The bar for idiocy's been raised...

[Max el Belga]

Why don't we shut up and make some more music or listen to Zappa, singing about plastic people...

ew, you don't catch mosquitos with vinager, but with honey...

BTW ew, I'm looking for a sponsor, send me a free Kore and you may scan my pc. Deal ?

Max... .. .

[Sascha Franck]

As far as the technical side of things goes:
While Kore might work fine with the "plain" versions of the previously installed NI plugins, it's updating them though, to sort of "optimize" them. Just to make sure that at least their own plugins will work fine along with Kore. I can't see a bad thing in that.
Note #1: This scanning/updating process is required for the sounds being installed to work along with NIs plugins. Another thing you want.
Note #2: To ensure compatibility between Kore and non-Kore systems, I'm sure most of those updates will be available as separate updates as well by now. And as some other issues might've been adressed as well, I couldn't see much of a reason for people to not want them. Unless you can't update them for whatever reasons...

Now, obviously the installer has to look for plugins that it's allowed to update - NIs own plugins that is. I still fail to see anything wrong with that.
Then, by a simple serial number check (I mean, it's not as if your computer explodes, all your pr0n is exposed or whatever things are spyed out) the installer finds out that there's some none legit NI plugins on your system - which Kore would refuse to work with (understandably, isn't it?). Of course it also won't update them... I mean, it's not as if NI would have Kore sort of "legalize" all your cracked NI plugins.

For me, the only question left would be: Is it "ethical" that Kore entirely refuses to register with cracked NI plugins being present on your system? While your mileage *may* vary, I fail to find this to be overexaggerating or whatever. A simple serial check had the Service Center tool find out that you're using NI products illegaly. No further action is taken. Heck, Sinmad was even politely asked to simply remove the plugins in question - and perhaps he could've even reinstalled the cracks once Kore was registered.
There's no "big brother" in that.


ew, as far as your actions in closing the "official" thread and opening one on some "free speech" (here at KVR that is) forum go, I wouldn't happen to know... it does leave a funny taste indeed.
But then, from what I know of you, it's not what you're usually doing, so I just take it that this dude has really driven you mad (which I could possibly understand).

[Max el Belga]

Sascha, as always, well said. I'm sure ew can use your exposure; I realy started feeling with him.

Now if you could write something useful about the deplorable state in wich some Kore hardware reaches the client...


Have a nice sunday,

Max... .. .

[deggy]

it's easy to kinda understand both sides with this kore thing but yeah, i do kinda have to agree that NI has a right to not allow kore to work with cracked NI plugs.

That said, i'll never forgive NI for not letting Reaktor 4 open Reacktor 3 files without a reaktor 3 dongle. That's just poor taste and there are a other people (other than myself) that have worked with reaktor 3 on school computers or friend's computers or needed to convert files from len sasso's instructional book and it's lame that we can't even open those files with a later and legit version of the software.

[Norbert]

As far as the technical side of things goes:
While Kore might work fine with the "plain" versions of the previously installed NI plugins, it's updating them though, to sort of "optimize" them. Just to make sure that at least their own plugins will work fine along with Kore.

Yeah. Sure. (wink wink) Sounds a lot like their "updates", as mentioned below...

Reading this thread, once again makes me glad I stopped buying NI's software, some time ago.

When they put out patches that did nothing more than force people to switch from serial # activation, to having to use challenge and response, they were were stabbing people in the back. I gave them my money for software that is activated with a serial number. NOT somthing else, that they tried to deceptively cram down my throat, by LYING about it being an "update".

f**k NI. f**k their buggy-ass software, too. There's so many great non-intrusive alternatives out there, NI's stuff just gets worse and worse. I can't remember the last time I heard any music done with their stuff, that made me think "Wow! I just gotta have that plugin/synth/whatever".

The only surprises that come from their software anymore, is how many fools are still willing to buy into their continual back-stabbing bullshit.

[Hunter]

Well I'm not reading the whole thread but I think ew acted correctly, NI will know what serials are warezed serials, and that guy had been entering those numbers, its pretty obvious, read between the lines people. I think they should send batman and robin round

[james0tucson]

I once bought a MSDN subscription, and Microsoft actually delivered serial keys that had been pirated. When confronted, numerous Microsoft reps insisted that *I* was using bad keys and consistently blew me off on my service calls. I had to threaten to sue -- via the well-financed legal department of the very large company I work for -- before I actually got their attention.

I will never simply take the publisher's word for it that a pirated product key is the user's responsibility.

In the case of the subject of the thread, I would actually require some evidence of wrongdoing that goes well beyond the presence of invalid keys.

[Chris Roberson]

Well, in the end you'll have a proof of purchase somewhere around, beit a receipt or a bank statement or a credit card bill or what have you. So you'll have a record somewhere that you laid down money for that product, it'd be quite thoughtless to not keep a record of a purchase of that size.

But now on this other issue, I don't even see how there's a question about it. He's using something he stole, and NI doesn't have a right to deny him service for that product? He expects them to not care? That'd be like sueing someone for getting your hand cut while breaking a window to get in their house and rob them. Why does something as stupid as that even see the light of day in a legal standing? I think it's pretty damn obvious.
And to refuse him service on his other products from them, I think is within the realm of reason, to a certain extent. Logistically, it may not be as reasonable, but still I'd understand where they were coming from. Of course the fellow would have to be compensated to return the legit products though...

[james0tucson]

Well, in the end you'll have a proof of purchase somewhere around, beit a receipt or a bank statement or a credit card bill or what have you. So you'll have a record somewhere that you laid down money for that product, it'd be quite thoughtless to not keep a record of a purchase of that size.

I did not go into the details of my experience. This was an MSDN subscription at the professional level, and we certainly did have receipts and purchase orders and everything was completely above the table, and it did not help. I literally had to start the process of making a claim through litigation before I got the company to acknowledge that the problem was theirs, not mine.

But now on this other issue, I don't even see how there's a question about it. He's using something he stole, and NI doesn't have a right to deny him service for that product?

He allegedly stole something, asserted so far, only by the fact that the publisher fails to recognize a serial number. That's not a high enough standard of evidence for me anymore. It is possible, and I would say even likely, that the publisher has made an error.

He expects them to not care? That'd be like sueing someone for getting your hand cut while breaking a window to get in their house and rob them.

Or it could be like shooting somebody for trespassing after throwing them through your window. You'd better have something besides just a body and a broken window.

Why does something as stupid as that even see the light of day in a legal standing? I think it's pretty damn obvious.

Microsoft would have charged me for a product and refused to deliver it, and if I did not have the ability to make a strong legal threat, they would have gotten away with it. You can't tell me that such things don't happen, and it didn't even matter that we had receipts. The receipts would have been enough to prevail in court, but we actually had to threaten to go there before the company would even acknowledge our complaint. This went on for *months*, mind you.

And to refuse him service on his other products from them, I think is within the realm of reason, to a certain extent. Logistically, it may not be as reasonable, but still I'd understand where they were coming from. Of course the fellow would have to be compensated to return the legit products though...

If they have evidence that the products were stolen, that's one thing. All I see is that they *lack* evidence that his keys are legitimate. That wouldn't really be a strong position in a trial. The company would have an obligation to show where the illegitimate product came from, rather than simply claim that it was not obtained from them.

That is, if the customer is willing to assert to a judge that his license is genuine. I can accept that it's probably not, but there is not enough evidence in this thread for us to make this determination. The company might very well not have sufficient grounds based on their suspicion, to default on a different agreement based on the speculation that the customer is in breach on some other issue. A single mistake on their part could backfire very badly -- criminal charges of fraud or civil charges of defamation, perhaps, if they are wrong.

[ew]

James, do me a favor and go to Sinmad's profile and read his posts. I think you'd find enough there to agree with NI's stance... such as the fact that he claims he's owned some NI products for four years, but never had a user account or forum account until KORE, and those are automatically generated when you register or authorize a product.

ew

[TotcProductions]

Go ew GO!!! Kick his ass crack! ....er....ass for cracking....or...something like that......

[Chris Roberson]

Well, in the end you'll have a proof of purchase somewhere around, beit a receipt or a bank statement or a credit card bill or what have you. So you'll have a record somewhere that you laid down money for that product, it'd be quite thoughtless to not keep a record of a purchase of that size.

I did not go into the details of my experience. This was an MSDN subscription at the professional level, and we certainly did have receipts and purchase orders and everything was completely above the table, and it did not help. I literally had to start the process of making a claim through litigation before I got the company to acknowledge that the problem was theirs, not mine.

But now on this other issue, I don't even see how there's a question about it. He's using something he stole, and NI doesn't have a right to deny him service for that product?

He allegedly stole something, asserted so far, only by the fact that the publisher fails to recognize a serial number. That's not a high enough standard of evidence for me anymore. It is possible, and I would say even likely, that the publisher has made an error.

He expects them to not care? That'd be like sueing someone for getting your hand cut while breaking a window to get in their house and rob them.

Or it could be like shooting somebody for trespassing after throwing them through your window. You'd better have something besides just a body and a broken window.

Why does something as stupid as that even see the light of day in a legal standing? I think it's pretty damn obvious.

Microsoft would have charged me for a product and refused to deliver it, and if I did not have the ability to make a strong legal threat, they would have gotten away with it. You can't tell me that such things don't happen, and it didn't even matter that we had receipts. The receipts would have been enough to prevail in court, but we actually had to threaten to go there before the company would even acknowledge our complaint. This went on for *months*, mind you.

And to refuse him service on his other products from them, I think is within the realm of reason, to a certain extent. Logistically, it may not be as reasonable, but still I'd understand where they were coming from. Of course the fellow would have to be compensated to return the legit products though...

If they have evidence that the products were stolen, that's one thing. All I see is that they *lack* evidence that his keys are legitimate. That wouldn't really be a strong position in a trial. The company would have an obligation to show where the illegitimate product came from, rather than simply claim that it was not obtained from them.

That is, if the customer is willing to assert to a judge that his license is genuine. I can accept that it's probably not, but there is not enough evidence in this thread for us to make this determination. The company might very well not have sufficient grounds based on their suspicion, to default on a different agreement based on the speculation that the customer is in breach on some other issue. A single mistake on their part could backfire very badly -- criminal charges of fraud or civil charges of defamation, perhaps, if they are wrong.

Well on my first point, I wasn't really aiming it at your situation, but more like using it to make the point that, like you even mentioned later, having those proofs of purchase would stand up in court rather definitively if there was a dispute of legitimacy.

I don't think you completely saw my point on my sueing comparison, and for sure I totally don't get your response to it. I meant that it's like if you tried to break the law, and something goes wrong while doing it, you sue the person you were transgressing against as though it's their fault for the whole situation. That's kinda how I see this other fellow's stance. He couldn't have honestly expected them to welcome him with open arms after stealing from them, no?

And true, no decisions could be made here, but then again that's not the point of this thread. We aren't here to make definitive choices on these matters, but to say our piece.


And now I've said mine, thank you.

[rp314]

Reading this thread, once again makes me glad I stopped buying NI's software, some time ago.

Agreed. Folks who don't like a company's policies need to vote with their feet rather than do surveys to find out what others think. If enough people do this the company will miraculously cease to see the immutable nature of their restrictions and change them.

Some folks don't mind and others do. Deciding whether to purchase a product is still the best way to express that preference.

[Lord Snarebottom]

hmmm...

i see a few things here...
1. i feel like ew closed the thread at the ni forum alittle prematurely
2. then ew comes to kvr to open another thread to bash the guy...i don't see why the original thread couldn't just be kept open.
3. i'm still not sure what any installation of any other ni product has to do with the kore activation. they were not bought together, so i really feel like ni steps over their boundries in questioning those products. i mean, when my hp printer blows up, i don't demand hp to refund the printer, my desktop, my laptop, my bluetooth headset, everything hp just because one of their products goes bad. if it's not bought together with the same license, what right does ni have to peruse and judge the man's computer or software?

this is just what i'm seeing...i don't really need to make enemies here, as you guys all like ew and i don't have any personal problem with the guy...i'm just saying...

[james0tucson]

Well on my first point, I wasn't really aiming it at your situation, but more like using it to make the point that, like you even mentioned later, having those proofs of purchase would stand up in court rather definitively if there was a dispute of legitimacy.

It is important to realize that even though I had very clear documentation *in my hand* and even though the company did not dispute that I had made the purchase, they still refused to authenticate the software.

They were satisfied with their position, and it literally required a threat of legal action from a large corporation to even get beyond the bum's rush stage. Once they changed their tune, they were all kisses and hearts, of course. But we had to force them.

I don't think you completely saw my point on my sueing comparison, and for sure I totally don't get your response to it. I meant that it's like if you tried to break the law, and something goes wrong while doing it, you sue the person you were transgressing against as though it's their fault for the whole situation. That's kinda how I see this other fellow's stance. He couldn't have honestly expected them to welcome him with open arms after stealing from them, no?

It has been established to your satisfaction that the customer stole something. What is your evidence?

And true, no decisions could be made here, but then again that's not the point of this thread. We aren't here to make definitive choices on these matters, but to say our piece.

Okay, my piece is, Companies can and do make mistakes with regard to the legitimacy of license keys

It is dangerous and irresponsible, and possibly even illegal for them to take the kind of action that was reported in the start of this thread.