2 ms·
I think the VST author knew that fine, but they figured that: 1) Protecting the installer will take care of most casual piracy 2) Protecting the VST might lea
by stavros 11mo ago
I think the VST author knew that fine, but they figured that:
1) Protecting the installer will take care of most casual piracy
2) Protecting the VST might lead to unpredictable performance and issues on something that needs to run in real-time
So they chose to only protect the installer, which seems like a very user-friendly choice. I both enjoyed the writeup and want to second supporting the developer by buying a license.
- jrflowers 11mo agoThat’s also possible, and even if that were the case I don’t see how this article is even tangentially saying that the VST author is a bad person or toxic or whatever the comment I was responding to mentioned. It’s kind of a rote “this is a bad implementation” post that’s pretty obviously about the DRM vendor and not the guy that made a bass boost plugin for djs or whatever it is.