About licenses with limitations

[rasmusklump]

That is the reason I strictly don't buy challenge response software.
There are enough alternatives (ilok, key file, whatever) but a plugin where I have to trust some small developer to get a new auth file when I get a new computer: not anymore. Burned child.

[vanerio]

That is the reason I strictly don't buy challenge response software.
There are enough alternatives (ilok, key file, whatever) but a plugin where I have to trust some small developer to get a new auth file when I get a new computer: not anymore. Burned child.

Did you have a specific problem with this type of license or is it simply that you no longer want to support the companies that offer this model?

[pixel85]

This limited licensing BS is even more fun when you want to use more than one account on your OS. For example, I have one for work and one for music/games/private stuff. I'm the only user of that PC but it doesn't matter for many devs. iLok is my new number one enemy, because it doesn't matter that you have this crappy dongle plugged into your pc, you can use it only in one user profile, no matter that you're logged to iLok manager in as the same person on both profiles and you don't even run both profiles/accounts at the same time.
After all, I can use Cubase on both profiles - this is a huge advantage of eLicenser over iLok.
It's a huge PITA and punishment for playing fair with devs. There's really no excuse for this greed from devs who want us to buy the same software a few or several times. Those who act like that will not get my money anymore. F*** them.

[OzoneJunkie]

Wow... ouch. That's terrible.

[fmr]

This limited licensing BS is even more fun when you want to use more than one account on your OS. For example, I have one for work and one for music/games/private stuff. I'm the only user of that PC but it doesn't matter for many devs. iLok is my new number one enemy, because it doesn't matter that you have this crappy dongle plugged into your pc, you can use it only in one user profile, no matter that you're logged to iLok manager in as the same person on both profiles and you don't even run both profiles/accounts at the same time.
After all, I can use Cubase on both profiles - this is a huge advantage of eLicenser over iLok.
It's a huge PITA and punishment for playing fair with devs. There's really no excuse for this greed from devs who want us to buy the same software a few or several times. Those who act like that will not get my money anymore. F*** them.

I use basically the same configuration as you (one user for office and gaming, and another user exclusively for music), and I don't have any problems with iLOK (but I am using USB keys, no Cloud iLOK). Is it Cloud iLOK you are talking about?

But there are a few installations I had to perform twice, because they store important files in the User folder, instead of Public folder (which is NOT the correct procedure, IMO).

[pixel85]

This limited licensing BS is even more fun when you want to use more than one account on your OS. For example, I have one for work and one for music/games/private stuff. I'm the only user of that PC but it doesn't matter for many devs. iLok is my new number one enemy, because it doesn't matter that you have this crappy dongle plugged into your pc, you can use it only in one user profile, no matter that you're logged to iLok manager in as the same person on both profiles and you don't even run both profiles/accounts at the same time.
After all, I can use Cubase on both profiles - this is a huge advantage of eLicenser over iLok.
It's a huge PITA and punishment for playing fair with devs. There's really no excuse for this greed from devs who want us to buy the same software a few or several times. Those who act like that will not get my money anymore. F*** them.

I use basically the same configuration as you (one user for office and gaming, and another user exclusively for music), and I don't have any problems with iLOK (but I am using USB keys, no Cloud iLOK). Is it Cloud iLOK you are talking about?

But there are a few installations I had to perform twice, because they store important files in the User folder, instead of Public folder (which is NOT the correct procedure, IMO).

I'm talking about USB dongle. The first issue is with iZotope which asks me to install everything again, the other is that I'm getting errors from iLok after trying to use plugins on both profiles. When I'm coming back to the profile where everything has been installed originally, iLok cries that I can't use it on two computers blah blah blah... and I have to restart, unplug/plug dongle again.

If it's fine for you then it's something messed up on my side. The only issue I can think of is that those annoying license managers store files only in user folders, nothing in common folders. This is why on another profile they're unaware that everything is already installed.

The only change in software in last month for me, was activation of Composer Cloud which is connected to iLok. At some point it caused an issue that it can't work without license even that I had iLok License Manager opened which was showing that license is right there... Restart solved the issue. I'm seriously getting tired of silly yet annoying issues like that.

[chk071]

Hello!

I just bought a plugin and imagine what. I can only install it on two of my PC's and if I want to deactivate one of them, I can't do it, it has to be done by the developer on request.

Is it wrong for me to feel like I am being treated like a criminal who wants to install my legitimate plugins on all my friends and neighbors PC's?

TBH, I never understood this "treated like a criminal" arument. I don't feel treated like a criminal when people lock their home door, or their car. I know it's a necessity, because there are people out there who aren't up to any good.

And, regarding the "I want to install the software on as many computer as I want", well... that's a problem. What would hinder you installing it on all your family's and your friend's computers then? There has to be some kind of restriction, "monitored" via C/R or not.

That said, I think a system where you can't deactivate your licenses as a user plain sucks. If anything, I'd look for alternatives for the software.

[vanerio]

Hello!

I just bought a plugin and imagine what. I can only install it on two of my PC's and if I want to deactivate one of them, I can't do it, it has to be done by the developer on request.

Is it wrong for me to feel like I am being treated like a criminal who wants to install my legitimate plugins on all my friends and neighbors PC's?

TBH, I never understood this "treated like a criminal" arument. I don't feel treated like a criminal when people lock their home door, or their car. I know it's a necessity, because there are people out there who aren't up to any good.

And, regarding the "I want to install the software on as many computer as I want", well... that's a problem. What would hinder you installing it on all your family's and your friend's computers then? There has to be some kind of restriction, "monitored" via C/R or not.

That said, I think a system where you can't deactivate your licenses as a user plain sucks. If anything, I'd look for alternatives for the software.

The treated like I criminal argument is valid because I need to justify to the developer why I need a machine change personally, I am not free. You are considered a cheater, and that is the reason they don´t let you install their soft in more than 2-3 machines or they stablish any other weird system.
To be honest I don´t know any pirate, but I don´t think they buy legit licenses and share them with their friends. That is stupid if you just can download a pirate version for free.
Anyway, can you imagine if knives were sold dull simply because there are bad people in the world?

And sorry, but no, there has not to bee any kind of restriction. Do you want the proof? There are several companies that allow full freedom with their licenses just because they understand that legit people (or at least 99% of them) is the people that buys their products and support their companies in the first place.

[chk071]

The treated like I criminal argument is valid because I need to justify to the developer why I need a machine change personally, I am not free. You are considered a cheater, and that is the reason they don´t let you install their soft in more than 2-3 machines or they stablish any other weird system.

As I mentioned, if they don't do it, there's nothing which stops people who want that to install the software for their family, friends, and whoever.

You can read what you are supposed to do with the license and what you're not supposed to do in the end user agreement. You are NOT free to do anything you like with the license or the software. That's a common scheme with any software. To prevent the things I mentioned, and more. You would do the same, as a software developer.

Again, doing it like the dev in question here sucks. As a user, you should be allowed to activate and deactivate machine activations. That's the proper way of doing it. Stop using the software if you feel like you're too limited by the way the licensing software works.

And sorry, but no, there has not to bee any kind of restriction. Do you want the proof? There are several companies that allow full freedom with their licenses just because they understand that legit people (or at least 99% of them) is the people that buys their products and support their companies in the first place.

I'm sorry, but, that's the version for naive jerks. Or what the Richie Rich's of this world can do, who don't depend on the income created by the software (Justin from Cockos e.g.).

[AnX]

Is it wrong for me to feel like I am being treated like a criminal

Yes

Also, you should have checked before buying

[vanerio]

Is it wrong for me to feel like I am being treated like a criminal

Yes

Also, you should have checked before buying

And you should learn to read before writting. If was not specified.
I am not against the developer, I know he is a nice guy.
As I said I wanted to discuss about the acceptance of these license limitations by users, like if there were nothing else.

[chk071]

As I said I wanted to discuss about the acceptance of these license limitations by users, like if there were nothing else.

This is the first time I read about a system which won't let the user handle activations, but the developer. So, not sure what you are talking about... and, I decide what I want to accept, and what not. Thank you.

[vanerio]

Dude, you need some emotional control, I am not against you. Of course you decide what you accept.

[AnX]

Is it wrong for me to feel like I am being treated like a criminal

Yes

Also, you should have checked before buying

And you should learn to read before writting. If was not specified.
I am not against the developer, I know he is a nice guy.
As I said I wanted to discuss about the acceptance of these license limitations by users, like if there were nothing else.

I refer you to my original post

To clarify, if you know you want to install on several machines, check with the dev first. It's quite common to have a limited number of installs, whatever the methods.

[chk071]

Dude, you need some emotional control

... says the guy who rants publicly about a software, instead of taking his concerns to the person who actually could do something about it: The developer.

This will lead nowhere.