Because you can’t eat XRNS.
Usually you get paid for a job you do. For what reason you can’t just work for free and see it as an improvement of your employee experience?
Renoise has grown on its community and the ideas of its members. Success is always related to satisfied customers. When a business man is not willing to consider the thoughts and ideas of his own clients, he’s probably got the wrong job and a very soon ending future in business.
Not gonna read any further now… it’s not gonna happen with renoise. and if you write a killer VST plugin you can sell it. Your copy protection is rendering the fuckin song to WAV. try and sell the music it’s hard enough!
haha
Some valid arguments would have been nice, instead of just stomping your feet. Well, maybe you can try next time. 
This right here,…
If there would have been protection on the protracker mod rips I had back in the days, I wouldn’t have been able to learn as quickly, remixing the patterns.
If there would be protected tracks, that doesn’t mean each and every track would be protected. It just would mean, you can’t access content, that is protected for a good reason. And the only reason to not accept a protection like that is in fact, you’re a potential copyright violator. It’s that simple. Because - not talking about the development resources the implementation of a protection scheme would eat - there is no other serious reason to be against it. Not a single one.
But Renoise supplying some kind of audio processing/routing core to program and external plugin is very different to providing DRM to internal content! Even if it allowed creation as a VST it would still be down to you as the author to provide protection for that (so the .dll can’t just be shared around for the Windows example) not Renoise.
Yeah, when it comes to your own content, everything is different. Isn’t it!? 
When you listen carefully, I’m sure you can hear it. A really big LOL from germany! 
No. Because you’re list of instruction to the core would be like a song is to Renoise. Are the Devs worried that being able to see how Renoise can play a song from the xrns is going to give away the way it works? Hence does it need to protect that?
The point is, your work isn’t worth less or more than mine. When we both invest 200 hours of work into something, we’ve had the same expense. And while a coder had to learn his programming language before, a producer had to learn all the producer stuff and audio theory before. The is no fucking difference in our work. The difference, that the coder of an external plugin is able to do his own protection doesn’t make the producers work less worth to protect. He’s just not able to do it on his own, so this is up to the apps devs. Like it or not. And any other argument is nothing but pure hypocrite shite.
Dude, read it again and again until it sticks:
Maybe you should read the thread again and not just a few lines you like. This is not about some common XRNS release, this is about commercial releases. Ignoring this doesn’t make you look very smart.
Nice try.
What commercial releases? The amount of people willing to buy write-protected .xrns’s (non-existent), isn’t the worth the development time spend on protection. Try to get a record deal, or sell sounds through other outlets.
Which institute did the market analysis you’re talking about? And I still don’t know, about what write-protected XRNS you’re talking. Again, it might be better to read the whole thread, before you enter a discussion.
The common sense institute.
My common sense institute tells me, there are enough people out there, who’d like to do music of their favorite style, specially commcerial genres, with Renoise. And it tells me, they’d also be willing to pay for quality and they’d be glad to be finally able to produce, what they always wanted to produce. It also tells me, there are only some rare people out there, who can do this with Renoise today and even less with Renoise only.
But seriously, even if this is not the case and it would be a pure waste of time, then this would be the risk I am willing to bear. Just not the complete risk of illegal distributions.
OK maybe we need to look further into exactly what you mean. In this purely hypothetical world where Renoise has released a core for writing external plugins around (no matter how much of a pipe-dream it may be) and think about the forms of protection and how they help.
I would expect the core to be compiled in such a way that it’s not open to everyone.
Then your instruction set for the core? Well couldn’t there be some form of encryption tag? The only people who would be able to dig into it would be those able to program the core (and thus likely purchased a licence to do so.) Is it your work being ripped off that worries you?
But what about sharing the files? People always talk about loss of earnings from piracy. Is this your worry? Well Renoise doesn’t even use any protection itself does it? You can download and install on as many computers as you own/use and want to be (sole) user of the program on. So obviously anybody could use the same installer if they were sent it. Renoise relies on the trust principle for this.
What I imagine is actually pretty simple. I imagine closed/encrypted content containers for DSP chains, instruments/samples and MAYBE sequences/partial tracks or groups. Encryption in best case would be bound to the personal Renoise license and disallows a view on the plain DSP XMLs and usual instrument/sample masks, only showing the things its allowed to show. Like mentioned, in best case the track only opens in a Renoise with the related license. And that’s pretty much it. A Renoise content store for distribution of stuff like that would be pretty awesome, btw.
Renoise doesn’t have a protection? The free version has no protection. And no option to render a track. If you’re running a licensed version, you actually know, there is an installer.dat, containing your license. That’s no protection? To me it actually seems, the protection is good enough to be the reason for the fact, till today Renoise is one of the very few apps out there, that haven’t ever been cracked. And they crack and spread almost everything today. People even copy soundbanks for fucking $10 or less, if they can get them for free. The consequence of the “Renoise trust principle” is, if you’re asshole enough to spread your personal copy, your name will be spread all over the net with it. That’s very effective. But that’s actually not, what I’d call “trust principle”. *lol
Of course it’s my work I don’t want to be ripped. And specially for Renoise setups, that demand a lot more work to sound half way pro, it takes a lot more time and work. Would you like to see your hard work to be ripped? I don’t think so.
We should even not ask ourselves if any true work deserves a kind of social retribution. We should eventually ask “how much” it has to be paid or “what kind” of social retribution we’re expecting, but we never plan to make efforts that deserve absolutely nothing in return. When your employer stops paying, you stop working . When a customer stops paying bills the internet provider stops delivering the internet connexion service. When a phone company stops delivering the service, the customer refuses to pay. We refuse to pay for nothing in return. Did you find a musician that asked you money for a non-existent album, a non created music, a non-performed gig ? We refuse scams. We do not tolerate for ourselves, to be exploited, despoiled. And what we refuse for ourselves we cannot ask it to the others. What we tolerate for ourselves we cannot unallow it to the others. The only “free work”, that expects nothing at all, is the work of a desperate slave. If a group of coders proudly engrave into their software the names of their customers, and if they willfully allow some usefull features to customers that want to pay them, this group can “understand” why the same users would hope to do something similar : engraving into their songs their comments, and expecting their full work to be retributed in some ways by a fanbase. We often spread our sounds/musics “for free”, but let’s face it, we’re not against recognition, and a retribution that allows us to keep going on and improving ourselves. Recognition, it’s also the proof that a product has successfully met a potential market. When an internet artist put his home made video-clip on youtube, created with passion, he’s just checking what, the comments, and of course, the f***ing number of visitors, and he’s proudly thanking the 1.000.000 visitor. I’m not against the intimacy of a very small public, and sometimes, I’m surprised to think that… maybe it’s better to go truely somewhere with a few ones, that going truely nowhere with everybody. But if by mere chance a worker is connected to the expectations of a larger audience, it’s a shame that his activity dies because of a wrong buisness model.
There was one group that managed to change the licensee name.
Though some crackers know how to change the name (which was probably very hard to do already), it will not prevent them from the specific account tied to the application being terminated. It remains pure waste of time to circumvent account termination other than not spreading a licensed version of Renoise.
A quick Google search brings me results for what look likely to be working torrent links for Renoise of most, if not all, recent version up to 2.7.1. So maybe it “hasn’t been cracked” but it doesn’t need to be and has been shared!
With Renoise you have to buy the software and once you have that copy could be shared and anybody could install it anywhere. Obviously that account will be blocked in future but damage has been done for the one version (maybe 0.0.1 updates are a good idea 
)
With most other commercial software the original program still needs to be bought until people can attempt to crack it, how else are they going to have access to the software? Hack the company servers? Unlikely, but arguably the same could be done with Renoise couldn’t it, if it was deemed worthwhile. The difference is that it needs to be broken before it can be installed in multiple locations due to using some form of protection, such as online registration or iLock.
In this way I still stand by the fact Renoise is trusting its userbase, rather than attempting to lock things down. The fact it is so affordable I think help prevent it for being shared so often, plus as mentioned a few times in this thread it has a much smaller market share of the people interested in music composition than the big boy DAWs.
Long may Renoise continue the way it is and work on functional features to further music creation, rather than protect megalomaniacs from an unseen and quite possibly imagined threat.