Poll: What kind of copy protection do you prefer?

[Sampleconstruct]

I don't give a shit, whatever protection the dev chooses is fine for me.

[IncarnateX]

I love the copy protection that comes with iPad apps, namely non at all.

Best copy protection is to exterminate the warez-users, though. Take em all out.

[billcarroll]

When developers do their own copy protection and they get ripped off by the pirates, they don't get paid.

I don't understand why you have to state half-truths in order to get your point across.
It reminds me of statistical spin where only the data that makes a point is shared...

I'll complete your sentence for you:
When developers do their own copy protection and they get ripped off by the pirates, they don't get paid by those pirates, but there are a number of people that reward those devs by purchasing their product specifically because of their licensing policy.

You purchase products that are heavily fortified, thus rewarding devs that choose that licensing scheme.
I purchase products that have minimal protection in order to reward and support those kinds of devs.

Here are a few facts:
Both types of devs get paid.
More of your type of devs will get paid if you can convince people of your philosophy.
More of my type of devs will get paid if I can convince people of my philosophy.
There are no statistics that show which licensing scheme has more effect on income.

Some words from a developer on the matter:

To make just one Slate Digital plugin, it takes over a year of dedicated work from dozens of individuals to get them perfect. It can be an excruciating process, but in the end the reward is worth the struggle.

To have our plugins cracked would be absolutely devastating, and would make it impossible to be able to maintain the necessary resources required to do business. But even more importantly, it would take away the motivation of the entire team.

– Steven Slate

http://therecordingrevolution.com/2013/ ... d-plugins/

[Numanoid]

I love the copy protection that comes with iPad apps, namely non at all

If plugs for desktop computers would cost as little as iPad apps, there would be little need for copy protection on those platforms either.

[Kriminal]

A serial and clever coding is all thats needed.

[lachrimae]

– Steven Slate

Let me turn on my assumptive-generalization engine:
The king has spoken, /thread

[arkmabat]

I just hate huge DRM management programs that keep running and are a pain to install.

[billcarroll]

– Steven Slate

Let me turn on my assumptive-generalization engine:
The king has spoken, /thread

Your work in this thread so far: begging the question, and personal attacks.

I would prefer the convenience of a serial number for plugin authorization, if it actually protected the plugin and the developer. For those developers who choose iLok, I understand, and I support their choice. Some developers don't have a year to waste programming a copy protection scheme that will likely be cracked, and they would rather focus on developing amazing audio plugins.

[mutantdog]

I quite like the personalised watermarking thing that CamelAudio and MadronaLabs use(d).

[Numanoid]

I quite like the personalised watermarking thing that CamelAudio and MadronaLabs use(d).

That is a bit like having the dev authorise the plug by keyfile/serial number, before they deliver it to the user?

I mean with Alchemy I can install it on as many computers I like, and it didn't call home.

[fmr]

– Steven Slate

Let me turn on my assumptive-generalization engine:
The king has spoken, /thread

Your work in this thread so far: begging the question, and personal attacks.

I would prefer the convenience of a serial number for plugin authorization, if it actually protected the plugin and the developer. For those developers who choose iLok, I understand, and I support their choice. Some developers don't have a year to waste programming a copy protection scheme that will likely be cracked, and they would rather focus on developing amazing audio plugins.

Yes, but iLOK doesn't come for free. They have to pay a license to Pace, and add that cost to the plug-in price. This means that the price is raised because of the copy protection. Let's say a plug-in that would be charged was 99, but because of the copy protection license, the price is raised to 129,00. Those extra 30,00 could represent the difference between a success and a failure. If the sales are low, the devs may very well start to blame piracy, when, in fact, it can be the difference in price.

This is just and hypothetical scenario, that I raise for you guys to think about.

[chk071]

I just hate huge DRM management programs that keep running and are a pain to install.

Yeah, not a big fan of that either. I don't have nearly as many plugins as other people here, but already have, i think, 4 different "software centers", including fxpansion's, NI's, Steinberg's eLicenser, and another thing i can't even remember now installed, and that's a tad too much considering i comparatively have so few plugins. Not a huge fan of dongles either, it's always a bit annoying to have the thing sticking out of your computer. Always scared to break it off when i accidentally make contact. Serials are cool, though not the best protection i guess. Don't mind challenge/response or online activation either. In the end, i'd probably eat what's being served. I do get companies need to make sure their stuff is hard to crack.

@ fmr: 30 € per sold plugins seems a bit excessive for just the copy protection. I'm sure it's less. Unless PACE are the complete bloodsuckers.

[Chandran]

I don't give a shit, whatever protection the dev chooses is fine for me.

+1

[Numanoid]

Those extra 30 could represent the difference between a success and a failure. If the sales are low, the devs may very well start to blame piracy, when, in fact, it can be the difference in price.

+1 Completely agree with you on that

[billcarroll]

– Steven Slate

Let me turn on my assumptive-generalization engine:
The king has spoken, /thread

Your work in this thread so far: begging the question, and personal attacks.

I would prefer the convenience of a serial number for plugin authorization, if it actually protected the plugin and the developer. For those developers who choose iLok, I understand, and I support their choice. Some developers don't have a year to waste programming a copy protection scheme that will likely be cracked, and they would rather focus on developing amazing audio plugins.

Yes, but iLOK doesn't come for free. They have to pay a license to Pace, and add that cost to the plug-in price. This means that the price is raised because of the copy protection. Let's say a plug-in that would be charged was 99, but because of the copy protection license, the price is raised to 129,00. Those extra 30,00 could represent the difference between a success and a failure. If the sales are low, the devs may very well start to blame piracy, when, in fact, it can be the difference in price.

This is just and hypothetical scenario, that I raise for you guys to think about.

I get what you are saying. However, the locks and security systems on your house and car add cost to those items too. Stores spend money on loss prevention. That adds to the cost of items purchased in stores.

Retailers like Guitar Center or Best Buy lose a shocking amount of money per location due to crime. That adds to the cost of items purchased in stores, meaning you pay more.

In addition, a developer who spends months writing a copy protection system will most certainly raise the price of their plugins to recoup that extra work. It's a hidden, yet very real cost.

Crime costs everyone. Sucks, but it's a fact of life.