⚠ ⚠ Reason 12.6 - No perpetual offline-licence mode anymore! ⚠ ⚠

[liquidsound]

By the way, I need to leave, got to return my guitar, violin and piano... Bought them for perpetual usage and turns out I have to tune them from time to time.... f**kers !!!

You should had bought a cracked version

My guitar is actually really cracked . And I keep buying VSTs instead of fixing it...

Cracked guitar?! Call Spectrasonics, they love burned pianos, coffee with paint and probably cracked guitars for a new preset!

[Jac459]

By the way, I need to leave, got to return my guitar, violin and piano... Bought them for perpetual usage and turns out I have to tune them from time to time.... f**kers !!!

You should had bought a cracked version

My guitar is actually really cracked . And I keep buying VSTs instead of fixing it...

Cracked guitar?! Call Spectrasonics, they love burned pianos, coffee with paint and probably cracked guitars for a new preset!

Yeah, I will send it to them so that I can have a discount on the presets after...
I am a smart business man...

[midi_transmission]

I removed my long post with something shorter to not start an epic discussion.

@Jac459
I think you bring some real strawmen arguments with piracy and employee salary.

I'm very anti piracy and it's a difficult topic how to stop it without hurting honest customers. But there are many ways to do that. A periodic network call is the simplest way out for that problem for a company.

But when I try to understand you in a positive way I want to reply. Yeah, I want to support companies that respects me as a customer and that are creating good products. But I defend myself against losing customer rights and product visions I don't like. First there seems to be an effort to move everyone to subscriptions, then no real offline licences, the next move may be online requirement and no perpetual licenses. Who knows.

Like with Waves. When people don't complain about these things it will be done. It was great that Waves go so much protest and eventually stopped their plan.

To make a point. There are many companies that apperently do fine without introducing such restrictions.

[dlandis]

It's kind of funny that majority here hates logging in once a year to Reasonstudios and at the same time they do login to these forums multiple times a day.

I’ve never had a forum go under and render my songs with it useless because I was not in a position to save eternal copies. I’ve had that happen with plug ins, so personally permanent licenses are preferred, it’s not that difficult of a concept to understand.

No, it's not difficult to understand, but your personal justification for your position seems different than the reasons of some posting here, which include trying to preserve the plausibility of a possible eventual decision to forgo the internet entirely and some concept of a breach of rights. Your position is rooted largely in the very understandable desire to maintain your creations the way you originally executed them. I would suggest that Atlatnesiti is addressing the comments of some of the other posters and probably not your concerns, per se.

I ask with all due honesty, however: is this a Mac experience (and I am not trying to open a Mac vs. PC argument, I'm just wondering)? I'm on a Windows machine and I can't remember having to retool any of my compositions due to a change of licensing, a company going under, falling into an OS-change chasm, or any issue similar to this. Which company (or companies) hung you up? Did you entirely forgo their products at that point, gradually wean yourself away from their offerings, or take another route entirely? I would find a short account of your experience(s) and the manner in which you resolved it (them) to be helpful, if you would be so kind.

Yeah you're probably right that Atlatnesiti was addressing the more knee jerk reactions.

Mostly I'm thinking about Alchemy, I was super busy on something completely unrelated when they were bought out, so I for some gawdawful reason thought I had secured the final authorized version. I hadn't so a clean instal killed it for me.

Companies dying is a huge concern for anyone really, right now Audiofinder a great Mac all purpose browser and audio tool etc. is working, but the developer has been AWOL for over a year, probably got a job at Meta etc. It will last for years in Rosetta, but at some point some OS change will render it partially or completely useless. I get that the ratio is skewed but even with Windows some software will need tweaking with updates etc.

In the best case scenario what happens if Reason Studios folds? if they don't have perpetual licenses are we to assume they will grant them if they get bought by google or something? I'm not that concerned in the case of Reason, but I would say perpetual licenses are always preferable that's all.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

The removal of Alchemy from the PC platform was really regrettable. A few months ago, the external HDD where I had my copy of Alchemy stored went belly-up. Thankfully, I had performed a second save to a thumb drive, but for a few days, I was sweating bullets (I intend to build another computer in hopefully a few months and, while Alchemy ported fine once, I am unsure of its being able to port another time.) That must have been a real disappointment to lose. Alchemy was a sound-developer's dream; some the best patches I've heard from any programmer came out of that synth. I still occasionally use it, so I can imagine the frustration you must have had.

And, of course, your concern about companies going under is well-taken. Unfortunately, there's little we can do except support the efforts of companies to protect their investment. None of their efforts will be completely successful in eliminating cracking, hacking, and the like, but they do put a dent in the efforts of those who seek to steal software: it's not a zero-sum game unfortunately when attempting to crackdown on these abuses and illegal activities. Thankfully, most companies with which I'm familiar do make an effort to insure their consumers' abilities to maintain use of their software after they've pulled up stakes and this sort of integrity helps. It also is beneficial that we do live in an age of such proliferation of creative tools. Alchemy may be gone (at least in terms of being supported on the PC,) for example, but Omnisphere is very much with us, as are Plasmonic, Pigments, Phaseplant, and so many more, many of which, while not identical to Alchemy, do cover at least much of the same timbral territory, though often incorporating a different paradigm for sound generation. While your concern about the failure of musical software developers is very correct, there is probably no better time to fix those situations that may have arisen from any unfortunate issues that revolve around companies going out of business or retracting products; the options are numerous.

Again, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them.

[machinesworking]

Alchemy may be gone (at least in terms of being supported on the PC,) for example, but Omnisphere is very much with us, as are Plasmonic, Pigments, Phaseplant, and so many more, many of which, while not identical to Alchemy, do cover at least much of the same timbral territory, though often incorporating a different paradigm for sound generation. While your concern about the failure of musical software developers is very correct, there is probably no better time to fix those situations that may have arisen from any unfortunate issues that revolve around companies going out of business or retracting products; the options are numerous.

I feel at this point like making a blacklist, plug ins that will likely screw up if you don't take precautions. So Plasmonic, Diva, Falcon, Omnisphere etc. all have really solid companies behind them and low risk of some song getting wonky by a patch or plug in upgrade not replacing the older one. NI, and most companies that have different versions that don't recognize each other in the other list. NI have stated that they're coding for VST3 in Komplete Control upgrade replacement capabilities, i.e. Kontakt 8 will be able to replace and call up the library in a song with Kontakt 7 in it, if you do not currently have Kontakt 7 installed on your computer. This is great in general, and of course would have been a godsend for Mac users over the last 5+ years as upgrades to Apples OS to get ready for the M1 chips broke older versions of some plug ins. BTW they stated that the DAW can code the same ability that Komplete Control and Maschine have to replace older versions of VST3 plug ins on tracks if the DAW codes for it. A reason to use Cubase IMO (which I don't own..), as I'm not certain that 3 years from now NI doesn't drop Komplete Control.

[syntonica]

While I'm not wholly opposed to periodic internet checks to verify my "license", I need to know that when the sun goes down on my program, the company has a failsafe in place, e.g. an update with a serial that I can use to reinstall when necessary. How many old products from currently operating companies are no longer installable since the authorization servers just got turned off? Or, the company vanished in the night? I also see some music software companies whose business model is let's find the ones dumb enough to buy something from us again, even though their software is buggy crap.

Also, I don't mind paying upgrade fees on software that is updated to run on newer operating systems, especially from one or two person shops. It's extra work from them and it should be paid. I certainly don't expect free updates forever (except for critical bug fixes.) I'm happy to help keep them in business that way. Also, upgrade fees for new features are acceptable, as long as I can still install the older version and use it if it is still acceptable for my needs. I do, however, refuse to pay to be a beta tester and then pay for the bug fixes, sold as "updates". That crap has gotta stop!

Adobe may be able to get away with subscription fees since they are paid for by the businesses that use Adobe products. Freelancers probably suffer the most, as well as casual users. I know Gimp et al. have taken up a lot of that low end market, but sadly, on the music production side of things, progress is glacial, mostly because the music community is smaller compared to the artists, photographers, retouchers, animators, etc. out there that can all share the same software.

[rod_zero]

AFAIK the other creative ecosystems don't suffer from the fragmentation and huge number of products a single person can use.

Most users use a DAW, plus kontakt, plus some fx and then some synths.

The market is also quite saturated, I don't even understand how with the sheer number of stuff a DAW comes in people go and buy even more stuff and into the hundreds of plugins, is really crazy people keep buying.

[dlandis]

I have not followed every post here but I think you miss the point Jac459.

Data collecting is only a little part. I don't think it's a problem for audio companies as well.

But the other side is the dependence on the good will of a company. Financially but also in terms of availability. I want to keep my tools available and for a long time. These goals are potentially jeopardized by exactly this kind of business conduct.

It's not a business relation on a par like it used to be.

This is the note from the Reason site, re: Long-term Off-line Authorization. It was quoted by the OP earlier in the thread:

(BOQ)

Authorizing a computer for long-term off-line use

In addition, if you have an Annual Reason+ subscription or own a standard (perpetual) Reason 12 license, you can authorize your computer for long-term offline use. This can be useful if you are travelling or working in a studio without internet access, etc. The long-term authorization allows for staying off-line on the authorized computer for one (1) year. If you are a Reason+ subscriber you are limited by the subscription end date, though. In most situations, authorizing a computer for long-term use is not necessary, though.

(EOQ)

I'm not sure which part of this description gives you fear for your use of Reason; could you point it out? (And, please, if it's something else entirely, please feel free to convey those details.) With all due respect, from what I'm reading, your concerns are clearly strongly felt, but rather vague in the formulation of adequate cause.

I bring this up because, if it's fear of Reason going under behind your comment, I'll possibly be able to put your mind at ease due to the fact that in the few cases that something similar to this this have happened to me, one of two things has happened. In the first case, the companies not supporting a product anymore made arrangements for the product owners to retain rights to their licenses for perpetuity regardless of whatever type of copy protection was in use before the decision to stop supporting the software. Something like this happened when Apple bought Alchemy from Camel Audio. All valid license holders received a notice far in advance of the sale so that they could retain Alchemy for their computers in a manner so that they could (with specific and clear directions from Camel) reinstall the VST and other data on any new computers that they might desire in the future. In the second case (usually very small companies,) the owners stop supporting and manufacturing the software, but often do in conjunction with going out of business. The software continues to work in exactly the same manner on the original machine and very often the owner offers a final distribution to enable the user to continue using/reinstalling the software without issue. This second scenario is reminiscent of a situation that happened several years ago with a unique sounding VST named Enzyme by Humanoid Sound Systems. I happen to own Enzyme and have installed it on a new computer since the demise of Humanoid. I do imagine that at some point (with an OS change probably,) it may stop working, but all is fine now.

It should be noted as well, that Reason considers the off-line licensing an option for a minority of users, and, of course, it costs nothing at all to the user. The rub is that a majority of Reason users probably still haven't noticed any change in the way they use Reason and likely never will. Perhaps a fair question here: if the OP hadn't set this thread in motion, would you have known any better about this perceived issue? If not, should this "change" really give you agita or even minor concern? Again, as Jac459 notes, there are rather stringent laws governing these contractual dealings in the EU. It is not likely that Reason is going to go out of its way to break those laws.

You have to contact activation servers once a year. You can't use keep using it independently. That's a quite big restriction for a product you bought.

Would you accept that for you car?

The issue is a bigger one and not just this very case. Companies, especially mainly business driven ones without an idealistic product vision, try to shape their offer to their advantage as far as customers allow it. And this boundary will be pushed again and again in small steps.

The recent events around Waves are a good example. Luckily people complained enough.

There is nothing selfless in offering offline activation. It's a basic feature.

The more people are accepting it and come up with (false) understanding about these things the more the world will shift in that direction with disadvantages for consumers.

I think more often than not decent people have a blind spot in this regard because they are not aware of how aggressive business strategies are planed behind the doors.

Thanks for your reply.

With all due respect, I feel that you expose several fallacies in your argument with this post. Part of the issue seems to be the reliance on analogy to prove a point. While argument by analogy does have a limited usefulness in argument (I'm using the term "argument" in the classical sense of the word here, certainly not to denote a rising level of antagonism; I do, BTW, thank you for keeping the "temperature" of you discourse with me on the lower side. This is noted and very appreciated!), it is never enough, by definition, to thoroughly prove a point and, of course, rises and falls on the strength of the analogy itself. It is noted as well, that while I clearly asked for your objection to the actual "wording" of Reason Studio's statement, you have overlooked my request. I will not belabor this point, but will instead interact with what you have posited here. Again, all is offered here with candor and charity of judgment.

You mention what you consider a parallel with car ownership, but one (even with a perpetual license) simply does not "own" Reason; it is licensed, and as such, is governed by the terms of its license contract. When one "buys" Reason, one is signing that contract and as a user, is subject to the terms of that contract (as is Reason Studios as the supplier.) A better analogy, were we to pursue it, would be to compare the license to use Reason with one's license to drive a car. In this, the parallels are stronger, but the weaknesses in terms of explaining "rights" are somewhat more obvious: one may have a perpetual license in the sense that the state may grant the license to an individual (upon passing a test and paying a fee) for the rest of that person's life, but, as you know, there are even here conditions for the maintenance of that license. Usually, there is an annual fee, one must not break a variety of laws regarding safe operation, one must give proof of being insured against the possibility of vehicular accident, and if, at some point, it becomes obvious that one cannot continue to operate the vehicle in a safe manner due to health and/or age considerations, the state reserves the right to re-examine the operator in order to determine the driver's ability to drive safely at that juncture. The point here is that any licensing model will have some sort of limitation in its rubric or it would not be a license. While most of this clearly has little to do with our scenario, one point has something of a parallel: the annual fee that the state levies for a license has some similarities in that it is annually assessed in order to maintain the perpetuity of one's license. Even at this level, however, the similarities are stretched for two basic reasons: 1) RS is not requiring any individual with a perpetual Reason license to sign up for an offline license, and 2) RS is not charging for the offline license should you choose to opt in for it. The online "checking-in" is not, in this sense, obligatory unless one wants the offline license, otherwise, the application will continue to check-in every time one uses it as it does currently (unless the dongle is still available in some form; I haven't used a dongle for Reason in some time, so I wouldn't know this for sure.)

So, no, I have no issue in principle with the state charging me yearly for my perpetual driver's license, nor would I (obviously) have an issue with Reason's asking me for online verification (if I decided to opt in for the offline license.) I am also fine with Reason checking in as it does online for the current license. BTW, is there wording in the company's EULA that you believe is breached by RS's requirement for an annual verification of one's license with the offline option? For my part, I can't see anything.

I'm not sure that situations such as this can be considered part of a "larger case." Every one of these situations needs to be examined individually because no two companies have the same level of integrity in a myriad of consumer-related areas. Your mention of the Waves issue proves this point. Waves was doing away with the WUP and attempting to establish a method of licensing that would have created an more expensive situation for most and seemed to have a component that was perhaps potentially intrusive. While I didn't have as many issues with the change as most (I've been paying the maximum for my WUP for many years; financially for me, it was something of a wash either way,) I did have issue with the fact that others were being forced into a paradigm that clearly was unnecessary and expensive (for them.) The Reason scenario is different in that there is no coercive element that one must opt in for the offline perpetual model and, of course, there is no fee for doing so.

No one, BTW, has described RS's motives as "selfless," nor probably would "selflessness" be appropriate to a business paradigm for the very simple reason that companies must make a profit to survive. I think that is a "given." We might appreciate the benefits afforded us by a specific piece of software, but (hopefully) no one thinks that a business has developed that application out of the "goodness of its heart," so to speak. What has been alleged, correctly or not, is that in the long run, this verification process should help to insure RS's ability to maintain an appropriate bottom line which ideally should result in a more secure future for the company, which in turn is thought should result in more or, at least, consistent maintenance and development of the product line with, i.e., the consumer benefitting when all is said and done. In essence, at least as far as I've seen, literally nobody in this discussion has said RS's proposition is selfless. What is alleged is that Reason has a right (actually, something of a responsibility) to produce a financially stable business environment so that its employees can legitimately "put food on the table" at the end of a day's work.

So, as you can guess, while I'll agree that some practices seem bad for the consumer at this point, there are a number of instances that seem actually better. There are, for instance a number of free DAWs that are being offered, along with free VSTs of all stripes. I'll disagree with those who see Reason's recent offline protocol described in this thread as nefarious on any level and actually tend to see it as generally positive and not at all underhanded, overly self-protective, intrusive, or otherwise, if you will, evil. Interestingly, even the Waves scenario which you mention turned out well: as you mention, Waves backed down. This is also part of a business model: one must understand one's consumer and Waves does seem to have learned something along those lines. So, I think, on this note, I will bid you a good night and a wonderful weekend.

Thank you for the discussion.