This is my feeling as well. IMO they'd have to have a stake in the soundset business for it to be considered and even then it's questionable whether it would be worth it or not.aaron aardvark wrote:I think the only u-he sound set that they sell is the Dark Zebra sound set that comes with the ZebraHZ. Otherwise I don't see why u-he would want to protect any sound set.
Copy protection for soundbanks?
-
- KVRist
- 176 posts since 23 Nov, 2013 from Canada
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
Copy pro would allow sound designers to spend the time needed to make good quality soundsets, greatly increasing both the amount and quality of soundsets available for u-he synths, which seems obviously advantageous for u-he and for u-he's customers (both sound designers - for they are customers, too - and everyone else).
To use business speak, it's about creating an ecosystem and a buzz around the product.
To use business speak, it's about creating an ecosystem and a buzz around the product.
-
- u-he
- 30236 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
I have thought about this several times. My conclusion has always been roughly like this:
"If we keep things simple, any copy protection for presets can be circumvented easily (open preset, save through host interface, protection lost). If we wanted to prevent this, we need to make the process very complicated for vendors other than ourselves".
In other words, we could probably come up with a pretty good preset protection scheme but selling soundbanks would work better if it went through us. However:
- I doubt that the loss through piracy exceeds our cut for selling presets
- I doubt that making the purchase process difficult will yield more sales
Therefore we have never followed through with any of these ideas…
#---
One possibility to do *something* is to encode a "serial number" into unused parameters. Take a bunch of parameters that a few presets do not use and change them through a script. That way create a thousand individual copies of the preset bank. Then write down which customer got which individual preset bank.
Nonetheless, even if you find out who leaked your soundbank, it usually doesn't help much :-/
"If we keep things simple, any copy protection for presets can be circumvented easily (open preset, save through host interface, protection lost). If we wanted to prevent this, we need to make the process very complicated for vendors other than ourselves".
In other words, we could probably come up with a pretty good preset protection scheme but selling soundbanks would work better if it went through us. However:
- I doubt that the loss through piracy exceeds our cut for selling presets
- I doubt that making the purchase process difficult will yield more sales
Therefore we have never followed through with any of these ideas…
#---
One possibility to do *something* is to encode a "serial number" into unused parameters. Take a bunch of parameters that a few presets do not use and change them through a script. That way create a thousand individual copies of the preset bank. Then write down which customer got which individual preset bank.
Nonetheless, even if you find out who leaked your soundbank, it usually doesn't help much :-/
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
Yes, I'd thought about this. My solution would be to store the commercial presets and any subsequently user edited versions encrypted in a separate location. [edit - I missed the bit about host interface, couldn't commercial presets be hidden from the host?]Urs wrote: any copy protection for presets can be circumvented easily (open preset, save through host interface, protection lost).
If the encryption process was based upon the registered username, and the decryption internal to the plugin, it wouldn't need to be handled by u-he.
Look, I know this is unlikely to happen. I'm just presenting the case on the basis that a small chance of it happening is better than none.
(The "watermarking" idea has been mentioned a few times, but as you imply, it's a case of bolting the stable door once the horse as gone.)
Last edited by hakey on Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 9134 posts since 28 Apr, 2013
Not sure if this applies... But one thing I like about u-he synths above all others is the flexibility to put sounds where I want them and indeed, remove those I never use to an archive file to streamline the opening and workflow of those synths. The non-bloat is one of those things that continue to make them go-to synths for me. Other synths I have that use a single file to lock the whole set together become a detriment to their own use. So on this question, I hope the answer is to just keep it as it is. And to all the sound designers to simply stop fluffing their sets with bloat they insist on keeping locked together for their own edm-egos.
-
- Banned
- 454 posts since 30 Apr, 2013
Protection would have to be 100% unbreakable, or there would be no point to it at all. What, you're going to sue someone for stealing your 'bank'? Both things seem impossible to me.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
Try replacing 'soundbank copy pro' with 'plugin copy pro' and see how you get on persuading Urs that he's wasting his time.toothnclaw wrote:Protection would have to be 100% unbreakable, or there would be no point to it at all.