ghettosynth wrote: kbaccki wrote: ghettosynth wrote:
Many software companies operate in the same manner.
Customers get this as well. Further, I think that it's reasonable for some types of software, e.g. enterprise engineering software, but, not for consumer products. So, it's not a justification to say, "everybody's doing it," because everybody's not doing it. Of course, I know that you didn't say "everybody", you said, "many", but it's a logical fallacy in any case. The fact that others are doing it doesn't make it right. It has simply become the status quo.
Your "everybody's doing it" argument also applies to the community of digital license holders who don't think for more than 2 milliseconds about sharing their digital license with whoever wants it.
Who's arguing that it does? You have no point. I said that "everbody's doing it" isn't an argument for a particular behavior and that same argument would apply to sharing licenses. So it's not exactly clear what point you think that you're making, but, what is clear is that it, in no way, is a rejoinder to my assertions.
What are you talking about? Mike said:
Many companies are doing it [requiring customer to call support for activation] in the same manner.
You quoted what Mike said, and responded with:
[...] it's not a justification to say, "everybody's doing it," because everybody's not doing it.
By "it" I can only assume you're referring to the same "it" that you quoted Mike as referring to: customers need to call in for support and activation.
My point was simply that your "everybody's doing it doesn't make it right" statement applies equally to a.) vendors imposing burdensome C/R, and b.) persons outright stealing usage licenses. I realize you were only referring to vendor behavior, but my point is that those two things are connected, "a" is a side effect of "b".
Companies like Uhe respect their customers and take on the responsibility of managing their piracy problems themselves.
"Their" piracy problem? Piracy is a "we all" problem.
No, it's not. A vendor's piracy problem is no more my problem than my electric bill is his. We're not partners, we're not "in this together", we're not teaming up to stamp out things that eat into developers profits. He's selling a product, I'm buying it. The only sense that "we're" in it together is in a political sense, i.e., that our voting choices impact laws that affect all of us. I pay for my software and I obey the law. With modern software the product that I get in return for giving money to a vendor is a license to use their software. I am simply putting restrictions on the types of licenses that I will accept, and that is 100% in my purview, and moreover, that decision is not moved in any way by a vendor's need to control piracy. It's just that simple.
You most certainly are "in this together" when your choices as a consumer are directly affected by how much a vendor is affected by piracy. It may mean you pay $200 for a product instead of $100. It may mean you need to shell out another $50 for a dongle, then another $100 per year for "dongle insurance". It may mean U-he goes out of business someday because the revenue is not sustainable... or, God forbid, has to adopt some sort of more restrictive copy protection that leaves you
in the cold (been there). Every lost sale directly or indirectly affects you in some way. That doesn't mean you have to light a candle every night for the vendors, or go lead a crusade against torrent sites, but it may mean you need to at least be open to compromise between your requirements and the vendor's. Of course, that's just my philosophy and approach, considering a lot of these vendors are relatively small operations that I'd like to see stick around for a while... like samplemodeling, or scuffham. The vendor lets me do XYZ with this paid for license, in return I will jump through hoop ABC. You have every right and obligation to run screaming from ABC, of course, if that's what you need to do.
Baby sit, yes, that's probably a good way to put it. The problem with deauthorization is that it's not enforceable without a software mechanism to actually enforce the deauthorization. I could just "deauthorize" my license 1000 times without actually uninstalling or moving it anywhere... all I'm doing is giving myself the ability to authorize 1000 times, which makes the whole process meaningless.
We're not talking about the same thing. You're going to have to work a bit harder for this than what you're imagining. Waves does it just fine, the license gets moved between the local drive and the cloud. Elicenser doesn't have any problems with the process, I had no difficulty moving my Arturia license from the harddrive that it was on to the dongle. When that process was complete, the software did not run without the dongle. Here, propellerheads shows you how simple it is with their software.
You just made my point. The dongle is the authorization mechanism. Or in the case of elicenser or whatever, the elicenser guardian-gateway-kernel-driver-rootkit thing is the authorization mechanism. In that context, "deathorization" to move licenses around makes perfect sense -- you're telling the active authorization mechanism: "this license blob should now be considered valid for this runtime environment".
Typcial C/R does the one-time authorization, then may scan for hardware changes on software startup to make sure the authorization is still valid. If my hardware never changes then "deauthorization" has no meaning. It's a lazy authorization compared to dongle or elicenser... So yes, much more functionally limited, more burden on you when you have to manage the authorizations in a non-seamless manner etc.
You're main criticism seems to be that "license blob" is not ubiquitous across all CP schemes. Or, it's the lazy C/R mechanism that is the source of the downstream pain of reauth and everything that goes with that. Yes! You could argue that there should be some industry standard C/R that involves an open standard elicenser type license management -- well, I guess in that guess you don't need C/R at all, just license management. That would be nice, to be honest... really nice, actually... but I wonder what the synchrosoft or iLok or whatever licensing costs are for vendors? I wonder if all those UVI sample libs are so damn expensive because of the iLok overhead? I bet it's far from affordable unless you're tied into a platform that already uses it (like a soundware developer using UVI engine)...
Opcode was doing this in the 90s with floppy disks.
OMG, I will take the most restrictive C/R any day over shuffling disks...