antichef
pornk rock
I dig this new plugin forum - so far the posts and discussions have been great and very helpful - a veritable Eden of knowledge and teamwork. But I already started screwing that up by mentioning iLok in I think at least two threads, which pulls the thread OT and starts senseless debates, lowering the value of the discussions and disrespecting the original poster. So maybe we can have the senseless debate here 
First - a little about me - I have an extensive software background outside of audio, mainly enterprise software (with me at different times as a developer, development manager, and lawyer), but also in some open source projects. Pretty much all my income derives from intellectual property, and if it weren't protected, I'd be doing something else, like digging ditches or shoveling poo. With this background, I can *totally* *appreciate* the problem of piracy, and I can see how it's a much bigger deal for plugin developers than it ever has been for me -- the big companies that use and pay for the software I wrote have auditors who make sure they don't pirate, after all.
I myself have avoided iLok, except for installing the software on a computer other than my DAW so I could check out a free plugin -- I have already spent more time installing, configuring, and updating the iLok software than I have been able to spend with the plugin. Beyond that, all I have are the horror stories on the Internet - knowing that there are surely many more perfectly happy users who don't write stories (and a few who do).
But let me say that I see two fundamental issues, based on my software experience:
1) There is not "one throat to choke" - there is a diffusion of accountability because for each iLok plugin, you're dealing not with one company but (at least) two - the developer and the iLok people. In my experience this is a recipe for bad things to happen - nothing against the iLok people or the developers - I certainly get into trouble myself when there are a lot of moving accountability parts in a project. Sometimes there's no getting around it. But with plugins, there are plenty of companies getting around it.
2) Copy protection can't be totally transparent, but there's some threshold of intrusion into a user's workday (even when things are working as they should, but *especially* when something breaks) beyond which you just have to call foul - you've heard it said a thousand times, but by putting the extra burden on paying users, you're in effect forcing the good guys to pay a part of the price for what the bad guys are doing -- when you do this by raising prices, that's one thing, but when you do it by eating up the good guys' time and attention and reducing their productivity, the effects are not uniform, and they can impact some people much worse than others (and some people much worse at certain times than at other times, e.g., when a deadline is approaching)
It's these two issues *together* -- with their potential for multiplicative interaction -- that make me steer way clear of iLok. I have nothing against copy protection, and even nothing against dongles. But based on my software experience, I know better than to accept the risk created by those two issues when it comes to something that's important to me (like finishing a project).
I brought up the subject once with an iLok-using developer by asking if/when they would stop using iLok. I got quickly brushed off as if I were pro-piracy or something -- and the developer stopped replying to my issue of trying to get the iLok system and the developer's own authentication system to both work so that I could actually purchase one of their plugins (still more of my time down the drain and an illustration of the issues above). Left a bad taste in my mouth. I bet that developer spent a lot of time and energy on the iLok implementation and I suspect they have some sort of contract with the iLok people - it's human nature to think the worst of anyone who challenges all that. But still...
Anyway, I'm done - what an embarrassingly long post. I won't bring up the subject in any other threads.
First - a little about me - I have an extensive software background outside of audio, mainly enterprise software (with me at different times as a developer, development manager, and lawyer), but also in some open source projects. Pretty much all my income derives from intellectual property, and if it weren't protected, I'd be doing something else, like digging ditches or shoveling poo. With this background, I can *totally* *appreciate* the problem of piracy, and I can see how it's a much bigger deal for plugin developers than it ever has been for me -- the big companies that use and pay for the software I wrote have auditors who make sure they don't pirate, after all.
I myself have avoided iLok, except for installing the software on a computer other than my DAW so I could check out a free plugin -- I have already spent more time installing, configuring, and updating the iLok software than I have been able to spend with the plugin. Beyond that, all I have are the horror stories on the Internet - knowing that there are surely many more perfectly happy users who don't write stories (and a few who do).
But let me say that I see two fundamental issues, based on my software experience:
1) There is not "one throat to choke" - there is a diffusion of accountability because for each iLok plugin, you're dealing not with one company but (at least) two - the developer and the iLok people. In my experience this is a recipe for bad things to happen - nothing against the iLok people or the developers - I certainly get into trouble myself when there are a lot of moving accountability parts in a project. Sometimes there's no getting around it. But with plugins, there are plenty of companies getting around it.
2) Copy protection can't be totally transparent, but there's some threshold of intrusion into a user's workday (even when things are working as they should, but *especially* when something breaks) beyond which you just have to call foul - you've heard it said a thousand times, but by putting the extra burden on paying users, you're in effect forcing the good guys to pay a part of the price for what the bad guys are doing -- when you do this by raising prices, that's one thing, but when you do it by eating up the good guys' time and attention and reducing their productivity, the effects are not uniform, and they can impact some people much worse than others (and some people much worse at certain times than at other times, e.g., when a deadline is approaching)
It's these two issues *together* -- with their potential for multiplicative interaction -- that make me steer way clear of iLok. I have nothing against copy protection, and even nothing against dongles. But based on my software experience, I know better than to accept the risk created by those two issues when it comes to something that's important to me (like finishing a project).
I brought up the subject once with an iLok-using developer by asking if/when they would stop using iLok. I got quickly brushed off as if I were pro-piracy or something -- and the developer stopped replying to my issue of trying to get the iLok system and the developer's own authentication system to both work so that I could actually purchase one of their plugins (still more of my time down the drain and an illustration of the issues above). Left a bad taste in my mouth. I bet that developer spent a lot of time and energy on the iLok implementation and I suspect they have some sort of contract with the iLok people - it's human nature to think the worst of anyone who challenges all that. But still...
Anyway, I'm done - what an embarrassingly long post. I won't bring up the subject in any other threads.
