use outside of the UAD platform is Slate's VCC, so for me, "Everybody" is STILL on iLok!

EDIT: I forgot I also use the Flux:: limiter, they're still on iLok, so yep, for me that's just about everybody and they're all on iLok.

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by sound_music

umm, so by your own definition, you should be psyched.

zero downtime covers your licenses in all those cases; loss, theft, damage, etc... everything you're worried about. and it only costs 30 bucks a year.

have a read, it won't hurt i promise. About iLoks - iLok Zero DownTime

No. Read more carefully.

I have Zero DowntTime and if you lose your iLok, you are at the mercy of the companies' discretion as to whether your licenses will be restored.

Companies that suspect you're trying to pull a fast one will deny you your license. Companies like Waves, Sonnox, etc. will deny you --- I have a friend who runs a studio in Brooklyn who experienced this. Companies like Kush and Soundtoys will tend to grant the license. Regardless, it's up to each company's discretion and, furthermore, you have to do all of the administrative work contacting each of them. Huge pain in the ass and a crapshoot.

- c

[Macky]

You would think it possible to have a spare ilok containing all your plugs for back up purposes. Once this back up ilok is used (e.g. in cases of loss) it would then automatically negate the previously lost ilok. It would cancel its authorization, even if it was plugged in to a thieves computer
It is chip based after all.
It just seems wrong the way it works at the moment, with regards to loss.
There again i am not the most switched on guy

[Rimby]

Originally Posted by u b k

FWIW, iLok 1 wasn't cracked; what was cracked was the software inside it.

PACE subsequently plugged the hole in that code and tightened it up, and iLok 1 is secure again. If you were a high-profile developer who had an iLok-1-protected plugin on the market before that crack, your plugin was probably cracked too because your code was wide open at that moment.

But for those of us who've released plugins since Pace plugged the hole, iLok 1 is secure once again.

I can tell you this much: the UBK-1 would've been cracked straight out of the gate if not for the iLok 1, and if that'd happened I would've ended my plugin career lickety split. Not that anyone cares about that, but something to think about as you cross your fingers and hope for the demise of iLok is that, in the absence of something equally robust, some of us will simply seek greener pastures.

What's interesting to me is that UAD's setup is a gigantic dongle that requires a slot in your computer or a firewire port and a small-pizza-box sized space on your desk. The overwhelming majority of people seem grateful for the chance to use their proprietary scheme, maybe if the ilok installed inside the computer, out of sight, it would become similarly invisible to people.

The iLok is portable, takes up the same space as a thumb drive, and gives you access to any number of developer's products. And know this: if you're a customer of Kush and you lose your iLok, just write to us and we'll drop you a 90-day license right then and there, that should give you plenty of time to sort it out with Pace. I can't imagine the other developers who use Pace not doing the same, it's a small industry and a good bunch of people running these little companies.


Gregory Scott - ubk

I'm now on my second iLok 2 in my attempts to use iLok protected software. I'm not even going to waste any more of my time detailing my experiences, but just know that I've literally wasted HOURS of my life NOT making music because of this iLok garbage. I even bought your UBK plugin while I was waiting for my replacement iLok to be sent back to me b/c I thought a new iLok would surely fix the problem. Alas, it did not, and I will be swiftly selling my plugin licenses from Softube, Xils Lab and Kush Audio because I absolutely refuse to use the small amounts of time I have each week to make music emailing tech support, installing/re-installing drivers, software, etc.

What a shame.

[jigsound]

And here we go, another paying customer suffering from the ilok.

But please, no offense. There seems to be a bunch of people happy with the provided dongle solution, as well.
Everybody has to decide that on their own.

But that seems to be the exact problem. I think that we are more talking ideologies here. The same issue that we are facing in the real world appears in the digital world, as well.


Freedom Against Security


Of course, you can secure everything, lock it all up,… make it "more secure",
but personally I think that if we decide to walk this way, we will all end up living in a military facility
with cameras everywhere and armed security guards surrounding us,
locking us up to "protect" us (in order to be able to guarantee for our security).

In the digital world,
I think we will end up in a situation where everything gets packed into a cloud
(a closed system where you don't have no more actual rights on your own data), where everything we do
will get monitored (of course our internet activity as well, our mails and personal data,
creating situations like (e.g.) permanently receiving messages from several plugin developers on your iphone
(every two seconds), wanting to inform you about the new plugins they have created,
because you have just opened up plugins from them three minutes ago in your DAW on your own computer).


You might ask, how should they know? Well, in a cloud controlled world, your computer will require a permanent active internet connection, otherwise you can't even start your DAW (or any other program).


So, freedom against security (but some folks say: "…but I don't have shit to hide…")


Well, Mr. George Washington once said something like

-Those who are willing to exchange freedom against security
earn nothing and will loose both.


Back to the topic,

I would like to know if it wouldn't be better for the sales to accept a certain amount of piracy,
collecting all the positive hype pirates create around your product.
How many pirates are constantly posting things like "I'm blown away by what it does.." or "you have to try this one out, best plug so far". How many paying customers will buy a product which is getting hyped on every single internet forum, probably more than if they would have never heard a word about it.


But again, I'm not trying to make a statement here,

I'm just sharing the thoughts I'm asking myself.
And this leads me to a direct question to a (any) plugin developer using ilok.
Do you lose more money paying a company taking care of your products security,
or (letting pirates just slide) if you would decide to abandon ilok,
taking in new customers that have avoided buying your product because of ilok?

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Rimby

I'm not even going to waste any more of my time detailing my experiences, but just know that I've literally wasted HOURS of my life NOT making music because of this iLok garbage.

I can't argue with that, it's inordinately frustrating to have to deal with technical bullshit when making art is the desired objective.

I've had the exact same mind-numbing, time-devouring experiences with my Mac's operating system refusing to get past the startup screen, my firewire interface's routing software refusing to pass a mic signal to the DAW, my control surface's basic ability to be recognized by the system, my DAW's ability to load a project without crashing, and plugins of all manner (iLok or otherwise) wreaking havoc on a session.

Last night a bug in Logic's flex time crashed a session and corrupted the file, forcing me to re-do about an hour's worth of tedious time-stretching and aligning on a track where the tempo got bumped up by 6bpm halfway through tracking. I wanted to throw the laptop out the 7th story window of my studio.

As far as I can tell this kind of hassle is simply unavoidable if you allow software to become central to the creative process, and I don't think iLok is particularly unique in its ability to throw a wrench into the works, nor do its particular flavor of ills seems any worse than what other code has done to people's work and lives. You can develop a stable system and then park it there for as long as the stuff works and does what you need, but the instant you want to add tools to the creative arsenal or (!!!) update the system or computer it runs on, the tech b.s. is simply part of life in the digital age.

That said, I respect your choice to abandon iLok products and do what makes the most sense for you.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[e-are]

Originally Posted by bendermastering

Main problem is that all those new plugins without iLok are being cracked the day they are out, like what happened with the new plug-in alliance stuff.

Truth is I won't buy more plug-ins without a valid protection system because otherwise it will be cracked and you'll have a tool with no value to your studio as everyone will get it illegally.

We need to add value to our studios, and plug-ins that are cracked loose their value because everyone has them on their laptops... It is a bad investment right now, IMO.

Only plugs I know not cracked is uad. I do have most of those but companies like sknote, ddmf,sominus are imo keeping down piracy by charging next to nonething for 1st rate plugs. Don't talk about customer service. You can have an idea for an update and in a week the will add it.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Gearslutz App

[electric]

Originally Posted by u b k

This is one of those things where I suspect that the true nature of the client relationship causes confusion and frustration.

Namely: software users & iLok purchasers (i.e., everyone on this thread) are not Pace's customers. Pace's customers are the companies that implement their technology to protect their software from piracy.

Pace doesn't give a damn what any of you want or need, because their business does not depend on your satisfaction. You could argue that indirectly your support of ilok-protected products is necessary for them to survive, but that actually comes down to the Kush's and Soundtoys of the world; as long as we make products people want and as long as do what it takes to make sure our customers are happy, Pace doesn't care what you think of them.

Conversely, as long as Pace's scheme remains robust and actually delivers on its promises, it's in my best interests to continue using Pace. Even though I'm losing some sales because some folks don't/won't/can't do the iLok thing, the only other option is losing shitloads of revenue to piracy. If I can find a price-to-sales ratio whose sweet spot tilts that balance in the opposite direction I'll jump on it, I'm not a purist. But for now, Pace is the 800-lb. gorilla and I am a lowly banana vendor.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Greg - thanks for the detailed insights on the subject. I am thinking about starting my own DSP audio company at the moment , but am coming to grips with the huge amount of work to get one product out the door on my own. If you couple this with the fact the product could be cracked within days of initial release it makes me think twice about continuing to take the risk of bringing a product to market. Ilok from a developers standpoint starts looking promising really quick. Right now its the only system that seems fairly proven and well adopted. Brainworx sounds interesting but I have not used it and it has not been around long yet. Its disappointing to hear the horror stories some folks are having with Ilok. I've had mostly positive experience myself. Trust me people, once you have 3-6 months or more of your own work (that you have seen no upfront compensation for) wrapped up in something like a piece of software you will start thinking about systems like Ilok to protect your IP.

Great discussion and the feedback from everyone is helpful.

Cheers,
Electric

[noodle650]

cant say i have ever had the slightest problem with ilok software, a licence, or the ilok itself. some people are just unlucky!

This must mean that iLok's are going to be vintage collectors' items someday.

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Macky

You would think it possible to have a spare ilok containing all your plugs for back up purposes. Once this back up ilok is used (e.g. in cases of loss) it would then automatically negate the previously lost ilok. It would cancel its authorization, even if it was plugged in to a thieves computer
It is chip based after all.
It just seems wrong the way it works at the moment, with regards to loss.
There again i am not the most switched on guy

I completely agree - Pace is not a reputable company (judging by past events I will not disclose) but they have a "lok" on the process - good to see them losing it. The automatic cancellation of the lost one would be a perfect solution. I know, maybe the stolen or hidden would would not see the internet - but only the owner would know, if they did that. Really losing it? I'd bet it would show up just like "find my ifone" works.

L

[jrhager84]

If you think iLok will protect your IP, I have magical anti-cancer fairy dusty to sell you. Waves is cracked. Sonnox cracked. Lexicon cracked. SSL cracked. If you haven't been yet, don't think its because you're safe with iLok; it's only because you aren't popular enough to be on the radar... The day you deal with piracy is the day you realize you have a product that gobs of people want. This isn't a slight on any of the small companies at all (happy ubk-1 user here), but I can't but call it as I see it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App

[u b k]

Those companies are all cracked because the iLok wrap --- the layer between the plugin and the iLok itself --- was in fact cracked at one point in time. Pace plugged the leak fairly quickly, but if you had software that was on the market and iLok protected at the moment that crack happened, your code was completely vulnerable and most of the big names were cracked very quickly.

It hasn't been cracked again since, and afaik those of us who've released new software or versions since that time (Softube, Slate, Kush, etc.) are still airtight. But I have no way of verifying that, I'm going by what my colleagues are reporting.

I was actually on the phone with Paul Frindle the day he found out DSM had been cracked. That was an interesting chat!


Gregory Scott - ubk

[jrhager84]

Do a quick Google search, my friend. Waves v9 is cracked. If it's been 'plugged', why would they still be able to unpace them? They're faking the authentication protocol by reverse-engineering the actual code from the installers, bypassing iLok entirely. That said, it's (nearly) moot whether or not you have iLok or not; It's the security encryption in your installer that's preventing people from cracking it. Well, that coupled with the fact that Waves is a bit more well-known than your company (not that it doesn't deserve to be ) It's how they *always* done it in the past. (I even had to work-around the *horrible* DRM on certain video game installers back in the day). Talk about bloatware... Ugh.

To me, the whole 'iLok safety' is slightly false; Especially to the smaller companies that the big crack teams haven't had enough demand to reverse engineer. If they (the crackers) wanted to crack your stuff, they would. Google LULSEC, Anonymous, ***, AiR, ASSiGN, etc. I used to want to do IT/Security, and had to do a whole thing on footprinting/reverse engineering etc. It actually made me realize I didn't want to do programming for a living! hahahaha

[u b k]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

It actually made me realize I didn't want to do programming for a living! hahahaha

You and me both!


Gregory Scott - ubk

[onesong321]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Do a quick Google search, my friend. Waves v9 is cracked.

I don't really have a dog in this fight .....but Waves V9 does NOT use iLok anymore. That was one of the moves that spurred this thread I think...

The ONLY 'unPACEd' plugins available illegally are ones that used the OLD (v1) iLok protection scheme. UBK is correct in saying that NONE of the plugins using current-version iLok protection have been cracked. This has been true for a couple of years.

[jrhager84]

I'd strive to refute those claims, but refuse to download the aforementioned
Warez to prove the point. In this, I suppose I have nothing left to contribute. Google got me quite a few hits for 'current' plugins that have been unpaced. Without downloading and trying firsthand, I can't offer any more insight. But, the comments seemed to indicate a fair success rate for downloaders...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App

[work2do]

I'd strive to refute those claims

None of the newer EDEN protected ilok plugins have been cracked. VCC, McDSP v5, Softube Summit, Softube TSAR1, UBK-1, Lexicon LXP, etc. You can google or... but they are not there. Not even the updated versions of the previously cracked Slate and Lexicon PCM are there. Waves 9, Brainworx/Plugin Alliance do not use ilok.

[TNM]

I love it when someone comes out to tell a developer they are not safe with ilok because waves v9 has been cracked, and waves doesn't even USE ilok anymore!

jrhager you need to do your research better. Sorry bud, since lexicon release point 0 and a few others that were done (like mcdsp 4, early softube stuff etc), the new ilok eden system has not yet been cracked on either mac or windows. Same goes for syncrosoft since cubase 5.1.. no cracks of any kind since then.

it does not matter what a link says.. you can put ashdjasdfjkab.rar into a download searcher and it will find it at a "download this file" scam site...

Please don't spread misinformation.. you are trusting a hack site or a search engine over the developers and our words here..

[jrhager84]

I really don't think I am 'spreading misinformation'. All of the waves have been cracked, and I foolishly typed v9 instead of v8/v7/etc.

Again, I said I'm at an impasse because I refuse to download any files just to try and prove a point. I've also stated that there are some that aren't hacked, but only because people haven't invested the time to reverse engineer it.

Assuming that there's something out there that *can't* be hacked is foolish IMO. What would make *more* sense to me, is that there aren't people willing to invest the time TO crack said software... Make sense?

Either way, I didn't mean to 'stir the pot', rather offer my humble opinion on the matter. That said, I'm done playing Devil's advocate.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

I really don't think I am 'spreading misinformation'. All of the waves have been cracked...

But therein lays the rub: do you *know* Waves v7/v8 was cracked? How do you know?

As far as we can tell, you are spreading information that, by your own admission, you are unable/unwilling to verify.

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Assuming that there's something out there that *can't* be hacked is foolish IMO. What would make *more* sense to me, is that there aren't people willing to invest the time TO crack said software... Make sense?

It's makes total sense, but it's still nothing more than an assumption, a theory. So you're assuming a state of affairs and stating it as fact (iLok is cracked), then postulating the 'why' of it with an explanation that is credible but equally unsubstantiated. You may well be right about everything, but you may well be wrong about everything, and round and round we go.

You're clearly a reasonable and intelligent person, can you see how all of the above could fairly be labeled 'spreading misinformation'?


Gregory Scott - ubk

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by u b k

But therein lays the rub: do you *know* Waves v7/v8 was cracked? How do you know?

As far as we can tell, you are spreading information that, by your own admission, you are unable/unwilling to verify.

I know, because people in town used cracked waves. You know, basement 'studioz' that make 'beats 'n' shiz'? Again, I *could* download it to prove a point, but I refuse to put myself in that position. A logical paradox, I know.

It's makes total sense, but it's still nothing more than an assumption, a theory. So you're assuming a state of affairs and stating it as fact (iLok is cracked), then postulating the 'why' of it with an explanation that is credible but equally unsubstantiated. You may well be right about everything, but you may well be wrong about everything, and round and round we go.

You're clearly a reasonable and intelligent person, can you see how all of the above could fairly be labeled 'spreading misinformation'?


Gregory Scott - ubk

*this* assumption is predicated on the notion that I haven't seen it second hand. You're right, I can't/won't step out to prove my point, as it compromises my integrity. I am (as such) unable to prove (directly and empirically) my point, so I ceded. That does not, however, render my previous statements moot. It renders them unverified, and subject to scrutiny. If you want, you're more than welcome to download a cracked copy and see if it works or not for yourself. I choose not to.

[jrhager84]

Don't you think it's equally weighted misinformation if you *haven't* seen them *not* work firsthand/secondhand? Just wanted to throw the different side of the same coin out there into the universe.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Don't you think it's equally weighted misinformation if you *haven't* seen them *not* work firsthand/secondhand?

Actually, it is, and you're right. I'll have to start prefacing any such statements with 'to the best of my knowledge', and as I type that I realize I'm going to have to dig deeper on the matter... it'd be good to actually verify what I've been told by the people who program this stuff for me.

Thanks for tweaking my perspective on this, I'm curious to see where my inquiries take me. If I find anything out with any certainty, I'll report it here. I have zero attachment to being right, I'm only interested in an accurate awareness of 'what is'.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by u b k

Actually, it is, and you're right. I'll have to start prefacing any such statements with 'to the best of my knowledge', and as I type that I realize I'm going to have to dig deeper on the matter... it'd be good to actually verify what I've been told by the people who program this stuff for me.

Thanks for tweaking my perspective on this, I'm curious to see where my inquiries take me. If I find anything out with any certainty, I'll report it here. I have zero attachment to being right, I'm only interested in an accurate awareness of 'what is'.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Agreed. I really appreciate your work with UBK-1 (I *love* it) and just want people to know that there are teams out there that can reverse engineer *anything*. I went to college for programming. That said, it takes easily 10x more time to reverse engineer than it did to make it in the first place. In that regard, most people/teams/etc. don't think it's worth the time to reverse engineer, as by the time they crack it, a newer version is out. Hope that clears everything up...

[Sotsirc]

I do encourage fighting piracy,
but damn, I can't tell you how many times I've left the iLok in
the studio and haven't been able to work on a project from my home. So easy to lose that little thing ...

[u b k]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

That said, it takes easily 10x more time to reverse engineer than it did to make it in the first place.

In that case, I'll be looking for the cracked ubk-1 to hit in about 20 years!


Gregory Scott - ubk

[UltimateOutsider]

The only reason I've personally avoided iLok is it's not compatible with the Steinberg eLicenser, all of my USB ports are full, and I'd rather avoid the extra cables involved with another USB hub if possible.

I got a free copy of Antares Autotune when I bought Cubase 5, and I always thought that was silly because Autotune requires (and doesn't include) an iLok, when Cubase came with the Steinberg key.

I'm actually very pleased that Waves dropped iLok since I really needed their C6 compressor, but I would have had to find another option by someone else if iLok had still been a requirement.

That v9 stuff was confusing as hell, though. As a first time customer I found their emails and on-site instructions about how to download and install the plugin incredibly vague and misleading.