Adobe Tells Users They Can Get Sued for Using Old Versions of Photoshop

[texxter]

As I mentioned in the thread about Adobe licensing models, I am still using the 2008 Adobe CS4 product. None of this stuff applies to me because I never moved to Creative Cloud, but I am really frozen in time and unsupported. At some point I will need to put away my mid-2010 iMac and older versions of software and move to a new system with subscription-based software. I am delaying that inevitability as long as I can. A purchase of a new camera will precipitate this migration, but no plans to do so anytime soon.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

As I mentioned in the thread about Adobe licensing models, I am still using the 2008 Adobe CS4 product. None of this stuff applies to me because I never moved to Creative Cloud, but I am really frozen in time and unsupported. At some point I will need to put away my mid-2010 iMac and older versions of software and move to a new system with subscription-based software. I am delaying that inevitability as long as I can. A purchase of a new camera will precipitate this migration, but no plans to do so anytime soon.

I have CS5 and bought it right before they switched to cloud. It had worked flawlessly until about a year ago. Now when I start it up I’ll get a pop up that basically hijacks my computer and tells me I’m using pirated software and won’t let me do anything except takes me to the adobe site to buy their legitimate software. I paid full price for it and received a cd that had a hologram on it so it looked pretty legit but apparently it wasn’t.

 

[texxter]

As I mentioned in the thread about Adobe licensing models, I am still using the 2008 Adobe CS4 product. None of this stuff applies to me because I never moved to Creative Cloud, but I am really frozen in time and unsupported. At some point I will need to put away my mid-2010 iMac and older versions of software and move to a new system with subscription-based software. I am delaying that inevitability as long as I can. A purchase of a new camera will precipitate this migration, but no plans to do so anytime soon.

I have CS5 and bought it right before they switched to cloud. It had worked flawlessly until about a year ago. Now when I start it up I’ll get a pop up that basically hijacks my computer and tells me I’m using pirated software and won’t let me do anything except takes me to the adobe site to buy their legitimate software. I paid full price for it and received a cd that had a hologram on it so it looked pretty legit but apparently it wasn’t.

Wow, that's a bummer! Did you try calling Adobe about this? If you paid full price to a legitimate authorized dealer you should have a perpetual license and not be bothered with those messages.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

As I mentioned in the thread about Adobe licensing models, I am still using the 2008 Adobe CS4 product. None of this stuff applies to me because I never moved to Creative Cloud, but I am really frozen in time and unsupported. At some point I will need to put away my mid-2010 iMac and older versions of software and move to a new system with subscription-based software. I am delaying that inevitability as long as I can. A purchase of a new camera will precipitate this migration, but no plans to do so anytime soon.

I have CS5 and bought it right before they switched to cloud. It had worked flawlessly until about a year ago. Now when I start it up I’ll get a pop up that basically hijacks my computer and tells me I’m using pirated software and won’t let me do anything except takes me to the adobe site to buy their legitimate software. I paid full price for it and received a cd that had a hologram on it so it looked pretty legit but apparently it wasn’t.

Wow, that's a bummer! Did you try calling Adobe about this? If you paid full price to a legitimate authorized dealer you should have a perpetual license and not be bothered with those messages.

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an authorized dealer. I think they just did a good job of counterfeiting it.

Like you, cs5 is starting to become obsolete with no updates for new file types. I have to shoot a compressed raw file because it doesn’t read the uncompressed file because it wasn’t in existence when cs5 was still new. I’ve been giving serious thought to the $10/mo subscription.

 

[Overread]

Honestly I've been on the £10 (or so) subscription and its pretty painless. I get Photoshop and Lightroom and all the updates and the trickle cost is likely less than I'd have been spending on film if we were all film-era.

 

[smoke665]

I have CS5 and bought it right before they switched to cloud. It had worked flawlessly until about a year ago. Now when I start it up I’ll get a pop up that basically hijacks my computer and tells me I’m using pirated software and won’t let me do anything except takes me to the adobe site to buy their legitimate software. I paid full price for it and received a cd that had a hologram on it so it looked pretty legit but apparently it wasn’t.

I've wondered about that when looking at some of the software offered. I've never received that kind of notice, but for the last several years, most of my purchased software, has hit me with the "discontinuing support" notice at 3 years. Whether they continued support or not didn't matter on some, but for those that required the ability to communicate via internet with customers, vendors, banks, etc., it was pretty much a death notice.

 

[unpopular]

One slight issue with some of the comments about subscription cost vs. film nostolgia though .... it isn't like there weren't ongoing expenses with film, either. I mean, we like to believe that we "own" the film and chemistry we bought, but a good portion of the cost of film is in the technology. I'd venture to say that the actual chemistry of film photography would be a very small fraction of the cost and much of the same expenses, research and development, manufacturing and marketing still exists in software publishing.

I'm not necessarily for or against subscriptions, as a person with limited income, who prefers to stay up to date, I personally like the model myself, it works for me, but I also see how for others it would be a burden.

But let's not pretend that film didn't have these ongoing expenses.

 

[RVT1K]

This could also be looked at as owning something vs. asking permission to use it....

 

[Designer]

This could also be looked at as owning something vs. asking permission to use it....

More like paying rent. In this case, the renter has rights as long as he remains in good standing with the owner.

 

[terri]

But let's not pretend that film didn't have these ongoing expenses.

I don't think anyone is saying that. But it is a completely different situation, and one where, yes, the photographer remained in control of charges. Sure, he might buy developers/film/paper, or just pay someone to develop his film - or, he could leave it all on a shelf in the closet and not do anything for a year. No ongoing charges were assigned to him whether he engaged in his hobby or not.

Plus, Pentax, Kodak, Nikon, etc., never threatened their customer with a lawsuit if they didn't upgrade their cameras.

 

[smoke665]

This could also be looked at as owning something vs. asking permission to use it....

I think this is/has been the biggest misconception with software from the very beginning of the computer age. "Buying" a software doesn't mean you own it. You have only "bought" a "license to use" that software, ownership of the software never transferred to you and that license is subject to a myriad limitations including in most cases the right for them to change the conditions of the license whenever they choose. So whether you pay it all up front or by the month, you are ultimately renting software if you want to get technical.

Plus, Pentax, Kodak, Nikon, etc., never threatened their customer with a lawsuit if they didn't upgrade their cameras.

See my above comment. Also I read the article as well as read up on the dispute between Adobe and Dolby. The email says "you may be at risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties.” I may be wrong, but I read that to mean Dolby might sue users. Adobe has a licensing agreement with Dolby, which just like what Adobe uses its customers has limitations and provisions for change/cancellation. A good example are the satellite tv/cable companies. They agree to provide you with X number of channels for so much per month, but when disagreements arise with the channels over programming agreements, in many cases subscribers loose the ability to view those channels, and the satellite/cable companies never reduce your bill.

 

[vintagesnaps]

That's what I thought it sounded like, that Adobe was notifying users that another company may pursue options to stop people from using old versions. Don't you have to update periodically anyway? So I guess now's a good time to do that?

I may not own it but yet, it's on my computer and I can use it as long as I want; I purchased a copy of it. Kind of like buying an issue of a magazine, I don't own the magazine, I'm paying for a copy (to read, cut out articles, whatever).

And how did film get into this??! Yes it's more costly now, because there aren't that many film photographers, but it used to be cheap and easy - toss a roll in a camera, drop it off at a kiosk... I've even be glad to still have a camera store around, drop off the film, pick up finished prints.

But Terri's right, camera manufacturers came out with new bodies, new lenses, etc. but nobody was making anybody upgrade anything or causing what you had to be unusable, you could keep/use that camera for years if you wanted.

 

[smoke665]

But Terri's right, camera manufacturers came out with new bodies, new lenses, etc. but nobody was making anybody upgrade anything or causing what you had to be unusable, you could keep/use that camera for years if you wanted.

Sort of an apples and oranges comparison. With the camera you're buying a tangible product which in legal terms means "something you can touch". You can paint it orange if you want, you can modify it if you want, you change out parts if you want, but software has always leaned more toward an intangible product. You can't touch it, you can't change, you have no say over how it even loads into your computer, the only thing you can do is use it to perform a specified task (hopefully).

 

[vintagesnaps]

Yeah, but then how did film get into this?? lol

 

[unpopular]

This could also be looked at as owning something vs. asking permission to use it....

More like paying rent. In this case, the renter has rights as long as he remains in good standing with the owner.

Of course technically that's how it's always been. The upfront cost of the license made it feel like "ownership", but it never was ...