Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe Photoshop CC Pirated in One Day?!  (Read 12239 times)
Philip Weber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« on: June 19, 2013, 11:26:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, if this is true (and I certainly don't condone pirating) it would seem to indicate that they didn't do it with anti-pirating in mind...I mean it only took 24 hours?!?! So if that wasn't it, what reasons for CC are left? I can think of one right off the bat - Corporate Greed and forgetting/not caring what being a "customer driven" business means.

The drama continues to unfold...keep the popcorn popping.

http://fstoppers.com/adobe-photoshop-cc-has-already-been-pirated-in-just-one-day 

Phil (Hanging on to my CS 6 as long as possible)
Logged
designpartners
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2013, 12:12:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Ha, yeah I saw that alright. A quick search shows it working and updateable.
and of course I don't condone pirated software. But if that was one of Adobe's reasons, you gotta admit it's a little funny!
Logged
CoyoteButtes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2013, 01:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

No. A LOT funny.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2013, 07:17:23 AM »
ReplyReply

No. A LOT funny.


Personally, I don't see anything funny about pirating software.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2013, 08:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I don't see anything funny about pirating software.

however that also

1) kills Adobe's competition

2) contributes to Adobe's ecosystem

Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2013, 08:43:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I don't see anything funny about pirating software.

No, infringement of any type is not funny ... though, it is humorous when looking back on all the comments some folks have made recently that Adobe was forced to the CC subscription model in part to combat piracy.

It appears that whatever protection Adobe built into the CC code, is about as effective as a java script to remove right-click functionality from an online image gallery to stop viewers from stealing our photos ... it may work for the casual folks ... but not impede those who really want something for nothing. As long as the software is run from individual users desktops ... piracy will be possible and will continue ... 
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2013, 09:26:29 AM »
ReplyReply

The opportunity to make the software more pirate resistant is certainly there and even enhanced by the frequent need to re-certify the software.

If one were to put a good packet sniffer between the software and one’s router, it would be a relatively simple task to record exactly how the software communicated with the mother ship. After that it may be a fairly simple case of duplicating the correspondence between the software and a validation entity on the other side of the correspondence.

I’d have thought Adobe or whoever they pay to make this code would have put complex random number generators of some ever changing configuration to help insure that it couldn’t be pirated. Did Adobe cheap out here or are the pirates more shrewd than the article presents?
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2013, 12:01:13 PM »
ReplyReply

The word we're looking for is  IRONIC..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Philip Weber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2013, 06:38:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, ironic is a better term from my perspective too. I never see anything funny in theft.

Partially justifying CC with providing them with more security now seems either very naive (something I'd be very surprised at from such a large and successful company) or else something else, like maybe disingenuous, which is something I'm not surprised at by large and successful companies. It would have been one thing if it took a team of hackers working day and night 6 months to break it but...24 hours? That doesn't sound any more secure to me!  

I, in no way, wish to imply that the good folks who develop the software might be less than truthful but with the execs and marketing folks, all bets are off. As I see it, the only way we as their customer base (although it appears THEY don't think of me, the small time photographer, as their base) can influence them now is to vote with our wallets and NOT buy into CC. Maybe some pros can't afford not to have it now but for everyone else, the longer we collectively hold out, the more chance we have for something that works better, even if it's new software that Jeff Schewe has asked input for.

Again, if I could subscribe and after a predetermined commitment back out (due to some unforeseen financial issue) and keep where I was (not fall back to CS6 and lose the ability to use everything I'd done) then I'd subscribe tomorrow. Having nothing to show for it and not knowing how much they plan to raise the cost as time goes on, is the deal breaker for me.

It has been and should continue to be interesting to watch this play out. Even though I loyally purchased every Photoshop and Lightroom upgrade from them (Acrobat Pro every other cycle), I've not received a questionnaire, so maybe they'll read this forum.

Phil

    
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 06:40:21 PM by Philip Weber » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2013, 12:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

This second day piracy thing indicates that either some engineers at Adobe are incompetent or Adobe as a company considers that piracy of their software is overall a good thing so they made it just hard enough that customers willing to pay would not be tempted while hacking pros wouldn't have too hard a time... Life is a balancing act... :-)

Either way, it is a clear proof that the anti piracy argument in favor of "CC only" doesn't hold...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2013, 03:15:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I don't see anything funny about pirating software.

Notwithstanding the sanctimonious response, anyone hear of the legend of Robin Hood ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

Furthermore, there ain't anything particularly amusing or funny about suddenly having a gun held to your head and being told that your defacto rent is being increased by circa 300% when you don't have a viable alternative.

If Adobe had been slightly more reasonable in their 'demands' and lowered their price instead of trying to maximise their leverage, then the pirates would probably not even have bothered, Adobe's income may well have increased, they wouldn't have suffered such a massive loss of goodwill and certainly wouldn't be facing a battalion of disgruntled photographers et al.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2013, 06:57:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Notwithstanding the sanctimonious response, anyone hear of the legend of Robin Hood ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

Furthermore, there ain't anything particularly amusing or funny about suddenly having a gun held to your head and being told that your defacto rent is being increased by circa 300% when you don't have a viable alternative.

If Adobe had been slightly more reasonable in their 'demands' and lowered their price instead of trying to maximise their leverage, then the pirates would probably not even have bothered, Adobe's income may well have increased, they wouldn't have suffered such a massive loss of goodwill and certainly wouldn't be facing a battalion of disgruntled photographers et al.


The pre-CC versions of photoshop was rampantly pirated so more reasonable price has not much to do with piracy. Everyone talks about greed in executives...but this greed is not limited to executives. It is in all of us and in many very prominent. Some people have no issues with using pirated software even if they can afford paying for it. Is this not greed?

It makes me chuckle when people point their fingers at executives when talking about greed...maybe they should look in the mirror once in a while.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2013, 07:52:30 AM »
ReplyReply

The pre-CC versions of photoshop was rampantly pirated so more reasonable price has not much to do with piracy. Everyone talks about greed in executives...but this greed is not limited to executives. It is in all of us and in many very prominent. Some people have no issues with using pirated software even if they can afford paying for it. Is this not greed?

It makes me chuckle when people point their fingers at executives when talking about greed...maybe they should look in the mirror once in a while.

here is a politically charged analogy... Nazi Germany... Adolf H. & a regular SS ensign... both are bad guys, yet who do you think is "badder" ?
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2013, 07:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

then the pirates would probably not even have bothered
pirates work based on popularity, not on price.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2013, 07:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

but...24 hours?
actually a little googling showed that it was not 24hours, but rather 1 hour or less.
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2013, 08:49:28 AM »
ReplyReply

pirates work based on popularity, not on price.

True ... hackers/pirates even alter free software to add functionality or further access ... so the price a developer chooses to charge for an app is irrelevant ... Even if Adobe decided to charge $1.99 a month for the full CC package, there would be those users who would feel the price was too high and Adobe was giving in to their greed when setting the price ... if a an unscrupulous user desires an end ... they will find a way no matter how high or low the price is ... more often than not, it is the challenge in circumventing these obstacles, not monetary gain for the hackers involved ...
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2013, 11:53:19 AM »
ReplyReply

True ... hackers/pirates even alter free software to add functionality or further access ... so the price a developer chooses to charge for an app is irrelevant ... Even if Adobe decided to charge $1.99 a month for the full CC package, there would be those users who would feel the price was too high and Adobe was giving in to their greed when setting the price ... if a an unscrupulous user desires an end ... they will find a way no matter how high or low the price is ... more often than not, it is the challenge in circumventing these obstacles, not monetary gain for the hackers involved ...

yet at a certain price point there will be a breakthrough to generate more (like magnitude more) people actually buying... the issue is that at this price point you can't provide a normal support (tier 1 drones need to be paid too, even in CCs outside USA)... so it makes sense may be to create two tier pricing... 1) very cheap - no support (and those customers typically do not need any support at all) and 2) regular with regular support
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2013, 12:20:26 PM »
ReplyReply

... so the price a developer chooses to charge for an app is irrelevant ... Even if Adobe decided to charge $1.99 a month for the full CC package, there would be those users who would feel the price was too high and Adobe was giving in to their greed when setting the price ... if a an unscrupulous user desires an end ... they will find a way no matter how high or low the price is ...

If Adobe had charged $1.99 for the full CC suite I'm pretty sure that none of this ballyhoo would have occurred. (A) because the new price would be a very substantial discount to the old circa $199.00 bi-annual tax for Photoshop alone, and (B) there are numerous advantages to the new CC model, dual platform, remote activation, frequency of updates etc etc.


... more often than not, it is the challenge in circumventing these obstacles, not monetary gain for the hackers involved ...

True, but I don't believe that anyone with either a semi-pro or professional interest would seriously entertain basing their business and income on illegal and unsupported software. For what ? To save $240 a year ? How much did that latest newest and greatest 2.8 zoom cost you? 

For the hackers, yes, it's great publicity but in the end it's also cementing Adobe's dominance and pervasiveness.

Surprisingly (not) I've received an email from Adobe lowering the price of the FULL CC suite to £17.58 a month - that's about $320 a year !  (caveat - but for how long ?). What was the original offer price ? Just perhaps the take-up is not quite as great as Adobe would have us believe.

For the record, I don't use or condone pirated software in any guise. I've paid for every copy of Photoshop and Lightroom since 5 & 1  ..(longer than I can remember) but on this issue I'm firmly in the Bernard Languillier camp.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2013, 01:55:43 PM »
ReplyReply

there are numerous advantages to the new CC model, dual platform, remote activation, frequency of updates etc etc.
those advantages has nothing to do technically with "CC" (translation = "subscription only") model and purely depend on what company wants... they can easily do everything like this in "perpetual license" model as well.

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2013, 02:01:30 PM »
ReplyReply


True, but I don't believe that anyone with either a semi-pro or professional interest would seriously entertain basing their business and income on illegal and unsupported software. For what ? To save $240 a year ? How much did that latest newest and greatest 2.8 zoom cost you?  

I once (late 1990s) was working in PepsiCo... abroad , not here, in USA... so we were running unlicensed ("pirated") UNIX and DBMS in production environment (beverages sales & distribution covering a territory comparable in size with USA) with silent (don't ask don't tell) approval of our manager (US citizen)... he pretended that many dozens of actual users (sales, accounting, etc) were working using 5 seat license per server... granted the savings (that is not to our pocket, but to the company) were much more than $240...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 02:05:50 PM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad