Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 01:33 AM 3/9/05 -0600, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: I am aware of the language used on the Finale site, but it doesn't change the fact that you are not acquiring any ownership rights in the software, but agreeing to acquire a non-exclusive permission to use the property of MakeMusic! under the terms of limits and restrictions that are an inherent part of the license you agree to when you acquire the software. Further, it gets a bit more complicated in that you do own the disk and jewel box it came in (in my case, since I got 2k5 as an upgrade), and any documentation, but not the software itself. Noel, you're conflating two issues. Your argument is about language and law. Whenever anyone buys a physical manifestation of 'intellectual property', they purchase a certain body of rights, implicit and explicit. That's IP101. And that's not the issue. The issue is commerce and trade and, in this case, the customer's victimization -- irrespective of the language and law used to promulgate and disguise offensive tethering practices. Language and law never relieve a company of ethical responsibility to the customer, and ultimately companies who are unethical pay the price in bankruptcy. Victimware is what you get when you buy tethered software, and no matter how you spin the language or law, you and *your* intellectual property become beholden to the corporate owners for the *rest of their life* (not yours!) in a permanent digital serfdom. After that, your proverbial property pooch is screwed. If ending victimware production means Coda/MM has to negotiate better terms -- or that the industry as a whole has to negotiate their way out of the rights nightmare that *they themselves* have created due to laziness and greed -- then they need to make that happen. They have not earned my sympathy. Somehow other companies (and I list some of them in my article) have managed to do what you claim is so difficult. It's about will, about ethics, about a customer-centrism that has absented itself from much corporate mentality, including Coda/MM's. I have made a serious, fully functional proposal on how to solve the victimware issue in a way that is independent of a corporation's vagaries and that is within both contract and IP law and practice. Do you have a serious, fully functional proposal that doesn't make you the ultimate victim (when Coda/MM goes under, changes their terms, or ceases to support your software)? (Just ask Graphire owners about that last one.) Keep in mind that a contract may not be used to vacate guaranteed rights, and less offensive practices have been subject to government regulation. Regulation is the unwelcome last step, of course, but corporate recalcitrance may require the language-and-law solution. Just consider Coda/MM and its ilk to be corporate intellectual property polluters. Polluters rarely clean up of their own accord, and tethered customers will be the software industry's Love Canal. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
I would say A Colour Symphony by (Sir) Artur Bliss. Was composed in 1922 and revised on 1932. Incredible composition and orchestration! Roger ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] GPO
Hi John, Did you move any GPO folders after you installed them? That VST error message suggests that something went awry in your installation. I would suggest doing a full reinstall of GPO and GPO Studio and seeing if that fixes the problem. Also, once you've got Finale talking to GPO properly, don't forget to download all of the GPO updates! Unless you got a boxed version of GPO 2.0, there have been considerable revisions since the original release, and you should download all the patches. Also, here's an important tip for Finale Mac -- GPO Studio allows eight Players, each of which can accommodate eight sampled instruments, for a total of sixty-four different sampled instruments. But in the Mac version of Finale, when you go to MIDI Setup, at first, it looks like Finale will only accommodate four GPO Studio Players, (i.e., 32 instruments max) because there are only four boxes. In fact, a recent article in Keyboard magazine on GPO and notation software alleged that four GPO Studio Players was the maximum for FinMac. But that's not true! Here's how to get all eight players: In Finale's MIDI Setup, chose your MIDI keyboard for the Input Device (Channels 1-16). Next, for the Output Device for Channels 1-16, first choose GPO Studio: 1. This assigns the eight instruments in GPO Studio Player 1 to MIDI Channels 1-8. Now comes the trick: hold down the SHIFT key, then click on the *same* Output Device pop-up menu you just used -- the one for Channels 1-8. Select GPO Studio: 2. If you did this correctly, you should see *both* GPO Studio: 1 and GPO Studio: 2 in the same Output Device box -- the one for channels 1-16. Now, repeat the procedure: assign Channels 17-24 to GPO Studio: 3 and GPO Studio: 4; Channels 33-48 to GPO Studio: 5 and GPO Studio: 6; and Channels 49-64 to GPO Studio: 7 and GPO Studio: 8. [By the way, if anyone from Coda is listening, this is a serious PITA and we all really wish the MIDI Setup in the Mac version worked like it does in the PC version, where you actually have eight Output Device boxes, instead of four.] Also, be sure to turn on MIDI Thru (I set it to Smart) so you can hear the GPO instruments play back during Speedy Entry. Now, you're not *quite* done yet -- you also have to tell GPO Studio what you've done. And the MIDI Channels listed in the GPO Studio Players aren't the same as the ones in Finale -- they are *relative*. In other words, in GPO Studio, the MIDI Channel numbering only goes up to 16, then it starts all over again. So, for instance, if you look at GPO Studio: 3, the eight instruments *say* they are on MIDI channels 1-8, but for Finale purposes, they are actually on MIDI channels 17-24. What's more, GPO Studio doesn't know that you've assigned two Players to each bank of 16 channels in Finale. If none of this makes sense yet, don't worry about it. The upshot is, you have to modify the default MIDI Channels on all the odd-numbered GPO Studio Players (and *only* the odd-numbered Players). You do this by clicking on the MIDI button in the GPO Studio Player, which is located directly below the CPU Usage meter. Assign the first instrument in GPO Studio Player 2 to MIDI Channel 9, the second to MIDI Channel 10, etc., so that the eight instruments in the Player are using Channels 9-16. Now, repeat the procedure for GPO Studio Player 4, Player 6, and Player 8. In other words, all the odd-numbered GPO Studio Players should be set to use MIDI Channels 1-8 (as they are by default), and all the even-numbered Players should be set to use MIDI Channels 9-16. So, here's a summary of which GPO Studio Players are assigned to which MIDI channels, both internally (i.e., the number that shows up in the GPO Studio Player itsefl) and in Finale (i.e., the channel you use in Finale when you want that instrument): GPO Studio Player 1:internal channel 1-8: Finale channel 1-8 GPO Studio Player 2:internal channel 9-16: Finale channel 9-16 GPO Studio Player 3:internal channel 1-8: Finale channel 17-24 GPO Studio Player 4:internal channel 9-16: Finale channel 25-32 GPO Studio Player 5:internal channel 1-8: Finale channel 33-40 GPO Studio Player 6:internal channel 9-16: Finale channel 41-48 GPO Studio Player 7:internal channel 1-8: Finale channel 49-56 GPO Studio Player 8:internal channel 9-16: Finale channel 57-64 Now, the other thing to remember is, you're not going to see the GPO instruments in Finale's Instrument setup list, and the *only* setting here that matters is the channel (the program option has no effect). You need to create a separate instrument for each staff (or, in some cases, a separate instrument for Layer 1 and Layer 2), and assign it to the *channel* that corresponds to the desired instrument in your GPO Studio. For example,
Re: [Finale] help! preferences trashed?
Hi Bonnie, OS X does not install fonts in the Font Book application. The Font Book application merely tells you what fonts are installed on your system! If you can see it in Font Book, it's installed somewhere on your system. That doesn't necessarily mean it's available to all applications, or to all users, though. If you want to find out where a font is installed, launch Font Book, click on the arrow to expand the font, then hover the mouse over the style (i.e., Regular). A little yellow window will pop up with details like kind (TrueType, PostScript, etc.) version, and location. For example, when I go to Font Book and look up Maestro, here's what I find: Type: TrueType Version: 4.2 Path: /Library/Fonts/Maestro.suit Font management in OS X is complicated, and there are several different locations where fonts can be installed, all with different results. I really strongly recommend that you do some Google research on this, or get one of the excellent Missing Manual books, which will explain OS X font handling in more detail. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Mar 2005, at 10:07 PM, Bonnie Harris wrote: Thanks Darcy, I think what was in the Finale folder is actually references to how finale uses the fonts with its libraries. Archive and install only put the fonts in the Font Book application, not into my home library or system libraries or anywhere else I could find. I moved the preferences into the Finale folder and did a custom reinstall of the fonts from my 2004 CD. Don't have the 2004c update anymore, I think I lost it in my hard drive crash last spring, and MakeMusic no longer offers it on their web site. But for now the fonts at least seem to be working. Thanks for helping, Johannes and Darcy. Bonnie On Mar 7, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Bonnie, As Johannes said, your Finale fonts definitely don't belong in your Finale folder. Once again, I really recommend that you just reinstall Finale completely (but don't forget to update to the latest version, which for you I think is Fin2004c). It will save you much time and frustration. This isn't a preferences problem, this is a problem with your Finale fonts not being located in the correct folder. If you are also having the problem with the Classic version, you will need to reinstall the Classic version as well. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 07 Mar 2005, at 8:05 PM, Bonnie Harris wrote: Johannes, thanks for reply. Newly installed Mac OS 10.3.2. Finale 2004, Mac G5. Panther install scrambled my Finale fonts. I used to run Finale on both Classic and 10.2., and I also have an old version FinMac2002 installed. Not sure if problem is preferences related or not. When I search for Maestro Font for instance, it shows up only in Mac HD/Applications/Finale 2004 and 2002/Libraries or in Previous System/Libraries (saved by 10.3.2 Archive and Install process). Tech support at OWC and the Panther info from The Missing Manual recommend try trashing the preference file (leaving it in the trash) and restarting, then reinstall program if that fails. I'd rather not do that if it's only a font moving or font installation problem. I may try Darcy's suggestion first, if I can find the preferences file. So far all I can find is 2002 prefs. And a bunch of scattered prefs that seem to be pieces of 2004. If that doesn't work with preferences I'll try a custom install of Finale fonts. I assume that option would be on my 2004 installer disk, tho I think I upgraded with a download at some point, so I'll have to look for that. That 's the only reason not to just reinstall the whole program, perhaps. thanks for advice! Thank Mac Gurus I cloned my hard drive before I did all this! I can still run from external drive. Bonnie On Mar 7, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I think there is some serious confusion going on here. Finale fonts should definitely not be in the Finale folder. However, before you start moving things around please make sure you know what you are doing. That also applies to other things. Fonts should be inside the fonts folders, which are at various places in the system. It's probably best to run the Finale installer to install these. What do you mean by previous system file? And most importantly, which System version are we talking about? Archive and Install sounds like OS X, while System file sounds like OS 9. The problem with your fonts is definitely _not_ a problem with the preference file. Please be careful... Johannes Bonnie Harris wrote: Archived directory being the previous system file? I see a lot of stuff like my midi driver and firmware in there that did not make it into the new system file; do I just drag or copy them into the same places in the new system file? Finale fonts appear to be in place in the Finale 2004 folder, but they are not working correctly. Thanks if you can help. Bonnie On Mar 7, 2005, at
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On 08 Mar 2005, at 11:04 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue (preferably original version, not the orchestral version) (1924) Just FYI -- in case you've never heard the original version, with the Paul Whiteman band and Gershwin at the Piano, you can listen to it here: http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/Whiteman/rhapblua.ram There is also a version recorded in 1927 using electrical recording equipment, with much improved sound quality (much improved being a relative term, of course -- we're still talking about 1927, after all): http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/Whiteman/rhapsody.ram Okay, as you were. Keep 'em coming! - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY Here are a few: Bartok: The Miraculous Mandarin (1926); 4th Quartet (1928) Stravinsky: Symphonies of Wind Instruments (1920); Octet for Winds (1923); (stretch it to 1930 and we'll through in the Symphony of Psalms!) , An American in Paris (1928) Louis Armstrong: Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings of 1925-28 submitted by Raymond Horton Darcy James Argue wrote: Just taking a little straw poll here: what do listers consider the best pieces of music to come out of the 1920's? Genre is unimportant -- go ahead and nominate Tin Pan Alley songs and Jelly Roll Morton pieces alongside serial works, if you like. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On 9 Mar 2005 , at 3:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just taking a little straw poll here: what do listers consider the best pieces of music to come out of the 1920's? Genre is unimportant -- go ahead and nominate Tin Pan Alley songs and Jelly Roll Morton pieces alongside serial works, if you like. Anything by George Antheil from the 20's is dynamite IMO. _ with best wishes, John http://abram.ca/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Per Ottar Gjerstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Olivier Messiaen: Turangalila Symphony GREAT work (just listened to it again recently), but not 1920s! It was from 1948. Maybe one of the best works of the 1940s? Messiaen's first published work, 8 Piano preludes, is 1929 -- but I wouldn't put that into this august list. David Froom ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
At 07:41 AM 3/9/05 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote: Just FYI -- in case you've never heard the original version, with the Paul Whiteman band and Gershwin at the Piano, you can listen to it here: http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/Whiteman/rhapblua.ram There is also a version recorded in 1927 using electrical recording equipment, with much improved sound quality (much improved being a relative term, of course -- we're still talking about 1927, after all): http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/Whiteman/rhapsody.ram I have an LP re-release of one or the other of these -- I think the first. I was thrilled by how much life and edge it had compared to the sappy readings we usually get, especially the big, foofy orchestral ones. Okay, as you were. Keep 'em coming! Seconded. So far I haven't hit the keyboard in time to slide one in! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 06:07 AM 3/9/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote: So what is your suggestion as to what sort of bargaining power we have to use against MakeMusic? The operant really is we, isn't it? What I hoped was that, as soon as the new scheme appeared, we Finale users en masse would refuse to upgrade. Period. Forget the candy we're offered. Recognize that in the long term, Coda/MM will be gone (or change their mind about re-authorizing old versions in order to force upgrades), and when a new authorization is needed, every single score done after 2K3 will be unavailable in digital form. Then act immediately. Even skip a year's upgrade. Post the reason (as I have) on the tools page of your business websites. Refuse to consider tethered alternatives such as Sibelius. Indeed, I was surprised at the tepid response by long-term Finale users to Coda/MM's action. Sure, I've tried to make the point about tethered software so often that people don't hear me anymore. I understand that. Here comes Dennis with his victimware harangue again. And it's also hard to convince Apple users, because they were introduced to locked products even before there were DOS PCs. Further, because we're all working in 'intellectual property', we tread on unfirm ground when simultaneously calling for Coda/MM to unlock their product while holding our own Finale files close to the chest. But it's not as if I'm saying that Coda/MM (or any company) isn't entitled to keep their work from being stolen. That's their obligation to stockholders and *us*, because it keeps them profitable and able to develop the product further. Rather, I am calling for them to escrow (with an independently contracted third party) a fail-safe mechanism that will be activated when the company fails in business, support duties, or authorization. This can be a skeleton key, keygen system, unlock patch, special version, or server plugin that emulates their own authorization, and is provided to all registered users when the fail-safe is triggered. (Coda/MM is well placed to lead the industry because the locking software was, they claim, developed in-house, and thus is not further tethered to a PACE-style corporation.) As usual, Dennis's long answer. The short answer on bargaining power: It's not too late. Skip all further upgrades. Tell them why. The minute they escrow a fail-safe mechanism is the minute I'll place my order. Anyone else? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: [snip] As usual, Dennis's long answer. The short answer on bargaining power: It's not too late. Skip all further upgrades. Tell them why. The minute they escrow a fail-safe mechanism is the minute I'll place my order. Anyone else? And lose the improvements that make my income-generating work easier, faster, better? It really is a quandary, as far as I'm concerned. It's easy to skip upgrades which offer nothing more than eye-candy, but it's really hard to skip upgrades which offer major improvements in productivity. It's also hard to skip upgrades when others with whom you work are upgrading -- since the earlier version can't work on files generated in a later version, how do you propose we solve that problem? I think we all would love a version which is untethered, but in an industry where the catchphrase is we don't have to care, we own the stuff you want to use I truly can't see the bargaining power we have. MakeMusic is already generating the lion's share of its income from its SmartMusic product -- do you really think they care about us? For an independent composer who can already do all that he/she wants in Finale 2003 (or whichever version was the one before the tethering came into being) resistance is easy -- there is no need to upgrade ever as long as your current version does all you'll ever need it to. For those of us who serve others or who collaborate with others, the paying clients, it may not be that simple. And don't suggest they go back to the insert the original installation CD anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with Finale97 (or was it 98) and very quickly scrapped that idea over the hue and cry of complaints. And probably the expensive and time-consuming work on their part to ship out replacement original CDs when a licensed user had damaged their CD or the computer failed to recognize it. I agree with the concept of a tethering-release mechanism being escrowed with some third-party, but whom would you suggest? Which companies/organizations can you predict will still be together and able to handle the situation when MakeMusic goes out of business? The whole problem with such escrows is that nobody can guarantee that ANY entity will be in existence at any future point so how would you suggest working around that potential problem? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Repeat Question
I am trying to set up a complicated repeat: First Section with 1./2.time bar. Second section. Dal Segno into first section. Fine in the 1. time bar. Jump to next movement. I can't get the Fine to work, it just continues repeating the section, playing the second section, goes back into first, repeats and so on. How do I do this? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Further, it gets a bit more complicated in that you do own the disk and jewel box it came in It's a minor point, but whenever I get one of those if you break the seal CD envelopes, I always just unstick the bottom of the envelope so that I haven't agreed to anything. Also, I like the seals, probably a by product of collecting things. You can usually do this in such as way that you could reseal it and only forensics would be able to tell it had been opened. This probably says more about me than the legal issues involved :) -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Repeat Question
I worked it out. Johannes Johannes Gebauer schrieb: I am trying to set up a complicated repeat: First Section with 1./2.time bar. Second section. Dal Segno into first section. Fine in the 1. time bar. Jump to next movement. I can't get the Fine to work, it just continues repeating the section, playing the second section, goes back into first, repeats and so on. How do I do this? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
At 07:41 AM 3/9/05 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote: Just FYI -- in case you've never heard the original version, with the Paul Whiteman band and Gershwin at the Piano, you can listen to it here: http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/Whiteman/rhapblua.ram There is also a version recorded in 1927 using electrical recording equipment, with much improved sound quality (much improved being a relative term, of course -- we're still talking about 1927, after all): http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/Whiteman/rhapsody.ram It looks like (after a couple of mentions) that many consider Rhapsody to be a great work. Although I accept that it was groundbreaking, influential, got a lot of press, yada-yada, I question whether it was really great. It was rushed off after Gershwin had forgotten that he was supposed to write it, and it doesn't really have the cohesion that one would expect from a major work, even from a popular composer. It's just kind of a bunch of nice tunes strung together rather primitively, with a couple of motives sequenced without really any development per se, with a competent orchestration for jazz band with strings. Nothing really great about it, IMHO. For great I would definitely rank his Piano Concerto above Rhapsody, and I would absolutely put Porgy and Bess into the ranks of great, as it not only accomplished everything he was trying to do with Rhapsody, but the structure, development, and cohesion are right up there with other operas. Unfortunately, he wrote it in the 30's, so it doesn't fit your category. For Gershwin works from the 20's I would possibly include I Got Rhythm for its subsequent ubiquity (rather than its greatness), and Fascinating Rhythm because he got it so right, even more right than Charleston got it right. It was good to see a mention of Louis Armstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings. They, above all others in the jazz domain, deserve a mention. Never before or since have so few sides influenced so many, even including Kind of Blue. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 08:43 AM 3/9/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote: And lose the improvements that make my income-generating work easier, faster, better? Yes, even if for one year, in order to send the message. It's also hard to skip upgrades when others with whom you work are upgrading -- since the earlier version can't work on files generated in a later version, how do you propose we solve that problem? We. That means a concerted Finale user effort. No such economic action is easy. I think we all would love a version which is untethered, but in an industry where the catchphrase is we don't have to care, we own the stuff you want to use I truly can't see the bargaining power we have. MakeMusic is already generating the lion's share of its income from its SmartMusic product -- do you really think they care about us? All companies care about negative publicity. Contact CNN's Lou Dobbs. Convince him to do a story on the economic harm to consumers of tethered programs, and show him the impact on a dedicated, professional user base like us. (Having just helped arrange a story on his program about another issue, I'm aware of his team's exploitation radar.) For an independent composer who can already do all that he/she wants in Finale 2003 (or whichever version was the one before the tethering came into being) resistance is easy -- there is no need to upgrade ever as long as your current version does all you'll ever need it to. If you mean me, I have numerous clients, thanks, and more income from engraving scores (mostly new music) than composing. :) It isn't the raw Finale productivity that makes me money, it's doing things very few others do. (In terms of engraving product, there's really not much new, and they still haven't fixed some of what we need.) For those of us who serve others or who collaborate with others, the paying clients, it may not be that simple. Maybe not, but that goes back to we. Those who always purchase the latest, disregarding how their actions affect the future for other software users, are hardest to convince. There will always be excuses to go the easy way. But just how simple will it be when Coda/MM is gone or wants to force upgrades by refusing to authorize old versions? And don't suggest they go back to the insert the original installation CD anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with Finale97 (or was it 98) Finale 98. The only upgrade I skipped in the 10 years from Finale 2.2 to Finale 2003. I agree with the concept of a tethering-release mechanism being escrowed with some third-party, but whom would you suggest? Which companies/organizations can you predict will still be together and able to handle the situation when MakeMusic goes out of business? The whole problem with such escrows is that nobody can guarantee that ANY entity will be in existence at any future point so how would you suggest working around that potential problem? You want all the business details from me? I'm flattered. Seriously, though, it's easy to pick arguments with any proposal. I think my proposal is pretty solid, as there are already dozens of high-quality software service organizations that could share such an effort. There are also standards groups that get income from profit-making ventures, and industry group collaborations (such as EPCGlobal working on RFID Gen2 tags). If I had a chunk of investment money, I'd start such an escrow company myself. As to the technique for safekeeping, there's nothing like a distributed server system with secure access methods ... but hey, we've got one of those already, and I'm using it right now. :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
victimization disguise offensive tethering practices. Dennis I quite like the scheme. I get to use Finale in my office and on my laptop. No messing about with CDs and when I've phoned because my hard drive has blown up or I've changed computer they're always very cool about it. I don't feel like a victim, and I've benefitted greatly from the upgrades. Just thought I should put one on record as you're using fairly inflammatory language that certainly doesn't square with my experience. In view of the current something for nothing climate where piracy is rife, MakeMusic! are being pretty good about authentication, they dropped the old unpopular one that required CD authentication. However, iff MakeMusic! go down, I'll strap on a wooden leg and whack on an eye patch faster than your can sing Fifty barrels on a dead mans chest ... or whatever it was. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
dhbailey / 05.3.9 / 08:43 AM wrote: And don't suggest they go back to the insert the original installation CD anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with Finale97 (or was it 98) and very quickly scrapped that idea over the hue and cry of complaints. Both 97 and 98. My 98 CD is lost during moving, and I am unable to open 98 files natively ever again :-( -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On 09 Mar 2005, at 9:15 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: It looks like (after a couple of mentions) that many consider Rhapsody to be a great work. Although I accept that it was groundbreaking, influential, got a lot of press, yada-yada, I question whether it was really great. It was rushed off after Gershwin had forgotten that he was supposed to write it, and it doesn't really have the cohesion that one would expect from a major work, even from a popular composer. It's just kind of a bunch of nice tunes strung together rather primitively, with a couple of motives sequenced without really any development per se, with a competent orchestration for jazz band with strings. Nothing really great about it, IMHO. I was waiting for that. [grin] This is the standard line of attack against Rhapsody in Blue -- not to slight Chris's argument, it's just similar to arguments I've heard from many people over the years. I don't really have time to get into an extended defense now, but some quick points: 1) Part of what makes Rhapsody in Blue great is that it's so incredibly evocative of time and place. It instantly and vividly evokes 1920's New York -- even for people who have never heard it before, don't know its history, don't know the first thing about 1920's New York, and have never seen Woody Allen's _Manhattan_. 2) What's so great about development? Gimme a bunch of nice tunes any day (echoes of the recent argument over The Magic Flute) -- especially if they're as nice as the ones G.G. included in Rhapsody in Blue. 2') Even so, I think Rhapsody in Blue hangs together much better than a lot of other works that have better formal cohesion -- there's clearly a single musical narrative, and a strong unifying character to all the various themes. They're also more structurally alike than you give them credit for, but even if they weren't, who cares? I think the whole is clearly more than the sum of its parts here, as the work's longevity and continued popularity attest. To me, complaining about the lack of Rigorous Formal Development and Structural Integrity in Rhapsody in Blue is kinda like complaining about the lack of good tunes in Webern. For great I would definitely rank his Piano Concerto above Rhapsody, Really? Hmm. Not a big fan of the Piano Concerto. Porgy and Bess has great songs, but I'd rather hear Sarah Vaughan sing them. But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO
gee Darcy - that was an impressive response! Short of never quitting GPO studio I think we're sunk on that point. Jerry On 9-Mar-05, at 5:44 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: The only thing I can't figure out is how to get Finale to remember the choices I made in Finale's MIDI Setup. Even after setting up everything and saving preferences, every time I launch Finale I get the same error message: Finale is expecting the following devices, but they are not found in your current Audio MIDI Setup configuration. Check your configuration in Finale MIDI Setup and in Audio MIDI Setup. Devices: GPO Studio: 1, GPO Studio: 2, GPO Studio: 3, GPO Studio: 4, GPO Studio: 5, GPO Studio: 6, GPO Studio: 7, GPO Studio: 8 Anyone have any ideas how to fix that? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Gerald Berg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 02:24 PM 3/9/05 +, Simon Troup wrote: I don't feel like a victim Yet. Just thought I should put one on record as you're using fairly inflammatory language that certainly doesn't square with my experience. Yet. In view of the current something for nothing climate where piracy is rife, MakeMusic! are being pretty good about authentication, The irony is that authentication prevents casual piracy while standing in the way of legitimate users' future access to their labor. However, iff MakeMusic! go down, I'll strap on a wooden leg and whack on an eye patch faster than your can sing Fifty barrels on a dead mans chest ... or whatever it was. Indeed. :) Companies tend to disappear quickly after denying they're in trouble. LiveSynth Pro's product access went down before the company's demise was announced, and while they were still accepting purchases. Luckily, I had the product I'd paid for. Others weren't so fortunate. And this quote from the Cakewalk forum: This gives a good reason why activation keys are a bad idea... can you imaginge if Livesynth had been an activated product... how many people would be knackered if they had to reinstall... I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last hours, should the time come sooner rather than later. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last hours, should the time come sooner rather than later. Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or is this just speculation? -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Noel, you're conflating two issues. Your argument is about language and law. Whenever anyone buys a physical manifestation of 'intellectual property', they purchase a certain body of rights, implicit and explicit. That's IP101. And that's not the issue. The issue is commerce and trade and, in this case, the customer's victimization -- irrespective of the language and law used to promulgate and disguise offensive tethering practices. I don't agree that I'm conflating two issues. Language and law is the issue here. You have not persuaded me of the validity of your claim that the customer is being victimized. I am not victimized. I bought a disk, and a book, and the rights, subject to limitations spelled out in the end user license, to non-exclusive use of software. Among the limitations I agreed to are the right to use the software on one machine at a time. That is, and has been, in the plain language of the agreement for as long as I've been using Finale. And I would guess, if I wanted to pay the appropriate licensing fee, that I could purchase a site license, under he terms of which there would be no restriction on the number of machines upon which I would be permitted to install the software, and thus, no need for the authentication scheme. I don't need the ability to load the software on more than one machine at a time, though, and so choose not to pay for that priviledge. Frankly, though I do not mean to make any accusations in saying this, I have heard the arguements you raise about victimware years ago, from a person who was a first rate tech, and who did not hesitate for a moment to copy an application off of a customer's drive if it was one he wanted. He, too, railed against copy protection schemes. Language and law never relieve a company of ethical responsibility to the customer, and ultimately companies who are unethical pay the price in bankruptcy. Victimware is what you get when you buy tethered software, and no matter how you spin the language or law, you and *your* intellectual property become beholden to the corporate owners for the *rest of their life* (not yours!) in a permanent digital serfdom. Not necessarily so. As far as I can tell, the structure of a finale data file is public knowledge, and there is nothing to prevent a person with the proper skills form devising a notation package that would properly render any Finale data file. Furthermore, since Finale Notepad (and I refer here to the free download), which will presumably print out any file that the full featured Finale of the same flavor will print out means that even if, for some reason, you cannot edit a 2k5 file, you can still print it out, disproving your claim that your intellectual property is beholden to the corporate owners. If ending victimware production means Coda/MM has to negotiate better terms -- or that the industry as a whole has to negotiate their way out of the rights nightmare that *they themselves* have created due to laziness and greed -- then they need to make that happen. They have not earned my sympathy. Somehow other companies (and I list some of them in my article) have managed to do what you claim is so difficult. It's about will, about ethics, about a customer-centrism that has absented itself from much corporate mentality, including Coda/MM's. Coda / MM need not negotiate better terms; I don't see the current situation as a rights nightmare, I don't consider that I become a victim if the licensee institutes a mechanism to enforce the restrictions in the license agreement, and I haven't claimed (as far as I recall) that the situation is difficult. Do you have a serious, fully functional proposal that doesn't make you the ultimate victim (when Coda/MM goes under, changes their terms, or ceases to support your software)? Sure. Make certain I have the latest verion of Notepad. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: As usual, Dennis's long answer. And as usual, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Here's how I see it: * No current user of the Fin2004/2005 seem to see the current CP system as a problem. * If MM goes down, the clause #1 in the Fin2005 license agreement will fail (MM will not be able to provide you the necessary installs), which would make the license agreement void. * Since Finale is popular software, there are also hacks available that go around the CP. So the situation where the company goes down and the software can't be used will not happen as I see it. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO
If you launch GPO *before* you launch Finale, it should work. If that doesn't, send a report in to Mac Support... On 3/9/05 9:01 AM, Gerald Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] saith: gee Darcy - that was an impressive response! Short of never quitting GPO studio I think we're sunk on that point. Jerry On 9-Mar-05, at 5:44 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: The only thing I can't figure out is how to get Finale to remember the choices I made in Finale's MIDI Setup. Even after setting up everything and saving preferences, every time I launch Finale I get the same error message: Finale is expecting the following devices, but they are not found in your current Audio MIDI Setup configuration. Check your configuration in Finale MIDI Setup and in Audio MIDI Setup. Devices: GPO Studio: 1, GPO Studio: 2, GPO Studio: 3, GPO Studio: 4, GPO Studio: 5, GPO Studio: 6, GPO Studio: 7, GPO Studio: 8 Anyone have any ideas how to fix that? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Gerald Berg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Replace specific pitches
Most of the other features do, but search and replace is not a slave to the bondage that is the barline ;-) On 3/8/05 11:37 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz [EMAIL PROTECTED] saith: At 11:21 AM 3/8/05 -0600, Allen Fisher wrote: Have you tried note mover? It has a search and replace function that *might* get what you're after... O! Brilliant! With a staff set programmed to show just the staff in question, it works! And I always thought Note Mover only applied to single measures. Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
d. collins wrote: I've purchased software and saw the company go out of business less then one year after that (and couldn't get a new key to reinstall it), so I certainly understand Dennis's concern. Several others suggested the recourse to hacks if MM happened to go down. But will they still be going around and easy to find five or ten years from now? I'm not so sure. I find legitimate the question of how be can be sure we'll be able to use our copy of Finale ten or even twenty years from now. I, too, find Dennis's concerns about being able to use the software at some future point to be legitimate. And I also concede, that based upon past experiences, it is not farfetched that we might all upgrade in August, and have MakeMusic completely fail in December. But as far as Dennis' upgrade scheme is concerned, there is not complete certainty that in that event the Escrow company would still be around in December, either. I purchased five years worth of unlimited service from an ISP five years ago, that went bankrupt a couple of months after I purchased the service; because of concerns at the time I made the purchase, I asked about continuity of the service if the company failed and I was assured that arrangements were in place to make sure I got the full term of service. They were, but that company failed, too. IN all honesty, given the installed base of files out there in Finale Formats, even if MakeMusic! were to completely dissapear tomorrow, I doubt that it would be more than a few months before someone else had a package out that would read files created with Finale. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Milhaud: La creation du monde ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO
Hey Allen, On 09 Mar 2005, at 11:36 AM, Allen Fisher wrote: If you launch GPO *before* you launch Finale, it should work. I know it *should*, but it don't. (Does it work for you? I haven't found anyone on the Northern Sounds GPO forum who's gotten it to work.) If that doesn't, send a report in to Mac Support... OK -- I'll do that. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 8, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Just taking a little straw poll here: what do listers consider the best pieces of music to come out of the 1920's? My top 10, in no particular order: Varèse: Octandre Varèse: Arcana Stravinsky: Octet for Winds Schoenberg: Variations for Orchestra Berg: Wozzeck Copland: Piano Concerto Hindemith: Cardillac Ruggles: Men and Mountains Milhaud: La Création du monde Honegger: Pacific 231 I have a nagging feeling, though, that I've overlooked someone important. I'm sure other listers will catch whoever it is. I'm also very aware that any such list is acutely sensitive to the exact definition of best and piece, so that others may quite legitimately come up with lists that contain none of my entries. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
d. collins wrote: In other words, you accept the fact that six months from now, or six years, or any time, you might no longer be able to use the copy of Finale you purchased The real issue is not whether or not one can continue to use Finale; it is whether one can access the information in a given set of Finale files. Neither the survival of Finale, nor the creation of an Escrowed untether is the critical step in the process here, in my opinion. The truly critical element here is for each user to make certain that every data file considered critical are stored in an accessible format. To that end, I'd submit that ~.mus files are not as good a choice for long term archival purposes as ~.etf files. And just from a practical standpoint, I'd guess that for each and every user, the likelihood of losing accessiblity to data files as a result of natural catastrophe, operator error, or of hardware, or of media failure is orders of magnitude higher than the likelihood of the failure of MakeMusic! So instead of demanding a escrow scheme, it seems to me that a prudent user is going to have redundant copies of all data files, and software in diverse locations. In my case, I have three copies of my critical ~.ETF files, in widely separated locations, and the archived old version distribution disks also distributed among those locations. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s - now Rhapsody in Blue
On 08 Mar 2005, at 11:04 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue (preferably original version, not the orchestral version) Darcy James Argue wrote: Funny you should mention that... I've actually been looking for a modern recording of the original orchestration -- you wouldn't happen to know of one, would you? (I've heard the original Whiteman band version with Gershwin at the piano, but it would be nice to have a version with better sound quality.) Raymond replies: (Hope you don't mind I made this to the whole list.) If it's still in print, there was a great one made with Michael T. Thomas conducting an original instrumentation band with the Gershwin piano roll soloing. It was done in the early-mid 80's. The piano roll, which was the solo piano version, had the orchestral notes plugged-up so only the piano solo part remained. The amazing thing about that recording is the flaming tempi - the piece FLIES at Gershwin's tempi. I talked at length to Andrew Kazdin, who produced that recording (and also dozens of our Louisville Orchestra First Edition Recordings) about that recording. He said he prepared two versions of the the piano recordings for Thomas, including one with slower tempi, but Thomas preferred the fast tempi. I had seen a bad review of the recording (saying that G. G. may have liked the fast tempos for solo but it was impractical for the big group, and, anyway, you can't tell the right speed on those things, which wasn't true, according to Kazdin, etc) but I absolutely loved it when I heard it. At the time I had never heard the Gershwin solo roll, which I recently purchased on a low-priced CD. It is also very entertaining, partly because of the fast tempi. (I have sat on stage SO many late nights while some blowhard pianist tries to wrench new meaning out of those solo phrases by playing themO S O S L O W L Y but withS U CH N U A N C E) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
FWIW, my recording -- the Pollini on DG -- calls op. 25 a Suite for Piano. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 08 Mar 2005, at 7:23 PM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:19:09 -0800, Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:53:21 -0500, Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just taking a little straw poll here: what do listers consider the best pieces of music to come out of the 1920's? Genre is unimportant -- go ahead and nominate Tin Pan Alley songs and Jelly Roll Morton pieces alongside serial works, if you like. My favorite piece from that decade is, without a doubt, Schoenberg's Opus 25 Kavierstuecke. Especially the Gavotte. err, of course I meant to type Klavierstuecke. Or Klavierstücke, if you want, or even Piano Pieces if you're so inclined. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Life would be so much easier if only (3/2)^12=(2/1)^7. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Human Playback and Save as Audio File questions
I have never really used playback much, but now I have the need to do it properly. 1) Is there a way to Save only part of a score as Audiofile? 2) Is there a way to make HP stop between movements? It already does this for Finale bars, at least briefly, but it doesn't do it for repeat bar ends, even 2nd time bars. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
At 12:46 PM 3/9/05 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote: FWIW, my recording -- the Pollini on DG -- calls op. 25 a Suite for Piano. As it does in German on my score, UE 7627, Suite für Klavier. (Erratic engraving job, by the way, some nice, some ugly.) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Noel Stoutenburg wrote: IN all honesty, given the installed base of files out there in Finale Formats, even if MakeMusic! were to completely dissapear tomorrow, I doubt that it would be more than a few months before someone else had a package out that would read files created with Finale. Sibelius does that now. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Human Playback and Save as Audio File questions
Johannes Gebauer wrote: I have never really used playback much, but now I have the need to do it properly. 1) Is there a way to Save only part of a score as Audiofile? 2) Is there a way to make HP stop between movements? It already does this for Finale bars, at least briefly, but it doesn't do it for repeat bar ends, even 2nd time bars. Johannes I don't know of a way to make such movements stop, but the inclusion of some blank measures in a playback version of the file can help you to separate the movements into separate audio files after it's all done creating the audio file. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
dhbailey wrote: So what is your suggestion as to what sort of bargaining power we have to use against MakeMusic? We could all switch to using Score, I guess. Except that it wasn't a Mac program, as I recall, so Mac users would be out of luck, and none of us have machines that have DOS installed anymore, so the rest of us would be hard pressed to make that switch. I am very interested in what sort of leverage we have to force MakeMusic to stop tethering their software. I would love to have it untethered but I can't see what alternative I have, nor what power I have to make MakeMusic listen. Their premier product these days is SmartMusic, so it seems they have already stopped caring very much about the Finale user. Here's a suggestion: if a group of power users (participants in this forum, for example), with a nice round membership number (100), were to publicly indicate via a petition that they would all refuse to buy the next upgrade unless (a) EPS/PDF were fixed, and (b) the protection scheme reverted to that used in Version X. These are the days when internet actions and blogging have influence, and a bit of that influence potential could be well used. How would market analysts react, for example, if they were to learn that the top of the line product of a small commerical software firm was being boycotted by the top users pending changes (one of which suggests a fundamental flaw in the product)? Further, what is the advantage to Finale in having the same authentication scheme as its leading competitor? If Finale is indeed losing ground to Sibelius, then a more flexible authentification scheme is one area where Finale can easily regain market share, and is totally in keeping with the more flexible character of Finale in general. Daniel Wolf ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
It astounds me that customers are so ready to defend their own abuse and and incoveniencing by the companies they pay money to. It is one thing, as I do, to accept that the world is not perfect. That fighting an industry-wide rising tide of incovenience and abuse of customers is tantamount to fighting City Hall. You can't win, and the amount of inconvenience you suffer by resisting is almost always greater than that you suffer by acquiescing. But it is truly amazing to watch the victims of said abuse actually justify it and defend their abusers. As I've said before, my last line of defense is to archive in open formats like PDF. I only wish PDF had been available in 1990. Right now I am having to re-edit a piece from that era because Finale no longer fully supports its own past formats. What current Finale versions offer for Fin2.6.3 files is hardly better than what Sibelius offers. This is because, while Makemusic has technically existed continuously since 1988, it is in fact a completely different company, having gone through at least two complete ownership changes since then. The current company apparently knows almost nothing about the 2.6.3 format. Their Mac support people claim not to be able even to run Fin2.6.3 at all. (Heck, *I* can still do that.) If Finale 2.6.3 had required authentication, I feel virtually certain that the current company either would not or could not provide it now. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 8 Mar 2005 at 21:58, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: The flaw here, is that the phrases Commercial software is sold and legal purchaser implies that the user of a particular piece of commerical software has ownership rights in the software. While it might be true for some programs, the fact is that with respect to Finale, these is not true statements. A user of Finale acquires a non-exclusive, limited license to use the software entity under the terms of the license. The fact is that the current authentication scheme used in FIN 2k4 and 2k5 is not a restriction the user's rights a purchaser, but enforcement of limitations on use that are part and parcel of the license to which the user has agreed. Compared to previous licenses under which Finale was purchased, the current one is more restrictive. And that's the basis of Dennis's refusal to buy it, since once he's used it, he's bound by the terms, which could mean eventual loss of his entire investment in Finale data. It all seems completely rational to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
But it is truly amazing to watch the victims of said abuse actually justify it and defend their abusers. That's just your perception. Having marketed software that I've written myself I'm quite sympathetic about MakeMusic!s efforts to protect its investment, call it abuse if you like. Likewise, I don't like seeing someone download and use something for nothing that I've paid good money for out of the honesty of my heart. There's more going on here than blind devotion and the Stockholm Syndrome. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 6:07, dhbailey wrote: We could all switch to using Score, I guess. Except that it wasn't a Mac program, as I recall, so Mac users would be out of luck, and none of us have machines that have DOS installed anymore, so the rest of us would be hard pressed to make that switch. You may not have DOS installed, but every version of Windows ever made has a command interpreter that is DOS compatible. I have a client with WinXP Pro running a dBase II application compiled in 1983. We had to tweak some settings to get printing to work (and he had to keep his old LJII parallel port printer as well as his newer USB inkjet), but it works. My bet is that Score would run just fine on any desktop version of Windows you chose, perhaps with some tweaking of the environment, but it would work, nonetheless. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 9:40, A-NO-NE Music wrote: dhbailey / 05.3.9 / 08:43 AM wrote: And don't suggest they go back to the insert the original installation CD anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with Finale97 (or was it 98) and very quickly scrapped that idea over the hue and cry of complaints. Both 97 and 98. My 98 CD is lost during moving, and I am unable to open 98 files natively ever again :-( Correction: It was 98 and *not* 97. 97 was the version I had until I purchased 2K3. I seem to have a knack for upgrading just before MakeMusic implements some kind of copy protection. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 15:34, Simon Troup wrote: I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last hours, should the time come sooner rather than later. Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or is this just speculation? Would you advise a parent who supports a family of 6 to only consider purchasing life insurance the day before he or she dies? The whole point of this is that it has to be in place *when the company is a going concern* or it's of no value when they go down the tubes. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 16:56, Jari Williamsson wrote: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: As usual, Dennis's long answer. And as usual, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Here's how I see it: * No current user of the Fin2004/2005 seem to see the current CP system as a problem. Non sequitur -- Dennis has *never* claimed it decreases the functionality of the software. He's only talking about the fact that everyone who upgrades their data to the authenticated version is flying without a parachute. As long as the airplane stays in the air with the engines running and doesn't catch fire, everything is great. * If MM goes down, the clause #1 in the Fin2005 license agreement will fail (MM will not be able to provide you the necessary installs), which would make the license agreement void. * Since Finale is popular software, there are also hacks available that go around the CP. You're assuming the hacks will be there. . . So the situation where the company goes down and the software can't be used will not happen as I see it. . . . Dennis is asking that MakeMusic insure that no one ever has to resort to the hacks (which may or may not materialize). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 10:28, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: If a product made use of an authentication scheme such as that used by MakeMusic!, and failed to provide public maps of the formats of data files inhibiting or preventing development of other packages which might read and write data files of that same format thus making it difficult or was impossible for a user to access the data in a file without that product any other product, whether provided by the vendor of the original or not. Since MakeMusic! provides publicly the structure of the data files created with Finale, and also provides a free package that will read and print those files, I submit that Finale is most emphatically not victimware. And what if nobody invests the time to write a program to edit the data files? And what if somebody *does* invest the time? You think the complaints about Finale are legion! Hah! You make an absolutely ridiculous argument, one that gives up all rights to the owner of the software code. If there were already programs that can read and write Finale files, it would be one thing. For example, current versions of MS Word are also authenticated, but you have plenty of non-Microsoft word processers that can read and edit Word files. So, I'm not too worried about losing Word data (of course, I use Word97, which is *not* authenticated, so I have even less to worry about). But with Finale, there really isn't anything out there that gives you any *reasonable* facsimile of reading/editing Finale files. Dolet's MusicXML converter is a great thing, but it's a long distance from perfection in converting. All authenticated products (not just Finale) should have an escrowed master key in order to insure that you are not tying your data investment to the fortunes of a company that may fail next week. And, no, I haven't purchased any authenticated version of Finale and don't intend to do so. I see nothing compelling about either version in comparison to WinFin2K3 to make me regret the fact of authentication (which prevents me on principle from purchasing the software). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last hours, should the time come sooner rather than later. Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or is this just speculation? Would you advise a parent who supports a family of 6 to only consider purchasing life insurance the day before he or she dies? The whole point of this is that it has to be in place *when the company is a going concern* or it's of no value when they go down the tubes. David, no need to educate me on life insurance, it's Dennis and his sooner rather than later and the day they're no longer around to give out install keys talk, there's never an if in there. My expectation is that there are enough punters in the market place for the two current big players, I'm wondering if Dennis thinks we're all on some kind of precipice. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 11:20, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: d. collins wrote: In other words, you accept the fact that six months from now, or six years, or any time, you might no longer be able to use the copy of Finale you purchased The real issue is not whether or not one can continue to use Finale; it is whether one can access the information in a given set of Finale files. . . . At a bare minimum, the legalistic minimum, yes. But as a practical matter, that's a rather libertarian point of view, kind of the I can't afford health care to which the libertarian replies be rich! . . . Neither the survival of Finale, nor the creation of an Escrowed untether is the critical step in the process here, in my opinion. . . . Yes, it really *is* critical step. This list exists because of problems people have editing native Finale data with Finale itself. How much greater and more problematic would editing that data be *without* Finale? . . . The truly critical element here is for each user to make certain that every data file considered critical are stored in an accessible format. To that end, I'd submit that ~.mus files are not as good a choice for long term archival purposes as ~.etf files. . . . Assuming you're going to reverse engineer the data structure, yes, of course. But the whole point of the key escrow is that IT OBVIATES THE NEED TO RE-ENGINEER. How anyone could not think that would be preferable to the mere hope (fantasy?) of reverse engineering the file format, I can't imagine. . . . And just from a practical standpoint, I'd guess that for each and every user, the likelihood of losing accessiblity to data files as a result of natural catastrophe, operator error, or of hardware, or of media failure is orders of magnitude higher than the likelihood of the failure of MakeMusic! . . . But that kind of data loss happens only to individuals, whereas the failure of MakeMusic locks up the data of everyone who has purchased the authenticated versions of Finale. . . . So instead of demanding a escrow scheme, it seems to me that a prudent user is going to have redundant copies of all data files, and software in diverse locations. In my case, I have three copies of my critical ~.ETF files, in widely separated locations, and the archived old version distribution disks also distributed among those locations. The cost to MakeMusic of key escrow is very low relative to the cost incurred by users of Finale should MM fail in the absence of key escrow. There is no logical explanation for their failure to provide insurance to their users. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 13:20, dhbailey wrote: Noel Stoutenburg wrote: IN all honesty, given the installed base of files out there in Finale Formats, even if MakeMusic! were to completely dissapear tomorrow, I doubt that it would be more than a few months before someone else had a package out that would read files created with Finale. Sibelius does that now. To what degree of accuracy? That is, how much of the original layout is lost? How much of what is lost can be recovered by re-editing in Sibelius? It it is accomplished with the Dolet plugin, all you need to know is to save a Finale file with it, and then open the XML version again, and compare it to the original. While it does an admirable job of getting the essence of the original layout, it would still require a huge amount of work to get it back to the original look. From what I hear, Sibelius can't even replicate some Finale layout characteristics, so you're not really get full read/write capability. And, of course, how could anyone argue that being able to edit your file (imperfectly) with Sibelius would be preferable to being able to edit it with Finale in perpetuity? And then there's also the issue of then being able to continue to use the key-unlocked Finale to create new files after the demise of MakeMusic. How anyone can claim these things are comparable or that it wouldn't be better for MM to provide the key escrow is simply beyond my comprehension. No one but an apologist for MM should be convinced by such arguments. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Darcy James Argue writes: Just taking a little straw poll here: what do listers consider the best pieces of music to come out of the 1920's? Genre is unimportant -- go ahead and nominate Tin Pan Alley songs and Jelly Roll Morton pieces alongside serial works, if you like. I see that Guy Hayden has got ahead of me with Show Boat. I agree that the Stravinsky Octet is a candidate, though I had given first place to Les Noces. Why didn't I think of Sibelius Symphony 7? My immediate reaction was, Of course! Even more striking than the Bliss, among English works, IMO, is Peter Warlock's setting of W B Yeats, The Curlew. According to Grove Concise, Turangalila was written in 1948. It would have been outstanding in any other decade, of course. However, the first work I thought of (I hope to generate a few Of course!s among the rest of you) was Berg's Wozzeck, even though I am more into orchestral and chamber instrumental works than those for the stage. A slightly more tentative proposal: the Ravel Sonata for Violin and Piano. -- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/ I reject emails 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 19:35, Simon Troup wrote: But it is truly amazing to watch the victims of said abuse actually justify it and defend their abusers. That's just your perception. Having marketed software that I've written myself I'm quite sympathetic about MakeMusic!s efforts to protect its investment, call it abuse if you like. Likewise, I don't like seeing someone download and use something for nothing that I've paid good money for out of the honesty of my heart. You seem concerned only about MakeMusic's side of the equation, and not about the downside for users of their software. There's more going on here than blind devotion and the Stockholm Syndrome. You seem to give more empasis to MM's interests than to your own long- term interests. Setting up a key escrow should not be all that tough for MM to do. I see no obstacles to their implementing it, either technically or financially (a CD-ROM with documentation in a safe-deposit box would, at minimum, suffice). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 20:30, Simon Troup wrote: I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last hours, should the time come sooner rather than later. Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or is this just speculation? Would you advise a parent who supports a family of 6 to only consider purchasing life insurance the day before he or she dies? The whole point of this is that it has to be in place *when the company is a going concern* or it's of no value when they go down the tubes. David, no need to educate me on life insurance, it's Dennis and his sooner rather than later and the day they're no longer around to give out install keys talk, there's never an if in there. You think MM will survive forever? I've thought for years that the only software that is guaranteed to survive hundreds of years is Microsoft (that's proven by all the software and security failures that we see regularly in Star Trek episodes). I don't see how MM can survive with its current notation package in the face of the Sibelius onslaught. It's clearly a VHS/Betamax situation, and Sibelius is outmarketing MM. My expectation is that there are enough punters in the market place for the two current big players, I'm wondering if Dennis thinks we're all on some kind of precipice. Would you *object* if MM set up a key escrow? If not, why argue against it? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] Would you *object* if MM set up a key escrow? If not, why argue against it? Does anybody know for a fact that they have not set up such an escrow? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
IIRC (and I may not be), when the registration scheme for Finale 2004 was announced, I believe Coda -- or at least, some people at Coda -- were actually sympathetic to Dennis's ideas. I seem to recall someone saying something about at least creating some method for a user to transfer their registration from one computer to another without having to contact Coda. I guess nothing ever came of that, eh? While I think Dennis's idea is excellent and I fail to see how Coda would be harmed in any way by either putting a universal unlock code in escrow with a third party, or at the very minimum announcing *some* kind of worst-case scenario plan that doesn't leave its users in the lurch, I'm certainly not about to penalize myself by refusing to upgrade. Partly that's because in the event of Coda's demise, I'm extremely confident a solution will be forthcoming -- whether we get the universal unlock code from Coda, or via Dennis's escrow scheme, or it's leaked by a Coda employee, or we have to defeat the copy protection illegally (this can already be done), or some other method entirely, I don't much care. But I think the likelihood of us getting stuck without any solution at all is extremely small. Of course, Dennis's solution is much better, and I encourage Coda to adopt it, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. If they continue to refuse, that's unfortunate, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
What's the point of setting it up if they don't announce it? Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 09 Mar 2005, at 4:42 PM, dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] Would you *object* if MM set up a key escrow? If not, why argue against it? Does anybody know for a fact that they have not set up such an escrow? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Darcy James Argue wrote: IIRC (and I may not be), when the registration scheme for Finale 2004 was announced, I believe Coda -- or at least, some people at Coda -- were actually sympathetic to Dennis's ideas. I seem to recall someone saying something about at least creating some method for a user to transfer their registration from one computer to another without having to contact Coda. You're correct, this was promised for a maintenance release of Fin2004. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Porgy and Bess has great songs, but I'd rather hear Sarah Vaughan sing them. Even if you subtract all the voice parts, Porgy Bess is still great, just for the orchestra. That said, the parts of PB I like best are the lightly accompanied choruses. But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. And yet I love Rhapsody in Blue. Go figure. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Most corporations don't publicly discuss their own demise nor what steps they may have taken to support their customers in the event of their going belly up. That doesn't mean they haven't taken such steps. But to make a public statement to the effect of when we go out of business... or even if we go out of business... doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any customers and especially in investors. MM's stock price may not be very high, but they are trying to make a go of things in the stock market. To let investors know that there is a corporate mind-set considering the end-of-life is to keep them from investing in a company that knows it won't be around for a long time. Can anybody produce corporate statements (especially from publicly traded companies) where the corporation tries to reassure the customer what will happen when/if the corporation goes out of business? Don't raise the issue of banks and the FDIC, because they're required by law to make those statements about being insured. David H. Bailey Darcy James Argue wrote: What's the point of setting it up if they don't announce it? Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 09 Mar 2005, at 4:42 PM, dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: [snip] Would you *object* if MM set up a key escrow? If not, why argue against it? Does anybody know for a fact that they have not set up such an escrow? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Mark D Lew wrote: On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Porgy and Bess has great songs, but I'd rather hear Sarah Vaughan sing them. Even if you subtract all the voice parts, Porgy Bess is still great, just for the orchestra. That said, the parts of PB I like best are the lightly accompanied choruses. But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion. Well, if you must know, I pretty much hate jazz. And yet I love Rhapsody in Blue. Go figure. That's an easy one -- Rhapsody in Blue isn't jazz. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
There's more going on here than blind devotion and the Stockholm Syndrome. You seem to give more empasis to MM's interests than to your own long- term interests. Setting up a key escrow should not be all that tough for MM to do. I see no obstacles to their implementing it, either technically or financially (a CD-ROM with documentation in a safe-deposit box would, at minimum, suffice). I didn't say they shouldn't. I just don't see it as abuse or victimsation. I'm not certain that releasing unlock codes or whatever is feasible as it would seriously damage the companies ability to be sold on if a catastrophe happened, as the prvious version of the software would be available to use easily in unlocked form. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Jari Williamsson schrieb: Darcy James Argue wrote: IIRC (and I may not be), when the registration scheme for Finale 2004 was announced, I believe Coda -- or at least, some people at Coda -- were actually sympathetic to Dennis's ideas. I seem to recall someone saying something about at least creating some method for a user to transfer their registration from one computer to another without having to contact Coda. You're correct, this was promised for a maintenance release of Fin2004. But, in fact, this is not possible with the current scheme (as it is hardware bound). They would have to change it to make that possible. (I am not defending MM on this.) Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Human Playback and Save as Audio File questions
Johannes Gebauer wrote: 1) Is there a way to Save only part of a score as Audiofile? If there's an easier way, I've not yet found it. What I'd do is make a copy of the score, from which I'd delete the bits you didn't want to play, and save that. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
In response to my comments, in part The real issue is not whether or not one can continue to use Finale; it is whether one can access the information in a given set of Finale files. Neither the survival of Finale, nor the creation of an Escrowed untether is the critical step in the process here, in my opinion. The truly critical element here is for each user to make certain that every data file considered critical are stored in an accessible format. d. collins wrote: Well, this is where I completely disagree with you. If all your worried about is printing your files, why don't you simply back them up as PDFs? While I did make a comment earlier in the thread about printing the files via Notepad (which partially addresses the question of continued accessibility of Finale files in the event of the failure of the company, or inability or unwillingness to continue to provide authentication codes), that is not what I mean here by accessibility. I use the word here in the sense that, because of the public accessibility of information regarding the the file formats used by Finale, and the accessibility of the data in an ~.ETF file (by which I mean it can be read with an ASCII editor), it is (in my opinion) probable, that in addition to the immediate capability of being able to print out the contents of Finale files with Notepad, that a successor product will be available which will allow Finale files to be read, edited, and written to some other accessible format. Of course, that program may also only be available under a limited, non-exclusive license, and it is entirely possible that the successor software will also require some sort of authentication scheme. I've found it necessary, on account of hard drive failure, to reinstall 2k4 three times, and the biggest inconvenience I experienced was having to wait until the Finale office opened later in the morning, to call and request a new authentication code. Considering that reinstalling the software more than one working day, there was really not an inconvenience here, nor was I, IMO, victimized. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
I wrote: The truly critical element here is for each user to make certain that every data file considered critical are stored in an accessible format. To that end, I'd submit that ~.mus files are not as good a choice for long term archival purposes as ~.etf files. . . . to which David Fenton responded Assuming you're going to reverse engineer the data structure, yes, of course. But the whole point of the key escrow is that IT OBVIATES THE NEED TO RE-ENGINEER. How anyone could not think that would be preferable to the mere hope (fantasy?) of reverse engineering the file format, I can't imagine. I don't think reverse engineering the data structure is necessary, as it's most likely published as part of the Plug-in Developer's Kit But that kind of data loss happens only to individuals, whereas the failure of MakeMusic locks up the data of everyone who has purchased the authenticated versions of Finale. ...snip... The cost to MakeMusic of key escrow is very low relative to the cost incurred by users of Finale should MM fail in the absence of key escrow. There is no logical explanation for their failure to provide insurance to their users. But an escrowed untether is no guarantee either; there's no guarantee that the escrow agent(s) is going to still be around when MakeMusic fails, either. Insurance and trust companies go out of business on a regular basis. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
David W. Fenton wrote: On 8 Mar 2005 at 21:58, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: The flaw here, is that the phrases Commercial software is sold and legal purchaser implies that the user of a particular piece of commerical software has ownership rights in the software. While it might be true for some programs, the fact is that with respect to Finale, these is not true statements. A user of Finale acquires a non-exclusive, limited license to use the software entity under the terms of the license. The fact is that the current authentication scheme used in FIN 2k4 and 2k5 is not a restriction the user's rights a purchaser, but enforcement of limitations on use that are part and parcel of the license to which the user has agreed. Compared to previous licenses under which Finale was purchased, the current one is more restrictive. Sorry, I having done a specific, side by side comparison of the licenses for my 2k and my 2k5 versions, I disagree. There difference fall into two categories: 1) At every point that reads Coda in the 2k license, the 2k5 license reads MakeMusic!; and 2) Where the 2k license permits the installation on one computer, useable by a single user at a time, with permission in the license to transfer the software to a second computer, 2k5 permits the installation on two computers simultaneously, upon which the software may be run on only one at one time, by a single user. I don't see how this is more restrictive. And that's the basis of Dennis's refusal to buy it, since once he's used it, he's bound by the terms, which could mean eventual loss of his entire investment in Finale data. I don't think this is true. I believe he is bound by the terms of the 2k5 license only as far as use of 2k5. If he upgrades and uses 2k5, while still continuing to use 2k3, any work in 2k3 is still subject to the license included with 2k3. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
On Mar 9, 2005, at 2:49 PM, dhbailey wrote: That's an easy one -- Rhapsody in Blue isn't jazz. Well then, no wonder I like it! mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Robert Patterson wrote: As I've said before, my last line of defense is to archive in open formats like PDF. While it is a widely used format PDF is not open to any more or less extent that the ETF format. while Makemusic has technically existed continuously since 1988, it is in fact a completely different company, having gone through at least two complete ownership changes since then. The current company apparently knows almost nothing about the 2.6.3 format. Their Mac support people claim not to be able even to run Fin2.6.3 at all. (Heck, *I* can still do that.) If Finale 2.6.3 had required authentication, I feel virtually certain that the current company either would not or could not provide it now. Might this be in part a MAC issue, due in part to the complete change in the MAC OS? ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
Christopher Smith wrote: subsequent ubiquity How many places will you see that used? Six brownie points! :) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO
Hi Jim Thanks for taking time out from grading papers to offer help. I tried re-installing GPO but it said everything was already there. Anyway, somehow GPO eventually appeared in Finale's Output Devices so I have them set to GPO Studio 1,2,3,4 (but in italics -- doesn't that mean it's not really true?). The output I actually get is from Finale's SoftSynth. Do I need to somehow turn that off? In SoftSynth settings there is a button for selecting SoundFont -- is that where I select GPO? As you can tell, I'm seriously out of my depth and in dire need of a raft. Regards John On 9 Mar 2005, at 03:54, Williams, Jim wrote: John, When you installed GPO, there should have been a prompt that asked you where you wanted the program to look for the VSTs. First of all--when you installed GPO, did you install both the standalone and the VST options? If you did not install the VST version, that's your problem. You should install the VST. For us on PCs, VSTs are usually found in C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins...not sure where they are on a Mac. If GPO is your only VST, you should point the installer to your equivalent of C:\Program Files\Garritan Personal Orchestra\VST...sorry, but I'm Mac-ignorant. First, make sure that BOTH the standalone and the VST are installed. If you did not install the VST, do so now, and tell the installer where GPO should look for the GPO VST program. I'm grading papers now--so I may be back later...Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Tue 08-Mar-05 22:04 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] GPO Jim, thank you so much for taking the trouble to reply. I have now installed Personal Orchestra Studio but when I try to open it I get an error message: VST Directory does not exist!!! (their exclamations not mine). Finale can now see GPO so there is some progress. But in the Instrument list all I see is the old GM patches as before. John On 9 Mar 2005, at 02:26, Williams, Jim wrote: John, Finale connects to GPO via the GPO Studio...have you installed the GPO Studio? If you haven't, you must...the GPO Studio will then appear as a MIDI out device. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Tue 08-Mar-05 20:30 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: [Finale] GPO I have the advantage of a brand new Mac with 4G RAM. I have the disadvantage of being hopelessly ignorant about midi. I've just installed GPO but so far have been unable to get Finale to recognise it. When I go to Midi Output Device, all I can see is my midi interface. I'd be enormously grateful for any advice. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 22:57, Simon Troup wrote: I'm not certain that releasing unlock codes or whatever is feasible as it would seriously damage the companies ability to be sold on if a catastrophe happened, as the prvious version of the software would be available to use easily in unlocked form. Uh, it wouldn't be released until the corporate entity ceased to exist. If there's something to be sold, then it hasn't ceased. A properly designed corporate will would deal with the issue of transfer of control of the escrowed key to the new entity. I'm wondering, though, if Dennis has any examples of software companies that have established a key escrow program. How do they publicize that fact, and how has it been structured? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 18:20, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 8 Mar 2005 at 21:58, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: The flaw here, is that the phrases Commercial software is sold and legal purchaser implies that the user of a particular piece of commerical software has ownership rights in the software. While it might be true for some programs, the fact is that with respect to Finale, these is not true statements. A user of Finale acquires a non-exclusive, limited license to use the software entity under the terms of the license. The fact is that the current authentication scheme used in FIN 2k4 and 2k5 is not a restriction the user's rights a purchaser, but enforcement of limitations on use that are part and parcel of the license to which the user has agreed. Compared to previous licenses under which Finale was purchased, the current one is more restrictive. Sorry, I having done a specific, side by side comparison of the licenses for my 2k and my 2k5 versions, I disagree. There difference fall into two categories: 1) At every point that reads Coda in the 2k license, the 2k5 license reads MakeMusic!; and 2) Where the 2k license permits the installation on one computer, useable by a single user at a time, with permission in the license to transfer the software to a second computer, 2k5 permits the installation on two computers simultaneously, upon which the software may be run on only one at one time, by a single user. I don't see how this is more restrictive. Er, the authentication key is a restriction, one that didn't exist in previous versions -- if you can't get the key, you can't install Finale anywhere. And that's the basis of Dennis's refusal to buy it, since once he's used it, he's bound by the terms, which could mean eventual loss of his entire investment in Finale data. I don't think this is true. I believe he is bound by the terms of the 2k5 license only as far as use of 2k5. If he upgrades and uses 2k5, while still continuing to use 2k3, any work in 2k3 is still subject to the license included with 2k3. I have often wondered about the terms of Finale upgrades. With Microsoft upgrades, you're supposed to remove the old software from your computer (that's what an upgrade is -- a replacement for the old software), not keep both old and new around on the computer. I actually have legal copies for the four versions of Access installed on my PC, none of them upgrades to each other. Upgrade replaces old version seems to be the standard for the software industry, so I've always thought it odd that Finale would be licensed differently. If you've paid less than full price, seems you ought to not have full access to more than one version. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 9 Mar 2005 at 18:26, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: dhbailey wrote: Can anybody produce corporate statements (especially from publicly traded companies) where the corporation tries to reassure the customer what will happen when/if the corporation goes out of business? Don't raise the issue of banks and the FDIC, because they're required by law to make those statements about being insured. It's more than that; any bank chartered since the FDIC was created is required by law to be insured by the FDIC. I remember reading 30 years ago, of 13 banks (at least 13 is the number I remember) in the U.S., that are still in existence since before the creation of the FDIC, which are not members, and a not required to be, since their charters predate the FDIC's creation. This makes little sense at all. It's not the bank that's insured, it's the account holders, which is up to $100K per account holder of each bank (not $100K per account, if I'm remembering correctly). It's the account holder that is insured by the FDIC, not the bank itself. I don't see why a bank's having been chartered before the creation of the FDIC would exempt them. Certainly many banks still in business existed before the FDIC was chartered (at least, the entities that merged to create the existing banks), and they are all FDIC insured. Any citations on this one? -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] GPO
Hi, John... I'm out of my element on a Mac, so I'll try a few generalities: *On a PC, it is necessary to start GPO Studio BEFORE launching Finale. I imagine that's also true for Mac, so do start GPO Studio first. *Have you gone through the setup routine for GPO Studio? *Does the standalone GPO work OK? Knowing answers to these questions may help me to narrow down the issue...I know that there are some Mac users here...where are you, ladies gents?? Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Wed 09-Mar-05 21:46 To: finale@SHSU.EDU Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] GPO Hi Jim Thanks for taking time out from grading papers to offer help. I tried re-installing GPO but it said everything was already there. Anyway, somehow GPO eventually appeared in Finale's Output Devices so I have them set to GPO Studio 1,2,3,4 (but in italics -- doesn't that mean it's not really true?). The output I actually get is from Finale's SoftSynth. Do I need to somehow turn that off? In SoftSynth settings there is a button for selecting SoundFont -- is that where I select GPO? As you can tell, I'm seriously out of my depth and in dire need of a raft. Regards John On 9 Mar 2005, at 03:54, Williams, Jim wrote: John, When you installed GPO, there should have been a prompt that asked you where you wanted the program to look for the VSTs. First of all--when you installed GPO, did you install both the standalone and the VST options? If you did not install the VST version, that's your problem. You should install the VST. For us on PCs, VSTs are usually found in C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins...not sure where they are on a Mac. If GPO is your only VST, you should point the installer to your equivalent of C:\Program Files\Garritan Personal Orchestra\VST...sorry, but I'm Mac-ignorant. First, make sure that BOTH the standalone and the VST are installed. If you did not install the VST, do so now, and tell the installer where GPO should look for the GPO VST program. I'm grading papers now--so I may be back later...Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Tue 08-Mar-05 22:04 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] GPO Jim, thank you so much for taking the trouble to reply. I have now installed Personal Orchestra Studio but when I try to open it I get an error message: VST Directory does not exist!!! (their exclamations not mine). Finale can now see GPO so there is some progress. But in the Instrument list all I see is the old GM patches as before. John On 9 Mar 2005, at 02:26, Williams, Jim wrote: John, Finale connects to GPO via the GPO Studio...have you installed the GPO Studio? If you haven't, you must...the GPO Studio will then appear as a MIDI out device. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Tue 08-Mar-05 20:30 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: [Finale] GPO I have the advantage of a brand new Mac with 4G RAM. I have the disadvantage of being hopelessly ignorant about midi. I've just installed GPO but so far have been unable to get Finale to recognise it. When I go to Midi Output Device, all I can see is my midi interface. I'd be enormously grateful for any advice. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] GPO
On 10 Mar 2005, at 03:08, Williams, Jim wrote: Hi, John... I'm out of my element on a Mac, so I'll try a few generalities: *On a PC, it is necessary to start GPO Studio BEFORE launching Finale. I imagine that's also true for Mac, so do start GPO Studio first. Yes, same on Mac and I did this. *Have you gone through the setup routine for GPO Studio? Err, no. I obviously need to do this but can't find how to. The Preferences offer virtually no choices (even if I knew what choices to make). *Does the standalone GPO work OK? No, my midi keyboard doesn't work with it. Knowing answers to these questions may help me to narrow down the issue...I know that there are some Mac users here...where are you, ladies gents?? Yes, I'd be really grateful for anything. Thanks Jim Regards John Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Wed 09-Mar-05 21:46 To: finale@SHSU.EDU Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] GPO Hi Jim Thanks for taking time out from grading papers to offer help. I tried re-installing GPO but it said everything was already there. Anyway, somehow GPO eventually appeared in Finale's Output Devices so I have them set to GPO Studio 1,2,3,4 (but in italics -- doesn't that mean it's not really true?). The output I actually get is from Finale's SoftSynth. Do I need to somehow turn that off? In SoftSynth settings there is a button for selecting SoundFont -- is that where I select GPO? As you can tell, I'm seriously out of my depth and in dire need of a raft. Regards John On 9 Mar 2005, at 03:54, Williams, Jim wrote: John, When you installed GPO, there should have been a prompt that asked you where you wanted the program to look for the VSTs. First of all--when you installed GPO, did you install both the standalone and the VST options? If you did not install the VST version, that's your problem. You should install the VST. For us on PCs, VSTs are usually found in C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins...not sure where they are on a Mac. If GPO is your only VST, you should point the installer to your equivalent of C:\Program Files\Garritan Personal Orchestra\VST...sorry, but I'm Mac-ignorant. First, make sure that BOTH the standalone and the VST are installed. If you did not install the VST, do so now, and tell the installer where GPO should look for the GPO VST program. I'm grading papers now--so I may be back later...Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Tue 08-Mar-05 22:04 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: Re: [Finale] GPO Jim, thank you so much for taking the trouble to reply. I have now installed Personal Orchestra Studio but when I try to open it I get an error message: VST Directory does not exist!!! (their exclamations not mine). Finale can now see GPO so there is some progress. But in the Instrument list all I see is the old GM patches as before. John On 9 Mar 2005, at 02:26, Williams, Jim wrote: John, Finale connects to GPO via the GPO Studio...have you installed the GPO Studio? If you haven't, you must...the GPO Studio will then appear as a MIDI out device. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Bell Sent: Tue 08-Mar-05 20:30 To: finale@shsu.edu Cc: Subject: [Finale] GPO I have the advantage of a brand new Mac with 4G RAM. I have the disadvantage of being hopelessly ignorant about midi. I've just installed GPO but so far have been unable to get Finale to recognise it. When I go to Midi Output Device, all I can see is my midi interface. I'd be enormously grateful for any advice. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale winmail.dat___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Garritan Personal Orchestra
In the GPO manual there is a drawing of a fellow with a keyboard on his lap happily playing away. He has a carefree air and appears to be singing along with his Personal Orchestra. He sports a bow tie, so it may be that he is performing before an audience. How I envy him! What does he know of the hours of useless clicking and twiddling, the feelings of impotence, the depth of despair at getting nowhere? I yearn to hear the sweet sounds that GPO promises. All I get is angry beeps reminding me of my own inadequacy. John ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
I'm not certain that releasing unlock codes or whatever is feasible as it would seriously damage the companies ability to be sold on if a catastrophe happened, as the prvious version of the software would be available to use easily in unlocked form. Uh, it wouldn't be released until the corporate entity ceased to exist. If there's something to be sold, then it hasn't ceased. A properly designed corporate will would deal with the issue of transfer of control of the escrowed key to the new entity. Sorry I've been really busy today, trying to join in the debate and rushing responses back. Let me try to be clearer - escrow seems fine if the company transfers ownership without stopping trading or working. What if it were 6 months cessation of business? Under these circumstances keys would not be distributed as escrow would not take effect if receivers/insolvency practitioners were actively pursuing a sale as releasing the keys would seriously devalue the companies intellectual property. In such a situation some other form of backing up your right to use the program would be better. Emagic used to issue keys on floppy disc (way, way back!) and you could transfer the keys via the floppy. I wonder if there's some more up to date way of effecting the same idea? Perhaps that was what Darcy was talking about ... Darcy James Argue wrote: I seem to recall someone saying something about at least creating some method for a user to transfer their registration from one computer to another without having to contact Coda Solving that is probably one of those conundrums like the public key encryption system. -- Simon Troup Digital Music Art - Finale IRC channel server: irc.chatspike.net port: 6667 channel: #Finale - ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
Noel Stoutenburg wrote: While it is a widely used format PDF is not open to any more or less extent that the ETF format. I consider it open enough when I don't necessarily need any Adobe product to read or write them. (Mac OS has built-in support.) PDF's are ubiquitous enough that we can count on them as much as we can count on *any* digital format. That is, a long time but certainly not forever. However, their current ubiquity likely assures a migration path to some future format, for those who are still paying attention to them. Might this be in part a MAC issue, due in part to the complete change in the MAC OS? In part, perhaps. But there was a major transformation (along with about a 3-year hiatus) in both Finale and the company between Fin2.6.3 and Finale 3.0. Finale 3.0 was essentially a new product from a new company. And while Finale 97 was not nearly so drastic a change, it too represented a major jump to being the first version in the modern era. (Files created in Finale 97 are the earliest file version that can be upgraded to the current version without a substantial risk of having to re-edit the file.) I don't think MM's corporate memory extends back to Fin2.6.3 days, even if one or two old-timers may still be there that were there then. There have been two major transformations in the product as well as at least two major transformations in the company. I think these have had much more impact on their ability to support Fin2.6.3 than any OS changes. Plus, OS changes happen on all platforms. I wonder if the old 16-bit FinWin 2.x version will run on WinXP. -- Robert Patterson http://RobertGPatterson.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Best Works of the 1920s
This was a bit before 1920 (I believe 1913) but it is one of my favorites: Charles Ives The Fourth of July from A Symphony: New England Holidays Strickly from the 20's, I'd have to say Duke Ellington's music while he was at the Cotton Club in the late 1920's. One of my favorites is The Mooche and if you'll let me stretch it to 1930, Mood Indigo of course! -Karen Just taking a little straw poll here: what do listers consider the best pieces of music to come out of the 1920's? Genre is unimportant -- go ahead and nominate Tin Pan Alley songs and Jelly Roll Morton pieces alongside serial works, if you like. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Graver sizes
Fellow listers; I received the following query from a colleague would appreciate any input from the collective wisdom of the list: *** As you know, the graver is the scoring tool used to create the staff lines in traditional plate engraving. I started researching what the actual graver sizes for traditional plate engraving are, which are defined only as sizes 0-8. These numbers 0-8 supposedly correspond to the major staff sizes universally accepted by modern music engravers (according to Ted Ross), but there is no mention of what their measurements actually are. Originally, I got the graver sizes by measuring the scorer-created staff lines printed in Ted Ross's book on page 57, but the photocopy is so bad, I had doubts as to whether these measurements are accurate. So, I asked around, and did some searching on Google, and actually got some answers! It turns out that Sibelius had researched this extensively for their early Acorn version of the application, and had defined these sizes as: Number 0 = 9.2mm Number 1 = 7.9mm Number 2 = 7.3mm Number 3 = 7.0mm Number 4 = 6.7mm Number 5 = 6.1mm Number 6 = 5.6mm Number 7 = 4.8mm Number 8 = 3.7mm There is a little bit of discrepancy, though. Here is a site which talks about these settings in Music Press: http://www.bandcmusic.com/Stage/text-basics-01003.html Take a look at the table of these sizes listed in *centipicas*. I'm assuming that is .01 of a printer's pica, which was 0.166 inch or 4.22 mm. (For convenience, PostScript rounded the definitions of point and pica to exactly 1/72 and 1/6 inch, respectively, but the original units were ever so slightly smaller.) Just to be academic, would this mean that the actual values rounded to the nearest 0.1mm are?: 9.1 7.8 7.1 6.7 6.4 6.1 5.4 4.7 3.7 If these 'centipicas' are actually 1/600 inch, the only difference it would make is that the #3 staff would round to 6.8 mm instead of 6.7 Dan Rupert ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
