Fathom Synth Development Thread
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
Yes, it would be a one time connection.
Once the local code is glued to the host code and stored on the local machine, Fathom will decode the entire key and seeing that both components are present would know that everything is golden. The magic of it is that the plugin looks for a key which requires a component from the both local machine and a component from the host, and if either is not present then Fathom vomits. Developing the hand-shake key only needs to be done once, so the connection is only necessary for literally a few seconds.
Once again, thanks everyone for input.
I wonder if perhaps if we machine locked the CPU rewrite with the Intel Vector SIMD build, but perhaps left a running update of the 2.XX series software unprotected if perhaps that would suffice. That way people could still get what they paid for without the license rug being pulled out from under their feet. People who want the ultimate CPU build which competes with the best synths in the world would have to lock it, but they would be warned in advance of this being the case.
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
Before anyone jumps to the (pathologically incorrect) conclusion that I am a scoundrel with a new policy of corporate rapacity, please remember I am a musician too who hates machine locked licenses as much as you do.
If there was some way (technically) that we could circumnavigate the ML license for only KVR members then that would be fantastic, but I don't think it is physically possible. Any such KVR only code would essentially be the same as the unzip code, and we would still be at square one.
ReverendLove, You are always free in this thread to question my methods. But questioning my motivation is just a bit impolite.
If you have any doubts about my over all motivation here in continuing Fathom as a worthy cause for musicians across the world, rather than a predatory enterprise, please be aware that I have 30 years experience as a software developer and if my goals were avaricious in any way, I would not be writing music software.
Once the local code is glued to the host code and stored on the local machine, Fathom will decode the entire key and seeing that both components are present would know that everything is golden. The magic of it is that the plugin looks for a key which requires a component from the both local machine and a component from the host, and if either is not present then Fathom vomits. Developing the hand-shake key only needs to be done once, so the connection is only necessary for literally a few seconds.
Once again, thanks everyone for input.
I wonder if perhaps if we machine locked the CPU rewrite with the Intel Vector SIMD build, but perhaps left a running update of the 2.XX series software unprotected if perhaps that would suffice. That way people could still get what they paid for without the license rug being pulled out from under their feet. People who want the ultimate CPU build which competes with the best synths in the world would have to lock it, but they would be warned in advance of this being the case.
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
Before anyone jumps to the (pathologically incorrect) conclusion that I am a scoundrel with a new policy of corporate rapacity, please remember I am a musician too who hates machine locked licenses as much as you do.
If there was some way (technically) that we could circumnavigate the ML license for only KVR members then that would be fantastic, but I don't think it is physically possible. Any such KVR only code would essentially be the same as the unzip code, and we would still be at square one.
ReverendLove, You are always free in this thread to question my methods. But questioning my motivation is just a bit impolite.
If you have any doubts about my over all motivation here in continuing Fathom as a worthy cause for musicians across the world, rather than a predatory enterprise, please be aware that I have 30 years experience as a software developer and if my goals were avaricious in any way, I would not be writing music software.
Last edited by FathomSynth on Tue May 21, 2019 2:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
- KVRian
- 1367 posts since 21 Dec, 2013 from USA
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
Dandezebra, thanks for sticking up for us.
OK, I'm deleting my original response.
Maybe running a serious business means I have to be able listen to comments like that.
OK, I'm deleting my original response.
Maybe running a serious business means I have to be able listen to comments like that.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
The purpose of protecting the product is not to rip people off but to enable the project to survive.
PM me your paypal and I will reemburse to you your purchase.
EDIT: I'm replacing my message here with an apology. The discussion got a bit heated but we've resolved the issue with the customer and he ended up being very cooperative and reasonable.
As a company we have also taken notice that this discussion is a good indication that changing licensing on a product that people already own could be problematic. We'll post more information on our decision not to changing licensing on Fathom Pro at the end of the thread.
PM me your paypal and I will reemburse to you your purchase.
EDIT: I'm replacing my message here with an apology. The discussion got a bit heated but we've resolved the issue with the customer and he ended up being very cooperative and reasonable.
As a company we have also taken notice that this discussion is a good indication that changing licensing on a product that people already own could be problematic. We'll post more information on our decision not to changing licensing on Fathom Pro at the end of the thread.
Last edited by FathomSynth on Wed May 22, 2019 1:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- KVRian
- 1434 posts since 21 Nov, 2005 from The Netherlands
Totally uncalled for. Go away internettroll.jbarish wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 4:45 amIt's the frustration of a customer who has been ripped off. Maybe you're OK with getting money stolen from you but I'm not. Congratulations tho on winning the T-Bag of the Year award. Enjoy gargling Fathom's nutsack.dandezebra wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:54 amIs this sarcastic or did you just win D-bag of the thread award?
@Everett: Go ahead with your plan. Also, strip the mono version as much as possible imo. There is also the CM version to play with.
Looking forward to the Elite version.
- KVRian
- 821 posts since 11 Aug, 2018 from UE
@RPH : +1
@Everett : thanks, you have always listened to your consumers, for me no doubt you are a music lover !
@Everett : thanks, you have always listened to your consumers, for me no doubt you are a music lover !
Best
YY
YY
- KVRist
- 334 posts since 19 Aug, 2014
Yeah, you're going to end up getting rude and vulgar comments from people, unfortunately. I see them on every forum about every piece of software ever made. People will be people, and people are the worst. Try not to take anything super personally.FathomSynth wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:59 am Maybe running a serious business means I have to be able listen to comments like that.
These kind of licensing systems are a rough subject here on KVR, because there are a number of members who really dislike them (as you've seen). I knew the moment I read your first post on it things were going to get heated in this thread, like they always do.
Honestly, I myself am not the biggest fan of machine-locked stuff, mainly because I know that my current computer is not one I will have forever. I want to ensure I can use my tools for years to come, and for reasons mentioned by others, that has the potential to be troublesome.
What's different here though is that you actually seem to have some contingency plans already in place if something were to happen to you or Seaweed Audio in the future, and because of that and your track record as a developer with good support, I'm willing to go along with whatever plan you have to advance your business.
I'll throw my hat in the ring for using something that's not machine-based, but do what you have to do.
-
- KVRian
- 1021 posts since 3 Oct, 2011 from Christchurch, New Zealand
so how sanely are you choosing the 'local component' - I've seen too many protection systems like this that have decided that the network MAC address is the perfect unique key to choose - forgetting that:FathomSynth wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 am The magic of it is that the plugin looks for a key which requires a component from the both local machine and a component from the host, and if either is not present then Fathom vomits.
a) computers can have multiple NICs and the order can change (yes Waves, I'm looking at you)
b) computers can have transient/replacable network cards (either people plugging in USB wifi adapters or people plugging in shiny new 10gbt pcie cards)
c) most modern NICs allow reprogramming of the MAC address anyway
or weird stuff like Peavey who use a usb peripheral to lock to - at least they do let you choose which peripheral though
keying to a volume GUID seems to be both the most popular and least painful....will only catch people out when upgrading drives (and not using a decent migration tool)
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
Let me be clear, I'm not hear to make enemies, and if there is a revolt at the idea of machine locked licenses, then that is a message I need to hear, and I don't mind hearing it forcefully.
Also, I really appreciate some of you stating that you would understand the decision.
Anyway, licensing is a very serious question, that could potentially alienate people, so I want to get it right, which is why I asked the question, even knowing that it could be an almost religious issue.
I understand anger against corporate mentality which treats customers like numbers, and yes they do swindle people while hiding behind automated phone systems. But there's a difference. Companies like that don't have the CEO facing customers directly in a forum thread. You can always tell corporate cowardice because it is invisible. I, on the other hand, am here in person.
I may need to make a business decision here shortly, but I can at least promise that it will be made knowing that there is a musician at the end of the line of every such decision, who has to live with it.
Also, I really appreciate some of you stating that you would understand the decision.
Anyway, licensing is a very serious question, that could potentially alienate people, so I want to get it right, which is why I asked the question, even knowing that it could be an almost religious issue.
I understand anger against corporate mentality which treats customers like numbers, and yes they do swindle people while hiding behind automated phone systems. But there's a difference. Companies like that don't have the CEO facing customers directly in a forum thread. You can always tell corporate cowardice because it is invisible. I, on the other hand, am here in person.
I may need to make a business decision here shortly, but I can at least promise that it will be made knowing that there is a musician at the end of the line of every such decision, who has to live with it.
Last edited by FathomSynth on Wed May 22, 2019 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRist
- 283 posts since 6 Aug, 2017
Machine locked internet activations are not going to go over well. If the problem really is that too many people are just using the mono version, why go to all these lengths to prevent piracy (which is not the problem!) and why not instead just stop adding new features to the mono version (or have a 30 minute timeout or something), and for copy protection use something simple like personalized license txt files, where leaked licenses are disabled in future versions of the plugin?
Fabfilter, u-he, and many others manage to survive with such copy protection schemes. U-he does quite a bit more to juice sales to people using leaked license files or cracked versions (google it if you’re interested-there are many forum posts about it) but the basic idea is simple and unobtrusive.
Fabfilter, u-he, and many others manage to survive with such copy protection schemes. U-he does quite a bit more to juice sales to people using leaked license files or cracked versions (google it if you’re interested-there are many forum posts about it) but the basic idea is simple and unobtrusive.
-
- KVRist
- 275 posts since 3 Dec, 2009 from Cologne, Germany
I never did that. But jf you feel I questioned your motivation I heartily apologise. I really want to share my feelings and disappointment. Please read the review for fathom on KVRr by me. I respect your work.FathomSynth wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 1:40 am
ReverendLove, You are always free in this thread to question my methods. But questioning my motivation is just a bit impolite.
If you have any doubts about my over all motivation here in continuing Fathom as a worthy cause for musicians across the world, rather than a predatory enterprise, please be aware that I have 30 years experience as a software developer and if my goals were avaricious in any way, I would not be writing music software.
But jumping on the train of machine dependant c/r is doing a bad service on your business. As I wrote: Doing this is making the customer a suspect or worse the culprit.
Last edited by ReverendLove on Tue May 21, 2019 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1579 posts since 25 Mar, 2017
OK, I'm sorry I was defensive.
I'm just surprised at the strong reaction against it.
I honestly thought the idea of locking each purchase to a user and a machine just made logical sense.
But clearly that is not the case. I'll go back and read the thread to try and understand this better.
I'm just surprised at the strong reaction against it.
I honestly thought the idea of locking each purchase to a user and a machine just made logical sense.
But clearly that is not the case. I'll go back and read the thread to try and understand this better.
Last edited by FathomSynth on Tue May 21, 2019 10:46 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 5716 posts since 8 Jun, 2009
I and others already explained some of the objections that aren't just "don't call me a pirate". If you don't agree those objections are valid, that's up to you but please don't pretend that the people who disagree simply don't understand.
I understand the concern of any developer who sees their work being pirated or shared too widely. But you have to weigh the effects of any protection strategy on sales in the other direction. As has been explained above, machine-locking is not essential to stopping piracy. But you are probably reducing your total market size by going down that road. How big an effect that is? Hard to say. But it's there. In a scenario where you're also looking to increase the purchase price (which is understandable) it's probably not a great choice.
However, it seems your mind is made up and you are mainly looking for validation of the approach you've already planned out.
I understand the concern of any developer who sees their work being pirated or shared too widely. But you have to weigh the effects of any protection strategy on sales in the other direction. As has been explained above, machine-locking is not essential to stopping piracy. But you are probably reducing your total market size by going down that road. How big an effect that is? Hard to say. But it's there. In a scenario where you're also looking to increase the purchase price (which is understandable) it's probably not a great choice.
However, it seems your mind is made up and you are mainly looking for validation of the approach you've already planned out.