License expiry checked every year?

[Vocalpoint]

Oh gosh, why do people constantly look for ways to anticipate the sky falling?

Right?

VP

 

[FMN-Music]

Oh gosh, why do people constantly look away when the sky erodes just slowly enough... Right?

I'll leave you with this conversation:

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

gemini.google.com

"It’s a bit like buying a house but the front door only unlocks if you call the previous owner once a year to say hello. You still "own" the house, but your ability to live in it depends on them picking up the phone."

 

[Vocalpoint]

"It’s a bit like buying a house but the front door only unlocks if you call the previous owner once a year to say hello. You still "own" the house, but your ability to live in it depends on them picking up the phone."

If you are so freaked out by this - maybe go full on subscription? (Ad infinitum)

That way - you never have to worry about getting locked out of your own house.

VP

 

[TimC340]

Oh gosh, why do people constantly look away when the sky erodes just slowly enough... Right?

I'll leave you with this conversation:

‎Gemini - direct access to Google AI

Created with Gemini

gemini.google.com

"It’s a bit like buying a house but the front door only unlocks if you call the previous owner once a year to say hello. You still "own" the house, but your ability to live in it depends on them picking up the phone."

You don’t own the house. You own a licence to use it - free of charge after the first year. The owner is entitled to ensure that the user is who they say they are and are using it in accordance with the terms of the licence. If you don’t like the terms, stop using the house.

 

[Vocalpoint]

You don’t own the house. You own a licence to use it - free of charge after the first year. The owner is entitled to ensure that the user is who they say they are and are using it in accordance with the terms of the licence. If you don’t like the terms, stop using the house.

Mic drop yo.

VP

 

[TonalDynamics]

You don’t own the house. You own a licence to use it - free of charge after the first year. The owner is entitled to ensure that the user is who they say they are and are using it in accordance with the terms of the licence. If you don’t like the terms, stop using the house.

My dear fellow, forgive me but I think this is exactly the point:

These 'phone home or nuke' checks are a relatively recent disruption in software license agreements which amount to an attempt by developers to shift the balance of ownership (and thus power) in their favor.

You're right in that we've always had to abide by the EULA present with whatever products or plugins we've bought, the same with all software.
But it's the centralization and dependencies on foreign server checks that are throwing a wrench in the gears of software access ownership - which yes, in all but the most technical and legal sense (largely worded like it is to protect the source code and IP of software), is virtual ownership of the access to the tools in question.

The house ownership analogy is rather clumsy compared to software perp licensing, the closest real world analog in the U.S. would be a 'perpetual leasehold' where you are granted the rights to live in, typically modify, and even inherit (in iLok terms this is $25 per. license transfer to the 'inheritor's' account) the access to the property in perpetuity given compliance with the terms.

Which is to say, if the owner comes by to peek in the house while I'm on vacation, or if he dies and his son forgets to renew my keycard, I don't get locked out of my house automatically -- like you would if those servers went down.

These 'nuke checks' are entirely contrary to the spirit of fair trade that has been common software licensing practice for decades.
So people are understandably upset, and they have every right to be...
This is just another extra 10 degrees towards 'boiling the frog' (user).

I think the N.I. near-bankruptcy situation has made people realize how fragile and vulnerable these types of 'rent everything, own nothing' service models actually are compared to the machine-based license deals we made for our software tools in the recent past.

I would say 'myself included', but I've been on that train ever since Adobe moved to subscriptions.

 

[TimC340]

I'm not American, nor am I in the USA. Do not expect US-appropriate analogies from me!

 

[Gary Shepherd]

Is there a difference between straight upgrade and subscription/perpetual? I just paid for the upgrade (like I always do) and have never subscribed. I presumed the software was mine and included any updates that this upgrade was entitled to - and then I would pay for a new upgrade when that happened. I presumed the internet check was just routine.

 

[TonalDynamics]

I'm not American, nor am I in the USA. Do not expect US-appropriate analogies from me!

Hate to break it to you chief, but Presonus is owned by an American company now...
Thus the explanation.

Not that I'm any more fond of the new owners than you are -- believe me.

But seriously, that entire post of argumentation and that's what you took away from it?
Good Lord man, at least pretend to be courteous.

 

[TimC340]

My answer had nothing to do with the location of Fender - it had to do with my location! However, these are trivialities. The annual licence (yes, that's how we spell it here) check has been going on for some years, and it's a fairly basic and unintrusive security check to make sure the user is the person who registered the software after purchase. I'm sure it's easily defeated if you were single-minded enough to do so, but software security isn't a new thing. My copy of Steinberg Pro 24 used a physical dongle to secure it, cost £250 for a single licence PLUS £34.50 a year if you wanted updates. (Well, it would have done if I'd had a legal copy...) Do an inflation check to see what those 1986 prices would be now, and ruminate on how bad we have it now. In fact, I'll do it for you - it's about £1000 for the software and £140 for the updates. Plus £3500 for the Atari 1040ST to run it.

 

[Vocalpoint]

The annual licence (yes, that's how we spell it here) check has been going on for some years, and it's a fairly basic and unintrusive security check to make sure the user is the person who registered the software after purchase. I'm sure it's easily defeated if you were single-minded enough to do so, but software security isn't a new thing.

This - x100.

Peeps are making this sound like it came out 3 weeks ago. This "check" has been going on for years.

And - like was stated on page one - either accept it or find a DAW that treats ones idea of "software ownership" (which is ironic since we do not and always will not - ever own anything) a bit better.

VP

 

[BobF]

Please keep this discussion about software rather than each other

 

[Vocalpoint]

Please keep this discussion about software rather than each other

This thread is already toasty enough

An unfortunate (but as usual - totally unnecessary) turn from a decent question (Post 1) into a slow descent of "What's mine is mine AND no one is going to tell me different".

I am struggling to see a point here really.

VP

 

[TonalDynamics]

My answer had nothing to do with the location of Fender - it had to do with my location!

Understood...

It does however have a bearing on the jurisprudence of EULA drafting and enforcement, although tbh now that I think about it Presonus has had a presence in the US for a long time now so its policies would still have been subject to US laws with the business done in the United States.

My copy of Steinberg Pro 24 used a physical dongle to secure it, cost £250 for a single licence PLUS £34.50 a year if you wanted updates. (Well, it would have done if I'd had a legal copy...) Do an inflation check to see what those 1986 prices would be now, and ruminate on how bad we have it now. In fact, I'll do it for you - it's about £1000 for the software and £140 for the updates. Plus £3500 for the Atari 1040ST to run it.

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with anything?
All prices are relative, all new technology is expensive, and this is a very well-worn refrain...
PC parts just quintupled for me in the last 7 months, I'll see your 3500 quid Atari 1040ST and raise you a $5,000 Intel P.C. build that would have been a third of that half a year ago.
'New technology was far more expensive 40 years ago, therefore the erosion of personal rights is fine in 2026' is not a pertinent argument in any case, we're not debating expense here, but ethics.

You don't allow someone to slap you in the face just because they aren't a professional fighter, it still stings plenty.

Perhaps I'm just a frog who doesn't appreciate being boiled.

(Well, it would have done if I'd had a legal copy...)

Huh? It was a studio friend's copy or something I take it? I don't get your meaning here, how could it be secured with a hardware dongle yet your copy wasn't 'legal'?

I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this, no snark whatsoever, was piracy/copy-protection even a thing in 1986? Or are you saying even the hardware dongle was easily bypassed back then?


Look, I don't have a thoroughbred in this race, my entire point is that this is an unecessary point of failure. It's a power grab that will bring addl. purchasing pressure on customers who are already paid-in-full, plain and simple. 'The old owners may have shut down the servers, but you can get new authorization by paying us new guys a small fee!' kind of deal. This is already happening with quite a few filehosting services, there is 0 reason it can't or won't happen with a software company. It's also a type of currency that an old-guard can use to sweeten the deal and get a higher price out of a potential buyer when they decide to sell the company. 'Captive Legacy Userbase' is simply being leveraged as another form of capital on their balance sheets.

 

[TimC340]

OK, I don't mean this to get out of hand! My point was that various methods of manufacturer's software security have been in use for many, many years. The current annual check by Fender isn't new either in concept or in practice - I think Studio One had it at least from V5 (I stand to be corrected on that). I don't think it represents a new development in the creep of Big Brother. The concept that software is licenced not owned is also almost as old as software is. So I think the reaction to the annual check is overblown.

As for Pro 24, I may have had a less-than-fully-legal copy! (Not my fault, m'lud; society was to blame...) And no, the nautical version didn't need the dongle - but legal ones did, which made the point that software security isn't new. I entirely take your point about the current cost of some computer components, but the shock there is the change from historically very cheap (in 2025) to historically about average. The point was that software was much more expensive (relatively) then than now - indeed, the first version of Cubase Audio in (IIRC) 1989 was double the price of Pro24. So, despite the recent price rises in hardware, I think we have it pretty good right now. As my other fact about Pro24 illustrates, the annual fee for upgrades is also not a new phenomenon.

 

[TonalDynamics]

OK, I don't mean this to get out of hand! My point was that various methods of manufacturer's software security have been in use for many, many years. The current annual check by Fender isn't new either in concept or in practice - I think Studio One had it at least from V5 (I stand to be corrected on that). I don't think it represents a new development in the creep of Big Brother. The concept that software is licenced not owned is also almost as old as software is. So I think the reaction to the annual check is overblown.

Not out of hand at all, we're just circling until we get to the bottom of it

To me the distinction is that there was software that would run checks, but they wouldn't nuke your plugin access if this check wasn't made.
I know of many for which this is true, whether or not Studio One is one of them since version 5, I can't say.
I think VP was saying earlier that his expired license versions did still keep receiving updates, not sure.
So there's a silver lining if true.

But to be clear it's the 'server auth or nuke' policy I find so egregious, again, with the N.I. insolvency many were on edge about this due to the oppressive nature of Native Access.

Also, what of disasters of various sorts? As an opponent of 'All-right boilerplate' EULAs in principle, I am simply at odds with the notion of a dependency which can potentially deny access for paid goods. Such mechanisms simply serve to bend the EULA in the developer's favor at the user's expense.

But we can certainly agree to disagree there.

despite the recent price rises in hardware, I think we have it pretty good right now.

Generally I concur, I just think it's two different conversations, affordability vs. ethics where the easing of the former doesn't justify the territorial expansionism of the latter.

But as I said, I'm anti-subscription in general, philosophically speaking.
I find the notion of a person owning nothing while a company owns everything rather bleak, don't you?
Death by 1,000 cuts and all that.

 

[TimC340]

I think we're straying into philosophy and ethics, and that's probably a discussion for a different place - or at least a different thread. As for the practicalities of running Studio One/Pro once the year of updates is over, I have versions 4, 5 and 7 plus FSP8 and all of them run just fine with all of the applicable plugins working as intended. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to run 4 or 5 just now, but definitely having the last version at hand is sensible in the first few months of a new version's existence. I'm aware of another topic where v7 has given VP a catastrophic loss situation (though I believe he has it in hand), but I don't think that was anything to do with licencing.