I’m so absolutely sick of it.
All I want is Lightroom classic for photo organization and I have to subscribe. Like come on.
I signed up for creative cloud and accidentally signed for a year. They want 60$ to cancel the subscription. Suck my taint.
How is that even legal
Unlike most online services that essentially do not offer refunds (you just ride out the subscription), Adobe has created more of a carrier type plan, where there is a yearly contract so it accrues the same penalty like any phone plan.
So yeah, legal. Just the worst kind of legal. And that’s Adobe. Just the worst kind.
Was it recent (and can you get the credit card agency to revert it?)
3 months in - it’s Definitely my bad
Change your subscription to something else, this resets the counter. You can now cancel without fines.
Whaaaa that works?
Our company is using nitro pro for editing PDF.
I hate that people try to edit PDFs.
There’s a hundred formats more suited to editing.
It’s always ethical to pirate from Adobe.
Ah, sorry, your required sacrifices have entered the stage where premium quality virgins are now required.
You can always use gimp 🤣
Anyone got a good Illustrator replacement for SVG and vector creation?
Affinity Designer 2
Inkscape is pretty great now. Lots of improvement in the last couple of years.
Have you had a look at the Affinity suite? It certainly can’t replace everything, but for many users like me it’s not really missing anything for a one time payment.
They have -30% sales sometimes. I actually bought the whole suite at 50% discount some years back, but I don’t think they’ve had another 50% discount for a long time now.
If you’re interested in any of the Affinity programs, keep an eye out for sales. I’m guessing the next one will be Black Friday / Cyber Monday.
Fuck Adobe.
If you’re some dude who edits photos for his kids or makes bday cards for their family, there’s literally a dozen or more free image editors that work just fine.
If you’re in the industry, then you’ll quickly see no client will accept or work with an affinity file. Or a gimp file. Or a photomater file.
Adobe is the de facto standard and their monopoly is only getting worse. It also doesn’t help that schools are basically shills for Adobe. So every kid comes out knowing Illustrator and Photoshop and nothing else.
Adobe’s monopoly extends far beyond “software.”
If you think Adobe is bad just wait until you have to deal with Autodesk.
Firefox is getting the ability to edit PDFs. Its not quite ready for prod so I use SumatraPDF
Expensive as hell, it insists I use their insecure office add on “PDF Maker” but people around here find it worth $350 a year to be able to merge pdf’s from the context menu so I’m stuck trying to find ways to support it with out compromising the network. I hate the adobe suite
I use pdfsam to merge pdfs. Open source and works fine.
Yeah I’m super glad I don’t deal with the procurement side of things
Feel free to share, this is a safe space…
Yeah, I really don’t get how — what their thinking is— let’s drive our users crazy because no one will ever leave us
The hell?
[malevolently] Its been going around
We need competition plain and simple start finding “good enough” and promoting it because at the end of the day if it’s good enough it’s solved the problem. Like gimp, it doesn’t have the bells and whistles but it’s good enough.
Hire more lawyers, obviously.
Literally argued with a bunch of game-pass supporters on this very topic today, where we don’t own shit anymore and everything is rental only. Sick of people gobbling corporate cock.
When I found out that steam licenses my games and I don’t own them, I shat a brick.
Hold up, what?
You have probably never ‘owned’ a computer game. Even when you had discs/cartridges you owned the disc/cartridge, but had a single license for the game.
That’s why it was technically allowed to copy the disk for your own use, but not to share - you only had one license.
Steam is the same, just without the disk.
Legally speaking, there is almost zero difference between a computer game disc/cartridge and a paper book. Are you so deluded as to argue that you don’t own your copies of books as well?
Let’s face it: the situation today is the way it is because some software industry shysters saw the opportunity to pull one over on the courts (with technology-illiterate judges who think “X on a computer” is somehow suddenly different than “X” because ⋆˙⟡ magic ⟡˙⋆) and took it.
I did quote owned in that comment.
Legally I think you own the book, but not it’s contents? So legally it would be the same? (The content is copyrighted so you can’t reproduce it etc)
The real difference is in usage, with a book, even an ebook, if you have it you effectively own it. They can’t stop you reading it.
Unfortunately with games nowerdays everything checks in with servers or is online only, so if the publisher or distributor say so, you lose access. The only way round that is cracked copies of DRM free games like on GoG.
Why are you surprised about this? You always get a license to play the game, you don’t own the rights to it, even if you get a physical copy.
That’s what the copyright cartel claims, but it’s a goddamn lie. Stop serving the enemy by parroting their lies.
It is not a lie, it is how copyright works.
If you are against it, then be against it. But do not claim they are lying.This is why things like CC-BY-SA, copyleft and other licenses exist.
No, copyleft licenses work differently. In particular, the thing that makes them valid (in contrast to EULAs, which are not) is that they actually offer consideration to the licensee.
Take the GPL v2 (which I mention because I’m most familiar with it) as an example:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
What it’s doing there is affirming the user’s ownership – not mere “licensure” – of his own copy. It’s pointing out, in contrast to the lie of EULAs, that the licensor doesn’t have any right to restrict the copy owner’s property rights. In other words, you don’t have to “accept the GPL” in order to use GPL software that somebody gives you; the license only kicks in if you want to do something with it that copyright law itself otherwise prohibits, namely, distributing copies or publishing modifications.
What EULA writers think they rely on – and what they’ve managed to bamboozle some, but not all, courts into accepting – is the notion that because computer programs require copying into RAM (if not also installation into a hard drive) to use, that that incidental act of copying somehow entitles publishers to impose additional restrictions in “consideration” for the mere use of the copy the user already bought. In reality, however, there’s an explicit carve-out in 17 U.S. Code § 117 (a) (1) that pulls the rug out of that argument and renders most shrinkwrap and clickwrap EULAs total bunk because the owner already has the right to use his property and there is therefore no consideration. (Admittedly, Steam might be an exception to this, since Valve could try to argue that keeping track of your games for you and making them available to re-download whenever you want is “valuable consideration” – but that’s the exception, not the rule.)
(Also note that there are other problems with the validity of EULAs, such as the fact that they’re contracts of adhesion, but I’m tired of writing so I’ll leave that for another time.)
TL;DR: Copyleft licenses are valid because they offer the copy owner privileges they didn’t already have: namely, permission to distribute copies under certain conditions. In contrast, EULAs are bunk because they attempt to restrict mere use of the thing the copy owner already owns while offering nothing in return.
deleted by creator
A copy of a game, even a physical one, only licenses you to play it. And yes. That is a license.
No, that’s a property right.
Because what you’re claiming is that just because you own a copy of a game (a “LICENSE” to play it) you also own the rights to the IP?
Do you understand the difference?
Clearly, you’re the one failing to understand the difference!
You are wrong. If you buy a physical copy of a game, you cannot legally make further copies of that game. You can only sell the single copy you own, which is the licensed copy
You’re confusing copyright law with property law. Sure, you can’t make and sell copies (fun fact: you can make copies for certain other purposes, though), but that’s not a limitation on what you can do with your own copy, which is your property.
Ownership of the right to copy and ownership of the copy itself are entirely different things.
I’m not confusing copyright law and property law, but you are deliberately conflating them so you can say things like “That’s what the copyright cartel claims, but it’s a goddamn lie.” in response to someone saying that owning a copy of something does not give you the rights to that thing.
Steam doeen’t sell games to you, it gives you access to them in your account. Everyone hated them for it back when it first came out, twenty years ago, but it’s kind of forgotten by anyone who isn’t nestled deeply into the privacy/ownership/right to repair communities these days.
You can still lose access to your thousand game + account by simply updating your drivers regularly.
Vac bans don’t ban your steam account, just prevents you from playing CS2/CSGO
Steam is lying – you do own the games. The problem is that the courts are too corrupted by the copyright cartel to enforce the laws properly.
Just because they push that self-serving disinformation doesn’t mean we have to parrot it!
Oh you mean in the way the world should work. Sure, i’ll agree with that.
But that’s not how things actually are. Right now, you can completely lose access, and unless you’re a lucky millionaire with a passion for fighting unjust laws and the luck of the gods, you can’t do shit to bring that account back.
But that’s not how things actually are. Right now, you can completely lose access, and unless you’re a lucky millionaire with a passion for fighting unjust laws and the luck of the gods, you can’t do shit to bring that account back.
But even if you lose access to the Steam account, you still own your copy of the games. Valve doesn’t have the right to somehow force you to stop playing the games, assuming you still have your copy in your possession.
Remember, products (e.g. a copy of a game) and services (e.g. a Steam account itself) are two different things. I was never arguing that you owned a service, only that you own products.
Yeah. Steam can disable your account so you can not purchase new games, but you should still be able to download and play the games you already have.
A VAC ban doesn’t remove access to your steam account. Just to one game on your steam account.
Well, that and all the games that instban you from playing if you have a vac ban on record, first example being various squad servers, and the software behind that.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with steam or valve…
Being banned from accessing services isn’t the same as being prohibited from using your property. You are still perfectly legally entitled to play your game single-player (for example) no matter how many VAC bans you get.
I’ve saved literally thousands of dollars with gamepass. I couldn’t care less it’s a rental and you can still purchase should you want to waste money.
It’s less about corporate cock goblin and more about being able to do basic math, identify value, and not spend literal thousands of dollars sticking it to the man.
If you don’t see value in ownership, then yeah, you “saved” money. But that’s on you.
You’re also missing the part where they’re undercharging for the service in order to increase adoption, after which they will turn up the costs. So enjoy it while you can.
Sooo currently they are saving money playing multiple games that they most likely won’t replay in the future anyway.
Why the hostility if it’s a good deal for them? Just to own a game on the tiniest chance you’ll play it later? Or just rent till you find a game you like and will play multiple times, buy to own it and also play multiple other games on the pass.
That applies to all digital store fronts and isn’t specific to game pass.
No, this is mistaken. If a digital storefront sells their media in a DRM-free format, you receive the files in an unrestricted way, similar to if you bought a physical book, movie, or album.
Unrestricted is not to say given permission to copy and distribute as you’d like, but that’s the same as for physical media.
Okay sure, for DRM-free storefronts that’s true but I’m talking about arguing that Game Pass is somehow worse than say Steam when the reality is that you can lose all your content on both storefronts. Most aren’t DRM-free, which is the issue.
Just sail the high seas. Arrr!
Nah, just use open source ones tbh.
Unfortunately there’s a reason people begrudgingly pay the Adobe tax, not all open source tools have caught up.
And even if they have caught up companies already have the software stack and you need to know how to use it so you effectively blacklist yourself from the industry if you refuse to use photoshop or whatever.
I’d argue that none of them have caught up
Thats fine for individuals, but given that the fines go WAY up when its a business, its just not worth the risk.
True, as a business it’s not worth it
