NI to no longer allow registration of legacy products [NOW FIXED]

[Lawrence]

When people are passionate about something, they tend to speak about it in hyperbolic language.

You are passionate about this subject. In my view you use hyperbolic language to describe it. Of course you don’t see it that way because you are passionate about it.

I don’t think you’re wrong, nor deluded, nor crazy-but to me, the language you use is hyperbolic.

Sort of circular, isn’t it?

[wst3]

I am genuinely curious @quasar - do you find it equally problematic that people steal software all the time? Do you not think that a company has the right to protect their intellectual property if that is what they wish to do? Not everyone can live like Richard Stallman.

I sympathize with your complaint - it is unfortunate that NI has done away with off-line activation. But I fail (my opinion only) to see where this causes a material problem for most musicians.

Put another way, I understand the principle of your complaint, but do not think the problem is an obstacle to using their software.

[Quasar]

When people are passionate about something, they tend to speak about it in hyperbolic language.

You are passionate about this subject. In my view you use hyperbolic language to describe it. Of course you don’t see it that way because you are passionate about it.

I don’t think you’re wrong, nor deluded, nor crazy-but to me, the language you use is hyperbolic.

Sort of circular, isn’t it?

Whether an assertion is right or wrong, the language one uses has no bearing on its rightness or wrongness. I freely admit to being both passionate and hyperbolic, but this neither adds nor subtracts from the validity of my point.

[Lawrence]

“I don’t think you’re wrong.”

[Quasar]

I am genuinely curious @quasar - do you find it equally problematic that people steal software all the time?

No I do not. Though I pay for what I use and believe others should do the same, I see the white collar crime of draconian CP to be far, far worse than the software piracy it purports (falsely) to prevent.

Do you not think that a company has the right to protect their intellectual property if that is what they wish to do? Not everyone can live like Richard Stallman.

This question is nonsensical, since the entire product line NI is "protecting" via Native Access is available in pirated form anyway. That Native Access is 100% worthless as a vehicle for the protection of intellectual property is not my opinion, but an objectively verifiable fact. And if it does not prevent piracy, what exactly is its utility? What does it do beyond punish and harass the honest customers who use it?

This last point is like a giant elephant in the room that everyone who screams about piracy pretends isn't there. The persistence of the delusory equation of intrusive CP and successful piracy prevention on music forums is astonishing to me, and I am genuinely puzzled as to why so many people act as if this cause-&-effect chain were somehow real, despite the mountain of obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I sympathize with your complaint - it is unfortunate that NI has done away with off-line activation. But I fail (my opinion only) to see where this causes a material problem for most musicians.

Put another way, I understand the principle of your complaint, but do not think the problem is an obstacle to using their software.

On a purely practical level, the need to put my workstation online means that I have to have connectivity hardware (which I purposely built my machine without), firewall, AV and definition updates. It means that I have to accept unwanted Windows Updates or develop specific strategies to avoid them. It means that I have to pay attention to all of the spectre/meltdown type crap, potentially suffering performance hits from microcode mitigations. It means keeping abreast of Advertising Ids, OS "as a service" telemetry etc. In sum, it means that I have to make my workstation a globally-interactive communications device even if I don't want to. Sorry, but this is a VERY BIG DEAL, both practically and on principle.

Again, if you look at forums, it seems that not a day goes by where you can't read yet another account of someone having problems because either an OS update or a CP-related error has wreaked havoc and ruined someone's day. Not that the technology would function perfectly even in a socioeconomic utopia., but we've normalized whole categories of problems that wouldn't exist if not for capitalist power-mongering, paranoia and greed. This is unacceptable.

Oh and by the way, the Richard Stallman-esque vision is right. I don't know what you mean when you say "we can't all live like" like him. What I do know is that the single biggest obstacle to positive change in the world today are the affluent classes who – because they materially benefit from the status quo – are either conservatives who overtly resist change, or else are liberals who espouse change only to the degree that it doesn't really change anything. The almost universal tolerance for the current barbaric system of software control enforcement is a reflection of this.

[wst3]

I am genuinely curious @quasar - do you find it equally problematic that people steal software all the time?

No I do not. Though I pay for what I use and believe others should do the same, I see the white collar crime of draconian CP to be far, far worse than the software piracy it purports (falsely) to prevent.

And that answers that. I do not accept the argument that software should not be protected because it has already been stolen.

Please, be honest about it, calling it piracy instead of theft is an attempt to make it seem less of a crime. If you can't be honest about that the rest of your argument falls apart.

I do get that connecting to the internet poses a very real obstacle for you. That is, however, your choice.

And as far as romanticizing Richard Stallman, or condemning the elite (left or right) - please re-read his manifesto, he makes it very clear that while software should be free (and not as in free beer), software developers have every right to earn a decent living. If you think that people developing the tools we use are driving from one home to the other in their Bentley's then you are woefully misinformed.

As Larry pointed out - you are not wrong, CP is a burden for developers and users. Where you jump the tracks is your assertions that a company is evil for attempting to minimize the damage caused by software theft.

[tack]

It's hard to avoid the phrase "software piracy" just because it's so ubiquitous with a well understood meaning.

And I don't get a sense of minimization about "piracy" vs "theft." In fact, I seem to recall the term originally being used as a hyperbole to elicit a more grave reaction than common theft. (I may be misremembering, although this seems to corroborate the memory.)

There is clearly a distinction between illegally copying software and illegally appropriating physical property, in that the taking of the latter necessarily deprives someone else of it, while taking the former doesn't. I would say that Quasar considers this to be a difference of category, while Bill would consider it to be merely a difference of degree?

On this point, I side more with Quasar, and also the US supreme court. I do consider it to be a difference of category, and so worthy of different terminology.

[Ashermusic]

When people are passionate about something, they tend to speak about it in hyperbolic language.

You are passionate about this subject. In my view you use hyperbolic language to describe it. Of course you don’t see it that way because you are passionate about it.

I don’t think you’re wrong, nor deluded, nor crazy-but to me, the language you use is hyperbolic.

Sort of circular, isn’t it?

Whether an assertion is right or wrong, the language one uses has no bearing on its rightness or wrongness. I freely admit to being both passionate and hyperbolic, but this neither adds nor subtracts from the validity of my point.

The use of hyperbole, while it may not make the argument wrong, damages the credibility of the person making it to those who are more thoughtful. Debate team 101.

[Quasar]

And that answers that. I do not accept the argument that software should not be protected because it has already been stolen.

Huh? How does this sentence make any sense whatsoever? By definition, if it has already been stolen, then it is NOT protected. This is like saying the prison cell is empty because the prisoners have escaped, but we "should" keep armed guards at the door anyway, because we have a right to do that.

Please, be honest about it, calling it piracy instead of theft is an attempt to make it seem less of a crime. If you can't be honest about that the rest of your argument falls apart.

Interesting. To my lexical sensibilities "theft" is a stronger condemnatory word that "piracy", probably because in our 3D world piracy for most of us is pretty remote, evoking Hollywood images of eye patches and parakeet's and "Ahoy Matey" and all of that, whereas theft is an ongoing problem experienced almost everywhere on a daily basis. In modern urban environments, we lock our doors to stop thieves, not pirates.

I get that traditional seafaring piracy still happens in certain parts of the world, but it's not an active concern if you live in Philadelphia or London. Theft, on the other hand, obviously is.

I do get that connecting to the internet poses a very real obstacle for you. That is, however, your choice.

And as far as romanticizing Richard Stallman, or condemning the elite (left or right) - please re-read his manifesto, he makes it very clear that while software should be free (and not as in free beer), software developers have every right to earn a decent living. If you think that people developing the tools we use are driving from one home to the other in their Bentley's then you are woefully misinformed.

As Larry pointed out - you are not wrong, CP is a burden for developers and users. Where you jump the tracks is your assertions that a company is evil for attempting to minimize the damage caused by software theft.

I understand that Stallman doesn't mean free as in free beer, but is akin to David Healy's attempts in this area, which I laud. I have never suggested that software developers don't have a right to make a decent living. I guess where we differ is in priorities: If brick-&-mortar department stores conducted full-body cavity searches on all of their customers, then shoplifting would definitely decrease. Would it be worth it? And would people stand for it? Rather, what well-managed stores have instead is security that is virtually invisible. If you're not astute you probably won't even notice it. Fabfilter, u-he, Melda Productions, Klevgrand, Garritan and numerous other developers seem to be able to get by with similar invisible and righteous CP. Native Instruments got rich and famous BEFORE they sold out their integrity... Such examples inform me that it's not necessary to have fascist CP in order to make a living.

IMHO if the choice is between the convenience of the paying customer and the software protection, the priority should ALWAYS be the paying customer. CP that interferes with my ability to use software I have paid for is wrong. Simple like that. This would be true even if the CP were effective, and even if I understood and consented to the CP when purchasing. In the case of Native Access, however, these conditions don't even even apply. NA neither protects the software it ostensibly exists to protect, nor does it adhere to the conditions that were in place when I purchased Kontakt and Kontakt libraries using the old Service Center.

There are a whole bunch of companies that are subscription-only, use dongles or 3rd party accounts, demand that you phone-in or whatever. I have never railed against those companies because I believe they have the right to be as draconian as they want to, despite my belief that it is immoral and unjustifiable. They're doing their thing, which I abhor, but I just leave it alone because at least they have the decency to tell me upfront. So instead of complaining I just don't buy their products.

NI, on the other hand, changed the CP AFTER I had already invested in the platform. Anyone who is concerned about "piracy", "theft" or whatever you wish to call it should be concerned about that. This is much, much worse than end-user piracy because while the typical pirate may well never have paid for the software anyway, which then costs the developer nothing, NI already took my money before they decided to rip me off.

[Quasar]

The use of hyperbole, while it may not make the argument wrong, damages the credibility of the person making it to those who are more thoughtful. Debate team 101.

This isn't a high school debate team. You're either intelligent enough to examine the issue on it's own merit or you are not. And Jay, it's quite obvious that you are.

Besides, part of my intention is to invert the rhetoric, to put it on a level playing field. I've always noticed on these web forums that whenever end-user pirates are talked about, all of the hyperbolic language comes to the surface: Pirates are freely referred to as "lowlifes" "scumbags" etc., But when it's the developer who's behaving unethically, we're supposed to be polite about our criticism. This is a hypocritical double-standard, and is only another example of how money and power buy respect in capitalist societies solely by virtue of the fact that they have money and power...

...It's like when white collar stock market criminals spend 8 months in a prison with tennis courts, and slum-dwelling criminals do years of hard time in inhumane conditions. What NI did should not be sugar-coated with euphemisms.

[Ashermusic]

The use of hyperbole, while it may not make the argument wrong, damages the credibility of the person making it to those who are more thoughtful. Debate team 101.

This isn't a high school debate team. You're either intelligent enough to examine the issue on it's own merit or you are not. And Jay, it's quite obvious that you are.

Besides, part of my intention is to invert the rhetoric, to put it on a level playing field. I've always noticed on these web forums that whenever end-user pirates are talked about, all of the hyperbolic language comes to the surface: Pirates are freely referred to as "lowlifes" "scumbags" etc., But when it's the developer who's behaving unethically, we're supposed to be polite about our criticism. This is a hypocritical double-standard, and is only another example of how money and power buy respect in capitalist societies solely by virtue of the fact that they have money and power...

...It's like when white collar stock market criminals spend 8 months in a prison with tennis courts, and slum-dwelling criminals do years of hard time in inhumane conditions. What NI did should not be sugar-coated with euphemisms.

Well I don't resort to that. That said, it isn't in my view hyperbole to say that someone who believes that it is ok to taken use that which they don't purchase hasveat best a self-serving moral blind spot.

And yes, a company who announces a policy that hurts its customers and then rescinds it because of outcry, is still entitled to some credit.

Motivations matter far less than actions.

[Quasar]

It's hard to avoid the phrase "software piracy" just because it's so ubiquitous with a well understood meaning.

And I don't get a sense of minimization about "piracy" vs "theft." In fact, I seem to recall the term originally being used as a hyperbole to elicit a more grave reaction than common theft. (I may be misremembering, although this seems to corroborate the memory.)

There is clearly a distinction between illegally copying software and illegally appropriating physical property, in that the taking of the latter necessarily deprives someone else of it, while taking the former doesn't. I would say that Quasar considers this to be a difference of category, while Bill would consider it to be merely a difference of degree?

On this point, I side more with Quasar, and also the US supreme court. I do consider it to be a difference of category, and so worthy of different terminology.

Interesting etymologically (one of my hobbies), thanks.

FWIW, I am firmly in the camp who believes that software theft/piracy does constitute a distinct category for the reason you stated (that it does not deprive someone else of possession), but I don't think it's relevant here. I would not wish to equate the belief 1) that heavy-handed CP is wrong with the belief 2) that software piracy is not wrong or is less wrong. The former I strongly believe, the latter I do not believe, and at any rate a perspective about the 2nd belief does not naturally or logically flow from the 1st.

But it's clear to me that "stopping piracy" is exploited as a catch-all justification for usurping software usage rights in precisely the same way that "stopping terrorism" is used in the wider world as an ongoing excuse to rescind civil liberties.

[Quasar]

...That said, it isn't in my view hyperbole to say that someone who believes that it is ok to taken use that which they don't purchase hasveat best a self-serving moral blind spot.

And yes, a company who announces a policy that hurts its customers and then rescinds it because of outcry, is still entitled to some credit.

Motivations matter far less than actions.

Hmmm, I could just as validly change the rhetoric and frame it thus:

That said, it isn't in my view hyperbole to say that someone who believes it is ok to unilaterally betray the right to offline activation after the fact has at best a self-serving moral blind spot.

And yes, a software pirate who later decides to buy the product deserves some credit.

Motivations matter far less than actions.

[Ashermusic]

...That said, it isn't in my view hyperbole to say that someone who believes that it is ok to taken use that which they don't purchase hasveat best a self-serving moral blind spot.

And yes, a company who announces a policy that hurts its customers and then rescinds it because of outcry, is still entitled to some credit.

Motivations matter far less than actions.

Hmmm, I could just as validly change the rhetoric and frame it thus:

That said, it isn't in my view hyperbole to say that someone who believes it is ok to unilaterally betray the right to offline activation after the fact has at best a self-serving moral blind spot.

And yes, a software pirate who later decides to buy the product deserves some credit.

Motivations matter far less than actions.

Sophistry, IMHO. But yes, someone who pirates then repents and buys the software deserves some credit, as long as they don’t repeat the behavior over and over.

[Quasar]

Sophistry, IMHO. But yes, someone who pirates then repents and buys the software deserves some credit, as long as they don’t repeat the behavior over and over.

Sophistry? I just said the exact same thing you did, with a slightly different emphasis. But whatever...

...A simple yes or no question for you: Do you believe that there is any moral or ethical problem with what NI did to retroactively rescind support for offline activation? I am genuinely curious.

[Ashermusic]

Sophistry, IMHO. But yes, someone who pirates then repents and buys the software deserves some credit, as long as they don’t repeat the behavior over and over.

Sophistry? I just said the exact same thing you did, with a slightly different emphasis. But whatever...

...A simple yes or no question for you: Do you believe that there is any moral or ethical problem with what NI did to retroactively rescind support for offline activation? I am genuinely curious.

Morally or ethically wrong is a bit strong, probably I would describe it as callous and disrespectful of the users.

[Quasar]

Sophistry, IMHO. But yes, someone who pirates then repents and buys the software deserves some credit, as long as they don’t repeat the behavior over and over.

Sophistry? I just said the exact same thing you did, with a slightly different emphasis. But whatever...

...A simple yes or no question for you: Do you believe that there is any moral or ethical problem with what NI did to retroactively rescind support for offline activation? I am genuinely curious.

Morally or ethically wrong is a bit strong, probably I would describe it as callous and disrespectful of the users.

Wow... I'd be curious as to how you draw the distinction, and what phenomenal quality provides enough "strength" to push callousness and disrespect over the line that divides the ethical and the unethical.

Maybe the teenage punk who steals a copy of Photoshop is being callous and disrespectful toward Adobe, but to call it ethically wrong is a bit strong, don't you think?

[Ashermusic]

Well I certainly wouldn’t call the teenage immoral, but if I was his dad I would tell him it was wrong and ground him and delete the software.

[Quasar]

Well I certainly wouldn’t call the teenage immoral, but if I was his dad I would tell him it was wrong and ground him and delete the software.

Fair enough. Native Instruments needs to get the same message in the form of a public outcry and a boycott. Unlike you, I give them no credit for merely responding to pressure and only doing the decent thing when they perceive that it's in their own material interest to do so. Do you congratulate a car thief because he got caught before actually following through with the crime?

But I do agree with you that actions are more important than motivations, and NI, at least under its current management has amply demonstrated two character traits:

1) They have no interest whatsoever in treating their customers fairly, but
2) they do have an avid interest in maintaining the appearance of treating their customers fairly.

This leads me to believe that they would honor their Service Center offline activation agreement if there was sufficient pressure put upon them do do so. That this is not happening is a disgrace, a terribly sad commentary on the social & moral decay of these times. A lot of people like to blame Trump for a general decline in honesty, integrity and all of that, but Trump is only a mirror...

[Ashermusic]

Well I certainly wouldn’t call the teenage immoral, but if I was his dad I would tell him it was wrong and ground him and delete the software.

Fair enough. Native Instruments needs to get the same message in the form of a public outcry and a boycott. Unlike you, I give them no credit for merely responding to pressure and only doing the decent thing when they perceive that it's in their own material interest to do so. Do you congratulate a car thief because he got caught before actually following through with the crime?

But I do agree with you that actions are more important than motivations, and NI, at least under its current management has amply demonstrated two character traits:

1) They have no interest whatsoever in treating their customers fairly, but
2) they do have an avid interest in maintaining the appearance of treating their customers fairly.

This leads me to believe that they would honor their Service Center offline activation agreement if there was sufficient pressure put upon them do do so. That this is not happening is a disgrace, a terribly sad commentary on the social & moral decay of these times. A lot of people like to blame Trump for a general decline in honesty, integrity and all of that, but Trump is only a mirror...

I think it is always a bit troublesome to judge people's intention s when you don't know them, so I tend only to focus on their actions so your 1) may or may not be true. It may be it didn't occur to them that customers would think it unfair.

I know that when I worked part time for EW Doug was sometimes surprised by reactions to policies and sometimes, not often, changed them.

[Quasar]

I think it is always a bit troublesome to judge people's intention s when you don't know them, so I tend only to focus on their actions so your 1) may or may not be true. It may be it didn't occur to them that customers would think it unfair.

I know that when I worked part time for EW Doug was sometimes surprised by reactions to policies and sometimes, not often, changed them.

This point (in bold) I will concede. It is indeed unfair to judge the intentions of people I have never met who make decisions in environments I have never visited.

That said, they did get a flurry of complaints when they ended offline activation, and also personally promised me (in response to a ticket complaint) that the online Native Access requirement would not be applied retroactively, but only for products moving forward, assuring me that the so-called "legacy" stuff would continue to be supported offline. So regardless of their intentions, which, again, I agree I cannot judge, their subsequent actions revealed their words to be lies.

[Ashermusic]

(sigh).
You are right, no matter how good the end result, we can all fault them and feel righteous.

I’m out.

[Quasar]

(sigh).
You are right, no matter how good the end result, we can all fault them and feel righteous.

I’m out.

That's cool. It's not like anyone ever responds to my specific points anyway. It's because you can't without agreeing with me, and you don't want to do that. It's still terribly difficult for me to see the company that created Kontakt in such a negative light, so I fully understand why most library enthusiasts will shut down their critical faculties in this area and refuse to look at the issue.

[Lawrence]

Quasar, that’s an unnecessary insult. Hyperbole is fine, veiled insults not so much imo. That you have faith in your absolute rectitude as to your assessment of the situation doesn’t make you any more.right or logical than anyone else....it just makes you determined and inflexible.

[Quasar]

Quasar, that’s an unnecessary insult. Hyperbole is fine, veiled insults not so much imo. That you have faith in your absolute rectitude as to your assessment of the situation doesn’t make you any more.right or logical than anyone else....it just makes you determined and inflexible.

Yes, it's criticism, but it's not personal. Why does your comment (like all of the rest of them) address the perceived shortcomings of my "attitude", rather than specifically address and counter the specific points I make?

Hyperbolic, passionate, inflexible etc. are merely adjectives that describe the person making the complaint. They do not address the substantive aspects of the complaint itself, which is NOT about who feels self-righteous or upset or whatever. It's about what NI did.

If I am wrong, and what they did does not constitute a lie, a betrayal and an abnegation of common human decency, I'd love to hear cogent opinions as to why that is the case. But no one seems to have anything to say about that.