Open letter to companies still using iLok ( looking at you Slate Digital )

[Jace-BeOS]

PS: because I HAVE paid for software in the past that demands dongles and copy protection systems, I find I have four (or more?) "services" running in Windows that serve these copy protection schemes. It's not just the one dongle or one system. It's the way these systems are various, competing, and how they eat up system resources (better used everywhere else, because it's not in MY interest to run anti-piracy product) and interact with other software. We're supposed to blindly accept that software is "too complicated" to be bug free, but we're ALSO supposed to accept that developers WILLINGLY add complexity to their own products and to our computers and that it's in our best interests??

Hah.

[subsynq]

Simply put, treating customers like suspects, because if it was the other way round, such complexity would not be needed anywhere.

[Shy]

Why do services that do what they're supposed to do and hardly use any CPU time at all bother you?

Well, I guess it really doesn't matter how many developers give you facts about the positive impact of WORKING copy protection on their business, people will continue to claim that "it just hurts everyone".

[DJMashbot]

OMG I just realized that iLok is just an anagram for Loki, it's all a conspiracy to enslave us!

[subsynq]

Shy, not everyone has a state of the art system not to care about stray processes running all the time. The developers make the decisions. If it's working for them, so be it. Let us, people who claim that "it just hurts everyone", to snub their products and turn to other solutions. We state some facts and our concerns; if they accept them, fine, we'll vote for them with our money, if they don't, fine too, we'll turn elsewhere. Simple as that.

[Lotuzia]

Simply put, treating customers like suspects, because if it was the other way round, such complexity would not be needed anywhere.

Simply put, asking you a serial number is just the same. Its also treating customers like suspects if I understand well.

Simply put, when you go to the supermarket and see security agents, its also treating people as suspects.

Simply put, next time you'll see a policeman in the streets, its surely because some people walking there are eventual suspects. etc etc

Simply put, if software are protected, one way or another, if supermarkets have security, and streets policemen, it might eventually be because there are some real thieves *somewhere*

The fact that everyone, ie you and I, could be considered in some situtions as a possible suspect might be unpleasant. Then, most people just live Ok with that.

[Jace-BeOS]

The Steven Slate thing... Their treatment of their customers in that situation was admirable. But why do they think that their product being pirated would affect how many people buy it? The assumption is that the availability of a pirated version eliminates sales. How does the industry prove this assumption is true? All the computer users I know in real life use pirated software for three reasons:

1. The value and benefit of the software is inferior to its cost.
2. They're lazy jerks and wouldn't pay for it anyway if they couldn't get it pirated. These are people that don't value intangibles at all.
3. The product developer is an outright abusive entity and has turned legal paying customers against them over time, INCLUDING by using the accounting department and shareholder obsession with piracy as justification to complicate product, frustrate users, and raise costs (Adobe, Microsoft, etc).

Don't be number 3. That's the only one you can really control. You can work at number 1, but value will always be subjective.

I don't sell software, so I don't have the data, but I observe human behavior. I even participate in human behavior. How do you know that the pirate copies equate to lost sales? That's not how non-physical product works. Are these companies telling us that they have proof of financially solvent people choosing to pirate when they can and will pay for the product (given the option to pirate is restrained)?

[subsynq]

Lotuzia, never said that software should not be protected, obviously haven't read my earlier posts. Exaggerations (such as what happens with dongles) lead to issues though, otherwise such a topic wouldn't have been brought up at all. Never. By anyone.

[Shy]

Shy, not everyone has a state of the art system not to care about stray processes running all the time. The developers make the decisions. If it's working for them, so be it. Let us, people who claim that "it just hurts everyone", to snub their products and turn to other solutions. We state some facts and our concerns; if they accept them, fine, we'll vote for them with our money, if they don't, fine too, we'll turn elsewhere. Simple as that.

I fully support raising concerns and letting companies know about you, but users should realize the situation better, and when some developers specifically tell you how much piracy has hurt them and how much of a difference working copy protection (which is very rarely not in the form of a USB key + driver) has made for them, try to listen, as well.
About services used by iLok and eLicenser, they use completely insignificant resources even on an old Athlon.

[conleec]

it's only there for you to "feel special" because the other guy can't run X plugin? They may not even care, they'll do the trick with other tools. Nothing is irreplaceable.

As for the car analogy, one, provided that they have both the required knowledge and a good enough technique, can repair various issues using only conventional means...

My point exactly. You guys can go around putting words in others' mouths all you want. The truth is, you want some of these plugins but you've made the decision not to buy them because of their copy protection. If you didn't want the plugins, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Fact. Either buy the plugins and quit complaining, or don't buy the plugins and quit complaining. The developers are doing what they do because it makes sense to them from a commercial standpoint.

And I have said repeatedly, if you can do the job without the plugins, then by all means, go out and do the job.

Honestly, I don't understand the hostility regarding this. Especially when somebody has the audacity to stand up and say they actually prefer iLok to the other methods of intellectual property protection. Oh boy, hold onto your hats boys and girls.

Chris Conlee

[subsynq]

The truth is, you want some of these plugins but you've made the decision not to buy them because of their copy protection. If you didn't want the plugins, you wouldn't be complaining about it.

Changing the copy protection - wouldn't that be equal to more sales to the developer, at least from all of us who have had enough sh*t and decided at some point to pass on dongles? It is the nature of the particular copy protection that brings about all those concerns described.

But why do they think that their product being pirated would affect how many people buy it?

This.

[conleec]

Changing the copy protection - wouldn't that be equal to more sales to the developer, at least from all of us who have had enough sh*t and decided at some point to pass on dongles? It is the nature of the particular copy protection that brings about all those concerns described.

And then there are people like me who will ONLY buy plugins that are iLok protected because I don't want to deal with the multitude of hassles involved in challenge/response and SN type systems. Goes both ways.

Chris Conlee

[rhythmtechnologies]

Changing the copy protection - wouldn't that be equal to more sales to the developer, at least from all of us who have had enough sh*t and decided at some point to pass on dongles? It is the nature of the particular copy protection that brings about all those concerns described.

And then there are people like me who will ONLY buy plugins that are iLok protected because I don't want to deal with the multitude of hassles involved in challenge/response and SN type systems. Goes both ways.

Chris Conlee

personally, ive never had a c/r protection take down my entire operation for 2 weeks the way those idiots at pace managed to... and i was one of the lucky ones, a few out there are still screwed.

im about 3/4 ilok at the moment and ill keep using what i already own but i'll never buy ilok plugs again.

[SoundGoddess]

I don't like dongles and DRM BS...I think they're somewhat bad karma in a lot of cases. I much prefer the approach of companies like Image-Line and KV331.

I don't think I can justify $180 on a piano vst, but the approach TruePianos took by allowing you to download and use their VST without any restrictions whatsoever for 40 days certainly sets them apart in my eyes.

The fact of the matter is that it's really hard to shop for DAW's and VST's and know that what you're spending your limited resources towards are going towards what you actually need, and the iLok type stuff just seems greedy to me. Especially when you have to fork out an additional $50 to buy the stupid dongle so that you can use their DRM...

I may end up dealing with the dongle BS if I can't find a quality alternative to the EastWest instruments by the time I have that kind of money to invest in a virtual orchestra...but only if I'm unable to find a suitable dongle-free alternative.

[conleec]

personally, ive never had a c/r protection take down my entire operation for 2 weeks the way those idiots at pace managed to... and i was one of the lucky ones, a few out there are still screwed.

Yep, that was a bad one. But I figured it might be, and waited 2 weeks before updating anything and all was squared away by then. Since then, no problems whatsoever. The simple answer is, everybody has to make their own decisions whether or not to buy a tool.

Chris Conlee