KVR Audio

mandolarian · Post by **mandolarian** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:27 am

recursive one wrote:U-he stuff uses the most customer-friendly copy protection system in the world but the newer versions of Diva, Zebra and Ace are still not properly cracked afaik.

This is a good example of how one can protect his sales with minimal hassle for the legit users and one reason why I preferred Satin to VTM.

+1

CableChannel · Post by **CableChannel** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:42 am

+1 to Iain

I won't ever buy iLok protected software because I read too much bad stuff about it. So it indeed turns off potential customers.

Doug1978 · Post by **Doug1978** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:44 am

subsynq · Post by **subsynq** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:00 am

Granted, iLok 2 and recent Syncrosoft incarnations don't appear to have been cracked as of now, however I don't believe that a dongle is the appropriate solution for protecting audio software. I too agree with most of the OP's points when it comes to the practicality of such a device.

Imagine a scenario after X years, when the software you purchased is still compatible with the current generation's operating system but the dongle drivers aren't, the company is defunct and the dongle maker isn't around or isn't willing to support older products of their own.

Buying a dongle-protected software is like your licence is set to expire some time in the future. On the contrary, software tied to hardware is much more meaningful, the hardware adds value and once the hardware breaks beyond repair/the manufacturer cannot help for the item is discontinued, there is no point in using the software itself anyway.

I don't condone piracy, but saying "I paid for the software so I don't want freeloaders to use it" is elitistic and lame. If it's a problem, it's not YOUR problem, but the various developers' problem to keep their products safe. Frankly, nobody else except you is concerned with you spending your money on something YOU selected. Why the hell would I care who else is using the very same thing I bought and what did he pay for it, if at all? After all, a legal owner has access to technical support, printed booklet (in some cases) etc, pirates don't. But saying stuff like this is like getting a Ferrari, not because you like it as a car but because your neighbour can't get anything like it. Relate it to audio software. Plainly pathetic.

As for me, I'm an owner of an eLicenser key with several plugin licences in it, wanting to get rid of it (Soft-eLicenser where applicable?) along with other USB devices because my MacBook-based DAW notebook only has two ports and there are all sorts of issues when trying to connect everything in my home studio on hubs. So I'll pass on anything dongle-protected, however good it is, at least for as long as I produce on this laptop.

recursive one · Post by **recursive one** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:12 am

subsynq wrote: I don't condone piracy, but saying "I paid for the software so I don't want freeloaders to use it" is elitistic and lame. If it's a problem, it's not YOUR problem, but the various developers' problem to keep their products safe. Frankly, nobody else except you is concerned with you spending your money on something YOU selected. Why the hell would I care who else is using the very same thing I bought and what did he pay for it, if at all? After all, a legal owner has access to technical support, printed booklet (in some cases) etc, pirates don't. But saying stuff like this is like getting a Ferrari, not because you like it as a car but because your neighbour can't get anything like it. Relate it to audio software. Plainly pathetic.

Sure, elitism is a stupid thing, but intentionally investing into crack-free software is not just elitism. When you choose companies whose products are not pirated, you can expect that these companies will more likely be in business after several years, giving you support, updates and great new products.

It's not a main deciding factor for me (I even bought Sylenth in 2013, lol), but I can understand why it can be for someone.

subsynq · Post by **subsynq** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:15 am

I don't believe that the only viable companies are those whose products are crack-free. A developer can do lots of things to keep cash flowing, and those things can be for the customer, not against him, starting with a non-intrusive copy protection.

crimsonwarlock · Post by **crimsonwarlock** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:23 am

recursive one wrote:When you choose companies whose products are not pirated, you can expect that these companies will more likely be in business after several years, giving you support, updates and great new products.

I don't think there's any statistic that will support this idea. I'm sure many more companies go under because of other issues, than there are companies actually buckling under piracy-induced loss of income. However, the only SURE thing to know your software will be usable in the future is when it is not using any copy protection scheme (not only iLok) that could interfere in any way with that. It's as simple as that (and one of the main reasons I went the freeware route).

kelvyn · Post by **kelvyn** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:23 am

Doug1978 wrote:

Right!

subsynq · Post by **subsynq** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:26 am

crimsonwarlock wrote:However, the only SURE thing to know your software will be usable in the future is when it is not using any copy protection scheme (not only iLok) that could interfere in any way with that.

Exactly. I wonder how a paying customer would feel when an old piece of sofware he used to own stops working due to the copy protection, while the pirate version still works. Or would it be ethical to download and use a crack in a situation like this?

These are my concerns before a purchase. They don't always push me away from getting software I want, but they are a definitive factor when choosing what to get.

meloco_go · Post by **meloco_go** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:31 am

subsynq wrote:Exactly. I wonder how a paying customer would feel when an old piece of sofware he used to own stops working due to the copy protection, while the pirate version still works. Or would it be ethical to download and use a crack in a situation like this?

It applies to any copy protection. Not only ilok.

subsynq · Post by **subsynq** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:35 am

meloco_go wrote:It applies to any copy protection. Not only ilok.

No, for instance I don't see how an offline name/reg. key combination (see Cakewalk) would automagically stop being "acceptable".

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:36 am

"Open letter to companies" and "Looking at you Slate Digital" makes it look you're referrinfg directly to companies. You aren't. Maybe an email to the company you want to reach maybe would be more efficiebt. Whatt's most efficient is not to not buy products using iLok. But that's what most people don't get and rather rant against a wall.

V0RT3X · Post by **V0RT3X** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:43 am

subsynq · Post by **subsynq** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:45 am

My personal arguments against dongles are those:
1) It costs to the dev AND the end user/adds to the price of the final product
2) Offers nothing but drawbacks to the end user (various, ranging from driver problems to limited platform support [see Slate's PPC drop])
3) It's more failure-prone than the final product itself, considering it's a plastic thing sticking out of a port

recursive one · Post by **recursive one** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:53 am

crimsonwarlock wrote: I don't think there's any statistic that will support this idea. I'm sure many more companies go under because of other issues, than there are companies actually buckling under piracy-induced loss of income.

I'm sure I've read more than once some devs stating that they quit due to piracy. I also believe this is what happened, e.g., to Lennar Digital, despite they never confirmed it.

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