photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

On 11/16/18 11:26 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


Anyone know if this is really true ...



https://www.lightstalking.com/you-br...edium=referral


He is filing a class-action suit. He claims $250K in losses, which if
the filing information is accurate, is probably a reasonable figure.

A pdf of the filing is he
https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/11/07/adobe_suit.pdf

--
Ken Hart

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Anyone know if this is really true ...

https://www.lightstalking.com/you-br...pher-takes-ado
be-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k/

He is filing a class-action suit.

which makes no sense.

He claims $250K in losses, which if
the filing information is accurate, is probably a reasonable figure.

it isn't, since by his own actions, he placed no value on the data.

if he had, he would have taken steps to protect against loss by making
at least one backup. the more valuable the data, the more backups there
would be.

with *no* backups, he could have lost everything due to fire, theft,
mechanical failure, cat peed on the drive, etc., none of which have
anything to do with adobe.

another hard drive is $100 or so, depending on capacity, therefore his
data is worth *less* than that.

a bigger problem is that adobe clearly states (as does every software
vendor) that they are not liable for data loss or other damage for any
reason.

https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
8.2*Indemnification.*You will indemnify us and our subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners, and licensors from
any claim, demand, loss, or damage, including reasonable attorneys¹
fees, arising out of or related to your Content, your use of the
Services or Software, or your violation of the Terms.
....
9.2*We specifically disclaim all liability for any actions resulting
from your use of any Services or Software. You may use and access the
Services or Software at your own discretion and risk, and you are
solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of
data that results from the use of and access to any Service or
Software.
....
10.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, we are not liable to you
or anyone else for any loss of use, data, goodwill, or profits,
whatsoever, and any special, incidental, indirect, consequential, or
punitive damages whatsoever, regardless of cause (even if we have
been advised of the possibility of the loss or damages), including
losses and damages (a) resulting from loss of use, data, or profits,
whether or not foreseeable; (b) based on any theory of liability,
including breach of contract or warranty, negligence or other
tortious action; or (c) arising from any other claim arising out of
or in connection with your use of or access to the Services or
Software. Nothing in the Terms limits or excludes our liability for
gross negligence, for our, or our employees¹, intentional misconduct,
or for death or personal injury.

10.2*Our total liability in any matter arising out of or related to
the Terms is limited to US $100 or the aggregate amount that you paid
for access to the Service and Software during the three-month period
preceding the event giving rise to the liability, whichever is
larger. This limitation will apply regardless of the form or source
of claim or loss, whether the claim or loss was foreseeable, and
whether a party has been advised of the possibility of the claim or
loss.

A pdf of the filing is he
https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/11/07/adobe_suit.pdf

entertaining reading. he takes stupidity to a new level.

from that, he admits that he had *no* backups in a *seven* *year*
period.

he also had a drobo, which is well known to not be particularly
reliable.

he claims to have run data rescue on it, which i'm surprised it even
attempted to recover given how drobos work, so it's not surprising it
found nothing in that instance (excellent app otherwise).

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

On 11/16/2018 3:10 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 11/16/18 11:26 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


Anyone know if this is really true ...



https://www.lightstalking.com/you-br...edium=referral



He is filing a class-action suit. He claims $250K in losses, which if
the filing information is accurate, is probably a reasonable figure.

A pdf of the filing is he
https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/11/07/adobe_suit.pdf

Back when I was doing music stuff the recommendation wasn't just
multiple backups but also do them in different media. I'm guessing
that's valid advice for any valuable data.
~~
I'm finding it a bit hard to imagine any professional that's that clueless.
[ ...but, sadly, I guess they do exist.]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

In article , Ron C
wrote:

Back when I was doing music stuff the recommendation wasn't just
multiple backups but also do them in different media. I'm guessing
that's valid advice for any valuable data.

different media doesn't matter. the key is to have multiple backups in
multiple locations.

having more than one backup at the same location, regardless of media,
won't help should a fire destroy all of them...

~~
I'm finding it a bit hard to imagine any professional that's that clueless.
[ ...but, sadly, I guess they do exist.]

they definitely exist, and ransomware takes advantage of that.

blackmailing someone to recover their files won't work if they have a
backup ready to restore...

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

In article , Ron C
says...

Back when I was doing music stuff the recommendation wasn't just
multiple backups but also do them in different media. I'm guessing
that's valid advice for any valuable data.

Indeed. I have multiple backups of everything, on different media. How
can a pro work without backups?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

On 17/11/18 11:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Ron C
says...

Back when I was doing music stuff the recommendation wasn't just
multiple backups but also do them in different media. I'm guessing
that's valid advice for any valuable data.

Indeed. I have multiple backups of everything, on different media. How
can a pro work without backups?


I use Tresorit as they offer an auto syncing zero-knowledge-encrypted[1]
service that works on Windows, Linux, Mac, Android and iOS.

It's not very expensive and I value my family snaps enough to back them up.

If I were a Pro doing paid work I would backup my raw takes to at least
one site and the final edited sub selection to 2 places.

The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD
disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really
need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an
X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age.

Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.

[1] Zero knowledge means that the provider cannot decrypt your files and
you are safe even if their servers are stolen. Important for client
confidentiality and copyright protection.

--
Email does not work

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

On 11/16/18 5:31 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Anyone know if this is really true ...

https://www.lightstalking.com/you-br...pher-takes-ado
be-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k/

He is filing a class-action suit.

which makes no sense.

He claims $250K in losses, which if
the filing information is accurate, is probably a reasonable figure.

it isn't, since by his own actions, he placed no value on the data.

if he had, he would have taken steps to protect against loss by making
at least one backup. the more valuable the data, the more backups there
would be.

with *no* backups, he could have lost everything due to fire, theft,
mechanical failure, cat peed on the drive, etc., none of which have
anything to do with adobe.

another hard drive is $100 or so, depending on capacity, therefore his
data is worth *less* than that.

a bigger problem is that adobe clearly states (as does every software
vendor) that they are not liable for data loss or other damage for any
reason.

https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
8.2Â*Indemnification.Â*You will indemnify us and our subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners, and licensors from
any claim, demand, loss, or damage, including reasonable attorneys¹
fees, arising out of or related to your Content, your use of the
Services or Software, or your violation of the Terms.
...
9.2Â*We specifically disclaim all liability for any actions resulting
from your use of any Services or Software. You may use and access the
Services or Software at your own discretion and risk, and you are
solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of
data that results from the use of and access to any Service or
Software.
...
10.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, we are not liable to you
or anyone else for any loss of use, data, goodwill, or profits,
whatsoever, and any special, incidental, indirect, consequential, or
punitive damages whatsoever, regardless of cause (even if we have
been advised of the possibility of the loss or damages), including
losses and damages (a) resulting from loss of use, data, or profits,
whether or not foreseeable; (b) based on any theory of liability,
including breach of contract or warranty, negligence or other
tortious action; or (c) arising from any other claim arising out of
or in connection with your use of or access to the Services or
Software. Nothing in the Terms limits or excludes our liability for
gross negligence, for our, or our employees¹, intentional misconduct,
or for death or personal injury.

10.2Â*Our total liability in any matter arising out of or related to
the Terms is limited to US $100 or the aggregate amount that you paid
for access to the Service and Software during the three-month period
preceding the event giving rise to the liability, whichever is
larger. This limitation will apply regardless of the form or source
of claim or loss, whether the claim or loss was foreseeable, and
whether a party has been advised of the possibility of the claim or
loss.

A pdf of the filing is he
https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/11/07/adobe_suit.pdf

entertaining reading. he takes stupidity to a new level.

from that, he admits that he had *no* backups in a *seven* *year*
period.

he also had a drobo, which is well known to not be particularly
reliable.

he claims to have run data rescue on it, which i'm surprised it even
attempted to recover given how drobos work, so it's not surprising it
found nothing in that instance (excellent app otherwise).


I have forwarded your comments to his attorney listed on the filing, so
that in the off-chance you are selected for the jury, you can be
eliminated in voir dire.
You're welcome.

--
Ken Hart

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD
disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really
need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an
X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age.

using sd cards is *not* cheaper, *not* practical and not reliable. a
bad choice all around.

using an ssd for backup purposes is a waste of money because the speed
advantages are lost. use an ssd for the main drive and spinners for
backup purposes.

Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.

that's automatic with modern file systems.

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

I have forwarded your comments to his attorney listed on the filing,

no you didn't.

so
that in the off-chance you are selected for the jury, you can be
eliminated in voir dire.

it won't get that far.

photographer-takes-adobe-to-court-for-deleting-photos-worth-250k
 

On 17/11/18 17:11, nospam wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

The cheaper way is to copy to a decent make of SD card or external SSD
disk (less chance of mechanical failure) but the downside is you really
need to have a yearly regime of checking all devices are readable and an
X-yearly regime of "copy to new device" - even SSDs fail with age.

using sd cards is *not* cheaper, *not* practical and not reliable. a
bad choice all around.

I disagree on all 3 counts. On what basis do you make your arguments?


using an ssd for backup purposes is a waste of money because the speed
advantages are lost. use an ssd for the main drive and spinners for
backup purposes.


You missed the point - spinners are mechanical. They are prone to damage
due to shock (handling and dropping) and if used for offline archival
purposes, run the risk of seizing if left unpowered for long periods
(years).

SSDs lose the mechanical problems which greatly increase the reliability.

But even so, I wouldn't put any device in a drawer and forget about it
for several years, but if I did, I'd bet on the SSD and flash cards
being more likely to still work.


Ideally all files should have a checksum file written with them (MD5,
SHA1 or anything reasonable) and this used to verify files on an annual
basis.

that's automatic with modern file systems.


No it isn't.

The only common filesystems with *file data* checksums are ZFS, BtrFS -
both linux (and one also Solaris).

exFAT has only metadata checksumming.

The rest with file data checksumming a SquashFS, ReFS, NILFS and NOVA
and of those, SquashFS is the only one I've seen anywhere in use.

So yes, you really need to run a checksum generator at the start and
that is the only way you can be reasonably sure your data has not
suffered corruption.

--
Email does not work