Challenge/response, dongles and other "copy protection&

[Radek]

I'm only one to found the whole "copy protection shemes" are going out of the hand?

You see I understand developers but another side of this coin in an ugly one.

Look at non untypical pc based DAW:
- windows it must be authorized
- a host it must be authorized too and perhaps has a dongle added
- a effects bundle, like a above
- some synths/samplers, like a above
- even some demonstration versions of
software are already plagued by above!

If someone is unlucky enough then every
piece of software he/she uses is
cursed with one of (or several)
such things.

And imagine what would happen when a harddrive decide to go poo?

And imagine what would happen when a such disaster will happen in the middle payed recording session?

And who will be liable?

So you see... It looks like a paying for our own demises.

Thanks to all developers not resorting to such policies.

[ericj23]

hmm a hardrive going makes no difference to a dongle - unless its the system drive - and your sessions over at that point anyway

some call/response type protection would ask for re-authorising if the drive went down - but they should all allow you a few days leeway

so what is the problem

personally if dongles etc are what it takese to ensure that the industry feel confident enough that there copyright will be maintained that they continue to develop amazing products i am more than happy

[orangesuite]

quite

[Sage]

hmm a hardrive going makes no difference to a dongle - unless its the system drive - and your sessions over at that point anyway

Yes, but of course, if the dongle dies you're S.O.L.

some call/response type protection would ask for re-authorising if the drive went down - but they should all allow you a few days leeway

Should, yes. Maybe. If you're lucky and the developers are generous. Let's hope they get things straightened out, right?

so what is the problem

The problem is that the makers of this software see fit to give me a hard time even after I have paid for the software I use. If I want to use their software, I not only have to pay for it, I have to give up a USB port and carry around a dongle. Or I have to jack into the internet and ask their permission, and hope they're still in business and keeping their records up to date.

Meanwhile, there are people using cracked copies of the third generation of Cubase SX out there, and they don't have to worry about dongles or product activation. They are unburdened by copy protection.

Does that seem right to you? That the honest folks are the only ones who suffer?

personally if dongles etc are what it takese to ensure that the industry feel confident enough that there copyright will be maintained that they continue to develop amazing products i am more than happy

I'm glad you're happy being treated like a potential criminal, but I for one am not. Just because you're content to let people walk all over you doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with it. I pay for the software I use, I don't install onto more machines than I have licenses for, and I don't copy it to give to other people. I expect to be treated like an honest man, and I don't think that's too much to ask.

Of course, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't buy software that doesn't give me control over its installation and use. If a company puts out a product with challenge/response copy protection or a dongle, then it doesn't matter how good it is -- I'll find a competitor who doesn't. There are many solutions out there that don't lock you down to their systems (Sonar, Logic Express, etc). If you can't get by using these alternatives, then your only option is to compromise your principles.

[ericj23]

i still don't really get why people are so annoyed about copy protection -i hear the arguments and all the rest it just doesnt matter to me

i want to use amazing software - right i need a suitable PC - it's not like hardware recorders where i need a plug socket - then a suitable sound card - in amongst all this maze of configuration i find having a spare USB port easy to cope with

and as for feeling like a criminal - well i have commited so many crimes in my life that I can completly understand why our moral guardians (and businesses) don't trust me (OK most of them were drunk and disorderly - but so) - people are not saints - just trusting people is a wonderful ideal but I could not resent anyone who has grown so cycnical about this that they choose to do something about it in order to protect there own - do you lock your door at night ? - or when your not in the house ?

Still i agree wholeheartedly with your point that if you don't like it don't use it - i certainly never said you must just like it and i suspect that any company that does not require these protections may well slightly increase it sales because they offer a choice - someone said (but may have lied) that sonar now uses challenge response - so that's all the major hosts now tho

PS there is no-one using the latest version of cubase (3.1 or the forthcoming 3.2) who has not paid for it

[headquest]

From a consumer's point of view I would recommend following one of the following paths...

A) Stick to stuff that uses Challenge/Response only, and keep hard copies of all authorisation documentation, as well as a soft copy of any unlock keys on a floppy disk in a safe place. This is the approach I have personally taken at present, and am very happy with my set up of Live/Reason/Audition/Sibelius/Kjaerhus Golden fx, all fo which use this approach.

If you must have software that uses a dongle try to stick to having ONE dongle that can be used to hold multiple authorisations. This will again limit your software choices, of course. The two main pathways here are to use the syncrosoft dongle purveyed by Steinberg (and use their software) of the iLok system that will allow you to use the likes of ProTools M-Powered/LE, Waves plugs, Cycling 74 Pluggo, MAX/MSP, etc.

Using more than one different dongle seems to me a bad idea, and having a seperate dongle for each piece of software/plugin is simply a nightmare, especially in this mobile age (I am on a laptop, and imagine most musicians will chose this route if they haven't already).

I also agree with the general sentiment that dongles are bad news, potentially drain CPU, and are a liability for mobile musicians on the road.

[james0tucson]

I'm only one to found the whole "copy protection shemes" are going out of the hand?

I see a possibility where some level of copy protection can reach past a software developer's right to protect his interest, and can begin to infringe my interests.

The solution is not to use such software. That may seem difficult or extreme, but the fact is, it's the user's responsibility.

You see I understand developers but another side of this coin in an ugly one.

I understand to a point -- but my right to access my creative work is on an equal status with the publisher's right to protect his.

And imagine what would happen when a such disaster will happen in the middle payed recording session?

If you read your software licenses, you will discover that none of it is actually guaranteed to work. If you want a better deal, you'd have to go back to the way we did software in the 1970s, with an individual contract between you and the developer.

And who will be liable?

Read the license info that comes with all your software.

So you see... It looks like a paying for our own demises.

If you dance with the devil, you have to pay the fiddler.

[Radek]

hmm a hardrive going makes no difference to a dongle - unless its the system drive - and your sessions over at that point anyway

Not if I could have second drive with
ghosted partitions on it. But I can not
(atleast not resorting to some tricks)
as copyprotection is bound to the id
numbers of windows, of hdd, of whatever.
I can move a partition with installed Linux to another disk, another pc and it will run. Windows wouldn't even boot...

So copyprotection can make a recovering DAW much more tedious and time consuming. And time is a money.

some call/response type protection would ask for re-authorising if the drive went down - but they should all allow you a few days leeway

so what is the problem

Problem is all this adds more time and effort to do a recovery. If I had to reinstall, then reauthorise 10 programs and then wait to the responces for complete c/r authorizations well... It might be just a day, it might be several days as well. It's all depends on someone else when simple swapping hdds will take 10 minutes at worst.

personally if dongles etc are what it takese to ensure that the industry feel confident enough that there copyright will be maintained that they continue to develop amazing products i am more than happy

This was discussed many times before and here isn't need of it again. I'm just saying all the copyprotections aren't free. Not for a developer, not the user and seeing like this is going more and more harshly is frightening me.

Time is a valuable asset. If someday the pc eventually become like a prison camp when you had to authorize everything, everytime and for everyreason then... thanks, no pc for me anymore.

[Radek]

I'm only one to found the whole "copy protection shemes" are going out of the hand?

I see a possibility where some level of copy protection can reach past a software developer's right to protect his interest, and can begin to infringe my interests.

The solution is not to use such software. That may seem difficult or extreme, but the fact is, it's the user's responsibility.

Yes. I realized this some time ago. I have licenses for two NI products (one of them was never fixed to being usable, the second still has bugs but it's atleast workable). I would love to buy a licenses for some other software from NI but theirs latest policies are not acceptable for me.

I had to search for an alternatives. I found them.

You see I understand developers but another side of this coin in an ugly one.

I understand to a point -- but my right to access my creative work is on an equal status with the publisher's right to protect his.

And imagine what would happen when a such disaster will happen in the middle payed recording session?

If you read your software licenses, you will discover that none of it is actually guaranteed to work. If you want a better deal, you'd have to go back to the way we did software in the 1970s, with an individual contract between you and the developer.

And who will be liable?

Read the license info that comes with all your software.

So you see... It looks like a paying for our own demises.

If you dance with the devil, you have to pay the fiddler.

So true.

The persuit of the "perfect DAW" was illusion after all. I had been thinking the various vsts would help me making better music. Not true and not that cheap when counting all the spending after the years.

Now my vst folder is a mere 25MB (except for samples) and I like the way it is now.

[Hink]

Radek,

I so agree with you...however are you blaming the bank for getting robbed? Protection sucks, who created the need for it?....my question is, how do these people stay online to distribute cracked versions, where is the enforcement?

One does have to question whether the companies themselves allow crack sites so they can justify pumping up the price software. I'm not saying this is or isn't the case, I'm still on fence.

I really wonder what future will bring, imo more and more things will go back in time to more dedicated hardware, without said hardware the software is useless.

However, we can whine about it all we want, but we can't stop it. So it comes down to how nuch you're willing to put up with to have the software. Personally if ilok improves some it could be a very good answer...

[Radek]

Radek,

I so agree with you...however are you blaming the bank for getting robbed? Protection sucks, who created the need for it?....my question is, how do these people stay online to distribute cracked versions, where is the enforcement?

One does have to question whether the companies themselves allow crack sites so they can justify pumping up the price software. I'm not saying this is or isn't the case, I'm still on fence.

I really wonder what future will bring, imo more and more things will go back in time to more dedicated hardware, without said hardware the software is useless.

However, we can whine about it all we want, but we can't stop it. So it comes down to how nuch you're willing to put up with to have the software. Personally if ilok improves some it could be a very good answer...

There is a better solution. A ROM based cards containing only the engine's codes. The rest could be provided convenctionaly (on the hdd). This way actuall plugin would have a hardware form which obviously couldn't be copied or cracked. The cpu of course could be only able to read content of ROMs for its instruction decoders. There should be avaible rewritable cards too but as they would cost money the desire to pirate would be much less. Because actual plugin would be also a material thing you could resell it, use freely on every machine you wish and never had to be hassled by any copy protection.

Such ROM cards could be of size postal stamps easily and tens of them could be fitted to a pc without problem. Even better - they could have some processing capacity (for lfos and such) making any attempt to pirate a reconstruction of actual aplication rather than just cracking copyprotection.

We might go even further - look at the Yamaha's hardware plugins. Yes they somewhat dated technically but there no a reason why done using today's silicon manufacturing and produced in quantity should not be dirt cheap, smaller in a size and much more powerfull. But no! Actual established "wintel" industry will not allow something like this.

[herodotus]

For the perspective of someone who works in the industry for a living on these matters read this

I especially liked this part:

"It is well-known in the pro audio community that Waves Native Gold Bundle - indeed, any product employing PACE Interlok Anti-Piracy software - is not stable. As you can see in the video, the problems can occur over and over again. As with most computer crashes, they occur at times of most critical need. Usually when clients are in the room.

Nothing tells a client that their project is in capable hands like watching the computer spontaneously reboot five times in a row. Yes, sir. That’s the mark of confidence."

[Mighty_Hero]

Challenge/response codes have never been an issue for me. Dongles I prefer not to use, but if it's something I have to have, I guess I'll turn USB back on.
I understand everyone's concerns esp. for the legit end user, but developers (I feel anyways) have to have someway to at least try and protect themselves.
I would be totally heartbroken to work on something for a year + and have it floating around easy to just STEAL.

[shamann]

my question is, how do these people stay online to distribute cracked versions, where is the enforcement?

One think to keep in mind is that the primary target for copy protection is not cracked software. Sure it's something the copy protectors say a lot because it makes for a good bogeyman, I'm sure some copy protectors even think warez are the main problem, and I'm sure it is aggravating for them, but it isn't the primary target.

Crackers are technically unstoppable, as they seemingly have endless resources to continue cracking. Crackers are also generally irrelevant to the market, as they are criminals interested in being criminals, not exactly the stuff markets are built on. The only target market crackers cripple is the set of stupid rich kids who, without the opportunity to become a warez kiddie, might go down to Guitar Centre and drop $500 of their parents' cash on a bundle of software looking to be the next Tiesto.

Ever since software has been a commercial concern, crackers have existed, yet miraculously, a software industry has flourished. It's not even worse now with p2p then it used to be. Think back 1986. Every kid I knew who had a C64 had cracked games, and I lived in small town of 40,000 in Canada, not exactly the hub of telecommunications activity.

The target is software sharing. People who get software with a serial number and install it on every workstation in their office. People who install at their friend's house so that they can write tunes together. Challenge/response, dongles, PACE, yada yada, are not a matter of being impervious to the crackers, because they don't care what the crackers are doing.

A few idiots were doing a smug little dance when Syncrosoft was cracekd, but no one cares, because that tidbit of information doesn't affect consumer habits. If I wanted to use nothing but stolen software, I don't need to know that Syncrosoft has been cracked to do so. Stolen software is every where and easy to get, always has been. People who buy software, and therefore users of protected software, are rarely likely to use cracked software, even if they know it is there. But without impediments, they might be inclined to share their software.

Stop and think about Microsoft's empire. It wasn't built on box sales, it was built on site licensing, meaning you pay for every computer that uses their software.

So for the love of god, everybody, please stop bringing up warez in these copy protection threads.

[james0tucson]

Problem is all this adds more time and effort to do a recovery. If I had to reinstall, then reauthorise 10 programs and then wait to the responces for complete c/r authorizations well... It might be just a day, it might be several days as well. It's all depends on someone else when simple swapping hdds will take 10 minutes at worst.

How can you even be certain that a recovery is possible, before you try it? If a program has to activate itself, you don't actually know it's going to succeed until after it does. That bothers me, enormously, and I see it as a risk that I may be locked out of my work, which is entirely unacceptable.