In article <090120040044501741%
says…
Full disclosure: I also work at Adobe, on Photoshop, and am passing along this reply
Thanks for forwarding this. Why is there no "official" statement from Adobe regarding the incorporation of CDS, either during the product release of CS or now? It seems rather sneaky and obscure to hide this information from (potential) customers.
Article at the Adobe User to User Forums website
Kevin Connor – 06:33pm Jan 8, 2004 Pacific (#269 of 319)
Photoshop CS does indeed include a counterfeit deterrence system (CDS) to prevent the illegal duplication of banknotes. The CDS was created by a consortium of central banks from around the world. We, along with other hardware and software manufacturers, have included CDS in our products at their request to address the threat posed by the use of digital technologies in the counterfeiting of banknotes.
This does not explain *why* Adobe decided to incorporate CDS. This system could potentially flag "innocent" files, make the software less stable, slow down performance, and increase production costs. There must be compelling reasons to incorporate CDS regardless. Was it:
– Federal regulations? Not very likely; color reproductions are allowed, under restrictions outlined here:
http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/117 – Pressure by central banks? Not likely that banks would sure Adobe for producing a tool that may be used to print counterfeit money, considering the userbase and dozens of *legal* applications the software has.
– Adobe has grown a conscience, and decides to fight counterfeiting? Haha.
No, no. Something must balance the effort, risk, time and money Adobe invested in incorporation CDS. And most likely:
– The above mentioned consortium of central banks is PAYING Adobe to include CDS technology, and thereby crippling the feature set of PS.
This is IMHO unacceptable. There *are* legal applications of reproductions of currency. Of course it is Adobe’s right to block any features they find inappropriate, but they should tell potential customers up front that under certain situations the product does not perform as could reasonably be expected. If I buy a car in Massachusetts, I can reasonably expect it to work in Maine, unless stated otherwise by the manufacturer, not?
There are other software products from other companies that already use this same technology. There are also hardware products that use the same or similar technology. For example, most color copiers sold today will not allow you to copy currency.
The fact that other software/hardware vendors have installed similar technology is a bad argument for doing the same.
The legal basis for hardware not *printing* currency might be different than the legal basis for *loading/scanning* digital images into software.
As digital imaging technology advances, becoming more broadly available and user friendly, the old barriers to currency reproduction are becoming less effective. The unscrupulous are taking advantage of the functionality that is being provided to the vast majority of honest users for the purposes of counterfeiting currency.
Adobe is not part of the US Federal justice system, nor that of any countries where it sells its products.
In our implementation of CDS, we’ve worked very hard to
balance the need to protect these unsuspecting victims of counterfeiting along with the need to continue to provide a product that efficiently does what honest customers need it to do.
Sure, unsuspecting victims of counterfeiting will immediately point the finger and blame Adobe for their losses.
Adobe is not a philantropic institution with humanitarian goals:
– Adobe NEEDS to incorporate CDS because they were given a financial compensation to do so.
– Adobe NEEDS to provide a competitive, functional product, otherwise they will drown.
"Unsuspecting victims" are people that purchase graphics software and expect it to edit images of bank notes (among other things), and find out their software doesn’t allow this without any prior notice.
[…]
Of course, CDS in Photoshop CS is essentially a 1.0 implementation of a feature, analogous to the state of the layers palette in Photoshop 3.0.
Is that a "feature" as in the typical software developpers’ expression: "it’s not a bug, it’s a feature"?
We realize that there may be room for improvement, particularly if there are corner usage cases that weren’t taken into account in our current designs. We do want to hear about your concerns, and we definitely want to hear if there’s a specific problem that this implementation has created for you. As with any Photoshop feature, we depend on hearing from customers so that we can make continual improvements release after release.
i.e. "we want to know if you have found workarounds that allow you to import these files regardless of CDS, so that we can patch these holes as well".
Adobe, please focus on the desires of your customer base. Don’t incorporate "features" that cripple your software, aren’t legally required, and no one is asking for. Eventually customers will spend their money elsewhere.