Thoughts on Ilok?

[Largos]

I wonder what some examples would be, of people "defending iLok". All that I usually see is that people say that they don't have any problems with it.

What I see a lot more is the always same people invading product topics, products which are iLok protected, and post some stupid one-liner along the lines of "iLok, no buy", although there wasn't any previous discussion or even mention of iLok. I don't know what that is called (I'm sure someone has invented some stupid trend term for that as well), but, it's really ridiculously stupid and annoying. Especially when you know that it's merely a political issue of the respective person anyway.

I have never done so but it's perfectly legitimate for someone to say tell a software dev if they are not buying their product because of a feature they implemented.

Yes, because of course only 'software devs' are allowed to have an opinion that isnt negative, but anyone else can hijack and derail absolutely any thread whatsoever to complain about them in as hyperbolic a fashion as they can manage.
Sounds about right.

I'm not derailing anything, this thread is a discussion about ilok and I'm commenting on what has been said.

Only software devs can claim a benefit from DRM. There's no way that it makes life for the end user better. "I have no problem with it" makes no sense when it'd be less of a problem if it wasn't there.

[sQeetz]

"I have no problem with it" makes no sense when it'd be less of a problem if it wasn't there.

But it has to be there. Not iLok directly, but some form of protection has to be there from the developers POV. Either you develop one yourself... maybe a trusting one with just a key or a challenge = response type of thing... it's at the developers discretion

[chk071]

I wonder what some examples would be, of people "defending iLok". All that I usually see is that people say that they don't have any problems with it.

What I see a lot more is the always same people invading product topics, products which are iLok protected, and post some stupid one-liner along the lines of "iLok, no buy", although there wasn't any previous discussion or even mention of iLok. I don't know what that is called (I'm sure someone has invented some stupid trend term for that as well), but, it's really ridiculously stupid and annoying. Especially when you know that it's merely a political issue of the respective person anyway.

I have never done so but it's perfectly legitimate for someone to say tell a software dev if they are not buying their product because of a feature they implemented.

Invading evey thread with a "iLok, no buy" message is simply trolling, nothing more, nothing less.

Apart from that, let's argue like you do then. If that is "perfectly legitimate", then it's also perfectly legitimate to say that you're Ok with iLok, or even that you like it. Even when you're not a developer. Would you agree?

[chk071]

Only software devs can claim a benefit from DRM. There's no way that it makes life for the end user better. "I have no problem with it" makes no sense when it'd be less of a problem if it wasn't there.

Oh boy, that's very thin ice you're walking on. What about serial numbers, what about key generators, what about C/R, what about software managers? It would all be less of a problem if it wasn't there, wouldn't it?

What about development frameworks like JUCE? Or wrappers? They all produce a bit of overhead, and we would be better of if they weren't there.

You don't make much sense, I'm afraid.

And, by the way. Do you know how copy protections benefit us as users? They make sure the developers don't have to compensate for piracy, which they have to, if their copy protection is weak. Yes, they have to think economically, like every business. In the end, it's good for us, if the product isn't pirated, because we pay less money that way. Common sense.

[sQeetz]

What @Largos want is no copy protection at all. And one could try to start a debate on everything is free to use for everyone one and protecting ones stuff from being used without permission all day. What stays is that as of today:
if you create something - you can decide how to protect it from theft
If you don't like the way it is protected, you are free to look at alternatives which use a method you approve.
That's actually all I have to say about it... unless something stupid comes up again

[whyterabbyt]

Yes, because of course only 'software devs' are allowed to have an opinion that isnt negative, but anyone else can hijack and derail absolutely any thread whatsoever to complain about them in as hyperbolic a fashion as they can manage.
Sounds about right.

I'm not derailing anything

Strawman.

Only software devs can claim a benefit from DRM.

The conversation isnt about DRM in general its about iLoks. And your opinion on it isnt a fact, especially when you're trying to imply that the opposite of it being a problem is it that it has to be a benefit.

There's no way that it makes life for the end user better.

In your opinion. I personally think it counts as better if the developer of the tools I use are able to afford to continue to support and develop that tool.

"I have no problem with it" makes no sense when it'd be less of a problem if it wasn't there.

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

[Largos]

But it has to be there. Not iLok directly, but some form of protection has to be there from the developers POV. Either you develop one yourself... maybe a trusting one with just a key or a challenge = response type of thing... it's at the developers discretion

What has to be there exactly? Considering the different levels of copy protection that developers use, it's fair to assume there isn't actually any sort of factual evidence for any particular level of it preventing piracy*. So any inconvenience they put users through is down to a subjective whim.

*you could argue that software piracy only exists because of it.

What @Largos want is no copy protection at all. And one could try to start a debate on everything is free to use for everyone one and protecting ones stuff from being used without permission all day. What stays is that as of today:
if you create something - you can decide how to protect it from theft
If you don't like the way it is protected, you are free to look at alternatives which use a method you approve.
That's actually all I have to say about it... unless something stupid comes up again

Before it gets confused, I didn't say that everything should be free of charge and I do not believe that.

[underscoreraven]

People defending ilok when they're not even a software dev is a hilarious level of simping.

I wonder what some examples would be, of people "defending iLok". All that I usually see is that people say that they don't have any problems with it.

What I see a lot more is the always same people invading product topics, products which are iLok protected, and post some stupid one-liner along the lines of "iLok, no buy", although there wasn't any previous discussion or even mention of iLok. I don't know what that is called (I'm sure someone has invented some stupid trend term for that as well), but, it's really ridiculously stupid and annoying. Especially when you know that it's merely a political issue of the respective person anyway.

When it's a discussion of new releases etc where people state things like whether they like or dislike it, or will and won't buy and why, then mentioned the copy protection is a completely valid deal breaker to mention. Copy protection is part of the software/product you buy, and those discussions are about discussing the merits and flaws of the entire product. Making dealbreakers known is important if you want them to change, be it a buggy plugin, bad sound, bad UI, bad pricing model (i.e. current/spectral suite with subscriptions) or copy protection all have an equal right to be a part of that discussion.

Ofc I do agree, that making it a dumb oneliner is useless, but that's because it's a one liner, not because it's about iLok. Other one liners like just saying "filters sound like shit" are the same and would benefit from an at least somewhat thought about response instead

[zvenx]

Well, if it is a new product from a new developer, I agree.
But if it is an upgrade or a new product from a developer who has always used ilok, and has used ilok for years/decades, what is the point? Just to hear you own voice?

Take Soundtoys/Softube for example... They have been using iLok 'forever'.. I am pretty certain their next product will also be ilok proctected, so when a new thread starts on it, what really is the point of someone saying I won't buy because it uses ilok, except to hear their own voice.
Clearly the developer by now knows there are some people who wouldn't buy because of ilok, but they are happy with their business model.
rsp

[Largos]

Invading evey thread with a "iLok, no buy" message is simply trolling, nothing more, nothing less.

Apart from that, let's argue like you do then. If that is "perfectly legitimate", then it's also perfectly legitimate to say that you're Ok with iLok, or even that you like it. Even when you're not a developer. Would you agree?

I said it made no sense, I didn't say it was illegitimate, trolling or anything like that.

Oh boy, that's very thin ice you're walking on. What about serial numbers, what about key generators, what about C/R, what about software managers? It would all be less of a problem if it wasn't there, wouldn't it?

Yes. With the exception of non drm software managers, that can provide a convenience for the user.

What about development frameworks like JUCE? Or wrappers? They all produce a bit of overhead, and we would be better of if they weren't there.

You don't make much sense, I'm afraid.

What doesn't make sense, if something isn't necessary for the functional operation of the program and has no other benefit for the user than question why it's there at all.

And, by the way. Do you know how copy protections benefit us as users? They make sure the developers don't have to compensate for piracy, which they have to, if their copy protection is weak. Yes, they have to think economically, like every business. In the end, it's good for us, if the product isn't pirated, because we pay less money that way. Common sense.

This is the simping I talked about in my first reply here. As I already said, there is no factual consensus that it achieves what it claims. If it serves a practical purpose, it's to enforce the idea of monetary value to justify pricing.

[whyterabbyt]

it's fair to assume

Nope

*you could argue that software piracy only exists because of it.

Yes, entirely fallaciously.

[whyterabbyt]

As I already said, there is no factual consensus that it achieves what it claims.

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

[underscoreraven]

And, by the way. Do you know how copy protections benefit us as users? They make sure the developers don't have to compensate for piracy, which they have to, if their copy protection is weak. Yes, they have to think economically, like every business. In the end, it's good for us, if the product isn't pirated, because we pay less money that way. Common sense.

AudioDamage, nakst, Inear display, all have no copy protection and have prices ranging from cheap to "fair & affordable given the feature set". The recent-ish amigo sampler that instantly found a much better reception than anticipated in it's target demographic is like 10€ no copy protection. It's already on piracy sites, yet it's clear that the combination of affordable+no licensing no nonsense install lead more people to actually buy it.

So where exactly, are these not that unknown names making the user compensate for a lack of copy protection?

On the other side we may remember the case of acustica audio, outrageously wasteful DRM yet their stuff isn't cheap, most doesn't seem too expensive either, but I'd expect less if there was this correlation. If you want to know where users have to compensate, it's with extensive DRMs, like iLok, which causes some plugins to behave more efficient when pirated. How does that fit into your picture?

[whyterabbyt]

AudioDamage, nakst, Inear display, all have no copy protection and have prices ranging from cheap to "fair & affordable given the feature set". The recent-ish amigo sampler that instantly found a much better reception than anticipated in it's target demographic is like 10€ no copy protection. It's already on piracy sites, yet it's clear that the combination of affordable+no licensing no nonsense install lead more people to actually buy it.

AudioDamage had no copy protection, but also no demo. But they certainly subsequently went to serial number authorisation. (And pivoted to Eurorack modules for several years because plugin revenue wasnt good enough, AFAIR)

[chk071]

And, by the way. Do you know how copy protections benefit us as users? They make sure the developers don't have to compensate for piracy, which they have to, if their copy protection is weak. Yes, they have to think economically, like every business. In the end, it's good for us, if the product isn't pirated, because we pay less money that way. Common sense.

This is the simping I talked about in my first reply here. As I already said, there is no factual consensus that it achieves what it claims. If it serves a practical purpose, it's to enforce the idea of monetary value to justify pricing.

No, it's an explanation how copy protection can even be beneficial to the user (and how, at the same time, piracy is bad for the paying customer).

Funny that we even have to discuss such blatantly obvious stuff.

If you want to point your finger at someone for the existence of such evil things like iLok, point your finger at the warez "community". They're the evil people without any kind of moral or ethic standards.