I've been running DAWs since 1998. Originally I was very anti-iLok cos I had a bad experience in about 2002 when the old PACE protection hosed a machine. So I resisted for a long time.
But eventually I relented because I wanted to use the pro level sample sets and had little choice. Since then I've upgraded one DAW machine and loaded that with three operating systems (XP, Vista 64 and now W7 64) and each time the iLok has been the best method of authorisation. I also have a load of challenge response software and, really, it's a complete PITA to get moving.
At least with iLok you have one source. And the idea of iLok going bust is almost like Apple or MS going bust. It's completely developer independent, which means no web connection required, and lifetime authorisation for hundreds of apps.
Not interested in iLok whatsoever. Even assuming the current system isn't perfect you'd be inviting a whole host of new potential problems, operational and logistical. Not to mention increasing cost to the users. I don't see this as being in line with Giancarlo's paradigm personally.
Actually - tumburu - I agree with reaper copy protection being great. The authorisation file is tied to a user not a machine. This requires a level of trust.
They give a measure of goodwill to the customer. You can use reaper for free indefinitely without any demo restrictions. Of course the right thing to do is buy a license if you continue to use it beyond the demo period. By that time people who are on other daws will have fallen in love with the product and some will buy it and others may not.
It is not full proof but at least I know my license allows me to load my DAW on any new machine. Some people use multiple PCs to network stuff and if you are using the current system it gets pretty difficult to keep up.
As it seems some don't like ilok then I reckon my vote also goes for reaper style protection that does not tie the library to a computer but to a user. Of course it is not full proof - but it allows genuine users to move stuff easily. If that is unacceptable then come up with a system that allows users to move easily.
Giancarlo - you guys are geniuses - I am sure you can make something happen.
I'm sorry to go a bit off topic here but, how long does it take for AlexB to authorize a library? I bought MWC two days ago, downloaded the library and sent the SER file back for authorization as stated in the documentation. I haven´t received anything yet so I was wondering if I am missing something here. Do I have to do anything else?
Just a word to confirm I received my authorization file today. Although everything is working fine now it seems to me that the waiting time was a bit too long. I think an authorization procedure which does not relies on AlexB being available all the time might be advisable.
There-in lies the problem with this form of copy protection. It relies on the content producer being healthy and available. As a buyer,in my humble opinion it needs to be automated.
Nebula will get bigger and bigger and when that happens it will need to be professional in every aspect. Other audio pros will expect a certain level of service and response time and I think that instant downloads and automated online copy protection are the way to go ( if you do decide to copy protect).
U-he has an interesting take on protection. I would love to have just a serial for Nebula. It would give me more peace off mind, knowing I can install nebula and my libraries until eternaty. I'm no expert but it looks pretty hack proof
Well, I kind of like to pick them up from where they are. The scheme is actually devlish - the OP ran into an old anti-crack protection, but my current protection only kicks in when someone really put a lot of work into a song project. Thus he can't just turn away and use something different. At that point he'll rather buy the full version than loose his work. ----
Indeed. It serves two purposes: The actual protection is hidden from crackers and collectors, they hardly ever run into it. Those who run into it are actual users who are often turned into legit customers.
One of my softs stops working on certain days when cracked. On these days I have record sales. If I normally sell, say, an average of 3 copies a day, I will sell maybe 15 copies on those days where the crack stops to work. That's more than a 10% increase in sales. The effort put into that scheme was 2 days, which is less than 1% of the overall development work.
yes, we have something similar too. I'm planning a different copy protection, a bit more relaxed. Trouble is not nebula, but actual library developers. So a schema like reaper could be not good for them