How is taking away an ability my computer had, without my consent, not threatening my freedom? (I'd like to see the EULAs for the affected Windows and Flash versions, too. I don't recall reading licenses for on-prem installed software that talk about the licensor being free to arbitrarily disable or remove features.)
> How is taking away an ability my computer had, without my consent, not threatening my freedom?
Because "threatening my freedom" is either a) an incredible overreaction, or b) meaningless.
You are not going to have your freedoms curtailed. You will not go to prison. You will be able to share your opinion on the matter without restriction. You may continue to practice your chosen religion. You will not be taxed. You will not have additional restrictions placed upon your travel. You will not be required to house troops in your residence.
You can even choose to not install the OS update, and your old software will continue to work. You can choose to reinstall an old version of the OS, and your old software will continue to work.
Perhaps you desire an ongoing and perpetual right to download new versions of a commercial software product, which will never include changes that you do not personally desire. That right does not exist and it never has. This is not a threat to your freedom.
> You can even choose to not install the OS update, and your old software will continue to work. You can choose to reinstall an old version of the OS, and your old software will continue to work.
?? It's possible to hack around the update, but it's a forcibly-pushed update that breaks something on your machine, and the only easy way to stop it is to go offline permanently
Why would you expect that doing something that goes against what everyone else wants, would have been made easy for you? You're basically becoming your own "distro" of Windows. Of course that's hard.
But the point the GP is making is that it's also not totally implausible to do, if there were any real motivation for people to pursue it.
There was a real reason for people to want to "take control" of Android, and so we got LineageOS.
You don't own the software. You didn't even purchase the Flash player. Adobe has zero obligations to you. You could turn around and claim their behavior is a CFAA violation but good luck winning.
ok, but if the machine was working offline you'd still be able to play one of those flash games right?
I really couldn't care less about the agreements, they are something nobody can afford to read and many times something that can be changed without notice anyways.
I get that. I understand that software is licensed.
I agreed to a license. If that license doesn't say that the "manufacturer" can arbitrarily remove features at a later date then I'm not sure how they get a pass for that.
Edit (to your edit): Yeah. It sounds criminal to me. They'd be exceeding their access granted to my system. Definitely sounds like CFAA territory in the US. Fat chance that anything would be done about it, but it can still piss me off (and make me try to gin-up pissed-off feelings in other people).
7.2 Updating. If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed.
10. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL ADOBE, ITS SUPPLIERS, OR CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR COSTS WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS, EVEN IF AN ADOBE REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS, DAMAGES, OR CLAIMS. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS APPLY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW IN YOUR JURISDICTION. ADOBE’S AGGREGATE LIABILITY AND THAT OF ITS SUPPLIERS AND CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE, IF ANY.
So their argument would be that you accepted that the software would update automatically and that in any event you'd have no claim for loss. Does CFAA apply once you've already bent over?
A) You did consent, as you indicated here. B) Your computer still has the ability to run Flash programs, this is removing the Adobe Flash Player, not disabling Flash programs entirely, which leads to C) The Flash Player is disabling itself on January 13th, so Microsoft is not removing any capability for you at all, Adobe is, and D) since it’s free software they licensed to you, the have every right in the world to make it do whatever they want (including making it not work any longer), and you have every right in the world to remove the app early if you don’t like what it provides.
The Flash EULA[1] contains language about updates re:
If your Computer is connected to the Internet, the Software may, without additional notice, check for Updates that are available for automatic download and installation to your Computer and let Adobe know the Software is successfully installed. The Software may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Adobe. These updates may take the form of bug fixes, new features, or new versions. You agree to receive such updates from Adobe as part of your use of the Software.
I could see an argument that a self-destruct mechanism is a "bug fix" or a "new version". I could also see an argument that it's not.
I'm coming around to the line of thinking that another poster mentioned-- that this could be considered Adobe criminally exceeding the access to my system that I've granted them. I agreed to updates. Not to removal of functionality.
I can't do a damned thing about it, but it pisses me off, and I want other people to be pissed off about it to. Taking away functionality in somebody else's computer is unethical in my moral framework. Normalizing that idea is dangerous and wrong to me, too.
Edit: Would it be your contention that all software developers have the right to remove functionality in their software at any time? Does consideration paid factor into that? What if it's expeditious for my business model to disable my older software to get you to move to my new software? Does such disabling constitute an "update"?
At this point my primary concern is that the language and severity you’re claiming here diminishes the impact of future discussions, when something vastly more serious may actually be an overreach.
It's that important to me. Maybe it isn't to you. So be it.
Computing has been a major part of my life for 35 years. I wish that I didn't have dependence in proprietary software but I do. Within that context this matters a lot to me.
Normalizing the idea that the developers of proprietary software are acting ethically (if within their legal rights, which I would dispute) when they remove functionality is very troubling to me.
I would rather that this kind of behavior, on the part of developers, be both socially taboo and illegal. Failing illegal I'll settle for socially taboo.
What would it look like, if you were over-reacting? What facts would come to light that'd make you say, "Oops, my bad!"?
Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action?
What would it look like, if you were over-reacting? What facts would come to light that'd make you say, "Oops, my bad!"?
It's difficult for me to conceive of my reaction as an overreaction. I would like to explore that dialogue, but I can't get myself into a place to work from. I just can't do it.
Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action?
People won't know what general purpose computers are. They'll accept silly ideas like "Well, my computer just can't do that thing anymore." The full value that computers can bring to individuals and to society won't be realized.
General purpose computers are a unique invention in human history. I hold the value they bring to humanity in high esteem. I think their ability to affect positive change on the human condition is difficult to understate.
I perceive a systematic effort, and a manifest effect brought on by the marketplace, to eliminate access to general purpose computing for individuals and to replace computers with vaguely computer-shaped appliances.
We're racing headlong into a "The Right to Read" scenario. Feeling that it's normal to accept somebody altering your computer because you agreed to a vaguely-worded license agreement stilted heavily in the favor of the software developer isn't alright. The more people think that's alright the worse things are for everybody.
You're not "Sorry", though. You're just dismissing me.
Not being able to conceive that I'm not overreacting doesn't mean that I can't conceive that I'm wrong. It means that I can't conceive that I'm overreacting.
I had a hard time responding to your first inquiry. I responded to your "Alternatively..." inquiry as an alternative. Instead of addressing what I could respond to you just dismiss me. That disappoints me.
The discomfort you're experiencing is not caused by me, it's caused by the fact that you're aware of your own unreasonableness here. What you do with that discomfort is up to you.
