That being said, I’m starting to find that my educational copy of CS3 is not fitting into my photography workflow like I’d hoped. I’m looking quite seriously at purchasing Nikon’s Capture NX 2 and Elements 6 and selling my copy of CS3 to another student. I know I’ll be sacrificing a few things with CS3, but I’m not sure I would use them to begin with, and the out-of-the-box superiority of NX 2 is undeniable (and expected, since Nikon obviously isn’t going to play nice with Adobe).
Aside from any *perceptions* of whether I should do this or not, and regardless of Adobe’s (now legally weakened) EULA saying I can’t resell the software, if I deactivate and uninstall the software, will a perspective buyer encounter any trouble? I have registered the software under my name (something I would disclose to the buyer) so if that would pose any problems for him or her, I would like to know.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Adobe is not a party to the case you cited. If Adobe is to be affected by this judgement in any way, it might be that they will change future EULAs. Their current EULA stands until also challenged in court. That takes legal money that is probably not going to be ever spared by thrifty students.
The sale that you propose is silly as 1) the other student could buy a comparably cheap educational license from Adobe or an authorized reseller as well and 2) your buyer would not be able to upgrade what you sell them. If you or the buyer are going to purposefully dance around the EULA, one might as well download a pirated copy and pay nothing.
the out-of-the-box superiority of NX 2 is undeniable (and expected, since Nikon obviously isn’t going to play nice with Adobe).
Don’t expect that to continue for long…(the part about NX having better color defaults out of the box, not the not playing nice with Adobeยwhich will prolly continue)
If you have used the full version of Photoshop and step down to PsElements, you are going to be one frustrated, angry and disappointed individual. If you are shooting RAW files, doubly so. ACR under PsElements is severely crippled, utterly emasculated by design.
Recently I had occasion to use PsElements 6 and ended up getting a full refund straight from Adobe.
Adobe is not a party to the case you cited. That’s the joy of precedent.
"The sale that you propose is silly as 1) the other student could buy a comparably cheap educational license from Adobe or an authorized reseller as well." Unless I sold mine at a "used" price.
Your buyer would not be able to upgrade what you sell them. So how would that be different from the educational license they purchase for #1…?
"Silly" indeed.
If you or the buyer are going to purposefully dance around the EULA, one might as well download a pirated copy and pay nothing. I have no intention of dancing. Vernor v AutoDesk and the Copyright Act of 1976 are quite clear regarding this matter. I do, however, see an "Educational" caveat in the EULA. I’ll have to look into this a bit more.
Thanks for the input Ramon. That’s good to know. My problem lies in "time" tho. I’m really only using CS3 for general color-balancing and cropping-type stuff. So far, Capture NX2 performs on opening a file what it take several steps in CS3 to accomplish. My reasoning for PSE6 was that the very few times I have needed the additional capabilities of CS3 have been quite basic. I figured even a dumbed-down program might suffice. nevertheless, I hear your warning. I’ll see if I have a friend with PSE6 installed so I can test it out before buying.
So how would that be different from the educational license you suggest they can purchase in #1…?
the difference is you have registered it and you can’t transfer an Educational license, so he can’t upgrade it. He could however upgrade his own legally purchased student edition.
Precedents mean nothing until you (or someone else) bring a claim against Adobe. Your EULA still stands until that time.
As Buko noted, educational licenses are not valued simply for being cheaper than retail. The greatest value comes when you want to upgrade. This may not be a concern for you but the buyer should be aware that buying your copy is not really a deal, no matter how much cheaper you sell it than it originally cost.
Jim, the EULA stands until I challenge it. From that point, the legality of my challenge to EULA remains in question until someone else requires me to prove I did not have the right to do so. This is exactly what happened with AutoDesk when they challenged Vernor who had violated the EULA. AutoDesk lost. Big. Breaking a EULA does not mean you’ve done anything wrong–not if the EULA was illegal to begin with. Adobe can say what they want in the EULA and make you "agree" to it to use their software. That does not mean they can enforce it. They could say "you must be a male to use this software" in the EULA. I guarantee any woman who then violates that EULA has a legal right to do so and will win in court.
That being said, I was unaware of the caveat regarding Academic licenses in the EULA. That language is a bit more clear than in most EULA’s, especially since Adobe says you CAN sell the software if it’s full retail. I may have to reevaluate the sale, especially in light of your and Buko’s point about the upgrade. I had not thought of it from that angle.
Jeff: regarding the "not for long" on the software side, do you care to elaborate? Nikon is deliberately not disclosing the full details of the their RAW process. until they do so, Adobe will always be at an advantage. In fact, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume Nikon is keeping it under wraps for the sole purpose of moving copies of their software.
the EULA stands until I challenge it. From that point, the legality of my challenge to EULA remains in question until someone else requires me to prove I did not have the right to do so.
And that challenge might well come if you sell the software and the new owner insists on a transfer of license, or attempts to upgrade his edu software. And Adobe doesn’t grant it.
They could say "you must be a male to use this software" in the EULA.
Sorry, but that’s a bogus argument. It’s discriminatory, contravening legal precedents.
"And that challenge might well come if you sell the software and the new owner insists on a transfer of license, or attempts to upgrade his edu software. And Adobe doesn’t grant it. "
Excellent point, and one reason why I posted here ๐
"Sorry, but that’s a bogus argument. It’s discriminatory, contravening legal precedents."
There was a time when it wasn’t. That was my (poorly made) point.
And yes, I agree that Adobe placing restrictions on *use* Academic software is fair and reasonable (I can’t use it to make money, etc). But restrictions on selling it to other students if I give up my right to use it? Not necessarily, but I know what you’re saying. I really am not interested in cheating Adobe or anything. I am not, however, one who’s inclined to cower at the threat of potential legal action if I feel I’m in the right. But I’m thinking I’m not necessarily in the (legal) right here ๐
/soapbox on The current state of EULA’s is ridiculous, we are being "screwed," and something needs to be done about it. Our best interests are not at the core here. Not that they ever are in a Capitalistic society, but that doesn’t make it OK. But that’s an argument for a different forum ๐ /soapbox off
I agree that Adobe placing restrictions on *use* Academic software is fair and reasonable (I can’t use it to make money, etc).
In the US it is perfectly legal to use it to make money with, In other countries its not. Macromedia had the no commercial work with their software. So actually Adobe is being very generous in only restricting the resale of Academic software.
Carl, you should be aware that one of the posters above argues for the sake of arguing and will take the other side of any question just to be contentious. His name is also a fake name.
That is really the only point. No one here is the license police. You can pretty much get away with anything you want. Adobe is not going to bother with one guy reselling one license of educational software. The thing that one cannot get away with (regardless of any recent court ruling) is upgrading Adobe software that is registered to someone else. Adobe is not legally responsible to allow this now. This is what makes the resale of educational software a bad idea. You can feel it is your right to sell it if you want. It is the customer that will be harmed by the sale as they will not be able to upgrade.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections