Legal or Pirated Photoshop

J
Posted By
JayJay
Sep 6, 2004
Views
1525
Replies
41
Status
Closed
I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously been registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at the same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software. This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

After receiving the software the installation went smoothly and I had no problem installing the update to version 7.0.1, (a friend had previously told me that you can’t update an illegal copy).

On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said the serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".

I have re contacted the seller and he is emphatic that the software is legal, I however, now have my doubts.

Apart from contacting Adobe, is there a way to tell if the software is legal or not?
If I do contact Adobe, and they state that the software is illegal, would I be forced to take the matter further with Adobe? I’m an elderly person and would prefer not to become involved with a legal procedure.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

B
bagal
Sep 6, 2004
Dieses klingt nicht an allen gut, die es eine Schande ist, Sie sovielbem
N
nomail
Sep 6, 2004
JayJay wrote:

I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously been registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at the same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software.

I’m afraid that makes it illegal. The licence should state clearly that you cannot sell used software.

This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

After receiving the software the installation went smoothly and I had no problem installing the update to version 7.0.1, (a friend had previously told me that you can’t update an illegal copy).

No, the upgrader does not work on *pirated* serial numbers. That is different from your situation. You use a serial number that was not pirated, but was (and still is) registered to the previous owner.

On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said the serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".

It’s not a valid number for the registration of your copy, because it is already registered to someone else.

I have re contacted the seller and he is emphatic that the software is legal, I however, now have my doubts.

Apart from contacting Adobe, is there a way to tell if the software is legal or not?

It’s clear that it is not.

If I do contact Adobe, and they state that the software is illegal, would I be forced to take the matter further with Adobe? I’m an elderly person and would prefer not to become involved with a legal procedure.

I guess you have to take it up with the seller and ask for your money back. He should not have sold it.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
S
Stephan
Sep 6, 2004
"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Dieses klingt nicht an allen gut, die es eine Schande ist, Sie
sovielbem
B
bagal
Sep 6, 2004
Why?

Does it bother you?

How long have you had these neuroses?

Articus

maybe there is another little whine about to mature?

A

"Stephan" schreiben in message
"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Dieses klingt nicht an allen gut, die es eine Schande ist, Sie
sovielbem
S
Spolio
Sep 6, 2004
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:02:31 +1200, JayJay
wrote:

I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously been registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at the same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software. This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

After receiving the software the installation went smoothly and I had no problem installing the update to version 7.0.1, (a friend had previously told me that you can’t update an illegal copy).
On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said the serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".
I have re contacted the seller and he is emphatic that the software is legal, I however, now have my doubts.

Apart from contacting Adobe, is there a way to tell if the software is legal or not?
If I do contact Adobe, and they state that the software is illegal, would I be forced to take the matter further with Adobe? I’m an elderly person and would prefer not to become involved with a legal procedure.

if all you are going to do is "play" around a bit using photoshop, than, what is the big deal?
now I imagine that you got it at a good price.
not that $1000.00 canadian that it goes for retail
so, us it, have fun, enjoy it, if you really really like it and are going to start your own bussiness, well than
go to your nearest retail store that carries it and
buy a fully legal vrsion, don’t take a chance with illegal copies of it, bu tuntill that point, I am sure you have other , bigger things to worry about, and if not, lets trade places. good luck

S
Stephan
Sep 6, 2004
"Articus Drools" wrote in message

Why?
They suck because whatever you wrote in your post looks like German but is not

Does it bother you?
Yes

How long have you had these neuroses?
I don’t have any.

Articus
Stephan

maybe there is another little whine about to mature?
Are you maturing, really? nice for you!

A
S

"Stephan" schreiben in message
"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Dieses klingt nicht an allen gut, die es eine Schande ist, Sie
sovielbem
J
jaSPAMc
Sep 6, 2004
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:24:06 +0200, (Johan W. Elzenga)
found these unused words floating about:

JayJay wrote:

I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously been registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at the same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software.

I’m afraid that makes it illegal. The licence should state clearly that you cannot sell used software.

Adobe’s license =clearly= says you may transfer (sell) the software, but you must remove all copies from the first owner’s machine(s)!

This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

After receiving the software the installation went smoothly and I had no problem installing the update to version 7.0.1, (a friend had previously told me that you can’t update an illegal copy).

No, the upgrader does not work on *pirated* serial numbers. That is different from your situation. You use a serial number that was not pirated, but was (and still is) registered to the previous owner.

Until re-registered IF a bill of sale can be provided to Adobe.

On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said the serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".

It’s not a valid number for the registration of your copy, because it is already registered to someone else.

See Adobe’s =real= terms, don’t make them up!

I have re contacted the seller and he is emphatic that the software is legal, I however, now have my doubts.

Apart from contacting Adobe, is there a way to tell if the software is legal or not?

It’s clear that it is not.

Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong – it is clear that the validity may still be in doubt. IF proof of transfer can be obtained for a previously registered copy, then it =is= legal.

If I do contact Adobe, and they state that the software is illegal, would I be forced to take the matter further with Adobe? I’m an elderly person and would prefer not to become involved with a legal procedure.

I guess you have to take it up with the seller and ask for your money back. He should not have sold it.

…. without the ‘required’ statement of transfer to ‘show’ Adobe.
B
bagal
Sep 6, 2004
Why does it bother you?

Does it make you feel
a) inferior
b) superior
z) unsettled
3) anxious

Answers on a postacrd please

Articus

"Stephan" wrote in message
"Articus Drools" wrote in message

Why?
They suck because whatever you wrote in your post looks like German but is not

Does it bother you?
Yes

How long have you had these neuroses?
I don’t have any.

Articus
Stephan

maybe there is another little whine about to mature?
Are you maturing, really? nice for you!

A
S

"Stephan" schreiben in message
"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Dieses klingt nicht an allen gut, die es eine Schande ist, Sie
sovielbem
B
bagal
Sep 6, 2004
Or perhaps this meets your approval and increases your levels of tolerance?

Warum st
B
bagal
Sep 6, 2004
Yes – it looks like I have gathered a stalker (whoo-pee)

I think I will take it as a compliment

Articus

"Watashee" wrote in message
It’s all Greek to me!

"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Or perhaps this meets your approval and increases your levels of
tolerance?
Warum st
T
toosano
Sep 6, 2004
It’s all Greek to me!

"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Or perhaps this meets your approval and increases your levels of
tolerance?
Warum st
DT
deco_time
Sep 6, 2004
In news:JayJay typed:
I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously been registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at the same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software. This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

For it to be legal, the buyer and seller as to fill in and sign this form:
http://www.adobe.com/support/pdfs/cstofo.pdf
Then send it to Adobe by fax or snail mail.
In the future, ask the name and serial number of the registeree of any Adobe software that’s up for auction you plan to bid on, and send to to make sure that what Adobe has on files matches what
the seller is proposing to sell. If the seller refuses, plainly and simply don’t bid. I bought Illustrator that way and the registration transfer went trough without problems.


Odysea video production
Come dive with us!
www.odysea.ca
S
Stephan
Sep 6, 2004
"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Or perhaps this meets your approval and increases your levels of
tolerance?
Warum st
B
bagal
Sep 6, 2004
If we are going to be so chatty do you mind if I call you Gollum?

Articus

"Stephan" wrote in message
"Articus Drools" wrote in message
Or perhaps this meets your approval and increases your levels of
tolerance?
Warum st
FA
Fred Athearn
Sep 7, 2004
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:14:47 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

For it to be legal, the buyer and seller as to fill in and sign this form:

That makes a lot more sense. The idea that a software company can sell a license which it expects to be treated as a real interest in intellectual property and then just say that it cannot be transferred did not sound legal to me. Restraint of trade or something like that.

But does the fact that it is already registered mean that it is not valid to use as the basis for an upgrade? I suspect that a copy like this that could be updated to 7.01 would be upgradeabe.
T
toosano
Sep 7, 2004
That sounds funny, coming from Sm
N
nomail
Sep 7, 2004

J. A. Mc. wrote:

On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said the serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".

It’s not a valid number for the registration of your copy, because it is already registered to someone else.

See Adobe’s =real= terms, don’t make them up!

Sorry, I missed the part about transferring a licence. Many companies do not have that provision, I didn’t realise Adobe does offer it. However, that is not what I’m referring to here. What I mean is that the message "not a valid number" almost certainly comes up because the number is still registered to the previous owner. As long as that is the case, you cannot register that number again. The computer checks the number, notes that it’s already registered to another person, and so it comes back with the message that it’s "not valid".

Mind you, people often try to sell older versions of software after they have bought an upgrade. That is never legal, because it means that the previous owner does NOT remove the software. He upgraded it to a newer version and removed the old one, but that does not count. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that this is also what happened to the OP.

Also please note that the OP specifically says that the seller is NOT the previous owner, and DOES NOT KNOW the previous owner. So he does not know whether the previous owner upgraded or really stopped using it, and there is no way to transfer the licence (escept if Adobe would tell him who registered this copy, but I doubt that Adobe is allowed to disclose that kind of information). How legal is it to sell the software anyway knowing that this is the case?


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
DT
deco_time
Sep 7, 2004
In news:Fred Athearn typed:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:14:47 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

For it to be legal, the buyer and seller as to fill in and sign this form:

That makes a lot more sense. The idea that a software company can sell a license which it expects to be treated as a real interest in intellectual property and then just say that it cannot be transferred did not sound legal to me. Restraint of trade or something like that.

I would say that half the software that I own clearly states in the EULA that the license is not transferable (I didn’t know when I bought them, but now I wouldn’t buy software without reading the EULA first); legal or not, I’m not a judge so I can’t say for sure, but in every case that I’ve read about where this issue was brought to court, this term of the license was deemed illegal and clearly against the most basic of consumer right. Clearly, software companies can’t be bothered with such tiny things as consumer right, exception being Adobe which has one of the most liberal EULA of the computer industry.

But does the fact that it is already registered mean that it is not valid to use as the basis for an upgrade? I suspect that a copy like this that could be updated to 7.01 would be upgradeable.

Once properly transferred, you become the licensee and as such, subject to all right and obligation that the license entitles, including upgrade.


Odysea video production
Come dive with us!
www.odysea.ca
J
jaSPAMc
Sep 7, 2004
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:09:56 +0200, (Johan W. Elzenga)
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:

On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said the serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".

It’s not a valid number for the registration of your copy, because it is already registered to someone else.

See Adobe’s =real= terms, don’t make them up!

Sorry, I missed the part about transferring a licence. Many companies do not have that provision, I didn’t realise Adobe does offer it. However, that is not what I’m referring to here. What I mean is that the message "not a valid number" almost certainly comes up because the number is still registered to the previous owner. As long as that is the case, you cannot register that number again. The computer checks the number, notes that it’s already registered to another person, and so it comes back with the message that it’s "not valid".

Mind you, people often try to sell older versions of software after they have bought an upgrade. That is never legal, because it means that the previous owner does NOT remove the software. He upgraded it to a newer version and removed the old one, but that does not count. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that this is also what happened to the OP.
Also please note that the OP specifically says that the seller is NOT the previous owner, and DOES NOT KNOW the previous owner. So he does not know whether the previous owner upgraded or really stopped using it, and there is no way to transfer the licence (escept if Adobe would tell him who registered this copy, but I doubt that Adobe is allowed to disclose that kind of information). How legal is it to sell the software anyway knowing that this is the case?

Quite agree. In this case the ‘seller’ should refund all costs to the buyer as he did not have merchantability under many state laws.

Now it’s up to the OP to proceed.

FWIW, many more software companies DO have that provision buried in their terms, even MickeyStuff! I can only remember a couple of all the ‘ware I have that didn’t.
B
bagal
Sep 7, 2004
ahhh precioussss iss itt

what’sss it wanttt fromm meeee

The ring? Ahhh it’sss my precioussss

Arty

"Watashee" wrote in message
That sounds funny, coming from Sm
B
bagal
Sep 7, 2004
Also please note that the OP specifically says that the seller is NOT the previous owner, and DOES NOT KNOW the previous owner. So he does not know whether the previous owner upgraded or really stopped using it, and there is no way to transfer the licence (escept if Adobe would tell him who registered this copy, but I doubt that Adobe is allowed to disclose that kind of information). How legal is it to sell the software anyway knowing that this is the case?

FWIW & AFAIK example:

Person 1 sells Person 2 software. Person 2 later discovers that the software is pirated. Who committed a crime? Was it
a) neither Person 1 nor Person 2
b) Person 1 only (the seller)
c) Person 2 only (the buyer)
d) both

Answers below please

Articus


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
DT
deco_time
Sep 7, 2004
In news:Articus Drools typed:
FWIW & AFAIK example:

Person 1 sells Person 2 software. Person 2 later discovers that the software is pirated. Who committed a crime? Was it
a) neither Person 1 nor Person 2
b) Person 1 only (the seller)
c) Person 2 only (the buyer)
d) both

Answers below please

Articus

Person #1: Clear cut; Unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, a criminal act subject to federal prosecution at least in Canada, I believe in the US and Europe also. Not much of a defense there.

Person #2: Not so clear cut. Software comes with contract which you agree upon when installing. Now, by using pirated software, you are clearly not respecting the terms of the contract, which is a contractual dispute and not a criminal act in itself. Is the way you acquired said good be, in itself, considered criminal? Debatable, especially since the EULA aspect of it makes it so software cannot be considered a "good" like say, a chair or a car would be; I’m guessing it could go either way. That matter would be for a court to decide, but I have failed to find any example of court decision regarding end user, all I’ve seen were case of distribution. Even the RIAA in the US is only going after peoples actively distributing music, not end users, and music is more of a clear cut subject as there is no contract attached to it, so the copyright act apply fully. Interesting question anyway…


Odysea video production
Come dive with us!
www.odysea.ca
B
bagal
Sep 7, 2004
Thanks for your reply deco_time

My understanding is: both

It is illegal in a criminal sense both to sell or to buy pirated software

Articus

"deco_time" wrote in message
In news:Articus Drools typed:
FWIW & AFAIK example:

Person 1 sells Person 2 software. Person 2 later discovers that the software is pirated. Who committed a crime? Was it
a) neither Person 1 nor Person 2
b) Person 1 only (the seller)
c) Person 2 only (the buyer)
d) both

Answers below please

Articus

Person #1: Clear cut; Unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, a criminal act subject to federal prosecution at least in Canada, I believe in the US and Europe also. Not much of a defense there.

Person #2: Not so clear cut. Software comes with contract which you agree upon when installing. Now, by using pirated software, you are clearly not respecting the terms of the contract, which is a contractual dispute and not a criminal act in itself. Is the way you acquired said good be, in itself, considered criminal? Debatable, especially since the EULA aspect of it makes it so software cannot be considered a "good" like say, a chair or a car would be; I’m guessing it could go either way. That matter would be for a court to decide, but I have failed to find any example of court decision regarding end user, all I’ve seen were case of distribution. Even the RIAA in the US is only going after peoples actively distributing music, not end users, and music is more of a clear cut subject as there is no contract attached to it, so the copyright act apply fully. Interesting question anyway…


Odysea video production
Come dive with us!
www.odysea.ca

J
Joe
Sep 7, 2004
"deco_time" wrote:

In news:Articus Drools typed:
FWIW & AFAIK example:

Person 1 sells Person 2 software. Person 2 later discovers that the software is pirated. Who committed a crime? Was it
a) neither Person 1 nor Person 2
b) Person 1 only (the seller)
c) Person 2 only (the buyer)
d) both

Answers below please

Articus

Person #1: Clear cut; Unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, a criminal act subject to federal prosecution at least in Canada, I believe in the US and Europe also. Not much of a defense there.

Person #2: Not so clear cut. Software comes with contract which you agree upon when installing. Now, by using pirated software, you are clearly not respecting the terms of the contract, which is a contractual dispute and not a criminal act in itself. Is the way you acquired said good be, in itself, considered criminal? Debatable, especially since the EULA aspect of it makes it so software cannot be considered a "good" like say, a chair or a car would be; I’m guessing it could go either way. That matter would be for a court to decide, but I have failed to find any example of court decision regarding end user, all I’ve seen were case of distribution. Even the RIAA in the US is only going after peoples actively distributing music, not end users, and music is more of a clear cut subject as there is no contract attached to it, so the copyright act apply fully. Interesting question anyway…

Sorry for full quote. I don’t know anyone can give a perfect answer to some simple question, because in some cases there probably be Person #1, Person #2, and Person #3

Person #1 give to charity (Goodwill for example)
Person #2 (Goodwill) sells to Person #3
Person #3 legally buy the copy from STORE

And you can check with Goodwill and should be able to see quite afew software on original floppies, CDs, some in original box with manual etc..
B
bagal
Sep 7, 2004
Good points!

I believe the gift is the EULA in the first instance manifested by the software installation disks AND removal of software from the donor’s computer (appendum: the copyright owner may have conditions stated in the EULA for managing transfer of EULA)

Articus

ps – as I understand it it is the act of buying or selling pirated software that is criminal. As criminal law usually takes precedence over contract law both the seller and the buyer have commited a crime

A

"Joe" wrote in message
"deco_time" wrote:

In news:Articus Drools typed:
FWIW & AFAIK example:

Person 1 sells Person 2 software. Person 2 later discovers that the software is pirated. Who committed a crime? Was it
a) neither Person 1 nor Person 2
b) Person 1 only (the seller)
c) Person 2 only (the buyer)
d) both

Answers below please

Articus

Person #1: Clear cut; Unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, a criminal act subject to federal prosecution at least in Canada, I believe in the US and Europe also. Not much of a defense there.

Person #2: Not so clear cut. Software comes with contract which you agree upon when installing. Now, by using pirated software, you are clearly not respecting the terms of the contract, which is a contractual dispute and not a criminal act in itself. Is the way you acquired said good be, in itself, considered criminal? Debatable, especially since the EULA aspect of it makes it so software cannot be considered a "good" like say, a chair or a car would be; I’m guessing it could go either way. That matter would be for a court to decide, but I have failed to find any example of court decision regarding end user, all I’ve seen were case of distribution. Even the RIAA in the US is only going after peoples actively distributing music, not end users, and music is more of a clear cut subject as there is no contract attached to it, so the copyright act apply fully. Interesting question anyway…

Sorry for full quote. I don’t know anyone can give a perfect answer to some simple question, because in some cases there probably be Person #1, Person #2, and Person #3

Person #1 give to charity (Goodwill for example)
Person #2 (Goodwill) sells to Person #3
Person #3 legally buy the copy from STORE

And you can check with Goodwill and should be able to see quite afew software on original floppies, CDs, some in original box with manual etc..
VK
Vote Kerry
Sep 7, 2004
sheez! it’S no wonder there are millions of people downloading it via bittorrent for free! what a mess!
B
bagal
Sep 7, 2004
s’not that complicated at all really

all it says is:

don’t sell pirated software
don’t buy pirated software

it is a crime

altho the technicalities behind the summaries are complicated it is no moreso that other laws

Articus

"Vote Kerry" wrote in message
sheez! it’S no wonder there are millions of people downloading it via bittorrent for free! what a mess!

N
noone
Sep 8, 2004
In article <Syq%c.12777$
com says…
sheez! it’S no wonder there are millions of people downloading it via bittorrent for free! what a mess!

Bittorrent? The one with the FBI spybot built in? Oh well hope they have WiFi in "the Big House!"
H
Hecate
Sep 8, 2004
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:43:01 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

Person #1: Clear cut; Unlawful distribution of copyrighted material, a criminal act subject to federal prosecution at least in Canada, I believe in the US and Europe also. Not much of a defense there.

Person #2: Not so clear cut. Software comes with contract which you agree upon when installing. Now, by using pirated software, you are clearly not respecting the terms of the contract, which is a contractual dispute and not a criminal act in itself. Is the way you acquired said good be, in itself, considered criminal? Debatable, especially since the EULA aspect of it makes it so software cannot be considered a "good" like say, a chair or a car would be; I’m guessing it could go either way. That matter would be for a court to decide, but I have failed to find any example of court decision regarding end user, all I’ve seen were case of distribution. Even the RIAA in the US is only going after peoples actively distributing music, not end users, and music is more of a clear cut subject as there is no contract attached to it, so the copyright act apply fully. Interesting question anyway…

I just thought I’d return the compliment and agree with you for a change 😉

The one thing I would add is that in law, at least in the UK, if you buy something which is obviously stolen pleading ignorance (or stupidity) is no defence. But I wouldn’t have thought that would apply in this particular case.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
T
toosano
Sep 8, 2004
"Hunt" wrote in message
In article <Syq%c.12777$>,

com says…
sheez! it’S no wonder there are millions of people downloading it via bittorrent for free! what a mess!

Bittorrent? The one with the FBI spybot built in?
LOL
FA
Fred Athearn
Sep 8, 2004
Criminal law has something that contract law does not: a requirement of a certain "guilty" state of mind. Say a distributor gets software under conditions where he knows, or objectively should have know, it was pirated. But the item looks good to ordinary inspection. The distributor then sells copies to stores which in turn sells them to consumers.

From a contract view point the stores and the consumers, even though they are good faith purchasers for value, do not have the right to sell or use the software, but in such a case only the distributor could be convicted of a crime because the necessary state of mind could only be demonstrated for him.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:56:42 GMT, "Articus Drools" wrote:

ps – as I understand it it is the act of buying or selling pirated software that is criminal. As criminal law usually takes precedence over contract law both the seller and the buyer have commited a crime
FA
Fred Athearn
Sep 8, 2004
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:48:50 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

That makes a lot more sense. The idea that a software company can sell a license which it expects to be treated as a real interest in intellectual property and then just say that it cannot be transferred did not sound legal to me. Restraint of trade or something like that.

I would say that half the software that I own clearly states in the EULA that the license is not transferable (I didn’t know when I bought them, but now I wouldn’t buy software without reading the EULA first); legal or not, I’m not a judge so I can’t say for sure, but in every case that I’ve read about where this issue was brought to court, this term of the license was deemed illegal and clearly against the most basic of consumer right. Clearly, software companies can’t be bothered with such tiny things as consumer right, exception being Adobe which has one of the most liberal EULA of the computer industry.

Well perhaps it is because they are "liberal" or perhaps it was just that their lawyer told them it was easer to enforce a contract that did not attempt to go beyond the significant protections the law gives them.
FA
Fred Athearn
Sep 8, 2004
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:48:50 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

But does the fact that it is already registered mean that it is not valid to use as the basis for an upgrade? I suspect that a copy like this that could be updated to 7.01 would be upgradeable.

Once properly transferred, you become the licensee and as such, subject to all right and obligation that the license entitles, including upgrade.

Of course, but there is also the issue of whether in fact the upgrade package really fully tests the status of prior versions to the extent the contractual situation would support. That could get complicated.

And given the low marginal cost of software, if things got too complicated it might make more sense from an economic viewpoint for Adobe to elect to just get its upgrade fees rather than to have to pay an army of customer service people to sort out the status of prior versions just to be able void a few sales of upgrades (probably requiring refunds if the user elected to keep his older running version.) Sometimes one is better off not trying to assert all the rights one might have. And sometimes software companies look for ways to sell more software without undermining existing sales.
VK
Vote Kerry
Sep 8, 2004
Hunt wrote:
In article <Syq%c.12777$>,
com says…
sheez! it’S no wonder there are millions of people downloading it via bittorrent for free! what a mess!

Bittorrent? The one with the FBI spybot built in? Oh well hope they have WiFi in "the Big House!"

No, the one that all my buddies have used these past several years to d/load a shitload of s/ware. That one.
MW
Martin Willett
Sep 9, 2004
Spolio wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:02:31 +1200, JayJay
wrote:

I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously
been
registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at
the
same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software. This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

After receiving the software the installation went smoothly and I
had
no problem installing the update to version 7.0.1, (a friend had previously told me that you can’t update an illegal copy).
On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said
the
serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".
I have re contacted the seller and he is emphatic that the software is legal, I however, now have my doubts.

Apart from contacting Adobe, is there a way to tell if the software is legal or not?
If I do contact Adobe, and they state that the software is illegal, would I be forced to take the matter further with Adobe? I’m an elderly person and would prefer not to become involved with a legal procedure.

if all you are going to do is "play" around a bit using photoshop, than, what is the big deal?
now I imagine that you got it at a good price.
not that $1000.00 canadian that it goes for retail
so, us it, have fun, enjoy it, if you really really like it and are going to start your own bussiness, well than
go to your nearest retail store that carries it and
buy a fully legal vrsion, don’t take a chance with illegal copies of it, bu tuntill that point, I am sure you have other , bigger things to worry about, and if not, lets trade places. good luck

I’m pretty sure that is the way that Adobe people would want you to act. Of course in public they may want to say something different but it seems fairly clear to me that certain companies such as Adobe and Macromedia see piracy as a way to gain market share. They see to it that their software appears on magazine mounted CDs knowing full well that these will be cracked by students and the like who use them for years until they go into business and get their company’s to buy a full priced copy.

Look at the price of this stuff: Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash and so on. You don’t seriously expect everybody who uses the stuff to do it legitimately, do you? Those people who are making money from it often are using legitimate software but there are millions of hobbyists who have software on their machines that would cost more than their cars if they had bought it legitimately. Get wise. These companies know they can sell the same thing to two different markets at two different prices and make more profit. The difference in this case is that because piracy doesn’t literally cost them a penny they are free to "sell" it at cost: just allow it to be stolen and make only feeble token protests. Unlike a company like Burberry or Gucci that stands to lose reputation because of the existence of fakes a software company has nothing to lose, those people would not have paid a fair price for the software anyway so no money has been lost, as long as they use it and advertise it they are helping the brand gain market share.

By the way, I have no Adobe software on my system except Acrobat Reader, I’m just passing through. I have photo manipulation needs that do not require the most sophisticated software that money can buy and I don’t like piracy if there is an reasonable alternative.


Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/
B
bagal
Sep 9, 2004
This is a very pragmatic view which I have inherent sympathies with in an analytical sense

It saddens me to see that there are no recorded repudiations

If by practice the software houses are endorsing or approving software piracy I hope that no more issues are made through the various trade organisations designed to limit software piracy

And consequently, a revision of the copyright laws that the software houses appeal to.

Now let’s see if that promotes silence or responses …….

A law has to be workable – if it is being undermined by software houses I think I may be rather peeved

SP Articus

"Martin Willett" wrote in message
Spolio wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:02:31 +1200, JayJay
wrote:

I recently purchased a used copy of Photoshop 7 on a local auction site similar to ebay.
I have been told that the software was used, and had previously
been
registered, but as the seller had purchased a number of copies at
the
same time, didn’t know the previous owner of the software. This wasn’t a problem for me as I didn’t intend to use the software for upgrading purposes, or support from Adobe.

After receiving the software the installation went smoothly and I
had
no problem installing the update to version 7.0.1, (a friend had previously told me that you can’t update an illegal copy).
On an impulse I attempted to register the software with Adobe and after filling in all the particulars, a message came up that said
the
serial number entered was not a "valid serial number".
I have re contacted the seller and he is emphatic that the software is legal, I however, now have my doubts.

Apart from contacting Adobe, is there a way to tell if the software is legal or not?
If I do contact Adobe, and they state that the software is illegal, would I be forced to take the matter further with Adobe? I’m an elderly person and would prefer not to become involved with a legal procedure.

if all you are going to do is "play" around a bit using photoshop, than, what is the big deal?
now I imagine that you got it at a good price.
not that $1000.00 canadian that it goes for retail
so, us it, have fun, enjoy it, if you really really like it and are going to start your own bussiness, well than
go to your nearest retail store that carries it and
buy a fully legal vrsion, don’t take a chance with illegal copies of it, bu tuntill that point, I am sure you have other , bigger things to worry about, and if not, lets trade places. good luck

I’m pretty sure that is the way that Adobe people would want you to act. Of course in public they may want to say something different but it seems fairly clear to me that certain companies such as Adobe and Macromedia see piracy as a way to gain market share. They see to it that their software appears on magazine mounted CDs knowing full well that these will be cracked by students and the like who use them for years until they go into business and get their company’s to buy a full priced copy.

Look at the price of this stuff: Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash and so on. You don’t seriously expect everybody who uses the stuff to do it legitimately, do you? Those people who are making money from it often are using legitimate software but there are millions of hobbyists who have software on their machines that would cost more than their cars if they had bought it legitimately. Get wise. These companies know they can sell the same thing to two different markets at two different prices and make more profit. The difference in this case is that because piracy doesn’t literally cost them a penny they are free to "sell" it at cost: just allow it to be stolen and make only feeble token protests. Unlike a company like Burberry or Gucci that stands to lose reputation because of the existence of fakes a software company has nothing to lose, those people would not have paid a fair price for the software anyway so no money has been lost, as long as they use it and advertise it they are helping the brand gain market share.
By the way, I have no Adobe software on my system except Acrobat Reader, I’m just passing through. I have photo manipulation needs that do not require the most sophisticated software that money can buy and I don’t like piracy if there is an reasonable alternative.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

FA
Fred Athearn
Sep 12, 2004
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:28:28 GMT, "Articus Drools" wrote:

A law has to be workable – if it is being undermined by software houses I think I may be rather peeved

I don’t think that Adobe has in general been part of the let them steal it to increase market share school. In fact when they helped the FBI trap that Russian "key recovery" expert when he came to lecture in the US they projected themselves to the leading edge of the War Against Hackers.

But I think that they played a high price for that when the hacker community pulled out all the stops to see that hacked versions of most of its software became available on all the file "sharing" systems.

Since then I think that they may have decided to take a less aggressive stance and may have discovered it has advantages of the sort described up thread.
B
bagal
Sep 12, 2004
Thank you Fred – this seems to explain a lot

It seems a shame when software houses are targetted for having wonderful products

Articus

"Fred Athearn" wrote in message
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:28:28 GMT, "Articus Drools" wrote:

A law has to be workable – if it is being undermined by software houses I think I may be rather peeved

I don’t think that Adobe has in general been part of the let them steal it to increase market share school. In fact when they helped the FBI trap that Russian "key recovery" expert when he came to lecture in the US they projected themselves to the leading edge of the War Against Hackers.

But I think that they played a high price for that when the hacker community pulled out all the stops to see that hacked versions of most of its software became available on all the file "sharing" systems.
Since then I think that they may have decided to take a less aggressive stance and may have discovered it has advantages of the sort described up thread.
B
BK24
Sep 13, 2004
Fat little Hobbitses.
TD
The Doormouse
Sep 13, 2004
"BK24" wrote:
Fat little Hobbitses.

Not fair to ask what isss inn their Dirty, NASTY little Pocketeses, is it?

Off, to the back door!

The Doormouse


The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
C
Corey
Oct 7, 2004
deco_time states, "I would say that half the software that I own …"

All software is ‘owned’ by the manufacturer. All we users buy is the license to use them legally.

Corey 🙂

"deco_time" wrote in message
In news:Fred Athearn typed:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:14:47 -0400, "deco_time" wrote:

For it to be legal, the buyer and seller as to fill in and sign this form:

That makes a lot more sense. The idea that a software company can sell a license which it expects to be treated as a real interest in intellectual property and then just say that it cannot be transferred did not sound legal to me. Restraint of trade or something like that.

I would say that half the software that I own clearly states in the EULA that the license is not transferable (I didn’t know when I bought them, but now I wouldn’t buy software without reading the EULA first); legal or not, I’m not a judge so I can’t say for sure, but in every case that I’ve read about where this issue was brought to court, this term of the license was deemed illegal and clearly against the most basic of consumer right. Clearly, software companies can’t be bothered with such tiny things as consumer right, exception being Adobe which has one of the most liberal EULA of the computer industry.

But does the fact that it is already registered mean that it is not valid to use as the basis for an upgrade? I suspect that a copy like this that could be updated to 7.01 would be upgradeable.

Once properly transferred, you become the licensee and as such, subject to all right and obligation that the license entitles, including upgrade.


Odysea video production
Come dive with us!
www.odysea.ca

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections