You are here

Copy protection

For feedback and suggestions about the SOS magazine, app, web site or forums.

Moderator: Moderators

Copy protection

Postby ajay_m » Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:58 pm

Would you please always mention if a reviewed product requires ilok whether physical or cloud based. A lot of us have a no ilok policy on software so it saves time if we know. Example the review on inspirata that looked interesting until I googled to find out the copy protection at which point game over.
ajay_m
Poster
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: Copy protection

Postby ConcertinaChap » Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:09 pm

It's not a big issue for me but yes, I'd like that too. Just a small comment on what, if any, copyright protection system is in use would be helpful.

This may be getting into too fine detail, I accept, but it would also be helpful to know how many computers you are permitted to install a item of software on. That can have a real bearing on the buying decision for me.

TIA.

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9622
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley, recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
International Mercurial Man of Mystery.
 

Re: Copy protection

Postby desmond » Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:17 pm

To be fair though, there's limited space in a review, and it's pretty easy just to nip to the product website if you want to get any specific product details and detailed specs. System requirements and protection methods etc will generally always be available there.

Pre-internet, it was more important to put as much info in print as possible, as it was often the only reliable source of information (you couldn't even be sure if you travelled to your dealer and asked about this stuff there - they often wouldn't know).
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11162
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am
mu:zines | music magazine archive | difficultAudio

Re: Copy protection

Postby ConcertinaChap » Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:56 pm

Actually protection methods can be surprisingly difficult to find out about on some websites - I think the makers think they might put the punters off by mentioning it. But yes, you're right, for me it's a nice to have rather than an urgent issue. The OP, of course, might feel differently.

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9622
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley, recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
International Mercurial Man of Mystery.
 

Re: Copy protection

Postby awjoe » Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:21 pm

desmond wrote:To be fair though, there's limited space in a review...

"Requires iLok."
User avatar
awjoe
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:00 am
Well, maybe I could take one for the team. But no pictures.

Re: Copy protection

Postby desmond » Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:43 pm

awjoe wrote:"Requires iLok."

I guess this is a bit of a facetious comment, but if you want to go there, it's not like just two words needs to be added to every software review.

Eg "Oh, that means I need to buy a USB iLok key..?"

"Requires iLok, which can be authorised to a USB iLok dongle, or up to three activations on a hard disk without requiring a USB iLok".

or

"Custom internet-required activation system based on a serial number which can also be authorised offline if the machine is not connected to the internet."

or

"Weekly online check to validate custom subscription. Requires account at developerCloud.com. User credentials are not stored so must be manually entered each time. No offline authorisation method available."

Basically, it's another boxout, so my previous comment is valid as far as I can see. I'll let SOS add their reasons why they haven't been including this information as a rule, and whether this is intentional, or an oversight they intend to correct.

Do they also list, say the OS requirements as a rule on their software, which you could argue would be a good idea too? Not any more? Ok, let's add another boxout for that... and now we are just moving into reproducing the developer's specification page that could just as easily be looked up online.

*Personally*, I think a link to the developer's website is all that is required, but then I'm not reviews editor for SOS.
You're entitled of course to disagree...
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11162
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am
mu:zines | music magazine archive | difficultAudio

Re: Copy protection

Postby awjoe » Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:09 pm

Not facetious. I just didn't get what you meant. Now I do.

I'm not a reviewer, but if I were, I'd opt for economy in the description of a small but important piece of information like an iLok requirement. Not as important as something like: 'Requires phantom power,' but worth stating.
User avatar
awjoe
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:00 am
Well, maybe I could take one for the team. But no pictures.

Re: Copy protection

Postby desmond » Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:21 pm

I would argue that perhaps I would consider it necessary if the user did actually *require* something the software didn't come with - ie, you had to have, or buy, a physical iLok key, and the software would only work with an iLok key. (This isn't that common these days.)

I'd also consider it worth mentioning in the review if the reviewer had some problems or confusion with the licensing methods too.

But to always consistently have a box that adds copy protection methods for all software I don't consider that important, and presumably neither do SOS at this stage.

Like I say, that's only my opinion as it's so easy these days to get that info direct from the developer's site.
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11162
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am
mu:zines | music magazine archive | difficultAudio

Re: Copy protection

Postby Martin Walker » Sat Jan 30, 2021 1:48 am

desmond wrote:I would argue that perhaps I would consider it necessary if the user did actually *require* something the software didn't come with - ie, you had to have, or buy, a physical iLok key, and the software would only work with an iLok key. (This isn't that common these days.)

I'd also consider it worth mentioning in the review if the reviewer had some problems or confusion with the licensing methods too.

But to always consistently have a box that adds copy protection methods for all software I don't consider that important, and presumably neither do SOS at this stage.

As someone who has reviewed hundreds of things over many years for SOS, that's my take too desmond - always worth mentioning any licensing issues that occur during the review itself, but not to slavishly add descriptions of copy protection to each review.


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

Re: Copy protection

Postby ConcertinaChap » Sat Jan 30, 2021 1:38 pm

I have to say I did have in mind a few words of standard phrasing in the information block at the end of the article rather than within the body of the review where the reviewer might get fed up with trying to find new ways of saying the same thing (not that they don't have to do a fair bit of that already). You don't find it important and as I say it's not world shattering for me either. But something like one of the following (not an inclusive list) would definitely be much welcomed by me.

- Requires authorisation string, max 2 authorisations
- Requires eLicenser or authorised to one computer only
- Requires iLok key or authorised to one computer only

The number of authorisations would be as important to me as the method, but as I say this can take a surprising amount of digging to find on a manufacturer's site, I often end up having to search out and download the manual to find out. If all manufacturers made it easy to find out I wouldn't be so keen on SOS telling us.

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9622
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley, recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
International Mercurial Man of Mystery.
 

Re: Copy protection

Postby ConcertinaChap » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:28 pm

From Paul White's review of Neoverb:

Authorisation can either be to a specific computer or an iLok dongle, and all the common plug‑in platforms (including AAX) are supported across Windows and Mac OS.

Thanks, Paul. Tells me just what I need to know.

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9622
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley, recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
International Mercurial Man of Mystery.
 

Re: Copy protection

Postby ronmac » Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:22 pm

“Requires some knowledge and critical thinking to operate.”

The above will cover most situations, imo. :headbang:

:mrgreen:
ronmac
Regular
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Turn the knobs 'til the music moves ya.

Re: Copy protection

Postby ConcertinaChap » Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:43 pm

ronmac wrote:“Requires some knowledge ...

Isn't that where the reviews come in? :think:

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9622
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley, recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
International Mercurial Man of Mystery.
 

Re: Copy protection

Postby ronmac » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:19 pm

ConcertinaChap wrote:
ronmac wrote:“Requires some knowledge ...

Isn't that where the reviews come in? :think:

CC

Sorry for the (intended) good natured jab...

I am a loyal SOS subscriber and fan, and enjoy the high quality commentary and reviews. The many knowledgeable and helpful folks on this forum add a lot to that experience.

Although I may be intrigued by a positive review in the mag, and comments from forumites, I would always want to dig further before making a final purchase decision. If a manufacturer didn't have a proper web presence with marketing, technical and user information section, I would either a) send them an inquiry to satisfy my concerns; b) pass on that product.

Having said all that... I trust that SOS does the best they can to convey all relevant information, considering space allowed and the need to get the key pros/cons squeezed in.

I have never owned a physical ilok key, and consider that requirement a negative for my use/workflow, but I do have products that require machine based ilok and don't have a problem with that.

Experience has taught me to measure twice and cut once and accept that it is my responsibility to ensure a product will meet my needs before plunking down the cash.
ronmac
Regular
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Turn the knobs 'til the music moves ya.

Re: Copy protection

Postby desmond » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:30 pm

Which seems a sensible approach to me! :thumbup:
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11162
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:00 am
mu:zines | music magazine archive | difficultAudio

Next