Dear Avid

[jamesbeylik]

Please discontinue your use of ilok. Much more expensive software programs seem to get by. They are fragile, losable and costly for musicians on the road or someone just trying to work at a coffee shop. I don't want to give ilok more money for a bad product. If you do that for me, I promise not to bring up Pro tools sound card compatibility.

[cane creek]

[jamesbeylik]

LOL I should really stop blaming others when things get smashed up. The rage needs to go somewhere. But I'm old school. If the strat can make it from Houston to LA why can't that overpriced piece of #%$#

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by jamesbeylik

why can't that overpriced piece of #%$#

The strat you mean?

[blakegaston]

I like my iLok. I think its cute.

[McGlown]

Totally agreed i dont like the ilok at all!!!!!! but it keeps my purchases "SAFE" as they say so i guess ill have to keep dealing with the shitlok until avid wants to do something 1st it was the locked into hardware with the mbox

[fireberd]

There are others still using the iLok's. I've got Antares and the latest Line 6 POD Farm and they both require iLok.

Although they are a hassle, in a way it makes it easy to use the software in more than one machine (one at a time). I have MP9 installed on my desktop system and I also have it installed on a Laptop for "on site" recordings. Depending on which one I want to use, I just plug the iLok into the one I want to use.

Actually, I'm not using Pro Tools for production yet. I just recently got it and I'm going through a Groove 3 tutorial. I'll then get into it and decide if I want it for my primary DAW or if I'll continue using Sonar.

[jamesbeylik]

Hey now. That strat survives allot of abuse. Trust me, I've been through a few guitars. Ibanhad, Schfincter, Jokeson... The Strat still plays. I dunno. And now they want us to use active pickups. Sounds like a dumb idea to me. First time a drummer spills beer on it while showing off his version of purple haze.....

[rus5]

Another vote for sending Pace packing (Pace is the iLok company). They extort fees from customers who have no choice but to use them if they're to run the software they need and they add absolutely zero value to the people who have to actually pay for them - us customers. They're parasites. More responsible companies protect their software without flowing the burden to their customers. Of course, you could never expect a company like Avid to do that, but perhaps all the iLok "me too" companies could do so.

[Ward Pike]

I BLOODY HATE iLOKS!!! They cost me thousands on a lost session. Piss off Digi, get with the program and dump the policing. You've received over $100,000 of my dollars over the years, it's time to trust me.

[ZFire]

For a fixed (non-laptop) installation I'd rather have one iLok than having to round up a dozen serial numbers and authorization codes every time I upgrade my hard drive or motherboard.

[baskervils]

They are fragile. It seems like they can at least make a heavy duty version that doesn't fall apart!

[doom64]

Originally Posted by baskervils

They are fragile. It seems like they can at least make a heavy duty version that doesn't fall apart!

Agreed. I'd buy a $100 version of the iLok if it were made like some of my cheap $20.00 ones. A KEY is made out of metal. Shouldn't an iLok? (at least on the exterior).

[ology]

It's more like, "Dear Avid". Hire software developers who are in touch with reality and have a knowledge of the DAW market so you can develop a worthwhile product and pricepoint thats competitive. RIP. Bye bye...

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Ward Pike

I BLOODY HATE iLOKS!!! They cost me thousands on a lost session. Piss off Digi, get with the program and dump the policing. You've received over $100,000 of my dollars over the years, it's time to trust me.

If there were a way to do that without having to do the same for everyone else, I'm sure that they would. Unfortunately, there's not. I've never stolen something from my local grocery store, but they still film me every time I go in there. There's no way to only film the theives. Why is it that the company getting stolen from is always the bad guy, not the huge number of people ripping off software and causing the situation that requires this kind of thing?

[kdm]

Originally Posted by McGlown

Totally agreed i dont like the ilok at all!!!!!! but it keeps my purchases "SAFE" as they say

Back in the old days, we kept our software safe on those shiny things they called CDs. They were strange creatures though - they stayed where you put them, and when they were in a file cabinet at the studio, they seemed to be impossible to break or lose in a coffee shop.

Didn't seem fair that we didn't have the option of paying for someone else's security (heck, it works for organized crime and gangs). It's great to be able to take over that risk for these poor developers that would surely be selling hamburgers otherwise, at least according to the sob stories one such developer told me.

Hey, if you lose your iLok with your PT license, just tell your clients you are off to sell hamburgers while they wait for the replacement to get your studio back up and running! Better you to lose your studio and clients than a software company worth millions to lose a couple of copies to some 13 year old bedroom DJ who has no intent of ever buying it.

Remember, you don't own the software you paid for. And software companies would go broke if they sold the same copies without copy protection (still trying to figure that one out, but that's what they say, so I believe them!).

This is the new era where you pay money, and someone else decides if you get anything in return for it, and if they lose it (i.e. the iLok breaks), it's your problem... well they'll cover you... for a fee, with no guarantees of course.

I just wish software developers would pay for my theft and loss insurance on my studio. After all, fair is fair.

[kdm]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If there were a way to do that without having to do the same for everyone else, I'm sure that they would. Unfortunately, there's not. I've never stolen something from my local grocery store, but they still film me every time I go in there. There's no way to only film the theives. Why is it that the company getting stolen from is always the bad guy, not the huge number of people ripping off software and causing the situation that requires this kind of thing?

Does the grocery store make you pay for the security cameras? Nope.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by kdm

Does the grocery store make you pay for the security cameras? Nope.

Well, yes, of course you pay for them, just like you are paying for the store itself and the people who work there, and their legal expenses for dealing with theft and so forth. It's built in the price of what they charge.

[kdm]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Well, yes, of course you pay for them, just like you are paying for the store itself and the people who work there, and their legal expenses for dealing with theft and so forth. It's built in the price of what they charge.

But the problem with that analogy is that if someone steals a loaf of bread, the store stays open. If someone steals our PT iLok, or $10k in Waves licenses, we are down, losing money, with no help from anyone, including the insurance companies. They replace the face value, but the lost income is gone, and many clients may be as well. All to save a million dollar company $600 of potential (and unproven) loss.

Of course we also have to charge for it, but we can't charge for the downtime. Rates are being forced down for us not up to account for these extra expenses and risks. And while software developers are also forced to compete with lower product prices, they are spending more and more on copy protection and asking us to pick up the tab.

Imho, we are seeing the law of diminishing returns on those "projected" piracy losses coming back in the form of losses for paying customers - in the end, it probably balances out, but instead of developers paying some portion of the loss, we are funding it, when we can least afford to.

Software developers come up with their projected losses by looking at average theft in various industries, not actual experience with comparing their product sales with and without protection (by their own estimates, they couldn't survive without it, but have never tried, so how do they know?). I've yet to see one that shows definitive proof that without copy protection, their paying customers will become thieves.

Who are they ensuring will buy their product? Not honest people. Who goes out of their way to sell to thieves?

And on the flip side, what are consumers pushing for? Free music. Not just DRM-free, but free period. Who is fighting for the rights of content creators, musicians, artists, composers, etc to be paid a fair rate and not be ripped off? No one. Who is in the middle? Us. Paying for everyone else's potential losses, and our own too.

Of course we all see the point, but the balance seems well out of whack in the case of software security given it's singular critical path in our work vs. one or two products in a store that stocks thousands. A better analogy would be if the store closed for a week every time someone lifted a loaf of bread.

[Dean Roddey]

I don't think that software developers come up with their projected losses by looking at other industries. There's no other industries, except the recorded music industry, that's remotely screwed over on the level that the software industry is. Most retail industries keep their losses in the mid- to low-single digits.

And it's not whether ALL their existing customers will become thieves, it's that it then becomes completely trivial for everyone else to just rationalize never paying for it. People are infinitely capable of rationalizing not paying something that they don't have to, even more so than stealing it.

And of course you only have to look at the music industry to know what happens when you have an unprotected product. A vast number of the music industry's potential customers have become thieves.

[Duardo]

Much more expensive software programs seem to get by.

Just out of curiosity...what are those much more expensive software programs?

But the problem with that analogy is that if someone steals a loaf of bread, the store stays open. If someone steals our PT iLok, or $10k in Waves licenses, we are down, losing money, with no help from anyone, including the insurance companies. They replace the face value, but the lost income is gone, and many clients may be as well.

Well, the analogy doesn't really hold because you're not selling products you're selling a service, but someone stealing a loaf of bread would probably be more analogous to someone stealing a cable from you. You could probably go on despite the loss of a single cable.

But if someone stole, say, your computer, you'd be dead in the water as well, wouldn't you? If you're in a position where you could potentially lose money if your iLok wanders off or breaks I'm not sure why you wouldn't have the ZDT coverage, which at least takes care of you for two weeks while you get things sorted out with whomever you need to. You can't be back up and running instantly if someone steals your computer, though, can you?

Software developers come up with their projected losses by looking at average theft in various industries, not actual experience with comparing their product sales with and without protection (by their own estimates, they couldn't survive without it, but have never tried, so how do they know?). I've yet to see one that shows definitive proof that without copy protection, their paying customers will become thieves.

Well, the whole reason that Avid went with the iLok in the first place was because of the immense theft of plugins that occurred with the Mix-era systems. These were customers who had the means to get into a system with a price of entry of at least $10K, often more...but they were stealing plugins right and left. It wasn't just project studios, either, it was commercial studios as well. It's too easy for many people just to take the path of least resistance and steal when there's no effort, or little risk, involved.

More recently, software manufacturers are certainly aware when their plugins become, um, available...and as I've been told by several of the larger manufacturers, they do see noticeable dropoffs in sales after that happens. It may not be "definitive proof" but it certainly seems like more than a coincidence.