From: "Rich Gauszka"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C75AC5.662D4B10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yet there are multiple standards issued from the same company for copy =
protection( PlaysForSure, Zune DRM ). I wouldn't describe that as =
attempting to avoid interoperability problems.
FWIW - My diatribe isn't meant to be directed at Microsoft solely - =
just the current quagmire that is DRM
"Rich" wrote in message news:45e4fc3e{at}w3.nls.net...
PlaysForSure tackles the same problem as apple tries with itunes =
and their fairplay. The key difference is that PlaysForSure is widely =
licensed to avoid the interoperability problems that apple has with =
itunes. Apple could license PlaysForSure if they wanted.
I don't think the DRM applications to which you refer to are =
generically corporate interests as much as they are content owner =
interests. This is why steve jobs stated the obvious when asserting = that
he would like to offer other people's content without any DRM. Of = course
he would as would probably everyone else who has no interest in = the
content itself.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" wrote in message =
news:45e4f15d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
or you have the idiocy with Microsoft's PlaysForSure certification. =
DRM=20
is currently a mess with various corporate entities in a power =
struggle=20
for control of a market without care of how it affects (screws) the=20
consumer. The average consumer I know either by facial expression or =
vocally expresses a dissatisfaction with the current state of =
affairs
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/337/C11865/
While it still appears to be true that PlaysForSure content won't =
work=20
on a Zune, the reverse is completely hunky doory. You can seemingly =
drag=20
songs from the Zune Marketplace onto any PlaysForSure device, like=20
offerings from Rio and Creative.
Rich wrote:
> I don't see average consumers misusing the term. I see =
strongly=20
> opinionated and technical folks like those that would have their =
own=20
> blog or would post to a public forum. This isn't a consumer topic =
> beyond that some folks are trying to make it one. That isn't to =
say=20
> there aren't real issues with interoperability and longevity such =
as you=20
> read about lately with itunes. This is just a single application =
of=20
> DRM. The same aspects that are an issue for this application are =
not=20
> issues for the application of DRM to your medical records or =
sensitive=20
> corporate documents.
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=20
> "Rich Gauszka" > wrote in message
> news:45e4e27a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people =
are
> including DRM in their complaints just because they can. If =
DRM was as
> beneficial for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I =
highly
> doubt you'd see this trend.
>=20
>=20
> Rich wrote:
> > It's not just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people =
want to
> > complain about that can be stretched to garner more =
support.=20
> Broadly I
> > see it used for anything that restricts access, copying, or
> similar. I
> > think people believe they will get more sympathy for their
> position from
> > a certain audience if they apply the term DRM than if they =
are
> honest.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka"
> > > wrote
in message
> > news:45e4b899{at}w3.nls.net...
> > I understand the point you are making. Unfortunately, =
like it
> or not,
> > DRM and Activation are starting to be used =
interchangeably in
> everyday
> > use ( as in the Infoworld Gripeline blog )
> >
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> > > This is neither a content nor a service which is =
one
> reason I
> > > questioned the use of DRM. I think the new subject =
is
> appropriate.
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > >
> > > "Rich Gauszka"
> >
> > >
> wrote in =
message
> > > news:45e4b05e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > It's an inane activation scheme. From =
Microsoft's own
> > definition one
> > > could make the case that Adobe's activation is a =
content
> > owner setting
> > > the business rules of a file ( a program in this =
case
> ). Most
> > would use
> > > 'activation' for clarity in this context - so =
Subject
> changed
> > >
> > > =
http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d
> > >
> > > digital rights management (DRM)
> > >
> > > Any technology used to protect the interests of =
owners of
> > content and
> > > services (such as copyright owners). Typically, =
authorized
> > > recipients or
> > > users must acquire a license in order to consume =
the
> protected
> > > material=97files, music, movies=97according to =
the rights or
> > business rules
> > > set by the content owner.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rich wrote:
> > > > What does this have to do with
DRM? Or do =
you
> use DRM for
> > > everything
> > > > from actual DRM to encrypted email to =
password
> protected ZIP
> > > files to
> > > > SSL/TLS?
> > > >
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Rich Gauszka" =
> >
> > >
> > > >
> =
wrote in
> message
> > > > news:45e4792a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > Adobe - If you use a disk defragger the
> activation doesn't
> > > like it?
> > > >
> > > > =20
> > > =20
> > =20
> =
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/02/acrobat_activat.ht=
ml
> > > > when it comes to stupid IT
designs as far =
as the
> > activation
> > > issues I
> > > > encountered with Adobe. I upgraded from =
Acrobat
> 7.0 to
> > 8.0,
> > > because the
> > > > demos and features looked great. After
> installing it,
> > I didn't
> > > > really use it
> > > > for a few months. Then I went to use it =
and it
> said it
> > was not
> > > > activated."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When the reader went to the menu, he was =
puzzled to
> > see both the
> > > > "Activate'
> > > > and "Deactivate' buttons
turned off. =
"Seems
> stupid --
> > > shouldn't one
> > > > always
> > > > be highlighted?" the reader
wondered. =
"After
> calling in,
> > > Adobe told
> > > > me to
> > > > run the repair function. I did, and it =
worked
> for one day,
> > > and then
> > > > it was
> > > > deactivated again and both buttons were =
off
> again. I
> > called again
> > > > and waited
> > > > on hold forever to be told to uninstall =
and
> reinstall.
> > So I
> > > > uninstalled and
> > > > it deactivated. I went to reinstall and =
it said
> I did
> > not have an
> > > > original
> > > > product to upgrade from. Wow, like I'm =
supposed to
> > keep all
> > > > hundred-plus key
> > > > codes I've ever had from Adobe. So after =
about
> 3 more
> > people
> > > and a
> > > > lot more
> > > > time on the phone I got around the =
installation and
> > activated
> > > again
> > > > with a
> > > > temp key. Then within hours it =
deactivated again."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The reader then entered a support =
nightmare
> from which
> > he is
> > > yet to
> > > > awaken.
> > > > For weeks on end, tech after tech would =
tell him to
> > run the
> > > repair
> > > > function
> > > > and reinstall. When that wouldn't work, =
the techs
> > would begin
> > > > speculating as
> > > > to what changes he should make to him =
computer to
> > placate the
> > > > activation
> > > > gods. "Gee, the guy would
say, why do you =
need to
> > mirror your
> > > hard
> > > > drive?"
> > > > the reader wrote. "Then
they send me to =
another and
> > the guy says,
> > > > gee, if
> > > > you upgrade or restore your drive, or =
change your
> > > configuration, or
> > > > backup
> > > > to Ghost, or use a RAID array, or use a =
disk
> > defragger, the
> > > activation
> > > > doesn't like it. Then they start asking =
why I
> need to
> > do these
> > > > things, which
> > > > is none of their business."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some of the Adobe techs mentioned that =
what the
> reader
> > really
> > > needed
> > > > to fix
> > > > the activation problem was
"Patch 2.70."
> > Unfortunately, it seems
> > > > Patch 2.70
> > > > is not provided to just any old Acrobat
> customer, and the
> > > reader had to
> > > > supplicate his way up the support ladder =
to find
> > someone who
> > > could
> > > > authorize
> > > > sending it to him. "I
finally get to the =
right
> guy and
> > he asks me
> > > > why I need
> > > > it and why I can't stop mirroring and
> defragging and
> > using Ghost.
> > > > Finally he
> > > > says he'll escalate the issue and I'll =
have an
> e-mail
> > in 24
> > > hours.
> > > > Next day
> > > > there's no e-mail so I call back. It was =
never
> > escalated and
> > > I have
> > > > to start
> > > > the process of filing to get the patch =
all over
> again."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The reader is a stubborn man,
though, and =
he
> > eventually prevailed
> > > > upon Adobe
> > > > to send him Patch 2.70. It didn't help. =
Several
> more
> > weeks of
> > > > escalations to
> > > > supervisors and higher levels of Adobe =
support have
> > followed,
> > > without
> > > > success. Last week Adobe
promised to send =
him a
> copy
> > of Acrobat -
> > > > presumably
> > > > the corporate version - that would get =
around
> the problem.
> > > But at last
> > > > report it still hasn't shown, so the =
reader's
> copy of
> > Acrobat
> > > 8 remains
> > > > deactivated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "The amount of time,
support, and money =
that
> Adobe and
> > I have
> > > wasted
> > > > on this
> > > > is crazy," the reader
wrote. "I =
understand
> protecting your
> > > product, but
> > > > these people have gone way
overboard with =
this
> > activation that's
> > > > tied so
> > > > closely to the hardware that you
can't do =
anything
> > that doesn't
> > > > upset it.
> > > > Many people back up, restore, defrag and =
mirror
> disks and
> > > many more
> > > > will do
> > > > so as the prices come down. I
think Adobe =
needs to
> > clean some
> > > > management
> > > > house, toss out this stupid activation =
process, and
> > get something
> > > > that works
> > > > instead of the runaround."
> > > >
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C75AC5.662D4B10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yet there are multiple
standards issued =
from the=20
same company for copy protection( PlaysForSure, Zune DRM ). I wouldn't = describe=20
that as attempting to avoid interoperability problems.
FWIW - My diatribe
isn't meant to =
be directed=20
at Microsoft solely - just the current quagmire that is =
DRM
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45e4fc3e{at}w3.nls.net...
PlaysForSure tackles the =
same=20
problem as apple tries with itunes and their fairplay. The key=20
difference is that PlaysForSure is widely licensed to avoid the=20
interoperability problems that apple has with itunes. Apple =
could=20
license PlaysForSure if they wanted.
I don't
think the DRM =
applications=20
to which you refer to are generically corporate interests as much as =
they are=20
content owner interests. This is why steve jobs stated the =
obvious when=20
asserting that he would like to offer other people's content without =
any=20
DRM. Of course he would as would probably everyone else who has =
no=20
interest in the content itself.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com
A>>=20
wrote in message news:45e4f15d$1{at}w3.nls.net...or=20
you have the idiocy with Microsoft's PlaysForSure certification. DRM =
is=20
currently a mess with various corporate entities in a power struggle =
for=20
control of a market without care of how it affects (screws) the=20
consumer. The average consumer I know either by facial =
expression or=20
vocally expresses a dissatisfaction with the current state of=20
affairshttp://www.mobi" target="new">http://www.mobi=">http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/337/C11865/">http://www.mobi=
lemag.com/content/100/337/C11865/While=20
it still appears to be true that PlaysForSure content won't work =
on a=20
Zune, the reverse is completely hunky doory. You can seemingly drag=20
songs from the Zune Marketplace onto any PlaysForSure device, =
like=20
offerings from Rio and
Creative.Rich=20
wrote:> I don't see
average consumers =
misusing the=20
term. I see strongly > opinionated and
technical folks =
like=20
those that would have their own > blog or would post to a =
public=20
forum. This isn't a consumer topic > beyond
that some =
folks are=20
trying to make it one. That isn't to say >
there aren't =
real=20
issues with interoperability and longevity such as you > read =
about=20
lately with itunes. This is just a single application of =
>=20
DRM. The same aspects that are an issue for this application =
are not=20
> issues for the application of DRM to your medical records =
or=20
sensitive > corporate
documents.> >=20
Rich> >
> "Rich =
Gauszka"=20
<gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com
A>> =20
<mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=
l.com>>=20
wrote in
message> news:45e4e27a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
I don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people=20
are> including
DRM in their =
complaints just=20
because they can. If DRM was
as> =
beneficial=20
for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I=20
highly> doubt
you'd see this =
trend.>=20
>
> Rich=20
wrote:>
> =
It's not=20
just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people want=20
to>
> complain about that =
can be=20
stretched to garner more support.
> =
Broadly=20
I>
> see it used for =
anything that=20
restricts access, copying,
or> =
similar. =20
I>
> think people believe =
they will=20
get more sympathy for
their> position =
from>
> a certain audience =
if they=20
apply the term DRM than if they
are> =20
honest.>
>=20
> >=20
Rich>
>=20
> =20
>> =
> =20
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com
A>> =20
<mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=
l.com>> =20
> <mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=
l.com>>=20
wrote in
message> =20
> news:45e4b899{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
> I understand the point
you are making.=20
Unfortunately, like
it> or=20
not,> =
> DRM=20
and Activation are starting to be used interchangeably=20
in> =20
everyday> =
> =20
use ( as in the Infoworld Gripeline blog=20
)> =20
>> =20
>> =
> Rich=20
wrote:> =20
>
> This is =
neither a=20
content nor a service which is
one> =
reason=20
I> =
> =20
> questioned the use of DRM. I think the new subject=20
is> =20
appropriate.> =20
> =20
>> =20
> >=20
Rich> =20
> =20
>> =20
> =20
>> =20
>
> =
"Rich=20
Gauszka" <gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com
A>> =20
<mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=
l.com>> =20
> <mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=
l.com>> =20
>
> =
<mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmai=
l.com>>=20
wrote in
message> =20
>
> news:45e4b05e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
>
> It's =
an=20
inane activation scheme. From Microsoft's=20
own> =
> =20
definition
one> =20
>
> =
could make=20
the case that Adobe's activation is a=20
content> =
> =20
owner
setting> =20
>
> the =
business=20
rules of a file ( a program in this =
case> ).=20
Most> =
> =20
would use> =20
>
> =
'activation'=20
for clarity in this context - so =
Subject> =20
changed> =20
> =20
>> =20
>
> http://www.mic" target="new">http://www.mic=">http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d">http://www.mic=
rosoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d> &n=
bsp;=20
> =20
>> =20
>
> =
digital=20
rights management
(DRM)> =20
> =20
>> =20
>
> Any=20
technology used to protect the interests of owners=20
of> =
> =20
content
and> =20
>
> =
services=20
(such as copyright owners). Typically,=20
authorized> =20
>
> =
recipients=20
or> =
> =20
> users must acquire a
license in order =
to=20
consume the> =20
protected> =20
>
> =20
material=97files, music, movies=97according to the rights=20
or> =
> =20
business
rules> =20
>
> set =
by the=20
content
owner.> =20
> =20
>> =20
> =20
>> =20
>
> Rich =
wrote:> =20
> =
> =20
> What does this have to do with
DRM? Or =
do=20
you> use DRM=20
for> =
> =20
> =20
everything> =20
> =
> >=20
from actual DRM to encrypted email to=20
password> protected=20
ZIP> =
> =20
> files =
to> =20
> =
> >=20
SSL/TLS?> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> >=20
Rich> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
> "Rich
Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>> =20
<mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=
l.com>> =20
> <mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=
l.com>> =20
>
> =
<mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=
l.com>> =20
> =
> =20
> <mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">mailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmai=
l.com>>=20
wrote in> =20
message> =20
> =
> =20
> news:45e4792a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
> =
> =20
> Adobe - If you use a
disk defragger=20
the> activation=20
doesn't> =20
>
> like =
it?> =
> =20
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> =20
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/02/acrobat_ac=
tivat.html">http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/02/acroba=
t_activat.html> =20
> =
> =20
> when it comes to
stupid IT designs as =
far as=20
the> =
> =20
activation> =20
>
> =
issues=20
I> =
> =20
>
> =
encountered=20
with Adobe. I upgraded from
Acrobat> =
7.0=20
to> =
> =20
8.0,> =20
>
> =
because=20
the> =
> =20
>
> =
demos and=20
features looked great.
After> =
installing=20
it,> =
> I=20
didn't> =20
> =
> =20
> really use=20
it> =
> =20
>
> for =
a few=20
months. Then I went to use it and
it> =
said=20
it> =
> was=20
not> =
> =20
>
> =20
activated."> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
> When the reader went
to the menu, he =
was=20
puzzled to> =20
> see both=20
the> =
> =20
>
> =20
"Activate'> =20
> =
> =20
> and "Deactivate'
buttons turned off.=20
"Seems> stupid=20
--> =
> =20
> shouldn't=20
one> =
> =20
>
> =20
always> =20
> =
> =20
> be highlighted?"
the reader wondered.=20
"After> calling=20
in,> =
> =20
> Adobe=20
told> =20
> =
> =20
> me =
to> =20
> =
> =20
> run the repair
function. I did, and it=20
worked> for one=20
day,> =20
>
> and=20
then> =20
> =
> =20
> it =
was> =20
> =
> =20
> deactivated again and
both buttons were =
off> again.=20
I>
> =
called=20
again> =20
> =
> =20
> and=20
waited> =20
> =
> =20
> on hold forever to be
told to uninstall =
and> =20
reinstall.> =20
> So =
I> =20
> =
> =20
> uninstalled=20
and> =
> =20
>
> it=20
deactivated. I went to reinstall and it =
said> =20
I did> =
> not=20
have an> =20
> =
> =20
> =
original> =20
> =
> =20
> product to upgrade
from. Wow, like I'm =
supposed=20
to> =
> keep=20
all> =
> =20
>
> =
hundred-plus=20
key> =
> =20
>
> =
codes I've=20
ever had from Adobe. So after
about> =
3=20
more> =
> =20
people> =20
>
> and=20
a> =
> =20
>
> lot=20
more> =20
> =
> =20
> time on the phone I
got around the =
installation=20
and> =
> =20
activated> =20
>
> =20
again> =20
> =
> =20
> with =
a> =20
> =
> =20
> temp key. Then within hours it =
deactivated=20
again."> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
> The reader then
entered a support=20
nightmare> from=20
which> =
> he=20
is> =
> =20
> yet =
to> =20
> =
> =20
> =
awaken.> =20
> =
> =20
> For weeks on end, tech
after tech would =
tell=20
him to> =
> =20
run the> =20
>
> =20
repair> =20
> =
> =20
> =
function> =20
> =
> =20
> and reinstall. When
that wouldn't work, =
the=20
techs> =
> =20
would
begin> =20
> =
> =20
> speculating=20
as> =
> =20
>
> to =
what=20
changes he should make to him computer=20
to> =
> =20
placate
the> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
activation> =20
> =
> =20
> gods. "Gee, the
guy would say, why do =
you need=20
to> =
> mirror=20
your> =20
>
> =20
hard> =20
> =
> =20
> =
drive?"> =20
> =
> =20
> the reader wrote.
"Then they send me to =
another=20
and> =
> the=20
guy says,> =20
> =
> =20
> gee, =
if> =20
> =
> =20
> you upgrade or restore
your drive, or =
change=20
your> =20
>
> =20
configuration,
or> =20
> =
> =20
> =
backup> =20
> =
> =20
> to Ghost, or use a
RAID array, or use a =
disk> =
> =20
defragger,
the> =20
>
> =20
activation> =20
> =
> =20
> doesn't like it. Then
they start asking =
why=20
I> need=20
to> =
> do=20
these> =20
> =
> =20
> things,=20
which> =20
> =
> =20
> is none of their=20
business."> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
> Some of the Adobe
techs mentioned that =
what=20
the> =20
reader> =
> =20
really> =20
>
> =20
needed> =20
> =
> =20
> to =
fix> =20
> =
> =20
> the activation problem
was "Patch=20
2.70."> =
> =20
Unfortunately, it
seems> =20
> =
> =20
> Patch=20
2.70> =20
> =
> =20
> is not provided to
just any old=20
Acrobat>
customer, and=20
the> =
> =20
> reader had=20
to> =
> =20
>
> =
supplicate=20
his way up the support ladder to =
find> =20
> someone=20
who> =
> =20
> =
could> =20
> =
> =20
> =
authorize> =20
> =
> =20
> sending it to him.
"I finally get to =
the=20
right> guy=20
and> =
> he=20
asks me> =20
> =
> =20
> why I=20
need> =20
> =
> =20
> it and why I can't
stop mirroring=20
and> defragging=20
and> =
> using=20
Ghost.> =20
> =
> =20
> Finally=20
he> =
> =20
>
> says =
he'll=20
escalate the issue and I'll have
an> =20
e-mail> =
> in=20
24> =
> =20
> =
hours.> =20
> =
> =20
> Next =
day> =20
> =
> =20
> there's no e-mail so I
call back. It =
was=20
never> =
> =20
escalated
and> =20
>
> I=20
have> =20
> =
> =20
> to =
start> =20
> =
> =20
> the process of filing
to get the patch =
all=20
over> =20
again."> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
> The reader is a
stubborn man, though, =
and=20
he> =
> =20
eventually
prevailed> =20
> =
> =20
> upon=20
Adobe> =20
> =
> =20
> to send him Patch
2.70. It didn't help. =
Several> =20
more> =
> =20
weeks of> =20
> =
> =20
> escalations=20
to> =
> =20
>
> =
supervisors=20
and higher levels of Adobe support=20
have> =
> =20
followed,> =20
>
> =20
without> =20
> =
> =20
> success. Last week
Adobe promised to =
send him=20
a> =
copy> =20
> of Acrobat=20
-> =
> =20
>
> =20
presumably> =20
> =
> =20
> the corporate version
- that would get=20
around> the=20
problem.> =20
>
> But =
at=20
last> =20
> =
> =20
> report it still hasn't
shown, so the=20
reader's> copy=20
of> =
> =20
Acrobat> =20
>
> 8=20
remains> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
deactivated.> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
>> =20
> =
> =20
> "The amount of
time, support, and money =
that> Adobe=20
and> =
> I=20
have> =20
>
> =20
wasted> =20
> =
> =20
> on =
this> =20
> =
> =20
> is crazy," the
reader wrote. "I=20
understand>
protecting=20
your> =20
>
> =
product,=20
but> =
> =20
>
> =
these people=20
have gone way overboard with =
this> =20
> activation=20
that's> =20
> =
> =20
> tied =
so> =20
> =
> =20
> closely to the
hardware that you can't =
do=20
anything> =
> =20
that
doesn't> =20
> =
> =20
> upset =
it.> =20
> =
> =20
> Many people back up,
restore, defrag =
and=20
mirror> disks=20
and> =
> =20
> many =
more> =20
> =
> =20
> will =
do> =20
> =
> =20
> so as the prices come
down. I think =
Adobe needs=20
to> =
> clean=20
some> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
management> =20
> =
> =20
> house, toss out this
stupid activation =
process,=20
and> =
> get=20
something> =20
> =
> =20
> that=20
works> =20
> =
> =20
> instead of the=20
runaround."> =20
> =
> =20
>
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C75AC5.662D4B10--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267
@PATH: 379/45 1 633/267
|