Open letter to companies still using iLok ( looking at you Slate Digital )

[djanthonyw]

A simple thought experiment shows that regardless of what happens to sales when a crack comes out, iLok is not *necessary* to run a successful company, and I argue, not even optimal.

no, that doesn't *show* that, that is just an opinion but you're using some lingo as if to make it seem like more. What thought experiment is that? I think you're saying if we think like you do, we'd get it.

There is in this actual thread Slate's statements regarding his business decision. The piracy if not countered will have put them out of business altogether. So he thought it was necessary to make a move, it was this move, in order to have any business at all. But your dislike of this method is just so right, clearly it must mean you know better. This is your foundation here.

BTW, me remarking on you telling us you were a pirate in your initial remarks, as a bona fides ('See, I'm legit!') - me, I think it's a given that we do not steal the software - is not what an ad hominem does. Ad hominem means 'your argument is bad because you're a bad person', as a fallacious approach. I remarked it was kind of funny, 'precious' to have to announce that. That tells you my opinion about What You Said.

I've had exactly one show-stopper from copy-protection, and it had to do with servers being down. I had more than the three authorizations for my BFD2, which my system did not care about until one day I cleaned my system. I was using but one. I was down for over four days behind that, requiring them to manage my auths. OTOH, I have broken a 9 year old dongle and Steinberg and VSL were both on the ball and there was a few hours of downtime that wasn't mission-critical fortunately.

I sold Nebula because one day the thing wasn't aware of the serial file /crash/ and here is at least a couple of days waiting for an individual to get back to me, and some more back-and-forth as per my experience since this was the third time. I understand when something is too inconvenient to bother with, I do.

I would not however, out of an anecdote - let alone your theoretical positions - want to try some overarching argument about how this or the other thing is absolutely the only way. You've stated your point-of-view. I don't share it and the very fact of yet another thread to argue about teh dongles was off-putting. Your arguments don't seem so well-founded but I understand your POV.

What iainduncan is saying is that if there are sucessful developers around such as u-he, who do not depend on copy protection which can be a burden for some, then other developers do not have any excuses to base their decision of copy protection on piracy.

Companies that focus their energy on paying customers will always be more successful than companies focusing on piracy unless those companies are Pace, Codemeter, ect...

So you're claiming companies like Steinberg, AVID, VSL, Algorithmix, Synthogy, Eventide, are unsuccessful? You're wrong.
Also, wanting working copy protection doesn't go against wanting satisfied customers, and companies like u-he which you mention have invested a huge amount of time on refining and making sure their copy protection works.

Big difference is that u-he went above and beyond to make sure their copy protection would not be a hinderance to them or their users. Those other companies you mentioned might be successful, but I consider companies such as u-he to be more so since they have grown from the ground up without some large parent companies scooping them up. They also rely on invasive third party copy protection schemes in which they pass the extra costs onto the customers.

[Shy]

What's invasive about it, compared to other companies' copy protection? And I could claim that any company that spends a huge amount of time developing their copy protection scheme passes the cost of it onto the customer.

[conleec]

If a user feels their "competitive advantage" is gone, then they are focusing on the wrong thing as well.

Uh, huh. And this is up to you to decide? For everbybody? Globally?

Chris Conlee

[crimsonwarlock]

The other argument to be made here, is that some developers are protecting THEIR CUSTOMERS by protecting their software. Some of this software is a secret weapon for people who have paid for it. They don't want EVERYBODY using the same tools. It takes away their competitive advantage.

Seriously?... You are arguing that to be competitive in the music scene, you need to have access (financially) to plugins that 'others' can not buy... You got to be kidding. This is the most idiotic argument in favor of copy protection I've seen so far.

[conleec]

Seriously?... You are arguing that to be competitive in the music scene, you need to have access (financially) to plugins that 'others' can not buy... You got to be kidding. This is the most idiotic argument in favor of copy protection I've seen so far.

Who's talking idiotic? Why do you purchase plugins? Presumably because they do something useful for you. If it's useful for you, it would be useful for somebody else too. If it's useful to your clients, they might choose you over your competitor because you specifically have chosen to invest in said plugin. These things are not created and / or used in a vacuum. Do you work for free? Do you want to offer your services for free to your competitors? Feel free to run your business as you see fit, I guess. Maybe give away your prized analog EQ and compressor, because "who cares?" right? It's not important. Gimme a break.

And to your point about "competitiveness," there are multiple areas of competition. By all means, if you lack financial resources then you are indeed forced to compete on the terms of your creative excellence. That's perfect and you could absolutely excel at that based on your talent alone. But you cannot deny that certain tools do things that other tools cannot, and if somebody prefers that tool, then they have reason to expect a certain degree of security that their purchase will be protected from mass exploitation because of theft.

Stealing is stealing, and it hurts the developers and the customers who have purchased from those developers. That's irrefutable in my book.


Chris Conlee

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I used to hate dongles and rant about them too. Then Slate gave away iLok 2's with VCC-Tube, which was $49. That was the gateway drug.

In the end: while I'd prefer a simple serial number, keyfile, or no copy protection, iLok has been much better than I thought it would be. The old days of the PACE interlok drivers rebooting or crashing your PC seem to be long behind them. The iLok has proved 1) to be an effective CP system, and 2) not all that much of an inconvenience.

[crimsonwarlock]

Who's talking idiotic? Why do you purchase plugins? Presumably because they do something useful for you. If it's useful for you, it would be useful for somebody else too. If it's useful to your clients, they might choose you over your competitor because you specifically have chosen to invest in said plugin. These things are not created and / or used in a vacuum. Do you work for free? Do you want to offer your services for free to your competitors? Feel free to run your business as you see fit, I guess. Maybe give away your prized analog EQ and compressor, because "who cares?" right? It's not important. Gimme a break.

Yet, you still fail to prove that there is a 'competitive edge' in having a plugin that someone else can not buy. A plugin (any plugin) can be a 'secret weapon' production wise, not because 'someone else can not have it' but because you (or someone else) is capable of doing something with it others can't. When a certain plugin can do some 'magic' (this idea is overused in marketing), it's not a secret weapon because everybody can get it (as long as they can afford it). Having said that, any talented musician/producer will run rings around you and your 'secret weapons' if you are not talented enough to make the best of them, using just about anything available (including freeware).

That is why it is a stupid argument

[conleec]

Fine. Argue anything you like. Point is, I pretty much only use iLok protected software and I fully support developers who choose to use it. Count my voice among those who argue against the basic premise of this thread. Developers need to hear both sides before making their own decisions.

Chris Conlee

[murnau]

many stuff which is ilok-protected isn't cracked since years. that fine. mission complete. i have no problem with it. if you dont like it dont buy it. story end.

[Burillo]

my only gripe with iLok-protected software is that it's darn expensive.

[momalle3]

Fine. Argue anything you like. Point is, I pretty much only use iLok protected software and I fully support developers who choose to use it. Count my voice among those who argue against the basic premise of this thread. Developers need to hear both sides before making their own decisions.

Chris Conlee

You aren't arguing against the basis premise of the thread, because it doesn't really have a premise. It's just people saying they don't like ilok. That's not a premise, that just a preference.

The idea that ilok is good because it prevents competitors from getting something is not an idea Slate would like. I think from slates point of view you are making an argument against the ilok.

[Aloysius]

And, in other news, I wish all my software licenses were on my iLok.

Funny, that, huh.

+1

Trying to install hundreds of Plugins with a wide variety of other copyright protections is just a pain in the ass.

[frankz00]

Come on, nothing beats the ease of simply plugging in the iLok and rocking the studio.

Nothing?.... how about this: have my WHOLE studio setup on a USB-drive, including all the plugins I use. I can plug it into any computer and run it from the drive, or just copy the whole setup to ONE directory on the HD and run it. No installation, no (re)activation, NOTHING!!!!!!

Beat THAT

If you do this, please tell me more! I have a mini Reaper rig setup on a USB drive but it's far from complete...

[iainduncan]

There are some very questionable economic arguments being made here. My point is to tell Slate ( and others ) that I don't like their business model and thus aren't doing business with them.

From the vendors point of view, there should only be *two* numbers that matter:

A) revenue gained because people who *would* buy choose to pirate instead, because iLok forced them to purchase. (they only matter if they *would have bought*. How many non-purchasing pirates there are is totally irrelevant)

B) revenue lost because people who hate iLok bought something else instead. Again, only matters if they would have bought.

I think Slate is doing it wrong because their prices are low enough for non-pro studios to buy, were it not for iLok. I could be wrong. Everything else is irrelevant, everything. Only gross revenue matters in software. I personally think that B is a bigger number than A, and that companies using iLok are wrong. I could be wrong there too, it's a brutally hard thing to test. But I think looking at the health of different software companies, we see an awful lot of success by those who tolerate some degree of piracy in order to have higher sales. Microsoft, Apple, and Sony all figured this out. Seems to me that of the crazy audio software success stories of the last five years, it's companies pricing stuff lower and tolerating a higher degree of piracy to make the purchasing and ownership experience more pleasant that are killing it. NI, Ableton, and Logic have done ludicrously well, is anyone else even touching those guys in profitability? (honestly asking, I don't know!) I think the Protools and related product market share is dropping. The music industry is changing to a more distributed business of many small players and fewer million dollar studios, no doubt about that. So I think making your offering attractive to the normal prosumer hobbyist who expects to be able to purchase instantly with no hassle is the smart way to go.

Also, the fact that Slate said this works well for them doesn't really prove anything. Like I said, it's impossible to test. They can't know for sure unless they managed to go back in time and release the same product under different conditions and compare. That's why pricing software is so hard.

[iainduncan]

Further following up, sure there are tons of you saying you don't mind iLok or even you like it. But I maintain that basically none of you would have pirated if Slate didn't use iLok. If you would have purchased either way, your preference is irrelevant to the business question of whether to go with iLok.