Great! Then go for number of starts rather than time limits, it would be perfectly fine for me and many other people I guess.

Cesare

I was thinking that a really really extremely simple method that Vienna could implement for users to protect his/her own licenses, a very very basic one, could simply be to allow users to remove the licenses from the key. Suppose you have to travel, then you'd de-activate the key and restore the license once at destination. This would really cost Vienna nothing and solve many problems. It wouldn't solve everything but at least would be a step toward the costumers. This could be a basic step to show that they care a little...well, also some form of clear statement about what are the prices in case of loss/stealth wouldn't hurt (I mean, this foggy policy that changes for each costumer is kind of humiliating for the users I think).

Cesare

Vienna can't implement your storage facility idea, because the eLicenser CP method belongs to Steinberg. However, I agree that this could be a good idea, particularly if we all had an account, a bit like iLok. Hopefully VSL will make some useful suggestions to Steinberg.

One caveat. What happens if for some reason Internet access is patchy or restricted? You can't use your product at all...

DG

I agree, sometimes it's a case of "better the devil you know" everyone is complaining here quite a bit and perhaps not understanding this is an imperfect world and people are asking for solutions to a problem that probably can't be fully solved in the way that suits everyone. I think if there is any alternative solution proposed it has to allow the existing system to stay as it is if people prefer that (like me) - and don't want to re-authorise periodically. As said, what if the internet's down, or things like that.

@mpower88 said:

sometimes it's a case of "better the devil you know"

That can be true, except that, in this case, the devil we know isn't actually achieving anyone's goals at all. It's not just imperfect - it's simply useless. Don't get me wrong, I don't need to complain, because I've now ensured that my home insurance covers my licenses against fire, theft, etc - and I never remove the dongle from home, so I don't have a problem anymore.

On the other hand, I certainly understand the anger that some must feel. The supposed benefit of the dongle to VSL is that it makes it impossible for people to be using their software without paying. But that isn't true. The elicenser was cracked a long time ago - all of my students seem to know where to find fully working cracks of Cubase - and it's only a matter of time till someone decides it's worth adapting the crack to VSL. The supposed benefit to me is that it protects Vienna's interests, which protects them financially, which makes them able to develop more stuff - kind of a convoluted, tenuous way of trying to persuade us we should be grateful. Nevertheless I would agree that this is a way of protecting my interests in, as you say, an imperfect way - but it's not, since the dongle will be cracked, and none of that will be valid.

So we have a dongle which isn't achieving anything, other than to tick a lot of people off, cost a lot of money all round, and put legitimate customers at risk. I don't mind things which are imperfect, but there ought to be a sense that everyone is shouldering a bit of the inconvenience. That's not the case. Vienna pass on the entire cost of the licensing system, and the entire risk. So the legitimate customer stands to lose thousands of dollars, whilst Vienna are never exposed to any risk, and the illegitimate user uses the product at no cost at all.

@Pingu said:

The supposed benefit of the dongle to VSL is that it makes it impossible for people to be using their software without paying. But that isn't true.

AFAIK VSL protection hasn't been cracked, so it is true.

DG

Even if it is cracked, it is a deterrent to *most* people. Those people who it is not a deterrent to are either very dishonest essentially (bad karma for them) or they would not ever have been able to afford to pay for the software anyway - and that becomes a moral argument but not in the immediate sense a financial one. For most people however, it's a pain, cracks are often unreliable, you don't get updates, and you have to navigate through virus laden websites and so on in order to get it, which risks your whole computer... not that I've used cracked software, I've simply been around computers long enough to know these things.

I think the solution here is a bit of common sense and flexibility on VSL's part as well as the customers. For example, I once had my hard drive crash and had to get a new license for some software, then a month later, the new drive crashed as well, I explained this to the software company that I was NOT using it on other computers, and they gave me a further license. A year later, I upgraded my computer and once again they obliged, even though it never says they have to do that on the license. In VSL's case, if somebody truly got robbed, yes, there may be somebody out there using a stolen dongle, but really are they selling music from it? I doubt it - in a case like this, I think it would not hurt VSL to give another license to the customer who had until that moment lost everything. A bit of discretion is all that's needed to patch over a situation that will never, cannot ever be perfect.

How about a password check in order to access the key. This could be at regular intervals like monthly or bi-monthly. Entering a password to make your key work is not a lot of hassle and that way a stolen key would be useless after a certain time.

@DG said:

Vienna can't implement your storage facility idea, because the eLicenser CP method belongs to Steinberg. However, I agree that this could be a good idea, particularly if we all had an account, a bit like iLok. Hopefully VSL will make some useful suggestions to Steinberg.

Ok, why then not getting the option of getting one demo-activation after the other instead of a permanent one (only for those who wish it). They wouldn't need to implement much for that...

Cesare

@DG said:

Vienna can't implement your storage facility idea, because the eLicenser CP method belongs to Steinberg. However, I agree that this could be a good idea, particularly if we all had an account, a bit like iLok. Hopefully VSL will make some useful suggestions to Steinberg.

Ok, why then not getting the option of getting one demo-activation after the other instead of a permanent one (only for those who wish it). They wouldn't need to implement much for that...

Cesare

However, would you be prepared to shoulder the additional cost? Also, you would still have to pay a 10% fee to receive new licences if you lost the old dongle.

DG

@DG said:

However, would you be prepared to shoulder the additional cost? Also, you would still have to pay a 10% fee to receive new licences if you lost the old dongle.

 Why would it have to be 10%? I understood that, at the moment, in cases of damaged dongles (i.e. where it is irrefutable that the customer had the licenses), Vienna are passing on the fixed fee that they are charged by Syncrosoft, for the generation of a license. Suggesting that this fee should be related to the value of the software would be profiteering.

That's not the real issue though. The real problem is that there seems to be no clear policy on how cases of theft, loss, damage, etc, are handled. I wouldn't mind a fixed fee per license, but there seems to be no guarantee that I could even get that deal out of Vienna. They appear to operate on a very ad-hoc basis, and have a basic mistrust of the customer. If there were a password/dongle combination then it wouldn't have to come down to a case-by-case argument, and begging Vienna. Vienna could be absolutely certain that the lost licenses would cease to be of any use to a thief, and would be in a position to issue new licenses, at a fixed fee.

Let's face it, at the moment, we already pay for the copy protection system, but it absolutely doesn't protect me as a customer, unless Vienna choose to believe me. So basically they are coming up with a system that protects them 100%, then charging us to implement it. With a password protected system, it might cost slightly more, but I would feel there was a reason I was paying for it.

If you lose your licences new ones have to be generated. I believe that this is charged for by Steinberg. I certainly don't think that customers who bother to take care of their dongles should have to pay for the careless of other customers, which is what would happen if VSL didn't pass the cost on to the offenders.[:P]

DG

Why should we pay 10% more??? We have already purchased the license to use the samples.

And yes, it would be simply decent if Vienna clearly stated the conditions and costs for replacing the licenses and keys rather then taking each case into account. This total arbitrariness in the conditions is not very serious.

Cesare

@cesare.magri said:

Why should we pay 10% more??? We have already purchased the license to use the samples.

And yes, it would be simply decent if Vienna clearly stated the conditions and costs for replacing the licenses and keys rather then taking each case into account. This total arbitrariness in the conditions is not very serious.

Cesare

You're missing the point. If this were a government agency I would agree with you, but it is not, it's a private company. In this case, the fact they can determine things on a case by case basis works in our favour. If you know the VSL team, they are great people and they are certainly the furthest things from profiteers you could find. It is clear not only in their product but also when dealing with them that their first priority is the music, the passion that they put into the work. Their philosophy is business second, notwithstanding of course that the business is required to support the music! Other than that, they are completely committed to it, and therefore to their customers naturally. That's been my experience.

The fact they can decide on a case by case basis is really the best situation we can have in an imperfect world.

If you ask them to precisely diagram out their policy, then they will be bound to it, and they WON'T be any long able to make discretionary decisions as freely as before.

Someone said they are showing a lack of trust for their customers: I doubt this very much, I think what they are really showing is a lack of trust for thieves, or people who pretend to be customers but actually intend to steal from them! Who can blame them on that, and no doubt while there are people like that around in the world, and I've met a few, I'm sure VSL team does not see real customers as threats or thieves.

@Another User said:

Someone said they are showing a lack of trust for their customers: I doubt this very much, I think what they are really showing is a lack of trust for thieves, or people who pretend to be customers but actually intend to steal from them! Who can blame them on that, and no doubt while there are people like that around in the world, and I've met a few, I'm sure VSL team does not see real customers as threats or thieves.

Again, I'm sure that the people at Vienna are very good people. I'm simply complaining about some of their marketing choice, namely

• the lack of a system which protects you again stolen/lost/broken keys
• the total lack of information about thei policy on stolen/lost/broken keys

It has everything to do with it - again, VSL are not a government agency where you need strict rules to keep them in line. They are a private company. As soon as you write something like this down there are plenty of people out there who will fight to take advantage of it and exploit it, thereby undoing it's original purpose: keeping it fair for everyone. By keeping it discretionary it means that Vienna can exercise fair judgement, no doubt on the side of benefitting the customer as I've always found they have. 

I do agree that they should say on the product information that if the key is lost, the licenses are lost and that is THAT. They may even be able to add that "in some specific cases we exercise discretion at replacing these licenses for a small fee however that is the exception to the rule" and they can not say anymore.

Re your last paragraph, again you are expecting perfection and a final solution in an imperfect world. What you aren't recognising is that one way or the other, it is going to result in inconvenience for some. In the case of your suggestion: if the internet was down, if the power was down in a region other than where you are, and you couldn't access it, a failure in the system, whatever. You are cut off from your license, and can't launch the software. Maybe you are right on a deadline. You will curse the system again and say "why can't I just have a system where my license is on the key!?" There is NO solution where EVERYONE will be happy even to any worthwhile majority. That's life.

I believe the system is place is the best for everyone given the fact the world is not perfect. There is also another angle to this which I think DG mentioned, is that there is one of personal responsibility - taking care of the key so that it doesn't get lost / stolen etc. insuring it, and so on. I have a keyboard and speakers right? If somebody steals that, I don't say "Oh replace my stuff please it was stolen". It's gone! That's the license, it is an intellectual thing stored on a physical item, so it's ultimately a physical item. I don't like it, you don't like it, nobody likes it, we don't like theives, economic equality whatever. The world is not perfect. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the system that is there now can be bettered without inconveniencing others for the benefit of a few. 

I agree with you they should spell out the dangers more when people buy the software, and the fee for replacing an out of warrantee or broken key should be minimal if it isn't already.

@Another User said:

I believe the system is place is the best for everyone given the fact the world is not perfect. There is also another angle to this which I think DG mentioned, is that there is one of personal responsibility - taking care of the key so that it doesn't get lost / stolen etc. insuring it, and so on. I have a keyboard and speakers right? If somebody steals that, I don't say "Oh replace my stuff please it was stolen". It's gone! That's the license, it is an intellectual thing stored on a physical item, so it's ultimately a physical item. I don't like it, you don't like it, nobody likes it, we don't like theives, economic equality whatever. The world is not perfect. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the system that is there now can be bettered without inconveniencing others for the benefit of a few. 

According to this phylosophy we should never try to improve anything.

But apart from this, this is another ambiguos point of the license system: the license is only a license when it is about, for example, re-selling it. But it becomes a physical key, for example, once you loose it or brake it. This double personality of the license/key is a another very unfari point of this licensing system, especially because the license/physical nature is always unfavourable for the costumer (why can't I resell a key, since it is physical, or keep using my licenses when I loose the key, since a license is a license).

Let's say it clear, this copy protection system is horribly unfari to the user, and only to the user. And the total lack of information to the costumers is almost outrageous.

Cesare

@Another User said:

That's the license, it is an intellectual thing stored on a physical item, so it's ultimately a physical item. I don't like it, you don't like it, nobody likes it, we don't like theives, economic equality whatever. The world is not perfect. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the system that is there now can be bettered without inconveniencing others for the benefit of a few. 

This is just not correct. The license is not a physical thing. The license is simply permission to use something. Vienna are trying to persuade you that putting it on a dongle makes it a physical thing, but it doesn't. I have paid for permission to use some software - end of story. That permission shouldn't be stealable, but the system that vienna use, to ensure it can't be stolen from them, is exactly what exposes the customer to risk, so Vienna really have some responsibility here too.