Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jwhynot]

Tony -

If you defeat the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented, you are cracking it and committing theft.

It's f*cking stealing.

JW

[Peter Beckmann]

Reitzas wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 01:27

When someone steals from a company that are the creators of software that I legitimately use to make my living, it pains me to think that we all suffer. Money gets diverted away that could have been used to improve the future of the product.

Exactly. If people don't pay for music, films, games and software, how long are the people and companies that make these things going to carry on?

Protools has come such a long way from it's starting point, and that costs money to support and develop.


Terry wrote:

Quote:

This product is absolutely stunning in its depth and professional usability, and they have never made a continuous huge profit from it. I for one appreciate Protools.

+1

Peter

[J.J. Blair]

If you don't like Avid, their policies or software, then don't buy it.  But don't steal their software.

I can't stand Waves, so I just don't use their stuff.  I don't steal from them.

I agree, to call this karma is kinda lame.

[Silvertone]

I'd call this "bad" Karma... trouble is there is a whole generation of people out there that think this kind of practice is fine... it is a very disturbing thought that so many people can steal and be "fine" with it...  

All my interns use to say "these companies make so much money"... I would counter with, "how do you think you're going to make a living in this business if everything is free"... and here we are, in todays world of no budgets and the whole world thinking music is free...

btw I stopped taking interns because of this attitude toward the business.

[Waltz Mastering]

I can imagine the frenzy this will create when this news gets posted on other audio forums...

[chris carter]

tom eaton wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010 18:11

In 2006 I paid $1200 for my copy of Nuendo. At that time I would have happily done the same for a copy of ProTools that would have worked with my interfaces.  Without track count limitations.   Seems to me that Digi/Avid has the opportunity to sell a lot more copies of PT to people like me if they want to release a version that has the feature set of the "cracked" version. tom

Tom, I think you might just be right.  While the gigantic dongle may have been good for business for Digi back in the day, I wonder if it's an outdated strategy.  With people jumping ship left and right, and with this hacked version out there that they seem to admit they can't defeat, perhaps this could push Digi for a native unlimited track count version that will work with any interface.  The irony, is that it could increase market share.  Now whether or not it increases profitability is another question, but it would put a hardship on other DAWs that are currently experiencing an uptick in users due to Apple's setting the standard of $499 for every major DAW other than PT.

[Hallams]

J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 17:38

If you don't like Avid, their policies or software, then don't buy it.  But don't steal their software. I can't stand Waves, so I just don't use their stuff.  I don't steal from them. I agree, to call this karma is kinda lame.

Looks like it's time to clarify my intentions here. My intention in starting this thread was to start a discussion about the news in reference to the blog supportive of Protools, i pasted a link to in the first post. There is some interesting info on the blog but the reference to karma has since been edited from the blog. What's interesting to me is the lack of goodwill Avid seems to be fostering with that particular blog that was supportive of their product in a time they need to pay attention to that aspect of their business.
There could even be a + in some respects, for avid having Tools  unlocked from the hardware:).... I was not suggesting that this was in fact karma for digi/avid, i am not a protools user and don't support the use of cracked software.

My own opinions are around issues of how modern corporations seem to act more in the short term gain than the long term business development.


The planned obsolescence that digi is seen to take unfair advantage of in their upgrade policy over the years, as applied to loyal customers who have invested big $$ ....one would think that it would have been prudent in business terms to lessen the upgrade cost for established users. It would be interesting to calculate the total cost of keeping updated with Protools from the 16bit 44.1 beginnings until the latest upgrade system. IMHO they should have treated their customers with a far better upgrade cost path. In the current corporate climate the business outlook is dominated by short term gain rather than long term business building. No one is saying profit is not important but the scales are way outa wack in regard to long term business strategies verses short term profit, that often have impact on quality and customer satisfaction. One way to describe the current corporate mindset is that of supreme arrogance, and there will be a backlash from the consumer.
 

[Tim Halligan]

Groovr wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 12:04

Legality notwithstanding (and no, I'm not trying to suggest that this is OK), I'm far more intrigued by what it reveals about the apparently arbitrary nature of the Pro Tools HD voice limitations. If I had spent thousands of dollars on additional hardware in order to unlock voices when it turns out they could have just flicked a switch on a piece of code, I would be rather annoyed.

I think you'll find that this is quite common.

Usually, the machine is shipped with the entire software capability built in. Your license unlocks what you have paid for.

This applies to Avid, Digi, AMS-Neve, Fairlight, Pyramix and others.

Cheers,
Tim

[kats]

jwhynot wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:19

Tony - If you defeat the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented, you are cracking it and committing theft. It's f*cking stealing. JW

Semantics.

Right now I need a digital 192 to connect my RADAR into protools. To up it from 16 to 24 channels of external conversion I need to purchase additional DIGI hardware. The DIGI hardware is the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented.

HOWEVER, Apogee and Lynx have defeated the need for additional hardware by offering "HD Cards". How is this any different?

So the indignation  strikes me as hypocritical.

[Tom L]

Groovr wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010 20:04

If I had spent thousands of dollars on additional hardware in order to unlock voices when it turns out they could have just flicked a switch on a piece of code, I would be rather annoyed.

Annoying as it might be, I still don't understand how people can use this line of thought as a justification for theft or slamming Avid.

Regardless of the methods they use to allow or disallow features, the bottom line is (more or less) you get what you pay for.

You buy a car and there are options.  You want more features, you have to pay for them.

[edit] In all fairness to Groovr, he did say "I'm not trying to suggest that this is OK". I didn't intend to take his quote out of context.  I'm just seeing many instances of those who do think it's OK.

[KB_S1]

kats wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 13:49

jwhynot wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:19 Tony - If you defeat the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented, you are cracking it and committing theft. It's f*cking stealing. JW Semantics. Right now I need a digital 192 to connect my RADAR into protools. To up it from 16 to 24 channels of external conversion I need to purchase additional DIGI hardware. The DIGI hardware is the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented. HOWEVER, Apogee and Lynx have defeated the need for additional hardware by offering "HD Cards". How is this any different? So the indignation  strikes me as hypocritical.

The only thing that the HD interface cards allow is the use of 3rd party interfaces to be directly linked to the HD PCIe cards.
You still need the HD system in place.

Do interface manufacturers pay a license fee for this option?

[DSills]

Edit: never mind - KB_S1 made the same point seconds earlier.

[rollmottle]

This is what happens when you refuse to listen to or fail to grasp the zeitgeist of your most loyal users, your potential customer base, and your competitors' products. This is what happens when you develop software for bottom lines instead of for USERS.

This is an opportunity for Avid to reclaim some goodwill by finally doing what they should have been doing for years. That their software is arbitrarily tied to their own hardware, in my opinion, is ridiculous. The thing is, I think they could have their cake and eat it too. One version of ProTools. Track count limited only by your computing power. Ability to harness network computing resources. Auto-delay compensation. Include all the shit from the Toolkits. Avid could still sell value-added hardware acceleration without limiting the capabilities of their software.

If Avid made this, people would pay for it. The user base has been begging them to finally do something that will make them want to keep spending their money with them and here we have its ultimate manifestation.

[Daniel Farris]

I think the notion that people buy additional cards for more voices is misguided or, at the very least, incomplete. Especially outside of film mixing.

I have a paltry two cards, and I can run 192 voices. That should be enough... forever. But what might make me buy more cards would be the need for additional TDM DSP.

Anyone who thinks 1000 tracks would be useful for them deserves to have them... and to spend the rest of their lives mixing them.

DF

[kats]

KB_S1 wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:28

kats wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 13:49 jwhynot wrote on Wed, 26 May 2010 00:19 Tony - If you defeat the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented, you are cracking it and committing theft. It's f*cking stealing. JW Semantics. Right now I need a digital 192 to connect my RADAR into protools. To up it from 16 to 24 channels of external conversion I need to purchase additional DIGI hardware. The DIGI hardware is the method by which unauthorized use of software is prevented. HOWEVER, Apogee and Lynx have defeated the need for additional hardware by offering "HD Cards". How is this any different? So the indignation  strikes me as hypocritical. The only thing that the HD interface cards allow is the use of 3rd party interfaces to be directly linked to the HD PCIe cards. You still need the HD system in place. Do interface manufacturers pay a license fee for this option?

Yes, directly in place of a Digital 192 digital interface - which is part of the "system".  So what people are saying here is that it is okay to subvert the need of an AVID digital interface, but it is not okay to subvert the PCI cards - both pieces of hardware are mandatory for the software to work.


Where do you draw the line?

What if I write a piece of software that allows delay compensation on DIGI LE. Am I now a criminal because Avid had neutered that feature to promote the sales of more expensive HD units?

But you guys are up in arms because someone wrote a piece of software (that runs beside PT - as in a separate program) that allows more voices.

I don't get it.