SKindigo license policy problem

remus

And there i was thinking it was just a mashup of sketchup and indigo

kwistenbiebel

I am happy the license system is getting changed.
One and a half year ago I bought Fryrender and they had an IP adress based licensing system as well.
Since then I changed PC's 3 times and I use a Laptop as well.

Somehow it doesn't feel like you purchased the software as you can't move it from one PC to the other as you please, even though I would be the only one working on those computers.

I was never able to transfer a model from the desktop to laptop or vice versa to continue working and that is just unpleasant.
As a result, I abandoned using the software because of that, as it just killed my appetite.

Piracy is one thing, and developers trying to overcome this is legit, but it definitely has a negative impact on the people who buy the software.

At times, you'd want to buy and pay for legit software and then get a craked pirat copy of the same program from the net, just to avoid the licensing hassle.
I know it is not done, but since you paid for it....

Pixero

@kwistenbiebel said:

I am happy the license system is getting changed.
Piracy is one thing, and developers trying to overcome this is legit, but it definitely has a negative impact on the people who buy the software.

When I went to study 3d some years ago the school had lots of problem getting a certain app licenses to work on the network.
After many tries from the resellers service people the school was told to download a cracked version since that was much more stable.
I wont say which app it was but it starts with Soft and ends with Image.

kwistenbiebel

I think the trouble began when developers started to use internet controlled IP adress based licensing.
It seriously limits the users freedom.

frv

Some weeks ago I was ready to move over to Skindigo but it is my strong believe that their license policy reflects a character present in Glare Technologies. It takes a certain attitude to hassle your paying users in their disadvantage to make sure you do not loose a penny on the bad guys. Many companies have a decent license policy that does not conflict with the majority of their users. Glare has a good example by SU itself.

I really liked the demo version of Skindigo though. Anyhow, the Maxwell plugin is going to get a major makeover by someone who has gotten good feedback on other plugins for Maxwell so I am with Maxwell still for a while. v2 is a lot faster and I think Maxwell still has a little edge over the other render app's for SU like camera shift, and a very advanced material editor and lots of materials in their public library.
Francois

Stinkie

@frv said:

Some weeks ago I was ready to move over to Skindigo but it is my strong believe that their license policy reflects a character present in Glare Technologies. It takes a certain attitude to hassle your paying users in their disadvantage to make sure you do not loose a penny on the bad guys. Many companies have a decent license policy that does not conflict with the majority of their users. Glare has a good example by SU itself.

Let's not forget Google's a wealthy multinational, and Glare a two-man start-up. My guess is that the current licensing scheme has less to do with 'attitude' than a certain desire to no go bust prematurely due to piracy. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that Nick and Ben, whom I know as customer friendly, didn't decide upon the current policy without due consideration.

@frv said:

Anyhow, the Maxwell plugin is going to get a major makeover by someone who has gotten good feedback on other plugins for Maxwell

That is indeed good news for those of us who have a Maxwell license.

Ecuadorian

Returning to the subject of "licensing schemes", I have just purchased Vue's RenderUp module for the free Vue 8 Pioneer. As I have both XP and 7 in my machine, I'll get the chance to see how smart their licensing system is. If it's smart enough, I'll be able to switch between XP and 7 without hassle.

...and I'll also be able to test what happens when your ISP is down.

Oh, and BTW, I think we've been centering the discussion around the wrong word/term/item. SkIndigo is free of charge and without limitations for all users. It is Indigo which needs a license to unlock watermark-free hi-res rendering.

kwistenbiebel

@unknownuser said:

My guess is that the current licensing scheme has less to do with 'attitude' than a certain desire to no go bust prematurely due to piracy. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that Nick and Ben, whom I know as customer friendly, didn't decide upon the current policy without due consideration.

I tend to disagree with the 'going bust' concept. (I am talking in general, not specifically about Indigo as I don't know their licensing system)
You can look at it in the opposite way. A (too) strict licensing system could push people to piracy.

I purchased Vray and Fry, and to be honest, using the cracked versions of both pieces of software is tempting now.
Why? The people that download it 'for free' have all the freedom of doing with the software what they want, while the paying customers are frustrated with 'licensing procedures' and headaches when they want to use it on another computer, re-install their PC's etc...
I see a parallel with the music industry and the rise and fall of DRM copy protection. The industry ditched the DRM concept as the paying customers had more restrictions than the 'free downloaders'.

If I was a developer, I would give paying customers a 'non restricted' version of the software as a bonus. That's customer service.

In a way, Piracy can contribute to growth as well.
I am pretty sure that Rhino for instance would have never gained the momentum it has now in the architectural field, without students at Uni's using cracked versions, getting really good at it, and afterwards asking the bosses of the arch firms they work for to buy it for the office.

I am not saying that piracy is ok. But I think developers need to understand that they can 'manouvre' their way and turn it into a positive thing and remain lucrative in what they are doing.

By the way, most people use piracy copies to learn a piece of software or to test it to extent. Once they start using it commercially, I think most people start buying legit versions as a business can't afford getting caught having no official licenses at a software inspection. The fines are hugh!

My conclusion. Copy protection: yes! But not at the expense of paying customers.

Stinkie

@kwistenbiebel said:

A (too) strict licensing system could push people to piracy.

Some, perhaps. In most cases, people just can't be arsed to cough up the dough.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. I don't like to be kept waiting for three days until I finally receive my license key etc. Nor do I enjoy being treated like a potential criminal. But I do understand why developers are keen on taking measures to reduce piracy. Don't forget either that, in the end, paying users don't benefit from piracy: a company that makes less, is a company that invests less in fixing bugs etc.

There's one thing I'd like to see being made illegal, though: not being allowed to resell your license. I'd like to do with my property as I please.

Stinkie

Let's keep it friendly and constructive, shall we?

toxicvoxel

@unknownuser said:

Some weeks ago I was ready to move over to Skindigo but it is my strong believe that their license policy reflects a character present in Glare Technologies. It takes a certain attitude to hassle your paying users in their disadvantage to make sure you do not loose a penny on the bad guys. Many companies have a decent license policy that does not conflict with the majority of their users. Glare has a good example by SU itself.

I think this post reflects more about your attitude than that of the developer involved.

Have a look at this link and you maybe you will understand that developers need to protect themselves against the 'attitude' of users.

13000 crack downloads of a single Sketchup plugin.
Link deleted
How many of those do you think are members here?

@unknownuser said:

Just imagine yourself before a deadline switching after a crash to a back system and having to wait till Glare decides to provide you a new license. Or you'd like to finish some hours work in the weekend and have to drive back half an hour to the office to get it done. At Glare they assume we are all students since its Sketchup...or that we do not read the license policy before we buy.

No responsible business would operate without having backup computers and extra licenses when working against critical deadlines. If they are working overtime they are making money. Pay the cash for a second license and stop complaining.

Gaieus

Toxicvoxel, would you, please, not link to pirate downloads from here?

Thanks.

Gaieus

The part about the forum policy is added to your post (read the footer) as a reason for editing it.

Otherwise log out, press the register button and read the terms of use. THEY are the official forum policy (and no-one can say that we change them too frequently)

Edit - for your convenience, this is an excerpt from the TOS:

"You (also) agree not to post and publicly share or use "us" to privately distribute any copyrighted and/or commercial material and any material whose owner/creator did not explicitely allow the distribution of. Furthermore, you agree not to post links to websites that illegally distribute and share such material."

toxicvoxel

Gaieus,
I note you decided to delete the part in your post about 'forum policy'.
I was about to say that it was good to know there was one.

I think most members would understand the link in context with the rest of my post.

Gaieus

@toxicvoxel said:

I think most members would understand the link in context with the rest of my post.

Look, this is not some kind of nitpicking with you. Many members here actually live on some content they create and obviously any piracy harms their interests.

As SCF is regularly monitored by search bots and such, these links get additional reputation in search engines but distroy the reputation of SCF and indeed we wish to keep it clean and avoid any eventual banning of it anywhere as a site that spreads piracy.

If you reallyneed to post something like that, do it inside a code tag like this

http://www.I_am_a_pirate_site.com

In this case, members can still have a look at the site by copying the URL but bots won't find the links (at least not as links). But you would make me happy if you didn't even do this.

toxicvoxel

Hey man relax, I'm happy that the link is deleted. I'm not propagating piracy - I'm advocating against it.

Gaieus

I know. But linking with whatever innocent intents will still be indexed by Google.

toxicvoxel

OK, I get it, I understand, mi comprendo , - I am sorry, I apologise and I will never do it again.
Happy?

Gaieus

Ecuadorian

Back on track about "licensing systems", Stinkie mentioned that you might have to wait for up to three days for your license. Why not do something similar to what Microsoft has? You just install the thing and activate it online. No need to send a request to a human being who might be sleeping or on vacation. And no need to give explanations if you switch to a new PC or change your CPU or network card; it just activates again.