![]() The crux of the issue is that I bought a faulty piece of gear. ![]() not work on my mixes until ilok has completed their 'rma' process. How the hell can you tell me that I (or anyone else) do not require a second ilok, when the product I purchased from URS cannot be used without it. Now, I'm sorry if you find this laughable, but here's my beef. In fairness, I'd like to say ilok willl be replacing the key at no charge. But as it stands now, Rob's story is an isolated bummer - no more, no less - and I hope it gets resolved fully for him. Now, if I were Rob and I reported the defective key to iLok and got a "Tough sh*t" reply, I could see being totally justifiably angry the company, avoiding using any products that required the key, and sharing my story with all potential iLok users in earshot as well as the companies who choose iLok over other copyright protection means. This is not to say it doesn't happen or that the system is perfect, but to imply that iLok has somehow devised a plan to make sure every other iLok key is defective so they'll sell twice as many is laughable (sorry to keep coming back to that word). I have two iLoks only because one came with an MBox bundle and have had neither fail ever. Also, I should note that two iLoks are not required - it seems that Rob may have had the misfortune of getting a bum key, and I hope he goes to every effort to get reimbursed or credited for the cost of the key - however inconvenient it may be to do, I am sure there avenues to report his problem to the company in question. In order to sustain product development at the rate demanded by the end user, companies have to find some way of stopping or slowing the lost revenue from people using cracked/stolen software. Would such lengths be necassary for companies to take to protect themselves in a "fair" world? No. ![]() If you don't like plug-ins that use dongles, then don't use them. The conspiritorial tone of such statements is not only unwarranted, it's laughable. #LIQUID NOTES ILOK SOFTWARE#If you are using DAW software of any kind, is it unfair that the company making the software is "FORCING" you to buy a computer in order to use it? C'mon guys - this is just getting more and more silly - you act as if a companies' use of iLok is some sort of scheme to get you to buy more dongles from a company they have no financial interest in, and on the contrary, they probably pay companies like iLok themselves to license the copyright protection technology. I don't support iLok protected software, I did once but I don't anyomore, so, I'm satisfied with what I have today, but like always, I'm trying to have something better, but sometimes I face an iLok plugin and just have to pass it. In order to sustain product development at the rate demanded by the end user, companies have to find some way of stopping or slowing the lost revenue from people using cracked/stolen software.ĭon't be silly brother, we're talking about "you have to buy a alarm system in order to drive your car" or something like this. What's really happening is that the software company is FORCING you to buy someonelse's products to use theirs. if I want the plugs, I must accept the ilok. The next few plugs I'm looking at are ilok only as well. No issue there, they got back to me almost immediatly, so I'm happy with their level of support. At least URS has a temp licence waiting for my new ilok. I've accepted this and will move on using these plugs as there really are no alternatives. I'm a little calmer now.just wished that I'd have known from the start, to not buy one ilok only, thinking that I wouldn't have issues with it. Robstudio wrote:Hey guys thanks for the sentiments. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |