Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58
  1. #51
    Senior Willow's Avatar
    Weasyl
    willy
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by irick View Post

    Why would this mater in the least?
    It's the reason why a lot of places are switching to having digital licenses.

  2. #52
    Regular irick's Avatar
    Weasyl
    irick
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Willow View Post
    It's the reason why a lot of places are switching to having digital licenses.
    It's irrelevant to the product. Online services are separate from the product in all cases but for those where the product by nature relies on online services. Photoshop is definitively not reliant on online services.

    You could make this argument for say, MMORPGS, but even they differentiate between the ability to transfer ownership of the client and paying for a service. You can still sell copies of say, WoW and separately pay for the service of running from their servers. That portion is intrinsically a service.

    So, for the creative suites it's not a very good reason, or even relevant. It just sounds like an excuse to switch to a more convenient (for them) license and to make it more difficult for second hand sales to occur.
    We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
    -- Carl Sagan

    I'm on furnet IRC! Please drop by irc.furnet.org's #hackerfurs and say hi.

  3. #53
    Premium User Runefox's Avatar


    Weasyl
    Runefox
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NL, Canada
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by irick View Post
    So, for the creative suites it's not a very good reason, or even relevant. It just sounds like an excuse to switch to a more convenient (for them) license and to make it more difficult for second hand sales to occur.
    Second hand sales of software has not commonly occurred in the last 10 years. Product keys and product activation as copy protection killed that long ago. Nobody in their right mind will purchase used software (the key has already been used and has probably been copied for continued use). It's much more convenient for the average user to purchase a subscription for $40 per month or whatever than it is for them to purchase the Master Collection for $2500+.

    Anti-piracy has long ago destroyed second hand software sales. Subscription models change nothing as far as consumer rights go. Furthermore this is actually good for the consumer, because I can't afford Adobe Master Collection, but I CAN afford a couple months of Creative Cloud when I need to use it. That means that A) I'm not as likely to turn to piracy or alternatives, and B) I get a legitimate license to use the products for as long as I'm subscribed, without needing the up-front purchase. I never would be able to sell Adobe Master Collection to a third party to begin with. In total, the price of paying for Creative Cloud is actually less than purchasing a copy of Master Collection every year. So Adobe wins by getting money from people who wouldn't normally be able to purchase their software, and I win by actually being able to afford it and always having the latest version whenever I subscribe.
    Last edited by Runefox; 02-28-2014 at 06:45 PM.

  4. #54
    Regular Tica's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Tica
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Gender
    cis woman
    Posts
    59
    And those of us who can't afford to subscribe continue to use free/cheaper alternatives, such as the GIMP or Manga Studio.

  5. #55
    As an owner of both CS5 and CS6 Master Editions, I can tell you that my serial keys were tied to my Adobe Account and there was no way to resell them without reselling the keys without also giving away the account they were tied to. I also have CC7 Master Edition too, 12 month subscription. ...All free from my colleges.

  6. #56
    Regular irick's Avatar
    Weasyl
    irick
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    Second hand sales of software has not commonly occurred in the last 10 years. Product keys and product activation as copy protection killed that long ago. Nobody in their right mind will purchase used software (the key has already been used and has probably been copied for continued use). It's much more convenient for the average user to purchase a subscription for $40 per month or whatever than it is for them to purchase the Master Collection for $2500+.
    Commonly occurred or not, it was still possible. Not only is it still possible to do a secont hand sell, it's also still possible to use those old copies rather than be tied to whatever is supported in the subscription. You are pointing out just more issues with the current state of things, but it does not change the fact that at the very least with physical distribution your right to resale is protected in a way that it is not with digital. See previously linked court case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    Anti-piracy has long ago destroyed second hand software sales. Subscription models change nothing as far as consumer rights go. Furthermore this is actually good for the consumer, because I can't afford Adobe Master Collection, but I CAN afford a couple months of Creative Cloud when I need to use it. That means that A) I'm not as likely to turn to piracy or alternatives, and B) I get a legitimate license to use the products for as long as I'm subscribed, without needing the up-front purchase. I never would be able to sell Adobe Master Collection to a third party to begin with. In total, the price of paying for Creative Cloud is actually less than purchasing a copy of Master Collection every year. So Adobe wins by getting money from people who wouldn't normally be able to purchase their software, and I win by actually being able to afford it and always having the latest version whenever I subscribe.
    Anti-Piracy is a massive thorn in the side when it comes to consumer rights, but yes, subscription models still take away rights that you had even with draconian DRM. It is entirely legal to crack DRM on a product that you own for archival coppies and it is entirely legal to transfer those archival copies along with your origenal licence. If adobe refuses to coperate with you to transfer the licence they are running afoul, not you.

    Again, I don't care about the profitability of Adobe or the availability and affordability of their software. My point is entirely an ethical one. The argument that this change will be good for them financially or that it will make it more affordable to obtain 'a legitimate license' is moot when it comes against the simple point that they are compromising basic consumer rights.
    We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
    -- Carl Sagan

    I'm on furnet IRC! Please drop by irc.furnet.org's #hackerfurs and say hi.

  7. #57
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


    Weasyl
    QTMelon
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,478
    Quote Originally Posted by irick View Post
    Again, I don't care about the profitability of Adobe or the availability and affordability of their software. My point is entirely an ethical one. The argument that this change will be good for them financially or that it will make it more affordable to obtain 'a legitimate license' is moot when it comes against the simple point that they are compromising basic consumer rights.
    I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous to brush off. It is whether or not it is profitable. They are a company that needs to make new product and more of it for your "demands over consumer rights".

    It is not very productive to counter the argument with "I don't care". They are reasons why they had to change the model and it works for more people, consumer and seller.

  8. #58
    Regular irick's Avatar
    Weasyl
    irick
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by QT Melon View Post
    I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous to brush off. It is whether or not it is profitable. They are a company that needs to make new product and more of it for your "demands over consumer rights".

    It is not very productive to counter the argument with "I don't care". They are reasons why they had to change the model and it works for more people, consumer and seller.
    Let us assume for a moment that Adobe was not a profitable company and was in fact in need of these, lets call them 'consessions', of consumer rights in order to stay alive and creating new products.

    Lets assume that, under an objective review of their financial practices that it was determined that their business model was unsustainable without restricting basic rights such as the right to resale.

    Lets assume that this change in licensing enforcement would single handedly turn the situation around and make adobe a profitable company again.

    It is still not worth the concession of rights of the whole of the nation(s) to ensure the survivability of a single company or business model. There is no reason to protect an outmoded business methodology. There is no pressing reason that we should prop them up when there are ready competitors who can operate within a far more ethical framework to provide us with similar products and services.

    There is no pressing reason to accept the slow erosion of our legal protection, there is no pressing reason to accept the maneuvering of companies to ensure that the balance of power remains in their favor. I can find absolutely nothing that can be said that inherently justifies the situation as it is with the possible exception of convenience. The situation is as it is because it is able to be.

    Saying that this arrangement allows more people access to the creative suite is only important if your assumed end goal is more universal access to the adobe creative suite. To me, weither or not it is easy to gain access to adobe's creative suite is inconsequential. Issues that I attach importance to are: The preservation and protection of individual rights and privet property, the preservation and cultivation of healthy public domain, and finally the preservation and cultivation of frameworks that guarantee the long term success and advancement of science and the arts.

    As the practices I have described from adobe run afoul of my issues of importance, the question of profitability does not factor in to the equation for me.
    We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
    -- Carl Sagan

    I'm on furnet IRC! Please drop by irc.furnet.org's #hackerfurs and say hi.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •