Let thy conscience be thy guide. In all things. hehe

I would expect it boils down to the simple fact of avoiding making any further investment in a discontinued product. Standing up another server would cost money. Developing a system to ensure that only genuine CS2 licensees can take advantage of the situation would also cost money. Just tossing the files and directions up on existing infrastructure is the cheapest way to ensure those licensees are still supported. At the same time it's a considerable goodwill gesture towards those affected users; other companies might not bother at all.

On the other hand, people taking advantage of this combination goodwill gesture and least-cost solution probably wouldn't buy CS anyway if they're jumping on an eight-year-old version (and I expect Adobe is well aware of that). But that still doesn't make it right to do so; it'd be no different from just taking an item sold on the honor system without leaving the money.

I think you said it best Kryo. Adobe's popularity not withstanding their products, in particular Photoshop, is an industry leader and to some highly coveted. So human nature takes over and a freebie, even seemingly so, is still a freebie in some eyes. If I didn't have what I have now in all honesty I would have jumped on it. If you love working with graphics like I do and can't afford the high end stuff you do what ya gotta do. Right or wrong if its put out there people will reach out and grab. Nature of the beast.

The ambiguity of the situation is the only clear thing about it.

Adobe could settle this one way or the other by stating on the download page, "This is for legally licensed software owners only." However, Adobe has not done so.

No one has come forward with a statement that Adobe contacted him/her with that download link and serial by email, etc.

When a person leaves his car door unlocked and ajar and theft of property occurs, the car owner is partially guilty for the theft as he/she left the door ajar and no effort was made to prevent the theft: Indeed, the owner winked at the thief and took no reasonable step to ensure security.

Here, the software is old and the seller has left it in the open, and even provided a key to anyone happening upon it. Moreso, Adobe advertised the link.

While anyone downloading the software without a legally obtained license is doing so in a less than honest way, I wouldn't go so far as defining it as a theft or a crime. Here the temptation is winking at a person who under other circumstances might well have made no effort to obtain that software. Adobe is equally or more at fault, and I don't think Adobe cares one way or another about any unlicensed download.

Not for an older product when you consider what CS6 is capable of or CS5 for that matter. Its like driving a Chevy and some one comes along and hands you the keys to a Caddy and says go. Have a nice day. lol

Yes, it's still theft.

Quaintly there was a talkback radio session about the legality of 'finding'/keeping a $50 note on the footpath.....

It all got a little 'silly' when it was stated it would classify as litter...and thus was the responsibility of the council to collect/retrieve....and to pick it up was theft from the council.  [rather than civic duty in helping keep the footpath 'clean']....;p

If a door is unlocked and open it's not 'breaking and entering' [entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime.]...it's 'trespass' [Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property".^[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. "[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser", however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.^[13]] ...still a crime.

Downloading/using these Adobe products will still be unlawful unless you had purchased them previously and need the re-download...;)

Good old Jafo. Black and White, no room for grey.

Reminds me of a show called Bait Car. The Police have a car that is wired up with cameras and a kill switch. They leave it in crime ridden areas of a city with the keys in the ignition and the door open. Sure enough the car gets stolen. I say it's entrapment.

The word 'entrapment' goes to how one got caught.  "Getting caught" being the operative part of the argument.  One usually doesn't 'get caught' doing the right thing.  

If it was meant for only existing customers, why the process to download the applications doesn't require validation. Adobe just wants more users.

I guess you can liken it to being a different kind of word of mouth. The more people do with it the more they may like it and spread the word to those who can shell out a few hundred dollars for the software or perhaps Adobe is trying to do what other companies like the makers of Bryce and Hexagon did. They put their high end software out there for free for a limited time. That's how I got Hexagon. Its worth about 250.00 US (going by what I read awhile back). It was supposed to be for thirty days but the popularity made them extend the give away. Is Adobe testing the waters? All are valid arguments here but only Adobe has the answer. I'm kind of leaning towards the marketing ploy, whatever that is. Dangle the carrot and see how many take a bite. 

You confuse between "the right thing" and "the legal thing".

Again: Adobe could clarify the situation. They are not doing so. Why? Maybe for no particular reason, but I don't buy that. Maybe because it gets people like us to say "Adobe" enough to make it worth the out of date edition of the software.

Not to put too fine an edge on it: Anyone leaving a car unattended with the keys in the ignition should expect to have it taken.Is it right/legal to take it? No.

I can understand the concepts that Jafo put forward, but I also understand that either Adobe was being careless (which I doubt) or they don't care. The latter doesn't change the fact that unlicensed downloaders aren't doing it legally, but are they unjustified? No. They are human.

Adobe's up to something. Maybe it's just getting people used to using Photoshop with software which at this point is old hat. Maybe they did it this way to give people a "cheap thrill" of getting one over on the system or getting something for free which really isn't.

Either way, Adobe's plenty smart, and probably disappointed Jafo isn't playing by playing by the rules.

Maybe the whole thing was done to get him away from Paintshop Pro.

I doubt that would be an issue for a company with the size and wealth of adobe.  Seriously, if Adobe wanted to restrict the downloads of CS2 to registered users only it could easily do so.  The fact that it hasn't tells me there's more to it than appeasing its CS2 users. 

For mine, it's a Claytons publicity stunt... the publicity stunt they're having when they're not having an official publicity stunt.  Oh well, Jafo will know what I mean even if nobody else does

they wouldn't offer an eight years old PowerPC Mac version then. 

 also this "only for registrated users" thing might be hard to do, when registration server has gone belly-up.

Moshi, I find Adobe's action incomprehensible.

If they wanted to protect the product, the could have or taken it offline until a secure online method could be replaced.

The way this was done conveys a certain cavalier attitude.

If asked, I'd say the only thing preventing them from saying, "Here, take it." would be the wrath of customers who paid for it in the past.

Yes, a Claytons stunt it is...;)

Good publicity...;p

it's not that easy. they say their registration server had problems and they decided to turn it off.

so: no installations of already bought software possible. now, who still runs CS2? mostly schools and universities i guess. i can only speak for my university, they did fresh installs of all software regularly.

while it sure would be possible to get the old registration data with forensic measures and set up a new registration system so that customers could log in with their serial numbers to download software versions that do not require a registaration server, that would not only cost money, but much much more importantly time. time their customers do not have. "no Photoshop course this semester ..."

it's not like they are loosing any money here. the freeloaders that get eight years old software are not likely to ever buy their software.

legal action from customers that are not able to use their purchased software might cost mouney though.

How much it costs in situations such as this is rarely relevant. Once you've discontinued a product, you don't spend *anything* on it if you can help it. That's the entire point of discontinuing it.

They are just as justified as I would be in taking a soda from the office fridge without tossing the change in the bucket (i.e., not at all). An Adobe employee already posted on their forums that this was only intended to support existing CS2 licensees, so they deserve the benefit of the doubt until an official announcement is made.

Everyone in the office knows you're the one who did it, kryo.

Seriously? Ask yourself how critical the need for CS2 is at any given time due to accidental deletion, etc. Why put it up like that, then? Why not an announcement, "Server's gone belly up, email us with your licensing info and number we'll reply with a link." - if it's a temporary matter. If not, and they're no longer supporting it, then why all the bother?

Support costs money.

Because doing what they did is exactly the cheapest way to not piss off those people (more likely, companies and institutions) who actually did buy it (and therefore might have grounds for a legal complaint, if they had support contracts, etc.).

They clearly don't want to spend the time on their old customers by providing direct support that way.

Says about as much about them as the silliness of what they chose as a solution.

Exactly. For them, the serious customers are institutions and high end graphic artists and photographers.... The ones which opt for CS5 and 6.

Seriously excellent work can be done with Ps 7... just ask WebGizmos. I think he could put out Master quality work on a freakin' Etch A Sketch (dunno what the other Masters use, but would be fun to survey them). I've seen stuff turned out on MS Paint which would knock your socks off.

Probably 99% of folks who availed themselves of CS2 couldn't draw a straight line, and wouldn't be serious Adobe/Corel, etc. customers anyway.

Just out of curiosity.....what version would PS7 be? I use PS7

would be version number 7. (CS 1 included version 8).

Boy.....am I ancient!!