Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Introduces the Paid Security Fix
Nimey writes "Adobe has posted a security bulletin for Photoshop CS5 for Windows and OSX. It seems there is a critical security hole that will allow attackers to execute arbitrary code in the context of the user running the affected application. Adobe's fix? You need to pay to upgrade to Photoshop CS6. For users who cannot upgrade to Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe recommends users follow security best practices and exercise caution when opening files from unknown or untrusted sources."
Since I can't mod Adobe "-1 flamebait" I'll just say it again. Fuck you, Adobe! I'd like to go on record as stating that you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
I just go with a policy of buying new copies of software every several versions. If I need a feature or bug fix from a version in between buying cycles, I have no moral issues obtaining an upgrade through alternate channels.
Pretty much the way I look at it is, if I buy a product with a manufacturer defect, there should be no limitations on my ability to obtain a refund for the product. In the case of software, I don't find it unreasonable to skip past the unreasonable methods I would need to pursue to obtain a refund and purchase a fixed version.
Lemon laws don't exist to protect consumers from the idea that an automobile is a failure, but rather to prevent consumers from being burdened by unreasonable processes for obtaining a working automobile pursuant to the arrangements they made at purchase.
Also, no one should ever feel respect or bound to an EULA. The practice itself is inherently outside of common and established legal practices. If I were presented the license at the time of purchase, prior to paying, I might be able to respect it. Based on the concept of the EULA, I could have my PC pass a counter EULA to the installer or e-mailed to the vendor which outlined my requirements of their software in order to occupy space on my hard drive. If the installer continues, can I not consider their consent to be implied.
It's the same reason, no one thinks twice about installing an ad-block on their browser. They have a right to control what content runs and executes on their computing device. I've voiced the opinion for quite some time that advertisements which attempt to get around ad-blocking actually constitute violations of most computer hacking laws (use of processing time on a computing system without authorization).
The house analogy is much closer to open source. If you find a flaw in the design, such as that thieves figured out how to pry open the windows, then you can't go back and sue the builders. You can however get new locks, add on new security to the house.
Adobe though is more like a landlord who is anal about you making any, even tiny repairs. You aren't allowed to make any changes to the house itself. You find out that thieves have figured out how to pry open the windows. You report this to your landlord, expecting them to make appropriate repairs. They refuse to make reasonable repairs, but tell you that they have a different property for rent, with better secured windows, if you are willing to pay higher rent.
The issue is that since they do not give you the source code to even allow you to make repairs, they should be obligated to make repairs themselves for a decent amount of time.