Yes but one doesn't expect that to apply to files that are not being worked on. Even if he backed up to the cloud using something like iCloud, it would have erased his files from the backup as well, since most cloud services sync their data. Moreover, his external drive might've been a RAID5 or a Mirror, which is technically a live backup and would've done the same thing.
I love iCloud, but it's not an appropriate medium really for the kind of backups that pros need.
RAID5 is not a backup solution either. It's just a redundancy for drive failure, but not if a crazy ex drops a sledgehammer on it.
I use a 12TB RAID5 array for my photography work. When I import a new shoot, I compress that shoot into a zipped folder, then upload it into my Dropbox account and forget about it. I use Lightroom for my primary cataloging so I do backups of the catalog file from time-to-time. Worst case, I lose my edits since the prior backup, but never the original files. I sleep well at night knowing this. It only takes minutes to do. Minutes!!
This guy is a rookie, lazy, or both. If he's so "sought-after", he should have known better. I'd love to be a bug on the wall when he explains (i.e. "lies") to his clients about what really happened.
Backup is not a solution to vendor reckless technology product. Yes it helps, but no vendor should look into customer backups to correct for their irresponsible developers and testers. Glitches happen and backups are for those incidents - not for migration, upgrade, update. I see that someone finally took matters to another level just to teach right lesson. It is also a message to clumsy engineers to pay attention to security and customer data retention or they maybe held responsible and here is the answer to question: "So what are gona do?" 5 million.. or more or less.
Backup is not a solution to vendor reckless technology product. Yes it helps, but no vendor should look into customer backups to correct for their irresponsible developers and testers. Glitches happen and backups are for those incidents - not for migration, upgrade, update. I see that someone finally took matters to another level just to teach right lesson. It is also a message to clumsy engineers to pay attention to security and customer data retention or they maybe held responsible and here is the answer to question: "So what are gona do?" 5 million.. or more or less.
And for thoise who think that some piece of paper written by vendor is binding agreement - weel it is not. Ruling is by judge so do not be smart Alec making some clever writeup because all these are subject to local laws and can be waved. It remionds me those non-compete agreements signed in wrong place - you can ignore them aas any attorney will simply prove they are misplaced and non-enforcable. They serve only purpose to scare people of, but not everybody gets scared so eaisly. Some may even counter-sue for damages.
Yes but one doesn't expect that to apply to files that are not being worked on. Even if he backed up to the cloud using something like iCloud, it would have erased his files from the backup as well, since most cloud services sync their data. Moreover, his external drive might've been a RAID5 or a Mirror, which is technically a live backup and would've done the same thing.
I love iCloud, but it's not an appropriate medium really for the kind of backups that pros need.
RAID5 is not a backup solution either. It's just a redundancy for drive failure, but not if a crazy ex drops a sledgehammer on it.
I use a 12TB RAID5 array for my photography work. When I import a new shoot, I compress that shoot into a zipped folder, then upload it into my Dropbox account and forget about it. I use Lightroom for my primary cataloging so I do backups of the catalog file from time-to-time. Worst case, I lose my edits since the prior backup, but never the original files. I sleep well at night knowing this. It only takes minutes to do. Minutes!!
This guy is a rookie, lazy, or both. If he's so "sought-after", he should have known better. I'd love to be a bug on the wall when he explains (i.e. "lies") to his clients about what really happened.
Agreed. "Well so sorry, I didn't bother with any backups and I upgraded some software knowing this ... it's all their fault ..."
I wonder if she shoots with dual write cards in his camera? Or is just planning to sue one fails and he wasn't?
Yes but one doesn't expect that to apply to files that are not being worked on. Even if he backed up to the cloud using something like iCloud, it would have erased his files from the backup as well, since most cloud services sync their data. Moreover, his external drive might've been a RAID5 or a Mirror, which is technically a live backup and would've done the same thing.
The guy is the master of his own problems. His first mistake was to moves the cache to his media HD, his second mistake is to manually clean the cache once it was on his media drive.
Well, I think what happen to him is the best out come for him, because eventually every mechanical drive failed. At least now he as someone to blame beside himself.
Can everyone quit slagging the guy for not having sufficient backup? Should he have had it? Definitely. But there's absolutely, positively zero excuse for vendors like Adobe (and Microsoft last month with the Windows 10 update) playing so absurdly fast and loose with customer data. These software vendors are forcing their customers into far more expensive subscription pricing models in a vain attempt to maintain revenue growth and correspondingly high stock prices for just a little bit longer, which is sketchy enough, but they're also getting much worse at quality control in the process, which is flat-out evil. Adobe has been one of the worst custodians of IT quality and security in the history of computing with their egregiously and shamelessly poor stewardship of the Flash plugin. Microsoft infamously fired most of their QA personnel a few years ago in order to foist that work onto their "insider" fan base, which has made their extremely poor reputation in that are decline even further. Yes, users do stupid things, but in cases like this we need to focus hard on the deeply evil neglect that certain software vendors have had for our data as well.
Nonsense. Sure Adobe played a part but that is not the point. What if his hard drive had a mechanical failure after a few years? What if his house was robbed and they stole his external drive? What if a fire burns his house down with his equipment? Let's put blame squarely and solely on the actual problem. This "photographer".
This clown had data from 2010 to 2017 on a single drive? That's it? He's not a photographer. He's a rookie. That's the problem with adults like him... it's always someone else's fault. There are a multitude of online options that would back up his data, and keep that data offsite. It's inexcusable in today's inter-connected world that he could not have taken the 1 hour out of his life to get his backup affairs in order.
Get a proper, backup procedure in place and life moves on. Take the lazy approach, and this is what happens. No love lost here for me. Good luck having him explain his sloppiness to his "clients".
Crybaby: "Uh... sorry.. Adobe erased all your pictures on my computer.." Client: Okay... you didn't back them up?
Crybaby: Uhm... that's not the point. Client: "hmmmm......" *whispers to friend* "Is this guy legit?"
Fire, theft, etc what you stared could be other causes of data loss are things that would be out of a persons control. Installing an update provided to you is not a situation that you would expect to cause such a major loss. In my experience not all Creative Professionals are also IT professionals that know all the ins and outs of computers, etc. They are masters of photoshop and that’s about it. They expect their tools, computers just to work. So calling him a clown and rookie is a bit harsh.
I’d be more sympathetic if the “external drive” was an external RAID array. It doesn’t seem like this guy did the bare minimum to protect his data. In reality, backups aren’t good enough, you need to also verify the ability to restore systems/data.
I do wish companies would do more than the bare minimum in QC before releasing software/patches into the wild... cough cough Microsoft.
Remember when companies waited 6 months before installing “service patches” and only after thorough internal testing? Yep, they did that for a reason...
For personal use, I’d wait at least 2 weeks... and that’s for “critical” updates.
Getting the “latest and greatest” software/hardware/automobiles etc. etc. is usually overrated, and potentially hazardous to your health.
And for thoise who think that some piece of paper written by vendor is binding agreement - weel it is not. Ruling is by judge so do not be smart Alec making some clever writeup because all these are subject to local laws and can be waved. It remionds me those non-compete agreements signed in wrong place - you can ignore them aas any attorney will simply prove they are misplaced and non-enforcable. They serve only purpose to scare people of, but not everybody gets scared so eaisly. Some may even counter-sue for damages.
There are loads of legal precedents on this already regarding bugs and lost data -- and even hardware-destroying bugs. The photographer is going to lose on those alone, and the fact that he moved his scratch file to the the only place his valuable data lived and then cleared the caches manually -- will only make it worse.
He's welcome to sue, of course. But, he's not going to win.
Can everyone quit slagging the guy for not having sufficient backup? Should he have had it? Definitely. But there's absolutely, positively zero excuse for vendors like Adobe (and Microsoft last month with the Windows 10 update) playing so absurdly fast and loose with customer data. These software vendors are forcing their customers into far more expensive subscription pricing models in a vain attempt to maintain revenue growth and correspondingly high stock prices for just a little bit longer, which is sketchy enough, but they're also getting much worse at quality control in the process, which is flat-out evil. Adobe has been one of the worst custodians of IT quality and security in the history of computing with their egregiously and shamelessly poor stewardship of the Flash plugin. Microsoft infamously fired most of their QA personnel a few years ago in order to foist that work onto their "insider" fan base, which has made their extremely poor reputation in that are decline even further. Yes, users do stupid things, but in cases like this we need to focus hard on the deeply evil neglect that certain software vendors have had for our data as well.
All the more reason why you should have a good backup. Adobe had a part in this, for sure, but not a $5M part, as data security has always been, and should always be, the user's sole provenance.
Problem for Adobe, is that it is gonna have to say in his user agreement that they are not responsible for any lose of data/information, because our engineers can't design a system that could keep you data being wiped out. That is not something a (((pro))) grade software company should say.
It does say in the user agreement that they are not responsible for the loss of data or information. So does your macOS and iOS license, and literally every other software license I have read for the last 30 years.
Yes but one doesn't expect that to apply to files that are not being worked on. Even if he backed up to the cloud using something like iCloud, it would have erased his files from the backup as well, since most cloud services sync their data. Moreover, his external drive might've been a RAID5 or a Mirror, which is technically a live backup and would've done the same thing.
It doesn't matter what's "expected" by the user. Software developers, according to use agreements, are not responsible for the loss of data or information, full stop, no qualifiers, in use or not. A RAID 5 or mirror being used for active work is in no way a live backup.
User agreements have been tested in court with mixed results. Some terms are simply overreach.
Now the question is whether this is a real alternative to Adobe for Premiere Pro to make the click wrap TOS valid. Given there is FCPX, Avid and Resolve the answer is probably yes so adhesion may not apply...although it is more arguable there isn't a real alternative for Creative Cloud and Adobe therefore holds a decisive advantage of bargaining strength. Certainly CC is the dominant tool for creatives as a bundle. Something that FCPX, Avid and Resolve are not if you also needs Lightroom and Photoshop as a photographer/videographer.
Plus there is a requirement for a "meeting of minds" in contract law. In this case it would be reasonable to assume that the data loss clause applied for when Premiere Pro delete files it controls, accidental or otherwise. Is It also reasonable to assume that an "ordinarily prudent and knowledgeable individual" would agree that Adobe is not responsible when Premiere Pro delete files not under its control?
And that's why we have lawyers. I'm not one and the first thing they tell me is "forget about logic...as a programmer you expect things to be logical...that will lead you down the wrong path almost every time". Not every exculpatory agreement is enforceable...and are handled under state law.
Maryland is one of those states that is very lenient toward exculpatory agreements so it's likely a uphill battle for the photographer...but some lawyer, hopefully on a contingent basis, believes they can get some kind of settlement from Adobe.
Can everyone quit slagging the guy for not having sufficient backup? Should he have had it? Definitely. But there's absolutely, positively zero excuse for vendors like Adobe (and Microsoft last month with the Windows 10 update) playing so absurdly fast and loose with customer data. These software vendors are forcing their customers into far more expensive subscription pricing models in a vain attempt to maintain revenue growth and correspondingly high stock prices for just a little bit longer, which is sketchy enough, but they're also getting much worse at quality control in the process, which is flat-out evil. Adobe has been one of the worst custodians of IT quality and security in the history of computing with their egregiously and shamelessly poor stewardship of the Flash plugin. Microsoft infamously fired most of their QA personnel a few years ago in order to foist that work onto their "insider" fan base, which has made their extremely poor reputation in that are decline even further. Yes, users do stupid things, but in cases like this we need to focus hard on the deeply evil neglect that certain software vendors have had for our data as well.
He should have had a back up for his own protection ... period. Not saying that Adobe shouldn’t be sued and run up the pole. There is no excuse for the damage their software caused and they need to be accountable.
In my opinion in 2018 there is no excuse as a professional photographer or any user to not have redundancy with things you don’t want to or can’t lose.
Courts would not automatically enforce those disclaimers in contracts, so that clause by itself is not the whole solution of the case. Meanwhile Adobe will probably support its claims by exposing the difference between “mission critical” software and devices and “consumer class” software and devices. And since Adobe does not promote its software as “mission critical” and once this difference is also backed by expert opinions, Adobe most probably will win the case.
Can everyone quit slagging the guy for not having sufficient backup? Should he have had it? Definitely. But there's absolutely, positively zero excuse for vendors like Adobe (and Microsoft last month with the Windows 10 update) playing so absurdly fast and loose with customer data. These software vendors are forcing their customers into far more expensive subscription pricing models in a vain attempt to maintain revenue growth and correspondingly high stock prices for just a little bit longer, which is sketchy enough, but they're also getting much worse at quality control in the process, which is flat-out evil. Adobe has been one of the worst custodians of IT quality and security in the history of computing with their egregiously and shamelessly poor stewardship of the Flash plugin. Microsoft infamously fired most of their QA personnel a few years ago in order to foist that work onto their "insider" fan base, which has made their extremely poor reputation in that are decline even further. Yes, users do stupid things, but in cases like this we need to focus hard on the deeply evil neglect that certain software vendors have had for our data as well.
All the more reason why you should have a good backup. Adobe had a part in this, for sure, but not a $5M part, as data security has always been, and should always be, the user's sole provenance.
Problem for Adobe, is that it is gonna have to say in his user agreement that they are not responsible for any lose of data/information, because our engineers can't design a system that could keep you data being wiped out. That is not something a (((pro))) grade software company should say.
It does say in the user agreement that they are not responsible for the loss of data or information. So does your macOS and iOS license, and literally every other software license I have read for the last 30 years.
You correct - it does. But then, (((pro))fesionals might chose some other app that does a better job.
"...rather than pointing the finger at not having a reliable backup." <- Utter crap. Deleting your personal files then saying 'well, you should've had a backup' is irresponsible, especially from a trusted company like Adobe. I fully support his effort and I hope he wins the five million.
Some of us have to use Adobe CC for work. I know I couldn’t live without After Effects alone, even if I could replace Photoshop and Illustrator with competitors, so I’m all in.
Adobe updated Photoshop CC on my Mac around that same time without even asking me, it then deleted my own personal version of Photoshop I had from a disc I purchased from them, I saw that it had done it in the updater, which good luck uninstalling that thing, it magically returns even when removed from your start up list, I suspect Adobe of doing many nefarious things behind the scenes (a hold over from their Flash aggression and Macs), ever see how big all of those Adobe folders are on your hard drive too?
bloggerblog said: Yes but one doesn't expect that to apply to files that are not being worked on. Even if he backed up to the cloud using something like iCloud, it would have erased his files from the backup as well, since most cloud services sync their data. Moreover, his external drive might've been a RAID5 or a Mirror, which is technically a live backup and would've done the same thing.
You can undelete files on iCloud Drive. I think for a couple weeks, then they are really gone.
On Dropbox you have to deliberately move file into a the deleted files folder and if you really want to delete them you select the file to permanently remove.
I have a buddy who is a forensic computer engineer who can undelete just about any file and he doesn't charge that much either.
I wonder if he even ran something like Data Rescue II or any other until that can undefeated files.
Keeping one copy of your stuff on a 7 year old drive that presumably gets fairly heavy use, as a Professional, is walking a tightrope. I am going to assume that drive failure was ruled out. Moving the cache folder seems unnecessary; if your internal storage is too small, upgrade it or put your scratch files on another external. Generally speaking, dragging folders out of Apps is risky. Links get broken or moved and weird things can happen. The article doesn’t say what kind of Mac he had or what version of the OS was running, so who knows. Maybe he will win, but in the end, just back up your stuff...it’s so easy and cheap to do.
I don't think the article said the drive was 7 years old. Only that it was 7 years worth of data. Drive could have been brand-spanking-new for all we know.
The attitude of the article is uncalled for..."Let's all pile on and make fun of the poor guy that lost his data. What an idiot." I know the article is marked as an "Editorial" but it doesn't even qualify as that. Is this Twitter or a site trying to be a legit source of new and information?
Keeping one copy of your stuff on a 7 year old drive that presumably gets fairly heavy use, as a Professional, is walking a tightrope. I am going to assume that drive failure was ruled out. Moving the cache folder seems unnecessary; if your internal storage is too small, upgrade it or put your scratch files on another external. Generally speaking, dragging folders out of Apps is risky. Links get broken or moved and weird things can happen. The article doesn’t say what kind of Mac he had or what version of the OS was running, so who knows. Maybe he will win, but in the end, just back up your stuff...it’s so easy and cheap to do.
I don't think the article said the drive was 7 years old. Only that it was 7 years worth of data. Drive could have been brand-spanking-new for all we know.
The attitude of the article is uncalled for..."Let's all pile on and make fun of the poor guy that lost his data. What an idiot." I know the article is marked as an "Editorial" but it doesn't even qualify as that. Is this Twitter or a site trying to be a legit source of new and information?
This article is the definition of editorial. You are welcome to have different opinions. This one is William's. And, coincidentally, mine.
This all said, I have better safeguards and workflows for articles I've written, and I don't need to keep those to make money. As I said in the first page of comments, keeping your own data safe is your own duty and always has been. You're asking for trouble, and will eventually get it, if you expect others to maintain it for you.
wiggin said: Let's all pile on and make fun of the poor guy that lost his data. What an idiot.
Perhaps he is an excellent photographer and videographer but he doesn't know anything about computing. If this guy has all of these high profile clients he should know about off site back up. In fact with clients like he claims, the client should demand a full back up in their own possession in case he gets hit by a bus.
I my case I have at least five back ups of everything I do for my client.
Local internal HD at my office Two external HDs that belong to my client which we exchange refreshed every month, one at their office and one at my home. Time Machine back up at my office Another external drive I take with me when I travel and my MBP also has, not all, but a lot of files backed up as well. Finally a huge cloud storage account which the client has access to.
Two copies are absolutely up to the minute, that would be my internal HD and Time Machine while the cloud storage is updated everyday. I haven't lost anything in 25 years of service to my client. A few times I've had to go to the back ups when I accidentally deleted something. Years ago I used a home grown network file server and made CDs for back up, but with all the redundant storage possibilities available today there is simply no excuse not to do it, especially if you are creating files professionally.
Comments
I wonder if she shoots with dual write cards in his camera? Or is just planning to sue one fails and he wasn't?
Well, I think what happen to him is the best out come for him, because eventually every mechanical drive failed. At least now he as someone to blame beside himself.
Fire, theft, etc what you stared could be other causes of data loss are things that would be out of a persons control. Installing an update provided to you is not a situation that you would expect to cause such a major loss.
In my experience not all Creative Professionals are also IT professionals that know all the ins and outs of computers, etc. They are masters of photoshop and that’s about it. They expect their tools, computers just to work. So calling him a clown and rookie is a bit harsh.
I do wish companies would do more than the bare minimum in QC before releasing software/patches into the wild... cough cough Microsoft.
Remember when companies waited 6 months before installing “service patches” and only after thorough internal testing? Yep, they did that for a reason...
For personal use, I’d wait at least 2 weeks... and that’s for “critical” updates.
Getting the “latest and greatest” software/hardware/automobiles etc. etc. is usually overrated, and potentially hazardous to your health.
Now the question is whether this is a real alternative to Adobe for Premiere Pro to make the click wrap TOS valid. Given there is FCPX, Avid and Resolve the answer is probably yes so adhesion may not apply...although it is more arguable there isn't a real alternative for Creative Cloud and Adobe therefore holds a decisive advantage of bargaining strength. Certainly CC is the dominant tool for creatives as a bundle. Something that FCPX, Avid and Resolve are not if you also needs Lightroom and Photoshop as a photographer/videographer.
Plus there is a requirement for a "meeting of minds" in contract law. In this case it would be reasonable to assume that the data loss clause applied for when Premiere Pro delete files it controls, accidental or otherwise. Is It also reasonable to assume that an "ordinarily prudent and knowledgeable individual" would agree that Adobe is not responsible when Premiere Pro delete files not under its control?
And that's why we have lawyers. I'm not one and the first thing they tell me is "forget about logic...as a programmer you expect things to be logical...that will lead you down the wrong path almost every time". Not every exculpatory agreement is enforceable...and are handled under state law.
Maryland is one of those states that is very lenient toward exculpatory agreements so it's likely a uphill battle for the photographer...but some lawyer, hopefully on a contingent basis, believes they can get some kind of settlement from Adobe.
In my opinion in 2018 there is no excuse as a professional photographer or any user to not have redundancy with things you don’t want to or can’t lose.
Some of us have to use Adobe CC for work. I know I couldn’t live without After Effects alone, even if I could replace Photoshop and Illustrator with competitors, so I’m all in.
The attitude of the article is uncalled for..."Let's all pile on and make fun of the poor guy that lost his data. What an idiot." I know the article is marked as an "Editorial" but it doesn't even qualify as that. Is this Twitter or a site trying to be a legit source of new and information?
I my case I have at least five back ups of everything I do for my client.
Local internal HD at my office
Two external HDs that belong to my client which we exchange refreshed every month, one at their office and one at my home.
Time Machine back up at my office
Another external drive I take with me when I travel and my MBP also has, not all, but a lot of files backed up as well.
Finally a huge cloud storage account which the client has access to.
Two copies are absolutely up to the minute, that would be my internal HD and Time Machine while the cloud storage is updated everyday. I haven't lost anything in 25 years of service to my client. A few times I've had to go to the back ups when I accidentally deleted something. Years ago I used a home grown network file server and made CDs for back up, but with all the redundant storage possibilities available today there is simply no excuse not to do it, especially if you are creating files professionally.