From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_053B_01C75A9D.AEB8F230
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see average consumers misusing the term. I see strongly =
opinionated and technical folks like those that would have their own = 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 = there aren't
real issues with interoperability and longevity such as you = read about
lately with itunes. This is just a single application of = DRM. The same
aspects that are an issue for this application are not = issues for the
application of DRM to your medical records or sensitive = corporate
documents.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" wrote in message =
news:45e4e27a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
I don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people are=20
including DRM in their complaints just because they can. If DRM was as =
beneficial for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I highly=20
doubt you'd see this trend.
Rich wrote:
> It's not just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people want to=20
> complain about that can be stretched to garner more support. =
Broadly I=20
> see it used for anything that restricts access, copying, or similar. =
I=20
> think people believe they will get more sympathy for their position =
from=20
> a certain audience if they apply the term DRM than if they are =
honest.
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=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 )
>=20
>=20
> 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.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=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
> >
> > 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
> =
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_053B_01C75A9D.AEB8F230
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't
see average =
consumers misusing=20
the term. I see strongly opinionated and technical folks like =
those that=20
would have their own blog or would post to a public forum. This =
isn't a=20
consumer topic beyond that some folks are trying to make it one. = That=20
isn't to say there aren't real issues with interoperability and = longevity such=20
as you 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 = corporate=20
documents.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com">gauszka{at}-nospam-hotmail.com
A>>=20
wrote in message news:45e4e27a$1{at}w3.nls.net...I=20
don't disagree. The notable constant though is that people are =
including=20
DRM in their complaints just because they can. If DRM was as =
beneficial=20
for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I highly doubt =
you'd see=20
this trend.Rich
wrote:> It's not =
just DRM=20
and this, it's DRM and anything people want to > complain about =
that=20
can be stretched to garner more support. Broadly I
> see =
it used=20
for anything that restricts access, copying, or similar. I =
>=20
think people believe they will get more sympathy for their position =
from=20
> a certain audience if they apply the term DRM than if they =
are=20
honest.> >
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:45e4b899{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
I understand the point you are making. Unfortunately, like it or=20
not,> DRM and
Activation are starting =
to be=20
used interchangeably in
everyday> use ( =
as in=20
the Infoworld Gripeline blog )> >=20
> Rich=20
wrote:>
> =
This is=20
neither a content nor a service which is one reason=20
I>
> questioned the use of =
DRM. =20
I think the new subject is =
appropriate.> =20
>
>
>=20
Rich>
>=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
wrote in
message> =20
> news:45e4b05e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
> It's an inane activation
scheme. From =
Microsoft's=20
own> definition=20
one>
> =
could=20
make the case that Adobe's activation is a=20
content> owner=20
setting> =
> the=20
business rules of a file ( a program in this case ).=20
Most> would=20
use>
> =
'activation' for clarity in this context - so Subject=20
changed> =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
digital rights management
(DRM)> =20
>> =
> Any=20
technology used to protect the interests of owners=20
of> content=20
and>
> =
services (such as copyright owners). Typically,=20
authorized> =
> =20
recipients
or> =20
> users must acquire a
license in order to =
consume=20
the
protected> =20
> material=97files, music, =
movies=97according to the=20
rights or> business=20
rules> =
> set=20
by the content
owner.> =20
>> =20
>> =
> Rich=20
wrote:> =20
>
> What does =
this have=20
to do with DRM? Or do you use DRM=20
for>
> =
everything> =20
> > from
actual DRM to encrypted =
email to=20
password protected
ZIP> =20
> files =
to> =20
> >=20
SSL/TLS?> =20
> =
>> =20
> >=20
Rich> =
> =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
wrote in
message> =20
>
> news:45e4792a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
>
> Adobe =
- If you=20
use a disk defragger the activation=20
doesn't> =
> =20
like it?> =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
>
> when =
it comes=20
to stupid IT designs as far as
the> =20
activation> =
> =20
issues I> =20
>
> =
encountered=20
with Adobe. I upgraded from Acrobat 7.0 =
to> =20
8.0,> =
> =20
because the> =20
>
> demos =
and=20
features looked great. After installing =
it,> I=20
didn't> =20
>
> really =
use=20
it> =
> =20
> for a few months. Then I
went to use it =
and it=20
said it> was=20
not> =
> =20
> =
activated."> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> When =
the=20
reader went to the menu, he was puzzled =
to> see=20
both the> =20
>
> =20
"Activate'> =20
>
> and=20
"Deactivate' buttons turned off. "Seems stupid=20
-->
> =20
shouldn't
one> =20
>
> =20
always> =20
>
> be=20
highlighted?" the reader wondered. "After calling=20
in,>
> =
Adobe=20
told> =
> =20
> me =
to> =20
>
> run =
the repair=20
function. I did, and it worked for one=20
day,> =
> and=20
then> =
> =20
> it =
was> =20
>
> =
deactivated=20
again and both buttons were off again. =
I> =20
called again> =20
>
> and=20
waited> =20
>
> on =
hold=20
forever to be told to uninstall and =
reinstall.> =20
So I> =
> =20
> uninstalled=20
and> =
> =20
> it deactivated. I went
to reinstall and =
it said I=20
did> not have=20
an> =
> =20
> =
original> =20
>
> =
product to=20
upgrade from. Wow, like I'm supposed =
to> keep=20
all> =
> =20
> hundred-plus=20
key> =
> =20
> codes I've ever had from
Adobe. So after =
about 3=20
more> =20
people> =
> and=20
a> =
> =20
> lot =
more> =20
>
> time =
on the=20
phone I got around the installation =
and> =20
activated> =
> =20
again> =
> =20
> with =
a> =20
>
> temp =
key. Then=20
within hours it deactivated =
again."> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> The =
reader=20
then entered a support nightmare from =
which> he=20
is>
> =
yet=20
to> =
> =20
> =
awaken.> =20
>
> For =
weeks on=20
end, tech after tech would tell him
to> =
run=20
the>
> =
repair> =20
>
> =20
function> =20
>
> and =
reinstall.=20
When that wouldn't work, the
techs> =
would=20
begin> =
> =20
> speculating=20
as> =
> =20
> to what changes he
should make to him =
computer=20
to> placate=20
the> =
> =20
> =
activation> =20
>
> gods. =
"Gee,=20
the guy would say, why do you need
to> =
mirror=20
your> =
> =20
hard> =
> =20
> =
drive?"> =20
>
> the =
reader=20
wrote. "Then they send me to another =
and> the=20
guy says,> =20
>
> gee,=20
if> =
> =20
> you upgrade or restore
your drive, or =
change=20
your> =
> =20
configuration,
or> =20
>
> =20
backup> =20
>
> to =
Ghost, or=20
use a RAID array, or use a
disk> =
defragger,=20
the>
> =
activation> =20
>
> =
doesn't like=20
it. Then they start asking why I need =
to> do=20
these> =
> =20
> things,=20
which> =
> =20
> is none of their=20
business."> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> Some =
of the=20
Adobe techs mentioned that what the =
reader> =20
really> =
> =20
needed> =20
>
> to=20
fix> =
> =20
> the activation problem
was "Patch=20
2.70.">
Unfortunately, it=20
seems> =
> =20
> Patch =
2.70> =20
>
> is not =
provided to just any old Acrobat customer, and=20
the>
> =
reader=20
had to> =20
>
> =
supplicate his=20
way up the support ladder to
find> =
someone=20
who>
> =
could> =
> =20
> =
authorize> =20
>
> =
sending it to=20
him. "I finally get to the right guy =
and> he=20
asks me> =20
>
> why I=20
need> =
> =20
> it and why I can't stop
mirroring and =
defragging=20
and> using=20
Ghost.> =20
>
> =
Finally=20
he> =
> =20
> says he'll escalate the
issue and I'll =
have an=20
e-mail> in=20
24>
> =20
hours.> =20
>
> Next=20
day> =
> =20
> there's no e-mail so I
call back. It was=20
never> escalated=20
and>
> =
I=20
have> =
> =20
> to =
start> =20
>
> the =
process of=20
filing to get the patch all over =
again."> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> The =
reader is=20
a stubborn man, though, and
he> =
eventually=20
prevailed> =20
>
> upon=20
Adobe> =
> =20
> to send him Patch 2.70.
It didn't help. =
Several=20
more> weeks=20
of> =
> =20
> escalations=20
to> =
> =20
> supervisors and higher
levels of Adobe =
support=20
have> =20
followed,> =
> =20
without> =20
>
> =
success. Last=20
week Adobe promised to send him a
copy> =
of=20
Acrobat -> =20
>
> =20
presumably> =20
>
> the =
corporate=20
version - that would get around the=20
problem.> =
> =20
But at last> =20
>
> report =
it=20
still hasn't shown, so the reader's copy =
of> =20
Acrobat> =
> 8=20
remains> =20
>
> =20
deactivated.> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> "The =
amount of=20
time, support, and money that Adobe =
and> I=20
have> =
> =20
wasted> =20
>
> on=20
this> =
> =20
> is crazy," the
reader wrote. "I =
understand=20
protecting
your> =20
> product,=20
but> =
> =20
> these people have gone
way overboard with =
this> activation=20
that's> =20
>
> tied=20
so> =
> =20
> closely to the hardware
that you can't do =
anything> that=20
doesn't> =20
>
> upset=20
it.> =
> =20
> Many people back up,
restore, defrag and =
mirror=20
disks and> =
> =20
many more> =20
>
> will=20
do> =
> =20
> so as the prices come
down. I think Adobe =
needs=20
to> clean=20
some> =
> =20
> =
management> =20
>
> house, =
toss=20
out this stupid activation process, =
and> get=20
something> =20
>
> that=20
works> =
> =20
> instead of the=20
runaround."> =20
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_053B_01C75A9D.AEB8F230--
--- 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
|