Adobe crack down

Originally posted by brainchild2b
First of all both of you morons should do research and stop guessing.

FACT:

Adobe New Installers contact adobes servers via UDP port, which can clearly be seen with any packetsniffer.
Click to expand...

Yup, they sure do -- they contact home with your registration information you filled out and sent when you clicked the button that said "Send."

Your serial number was not sent.

Your IP may or may not have been sent... it's up to Adobe to choose whether or not to log it. MANY websites do this. Your IP address is sent with ANYTHING you send on the internet -- ANY kind of form. It's relatively easy to determine the IP that something's coming from.

No one is disputing that PhotoShop can contact Adobe through the internet. However, when it DOES contact Adobe through the internet, it's not to check your serial number or disable the software. It's merely a part of Adobe Online (which doesn't send your serial number) or part of the registration process (which, again, doesn't send your serial number).

Does Adobe PhotoShop use the internet? You betcha. Is it for the purpose of determining illegal serial numbers and disabling software? Hell no. Prove it to me.
 
This copying photoshop stuff just isn't that black and white.

I have an "aquired" version of photoshop at home on my mac. But here at work, they were considering either dumping the Macs and going to a PC platform, or moving to another image editing program.

But since me and the others guys had got hold of this "aquired" version, we had got used to it, and have insisted that work now stay with the Macs and buy photoshop licences here at work.

So..

* If adobe did crack down on the students, home users, hobbiests it wouldn't gain anything anyway, since none of these people could afford it anyhow!

* If photoshop wasn't in the hands of the students, home users, hobbiests then Photoshop wouldn't be the domenent software it is!

Case in point look at Maya releaseing a Home learning edition for free. Adobe hasn't gone this far... but I think they recognise that piracy hasn't been all bad for them.

ps. Any professional that uses an illegal photoshop is a different matter though.
 
Originally posted by aishafenton


Case in point look at Maya releaseing a Home learning edition for free. Adobe hasn't gone this far... but I think they recognise that piracy hasn't been all bad for them.
Click to expand...

Um, Photoshop LE?


ps. Any professional that uses an illegal photoshop is a different matter though. [/B]
Click to expand...


School and Hobbists - if they need something more aside from Photoshop LE (that tends to come free bundled with some hardware/software) they should "aquire" a low-cost version of Photoshop (also refered to as Educational version).

People who insist on wares are simply cheap and/or too fregging lazy to aquier their software in a legal manner. Because so far I've been able to come up with a solution to all the reasons warez people put up to why they use Warez instead of legit versions.

The only way I don't have much of a problem is for "extended fully functional trial version" as long as a decent effort is put into either buying the license or finding an alternative they CAN afford or get for free.

It's not like we're talking about a piece of software that costs $10,000 and only the rich can afford a license for people! Give me a fregging break!
 
Yeah true, I forgot about Photoshop LT.

I agree that people who private are for the most part being lazy and selfish. But I still think that in the particular case of Photoshop it's widespread adoption was partially due to people having a pirated versions at home.

But I don't really want to sound like I'm defending it. It isn't the right thing to do, and it doubly isn't the right thing to do when you own a Mac.

It is hard enough to get software houses to develop for the Mac, and people pirating Mac software will only make it harder.
 
I'd go along with this, but, um, there IS no Photoshop 7 LE. Sort of a problem. When one comes out, it WILL be a very good alternative. In the meantime, well... :)
 
So what's wrong with using PhotoShop 6 LE for the time being until PhotoShop 7 LE comes out? Is there some kind of feature that you can't live without?

And I disagree about PhotoShop's popularity being directly proportional to the amount of pirated versions being used at home. I'm going to need some proof on that to believe it.

The fact of the matter is this: you can make up all sorts of excuses and try to make a lot of baseless claims like pirated versions actually HELP PhotoShop, but the conclusion remains the same: it's illegal, it's immoral and it hurts Adobe. There's proof supporting that claim, whereas I have heard nothing but baseless claims trying to support the pirating of this piece of software.

I sincerely hope the people that argue FOR the pirating of PhotoShop aren't the same people who made the silly statement that since Microsoft "steals" it's ok to steal from them. That statement is twice as silly as the ones made here.
 
Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
it's illegal, it's immoral and it hurts Adobe. There's proof supporting that claim
Click to expand...

ok, prove how it is immoral..... seeing how morals are valued different in the eye of the beholder
 
stealing is immoral
when you pirate you steal someone's idea, without reimbursing them for their hard work.
 
The Adobe WebDesign Collection is 999$ at the moment.

User A is 15 years old and just doesn't have the money to buy this collection. But he's interested like hell to become a great designer. He downloads the apps he needs (illegally) and learns Photoshop. He uses it for his private website, where he shows off his abilities as a designer. He doesn't make any money off the product however.

Moral (my opinion): This is okay. It's probable that he'll either work as a designer later on and actually buy (or the company will) licenses of the products. Or he'll never make any money off the product.

User B is a 22 year old graphics designer who sells websites to small companies. He is making money. After a few contracts, he'll have enough to buy the software.

Moral (my opinion): And well he *should*.

It's always the same discussion. It doesn't actually HURT Adobe that the 15 year old uses the software illegally, because there's no way he would BUY the software. But, come a few years, he's likely to BUY the product because it's what he's learnt and loved to use.
 
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
stealing is immoral
when you pirate you steal someone's idea, without reimbursing them for their hard work.
Click to expand...


but for something to be immoral, one must have morals to go against
 
I disagree.

Person A has no morals. He goes out and steals from a small bakery around the corner.

Is this person (A) justified because what he did does not seem immoral in his own mind or (B) immoral because the popular consensus is that stealing is immoral?

The answer is B.
 
Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
So what's wrong with using PhotoShop 6 LE for the time being until PhotoShop 7 LE comes out? Is there some kind of feature that you can't live without?
Click to expand...

Yes. Without the Healing Brush, Image Browser, Pattern Maker and improved Web systems in ImageReady, I would not use Photoshop 7 at all. The Carbonization is NOT the reason I use it. It is for those four features alone. Until PSE7 comes out, it's not going to be easy to go back to 6 without them.
 
Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
I disagree.

Person A has no morals. He goes out and steals from a small bakery around the corner.
Click to expand...

Of course you're free to disagree. But this is NOT a person stealing from a small bakery around the corner. It's exactly NOT that.

1) Adobe is a very BIG bakery which is NOT around the corner.

2) If you steal from a bakery, say, a loaf of bread (or 100$) there's a loaf of bread MISSING (or 100$). This is not the case if you're copying software you wouldn't buy if there was no other way.

ls
textfile
cp textfile textfile2
ls
textfile textfile2

Not the same as stealing a loaf of bread or money.

Of course it's still illegal to copy Photoshop by law. But the moral is definitely NOT the same.
 
What I think you're saying, fryke, is that no software should have any price whatsoever. It costs next to nothing to copy it, so you should only pay for the duplication costs (about 20 cents for a blank CD).

The way I figure it, if you have to convince someone else that what you (or the 15 year old) is doing is right, then it's probably wrong. The moral is the same. You have stolen something, whether it's a physical thing, like a loaf of bread or a $100 bill, or something less tangible, like the work of a software developer.

So take a tiny software company. I've developed software for money (outside of my regular job). I am a company of one. So is it okay to copy my program that I spent long hard work producing? Most people would say no, because I can't afford the loss. So how do you justify doing the exact same thing to a large company? I don't see the difference -- stealing is stealing, no matter who the victim is.
 
Originally posted by nkuvu
What I think you're saying, fryke, is that no software should have any price whatsoever. It costs next to nothing to copy it, so you should only pay for the duplication costs (about 20 cents for a blank CD).
Click to expand...

That, my friend - is what Open Source (Linux) is all about! :)
Which Adobe is not part of... :p

Which leads to GIMP... direct versions of it are available for any Unix/Linux flavor (i think?), Windows and with an addon, OSX. :)

I really dont have a point in this comment for either side... lol :p :D
 
Open source software is great, I use it whenever I can, and contribute when I can. But that isn't the issue here. Photoshop is not open source. So copying it is illegal.

And I mentioned Gimp earlier in the thread, but no one seemed to notice... :(
 
But you're not purchasing a piece of software -- you don't own that CD -- read the licensing agreement.

What you ARE purchasing is a license to use the software contained on the CD, and if you read carefully enough, you will see that Adobe has the right to come and take your CD away and demand that you destroy all copies of the software if they want to take your license to use the software away.

We are thinking too much in terms of software companies selling CDs instead of thinking of software companies selling licenses, which you ARE stealing when you pirate a piece of software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top