Activation

BL
Posted By
Bob Levine
Sep 29, 2003
Views
18628
Replies
1067
Status
Closed
DM
dave milbut
Sep 29, 2003
and you get to pay 20 dollars more (169) for the upgrade for the privilege.
CB
Carl Bickers
Sep 29, 2003
But only for the Windows version. The Mac version won’t require activation (for now).
CB
Carl Bickers
Sep 29, 2003
Will there be any provision to allow me to move (not copy) Photoshop from my present computer to a new one when I replace it?
BC
bart.cross
Sep 29, 2003
Gee, how long will it take them to crack that.

I’ll let you know, oh wait, sorry, it was yesterday!
LT
Lamar Thomas
Sep 29, 2003
Macromedia just added activation to their MX 2004 line of products. It is fairly flexible and allows for product "deactivation" so you can install it on a new computer. It also allows you to activate it on your desktop and also on a laptop, with the caveat that you can only run one copy of the software at the same time. Hopefully Adobe does the same thing. —
Rob
P
Phosphor
Sep 29, 2003
Will there be any provision to allow me to move (not copy) Photoshop from my present computer to a new one when I replace it?

Yes! Why not try reading the info they provide on Activation?

Your license will allow TWO (2) copies to be installed and activated (but not used) at the same time. So far as replacing hardware is concerned – yes that to is covered as is hard drive replacement. For the most part activation is easy and totally painless. It is also anonymous!
RO
Robert Oliver
Sep 29, 2003
As for the future of product activation on other Adobe products:

< http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/pdfs/creativesui te_faq.pdf>

Indicates that it will be employed in the future on "applicable products."
BC
bart.cross
Sep 29, 2003
(|) THH!
CH
Chris High
Sep 29, 2003
….as if anyone actually wants to read all the fine print – So this means I can still have a copy at work and at home then? Good.
P
Phosphor
Sep 29, 2003
So this means I can still have a copy at work and at home then?

YES!
RH
r_harvey
Sep 29, 2003
But people like YrbkMgr (Tony) will be severely restricted. In addition, it doesn’t support Windows98.

There is no activation in the Mac version. It looks like aging hardware, increased software requirements, and expensive upgrades, will force some to reconsider Macintosh.
BL
Bob Levine
Sep 29, 2003
You must be kidding.

For starters the activation scheme will be introduced to the Mac sooner or later. And any half decent Win98/ME box can be reformatted and upgraded to WinXP or Win 2K for a a lot less than buying a new Mac.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Sep 29, 2003
activation scheme will be introduced to the Mac sooner or later.

Adobe hasn’t added it in other markets. Mac is <35% of Adobe’s customer base, and there are fewer 1337 d00dz on the Mac. PS Windows is one of the most pirated applications.

And any half decent Win98/ME box can be reformatted and upgraded to WinXP or Win 2K for a a lot less than buying a new Mac.

Windows 98 boxes haven’t shipped in years. These are old computers. It’s not worth upgrading most of them. It’ll be cheaper to buy new, in the long run.

Some people don’t want to submit to WindowsXP activation, and of course MS is trying to get people to quit using Win2K.
BL
Bob Levine
Sep 29, 2003
Adobe has already said it would happen. And a lot the later Win 98 boxes are quite capable of running XP. Anything faster than a PIII 500 should be just fine as long as it’s got plenty or RAM. The difference in stability is quite noticable.

As for the XP activation, it’s a non event.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Sep 29, 2003
Anything faster than a PIII 500 should be just fine as long as it’s got plenty or RAM.

Most old boxes don’t support a lot of RAM, or current hard drives, or current video cards, or anything else new you’d want to add.

As for the XP activation, it’s a non event.

I should’ve added, of course, that some of us don’t like the evil empire. After seventeen years, I’ve about had it.
BL
Bob Levine
Sep 29, 2003
Well then nothing I say will change your mind. I suggest you get a Mac.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Sep 29, 2003
That’s all I was saying.
HA
Hall, Auguste
Sep 29, 2003
We have been told many times of the ‘tax’ we have paid because of piracy, in the form of higher prices. Now we have activation *and* higher prices. If the prices of future versions don’t come down, should we assume the ‘Piracy makes for higher prices’ was a lie? Adobe loses money far more often at the hands of people and pirates abusing Volume Licensing than the person who buys a retail box. Why are individual users the ones they choose to lean on?

Until I am assured that re-activation is as painless as activation, I am disinterested in the product. I am tired of being suspiciously eyed every time I replace my hard drive. I have no wish to be policed after paying hundreds of dollars for software, first by Microsoft, and now by Adobe. I am actively looking for alternatives to ‘Corporate-ware’, and perhaps I will find it before I am forced to upgrade to XP and PhotoShop CS.

Regardless of my eventual decision, the Adobe ‘brand’ has been harmed, and I am far more receptive to alternatives today than I was yesterday. Business 101, anyone?
CP
Courtejoie, Pierre
Sep 29, 2003
Auguste, if you think to ditch Photoshop for a program with MX in the name, I think that they do also have activation…
HA
Hall, Auguste
Sep 29, 2003

P.S.

Ian Lyons said "Your license will allow TWO (2) copies to be installed and activated (but not used) at the same time."

How can you police the use of simultaneous use without requiring an internet connection? How will they know if both copies are running? Will we now be required to have an internet connection to use Photoshop? Surely not. That would be the death-knell for any future Adobe purchase from me.
CP
Courtejoie, Pierre
Sep 29, 2003
I’m sure that they will allow telephonic activation…
HA
Hall, Auguste
Sep 29, 2003
Pierre Courtejoie said:

"I’m sure that they will allow telephonic activation… "

Yes, if you look at the presented demo, they do. That wasn’t my question. The above post states that simultaneous *use* will be restricted. If this is enforced by activation, will we have to handshake with Adobe via the internet when we use Photoshop. I can see no other way that a second copy will be prevented from being used.
MD
milbut, dave
Sep 29, 2003
All together now. Everybody repeat after me: Baaaaaaaaaaa.
LR
Levine, Robert
Sep 29, 2003
I don’t think they’ll try to keep you from using it simultaneously. Way too difficult to manage. IMO, they’ll allow two activations and trust you not to use them both at the same time.

Bob
JD
johnson, dennis
Sep 29, 2003
But if just you and your Aunt Minnie want to share a license, I think they’re willing to let it go…for now…
RH
r_harvey
Sep 29, 2003
Auguste, if you think to ditch Photoshop for a program with MX in the name, I think that they do also have activation…

There’s a thread about M*cr*m*d** MX 2004 product activation in the Photoshop Lounge.
LI
Lyons, Ian
Sep 29, 2003
Augste,

How can you police the use of simultaneous use without requiring an internet connection?

They don’t watch diddly – you don’t need an internet connection

How will they know if both copies are running?

They don’t! I told you what the license says – YOU either honor it or don’t. If you don’t then YOU and folk like you are to blame for bringing activation down on those who do.

Will we now be required to have an internet connection to use Photoshop?

No!

Surely not. That would be the death-knell for any future Adobe purchase from me.

Then why did you ask those question?

If you don’t like the concept of activation they skip CS and find an alternative.
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 29, 2003
If you install it on more than two machines, you need more than two activation events – it’s as simple as that. They don’t have to monitor it. All machines need a machine hash to get activated. After your desktop and your laptop, then you have to explain to someone why you need another.

Like… let’s say you own photoshop at home. You decide to put it on the company laptop so you can do some work while out of town. Then you get fired (or quit), and get a new job. Then you want to install it on another laptop – you’ll need some kind of approval. Someone will have to determine if you’re lying or not.

I’m not saying I agree nor disagree, rather, the way activation works, as I understand it, is the machine hash is what is used to issue an activation code. After two, you may be asked to call Adobe for permission since you may not be issued that "third" activation code.
M
MarcPawliger
Sep 29, 2003
In article
wrote:

Ian Lyons said "Your license will allow TWO (2) copies to be installed and activated (but not used) at the same time."

How can you police the use of simultaneous use without requiring an internet connection? How will they know if both copies are running? Will we now be required to have an internet connection to use Photoshop? Surely not. That would be the death-knell for any future Adobe purchase from me.

Activation as implemented in Windows Photoshop CS allows installation on no more than two separate computers. That’s all it does. It has no enforcements or tracking of when those two installed versions are used. The EULA that has covered Photoshop for many years and many versions has always allowed this form of use. Activation simply enforces that allowance.

–marc
HA
Hall, Auguste
Sep 29, 2003
Ian Lyons said:

"If you don’t like the concept of activation they skip CS and find an alternative."

That sounds like a good plan. Photoshop 7 is a mature app, and its quality doesn’t beg the wary eye of product activation by upgrading. In the past, upgrades have been a reflex action for me. This time, and probably henceforth, I opt not to rush into an upgrade until I absolutely have to. Until then, I will also be actively looking for ‘alternatives’.

Thanks again to Ian Lyons for the sound advice. Since most people ‘don’t like the concept of activation’, most should logically consider voting with their dollars, or the withholding thereof.
LR
Levine, Robert
Sep 29, 2003
Hall wrote:

Since most people ‘don’t like the concept of activation’

According to whom? Doesn’t bother me one bit. I’ll be upgrading as soon as I figure out which retailer has the best deal. Amazon usually has rebates for big upgrades like this.

Bob
JD
johnson, dennis
Sep 30, 2003
Would you folks rather that Adobe require a hardware dongle? They could, if they liked, do just that. (Come to think of it, it might be a better idea…)
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 30, 2003
No, I would simply prefer not to have to have my work strategy "okay’d" by Adobe.
RE
Robicheaux, Earl
Sep 30, 2003
Activation ticks me off. This is the very reason I left Quicken’s Turbo Tax for TaxCut. Quicken had a “huge” revolt because of their activation policy and I am going to guess there are going to be a LOT of unhappy Photoshop users who may opt for less expensive and about as good photo manipulation software for digital images. This is just a way of squeezing money from their users.

As a photographer I have habitually used a home computer and a laptop that I take on the road with me. Adobe’s web site states the following:

Does activation change the licensing terms?
Q: Does product activation represent a change in licensing terms? A: No. Activation is an interactive extension of existing licensing terms and as such represents the spirit of Adobe’s Product License Agreement.
Q: What about customers who have more than one computer at home? Will Adobe be offering a "family license"?
A: Adobe is committed to offering the most flexible user options. Product activation opens the door for Adobe to offer more tailored terms to our customers, and we will be evaluating all possibilities going forward.

Where does the authorized 2 computers come from and how in the world can one not run two simultaneously? More importantly, a lot of people go through a hardware change before a new product release. How will an upgrade work along with using two computers? Besides, I love the line: it “represents the spirit of Adobe’s Product License Agreement.” OR how about “and we will be evaluating all possibilities going forward” That means they are going to figure out another way to soak it to us.
LH
lemoore, hanford
Sep 30, 2003
Does it deactivate on deinstall?

….

I just don’t see any of this as being a problem. I purchased Flash 5 over the web on Macromedia’s site and got the electronic download version of it. 2 YEARs later I had lost the machine it was installed on, the download period had exprired, I lost the login name needed to download it, lost the serial number … a quick call to Macromedia support got me all set up with a new download and install. This was an extreme case.

My guess is Adobe will be the same, meaning, if you need to install it a 3rd or 4th time a quick call will get you up and running. But it will require a call, and you’re for sure not going to be able to activate 10 times on day one.

They’re taking steps to reduce piracy but people undoubtly WILL have situations like this, and Adobe will have acceptable, fast solutions for them. I feel pretty confindent in that.

Disclaimer: this is all just my best guess at what Adobe will do; I have no insider (or outsider!) knowledge.

~Hanford
BN
Bissinger, Norbert
Sep 30, 2003
Earl wrote: Where does the authorized 2 computers come from and how in the world can one not run two simultaneously?

Because you agreed to the license agreement when you installed PS

I run PS at my home the other computer is in a Mini Storage from where I pick it up when I go to work doing special events. This machine has nothing else but PS, Power Point and Foto Station 4.5 to run slide shows.
It runs on Win 2000 pro never ever a hickup in 2 years working almost every day with temperatures from 20 to 100F.

They never can work at the same time. Others may work in their offices and at home.
RE
Robicheaux, Earl
Sep 30, 2003
First of all, where does it say that one can install Photoshop CS on only 2 computers? Where specifically?

Secondly, I want to know how Activation works on a RAID system? What happens if Photoshop is restored to a hard drive other than its original install?

Notice that Adobe starts activation with Photoshop, there product leader, to see how the user base reacts….its up to you.
RE
Robicheaux, Earl
Sep 30, 2003
First of all, where does it say that Photoshop CS is allowed to be installed on 2 computers? Where specifically?

Secondly, how does activiation work on a RAID system? What happens if Photoshop CS has to be restored on a hard drive other than its original install?

Notice how Adobe started activation with its flag ship product, to see how the user base will react….It’s up to you….
MS
McCoy, Stuart
Sep 30, 2003
Earl,

From the PS 7.0 EULA:

2.4. Portable Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may also make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable Computer provided the Software on the portable Computer is not being used at the same time the Software on the primary computer is being used.

AS for RAID, I doubt that will matter is Adobe Activation is anything like Windows XP. As long as the hardware in andof itself doesn’t change significantly, Windows XP activation doesn’t care which drive you install the OS to as long as it is a bootable partition. If you change the drives in your RAID system enough times it is possible, though not guaranteed, that the activation process will kick in and require you to either reactivate via the internet or contact Adobe Support whereby you will give then an explanation of the situation and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that you will have PS up and running in no time.
LR
Levine, Robert
Sep 30, 2003
Adobe has been using activation on Photoshop for quite some time already as a test in the Austrailian market. My guess is that it went well or they wouldn’t be doing it all over.

Bob
VK
Visser, Klaas
Sep 30, 2003
First of all, where does it say that Photoshop CS is allowed to be installed on 2 computers? Where specifically?

Probably in the EULA, just like version 7. If you have a copy of version 7, have a look in the Legal sub-folder for a text version.

My reading of Adobe’s information page indicates that basic hardware changes like a hard drive are acceptable.

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 or needing to re-activate any installed Adobe software.

Taken from <http://www.adobe.com.au/activation/main.html>
P
peggyyy
Sep 30, 2003
There is a link to ask any questions about activation. Trouble is after I filled out the form, the next page was a dead end Twice.
In case anyone has answers…

Do I understand, then, that if I install Photoshop to my desktop and laptop, when I buy a new desktop (late this year or early next year) I am at the mercy of whoever answers the phone as to whether I still get to use the program?

I formatted and re-installed my programs several times this year. Either because the registry was so clogged it slowed everything down intolerably, or because my system got messed up by a bad installation — last time it was Drive Image — and I couldn’t figure out how to fix it. (W2K)

How does activation work when you have to do complete re-installs?

It isn’t activation I mind, or even having to call the company. But if I can’t use my legitimate copy of Photoshop, I can’t afford to buy another just because of activation limitations.

Can anyone reassure me?
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 30, 2003
And Peg, it is situations just like yours that make activation risky. I have similar circumstances.

Only time will tell – one of two things will happen; Adobe will have to be more lax on "approvals" for issuing more activations, or you’ll have to face that fact that once a computer you own "meets it’s maker" you have to buy a new license.

Most of the discussions are academic. Microsoft, I don’t trust. Adobe I do; but I still don’t like the idea of having someone else approve my work flow.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Sep 30, 2003
Look people, this is not the Gestapo. Even with Microsoft, all it takes is a simple phone call. If your story seems remotely legit then you’re on your way. I once exceeded the activation limit for Office 2000 (I was using the academic version which was, along with the AU version, being used to test activation). I called the number provided with the warning dialog, and in five minutes I was up and running with no problems. They removed the activation on a laptop that I no longer used and I was able to install Office 2000 on a second desktop system with no problems. If Microsoft was that easy then Adobe will be twice as easy (if that’s even possible).

Playing chicken little won’t solve anything. We have a saying in Boston, you could be hit by a big yellow bus tomorrow and there’s not a thing you can do about it. Activation is here to stay. You either work with it or you purchase another product, it’s that simple. If there were any major problems with the activation beta test in AU (AU seems to get to be the guinea pg for all this stuff don’t they?) then I’m sure Adobe would not be putting it in their flagship application, instead reserving it for a secondary app like Acrobat. If you have a legitimate gripe after using activation then by all means, post it here. If you’re just speculating and spouting wild hypotheticals that have as much likelihood of coming to pass as me winning the lottery than keep them to your selves.
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
This is just a way of squeezing money from their users.<

Huh??? Presumeably you would have paid for your update anyway – so in what way is it going to ‘squeeze’ more money out of you.

OTOH, if you were planning on using a pirated version and simply not paying for it, then this is why Adobe is being forced to go down this route. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 30, 2003
Stuart,

So… your point is?

Complaining about activation is like complaining about taxes – only where taxes are concerned, we all agree, you can complain.

There’s nothing anyone can do about it so keep your mouth shut and follow the rest of us.

Activation is here to stay, so get used to it (I wonder why Intuit pulled it then?)

instead reserving it for a secondary app like Acrobat

You may be surprised to learn that Acrobat accounts for more revenue and profitability than Photoshop.

wild hypotheticals

Perhaps. Shall I base my business workflow and strategy on your say so?

You don’t have an inkling of what the issues are – just because activation don’t affect you, and you think issues stated are a stretch you discredit them. I guess we should just consult Stuart for our automation strategy – maybe the bank will give us more money then.

And Carol,

It is unfair to characterize those who are opposed to product activation as pirates – I resent that. It is analogous to saying "if you have nothing to hide, then let us search your residence".
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
Does it deactivate on deinstall?<

You will have the option to uninstall and either leave the activation coding in place on your system (i.e. when you re-install, you will not have to activate again) or you can choose to uninstall the activation codes at the same time (eg if you are selling your computer to a third party and don’t wish the 3rd party to install a pirated copy that uses your activation).


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Sep 30, 2003
Where did Carol characterize anyone as a pirate? She simply pointed out that IF one were to copy the disk and install it on several machines–which is software piracy–that would now be a lot more difficult to do.

Please understand that I do feel for you and others in your situation. You have a legitimate concern about your workflow. This is quite a bit different than some of the others here who are crying about privacy concerns.

Bob
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Sep 30, 2003
Tony,

"Perhaps. Shall I base my business workflow and strategy on your say so?"

No, you should base it on the simple and plain fact that no activation scheme has brought about the demise of privacy and the ability to use one’s computer as they see fit. It worked for Microsoft with Windows XP, Office 2000 and Office XP and it is working for Macromedia so far. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore these facts then by all means, go right ahead. If you want to argue that activation doesn’t work then you had best get your facts in order.
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 30, 2003
Bob,

This is quite a bit different than some of the others here who are crying about privacy concerns.

Your right.

Carol,

Sorry.

Stuart,

It isn’t about privacy – not one bit. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that I won’t be impacted and let time tell.
DE
david_evanson
Sep 30, 2003
Carol

…or you can choose to uninstall the activation codes at the same time (eg if you are selling your computer to a third
party and don’t wish the 3rd party to install a pirated copy that uses your activation)…<

Would this also inform Adobe the product was de-activated on that PC – hence freeing up one of your activations?
Just thinking of the situation where you had upgraded the PC – either to a brand new PC or you were reinstalling the operating system, upgrading the OS with a clean install; adding a new disk etc.?

Would the procedure be;-

1. Uninstall/De-activate
2. Make system changes
3. Reinstall and re-activate.

Dave
JS
John_Spragens
Sep 30, 2003
I do have privacy concerns (whatever that makes me).

I am concerned about the drift toward subscription software (no, activation isn’t it, but it could be a step on the way).

But the main thing for me is that I want my software shopping to be a matter of simple, one-time transactions. Once I go home with the CD and the serial number, I want that to be it. I don’t want to have any further phone-home requirements — not the first time I install a program, not after I buy a new machine, not after I have the disastrous crash that forces me to rebuild everything.

If that world is dead for Photoshop, then Adobe has lost a supporter here.
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Sep 30, 2003
2 activations? WOW. At the rate I upgrade my machines, that will last about 6 months. How many of us keep the same computer for more than a year?

I like the idea that the price should be reduced by, let’s say, 90% of what Adobe figures it is going to recover from the anti-piracy measures. (most of us would probably be content with 75%)

But then, maybe the solution is to just ship our old hard drives to Adobe to prove that we are no longer using a specific copy of the program. Maybe something could be set up along the lines of what printer companies do with exausted printer cartriges. How about it, Adobe, want to send out some prepaid shipping boxes for old hard drives?
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 30, 2003
Well, in all fairness, Stuart and Carol are right in principle. For most users, this is going to be nothing.

Personally, I don’t like the disturbing trend to enforce machine specific licensing v. user licensing.

In order for it to work, Adobe, or whomever implements activation, will have to be reasonable – based on history, I can’t see them NOT being reasonable.

The real question is what happens when an inarticulate person calls customer service to explain thier situation on why they need to activate again, and due to their inability to articulate it well, they are "marked" as having to buy another license.

There are lots of legitimate issues that creep up for users. My father in law doesn’t use photoshop, but he changes machines in his office more than most people change underwear. Microsoft product activation is quite forgiving, in reality. You can have up to 8 (some say 11) activations over a specified period. So that’s workable.

What I have a distaste for is passing control over to another company for deciding whether or not a particular machine change is legit. Then there’s the issue of the appeal process – can you appeal a decision if you can demonstrate your issue as being sound and within the terms of the license?

All I really care about, is, can I get my work done unencumbered – the rest is academic.
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Sep 30, 2003
Activation is a method by which Adobe is taking advantage of their customer base by squeezing more money from them and not stopping pirating.

Secondly, it’s going to be increasing hard to manage an individuals system. Earlier, in this forum, I s asked what would happen on a RAID system, more specifically, if it had to be reinstalled on a different drive. The response I got back was with a simple RAID, there would be no problems, however, “If you change the drives in your RAID system enough times it is possible, though not guaranteed, that the activation process will kick in and require you to either reactivate via the internet or contact Adobe Support whereby you will give then an explanation of the situation and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that you will have PS up and running in no time.”

The problem with digital photographers is that we HAVE to operate on backup systems with the large amount of images on hard drives. I have already had one drive fail with a revamping of my system hardware. In the FUTURE YOU ARE GOING TO BE LINKED TO THE SUPPORT GROUP for changing hardware and restoring failed drives. The ability to get your system working again is going to depend upon the timely response of their support group and we all know how easy it is to get a hold of them. Try calling Microsoft on a support question about their software. As companies get squeezed for profitability, what gets short changed is their staffing of support groups. Like Mictrosoft, they will farm it out to contractors.

Lastly, as digital files increase, digital photographers will look for bigger and faster machines to handle these large files. Since PS now supports 16 bit files, it is probable for photographers to be working with, a 16 mb file (D1H), 36 mb file (D100) to a 98 mb file (Kodak 645M). One could guess what the new D2H raw file will be in 16 bits or the yet to be released Nikon full frame digital camera, or how about the new Leaf Valeo with a 126 mb 16bit file. If anyone works with panoramic images, these file seizes just get larger. All of this means that photographers will be constantly migrating machines and hard drives at about the same speed as camera makers expand their CCD’s. Activation of software through hardware migration is going to be a PAIN IN THE REAR.
RL
Robert_Levine
Sep 30, 2003
I do have privacy concerns (whatever that makes me).

If it’s over this, it makes you paranoid.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Sep 30, 2003
2 activations? WOW.

Read it again. It’s two concurrent activations.

Bob
Z
z070tso
Sep 30, 2003
Once everyone stops the unnecessary complaining and moaning on this subject, and discovers the existence of Norton Ghost and/or PowerQuest Drive Image, my guess is that it will not be Adobe´s revenue heavily increasing ….
TS
Tim_Spragens
Sep 30, 2003
Jerry, do you really have nothing on your hard disk that you don’t care who sees?

Tim
JS
John_Spragens
Sep 30, 2003
z070tso, take a careful look at Drive Image. PowerQuest has implemented machine-based activation for some of its products. That may be one. Don’t know about Norton.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Sep 30, 2003
If you upgrade to CS from an earlier version of PS and for whatever reasons things go wrong and you have to speak to Adobe to get re-activation and they are not convinced, do you have to buy a complete wholly new version of PSCS?

Jeff
Y
YrbkMgr
Sep 30, 2003
That’s the point Jeff. Theoretically, yes. Practically, who knows?
JD
Jeff_Darken
Sep 30, 2003
Would your original PS then become un-upgradeable or would it be upgradable once again when PSCS2 was released?

Oh dear who knows!

Jeff
TS
Tim_Spragens
Sep 30, 2003
Maybe you could upgrade your CS to a new CS, just to make them happy.

Tim
DJ
dennis_johnson
Sep 30, 2003
Is the activation policy going to apply to European or Asian versions of the software?

If not, concerned users might want to upgrade using one of those versions.

Activation does seem to pose issues about long-term use of the product. We have seen any number of once-proud software producers fall into dust or be assimilated by other entities. Even mighty Adobe could fall victim to this fate. What assurance do we have that we will continue to be able to re-activate the license going forward? Is there any verbiage in the EULA about this?

If not, it seems that the value of the product is degraded by activation.

As long as I have a computer capable of running it, I will always be able to run PS 7. What promise do we have of this sort of longevity with PSCS?

I support the idea of piracy protection and enforcement of the EULA, but without assurance that activation will not eventually render the license useless to even legitimate users – or a guarantee that this license allows law-abiding users the same access to the product as the former version – the product is not worth as much as the older version, and should be sold at discount.
JS
John_Spragens
Sep 30, 2003
The Q/A on product activation does address your questions. You can read that here: <http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html>

I haven’t read the EULA, so I don’t know if the assurances are repeated there.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Sep 30, 2003
Denis,

Activation applies to ALL localised versions of Photoshop CS using the Windows format. It doesn’t yet apply to Mac.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Sep 30, 2003
At the moment I have a PS7 which I can install on my new PC when I get it (maybe a year to eighteen months) without any worry about activation. Once I upgrade, activation will be with me from then onwards. I will probably wait now to upgrade PS until I have new hardware. I have already done this with MS Office. Also I have five mainstream Adobe products. If they all need to be activated this will give me five times the hassle of just PS.

We are told that piracy costs us, the legit users, money. Somehow I doubt that we will benefit if activation reduces piracy. Thus I might rather pay the ‘piracy levy’ than deal with activation of all the products.

If you don’t like activation the only way to protest is to delay upgrading.

All this being said I do love the Adobe products.

Jeff
DM
dave_milbut
Sep 30, 2003
Thus I might rather pay the ‘piracy levy’ than deal with activation of all the products.

That’s one of the most intellegent things said so far.
GR
Gary_Robertshaw
Sep 30, 2003
I don’t think there will be much of a financial benefit to Adobe from activation. I see a lot of casual PS users, and would assume that many of them have borrowed it from a friend, or downloaded pirated versions. To think they will now spend $650 is silly, many of them don’t even know what a layer is, or its purpose. It’s a toy to them, and they only use it becaause they got it free.

So activation will disallow those users…but that won’t bring any money in, they’ll use old versions or use something else. Hard core "pirates" often do it for the challenge, and will no doubt find a way around the activation…they have with MS products, and look at DVD’s elaborate anti-copy measures, yet they failed too. They’re not going to be forking over any money either, most don’t need PS, they just enjoy the challenge.

So Adobe will get the satisfaction of knowing that these people who have no real use for PS anyway, won’t be able to use it, mostly. No cash though.

I imagine there are some graphics pros around who will have to buy who didn’t before, but the folks I know who use it on a higher plane, all have paid for it. For me, 2 activations would be a potential problem. I use my in-home machine much of the time, and have an office in back for when I need quiet or privacy. That’s two machines (only one used at a time), so if and when I get a laptop for when I’m traveling, I’d have to buy another $650 copy. I won’t do it, so there’s no money in that for Adobe either. Yes, there are workarounds such as use the laptop in the office, but that’s just a hassle, much as reaactivating would be when upgrading or switching machines, which I do quite often.

And what if your hard drive buys the farm, and you can’t deactivate? This is a real possibility, it will happen to some.

Anyway, I don’t yet see why I would spend the high upgrade price on this one; activation doesn’t bother me much, it’s been pretty easy with MS products. But I think it’s really just a bunch of techies playing games with each other, one side saying "you can’t" the other saying "yes I can", and the bottom line to Adobe won’t be any different.

In fact, it could worsen. There are many people who have begun with pirated or borrowed versions, fallen in love with the program, and finally bought it. A 30-day trial will not be enough to establish this, so possibly it will even hurt sales. Just my opinion.
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
You don’t have to ‘phone home’ it will activate via a 2 or 3 second connection online (although it might be slightly longer than that with the first wave)


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
You can have up to 8 (some say 11) activations over a specified
period. So that’s workable.<

I believe you can activate up to 8 times a year with Photoshop CS – which I believe is quite generous.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
Activation is a method by which Adobe is taking advantage of their
customer base by squeezing more money from them and not stopping pirating.<

Let me repeat what I said earlier:-
Quote: Huh??? Presumeably you would have paid for your update anyway – so in what way is it going to ‘squeeze’ more money out of you.

OTOH, if you were planning on using a pirated version and simply not paying for it, then this is why Adobe is being forced to go down this route.
They are not squeezing more money out of you – you can stick with PS7 and use that for another 10 or 20 years if you so wish. Activation will *not* stop your old copy of PS7 from working. If, on the other hand, you wish to avail yourself of all the new features in Photoshop CS, then you would have happily paid for the update to Photoshop CS – whether it contained activation or not. So Adobe would have received your money anyway.

Really, what is so difficult to understand about that.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
Jeff,

I presume you have registered your previous version(s) of Photoshop with Adobe – it will be extremely easy for them to look up your registration details and come to the extremely swift conclusion that you are a bona fide user – so that would present absolutely no problems.

If you haven’t registered your previous copy, then I would question your sanity <g> – who would purchase a $600 program and not register it?? For instance say your dog chewed up the original disk and you had to re-install, Adobe would be pleased to help out with a replacement disk if you were a registered user, but if you were Adobe would you send out a disk to *anybody* who just happened to phone in and say they had lost their disk and serial number – I sincerely doubt it.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
IL
Ian_Lyons
Sep 30, 2003
I use my in-home machine much of the time, and have an office in back for when I need quiet or privacy. That’s two machines (only one used at a time), so if and when I get a laptop for when I’m traveling, I’d have to buy another $650 copy.

The EULA hasn’t changed – two machines before and two machines now. Whether you like it or not the reality is that by installing on more than two computers at the same time you are in fact in breach of the EULA. I’m not accusing you of anything; just stating a simple fact. WE (plural) can all make a case for having more than two installations but how many more is justified … 3, 4, 5?

Will activation stop pirating?

No!

Will activation increase sales of Photoshop CS?

Probably not as much as Adobe would like.

So why bother annoying folk with a PITA process that will likely prove nothing more than a minor inconvenience to the die hard pirate?

Because those of us who paid over hard earned money for the privilege of owning and using Photoshop deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders and "what can we do?".
CS
Carol_Steele
Sep 30, 2003
What assurance do we have that we will continue to be able to
re-activate the license going forward?<

Can I turn that question on its head and ask, would any software company who assimilated Adobe turn down the income from upgrades by doing something like you have suggested. No way, not ever – they would kill their business stone dead for nobody would upgrade and the assimilating company would have paid out a substantial sum of money for nothing. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
WH
Wade_Halva
Sep 30, 2003
Just as a sidebar to the discussion – this piece of shareware has an interesting way of dealing with licensing that a friend pointed out. Check out: http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/elicense.htm

It is an interesting alternative, and it seems to work well….

Wade
RH
r_harvey
Sep 30, 2003
…you can stick with PS7 and use that for another 10 or 20 years…

You know that’s impractical. Though many will stretch it as long as possible, now.

Really, what is so difficult to understand about that.

Nothing, if you only look at it from one point of view.

Copy protection died-off in the late ’80s; it’s cyclical.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Sep 30, 2003
Carol,

I presume you have registered your previous version(s) of Photoshop with Adobe – it will be extremely easy for them to look up your registration details and come to the extremely swift conclusion that you are a bona fide user – so that would present absolutely no problems.

Whilst you are correct about the benefits of registration you should NOT link it to Activation.

Product activation is separate and distinct from product registration. Product registration is a voluntary process during which you provide Adobe with certain personal and non-personal information such as your name, mailing address, e-mail address and product serial number. All information provided to Adobe during the registration process is stored separately from information provided to Adobe during activation.

In fact those with real privacy concerns (in my view unfounded) would probably be better not registering. That way they can feel safe in the knowledge that Adobe will have no way of knowing who they are.

Activation provides Adobe with two numbers – the first is your serial number and the second a machine specific number which is generated at time of installation. A third number is returned and depending upon your method of activation is either automatically embedded on your computer or manually inserted in the appropriate section of the activation dialog.
JS
John_Spragens
Sep 30, 2003
Wade —

"Interesting" indeed. Makes you phone home once every 90 days! Even if you’re not moving the software around. Sounds like Activation++.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
John,

You’re right. I just read an article about another company that phoned home every week. Then their servers went down and … boom, no one could use the software.
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 1, 2003
I think the message here for Adobe is that they are antagonizing many of their previously loyal users. Many of us were (emphasis on ‘were’) in the habit of defending Adobe because they made the best software (this is especially true in the case of PhotoShop and After Effects). Adobe has made a lot of bonehead moves lately in my opinion (no upgrade price to existing Adobe owners for the Video Collection, elimination of printed manuals with CS, and now the aggravation of product activation). What’s next? Adobe defenders will say Adobe has the right to do all of these things in the interests of the bottom line … no matter what. And they are right; Adobe does have that right. They DO have obligations to shareholders to make a profit and I guess that is their motivation. However, they risk losing the good will and loyalty of many users who bristle at these new policies. Just because Microsoft does it, or Intuit, or Macromedia does not make it good policy. If they lose a sizable number of users who used to upgrade the minute a new version came out (some users will do that no matter what, for any price), where is the value to shareholders then? Where is the breakeven point between upgraders and potential new users vs the cost of piracy?

Just as an aside: I wonder how many people started with Adobe software that was copied for them by a friend (pirated, bootlegged)who later upgraded so they could get the printed manual and be eligible for future upgrades? Or just wanted to be honest. Yes, I was one of those (go ahead, throw the first stone). When I first started with computers I also had illegal copies of Norton Utilities and several others as well. Admittedly, this was before you could download functioning demos to try before you buy. However, once I realized how great these programs were and how much they were worth to me, I went ahead, got honest, and paid full price for the real version and have been upgrading ever since. The junk programs I just threw out. Now, you don’t get a printed manual anymore (just take the PDF to Kinko’s), you have to pay for tech support (except for limited situations), and you now have to ‘activate’ your copy, and we know it is only a question of time until someone breaks the activation scheme, where will Adobe be? I don’t think they are seeing the forest for the trees.

Jake
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
One point of clarification, which I DO applaude…

you have to pay for tech support (except for limited situations),

"On October 24, 2003, Adobe will change its policy for complimentary support. Customers who’ve registered a current version of an Adobe desktop product will receive unlimited person-to-person support—at no charge—for issues related to installation and product defects, including crashes and errors. Support for workflow, interoperability, and product usage will continue to be covered by our fee-based Adobe Expert Support programs."

At the main support site:
<http://www.adobe.com/support/main.html>

I guess it’s that instead of the manuals.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 1, 2003
for issues related to installation and product defects, including crashes and errors

how many times have you seen here "That’s not a bug, it’s your machine." What happens then? Do they hang up? Or do they ask for a charge card up front "just in case"?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
Dave,

True, but it at least beats…

"Hello, thank you for calling Adobe Tecnical Support. My name is Moolah, may I have a credit card number please?".
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
Oct 1, 2003
Carol,

say your dog chewed up the original disk and you had to re-install, Adobe would be pleased to help out with a replacement disk if you were a registered user

If that ever happens to me I would have to hope Adobe wouldn’t ask my dog’s name…

…Sorry we can’t help you because your registered software got “Pirated”. 😉

(Note to self; Quit using Photoshop disk to play Frisbee with the dog.)
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 1, 2003
Carol,

Actually all my software is registered via the Adobe USA site. As I am in the UK I did have a tech query with InDesign a few months ago. The UK office for some reason could not verify that I had registered the products and I had to re-do it over the phone. So that concerned me a bit, and a bit more now that activation is over the horizon.

I am pleased that you can have, say 8, activations over a period of time, if that is the case it probably wont worry me.

If Adobe goes bust or gets taken over and prods are discontinued it is inevitable that eventually because of activation someone somehwere will end up with unusuable software.

The one activated product I have is WinXP. Activation was so easy, and when I get new hardware I will get a new WinXP or whatever. That perhaps is the difference between the op system and an application.

By the way WinXP is fantastically stable op system. I love it.

Jeff
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 1, 2003
I’ve been thinking about this.

To all those who are shouting "Truuuuuuuuust Adobe, it’s easy, there’s nothing to worry about, nothing can go wrong":

Let me tell you, something ALWAYS goes wrong. I already have several apps that require authorisation/ activation of some sort, and not one of them, NOT ONE, has been as straight-forward as the manufacturer claims (and not one of them is any more difficult to pirate, incedentally). Each time they go wrong they cost me time, which costs me or my employer money.

Do I blame Adobe for trying to protect themselves? No.

Am I angry that Adobe are introducing activation? Yes I am.

Will I be upgrading? On reflection, no. Not until there is a crack available that I can fall back on in the event that a legitimate activation request is delayed for whatever reason.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 1, 2003
because your registered software got "Pirated"<

Hee, hee hee


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
2
2ears
Oct 1, 2003
Will I be upgrading? On reflection, no. Not until there is a crack available that I can fall back on in the event that a legitimate activation request is delayed for whatever reason.

As I stated on another threat, the activation system change the nature of the license in its core. It keeps the control of the software use in the hand of the seller, thus it is changing a sale into a rent.

It is obviously a trend of the software industry to tend towards renting system. One can agree or not. To accept renting or not.

But there is one thing sure :

It is that if Adobe is willing to turn PSP to a rented software, it must be said loud and clearly, instead of disguising it behind an "anti-piracy measure".

As far as I am concerned I don’t agree to rent PSP and I will not upgrade. I will turn to normal licensed softwares or to opensource.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 1, 2003
2ears,

"It keeps the control of the software use in the hand of the seller, thus it is changing a sale into a rent."

How so? When Photoshop CS2 comes out I will still be able to continue to use Photoshop CS much like I can still use Photoshop 7 or even 5.5 today if I so choose. Adobe cannot force you to upgrade if you don’t want to. Only you can choose to use the feature set of the new version if you want to.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 1, 2003
It keeps the control of the software use in the hand of the seller, thus it is changing a sale into a rent.

You obviously have no knowlege of software licensing. You have never purchased software. The seller, in this case Adobe, owns the software. All you buy from them is the right to use it. This doesn’t change one bit with activation.

Get your facts straight before you post nonsense like this.

Bob
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 1, 2003
You obviously have no knowlege of software licensing. You have never purchased software.

Not only are you argumentatively jumping to offensive conclusions, but I believe it’s you who needs to get his facts right.

The seller, in this case Adobe, owns the software. All you buy from them is the right to use it. This doesn’t change one bit with activation.

It most certainly does change "one bit". You will no longer have the ability to move it between machines without asking Adobe’s permission. It is no longer licensed to "you", but to a specific machine. Exercising your "license to use" the software in certain, perfectly EULA-legal, ways (such as temorarily moving the software for whatever reason) will change from being a 2 minute job to taking far longer, probably involving a phone call where you have to justify yourself to an Adobe employee.

No, it may well not be the end of the world, but has the potatial to be an enormous pain in the a$$, and as this PITA will affect only those of us who are honest enough to actually buy the damn software I think we have every right to complain about it.
P
PJD
Oct 1, 2003
Anything other than ‘minor hardware changes’ require reactivation, according to Adobe:

"The process allows minor hardware configuration changes without requiring reactivation"

If all software producers continue down this dreadful route, changing a motherboard will require begging dozens of organisations for permission to continue using the software for which one has lawfully paid! A nightmare.

So far as replacing hardware is concerned – yes that to is covered as is
hard drive replacement.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 1, 2003
Not only are you argumentatively jumping to offensive conclusions, but I believe it’s you who needs to get his facts right.

My facts are straight. Adobe owns the software, you possess a lisence to use it.

It most certainly does change "one bit". You will no longer have the ability to move it between machines without asking Adobe’s permission. It is no longer licensed to "you", but to a specific machine. Exercising your "license to use" the software in certain, perfectly EULA-legal, ways (such as temorarily moving the software for whatever reason) will change from being a 2 minute job to taking far longer, probably involving a phone call where you have to justify yourself to an Adobe employee.

Since you can have two concurrent activations I don’t see this as that big a problem. If you have special circumstances that require more, I’d be interested in hearing them.

No, it may well not be the end of the world, but has the potatial to be an enormous pain in the a$$, and as this PITA will affect only those of us who are honest enough to actually buy the damn software I think we have every right to complain about it.

Yes, you have a right to complain. But all you’re doing is getting worked up over a PITA that you haven’t even experienced yet. Why not wait and see?

Bob
P
PJD
Oct 1, 2003
As a registered user of a legal copy of Photoshop, I would definitely have upgraded from Adobe Photoshop 7 if it were not for Activation. Now I cannot see it happening.

I have, maybe, a hundred programs on my PC. If they all needed to be reactivated after a motherboard replacement, the process would be horrific! No thanks.

This is a development to resist. I’ll avoid software producers who show such lack of consideration for their customers..

"Bob Levine" wrote in
message
http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html

Bob
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 1, 2003
Since you can have two concurrent activations I don’t see this as that big a problem.

No, you can have one activation on a desktop and one on a laptop. That’s different. And no, maybe you don’t see it as a problem, but that doesn’t mean others wont.

If you have special circumstances that require more, I’d be interested in hearing them.

Not that its any of your business…

I have three desktop PCs at home (laptops are worthless to me). One is a new workstation, the others are older renderslaves. My apps are split between them. I often have to move PS between them depending on what else I am doing (rendering et al), but since there is only one of me (me being the only person who has access to my PCs, which are in my house) and I only have one monitor on my desk, it is litteraly impossible for me to break my EULA by using the license on more than one PC at a time. Whether or not I uninstall each version that I am not using is irrelevant (although in point of fact I do, my two slaves have small-ish HDs so I often need the swap-space for big renders).

At present it takes me 2 minutes to move PS, in the future I’ll have to make a phone call and justify myself to someone at Adobe.

That is unacceptable, and that is why I won’t be upgrading until I find a way to crack software I will be paying for anyway.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
I’m in a similar situation to Iain.

The fact that machine specific licensing has always been a part of the license is irrelevent because it didn’t affect users. Either the licensing has to change or activation has to change. Now they are enforcing machine specific licensing.

It’s like renting a video that you can only play on the VCR you registered with. If you bring it over to your girlfriends house, it doesn’t play because it was only registered on your VCR.

The difference is that in general, machine specific licensing is fundamentally different than user licensing.

Oh, and by the way, the license says a desktop and a laptop. So what happens when or if they are able to determine that you have two desktop installations? Everyone casually says "you can have two installations" – only if one of them is a laptop. They can enforce the license because one of your machines is not a laptop.

Is this the spirit of Adobe’s license? Or are these issues simply "acceptable casualties"?

Please stop negating real issues for honest folk. If we were dishonest, it wouldn’t BE an issue.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 1, 2003
Adobe must have noticed quite high occurances of duplicate serial numbers being registered before taking this step sop yes, these are acceptable casualties to eliminate or at least lessen this problem. Some people will be caught in the crossfire but you should be directing yor ire towards these morons instead of Adobe.

As for the spirit of the license, there is no such thing. Licenses are clear in this regard. The fact that Adobe was a little more lenient in the past was merely due to the limited ability to enforce their license. Adobe NEVER allowed two machines in the letter of the license, only ONE desktop and ONE laptop. If you didn’t have a laptop then you were not allowed to install the software in another desktop. Never have, never will. There is no such thing as the spirit of the license, that just a fabrication of anti-copyright slashbots who look for ANY loophole or means to legitimize their illegal violation of copyright and licenses.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
Well, you almost had me in agreement Stuart.

that just a fabrication of anti-copyright slashbots who look for ANY loophole or means to legitimize their illegal violation of copyright and licenses.

I’m not an anti-copyright slashbot. And your outright name-calling personal attacks, and lack of compassion for the inability of a written document to cover all possible scenarios, is quite irritating.

Further, your contention that there is no "spirit" is totally inaccurate. That isn’t to justify my actions or inaction (for not physically removing from one machine to the other while I was the one using it), rather, all agreements are created with a spirit. That’s basically what feeds lawyers.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 1, 2003
Tony,

Your paranoid ramblings are even more irritating. If you have proof that these things will come then share it with the rest of us. And as long as you’re handing out future predictions would you give me next week’s winning lottery numbers?
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 1, 2003
Adobe must have noticed quite high occurances of duplicate serial numbers being registered

Do you know this to be true? Can you point us to a source?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
Point taken Stuart. Paranoia is an unfounded fear. You obviously have information that suggests it is unfounded.

I yield to the Gentleman from the East.
DJ
dennis_johnson
Oct 1, 2003
At first blush, I thought activation would be a good idea, but now see that there are some clear difficulties for me as a user. From all this discussion, the conclusion I come to is that the product now has less value to me as a user than it did before, because it is less configurable to my workspace.

Less value, yet more expense – as I will need to purchase two licenses to be able to do what I could formerly do with one license. I did not realize that it was not permitted to install on two desktops. That seems to me an unreasonable limitation, since using Photoshop on a laptop is pointless. The display is not capable of being calibrated, making a laptop worthless in a color-managed environment.

I have come around in my thinking, and oppose the imposition of activation as it is currently configured – not so much because I oppose activation per se, but because I disagree with the terms of the License Agreement.

I will not upgrade so long as Adobe maintains activation in its current configuration. I suspect others will do likewise, and I hope enough of us vote with our feet to make a difference to Adobe.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 1, 2003
Please read the following extracts from the NEW EULA:

"Permitted Number" means one (1) unless otherwise indicated under a valid licence (e.g., volume licence) granted by Adobe.

2.1 General Use. You may install and use one copy of the Software on up to the Permitted Number of your compatible Computers; or

2.4 Portable or Home. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 1, 2003
2.4 Portable or Home. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software
is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer.

IOW, the second machine does not have to be a laptop.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
That’s what I got out of it. One down.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 1, 2003
Tony,

That’s what I got out of it. One down.

How many more need to come down before you’re happy?

Write them down in legible form along with your reasons:

1.

2.

3.

BTW: if multiple "installs" at the same time is included then you might want to consider the volume license – that way you don’t have to concern yourself with activation. From memory there is a 5 license option.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 1, 2003
From memory there is a 5 license option.

Oh goody. One user, five licenses.

For many uses, The Gimp <http://www.gimp.org> will suffice.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
How many more need to come down before you’re happy?

You’re right Ian, that one does it. I’ve been an ass through the whole thing. I apologize to all whom may have been confused by my diatribe. I don’t know what I was thinking.

I had refused to migrate to XP even though it is a more stable operating system than the one that I use now (win98) for the simple fact that I had protested Activation as a principle – I took the hit for it in terms of performance.

Now that Adobe has incorporated Activation I felt compelled to register my protest. And that probably wasn’t the right thing to do.

It has been well argued by proponents of Activation as well as those who agree with the upgrade suite v. individual components, that there is nothing to worry about. This step is little more than a fly in the ointment and I shouldn’t worry about what’s becoming of the software industry. Indeed, the argument for Activation is sound, well reasoned and should be supported so that we can continue to enjoy earning a living from the tools provided by Microsoft, Adobe, and others who follow suit.

I formally retract all protest to product activation, especially as it relates to the non-regulation of licensing and the ability of companies, whomever they may be, to enforce licensing. Should the day ever come that I am told by a software vendor, that a mission critical application will not operate if a competing product is on the system, I will accept it as the way that it is.

Further, I also retract my protest for machine licensing v. user licensing. I see now that the venture was pure folly.

Who was it that said "the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few"? It seems that my position was selfish, and I’m sorry.

I mean, after all, the point of it is to be quiet and go along, isn’t it?

Now that I’m in agreement with all the proponents of this move, I hope to regain my credibility as a reaonably intelligent individual. If that doesn’t come to pass, I will work very hard to make sure that I fully agree with the crowd so as to not be called a moron again.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 1, 2003
YrbkMgr wrote:

A sweet, ironic post.

Well written, my friend. I hope all take it in the spirit in which it was posted.

Tim
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 1, 2003
If you didn’t have a laptop then you were not allowed to install the
software in another desktop.<

I *think* you might be mistaken there – Adobe has always allowed you to use the software on two machines (such as your workstation at your place of employment and another copy on your home computer).


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
Oct 1, 2003
the second machine does not have to be a laptop.

Photoshop CS upgrade…$169

Getting full size tower off my lap…priceless!
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 1, 2003
Carol, that’s not the letter of the EULA, it explicitly states a laptop as a second computer… at least the one I read did.

Tim
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 1, 2003
The quoted section of the EULA (was that in this thread or the other one?) seems to envision two scenarios, both of which are allowed:

1. Corporate user who wants to install the program on a home computer, too.

2. Desktop user who wants to install the program on a laptop, too.

It doesn’t take account of users like me who have a personal copy of the software and multiple desktop computers. Or corporate users who roam to various working spaces and need to use the program in different places at different times.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 1, 2003
as well as those who agree with the upgrade suite v. individual components

You can’t lump them together with the activation argument. It’s completely different. I’m not very big on the suite upgrade myself. I wouldn’t want to be tied to future suite upgrades.

I’m going to upgrade PS and ID. I’ll consider Illustrator after I’ve done a bit more research. There’s no way I want to be committed to future suite upgrades. I want to consider each app on its own merit.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
John,

As I read Ian Lyons’ post, he makes it clear that in your circumstance, you need to buy more licenses.

In the past, it was required by the license that you uninstall before installing it to a new machine. In order to enforce those terms, product Activation requires that you get each machine you wish to work on approved by the software author. Functionally, like it or not, the current activation scheme transforms Adobe licensing (and most other software authors) to authorize a machine, and not a user.

Now, you must not only uninstall it, but as a verification, you must get each machine approved.

So to reiterate the point, you (and I) need more licenses to continue the way we work, or we must change the way we work. It’s that simple.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 1, 2003
Unfortunately, Tony, you are one of the honest people who will suffer. But I really think a call to Adobe is in order for you. Talk to them and see if you can work this out. They may be willing to give you an extra activation code. It can’t hurt to ask.

Bob
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 1, 2003
John,

Do NOT confuse the issue – the quote I gave is for the individual retail version for Windows (Photoshop CS). This version allows ONE (1) primary and ONE (1) home or laptop install. Technically two computers within the same work environment should be separately licensed. However, as has already been stated there is no mechanism within the product to prevent both computers being in use at the same time even on the same network. It is down to your honesty.

So far as I understand things corporate versions are Volume License which do NOT require activation – they are however also bound by the EULA conditions.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 1, 2003
Bob,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Talk to them and see if you can work this out.

I will. We’ll see how it goes. Now I have to figure out how I’m going to pay for all this stuff, or if I will wait until version 9.
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 1, 2003
Ian —

Not trying to confuse the issue. Just laying out what the EULA language seems to say when I read it.

So am I understanding your post right? You seem to suggest that the EULA could mean:

* Primary computer might be a home desktop computer.
* Secondary computer might be another home desktop or might be a laptop.

I suppose that’s possible. IANAL, and I won’t pretend to interpret that deeply.

As I read the text, there’s no reason to specify "home" for the secondary computer unless you’re distinguishing it from a primary computer that’s not a home computer. But lawyers move in mysterious ways.
JW
John_Woram
Oct 1, 2003
"based on history, I can’t see them NOT being reasonable."

I sure hope you’re right. But based on history, I recall that Adobe is a member of the SBA (Software Business Alliance), a group which uses its power, scare tactics, threats, etc., on the premise that all customers are guilty until proven innocent. That doesn’t encourage me to think of them as reasonable.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 1, 2003
I had planned on buying a copy of Illustrator 10 yesterday, because it’s the last one that’ll run on my main computer, and because it’ll get me a $15 upgrade to Illustrator CS–for either Windows or Mac. Then I realized that there is no guarantee that Illustrator 10 will be a better experience than 9.

Finally, I decided against getting Illustrator 10 because of product activation! No, neither Illustrator 10 nor 11 has it now, but if activation is not a total, horrifying, stinking failure, from a sales point of view, it will be added to Illustrator–probably during the CS.0.1 upgrade. Even though I’ve used Illustrator since 4.0, I didn’t want to commit to lock-in. I’ll do something else–anything else.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 2, 2003
a member of the SBA

and tha BSA (Business Software Alliance) too. 🙂
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 2, 2003
TMDA.

Too many damn acronyms.
SS
Stephanie_Schaefer
Oct 2, 2003
harv,

What "lock in" are you referring to? Adobe doesn’t require you to upgrade any application – and as you mention, AI *doesn’t* include Activation.

You can always download the tryout, for AI10, for free, then decide on your softawre purchase.

–Steph
RH
r_harvey
Oct 2, 2003
What "lock in" are you referring to? Adobe doesn’t require you to upgrade any application – and as you mention, AI *doesn’t* include Activation.

From post #121:

…neither Illustrator 10 nor 11 has it now, but if activation is not a total, horrifying, stinking failure, from a sales point of view, it will be added to Illustrator–probably during the CS.0.1 upgrade.
V
viol8ion
Oct 2, 2003
Carol, that’s not the letter of the EULA, it explicitly states a laptop as a second computer… at least the one I read did.

I have never seen one that specified "laptop". The verbiage was "portable computer" and that can be defined very loosely.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 2, 2003
The verbiage was "portable computer" and that can be defined very loosely.

I move my home computer when sweeping for "dust bunnies". Sure it’s portable! I port it to the left, sweep, then port it to the right, sweep… %D
JW
John_Woram
Oct 2, 2003
"and tha BSA (Business Software Alliance) too."

Oops!! Right!–it’s BSA, not SBA. Must be something wrong with my keyboard. It couldn’t be my fingers (or brain)<g>.
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 2, 2003
Hey McCoy:

As for the spirit of the license, there is no such thing.

Funny, Adobe seem to disagree. From the FAQ on Adobe’s very own site:

Q: Does product activation represent a change in licensing terms?

A: No. Activation is an interactive extension of existing licensing terms and as such represents the spirit of Adobe’s Product License Agreement.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 2, 2003
Touché Iain. <smile>
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 2, 2003
Yes, viol8ion, you are right. My mental translator kicked in. All of my computers have ports, does that make them portable? Why do they even put that in, if not to trip someone? Where’s this new EULA? The activation page pointed to the v.7 one, which is the same one I’ve got in my "legal" folder, which makes no mention of home v. office, but does mention portables.

Another question, which I haven’t seen considered: when CS2 comes out,and assuming that it still has activation, will one have to unregister at least one of the two CS1 copies to activate the new version?

Tim

PS. Just checking, "viol8ion" passes this spell check, but "EULA" doesn’t !?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 2, 2003
PS. Just checking, "viol8ion" passes this spell check, but "EULA" doesn’t !?

Kind of "tell tale" isn’t it?
V
viol8ion
Oct 2, 2003
PS. Just checking, "viol8ion" passes this spell check, but "EULA" doesn’t !?

Kind of "tell tale" isn’t it?

You can see who has clout around here! :~P
RC
Ron_Crain
Oct 2, 2003
wrote in message

| Activation as implemented in Windows Photoshop CS allows installation | on no more than two separate computers. That’s all it does. It has no | enforcements or tracking of when those two installed versions are used.

If your notebook is stolen – you get a replacement and try to re-activate on the new system? I can see problems with Adobe thinking you already have 2 installations and not allow authorization.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 2, 2003
If your notebook is stolen – you get a replacement and try to re-activate on the new system? I can see problems with Adobe thinking you already have 2 installations and not allow authorization.

In the real world, I would think, that you call Adobe and tell them. They will issue a new activation number. The old one will still work, because AFAIK, they can’t "de-activate" it, since there’s not a continual Phone Home. Which is a good thing.

BUT… if they don’t believe you, you will have to buy a new seat.

When won’t they believe you?

When you have tried to activate 8 times in some time period (a year?).

Or.. when they just think you’re lying. It’s really up to them, and how well you can sell your story.

Then when the patch is released (there’s always one right?), it will only work on the systems that have current activation. The stolen laptop, in the example above will still work, but the patch can’t be applied because it’s been "retired" in the Adobe database.

At least that’s how I piece it together.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 2, 2003
Fax them a copy of the police report. I’m sure they’ll help you out.

Or better yet, don’t leave your laptop lying around.

Bob
V
viol8ion
Oct 2, 2003
Fax them a copy of the police report. I’m sure they’ll help you out.

It can sometimes take up to a week to get a copy of a police report.. that is lost time, and not a reasonable alternative.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 2, 2003
I don’t think they wouldn’t believe you – not the first time. But if you start calling up with incident after incident, it would (and probably should) be flagged.

So I think if you call them and say: "My laptop died. I bought a new one." They’ll say "okay, here’s your number". I don’t think they’d be ridiculous about it. Some companies would, though.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 2, 2003
It can sometimes take up to a week to get a copy of a police report.. that is lost time, and not a reasonable alternative.

You have 30 days from installation til the software stops functioning. No lost time.

Bob
DE
david_evanson
Oct 2, 2003
I expect I will upgrade to CS, but at least I have learnt one thing from all this – It is worth reading the EULA. I was planning on buying a laptop expecting to have to buy a second copy of Office XP for the laptop but I see I can now legally install the copy I bought for the desktop 🙂

I a commercial environment I don’t see why everybody is so surprised – all our software at work (CAD, design simulation etc.) is one seat = one license, you require N copies on N PCs you buy N licenses and for some of this software we are talking £20k+ per seat.
DM
Drew_McManus
Oct 2, 2003
Hello all:
I just wanted to let you know that we at Adobe have taken note of your activation comments and value your feedback.

We have done extensive research, including a broad market test, that indicates activation can be an effective method to curb the most common forms of piracy. We have worked hard over the past year to ensure that we can implement activation with minimal inconvenience to our customers.

The following addresses some of the questions I’ve seen here:

Number of Activations:
Our End User License Agreement still allows you to install Adobe software on two machines. The activation system permits these two installs.

Flexibility:
The system has been built by taking our customer’s common usage patterns into account. The activation strategy has been designed to accommodate replacing machines, reconfiguring hardware, uninstalling and reinstalling an application, and many other situations that do not require the need to call or notify Adobe.

In addition, there is a 30-day grace period allowing full use of the software for up to 30-days before activation is required. This helps ensure activation does not get in the way of getting work done.

Customer Service:
Our customer service reps have been thoroughly trained on activation. They are well-equipped to handle customer inquiries, answer questions about the terms of the End User License Agreement, and solve activation-related problems.

Thanks again for the feedback. Your input is important.

Drew McManus
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 3, 2003
Holy Moly. Well Drew, you got my vote. What a professional and reassuring message – that’s not sarcasm, it’s genuine.

I don’t like activation one bit, but… never let it be said that Adobe does not listen or Adobe does not care.

<golf clap>
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 3, 2003
It would mean a whole lot more if it weren’t almost exactly the same message Discreet uses to justify its own bug-ridden, unstable, intrusive copy-protection system (which comes from Macrovision… who list Adobe as a customer on their website)…
V
viol8ion
Oct 3, 2003
You have 30 days from installation til the software stops functioning. No lost time.

But my deadline is tomorrow.. gasp!

Carl
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 3, 2003
which comes from Macrovision… who list Adobe as a customer on their website

No kidding? Sigh. And I was SO hopeful that they would do the reponsible thing. If it is a non-custom implementation of Macrovision, they’re making a mistake.

On the upside, I posted in the lounge, Adobe’s a big company and it’s not often that a Director level individual comes in and says "calm down folks, wait and see." It does NOT lack sincerity IMO – it may be naive (and I’m not saying that it is) but it’s not insincere either. At least that’s my take on it.

Also, we have the early adopters to tell us what’s what. I’m counting on them more than anything.
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 3, 2003
Two sets of issues:
* Concerns that the activation scheme will not function smoothly * Objection to the very idea of activation

Adobe is responding to the one, ignoring the other.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 3, 2003
True John, but at the end of the day, why do we even care about activation at all? The principle? I’ve thought about this a lot. So here’s me, and it’s just me…

I’ll set the playing field, from my perspective.

We all agree that the authors deserve their money for producing the product. We all agree that it’s wrong to steal it – even though some still steal and think it’s pretty harmless (witness Winona Ryder), we know it’s wrong.

We also know that pirating benefits companies in tangible ways. Not all pirating, but casual copying, benefits companies. It gives folks a chance to use the product that would otherwise not have used it. We KNOW that a 30 day trial is "okay", but it really sux. You take a program like Photoshop, as complex as it is, and in 30 days have to evaluate whether or not it’s "for you". That isn’t enough time – it just isn’t.

So casual copying does have a benefit in that it allows folks to try the program, on their own time, with their own learning curve. If you got a copy of Photoshop 5.5 from your cousin, and you really need Photoshop, or think it is the cats meow, eventually, you will buy it. It becomes important, much like many of the products in the MS Office Suite. If you stole MS Word 95, eventually, you’ll have to buy 97, 2000, or whatever.

On the other hand, there are many businesses that buy a single seat and outfit a department with it. They have a skewed idea of where to cut costs. So they rob companies of their rightful revenues.

So in principle an activation mechanism is not the worst idea. I make a product and I know people steal it. I’ve elected to avoid anti-copy techniques because they all, well, suck. But it really isn’t fair for a flagship product like MS Office or Photoshop to be outright stolen, day after day. Something has to be done.

The casualty is the revenue generated from casual copying. We may have to just live with that.

That’s the playing field. Here’s the game though, and where I think companies need to be careful. I will be extreme in my examples ONLY to illustrate a point, hoping that the reader can imagine the less clear-cut scenarios that lie in between.

The "game" is: It is fair to enforce licensing ONLY when licensing is fair. Think about that for a minute.

There are two aspects of this. First, software companies like the idea of "per use" rental. It is a way to feed Wall Street (our real nemesis). Electronic enforcement of licensing is a way to begin the trend, to set market expectations, so that one day, when you need to use Photoshop (or more likely Microsoft Word), you will have to log onto the internet and give your credit card number to pay to use the program. Maybe in 10 years, but this is one way to do it. A gradual shift in the paradigm (I know Chris hates that word) of the market. I don’t know if it can ever come to pass, but you can bet that it’s being talked about – seriously.

But the other aspect, and the one that hits home today, that, IMO, we must be VERY VERY careful of, is fair licensing.

Right now, the general consensus is, unless a license violates a specific state or federal law, software companies can do whatever they like, write whatever they like, and the courts side with them because you will have agreed to usage terms. The argument is, not reading the license is no excuse, and you read the terms and agreed. That’s really powerful.

There is no "watchdog" that sides with the consumer in terms of ensuring fair licensing. If you read what is happening, legal battles are being won by the authors, not the consumers, where licensing is concerned.

So, in theory, Darth Vader (who lives in Redmond by the way) can create a license that defines what software you must use in concert with the software you’ve licensed. They could come out with just about any restriction they like, and because there is no watchdog group, they have, virtually, free reign. Impossible? Hardly. You need a class action suit brought against them to even have your side heard. Will you abandon the software? Doubtful, because the idea is to gain acceptance as a standard, then make it too painful to change. Oh, no one’s forcing you, by the way, to succumb.

In Adobe’s case, and more to the heart of the issue is, their license needs revision, IMO. Then, activation issues really, go away.

The license needs to be flexible as well as binding. With activation, the argument is, "Well, we are enforcing the terms of the license you agreed to – it’s the same license that you agreed to for every other version". Fine. Then make your license fairer. Because Activation, that is, the way enforcement of the license restriction of "work computer and home/portable computer", in essence, transforms the license from a "USER" license to a "MACHINE" license. The gray areas of the license were virtually ignored because first, it’s too hard to define them, and second, it is too hard to enforce.

But with Activation, you start drawing black and white lines – okay, fine. But then it must follow that the license needs to go further in defining what is black and what is white. What is a portable/Home computer?

An example: Why shouldn’t a user be allowed to port his copy of Photoshop to ANY machine he wishes? The answer? Because Adobe cannot be sure that his use will be for good and not evil – that’s the only reason. So to "protect" themselves against the potential evil, they, in essence, decide what machines are allowed, and when.

This is Machine Licensing, not User Licensing.

In practice then, rather than redefine a license that technology is challenged to enforce 100%, they create "exception rules". These exception rules lessen the effectiveness of the technology used to verify adherence to the license, and activation, in essence, serves as a "gatekeeper" so to speak, so as to alert Adobe to potential abuses. They train customer service reps to listen to the "pitch" that they hear on the phone, and someone makes a decision as to whether or not you must buy an additional seat.

But the criteria for that seat, is no longer user eligibility, it is machine eligibility. This is fundamentally, the domain of the license, and why *I* think that the license needs severe revision.

As a closing comment (and I’m sorry for such a long post), I ask again: Why shouldn’t a user be able to use Photoshop, or any software that he/she has licensed, on any machine that they wish? With activation, “historical acceptance of the agreement” does not apply.
DV
Dirck_Van_Lieu
Oct 3, 2003
I think of many metaphors for the licensing situation but they all fall apart somewhere.

One that sticks with me is likening my Photoshop to my table saw. I need a table saw in my shop, but I also need one on my job site. I purchased two table saws, I did not expect Delta to give me the second one because I needed it in another location. But this is a poor example as I could also say that, if I need a special blade for my table saw, I’m free to use it on either machine as I choose.

Software is different. It’s not a hammer, it’s not a saw. Those things cannot be cloned as easily as software can. One reason "casual" piracy thrives is that its theft has little effect on the one who purchased the rights. If you steal my hammer, it’s gone, I can’t drive nails. If you copy my software, I carry on as usual, having lost nothing. Those who allow copying would scream bloody murder if you uninstalled their applications and made off with their disks.

I’m very much opposed to piracy. Enough so that when I went to my local shipper last week with a boxed edition of Photoshop 7 and heard the man behind the counter tell me that he had a pirated copy of PS 6, I bought a shipping box and turned around and left and used the USPS instead because I didn’t want to give him the chance to make himself an upgrade from my disk. I don’t know the bounds of my ethics. I see a real need for the right to install a second copy on my portable, and I did so four years ago before I knew it was an allowed use under the EULA. No one else uses my Adobe software. No one in my family cared about it in the least. I offered my son a legitimate set of disks and he turned them down!

Now I live and work alone and there is no way anyone else could use my PS even if it was on four machines. But two’s the limit. Is that flawlessly logical? Maybe not, but it’s as close as the company can come to exercising some reasonable control over the distribution of its products.

My take on activation is that it is potentially intrusive and the technology can be abused. But it brings no change whatsoever to the expectations that Adobe has of its customers. The difference now is that you may have to meet those expectations.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 3, 2003
The difference now is that you may have to meet those expectations.

True. Which goes to my point of ensuring licensing is to the user and not the machine by revising the license.

There is no good argument as to why photoshop, or any other software I am licensed to use, should not be able to follow me, the user, instead of the machine. Or is there?

And by the way, no one prevents you from moving your saw from building to building, whenever you want.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 3, 2003
We mustn’t confuse law with un-challenged, one-sided software licenses.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 3, 2003
Dirck, there are those that find it more reasonable to put their table saw in the truck and take it with them. There is a technology that has been used for years to enforce a per-user license, a dongle. Someone can pick up the product in the store, carry it home, and feel like they really bought something, so they have the illusion of ownership; in fact, they do own something, the dongle.

The downside here is that it prevents electronic distribution of a product, and also costs something to produce (though I wonder if it would cost any more than the administration of an activation scheme). Dongles can also be hacked, but I think that there’s parity here – every scheme that I’ve seen, including diskette keys, have been.

I’m a bit too familiar with data mining to be comfortable giving a company any more information than is necessary for me to use their product, whatever the policy is today can be changed in six months, and you may be forced to accept it – if you need that patch, you’ll need to agree.

Tim
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 3, 2003
And by the way, no one prevents you from moving your saw from building to building, whenever you want.

And nobody is stopping you from deactivating and reactivating the software. It’s just a high and mighty pain in the butt. Kinda like trying to move a table saw from one place to another.

Cross examine? 🙂

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 3, 2003
And nobody is stopping you from deactivating and reactivating the software.

Well, in truth, we don’t know that yet. When I get to my 12th activation deactivation scheme, will I be allowed? How about the 120th?

At some point, as I said, this activation serves only as a gatekeeper to flag potential abuse. It’s ultimately left up to someone to decide.

If I can activate/deactivate as much as my heart desires, then we don’t have an issue. I’m not convinced that’s true – yet.

We mustn’t confuse law with un-challenged, one-sided software licenses.

This is the essence of my point.
DV
Dirck_Van_Lieu
Oct 3, 2003
I can move my saw from room to room and you can move your computer from room to room. How does that enter into it?

My saw weighs something on the order of 500 pounds and is close to 7′ wide…
RH
r_harvey
Oct 3, 2003
My saw weighs something on the order of 500 pounds and is close to 7′ wide…

Then perhaps you are comparing non-equivalent intellectual property. Try changing the comparison to a book.
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 3, 2003
The real truth probably lies in between the two argument extremes. As Tony stated, and probably all of us would agree, Adobe has a legitimate reason for trying to protect its property and ensuring a good return for its shareholders. And, yes, there are certainly blatant instances of pirating of software. Someone mentioned the company that buys one copy but uses it throughout the company on all their machines. This is blatant piracy and I’m sure it costs Adobe (and other software companies) many thousands if not millions of dollars. There are also the overseas pirates (Hong Kong, China, etc.) where software is duplicated and copies sold for a few dollars apiece on the street. I’m sure there are places right here in the USA where the same thing is happening. This too is obvious piracy and is costing the software companies a lot of money. I think these are the people Adobe and others should be going after. These wholesale pirates have no problem cracking any copy protection or activation scheme and do it with alacrity. So, unless you catch them redhanded, there is little that can be done. But, and this is a big but, this is where the real money is being lost.

There are also the people who ‘share’ a copy with a friend or two. This too is piracy. The question, though, is how much does this casual copying or ‘sharing’ really costing Adobe? I’ve stated before that I have had copies of software from friends. I suspect many people here have done the same at some point. Some of it I liked and some of it was junk. So, once familiar with the software and knowing that I would use it (and need the manual and access to technical support), I bought it at full price. Some companies even had amnesty programs (Xtree comes to mind) for the casual pirates. The junk? I threw it away. The point here is that we actually purchased the software once we had a chance to ‘try it out’. The ready availablity of 30-day demos does somewhat negates this nowadays.

Activation schemes like Adobe is doing with Photoshop will only antagonize the honest people who would never steal software in the first place. Yes, there will always be the casual thieves as described above but how much are they really costing Adobe? The mass-market thieves and the dishonest companies are the ones who are really costing Adobe money but those are the ones who have no problem breaking any activation or licensing schemes.

So what has Adobe accomplished? They have not appreciably limited wholesale piracy but have managed to irritate the individual users who are usually eager (frothing at the mouth?) to buy the latest and greatest. Activation, and other bonehead moves like not including printed manuals, will cause many of us to forego buying the latest and greatest. This is especially true when the latest and greatest is really just a relatively minor evolution of the software. Others will be driven to the competition.

I seriously doubt if the savings from reduced piracy (if any) will ever be offset by the losses from people abandoning ship or just not upgrading. So, we have to respect Adobe’s right to try it. Let’s just hope they will see, with time, that it is more trouble than it is worth.

Jake
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 3, 2003
Bob, if they made de-reactivation too easy, someone would find a way to hijack activations. A dongle is more like the keys to your car/home/office, except that there aren’t ligitimate locksmiths that can make you a copy to tuck away in the false rock.

If CDs were more robust, I wouldn’t mind so much carrying the program around that way… except for the speed of loading, except that operating systems mostly won’t allow that. How about the entire program on a USB device? Slot in the ones that you need at the moment. Software companies seem to want to move as much of the pain as possible onto the user, download the software, and if you want a secure copy, burn it yourself. If
you want a printed manual, you get to buy the paper and ink or toner and bind it yourself.

Dirck, as you said, your analogy was flawed. I suppose that I could build my two monitors and one computer, keyboard, mouse, tablet, scanners, speakers, printers into a cabinet on wheels, which would then rival your saw. r_harvey’s representation is how we would like software to be, but software companies prefer your analogy.

Tim
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 3, 2003
While Harvey’s analogy is better, Dirck, it’s not like moving your saw. It is more analogous to telling you what building it can be operated in.

Now, move the building.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 3, 2003
<chortle!>
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 4, 2003
After reading the comments here, I have come to a couple of conclusions.

Although stated as the reason for activation Adobe is not really addressing the primary source of piracy, large scale copying, both foreign and domestic, for the purpose of resale. Also, according to the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the rate of piracy is declining, not increasing. (below)

As stated earlier in this thread, companies that purchase PS-CS under a volume agreement are not required to activate. Why?? Why are they less likely to steal than the small business person? It would seem to me that if Adobe was serious about piracy, it would require activation across the board.

So why are the individual users and small installation shops the ones being targeted for activation when they are not the primary offender of piracy. As mentioned, activation will not stop the pirates and they are not requiring activation for volume purchasers. After reading the information from the BSA, I think it is because:

a) BSA has convinced the software companies that activation is the right thing to do EVEN THOUGH the world is experiencing declining rates of piracy (see below). Software companies have bought into their agenda..
b) Software companies are doing this to make themselves feel good about doing something to stop piracy even though they are not solving their primary loss areas. They really don’t have anything else to do.

So here are some interesting statistics from the Business Software Alliance (of which Adobe is a member).

• North America has the lowest piracy rate in the world and this rate has been steadily declining, from 32% in 1994 to 24% in 2002.
• Latin America: Between 1994 and 2002, piracy rates in the Latin American region dropped 23 points, from 78% to 55%.
• Western Europe: From 1994 to 2002, the piracy rate of Western Europe fell 17 points, from 52% to 35%, third best of all the regions.
• Middle East, Africa: The Middle East/Africa region improved the most of any region with a 31 point reduction in piracy, from 80% in 1994 to 49% in 2002.The Middle East, on average, improved from a piracy rate of 84% in 1994 to 50% in 2002, a drop of 34 points. As a whole, Africa dropped 29 points, from 77% in 1994 to 48% in 2002..
• Asia/Pacific: The piracy rate in the Asia/Pacific region improved by 13 points. China’s piracy rate showed modest improvement. Its rate changed only five points, from 97% in 1994 to 92% in 2002.
..
How does BSA come up with the rates of piracy? In an example in the US they state that the rate of piracy in Wyoming is 40.3%. I believe this number to means that out of all the software sold in this state, 40% was an illegal copy. How can this be, there are not very many people in Wyoming anyway. But the BSA claims that 184 state jobs were lost.

I think the really interesting thing about the authentication subject is the contradiction in implementation, who it is affecting, the users reaction and the real impact on piracy reduction. I mean, what is the cost benefit analysis on this issue.

First of all, there is development cost (per an earlier posting, about one years worth of development and testing), versus lost sales do to consumer revolt offset by actual anticipated sales increases due to stopped piracy. The latter number in their analysis has got to be highly subjective and questionable. Secondly, since there are improvements to piracy without authentication, why not focus more on those methods which appear to have a lower cost structure and don’t alienate the primary user base? How is authentication going to improve what is happening in China?

So maybe YrbkMgr is right.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 4, 2003
Thank you.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
Earl,

Excellent post. You articulated the incongruity very well.

While I was impressed that Drew made an appearance, and I DO trust Chris Cox, I’m not convinced at present that activation helps anyone. At least where Photoshop is concerned. Based on your post, it appears that Adobe may be fooling themselves into the "look boss, we’re doing something about it" mode.

I dunno. It seems to me that activation costs more than it will save. I know *I’m* not upgrading anytime soon. I will say that when I saw the feature set of PS-CS, I began to drool. I was noodling a way to work through all the other issues (XP upgrade, multiple suites, etc) so that I could acquire the new version.

Noting that activation, as a means to enforce licensing, changes the license, doesn’t solve the problem, and basically results in eroding the trust of the user base (by saying "we don’t know you, so we don’t trust you), in concert with the BSA stats, and the non-activation requirement where casual copying is more of a problem, hell, I’m not so quick to upgrade.

Maybe they thought that we were the least equipped to retalliate. I dunno.

Thanks again Earl for an enlightening post.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
Earls post has been bothering me. If I’m in a class of user that cannot be trusted, and my machine will become licensed instead of me, I’m wondering why the hell I hang out in a place that, fundamentally, doesn’t trust me.

Why the fark do I "give back"? Sure, I’ve gotten help here, but in the past year, I’ve given A LOT. I’m beginning to wonder why I do it now.

This is depressing.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 4, 2003
I’ve given A LOT. I’m beginning to wonder why I do it now.

Karma…

Big, heaping buckets full.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 4, 2003
Company supported forums are a strange hybrid, they benefit the company as well as the users. In a forum as active as this one, development, support, marketing all directly benefit; as a result, so does the bottom line.

Would you feel more comfortable helping other users if this were not a company forum, Tony? I don’t contribute so much here as most of the questions that I can answer have already been addressed by the time I visit and read the threads. I look in enough to know that Tony’s one of the most helpful people around, giving his time, ideas and comfort even when he doesn’t have a direct solution. Adobe would do well, and good, to reward those that help it so freely.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
Although stated as the reason for activation Adobe is not really
addressing the primary source of piracy, large scale copying, both foreign and domestic, for the purpose of resale.

Correct. According to Adobe the goal is stop casual copying.

Bob
MF
Many_Feathers
Oct 4, 2003
I’ve been reading some of the interesting comments here on activation.

I, too, was excited about the upgrade and now am considering not upgrading (although I doubt it will do any good). I have several instances with "activation" that were more than an "inconvenience":

1. My sister-in-law bought a new comoputer awhile ago from Best Buy. She wanted her kids to be able to do some simple word processing for their schoolwork. After 30 days of using Word, the activation screen came up. She didn’t know what it was and thought she was going to be charged for it if she connected to the Internet, so she called Best Buy. The knowledgeable sales clerk at Best Buy told her that she needed Windows XP Pro to be able to get the word processing included and usually it costed $x, but they had something on sale or something and could she could get it for a substantial amount less. So she bought it. Guess what? It worked for 30 days and then the activation screen came up again. That’s when she called me. I had never heard of the activation process and really didn’t know what she had bought at that time. After thinking about it for a bit, I thought I knew what it was and told her. By that time, she gave up on the whole thing and downloaded some simple, free, shareware, word processing program. So, what did this thing cost her? Somewhere in the vicinity of $100-$150 for the upgrade to XP Pro from XP Home, if I remember correctly…

2. I had a subscription to Audible.com. They have audio books you can download to either your desktop, your laptop, your Palm. Course, you have to activate each machine, so that you don’t give the book to someone else to listen to (which I still don’t get…I can give a book I’ve read to someone else to read, I can give an audio book I’ve purchased to someone else to listen too…. I don’t think that’s illegal yet, is it?) So, I activated it on my desktop and at the time, I had a Palm. Yet, in a few months, I switched to a Pocket PC. Now, I not only had all the difficulty of figuring out the darn thing and backing up and switching programs, I had to figure out how to activate on this new machine. After searching help forums, etc., I called and after a few calls and trials, got it working (didn’t have cable then, so every time they gave me instructions, had to hang up, try them, if they didn’t work, call back.) Unbelieveable inconvenience, yet we got it to work. Within a few months, they added a feature that allowed you to copy the books to cd’s, so now you could listen to them on your portable cd player. But…. you could only download it once. (Don’t get this idea either…if I have a cd burned and want to copy it for someone else, I can just as easily copy the cd as download it from their site.) Not knowing their how their software worked, especially with my cd burner, I had to call to request that I could burn more. The book I was trying to burn was 7 cd’s in length. I’d get to 4 and some bug-a-boo came up, and it didn’t work. So then I’d call and they’d tell me to try such and such. Well, I could only burn 3 more, so at the end of 3 when I realized I could only burn 3 more, I’d call back and they’d try and figure out what was wrong and give me 7 more or something. After several tries and hours of my time, I gave up and never did burn the full book. Guess what… I don’t use Audible.com anymore.

Activation… more than an inconvenience… I think so.

MF
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
Activation… more than an inconvenience… I think so.

As far your sister is concerned, well a bit of education could have prevented any lost revenue. I’ve had to activate MS software several times for myself as well as friends. No problems including reactivating after harddrive crashes. Inconvenient? No.

As far as Audible.com, well if what you say is true I don’t blame you for not doing business with them. But I won’t judge Adobe’s activation scheme using someone else’s as base. If it causes me nothing but trouble, I’ll be here yelling and screaming about it. In the mean time, based on past customer service, I’m willing to give it a go.

Bob
JW
John_Woram
Oct 4, 2003
"According to Adobe the goal is stop casual copying."

And at a cost of antagonizing every honest customer they have, and at the same time doing *nothing* to stop serious piracy. In fact, this might even *encourage* pirates to offer software with disabled activation, and that in turn will appeal to customers who were previously honest. When a company’s perceived policy is to treat every potential customer as a potential thief, then a certain segment of the population is going to live up to that expectation. Another segment will just stop buying.

So who wins? Certainly not Adobe.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
r_Harvey hit the nail on the head. I was being a bit childish I suppose, but John Woram sums it up quite nicely. I started coming to the forums to learn so that I could do it "faster, better, cheaper", and kind of "hawked" the forum for new techniques to get done what I do. Now I have a refined process, thanks to the forum, and I’m at "the top of my game" where photoshop is concerned, as it relates to what I do.

Paying it forward is the right thing to do. But I’m still P.O.’d because as John says "you body slam us, but let the criminals go free".

Also, we keep comparing Microsoft activation to others. I think there’s a fundamental difference between applicaion software and an operating system. I don’t think I was ever bothered by activation of XP – you don’t really port an OS, but an application is something that you need to follow you, not the machine. An OS isn’t something you’re going to uninstall and put on your laptop, Photoshop is.

Still, I feel like the girl who’s gone "too far" with a guy and didn’t get asked to the prom by him.
QB
Q.B.
Oct 4, 2003
I respect Adobe’s desire to curb piracy, but like so many others, I regard Product Activation as worse than useless

– it will have no effect upon the real pirates, who will no doubt crack PA within days;

– as others have said, it will irritate honest users, who will be made repeatedly to explain themselves and their conduct if simply upgrading their PC.

– It can be used as a first step towards and annual licensing regime; pay more for new license or update, or no new PA for you;

– it may drive otherwise honest users in to the pirates hands. The pirate may no longer be seen as the bad guy. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Of course, nothing we, the honest, licensed users, say here will make any difference. Even Norton Antivirus is to become subject to PA. The only hope – a long shot at best – is consumer protection legislation.

What is so sad about this is that we should all be talking about the great new features of PS CS. Instead, I just feel resentful and angry.

Bad move, Adobe.

QB
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
What is so sad about this is that we should all be talking about the great new features of PS CS. Instead, I just feel resentful and angry.

Bravo. Well said.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 4, 2003
What is so sad about this is that we should all be talking about the great new features of PS CS. Instead, I just feel resentful and angr

Hear! Hear!
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
– it will have no effect upon the real pirates, who will no doubt crack PA within days;

Unforturnately you’re correct here.

– as others have said, it will irritate honest users, who will be made repeatedly to explain themselves and their conduct if simply upgrading their PC.

Well if all you’re doing is making simple upgrades, then you’re not going to kill your activation. You get two activations without any question at all.

– It can be used as a first step towards and annual licensing regime; pay more for new license or update, or no new PA for you;

I personally find this argument to be completely ridiculous (please note I’m talking about the argument, not you.) Annual licensing could be instituted anytime Adobe chooses. Using this as a "first step" is not needed.

– it may drive otherwise honest users in to the pirates hands. The pirate may no longer be seen as the bad guy. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Again, I don’t disagree, but keep in mind that most users will never have to reactivate their software. As long as it’s on the same machine, you can install it over and over again with no need to "phone home." You’d probably have to replace some major component like a motherboard or processor in order to need to contact Adobe. And remember, you get two activations anyway.

Of course, nothing we, the honest, licensed users, say here will make any difference. Even Norton Antivirus is to become subject to PA. The only hope – a long shot at best – is consumer protection legislation.

Once again a valid point.

What is so sad about this is that we should all be talking about the great new features of PS CS. Instead, I just feel resentful and angry.

Amen! Except I’ll wait and see before I start feeling resentful and angry.

Bad move, Adobe.

Remains to be seen.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
Bob,

I personally find this argument to be completely ridiculous

Then you don’t read the news from computer journals. This is a predicted trend, it’s been talked about for a few years now.

The way to do it isn’t to "flip a switch". It is to gradually change the usage paradigm. If you want it to work, anyway. What the hell do you think happened with Microsoft? They created a dependancy, slowly. Then exerted prowess.

It’s not hard to see, NOR is it ridiculous.
QB
Q.B.
Oct 4, 2003
– It can be used as a first step towards and annual licensing regime;
pay more for new license or update, or no new PA for you;

I personally find this argument to be completely ridiculous (please note I’m talking about the argument, not you.) Annual licensing could be instituted anytime Adobe chooses. Using this as a "first step" is not needed.

To the contrary, PA gets the consumer used to the idea that the buying process does not stop at the checkout. Having paid their money, they (or rather, we) still have to activate it. And its a small step from there to the vendor (hopefully not Adobe – I’m generalising now) saying "we no longer provide new PA for that old software, you’ll have to upgrade", and a further small step from there to saying "you have to upgrade / buy a new PA license" annually.

I don’t think its ridiculous at all. I think it is inevitable. Maybe not Adobe, but someone will follow the path.

QB
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 4, 2003
<sigh> Yes, this could be the first brand added to the fire to cook the frogs slowly.

Wall Street likes companies with evenly rising revenue, and monthly or micro charges would level the peaks and troughs. If a company’s portfolio of products is broad enough, and the upgrades are compelling, and distributed throughout the year, the fluctuations aren’t so great. That’s a few too many ifs for some companies; some are taking a "use it or lose it" attitude for upgrades, if you don’t buy the next in sequence, you’ll have to pay the full price the next time around.

Software rental wouldn’t be that much of a problem with products that are almost entirely used by corporations, as their expenses get spread through the year as well (SAS comes to mind, I think that they are still only working with an annual renewal model). Adobe must be broadly distributed, in terms of revenue, from enthusiast home user to small design or press shop to larger enterprise. Maybe they’re looking to rental on the enterprise level, and forced upgrade on the lower end. If so, those a the bottom that can will abandon the product for something less costly (or pirate, one way or another), the enterprise will accept it as an industry standard, and those in the middle get squeezed.
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 4, 2003
You guys just don’t get it!

Adobe is actually SAVING money everytime one of us decides to buy no product or even one or two. Here’s the explanation. When I decide to buy only Photoshop at $169 instead of the CS Premium at $749, and then find the crack for the activation — which of course I will since I must be a pirate — and then give or sell it to all my friends, Adobe only loses $169 for each copy. When I find the one crack for CS Premium abd give or sell it to my friends, they would lose $749 for each copy. Of course, if I buy two or three of the apps (Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign, for example) they won’t save quite as much but they will still save something. Now, if I decide to be really obtuse, and buy nothing, they will save the entire $749. Don’t you see? By forcing me to buy none or fewer of their products, they are actually saving money in lost revenue!

My hat is off to Adobe!

Jake
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
Well it’s about time a little levity was brought to the table. Thanks Jake.

All in all, no matter what the argument for product activaion is, no matter which side of the table you’re on (pro or con), there are really a few facts that shouldn’t be ignored.

1. It doesn’t even touch piracy
2. The principle of Activation is built on mistrust, not as a benefit to long-time loyal users
3. Product Activation changes the form and function of the license as it exists today.
4. Where’s my cost savings from you piracy thwarting efforts?

Activation for an app helps no one, hurts loyal users. My concern about activation would really be moot, as a loyal user, if they changed the licensing to reflect user licensing, not machine licensing.

That is not to say I would like it; in principle, it’s a wrong move.

Know what would be cheaper? Offer a reward to turn in pirates. Not sure yet, how to make it work, but I’d rather have a bounty on seeking out and telling on pirates.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 4, 2003
I am sure Adobe has been sold activation software, probably at a high level in the company. Sold on the basis that the costs will be covered in a certain time by payback in extra sales as pirates are now forced to buy. Predictions will have been made on the impact of users not upgrading. Overall the picture being painted will be of benefit to Adobe’s bottom line. There will have been many within the company at lower levels who have already argued the cases being made here. They have been overuled. It would have been fascinating to have listened in!

Adobe will have a contract with the vendor of the activation software. Hopefully if the benefits predicted are not forthcoming Adobe will get some money back and think again.

Jeff
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 4, 2003
Yeah! I could use the cash!

Jake
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 4, 2003
"Know what would be cheaper? Offer a reward to turn in pirates. Not sure yet, how to make it work, but I’d rather have a bounty on seeking out and telling on pirates."

That stinks of Stasi, I think many of us would rather not go there. I’m happy to report a commercial pirate; an acquantance who is one of the "casual" pirates deserves a lecture, not a police action.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
I’m happy to report a commercial pirate; an acquantance who is one of
the "casual" pirates deserves a lecture, not a police action.

But you see, with product activation there is no casual piracy. 😉

Bob (who’s getting more and more into this Devil’s Advocate thing)
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 4, 2003
and may be fewer customers.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
and may be fewer customers.

Fewer customers or fewer freeloaders? Where are they gonna go? Quark? Whoops, no they have activation. Macromedia? No, that won’t work either. I know, Corel. But I have this funny feeling that when version 12 comes out, you’ll be screaming at them, too.

Everyone is talking a good game here, but the professionals are going to use the best tools available and if they have to have it activated they’re going to do it.

Now, let me point out that I’m not a big proponent of this but unlike most of you, I’m willing to give Adobe a chance to prove that it won’t be inconvenient. You’re accusing Adobe of not trusting you but are you trusting them when they say it won’t inconvenience you? For the most part you have no idea how this will affect you until you try it.

If you don’t want to try it, that’s your decision and perfectly acceptable. ID 2, PS 7 and Ill 10 are all very good applications and will continue to work quite nicely. I for one am going to upgrade and see how it goes. If it doesn’t go well, I’ll be first on line to complain, but I will have at least given it a try first.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Oct 4, 2003
I know, Corel. But I have this funny feeling that when version 12 comes out, you’ll be screaming at them, too.

I’ve been screaming at them since CorelDRAW 2. They’ll probably be slower getting it because the VC who bought the company is likely scrambling just to get it all sorted out, let alone considering tightening the screws. Their yearly upgrades aren’t that compelling as it is; no sense encouraging customers to skip one.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 4, 2003
Possibly fewer of both, possibly fewer customers and more freeloaders. Maybe on the bottom line it will look just fine, people who treated the license as a user license will buy more to stay ligit, those who feel that this is the camel’s nose under the tent won’t, but it will go in Adobe’s favor. As you say, Adobe is working from a strong position, we’ll see how strong.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
Bob,

I trust Adobe to a certain extent. But one thing that changes with product activation is the licensing arrangement. The point is, find an activation mechanism that licenses ME, the user, as intended with the original license, not the machine. That means that no one complained about the original license because they could still operate like honest folk, allowing their license to follow them. But with activation, the license changes, and drives the license to the machine.

<shrug>.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
The EULA doesn’t change. You can have the software installed on two machines as long as only one is being used at a time.

You’ve said that you need to move the software around to several machines. In the past this was easy.

Now, you don’t have to answer this, but have you really uninstalled it from one machine when putting it on another? Sounds like quite a pain to me, especially after there have been patches released and if you have third party plugins (which BTW have their own licensing restrictions).

If you haven’t uninstalled each time, you’ve technically violated your EULA. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not accusing you of anything but the black and white agreement hasn’t changed. What will change is the way it’s enforced.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Oct 4, 2003
I’d recommend immediately getting a "Beware of Dog" sign, then shopping around junkyards for an experienced dog.
GH
Grass_Hopper
Oct 4, 2003
Bob,

with all due respect, yes, it has changed. It *has* become machine specific. Whether or not this will be an issue for some or all remains to be seen.

I am not a fan of activation that has the *potential* to question the changes *I* make to my *own* system with regards to hardware, reformats etc. I realize that there are multiple activations and that Adobe has said there can be more de/reactivations as needed up to a certain number, but that’s the sticking point as far as I am concerned. The *potential* to be considered a dishonest person and NOT be given a reactivation number, thus effectively disabling a software that I paid a goodly amount of money for, is a scary thought.

Maybe you are right, maybe this is a moot point, but I agree with Tony that the license should remain with the USER and not their machine.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 4, 2003
Activation for an app helps no one, hurts loyal users<

Tony, can you please explain (in simple terms so that I can understand) how it actually hurts you.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
I still disagree. The license hasn’t changed. Not one letter of it. The only thing changing is the way you are interpreting it.

Bob
GH
Grass_Hopper
Oct 4, 2003
The only thing changing is the way you are interpreting it. Then I suppose we will have to politely agree to disagree.

By monitoring the equipment and NOT the user, perhaps you will call this interpretation, but I see it as a machine license and NOT a user license. When I am legally able to take my disk from one computer to another (with full uninstall to comply with the EULA) without concern about the hardware configurations, I believe the license is with the user. When the hardware is "monitored" (in whatever fashion the activation is using), then the license has, indeed, left the user and become machine specific.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 4, 2003
By monitoring the equipment and NOT the user, perhaps you will call this interpretation,

Which you are admitting to yourself by saying:

but I see it as a machine license and NOT a user license.

When I am legally able to take my disk from one computer to another (with full uninstall to comply with the EULA) without concern about the hardware configurations, I believe the license is with the user. When the hardware is "monitored" (in whatever fashion the activation is using), then the license has, indeed, left the user and become machine specific.

No, it hasn’t. The enforcement of the license has changed. You can still uninstall and reinstall on another machine. Yes, if you do it too many times then a red flag is going to be raised. But let’s be honest here, how many people are going to be faced with this situation? I don’t know about you but one machine suits me fine for the better part of 2-3 years.

And you do have a situation that calls for multiple installation you call Adobe and explain what the reasons are. Again, come back and yell and scream AFTER they tell you have to buy a new license. Maybe I’m the one who’s naive, but I just don’t see that happening.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 4, 2003
Carol,

Tony, can you please explain (in simple terms so that I can understand) how it actually hurts you.

Sigh. Why should I have to buy more licenses just because *I* move around. There is no error trapping in PA. It serves as a gatekeeper to flag potential abuse; then it requires that my need be justified.

One guy, one license. It should follow ME, not the machine.

Bob,

The enforcement of the license has changed

That’s the point. That means that the license needs to change to fairly accommodate the new enforcement rules. Before it didn’t matter if the license was poorly defined or not, or whether it took into consideration the myriad of individual circumstances. The playing field will change with activation.

But let’s be honest here, how many people are going to be faced with this situation?

How many does it have to be?

Again, come back and yell and scream AFTER they tell you have to buy a new license

By then it’s too late – don’t you see?

Riddle me this Batman. Why shouldn’t I be able to install Photoshop on 10,000 machines? Who is licensed, me or the machine?

Are you telling me to wait until I have had my 12th activation event, when Adobe flatly says, "Uh, your usage is abnormal, we’re not sure, you had better buy another seat because you’ve used up your quota of activations"? Who is licensed, me or the machine?

All I’m saying here is, if you want to enforce your document, make sure your document continues to license YOU, not your machine. Prior to activation YOU were licensed, not your machine. It’s fine to say "only two installations", but if the way you are verifying is by a unique number that is machine driven, you have transformed the license to say: "Look, anyone who has not paid for photoshop is allowed to use the program, provided they have this machine".
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
Why shouldn’t I be able to install Photoshop on 10,000 machines? Who
is licensed, me or the machine?

You are. As long as it’s only on two machines with only one on at a time. You still haven’t shown me why that still can’t be accomplished.

Are you telling me to wait until I have had my 12th activation event, when Adobe flatly says, "Uh, your usage is abnormal, we’re not sure, you had better buy another seat because you’ve used up your quota of activations"? Who is licensed, me or the machine?

You are, but for the most part any reasonable person would still have to ask why you needed twelve installs. And keep in mind, thats 12 installs on 12 different machines; you can install it 10,000 times on the same machine and not have to reactivate it. I said it before and I’ll say it again. Call Adobe, I don’t know any more than you do. Get someone on the phone who knows what’s going on and explain your workflow and your concerns. I’d be very curious to know they have to say.

FWIW, this has been a pretty hot topic on the InDesign Blueworld mailing list, too. Quite a few Adobe people have chimed in over there. For the most part it’s been a pretty reassuring stance. Maybe that’s why I’m taking a wait and see attitude.

There really aren’t too many companies that have as many representatives spending their own time trying to help customers. I say they deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 5, 2003
You are, but for the most part any reasonable person would still have to ask why you needed twelve installs.

My point entirely. Prosecution rests. I have 10,000 girlfriends and while we’re smooching, I’m processing images on her machine. When I’m done, I uninstall, and go to the next girlfriend.

Are you satisfied? No? Hmm… my point.

I am not allowed free use. I must justify my use, my habits, my idiosynchrocies. I’m not licensed, the machine is.

Anyone who has not purchased a license to photoshop is allowed to run it, as long as it’s on THIS particular machine.
KV
Klaas_Visser
Oct 5, 2003
With respect to the Machine Licence vs User Licence discussion:

From my reading, current software licences are largely based on the licences that were used in pre-PC systems (mainframes, minicomputers, etc) where the machine was licenced to run the software, and you bought X user licences to cover the appropriate number of employees who needed to access the system.

The advent of desktop systems made it more complex, and, in the early days, mechanisms to enforce machine based licencing didn’t exist – it was easier to treat PCs as "smart terminals" and use per-seat licencing schemes for businesses, and an end-user licencing system for individuals (which was meant to be machine specific, as no-one foresaw the revolution in computing styles that the desktop technology brought about) . However, initially, there was no technical means to enforce the EULA.

Over time, as the ability to enforce the EULA grew more sophisticated (dongles, CD-keys, anti-copying measures, and now activation) along with the technology, so we are starting to see more focus on enforcement.

So the model that software companies are trying to enforce comprises two parts:

Corporate/Business licencing – where multiple seats are required, buy one physical copy of the software for installs, and then buy X users

End user – one specific user, one specific system (allowing for a laptop, and for upgrades/replacements to the hardware).

Is this good or bad? Well, as Tony says, it’s a paradigm shift in how current accepted usage patterns will change by technical enforcement of the "rules". Acceptance will only come, if it ever does, after adaptation to the new paradigm.

And speaking to the software rental system – some smaller vendors already use this approach – Stardock Systems have a wide ranging suite of OS utilities that you can "buy" for around $50 a year, and it includes all upgrades / patches.

Also, MS actually bought out a subscription version of MS Office, where you could buy the suite for around a quarter of the retail price, but had to repay every year (so it would take four years to cost the same as the retail package, but you would have probably upgraded to a newer version by then) – the scheme didn’t work, folks were confused about it, so MS set out full versions to all those who had bought the subscription package.
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 5, 2003
Tony and others,

Why don’t you just give it up? Adobe could care less about how you feel. Certainly their hordes of defenders feel the same way. Adobe has essentially thumbed its corporate nose at its users because they know most people will pay and do whatever it takes to get the latest and greatest. There’s a sucker born every minute, as they say. The only way you will be able to express your discontent, with any effect, is to STOP buying their software. Unfortunately, you will be the one who does without the ‘latest and greatest’ because, as is evident from many of the comments on these forums, most people will buy no matter what.

I have had (and still do) a number of issues with Adobe:

1) Adobe Video Collection is available for $799 to anyone. There are NO upgrade offers to existing owners and no special discounts.

2) Adobe has taken the printed manuals out of the Creative Suite and apparently, the Design Collection. You can bet the rest will follow.

3) Adobe has raised the prices for individual upgrades to $169 from either $99 or $149. And this is at a time with interest rates at the lowest in history and inflation almost zero. You CAN still get the printed manuals with the individual applications but for how long?

4) Adobe is adding product activation to Photoshop and will, almost certainly, add it to other programs in the future.

So, what did I do? I did not buy the Video Collection even though I really wanted it. I bought Vegas + DVD instead (plus I already had Sound Forge) and got a great deal on it. I did buy After Effects as an individual product upgrade because nothing else compares. I also recently cancelled my order for the Creative Suite Premium when I found out there were no printed manuals. I might buy Photoshop CS (again, because nothing else compares) as an individual upgrade but have not decided yet. Now, I know that I am just a spit in the bucket as far as Adobe is concerned and they won’t even notice. But what if two people did the same as me? Still no matter. What about a hundred? Who cares? But what if several thousand people did it? Arlo Guthrie would call that a ‘movement’ (reference to "Alice’s Restaurant" for those who don’t understand). Now, that MIGHT just get Adobe’s attention. Who knows? The only way is to vote your conscience by NOT buying. We could always ask Jesse Jackson to organize a boycott …

If you are not willing to simply refuse to buy, and you know Adobe could care less even if you do, just stop complaining and buy along with all the other sheep … er, people.

Jake

P.S. Since we are all now pirates anyway, why not just go to one of the ‘warez’ sites and download it for free? Someone has already posted "Photoshop 8" on at least one. If we are going to be treated as pirates, why not act like it? I’m just kidding …
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
2) Adobe has taken the printed manuals out of the Creative Suite and apparently, the Design Collection. You can bet the rest will follow.

As long as you’re making predictions, could you give me next week’s lottery numbers, too.

3) Adobe has raised the prices for individual upgrades to $169 from either $99 or $149. And this is at a time with interest rates at the lowest in history and inflation almost zero. You CAN still get the printed manuals with the individual applications but for how long?

IIRC, the upgrade from PS 5.5 to PS 6.0 was $199.00. They lowered it $149.00 from 6.0 to 7.0. If you bought it from Amazon you got it for $99.00. Prices vary. You don’t have to buy direct.

4) Adobe is adding product activation to Photoshop and will, almost certainly, add it to other programs in the future.

Which they’ve already said they intend to do.

So, what did I do? I did not buy the Video Collection even though I really wanted it.

And if you’ve read what I’ve posted already, I think that’s fine. This is a free world economy we’re talking about. You get to vote with your wallet.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
I tell you what, Tony. I think we need to just agree to disagree on this and see where the chips fall. But I’m definitely in on the upgrades. It’s just a matter of whether I go for the suite or the individual apps. I’ll also be watching Amazon and the other retailer for rebates and other deals on these releases.

Bob
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 5, 2003
Bob,

If my prediction is wrong, I’ll gladly admit when proven so. As for the lottery number, sorry, I’m keeping that to myself. I’ll gladly sell you last week’s, though.

As for the upgrade prices, I was speaking of direct from Adobe. You’re right about the Photoshop prices (I paid them). They did go from $199 to $149 and now to $169. However, if you read what I said, I mentioned ‘others’ (e.g., InDesign, Illustrator, LiveMotion, and GoLive) and the 2002 upgrade price was $99 for each (I know because I paid for them).

I was trying to get us OFF this topic because it is futile. ‘Nuff said, okay?
B
BobCirrito
Oct 5, 2003
No disrespect to the serious Users or Adobe but reading this thread on activation, I think is a joke. If one wants to save hundreds of dollars, he/she will find a way to beat the system. There are many hacksters that come up with cracks for tier one products routinely. It’s like the portable radar detectors for cars.

Everyone at Adobe has spent a lot of money making sure their carefully designed activation scheme works. God forbid the customer who doesn’t follow the EULA to the letter (how many even understand it) and the activation scheme doesn’t allow him/her to get their work done and more important causes undo stress they have no control over. I know I now think twice when I buy a Microsft product. They forced me to give up a legal Office XP product on an important machine of mine so they could "guarantee" themselves an extra $500 for another copy. You can’t believe how much they have lost in sales from me. I’m not anti Microsoft (yes, there is one of them left) but they have caused me far too great an inconvenience so I vote with my wallet every time now. It has cost them a bundle and will in the future. Greed goes nowhere. Repeat, greed goes nowhere.

Here comes Adobe with an activation scheme. Obviously, many are annoyed and disappointed to say the least. Make it machine specific – great. I thought people use software and machines are dumb. Guess I’m the dumb one, huh. I doubt it. I spent full price for Photoshop a few years ago because I needed it and it had great value (listening Adobe). I had no problem laying out hard earned cash for it. Same with Illustrator and Acrobat and now I’m thinking InDesign. I need them and think they have value so I pay and get my monys worth. I also get support I wouldn’t get with pirated copies and my time is worth decent $$$ when I need answers. What happens when that great activation scheme keeps me from doing my work where I make a living. Will I be happy? Doubt it. How about if I start looking then at competing products that are more user friendly? Great Adobe, you just passed me on to your competitor. There goes the TOTAL future revenue stream from me. Again, I have the privledge to vote with my wallet and I will. All those marketing dollars and strategic plans focused at me are down the drain.

If you want me to use activation, then I will, for now. Get me ticked off about something I don’t think is fair after I spent my good cash to be supportive of Adobe so Adobe can make better products, and maybe I’m off to the competitor. That to me is a bigger problem for Adobe than activation.

Thanks for listening. Hope Adobe thinks this through again.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 5, 2003
Bob,

I think we need to just agree to disagree on this and see where the chips fall.

Yeah, you’re right. You’ve been a great devils advocate though, and of the mindset that it isn’t time to get ones dander up until we see the need. Where we fundamentally disagree is in… timing. I think it’s now, you think it’s only if you really experience a problem.

I am impressed that Adobe’s listening. I am disappointed with those for whom I have respect who claim that this is nothing. Present company excluded Bob – I know where you’re coming from. I am also disappointed with the mindset that says "if you object to it, you must be guilty". That’s not the case at all, but if one’s thought processes are so of the "Id", then they deserve what they get.

I think product activation stinks, plain and simple – I’ve already stated why. I can only hope that Drew has his ducks in a row and executes this intelligently.

I’m probably done here, there’s not much more to say.

Peace,
Tony
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 5, 2003
If someone asks me, as an experienced user, what I think of upgrading, I’ll tell them that this version has an activation scheme, what that means (hardware hash sent to Adobe along with license code, activation code sent back), the restrictions as stated here regarding reactivation (I am a tinkerer, and likely to need reactivation, some won’t), what my *opinion* is about activation (I like the illusion of buying a thing and not having to ask permission to use it). Then I’d tell them to wait, particularly if none of the new features is a must-have-right-now for them, and watch this space to see how messy it gets.

I almost didn’t move from 6 to 7, because I saw nothing so compelling for my work in the upgrade. However, I had a bug related to my particular hardware setup that was not admitted by Adobe; I found out from another user of these forums that it was fixed, in their case. I installed a "borrowed" copy (after release, before the tryout was released) found that it addressed my problem, and ordered the next day. I still would have been able to do that with this activation system, with it’s grace period, assuming that all acts as advertised.

My personal quandry here, given that I’m an anti-activist, is that the upgrade offer to the CS suite would give me other products that I would dearly like to try that are still activation free (I regret not making a similar move last year). I could stay with Photoshop 7, install the other packages, not have to play activation, but then, I haven’t cast my vote against the only way that counts – with my cash. If they’ll be looking at the balance between units sold and units activated, I’ll bet that won’t make a blip on the chart.

Maybe I should just get out in the open air more, watch the river shrink, use my gluteals for something more than a seat cushion…
MF
Many_Feathers
Oct 5, 2003
I read somewhere that the corporations who have multiple seats or networking don’t have to activate. Is that right? Why not?

MF
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 5, 2003
Why should I have to buy more licenses just because *I* move around.<

Because that is what the license agreement has always stated – that you may use it on your main machine and one other – provided that the other computer is eith a laptop or another workstation at home. The EULA has *never* given you permission to install it on 5 workstations. I am afraid that you have interpreted the EULA into a statement that provided you are the sole user then you can install it on as many systems as you deem fit. The EULA has always been very specific – one user – maximum of two machines *provided* that they are not being used concurrently.

AFAICS, the EULA has not changed in any way whatsoever, it is just that Adobe now has the opportunity to make sure that the terms of the EULA are adhered to.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 5, 2003
Because corporations are expected and assumed to control their licenses (though I’m sure that some "leakage" is out of corporate doors). Because IT departments scream at having to have one more little thing to do to get their colleagues running; they like push installations on old machines, ghost installations on new machines, and as little follow-up as possible afterwards.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
and the 2002 upgrade price was $99 for each (I know because I paid for
them).

So did I but they were introductory prices which were quickly raised to $149.00

I was trying to get us OFF this topic because it is futile. ‘Nuff said, okay?

Maybe, I need to read the rest of the posts before I commit to anything. 🙂

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
Nice post but it makes little sense.

You say you didn’t buy an extra license for Office but you implied if not for activation you would have just copied your version. So MS wouldn’t have gotten that money anyway.

Then you talk of going to the competition. Problem with that is the competition is already using activation.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
upgrade offer to the CS suite would give me other products that I
would dearly like to try that are still activation free

I don’t think you’re correct here. But I could be wrong.

The suite is actually considered on application and I do believe you need to activate the entire suite. I’m not sure but that’s how I’m reading it. Perhaps we can get an answer to that from Adobe.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
Yes, it’s true. Same goes for MS products. They generally pay for site license that permits them to install a certain number of copies. It’s pretty much an honor system at that point.

Bob
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 5, 2003
Hi Bob,

quotation from the information page on activation: "The activation process is currently included only on the Windows® version of Adobe® Photoshop® CS software licensed to end users at retail. Photoshop CS software may also be a part of the Adobe Creative Suite or the Adobe Video Collection Professional version 2.0. If you are unsure whether your copy of Photoshop CS requires activation, please check the outside of the software box."

It doesn’t state the Adobe Creative Suite is activated, only Photoshop. I make the assumption that the installation will be like Office, choose the parts that one wants to install. Any official word here, or will we have to wait until November and ask? If the suite is subject to activation, that solves my conundrum.

Tim
MF
Many_Feathers
Oct 5, 2003
-They (corporations)generally pay for site
license that permits them to install a certain number of copies. It’s pretty much an honor system at that point.-

Are corporations or people in corporations more honest than other people? Hmmm. I don’t think so.

-Because corporations are expected and assumed to control their licenses.-

Again, corporations have more control over their licenses than I have over mine? I don’t think so.

Unless there is some other reason, it seems to me it is indeed an inconvenience to mess with activation and Adobe doesn’t want to "inconvenience" the people with the big bucks and lots of influence in the graphics world. It’s ok to "inconvenience" the $169 upgrader though. That just "bugs me".

MF
P
pope
Oct 5, 2003
….my wife is definitely in favor of my getting activated. 🙂
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 5, 2003
The corporation is more likely to get a software audit than you are, MF.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 5, 2003
Carol,

I am afraid that you have interpreted the EULA into a statement that provided you are the sole user then you can install it on as many systems as you deem fit.

And I’m afraid you may not have a full appreciation for the terms of the license.

Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to migrate my software? Further are you suggesting that the EULA does NOT make me the sole user?

Let’s not confuse terms here. Which part about the software following me the user, as I change my hardware, don’t you understand?

Lastly, activation, and specifically, YOUR interpretation, requires that we redefine the word "EULA" to "UMLA", or User Machine License Agreement. Since it is certainly not licensed to the USER it is licensed to the machine.

And I’ll say, one last time:

The enforcement of the current EULA the way that it is being proposed, TECHNICALLY, means that anyone who has not paid for photoshop may use it – provided it is on a particular machine that has been approved.
SO
Sean_O_Neil
Oct 5, 2003
Yes! Why not try reading the info they provide on Activation?

Gee, maybe not eveyone had the time to read the 122 page EULA.

S.O.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 5, 2003
Let’s not confuse terms here. Which part about the software following me the user, as I change my hardware, don’t you understand?

I know Carol can defend her postion, but you are permitted to move the software from machine to machine.

Lastly, activation, and specifically, YOUR interpretation, requires that we redefine the word "EULA" to "UMLA", or User Machine License Agreement. Since it is certainly not licensed to the USER it is licensed to the machine.

Wrong. I it’s up to you what machine you install it on. It’s up to you to allow someone else to use your computer.
And I’ll say, one last time:

The enforcement of the current EULA the way that it is being proposed, TECHNICALLY, means that anyone who has not paid for photoshop may use it – provided it is on a particular machine that has been approved.

That’s no different than it is now. I could have a friend come on over to my house and use any application on my computer. Take a look at places that actually rent workstations like Kinko’s. The license is for Kinkos to put on one machine. Who uses is it is up to them.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 5, 2003
Bob,

Thanks for the clarification. Man, what was I thinking!

Sorry folks, I guess I stepped into a zone there for a bit.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 5, 2003
I guess I stepped into a zone there for a bit.

Or in the moment. It’s academic until the disc is in the drive. You’re just about the last voice I’d want to moderate.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 5, 2003
Are corporations or people in corporations more honest than other
people? Hmmm. I don’t think so.<

Corporations are far more likely to be scrutinised by the BSA and would face far higher penalties should it be found that they have more seats than the licence number permits – therefore most large corporations will have some policy in effect which will do auditing and is therefore less likely to to have more seats than the licence permits ……. all it needs is one disgruntled employee…….


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 5, 2003
Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to migrate my software?<

Of course you can – provided that you do not have it on more than the two specified machines and is not being used by two people concurrently. That is the way now – and that is the way it will be after activation.

YOUR interpretation, requires that we redefine the word "EULA" to "UMLA"<

No, that is Adobe’s interpretation and the EULA has not changed one iota with the new activation – it has always referred to having the software on one prime system (with the allowance for its installation on a 2nd secondary system). The EULA has *NEVER* stated that you can install the software on X number of machines (where X > 2). If the software is installed on my studio computer, any of my staff could use that specific computer to do Photoshop work with the proviso that I cannot install it on another machine and have both of us using the same copy at the same time. In that repect, the EULA has not changed.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
MF
Many_Feathers
Oct 5, 2003
Who does a software audit?

What is the BSA?

Thanks,

MF
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 5, 2003
Here are a couple more observations:

Earlier in another thread, I asked specifically if Adobe would guarantee that it would always provide activation for PS-CS in the future. The answer was no. To me this is one of the focal points of this topic. I personally would buy CS if I knew for sure that I could stay with that version for however long into the future I wanted. The issue is not today or tomorrow, but next year or the year after that when I want to move my digital photo business to the newer, faster Pentium and I cannot get Adobe to activate CS because they now have a newer version of PS and have stopped supporting CS. Because I cannot get this assurance, I am going to stay with PS7 and use third party plug-in’s that provide me almost what CS provides.

Secondly, I have heard a lot about what the EULA says and does not say. However, Adobe’s Activation web page states the following:

Q: Does product activation represent a change in licensing terms?

A: No. Activation is an interactive extension of existing licensing terms and as such represents the spirit of Adobe’s Product License Agreement.

I want to know, specifically what in the world the following phrase means: “(it) represents the spirit of Abobe’s Product License Agreement.” Most of us are familiar with legal jargon and usually this type of double talk means that they have changed the agreement but are trying to tell us that they really haven’t.

Third, in my last post, I quoted the statistics from BSA on software piracy. Specifically that USA has the lowest incidence of software piracy in the world and that this rate of piracy has been declining steadily over the last 8 years. Yet, the rate of piracy in Wyoming, according to BSA is approximately 40%. In thinking about this, it’s probable that the people in Wyoming don’t have the money to pay $650.00 for this software. So, rather than alienate Adobe’s primary user base through activation, WHY didn’t they do some elasticity analysis and determine how much piracy they would have prevented by lowering the price of their product versus the cost of activation? Certainly there is a cross over point here?

Last: It seems everyone here is assuming that the ONLY thing Adobe is or will grab in the future from my computer is the PS-CS identification information for activation? Do we have this assurance? Does anyone know this for a fact? It would seem to me that if a company like MS or Adobe were going to invest this much bad will from its user base, the stakes would have to be high. Either now or some point in the future, this authentication program may be planned to check for other stuff, like other Adobe products, other software, etc.
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 5, 2003
Hey, anybody else here remember when software came on and ran from floppy disks? The license was for you to use it, and you could stick the floppy in any computer you wanted to and run the program.

I’d like to suggest a challenge for Adobe (and other software publishers): Come up with an installer and license that cover a modern equivalent of that old program-on-a-floppy portability.

In today’s landscape, the place of the floppy would be taken by an external FireWire or USB drive.

Figure out how I can install the software to run on any computer where I plug in that external drive, and give me permission to use the software that way.

Without activation, please.
GH
Grass_Hopper
Oct 5, 2003
John,

that sort of thing is already in place. I have some games for my children that *require* the cd to be in place or the program will not run. And they don’t require activation!
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 6, 2003
GH —

Different idea … but interesting.

That provides portability and also affords the publisher some extra protection.

Now, in the case of children’s games, I know what the CDs look like after a month or two …
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 6, 2003
Most games these days require the disk be in the drive. Some are also copy protected in some way (bad sectors, intentional pitting etc.) to prevent copying of that original disk. I like that idea much better than activation too.
DH
Dave Hamer
Oct 6, 2003
Robert_Levine

Then you talk of going to the competition. Problem with that is the competition is already using activation.
Can you say GIMP?
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 6, 2003
As an additional comment, I have this offer for Adobe. I am more than willing to accept authentication and the right to use it on only two computers, my base computer and a laptop. I think this is only right and fair. Further, I don’t have any problems with having to receive from Adobe verification when I move the software to another computer (the third). In exchange for supporting authentication, (here I through down the gauntlet) Adobe has to put in writing that when they come out with a NEW version of PS beyond CS, (or CS1, the next release) they remove the authentication scheme for PS-CS. Stated another way, for versions of PS older than their currently marketed version, THERE IS NO AUTHENTICATION REQUIRED TO INSTALL IT. If an older version required authentication, than Adobe would provide a fix to remove it. If Adobe were to provide this assurance for CS, I would have no problems purchasing it.

The issue I have between PS7 and PS-CS is that I can use PS7 forever, regardless of what machine I install it on. With CS, there is no guarantee how long I can use it unless it stays on the same machine. Not acceptable.

The second guarantee is that their activation scheme only acquires information about Photoshop for activation and not other information about Adobe products or software.

If Adobe will provide these two assurances to its user base, I will purchase their product and support authentication
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 6, 2003
Complication comes when you need to run Photoshop and InDesign and Illustrator all at once … and they’re all under a new regime. Tho if you had the suite all on one CD, that could solve that.

I’d probably grumble if the disc were sabotaged so I couldn’t back it up. But even so, a key on CD would make the software deal a one-time transaction. More comfortable for me.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 6, 2003
Earl, that’s a damn fine idea. One of the big misgivings I have is that you cannot be assured that the program will work as long as I own it. Whether Adobe is around or not. AFAIK, it’s never been tried, but it’s a great idea. It CAN be done (well it SHOULD be able to be done). Adobe has a chance to be a trend setter here.
I
ID._Awe
Oct 6, 2003
This is from a message I left in the InDesign forum:

While I have no problem with activiation (been a legitimate user since 1990), and would prefer not to have anymore installation hassles than I already have (anyone tried reading a Quark activation number?) There were some misconceptions brought up in this thread.

1. While Apple may compose only 7% of the total market, they compose 35% of Photoshop seat purchases, so why single out the PC market for activation?

2. While KaZaa is very adept at finding and downloading illegal software, Sherlock is also very adept (and less damaging to the OS because of it’s integration).

The truth is I’ve come across more bootleg software on Apples per market share than on PCs. Simply because Sherlock can get an Apple user whatever they want, including keygens, serial number lists and softwares. These people are ‘semi-professionals’ (I say ‘semi’ because a professional owns all their equipment and software IMO).

As far as the PC market goes, most of the people who download Photoshop do it for the ‘bragging rights’, not because they need it or use it, just to say I got it. What they really want is a software that removes ‘red eye’, and may have some basic layer capability for playing around with composites, but most of this stuff is for family, not business.

In addition I would like to say that I have three versions of PS7 active, one on my main work machine, one on my back-up machine incase of catistrophic emergency and also one on my wife’s machine. The one on my wife’s machine is nothing more than a deluxe photo-viewer and by the time she gets home to use the computer, I’m long off mine so no harm no foul, still falls within the EULA. So I’ll leave PS7 on her computer and use CS on mine, totally cool by both of us.

As far as activation, the arguement of stopping casual copying, good in theory, but now you’re going to turn all the casual copiers into pirates, they will pirate even more software once they realize what they can get and the total point here will be zero prevention due to activation and an even greater tendency towards using pirated software, which as I’ve pointed out before, now accept credit cards and you can get all the Adobe software for about $49(US), cracked on disk.

The discussion of the use of dongles is a non-starter, you can download a bootleg MAYA with a software dongle that emulates the hardware dongle that hangs off the serial port.

Piracy has to be handled in a totally different way, but software companies, like politicians, go around in the same circles for so long they’re outright dizzy with stupidity.
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 6, 2003
The more that I have thought about this topic the more I am convinced that activation will increase piracy rather than reduce it.

Most of us here are users who have already purchased PS and are trying to decide if a $169.00 upgrade is worth it for a software rental with an unspecified life, i.e., we don’t have the assurance that we will always be able to move the software to another machine in the future or that we will not forced to upgrade at some point because it is no longer supported. At least I have PS7 that I can use for as long as I want.

But look at the person buying a full price license of PS-CS. They are now being asked to fork over $650.00 for a piece of software that they may not ever be able to use two or three years from now. They will not have a base piece of software that they can use for as long as they want. There is no way I would make that kind of investment. So, in all probability, people in Wyoming will be even more temped to use that pirated piece of software rather than going legitimate unless Adobe makes some kind of assurance to the market place that they will ALWAYS be able to use PS-CS.

So if Adobe is committed to us, make the promise that activation will be removed on old versions of the software once a new one is released.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 6, 2003
So if Adobe is committed to us, make the promise that activation will be removed on old versions of the software once a new one is released.

I wonder if that might damage Adobe’s bottom line (or the projections of it) rather than furthering it, in a strategic view. While I’m willing to bet that there will be a hack for the activation by at latest the end of January (any takers?) how does it look in the board room, that the latest but one version is floating "free" out there while the latest and greatest is collared by activation? They want the casual user/pirate to pay, but the easiest in for these casuals is to snag the previous version, which will likely do what they want.

Tim
MF
Many_Feathers
Oct 7, 2003
Can PS CS be activated without an internet connection, i.e. on the phone?

MF
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 7, 2003
Yes.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 7, 2003
<http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5087695.html>

Zdnet on activation. Drew McManus (Adobe, who commented in this thread) makes a comment in there too. Especially see the talkbalk forums. People everywhere, not just photoshop win users, are saying pretty much the same thing.
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 7, 2003
People everywhere, not just Photoshop win users, are saying pretty much the same thing.

But will the publishers listen (just a few malcontents), or go on regardless, because the instigators won’t admit that they made a bad move, or will the general public roll over on their collective back with four paws in the air and their tongue hanging out the side of their mouth, saying "they won, and it didn’t hurt, much", sales don’t take a nosedive, so the next scheme is implemented because the hackers are still out there?
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 7, 2003
or will the general public roll over on their collective back with four paws in the air and their tongue hanging out the side of their mouth, saying "they won, and it didn’t hurt, much"

baaaaaaa.
P
pope
Oct 7, 2003
Wonder if any of the anti-activators are Adobe shareholders?
RM
Rob_Miller
Oct 7, 2003
I’m amazed that this thread continues to go on and on and on and on …
RH
r_harvey
Oct 7, 2003
I’m amazed that this thread continues to go on and on and on and on …

Wait until the stoftware actually ships. It’ll start anew.
P
pope
Oct 7, 2003
Rob…I’m amazed that this thread continues to go on and on and on and on …"

I guess it’s just one of those rare amazing threads; perhaps it will eventually rise to the level of appalling. 🙂
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 7, 2003
Wonder if any of the anti-activators are Adobe shareholders?

Might just be revolting peasants. A year ago looks like the time to buy.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 7, 2003
Wait until the stoftware actually ships. It’ll start anew.

No it won’t. There will be 15 new threads everyday from people who nothing of the activation and can’t figure out why the software stops working after 30 days.

A quick search will find that these threads were started by the same people who can’t the 7.0.1 updater to find Photoshop.

bob
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 7, 2003
I hope you’ll keep score, Bob, then let us know. I am very curious.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 7, 2003
Not me, I don’t care one way or the other. <g>

Bob
TS
Tim_Spragens
Oct 7, 2003
Not me, I don’t care one way or the other. <g>

No curiosity, for intellect’s sake? You surprise me. It would be a lot of work, without some ‘bot to at least collect the data. Maybe Adobe will do it, and share.
RM
Rob_Miller
Oct 7, 2003
Well, at least Adobe isn’t the only one. All of Macromedias new 2004 products now have activation as well as Symantec’s 2004 products. I have a feeling activation is a sign of things to come. It doesn’t bother me at all, however it would if I had to buy another copy of the software for my laptop.

Rob
QB
Q.B.
Oct 7, 2003
Stated another way, for versions of PS older than their currently marketed version, THERE IS NO AUTHENTICATION REQUIRED TO INSTALL IT. If an older version required authentication, than Adobe would provide a fix to remove it. If Adobe were to provide this assurance for CS,

I had the exact same thought, only I’d add the caveat that if the software is discontinued, or after say five years, activation would no longer be needed. To avoid the risk of software becoming useless due to the supplier going out of business, the authentication removal key would have to be deposited with a trusted third party.

If we have to put up with Product Activation, then this might at least offer some comfort.

QB
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 8, 2003
Y’know, Rob, I’m saving money on the Photoshop upgrade I’m not doing. I’m saving money on the Macromedia upgrade I’m not doing.

This anti-activation revolt could really help me get that new monitor I’ve been thinking about.

(Haven’t been using anything from Symantec for so long I can’t claim savings there.)
G
Guero
Oct 8, 2003
After a lot of lurking on this topic I might as well say something as well. I have read quite a few of the posts so far and many have valid arguments and good ideas. I find the reason behind activation to be good, although it can (will?) lead to problems for the consumer. But it’s very easy to work around it. And I don’t belive that we get less piracy because of this, rather a lot more. If you want to use the program without activation you will for sure soon be able to do it. I’m sure a patch will very soon be available for the whole CS series to get rid of the activation. It happened very soon after the Macromedia 2004 was released and it will happen to Adobe as well. A 10 year old with basic computer skill can easily apply this patch and not activate the product. So you have the (unethical) option of downloading the trial, apply the patch and have the program for free. Or (the ethcial way) you can buy the program, apply the patch and not have to register if that really bothers you that much. Not sure the last option is really ethical since you are required to activate the product but if you fork out the money for the product I find it a minor "crime" of you to work around the registration. Please note that I’m not proposing you use the program illegally but the point is that the option is always there for people who don’t care about ethics and what is right (or can’t afford the program)

People on this forum are heavy users of Adobe products and I was glad to see that someone from Adobe read all the good ideas and valid arguments. Without satisfied consumers the company disappears and that is definitely worth keeping in mind for software companies.

H
AR
Andrew_Rodney
Oct 9, 2003
New today in IR is a discussion of the new CS Activiation scheme. It’s also open to the public and called "Weekly Chatter:PS Licensing"

If your going to run CS on a PC, you might want to know what’s in store for you…
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 9, 2003
Thanks Andrew. Uhm… What’s IR? At first I thought it was Image Ready, but I can’t seem to find it. Got a link?
P
pope
Oct 9, 2003
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 9, 2003
Thanks Pope.
I
ID._Awe
Oct 9, 2003
I think my message may have been vetted. It showed up two days after I posted it!
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 9, 2003
Well, I, for one am not a subscribing member of IR, so I was only able to see limited commentary on the subject.

PA, IMO, is a poorly designed mechanism to get the boogey man, which, of course, it will not. Anyone who thinks it will has a myopic view of the environment.

Defenders claim it will reduce piracy or casual copying: it won’t.

Defenders claim that honest users should not be opposed: they have no principles

Defenders claim that it will be painless for honest users: they have no imagination

Defenders claim that it is right and fair to license machines and not users: be careful what you wish for.

IMO, the license issue is no small thing. The current argument is "it’s always been that way, so this is just a way to enforce it". Exactly.

Now that license enforcement is a reality, one had better be VERY VERY careful about the terms of the license. You are no longer free, as in the past, to uninstall and reinstall on a different machine at will. That must come with approval.
JB
J.Brett_Moar
Oct 9, 2003
Hello, I Have Adobe Photoshop 7.0 and have a question about the activation process for adobe Photoshop CS….I Have 2 computers in my shop, one is my dad’s and the other is my computer…we both use photoshop on our own computer so does that mean we will have to purchase seperate copies for the upgrade or is there a special price if the computers are used in the same building or are for 2 family members as I Don’t want to have to pay $169.00 [upgrade] for both of our computers…..

The new photoshop say photoshop cs….what is the cs for, they used to say 6.0 , 7.0 etc. so is this the same line up or a diferent product…..

how many computers can this photoshop be activated on

Thank You

ps. if can only be used on one computer ..is there a way to pay a lesser fee for the 2nd computer
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 9, 2003
J Brett, as long as you’re not using them at the same time you should be fine. If you are, you’re in violation of the current (PS7) as well as any future (PSCS) license.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 9, 2003

J.Brett Moar,

All your questions about activation are answered here <http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html>. However, to give you the brief answer to your question, you can only have Photoshop on two computers you own and only if the two installations are not used simultaneously. If you and your father work in Photoshop at the same time then you need to have two licenses (always have by the way, activation only enforces the license through technological means). If you use Photoshop simultaneously on two computers now and you only have one license then you will need to purchase a second license for the second computer and there is no special price to do so. You would need to do this prior to activation anyway. As I said before, activation only enforces the license you have always agreed to when you installed Photoshop.

As for the CS moniker, it’s just a new marketing strategy for Adobe to name their new line of products to focus on the way they work together as a whole. Photoshop CS is really v8.0 though.
L
LenHewitt
Oct 10, 2003

J.Brett,

I Don’t want to have to pay $169.00 [upgrade] for both of our
computers…..<<

Adding to what others have said…..

You could not purchase TWO upgrades for a single existing application. You would need one upgrade and one FULL version so that you would then have TWO Licenses
I
ID._Awe
Oct 10, 2003
How about if I order Photoshop CS from the Adobe site, I am an owner in good standing, then they can send me a corporate version that does not require activation.

A nice perk for the honest!
DL
David_Lingard
Oct 10, 2003
Corporate is the key here. A week before XP was in the shops the corporate version was being distributed locally among a network of users who cared nothing for licences or legality. I suspect the same will happen for CS as soon as a coprporate IT man takes the disk home for the evening…
MP
Marian_Pierre-Louis
Oct 10, 2003
Those of you who followed the activation thread may find this interesting:

Intuit Apologizes to Customers Over TurboTax

"I want to personally apologize for any frustration you may have experienced due to the restrictions that came with our use of anti-piracy technology," Tom Allanson, general manager of TurboTax, said Thursday in an open letter to customers.

….In response to feedback from our customers, I want you to know that we’re making an important change to TurboTax software and have removed activation technology," Allanson said, adding that the new TurboTax for the 2003 tax year can be used fully on multiple computers.

While some customers were angered by Intuit’s move to curb rampant, unauthorized sharing TurboTax, most complaints arose due to the technology’s tying the software to a single computer — which meant people couldn’t do such things as prepare returns at home and print them at work, Barrington Research analyst Eric Wanger said.

Full article can be found here:

< http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581& e=1&u=/nm/20031010/tc_nm/tech_intuit_dc>
GH
Grass_Hopper
Oct 12, 2003
it would be nice if Adobe followed Intuit’s lead here …
QP
Que_Pasa
Oct 13, 2003
No MOre Activation, no more allowing HTML
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 13, 2003
The reason Intuit apologized is because they lost sales and are the subject of a class action lawsuit, pure and simple. Users voted with their pocketbook and there was an easy alternative to their software. I do like this quote from a former Intuit customer and think it is relevant: "If they don’t trust us with their software, why should we trust them with our taxes. TurboTax 2002 prevents you from using the program on more than one computer. You can install it on a second PC but you cannot print a return on it. What a cheap shot!"

"Unfortunately, I think Intuit was the proverbial pioneer that got the arrows in their back," said William Krepick, CEO of Macrovision, which supplied the activation technology used by Intuit. "I don’t think either they, or we, appreciated the level of the consumer reaction."

More importantly even the members of the SoftSummit acknowledged that customers need to be “rewarded” for participating in activation. There needs to be something given back to the users for their use and acceptance of this process.

But what I really do not understand is the claim by Macromedia that 17% of their activations were denied. That seems to be a high number, but then we do not know the statistics of it. Does this apply to US activation, world activation? More importantly, this is high when one is reminded that the purpose of activation is to only eliminate casual copying and NOT piracy. So, 17% of their activations were denied because of casual copying?
Earl
DE
david_evanson
Oct 13, 2003
More worrying would be Macromedia refusing 17% who were trying to reinstall after PC upgrades, hardware failure, OS reinstalls etc.
RB
Robert_Barnett
Oct 13, 2003
To me it doesn’t matter if it is 17% of US or 17% of the world that is still a lot of people being turned down. I am sure that if they are turned down from activating online that doing it over the phone is going to be even harder.

Robert

wrote in message
More worrying would be Macromedia refusing 17% who were trying to
reinstall after PC upgrades, hardware failure, OS reinstalls etc.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 13, 2003
The question is why were these 17% being denied activation? Was this 17% legitimate users who were denied or were they 17% that tried to circumvent the license agreement in some way (e.g. installing on more than one computer, assuming Macromedia does not allow this in their agreement). If it’s the latter than there is really no problem though Macromedia, and Adobe if this happens to them, just needs to work out the issue with regards to public relations and not necessarily scrap activation. If it’s the former than activation is really a problem and should be re-evaluated.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 13, 2003
or was it 17% who bought it then decided to give it to everyone in their family so THEY can do their taxes too?
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 13, 2003
Dave,

Last I checked Macromedia didn’t make any tax software. According to Earl 17% of Macromedia’s customers had problems with activation not 17% of Intuit’s. From what I understand well over 17% had problems with Intuit and their activation scheme.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 13, 2003
oops. 🙂
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 14, 2003
Here is one of the links for Macromedia’s 17%

<http://www.idg.com.hk/cw/readstory.asp?aid=20031007001>

If this is a result of activation, I hope Adobe is geared up to handle the increased volume of calls!!

Earl
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 14, 2003
The VAST majority (if not all) of "activation denied" messages relate to instances of folk trying to activate the software more times than the license allows. Somehow I doubt that all of those seeing such a message will have contacted Macromedia to complain. If you receive the message and have what you believe are grounds for complaint I would expect the vendor reinstate the activation and allow additional attempts.
RB
Robert_Barnett
Oct 14, 2003
See that is one thing also that bugs me. You can only activate so many times per year or something like that. If that isn’t the first step in consumer control I don’t know what is. What’s next…you only allowed to use the software Monday – Friday from 9am to 5pm.

Robert

wrote in message
The VAST majority (if not all) of "activation denied" messages relate to
instances of folk trying to activate the software more times than the license allows. Somehow I doubt that all of those seeing such a message will have contacted Macromedia to complain. If you receive the message and have what you believe are grounds for complaint I would expect the vendor reinstate the activation and allow additional attempts.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 15, 2003
Robert,

First of all, under regular usage you should NEVER come near to reaching this limit, much less use the activation procerdure more than a couple times a year at most. If you have a special case then you need to contact Adobe to discuss these issues with them. Suggesting that these cases are the rule and not the exception is ridiculous.

Second, if Adobe’s activation is anything like that for Windows XP (tied to specific hardware serial numbers) then changing a couple devices won’t force another activation. Changing most of your hardware would require a new activation. If you are changing hardware enough times to waste the 8 or so activations Adobe allows then you have a problem. Again, this sounds more like the exception and not the rule and therefore you need to contact Adobe or reconsider your use of the applicaiton under these terms.

As Adobe hasn’t clarified exactly HOW activatoin will work then anything you, I or anyone else says is mere speculation that goes nowhere. Please keep this in mind and keep the conspiracy theories to yourself.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 15, 2003
Stuart,

Excellent points. I just reformmated a friends computer today. Third time I’ve had to install XP. (I told them if they let their son install Kazaa again, they were on their own<g>). The activation was accepted right over the internet. Took all of 3 seconds.

Let’s all stay calm and wait for the software and see what happens.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 15, 2003
under regular usage you should NEVER come near to reaching this limit,

Under Stuarts definition, you regular means you cannot install, uninstall, reinstall on a different machine at will.

Some people only see one way to work – that’s called regular. All those who are not regular are pirates.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 15, 2003
Tony,

I never called anyone a pirate. Don’t put words into my mouth. I said you were the exception to the rule, so quit trying to be the rule. Geez people, get over yourselves. Wait until the softwar ecomes out before you start whining about how it doesn’t work. You might be amazed to find that it will work. Besides Tony, if you go through eight machines in a year than you are most definitely a unique situation.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 15, 2003
If you are changing hardware enough times to waste the 8 or so activations Adobe allows then you have a problem.

I would caution against quoting anything other than the two automated activations that the license allows since additional activations are at Adobes descretion. I’m NOT saying you won’t have an opportunity to have additional automated activations just that the window and number off has not been formally defined.
RB
Robert_Barnett
Oct 15, 2003
What you say is true Stuart, but it is the whole point that there is a limit in the first place. Already we have gone to being able to install the software when and as many times as we want or need to on a single machine to being told they are only going to let you do it so many times before you have call them and beg and plead and cry to being to install the $600 plus in software you bought. That is simply wrong. It is also just the first step to other more nasty things coming down the line and just lends credence to what I have been saying these companies are putting activation technology in place for.

Robert
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 15, 2003
"…and just lends credence to
what I have been saying these companies are putting activation technology in place for."

Which you have undeniable proof of right? Oh, sorry, that was yet another conspiracy theory. Nothing to see here, move along.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 15, 2003
Robert,

What you say is true Stuart, but it is the whole point that there is a limit in the first place.

I seem to recall that you have rather strict rules on the use of your own software (free and charged versions).

<http://www.ultrasharpen.com/us_lite_download.html>
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 15, 2003
wrote:

Already we have gone to being able to install the
software when and as many times as we want or need to on a single machine

That doesn’t change. You can install it 50,000 times on the same machine with no problem.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 16, 2003
Once you move it more than some as yet unknown amount of times, then you need permission to do so. If they think you’re lying, a new seat is required.

Pre-Activation, the software was licensed to the user – good, bad, or indifferent, it was based on the honor system of removing it from one machine to put it on another once your limit on "primary" and "laptop/portable" was used. But if you were honest, you were legally allowed to move (uninstall and reinstall) the software from machine to machine as was necessary.

With activation, the license is functionally transformed into a machine license. That is to say, it is no longer based on the honor system, it is based on a machine specific hash. You are free to uninstall it, but at some point, you must have approval to install it on a new machine.

So if you decide to keep Photoshop CS for five years (as some have done with older versions of Photoshop), as you improve your hardware, by getting new machines, once you’ve gotten your automatic 2 activations, you may or may not be allowed to migrate Photoshop to a new machine. You will have to call Adobe and hope that they allow it.

They should allow it – it would seem to me that they would be logging patterns of callers and some patterns of uninstalltion/reinstallation may be more suspect than others, but in the end, it’s up to Adobe whether or not you can move your software.

That’s a machine license. Some say "it’s always been that way". No, it hasn’t. You have been legally able to migrate your software from one machine to the next without permission, in the past. Activation fundamentally changes that.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 16, 2003
Tony is right, it becomes a machine license. You can’t get away from it. If you buy software which requires activation at some stage in the future you may be faced with the possiblity of asking the supplier for permission to use the software you already paid for. Seems rather unjust don’t you think?

The situation with WinXP is rather diferent, you can’t keep installing and uninstalling it. It is more part of the machine. When you change machines you get a new XP and sell the old machine complete with its XP. Actually I might upgrade the processor, I already added another IDE controller and two hard disks, do you think XP will accept more changes?

I have not upgraded MSOffice to activation. I can put my current Office on my new machine without consulting MS. But I won’t leave it on the old machine, whoever gets that will have to buy their own software.

PS7 is a fantastic product, it does a great job, no pressing need to upgrade for me so I won’t until I have to.

I will however upgrade ID2 to IDCS, hope I manage it before ID activation comes trundling along.

Jeff
GH
Grass_Hopper
Oct 16, 2003
I don’t feel it’s fair and just to the users who *purchase* such an expensive program to be at the mercy of a tech support person who, and granted we don’t know how this will play out, has the ability to say, "I don’t believe you, you must pay again for the priviledge of using the software". Once it’s paid for, you should not be forced to purchase another seat simply because you have used up your activations. The potential for this certainly *does* exist and I will say, it’s not giving those nice warm, fuzzy feelings.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 16, 2003
"…it was based on the honor system…"

What does that tell you about the users of Photoshop that Adobe has to take such drastic measures to protect its software?

"With activation, the license is functionally transformed into a machine license. That is to say, it is no longer based on the honor system, it is based on a machine specific hash. You are free to uninstall it, but at some point, you must have approval to install it on a new machine."

No, no, no, no, no. There are at least two installations granted the user before this becomes a problem, if it becomes a problem at all. According to Adobe, the licens has not changed at all:

Does activation change the licensing terms?

Q: Does product activation represent a change in licensing terms?

A: No. Activation is an interactive extension of existing licensing terms and as such represents the spirit of Adobe’s Product License Agreement.

"Activation fundamentally changes that."

Tony, while you’re gazing into your crystal ball there, could you tell me if the Sox win Game 7 tonight? I’d like to know ahead of time so I’m not shocked if they lose.
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 16, 2003
We are going from a situation where we can uninstall and reinstall the product as often as we like for whatever reason, to one where after two activations we will have to justify ourselves to some nobody on Adobe’s customer services team.

If you don’t see that as a change then you are dumber than I already thought you were.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 16, 2003
First of all there’s no reason to get personal here. Secondly, the thing that so many of you seem to not get is the fact that you can uninstall and reinstall thousands of times to the same machine with no problem.

Bob
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 16, 2003
Dumb? Who’s the one with the wild conspiracy theories? All I’ve ever said is no one really knows (except Adobe) how many times you have to install/re-install before you have to discuss the situation with Adobe. If you wind up installing/re-installing Photoshop so many times on enough computers as to warrant this call than you likely have a problem and you sir, are the idiot. I’ll bet that there are less than a thousand users whit this specific need. Contrast that with the total number of legitimate users of Photoshop and you will see that this isn’t even onthe radar for Adobe. You got away with a technical loophole but Adobe i sunder no obligation to respect this or even consider it a problem at all. But you will have to take that up with Adobe and whining about it here won’t do any good. If you think it will than youare dumber than I already thought you were.
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 16, 2003
It’s not about conspiracy theories, it’s about going from one system:

That was hassle free for all the paying customers with absolutely no potential to go wrong, but was easy to pirate for those so inclined…

to a new system:

that absolutely WILL be a hassle to a minority of users and has the potential to go wrong in many many ways for absolutely everyone, but will still be easy to pirate for those so inclined.

The reason I am so wound up about this is that the debate is going EXACTLY the same way as when Disreet introduced activation for Max, and I have had more down time with Max’s activation software than all other SW-related problems put together.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 16, 2003
It’s also going the same way as the debate over WinXP and OfficeXP. Both of which acivated flawlessly in less than 3 seconds. And in the case of a friend of mine has been no problem through three reinstalls.

Bob
RA
Ruth_Alderson
Oct 16, 2003
The situation with WinXP is rather diferent, you can’t keep installing and uninstalling it. It is more part of the machine. When you change machines you get a new XP and sell the old machine complete with its XP.

That’s not necessarily true, Jeff. Last time I upgraded my computer, I bought new parts (hard drive, chip, motherboard for about $300-400 as opposed to a whole new system for much more) and replaced my hardware. I then installed the same operating system I had been using on the new hard drive. (The old hard drive was not sold, with or without an OS, but is sitting in a box to use to backup the current one if/when I need to reformat.) Buying a whole new system is not the only way (or even necessarily the best way) to upgrade.
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 16, 2003
I have a question and a comment:

Question: Does activation affect how PS-CS runs in multiple sessions on one computer? Will I be able to open two PS-CS simultaneously on my machine or will there be a conflict as CS verifies twice the same program on the same hardware? Macromedia has some problems here…

Comment: I have asked already for someone to tell me what the “spirit” of Adobe’s Product Licensing Agreement means. To me "spirit" means that product license has changed but everyone wants to pretend it is still the same.

Earl
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 16, 2003
Question: Does activation affect how PS-CS runs in multiple sessions on one computer? Will I be able to open two PS-CS simultaneously on my machine or will there be a conflict as CS verifies twice the same program on the same hardware? Macromedia has some problems here…

You CANNOT and NEVER have been able to run two instances of the same version on the same machine at the same time. You can and will continue to able to run CS along with as many earlier versions on the same machine at the same time. This means you can run 5, 5.5, 6, 7 and CS at the same time on the same machine Oh, and YES it IS legal! – Does that make the doom and gloom merchants happy? Does that suggest that Adobe are the evil empire in drag?

Comment: I have asked already for someone to tell me what the “spirit” of Adobe’s Product Licensing Agreement means. To me "spirit" means that product license has changed but everyone wants to pretend it is still the same.

Yes you asked but at 290 plus posts the chances are that the answer got lost in the BS

Spirit?

You can legally install two copies – so no change! Legally you aren’t meant to run the two instances concurrently – so no change! At a more practical level there is NOTHING that prevents you (including on or off a network) from running CS on two different computers at the same time – so no change!. This has already been stated by Adobe near the beginning of this thread. What they have done is implement a system whereby they enforce the two copy limitation – so this is a change! Bottom line is that for most CS activation will be pain free and for the rest – ask yourself why you’re in pain?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 16, 2003
Bob,

you can uninstall and reinstall thousands of times to the same machine with no problem.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about the same machine. You’re a smart guy, you keep bringing up that point. That’s not a part of the issue at all – it’s a red herring.

Stuart,

According to Adobe, the licens has not changed at all:

That’s right, the language has not changed. That is the point – it needs to so as to reflect user licensing not machine licensing. Before activation came on the scene, it was easy to have a license that didn’t encompass all user situations. Now it isn’t. If they want to play hard line enforcement, fine; but then they must step up to the plate and create a document that accurately reflects the spirit of the license.

Are you telling me that Adobe has ALWAYS intended that after you install on the allowed two machines, that once you uninstall, and move to a different machine, then you needed to call them? I can’t see that language anywhere.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 16, 2003
Ruth,

It seems you changed so much when you upgraded, that WinXP would have seen it as a different machine. Presumably you are not using XP?

Jeff
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 16, 2003
Ruth,

In many cases buying new system is a better way to go. You could have bought a new computer with XP for $100 more than you spent to upgrade an old PC that could have a power supply, CD Rom or any number of other things go wrong with it.

Had you bought a new system you would have a second computer where now you only have one. If you sold your old one you may have even been able to buy a new one cheaper than it was for you to put newer parts in an aged computer. I hope for your sake you at least have windows 2000 or XP on your computer.
RA
Ruth_Alderson
Oct 16, 2003
That’s my point, Jeff. If someone chooses to upgrade that way, then the activation becomes a pain and the OS is not, contrary to what you suggested, all that tied to the hardware. That computer is running Windows 98 (although I finally got fed up with it and just ordered XP this week) so I didn’t have to ask for Microsoft’s permission at the time.

Given what I use that computer for (e-mail, internet, typing in notepad and wordpad, spellchecking in Word 97, Minesweeper), Photo Help, there’s no way that it would have made sense for me to buy a whole new system, especially given the fact that I was in college at the time and could not have laid out the money for the new machine even if I made some of it back by selling the old one.
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 16, 2003
Ian:

You are right, I can only open one session of PS7 at a time. I am sure I knew this before, but it is a surprise to me this afternoon, as there is a lot of software that allows this, although I hardly ever use this feature. Virtually all of the MS stuff allows this. I am curious why? Is it because of memory management, memory seize used for the program? Maybe this question should be posted to another thread?

Earl
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 16, 2003
Ruth,

It may not have made sense when you did it, but it certainly does now. If you were to do an upgrade like that now it would be insane.

Right now you already have 500 additional dollars in a machine that you could replace with a new $450 computer.
DE
david_evanson
Oct 16, 2003
Remember you have 30 days to activate the product – that should be enough time to get the PC stable if you are doing a major upgrade/build from scratch. Just activate it once you are sure every thing is running ok.

To be honest how many of us would go through more than 1 or 2 major upgrades in a year? The most likely scenario is that major upgrades will probably be done about as often as a new version of the software is released.
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 16, 2003
Just reformat every 30 days or if it is just a registry key all you need to do is create a restore point before installing. If you uninstall and reinstall Photoshop that often running system restore won’t be a big deal.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 16, 2003
If you uninstall and reinstall Photoshop that often running system restore won’t be a big deal.

A secret place will store the starting date, even if you uninstall Photoshop. However, when the script kiddies get their hands on it, you’ll run a utility every 29 days. Unless you’re honest… activation will only affect you if you’re honest.
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 16, 2003
r_harvey,

That "secret place" is in the registry or a system INI file that would be replaced when you use restore points. As long as the restore point is created before the installation occurs you should be fine. Just make sure you go back to your restore point before installing other software, and create a new restore point after as well otherwise you would need to re-install every new program from that restore point on.

It is possible I am wrong, but it is unlikely. However if I am they have a very impressive way of hiding the fact that Photoshop had been installed before.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 16, 2003
That "secret place" is in the registry or a system INI file that would be replaced when you use restore points.

You really think that the activation vendors are that dumb?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 16, 2003
To be honest how many of us would go through more than 1 or 2 major upgrades in a year? The most likely scenario is that major upgrades will probably be done about as often as a new version of the software is released.

How many of us does it have to be? Then what? Are you suggesting that one do an upgrade? What if one doesn’t want to? What if you never again need more features than your current version has? Are you suggesting that we stay with the same hardware too? Machine license. Your migration of software becomes subject to approval of Adobe.

I’m not saying remove activation – re-write the license so that it accommodates honest users without requiring subjective approval. If they want to "lock it down hard", by all means, use activation. But don’t drive exceptions to some subjective process.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 16, 2003
You really think that the activation vendors are that dumb?

They used to be. Now there’s a cottage industry, coming up with schemes for saving a few bytes of data where the 1337 d00dz won’t find it. They find it, anyway. Sometimes it just takes a little longer.
MA
Mark_Allen
Oct 16, 2003
Carol. Len

How much More are we having to endure this ranting. Please ! Please ! Cut this OFF ! Adobe surely has enough info.

Get used to activation, it’s here to stay

LA!
RH
r_harvey
Oct 16, 2003
How much More are we having to endure this ranting.

I share your pain. There are many threads I don’t like. My solution, and one I might suggest you consider, is to ignore them.

Thanks in advance.
MA
Mark_Allen
Oct 17, 2003
How much MORE are we having to endure this ranting.
I share your pain. There are many threads I don’t like. My solution, and one I might suggest you consider, is to ignore them.

Thanks in advance.

Post Reply | Bookmark

Adding to it? Like Me? Let’s call it a day!

Regards

Mark

P.S. The LAST post gets a Free Copy of ADOBE CREATIVE SUITE

Honest, I heard it from Chris Cox. Seriously on purpose NOT!
RH
r_harvey
Oct 17, 2003

P.S. The LAST post gets a Free Copy of ADOBE CREATIVE SUITE

Maybe it’ll be this ‘un. Okay, nobody else take the bait.
MA
Mark_Allen
Oct 17, 2003
Ok r_ Harvey

You’re right. I won’t take the bait.

P.S. Wotz the bait. Is it a slap around the head? Please Clarfy?

Regards

Mark LOL!
MA
Mark_Allen
Oct 17, 2003
I’m away to bed as i’m rote. destroyed and I am typing in increments so I don’t love anybody and I am going nowhere except to bed

So if you argue on my behalf, I don’t care coz’ I really am going to bed. coz it’s believe it or not, bed time.

Night ! Night!

Regards

Mark
RH
r_harvey
Oct 17, 2003
I am, on the whole, in favor of bed. Although I haven’t considered the intellectual property rights involved in dreams. I hope you have pleasant, public-domain dreams.

Good night.
I
ID._Awe
Oct 17, 2003
You mean the free CS Suite will go to one of the forum moderators? They would be the last post. THH.

I’m more concerned with the lack of compatibility in Illustrator with previous versions because the new text engine makes them un-editable when saved in an older version.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 17, 2003
I use Illustrator 9 and InDesign 2.0. While Illustrator imports and exports anything from the past dozen years, InDesign (which has what is effectively a type engine similar to AI 11), is pretty much a one-way street–you can export, but don’t expect layout to look the same (or as good) anywhere else. It makes PDF that can be read by Acrobat Reader 4.0 or later. See Illustrator CS: Let’s talk about the new text engine. <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.2ccdcf7b/0> The new PS 8 engine is similar, so backward compatibility issues should be similar.

All text will reflow (and have better spacing), and give you access to more glyphs in OpenType fonts. There’s a line being drawn; someday we’ll have to cross it.
DE
david_evanson
Oct 17, 2003
YrbkMgr

Even if Photoshop CS is the last upgrade you ever install then given that Adobe allow several reinstalls per year, (some have said 8 ) I think it’s unlikely that users will replace their HD or buy new PC more than 8 times in one year.

The real problem is Adobe not continuing to activate older products for whatever reason. But at this point it gets very complicated as we have to consider the useful life time of the OS. At some point in the future MS will drop Win2k and XP – for users with XP how long are we going to be able to keep reinstalling and activating XP on new hardware?

I guess to avoid activation in all its forms we are stuck with Photoshop 7 running on Windows 2000 Pro.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 17, 2003
Dave,

I think it’s unlikely that users will replace their HD or buy new PC more than 8 times in one year.

You’re right, in most cases that will be true, but that wasn’t my point. And fwiw, there is no official announcement indicating 8 – only Carol’s mention of it. She’s a volunteer and it has not been stated anywhere that I can find.

The real problem is Adobe not continuing to activate older products for whatever reason.

That was my point.

Also, ask yourself this: should the license follow me or the machine? If you choose to install, and then uninstall, and then move to a different machine, install, and then uninstall, should you need permission to do that? Do you think that at some point, even though only ONE installation is being used at a time, and you are uninstalling the product on a particular machine, that Adobe should approve your install/uninstall?

Do you think it will be okay if Adobe requires you to purchase another license because you installed/uninstalled too many times?

If you keep Photoshop CS for three years and don’t upgrade is it possible that you will be asked to purchase another license because you have changed computers too many times?

How would you respond to the situation when you are asked to purchase a new license simply because your behavior is "odd", in terms of how you install and uninstall the product? How about if you did not upgrade for two full version releases, and had subesquently upgraded hardware – specifically bought new machines? At some point, activation will prevent you from making that decision on your own, and will require you to call Adobe. What if they tell you that you must upgrade or purchase a new seat?

Is this the spirit of the license? Is this what Adobe envisioned?

This whole thing is a "workaround" to a problem, not a fix. And as many know, workarounds often carry their own problems – this is one of them.

They need to re-visit, and re-work the license agreement.
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 17, 2003
All together now! If everyone here would simply refuse to buy the new version (yes, I mean boycott), Adobe would get the message very quickly and within a month this whole discussion would be moot. They are in business to sell software and if they don’t do that, they will want to know why. When they realize that we aren’t buying because we hate activation, they will change their policies pronto.

My money says that 95 percent of the folks here will bite the bullet and buy PS CS. If that happens, Adobe will take it as justification and acceptance of activiation … and they will be correct.

Jake

Now, who has the guts?
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 17, 2003
This suite thing, coupled now with activation, has opened up a whole load of possible scenarios. Surely, Adobe needs to produce a comprehensive document covering these different situations.

As it is only photoshop CS that requires activation, surely you can put the other bits of the CS on different machines?

What’s the situation with the latest MSOffice. Can you have Excel and Word on different machines?

MSWorks started off as 4 different applications within an overall wrapper. Today everything is wholly integrated. It gives you tasks to perform.

‘What do you want to do today? Import an Image, design your own flyer, Layout some text’ etc

Is that the way Adobe is going with CS?

Jeff
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 17, 2003
Jake we all know that and Adobe knows it. But I think that as this is an Adobe forum we don’t like saying it. Fair to them they never try to influence us. Some will undoubtedly put off buying CS, others as you say will be so curious to see what the new product holds they won’t wait.

I even like seeing a new splash screen, they design them so well.

Jeff
RB
Robert_Barnett
Oct 17, 2003
Yep. But, you don’t see me adding activation too it. I respect and trust my consumers. In my opinion to do otherwise just causes you to loose business. Contrary to how big companies treat their customers I have found that 99.9% of people are quite honest and fair and I am not about to penalize or assume everyone is a crook because of the 0.1%.

Robert

wrote in message
Robert,

What you say is true Stuart, but it is the whole point that there is
a
limit in the first place.

I seem to recall that you have rather strict rules on the use of your own
software (free and charged versions).
<http://www.ultrasharpen.com/us_lite_download.html>
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 17, 2003
And fwiw, no one has mentioned yet, the idea that if you buy the Suite of products, does that mean that you must have PS and Illustrator on the same machine?

I believe you’ll have to install them all on one machine. It’s one license with one serial number. Essenstially it’s on application. But again, that’s just my interpretation.

Bob
RH
Richard_Haseltine
Oct 18, 2003
If the Adobe system is like the Macromedia one you will be able to "deactivate" PSCS on one machine, possibly even without uninstalling it, and then activate it on another. This should cover most, if not all, migration situations with no question of getting approval (but obviously a dead hard disk or stolen system will put a spanner in the works, and there may be a limit on the number of on/off cycles allowed).

My understanding of the XP system is that, after activation, they keep the activation code "marked as used" for six months, then clear it (which is how the "three hardware changes in a six month period" allowance works). If this is the sort of thing behind the reported eight activations per year for CS, you again wouldn’t need to get approval for your reactivations unless they became very frequent.

The main issues for me are:

How long will activation for superseded versions be available? Since the system is for Adobe’s sole benefit the answer should be forever.

What happens if an OS change breaks activation but not PS (if the un-activated volume licence version still works, but the activated version doesn’t)? Again, since the system is for Adobe’s sole benefit they should patch (or remove) the activation system for all affected versions. Obviously, if the application itself fails that would be another matter, just the way the cookie crumbles.

What happens if Adobe goes bust? They ought to take out an insurance policy to pay for the webservers and phone centres for a specified period until a buyer could be found, and ideally to cover the release of an activation-killer patch if no buyer emerged or if a buyer refused to support current users.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 18, 2003
My understanding of the XP system is that, after activation, they keep the activation code "marked as used" for six months, then clear it (which is how the "three hardware changes in a six month period" allowance works)

I believe that’s mostly correct, but I think it’s a rolling counter, with each upgrade inividually aged. There’s also different weight given to different upgrades. HD, network card, etc.

Since the system is for Adobe’s sole benefit the answer should be forever.

I fully agree. It’s also been requested/stated here that as a new version comes out, the activation should be removed from prior versions with a dot release. I’d have no problem w/activation if that were possible.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 18, 2003
If the Adobe system is like the Macromedia one you will be able to "deactivate" PSCS on one machine, possibly even without uninstalling it, and then activate it on another.

If that’s true, and it works like that, most of my previous arguments and counterpoints are moot. Then the license remains a user license.

That would make me happy.

But I do agree with Dave and Richard in that "legacy" activation is still an issue.

I have to say, that Richards post is the most sane analysis yet; ya know, Adobe could have saved over 200 posts if they’d simply come out and say what’s what, and quell the native unrest.
I
ID._Awe
Oct 18, 2003
Tony:

But where would they get a good laugh when they need one?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 18, 2003
True ID. This way, all the marketing folk can sit in on a meeting and say "well we’ve reviewed thousands of posts on this subject between four different fourms, and consensus is, that the market will accept it. Job well done folks".
I
ID._Awe
Oct 18, 2003
See Tony, you just them the big one where they can all laugh!
E
eeronclfptq
Oct 19, 2003
It looks like the story has been picked up by slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/18/232200.shtml?tid=152&a mp;tid=164&tid=185
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 21, 2003
beg and plead and cry to being to install the $600 plus
in software you bought. <

That is very emotive language and completely erroneous for probably greater than 80% of users – as most will have paid just the $169 (or less) for the upgrade.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 21, 2003
Mark,

If we cut this one off, it will only spring to life in a dozen other palces and we would then have to monitor them all. Some users have concerns and it best they bare their chests in just one place so that folk who do not share their concerns can simply avoid it.

So, as long as folk continue to discuss these issues civilly in an adult manner, then both Len and myself will allow it to contine.

But thanks for your concerns 😉

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 21, 2003
And fwiw, there is no official announcement indicating 8<

That is true and is something which I read about on the ozzie activation site – but apparently that statement has been withdrawn as I can no longer find any reference to it – or maybe I dreamt it in a public domain dream :))


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RH
r_harvey
Oct 22, 2003
L
LenHewitt
Oct 23, 2003
For the "Official line" see: http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 23, 2003
Here’s one that should make most of the worriers a bit relieved:

Q: What happens if the product is discontinued?
A: Adobe is fully committed to honoring the terms of its product license agreements. In the event that a product is discontinued, Adobe will enable automatic approval of all activation requests for that product or provide a means to remove activation outright. In either case, the customer will not experience any change in software capabilities.

Bob
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 23, 2003
It looks like the licensing craziness is spreading beyond the world of software:

<http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2003/10/22/221921/32>

A small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it.
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Oct 23, 2003
Glad to see that this thread is slowing down.

The Corporate "junk heaps" are filled with examples of marketing deciding that they, rather than the customer, knew what the market needed.

Let Adobe’s customer base vote with their pocket books on the issue.

Actually I wonder if anyone at Adobe gave any consideration on how many existing product buyers and users got their early training using from "pirated programs". Maybe it’s not right but it is/was there. And those early users are the ones that cough up $$$$ for proper use later in life.

The Photoshop elements program is a great idea for the beginner. I am happy to see it appearing as bundle ware on machines. It does give a beginner an exposure to the larger Photoshop program abilities.

Above all, let’s face it is Photoshop XX.0 going to offer enough new capabilities over version 7 to make it worth any upgrade cost? Sooner or later additional software advances aren’t worth much.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 23, 2003
Macromedia claims it was the lack of an evaluation copy being offered.

"The lack of prerelease evaluation copies was in retrospect a management misstep and sets the upgrade cycle back by 30 days,"

I think it’s activation – although the lack of evaluation copies is, well, a "misstep". Users are wary – companies need to be assured that they can trust users (ergo activation), but there’s no reciprocity.

<shrug>
RH
r_harvey
Oct 23, 2003
For me, it’s Macromedia’s reputation, compounded by Activation. I was looking at Freehand, but the Activation thing kept me away.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 23, 2003
Let Adobe’s customer base vote with their pocket books on the issue.

Good point. I’m voting yes for the standard suite upgrade.

Bob
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 23, 2003
Here’s one that should make most of the worriers a bit relieved:

Q: What happens if the product is discontinued?
A: Adobe is fully committed to honoring the terms of its product license agreements. In the event that a product is discontinued, Adobe will enable automatic approval of all activation requests for that product or provide a means to remove activation outright. In either case, the customer will not experience any change in software capabilities.

Bob>

Sorry, Bob; the potential for Adobe NOT activating the product some time in the future remains my big worry.

I can envisage plenty of scenarios that they could present as a let out situation – most involve bad business climate – hardly an improbable future scenario. As Jerry said "Sooner or later additional software advances aren’t worth much". Indeed. What does Adobe do then?
Run down the operation, but devote an ever-increasing percentage of it’s costs to activating old products, enabling customers to decline the upgrade that Adobe are desperately pushing? Hardly. In UK law, unless a company goes bust, I believe that ‘a deal is a deal’. But doesn’t the US have ‘Chapter Something’ that sets all bets off? Isn’t that what recently allowed the phoenix version of Polaroid to nick their retirees pension money?

Most big software companies are switching as fast as possible to pay-as-you-go charging. That solves the nightmare they have about cashflow drying up but leaves users drip feeding cash forever, even though the software may never offer any new features useful to them. The company nightmare gives way to a customer nightmare.

Of course, Adobe could allay customer fears very simply and cheaply. Lodge the removal code with an internationally respected organisation to be released, come what may, when the version is discontinued. Use someone like Lloyds of London. If they did that, I would happily purchase the upgrade.
RB
Robert_Blackwell
Oct 23, 2003
You gotta give MM some credit. Flash and Dreamweaver are GREAT products, Fireworks is okay too, but I have Photoshop.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 23, 2003
Sorry, Bob; the potential for Adobe NOT activating the product some time in the future remains my big worry.

They’ve issues a statement saying that won’t happen. If you elect to avoid the product because you don’t believe it, that’s certainly your choice and I respect that. In fact, it were any other company, I don’t know that I would be too quick to trust it either.

But, I also can’t think of any other company that has so many employees interacting with its customers. Seeking feedback and handing out advice and help. In short, I do trust this company to do the right thing for its customers.

Bob
SP
slim_palmer
Oct 24, 2003
Activation, Schmactivation…

What worries me is the ‘Next Step’

The website at <http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html> makes for a scary read.

"The Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is an alliance of Microsoft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD which promotes a standard for a `more secure’ PC. Their definition of `security’ is controversial; machines built according to their specification will be more trustworthy from the point of view of software vendors and the content industry, but will be less trustworthy from the point of view of their owners. In effect, the TCG specification will transfer the ultimate control of your PC from you to whoever wrote the software it happens to be running…"

"TC provides a computing platform on which you can’t tamper with the application software, and where these applications can communicate securely with their authors and with each other…"

"… will also make it much harder for you to run unlicensed software. In the first version of TC, pirate software could be detected and deleted remotely."

"(It) provides for a monitoring and reporting component to be mounted in future PCs. The preferred implementation in the first phase of TC emphasised the role of a `Fritz’ chip – a smartcard chip or dongle soldered to the motherboard."

What makes things even more frightening is that it is already in use, according to the article, by Microsoft.

Where do you want to go … tomorrow.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 24, 2003
That article is an interesting read to be sure. Activation (a subset of Trusted Computing) is definately not here for the consumer – it is a step in gaining increased control over the market without having to add more value.

From the article:

TC does not so much provide security for the user as for the PC vendor, the software supplier, and the content industry. They do not add value for the user, but destroy it. They constrain what you can do with your PC in order to enable application and service vendors to extract more money from you. This is the classic definition of an exploitative cartel – an industry agreement that changes the terms of trade so as to diminish consumer surplus.

Be careful what you wish for; you may just get it.
RB
Robert_Barnett
Oct 24, 2003
Adobe interactive with its customers? Where are you seeing this? It isn’t here. Only one or two Adobe people are here and they aren’t here as official Adobe employees just as users.

Adobe has been the worst when it comes to interacting with customers, listening to what they want, etc.

Macromedia on the other hand has a ton of programs insight to help and interact with customers. They have a helper program on their forum. They have Macromedia personal on their representing Macromedia. They have had questionnaires asking customer opinions they have setup several advisory groups and more all to get feedback from their customers.

They also get users post release information for extensions and stuff that work with their products where Adobe forbids it. I guess they are afraid someone might make a buck that they didn’t get.

No Adobe is very user unfriendly.

Robert
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 24, 2003
I never said they were here in an official capacity. All the more impressive that they do it on their own time.

If you want to buy into conspiracy theories, don’t let me stop you. But I’m buying the software and I’m not afraid that someone is going to be knocking on my door in the middle of the night to confiscate my computer.

Bob
Q
QuiGonJ
Oct 24, 2003
I’d also say they charge more than Adobe. I am a registered Director owner, but another $400 a year to upgrade has made me go… I don’t think so.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 24, 2003
"(It) provides for a monitoring and reporting component to be mounted in future PCs. The preferred implementation in the first phase of TC emphasised the role of a `Fritz’ chip – a smartcard chip or dongle soldered to the motherboard."

Funny you should mention this:

Intel motherboard locked in secrecy <http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5096100.html>

Atkinson was keen to point out that this has nothing to do with digital rights management (DRM), which is a controversial technology designed to protect copyrighted material,

sure it doesn’t.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 24, 2003
I guess Frank Zappa was right. Stupidity is the fastest growing natural resource on the planet. Too bad we can’t harness its energy potential.

Why don’t you nay-sayers just wait to see how activation works before you start your conspiracy theories going there. I swear, when I read this thread I feel like I’ve clicked on a Slashdot story. I read Slashdot for humor value, I expect a little more intelligence from the Adobe forums.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 24, 2003
Moderators: Please mod the parent post as a troll -1.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 25, 2003
I expect a little more intelligence from the Adobe forums.

You seem to continually confuse intelligent debate with agreement, Stuart. There is nothing unintelligent about what many, throughout the computing industry, are saying as it relates to Activation, DRM, and the TCG. You simply refuse to admit that there’s another point of view, and if a view is in direct contrast to your own opinion, it cannot be well reasoned.

Stop calling people stupid and put forth your own well reasoned position, or just lurk.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 25, 2003
Moderators: Please mod the parent post as Insightful +5
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 25, 2003
"…and put forth your own well reasoned position,…"

You call your tin-foil hat conspiracies well reasoned? What color is the sky in your world? Why don’t you start first Tony.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 25, 2003
Stuart, please. I know you’re a smart guy, but we disagree on the ramifications of this issue; you choose to call people unintelligent for doing so.

In the 350+ posts in this thread, I have put forth several we-reasoned positions, as have others. You choose not to agree. Fine. But to call it tin-foil hat is a stretch. There are many in the industry saying the same things, presuming you read the publications. Maybe we’re all nutz and you’re the only sane one.

No reason to get personal here. Just stop calling people unintelligent and counter with a good (or bad) argument.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 25, 2003
He’s a Red Sox fan. Blame it on the curse.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 25, 2003
Tony,

I call people unintelligent for developing boogeyman type conspircay theories from thin air. There are far too many pundits in the technology industry and most of them are no more intelligent than your average baboon. They are heard simply because they can write, not because they can develop a well reasoned argument. There is no counter-argument for these delusions. You can’t argue with crazy, tin foil hat wearing loonies. If you want to believe in the boogeyman and keep your curtains closed lest the black helicopters circling your house find out you’re home, fine, go right ahead, I’m not going to stop you. Whatever floats your boat man.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 25, 2003
boogeyman type conspircay theories from thin air.

Intuit.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 25, 2003
Macromedia is taking some punches about activation in the forum thread following this Macromedia shares dip 30 percent <http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/10/24/macromedia/> article. While their John Dowdell usually offers a fine defense, he’s surprisingly quiet on this issue. He did say that people often wait until midway between releases before upgrading, but, to me, that means after the first bug fix, which may not happen if the upgrade cycle is too tight.
RA
Richard_A._Ross
Oct 25, 2003
Macromedia sinks on sales news:
<http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5095653.html?tag=nefd_top>

Since Macromedia instituted activation in its product, sales should have gone straight up. No? Or it’s just that Macromedia products all suck so this is happening and Adobe won’t suffer the same fate?
RH
r_harvey
Oct 25, 2003
I call people unintelligent for developing boogeyman type conspircay theories from thin air.

Perhaps you could call people naive or ignorant, if your claims were correct, but calling them unintelligent is presumptuous and insulting.

There are far too many pundits in the technology industry and most of them are no more intelligent than your average baboon…

An argument is not the automatic nay saying and attacking of your adversary’s credibility. That’s not how humor works, either.

You’ve stated that nobody knows how Activation will affect us, so we shouldn’t worry about it. You’ve said it several times. All anecdotal and substantive reports notwithstanding, I hope your gut feeling is right. We all just need to trust our feelings more.

I hope this thread stays open and interactive; I’ve learned a lot from it. Adobe’s forums continue to be a wonderful resource, and I thank them for providing it.
CG
Charles_Grubbs
Oct 25, 2003
As far as I can tell no one except Adobe is in favor of Activation. I’ve talked to a lot of people that have cancelled order’s for the upgrades or new installs. It seems like Adobe punishes there loyal user’s instead of going after the ones that cause them harm. Here’s a fact: I once got an e-mail that was from a site that was selling "cheap" Adobe software, I did my loyal duty and came to the Adobe site and after searching for quite some time finally found a way to report this to Adobe and send them a copy of the e-mail….Did they go after the guys selling the illegal software? I never received a thank you one from Adobe, I never received a follow up from Adobe, and I never sent them another e-mail that I got where someone was pushing illegal Adobe software…the same old story with Adobe; the "Loyal User’s" get the "Loyal Shaft"…I mean it took me like 40 minutes just to notify Adobe and send them this e-mail, no thank you, no nothing from them….they most likely contacted the site selling their software illegally and gave them a better deal on the latest upgrade packages, haha, I mean that sounds like Adobe doesn’t it?!!!! I truly love the Adobe products and would do anything to help them, example above, but I really don’t think this will help Adobe or curb theft of their software, what’s the answer, I don’t have any idea except maybe to track down people who send out e-mails saying "Get your cheap Adobe software here" and make them suffer, ya’ know instead of the loyal user’s having to pay make the ones doing the crime pay. Reader’s please comment…..
P
Phosphor
Oct 25, 2003
Hmm…I’ve reported plenty of offenders to

Always get a reply of thanks.
L
LenHewitt
Oct 25, 2003
Gang,

I have moved two additional Activation Topics to join this one.

Let’s try and keep all the comments re-activation to one topic…
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 25, 2003
I hope this thread stays open and interactive<

It will stay open – but I must admit that whilst I don’t mind activation if it does cut down on piracy in any way and I do trust Adobe (at least a lot more than other software companies), I don’t take kindly to insults being traded from either camp – so please let’s cut that aspect of the discussion out and let it continue in a civil manner on both sides.

Thank you.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RH
r_harvey
Oct 26, 2003
An unexpected large drop in Microsoft Corp.’s unearned revenue has financial analysts worried that the company’s biggest challenge is not Linux or an IT spending dip, but an installed base that’s rejecting its software subscription plan… The amount of unearned revenue on Microsoft’s balance sheet dropped $768 million.


Microsoft results could show weakness in license plans < http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/24/HNmsweakness_1.htm l> [InfoWorld]

They’re blaming it on the Software Assurance program, which may be true for corporate sales, which aren’t constrained by Activation. This drop is during the time when the old Y2K computers are being replaced. The picture should be getting rosier, as the MS percentage of the price of each computer increases, with decreasing hardware costs.
RM
Rob_Miller
Oct 27, 2003
Geesh, get a clue. This is becoming more and more of a common practice these days. Microsoft has been doing it since Office XP was released. And now Macromedia is doing it (had to activate DWMX2004) and Symantec is also (had to activate my new copy of NAV2004). I think Macromedia’s activation implemention (haven’t tried Adobe’s yet, but it sounds similar) was very fair. I was able to activate it on my desktop and laptop without having to call them. And, over this past weekend when I rebuilt my machine I was able to deactivate the software and then reactivate it on the new machine. It was fairly trouble free. Same thing for Windows XP. I just had to give Microsoft a quick buzz and tell them I rebuilt my PC and they happily activated it. I don’t know why people are so scared of activation. The only thing I can think of (and I’m not implying that you are doing this) is that they’ve loaded one copy of the software onto several PCs and are a little unhappy that they now have to buy several copies of it.

Also, if you read Adobe’s site, they mention that you may not get a reply. I’ve sent them emails myself and haven’t received a reply in regards to reporting piracy.

Rob

wrote in message
As far as I can tell no one except Adobe is in favor of Activation. I’ve
talked to a lot of people that have cancelled order’s for the upgrades or new installs. It seems like Adobe punishes there loyal user’s instead of going after the ones that cause them harm. Here’s a fact: I once got an e-mail that was from a site that was selling "cheap" Adobe software, I did my loyal duty and came to the Adobe site and after searching for quite some time finally found a way to report this to Adobe and send them a copy of the e-mail….Did they go after the guys selling the illegal software? I never received a thank you one from Adobe, I never received a follow up from Adobe, and I never sent them another e-mail that I got where someone was pushing illegal Adobe software…the same old story with Adobe; the "Loyal User’s" get the "Loyal Shaft"…I mean it took me like 40 minutes just to notify Adobe and send them this e-mail, no thank you, no nothing from them….they most likely contacted the site selling their software illegally and gave them a better deal on the latest upgrade packages, haha, I mean that sounds like Adobe doesn’t it?!!!! I truly love the Adobe products and would do anything to help them, example above, but I really don’t think this will help Adobe or curb theft of their software, what’s the answer, I don’t have any idea except maybe to track down people who send out e-mails saying "Get your cheap Adobe software here" and make them suffer, ya’ know instead of the loyal user’s having to pay make the ones doing the crime pay. Reader’s please comment…..
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Lets talk numbers here.

I spent this weekend searching for people that were saying they were not going to upgrade because of activation. (Google is very helpfull for this.) Try it.

A quick survey gave me at least 100(rounded off and bieng conservative). Thats $169,000 adobe will be loosing because of activation.

And this is just upgrading.

Now lets just say lets guess 20 people wont buy PS becouse of activation thats $12,980 dollars that adobe wont get.

Unless they dont mind loosing money thats up to them.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Buy a calculator. Your math skills are not very good.

Bob
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 27, 2003
Rob M,

I don’t know about you, but I am not liking the idea that in a year or two I may have to call every company that I purchase software from each time I upgrade or reformat.

Then what will you say… "It’s only 20 or 30 phone calls I don’t know why everyone is complaining".
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Why will you have to phone Adobe – you obviously have a modem/cable connection as you are here – simply activate/reactivate over the internet – it really is a no brainer and takes a couple of seconds. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Now, of those alleged 100 people who will not bother to upgrade, how many will upgrade around a month or so after its release because they really want some of the super new stuff in Photoshop CS – probably at least 99% of them I bet.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
In all fairness, Carol, if you get a new computer, there may be an issue depending on how many activations Adobe will allow. Which brings me to a question.

Can you deactivate on one computer before installing on another to avoid the hassle of the phone call?

Bob
DM
Derrick_Moore
Oct 27, 2003
Carol, I’ve had to call Microsoft for both XP and Office XP because my new motherboard was bad. The problem with the board was not evident until after I had installed and activated everything, and in the process of troubleshooting I changed hard drives, PCI slot locations, etc., thus causing my internet activation to fail after my new board was installed. It wasn’t a big deal but you never know what can happen



Rick Moore
Barnes Gromatzky Kosarek Architects
(512) 476 7133
(512) 478 2624 FAX
www.bgkarchitects.com
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
hehe oops

100 * 169 = $16,900

20 * 169 = 3,380
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Carol what would happen if every single software you had had activation (Im afriad thats the way it going to go). How many call would you have to make?

What if your Internet was down?

What if your company didnt allow outgoing requests from software to go out for security reasons?

None of these things are taking into consideration.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
I’m sure everyone can pull out some sort of first or third hand anecdotal evidence which demonstrates how activation failed to work at one time or another. I don’t trust third hand stories and anecdotal evidence, even first hand, is typically the exception and not the rule. Sure there will be glitches but many here seem to think activation will force them to turn over the contents of their computer or risk black helicopters swooping in and jack-booted hit quads to bust down their doors. Assuming Adobe gets 1 million users of Photoshop CS relatively quickly, nagash2’s 100 (hell, I’ll triple that to 300) users with problems is quite insignificant. No one has claimed activation will be perfect but I’m guessing Adobe worked out those problems with their beta test of the process in Australia so it’s not like this is the very first use of activation by Adobe.
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 27, 2003
Carol,

Yes I have 2 Mbit connections at work and home, but many people don’t. I know of many small businesses off the top of my head that despite recommending routers or proxy servers continue to have only a single computer with internet access. For many of us this is hard to imagine but it is the case more often than not in small businesses. Many Photographers have their computer in or near their lab and only use it for photo editing and have never had the computer on the internet.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
What if your Internet was down?<

It is unlikely to be down for more than 30 days – and as has been explained many times in this thread, you can install it and *use* it for a full 30 days after installation before it becomes mandatory to activate.

What if your company didnt allow outgoing requests from software to go
out for security reasons?<

Then the phone bill is down to them and you are picking up (hopefully) a healthy salary for being stuck on the phone for 5 minutes. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 27, 2003
Now, of those alleged 100 people who will not bother to upgrade, how
many will upgrade around a month or so after its release because they really want some of the super new stuff in Photoshop CS -probably at least 99% of them I bet.

Or, alternatively, how many of the people who have consistently upgraded over the past few versions, in spite of being slightly disappointed at the improvements (or lack thereof) each time, will see product activation as the straw that broke the camel’s back and stick with their current version for the foreseeable future?

The upgrade doesn’t offer anything I can’t do without, and it has the potential to be a pain in the you-know-what. How much potential and how much pain is totally irrelevant, because even a tiny potential for a miniscule irritation is still worse than no irritation at all. Afterall, I don’t have Adobe’s best interests at heart, I have my own.

Sorry, but I don’t feel inclined to make my own life even marginally more difficult just so that Adobe can add another bullet-point to their glossy annual shareholder’s report.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
continue to have only a single computer with internet access<

In a business like that they will more than likely have a multi user licence – which doesn’t need activation.

If they really only have a single user for Photoshop, then they can temporarily set up a USB modem on that computer and do it that way (or indeed, activate over the telephone if they really don’t want to go down the online route – but at the end of the day, that is their decision). —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 27, 2003
Stuart,

It is one single application. I doubt very much that you would be singing the same tune if you had to register every single audio CD, DVD, and software package you owned. Far fetched? I hope so but the way things are going I wouldn’t put it past them.

It will be in the name of protecting copywritten material. The Audio CD’s will each have unique embedded audio signatures so you will be required to register your audio CD’s. That way if someone downloads an MP3 with a signature that matches the one on your CD they know it was you. You know what I bet it will all start with one audio CD and everyone will say "It’s just one CD it only takes a few seconds over your Internet connection".

I am all for protecting intellectual property, but if they can’t find a better way I fear the term "intellectual property" may be an oxymoron anyway!

"They That Give Up Liberty For Safety Deserve Neither" -Benjamin Franklin
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Afterall, I don’t have Adobe’s best interests at heart, I have my own.<

So, although there is no irritation (hasn’t been for Australian clients or folk on the beta AFAIK) you are prepared to not upgrade to use the far better tools which will be available in Photoshop CS.

That is fine Iain, but I would suggest that you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, as they say. Surely you will not dig in your heels if it is going to offer you many ways to improve your workflow and the quality of your images all for the sake of making a non-existent point 🙂

I would suggest that you wait and download the trial when it becomes available and see all the improvements that Photoshop can give you before you commit yourself either way. That way at least, besides cutting off your nose to spite your face, you won’t have to lose the entire face either 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 27, 2003
Just curious Carol, are you a beta tester? Do you have CS? Do you like it? What’s the most useful new feature(s)? 🙂
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 27, 2003
Carol,

You do hear yourself don’t you? On a system upgrade you could be looking at 20 or 30 phone calls, depending on the number of programs requiring activation, with potentially long hold times. Even if each call is only 10 minutes you are looking at 3-5 hours on the phone. Ok so Adobe is only responsible for 10 minutes of that time, but they are contributing to a paradigm that has a very grim forecast.

Here is a scenario for you. What if the next Motherboard or OS revision is not compatible with your activation scheme. Is Adobe capable of handling simultaneous phone calls from a large percentage of it’s consumer base?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Is Adobe capable of handling simultaneous phone calls from a large
percentage of it’s consumer base?

Interesting scenario, but I think if it came down to that there would need to be a patch posted on the website. And yes, I know that not everyone knows to look there, but I would imagine anyone buying some hot new technology would have enough intelligence to check there.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
So, although there is no irritation… you are prepared to not upgrade…

Correct! It’s a freedom thing.

to use the far better tools which will be available in Photoshop CS.

Which is, of course, the way to force everyone to eventually upgrade. A file uses a new feature, then it’s handed-off to someone who doesn’t have Photoshop CS, then they upgrade, then the next guy…

That’s the method used by the folks in Redmond–and it is quite effective–is to change things a bit with each version, so that eventually everyone will be forced to upgrade. Say, change the text engine, introduce new file formats… if you even want to look at a file, you will have to upgrade.
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Just imagine that all software has this Activation feature. I wonder how much time/money is going to be wasted by individuals/Companies/Corporation just trying to activate.

Ah the though just makes me angry
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Which is, of course, the way to force everyone to eventually upgrade<

Not at all, simply ask the person who sent it to send it again as a flattened TIF file – that way even Photoshop 2.5 can read it. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Correct! It’s a freedom thing.<

Which is quite right and proper – but is it really a freedom thing when you are restricting your own freedom of choice to use the best tools available for the job, by your reluctance to accept a very minor irritation for 2 seconds per month/year/whenever.

I would respectfully suggest that you are indeed in trouble of becoming your own jailor (but that of course, is your choice too :)) —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
Not at all, simply ask the person who sent it to send it again as a flattened TIF file – that way even Photoshop 2.5 can read it.

Who wants to edit that TIF? Especially if it’s larger than 2GB. As I said, once an upgrade gets into the workflow, everything changes.

Just imagine that all software has this Activation feature. I wonder how much time/money is going to be wasted by individuals/Companies/Corporation just trying to activate.

Corporate versions often don’t have activation. Say it’s universal–it would likely make corporation move to Linux a little faster. It is happening; Activation will only encourage companies to invest in Linux.

Which is quite right and proper – but is it really a freedom thing when you are restricting your own freedom of choice to use the best tools available for the job, by your reluctance to accept a very minor irritation for 2 seconds per month/year/whenever.

That’s why it’s called freedom.
GH
Grass_Hopper
Oct 27, 2003
that’s something I really don’t understand, why is it that large corporations, where the chance to "borrow" the software is greater, don’t have to activate? The single user is required to, but the multiple license folks don’t.

Perhaps it’s a misconception on my part, but I would think that the majority of casual copying, especially witout the need to activate, is going to occur MORE in a corporate setting than it will in the private setting. So the corporate copy gets out, no activation required and all the pirates are happy. Meanwhile, the lowly private user needs to jump through the activation hoop.

I am not trying to cause problems here, but I am not sure that I have seen an answer to question about future versions CS. Hypothetical here: 3 years from now, PSCS3 gets released. You are still using PSCS. You have to change your harware configuration, say a new mobo. Will Adobe still allow for PSCS to be activated or will they refuse that activation (as, in reality, they have the right to do) and force the user to upgrade to PSCS3? Do we have any guarantee, in writing, that they won’t prevent PSCS from being activated after future versions are released?
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
Photo,

First, it’s copyrighted not copywritten, two very different things.

Second, the quote is:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If you’re going to quote somebody get the quote right. Note also the use of the word essential, a word often left off by many who misquote Mr. Franklin.

Third, I wouldn’t mind activated CDs one bit because I don’t use my computer as a CD player. That wouldn’t bother me one bit. On a side note, it people are going to insist on using computers as stereos, when is the AHRA going to kick in for them I wonder?

Last, if you’re having to deal with 20-30 system upgrades of Photoshop you are likely going to have purchased a volume license in which case activation is not necessary. If you did not purchase a volume license for 20 or more copies then you wasted quite a bit of money and any troubles brought upon by doing so are our own fault.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
"Just imagine that all software has this Activation feature. I wonder how much time/money is going to be wasted by individuals/Companies/Corporation just trying to activate.

Ah the though just makes me angry"

Apparently nagash2 you’re not thinking. It has been stated multiple times in this thread as well as elsewhere on the Adobe site that activation is not going to be on volume license copies. It is therefore very likely that no companies or corporations will be wasting any time at all and for those who only need 5 or so copies of Photoshop, you’re not wasting any time at all even if one person has to install the applications. Activation will be a very small percentage of the time spent installing the app.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
…I wouldn’t mind activated CDs one bit because I don’t use my computer as a CD player.

So nobody else should care.

On a side note, it people are going to insist on using computers as stereos…

They’re being promoted as home info-tainment centers.

…with 20-30 system upgrades of Photoshop you are likely going to have purchased a volume license

Which is exactly where the pirated copies all over the Internet will come from. Nobody’s going to bother cracking it if a corporate version has the work done for them. Adobe’s making it easier on pirates, and harder on honest individuals.
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Activation WILL NOT curb piracy!.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
There are so many Dave…

And each one affects backward compatibility. One copy in the workflow, and everything changes.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
What’s the most useful new feature(s)?<

There are so many Dave, it’s difficult to know where to start. For me *personally* and the way I work if I could choose only one thing, it would have to be the new File Browser and its abilities to run actions and automated tasks on either a whole folder of images or just a few selected ones. This would be followed by the ability to work in 16-bit mode for many more functions. Vastly improved contact sheets and picture packaging facilities – also the new Image Matching and highlight/shadow adjustment feature are extremly useful. Additional methods of resampling also springs to mind (upsampling with the ‘smoother’ option enabled gave incredible results going in one step from a 17Mb camera image to a 40"x30" enlargement).

There have been many requests for photographic style filters (eg red, blue, green and CC filters etc) and these have been incorporated into CS and work extremely well at producing the type of effect which you would obtain using the convention filters on the camera and at correcting images taken under a variety of light sources. And you now have the often requested feature for type on a path – not something I use much myself but other folks will love it now it is incorporated into Photoshop itself.

There are a whole variety of other useful stuff, some of it quite small amendments (such as the ability to choose either black, white, grey or indeed a choice of any colour – you no longer have to rely on changing the background swatch colour to what you want the canvas extension to be. Similarly for the stroke tool and the fill tool has an added colour option.

In my opinion there are many major improvements – but there are also some very minor improvements which will help enormously in getting the job done faster in a more relaxed way.

ACR has been much improved over the older version – and now includes the ability to correct for Chromatic Aberrations (generally found in digital cameras when using wide and extremely wide angle lenses).

Anyhow that is a very brief sysnopsis of what you can expect.



Carol
(Posted from the UK)
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
I use over 10 different software packages. If all those required activation IT WOULD BE A HASSLE.
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 27, 2003
Stuart,

I didn’t say 20-30 system upgrades! I said one system upgrade with 20-30 potential applications requiring activation. Remember Photoshop is but once single application and more and more vendors are adding activation. Will you be as forgiving when all the programs you use require activation?

Sorry for the misquote it was the first I found and the web site had it misquoted. It still "represents the spirit" of the quote! 🙂 Besides we all know where you stand and it obviously isn’t with Mr. Franklin.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
I am not trying to cause problems here, but I am not sure that I have seen an answer to question about future versions CS.

From the FAQ:

Q: What happens if the product is discontinued?
A: Adobe is fully committed to honoring the terms of its product license agreements. In the event that a product is discontinued, Adobe will enable automatic approval of all activation requests for that product or provide a means to remove activation outright. In either case, the customer will not experience any change in software capabilities.

Bob
J
Joe
Oct 27, 2003
wrote:

Now, of those alleged 100 people who will not bother to upgrade, how many will upgrade around a month or so after its release because they really want some of the super new stuff in Photoshop CS – probably at least 99% of them I bet.

Carol, I have been computing almost 3 decades now and never have to call any software compary for anything I buy. Besides English isn’t my native language, I don’t know how to call several hundreds different software companies to activate all my Old/New softwares. And do they remember and still support some very old softwares? I am still using some old DOS util dated back to 70’s.
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Ok If activation is so wonderful then check Google.

Theres a crack for all this Activated products:

Dreamweaver
Flash
Freehand
Win XP
So After adobe puts out PS

It will be

Dreamweaver
Flash
Freehand
Win XP
PS CS

Again Activation WILL NOT curb piracy.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
In the event that a product is discontinued, Adobe will enable automatic approval of all activation requests for that product or provide a means to remove activation outright. In either case…

What if, what if, what if… there are so many. No failsafe mechanism or deadman switch? If I purchase a license, I should be able to use it even if what if occurs.

Theres a crack for all this Activated products:

That’s why so many people purchase MS WindowsXP, but use a cracked version.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Since we’re going off topic with Mr. Franklin’s quote, let me tell you that, IMO, there’s a great deal of difference between what you wrote and the actual quote. And since I worked in the World Trade Center and was there on 9/11 and for the 1993 bombing, I can attest to the fact that I would give up a few small freedoms, like getting into the building without ID, to have been safer on that day.

So please stop turning this into a give me liberty or give me death scenario. It’s software–not life or death.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Im not advocating piracy im advocating NOT using "Activation feature" . Its useless and cuases to many problems/ waste of time.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
And what if we should all pick different freedoms we should give up for safety?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
We should really end this now before we go way off topic but no, I’m talking about storm troopers knocking your door down in the middle of the night.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
Yeah, freedom isn’t free.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 27, 2003
Can you deactivate on one computer before installing on another to avoid the hassle of the phone call?

In that case phone free activation will be dependent upon the time period that has elapsed between your initial two (2) activations and your third attempt and is NOT related to whether you deactivate

Deactivation is a step that can be undertaken (but not essential) as part of uninstalling PS. Deactivation does NOT feed back to Adobe. It just makes you feel better when you sell that box to someone else. Since activation is also tied to your serial number they would also need your serial number before they could reactivate.

When you deactivate you remove only one of the codes provided by Adobe (the one in the registry). There is another identical code burned to your HD that stays. So long as you don’t do a low level format of the HD this hidden code will ensure that your old activation code remains valid and ready for your next attempt to reactivate that machine at some future date.

Unless selling the box I personally wouldn’t bother deactivating. If you don’t deactivate then reinstalling PS is no different to what it is in version 7.

Someone asked if Carol was a beta tester – she was – so was I. Both of us have been using it for months and gone through activation many times. In my case on different machines. I’ve also been through deactivation and even tried to conn the system. If you buy a new box you will have 30 days from the moment you install PS until it ceases to function. Say the HD falls over in this 30 day period and you get another one – reinstall PS and again you have a further 30 days of use before you have to activate.

Bottom line folks is that many of your worries are just that – worries! As for those bitching about activation screwing up the way they work on multiple computers – TOUGH – read the EULA!
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Even though its about Microsoft I think you can just change Microsoft for adobe.

What’s Wrong With Product Activation
<http://www.j-walk.com/ss/excel/activation.htm>
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Yet more:

And do read your Adobe Eula Carefully. They may have some hidden stuff in there about activation.

Again you could for parts of this change MM for Adobe. And I think MM and adobe are using the same 3rd arty for the product activation scheme

The Cases for and Against Product Activation
<http://www.actionscript.com/archives/00000546.html>
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Flawed. He doesn’t know what Microsoft will allow and you don’t know what Adobe will allow.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
all I know is.

1. If I bought the upgrade shouldnt I be able to use it without any further contact to adobe?

To me it seems that im paying Adobe 169 for Demoing the software and then I can choose to really use it if I want.

Is this legal? I have to go to the Harvard Law shool and ask around. It just does not seem right. If I bought it I should be able to use it without any restrictions.

2. In my opinion if Activation is a Guilty until proven innocent kinda thinking. Theres that freedom people like to talk about.
( I have owned PS since version 2.5 i think. Got to search for that. I know that ps3 for a fact.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
1. If I bought the upgrade shouldnt I be able to use it without any further contact to adobe?

You can…after you activate it. Remember, you’re not buying software, you’re buying a license to use the software.

To me it seems that im paying Adobe 169 for Demoing the software and then I can choose to really use it if I want.

How do you figure that?

If I bought it I should be able to use it without any restrictions.

Again, you bought and AGREED to a license.

2. In my opinion if Activation is a Guilty until proven innocent kinda thinking.

Well, if nothing else you’re certainly entitled to an opinion.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 27, 2003
Shouldnt the price of PS go down since they have this new Shiny *Bling bling* new actvation anti piracy scheme and people wont steal anymore?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Wouldn’t that be nice? 🙂

Bob
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 27, 2003
It’s interesting that the Adobe ‘helpers’ here will nit-pick over exact wording of quotations but resolutely avoid addressing the serious challenges made in posts or in links.

nagash2’s link in 424 quotes Microsoft as admitting that after a few activations you have to buy a new licence. Carol – would you find THAT acceptable? Probably you are ‘in the know’ and a quick call to a secret number in Adobe would sort it. Do you think the rest of us should fork out another £150? Or would it be £500 for the full version? Are you going to give us your secret number? I doubt it.

A few days ago someone posted this link:

<http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html>

This is scary stuff – but again, no response!

It is common here to trade quotes from the US constitution and great thinkers. Let me give you one from the English Civil War.

"We know very well that in all ages those men that engage themselves against tyranny, unjust and arbitrary proceedings in magistrates, have suffered under such appellations, the People being purposely frighted from that which is good by insinuation of imaginary evil."

< http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_r eader_2/levellers.html>

It’s uncanny that this was written in 1649 and even more so the insight that it is applicable to ‘all ages’!

IMHO; that is exactly what is going on here. Gates & Co see their ability to find new features worthy of purchase drying up. They desperately need to introduce a pay-as-you-go system so that cashflow is guaranteed even without producing anything. But punters will not buy activation on this, true, basis. Hence the ‘imaginary evil’ of copyright cheats.

Anyone who hasn’t read this:
<http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html>
please do. Among the vast array of evidence is a link demonstrating that Microsoft is quietly slipping words into EULA’s allowing it to mess with everything on your PC! Download something benign like Media Player and you’ve just agreed to let Redmond decide what to delete or de-activate from your hard disk, at their whim, without your say so.

Everyone happy with this? Carol? You happy with such an arrangement?

Boycotts probably wont work. Deferred pain doesn’t hurt now. Eighteen months+ down the line everyone will be squealing but the game will be lost, activation will be a nightmare, and we’ll be paying monthly forever for software which they don’t even need to improve. It’s being termed ‘selling software as a utility’ but I’m sure the CEO’s of utilities would disagree – they have to produce something for their money.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
nagash2’s link in 424 quotes Microsoft as admitting that after a few activations you have to buy a new licence.

No it doesn’t. It quotes someone who CLAIMS that’s what Microsoft said. That whole site and the rest of the sky is falling sites are so flawed it’s laughable. None of them have facts, just conspiracy theories.

Bob
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 27, 2003
1. If I bought the upgrade shouldnt I be able to use it without any
further contact to adobe?

You can…after you activate it. Remember, you’re not buying software, you’re buying a license to use the software.

BUYING a licence? This transaction, where the vendor can disable the product and force you to ‘buy’ again is, for most folk, ‘Buying, Bob, but not as we know it’.

If I bought it I should be able to use it without any restrictions.

Again, you bought and AGREED to a license.

Ditto
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
BUYING a licence? This transaction, where the vendor can disable the product and force you to ‘buy’ again is, for most folk, ‘Buying, Bob, but not as we know it’.

Who have they done this to?

Again, you bought and AGREED to a license.

Ditto

Exactly. When Adobe violates the agreement, come on back and let me know.

Bob
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
Herbert,

There is nothing to refute here. A lot of the comments are from people who live in a fantasy world with green skies, black helicopters and government hit squads that raid your house on a daily basis. None of the links nagash provided were from reputable, reliable sources, much less from anyone with any reasonable amount of knowledge of which they speak.

"It is common here to trade quotes from the US constitution and great thinkers. Let me give you one from the English Civil War."

It is not common nor is it intelligent. Those people lived hundreds of years ago in a completely different world (though it still had blue skies). Their comments speak to events which bear absolutely no correlation to Adobe’s activation scheme much less world events as they are unfolding today. Their comments are about as insightful as those by Nostradamus. The comments are only intelligent in so far as their ability to bend to fit the situation one wishes. Nostradamus could not see into the future, he could merely write in such as way as to make people believe what they wanted to believe. There is no arguing with resolve such as that.
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 27, 2003
There is nothing to refute

Stuart,

Do you really think market enthusiasm will be enough to support Microsofts bottom line in 2018 as they launch Office2019 (or Adobe launches PS18)? If not, can you suggest how, short of pay-as-you-go, the companies will avoid massive downsizing?
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 27, 2003
Anyhow that is a very brief sysnopsis of what you can expect.

Thanks Carol (and Ian). I’m hoping a lot of the little stuff that’s punted around the features request forum makes it in. For example, can you check if you can now use the zoom tool while in free transform? That one’s really a pain for me.

I’ll definately be upgrading. (But Activation still BITES! <g>) Now that it’s shipping, I’ll be giving customer service a call to clear up some questions I have on the Suite upgrade and the ability to continue to upgrade PS standalone if I have a previous license. I’ll post the results when I get an answer. Should be within a day or 2. I hope to order by the end of the week if it’s indeed true that CS has begun shipping.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
It is not common nor is it intelligent.

Still having trouble figuring out that word?

Some people just don’t like to have their freedoms taken away; I guess for others, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if to you, or anybody, it’s totally benign, it’s not what some people want. Even if you did offer more fact and fewer flowing metaphors, it wouldn’t change things.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Even if you did offer more fact and fewer flowing metaphors, it wouldn’t change things.

This is true. But the same holds for all of the conspiracy theorists out there.

Bob
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 27, 2003
Stuart,

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The past always has bearing. More importantly there is the future that you have no vission for. The only thing you seem to be able to see is what is going on now. IF this is true you are just another mindless zombie living for the moment. Everyone is happy that everything is smooth sailing with just a few speed bumps to keep everyone in check and then you run into a brick wall and wonder where the heck it came from.

The Berlin wall wasn’t built overnight and software activation isn’t going to destroy your computer as you know it overnight but are you going to sit by and wait for that to happen. There is a very real possibility of abuse and once we cross that threshold there will likely be no going back.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
Wow Herb, you got a crystal ball there? Could you give me the lottery numbers for tomorrow night’s drawing please? Thanks.

Seriously, do you think you can predict fifteen years in to the future of the economy and computers? Fifteen years ago I didn’t even have my first 286. Could what you describe happen, especially with society going down a path of entitlement to anything they desire without responsibility? Yes it could. Will it? Well, you’re the one with the crystal ball, offer up some proof.

r_harvey,

"Some people just don’t like to have their freedoms taken away; I guess for others, it’s okay."

What freedoms have you been denied? What civil rights are being taken from you here? How is our Constitution under imminent threat from Adobe’s activation? Specifics, specifics, specifics.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Probably you are ‘in the know’ and a quick call to a secret number in
Adobe would sort it. <

Don’t be daft :), the only person I know who works for Adobe is the Forums manager here – I suppose I could be said to know Chris Cox, but only as much as the rest of you know him. Secret number in your dreams – but thanks for the laugh

dmitting that after a few activations you have to buy a new licence<

Do you *know* why further activation was refused???? Might it have been because that person gave a copy to his son and daught and they gave a copy to two each of their friends etc, etc. After about 13 gifts this would mean aroud 16,000 copies and if just 1% tried to register that would have been 160 registrations with the same serial number. Any activation tracking software is bound to throw a wobbly after that. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 27, 2003
Any activation tracking software is bound to throw a wobbly after that.

Sometimes it’s hard to believe we speak the same language. Your version is so much more colorful. <g>

Bob
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 27, 2003
I doubt that anything I write will help quell the fears of those who see green men leaping out of spaceships and thought police around every corner but here’s something that might help those with less active (forgive the pun) imaginations:

< http://www.computer-darkroom.com/photoshop_cs/activation.htm>
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Whilst having something selected and going to Free Tranform funcytion, if you hold down the [ctrl]+[spacebar] keys, the cursor chages to the zoom tool which you can then use to magnify the image.

Now go and spend your pennies Dave 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 27, 2003
do you think you can predict fifteen years in to the future

Well, in this case, yes. I purchased Office 97 in 1996. I have been using it since then. Short of insanity, I will NOT be drip-feeding Bill Gates $x/month pension contribution fifteen years from now. Furthermore, I know first hand that a lot of big UK companies still use Office 97. I know ONE that still uses the previous version. From what I read, lots of US companies feel the same. Microsoft is not idle:

‘Fierce resistance is brewing to Microsoft’s new software licensing program for businesses….."There’s a lot of confusion, outrage and resentment, and it’s growing, not abating," says Laura DiDio of Information Technology Intelligence, which surveyed companies on the change’

< http://www.usatoday.com/money/tech/2002-05-13-microsoft-lice nse.htm>

‘The meter is running ……a new era in which software became a service rather than a commodity. And, in spite of Microsoft’s stance, both CIOs and analysts noted it would also goose revenues on the aging Windows and Office franchises. ‘

<http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/meter.html>

‘Microsoft wants to launch itself into the next software epoch, when customers will subscribe to software and have it delivered to their computers.

<http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/meter_sidebar1.html>

‘Microsoft isn’t the only company that’s working on a software-as-a-service strategy. Software industry rivals, including IBM (WebSphere), BEA (WebLogic), Hewlett-Packard (Bluestone), Oracle (Dynamic Services) and Sun Microsystems (Sun One), are looking to Java technology to bring software users on to the Web.

<http://www.cio.com/archive/070101/et_article.html>

The evidence of what is happening is well documented. If you insist on putting the glass to your blind eye and declaring ‘I see no ships!’ – fair enough.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 27, 2003
Herbert,

Very nice. Could you please do the same thing for the other side? So far nobody’s listed any of the wonderful long-term benefits from their point of view. It must surely be as good an idea, since they defend it even without supporting data.
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 27, 2003
Don’t be daft , the only person I know who works for Adobe is the Forums manager here – I suppose I could be said to know Chris Cox, but only as much as the rest of you know him. Secret number in your dreams – but thanks for the laugh.

My apologies! I noticed someone here last week berating a beta tester who posted a secret link. I thought it was you. Obviously not. Sorry!

dmitting that after a few activations you have to buy a new licence<

Do you *know* why further activation was refused???? Might it have been because that person gave a copy to his son and daught and they gave a copy to two each of their friends etc, etc. After about 13 gifts this would mean aroud 16,000 copies and if just 1% tried to register that would have been 160 registrations with the same serial number. Any activation tracking software is bound to throw a wobbly after that.

Did you read the link? How did you get so confused? Why not simply check before you fire off such an accusation? The guy stated that he talked to a MICROSOFT activation representative. That was the person who gave the information.

I did a most unusual thing. Half an hour ago I actually emailed the guy, John Walkenbach , for confirmation. He said ‘that’s exactly what the phone rep told me.’

There’s his email address above. Why don’t you mail him?

Not sure why we’re having this exchange.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
Actually I would have said ‘more colourful’ <g>


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
Herb,

This isn’t evidence, it’s the same crystal ball gazing you’re doing. I repeat, Where is the evidence? You do know what evidence is right? The information you posted wouldn’t even fly in The People’s Court. You have offered nothing substantial that proves this is where software is headed and specifically this is what Adobe plans to do with software. Regardless, market forces will work in the end and if activation is truly a bad idea then it will be noted in the annual reports of software development companies such as Adobe.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 27, 2003
I noticed someone here last week berating a beta tester who posted a
secret link. I thought it was you<

But yes, it was me. But that doesn’t mean I have access to a secret telephone number any more than you do. But this is what I would expect from a conspiracy theorist – several completely unrelated facts are linked together and given as ‘evidence’ that something is going on and they have the ‘proof’.

The guy stated that he talked to a MICROSOFT activation representative<

OK, so now you can say that you have talked with an ADOBE activation representative – and I can tell you that you have no need to have any fears over Photoshop activation. Now, that will have bound to have convinced you as to the veracity of what we have all been saying and I now fully expect you to go forth and evangelise to the whole world that nobody needs fear activation from Adobe.

See how daft that is??? See the link???? Get it???


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 27, 2003
This isn’t evidence, it’s the same crystal ball gazing you’re doing. I repeat, Where is the evidence?

Hey Stuart! Tell you what! I’ll have a word with Bill. Get him to put in writing that he forsees software being sold pay-as-you-go, with activation (removal of) as a central tool. Maybe if I took a diabetic kit he would use it and sign the declaration in blood. (Would only hurt a little).

Perhaps then you would believe it. But then again….perhaps not.

Once again; you didn’t read the links. If you did, you would notice that Microsoft is ALREADY pushing endless-payment licensing and are antagonising customers because of it. No crystal ball required.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 27, 2003
Well, Herb, that would actually be evidence (unless he did it under duress so I guess the diabetic kit would be out) now wouldn’t it?

As for License 6.0, it has gone through a couple re-writes due to market forces not being all that happy with the terms of the original. However, you should look into who’s eligible for License 6.0 and you’ll see this is not as widespread as you might think. Not to mention that not everyone eligible has decided to sign on. As you noted you still use Office 97 and despite the inclusion of activation in Office XP you are still able to run Office 97 quite effectively. Odd no given your belief that activation will lead to forced upgrades?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
The guy stated that he talked to a MICROSOFT activation representative. That was the person who gave the information.

Well now, in that case my mind has been changed. You know someone who knows someone who posted a claim on a website. And we all know that if it’s posted on a web page it must me true. </sarcoff>

I am not claiming that activation is good. But this attitude that’s it’s the beginning of the end of the world is so ludicrous that I just don’t understand it.

My order is in for the software. I’m voting with my wallet. I suggest you do the same.

Tell me, do you have cable tv? Satellite perhaps? Do you remember when tv was free? I do. All 5 channels. In fact, if I didn’t want cable or satellite I could still have those 5 channels for free. But the picture would suck and I’d be missing out on a lot of stuff. So I pay for it.

It’s called progress and it has a price. You can stick with the 5 channels. I’m moving ahead.

Bob
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 28, 2003
Sorry if this has already been posted. I’ve tried to follow all the messages in this thread and haven’t seen it.

Adobe has an official channel for feedback on activation. You can send a message directly to the company at

<http://www.adobe.com/activation/feedback.html>
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 28, 2003
My my, what happens when I’m away.

Stuart,

Those people lived hundreds of years ago in a completely different world (though it still had blue skies). Their comments speak to events which bear absolutely no correlation to Adobe’s activation scheme much less world events as they are unfolding today.

Then by that logic we should revise the Bill of Rights and the first (andfifth) amendment – times were different then. Surely the way they lived that long ago doesn’t apply today.

Carol,

I respect you and do not want to suggest even the slightest amount of disrespect with what I’m about to say, but frankly, I don’t believe you have any credibility whatsoever on the matter of activation.

You are not in a position to publicly oppose it. If you really thought Activation stunk (and I’m not saying you do, but just suppose), would you publicly denounce it? I’m not convinced that you would; and therefore, I don’t know that you could bring a credible argument to bear.

I’m sorry, please don’t take it personally, it isn’t meant to be disrepspectful. —-
Ian says that if you don’t like the EULA, "tough". Fair enough I suppose, but the fact remains that Activation changes the spirit of the license from a user license to a machine license. Further it allows Adobe WAY deeper into how we work and how we use the product than ever before – there are those who will have to call Adobe and explain how they are using the product that required additional activation. The EULA never called for that before.

The EULA never said "uhm, you know, you have changed hard drives 8 times this year, that’s highly irregular, would you please explain why you have had to do this?"

The EULA never said "I’m sorry sir, your use is highly irregular, I’m afraid you’ll have to buy a new seat in order to continue using the product".

Activation is a functional transformation of the license. And the Media Player example is Step One.

How would Ian like it if he installed Photoshop, only to discover that he had agreed to remove all competing products from his machine before use, and non-compliance would result in deleting photoshop from the machine? After all, he agreed to the license.

Activation transfers control over the use of the software to Adobe, period.

It’s not a tough formula here.
L
LenHewitt
Oct 28, 2003
Oh, if only you were all so vocal about the curtailment of your civil liberties since 9/11…………Strikes me that that would be a far more worthwhile cause to protest.

….But NOT here, I hasten to add!
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
You are not in a position to publicly oppose it<

Why on earth not, I am not a paid employee of Adobe, I don’t have any gagging orders on me. If I see something in the program which I don’t like I will (and have) recommended other alternative products. I am a volunteer moderator, that is all. If I say something which Adobe doesn’t like, then tough, let them replace me.

What I don’t have a problem with is activation – Adobe has every right to protect their intellectual property rights, simply trusting people to stick to the agreement which they made when they accepted the EULA is not working. I would *love* it if somebody came up with a way of protecting my copyright with my images.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 28, 2003
Well at least I am happy now. Having heard from someone with first-hand experience of CS I am now positive there’s nothing in there that I would be willing to pay for, probably even without activation, so I guess I’ll just stick with my current version.

Might check out CS out of curiosity once the hooky copies hit teh net, which I am sure they will do with exactly the same regularity they apparently always have.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
YrbkMgr That is the best example of Activation ive seen. You dont mind if I use it do you?

Of course I will qoute you
I
ID._Awe
Oct 28, 2003
Carol:

"Do you *know* why further activation was refused???? Might it have been because that person gave a copy to his son and daught and they gave a copy to two each of their friends etc, etc. After about 13 gifts this would mean aroud 16,000 copies and if just 1% tried to register that would have been 160 registrations with the same serial number. Any activation tracking software is bound to throw a wobbly after that."

We all seem to have forgotten the 7.01 update, that included serial numbers that were known to be floating around the web, and that legitimate users were required to phone Adobe for a new serial number. I don’t see that activation will solve this problem. Hopefully Adobe will not do that again, but then it looks like they’re merely changing horses at this point without any change to the outcome of crossing a stream (its a metaphor in case anyone has totally lost their sanity due to the excessive heat).
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 28, 2003
"Oh, if only you were all so vocal about the curtailment of your civil liberties since 9/11…………Strikes me that that would be a far more worthwhile cause to protest."

While I agree that protesting curtailment of civil liberties is a worthwhile endeavor, you live on the other side of the pond and have absolutely no idea how our political process works apparently. Nothing has gotten so far out of hand that it requires widespread protests in the streets so don’t expect it. Laws can be written but once they are enforced organizations like the ACLU are ready to attack their constituitional basis and the Justice Department knows this. Our system of government works quite well still, despite what you might have heard on the internet.

No offense intended Len, just an observation 🙂
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
How would Ian like it if he installed Photoshop, only to discover that he had agreed to remove all competing products from his machine before use, and non-compliance would result in deleting photoshop from the machine? After all, he agreed to the license.

Sorry Tony, but this one doesn’t fly. You can’t inforce an illegal contract and at least in the U.S. this would be illegal.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
But you do agree that they can do that. It may not be legal but its forseeable.

They can also add. You may only use this software Monday thru friday 9-5

According to you Hey I agreed to the Tough!.

Again the new license makes the software machine dependant instead of User dependant.

Not good.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Again the new license makes the software machine dependant instead of
User dependant.<

Q. Does it allow you you install it on a new computer which you have bought to replace the old one??
A. Yes

Q. Does it allow you to upgrade componentents in your computer so the machine is radically different from the one you started off on??
A. Yes

Q. Does it allow you to install the software on your works computer and the one which you have at home should you decide to bring some work home with you??
A. Yes

Q. Does it allow you to install it on your main computer and also on your laptop??
A. Yes

To me this means that it is still User Dependent within the terms of the EULA which I agreed to (and haven’t changed significantly since version 2.5)

If you had an axe to grind, it should have been against the EULA conditions when you bought your 1st copy of PS whether it was 2.5 or 7. But you probably thought, blow it, they won’t know if I use it on more than the stipulated number of machines. Now they will and you simply don’t like it.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
But you do agree that they can do that.

Can and may are two different things. They can do it. Legally they may not.

It may not be legal but its forseeable.

Murder and robbery are also illegal and forseeable. What’s your point?

They can also add. You may only use this software Monday thru friday 9-5

They can add anything they want as long as it’s legal. That doesn’t mean they will.

According to you Hey I agreed to the Tough!.

I didn’t say tough, Ian did. But for the record, I agree with him.

Again the new license makes the software machine dependant instead of User dependant.

No it doesn’t. And if you plan on going through 15 computers in the next year, I’d have to question your motives myself.

Not good.

We shall see.

Bob
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 28, 2003
Tell me, do you have cable tv? Satellite perhaps?

No and No.

Do you remember when tv was free?

No. AFAIK, it was never free in the UK. My father bought our first TV in 1963. He paid a licence to fund the BBC. Commercial TV was funded from advertising. Forty years on, that remains the situation today.

Cable and satellite stations are available. Equipment is available for receiving it. But there is no group of manufacturers planning to plant chips in general equipment which can disable reception of free channels.

It’s called progress and it has a price. You can stick with the 5 channels. I’m moving ahead.

Bob

Interesting that you make this point. Why does it feel like you are moving from ‘It will never happen’ to ‘It is progress. It might not be a bad thing’?

Maybe it is progress. Maybe it would not be a bad thing from some people’s point of view. But I bought Photoshop on a fundamentally different basis. I had no reason to think that Adobe would not honour the original agreement made. I contributed to it’s current monopoly position. Now it is using that position to renege on the deal. I wish to continue with the original agreement, just as I’m happy with my TV. A deal is a deal in my book. I have no intention of EVER moving to monthly payment.

With respect; your view that it is progress is irrelevant to the argument. But it does reveal that you really DO know where we are headed.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
They haven’t changed a thing. The EULA is virtually the same as Photoshop 3’s. It hasn’t changed at all for PS CS. The enforcement has.

Now, as far as liking things just the way they are. That’s fine. Stick with PS 7.0. It’s a fabulous program. It doesn’t stop working just because PS CS has been released.

Bob
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 28, 2003
To me this means that it is still User Dependent within the terms of
the EULA which I agreed to (and haven’t changed significantly since version
2.5)

They haven’t changed a thing. The EULA is virtually the same as Photoshop
3’s. It hasn’t changed at all for PS CS. The enforcement has.

It was previously possible to move the software from one machine to another, then another, and so on, an infinite number of times, and so long as you always uninstalled the old one first you would never be breaking your EULA, and you would never have to explain yourself to anyone at Adobe.

Now you will.

Is that, or is that not, a material change in how the license works?
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

I use over 10 different software packages. If all those required activation IT WOULD BE A HASSLE.

I guess we can let Carol activates them for us <kidding>
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

Im not advocating piracy im advocating NOT using "Activation feature" . Its useless and cuases to many problems/ waste of time.

I don’t think it’s all for priacy *but* they are forcing owners to upgrade to newer version when they no longer support older version. IOW, in 2-3 years the $800 program would worth less than the free AOL sample (as the AOL sample people can use when Photoshop can’t be activated to use).
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
Is that, or is that not, a material change in how the license works?

No, it’s not. It’s a change in how the enforcement of the license works.

Speeding has been illegal for a long time. The use of radar to enforce it came well after the laws were written.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 28, 2003
Carol,

To continue your thought in post #465, does the EULA allow you to take Photoshop CS to ANY machine you like, as often as you like? Let’s not play games: let’s say for the sake of brevity, that you only install Photoshop CS on one machine, then, uninstall Photshop CS from that machine – you completely remove it. Can you bring it to another machine? Yes, you can.

According to the EULA, you are allowed to install two instances, provided they are not being used at the same time.

But what happens when you uninstall, completely, from the second machine, and want to reinstall? You have to get Adobe’s permission.

Let’s take it further. Does the EULA read that one cannot, go to a client site, install his or her licensed copy Photoshop CS on that machine, perform work on that machine, then uninstall it? Then, when you move to your next location, can you install Photoshop CS there, perform more work, then uninstall it?

Does the license follow the user or is it machine dependant?

A lot of folks keep saying that the license hasn’t changed – technically that is true. But functionally, what has changed is that the enforcement mechanism of the license, changes how you can use it.

That’s what makes it a machine license.

The EULA adequately covers the scenario whereby a user can install the App on any machine as long as it is uninstalled when "you’re finished", and have it on no more that two machines concurrently, provided it is not used concurrently. Quite clear on how you can use it. Activation changes that aspect of the agreement.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
Tony, if indeed that’s the way you use the software then I’ll repeat my suggestion from some time ago. Call Adobe, talk to someone in a supervisory role and explain the situation to them.

I’ll be very curious to see what the answers are.

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 28, 2003
Bob,

It doesn’t matter whether it affects me, personally, or not. It is still a fundamental change in the EULA, since enforcement changes how you are allowed use it, while the language of the EULA does not change.
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

They haven’t changed a thing. The EULA is virtually the same as Photoshop 3’s. It hasn’t changed at all for PS CS. The enforcement has.
Now, as far as liking things just the way they are. That’s fine. Stick with PS 7.0. It’s a fabulous program. It doesn’t stop working just because PS CS has been released.

Bob

At this rate, I think many Photoshop users are thinking of sticking with Photoshop 7, or at least when the Activate-Crack is available. Usually many talks about newer features months before the releasing date, but this time here (this newsgroup) most talks are about the "activate" and other newsgroups *not* a soul care to mention about Photoshop CS.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Now it is using that position to renege on the deal<

No its not, you can still continue to use your existing software according to the terms of the EULA which you agreed to – that has not changed one iota. It is only the upgrade whereby activation is present, Adobe has no plans (AFAIK) of introducing retrograde licensing on its previous products.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Tony,

That is a pretty unique situation you are describing. In over 10 years of using Photoshop, I’ve *never* had cause to install it on somebody else’s machine. For most situations the EULA has not changed – but you are dreaming up improbable/impossible situations to make your point.

However, even in that improbable situation which you have just devised, YES you can still do it as you have a 30 day grace period before you need to activate – so even in Dreamland it would be possible. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 28, 2003
YES you can still do it as you have a 30 day grace period before you need to activate – so even in Dreamland it would be possible.

Touché Carol. <courteous bow>

Nicely done. I’ll shut up now (well, soon anyway).
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 28, 2003
I hate the idea of activation as much as the next guy. I also see it as a step down the slippery slope to <insert your nightmare scenario here>.

However, with all the complaints and legitimate concerns, I would like to know who HAS and who HAS NOT already ordered the upgrade. If you don’t like activation but still have ordered (or plan to do so) PS CS, then in my view you have justified and sanctioned what Adobe is doing.

I’ll bet there are very few people who have not already ordered it. Be honest!

Me? I really haven’t decided yet. If I do decide to order, it will not be for the Suite because I want to get the user manuals AND the ability to upgrade individually in the future. The activation part will be cracked before the month is out, I predict, so that will not be an issue for me.

Jake
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Touché Carol. <courteous bow><

Thank you kind sir – now just go and buy the damned upgrade and enjoy all the new features 🙂 🙂 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 28, 2003
Tony,

So far as I know nothing has changed in PS CS since you posted this reply to my early query.

YrbkMgr 10/1/03 12:23pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/107>

Please read your reply – think about what you wrote and why you wrote it – the words are yours – the thoughts are yours! Now tell us why did you change your mind AGAIN?
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 28, 2003
I still think they should have used hardware locks. Can hardware locks be defeated… Yes. But it completely removes the risk of "casual copying" which is who they are really targeting as activation will have no impact on the bootleg CD market. With activation you are guaranteed the ability to install to 2 computers. That means a lot of people are going to be splitting the cost with friends (ethical or not).

Therefore if they were being completely honest about their reasons they would have used hardware locks. Unfortunately you can’t download a hardware lock so it probably wasn’t even considered. At any rate it is an OPTION that should be available for people that want an alternative.

It is nice that multi user licenses don’t need activation but it is not fair to people purchasing single user licenses. I believe they made a huge mistake in not forcing a server activation for their corporate license. We have a multi seat license for Autocad that is based on concurrent users that works very well.

I just think activation is based on flawed logic and that there is a good chance Adobe will loose sales over it. These are the kinds of decisions that can break large companies. It has happened before and it will happen again. I just hate the thought that I may need to find an alternative to Photoshop if this bad decision costs Adobe enough money that their development budgets get cut for future releases until they recover.
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

YES you can still do it as you have a 30 day grace period before you need to activate – so even in Dreamland it would be possible.

Touché Carol. <courteous bow>

Nicely done. I’ll shut up now (well, soon anyway).

hahaha it seems like Carol is the only one very happy with the activate problem <bg>.
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

I hate the idea of activation as much as the next guy. I also see it as a step down the slippery slope to <insert your nightmare scenario here>.

However, with all the complaints and legitimate concerns, I would like to know who HAS and who HAS NOT already ordered the upgrade. If you don’t like activation but still have ordered (or plan to do so) PS CS, then in my view you have justified and sanctioned what Adobe is doing.

I’ll bet there are very few people who have not already ordered it. Be honest!
Me? I really haven’t decided yet. If I do decide to order, it will not be for the Suite because I want to get the user manuals AND the ability to upgrade individually in the future. The activation part will be cracked before the month is out, I predict, so that will not be an issue for me.

Jake

I will wait to see if the is any activate-crack available then I will decide if I want to upgrade or not. Actually I am doing just fine with the current version, I don’t make money with Photoshop but just another hobby. I got started with Photoshop because I got a bundled deal with a scanner ($100 extra for FULL version).
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Ok simple questions that HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED.

1. How many times can I activate the software?

2. I will have soon on my computer 2 Hard drives. One pimary and a secondary i will probably be installing (If I decide to buy it which at the moment im dead set agianst it.) in my second Slave Hard drive.

Will Activation be Saved to my old hard drive or my new one? What If I discontinue to use my old hard drive?

Who can answer all these questions?

Who here has read the actual license that comes with PS CS?

Where can I read this license. I could only find Ps 7.0 license.
CC
Chris_Cox
Oct 28, 2003
The license (EULA) is the same (or so close that I can’t spot the difference).
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

I still think they should have used hardware locks. Can hardware locks be defeated… Yes. But it completely removes the risk of "casual copying" which is who they are really targeting as activation will have no impact on the bootleg CD market. With activation you are guaranteed the ability to install to 2 computers. That means a lot of people are going to be splitting the cost with friends (ethical or not).

Therefore if they were being completely honest about their reasons they would have used hardware locks. Unfortunately you can’t download a hardware lock so it probably wasn’t even considered. At any rate it is an OPTION that should be available for people that want an alternative.

It is nice that multi user licenses don’t need activation but it is not fair to people purchasing single user licenses. I believe they made a huge mistake in not forcing a server activation for their corporate license. We have a multi seat license for Autocad that is based on concurrent users that works very well.

I just think activation is based on flawed logic and that there is a good chance Adobe will loose sales over it. These are the kinds of decisions that can break large companies. It has happened before and it will happen again. I just hate the thought that I may need to find an alternative to Photoshop if this bad decision costs Adobe enough money that their development budgets get cut for future releases until they recover.

Yes, many colleges using cracked version cuz they can’t afford to let their students stealing the expensive "dildos" (oops I meant dongles).
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
No it cant be the same.
It has to mention activation at some point and tell you your legal right as of why you cant use the software after you have paid for it without "Activating" it

Where is it at?
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
What If I discontinue to use my old hard drive?<

You basically re-install the program, it will ask you to reactivate – so you will do so over the internet. It will be reactivated, or if you have activated over a certain number of times over a certain time span you will be asked to phone the Activation Centre and asked a few basic questions before they issue you with an activation code. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
You don’t give up do you? The license is a completely separate issue from activation. Activation is a part of the installation process. Get over it already.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
I thought that activation Was part of the license agreement.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Ok if it is a seperate issue then explain why I cant use the software without activating it AFTER I BOUGHT A LICENSE TO USE IT?

That makes no sense
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
You can use it after you activate. In fact, you can use it for 30 days before you activate it.

Talk about not making sense.

Bob
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 28, 2003

1. How many times can I activate the software?

Initially TWICE!

Depending upon how much time has elapsed between your second activation and your third attempt you MAY have to contact Adobe by telephone to arrange an activation bump. Once this time period has elapsed I believe one or two further AUTOMATED activations will be available to users. The idea being that folk who change their computers regularly (e.g. every 6 months) don’t have to keep ringing Adobe.

2. I will have soon on my computer 2 Hard drives. One primary and a secondary i will probably be installing (If I decide to buy it which at the moment im dead set agianst it.) in my second Slave Hard drive.

If your going to replace the computer within 30 days of loading Photoshop CS then I wouldn’t waste the activation on the old system.

Will Activation be Saved to my old hard drive or my new one? What If I discontinue to use my old hard drive?

The actual location of Activation/Authorisation information is contained within your registry AND a second protected part of your HD. I can’t give an definite location for the protected information.

Who can answer all these questions?

Adobe!

Who here has read the actual license that comes with PS CS?

I have and I posted the relevant sections back around post 100. The only significant change is that "laptop" becomes "home"
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Again you avoided the question.

Maybe if you read it again:

If activation is a seperate issue then explain why I cant use the software without activating it AFTER I BOUGHT A LICENSE TO USE IT?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
Because in order to use it, you need to install it. In order to fully complete the installation, you need to activate it.

Got it now?

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
So where does it say that After I license the product I CANNOT USE IT until I activate it?
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
There got to be some legal jargon to all this.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Oh Bob no I dont quit.

I want all my questions answered.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
I want all my questions answered.

Then I’d suggest a call to Adobe’s legal department. I’m sure all of this was well thought out.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
You seem very protective about all this.

* Wonders why*
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 28, 2003
If activation is a seperate issue then explain why I cant use the software without activating it AFTER I BOUGHT A LICENSE TO USE IT?

The license defines the "conditions of use". It does not stipulate that you activate. Activation is the means by which Adobe ensure that you don’t (without their prior permission) breach the conditions of use clause relating to the number computers on which the software can be used.

You can use PS CS without activating it for 30 days. If you do not activate within the 30 day grace period it will cease to be useable. Yes it will launch and you will see the activation dialog. If you wish to continue using after the 30 day period you will need to activate the software. If you don’t activate it will close.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
It does change Bob. In order to Fully use the Licesed software I bought I first have to activate it. If I dont activatew My Licensed software it will quit working. In effect CANCELING my Licesed software.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
So agian In effect Activation IS CANCELING my License to use the software.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
I’m really not the protective type. But I do enjoy a good debate. <g>

Bob
RB
Rich_Beardsley
Oct 28, 2003
It’s not cancelling your licence to use the software, it stops your ability to use the software. Your licence is still valid.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
If you don’t activate, you haven’t installed it properly. No different, IMO, than the fact that it requires Win2K or XP while PS 7.0 would run on Win 98.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
But I cant use the Valid use of the software? Again that is not right.

I bought a license to use PS on one or 2 machines I should be able to use it no matter what.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 28, 2003
So agian In effect Activation IS CANCELING my License to use the software.

NO! It is YOU who make the choice to continue or cease using the software. Use of Photoshop CS on that particular computer after 30 days REQUIRES that you activate the software.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
But why do I have to activate it when I have bought a license that states that I can use it?

That still makes no sense.

Im still bieng stopped from legaly using my VALID legal License.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Where in the license does it say I have to activate it?

If it doesnt say it I dont have to.
RB
Rich_Beardsley
Oct 28, 2003
But why do I have to activate it when I have bought a license that states
that I can use it

Because Adobe requires it as part of the installation process.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
But I have the LEGAL right to use the software becouse I licesned it (I payed money to use it). So in effect Adobe is stopping me from legaly using the software I licesned from them.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
If it doesnt say it I dont have to.

It’s right on the box. Along with the need for WinXP or Win2K. Are you going to protest that it won’t run on Win 3.1 or DOS? Does that violate the license? Again, it’s part of the installation process.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Again. It stops me from Using the software AFTER I installed it. Not during.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
No they’re not. They’ve given you directions on how to install it. You don’t activate, it doesn’t install properly. Simple.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Then it should completely deny me the use of the software right from the start.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
The installation process for the new software is 30 days long.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
So in effect im getting a broken product
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
Okay, If anyone else has a VALID complaint, I’m ready to listen. This is just silly now.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
A cant come up with a an answer to that one right
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
I guess I will call adobe legal department and get them to explain why I have to legaly activate the product I already legaly Licensed from them to use.

And im beign denied that right after 30 days
RB
Rich_Beardsley
Oct 28, 2003
You’ve been answered. You just don’t like what you hear.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
You’ve been answered. You just don’t like what you hear.

Reminds me of the Verizon Wireless commercial. Can you hear me now? <g>

Bob
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
If I dont activatew My Licensed software it will quit working. In
effect CANCELING my Licesed software.<

You would be the one who cancels by not doing the activation – nobody has evaded your questions but you have asked the same/similar ones which have been answered that people are starting to assume that you aren’t capable or don’t bother to read the answers.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
No I dont have my answer.

1. When I buy Ps CS Im am buying a Software license to use it right?

2. But I also have to activate it as part of the installation process acording to Bob.

3. Why Do I have to activate a product when I already have the license that says I can use it?

4. If I dont activate it after 30 days My legaly Bought Licesne that says I have the right to use the software wont let me.

Why Am I wrong in trying to get to use my legaly licensed software to work without activation?
RH
r_harvey
Oct 28, 2003
You would be the one who cancels by not doing the activation

The doomsday clause is set by the seller, not the purchaser.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Im not banging my head against a wall. Im trying to get an answer that wont be answered. if you dont have an answer to my questions please do skip them
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Does anybody else here get the feeling that they are banging their heads against a brick wall??? 🙁


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
so r_harvey are you saying that I will cancel my license (How and legaly how does that work?) if I dont activate the product?

That is silly why would I do that?
IL
Ian_Lyons
Oct 28, 2003
A section from the license:

THE SOFTWARE MAY INCLUDE PRODUCT ACTIVATION AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED COPYING. THE ACTIVATION TECHNOLOGY MAY PREVENT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE ACTIVATION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION. Visit <http://www.adobe.com> for information about product activation.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 28, 2003
so r_harvey are you saying that I will cancel my license

No, the seller cancels it.

That is silly why would I do that?

Don’t ask me, I’ve been fighting against copy protection since the ’80s.
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Where is this license at?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
Does anybody else here get the feeling that they are banging their heads against a brick wall??? 🙁

But it feels so good when you stop. 🙂

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Nah I like a thumping head feeling.

* thunk* *steps back*
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 28, 2003
Does anybody else here get the feeling that they are banging their heads against a brick wall???

Spare a thought for the US Government when they took on Bill Gates. Now that must have been REALLY frusrating.

Not to mention humiliating!
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

If activation is a seperate issue then explain why I cant use the software without activating it AFTER I BOUGHT A LICENSE TO USE IT?

The license defines the "conditions of use". It does not stipulate that you activate. Activation is the means by which Adobe ensure that you don’t (without their prior permission) breach the conditions of use clause relating to the number computers on which the software can be used.

You can use PS CS without activating it for 30 days. If you do not activate within the 30 day grace period it will cease to be useable. Yes it will launch and you will see the activation dialog. If you wish to continue using after the 30 day period you will need to activate the software. If you don’t activate it will close.

Will Adobe refund 100% within 30 days if user decides s/he doesn’t like the activating trouble?
N
nagash2
Oct 28, 2003
Well Ill be back after dinner.

have a good dinner people.

B-)
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

If you don’t activate, you haven’t installed it properly. No different, IMO, than the fact that it requires Win2K or XP while PS 7.0 would run on Win 98.

Bob

WinXP has Backup feature to avoid many problem, does Photoshop CS has feature to stop WinXP from acting up? IOW, WinXP communicate directory to hardware, when Adobe and all other software companies will have to depend on Windows.

Do you see what I am seeing? Example I installed some softwares few days ago, and install Photoshop CS today. Tommorow I find out that some of the software I installed before Photoshop CS causing problem and I have to RESTORE WinXP the some day before those softwares installed, and Photoshop CS has no choice but get its butt cleaned with no choice. Does user have to activate Photoshop CS again because of WinXP?
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Can I <bang, bang> stop please Bob 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 28, 2003
Can I <bang, bang> stop please Bob 🙂

The longer you hit your head the better it will feel after you stop. <g>

Bob
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
But I have the LEGAL right to use the software becouse I licesned it<

What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that you bought the licence to use it, but you don’t want to install it on your system. How can you use it if *you* don’t install it – it’s actually exactly the same with the activation system, it is part of the installation, exactly the same as pressing a button to say ‘install’, except you have to push another button which says ‘Activate’.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 28, 2003
LMAO. Very entertaining. Better than Judge Judy! 🙂
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Just do us all a favour and pig out for 3 or 4 hours <g> —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Oct 28, 2003
I have the same kind of problem when I get into an argument with my cat. Somehow, I always appear to loose those.

Come on, lighten up.
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 28, 2003
Brick wall? Yup. Location: San Jose.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 28, 2003
Carol,

now just go and buy the damned upgrade and enjoy all the new features

I can’t. It means migrating to XP, and that’s not going to happen for a while yet. And most of the advanced PDF features in Photoshop CS require AA 6.0 – If I build in 6.0, all of my customers have to upgrade to XP; safer to wait a while longer. ‘Sides, fundamentally, I’m opposed to Activation. <grin>. I think it’s bad for Adobe, and bad for the market – not so much because it inhibits a user from doing "this or that", although that’s valid enough in my eyes, but moreso because it is a trend that impacts privacy and consumer rights.

You have addressed my "dreamland" scenario, but the fact remains that activation changes the license by controlling, to whatever extent, what machines it is installed on and when. Look, the bottom line is, there will be circumstances when a user must explain to a rep why they are making the changes they make.

Arguments like "it’s so rare, why concern yourself" and all the "dreamland" commentary doesn’t change the fact that now, you need someone else to approve your use, in certain circumstances. In fact, functionally, the software is licensed to the machine, not the user. The user is restricted, in effect, sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not, in how they may use the product.

—-

Ian,

Please, okay? You’re a smart man, I know you read the sarcasm in the post you pointed to. Your entire position is based on the fact that you don’t agree with, or perhaps see the issues that some have brought forth. You don’t have to agree, but I can’t imagine that your point is, really, "just shut up and do what they tell you".

Let’s not forget whom Adobe serves; and while there may be lack of broadbased agreement in the market, one would still do well to consider the ramifications of this move – just because they don’t or won’t affect you, doesn’t mean that the issues are not worthy of consideration and commentary.

"If everybody just thought the way I do, there wouldn’t be any problems".
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 28, 2003
Sides, fundamentally, I’m opposed to Activation. <grin><

Don’t even *dream* of going down *that* road again Tony <b.grin> —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
J
Joe
Oct 28, 2003
wrote:

A section from the license:

THE SOFTWARE MAY INCLUDE PRODUCT ACTIVATION AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED COPYING. THE ACTIVATION TECHNOLOGY MAY PREVENT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE ACTIVATION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION. Visit <http://www.adobe.com> for information about product activation.

Meaning Adobe will continue supporting the software even after 3-5 years (or longer)?. I don’t mean they have to provide all the upgrades, but I mean will they still let you activate the 3-5 years older version (the one you paid $700 for it)?

Or they use this activate to FORCE user to upgrade to newer version every 1-2 years?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 28, 2003
<nodding> Gotcha.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 28, 2003
"…but moreso because it is a trend that impacts privacy and consumer rights."

Will someone please think of the children?!?!?! </sarcasm>
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 29, 2003
Will someone please think of the children?!?!?!

<Tweeeeeeet!>

15 yard penalty for excessive punctuation. Repeat the down.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 29, 2003
Good counterpoint Stuart.
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Oct 29, 2003
Does anybody else here get the feeling that they are banging their heads
against a brick wall???

Yes, everyone who objects to activation feels that way about the circular logic the Adobe fan-boys keep using 🙂
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 29, 2003
About 100 posts ago Ian Lyons provided a link to the PSCS activation procedure. I must admit that what I saw there went against the grain. I buy a license and then part of that license is if you dont activate in 30 days the product you bought will no longer function. OK I dont like that.

The thought that, if for example I had to reformat or replace my hard disk would mean that I would have to phone Adobe for their permission to use the software worries me. They might not give it. And then little ol’ me would be up against a massive international company. No contest I think. At that point they would have the power to effectively steal my money.

I therefore will not upgrade to PSCS, the price for me anyway is almost twice that in the USA and I would think about it seriously in anycase.

I am an honest guy, I paid a lot of money for photoshop and all my other Adobe products. I am not going to let any other person use them, why would I? They are my business tools and I have learn’t how to use them and make my living.

Adobe has made their marketing decision and (it is interesting that they did not bring in activation for corporate users) and I have made mine. Nobody is forced to buy anything.

Jeff
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
The thought that, if for example I had to reformat or replace my hard
disk would mean that I would have to phone Adobe for their permission to use the software worries me<

Only if you plan on replacing that hard drive every couple of months Jeff. For most users, this would be a non-issue as they will simply reactivate via the internet as part of the re-installation of the software. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 29, 2003
Carol,

I still think the point is ‘they might not give it’. They have my money up front and they are now the judge. Can’t get around that unfair basic point, however much you argue it will never happen.

Jeff
I
ID._Awe
Oct 29, 2003
I would like to point out that registering your software (not activate) at the Adobe site is a good idea, then they have your software purchases on record. I assume that they look at those records when deciding if you are ‘good’ or not for a new activation number or replacement software.

At least with the online registration process, it is voluntary and a good idea. As an example, I had purchased Illustrator 1, but could not longer find the software, but I was allowed an upgrade to Version 7 without any problem because I had registered my software and kept the bill with my address at that time.

I prefer ‘voluntary registration’ over ‘forced activation’ anytime.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Just wanted to chime in again. I have counted 30 more people not upgrading.

Hmm lets see thats

130 * 169 = $21,970 in loss of revenue.
But thats got to be just pocket change for adobe right?

Great Job there adobe!!!!
Keep it up your doing great there.

And those are only Upgrades.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 29, 2003
All my stuff is registered. I think the phrase "they look at those records when [they] deciding if you are ‘good’ or not for a new activation number" says it as it is.

Another Idea:

Endless activation but they keep a check on it and if they are not happy contact you. Enough to put off crims but stops me worrying. Then I’d be happier.

Jeff
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
I have noticed alot of peopl just have NO CLUE how activation works technically. I bet those people would change thier mind if they knew more about who makes it how it works and why it really doesnt stop piracy .

Oh yeah.

I didnt get this question answered.

If we are paying 600 for PS because of Piracy why hasnt the price gone down with the new shiny *Bling Bling* Anti piracy Activation Scheme?

Bob?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
Bob?

I did read your post, but talking to you is like talking to a wall. Your logic is a flawed as your math. Don’t buy the software. I really don’t care.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Ok so 130 * 169 is not $21,970 in loss of revenue for adobe?
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Explain why my logic is bad?
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
Your numbers are meaningless. There’s nothing to back them up with the exception of your imagination which I might add is quite vivid.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
hehe I did a poll in 2 sites and asked the question

Poll: Not Upgrading becouse of activation

The poll questions were:

I will – 36
I wont – 30

What is activation -6
Dont Care either way – 25

This is just one site.

Then I compiled from diferent sites what people were saying and counted How many were not going to upgrade becouse of Activation.

I came up with around 130 for now. I havent even counted the ones from this Forum yet. But I will
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
I will compile a long list of links to prove my numbers I just dont have the time.

Then I will post them here.

I do know that many of those 130 will probably change thier mind in 3 months but my guess is that the majority wont until they are forced to upgrade.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Why is there no try out for PS CS?
Or did I miss a link?
RB
Rich_Beardsley
Oct 29, 2003
The trial versions don’t come out till the product is fully out.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
BTW Bob That poll is on fred Mirandas Site
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 29, 2003
nagash2,

"If we are paying 600 for PS because of Piracy why hasnt the price gone down with the new shiny *Bling Bling* Anti piracy Activation Scheme?"

The price hasn’t gone down because activation is costing Adobe more than they are "saving". My prediction is that they are going to make significantly less on this version than they did with the release of 7.0 even though 7.0 didn’t offer as many new features.

Me I have been looking forward to nested layer sets and text on a path for a while. Layer comps and the SWF export in Image Ready sound very promising. Unfortunately for Adobe I can live without nested sets and layer comps. I don’t need 16 bit editing and large file support. I have other means of putting text on a path and making SWF files.

Adobe is hitting on a lot of demographics with it’s improvements. They seem to have something for everyone, but are there enough features they can’t get elsewhere or don’t already have with another application that will do the same thing better.

The part that really gets to me is how much time money and resources went into implementing activation and you can be sure that without it we would have had a Photoshop upgrade months ago. Adobe will never know how good sales could have been if they had gotten to the market sooner without activation.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 29, 2003
The part that really gets to me is how much time money and resources went into implementing activation and you can be sure that without it we would have had a Photoshop upgrade months ago. Adobe will never know how good sales could have been if they had gotten to the market sooner without activation.

I think that’s an excellent point. For me personally, I would have been working the numbers to see how I could get this upgrade. I need to move to XP (which I will have to sooner or later anyway), and need multiple seats; so without activation, I would have been obsessing over how I would swing the upgrade. As it is, as much as I would love some of the new features, when you add activation to the fray, "that dog don’t hunt".
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
I don’t think the rollout timing had anything to do with activation. Remember, they’ve been testing this in the Australian market for a long time. The real holdup (if there was one) was to get all the apps ready for a single suite.

Bob
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 29, 2003
For those who believe subscription software is going to simply take over the industry, read this article <http://www.thestreet.com/tech/ronnaabramson/10122922.html>. While subscription software may someday come to pass, it’s going to be on the customers terms and more to their benefit. If Microsoft can’t make software subscriptions work, very few will have the chance to either.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 29, 2003
What happened to nagash1?

jeff
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Im here jeff.

Just dont have the time right now to spend here
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Oct 29, 2003
It is interesting, coming back and reading the current postings after being away for a while. Here are my current thoughts about activation.

1st: I am a photographer and I have my own web site where I display images to promote my abilities. I am personally tired and fed up of people who come to my site and take my images without asking or paying me for their use. Or more importantly brag about how easy it is to take them. I put a lot of time, effort and money into this process. Honesty has to start someplace and it has to start with you and me. Theft and greed is wrong, whether it is high places or in the home. It is wrong and we have to contribute our effort to stop it or more things like activation will become part of our life.

2nd: The statement by Adobe that they “will honor the terms of their product licensing agreement even in the event that product is discontinued” goes a long way to eliminating the concern I had about their Activation and makes it a lot more easy for me to consider upgrading to CS. (Did I miss this or is this a new add?)

3rd Even though I understand the motivation for activation, I am repulsed by their process. I cannot help but feel we are being dictated to, that Adobe is taking and not giving anything back in return and in the end I feel more the victim. It’s not like they made a price concession because this is a more secure product and they will therefore increase sales because of activation. (As a matter of fact, I think there defense of fighting piracy is week give that the rate of piracy has been falling for 8 years.) It’s not like we are meeting Adobe 50/50 on the playing field, they are dictating and we (the individual users) are kowtowing. We are the ones that cannot be trusted and it becomes just another frustration along with showing your drivers license when using a credit card, standing in line to have your bag checked as you leave a store or walking through an electronic detector and hoping the sales clerk deactivated the magnetic detector, video camera in the banks, taking off your shoes to get on an airplane….Another humiliation at the price of advanced technology.

4th. I think nagash2 hit the nail on the head and it was very interesting reading this exchange. I would guess that the 30 day money back policy is linked to the 30 day Activation period and that if a person chooses not to activate, they are implicitly saying that they do not want the software and therefore can receive their money back. I think it would be a completely different legal argument if this was not the case.

I think this is the beginning of a long battle between consumers and the arts industry and all of it is over a decreasing income stream. Take a DVD movie. If I buy a movie, it is for my use and I can watch it anytime I want. However, do I have the right to loan it to another so they can watch it? I think so (But I think the movie industry would have a problem with this—lost revenue). Do I have the right to make a copy, possibly, if for my own enjoyment? Do I then have the right to loan or give a copy to another person? No, definitely lost revenue. How about if I rent a movie or watch one on TV/Cable, can I make a copy. Not even for my enjoyment because the terms of the deal have changed and I have only a limited use agreement and there is definitely lost revenue to the industry and artist. Now project out where Microsoft wants us to go with the PC the center of downloaded movies, music, etc. The only way this will happen is with the concept of a trusted PC, one that will not produce copies of the art medium.

5th: The revenue game of product updates. Because of activation I asked myself the relevant bottom line question.” Will I be able to produce a materially better product out of CS than I currently get from PS7?” The answer was no. Therefore, I am not going to upgrade, pure and simple. It is a tough economic environment out there and it is time for me to get serious about what I spend my money on. Activation caused me to rethink my freewheeling willingness to fork out money for every upgrade. The truth is that there are other vendors who provide either separate products or plug-ins that satisfy my needs and quite frankly I am satisfied with the product I get from my existing software. I don’t need the increased hassle.

I took a different stand with Intuit. A person is required to keep the last 7 years of tax returns for audit purposes and, under an audit, the IRS can open up years further back than 7 years. The ability to install a software to support an audit is imperative and it was stupid for their industry to try to impose activation given the external demands of the product their software was supporting.

Last: Quite frankly I am shocked at the lack of good company imagery being projected by Adobe representatives in this thread. From managing technology people, I had determined that they are people with big egos and fragile personalities. The responses to some of the questions here validates my opinion and lessens my respect for Adobe. A couple of these people need to take a cold shower and think again about how they field these questions.

Earl
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
A quick read through this thread doesn’t show any Adobe responses whatsoever.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Thats another problem.

Adobe does seem very tight lip about this.

When I called they would not give me any info about activation except the marketing spiel from the webpage .they said that any other questions about the license/activation I would have to fax them to the Legal department(Currently not listed on the adobe site).

Nice of them huh.And they plan to keep long time adobe customers this way?
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 29, 2003
Hey,

nobody responded to my idea of indefinite activation and Adobe calls you when they are unhappy.

That way honest Joes would be happy but Adobe would be able to feel the collars of the crims, who would then say ‘its a fair cop gov’ and go quietly.

Jeff
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 29, 2003
A quick read through this thread doesn’t show any Adobe responses whatsoever.

Both Drew McManus and Stephanie Schaefer have commented in this thread.

any other questions about the license/activation I would have to fax them to the Legal department

That’s appalling. I suppose that would be the same answer if you requested another activation, and were refused; you could take it up with legal.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
Both Drew McManus and Stephanie Schaefer have commented in this thread.

Well I did say it was a quick read. <g>

That’s appalling.

Come on Tony. That’s standard corporate policy everywhere. I’ve already suggested that you contact Adobe about your concerns two or three times. Have you taken me up on the offer?

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
BTW here is the company that makes the wonderfull Activation

< http://www.macrovision.com/solutions/software_publishers/ind ex.shtml>

And I think this is the actual activation. Not 100 % sure though.

<http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/index.shtml>

A qoute from thgier page

"Tightly integrated licensing. SafeCast’s secure licensing mechanism is completely integrated with your products, and won’t be perceived by users as a separate, intrusive mechanism on their PCs."

No comment make your own conclusions
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
No comment

All evidence to the contrary.

make your own conclusions

I already did. My order’s in.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Bob we all know you are all for it.

I dont hold it against you.

And to tell you the truth I would LOVE to buy PS CS but not until all my questions are answered.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
Bob we all know you are all for it.

You’re wrong. I’m not all for it. I’m simply giving Adobe the benefit of the doubt. You can be damn sure if this doesn’t work, I’ll be yelling and screaming louder than you can possibly imagine.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
No I can actually imagine how loud.

B-) I would hate to be them if you ever got pissed.
RB
Rich_Beardsley
Oct 29, 2003
Bob’s a hockey fan too. Nothing like a cross check or wicked slash to get your point across 🙂
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 29, 2003
"And to tell you the truth I would LOVE to buy PS CS but not until all my questions are answered."

Then call Adobe and quit bitching on the USER TO USER forums. Damn, you are thick.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Im going to call adobe and ask about this cdilla thingy. I know that some spyware/adware programs try to remove this.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Now now stuart be nice.

I did call Adobe and I was given a fax number.

Im just letting everyone know what my feeling are and trying to get more people to call Adobe and complain so they change thier minds.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 29, 2003
nagash2,

I think it’s quite clear than many of us here aren’t going to call Adobe to complain, we’re going to call Adobe to order a copy of Photoshop CS. Give it a rest already. Your voice has been heard and now it’s getting annoying.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 29, 2003
Well, Nagash2, they got my $169. You can add me to the list of "I will – I did".

I’m halfway glad I did buy it but at the same time I’m halfway disgusted with myself for being such a vacillating weenie on the activiation issue.

Jake

P.S. Adobe did NOT get my money for the Creative Suite which I see as a ripoff due to the higher prices and the lack of user manuals. I guess that is a small victory for me.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Well Jake Im glad you bought it. Let me know how it goes.
JH
Jake_Hannam
Oct 29, 2003
Will do.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Way back Machine (archive.org)
They have the Adobe site starting from Oct 22, 1996

Hmm cant link this right

Remove extra spaces…

<http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http>: / / adobe.com
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
You also didn’t get Version Que, Until I saw a demo, I thought of it as unnecessary. It’s really an excellent utility which will definitely come in handy.

Bob
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
I have noticed alot of peopl just have NO CLUE how activation works
technically.<

Care to enlighten us all then Nagash???


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 29, 2003
Carol,

Does that mean you are among the clueless? 🙂
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
Care to enlighten us all then Nagash???

Great, that should be good for another 10 posts. 😉

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
Thats why I posted the Macrovision Links.

* You are enlightened*

Of course most of that is alot of marketing to Companies.

I will try to find the actual Technical aspects of the activation scheme.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
9 more to go………
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
< http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/09/225203&amp ;mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=206>

< http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/01/1620225&mode =thread&tid=93> Looks like their anti piracy didnt work…(Obvious) this has nothing to do with activation but its the same company. Makes me feel all warm inside….

< http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998,a=35776,00.a sp>

8 more to go……
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
All countries are diferent . Trust me Australians are nothing like Americans….

Maybe they are more tolerant on these kinds of things.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
and you can be sure that without it we would have had a Photoshop
upgrade months ago.<

Can you then explain to me why the Australian market has been happily activating their versions of PS quite happily for many months now – i.e. activation did’t affect the release date one iota.

I should imagine one of the reason for the dry run in Australia was not only to see how activation worked and affected users and Adobe’s capabilities of running an Activation Dept., it would also be to monitor sales and see if there was the disastrous turn down in trade that many here are gleefully predicting. The fact that Adobe has now seen fit to implement activation globally should really tell you something, yes???

I don’t think for one moment that all Australian users are more honest than their American counterparts – in fact, if anything they would be more prone to use pirated software due to the price of Photoshop in Oz (AU$ 1799 = $1,264.66 i.e twice the US price) – so what does that tell you. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
I think that’s an excellent point<

It’s a totally erroneous point Tony – especially when you look at the facts. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 29, 2003
Carol,

It’s a totally erroneous point Tony – especially when you look at the facts

Facts? What exactly ARE the facts. Just as in statistics, you can apply your own set of rules and call certain data "outliers", and then look at the facts you feel represent the populous…especially when you want the results to show certain trends, or if you feel they’re aberrations.

Let’s look at ALL the facts. Here’s one: I’m not upgrading, and Activation is a HUGE reason why. You can throw that data out if you like.
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
So I guess if they use that better not use spyware detection programs
you might inadvertently kill PS<

I use spy detection software on my system – and have been using Photoshop CS for several months without a single hitch – better not start (yet) another false rumour.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
Let’s not start getting into personal insults please Stuart. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 29, 2003
Here’s one: I’m not upgrading, and Activation is a HUGE reason why.

And here I was thinking it was because it won’t run on Win98. 🙂

Bob
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 29, 2003
"Let’s look at ALL the facts. Here’s one: I’m not upgrading, and Activation is a HUGE reason why. You can throw that data out if you like."

Then why have you recanted twice? Why do you bother posting in this thread anymore?

"Let’s not start getting into personal insults please Stuart."

Sorry.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 29, 2003
And here I was thinking it was because it won’t run on Win98

What I posted earlier was in response to Photo Help’s comment. Were it not for Activation, I’d be moving numbers all over the page to try and get XP and thus Photoshop CS. As it is, with Activation, my upgrade, if it comes at all, will wait far longer than it would have without activation.

Stuart, I post to this thread because I care, I find the subject fascinating, and mostly because it makes me cool.
N
nagash2
Oct 29, 2003
I called Adobe about the cdilla/Macrovision. The guy wouldnt not admit that thats what they use. Even though the Macrovision does state that adobe uses it in PS

I wonder if it becouse of the intuit problem. Nah Couldnt be it
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
You are *so* minimalistic Bob 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 29, 2003
I’ve been clueless ever since senility started to set in 10 years back 🙂 —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Oct 30, 2003
On a more light hearted note – I think activation should be tied to reading the User Manual. On the Activation page there should be a set of randomly generated questions which are answered in the User Manual.

We wouldn’t have to resort to tactics such as RTF(lippin’)M half as often in these forums then :))


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 30, 2003
Can you then explain to me why the Australian market has been happily activating their versions of PS quite happily for many months now

too busy beating off the dingos with sticks to complain?
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 30, 2003
carol, ‘member a couple of days ago i asked about cs with free transform and zoom? i made a mistook. can you please check to see if you can change the layer opacity while in free transform mode? (zoom has always worked… sorry, my bad.)

2 more days til payday! whoo hoo!

thanks, dave
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
You are *so* minimalistic Bob 🙂

I don’t know if I’ve been insulted or complimented. :\

Bob
CC
Chris_Cox
Oct 30, 2003
No, you cannot change the layer opacity while in free transform.

I tried, but it was too complicated (the semi modal state is a pain).
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 30, 2003
Carol,

On a more light hearted note – I think activation should be tied to reading the User Manual. On the Activation page there should be a set of randomly generated questions which are answered in the User Manual.

I remember some older software from about 15 years ago that did that very thing. Of course scanners and copying machines were a lot more expensive back then.
KV
Klaas_Visser
Oct 30, 2003
Having been used to having to activate (and reactivate) my copy of WinXP and OfficeXP for the last two or three years, I personally would have no issue with activating another product. I can’t afford PS CS right now (what with living in Australia, the high prices, and having to beat the dingos off 🙂 as noted in earlier posts), so it will be awhile before I do so.

My acceptance of Adobe’s activation scheme is based upon my experiences with the Microsoft mechanisms. For WinXP, every time I’ve reformated my hard disk and done a clean re-install, I’ve had no problems with the activation, whether I’ve changed hardware or not. OfficeXP was the same.

Whether or not these schemes will eventually lead to subscription based software, well, even MS gave up on that. I bought a copy of OfficeXP Subscription at approximately one third of the full price, and giving me twelve months usage. I based the purchasing decision of the fact that this allowed me to spread the cost over multiple years, and if a nev version came out within the year, then the next subscription purchase would be for the new version. When the first twelve months were up, I got a notice from MS saying that too many customers didn’t understand the subscription model, so here, have a full version for free 🙂 . So I don’t see this model taking off in a hurry.
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 30, 2003
the semi modal state is a pain

okey dokey. thanks for checking on it anyway chris!

dave
JS
John_Spragens
Oct 30, 2003
So how is it we know the customers in Australia are all so happy about activation? Sales statistics generally don’t differentiate between happy and steamed-but-stuck.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 30, 2003
So how is it we know the customers in Australia are all so happy about activation?

Because they told us so. Just like they are telling us that we shouldn’t worry about activation <grin>.
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Oct 30, 2003
Are we trying to set some sort of "record" on the length of this message thread? Sheeze!
DM
dave_milbut
Oct 30, 2003
no.
AP
Andrew_Pietrzyk
Oct 30, 2003
Gee, beating dead horse aren’t we? Six hundred twenty hits and counting.

Good to know PS CS is shipping so we can (hopefully) move on to the next chapter.

Got your stopwatches ready? Start timing Layer Styles, Splash screens, Filters, File Browsers…

Can’t wait ‘til we’ll have come full cycle, AGAIN.

Forum will get back to normal and start dealing with REAL issues. Removing red eye, inserting copyright symbol etc.

I want my PSCS dot release NOW! 😉
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 30, 2003
Andrew is probably right. Although I would like the activation supporters to concede the point that activation is an insult to the integrity of honest freelance people. We are the small guys and they can try it out on us with no real effect on their income flow.
I would like Adobe to introduce it to corporate users, their biggest customers. They won’t because it could hurt too much.

I would not feel so hard done by if Adobe had treated everybody equally and also waited until they could introduce it in the Mac as well.

Jeff
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 30, 2003
As for Australia, I wonder if we have heard the whole story. Aussies dont take things lying down!

Jeff
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 30, 2003
If you are concerned about activation read the NIGHTMARE on the creative suite forum.

Jeff
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
Jeff where is that forum aT?
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
Found it Jeff.

I feel vindicated.

Can I know say Told you so????
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
Oh no! One person with an installation problem.

Please, look around this forum and what exactly do you expect to find. There are people here who can’t even figure out how to turn on a computer and you want me to believe that one person with an installation issue means that this product is no good.

Sheesh, you’re really grabbing at straws on this one.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
Are you actually naive enough to accept one installation problem as vindication? And, just how does this vindicate you. That person gave no system details whatsoever. How do you know it’s an Adobe issue?

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
ummmm ok bob go read the forum again
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
He cant install his licensed products in different machine.

NOT multiple copies but

Computer #1

PS CS

Computer #2
Rest of CS

Cant do that becouse of activation.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
Cant do that becouse of activation.

It’s also illegal and if anything this shows that activation is warranted.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
Remember Bob people are just starting to get thier products in.

I bet that forum is going to grow.
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
Whats ilegal about it?

They want to install thier Legal Bought licensed product (PS CS on one computer) and install the rest of the CS pakage on another. Whats wrong with that?
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
remeber that the creative suit has more than one product

It has

Illustrator
photoshop
Indesing
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
It’s one product with one serial number with one price. You can’t split it up. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Your argument about this is just proof of how little credibility you have in this argument. You’ve done zero research about the licensing or activation schemes and you’re making claims of a software apocolypse based on two install problems of people who probably didn’t even have enough harddrive space to install it.

Bob
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
Ill just wait and see.

Ill lurk for a while.

No need to upset you bob.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 30, 2003
I suspected that you couldn’t install different bits of the CS on different machines but I didn’t know, now I do. Adobe probably have made this clear somewhere? but I think quite a few users will fall into the trap, after they bought it.

Only time will tell how many activation woes will appear here in the next few weeks. I would have thought that activation online is automatic so what went wrong?

Jeff
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 30, 2003
Robert,

It’s one product with one serial number with one price. You can’t split it up. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Technically you are correct. Unfortunately if you read the portion of the EULA that you would be referring to you would need to buy a license for each processor your computer has. I am sure all the Mac users that need two processors to achieve what we can with one wouldn’t be very happy at all.

There is no reason you shouldn’t be able to install different components on different computers for load balancing when you are the only person that uses the computers.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 30, 2003
"Technically you are correct."

And this is all that really matters in the end. If you have a "what if" scenario take it up with Adobe because you won’t get much help here.

"There is no reason you shouldn’t be able to install different components on different computers for load balancing when you are the only person that uses the computers."

The problem with this is there is no easy way to identify the user as owning these computers without tying activation to registration and processor IDs (a la the original Pentium III, or was it the Pentium II?). If you think people have problems with activation now, imagine what things would be like if they had to deal with this as well. In the end Adobe has done what they felt necessary to ensure casual copying of their applications is limited.
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
nd that Stuart will cause sales to drop. Which in the end is what really matters to adobe. $$$ not us.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Oct 30, 2003
"Which in the end is what really matters to adobe. $$$ not us."

You’re right nagash2, that’s why there are no new features in PSCS. They just slapped on a new version name and are selling it to new and current users of PS because they just want your money. How could I have been so blind? Thanks for helping me see the light. </sarcasm>
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
Technically you are correct.

I’m also legally correct and morally correct.

Unfortunately if you read the portion of the EULA that you would be referring to you would need to buy a license for each processor your computer has.

Yup, so again I ask, What’s so hard to understand? If you want to split the apps up you buy individual apps.

I am sure all the Mac users that need two processors to achieve what we can with one wouldn’t be very happy at all.

The Mac users are under the same licensing restrictions as Windows users. They just have a different installation procedure that will make it much easier to use the software illegally.

FWIW, I do think it’s unfair that Windows users have to activate and Mac users don’t.

There is no reason you shouldn’t be able to install different components on different computers for load balancing when you are the only person that uses the computers.

Sure there is. You’re getting the suite a very large discount to buying the individual apps. The reason you get the discount is because you can’t split them up. Think of going to a restaurant for an all you can eat buffet. Under your reasoning, if there are four people shouldn’t they be able to just share one plate?

Bob
L
LenHewitt
Oct 30, 2003
Bob,

Did you notice that certainly one of the problem installs was on on a Sony Viao?

Remember how many folks had problems with Photoshop 7 installs on them?

Does 2+2 make 4?
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 30, 2003
Robert,

I was referring to multiple processors within a single computer. Under the current EULA you would need to have two licenses if you have two processors.

In other words if you have a computer with dual processors and follow the EULA you are required to have 2 seats of Photoshop. The letter of the EULA would apply in the same way it would with 2 computers (used by one person) each containing a single CPU.

The fact still remains that they were unable to install to two separate computers which IS allowed under section 2.4 of the EULA for a "work computer" and a "home computer".

Think of going to a restaurant for an all you can eat buffet. Under your reasoning, if there are four people shouldn’t
they be able to just share one plate?

No Bob, I am one person wishing to get a salad on one plate and a steak on the another. It is still just one meal eaten by one person. Your analogy is flawed 🙂

We were talking about one person, who is the only user, splitting the apps between two local computers.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
I never read the license agreement to mean that and I don’t for one minute think that it does. The "box" the computer is really made up of is often reffered to as the CPU as is just the processor.

No Bob, I am one person wishing to get a salad on one plate and a steak on the another.

I don’t like my salad on the same plate, either. <g>

Seriously though, this is still not flawed. Because some places offer ala carte or complete dinners. Take your pick, but you don’t get to share because those same restaurants can also have a sharing charge.

We were talking about one person, who is the only user, splitting the apps between two local computers.

Yes, we were. And that person is effectively trying to give the salad to one person and the steak to another.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
I forgot until I saw your post. And yeah, it sounds similar. But you would thing that Adobe would have know about that issue and tested for it.

Bob
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Oct 30, 2003
Well, as predicted, only the small Windoze paying customer is going to suffer. The un-licensed community are already downloading their freshly hacked versions of CS.

< http://65.110.81.28/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number= 179977&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpa rt=1#Post180166>

Wow! Three days. Wonder what took them so long!
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 30, 2003
Well, I had this whole big retort about activation and machine licensing, but after I thought about it, I had to come to a full 180 where the Creative Suite is concerned.

The fact is, this is the model that MS Office uses, so to some extent, it is a "user understanding" issue. Specifically, it is a case where one is unaware of the limitations of the license.

Adobe has the right, IMO, to create a license on a suite of products that helps protect their revenue, and they spell it out in section 4.3 of the license on how it can be used – there’s no ambiguity here; at least where the creative suite is concerned.

It isn’t fair that a user should be able to buy the Creative Suite, and then "give" AI to Joey and ID to Howard. I think the license fairly captures their intent and specifies how you can use the products (to some extent).

IMO, this has nothing to do with activation whatsoever except in as much as it enforces a pretty fair statement in their license, and there’s no ambiguity. The point is, the Creative Suite is discounted as a bundle. If you want freedoms with the individual components that are not allowed by the CS License, then you need to buy that freedom. It isn’t largely different than wanting to be able to install copies of In Design to 4 different machines concurrently – it’s against the license and they should have a mechanism to enforce that aspect of the license.

I don’t know if they do or not, but they SHOULD make it clear, when a customer buys the product.

Now for those of you who think that I’m doing a reversal here, I’m not. I clearly see the difference between the license terms in the creative suite v. the standalone application, in this case, photoshop. I don’t think Adobe has yet written a license for photoshop that accurately captures how ALL users work. By implementing Activation with the current Photoshop CS license, they enforce a "most" concept – how most users work. That legally binding document (the license), like many legal documents, has holes. Activation puts a burden on the users to justify their activities for those holes.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 30, 2003
If you are concerned about activation read the NIGHTMARE on the creative suite forum.

As I’ve said in this thread and the Macromedia Activation thread in the lounge, synchronizing upgrades for multiple products is bad for the developer, and bad for the customer. There’s no way the developers can get all of those millions of lines of code, and thousands of pages of documentation, right all at the same time. There’s no way users can adapt to all new applications at the same time.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 30, 2003
Fwiw, from what I read in the CS Forum, the issue has to do with the installer, not activation.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 30, 2003
not activation.

That part will take some time to gain momentum.
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
3 days to crack it. Man they must have had to many beers.

I though it would take hours.

So Did Adobe prevent Piracy with activation?

Everybody wth me know.

NO!
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
now you have to pay adobe per Processor? WTF???
N
nagash2
Oct 30, 2003
Hers my prediction.

1. Adobe will stick with what they have and loose customers.

2. they will say OOps we messed up heres the fix.

Now lets sit and wait….. I hope 2 comes true
G
graffiti
Oct 30, 2003

1. Adobe will stick with what they have and loose customers.

Lose customers to who?
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 30, 2003
Tony,

Very good points. I agree. I was just pointing out that the way it is written the limitation could easily apply to multi processor systems as well. BTW that is from the Photoshop EULA, I didn’t see one for the Creative Suite.

"Fwiw, from what I read in the CS Forum, the issue has to do with the installer, not activation."

True, I also didn’t see multiple computers mentioned in the thread.

Robert,

"And that person is effectively trying to give the salad to one person and the steak to another."

I hate to tell you this, but computers are not people 🙂

nagash2,

"now you have to pay adobe per Processor? WTF???"

No, the EULA hasn’t changed. However it could be interpreted that way.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 30, 2003
Lose customers to who?

Photoshop 7, Photoshop Elements, The Gimp.
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
There ya go again. You assume just because someone posted that he had cracked PS activation (which I too am aware will happen) that it’s true.

Are you interested in buying a bridge?

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 30, 2003
I hate to tell you this, but computers are not people 🙂

And steaks and salad aren’t software. <VBG>

Hey this is fun. Got any more? 🙂

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 30, 2003
Photo Help,

I was just pointing out that the way it is written the limitation could easily apply to multi processor systems as well.

I understood what you were saying completely, and agree. My point was more to the issue of folks who get upset when they find out that they can’t split the product across machines. Personally, I think that’s a shame, but I don’t find any ambiguity in the EULA statement. To some extent, "Caveat Emptor".

My personal issue with activation is that it doesn’t fairly capture legitimate use by ALL users, rather, most users. There are ways around it, to be sure, but my opinion is that if you are going to "hard lock" customers, you’d better be right.

Back in 1988, I was a avid CompuServe member. That’s where I got all my tech support. Friends and colleagues would be amazed at the information I could come up with to solve problems. I encouraged them to use CIS with this statement:

Tech support is usually very poor. Any idiot can, and usually does, pick up a telephone. If you go to the CIS boards, you get more technically savvy people to help you because the process of BBS posting isn’t as common and thus, the "table stakes" for even having a presence as tech support on a BBS are raised – they have more technical ability by the nature of being there, if you know what I mean.

While the playing field has changed today, in as much as any idiot can now get an internet connection, I remain convinced that telephone support people, except in the rarest of circumstances, are… well… "less than capable". But what can one expect for $25-35K per year, if that, for tech support salaries, and a fraction of that for Customer Service.

With that basic concept in mind, in concert with the stories you hear about from user conversations with tech support, I’m not convinced that these folks will have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in regards to granting activation. That makes for an unfair situation, and no consumer recourse.

Finally, I’m not convinced that this "machine license" strategy will help Adobe or the market. But as many have pointed out, only time will tell.
PH
Photo_Help
Oct 30, 2003
Bob,

"And steaks and salad aren’t software. <VBG>"

If I recall you brought up the all you can eat food bar.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 30, 2003
Another example of how a misapplied simile will come back and bite you, lika a, um, thing that bites when you don’t expect it.
G
Guero
Oct 31, 2003
Robert,

No, it’s not just a rumour. Photoshop CS has been cracked. Just like Studio MX 2004 was cracked immediately. This gets rid of the activation and you can use it as you wish. All Adobe managed to do was to alienate their most loyal and competent users. Was it worth it? Not in a million years but that’s just my opinon.

Have a nice weekend
RL
Robert_Levine
Oct 31, 2003
I have no doubt that it has been or will be shortly.

I don’t feel at all alienated, but that’s just me.

You have a nice weekend, too. 🙂

Bob
I
ID._Awe
Oct 31, 2003
It appears that the current ‘cracked’ version disables the use of the ‘CTRL’ key shortcuts.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Oct 31, 2003
I know nothing about ‘cracks’ and it seems that if the ‘crack’ upsets the shortcuts the next one won’t. I don’t like activation but I don’t see why Adobe has employed an activation software that can be disabled literally a few hours after the product is out. If you put us honest users through all this hassle please make sure that it cant be cracked. I want an even playing field. And also inroduce it to corporate users as well, and the Mac or give it up!

Jeff
N
nagash2
Oct 31, 2003
Actually I read that the Ctrl is Disabled by defualt.

Anyone with PS CS already installed please verify this.
W
wes
Oct 31, 2003
My Ctrl + shortcuts have worked just fine from the time of installation, so I don’t think they are turned off by default.
I
ID._Awe
Oct 31, 2003
Ctrl is not disabled by default, a lot of shortcut commands depend on it. Some people are not experiencing difficulties with this, but as Carol pointed out, she is not using the ‘release’ version at this point.
RH
r_harvey
Oct 31, 2003
Dear Carol and Stuart,

We told you so.
SB
Scott_Byer
Oct 31, 2003
The crack isn’t completely successful since it kills the control key shortcuts. Also note that even if it does successfully get cracked, it does stop those gutless, cowardly theives from registering under other people’s serial numbers, getting tech support, and otherwise costing legitimate users time and/or money.

Cracks also usually come with viruses and/or trojan horses, so people should really consider if their stealing the software is really going to be worth the trouble.

The Mac side of the activation product wasn’t ready in time. The playing field will get levelled.

-Scott
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 31, 2003
Thanks for the input Scott.

Also note that even if it does successfully get cracked

It’s really not a matter of "if", rather, "when". Any technology is crackable.

As an aside, I don’t know of a legal requirement to activate; further I don’t think you *can* require users to activate, legally. There may be issues between those who get around activation and the third party that Adobe uses to implement activation (referring to issues raised with another Adobe product and that russian company), but I’m not sure Adobe can enforce activation legally. Thus, by-passing the activation mechanism is not a breach of the EULA. Using an unauthorized copy of photoshop certainly is though.
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 1, 2003
I don’t think you *can* require users to activate, legally.<

Why on earth not Tony – it is Adobe’s licence, they are entitled to put whatever restrictions they want in it – then it is up to you to either agree – or to walk away and use an alternative product.

Besides which, if it were illegal to rquire product activation, don’t you think folk would be queuing up in the courts taking Microsoft to task about product activation – after all, how long has XP been on the market now??


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 1, 2003
it is Adobe’s licence

No Carol, that’s my point. Where does it say that you are required to activate? Requiring it as a condition of use is very different from saying it may not work if you don’t activate it.
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Nov 1, 2003
it is up to you to either agree – or to walk away and use an alternative product.

Not so. There is no alternative. IMHO, Adobe has built a monopoly position using a user friendly licence model and, having achieved that position, is mis-using it to force an unfriendly model which users would NOT accept IF an alternative were available.
MF
Mike_Fulton
Nov 1, 2003
As with previous versions, the license agreement for Photoshop CS allows you to install the program on both your desktop machine and your laptop.

If you weren’t violating the license agreement before, then why would you feel insulted by Adobe making a fairly benign attempt to enforce it? Would you rather they started using a hardware dongle that has to be plugged in while using the program? Or would that also be too inconvenient for you to deal with?

Taking an insult where none is intended is simply not logical. You don’t feel that your neighbor is calling you a thief when they lock their front door at night, do you? Just because someone takes security precautions doesn’t mean they’re directed at you in particular.

If you want to make the argument that the license agreement should allow you to install the program on more than 2 machines, then make THAT argument.

I’m told you can save your registration-activation info to the HD, well
I’m sorry but that doesn’t help when you completely lose a Windows installation and have to wipe the HD as happens FREQUENTLY to most of us who live in the real world of Windows hell

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you should be making a backup onto CD-R or floppy? Seriously, if you really have to reformat your hard drive and reinstall everything 3 times a year, and YOU’RE NOT BACKING UP YOUR FILES regularily, then you’ve got real serious problems above and beyond any concerns about activation.

Maybe you ought to be focusing your energies on dealing with that issue, rather than ranting at Adobe’s perfectly reasonable attempt to make at least a small dent in the sales they lose to piracy.

Mike
M
morrighan43
Nov 1, 2003
Excuse me guys, for the semi-rant here, but this is how I feel, and I’m hoping some bigwig at Adobe is over here reading this because IMHO, they need to….

Just some idle comments because I’m genuinely disgusted over this and I have no intentions of upgrading and activating PS7 to CS. Microsoft just tried this with Windows XP, and it was a pain in the tush for ALL of us, not just the software bandits. (Who barely blinked…)

I reformat my drive at least 3X a year. I’m sorry, but I am NOT calling up Adobe to re-register everytime Windows goes south. Nor am I paying for both my laptop and my home computer to have Photoshop on. That’s just plain GREEDY, not to mention an insanely inconvenient thing for Adobe to ask. I’m told you can save your registration-activation info to the HD, well I’m sorry but that doesn’t help when you completely lose a Windows installation and have to wipe the HD as happens FREQUENTLY to most of us who live in the real world of Windows hell…

I will NOT jump through hoops just to install a piece of software no matter how much I like it. A serial number is sufficent, IMHO. That’s bad enough these days when you’re talking strings of numbers 8" long that you have to manually type in. Try being handicapped with arthritis and dyslexia and doing THAT all the time…That alone is enough to drive you CRAZY!

Wake up Adobe.

There are other options out there, and compared to Photoshop they are far less expensive. They may not be quite as good, but they do nip at your heels, and frankly, if this is how you’re going to treat your customer base as "guilty until proven worthy" well, I think it’s time I checked the competition out.

Oh, just a FYI, I’ve been using Photoshop since version 4, and Illustrator since 7….

There are probably 50,000-100,000 people who’ll choose to do the same this year, and the year after that, and so on, and all of a sudden that small percentile of folks who don’t like this new "activation" scheme isn’t going to seem so small. That’s a LOT of cash when you add us all up. I’m only the tip of the iceberg I am sure, but I surely don’t think I am alone in disliking this one. Most people will probably knuckle down, grin and bear it, like they did with Windows XP, but me, I’ve had my fill of being inconvenienced by software companies more concerned with imaginary profits than customer service. I’ve been on that phone to Microsoft one time too many this year, and I am NOT going there for Adobe too.

No offense, but most of those pirates won’t buy this application anyhow. This may stop them from using it, but it won’t bring you those people at customers. (I say, maybe because I sincerely doubt that. I believe they cracked Windows XP 5 seconds after it was released, and I have no doubt they’ll do the same here.) I think it’s a tad optimistic of you to think it will. They’ll just keep at it until they break it. They don’t want to buy. Most don’t have the money to buy. So they won’t.

In the meantime you’re still seriously inconveniencing those who DO buy your software. To me, it seems like Adobe now cares more about the "supposed"
profits lost to pirates than it does about the folks who have stood loyally by your software buying up every upgrade.

I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but I find this whole thing a bit insulting, and I’m defintely put off by it. Just my 2 cents, and probably my last post because it’s likely I won’t be posting anymore since I’ll be one version behind and/or using someone else’s software and I’ll have no reason to…

Morrighan
PC
Pierre_Courtejoie
Nov 1, 2003
How do you do for not having to activate windows?
If you use 95/95/me, isn’t it the reason that you have to wipe your HD 3 times a year? why didn’t you consider upgrading to a stable OS?
L
LenHewitt
Nov 1, 2003

["Activation? I don’t THINK so…" Topic moved to join this existing Topic]
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 1, 2003
There are other options out there, and compared to Photoshop they are far less expensive

I thought you said they were a monopoly… <g>

To me, it seems like Adobe now cares more about the "supposed" profits lost to pirates than it does about the folks who have stood loyally by your software buying up every upgrade.

That’s the sentiment. Well said.

Mike,

Would you rather they started using a hardware dongle that has to be plugged in while using the program? Or would that also be too inconvenient for you to deal with?

Yes. That WOULD be better. IMO. It’s not the inconvinience of activation, it’s the intrusion of it.

You don’t feel that your neighbor is calling you a thief when they lock their front door at night, do you?

I do if he takes the beer cooler in with him! <g>
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
You might check into Corel PhotoPaint. It’s a very good product.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
Morrigan,

I did not read your entire rant because what I did read makes no sense. First of all, you don’t speak for "all of us." I have had no problems at all with Microsoft activations.

If you really need to reinstall Windows every 3 months you have some serious system or workflow problems.

You can install the Creative Suite software on your desktop and laptop. This is where I stopped reading because you obviously have done no research at all on this topic.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
If he is running 95/95/Me he can’t upgrade anyway. If he’s running XP he has bigger problems than activation if he needs to reformat every 3 months.

Bob
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 1, 2003
If he’s running XP he has bigger problems than activation if he needs to reformat every 3 months.

My guess is he downloads and runs every exe and cute file someone sends him in a chat room or mail (no offense morrigan – lots of people do it, but it’s not the safest thing in the world and would explain the need to reformat – Not that there’s anything wrong with that!).

I just had to clean up my friends system last night because it was so filled with spyware and junk that it was messier than my garage (and that’s saying something!) Had it gone any longer it would’ve been almost unsalvagable.
JR
John_Rausch
Nov 1, 2003
The concern I have with activation is how I actually use two copies of PS. I have mine installed on two desktops at two locations, not a desktop and a laptop. So, I suppose I am in violation of the letter of the license, but not the spirit or intent of the license. I am the only user of these two computers and can only use one at a time because they are miles apart. I use a portable HD to move current work back and forth. While the laptop policy is clearly intended to allow us this kind of flexibility, there is lots of wiggle room for use not intended by the spirit of the license.

By bringing in activation software that could potentially enforce the letter of the license agreement, I might find myself (especially as an amateur photographer) facing a quite expensive situation that I don’t believe Adobe intended me to be in. I just received CS yesterday and have not installed or activated at my other office. We’ll see how it goes. I believe I’m justified for, at least, being a little upset about the possible expense and inconvenience.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 1, 2003
john, iirc, someone said the new cs license changes the term "laptop" to "home" computer. I think you’re ok.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
I have a friend who’s machine I’ve had to reformat 3 times already. They never kept the antivirus definitions updated and have a son who’s a Kazaa freak.

Thankfully I finally talked them into broadband and keeping the kid away from Kazaa so all’s well there finally.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
John, you’re fine. Don’t sweat it.

Bob
RB
Robert_Barnett
Nov 1, 2003
I have to agree with Robert here. If you are having to reinstall Windows XP so often you have something else wrong.

Let me lay some background here for you. I test software and hardware for an online publication. In doing this I install and test probably 30 to 40 programs a week on my Windows XP system. These programs run from freeware, shareware, beta, even alpha software and final release versions. I also remove them when done with them, those that I don’t want to continue to use that is.

Before Windows XP I was formatting and reinstalling Windows 98 probably 3 times a month. No matter what I did the thing just couldn’t handle that much installing and uninstalling of software. When Windows XP came out I was skeptical about it but tried it. I have been running a single install of Windows XP on my system for over 2 years. This is with installing and uninstalling all of these various programs each week. It has been the most stable OS I have ever used on my PC.

So, you have a problem someplace else. It isn’t Windows. That said I have also not had a single problem with activation on Windows XP. However, I will also say right now for the record that Activation technology in any form is a waste and doesn’t work.

Robert
RH
r_harvey
Nov 1, 2003
Many people do fall victim to spyware, viruses, and children. For many, there’s a constant battle to keep the thing running at all–let alone trying to figure out activation, registrations and license agreements.

These users, who are truly not uncommon, will not want to put up with yet another unnecessary annoyance in their lives.

I hope that Adobe warns potential customers of mandatory activation in their advertising, sales e-mail, and on the product packaging. Before you click OK to purchase online, something should tell you that the software will write non-standard data to your hard drive, outside of the file system.

Even MS puts a warning on the upper-right corner of the back of the product boxes–and whenever I’ve show the MS warning label to a potential (typical) customer, they put the box down, and look for another choice. Unlike MS, Adobe does not have a monopoly, so typical customers will have other choices available.
W
wings
Nov 1, 2003
I have to agree with Robert here. If you are having to reinstall Windows
XP
so often you have something else wrong.

Let me lay some background here for you. I test software and hardware for
an
online publication. In doing this I install and test probably 30 to 40 programs a week on my Windows XP system. These programs run from freeware, shareware, beta, even alpha software and final release versions. I also remove them when done with them, those that I don’t want to continue to
use
that is.

Before Windows XP I was formatting and reinstalling Windows 98 probably 3 times a month. No matter what I did the thing just couldn’t handle that
much
installing and uninstalling of software. When Windows XP came out I was skeptical about it but tried it. I have been running a single install of Windows XP on my system for over 2 years. This is with installing and uninstalling all of these various programs each week. It has been the most stable OS I have ever used on my PC.

But guess what, you don’t speak for everybody in the same situation like you.
I too install and uninstall somewhere around 50 applications every week, all the kinds that you mentioned.
It’s is absolutely not true that your Windows XP will still be in the same shape after 2 years, it’s just absolutely nonsense.
I’m working long enough in the IT business to have all the experience to say this. I do agree that it’s very difficult to crash XP once you have the drivers right,
but all that installing and unistalling doesn’t do a lot of good to the OS in the long run. Maybe for you your system is just a test system. For me it’s also the system I work on and some of these programs I use on a daily or weekly basis can show annoying glitches after all that installing an unistalling, not to mention strange behaviour of the OS itself. If you think that that beta and alpha software can’t bring Windows applications down or the OS itself, well then you’re either very shortsighted or you have no clue what you’re talking about. Did you ever ask yourself why network administrators for example tend to wait with updates and service packs?
Are you willing to state here in public that no update, no program, or service pack will ever do damage to either the OS or other applications? The kind of Operating system you talk about doesn’t exist, it’s a myth. It’s like you saying that the system is perfect.
I’m more than willing to give you a large list of programs that will mess up your system. It’s even documented on the web sites of the manufacturers. I do agree that it’s very hard to bring WinXp down and that you can go a very long way before things can be really messed up, but if you installed and uninstalled (I calculated) between 3,120 and 4,160 in 2 years and you’re still thinking that it runs as great as two years… sorry, you’re making a complete fool of yourself.
W
wings
Nov 1, 2003
I can understand your frustration but there is not a lot you can do about it.
You have 2 choices; deal with it or choose different software. But guess what… MS started to use activation, then Macromedia, now Adobe… and many will follow.
Do you really think that they care about your rants?
Look at Microsoft, that whole activation thing didn’t harm them at all, as a matter of fact, it did them more good than bad (facts that confirm this).
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
sorry, you’re making a complete fool of yourself.

Based on your grammar, I wouln’t talk.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 1, 2003
My spelling isn’t so hot either.

Bob
MF
Mike_Fulton
Nov 1, 2003
I too install and uninstall somewhere around 50 applications every week, all the kinds that you mentioned. It’s is absolutely not true that your Windows XP will still be in the same shape after 2 years, it’s just absolutely nonsense.

50 applications every week? What are you, the offical program tester for DOWNLOAD.COM?

If you’ve really been doing that kind of volume for installations, then it’s pretty likely that at least 90% to 95% of the programs involved are shareware/freeware/PD. And unfortunately, the general lack of any QA process means such programs are far more likely to wreak havok on a computer and leave scars that a simple uninstall process won’t heal. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you had to start fresh occasionally.

But the question remains: why aren’t you doing backups? Why are you forcing yourself to start from scratch every time? Why don’t you install Windows and your core applications, then do an image backup from which you can later restore?

And beyond that, why do you think that this sort of situation is something that anybody else should consider to be either typical or commonplace? Many users don’t install 50 programs over the life of their computer, let alone in one week.

Mike
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Look at Microsoft, that whole activation thing didn’t harm them at all, as a matter of fact, it did them more good than bad (facts that confirm this).

Probably not the best example. One might counter with the Intuit example, and there are others.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
Probably not the best example.

Convicted predatory monopolists have more leverage than most people.

Recently, MS has lost close to a billion in sales. They’re blaming it on people not liking their corporate licensing schemes. And, of course, Symmantec has just been clobbered by their new activation failing.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 2, 2003
or the OS itself, well then you’re either very shortsighted or you have no clue what you’re talking about.

i’d like to see you bring down xp with an application. can’t be done. xp is process isolated. unless it’s running as "system" not a user, it just ain’t gonna happen. note, NOT a driver. Just an app.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
i’d like to see you bring down xp with an application… NOT a driver. Just an app.

No drivers? That’s not fair! That would rule-out Activation software, which runs at ring-zero, and can therefore do whatever its little heart desires.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 2, 2003
which runs at ring-zero

really? who said?
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
which runs at ring-zero

really? who said?

See #698.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 2, 2003
joe who?
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
What an interesting read, regarding Activation, Macrovision, and SafeCast.

<http://www.privacyandspying.com/privacy-c_dilla.html>
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Come on Tony, it’s not interesting because it’s blatantly one sided. It’s written by another "big brother" is coming fanatic.

Bob
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
The only difference is that I’m Dutch.
Btw, I also speak French and German. Now who is the fool buddy boy…

wrote in message
My spelling isn’t so hot either.

Bob
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
So what’s your excuse….

(such a dumbo to complain about grammar and making a spelling mistake himself… what a fool…)
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Now who is the fool buddy boy…

You’ve accused someone of making a fool of himself even though he’s given plenty of examples to back himself up.

I will now exercise some restraint and keep within the agreement I made before registering here not to use any personal attacks.

Bob
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
I have a friend who’s machine I’ve had to reformat 3 times already. They never kept the antivirus definitions updated and have a son who’s a Kazaa freak.

Try to do something about your spelling. It’s ‘whose’, not ‘who’s’

Btw, I’m Dutch…
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 2, 2003
yes tony, interesting.

bob, nevermind coming, big brother is here.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 2, 2003
Btw, I’m Dutch…

that explains it. 🙂
RB
Robert_Barnett
Nov 2, 2003
Well Wings, I never said it was. What I said was I haven’t had to format and reinstall. I am perfectly capable of performing the needed maintenance on my system to keep from having to do that. However, Windows XP has been the only OS that this has been possible with. Everything prior to that even with maintenance it would still quickly require a format and reinstall.

You can take this however you want. But, formatting as often as mention tells me either you don’t know how to operate and maintain your system or you have another problem besides the OS because you shouldn’t have to format that often. That is the simple fact of it.

Robert
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
Come on Tony, it’s not interesting because it’s blatantly one sided. It’s written by another "big brother" is coming fanatic.

Yes, of course. Where are the articles about how lives were improved and computers ran more smoothly, and costs went down, and support issues were reduced? And users were less concerned about being seduced and abandoned? And where is anybody mentioning the throngs of people who are petitioning software companies to add Machiavellian restrictions to products they purchase?

Come on, Tony, where are those articles?
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
And where are all the people who have no problems whatsoever with their computers? What newsgroup do they post in? Come on, tell us?

People don’t go anywhere to extoll the virtues of anything. It’s simply the nature of the beast.

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
And where are all the people who have no problems whatsoever with their computers?

Unrelated. Unless you’re equating Activation with computers no longer being reliable.

People don’t go anywhere to extoll the virtues of anything. It’s simply the nature of the beast.

Most people who come here, like Adobe products, and think they work quite well. Compare, for instance, the percentage of random topics, to pointed rants between here and, say, Macromedia or Quark forums.

A few fan sites do exist. People do say nice things when they like them. Some build little shrines to things when they suit their needs–even products <http://www.gotfuturama.com> that are no longer produced. People really do care, and they extoll the virtues of things that make their lives better.

Where, then, are the fan sites for Activation?
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Where, then, are the fan sites for Activation?

Have it your way.

Everybody run, the sky is falling and all of our computers are about to be rendered useless.

Is that better?

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
Bob,

It IS interesting. It is another person with specific experience and opinion on the subject of a specific type of activation. I found it particularly interesting that C-Dilla is, to some extent "monitor-ware".

Bob, to some extent, you seem to dismiss everyone’s opinion or experience. You seem to suggest that "Well, that’s one person" or "Well, that doesn’t count". Indeed there have been articles posted in this thread that point to specific issues, yet you dismiss them as "naysayers".

I submit that you want objectivity, but are not yourself being objective about it – it seems that the only credible people are those who have no trouble with activation either technically or in principle. It’s kind of like saying "You’re a witch – and the proof of it is that you deny you’re a witch".

I know you love a good argument, but you cannot tell me that you have done research on activation, and it’s mechanisms and concluded that everyone is happy except for the "subversive" contingent.

[Edit]: Here’s something for your "Sky is falling"…

YrbkMgr "Macromedia MX Product Activation" 11/1/03 9:36pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/282>
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
Tony,

I think you know that I’m not dismissing you. But yes, I am dismissing many of these sites because there’s just nothing scientific about them.

Anyone can create a website. I’m just the type of person who needs something to back up a claim. Just sitting at a keyboard and typing that something is bad or on the opposites side of the spectrum, something is good, means nothing without some kind of proof.

How many people have come here with links to websites selling genuine Adobe software for $49.00? Just because it’s on the web doesn’t mean it’s legit.

Anyway, like I said, I’m not dismissing you or your concerns. I’m just enjoying a good debate. I’ve already said that if this does inconvenience me in anyway I’ll be here yelling and screaming louder than all of you.

And I’m a hockey fan, so I know how to yell and scream with the best of them. 🙂

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
I’m not dismissing you or your concerns. I’m just enjoying a good debate.

I know Bob. I’m not taking it personally. I was pretty oblivious to Activation until they announced that Photoshop CS would have it. Then I panicked a bit, cooled down, and began trying to find out what’s what.

The fact is, outside of Microsoft’s activation, I seem to be finding more and more issues. I take Microsoft out of the equation since an Operating System is different than application software. It may not be the most scientific thing to do, but I think that if Activation is the wave of the future, these companies better stop looking at it as the panacea to copy protection. And with that, they should be thinking very carefully about how they implement it.

Since activation is only now coming to the forefront of Software companies’ minds, it seems that they say "Look, Microsoft did it, so can we!"

One of the things that is on my mind, in particular is this:

Activation is a "developers tool" of sorts. Each company that licenses activation from a particular company like Macrovision, has the ability to customize it and tweak it for their particular desires. For example, Quark allows "this" and Macromedia allows "that". Most company’s are pretty myopic in thinking that their implementation, along with that of the OS is the only activation that users will have, and if there are conflicts with other Mfr’s activation implementation, then it’s not really their problem.

We’ve all seen installation routines that are poorly written; with that in mind, what happens when you fill up that "undocumented" sector on the hard drive?

Maybe, based on the way activation schemes work, there will be no issues. But as I read about it, I find, more and more, that in some way, shape, or form, something is being written to an "undocumented" sector of the hard drive.

Can different activation schemes co-exist? That is, is company 1’s activation scheme cognizant of company 2’s activation scheme? Is everyone using MacroVision? If not, should we blindly accept peaceful co-existance?

This aspect of it is more "chicken little" than anything, but I’ve never been one to "wait until it’s a problem" – call it a personality quirk.

To some extent, it’s like this: If you want to play hardball, okay, but get it right. There is little evidence to suggest that software companies are looking at activation as anything but a means to protect their revenues without "due process" on the long term ramifications of both EULA enforcement and total cost of ownership.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
I don’t follow professional team sports.

…I am dismissing many of these sites because there’s just nothing scientific about them… Anyone can create a website. I’m just the type of person who needs something to back up a claim.

There’s little formal science in anything to do with computer programming. Unfortunately. A little more scientific method would be a load of help–to both sides.

Activation did not hit its "inventor" on the head in some brilliant aha! moment. What part of it that could be considered scientific, is proprietary and secret–there is no peer review. Since there is no public disclosure, there is not way to debate, except by investigating what it appears they are doing, and projecting how it looks like it will affect us.

Of course, pro-Activation arguments are made only by the people who promote it, to those they want to use it. It is in the interests of purveyors of Activation tools to promote their use. They are not unbiased. They are champions for Activation; when it fails and the lawyers start making their pounds of flesh, Activation peddlers will quickly become champions for whatever they start selling next.

Off topic: Could somebody please chop-up the long link in post #647?
W
wings
Nov 2, 2003
You can take this however you want. But, formatting as often as mention tells me either you don’t know how to operate and maintain your system or you have another problem besides the OS because you shouldn’t have to
format
that often. That is the simple fact of it.

Robert, if I talk about formatting a system for the second time, then I’m talking about restoring a clone disk, which only takes a few minutes. I agree that those users who reinstall the system over and over and go through the whole OS setup and reinstall every previous applications are nuts.

I also agree that one doesn’t have to format that often and it does take some good understanding that we both seem to have to keep a system running and I mean ‘running’.
I mean, you can have a car that takes you from A to B, but that doesn’t say anything about the shape the car is in and the driver’s experiences on how the car handled.

The only question is; when does a user decide to format? Your reasoning can be totally different than someone else’s don’t you think or is everybody just the same like you?

I’ll give you an example; at work I only format systems (using a cloned image), when it takes me more time to figure out what the problem is, than restoring the system. It’s all about time. I can probably solve most of the problems, but how much time does that take? How do you think my boss would react if he discovers that I’m still trying to solve that same software problem, when it could have been fixed an hour earlier. Once I worked a few years for a company and my boss’s boss was…. a financial manager. Trust me, in those day I’ve learned how to solve problems in the most effective ($$$) way ha!

I would like to see you saying with a straight face that any updates, service packs and some 3000-4000 programs that you install/uninstall don’t do any harm.. Robert, I know better, I’ve just way too much experience, I’ve read and heard so much since I started in the IT in 1987, to know better. You’re just an home users, I can sense that. If you weren’t then you wouldn’t ignore the fact (which I repeat a gain) why network administrators wait before they install the latest updates and service packs. I know one who was stubborn… it took him over a week to fix the mess…

Let’s say that the person who started this thread, has at least has the knowledge to solve these problems. A lot of them can’t be solved in 5-10 min, simple as that. Let us say that this guy isn’t fixing a computer at work, but at home. Let’s say that he doesn’t want to sit for a long time in front of his computer to fix some problems, so he takes a boot floppy, grabs his cloned system on CD and starts the restore. Then he takes his dog for a walk and when he comes back his system is back to normal. (Don’t talk me about "system restore points", that’s just a half solution, for several reasons). Total time he was sitting behind the computer; probably 2-3 min.

You will probably agree with me, that this is a good solution to restore your system in fast way.

If a user installs WinXP AND it’s applications and during a period of 2 years he installs numerous updates, service packs, 3000-4000 alpha, beta, shareware and freeware programs and you say that this doesn’t do any harm to either the OS or applications and that this is just a matter of how experienced the user is… I’m sorry to say Robert, but then you’re just incredible stubborn to admit when you’re wrong.

I’ve taken a lot of my time to come up with good arguments, but I haven’t seen that many of you or the other guy who replied.

What you guys do is considered "trolling".
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
If a user installs WinXP AND it’s applications…

Try to do something about your spelling. It’s "its"

Or, just let it slide next time. We all do these things.

BTW, I’m not Dutch.
MK
Mike K
Nov 2, 2003
Do Mac users also have to activate Photoshop?

wrote in message
I can understand your frustration but there is not a lot you can do about it.
You have 2 choices; deal with it or choose different software. But guess what… MS started to use activation, then Macromedia, now Adobe… and many will follow.
Do you really think that they care about your rants?
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
I don’t follow professional team sports.

It’s a great diversion from real life. You should try it. 🙂

Bob
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
Yeah, me, having a real life. Like that’ll happen. No time. When I’m not looking for conspiracies, I’m out getting my colander resized to fit my head.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
I’m out getting my colander resized to fit my head.

I use tin foil instead <grin>.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 2, 2003
We may be in danger of going off topic. Don’t tell Len and Carol that we’re actually having some fun. 🙂

Bob
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 2, 2003
I’m sure they’d be relieved considering the wild fluctuations in attitudes about this hotly debated topic.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 2, 2003
I’m sure they’d be relieved considering the wild fluctuations in attitudes…

My attitude has remained unchanged. However, the temperature here, since this thread started, has cooled by 30-degrees.

…about this hotly debated topic.

From what I can tell, there is no debate. One side says there are potential problems or they just don’t want to be insulted or burdened by Activation, while the other side first said that "It’s too early, wait until it ships," and now says "Your necktie is cutting off circulation to your head."

I’m a bystander. I’ve stopped giving the Evil Empire their tithing, and I’m coasting along as well as possible, while waiting to see if Adobe will spread Activation to the one-button mousers.

P.S. To the person who fixed #647: thank you.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 2, 2003
sky is falling… Is that better?

Yes. Thank you. 🙂
MA
Mark_Allen
Nov 2, 2003
Phew! Made it this far. Guys, try and keep your replies shorter, my right hand is aching. (From scrolling down, Honestly! LOL!)

Question? I run two machines networked at home in the same room. If I install CS on both, have I used up my full quota? If so what has to be done if I want to install CS over in the studio, (Different location) even though only I will be using all computers exclusively?

Any ideas?

Regards

Mark
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 2, 2003
I’m sure they’d be relieved<

Mightily!!!! 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 2, 2003
PS – I was considering the use of fire hoses at one point too. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RH
r_harvey
Nov 3, 2003
I bet you don’t need everything Photoshop offers all the time. Put Photoshop Elements on one of ’em.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 3, 2003
run two machines networked at home in the same room. If I install CS on both, have I used up my full quota?

Yes.

If so what has to be done if I want to install CS over in the studio, (Different location) even though only I will be using all computers exclusively?

Two options. Uninstall one and reinstall in the studio, or buy another seat.
JB
John_Blaustein
Nov 3, 2003
Here’s an article about the trouble Symantec is having with product activation:

<http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-5099884.html>
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 3, 2003
My favorite reply to "What about the children?"

"Smith said the problem has not been easy to locate and asked the consumers to go to the company’s site and run the Symantec Automated Support Assistant to submit data on their particular PC. He also recommended that customers who encounter the problem not restart their computers."

And to the remark "Well it was Beta’d in Australia and it didn’t stop them from coming out with the product:

"We thoroughly tested the technology," Smith said. "We ran extensive tests worldwide. You had well over 250,000 customers complete activation, and we didn’t have any complaints about this."

And the Coupe de Gras:

"Smith said the company hasn’t determined how effective product activation has been in deterring piracy but said Symantec was studying the issue."

In a related article about MacroVision:

"As product activation becomes more common, software makers need to think about rewarding customers for putting up with it, said Drew McManus, director of worldwide antipiracy programs at Adobe Systems, which is doing limited testing of product activation."

Okay Drew, where’s the reward?
N
nagash2
Nov 3, 2003
Ive noticed that Adobe never will anwser questions about activation.

1. I asked if they were using Macrovision as their "Activation" provider. The Support specialist had no clue what I was talking about.

2. Now here are my questions for you all.

A. If I buy PS CS Can I be assured in writting that I can use this program indefinitely? So in 3 years from now I can install the PS CS again and use it with or without activation. (I doubt an Adobe employee/support person will answer this. (Bob please dont!))

B. If I upgrade to PS CS and then to PS CS2 will PS CS still require activation?

C.If there is a limit to activation what is it? Will I have to buy a new License ($600) to get the legaly licensed software runing again after so many activations or years?

Why was I given the run around when asking technical questions about activation? Why arent the support specialist given the right answers to all activation questions?

Why is Adobe being so secretive about who provides activation and how it really works? BTW its Macrovision who provides is.

Why arent we told specifically what activation does and how it does it? We only get minor information on this page (http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html) which in my opinion only Generally speaks of how activation works (Not really how it works.)

In this part of the Activation FAQ Adobe states:

"How is Adobe educating customers about activation?

Q: How is Customer Care prepared to support users during the activation process?

A: The Adobe Customer Care team is fully prepared to address all customer concerns during the activation process. We believe that in most cases, customers will have a seamless experience and will not need to contact Adobe Customer Care. In unusual circumstances or with issues not anticipated in the Product Licensing Agreement, Customer Care can override the activation process. Adobe also provides for unforeseen circumstances (such as communication outages) to ensure that Customer Care can respond to customer calls or extend the activation period until full communications are restored."

This is not accurate in my opinion. When I called they had no clue what I was talking about.

Is there a special number for Support on activation?

They also state:

"Q: What is activation?
A: Activation is a series of simple and quick steps users of Adobe software take upon installation in order to begin using the applications. A simple, anonymous process, activation helps prevent casual copying.

Activation is a more interactive representation of the licensing agreement that has always existed between Adobe and its valued customers. The activation process authenticates licensed users of "shrinkwrapped" products (for retail purchase) without hindering their ability to use the software the way they always have. Just as photographers use watermarks to protect their intellectual property, Adobe is using activation as a way to watermark Photoshop. "

Activation DOES hinder my use of this software.

I cannot run my Legaly licensed software UNLESS I activate it. So I am Buying software that is in DEMO mode for 30 days. After that if I really want to use it then I have to Activate it. Or return it for my money back (Bob Please dont!)

Will Adobe answer this questions. IMHO no they wont.
N
nagash2
Nov 3, 2003
BTW just keeping you up to date. Here is the latest Poll results

Will not upgrade to PS CS becouse of activation
I will 50 38%
I wont 40 31%
Whats Activation? 6 5%
Dont care either way 35 27%

50 X 196 = $9,800
I guess this still must be just change for adobe.
MM
Mini Me
Nov 3, 2003
In article ,
says…
i’d like to see you bring down xp with an application. can’t be done. xp is process isolated. unless it’s running as "system" not a user, it just ain’t gonna happen. note, NOT a driver. Just an app.

That’s a load of crap! As a "programmer" who writes user applications, I manage to do a pretty good job of bringing down XP on a daily basis. XP is stable, but it’s not THAT stable.

I know about 7 or 8 API calls that will crash Windows XP real easily if you pass the wrong pointers. In fact, if you install the latest RPC patches to combat the blaster worm, you can crash XP real easy with recursive RPC calls using buffers on the stack instead of global memory.
L
LenHewitt
Nov 3, 2003
Nagash,

Why are you asking those questions here, in a USER to USER forum.?

You won’t get answers here from Adobe, only from other Users…

Certainly there are a couple of Adobe employees that do drop by here from time to time (for which we are very grateful), but they do so as Users, in their own time, and NOT as Adobe employees. No-one from Adobe has, as part of their job specification, the requirement to to answer questions or even visit here.
N
nagash2
Nov 3, 2003
So where can we get adobe to answer the questions we have. Since by phone in my experience is a loss of time. And support just doesnt seem to have a clue. Not surprised. It is support.
W
wes
Nov 3, 2003
Maybe post at adobe forums, I don’t know.
SB
Scott_Byer
Nov 3, 2003
Activation became necessary because Photoshop 7 was very, very pirated. It accounts for the largest single chunk of bandwidth on many of the peer sharing networks, and in at least one case, the majority of the total bandwidth used. I’m under no illusions that activation will stop piracy – locks keep honest people honest – but I don’t think many of you realize how bad the problem has become.

Activation isn’t about violating privacy. Call up and activate by phone if you’re really worried about it. It isn’t about stopping you from upgrading or even replacing a machine – provisions are made for that. Ghosting back a partition shouldn’t be a problem either, as it still will be recognized by the same machine and should re-activate with no problem.

For those who were "slightly" violating the license before and are now having issue with activation enforcing that, the small volume licensing program is ready for you
(http://www.adobe.com/store/general/openoptions/main.jhtml). If you want to provide feedback that you think there should be a shrinkwrapped 5 license version or some other family/small-shop style licensing outside of the volume licensing program, visit http://www.adobe.com/activation/main.html and use the feedback link.

You *know* I wish it weren’t necessary. But it is. We’ll continue to look for less intrusive mechanisms.

-Scott
N
nagash2
Nov 3, 2003
Sorry Scott Activation Will not put even put a dent in the piracy. I read theres already a crack for it (Not a good one) but there is a crack right now.

So will it prevent piracy? NO not one bit. So why use it?

thats my question to you.

My concern is that if this trend continues I will have to activate OVER 20 products. That is annoying and time consuming.

If My machine decided to die and all these products required Activation that would be a royal pain in the #%#.

Whats in it for me???
N
nagash2
Nov 3, 2003
Why is adobe hiding the fact that Macrovision is providing the Activation software?

Possible because of the bad press recently?

Why is activation explained (IMHO) as general as you can get. To general to even say its an explanation on how Activation really works.

Why not really tell it like it is?
N
nagash2
Nov 3, 2003
Ok Ill byte on Licensing.

Lets say I want to have PS CS on 3 computers. How much is that going to cost me?

My Guess is

1. 169 for the upgrade. This lets me have PS CS on 2 Machines. One laptop and one PC.

2. I guess another 600 right?

Is this Licensing possible?

How about just 4 licenses.

BTW I dont see any prices Here:
<http://www.adobe.com/store/general/openoptions/main.jhtml>
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 3, 2003
I do have a question on activation with CS that hasn’t been asked before.

I’m asking becasue of a recent question (that some of you may have read) re: ps7 and c-dilla/macrovision. I answered that c-dilla was spyware and to remove it. And that macrovision was related to the MX suite. Was that wrong?

So here’s the question (nagash, please don’t try to answer)

Is it required for the PSCS or Creative Suite Standard Edition software to continuously have a connection to "phone home" (i.e. continual monitoring of the activation status – say at every startup or 1st use after a reboot) or once I activate can I safely block internet access for photoshop and or cs suite?
CC
Chris_Cox
Nov 3, 2003
No, there is no need for any connection after the intial activation.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 3, 2003
Cool. Thank you Chris. I have to admit, after that post I spoke of, this was weighing a little heavy on my mind.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 3, 2003
Activation became necessary because Photoshop 7 was very, very pirated.

That’s as logical as saying: "We had to close the road because too many people were speeding."

but I don’t think many of you realize how bad the problem has become.

You’re wrong. Some of us have actually been personally affected by software piracy. Directly or indirectly, we all have been. We know about it–it was featured on the 60-Minutes TV show last night, so people who don’t even use the Internet have heard about it.

Activation isn’t about violating privacy.

Correct. That’s a side-effect.

Call up and activate by phone if you’re really worried about it.

Which will of course be totally anonymous, without caller ID.

You *know* I wish it weren’t necessary. But it is.

There is no relationship between adding activation and stopping people from "sharing" files. It’s necessary, perhaps, if you want to make sure that businesses that are loyal customers, will buy enough copies for everyone–that’s the only way it’ll help sales.

We’ll continue to look for less intrusive mechanisms.

How about lobbying against file sharing services? How about closing down the Web sites that give away other people’s intellectual property? How about hunting down thieves?
W
wes
Nov 3, 2003
No one likes to show actual prices for fear that it will scare people away. It is almost like businesses are trying to hide something or is it just good business not to show prices for products up front, on the first page, in the first paragraph, in bold, large type. It seems you have to spend loads of time just to try to find out how much something costs.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 4, 2003
Well, I’m impressed that Scott commented. I understand where they’re coming from (and always have). But the point is, really, what are you doing? You’re implementing a mechanism that doesn’t solve the problem and incites the natives.

Anyone who wants to get around activation will, that’s a fact. So then… what’s the point?
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 4, 2003
Activation typically takes around 3 seconds – so adds a very small time penalty to the overall time for installation.

As has been said on *many* occasions here, you will *not* have to reactivate if it is a simple re-installation of the application. If you have suffered a major crash, the amount of time for re-activation is an infinitesimally small amount of time compared to the amount of time for re-installing the OS and all your applications.

Come on, let’s get things in perspective here.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 4, 2003
say at every startup or 1st use after a reboot) or once I activate can
I safely block internet access for photoshop and or cs suite?<

During the beta, I had Adobe blocked with my firewall as it did try and connect each time it was launched. This was no way it affected how the program ran (flawlessly). It was only later that I discovered the reason why PS wanted to go online – it was to check if there were any new offerings or to connect to "Shutterfly" whereby I could upload finished images for printing.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 4, 2003
So then… what’s the point?>

To prevent casual copying and hopefully to keep otherwise honest people honest.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
Ah so they dont trust the Honest people to be honest. Thats Honesty for you.
SB
Scott_Byer
Nov 4, 2003
wrote in message

That’s as logical as saying: "We had to close the road because too many
people were speeding."

You do realize this is done quite a lot for neighborhood streets, right? And the analogy is wrong, anyway. It’s more like putting in rumble strips or permanent "Your Speed" signs.

How about lobbying against file sharing services?

That’s worked so well for the music industry, hasn’t it?

How about closing down the Web sites that give away other people’s
intellectual property?

Yeah, like we can really close down a site out of China. (Like we should even be able to!) Nope, not workable.

How about hunting down thieves?

Already doing that. It’s not enough.

And it’s not about trusting the honest person. It’s about reminding them, gently, of the licensing they agreed to. I’m sorry if some of you are really trying to avoid seeing it like that. The point is activation has already had a good effect – it’s thrown doubts about the solidity of the cracked version into the minds of the casual pirate, because it’s no longer the case that you can download exactly what was in the box, you have to rely on some Johnny-in-the-basement unethical hacker to patch in some shakey code. Is 3 seconds of your time really worth that?

So, no, I don’t believe "anyone" who wants to get around activation will. I believe the serious pirate and the high school kids will, because they have nothing to lose if parts of the program don’t work right or it crashes more often. But there is a large class of users who will decide that it’s simply not worth the risk.

I don’t think any of us can tell yet if this will be worth the trouble. I think Adobe has taken a much better tack on it than some of the companies that have gone before us. I know that there are going to be some users who don’t think you could ever get it "right" (short of removing activation) – there’s no pleasing some people, and that’s just what we have to live with.

But I’m not willing to put naked bits out there anymore. Bandwidth is too cheap, and the music industry p—– away the opportunity to educate young people about intellectual property, and too many countries (China) refuse to put any teeth into IP protection. In an unconnected world, you could get away with it – the spread of naked bits was slow enough that the losses were tolerable, and any sort of activation scheme was too painful. In a connected world, it’s the opposite.

-Scott
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 4, 2003
You’re implementing a mechanism that doesn’t solve the problem and incites the natives.

That’s the whole point of the argument.

Activation typically takes around 3 seconds – so adds a very small time penalty to the overall time for installation.

That’s not the point.

It was only later that I discovered the reason why PS wanted to go online – it was to check if there were any new offerings or to connect to "Shutterfly" whereby I could upload finished images for printing.

Good info. Thank you Carol!

To prevent casual copying and hopefully to keep otherwise honest people honest.

But it doesn’t… as evidenced by the plethora of Crtl key doesn’t work posts within days after CS’s release. (Do I get a nickel for using that word in a sentence?!! <g>)

Scott, re #752. Mostly very well argued. Nice post. Thanks.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 4, 2003
To prevent casual copying and hopefully to keep otherwise honest people honest.

That argument has gotten old faster than Kathleen Turner.

I need no help staying honest, thank you very much. I’ve taken that as a hint that it’s time to look at other options.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 4, 2003
Well, to be fair, Scott does have a point, and I’m grateful that he’s taken the time to come to "The Argument Clinic" <grin>.

First of all, he’s right when he said:

I don’t think any of us can tell yet if this will be worth the trouble. I think Adobe has taken a much better tack on it than some of the companies that have gone before us.

But the thing is, about this "honesty" and "gentle reminding" business, smacks of what my College Algebra instructor used to say. "Please sit one seat apart from each other during this test. It’s not that I don’t trust you, I don’t trust your neighbor".

At the end of the day, the question remains: What are you doing? You are not solving a problem.

Now Scott, I’ve sat in as many of those meetings as you have, and I know good and well that the statement about "gently reminding honest people to stay honest" is something that our managing directors like – it has managerial brio that can be administered to the public in press releases and Larry King talk shows.

But the fact is, you are in our world – you know the real deal. You know better. Do you really think that Crack v.0.1 is the end? No, it’s not. Therefore, that "doubt" argument goes away.

However, when you said:

But I’m not willing to put naked bits out there anymore. Bandwidth is too cheap, and the music industry p—– away the opportunity to educate young people about intellectual property, and too many countries (China) refuse to put any teeth into IP protection.

I couldn’t agree more. That rings more truth than anything we’ve heard so far. In fact, I buy it. But the question remains…

What are you doing? You aren’t solving the problem.

There is the argument that says "Well, doing something is better than doing nothing". Then why not use decoder rings? That’s doing something too.

I hope you believe me when I say that I see what you’re doing and understand the rationale. Maybe it’s the only thing you *can* do. But even Drew McManus said that this is painful for users and companies should reward customers for putting up with it. That tells me that even Adobe admits there are and will be issues that this implementation creates, and in the end, you still don’t solve the problem.

You’d be better off with a dongle, or using something like IBM’s Embedded Security Subsystem chip. Costs less and works – the talent pool for cracking the chip is orders of magnitude smaller than the script kiddies who crack software.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 4, 2003
Scott,

Thanks for responding.

You do realize this is done quite a lot for neighborhood streets, right?

While corporations look out for their stockholders long before their customers, the primary goal of government is to support the user.

It’s more like putting in rumble strips or permanent "Your Speed" signs.

Or more like disabling your car if you’re caught speeding.

How about lobbying against file sharing services?

That’s worked so well for the music industry, hasn’t it?

The music industry has problems that are unrelated to file sharing. Still, the problem has crept in over the last few years, and it’ll be an ugly process to correct–especially since neither side agrees on what the problem is. Take away the file sharing Web sites, and kids will do it at school–but at least the major source for new material will be gone.

I haven’t been on a high school campus for a very long time, but I presume everyone has folders with all the latest music and Adobe software. Maybe they’ll be future Adobe customers, I don’t know, but I do know that they won’t be stopped today by Activation.

Yeah, like we can really close down a site out of China. (Like we should even be able to!) Nope, not workable.

I’ve had piracy sites removed from search engines; it’s a start.

It is a war; know your enemy–and know who isn’t your enemy. The first thing I’d do is not allow software to work in some areas–especially don’t localize for them. Hire a programmer who can crash debuggers, disassemblers, RegMon and such; it’s not that tough. I’d recommend stronger measures, but not in a public forum. They won’t play by our rules; we must play by theirs.

And it’s not about trusting the honest person.

That’s apparently not an option.

It’s about reminding them, gently, of the licensing they agreed to.

A reminder is an optional string around your finger, not a mandatory shackle. Some people take exception with allowing others to others enforcing morality on them.

The point is activation has already had a good effect – it’s thrown doubts about the solidity of the cracked version into the minds of the casual pirate

And for the honest user, who is just now realizing that there are landmines in software that they purchased legally–things that can make their software not perform as earlier version did, as they used to expect from Adobe. Now, they have doubts… could I accidentally install the wrong utility, and all of a sudden Photoshop is going to eat my files? Is that a bug in the program, or is it the first sign of some time bomb, not correctly debugged by its authors, that could go off at any minute?

So, no, I don’t believe "anyone" who wants to get around activation will.

With twenty years experience in Assembly language programming, I’ve written anti-hack and protection code; I’m very comfortable jumping into the middle of an instruction and writing bogus jump addresses. I know how hard it is to follow every what-if scenario to keep the bad guys out without affecting the honest user. It’s a nightmare; there’s never 100-percent certainty.

I personally won’t try to defeat Activation. But I’ll help with CMYK support for GIMP before I’ll submit to it.

I might submit to an unlocking code, available only from Adobe, not retail, with a warning about what would happen if that code were found in the wild. I have no problem with registering.

But I’m not willing to put naked bits out there anymore.

Somebody else will strip them for you, whether you like it or not. That’s the world today.

In an unconnected world, you could get away with it – the spread of naked bits was slow enough that the losses were tolerable, and any sort of activation scheme was too painful. In a connected world, it’s the opposite.

The losses Adobe suffers from piracy are intangible; the company is profitable. The losses from unhappy loyal customers are not.

User groups in the beginning were there to share copies of VisiCalc (then 1-2-3), WordStar and dBaseII. The only thing that’s changed is the size and speed of the market. In that market MS Word was copy protected, and nobody used it; in 1986, they removed copy protection, and they sold pretty well. Yes, they restored copy protection; they can get away with it–they are a predatory monopoly. Adobe is not a monopoly.

I’ve been an Adobe customer for twelve years.
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 4, 2003
This was no way it affected how the
program ran (flawlessly).<

That will teach me not to post a turned 2 in the morning

Should have read:-
"There was no way it affected how the progarm ran (which was flawlessly) —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 4, 2003
Activation typically takes around 3 seconds – so adds a very small time
penalty to the overall time for installation.<

That’s not the point.<

Yes, it was very much to the point of what nagash was saying which was:

That is annoying and time consuming"



Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 4, 2003
I need no help staying honest, thank you very much. I’ve taken that as
a hint that it’s time to look at other options.<

Does that mean you will never be friends with anybody who has a lock on their door, or do business with anybody who keeps their takings in a safe in their office – so you will only ever do business with a company that leaves all their cash lying about all over the counter??? —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
MM
Mini Me
Nov 4, 2003
It’s actually quite simple…

Companies like Adobe don’t listen to customer any longer. To affect any kind of real change, vote with your dollar. Simply don’t upgrade to the new version.

If a signigicant number of consumers decide NOT to upgrade, it’s a significant loss of revenue for Adobe and perhaps they’ll finally "get it".

Pirates will always pirate software no matter what. Adding activation requirements to their products doesn’t prevent piracy, it treats honest people like criminals.

By adding the activation feature, Adobe has come right out and said "We think ALL of you are criminals and we’re going to treat you as such".

In article ,
says…
No one likes to show actual prices for fear that it will scare people away. It is almost like businesses are trying to hide something or is it just good business not to show prices for products up front, on the first page, in the first paragraph, in bold, large type. It seems you have to spend loads of time just to try to find out how much something costs.
MM
Mini Me
Nov 4, 2003
In article ,
says…
So then… what’s the point?>

To prevent casual copying and hopefully to keep otherwise honest people honest.

Read as: "To treat honest people like criminals"
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
Carol how do you equate those examples with activation??

Up to late again???
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
Scott you are wrong. The Cracks will get better and the Pirating will continue.

Now Business 101.

Keeping current customers is cheaper than getting new ones.

Ive been a loyal Adobe customer for many years. Ive gotten every PS upgrade as soon as it came out.But now I fell insulted and I really dont want to do any more business with Adobe if they dont trust me.

Its like going to the bank and getting a gun to your head while waiting to make deposit (Just in case im not honest). Bank is just looking out for thier cash.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 4, 2003
To prevent casual copying and hopefully to keep otherwise honest people honest.

But it doesn’t… as evidenced by the plethora of Crtl key doesn’t work posts within days after CS’s release. (Do I get a nickel for using that word in a sentence?!! <g>)

Then they were honest people, were they? You’re making the assumption that they accually bought the program and disabled the activation. I’d make the assumption that they didn’t buy it at all.

Bob
ER
Earl_Robicheaux
Nov 4, 2003
Here is another interesting post about Symantec’s activation problems…. Apparently they don’t know what the problem is or how to fix it……I bet this has some people worried!!

<http://www.idg.com.hk/cw/readstory.asp?aid=20031103006>

Earl
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Nov 4, 2003
Does that mean you will never be friends with anybody who has a lock on their door, or do business with anybody who keeps their takings in a safe in their office.

Well, they are doing things TO their own property (notice I said TO, not WITH, there is a difference). Activation is about like rape. It’s MY computer that they are messing with TO ACHIEVE their own satisfaction.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 4, 2003
Does that mean you will never be friends with anybody who has a lock on their door, or do business with anybody who keeps their takings in a safe in their office…

I’m not stupid; I’m prudent. I keep master CDs in a locked fire safe.

Yes, I lock the door, because I may want to vacuum without pants on. I know that locking the door doesn’t inconvenience my friends–they have keys. Alas, nothing stops dedicated thieves.

I liked Kathleen Turner in "Peggy Sue Got Married," I wonder what happened.
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 4, 2003
Doesn’t it bother anyone else about having someone messing around in an unknown way with their machine?

That’s exactly what bothers me Jerry.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 4, 2003
Jerry,

First, your analogies are WAY off-base. I’d suggest you reconsider them.

Second, one could make the argument that installing ANY software allows one the potential for "messing around in an unknown way with their machine". If you’re that paranoid I’d suggest finding a job that doesn’t require the use of computers. Trash collector and Park Ranger come to mind, take our pick.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 4, 2003
Jerry,

First, your analogies are WAY off-base. I’d suggest you reconsider them.

If you’re talking about software landmines (see #756), I’d like to see your scientific proof that all is well.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 4, 2003
No, I was referring to the ludicrous notion Jerry presented in #764, and I quote, "Activation is about like rape."

As for your ridiculous question, no one will give you that guarantee and if you’re waiting for it you’ve got a long wait ahead of you.
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Nov 4, 2003
No, I was referring to the ludicrous notion Jerry presented in #764, and I quote, "Activation is about like rape."

Really?

It’s MY computer that they are messing with TO ACHIEVE their own satisfaction.

Seems to me that from my computer’s point of view, this is getting awfully close by definition. Maybe the "casting couch" is a better example. Having spent over 30 years building and working with some of the fastest main frames ever designed, I’m not paranoid, just a believer in Murpey’s 14th law. "The unexpected WILL happen".
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 4, 2003
I’m beginning to see a trend here. Many designers on the forum see no problem with activation. It’s the geeks who’ve likely dropped by from /. who are stirring up trouble. The problem is designers see the benefits Photoshop CS provides their workflow and the programming geeks who dabble with PS don’t. Activation then becomes a burden for them but the greater number of users being creative types see activation as a necessary evil and since we make enough money on a single project to offset the cost of a single license of PS CS (speaking as a freelance designer) it’s not a big deal.
SB
Scott_Byer
Nov 4, 2003
If you have no problem with registering, then what’s your issue with activation? That seems very backwards.

Losses from piracy are very tangible. We end up with smaller development teams and can do fewer features.

I haven’t heard one cogent argument about why activation is "bad". I’ve read the pages along the links; fanatical, but not terribly coherent or reasoned. Everyone says "activation is useless, it’s cracked instantly, why do it?" but that hasn’t yet been the case. Sure, it will be eventually, but by then it’s already served it’s purpose – it’s introduced doubt into the minds of those who previously assumed just downloading the warez was a way of getting something for nothing.

And if you’re willing to submit to an unlock code, how is that different from activation? It’s not, as far as I can tell.

I really do think activation is here to stay. Some companies have messed up and have had to step back, but I think that’s more for poor implementation than a fundamental flaw with the idea. It’s not copy protection, it doesn’t get node-locked, and doesn’t interfere with backups. Yeah, I’ve been through all that stuff too (my favorite was always half-bad sectors with a time-to-error check – yuck!), which is really why all these objections to activation surprise me. I know what’s going on and it simply isn’t that complicated.

So, this thread has really seem to run it’s course. There seem to be a few people who are determined to avoid activation for whatever reason. I hate to lose them as customers, but like I said, even if the bits do get stripped to naked quickly, I won’t put naked bits out there anymore – it makes no sense to make the pirates job easier when, in my opinion, the activation is so easy and innocuous as to be unobjectionable by reasonable people. As long as the bits the pirates put up have to be different than what’s on the CD, it introduces enough doubts, and I suspect that alone will make activation worth it (we’ll see). I’m much more concerned for those who were absentmindedly violating the licensing and are now being caught and having a reasonable license and price structure for them.

-Scott
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
Good one Stuart but flawed.

I guess us geek types just know more about how the computer actually works and understand why activation is bad.

I guess well see in 2-3 years when you have to activate every single peice of software out there. When your computer break or crashes because of it us geek types will be there to fix it.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 4, 2003
Sorry nagash, I can’t stand the smell. I know plenty about computers having built a few systems of my own, being a computer systems op in the Air Force and working with them on a daily basis. Just because I’m a creative type now doesn’t mean I don’t know how to maintain and fix my systems. Don’t need your type, don’t want your type. I’ll just activate my software and be working on new projects in no time 🙂
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Nov 4, 2003
Scott, Stuart,

Please don’t misunderstand me. I have no problem with protecting a software program from pirate use. My problem is in how it is being implemented. To me, messing around in my computer is not nice/good. With most "normal" programs, I can uninstall them and use Norton to get rid of the remnants. Can’t do that with the "activation", that is one reason why I never install time limited "trial" software either.

"penetration without permission"? Hard to call that passive consent. Anyone that has ever had their home burgled will not find the analogy very far from their feelings. I remember how I felt (even as a male).
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
Activation PREVENTS me from using the software.It prevents me from uninstalling it and reinstalling it whenever I see fit.

Why the hell do I have to call Adobe to tell them I have to reactivate PS because I change my hard drive?

Who the hell are them to tell me how to use my computer?

Imagine if I use lets say 10 different software packages.And all those use activation.

I would have to call all those companies to explain that Hey I change my Hard drive. Can you let me use your software again?

What if they decide (Which Will happen) that you can’t, you have done it to many times and you have to pay a full license. I read some company is already doing this.

Screw that. But hey Designer people (Stuart)can spend that money if they want. I have better things to do than that.

Also Scott
Can I use PS CS 5 -10 years from now?

Man I cant spell today.
SS
Stephanie_Schaefer
Nov 4, 2003
Jerry,

The Photoshop uninstall offeres users a couple of options, one of those is to remove all activation code from the system.
MA
Mark_Allen
Nov 4, 2003
nagash2,

What’s your real name? Barney the Dinosaur?

Let’s get real here. If Adobe want to use activation. So What? You don’t want activation. So What? This may or may not be Adobes’ way of dealing with a problem they may or may not have.

As Stuart says, real designers get on with what they have ‘coz they realize they have a workflow to contend with and they see new features as a way of reducing the workflow.

If Dinosaurs saw any problem and adjusted to the situation, they would still be around. They might not like activation but over time, they realise if they don’t adapt! Die!

Obviously i’m using an analogy but it fits all, go with it or fall behind. I had posted to Tony about win98 (Not draging him into the argumaent as his circumstances are £poundage) but why not go ahead with implementation and at a later date deal with things as they arise.

Times too short to worry about crap like activation. I neither love or loathe it, it’s life and I like as much of this precious comodity as i can get.

Anyway, where do you get the time to post so much? Very busy aren’t we?

Regards

Mark
JD
Jeff_Darken
Nov 4, 2003
Scott,

It is quite simple. I have never ‘even absentmindedly’ broken the license. But one day, it may happen to me, that I will have to ask Adobe to use the software. They might say no. And then I will know that Adobe has stolen my cash. Adobe are the judge and jury. If the system breaks down it does so in Adobe’s favour.

That is what it is all about Scott. It’s a basic unfairness.

Jeff
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
To me like Ive said before is like going to the bank and having the guard put a gun to your head just in case you are thinking of robbing the bank. And hat even doent start to explain what activation is.

If mark and stuart dont mind that hey more power to them.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 4, 2003
From #771:

I’m beginning to see a trend here. Many designers on the forum see no problem with activation. It’s the geeks who’ve likely dropped by from /. who are stirring up trouble.

I wrote a response, point by point, thinking how silly each statement was. I realized, though, that my rebuttal might add credence to just about the silliest post in this whole thread–he even squashed his own hypothesis in #774. He’s not even trying anymore. Please don’t answer this post; it’d be silly, anyway.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 4, 2003
Edit: Before you ask, of course, I’ll make assumptions about a crazed lunatic running at me with a stick.

Well, I think I’ll go along with you on that. 🙂

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 4, 2003
"The unexpected WILL happen".

Same could be said about installing an updated video driver.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 4, 2003
With most "normal" programs, I can uninstall them and use Norton to get rid of the remnants.

So you have a problem with a two second activation but no probem with installing Norton? With the exception of anti-virus that software is absolute poison.

Bob
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 4, 2003
Nagash,

Simple solution. Don’t buy it.

I bought it, I installed it, I activated. I’m using it.

Bob
N
nagash2
Nov 4, 2003
Good for you Bob. I wish I could but I just cant yet.

Not until I get all my answers from Adobe.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 4, 2003
Well, Scott makes a terribly convincing argument. The most notable of which is, basically, "I’m not willing to put naked work out there". I abhor activation, but I buy the argument. Games like The Sims have been doing this for some time, and the public buys the argument of protecting IP – even though The Sims uses an easily crackable technology, it’s more obscure for the target market.

However…

I haven’t heard one cogent argument about why activation is "bad".

Fundamentally, my issue surrounds this single issue, which has been brought up by others:

At the end of the day, sometimes, some users will have to get Adobe’s permission to use the product.

To say that this concept isn’t cogent is simply, well, not accurate.

Some people say "what’re ya worried about? If you’re using the product according to the terms of the license, you should have no problems". Operative word = "should".

You put activation in, and then when the rules logic is unable to make a decision, it drives the user to a customer service rep. Therein is the potential for problems. Once your customer service rep says that the user must buy another seat, there is no recourse for the user.

Every company, I don’t care who you are, are going to say "Our customer service people are well trained." Hello? McFly… are you listening to yourself? You cannot tell me that a 25K/year hourly customer service rep is going to be able to ferret out apple butter from BS when they can’t even answer standard questions correctly with 100% accuracy.

The argument that "it shouldn’t happen much" is shameful. To say "It will not happen at all" is naïve.

The EULA is a legal document that is broad in scope. My attorney and your attorney can probably say, with a reasonable amount of certainty, what means what, when it comes to conditions that are not explicitly stated in the EULA – but your customer service people cannot. My attorney has told me time and time again, that if you want your document to be as "iron clad" as possible, spell out every condition. Adobe’s EULA does not do this, thus there are areas left to interpretation and legal opinion.

The fact that, in some conditions, activation drives the legal decision, based on interpretation, to grant a user the rights to continue to use a license that they have paid to use, to a customer service rep, IS the problem with activation.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 4, 2003
Not until I get all my answers from Adobe.

You’ve gotten them all. You just don’t seem to like them.

So here it is for you.

Activation is here. Deal with it.

As long as you don’t change harddrives or computers every month you will never have to call Adobe.

If the software is ever discontinued Adobe will release info on how to disable the activation.

What else do you need to know?

Bob
PS
Phil_Scarsbrook
Nov 4, 2003
I began reading this thread with amusement, then it turned to boredom, and now its back to amusement again. I have installed and activated the standard suite on my workstation and my laptop. The operation was flawless, no problems what so ever. I have also installed and activated Photoshop CS on a second workstation. Again, no hassle, no problem. I too was concerned about problems installing and activating, but I am very pleased with the lack of hassle actually involved. I just ordered two more seats of Photoshop CS from Adobe today. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be concerned.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 4, 2003
"…there is no recourse for the user."

Sure there is, it’s called small claims court. If you are in the right then using this court will likely get your license reactivated or another full license of the product since it would cost Adobe more to send their representative then it would to give you a new license.
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Nov 4, 2003
Scott Byer – 12:10pm Nov 4, 2003 Pacific (#772 of 790)

Losses from piracy are very tangible. We end up with smaller development teams and can do fewer features.

Scott,

Thanks for being one of the few Adobe spokepersons to treat your customers with basic respect.

Concerning the point above; Adobe publish profits of some meaningless number of hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter. The current size of your development team is being constrained by your management, not by your customers.
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 5, 2003
Carol how do you equate those examples with activation??<

I didn’t, it was you who did.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 5, 2003
No its not, it’s like going to the bank and seeing armed guards there with the intention of protecting *your* money.

Carol,

You do realize you’re getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, don’t you?

Bob
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 5, 2003
Its like going to the bank and getting a gun to your head while
waiting to make deposit (Just in case im not honest). Bank is just looking out for thier cash.<

No its not, it’s like going to the bank and seeing armed guards there with the intention of protecting *your* money.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
You do realize you’re getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, don’t you?

Hey! I’m standing right here! I tell ya…
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 5, 2003
Once your customer service rep says that the user must buy another
seat, there is no recourse for the user<

Where have you seen this written down in the EULA or the FAQ (or anywhere on the Adobe site). If you have a valid reason why you think the person on the activation desk is not giving you a fair crack of the whip, then escalate it to the next level of management.


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Nov 5, 2003
If I can in truth remove ALL activation code if the software is uninstalled, then it is at least border-line acceptable. And by that I mean every bit or byte that the installing program and activation placed anywhere on my hard drive.

I have never had any problem with the Norton utilities. I do miss their old disk editor though.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 5, 2003
then escalate it to the next level of management.

And for the record, Carol, exactly how does one do that?
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 5, 2003
"And for the record, Carol, exactly how does one do that?"

I’d start with something like:

"May I speak to your boss please?"
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 5, 2003
"May I speak to your boss please?"

Sir, I am the supervisor, and there’s nothing really more that we can do for you.
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 5, 2003
Yeah, but them’s the only fights I can win Bob 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 5, 2003
In that case you take his or her name down and the exact words which he/she said to you – you then write to Adobe with your complaint stating the valid reasons why they should activate saying that if you do not here back from them by return, you will go to the Small Claims Arbitration Court and sue for damages as well as the return of your activation code.

Provided you are within the terms and conditions of the EULA, you would win the case and make enough money to retire on 😉

However, in all honesty, I suspect that unless there were clear signs that you had breached the EULA, I would think that the Activation team have been instructed to deal fairly co-operatively with people. —

Carol
(Posted from the UK)
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 5, 2003
Tony,

What Carol said, except for the retiring part. Unfortunately you can’t typically get more than $5000 in Small Claims Court but the upside is lawyers aren’t typically allowed in this court (you represent yourself – check what your state allows/disallows) and it’s enough of a bother for corporations to simply settle instead.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
But when we started all of this, all we wanted to do was make pictures. It seems like priorities aren’t exactly what they taught in either art or geek school, and certainly not what we expected when we signed-on.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 5, 2003
Funny r_harvey, one can still "make pictures" with Photoshop CS. Hmmm…perhaps they have the special "make pictures edition". Let me ask…nope, nothing special. It seems you just need to click OK to activate the application and you can "make pictures" all day long. I guess this makes you wrong about yet one more thing here, huh?
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
I guess this makes you wrong about yet one more thing here, huh?

Nothin’ so far. Silly.

The point was, and remains, that fine print, honesty police, and litigation, were not why people picked up the brush or camera.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 5, 2003
Carol,

Good points. Just out of curiosity though, to whom would one write? How do you know that a secretary doesn’t screen the notes and go "ah, nuther ‘nut case’" and file it in the circular file?

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t an argument for or against activation, rather, something I’ve wondered about seperately.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
Be sure to begin your letter with "I am not a crackpot!" (9F16 <http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F16.html>).
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 5, 2003
Well, some are going to think I’ve sold out. I haven’t, but my post in the Creative Suite forum (below) summarizes why I may be re-thinking my position on activation.

YrbkMgr "CS product activation" 11/4/03 10:13pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/17>
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
Tony,

Focus on the message, not the messenger. Examine the words for their merit; then again, for the writer’s motivation, without vacillating with each well-phrased argument.

Some posters are doing their job, defending oracular decisions that were made in isolated, donut-filled rooms. The priority is stock price–they are stockholders.

I like the term "naked bits," it succinctly expresses the tragic vulnerability. I, very seriously, would have no problem with hiring bounty hunters. Still, the stopgap effort of Deactivation, to keep honest people honest, is insulting, alienating, misguided, ineffectual, and lazy. There are better ways.

One reason Photoshop is a high-percentage of bandwidth for file sharing sites is that it’s quite large–an awful lot of smaller applications are being downloaded. Copy protection hasn’t affected other downloads. Windows XP is not a more popular download than Photoshop because it is already installed on 95% of computers–but licensed copies are frequently replaced with cracks.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 5, 2003
No, I hear ya harv. There are two issues: activation as a mechanism to do something good, and how activation affects me personally.

The "me personally" part is what that link was all about. I’m not so easily swayed by marketing hype – hell I’ve helped create some of what you see today (which is why I don’t believe there are large organizations that can push a vision down to the customer service level). But the real point is, for me personally, I have found a way to live with it.

From the standpoint of "principle", activation is about as effective as pi$$ing on a spark plug.

But know what? I ask myself this question (and have asked it since day one): What if, just supposing, they can execute this thing well? There certainly seems to be plenty of movitation for them to do so.

What did we get from Redmond? Wank off. What happened at Intuit – too bad (although their faux pas was open for the entire public to see including wall street).

What are we getting from Adobe? It certainly isn’t the cold shoulder.

So let me continue the point… what IF they did get it right by implementing a benign mechanism that did not impede legitimate uses of the product, while protecting their intellectual property? Would we care then?

If the answer is "no", then I say that we have seen the appropriate posturing, and very little "wank off" (none of that actually). I have to believe that if they can execute, then there shouldn’t be an objection. My objections have, at their root, been about execution.

If the answer is "yes, we still care", then it becomes more of a discussion of politics and religion. It’s about what’s right and what’s not. IMO, Adobe has already made that decision.

Does activation screw up my workflow? At first I thought so, but it doesn’t appear that it will. If I can activate and DEactivate without getting Adobe’s blessing, then I have only to modify my workflow.

Does activation change the EULA? Without a Deactivtion scheme, it changes the EULA to a machine license, which is not what we pay for. But if there IS a deactivation mechanism, then the EULA is preserved.

Now what happened at symantec is laughable. Their activation screws up, then they ask users to log on to a web site that analyzes their machines so they can find the problem – there’s someone who’s had a bit too much coffee (with Jack Daniels in it). But what was the issue? Execution.

So at the end of the day, I’m coming to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, they’ll get it right. But know what? If they don’t get it right, they’ll pull it while they continue to search for the holy grail.

<shrug>
CS
Carol_Steele
Nov 5, 2003
Tony,

As I said, you ask for an immediate response and failing that you take it to the Small Claims Court – but you are really painting some silly situations here, I don’t believe for one minute that it would have gone anywhere near this far.

These situations are getting about as far fetched as saying what would happen if Bin Laden wiped out the whole of Adobe – how would I get my activation.

At some point in time you will have to drop the paranoia and start to have a little more trust. Honestly, they are not all out there to get you 🙂


Carol
(Posted from the UK)
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Trust of a large corporate Identity???? Ok…
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Great article on eweek about activation.

Now What he propeses I would do.

Anyway I always register my software.

Activation Aggravation
By John Taschek
May 26, 2003
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1239206,00.asp>
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Yet another Article against activation from eweek. I got to read this mag more I like thier thinking

Down With Activation
By Jim Rapoza
October 27, 2003
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1366292,00.asp>

LOVE this qoute!

"no company should be rewarded for treating its customers like criminals. "
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
BTW can Adobe in written legal form guarantee me that they will provide a way to remove activation if they discontinue PC CS or any other product that has activation?
DM
dave_milbut
Nov 5, 2003
I just upgraded to PSCS (standalone. I couldn’t justify the cost of the suite, might still get Ill though.). Yea for me! Should take a week to 10 days (amazon free shipping) to get to me! Whoopie! 🙂

<doing the dance of new software joy>

dave
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
MS will announce on Wednesday that it will offer two $250,000 bounties for information that leads to the arrest of the people who released the MSBlast worm and the SoBig virus…

– Microsoft to offer bounty on hackers <http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-5102110.html?tag=nefd_top>

A bounty on thieves might be useful.
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
hey whom ever steals software should be fined and put in jail.

I dont have anything against that.
Y
YrbkMgr
Nov 5, 2003
Carol,

At some point in time you will have to drop the paranoia and start to have a little more trust. Honestly, they are not all out there to get you.

Is that what you concluded from my post #811? It certainly isn’t the message I tried to convey. <shrug>
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Another view of Activation. Thru a marketers eyes.

Not the right one but it sure is one part of it.

Activation aggravation

By Alex Kidman, ZDNet Australia
10 September 2003
< https://secure.zdnet.com.au/itmanager/trends/story/0,2000029 592,20278422,00.htm>
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Hey Carol Read on some of the Software trends on these corporation you want to trust so much:

<http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030909/95301_1.html>

Some Highlights Qouted

"
Panel discussions on the future of software pricing, on-demand computing, utility computing and software as a service with participating executives from Sun, Salesforce.com, and other leading companies
"

To download the full conference brochure, visit www.softsummit.com/ssbroch.pdf.

Notice this part: on-demand computing, utility computing and software as a service

Now Those are NOT my voices in my head.
RM
Rob_Miller
Nov 5, 2003
I can’t believe this thread is still going. I wish it would just die and go away. It seems like the only person left on it who is still emotional (and perhaps a little paranoid) is nagash2. Can we just let this die. If you have activation so much, buy some other product and move along.

wrote in message
Hey Carol Read on some of the Software trends on these corporation you
want to trust so much:
<http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030909/95301_1.html>

Some Highlights Qouted

"
Panel discussions on the future of software pricing, on-demand computing,
utility computing and software as a service with participating executives from Sun, Salesforce.com, and other leading companies
"

To download the full conference brochure, visit
www.softsummit.com/ssbroch.pdf.
Notice this part: on-demand computing, utility computing and software as a
service
Now Those are NOT my voices in my head.
RL
Robert_Levine
Nov 5, 2003
If you have activation so much, buy some other product and move along.

Won’t be long before nagash3 comes along. 😉

Bob
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
I guess you all wont mind when you have to signup per month to use PS.

Activation is just the first step and Bob Carol and other have accepted it.

I wont accept it and I will not let it die.

Sorry bob Carol Rob…..
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
Can we just let this die.

Freedom of speech–especially in a forum owned by one benevolent party in the debate–is a nice thing.

If you [hate] activation so much, buy some other product and move along.

It’s an option, as is upgrading less frequently.
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Heres some more on my voices from my head

Electronic Licensing – The Key to the Future
<http://www.softsummit.com/IDC%20SteveMcHale.pdf>

I would really urge the pro activation people to read this.
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Thanks r_harvey
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
nagash2,

The loudest argument, and truly the only one that matters, is how good results look for the next quarter. We’ve repeated the arguments time and again; the other side responds in kind. You can’t expect an Epiphany, and suddenly everyone will agree.

Follow your principles; perhaps share anecdotes and evidence. Then wait for sales reports.
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
I will. thats why im posting links to my inner voices now.
BC
Bob_Chase
Nov 5, 2003
First, let’s get one thing straight. As indicated by Adobe, Activation policy is *not* primarily aimed at the large-scale pirates, who will likely overcome Activation easily, but is aimed squarely at the licensed user who may casually try to copy the software to one too many machines in order to accommodate usage at different locations, portability, or whatever. Force him to buy another "seat", or go elsewhere. We’ll see in time what the true impact is here. But, IMHO, that is not really as important as the following:

What primarily bothers me about the Activation scheme is its unknown impact on my system caused by implementation procedures that presumably extend outside the normal boundaries of the Operating System APIs and/or File-System. Yes, Adobe and fellow users can tell me how painless it is, that "they’ve *finally* got it right", and that I’m paranoid or whatever, but the bottom line is that I don’t really know just how PS CS Activation is implemented, or how it’ll impact and interact with my *particular* setup. Most of what I currently do "know" is related to historical PC "copy-protection" (CP) schemes of the 80’s; mostly driven out of the industry by customer choice. Choices that were based on the adverse impact of CP schemes on the care, maintenance, workflow & use of PCs. Much of which was unanticipated by the Vendors at the time of CP implementation, however well intentioned or theoretically painless. Most of which, in the long run, merely sent customers running to the competitors that didn’t feature CP. Memories of naturally adversarial relationships with CP-implementing-Vendors, justifiable or not.

Will this scheme adversely affect my system performance, or interact adversely with other applications? (especially those that also implement Activation technology by working outside the OS API?) Will it adversely impact my system even while I’m not running PS? It’ll take time to see just how we’ll actually be inconvenienced in "legitimate" usage of our licences. PCs are not as standard as Macs. Right off the bat, there are orders of magnitude more hardware combinations and variables, making "successful testing" extremely difficult. And almost impossible when you start stepping outside the boundaries of the standard OS APIs, such as maybe using low-level operations on users’ hard disks, stepping "outside" the file system. Especially while relying on 3rd Party CP technology and trying to ensure that it interacts properly all around. Here, you’re again likely to take us back to the aggravation of the 80’s CP schemes. This stuff currently makes me too nervous to install the new software. No matter how well intentioned a company is to "execute" their CP scheme, when it’s likely working outside the intended system boundaries, it concerns me. And what happens when the OS du jour changes to XP\64bit – or whatever? Will our old PS CS require an upgrade to a new version just because the Activation scheme didn’t follow API standards and no longer properly functions? Oh yeah, Win2k & XP only, now I remember.

One thing of which I’m convinced – serious users *will* experience hard drive replacements, either due to hardware failure or due to rapid availability of much faster and higher capacity upgrade potential. If all our software eventually requires Activation, no matter how well implemented, this will soon become a yet another blight encountered by users during an already painful process. We may just skip the major benefits of hard-drive upgrades if this becomes too painful. I really hope you developers appreciate what you ***collectively*** will be asking of us. I hope that Adobe, and other software vendors, can find alternative approaches to CP than effectively turning our PCs into big hard-to-port dongles directly tied to our hard drives.

Personally, will I upgrade to PS CS? Probably, in time. I was excited about a few new features added with CS that might help my workflow. But that excitement immediately turned to disappointment when I learned of the Activation requirement. Due to my historical experiences with CP schemes, and dread that industry history of failure-prone CP schemes seems to be repeating, my sense of ownership and passion for Adobe products has now dropped significantly. And rather than jumping right in as I normally would, I’ll wait a *very* long time to see that things such as multi-boot setups and other less common configurations aren’t adversely impacted by Activation’s implementation approach. This need for additional research on user Activation experiences is, by itself, a notable inconvenience. Finally, I’ll factor in Activation to my reassessment of whether there is significant enough competition to PS v7 to warrant a jump to CS (or elsewhere.) And this may be the *only* Activation-based software I install for an even longer time, since each additional Activation-based application presents more likelihood of maintenance related headaches.

Regarding Adobe’s other products, I’ll no longer be automatically upgrading the apps which I only occasionally use, such as InDesign or GoLive. Normally, I’d take the hit just to have the latest, but between the Activation issue and the new, much higher upgrade pricing on lesser products, I’ll just pass until I have a major project that really requires something specific to the new versions. But that’s just me?
N
nagash2
Nov 5, 2003
Bob Thanks for the best look into activation yet posted here.

Im glad im not the only one here that thinks that. I just cant put it so elocuent and explain myself so fully as you have.

And I cant spell.
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Nov 5, 2003
"I just cant put it so elocuent and explain myself so fully as you have.

And I cant spell."

No kidding. How enlightening. About as enlightening as the rest of your posts.

Carol, please, please, please, please, please kill this thread. Scott has done an excellent job of explaining Adobe’s stance on activation and anyone can come in here and read the remarks to their hearts content but it serves nothing to leave this thread open to further discussion.
RH
r_harvey
Nov 5, 2003
You might want to consider changing to another channel. I’m sure there’s something else on.
JD
Jeff_Darken
Nov 5, 2003
Don’t kill the thread, there are lots of previous posters still reading it.

I must admit I was not very happy with Mr ‘Scott’ Adobes comments. I found them very arrogant, typical of big company attitude.

If he wants go after people who steal Adobe software invest some money and go after them. Somebody here said that Adobe knows where most illegal copying originates from the product registration numbers.

Don’t encumber honest users – we aint done nothin.

Jeff
SB
Scott_Byer
Nov 5, 2003
Actually, by the shareholders, since it’s the shareholders that complain loudly (by selling) when certain productivity measurements slip in the wrong direction. On the other hand, mature products on certain levels of growth can afford certain levels of investment / team size. Piracy does flatten that growth.

-Scott

wrote in message
Concerning the point above; Adobe publish profits of some meaningless
number of hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter. The current size of your development team is being constrained by your management, not by your customers.
PH
Photo_Help
Nov 5, 2003
Scott(Post #772),
<