Pay for external.
Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56pm
Pay for external.
Hello, somebody can write external for me?
External should work for OSX, and if possible for win too.
Nov 6, 2010 at 9:56pm
Hi, you may contact me from http://bzhtec.com/Contacts.html
Nov 6, 2010 at 10:49pm
check the email bzhtec-info bzhtec com
Nov 7, 2010 at 12:45am
Why not simply share with us what it is you’re after up front?
Some might even be interested to do it for free, simply for the sheer experience gained from it.
Nov 7, 2010 at 3:35am
The external check if USB device is present, if not present close the patch.
Product ID: 0×0237
This ids are just for example.
I plain use this for copy protect my stand alone due my appz work with specific USB hardware.
I think good way to protect the ID can be store that info in a external, anyway for this way source code of the external is needed, for put inside the external the ID of the USb device, and then compile the external.
I know any appz can be unprotected and carcked, but max appz are just open to anyone and complete appz can be copied.
Also, im trying to find real protection for patch, for windows is very simple bundle all in one single bin executable file….. but in OSX?
Nov 7, 2010 at 9:28am
i think this is a good idea, but there is something like this out already. its not an external but an application, i can not remember for the life of me whats its called, but it makes a noise and a picture pops up when a usb device is connected or disconnected.
none-the-less i dont think this should put you off making an external. its a good idea.
Nov 7, 2010 at 9:30am
hahaha just found it. there is another one as well, minus the meowing :)
Nov 7, 2010 at 9:32am
here it is, an old one, this was the one i used when i had my e-mac
Nov 7, 2010 at 10:44am
dear Larsen187. you have some cheek. first, a while ago, you bombard the forum with annoying basic questions (presumably without using the search feature first). then, a while later, you return to bombard the forum with your ‘demands’ and ‘outrage’ that you cannot protect standalone devices made with max. so, as you say, “the power of max/msp is awesome and is great tool for create appz in very easy and faster way”, which YOU achieved with the HELP of the ‘community’. and now you want to (presumably) sell your creations to make money out of this “easy way”? or even not selling but wanting to ‘protect’ is anti-max and treats it as a ‘programming language’, which it is not. maybe the reason cycling74 do not support encryption features is because they too think it is a load of shite? people who make max patches and sell them are fucking wankers. you completely miss the ‘point’ of max/msp/jitter. it is what it is, so that anyone can make anything. now if you go away and put in the hours and research to make some externals in C or so for your max app, then be my guest and consider protecting and even selling (that would be ‘real’ programming), but it sounds like this is not what you have done. it stinks of the same pathetic attempt at encryption behind the laughably awful ‘max-fuel’ devices. Larsen187, i hope you fail.
Nov 7, 2010 at 1:20pm
Every MaxMsp user is free to give/sell its creations. You’re saying that it is not the purpose of maxmsp to create protected creations for selling… (Where is this written by Cycling74?)
Do what you want with your Maxmsp, and let the other do their work/music. No need to wish failure to them!
I’m sure people who want to protect their maxmsp creations will be able to do it soon at affordable price…
Nov 7, 2010 at 5:26pm
Even if I am used of more moderation than pid (with my bad English), and even if I agree on the fact that each is free to protect or not “hard days work” (but appropriate that of the others less), i think that generous community of this forum make maxMSP very interesting ; so a little of reciprocity is needed to keep people share without the feeling to be the idiot of the process.
But that’s an old problem with pro and con opensource, in scientific research, in arts, with trash cans in my street, everywhere …
“C’est la vie …” ;-)
Nov 7, 2010 at 6:18pm
I for one would love a way to encrypt and protect my Max apps. That’s a ton of work to make a viable product that some people might want to buy. No different than other languages (and yes it is a language, what else would you call it? just a higher-level one than code-based). Plenty of Flash apps out there, most are free, but not all. They can’t be reverse-engineered easily, by default when you publish.
Max is incredibly powerful and could be made to create nearly anything. If you spend a ton of time and pour your talent into it, then want to protect that intellectual property and sell it, I say that’s great. If nobody buys, fine, but not having the opportunity is a bad thing IMO. It may also be holding people back from making great apps for fear of everything getting hacked so easily. It also has prevented me from taking at least one paying gig for what would have been an easy patch…the company didn’t want it stolen. That’s also a missed opportunity to promote Max itself, if a lot of people used the app and liked it.
Even with the option to encrypt, this wouldn’t stop people from sharing patches and snippets all the time. And if you want to distribute open-source, that’s great, but at least have the option to protect something if you want to. We take this for granted in most other programming environments…so why not here?
Sure we get lots of help from the Forums, from the help files and docs, etc. But there’s always going to be a ton of original sweat and design in any sellable app one makes. I believe it should be possible to protect and sell that app, if that’s your goal. Nobody has to buy it, and if they do, they’re obviously willing to pay for it…your app gets out there and people enjoy using it, and you get something for your efforts, maybe motivating you to make version 2.
That said, if C74 isn’t going to make this an option, that’s their decision and I respect it…possibly it’s a gigantic pain, or maybe it isn’t difficult but they want to keep the open-source feel of the program. That’s where third-party protection/encryption software comes in, but it’s not straightforward or cheap to do that part, so it’s kind of a bummer. Still looking…
Nov 7, 2010 at 7:56pm
It’s all about the cost of maintaining protection/encryption software. It probably doesn’t take too much time/effort to develop and as pointed out there is third party software available – it’s the cost of constantly maintaining such software for two platforms. You know people are going to crack any protection or encryption developed. And I’m sure you could find cracked copies of Max/Jitter right now.
So you write an app in Max and use the C74 copy protection scheme. Someone cracks the protection scheme. What then? How fast would you expect a fix? Would you continue to sell your application? Would you try to sue C74? As seejayjames points out, third-party protection/encryption software is not cheap. It’s not cheap for a reason…
How big is the market for a C74 developed protection scheme? The number of Max users looking for copy protection appears to be quite small overall. Even it was 10% of the users (it’s likely a much smaller percentage), would you expect the rest of the Max users who have no interest in copy protecting their work to subsidize the development and maintenance? How much would you expect to pay for Max with some sort of built-in copy protection? 2X, 3X, 4X, times as the current price?
I believe there are both sound business reasons and philosophical reasons for C74 to NOT build copy-protection into Max.
Nov 7, 2010 at 8:40pm
PID: i suggest just dont overreact to comments, suggestions and ideas, and for your knowledge i never complaint about forum users, i love max, i apreciate help from forum users, im learning max and i plain buy MAX this week, but probably i decide move to java and no buy max. I come from C# world, JAVA probably can be the best for me and just leave max.
BDC: I no want cycling 74 be involved in coplex creation of code obfuscation, just making mxf file 100% binary, is more than ok….thats all !
Again for eveybody, copy protection is a thing can be done with max, at this moment in my case is another history due i want use USB like dongle, etc etc, but create copy protection is easy and possible in max, useless but possible.
I not complaint for copy protection, i complaint about the patch information can be protected under windows, but NO in OSX…..just that.
Anyway any copy protection NOT created with externals is useless, due you can see how is protected inside the patch, just editing the patch.
I repeat under windows is very easy bundle all files in one simple exe binary file, and is very simple make really hard to unpack, due the nature of OSX no exist anyway to protect right now creating one single binary file, or i dont know any way to do this under OSX.
Why i just not go, to java?
Please apologize if my english no is perfect, english no is my native language.
Nov 8, 2010 at 1:51am
Pid: “people who make max patches and sell them are fucking wankers.”
We have a saying here in NZ, mate – “it takes one to know one”.
The people who buy my particular Max app seem quite happy with their purchase, and have little wish to learn Max or any other language so they can make their own. C74 explicity allow the sale of Max apps. Willing seller, willing buyer, what’s your problem with that?
Nov 8, 2010 at 12:48pm
oh dear, “tail” and “legs” spring to mind. i owe the thread and Larsen187 an apology for my somewhat bizarre outburst of sudden aggression and projection. not really sure where the hell that came from. maybe lack of various drugs. special thanks to john pitcairn for showing me up with such erudite succinctness. hope this goes some way to repentance. right, now i am off to go buy some max patches…
Nov 8, 2010 at 1:19pm
I agree with the pid. Putting copyrights and protections on ideas is kind of stealing to me – every single person doesn’t create stuff just from nothing – everybody is inspired by many various things around. Inspiring = using somebody’s code, image, anything in your modification. So please don’t support this idea selling monster and enjoy licenses like Creative Commons for everyones happiness.
Nov 8, 2010 at 10:39pm
pid: heh, go get some coffee.
mrkva: Then Max/MSP/Jitter should be free too, right? So you’re arguing that apps made using a commercial, closed-source programming environment should be both free and open-source?
Where’s my compensation for my initial monetary investment, my time learning and programming, my app’s extensive and detailed manual, and my ongoing support? It’s a commercial world out there – if I want to, I should be able to require some return from you or anyone else reaping the benefits of my time and effort, and I should be able to take steps to prevent others from just ripping it off, thanks.
I have “kind of stolen” nothing from you. If anyone else feels I have stolen from them they should get in touch and we’ll sort it out.
Inspiration is not using someone else’s code, image, anything, without their permission. That is stealing, or at least plagiarizing, as many dull undergraduates discover. Inspiration is a far more subtle and supple process, and a fairly slippery fish to define when it comes to a dispute.
Your argument may be more applicable if using something like PD, but please don’t try to impose your FOSS philosophy on others who are using Max/MSP/Jitter.
Phew. Sorry folks, I’ll try to stop now.
Nov 9, 2010 at 9:04pm
I read this thread this morning and got pretty jazzed up.
I am a pd and max user. I am partnered up with a man who runs an old world music instrument store. I came to this software because he and I came up with an idea for an audio app that would utilize samples recorded from his PRICELESS collection of instruments, some of them rare, some 1 of a kind, some of them extremely old. The software needed to behave in a certain way. I searched endlessly for sampler synths with the functions and possibilities I was looking for but came up empty. Believe me, it simply didn’t exist.
I built the first incarnation with PD. After a lot of experimentation, It sounded good, but PD is open source and truly not intended for the creation of commercial or even professional looking apps. I figured it was a fair investment so I licensed Max/Msp 5 specifically so that I could create a professional app to sell to people. (BTW – at the time, the sales team assured me that they would be restoring the “export as plugin” feature.) Remember, the idea for the synth was novel and it works differently than other synths but it was secondary compared to the stunning array of instrument samples we accumulated. (at this time, was I wanking or was I being wanked???)
I now sell the app on disk right at the store. For some, it is a way to bring the sample library to their recording studios, for some, a fun app they can use to bring the instruments home with them for cheap. For all, it is a new way of using synthesizers and an inexpensive and enriching little app. NO ONE ever blinks at the price. Thanks to Max which is a truly fantastic product and the support of these forums, no one has ever come back with a problem I could not find a solution to.
Whenever I listen in on threads regarding copy protection, I always hear from the same characters:
I just don’t see why I should have to learn to code in C just so I can go and license an audio API library from another DSP outfit to re-build something that works fine right now. I just want to make some money to keep this old store open and put food on the table.
I have a very difficult time believing that only 10% of Max users are trying to sell their apps. Who are the other 90%? Why would you license and use Max/MSP/Jitter (rather than getting Pure Data/Gem for free) in order to make stuff for the open source community, art/science exhibits or live performance? Are we to believe the other 90% are prototype builders who create programs that are, then, made “real” by engineers at big companies? How do I get one of those jobs?
Us little guys need to find a way to get to the next level. We want to put our apps (and proprietary designs, artwork and audio samples) on the web the same way other audio programmers do, with at least a serial number the user has to enter the first time they run the app. We want to have our apps available as a plugins. We want to make our apps available for new devices like the iphone. We don’t give a F&@# about Ableton Live!!!!
…so if anyone out there is honest, and interested in building an external that will provide a basic solution to the problem of copy protection, and/or if anyone can build a wrapper that will make standalone apps function as VST or AU plugins — We are all ears (and I am guessing there are a lot more of us than C’74 thinks).
Sorry if I offended the good guys, you know who you are.
May 15, 2011 at 8:43am
Finally, someone with a sensible response.
I am a third year music technology student at the KMT school in Hilversum , the Netherlands. My work is based around the creating and [in the future] selling of Max patches. I work hard on these patches and get a lot of joy out of the thought that some day some one will have a better day because of them.
The only problem is that I can’t yet make a living from my work, because there is no safe way for me to distribute it. I am currently working on a license code system, but this would be rendered useless by the fact that the Max code is not encrypted. Because of the implementation of the way the code is placed in plain view in .mxf files, anyone is free to copy-paste anything I have worked on.
Why can’t Cycling’74 help their users protect their code in the same way they protect theirs to make a living? What is the problem of selling someone a house with working locks? Is it logical to tell the new residents that if they don’t trust their neighbours they shouldn’t live there?
If someone has a method or wants to work with me on a method to protect Max patches from theft, please let me know.
May 15, 2011 at 1:25pm
I think you could probably do this with the shell object running a script checking usb device status in Terminal (if using a mac… I’m not sure about implementing this on a PC). It should be possible to find the right code for the Terminal through google.
May 15, 2011 at 8:10pm
I think this is a very interesting topic because it relates to not just MaxMSP, but many other ‘virtual communities’. There is many valid points on both sides of this topic, more than just mentioned here.
Pid, maybe you were strong, but the open-source point of view is very real and should be considered equally strongly with the opposing view of protection, in my opinion.
A comparison: Like many, I make music and really enjoy giving some of my work away to people for their own projects. It is often mutually beneficial by nature. The same goes for programmers.
Many musicians are able to pursue their passion as a full-time commitment by selling their art to those willing to purchase it. The same goes for programmers.
Once again, in my opinion: I think both of these schools of practice need to exist to maximize the benefits for everyone.
My own comparative 2cents…
May 16, 2011 at 4:42am
It really does seem that 3rd-party options are best. This takes any responsibility from C74, not to mention the development time. An encryption option for mxf would be nice in one respect, as you wouldn’t need an additional (or higher-priced) protection app to handle this part. However, there’s the opposite argument that one could copy patches from the Forums, modify or clean up, then package and sell with encryption. It can be really tough to tell where copying and inspiration and modification all blend together, that’s for sure. But the bottom line would be whether people are willing to pay for that app, and if it was hacked together from Forum patches (or from the Help files or examples in Max itself), then… is that stealing? Pretty tough to tell, but considering that there are some seriously high-profile intellectual-property lawsuits about software, it can be a very real issue worth millions.
I do hope to sell patches soon, and plan to go with one of the 3rd-party protection options. There are some that look like they’ll do the trick. They range from somewhat cheap to really not cheap… but if there’s a chance that a patch will sell, it’s worth it. It could also open the door for more collaborations on projects, where the earnings come from making something custom that doesn’t need copy-protection. Ideally I would want the code etc. to be freely available, because I’d like others to get ideas from the things I put together. But if that means no sales, then… well, you get the picture… it’s different in every case and there’s no easy answer.
My bottom-line opinion is that 3rd-party solutions are best, and you just pay to play the selling game, if you want. In the meantime, keep sharing your ideas on the Forums, this helps everybody!
May 16, 2011 at 5:21am
@staxas – in case you haven’t found them already, here are links to discussions of some 3rd party solutions:
Win + Mac
Have not used any – if you do, be sure to share your experiences with the forum.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.