The Sound Board

I think the confusion comes regarding "v2" as opposed to "volume 2". I also have four volumes of Chris Hein horns, but the one in my template is "Volume 2", not "version 2", which I assume means I'm using CHH volume 2, not CHH version 2.

Larry, AFAIK, there isn't a "version 2", only Volume 2. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong though. I never had a version 2 and the current full version is now called Chris Hein Horns Pro.

OK, thanks v much Frank

Ditto, Frank.

I haven’t upgraded, but I agree that Chris is a standup dude, so if Pro is the ticket for continuing life of the product, I’m sure it’ll get sorted.

A brief summary after a day's frantic forum-hopping, of the best available wisdom. Much of this has come from the fount that is Mario (Evil Dragon).

Most (maybe all) of these products are currently licensed through Native Access, and use their earliest form of authorisation called RAS1 (FYI the newest content uses RAS3). It looks likely that this particular form of authorisation ran into trouble with Catalina. So the best guess right now is that NI have thrown up their collective hands, decided enough is enough and want to drop support for this ancient authorisation method going forward.

There are two important EULA sections that would seem pertinent here. The first is from NI's general EULA

3.2 Native Instruments grants Licensee the non-exclusive right without restrictions in time or place to use the Products.

The second is perhaps the most eyebrow raising and comes from the Native Access EULA

5. Should Native Instruments, for whatever reasons, no longer be able to fulfill its obligations to deliver the activation key, it will provide Licensee with a key which ensures the continued use of the licensed software independent of changes to the computer.

Matt from NI who has been active on the relevant NI forum thread - https://www.native-instruments.com/foru ... es.376981/ - says he is raising all this with the team today.

Other matters arising (more personal opinion here that facts on the ground, sorry). Piet's case here of an old Sptifire Bespoke library - cost, £5k - that won't authorise any more is a related but slightly different case in that it doesn't use Native Access at all at the moment. But its very much the same issue where the principle is that if you've paid for a license, you have a right to continue to be able to use it. Unsupported plugins seem to me to be a more complex case, because these require ongoing work to keep them up to date with OSs, but with sample libraries they require no ongoing maintenance at all - save for their authorisation.

Finally, Mario assures us that more recent libraries that use RAS2 and RAS3 seem future-proof for now. That said, I think the underlying principle here is more important than the technicalities, and if they can get away with withdrawing activation for products that are old, this will forever be seen as precedent, and a general expectation that anything we buy is effectively has a shelf life of X years and is thus considered disposable.

Reading Charlie Clouser's posts on VI-C, or Piet's here, is a reminder that professionals have different working methods than hobbyists. They are more likely to customise instruments to very speciifc requirements, and require those to be ongoing. NI are driving a coach and horses through this in particular.

This is also disconcerting for the developer who spent money to NI for licensing those libraries.

All those libraries in the list have long since been sold out, so all those serials are spent already. Developers recouped years ago.

NI have updated their webpage annoucnement with a FAQ at the bottom. A couple of relevant sentances:

Why did Native Instruments decide to remove the possibility to authorise legacy products?

[SNIP]...In regards to 3rd party instruments and our own content products, we are currently looking into possible workarounds.

Is Native Instruments currently looking into any other solutions for affected customers?

Yes, in specific cases we might be able to provide at-your-own risk support for our end-of-life products. We can’t promise anything at this point and technical feasibility needs to be evaluated. We will share more information about this as soon as possible.

Full FAQ here - https://support.native-instruments.com/ ... 1582054490

Top marks and tons of gratitude for N.I.'s support people who refused to let this little activation problem of mine (see previous page) slip from their agenda, and who came up this morning with a suggestion that finally solved the matter.

Installing an older version of Kontakt (5.6.x) and activating the Bespoke Chamber Strings in there — doing it the old fashioned way: first adding and then activating the library, all inside Kontakt (no need for either Service Center or Native Access) — was all that was required. And Kontakt 6 now also recognises the library as activated.

__

Fabulous!

Hmm.... would that work for the other old libraries I wonder? (probably compatibility issues going forward with future OSs and K 5.6 might be the limiting factor).

It might work for older libraries, indeed. All you need is K5.6.6. K5.6.8 wouldn't work.

But it's basically running SC code to enable that (my understanding of it, don't trust me 100% on that one), so it's not exactly panacea to the issue at hand.


Really glad you got sorted out, Piet!

Some good news from NI's Matt:

Hey Everyone,
Just a quick update on this.
We are making good progress and it looks like we are now focusing on a new offline activation tool which would allow our support to activate all the products listed. I don't have a full overview on how this would work yet but it looks very promising. I'm hoping to have more information to share very shortly.

Guy Rowland wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2020 10:27 am Some good news from NI's Matt:

Hey Everyone,
Just a quick update on this.
We are making good progress and it looks like we are now focusing on a new offline activation tool which would allow our support to activate all the products listed. I don't have a full overview on how this would work yet but it looks very promising. I'm hoping to have more information to share very shortly.

Any chance that the offline activation option would be global, as it used to be before Native Access?

Responded to that on VI-C. But it's unlikely, and it's going to be support-side only, not user-side.

Just posted today by Matt from NI support:

Testing done for the Kontakt instruments

The OEM instruments listed here can now be activated in Native Access: https://support.native-instruments.com/ ... nd-of-Life

Native Access can be used on 10.9 and higher if you are using an older OS: https://support.native-instruments.com/ ... g-Systems-

These changes also fixed some known issues with 10.15 and it looks like some instruments can also be activated on Catalina (Colossus and Gold for ex)

We will send official communication around this via newsletter and of course update our announcement to remove instruments that are no longer affected.

Great result imo, kudos to Matt and NI for listening and acting.

It’s not everyday that a big company listens to its customers and reverses course. Kudos indeed.

Excellent news!

Lawrence wrote: ↑Apr 28, 2020 3:07 pm It’s not everyday that a big company listens to its customers and reverses course. Kudos indeed.

They responded to pressure because they thought it was in their best interest to do so, that's all. They still lied to their offline customers and unilaterally revoked the agreements in place at the time Service Center libraries were purchased. Gee, all of these kudos celebrating monopolistic corporate abuse makes me want to sing Kumbaya or something...

But I have learned the valuable lesson of never trusting a software development company ever again. From now on, no more challenge/response or any other protocol that depends on the reliability, integrity or good graces of business people maintaining a remote server. I will only consider purchasing software that offers 100% local control in an offline environment.

NI would "listen to its customers" and do the right thing about this, too, if only enough people demanded that it be so.

Quasar wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2020 2:42 pm

Lawrence wrote: ↑Apr 28, 2020 3:07 pm It’s not everyday that a big company listens to its customers and reverses course. Kudos indeed.

They responded to pressure because they thought it was in their best interest to do so, that's all. They still lied to their offline customers and unilaterally revoked the agreements in place at the time Service Center libraries were purchased. Gee, all of these kudos celebrating monopolistic corporate abuse makes me want to sing Kumbaya or something...

But I have learned the valuable lesson of never trusting a software development company ever again. From now on, no more challenge/response or any other protocol that depends on the reliability, integrity or good graces of business people maintaining a remote server. I will only consider purchasing software that offers 100% local control in an offline environment.

NI would "listen to its customers" and do the right thing about this, too, if only enough people demanded that it be so.

Yes, I’ve read your posts about this. I understand it’s a big issue for you and I understand why. For me, I’m reliant on N.i. products to make my tiny living, so it’s not a fight I want to take up at this time. There are plenty of other battles of privacy out there (NSA, Google, Facebook anyone?) but I’m not fighting those either right now.

Also, if the consumer moved N.I. to act in their own best interests via vociferous complaint? Good. My glass is half full.

Lawrence wrote: ↑Apr 30, 2020 3:23 pm NI would "listen to its customers" and do the right thing about this, too, if only enough people demanded that it be so.


Yes, I’ve read your posts about this. I understand it’s a big issue for you and I understand why. For me, I’m reliant on N.i. products to make my tiny living, so it’s not a fight I want to take up at this time. There are plenty of other battles of privacy out there (NSA, Google, Facebook anyone?) but I’m not fighting those either right now.

Also, if the consumer moved N.I. to act in their own best interests via vociferous complaint? Good. My glass is half full.

Fair enough. We all have to decide and choose our battles carefully, and what's worth making a fuss about and what's not is entirely up to us.

I hope NI goes bankrupt and that the authors of its betrayal rot in hell.

Well that ain't gonna happen since sales have actually gone up during the pandemic. Amazingly.

Quasar, I don't look to large companies to be my moral guide, I just take things as I find it. I've been buying instruments and sample libraries for about 15 years, and thus far I haven't actually been unable to use any of them though any copy protection failures, to the best of my recollection. NI would potentialy have been first in this regard, but now it won't be. That's enough for me - I feel I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I ignored software authorisation and ditch Spectrsonics, U-he, Native Instruments, ReFx, IK etc on the basis of what might theoretically happen, but of course YMMV.

I understand, and even sympathize @quasar - copy protection probably punishes the honest users more than the pirates, and it certainly punishes the developers. I have lost access to one plugin over the years (Wizzoverb - still miss it!)

By the same token, I am certain that many of the tools I use today would not exist if the developers were not able to protect their ideas to any degree. I am aware of at least two sample library developers who have left the business purely because piracy became too big a problem.

Like @Guy, I am unwilling to ditch tools that help me be more creative just because I think most copy protection schemes don't work all that well. And I am concerned that one day I will be unable to use tools that I have properly licensed.

I look at it as the cost of doing business. And I am sorry that it bothers you so.

EvilDragon wrote: ↑May 01, 2020 4:46 am Well that ain't gonna happen since sales have actually gone up during the pandemic. Amazingly.

I'm not surprised. People are stuck at home, and this can be seen as an opportunity by some of us to get something creative done.

And over at VIC, the PR coup was masterful, with customers practically canonizing NI for miraculously providing a way to allow people to actually use software they have paid for. How wonderfully noble of them! All you have to do is submit to putting your workstation online and allow Native Access to digitally violate you.

When even the artists of a given civilization become enthusiastic participants in their own oppression by celebrating the triumph of profit over people, then indeed there is really no hope left. Even though the word "fascism" remains a pejorative, the fascistic worldview as originally espoused by Mussolini has become mainstream. To be anti-fascist in these times is to be a fringe lunatic. It has come to that, and software usage rights are but a tiny microcosm of this general trend.

50 years ago blind allegiance to the corporate mandate was called "selling out." Today it isn't called anything, because it isn't anything. It's just what normal people do...

Sorry I can't take anything you just wrote seriously. Blowing it out of proportion as usual.

EvilDragon wrote: ↑May 01, 2020 6:07 pm Sorry I can't take anything you just wrote seriously. Blowing it out of proportion as usual.

That's okay. Claiming that a POV is "not serious" or "out of proportion", is an extremely common ad hominem tactic used to dismiss the validity of an argument without actually having to engage it. If your desire to see NI in a positive light trumps any interest you might otherwise have in coming to terms with the truth about their unscrupulous business practices, that's entirely your choice.