From: "Rich Gauszka"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C75B1D.FBFE6180
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yet legally purchased Microsoft certified PlaysForSure music will not =
'play for sure' on the Zune. You may not regard this restrictive =
interoperability fiasco as a DRM problem but I do.
"Rich" wrote in message news:45e51467{at}w3.nls.net...
The article to which you referred claimed that music purchased from =
the Zune store plays on PlaysForSure devices. There doesn't seem to be =
the restrictive problem that apple has with the itunes store.
Even with apple's itunes problems in Europe, I don't see anything =
that I would consider a quagmire. The problems they do exist are with =
interoperabilty and lock in not with the DRM itself.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" wrote in message =
news:45e502d3{at}w3.nls.net...
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=20
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=20
> 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_0026_01C75B1D.FBFE6180
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yet legally purchased Microsoft =
certified=20
PlaysForSure music will not 'play for sure' on the Zune. You may not = regard this=20
restrictive interoperability fiasco as a DRM problem but I =
do.
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45e51467{at}w3.nls.net...
The
article to which you =
referred=20
claimed that music purchased from the Zune store plays on PlaysForSure =
devices. There doesn't seem to be the restrictive problem that =
apple has=20
with the itunes store.
Even
with apple's itunes =
problems in=20
Europe, I don't see anything that I would consider a quagmire. =
The=20
problems they do exist are with interoperabilty and lock in not with =
the DRM=20
itself.
Rich
"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>=20
wrote in message news:45e502d3{at}w3.nls.net...
Yet there are multiple standards =
issued from=20
the same company for copy protection( PlaysForSure, Zune DRM ). I =
wouldn't=20
describe that as attempting to avoid interoperability =
problems.
FWIW - My diatribe isn't =
meant to be=20
directed at Microsoft solely - just the current quagmire that =
is=20
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=20
applications to which you refer to are generically corporate =
interests as=20
much as they are content owner interests. This is why steve =
jobs=20
stated the obvious when asserting that he would like to offer =
other=20
people's content without any DRM. Of course he would as =
would=20
probably everyone else who has no interest in the content=20
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=20
is currently a mess with various corporate entities in a =
power=20
struggle for control of a market without care of how it =
affects=20
(screws) the consumer. The average consumer I know either by =
facial=20
expression or vocally expresses a dissatisfaction with the =
current=20
state of 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=20
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=20
wrote:> I don't see
average consumers =
misusing=20
the term. I see strongly > opinionated and =
technical folks=20
like those that would have their own > blog or would post =
to a=20
public forum. This isn't a consumer topic
> beyond =
that=20
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=20
application of > DRM. The same aspects
that are an =
issue=20
for this application are not > issues for the application =
of DRM=20
to your medical records or sensitive > corporate=20
documents.> >
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: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=20
just because they can. If DRM was =
as> =20
beneficial for consumers as the industry propagandists spout I=20
highly>
doubt you'd see this=20
trend.> >
> Rich=20
wrote:> =
> It's=20
not just DRM and this, it's DRM and anything people want=20
to>
> complain about =
that can be=20
stretched to garner more support. =
> =20
Broadly
I>
> see it used =
for=20
anything that restricts access, copying,=20
or>
similar. =20
I>
> think people =
believe they=20
will get more sympathy for
their> =
position
from>
> a =
certain=20
audience if they apply the term DRM than if they=20
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,> =
> =20
DRM and Activation are starting to be used interchangeably=20
in> =20
everyday> =20
> use ( as in the
Infoworld Gripeline =
blog=20
)> =20
>> =20
>>
=
> =20
Rich
wrote:> =20
>
> This =
is=20
neither a content nor a service which is=20
one> reason=20
I> =20
> >
questioned the use of =
DRM. =20
I think the new subject
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=20
make the case that Adobe's activation is a=20
content> =20
> owner=20
setting> =20
>
> =
the=20
business rules of a file ( a program in this=20
case> ).=20
Most> =
> =20
would
use> =20
>
> =20
'activation' for clarity in this context - so=20
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
>
> =20
recipients
or> =20
>
> =
users=20
must acquire a license in order to consume=20
the> =20
protected> =20
>
> =20
material=97files, music, movies=97according to the rights=20
or> =
> =20
business
rules> =20
>
> =
set by=20
the content
owner.> =20
> =20
>> =20
> =20
>> =20
>
> =
Rich=20
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=20
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 =
the> activation=20
doesn't> =20
>
> =
like=20
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=20
as the> =20
> =20
activation> =20
>
> =
issues=20
I> =20
> =
> =20
> encountered with
Adobe. I upgraded =
from=20
Acrobat> 7.0=20
to> =
> =20
8.0,> =20
>
> =
because=20
the> =20
> =
> =20
> demos and features
looked great.=20
After> installing=20
it,> =
> I=20
didn't> =20
> =
> =20
> really use=20
it> =20
> =
> =20
> for a few months.
Then I went to =
use it and=20
it> said=20
it> =
> =20
was
not> =20
> =
> =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
> =20
"Activate'> =20
> =
> =20
> and
"Deactivate' buttons turned =
off.=20
"Seems>
stupid=20
--> =20
>
> =20
shouldn't
one> =20
> =
> =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=20
was> =20
> =
> =20
> deactivated again
and both buttons =
were=20
off> again.=20
I> =
> =20
called
again> =20
> =
> =20
> and=20
waited> =20
> =
> =20
> on hold forever to
be told to =
uninstall=20
and> =20
reinstall.> =20
> So =
I> =20
> =
> =20
> uninstalled=20
and> =20
> =
> =20
> it deactivated. I
went to reinstall =
and it=20
said> I=20
did> =
> =20
not have
an> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
original> =20
> =
> =20
> product to upgrade
from. Wow, like =
I'm=20
supposed
to> =20
> keep=20
all> =20
> =
> =20
> hundred-plus=20
key> =20
> =
> =20
> codes I've ever
had from Adobe. So =
after=20
about> 3=20
more> =
> =20
people> =20
>
> =
and=20
a> =20
> =
> =20
> lot=20
more> =20
> =
> =20
> time on the phone
I got around the=20
installation
and> =20
> =20
activated> =20
>
> =20
again> =20
> =
> =20
> with=20
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> =
> =20
he is> =20
>
> =
yet=20
to> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
awaken.> =20
> =
> =20
> For weeks on end,
tech after tech =
would=20
tell him
to> =20
> run=20
the> =20
>
> =20
repair> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
function> =20
> =
> =20
> and reinstall.
When that wouldn't =
work, the=20
techs> =
> =20
would
begin> =20
> =
> =20
> speculating=20
as> =20
> =
> =20
> to what changes he
should make to =
him=20
computer
to> =20
> placate=20
the> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
activation> =20
> =
> =20
> gods. "Gee,
the guy would say, why =
do you=20
need
to> =20
> mirror=20
your> =20
>
> =20
hard> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
drive?"> =20
> =
> =20
> the reader wrote.
"Then they send =
me to=20
another
and> =20
> the guy=20
says,> =20
> =
> =20
> gee,=20
if> =20
> =
> =20
> you upgrade or
restore your drive, =
or=20
change
your> =20
>
> =20
configuration,
or> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
backup> =20
> =
> =20
> to Ghost, or use a
RAID array, or =
use a=20
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
> =20
really> =20
>
> =20
needed> =20
> =
> =20
> to=20
fix> =20
> =
> =20
> the activation
problem was "Patch=20
2.70."> =20
> Unfortunately, it=20
seems> =20
> =
> =20
> Patch=20
2.70> =20
> =
> =20
> is not provided to
just any old=20
Acrobat>
customer, and=20
the> =20
>
> =
reader=20
had to> =20
> =
> =20
> supplicate his way
up the support =
ladder to=20
find> =
> =20
someone
who> =20
>
> =20
could> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
authorize> =20
> =
> =20
> sending it to him.
"I finally get =
to the=20
right> guy=20
and> =
> =20
he asks
me> =20
> =
> =20
> why I=20
need> =20
> =
> =20
> it and why I can't
stop mirroring=20
and> defragging=20
and> =
> =20
using
Ghost.> =20
> =
> =20
> Finally=20
he> =20
> =
> =20
> says he'll
escalate the issue and =
I'll have=20
an> =20
e-mail> =20
> in =
24> =20
>
> =20
hours.> =20
> =
> =20
> Next=20
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=20
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.=20
Several> =20
more> =
> =20
weeks
of> =20
> =
> =20
> escalations=20
to> =20
> =
> =20
> supervisors and
higher levels of =
Adobe=20
support
have> =20
> =20
followed,> =20
>
> =20
without> =20
> =
> =20
> success. Last week
Adobe promised =
to send=20
him a> =20
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=20
that> Adobe=20
and> =
> I=20
have> =20
>
> =20
wasted> =20
> =
> =20
> on=20
this> =20
> =
> =20
> is crazy,"
the reader wrote. "I=20
understand>
protecting=20
your> =20
>
> =
product,=20
but> =20
> =
> =20
> these people have gone way =
overboard with=20
this> =
> =20
activation
that's> =20
> =
> =20
> tied=20
so> =20
> =
> =20
> closely to the
hardware that you =
can't do=20
anything> =20
> that=20
doesn't> =20
> =
> =20
> upset=20
it.> =20
> =
> =20
> Many people back
up, restore, =
defrag and=20
mirror> disks=20
and> =20
>
> =
many=20
more> =20
> =
> =20
> will=20
do> =20
> =
> =20
> so as the prices
come down. I think =
Adobe=20
needs
to> =20
> clean=20
some> =20
> =
> =20
> =20
management> =20
> =
> =20
> house, toss out
this stupid =
activation=20
process,
and> =20
> get=20
something> =20
> =
> =20
> that=20
works> =20
> =
> =20
> instead of the=20
runaround."> =20
> =
> =20
=
>
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C75B1D.FBFE6180--
--- 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
|