The death of Adobe Flash in January 2021 was long overdue; Adobe's hyper-proprietary interactive runtime was a source of persistent, terrifying security vulnerabilities that had harmed web users for decades.
But the demise of Flash also meant that all the Flash-based media that had been created since its debut (as 1995's "Futuresplash") was snuffed out, orphaned, unplayable and lost to history.
Adobe may have skimped on security, but it spent lavishly on sales and marketing, so major media and public organizations locked up years and years of media and interactives in the Flash abandonware format.
All that meant that the reports of Flash's death were greatly exaggerated. Adobe quietly kept the Flash player on life-support with an "enterprise" version for companies with unpayable, Flash-based technology debts.
And they licensed Flash Player to China's Zhong Cheng Network, whose flash.cn site still offers Flash Player downloads. But that Flash Player comes bundled with commercial spyware and an Adobe-controlled killswitch that can remotely deactivate it.
That offered people who needed to view Flash videos or other media with a stark choice: if you didn't work for an "enterprise," you either accepted spyware and a killswitch, or you abandoned the media you needed to see.
Which is where Clean Flash Installer comes in. This is a free/open project maintained by a developer called "darktohka": Clean Flash Installer was a way to install the Flash Player without the spyware or killswitch.
Darktohka told Torrent Freak that he created Clean Flash Installer as a passion project, to preserve the Flash media that was "a huge part of his childhood."
Darktohka built Clean Flash Installer from scratch in .Net; it contains no Adobe code and no code from Zhong Cheng Network - Clean Flash Installer is Darktohka's code and his alone, hosted on Github for all to inspect, use and improve.
Or rather, it *was* hosted on Github - until earlier this month, when Adobe sent a fraudulent DMCA Copyright Takedown notice to the company, falsely claiming that darktohka's code infringed on their copyright.
This is pure copyfraud: Adobe didn't write Clean Flash Installer. Their notice to Github - "under penalty of perjury" - that Clean Flash Installer violated their rights is an outright, unambiguous lie.
Adobe would *prefer* that its business arrangements with Zhong Cheng Network remain intact and that every non-enterprise Flash user would have to run its partner's spyware and tolerate Adobe's killswitch.
It's doubtless more lucrative for Adobe that way - what company doesn't dream of compelling its customers to arrange their affairs to benefit its shareholders, even if that is to their detriment?
Often, awful laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act *can* be used this way, twisted into a kind of "Felony Contempt of Business Model" (as Jay Freeman calls it).
But not this time. Adobe has no right to block Clean Flash Installer - but they didn't let that stop them.
Genusfotografen (Tomas Gunnarsson) (modified)
@be @pluralistic And the internet archive is collecting all the good old stuff :) Want to play crimson room? There you go!
It's still inacceptable if Adobe puts pressure on people for reimplementing a dead product. 😡
afaik what is "under penalty of perjury" is the fact that the claimant is the rightful owner of the copyrights that they claim have been infringed on, not that they sincerely believe that their copyright has been infringed.
That's a loophole that's constantly being abused and most people don't understand it.
I mean, if I sing a song "doctorow is great, cory is great" and hold copyright about it, I can claim under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder of that song, and that Clean Flash infringes on my rights (note the comma).
I would be committing perjury under DMCA law only if I lied about holding copyright over that song, there is no penalty for claiming that Clean Flash infringes on my copyright, however absurd that claim would be.
I do not contest that, I contest that the "under penalty of perjury" is (it should be, but afaik it is not) applicable to the "good faith belief that your copyrighted work was infringed upon" rather than specifically to the ownership of the copyright.
I have read only the eff's statement about Lenz vs Universal and found nothing that contradicts that point.
Universal's case was dismissed but no "penalty of perjury" was afaik applied.
@pluralistic I misunderstood your toot as saying that Clean Flash was a reimplementation of the Flash runtime like Ruffle. It was not; Clean Flash was only an alternative way to install the old Flash runtime from Adobe.
@pluralistic There is also an official adobe flash player projector that allows the content to be viewed. Its on the official adobe website so this version is not even needed.
Mamot.fr est une serveur Mastodon francophone, géré par La Quadrature du Net.