..... at least sometimes. Sorry, I've found your comparisions PS/PSP void and tendencious, lacking any single argument. Rescently saw a guy named PS a "snobware" -- IMHO this is explains everything.
Dmitry
Dmitry
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
adobe CS and spyware
- Thread starter Bernadette Buechler
- Start date
I agree. After using BlackIce for 4 years, I just switched to Outpost Pro. I really like BlackIce as it's extremely easy to use. The only drawback I found was with managing internet access for programs. It's just way too time consuming. I've only been using Outpost for a few days, but so far it's working fine. All I did was install it, and let it autoconfigure. From there it's easy to manage internet access.
Jack
AOM.exe is part of the online help system for PS. If you fool with that, you won't be able to access the help files.
Vern Stevens
Leading Member
but you can think what you like. I wasn't advertising any more for Adobe than you were for JASC. It matters not if you want to think of PS as "snobware". There are plenty feature comparisons that can be done on the net such that whether I explain them fully enough for you or not doesn't make a difference either. That is fact, not a judgement as to whether these added features justifies the price difference. But you should have noticed that I alluded to the idea some may prefer one of the other and that was fine with me.
Snobware, that's funny. Highly subjective, not very accurate or in your words, "void and tendencious", but funny.
VES
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
Snobware, that's funny. Highly subjective, not very accurate or in your words, "void and tendencious", but funny.
VES
--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
And this is the reason I posted. Otherwise, Vern does have a point. Of course, it does get deafening after a while.
Tom
Tom
Any specific references? Just curious to see. AFAIK if you not involved in pre-press job that requires CMYK, PS has just two features not found in PSP: healing brush and color picker on curves. At the same time it lacks many things that exist in PSP.
Dmitry
Dmitry
Vern Stevens
Leading Member
You mention two, plus the pre-press work (which counts toward the value of the software even though you appear to want to dismiss it because you personally don't use it)
16 bit editing which goes hand in had with;
Camera Raw built into PS. So far, I like this means of converting CRW files better than C1 (which I have) and Canon's software.
Not that I use it yet, but Layer Comps. Easily switchable layer combinations to see the different effects.
The patching tool. Haven't used or figured this one out yet.
The Shadow/Highlight correction tool. Mixed results so far, and may be able to be repeated, albeit with a bit more manual work.
A larger base of users (and specifically professional users) which in turn means larger access to actions, filters, and other user designed enhancements.
Color matching between images.
An improved histogram display which is real time.
Does that satisfy your curiosity?
Now, if this is leading down the road to justifying the price difference, I'll save you time. I'm not arguing about what specific value the software has to any given user. Value is a highly subjective term meaning different things to different people. The price difference clearly isn't a value to you. I understand that. I paid $300 because I have Elements. That was a great value to me, and I would have still paid full price for it if the Elements offer was not available.
Now it's your turn. What does PSP 8 have that PS CS does not (aside from the ability to edit PSP files) ?
VES
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
16 bit editing which goes hand in had with;
Camera Raw built into PS. So far, I like this means of converting CRW files better than C1 (which I have) and Canon's software.
Not that I use it yet, but Layer Comps. Easily switchable layer combinations to see the different effects.
The patching tool. Haven't used or figured this one out yet.
The Shadow/Highlight correction tool. Mixed results so far, and may be able to be repeated, albeit with a bit more manual work.
A larger base of users (and specifically professional users) which in turn means larger access to actions, filters, and other user designed enhancements.
Color matching between images.
An improved histogram display which is real time.
Does that satisfy your curiosity?
Now, if this is leading down the road to justifying the price difference, I'll save you time. I'm not arguing about what specific value the software has to any given user. Value is a highly subjective term meaning different things to different people. The price difference clearly isn't a value to you. I understand that. I paid $300 because I have Elements. That was a great value to me, and I would have still paid full price for it if the Elements offer was not available.
Now it's your turn. What does PSP 8 have that PS CS does not (aside from the ability to edit PSP files) ?
VES
--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
Vern Stevens
Leading Member
If I'm boring you, if you think my posts are redundant or deafening, do us both a favor and don't read them. Save your time for something more productive. I just check the forum guidelines again, and my posts are still not on the mandatory reading list.
If I had been specifically badgering you with repeated posts, I would understand your concern. But when you come into the middle of a thread that you were previously uninvolved in and tell me to shut up, it's not going to be met with a favorable response.
What you didn't point out in your mathmatical evaluation in your previous post was that although I have the highest post ratio in this thread (for which there is no rule I"m breaking), I was responding to several different posters, challenging each of their points of view.
But trust me when I say, I'm not going to stop responding to posts that I wish to respond to just because you don't want to read them. I certainly have to wade through enough autofocus posts in the 10D forum and I don't complain about it anymore. I just ignore them, along with many posts by the users who pound the issue into the ground. You have that option here.
Fair enough Tom?
VES
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
If I had been specifically badgering you with repeated posts, I would understand your concern. But when you come into the middle of a thread that you were previously uninvolved in and tell me to shut up, it's not going to be met with a favorable response.
What you didn't point out in your mathmatical evaluation in your previous post was that although I have the highest post ratio in this thread (for which there is no rule I"m breaking), I was responding to several different posters, challenging each of their points of view.
But trust me when I say, I'm not going to stop responding to posts that I wish to respond to just because you don't want to read them. I certainly have to wade through enough autofocus posts in the 10D forum and I don't complain about it anymore. I just ignore them, along with many posts by the users who pound the issue into the ground. You have that option here.
Fair enough Tom?
VES
--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
Mark Rehmar
Well-known member
There was a lot of discussion last year about SafeCast and C-dilla technology when Intuit used it on their tax program.
As I recall the main objections were:
1. Safecast ran whether or not the program (in that case, TurboTax) was running, using up resources. Though the resource use was small, it was a real issue with DOS based OS, such as W98SE. With an NT kernel OS, such as XP, it should be less of an issue, especially since most folks running Photoshop probably have pretty robust configurations.
2. Removing the program did not remove Safecast! Does anyone know if this is true of the Photoshop implementation? If so, that's a real bummer.
3. This is the big one: Intuit was really nasty about resolving activation conflicts. There were a lot of posts saying that Intuit interpreted the activation to only allow one activation on one computer. That is, if you got a new computer, uninstalled TurboTax from your old computer and installed on your new one, you had to pay a new license fee!
So the real meat of issue seems to be how Adobe will administer the activation. Since you do need to reactivate after changing system configuration, getting a new computer, or often just because SafeCast burbs, the question is if Adobe will be accessable by phone and will easily resolve such re-activation.
While I hate the idea of SafeCast - too close to big brother - if Adobe implements it in a user friendly way I can live with it. If Adobe starts treating their paying customers like crooks, I, and I think many others, will run away quickly.
BTW, I don't believe SafeCast is truely spyware, in the sense that it sends out information to Adobe. I believe that it checks if the computer configuation is the same, and won't allow photoshop to boot if it determines too much has changed.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone who had activation problems, and how Adobe resolved them.
As I recall the main objections were:
1. Safecast ran whether or not the program (in that case, TurboTax) was running, using up resources. Though the resource use was small, it was a real issue with DOS based OS, such as W98SE. With an NT kernel OS, such as XP, it should be less of an issue, especially since most folks running Photoshop probably have pretty robust configurations.
2. Removing the program did not remove Safecast! Does anyone know if this is true of the Photoshop implementation? If so, that's a real bummer.
3. This is the big one: Intuit was really nasty about resolving activation conflicts. There were a lot of posts saying that Intuit interpreted the activation to only allow one activation on one computer. That is, if you got a new computer, uninstalled TurboTax from your old computer and installed on your new one, you had to pay a new license fee!
So the real meat of issue seems to be how Adobe will administer the activation. Since you do need to reactivate after changing system configuration, getting a new computer, or often just because SafeCast burbs, the question is if Adobe will be accessable by phone and will easily resolve such re-activation.
While I hate the idea of SafeCast - too close to big brother - if Adobe implements it in a user friendly way I can live with it. If Adobe starts treating their paying customers like crooks, I, and I think many others, will run away quickly.
BTW, I don't believe SafeCast is truely spyware, in the sense that it sends out information to Adobe. I believe that it checks if the computer configuation is the same, and won't allow photoshop to boot if it determines too much has changed.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone who had activation problems, and how Adobe resolved them.
Chris
Senior Member
I agree with David, anybody capable of doing just minor 'countering' can bypass or block these programs. Meanwhile the honest user 'pays' for allowing Adobe to inspect something they have no right to.
No, it is like locking your door, but having to give Adobe a key so they can check to see if they dvd you bought is being used correctly. They therefore must be assuming that you're going to do something illegal, if they assumed that you wouldn't they wouldn't want the key.
Everyone could be 'bad', but that does not give someone the right to assume they arel. Activation is about you having to prove you didn't do anything wrong. It should be that they have to prove you did do something wrong.
It isn't the practical aspect that I don't like, it is the implication that comes with it. I earn a living writing software, I pay for the stuff I use and you're welcome to come to the Netherlands and inspect my machines. I have lots of shareware, all properly paid for. I'm lucky that my employer has a license that allows me to use some of the more expensive software at home without me paying for it (PS isn't one of them BTW). To my knowledge I have no cracked / hacked software installed. But I don't run XP (stayed with 2000), will not upgrade Norton Systemworks 2003.
Consider this, a well known company had a profit margin of 80% (which is pretty big for most other companies), but still claimed they losts lots of money to hackers (which is to some extent true). They implemented activation and declared it a success, but the paying users were not 'rewarded' for their willingness to put up with a little extra inconvinience, the price remains at the same level. No points for guessing what that will do for their profit margin.
To tackle theft a company has several options, activation is only one. There are other ways of protecting ones work and investment.
Would you trust a commercial company to act in your best interest? I don't think so, companies should rightly act in their best interest. I just don't think that I should be helping them do that without being compensated. And I resent the assumption that I have to prove that I'm within 'specified' parameters. I know I am, and if they don't agree I dare them to prove it. And the idea (I do swap out large number of components from time to time as I build all my own PC's myself) of taking to someone on the 'activation helpline' to please allow me to use the software I have the legal right to use is weird to the extreme. I don't worry about the inconvenience (potential or otherwise) but the principle of it all does.
As for the CS thingie. I guess if you wrote a little service that does nothing, has the same name as the CS spyer, with a high version number and put it in place AND get windows to monitor changes to the file (like they do with most of the SYSTEM32 content) you'd probably block the Adobe component. Any attempt by Adobe to put their fiile back will then be blocked by windows! Besides, this means adobe is keeping a copy somewhere, or getting windows to do that. Find and eliminate the copy and that might be enough. But check the Adobe EULA, it might be illegal to do so. Actively defeating a copy protection can be a serious offense depending on your location. No bonus points for guessing why it is illegal to defeat a mechanism that assumes your guilty ;-) I guess there is no profit in protecting 'assumed innocent until proven guilty'.
Chris
Vern Stevens
Leading Member
As an honest user, I don't feel I'm "paying" anything in activating the program, or allowing that service to run in the background while I'm using PSCS.
I'll give you that your analogy is probably closer than mine. However I still disagree with you assessment of their assumption. They are not assuming you SPECIFICALLY are going to steal from them, they are assuming, and rightfully so, that SOMEONE is going to steal from them. If they could positively identify all the thieves, then I would support you in saying this measure would be too assuming, too invasive. As it is, we both have the option of not using the software, know that this is part of the package. I choose to use it.
See above ref: your assessment of their assumption. And this isn't a court, they don't have to prove anything, and you don't have to use their software.
You trust me more than Adobe, to allow me to come in your house and inspect your machines, that's good.
(j/k)I think it's great that you pay for what you use, or that you use legally obtained versions from your employer. I commend you for you integrity.
You keep talking about how you FEEL when using this software and their activation. I don't think people design software or protection schemes to make people FEEL one way or another. They do it for their protection, whether its fullproof or not. I'm not sure they can avoid how people are going to feel about it. I wouldn't ask anyone to do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or guilty (except when I'm arresting someone). Likewise, most people won't do things that make the feel that way. Buying and using software should be the same thing. If it feels uncomfortable, don't do it.
I won't bother reiterating the idea of choices again. I will reiterate, the most effective way to address a concern with products or services is to hit them in the wallet. I'm a firm believer in NOT SUPPORTING companies whose products and services I don't like. I will back you 1000% on that idea. But if it comes to trying to send them a message by stealing their product or service, I part company.
And an important one, because that is the one they have chosen. The ones that call the shots. Yes, there are other ways, but they didn't choose those.
When you hire a real estate agent or lawyer, you are relying on a "company" to represent your best interests. That is an instance where many people trust them. No, that doesn't mean I trust anyone carte blanche though. However, I have no specific reason to believe that Adobe has it in for me, and wants to spy on my computer system. I believe their efforts are strictly used for the prevention of piracy of their program. Unfortunately, I can't help you with your resentments. I build my own PC's as well, and tweak settings, change hardware. I suppose soon I may find out if the activation thing is going to be a problem. I personally don't think it is, but I will find out sooner or later. If I DO have a REAL problem, not just a perceived or potential problem, I'll be the first to come back here and advise others. However, at this point, I still hold with the idea that most legitimate users problems with activation are perceptual, not real. As for any compensation you might be due in assisting them, you can always seek the services of an attorney and initiate a suit if you feel strongly enough.
With specific regards to the idea "assumed innocent until proven guilty", that is a strictly legal concept having to do with criminal prosecution. In that respect, it sounds good, but it is non-sequitur to the conversation because this isn't about them prosecuting you in a criminal manner. It's about a civil business practice that affects you. The civil process is open for you to pursue.
With regards to the rest, this is where I tend to be more flexible in my thinking. If you have bought and paid for the program, and you bypass it's protection scheme for YOUR OWN use and convenience, more power to you. For the most part, I believe people that invent this circum-inventions ( a new word maybe
) are not doing it for their own personal use. They are doing it to make piracy of the software easier. I could be wrong on that, but I doubt it.While I disagree with much or what you are saying here, I do appreciate your more level-headed, rational approach to discussing the issue.
VES
--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
Dan Honemann
Senior Member
Many thanks for the recommendations. I'll give Zone Alarm and Outpost Pro a try. I do have a router which protects me from incoming traffic, but I'll need firewall software to stop the outgoing stuff.
Dan
Dan
Well, seems things are going to another thread but while we're within retouching forum I believe it's still valid. I'll try to be as short as possible though. Note that since I do not have PS in hands my comparison is based on what I remember and may be sometimes imprecise; correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Fully customized workspace
2. Lossles JPEG rotation right from the file browser without need to open files.
3. Picture tubes
4. Picture frames
5. Way more powerful vector graphics
6. Selection modification modes far more powerful that in PS; specifically I'd mention fantastic selection edit mode, 3 modes of feathering, antialiasing.
7. Hue/Saturation/Lightness brushes
8. Change to Target brush mentioned above
9. Filters: Clarify, Black/White Points, Manual Color Correction, Fade Correction, Hue Map, Soft Focus, Seamless Tiling
10. Correction of lens distortions
11. Dedicated perspective correction and straightening tools
12. Warp Mech
Well, enough I believe. I might forget something but it wasn't my goal to make full comparison; I just wanted to show that there is plenty of PSP features missing in PS or implemented worse; I'd say some of them are really vital for me, much more than CMYK separation.
Dmitry
Exactly. I wouldn't pay a penny for pre-press features and I'm sure 90% of PS users do not need them either.
I'm still not sure that this feature is vital. I bet should you've been asked to distinct two series of printed images processed the same way in 8 and 16 bit mode this might make a problem to you. Posterization that can be seen on a histogram is of no value if it is not noticeable on prints. OTOH 16-bit mode needs more processing power and therefore slows down the performance.
AFAIK it isn't part of PS but a plug-n that by itself costs 2x of PSP price.
Not sure what you're talking about. PSP has quite powerful layers management, you can do everything you want. One feature that PSP lacks comparing to PS I've forgot to mention is layers styles.
The tool is interesting sometimes but can be easily emulated in PSP.
I have PSP script that does the same with one click.
I believe you may spend the rest of your life exploring thousands of web resources that propose similar stuff for PSP.
PSP has Change to Target brush that AFAIK is far more functional than PS color matching.
Didn't have a chance to see what's happening in PS CS but others report that PS's histogram adjustment tool is still rudimentary comparing to PSP.
No. You referred to features comparison available somewhere.
I see this differently. I never pay for a brand; I pay for functionality. It's highly subjective which app is better but it's obvious that PS benefits, if any, do not cost 7x of PSP price.
This is something that come in mind immediately; I may forget something of course.
1. Fully customized workspace
2. Lossles JPEG rotation right from the file browser without need to open files.
3. Picture tubes
4. Picture frames
5. Way more powerful vector graphics
6. Selection modification modes far more powerful that in PS; specifically I'd mention fantastic selection edit mode, 3 modes of feathering, antialiasing.
7. Hue/Saturation/Lightness brushes
8. Change to Target brush mentioned above
9. Filters: Clarify, Black/White Points, Manual Color Correction, Fade Correction, Hue Map, Soft Focus, Seamless Tiling
10. Correction of lens distortions
11. Dedicated perspective correction and straightening tools
12. Warp Mech
Well, enough I believe. I might forget something but it wasn't my goal to make full comparison; I just wanted to show that there is plenty of PSP features missing in PS or implemented worse; I'd say some of them are really vital for me, much more than CMYK separation.
Dmitry
if you're like me, dont really know what a firewall is, how it works, and how to configure it, zonealarm is by far the most popular firewall, probably the easiest to use, it is extremely effective, requires basically no configuration, and it's free
feivel
Vern Stevens
Leading Member
Your guess may be as good as mine there.
You didn't state anything about what was "vital". However, there is a benefit to wider color ranges, both conceptual and practical. Performance is quite another thing. There are definitely times I experience slower processing of filters and effects with PSP8 than PS CS, and that's in 8 bit mode. I have a P4 3.06 Ghz, 1 gig ram machine. The slowness is not a problem, but it is slower.
It is built in to PS CS. No extra cost. And very useful to the workflow. No need for a seperate program, switching between, etc..
Layer comps allows you to do several different editing versions, and then easily switch between the comps to see the different effects on the image. Its good for making quick comparisons without having to have multiple images saved and opened.
But PSP doesn't have it built in. However, I understand your point.
I'll have to explore you belief in that matter, but not such that I WILL spend the rest of my life doing it. That being the case, there's probably two or three lifetimes worth of PS resources, and likely more from professional sources.
So you have used the Color Matching tool which is new to PS CS? How is it more functional?
I got the impression that since you knew about the Color Matching tool, you had used PS CS. Well, as long as others report, I guess that's a legitimate source.
Poor wording on my part. For that I apologize. The features and powers of both theses programs is readily available from many different resources, and one can make comparison based on that information. Or you can just choose not to believe me. Either way.
I buy based on functionality as well. I owe no particular allegiance to Adobe. I just think that PS is a better tool overall than PSP. I have both, have used both, and that's my opinion. I can use either so I have the best of both worlds. But the vast majority of time, I use PS CS.
PS CS has it.
PS CS has it.
Okay, you got me there. If I want to put butterflies, dinosaurs or pieces of candy all over my picture, I have to do it manually. Yes, I recognize that some folks "need" to do that. Picture Tubes is not a feature that I use, and certainly don't consider, as you say, vital.
That I'll have to explore in PS CS and get back to you.
I don't mess with vector graphics much, so out of ignorance as to how functional it is or isn't in PS CS, I'll give you this one.
I have to explore this one more in PS CS. I know that selections, layers and masking are quite powerful. As to whether any thing that can be done in PSP8 can't be easily done in PS CS, I'll check into.
Easily done in PS. In fact, any layer blending mode, as well as several other options can be used as brush options, right from the brush.
Not sure what this does, or how useful it is. Will look at it.
I believe PS CS does all this as well, easily. I will verify and get back with you.
Have to explore this one.
Easily done and so basic with the crop tool, it doesn't need to be a dedicated feature.
Not built in, but also not "vital". Can be simulated with new Liquify feature and repeated accurately on different images by use of actions.
So it comes down to subjectivity and preference. As I said, I have both, I can use either as needed. But I prefer PS CS. Now that we have come almost full circle I'll point out the two OPINIONS that started this whole discourse;
You said, PSP does the same if not better (for less money). Subjective.
I said, I don't think it nearly does as good a job. It is definitely quick full featured for the price, and a nice program in general. But PS CS can do quite a few more things. Whether those things are useful to you or not is obviously a different matter. Subjective, also, not a slam either.
I would probably even give you that bang for buck, it probably represents a better value for most consumers.
VES
--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)
http://www.pbase.com/vsteven
Fine. That was my original point and I'm happy you agree with it. I never blamed PS; it's an excellent piece of software. What I said was that being overpriced it IMO doesn't give acceptable price/value ratio for majority of consumers.
BTW do not forget: proven, PSP is not a spyware!)
Dmitry
BTW do not forget: proven, PSP is not a spyware!
)Dmitry
D©P Images
Forum Enthusiast
Gale,
That's a great idea and that's how consumer protest movements work, but don't expect everybody to support you! Remember you are dealing with big money. I know these boards have participants from the companies who 'work the boards' and try to head off dissent! Just like they employ sales people and promotional staff elsewhere. Keep that in mind!
By the same token. These boards are therefore the best place to make consumer opinion known - a good way to provide direct feedback to where it counts.
David
That's a great idea and that's how consumer protest movements work, but don't expect everybody to support you! Remember you are dealing with big money. I know these boards have participants from the companies who 'work the boards' and try to head off dissent! Just like they employ sales people and promotional staff elsewhere. Keep that in mind!
By the same token. These boards are therefore the best place to make consumer opinion known - a good way to provide direct feedback to where it counts.
David
Mark H.174110
Well-known member
... abandoning SafeCast in TurboTax, and taking out full page adds in national newspapers apologizing for using it, and begging their customers to return.
In this case, there dosesn't seem to be as competitive an alternative, but time (and the market) will tell.
From the Intuit web site:
Q: What changes to anti-piracy technology are being planned for TurboTax 2003 products?
A: In response to customer feedback, we have removed the technology from TurboTax 2003 products. In addition, Intuit is changing its policy and updating the TurboTax software license agreement, enabling customers to use TurboTax software to install, prepare, file and print multiple returns for themselves and their family from multiple computers.
mh
In this case, there dosesn't seem to be as competitive an alternative, but time (and the market) will tell.
From the Intuit web site:
Q: What changes to anti-piracy technology are being planned for TurboTax 2003 products?
A: In response to customer feedback, we have removed the technology from TurboTax 2003 products. In addition, Intuit is changing its policy and updating the TurboTax software license agreement, enabling customers to use TurboTax software to install, prepare, file and print multiple returns for themselves and their family from multiple computers.
mh
[...sniped...]
How about using a software firewall like ZoneAlarm and denying it access to the Internet.... atleast that way, there is no information going out from your machine.... but does that stop PS CS from loading?
Anyone tried this yet? I don't own a copy yet, so I can't test it myself.
Anyone tried this yet? I don't own a copy yet, so I can't test it myself.
Chris
Senior Member
As long as you are convinced that what the service does doesn't harm you. But there is no way of knowing. Some EULA's out there actually reserve the right to collect information on other software ? I don't think this is ok.
If they make me 'prove' that I didn't they are. The ends don't always justify the means.
No because that would cost them money. But copying software is akin to theft.
But there's a difference. It is my house, my PC's and I'm there to verify that what you record and what you inspect is reasonable. You trust some piece of binary data to do the same, but there is no way of checking that. Adobe is welcome to come in, just not by using their software.You trust me more than Adobe, to allow me to come in your house and
inspect your machines, that's good.
My use of 'feel' is just another word for strongly suspecting something without being able to fully prove it. It might not be correct, but then grammar was never a my strong point. Some of the newer EULA's reserve rights for the companies that go beyond 'just protecting' their investment. Most actually had a very simple form of protection, the price. Considering the profit you could argue that worked. Knowing that they would be losing to pirates they now try to block that as well. You could argue that the companies have been breaking the law by allowing theft and then using that to make more money. I agree 100% that users as a group cannot be trusted, but the same goes for the companies?
I can't agree more, so I flatly refuse to use software that has activation. So far I've managed to do so.
We do by buying that stuff. If nobody bought activated software, activation would be removed in months. But on the whole people don't read EULA's and press 'Next' when instructed to do so. So they are selling on ignorance and they know it. The lack of outrage amazes me. The inability of a company to deal with the problem is taken out on the customers they deal with. A serious hacker/cracker/thief or whatever the term du jour is, isn't hindered one bit by the measure.
MS has EULA's allowing them to inspect the environment to look for software that as they say 'prevent the MS stuff from running'. It is just legalise for looking for software that could break DRM. I don't know the Adobe EULA and they are a pain to read, but you should, in detail.
In day to day practice you're right, activation is relative painless operation. Of course it is, the company has an interest to make it so. In the future it might come back to haunt you. The industry as a whole has been nudging general sentiment towards full data inspection of end-user environments. Every single time the arguments for those in agreement are similar, they just protect what is theirs to protect, it is easy to do etc... etc.. Even so, there is a shift towards more and more control a company has over the use of their software on your machine. The general slow change ensures that nobody cares enough to protest. Once the next 'base' is reached it becomes 'accepted' practice and we move on to next. There's a difference to being right and being able to assert that right. If someone is willing to cover the legal costs I would be glad to take them to court.
I don't enough about this to comment, but I do know that some that are are very much against the legal implications of software activation and the way it is implemented.
Actually you don't pay for the program / product. You pay for a license to run it. You don't own the software or have any rights beyond what the license says. Defeating the copy protection is just as much a violation of the terms as copying it and giving it to your friend.
Who knows, perhaps one day I'll be convinced that activation is harmless. So far this hasn't happened.....
All the best, Chris
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum