Why developers stick to compromised copy protection?

[kocio21]

First, this is not thread to support any form of piracy - let that be clear.

So regarding some latest hyped reverb plugin, this thought came to my mind:

Why do developers stick to compromised copy protection? I can't really get it.

Let's say that company want to release new, highly advertised plugin. They obviously want to either deny any possibility of it being cracked or just try to delay it as much as possible. All clear. So there are some options:

1. Using very simple CP like serial number - very little cost and work to implement it. Will be released very shortly. Legit customers happy with non intrusive CP.

2. Using no CP whatsoever - zero cost, zero work, also open way for "pirates". Legit customers happy with exception of people who only buy stuff that they can't get any other way.

3. Using something that is still holding up (eLicenser?) - possibly huge cost and work to implement. Lot of legit customers unhappy with intrusive CP. But also closed way for "cheaters".

4. Using.... iLok??? High cost, lot of work, pisses off lot of legit customers and devs know for sure that it won't hold up for longer than few days.

So why use it? And mind you, it's not thread about iLok, it's just good recent example.
I don't support complicated CP and I always stand by opinion that people still accept any form of copy protection on software because they are used to it, besides it being relict of the past.

But I CAN understand to some degree putting something likse eLicenser on your plugin. But why on earth would you go with something that is expensive, complicated, has potential to scare potential buyers off and doesn't even protect against anything?

You want to protect your car from being stolen. Do you buy something like:
"eLock 5000 - super lock for your car. Costs 10000$, big, heavy and ugly like hell and you can't take it off. Offers best protection! Actually every car thief in the world knows how to open it in 5 minute but whatever".
One and only reason you'd put that crap on your car would be REALLY great protection. But if it offers virtually none? What the point?

[robotmonkey]

There might be plenty of reasons.

Many probably use just because of the mindset that you have to use it. It's in the same category with "think about the children!" mindset. Most iLok using companies belong probably into this category. They just continue to be anal about CP, do not care if it pisses off legitimate users and stuck their head in the sand when the CP is circumvented and pirates get better experience than paying customers, as is usually the case.

Majority use probably because the main reason for CP is to actually do just license management. I'd guess Waves, PA and NI belong to this category as do many others. Especially Waves which obviously was not getting a good deal out of iLok and divorced from Pace on not so friendly terms. This is probably the answer to your question.

Some don't use at all because they instead try to have a good business model with excellent products and support. Image-Line is prime example of this. Their products are pirated more than any other and yet they are still supposedly doing fine.

As far as iLok is concerned, one must give credit where it's due. It did hold on quite well for many years. Obviously not because it was such a good scheme but because there just weren't people talented and/or interested enough to crack it. But when there's a collusion of both interest and talent, it's sooner or later that these things are going to fail. Even the supposedly never uncrackable game CP Denuvo has been cracked again.

In the end it's always the paying users that are going to get shafted.

[kocio21]

As far as iLok is concerned, one must give credit where it's due. It did hold on quite well for many years. Obviously not because it was such a good scheme but because there just weren't people talented and/or interested enough to crack it. But when there's a collusion of both interest and talent, it's sooner or later that these things are going to fail. Even the supposedly never uncrackable game CP Denuvo has been cracked again.

Oh, absolutely. There is valid point of putting something like this as long as it does it's job. So while iLok was uncrackable, that was OK to use it as security benefit was probably greater than it's cons. But now it offers close to zero protection, while maintaining all of it's quirks yet companies still put it on new products.

I agree with you about licensing tool. Waves has it solved really well.

[chk071]

Um @ this thread... a serial and no copy protection will lead to the plugin being available immediately on warez sites, as those don't really offer a good copy protection. How come you're so informed about the crack-ability of iLok btw? And how can you know that iLok 3 still suffers from this? Sources please. Which unfortunately will probably lead to the topic being locked though. But, without sources, your claims aren't really worth anything.

And, on a personally note, it seems a bit shady that you register on this site, create (obviously) 2 alibi threads (which you never responded to anymore), and then only comment on iLok topics. Are you, like, from the scene?...

[Numanoid]

4. Using.... iLok??? High cost, lot of work, pisses off lot of legit customers and devs know for sure that it won't hold up for longer than few days.

It is a question of supply and demand.

Obviously if customers en masse would not buy products that needed iLok to run, then devs wouldn't be utilizing it. How would they else be able to make money?

In this day and age there are so many alternatives, if a customer has got some problems with a product, s/he can select a similar one to their overall liking.

So seeing that have to mean that a lot of users got no problem with iLok at all, how would otherwise vendors like UVI thrive and grow ?

[chk071]

I just saw that iLok 3 is obviously just a hardware upgrade, but uses the same software than iLok 2. Still, i would like to know how people can know that iLok protected stuff is still being cracked. Frankly, i can't be arsed to browse warez sites, and i also don't think anyone could know what changes have been made to the iLok protection, as i would figure it is constantly being updated, right?

[kocio21]

Um @ this thread... a serial and no copy protection will lead to the plugin being available immediately on warez sites, as those don't really offer a good copy protection. How come you're so informed about the crack-ability of iLok btw? And how can you know that iLok 3 still suffers from this? Sources please. Which unfortunately will probably lead to the topic being locked though. But, without sources, your claims aren't really worth anything.

And, on a personally note, it seems a bit shady that you register on this site, create (obviously) 2 alibi threads (which you never responded to anymore), and then only comment on iLok topics. Are you, like, from the scene?...

Ha, I certainly wasn't ready for calling me "scene member"

No, I am not in 'the scene'. Short story - I lurked on KVR for few years but only like once a week. I was in the band so that covered most of my musical passion. Since the band got disbanded, I focused more on making music myself ITB and eventually I registered here.
I won't even be hiding - I was long time user of "not so legit" audio software. About two years ago I had big problem with DAW and I got pissed, because being not legit customer, I couldn't even fill support tickets. From there I slowly ditched all my warez stuff and I am fully legit for over a year now. I have only small amount of plugins but it's OK.
But what has been seen, can't be unseen. I still know many sites and forums and I check it sometimes even if I don't use this stuff anymore. Also, these stuff isn't exactly hidden. It's right there, in first page of google search, open to anyone, feel free to check for sources.

Also, about that serial number doesn't offer protection. Of course, but iLok doesn't provide it too, neither does Waves protection, and lots of other ways, yet companies still use them.

[BertKoor]

The lock on your front door: it's useless. Smash a brick through the window an you're in. Yet you have that lock anyway. Care to explain that? More of the same...

[Aloysius]

If you were working in a studio and needed to use their computers, it would be handy to plugin your plugin and use your purchased plugins 'on the go' like. Unless the studio owned every plugin you owned, then when you left the studio, so would the right to use the plugins, since you will have taken the plugin out and brought it away with you to the pub.

[chk071]

The lock on your front door: it's useless. Smash a brick through the window an you're in. Yet you have that lock anyway. Care to explain that? More of the same...

I think that is the whole point. And if it was so easy to bypass iLok, everyone could do it. Not that i'm not sure the cracker group who did crack the iLok plugins didn't hand over their informations to others, to make it easier for others to crack the plugins. Yet, it is still a protection which is supposed to make it difficult to crack the protected plugins. I'm sure PACE will be working on a solution for the "problem" they have anyway though.

@ kocio21: Sorry if i came off as rude, your point is fair enough, yet i always find it kind of problematic to rely, or even listen to voices from people from the warez scene. This kind of reminds me off the "shit storm", if you want to call the outcry of a few forums people that way, about the .nfo from T EAM A iR, or whoever it was, about Tone2's copy protection scheme which is supposed to delete illegal keys from the computers of the plugin users. It's the kind of culprit <-> victim twist which annoys me about this. Crackers are neither trustable, nor are they heros because they managed to crack iLok. They're just, sorry, ***holes who make it hard for the developers in this business to make a living of what they do, and they also make it hard for consumers, because the loss of income created by warez has to be accounted for, and, usually, that happens over the sales price. Of course, there's other considerations which have an influence on that too, yet, as someone who sells a product, you would have to make sure that you cover your expenses, and also try to make some profit, and no warezed copy of your plugin really helps with that...

[robotmonkey]

This kind of reminds me off the "shit storm", if you want to call the outcry of a few forums people that way, about the .nfo from T EAM A iR, or whoever it was, about Tone2's copy protection scheme which is supposed to delete illegal keys from the computers of the plugin users. It's the kind of culprit <-> victim twist which annoys me about this. Crackers are neither trustable, nor are they heros because they managed to crack iLok.

Tone2 is actually a great example where crackers are more trustworthy than a developer. It's rather easy to verify that Tone2 products do scan your hard drives during install and try to delete keyfiles. So this claim is not under question in anyway. Moreover Tone2 seems to pull off some shady sh1t with their plugins resulting instant computer shutdowns when PACE cr@p is also installed. They have been lying and blaming PACE for this while this is clearly their problem. They even give updates to their plugins that fix that, but only if you specifically ask this. Only the other day I had to point someone to this problem who had unexplained computer shutdowns. He was thinking that it must be a DAW problem or something and wasted DAW developers time on this.

Even though I prefer legit plugins, as long as there's sh1tty customer unfriendly CP schemes used I fully support there being a healthy crackers community as they offer an important public service.