Korg Forums

Kwave:

I'm sorry that you think I'm playing games and arguing with you. We are working on your problem with great concern, I promise you that.

As I had written, I was pointing out what the software design is for the benefit of all users reading this thread. It is obvious that in your situation there is a problem, but it is the first time we have ever seen that problem, so I wanted to make clear what the usual/intended design of the software is. In all cases except yours this system has worked and communicated clearly to the user what the trial period is.

But again, and I hope for the last time, I am not arguing with you, I have apologized for your problems multiple times, and we are working with Japan to solve your problem.

I will contact you via PM to follow up.

Regards,

Jerry

Hey Kwave,
I don't usually participate in those kind of threads as they are counter-productive, and what's really the point to shout bad words over the net??? But, have you looked at the number of posts Jerry has? Apart from the odd funny posts, maybe 98% of those posts have been written to help a forum member. If he was just there to protect Korg, i think KF members would have seen his game a long time ago. Don't you think?

Anyway, the only suggestion i can give you is the same i give to all my friends who relentlessly fight against Windows: Buy yourself a Mac, and let your computer work for you and not the opposite!!!

Blink

FYI - we have resolved this issue. It seems it was the RAID controller's behavior that caused a problem with our authorizer. As also happened for kwave with an Adobe application, the RAID controller returned a different ID for the disc which "confused" our software.

In fact, the RAID system he has makes the two ATA drives show up a SCSI drives, and the behavior in general is not controlled well by the OS. It works for almost everything he has, and is a smart configuration, but the controller just behaves a bit non-standard.

We patched it and he's up and running.

I offer this info just for completeness for future persons who might read this thread and don't see a resolution, or might have the same situation and can learn from it.

Regards,

Jerry

Thanks for reporting back Jerry ... useful information to have in our "knowledge base"

Daz.

Thumbs up for Korg support then.

Well I am so glad I found this thread. I was considering buying Legacy Collection but now I won't be buying any Korg software.

cnegrad wrote:You're attitude has been antagonistic and hostile from the very beginning. KLC seems to work just fine on most people's systems.

I agree with kwave and I would be in a worse mood than him.

These permission based software licences are completely unacceptable. Having been become aware of this I know to look into it more carefully. I bought a low end product from a German company intending to spend $1000 on their top product eventuatlly but now they are on the black list too.

There will always be problems with software, even Yahoo and Google can't guarrantee 100% availablity but the issue is that customers purchase software but then are required to get permission to install it and again whenever they make significant changes to their systems. There have already been a couple of major music software sellers who are now refusing to "provide free support" on old software when all we want to do is use something we already bought.

There are plenty of copy protection systems that use malware and cause system instability. Of course we don't know what Korg does.

None of this is mentioned on the box, only that a registration process is required. Apparently the user agreement is quite long but no mention of it on the box and not provided on the web site.

I don't need anyone's permission to operate my Korg N5, Korg MS2000, Korg EA-1, and Korg Mono/Poly - and they will all still work in 10 years time.

These software protection schemes do nothing to stop piracy and only hurt the people that pay money. They in fact make pirated software more attractive.

Jerry you seem to be doing a good job but it's the whole concept that is the problem.

Brett

Brett wrote:These software protection schemes do nothing to stop piracy and only hurt the people that pay money.

I disagree. While software protection schemes are a pain (both for the User AND the company), they do help decrease piracy (note I said "decrease", not eliminate).

Any type of protection method is simply trying to help deter piracy "just enough" to help make the sofware product profitable. Companies who use protection (they all do now) aren't stupid. They realize customers would prefer to not have any protection and therefore there are '"tradeoffs". If companies felt they receieved no financial benefit from copy protection, they would eliminate it, since they bear additional costs when they use copy protection.

You are certainly within your right to not buy any software that uses protection methods similar to Korg (challenge/response and dongles), but the selection of good products from which you can choose will be very small.

P.S. -- If you want to stick with hardware, Korg sells alot of that too

MartinHines wrote: Companies who use protection (they all do now) aren't stupid. They realize customers would prefer to not have any protection and therefore there are '"tradeoffs". If companies felt they receieved no financial benefit from copy protection, they would eliminate it, since they bear additional costs when they use copy protection.

Firstly that is not true, there are a lot of companies that do not use onerous protection, Cakewalk is one and I have just bought and installed it, the registered serial number will work forever. BFD and Drum Kit From Hell are two others. I have several expensive peices of plugin software that do not have any protection at all.

You are right companies are not stupid, they go out of their way to avoid disclosing their copy restrictions - try finding any detail about Korg's copy protection and user licence agreement. I called Korg (both USA and Japan) last week and asked for a copy to be emailed to me. The USA support after having a whinge that I "wasn't even in America" - it hasn't arrived. I don't think any of us can imagine this written on the package: "This product is only guarranteed to work for 12 months after Korg decides to stop selling it".




Most professional studios refuse to load PACE protected software, the legal version sits on the shelf and have pirated versions are loaded.

Brett wrote: Firstly that is not true, there are a lot of companies that do not use onerous protection, Cakewalk is one and I have just bought and installed it, the registered serial number will work forever.

While Cakewalk doesn't use a dongle, they DO use a "challenge/response" system, tied to a person instead of a physical computer.

My point was that current all commercial software vendors (especially music software) use some type of protection in which a person must go through some effort to activate.

Some people actually prefer a dongle-type protection mechanism instead of a single computer challenge-response system (like Native Instruments) since it provides them with easier mobility.

Companies are experimenting with different types of protection to find the "best fit" in terms of protection of their intellectual capital versus user "hassles".

Brett wrote: they go out of their way to avoid disclosing their copy restrictions - try finding any detail about Korg's copy protection and user licence agreement

How is Korg different than any other company in this regard? I just found my KLC-DE box and opened it. There is a separate paper document titled with big bold letters "SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT". If I remember correctly, the license agreement is also displayed as part of the software installation process. This is identical to all other software products I own.

I do think that companies that use a dongle should state this as part of the System Requirements on the box so there are no surprises.

Brett wrote: "This product is only guarranteed to work for 12 months after Korg decides to stop selling it".

I don't understand this statement at all. Korg software is not any different than any other software out there in that is it designed to run on specific platforms, and there will always be a limit to how many future platforms will also be supported.

I have plenty of software products that were designed for Win98 and none of them work on Win XP (except new versions I have had to pay for).

MartinHines wrote:

Brett wrote: Firstly that is not true, there are a lot of companies that do not use onerous protection, Cakewalk is one and I have just bought and installed it, the registered serial number will work forever.

While Cakewalk doesn't use a dongle, they DO use a "challenge/response" system, tied to a person instead of a physical computer.

No they DON'T. I registered Sonar 5 last month. You have to register your serial number and you are provided with a serial number. There is no challenge and this serial number will work forever, even if Cakewalk go bust or stop supporting Sonar 5. I know people using Sonar 2.1 and I was even using Cakewalk 9 until last year.

My point was that current all commercial software vendors (especially music software) use some type of protection in which a person must go through some effort to activate.

Sure but you are ignoring my fundamental point that permission based systems require you to gain permission to use software that you have legally purchased and you have not been told about this.

I haven't used a dongle based system and I have no ethical issue with these, although I know people have had technical issues.

How is Korg different than any other company in this regard? I just found my KLC-DE box and opened it. There is a separate paper document titled with big bold letters "SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT". If I remember correctly, the license agreement is also displayed as part of the software installation process. This is identical to all other software products I own.

Inside the box. I contacted Korg Japan and USA and asked for a copy of the user agreement - neither sent it to me. I don't what it's like returning software in USA but it's not easy in Japan.

Brett wrote: "This product is only guarranteed to work for 12 months after Korg decides to stop selling it".

I don't understand this statement at all. Korg software is not any different than any other software out there in that is it designed to run on specific platforms, and there will always be a limit to how many future platforms will also be supported.

Every time you re-install Korg software you have to get Korg's permission, and they only guarrantee to support any software for 12 months. If you have a system crash and need to reinstall your software you will need to get a new key from Korg - they only guarrantee 12 months support. Authorising your software is considered "support".

Any software bought for Windown NT 4.5, Windows 2000 will still work on Win XP. Win NT 4.5 is 10 years old.

I'm not saying Korg is alone in this but they are one of the worst. Companies are free to make their own business decisions but freedom to contract requires disclosure. Native Instruments have one of the most oenerous agreements but provide information about this on their web site.

Brett wrote:

MartinHines wrote: While Cakewalk doesn't use a dongle, they DO use a "challenge/response" system, tied to a person instead of a physical computer.

No they DON'T. I registered Sonar 5 last month. You have to register your serial number and you are provided with a serial number. There is no challenge and this serial number will work forever, even if Cakewalk go bust or stop supporting Sonar 5.

I still consider this a form of challenge/response, except that the challenge code is not tied to a physical computer (i.e. the challenge code is the Serial Number):
-- You start with a "Serial Number"
-- You register your personal information with Cakewalk
-- They provide you with a "Registration Code"

http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/kb/kb2005281.asp

If you don't perform this "interaction" with Cakewalk, the software will not work indefinitely.

As I said before, these numbers aren't tied to a physical computer so you could theoretically install it on multiple computers (although that probably violates the license agreement). I would easily agree that the Cakewalk "method" is the least intrusive of any of the "interactive authorization" methods.

Brett wrote: Sure but you are ignoring my fundamental point that permission based systems require you to gain permission to use software that you have legally purchased and you have not been told about this.

I would argue that Cakewalk's new process is also a "permission based" system, given the software will stop working if you don't "interact" with Cakewalk and provide them with your personal information. Also, Cakewalk doesn't readily disclose this new method, so there could be some people who may not realize they must provide some personal information before they buy the product.

Cakewalk USED to only have a simple Serial Number system, but they have changed this in the last year.

Different companies align themselves differently along the "copy protection continuum", and Cakewalk has always been on the "minimal protection" end. Their change to this new process IS significant, since it shows that ALL companies are feeling the effects of piracy, and feel they must respond to it somehow.

Companies use a number of different mechanisms to reduce piracy. One additional method Cakewalk uses with SONAR is the "yearly new version". By effectively releasing a new product each year, they effectively diminish the value of the older versions. Other methods include frequent updates behind firewalls (e.g. fxpansion) or additional protected content (e.g. AAS).

I personally don't like copy protection (I am not a masochist ), but I consider it a necessary evil in today's world.

I would be great if every company used Cakewalk's simple method of protection, but I can understand why they don't (since the Cakewalk method does nothing to stop "casual sharing").

MartinHines wrote:

Brett wrote:

MartinHines wrote: While Cakewalk doesn't use a dongle, they DO use a "challenge/response" system, tied to a person instead of a physical computer.

No they DON'T. I registered Sonar 5 last month. You have to register your serial number and you are provided with a serial number. There is no challenge and this serial number will work forever, even if Cakewalk go bust or stop supporting Sonar 5.

I still consider this a form of challenge/response, except that the challenge code is not tied to a physical computer (i.e. the challenge code is the Serial Number):
-- You start with a "Serial Number"
-- You register your personal information with Cakewalk
-- They provide you with a "Registration Code"

http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/kb/kb2005281.asp

If you don't perform this "interaction" with Cakewalk, the software will not work indefinitely.

As I said before, these numbers aren't tied to a physical computer so you could theoretically install it on multiple computers (although that probably violates the license agreement). I would easily agree that the Cakewalk "method" is the least intrusive of any of the "interactive authorization" methods.

Firstly please don't use capitals for emphasis, at best. it's patronising.

Your are being disingenious or simply don't get the point I am making. I have a registration code for my software and that will work forever. I never have to contact Cakewalk ever again even if I buy a new computer and upgrade my OS and most important I don't need their "support". Installing software should not require support. I can use this software even after they have stopped supporting it. Korg explicitly (once you've found the user agreement) say only get 12 months. Buy a new computer next year and there is no guarrantee you can use your Korg software.

All I expect is a bit of disclosure and Korg are terrible about that. The Korg website is very marketing driven, although they are to be complemented for the provision of manuals online. Roland are finally getting around to this.

Brett wrote: I have a registration code for my software and that will work forever. I never have to contact Cakewalk ever again even if I buy a new computer and upgrade my OS and most important I don't need their "support". Installing software should not require support. I can use this software even after they have stopped supporting it. Korg explicitly (once you've found the user agreement) say only get 12 months. Buy a new computer next year and there is no guarrantee you can use your Korg software.

I do get the point you are making, but I don't see as big a distinction as you do between differing copy protection methods.

Both the Cakewalk and Korg methods require you interact with their company, so in that aspect both require their "support" (at least initially). The big difference between the two is that the Korg methods tie the license to a particular computer, and therefore the "registration" is more sensitive to system changes. However, if you simply reinstall the product on the same computer with the same resources, the "response code" won't change.

If you are talking about upgrading your computer to a new operating system, there there are no guarantees that either will work on the new OS. Software is designed at a "point in time" to work with specific operating systems (and sometimes chipsets). For example, I suspect if you purchased a new MacIntel computer, neither KLC nor Cakewalk Rapture will run on them since the software was not designed to support that OS (at least not yet).

I obviously realize that the current Cakewalk method is the easiest for the user. However, I also realize that different developers might want more protection on their products than Cakewalk currently does.

I am also saying that if you look at trends, you will see that ALL developers are "ramping up" their protection methods. Cakewalk may be able to currently crank out enough different products and yearly updates to keep their protection methods minimal and still make a profit. However, other developers feel they need more protection to help their profitability.

Using your desired method of "never having to interact with a company in the future" for installations, you are automatically ruling out a large number of software vendors:
-- Native Instruments
-- Steinberg
-- Korg
-- East West/ Zero-G/Best Service/Garritan
-- Waves
-- Apple Logic
-- Yellow Tools
-- Ableton

Bottom line, if you don't like a developer's software license terms or their copy protection methods, simply buy something else. For example, if I didn't/don't like the Syncrosoft dongle method used with Cubase 3, I can simply buy Cakewalk Sonar or Ableton Live.

I agree the KORG Legacy Collection authorization sucks at life...

Why? Because it does not work.

I understand that this is an old product but can you imagine if I fired up my LA2A and it told me that the company that made it has gone out of business so I can not use it any more.

I have a legal copy. I have my auth code that came with the product. yet some amazingly smart person decided that in order to allow me to use MY software I should have to connect thru an IP number, not a web site, an IP number... and let me guess you isp changed your ip number so it no longer works.

This is why I love to use illegal software. They work....

Does anyone know where I can get an illegal version of the software that I own so that I can use it?

My time is money and I dont have time so bug test your software.

This is definitely the last time I buy anything from the Korg software division. Can you imagine if I had to plug in triton into the internet when ever I used it.

If you are going to require internet auth for a product it is you responsibility to maintain that website FOREVER!! and since you choose to have it connect with an ip address which is owned my you isp it just shows that you do not have the knowledge to be working with software.

My recommendation is fire your software department and stick to hardware.

I did not even mention that fact the thing works like crap in standalone demo mode. The sounds are cool but your preferences do not work.

formerfan wrote: I agree the KORG Legacy Collection authorization sucks at life...

Why? Because it does not work.

The Korg Authorization process DOES work. Korg did change authorization methods (now they use a Syncrosoft dongle), but it all works.

formerfan wrote:
I have a legal copy. I have my auth code that came with the product. yet some amazingly smart person decided that in order to allow me to use MY software I should have to connect thru an IP number, not a web site, an IP number... and let me guess you isp changed your ip number so it no longer works.

Just type in "www.korguser.net" in your web browser and you will get to the correct location.

formerfan wrote:
Does anyone know where I can get an illegal version of the software that I own so that I can use it?

You can't. The most current version of KLC (KLC-AE2007) has never been cracked.

formerfan wrote:
My time is money and I dont have time so bug test your software.

The software works fine.

formerfan wrote:
This is definitely the last time I buy anything from the Korg software division. Can you imagine if I had to plug in triton into the internet when ever I used it.

That is a ridiculous analogy. You don't have to plugin to the internet everytime you use any Korg product. With the KLC you just have to authorize it one time.

formerfan wrote:
If you are going to require internet auth for a product it is you responsibility to maintain that website FOREVER!! and since you choose to have it connect with an ip address which is owned my you isp it just shows that you do not have the knowledge to be working with software.

See my answer above. Problem solved. Korg IS maintaining the website; they just changed the IP address.

formerfan wrote:
My recommendation is fire your software department and stick to hardware.

Both the KLC and KLC-DE have been HUGE successes. People love them since they sound great.

P.S. -- To help not confuse other readers, it is easiest to create your own thread instead of posting in a thread that is 2 years old.