Pro Tools 10 Free Trial Update

[Max Gutnik]

Originally Posted by necjamc

Actually there was a demo of protools m powered 7. I still have the DVD. It was boxed with m audio interfaces. But it was not fully functional. There was no save


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

M-Powered doesn't count.

[necjamc]

Originally Posted by Max Gutnik

M-Powered doesn't count.

Ahhhh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by danander11

That's rubbish.. Avid has been giving out temp licenses to select people in here for over a week... Read back through some of the replies from DigiCS regarding the folks that bought the service plan and still didn't get their upgrade. SOME of them have gotten temp licenses..

It has nothing to do with piracy.. just plain old poor organization and management.

there's a difference between a free downloadable demo and receiving a complementary license after buying their asp plan or product. A free downloadable demo would mean that the person doesn't have the program and downloads it to be able to try it out. Where of the liscence means that the person already bought the upgrade, the asp plan or the full fledged program and has had problems with activating or getting their license. Two different things.

Here we are talking of a downloadable version of PT that people would be able to try out for a certain number of days before having to activate it. If Avid coded the activation sequence poorly, it would probably be too easy for hackers to circumvent this protection and enable the full program without the activation timer. And then placing it on websites for download. So yes, it makes sense if they actually take their time to make sure it can't be cracked so easily.

[danander11]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

there's a difference between a free downloadable demo and receiving a complementary license after buying their asp plan or product. A free downloadable demo would mean that the person doesn't have the program and downloads it to be able to try it out. Where of the liscence means that the person already bought the upgrade, the asp plan or the full fledged program and has had problems with activating or getting their license. Two different things.

Here we are talking of a downloadable version of PT that people would be able to try out for a certain number of days before having to activate it. If Avid coded the activation sequence poorly, it would probably be too easy for hackers to circumvent this protection and enable the full program without the activation timer. And then placing it on websites for download. So yes, it makes sense if they actually take their time to make sure it can't be cracked so easily.

But why on earth would Avid do that? It takes little time to create a temp license, (relative, and I think already in existence). and works to the same effect.

Honestly, for the people that do that sort of thing, it's almost a certainty that they already have the program.

[airon]

A bit of certainty is a good thing.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

there's a difference between a free downloadable demo and receiving a complementary license after buying their asp plan or product. A free downloadable demo would mean that the person doesn't have the program and downloads it to be able to try it out. Where of the liscence means that the person already bought the upgrade, the asp plan or the full fledged program and has had problems with activating or getting their license. Two different things.

Here we are talking of a downloadable version of PT that people would be able to try out for a certain number of days before having to activate it. If Avid coded the activation sequence poorly, it would probably be too easy for hackers to circumvent this protection and enable the full program without the activation timer. And then placing it on websites for download. So yes, it makes sense if they actually take their time to make sure it can't be cracked so easily.

This is essentially what Reaper has done with no copy protection. Sure you get the nag screen after the trial time is over but that doesn't stop the program from being fully functional. And there's even a little routine out there that will get rid of the nag screen and then Reaper becomes a freebie only dependent on the end user paying up.

[sunburst79]

They have had plenty of experience with time limited plug-in's and beta demos. Having a iLok asset that expires on a certain date is old news. This has nothing to do with piracy.

I have a iLok full of expired demo licenses, Eleven, Structure etc.

My guess? It's probably more complex to do a time limited demo than to offer the fourteen day trail in the middle of December and have it expire 1/1/2012

[AvidCS]

Originally Posted by danander11

<snip>Avid has been giving out temp licenses to select people in here for over a week<snip>

We have deposited timed licenses for customers that bought the Support Plan and were waiting longer than the processing window we stated in the Dealer Announcement. This is different than a Trial for potentially thousands of transactions which needs to be an automated process. Thanks for your understanding.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by musicman691

This is essentially what Reaper has done with no copy protection. Sure you get the nag screen after the trial time is over but that doesn't stop the program from being fully functional. And there's even a little routine out there that will get rid of the nag screen and then Reaper becomes a freebie only dependent on the end user paying up.

Then if you use a routine to get rid of the nag screen you are effectively pirating the program. Pirating (hacking) is not only distributing illegally the software, it's also modifying the release of the software to circumvent any limitation applied to the software, to allow it to be distributed illegally so that users can use it without having to pay for the use.

Reaper has a different approach to their product. Comparing PT to Reaper in this essence is non logical.

Reaper is very much user open which mean that users can crate their plugins and distribute them freely through text files plugins. Not the same with pro tools which uses a proprietary plugin format. Also Reaper has been put on the market on the basis of offering a discount license (60$ now) use of their program for non profit users. In essence if you are only using it to make your things, without releasing them to the public, then you can use it free. But if you are releasing your material in any way commercial, through itunes or other means, then you have to pay the full license. Pro tools has never been set this way. The origins of pro tools have been for a use by professional making music professionally and making money out of it.

It's two completely different business models. If Cockos doesn't care that people can hack their demos that's their problem. They do not have the same line up of gear/plugins/software that Avid has. Reaper is made by a very small team of enthusiast (3 programers, Justin Frankel, Christophe Thibault, and John Schwartz), and not by a commercial company, with hundreds of employees and there for has to ensure that their employees gets paid.

Their business mentality and reasons are quite different from Avid. Avid makes professional tools for the professionals and then makes those tools available for prosumers and consumers with limitations. Reaper has been made in the optic that it's for any one to use, and then later added a license that was more expensive (225$) if their software was used in a commercial way.

So while you might fuss about it, it comes down in the end to the same thing. Avid has to make sure that their software is not being used in any way other that was intended to be used, in it's limited time offering. To ensure that their employees get paid for the work they did. And even if there was a limited ilok license time period, a plugin is no where the same as the actual program that runs the plugin. The protection has to be superior.

And then as digics has said, there's the question of actually having the means to diliver thousands of that safe program.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

So while you might fuss about it, it comes down in the end to the same thing. Avid has to make sure that their software is not being used in any way other that was intended to be used, in it's limited time offering. To ensure that their employees get paid for the work they did. And even if there was a limited ilok license time period, a plugin is no where the same as the actual program that runs the plugin. The protection has to be superior.

And then as digics has said, there's the question of actually having the means to diliver thousands of that safe program.

This is exactly what I was getting at - Avid has to protect there assets in a secure way and not just put out a demo without some kind of protection.