Blogs - "You can grab yourself a free, legitimate copy of Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite 2, right now, direct from Adobe. No catch."[1][2][3]
Adobe - "You have heard wrong! Adobe is absolutely not providing free copies of CS2!"
Lots of comments here say that this doesn't really change anything for Photoshop, but I think that it does. Compare downloading a cracked version to downloading this version.
The cracked version might contain terrible malware. It might still contain activation code that will phone Adobe with your serial number. You probably downloaded it from BitTorrent, which we know is easily trackable. If a serial number is still required, you will be using a number that is well known as a pirated number.
This version will not contain terrible malware (it may even come with updates from the vendor!) It has been modified by the people who wrote it to definitely not contain activation code. You will have downloaded it directly from Adobe at their request, along with their other paying customers. If your serial number is ever reported, you are indistinguishable from a legitimate user. The bar has been raised from "this IP reports a pirated copy" or "this IP downloaded a pirated copy" to individually auditing possibly legitimate customers in person. Adobe can't even include the hash in the list of hashes that will trigger ISP copyright enforcement alerting systems such as "six strikes". Unlike existing cracked versions, the risk for using this is very low.
I too was expecting an interesting business announcement when I clicked the link, and I too was disappointed. However, if you think this is a harmless mistake and no different from the existing Pirate Bay release, you aren't thinking very scrappy. This could easily make CS2 the version of choice for students and startups. (And Mac users can run it in VirtualBox on WinXP)
It might have been a screw-up, but Oracle does the exact same thing for all their products: you are free to download and install everything you want (and they provide universal license codes for acquired products that might still need them), but you're not actually allowed to run anything past 30 days (with some exceptions, like Enteprise Linux, SQLDeveloper, XE etc). Nothing in the software actually forces you to stop, but should Oracle sue you, you're screwed. It's a win-win for everyone: users can easily train themselves, and Oracle gets mindshare and goodwill without renouncing their expensive support contracts and license renewals.
IBM has done this forever. Its called soft licensing. (or at least that is what their term was)
It not a free copy. If you use this and they have proof, you would be sued for violating the licenses. Its the same as stealing. Just because they aren't locking you out doesn't mean you can use it.
It's not the same as stealing. When you steal something the person who formerly had it no longer has it. This term is commonly used inappropriately when talking about software and media licensing.
Well, we can split hairs on language, but 'steal' - 'to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully'. This pretty much sums up the situation described by the article.
Notice that I'm not making some philosophical point about software, I'm saying if the license to something says that you must have purchased it to use it, to use it without said license is to "appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully".
"Take" has so many meanings it's ridiculous. It doesn't imply just one thing, it implies several. You take after your father. Did you take the test? She didn't take much time. He took quite a beating. I took a dump. We'll take a look at it. I'll take a stab at it.
"Appropriate", the verb, is also flexible and also does not imply depriving someone of something. You can "appropriate" something when you create art, and you can be accused of "cultural appropriation", but in neither case is anyone deprived of what you appropriated.
So shut up. The argument about semantics is shit and you should stop repeating it.
No, the people who use 'stealing' hoping for an easy emotional victory should stop trying to manipulate everyone endlessly. Stop using tainted words and simply make an argument.
Is it? It seems like it's an argument used exclusively to derail conversations it's tangentially related to like the piracy equivalent of a grammar nazi.
Or Microsoft having a Home & Student version of Office that can't be used by businesses. Nothing technical stops them, except that it's no different from a pirate copy if you get audited by the software police.
So, Adobe is providing copies of CS2 that are activation free and are providing the serial numbers with the download? So it's basically an honesty system not to pirate it?
Photoshop is one of the most pirated pieces of software. It is not hard to find CS6 online for free. One way or another it's always been the honor system, no?
With the difference being that to most people it would appear the second method is advocated by Adobe whereas no one expects that Adobe wants you to pickup Photoshop from pirate bay.
I disagree. Adobe actually relies* (not that they could care to admit it and they shouldn't) on college kids pirating their software so they get familar with it and when they leave for jobs they can put on on their resume.
That's absolutely it. All it takes is one or two decent jobs and you've paid for your Creative Suite. It's a lot of money overall, but not as much as it appears when you're new to it all.
It's a little regrettable that Adobe maintains so much control over the market, but as a creative professional myself, I can't find much that can actually compete with their software, especially for the price.
Honestly curious - was money not an issue would you be able to find something better? Is Photoshop and the likes from Adobe truly "high-end" or is there something less popular, more expensive, perhaps harder but "better": technically, in it's capabilities?
The Autodesk creative tools (Maya, Inferno, Smoke, etc.) probably fit the 'more complex and used in big creative industry, super expensive' ticket that you're looking for.
Don't think there's really a replacement for photoshop though. The autodesk tools are more to replace the After Effects / Premier / etc. parts of the creative suite.
Shadowmint touched on what I meant by that - other companies make creative software which doesn't directly compete with Adobe's lineup, but which costs 2x - 4x more.
As someone who uses this software and occasionally tries the alternatives, I would say that there isn't really anything better out there than Adobe software. But it's also quite affordable when you put it in perspective with how much you can do with it over time.
What I find surprising is that the download page itself contains no mention whatsoever of licensing. It lists the system requirements and has a big graphic up the top apparently attempting to upsell you to CS6 / Creative Cloud.
Would it have been so hard to say something like, 'These downloads and keys are provided for users who already possess a valid CS2 license. If you have not paid for any of these products, you are not entitled to use them.' ?
For news sites that have not redacted or said something about this error, many of their readers are still going to be pushed towards downloading a free 'legitimate' program.
And yet, it still doesn't say outright that random people hitting the download page aren't allowed to use it. Just: "While this might be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free, we did it to help our customers."
What's the legality of this? Would it be illegal for me to download proprietary software from the owner's domain if the owner didn't mean to make available for free?
If a movie studio broadcast a brand-new movie over the air for free by mistake, would it be illegal for me to record it? Would I have to delete it? I'm pretty sure I couldn't put it up on a server for free download, otherwise I could do that with NFL games right now.
Does the fact that they require a license key (or make you click a box saying "I own a license") change this from legal to illegal?
> Does the fact that they require a license key (or make you click a box saying "I own a license") change this from legal to illegal?
Definitely not. They should have released a version that doesn't not require a license key to use, but they were too lazy to open up the source code so they're giving out the special keys instead.
The fact is the program is their copyright, so you can't download it (or use it, or share it) without a license, under penalty of a lawsuit.
At what point does something enter the public domain, though? (I know the Disney/Sonny Bono 70-odd years rule for copyrights, but this seems different)
If an algorithmic trading company that is killing it happens to mistakenly leave a link to the copyrighted source code, can I use it? What if they publish their algorithm on the front page with no explanation? What if they publish it on the front page with a note saying "Free, take it!" but then retract that, saying it was a rogue employee? What if the CEO sends it to the WSJ or posts it to a comment box on another site? What if they make t-shirts with it, and a huge banner on the side of their building?
Basically, at what point of ridiculousness does the protection break down (if any)?
The law, contrary to what people in this thread have been saying, recognizes intent. It's the same principle as the recent, controversial ruling about the AT&T data leak. Yes, AT&T should have taken better steps to secure their data. But you retain control over even implicitly private data. Technical measures like DRM and passwords help to cement the intent, and impede people who would ignore a written warning.
In this case it's probably buried in the EULA for the non-activation version that you still need a valid CS2 license. While not all EULAs are enforcable, this seems like a pretty clear case where that condition would be upheld in court.
Your examples are all a bit silly, because that's what we have licenses for. In general, I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample.
The t-shirts and huge banner are a funny case, because if you consider Oracle v Google ( or any other IP case involving open source ), it's entirely possible to make code available and retain control over it. Hell, even copyleft licenses are based on the idea that you can distribute something but legally restrict it's use.
In short, if you make a creative work you have broad control over how it's used, even if it's technically possible to use that work in ways you don't allow. In the absence of an explicit license, it's only safe to assume that you have no permission to use anything.
> I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample.
Code without an explicit license is protected by copyright and is by default All Rights Reserved. The person or people who wrote the code are protected as such. Any time you're using software you didn't write, licensing should be considered and abided.
OK, that makes sense to me. The more I think about it, the licenses and passwords are just ways to keep people from stealing something that they don't have a right to use.
Even though I can see what Mickey Mouse looks like, I can't make a t-shirt with his face on it and sell it. Even though I can see Adobe's source code, I can't use it without permission. Your copyleft note is very good as well, btw. I can see GNU source code, but there are still restrictions on use.
How would the EULA be enforceable on software a user reasonably found? That's like a contact in a book you find on the bus. Without a sale the UCC won't apply...
Copyright is called that because its about creating new copies, not reading an existing one.
How is the GPL enforcable? If you download code from Github, the copyright holder can restrict your usage, up to and including prohibiting anyone from using it. It's silly to conflate digital works with physical media, copyright properly refers to a creator's right to control and potentially profit from their intellectual property.
edit: I find it funny that on one hand, when 'stealing' comes up, people who reject IP law say 'but it's not like physical objects, they still have it'. Then when licenses come up, it's like 'finding a book on a bus'.
The GPL is enforceable in that it doesn't try to prevent anything. Using it merely means you share title in your derived work.
This (having GPLed code laying around) is a 'found book' scenario. You've got a copy that you didn't violate copyright to make, thus it's legal to use.
EULAs are a non-copyright attempt to control this usage. They used to be based on the idea that any and all copying, incidental or otherwise, was prohibited and thus to use software (and copy it into memory) you needed a license. But this has been specifically denied in current US copyright law.
Blanket permission is now given for copying where it's an inherent part of using the work. This supports the idea that usage is generally unrestricted (unless you or your agent acquired this specific copy by license). Which makes sense; they'd have called it UsageRight instead of CopyRight if they meant that.
Now EULAs are (usually) based on the Uniform Commercial Code but that requires a contract (of sale) which can, of course, only be binding on the original parties and their agents.
So again, why would a EULA be enforceable on software a user found?
As for forum humor, do you know what I find funny? It's when someone takes caricatures of different people's views on different topics, conflates them, declares them inconsistent, and shoots down an unrelated argument based on this trail of "logic".
> Basically, at what point of ridiculousness does the protection break down (if any)?
It never goes away (modulo expiration). The copyright owner has to grant an explicit license. Usually you get one by paying a fee.
Last week a non-free documentary about Minecraft was seeded on BitTorrent by the owners. It was implied, but they never included an explicit license, so it was unclear whether downloading and seeding it was a copyright violation.
In the case of shareware, the copyright holder grants a universal license for distribution.
I think it's not only the actual cost of running an activation server, but supports associated with it. (E.g. People maxing out activation count, etc.)
Seems like the best approach would be to replace the activation server with something that says "Yep, you're activated."
That way you can gather potentially useful data, and perhaps change your mind later, while not requiring any support and resources beyond 0.001% of a CPU somewhere.
That's probably the approach Microsoft is taking with their activation, not sure if Adobe incorporates similar scheme. Not that Microsoft's server always respond "yep, you're activated" but I heard from somewhere they do reset activation counts after a certain period after last activation. (Something like 6 months.)
How could anyone give you an estimate? We have no idea the amount of corporate drag associated with this. In theory, it could be a large cost considering this is a large enterprise which has to meet many, many customer information and privacy regulations.
I have to believe that Adobe did this on purpose, at least from a marketing standpoint. If they indeed didn't want blogs releasing this as "free" all of these major publications (LIKE FORBES) would not be using that word in the headline.
I think the PR team at Adobe labeled this as free or, at the very least, pitched at reporters that way, and I frankly don't think this is a problem or that they're upset about it.
Anybody can have a blog on Forbes, and it's not Forbes the editorial team publishing them. It's sad that Forbes hinged its brand on the occasional piles of malarky that are published on those blogs, especially since you're using the "It's Forbes!" argument here. Most "Forbes" blogs are around the quality level of Business Insider (read as: pollution).
I often find Forbes blog entries more interesting than the actual magazine articles, though that is, of course, not the same as saying that the blogs are on average any good.
Seems an honest mistake, although it would be brilliant marketing to release CS2 for free or very cheap because people (companies) who pay $1000+ for Adobe CS would not still be stuck on CS2...
If problems is shorthand for "has a lot of cease and desist paperwork to file" I agree.
I'm not clear what Adobe did wrong here, other than actually try to not completely screw people running very old versions of their software.
Sadly, no one would seriously make an accusation that they were screwing up if they had just shut off the validation servers and posted an note to their knowledge base, ID #FU-CS2-15-01734-81-CS6-plz.
What is true is that Adobe is terminating the activation servers for CS2 and that for existing licensed users of CS2 who need to reinstall their software, copies of CS2 that don't require activation but do require valid serial numbers are available.
Sounds like it isn't free and was never free. What they did was provide download links for CS2 products with corresponding license keys. The catch was that only those who previously purchased this product could legally use it. It's a kinda of honor system.
Yes, it's very clear on the forum that you need to already own a license to use this. There's just nothing in place to stop you from using it if you don't.
It sounds to me like they decided to decommission the activation server, then provided these binaries to somebody who called tech support because they couldn't validate their install, and the links to these binaries became public on accident. It sounds much more like some kind of internal screw up than some kind of policy decision--which is unfortunate, since many people have pointed out there are good business reasons to do this or something like it.
I never advocate changing titles, but this one is in need of work. It took me a bit to realize what was going on.
Also, this seems like a non-issue. As I understand it, they've built a version that doesn't require activation and takes a special serial number, so they can phase out the CS2 activation servers. Some blogger (shocker, at Gizmodo) being fast and loose with the facts, well, got that wrong. Other blogs copied that mistake (a real problem in the "blogosphere"), Adobe took down the page that was linked, Monday rolls on. We're talking about software that won't even run on an Intel Mac here, people.
The rest of this story is, "hey, check out the beating Adobe is taking on their forum!" Thanks, blogs. You win again.
Candidly, it's not just "in the blogosphere" - it's a staple for media in general, to the point where one could forgo labeling it a problem, and just call it an aspect.
I agree that this problem is not exclusive to the medium, but it is endemic. I mean, many blogs speculated about Adobe's motivation for releasing "free" software, but did anyone pick up a phone or send an email to ask them about it?
Of course they didn't. Mostly because they just wanted to have the story "first", and secondly because most of them either don't have editors / fact-checkers or don't care about them.
It's the price we pay for getting news as fast as we do.
Because those articles are generally boring, disappointing, and come out hours after all the other sites have amassed 22k shares and likes for their articles, earning them The Master of the Internet badge on publishers-circle-leaflet.com for the day. It's a new social site where bloggers get badges for having other people do all the hard work, and all your positive reputation gets reset by a rogue cron script at night.
If it is the price "we" paid, I didn't agree to pay it. I'd much rather read a slower source that, you know, doesn't libel people at the drop of a hat and without apology. I honestly wish, as damaging to the free flow of information on the Internet as it would be, that victims like Adobe would start cleaning bloggers out for shit like this. I know I'm harping on Gizmodo/Gawker/whatever, but I know they're definitely not the only blog slum lord out there.
The expectation for immediate news is damaging in a lot of ways, this one is just the worst and most visible.
I don't understand -- if you want a slower news source, read one! It's up to you. You can read the New York Times Sunday Review, the Economist, the New Yorker, the daily New York Times... whatever you want. All of these outfits reported this story correctly, which is to say, they didn't write about it. Nobody is forcing you to read Gizmodo.
The idea that getting things fast and wrong is a staple of "media in general" is ridiculous. The vast majority of the media acquitted themselves fine here.
Former investigative journalist here, though I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. You'll notice, if you read carefully, that I didn't say anybody was forcing me to do anything and instead I took issue with being lumped into the sweeping "this is the price we pay" assertion made by the comment to which I was replying.
I'm perfectly aware of what I can read. I wish blogs were a bit higher-standard, so I could enjoy them as well without the reservations that it requires.
EDIT: Okay, now that you've ninja-edited in a second paragraph, I'll respond to that too.
Even CNN is guilty of this. "This Just In" during Hurricane Sandy ran some Twitter troll's report of the NYSE flooding. Remember Ryan Lanza? Yep, "This Just In" as well. Half of the rest of the world sees the story on CNN.com and says, hey, that's a confirm, it aired on CNN! It's probably an associate producer manning the desk straight out of J-school, and that big "Publish" button is pretty God damned alluring.
Something about blogs, even under the CNN umbrella, seems to make facts a second-class citizen. "Breaking" doesn't mean the same thing that it did a couple decades ago, and integrity is crumbling with Internet journalism.
I don't think "blogs" deserve collective guilt for Gizmodo's sins any more than "the media" do. The vast majority of blogs acquitted themselves fine here. But wishing for better standards from "blogs" is like wishing "novels were a bit higher-standard." There are a lot of terrible novels in print (the majority even!), but you'd be foolish to blame the whole genre for the literary sins of "Fifty Shades of Grey."
That's a disingenuous distinction. By blogs I'm not saying the technical amalgamation of components that make a "web log", I'm saying the "typical news sources" that are cited on the Web these days. It's not about the genre, and you're oversimplifying my critique.
> They got a response pretty quick in the forums, why should it be any different if you call / email?
Because:
> The contacts that journalists have can usually give a quick off the record "that's not correct" and kill a story like this.
Note the "off the record" part. You can't do something like that with forums; whatever you write there is public and will be regarded as official statement of the company, whether it is or not.
The contacts that journalists have can usually give a quick off the record "that's not correct" and kill a story like this. Perhaps an on the record quick statement, or a callback within a half hour or so once the appropriate people are consulted.
In cases like this where the morality of the company is not in question, journos don't have any reason to distrust the spokespeople. "That's incorrect. Give me ten minutes to call legal." Bam. Dead story.
You'd be surprised how much you can do once you have the right phone numbers. The main switchboard is never the right one.
The way it works on city desks of good newspapers is, long apprenticeships. It's amazing how deeply knowledgeable long-time reporters can be (not talking about op-ed writers -- talking about journalists and reporters). It's also amazing how much information is known by these reporters and editors, but does not make it into stories because there's no space or because an independent corroboration cannot be found. That background information can help to frame the way the story is written, but might never appear in print.
I inherited my Rolodex from the writer I replaced. Then you just add to it over time. Meet new PR guy for WhizCo at an unrelated story? Another card for the Rolodex. The savvy PR people will reach out to you without prompt, as well, which can be a good sign for a working relationship. Press releases are a 50/50 shot for a good number; depends on the source.
Other commenter's right, too, there is a lot of institutional knowledge at journalism shops. A casual newsroom "who do we know at Acme?" or "who likes us at the Department of Labor?" almost never goes unanswered.
A wise reporter once told me half of reporting is who will answer the phone, the other is deadlines.
Tech people have this stuff, too, particularly in the backbone transit game. White courtesy phone, that sort of thing; BGP flaps don't go through technical support. Those numbers are guarded closely, though, because they usually ring 3-4 feet from a NOC on-duty engineer.
I agree, but the entire premise of the blogosphere makes it worse. Ethically gray publishers like Gizmodo make it even worse still. Traditional journalists would be smart enough to check with Adobe for confirmation before telling the world what Adobe is doing.
(Quit making me type "blogosphere". I'm going to develop a rash.)
Yeah I think a mod needs to change the title here. This title isn't the title from the page, and it doesn't come close to conveying the actual situation.
Oh, so they have a special copy of CS2 with a key that will allow it to work since Adobe's activation servers are down. That having been said, it is intended for users that already hold a CS2 license.
Blogs - "You can grab yourself a free, legitimate copy of Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite 2, right now, direct from Adobe. No catch."[1][2][3]
Adobe - "You have heard wrong! Adobe is absolutely not providing free copies of CS2!"
1- http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/grab-photoshop-and-cs2-for-...
2- http://lifehacker.com/5973750/download-adobe-creative-suite-...
3- http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/07/adobe-may-be-offering-a-...