0 Replies Latest reply on Mar 6, 2015 11:59 AM by andrewh5191622

    Adobe Digital Editions

    andrewh5191622

      I cannot authorize Adobe Digital Editions from the same ID that I am sending this message from.

       

      I am using Windows XP with service pack 4, using Adobe Digital Editions 2 or 3 software, neither will authorize my computer with the ID that I am sending this message from. Adobe Digital Editions Version 4, plain doesn't work on my computer.

       

      I can download the Ebook that I would like too read, again and again from the merchant I purchased it from. I cannot read it because it is in an ACSM format and you bastards have a monopoly on this file format reader.  However it doesn't work, failing too authorize the same email which I am using in conjunction with the purchased Ebook from the merchant, as a valid ID to this Adobe Digital Editions software.

       

      I can only assume there is hidden agenda, monitoring customers effectively spying on them, with this supposedly free software. Stop infringing my data protection and human rights, by spying on me with ridiculous software.

        • 1. Re: Adobe Digital Editions
          ~graffiti Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          I know both my parents so, not a bastards.

           

          Oh, and you're in the wrong forum. You want Adobe Digital Editions

          • 2. Re: Adobe Digital Editions
            andrewh5191622 Level 1

            I really didn't see the correct heading in the menu links, or when I typed it into search. Maybe you would move the thread there as a moderator, rather then your attempt at humor?

             

            I am annoyed at a monopoly which prevents me from using my purchase. A purchase that I can download again and again from the merchant from anywhere. Hence my tone. Although I cannot access my purchase due to this restrictive software.

             

            I am quite right in my assumption, whatever other purpose would there possibly be too monitor this software so restrictively?