adobe – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Adobe Announces Plan To Essentially Steal Money From Venezuelans Because It 'Has To' Due To US Sanctions

from the closing-up-(photo)shop dept

Update: After this story was written, but before it got published, Adobe backtracked and agreed that it would, in fact, return the money. However, users are still out of luck going forward.

Adobe has long had a history of questionable behavior, when it comes to the rights of its customers, and how the public is informed on all things Adobe. With the constant hammering on the concept that software it sells is licensed rather than purchased, not to mention with the move to more SaaS and cloud-based software, the company is, frankly, one of the pack leaders in consumers not actually owning what they bought.

But what’s happening in Venezuela is something completely different. Adobe will be disabling its services entirely in that country, announcing that it was giving customers there roughly a month to download any content stored in the cloud. After that, poof, no more official Adobe access in Venezuela. That includes access for SaaS services that were prepaid. For such prepaid services, Adobe has also announced that zero refunds will be provided.

Why is this happening? According to Adobe, it’s to comply with Trump’s Executive Order 13884.

In the document, Adobe explains: “The U.S. Government issued Executive Order 13884, the practical effect of which is to prohibit almost all transactions and services between U.S. companies, entities, and individuals in Venezuela. To remain compliant with this order, Adobe is deactivating all accounts in Venezuela.”

To make matters worse, customers won’t be able to receive refunds for any purchases or outstanding subscriptions, as Adobe says that the executive order calls for “the cessation of all activity with the entities including no sales, service, support, refunds, credits, etc.”

As the Verge post points out, if you’re shrugging at the idea that the average Venezuelan citizen just got bilked out of money or software for which they paid, private citizens aren’t the only ones who will be affected by this. NGOs and news outfits will likewise be impacted by the move and those are some of the organizations attempting to affect change in Venezuela.

If nothing else, this should highlight just how risky engaging in SaaS-style tech service has become. It’s one thing to pay your money and not actually own what you’ve bought. It’s quite another to pay that money, not own what you bought, and not get your money back when you don’t even get that thing you don’t own at all — because of international politics.

Filed Under: cloud software, ownership, saas, sanctions, us, venezuela
Companies: adobe

Adobe Warns Users Someone Else Might Sue Them For Using Old Versions Of Photoshop

from the you-don't-own-what-you-buy dept

Tue, May 14th 2019 01:30pm - Karl Bode

For years we’ve noted repeatedly how in the modern era you no longer truly own the things you buy. From game consoles that magically lose important functionality post purchase, to digital purchases that just up and disappear, we now live in an era where a quick firmware update can erode functionality and overlong EULAs can strip away all of your rights in an instant, leaving you with a hole in your pocket and a glorified paperweight.

The latest case in point: Adobe this week began warning users of its Creative Cloud software applications that they are no longer authorized to use older versions of the company’s software platforms (Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director). In the letter, Adobe rather cryptically implied that users could risk copyright infringement claims by mysterious third parties if they continued using older versions of these platforms and refused to update them. End users, not surprisingly, were equal parts confused and annoyed:

When I pressed Adobe for more detail on why users might risk being sued for using something they thought they owned, they weren’t willing to say much more than what was already in the letters:

“Adobe recently discontinued certain older versions of Creative Cloud applications. Customers using those versions have been notified that they are no longer licensed to use them and were provided guidance on how to upgrade to the latest authorized versions. Unfortunately, customers who continue to use or deploy older, unauthorized versions of Creative Cloud may face potential claims of infringement by third parties.”

While Adobe couldn’t be bothered to clarify this fact, the company was apparently making a vague reference to its ongoing legal dispute with Dolby Labs. Dolby sued Adobe last year (pdf) for copyright violations after it wasn’t happy with the new revenue sharing arrangement crafted in the wake of Adobe’s 2013 shift toward its controversial cloud-based “software as a subscription” model. There’s really no indication that Dolby would actually sue Adobe customers, and it seems more than likely that Adobe was just interested in throwing some shade at Dolby — without making it entirely clear that’s what they were doing.

Regardless, copyright experts were quick to point out that given the overbroad nature of modern EULAs, users are completely out of luck when it comes to having any real legal recourse:

“Dylan Gilbert, a copyright expert with consumer group Public Knowledge, said in this instance users aren?t likely to have much in the way of legal recourse to the sudden shift. ?Unless Adobe has violated the terms of its licensing agreement by this sudden discontinuance of support for an earlier software version, which is unlikely, these impacted users have to just grin and bear it,? Gilbert said.

There’s plenty of legitimate reasons users may not want to update to the latest versions. Artists and creators often don’t like updating to new versions in the middle of a project lest some unexpected bugs cause problems. But again, in the modern era you not only don’t own what you buy, but any recourse to the ground shifting beneath your feet is stripped away by overlong EULAs that leave you powerless to actually do much of anything about it. Outside of refusing to buy products from companies that engage in unnecessary scare mongering and routinely undermine your rights, that is.

Filed Under: animate, copyright, creative cloud, lightroom, media director, ownership, photoshop, premiere, subscriptions
Companies: adobe, dolby labs

Search Warrant Gag Order Successfully Challenged In Court

from the UPDATE-GAG-ORDER-NOW? dept

Update: Adobe has clarified that this was not a National Security Letter (NSL), but rather a search warrant along with a “Delayed Notice Order” (DNO) that had no expiration. The principles are the same, but the vehicle was different. We have updated the article below and apologize for the error.

Another government request for info with a never-ending gag order is on its way to being published. There’s no way of telling when it will arrive, but it will be sooner than the government’s clear preference: never.

Adobe is the unlikely recipient of a search warrant and accompanying gag order. The decision in a recently unsealed case says indefinite gag orders aren’t Constitutional, which is good news for the recipients of the thousands of NSLs the FBI issues every year.

Thankfully, the court in Adobe’s case recognized the serious harm to free speech these gags represent. It held that orders barring companies from notifying their users about government data requests are both prior restraints and content-based restrictions on speech subject to strict scrutiny. That’s a very high bar. The court found that the indefinite gag order imposed on Adobe fails strict scrutiny because the government could make “no showing[] that Adobe’s speech will threaten the investigation in perpetuity.”

The decision [PDF] raises the government’s hopes before dashing them quite expertly. It opens by agreeing with one of the government’s assertions:

Adobe first contends that 18 U.S. § 2750(b) (“Section 2705(b)”) requires that the Court provide a date certain for the NPO’s [Notice Preclusion Order] expiration. The government contends that Section 2705(b) allows for NPOs of indefinite duration. The Court agrees with the government.

But it’s this assertion — the one the court agrees with — that allows Adobe’s free speech arguments to prevail.

Adobe next contends that the NPO is a content-based prior restraint that is not narrowly-tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. As such, Adobe argues, the NPO violates the First Amendment. (Appl. at 4-5.) The government argues that (1) Adobe does not have a right under the First Amendment to notify the Subscriber of the Warrant’s existence; and (2) even if Adobe did have such a right, the government’s compelling interests justify the NPO as currently tailored. The Court finds that a narrower tailoring of the NPO is warranted.

[…]

As written, the NPO at issue herein effectively bars Adobe’s speech in perpetuity. The government does not contend, and has made no showing, that Adobe’s speech will threaten the investigation in perpetuity. Therefore, as written, the NPO manifestly goes further than necessary to protect the government’s interest.

The court also isn’t interested in helping the government shift the burden to Adobe as to why this NPO shouldn’t be in place indefinitely. In fact, it finds the government’s attempt to do so undermines its “this doesn’t implicate the First Amendment” arguments.

The government further argues that the NPO is already limited by the Court’s discretion to set an end at some later date. As this “judicial[] limit[]” allows “both Adobe and the government to apply for the order to be lifted after its raison d’etre fades, the NPO is as narrowly-tailored as required.” (Oppo. at 17.) This argument ignores the fact that Adobe is not privy to the government’s investigation. Thus Adobe will not know when the NPO’s “raison d’etre fades.” Moreover, virtually every statute, regulation, order, or other government-imposed restriction on speech can be attacked in a judicial proceeding. Therefore, the government’s argument – in essence, “The order is narrowly-tailored because Adobe has the option of challenging it in court” – demonstrates nothing of relevance.

In any event, putting the onus on the speaker to lift a no-longer-justified content-based restriction is hardly narrow tailoring. Adding the fact that the speaker cannot know when the restriction’s “raison d’etre fades” effectively equates to no tailoring at all. An RCS provider might decide to forego speaking rather than incur the trouble and expense of potentially futile court trips. That the government could in theory, apply to have the NPO lifted is no answer. As the NPO does not apply to the government, the government would have little incentive to do so. Accordingly, on the record before the Court, the government’s argument does little more than illustrate the NPO’s potential for burdening or chilling Adobe’s speech.

Other similar litigation is still ongoing and this decision bears little precedential value, especially in other circuits. But every judicial citation attacking indefinite gag orders helps, especially as these challenges are becoming more common as a result of the USA Freedom Act’s creation of new redress options for gag order recipients.

Filed Under: first amendment, gag order, national security letter, nsl
Companies: adobe

Adobe Asked Google To Censor Techdirt's Story On How Adobe's DRM Got Cracked

from the oh-really-now? dept

Another day, another example of copyright being a tool for censorship. MarkMonitor is one of the largest companies out there in the “IP protection” business — and they also have a decently long history of filing bogus DMCA notices. And in one of its recent ones… they targeted a Techdirt news story. You see, three years ago, our own Tim Cushing wrote a little story about how Adobe launched its Creative Cloud subscription offering and had the DRM on it cracked within 24 hours. It was a fun (yet all too predictable) story.

And apparently Adobe/MarkMonitor would like it to disappear from the web. With copyright. Here’s the actual DMCA notice filed by MarkMonitor on behalf of Adobe:

Google, thankfully, has a team who reviews these things and rejected the demand. Of course, Adobe/MarkMonitor isn’t really trying to censor a story that makes fun of Adobe. That’s just collateral damage for the shitty job they do in trying to “protect copyright” by running automated scans. Who knows what actually set this one off, but likely some sort of combination of “creative cloud” and “cracked” — and then (unlike Google, who actually bothers to review this stuff), MarkMonitor just sent it off without any actual human review.

So, yes, any “censorship” that came out of this would likely have been accidental, but just because censorship is accidental, it doesn’t mean that it’s inconsequential. The fact that companies that hire MarkMonitor have been rushing around demanding more automated takedown systems, and ridiculous notions like “notice and staydown” that would have created even more harm should be a warning as to why those ideas are a dangerous path.

Oh, and coincidentally, just as this was happening, MarkMonitor had a PR person reach out to see if an exec could speak to me on an unrelated (and uninteresting) story. I’ve asked them for a comment on their use of copyright to try to censor one of our stories instead. If I hear back, I’ll add an update here… Update: And… here’s the response from MarkMonitor:

We would like to assure you that MarkMonitor in no way condones censorship, nor does it intentionally take any action that would result in same. Our actions focus on enforcing brand infringements on behalf of our clients and acting in their best interests. In this case, the site in question came into our result set erroneously but the process we have with the search engines ensured that it was not taken down and is still live now.

I like how they claim that it’s MarkMonitor’s process that stopped the site from being blocked, rather than Google staffers looking over MarkMonitor’s bogus takedown notice and saying “nah.”

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, takedowns
Companies: adobe, markmonitor

DRM: Still Hurting Paying Customers The Most

from the the-internet-is-for-opening-client-side-PDFs-apparently dept

Today’s Stupid DRM Trick is brought to you by Adobe LiveCycle ES3 and Windows 10.

Starting in August, we started to receive noise from end-users on unable to open DRM protected PDFs, ones that are protected with 2016-17 policy, with the use of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat. Users are mostly facing issue on seeing the below message when opening the PDFs:

Error Message:

“This computer must be connected to the Internet in order to open this document. Your permission to open this document offline has expired. Make sure this computer is connected to the network and the Adobe Experience Manager- Forms Server(Document Security) is running.”

or

“This computer must be connected to the network in order to open this document. Your permission to open this document offline has expired. Make sure this computer is connected to the network and the Adobe LiveCycle Rights Management Server is running.”

While I can understand some companies might want to prevent unauthorized users from reading PDFs possibly containing sensitive material, the fact that an authorized user’s computer has to “phone home” to Adobe to read a PDF generated (and held) by a third party is ridiculous. While password-protection schemes may have their drawbacks, the LiveCycle solution doesn’t do much for employees (or students — LiveCycle is also used for courseware) who might not have access to an internet connection (an unfortunate reality when traveling) but still need access to these documents.

However, this problem isn’t completely Adobe’s fault (although the DRM’s insistence on an internet connection still is). It appears a Windows update is what’s preventing LiveCycle from phoning home.

Today, I am unable to access the pdf courseware on my system due to the following error message:

“This computer must be connected to the Internet in order to open this document. Your permission to open this document offline has expired. Make sure this computer is connected to the network and the Adobe Experience Manager- Forms Server(Document Security) is running.”

Now, I know my system is connected to the network but I can’t figure out what else is wrong. Usually, when I open these pdfs, I get a login prompt but this time, nothing. Please help ASAP. But even after re-downloading the material from aspen portal once again, it still doesn’t work. I had installed the Cumulative Update for Windows 10 Version 1511 for x64-based Systems (KB3163018) on 30-06-2016 and the only issue I faced before was that the login prompt was not appearing but I could still open the document. Now, I can’t even open the document.

Once again, a Windows update breaks something that was working, leaving end users to clean up the company’s mess. Another user had the same update kill their VPN access. And if it’s not blocking connections, it’s killing webpages accessed through Microsoft’s own Edge browser. Fun stuff. These not-all-that-optional cumulative updates tend to create as many problems as they solve and Microsoft’s own “help” isn’t all that helpful, leading to this sort of exasperated response.

The trouble we have is I have over 200 Windows 10 machines and cannot go to each one and run a tool to view the updates. We use WSUS and I had hoped that there would be a way to split out the Cumulative update so we can disable the two patches I mentioned and then have that push. I have for the time being approved the update for removal in WSUS so it will handle removing it. I am concerned about the other fixes and not having them. Does MSFT QA these updates or are they blaming Cisco on this one?

So, we have two issues, neither of them useful to end users. On Adobe’s end, we have a protection scheme that requires an internet connection. That’s classic DRM — phone home, get permission… all well and good (NOT REALLY) until someone needs access to documents but can’t because they’re not connected to the internet.

Then we have an update that breaks the connection Adobe’s DRM relies on, forcing the same problem on users who do have internet access. The problem with DRM schemes like these is that they rely on a bunch of parts that aren’t interconnected (Adobe, Windows) but both have to be working properly to get the job done… rather than just, say, open Adobe Reader and be done with it. Subtract an internet connection and Adobe’s documents are useless, even to authorized users. Throw a suprisingly volatile Windows update into the mix and end users doing everything right are still screwed. Combine the two and sensitive documents are suddenly so “protected” that a majority of users can’t even view them. And, remember, this is a “privilege” corporate customers pay for.

DRM: still mostly useless and still mainly a pain in the ass for paying customers.

Filed Under: drm, livecycle es3, pdf, windows 10
Companies: adobe, microsoft

Anti-Piracy Informant Who Thought He Was A Paid Informant Sues Adobe For Not Paying Him

from the WE-RAT-ECONO dept

An interesting case has been brought to our attention by Eric Goldman. What happens when someone takes it upon themselves to play IP Policeman for a large corporation? The plaintiff in this case, David Heller, uncovered piracy of Adobe products in Florida (referred to in the opinion as the baseball-esque “Florida Pirates”). He brought this information to Adobe’s attention. Adobe was pleased. So was Heller… at least for a little while.

The problem seems to be that Heller felt he should have been paid for his investigative efforts while Adobe felt he should have been satisfied with being a Good Citizen.

Shortly after publishing his discovery on his personal blog, Heller was contacted by Adobe’s outside counsel, David Pham. A meeting between Heller and Adobe reps was set up.

The meeting included Pham, Heller, and other individuals from Adobe and Pham’s firm. Heller requested that Adobe provide him with physical protection and compensation for the additional information he was prepared to provide Adobe. An Adobe employee, Michael Draper, agreed. Heller provided the information to Adobe.

Adobe took the information Heller gave them and sued the Florida Pirates. A settlement was obtained (the opinion provides no further details on this). Everyone got paid but Heller.

So, Heller sued Adobe, claiming at least $75,000 was owed him. Heller offers no supporting documentation for this dollar amount, which is apparently based on nothing more than being the minimum needed to file a suit in federal court, rather than a state court. The court takes note of this.

Here, Heller has alleged that the amount in controversy is met, but Heller does not allege the value of the underlying promise or the value of the work that Heller did for Adobe. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if federal jurisdiction is proper.

That settles the point of where the case actually belongs: PROBABLY NOT HERE. Going from there, the court finds it extremely difficult to pinpoint anything about this case that might allow it to go forward — at least in an unaltered state.

As alleged, the complaint sets out that sometime in late 2013, Heller met with Pham and Draper who promised to pay him in exchange for information about the Florida Pirates. The amount of payment was not specified at that time. The complaint does not set forth when Heller was supposed to release this information, to whom, and when Adobe should have paid him, or how much. The parties apparently did not agree on a compensation range or mechanism to determine compensation in the future. In total, Heller alleges a vague promise, and without more specificity, the Court cannot determine the scope of the duty or an assessment of the damages.

The court grants Heller leave to amend this part of his complaint, but without a written agreement in hand, it’s doubtful a reconstructed allegation will do much to address the lack of evidence for his claims.

Similarly granted leave to amend is Heller’s equally vague claims about the $75,000 worth of anti-piracy efforts he performed for Adobe.

The complaint states that Heller performed substantial work on investigating the Florida Pirates before Adobe requested the information. Heller states that he only seeks recovery of reasonable value of the time that was spent after Adobe explicitly asked Heller to spend the time to provide further information. Dkt. No. 13 at 4. Heller’s explanation of what services he performed and their reasonable value are conclusory and vague in the complaint.

The same goes for Heller’s claims of intentional misrepresentation. Again, without an agreement in hand specifying what work was to be done and what amount of compensation would be due, there’s nothing for Heller to work with. It’s very difficult to claim a defendant misrepresented something that was never put down on paper or existed in any tangible form.

It very well could be that Adobe and its counsel maneuvered Heller into performing free anti-piracy work for it. It wouldn’t be the first time a large company exploited an individual. Or it could be that Adobe felt any further investigative work would add little value and didn’t allow itself to be put in the position of cutting large checks for information of limited usefulness. Either way, Heller doesn’t appear to have much in his corner other than his firm belief that he was screwed.

One of the more interesting questions this lawsuit raises (but will never answer) is how often this sort of thing happens? Who reports piracy and what do they expect to get out of it? Do larger companies rely on a network of paid informants or are they more likely to accept tips without handing out anything in return?

These questions will likely remain unanswered as it appears that Heller doesn’t have enough damning information to sustain a lawsuit against Adobe. An amended complaint can’t fix deficiencies related to a complete lack of verifiable claims. Since this one won’t be moving to the discovery stage, we’ll all have to wait until the next screwed informant files suit against a major IP player.

Filed Under: copyright, david heller, piracy
Companies: adobe

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Decision On Fair Use And Right Of First Sale Fails To Budge The Needle On Either Issue

from the we-hold-that-Adobe-litigated-itself-into-defeat dept

A ruling on fair use, the right of first sale and the limits of trademark protection has been handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel. Normally, I’d proceed the word “ruling” with an adjective like “important,” or “terrible,” or “wonderful.” But this ruling is none of those. It’s a ruling, and I suppose it does set some sort of precedent, but thanks mainly to Adobe’s inept handling of the case, it does very little to clarify any of the above issues.

What it does do, however, is at least reaffirm burden-shifting for companies who insist they haven’t sold software, but “licenses.” This is the preferred method of undermining the right of first sale: tying up purchasers with legal language that claims they’re not making purchases, but rather “renting” the goods until the manufacturer says otherwise. This allows companies to stipulate all sorts of restrictions on purchased goods, including the resale of software.

Adobe tried to claim Joshua Christenson had never “purchased” any of its software, and therefore could not resell it. Christenson had in fact purchased software, but from third parties rather than directly from Adobe. Adobe didn’t like being cut out of the loop, so it took him to court for alleged copyright and trademark infringement.

Six years later, very little of it has stuck. (Christenson was sued in 2009.) The appeals court notes that Christenson successfully managed to shift the burden of proof on the licenses v. sales issue back on Adobe — which then failed to produce evidence that the reseller possessed only worthless licenses rather than resellable goods.

Noting that if construed broadly enough, software licenses could “swallow the statutory right of first sale defense,” the panel says that the burden of proof must be shifted back to the plaintiffs when alleging copyright infringement of licensed software. The reseller only has to prove he or she acquired the software legally. Adobe — being the manufacturer — is in a “superior” position to demonstrate whether or not the software in question was merely licensed.

As the district court held, it was uncontroverted that Christenson “lawfully purchased genuine copies of Adobe software from third-party suppliers before reselling those copies.” Christenson offered invoices to document his purchases of legitimate Adobe software from various suppliers. Nothing on those invoices suggests that he was other than a legitimate purchaser of the software. According to Christenson’s sworn statement, “[n]either [he] nor SSI have a contract with any of the suppliers that supplied SSI with software… SSI asked them if they could supply SSI with a product at an acceptable price, and if they could, payment was negotiated.” This claim is consistent with Christenson’s inability to produce something more than invoices from his suppliers: He cannot produce records that do not exist. Christenson discharged his burden with respect to the first sale defense.

Adobe countered that it never sold software. It only licensed it. Burden of proof shifted to Adobe, which came up empty.

Adobe’s problem is that it did not produce those licenses or document the terms of contracts with specific parties. Because of the state of discovery at the time of the summary judgment motions, the district court excluded virtually all of Adobe’s late-offered evidence of licenses. Adobe challenges this ruling in its appeal. The district court and magistrate judge had a long history with the parties and their discovery efforts. After a careful examination of the rather tortured discovery process, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Christenson’s motion to strike and excluding evidence purporting to document the licenses…

Adobe’s effort to substitute general testimony and generic licensing templates in lieu of the actual licensing agreements does not withstand scrutiny under Vernor. Under Vernor, the precise terms of any agreement matter as to whether it is an agreement to license or to sell; the title of the agreement is not dispositive. And here, in the end, there is no admissible evidence that Adobe “significantly restrict[ed] the user’s ability to transfer the software” at issue here.

So, there’s not much in the way of a “win” for the right of first sale. While it’s heartening that the burden shifts to the “licensing” party to prove infringement, all this really does is encourage companies like Adobe to write more restrictive licenses. It does almost nothing at all to treat licenses as actual purchases, which can be resold without the manufacturer’s permission.

Other claims raised were similarly bungled by Adobe. The trademark infringement allegations were dead in the water because Christenson never used Adobe’s logos for anything else than selling actual Adobe products.

While it does appear there may have been some shady software sales by Christenson (purchasers complained about received academic versions rather than the full OEM versions they were expecting), Adobe failed to raise its false advertising claims until the case was already in the appeals court — far too late for them to be addressed.

In the end, we have a decision on fair use and the right of first sale that does nothing to push either issue forward. Fortunately, this stasis also does nothing to damage either of these defenses, something the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has done in the past. One gets the disheartening feeling that if Adobe had managed its case better, the right of first sale would be worse off, rather than bolstered by the Appeals Court’s final opinion.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, first sale, joshua christenson, licensing, ninth circuit, sale, software
Companies: adobe

DailyDirt: Movie Magic For Everyone

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Making significant changes to digital images with software is getting more impressive all the time. As we’ve seen before, Photoshopping isn’t just sticking to still-life, either. It won’t be long before feature-length movies can be made with just some scraps of existing video clips (which has been done before) — but it could be a bit better than What’s Up, Tiger Lily? Or not.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take 10% off any $50+ order from our Daily Deals using the promo code DAILYDIRT.

Filed Under: 3d model, andy serkis, avatar, cgi, faceshift, fake video, layer tennis, photoshop, photoshop tennis, photoshopping, post production, uncanny valley
Companies: adobe, apple, disney

Adobe Discovers Encryption, Cuts Back On Its eBook Snooping A Bit

from the drm-is-bad,-mmkay? dept

The whole DRM for ebooks effort is still pretty braindead all around. It’s amazing to me that everyone hasn’t realized what the music industry figured out years ago (after many earlier years of kicking and screaming): DRM doesn’t help the creators or the copyright holders in the slightest. It pisses off end users and tends to help give platform providers a dominant position by creating lock-in with their users. Time and time again we see copyright holders demanding DRM, not realizing that this demand actually gives all the leverage to the platform provider. And, of course, there are all the technical problems with DRM, from making “purchased” content disappear once DRM servers are turned off, to making it more difficult to actually use legitimately authorized content, to the fact that DRM tends to lead to privacy and security problems as well.

A few weeks ago, Nate Hoffelder discovered that Adobe’s ebook reader, Digital Editions 4, was spying on your ebooks, collecting a ton of information about them, and then uploading it all to Adobe’s servers in an unencrypted format, potentially revealing a lot of information about users of the product. Adobe came out with a ridiculously mealy-mouthed response that clearly had been worked over by a crisis team PR person, when what it should have done is say, “Uh, we screwed up.”

Now, a couple of weeks later, Adobe has quietly updated Digital Edition, complete with encryption… and with greatly reduced snooping. It no longer does anything on non-DRM’d ebooks, only contacting the server for DRM’d books (which, as explained, is a dumb idea, but…). So, Adobe has corrected the egregious errors of its original snooping (though, frankly, the company should also (1) apologize to the public and (2) thank Hoffelder for pointing out the company’s crappy practices).

Hoffelder goes even further, arguing that what Adobe should really do is stop the data collection entirely:

This is less a case of a company screwing up in supporting users than it is one of a major tech company grabbing more user info than is required and then, when they are caught, trying to write it off with a ?My bad? and a promise to add encryption.

That is entirely the wrong response. What they should have said was that they would stop the spying, not that they would make it more difficult for the world to listen in.

From all appearances, the real problem here is… DRM. Adobe’s designed a DRM system that requires a server check-in to make it work. This is dumb for a variety of reasons, and also means that when — inevitably — the server goes away, those “purchased” works are likely to disappear as well.

Filed Under: digital editions, drm, ebooks, encryption
Companies: adobe

DailyDirt: Herding Cats For Profit

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Organizational behavior can be a complex subject, and the fruits of research on the topic can range from curious phenomenon like the Hawthorne Effect to abolishing stack ranking (or instituting stack ranking). If you’re interested in trying to avoid becoming a pointy-haired boss, you can brush up on some HR experiments and check out these links.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: employment, hawthorne effect, human resources, jobs, management, organizational behavior, performance reviews, salary, stack ranking, work
Companies: adobe