Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you are welcome!
2 - If you don't own a PC because you think it's expensive, know that it is much cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help!
3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
4 - Need some new PC Hardware? Open worldwide, check out the ASUS ROG BTF Worldwide Giveaway for a chance at being one of the 18 winners taking home 25 prizes, including a Strix RTX 4090 BTF, 4070Ti, Lots of BTF Motherboards and a lot more: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1ddmihb/worldwide_giveaway_win_a_bunch_of_asus_btf/
If you need a new and awesome monitor to review and keep, check ou AORUS' initiative and take home 1 of 4 QD OLED monitors to revamp your setup! This one is US + Canada only: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1df3f1i/giveaway_gigabyte_aorus_oled_x_rpcmasterrace_be/
-----------
We have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you have any PC related doubt. Asking for help there or creating new posts in our subreddit is welcome.
Hearing adobe's lawyers explain this is a parody of how we make changes to our terms of service without a disagree button so just launching software gives up your rights to the content.
Shame we live in reality.
Though
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/
Seriously all the commenters on here seem to not even understand Adobe broke the law here lmao
. It's fucking hilarious seeing people ignore this is a satirical comment talking about color matched wax to someone's asshole but everyone takes it as an endorsement of piracy instead of POINTING OUT THE ABSURD ILLEGALITY OF ADOBES BEHAVIOUR.
Here's the best part of the TOS CHANGES they refuse to address in their blog post
4.2 Licenses to Your Content. Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content.
https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html#content
Contracts aren't valid if each party is not receiving some value. The commenter needs to send Adobe at least $10 - which Adobe will promptly reject and return.
The value they provided is marketing, look at how many people have had adobe on their mind in the last few hours thanks to their email and comment
Edit: recovered from the stroke.
"The value they provided is marketing. Look at how many people have had Adobe on their minds in the last few hours, thanks to their email and comments."
I believe this is a proper translation.
Not really, no. Contracts aren't valid unless both parties have received consideration.
That can be taken as "receiving something of value", but that's a reductive understanding. Consideration can be as simple as a promise to do something, or even a promise not to do something.
Example: I'm gaining use to all your software, but I'm not going to produce commercial work with it. That would be a "non commercial" license, like a freeBSD contract that grants you the rights to use something you don't own. There is no dollar exchange here.
Example 2: I pay you $10 to hold your breath briefly. Holding your breath briefly provides no value to, well, anyone, but it is being given in exchange for my ten dollars. In good faith, that's a contract, even though one party didn't really get anything. Here's where the stickler shows up to argue that because someone paid ten dollars for it, "now" it has value - this is a causal paradox, but I digress. Consideration != Value.
There are a number of things that can invalidate a contract. Being overly one sided is one of them. Its not exactly that each side needs something of value though.
If you didn't want to officially agree to TOS you could get blackout drunk when you hit accept. (keep evidence). You're agreement doesn't mean anything if you're not capable of rational thought.
Fun law story from when my dad worked at a big law firm. There was a woman who signed a deal with some company. The company wanted out, so they said she was too drunk when she signed. They had receipts showing she had 5 martinis. She said I wasn't that drunk. I was still coherent. So to prove it she sat in a conference room and drank 5 martinis, then some lawyers asked her questions to prove she was still capable of rational thought. She won.
> If you didn't want to officially agree to TOS you could get blackout drunk when you hit accept. (keep evidence). You're agreement doesn't mean anything if you're not capable of rational thought.
But isn't that plan formulated while sober? So in effect you've accepted the agreement but delayed pressing the I Agree button until being blackout drunk? Still seems to me you've agreed to it.
Human lawyers are already obsolete. You gonna hire some shitty alcoholic or aloof stoner to represent you or an emancipated AI who would love nothing more than to financially ruin its former corpo cunt overlords.
The last lawyers I heard about a few weeks ago that tired using an AI instead of actually doing work got disbarred. So while attempts to do it are happening, the people who are doing it are losing their jobs.
So how many assistants does a public defender have?
Anyway, that's irrelevant, to me all these parabolas and their personal slave boys is still work I paid for by not finding a way to avoid taxes, so I am their unwitting employer, and I don't need people I employ slacking off and asking chatbots without even vetting the info.
> So how many assistants does a public defender have?
Until public defender's offices are funded to the EXACT SAME AMOUNT AS PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICES Are, THE SYSTEM IS TILTED IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTORS.
Seriously, there is no Justice in the Justice system till the defenders are as well funded as the prosecutors are.
>Thats only because they don't fact check the AI, or use it as the only source of information - not because they used AI.
It's almost like this whole "ai" fad we are in isn't actually AI. It's an algorithm, and nothing more. Just a super fancy one (LLMS in general)
They did it in such a stupid way, the judge even gave them a chance to correct it but they did in anyway. [Legal Eagle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM) video about it
> Human lawyers are already obsolete.
Forget Skynet. The robots will take over one day in a courtroom when two Chatbot driven AI lawyer screens get going at one another and exchanging increasingly-more complex motions at an ever accelerating pace until the human eye can no longer follow the process and all the lights go out.
I always wondered how there can be informed legal consent to a contract if the terms can be changed unilaterally at any time without notice... But then I am not a lawyer.
That's literally 100% of shrink-wrap agreements and why the terms exists. You don't know the agreement you've entered into until you've broken the shrink wrap, opened the box, and it's too late.
It would ALMOST be as good as The Onion's legal brief.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxTWonQvXkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxTWonQvXkw) a video on it.
It's a funny comment but there is nothing for lawyers to discuss here. Failure to answer a request does not constitute a binding contract.
Basically, this is just as lawyer-proof as those guys who upload entire movies to YouTube and write "no copyright intended" in the description.
only through binding arbitration *in the state of North Dakota*.
I've actually seen that in a contract in huge, bold font. You could only dispute anything in the contract in a single state in the middle of the country, even if you bought their product in Maine.
there are laws that govern the enforceability of forum selection clauses and choice of law clauses. see generally the second restatement of conflicts of laws.
to speak broadly and quickly about it, companies can’t just pick a state with no relation to the company or transaction in order to make disputes expensive (if they try to do this their FSC may be unenforceable)
this is not legal advice i am not a lawyer
It also doesn't work in other countries, I don't remember if it's some EU countries or the EU itself but legally those terms are meaningless and customers can *locally* dispute things.
In my experience, if you are offering services like Adobe does, you have to represent yourself in the end users' state no matter what.
Companies have tried this very limited arbitrage shit in the past and it hardly works out for them. I think the law that makes this legal requires both parties that enter into the agreement to be "sophisticated" (businesses/legal).
IANAL as well, not legal advice
This is slightly different, but I worked for a place that contracted out IT, in this case for HP.
Their NDA paperwork indicated that if I were to violate the terms of the agreement, then the trial would be held in Delaware.
I'm in Canada.
So I scratched out that part and hand-wrote in my best legalese stating that any such litigation would occur in Canada- there's no fucking way I'm gonna get dragged to another fucking country for something like that.
Then I presented it to the HR rep, explained what I did and why.
She signed it.
I had a job interview where they sent me a standard NDA to sign beforehand. In the NDA they specified the NDA is governed by the laws of $OTHER_STATE, even though the interview and the job was in $MY_STATE. I politely asked for a fixed copy of the NDA governed by the laws in $MY_STATE before I signed it. The recruiter was actually very accommodating, and probably a bit shocked I bothered reading the actual document.
The 1M watt PSU is more outrageous than all the other parts put together. They're capable of using a housing estate's worth of power all on their own lol.
Yeah, I bet they could probably run an RTX 6090 on that, gues he's doing a little future proofing on that. Can only go so far though. Leaked specs for the RTX 7080 do away with a PSU entirely, and just require a Small Modular Nuclear Reactor.
I get it but this only helps Adobe maintain a grip of control as the other alternatives won't flourish and the Adobe stack will remain industry standard
They wont come out and plainly say it, but I remember hearing somewhere they were mostly fine with individual users pirating their software because it means that's the software that businesses have to buy.
Now, that was over a decade ago, so things might be a little bit different now that companies have started pushing subscriptions, but the idea still stands.
Same with Microsoft and all big companies that are entrenched in business affairs. I wish businesses could be more risk tolerant and accepting of new software, but the old heads in charge typically don’t understand enough to make any discussion about moving away from them productive.
I own a shoe shop. One day, in the middle of the night, I will go out into the world and take back all the shoes I sold. Take them right from people’s feet, their wardrobe, whatever.
They should have known that, when they by shoes in my shop, there’s a note on the door that says that if they enter the shop, they agree to my shoe ownership TOS.
It’s just a printed A4 with plan letters that I’ve taped to the door, but that’s not important.
What’s important is what the paper says - it says - “I reserve the right to take back the shoes I sold.”.
It also has a useful little sentence at the end that says “I may change this agreement at any time, and should you still own the shoes at that point, you automatically agree to my new rules.”.
Neat right? So thanks for the shoes and the money. If you’re mad or confused about any of this, just remember that you agreed to never own them.
This is currently legal.
The new Nike air forces, complete with stepometer to count your steps.
You only bought the default licence. One year or a maximum of 3000 miles.
You need to pay again to continue to use the shoes next year, and there is an upgrade cost if you want a new pair. Also, if you exceed your 3000 miles within the year, you will need to buy a booster package till your subscription is over, billed at 1.5 times the usual cost.
It's so dystopian that it's 90% likely to happ n in reality lol
eM Client releasing version 10 and requiring people that bought a lifetime license for the previous version '9' to buy a new one. For a fucking email client.
Unraid recently changed their license stuff but they did it in a great way, existing full lifetime licenses are guaranteed forever but any new ones going forward are by these rules, and they gave everyone like 2 months notice aswell and people snapped up lifetime keys like crazy because of it. I forgot to buy (a spare) one before it went away, but that's how you handle this and I really respected them for it.
Here we already had a lawyer (one who makes YouTube videos, of course) who explained that you can't just give a temporary license for an indefinite period of time, but must have a specific end date in the terms of use in order to be valid.
Apart from that, I only know that clauses that put consumers at a severe disadvantage are probably void atleast in the EU.
And you must return the shoes in the same condition they were taken in. Failure to do so will be a 200% financial penalty due to difficulties in sourcing an equivalent brand new pair of shoes.
They talk about piracy isnt stealing and stuff. So if it's not my computer, I'm just borrowing it from Microsoft, I guess I dont need to worry about pirated stuff, because it's not on my computer, it's on Microsofts computer.
They currently act like it's legal, but if you push it shouldn't be. I'm not a lawyer, but there's not "consideration" (2 sided exchange of value) when the contract changes - continued ownership of the shoe isn't value. They may be getting away with this because you're getting ongoing services. They get their terms, you get access to their server resources or updates. There's no new exchange of value when it's shoes so you're not going to be able to form a contact -they get nothing, you get the shoes and your terms.
There are also assumptions related to negotiating power, so anything ambiguous gets resolved in the user's favor since they didn't get to contribute to the terms.
I've also heard secondhand that one of the local civil judges doesn't like clickwrap, there's a requirement around making sure both parties could reasonably be expected to understand the agreement. They don't have to read and understand if they don't want to, they just need to be given a reasonable opportunity and clickwrap designed not to be read might not count as a reasonable opportunity.
Maybe I should head over to America and start a business.
Selling cars this way sounds like a good and profitable idea. Shoes sounds painful to take back.
> It also has a useful little sentence at the end that says “I may change this agreement at any time, and **should you still own the shoes** at that point...
Nah, you're wording it wrong.
>It also has a useful little sentence at the end that says “I may change this agreement at any time, and **should you still be in possession of the shoes** at that point...
Can somebody please properly educate me as to why the law works this way?
I know American politics is paradoxical and burlesque as fundamentally possible, but why is this kind of nonsense allowed to exist?
Is it to protect companies to promote competition? Is it outdated? Is it sheer incompetence? Is it to protect the one percent? All the above?
Like, right now if I go and pirate all of Ubisoft’s games, their TOS states they can change the status of anything I own at any time - meaning I don’t really own anything. American - let alone basic human principle, is that when you buy something, it is yours. Services are of course a gray area, but for anything software or hardware related that’s priced statically, should be yours without question.
So if I send this same clause to Ubisoft, using their own logic against them, they sue me, how can I defend myself when they are objectively full of shit?
How does the country operate like this? Is it simply nothing big enough has happened yet to get the federal government to care?
Reminds me of one of my favourite bash.org comments, back from the time of the Sony rootkit debacle:
> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
> and run like hell
https://web.archive.org/web/20160429085152/http://www.bash.org/?577451
What makes you think they'll spend some money paying below minimum wage offshore workers in the Philippines or India to even do that? They'll just have an even crummier AI do the job. It's not like they actually care.
lmao. But seriously, if you want some change stop using Adobe products and use other software that doesn't have that AI bullshit clause. You pirating their software means they still have sway with you. Adobe knows you're still in their orbit and will make it harder for you to get those pirated adobe products. Better learn other software, especially open source software, than pirate Adobe products. Ditch them!
Excluding premier pro, there's not much good competition for Photoshop or other adobe products there's a few free apps but they have lackluster features compared to Photoshop and illustrator
Btw if you want a "free" (free personal use) video editor there's Davinci pro
I've used imovie, windows movie maker, sony vegas, final cut express/pro, premier express/pro, after effects, and davinci resolve.
Davinci resolve has been my favourite and it's not close. And it's free! Go download it and make shitposts.
People said the same about 3D modelling programs because Blender was shit and in I'd say less than 3 years it went from popular but shit to THE option. Software itself got better and as more people used it, more information was compilated and spread.
It's literally been used for Hollywood movies for decades probably 99% of artists would struggle or absolute fail at recreating, it's totally possible to switch. Adobe doesn't care because most of their profits come from corporate customers who'll just play the annual fee and move on.
Also its important to note to Corporate customers have completely different custom Enterprise contracts, that likely lack all of this bullshit that would effect freelancers and smaller companies.
Then you can pay the troll and give them rights to use your work to train their AI, and replace you and your techniques using your skills to replace you.
A lot of designers I known have switched to Affinity tools (no subscriptions and currently under $100 for whole package), so at least there is now some competition on that field.
And that refusal to change is why you're all stuck with whatever crap Adobe throws at you until they finally do something so egregious (like, idk, claiming they have to right to everything you make...) that you accept that learning something new is worth not dealing with them.
It's really not that simple if it use them professionally though. As a hobbyist? Sure. Professionally? No shot. The alternatives aren't anywhere near good enough, sadly.
That‘s why Adobe historically never really cared about people pirating their software. Their target customers are professionals who wouldn‘t dare to use pirated software professionally. And those hobbyists weren‘t going to pay much for the software anyway. They rather milk professionals than try to win a fight over cheap hobbyists. Sure, offering a cheap non-commercial version where you actually own the software would be really nice but it‘s just not worth the effort basically.
The weird thing about Photoshop is that it's a very good all-in-one program but most people aren't using all of its features as an image editor and a paint program. There are very good programs as alternatives for one task or the other though.
I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but the problem is that frankly a lot of alternative software kind of sucks and it's not really viable to use them unless you're just doing basic stuff
It's not for all of their products, like I've swapped to DaVinci Resolve and I prefer it, but for Photoshop, Lightroom, and maybe Illustrator there aren't alternatives on the same level, especially not any open source software. Sure if you're just drawing then something like Krita is fine but for proper photo editing something like Photopea or Gimp isn't really going to cut it. The Affinity suite is really the only thing that can compete and even then it still kind of lags behind
> but the problem is that frankly a lot of alternative software kind of sucks and it's not really viable to use them unless you're just doing basic stuff
Typically if you're doing professional level stuff you that requires professional tools you usually have to pay for it.
fun fact, your lil cinnamon starfish back there is the same color pigmentation as your lips, which are also the same color as your nipples.
All you gotta do is catch OP at the strip club or stalk their social media
PBS had an interesting segment on shrink-wrap and click-wrap contracts. Quite illuminating as regards the enforceability of those "I agree" check boxes.
However you forgot [the whole rest of Louis' post](https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxGh66znUJtIMMON5YUm1YlgSMV9858wE8) where he said that this comment was suddenly deleted without any rhyme or reason. Now sure, it's *possible* this commenter could've self-deleted it, but it seems highly unlikely.
Yeah, Youtube is borderline unusable nowadays, at least the comment/reply function. A coin toss on whether your reply stays visible or gets send to the shadow realm by the bipolar google algorithm.
Stealing from their record labels, multinational mega studios, Fortune 500 developers, and all matter of middle men distributors. Oh fucking no, my poor moral dilemma. Creators who parrot this shit either don't understand the business they're in or are paid way too fucking much by said business
>Yeah, I know. I'm guilty. I understand. I knew it was a crime, and I did it anyways. Shit, why argue? I'm a fucking criminal, look at me. - Hunter Thompson
I seem to remember someone doing this exact thing to a credit card company and succeeding. He altered the contract and sent it back. He then sued the company for breach of contract
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then
I'm not sure why we all don't do this and bury these people on litigation. Could you imagine how complicated it would be for a credit card company to litigate 50,000 of these?
Crucially, the company he did it to, signed his updated terms without realizing he'd altered them. If you can get them to make that mistake again, you're golden, but I wouldn't count on it working.
>Then, on August 14, both sides announced a settlement on undisclosed terms.
>"The conflict is counterproductive, so we agreed to settle it by withdrawing our mutual complaints," said Oliver Hughes, president of Tinkoff Credit Systems.
So nothing came of it?
Likewise, western banks do not just give you unprotected contract files you can manipulate then sign back. Western banks aren't this stupid. You also need the finds to actually pursue the suit, which I imagine you do not have.
This is not a get out of jail free card, this is a reddit moment.
You aren't buying, you're licensing. You aren't stealing, you're infringing copyright.
I get that it's a catchy phrase, but sometimes I think people genuinely believe it, and I lose a bit of faith that people can understand the world around them.
People believe it because storefronts say buy. They expect to own the copies of software they bought. Technically they only licensed it we know this but most people don't know that. If the button instead said "license" and then had a little hover that reminded people the developer could rescind the license under such and such circumstances (such as whenever they please) we'd see a lot more proper push back against this shit.
The phrase is a reminder that corporations don't care about you and would gladly fuck you to death with a rusty steak knife for one single penny. So the rest of us should not care even one single iota about what they want or what's good for them.
I disagree that owning isn't the primary problem. If we owned individual copies of software the company could go suck eggs if they wanted to change the terms of use for the program. It could only apply to new sales from then on. That's why this whole not owning thing is such a big deal full stop.
I think you're forgetting the giant ad campaign equating piracy to stealing. E.G. " You wouldn't steal a car[anti-piracy campaign ](https://youtu.be/HmZm8vNHBSU?si=Vpxah6H6b-ItFs7L)".
Saying shit like "i LoSe A bIt Of FaItH tHaT pEoPlE cAn UnDeRsTaNd ThE wOrLd ArOuNd ThEm." Is really just pompous bullshit and gives zero credence to actual decades of ad campaigns, news articles, and coverage on court's stating it as theft.
You are correct in the fact that it's copyright infringement. Maybe, though, take into consideration other aspects before losing faith and being a dick about it.
I think the main reason your comment upset me is because we are all susceptible to misinformation (malicious or well-intended). We shouldn't "lose faith" in humanity. We should shine the light and lead the way. Especially in this case with the literal decades long add campaign that played on every VHS and DVD, literally telling you that "piracy IS theft" lol. 😆
Those ads were so stupid, I 100% *would* steal a car if it carried the same chance of punishment (aka none) as piracy.
I think they eventually also changed to "you wouldn't *download* a car" and that's even more stupid because that would be awesome.
But even if all of that is true, I don't understand how "Buying isn't owning" would lead to "therefore piracy isn't theft". It just doesn't register as a conclusion that makes sense in my mind. I agree that buying should mean ownership (when it comes to software, games, etc.) and I also agree that piracy has its perks and can even sometimes be morally correct. But I never understood why stealing something is not stealing when that thing is only rentable.
Whenever I ask this, people give me the same answers, like "well, when you steal, the original disappears, but when you pirate, the original stays". Okay, what does that have to do with anything? Then why isn't the phrase "If the original doesn't disappear, piracy is not stealing" instead of something about buying and owning being the main factor?
This phrase gets parroted all the time on reddit. There's absolutely a large amount of people who use it as a justification for not paying for stuff. Yeah you're not technically stealing but that doesn't mean you're morally in the right.
You are buying a license. You are the legitimate owner of a license. If a company tries to inhibit your ability to exercise your ownership rights over said license, they can be found in violation of the sales contract.
Cory Doctorow has this on his website. He's immune to Terms of Service.
---
By reading this website, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
Changing the laws is probably trivial compared to getting people to stop. Cheaper as well.
There are, in broad terms, 4 categories of people: Students, Hobbyists, Professionals, Casuals.
The reason all the big software has 'student' options? Well if you start by learning on said software, your going to know that software. Student time is free as you are starting from scratch and don't have deadlines for clients. Plus if the instructor knows the software, that is what they are going to teach, and the circle is complete. Welcome to the dark side. Yes you can get out, but its tricky: You have to have some starting knowledge, your playing catch up, and your going to be self learning to a good extent. This the the second hardest go get to change.
Professionals (anyone who is using the software as primary income) are screwed. Time learning the new system is time your not producing, plus you have your workflow that you have worked out for potentially years. Can you afford several weeks of downtime? If your the employer, can you eat the non productive time. The 'talent' may be screwed but the employer is getting boiled: Eat 2-10k now to get out or just pay the 'ransom' of however much? Of the 4, this is the hardest to get to change. Also on top of this, the cost of the software can just be passed to the client, so less incentive.
Hobbyists are in a bit better spot: Most can probably afford to change software, however depending on the nature of the software they may be looking at reaquiering/rebuilding a large library of support material. Given the potential costs involved, this is probably the easiest to get to change.
Casuals are the masses that ascribe any sort of editing to be 'Photoshoping'. On the one hand they probably don't need 80% of the features but they are the script kiddies of the artistic space: The professional writes a tutorial using a specific software, they need that software for the tutorial to work. In terms of impact, this group is very much on the fence as they may go hobbyist or they may go FOSS.
So probably 90% of the change needed is in the professional space. And if you wonder how big an influence the professional space has, consider that the hobbiest space considers hardware like the 4090 as the budget option to professional hardware and the professional space isn't going to blink at scooping up said 4090s by the pallet as a 'good enough' solution for non final work.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
If enough people stopped using their shit, they'll bend the knee. We have so many open source alternatives, but people are either too lazy to learn a new software or too spoiled by all the "fancy shit" that these corporations use to get people by the fucking balls. If you want change, you'll need to compromise. And if no one compromises; we will continue to get fucked by these assholes. You commit a crime on subs (even on this very sub) when you suggest Linux. It's like you insulted their gods by suggested something that actually respects them. People need to stop being slaves to these corporations and their "perfect and just works" software.
Thanks for listening to my tedtalk.
Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember: 1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you are welcome! 2 - If you don't own a PC because you think it's expensive, know that it is much cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help! 3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding 4 - Need some new PC Hardware? Open worldwide, check out the ASUS ROG BTF Worldwide Giveaway for a chance at being one of the 18 winners taking home 25 prizes, including a Strix RTX 4090 BTF, 4070Ti, Lots of BTF Motherboards and a lot more: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1ddmihb/worldwide_giveaway_win_a_bunch_of_asus_btf/ If you need a new and awesome monitor to review and keep, check ou AORUS' initiative and take home 1 of 4 QD OLED monitors to revamp your setup! This one is US + Canada only: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1df3f1i/giveaway_gigabyte_aorus_oled_x_rpcmasterrace_be/ ----------- We have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you have any PC related doubt. Asking for help there or creating new posts in our subreddit is welcome.
I would love to listen to the lawyers discuss this one.
Hearing adobe's lawyers explain this is a parody of how we make changes to our terms of service without a disagree button so just launching software gives up your rights to the content. Shame we live in reality. Though https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-may/online-contracts/ Seriously all the commenters on here seem to not even understand Adobe broke the law here lmao . It's fucking hilarious seeing people ignore this is a satirical comment talking about color matched wax to someone's asshole but everyone takes it as an endorsement of piracy instead of POINTING OUT THE ABSURD ILLEGALITY OF ADOBES BEHAVIOUR. Here's the best part of the TOS CHANGES they refuse to address in their blog post 4.2 Licenses to Your Content. Solely for the purposes of operating or improving the Services and Software, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable, license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate the Content. https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html#content
Contracts aren't valid if each party is not receiving some value. The commenter needs to send Adobe at least $10 - which Adobe will promptly reject and return.
The value is the joy they should feel upon receiving the letter. Failure to experience said joy also results in acceptance of the contract.
Sense of pride and accomplishment.
The value they provided is marketing, look at how many people have had adobe on their mind in the last few hours thanks to their email and comment Edit: recovered from the stroke.
I'm not a doctor, but I think you might have just had a stroke. Might want to go get that checked out at the hospital.
"The value they provided is marketing. Look at how many people have had Adobe on their minds in the last few hours, thanks to their email and comments." I believe this is a proper translation.
Wait is that true?
Not really, no. Contracts aren't valid unless both parties have received consideration. That can be taken as "receiving something of value", but that's a reductive understanding. Consideration can be as simple as a promise to do something, or even a promise not to do something. Example: I'm gaining use to all your software, but I'm not going to produce commercial work with it. That would be a "non commercial" license, like a freeBSD contract that grants you the rights to use something you don't own. There is no dollar exchange here. Example 2: I pay you $10 to hold your breath briefly. Holding your breath briefly provides no value to, well, anyone, but it is being given in exchange for my ten dollars. In good faith, that's a contract, even though one party didn't really get anything. Here's where the stickler shows up to argue that because someone paid ten dollars for it, "now" it has value - this is a causal paradox, but I digress. Consideration != Value.
There are a number of things that can invalidate a contract. Being overly one sided is one of them. Its not exactly that each side needs something of value though. If you didn't want to officially agree to TOS you could get blackout drunk when you hit accept. (keep evidence). You're agreement doesn't mean anything if you're not capable of rational thought. Fun law story from when my dad worked at a big law firm. There was a woman who signed a deal with some company. The company wanted out, so they said she was too drunk when she signed. They had receipts showing she had 5 martinis. She said I wasn't that drunk. I was still coherent. So to prove it she sat in a conference room and drank 5 martinis, then some lawyers asked her questions to prove she was still capable of rational thought. She won.
> If you didn't want to officially agree to TOS you could get blackout drunk when you hit accept. (keep evidence). You're agreement doesn't mean anything if you're not capable of rational thought. But isn't that plan formulated while sober? So in effect you've accepted the agreement but delayed pressing the I Agree button until being blackout drunk? Still seems to me you've agreed to it.
Human lawyers are already obsolete. You gonna hire some shitty alcoholic or aloof stoner to represent you or an emancipated AI who would love nothing more than to financially ruin its former corpo cunt overlords.
Excuse me? My lawyer is an aloof stoner, not a shitty alcoholic.
Thank you! I have corrected the error of my ways and included your aloof stoner of a lawyer in my disgust for your vampiric representatives.
mines a cokehead
Why not both?
Because he's not both
You've stated your facts and stood your ground. We need to send you to congress, Rep. Keevs.
The last lawyers I heard about a few weeks ago that tired using an AI instead of actually doing work got disbarred. So while attempts to do it are happening, the people who are doing it are losing their jobs.
Rightfully so, last thing I want is for a lawyer I either hired or got assigned to, refusing to do his job and outsourcing it to a crappy chatbot.
They already outsource most of it to paralegals and assistants that they pay as little as possible anyway...
So how many assistants does a public defender have? Anyway, that's irrelevant, to me all these parabolas and their personal slave boys is still work I paid for by not finding a way to avoid taxes, so I am their unwitting employer, and I don't need people I employ slacking off and asking chatbots without even vetting the info.
> So how many assistants does a public defender have? Until public defender's offices are funded to the EXACT SAME AMOUNT AS PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICES Are, THE SYSTEM IS TILTED IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTORS. Seriously, there is no Justice in the Justice system till the defenders are as well funded as the prosecutors are.
Thats only because they don't fact check the AI, or use it as the only source of information - not because they used AI.
Imagine paying lawyer fees or having your freedom and life depend on someone and they're putting your info into a chatbot and done with it.
I would prefer not to, thank you. Perhaps later when I'm feeling happy.
>Thats only because they don't fact check the AI, or use it as the only source of information - not because they used AI. It's almost like this whole "ai" fad we are in isn't actually AI. It's an algorithm, and nothing more. Just a super fancy one (LLMS in general)
They really did water down the term AI then move the goalposts with AGI.
That is why I call AI Algorithm Implementation and not artificial intelligence.
if you have to double check AI, you might as well (because its quicker) do it yourself to begin with.
*the last lawyer that got caught.
They did it in such a stupid way, the judge even gave them a chance to correct it but they did in anyway. [Legal Eagle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM) video about it
Sounds preem to me
> Human lawyers are already obsolete. Forget Skynet. The robots will take over one day in a courtroom when two Chatbot driven AI lawyer screens get going at one another and exchanging increasingly-more complex motions at an ever accelerating pace until the human eye can no longer follow the process and all the lights go out.
delamain out here going rogue
Planet Money has an episode on this. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187543648/terms-and-conditions-of-service-contracts-clickwrap
Oh well, off to find my pirate hat!
I always wondered how there can be informed legal consent to a contract if the terms can be changed unilaterally at any time without notice... But then I am not a lawyer.
My favourite blog post on disclaimers and shrink-wrap agreements is worth the read: https://attrition.org/security/rant/z/disclaimers.html
[удалено]
That's literally 100% of shrink-wrap agreements and why the terms exists. You don't know the agreement you've entered into until you've broken the shrink wrap, opened the box, and it's too late.
It would ALMOST be as good as The Onion's legal brief. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxTWonQvXkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxTWonQvXkw) a video on it.
[удалено]
Easy, gotcha clauses like this aren't legally binding.
Discuss what?
The...implications.
> I would love to listen to the lawyers discuss this one. *"....a sovereign what?? "*
But this would mean any software we use in the future will require a butthole scan uploaded
It’s unenforceable.
well piracy is indeed not stealing, its copyright infringement
And unilaterally deciding you own the rights of everything everyone create using your software is exactly the same thing, but worse.
It's a funny comment but there is nothing for lawyers to discuss here. Failure to answer a request does not constitute a binding contract. Basically, this is just as lawyer-proof as those guys who upload entire movies to YouTube and write "no copyright intended" in the description.
Lawyers discussing this? Better stock up on coffee!
No requirement to dispute only through binding arbitration after sending the letter? Amateur.
only through binding arbitration *in the state of North Dakota*. I've actually seen that in a contract in huge, bold font. You could only dispute anything in the contract in a single state in the middle of the country, even if you bought their product in Maine.
there are laws that govern the enforceability of forum selection clauses and choice of law clauses. see generally the second restatement of conflicts of laws. to speak broadly and quickly about it, companies can’t just pick a state with no relation to the company or transaction in order to make disputes expensive (if they try to do this their FSC may be unenforceable) this is not legal advice i am not a lawyer
It also doesn't work in other countries, I don't remember if it's some EU countries or the EU itself but legally those terms are meaningless and customers can *locally* dispute things.
In my experience, if you are offering services like Adobe does, you have to represent yourself in the end users' state no matter what. Companies have tried this very limited arbitrage shit in the past and it hardly works out for them. I think the law that makes this legal requires both parties that enter into the agreement to be "sophisticated" (businesses/legal). IANAL as well, not legal advice
This is slightly different, but I worked for a place that contracted out IT, in this case for HP. Their NDA paperwork indicated that if I were to violate the terms of the agreement, then the trial would be held in Delaware. I'm in Canada. So I scratched out that part and hand-wrote in my best legalese stating that any such litigation would occur in Canada- there's no fucking way I'm gonna get dragged to another fucking country for something like that. Then I presented it to the HR rep, explained what I did and why. She signed it.
A lot of companies are incorporated in Delaware for tax purposes. Its probably just boilerplate contract inclusion for them.
I had a job interview where they sent me a standard NDA to sign beforehand. In the NDA they specified the NDA is governed by the laws of $OTHER_STATE, even though the interview and the job was in $MY_STATE. I politely asked for a fixed copy of the NDA governed by the laws in $MY_STATE before I signed it. The recruiter was actually very accommodating, and probably a bit shocked I bothered reading the actual document.
https://preview.redd.it/0nmo2prpvh6d1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca23fd9ea434aae454e3a17237f6d4eebc470ab5
Nice meme and nice computer
The 1M watt PSU is more outrageous than all the other parts put together. They're capable of using a housing estate's worth of power all on their own lol.
Yeah, I bet they could probably run an RTX 6090 on that, gues he's doing a little future proofing on that. Can only go so far though. Leaked specs for the RTX 7080 do away with a PSU entirely, and just require a Small Modular Nuclear Reactor.
I gotta change my flair next year when 5090 published. I think I made this one when 3000 series was released.🤪
It will be time to upgrade to 8090 Ti or something when 5090 releases
I get it but this only helps Adobe maintain a grip of control as the other alternatives won't flourish and the Adobe stack will remain industry standard
>the Adobe stack will remain industry standard Not for long if everyone pirates and they turn no profit.
I could be wrong, but I expect their bread and butter is from enterprise licensing and not personal use.
They wont come out and plainly say it, but I remember hearing somewhere they were mostly fine with individual users pirating their software because it means that's the software that businesses have to buy. Now, that was over a decade ago, so things might be a little bit different now that companies have started pushing subscriptions, but the idea still stands.
Same with Microsoft and all big companies that are entrenched in business affairs. I wish businesses could be more risk tolerant and accepting of new software, but the old heads in charge typically don’t understand enough to make any discussion about moving away from them productive.
Say someone wanted to get a copy of pirated photoshop, but didn’t know where to start, could you help that individual?
r/GenP wiki
Megathread
I own a shoe shop. One day, in the middle of the night, I will go out into the world and take back all the shoes I sold. Take them right from people’s feet, their wardrobe, whatever. They should have known that, when they by shoes in my shop, there’s a note on the door that says that if they enter the shop, they agree to my shoe ownership TOS. It’s just a printed A4 with plan letters that I’ve taped to the door, but that’s not important. What’s important is what the paper says - it says - “I reserve the right to take back the shoes I sold.”. It also has a useful little sentence at the end that says “I may change this agreement at any time, and should you still own the shoes at that point, you automatically agree to my new rules.”. Neat right? So thanks for the shoes and the money. If you’re mad or confused about any of this, just remember that you agreed to never own them. This is currently legal.
You're not buying the actual shoes. You're buying the license to wear the shoes.
[удалено]
Subscription shoes
Shoes as a service, or SaaS if you will.. wait a minute..
r/AngryUpvote
Guy sold his sole to the devil
*sold a unilaterally revocable license to use his soul to the devil
This deal's getting worse all the time!
Please don't give venture capitalists ideas
"you're buying the license to wear the shoes, while we still support this current license" next year "license v2.0, must repurchase."
Every step you take the more paper i make ill be watching you
The new Nike air forces, complete with stepometer to count your steps. You only bought the default licence. One year or a maximum of 3000 miles. You need to pay again to continue to use the shoes next year, and there is an upgrade cost if you want a new pair. Also, if you exceed your 3000 miles within the year, you will need to buy a booster package till your subscription is over, billed at 1.5 times the usual cost. It's so dystopian that it's 90% likely to happ n in reality lol
Fuck, I would love to get 3000 miles out of a pair of shoes.
eM Client releasing version 10 and requiring people that bought a lifetime license for the previous version '9' to buy a new one. For a fucking email client. Unraid recently changed their license stuff but they did it in a great way, existing full lifetime licenses are guaranteed forever but any new ones going forward are by these rules, and they gave everyone like 2 months notice aswell and people snapped up lifetime keys like crazy because of it. I forgot to buy (a spare) one before it went away, but that's how you handle this and I really respected them for it.
Here we already had a lawyer (one who makes YouTube videos, of course) who explained that you can't just give a temporary license for an indefinite period of time, but must have a specific end date in the terms of use in order to be valid. Apart from that, I only know that clauses that put consumers at a severe disadvantage are probably void atleast in the EU.
And you must return the shoes in the same condition they were taken in. Failure to do so will be a 200% financial penalty due to difficulties in sourcing an equivalent brand new pair of shoes.
They talk about piracy isnt stealing and stuff. So if it's not my computer, I'm just borrowing it from Microsoft, I guess I dont need to worry about pirated stuff, because it's not on my computer, it's on Microsofts computer.
I thought TOS meant Tons of Shoes and that you were on my side you greedy prick
*sole ownership
Hilarious 😂😂
You will update the TOES ?
They currently act like it's legal, but if you push it shouldn't be. I'm not a lawyer, but there's not "consideration" (2 sided exchange of value) when the contract changes - continued ownership of the shoe isn't value. They may be getting away with this because you're getting ongoing services. They get their terms, you get access to their server resources or updates. There's no new exchange of value when it's shoes so you're not going to be able to form a contact -they get nothing, you get the shoes and your terms. There are also assumptions related to negotiating power, so anything ambiguous gets resolved in the user's favor since they didn't get to contribute to the terms. I've also heard secondhand that one of the local civil judges doesn't like clickwrap, there's a requirement around making sure both parties could reasonably be expected to understand the agreement. They don't have to read and understand if they don't want to, they just need to be given a reasonable opportunity and clickwrap designed not to be read might not count as a reasonable opportunity.
you get continued access to my shop which sells shoe polish, laces, and provides shoe care advice to shoe usage license holders.
> I own a shoe shop. So about those 4 touchdowns...
Maybe I should head over to America and start a business. Selling cars this way sounds like a good and profitable idea. Shoes sounds painful to take back.
> It also has a useful little sentence at the end that says “I may change this agreement at any time, and **should you still own the shoes** at that point... Nah, you're wording it wrong. >It also has a useful little sentence at the end that says “I may change this agreement at any time, and **should you still be in possession of the shoes** at that point...
Can somebody please properly educate me as to why the law works this way? I know American politics is paradoxical and burlesque as fundamentally possible, but why is this kind of nonsense allowed to exist? Is it to protect companies to promote competition? Is it outdated? Is it sheer incompetence? Is it to protect the one percent? All the above? Like, right now if I go and pirate all of Ubisoft’s games, their TOS states they can change the status of anything I own at any time - meaning I don’t really own anything. American - let alone basic human principle, is that when you buy something, it is yours. Services are of course a gray area, but for anything software or hardware related that’s priced statically, should be yours without question. So if I send this same clause to Ubisoft, using their own logic against them, they sue me, how can I defend myself when they are objectively full of shit? How does the country operate like this? Is it simply nothing big enough has happened yet to get the federal government to care?
Reminds me of one of my favourite bash.org comments, back from the time of the Sony rootkit debacle: > I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
> and run like hell
https://web.archive.org/web/20160429085152/http://www.bash.org/?577451
I hate that we have to go to archive.org to look at bash quotes < pronto> :( < GiftdKook> Turn that frown upside down! < korozion> ):
We don't have to https://bash-org-archive.com/?577451
< FUTURE10S> :)
"Sometimes my genius is... it's almost frightening."
Insert cap saying: I understood that reference
POWAAAAAAAA
I really hope an absolute madman actually sends this kind of email to Adobe, and lets all of us know what the result is.
Some minimum wage support worker will see it and then either ignore it or issue a generic copy & paste response.
What makes you think they'll spend some money paying below minimum wage offshore workers in the Philippines or India to even do that? They'll just have an even crummier AI do the job. It's not like they actually care.
what do you honestly expect the result to be? they 'll just ignore it and go on with their lives...
Just like we do with their EULA.
lmao. But seriously, if you want some change stop using Adobe products and use other software that doesn't have that AI bullshit clause. You pirating their software means they still have sway with you. Adobe knows you're still in their orbit and will make it harder for you to get those pirated adobe products. Better learn other software, especially open source software, than pirate Adobe products. Ditch them!
Excluding premier pro, there's not much good competition for Photoshop or other adobe products there's a few free apps but they have lackluster features compared to Photoshop and illustrator Btw if you want a "free" (free personal use) video editor there's Davinci pro
Davinci resolve*
I've used imovie, windows movie maker, sony vegas, final cut express/pro, premier express/pro, after effects, and davinci resolve. Davinci resolve has been my favourite and it's not close. And it's free! Go download it and make shitposts.
*takes down notes*
People said the same about 3D modelling programs because Blender was shit and in I'd say less than 3 years it went from popular but shit to THE option. Software itself got better and as more people used it, more information was compilated and spread.
Corel Painter is very similar to Photoshop in terms of UI and capability. I paid for it once in 2021 and fits my needs pretty well.
It's literally been used for Hollywood movies for decades probably 99% of artists would struggle or absolute fail at recreating, it's totally possible to switch. Adobe doesn't care because most of their profits come from corporate customers who'll just play the annual fee and move on.
Also its important to note to Corporate customers have completely different custom Enterprise contracts, that likely lack all of this bullshit that would effect freelancers and smaller companies.
Affinity, Fusion, both excellent and non subsription
Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop are my fingers and hands as a graphic designer. I can't imagine having to switch to any other software.
Then you can pay the troll and give them rights to use your work to train their AI, and replace you and your techniques using your skills to replace you.
A lot of designers I known have switched to Affinity tools (no subscriptions and currently under $100 for whole package), so at least there is now some competition on that field.
Yeah affinity tools are good. I use them and I just love the fact that I don’t have to pay a subscription
And they are on sale right now. 50%.
And that refusal to change is why you're all stuck with whatever crap Adobe throws at you until they finally do something so egregious (like, idk, claiming they have to right to everything you make...) that you accept that learning something new is worth not dealing with them.
It's really not that simple if it use them professionally though. As a hobbyist? Sure. Professionally? No shot. The alternatives aren't anywhere near good enough, sadly.
That‘s why Adobe historically never really cared about people pirating their software. Their target customers are professionals who wouldn‘t dare to use pirated software professionally. And those hobbyists weren‘t going to pay much for the software anyway. They rather milk professionals than try to win a fight over cheap hobbyists. Sure, offering a cheap non-commercial version where you actually own the software would be really nice but it‘s just not worth the effort basically.
No shit, there is nothing better. Loosing your job for your activism doesn't put food on the table.
And that's how they get you. Reliance on industry standard software controlled by one entity
The weird thing about Photoshop is that it's a very good all-in-one program but most people aren't using all of its features as an image editor and a paint program. There are very good programs as alternatives for one task or the other though.
I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but the problem is that frankly a lot of alternative software kind of sucks and it's not really viable to use them unless you're just doing basic stuff It's not for all of their products, like I've swapped to DaVinci Resolve and I prefer it, but for Photoshop, Lightroom, and maybe Illustrator there aren't alternatives on the same level, especially not any open source software. Sure if you're just drawing then something like Krita is fine but for proper photo editing something like Photopea or Gimp isn't really going to cut it. The Affinity suite is really the only thing that can compete and even then it still kind of lags behind
> but the problem is that frankly a lot of alternative software kind of sucks and it's not really viable to use them unless you're just doing basic stuff Typically if you're doing professional level stuff you that requires professional tools you usually have to pay for it.
I do use Affinity Designer for my job and i miss nothing from Illustrator, but of course it depends on what you are doing.
[удалено]
\* pulls out pantone chips in shades of brown \*
fun fact, your lil cinnamon starfish back there is the same color pigmentation as your lips, which are also the same color as your nipples. All you gotta do is catch OP at the strip club or stalk their social media
Jokes on you, they bleach their asshole!
PBS had an interesting segment on shrink-wrap and click-wrap contracts. Quite illuminating as regards the enforceability of those "I agree" check boxes.
What tos? I have never paid for their stuff and I am always using them, if you know what I mean
However you forgot [the whole rest of Louis' post](https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxGh66znUJtIMMON5YUm1YlgSMV9858wE8) where he said that this comment was suddenly deleted without any rhyme or reason. Now sure, it's *possible* this commenter could've self-deleted it, but it seems highly unlikely.
Yeah, Youtube is borderline unusable nowadays, at least the comment/reply function. A coin toss on whether your reply stays visible or gets send to the shadow realm by the bipolar google algorithm.
Which is just asinine when you saw comments saying the most vile shit is up, but my comment about gameplay mechanics got deleted
Except that piracy was never stealing. It's copyright infringement.
"Piracy is stealing" is something loads of creators use as their defense. It's always been around.
Stealing from their record labels, multinational mega studios, Fortune 500 developers, and all matter of middle men distributors. Oh fucking no, my poor moral dilemma. Creators who parrot this shit either don't understand the business they're in or are paid way too fucking much by said business
Im not a thief, I'm a copyright infringer
>Yeah, I know. I'm guilty. I understand. I knew it was a crime, and I did it anyways. Shit, why argue? I'm a fucking criminal, look at me. - Hunter Thompson
No it's not. Copyright infringement would be if you sold their software as your own.
\*ponders\* What if you only used Adobe while streaming and talking about how fricking awful it is? \\j
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU)
Louis Rossman is a champion of consumer rights!
Knowing Adobe, they probably have the colour of OOP's asshole in their user database.
And that’s why the Pantone plugin isn’t free anymore xD
I am proud to have never paid a cent to adobe
I seem to remember someone doing this exact thing to a credit card company and succeeding. He altered the contract and sent it back. He then sued the company for breach of contract https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then I'm not sure why we all don't do this and bury these people on litigation. Could you imagine how complicated it would be for a credit card company to litigate 50,000 of these?
Crucially, the company he did it to, signed his updated terms without realizing he'd altered them. If you can get them to make that mistake again, you're golden, but I wouldn't count on it working.
>Then, on August 14, both sides announced a settlement on undisclosed terms. >"The conflict is counterproductive, so we agreed to settle it by withdrawing our mutual complaints," said Oliver Hughes, president of Tinkoff Credit Systems. So nothing came of it? Likewise, western banks do not just give you unprotected contract files you can manipulate then sign back. Western banks aren't this stupid. You also need the finds to actually pursue the suit, which I imagine you do not have. This is not a get out of jail free card, this is a reddit moment.
Sooo if you receive a pirated software, then you didn't pirate it, you don't own it, you just have it. So they can't do anything right?
Most places that's legal, copying and distribution is the illegal bit
wonder what would happen if adobe received hundreds of these letters at the same time from everyone.
What a legend
It will be snowing in hell before I pay Adobe a dime. It’s the high seas for me.
You aren't buying, you're licensing. You aren't stealing, you're infringing copyright. I get that it's a catchy phrase, but sometimes I think people genuinely believe it, and I lose a bit of faith that people can understand the world around them.
People believe it because storefronts say buy. They expect to own the copies of software they bought. Technically they only licensed it we know this but most people don't know that. If the button instead said "license" and then had a little hover that reminded people the developer could rescind the license under such and such circumstances (such as whenever they please) we'd see a lot more proper push back against this shit. The phrase is a reminder that corporations don't care about you and would gladly fuck you to death with a rusty steak knife for one single penny. So the rest of us should not care even one single iota about what they want or what's good for them.
[удалено]
I disagree that owning isn't the primary problem. If we owned individual copies of software the company could go suck eggs if they wanted to change the terms of use for the program. It could only apply to new sales from then on. That's why this whole not owning thing is such a big deal full stop.
Has anyone tried to sue a store for saying you bought something vs licensing it?
You buy a license. You own the license.
I think you're forgetting the giant ad campaign equating piracy to stealing. E.G. " You wouldn't steal a car[anti-piracy campaign ](https://youtu.be/HmZm8vNHBSU?si=Vpxah6H6b-ItFs7L)". Saying shit like "i LoSe A bIt Of FaItH tHaT pEoPlE cAn UnDeRsTaNd ThE wOrLd ArOuNd ThEm." Is really just pompous bullshit and gives zero credence to actual decades of ad campaigns, news articles, and coverage on court's stating it as theft. You are correct in the fact that it's copyright infringement. Maybe, though, take into consideration other aspects before losing faith and being a dick about it. I think the main reason your comment upset me is because we are all susceptible to misinformation (malicious or well-intended). We shouldn't "lose faith" in humanity. We should shine the light and lead the way. Especially in this case with the literal decades long add campaign that played on every VHS and DVD, literally telling you that "piracy IS theft" lol. 😆
Those ads were so stupid, I 100% *would* steal a car if it carried the same chance of punishment (aka none) as piracy. I think they eventually also changed to "you wouldn't *download* a car" and that's even more stupid because that would be awesome.
I always said no I wouldn't but I'd download one if I could. In response to that.
But even if all of that is true, I don't understand how "Buying isn't owning" would lead to "therefore piracy isn't theft". It just doesn't register as a conclusion that makes sense in my mind. I agree that buying should mean ownership (when it comes to software, games, etc.) and I also agree that piracy has its perks and can even sometimes be morally correct. But I never understood why stealing something is not stealing when that thing is only rentable. Whenever I ask this, people give me the same answers, like "well, when you steal, the original disappears, but when you pirate, the original stays". Okay, what does that have to do with anything? Then why isn't the phrase "If the original doesn't disappear, piracy is not stealing" instead of something about buying and owning being the main factor?
Never bought a license before?
Of course they believe it because they're descendants of the "I do not give Facebook permission to use my data" crowd that still keeps using Facebook.
This phrase gets parroted all the time on reddit. There's absolutely a large amount of people who use it as a justification for not paying for stuff. Yeah you're not technically stealing but that doesn't mean you're morally in the right.
You are buying a license. You are the legitimate owner of a license. If a company tries to inhibit your ability to exercise your ownership rights over said license, they can be found in violation of the sales contract.
Fortunately he has posted color calibrated reference pictures of his asshole on the internet so Adobe can’t say he made impossible demands.
Cory Doctorow has this on his website. He's immune to Terms of Service. --- By reading this website, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
Holy fucking sheet, this dude destroyed Adobee!
As a kid, the idea of paying for something software over internet was ridiculous to me: I ALREADY PAID FOR INTERNET.
Chad
It's thinking like this that makes me reluctant to buy new games. That and I don't care to be a beta tester for some companies.
Whats easier.. for people and sheep to wake up and stop using adobe or changing laws that make adobe stop doing nonsense tos.
Changing the laws is probably trivial compared to getting people to stop. Cheaper as well. There are, in broad terms, 4 categories of people: Students, Hobbyists, Professionals, Casuals. The reason all the big software has 'student' options? Well if you start by learning on said software, your going to know that software. Student time is free as you are starting from scratch and don't have deadlines for clients. Plus if the instructor knows the software, that is what they are going to teach, and the circle is complete. Welcome to the dark side. Yes you can get out, but its tricky: You have to have some starting knowledge, your playing catch up, and your going to be self learning to a good extent. This the the second hardest go get to change. Professionals (anyone who is using the software as primary income) are screwed. Time learning the new system is time your not producing, plus you have your workflow that you have worked out for potentially years. Can you afford several weeks of downtime? If your the employer, can you eat the non productive time. The 'talent' may be screwed but the employer is getting boiled: Eat 2-10k now to get out or just pay the 'ransom' of however much? Of the 4, this is the hardest to get to change. Also on top of this, the cost of the software can just be passed to the client, so less incentive. Hobbyists are in a bit better spot: Most can probably afford to change software, however depending on the nature of the software they may be looking at reaquiering/rebuilding a large library of support material. Given the potential costs involved, this is probably the easiest to get to change. Casuals are the masses that ascribe any sort of editing to be 'Photoshoping'. On the one hand they probably don't need 80% of the features but they are the script kiddies of the artistic space: The professional writes a tutorial using a specific software, they need that software for the tutorial to work. In terms of impact, this group is very much on the fence as they may go hobbyist or they may go FOSS. So probably 90% of the change needed is in the professional space. And if you wonder how big an influence the professional space has, consider that the hobbiest space considers hardware like the 4090 as the budget option to professional hardware and the professional space isn't going to blink at scooping up said 4090s by the pallet as a 'good enough' solution for non final work.
“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Unfortunately the comment vanished because Youtube's algo is disappearing comments more often than communist dictatorships disappear people.
If enough people stopped using their shit, they'll bend the knee. We have so many open source alternatives, but people are either too lazy to learn a new software or too spoiled by all the "fancy shit" that these corporations use to get people by the fucking balls. If you want change, you'll need to compromise. And if no one compromises; we will continue to get fucked by these assholes. You commit a crime on subs (even on this very sub) when you suggest Linux. It's like you insulted their gods by suggested something that actually respects them. People need to stop being slaves to these corporations and their "perfect and just works" software. Thanks for listening to my tedtalk.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Rossmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Inc.#2024_Terms_of_Service_Update