I have discovered that NI no longer supports offline activation. Probably not news and it is certainly their perogative but I wont be using their products. My DAW stays offline. Nothing is irreplaceable. The flip side is that the legit freeware stuff has taken a nice leap forward and the Sampletank 3 I picked up for $99 is quite nice.
I have discovered that NI no longer supports offline activation. Probably not news and it is certainly their perogative but I wont be using their products. My DAW stays offline. Nothing is irreplaceable. The flip side is that the legit freeware stuff has taken a nice leap forward and the Sampletank 3 I picked up for $99 is quite nice.
NI's stance: https://support.native-instruments.c...ments-Products "As of September 2017, the possibility of activating Native Instruments products offline has been discontinued."
Unfortunate but hardly a game changer for the other 99.9% of us.
By using software that allows offline activation. Download the update, copy it with a USB drive or something, install on the air-gapped computer.
It's more common than you might think - the most effective antivirus solution is to not connect the computer to the internet. Not to mention the CPU savings from not having any background processes going back and forth with Microsoft.
My audio gear is on an isolated private network. Anything that needs to go on to that network is scanned with AV software and put on a usb stick/drive to move it over to that network. I have installed the IK, Slate, Waves etc stuff with offline activations. I don't generally need to upgrade the OS once its stable. Same with apps. The last DAW was stable for a decade and I can't remember the last time I changed anything on it. I took a ghost image prior to any changes I did make. I probably could have upgraded the drives and still be using it. I like things that work reliably. Leaving a machine online is the last thing I would do if it needs to be stable and reliable. Especially if there is no reason for it to be online.
Just glad I did the research before spending any money on their gear.
Last edited by AudioWonderland; 08-07-2018 at 01:54 PM.
Well, Windows Defender is an extremely lean AV... it doesn't impact performance greatly.
That maybe true, but according to almost every av test I have red for several years now it is also worth less than nothing. The only thing working less than Defender is using no av at all. So best is using offline machines.
If manufacturers only offer software that can be used by online registration I search for an alternative. Luckily there usually is. And I can because music is my hobby and not my profession. But I do agree with OP that it sucks that one needs internet to register software.
I have discovered that NI no longer supports offline activation. Probably not news and it is certainly their perogative but I wont be using their products. My DAW stays offline. Nothing is irreplaceable. The flip side is that the legit freeware stuff has taken a nice leap forward and the Sampletank 3 I picked up for $99 is quite nice.
I feel exactly the same way and have been complaining about this for months, to the point where I know ED among others is completely sick to death of my presence on digital music forums.
My DAW stays offline too. The right to have a private, offline creative workstation is inherent and fundamental. The biggest specific problem here is that NI has changed in this sinister, depraved fashion AFTER so many of us were already too heavily vested in the Kontakt platform, AFTER NI attained a virtual monopoly in the sample library arena, involving untold hundreds of 3rd party developers who are dependent upon them. Had they not built their business rep on the basis of honoring offline activation, then I could have simply ignored them and their products. But now it is too late.
It's despicable, immoral and should be illegal to be able to unilaterally effect such a change from a position of monopolistic power. It should be resisted by any means necessary. I still hope that somehow enough financial pressure can be brought to bear that NI might possibly relent, though I don't believe this is realistic. They are too big, most end-users are too apathetic, and they obviously don't care...
Just connect the machine to the net for the NI install then disconnect when done. The odds of your system being compromised during that are so small it's not worth worrying about.
Just connect the machine to the net for the NI install then disconnect when done. The odds of your system being compromised during that are so small it's not worth worrying about.
The idea of people having no rights to privacy and offline autonomy in the digital age is nothing worth worrying about?
Just connect the machine to the net for the NI install then disconnect when done. The odds of your system being compromised during that are so small it's not worth worrying about.
Just connect the machine to the net for the NI install then disconnect when done. The odds of your system being compromised during that are so small it's not worth worrying about.
An then it's that one time that compromising happens. And after that the system is unuseable. And all projects planned for recording can't be done, as the system needs to be reinstalled again.
It's everyone's choice to connect the computer to the net or not, but if I had a business to run with audio-recording, I would never connect my production-computer to the net.
If that computer is virusattacked or catches ransomware due an ad on some site not found by an AdBlocker, it could cost me a lot of money of cancelled productions, while I had to clean the computer from the virus.
Or even worse: having to resetup everything from scratch maybe taking days.
And seing, how deep some viruses can implant themselves into and UEFI or Bios these days, some computers might be irreversibly damaged after a virus attack.
You'd have to be really unlucky or extremely fucking clueless to get that happening. Lots of FUD spread around here...
Also, if you're just updating your software on your "production computer", you wouldn't ever get on a website that has an ad not covered by adblock and get ransomware. True story.
On the other hand, if you're going on shady porn sites...
Thank you for that... sorry for off-topic, but I just installed Win 10 and keep running into stuff like this is there like a comprehensive list somewhere of all the shit you need to disable on a fresh install?
The right to have a private, offline creative workstation
is inherent and fundamental.
The biggest specific problem here is that NI has changed
in this sinister, depraved fashion AFTER so many of us
were already too heavily invested in the Kontakt platform,
AFTER NI attained a virtual monopoly in the sample library
arena, involving untold hundreds of 3rd party developers
who are dependent upon them.
...
It's despicable, immoral and should be illegal to be
able to unilaterally effect such a change from a position
of monopolistic power.
True!
It is a principle of freedom that gets violated here,
independent of the assumption "that a short internet-
connection just for activation would or wouldn't harm
the DAW-system."
Leaving aside the morals of what NI do to stop piracy, it's not that hard to keep OS and data backups and restoring the OS takes, what, 30 mins tops. OK data would take longer but if you're working on something you could, in the short term, just restore that. Then again if you decide to update NI in the middle of a session you,re asking for it really. ;-)
I've found myself getting annoyed about this in the past but have realized that really it's just a good excuse to have a rage - then I magnify the difficulties to justify my position. Oh dear there goes my popularity ratings. :-O
And seing, how deep some viruses can implant themselves into and UEFI or Bios these days, some computers might be irreversibly damaged after a virus attack.
Are people here seriously running into a lot of security issues? I've been running windows online since about 1995 without a virus. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I used various programs until Defender seemed to be sufficient a few years ago. I can't help but read these slightly paranoid threads without shaking my head a bit.
Are people here seriously running into a lot of security issues? I've been running windows online since about 1995 without a virus. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I used various programs until Defender seemed to be sufficient a few years ago. I can't help but read these slightly paranoid threads without shaking my head a bit.
Yeah, as long as you don't open spam emails and don't go to dodgy websites, nothing will happen, even with defender set to off.
Leaving aside the morals of what NI do to stop piracy, it's not that hard to keep OS and data backups and restoring the OS takes, what, 30 mins tops. OK data would take longer but if you're working on something you could, in the short term, just restore that. Then again if you decide to update NI in the middle of a session you,re asking for it really. ;-)
I've found myself getting annoyed about this in the past but have realized that really it's just a good excuse to have a rage - then I magnify the difficulties to justify my position. Oh dear there goes my popularity ratings. :-O
Yes, if you are "leaving aside the morals", then you may have a point. I wouldn't know, since I can't simply subtract the ethical component from something when attempting to determine right from wrong or good from evil.
to be fair the same people who think that they're in great danger of viri by accessing the World Wide Web Internet are the ones who end up with all the problems if they do set foot into that sneaky land
it was an urgent message from microsoft, after all, it said right there in the url --
(unsecure connection) www.danger.microsoft.ru
__________________ mccrabney scripts: MIDI edits from the Arrange screen ala jjos/MPC sequencer
|sis - - - anacru| isn't what we performed: pls no extra noteons in loop recording
| - - - - - anacru|sis <==this is what we actually performed.
Yes, if you are "leaving aside the morals", then you may have a point. I wouldn't know, since I can't simply subtract the ethical component from something when attempting to determine right from wrong or good from evil.
I'm not sure how you inject this idea of morality into the business decisions made by corporations. They are business decisions, not morality arguments. If you don't like their business model, obviously go elsewhere. I choose to not participate in monthly/annual subscription based software. I don't like those... So I go elsewhere but I don't assign a moral component to it.
Edited to add: As pointed out below, NI isn't using subscriptions. Adobe loves them all night long though.
I'm not sure how you inject this idea of morality into the business decisions made by corporations. They are business decisions, not morality arguments. If you don't like their business model, obviously go elsewhere. I choose to not participate in monthly/annual subscription based software. I don't like those... So I go elsewhere but I don't assign a moral component to it.
I hope that business model fails though, or is ultimately far less profitable. I wouldn't want to see the traditional business model replaced with subscriptions.
For any confused about Tgraph's comment Native Instruments don't offer subscription, thankfully.
From what I read, most antivirus programms are more or less useless since they can react only to viruses they know... and heuristics... hmm seem to make more trouble than everything else
I am online since about 10 years without any AV software and just the standard windows firewall enabled... what shall I say: I never ever have had any problems with any viruses, malware, misbehaviour etc... and I am not even careful
I don´t know, if there are many people thinking, that there are tons of viruses just waiting to get a chance on coming on your machine and the only thing stopping them are your AV protections...
I bet 99.9% of you will make the same experience if they would turn off any AV programms...
Are people here seriously running into a lot of security issues? I've been running windows online since about 1995 without a virus. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I used various programs until Defender seemed to be sufficient a few years ago. I can't help but read these slightly paranoid threads without shaking my head a bit.
This completely misses the point. Although problems are recurringly reported with online DAW workstations (usually auto-Windows Updates, not viruses), it's not about being "paranoid" to go online. It's about (as enroe said) the principle of the thing. Mandating that one's personal creative space be subjected to oversight by remote, unseen forces solely to protect the interests of capital is a fundamental abuse of digital age human rights. This needs to be seen as the obscene violation that it is and it needs to be resisted.
Would you tolerate this behavior from retailers in the brick & mortar world? Would you be okay with grocery store clerks searching your refrigerator because you bought food from their store?
I'm not sure how you inject this idea of morality into the business decisions made by corporations. They are business decisions, not morality arguments. If you don't like their business model, obviously go elsewhere. I choose to not participate in monthly/annual subscription based software. I don't like those... So I go elsewhere but I don't assign a moral component to it.
Edited to add: As pointed out below, NI isn't using subscriptions. Adobe loves them all night long though.
Obviously go elsewhere, which is what I usually do. But, again, NI has changed the rules after gaining a monopolistic foothold, and after I have already invested heavily in their platform, an investment made in large part because they always allowed for offline activation in the past. It's a stab in the back. It's a callous and cynical betrayal of trust.
And by the way, the assertion that "business" decisions are somehow immune from their "moral" component is a most interesting POV to say the least... I wish more people (especially society's artists and musicians) would think critically & carefully about the implications of this popular but deplorable presumption.
This completely misses the point. Although problems are recurringly reported with online DAW workstations (usually auto-Windows Updates, not viruses), it's not about being "paranoid" to go online. It's about (as enroe said) the principle of the thing. Mandating that one's personal creative space be subjected to oversight by remote, unseen forces solely to protect the interests of capital is a fundamental abuse of digital age human rights. This needs to be seen as the obscene violation that it is and it needs to be resisted.
Would you tolerate this behavior from retailers in the brick & mortar world? Would you be okay with grocery store clerks searching your refrigerator because you bought food from their store?
I don't believe that anyone is purposely subjecting me to oversight by remote, unseen forces... Just my opinion. I see myself more as a minuscule fish in a very large ocean, as pertains to the interests of corporations and in the flow of data in the ether.
This completely misses the point. Although problems are recurringly reported with online DAW workstations (usually auto-Windows Updates, not viruses), it's not about being "paranoid" to go online. It's about (as enroe said) the principle of the thing. Mandating that one's personal creative space be subjected to oversight by remote, unseen forces solely to protect the interests of capital is a fundamental abuse of digital age human rights. This needs to be seen as the obscene violation that it is and it needs to be resisted.
Would you tolerate this behavior from retailers in the brick & mortar world? Would you be okay with grocery store clerks searching your refrigerator because you bought food from their store?
Hey - some of you old timers may remember this show - Rowan & Martin's Laugh in. On it was a character played by Lily Tomlin
Now - this is 1968 - yea 68 -
Watch this:
".... according to our files your present bank balance ..."
"Privileged information? Oh Mr Vittles, that's so cute... we're the phone company ... "
I worked with hackers. That's what I did for some ex-NSA guys here in DC. Here's the main PCB for developing a device we designed for deep packet inspection:
Deep packet inspection on backbone connections allows ISP to filter and harvest data. Comshaft and Venison "Why should Screwgoole, Facefack and Instapoo get all that data?"
"All your data are belong to us"
Back when I was designing that and other stuff I was in touch with this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Crocker
Actually - his little company that resold Covad was the only way I could get DSL since I was so far from the telco switch.
We were discussing IETF and the then-new IPV6... I asked him if any of this would ever be secure.
"Nope - never designed to be a public switched network... it was ArpaNET. "
We got bought by Verizon. When we got bought we all had to take on line learning.
One was to never put anything in a text, email, etc.. that you didn't want to see on the front page of the newspapers - they even had a silhouette animation of meeting someone on a park bench.
So... as to all this security stuff - Security is Practice - not a product.
Use Text-only email - "just the text ma'am"
Use Noscript or some other script blocker. If you really want to go to that pornsite use a VM/sandbox.
Download something? Use Virustotal.
Systernals ProcExplorer even has the ability to right click running processes and send them to VirusTotal
Lock your router down. Shut all the silly off. Get a managed switch (they're cheap nowadays ) and set up VLAN for your kid's, family.
Assess what you need - yea I have a patent on something that looks a lot like the internet of things ( http://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/index.html ) but really - do you need your toaster on the Internet?
Practice Safe Hex.
Humans weren't ready for fire
or for the wheel
nor the steam engine
Certainly not computers...
“In the information society, nobody thinks. We expected to banish paper, but we actually banished thought.”
~~ Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park
This completely misses the point. Although problems are recurringly reported with online DAW workstations (usually auto-Windows Updates, not viruses), it's not about being "paranoid" to go online. It's about (as enroe said) the principle of the thing. Mandating that one's personal creative space be subjected to oversight by remote, unseen forces solely to protect the interests of capital is a fundamental abuse of digital age human rights. This needs to be seen as the obscene violation that it is and it needs to be resisted.
Would you tolerate this behavior from retailers in the brick & mortar world? Would you be okay with grocery store clerks searching your refrigerator because you bought food from their store?
That is a false equivalency. When you buy goods, such as the groceries you mentioned, you own them outright. When you buy a software license, you don't own the software; you are only buying a right to use the software according to the terms the seller either dictates to you or negotiates with you. As such, you have no fundamental right to use the software; you have only the rights granted in the license.
While I agree with you in that I prefer offline activation, this is nowhere near as big an issue as you are trying to make it into.
I don't believe that anyone is purposely subjecting me to oversight by remote, unseen forces...
Online activation, any kind of requirement that your computer "phone in" is exactly that. This is an indisputable empirical fact. What part about your product being activated by a remote, unseen force don't you believe is occurring when it occurs?
Online activation, any kind of requirement that your computer "phone in" is exactly that. This is an indisputable empirical fact. What part about your product being activated by a remote, unseen force don't you believe is occurring when it occurs?
I'm not sure who you think you are that anyone gives a shit what you're doing... Not meant as an insult, an empirical fact.
disclaimer on that site: "By submitting your file to VirusTotal you are asking VirusTotal to share your submission with the security community and agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Learn more."
Systernals ProcExplorer even has the ability to right click running processes and send them to VirusTotal
Geek note: While VirusTotal is great and helpful, the virus writers watch the site too so that as soon as someone "checks virus total" they see it and change the virus code accordingly. Not a big deal for end-user/general public but a very big deal for those investigating as to not let the bad actor know they are on to them.
As far as the thread subject, I agree that offline should be available - period; not doing so displays a lack of customer focus. I do not agree about any of the fundamental rights/obscene violation stuff due to being a bit of an emotional false dilemma.
__________________ Music is what feelings sound like.
That is a false equivalency. When you buy goods, such as the groceries you mentioned, you own them outright. When you buy a software license, you don't own the software; you are only buying a right to use the software according to the terms the seller either dictates to you or negotiates with you. As such, you have no fundamental right to use the software; you have only the rights granted in the license.
While I agree with you in that I prefer offline activation, this is nowhere near as big an issue as you are trying to make it into.
No. It's not a false equivalency, but rather a reflection of the sorry state of digital age rights in general. All of this "you don't own the software, only the license" legalese vomit has been nothing more than another tool used to ensure that people become accustomed to being monetized & oppressed.
No. It's not a false equivalency, but rather a reflection of the sorry state of digital age rights in general. All of this "you don't own the software, only the license" legalese vomit has been nothing more than another tool used to ensure that people become accustomed to being monetized & oppressed.
This has always been the case with intellectual property, at least for the past two or three hundred years. Its nothing new or specific to the digital age.
Besides, you already bought a license to use version X of the software that activated offline and you still have the rights to use that without online activation. Nothing has changed there. The only thing that has changed concerns updating to new versions of the software, which you are free to accept or not. And if you choose not to, you can still use version X that you already have without activating it online. In other words, nothing has been taken from you.
Geek note: While VirusTotal is great and helpful, the virus writers watch the site too so that as soon as someone "checks virus total" they see it and change the virus code accordingly. Not a big deal for end-user/general public but a very big deal for those investigating as to not let the bad actor know they are on to them.
As far as the thread subject, I agree that offline should be available - period; not doing so displays a lack of customer focus. I do not agree about any of the fundamental rights/obscene violation stuff due to being a bit of an emotional false dilemma.
You license something to a person - not an inanimate object.
In fact it's a violation of Quiet Enjoyment - see the link to the PDF from Fenwick - these are the guys that did the first click thru EULA for Jobs and Woz back in the day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenwick_%26_West
“Quiet Enjoyment”
Licensees, having paid for the right to use licensed technology, generally seek to ensure that
nothing interferes with the benefits they have received. For example, licensees are concerned
with their ability to obtain assistance from the licensor in fixing defects that are discovered in
the technology, to have the right to fix the defects themselves if the licensor is unable to do
so, to obtain periodic upgrades and other maintenance services from the licensor, to transfer
their rights if they sell their business and to continue enjoying the technology even if the
licensor becomes bankrupt.
why I wrote this rant about 8 years ago (note well before the orange guy decided to run for pres)
This is also why companies like Autodesk and Adobe went to a "rental" biz model. Yea Autodesk eventually won the Vernor case, but lost at first. I think they realized that "licenses" require the same rights as a Section 8 scumloard has to extend to tenants.
And if you read that Licensing Basics, right after the Quiet Enjoyment part, there's a very interesting section called "Licensor and Licensee Restrictions" where it states:
"While United States law generally leaves licensors and licensees unfettered in drafting agreements as they see fit, the law does impose some limitations. These limitations primarily prevent licensors from imposing terms in license agreements that are thought to be contrary to public policy. For example, antitrust laws prevent licensors from requiring licensees to purchase staple articles of commerce as a condition to obtaining a license to patented technology. "
I'm thinking that Autodesk (and Adobe seeing this) - having lost the first round in Vernor, took a hard look at using a restrictive license locked to a device, as being worrisome to using said licenses for "recurrent revenue" streams - which is what they really are.
They do nothing to stop Peggy in Russia from hacking their application
Oh and years ago after that whole IoT thing I did in 1995 went sour (had to do with boob implants on a company AMEX) I met with a hi-end lawyer. He mentioned me taking it back and licensing it.
He asks - do you know why they license stuff?
"Uh, no.." I stammer - 'cause they want to own it?
Nope - he then mentions things about Revenue, and recoupment of R&D being tax advantageous over direct sales.
It's in that Fenwick PDF...
"Developing Property to Be Licensed
The ability to deduct the costs of developing intellectual property to be licensed can be
a significant tax issue. Research and development costs are generally deductible even if
the company is not yet, but will be at some point, engaged in a trade or business activity
involving the intellectual property. Current deductions for such costs (compared with
capitalizing such amounts) usually makes the most sense for a company that wants to
license the developed technology, because there is no cost recovery of the capitalized
amount if the technology is considered for tax purposes to be licensed.