Comments:"Adobe Community: Recommendations for laptop specs to run CS2 and FrameMaker 8"
URL:http://forums.adobe.com/message/4974662
As far as I can tell, the sequence of events here was as follows.
About 48 hours ago an Audition user encountered the authorisation problem and posted the fix on the AudioMasters web site, which I read. I then drew attention to the availability of the programs and serial numbes on several audio-centric web sites, being careful to post only the "front door" access address which required the use or creation of an Adobe ID.
Nothing much happened for 24 hours apart from some discussion on some of those sites, the discussion being centred on two things -
1 - the legality of accessing and using the files
2 - gratitude to Adobe for making this gesture and general comments about what a good PR move it was.
This morning here in Australia I've woken up to find that the thing has gone viral and clearly it has caused Adobe some difficulty, which as a former moderator here and former long-time active beta tester I'm sorry about - but I acted in good faith and I don't think it can be argued that any downloads by those who did not previously have licences for these products were illegal.
My response yesterday to a forum question about the legal issue was as follows - please forgive the lengthy quote but it's important -
---------------------------------
"The download page is deliberately open to anyone who signs up for an Adobe ID (which if you agree gives them an opportunity to include you in email shots). On the download page they give a serial number for each product and that serial number is the same for everyone. When you install the products the licence says that the product can be used by anyone who has "obtained" it from Adobe (they deliberately don't use the words bought or purchased). It would be a highly technical breach of the licence if someone put the files up for download other than from the Adobe site because then you wouldn't be obtaining it from Adobe.
The software is still being sold by third parties on the internet, but suckers who buy it will discover that it cannot be installed as there is no activation server operating. I don't see anything wrong in making it known that instead paying money for non-working copies of these programs, you can download them for no cost direct from Adobe. Adobe do not support these programs any more so they are not losing money if new users download them (apart from cost of sending them out on the net) and there's some chance that some who download them will purchase current versions down the track.
Why did Adobe do this? There must have been some major reason, cost based, for shutting down the activation server. Perhaps they don't have the staff to maintain the old system, who knows. They could (technically) have restricted access to the download page to those who had registered the software against their pre-existing Adobe IDs. But evidently that did not make economic sense. Anyway, they made a business decision to take this step knowing that some people other than paying customers would avail themselves of the download.
It's a whole lot different from the Reaper [audio DAW software] case where the unrestricted software is accompanied by licence terms which require the users to pay after evaluation. There is no such restriction in this case. I cannot believe any legal authority would consider that there was anything remotely illegal about downloading these files and public serial numbers by people who didn't pay for licences in the days when they were available for purchase."
----------------------------------------
I still stand by those views. Probably there are now enough copies of these files in circulation to prevent Adobe from putting the cat back in the bag, but if they wish to restrict their server load, they could now - I assume - change the page only to allow access by any means to those whose Adobe ID identifies them as previous licence holders, which is an option that presumably they had in the first place. Making the files publically available on their servers, but then expecting "unauthorised" people not to download them, was somewhat naive, especically when the files were accompanied by a licence agreement which did not make the downloading and use of the files illegal. To regularise the legal situation, the licence needs to change the word "obtain" to "purchase". But for those who have already downloaded the files, you can't retrospecitively change the licence.