nice when you are honest, pay nearly 350 bucks and need to carry that friggin CD around with you ALL THE TIME, because the software might ask for it every now and then (if you don't insert it, you're looking at a blank screen)... thanks very much! *grrrrrrrrrrrrr*

I really wish there was more information around about copy protection so that people woudl know the method before buying. I have reached the point that I usually ask before buying. Someone here always knows and speaks up. To be honest, I prefer a disk check to those automated Internet proceedures that cut you off after three registrations.

Robert

Couldn't agree more here.
I am happy to say that most of my software that I distribute is just a one time authorization, and that's all folks...
C'mon developers, get with the 90's already

Huh? It hasn't asked me for a CD recheck yet.

btw, at $350 you paid waaaaaay too much:

https://www.jrrshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=201&osCsid=fb76de b1b89279e53635db9d3612664c

I also agree whole-heartedly. When the pop-ups start (only three days left until you must install your B4 CD) I curse Native Instruments and swear I'll never purchase another NI product. Can you imagine if you had to drive your car to the dealership every couple of months just to prove over and over again that you actually bought the car? I know this gets discussed a lot here at KVR, but these kind of copy protection schemes really punish the honest folks. I research copy protection now almost as much as I research features. If it weren't for KVR, I wouldn't have known to stay away from Waves and Antares, for instance. And nothing in this world, no matter how good a deal it is, or how much I'd like a particular plug-in, could make me install PACE on my system. I understand that warez are a significant problem, but I'm sure cracks can still be found, and now companies like Antares will add to their losses by alienating honest customers.
I'd love to see an in-depth article on copy protection in SOS or CM. Has there ever been one? A round-up of all the companies and their schemes, and some facts and figures, like- how much money do the Waves folks actually think they saved by using PACE? Then I'd like to see a poll of computer musicians, asking how many of us would avoid a plug-in that uses that kind of invasive protection scheme.

There is quite the thread going on over on Northern Sounds about if Giga 3 doesn't have copy protection, all the developers will stop developing for Giga, and something about Eric Persing proving that it helps keeps sales up? I didn't read it all. 13 frickin' pages! Still got a ways to go if I have time to read it all. I got punished for one full week of not being able to use Giga because something stupid on Tascam's side with my registration doesn't EXACTLY match when I re-registered. Uuuuugh. Why is it that I spend hundreds and hundreds to be treated like this again?

Devon

Have you ever heard of a freeware utility called Daemon-Tools? Create a CD image of the disk and mount it as a virtual CD. No more worries about having to carry the CD around with you everywhere.

-Tronam

Most sample developers are really moving towards the ROMpler system to protect their products. Strange, when I installed Project 5 with the included VSTi wrapper it triggered another Tassman 3 registration process on my computer with an invalid serial number. I did not worry because I am still using it through DirextiXer.

Robert

Alright I'm probably gonna get my ass flamed for this but......if you're a
legitimate user and you're tired of getting burned by copy protection
use a cracked version. As long as you've done your bit and supported
the developers and they persist in making your life hell then where's
the crime in that?

Cheers.....CL

Well, I won't flame you CapnLockheed. I've seriously considered that idea. Thanks, Tronam for the heads up about Daemon-Tools. I'm going to check that out tonight.

musictech wrote:

Couldn't agree more here. I am happy to say that most of my software that I distribute is just a one time authorization, and that's all folks... C'mon developers, get with the 90's already

I am a developer; worked on all kinds of stuff through the years- mostly high-tech business solutions (e.g. application that idfentifies mis-priced stocks; entire trading system for the mutual fund industry). I recently started getting into the whole VST thing, as the API is available on the Steinberg board.

I can safely say that developers (per se) don't make these decisions (e.g. registration; licensing)- it's the business people who always pretend to know more. Typically, these people look down on the developer (i.e. just a resource!) and hold them in contempt because they realize that the developer understands the internals better than they do (of course).

I have worked on a major application that issues licenses (online) to customers, also...same deal- the business people (including project managers; depends on the size of the company) mandate what the code base will be compiled with for registration. Ergo, it is THEIR poor decisions that typically piss the user off- not the developer. This higherarchy usually applies to functionality, bug fixes per release (i.e. prioritizing what will be fixed and how), screens, and more. In fact, this relationship is usually what prompts the developer to leave a company and start their own business.

If more developers were involved in these processes, there would be less problems. However, the do-nothings (and know nothings) need to get their name on SOMETHING so that they can legitimize their paycheck...shame and a sin.

Got a problem with the design, release dates, features, and such? It's usually NOT the developer. It's the other guys- no kidding! Most developers just wanna- RUN AWAY!!!

Their are some exceptions, but the situation(s) usually don't last for too long as most of these small businesses are bought and sold often. The name of the game is to build up a product line, mailing list, etc... and sell, sell, sell (high)!!! FYI: most of these people DON'T want to write software all their life; they want to cash out, although I (personally) admire the ones who are good at what they do (e.g. Peter Linsener of Linplug is a solid contributor to the field; actually listens to the customers for their sake and to improve the products).

All the best.

guitfiddle wrote:

If more developers were involved in these processes, there would be less problems. However, the do-nothings (and know nothings) need to get their name on SOMETHING so that they can legitimize their paycheck...shame and a sin.

Gee I wasn't expecting to read this thread and actually see an insult slung in my direction - but there you go.

I've always seen my type of role as supporting developers and letting them concentrate on their area of expertise - developing and not on making a wide range of business decisions. You know some of us "do-nothings" work very hard FOR developers. I'm sorry that your experiences have demonstrated otherwise.

All the people who are behind the extreme, punish-the-paying-customers copyright protection schemes are in need of a rather severe cock-punching and that's just plain truth.

musictech wrote:

Couldn't agree more here. I am happy to say that most of my software that I distribute is just a one time authorization, and that's all folks... C'mon developers, get with the 90's already

Agreed. It's the only copy protection I would endorse that's for sure.

pough wrote:

All the people who are behind the extreme, punish-the-paying-customers copyright protection schemes are in need of a rather severe cock-punching and that's just plain truth.

ROTFL

"Cock-punching"

You've made my day!


Reg

you should have got the free Beta when it was spread all over here a while back

Kriminal wrote:

you should have got the free Beta when it was spread all over here a while back

Ain't that the cock-punching truth!


lol

Reg

Dont buy products with stupid protections.
Dont buy products with unknown protections.

The Steinberg method of protection is excellent, make it a one time check & give the customers a cd that can't be copied (in theory). That was if somebody is unethical & goes around installing it on their friends' computers, their friends will be hooked & will have to buy it for themselves once it comes time to reinstall. Of course, maybe I'm just a naive Windows user who's too used to reinstalling the OS on a regular basis, do Mac users ever do clean reinstalls?

hey all the good threads are about copy protection

Modular moog - the blank screen is controlled by the clock - wind that clock in the bottom right back a year and viola it works again

Logic alas doesnt like that so i cant verify this

Un copyble CD's - yeah right - gamecopyworld.com - follow a few links
You do need specific hardware etc but its not so difficult that crackers, hackers and all these other fackers dont work it out.

I would just love to see the proof that copy protection actually works - and it better not be about imagined lost sales etc cos they are losing sales all over the place

Why is pace so evil ?

I installed demos of the oxford plugs for powercore and uninstlled them no bother - they are pace protected.

Should i be worried

Heh, actually the real trick is to advance your clock while you're installing the software then turn it back to normal once you're finished. 10 years oughtta do, we probably won't even have hardware able to run such legacy software by that point.

ericj23 quoth Why is pace so evil ?

I installed demos of the oxford plugs for powercore and uninstlled them no bother - they are pace protected.

PACE has been known to render systems completely inoperable.... There were major issues with it when XP came out, and it took them a long time to fix. Software uninstaller for PACE'd software does -not- necessarity remove all traces of PACE from your system... et.c.

On my system, I now have 3 pieces of PACEd software. Tassman 2, which I've got on until I convert various instruments to T3, OB-Tune, and, more recently FXmachine. The first two were fine, because they were of a similar vintage and used the same version of PACE. However, when I put on FXmachine, both the other two stopped working; completely. I was able to get Tassman 2 working again by upgrading PACE to yet a newer version, but OB-Tune completely refuses to self-register, because of problems with, you guessed it, PACE. Luckily OB-Tune is the cheapest and least-used of the three, but its still a complete pisser. Im intending to build a dedicated audio PC later on in the year, so hopefully I can start from scratch and fathom it out, but for now - PACE killed one of my plugins.

Often, it's not even the business people at the development companies that make these stupid decisions... after all, even the "suits" at these companies are often users as well. Frequently, it's distributor pressure - they don't feel confident to carry the product in their stores unless it has some kind of security features.. the irony being that most VSTi are cracked before they're even on the shelves.

And I agree wholeheartedly with whyterabbyt about PACE - companies that make money selling protection schemes are only one rung above people that make money selling warez CDs.

this is only a wee bit OT:
a few weeks ago i had to replace my system drive and after a fresh install of win2k etc. i found that i wasn't able to authorize sampletank le anymore (because my digital ID has changed) - i wrote to an e-mail to support@ikmultimedia.com for help and didn't get an answer one and a half weeks later i wrote another one explaining my situation in greater detail. that was a few days ago and still no answer.
That's not what I call good customer support!
Maybe I should also post this in the sampletank support forum

Josmoker wrote:

this is only a wee bit OT: a few weeks ago i had to replace my system drive and after a fresh install of win2k etc. i found that i wasn't able to authorize sampletank le anymore (because my digital ID has changed) - i wrote to an e-mail to support@ikmultimedia.com for help and didn't get an answer one and a half weeks later i wrote another one explaining my situation in greater detail. that was a few days ago and still no answer. That's not what I call good customer support! Maybe I should also post this in the sampletank support forum

Josmoker

Try jason@ikmultimedia.com. He's pretty good at replying to these sort of requests.... a very helpful chap

My dim memory of IK Multimedia was that they didn't necessarily reply very promptly at all, but I think in the couple of situations I heard of a post to Jason as Wookie suggested brought more immediate response.

And the Sampletank forum isn't too bad a forum to post things like that on either if you're having so many problems getting a response however don't expect Squids or Dan to be necessarily able to help you as they don't support the ST engine. I do believe Jason does come in from time to time to read the posts there though.

Based on copy protection, I would buy MoogModular V before Reaktor 4.

Robert

Angus_FX wrote:

And I agree wholeheartedly with whyterabbyt about PACE - companies that make money selling protection schemes are only one rung above people that make money selling warez CDs.

C'mon, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? At least the copy protection companies are *doing* something & not just burning a disc full of crap they got off kazaa.

Yes, but what many of them are doing is spreading FUD about a problem they cannot solve, and then, once they've made their potential clients sufficiently paranoid, selling them an expensive solution that is rarely effective and often does more harm than good.

Unlike the audio developers, who may be relatively ignorant of the situation, many of these companies have seen their systems cracked time and again - often in mere hours - and yet continue to peddle them.

Okay.

Here's a Q. for ya.

This is not about warez, specifically. (I know the rules...bastards!) It's about not using warez.

I have a new computer coming. When it comes, I want to hook it up over a network and transfer all of my old songs and stuff to the new computer.

I would also like to leave my old computer fully functional if possible...

Now, the way that the cubase copy protection (V3.72, dongle) works, you can only run it on one machine at a time.

This is bad if you want to do the collect archive thing, transfer the files and then verify them by opening them on the new computer.

The last time I did this (3 years back? 4?) I just obtained a crack of cubase, put it on the old computer and transferred happily.

The thing is, I don't wanna use the dirty dirty warez. Is there another way I can do this without having to switch which computer the dongle is on?

...I figure I'll have problems with some of the other stuff, too. As a rule (usually with games), when I have a program with cd copy protection, I DL the CD-less patch. There's nothing like sitting around as a proggy freezes up for a second while it checks the disc...

Strangely enough, I think I may prefer the dongles to disc check...A smaller dongle would be good, though.

Once I get the new computer set up, I'm gonna upgrade to Cubase SX...what scheme does that use?

-S.

SX uses a usb dongle. On one hand, it's cooler because it's smaller, but the downside is that you have to unhook it every time you update the program.

Well, Sleek. I can tell you what I went through a few months ago when an electrical problem knocked out my mother board and hard drive. Once I built a new computer and transferred the good parts form the old I started installing. One evening to get the operating system installed, updates and stream lined. One evening to install Sonar II, FruityLoops, and many of my VSTi’s including the NI stuff that used CD check protection. The only serial number I lost was to DirectiXer and luckily I had a new number within 5 minutes after emailing the developer. One and a half weeks later I got the last if my online-registration VSTi’s verified. The one that used Pace was really held up. For some reason I could not get a reply.

I was never down during that time because I ran Sonar II on my second computer and my laptop. I used my rgc:Audio and Native Instruments DXi instruments along with DR-008 with no problem. I also ran FruityLoops and Reason with no problem. If not for needing a wrapper I would have had access to most of the other VSTi’s I bought from developers here. This is a BIG reason I stick with Sonar II. In a few weeks I hope to replace my GigaStudio computer, run GigaStudio on my current Sonar computer and go through the process of installing Sonar II and all accessories on my new computer. It will be just a few VSTi’s that will give me problems. The more it happens, the closer I look at the hassles of using companies with a limited online registration process.

Project 5 is also going to be an assett because it comes with a wrapper that does not require online registration.

Robert

Dongles? They SUCK! I HATE them. I have to have a USB hub so I can even use my software! I have a dongle for Cubase SX, Logic Platinum, and Reaktor. If htey want to throw in USB hubs for free, maybe we can talk, but when I ahve to buy more hardware to support their stupid copy protection scheme that's been hacked before it even hits my hands, that's just stupid. Not to mention, then you get to hear people whine when the dongle dies, and you're out using your program for days, if not weeks. Some people make their living off of this, and that is inexcusable to leave someone in a lurch like that when it's completely possible to just skip the CP altogether.

Devon

DevonB wrote:

If htey want to throw in USB hubs for free, maybe we can talk, but when I ahve to buy more hardware to support their stupid copy protection scheme that's been hacked before it even hits my hands, that's just stupid. Not to mention, then you get to hear people whine when the dongle dies,

I totally agree devonb. that's one of the reasons why I don't use a licensed copy of logic.

have you complained to the developers? just curious.

Okay I've watched this thread for most of the afternoon now and I think it's about time one of us 'evil' copy protecting devleopers stepped in to shed some light on the other side of the coin.

The grim reality is all copy protection schemes have their drawbacks, and while 25% of your users might hate the one you've chosen to use, switching to a new method is going to cost you a considerable amount of money and development time, and you'll be no better off because now a completely different 25% of your users hates the method you've switched to.

Certainly any copy protection system may at some point leave you without your software for a couple of days because the developers' server is down or they're back ordered on dongles, but ask anyone who owns a lot of hardware what the average turn around time is getting a synth repaired when you have to physically ship it back to the manufacturer.

Taking off the corporate hat and speaking as a musician for a moment here, I think that at the end of the day, I'm pretty fortunate to have access to technology that 10 years ago would have cost me thousands and thousands of dollars in hardware, and if the convenience of having all this technology means I have to not use one of my virtual instruments for a few days while the developer sorts out an issue, so be it.

Some of you have mentioned using cracks as a way to circumvent copy protection all together. This brings up the other reason why copy protection is important, and that is ensuring the vitality of software developers.
I was very sad to learn earlier this week that Ultrafunk has been forced to end development on their plug-ins, which are great in my opinion. I can't help but think that every person who has a crack of their products installed is partly responsible for this.

Food for thought....

Scott

Scott,

So what do you do in my case?

You folks gave me a copy of Lounge Lizard at the NAMM show. I changed the processor in my synth machine and reinstalled the OS. Then when I try to reregister it I'm told that there are no more registrations for my serial number. I registered it once. I then email your company. You replied that you'd get on it ASAP. I have not heard from you since. That was more than a month ago, not a couple of days or even a week.

I agree that protecting your assets is all you're trying to do, but when it becomes a major hassle for the end user, it benifits no one.

7XL.

Could it be that I have a few different mailboxes and may have used a different one when I went to register it again? But then again I think that I even sent you a copy of the original registration.

Hi Scott

thanks for the nice long post, but all this aside what is being said is no matter what you do it gets cracked anyway.

the same guys that use the cracks would not of bought
it anway so what is lost ?

I would love Waves plugins, but apart form costing 4x the amount that the host they will run in costs they use Pace Protection.

I can understand why the big players want protection but as mentioned there are some BIG companys that have NO protection and still thrive.

sorry if this offends anyone
(I own all my s/w and some I dont use or own because of the lame protection)

Scott @ AAS wrote:

Okay I've watched this thread for most of the afternoon now and I think it's about time one of us 'evil' copy protecting devleopers stepped in to shed some light on the other side of the coin. The grim reality is all copy protection schemes have their drawbacks, and while 25% of your users might hate the one you've chosen to use, switching to a new method is going to cost you a considerable amount of money and development time, and you'll be no better off because now a completely different 25% of your users hates the method you've switched to. Certainly any copy protection system may at some point leave you without your software for a couple of days because the developers' server is down or they're back ordered on dongles, but ask anyone who owns a lot of hardware what the average turn around time is getting a synth repaired when you have to physically ship it back to the manufacturer. Taking off the corporate hat and speaking as a musician for a moment here, I think that at the end of the day, I'm pretty fortunate to have access to technology that 10 years ago would have cost me thousands and thousands of dollars in hardware, and if the convenience of having all this technology means I have to not use one of my virtual instruments for a few days while the developer sorts out an issue, so be it. Some of you have mentioned using cracks as a way to circumvent copy protection all together. This brings up the other reason why copy protection is important, and that is ensuring the vitality of software developers. I was very sad to learn earlier this week that Ultrafunk has been forced to end development on their plug-ins, which are great in my opinion. I can't help but think that every person who has a crack of their products installed is partly responsible for this. Food for thought.... Scott

actually what I can see emerging here is a backlash at companys that use crap protection. the problem is some of the smaller comanys that dont waste there resources on protection make great fair priced products with red hot support and freq updates.

and funny enough this is the stuff I want and will buy.

Scott @ AAS wrote:

switching to a new method is going to cost you a considerable amount of money and development time

I wouldn't think it would take much development time or resources to switch over to method that Cakewalk has been using - a serial number when you install the program. I've purchased every upgrade from Pro Audio 5 up to the current SONAR 2, and I'm happy to support a company like Cakewalk who doesn't feel the need to waste their own resources punishing legitimate users.

Now excuse me while I reach for my credit card and go support some developers that won't punish me for buying their product. (Too bad I already have z3ta+, Pentagon and DR-008). How's the ReFX stuff as far as copy protection goes?

Scott -

I can 'kinda' agree on the "broken keyboard" bit, but it's still irritating that I know I can fix it simply by grabbing the cracked version, so it's not quite the same as I can be back up and running immediatelly without having to send it in at that point.

I'm on the developer side too, but not for softsynths, so I know where you're coming from. But where I work, we've taken the attitude of 'honest people are going to be honest.' NOTHING is going to stop the pirating. SOMEONE will find ways to work around it. XBox is a good example. It took awhile for its complex system, but they STILL managed to crack it. Professionals are also going to buy the product if they're using it for professional purposes.

Like I stated earlier, I was VERY happy to see FXpansion decide not to punish its customers with copy protection. There is no way to find out the percentage of people who refuse to buy CP software out of principle or not wishing to deal with the headaches, but that's still got to be eating into your profits. Obviously the people who pirated it weren't going to buy it in the first place, so how is this money lost? Heck, it might end up being a potential sale if they get the chance to use the product and like it too. There's still a fair amount of stuff out there that has NO demo whatsoever.

Devon

Scott @ AAS wrote:

The grim reality is all copy protection schemes have their drawbacks.

So don't use them.

Scott @ AAS wrote:

...but ask anyone who owns a lot of hardware what the average turn around time is getting a synth repaired when you have to physically ship it back to the manufacturer.

I'm far more forgiving of hardware turnaround. Why? Because it's broken. Software doesn't break unless someone codes it to break. (I'm referring not to technical difficulties but only to the times that copyright protection get in the way.)

Scott @ AAS wrote:

... I think that at the end of the day, I'm pretty fortunate to have access to technology that 10 years ago would have cost me thousands and thousands of dollars in hardware, and if the convenience of having all this technology means I have to not use one of my virtual instruments for a few days while the developer sorts out an issue, so be it.

I feel fortunate, too. But I would feel far more fortunate if developers didn't purposefully make my life more difficult.

Scott @ AAS wrote:

Some of you have mentioned using cracks as a way to circumvent copy protection all together. This brings up the other reason why copy protection is important, and that is ensuring the vitality of software developers.

The people who spoke of such things were referring to using cracks of software that they OWN. Besides, it would be nice to see how effective protection is. I think that these harsh schemes will reduce sales and you think they will reduce piracy. What matters most is what the truth is.

Scott @ AAS wrote:

I was very sad to learn earlier this week that Ultrafunk has been forced to end development on their plug-ins, which are great in my opinion. I can't help but think that every person who has a crack of their products installed is partly responsible for this. Food for thought....

I'm sad that Ultrafunk is shutting down, too. I didn't buy any Ultrafunk plugs simply because I bought some others (and kinda regret it.) However, the only reason that I haven't bought Lounge Lizard is because of the copyright-protection on it. Food for thought.

And before things get too riled up, I'd also like to say that I don't think you're evil and I VERY much appreciate that you're giving us your side of the story. Essentially, none of us seems to have the definitive study results (you know: the one that shows the effects of piracy and the efficacy of copyright-protection schemes) on hand. Hell, even though I'm reluctant to buy your highly-ranked software, I'm proud as can be that it is made in Canada. And if you were to make a demo of it (à la the recent Tassman demo) that I could test out, maybe it would convince me otherwise!

Quote:

You folks gave me a copy of Lounge Lizard at the NAMM show.

Dear evilscott :

Just so you know, if you give me a copy of lounge lizard, I promise not to complain about the copy protection.

-S.[/quote]

genghis wrote:

How's the ReFX stuff as far as copy protection goes?

You pay for it, they send you it! simple as...

I want to buy software, enter a code if necessary, sit back and enjoy. Anything else is a pain.
I may also want to put it on more than one PC without having to go online or telephone someone just to get authorisation. I paid for it, i can put it where i like surely?!?!
I dont want to keep putting in a CD, typing codes multiple times or anything that remotely gets on my nerves.

Protectiing your software is important, but how far do you really need to take it? To the point that the user stops being a user?

as Paul Whitehouse sais

"wise words mate"

here is the deal.. within 60seconds I could download a crack of the
Disco Dsp bundle, but I didnt, I bought it.

same goes for

SX, V-stack, Chainer, Spin Audio bundle, Linplug, etc etc etc etc etc etc

need I go on.. ?

STRESS. again I could get all of these cracked within 60seconds... BUT.

I pur-chased them. get the picture ?

if someone wants to use cracks they will no matter what you do, spend the time and enrgy on making great products at a kean price and lose the protection.

The market is saturated.

Kriminal wrote:

genghis wrote: How's the ReFX stuff as far as copy protection goes? You pay for it, they send you it! simple as... I want to buy software, enter a code if necessary, sit back and enjoy. Anything else is a pain. I may also want to put it on more than one PC without having to go online or telephone someone just to get authorisation. I paid for it, i can put it where i like surely?!?! I dont want to keep putting in a CD, typing codes multiple times or anything that remotely gets on my nerves. Protectiing your software is important, but how far do you really need to take it? To the point that the user stops being a user?

I think that's the only thing I can really tollerate is a serial #. That's fine, and prevents the casual copier from simply installing it. I think we often forget exactly how many people are NOT internet saavy at all. Those who are can find the cracks.

Devon

A true story, this very day. I pulled my 40Gb data hard drive at the weekend and replaced it with a nice shiny 120Gb one. I have another 120Gb in a removable caddy, but that's waiting for the next machine I build.

In the meantime of course, one of my PACEd applications has stopped working, FXmachine. So now I have to reauthorise it. Except that there's no information on TCworks website on where to reauthorise, so effectively I have to re-register from scratch, provide my address and all that other crap they already have...

And I get back an email saying they 'should' get an authorisation code back to me in 'under two days'.

I have to point out to you, Scott (of AAS), that for some people a two day wait is not acceptable. For a small business that could be enough time to lose a commission, lose a client, and lose a reputation. For me its luckily just a pain in the arse.

That's 'just a pain in the arse' assuming that I dont get yet another conflict with my other two PACEd apps, one of which no longer runs at all. Until I spent most of a day trying to solve the problem, the third one, Tassman 2, didnt either, funnily enough. One new PACE install was enough to trash one app completely and waste me a day sorting out another one. Thats not a 'convenience of the technology' if it renders £350 worth of software completely unusable...

So unfortunately its not as simple as being unable " to not use one of my virtual instruments for a few days while the developer sorts out an issue", for some people that 'few days' could make or break their livelihood, and that the problems that are caused might be more serius than just a 'few days' without a single application.

And, thinking about it, if software synths are ever going to seriously replace hardware synths onstage, on tour, then that kind of delay has to disappear, or almost no-one will want to take that risk.

Kriminal wrote:

genghis wrote: How's the ReFX stuff as far as copy protection goes? You pay for it, they send you it! simple as...

Thanks Kriminal, that's what I figured. I think I can afford to put a little bit of my tax return money into another synth or two and this helps me to narrow down which one to get.

Oh yeah, I was saddened by the news about Ultrafunk as well. I tried the demo a while back and was hoping to pick it up one day; unfortunately I have been spending a little bit more of my musical budget on software synths lately and I guess I missed out.

This is a bit of a sad subject for my first post, but...

As a professional musician and producer, I have no alternative to using cracked versions of the software that I own. They are reliable. My landlord does not want to hear that I can't pay the rent because I lost a contract because my legal software has a "copy protection issue".

The comparison with defect hardware is a joke. I have all my hardware double or triple, if something doesn't work, I switch. If some copy-protection screws my system, then it doesn't help if I have another copy of the software.

I always test using cracks. I can't test a software that is limited. If I use the software, I buy it. If it doesn't cut it, it gets deleted. I would, however, never risk using a copy-protected software professionally. The risk is just too great (I speak from experience). Nearly all the other professionals I know work the same way: buy the software and keep using the crack.

The only effective copy protection is low cost and good support. Unfortunately, many manufacturers seem to have the opposite opinion.

Cheers

The Captain.

As for the "workaround" suggestions: I don't want to install additional software like the virtual CD drive (and waste precious HD space on top of that) and I don't want to use cracks when I actually paid hard earned dollars for a product.

What I really would like to see is for those developers to wake up and face the facts: There is NO safe protection. If you need to protect your program because retailers or else require it, then please do it in the least obtrusive way, like a simple reg number (it's much more important to use this number to identify customers for updates and support than anything else) or if the CD needs to be protected, check it only once during install. All others (frequent CD checks, challenge/response, dongle etc.) are just pissing off your honest customers!

Scott @ AAS wrote:

I was very sad to learn earlier this week that Ultrafunk has been forced to end development on their plug-ins, which are great in my opinion. I can't help but think that every person who has a crack of their products installed is partly responsible for this. Food for thought.... Scott

Well, I am not a user of Ultratunk plugins, but the real question is, if they used a complex protection scheme like PACE or a dongle, would they still be in business?
Not do defend warez in any way.

Here's a bit of food for thought for the developers. As a consumer, I have yet to buy a commercial instrument (as I'm just starting out with this stuff). I plan on spending a good amount of money on some kit this Summer, but I'm not going to waste my time and money on software that uses silly copy protection schemes. Regardless of how good your synth is, if it's a pain in the arse to use I simply won't give you my money. I think it's a far better strategy to develop a quality product, charge a fair price for it, and develop a good rappor with the community at large who will be using it. I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion either. People who buy the products aren't generally the people who use cracked versions. Why make their lives difficult? People who use the cracked versions won't get bothered by the copy protection either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there don't seem to be too many programs around that haven't been cracked, so even the most sophisticated protection schemes eventually fail. There are a lot of ethical people out there (like myself) who are willing to support the developers and the industry. I believe that there are enough of us around to keep the industry afloat and growing. Making our lives difficult does not help matters. Imagine what an ordeal it would be to use the computer if all of the programs used cd checks, challenge/response or something else. Many companies don't (such as Adobe and Macromedia) and are still doing fine.

Errrr, anyways I think that's all I wanted to say. Sorry for the rant.

Guys, copy protection can be broken, sure, but it takes longer for cracks to come out & they rarely keep up w/ the updates. IOW, copy protection may not work on its own but it does work when combined with the "update regularly so people will have to buy in order to stay on the bleedin' edge" method. This is best for everyone, of course, since the manufacturers who are seeing increased sales from this will have to provide us with regular updates in order to keep it working. Serial numbers alone don't work because of key generators, thus there's no motivation to update regularly.

btw, usb dongles are excellent, they never go bad & I don't think a $20 usb hub can really be regarded as a tremendous burden by anyone. Of course, my favorite method of protection is the Pulsar one where the card is itself a giant dongle.

What about all the software bought with stolen credit cards? You can update anything as soon as it comes out, regardless of protection!

Most of the high protected software isnt updated very often anyway.

fellow eric person - look at audiowarez.info

its a site dedicated to the warez releases - they very defintely keep up with all the updates

And as for someone else suggestion of simple reg codes - well how many computers are you gonna install it on ?

Yours, your laptop, your mate who is a bit skint just now but wants to try it out etc. ad naseum

The copy protection is their to get your mate to buy it rather than blagging your copy - not to stop the crackers - thats a waste of time.

So the only ones that work are cd checks, dongles, internet checks or codes tied to your pc components

I favour the last one - the one reaktor 4 is gonna use - because

You need the same code if you have to reinstall your OS- so the website will provide it gratis

you can copy the reg file to disk - so if you cant get to the website register with that

once it is done it [b]never[/b] has to be done again

This is form of protection is only a problem if you change cpu's to match this seasons colours

And if you do that you can afford another licence

You want a perfect copy protection scheme? I have one! Speaking strictly from personal experience: use a quartet of a) simple numerical registration, b) high complexity, c) superb manual, and d) outstanding customer support!

Any quality software that's worth to be burdened with a shitty protection scheme like PACE will, most likely, be of a very high complexity and therefore demanding a steep learning curve. Many developers - even some of the great and generous ones - don't give a flying purple hazy fuck when it comes to manuals. This means that a whole Internet community has to develop around the software to keep it useable - which often happens, but which same phenomenon also enables pirates to gain full use of the software.

Consider, in contrast, a really complex software that comes with a superb manual and incredible customer support for registered users. There will still be cracks, but there won't be more than a handful of pirates (a very determined and desperate few) who will keep trying to use it without buying it eventually.

Lightwave 3D is a highend modeling and animation program that comes with a (quite unintrusive) parallel port dongle. In spite of the dongle, it has been available in cracked version since at least 1996; but since it was virtually impossible to use without its two printed manuals, most pirates I've come across just gave up on it and uninstalled their copy after a couple of days.

I partly agree with Dingo here. I believe the secret to keep the software sales high is good support and frequent updates. Definately crackers can't keep up with this.
However a printed manual will increase the product cost somewhat.
Also, a lower price will attract more people in buying and as a result recover the lost piracy costs. It's a matter of the supply-demand curve to find the optimal price.
Say, who wouldn't buy absynth if it costed $50? Even those who don't need it

sorry but that is totaly false, the challenge for the crackers is to get it out as fast as possible, there have even been times the day of release or in many cases before the product even gets shipped.

I have ordered something online and witin minutes seen some guy posting stuff about that very product that I the buying customer doesnt even have, infact I have even used a crack while waiting for the author to send my details.

take away the backward protection and you remove the crackers,
no protection no need for crackers.

it's not rocket science is it ?

Uncle E wrote:

Guys, copy protection can be broken, sure, but it takes longer for cracks to come out & they rarely keep up w/ the updates. .

dont you know these company's make all there money from BIG PRO's
not us 1,000's of users with home/project studios.


not.

tsiozos wrote:

Say, who wouldn't buy absynth if it costed $50? Even those who don't need it

But absynth does cost about $50, to NI anyway, when you take away the dealer, distributer, taxman chain.

NI are smart with Reaktor with their user area. I expect other companies should have similar value added services to force users to go legit. The cost of the infrastructure should be carried into the price of the product and further upgrades.

For example, Reason Refills. I can get that from reasonstation.net, but why is there no resource like reasonstation at propellerheads that requires a username and password.

OK people like Disco DSP and RGC are hardly likely to do this because of their size, but other companies could.

I really do expect future sequencers to allow online multi user features, without rocket networks. I mean come on this is almost the norm in PC games these days. This would also entice many none legit users also.

Bluey.

Kriminal, Topaz,

Not to be a jerk but you guys must be ignoring the proof on purpose or just fooling yourselves. I'm not saying that you're wrong in all cases, in fact I will fully agree that you're probably right in *most* cases, but Steinberg has succeeded in producing updates that outpace the hackers by a decent enough rate that you can be sure people have bought the software simply because they grew tired of always being behind. All this success & their copy protection method is still painless.

Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong & don't know what you're talking about, but the fact that even one company succeeds in this is all that is necessary to completely invalidate the argument that copy protection is pointless.

sorry again E but this too is untrue, the latest 1.05 build was cracked and out in hours.. also there was a universal dongle for 5x that worked on all future versions. how do I know this you may ask.. my dongle got damaged in a move so I had to resort to a crack while waiting 3 weeks to get my new one sent.

here is another scinario.. in SX with the usb key in the same shared port as my usb interface it taxes my cpu by a noticable amount. yes the dongle uses cpu cycles,.. the workaround is to install a 2nd usb port and have the dongle and midi i.o seperate .. without this I lose upto %20 cpu.


scinario 2.. I changed my hard drive. v-stack's crap c-dilla needed re-authorising. I have no internet at my studio (as recomended by daw experts) so I have to phone cologne from london that takes upto 10 minutes running back and forth from the studio. luckily they offered me a work around failing that.. guess what ? yep I would used a crack.

the crack of v-stack purely removes the LAME c-dilla from runnning in the background.. and infact runs much smoother.

as far as freq updates from steinberg.. ummmm. hello ? is that for real.

If the update pace from steinberg was any slower it would actually go backwards,

sorry to shout but.. THIS IS REAL WORLD EXAMPLES

Uncle E wrote:

Kriminal, Topaz, Not to be a jerk but you guys must be ignoring the proof on purpose or just fooling yourselves. I'm not saying that you're wrong in all cases, in fact I will fully agree that you're probably right in *most* cases, but Steinberg has succeeded in producing updates that outpace the hackers by a decent enough rate that you can be sure people have bought the software simply because they grew tired of always being behind. All this success & their copy protection method is still painless. Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong & don't know what you're talking about, but the fact that even one company succeeds in this is all that is necessary to completely invalidate the argument that copy protection is pointless.

heh, I know Steinberg hasn't been at all fast enough w/ the updates in SX, I was referring more to all those 5.x PB's (& I didn't know there was a "universal dongle crack" (kinda sounds like a Tijuana sex show) so you got me there). Anyway, thanks for the tip on the midi interface/dongle thing, we may not come to a complete agreement on this but I'll always be glad to have been part of this discussion just because I got to hear that!

it's nice to have a conversation without it becoming an argument.

steinberg fast. may I say Model-E ? I think maybe some would disagree on the fast updates.

we can make pages of our opinions but you know what
here is one simple way to look at it.


"No Protection = No Crackers"

Uncle E wrote:

heh, I know Steinberg hasn't been at all fast enough w/ the updates in SX, I was referring more to all those 5.x PB's (& I didn't know there was a "universal dongle crack" (kinda sounds like a Tijuana sex show) so you got me there). Anyway, thanks for the tip on the midi interface/dongle thing, we may not come to a complete agreement on this but I'll always be glad to have been part of this discussion just because I got to hear that!

I thought I’d chip in with my current grievance!

I’ve just built a lovely new PC based on a Shuttle case with an nForce2 based motherboard. This doesn’t include a parallel port as standard, although I believe I can purchase one as an option, but I’d prefer not to add extra crap.

As I’ve not upgraded Cubase VST to SX I’m now unable to use Cubase on my new PC, unless I seek out the dongle emulator, which I guess I’ll have to.

BTW I only actually keep Cubase as my reference host for testing plugins as I generally use Tracktion for everything else so it’s not the end of the world but still... bloody dongles....

There are some obvious comments that will probably come up now such as “if you knew you needed a parallel port you should have got a motherboard that had one” and “just buy the parallel port adapter you cheap bastard” or “just upgrade to SX and stop whinging you old fucker” but I fancy having a moan

Ben wrote

Quote:

but I fancy having a moan

Well good on ya

Basically, if a customer doesn't want to pay, then he doesn't. The equation of selling plug only works with responsible enough ppl r with ppl pro enough to have their time more valued than their money. So it sounds like very fool to do useless copy protection that punish the guy you're relying on to make a living from your business.

IMO a copy protection is needed to prevent one user to just make endless copy from its product to his friends, and to make sure that you have to make some effort on your time to find a crack-else it's simply the death for the product as the shareware concept really can't applied to the small marketof audio plug ins. But it shall be as smooth as possible for the legit user, and that's not an option.

Uncle E -

Check the Cubase forums and search for dongle and see exactly how many dongles never die. <ahem> Any piece of electronics can fail, not to mention, USB crap... I wish I could rid myself of it. One less IRQ hogging up resources.

Devon

Dingo865 wrote:

Lightwave 3D is a highend modeling and animation program that comes with a (quite unintrusive) parallel port dongle. In spite of the dongle, it has been available in cracked version since at least 1996; but since it was virtually impossible to use without its two printed manuals, most pirates I've come across just gave up on it and uninstalled their copy after a couple of days.

I disagree with your reasoning.Go to any large book seller,and you will see plenty of books for Lightwave,Max,Maya (not to mention Cubase and other audio programs).This is not a new phenonenom,tho it has increased in the last few years.If you can get a 10,000$ dollar program like Maya for free,40$ for a manual is still a pretty good deal.

Nitpicking Pedantry : Maya is not $10,000. Maya Complete is roughly $2000. And to be honest, even if you pirated it, it'll take 3 years of your life to learn it well enough to begin to make money out of it...

and whyterabbyt mean 3 years of doing nothing else. not even sleeping.

at that rate, you're paying $1.82 per day to use something you spend your whole life on

smart quoth and whyterabbyt mean 3 years of doing nothing else. not even sleeping.

I guess you've seen the current state of some of my final-year students then?

you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the warez people have never heard of scanners - if you use the search facility at the site i mentioned earlier you will find that the paper manual for most softs is available - as a pdf

The way that the games community stops this is by having very good online servers that do further cd checks - this means you either use pirate servers or you get very good at coding and fool the server software into thinking your legit - or you buy the thing for £30

Reaktor has this huge online user base that people with pirated copies cannot get into - if that was secure and the price was good i.e. not £400 - you can get a decent pc for that money these days - then everyone would buy it

But no doubt some desk jockey has worked out the crossover point between sales and price and has decided on the one were getting

And that too me seems the heart of the problem - this professionalism thing - complete with pro prices -

How many folk here actually make money out of their music ?
And i mean enough to live on

if you want to nitpick....

I have a copy of Maya 1.0.When it came out,it was selling,with all the extras,for at least $7000.No-I didn't buy it.

And it had THE BEST tutorials I have ever seen for any product.After working through them for a week or 2,I was completely comfortable with the program.And this was before you could even pick up a "Maya Quick Start Guide" from Barnes and Noble.

But I got bored with computer graphics before I became rich of it
:-}

Ben | KvR wrote:

There are some obvious comments that will probably come up now such as “if you knew you needed a parallel port you should have got a motherboard that had one” and “just buy the parallel port adapter you cheap bastard” or “just upgrade to SX and stop whinging you old fucker” but I fancy having a moan

Since the billing and medical records software at my company still relies on serial ports to network. For a while I had to check before buying. Now it is getting harder and harder to find computers with serial ports. My contacts tell me most manufacturers are trying to discontinue providing them. I can get USB devices that give me serial and parallel ports but not all software works with these. Now I keep a stock of cards to install in these computers to provide serial ports.

Robert

Aural Chaos wrote:

Dingo865 wrote: Lightwave 3D is a highend modeling and animation program that comes with a (quite unintrusive) parallel port dongle. In spite of the dongle, it has been available in cracked version since at least 1996; but since it was virtually impossible to use without its two printed manuals, most pirates I've come across just gave up on it and uninstalled their copy after a couple of days. I disagree with your reasoning.Go to any large book seller,and you will see plenty of books for Lightwave,Max,Maya (not to mention Cubase and other audio programs).This is not a new phenonenom,tho it has increased in the last few years.If you can get a 10,000$ dollar program like Maya for free,40$ for a manual is still a pretty good deal.

Aural,

It's not by accident that I used past tense in my sentence when talking about Lightwave. Initially, 3D Animation & Modeling packages were extremely complex to write, and demanded a HUGE amount of research. Prior to, say, around 2000, you had a very sharp dividing line between Amateur and PRO products, and the PRO versions had to sell at a very high price to gain back the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on development - and their distribution had to be strictly contained and protected against pirates.

This all has radically changed in the last 3 years or so. The 3D Modeling and Animation software market has become 'mainstream' instead of being a niche field; it has developed a humongous library of shared solutions and patterns and conventions and language that are much easier to utilize now that they actually exist; and a number of vendors have gained a comfortable position in its commercial sector.

Increased demand have allowed economies of scope and scale to kick in, and increased supply led to a radical fall in prices and availability. The reason nowadays there are so many thousands of books available on Maya and Lightwave is not because they're cracked, but because they are FREE TO DOWNLOAD FOR EVERYBODY!!! Just check NewTek's or Maya's homepage: in exchange for an e-mail address and a handful of pieces of information you can download a (usually) fully functional, non-crippled, virtually unlimited version of the software, whose only drawback is that it renders a logo in the corner of your image or animation. 99% of potential pirate users can easily live with that - and for commercial users, it's a big enough drawback to buy the full commercial version. On the other hand, this scheme of licencing out manuals allows the companies to make good money on the casual user who would NEVER otherwise buy something like a U$2000 Maya 2.0 or Lightwave 7.5, but is happy to shell out U$70 for a manual (because if you see a good comprehensive manual for either of these under U$50, I will eat my socks with Camembert ).

In addition, 99% of those books are tutorial-driven, and not replacement-manuals. I bought many of them (4 for Lightwave alone), and believe me, Lightwave would be still a bitch to use without its native User Guide and Reference Guide. Not to mention that while cracks are generally good for the software itself, when it comes to external plugins (e.g. Napalm) they usually fail to cooperate - and in the 3D field, especially at the speed technology developes nowadays, having to work without any plugin is a commercial liability no vendor can afford.