Unregistering Plugins

krizrox · Post by **krizrox** » Tue May 11, 2004 6:48 am

On 2004-05-11 06:26, garyb wrote:
rodos1979, that sez it perfectly!

the first post to make sense of the subject.

Yeah I liked the story/analogy too.

Some of you are making sense about the cost and I will add my voice to the chorus. I don't begrudge CW charging a small amount for this - especially if it means that transfers can now be handled in a day or two as opposed to months! $5-$10 doesn't seem unreasonable to me either and I think they should lower their costs to that level.

7XL · Post by **7XL** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:00 am

How about this.

I have 4 cards, 3 in my studio and 1 in my home studio. All I want to do is transfer a couple of plugins from One machine to another (since I can't use them on different machines at the same time), so I have to pay to move them between machines.

Now my question is 2 fold.

Why doesn't CWA make all of your purchased plugins available to all of your purchased cards?

Do they honestly think that most people are going to buy 2 copies of the plugins that they use most if they have more than one system? Even Pro Tools lets you transfer your plugins with less hassle (I-Lok).

Maybe if they (CWA) focus a little more on user convience than squeezing every penny they can out of people, thier sales just might increase (happy people say good things about a company, and we all know what disatisfied people say).

So maybe one of the talking heads at CWA will read this and realize that they're losing customers before they even exist.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Thu May 13, 2004 2:34 am

.... Why doesn't CWA make all of your purchased plugins available to all of your purchased cards?.....

Why doesn't microsoft make your purchased copy of windows avaliable to all your purchased computers?

Post by **hubird** » Thu May 13, 2004 6:03 am

7XL, do you realize that if all the software is registered to all cards someone has, it would be hard to rereg the software, for the owner as well as for CWA?
If CWA needs at least 45 minutes to swap the keys to another card (see Franks post), it would take 2 or 3 times that time if 2 or 3 cards are involved.
I wasn't aware of all the reregistering issues in the past, but I get a clue these days how it works to chain software to (the owner of) one or more cards

It would be nice if we people had an eprom in our brains, to put the keys in, hehe.
cheerz

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Thu May 13, 2004 6:54 am

On 2004-05-13 07:03, hubird wrote:
It would be nice if we people had an eprom in our brains, to put the keys in, hehe.
cheerz

scarry as a razor in a child's hand

Post by **hubird** » Thu May 13, 2004 7:17 am

ha, yes you're right

but I mean JUST for CWA's cards keys then?

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu May 13, 2004 9:13 am

On 2004-05-13 03:34, bassdude wrote:
.... Why doesn't CWA make all of your purchased plugins available to all of your purchased cards?.....
Why doesn't microsoft make your purchased copy of windows avaliable to all your purchased computers?

indeed, this is how software licences work. The price you pay is for a licence to use the software on one system. If you have a company and want to install Windows on 30 systems you have to buy 30 licences, not just one and copy it to all other computers.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun May 16, 2004 9:25 pm

Software bundles are a bad idea unless the users get to pick which items are in the bundle and when buying hardware which comes with software we ought to be able to pick and choose which software items come with the hardware. Very few of us are selling these things because we don't want them. I'm guessing most of the sales are because of duplicates which is Creamware's fault. I've seen bundles with items in it that can't be bought individually so if you want something, you have to buy the entire bundle. This is how things get put on Ebay. Who really wants this hassle?

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun May 16, 2004 10:50 pm

Oh yes Microsoft is such a good example of how to treat prey um I mean customers... Right? WTF? When I buy an audio CD I should only be able to play it in one CD player and if I want to play it in my car, I should be required by law to buy another identical copy of the same CD. This is so bogus!

DON'T BUY THE HYPE!

On 2004-05-13 03:34, bassdude wrote:
.... Why doesn't CWA make all of your purchased plugins available to all of your purchased cards?.....
Why doesn't microsoft make your purchased copy of windows avaliable to all your purchased computers?

Jan Nolte · Post by **Jan Nolte** » Mon May 17, 2004 12:54 am

On 2004-05-16 23:50, braincell wrote:
Oh yes Microsoft is such a good example of how to treat prey um I mean customers... Right? WTF? When I buy an audio CD I should only be able to play it in one CD player and if I want to play it in my car, I should be required by law to buy another identical copy of the same CD. This is so bogus!

We are already near to it. Because of this f***ing copy protection for audio cd's, I can't creat anymore my own CDs with songs from other CDs I paid for.
They want you to listen to it for a week, than you have to throw it away and buy a new CD. I really hope the predictions are true and the music-industry will soon go down with all flags flying! Then the shit that they call music will also leave for good.

And your are right, Microsoft is bad, but a good example how this system operate. Alarming how many musicans here justify this system and say "it is like it is". I thought artists are more idealistic. But now I understand how the situation of the industry and their music become possible.

[ This Message was edited by: Jan Nolte on 2004-05-17 01:59 ]

Post by **hubird** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:30 am

easy said, Jan, but explain me how you'd protect the music writers rights, our rights then.
I know the music industry does it just for their own, but a copy protection system is also good for musicion's rights, and is good for the more interesting types of music, because the more small a selling rate is the more important is a copy protection system.
OT, and just my 2 €cents

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-05-17 07:31 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:53 am

well, M$soft was the first company to completely give up copyprotection at a time where almost all their competitors used it.

They took it into account that their product would spread like hell through the univers(ities) - and that students one day turn to customers, hhmmm - not exactly - decision holders spending the money of their company might apply better

And if I remember the Office license it not only entitles you to use a bundle of products (and of course prohibits the split) - it forces you to use that product as an ensemble.

In other words: if you prefer (say) a different presentation software than Powerpoint you loose your Word license

cheers, Tom

Jan Nolte · Post by **Jan Nolte** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:58 pm

On 2004-05-17 07:30, hubird wrote:
easy said, Jan, but explain me how you'd protect the music writers rights, our rights then.
I know the music industry does it just for their own, but a copy protection system is also good for musicion's rights, and is good for the more interesting types of music, because the more small a selling rate is the more important is a copy protection system.
OT, and just my 2 €cents

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-05-17 07:31 ]

(The rights of the musicians? What about the ludicrous 9% of revenue the musicians get? They creat the product and get only 9%?!)
Every copy-protection can be cracked. The hackers love challenges. You still can find every song in the internet for free. So only the honest customers suffers from the copy protection. In the end it will deter many customers to buy CDs.
How to protect the rights? Hm, first the industry has to face the true reasons why their revenue declining. It's not because of the internet, it's because they were to greedy. They invested in on-hit-wonder-products like Superstar (Super Idol) and Starsearch. This brings a lot of money, but not in a long run. Also they concentrate on a target group which is easy to manipulate, but also has not so much money. Teenager (and children) have no other chance then to download the popular music, if they want to keep up with the trend. And if they wouldnt get the chance to download, they regardless wouldn't buy the CDs. So it's not true, that the industry lost money for EVERY song they downloaded.
Another problem is the radio. The most stations only play the Top10 in an endless loop. So people who like this music don't need to buy the CDs, they just have to turn on the radio (lucky guys

).
So the main problem are the managers of the music-industry. They only interested in money, they doesn't give a damn to the music. Most of them only listen to music, when they beguile a female vocalist

[ This Message was edited by: Jan Nolte on 2004-05-17 15:07 ]

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:33 pm

I agree that copy protection on CDs doesn't work. If someone wants to rip something badly enough, they can still do it, using a CD player with SP/DIF out. Of course it's harder to do, but once it's done, it's done, and available to download by millions of people.

I recently bought a copy-protected album, and the implementation is quite horrible. Firstly, it requires installing a driver in Windows, and also it doesn't play properly in many CD players I've tried it in.

I agree with Jan on all points he makes, by the way.. if you make music worthless disposable, then people treat it like a worthless and disposable object.

Incidentally, copy protection on music CDs and copy protection for software are quite different things, and I don't think it's valid to compare the two.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:32 pm

An interesting comment was made at a symposium on music piracy at The American University in Washington D.C. recently.

Ian MacKaye owns the independent punk label originally created for his band. He earns a good living from it, much better than he would have made from the rip-off major labels. He said that he wants his music to be heard by as many people as possible whether they pay for it or not.

I don't like his music but I love his attitude.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2004-05-17 17:02 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:45 pm

what makes his attitude differ from M$soft's ?

once you pass the critical mass the thing runs off itself - merchandize for example...
...and we're back at the industry selling anything but music

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-05-17 19:47 ]

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue May 18, 2004 7:19 am

Well, one main difference among *many* is that Microsoft never said they don't mind if you copy their operating system CD. In fact they have made it impossible (as far as I can tell) to buy a new computer with no operating system installed. There is no law this is a law made by Microsoft. We know about their tactics. Come on now you aren't going to defed the business practices of Microsoft or are you?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:03 am

On 2004-05-18 08:19, braincell wrote:
... We know about their tactics. Come on now you aren't going to defed the business practices of Microsoft or are you?

why shouldn't I ? because they are unpopular ?
mind the first sentence in the quote above

Someone says copy protection su*ks - M$ doesn't apply cp
Someone says the owner of an indie label rules - he (the owner) doesn't care if anyone pays for the records...

I have a slight problem to distinguish the 2 cases - imho they are the same (or finally yield the same result), popularity left aside

cheers, Tom

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:05 pm

My friend, I pity you.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue May 18, 2004 5:13 pm

nice post Braincell - even better: your current post count (1229) reflects by birthdate and the date you joined is my wife's birthday

anyway, we're already taking the usual drift from the topic, I admit there's something in your point.
In fact I once found it rather unpleasant to watch certain people change by money, but I'd rather say that money works out their character - it doesn't make them

Btw it is a common strategy in current software developement NOT to work on a solid product.
The target is to work on something (doesn't matter what) that has potential of being extremely widespread, then make it available for free, hope everyone grasps it - and finally hope to be aquired by one of the big players for a 2 to 3 figure million $ amount.

I prefer to stay a cynic instead of becoming a hypocrate

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-05-18 18:14 ]