copy protection for standalones

Jan 15, 2006 at 10:24pm

copy protection for standalones

I’m starting to sell some standalone apps to a few musicians, and i’m
just curious as to what methods there might be to incorporate some kind
of copy protection (authorising a specific machine, challenge/response,
whatever).

For example, is there any way from within a patch to read the machine’s
serial number?

I’m not sure i actually need or want to incorporate cp, but i’m curious
as to how i might be able to…

Thanks for you input.

-Tom Mays

#23934
Jan 15, 2006 at 11:12pm

You could always try Pace (the copy protection used by Max).

http://www.paceap.com

S.B.

#68418
Jan 17, 2006 at 2:37pm

I understand that those who selle apps want copy protection.
I made lot of software with max/msp and it has been downloaded in over 40 countryes worldwide.
By the way my stuff is freeware…

Sometimes I’ve thought to make commercial apps, but I get allways nasty feelings with copy protection software.

Most of the times is a big pain for users..
I had huge problems with PACE and max/msp untill I decided to get my response key into an iLok hardware key.
Recently I’ve bought some expensive software from another company, and copy protection gave a lot of troubles there too.

I don’t know.. everytime I spend $$ and have problems with a software becouse of copy protection I get really upset.

#68419
Jan 17, 2006 at 8:18pm

Hi Giorgio,

> I understand that those who sell apps want copy protection.

Not want, need!

> Sometimes I’ve thought to make commercial apps, but I get always
> nasty feelings with copy protection software.

No, you just have to spend more time to write a good documentation,
to send registration numbers and to bring a ‘fast and serious’
technical support to your users.
It’s just a business.

> Most of the times is a big pain for users.

No pain for a good software, eagerness only.

> I had huge problems with PACE and max/msp until I decided to get my
> response key into an iLok hardware key.
> Recently I’ve bought some expensive software from another company,
> and copy protection gave a lot of troubles there too.
> I don’t know.. everytime I spend $$ and have problems with a
> software because of copy protection I get really upset.

I don’t understand… what’s your question… ?

Best,
Philippe

#68420
Jan 17, 2006 at 8:32pm

Hi Philippe,

you are right, even a small shareware developer needs copy protection
today. I don’t think PACE is the right choice for small and lowprice
software. We use serial number protection (no challenge response).

Best,
Jan

#68421
Jan 17, 2006 at 8:46pm

easy…
first off, I allways pay software..

I was just saying that some copy protection protocols can make life hard for customers.
I had a BAD experience with PACE challenge response,
was not working under many circumstances… for weeks I was not able to use the software I’ve paid $$$

Untill finally I’ve used my protools iLock and ask the company to send my unlocking key into my iLok account.
Now, this was
1) a waste of time
2) pure luck, what if I didn’t have iLok?
3) annoying

I know that developers NEED copy protection… I know that very well.
I’m saying that whenever copy protection give problems to customers, it’s bad..
and some protection protocols are a pain for customers.

#68422
Jan 17, 2006 at 10:04pm

Jan,

> you are right, even a small shareware developer needs copy
> protection today. I don’t think PACE is the right choice for small
> and lowprice software. We use serial number protection (no
> challenge response).

So am I, and so do I.
As long as we use our own CP scheme and not a standard distributed
algorithm, no tons of crackez serialz numberz.
And no ‘pain’ for purchasers!

Bye,
Philippe

#68423

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.