Photoshop 8.0 coming end of year. This will be the "activation" version, right?

In article ,
says…

The reasons you state for disliking activation technology or moot. Even after replacing my motherboard and ram I did not have to reactive Windows XP or Office XP.

The concern that I have is that this technology will be used to force upgrades on people when companies decided to stop supporting older versions.
For example take Windows 95. If it had had activation technology do you really think you will still be able to activate it after Microsoft ended support? I doubt it.

Now we will have to wait for Windows XP to have its supported ended before we find out. But I suspect that this technology is here for only this reason and that once the court cases are over for Microsoft doing this that the other companies like Adobe and Macromedia will then start ending support and forcing upgrades. Lets face it upgrades of late have been pretty weak. You can bet the software companies are just dieing to find a way to force people to upgrade and this is it.

As for activation technology being in place to stop piracy that is crap. Windows XP and Office XP had cracks out for it even before they hit store shelves. Microsoft tried to fix this with the Windows XP service pack 1 and yet again a crack was out before the service patch. So the only reason companies are spending this much money are a technology that doesn’t work for the stated is reason is that the reason given isn’t the real reason and if they made the real reason know they would sink faster than the Titanic because know would ever upgrade then.

R

In other words, when Microsoft and others "end" their support for products that "expire" when trying to activate them when newer versions are out there forces the user to upgrade to newer versions, right?

If that’s the case, then I want nothing to do with activation software. I should NOT be forced to upgrade if I don’t want to, especially if I like the software I currently am using. This is horrendous news. Activation is really masking forced upgrading. Wait until this hits the courts. Imagine "activating" your car after the year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out. This has to be brought to the attention of state attorney general’s offices.

its only speculation at the moment. Only time will tell. my concern is if a company goes under, all the users are left unable to activate. Maybe MS aren’t about to, but the more that use it the more likely it will happen.

"Alberich" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

The reasons you state for disliking activation technology or moot. Even after replacing my motherboard and ram I did not have to reactive

Windows XP

or Office XP.

The concern that I have is that this technology will be used to force upgrades on people when companies decided to stop supporting older

versions.

For example take Windows 95. If it had had activation technology do you really think you will still be able to activate it after Microsoft ended support? I doubt it.

Now we will have to wait for Windows XP to have its supported ended

before

we find out. But I suspect that this technology is here for only this

reason

and that once the court cases are over for Microsoft doing this that the other companies like Adobe and Macromedia will then start ending support

and

forcing upgrades. Lets face it upgrades of late have been pretty weak.

You

can bet the software companies are just dieing to find a way to force

people

to upgrade and this is it.

As for activation technology being in place to stop piracy that is crap. Windows XP and Office XP had cracks out for it even before they hit

store

shelves. Microsoft tried to fix this with the Windows XP service pack 1

and

yet again a crack was out before the service patch. So the only reason companies are spending this much money are a technology that doesn’t

work

for the stated is reason is that the reason given isn’t the real reason

and

if they made the real reason know they would sink faster than the

Titanic

because know would ever upgrade then.

R

In other words, when Microsoft and others "end" their support for products that "expire" when trying to activate them when newer versions are out there forces the user to upgrade to newer versions, right?
If that’s the case, then I want nothing to do with activation software. I should NOT be forced to upgrade if I don’t want to, especially if I like the software I currently am using. This is horrendous news. Activation is really masking forced upgrading. Wait until this hits the courts. Imagine "activating" your car after the year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out. This has to be brought to the attention of state attorney general’s offices.

There is a difference – motor manufacturers sell the old presses to 3rd party spares makers, who buy them precisely because of the ready made market .
Who would be prepared to pay for support once they had the product? Especially as half the supports questions can be answered on groups like this, or the ‘essential’ fixes, really only fix obscure problems once SP1 (or whatever) has been released.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:18:52 -0400, "MCL"
wrote:

In news:, Alberich deftly
typed:

. Imagine "activating" your car after the
year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out.

Already here. Car manufacturer are required to produce spare parts for only ten years after release of model. You might not have noticed, but car manufacturer are releasing new model faster and faster since the early ’90s, and next year parts won’t fit this year model. Now, what do you do when your car breaks down and you can’t find parts anywhere?

yikes, I’m still driving a 24 yr old car lol

On 27 Aug 2003 22:22:17 -0500, Alberich found
these unused words floating about:

If that’s the case, then I want nothing to do with activation software. I should NOT be forced to upgrade if I don’t want to, especially if I like the software I currently am using. This is horrendous news. Activation is really masking forced upgrading. Wait until this hits the courts. Imagine "activating" your car after the year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out. This has to be brought to the attention of state attorney general’s offices.

A slight but meaningful ‘legal’ difference. You ‘own’ nothing.

You’ve licensed the software for an indeterminant time period. You either bought oughtright or leased the car. If leased, that was for a specific time period.

the activation crap damn near killed TurboTax this year they’re dropping it. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,58852,00.html

"Alberich" wrote in message

I’m highly suspicious of the quick release of Photoshop 8.0 coming at the end of the 4th quarter this year. This includes new releases of Adobe InDesign 3.0, etc. This leads me to suspect these are the "activation" versions we’ve been hearing about in the press. If that’s the case, I can kiss Adobe goodbye and keep the previous copies and not worry about computer crashes and reinstallations causing me to beg Adobe to let me reinstall a legally purchased copy of Photoshop.
I’d be very appreciative if someone can tell me something, ANYTHING, really about what "activation" scheme Adobe is going to be introducing in the new versions of Photoshop, InDesign, etc. Something like the Microsoft activation version, right? One that creates a special code married to one’s motherboard and sends it back to Adobe servers to authenticate the copy one is using is legit, right? Because so far I haven’t seen any information on what this will mean to users and what are the potential pitfalls of such a technology encorporated in the next line of Adobe products.

So any info upcoming would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I bought Acid pro 4 & Soundforge 6, both activation software and yes it is a pain in the arse if you re-install cos the activation is based on your PC ID a number that corrisponds with hardware ect on your PC that makes up the serial no, even then you still have to connect to register on ever re-install. Yet if acid or adobe went bust then everyone would use a crack to activate them, and if you have a copy of your purchace (mine being an email) when the company has gone bust who’s gonna try to nick you? let’s face it they can hardy fine you for buying a legit bit of software that needs a crack to run it cos the company no longer exists! it aint gonna happen. I cannot see what the problem is… they cannot force you to upgrade, it’s illegal unless stated in the terms and conditions and if it was they’d be committing company suicide because NO-ONE would buy them. Oh just to add Sonic foundry do not force upgrade, even though I upgraded from previous versions they still work fine (and still need activation to run) I’m sure PS8 will be just the same.

BM

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:22:34 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

On 27 Aug 2003 22:22:17 -0500, Alberich found
these unused words floating about:

If that’s the case, then I want nothing to do with activation software. I should NOT be forced to upgrade if I don’t want to, especially if I like the software I currently am using. This is horrendous news. Activation is really masking forced upgrading. Wait until this hits the courts. Imagine "activating" your car after the year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out. This has to be brought to the attention of state attorney general’s offices.

A slight but meaningful ‘legal’ difference. You ‘own’ nothing.
You’ve licensed the software for an indeterminant time period. You either bought oughtright or leased the car. If leased, that was for a specific time period.

I can’t even imagine what they could do with PS8 that would necessitate upgrading to it.

PS 7 will be fine for a long, long time.

I’m looking forward to PhotoshopWorld– which, coincidentally?- is timed for the first week of October–
the supposed release of 8.0….The timing, with all the evangelists and gurus in one place at the same time, should provide an interesting experience.

But unless there’s something a great deal more interesting in 8 than what’s filtered out into the press, I won’t
be in a huge hurry to upgrade to 8—- the buzz has been better about workgroup collaboration and application integration (PS-ID-AI-GL-AE) and, frankly, neither of those things is terrifically important to me. I’m not an artist in a huge ad shop or marketing department–so workgroup collaboration isn’t a biggie and, in preparation for this I actually tried to use GoLive for a month, thinking that I might make the switch from Dreamweaver if there was a compelling reason to do so….. Go Live is -point blank- a dog’s breakfast. (Not as bad as Front Page, but what is?) OTOH, Fireworks will never replace PS in my toolbox, so I’m still going to be working with a "best of breed" suite– Not 100% Adobe, Macromedia, or anyone else.

So, unless there is big news on the image editing or art fronts– I’ll probably do what I did with version 6…. skip it until something real comes along. When I upgraded from 5.5 to 7 it was a bit disorienting for a couple of weeks, but I didn’t end up spending a few hundred bucks for the
5.5 to 6 upgrade that would have provided a very slight ROI

"Bryce" wrote in message

I can’t even imagine what they could do with PS8 that would necessitate upgrading to it.

PS 7 will be fine for a long, long time.

I bought a little program almost 5 years ago, and then the creater disappered a short time later.
But the program is still being used.
But anyway, the activation is based on the "Default" Address in Outlook Express?
But If I change the default address and try to run this program. It does not run.
Now that is a pain.

Since I redo my computer from scratch at least every 4 months, AND I have to rremember the e-mail address that I have not used in over 4 1/2 years ago, ?????/

Chas

<Bob Morris> wrote in message

I bought Acid pro 4 & Soundforge 6, both activation software and yes it is a pain in the arse if you re-install cos the activation is based on your PC ID a number that corrisponds with hardware ect on your PC that makes up the serial no, even then you still have to connect to register on ever re-install. Yet if acid or adobe went bust then everyone would use a crack to activate them, and if you have a copy of your purchace (mine being an email) when the company has gone bust who’s gonna try to nick you? let’s face it they can hardy fine you for buying a legit bit of software that needs a crack to run it cos the company no longer exists! it aint gonna happen. I cannot see what the problem is… they cannot force you to upgrade, it’s illegal unless stated in the terms and conditions and if it was they’d be committing company suicide because NO-ONE would buy them. Oh just to add Sonic foundry do not force upgrade, even though I upgraded from previous versions they still work fine (and still need activation to run) I’m sure PS8 will be just the same.

BM

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:22:34 -0700, J. A. Mc.
wrote:

On 27 Aug 2003 22:22:17 -0500, Alberich found
these unused words floating about:

If that’s the case, then I want nothing to do with activation software. I should NOT be forced to upgrade if I don’t want to, especially if I like the software I currently am using. This is horrendous news. Activation is really masking forced upgrading. Wait until this hits the courts. Imagine "activating" your car after the year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out. This has to be brought to the attention of state attorney general’s offices.

A slight but meaningful ‘legal’ difference. You ‘own’ nothing.
You’ve licensed the software for an indeterminant time period. You either bought oughtright or leased the car. If leased, that was for a specific time period.

"Catlady" wrote in message

yikes, I’m still driving a 24 yr old car lol

Key words: "Still driving". The problems will come when the car stops driving :]

Okay everyone, here’s what you do: When PS8 comes out, buy up as many copies of PS 7 as possible. Then in a few years, when PS11 or so comes out, and people are forced to upgrade to activated software, then sell those PS7’s like mad! Just the prospect of non-activation software will drive up the price ;]

Hopefully will get a another used newer car for my birthday 🙂 hubby too cheap to buy a brand new car.

You know, sometimes wives *do* buy cars for themselves.

well, thank god for husbands then.

IF hackers managed to safely (and completely) bypass the protection/activation on WinXP Corp; you KNOW it won’t take long before that "protection" is bypassed too.

"gobnu" wrote in message

the activation crap damn near killed TurboTax this year they’re dropping

it.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,58852,00.html

"Alberich" wrote in message

I’m highly suspicious of the quick release of Photoshop 8.0 coming at the end of the 4th quarter this year. This includes new releases of Adobe InDesign 3.0, etc. This leads me to suspect these are the "activation" versions we’ve been hearing about in the press. If that’s the case, I can kiss Adobe goodbye and keep the previous copies and not worry about computer crashes and reinstallations causing me to beg Adobe to let me reinstall a legally purchased copy of Photoshop.
I’d be very appreciative if someone can tell me something, ANYTHING, really about what "activation" scheme Adobe is going to be introducing in the new versions of Photoshop, InDesign, etc. Something like the Microsoft activation version, right? One that creates a special code married to one’s motherboard and sends it back to Adobe servers to authenticate the copy one is using is legit, right? Because so far I haven’t seen any information on what this will mean to users and what are the potential pitfalls of such a technology encorporated in the next line of Adobe products.

So any info upcoming would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:32:00 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:

I’m looking forward to PhotoshopWorld– which, coincidentally?- is timed for the first week of October–
the supposed release of 8.0….The timing, with all the evangelists and gurus in one place at the same time, should provide an interesting experience.

But unless there’s something a great deal more interesting in 8 than what’s filtered out into the press, I won’t
be in a huge hurry to upgrade to 8—- the buzz has been better about workgroup collaboration and application integration (PS-ID-AI-GL-AE) and, frankly, neither of those things is terrifically important to me. I’m not an artist in a huge ad shop or marketing department–so workgroup collaboration isn’t a biggie and, in preparation for this I actually tried to use GoLive for a month, thinking that I might make the switch from Dreamweaver if there was a compelling reason to do so….. Go Live is -point blank- a dog’s breakfast. (Not as bad as Front Page, but what is?) OTOH, Fireworks will never replace PS in my toolbox, so I’m still going to be working with a "best of breed" suite– Not 100% Adobe, Macromedia, or anyone else.

I’d agree with most of what you said. In particular about GoLive. The only thing I’d disagree with is about Fireworks. Whilst PS is a far superior Image Editor it’s web facilities suck big time. Especially IR. So I use Fireworks to take the art from PS and make it web useful.
—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)

I can see that…..Image Ready is…..not great. Form over function. I recently was trying to optimize a number of fairly large images and still keep quality—both Fireworks and Paint Shop Pro did better compression with fewer artifacts….and I’m a pretty bright lady, but the Byzantine crap you have to go thru with slices is ridiculous. I had a better, more intuitive, third party plugin 5 years ago
for under $30…….so we’re back to my "best of breed"…no one suite or vendor has the best of everything.

collaboration isn’t a biggie and, in preparation for this I actually

tried

to use GoLive for a month, thinking that I might make the switch from Dreamweaver if there was a compelling reason to do so….. Go Live

is -point

blank- a dog’s breakfast. (Not as bad as Front Page, but what is?) OTOH, Fireworks will never replace PS in my toolbox, so I’m still going to be working with a "best of breed" suite– Not 100% Adobe, Macromedia, or

anyone

else.

I’d agree with most of what you said. In particular about GoLive. The only thing I’d disagree with is about Fireworks. Whilst PS is a far superior Image Editor it’s web facilities suck big time. Especially IR. So I use Fireworks to take the art from PS and make it web useful.
—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:36:46 -0700, "Bryce"
wrote:

I can’t even imagine what they could do with PS8 that would necessitate upgrading to it.

PS 7 will be fine for a long, long time.

The harder the protection software the more hackers will attempt to crack it and they will succeed. Customer service and fostering loyalty coupled with an excellent product guarantees sales.

B

Joe is right. Out of the 25 businesses I helped switch to Windows XP and Office XP every one of them bought the proper license or number of copies they needed. But, then after I installed they turned around and cracked the software.

I am sure that a lot of people did this trying to send a message to MS. I don’t think however it worked. But, then things like this will never work for MS because they simply don’t care. They are off on their own planet and only drop stuff off on Earth occasionally.

R

Ron with as greedy as companies have gotten and cruddy as their upgrades have been I don’t think you are being paranoid. We seem to be at a time in human history when companies feel we should pay them for nothing. Pay them just for being. Frankly, I hope consumers don’t let this go to far because once it has we won’t ever be able to go back.

I think it is time we start demanding protections and more right for software buyers. If you buy software that has so many security holes or bugs that it costs you time and money you should have a right to go to court and get it back.

Companies shouldn’t be able to sell software on a subscription basis. Once you purchase software you own it in as far as you have the right to use it as long as you won’t. This will have no effect on copyright, etc.

There are other protections that should be in place too but I suspect it won’t happen until some big wig gets tired of being reamed.

R

"RTM" wrote in
message

It could be even worse than that.
Instead of forcing you to upgrade, the companies wouldn’t even need to upgrade their product at all, just keep you paying to use the same version over and over again.
Imagine what it will be like when product activation only activates the product for a limited time, say 6 or 12 months, and they charge you to re-activate for the next period when the current activation expires. —

Ron.
(That should have the paranoids hiding under their beds!)

Alberich wrote in message

In other words, when Microsoft and others "end" their support for products that "expire" when trying to activate them when newer versions are out there forces the user to upgrade to newer versions, right?
If that’s the case, then I want nothing to do with activation software. I should NOT be forced to upgrade if I don’t want to, especially if I like the software I currently am using. This is horrendous news. Activation is really masking forced upgrading. Wait until this hits the courts. Imagine "activating" your car after the year’s model is considered "obsolete" and finding out the auto company cuts off the signal to your fully functional car simply because one’s using it when the newer model is out. This has to be brought to the attention of state attorney general’s offices.

In article , Alberich
wrote:

I’d be very appreciative if someone can tell me something, ANYTHING, really about what "activation" scheme Adobe is going to be introducing in the new versions of Photoshop, InDesign, etc. Something like the Microsoft activation version, right? One that creates a special code married to one’s motherboard and sends it back to Adobe servers to authenticate the copy one is using is legit, right? Because so far I haven’t seen any information on what this will mean to users and what are the potential pitfalls of such a technology encorporated in the next line of Adobe products.

Please see the official info at
http://adobe.com.au/activation/main.html for info about the activation trial for Photoshop conducted in Australia earlier this year.

Most activation schemes contain contingency plans to allow users to continue to use the software even if circumstances render the company insolvent and hence the infrastructure to activate software becomes unavailable. It would be foolish to try and limit the amount of time a software license purchased by a user is valid if it otherwise did not contain any time-limiting terms. That said, there is no reason to suspect Adobe or other large companies implementing activation will go away during the reasonably expected usable lifetime of software being sold today with activation. If they do, there are plans in place.

–marc

On the other hand there is nothing in the license agreement that says they won’t screw you blind and as poor as software upgrades have been of late and as greedy as companies have been getting you expect people to trust them without something in writing? That is like saying the companies can trust the consumer to do what is right so why bother with a license agreement.

Sorry I just don’t have the trust for these companies. I want something in writing stating exactly what they can and can’t do and I want it done in such a way that it is irrevocable for the software package purchased until then I will continue to believe that sooner or later, most likely sooner we the consumer are going to get screwed because that is what happens.

R

"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message

In article , Alberich
wrote:

I’d be very appreciative if someone can tell me something, ANYTHING, really about what "activation" scheme Adobe is going to be introducing in the new versions of Photoshop, InDesign, etc. Something like the Microsoft activation version, right? One that creates a special code married to one’s motherboard and sends it back to Adobe servers to authenticate the copy one is using is legit, right? Because so far I haven’t seen any information on what this will mean to users and what are the potential pitfalls of such a technology encorporated in the next line of Adobe products.

Please see the official info at
http://adobe.com.au/activation/main.html for info about the activation trial for Photoshop conducted in Australia earlier this year.
Most activation schemes contain contingency plans to allow users to continue to use the software even if circumstances render the company insolvent and hence the infrastructure to activate software becomes unavailable. It would be foolish to try and limit the amount of time a software license purchased by a user is valid if it otherwise did not contain any time-limiting terms. That said, there is no reason to suspect Adobe or other large companies implementing activation will go away during the reasonably expected usable lifetime of software being sold today with activation. If they do, there are plans in place.
–marc

Marc Pawliger wrote:

Please see the official info at
http://adobe.com.au/activation/main.html for info about the activation trial for Photoshop conducted in Australia earlier this year.
Most activation schemes contain contingency plans to allow users to continue to use the software even if circumstances render the company insolvent and hence the infrastructure to activate software becomes unavailable. It would be foolish to try and limit the amount of time a software license purchased by a user is valid if it otherwise did not contain any time-limiting terms. That said, there is no reason to suspect Adobe or other large companies implementing activation will go away during the reasonably expected usable lifetime of software being sold today with activation. If they do, there are plans in place.

It just won’t work. I don’t know when Adobe will realize that what works for Microsoft may not work for Adobe and most other companies? Let look at this way.

1. Windows are in millions of households around the world, and many many people have more than 1-2 systems (some has 4-5-6 systems), when the number of Adobe users use Photoshop for living probably in thousands. Including all Photoshop users using Photoshop as professional, educational, and hobbies may pump the number up to few hundreds of thousands customers. Most pirated users just toying around with it, and most of them may touch it once every few months. Most of them won’t make any money or full use of it so they probably never go to buy it anyway.

IOW, what Adobe is trying to do will only effect the real customers, make thing more complicate to their real customers. The pirate users still get the best, and many customers will have to turn to pirate for help to solve their problem.

2. Windows has customers and supported worldwide, every corner of the world when Photoshop mostly only available to very few countries, and to very few computer users. I guess may be 1/40,000 or 1/50,000 or more computer users? I don’t know any of my friends using Photoshop, most of them don’t even have anything to do with graphic or multimedia.

And if you want to give your friends in a undeveloped country (no internet, not an English speaking country) a newer version of Photoshop as a gift, then I guess the only thing you can help your friend is a copy of pirated version. Or if you have problem with Photoshop on one system, you can’t even install to other system to work out the problem, or if someone need to use the system has Photoshop installed to do something else, you can use Photoshop on other system for quick look or fixing a picture etc..

Well, we will have to wait for Adobe to release the newer version to see how people will react to it.

In article , nospam
wrote:

On the other hand there is nothing in the license agreement that says they won’t screw you blind and as poor as software upgrades have been of late and as greedy as companies have been getting you expect people to trust them without something in writing? That is like saying the companies can trust the consumer to do what is right so why bother with a license agreement.

Robert-

Not sure your point here.

Sorry I just don’t have the trust for these companies. I want something in writing stating exactly what they can and can’t do and I want it done in such a way that it is irrevocable for the software package purchased until then I will continue to believe that sooner or later, most likely sooner we the consumer are going to get screwed because that is what happens.

That is why the Adobe activation license is available for your scrutiny before you have to electronically agree to it. You can decide not to agree and return the software then and there, no questions asked.

–marc

Im over 30 now and I fear my wife wants to upgrade me for a shiny new model ,What should I do ? Its almost like Logans Run !

"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message

In article , nospam
wrote:

On the other hand there is nothing in the license agreement that says

they

won’t screw you blind and as poor as software upgrades have been of late

and

as greedy as companies have been getting you expect people to trust them without something in writing? That is like saying the companies can

trust

the consumer to do what is right so why bother with a license agreement.

Robert-

Not sure your point here.

Sorry I just don’t have the trust for these companies. I want something

in

writing stating exactly what they can and can’t do and I want it done in such a way that it is irrevocable for the software package purchased

until

then I will continue to believe that sooner or later, most likely sooner

we

the consumer are going to get screwed because that is what happens.

That is why the Adobe activation license is available for your scrutiny before you have to electronically agree to it. You can decide not to agree and return the software then and there, no questions asked.
–marc

Marc Pawliger wrote:

Please see the official info at
http://adobe.com.au/activation/main.html for info about the activation trial for Photoshop conducted in Australia earlier this year.

Most activation schemes contain contingency plans to allow users to continue to use the software even if circumstances render the company insolvent and hence the infrastructure to activate software becomes unavailable. It would be foolish to try and limit the amount of time a software license purchased by a user is valid if it otherwise did not contain any time-limiting terms. That said, there is no reason to suspect Adobe or other large companies implementing activation will go away during the reasonably expected usable lifetime of software being sold today with activation. If they do, there are plans in place.

We should be aware that the leaders of the software companies are intelligent business people. Among other things they play on subtle psychological mechanisms. By trying to force universal activation they are quite possibly attempting to reduce the feeling of ownership to what you have paid for. They may hope that the result will be a greater willingness to accept expiring licenses and/or software as a subscription service. In other words, like other content providers their primary aim may not be to stop piracy but to change customer expectations regarding what one can do with a digital product.

No matter how many assurances they might give us in order to make us accept these restrictions, the fact still remains that with Product Activation the software in question cannot be run independent from the company that made it. If we want to install on our computer today, tomorrow or in two or five years it can only be done by contacting the software company’s activation service. If people accept that, more and more companies are going to use Product Activation, and we may end up with personal computers filled with programs that must be activated anew for each new installation from scratch. If people say a firm no to it, the software businesses will be prevented from forcing it on us. It is as easy as that. Luckily, the reactions of many contributors to this thread demonstrate that an increasing number of computers owners do indeed say a firm no to the nonsense.

Personally, I recently paid the equivalent of $810 for a Photoshop 7 copy, and I ask the software businesses to not even suggest that those who rightfully speak up against product activation are pirates. The point is that our working tools must be free from attached strings and restrictions that limit our use of our own computers.

I have said this before in this group: If a software company controls the software on the computer, it is in control of the whole machine and its use. From a user viewpoint it is completely intolerable to use software that cannot be installed and used today, tomorrow and in X number of years, on the present or future computer of our choice, without need for "permission" from a software company.

There is no reason why we should have to "activate" or register the working tools we need on our own computers. By bearing this in mind all the time, we can and will stop this cynical scheme.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Here is your ‘nightmare vision of the future’, (just remember you saw it here first):

In a (very) few years time software will not be distributed on disk (floppy/CD/DVD or whatever) It will be downloaded from the software company to your computer via the ‘net. You will pay a monthly subscription for the use of it, and product activation will make sure you do. The program will contain ‘security software’ so that each time you boot the program it will check back with the parent company to make sure your subscription is up to date and ‘activated’ before the program will even run, so you can forget about installing the software then disconnecting your machine from the Internet. Manuals then, as now, will be in PDF format or similar, so the company saves the effort and cost of printing manuals, packaging, distribution and so on.
Before you ROFLYAO remember that the two things that make this possible are already here: 1) Product Activation and 2) Broadband Internet access.

It is not a case of ‘If’ but rather ‘When’.
—

Ron.
(Stirring a specialty, has own spoon if required.)

nospam wrote in message

On the other hand there is nothing in the license agreement that says they won’t screw you blind and as poor as software upgrades have been of late

and

as greedy as companies have been getting you expect people to trust them without something in writing? That is like saying the companies can trust the consumer to do what is right so why bother with a license agreement.
Sorry I just don’t have the trust for these companies. I want something in writing stating exactly what they can and can’t do and I want it done in such a way that it is irrevocable for the software package purchased until then I will continue to believe that sooner or later, most likely sooner

we

the consumer are going to get screwed because that is what happens.
R

Here is your ‘nightmare vision of the future’, (just remember you saw it here first):

In a (very) few years time software will not be distributed on disk (floppy/CD/DVD or whatever) It will be downloaded from the software company to your computer via the ‘net. You will pay a monthly subscription for the use of it, and product activation will make sure you do. The program will contain ‘security software’ so that each time you boot the program it will check back with the parent company to make sure your subscription is up to date and ‘activated’ before the program will even run, so you can forget about installing the software then disconnecting your machine from the Internet. Manuals then, as now, will be in PDF format or similar, so the company saves the effort and cost of printing manuals, packaging, distribution and so on.
Before you ROFLYAO remember that the two things that make this possible are already here: 1) Product Activation and 2) Broadband Internet access.
It is not a case of ‘If’ but rather ‘When’.

All required code will have to get onto your computer at some time. So the crackers will sort out how to grab it. 🙂

"Product activation" is one of those despicable marketroid terms (like "negative growth") used to disguise the truth. It’s *copy protection* plain and simple.

I doubt if Microsoft, Adobe et al. are particularly worried about a loudly vocal minority of software collectors.

As long as they can make it less than trivially easy for Joe Punter to copy his neighbour’s software, they’ll be satisfied.

RTM wrote:

Here is your ‘nightmare vision of the future’, (just remember you saw it here first):

In a (very) few years time software will not be distributed on disk (floppy/CD/DVD or whatever) It will be downloaded from the software company to your computer via the ‘net. You will pay a monthly subscription for the use of it, and product activation will make sure you do. The program will contain ‘security software’ so that each time you boot the program it will check back with the parent company to make sure your subscription is up to date and ‘activated’ before the program will even run, so you can forget about installing the software then disconnecting your machine from the Internet. Manuals then, as now, will be in PDF format or similar, so the company saves the effort and cost of printing manuals, packaging, distribution and so on.
Before you ROFLYAO remember that the two things that make this possible are already here: 1) Product Activation and 2) Broadband Internet access.

It is not a case of ‘If’ but rather ‘When’.

Yes, that is the worst possible nightmare. You are completely correct that it is the big software companies’ wet dream.

But it will not happen, because it runs counter to the long-term needs of data safety. We all need to be able to access and to work with our files and documents without being tied to particular companies, and to have certainty that this can be done any time we want now and in the future.

Before long we will also have computers with solid state hard drives and LCD’s that consume a fraction of the energy required by today’s power-hungry boxes. Thus, our PC’s may run on private solar panels and not even be dependent on AC.

Another factor coming into the picture is Open Source software, which is going to force the whole software industry to seek new ways to survive. They will not be able to continue along their present path.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Don wrote:

Product activation = customer deactivation!

Absolutely.

And that’s where "product activation" is going. In the end, the only thing copy protection does is inconvenience and annoy legitimate users. Pirates couldn’t care less.

Very true. There are sound reasons why it annoys us: If our working tools are controlled by some company, they control our computers because these tools – the software – are necessary to access and work with the files we create.

Personally I will never accept to be dependent on copy"protected" tools that need to be activated or registered, or programs that expire, for making and working on my precious photographs or essays. Never.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:39:00 +0200, "pioe(rmv)" <"pioe(rmv)"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Marc Pawliger wrote:

We should be aware that the leaders of the software companies are intelligent business people. Among other things they play on subtle psychological mechanisms. By trying to force universal activation they are quite possibly attempting to reduce the feeling of ownership to what you have paid for. They may hope that the result will be a greater willingness to accept expiring licenses and/or software as a subscription service. In other words, like other content providers their primary aim may not be to stop piracy but to change customer expectations regarding what one can do with a digital product.

Only one thing wrong with your statement above. You can’t attempt to reduce the feeling of ownership in something you don’t own in the first place. All you "own" is a license to use the software.

Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing with your stance, it’s just that we cannot argue about something unless we use the correct terms. What are talking about is a variation in the licensing arrangement.

—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)

Hecate wrote:

Marc Pawliger wrote:

We should be aware that the leaders of the software companies are intelligent business people. Among other things they play on subtle psychological mechanisms. By trying to force universal activation they are quite possibly attempting to reduce the feeling of ownership to what you have paid for. They may hope that the result will be a greater willingness to accept expiring licenses and/or software as a subscription service. In other words, like other content providers their primary aim may not be to stop piracy but to change customer expectations regarding what one can do with a digital product.

Only one thing wrong with your statement above. You can’t attempt to reduce the feeling of ownership in something you don’t own in the first place. All you "own" is a license to use the software.
Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing with your stance, it’s just that we cannot argue about something unless we use the correct terms. What are talking about is a variation in the licensing arrangement.

I don’t think anyone here talking about being the owner of the code, but the owner of the CD and the right to touch the CD anyway they want. I can chop off the hand of the Adobe president or chief programmer etc. if they try to take away the CD I paid for.

Now, let see who is the owner who has more rights on the CD <g>.

In article , Hecate
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:39:00 +0200, "pioe(rmv)" <"pioe(rmv)"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

Marc Pawliger wrote:

Please watch your attribution. I did not write what you attributed to me.

–marc

LMAO

Have you ever actually read the terms of your license agreement before you clicked "I accept"??

They give you pretty much NOTHING but the "right" to use the product, which they can alter at anytime… with….NO guarantee of suitablility, no liability if the product destroys data, or even hardware, that I can see. And even if you DID know the code and could remove a problem to make it suitable or more compatible, the agreement prohibits you from doing that, "reverse engineering" would be necessary for you to then "forward engineer" Bill Gates is not the only pipe-dreaming corp exec that thinks the day of web-delivered software, updates, patches, security releases, etc.. are upon us. Forget it if you are an artist working in the woods running a generator or laptop. Next they will be making the ASSumption that you have a satellite connection if you are beyond hardwire service areas.

"Joe" wrote in message
Hecate wrote:

Marc Pawliger wrote:

We should be aware that the leaders of the software companies are intelligent business people. Among other things they play on subtle psychological mechanisms. By trying to force universal activation they are quite possibly attempting to reduce the feeling of ownership to what you have paid for. They may hope that the result will be a greater willingness to accept expiring licenses and/or software as a subscription service. In other words, like other content providers their primary aim may not be to stop piracy but to change customer expectations regarding what one can do with a digital product.

Only one thing wrong with your statement above. You can’t attempt to reduce the feeling of ownership in something you don’t own in the first place. All you "own" is a license to use the software.
Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing with your stance, it’s just that we cannot argue about something unless we use the correct terms. What are talking about is a variation in the licensing arrangement.

I don’t think anyone here talking about being the owner of the code, but the owner of the CD and the right to touch the CD anyway they want. I can chop off the hand of the Adobe president or chief programmer etc. if they try to take away the CD I paid for.

Now, let see who is the owner who has more rights on the CD <g>.

"zuuum" wrote:

LMAO

Have you ever actually read the terms of your license agreement before you clicked "I accept"??

They give you pretty much NOTHING but the "right" to use the product, which they can alter at anytime… with….NO guarantee of suitablility, no liability if the product destroys data, or even hardware, that I can see. And even if you DID know the code and could remove a problem to make it suitable or more compatible, the agreement prohibits you from doing that, "reverse engineering" would be necessary for you to then "forward engineer" Bill Gates is not the only pipe-dreaming corp exec that thinks the day of web-delivered software, updates, patches, security releases, etc.. are upon us. Forget it if you are an artist working in the woods running a generator or laptop. Next they will be making the ASSumption that you have a satellite connection if you are beyond hardwire service areas.

You sure know how to read the license agreement but don’t know what you can do with the license you have. Like I mentioned you don’t own the code *but* don’t Adobe dare to touch the CD I paid for (you get this far?).

You can’t release the modified version to public but Adobe or other software companies won’t bite you if you need to change something to make it works on your system (for your personal use). The license agreement doesn’t tell you that many companies have to hire some programmers to modify the code of the software to fix the bug or make them work better.

"Joe" wrote in message
Hecate wrote:

Marc Pawliger wrote:

We should be aware that the leaders of the software companies are intelligent business people. Among other things they play on subtle psychological mechanisms. By trying to force universal activation they are quite possibly attempting to reduce the feeling of ownership to what you have paid for. They may hope that the result will be a greater willingness to accept expiring licenses and/or software as a subscription service. In other words, like other content providers their primary aim may not be to stop piracy but to change customer expectations regarding what one can do with a digital product.

Only one thing wrong with your statement above. You can’t attempt to reduce the feeling of ownership in something you don’t own in the first place. All you "own" is a license to use the software.
Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing with your stance, it’s just that we cannot argue about something unless we use the correct terms. What are talking about is a variation in the licensing arrangement.

I don’t think anyone here talking about being the owner of the code, but the owner of the CD and the right to touch the CD anyway they want. I can chop off the hand of the Adobe president or chief programmer etc. if they try to take away the CD I paid for.

Now, let see who is the owner who has more rights on the CD <g>.

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:43:39 +0100, "RTM"
wrote:

… You will pay a monthly subscription for the
use of it, and product activation will make sure you do. The program will contain ‘security software’ so that each time you boot the program it will check back with the parent company to make sure your subscription is up to date and ‘activated’ before the program will even run, so you can forget about installing the software then disconnecting your machine from the Internet.

…while companies (and I doubt that they would, but you never know) may pout up with that sort of licensing deal, the public awouldn’;t. You only have to look at the cracked software available now. All that would happen would be an explosion of piracy.

As a matter of fact, the wide availability of pirated software not only on the Internet, but on the street almost everywhere, helps the software companies in their schemes. Why?

There are two reasons:

* Because there are many who use pirated software, the software business can skilfully create moral indignation among significant numbers of people, arguing that "we have to force these restrictions and limitations in order to protect our intellectual property." It is all too easy to believe in that and fail to see the insatiable greed of these businesses, thereby accepting their claim that they must force more and more restrictions on us.

* Because anyone can get hold on pirated software, those who do not accept the restrictions have an easy way out. If there was no pirated software, there would more than likely be a massive consumer protest against things like copy "protection" and Product Activation. But when people can get cracked versions many just do not care and acquire the pirate versions instead.

And as always, it is the honest customers who suffer. Fortunately, it seems that a rapidly increasing number of computer users are now becoming aware of these issues.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Hecate wrote in message

Unfortunately 2 isn’t true for the majority of people still. Not even in the US and won’t be for a long time because to do it properly requires proper wiring and no government that I’ve seen in either the US or the UK is willing to put up the money to do that .

That’s why it hasn’t happened *yet*. Give it time. I did say "in a few years". People being what people are, the great majority of those that don’t have it, do want it. The rest will have no choice but to follow. Broadband is rapidly on the increase, and there is the option of Broadband via satellite. Just wait until Broadband is available via mobile phone, if it isn’t already. That’ll net the laptop users too.

Companies

won’t, because of the cost. I’m, not saying they wouldn’t like to do that, but the facilities just aren’t there yet. It requires a critical mass (and not just more than 50% of people connected to broadband).

Companies have been known to work together in the past on certain major issues in order to thrash out the ‘industry standard’, there’s no reason why they couldn’t on this. Spread the cost, spread the risk, share the profits/benefits.
People very often get what they are given, not what they want. A lot of people, for example, want digital TV and radio services. But the ones that don’t want it will not have the choice because eventually the ‘analogue’ broadcasts will cease and digital will be the only option, and eventually that will be widescreen only whether you like it or not. Try buying an analogue TV in about, say, 5 years from now. Its not a case of what you want, its a case of what someone somewhere decides you are getting. Those who have a large collection of movies for their VCR are okay for the time being, but the time will come when that old machine gives out and if you want to watch your movies you are going to have to buy them again on DVD because VCRs just won’t be available anymore.

When software subscription via the Net is the only option on offer then people will take it, however reluctantly.

Secondly, while companies (and I doubt that they would, but you never know) may pout up with that sort of licensing deal,

The parallels are already drawn. Look at satellite/cable TV and ‘Pay to View’ programmes. As well as paying a subscription for the network, you pay extra to see the big match, or the latest Hollywood blockbuster or some band live in concert etc.
The music industry is trying very hard to find a ‘pay to listen’ system that would enable them to not just ‘pay to listen’ but some even want a system that limits the number of times the tune can be played before you have to pay again. And in time they’ll find one and then the Net becomes the main distribution medium for music, and what works for music will work for movies too. Broadband connection, pay a subscription and stream the movie over the Net.

the public
awouldn’;t. You only have to look at the cracked software available now. All that would happen would be an explosion of piracy.

But as I pointed out, there wouldn’t be any CDs to copy. The software would be installed via the net directly onto the individual computer concerned, and wouldn’t run without a Net connection to check the subscription validity. I doubt that the piracy situation would be any worse than it is now. You’d have to get someone to come to your home or office and hack your computer directly and any copies would be very easily traced back to source because Activation is effectively a fingerprint of your computer.

All it is really waiting for is some company to be first. You can guarantee the rest will follow VERY quickly.
I don’t say I’m any more in favour of this than the others who have spoken against it, but I think its one of those things that is just going to happen.
I’d be more surprised if it didn’t happen than if it did.

—

Ron.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:16:09 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

"Product activation" is one of those despicable marketroid terms (like "negative growth") used to disguise the truth. It’s *copy protection* plain and simple.

I doubt if Microsoft, Adobe et al. are particularly worried about a loudly vocal minority of software collectors.

As long as they can make it less than trivially easy for Joe Punter to copy his neighbour’s software, they’ll be satisfied.

They are obviously worried as the resurrection of copy protection schemes shows. To everyone else this is clearly a very misguided worry because, as you quite rightly point out, "software collectors" are a minority and, as someone else also rightly pointed out, they don’t use it anyway, they just "collect" it. So, loss to sales is negligible.

In the end, it’s legitimate users who end up paying for the dubious privilege of being abused by intrusive copy protection schemes they don’t want in the first place!

Don.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:55:10 +0100, "RTM"
wrote:

Companies have been known to work together in the past on certain major issues in order to thrash out the ‘industry standard’, there’s no reason why they couldn’t on this. Spread the cost, spread the risk, share the profits/benefits.

Yes, they have, but I’ve seen the costs doing it for the UK. Microsoft couldn’t afford it even working with others. And that’s assuming they’d want to anyway.

People very often get what they are given, not what they want. A lot of people, for example, want digital TV and radio services. But the ones that don’t want it will not have the choice because eventually the ‘analogue’ broadcasts will cease and digital will be the only option, and eventually that will be widescreen only whether you like it or not. Try buying an analogue TV in about, say, 5 years from now. Its not a case of what you want, its a case of what someone somewhere decides you are getting. Those who have a large collection of movies for their VCR are okay for the time being, but the time will come when that old machine gives out and if you want to watch your movies you are going to have to buy them again on DVD because VCRs just won’t be available anymore.

Yes, that is true. But then the technology is easy to distribute. It’s not so easy in the computer market, which despite companies attempts, is not a mature, or even young, consumer market.

When software subscription via the Net is the only option on offer then people will take it, however reluctantly.

Secondly, while companies (and I doubt that they would, but you never know) may pout up with that sort of licensing deal,

The parallels are already drawn. Look at satellite/cable TV and ‘Pay to View’ programmes. As well as paying a subscription for the network, you pay extra to see the big match, or the latest Hollywood blockbuster or some band live in concert etc.

I have satellite. And I pay for the channels I want. I don’t pay for the ones I don’t. And I never pay for PFV. And I won’t, ever. Maybe it’s different in the US. I think your culture may have a different attitude.

The music industry is trying very hard to find a ‘pay to listen’ system that would enable them to not just ‘pay to listen’ but some even want a system that limits the number of times the tune can be played before you have to pay again. And in time they’ll find one and then the Net becomes the main distribution medium for music, and what works for music will work for movies too. Broadband connection, pay a subscription and stream the movie over the Net.

Yes, but the market isn’t and won’t ever be that big. There are always a percentage of people who just aren’t interested. In this country for instance (the UK) they reckon the computer market has reached saturation point at 60%. And of those 60% most just want to be able to do some accounts, email and go on the Net occasionally.

the public
awouldn’;t. You only have to look at the cracked software available now. All that would happen would be an explosion of piracy.

But as I pointed out, there wouldn’t be any CDs to copy. The software would be installed via the net directly onto the individual computer concerned, and wouldn’t run without a Net connection to check the subscription validity. I doubt that the piracy situation would be any worse than it is now. You’d have to get someone to come to your home or office and hack your computer directly and any copies would be very easily traced back to source because Activation is effectively a fingerprint of your computer.

Nothing you have said convinces me any less that the software will be crackable. And that it will happen.

All it is really waiting for is some company to be first. You can guarantee the rest will follow VERY quickly.

We’ll see. Microsoft tried it, but only on the home market. They didn’t dare try it with businesses. And the home market may be just the place for what you’re descri=bing. Except that I don’t see that market as large enough to make it worth the hassle they’re going to get when people with no computer knowledge start flooding their help lines. And, certainly in this country, if they fail to provide the required service they’ll get hammered by consumer protection.

—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)

Hecate wrote in message

I have satellite. And I pay for the channels I want. I don’t pay for the ones I don’t. And I never pay for PFV. And I won’t, ever. Maybe it’s different in the US. I think your culture may have a different attitude.

But thats exactly what you ARE doing. You are paying a subscription to watch a TV channel instead of paying per individual programme, but the principle is no different. Its just a matter of ‘degree’. The fact that you don’t pay for individual programmes hasn’t stopped it happening, and hasn’t made it go away again. Sufficient numbers do pay to make it viable. The same can happen for software.
(BTW, I’m in the UK too.)

snip< ……. Broadband connection, pay a subscription and stream the movie

over the

Net.

Yes, but the market isn’t and won’t ever be that big. There are always a percentage of people who just aren’t interested. In this country for instance (the UK) they reckon the computer market has reached saturation point at 60%. And of those 60% most just want to be able to do some accounts, email and go on the Net occasionally.

60% of the UK is 60% of about 60 million people. Thats quite a sizeable market for anybody, but the Internet is global, not national, so your marketplace is the World, not just one or two countries.

We’ll see. Microsoft tried it, but only on the home market. They didn’t dare try it with businesses. And the home market may be just the place for what you’re descri=bing. Except that I don’t see that market as large enough to make it worth the hassle they’re going to get when people with no computer knowledge start flooding their help lines. And, certainly in this country, if they fail to provide the required service they’ll get hammered by consumer protection.

Well in theory that’s what is supposed to happen here in the UK. What happens when the company isn’t in the UK? or even in Europe for that matter? Its rather more difficult to "slap the wrist" of a company that has no premises in the UK, no staff in the UK, no accounts or assets in the UK etc. but I think we’re going off at a tangent here.

(In practice people will come to a newsgroup like this and ask "How do
I…." rather than be queued on the phone at

RTM wrote:

But thats exactly what you ARE doing. You are paying a subscription to watch a TV channel instead of paying per individual programme, but the principle is no different. Its just a matter of ‘degree’. The fact that you don’t pay for individual programmes hasn’t stopped it happening, and hasn’t made it go away again. Sufficient numbers do pay to make it viable. The same can happen for software.
(BTW, I’m in the UK too.)

Here it needs to be pointed out that whereas television is something we watch for pleasure and entertainment, a software program is a prerequisite to running a computer, and thus a prerequisite to our accessing and working with our data. A computer and its programs are working tools.

Hence, dependence on a software company to run our computers means that we cannot access and work with our data without the availability of outside servers and subscriptions to them. In such a scenario, it becomes impossible to write a letter to Grandma without having paid the software company for the right to use the program functions on their servers. That would be a major step backward from the days when a computer was totally user-controlled and needed nothing else than plain, simple AC (- or a battery or solar cells!) in order to run. Perversely, it would also be a major step backwards compared to the days of the typewriter. This is said only half-joking.

It is clear that it is the software companies that are desperate to extract revenue from their customers, and therefore want software programs to be made into subscription services. But that means they control our working tools, and it is technically the worst solution possible because it means the death of independent, individual computing.

Fortunately it will never go that far, because people need to be able to work with their computers as independent units. To take a firm stand against product activation is a good place to start.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

In the end, it’s legitimate users who end up paying for the dubious privilege of being abused by intrusive copy protection schemes they don’t want in the first place!

Don.

Let us not forget the complaints from software companies who said the fact that people copied tapes/floppies etc kept prices up. As software became available on CD (in the days before home CDr) I don’t remember prices falling for software.

K

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:55:02 +0200, "pioe(rmv)" <"pioe(rmv)"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

I am at a complete loss to understand where I have said anything to the effect that the software industry deliberately make crackable programs. What I am saying is that:

* Because cracking is done and cannot ever be prevented, people have access to pirated software. Thus, many among those who would otherwise mount a massive protest against copy protection and product activation shemes can use the pirated versions instead. Thus, consumer protest is avoided (or rather camouflaged).

* The very fact of piracy benefits the proprietary software companies because piracy causes moral indignation among a not insignificant number of people. For this reason copy protection schemes and product activation are accepted among those who let themselves be influenced by the software companies’ saying that "we have to have in place strong protection for our intellectual property rights against the pirates, therefore you must accept these restrictions."

That is /not/ to say that the companies actually /want/ the programs to become cracked and pirated.

Thank you for clearing that up. The impression I had from your previous post was as stated.

One question: how do you propose people protect their intellectual copyright and at the same time get paid?

The way it has been, the software companies have been allowed to get away with their customer-unfriendly schemes. Until now, that is. People are beginning to react when they are not even denied the possibility to install and use the programs without "permission" from the manufacturer.

I still think that you’re being way too optimistic over the likely public reaction. The only people with real clout are companies, not individuals and, like Microsoft, I doubt very much if Adobe will be stupid enough to inflict their version of copy protection on companies. If they do, then they really will be in trouble.

—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)

"pioe(rmv)" <"pioe(rmv)"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message news:<aLI4b.1365$>…

I agree to all what you discussed. I think that all what you said was logical. I also do not understand why large software companies may practice ACTIVATION. It is a very confusing method of protection. It wont lead to real a protection or even lead to satisfaction of legal users that they are the only people to use such software legally, cuz they know that hackers are everywhere. Of course I am not encouraging illegal actions.

I have another understanding for the reasons behind unauthorized copying: the companies whom their software is being cracked are the companies who do not have wise pricing policy. The software companies are not seriously considering the individual income in some poor countries. They only want to sell to all people in the same price. If they have to change prices in some countries then the reason is only taxes and not the individual’s income in that country. In the light of current computers speed and available tools, and the high internet speeds and availability of newsgroups, hackers may collaborate to turn every kind of software protection into ashes! I advice the big companies not to consider sophisticated levels of protection through "ACTIVATION", because they will only harm themselves and their loyal legitimate users. What is the solution then? There is a solution that has been followed by many magazines! When an expensive magazine is sold somewhere and the publishers wanted to sell in some poor country, then they only export what has been returned by the bookstores. For example the issue of August is sold on September or even October. And it is sold for a fraction of the original price. Therefore; for Adobe to regain some of their losses, they may start to market older versions of Adobe Photoshop such as version 5.5 for ($100) in poor countries against stopping their technical support, the matter that may urge the client to search for newer versions. I am not very amazed to see unauthorized copies in some poor countries in which the individual’s income will not exceed US $30 (thirty) a month. Some people will ask, but if they buy Photoshop they will make money out of it! Ok? How much they actually make? I know some advertising agencies in Pakistan and Sudan that make at most US $300 a year from using Photoshop! That is less than the price of one legitimate copy of Photoshop!

What would be the solution in that case? I think that pricing policy should be re-considered for poor countries. According to my experience, I see that dongle is the ever best copy protection, though it may lead sometimes to system conflicts, but it is generally accepted.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

Ok I have read these with great interest. Now let me try to clarify some points.

The licensing structures (other than FLEX-LM and LUM) are only to keep honest people honest. As proven they can be cracked and cracked very easily. The two are big league with considerable overhead but flat do the job.

Although the names and some of the process vary they are the same. OTC or One Time Charge. This means that when you purchase the SW it is yours to use under the Ts&Cs of the lic agreement. Their are no limitations on time.

Now this is how large and small companies move you on. First is called EOM (end of marketing) Stop selling the Version. Next is EOS (End of Support) meaning they no longer creating fixes. Once you have the products they are yours to use. But you cannot get additional copies or fixes. You are frozen. It is more productive for companies to focus on new versions than to support old ones and their major customers will migrate.

Be prepared for the next real step is when the CPUs are serialized and or companies will require a NIC card to run the SW. Even if you are not on a network the licensing will require a NIC card because it is one of the few cards that has a physical address (conmand screen==> "ipconfig /all"). Now what would happen is you will run a program that will send an "ID" to the SW company and they will build a license file that you will place in a particular folder. If (even after EOM/EOS) you change NIC cards you can be issued a new license but you have to communicate with that company, normally sign (electronic) a statement that the previous licenseID is not being used. It is not as fool proof as the UNIX or MFs but it serves the purpose.

That is hard ball (FLEX-LM or LUM).

Bottom line is that companies with medium priced products on PC’s ($500 – $1000) cannot afford this over head so they will use some low end technology to keep the majority of people honest.

Their best way of forcing you to a new level is function and quality. An indirect is new OS and H/W they will not support will the old versions.

Remember you paid for the use of the product with no time limits. Some companies offer subscription services for a fee that entitles you to free upgrades but limited to DOT releases ( V7.xx). If a Version 8 is announced your only break might be a reduced price. But even if you have a subscription service or even support once EOS is reached the deal ends as far as subscription but in some cases they will honor your maintenance contract will it expires but only for existion fixes and how to you will still not be able to get new problems fixed.

On 4 Sep 2003 04:12:21 -0700, (Mohamed
Al-Dabbagh) wrote:

"pioe(rmv)" <"pioe(rmv)"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message news:<aLI4b.1365$>…

I agree to all what you discussed. I think that all what you said was logical. I also do not understand why large software companies may practice ACTIVATION. It is a very confusing method of protection. It wont lead to real a protection or even lead to satisfaction of legal users that they are the only people to use such software legally, cuz they know that hackers are everywhere. Of course I am not encouraging illegal actions.

I have another understanding for the reasons behind unauthorized copying: the companies whom their software is being cracked are the companies who do not have wise pricing policy. The software companies are not seriously considering the individual income in some poor countries. They only want to sell to all people in the same price. If they have to change prices in some countries then the reason is only taxes and not the individual’s income in that country. In the light of current computers speed and available tools, and the high internet speeds and availability of newsgroups, hackers may collaborate to turn every kind of software protection into ashes! I advice the big companies not to consider sophisticated levels of protection through "ACTIVATION", because they will only harm themselves and their loyal legitimate users. What is the solution then? There is a solution that has been followed by many magazines! When an expensive magazine is sold somewhere and the publishers wanted to sell in some poor country, then they only export what has been returned by the bookstores. For example the issue of August is sold on September or even October. And it is sold for a fraction of the original price. Therefore; for Adobe to regain some of their losses, they may start to market older versions of Adobe Photoshop such as version 5.5 for ($100) in poor countries against stopping their technical support, the matter that may urge the client to search for newer versions. I am not very amazed to see unauthorized copies in some poor countries in which the individual’s income will not exceed US $30 (thirty) a month. Some people will ask, but if they buy Photoshop they will make money out of it! Ok? How much they actually make? I know some advertising agencies in Pakistan and Sudan that make at most US $300 a year from using Photoshop! That is less than the price of one legitimate copy of Photoshop!

What would be the solution in that case? I think that pricing policy should be re-considered for poor countries. According to my experience, I see that dongle is the ever best copy protection, though it may lead sometimes to system conflicts, but it is generally accepted.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

RTM wrote:

Companies have been known to work together in the past on certain major issues in order to thrash out the ‘industry standard’, there’s no reason why they couldn’t on this. Spread the cost, spread the risk, share the profits/benefits.
People very often get what they are given, not what they want. A lot of people, for example, want digital TV and radio services. But the ones that don’t want it will not have the choice because eventually the ‘analogue’ broadcasts will cease and digital will be the only option, and eventually that will be widescreen only whether you like it or not. Try buying an analogue TV in about, say, 5 years from now. Its not a case of what you want, its a case of what someone somewhere decides you are getting. Those who have a large collection of movies for their VCR are okay for the time being, but the time will come when that old machine gives out and if you want to watch your movies you are going to have to buy them again on DVD because VCRs just won’t be available anymore.

There is a major difference between entertainment services on the one hand, and working tools on the other. Not technically speaking, but if we are looking at the nature of things and the purposes of the different technologies.

Television shows are meant to be ephemeral. When we go to the cinema, it is no tragedy if we cannot take with us "Terminator" and store it, because it is supposed to be an episode of entertaiment, some two hours of being excited by sensory stimuli from the visual effects of the pictures, the sound and the whole atmosphere. Much the same could be said for DVD movies. Very few react to these being forbidden to copy, because it is not the material most see a need to copy.

With the data we create, and the software we must use in order to access, open, modify and create new data, things are entirely different.

When software subscription via the Net is the only option on offer then people will take it, however reluctantly.

Here we need to ask ourselves some important questions:

* Why should we accept software-as-a-service?

* Do we not need independent computing, where we can create new data files, open and modify already existing ones, without any dependence on specific mechanisms (Product Activation, registration, subscription) introduced by software businesses to enable /them/ to control our use of the tools /we/ need? – It would seem that we do.

* Lastly, a very significant question: Are there alternatives?

Yes, there are. Open Source and GPL software has proven its viabilty, and today we have programs for almost every conceivable need. It is untrue that Linux is only suitable for servers, even though that is what the proprietary software businesses want us to believe.

The about only area where GPL software is definitely inferior is – yes, of course you guessed it – within image editing. Unfortunately, there is at the time of this writing no equivalent to Photoshop for Linux. And it will not be either, before GIMP or Filmgimp/Cinepaint develops or improves a few more very important functions. But there are reasons to hope and believe that it is going to happen.

The very existence of Open Source means that software subscription and total dependence on it will never become the only option. It may well become the only option for those who want to enjoy pay-as-you-view multimedia and copy-"protected" films and music as long as the content providers demand Digital Rights Management, but there will always be other possible choices for operating systems and working software. These free choices will likely be chosen by increasing numbers of computer owners.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Hecate wrote:

Thank you for clearing that up. The impression I had from your previous post was as stated.

It is nice to learn that I have managed to express myself with greater clarity.

One question: how do you propose people protect their intellectual copyright and at the same time get paid?

I suppose what mean to you ask is this:

"How can people or companies working with their mind to produce digital material get paid without protecting their intellectual property in a way that limits what users can do with, for example, computer software?"

That is a crucial question indeed.

One thing we all can agree on: Without compensation, no production can take place. S/he who works has him/herself and quite possibly a family to feed. Nothing is actually free. Those making something as a profession must be able to make a living from their work.

Then the next question is whether this necessitates control mechanisms and "protective" measures that put severe restrictions on our access to digital works and on what we can do with them, and/or on the tools we need to access and work with that information.

Are there other ways to do business? Does computer software have to be developed by large corporations that need high revenue to maintain their organization? Might it be that there are other ways to organize this? Can the Open Source be a viable alternative?

And: Might it be that the present system, where software is increasingly controlled in a way that puts serious constraints on our use of what we have paid for, must be changed?

Might it be that a business model where the tools we need to work with our data have so many strings attached to them that we cannot have unlimited "quiet enjoyment" to these tools now and in the future cannot be tolerated, because independent computing and user control over the tools needed by the user is a prerequisite to data safety now and in the future?

It is our data. Why should anyone else have the right to control the tools we need to create and manipulate them?

If the question is posed that way, we may go further and ask:

"How can income to intellectual workers be secured without that extent of straitjacketing and dysfunctional control of individual computing?"

It may be that this is the question we really need to ask, unless we really want to pay subscriptions in order to do things that we could before do at no additional cost as long as we had acquired a typewriter or a pencil. Of course, things are immensely more complicated those days, but the need to be able to work and to have our necessary tools permanently available for unrestricted use whenever we want is not less than before. On the contrary; a more complex reality with more hi-tech material requiring similar hi-tech tools means that the need for individual control is much greater today.

I have written an article about this theme here, with no claim to final answers:

http://www.efn.no/free-desktop.html

The way it has been, the software companies have been allowed to get away with their customer-unfriendly schemes. Until now, that is. People are beginning to react when they are not even denied the possibility to install and use the programs without "permission" from the manufacturer.

I still think that you’re being way too optimistic over the likely public reaction. The only people with real clout are companies, not individuals and, like Microsoft, I doubt very much if Adobe will be stupid enough to inflict their version of copy protection on companies. If they do, then they really will be in trouble.

I see, and I do absolutely not contest what you say. Still, the software industry (the closed, proprietary part of it) may be in for a major surprise when their customers are driven far enough. Another factor is the existence of "corporate" versions of software. These will be leaked out and copied. That may lead the software businesses to finally introduce repressive measures towards these in order to slose that channel.

But the real dark horse is Open Sourced GPL software. Filmgimp and GIMP are not up there with Photoshop yet, but if GIMP can be given more sophisticated sharpness filters and support for 16-bit color much would have been done. CMYK capability is also needed, of course.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 01:29:51 +0200, Per Inge Oestmoen
wrote:

Then the next question is whether this necessitates control mechanisms and "protective" measures that put severe restrictions on our access to digital works and on what we can do with them, and/or on the tools we need to access and work with that information.

…..

I agree with what you’ve said, mostly. The problem I see is that people with great deal of software, built up over time, have a large investment in that software. Changing to something else requires money. And business margins may well not allow that changeover.

Yes, that is a major factor contributing to the maintenance of the present situation. Change costs. Added to this is the psychological factor: "You (mostly) do know what you have, but you do not know what you don’t (yet) have."

But the real dark horse is Open Sourced GPL software. Filmgimp and GIMP are not up there with Photoshop yet, but if GIMP can be given more sophisticated sharpness filters and support for 16-bit color much would have been done. CMYK capability is also needed, of course.

As I’ve said before, I would love it if that were to happen, however, I’m rather pessimistic about any great movement away from standard software. First, there’s the investment costs already incurred as I’ve mentioned above. Secondly, businesses are unwilling to change anyway. Inertia is a factor. Thirdly, the mass of people with no computer knowledge will just accept what they’re given. The only people I see changing are a small minority of computer literate individuals who don’t have a business to run and don’t depend on the software for their income.

These factors are very real. However, the situation with the inevitable results of software companies’ claim to control our computing is not going to become less serious over time if this lock-in, restriction-based system continues. Therefore I believe that an increasing number of people are going to change. These people will mostly be, as you rightly point out, computer literates who know what they are doing and who are therefore not willing to give up the control over their personal working tools. (And ultimately over their data) But I do not think it is necessarily correct that these are people who do not do serious business or depend on the software and its functionality for that business.

Large and middle-sized businesses in typical office environments are those who will find it most difficult to change, whereas many smaller businesses with very competent employees, and above all one-man businesses, are already making the change now. I am a case in point, since I am a professional writer who also sells some photographs. Without my computer and my software I would not be able to do any work, so I definitely depend on the software running on the machine.

But then, my computer is a standalone computer, I am working independently and not as part of a larger business. As such I am a typical candidate for migration to Open Source software. Perhaps not surprisingly, I have set up a dual-boot with Linux (SuSE 8.2) and Windows 2000 Professional. The latter because of Photoshop.

An important factor if a large-scale migration to Open Source software is to happen is the use of intercompatible formats. If data exchange is done with universal, open and non-proprietary formats, people can choose the software they want as long as it can open and manipulate the format in question. That is why it is so important to promote the principle of open formats and to encourage their use.

More options will then be realistically available to people than if the use of proprietary formats forces people to use certain programs from a particular manufacturer. Which has so far been the typical situation in the office environment.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:21:25 +0200, "pioe(rmv)" <"pioe(rmv)"@coldsiberia.org> wrote:

More options will then be realistically available to people than if the use of proprietary formats forces people to use certain programs from a particular manufacturer. Which has so far been the typical situation in the office environment.

Most of what you say makes sense. And yet… The most easy to use and install non-Windows interface, for the less computer literate isn.’t Suse or Red Hat or Mandrake, or any of those others, but Lindows. And the newest version installs itself with only one account, root, and allows you to not have any password, whereupon it will automatically boot itself anyway. Now, I, for one, would hate to find the world changing over to Lindows as the Windows alternative when with that specification it’s even less safe than MS Windows 😉

And that "easiness" is yet another of the problems I see in changing over. The general public is used to Windows and finds the software, for the most part, quick and easy to use. And I don’t think that’s true of *nix software. Not yet anyway.

—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)