Forums | MacLife

Interesting.  I don't have a problem with that, really.  I noticed that it's the Windows that is getting the pilot test though.

I'd feel like a Guinea pig, but I'm still using Photoshop 3.

Go on... buy Photoshop Elements... you know you want to...

It's so good...

I'd feel like a Guinea pig, but I'm still using Photoshop 3.

Go on... buy Photoshop Elements... you know you want to...

It's so good...

::hugs his curves palette forlornly::

I'd feel like a Guinea pig, but I'm still using Photoshop 3.

Go on... buy Photoshop Elements... you know you want to...

It's so good...

::hugs his curves palette forlornly::

How do you do that forlornly? I can imagine how you'd do it fornicatingly... Maybe it's in the facial expression..?

Go on... buy Photoshop Elements... you know you want to...

It's so good...

::hugs his curves palette forlornly::

How do you do that forlornly? I can imagine how you'd do it fornicatingly... Maybe it's in the facial expression..?

Remove the glasses, make the eyes a little more puppy-doggy, turn the mouth down a little, put out the bottom lip... oh, and stick the tongue away.

Well, we buy Adobe software. But we don't have to upgrade, so if this becomes the norm I will just keep us were we are, and write them a letter telling them why.

Right.  Because it's soooo wrong for a company to protect their copyrights and enforce those darn EULAs that we agree to when installing the software.

The concept is not inherently wrong.  The wrongness applies only to the implementation of the protection.  Microsoft does it wrongly and in a way that assumes the user is a crook.  Adobe doesn't seem to be taking that road, just applying a more stringent way to fairly and unobtrusively protect their copyrights and EULAs.  I'm all for that.  As long as the implementation is done fairly, I won't complain about it, because I own and use my software fairly and legally.  I'm not a crook, and am not pirating software, so I have nothing to worry about.

When you install a lot of software it can be a pain in the ass, or if you switch out computers, etc. It creates a problem it doesn't need to. Not to mention it is an inroads into potentially more intrusive behavior.

If people accept this now, then later on maybe Adobe will want to scan your HD to make sure it agrees with everything on it. Maybe it will check to make sure you don't also have Studio MX on there.

Regardless of how the intrusion makes me feel about potential Big Brotherism. If you buy the software, you should be able to take install it without feeling like you have to have an Adobe cavity search first. Sure Adobe, here, take my money, but wait, I still have to have your permission to install? I don' think so.

How do you feel that Microsofts treats you as a crook?
Activation happens without even seeing it and you can still trade out MANY parts without having to go reactivate the Software.

You must be running a different version WinXP that I haven't seen cause you do see activation. You either have to call or let the OS do it over the internet.

Not sure about swapping many parts either. My friend put some new RAM in his system and WPA freaked out. He had to call MS to get it straight.

As for me. I own a legal copy of Windows XP Pro that has not been activated and dosen't need to be activated. You bet I cracked the thing. I don't care to deal with crap like activation and I'm not calling anyone if I decide to change out some hardware.

Thats really the nice thing about WPA though. Its trivial to break it. billions in the bank and MS still can't stop guys like me from doing what they want. Life is great. Don't sweat DRM etc. Nothing is secure.

-=Jax=-

How do you feel that Microsofts treats you as a crook?
Activation happens without even seeing it and you can still trade out MANY parts without having to go reactivate the Software.

We moved MS Publisher (yes, I know, Boo-hiss) to another computer, we put in on VPC because it's more stable than our physical PC. I had to spend 30 minutes on the phone with MS to get the activation transferred to another computer. There was no way to deactivate one and activate another, so I had to talk to a machine who then told me I needed to talk to a person who transferred me to a machine who told me I needed a human.

The human finally got me squared away but she had to put me on hold for 10 minutes while her computer figured out what was going on.

That is the nightmare side of product activation.
Hopefully Adobe is a bit better at implementing it.

Well, we buy Adobe software. But we don't have to upgrade, so if this becomes the norm I will just keep us were we are, and write them a letter telling them why.

Right.  Because it's soooo wrong for a company to protect their copyrights and enforce those darn EULAs that we agree to when installing the software.

The concept is not inherently wrong.  The wrongness applies only to the implementation of the protection.  Microsoft does it wrongly and in a way that assumes the user is a crook.  Adobe doesn't seem to be taking that road, just applying a more stringent way to fairly and unobtrusively protect their copyrights and EULAs.  I'm all for that.  As long as the implementation is done fairly, I won't complain about it, because I own and use my software fairly and legally.  I'm not a crook, and am not pirating software, so I have nothing to worry about.

How do you feel that Microsofts treats you as a crook?
Activation happens without even seeing it and you can still trade out MANY parts without having to go reactivate the Software.

Swap out a network card and you reactivate, part of the code WPA generates is from the NICs MAC address. You can replace it with the same model and chipset, doesn't matter. Same with motherboards. It's painful if you are a hobbyist or system builder. The mistake all of these companies make is worrying about the end user and not the professional pirates.

What I really wonder is if the entire desktop computer industry is trying to kill itself with activation, DRM, Palladium, etc... I agree with Twisted on some level, nothing wrong with trying to protect your intellectual property. If you wrote a book you wouldn't want someone to scan the pages and post them on a web site, you'd want people buying it. At the same time, all of these schemes are based on security by obscurity and directly attaching codes and files to a PC by making unique identfiers out of PCI ident strings, MAC addresses and serial numbers. It obviously doesn't work, is viewed as a contest by the hacking community, can lead to system instability (anyone read about Windows Turbo Tax debacle this year), and at the very least is grossly inconvenient to consumers.

Some level of content management is reasonable, but most of these activation schemes suck. I think if anyone can do this right, it's Apple with rights management for thier music service. Time will tell.

As HackerJax pointed out, DRM doesn't work. MS had WPA cracked before XP even went final. And I doubt anyone else will fare any better. The fact is, it doesn't work. So why waste their time and inconvenience their users?

I never said that anything would work 100%, so why do you assume that?  Of course anything Adobe will come up with will be cracked very quickly.  By your logic, since most security systems in homes or businesses can be bypassed, they shouldn't make them, and no one should bother to protect themselves or their property with them.  We also shouldn't make locks for our doors, because, after all, someone with the knowledge could pick the lock.  We shouldn't even use computers at all, for that matter, because every safety measure, protection, etc. can be bypassed or cracked by some hacker or another.  We should just seal ourselves in lucite bubbles 600 feet underground and suffocate to death because that's the only way we can be safe from deviant people who are out to harm or steal from others.

Adobe has a right to protect their EULAs and copyrights.  They're not invading anyone's privacy, and from the looks of it, are not adding anything that is any more inconvenient than having to enter the S/N when installing.  Like they said, they're trying to minimize the inconvenience to the normal user, and do not seem to be treating their users like crooks one bit with some intrusive scheme.  Apparently you didn't read this:

Most users will see no change in their ability to use the software the way they have always done. Adobe recognizes that software license activation systems can create a few more steps for the user and has worked hard to minimize customer inconvenience. The Adobe activation process supports installation on a primary and secondary PC as well as most system upgrades (e.g. operating system, motherboard, memory or processor). In most cases, customers can change computing environments without needing to contact Adobe Customer Support.

What is the net result here, though?  People who casually install one copy of Photoshop on 20 computers through the office, at home, etc. won't really be able to do that anymore.  Everyone who wants a copy will have to buy their own, or do without.  The serious pirates, who use cracked copies, stolen S/N's, etc. even today will still bypass it, regardless of whatever Adobe implements, because that's what those people do.

But at least the serial number is something I can do at my own leisure, with no phone calls or net access.

Not exactly.  From the way you make it sound, it doesn't seem like you've ever actually installed anything from Adobe onto any computer.  Otherwise, you'd know that you have to enter the S/N before it'll even install.  It's not something you can do at your "own leisure" because it requires Adobe's permission, via the S/N, to even install Photoshop or whatever.  Unless you're hacking/cracking the S/N process or something.

Adobe is merely trying to enforce their EULA and copyrights among the majority of users, all without inconveniencing them.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that.  They're not invading anyone's piracy.  It's not like they plan on scanning your hard drive, erasing all MP3s from it (because some might be illegal), and then contacted the Feds to come and confiscate your computer.  They're trying to keep people from casually passing the software around like a cheap hooker and taking advantage of the lack of protections and EULA enforcements.  On this matter, I think it's better for individual companies to take up the job of protecting their copyrights and EULAs than for those companies to try to get federal laws passed to do the same thing.  Now that would be scary and would definitely lead to privacy and security issues.

Besides, if people don't like it, they won't use it, or will complain about it, and Adobe will probably be forced to reconsider in the face of dwindling profits and/or sales.

Not exactly.  From the way you make it sound, it doesn't seem like you've ever actually installed anything from Adobe onto any computer.  Otherwise, you'd know that you have to enter the S/N before it'll even install.  It's not something you can do at your "own leisure" because it requires Adobe's permission, via the S/N, to even install Photoshop or whatever.  Unless you're hacking/cracking the S/N process or something.

I mean that I can do it whenever I want, with out having to rely on a third party "mother may I" system. The serial number comes in the box, I have it right in front of me. The PA, requires an extra step, that may or may not be a hassle. Since I haven't seen it I don't know. But I oppose PA on principal. It might not be the end of the world, but it contains huge potential to be a real problem on multiple levels.

So if I had a paid for Photoshop 8 upgrade that required activation, and I had an option to bypass that activation, I would. And if I do, am I in the wrong? I bought, so I don't think so. The crazy "your first born belongs to us" EULA might say otherwise, but if I agreed with every EULA I ever read, I wouldn't use any software.

I doubt anyone would ever want to copy your anus.