My take is this:

Copy Protection is middleware. It’s something the developers want, not the end user. The Pace model is flawed because they are targeting half of their product to the developers and the other half is being shoved down the end users throats. The software manufacturers and Pace need to work closely together to make Pace’s software work in the product as cleanly as possible, or at least remove the need for any action on the part of the end user short of the initial registration of the software when it’s purchased.

I think this is where people who have had problems with Pace’s product get really ticked. They usually aren’t savvy enough to know if the problems they are experiencing are because of iLok, the software they purchased or their own hardware. Since the software companies didn’t develop the Pace iLok code, and it was probably just a bunch of libraries that were included in the compilation of their code, they really don’t know what, if any adverse effects iLok has on the systems running their software. So the end user gets caught in a round robin of tech support calls between the software vendor and Pace looking for a solution and all they get is two parties pointing the finger at each other and providing no real solution to the end user.

Microsoft and many other companies have adopted a “call home” method of software registration and activation. Even though this form of copy protection is more prone to cracking, it offers a fairly good form of copy protection without being too intrusive on the loyal customers. Plus you can’t even buy a computer without a built in NIC card anymore, and who doesn’t have internet access anymore? Plus Windows/OS X come with builtin drivers for almost every NIC card ever made and they are mature drivers that have been working fine for years. Not some proprietary, possibly buggy kernel level driver that the end user gets to beta test.

Audio software is, at it’s very core, demanding of computing resources. Any driver that hooks directly into the kernel at the lowest levels and affects how the kernel interacts with software and the OS should be avoided in DAW based systems. This is why when people have troubles with their DAWs it is usually recommended that they turn off all services they do not need and don’t run more VSTs and other modules than needed, thus freeing up precious CPU cycles for use with the DAW software. That’s all well and good except you can never turn off iLok or your DAW/VSTs won’t work.

If I buy a software product, and my system meets the minimum requirements for said software, I should not be expected to then have to go out and buy yet another piece of software/hardware just to make the product I bought run. For that reason, all copy protection should be software based and included in the installer of the software I purchased. Even if the software manufacturers don’t agree, they should at least bundle the iLok dongle with their product, not make me go buy it.

I am a developer myself, and I totally understand the need to protect the intellectual rights of software companies to the extent they can. But it should not be made to be the responsibility of the end user to enforce the copy protection themselves.

Climbing off my soapbox now…..

Geekman

The DRM softwares are really there to keep those people honest.

I am personally ok with copyright protection, AS LONG AS it is a stable software and doesn’t disrupt one’s work much.

I’ve been on both sides of the isle. I am a developer, so I understand Waves’ pain. But I also cannot always afford the software I want, and so..

There are always many what-ifs. I believe it’s really a balancing act. Software companies tries to make the process as painless and trouble-free as possible for the consumers.
And consumers need to show some understanding and patience towards what the companies are trying to do: make some profit.

My free time is a scarce commodity and I am pissed that no one is going to reimburse me for my wasted time. I bought this stuff on sale but the time waste factor has sucked up any ’savings’ and it is now becoming quite expensive. Am I going to write any music this weekend? The way things are going, I doubt it.

Thanks for nothing Pace and East West. Screw you guys, I’m going home.

Andy

However…… interesting to think that you thought my comments were from a software publisher.

That is exactly why we’re trying to build a better system than what we (or anyone else) has now. It’s too early to talk about, but I think PACE can build a system that’s actually easier to use than serial numbers.

I actually agree with you more than you know. Whenever we have security meetings, I’m always pointing out that stupidity is much more common then evil.

Did you know that the primary reason for the receipt scan at Best Buy, Fry’s, etc. is not because thievery is that common, but because cashiers can miss ringing up items. Stupidity is more common then evil; its easy to miss the $299 iPod under the $9.99 DVD.

It’s really a fundamental design parameter in everything we do. For a real world example, there are probably 100 people who lose their serial number for every person that tries to “fake out” tech support by claiming they “lost” it.

Looking at Audio Damage…Yep. The way your system works is that you end up keeping track of what everyone has purchased. So your customers have to login, and then then gives them access to the download. You probably track the downloads (or could) to see if someone is spreading their account around to 100,000 people. I suppose you could even stenographically embed the user’s account name in the application, but I doubt you bother. Ah, I see, you have both protected downloads and registration codes.

You use the same recipe, you get the same bread. I suspect you have a lot of the same problems with your system that we have with our system.

This way of thinking is wrong and non humane and I worry very much where the world is going with this- as its all part of a bigger picture.
Here in the UK we are experiencing a phenomona whereby you constantly have to prove who you are by a system of interrorgation from everyone in any official role- the bank clerk, the gas supplier etc. It is of course for our own ‘data protection’.
I fear nobody trusts anybody anymore.

In the same way, and as Jeff pointed out, manufacurers must not ‘de facto’ assume that everybody wants to steal their software. This will alienate the paying customer in the end and is wrong.

However, if a system must be in place to protect the software it must not impinge on the paying customer IN ANY WAY.
Go chase the people doing the stealing but don’t mix them up with your paying customers.