7 ms·

They've also pulled off an incredibly hostile move for paid users of older Lightrooms - they're refusing to update it for 64bit-only OS X. The app itself is 64b

They've also pulled off an incredibly hostile move for paid users of older Lightrooms - they're refusing to update it for 64bit-only OS X. The app itself is 64bit (in fact, the app itself is _only_ 64bit), but its licensing/installer components are not. So if you update OS X, it's not guaranteed that Lightroom (that you paid for) will run, or if it does, how long it will continue running for. This isn't some ancient software, this is the 2015 version of Lightroom. This is 100% intentional to drive users to subscriptions.

testfoobar 6y ago
This is why my main media computer is still Mojave.
flandry93 6y ago
Regardless of the apology, Adobe should not be allowed to simply dismiss that they deleted user files. In effect, due to Adobe negligence, they have destroyed user intellectual property. A signal and example needs to be made. Individual users can sue for damages -- lost value and opportunity -- illegal destruction of property. The computer fraud and abuse act could also be applied for criminal charges -- Adobe misused and misappropriated their access to customer data and systems. Arguing that it was a "mistake" and "we are sorry" does not correct the damage done. If Adobe makes such a fuss over protecting their IP, then they should not be surprised when their customers do so also. There is a potential for a class action here as well. And Adobe is very profitable -- some legal team representing this case, even if pro bono, will be/become quite rich. Moreover, telling people that they should have X, and Y, and Z, to protect themselves from the mistakes of rogue actors/apps, is simply a displacement of responsibility tactic. Just because something illegal/damaging was "done with a computer" does not mean it was "ok" and "an apology is enough" -- now pay us for our services you miserable worm/user!
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. And honestly, it's good this way. If you want to secure your photos, make backups yourself or sign a contract with some company that will guarantee something. But once they are liable and can be sued, the service will be astronomically expensive.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. Those disclaimers often have far less legal effect than the text would suggest, because jurisdictions often limit the effect of warranty disclaimers by sellers, and also because of product liability laws which are distinct from warranty protection (though similar to the lay understanding of warranty protection.)
  - flandry93 6y ago
    In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
  - flandry93 6y ago
    In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
- Animats 6y ago
  This happened on the user's phone. The issue is at what point negligent authorized access becomes unauthorized access. "Exceeds authorized access" is a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A contract cannot override criminal law. This is really complicated, see [1]. An EULA, though, might not be enough to get Adobe out of this. Especially if a third party, not a party to the EULA, owned the photo. If, for example, a news photographer for a newspaper had a photo lost, and the photographer, but not the employer, had agreed to the EULA, the newspaper might sue. This is an important point. If a third party who is not bound by the EULA suffers damages, they can sue for negligence. The EULA binds only those who have agreed to it. [1] https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-mean-and-why-should-i-care-a-primer-on-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-civil-litigators/#_Toc303337990 https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-me...
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    A difficulty that has been pointed out on other forums is that after an unexpected delete bug that caused permanent data loss, during any subsequent legal action you may have no evidence to demonstrate what you have lost. If you do have a backup available from elsewhere to demonstrate the damage that was done to your device, you have also demonstrably limited that damage to a small inconvenience in having to restore the backup. I support the principle that having permission to install updates should not grant carte blanche to have those updates do anything no matter how harmful, and indeed I would be in favour of much stronger regulation of technology in this area. However, I'm not sure how much that would help if there isn't some mechanism for regulators to assess statutory/punitive damages in some form. Even then, there's no way for a regulator to fairly allocate any financial compensation available to users who were, or claim to have been, affected. We're effectively trying to create a deterrent rather than trying to compensate for actual losses here, and with something like lost personal work, you can never make good the damage just with money anyway.
    - petre 6y ago
      What if you have timestamped file metadata l, but not tge data, or checksumed IDS records? Would that qualify as sufficient evidence?
ipqk 6y ago
I bought a copy of Photoshop Elements 2019 two months before Catalina came out. Guess what no longer works on Catalina? Adobe knew full well it wasn't going to work, but still continued to sell it, and didn't bother to update it.
clumsysmurf 6y ago
Its worse than that (from 2019) "Adobe this week began sending some users of its Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director programs a letter warning them that they were no longer legally authorized to use the software they may have thought they owned." https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-they-can-get-sued-for-using-old-versions-of-photoshop https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-...
- adrr 6y ago
  They don’t really explain it. Did users buy a standalone version of these software and adobe now claims they can’t legally use something they bought?
  - whereistimbo 6y ago
    Probably it's something in EULA that Adobe grant user licence to use the software that might be revocable under certain permission like this one.
    - whereistimbo 6y ago
      http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055904/https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIc1-wxSJgpNoJkkukIFnR2w7DeBktDTI&disable_polymer=1 http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055904/https://www.youtub... http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055750/https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIc1-wxSJgpNqpxNxSjs7dYXTVMOn9quR&disable_polymer=1 http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055750/https://www.youtub...
      - whereistimbo 6y ago
        https://archive.vn/8BVpc https://archive.vn/8BVpc
      - whereistimbo 6y ago
        http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518/https://cdn.website-editor.net/749ffac5dc394e8c811205a3fd72ff17/files/uploaded/Asana%2520Pranayama%2520Mudra%2520Banda.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518/https://cdn.websit...
tustlem 6y ago
Same happened with Adobe Premiere. I've been a Premiere user for the last 12 years but that change lost me. I've moved to Final Cut Pro because of it.
mortenjorck 6y ago
There's also no way to download Lightroom 6 from Adobe anymore, so unless you saved the installer, you'd be out of luck on a new Mac even if Adobe had updated the licensing system for 64bit. There are some tech companies I don't have a particularly positive view of and try to avoid, such as Facebook. Only Adobe, however, do I consider such an execrable blight on the industry that I have a firm, no-exceptions, "never again" policy.
- davidjade 6y ago
  FYI, I thought this was not possible either but if you bought it from Adobe you can log into your account, see your past purchases, and download the v6 installer. I just did this like a week ago when I realized I lost my v6 installer. But you're right in a sense in that unless you have it on your Adobe account history, the installer is no where to be found anywhere else like it used to be.
jarym 6y ago
Piracy exists to keep corporations honest.
- Shared404 6y ago
  While that's a tempting view, in the case of Adobe piracy exists to drive adoption. Most of the time, piracy is used because it's just more convenient then properly paying [0]. Those who still pirate, despite there existing a more convenient option to pay usually can't afford it, and will pay when they can. In the meantime, the name of your program becomes a verb and an industry standard, and everyone has to deal with it. [0] https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/25/gabe-says-piracy-isnt-about-price https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/25/gabe-says-piracy-isn...
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Payments in fiat are very user-hostile though, and very few vendors can afford cryptocurrency.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > Payments in fiat are very user-hostile though Not for Joe McConsumer, at least from a usability/convenience perspective.
Nexxxeh 6y ago
Out of curiosity, what extent (if any) do you hold Apple responsible for the situation? As an example, Big Sur will drop support for Mac Minis from before the Haswell 2014 models. If Apple don't care about customers with purchases that are more than 6 years old, is it fair to expect Adobe to? (That's ignoring Catalina's estimated support date likely to be 2022, as that's presumably not the sort of macOS update to which you refer.)

testfoobar 6y ago

This is why my main media computer is still Mojave.

flandry93 6y ago

Regardless of the apology, Adobe should not be allowed to simply dismiss that they deleted user files. In effect, due to Adobe negligence, they have destroyed user intellectual property. A signal and example needs to be made. Individual users can sue for damages -- lost value and opportunity -- illegal destruction of property. The computer fraud and abuse act could also be applied for criminal charges -- Adobe misused and misappropriated their access to customer data and systems. Arguing that it was a "mistake" and "we are sorry" does not correct the damage done. If Adobe makes such a fuss over protecting their IP, then they should not be surprised when their customers do so also. There is a potential for a class action here as well. And Adobe is very profitable -- some legal team representing this case, even if pro bono, will be/become quite rich. Moreover, telling people that they should have X, and Y, and Z, to protect themselves from the mistakes of rogue actors/apps, is simply a displacement of responsibility tactic. Just because something illegal/damaging was "done with a computer" does not mean it was "ok" and "an apology is enough" -- now pay us for our services you miserable worm/user!

bonoboTP 6y ago
Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. And honestly, it's good this way. If you want to secure your photos, make backups yourself or sign a contract with some company that will guarantee something. But once they are liable and can be sued, the service will be astronomically expensive.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. Those disclaimers often have far less legal effect than the text would suggest, because jurisdictions often limit the effect of warranty disclaimers by sellers, and also because of product liability laws which are distinct from warranty protection (though similar to the lay understanding of warranty protection.)
- flandry93 6y ago
  In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
- flandry93 6y ago
  In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
Animats 6y ago
This happened on the user's phone. The issue is at what point negligent authorized access becomes unauthorized access. "Exceeds authorized access" is a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A contract cannot override criminal law. This is really complicated, see [1]. An EULA, though, might not be enough to get Adobe out of this. Especially if a third party, not a party to the EULA, owned the photo. If, for example, a news photographer for a newspaper had a photo lost, and the photographer, but not the employer, had agreed to the EULA, the newspaper might sue. This is an important point. If a third party who is not bound by the EULA suffers damages, they can sue for negligence. The EULA binds only those who have agreed to it. [1] https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-mean-and-why-should-i-care-a-primer-on-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-civil-litigators/#_Toc303337990 https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-me...
- Silhouette 6y ago
  A difficulty that has been pointed out on other forums is that after an unexpected delete bug that caused permanent data loss, during any subsequent legal action you may have no evidence to demonstrate what you have lost. If you do have a backup available from elsewhere to demonstrate the damage that was done to your device, you have also demonstrably limited that damage to a small inconvenience in having to restore the backup. I support the principle that having permission to install updates should not grant carte blanche to have those updates do anything no matter how harmful, and indeed I would be in favour of much stronger regulation of technology in this area. However, I'm not sure how much that would help if there isn't some mechanism for regulators to assess statutory/punitive damages in some form. Even then, there's no way for a regulator to fairly allocate any financial compensation available to users who were, or claim to have been, affected. We're effectively trying to create a deterrent rather than trying to compensate for actual losses here, and with something like lost personal work, you can never make good the damage just with money anyway.
  - petre 6y ago
    What if you have timestamped file metadata l, but not tge data, or checksumed IDS records? Would that qualify as sufficient evidence?

ipqk 6y ago

I bought a copy of Photoshop Elements 2019 two months before Catalina came out. Guess what no longer works on Catalina? Adobe knew full well it wasn't going to work, but still continued to sell it, and didn't bother to update it.

clumsysmurf 6y ago

Its worse than that (from 2019) "Adobe this week began sending some users of its Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director programs a letter warning them that they were no longer legally authorized to use the software they may have thought they owned." https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-they-can-get-sued-for-using-old-versions-of-photoshop https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-...

adrr 6y ago
They don’t really explain it. Did users buy a standalone version of these software and adobe now claims they can’t legally use something they bought?
- whereistimbo 6y ago
  Probably it's something in EULA that Adobe grant user licence to use the software that might be revocable under certain permission like this one.
  - whereistimbo 6y ago
    http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055904/https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIc1-wxSJgpNoJkkukIFnR2w7DeBktDTI&disable_polymer=1 http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055904/https://www.youtub... http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055750/https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIc1-wxSJgpNqpxNxSjs7dYXTVMOn9quR&disable_polymer=1 http://web.archive.org/web/20200823055750/https://www.youtub...
    - whereistimbo 6y ago
      https://archive.vn/8BVpc https://archive.vn/8BVpc
    - whereistimbo 6y ago
      http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518/https://cdn.website-editor.net/749ffac5dc394e8c811205a3fd72ff17/files/uploaded/Asana%2520Pranayama%2520Mudra%2520Banda.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518/https://cdn.websit...

tustlem 6y ago

Same happened with Adobe Premiere. I've been a Premiere user for the last 12 years but that change lost me. I've moved to Final Cut Pro because of it.

mortenjorck 6y ago

There's also no way to download Lightroom 6 from Adobe anymore, so unless you saved the installer, you'd be out of luck on a new Mac even if Adobe had updated the licensing system for 64bit. There are some tech companies I don't have a particularly positive view of and try to avoid, such as Facebook. Only Adobe, however, do I consider such an execrable blight on the industry that I have a firm, no-exceptions, "never again" policy.

davidjade 6y ago
FYI, I thought this was not possible either but if you bought it from Adobe you can log into your account, see your past purchases, and download the v6 installer. I just did this like a week ago when I realized I lost my v6 installer. But you're right in a sense in that unless you have it on your Adobe account history, the installer is no where to be found anywhere else like it used to be.

jarym 6y ago

Piracy exists to keep corporations honest.

Shared404 6y ago
While that's a tempting view, in the case of Adobe piracy exists to drive adoption. Most of the time, piracy is used because it's just more convenient then properly paying [0]. Those who still pirate, despite there existing a more convenient option to pay usually can't afford it, and will pay when they can. In the meantime, the name of your program becomes a verb and an industry standard, and everyone has to deal with it. [0] https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/25/gabe-says-piracy-isnt-about-price https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/25/gabe-says-piracy-isn...
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Payments in fiat are very user-hostile though, and very few vendors can afford cryptocurrency.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > Payments in fiat are very user-hostile though Not for Joe McConsumer, at least from a usability/convenience perspective.

Nexxxeh 6y ago

Out of curiosity, what extent (if any) do you hold Apple responsible for the situation? As an example, Big Sur will drop support for Mac Minis from before the Haswell 2014 models. If Apple don't care about customers with purchases that are more than 6 years old, is it fair to expect Adobe to? (That's ignoring Catalina's estimated support date likely to be 2022, as that's presumably not the sort of macOS update to which you refer.)