At the risk of causing a flame war, let’s at least look at exactly how the authorization works. Authorization is, of course, always annoying to paid users on some level, and I expect some of you will still be unhappy with the USB key approach. Looking at it on balance, there are some advantages in certain situations, when compared to software-only authorization, and disadvantages in others.

This is a preview only of a non-shipping product, based on information Propellerhead has shared and my own experience. It’s also not intended to be an opinion piece; I just want to look at the big picture in the hopes that the online discussions can be better-informed.

First, to clear up a misconception: the authorization does not slow down boot time. In fact, Record is one of the fastest-booting audio apps I’ve seen. (Note: any comment about performance is just speculative, as we don’t have a final build yet. But this is partly objective; remember, by not supporting plug-ins, Record doesn’t have to slog through your plug-in folder, something you can leave to other tools.)

The first time you load Record, you’ll see something like this if your USB key isn’t plugged in:

With the USB key, you won’t actually see that dialog again. In fact, if Record doesn’t see the key, it will give you an opportunity to insert it:

What’s demo mode? If you can’t authorize Record, it will switch to “demo” mode. (One thing it won’t do is arbitrarily quit or something stupid like that, which I have seen some hardware-based systems do.) In demo mode, you can do everything except open files. This also means the demo you’ll try at dealers or on your own machine will be more fully-featured.

What if something happens to your key during a set? If you’re onstage and someone breaks your key, for instance, you can continue to use Record you can’t just open any new files.

What if you don’t have your key? The backup method is Internet authorization. An Internet authorization is just as full-featured as using the USB key. So, for instance, if you’re at home or in a studio and don’t want to fill up a USB port with the key, you can simply use Internet authorization.

I asked Propellerhead when the Internet connection has to be active, and they reported that there are two times:

1. When you startup the software

2. Each time you open a file

This is just based on my own tests and conversations; see the full discussion at the Props site:

Propellerhead Ignition Key

So, for those of you keeping score at home, here’s what I currently understand as the tradeoffs of this approach?

Why It’s Good News

Before you start ranting in comments, some readers have already noted an advantage of this system: it makes it very possible to use Record on lots of computers. Got a couple of desktop machines, a computer at the studio, a netbook, your significant other’s machine, a laptop, and then the computer at your band-mate’s house? With most software authorization schemes – challenge and response and so on – you’re out of luck, because you have two or three authorizations to play with. This also means if a drive fails or a software authorization is lost, you have to use a (limited) supply of existing authorizations or find a serial number. With the key, you can move between all those locations, then get to someone who has a new machine and download the file there, plug in, and go. (Yes, I know, this is also possible with open source / free software, which is an excellent argument for having some sort of free host as your common denominator, but it’s still an advantage for Record.)

Why It Beats Other USB Keys

Many music software developers, of course, use USB keys, and each have their own implementations. But Propellerhead have themselves noted some of the complaints:

• Software that immediately stops working if a key is disconnected or breaks, or that immediately loses the ability to save
• Companies that charge extra for the dongle
• Companies that charge you a significant portion or the full cost of a product if you break or lose your key. (Oh, by the way, if you’re out there and that’s your policy, I have some really, really special words for you.)
• Some software requires both a USB key and challenge/response authorization of each individual machine … yeah, again, special words, not family-friendly.

Propellerhead have addressed all of these issues. Most importantly, the replacement policy: you’ll only need to pay a nominal fee to get a replacement. That doesn’t make this a perfect solution (see below), but it does beat a lot of the schemes used by other developers with hardware keys.

The basic idea of a USB key is to work like a car key, to make ownership physical and fairly straightforward. Propellerhead have said that they just didn’t like other implementations out there.

So, yes, that’s the good news. But that still leaves some complains.

Why It’s Also Bad News

So, Record beats a lot of other software that uses USB keys. That still leaves some problems. For one, if your host (Pro Tools, Cubase) uses a USB key, you’ll need another one plugged in at the same time to use Record at the same time, unless you have an Internet connection. Also, while the eight-computer setup above makes the key an advantage, if you just have a laptop and desktop, it’s probably easier in most cases just to do the software-only authorization (as in Ableton Live, for instance), and stay authorized. Then, when you’re out on the bus or train or hotel room, you don’t have to dig around for your key, and there’s nothing to lose.

In short, you’ll probably like it better than those software schemes if you move a lot between machines. If you have one laptop you carry everywhere, you may like it less.

I think the other factor in the growing dissent is a trend away from these kinds of anti-piracy schemes in general. Music DRM is dead. Computer games, though still widely pirated, have gone to less restrictions after users rebelled and piracy remained unabated. It’s even true in pro media software. Apple’s Logic and Final Cut have loosened their authorization schemes; Logic even lost its dongle. Sure, some will argue that’s to help Apple sell more computers, except having talked to their software teams, I’m fairly sure they like to sell software. Cakewalk has serial-only authorization on their products; do it once, and forget about it. Software like energyXT, once authorized, will run anywhere on a USB key. And Reaper doesn’t even require authorization at all; it’s honor system-based.

Likewise, I’m a bit disappointed that this is yet another USB key that doesn’t do anything – it seems like it’d be an ideal way to tote around presets, though admittedly, that might mean you have to buy it. I’m sure the iLok people could point out that, unlike their key, this can only authorize Record and not other software, though that’s less of an issue with an app that (for better or for worse) doesn’t support plug-ins.

It’s just not a black and white issue, as developers remain nervous about piracy and keeping their businesses open. But if developers want to understand why users are resistant, I think the evidence is there.

My sense is that this won’t be a deal-breaker for everyone, and a lot of people are enthusiastic enough about Record that they’ll live with the key, just as people live with, say, the online authorization in a tool like Ableton Live.

I do think we need more reasoned discussion of these issues, though, instead of defensive developers and frustrated users just venting. It’d also be great to see some solid metrics on how these approaches work.

Okay. I’m publishing this. If you need to vent in comments, fine; I’m staying out of it.

Good news: Ableton will not be “evil.” (see photo at right; thanks, Amanda.)

It happens: a hard drive dies, or you lose an entire computer and switch machines. Now, in an ideal world with no copy protection, this wouldn’t be such an issue, but most of us are fairly resigned to some kind of copy protection being a necessary evil. There’s software we rely on that requires some kind of authorization or unlock, if not a hardware dongle. That means you need to get a functioning copy of your software of choice up on your machine – fast.

Ableton Live, for one, has always had a relatively generous demo. It runs unlimited, with only saving and bouncing disabled. I have known Live users to, in a pinch, use that demo to save a live gig – just load your set into a backup machine and play. (For the same reason, I keep a fully bounced version of my sets, in case there’s some problem with third-party instruments.)

Ableton had made some noises over the years about adjusting this policy – which always made me nervous that they’d take away the unlimited demo-only version. (I even got students I taught in a class at Hunter College making use of this.)

Happily, what Ableton did this month was to extend the demo, adding 14 days of saving but keeping the unlimited save-disabled mode. In short, says a representative here in New York:

Get a serial:  saving and exporting enabled for 14 days

After 14 days (or without a serial):  old demo behavior; no saving and exporting, but everything else still works indefinitely.

And naturally, if you’ve been holding back from giving yourself a good Ableton Live test drive to see if it’s for you, you’ve got no excuse now. (Bravo not only to Ableton but the various vendors smart enough to offer a demo. After all, you can try out a guitar at the store before you buy it. It’s an instrument.)

WAVES and PACE defend their anti-piracy hardware protection and respond to allegations of technical difficulties from a blog entry … and why, if this discussion really matters, we should look at it a different way.

At the beginning of the month, we pointed to a blogger who posted what was essentially a rant about why he was fed up with PACE. (PACE is a common anti-piracy developer whose technology is most often deployed as an iLok dongle, but available as software-only protection, as well.) The blog entry began with a series of technical problems, but developed into an argument about why the author felt third-party anti-piracy technology was problematic in general. There’s nothing so unusual about that, or even the fact that he announced he was "boycotting" products that use PACE. I’m sure you’ve heard people gripe about PACE and iLok; I’ve heard just these kinds of rants for years, and the word "boycott" does come up. (Whatever the equivalent of a "watercooler" is for audio — coffee maker? — it’s something you hear, period.) That’s not universal — some people are very loyal to PACE-protected products, and in some cases prefer an iLok to another solution. But complaints are common on the user standpoint; it’s no secret that copy protection in general is not something that users are enthusiastic about.

What made this slightly unusual was that the blogger, Adam Schabtach, works as a developer (for Audio Damage), and that a rant that a few years ago might have been shared with friends wound up on the Web. (The blog entry was NOT an official message from Audio Damage, but it did cause the blog to be received differently than if it had been a random user.) And because I believe in meeting these issues heads-on, I personally helped the story get more attention.

Of course, just as the Web amplifies rants, it also amplifies the responses. You can read some 86 comments in response to Adam, some very well-reasoned, some heated (including those who claim Adam was biased by being a developer). Sure enough, some people stepped up to defend PACE and iLok. Some did not, though there were two separate responses, one frustration with PACE, and the other with WAVES customer support. (I should note, these are not the same issue. Any developer, no matter their intention, can be bitten by unhappy users.)

There was also an official response: I was contacted by PACE Anti-Piracy. PACE had communicated with WAVES, the developer whose products Adam was using. Waves didn’t contact CDM, but PACE relayed this response from them. Specifically, both PACE and WAVES called into question the blue screen that had so frustrated Adam, claiming it had another cause:

The last written correspondence WAVES had with this user was over two years ago. No other mention in their database of correspondence with this user under this name.

In this "article" the user mentions to different scenarios where he has attempted to install/use Waves.

It is difficult for Waves and PACE to comment on the first attempt as there are not enough details for us to diagnose the problem. [PACE agrees - not a lot of info and historically very very few if any Mac issues seen].

A Waves tech rep will not recommend a user to reformat his system unless; they have found a number of symptoms indicating a major problem with the system. This is extremely rare. I can speak for my self, handling thousands of cases by phone and email where I have maybe suggested 1 or 2 users that they need to reformat their system.

[Note: PACE will NEVER recommend such reformatting due to any PACE issue as that is not how issues can be resolved].

The second scenario is not PACE related, this is an issue with Windows DEP (Data Execution Prevention) protocol.

“The installer almost immediately informed me that it had to restart my PC, so I let it. It launched itself automatically after the PC rebooted, started the installation process, and then my good faith and efforts were rewarded with this: (picture)”

There is a very simple fix to overcome this. All of WAVES tech support reps are aware of this issue and are able to resolve this issue within minutes. Period.

End of Waves response.

Since this description and Adam’s didn’t match up, I went back to Adam to find out what he had to say about Waves’ response. He wrote back:

I did not contact Waves after this most recent failure of their product because my previous contact with them was completely unsatisfactory.

Regardless of what their records say, I was asked on the phone whether reformatting my hard drive was an option. At the time there were not "a number of symptoms indicating a major problem with the system." The support rep seemed essentially stumped by the problem, and I believe asked about reformatting the drive as a last-ditch attempt to rectify the situation.

It may indeed be true that the problem documented in my blog is not related to PACE but there is no way for me to know this as an end-user. This Waves bundle was the first PACE-protected product I attempted to install on this system, and it was the first whose installer caused my PC to blue-screen. I have successfully installed products from at least ten other vendors on the same system–products that are not protected by PACE.

As I attempted to make clear in my post, this incident was only the latest in a number of problems I have encountered as a (former) user of PACE-protected products, not an isolated one.

To be honest, I’m not sure this really clears up much about this particular situation. It certainly demonstrates that one technical incident — or even a series of incidents experienced by one user — can’t really be taken as the basis for a deeper discussion of anti-piracy technology.

In fact, what it seems is that this is really more about customer support and a dissatisfied customer than anything else. (And yes, for the record, sometimes people who develop software are also themselves customers — often demanding customers, I would imagine.)

Ironically, it illustrates the opposite case of what Adam had originally been trying to illustrate.

In his original post, Adam said,

This points up the biggest problem with PACE: if something goes really wrong, the maker of the PACE-wrapped product can’t help you.

But the reverse is also true: if something goes wrong with the maker of the PACE-wrapped product, PACE often gets blamed. That’s neither a defense of PACE or a criticism of the software maker; it’s just a matter of fact. And in this case, something did go wrong: at the very least, Waves wound up with an unhappy customer; that’s inarguable. Unhappy customer can translate to larger rants about technology, which in turn can make other unhappy customers. That’s what happened with an infamous 2002 PACE rant on ProRec. You can read an archived copy of that story on Google, though looking at it again, even a hardened PACE foe would have to admit there’s plenty in there that’s just not technically true, at least today. If you want to criticize PACE, in other words, that’s not the best place to start: the concepts are sound, but the examples may not be, and that’s a problem.

Also, if you do want to talk about PACE (or any other scheme), you also have to talk about the different ways anti-piracy pteoction is used and supported by vendors. Take hardware keys (known to most of us as “dongles”): you’ve lost or broken your dongle. Some vendors will sell you a replacement for a fee (say, $100), or even replace a broken dongle for free. Some will make you pay the full purchase price of the product (say, $500, or $1500). Now, how do you feel about dongles? Probably depends on which vendor you purchased from, huh?

I think the good part of all of this is that discussions are being had in the open, more so now than even in 2002. The challenge is basing those discussions around technical realities, not just personal experience. Likewise, while Adam may have made broad arguments based on specific technical issues, you’ll notice WAVES and PACE avoided all of the broader questions he asked. (Does PACE actually prevent piracy, why do we use it, and is it really better for developers?)

And if we were to continue the above back and forth, I expect we could get a circular argument going between Adam, readers here, Waves, and PACE — and learn absolutely nothing from it.

So, if none of these is a good way to look at the issues around piracy and software copy protection, what is?

My New Year’s Revolution for 2008: we will look at these issues in a comprehensive, technically-accurate way, involving both developers and users. There are two major topics here: one is piracy itself, and the other is anti-piracy measures, whether it’s a simple serial number protection, an iLok, or BanPiracy.org suing studios. It’s time for a serious examination of how bad the piracy problem really is (or isn’t) at this point, what makes people invest in software in the first place, and what can be done to improve the customer/developer relationship. It’s also worth revisiting the available options for protection, what the drawbacks and advantages are, and just what users really think of them.

I won’t pretend to be neutral, because I’m not — I have my own opinions, and I’m happy to be upfront about them. I think the effect of pretending to be neutral can be tip-toeing around the issues. I don’t believes that serves anyone, whether users, software makers, PACE, WAVES, or anyone else. But I also don’t want my opinions getting in the way of the full spectrum of discussion, because I don’t think my own opinions are all that matter. (Far from it.)

If you’re interested in being part of this conversation and series — PACE and WAVES included — let me know, seriously. We want to hear from software makers and users with different experience of piracy and copy protection. The "cat is out of the bag." (Or is that, dongle is out of the box? Torrent is out of the tracker?) No one can avoid the discussion. We can just try to make the discussion more productive.

And if you do get a blue screen of death and can’t get an answer why, let us know that, too, and we’ll see if we can find your solution. Philosophical discussions aside, I know users don’t like things to be broken, whoever is to blame.

Stay tuned.

SHORTLY after Radiohead released its album “In Rainbows” online in October, the band misplaced its password for Max/MSP, a geek-oriented music software package that the guitarist Jonny Greenwood uses constantly. It wasn’t the first time it had happened, Mr. Greenwood said over a cup of tea at the venerable Randolph Hotel here. As usual Radiohead contacted Max/MSP’s developers, Cycling ’74, for another password. “They wrote back,” Mr. Greenwood said, “‘Why don’t you pay us what you think it’s worth?’”

It’s a joke, folks, no need to write Cycling ‘74 suggesting you buy Jitter for $5; somehow, don’t think they’ll bite.

The article itself, though, offers a good overview of the issues surrounding Radiohead’s pay-what-you-will album and how it’s been received.

Via The Phoenix; thanks to ggg for the tip!

The debate over copy protection in music software and anti-piracy tactics continues to heat up. Now Adam Schabtach of Audio Damage, the popular plug-in developer, has fired off a call for a boycott of products that use PACE and the iLok hardware dongle. And that means that Waves is again a target, in this case because Adam himself had technical difficulties resulting from the copy protection scheme. But here’s his argument: the problem isn’t copy protection per se, it’s that developers have to cede control to a third party when the technology breaks.

This points up the biggest problem with PACE: if something goes really wrong, the maker of the PACE-wrapped product can’t help you. They didn’t invent PACE, they can’t fix bugs in PACE, they often don’t even know enough about PACE to troubleshoot it (which is not so much a reflection of their ignorance but of the sheer arcane complexity of PACE and the amount of information about it which its makers do not release even to their customers). Their only recourse is to tell you to wipe your hard drive bare and start again. This is one of many reasons that Audio Damage doesn’t use PACE: we want to help our customers make music, and we don’t want to be in a position in which we have to say “sorry, can’t help you” if something goes wrong with one of our products. Of course, unlike Audio Damage, Waves doesn’t offer a money-back guarantee for their products, so in the end I was stuck with software I’d paid for but couldn’t use.

Adam just doesn’t like copy protection, right? Well, no, in fact. The issue is that while PACE fails to stop piracy (something admitted by Waves themselves as they sue studios around the world for millions of dollars), PACE did succeed in stopping Adam from using his software:

I went to the Waves website, logged in to my account, downloaded the latest installer, and retrieved my iLok from the shelf upon which it was gathering dust. I backed up my hard drive (”once bitten, twice shy” and I’ve been bitten way more than once by PACE), launched the installer, and held my breath. The installer almost immediately informed me that it had to restart my PC, so I let it. It launched itself automatically after the PC rebooted, started the installation process, and then my good faith and efforts were rewarded with [a Windows Blue Screen of Death].

… A PC running Windows puts this up when something goes really, really wrong and the OS makes the unilateral decision to bring all proceedings to a halt in order to prevent further mishap. Seeing this screen is the computer equivalent of seeing your car deploy its airbags.

The final analysis:

PACE doesn’t stop piracy; any copy-protection system can, and will be, defeated. What PACE does do is prevent legitimate users of software products from using products which they’ve paid for.

Why I Boycott Products That Use PACE/iLok (and Why You Should, Too)

PACE/iLok is the leading provider of this kind of copy protection, so I expect we may hear a response. If I can get a statement from them, I’ll post that soon. But I will say, Adam is not alone in his frustration. Developers will continue to make the choices they feel are right for their business, which is their prerogative — but it’s likewise the choice of their customers to vote with their wallets. I do know users who are perfectly comfortable with iLok. Let us know how you feel, and whether copy protection has influenced your purchasing decisions.

Updated: Note that we’re talking about two different kinds of copy protection offered by PACE. One is the PACE software protection, which does not use a hardware dongle (or “hardware key” as PACE prefers to call it). The other is the iLok.

Already, readers are split: we’ve got Max/MSP users (myself included) who haven’t had problems with PACE software protection, and even some iLok hardware users who haven’t been bothered. But there are some strong arguments against the hardware dongles, to the point of cutting into sales, something developers may want to watch closely. Keep the feedback coming.

Personally, I rely almost entirely on friends (both web- and meatspace-based) for my musical enlightenment. Occasionally I’ll do the rounds of MP3 blogs, generally stopping at Aurgasm, 3hive, Stereogum and more recently The Hype Machine, but more often I let those more musically inquisitive than I do the filtering and feed me the best bits. Most of the artists I’ve “discovered myself” recently were through music video blogs such as No Fat Clips and Ticklebooth.

For music purchases I’m tending to use label sites much more than services such as iTunes Music Store. Having a seperate account for each niche-label isn’t the most friendly setup, but I feel like more of my money is making it to the artist, and the label sites and releases are definitely more fun and personable.

I enjoyed the leadup to Hybrid’s most recent release “I Choose Noise“. First came the single “Just For Today”, released for free download on the Hybrid Sound System site. Then came the “I Choose Noise EP“, containing 2 extra tracks as an MP3 single for £2, which was followed, finally, by the full album release for £8 as MP3 download or £8.50 for a “cd exclusive” including live DVD. All of the downloads are DRM free, format-shiftable, share-with-your-friends-able, 320KBit MP3 files. Lovely.

To get an idea of what other CDM readers and contributors are listening to, check out the CDM group on Last.fm (and join up if you haven’t done so already). There’s also the Today I have been mostly listening to… thread, which could do with some reanimating. That’s only a tiny cross-section of the CDM readership though, so I’d really love to hear from those who are making and releasing music. Sources of free legal tracks we can copy and share with friends are great too, of course.

PACE Anti-Piracy announced today that InterLok 5.4 for Mac will support both Intel-native and Universal binaries. What did I just say? Let’s translate that to English: if you’ve been waiting for music software to go Intel-native on Mac, one major hurdle was just cleared. PACE provides the copy protection in a broad range of Mac music software, including the iLok key used, among other places, in Digidesign’s software. No PACE, no software. Got Intel-ready PACE? Now you’re closer to getting your copy-protected Intel-ready Mac music software. (Notice that the music software that has shipped already, like Ableton Live and Apple’s Logic Pro, don’t rely on iLok.)

I think it’s fair to say musicians have a hate-hate relationship with copy protection in general, but iLok at least seems to work pretty reliably, particularly when it comes to loading multiple licenses on a single dongle. And whereas waiting on PACE once caused delays when upgrading to new operating systems (early versions of Mac OS X, this means you), now PACE has been staying up-to-date with Apple. Official info wasn’t up at press time on the PACE Anti-Piracy site, but is promised by the end of the day.

Okay, now what am I doing writing about copy protection on a Sunday afternoon? I’m going to go try to do something fun now. Kirn out.

After the jump, some further notes on PACE copy protection and the Mac from PACE’s Andrew Kirk:

In the past our releases have always been in step with Apple. Obviously this shift was non-trivial. We extended the beta period with our customers who have worked hard to update their own code to support Intel-Based Macs natively.

The iLok is clearly more popular than any other dongle. Users routinely choose iLok over software based challenge/response and, in
some cases, buy their own blank dongle to use for activation.

The iLok affords portability, the convenience of multiple products/vendors activations on one dongle, and the use of iLok.com features
for license management and support. This includes Zero Downtime, a very popular service with professionals who want fully automated
support when something goes wrong. PACE has worked hard to continually add features that both end users and vendors are asking for.

I’ve had good luck with the iLok, myself. The challenge is some vendors (like Apple) have their own dongle, and others use the Synchrosoft dongle, with which some readers here have had difficulty loading multiple licenses (a problem I haven’t seen with the iLok). In any event, developers continue to push hard to get Intel Mac software done, and while the choices are relatively slim at the moment, I think you’ll see most music software on Intel Macs within the next few months. Now, we just need Apple to give us some more Intel-based Mac models beyond the mini and MacBook Pro. (I’m sure they’re close.)

It’s two, two, two Cubase stories in one. Here goes:

Cubase.net forum will require USB key number: Don’t like entering serial numbers and the like when you’re installing software or talking to tech support? Now you may need them just to post to a forum. The revised forum policy on Cubase.net requires users to add their USB key number (the dongle’s identifier) to a hidden field in their user profile. Refuse to comply, and you won’t be able to post Cubase SX-related technical questions. Users of Cubase software without a key, like Cubase LE, can continue to post normally, and all the general chat is still open. But ongoing piracy lockdowns just keeping getting more annoying for those of us who have legit investments in our software. (via gearjunkies) And in other Cubase news . . .

Cubase LE/SE installers incompatible with Tiger: No, Cubase itself is compatible with Mac OS X 10.4. The problem seems to be the installers: if you’ve got a pre-installed copy of LE or SE 1.07, you’re fine, but you can’t install anew on a Tiger system. See Steinberg’s forum post. A fix is promised.

If you're planning to upgrade to Mac OS X Tiger when it is released, you'll still need to check with software and hardware vendors to make sure your setup is 10.4-ready, but PACE copy protection, used in many Mac music applications and plugins, won't be an issue. Andrew Kirk of PACE Anti-Piracy tells us:

The previous mention of PACE incompatibility with Tiger is
incorrect. PACE has provided updates of all InterLok tools to
developers to support Tiger. The latest drivers, that support Tiger
have also been posted to the PACE website.  End users will be lead
through an update to get these latest drivers after they install Tiger.
Specific compatibility of applications will need to be confirmed as
there may be non-PACE specific reasons why the software needs to be
updated for Tiger.

A previous CDM report that implied PACE might be incompatible with the
shipping version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger was incorrect. Keep in mind,
10.4 is a major update under-the-hood, so you will need to confirm
compatibility with your setup before installing.

Updated: PACE copy protection has been updated and will be compatible with the shipping version of OS X 10.4 Tiger. Read CDM's updated report.