Image Line Acquires UVI

[Dunbar]

You're welcome to brown-nose Image-line; no one is stopping you.

[Trancit]

I dont understand.. Which copy protection system does fl studio use and whats wrong with it?

IL offers 2 different kind of unlocking the software:

1. with your account... you enter your username and password and when it´s required it updates the license automatically (i.e. installing a new version which needs actualisation of the data)...
2. unlocking with a reg file which you download from your account... and here something has changed...
Before it was a simple doubleclick on the regfile to import it into your registry and the software was unlocked...
And that was the problem as IL had no control on how many computers this regfile was imported...
Because of that they build in an online verification into the regfile system with which the current unlocking is working just for this one machine in that moment (while I don´t know if there are multiple activations possible for a single user...)...

This online verfication is a bit or perhaps completely like C/R (challenge/response) which some "extremists" seem to dislike for different (silly) reasons...

[liquidsound]

while I don´t know if there are multiple activations possible for a single user...

No limit for the owner of the license unless it is obviously overused according to Scott in IL forum.
I installed on a PC and iMac so far. No issues.

[jamcat]

I may have eventually upgraded to the 64-bit version if it was available. But it is not...and that option is no longer available.

So we’re back to the issue really being that eventually they stopped being your personal backup service?

If you had kept your own backups, would you still not be able to use it?

[v1o]

I think Image-Line is too. That's probably why they shorten it.

No, actually Kelloggs

FruityLoops was eventually renamed FL Studio for branding purposes and to avoid a prolonged trademark dispute in the United States with Kelloggs.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image-Lin ... istory_6-8)

Funny how they dont mention the other main reason for the name change. In the USA 'fruity' was used as a derogatory slang word back in the day. This would have negatively affected their branding in the US especially in the markets for worship music and urban music. Many sub genres of Southern Hiphop and Trap were pretty much invented in Fruity Loops by young kids who would not want to be associated with that term because of prejudice.

[JMC]

Funny how they dont mention the other main reason for the name change. In the USA 'fruity' was used as a derogatory slang word back in the day.

We have always explained that next to the Kelloggs issue and the negative 'fruity' connotation it was at least as important to get rid of the 'Loops' part in the name.

No idea how long you have been around but 20-25 years ago were the days of applications like Dance Ejay where you mangled pre-canned vocal-, drum- and melodic Loops into a 'song'.

We even had customers not getting paid once they mentioned FruityLoops as the client was under the impression that what he got was a pre-canned loop rearrangement.

[jamcat]

No idea how long you have been around but 20-25 years ago were the days of applications like Dance Ejay where you mangled pre-canned vocal-, drum- and melodic Loops into a 'song'.

I thought that’s what Fruity Loops was for. I distinctly recall that’s how most people were using it. Same for ACID.

And to this day, YouTube is full of ads from companies selling loop packs for exactly that purpose. And they seem to target FL users exclusively.

[vurt]

No idea how long you have been around but 20-25 years ago were the days of applications like Dance Ejay where you mangled pre-canned vocal-, drum- and melodic Loops into a 'song'.

I thought that’s what Fruity Loops was for. I distinctly recall that’s how most people were using it. Same for ACID.

And to this day, YouTube is full of ads from companies selling loop packs for exactly that purpose. And they seem to target FL users exclusively.

i know quite a few people who use it to make what you young hip cats call "the rock and the roll"

[Hevy_IL]

No idea how long you have been around but 20-25 years ago were the days of applications like Dance Ejay where you mangled pre-canned vocal-, drum- and melodic Loops into a 'song'.

I thought that’s what Fruity Loops was for. I distinctly recall that’s how most people were using it. Same for ACID.

And to this day, YouTube is full of ads from companies selling loop packs for exactly that purpose. And they seem to target FL users exclusively.

There is a difference between software that is only able to put loops together and one that can do more.

The name change was at the same time that Fruity Tracks was merged with Fruity Loops iirc.

If I look at Music Maker for example, the main focus is to quickly do something, click on 'Rock' select 'Drums', now select one of 20 different loop-types, drag and drop the right amount of complexity into your arrangement (more fills, less fills).

The idea of Fruity Loops/FL Studio evolved over time, it started as a small cool, but limited tool and evolved into a fully fledged audio workstation.

But regardless of that, it should not be a name that prevents you from getting paid, it should be the actual work that comes out of it.
I know people producing complete tracks only in Audacity, if they want to do that, why not.

I can barely remember the name change, I just wondered what happened there.
We have nothing bad associated with Fruity or similar in German, it was more or less the word that made my interest peak more, as I connected it to colourfull music/juicy basslines.
(I had Rebirth 338 and Fruity Loops, that I both learned a long time ago).

[Double Tap]

I think Image-Line is too. That's probably why they shorten it.

No, actually Kelloggs

FruityLoops was eventually renamed FL Studio for branding purposes and to avoid a prolonged trademark dispute in the United States with Kelloggs.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image-Lin ... istory_6-8)

Funny how they dont mention the other main reason for the name change. In the USA 'fruity' was used as a derogatory slang word back in the day. This would have negatively affected their branding in the US especially in the markets for worship music and urban music. Many sub genres of Southern Hiphop and Trap were pretty much invented in Fruity Loops by young kids who would not want to be associated with that term because of prejudice.

Back in the day? Even the Carry On films didn’t use a term that old-fashioned.

[donkey tugger]

matron.gif

[Double Tap]

Rich vein of potential plugin names there.

[vurt]

Rich vein of potential plugin names there.

khyber (band)pass filter?

[MrJubbly]

We even had customers not getting paid once they mentioned FruityLoops as the client was under the impression that what he got was a pre-canned loop rearrangement.

Yes, I can well believe that. Since, it still occurs til this very day, some 20 years after IL changed the name of the software.

One only has to visit any current KVR forum which makes mention of "FL Studio" and you'll invariably see much of the same tedious "snobbery" rise to the surface from the resident ignorami, who apparenty revel in their intentional misnaming of it.

Oftentimes, under the auspices of acting the faux naif, while deliberately referring to the DAW as "Fruity Loops", in some pitiful attempt to dismiss or disparage the software as being "unprofessional."

They are as predictable as clockwork and as transparent as glass.

[Choikdoi]

You don't "own" the product. You "own" a license to use the product subject to the license agreement that can be modified by the IP owner at any time.

Depends where you are. In the EU, it's like a book. You don't own the right to the copyrighted content of said book, but you certainly do own that copy of it. With software, the copyrighted content is the source code, which you don't own. You do own the your copy of the software, and are free to do with it as you like. It might be more obvious with something tangible like a physical book rather than software, but the principle is the same.

And while the IP holder can modify a license agreement, it's obviously not retroactive and you are free to opt out of the changes and continue using a previous version under the old license terms.

Indeed, copy protection is mainly about paying customers who are really the only ones who it can work on. It's probably wrong however to assume that the actions of said paying customers don't warrant such methods.

The thing I find interesting is that a good copy protection system should allow for license transfers, and the main reason for a business to refuse to allow that is money. Someone really should probably challenge them on that in court if it indeed is in violation of EU trade law. Personally, I wouldn't be confident that that they (the company) could win there.

Yes, you should be able to do what you like with your copy.

The companies who stick to their principle of their software not being resalable because their EULA says so, completely ignore the fact that the EU court case a while back which changed this situation, concluded the very point that any EULA agreement you may have signed up to when purchasing the software, is then no longer valid in terms of preventing you from legally selling it on. This is as long as it was a full payment for a perpetual license, anyway, and explains the move to subscription & other types of services by developers as those licenses can then still avoid allowing transfers.

I'm slightly baffled how this only gets talked about occasionally like some mythical subject that nobody really wants to address, despite the obvious financial benefit it would be to so many people to be able to sell anything they own as a perpetual license. Especially seeing as it's been 10 years since that court case and there are still so many companies that won't allow license transfers.

Of course it's complicated by the fact that it was an EU court ruling and leaves anyone outside of that region in the cold still, for now. But it doesn't mean that more attention and more cases won't make other countries laws follow suit, 'contra legem'.

Output state that transfers are not allowed, but when people have contacted them and challenged them, they have (apparently) sanctioned transfers not just within the EU but also the UK... post Brexit too. Further confusion!

It clearly can only be a money saving tactic, but I don't see why if a company wants to take that route and not switch to a subscription model, then at least allow account takeovers, as that can't be a strain financially.

There are many good articles out there about these matters. Some discuss how vendors need to not be too dismissive of keeping customers rights hidden due to other laws in place to safeguard consumer values, and the fact that moving on redundant software can extend the vendors customer base and therefore increase, rather than damage it's income.

IL was one of the companies I broached the subject with and was simply warned that they are allowed to terminate my contract with them without prior notice, for attempting any actions that are laid out as not permissible in the EULA. I've been tempted to go that far with plugins, ones that I simply don't use anymore anyway, but I'm not risking it with my DAW.