Me again! Their website explicitly says that no internet connection is required. So all the chat about what’s acceptable is irrelevant. We don’t need internet access to run the software. They’ve f***ked up and need to fix it and provide what was in the contract at the time of purchase.Everything else is noise
Perhaps they’ll make it a requirement for BFD4 since they can’t change contract mid stream. 
Steve
The release of 3.4 was rushed. So was the migration. Those two needn’t happen simultaneously, yet they did.
-
We could have set up our new bfddrums accounts (of inmusic), and the serials could over time amass there. (and not have Drew run a one man show trying to pick up the mess)
-
3.4 could have more time for development, so that when it hit, it was a painless and carefree update to existing users (the old clientbase), and a positive and pleasant experience for new users buying in (probably brought over from other inmusic brands). I really don’t understand how such a decision was made to rush the release.
Unless they want to test the waters with us (old clientbase) first, in which case ok, we love BFD, we stand by BFD, we support BFD, we know BFD’s quirks, but always online isn’t one of those quirks. It’s plain bullshit, and I don’t want it. I don’t see what’s the problem with keeping the same protocols in place that were there before.
2 Likes
What would be the point of being forced to be online as far as BFD is concerned? Is it:
- To monitor client usage
- To monitor bugs and user issues
- To gather information on the clients system and monetise it
None of which I would be happy about.
Despite all the noise about the internet access issue no official from BFD has been on the forum to clarify this issue. If it is not true a simple denial would suffice. The longer we wait the more our concerns grow.
Drew has already said that the always online part for 3.4 is a bug. How fast a 3.4.x can come out… now that’s a different discussion. He’s also said that he’s raising the “occasionally on-line to authorize” issue as a user-experience issue with the owners(?)/management(?)/powers that be(?).
So, unless a 3.4.x comes out, we won’t be rid of always online. At which point I believe we will see where we stand.
In any case, when we purchased BFD, this is what was going on:
##### What kind of copy protection scheme is used? This product features a challenge-response authorization system, with three installs on your own machines allowed simultaneously. * You do NOT need to have an internet connection on the computers on which it is installed. * You must, however, authorize the product before it can be used - there is no 'grace period' after installation. We have tried very hard to make the authorization procedure as pain-free as possible. Please understand that it is necessary for safeguarding your investment in future development and user support. Our products do not use iLok or any other unified protection scheme. We do not believe in such systems' security, and would rather not pass on their costs to our customers.
Also, this:
You can authorize your products in 2 ways: •Using an internet connection on the same computer •Using a web browser and an Authorization Request file to generate an Authorization file - this can be on any other computer
That’s what we bought, I don’t think we have relinquished any of this with our migration to 3.4.
What they do for BFD 4, is yet another discussion. If it’s not a case of 2 minute maintenance once a year, or whenever my system happens to be online, it’s a no-go for me as well.
4 Likes
Well precisely. The problem is if the online checkup/authorisation takes place when you have an internet outage you will then not be able to use your software. Also if you are a licensed user and you are not able to use your software under the current licence agreement BFD are at fault.
If the change to the licence agreement for BFD4 means that we have to remain online whilst using or that we have to check in regularly is a no go for me. If however the Licence manager is what authorises BFD4 to work by simply being on your computer and whenever you go online it updates itself behind the scenes, well I could live with that.
What I would not like to see is a system where BFD is taking information from my computer about my use of BFD, or worse, information about my system to be monetised. Which is what I worry about - software working in the background like spyware.
2 Likes
I’m not sure it would work like that.
If these were to be random periodical checks and they weren’t able to access your copy of BFD3/4 because you were off line my guess is they would either try again at a later date or maybe email users to ask them to check in and update their licence.
How would they be able disable BFD3/4 if they weren’t able to access your computer via the internet?
I’m not sure they would be able to do it the way you’re suggesting even if they wanted to.
Right now this just speculation.
As Drew said, it is currently being discussed as an idea and he is hoping to change their minds, that’s it.
The current situation is a bug and so will be fixed in the next build.
Isn’t that exactly what the old crash logs were doing?
Admittedly it was down to the user whether on not to send in the crash logs but I don’t imagine many people refused to on the grounds they were being spied on.
Steve
BFD3.4 is already disabled offline. If you didn’t sign in BFD3 would be disabled, which would be annoying if your internet was down.
Also having access to the registry as the License manager does could mean access to what the computer has been doing. Crash logs tend to be specific to a crash.
But that’s a bug as has been said many times.
Obviously you have to sign in initially to register it but my question is, how then would they disable it once enabled? How do they disable it when they have no internet access to your comperter?
The only way I see that being possible would have to be on a timer, that it would disable BFD3/4 after a few months.
I don’t see that happening.
Steve
1 Like
I can unplug my Ethernet cable and Melodyne works. If I disable the network card, it does not.
Has something to do with the computer “profile”
1 Like
While what is currently happening is a bug, it shows that its perfectly possible to stop an application working when there is no internet…
Unless I’m missing something in the question?
That’s kind of true but it’s been disabled on account of the new release that has a bug.
Once that bug has been fixed it would require another update to disable it and that couldn’t happen if the user didn’t go on line to update if you see what I mean.
Steve
I think I see what you mean, but that is what I currently do. I go online for updates and dont allow the main DAW machine online otherwise, and if I can download it as a separate installer, thats always my first choice.
I have everything I can disabled in the background disabled, so I can wring every last bit of resources towards music.
As another example, MS fairly recently updated Windows to no longer support firewire devices, rendering my Focusrite Saffire audio interface useless. Its not directly relevant but as a way of showing how things can be completely borked with one official update, not even a bug.
I go through months at a time without home internet. If I were to get home from a friends, having downloaded the latest update, only to have bfd broken and no recourse…
Anyway, individual situations like mine aside, forced checking back with any regularity, and having it connected to being able to use the software doesnt sound very user friendly or prone to trouble free sessions.
EDIT: Im repeating myself a lot now 
I shall try and stop. But also, what your saying is, that offline user then has no way to update to the latest version unless they decide to have their machine connected at whatever times the publisher decides?
That’s awful, there should be some legal recourse against microsoft for stuff like that but I’m sure they have loop holes within their terms and conditions.
I have taken to checking what’s on offer with every ms update but it’s not fail safe and the last major update almost killed my laptop but I have a friend who fixed it through various command prompts.
I’m pretty sure BFD would notify their users of any intended changes as they always have done in the past. Each update would come with a, new features and bug fix list.
Hopefully they, and not just Drew, are reading these posts.
Steve
1 Like
Absolutely no offence to Drew or any of the rest of the team, but thats demonstrably not true for this version 
I know there are mitigating migration circumstances in this instance but again, thats another reason why an app calling home to check whether its allowed to function, under any time frame, is dooming some to not being able to use it.
Re: Firewire… Yeah, its partly a shrug of ‘thats just the way it goes’ but at the same time, firewire not taking off was an industry thing, a monolith of a corporation, and I wasnt on their forums giving feedback The thing is, this is why I’m currently moving to Linux, and there are very few options other than MS.
I’d rather not be in this position with BFD too, so I dont have much option other than to argue against any proposed online checks being tied to functionality.
Dont even get me started on the concept of software as an always online subscription service…
But this is, (according to Drew) a bug and will be rectified in the next build so I’m pretty sure that had it been their intention to force users to be permanently on line, this would have been very made clear beforehand.
Surely if it’s once every 3 or 4 months it’s not that hard to go on line for a few minutes?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of it at all and I’d like to know for what purpose other than as an anti piracy measure it would be required.
Steve
2 Likes
Thats true, I think I forgot what I was talking about?
Yes, it can be? On who’s time frame? Would you be happy with this if your OS locked up because you hadnt been online for 6 months? Because why? It doesnt trust you?
Its a drum app, not a petulant child demanding to use the internet.
There are so many working scenarios where this could be a showstopper.
EDIT: Im really not sure how adding more speculation of time frames the software is maybe going to call home is helping anything. Pointing out the bug makes sense tho.
2 Likes
Indeed. Set a date by which is has to be next authorised online, and if that auth is missed stop working.
2 Likes
The problem with periodic checks - as already mentioned, and as I have posted on KVR - is that you are guaranteeing that at some point, the software will cease to function through no fault of your own. Companies die, suits make decisions to discontinue software etc. etc.
It’s just a really bad idea to hand over the keys to your critical software to a third party. I’m fine with a ping on activation or when updating. I’m not fine with periodic pings that leave me at the mercy of multiple third parties (my ISP, inMusic’s servers, the links between the two, inMusic itself yadda yadda).
The onus should be on me to ensure that my system is running and the software is functioning, and if there are any issues, I want to be able to solve them myself, not be at the mercy of third parties.
So for me, this is a massive no-no.
2 Likes