So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[john beardsworth]

While it's legally correct, for all practical purposes you are purchasing it and it's yours.

[Farmer]

Not really.  If you buy a car or a house or a chair, you can modify it, use it as a component in something else, rent out use of it, and so on.  With licensed software, you don't have that option unless the terms say you do (and generally they specifically exclude such things).

There are core differences which relate to the idea that software isn't a physical thing and that the actual owners of it are the only ones who can pull it apart, rent it to others or whatever it is they want to do.

Yes, for most of us, the difference is just a legal one because we never seek to do those things that are restricted or prohibited, but that doesn't mean we should forget that there are differences.

[john beardsworth]

It just amounts to little more than hair splitting. Technically it may be a licence, but for all practical purposes you own it.

[LesPalenik]

Mike, since you've been so helpful and gracious in offering help, I forwarded your email address to my friend whose PSCC problems I reported in this thread previously.
I hope you can help him, here is his last report:

Hi Les,
I just wrote to Mike Chambers. Adobe hasn't responded in the promised 5 days with higher level assistance.
Within the past week yet another update was issued and it helped some people in the Adobe forums, but not me.  I still have the program start, display the workscreen and disappear.
Hopefully Mike will have some ideas, but I'm wondering what's left to try.  I think I've tried every suggestion the Adobe forums have mentioned.
Fortunately Lightroom works fine, and is proving to be the reliable workhorse it's always been.  Photoshop is simply useless at this point.

As reported elsewhere, some of the principal PS designers moved over to LR. I wonder, .... nah, must be Windows.

[Farmer]

Les - sorry if this has already been suggested, but has your friend done a complete uninstall and reinstall of the product?  Ignore me if he has.

The reason I'm suggesting it is that I had a weird issue with PSCC the other day in that the "save for web" option was greyed out all the time.  It had been working just fine.  Doing a reinstallation sorted it.  First issue I've had with it and I've been running PSCC for about 10 months or so from memory.

[LesPalenik]

Yes, that was one of the first things he did. He performed uninstall and reinstall several times. I imagine that Adobe forum has also listed this procedure as one of the standard fixes. I don't know what else they advised.

This man happens to be a very experienced Photoshop user and has used and programmed computers for decades, he even teaches on both subjects, so I can imagine how very frustrating this whole experience must be. I know two other PSCC users who are running it also on Win7 machines and they don't have problems. Maybe it's some hardware incompatibility or conflict with some software drivers on his computer.

I personally never heard of such upgrade/installation problems, but then I never installed PS CC on my system.

Let's hope, Mike Chambers can resolve his problem.

[Glenn NK]

It just amounts to little more than hair splitting. Technically it may be a licence, but for all practical purposes you own it.

It may be hair splitting or not - depends on one's point of view, knowledge, or attitude.

I use and "own" another software extensively; a physically modeled piano  https://www.pianoteq.com/
In the legal agreement it specifically states that one does not own it, and furthermore that one cannot modify it internally (the code).

Hair splitting is what law is all about, and anyone who assumed they owned the software and therefor could do anything they wanted to do with it, could be in some reasonably serious legal trouble if found out.

Consider the very different case of buying vs leasing a vehicle - when the lease expires, you own nothing.  The (critical) difference is when you buy a vehicle, you do own it and can modify it - which happens frequently.

[john beardsworth]

It's nothing more than a legal nicety, for all practical purposes irrelevant, and you're rather confusing a licence's contractual agreement with wider IP law. If you insist on drawing a parallel with vehicles, like most analogies it's just a side track to nowhere, but licence restrictions on modifying software don't actually, practically, prevent you doing so. They're only a problem when you cross another line - eg infringing their IP by selling hacked software, or requiring their support - and that's just the same as contracts to buy a vehicle which usally include warranties. Try modifying your vehicle and setting up a competing brand or getting the manufacturer to fix something you've customized. Analogies are only as good as one's point of view, knowledge, or attitude. So, rightly, people regard software they've bought as software they really do own.

[Manoli]

fao Mike Chambers

Mike,
I can't find the EULA for the Student/Teacher edition of CC. Could you please confirm whether or not
(a) the licence is the same as the full version, i.e. 2 installations, activated but not used concurrently, computers owned by the licencee.
(b) activation is NOT continent specific, i.e. my daughter is at NYU, she comes back to Europe 4 months of the year - will she still be able to activate her CC installation in EU even though her edition is purchased and prepaid in the USA ?

As always, thanks for the assistance.

[jjj]

I am talking about professionals that would download "pirated" software and use it...that is what I am talking about. Really does not matter if you already purchased a leagal copy of that software...using pirated version of the software just promotes the software to be pirated more.

Really!? What utter nonsense. So how exactly does that work then, as there seems to be an assumption of causality that is a bit random.

The bottom line is it seems like you have no issue with using a pirated copy of software while I do. Does that make me hollier than you...you decide on that. I know where I stand on pirated anything and I guess so do you. Bottom line....

I certainly believe one should pay for products or services one uses and I am certainly not advocating that people use software without paying for it, which you incorrectly seem to think I'm am saying.
There's lots of software that may be nice to have, but I do not possess it because I do not really need or can justify paying for it. Less is more these days I find.
Apart from anything else if you do not pay for things like software that you like to use, you could end up punishing yourself as the company may fail to stay in business. Also there is not much point in pirating if you are a business yourself, as costs like that are tax deductible anyway.

[jjj]

While it's legally correct, for all practical purposes you are purchasing it and it's yours.

For a perpetual licence, yes those are the practicalities. Not for subscription though, which is what folks are concerned with here.

[Isaac]

... but licence restrictions on modifying software don't actually, practically, prevent you doing so.

? Laws do not actually prevent -- they record what actions will result in compensation and/or punishment.

So, rightly, people regard software they've bought as software they really do own.

So it's OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then give them away?

[chez]

So it's OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then give them away?

Shoe sometimes does not fit so well on the other foot?

[john beardsworth]

Thanks for the contribution, Isaac. As illuminating as ever, or perhaps not.

[john beardsworth]

Shoe sometimes does not fit so well on the other foot?

Wow, two trollish posts in succession. Just goes to prove what I always think about those hiding behind pseudonyms....

[jjj]

So it's OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then give them away?

Except that is not really what people are talking about. Which is buying a licence to use some software and then using said software, no-one has suggested then giving it away.
And I could buy a copy of PS and then sell or give it to someone else, as long as I stopped using it myself.
Like chez you are putting words into people's mouths.

[jjj]

Wow, two trollish posts in succession. Just goes to prove what I always think about those hiding behind pseudonyms....

Not just those two posts sadly.
And I'm in favour of a forum where poster's identities are known myself.

Amusingly, another troll had a go at me for hiding my identity. Despite my profile and signature containing a link to my work and contact info.

[Isaac]

Thanks for the contribution, Isaac. As illuminating as ever, or perhaps not.

You've responded with distraction rather than addressing the obvious point.

Is it OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then break that license agreement and give them away?

[jjj]

The point you have made is completely irrelevant Isaac as I've already explained above.

[Isaac]

So, rightly, people regard software they've bought as software they really do own.

If you really do "own" johnbeardy's images when you license them, then you can give them away.