Not knowing your purchase history, a while back,
password protection was implemented to unlock your archive,
and then later, new passwords were needed
In your confirmation email, there is a line:
'To receive your software upgrade password please forward your PRO order confirmation to support@fathomsynth.com with the subject "Password Request". '
If this was your first update purchase, you probably just need
to get a password from the boss. If you recently purchased
an earlier update, and have a password that successfully
opened that archive, then it may be a flawed download,
or a non-Fathom software or Mac issue. I've opened my
archives in win7 and linux without problems.
Cheers
Fathom Synth Development Thread
-
- KVRAF
- 9129 posts since 6 Oct, 2004
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
Yes, glowkraw is right, we are very low tech currently and only use an unzip password.
Fathom releases are zipped in windows which means sometimes (rarely) the archive will not unzip in Mac OSX. I also have a Mac format zip file which I actually compress within my Mac which fixes the problem. And the correct procedure is to simply send me an email requesting the Mac format zip file.
Perpetual3, I sent you a PM.
Fathom releases are zipped in windows which means sometimes (rarely) the archive will not unzip in Mac OSX. I also have a Mac format zip file which I actually compress within my Mac which fixes the problem. And the correct procedure is to simply send me an email requesting the Mac format zip file.
Perpetual3, I sent you a PM.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
New Fathom Installer
Folks, this is a perfect time to bring up a question I've been wanting to ask you all for a while.
A few months ago I coded my own software licensing system with a high security encryption scheme. I have my own dedicated server now running which monitors all sales and also monitors it's own IP address constantly looking for Fathom installation requests from the new client application installer program. The system works perfectly.
The new licensing system is machine locked. Once I turn on the new system all Fathom releases will be protected and Fathom will only run if the local machine name matches the encryption key. So it’s basically hack proof. However, the host program has an option for users to request licenses for multiple machines or a new machine if when they buy or build a new system. So the machine lock is very easy to transfer if requested.
The client installer itself is super simple with a one button press to install the plugin and preset files, and another single button press to request a license from the always watchful server.
The license request from the client sends a direct IP address request to the host and uses an encryption key which is as long as the message itself so it is impossible to hack it. The server itself is impossible to hack since all applications which could be used as a trojan have been removed from the server and the only thing running is Windows itself and the Fathom host.
However, the only reason I have not initiated the system yet is I'm not sure how people would feel about their computer sending a direct IP address socket message to an external host. Some people would have to temporarily disable their firewall and web security for a second.
In cases where people strongly object to allowing a direct socket to their computer, I also coded an automated system in which the user simply sends an email requesting the same machine locked license and my host application sends them back an email reply automatically with the correct license key.
So my question to everyone is whether or not a IP socket connection licensing install program would be acceptable. It's a slightly rhetorical question since it looks like it may be necessary regardless if people like or not. But I still want to ask to get feedback anyway.
Also, I will be removing the wave table from Fathom Mono. It's actually a little rediculous how many features Fathom Mono has compared to Pro, and it's really my own fault that more people who use Fathom Mono do not buy Pro since there really is no reason to if you are only using a synth for mono leads or bass lines on a track, which is 99 percent of the time.
The wave table is a insanely sophisticated feature to be giving away for free so to save the project, I am removing it from Mono. I realize there will be a revolt and cry's of bloody mutiny at this decision, but sorry, I really have no choice. Too many people are using Fathom Mono for free and this is jeopardize the project.
Folks, this is a perfect time to bring up a question I've been wanting to ask you all for a while.
A few months ago I coded my own software licensing system with a high security encryption scheme. I have my own dedicated server now running which monitors all sales and also monitors it's own IP address constantly looking for Fathom installation requests from the new client application installer program. The system works perfectly.
The new licensing system is machine locked. Once I turn on the new system all Fathom releases will be protected and Fathom will only run if the local machine name matches the encryption key. So it’s basically hack proof. However, the host program has an option for users to request licenses for multiple machines or a new machine if when they buy or build a new system. So the machine lock is very easy to transfer if requested.
The client installer itself is super simple with a one button press to install the plugin and preset files, and another single button press to request a license from the always watchful server.
The license request from the client sends a direct IP address request to the host and uses an encryption key which is as long as the message itself so it is impossible to hack it. The server itself is impossible to hack since all applications which could be used as a trojan have been removed from the server and the only thing running is Windows itself and the Fathom host.
However, the only reason I have not initiated the system yet is I'm not sure how people would feel about their computer sending a direct IP address socket message to an external host. Some people would have to temporarily disable their firewall and web security for a second.
In cases where people strongly object to allowing a direct socket to their computer, I also coded an automated system in which the user simply sends an email requesting the same machine locked license and my host application sends them back an email reply automatically with the correct license key.
So my question to everyone is whether or not a IP socket connection licensing install program would be acceptable. It's a slightly rhetorical question since it looks like it may be necessary regardless if people like or not. But I still want to ask to get feedback anyway.
Also, I will be removing the wave table from Fathom Mono. It's actually a little rediculous how many features Fathom Mono has compared to Pro, and it's really my own fault that more people who use Fathom Mono do not buy Pro since there really is no reason to if you are only using a synth for mono leads or bass lines on a track, which is 99 percent of the time.
The wave table is a insanely sophisticated feature to be giving away for free so to save the project, I am removing it from Mono. I realize there will be a revolt and cry's of bloody mutiny at this decision, but sorry, I really have no choice. Too many people are using Fathom Mono for free and this is jeopardize the project.
-
- KVRAF
- 1683 posts since 29 Sep, 2013
This is the option I’d want to use ->
“an automated system in which the user simply sends an email requesting the same machine locked license and my host application sends them back an email reply automatically with the correct license key”
“an automated system in which the user simply sends an email requesting the same machine locked license and my host application sends them back an email reply automatically with the correct license key”
-
- KVRAF
- 3735 posts since 17 Sep, 2016
Direct socket connections definitely fall into the category of "bad idea", from an info security perspective.
However, I would be fine with any other method to have a license key locked to a machine.
I already have several e-licensing applications provided by several vendors, and they manage to co-exist somehow. So far I have avoided dedicated USB hardware dongles. Too bad there is not a standard for this, so everybody was using the same method.
But at least one company I know of has a system that allows you to move your licenses onto a plain USB flash drive. That way any computer that you want to use can have access to the licenses stored on the flash drive. Makes it all portable without additional authorizations or license management.
However, I would be fine with any other method to have a license key locked to a machine.
I already have several e-licensing applications provided by several vendors, and they manage to co-exist somehow. So far I have avoided dedicated USB hardware dongles. Too bad there is not a standard for this, so everybody was using the same method.
But at least one company I know of has a system that allows you to move your licenses onto a plain USB flash drive. That way any computer that you want to use can have access to the licenses stored on the flash drive. Makes it all portable without additional authorizations or license management.
Windows 10 and too many plugins
-
- KVRAF
- 1561 posts since 13 Jan, 2014
Just in short: so 2.3.1 will be my Fathom to stay with. ZIP password might not be the best (on all sights) but could be handled (and if I have to search, my problem, and if it changed one time, o.k.), but one MAIN reason for me (apart from high quality, growing presets and low price when I bought it) was: no f**king calling home, Ilok, Dongle, machine-IP-whatever protection system. I love it for this and whats just going on all the time and dont mind if the CPU is still high on my old system. But I dont need it. And I am fine with 2.3.1 if this ever happens.
-
- KVRian
- 827 posts since 14 Sep, 2017
This is definitely not good news, If I were a Fathom user I would feel devastated.
The new licensing system is machine locked. Once I turn on the new system all Fathom releases will be protected and Fathom will only run if the local machine name matches the encryption key. So it’s basically hack proof. However, the host program has an option for users to request licenses for multiple machines or a new machine if when they buy or build a new system. So the machine lock is very easy to transfer if requested.
Last edited by JunSev on Mon May 20, 2019 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2008 posts since 11 Aug, 2012 from omfr morf form romf frmo
I do not like homebrew challenge response systems from small developers because companies have gone away and companies like Sonivox have retired CR systems with no recourse. Not saying any of this would be intentional on your part but there is no guarantee we could install software we licensed if you were hit by a bus. I'm a developer myself and think about maintenance scenarios so do not take that in a morbid way. Mind you, I am okay with CR from a larger corporation or iLok that will generally survive such events.
Also I am skeptical of claims of a piracy proof system and find it incongruent with selling a consumer restrictive system for a developer that is operating on a lot of good will. But this is your baby and you have every right to protect it however you wish even if it penalizes legitimate users.
There are some discussions in the developer section about piracy and approaches. There are effective ways beyond technical, and again, I think you have good will and it shouldn't be squandered.
Also I am skeptical of claims of a piracy proof system and find it incongruent with selling a consumer restrictive system for a developer that is operating on a lot of good will. But this is your baby and you have every right to protect it however you wish even if it penalizes legitimate users.
There are some discussions in the developer section about piracy and approaches. There are effective ways beyond technical, and again, I think you have good will and it shouldn't be squandered.
-
- KVRian
- 765 posts since 1 Sep, 2007
+1tatanka wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:10 pm Just in short: so 2.3.1 will be my Fathom to stay with. ZIP password might not be the best (on all sights) but could be handled (and if I have to search, my problem, and if it changed one time, o.k.), but one MAIN reason for me (apart from high quality, growing presets and low price when I bought it) was: no f**king calling home, Ilok, Dongle, machine-IP-whatever protection system. I love it for this and whats just going on all the time and dont mind if the CPU is still high on my old system. But I dont need it. And I am fine with 2.3.1 if this ever happens.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
OK. I'm trying to be greedy.
I just want to be able to continue the project.
I just want to be able to continue the project.
Last edited by FathomSynth on Mon May 20, 2019 4:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2797 posts since 26 Jul, 2015 from Philadelphia
A lot of people here have a very naive view on what it means to be a software developer in such a crowded space. I'm not a big fan of machine locked licenses as they tend to be a pain when migrating the system. But I don't think it is such a big deal either. The unzip password is equally annoying to be honest. I would encourage you to do what you feel is right for your business.
Follow me on Youtube for videos on spatial and immersive audio production.
-
- KVRAF
- 3635 posts since 3 Nov, 2015
IMHO you should do whatever it takes to assure the continuity of the project in a reasonable way. A simple, short encrypted communication with a server is nothing much of concern. The people concerned by this are allowing for instance connections to google while browsing KVR (look at the sites blocked by No Script in relation to KVR), they allow cross-site scripting to google adverts when doing their financial transactions at their bank (again, see the No Script warnings) and yet their are supposedly concerned when a simple and short encrypted connection is made by an audio plugin. Something's wrong.
A practical drawback could be regarding studio machines which are not connected to the internet. There should be a way, like some are doing, to assure what's called an 'offline validation' for those cases.
Apart from that, go ahead. Do whatever it takes.
Cheers.
A practical drawback could be regarding studio machines which are not connected to the internet. There should be a way, like some are doing, to assure what's called an 'offline validation' for those cases.
Apart from that, go ahead. Do whatever it takes.
Cheers.
-
- KVRAF
- 7789 posts since 28 Apr, 2013
I'm one of those downloading the mono version, but only since 2.28.
My only reasons for not buying the full version is confusion of how the updates are done. I know it's been explained and yet it still somehow leaves out the detail that gives me the confidence to make the purchase.
So if I buy the ultimate pro version 2.31 for $45. there seems to be an implication that 2.32 will cost another $5 and so on? I'm just not clear on that and it keeps me waiting for the next plateau...
Want to buy, and it's the mono version that keeps me interested in it. I understand you have to do for you, but in my case, all this may get me to forget about it all.
And limiting it to one locked online machine is far too restrictive as that means I would have to lug that one machine everywhere just to use it.
That's simply not going to happen.
Anyway, just maybe I'm not the only confused one wanting to buy but confused by how the whole purchase/update details exactly work. Maybe start with the website prepurchase clarity to increase sales rather than limiting the product in a panic.
This is the only thread I subscribe to and get notifications on. I really am that interested in it. But definitely waiting to see how this works out first before I buy it or delete it.
My only reasons for not buying the full version is confusion of how the updates are done. I know it's been explained and yet it still somehow leaves out the detail that gives me the confidence to make the purchase.
So if I buy the ultimate pro version 2.31 for $45. there seems to be an implication that 2.32 will cost another $5 and so on? I'm just not clear on that and it keeps me waiting for the next plateau...
Want to buy, and it's the mono version that keeps me interested in it. I understand you have to do for you, but in my case, all this may get me to forget about it all.
And limiting it to one locked online machine is far too restrictive as that means I would have to lug that one machine everywhere just to use it.
That's simply not going to happen.
Anyway, just maybe I'm not the only confused one wanting to buy but confused by how the whole purchase/update details exactly work. Maybe start with the website prepurchase clarity to increase sales rather than limiting the product in a panic.
This is the only thread I subscribe to and get notifications on. I really am that interested in it. But definitely waiting to see how this works out first before I buy it or delete it.
Last edited by BBFG# on Mon May 20, 2019 4:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRist
- 334 posts since 19 Aug, 2014
I'm fine with C/R, but I know others aren't. Especially those who run offline machines, so there should at least be an option that doesn't require an internet connection. Most companies who have C/R typically offer an offline alternative, exactly for these cases.
-
- KVRist
- 64 posts since 8 Mar, 2019
Bravo ...To be honest, I was actually quite surprised that after I bought Pro, there wasn't an installer, and zero "anti-piracy" measures were taken. I use UVI, Waves, Native Instruments, Eventide products etc... And there is always some kind of security measure to protect a lot of hard work from the scourge that has become piracy. Even a simple Kontakt library I made some years ago, that wasn't even that expensive, has been pirated. Not a whole lot I can do about it except sit back and watch hours of work trickle down.FathomSynth wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 8:45 pm New Fathom Installer
A few months ago I coded my own software licensing system with a high security encryption scheme. I have my own dedicated server now running which monitors all sales and also monitors it's own IP address constantly looking for Fathom installation requests from the new client application installer program. The system works perfectly.
...Also, I will be removing the wave table from Fathom Mono. It's actually a little ridiculous how many features Fathom Mono has compared to Pro, and it's really my own fault that more people who use Fathom Mono do not buy Pro since there really is no reason to if you are only using a synth for mono leads or bass lines on a track, which is 99 percent of the time.
One question for this implementation: What if a user wanted to install a copy on a DAW that's not online? Possible keyfile? Or just a temporary connection to affirm, then disconnect? I believe Roland Cloud tried this technique, then changed it to "offline" verification due to a lot of complaints, if I'm not mistaken. I might be mistaken though. Anyone?
Have you ever thought about losing Mono all together, and just creating a "timed", or "audio dropout" demo of Pro? I'm the 1% who HAS to play chords lol, I personally only tried "Mono" for about 15 minutes before I realized WOW ...Didn't even test the wave table, just played with Additive and drooled lol
But in all honesty ...Fathom is special. Protect it. You've worked hard enough, and have to understand that when it hits the big time, which is inevitable, the sharks will surface to bite. (Get ready to rent a space at Superbooth and be interviewed by Nick Batt).
Just my 2 cents
Ambient Sound Design & Soundtrack Composition - http://ambietica.lyonsdenmultimedia.com/
