Unfortunately, it's completely based on trust though. Anyone who doesn't mind can use it for as long as he likes, without paying anything.ablaut wrote:I like the way Reaper does it: fully functional demo, and add a serial when you purchase a license. It's one of the most user-friendly ways.
Which copy protection scheme do you prefer?
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5664 posts since 7 Feb, 2013
Basically as long as there are cracks, using legit software is entirely based on trust. Even for non-crackable software there are crackable alternatives in most cases. So probably the Cockos' approach makes some sence as it omits the unnecessary steps of dealing with complex activation schemes for legit users and finding cracks for those with low morals.chk071 wrote:Unfortunately, it's completely based on trust though. Anyone who doesn't mind can use it for as long as he likes, without paying anything.ablaut wrote:I like the way Reaper does it: fully functional demo, and add a serial when you purchase a license. It's one of the most user-friendly ways.
You may think you can fly ... but you better not try
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Not quite. Visiting the respective sites, even knowing about cracks and warez, or the consideration to go illegal, and use a crack, will pose barriers for many. A never expiring trial version, on the other hand, doesn't even require looking for a crack, risking downloading a virus in a keygen or similar, or considering going "illegal", because, obviously, the dev gives the possibility to trial it forever.recursive one wrote:Basically as long as there are cracks, using legit software is entirely based on trust.chk071 wrote:Unfortunately, it's completely based on trust though. Anyone who doesn't mind can use it for as long as he likes, without paying anything.ablaut wrote:I like the way Reaper does it: fully functional demo, and add a serial when you purchase a license. It's one of the most user-friendly ways.
Apart from the devs making it more difficult for crackers to crack their software. I don't think a dev will approach the implementation of a copy protection like "Oh well... won't help much anyway... so let's just do something...". Pretty sure they all want to make their product as secure as possible. Emphasis on "possible".
-
- KVRAF
- 1986 posts since 29 Apr, 2010 from NYC
"unfortunately"???chk071 wrote:Unfortunately, it's completely based on trust though. Anyone who doesn't mind can use it for as long as he likes, without paying anything.ablaut wrote:I like the way Reaper does it: fully functional demo, and add a serial when you purchase a license. It's one of the most user-friendly ways.
unfortunately for who?
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Unfortunate for the people who believe in something like "trust" in this world.chaosWyrM wrote:"unfortunately"???chk071 wrote:Unfortunately, it's completely based on trust though. Anyone who doesn't mind can use it for as long as he likes, without paying anything.ablaut wrote:I like the way Reaper does it: fully functional demo, and add a serial when you purchase a license. It's one of the most user-friendly ways.
unfortunately for who?
-
- KVRAF
- 1986 posts since 29 Apr, 2010 from NYC
they seem to be doing just fine.chk071 wrote:Unfortunate for the people who believe in something like "trust" in this world.chaosWyrM wrote:"unfortunately"???chk071 wrote:Unfortunately, it's completely based on trust though. Anyone who doesn't mind can use it for as long as he likes, without paying anything.ablaut wrote:I like the way Reaper does it: fully functional demo, and add a serial when you purchase a license. It's one of the most user-friendly ways.
unfortunately for who?
what i think is unfortunate is anyone who believes copy protection protects anything. it doesnt. its a waste of resources that does little more than inconvenience legitimate users.
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Yes, Justin surely does just fine with the 300 millions he got from the Winamp deal. 
@ the second part of your post: At least Cubase, and some other dongle protected software hasn't been cracked yet, or doesn't have functioning cracks in the recent versions. I would't exactly call that a "waste of ressources". It's a consideration, effort and time vs. money you save from doing so. Obviously a lot of companies do think it's quite worth the effort.
@ the second part of your post: At least Cubase, and some other dongle protected software hasn't been cracked yet, or doesn't have functioning cracks in the recent versions. I would't exactly call that a "waste of ressources". It's a consideration, effort and time vs. money you save from doing so. Obviously a lot of companies do think it's quite worth the effort.
-
- KVRAF
- 1986 posts since 29 Apr, 2010 from NYC
uuuummmmm.....chk071 wrote: At least Cubase, and some other dongle protected software hasn't been cracked yet, ...
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Cubase hasn't seen a fully working cracked version since version 5, as far as i read. I can only repeat what i read about it. No idea if it is really true. At the very least, it seems to work for them, otherwise they would have scratched it.
-
- KVRAF
- 5632 posts since 18 Jul, 2002
I'm pretty surprised to know how popular dongle is as preferred copy protection.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 5664 posts since 7 Feb, 2013
Please don't make any decisions based on itGeorge wrote:I'm pretty surprised to know how popular dongle is as preferred copy protection.
You may think you can fly ... but you better not try
-
- KVRAF
- 5632 posts since 18 Jul, 2002
Annotatedrecursive one wrote:Please don't make any decisions based on itGeorge wrote:I'm pretty surprised to know how popular dongle is as preferred copy protection.
-
- KVRAF
- 1986 posts since 29 Apr, 2010 from NYC
me too. the very concept angers me. i think it takes some set of balls to ask me as a customer to go out and purchase extra stuff from a 3rd party vendor just so i can use your software. i think purposely making your product both inconvenient and needlessly expensive is bad business.George wrote:I'm pretty surprised to know how popular dongle is as preferred copy protection.
i adamantly refuse to use dongles.
but hey...if no one else cares about being treated like crap...i guess im the weirdo.
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
As i wrote, i don't think anyone actually really "likes" copy protections as a customer. But, you know, agitating against such copy protections is simply not very smart, considering that, as you well know, there's nothing good about a lack of sales due to a weak copy protection, and that will also weaken your business, and ability to create nice plugins, or provide updates to your existing plugins in the future. And if more and more people even on the customer side realize that, then it's IMO a good thing. I've read quite a few threads from developers or sound designers about their warezed products, and them complaining about it, and i've searched more than once on Google for products, and the second search result is a warez in a Youtube video... really sad to see that for many people there seems to be absolutely no inhibition level to use warez, or for crackers to crack software.George wrote:I'm pretty surprised to know how popular dongle is as preferred copy protection.
-
- KVRAF
- 5632 posts since 18 Jul, 2002
I'm all for serial/keyfile and thinking about online activation but dongle? The only dongle I'm using is a Mac to use Logic ProchaosWyrM wrote: i adamantly refuse to use dongles.
but hey...if no one else cares about being treated like crap...i guess im the weirdo.