My guess is that Cake has to pay for each redemption code and that they don't get any money back from Addictive if a membership is cancelled prematurely. There would be very little reason for them to go through the bother of deleting someone's membership. It could get very complicated, especially if someone buys kits but cancels Sonar etc.

It does look like a loophole and unfair. I asked about this too and it was never fully resolved.

i'm sure cake will say something when they have something to say ;-)

Mesh
Are you planning on buying Sonar only for a month just in order to get Addictive Drums?

Yep.

200bpm
This is a legit question; I don't suspect the OP is trying to steal, just understand.

For the record, I never said steal. I did say cheat and I'll stand by that since the OP has now acknowledged (s)he plans to buy SONAR for one month (only) just to get AD2.
 
Even if CW allows it I still see it as cheating. I am, after all, entitled to my opinion.
 

Upon reflection, this is my guess:
 
The AD2 client has tight integration with their store, showing you the kits you "own" as well as the other kits they sell.  My computer is internet connected, so every time I launch AD2, it connects with their web service.  If the Cakewalk subscription lapses, it would be easy for them to disable ownership.
 
Given that 99.5% of computers are on the internet, the only way to circumvent the copy protection would be (might be) to not connect.  Then it becomes a question of whether AD2 validates every time it is launched.  My guess is yes.  Or at least there is a requirement to validate on some interval.
 
Its also possible that they don't have the software part of this worked out yet.  Someone could buy and cancel a 1mo sub to find out that they have AD2 now, but at some point in the future it could go away.   The fact that they are mum about how this works shows that they are not in a hurry to explain it.  This would discourage this kind of intent.
 
What is clear is that AD2 it tightly integrated with their web service and it would be easy for them to disable kits if connected.

bapu
For the record, I never said steal. I did say cheat and I'll stand by that since the OP has now acknowledged (s)he plans to buy SONAR for one month (only) just to get AD2.

It's only cheating/stealing if there's an explicit rule somewhere that's then broken.
 
I haven't seen any such rule. 

So moving forward, for some folks buying only one month licenses to get 3rd party deals. Sonar and these vendors will eventually work out some specials or alternatives.
For example, next time; give only the free additional packs to yearly subscribers, and to the monthly's---get the ad packs next year when you have completed the 12 month cycle. 
 

I do hope cake and xln sort this so the answer is "no!"  This might be why they haven't chimed in yet... and a smart move...
 
fix the loophole.  
 
 

Paul P

bapu
For the record, I never said steal. I did say cheat and I'll stand by that since the OP has now acknowledged (s)he plans to buy SONAR for one month (only) just to get AD2.

It's only cheating/stealing if there's an explicit rule somewhere that's then broken.
 
I haven't seen any such rule. 

That's not really true if you ask me.  It comes down to a person having a little honesty and honor about themselves.  Then again...there doesn't seem to be much of that in the world anymore.
 
People who think it's OK to pull a stunt like this should have everything they own stolen and destroyed...just to show them a lesson.  JMHO of course.

The protection of Intellectual Property is a big concern of mine since in global markets many means of protection are not enforceable, let alone prosecutable. The US patent office has countless patent infringements documented that cannot be prosecuted for this very reason (no jurisdiction).
 
Something to consider for the loyal customers who pay money yet get irate with software verification/validation is this... Cakewalk has bent over backwards to accommodate loyal customers, yet this exposes them to exploitation. I am a proponent of stricter licensing since it not only protects the company but also the customers who actually pay for a product and adhere to its intended use (which is the majority of users).
 
Unfortunately the concepts of honor/integrity tend to collapse where money or self-gain is concerned.