Photoshop's newest terms of service has users agree to allow Adobe access to their active projects for the purposes of "content moderation" and other various reasons. This has caused concern among…
See, this is the issue; it’s not illegal to turn off my internet, it’s not illegal to block a program from accessing it, and it’s not illegal to run software i paid for.
If that’s a problem to clients then find better clients.
But if we are in a grey area based on whatever vague “with hacks” nonsense was going on?
Company sends you a C&D because they decided what you are doing is piracy. They basically say “Give us money and we won’t go to court”. So you either give them money or try to go to court. At which point… setting aside a bit of money for a lawyer would have been a good idea. Wonder where that great advice came from.
The legal system in most countries (arguably all but I am sure there is a weird niche case) is inherently going to favor the large corporation with a team of lawyers on retainer. Which lets them more or less bully individuals and smaller companies to settle out of court which means that precedent is never actually established. That is where emulation generally lives, for example.
Which, for the umpteenth time, depends on what “with hacks” means. Because you can definitely do stuff that violates the terms of those licenses and, thus, invalidates the copy you are running. I can understand how you can view me continually referencing “hack it” as “deliberately ignoring it”. That is on me for assuming reading comprehension.
Which, yet again, boils down to whether The Company thinks it is worth going after you and whether you can convince a lawyer that you even have a case.
It’s not illegal to modify software that you own, regardless of what Adobe wants. That, for the second time, is the precedent we’re challenging you to find.
If you bought photoshop back when it was not subscription and Adobe did not inform you that your license had an expiration date you can in fact do whatever the duck you want to it because you purchased it, you did not rent it, you did not subscribe. You purchased it and it is yours for life.
Matter of fact you have no idea if what you are suggesting would fly in court because I am pretty sure you don’t know about any previous case like this that has been even tried in court.
No, it isn’t. Hacking means doing something to it to fix a problem. Maybe that’s telling it to ignore an OS version check or something. That’s not illegal and it’s not piracy. You’re allowed to modify software you own. Even if the hack is removing DRM, it still isn’t piracy if you own it. It’s piracy to give it to other people who don’t own it.
The legality of modding, “modding”, and cracking software is still very grey. Arguably intentionally so. Because no company wants to risk a negative ruling and most users aren’t dumb enough to go to court with a fortune 500.
If the above user was really talking about just putting a new splash screen on Photoshop 1.5 from 10 years ago (… actually it would probably be closer to 20 or 30 at this point? Damn…)? Sure… but that is also the territory where using gimp or krita or paint.net in production is a much better idea.
But if those “hacks” are to increment versions or allow for plugins made for later versions of photoshop et al to run? That is where you are adding features you never paid for and where you start needing to be ready to cover your ass if you are profiting off of it because now you are “worth” suing.
And… good luck convincing a judge/jury when your argument is anywhere near as shakey as half the justifications for using pirated software in production in this thread are (I especially love the person who apparently feels that it is the company’s responsibility to sit down with you and explain the license agreement you are… agreeing to).
Learning a skill or even software? Pirate that shit. There is a reason companies like autodesk have REALLY good “free” versions of their software.
Running a smaller patreon and doing light gig work? You are starting to get into the danger zone but can probably get away with it because “nobody will ever know” so long as you aren’t dumb enough to upload the project files.
But once you start working for a “real” company or even reach “small business” levels of youtube? Now you need to actively hide what you are doing because that is the range where some bored person at Company X might look up in the database if you or your company have a license. And for the bigger companies? They might actively be working with Company X to iterate on features for a new release. And… That is also when you have enough money or exposure to be worth getting a C&D and told that you should settle and send them a large sack of cash.
Would you win the lawsuit? I… sincerely doubt it but we are also clearly in fantasy land in this thread and I am not going to bother to try to explain why “But I want it” won’t hold up. But… yeah.
It is once you start having to “hack” it, as that user claimed.
See, this is the issue; it’s not illegal to turn off my internet, it’s not illegal to block a program from accessing it, and it’s not illegal to run software i paid for.
If that’s a problem to clients then find better clients.
Okay? Just… maybe set aside a bit of money for a lawyer. No reason
Weird hill to die on, friend.
Seconding the request for a shred of precedent for the things 4am mentioned being grounds for litigation
That… isn’t how these kinds of things work?
If there is legal precedent, it is a no brainer. That is why you don’t use pirated software. https://www.technicalactiongroup.ca/these-companies-used-pirated-software-and-lost-millions-of-dollars/ is a random source i found that listed a bunch of legal cases.
But if we are in a grey area based on whatever vague “with hacks” nonsense was going on?
Company sends you a C&D because they decided what you are doing is piracy. They basically say “Give us money and we won’t go to court”. So you either give them money or try to go to court. At which point… setting aside a bit of money for a lawyer would have been a good idea. Wonder where that great advice came from.
The legal system in most countries (arguably all but I am sure there is a weird niche case) is inherently going to favor the large corporation with a team of lawyers on retainer. Which lets them more or less bully individuals and smaller companies to settle out of court which means that precedent is never actually established. That is where emulation generally lives, for example.
The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re deliberately ignoring that the first guy owns his software.
Which, for the umpteenth time, depends on what “with hacks” means. Because you can definitely do stuff that violates the terms of those licenses and, thus, invalidates the copy you are running. I can understand how you can view me continually referencing “hack it” as “deliberately ignoring it”. That is on me for assuming reading comprehension.
Which, yet again, boils down to whether The Company thinks it is worth going after you and whether you can convince a lawyer that you even have a case.
It’s not illegal to modify software that you own, regardless of what Adobe wants. That, for the second time, is the precedent we’re challenging you to find.
If you bought photoshop back when it was not subscription and Adobe did not inform you that your license had an expiration date you can in fact do whatever the duck you want to it because you purchased it, you did not rent it, you did not subscribe. You purchased it and it is yours for life.
Matter of fact you have no idea if what you are suggesting would fly in court because I am pretty sure you don’t know about any previous case like this that has been even tried in court.
No, it isn’t. Hacking means doing something to it to fix a problem. Maybe that’s telling it to ignore an OS version check or something. That’s not illegal and it’s not piracy. You’re allowed to modify software you own. Even if the hack is removing DRM, it still isn’t piracy if you own it. It’s piracy to give it to other people who don’t own it.
The legality of modding, “modding”, and cracking software is still very grey. Arguably intentionally so. Because no company wants to risk a negative ruling and most users aren’t dumb enough to go to court with a fortune 500.
If the above user was really talking about just putting a new splash screen on Photoshop 1.5 from 10 years ago (… actually it would probably be closer to 20 or 30 at this point? Damn…)? Sure… but that is also the territory where using gimp or krita or paint.net in production is a much better idea.
But if those “hacks” are to increment versions or allow for plugins made for later versions of photoshop et al to run? That is where you are adding features you never paid for and where you start needing to be ready to cover your ass if you are profiting off of it because now you are “worth” suing.
And… good luck convincing a judge/jury when your argument is anywhere near as shakey as half the justifications for using pirated software in production in this thread are (I especially love the person who apparently feels that it is the company’s responsibility to sit down with you and explain the license agreement you are… agreeing to).
Learning a skill or even software? Pirate that shit. There is a reason companies like autodesk have REALLY good “free” versions of their software.
Running a smaller patreon and doing light gig work? You are starting to get into the danger zone but can probably get away with it because “nobody will ever know” so long as you aren’t dumb enough to upload the project files.
But once you start working for a “real” company or even reach “small business” levels of youtube? Now you need to actively hide what you are doing because that is the range where some bored person at Company X might look up in the database if you or your company have a license. And for the bigger companies? They might actively be working with Company X to iterate on features for a new release. And… That is also when you have enough money or exposure to be worth getting a C&D and told that you should settle and send them a large sack of cash.
Would you win the lawsuit? I… sincerely doubt it but we are also clearly in fantasy land in this thread and I am not going to bother to try to explain why “But I want it” won’t hold up. But… yeah.