Licensing and the Survey

Wouldn’t one possible way to do this is provide greyed or shadow copies of the original license?

The idea being if you had 3 computers and one license, 2 copies would work exactly like the licensed version, but the only output would be an encrypted file from the 2 copies. And the encrypted file would only be able to be outputted from the original licensed software.

So, in effect, you could use and make changes to your work, as long as you don’t mind the inconvenience of the out processing files not being usable until it goes back in the main version.

For instance, I am at a certain coffeshop (starts with S and ends with S), could work on a piece, take the work home and put it on my main computer and it would work like any other file in the project once decrypted by the software.

There’s a coffee shop named for Finnish composer Jean Sibelius? :smiley:

Hah. Thanks for that.

I wouldn’t do that on a weekly basis. There is a limit on how many times a given license can be reactivated.

I don’t think this is a good approach. If it was encrypted then other legitimate copies of Dorico wouldn’t be able to open the file. Furthermore, if you could just work on something from a functional but not “activated” copy and then just go to the “legitimate” license to print it out, then what would stop say, a poor music lab, from purchasing a single license for the main computer and then having everyone else use the “shadow” copies (to use your term) and then just print their scores from the lab computer? I just don’t think that would work.

That’s the idea actually. If you wanted to send a file to another user, it would have to be decrypted from the main license first. But once decrypted, it would be no different that regular file. And that is the same thing anyone with a license can do now. It’s just that there would be a hurdle of one licensed machine, instead of say 5 or 10 or more.

Furthermore, if you could just work on something from a functional but not “activated” copy and then just go to the “legitimate” license to print it out, then what would stop say, a poor music lab, from purchasing a single license for the main computer and then having everyone else use the “shadow” copies (to use your term) and then just print their scores from the lab computer? I just don’t think that would work.

Sure. And there are more ways to ensure copy protection if this is the case. One way is to provide a reasonable limit to shadow copies. If your original license only allows two shadow copies (which is fairly reasonable for what one user would normally want) then then it is not going to be a problem with a factory system. In fact, they could even require shadow copies to have separate registration codes before they could work.

The whole problem with any system is usually not the average user defeating the software protections, but the usual people decompiling, reverse engineering, crackers and what have you.

Any protection design is really for the masses, not the people determined and capable to defeat protections.

Thanks, this was exactly my fear…

Just a me too. I won’t buy Dorico with the current licensing scheme. I need at least two computers - and the laptop needs to be dongle free.

As the new school year begins, I re-evaluated if I want to “renew” Sibelius support. I’ve been using Sibelius since college (back when it was v4) I do a lot of arrangements for my guitar classes. It is extremely convenient to have it installed at home and at school. Simplifies everything.

I used to do it all at home, export in PDF form, and print it off at school. If there was a mistake, I’d have to fix it at home. Or a kid would need more copies, and I’d have to find the PDF, find the right pages, and print it off. It got so bad, I began using MuseScore almost exclusively so I could edit at school. That is until I figured out that Sibelius could be installed on two computers.

Now I can write, edit, and especially print in a consistent manner. I doesn’t make sense to switch to Dorico, if I have to export to musicXML and re-edit. I’d lose all the Dorico beauty, and still have to clean up the XML file. Carrying a dongle is a possibility, but being a teacher with 200 or so 11-13 yr old students, the less I have to remember on a daily basis the better.

While I think the cross-grade education price is amazing, I keep stopping short of buying the software because of this licensing issue. I think it is a very good piece of software, and will continue to improve. Hopefully, Steinberg will at least make its education licensing a little bit more flexible.

wrhoden2010, might these pages be of any help? If not, just ignore:

Until Dorico has guitar tab notation, making a decision based on the licensing system, as a guitar teacher, may be premature anyway!

Also, it seems a bit odd that if you are teaching in a school, you have to pay for the software you need yourself, rather than it coming out of the school’s budget - but maybe that’s just capitalism in operation…

If its just guitar tuition that you and your classes focus on, you may have a look at Guitar Pro 7 - a great educational software tool, it says, from their website…
Home page:- Guitar Pro - Tab Editor Software for Guitar, Bass, Drum, Piano and more...
Education page:- Guitar Pro Education Program

Even for the non-education sector, a very reasonable price, multiple-install licensing (up to 5 computers.!) and plenty of features/support resources online…

(NB:- I am not affiliated in any way)

No doubt there are other similar packages too; forgive me if you’ve already investigated.


Thank you for the links.

I think Steinberg’s (and many other manufactures’) education discounts are very very generous. It is just inconvenient to have to use the USB stick between school and home. There are so many different applications that need to be addressed with licensing, so I understand why there is no perfect licensing situation that can make everybody happy.

Good point. I do not usually use tabs though. It’s more of a classical guitar orchestra class. I thought it strange when I arrived, but it is the main way this district does guitar.

I could get my school to pay for it, but I want the software to travel with me if I transfer schools ever. That way, the school computers are not loaded with ancient versions of Finale. Or, if the district upgrades computers, I can deactivate it on my old and reinstall on the new. Saves the taxpayer money, keeps the IT situation easy, and I get to keep using the software I like.

Thanks Puma!

That is a pretty slick piece of software. I’ll have to look into it further.

Thousands of users are happily using Dorico with this system,

I bet there are no 100 users that really “happily” use their dongle and could not be even more happy if they would not need it any more…
This is just marketing language.

I am waiting for the next big update that includes unpitched percussion, because that is the last thing the prevents me from using Dorico to write my music. Well, that and the licensing mechanism. The USB dongle is no option for me, nor is paying twice.

wrhoden, I don’t understand: if the school pays for the software, it is obviously theirs.
Why would you want the software to travel with you, when you change to another school?

I wholeheartedly agree, I am one of those “happy” (or rather non-issue) dongle users when it comes to my DAW and sample libraries, because they need a powerful desktop. This is what Steinberg is not understanding, a notation software is a different animal altogether, it is used differently. In my case I need to take it to rehearsals daily (and on the road) on a tablet with only one port.

I just wished they had added the dongle issue to their survey, so that they could get an accurate number of users not buying the software because of this.

But, how many people who “don’t buy software because they hate dongles” would get as far as seeing the survey at all, and how many of those would spend time completing it?

You have to be careful when using “statistics” and “accurate” in the same sentence :wink:

There’s a well known example of this mistake dating from WWII - somebody decided to commission a big survey of aircraft that had been shot at, to find which parts should be protected most. Unfortunately they “forgot” that the number of aircraft included in the survey which had actually been shot down in enemy territory was - ZERO, for the obvious reason. All the planes where they carefully counted all the bullet holes had survived anyway! Luckily, somebody did notice that mistake before they started on completely useless redesigns of the planes…

Ha! Funny anecdote…

The survey was sent because I tried the demo, the closest possible response I could give as to why I wasn’t buying it was because “it was too expensive”, but that is only in the context of the licensing issue which would require me to buy two. Hence why I started this thread… To call attention to the fact that the survey is not giving them accurate information. Presumably surveys are sent out to gather information and presumably some sample of the users answer them. Why not help them to get it right?

I’m sure your motivation was for a good reason, but I’m just pointing out that it’s not so easy to get good information! Even if Steinberg sends the survey to everyone who downloads the trial and doesn’t buy the product, the response rate is important. If 95% of people reply to the survey, the information is worth looking at, but if only 5% reply, probably not - unless you think changing the questions would improve the response rate, of course. (And for some surveys, getting as few as one response for every 50 requests is “normal.”)

For awhile I was actually at two schools at the same time. One school could afford it, but the other couldn’t. How each school operates is different in the USA. So if it is licensed to me as the teacher, it becomes less of a headache trying to get each individual school to buy it for me. I’m not talking classroom labs, just notation software for me to make arrangements for my classes. If it were a lab, of course I would ask the school to buy enough licenses for each machine.