Vst plugin output number

[Grizzellda]

Guys, you are all wasting your time & energy with these B.S. positions...

Ilok, when done right, is not a "money making scam"...well, I'm sure they want to make a few bucks, so does everyone else...

It is not "too strong copy protection" as Jo earlier quipped...it is a modern, useful, very realistic answer for the software industry on a planet that is currently struggling...

Pyrotek45, you make good sense, but if we pursue this conversation, then it engulfs all of society, even the world actually, and how things are, and I just don't need that...you keep referring to a better world, which sounds super cool, but seems currently unavailable, which is why I earlier mentioned "fantasyland"

Mr. Langie!!! An Ilok solution might well be what you need now...

[Pyrotek45]

Nobody here can prove that someone who gets mutools for free would have otherwised paid for it.

Probably not. But you cannot prove the opposite neither.

Its just that simple.

I don't think this is a simple topic. That's why it's good to be discussed thoroughly.

And to jo, if you disagree that people shouldnt use their software on their computers.

To be clear: I disagree with your opinion that there is only one option for software licensing and that's when a user buys a software license that's always for all his computers. I indeed disagree that this is the one and only option. The amount of machines you're allowed to use the software on is a parameter that also influences the price. Being allowed to use it on 5 computers is more expensive than allowing to use it on 1 computer.

then theres nothing i can say to change your mind.

I'm in the state of mind of discussing this topic openly. If you reread this thread you will see that i already took several aspects into account and updated the conceptual idea, which we're still discussing further, which is good.

Also, mutools torrents are all over Google i just checked and i garantee you can use them on as many computers as you want.

And did you actually make music with it during at least a full hour session?
Cracked versions will have strange sounds in their audio output.

May i ask how you're software knows if its on more than one computer? How Would it be able to tell how without an internet connection?

And to your last point, people are pirating mutools and the torrents are there. Thats all im going to say. You sound confident that these cracks are lacking vs the paid versions but im not too sure. Ive used cracks before and the ones ive used never gave me any issues. Im not sure how your software would be any different. Also, i have to ask, why does allowing your customers the abilty to use their software on multipul pcs affect how expensive it is? If they have two desktops in their house, a studio and a laptop thats four computers. Are you telling me that your software knows how many computers its on and, that person should buy two copies of the same thing to use it on all of his computers?

[Pyrotek45]

Guys, you are all wasting your time & energy with these B.S. positions...

Ilok, when done right, is not a "money making scam"...well, I'm sure they want to make a few bucks, so does everyone else...

It is not "too strong copy protection" as Jo earlier quipped...it is a modern, useful, very realistic answer for the software industry on a planet that is currently struggling...

Pyrotek45, you make good sense, but if we pursue this conversation, then it engulfs all of society, even the world actually, and how things are, and I just don't need that...you keep referring to a better world, which sounds super cool, but seems currently unavailable, which is why I earlier mentioned "fantasyland"

Mr. Langie!!! An Ilok solution might well be what you need now...

There are companies out there that are succeeding without ilok. This is reality.from Fl studio to hornet plugs to sylenth1 to d16 to ect ect ect. I could go on and on. Theyre all doing fine. And yes, asking customers to pay for "more keys" is a scam. Sounds sorta like counter-strikes loot boxes to be honest. Ilok is unnecessary. It will run people away, myself included.

Did i mention its not uncrackable? Protools is all over pirate bay...check for yourself. Plenty of ilok plugs are on pirate bay. Its a waste of 50bucks for a stupid toy dingle of you ask me.

[skarabee]

Hi!
Just to add my 2 cents. (sorry, english is not my native langage)
I use computers and buy music softwares since the Atari days and the printer slot dongle for Cubase. (Just to mention that my opinion is based on may years of experience)
I also have been trough that before: I had a studio and a little production label and saw the CD sales running down, despite the home-made copy protection I've built for my label's artists.
Stressing the consumer instead of fighting the piracy is counter productive, IMHO. A little structure can't win over piracy, it's an endless war, waste of time.

I was beta-tester for Addictive, bought all the stuff they made, and was stuck with my "no-internet" studio desktop when they changed their protection system, (no more off-line authorizations). Same thing with Waves.

To make a long story short: I now just stay away from any expensive/restrictive/complicated protection system. (Ilok and internet related systems)
As a loyal customer, I don't want to see my workflow and creativity chained by a system just because there are pirates somewhere.

Don't know how it works, but I have many softwares linked to my email (Magic Music Visuals, Steven Slate SSD4...) and this simply works, fast and reliable. I think it's a better way to link protection to email instead of hardware.

[pljones]

What do you mean by "linked to email"? Do you mean "enter email address" and you get sent a URL, which you then click through to get a key? And then this key can be used on any number of computers by any number of people? Have you tested what the key you receive is actually linked to?

[mutools]

May i ask how you're software knows if its on more than one computer?

If both the OS installation and main hardware are different from the ones used to generate the key.

Would it be able to tell how without an internet connection?

Yes, no internet connection needed to detect that cause the original OS and hardware ID is in the user key.

Are you telling me that your software knows how many computers its on

No, there is no data exchange.
An M7 user key may only be used on 2 computers eg desktop and laptop, that's stated in the License Agreement.

that person should buy two copies of the same thing to use it on all of his computers?

Indeed, that's already the case for many years. And that's fair and logical, imho.
That's where we have different opinions: In your opinion someone installing MuLab on say 10 computers should only buy a single user key. I disagree with that opinion. I think it's fair and logical that the more a user uses MuLab the more he should support the MuLab R&D.

[mutools]

Thanks for the suggestion of ILok, but i definitely won't use that. The extra expense is too big compared to the small price. And i heard too many bad things about it. And the times i encountered it myself, as a user, i found it way too much hassle.

The only option being evaluated right now is to extend the current user key system so that it can be detected when a user key is used on a different computer. ( = OS differs AND hardware differs )
In such case sometimes a reminder "Please upgrade your user key" would be shown for say 10 secs, but besides that all the rest will stay functional as before.

[Michael L]

I have quite a few great synths and FX that were no longer updated after their initial sale. The developers (big and small) are now working on more lucrative projects. Thus, my main concern is a fair balance between the income of developers and the convenience of customers, to ensure that MuLab has a long life!

[skarabee]

The OS and hardware test seems fair.
Will Mux and Mulab license still be available for 2 computers? In this case, most of time OS AND hardware differs, so you'll have to authorize 2 setups, one for laptop, one for desktop.

[Pyrotek45]

May i ask how you're software knows if its on more than one computer?

If both the OS installation and main hardware are different from the ones used to generate the key.

Would it be able to tell how without an internet connection?

Yes, no internet connection needed to detect that cause the original OS and hardware ID is in the user key.

Are you telling me that your software knows how many computers its on

No, there is no data exchange.
An M7 user key may only be used on 2 computers eg desktop and laptop, that's stated in the License Agreement.

that person should buy two copies of the same thing to use it on all of his computers?

Indeed, that's already the case for many years. And that's fair and logical, imho.
That's where we have different opinions: In your opinion someone installing MuLab on say 10 computers should only buy a single user key. I disagree with that opinion. I think it's fair and logical that the more a user uses MuLab the more he should support the MuLab R&D.

This is all interesting. I see your point about using many copies at once for a single user, and i do think its fair. However , it is still odd to me. That would be like having many copies of drivers licenses just because i have a full garage of cars. Idk seems odd.

And to your last post. If there is a simple reminder, why put it there if its only going to be slightly annoying but not actually do anything. Now im not 100% against this(its a very winrar approach) but i feel like, if it's not doing anything functionally, why even put it there. Why not instead of the timed delay, you could put "please update your key" at the top of the software. Perhaps you want to annoy them to update it, but is that how you want to treat customers? If so, im not going to knock you for it. Im sure other devs have done worse.

[Pyrotek45]

After some thinking, im still not convinced that having computer limitations is necessary. The more i think about it, the more silly it sounds.

Just because someone has many computers doesnt mean he uses the software on them "more". It's one person using a single copy at any given time.

Not to mention, would it be ok if a person used a copy on one machine, then uninstalled to use it on another and continued to do so when needed, so they can bypass these superfluous restrictions. How is that any different? Why have limitations on how many copys you can have on your computers you own. Doesnt make sense.

Would it make sense to lock an xbox game to a single console in your house? No it doesn't.

Having a limit on how many computers you can use your paid for software on is unnecessary, and silly to me when you own those computers.

Your argument is like sayings, if person A has two bikes then he must ride bikes twice as much than person B who owns one bike. If you dont see the flaw in that logic then i dont know what to say past that.

Puting a limit on how many computers a customer can use their software they paid for is an arbitrary restriction that doesn't need to be there.

[mutools]

Just because someone has many computers doesnt mean he uses the software on them "more". It's one person using a single copy at any given time.

How do you know for sure that's the case?
Maybe you only reason from your own personal case?

Not to mention, would it be ok if a person used a copy on one machine, then uninstalled to use it on another and continued to do so when needed, so they can bypass these superfluous restrictions.How is that any different? Why have limitations on how many copys you can have on your computers you own. Doesnt make sense.

It does make sense from the practical side. The computer can be checked, the person not. Cfr what pljones pointed out.

Your argument is like sayings, is person A has two bikes then he must ride bikes twice as much more than person B who owns one bike. If you dont see the flaw in that logic then i dont know what to say past that.

We're not talking bikes, we're talking digital goods. That's an essentially different case. Bikes cannot be "copied". When someone has 2 bikes, he paid for 2 bikes.

Anyway, i'm not saying that possible new user key concept is 100% foolproof from pure mathematical / philosofical pov, but i'm limited by reality. I cannot, for example, detect which person is using MuLab. If i could do that then also i would choose to link the user key to the person instead of to the computer. But that's not possible, practically. That's an essential issue.

[Pyrotek45]

Just because someone has many computers doesnt mean he uses the software on them "more". It's one person using a single copy at any given time.

How do you know for sure that's the case?
Maybe you only reason from your own personal case?

Not to mention, would it be ok if a person used a copy on one machine, then uninstalled to use it on another and continued to do so when needed, so they can bypass these superfluous restrictions.How is that any different? Why have limitations on how many copys you can have on your computers you own. Doesnt make sense.

It does make sense from the practical side. The computer can be checked, the person not. Cfr what pljones pointed out.

Your argument is like sayings, is person A has two bikes then he must ride bikes twice as much more than person B who owns one bike. If you dont see the flaw in that logic then i dont know what to say past that.

We're not talking bikes, we're talking digital goods. That's an essentially different case. Bikes cannot be "copied". When someone has 2 bikes, he paid for 2 bikes.

Anyway, i'm not saying that possible new user key concept is 100% foolproof from pure mathematical / philosofical pov, but i'm limited by reality. I cannot, for example, detect which person is using MuLab. If i could do that then also i would choose to link the user key to the person instead of to the computer. But that's not possible, practically. That's an essential issue.

Just to point out, the bikes in my interpretation would be the computers, not the software.it would be like Asking someone to buy an extra Biking license for two bikes....thats just silly, when it is in fact impossible to ride both bikes at the same time(same thing for digital goods) so why would he have to buy more licenses? So the argument that a user with more computers should buy more copies becuase he uses that software "more" often is illogical. Let me put it into an equation.

(Time spent using software × number of owners of software ) = usage. This is pretty logical right?
Assuming there is only one owner, Notice how the amount of copies or computers the owner has doesnt affect the usage.

The owner can only use on of his copies at a time. thats how i know for a fact that a person with several copies and a person with one copies will always be able to hit a equal maximum usage.

Your whole arguments on limiting the number of computers a person is allowed to use is bases on the assumption that more copies = more usage. Im trying to explain to you that assumption is false.

Also ive been thinking. Why not have two seperate copies of mulab. A demo and a custom user one that doesnt need to have any key sytem or any drm. Just install and use(happy customer) BUT, have a system that checks online if this copy is something that has proven to be on a torrent site, and if true shuts down all copies with that user id.

This way would allow a user to use their software freely. On all their computers with no keys or drm. However if they upload it to a torrent site and you find out, you can flip a switch and all of his copies would be nullified.

This would be great for your customers and would help fight piracy and viruses being attached to your software becuase there is no drm to crack (besides the online check).

However after the flip has been switched to nullify a copy, it would be too late for everyone that has downloaded it.

Im still trying to think of s solution as this one is not perfect but i think its a good start to a simple idea. Let me know what you think

[mutools]

Are you proposing a licensing system where the user must first connect to the internet before he can use MuLab?

[Pyrotek45]

Are you proposing a licensing system where the user must first connect to the internet before he can use MuLab?

The idea is to see if the current copy the user is using, is on a blacklist. However if there is no internet then it simply does nothing.(pirates may get around this by turning their internet off an on but this is good because paid users will get a better experience than the pirate who has to do something annoying everytime they want to use the software.) If one day the system reports that the copy is indeed on the blacklist it will destroy itself. How, idk i would say get creative.it would only check at program start up. So no continuous connection is required.

And if a legal user loses internet connection. They can still use mulab.

You could also use this to check for updates giving users another advantage over pirating.