1. 44
  1.  

  2. 11

    That’s what happens when you post things on platforms you don’t own. They can do what they want with the content.

    1. 7

      Generally true, but if you post it on your website then your hoster might get a DMCA notice and take down your webhosting package or VPS or bare metal server as well, so that doesn’t really help a ton, except less automatic intervention and probably someone at the hoster needs to push a button or will notify you first, and threatening to push the button.

      1. 6

        Yeah but then you can put the server somewhere with decent laws.

        1. 4

          Do you have an example of a hosting service in a country with decent laws? Don’t most countries have US-style copyright legislation?

          1. 3

            This seems like a good starting point: https://www.websiteplanet.com/blog/dmca-ignored-countries/

    2. 8

      I know this is an unpopular opinion, but why is everyone mad at adobe here? I mean they own the copyright, right? What do people expect to happen?

      To be clear, I think this strike is frivolous and absurd, but instead of directing all this ire at Adobe for just doin’ a corporate, why aren’t we all more incensed about the state of copyright law that allows / encourages such a ridiculous claim in the first place? Relying on corporations to “do the right thing” wrt what is effectively but not legally public domain software that has extremely limited market value seems naive and pointless to me. They dgaf.

      1. 9

        As a company you are not legally required to enforce copyright law (as opposed to trademark law mentioned in another comment). For example there is the case of Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142: When DICE shut down the GameSpy servers, they said they couldn’t do anything to help, but would allow for a community solution. So the community stepped up and build there own server code. Currently both games can be downloaded legally for free and played online in ranked mode. The same goes for the mod Project Reality, which is now available as a standalone executable. The copyright law might be the same, but company mindset/culture/ethics can still make a difference. (Note that I totally agree with you that copyright law needs to change)

      2. 1

        Isn’t this a case of adobe having to enforce the copyright in order to keep the copyright on something? Maybe they need to enforce this on an ancient version in order to keep it on updates. Like, they need their “root” copyright otherwise the whole sandcastle would come down.

        27 years ago might be prehistory for computer programs but it was only 1994. I think I can’t still upload or share a song or a movie from 1994, so why would software be different?

        1. 17

          You’re thinking of trademark law. There is no requirement to enforce copyright.

          1. 2

            I wanted to add an edit after I posted the comment. Thank you for clarifying it.

          2. 5

            I’m pretty sure the application is still covered by copyright, which is essentially forever for corporate code.

            The article mentions that Adobe is subcontracting out the DMCA enforcement to a separate company, and they probably have a list saying something like “All Adobe executables online”. They don’t care if it’s even usable nowadays.

            1. 2

              The article mentions that Adobe is subcontracting out the DMCA enforcement to a separate company, and they probably have a list saying something like “All Adobe executables online”. They don’t care if it’s even usable nowadays.

              I wonder if this going to be a point of embarrassment for the subcontractor that went after something so ancient that it is irrelevant, or a point of pride they use to highlight their diligence?