I’m slightly concerned and definetly a number 2) user
We use Nuendo (but the main dongle discussion is here in the cubase forum) working on Tv and feature film audio post production.
Serious streaming services like Netflix, HBO and others, their security demands do not allow any machine to directly have internet access. And these types of networks are quickly becoming our bread and butter income providers. Thus the system can’t be allowed to be connected to the internet. Nether can it be allowed to use any standard USB mass storage device. However a security dongle is ok.
This is daily life already. Do not dismiss our concerns.
I love my dongle.
Will have to wait and see what that new solution is going to be.
But I will be checking out the competition and be ready to jump ship.
I like working in Cubase, and I like the fact that it has a solid copy protection.
If that copy protection is weakened by any means (both usability or strength) I don’t see a future for me and Steinberg products.
This is of cause a personal decision based on ideology and use case, something we all need to decide.
If I was primarily a laptop user, I would probably think different.
I’m not saying that these users are less valuable than professionals, but they are already more likely not to use a USB dongle, there’s no need for that with Cubasis and Elements and it’s clear that they don’t want to have that either.
The value of their software is probably also very manageable, in contrast to Steinberg, where I’ve probably already invested over US$10,000 and want security in return.
Maintaining an ageing code base that’s riddled with constant checks to a dongle that’s connected via a frankly slow and ageing USB protocol is both time consuming and resource draining for Steinberg.
The user has paid for this with a poor update cycle and years of speed / stability issues. Loosing the dongle will hopefully change things for the better.
Steinberg has never stated such, so this is your opinion. As a user for well over a decade. Even with the known bugs etc, it has proved a very successful product for me and my business, dongle and all!
I think the main reason why Cubasis or Cubase Elements don’t use the dongle is that you won’t pay 22 € on top of what you paid for those small versions.
The argument for a copy protection is not to completely prevent cracked software, it’s to raise the threshold for people pirating the software. A car lock isn’t 100% safe either, but, it’s better than to leave your car completely unlocked.
Try using Elements on multiple machines without a dongle, this very much affects everyone from ‘beginners’ to pros. The current ‘cloud’ system that Elements uses requires manual un-activation and re-activation each time you want to move to a different machine - it’s not so straight forward, and that’s why the majority are welcoming improvements.
And who do we even label a ‘pro’ at this point? Where do you put a young podcaster, streamer or youtuber who’s getting a constant revenue stream by using Elements? Are they just part of the “new smartphone youth” as you called them?
I don’t get what security could be taken from you, please explain?
Whatever security concerns you have, The same rule should apply whether you’ve spent $50 or $10,000, surely? As i see it, A person who has paid for Cubase updates across 15 years use are left with no more value on their dongle than someone buying Cubase today, so previous investment money is just in the wind now.
If by security you mean protecting the value of your purchases then the system is getting an upgrade, not downgrade - and your product library will be more assessible wherever you are in the world.
The E-Licenser control centre already requires an internet connection for most tasks, to recover your license the activation/online database needs to be online for that to be processed - the underlying security is maintained remotely currently, and will be in the future.
Furthermore, Keeping with security - Anyone could take your dongle and plug it into an offline machine and untraceably use your software. With a cloud based system a layer of authentication is required.
So please, what security are you looking for that wouldn’t also apply to someone from the “smartphone youth”? I really fail to comprehend right now.
In your mind, what do you envisage the best solution when Steinberg move away from the dongle? I guess something similar to the enterprise offline activations that Adobe use for Creative Cloud?
I work in a similar environment but very much smaller than those names above and local to us, but what was imposed on us were AES128 encryption, routine external security audits, internal server log reviews, and a big no to any kind of USB mass storage even being in the room, let alone near a machine.
In fact the whole process for approval was incredibly drawn out, and with remote working enforced last year there’s some real grey areas that exist now. Daily work became a muddle of VPNs and handheld PIN devices. Doing the actual work feels like a secondary priority at times.
However that’s deviating. What i wanted to say is that our client machines connect via a firewall that would allow non-content critical apps through - i.e. such as licensing and project planning software.
I’m guessing what you’re dealing with is far stricter and doesn’t even allow that? i.e. would your policies currently allow the eLCC software to connect, but restrict the app (Cubase/Nuendo)?
Puh - just a decade? Its been very successful for me as well - for over 30 years!
Cubase VST originally used a floppy disc authoriser - I have NO problems with copy protection. But I’m afraid its a fact that the dongle is constantly being checked as you run a Steinberg app - as are all the other eLicenser, iLok and disc based authorised plugins you’re using within it. This all adds up
Hello dear Steinberg team, I am a new user from Chinese, I want to try Dorico, so I just bought a dongle, but what I didn’t expect is that I bought Steinberg for a month and would give up so soon. I use a dongle. If Steinberg’s future license verification requires the Internet, it will be very inconvenient for a Chinese user like me. In my own imagination, the best thing is that the combination of dongle and network authentication can give a user a wide range The right to choose, this is the ideal way
Basically no. we really are not allowed to do that. However Elicenser as it is is no hindrance as uploads can be downloaded, checked and greenlit and placed on the server. Getting single machine access is something else.
Ok i appreciate that, what baffles is me that in the past i’ve copied the very latest eLCC software and latest Cubase software from server share to my offline machine (Offline in the sense that it exists behind a local firewall), Then installed both eLCC & Cubase.
However, Cubase wouldn’t pass authorisation until the eLCC was able to go online and run maintenance check on that local machine.
You’ve never experienced anything like that i’m guessing? People i’ve spoken to say it’s common for them also which is why i’m not a great fan of this halfway house that we find ourselves in.
But perhaps we’re doing something wrong if you’re smooth sailing.
We can’t say with absolute certainty since there remain a lot of open questions in terms of exactly what the eventual solution will look like, but I can say that it is absolutely our intention to provide a means of activating the software offline without requiring the machine itself to connect to the Internet.
One way in which it might work (and I stress that this is only one possibility) is that you would generate some kind of hardware identification key on the air-gapped machine on which you want to run the software, copy that onto removable storage, and walk it over to another computer that can connect to the Internet. You’d then use that hardware identification key to generate a software authorization that you copy back onto the removable storage, and walk it back over to the air-gapped computer, and install the authorization. That computer would then be authorized to run the software for the duration of that license. Precisely how long that authorization would be able to last without being renewed (a year? longer?) and exactly what that process would look like are open questions at this stage.
But please know that we are well aware that our products are used in environments like these, and we have no intention of leaving any of our customers out in the cold.
For the avoidance of doubt, this would not be the method required by most users, since the vast majority of users connect their computers to the internet periodically, but those users for whom it is impractical to connect their computers to the internet will not be left behind.
