From: sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.7.73 with SMTP id k9mr839899qth.19.1513634175676;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:56:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.96.72 with SMTP id u69mr108040vkb.11.1513634175573; Mon,
18 Dec 2017 13:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!m31no3529601qtf.0!news-out.google.com!v55ni1332qtc.0!nntp.google.com!m31no3529597qtf.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:56:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <181220171646323954%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.148.91.183;
posting-account=Ft_AlwoAAACRFHaTvqHzRLGUJWp0fdpP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.148.91.183
References: <00942a15-c476-4273-9671-c1ef61328784@googlegroups.com>
<p0rg46$1tqe$1@gioia.aioe.org> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<d8ec4ebe-4153-448c-a71b-43f86105871c@googlegroups.com> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<e2bafadf-81f6-45a2-bd23-34a8dc0ed858@googlegroups.com> <181220171631229369%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<9560d20e-5bc1-42d0-8be3-8a72bfe6bb30@googlegroups.com> <181220171646323954%nospam@nospam.invalid>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <cd4c616c-2add-495f-a05a-9c2bea0ac617@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
From: sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:56:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 21
Print Article
Forward Article
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:46:38 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article<9560d20e-5bc1-42d0-8be3-8a72bfe6bb30@googlegroups.com>,
> sobriquet<dohduhdah@yahoo.com> 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.

Whatever. Given the numbers of people enjoying a cracked version of adobe photoshop CC, it's
obviously easy to pirate and it seems that their
anti-piracy measures aren't terribly effective at preventing this.