Plugin becomes be-online-to-own after years of normal use.

[zeep]

Is this just accepted nowadays, that plugins require the user to be online? Either constantly or having to reactivate once in an x amount time in my case.

The plugin in question is Vengeance Multiband compressor. It used to require an e-licenser syncrosoft dongle. And so it has worked for a decade or so. After switching OS to a new mac, the usb dongle was no longer supported, so now Vengeance requires the plugin to be reactivated every or so month.

This means that a plugin that i owned, is now "borrowed".

[Frankie.T]

I don't care what "is acceppted" but i care about what i want from something i buy.

I learned that i can only own plugins that doesn't require any form of internet activation, but only serial numbers or key files, so that's the model where i put my money.

You never know what the future will bring, and i don't wanna my projects to be hostages of any war, business failure or whatever, because my money are good, and doesn't require to be online to be spent, and so mut be the product i buy.

[Songwriter101]

There more time passes on the more I realise the onboard DAW tools are more than enough. Boycott is the only way to signal what the customer wants. Vote by money.

[Greenstorm33]

In capitalist occident, software owns you

[Held]

There are still plenty of developers who require you to be online only once for the activation. Even better, there are some developers who give you a license file upon purchase which you can use to activate the software without having to go online.

And best of all, there are some developers who have no copy protection at all. You decide who you buy from.

[sprnva]

There were endless complaints about dongles and this is what we got in their place. None of the companies that dropped iLok for example offer a way to activate a new computer completely offline. Something that was possible with dongles. Online activation is just a killswitch by another name.

It's frustrating when companies change copy protection. Particularly when it's a change for the worst.

[zeep]

If you have paid in full for a product, copy protection that requires a user to be online should be made illegal.

[Lerian]

It's frustrating when companies change copy protection. Particularly when it's a change for the worst.

Even more so when the so called copy protection doesn't protect anything from being copied, just waste customer's resources and time.

It is very well known that unlocked/dongle-free versions are available to those using "alternative solutions" and they run almost twice as fast, consuming half the cpu/ram as the dongle variants.

[vitocorleone123]

If you have paid in full for a product, copy protection that requires a user to be online should be made illegal.

You license software, not own it (unless you create it yourself). Companies can then seem to update their legal terms for continued use.

[Trancit]

If you have paid in full for a product, copy protection that requires a user to be online should be made illegal.

You license software, not own it (unless you create it yourself). Companies can then seem to update their legal terms for continued use.

It doesn´t matter how you describe it... it just matters what the actual outcome is... they want our money, don´t they?

The problem is more that people nowadays are trained like dogs to accept everything throwing at them...
We are a society of shrugs without any backbone!

It's frustrating when companies change copy protection. Particularly when it's a change for the worst.

Even more so when the so called copy protection doesn't protect anything from being copied, just waste customer's resources and time.

It is very well known that unlocked/dongle-free versions are available to those using "alternative solutions" and they run almost twice as fast, consuming half the cpu/ram as the dongle variants.

And this is the most true part...

Can anybody explain me why legal users are tortured with no matter what kind of obscure copy protection if it is clear from the first moment that it gets "available" in no-time??

I cannot even imagine what a sick mind is thinking it would be a good idea to pay lots of money to a company to get the software iLok protected while everything iLok is available for "free" not to speak from as Lerian already said is known to run much better/efficient??

It is so unlikely that a developer is coming up with a protection method which really works that I don´t understand why there are just so little of them having understood that it´s waste of time and just gives trouble to try to fight against such a "swarm intelligence"

[Dunbar]

You license software, not own it.

"If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing." - Tyler James Hill.

The balance of the law is tilting against consumers. In my opinion, we can no longer simply vote with our wallets. Consumers need renewed legal protections, or guarantees, against exploitative business practices.

(Please note, the opening quote is not an endorsement of piracy, it merely highlights the absurdity of the situation).

[sprnva]

It feels like more people are starting to kick up about this. Maybe in time it will become enough of an issue that developers will start to take the customer experience more seriously.

Until then all we can do is choose carefully.

[Kr3eM]

You license software, not own it (unless you create it yourself). Companies can then seem to update their legal terms for continued use.

You should be more careful with the "You license software, not own it" big corps "gaslighting"... it's not really that simple in many places....

The CJEU has now made it clear that the supply of computer software by electronic means together with the grant of a licence falls within the definition of "sale of goods" for the purposes of the Regulations. It noted that the term "goods" is to be understood as meaning products which can be valued in money and which are capable of forming the subject of commercial transactions.

The CJEU also concluded that software can be classified as "goods" irrespective of whether it is supplied on a tangible medium such as a USB drive or CD-ROM or by electronic download, as a download is the functional equivalent of supply via a material medium.

This means that agents selling software which is provided electronically together with the grant of a licence will be protected by the Regulations and can claim a lump-sum payment on termination.

Personally, If I buy for something I better be owning it... none of these companies that tries to remove ownership from their customers would ever accept this retarded notion "it's only a license, you don't own it" if the roles could be reversed...(I'm not here to engage in any debate on this subject, I will never ever change my mind on this so it's only a waste of time, just saying I will not reply even if there by any chance is a new ruling from the CJEU or whatever)...

[funky lime]

I sailed the high seas for a really long time. A few years ago, I went legit and bought all my software.

The number of activation issues I've had just this year alone is really making me want to take up sailing again. Every time I reboot, I have to crawl under my desk to unplug/plug my iLok dongle, or else none of my licenses on it work. BFD's "reauthorize every 90 days" is actually more like "every week or two, half your licenses scan as invalid." NI, I had licenses disappear from Native Access entirely. Spitfire locked me out of downloading my products and I had to wait several days to hear back about it. Similar deal with Izotope.

Yeah, this shit ain't it.

[Ah_Dziz]

If you have software that you paid for with the understanding that it works how you want, just don't update it. The company obviously thinks this is the way to go. It's a bummer having to keep things backed up to get around this crap but it's the way it goes.