5 ms·

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

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...
      - whereistimbo 6y ago
        http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518if_/https://cdn.website-editor.net/749ffac5dc394e8c811205a3fd72ff17/files/uploaded/Asana%2520Pranayama%2520Mudra%2520Banda.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518if_/https://cdn.web...
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Part of your Creative Cloud license is insurance/indemnification against third-party infringement claims. That is, if Adobe were to pirate someone else's software, and then that person decided to sue you for copyright infringement, Adobe would defend you. What happened is that Adobe pirated someone else's software - specifically, Dolby's. They slathered surround-sound support into all their apps, but used very questionable accounting methods to avoid paying for all that licensing. For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation. Creative Cloud used to have a feature where you could install old versions of their software, all the way back to CS6. Of course, if Dolby's lawsuit worked out, each version you installed could count as a separate license violation. Hence, they took away that very generous old version support and said you only get the latest version and last year's version. As one of the developers for Ruffle, this absolutely sucks, because there is no Adobe-sanctioned way to generate test Flash movies with ActionScript 2 code anymore. That support was removed when they released the first Creative Cloud version of Flash, which is already many years old and also not provided by Adobe anymore.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation. I wouldn't say 'blatant'. That seems like a reasonable tactic in a vacuum. I guess they could have made it a separate download and install when you click that menu option, but the end result would be the same.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      If it's a free download it still might not fly. I suspect they would have to charge a reasonable fee for providing the specific functionality in order for that approach to work (otherwise the only "sale" was that of the original software).
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
dylan604 6y ago
I don't know why this is such a shock to people reading HN. EULAs have always granted a license to use typically on a single computer. They have never granted a license to own (would gladly be proven wrong if someone has an example). It's not your code. You can't own it. I'm sure they are concerned about having to support the legacy code. Yes, converting to 100% subscription based users, but if they can pull the plug on any responsibility to support old code, that would be ideal for them.
- marta_morena_25 6y ago
  Would it? Great. Let's just all applaud, justify and support what is best for all corporations and see where we get with that, nay?
- tedivm 6y ago
  No one is shocked by bad behavior, but just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion.

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...
    - whereistimbo 6y ago
      http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518if_/https://cdn.website-editor.net/749ffac5dc394e8c811205a3fd72ff17/files/uploaded/Asana%2520Pranayama%2520Mudra%2520Banda.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20200825074518if_/https://cdn.web...
kmeisthax 6y ago
Part of your Creative Cloud license is insurance/indemnification against third-party infringement claims. That is, if Adobe were to pirate someone else's software, and then that person decided to sue you for copyright infringement, Adobe would defend you. What happened is that Adobe pirated someone else's software - specifically, Dolby's. They slathered surround-sound support into all their apps, but used very questionable accounting methods to avoid paying for all that licensing. For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation. Creative Cloud used to have a feature where you could install old versions of their software, all the way back to CS6. Of course, if Dolby's lawsuit worked out, each version you installed could count as a separate license violation. Hence, they took away that very generous old version support and said you only get the latest version and last year's version. As one of the developers for Ruffle, this absolutely sucks, because there is no Adobe-sanctioned way to generate test Flash movies with ActionScript 2 code anymore. That support was removed when they released the first Creative Cloud version of Flash, which is already many years old and also not provided by Adobe anymore.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation. I wouldn't say 'blatant'. That seems like a reasonable tactic in a vacuum. I guess they could have made it a separate download and install when you click that menu option, but the end result would be the same.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    If it's a free download it still might not fly. I suspect they would have to charge a reasonable fee for providing the specific functionality in order for that approach to work (otherwise the only "sale" was that of the original software).
    - Dylan16807 6y ago

dylan604 6y ago

I don't know why this is such a shock to people reading HN. EULAs have always granted a license to use typically on a single computer. They have never granted a license to own (would gladly be proven wrong if someone has an example). It's not your code. You can't own it. I'm sure they are concerned about having to support the legacy code. Yes, converting to 100% subscription based users, but if they can pull the plug on any responsibility to support old code, that would be ideal for them.

marta_morena_25 6y ago
Would it? Great. Let's just all applaud, justify and support what is best for all corporations and see where we get with that, nay?
tedivm 6y ago
No one is shocked by bad behavior, but just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion.