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…
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.
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.