License protection

[careyletendre]

Please consider using the iLok system. I absolutely love this form of protection. Very little chance of piracy, easy to use and maintain and affords me the flexibility to use on as many systems as I want.

Carey

[ezelkow1]

Very little chance of piracy

except that parts not true at all. That is why Im against ilok. It does almost nothing to protect plugins since it has been cracked, so anything using it is usually cracked pretty fast as well. So now not only does the dev not have a secure product, they now have even more costs by having to license the ilok system and that gets passed along to the consumer

[valerian_777]

Very little chance of piracy

except that parts not true at all. That is why Im against ilok. It does almost nothing to protect plugins since it has been cracked, so anything using it is usually cracked pretty fast as well. So now not only does the dev not have a secure product, they now have even more costs by having to license the ilok system and that gets passed along to the consumer

Pace/Ilok 2nd generation isn't cracked (since years). The old Ilok was cracked years ago that was it. Same is with the latest eLicenser which is also save. So some producers have to work with Cubase5 still..

[UltimateOutsider]

I like the UVI model where you get 3 pace activations that can go on a hardware ilok or soft per-computer activation if you don't like dongles.

[careyletendre]

Very little chance of piracy

except that parts not true at all. That is why Im against ilok. It does almost nothing to protect plugins since it has been cracked, so anything using it is usually cracked pretty fast as well. So now not only does the dev not have a secure product, they now have even more costs by having to license the ilok system and that gets passed along to the consumer

Not correct.

Another example of iLok misinformation so easily bandied about the internet.

[ezelkow1]

Very little chance of piracy

except that parts not true at all. That is why Im against ilok. It does almost nothing to protect plugins since it has been cracked, so anything using it is usually cracked pretty fast as well. So now not only does the dev not have a secure product, they now have even more costs by having to license the ilok system and that gets passed along to the consumer

Not correct.

Another example of iLok misinformation so easily bandied about the internet.

So I guess its only true for ilok 1, however half of my point still stands. He would still have to pay to license ilok, and that cost gets passed on to his paying non pirating customers. To me asking a legit customer to pay to protect a developers assets is still wrong, especially when the customer also has to actually pay for a physical product to enforce that protection, not just having a software license scheme rolled in to the cost, so the paying customer gets hit double in order to enforce protection for a product

Then with a track record like that, who's to say if/when ilok2 gets cracked, then does lennard move up to new totally uncrackable ilok3 for a new update/version/etc? Then do his users have to go out and buy another dongle just to protect the program?

I understand some people love ilok, that it allows them to move their licenses freely around, and thats a plus for them. To me it just seems that ilok is a security method that totally focuses the punishment and payment on legit customers, who besides having a warm happy feeling knowing some companies product may be protected for a while, really dont get anything out of the deal other than being able to use the ilok. Thats just the way I see dongles in general. Now something like what was mentioned above, and similar to alot of elicenser setups and what reason uses, you can give the user the option to have certain computers certified, or store that license on a dongle. That to me seems like a wholly better option than forcing a piece of hardware on a user. At least in that case then they can get the best of both worlds and choose for themselves, the people who like dongles are happy, those who dont are happy (or at least dont have to use a dongle and will eventually accept it begrudgingly)

[valerian_777]

The protection works like already pointed out you was the only misinformed guy here. If you dont like dongles dont buy sofware which use it. For me i have 4 dongles (2x Ilok 2x eLic) and never have a prob with it.

[ezelkow1]

The protection works like already pointed out you was the only misinformed guy here. If you dont like dongles dont buy sofware which use it. For me i have 4 dongles (2x Ilok 2x eLic) and never have a prob with it.

So EVERY product that uses ilok2 supports licensing with only the ilok manager? From what I have seen its very much up to the developer to choose the option of allowing customers to use the ilok manager for dongle-less licensing, which then also lets dongle users transfer the license if they wish. I see plenty of products saying they require the ilok2 dongle, with no mention of supporting a dongle-less auth as well

[careyletendre]

So I guess its only true for ilok 1, however half of my point still stands. He would still have to pay to license ilok, and that cost gets passed on to his paying non pirating customers. To me asking a legit customer to pay to protect a developers assets is still wrong, especially when the customer also has to actually pay for a physical product to enforce that protection, not just having a software license scheme rolled in to the cost, so the paying customer gets hit double in order to enforce protection for a product

It's a small price to pay in order to ensure the developers get the money they deserve.

If you really cared about keeping these products out the pirates grubby little hands and to see the developers benefit from their hard work then you should feel the same.

It's like an insurance policy on the future development of your investment.

I have thousands of dollars worth of software on my iLok that cost me fifty dollars. Not a bad deal to me.

[ezelkow1]

It's a small price to pay in order to ensure the developers get the money they deserve.

If you really cared about keeping these products out the pirates grubby little hands and to see the developers benefit from their hard work then you should feel the same.

It's like an insurance policy on the future development of your investment.

Well I had a much longer reply typed up showing studies where removing protection actually increased sales, there is no 1:1 relationship between piracy and purchases, blah blah blah. The main thing is, either you feel as a customer that by purchasing a product you have now become an investor in a company, or you feel that you have bought a product as-is and are only entitled support for the product you purchased and thats the end of your transaction.

For me I am the latter, I have no concern what happens wrt to piracy and a product Ive purchased. I paid money for a product and support for it (which should at least include bug fixes for that product not included in feature expansion). If a dev wishes to pursue future development, either as a new revenue stream or to add to an existing product to entice new customers and give incentive to current customers to purchase future products then so be it. I see no link between piracy and an insurance policy on future development, it is a developers prerogative to continue development. There are plenty of other audio companies out there with all their products pirated that still continue to develop and add features, copy protection (effective or not) does not insure anything when it comes to the future

[careyletendre]

I have no concern what happens wrt to piracy and a product Ive purchased.

Herein lies the problem.

[lachrimae]

I have no concern what happens wrt to piracy and a product Ive purchased.

Herein lies the problem.

So if two author's are selling e-books, I have a moral obligation to buy from the one that utilizes a proprietary copy-protected reader app?

Companies often over-estimate how many cracked copies would have otherwise been purchase, but the truth is that there's no way for them to know the actual numbers.
On the other hand, I can guarantee a dongle-based company that they've lost at least one customer... It's my money and yes, they have to earn my business.

[careyletendre]

So if two author's are selling e-books, I have a moral obligation to buy from the one that utilizes a proprietary copy-protected reader app?

No. You have missed the point entirely.

[blue monk]

I got an iLok and elicenser but I am very hesitant buying new plug-ins for those.

ilok is the worse: Their support is abysmal and an update can make licenses become invalid. Now they offer a solution if an ilok stops working or is stolen. You are supposed to get new licenses quickly. BUT: You have to pay them for it!

elicenser is more easy to handle but here too if your dongle breaks, you`ve lost a probably significant investment in licenses.

Plus: MacBooks have 2 USB slots. ... ... ...

I am pragmatic: There are a few dongle protected plug-ins I want to use. Therefore I have it. But I don`t appreaciate it. Actually, I do appreciate Waves and Plug-In-Alliance abandoning it.


As pirated software goes:
Most downloaded pirated software is either never used, at least not seriously. In my estimation, someone who does not respect the people who created the tools he is "working" with, does not have the discipline and focus to build up know how and finally get professional productions done.
There sure are exceptions but I would bet any amount of money that my assumption is correct for the most part.
Only using paid software for me was part of the decision to take making music seriously.
2 psychological reasons:
1. If you invest resources in something, you communicate to yourself that you are now committed to making something happen.
2. You put pressure on yourself, because if you don`t use your investment, you lose it.
Last but not least: If you make money with producing music, then a few hundred Euros, Dollars, Pesos... is nothing.

There is probably quite a few 12 year olds who have programs to design aircrafts and create and simulate microprocessor designs. Yet, they will never do anything useful with it.
Likewise the majority of people who download cracked audio software keep themselves busy getting everything they can get a hold of and will never utilize this software to create anything worth listening to.
Of course, sales to hobbyists with dreams that may or may not ever get fullfilled are still money in the pocket for the developer. I get that. My main argument still stands though.




Tone 2 have their own approach:
Every plug-in watermarks the audio it produces. This watermark is unique to the serial number/key file.
Unless this is a children story (which is not impossible), this would enable Tone 2 to check any published song if a Tone 2 plug-in was used and if so, if it is licensed and to whom.

[blue monk]

restricing to 1 PC is ridiculous so we have to find a way to get it protected besides that

Toontrack allow to register 2 computers. If you get a new computer, you can unregister on of those and re-register.
You could offer a 2nd license either free or maybe for 25€. This opens the possibility of mis-use though (you and a friend get 2 licenses for (next to) nothing extra and pay 50% each ... that`s what you don`t want...or you could allow private group deals. If someone wants to buy a license, he would then automatically try to think of people who would join him... that`s probably something you would benefit from.).