adobe CS and spyware

[bruce komusin]

I would imagine denying internet access to CS would not prevent CS from loading and working because, after all, Adobe cannot assume that everyone has internet access, or even that everyone has a modem in their computer (which could be used to call a free Adobe 800-number to call home to Adobe.)
-bruce

Anyone tried this yet? I don't own a copy yet, so I can't test it
myself.

my husband came across this post on the rec.video.desktop
newsgroup-had never come across this before.

post says :
If you've bought Photoshop CS and have noticed a new service
called "Adobe LM Service", this is Macrovision SafeCast spyware.

This spyware cannot be disabled. When the startup type in WinXP
or Windows 2000 is set to "disabled", SafeCast re-enables itself the
next time Photoshop is started.

Just an FYI for anyone considering upgrading. Adobe has finally
fallen over the edge.

responses were:
Not quite a virus, but SafeCast does a lot more than advertised.

Each time Photoshop is started, SafeCast takes an inventory of
the machine it's installed on, and will refuse to load the application
if it decides too much has changed. The copy protection appears
to be analogous to that found in Windows XP:

and
The most frightening part of SafeCast is that the licensing terms
can be changed AFTER THE PRODUCT IS PURCHASED.
So, for example, if Abobe decides to make Photoshop a
pay-per-use application and customers do not agree to these
terms, Adobe can remotely pull the plug on these customer

has anyone heard things like this. First i have come across it. I
haven't upgraded and things like this give me food for thought for
sure.

 

[Greg Anzalone]

Is this a WinDoze version only type of thing?

my husband came across this post on the rec.video.desktop
newsgroup-had never come across this before.

post says :
If you've bought Photoshop CS and have noticed a new service
called "Adobe LM Service", this is Macrovision SafeCast spyware.

This spyware cannot be disabled. When the startup type in WinXP
or Windows 2000 is set to "disabled", SafeCast re-enables itself the
next time Photoshop is started.

Just an FYI for anyone considering upgrading. Adobe has finally
fallen over the edge.

responses were:
Not quite a virus, but SafeCast does a lot more than advertised.

Each time Photoshop is started, SafeCast takes an inventory of
the machine it's installed on, and will refuse to load the application
if it decides too much has changed. The copy protection appears
to be analogous to that found in Windows XP:

and
The most frightening part of SafeCast is that the licensing terms
can be changed AFTER THE PRODUCT IS PURCHASED.
So, for example, if Abobe decides to make Photoshop a
pay-per-use application and customers do not agree to these
terms, Adobe can remotely pull the plug on these customer

has anyone heard things like this. First i have come across it. I
haven't upgraded and things like this give me food for thought for
sure.

--
Greg Anzalone
http://www.greganzalone.com

 

[Vern Stevens]

Vern Stevens wrote:

V

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.

Yes, I don't think it harms me, that's why I'm not concerned with it.

If they make me 'prove' that I didn't they are. The ends don't
always justify the means.

I see this as business. You see it as something personal. There are terms of agreement to do business in this case. I can't say often enough, if you don't like the terms of the arrangement, you don't do business with them. It can't be simpler than that.

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 missed the (j/K) which stands for just kidding and the smiley.

You keep talking about how you FEEL when using this software and
their activation. 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

I can't agree more, so I flatly refuse to use software that has
activation. So far I've managed to do so.

That's great then. I have no beef with you. If you stand by your principles in not supporting a company with whom you don't like their practices, and you don't steal their product as a result, I think that's great.

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.

People are buying the software, some out of ignorance, others not. The lack of outrage may be that from the ignorance, or just that others aren't as paranoid as some folks. The lack of outrage may be for reasons other than what you believe them to be. After all, you apparently have an expectation of how you think people should act, and they are not acting according to your expectation, suggesting you didn't know that.

I'm surprised at the number of people who think they know better how to handle the piracy business than the people actually running the companies. I'm curious as to why they themselves aren't running multi-billion dollar companies with excellent business practices. The somewhat sarcastic point I'm trying to make is, there are plenty of armchair quarterbacks out there who think they have it all figured out. But they aren't the ones making things happen.

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.

I don't feel the need to. But, likewise, if I suffer some consequence for my inaction (which I don't believe I will) I know I have only myself to blame.

(snip)

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.

There are attorneys out there who will take pro bono cases against large corporations if it's high profile enough, and has MERIT. My personal opinion is that that suit would not have merit. You can elect not to participate in the agreement, as you have chosen to do.

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.

Yes, I understand that concept, but the net result is, if your pay for the license, the folks who did the work are not being cheated out of the fruits of their labor. That being the case, if you use the software solely, but bypass the activation or monitoring, I could care less. You aren't really cheating anyone out of anything so long as your the sole user.

While I disagree with much or what you are saying here,

Who knows, perhaps one day I'll be convinced that activation is
harmless. So far this hasn't happened.....

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm only stating why I'm not concerned with it.

Take care,

VES

--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Gary Steel]

Lots of debate but some points I would like to make.

From what I read about the 'cracked version' of Photoshop, all the spy ware mechanisms have been removed from the source code by the hackers. So what you end up with is a distributed hacked copy used by people who have made the choice to use it having a hassle free, spy ware free time whilst at the same time, legitimate users owning legitimate copies are having their legal versions contact the world wide web with absolutely no choice in the matter. Some legal users have stated in earlier threads that they have had no reward from adobe for supporting and using their products in the proper manner. No wonder adobe loose out to hacked copy users.

I would never ever knowingly support or purchase any product that contains 'ANY' form of spy ware. It's the most lame deal I have ever seen.

I fought a long battle 2 years a go with a company called 'Gamespy' that implemented spy ware in it's download client package. I won the battle and now when you install it, you get the choice not to let it install the spy ware package during the client install.

Adobe and company's alike, should also start thinking about drastically reducing the price of their products. This may be the first realistic and pro-active solution to piratism of their products. This will serve to put the price of the product within the budget of some of us poorer users.

And finally . . . Everything was peachy for Adobe 4 years ago when they where shown to be deliberately inactive towards hackers hacking their products. Why? Well it's the old Microsoft story of allowing a product to illegally flood the market hence gaining the 'Market Share'. Clever strategy that has made them the huge company's tat they are today. If you would like me to enlighten you all on how flooding the market with illegal copies of software causes this phenomenon, let me know and I will explain.

 

[Chris]

I see this as business. You see it as something personal. There
are terms of agreement to do business in this case. I can't say
often enough, if you don't like the terms of the arrangement, you
don't do business with them. It can't be simpler than that.

I don't see it as personal, but we might be coming from a different angles here. If a business agreement would ask of you to surrender a finger then you reason that you have choice upfront, but once you agree anything goes. I reason that the agreement should never contain elements which are 'unreasonable'. This is an important principle in the Dutch legal system and it is designed to protect the public from well hidden rip offs (for want of another term). The question is if activation and more importantly, the subsequent procedures to affirm your still legal are reasonable. I say no, you say yes. It is an important and fundamental question and whilst the question is easy to ask, the answer isn't as straightforward as you state.

You missed the (j/K) which stands for just kidding and the smiley.

Yes I did miss that, but the difference is important. I read that the Adobe EULA mentions something about altering the terms on the go. Under Dutch law that is illegal and can be ignored, but it might not be elsewhere. Mind you I haven't read it myself so I could be way off base here.

People are buying the software, some out of ignorance, others not.
The lack of outrage may be that from the ignorance, or just that
others aren't as paranoid as some folks. The lack of outrage may
be for reasons other than what you believe them to be. After all,
you apparently have an expectation of how you think people should
act, and they are not acting according to your expectation,
suggesting you didn't know that.

Sign of the times I guess, people's priorities within the current economic framework are elsewhere. And companies are doing a good job on producing as little noise as possible.

I'm surprised at the number of people who think they know better
how to handle the piracy business than the people actually running
the companies. I'm curious as to why they themselves aren't
running multi-billion dollar companies with excellent business
practices. The somewhat sarcastic point I'm trying to make is,
there are plenty of armchair quarterbacks out there who think they
have it all figured out. But they aren't the ones making things
happen.

There plenty of examples where the execs got it all wrong. I'm not stating I could run a business better, but on this particular point I think they're wrong. It also depends of course what you define as better, examples of short term blow ups (Enron?) are just too easy. And even though it isn't common practice yet, one has already decided to cancel activation and go back. With XP it is near to impractical to do so for most (monopoly and misuse). So it isn't unavoidable, it just takes a little non buying.

I don't feel the need to. But, likewise, if I suffer some
consequence for my inaction (which I don't believe I will) I know I
have only myself to blame.

http://boston.internet.com/news/print.php/1485861 or http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/08/04/132221.shtml?tid=109

(snip)
There are attorneys out there who will take pro bono cases against
large corporations if it's high profile enough, and has MERIT. My
personal opinion is that that suit would not have merit. You can
elect not to participate in the agreement, as you have chosen to do.

It doesn't quite work like that over here ;-)

Yes, I understand that concept, but the net result is, if your pay
for the license, the folks who did the work are not being cheated
out of the fruits of their labor. That being the case, if you use
the software solely, but bypass the activation or monitoring, I
could care less. You aren't really cheating anyone out of anything
so long as your the sole user.

It is interesting that you accept one term of agreement but tend to allow violation of another...

All the best, Chris

 

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, I just downloaded and installed ZoneAlarm (free!) and when I launched PS CS, ZoneAlarm popped up its alert window asking if I want to let CS access the internet. I answered NO, and CS launched the rest of the way and seems to work fine.

So... YES, CS does seem to access the internet whenever you launch it, and NO, it will not crash if you deny that access through a firewall program like ZoneAlarm.

Thanks to all who recommended this program to me--it works great!

Dan

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.

 

[Peter Berressem]

Is this a WinDoze version only type of thing?

Yes, as far as I know it doesn't affect Mac OS.
Looks as if Adobe is on Steve Job's pay roll.....

--
Regards,
Peter B.

 

[Vern Stevens]

Vern Stevens wrote:

(snip)

The question is if activation and more importantly, the subsequent
procedures to affirm your still legal are reasonable. I say no, you
say yes. It is an important and fundamental question and whilst
the question is easy to ask, the answer isn't as straightforward as
you state.

Bingo. Agreed.

Sign of the times I guess, people's priorities within the current
economic framework are elsewhere. And companies are doing a good
job on producing as little noise as possible.

Perhaps.

There plenty of examples where the execs got it all wrong. I'm not
stating I could run a business better, but on this particular point
I think they're wrong. It also depends of course what you define as
better, examples of short term blow ups (Enron?) are just too easy.
And even though it isn't common practice yet, one has already
decided to cancel activation and go back. With XP it is near to
impractical to do so for most (monopoly and misuse). So it isn't
unavoidable, it just takes a little non buying.

Of course it's easy to come up with lots of examples. But looking at successful businesses, I think they WAY out number the glaring examples of CEO's gone wrong. The point is, it's nice to sit back and critique, it's quite another thing to actually be at the helm.

http://boston.internet.com/news/print.php/1485861 or
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/08/04/132221.shtml?tid=109

I will read these "articles" and perhaps comment on them later if you wish. However, I will preface that with what could be a whole different topic. News reporting. I take much of it with a grain of salt because I have seen first hand, numerous times, how grossly inaccurate it can be, and how biased it can be. Aside from that, the current paranoia that many people suffer from when watching news segments on homicides, robberies, scandals, corruption etc. is something I don't suffer from either. There is what is reported, and quite frequently over-emphasized, and then there is the reality.

For instance, the DC area sniper case. I will assume for the moment you are familiar with this. If not, I will provide further info. These two guys shot a hand full of people over a period of around three weeks. The news coverage was 24/7. Many people, within say 100 miles of the area where these shootings took place, were living in mortal fear anytime they went to the grocery store, the gas station, the mall, etc. We're talking a population of (at a wild guess) 1-2 million people easily, many of whom as I said, living in fear that they would be the next sniper victim. People were vacationing for the weekend as far as 200 miles away just so they could feel safe for a little while. The reality was any given persons chance of being a victim was problem somewhere around their chances of winning the big lottery. Really, really, really remote.

My point? Sometimes folks see a relatively few stories on a subject or reports of a problem or incident and drastically overreact. No sense of proportion. I'm not saying this is you, I'm saying it's not me. I'm very much into (what I believe to be) putting things into perspective.

It doesn't quite work like that over here ;-)

Probably a uniquely American phenomenom. Lawyers can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em.

It is interesting that you accept one term of agreement but tend to
allow violation of another...

Very simple principle really, compensation. One term denies the rightful persons from being paid for their work, the other has no effect on the rigthful parties at all. I see that as a huge difference. In much the same respect, I support some laws, and don't support some others. I try not to blanketly believe in anything.

Take it easy,

VES

--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Vern Stevens]

On the first article, the first thing I am suspect of is the titling. When you ask a question in the title, if you do not provide a definitive answer in the narrative, you lead the reader into possibly wild speculation. If the reporter has done his/her job, during the investigation of the facts, they should generally have determined whether the law is indeed violated here or not. Weigh the circumstances reported vs. the law and you have an answer. Instead, the article says, some guy believes the laws are being broken. To actually validate this article, you have to research on your own (the EULA, and the law) in order to derive a truly informed opinion. Either that or just trust the media. I'm more distrusting of the media than I am of corporations, but that's because of my personal experience.

Red flag statements or statements that raise my suspicion;

"but if true" - aren't they supposed to be telling me this, not leaving it to conjecture?

"That makes Warby nervous." - Good for Warby. Of no interest to me. I don't care what makes him nervous. I care about reported, verifiable facts.

If in the the end, their EULA violates the law, they should be prosecuted. I have no problem with that. If not, this is media hype for the purpose of stirring up people's emotions.

Second article. The first problem I have is the prominently displayed picture of Bill Gates photo-morphed as a Borg. That raises questions of maturity and objectivity. I realize this is a lead in site, but that remains in my mind from the start.

So ALL Register readers are "alarmed" with this EULA? Tight bunch. Unusually tight. Normally you can't get even a small group of people together to agree on something. (ex. This forum )

Sounds like the guy didn't agree with the EULA so he didn't install it. Works for me.

Lastly, there are such a wide variety of "news" sources on the internet. Some of the them credible, some not. We each have to decide which ones we think are credible based on our own criteria I guess.

Regards,

VES

--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Chris]

They don't say much in absolute terms, but unless tested in court there is always room for interpretation. But the issue raised is this: if an EULA states something that contradicts another legal restriction, which one wins? Again the company can write what they want in an EULA, but whose to say they actually have that right or can enforce that right.

The second article is of course easy to find, slashdot is littered with people that view MS as the big evil. The positive side effect is that they pick up on weird EULA's. It is references much the same point. MS have reserved the right to access any pc that has this software installed. It is there in MS writing.

Will they do this? No, not any time soon. But the obvious danger is this; if they keep it in the EULA for a couple of years and then start to actually access pc's remotely (and in a couple of years time that might not be a particular hard thing to do) they will claim that this provision has been in there for years. This is popular trick and makes their case much stronger.

There was a big stink some time ago about the EULA for media player as it claimed the right to examine software and prevent it from breaking DRM. Effectively they were allowed to disable any program that didn't comply with their DRM management. Big noise, MS retracted the EULA. But in long term thinking they are testing sentiment. Activation was on the table before W2K, it went away (because of the response) and came back with XP. By now the PR machine focussed entirely on the practical aspects saying that it would (and it is) be a painless operation for virtually everybody. But did they mention what the legal implications were, of course not.

You can call me paranoid, and perhaps I am, but there is a very clear pattern here. It doesn't stop with activation, check out discussions on palladium (or NGSCB as its being rebadged as). Again there is a strong focus on how easy it will makes our lives and not a lot on the other stuff. Of course it is pure coincidence that the other stuff just happens to be benificial to big companies wanting total control of the market place. This phase is so similar to the one on activation during the NT4 period.

Being able to exert that amount of control is worth a lot to companies. Imaging MS being able to spy on a desktop of all it's windows XXXXP users. That information is worth a lot of money. So will they invest in this technology (as they do) and try to cash in or can we trust them to do the 'right' thing and respect our rights. Occam's Razor.

Cheers, Chris

 

[Doughick]

I am not positive - but it is common for copy protected software to start up a service so that non "Administrators" can run the software. Now I don't have the software, but it would be easy to test if this was the case - Turn off the service, and then log off the identitiy - log on as a non administrator and see if the program works. I doubt it's "spyware", I would find it hard to believe that Adobe would allow that to be done. Too many people hate spyware....

Doug Hickman

my husband came across this post on the rec.video.desktop
newsgroup-had never come across this before.

post says :
If you've bought Photoshop CS and have noticed a new service
called "Adobe LM Service", this is Macrovision SafeCast spyware.

This spyware cannot be disabled. When the startup type in WinXP
or Windows 2000 is set to "disabled", SafeCast re-enables itself the
next time Photoshop is started.

Just an FYI for anyone considering upgrading. Adobe has finally
fallen over the edge.

responses were:
Not quite a virus, but SafeCast does a lot more than advertised.

Each time Photoshop is started, SafeCast takes an inventory of
the machine it's installed on, and will refuse to load the application
if it decides too much has changed. The copy protection appears
to be analogous to that found in Windows XP:

and
The most frightening part of SafeCast is that the licensing terms
can be changed AFTER THE PRODUCT IS PURCHASED.
So, for example, if Abobe decides to make Photoshop a
pay-per-use application and customers do not agree to these
terms, Adobe can remotely pull the plug on these customer

has anyone heard things like this. First i have come across it. I
haven't upgraded and things like this give me food for thought for
sure.

--
Doug

 

[Framer]

There must be something special about your version of CS because I don't have that in mine...

my husband came across this post on the rec.video.desktop
newsgroup-had never come across this before.

post says :
If you've bought Photoshop CS and have noticed a new service
called "Adobe LM Service", this is Macrovision SafeCast spyware.

This spyware cannot be disabled. When the startup type in WinXP
or Windows 2000 is set to "disabled", SafeCast re-enables itself the
next time Photoshop is started.

Just an FYI for anyone considering upgrading. Adobe has finally
fallen over the edge.

responses were:
Not quite a virus, but SafeCast does a lot more than advertised.

Each time Photoshop is started, SafeCast takes an inventory of
the machine it's installed on, and will refuse to load the application
if it decides too much has changed. The copy protection appears
to be analogous to that found in Windows XP:

and
The most frightening part of SafeCast is that the licensing terms
can be changed AFTER THE PRODUCT IS PURCHASED.
So, for example, if Abobe decides to make Photoshop a
pay-per-use application and customers do not agree to these
terms, Adobe can remotely pull the plug on these customer

has anyone heard things like this. First i have come across it. I
haven't upgraded and things like this give me food for thought for
sure.

 

[Vern Stevens]

They don't say much in absolute terms, but unless tested in court
there is always room for interpretation. But the issue raised is
this: if an EULA states something that contradicts another legal
restriction, which one wins? Again the company can write what they
want in an EULA, but whose to say they actually have that right or
can enforce that right.

I think the answer is, ultimately this would be tested in court to determine which wins, and whether or not they have right. It's just a matter of timing.

The second article is of course easy to find, slashdot is littered
with people that view MS as the big evil. The positive side effect
is that they pick up on weird EULA's. It is references much the
same point. MS have reserved the right to access any pc that has
this software installed. It is there in MS writing.

Will they do this? No, not any time soon. But the obvious danger is
this; if they keep it in the EULA for a couple of years and then
start to actually access pc's remotely (and in a couple of years
time that might not be a particular hard thing to do) they will
claim that this provision has been in there for years. This is
popular trick and makes their case much stronger.

The slippery slope theory. Very familiar with. People on both sides of many issues use it. Ultimately, that's what it usually remains...theory.

You can call me paranoid, (snip)

In the end, it doesn't matter if I were to call you paranoid or not (which I haven't specifically called you paranoid, just described it as a susceptible general behavior) as one of us are likely to be proven right or wrong at some point.

VES

--
'Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate.' - The X-Files (Teliko)

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Matthew Hull]

It stopped when I exited PS. I have Win XP Home.
-- Matthew

If you go in without PS CS running, it appears to be off, and on
manual. At that point you can change manual to disable, reboot and
it will stay disabled. The minute you start PS CS it activates the
service regardless of whether it's disabled or not. When you quit
PS CS the status goes back to off, and manual. It would appear
that this service only functions when PS CS is started up and in
use.

I followed your steps precisely (running Win XP Home), and while PS
CS starts up fine and starts the service, the service remains
running even after I quit PS CS.

I use hardware profiles and so disabled the AdobeLM service for my
standard profile and rebooted. This time, PS CS brought up an
error message upon loading stating that I need to be in a
privileged account in order for its activation service to run, then
exited.

So there is no way around this... one must have the AdobeLM service
running in order to run CS. And, at least in my case, I have to
manually stop the service once I exit CS (or else restart my PC).

What a PITA.

Dan

 

[D©P Images]

I just don't get it.

Adobe didn't need spyware to get to where they are now. It was all done with treating loyal customers with respect. When did that ethic go out the window?

I don't mind them chasing piracy. What I really find hard to take is them burdening their honest loyal supporters so indiscriminantly.

Meanwhile the software 'cracks' are already available... and the paying users get stuck with code that 'acts up' everytime you try to maintain your system.

Boy is it going to be a nightmare if all companies go down this road and you have a hard-disc crash or do some other system-related maintenance. People already waste enough time waiting for re-boots and defrags and and and...
David

my husband came across this post on the rec.video.desktop
newsgroup-had never come across this before.

post says :
If you've bought Photoshop CS and have noticed a new service
called "Adobe LM Service", this is Macrovision SafeCast spyware.

This spyware cannot be disabled. When the startup type in WinXP
or Windows 2000 is set to "disabled", SafeCast re-enables itself the
next time Photoshop is started.

Just an FYI for anyone considering upgrading. Adobe has finally
fallen over the edge.

responses were:
Not quite a virus, but SafeCast does a lot more than advertised.

Each time Photoshop is started, SafeCast takes an inventory of
the machine it's installed on, and will refuse to load the application
if it decides too much has changed. The copy protection appears
to be analogous to that found in Windows XP:

and
The most frightening part of SafeCast is that the licensing terms
can be changed AFTER THE PRODUCT IS PURCHASED.
So, for example, if Abobe decides to make Photoshop a
pay-per-use application and customers do not agree to these
terms, Adobe can remotely pull the plug on these customer

has anyone heard things like this. First i have come across it. I
haven't upgraded and things like this give me food for thought for
sure.

 

[lmichiel]

I've "fixed" my legal copy with a crack and it's now completely hassle free. No activation, no unwanted internet communication to Adobe.

Like I stated in earlier messages, I have bought Photoshop CS legally but I refuse to use product activation if I can get around it.

Now reading all these messages about the spyware issue, I'm glad I did install the workaround.

cheers
Leo

--
Michielsens Digital Photography
Photoshop tutorials for beginners
http://www.michielsen.info

 

[Peter Berressem]

If they are that much concerned about piracy, so why don't they use a usb-dongle ?
Several types of software use it ( Quark, Best proof ) without hassle for me.
One license, one dongle - without dongle, only in "demo-mode".
--
Regards,
Peter B.

 

[digirob]

Would you mind sharing your fix with others?

I, too, have a legal copy of PSCS. CD and serial number sitting right here! I'll even show you a picture if you want But the product activation is a PITA for me, too. LIke some others on the forum, I frequently rebuild my computers from scratch, as I pickup new components, etc. in a never-ending quest for more performance. Having to f*ck with product activation is absurd.

thanks....

• Robert

I've "fixed" my legal copy with a crack and it's now completely
hassle free. No activation, no unwanted internet communication to
Adobe.

Like I stated in earlier messages, I have bought Photoshop CS
legally but I refuse to use product activation if I can get around
it.
Now reading all these messages about the spyware issue, I'm glad I
did install the workaround.

cheers
Leo

--
Michielsens Digital Photography
Photoshop tutorials for beginners
http://www.michielsen.info

--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob

 

[Aaron Bootz]

It's very easy to disable the service.

Do the following:
1) find the the executable Adobelmsvc.exe and delete it

2) copy any executable (such as explorer.exe from Win dir) to that folder and rename it to "Adobelmsvc.exe"
3) you're done!

Now go to service manager to test, try to start the service, you will get an error msg and the service can't be started!

 

[Kerry Pierce]

post says :
If you've bought Photoshop CS and have noticed a new service
called "Adobe LM Service", this is Macrovision SafeCast spyware.

I was debating on whether or not to upgrade from PS 7. This settles the debate for me.

Thanks!

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root