Starting to hate iLOK

[mabian]

Second update:

actually there was no need to use the code to redempt: the license was already in iLOK manager, just waiting to be assigned to the local location.

Also, when doing so, magically the location name in iLOK was update to reflect the new name of the PC.

Xpand2! is now opening correctly without complaining for missing license.

So, let's hope this is good to go now.

- Mario

[freimann]

Mabian,

I have exactly the same problem - with Xpand!2 license and iMac - where security update (probably affecting firmware) changed the Location ID and I contacted AiR to adjust the usage count. Now please check the value diplayed in the column "Activation status" in iLok licenese manager - mine shows "Reset requested" - which I assume means that they received the request to release the site license but - somehow - did not complete the release process ...

My production iMac is - fortunately - using the iLok3 key - this happened on my testing iMac ... The lesson learned by me is that I have ordered the second iLok key and will NEVER ever activate any machine-based licenses ...

p.f.

[mabian]

Hi freimann,

I feel for you

My "Activation Status" column is empty now for all licenses.

- Mario

[softska]

Question:

Are there any technical obstacles which make software vendors unable to deactivate an old licence deposited in the iLok account on a crashed computer (soft-iLok option) and provide a replacement?

I'm asking as an iLok ignoramus only recently expanding my iLok account with more iLok-protected plugins but since I choose to use soft-iLok (for several reasons) I'm rather troubled by this topic. My Mac is also old and should it crash, I will be mighty annoyed if I won't be able to get my licences back.

Is the licence restoration in this context a technical issue or just a whimsical decision on the part of the software publisher: "maybe we will replace it, maybe we won't" or "we actually can do it, we know that the licence on the computer that died is not used and will never be used, ie: it's not 'shared' with others and therefore circumventing the licence agreement, and in fact we can block it completely, but nevertheless we will still refuse to provide a replacement licence to you" type of affair or similar?

There "seems" to be some process to disable the old license, but it's always a new one issued, which I presume dev has a cost involved. Some gives you multiple activation as a mitigation but I don't consider them as such anyway (lost activation on dead comp is never coming back)

Some will help you get going again without question, others charge a fee, and some say buy a new copy. Maybe when more cloud based licensing available things will change a bit but right now if you lost them on your mac you're at the mercy of each individual dev, ilok won't help you.

[himalaya]

You need to convince your software vendor that the license is truly gone, which is what they're really concerned about. Without this, since there's no way to verify that the license is gone, someone could sell the computer with the soft licenses and then get new free licenses from the vendor....>snip<

But I wonder why the customer would need to convince the software vendor of this. Surely if the customer approaches the software vendor with a support request, which outlines that the computer is dead, the software vendor could de-activate the licence (on the dead computer). Once de-activated, the licence can not be used anymore. It ceases to exist and so the developers don't have to fear illegal use of their software.

And in the supposed scenario where the customer in fact sells the computer with the iLok licences on it, the new user would be unable to use the blocked-iLok programs. They would load the plugin and it would signal that the licence is invalid and would not work. Is that not possible ( I genuinely don't know) ? And if it's not possible then why not? It seems like a logical system to have. In this situation, the customer is not under the whimsical attitude of the software vendor and could manage their iLok licences lawfully, and more over, it's accessed by the customer easily on the new computer and therefore make the customer happy, which rises the chance of repeat custom. Isn't that what companies would love to have more of?

By the way, these are rhetorical questions not directed at any iLok users here...

[himalaya]

There "seems" to be some process to disable the old license, but it's always a new one issued, which I presume dev has a cost involved. Some gives you multiple activation as a mitigation but I don't consider them as such anyway (lost activation on dead comp is never coming back)

Some will help you get going again without question, others charge a fee, and some say buy a new copy. Maybe when more cloud based licensing available things will change a bit but right now if you lost them on your mac you're at the mercy of each individual dev, ilok won't help you.

Does PACE charge the software vendor to re-issue a license? I wonder. And should it charge anyone in case when the customer has a genuine emergency like a dead computer?
Is a fee more important here than making sure the customer can access the licence bought legitimately, and making sure they are happy, leaving the customer feeling upbeat and even maybe wanting to spend more? Just very simple customer service ideas, which really should culminate in a system which allows the customer to log in to their iLok account, de-activate a licence (assigned to the dead computer) and generate a new, valid licence number for the new computer. The vendor would have no support time overheads whatsoever.

[himalaya]

So I guess you'd better e-mail and ask ....

Yes, that was exactly what I was going to do. I have something from UVI, which according to the OP, has not obliged with a replacement licence as yet...I'm interested to hear what other companies have to say.

[Urs]

Does PACE charge the software vendor to re-issue a license?

Good question.

All up I sometimes wonder if the revenues of PACE have outgrown the damage they're trying to prevent.

[ghettosynth]

You need to convince your software vendor that the license is truly gone, which is what they're really concerned about. Without this, since there's no way to verify that the license is gone, someone could sell the computer with the soft licenses and then get new free licenses from the vendor....>snip<

But I wonder why the customer would need to convince the software vendor of this. Surely if the customer approaches the software vendor with a support request, which outlines that the computer is dead, the software vendor could de-activate the licence (on the dead computer). Once de-activated, the licence can not be used anymore. It ceases to exist and so the developers don't have to fear illegal use of their software.

So now you are conveying that you don't understand the technical details. Go read that thread because there are some detail in there that will help you, but, they key point here that you are failing to recognize is the potential for fraud. Now, I'm not saying that should be a primary concern, but it is, and that's why you have to convince your vendor.

There is no way to "deactivate" a license that is either on a dead hard drive or a hard drive that is just playing dead. The fact that this isn't possible is one of the reasons that many of us like iLok. The license assets are on the iLok or the hard drive and must actually be removed to disable the plugin. Of course, if you connect with the manager then the resynchronization process can remove licenses.

IMO, that should not be possible by law without obtaining your consent every time. There are valid reasons to do this, e.g., upgrades, but beyond that the license should be treated as if it were any other asset that you own.

This whole thing about "emergencies" and "fault" is laughably naive. What does that have to do with anything? Something happened to YOUR machine, the vendor has no blame in that. That's like asking your bank for a new $100 bill because you lost the one that they gave you at the bar last night.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

That's like asking your bank for a new $100 bill because you lost the one that they gave you at the bar last night.

Except, in this scenario, every other bank seems to be happy to just hand you over the bill

If my drive dies tomorrow, I'll have no trouble with any companies authorisations except those using iLok.

[ghettosynth]

That's like asking your bank for a new $100 bill because you lost the one that they gave you at the bar last night.

Except, in this scenario, every other bank seems to be happy to just hand you over the bill

It's just an analogy to help you understand that the license is an asset.

If my drive dies tomorrow, I'll have no trouble with any companies authorisations except those using iLok.

You say, but, we don't know that and for every story that you can come up with about how iLok failed you there is a story about how C/R fails.

I feel like you guys should hold a conference at a hotel somewhere so that you can all get together and cry in each other's arms about how much you hate iLok.

If you use soft-iLok you're taking a risk. I've explained what companies are concerned about and I think that it's generally naive to think that they're going to change their mind. You can say "well, Sally will do that," and they're going to basically roll their eyes and tell you that they're not that kind of girl.

On average, the quality of software on iLok is higher than the quality of software not on iLok. Yes, there are exceptions, I'm talking on average. I'd sooner give up all of my not on iLok software than my iLok software and I think that what you're running into is that iLok vendors know the value of their work.

[mike_the_ranger]

Been using elicenser and ilok protected software since like forever - not a single problem. I don't want my plugins to rely on making accounts at vendor x's website to activate them and count how often; plugins that need online connections for calling home to check if licenses are still valid; keyfiles I have to update with every new bought product (even soundsets); something that can be "cracked" by just leaking a valid serial; ... I want to use my plugins at home or in my studio, on my notebook or even on my friends notebook if we're making music together. And I can do that without the slighest hassle by just plugging in a dongle (btw which can be completed by an insurance to get back all licenses even in case of loss).
My pc crashed too a couple times and I got a temporary one to complete my work. No problem. Dongle in and there it goes. Or I put in new dsp cards and so on. Many of the keyfile b******t didn't work anymore because my hardware id changed It would be best if we wouldn't need copy protection at all but this is highly utopic. Until then I would rather use dongles or something I could hold in my hand so nobody can steal or crack it, than using something all the kiddies could use with a leaked keyfile.

In the end customers seem to forget that they are responsible. Like they are when losing they car keys or when deleting files, when buying a house or ranting in a public forum.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

You say, but, we don't know that and for every story that you can come up with about how iLok failed you there is a story about how C/R fails.

I feel like you guys should hold a conference at a hotel somewhere so that you can all get together and cry in each other's arms about how much you hate iLok.

If you use soft-iLok you're taking a risk. I've explained what companies are concerned about and I think that it's generally naive to think that they're going to change their mind. You can say "well, Sally will do that," and they're going to basically roll their eyes and tell you that they're not that kind of girl.

On average, the quality of software on iLok is higher than the quality of software not on iLok. Yes, there are exceptions, I'm talking on average. I'd sooner give up all of my not on iLok software than my iLok software and I think that what you're running into is that iLok vendors know the value of their work.

I've had two computers die on me, over the course of about 14 years, and not had a single issue with any of the software I've owned. In both of those cases, none of my software was iLok-based.

I know that c/r is also risky, however I feel the risk of companies vanishing to be less than computers dying. I might be wrong. In any case, I have faith that most companies, when anticipating going down the tubes, would have the decency to offer serials etc.Either way, I just don't invest a lot of money in music-making these days, and nothing is indispensable.

The only iLok-protected software i own, apart from freebies, is Echoboy. And although it's my favourite delay, if Soundtoys can't assure me I will be covered, then it's going up for sale the same day

And what of crying together in conference rooms? Unlike you, I'm not interested in scribing pages and pages about whatever your latest cause célèbre or fight happens to be (Rompler or not); I', done with all that. Nope! I don't have to whinge or moan about iLok, I'll just ditch it like so much lame shit. I've done without it for 99.999% of my production life, I'll do without it some more.

"Don't let yourself get attached to any software you are not willing to ditch in 30 seconds flat if you come to realise it's tied to a copy protection scheme that's full of shit." - Heat...

Aside from Echoboy, all my software is non-iLok, which makes my plugin folder, on average, sub-par, according to you. I've always thought my music was ok. Now, I'm starting to wonder how much better it could be if, like you, I chose proper plugin vendors

[ghettosynth]

You say, but, we don't know that and for every story that you can come up with about how iLok failed you there is a story about how C/R fails.

I feel like you guys should hold a conference at a hotel somewhere so that you can all get together and cry in each other's arms about how much you hate iLok.

If you use soft-iLok you're taking a risk. I've explained what companies are concerned about and I think that it's generally naive to think that they're going to change their mind. You can say "well, Sally will do that," and they're going to basically roll their eyes and tell you that they're not that kind of girl.

On average, the quality of software on iLok is higher than the quality of software not on iLok. Yes, there are exceptions, I'm talking on average. I'd sooner give up all of my not on iLok software than my iLok software and I think that what you're running into is that iLok vendors know the value of their work.

I've had two computers die on me, over the course of about 14 years.

Such is the problem with rare events, you can't reliably predict them for an individual. In essence, your data is meaningless. Take it over the aggregate and you will see the kinds of problems that CR creates.

Please, take a gander at the currently active Cakewalk forums to get a better sense of how C/R causes problems.

The only iLok-protected software i own, apart from freebies, is Echoboy. And although it's my favourite delay, if Soundtoys can't assure me I will be covered, then it's going up for sale the same day

I'm not sure what you're point is here. So you own one piece of decent iLok software, so what? If you had some of the better software that exists, then you'd realize what I'm talking about.

Aside from Echoboy, all my software is non-iLok, which makes my plugin folder, on average, sub-par according to you.

Yep, get over it.

[yellowmix]

I can understand iLok hate if you were screwed over. Vent away. If you weren't screwed over then I expect uniform opposition to all DRM, and if you need to be specific, challenge-response. If that is the case then direct your ire not only at PACE and its customers (the developers, not you), but all developers who use some form of machine-based licensing.

Direct more ire at those who use some form of machine licensing and not iLok because they are asking you to trust that their system will continue to exist far longer than iLok will. It won't. Direct more ire at the developers and not iLok because the licensing technology is comparable and all you can compare is the customer service response to a lost license. If you haven't contacted them or have no direct experience with a specific developer then all you can offer is gossip.

Now give a round of applause to developers who use no DRM whatsoever (HoRNet is having a sale right now). And maybe personal-based licenses (serial #, personal license file) if you're not opposed to that as well.

I have been screwed over by developers with independent CR systems far more than developers using iLok ever have. In fact, iLok provides more convenience and stability over them. I would prefer no CR system at all, but if you are going to implement one, might as well do your customers a favour and make it iLok.

Make a ranked list of developers by copy protection inconvenience and directly experienced customer service response, and I can guarantee you developers using iLok will rank higher than developers with their own CR systems.