I have both Reaktor and Absynth, and both employ different schemes.
Reaktor is dongle based, absynth has the infamous 2 holes in the disk/serial thing; it seems to ask for the disk and serial every 3-4 weeks.
Although I favour the dongle approach, since it is non-intrusive, I don\'t like every manufacturer using it\'s own dongle standard. I had to get a usb hub to connect the extra dongles from emagic, NI, TDM plugs etc.
The time based check is most annoying; I wish at least they would include some sort of timer displaying when it\'s going to ask for the disk again, so I don\'t have to get the disks out when I\'m in the middle of something. (I have a notebook as well for home so I tend to carry my disks around in a binder..very annoying when you need the disks in the studio and the binder is at home )
As mentioned in other threads before, all these various copyprotection methods stop casual copying to a degree...but it won\'t stop piracy. There\'s no protection scheme out there that will.
Although I understand the need for protection for developers, I wonder how long people like myself buying software have to put up with all those protection schemes...
CD checks are fine when you have two or three products that use this system. Never bothered me with NI stuff when it was just a couple of things.
However, it becomes an increasingly annoying and insane mess as you add products that use this system. When you have thirty or more it is a complete nightmare, and live performance becomes almost impossible. You are then asked for CDs constantly and end up needing your \"CD Flak Jacket\" with you at all times. This is why we didn\'t go this route with our instruments and also why Emagic dropped this system too, after many thousands of complaints. It is really annoying and you are dealing with it on a daily basis.
As an end user, I hope more companies don\'t go this route of the CD Check system.
Don\'t all CD check protections require an extra background task to run? In that case.... no thanks. Nick, just give us serial or whatever hassle-free protection you can find - hassle-free for the legitimate user. I feel like bringing on the same discussion for the 117th time here, but no protection will ever protect your software/library from being cracked and copied - and the cracked versions will be the more comfortable ones to use....
I second that, Simon. Dongles and cd-checks are annoying. I always feel like there\'s something draining resources.. especially with background tasks.
For a production as large as QLSO (which i\'m sure is the product in mind for your post, Nick) I would think of other possibilities. Watermarking isn\'t working for you?
Whatever you think of, no matter how ingenius the concept is, it will get reverse-engineered and cracked, eventually.
Software developers are at high risk and they should know that they\'re fighting a never ending war against the millions of pirates out there.
I completely understand your concern, though. Maybe a good idea would be to require online-checks with a user-database once every week? The check would be automated and not a hassle for the end-user.
The online-check would verify the data you provided when you bought the product (Full name, birthdate, social security number, serial number, and LOCATION.) If any of these datas were to change you\'d have to call the database administrators and have them upgrade the information.
Of course this protection would be cracked in a matter of days and your green would be flying out the window...
On the other hand, a library such as QLSO would without a doubt be out of reach for regular composers with orchestral music as a hobby on the side. The big guys who would be using it commercially, in projects that would earn them money sure as hell wouldn\'t feel confident using pirated samples, and they would most likely fear the watermarking + the fact that the sounds are probably recognizable by their character. In the end they would buy it.
These are the only people you can expect to sell a sample library with a price-tag of $3-5000 to.
For these people the copy protection would seem like an insult.
I would compare it to a car purchase:
You steal a car coz it was real expensive, you can\'t afford it and you\'d love to play around with it. You\'ll have to unscrew the number plates, and thus you can\'t drive around in public with it. You\'ll be burning rubber in your backyard. No one will ever know. Now, if you\'d like to drive around in public you\'d have to buy the car. Simple as that.
I\'d have to say no to online checks, even if it was to ask only sporadically. My Giga machine has no modem or network card, and I would prefer to keep it that way. I know others that have their machines far from a phone line/ethernet jack in the first place.
It\'d be better than dongles, imo, but there\'s gotta be other ways.
By the way, sorry that we\'ve hijacked your topic, Nick. Hopefully the conversation will still be useful. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Steinberg\'s VSTi Virtual Guitarist has a protection that prevents you from copying the CDs... On the CD itself you can see a circular ring in the center of the CD... It allows you to install all the files but you can\'t duplicate the CDs... You can copy all of the wav files but that would be pointless because you would still have to find a way to link the Guitarist to the appropriate wav files, which will obviously take ages to map about 3000 samples!!!
Gigastudio should make all instruments like a VST instrument, ie, instead of loading the gig files, you would have to load a funky virtual instrument, like GOS, and then from within that instrument, load the sounds you want... I think that would be good... Combine that with a CD check once a month and that is ok...
I think you guys probably donno what I am saying!!! hhehehehe... [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]