Image Line Acquires UVI

[pekbro]

In my opinion, it's the highly successful companies that should be held accountable and forced to comply with the rules and regulations of the markets in which they choose to operate. In the least they should not be allowed to interpret those rules as they see fit, when they are in the position of denying so many of their consumer rights as set forth by law.

[sjm]

I dont understand.. Which copy protection system does fl studio use and whats wrong with it?

It used to be a simple regfile, i.e. a file you could download, back up and then use to authorise the software on any machine you installed it on. Great for the consumer, but also makes the software easy to pirate, as anyone can just share their regkey. While regkeys would get disabled if they got shared, the old method was the most consumer-friendly option out there, but also the easiest to pirate. The big advantage of this model for the consumer is that the authorization of the software in future is completely independent of the vendor (Image-Line in this case). As long as you have a back up of the reg file, you can install the software without needing anything from Image-Line.

Not that long ago, the copy protection was moved to C/R, or challenge response. This is relatively common in various flavours in the audio world. Basically, your machine sends some kind of "challenge" to a remote server hosted by the vendor. The vendor then checks that the license is valid yadda yadda, and sends back a "reponse" which is used to unlock the software.

You can see the obvious issue with this method compared to the previous one from the consumer's point of view. You are now completely dependent on the infrastructure of the vendor to unlock your software; you can't just keep a copy the serial number or regkey file around for whenever you want to reinstall. Now, when everything is working fine, there's no big deal - obviously.

The issue becomes: what happens if the vendor goes out of business and the servers go offline, or they get bought up by someone else who has no interest in the products or platforms you care about and just stops authorising them. Without those servers in place, you can no longer unlock the software and are stuck in perpetual demo mode.

There's also the risk of temporary outages (servers go down, IL's own website was having issues for several days recently). This is less of a concern with FL Studio; once you have authorised FL Studio on your machine, it doesn't need to re-authorised again. Some C/R methods do periodic pings home and will deactivate the license if that call fails (see the whole disaster that was InMusic acquiring BFD3, there's a thread that's been going on for months now).

The companies obviously prefer this method, as it makes it slightly harder to pirate the software. It's very consumer-unfriendly for the reasons stated above. You've handed over the keys to your software to a third party, and are completely dependent on them and their infrastructure working to unlock it. This is what is called a "point of failure", and it's something humanity has become very enamoured with recently. I don't know if you remember the fiasco with Tesla a few months ago; basically people were unable to use their cars, because the app that was used to unlock the car was not able to contact Tesla's servers. That meant that they were locked out (in this case literally) of the product they paid good money for through no fault of their own.

That's basically the issue - it's an unnecessary point of failure, with the 100% guarantee that it will at some point fail. The question isn't if, but when. It might be tomorrow, it might be in 50 years. No company lasts for ever, that's just a simple fact of life.

There are solutions to this issue though. The one I would like to see IL adopt is to update their EULA to include a provision that if they go out of business, they will release a final version of the product without the DRM. And there are so-called software escrow services that can facilitate this process; basically, you build a version without the DRM and the software escrow service simply keeps a copy in case anything goes wrong with the business. If the business dies, the escrow service releases the DRM-free version (or source code, or whatever the agreement is) to the company's customers. This way everyone gets the benefits. There's no worries about what happens if the company goes bankrupt for consumers, and the company gets to implement their copy protection technique and placate the investors. And the company is required to ensure that a DRM-free copy is ready to ship (just in case), because they are just as much bound by the EULA as consumers are.

The reason I'd want the EULA to have this provision is because it also protects your from having the company bought by someone else. The new owner has to assume the liabilities of the company they bought, meaning they would have to honour the terms of the EULA as well. So you'd be protected if the company is bought out and the new owners decide to discontinue a product or platform (think Camel Audio).

[SLiC]

if the company is bought out and the new owners decide to discontinue a product or platform (think Camel Audio).

Yes, that still hurts....

[BoogerSnot]

We appear to have exited the over saturation stage...

And entered into the consolidation stage...

Is the dreaded contraction stage on the horizon?

[Frankie.T]

if the company is bought out and the new owners decide to discontinue a product or platform (think Camel Audio).

Yes, that still hurts....

Just imagine how could hurts if you will be not able to load all your projects because of that...

[_leras]

Is the dreaded contraction stage on the horizon?

How many compressors do you need?

I think there are still quite a few smaller innovative companies. Hopefully they can still succeed.

[_leras]

In my opinion, it's the highly successful companies that should be held accountable and forced to comply with the rules and regulations of the markets in which they choose to operate. In the least they should not be allowed to interpret those rules as they see fit, when they are in the position of denying so many of their consumer rights as set forth by law.

Well all companies should operate with a decent set of consumer rights.

Unfortunately in the UK at least, the government has hugely eroded these over the past decade.

Also, as everyone can plainly see, no one quite knows how to handle software. I.e. should you always be able to buy a permanent license of a current version? That's a clear yes to me, software regulations seem far behind.

[knocks]

The day uvi turns to c/r is the day they never see a dime from me again, just as IL never got a dime from me.
And I own 100s of uvi products so far.

And the day it does go c/r and kicks iLok to the curb is the day I'll consider buying Falcon.

+1,000,000

iLok must DIE! (...at least "mandatory" iLok, regardless of dongle/dongless/cloud).

Only then, will I purchase products from those developers currently shackled to that archaic piece of [expletive!]

Agree, got a few UVI synths when upgrading to the fl all addition, didn't even install them once I realised iLok was used.

[tony10000]

The day uvi turns to c/r is the day they never see a dime from me again, just as IL never got a dime from me.
And I own 100s of uvi products so far.

And the day it does go c/r and kicks iLok to the curb is the day I'll consider buying Falcon.

+1,000,000

iLok must DIE! (...at least "mandatory" iLok, regardless of dongle/dongless/cloud).

Only then, will I purchase products from those developers currently shackled to that archaic piece of [expletive!]

Agree, got a few UVI synths when upgrading to the fl all addition, didn't even install them once I realised iLok was used.

Not sure what the issue with PACE/iLOK is. I use the software version and have never had a problem. BTW, you do know that they also own JUCE...probably the most popular plugin development platform.

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/produc ... ehind-ilok

[tony10000]

{dupe}

[dayjob]

The day uvi turns to c/r is the day they never see a dime from me again, just as IL never got a dime from me.
And I own 100s of uvi products so far.

And the day it does go c/r and kicks iLok to the curb is the day I'll consider buying Falcon.

+1,000,000

iLok must DIE! (...at least "mandatory" iLok, regardless of dongle/dongless/cloud).

Only then, will I purchase products from those developers currently shackled to that archaic piece of [expletive!]

Agree, got a few UVI synths when upgrading to the fl all addition, didn't even install them once I realised iLok was used.

Not sure what the issue with PACE/iLOK is. I use the software version and have never had a problem. BTW, you do know that they also own JUCE...probably the most popular plugin development platform.

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/produc ... ehind-ilok

i used to dis ilok at every opportunity when it was mostly dongle based and they had some software issues etc.. but since they've gotten the ilok authorizer dialed it's been transparent and a non issue. have had no problems w/it for so long now.. i kind of prefer it for authorizing because you can authorize lot's of things w/one button click as opposed to separate processes for each installation.

i know people have other issues w/it though and some of those go back to long ago traumatic experiences that include bricked computers and lost data etc.. but i think it's safe to say they are well beyond those horror stories now and everything works well.

best situation is of course no copy protection like audio damage and some others but that's not realistic for most developers.

anyway.. ymmv of course. i'm well over the ilok hate for years now. best of luck to everyone else.

[tony10000]

Totally agree for the most part, except for this lovely little Mac Mini M1 basic model I have been running here for the past 2 years. At the time of purchase, it ran rings around similarly priced PCs, is literally completely quiet and has been extremely reliable (as long as you run all native stuff! That's the caveat!).

Yeah, but the base model M2 Mini is a dog. You should at least buy the 512GB version ($800) because the 256GB storage is SLOWWWW...

But for $100 less than that, you can buy the Windows machine I use:

POWERSPEC B734 Desktop Computer (Micro Center)
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G 3.8GHz Processor
Microsoft Windows 11 Pro
16GB DDR4-2666 RAM
1TB SSD

I upgraded it to 32GB for a bit over $100

[Double Tap]

I dont understand.. Which copy protection system does fl studio use and whats wrong with it?

It used to be a simple regfile, i.e. a file you could download, back up and then use to authorise the software on any machine you installed it on. Great for the consumer, but also makes the software easy to pirate, as anyone can just share their regkey. While regkeys would get disabled if they got shared, the old method was the most consumer-friendly option out there, but also the easiest to pirate. The big advantage of this model for the consumer is that the authorization of the software in future is completely independent of the vendor (Image-Line in this case). As long as you have a back up of the reg file, you can install the software without needing anything from Image-Line.

Not that long ago, the copy protection was moved to C/R, or challenge response. This is relatively common in various flavours in the audio world. Basically, your machine sends some kind of "challenge" to a remote server hosted by the vendor. The vendor then checks that the license is valid yadda yadda, and sends back a "reponse" which is used to unlock the software.

You can see the obvious issue with this method compared to the previous one from the consumer's point of view. You are now completely dependent on the infrastructure of the vendor to unlock your software; you can't just keep a copy the serial number or regkey file around for whenever you want to reinstall. Now, when everything is working fine, there's no big deal - obviously.

The issue becomes: what happens if the vendor goes out of business and the servers go offline, or they get bought up by someone else who has no interest in the products or platforms you care about and just stops authorising them. Without those servers in place, you can no longer unlock the software and are stuck in perpetual demo mode.

There's also the risk of temporary outages (servers go down, IL's own website was having issues for several days recently). This is less of a concern with FL Studio; once you have authorised FL Studio on your machine, it doesn't need to re-authorised again. Some C/R methods do periodic pings home and will deactivate the license if that call fails (see the whole disaster that was InMusic acquiring BFD3, there's a thread that's been going on for months now).

The companies obviously prefer this method, as it makes it slightly harder to pirate the software. It's very consumer-unfriendly for the reasons stated above. You've handed over the keys to your software to a third party, and are completely dependent on them and their infrastructure working to unlock it. This is what is called a "point of failure", and it's something humanity has become very enamoured with recently. I don't know if you remember the fiasco with Tesla a few months ago; basically people were unable to use their cars, because the app that was used to unlock the car was not able to contact Tesla's servers. That meant that they were locked out (in this case literally) of the product they paid good money for through no fault of their own.

That's basically the issue - it's an unnecessary point of failure, with the 100% guarantee that it will at some point fail. The question isn't if, but when. It might be tomorrow, it might be in 50 years. No company lasts for ever, that's just a simple fact of life.

There are solutions to this issue though. The one I would like to see IL adopt is to update their EULA to include a provision that if they go out of business, they will release a final version of the product without the DRM. And there are so-called software escrow services that can facilitate this process; basically, you build a version without the DRM and the software escrow service simply keeps a copy in case anything goes wrong with the business. If the business dies, the escrow service releases the DRM-free version (or source code, or whatever the agreement is) to the company's customers. This way everyone gets the benefits. There's no worries about what happens if the company goes bankrupt for consumers, and the company gets to implement their copy protection technique and placate the investors. And the company is required to ensure that a DRM-free copy is ready to ship (just in case), because they are just as much bound by the EULA as consumers are.

The reason I'd want the EULA to have this provision is because it also protects your from having the company bought by someone else. The new owner has to assume the liabilities of the company they bought, meaning they would have to honour the terms of the EULA as well. So you'd be protected if the company is bought out and the new owners decide to discontinue a product or platform (think Camel Audio).

Public service forum posting

[D-Fusion]

I dont understand.. Which copy protection system does fl studio use and whats wrong with it?

It used to be a simple regfile, i.e. a file you could download, back up and then use to authorise the software on any machine you installed it on. Great for the consumer, but also makes the software easy to pirate, as anyone can just share their regkey. While regkeys would get disabled if they got shared, the old method was the most consumer-friendly option out there, but also the easiest to pirate. The big advantage of this model for the consumer is that the authorization of the software in future is completely independent of the vendor (Image-Line in this case). As long as you have a back up of the reg file, you can install the software without needing anything from Image-Line.

Not that long ago, the copy protection was moved to C/R, or challenge response. This is relatively common in various flavours in the audio world. Basically, your machine sends some kind of "challenge" to a remote server hosted by the vendor. The vendor then checks that the license is valid yadda yadda, and sends back a "reponse" which is used to unlock the software.

You can see the obvious issue with this method compared to the previous one from the consumer's point of view. You are now completely dependent on the infrastructure of the vendor to unlock your software; you can't just keep a copy the serial number or regkey file around for whenever you want to reinstall. Now, when everything is working fine, there's no big deal - obviously.

The issue becomes: what happens if the vendor goes out of business and the servers go offline, or they get bought up by someone else who has no interest in the products or platforms you care about and just stops authorising them. Without those servers in place, you can no longer unlock the software and are stuck in perpetual demo mode.

There's also the risk of temporary outages (servers go down, IL's own website was having issues for several days recently). This is less of a concern with FL Studio; once you have authorised FL Studio on your machine, it doesn't need to re-authorised again. Some C/R methods do periodic pings home and will deactivate the license if that call fails (see the whole disaster that was InMusic acquiring BFD3, there's a thread that's been going on for months now).

The companies obviously prefer this method, as it makes it slightly harder to pirate the software. It's very consumer-unfriendly for the reasons stated above. You've handed over the keys to your software to a third party, and are completely dependent on them and their infrastructure working to unlock it. This is what is called a "point of failure", and it's something humanity has become very enamoured with recently. I don't know if you remember the fiasco with Tesla a few months ago; basically people were unable to use their cars, because the app that was used to unlock the car was not able to contact Tesla's servers. That meant that they were locked out (in this case literally) of the product they paid good money for through no fault of their own.

That's basically the issue - it's an unnecessary point of failure, with the 100% guarantee that it will at some point fail. The question isn't if, but when. It might be tomorrow, it might be in 50 years. No company lasts for ever, that's just a simple fact of life.

There are solutions to this issue though. The one I would like to see IL adopt is to update their EULA to include a provision that if they go out of business, they will release a final version of the product without the DRM. And there are so-called software escrow services that can facilitate this process; basically, you build a version without the DRM and the software escrow service simply keeps a copy in case anything goes wrong with the business. If the business dies, the escrow service releases the DRM-free version (or source code, or whatever the agreement is) to the company's customers. This way everyone gets the benefits. There's no worries about what happens if the company goes bankrupt for consumers, and the company gets to implement their copy protection technique and placate the investors. And the company is required to ensure that a DRM-free copy is ready to ship (just in case), because they are just as much bound by the EULA as consumers are.

The reason I'd want the EULA to have this provision is because it also protects your from having the company bought by someone else. The new owner has to assume the liabilities of the company they bought, meaning they would have to honour the terms of the EULA as well. So you'd be protected if the company is bought out and the new owners decide to discontinue a product or platform (think Camel Audio).

Public service forum posting

You can still keep a copy and reinstall that regkey on the same computer if you need to reinstall windows.
The difference between the old and the new copy protection is that the older regkey worked on all your computers while the new regkey is locked to 1 computer.

[MrJubbly]

That's basically the issue - it's an unnecessary point of failure, with the 100% guarantee that it will at some point fail. The question isn't if, but when. It might be tomorrow, it might be in 50 years. No company lasts for ever, that's just a simple fact of life.

There are solutions to this issue though. The one I would like to see IL adopt is to update their EULA to include a provision that if they go out of business, they will release a final version of the product without the DRM. And there are so-called software escrow services that can facilitate this process; basically, you build a version without the DRM and the software escrow service simply keeps a copy in case anything goes wrong with the business. If the business dies, the escrow service releases the DRM-free version (or source code, or whatever the agreement is) to the company's customers. This way everyone gets the benefits. There's no worries about what happens if the company goes bankrupt for consumers, and the company gets to implement their copy protection technique and placate the investors. And the company is required to ensure that a DRM-free copy is ready to ship (just in case), because they are just as much bound by the EULA as consumers are.

The reason I'd want the EULA to have this provision is because it also protects your from having the company bought by someone else. The new owner has to assume the liabilities of the company they bought, meaning they would have to honour the terms of the EULA as well. So you'd be protected if the company is bought out and the new owners decide to discontinue a product or platform (think Camel Audio).

A very well written overview of the current situation as a whole regarding DRM within the software industry. And a very elegant and fair proposed solution. And to be honest, this should probably be made compulsory by law / consumer rights, for all forms of software DRM.

Just like how drivers are compelled to purchase insurance and MOT alongside their licences, to be able to legally operate their vehicles on public roads. Software developers, who insist upon implementing forms of DRM which are intrinsically co-dependant upon their own active operation as an business, should also be compelled to ensure any software licences they have issued to customers, are assured to continue to operate, in the event of their closure/transfer to a new owner, in order for them to legally operate as a software development company.

That is surely not too much of a hardship or imposition for such companies to make allowance for, considering what they themselves expect from their own paying customers, with regard their own DRM edicts.