Adobe Customers Now At Risk of Legal Action For Not Staying Current...

[Portreve]

h/t Vice.com

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

Adobe this week began sending some users of its Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director programs a letter warning them that they were no longer legally authorized to use the software they may have thought they owned.

“We have recently discontinued certain older versions of Creative Cloud applications and and a result, under the terms of our agreement, you are no longer licensed to use them,” Adobe said in the email. “Please be aware that should you continue to use the discontinued version(s), you may be at risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties.”

and (because oh yes indeedy it gets better...)

The company didn’t inform users why they needed to discontinue use of the software, but the company’s Twitter account indicated the issue stems from “ongoing litigation.” AppleInsider, which first reported the notices, pointed to a copyright lawsuit filed last year by Dolby Labs.

Discuss.

[gm10]

What's to discuss? If they didn't tell their users that they'd be liable themselves, so makes sense for them. As to the users, that's what you get for renting an app rather than buying it.

[sarge816]

I wasn't clear from the article, but assume this was aimed at users who had purchased the software in question before it became subscription based, and are now being targeted and forced to "upgrade?" Some people have no option but to utilize certain Adobe software products for their livelihood and will thus have little recourse. I could see Microsoft trying this as well in the future. My wife must have Microsoft Office for her business, but she uses Office 2010 Professional which still does everything she needs. I'll be damned if I "upgrade" to Office365 or some other such subscription based nonsense just because some company says I have to. I'm thinking a good hack/crack plus firewall rule is in order for owners of legacy Adobe products who are being threatened.

[gm10]

I wasn't clear from the article, but assume this was aimed at users who had purchased the software in question before it became subscription based, and are now being targeted and forced to "upgrade?"

No, this is only about CC customers actually, legacy licenses are not affected for those cannot be changed retroactively.

The problem Adobe is trying to solve here is that if they were to allow CC customers to continue using the (potentially?) infringing software versions then they'd be infringing themselves with all their CC subscriptions even though they removed the problematic component in the more recent versions and even though only a small subset of the CC customers may still be using the outdated versions.

[Flemur]

https://torrentfreak.com/dolby-labs-sue ... nt-180314/
Dolby Labs Sues Adobe For Copyright Infringement
March 14, 2018

For 15 years, Dolby supplied encoding and decoding technologies for use in Adobe products including Audition, After Effects, Lightroom and Premiere Pro. The licensing agreement between the companies allowed Adobe to self-report usage, on the condition that Dolby could carry out an audit. However, after the software company failed to comply in recent years, Dolby has rolled out the lawyers.

https://torrentfreak.com/images/dolbyvsadobe.pdf

[absque fenestris]

...
No, this is only about CC customers actually, legacy licenses are not affected for those cannot be changed retroactively.
...

Sorry - that's what it's all about: if your old PowerMac dies or your hard drive gives up - you can forget your paid DVD's with the Adobe-Suite - at least officially.
The DVD doesn't have an expiry date printed on it. The enclosed manual also doesn't say that your purchased software will expire on April 1, 2019, for example.

[Portreve]

As someone who was a professional in the desktop publishing trade for a number of years, I think there's four things that need to happen in Libre software.

1. Feature Set Parity — It is imperative that programs like Scribus, Inkscape, GIMP, Darktable, KDEnlive, Bluefish, etc., have the same feature set that Adobe and Quark's suites do. Professionals of all stores and all industries need to find the Libre replacements which are out there naturally lead them away from proprietary, closed source solutions.

2. Fight The Software Patent Minefield — There have been so many patent trolls out there, big and small, and a way needs to be found to up-end the system which has led to this problem. This means pushing for changes to laws and fighting in the courts with an eye to having high courts become motivated to throw out laws which stifle innovation and human progress.

3. Professional User Interfaces — This has been the bugaboo of many a Libre Software program. Particularly where there exist mainstream commercial tools, like Photoshop or InDesign or MS Office, etc., the user interface for replacement software cannot suck. I'm not arguing for trying to make things dumbed down, and anyone who has used professional commercial tools from these and other companies knows they are not dumbed down in any way. Scribus, Inkscape, and GIMP go a long way in terms of their existing features, but no professional is going to be drawn to use an alternative if they feel the UI is pure amateur hour.

4. Outreach and Awareness — Very few professionals I know are driven by the sort of principles we refer to here when we're talking about how a program comes into being and becomes available for people to use, no matter their field of endeavor. Moreover, they very likely aren't aware there are viable alternatives which favor them as users over those who write the programs. T.S. Elliot once wrote that “The last crime is the greatest treason; to do the right deed for the wrong reason.” People's behaviors with respect to their own freedom and liberty must be changed or we will never really get anywhere.

[Portreve]

One quick addendum to the above, which was threatening to become a TL;DR post already...

I've seen Scribus do many incredible things and produce layouts one would not realize hadn't been produced using InDesign or QuarkXPress. However, as shipped, layouts produced are not of that caliber, and working with it is often extremely awkward and clumsy. It's getting better and has already been improved a great deal from 1.0 to 1.5.3, but it has a long way to go.

[BenTrabetere]

1. Feature Set Parity — It is imperative that programs like Scribus, Inkscape, GIMP, Darktable, KDEnlive, Bluefish, etc., have the same feature set that Adobe and Quark's suites do.

This will never happen as long as Pantone remains proprietary and hostile to open source, or until an open source project can gain enough traction to become a serious contender. SwatchBooker shows promise, but it has a long way to go.

3. Professional User Interfaces — This has been the bugaboo of many a Libre Software program. Particularly where there exist mainstream commercial tools, like Photoshop or InDesign or MS Office, etc., the user interface for replacement software cannot suck.

I know what you mean, but ... please. The Adobe UIs also suck if you do not know how to use them. I still recall my frustration when a former employer switched from PageMaker to Quark and later from Quark to InDesign (with an unpleasant detour to MS Publisher). The Quark UI did not seem natural until I had used it for a couple weeks. Same with InDesign.

[michael louwe]

Background information: .......
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/1 ... ense_fees/ - Dolby sues Adobe for dodging license fees. Copyright case puts royalty model under the microscope. By Shaun Nichols in San Francisco 14 Mar 2018

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2408324 - Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2018 Dolby Audio Problem

Adobe moved from the once-off licensing model to the annual subscription model in 2012 = Adobe profit-gouged and overcharged her users while underpaid her patent-owners, eg Dolby.

Imagine M$-Win 10 next also being sued by Dolby for dodging license fees = M$ drops native Dolby support in Win 10, and then Win 10 users being similarly warned by M$ not to use older versions of Win 10 that are still being supported by M$.

[Pierre]

the thing is, that as these companies fight over Patent Royalties - - the customer is the Loser.

as those same companies, also move towards any cloud based subscription - the customer is still the loser.

it does seem that folks are getting more grumpy, about these changes,
but as to whether they will translate into FOSS supporters - is another matter.


most End Users are getting the Hard Push - to buy, everytime they move to an new machine:
which is what they were always supposed to be doing, but never did so.
- now, they won't get an choice, any-more, as these companies continue to crack down those End users.
and their YoY revenues are starting to display this, as well.

[mediclaser]

Common sense tells me that third party (Dolby Labs) may not really sue the Adobe customers for continuing to use the older versions of Adobe products, because they paid for the services under Adobe. What I think is the customers can be used by Dolby as witnesses or proof that Adobe had been doing something illegal (breaching their contract).

[gm10]

Common sense tells me that third party (Dolby Labs) may not really sue the Adobe customers for continuing to use the older versions of Adobe products, because they paid for the services under Adobe. What I think is the customers can be used by Dolby as witnesses or proof that Adobe had been doing something illegal (breaching their contract).

Nah, they don't need proof, the reasoning is as I laid out above. Whether they'll sue end-users I cannot say but I'd say it's extremely unlikely because they cannot get damages twice for the same infringement, so either they get them from Adobe or the end-users, but not both.

[cliffcoggin]

The simple solution to the problem is to not use Adobe software. If you are determined enough, you will find a way to do so, just as most us avoid Microsoft as a matter of principle.

[Portreve]

the thing is, that as these companies fight over Patent Royalties - - the customer is the Loser.

as those same companies, also move towards any cloud based subscription - the customer is still the loser.

it does seem that folks are getting more grumpy, about these changes,
but as to whether they will translate into FOSS supporters - is another matter.


most End Users are getting the Hard Push - to buy, everytime they move to an new machine:
which is what they were always supposed to be doing, but never did so.
- now, they won't get an choice, any-more, as these companies continue to crack down those End users.
and their YoY revenues are starting to display this, as well.

There's fundamentally no difference between a Creative Suite / Creative Cloud user and a Windows (or, by extension, Mac OS X) user. The existence of GNU+Linux has not itself influenced regular computer users to leave Microsoft because of a number of factors, such as: awareness of the possibility of an alternative, awareness of specific alternatives, awareness of the viability of said alternatives, degree of willingness to try something different, etc.

None of my points above will mean a darned thing to the Adobe customer who has no personal driving initiative to explore a Libre software path.

Common sense tells me that third party (Dolby Labs) may not really sue the Adobe customers for continuing to use the older versions of Adobe products, because they paid for the services under Adobe. What I think is the customers can be used by Dolby as witnesses or proof that Adobe had been doing something illegal (breaching their contract).

Nah, they don't need proof, the reasoning is as I laid out above. Whether they'll sue end-users I cannot say but I'd say it's extremely unlikely because they cannot get damages twice for the same infringement, so either they get them from Adobe or the end-users, but not both.

Actually, I would much rather see Dolby seriously pursue end users because this would be such a public relations fustercluck it might in the long term push people towards alternatives to Dolby. It certainly would tie the process up in court and be fraught with problems because many people who are using the "offending" versions of said software would probably never be able to pay what Dolby might sue them for.

Now, do I think Dolby is stupid enough to pursue a mass class action lawsuit process? No, I don't. However, I have found that, more and more, both private and government organizations are being run by people far more ignorant and egotistical than one might expect to find. So, who knows... I just hope no matter how it goes that it leaves a HORRIBLE taste in a lot of people's mouths.

The simple solution to the problem is to not use Adobe software. If you are determined enough, you will find a way to do so, just as most us avoid Microsoft as a matter of principle.

And therein lies the question: is the user "determined" enough? Frankly, I'm not interested at this point in my life of having platform-using peers who lack critical self-determination. I don't know if that makes me a bad person, but I really just no longer have room for intellectual laziness or uncuriousness.

[stormryder]

I'm not interested at this point in my life of having platform-using peers who lack critical self-determination. I don't know if that makes me a bad person, but I really just no longer have room for intellectual laziness or uncuriousness.

So you're not interested in individual freedom at all, just enforcing your own doctrine that everyone should be a computer geek. Perhaps you should learn to fix your own car.

[gm10]

Actually, I would much rather see Dolby seriously pursue end users because this would be such a public relations fustercluck it might in the long term push people towards alternatives to Dolby.

Well, Dolby could go after Adobe's customers as a way of putting more pressure on Adobe, for those would be the first to lose customers in that situation. Dolby's business model is licensing so they are not end-user facing for the most part. But since both sides know that I expect the threat of doing that to be just as effective as the real thing.

[Portreve]

So you're not interested in individual freedom at all, just enforcing your own doctrine that everyone should be a computer geek. Perhaps you should learn to fix your own car.

I am all about personal liberty and freedom. I'm just not interested in actively recruiting AOLuserz to the platform, that's all.

[michael louwe]

In 2017, Adobe made a profit of about $2 billion from a revenue of about $8 billion, mostly from subscriptions; while Dolby only made about $22 million in profits from a revenue of about $240 million, mostly in patent-royalty fees.

So, an extra $10 million in patent-royalty fees to Dolby is chickenfeed to Adobe. By refusing to settle with Dolby and leaving her subscribers in the lurch prove how super-greedy and inconsiderate Adobe is.

Is there no Linux alternative to compete against Adobe in the mass consumer market place.?

[BenTrabetere]

Is there no Linux alternative to compete against Adobe in the mass consumer market place.?

There is a Linux alternative for just about every Adobe product for use in the mass consumer market. Most are available for Windows and MaOS. Here is a list of what I find are adequate alternatives and replacements, and all are FOSS except MasterPDF Editor.
Lightroom - darktable, RawTherapee
Photoshop - GIMP, Krita
Illustrator - Inkscape, Karbon
InDesign - Scribus
Acrobat - MasterPDF Editor

Whether they are suitable alternatives for professional use is a matter for heated debate. If it weren't for Pantone support I could make a strong case that each Adobe title could be replaced an alternative. I am not convinced Pantone support is essential in a professional setting (I survived without it in the past, and there are ways around it), but it is very nice if you have it and need it.

I see two areas where the alternative losing traction in a professional setting: product integration and inertia. I think Adobe has done a good job of making the components work together seamlessly; I think it is highly unlikely GIMP, Inkscape and Scribus could ever work together the same was as Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.

I think inertia is the most difficult obstacle to overcome. The art departments I have worked with are tied to Adobe, and they have a lot invested (experience, training, work flow, partnerships, etc.) in the platform. Switching to something else would require a significant investment of time and money, it would lead to a short-term loss of productivity, and it would invite the creative crew to open rebellion.