Plugins/Companies using serial, a keyfile, or watermark copy protection

[Dunbar]

▒▒░░░░▓▓░░▒▒░░░░░░▓▓▒▒

I think you'll find the opposite is true. No company needs to implement that kind of copy protection in order to "survive".

[audiojunkie]

New Melda Productions news!

viewtopic.php?p=8960397#p8960397

Edit: I have updated the main page to reflect this latest Melda development! Melda has recommitted to protecting consumer rights— to be able to reinstall the plugin software—even if the company were to go out of business.

[mi-os]

For example, there are now developers claiming they only use serial number copy protection, but then the copy protection ties itself to a particular CPU or other hardware.

Which companies do that? Can you elaborate how it works?

Is the entire list accurate/cleared now? Thanks for all your work!

[audiojunkie]

For example, there are now developers claiming they only use serial number copy protection, but then the copy protection ties itself to a particular CPU or other hardware.

Which companies do that? Can you elaborate how it works?

Is the entire list accurate/cleared now? Thanks for all your work!

The company names escape me at the moment, but you can be assured that they are "not" knowingly on this list.

Here's how it works when a developer does this... They claim that all you need is a serial number or a keyfile. You download the installer, install the software, and everything works--just like they said. HOWEVER.....two years later, your hard drive crashes. You buy a new hard drive, and reinstall your OS and your DAW. You still have your backup of the installer software and your serial/keyfile. You think you are all set. Unfortunately, the company went out of business or discontinued the product and there is no support for it. Your Installer tries to download the files from the vendor's site, but can't--the company is gone.

Here's another scenario... The company tells you that all you need is a serial number or keyfile to use their software. Everything is working great until the cat swishes it's tail and knocks a drink over onto your laptop. Unfortunately, even drying the laptop in rice doesn't help, and the liquid has damaged your laptop. Your laptop costs more to fix than it would to buy a new one. You buy a new one, and then go to install your plugin software. Fortunately, you backed up your installer and your serial number or keyfile. You happily pull your plugin installer and serial or keyfile off your backup drive thinking everything is going to be OK. Unfortunately, your software won't authenticate. You talk to others who have had similar problems and find out that the software tied itself to the CPU of your old laptop to avoid there being too many installs. No problem, you think, I'll just go get the device unregistered and get my new device registered. You go to the company' web page, only to find that the web page is gone and the company along with it.

These are just a few scenarios where even if the company told you that it uses serial number or keyfile protection, you could still be screwed. In these cases, even if you used a serial number or keyfile, you'd be just as out of luck as would a person who used challenge/response copy protection.

The ONLY way you can really confirm that your investment is safe, is by making sure that it meets all three of the criteria listed on the first post of this thread.

1. The copy protection must use either a serial number, a keyfile or a per user Watermark.
2. The copy protection must not tie itself to anything. For example, there are now developers claiming they only use serial number copy protection, but then the copy protection ties itself to a particular CPU or other hardware. Another example is having just a serial number, but the software has to download required files from the vendor site in order to run. This is just as bad as challenge/response authentication. The software should not restrict you to using only the one computer. If you buy a new computer, you should be able to use it without dealing with the company further.
3. The software should not require any form of calling home to authenticate or to obtain the plugin. In other words, if a company were to go out of business, you should be able to pull a copy of the software and serial number or keyfile off of your backup drive, and authenticate the software. Be wary of companies using a single installer for their entire lineup of products or of installers that have to download components from the vendor site to complete the install.

To answer your second question, "No." the entire list has not been guaranteed accurate or "cleared". This is a community effort. The list above contains companies that are known to have safe serial/keyfile protection. However, only a handful of the vendors have been contacted, and even less of them have replied. As I'm sure you know, vendors are less than happy to tell users what copy protection they use. It is as hard as pulling teeth to dig each specific part of the information out of them, to determine if each of the three criteria have been met or not. Those vendors that most care about their honest customers will answer truthfully, because they don't want their customers to have to jump through more metaphorical hoops than the pirates do. The honest shouldn't be punished for being honest. It shouldn't be a pain to authenticate your software, and you should be able to authenticate even if the company is gone.

So, to be clear, nothing is guaranteed. I try to be overly cautious and not list vendors if it appears that one of the criteria may not be met. I have been wrong and not listed perfectly fine vendors, but I figure people who want to buy their software unencumbered by bad copy protection will understand and prefer that I make a mistake in not listing a vendor, rather than making a mistake the other way, and someone buys a plugin that turns out to not meet the criteria.

I invite all who find a plugin vendor or application vendor that meets the criteria to mention it in the thread. Likewise, if you question one of the vendors in the list and think it shouldn't be there, I would really like to know about it. Furthermore, I would like to extend my hand out to developers and vendors that would like to be on the list. If your software meets the criteria listed in the first post and you'd like to be listed, I would happily encourage you to let m know!

This is a community effort. That is the only way this can work for the benefit of all.

[mi-os]

Thanks for your explanations. This is a tricky topic because some companies obviously don't want to talk about the inner workings of their 'copy protection' schemes. They should be honest if there is a veiled backend server involvement. As customers we should have the right to know these things because it would affect our buying decisions.

Maybe this thread should be a prominent sticky and unconfirmed companies put on a TBC list. Thanks again!

[sjm]

For example, there are now developers claiming they only use serial number copy protection, but then the copy protection ties itself to a particular CPU or other hardware.

Which companies do that? Can you elaborate how it works?

Not 100% what you are asking, but Image-Line switched from a license key that you could back up and use on any machine to challenge/response machine locked licensing. However, the IL team was in denial and stated that this wasn't challenge/response. Even though the way it worked was:

1. Your machine connects to a remote server/you upload a file generated by your offline machine manually.
2. The server generates a response.
3. The response is either automatically used to license the software, or is provided as an authorisation file that you can take to the offline machine to authorise the software.

I don't know what they think challenge/response is, if not this *shrug*. Tbf, they were not claiming that it was still the same license key method as before. But they did not take the concerns of users seriously and claimed that there was no risk to the user. This despite the fact that if the servers go down and the company goes out of business, you will be unable to install your software on a new machine. The only one who seemed to understand the implications of the change in licenses model was JMC (the CEO), whose official response was that if the servers go down, one should just sail the seven seas in order to authorise the software on new machines. Ironic, but it is what it is.

[PebbleInAStream]

You know what, I honestly didn't care much about this stuff until a few days ago when I got an email from Naughty Seal Audio announcing EOL for Perfect Drums- the writing was rather convoluted, but apparently this doesn't just include updates and support, but it seems that in 8 weeks' time they won't even honor people's licenses anymore and help them authorize the program (the developers have to approve authorization requests). Legitimate customers are being locked out of their software should they ever need to reinstall it or install it on a new machine and are going to be forced to turn to dubious cracks from god-knows-where just to use the software they paid to be able to use. Absolute insanity... I don't know if I'll ever again buy any other software that uses an authorization system that involves the developer more than once.

[FatGuy]

You know what, I honestly didn't care much about this stuff until a few days ago when I got an email from Naughty Seal Audio announcing EOL for Perfect Drums- the writing was rather convoluted, but apparently this doesn't just include updates and support, but it seems that in 8 weeks' time they won't even honor people's licenses anymore and help them authorize the program (the developers have to approve authorization requests). Legitimate customers are being locked out of their software should they ever need to reinstall it or install it on a new machine and are going to be forced to turn to dubious cracks from god-knows-where just to use the software they paid to be able to use. Absolute insanity... I don't know if I'll ever again buy any other software that uses an authorization system that involves the developer more than once.

That's exactly the point, and where most people fall of.

99% of the times everything goes smooth and so people do not care, but when happens, it's attonishing.

People should think about these things before and give value to companies which take a different path, like those in the list.

[audiojunkie]

Despite our best efforts, it looks like something slipped through. I am going to remove this one from the list:

viewtopic.php?p=8962405#p8962405

[FatGuy]

What about Klevgrand?

[audiojunkie]

What about Klevgrand?

If it is not on the list, it either hasn’t been checked yet, or it doesn’t meet the criteria.

If you would email the company and ask them if their software meets our criteria, and then report back, it would be very helpful! I am not able to do this all alone. It needs to be a community effort.

[Sound_Bear]

Thanks for this thread. Since the main aspect here is said to be sustainability, I think it would make sense to add which brands on the list keep 32-bit VST/ VST2 versions available.

To start, Blue Cat, FabFilter, Melda up to at least v15, Tokyo Dawn Labs and United Plugins are some examples with extensive backwards-compatible product lineups.

[FatGuy]

Needs to be double checked, but i think Wavesfactory is SN only

[replicant X]

TruePianos / 4Front Technologies
https://www.truepianos.com/
(serial)
A 50% off sale is currently being held until version 2 is released.
The demo version is still 1.X, but there is already a version 2 available for download by registered users. Version 2 is compatible with Apple Silicon.

[audiojunkie]

Nice!