I have a friend that got a cracked version of live 2.0, cracked by the cracking team: "arctic". From personal experience, it seems that Arctic is the only team that has cracked it so far; not zone, paradox, or oxygen.
What is strange is that, his computer has somehow figured out that it is a cracked version and won't let him open the program anymore. There is seemingly no way around this... We have spent time looking for strange files etc... have you gize figured out a way to stop all users using the infamous code: 2004-1202-3184-7BAA-20DD-DE2A? on top of that, he doesn't have an active internet connection at the moment, so it couldn't have been related to that.
Curious...
Ableton Crack
-
the8bitdeity
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 6:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
-
Guest
-
mic-minimal not loged in
skip tracer, I'm not gonna put any judgements on you as I think that anybody claiming that they have never used a piece of software that they didn't pay for is lying, some people even have the nerve to think that using cracked music software is stealing, but that using the copy of MS word that they got from a friend is ok. obviously that's stealing too. but....
the majority of people using Abletons Live have had a really great experience, so much so that the way we make music has even changed. If
you make music, then you know how important something like this can be.
There are alot of software companies out there that really don't deserve a dime and whos intentions can be described as suspect at best, but every one is not the same and these people at Ableton are in that very small minority if not almost alone in that they deserve every last dime they charge for their product. If you have been using live then you know that I speak the truth, and if you haven't gotten the crack to work properly yet, then download the demo and use it for a while, what it will give you in return is definitely worth the payment. Now , I don't know you so if you can't afford the program right now, save up some change every now and then when you can and get that payment to Ableton, you will be glad you did as will they and it will help them to continue to create these tools for us
that help us to realize our sonic dreams and possibilities. I know that after you have gotten familiar with Live you will see its value without any doubts
the majority of people using Abletons Live have had a really great experience, so much so that the way we make music has even changed. If
you make music, then you know how important something like this can be.
There are alot of software companies out there that really don't deserve a dime and whos intentions can be described as suspect at best, but every one is not the same and these people at Ableton are in that very small minority if not almost alone in that they deserve every last dime they charge for their product. If you have been using live then you know that I speak the truth, and if you haven't gotten the crack to work properly yet, then download the demo and use it for a while, what it will give you in return is definitely worth the payment. Now , I don't know you so if you can't afford the program right now, save up some change every now and then when you can and get that payment to Ableton, you will be glad you did as will they and it will help them to continue to create these tools for us
that help us to realize our sonic dreams and possibilities. I know that after you have gotten familiar with Live you will see its value without any doubts
-
skiptracer
you are playing me for a fool.
And in fact the people who made this program are members of the ambient group Monolake and it was independently produced. I like their music and i respect them for all they have done for the way that I make music.
The question is for any programmers that would understand this. I was just wondering why the crack stops working after a while.
And in fact the people who made this program are members of the ambient group Monolake and it was independently produced. I like their music and i respect them for all they have done for the way that I make music.
The question is for any programmers that would understand this. I was just wondering why the crack stops working after a while.
why stopping
skiptracer,
thanx for the warm words, but i hope you can understand that the answer to the question of "why" the live crack stops working will not be given from us at Ableton.
I am glad to hear that it does stop working. We know that we propably cannot provide a 100% protection against cracks, but the question behind it has allready be raised: do you think stealing is in general a good concept ?
If no one buys a product there will be no product. The more time we have to spend with copy protection the less time we have left over for coding usefull features.
Regards, Robert / ableton
thanx for the warm words, but i hope you can understand that the answer to the question of "why" the live crack stops working will not be given from us at Ableton.
I am glad to hear that it does stop working. We know that we propably cannot provide a 100% protection against cracks, but the question behind it has allready be raised: do you think stealing is in general a good concept ?
If no one buys a product there will be no product. The more time we have to spend with copy protection the less time we have left over for coding usefull features.
Regards, Robert / ableton
-
::mic-minimal::
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:32 am
- Location: behind you
Skiptracer, How was I playing you for a fool, I was showing you respect inspite of the fact that you are jeapordizing most of the people at this forums favorite music tool. I know as does everybody here that the monolake is behind the Live software, what difference does that make?
you speak of respecting what they have done for the way that you make music in the same breath as requesting information to crack your friends not paid for copy of Live, how much f*ckin sense does that make?, you know I said I didn't know you, well thanx for the introduction, but no thanks, you're obviously not here to contribute anything. I'm telling you and your friend that alot of things are not worth paying for but that Live is without a doubt more than worth the money, you are playing yourself for a fool.
you speak of respecting what they have done for the way that you make music in the same breath as requesting information to crack your friends not paid for copy of Live, how much f*ckin sense does that make?, you know I said I didn't know you, well thanx for the introduction, but no thanks, you're obviously not here to contribute anything. I'm telling you and your friend that alot of things are not worth paying for but that Live is without a doubt more than worth the money, you are playing yourself for a fool.
talk about cracked versions
i think its a strategy of the software producers. i know a beta tester for logic audio and he told me about a talk with emagic people about cracked versions of their product. they didn´t want to talk about this stuff...
the more people talk about a product the better seems to be...and the more people using a program (also the cracked version) the program will get because of bug reports...
cheerz, spacy
the more people talk about a product the better seems to be...and the more people using a program (also the cracked version) the program will get because of bug reports...
cheerz, spacy
-
muthafunka
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:28 pm
- Location: Tokyo
-
clayrising
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:08 am
it wasn't the only reason for cutting-off a friendship...but his insistence on trying to use a cracked version of live~ helped end my association with a guy who always wanted everything free.....software..advice...etc.
though he never minded paying for grade-A ganja. (what a joke).
anyway....live HAS changed the way i make music.
my main modus operandi now is to create/compile original rebirth material and absynth/dynamo data....(and odds and ends) and blend them in live.
long live the developers of great soft/hardware and down with schmucks who can't put their money where their mouth is unless it's in the form of smoke>
smoke is ALL you get>
man called clay
evolution2000
san diego, ca usa
though he never minded paying for grade-A ganja. (what a joke).
anyway....live HAS changed the way i make music.
my main modus operandi now is to create/compile original rebirth material and absynth/dynamo data....(and odds and ends) and blend them in live.
long live the developers of great soft/hardware and down with schmucks who can't put their money where their mouth is unless it's in the form of smoke>
smoke is ALL you get>
man called clay
evolution2000
san diego, ca usa
god bless electronic music and all those who make IT
and the toys~
and the toys~
Re: talk about cracked versions
Spacerboy,
as far as Ableton is concerned this is definitley not true. There is no "strategy". And we would be happy if there were no cracks. ( And i am pretty sure the situation is the same at Emagic) But once a crack is available what are your choices as a software manufacturer ? You try to think by yourself : well, at least it is some kind of advertisement.
Regarding the benefits for finding bugs: There is no benefit if people are using a crack of an old beta version and report that something is wrong. If they report it to us it is useless since it is an old version, if they report it at the forum it gives other users the impression the product is crap. No benefit. not at all. Just painfull.
Regards, Robert / Ableton
as far as Ableton is concerned this is definitley not true. There is no "strategy". And we would be happy if there were no cracks. ( And i am pretty sure the situation is the same at Emagic) But once a crack is available what are your choices as a software manufacturer ? You try to think by yourself : well, at least it is some kind of advertisement.
Regarding the benefits for finding bugs: There is no benefit if people are using a crack of an old beta version and report that something is wrong. If they report it to us it is useless since it is an old version, if they report it at the forum it gives other users the impression the product is crap. No benefit. not at all. Just painfull.
Regards, Robert / Ableton
Spacerboy wrote:i think its a strategy of the software producers. i know a beta tester for logic audio and he told me about a talk with emagic people about cracked versions of their product. they didn´t want to talk about this stuff...
the more people talk about a product the better seems to be...and the more people using a program (also the cracked version) the program will get because of bug reports...
cheerz, spacy
-
tribalogical
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:26 pm
- Location: boise, idaho
Well, as one user who has purchased EVERY app currently installed on his system (unless it's freeware or "shareware under consideration"), Skippy-the-Pinhead here sure gives me a rise, I can tell you!
I've been pretty selective in my choices of software to use and buy.
And, I am very much in favor of the "try before you buy" demo concept, and happily so are most developers. Thus the massive proliferation of fully-functional demos. It's a balanced trade-off, IMO, requiring NOTHING more than some clear consideration, and HONESTY on the part of the user.
It's true that some demos finish far too soon, or too often inhibit or restrict the natural workflow and "learning" of the product too liberally. When a demo is irritating to use, it can too often override the positive aspects of the product itself.
It's also true that many apps are grossly over-priced (Adobe & Microsoft apps come straight to mind, among many others), and yet being the "industry standards" are necessary tools for many.
That said, many users with limited resources are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need the tools -- to learn them, so they can begin making a living using them -- but can't afford the steep cost of that initial investment.
I was a perfect example of that scenario 10 years ago, as I entered the design field. I wasn't yet sure that was my calling, and the price of Photoshop then was prohibitive at $800 (not to mention Illustrator, and the other 'required' design & office apps). The 14-day time-limited demo was hardly enough to determine if that was an investment that made sense. So I "borrowed" it for a few months. I used it exclusively to teach myself and learn the product. I ultimately learned it enough to line up paying work, and with that first income o the way, went out and bought the whole "suite" of Adobe design apps.
It may sound to some like I "did the right thing", but actually, a part of me thinks it was "morally" the equivalent of stealing a new car, using it as a taxi for a Summer, and then going back and paying for the car after taking enough fares onboard to afford it. How "right" is that??
But the fact is, given the circumstances then, Adobe would not have gotten my business in any other way (unless, for example, a 'legitimate owner' had lent me copious time on their workstation to dabble endlessly until I had reached the same point, but how likely was that?? Not very).
Ultimately, although it broke the exact "rules according to..." by using and then buying the 'borrowed' software as I did, I do feel I behaved rightly in the end (and certainly according to my own rules, which are -- to me -- ethical in the long run). Certainly there are those who could take me to task on that perspective!
Sadly, the software 'industry' would utterly fail if it depended exclusively on the honesty of people, or even the well-intentioned practises of people like myself.
All that said, I find that there has been tremendous and laudible compromise made by many developers in recent years.
Longer-term and more fully functioning product demos. Pricing that is more & more often in line with the product quality, need, and expectation. And because of "try-before-you-buy" more competition, and ultimately better quality products all 'round.
For students, there are dramatic discounts on the majority of mainstream apps. More and more the market is trying to accommodate a balance with its broad demographic of users (referring to the range of income-based demographics here).
I make a good living. But, I can't afford *everything* I want yet (ie: I want Final Cut Pro, but have to save a bit before I can drop that $1,000!). Still, recent trends mean I can enjoy it and learn it at home, legally, with a solid and very satisfying demo version.
That's all very general perspective. Now, coming down to Ableton's Live, specifically.
First I find myself asking, "How likely is it that anyone using a cracked version is in truth a 'lost sale'?" I suspect most are 'kids', or nearly so. People who neither have the funds, nor a deep enough involvement in the craft that the software is designed to support, to really be considered as lost customers.
In fact, I consider it possible that their use of the cracked version might likely inspire them to get more serious about it all, and ultimately buy the software... but that's another argument.
Nevertheless, because of, and given all the above oportunities to access (demos, student discounts, etc.), anyone who does use a crack of Live (and in particualr, uses it to make music 'for public consumption' or for 'profit') is really without a legitimate excuse.
The price is already quite low when measured against the value of the product. It's made for musicians BY musicians. It represents everything RIGHT about the concept of this trade (both making music, and making software).
Stealing from THIS company, in particular, feels exceptionally heinous to me. There just is no good excuse, in any form or fashion.
Although I'd be interested to hear alternative viewpoints, you'd have to make a very strong and individual case to change my thinking on that.
So, SkipTracer, in short, I'm afraid you have proven yourself among the most ignorant, and despicable, of posters I've met on this forum yet. I'd sure like to hear YOUR excuses for not buying this software, which you obviously USE and ENJOY...
You even acknowledge how much good this group has done for your music. Then you steal from them?
Man, you defy definition. All I can say is, shame on you...
I've been pretty selective in my choices of software to use and buy.
And, I am very much in favor of the "try before you buy" demo concept, and happily so are most developers. Thus the massive proliferation of fully-functional demos. It's a balanced trade-off, IMO, requiring NOTHING more than some clear consideration, and HONESTY on the part of the user.
It's true that some demos finish far too soon, or too often inhibit or restrict the natural workflow and "learning" of the product too liberally. When a demo is irritating to use, it can too often override the positive aspects of the product itself.
It's also true that many apps are grossly over-priced (Adobe & Microsoft apps come straight to mind, among many others), and yet being the "industry standards" are necessary tools for many.
That said, many users with limited resources are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need the tools -- to learn them, so they can begin making a living using them -- but can't afford the steep cost of that initial investment.
I was a perfect example of that scenario 10 years ago, as I entered the design field. I wasn't yet sure that was my calling, and the price of Photoshop then was prohibitive at $800 (not to mention Illustrator, and the other 'required' design & office apps). The 14-day time-limited demo was hardly enough to determine if that was an investment that made sense. So I "borrowed" it for a few months. I used it exclusively to teach myself and learn the product. I ultimately learned it enough to line up paying work, and with that first income o the way, went out and bought the whole "suite" of Adobe design apps.
It may sound to some like I "did the right thing", but actually, a part of me thinks it was "morally" the equivalent of stealing a new car, using it as a taxi for a Summer, and then going back and paying for the car after taking enough fares onboard to afford it. How "right" is that??
But the fact is, given the circumstances then, Adobe would not have gotten my business in any other way (unless, for example, a 'legitimate owner' had lent me copious time on their workstation to dabble endlessly until I had reached the same point, but how likely was that?? Not very).
Ultimately, although it broke the exact "rules according to..." by using and then buying the 'borrowed' software as I did, I do feel I behaved rightly in the end (and certainly according to my own rules, which are -- to me -- ethical in the long run). Certainly there are those who could take me to task on that perspective!
Sadly, the software 'industry' would utterly fail if it depended exclusively on the honesty of people, or even the well-intentioned practises of people like myself.
All that said, I find that there has been tremendous and laudible compromise made by many developers in recent years.
Longer-term and more fully functioning product demos. Pricing that is more & more often in line with the product quality, need, and expectation. And because of "try-before-you-buy" more competition, and ultimately better quality products all 'round.
For students, there are dramatic discounts on the majority of mainstream apps. More and more the market is trying to accommodate a balance with its broad demographic of users (referring to the range of income-based demographics here).
I make a good living. But, I can't afford *everything* I want yet (ie: I want Final Cut Pro, but have to save a bit before I can drop that $1,000!). Still, recent trends mean I can enjoy it and learn it at home, legally, with a solid and very satisfying demo version.
That's all very general perspective. Now, coming down to Ableton's Live, specifically.
First I find myself asking, "How likely is it that anyone using a cracked version is in truth a 'lost sale'?" I suspect most are 'kids', or nearly so. People who neither have the funds, nor a deep enough involvement in the craft that the software is designed to support, to really be considered as lost customers.
In fact, I consider it possible that their use of the cracked version might likely inspire them to get more serious about it all, and ultimately buy the software... but that's another argument.
Nevertheless, because of, and given all the above oportunities to access (demos, student discounts, etc.), anyone who does use a crack of Live (and in particualr, uses it to make music 'for public consumption' or for 'profit') is really without a legitimate excuse.
The price is already quite low when measured against the value of the product. It's made for musicians BY musicians. It represents everything RIGHT about the concept of this trade (both making music, and making software).
Stealing from THIS company, in particular, feels exceptionally heinous to me. There just is no good excuse, in any form or fashion.
Although I'd be interested to hear alternative viewpoints, you'd have to make a very strong and individual case to change my thinking on that.
So, SkipTracer, in short, I'm afraid you have proven yourself among the most ignorant, and despicable, of posters I've met on this forum yet. I'd sure like to hear YOUR excuses for not buying this software, which you obviously USE and ENJOY...
You even acknowledge how much good this group has done for your music. Then you steal from them?
Man, you defy definition. All I can say is, shame on you...
-
::mic-Minimal::notloged