Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:30 PM UTC

tobyhinloopen wrote: post #280

Aachen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that legal in the USA? Entering into a purchase agreement ("koopovereenkomst", not sure if I'm translating the jargon correctly) and then just not paying? Because that's certainly not legal where I live. I understand that the odds of repercussions are small and that there are no damages on Adobe's side since you haven't physically taken their goods so it would probably have to be taken up by the public prosecutor…

I did the same. I just stopped paying and told my CC company to block transactions because I never agreed to them. Adobe is very unclear about what you’re actually agreeing to up until the point you’re cancelling. I just blocked transactions and never heard from them again (except for some emails). If they want to fight it, good luck winning it in Dutch courts when the conditions are unclear.

Post by blacklight » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:40 PM UTC

Post by modo_mario » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

swebs wrote: post #360

akerro wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "updates are recommended", followed by "updates are strongly recommended", and more recently, "updates are mandatory". This is 5 years old, today we are doing: Updates happen in background automatically without user knowing and sometimes when autoupdated software is being used at the time, it crashes when new action is performed and all not saved user data is lost. Move fast, break things!

That's my experience every time Firefox updates these days through unattended-upgrades. The sad thing is that it handled it just fine without crashing up until a few years ago.

Post by tremon » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

Reelin wrote: post #171

petre wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you have timestamped file metadata l, but not tge data, or checksumed IDS records? Would that qualify as sufficient evidence?

No. It's evidence that something was lost, but not a measure of the actual damages you suffered. Whose to say if you lost $100 or $100k? In the absence of the lost material there's most likely no way to demonstrate anything. In this case some sort of statutory deterrent would probably be a much more effective solution. I honestly doubt that regulation is a good solution here though - bugs like this are so severe from…

Post by ukyrgf » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

blacklight wrote: post #363

This is a common mistake when it comes to cloud synchronization with an equally simple fix. When you compare a set of items A on the user device against a set of items B on the cloud you should FIRST check (either through file name, hash or creation/modification timestamp) that: - An item in A is not present in B before uploading it to B. - An item in A is present in B and has changed on A before updating it on B. -…