copy protection for standalones


    Jan 15 2006 | 10:24 pm
    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

    • Jan 15 2006 | 11:12 pm
      You could always try Pace (the copy protection used by Max).
      S.B.
    • Jan 17 2006 | 2:37 pm
      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 $$ and have problems with a software becouse of copy protection I get really upset.
    • Jan 17 2006 | 8:18 pm
      Hi Giorgio,
      > I understand that those who sell apps want copy protection.
      Not want, need!
      > Sometimes I've thought to make commercial apps, but I get always > nasty feelings with copy protection software.
      No, you just have to spend more time to write a good documentation, to send registration numbers and to bring a 'fast and serious' technical support to your users. It's just a business.
      > Most of the times is a big pain for users.
      No pain for a good software, eagerness only.
      > I had huge problems with PACE and max/msp until I decided to get my > response key into an iLok hardware key. > Recently I've bought some expensive software from another company, > and copy protection gave a lot of troubles there too. > I don't know.. everytime I spend $$ and have problems with a > software because of copy protection I get really upset.
      I don't understand... what's your question... ?
      Best, Philippe
    • Jan 17 2006 | 8:32 pm
      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
    • Jan 17 2006 | 8:46 pm
      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.
    • Jan 17 2006 | 10:04 pm
      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