The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Anti-Piracy tools impact on legit users
Old 24th May 2009
  #31
Lives for gear
 
saovi's Avatar
 

First let me start by saying I do not support pirates or have pirated software at home or in my studio. But as a legitimate end user, I find many of the anti-piracy schemes to be either a hassle or a downright rip off. Case in point - iLok.

Original post on VI Control by good friend and fellow composer Craig Sharmat:

v.i. control forum • View topic - Ilok practices bordering on illegal [ Guest ]
Quote:
iLok practices border on illegal. Actually they may be illegal.

Let me start by giving you a situation that could happen to you.

You have an ilok product and have not bought their insurance. you can at anytime buy their insurance in case your ilok breaks but they give a so-called "cooling off period" or you need to spend another 100 dollars to get a temporary license. So that's a 130.00 to recover your stuff...but that's not all folks. For you to get back permanent licenses you need to send the broken ilok in so it will not be used again. They will fix it whether you like it or not and charge an additional 54.00 dollars. So in short if your ilok breaks and you do not have the insurance it will cost you:

$ 30.00 for initial insurance
$100.00 for the cooling off period
$ 54.00 for sending in your old one
and a new ilok
$ 40.00

for a total of
$224.00

If you have the insurance it still costs you
$124.00

... because their product failed.

The cooling off period is a total scam just to grab desperate users 100.00
If your iLok breaks no matter what, you have to spend the 54 dollars sending them the defective key whether you want to see it again or not.

I hope all software companies in the future go to another company for their security needs. this one is a scam. I love EW and Audio Ease and the like but will think twice about buying future products from all companies which support this company's policies.

This in the end may mean more of you spend the 30 dollars on insurance before your ilok goes down, but this whole experience leaves a bad taste in my mouth dealing with ilok and Pace.

Remember though that your Credit Card gets billed automatically annually so it will just keep going.
_______________________

If this isn't user-unfriendly for legitimate users I don't know what is.
Old 24th May 2009
  #32
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by colinmiller View Post
I want to know that I will get good support with a company and that they will continue to support the product I bought. Piracy threatens that support. Pirates bring the sales down and threaten to put companies out of business.
I think everyone agrees with this but the argument isn't that piracy doesn't hurt. The counter argument is that ant-piracy doesn't work and ultimately only affects legitimate users.
Old 24th May 2009
  #33
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by angusbaigent View Post
Should be no problem to get you a replacement. Which region are you in? If you send me a PM I'll get you the contact for the right people to help you out.

Btw, I think it's great to be talking about this directly with everyone on the same forum, so thanks to Jules for the opportunity :-)

A number of people have made some great points in this thread. I wanted to say something about effectiveness iof the copy protection. Both us at Steinberg and the guys at Pace have established usb-based copy protection systems that are, for all intents and purposes, secure. They are no longer emulated or bypassed and as such for pretty much the first time in the history of this industry bring about the situation that only the people who have paid for the softwrae products use them. That's a very important development right there, I think. Of course, as a manufacturer it should mean that more people are buying the product and thereby funding more devleopment because they can't get it any other way. As mentioned on the other thread, though, that's difficult to measure. It's also important for me as a customer because when the copy protection works, other people who have stolen the product cannot use its advantages, and my money as a legitimate customer is not funding the enjoyment/business that they have not paid for. I remember talking to a Cubase customer at a trade show a few years ago when the protection was still not 100% secure, and he was (rightly) very upset at the fact that other people were just downloading software that he had been supporting financially for many years. He wanted a copy protection that works, so that his investment is protected, and we're at a point where we can now offer that. I would agree, though, that we have to do more to offer benefits for customers over and above the copy protection itself, and we're looking at ways to do that.

Cheers,
Angus (Steinberg)
Are you certain that you have 100% uncrackable protection? Because I seem to recall evidence strongly to the contrary.
Old 24th May 2009
  #34
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuno_F View Post
Yes, unbelievable. It's completely unreasonable. I mean, I paid for all my fender guitars, yet I have to worry about loss because I won't give another if I lose it....
False analogy on the grounds that you own your guitar, but you do not own your software. Your software is licensed to you for use. Among other reasons this is because there are tangible costs associated with building a tangible guitar, while software can be duplicated and delivered to the end user for only the cost of a little bandwidth, effectively free for a company charging any amount of money for their plugins. Ergo it is strange indeed that an iLok should act as a sort of "physicalizer" of intangible licensing agreements, but as it works right now, in many cases that's almost how it works. It takes the intangible and makes it tangible, but with none of the benefits of other tangible goods (actual ownership) and all of the risks.
Old 24th May 2009
  #35
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuno_F View Post
Yes, unbelievable. It's completely unreasonable. I mean, I paid for all my fender guitars, yet I have to worry about loss because I won't give another if I lose it....
But the dongle is not the software. The dongle is not what you paid several hundred dollars for. The dongle is yet another device to keep track of, and with a lot of software it means a lot of dongles.

Whoever pirates the software doesn't have to keep track, doesn't have to bother with the dongles. Who is being "rewarded" for correct behavior again, then, and who's being treated like a criminal?

It'd be a far better comparison if you had to had to put a little adapter (that wasn't yours) in your guitar's output in your guitar (which wasn't yours either - software is licensed) in order to play at all. Without the little thing, the guitar wouldn't do anything.

Again - demonstrating that analogies with physical objects just don't work .
Old 24th May 2009
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by egan View Post
I think everyone agrees with this but the argument isn't that piracy doesn't hurt. The counter argument is that ant-piracy doesn't work and ultimately only affects legitimate users.
My personal feeling is that anti piracy measures limit the number of people who use cracked software and also slows the progress of pirated products invading the music computer.
Therefore these measures do not only effect legitimate users.
I haven't used an iLok for years, but most anti-pracy measures I've come across have worked well and not inconvenienced me in any way.
I think we are already paying extra for software, because the cracked copies are damaging legitimate sales. If anti-piracy measures get dropped by popular demand, we will most likely see much higher prices for those who want to stay within the legal system.
Old 25th May 2009
  #37
Special guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed View Post
Are you certain that you have 100% uncrackable protection? Because I seem to recall evidence strongly to the contrary.
I didn't say '100% uncrackable', as there is a fine difference. 'Cracked' versions of the current Cubase and Nuendo generations have not yet been available, so for me, at least, they have not yet been successfully cracked. Cubase 4 was the first version of Cubase that wasn't cracked at all. I'm also not saying that it wouldn't be theoretically possible, because it probably would. But it would require so much manpower and
expertise that I think it's unlikely it will be successfully cracked/emulated. Time will tell.
Old 25th May 2009
  #38
Gear Guru
 
Sid Viscous's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by angusbaigent View Post
I didn't say '100% uncrackable', as there is a fine difference. 'Cracked' versions of the current Cubase and Nuendo generations have not yet been available, so for me, at least, they have not yet been successfully cracked. Cubase 4 was the first version of Cubase that wasn't cracked at all. I'm also not saying that it wouldn't be theoretically possible, because it probably would. But it would require so much manpower and
expertise that I think it's unlikely it will be successfully cracked/emulated. Time will tell.
Wavelab 6 also isn't cracked and according to one of the reasons the software industry uses to defend intrusive protection should we be expecting large price decreases on those products in the near future?
Old 25th May 2009
  #39
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by angusbaigent View Post
I didn't say '100% uncrackable', as there is a fine difference. 'Cracked' versions of the current Cubase and Nuendo generations have not yet been available, so for me, at least, they have not yet been successfully cracked. Cubase 4 was the first version of Cubase that wasn't cracked at all. I'm also not saying that it wouldn't be theoretically possible, because it probably would. But it would require so much manpower and
expertise that I think it's unlikely it will be successfully cracked/emulated. Time will tell.
and apple has been making tons of claims that you can't hack OSX (and that it's also stable) which has been proven to be VERY VERY wrong.

while i'm a fan of hacking of any sort, i don't condone piracy, i know plenty of people who have cracked copies of ableton live, reason, etc. but the truth of the matter is "locks only keep honest people out" (for the house analogy)

i think if someone exploits program x and cracks it themselves (without using a crack someone else made) they deserve it, especially considering claims that have been seen in this thread. the same with someone who robs a bank and gets away with it because they had it planned well, i don't necessarily agree with it (in fact if i caught someone stealing from me i'd cut their hands off with a meat cleaver) but i think those who are capable of developing cracks for copy protection deserve some credit.

it might be a shot in the dark but i'm guessing those who are actually capable of cracking programs are in the minority, the problem is the released cracks that get bundled with .iso files that make the program readily available for anyone with a computer and internet.


in a nutshell, i don't agree with piracy, i don't respect anyone who pirates software, but give hackers/crackers some credit for being able to bypass supposedly secure systems and consider the number of times copy protection has been cracked/circumvented and how many legitimate customers are pained by convoluted processes.

hopefully someone found some value in my post.
Old 25th May 2009
  #40
Lives for gear
 
rhythmtech's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by angusbaigent View Post
Cubase 4 was the first version of Cubase that wasn't cracked at all.
actually it was, just not quite good enough to make any impact.
Old 25th May 2009
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by angusbaigent View Post
I didn't say '100% uncrackable', as there is a fine difference. 'Cracked' versions of the current Cubase and Nuendo generations have not yet been available, so for me, at least, they have not yet been successfully cracked. Cubase 4 was the first version of Cubase that wasn't cracked at all. I'm also not saying that it wouldn't be theoretically possible, because it probably would. But it would require so much manpower and
expertise that I think it's unlikely it will be successfully cracked/emulated. Time will tell.
I do wonder at what price the effective protection has come (I'm not talking about customer inconvenience, but actually measurable downsides).

- What amount of system resources goes into the CP (or rather how much performance could be gained by not using any CP)?

- I wonder how often application crashes with Nuendo 4 are due to some problem with CP? (or rather how much stability could increase if there was no CP at all). Same question for Wavelab 6 although it is much, much more stable. Have you done empiric testing on this? Can you estimate what percentage of problems / crashes are down to CP (directly or indirectly)?

- What amount of cash per copy of Nuendo copy essentially goes towards CP? (Synchrosoft licensing, implementation costs, dongle hardware, user dongle support, etc). Are you at liberty to give ballpark figures?

- And the inevitable follow-up question: Are you absolutely sure that the cost for CP is lower than that of sales that might be lost if there was no / less elaborate CP?
Old 25th May 2009
  #42
Lives for gear
 
TheRealRoach's Avatar
An open question about dongles affecting software performance:

I came across an informal letter from a few years ago regarding one of the cubase releases. It was supposedly by a representative of one of these hacking communities. After patching/cracking/unlocking, he/she stated that there was a great deal of the programs coding - and efficiency - wrapped up in the dongle itself. From my memory I think they mentioned a huge amount of efficiency could be gained by getting rid of the dongle... something like 30%.

This number seems unbelievably high, but it does make sense on some level that certain dongle/protection systems would complicate, and thus bog down performance.

So upon reading that I wondered if there is any truth at all in this statement?
Old 26th May 2009
  #43
Lives for gear
 
TRA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednose View Post
heh
BTW, can I get a dongle for my home setup so I can edit at home?
That would be awesome. Right now I have a keychain with various dongles and thumb drives that I don't want to lose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuno_F View Post
Yes, unbelievable. It's completely unreasonable. I mean, I paid for all my fender guitars, yet I have to worry about loss because I won't give another if I lose it....
Let's not forget about what we are talking about here. The Cubase dongle is no bigger than a house key. Meanwhile, your strat takes up as much space as a piece of furniture. Many people lose their house keys while not many misplace a chair.

I see your point....somewhat.
Old 26th May 2009
  #44
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRA View Post
I'm very anti-piracy, but I get very frustrated with some of the anti-piracy protections that have negative impacts on legit users, but they don't circumvent piracy. Can I get some opinions from the anti-piracy folks on this?
We have fine-tuned our copy protection method quite a bit over the
years, and making it as convenient as possible for the user was always a
primary goal. Another goal was actually to add value to it.

Our current copy protection mechanism is just one aspect of a product
activation system that is designed to offer useful maintenance
functionality to the user. For example, it automatically informs
about available updates and other product-related downloads, and you
only ever need to enter a product serial number once because every
future installation accesses this info automatically.

We used a dongle protection for Reaktor 3 a few years back, but we
settled for an account-based product activation system in the end
because we found it is preferred by a large majority of our users.

Fine-tuning our system definitely took some time. With the technology
of the first generation "Service Center" system, we hit a sudden bump in
the road around two years ago that created unexpected problems. This was
a painful but also ultimately useful experience. The result was the
much more advanced second-generation system which now works exactly as
we envisioned it to.

At the end of the day, I believe that the large majority of our potential
customers will decide to purchase a legit copy of the product simply due
to their professional attitude, respect for other people's hard work and
because it gives them access to important resources like the latest software
updates and the free tech support.

Daniel
Old 26th May 2009
  #45
Here for the gear
 

I'm a member of IMSTA and I wanted to give a big thumbs and say thanks to IMSTA and the various company representatives for taking part in this. I think its a really cool idea and is exactly the kind of thing IMSTA should be doing

At Camel Audio we use a keyfile based system for copy protection, which isn't locked to a particular machine ID but does contain users details. We spent a long time thinking about the options for Alchemy but ultimately stuck with this scheme. The issue for me with C&R is that pretty much all these systems are cracked, so it doesn't offer enough of an advantage to be worth the hassle. I was tempted by dongles, but speaking personally, I find them inconvenient, and if I were to put my businessmans hat on briefly, I'd say that there is some disadvantage for a company like Camel Audio who offers instant downloads, since it removes the instant gratification aspect, if a user has to wait for a dongle to show up the post. Having said the above, I can totally relate to what Angus from Steinberg is saying - that its nice to know that all your customers are legit, and that your customers know that other people aren't getting for free what they paid for. We'll continue to try to offer great support, regular updates and other advantages like tutorial videos in a bid to make sure our customers feel valued.
Old 26th May 2009
  #46
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben [CamelAudio] View Post
I'm a member of IMSTA and I wanted to give a big thumbs and say thanks to IMSTA and the various company representatives for taking part in this. I think its a really cool idea and is exactly the kind of thing IMSTA should be doing

Thank you Ben!

Likewise, I would like to thank you and other IMSTA members for being an important part of this association.

There are many companies that are sitting on the sidelines and although their managements agree with IMSTA and know the importance of education as a tool in our common quest, they have not joined.

We are only as strong as our member base and the more members we have, the more we could do for our industry.

Paul
Old 26th May 2009
  #47
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blenn View Post

With all due respect Paul - but I just cannot accept that analogy.

Software / virtual world cannot be compared with hard tangible reality. Running off with your TV is NOT the same as a copy of my Nuendo............So please - no more comparing the virtual with the tangible.

Thanks Blenn!

We are not talking about replacements here. We are talking about the initial purchase, or no purchase. The bottom line is that intellectual property is a property and a software product is still a product.

Money was spent for its development, marketing, etc……….

People just have to respect that, whatever the cost may be – a few dollars or a few thousand dollars.

Let me ask you something:

Let’s say that you find out that it costs Nike only $15 to make a product overseas and to ship it to the store nearest you. You go out to the store to purchase it and see a price tag of $250.

Is that not an unfair price tag for a $15 product?

Would you steal it?

No, you would most likely buy something else if you don't see the value. Why couldn’t people do that with software?

If it is too expensive or you don’t like how the company treats its customers, then buy something else. Don’t steal it.

Is that too much to ask?
Old 26th May 2009
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMSTA View Post
We are not talking about replacement here. We are talking about the initial purchase, or no purchase. The bottom line is that intellectual property is still property.

Money was spent for its development, marketing, etc……….

People just have to respect that, whatever the cost may be – a few dollars or a few thousand dollars.

Let me ask you something:

Let’s say that you find out that it costs Nike only $15 to make a product overseas and to ship it to the store nearest you. You go out to the store to purchase it and see a price tag of $250.

Is that not an unfair price tag for a $15 product?

Would you steal it?

No, you would most likely buy something else. Why couldn’t people do that with software?

If it is too expensive or you don’t like how the company treats its customers, then buy something else. Don’t steal it.

Is that too much to ask?
That's not the argument I disagree with. In fact I'm wholly with you on the whole stealing aspect. It is wrong but there is a hell of a lot of disgruntled users who are legitimate who DO NOT want some £20 piece of plastic being the difference between you having to fork out another £2000 for software that would only cost £20 to reproduce if you had an accidental loss or theft. This is why I get annoyed when people say it's the same as a tangible item like a car or something similar. That's what's utter none sense.

It's the whole point of the virtual world being so advantageous.

My point is that if someone stole my dongle then I could report that to Steinberg and they could easily put a block on that license to stop that individual getting future upgrades, support etc. In effect making it totally useless and pointless. Also once that information became common knowledge then most people would not see the point in stealing the damned dongle anyway!

Paul


But if someone did steal my dongle I would have to pay £1-2K again for what in effect would only cost £20 to get me back up and running again.
Old 26th May 2009
  #49
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMSTA View Post
We are not talking about replacement here. We are talking about the initial purchase, or no purchase. The bottom line is that intellectual property is still property.

Money was spent for its development, marketing, etc……….

People just have to respect that, whatever the cost may be – a few dollars or a few thousand dollars.

Let me ask you something:

Let’s say that you find out that it costs Nike only $15 to make a product overseas and to ship it to the store nearest you. You go out to the store to purchase it and see a price tag of $250.

Is that not an unfair price tag for a $15 product?

Would you steal it?

No, you would most likely buy something else. Why couldn’t people do that with software?

If it is too expensive or you don’t like how the company treats its customers, then buy something else. Don’t steal it.

Is that too much to ask?
considering the nike userbase i wouldn't put it past most of them to try stealing a few pairs...

anyways, one of the biggest gripes i have in regards to software is licensing, and the eula's. it seems like every eula i read essentially says "if we don't like the way you look, we can take your license (which you paid a reasonable chunk of your paycheck for) away, permanently" and while i'm never doing anything unreasonable with my license (even if it may be against the eula, for example running a copy of software x on MY pc that's in my bedroom, and MY mac that's in my other room. i'm not sure if that's against any of the eula's on any of my universal software but i am pretty sure it's against the flstudio eula, but that won't run on osx so it doesn't matter)


point being, as long as i have a license for my software i should have access to it (even if i lose my discs) and while i realize it costs money to create the discs, i would have no problem paying for a replacement set of discs if they were priced reasonably (for example $5-$15, because quite frankly forking out $50 for replacement discs to a piece of software i have a license to just seems ridiculous) and even at that a good portion of the software i have licenses to with the exception of battery (which would use up a substantial amount of bandwidth to download from a server) are perfectly capable of being delivered in a downloadable format.

because, y'know, when we buy "software" we're not actually buying the software, we're just paying for a revokable license to use said software whereas with nike shoes you're actually purchasing the shoes, and when you get those shoes home you can tear them apart and use the soles for whatever you want.
Old 26th May 2009
  #50
MMI
Special guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed View Post
False analogy on the grounds that you own your guitar, but you do not own your software. Your software is licensed to you for use. Among other reasons this is because there are tangible costs associated with building a tangible guitar, while software can be duplicated and delivered to the end user for only the cost of a little bandwidth, effectively free for a company charging any amount of money for their plugins. Ergo it is strange indeed that an iLok should act as a sort of "physicalizer" of intangible licensing agreements, but as it works right now, in many cases that's almost how it works. It takes the intangible and makes it tangible, but with none of the benefits of other tangible goods (actual ownership) and all of the risks.
What? You are saying that there are no tangible costs to the developing software? You don't think Steinberg spent money to make Cubase or Microsoft spent money to make Windows? So I guess all the people who toil in the software companies are just volunteering? Software costs money to develop. A Fender Strat costs money to develop. Why are you trying to draw a distinction where there is none? If you steal something you steal something.
Old 26th May 2009
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed View Post
False analogy on the grounds that you own your guitar, but you do not own your software. Your software is licensed to you for use. Among other reasons this is because there are tangible costs associated with building a tangible guitar, while software can be duplicated and delivered to the end user for only the cost of a little bandwidth, effectively free for a company charging any amount of money for their plugins. Ergo it is strange indeed that an iLok should act as a sort of "physicalizer" of intangible licensing agreements, but as it works right now, in many cases that's almost how it works. It takes the intangible and makes it tangible, but with none of the benefits of other tangible goods (actual ownership) and all of the risks.
I lost my car keys, and I lost my house keys. I had a spare, kept somewhere else. If I didn't I would have to change the locks. Likewise, professionals should have spares. I know people hate being held accountable and responsible for their own actions and property, but as far as I'm concerned, if you lose your dongle it's your fault, not theirs!

Regarding the costs of replacing the software, should fender replace my guitar selling it to me at manufacturing cost, without a profit? You are saying the software company should give up their profit. Why not fender as well?

I prefer dongles to any other protection method for the reasons many times mentioned. Upgrading a computer is a nightmare due to all my IK and NI stuff, but Cubase, Korg Legacy and the rob papen stuff is a lot easier.

And plus, at least with syncrosoft, it actually works. There wasn't a fully functional crack of any syncrosoft product since SX3, and that's enough for me.
Old 27th May 2009
  #52
soulstudios
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMSTA View Post
Thanks Blenn!

We are not talking about replacements here. We are talking about the initial purchase, or no purchase. The bottom line is that intellectual property is a property and a software product is still a product.

Money was spent for its development, marketing, etc……….

People just have to respect that, whatever the cost may be – a few dollars or a few thousand dollars.

Let me ask you something:

Let’s say that you find out that it costs Nike only $15 to make a product overseas and to ship it to the store nearest you. You go out to the store to purchase it and see a price tag of $250.

Is that not an unfair price tag for a $15 product?

Would you steal it?

No, you would most likely buy something else if you don't see the value. Why couldn’t people do that with software?

If it is too expensive or you don’t like how the company treats its customers, then buy something else. Don’t steal it.

Is that too much to ask?

Absolutely. There is enough free software out there that NOONE, EVER has an excuse to pirate.
You want a free daw, there's krystal, audacity, mulab's luna, etc, etc, etc.
You want a free editor, there's wavosaur, audacity, etc, etc, etc.
You want free VSTs.... don't get me started.
Pirates aren't smart. Crackers aren't smart. They're lazy.
Too lazy to try something different or new.
[email protected]
Old 27th May 2009
  #53
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by egan View Post
I think everyone agrees with this but the argument isn't that piracy doesn't hurt. The counter argument is that ant-piracy doesn't work and ultimately only affects legitimate users.
I understand, but I am saying I disagree with that position. My position is that anti-piracy measures help me as a paying customer. It helps protect my investment. I would even be reluctant to use software with no copy protection unless is was a situation like Apple where their hardware sales will compensate.

And I disagree that it doesn't work as I have seen first hand the effects of how it has worked. It would be nice is some companies would post in the forums as to their experience of their sales impact once they incorporated copy protection, or went from a form of copy protection that was cracked to one that was not cracked.

And just because a copy protection is cracked, doesn't mean it is rampant. Nothing is fool proof an no one expect fool proof. We don't have laws because they will eliminate crime. But they do drastically reduce crime.

Sure there are people inconvenienced, which is just the nature of security (and exists everywhere in life, not just in software). But you have to weigh the two. It's also easy to take for granted things like support and service.Something has to pay for those in addition to development.
Old 27th May 2009
  #54
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI View Post
What? You are saying that there are no tangible costs to the developing software? You don't think Steinberg spent money to make Cubase or Microsoft spent money to make Windows? So I guess all the people who toil in the software companies are just volunteering? Software costs money to develop. A Fender Strat costs money to develop. Why are you trying to draw a distinction where there is none? If you steal something you steal something.
You're completely misunderstanding me. First, I'm not advocating piracy or trying to say in any way that software engineers aren't putting in work for which they deserve compensation. That would be ludicrous and frankly I wonder if you read the post to which I was responding, then my post fully before replying, that you should have come to such an apparent non sequitur of a conclusion.

When you buy software, you don't own it, you are using it under license from the company. What you've bought is the license. Surely you're aware that there is a significant distinction between owning property, and licensing the use of something. You buy a Fender Strat, you own it. You buy a copy of Cubase, you don't - you have a license. Many products today have eschewed the physical trappings of a box copy altogether and offer totally digital downloads, a significant point only in that it rather drives home the distinction between physical property that can entirely change hands in normal transactions, and an intangible licensing agreement which entitles you to the usage of software under specific conditions.

The iLok is weird because it is a physical device to which your licenses become tied, and if something happens to it, there's a real question as to whether or not you still have your licenses. It alters our relationship to our licenses in a funny way because it makes them all of a sudden physical. This wouldn't be odd except then the companies start treating them weirdly like physical things, too, and you can be out far more than the $40 an iLok costs if yours is lost or stolen, because not every company is willing to replace the license under those circumstances. In my opinion this is a bad thing, because now you have all of the risks of physical property but you're still under the restrictive conditions of having purchased only a license to use something. You have the worst of both worlds, but this is just the industry standard. I think this is a good venue to consider whether that really is the best thing for everyone.

Nothing about that says anything at all about stealing. I don't know where you got that.
Old 27th May 2009
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuno_F View Post
I lost my car keys, and I lost my house keys. I had a spare, kept somewhere else. If I didn't I would have to change the locks. Likewise, professionals should have spares.
There are services that hold a set of your house keys and under the owners instruction, will let people in while they are away.. (deliveries, emergency repairs)

Just wanted to mention 3rd party "custodian services" in case anyone wanted to toss them into the analogy pot that we have simmering.. heh
Old 27th May 2009
  #56
Gear Maniac
 
davew's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=IMSTA;4203863]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRA View Post
I also get annoyed when I have to unlock two locks and disarm my security alarm before entering my house.
toronto? perhaps another neighborhood is in order?
Old 27th May 2009
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Haver (NI) View Post
We have fine-tuned our copy protection method quite a bit over the
years, and making it as convenient as possible for the user was always a
primary goal. Another goal was actually to add value to it.

...

At the end of the day, I believe that the large majority of our potential
customers will decide to purchase a legit copy of the product simply due
to their professional attitude, respect for other people's hard work and
because it gives them access to important resources like the latest software
updates and the free tech support.

Daniel
It really is much better than it was a few years ago and I do appreciate the added value.

But:

- I'll have to reformat my system sometime soon and I'm really not looking forward to it just because of the many C/R hoops to go through. NI are fine, but there's IK Multimedia stuff and others. As a legit user, it just doesn't feel right to feel bad about reinstalling even if it's ok most of the time, but having to send emails just because the authorizations ran out ...

- apart from Steinberg's Synchrosoft thingie - none of the protections work


k
Old 27th May 2009
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed View Post
You're completely misunderstanding me. First, I'm not advocating piracy or trying to say in any way that software engineers aren't putting in work for which they deserve compensation. That would be ludicrous and frankly I wonder if you read the post to which I was responding, then my post fully before replying, that you should have come to such an apparent non sequitur of a conclusion.
But what you are saying is that the software company must unconditionally trust that you actually lost your dongle and must supply you with a replacement at the expense of a new sale and new profit.

Why does this not apply to my car? Why shouldn't I be entitled to a new car after I lost mine. I should then get it at manufacturing cost and at the expense of the profit of all commercial agents involved in the sale. What makes the car company entitled to a new sale and not the software company? And don't say the costs involved, because I would pay for the costs of the new car, just not the profit.

Why is it any different?

Also, what would be the limit for replacements? 1, 2 3 times? When would they be entitled to become suspicious that you may be actually selling the dongle?
Old 27th May 2009
  #59
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavvok View Post

point being, as long as i have a license for my software i should have access to it (even if i lose my discs) and while i realize it costs money to create the discs, i would have no problem paying for a replacement set of discs if they were priced reasonably


---------
I totally agree with you ...

Paul
Old 27th May 2009
  #60
Gear Addict
Can I say what a fantastic discussion, there is a simple way that software companies can render ineffective the crackers and one only a very very few minority attempt. I used to wrok for a software company where by the software was FREE!!!! yep you got it FREE!!!

Now we charged for updates and the prgram relied on getttign regular updates off course this wont probably work in music .... RIGHT well WRONG.

Practically every DAW software updates in 2 - 3 year cycles some every year. Unsing clever encryption an update can be linked quite easily to a serial number thus you register on line pay for the update downlaod and encrypted file that slots in perfectly once the correct serial key is stored.

Ok now how would this knock out the crackers well make it relatively cheap to update if Nuendo was say free but the annual update was $100.00 anyone serious with Nuendo would update wont they?. Add to this introduce a free demo of 7 days with say a flat fee of $20 for a further 30 days.

Off course as someone has already alluded the model most software companies use is a volume based i.e if Nuendo cost $900 then they would expect for arguments sake to sell about 1000 then hope they all update to the latest version. To be fair though there was a time way back when cracking TDM plugins was indeed very popular. Then Sony released Oxford which though pricey was so damn good you had to get one regardless of it being cracked then suddenly more and more cheap/affordable plugins appeared more or less the same quality. Then the really cheap ones/free ones Massey, IIeqpro PSP tuff and then it was a case of get one pricey one and plenty cheap ones. Then UAD and seriously cheap regularly discounted promotions im on my way to owning all of them. That is the key make it affordable to the point that it is easier to get the cheap plugs than waste time surfing for cracks. Heck for the nundo analogy make it say $100.00 flat fee plus discounted update price when new updates appear or $10 per month for a 3 year term (using license that expires every month)

Good luck it is not and easy task whatsoever.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump