# Adobe requires account sign in for LR6 Standalone?



## frdjohns (Apr 23, 2015)

I've installed the standalone version of LR6 (upgrade from 5.7) and notice that Adobe requires you to sign in to your Adobe account and remain signed in while running the program.  Anyone know why they do this?  What are they tracking?  If you sign out - it tells you that it will disable the copy on your system until you sign back in.  

Surely this can't be a scheme to simply prevent us from running the program on 2 computers simultaneously, or is it?

Regards,
Fred


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 23, 2015)

Not sure, will try to find out.

My understanding was that Lightroom now has an activation-checking process, much like Photoshop had for years, i.e. if you try to activate (by signing in) on a third computer it will ask you to deactivate (by signing out) on one of the others. So I guess it's related to that.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 23, 2015)

Yes, you're right Jim. When you first install, it also tells you it'll track usage (like which modules you're using etc.) but you can turn that off in your Adobe account if you're not comfortable with that.


----------



## DianeK (Apr 23, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Not sure, will try to find out.
> 
> My understanding was that Lightroom now has an activation-checking process, much like Photoshop had for years, i.e. if you try to activate (by signing in) on a third computer it will ask you to deactivate (by signing out) on one of the others. So I guess it's related to that.


I'm somewhat confused. Does this mean you have to have an Internet connection the whole time you are using Lr6?  For example, does this mean I cannot work on my images in Lr while on an airplane?


----------



## frdjohns (Apr 23, 2015)

Jim and Victoria - thank you for the quick response.


----------



## frdjohns (Apr 23, 2015)

DianeK said:


> I'm somewhat confused. Does this mean you have to have an Internet connection the whole time you are using Lr6?  For example, does this mean I cannot work on my images in Lr while on an airplane?



Diane - No, once activated you can run LR without being connected to the Internet.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 23, 2015)

I don't believe that's the case, Diane, but I'll get a definitive answer for you.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 23, 2015)

DianeK said:


> I'm somewhat confused. Does this mean you have to have an Internet connection the whole time you are using Lr6?  For example, does this mean I cannot work on my images in Lr while on an airplane?


More likely, it means that you will need to validate the machine with Adobe, the first time it is used.  And it won't likely check whether this machine is authorized again. This makes sense because you are connected to the internet for the install.  So to answer your question about airplanes,  just don't make the first use of LR to be after you have boarded.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 23, 2015)

What I don't know is what happens if you attempt to activate on a third system.....does the activation fail as per the original Photoshop method, requiring one of the other two systems to be deactivated before the third can be activated. Or is it a little more modern, and on the third system it asks which of the other 2 is to be automatically deactivated when next used. The latter would require some form of online connection so that the "selected for deactivation" system is indeed deactivated when next used/connected.

Not sure, am trying to find out.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 23, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Yes, you're right Jim. When you first install, it also tells you it'll track usage (like which modules you're using etc.) but you can turn that off in your Adobe account if you're not comfortable with that.


If the setting is not turned off in the Adobe account, Lr is likely to rely usage information back home on a regular basis, this requires an internet connection.
The key question is what information is Adobe collecting, and they can collect a lot of information, through this new feature, it must be spelled out in the license agreement or somewhere else.
The problem with collecting information this way is that it is personally identifiable information, Adobe knows who you are, and therefore its usage must be tighly regulated because of privacy issues.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 23, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> What I don't know is what happens if you attempt to activate on a third system.....does the activation fail as per the original Photoshop method, requiring one of the other two systems to be deactivated before the third can be activated. Or is it a little more modern, and on the third system it asks which of the other 2 is to be automatically deactivated when next used. The latter would require some form of online connection so that the "selected for deactivation" system is indeed deactivated when next used/connected.
> 
> Not sure, am trying to find out.



Update: Having spoken with the Queen, the situation is almost as I described in the latter scenario, i.e. if one tries to activate LR on a 3rd computer, the user will be presented with a dialog box saying that it's already activated on 2 machines, do you want to deactivate the other machines. You hit deactivate, it deactivates both and activates the new one....which presumably means you'll need to reactivate one of the other two next time you use it.

Regarding the working offline bit, I understand that you can be offline (after first activation) for up to 99 days at a time, so I guess it'll phone home every now and then, possibly on each launch but it won't worry too much.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 23, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Regarding the working offline bit, I understand that you can be offline (after first activation) for up to 99 days at a time, so I guess it'll phone home every now and then, possibly on each launch but it won't worry too much.


Are you really serious this? Is this a late April fool's joke (from you or Adobe)? This sounds like a subscription in disguise for perpetual license holders.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 23, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> Are you really serious this? Is this a late April fool's joke (from you or Adobe)? This sounds like a subscription in disguise for perpetual license holders.


I think Adobe has a right to protect their intellectual property as they need to. Remember Adobe Owns the software and only grants you a license to use it in perpetuity.  All versions of Creative Suite were sold this way.  If you are running 2 legal copies of LR it should not matter.   If you don't have access to an internet connection, you are not on this forum and did not download the LR product.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 23, 2015)

It's pretty much as the activation process has been for years on Photoshop.  It checks in to check you're running a legal license, but if you're offline for weeks (up to 99 days) it'll carry on letting you work as normal.  You can blame the pirates for having to put that in place!


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 23, 2015)

clee01l said:


> I think Adobe has a right to protect their intellectual property as they need to. Remember Adobe Owns the software and only grants you a license to use it in perpetuity.  All versions of Creative Suite were sold this way.  If you are running 2 legal copies of LR it should not matter.   If you don't have access to an internet connection, you are not on this forum and did not download the LR product.


Nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property. Once the software is legally installed I fail to understand the rationale behind calling home every 99 days to check the installation is legitimate.

I doubt this about protecting intellectual property, this is about collecting and sending application usage information to Adobe from unsuspecting users and very possibly using it to eliminate perpetual licenses alltogether.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 23, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> this is about collecting and sending application usage information to Adobe from unsuspecting users and very possibly using it to eliminate perpetual licenses alltogether.



Nope, you can turn the application usage stats off in your Adobe account preferences.  This is just about activation (after all, someone could legally activate on one computer, then another, then another, then another....)


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 23, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It's pretty much as the activation process has been for years on Photoshop.  It checks in to check you're running a legal license, but if you're offline for weeks (up to 99 days) it'll carry on letting you work as normal.  You can blame the pirates for having to put that in place!


This arrived while I was replying to Cletus. The key difference for me is that Lr is not Ps, it is just over a £100, not £500 or more. If Adobe is taking Lr down the Ps route, Adobe is no longer true to Lr's original philosophy.

So what happens after 99 days, does it stop working? This is the CC in disguise without any of its benefits. If this Adobe chosen way, good luck but I am not sure this is a good way to convince the recalcitrants like me.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 23, 2015)

After 99 days, yes.  But when was the last time you were offline for more than 3 months?  (and technically there is a way to reactivate over the phone if needed)


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 23, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Nope, you can turn the application usage stats off in your Adobe account preferences.


It is good that it can be turned off but I am sure you would agree with me that many users wouldn't turn it off out of ignorance or because they cannot bother. Nothing I read in this thread leads me to belive that this has being designed to be turned off. 



Victoria Bampton said:


> After 99 days, yes. But when was the last time you were offline for more than 3 months? (and technically there is a way to reactivate over the phone if needed)


A long time ago.

It is the principle that I find problematic for many reasons, including technical reasons and a good dosage of skeptcism about technology companies constantly discovering the best thing ever, the trouble is that is they do this every 2 to 5 years.

I wish Adobe would listen more to non-CC believers, they have made a few concessions, but they keep making moves that clearly indicate that the CC is the only way. Generally speaking I like options and dislike being forced to do anything.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 23, 2015)

Unfortunately you need to take that one up with the pirates. The Photoshop perpetual activation was in place since... CS2, if I remember rightly. How many years ago is that now? It's nothing to do with CC. 

As for the tracking, there's a pretty decent dialog explaining what's happening. Considering how many companies track silently, I'm quite impressed about how open they're being. And they're tracking generic data, nothing sinister, so I'm not too concerned about people not bothering to turn it off.


----------



## GeraldH (Apr 24, 2015)

I bought the standalone version of LR6 and now every time I switch my pc on I get this annoying CC popup asking me to sign in to CC. I don't want CC and never will. How do I stop this unwanted program from running on my pc?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 24, 2015)

Have you activated your license yet? You have to sign-in to your Adobe account in order to do so, see here: http://lightroomsolutions.com/lightroom-6-perpetual/


----------



## AndreasM (Apr 24, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> ...
> It is the principle that I find problematic for many reasons, including technical reasons and a good dosage of skeptcism about technology companies constantly discovering the best thing ever, the trouble is that is they do this every 2 to 5 years.
> 
> I wish Adobe would listen more to non-CC believers, they have made a few concessions, but they keep making moves that clearly indicate that the CC is the only way. Generally speaking I like options and dislike being forced to do anything.



Same here.

It's obvious that Adobe couldn't resist the urge to push perpetual license users with the CC client a bit towards subscription. They certainly will increase this with every further update.
Initially I was very excited about Lr6 and was absolutely sure to upgrade.
But I don't like to be pushed.
So instead of getting more and more annoyed with every update I decided to draw a line now. I will stay with Lr 5.7 as long as possible and then look elsewhere.


----------



## GeraldH (Apr 24, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> Have you activated your license yet? You have to sign-in to your Adobe account in order to do so, see here: http://lightroomsolutions.com/lightroom-6-perpetual/


I believe so Jim, although not by the same route.  I was upgrading from LR 5.7 and had to input both new and old keys. The software seems to work fine if a little slowly and just to be clear this popup appears when I start my pc, not when I start LR6.

However, at some point during the process it would appear that Adobe has installed a piece of Spyware called "Adobe Creative Cloud" on my pc.  I have tried to uninstall it but can't.  I really take exception to this.  I have paid for "Lightroom 6 standalone", Adobe's own words, but it would seem that I have in fact got some pseudo one-off payment version of Lightroom CC.  Not a happy bunny!


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2015)

Gerald, in Help > System Info, a couple of lines down you should see License. What does that say?


----------



## frdjohns (Apr 23, 2015)

I've installed the standalone version of LR6 (upgrade from 5.7) and notice that Adobe requires you to sign in to your Adobe account and remain signed in while running the program.  Anyone know why they do this?  What are they tracking?  If you sign out - it tells you that it will disable the copy on your system until you sign back in.  

Surely this can't be a scheme to simply prevent us from running the program on 2 computers simultaneously, or is it?

Regards,
Fred


----------



## GeraldH (Apr 24, 2015)

johnbeardy said:


> Gerald, in Help > System Info, a couple of lines down you should see License. What does that say?


License: Perpetual


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2015)

In the CC app's preferences (the little gear icon) is there anything about loading on startup? 

Maybe fill in your system specs so we can give better advice about disabling this app in the startup.

John


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2015)

In the CC app's preferences (the little gear icon) is there anything about loading on startup? 

Maybe fill in your system specs so we can give better advice about disabling this app in the startup.

John


----------



## stevemurrayphotos (Apr 24, 2015)

<Sigh> Same issue here. Downloaded the LR6 upgrade version from Adobe, installed on my macbook pro, entered my licence number started LR6 - all fine. When I log out of my Adobe account - why would I need to be logged in to them to use the software ? - I get the deactivation thing and asked to sign in to my account again. Exit LR6 and restart, then reach the '30 days remaining' screen, license this software or start trial option. Cycle repeats. <sigh>. is it just me ?


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 24, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Unfortunately you need to take that one up with the pirates. The Photoshop perpetual activation was in place since... CS2, if I remember rightly. How many years ago is that now? It's nothing to do with CC.
> 
> As for the tracking, there's a pretty decent dialog explaining what's happening. Considering how many companies track silently, I'm quite impressed about how open they're being. And they're tracking generic data, nothing sinister, so I'm not too concerned about people not bothering to turn it off.


The perpetual activation method in place since CS2 of which we seem to have a variant in the perpetual version of Lr 6 might have been an attempt to prevent piracy but it might have also been a bad choice.
I have a technical background and can think of several ways to protect against piracy that do not entail a call home every 99 days. The decission to go with a regular call home was either an ill adviced technical architecture decission on Adobe's behalf or the 1st test of the subscription concept.
From a technical architecture point of view, it is a one way road, there is no way back, the only way back is to construct a new road, something Adobe will be very hesitant about.
It is a one way road because the main application execution trunk needs to be aware of whether the application has called home on time or not and disable all or most the functionality if it has not.
In practical terms, this means keeping 2 code bases, one for perpetual licenses and one for subscribers. There are commonalities between both code bases but there are also significant differences. Furthermore, if Adobe wants to go down the route of having features available only on subscription, like Lr mobile, there is no other way than having 2 different code bases and very possibly 2 executables.
It has being written elsewhere that the reason why Adobe adopted the subscription model as the only option for the old CS is because they had to keep two code bases for all their software and thought this was impractical. In other words, it was a technical decission and not a commercial decission.
The fact that perpetual users upgrading to Lr6 are finding what could be considered a trojan install in their computers is, in my opinion, a clear indication that Adobe is finding difficult to keep to code bases even for Lr.
Big companies can come up with big flops, just look at Windows 8. Big companies do not like acknowleding mistakes neither.
It is very disapointing that Adobe has decided to this with Lr, the cherry on the cake will be when they the same with PSE.


----------



## GeraldH (Apr 24, 2015)

johnbeardy said:


> In the CC app's preferences (the little gear icon) is there anything about loading on startup?
> 
> Maybe fill in your system specs so we can give better advice about disabling this app in the startup.
> 
> John


Don't seem able to start the app John.  Something is not right here. Can I completely uninstall LR6 and start again using the key that I've been supplied?


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 24, 2015)

GeraldH said:


> Don't seem able to start the app John.  Something is not right here. Can I completely uninstall LR6 and start again using the key that I've been supplied?


John might know better, since I have postponed my upgrade after reading the forum tonight.

However, if Lr 6 behaves like Lr 5 and 4 behaved, you should be able to do that without hitting any problems. Having said this it might worth to check if you downloaded the right intallation file.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2015)

It sounds like Gerald's issue is the Creative Cloud app, not Lightroom itself. I'm not sure it's possible to start LR6 without the CC app, but maybe so. Maybe it can be stopped in the operating system's startup? But let's have the system specs in your profile - then I'll know whether we're talking Mac or Windows and you won't need to repeat it in other posts you may make.

This CC app is simply the free membership. It gives 2Gb (?) of cloud-based disc space which can be handy for sharing files between computers or with others.


----------



## GeraldH (Apr 24, 2015)

johnbeardy said:


> It sounds like Gerald's issue is the Creative Cloud app, not Lightroom itself. I'm not sure it's possible to start LR6 without the CC app, but maybe so. Maybe it can be stopped in the operating system's startup? But let's have the system specs in your profile - then I'll know whether we're talking Mac or Windows and you won't need to repeat it in other posts you may make.
> 
> This CC app is simply the free membership. It gives 2Gb (?) of cloud-based disc space which can be handy for sharing files between computers or with others.


I run Windows 7 John, sorry don't know how to put specs in profile. I don't want CC free or otherwise. An unwanted plant in the garden is a weed but at least they can be pulled up by the root!


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 24, 2015)

johnbeardy said:


> It sounds like Gerald's issue is the Creative Cloud app, not Lightroom itself.


Let's not oversimplify too much, it is likely that the CC app is reponsible for calling home to verify if this is a legitimate Lr installation. It is also likely it is reponsible for telling Lr at what level to run. If this the case, if this is Lr's new perpetual license design, there is a problem with Lr because it cannot be separated from CC app; in other words this a subscription trojan horse.
Let's give Adobe the benefit of the doubt and assume they have botched the perpetual license release, that the CC app was not supposed to be installed and that Lr 6 is meant on a perpetual license is meant to work as Lr 5.7 did.



johnbeardy said:


> Maybe it can be stopped in the operating system's startup? But let's have the system specs in your profile - then I'll know whether we're talking Mac or Windows and you won't need to repeat it in other posts you may make.


Agree knowing Gerald's system profile could help.


----------



## GeraldH (Apr 24, 2015)

Thanks for the replies. I have just cancelled my purchase. If Adobe release a true standalone version without Spyware I may consider again at a later date, until then I'll stick with 5.7


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 25, 2015)

Annoyance, yes, but spyware? That's a bit ridiculous.

Anyway, I don't know if LR6 would work after doing this, but in Windows 7, go to the Start Menu and in the search box type "config". This takes you to System Configuration where there's a Startup tab. One of the items is Creative Cloud.exe.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 25, 2015)

johnbeardy said:


> Annoyance, yes, but spyware? That's a bit ridiculous


John - just imagine that you develop an Lr plug-in that installs something in the computers it using that a) calls homes every week, b) send you some information about what the users are doing, and c) stops working if you stoppaying the monthly £1 (even after you have written 5 new and better versions).

Would that be considered by the general public and the specialised press as spyware, even malware? Most likely, yes.

Now why can Adobe get away with this, other than Adobe being a very large corporate, too big to fail, like certain very large investment bank with "Brothers" in its name.

P.S.: This is exactly what Adobe has just done with Lr 6 without clearly spelling it out and hoping that unsuspecting customers will bite the bait and shallow the whole thing.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 25, 2015)

Take a look at what's in your startup and how many other apps would meet the same loose definition of spyware. Whether it's Dropbox, Apple's iCloud or Microsoft Office 365 and OneDrive, all these applications are a commercial exchange. Granted, big corporations innocent-sounding language, but by definition spyware is malevolent.

John


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 25, 2015)

johnbeardy said:


> Take a look at what's in your startup and how many other apps would meet the same loose definition of spyware. Whether it's Dropbox, Apple's iCloud or Microsoft Office 365 and OneDrive, all these applications are a commercial exchange. Granted, big corporations innocent-sounding language, but by definition spyware is malevolent.
> 
> John


John - I am sure that it would come as a surprise that I am aware of this. Of those apps you quote, I am only use Dropbox because I have no choice.

There are 3 key differences between those apps you mention and Lr and, indeed, the CC.
1) Some of those apps are still available as true stand alone apps - e.g., the apps in Microsoft Office. Just imagine what would happen if Microsoft decided to make Office subscription only for everybody, even the OS.

2) Some of those apps are nice to have but not essential - e.g., Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive and so on - we can live without them; their absence will not cause a significant upset, at worst it will make certain as cumbersome and time consuming as they were before they appeared in the market.

3) Lr and Ps are "essential', note the quotes, for digital photographers, almost as essential as the OS, or a word processor for a writer.

What I peronally have trouble with is Adobe's cricket/baseball bat attitude: forcing long term customers to go with a business model they don't agree with by closing all other options. In my opinion, this amounts to Adobe abusing their market possition.

Sometime ago you wrote an blog about the exit strategy, it is starting to look as if an update is due.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 25, 2015)

The lack of an alternative to LR6 doesn't make Adobe's CC app any more worthy than those others of being called spyware. There are alternatives for photographers anyway - Capture One's adjustments are excellent - and Adobe remain better than most at allowing you to leave their evil clutches.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Apr 25, 2015)

Anyone have an Android phone?   Ever try to get it to work correctly without logging into Google? 

Last Quicken update guess what -- had to have a Quicken account to make my perpetual license work at all.  REALLY annoying, since privacy there is even a bigger issue.

But...

I guess my view of Adobe in this regard is somewhat sideways.   Almost by definition they ARE going to do something about piracy, you know that.  Lightroom V5 and before had nothing but trust.  I'm not delighted with needing an Adobe ID, but at least they made it pretty visible - you can log in, check the setup, it's pretty above-board.  I have run into WAY too many products where this is hidden and arcane. 

Not happy to have to be so connected, but definitely think it is one of the more clear implementations. 

I don't think it is really fair to call stuff spyware when it is not concealed.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 25, 2015)

If spyware is too heavy, if it isn't politically correct, let's use another word for it: monitorware or surveillanceware. Perhaps it is does not ruffle so many feathers and creates so many arguments. Perhaps by adopting a new word we can all agree that snow is white and not red or green.

As for monitorware/surveillanceware being solely to protect digital rights, to protect against privacy, I'll doubt it. It is an interesting coincidence that of all technical solutions Adobe could have chosen to protect their digital intellectual property rights, they have gone with persitant online authentication, the only technical option that allows a subscription.

I must confess that I am likely to smile the day I read about subscribers, _even if by then I am subscriber myself_, complaining that they have to pay more for PV2018, or for an advanced print or slide module. I don't know if it will happen but Adobe has laid down the technology foundation for that.

Time will tell, time is the great arbiter.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Apr 25, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> It is an interesting coincidence that of all technical solutions Adobe could have chosen to protect their digital intellectual property rights, they have gone with persitant online authentication, the only technical option that allows a subscription.



I've been involved in software licensing either as provider or customer forever, and some of the offline variations are incredibly intrusive - dongles, ties to mac addresses, ties to specific system configurations, etc.   Most either get in the way of "normal" system changes or maintenance, do not work well during upgrades, tie you to having to reach a human to work around reactivation (something that always happens on a holiday or weekend as that's when most people do system upgrade)....  I guess my point is that many of the "offline" approaches yielded mass outcries as well, I know as I was a one crying all too often.

I have similar concerns about a lot of software I want to use today in a different variation -- much of it requires you use their systems for processing.  My wife gave me a Fitbit (or something like it, don't remember); I took it back when I realized I couldn't track my own exercise on my own computer, I had to do it on the vendor's system website. Yesterday someone suggested a new USB aquarium monitor that checked lots of parameters -- and pretty cheap.  Guess what -- it only worked if internet connected and you tracked the parameters on their own web site (and oh by the way bought a monthly subscription equal after a year to the price of the unit).  

These types of systems have absolutely no excuse beyond wanting to hold you captive to their systems, and/or collect information.  I don't mean to take the job of Adobe Apologist, I am just trying to say that as such things go, what they have done is neither as intrusive nor as disruptive as many other vendors' attempts.

To turn the question around perhaps -- how would you control usage and piracy in Lightroom?   Not suggesting Adobe is looking for a different approach, but to me it provides perspective to put yourself in their footprint and say "how would I do it"?


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 25, 2015)

Ferguson said:


> To turn the question around perhaps -- how would you control usage and piracy in Lightroom?   Not suggesting Adobe is looking for a different approach, but to me it provides perspective to put yourself in their footprint and say "how would I do it"?


Linwood - it is a good and very sensible question.

To start with piracy, a DRM (digital rights management) approach based on the one used for e-Books - Kindle or iBooks -  or music and films purchase through and downloaded via the internet will be more sensible; I think Apple has it more or less right with iTunes and the App Store and Amazon also has it right with the Kindle.

Such an approach does not preclude a subscription, a subscription is still possible. Somebody could buy a yearly or 2 yearly subscription and the software provider could agree to send quarterly or half yearly updates, the software provider will stop sending updates once the subscription expires. Somebody could also buy just 1 or 2 numbers, they could even do that occasionally, like you and I can do with most printed magazines. Once the subscription expires the software is still fully functional and the less intrusive DRM makes the software very difficult to pirate.

To go into usage, I can watch any movies I buy on iTunes on my iPad and on my laptop, likewise with e-Books. But it is virtually impossible to copy them, sending a song, a single song, bought in iTunes as a present to somebody without iTunes is not easy.

To go into monitoring usage, I have no objection with people engaging in a market research or marketing exercise and having their usage patterns monitored for a period of time. The only caveat is that the user needs to switch it on and not off, anything other than that cannot be too far away from surveillance.

As I have said many times before the problem is not the subscription, I have no objections with a subscription if it is similar to the subscriptions we still have with printed magazines. National Geographic or Outdoor Photography are not asking their readers to discard printed copies of magazines or not read them beyond page 15 after a subscription expires.

Does any of this sound crazy?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Apr 25, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> To start with piracy, a DRM (digital rights management) approach based on the one used for e-Books - Kindle or iBooks -  or music and films purchase through and downloaded via the internet will be more sensible; I think Apple has it more or less right with iTunes and the App Store and Amazon also has it right with the Kindle.


Kindle books' DRM are tied to specific machine.  Need to change machines - no problem, it's all online activation.  Very much like software's activation.

And Kindle is a terrific example as Amazon got in deep trouble for using their DRM funcitons to, dynamically, remove content from users' devices (they had a copyright issue at one point and yanked content; in another case they had a dispute with a customer and yanked ALL their content).

And by the way -- DRM is trivial to strip (see Calibre).  It's pretty common for most people to save a no-DRM copy "just in case", partly because of early bad behavior, and specifically because they worry they won't be able to keep using it perpetually.



Modesto Vega said:


> Once the subscription expires the software is still fully functional and the less intrusive DRM makes the software very difficult to pirate.


The author of the software that (automatically) strips DRM has chosen not to implement the ability to strip DRM from "loan" or temporary books/periodicals, but there's no reason to think it is any harder.   Seriously, try "DRM" and "Calibre" as a search term.



Modesto Vega said:


> National Geographic or Outdoor Photography are not asking their readers to discard printed copies of magazines or not read them beyond page 15 after a subscription expires.



You don't have a subscription to National Geographic in the same fashion.   What you have is a PURCHASE of National Geographic issues 01 thru 12 (or whatever).  You are buying a physical magazine.   But I understand what you are saying.

Honestly, I do not think anyone has come up with a non-intrusive mechanism to prevent piracy.  Everything falls generally into environmental ties (somehow trying to limit the scope of where it will run to where you run it (Mac address, hardware ties of all sorts)), or counting - i.e. online activation and/or reactivation.   Or the honor system; lots of software still is on that basis, notably a LOT of very high end corporate used software.  But I think if anything has been proven, for the small, personal use software, the honor system does not work. 

Maybe there's a better way.  I certainly don't LIKE what they do.  And I'm sure I could tweak what they did to make my like it better (as could you).  But I can't think of a fundamental approach to fight piracy that works better than, and is less intrusive, than some kind of on-line counting activation.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 25, 2015)

Ferguson said:


> ... DRM are tied to specific machine.  Need to change machines - no problem, it's all online activation.  Very much like software's activation.


I never had a problem with that and fail to understand why tying software to specific machines could not be improved to make stripping DRM more difficult. Such a mechanism requires a single call home when your machine changes -  e.g., more memory is added - or there is a change of machines. It could even be done over the phone. I don't have a problem with a single call home and doubt anybody does if there is a phone option.



Ferguson said:


> And by the way -- DRM is trivial to strip (see Calibre). It's pretty common for most people to save a no-DRM copy "just in case", partly because of early bad behavior, and specifically because they worry they won't be able to keep using it perpetually.


I know that but most of us are not going to do that. You have to trust your customers. Adobe no longer trusts their customers, persistent online authentication sends a clear signal out, I don't trust my customers, my customers are there to be milked and surveilled. Let's face it Adobe made a net profit of $3,524.95 million last year and of $3,396.498 is 2010; struggling they are not, but the subscription model might not be the profit driver they expected to be.



Ferguson said:


> You don't have a subscription to National Geographic in the same fashion. What you have is a PURCHASE of National Geographic issues 01 thru 12 (or whatever). You are buying a physical magazine. But I understand what you are saying.


My grandfather, who was a lawyer, had a subscription to NG for years, and, you are right, he was PURCHASING issues through a SUBSCRIPTION. Give me the option of PURCHASING software through a SUBSCRIPTION which does not entail installing surveillance software on my laptop and being snooped on if I forget to tick the right box in one of the installation steps and I am a happy Adobe customer again.



Ferguson said:


> Honestly, I do not think anyone has come up with a non-intrusive mechanism to prevent piracy.


Piracy is a complex socio-economical and even cultural problem, it is not just a technology problem. What piracy is Adobe trying to fight and why? Let's face it there are many people in the world using pirate software who cannot not afford buying a licensed copy, is this really the people Adobe is after? Well they are not going to get them to buy a CC subscription and $99 per year, Adobe does not sell subscriptions in many parts of the world.

The other day I watched a documentary about 2 pieces of technology made in 1970s, one is 130.62 AU (1.954×1010 km) away, the other is 108 AU (1.62×1010 km) away. Occasionally they call home but they don't have to call home keep functioning and soon they will note be able to call home, they are the Voyager 1 and the Voyager 2. They were made nearly 40 years ago and they are still going autonomously.

It amazes me how 1970s technology seems to be so far ahead of us.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Apr 25, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> You have to trust your customers. Adobe no longer trusts their customers, persistent online authentication sends a clear signal out, I don't trust my customers, my customers are there to be milked and surveilled. Let's face it Adobe made a net profit of $3,524.95 million last year and of $3,396.498 is 2010; struggling they are not, but the subscription model might not be the profit driver they expected to be.



Why should Adobe trust them?   Or Microsoft.  Piracy is rampant.  I'm insulted when I am not trusted, yes, indeed I am -- but only until I remember how little anyone any more has respect for intellectual property. 

And what, please, does profitability have to do with piracy.  Are you saying that because they make money they should tolerate piracy? 



Modesto Vega said:


> Piracy is a complex socio-economical and even cultural problem, it is not just a technology problem. What piracy is Adobe trying to fight and why? Let's face it there are many people in the world using pirate software who cannot not afford buying a licensed copy, is this really the people Adobe is after?



OK, this is about as far as I can discuss it.  As soon as someone says it is OK to pirate software if you can't afford it, I know there is no common ground to be found.

IMO if you can't afford it, don't use it.

Stealing it just inflates my price to be legal.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Apr 25, 2015)

Ferguson said:


> And what, please, does profitability have to do with piracy.  Are you saying that because they make money they should tolerate piracy?


No, I am saying that piracy should not be used as an excuse to increase profitability, as and excuse to squeeze every single hard earnt cent out of paying customers like you an I.

Piracy should not be used as an excuse to lock customers into Adobe. The current CC model is locking customers in, this is its primary purpose.

If you are a professional photographer or serious anateur with a large portfolio edited in Lr and Ps, Adobe right now is presenting you with the prospect of locking you in for the rest of your photographic life. I feel very uncomfortable about that. Furthermore, the way the model is designed, in the unlikely event that your photographic career outlives Adobe, you might find your access to your creative output restricted.



Ferguson said:


> IMO if you can't afford it, don't use it.


Please don't dismiss the affordability issue so easily. Adobe is pricing their subscriptions and their perpetual licenses for people with my or your level of income. Your level and my level of income is relative to our respective current or past professions and our country of residence. I am not a medical doctor but I can assure you that a typical medical doctor in India or South Africa does not earn as much as in our respective countries of residence. Therefore what is affordable for us might not be affordable for them.

The whole world is not like Cape Coral, which sounds lovely, or Redhill, which is likely not to be as lovely.

Adobe does not offer subscriptions everywhere in the world. I can think of at least one contributor to this and other forums who cannot buy a subscription in his country of residence because Adobe does not operate there, as far as I can remember he is based in the Caribbean.

It has to be a smarter approach to fight piracy.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Apr 26, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> No, I am saying that piracy should not be used as an excuse to increase profitability, as and excuse to squeeze every single hard earnt cent out of paying customers like you an I.
> 
> Piracy should not be used as an excuse to lock customers into Adobe. The current CC model is locking customers in, this is its primary purpose.
> 
> If you are a professional photographer or serious anateur with a large portfolio edited in Lr and Ps, Adobe right now is presenting you with the prospect of locking you in for the rest of your photographic life. I feel very uncomfortable about that. Furthermore, the way the model is designed, in the unlikely event that your photographic career outlives Adobe, you might find your access to your creative output restricted.


Setting aside that corporations are required by law (in a pretty direct sense) to charge all the traffic will bear, or face lawsuits from shareholders...

You are locked in only if you want to use their features, nothing else.  All Adobe software will produce a lossless TIF that can be edited on (practically) any software from any other vendors.  Lightroom's catalog is an open format in SQLlite, so you can recover even collection information and transfer to a DAM of your choice.  
So if you choose not to subscribe to CC, you are "locked out" of using its features. How is that different from HBO or ESPN or the NY Times?   You are locked out only from their features -- not your own creativity, not your own work product result.

Would I rather have a perpetual license?   Sure.  But the hyperbole of "I'll pay ransom to Adobe for the rest of my life to keep access to my photos" (not your statement I admit) is completely overblown.  Want to fight the "creative lock-in" that Adobe has by being feature rich -- buy some other product and stop feeding the monopoly. 

The issue of being locked to Adobe is FAR bigger than the subscription model -- it is the failure of all alternatives to compete.   The same can be said of Walmart, of Amazon, of Google, of Facebook... the mega monopoly built by giving people what they want and ruthlessly crushing competition is a real issue.   But it is far from an issue of (just) subscriptions.  It is about companies that addict us to their features, and we want the drug for life.  Then when they start charging (Google is now doing a trial run of reduced-advertising browsing) we feel trapped.  While weak anti-trust laws and spinless regulators contribute to the issue, it is mostly our collective greed and willingness to be led down the easy path despite clearing visible signs it is a path to addition.

Your battle over subscription models was lost, really, years ago when all the viable competitors failed or fell behind, and you (and myriad others) continued using Adobe even as it grew into the proverbial 800 pound gorilla.  The more you feed it, the bigger it gets.  On alternate days you appreciate its strength, then the next condemn the hold it has over you.  Perpetual, subscription or any other model is largely moot, you are an addict. 

So am I.  Every attempt to move away is met with weak feature sets and killer issues.



Modesto Vega said:


> Please don't dismiss the affordability issue so easily. Adobe is pricing their subscriptions and their perpetual licenses for people with my or your level of income. Your level and my level of income is relative to our respective current or past professions and our country of residence. I am not a medical doctor but I can assure you that a typical medical doctor in India or South Africa does not earn as much as in our respective countries of residence. Therefore what is affordable for us might not be affordable for them.
> 
> The whole world is not like Cape Coral, which sounds lovely, or Redhill, which is likely not to be as lovely.
> 
> ...



Ah... and I am poor in comparison to many in Silicon Valley, and can never afford a Lamborghini.... so it's OK if I steal one, right? 

And last post on the subject - I see no point.  To someone for whom theft is excusable "because I want it and can't afford it", I have no common ground.


----------



## frdjohns (Apr 23, 2015)

I've installed the standalone version of LR6 (upgrade from 5.7) and notice that Adobe requires you to sign in to your Adobe account and remain signed in while running the program.  Anyone know why they do this?  What are they tracking?  If you sign out - it tells you that it will disable the copy on your system until you sign back in.  

Surely this can't be a scheme to simply prevent us from running the program on 2 computers simultaneously, or is it?

Regards,
Fred


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 26, 2015)

Linwood, I guess you didn't see my post here: here.

I'd appreciate it if we drop the subject now please.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 26, 2015)

Ok guys, it's time to call it a day on this thread and get back to dealing with the program itself.  

None of us can change Adobe's position on this.  Feel free to email the CEO if you feel strongly about it.  Google easily turns up his direct email address.

LOL  Our posts crossed. At least we're all on the same page.


----------

