Thoughts on Ilok?

[MJACau]

While the majority of users are honest, and even proud supporters of other's intellectual property, this is not always the case. As an example, a fairly talented guitar player declares in her YouTube video that she likes using REAPER, because it is free. What about the countdown at every launch of it, and the warning that REAPER is free to try for 60 days, and after that, you have to buy a license...

I fail to see what that has to do with iLok, Cockos doesn't use iLok.
That's a bad argument.

[SLiC]

Even Cubase doesn't need a hardware dongle anymore- does any DAW?

[balafon]

While the majority of users are honest, and even proud supporters of other's intellectual property, this is not always the case. As an example, a fairly talented guitar player declares in her YouTube video that she likes using REAPER, because it is free. What about the countdown at every launch of it, and the warning that REAPER is free to try for 60 days, and after that, you have to buy a license...

I fail to see what that has to do with iLok, Cockos doesn't use iLok.
That's a bad argument.

Sorry for the possible confusion. I simply wanted to say that if some people can easily circumvent any copy protection, they will do it. Some, not all, fortunately. Cockos was an example of an easy way to avoid paying for the regular and even professional use of a not free software, like in the case of that musician, proudly stating this publicly. My example had obviously nothing to see with iLok protection, just with protection in general, and the need for some form of it. And to say that not everyone is 100% honest, even though the vast majority of users are correct.

[nitex]

The only real gripe i have with iLok, is the machine based activation is left at a higher risk of being messed with currently. You depend on the developers and maybe iLok to help you recover. This should be an option in either the web or app, disable any activations which are unreachable and move on.

Need to use multiple machines? Cool, the dongle is your option. Big studio which can't afford any kind of downtime? The insurance is probably paying off for you.

As it is now the machine based activation feels like an entry to upsell you on one of the other options to have a peace of mind of some security at least for the stuff you bought with your money. Just my opinion of course.

[spigmu]

All in all, your mileage/setup/preferences/goals/comfort zone/opinion/bank account balance/etc. may vary, and that's good. One size cannot fit all. I personally have nothing against iLok. The hardware dongle, with Zero Downtime + Theft & Loss Coverage, is a state-of-the-art solution for many of us, I guess. Especially, if you have dozens, or hundreds of iLok licenses, worth thousands of dollars, and time is money for you, should you need keeping your deadlines, or just reinstalling your rig. Nothing is simpler than plugging in an insurance covered dongle. Authorising the rest of your software may well be a real pain, compared to iLok's solution, if you have hundreds of software assets, with a great creativity in licensing schemes.

If you don't like iLok, don't use it, or at least accept it, as the preferred trade-off chosen by some iLok protected software developers, if you cannot live without those products.

Peace and love...

I completely support rigid copy protection. My issue is that once you purchase software that requires iLok you have been delivered to the Pace ecosystem, which nickels and dimes you further to death even beyond their "the customer is always wrong" motto. which adds a layer that is a huge negative to the experience. They are a separate corporate entity that provides a service to their clients but it's less about creating a seamless experience to the end user than it is making money (and I don't ever begrudge anyone or thing their priority of making money). We shouldn't expect developers to handle the copy protection themselves, as it's often beyond what a one person company has the time or resources or code to handle, and neither should we complain that they don't release it without copy protection. But to me, ideally, I'd prefer that if they farm it out that it's still part of what you purchase from them. That they raise the price to compensate for what it costs to have cp and you don't have to deal with ANOTHER company, specifically one you didn't want to be involved with in the first place. Spend an extra $50 to buy a dongle that you have to purchase an extra insurance policy on instead of it being guaranteed to work for years? If I don't purchase it then having to buy another $50 dongle to replace it? I would do all of that if it went directly to the developer. I want to fill the developer's pocket, not Pace's. Their machine based authorizing would be a solution most of the time, except that it's too arcane and abstruse to be a real substitute. I have transfers on my License Manager that I simply can't perform, and I have some transfers from laptops that died or otherwise left the planet that I need to access in order to pull the auths from. The need for a developer to not be overwhelmed with time spent on issues due to CP is completely understandable. But when there are 1) (one person) companies like Toneboosters who have a keyfile cp that appears to work well enough for them, and 2) those who have their own License Manager-like auth apps that work fine and don't make you feel like committing hari kari after two minutes, the reason for a company like Pace to have a hold on the industry, where you have to end up with "a bit of a sour taste" as nitex says, even after getting back up running, something has drifted from reasonable concern of piracy.

I respect everyone's opinion, based on what they consider as the most acceptable trade-off for their particular case. There's no perfect solution, neither for us, users, nor for the software publishers. They also should have their part of headache, between going with dongle, challenge/response, license file, or nothing. While the majority of users are honest, and even proud supporters of other's intellectual property, this is not always the case. As an example, a fairly talented guitar player declares in her YouTube video that she likes using REAPER, because it is free. What about the countdown at every launch of it, and the warning that REAPER is free to try for 60 days, and after that, you have to buy a license...

Oh man, do I hate when people say Reaper is free. I completely lose respect for them. It's the least expensive and also most unrestricted use during free evaluation DAW there is, but It ain't free. It's impossible to not know that while evaluating it.

Then some people will chime in, and say that Justin Frankel (REAPER's developer) is rich enough, to tolerate this kind of very personal interpretation of his terms and conditions.

I really, really, detest that kind of reasoning, that you won't send someone the $60 they set their price at because you figure they're rich enough. Arrrggghhh.

[MXJIA]

I think the only time that iLok would be extremely bothersome is if I have to have an internet connection 24/7 just to use a plugin. For example, Slate Digital's Fresh Air is commonly used among some producers I know and it's a pain to work with if I don't have internet at the time I'm opening some of their projects.

[MJACau]

Sorry for the possible confusion. I simply wanted to say that if some people can easily circumvent any copy protection, they will do it.

I'm not confused, but ALL copy protection is technically circumvented and PACE is one of the most circumvented.
(I'm not going to talk about that subject)

I do very much understand your distaste of the total non-ethical nature of a well known musician streamer you watched not supporting the products she uses to do her job.
It cheapens her, and the music she makes for her living in the end. I totally agree.

As for iLok it's trying to fix a "service delivery problem" the old way that is hostile to customers that supports them, it needs to be more useful and convenient for end users that's my only point. Thats it.
I know the reality of companies wanting to protect their IP and needing working delivery systems so they can do what they do best, making useful software. I do understand.

[chk071]

Sorry for the possible confusion. I simply wanted to say that if some people can easily circumvent any copy protection, they will do it.

I'm not confused, but ALL copy protection is technically circumvented and PACE is one of the most circumvented.

No, it isn't. And the point was the "easily" term, not that something can be circumvented. Everything can be circumvented, if you try hard enough. Even the biggest and most secure lock on a door or a safe door can be circumvented. That doesn't mean that you can leave your door unlocked and get away with it though. It makes the access so much easier. And, you can't just speculate about people's motives, and think you are safe.

I think the biggest issues is this attitude that people believe that the honest customer is being punished, or something like that. He isn't. My honest visitors aren't punished either, when they stand in front of my locked house door.

[Vortifex]

Edited

[MJACau]

I think the biggest issues is this attitude that people believe that the honest customer is being punished, or something like that. He isn't. My honest visitors aren't punished either, when they stand in front of my locked house door.

Yeah locked out of the software she just brought.

[Googly Smythe]

I think the biggest issues is this attitude that people believe that the honest customer is being punished, or something like that. He isn't. My honest visitors aren't punished either, when they stand in front of my locked house door.

Yeah locked out of the software she just brought.

Sticking with the analogy, I, and maybe others, can remember a time when the front door would not only be unlocked but left open. And this was in Bermondsey.

[SLiC]

I think the biggest issues is this attitude that people believe that the honest customer is being punished, or something like that. He isn't. My honest visitors aren't punished either, when they stand in front of my locked house door.

To continue your analogy, my O/S reset a couple of weeks ago left me without any licences from the companies that only issue '1 licence' key (do you only have 1 door key, no spare?!) and in the case of Zynaptiq I have not been able to 'get in the house' for weeks.

Cracked copies of ilok protected software (inclduing Zynaptiq) are very obviously available and high up on Google...people who want to steal their software will, people who believe in buying software will. I am not sure ilok adds any value, I buy software for because I am not a thief and to get a safe install, updates and support.

All I want is not to be 'inconvenienced' by the fact I chosen to buy my software and I consider not being able to use the software I have bought for weeks quite inconvenient (as I do swapping hardware dongles for anyone who just issues 1 licence).I consider iLok old and somewhat cumbersome tech, it is obviously much better to be able to manager your licences, remove computers etc in the cloud rather than loose a computer = loose a licence (or at the very least wait to get them back)

[chk071]

I think the biggest issues is this attitude that people believe that the honest customer is being punished, or something like that. He isn't. My honest visitors aren't punished either, when they stand in front of my locked house door.

To continue your analogy, my O/S reset a couple of weeks ago left me without any licences from the companies that only issue '1 licence' key (do you only have 1 door key, no spare?!) and in the case of Zynaptiq I have not been able to 'get in the house' for weeks.

That's why you always should deactivate your licenses before erasing everything.

[chk071]

Cracked copies of ilok protected software (inclduing Zynaptiq) are very obviously available and high up on Google...people who want to steal their software will, people who believe in buying software will. I am not sure ilok adds any value, I buy software for because I am not a thief and to get a safe install, updates and support.

All I want is not to be 'inconvenienced' by the fact I chosen to buy my software and I consider not being able to use the software I have bought for weeks quite inconvenient (as I do swapping hardware dongles for anyone who just issues 1 licence).

The threshold is much higher when you have to jumps through hoops to be able to activate your warezed copy. Or to crack the software.

Just like with an open opposed to a locked door.

I'm not trying to defend iLok or other dongle based systems here (I generally dislike having to block an USB port just for a copy protection for a few softwares on my system), just saying that it is naive to think that no copy protection will not lead the "honest buyers" to maybe use warez some days. People are different in that regard, yes, but, make everything easily available, and you surely will have quite a few people saying "Why pay money, if I can get everything for free easily?".

[SLiC]

I think the biggest issues is this attitude that people believe that the honest customer is being punished, or something like that. He isn't. My honest visitors aren't punished either, when they stand in front of my locked house door.

To continue your analogy, my O/S reset a couple of weeks ago left me without any licences from the companies that only issue '1 licence' key (do you only have 1 door key, no spare?!) and in the case of Zynaptiq I have not been able to 'get in the house' for weeks.

That's why you always should deactivate your licenses before erasing everything.

O/S reset was a 'surprise' not a planned activity!

I just cant see any technical reason why in 2022 you cant de-active a crashed/broken/stolen computer yourself (or even have iLok do it) to instantly renew your licences and stop the other computer being used. Seems so obvious and probably why other do it that way.