Vst plugin output number

Official support for: mutools.com
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

mutools wrote:
Pyrotek45 wrote:i reformat my computer twice a year(i know i know thats a lot for some people). last time i had to use that system it didn't work, even after i got a new key (bazzism) and its a pain to deal with, while all my other vst's are reinstalling just fine.
I assume that means you're selectively choosing plugins that do not link to the hardware/OS, right?
I'm quite sure there are many other DAWs/plugins that link to the hardware/OS, right?
WHy not have a system like NI
A complete Service Center application??
And are you sure NI products are not linked to the hardware/OS?
sylenth or synapse, or d16
What user key strategy do they use?
how about no copy protection at all?
I think that's too idealistic = unrealistic.
And not a good feel for paying users, and not a good feel for me.
Definitely not an option.
just give each of your customers their own install file.
That's how it works now. Be it that it's not a file but a long key, but in essence that's the same system.
Ive reinstalled plugging many many many times. I own plenty of plugs(too many if I'm being honest), and the only one ive ran into problems with locks onto computer id is ilok and bazzism (i do not use bazzism any more because of its copy protection and ilok is a scam so i own no ilok plugs, i stay far away from them). sylenth is easy they send you a install and code and you're good to go, you can reinstall it after a reformat easy. synapes and d16 use a key file system. you have to download the file key and link it to the program. super easy and works after a new install.

also im not for copy protection nor am i for piracy, but copy protection only slows down people who pay for you software.

years ago,2009,Fl studio was my first daw i ever used and i pirated it because it was easy to acquire on the pirate bay. at the time i had no money and was just using it for fun, nothing more. however i got used to it, and it became something i use all the time now and once i got a job it was one of my first things i bought.(now all of my stuff is paid for). but piracy worked in favor of image line in this case, if it wasn't on the pirate bay i wouldn't have gotten used to that daw and bought it(and a handful of their other plugs) down the line.

what im saying is, without copy protection,getting your product out there in front of as many people is more often than not, a good thing. people who like it will buy it, and people who don't simply wont buy it(but they never were going to buy it either so its no loss to you). in both cases its good for you. and again, im not for piracy but i think its very short sighted for someone to simply say its "idealistic ".

I think you deserve to get paid for sure, your work is good and i hope the people using your stuff is honest, however if mutools did get leaked out i wouldn't jump to the conclusion that its completely bad either. look at sylenth, massive, nexus, fl studio, ableton. they're all on the pirate bay but they're also very successful. i think a large part of that success comes from the fact that so many people having access to it,legally or not, allows their brand to spread rapidly and become parts of peoples core habits, it allows people to talk about it, use it freely and explore it. it allows that software to be in front of peoples faces and thats what you want. its what made sylenth a legend, lasting so long even though its so old. truth is, so many people pirated sylenth it became part of everyones setup, it became a must have. you may not agree, and i respect that for sure, and to a point i think copy protecting is a good thing. but when you start tying it down to system id's and going crazy with copy protection ,you start sounding like ilok. and their system is fked up. all im saying is keep it simple. copy protection takes time away from features, so don't invest too much time into something that will annoy users. not having copy protection is a VERY progressive idea, and many users would respect that.

Edit: also remember. If you make a system and it gets cracked later on, then it was all for nothing. Unless you're confident you can program an un-crackable system, why even nother? Not only would all that time have been wasted, now the paying customer has to jump through hoops that the pirates dont have to.
~Pyrotek45

Post

* Yes i know the argument of the "promotional aspect" of cracks. It's true. Up to some point, imho.

* Hey to avoid misunderstanding: when i wrote "idealistic" that was when you suggested to use no copy protection at all. I respect and appreciate that suggestion, but i don't agree with it. But with respect!

* I agree that the idea of linking the user key to the system is a sensitive thing, conceptually.
But technically it would not take a lot of work to implement it on top of the current user key system.

* Do you agree, conceptually, that it is fair to ask for a new user key when both the OS is different AND the hardware is different from the ones for which a user key was made?

Post

mutools wrote: * Do you agree, conceptually, that it is fair to ask for a new user key when both the OS is different AND the hardware is different from the ones for which the user key was made?
No, and for one reason. longevity. I want to know that no matter what, the software I PAID for works, tomorrow or 10 years from now.I dread the day that half of my plugs simply will stop working when i get a new cpu, or a new windows update or the upgrade to win10 and I have no internet, or maybe (especially with our net neutrality getting taking away from us here in the usa [we're still fighting for it back btw]) it's unnerving for me to think that maybe i simply wont be able to ask for a new key in the future, or the id system doesn't work with a new windows update, or hardware failure stops the id system from working properly sometime in the future.

all i'm saying is,whatever you do make it future proof. However, nothing is more future proof than no copy protection (but a little copy protection is still do-able IMHO) and lastly, it's your software, do what you will to it, take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm sure the decision you make will be fine.
~Pyrotek45

Post

Pyrotek45 wrote:whatever you do make it future proof
To me, strong copy protection is the best way to future-proof software, by helping ensure developers get enough income that they stay in business. It also helps lower prices. Companies going out of business is a far bigger problem for the future of audio software than obsolete license keys.
F E E D
Y O U R
F L O W

Post

Pyrotek45 wrote:
mutools wrote: * Do you agree, conceptually, that it is fair to ask for a new user key when both the OS is different AND the hardware is different from the ones for which the user key was made?
No, and for one reason. longevity. I want to know that no matter what, the software I PAID for works, tomorrow or 10 years from now.
With the concept i proposed it will work forever on your machine as long as not both the OS and the hardware are different. So that's fair, right?
If both the OS and the hardware are different it is fair to regard that as a new machine.
You cannot expect that a user key works on all machines forever, right?

Anyway, thanks for your interesting thoughts on this topic Pyrotek, i added extra notes about this and will reflect more on it.

Happy holidays!

Post

Michael L wrote:
Pyrotek45 wrote:whatever you do make it future proof
To me, strong copy protection is the best way to future-proof software, by helping ensure developers get enough income that they stay in business. It also helps lower prices. Companies going out of business is a far bigger problem for the future of audio software than obsolete license keys.
Indeed i agree that's an important aspect to be taken into account.
To ensure future developments business must be healthy.

Post

Pyrotek45 wrote:No, and for one reason. longevity. I want to know that no matter what, the software I PAID for works, tomorrow or 10 years from now.I dread the day that half of my plugs simply will stop working when i get a new cpu, or a new windows update or the upgrade to win10 and I have no internet, or maybe (especially with our net neutrality getting taking away from us here in the usa [we're still fighting for it back btw]) it's unnerving for me to think that maybe i simply wont be able to ask for a new key in the future, or the id system doesn't work with a new windows update, or hardware failure stops the id system from working properly sometime in the future.
I couldn't agree more. There's no need to create unnecessary risk and uncertainty for the customer, which will only make them less likely to buy from small or medium businesses.

I may be upgrading my PC sometime in 2018, though I don't know when or to what extent. So a transferable license system, even if it's iLok, would be a more attractive deal IMHO.
Last edited by Konduktor on Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

As i already made clear several times: Nothing has decided yet, the above posts are just discussing an idea. It's good to discuss this publicly so that the everyone can give pros and cons to be evaluated.

Post

mutools wrote:As i already made clear several times: Nothing has decided yet, the above posts are just discussing an idea. It's good to discuss this publicly so that the everyone can give pros and cons to be evaluated.
OK, my apologies.

Post

Thanks for your understanding and thanks for joining the discussion on this topic :tu:

Post

The essential question is:

Is it fair to ask for a new user key when MuLab/MUX is used on another computer than the one the user key was created for?

The same question but in another format:

Is it fair that people can use the single same user key on many different computers? (and worst case: illegal sharing of user key)

Post

NB: I do understand your concerns. So when i write "ask for a new user key" that could be literal: When a mismatch would be detected between user key and system ( = both the OS and hardware are different !! ) then the result could be a popup alert "Please upgrade your user key" (with the OK button only enabled after N seconds) but appart from that everything keeps working. Thus no hard copy protection fuse, but a mild copy protection reminder. That could be a nice compromise. No risk that MuLab/MUX stops working as expected, but then there is at least more feedback towards the user that the user key is not correct.

Post

So...are we to discuss this publicly, to boldly throw opinions back & forth, is that it? :hihi: (or not so boldly :lol: ) Heh heh, well I will give you mine...

Actually, I would like to , if I may, join the discussion with a question for Mr. Mutools, and it may be a question that some of us on this forum, who are somewhat "regulars"...would like an honest answer.

So the question for Jo is plain: All this stuff regarding copy protection - so much fussing...

Is it causing you some personal stress, or angst?

Because if it is, I have an incredibly obvious suggestion, and I think Michael L may have already said as much with his reference to "strong copy protection".

Care enough to give us an answer, MuTools?

Post

No stress/angst, just rational balancing. Too weak copy protection is not ok, too strong copy protection is not ok. Looking for a good balance.

Post

mutools wrote:too strong copy protection is not ok.
Please elaborate, define "too strong copy protection", because I think at the very least your hard work deserves a license linked to a machine, and I would go even further and suggest the Ilok dongle.

Post Reply

Return to “MuTools”