Can I change the label reading to whom my U-he products are "registered to ..."?

[mevla]

"Bill Clinton" should be OK after all.

[2ZrgE]

(You won't believe how many people we have enjoyed to ridicule on YouTube who were using a crack, as seen in the "registered to" field. It's invaluable, we won't change it).

Noticed that too, also for Sylenth and other VSTs which display an owner's notice.

But seriously, what can you do about that? Not much, I'm afraid...

[EvilDragon]

Public shaming is a pretty good way to go about it.

[Urs]

Public shaming is a pretty good way to go about it.

Yep. It's utterly satisfying.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

What kind of drink does one drink at a censorship bar?

Those who know, cannot tell

[chk071]

A pixeled Bloody Mary.

[Robert Randolph]

I always wondered how the people using their soundware/whatever moniker managed to get their plugins registered to their trademark name. E.g. Sadowick Productions. Or did they actually ask the devs to get it registered to that name?

As long as we know who you are, we're happy to help. We just need something that resembles a real name, i.e. is reasonably long and has a space in it.

Does that mean I can request a change for my registered name?

I don't want people knowing my real name

[lunardigs]

(You won't believe how many people we have enjoyed to ridicule on YouTube who were using a crack, as seen in the "registered to" field. It's invaluable, we won't change it).

Noticed that too, also for Sylenth and other VSTs which display an owner's notice.

But seriously, what can you do about that? Not much, I'm afraid...

Wait, are we talking about YouTubers using said software in 'demo mode' here, or do you mean truly cracked software?

Furthermore, if these plugins have crack-intervention code which can display warnings, etc., how is it the plugin can't fully cripple itself this way?

I guess I don't really know how it works. I've always been of the impression that compiled software is a blackbox; that cracking software isn't a trivial thing. To me, it would seem people who crack software do it as a sport, for the challenge of it. Though, for an average person, such efforts makes little sense. You know? Yet, average persons who use cracked software I'd cop up to laziness--especially if they take no care to clean up such an appearance for their YouTube videos!

Anyway, to me the value of software like this (highly specialized, weird software I might say) is having the support of the company behind it. That's what I'm really buying as I see it--and by the word "support" I mean many things, none the least of which is their continued inventions. My support for their support, a fair and beneficial continuum, ideally.

[liquidsound]

Just use the Demo version for the video.

[lunardigs]

Just use the Demo version for the video.

Urs' solution works fine for me. That is simply to have a preset loaded when pulling up the plugin; the "registered to ..." only appears on the init.

[Urs]

Furthermore, if these plugins have crack-intervention code which can display warnings, etc., how is it the plugin can't fully cripple itself this way?

Recently disappeared crackers such as R2R or Team Assign found the term "demo mode" in the binary and altered it to stuff like "Team R2R". This is utterly trivial, any hex editor will do.

Their vanity was their demise. Once we figured out that they do that, it was evenly as trivial to add checks on whether or not the term was altered. Current cracker groups do not display this vanity since they figured out they can't crack our software this way.

Nevertheless, the most trivial kind of piracy happens with stolen credit card details. People buy the software under a false name, then share the serial number with that name. Those are very likely to pop up in Youtube videos by random douchebags seeking some attention.

[EvilDragon]

R2R is still around, btw...

[sleepcircle]

i can't stand people like crackers.
it's a petty power-grab; "Ohhh look at me, everyone. I give you the stuff you want, I get around the big walls, i'm the coolest man, everyone look at me."

'information should be free' is a joke of a reason to do it. I'd be surprised if any more than 1% of them actually believed it, and the ones who do believe it still spite everyone else by their self-satisfied persecution of innocent people who slave for months over an IDE just to make a living.

[lunardigs]

'information should be free' is a joke of a reason to do it. I'd be surprised if any more than 1% of them actually believed it, and the ones who do believe it still spite everyone else by their self-satisfied persecution of innocent people who slave for months over an IDE just to make a living.

Yeah, to be fair though, it goes both ways. A strong argument could be made that C++, Python, PHP, etc. is "free" and thus what's created with it should be as well. I don't entirely believe that. Although, right now we have a piece of software in our company which started out as an open source project, then later acquired and now the new owner is busily re-licensing and closing it up. Not fair if you ask me. ... That's reality though.

I personally like what my company does, we fill bottles with liquid. It's material, it's finite, it's tangibly real. Not much gray area.

Intellectual property on the other hand is very murky. Why not patent math formulas--Gottschalk v Benson dealt with that and said no, but it could be overturned in time--or the human genome, which largely is!? Meanwhile, the original Coke a Cola recipe is still a trade secret; they never patented it. Hah! I think that's great, btw. Yet, if it were revealed to the world, there's still only one undisputed Coke a Cola brand.

... Software though; vigilance and cleverness seems to be the only real protection creators have. PLUS, trust in their brand. That's why I keep buying U-he. The other people who steal and don't buy, they really don't matter that much, because you were never going to get their money in the first place.

[mevla]

IMHO, I don't think it's possible to make good music with stolen tools.