From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0511_01C75A97.6BBD2D30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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. 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.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" wrote in message =
news:45e4b899{at}w3.nls.net...
I understand the point you are making. Unfortunately, like it or not,=20
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=20
> questioned the use of DRM. I think the new subject is appropriate.
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=20
> "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
>=20
> http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#d
>=20
> digital rights management (DRM)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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?
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> >
> > "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
> =
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_0511_01C75A97.6BBD2D30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's not
just DRM and =
this, it's DRM=20
and anything people want to complain about that can be stretched to = garner more=20
support. Broadly I see it used for anything that restricts access, =
copying, or similar. I think people believe they will get more =
sympathy=20
for their position from a certain audience if they apply the term DRM = than if=20
they are honest.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com
A>>=20
wrote in message news:45e4b899{at}w3.nls.net...I
=
understand the point you are making. Unfortunately, like it or not, =
DRM=20
and Activation are starting to be used interchangeably in everyday =
use (=20
as in the Infoworld Gripeline blog )Rich=20
wrote:> This is neither a
content nor a =
service which=20
is one reason I > questioned the use of DRM. I
think the =
new=20
subject is appropriate.> >
Rich> =
>=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
wrote in message> news:45e4b05e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
It's an inane activation scheme. From Microsoft's own definition=20
one> could make
the case that Adobe's=20
activation is a content owner
setting> =
the=20
business rules of a file ( a program in this case ). Most would=20
use>
'activation' for clarity in this =
context -=20
so Subject changed>
> 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>=20
> digital rights
management =
(DRM)>=20
> Any technology
used to protect the =
interests=20
of owners of content
and> services =
(such as=20
copyright owners). Typically, =
authorized> =20
recipients or>
users must acquire a =
license in=20
order to consume the
protected> =
material=97files,=20
music, movies=97according to the rights or business=20
rules> set by
the content =
owner.>=20
>
> Rich=20
wrote:>
> =
What does=20
this have to do with DRM? Or do you use DRM=20
for> =20
everything>
> from actual DRM =
to=20
encrypted email to password protected =
ZIP> =20
files
to>
>=20
SSL/TLS?>
>=20
> >=20
Rich>
>=20
> =20
>> =
> "Rich=20
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
wrote in
message> =20
> news:45e4792a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
> Adobe - If you use a
disk defragger the=20
activation
doesn't> like=20
it?> =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
> when it comes to stupid
IT designs as far =
as the=20
activation> issues=20
I>
> =20
encountered with Adobe. I upgraded from Acrobat 7.0 to=20
8.0,> because=20
the>
> =
demos=20
and features looked great. After installing it, I=20
didn't> =
> =20
really use
it> =20
> for a few months. Then I
went to use it =
and it=20
said it was
not> =20
> =
activated."> =20
>> =20
>> =
> When=20
the reader went to the menu, he was puzzled to see both=20
the>
> =
"Activate'>
=
> =20
and "Deactivate' buttons turned off. "Seems stupid=20
--> shouldn't=20
one>
> =
always> =
> be=20
highlighted?" the reader wondered. "After calling=20
in,> Adobe=20
told> =
> me=20
to>
> =
run the=20
repair function. I did, and it worked for one=20
day,> and=20
then> =
> it=20
was>
> =
deactivated again and both buttons were off again. I called=20
again> =
> and=20
waited> =
> on=20
hold forever to be told to uninstall and reinstall. So=20
I>
> =20
uninstalled
and> =20
> it deactivated. I went
to reinstall and =
it said I=20
did not have
an> =20
> =
original> =20
> product to upgrade from.
Wow, like I'm =
supposed=20
to keep all> =
> =20
hundred-plus
key> =20
> codes I've ever had from
Adobe. So after =
about 3=20
more people> and=20
a>
> =
lot=20
more> =
> time=20
on the phone I got around the installation and=20
activated> =20
again> =
> with=20
a>
> =
temp key.=20
Then within hours it deactivated =
again."> =20
>> =20
>> =
> The=20
reader then entered a support nightmare from which he=20
is> yet=20
to>
> =20
awaken.> =
> For=20
weeks on end, tech after tech would tell him to run=20
the> =20
repair> =
> =20
function> =
> =20
and reinstall. When that wouldn't work, the techs would=20
begin> =
> =20
speculating
as> =20
> to what changes he
should make to him =
computer to=20
placate the> =
> =20
activation> =
> =20
gods. "Gee, the guy would say, why do you need to mirror=20
your> =20
hard> =
> =20
drive?"> =
> the=20
reader wrote. "Then they send me to another and the guy=20
says,> =
> gee,=20
if>
> =
you=20
upgrade or restore your drive, or change =
your> =20
configuration,
or> =20
> =
backup> =20
> to Ghost, or use a RAID
array, or use a =
disk=20
defragger, the> =20
activation> =
> =20
doesn't like it. Then they start asking why I need to do=20
these> =
> =20
things,
which> =20
> is none of their=20
business."> =20
>> =20
>> =
> Some=20
of the Adobe techs mentioned that what the reader=20
really> =20
needed> =
> to=20
fix>
> =
the=20
activation problem was "Patch 2.70." Unfortunately, it=20
seems> =
> Patch=20
2.70> =
> is not=20
provided to just any old Acrobat customer, and=20
the> reader had=20
to>
> =20
supplicate his way up the support ladder to find someone=20
who> =20
could> =
> =20
authorize> =
> =20
sending it to him. "I finally get to the right guy and he asks=20
me>
> =
why I=20
need> =
> it and=20
why I can't stop mirroring and defragging and using=20
Ghost.> =
> =20
Finally he> =
> =20
says he'll escalate the issue and I'll have an e-mail in=20
24> =20
hours.> =
> Next=20
day>
> =
there's=20
no e-mail so I call back. It was never escalated=20
and> I=20
have> =
> to=20
start> =
> the=20
process of filing to get the patch all over=20
again."> =20
>> =20
>> =
> The=20
reader is a stubborn man, though, and he eventually=20
prevailed> =
> =20
upon Adobe> =
> =20
to send him Patch 2.70. It didn't help. Several more weeks=20
of>
> =20
escalations
to> =20
> supervisors and higher
levels of Adobe =
support=20
have followed,> =20
without> =
> =20
success. Last week Adobe promised to send him a copy of Acrobat=20
->
> =20
presumably> =
> =20
the corporate version - that would get around the=20
problem.> But at=20
last> =
> report=20
it still hasn't shown, so the reader's copy of=20
Acrobat> 8=20
remains> =
> =20
deactivated.> =20
>> =20
>> =
> "The=20
amount of time, support, and money that Adobe and I=20
have> =20
wasted> =
> on=20
this> =
> is=20
crazy," the reader wrote. "I understand protecting=20
your> product,=20
but>
> =
these=20
people have gone way overboard with this activation=20
that's> =
> tied=20
so>
> =
closely=20
to the hardware that you can't do anything that=20
doesn't> =
> =20
upset it.> =
> =20
Many people back up, restore, defrag and mirror disks=20
and> many=20
more> =
> will=20
do>
> =
so as=20
the prices come down. I think Adobe needs to clean=20
some> =
> =20
management> =
> =20
house, toss out this stupid activation process, and get=20
something> =
> =20
that works> =
> =20
instead of the
runaround."> =20
>
------=_NextPart_000_0511_01C75A97.6BBD2D30--
--- 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
|