[sdiy] Lockout / DRM chips?

[Mike Bryant]

If you don't like the company you are obviously referring to, don't buy from them.  But lots of people do because they are cheaper and it's all they can afford.

________________________________
From: Synth-diy <synth-diy-bounces at synth-diy.org> on behalf of cheater cheater via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org>
Sent: 09 September 2026 18:31
To: John <commodorejohn at gmail.com>
Cc: synth-diy at synth-diy.org <synth-diy at synth-diy.org>
Subject: Re: [sdiy] Lockout / DRM chips?

Hi John,
Good questions, and they're the kind of questions that I would be
asking as well in this situation.

My reason for starting this thread is mostly about the practical
technical methods of implementing a lockout, rather than the (still
completely valid) business and marketing related questions you ask,
but let me try to answer them real quick.

So, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that I can't go
into specifics, but there are good reasons to expect a new modular
format showing up sometime in the not extremely distant future.

That said, even without revealing anything, I can tell you that in my
life there have been about ~10 viable, lasting, new physical formats
for audio gear and interconnections, and of those, about 5 remain
currently: Eurorack, API 500, 1U modules, 19"/2 audio processor racks,
usb c, and the various networked audio systems. People thought dotcom
and fracrack were going to stay here forever and scoffed at Eurorack
as being cheap garbage (on this list too) that will never become
popular and is only used by idiots.

Regarding enforcing things in an analog interconnect format, that's
not too much trouble, you can encode data over analog pretty easily,
and a cryptographic challenge can take mere milliseconds to negotiate.

Regarding "you can just replace it" - sure, but at some point if the
lockout is built-in well enough, then it becomes uneconomical to
modify things. How many people do you see modifying existing potted
circuits, like in the Yamaha and ARP synths? Etc. Even if it's just a
DIP, somewhere on the PCB, for almost all people it's going to be too
much work to be worth it, they'd rather just buy the thing and support
their favorite non-soulless companies. Piracy is a service problem,
not a pricing problem.

I don't know what you mean by lock-and-key. Do you mean a
cryptographic handshake? But, like I said, there's certainly going to
be a new format in the foreseeable future, so "disadvantage compared
to the other guy" doesn't exist if the whole format contains this
restriction. At this point there also isn't "pre-lockout" gear.
Whoever proposes a new format, it's an interesting consideration on
whether it's possible to lock it down so that _this one_ doesn't get
smothered by unscrupulous mass manufacturers.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 7:01 PM John <commodorejohn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 17:54:27 +0200
> cheater cheater via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm a huge opponent of lockout chips and DRM measures in all sorts of
> > hardware, and essentially I hate it everywhere, but I believe in the
> > case of tiny audio and synth manufacturers, one manufacturer in China
> > is acting in a manner that simply does not let small businesses exist
> > for the most part. One way of getting rid of this sort of behavior is
> > to create an alliance of manufacturers where the modules check each
> > other and exclude the one guy bootlegging people in his massive
> > factory complex in China.
>
> There's not much in the way of specifics here, so it's difficult to
> say, but on the whole I can't see how it'd help. If you're working with
> DSP synths, the hardware is pretty fungible since it's only a platform
> for running the algorithms; if you're working with analog, I can't see
> how you even *would* implement any kind of "lockout" on the actual
> synth circuits - and any digital hardware is just a means to control
> those, which could be subbed for by anything that can run a program and
> drive a DAC.
>
> Or are you suggesting that a modular *standard* be fitted with a lock-
> and-key system? Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, since your
> stuff won't work with everything while his stuff is free to do so -
> which puts you at a *disadvantage* compared to the other guy.
>
> And how do you propose to differentiate non-conforming pre-lockout gear
> from "unauthorized" post-lockout stuff? Or are you under the impression
> that "here's an incompatible standard we created solely to keep people
> we don't like out of the treehouse, everyone re-buy all your existing
> gear in the new format plzkthx" is anything but a laughable non-starter?

________________________________________________________
This is the Synth-diy mailing list
Submit email to: Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
View archive at: https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/
Check your settings at: https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20260909/e9c96a39/attachment.htm>