Since FL owns UVI why not have no ilok UVI plugins for FL users?

[MJACau]

It always strikes me when I see this how someone acts here as though the world must be perfectly communistic but scratch that surface & we'll find are entirely self-serving with it.

Christ you miss the forest for the trees, being call communist is the most hilarious thing I have heard all day.
Tell me where I'm not wanting to using software with iLok hurt you?!
You sound as insufferable as Autodesk Maya users.
Maybe it's time for you to have your afternoon nap.

[osiris]

You know, I didn't realize PACE owns JUCE, the platform a lot of these plugins are made in, so maybe that's a conflict of interest, maybe not.

[jancivil]

It always strikes me when I see this how someone acts here as though the world must be perfectly communistic but scratch that surface & we'll find are entirely self-serving with it.

Christ you miss the forest for the trees, being call communist is the most hilarious thing I have heard all day.
Tell me where I'm not wanting to using software with iLok hurt you?!
You sound as insufferable as Autodesk Maya users.
Maybe it's time for you to have your afternoon nap.

You're cherry-picking a remark, and missed its meaning entirely and even ignored the last clause of that sentence in your apparent haste to spew. I'm calling this lot out not for *being* communists but acting as though the world should work this way as specifically regards developers requiring licenses with a protection mechanism. And this is also called a simile.
Were I stating 'you're a communist' I would expect that you're good with making all that you possess readily available to the community per se. I'm saying the opposite.
Forest for the trees? Strikes me as a thought-free and meaningless use of a cliche you thought somehow worked or in lieu of using words that made a coherent statement.
The forest is you refusing iLok; the trees are you refusing iLok.

You really thought the 'tell me where it hurt you' trope was devastating? (Show me where you think the remark looks like I'm hurt by that notion. That level of discourse is quite childish. And as to "your afternoon nap" I'm hardly affected by a cheap shot from someone as dim as that suggests you are.)
I just find it tiresome. You do you though, and keep yourself from access to all sorts of things in your purity. Dipshittery on parade, that is.

[MJACau]

It always strikes me when I see this how someone acts here as though the world must be perfectly communistic but scratch that surface & we'll find are entirely self-serving with it.

Christ you miss the forest for the trees, being call communist is the most hilarious thing I have heard all day.
Tell me where I'm not wanting to using software with iLok hurt you?!
You sound as insufferable as Autodesk Maya users.
Maybe it's time for you to have your afternoon nap.

You're cherry-picking a remark, and missed its meaning entirely and even ignored the last clause of that sentence in your apparent haste to spew. I'm calling this lot out not for *being* communists but acting as though the world should work this way as specifically regards developers requiring licenses with a protection mechanism. And this is also called a simile.
Were I stating 'you're a communist' I would expect that you're good with making all that you possess readily available to the community per se. I'm saying the opposite.
Forest for the trees? Strikes me as a thought-free and meaningless use of a cliche you thought somehow worked or in lieu of using words that made a coherent statement.
The forest is you refusing iLok; the trees are you refusing iLok.

You really thought the 'tell me where it hurt you' trope was devastating? (Show me where you think the remark looks like I'm hurt by that notion. That level of discourse is quite childish. And as to "your afternoon nap" I'm hardly affected by a cheap shot from someone as dim as that suggests you are.)
I just find it tiresome. You do you though, and keep yourself from access to all sorts of things in your purity. Dipshittery on parade, that is.

You really are triggered. I'm not reading that non-sence.
Why so angy?! BTW iLOK is awesome.

[dayjob]

I think I have every type of copy protection on my computer.

We all have opinions.

Mine isn't an opinion, it's a moral choice.
In a subjectivist world.

If you think morality don't doesn't take part in peoples buying of products, licencing protections isn't a persons 'opinion'. I know licencing is the first thing I look at, no matter how they try to hide it.

Case and point, when Waves decided to go subscription only. Many people were upset, I don't think it was just those peoples 'opinion' over that of Waves marketing.

The OP's concern over UVI's licencing is a valid one.

i meant we all have opinions about wether or not iLok is tolerable (which is what the OP was complaining about right? PACE copy protection) ... not about copy protection in general. it's about which type of copy protection is best. the OP has an opinion on this.

the "choice" is whether or not to buy software that uses iLok as copy protection. read the OP's post.

please read and pause so you can understand what you're reading because you're on about something else entirely.

[osiris]

ilok is a result of the 90's when everything was being cracked by various groups. This was a result of the limitations of the day coupled with the price of plugins. People got upset about Tone2 so called watermark. But tech has grown and to me it's like buying a videogame that requires a license to play, but I don't trust you enough for you to keep that user license on your computer, so I'll store it. You just have to ask me to use it when you want to play with it. That's my opinion.

[MJACau]

read the OP's post.

please read and pause so you can understand what you're reading because you're on about something else entirely.

That's nice bait and switch, lets be real.
It was never about the OP post was it, it was really about you dayjob not anybody body else. You think I have wrong think. I was very clear, licensing matters. And it's on the user.
Your contrarian projection is failing you.

[dayjob]

read the OP's post.

please read and pause so you can understand what you're reading because you're on about something else entirely.

That's nice bait and switch, lets be real.
It was never about the OP post was it, it was really about you dayjob not anybody body else. You think I have wrong think. I was very clear, licensing matters. And it's on the user.
Your contrarian projection is failing you.

Jfc you’re argumentative. Assume whatever you want. It doesn’t matter. And I said from the beginning I have every type of copy protection on my computer.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Edited to remove the word ‘a$$’ which is over the line I guess.

[ATS]

Hate to see people resort to insults.

Anyhow I might be one of the few people who really like Ilok. It is by far the easiest way to authorize my plugins except for no copy protection.

[YesYeah]

I don't see the point of iLok when managers already do mass, automatic authorization without needing two applications, installing extra drivers, introducing more points of failure to my setup, more accounts to keep track of, more housekeeping when migrating systems, etc. I get that some people want to protect their bottom line, but 1) everything still gets cracked anyway 2) some companies managed to make the process invisible, and they don't care how many machines you activate things on so you have no excuse really

[dayjob]

I don't see the point of iLok when managers already do mass, automatic authorization without needing two applications, installing extra drivers, introducing more points of failure to my setup, more accounts to keep track of, more housekeeping when migrating systems, etc. I get that some people want to protect their bottom line, but 1) everything still gets cracked anyway 2) some companies managed to make the process invisible, and they don't care how many machines you activate things on so you have no excuse really

one fewer point of failure is imo the best argument against 3rd party copyright protection like iLok.

i can't remember who.. it might have been Valhalla.. don't quote me on that.. but there were some extra hoops to jump through a few years back to get AAX going on pro tools because of PACE even though he doesn't use iLok as copy protection. some requirement of AVID/AAX

probably water under the bridge at this point since devs seem to have to deal with all kinds of hurdles when making anything for apple/windows/linux/AU/VST/VST3/AAX/CLAP etc

even though iLok is more transparent and reliable now than it's ever been some devs who required it have moved on. Soundtoys, for example, no longer requires it but offers it as an option. they have their own method of copy protection now.

[MrJubbly]

I've also said as much on the Image-Line forum. I won't even entertain purchasing any UVI products if they come with the stipulation of installing PACE iLok Software Manager.

Image-Line had some good value discounted UVI bundles on their site this past year, which I would have definitely taken advantage of, were it not for the iLok software requirement.

[MrJubbly]

Soundtoys, for example, no longer requires it but offers it as an option. they have their own method of copy protection now.

That's interesting. I didn't realise that. Good news to hear though.

Soundtoys were one of several developers on my current iLok embargo list, which I had previously boycotted due to their preference for that particular DRM partner.

I'll have to give Soundtoy's gear another look in the future, now they're no longer dependant upon iLok.

Other developers, please follow suit.

EDIT: I may have been premature with my previous Soundtoys compliments. On closer inspection, it would appear, that Soundtoys simply voided the requirement for an iLok account, but have somehow 'trojan horsed' the iLok software into their own product installer?

Soundtoys - Who needs an iLok.com account?

Who needs an iLok.com account?

Since June 2022, iLok.com accounts are no longer required to purchase and activate Soundtoys plug-ins. With our new system, all newly purchased Soundtoys products can be activated with an Activation Code and no iLok.com account. This now includes upgrade orders, EDU orders, and purchases made through a third-party dealer. We do still include the iLok software in the Soundtoys installer, since Activation Codes still use the iLok software for licensing.

Adding a license to an iLok.com account will get you a few benefits, including license management (being able to move it between computers and iLok USB keys, as well as license retrieval in the event of a theft or damage to your computer), and a second available activation.

If you don't have an iLok.com account but you would like to take advantage of the license management features that iLok offers, you can create an iLok.com account for free. You can activate your licenses from your iLok.com account to your iLok USB key or computer using the activation prompt that you see when you start your DAW after installing Soundtoys plug-ins, or using the iLok License Manager application on your computer.

Please refer to this quick start guide for additional license related help.

Now, what is the point of all this then?

Sorry, Soundtoys. Back on the embargo list for you!

[MrJubbly]

You know, I didn't realize PACE owns JUCE, the platform a lot of these plugins are made in, so maybe that's a conflict of interest, maybe not.

I heard about PACE acquiring JUCE not long after it happened. And yes, I do regard that as a conflict of interest.

I cannot think of any logical business reason to motivate that particular purchase of a 'plugin development tool' by a 'plugin protection vendor', other THAN to utilize / leverage as a vehicle to attempt to trojan horse iLok into more and more JUCE plugin developers' software.

Maybe PACE read the temperature, that they are becoming less relevant and less tolerable to most music producers, as time goes on, and this purchase was an attempt to maintain an active seat at the table of audio plugin development?

Either way, it seems just as shady AF today, as it did the day I first heard about it.

I don't trust PACE or their motives for dangling that particular tentacle out to grasp JUCE.

[osiris]

I do realize for a lot of developers this is a quick, easy way to guarantee copy protection. This is from a JUCE forum someone asked about adding a nag screen to software they were making :/ A solo developer can undertake a Pace protection task, it’s not a ten minute job but it’s not difficult for a competent developer by any stretch. Costs might be a bit intimidating for somebody just starting out/