Community effort to replace iLok?

DSP, Plug-in and Host development discussion.
User avatar
Nielzie
KVRAF
8974 posts since 28 May, 2005 from Netherlands

Post Mon May 28, 2018 5:56 am

Open Source DRM, hmm.. It better be without usb hardware (because that really sucks and who would fabricate and sell/deliver them?) and internet server checks (who would host them servers, and why would we trust them? Who can we blame if they get hacked?), and without a draconian low level software "driver" installed on our systems (because that really sucks). And with good service (who would provide that?). But then, why bother?
None are so hopeless enslaved as KVRians with GAS.

User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
26115 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Mon May 28, 2018 6:27 am

Squidsneeze wrote:What people tend to forget (or just don't know) is that the copy protection scheme is just one detail, which in the end boils down to just a "valid" or "invalid" flag in the plugin (sure some schemes additionally wrap the binary to do checks before even loading plugin).
What some people tend to forget (or just don't know) is that the copy protection scheme only boils down to just a "valid" or "invalid" flag in the plugin if the developer of the scheme is a f**king idiot.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."

BlueprintInc
KVRist
31 posts since 9 Apr, 2017

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Mon May 28, 2018 6:32 am

Checking the validity of a license isn't true or false? Some mystical inbetween state? That explains a lot :lol: :lol: :lol:

soundmodel
KVRian
644 posts since 28 May, 2010 from Finland

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Mon May 28, 2018 6:38 am

Nielzie wrote:But then, why bother?
I tend to think it this way:

Why did one bother doing a DRM that sucks in the first place (iLok).

So those aiming to make a better DRM are not wasting their time, those doing shit DRM are wasting everyone's time.

User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
26115 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Mon May 28, 2018 6:40 am

BlueprintInc wrote:Checking the validity of a license isn't true or false?
That's a reading comprehension fail. Checking the validity of a license as true or false is the absolute simplest, most naive thing for a copy protection system to do.
Consider that versus, for example, a copy protection system which returns a result which has to be used in the decryption of essential data.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."

BlueprintInc
KVRist
31 posts since 9 Apr, 2017

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Mon May 28, 2018 6:48 am

whyterabbyt wrote:
BlueprintInc wrote:Checking the validity of a license isn't true or false?
That's a reading comprehension fail. Checking the validity of a license as true or false is the absolute simplest, most naive thing for a copy protection system to do.
Consider that versus, for example, a copy protection system which returns a result which has to be used in the decryption of essential data.
I agree. But this doesn't contradict there has to be an valid/true or invalid/false state of data then.

User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
26115 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Mon May 28, 2018 7:02 am

BlueprintInc wrote:I agree. But this doesn't contradict there has to be an valid/true or invalid/false state of data then.
You're reaching; basically trying to conflate two different things. The original proposition was that all that could be done was return a boolean result as to whether a license was valid or not. Generating a decryption key is entirely different.

Data which has been correctly or incorrectly decrypted is a different thing from a true/false result; there's not even a requirement to test the state of that data. If its invalid data, invalid data gets used.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."

User avatar
FabienTDR
KVRian
976 posts since 24 Feb, 2012

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Thu May 31, 2018 6:20 pm

alexpander wrote:I think you miss that one of the main reasons for a transfer fee is also the fact that you lose a potential new customer. In addition, you have to pay employees who provide support for the new owner. Simply put: one sold, two or even three times the support effort. The administrative burden of managing and protecting customer data can also mean high administrative costs, depending on how many hundreds or thousands of licenses are in circulation.
This all isn’t going away by itself, but usually has to be checked manually. And there are costs again.
Would you take over this management for a company free of charge?
As a EU company, or when servicing a EU citizen, it's simply illegal to touch a non time limited license that you already sold, and even complicate its transfer without technical necessity. By selling such a license type, the license is not more under the seller's property. Technically maybe, but not legally.

Sadly most customers in this scene don't seem to be aware what they are buying in the first place. So they pay the idiot tax, or accept a license transfer restriction. :)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... cant.shtml

Next time you see a lawyer, ask him.
Fabien from Tokyo Dawn Records

Check out my audio processors over at the Tokyo Dawn Labs!

User avatar
Aleksey Vaneev
KVRAF
3513 posts since 7 Sep, 2002

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:07 pm

There are no management costs associated with license transfers, at least in Voxengo history. First of all, second-hand market is tiny (2-5% of sales), and, secondly, a new user replaces support costs associated with the previous user. Also server resources are dirt cheap nowadays ($50/mo server is loaded to 1/10 of its capacity), and security measures cover all users immediately.

iLok is a different story. I would suggest you to look at iLok as an old marketing "hype" much like UAD hardware. A kind of elitism element. Everyone wants to sell and buy something of "elite" class. Dunno, maybe something else will be perceived as "elite" in the coming years effectively putting iLok out of business. Not to note that iLok fails to stop those who purposefully invest hacker resources into software cracking.

Reaper is rocking the base of the big four of Cubase, ProTools, Ableton Live and Logic Pro. And it's a no-dongle culture.
Image

User avatar
Aleksey Vaneev
KVRAF
3513 posts since 7 Sep, 2002

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:19 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
BlueprintInc wrote:Checking the validity of a license isn't true or false?
That's a reading comprehension fail. Checking the validity of a license as true or false is the absolute simplest, most naive thing for a copy protection system to do.
Consider that versus, for example, a copy protection system which returns a result which has to be used in the decryption of essential data.
But that requires either an on-line challenge-response or storing a key in an inaccessable area (dongle). Even the most complex code-region encryption scheme without that is useless as if the key can be plain copied, it will be spread by piracy enthusiasts. I've been there, it's not worth it, so valid/invalid flag is pretty enough. Then nowdays in the market with 200 able plugin producers just in audio DSP niche, it's a bit stupid to impose additional difficulties at authorizing plugins. It was different 10 years ago, now every installation and every real user counts.
Image

soundmodel
KVRian
644 posts since 28 May, 2010 from Finland

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:29 am

I still don't understand, whether it'd be reasonable to develop such GNU alternative or whether it's not necessary.

mtytel
KVRist
50 posts since 28 Jan, 2013 from Oakland

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:15 pm

soundmodel wrote:I still don't understand, whether it'd be reasonable to develop such GNU alternative or whether it's not necessary.
Apple would sooner release a torrenting app than GNU release an iLok alternative.

User avatar
Aleksey Vaneev
KVRAF
3513 posts since 7 Sep, 2002

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:24 pm

soundmodel wrote:I still don't understand, whether it'd be reasonable to develop such GNU alternative or whether it's not necessary.
I myself do not see the need in such thing. Beside that, who will want to invest their time for free to produce a tool purely for commercial purposes? Does not seem logical, TBH.
Image

User avatar
Aloysius
KVRAF
22069 posts since 11 Aug, 2008 from a computer

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:00 pm

I'm on the chugga, chugga, choo, choo iLok train. :tu:
I didn't get where I am today ...

mtytel
KVRist
50 posts since 28 Jan, 2013 from Oakland

Re: Community effort to replace iLok?

Post Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:19 pm

soundmodel wrote:I still don't understand, whether it'd be reasonable to develop such GNU alternative or whether it's not necessary.
Also, it sounds like you're using "GNU" to mean open-source. These are not synonymous.

Return to “DSP and Plug-in Development”