Photoshop Fails At Counterfeit Prevention

JediDan writes "Wired reports that the 'Anti-counterfeiting provisions in the latest version of Adobe Systems' flagship product have proven little more than a speed bump, but company representatives insist that including them was the right thing to do.' Kevin Connor, Adobe's director of product management for professional digital imaging said, 'As a market leader and a good corporate citizen, this just seems like the right thing to do.' Maybe if they didn't spend R&D time and money on useless features, their products would be more affordable."

Comments

not like we haven't seen this before

[fugu]

great, another protection mechanism that's easily sidestepped by the real crooks but manages to irritate legitimate users

Re:not like we haven't seen this before

[LearnToSpell]

Maybe you want to use it in a project. Maybe you collect money. Maybe you want to sell it on eBay. There are a million different reasons, and throwing that legitimate in there is pretty dumb. Why should 99% of law-abiding citizens care about cameras in the streets?

Re:not like we haven't seen this before

[UserChrisCanter4]

The last time this feature was mentioned, someone cracked a joke about rap album covers. While a small niche, scanning money for non-counterfeit purposes is certainly not out of the question. Beyond making a dorky rap album cover, I might also want to make a parody of said genre, or even (gasp!) make novelty bills with my picture in the center. All of these are completely legit uses for scanning and manipulating currency, and the anti-counterfeiting software is ignoring the fact that (as far as I understand) getting passable paper is the toughest part of the equation.

Re:What were they thinking?

[mutewinter]

Hmm sounds just like software companies that are conned into spending boatloads of money on elaberate copy-protection schemes which are broken in days instead of hours.

What R&D money?

[Sklivvz]

From the article: The inner workings of the counterfeit deterrence system are so secret that not even Adobe is privy to them. The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group provides the software as a black box without revealing its precise inner workings, Connor said.

So Adobe just plugged in an OCX in their program or something similarly easy. It's not this "feature" that bloats the price tag, I'm afraid.

Also, why all this secrecy on the "inner workings" of the software, when it's so easily circumvented (e.g. copy and paste from another app)? Why should scanning money be illegal? It's ridiculous - it's like banning knives because they could be dangerous. It's not the technology, it's the use you make of it. I don't understand why politicians fail to understand this simple concept: technology is not evil or good, it does not pose new moral problems. It's always the same problems, just with a different twist in the details.

Photography boards

[mtrupe]

I am an amatuer photographer. Its really funny how just about EVERYONE I know who is into photography has a copy of photoshop. Hmmm... They can't afford a new $500 flash, but they can afford $500 for Photoshop.

Its obvious to me the Photoshop is way, way overpriced. Now, Adobe is free to charge whatever they want for it, but the average Joe is not willing to dump $500 on software.

True, counterfeiting software is not a "right", but its bound to happen when companies overcharge. Why do you think people are so quick to download music and copy CDs?

Re:YRO?

[Austerity Empowers]

I think the point is that including anti-counterfitting measures in a product that is designed ostensibly to touch up photo's is both ridiculous and inappropriate.

Counterfeiting is specifically illegal, and is Not Our Right Anywhere, I did not see any suggestion or insinuation that it ought to be. However, having to pay a "big brother tax" for ill-conceived or impossible to implement "crime prevention" features is an idea that many find offensive.

On the other hand, while almost everyone I know uses photoshop, almost no one I know has actually paid for it, or could afford it. Obviously their crime prevention abilities are somewhat limited :)

Re:What were they thinking?

[smittyoneeach]

For whom? The $ dependency reaches from the US Government into the taxpayer wallet.
IOW, maybe we should all buy the rest of the product, as we're already subsidizing it anyway.
I guess I could warm to the nannyism, if it actually prevented lawbreaking.
I have no way of knowing, but I Guess the Illegitimate Might Procure something else for their dark deeds.