Thoughts on Ilok?

[Largos]

Strawman.

I don't think you know what that means.

There is no less than 'none', so false.

Indeed. Having to have a piece of hardware permanently attached or Installing program B to authorise program A is more hassle than not so saying "I have no problem with" is false.

Ah, so that's true just because you say its true. That makes sense.

The assertion that copy protection makes software cheaper or prevents people using it without paying is something those making it have to prove, which they won't because they can't.

[zvenx]

I am curious to know why you think they have to prove it?
To satisfy you or...?

I know have read of developers who say they notice an almost immediate plunge in their sales when they find out their software has been compromised and posted on websites.
rsp

[chk071]

The assertion that copy protection makes software cheaper or prevents people using it without paying is something those making it have to prove, which they won't because they can't.

The "proof" is that there's a copy protection. Nobody licenses or develops a copy protection for no benefit. Or sells his software with a copy protection which requires certain steps for the person who acquires it.

Not that any developer has to prove anything to you.

[zvenx]

....

Not that any developer has to prove anything to you.

Lol.. apparently they don't realise that they do .
rsp

[whyterabbyt]

Strawman.

I don't think you know what that means.

So far, Im not impressed by your thinking, so that would be consistent.

Having to have a piece of hardware permanently attached or Installing program B to authorise program A is more hassle than not so saying "I have no problem with" is false.

Ah, of course. You're the authority on whether or not anyone else has a problem with something, not them. Congratulations on being able to to speak for other people in order when that helps to validate your assertion.

Ah, so that's true just because you say its true. That makes sense.

The assertion that copy protection makes software cheaper or prevents people using it without paying is something those making it have to prove, which they won't because they can't.

Ah, so that's true just because you say its true. That makes sense.

[Largos]

The "proof" is that there's a copy protection. Nobody licenses or develops a copy protection for no benefit. Or sells his software with a copy protection which requires certain steps for the person who acquires it.

Not that any developer has to prove anything to you.

So tell me, why there are differing types of copy protection if it's provable that a certain level works?

This is a blurb from a piracy site that I won't link because it is likely against forum TOS:

VMR 2 allows sound engineers to easily create the channel strips of their dreams using a library full of analog modules. Choose from dozens of modules including vintage-styled EQs, compressors, amps, filters, preamps, mixing consoles and more. But even beyond the sound you can get with VMR 2.0, you also get the added bonus of speed and efficiency by having the entire data chain in one convenient window. VMR 2.0 comes with a Mix Bundle One, which contains four Slate Digital DSP modules: FG-401 Compressor, FG-S EQ, FG-161 FET Compressor, and FG-N EQ.
31 modules.RELEASE NOTE* All 31 modules are included.
* No iLok Driver is required to run.
* Our release loads faster and uses less memory than legit version.
FROM R2R:
In our last release, we pointed out that 1 legit plugin doesn’t work properly
because of their custom protection.
In this v2.6 update, Slate removed their custom cryptographic protection
which cause parameters going mad (you saw we once fixed that ear-killer
protection for CS-EQ!). As a result, the bug of ‘1 legit plugin’ does not
happen anymore. Congrats, legit users! This change has not been listed in the
official changelog – because they din’t know the truth!
NOW – It’s time to show the answer. The broken plugin was FG-76. The drive
knob is stepped by “3, 9, 18, 24 …. 70, 76”. In the broken legit version,
crypto was used for that parameter. The (wrong) value will be:
KnobInternalValue = 1.0 / 11.0 * StepNumber (from 0 to 11)
DriveValue = 3.0 + ((76.0 – 3.0) * KnobInternalValue (from 0.0 to 1.0))
The drive value can be different from its label. Too bad, the presets made
in broken legit plugin may sound different after v2.6. If you used R2R
version, you are safe
“A famous audio developer failed finding the audible issue in their flagship
product which they developed, while cracker fixed it without any source code”
BTW, VMR has core plugin and 31 modules. ALL modules are currently protected
by MetaFortress. Does it make protection 31 times stronger? If it doesn’t,
they are just wasting computer resources 31 times by the code obfuscation.
If they stop using it, they can save 10+ MB per module and performance will
be noticably improved.

So, not only does iLok et al not prevent this piracy but they claim better performance without it and even that the copy protection was causing a bug. The site I got this from has lots of ilok "protected" and other music software. So, since it clearly does not do what it's stated intention and likely actively makes the software worse, why have "no problem" with it?

[whyterabbyt]

So the argument is 'This guy who makes tools to enable theft says that doors work better without locks, and anyway nobody can prove that unlocked doors will mean you could get burgled.'

[revvy]

Bloke arguing against copy protection posts stuff from piracy sites. Seems legit.

[sQeetz]

And parrots their anti-protection propaganda

[elxsound]

I have an iLok complaint…

My licenses to Process Audio plugins were removed when unsubscribed from Pure Mix without needing my intervention…

But, In order to active the Softube Essentials bundle, I have to manually remove the license from each iLok that is attached to separate computers.

It’s not the worst thing to happen… I was just in bed, doing some computer license/housekeeping on the laptop, not wanting to get up again. I think the inconvenience of iLok should be easier, especially when you need to surrender a license.

[chk071]

Bloke arguing against copy protection posts stuff from piracy sites. Seems legit.

The usual.

[Largos]

So the argument is 'This guy who makes tools to enable theft says that doors work better without locks, and anyway nobody can prove that unlocked doors will mean you could get burgled.'

Noone says doors (or other home security) prevent burglary, only lessen the risk. Software is either pirated or not so there's no point making analogies in this regard.

Bloke arguing against copy protection posts stuff from piracy sites. Seems legit.

Maybe you should look and see how ineffective copy protection is, then you might be able to unstick the head from your rear end.

And parrots their anti-protection propaganda

Play the man, not the ball all you like. I don't use pirated software, it's stupid to do so. Nor do I purchase software with iloks, so get your head round that.

[whyterabbyt]

So the argument is 'This guy who makes tools to enable theft says that doors work better without locks, and anyway nobody can prove that unlocked doors will mean you could get burgled.'

Noone says doors (or other home security) prevent burglary, only lessen the risk. Software is either pirated or not so there's no point making analogies in this regard.

Yes there is.

[revvy]

Bloke arguing against copy protection posts stuff from piracy sites. Seems legit.

Maybe you should look and see how ineffective copy protection is, then you might be able to unstick the head from your rear end.

Says the loser quoting crackers at length, to such an extent that it’s the same as posting an actual link but one search action removed. Head screwed on there mate, f’sure.

[whyterabbyt]

People attacking software developers' choices by quoting software crackers is a hilarious level of simping.