From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:46:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <181220171646323954%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <181220171631229369%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="62155e7a520401589e5c43e56103baeb";
logging-data="14832"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OVHwUBUibgQzr6LBMrhNi"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IokhwfYTtQkCPaBkh4NXUDisBC4=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>,
sobriquet<> wrote:

> > 
> > i didn't say they couldn't. i said it's harder.
> Harder? You mean they had to drink an extra cup of coffee to figure
> out how to crack it?

much more than that.

photoshop 7, before adobe added activation and long before creative
cloud subscriptions, needed only a valid serial number, which were
widely distributed.

photoshop cc pings adobe's servers to verify it's active, so that check
must be spoofed somehow, which is more work than just typing in a known
valid serial number.