iLok turned me into Pirate

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

As a studio owner, the most rewarding aspect is:

buying expensive software
1
13%
writing emails to tech support
2
25%
"log in to your account"
1
13%
wrangling with compatibility issues
0
No votes
just making music
4
50%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:28 pm

jhharvest wrote: Oh, okay. I wouldn't know - I don't usually look for cracked stuff. The OP said that he had downloaded pirate copies, since his bought copies didn't work, which made me assume that it had been cracked.
Yup. Anything on iLok 1 has been cracked. That's why iLok 2 exists and the OP is screwed on his old machine. He can thank self-entitled software pirates for making that happen.
jhharvest wrote: When I search iLok2 on Google, 6 of the results on the first two pages are "iLok2 stopped working". On related searches it offers me "iLok2 flashing" and "iLok2 cracked" - so I guess it's working as intended then.
For me, iLok2 has been rock solid since day one. But do you really think you're going to find a lot of posts online where people are saying "Hey, I just installed this new utility device and there are no problems with it, horraaayyy!! " :D

It's called "whiner bias." When it comes to utility stuff like this, you're just never gonna hear about it unless something is wrong or otherwise bothering people. In addition, there are a lot of would-be pirates out there who have never even used iLok, but contribute to all the anti-iLok fervor online anyway.

In my experience, iLok has some problems, just like all software does. But if anything, I have had fewer problems with iLok than almost any other computer-based thing I own. The real difference here is that there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in kicking the hornet's nest because it helps their "cause." And that "cause" is "justifying stealing sh*t so that they can make/keep more money for themselves."

I mean, we all know that's true, right?

User avatar
vvv
zen recordist
Posts: 10139
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 8:08 am
Location: Chi
Contact:

Post by vvv » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:36 pm

Well, .... yes and no.

I don't buy plugs, actually; my ethos is more about hardware steals and deals, and having fun using my DAW's native stuff and the freebie plugs I find, but ...

... was I gonna buy plugs, I would:

1. not buy anything I can't try out; and,

2. avoid buying anything that requires additional shite on my computer over and above what I need/want.

I'm the guy who always custom-installs stuff to keep the un-necessary off the drive, always blocks Flash and ads and Silverlight and trackers and cookies and all the other crap every i-net content doosh out there is trying to make money off of me with. Further, I am stuck with the MS OS for various reasons, but I won't even use Office or any other prog that's not freely transferable between my machines as I replace them. (Not an issue with I-lok, I know - just saying.)

As I see it, I-lok is a cost of business I am pretty sure that Waves or whoever incorporates into their product and passes on to the consumer, what thereby requires said consumer to buy the fookin' thing, and I've heard enough about the issues it raises (whatever small percentage of users get them however seldom) that I simply would not even consider buying any software that requires it.
bandcamp;
blog.
I mix with olive juice.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:12 pm

All that is fine and good. The one thing that I think it's fair to add though, is that you can demo fully functional versions of iLok stuff easily. Usually for 15 days. Hell, you can even rent them too, which I think is kinda awesome.

The only time I've ever been mad at iLok was when I broke mine. And then proceeded to lose it. So I was kind of double-screwed. (It was my own damn fault. But I got hella mad anyway. Because I am, you know, a person.) But even then, I was able to get everything restored pretty quickly, and all the companies who authorized me originally were really cool about hooking me up with new licenses.

They were pretty quick and responsive, even though they were unable to tell me what I really wanted to hear. (Which at the time was "Yes, we'll pretend that was all our fault, and even buy you a new iLok and have it delivered the day before yesterday, even though you don't pay for ZDT.")
Last edited by fossiltooth on Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:19 pm

You don't see a lot of professional studios complaining about iLoks.
I got one when I bought Pro Tools M-Powered a few years ago so that I could consolidate audio for clients so that we could mix in DP.

I plugged it into my machine and haven't thought about it since. In fact, the only time I have to think about it is when I have to connect to the internet to download an authorization for something new I've purchased. I've done that several times now and never had a problem at all.

If you're going to avoid using something because a lot of people complain about it on the internet, you're going to be crippled with fear. You use Windows?!?! LOL! I'd never use that shit. Have you seen how much trouble people have getting audio apps to work in Windows?!?! <--- that's what I'm talking about

Your best bet is to find people who use computers for high intensity recording sessions ALL DAY LONG, EVERY DAMN DAY, and ask them what they use. My guess is that MOST of them have iLoks hanging off of their Mac and have no pirated software on their studio computers.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:40 pm

chris harris wrote:You don't see a lot of professional studios complaining about iLoks.

True.
chris harris wrote:I plugged it into my machine and haven't thought about it since.


That's about my experience with it. Except that now I use a laptop that's more powerful than my old desktop ever was, so I do unplug it from time to time. That means that I kind of almost have to think about where I put it. To account for that, I'm only allowed to put it in one of two places, ever: Either in the small pocket of my laptop bag or on a fixed spot on my desk. I recommend others do the same. Soon enough, they'll probably make ones small enough that we'll never have to remove them.
chris harris wrote:In fact, the only time I have to think about it is when I have to connect to the internet to download an authorization for something new I've purchased. I've done that several times now and never had a problem at all.
To be fair, that is probably what blindsided the handfulls of people who had an issue the day the new software came out. They probably thought: "Meh, it'll be fine. I mean, it's never not fine. It's not really a software upgrade right before a session. Right?" BAM. First day program-update blues.

These kinds of new version hiccups are pretty much par for the course, especially in this price-sensitive day and age, where nothing gets tested quite enough. I feel for those who got blindsided, but first day (or even first week) installs are not something that should ever be done on a professional machine, regardless of who makes the software. Test it elsewhere first. I know that too well, firsthand.
chris harris wrote:If you're going to avoid using something because a lot of people complain about it on the internet, you're going to be crippled with fear. You use Windows?!?! LOL! I'd never use that shit. Have you seen how much trouble people have getting audio apps to work in Windows?!?! <--- that's what I'm talking about
Haha, yes.
chris harris wrote:Your best bet is to find people who use computers for high intensity recording sessions ALL DAY LONG, EVERY DAMN DAY, and ask them what they use. My guess is that MOST of them have iLoks hanging off of their Mac and have no pirated software on their studio computers.
Damn straight.

User avatar
vvv
zen recordist
Posts: 10139
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 8:08 am
Location: Chi
Contact:

Post by vvv » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:20 pm

Well, now y'all (CH and JC) have set up the classic "us-vs.-them", in this thread. I'll respond:

My day-too-day activities require PC.

I'm not any one of and not dealing with "professional studios" ("them").

I do not and have no interest to "mix in DP".

I'm also not and have never in my life been "be crippled with fear".

I don't condescend or "LOL" at you, even tho', re your faves, I'd "never use that shit".

I'm the type to get bored doing something "ALL DAY LONG, EVERY DAMN DAY", altho' I bet I do what I do better'n anyone you know, and mebbe even as well as you do what you do, even if I avoid "all day long, every damn day" as much as I can.

I use no "pirated software".

I am a dedicated musical hobbiest ("us"), and I'd wager as prolific a song-writer/recordist as anyone you can find (see my links below), and I try for efficiency and even simplicity in my art, my loves, and my life.

That is clearly not something I-lok would contribute to.

And FWIW and BTW, I refuse to present ID to any private (vs. government) entity for access to their business, and I sure as hell refuse to pay money to complicate my life any more than necessary, which I-lok, IMO, is not.
bandcamp;
blog.
I mix with olive juice.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:59 pm

Doesn't sound like you're doing anything wrong to me vvv! Keep on doing what you do.

The only "us" vs "them" for me on this issue are people with a conscience and people without. People who respect others, and those who act self-entitled. People who take a broad and balanced view of the world, and those who want to come up with BS justifications for theft and inequity.

Based on all that, vvv, I think you're in the "us" category. That said, I kinda dislike the idea of "us v. them" on principle. In reality, the boundaries between the two can be pretty fluid. We all screw up sometimes and we all make unethical decisions in our lives that negatively affect others in the world. I know I have.

It's my feeling that it's best to keep all that to a minimum. That's all I really care about on this one.

User avatar
vvv
zen recordist
Posts: 10139
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 8:08 am
Location: Chi
Contact:

Post by vvv » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:41 am

8)
bandcamp;
blog.
I mix with olive juice.

User avatar
jegler
pluggin' in mics
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: The Basement
Contact:

well well well

Post by jegler » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:08 pm

Well I guess that's what I get for Posting While Enraged (PWE). Look, I see now that posting my intentions of larceny was a bad move on my part. Although it probably drove up traffic to my website quite a bit. So all my new enemies can see my address and phone number. Ha!

If anyone cares I'd like to clarify 2 things.

1: If you go to the auto parts store to buy a $300 after market radio for your '89 Impala, they will sell you a stereo that is compatible with your machine and presumably comes with the sellers guarantee that it will work. Now imagine that the auto parts store works with a supplier, who, for reasons known only to them, gets into your car after you've installed the radio and steals the face plate. Mabey they forced a recall so they could change the logo or something. But anyway when they give you the faceplate back, it's incompatible somehow with your beloved '89 impala. Both the auto parts store and the supplier only have email support which they use to send out robo-responses to your understandably upset concerns, after all you paid $300 for what is now a useless piece of junk taking up space in your car .

Waves sold me a product that they explicitly listed as compatible with my machine. Then, because they are in league with iLok, and ILok failed (as they will admit) to provide the very service for which people pay $4, I'm left to twist in the wind. I have $300 of worthless software taking up space on my computer because ilok, without any heads up, decides to change their delivery system. They stole from me, should I not respond in kind? See below.

2: I agree with most of the posters that piracy is wrong, ethically and relatively; I would like to retract my exhortation for people to steal. Hey, I've been ripped off before by studio clients and I don't like it. But do I then treat every studio client like a potential thief, forcing them to pay upfront, maybe I'll give them full time or not. Maybe I'll hire a third party security force to glare at them and force them to adhere to the studio rules. Then maybe I give them mixes or not. Not such a cool way to treat your customers, without whom you would not be in business.

And as far as people calling me a crybaby because I don't have only the latest and greatest, watch "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" :idea: and tell me to enjoy being forced to accept planned obsolescence by the software industry.

Anyway I'm going back to mixing.... :arrow:

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:48 pm

The only versions of Waves software listed on their website as explicitly compatible with a PPC Mac are versions 7 and older. Did you purchase a new copy of Waves v7?? I didn't realize that Waves still sold those versions as new.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Re: well well well

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:54 am

jegler wrote:"The Lightbulb Conspiracy"
Interesting stuff... just watched it. Thanks.

I went to the site they linked to for turning off the printer maintenance counter, and it's a nutty conspiracy site, complete with free energy, aliens and anti-Semitic nonsense. Couldn't find the software, and wouldn't feel comfortable downloading from there anyway. The filmmakers should be more careful about this kind of thing-- they have an important message and linking to a site like that doesn't help their credibility.

User avatar
fossiltooth
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by fossiltooth » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:46 am

Jegler, thanks for the follow up and clarification. It's much appreciated! Honestly, I think a lot of this comes down to confusion, much of which may not be your fault at all. According to the Waves website, the minimum requirement for version 9 is a "Core Duo" processor, which is Intel: http://www.wavesupport.net/content.aspx?id=93

But you'd have a fair point in saying that this is misleading. The website does say that Version 7 and below may be compatible with earlier processors, and while it also says that versions 7 and earlier require iLok, doesn't say that iLok now requires Intel!

To be fair to Waves, this is a new change -- just one week old. But with that said, Waves should be on top of their compatibility charts and make sure they spell out the new system requirements fully the moment a new update occurs, if not before. It's not like they didn't know this was coming. They just didn't make the connection and update their site accordingly, which is not cool at all.

If you ask me, this particular miscommunication is on Waves, not iLok. If I were you, I'd complain to Waves directly about their misleading chart. I think you have a point there. It should be updated ASAP, rather than just directing you to iLok's compatibility docs.

On the matter of planned obsolescence: You don't need a conspiracy for that. All you need are market demands. There's a market demand for $2 sandals, so companies make them. It's not economically sustainable to make $2 sandals that don't fall apart, so $2 sandals fall apart. Pretty simple. No "conspiracy" needed!

Similarly, due to the rapid increases in technological development, there is currently no market demand for a computer that will last for 20 years. So they're simply not made that may. This is not a conspiracy. Its symptom of what people want. By and large, people want cheap, up-to-date electronics -- Not expensive new electronics that will still be running the same programs in 2033.

However, when technological advancement in microprocessors begins to level off in the future, you may see an increase in demand for more expensive, more stable, long-lasting systems. As soon as the market demands that, trust me, companies will make it. We just don't live in that world quite yet. But rest assured, if it's possible to make a buck selling something, someone's going to.

What little of that film I could get through is filled with pseudoscience and completely ignores microeconomics 101. I say "avoid."

It's definitely true that unscrupulous manufacturers have engaged in price-fixing throughout history, and that's exactly why regulations are necessary. But a "conspiracy" to limit longevity? That's just not needed to wind up with planned obsolescence. Our expected running hours for bulbs are actually due mostly to our EE and manufacturing standards, many of which are positive, particularly from an perspective that takes into account efficiency, safety and environmental concerns.

This film is essentially one-sided conspiracy theory propaganda that fails to tell the whole story about technology markets. Don't fall for it. Reality is much more nuanced and interesting.

User avatar
ubertar
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: mid-Atlantic US
Contact:

Post by ubertar » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:29 pm

Pseudoscience? There's nothing in that film that purports to be science. I don't see how you can make that claim.

Other than their assertion of the existence of a cabal in the early days of electricity that limited lightbulb life to 1000 hours (which they presented evidence for), there were no claims of conspiracy-- all they did was trace the history of planned obsolescence and how we got to how things are today. Much of this was through advertising and convincing people that they needed new stuff they really didn't.
Similarly, due to the rapid increases in technological development, there is currently no market demand for a computer that will last for 20 years. So they're simply not made that may. This is not a conspiracy. Its symptom of what people want. By and large, people want cheap, up-to-date electronics -- Not expensive new electronics that will still be running the same programs in 2033.
This is utter bullshit. What makes you think you know what people want? Have you done your own market research into this? There's no reason computers can't be made to be easily upgradable and last for more than 20 years, other than it means less profit for the manufacturers. I'd spend more on a computer built to last, that I could replace parts for to add power and speed over time. Advertisers want us to think you always need to get the newest, hippest thing-- the new ipod or iphone or whatever, and clearly lots of people buy into that, but not everyone. It's not a conspiracy, but it's a philosophy of how to do business that's fundamentally different from back when people made things well. There's a reason people love vintage gear, and why so much of it is still around. It was well-made, built to last, high quality, and made to be repaired. Lots of things today are deliberately made not to last, by design, that could last longer. But there's less money to be made that way.
Our expected running hours for bulbs are actually due mostly to our EE and manufacturing standards, many of which are positive, particularly from an perspective that takes into account efficiency, safety and environmental concerns.
WTF does that have to do with the film? They were talking about something that happened 100 years ago. There were no regulations taking into account efficiency, safety and environmental concerns at the time.

I often agree with what you have to say, but you're talking out of your ass here. You didn't even watch the whole film.

GooberNumber9
tinnitus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:52 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: well well well

Post by GooberNumber9 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:44 pm

jegler wrote:planned obsolescence by the software industry.
The leapfrogging of obselescence of software in the face of new hardware and of hardware in the face of new software is at least as old as the PC itself. I really can't fathom how anyone can complain about having to keep hardware up to date to run new software and vice-versa at this point. It's a fact of life. If you don't like that, you need to stop using computing devices.

On top of that, the shift from PPC to Intel was traumatic in so many ways, I'm not sure how anyone could have gotten to a point seven years after the fact and both be still running PPC and also not extremely careful about finding software that will run on it.

GooberNumber9
tinnitus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:52 am
Location: Washington, DC

Post by GooberNumber9 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:03 pm

ubertar wrote:I'd spend more on a computer built to last, that I could replace parts for to add power and speed over time.
You can have a computer that can be upgraded over time. After about 5 - 7 years maximum it will have none of the original components in it so it won't be the same computer, but you won't be buying a whole new computer every 3 - 5 years, you'll just be slowly buying components every 18 - 36 months.

If you would spend more on a reliable, upgradable computer for which you can add power and speed to over time, then why don't you do it?!?! It's totally possible, you just have to build your own from components with high end performance parts in a case that is easily accessible.

If you do that, don't be surprised if when you want to upgrade your processor, you also have to upgrade your motherboard, RAM, and power supply, and possibly chassis. Is that a consipracy? No! It's because in order for a processor manufacturer to improve a processor, they must eventually change its architecture. A given architecture has a limited upgrade path. This isn't planned obselescence, it's just engineering and physics. Worthwhile architecture changes necessitate changes to supporting architecture, such as the front side bus. In other words, if you make the processor four times faster but keep the speed of the memory the same, you won't notice much difference in actual computer performance, so you need new RAM and motherboard now. Also, the new processor will likely have different power requirements so you'll need a new power supply. Finally, in order to handle the support of the new processor, the new power supply and/or motherboard might not fit in your existing case, so you need a new case. In the end, it's usually easier to buy a whole new computer.

Now, maybe you're thinking "I just want a computer to last ten years or something!" and that's fine. But you can't expect software developers to keep making and supporting softwareyears later. They are running a business and they have to go where the customers go. The customers want faster computer (except for a few, like you) and they want to the new features of the new Mac and the new OSX and so software developers have to stay on top of the new computers and OSes to keep selling their products. When only 1% of their potential customers are still holding on to the old PPC architecture, well they are either going to half-ass it and screw something up (which is what happened in this case), or they can just stop selling to and supporting those people altogether (which is what Waves should have done). Either way, you can either be a luddite or not, but if you want to be a luddite, it's a little crazy to complain that the world is leaving you behind.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests