OntheRez Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Ian,
You've raised a compelling and troubling question here, one that I've given a bit of thought to as I continue to resist mafiaware but find myself increasingly hemmed in.
In theory a raw file is a raw file. It is catholic (note small c.) If Adobe ACR has been updated to support the camera, it should be a no brainer - BUT. It's technically possible to tie a CC program to a particular camera(s). Every raw file has a unique camera identifier embed in it. The ID is deep in the exif and none of us bother to notice it, but Lr for example (and Ps) could require the software owner to "register" his/her camera(s) with their program either by connecting to the computer or demanding the ID or there are several ways to do it.
In this case if you took the raw from your camera to someone else's copy of Lr it could be set to reject opening it because it isn't associated with that copy's registered IDs. No doubt such a policy would engender incredible outrage from photographers. I suspect even our most ardent Adobe shills - say Chez - would have a hard time spinning this into something good for users. But wait how about the effect on users? Well, I haven't noticed Adobe demonstrating much concern for its users.
It is of course possible to export Lr files as TIFFs that theoretically can be dealt with by a variety of software and OS. Again, while I'm not intimately familiar with the TIFF standard, I suspect it wouldn't be hard to insert an ID header to get a similar result. As for virtual copies, it would be trivial to limit them only to the registed software that creates them.
So it is entirely possible - at least technically - for Adobe to pull such a trick.
I find it funny (as in ironic, not "ha ha") that the two biggest reasons Adobe gave for going to the subscription model were (1) to combat piracy, and (2) "…provide a continuous stream of improvement thus not forcing users to wait for major upgrades." (The whole tax thing was cooked up later to quell dissent. It was NEVER mentioned in the early selling of CC.) Well, piracy is alive and well. They cracked Adobe's protection even before it went to market and has continued to defeat Adobe's efforts to make it harder. "Continuous Improvement?" Am I the only one who has noticed CC2014 and now CC2015? And the fact that each had several supposedly significant improvements that obviously weren't streamed immediately to subscribers?
It bothers me to say it, but Ian, you may well prove to be a prophet.
Robert
|