Adobe Photoshop CC Has Already Been Pirated In Just One Day

Adobe Photoshop CC Has Already Been Pirated In Just One Day

With all the recent discussion about Adobe's Creative Cloud model and the polarizing opinions surrounding it, one of the topics people have been mentioning is how it will stop the pirating of Photoshop and other Adobe products in the suite. Some felt that many people were just upset with the model because it could no longer be pirated by those who did not pay. 

Now that Photoshop Creative Cloud went live just the other day, we didn't know what to expect. However, news is out that just a day after the release, Photoshop CC has already been pirated and available. Although we do not condone piracy, we're shocked to see that it was that easy to circumvent the new model. The reason is how CC works, “An Internet connection is required the first time you install and license your desktop apps, but you can use the apps in offline mode with a valid software license. The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days.”

With the constant need for validation and continual updates through the cloud, many felt it would be difficult to pirate something that requires constant contact for it to stay updated. However, it took no less than a day for pirates to get around it.

We're not engineers by any means, however you would think that any means of pirating the software would have been cross checked so it would not be possible this time around. Considering Photoshop is one of the most pirated software in the world, is it by design that makes it so hard to stop? We'd like to hear your thoughts.

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments
RUSS T.'s picture

i would assume that HACKERS would be the people that pirated the software.
The photographers, I assume, didn't hack the software.
But what do i know. :).

SO. RIGHT. It blows my freaking mind that people dont understand this!!!

It's unlikely that Adobe will ever admit it, but given how easy it's always been to pirate, I think it's an unofficial business strategy; get the kids hooked into the Adobe ecosystem, then they'll end up using it professionally.

Of course, that makes more sense for something like Premiere or After Effects, where there's competition... Is there even an alternative to Photoshop? GIMP doesn't count.

There'll always be an element of the piracy contingent that are fundamentally opposed to paying for software- those aren't lost sales, because they would never have paid for it even if it was impossible to pirate. Creative Cloud is a way to try to get the "maybe"s on board- maybe they would pay for it one day if they saved up; but now at $20-70 a month with support and cloud features, it's much easier to budget for.

Piracy is a response to a gap in the market, and Creative Cloud is Adobe's effort at closing that gap. Copyright and patent laws were written for a different age, and we should start adapting our thought processes to a world of infinite digital copiability (I say that as an artist and writer, and a CC subscriber). Rather than bring out the lawyers and lobbyists to maintain their sales of buggy whips (ie. the Hollywood model), Adobe is trying a market forces approach, which they should be applauded for.

Adam Cross's picture

you can always use instead of Photoshop, it's free and works pretty well though not really a competitor to Photoshop

I have to take issue with your proposition that Adobe is taking a "market forces approach." Adobe didn't let the market choose between a perpetual license vs software as a service. They took a force-the-market approach. Yes, this approach benefits some users but certainly not all.
I feel bad for saying it but this news brought a smile to my face. Adobe flushed every ounce of the considerable good will I felt for them prior to going rental-only (along with the not-inconsiderable check they would get from me every 18 months.)

They didn't want your check every 18 months. That's why they were having cash flow problems and the ensuing share under-valuation.

Sometimes the market does just have to be forced. If we stayed with what we're comfortable with, we'd still be living in the 1700s.

Antonio Carrasco's picture

Adobe is not having cash flow problems! They were already making money hand over fist

Making money and cash flow are quite different things. Imagine getting paid at your job only once a year.

Antonio Carrasco's picture

If my paycheck was billions of dollars, I think I could make do.

How can you compare 1 person/family getting a billion dollar paycheck to a company with over 9000 employees? They have to pay for computers / phone systems / sick leave / vacation / buildings / ect / ect. Do the math.

And don't forget about paying dividends to their investors.

Sadly, ADBE doesn't currently pay regular dividends, though they may opt to dish them out at their discretion. :) But, point taken.

Antonio Carrasco's picture

Dude, Adobe is not hurting for money. That argument holds no water

Never said they were hurting for money, but bad cash flow can severely hamper or destroy a business. Focusing just on "a billion dollars" like they don't have to pay a majority of it out to actually run the business is an argument that holds no water.

Imagine only doing something worthy of being paid once a year. People haven't been upgrading consistently because Adobe's upgrades are usually of tenuous value. Telling people they don't get to decide when they give the company their money is nothing more than complaining that Adobe hasn't given customers good value for their money and so now they're going to force their customer's to pay for their software regardless of additional value.

Actually, they did ask their customers about what they wanted. I participated in a number of their surveys over the years.

I would bet that there were no questions like "Would you prefer to own your software or rent your software?"

Well, you *never* owned your softwares, before or after the CC ;)

You OWNED a license. You could USE that license for as long as your machine and OS would support it. With CC you cannot. ;)

I can write poll questions to get any answer I want, it doesn't mean the result is accurate. Based on the reaction to their decision by a great many people, those polls didn't really produce accurate data.

...there's not an After Effects competitor. Not at that price point. If there is, someone please let me know.

foundry nuke is worth the price....

AE is like a VW beetle.... nuke a lamborghini.

You're right, but we're talking about different price points. Nuke is $4000+, last time I checked. They're not competitors. There's nothing else in the AE space for low-end visual effects and fast motion graphics. Apple Motion tries to be, but it doesn't do the same stuff.

David Peterson's picture

Check out HitFilm 2 as an alternative, cheap and straight forward to use yet with lots of power for it's market position.

Since I was talking about the piracy of AE as a deterrent to competition, the price point is largely irrelevant. I don't know if Nuke is piratable though. But since you ask:

Blender (free) actually works surprisingly well as an AE competitor, though the workflow is more complex (but in some ways, more powerful).

HitFilm ($400) is a quite serviceable competitor to AE. Better in some ways, lacking in others, depending on your needs.

Those are the couple off the top of my head, anyway.

I hadn't heard of HitFilm before. I'll check it out. Thank you!

(I don't consider Blender an AE substitute, but some people might be inclined to use it that way)

Point taken about the piracy issue.

Even though the Blender Foundation's latest Open Short Film project, "Tears of Steel" demonstrated its compositing capablilities, there are still numerous features to be added into Blender's Compositor so that its qualities are comparable to the existing professional compositing software in the market today.

Having said that, the Blender Foundation has been making good consistency to improve Blender.

You will be hearing more of them in the coming months...

I'm a big fan of Blender, particularly its rapid development and expansion over the last two years- I found it at 2.49 and couldn't use it, it was too "open source." The function and UI are pretty impressive now though, and Tears Of Steel and Sintel are mind-bogglingly impressive statements of intent for a piece of free software.

The quality of the final product with Blender mostly depends on the
renderer you use. It can be very good. Though overall, it's definitely
more suited for pure 3D work than mograph and quick'n'dirty comping.

I only discovered HitFilm about a year ago, and it didn't seem like much
then. It seems to have come on leaps and bounds since, though. You're welcome. :)

To be honest, Hitfilm is relatively new in the FX/Compositing market. As seen in FXHome's Kickstarter campaign, there is the demand. As for comparable features, there's still room to grow for Hitfilm to be an alternative to After Effects.

I've used both AE and HitFilm. Both are great products at their price points. HitFilm comes with a good particle generator that's between CC and Particular. It is also a serviceable editor.

More comments