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

[tirediron]

Wow... just wow! Another way to thread the consumer Adobe!

 

[Soocom1]

yeah and digital systems are the future.

Kinda makes you wax long for film hu?

 

[stapo49]

It would be interesting to know if many people are flicking Adobe to go to another photo editor?

 

[Overread]

Reading the article this isn't Adobe but more Dolby labs who are challenging Adobe because of the licence structure. So this might be one of those cases where everyone bites Adobe, who have their hands tied by a second company who get to operate more in the shadows because Adobe is the big name and the front line to the consumer.

Also it appears to relate mostly if not only to the software on their annual licence structure. So in theory just updating to the latest version would basically resolve the whole issue. Considering that you have to log in online anyway to authenticate use every so often under the licence agreement for the monthly software use; one can assume most who have access to the older versions who are using them also have access to the internet to continue use - so in theory all they have to do is click "update software".


It's an odd move by Adobe, one would have thought they'd simply try for a simpler method such as hard-coding a forced update which would have kept this more under wraps; rather than a letter about suing users even though we know Adobe never would as it would be a total PR disaster - heck just for them to send this letter on its own sounds like someone/legal system is already strongarming Adobe quite significantly as this is the kind of thing that could kill Adobes market hold. Subscription services are really neat, but at the same time create a big enough shake up and then can collapse just as fast.


Of course they typically can only really collapse if competition raises its head loudly at the same time to advertise their own market option. So one might wonder if this could be all part of a ploy to shatter adobes market hold or if other companies will simply jump in and try to make best of a situation that could do them well.

 

[Soocom1]

Without delving into politics (not partisan mind you) the real crux is that the EULA that everyone signs basically takes away any concept of "ownership rights" and removes them. You simply leasing the software and they own it. Completely.

I frankly dont give a flying ratt's backside one way or the other.
I dont use much software anyway and dont really care that much. What does concerns me though is that it opens a door of precedence.

 

[Overread]

EULA for pretty much all software says the same thing though; they are all just licences to use.

Thing is this is the first time I've heard of a company threatening legal action for using the software to consumers. It might happen for licensed software used beyond its end of licence period, but I've only ever heard of that happening to major companies/industries. Adobes is used by the industry but also a vast number of hobby users - ergo the general public. Heck Adobes new monthly payment system really opened them up to that market in a massive way

 

[Derrel]

Gotta love rented software!

 

[smoke665]

I read the article, the letter and the lawsuit referenced. The letter makes a rather vague reference with "we have discontinued certain older versions of Creative Cloud applications" but doesn't elaborate on what those applications are . In the example letter it referred to the application Animate. The Creative Cloud umbrella contains a lot of applications other than Lr & Ps. It's also vague as to if these "other" applications are on a monthly subscription like Lr or Ps, or if they were purchase to own a License. I suspect it was the latter, as the lawsuit with Dolby concerns their royalty rights under contractual obligations with Adobe on these "other" applications. Under the terms of the month to month on both Lr and Ps, there is no discontinued version, because it's updated throughout the lease period, and renews annually. I'm sure there's probably wording in the EULA that they could sue to stop you using, but that would be a nightmare for Adobe. The letter specifically says "you may be at risk for claims by THIRD PARTIES", I read that to mean Dolby, not Adobe.

 

[chuasam]

Meh..I pay my monthly dues and use the latest software. It isn't THAT Much money in the big scheme of things.

 

[unpopular]

Meh..I pay my monthly dues and use the latest software. It isn't THAT Much money in the big scheme of things.

You should see how much Autodesk charges. CC is chump change compared to some industries.

 

[Solarflare]

I've already decided to get Capture One. It seems a great alternative. Not before I get some other stuff first though. Like a better monitor.

 

[Jeff15]

It does not apply to me I have only ever used stand-alone editing software.....

 

[JoeW]

I get people who say "it's just a cheap monthly fee." I get that. OTOH, I've been shooting consistently since 1968 (film back then obviously), have over 40,000 edits in the cloud, lord knows how many total digital photos in total. And I plan to keep shooting and editing for another 30 years. For me that cheap monthly fee is like the logic between buying your home vs. renting for 50 years.

I use Affinity Photo. No monthly fees. I bought it outright ($30 USD at the time, I think it's up to $50 now).

And for those who poo-poo the original post and say it's not likely to happen or it's not specific if PS, other sources are not so sanguine: Adobe warning of legal problems if subscribers keep using old versions of Creative Cloud apps [u] and Outrage after Adobe says customers using an older version of Photoshop may be SUED if they continue | Daily Mail Online

 

[Designer]

Market forces at work.

If Adobe doesn't want to accommodate all potential customers, the customers will go elsewhere.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I've been out of the photography loop for about five years now. It's reassuring to see Adobe hasn't lost their way in pissing customers off.

Oh, and hi everyone that remembers me.