If I may, I'd like to chime in here as I'm quite interested in this topic...
I'm not going to discuss here all the inconveniences for legitimate users, both in principle and in practice, that a challenge/response copy protection brings... most of them have been covered already.
After a couple bad experiences, Nebula itself is the only piece of C/R software that I own right now, and i thought about it long and hard before purchasing... I made an exception because, well, Nebula is unique technology and there are no alternatives, so i wanted to encourage development and support the obviously bright guys behind it. But I'm still a bit uneasy about it to be perfectly honest.
What I REALLY don't get is, why apply obtrusive copy protection to libraries? I mean, I don't know if Nebula itself has been cracked already or not, but in any case... if it has been cracked, then the copy protection obviously doesn't work for Nebula so why bother with the libraries... and if it hasn't been cracked, then Nebula is safe and being used only by legitimate customers, so crackers couldn't use the libraries anyway... so you are imposing obtrusive copy protection onto legitimate users to protect yourself from those very same legitimate users...
Basically, I don't know a dev and the dev doesn't know me. So I have to trust the dev, counting on him having internet connection always on and no ISP or email issues, answering activations fast, being dedicated to his product both in the short and the long run, etc etc yet the developer considers me a "potential thief" preventively, and doesn't trust that I won't be distributing his libraries around EVEN when I've already "proved" that I PAY for my software by purchasing Nebula (!).
Apart from the practical issues, to me this is unacceptable in principle. And don't get me wrong, that's a purely personal decision, I'm perfectly fine with any dev choosing to C/R his libraries, I respect his decision... I simply choose not to buy his products, and everybody is happy. It has happened to me with AlexB: LOOOVE his wonderful stuff, have CLC and PCS, and I was looking into buying a couple more consoles and the tube pre, but probably won't with the new copy protection (and that's not a diss on AlexB who seems like a genuinely nice guy... it's just to illustrate my personal and subjective opinion).
I'm agree , this is boring (not too much but boring) Nebula is the only software i have bought with my DAW cause i want to support it.All vst i bought in the past were replaced by cr*acked ones because it's a lot simpler to reinstall it in case of crash (what happens often to me some years) or new system when upgrading my computer.
I am sure (sorry for all of you mans) that nebula will be cr*acked as soon as it would became notorious and full of power (grow of libraries), and the libraries so.
I would surely continue to support developer but if one day i found than installing w*rez versions much simpler that legal ones..mmm.. i will choose illegality.. :s
I agree with most comments. If the developers want to protect their investment ( which they have a right to ) then make sure it is unobtrusive, fairly hassle free and long lasting. If Waves go out of business at least I have the stuff authorised on two iloks for as long as my ilok works. If any nebula developer who copy protects goes out of business and I upgrade - so do my libraries - get it?
Actually I may just become a developer in a few months and I will have a unique selling point - my libraries will not be protected he he he he he
Good luck to all the developers but at least hear your customers carefully. Nebula gets enough hassle on gearslutz so it needs to get good reports in all areas.
giancarlo wrote:we could support synchrosoft or ilok if you prefer. New ideas are welcome. The protection is linked to the hdd serial number or mac serial number, in such way you can't move libraries to a different computer or share, which is the purpose of protection. Obviously if something changes, you should authorize everything again. But if the process is automatic (it will be on many websites), you should just provide the new ser and you should receive ALL auth files from the website.
This kind of protection is good for standalone plugins, and it's suitable for libraries, but I'm not sure about libraries really. Each developer could write his own protection anyway, but it requires c++ knowledges so I did it for everyone. If someone has a better idea or is able to code c++, we could move to something better, honestly I'm running out of ideas.
To be honest i-lok idea isn't good. There are many people who don't buy plug-ins just because of i-lok and though I'm not sure about this, there must be a reason why almost everything sold with i-lok protection is expensive
I simply cannot accept the idea if the company die's and we'll be left with useless librarys. I can understand a 3.rd party developer stops working, but then we have Acusticaudio here to solve potential problems.
If acusticaudio goes away, then soon with any software-system update (this goes for DAW's too...) things will become buggy and useless anyway...so worst scenario isn't only about computer hardware...
So if you guys don't trust third party developers at least trust Acusticaudio.
Current system I believed proved itself till now how good it is, why trying to fix something thats not broke?
Last edited by mertayy on Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Once you have one you realise how much easier it is to use than any other copy protection scheme. I have over 60 licences on mine and a DAW upgrade is as simple as moving the VST/Samples drive and plugging in the iLok. With call/response copy protection and .SER files it would take days.
paulrussell wrote:I don't live in Alex's time zone, so any authorisation takes at least 8 hours no matter how fast he works.
Ah now I understand, but then it can be requested that this can be handled by 24 hour working software right? I believe many non-ilok using plug-in companys work like this.
I'm thinking of a system thats connected to Acusticaudio so no 3rd party developers would have to build a system for themselves...but I don't know how things actually work so don't want to comment more about it...
paulrussell wrote:The only people I know who argue against it are the ones who don't have it.
Fair, as I only worked with plug-ins in studio with i-lok. I didn't setup it myself till now.
But for the record there are also people who stops using i-lok when it gets stolen or broken (since we already build a scenario where Alexb is dead, it shouldn't be hard to imagine that ).
Just check out the waves topic's on forums, lots of horror storys...
Last edited by mertayy on Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.