«

I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

basket case <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
> morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
> bill with the newest Photoshop.
>
> A window came up saying that this application
> does not support unauthorized copying of money,
> or something like that.
>
> Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
> has stepped way over the line.

Before posting a question like that, it can be useful to check if this
subject is not yet discussed in other threads. This is indeed already
heavily discussed (see: "Photoshop CS Analyzes Image Content!"), so the
answer is: Yes, many people feel Adobe is way over the line.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Yes and no

Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

And no

As there was a valid reason, plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

NIK

"basket case" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:M3xMb.5426978$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
> morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
> bill with the newest Photoshop.
>
> A window came up saying that this application
> does not support unauthorized copying of money,
> or something like that.
>
> Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
> has stepped way over the line.

"nik" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
@titan.btinternet.com:

> Yes and no
>
> Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both
platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe
even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.

> And no
>
> As there was a valid reason,

There was?

> plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is still
possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but it
is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.

I'm utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest stupidity.

basket case wrote:

> A window came up saying that this application
> does not support unauthorized copying of money,
> or something like that.

> Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
> has stepped way over the line.

We should not be surprised.

First people accepted Product Activation - a major restriction of
people's rights to what they paid for.

Who can then be surprised by ever more built-in limitations?

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill <(E-Mail Removed)>
scribbled:

>"nik" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
>@titan.btinternet.com:
>
>> Yes and no
>>
>> Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.
>
>So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both
>platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe
>even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.
>
>> And no
>>
>> As there was a valid reason,
>
>There was?
>
>> plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.
>
>Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is still
>possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but it
>is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.
>
>I'm utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest stupidity.

So you're mad that Photoshop won't let you counterfit money
anymore? And based on that change alone you'd not have
bought the product if you'd known the ability to counterfit
money was no longer available?

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill <(E-Mail Removed)>
graced us with:

>"nik" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
>@titan.btinternet.com:
>
>> Yes and no
>>
>> Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

True.

>So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both
>platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe
>even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.

Well, if you want to vote with your $$, that is your choice. I don't
have a problem with it.

>> And no
>>
>> As there was a valid reason,
>
>There was?

The Treasury Department addressed a perfectly valid reason. And if
you need a full size copy they have a specimen available for use.

>> plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.
>
>Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is still
>possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but it
>is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.
>
>I'm utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest stupidity.

The program only prevent you from editing a *full size copy* of
currency. For what legitimate reason do you need to modify a full size
version of currency? Advertising? Artwork? C'mon, 98% of the people
in this group have no need to modify a full size copy of currency for
a 'legitimate' use and the only reason people are ****ed off is simply
cause they can't. And the Activation thing is only a problem for
people who want to defeat it for nefarious purposes. There are plenty
of *valid* reasons to be ****ed off a Adobe, but neither of these
are...

Funny you should mention that. I just watched a show on counterfeiters and
NO WHERE did they mention scanning dollars into Photoshop as a way that the
counterfeiters used. According to the documentary, counterfeiters are
using very expensive and high tech equipment. I would imagine people with
that kind of money, getting around Photoshop's little recognition module
would just be a tiny inconvenience if PS is what they wanted to use.


"basket case" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:M3xMb.5426978$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
> morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
> bill with the newest Photoshop.
>
> A window came up saying that this application
> does not support unauthorized copying of money,
> or something like that.
>
> Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
> has stepped way over the line.

Sunshine,

Basket case never said they wanted to counterfeit money or that they would
not have bought PS if they couldn't counterfeit or even duplicate money.

As Johan said, it was discussed in an earlier thread and decided that Adobe
had stepped over the line and as Nik said, there are ways around it.

Also, it is counterfeit, not counterfit.


So you're mad that Photoshop won't let you counterfit money
anymore? And based on that change alone you'd not have
bought the product if you'd known the ability to counterfit
money was no longer available?

"Voivod" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tvd500555s2lbd44viqjfugjrh0mi180fb@news-server...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill <(E-Mail Removed)>
> scribbled:
>
> >"nik" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
> >@titan.btinternet.com:
> >
> >> Yes and no
> >>
> >> Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.
> >
> >So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both
> >platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe
> >even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.
> >
> >> And no
> >>
> >> As there was a valid reason,
> >
> >There was?
> >
> >> plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.
> >
> >Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is
still
> >possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but
it
> >is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.
> >
> >I'm utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest
stupidity.
>
> So you're mad that Photoshop won't let you counterfit money
> anymore? And based on that change alone you'd not have
> bought the product if you'd known the ability to counterfit
> money was no longer available?
>

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:44:41 -0500, "The Data Rat" <(E-Mail Removed)>
scribbled:

>Sunshine,

My name's not sunshine, ****wit.

>Basket case never said they wanted to counterfeit money or that they would
>not have bought PS if they couldn't counterfeit or even duplicate money.

"So "nice" that it would have kept a customer"

>As Johan said, it was discussed in an earlier thread and decided that Adobe
>had stepped over the line and as Nik said, there are ways around it.

Over what line would that be? Stopping people from trying to
counterfeit (my most humble apologies for misspelling that word)
money?