Try scanning a twenty with Photoshop 8.

R
Posted By
rcu300
Jan 12, 2004
Views
1259
Replies
63
Status
Closed
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

N
nomail
Jan 12, 2004
basket case wrote:

I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

Before posting a question like that, it can be useful to check if this subject is not yet discussed in other threads. This is indeed already heavily discussed (see: "Photoshop CS Analyzes Image Content!"), so the answer is: Yes, many people feel Adobe is way over the line.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
N
niknik1971
Jan 12, 2004
Yes and no

Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

And no

As there was a valid reason, plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

NIK

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.
EG
Eric Gill
Jan 12, 2004
"nik" wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
@titan.btinternet.com:

Yes and no

Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.

And no

As there was a valid reason,

There was?

plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is still possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but it is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.

I’m utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest stupidity.
&
"pioe[rmv]"
Jan 12, 2004
basket case wrote:

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

We should not be surprised.

First people accepted Product Activation – a major restriction of people’s rights to what they paid for.

Who can then be surprised by ever more built-in limitations?

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
V
Voivod
Jan 12, 2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
scribbled:

"nik" wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
@titan.btinternet.com:

Yes and no

Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.
And no

As there was a valid reason,

There was?

plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is still possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but it is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.
I’m utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest stupidity.

So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?
S
subdude
Jan 12, 2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
graced us with:

"nik" wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
@titan.btinternet.com:

Yes and no

Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

True.

So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.

Well, if you want to vote with your $$, that is your choice. I don’t have a problem with it.

And no

As there was a valid reason,

There was?

The Treasury Department addressed a perfectly valid reason. And if you need a full size copy they have a specimen available for use.

plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is still possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but it is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.
I’m utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest stupidity.

The program only prevent you from editing a *full size copy* of currency. For what legitimate reason do you need to modify a full size version of currency? Advertising? Artwork? C’mon, 98% of the people in this group have no need to modify a full size copy of currency for a ‘legitimate’ use and the only reason people are pissed off is simply cause they can’t. And the Activation thing is only a problem for people who want to defeat it for nefarious purposes. There are plenty of *valid* reasons to be pissed off a Adobe, but neither of these are…
TD
The Data Rat
Jan 12, 2004
Funny you should mention that. I just watched a show on counterfeiters and NO WHERE did they mention scanning dollars into Photoshop as a way that the counterfeiters used. According to the documentary, counterfeiters are using very expensive and high tech equipment. I would imagine people with that kind of money, getting around Photoshop’s little recognition module would just be a tiny inconvenience if PS is what they wanted to use.

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.
TD
The Data Rat
Jan 12, 2004
Sunshine,

Basket case never said they wanted to counterfeit money or that they would not have bought PS if they couldn’t counterfeit or even duplicate money.

As Johan said, it was discussed in an earlier thread and decided that Adobe had stepped over the line and as Nik said, there are ways around it.

Also, it is counterfeit, not counterfit.

So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
scribbled:

"nik" wrote in news:btu8bc$ku6$1
@titan.btinternet.com:

Yes and no

Yes as it would have been nice of Adobe to tell us first.

So "nice" that it would have kept a customer that has purchased for both platforms (as long as versions for both have existed) since before Adobe even owned Photoshop (or it was called that). That is, me.
And no

As there was a valid reason,

There was?

plus there are plenty of work rounds to it.

Not to mention the fact that since Photoshop is a photo editor, it is
still
possible to scan bills using a number of twain-compliant utilities, but
it
is not so easy to *modify* the image for legitimate use.
I’m utterly floored by the lack of thought put into this latest
stupidity.
So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?
V
Voivod
Jan 12, 2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:44:41 -0500, "The Data Rat" scribbled:

Sunshine,

My name’s not sunshine, fuckwit.

Basket case never said they wanted to counterfeit money or that they would not have bought PS if they couldn’t counterfeit or even duplicate money.

"So "nice" that it would have kept a customer"

As Johan said, it was discussed in an earlier thread and decided that Adobe had stepped over the line and as Nik said, there are ways around it.

Over what line would that be? Stopping people from trying to counterfeit (my most humble apologies for misspelling that word) money?
MH
Mike Hopper
Jan 12, 2004
Data Rat

The big time counterfeits are made with high cost hardware/software but there are many hundred times more home based counterfeit artists that might use Photoshop and an ink jet printer (photo-quality preferred). Adobe is complying with a request from a group of bankers from around the world who have been asking hardware/software vendors to find effective ways of killing off the counterfeit currency business. All sorts of schemes have been proposed including filtering out such images from the print stream in the print driver. You are not going to find some sophisticated image identification processing system in a $100 printer.

Think of it as a new "homeland security" measure.

mike

"The Data Rat" wrote in message
Funny you should mention that. I just watched a show on counterfeiters
and
NO WHERE did they mention scanning dollars into Photoshop as a way that
the
counterfeiters used. According to the documentary, counterfeiters are using very expensive and high tech equipment. I would imagine people with that kind of money, getting around Photoshop’s little recognition module would just be a tiny inconvenience if PS is what they wanted to use.

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

S
Stephan
Jan 12, 2004
"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
scribbled:

So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?

I don’t think this is the real issue.
It is all about people putting their nose in your business. Will the next Photoshop version not let you scan nudes?
Maybe you won’t be able to use any photo of W unless it is "approved" by the White House and no filter othe than USM will work.
Maybe your machine will silently report any use of selected words to the "Home Security Thing"
You see where it can go?
I am not paranoid and have nothing to hide but I can tell when "They" step on my feet.

Stephan
V
Voivod
Jan 12, 2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:35:21 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
scribbled:

So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?

I don’t think this is the real issue.

I do.

It is all about people putting their nose in your business.

So vote with your wallet and buy something else, or
just go back to Ver. 7.

Will the next Photoshop version not let you scan nudes?

Unless it can also judge the age and not allow perverts to scan photos of nude children I highly doubt it. The idea behind NOT allowing people to scan full sized currency
is to curtail crime.

Maybe you won’t be able to use any photo of W unless it is "approved" by the White House and no filter othe than USM will work.

Maybe you need a tin foil hat?

Maybe your machine will silently report any use of selected words to the "Home Security Thing"

They’re already scanning the web, usenet, and probably your email and logging what books you take out from the library so what’s the difference?

You see where it can go?

Nope. All I see is people bitching about a non issue. No one needs a full size scan of any current currency. And if they do, they can contact the Govt. for one.

I am not paranoid and have nothing to hide but I can tell when "They" step on my feet.

Your delusions above say differently.
M
Mark
Jan 12, 2004
Is there a crack for this? Has anyone tried with other currency?

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.
TD
The Data Rat
Jan 12, 2004
Voivod,

I was just trying to point out in a light-hearted manner that you are SO negative and mean. Flaming has it’s place…alt.flame. I did not curse, become vulgar or sarcastic with you. I have yet to see any helpful comments from you. You sound like a lonely old tyrant.

But that’s okay…had enough of your poison…you’re blocked.

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:44:41 -0500, "The Data Rat" scribbled:

Sunshine,

My name’s not sunshine, fuckwit.

Basket case never said they wanted to counterfeit money or that they
would
not have bought PS if they couldn’t counterfeit or even duplicate money.

"So "nice" that it would have kept a customer"
As Johan said, it was discussed in an earlier thread and decided that
Adobe
had stepped over the line and as Nik said, there are ways around it.

Over what line would that be? Stopping people from trying to counterfeit (my most humble apologies for misspelling that word) money?

EM
Erik Muna aka PetFish
Jan 12, 2004
Don’t scan it with Photshop, just use the scanner software.


Erik Muna aka PetFish
Freelance Web Design & Graphic Arts
www.petfishonline.com … my online portfolio
www.dt-x.com … my Dream Theater media site
ICQ: 13466765

"Mark" wrote in message
Is there a crack for this? Has anyone tried with other currency?
BV
Branko Vukelic
Jan 12, 2004
pioe[rmv] wrote:

basket case wrote:

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

We should not be surprised.

First people accepted Product Activation – a major restriction of people’s rights to what they paid for.

I am not in any way trying to imply that your view is wrong. However, we might want to cool down and let ourselves be reminded that we actually do NOT purchase the SOFTWARE, but LICENSE (to use it). Also, I’ve had a chance to go thoroughly through many of the EULAs (for those who are not familiar with the acronym: End User License Agreement), I notice that it does limit the USE (of the program licensed to us) to a very questonable level.

For example, I seem to recall an EULA, by which you are effectively not permitted to use the software in question to make anti-government propaganda material. If I don’t like, say Toni Blair, I am still not permitted to use the FOO-SOFT(TM) to produce a poster that says, "Toni Bliar" or "Toni the Blair Witch", or anything that might make him look bad (although, since I don’t live in UK, I believe I would not even want to do such a thing). Nice one’s are permitted, it seems. IMHO, that has nothing to do with any sort of freedom, especially the freedom to express our opinions through any means possible (as long as it does not endanger the lives and rights of our fellow citizens).

We might understand the concern of FOO-SOFT(TM) for it’s reputation, but that is, IMO, no reason to limit the use of their product to "politically correct" frame. For example, if such an EULA existed in 1939, no one would be allowed to produce anything that promotes an anti-Nazi or anti-Hitler idea.

I’d say the term "corporate cenzorship" might well appy here… Not that I’m too concerned, tho.

Who can then be surprised by ever more built-in limitations?
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway


Branko Vukelic ()
V
Voivod
Jan 12, 2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:05:16 -0500, "The Data Rat" scribbled:

But that’s okay…had enough of your poison…you’re blocked.

Buh-bye nice man!
BV
Branko Vukelic
Jan 12, 2004
The Data Rat wrote:

Funny you should mention that. I just watched a show on counterfeiters and NO WHERE did they mention scanning dollars into Photoshop as a way that the counterfeiters used. According to the documentary, counterfeiters are using very expensive and high tech equipment. I would imagine people with that kind of money, getting around Photoshop’s little recognition module would just be a tiny inconvenience if PS is what they wanted to use.

Besides, I think the masters in the "trade" would soon disable it anyway. Look for a patch on the net soon. 😉

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.


Branko Vukelic ()
B
Bobs
Jan 12, 2004
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:44:41 -0500, "The Data Rat" wrote:

Sunshine,

Basket case never said they wanted to counterfeit money or that they would not have bought PS if they couldn’t counterfeit or even duplicate money.
As Johan said, it was discussed in an earlier thread and decided that Adobe had stepped over the line and as Nik said, there are ways around it.
Also, it is counterfeit, not counterfit.
Adobe is making a presumption of guilt with regard to its customers, never a good practice and one that’s likely to get reversed on them.
SM
Steve Moody
Jan 12, 2004
In article <M3xMb.5426978$>, basket case
wrote:

I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

Buy a new copy machine and it will either not work, or print something over the copy. It’s something that is being done at the request of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (the people who print our paper money).
S
Stephan
Jan 13, 2004
"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:35:21 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
scribbled:

So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?

I don’t think this is the real issue.

I do.

It is all about people putting their nose in your business.

So vote with your wallet and buy something else, or
just go back to Ver. 7.

Will the next Photoshop version not let you scan nudes?

Unless it can also judge the age and not allow perverts to scan photos of nude children I highly doubt it. The idea behind NOT allowing people to scan full sized currency
is to curtail crime.

Maybe you won’t be able to use any photo of W unless it is "approved" by
the
White House and no filter othe than USM will work.

Maybe you need a tin foil hat?

Maybe your machine will silently report any use of selected words to the "Home Security Thing"

They’re already scanning the web, usenet, and probably your email and logging what books you take out from the library so what’s the difference?

You see where it can go?

Nope. All I see is people bitching about a non issue. No one needs a full size scan of any current currency. And if they do, they can contact the Govt. for one.

I am not paranoid and have nothing to hide but I can tell when "They"
step
on my feet.

Your delusions above say differently.

Maybe when you wake up you’ll find the world changed

Stephan
A
Alvie
Jan 13, 2004
The last version of Photoshop (7) wouldn’t let you open an (raw) image from a Canon camera without first paying Adobe an extra $100. Is that "stepping over the line" too?
As soon as Adobe introduced a version of Photoshop that would, they removed the plug-in from their site so no one could open a (RAW) image from a Canon camera ever again without upgrading to version CS. Is this "stepping over the line too"

My point is that Adobe develop the software, Adobe own the software and therefore Adobe can do anything they please with the software. All you and the bunch of whining idiots who insist they should have the right to counterfeit currency as and when they feel like it – actually get to do, is buy a license to use the software. You never get to own it so you can’t ever get to say what it can or cannot do. Got that?

It’s as stupid as saying you own your car when in fact, the financier who lent you the money to get it, owns your car right up until you make the last payment on it. If more of you smart arsed fools who live in fairyland actually got a grip on reality once and a while, you might just make some progress towards contributing to humanity instead trying to destroy it.

ABC

"Stephan" wrote in message
I don’t think this is the real issue.
It is all about people putting their nose in your business. Will the next Photoshop version not let you scan nudes?
Maybe you won’t be able to use any photo of W unless it is "approved" by
the
White House and no filter othe than USM will work.
Maybe your machine will silently report any use of selected words to the "Home Security Thing"
You see where it can go?
I am not paranoid and have nothing to hide but I can tell when "They" step on my feet.

Stephan
B
broga
Jan 13, 2004


"Stephan" wrote in message
<snip>
I am not paranoid and have nothing to hide but I can tell when "They" step on my feet.

Stephan

Didn’t somebody once say that just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Perhaps the converse is also true.

www.micromountain.com
B
broga
Jan 13, 2004
Wouldn’t it be ironic if all these people were using their counterfeit dollars to buy Adobe software – and now they can’t do it anymore – and Adobe went bust – just a thought 😉


www.micromountain.com
"Mike Hopper" wrote in message
Data Rat

The big time counterfeits are made with high cost hardware/software but there are many hundred times more home based counterfeit artists that
might
use Photoshop and an ink jet printer (photo-quality preferred). Adobe is complying with a request from a group of bankers from around the world who have been asking hardware/software vendors to find effective ways of
killing
off the counterfeit currency business. All sorts of schemes have been proposed including filtering out such images from the print stream in the print driver. You are not going to find some sophisticated image identification processing system in a $100 printer.

Think of it as a new "homeland security" measure.
mike

"The Data Rat" wrote in message
Funny you should mention that. I just watched a show on counterfeiters
and
NO WHERE did they mention scanning dollars into Photoshop as a way that
the
counterfeiters used. According to the documentary, counterfeiters are using very expensive and high tech equipment. I would imagine people
with
that kind of money, getting around Photoshop’s little recognition module would just be a tiny inconvenience if PS is what they wanted to use.

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.

WK
William Kious
Jan 13, 2004
I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for portrait editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with Photoshop and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two fake twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless ways of producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in production projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to deface money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame them for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up my rear end.
S
Stephan
Jan 13, 2004
"William Kious" wrote in message
I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for portrait editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with Photoshop and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two
fake
twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless ways
of
producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in
production
projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to deface money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame them for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up my rear end.

You make a lot of sense.Thank you for your post.
Vovoid, do you think this poster needs a tin foil hat too? Alvie, is he a "smart ass fool living in fairyland" also?

Stephan
V
Voivod
Jan 13, 2004
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:58:54 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:

"William Kious" wrote in message
I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for portrait editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with Photoshop and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two
fake
twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless ways
of
producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in
production
projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to deface money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame them for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up my rear end.

You make a lot of sense.Thank you for your post.

So all it takes to impress you is a misunderstanding of
Photoshop, TWAIN and the words "I am in law
enforcement" (which could mean he’s the night
janitor at the jail)?
TD
The Data Rat
Jan 13, 2004
William, thank you for hopefully putting an end to this discussion in an intelligent manner.

I am sure Vovoid and Alvie have comments but I have them blocked!
You make a lot of sense.Thank you for your post.
Vovoid, do you think this poster needs a tin foil hat too? Alvie, is he a "smart ass fool living in fairyland" also?
Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message
"William Kious" wrote in message
I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for portrait editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with
Photoshop
and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two
fake
twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless
ways
of
producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in
production
projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to
deface
money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame
them
for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up my rear end.

You make a lot of sense.Thank you for your post.
Vovoid, do you think this poster needs a tin foil hat too? Alvie, is he a "smart ass fool living in fairyland" also?
Stephan

SM
Steve Moody
Jan 13, 2004
In article , Voivod
wrote:

So all it takes to impress you is a misunderstanding of
Photoshop, TWAIN and the words "I am in law
enforcement" (which could mean he’s the night
janitor at the jail)?

And even if he was a cop, that does not make him an expert in law, much less, laws dealing with counterfeiting. It’s bad enough that many laypeople think cops are legal experts, but it’s worse when a cop thinks he is a legal expert.
S
Stephan
Jan 13, 2004
"Voivod" wrote in message
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:58:54 GMT, "Stephan"
scribbled:

"William Kious" wrote in message
I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for
portrait
editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with
Photoshop
and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two
fake
twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless
ways
of
producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in
production
projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to
deface
money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame
them
for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up
my
rear end.

You make a lot of sense.Thank you for your post.

So all it takes to impress you is a misunderstanding of
Photoshop, TWAIN and the words "I am in law
enforcement" (which could mean he’s the night
janitor at the jail)?

I really hope you’ll feel better soon

Stephan
D
Davin
Jan 14, 2004
Hello All,

Not sure about the legislation in your relevant countries. In Australia – it is illegal to make a copy of our legal tender (money), by any means.
To that end – Adobe has not stepped over the line here (Australia). My ‘unscanned’ 2 cents worth – attempted humour – ha ha.

Regards,
Davin
www.davin-photography.com

"basket case" wrote in message
I was watching The Screen Savers TV show this
morning. They tried scanning a twenty dollar
bill with the newest Photoshop.

A window came up saying that this application
does not support unauthorized copying of money,
or something like that.

Does anyone else feel, like I do, that Adobe
has stepped way over the line.
H
Hecate
Jan 14, 2004
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:31:44 -0500, "William Kious" wrote:

I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for portrait editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with Photoshop and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two fake twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless ways of producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in production projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to deface money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame them for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up my rear end.
Thanks, that makes absolute sense. I always thought that anyone who was of the opinion that could "make" money using Photoshop was a candidate for the Darwin Award anyway. 🙂



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
TE
Tin Ear
Jan 14, 2004
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:31:44 -0500, "William Kious" wrote:

I’ve been lurking in this group for a few days now (looking for portrait editing tips). This topic intrigued me. I am in law enforcement and believe me – No major counterfieter is going to futz around with
Photoshop
and a PQ printer. Sure, an individual might be able to pass one or two
fake
twenties in a dark bar using this method, but they would be caught (and quite quickly.) Photoshop is image EDITING software – Not a copying software. If you want a spot-on copy of a bill, there are countless ways
of
producing a cheap copy without using image editing.

I understand that there are individuals who use scans of bills in
production
projects. I’ve seen a lot of the altered money with faces of famous people – Things like that. Of course, it’s also against the law to
deface
money. *grin*

Now, as for Adobe, I think the whole thing is laughable. Why have they included this "feature" in the new version of PS? I really don’t know. Perhaps it is a sign of bigger and more invasive things to come. In my opinion, Adobe is just trying to cover their own butts. Can’t blame them for that. I know I wouldn’t want the Treasury Department climbing up my rear end.
Thanks, that makes absolute sense. I always thought that anyone who was of the opinion that could "make" money using Photoshop was a candidate for the Darwin Award anyway. 🙂
The whole thing is ridiculous, ludicrous and several other adjectives. There are a lot of other graphics packages that will scan the currency. I’ve test scanned a US$20 with Corel Photo-Paint DCE and Adobe Acrobat 6.0 without any problem. After modifying the image, adding a "disclaimer" text overlay, PS CS even opened the images.
WK
William Kious
Jan 14, 2004
And even if he was a cop, that does not make him an expert in law, much less, laws dealing with counterfeiting. It’s bad enough that many laypeople think cops are legal experts, but it’s worse when a cop thinks he is a legal expert.

I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine assumptions (unlike yourself.)
WK
William Kious
Jan 14, 2004
So all it takes to impress you is a misunderstanding of
Photoshop, TWAIN and the words "I am in law
enforcement" (which could mean he’s the night
janitor at the jail)?

If I were a jail janitor, I would be involved in corrections – Not law enforcement. If you’re going to act like an arrogant ass, Voivod, at least get your terminology straight.
V
Voivod
Jan 14, 2004
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:28:04 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

And even if he was a cop, that does not make him an expert in law, much less, laws dealing with counterfeiting. It’s bad enough that many laypeople think cops are legal experts, but it’s worse when a cop thinks he is a legal expert.

I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine assumptions (unlike yourself.)

Of course not, you just jump into every thread about
legal matters with the line "I am in law enforcement and believe me".
V
Voivod
Jan 14, 2004
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:35:51 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

So all it takes to impress you is a misunderstanding of
Photoshop, TWAIN and the words "I am in law
enforcement" (which could mean he’s the night
janitor at the jail)?

If I were a jail janitor, I would be involved in corrections – Not law enforcement. If you’re going to act like an arrogant ass, Voivod, at least get your terminology straight.

Not if you were the janitor at the local PD outlet store.
R
RTM
Jan 14, 2004
Hmm. Wonder how the law stands on making copies of other countries currencies?
Is it illegal to photograph Austrailian notes in America? or American notes in England? or English notes in… you get the idea. Notes that aren’t legal tender in your particular neck of the woods.
Personally its not a problem, since I have neither need or desire to copy money, and I use an older, unrestricted version of
PS anyway, but I do find it somewhat amusing that so many of the folk who complain about people using illegal copies of Photoshop are so highly indignant when they themselves are prevented from making illegal copies of banknotes with it.


Ron.

Davin wrote in message
Hello All,

Not sure about the legislation in your relevant countries. In Australia – it is illegal to make a copy of our legal tender (money),
by
any means.
To that end – Adobe has not stepped over the line here (Australia). My ‘unscanned’ 2 cents worth – attempted humour – ha ha.
&
"pioe[rmv]"
Jan 14, 2004
Branko Vukelic wrote:

pioe[rmv] wrote:

First people accepted Product Activation – a major restriction of people’s rights to what they paid for.

I am not in any way trying to imply that your view is wrong. However, we might want to cool down and let ourselves be reminded that we actually do NOT purchase the SOFTWARE, but LICENSE (to use it).

Yes, it is a license. But it is precisely that very fact that ought to make us stop and consider the whole business model of the software industry. A mere statement that there is a "license" does not justify any license rule or agreement.

Further; the existence of a license does it in itself not describe its purpose or content. For example, The General Public License (GPL) is expressly designed to /defend/ the freedom of the user to use the software as s/he sees fit.

In contrast, the licenses of Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft and other companies in the proprietary software industry are designed to take away more and more of the users’ possibilities, and such licenses have always become harsher the more dominant the software company in question has become. Product Activation is a case in point. It did not come until these businesses had acquired a strong dominance on the market.

Why do we accept a system where we pay big money for something we cannot even install and use now in the future without dependence of a particular company’s service?

We certainly need to cool down. We need to calmly ask ourselves why these businesses, who de facto buy their own laws through skilful lobbying of politicians and lawmakers, should deserve our respect any longer. The more we accept from them, the more of our freedom to use what we pay for will be taken away. As becomes more and more obvious almost by the day.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
&
"pioe[rmv]"
Jan 14, 2004
William Kious wrote:

I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine assumptions (unlike yourself.)

I think your whole post made a lot of sense, in particular your suggestion that this is only a forerunner of things to come. But honest people have already accepted too much.

Per Inge Oestmoen
BV
Branko Vukelic
Jan 14, 2004
pioe[rmv] wrote:

Branko Vukelic wrote:

pioe[rmv] wrote:

First people accepted Product Activation – a major restriction of people’s rights to what they paid for.

I am not in any way trying to imply that your view is wrong. However, we might want to cool down and let ourselves be reminded that we actually do NOT purchase the SOFTWARE, but LICENSE (to use it).

Yes, it is a license. But it is precisely that very fact that ought to make us stop and consider the whole business model of the software industry. A mere statement that there is a "license" does not justify any license rule or agreement.

Further; the existence of a license does it in itself not describe its purpose or content. For example, The General Public License (GPL) is expressly designed to defend the freedom of the user to use the software as s/he sees fit.

In contrast, the licenses of Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft and other companies in the proprietary software industry are designed to take away more and more of the users’ possibilities, and such licenses have always become harsher the more dominant the software company in question has become. Product Activation is a case in point. It did not come until these businesses had acquired a strong dominance on the market.
Why do we accept a system where we pay big money for something we cannot even install and use now in the future without dependence of a particular company’s service?

We certainly need to cool down. We need to calmly ask ourselves why these businesses, who de facto buy their own laws through skilful lobbying of politicians and lawmakers, should deserve our respect any longer. The more we accept from them, the more of our freedom to use what we pay for will be taken away. As becomes more and more obvious almost by the day.
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Every word you said is correct. "License", as it is, is one of the most awkward and misunderstood concept of marketing goods. I get a box, and yet none of the contents (nor the box) are mine. I am only allowed to use it the way I’m told. Even the "you own the CD" thesis is incorrect. No, you don’t. You are allowed to "hold it", "insert it into the appropriate openings" (don’t get any funny ideas, okay), or do other things that are allowed *by the EULA*. Everything but owning it…

If you buy a car, you can modify it or do whatever you want with it, and there’s no legal document that says otherwise. It’s not so with software. That’s, IMO, why most people don’t understand "License".


Branko Vukelic ()
WK
William Kious
Jan 14, 2004
I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine
assumptions
(unlike yourself.)

Of course not, you just jump into every thread about
legal matters with the line "I am in law enforcement and believe me".

Vovoid, you are an ass. Responding to this issue was my FIRST post in this forum. This is an open forum, and if you can’t accept what other people have to say without resorting to infantile discourse, then why participate? Are you THAT insecure?
WK
William Kious
Jan 14, 2004
If I were a jail janitor, I would be involved in corrections – Not law enforcement. If you’re going to act like an arrogant ass, Voivod, at
least
get your terminology straight.

Not if you were the janitor at the local PD outlet store.

I am a professional, Voivod – At least I do something that contributes to society. What do you do with your life? Flip cheeseburgers at the local Wendy’s? I suppose making vain attempts at snappy, cynical banter could be considered a career – However, you’re not very good at it.

If you’re going to try to belittle people to make yourself feel better, at least make it funny. You didn’t make me laugh, Voivod. You’ve got to make me laugh.
A
Anonymoose
Jan 14, 2004
"William Kious" wrote in
news::

If I were a jail janitor, I would be involved in corrections – Not law enforcement. If you’re going to act like an arrogant ass, Voivod, at
least
get your terminology straight.

Not if you were the janitor at the local PD outlet store.

I am a professional, Voivod – At least I do something that contributes to society. What do you do with your life? Flip cheeseburgers at the local Wendy’s? I suppose making vain attempts at snappy, cynical banter could be considered a career – However, you’re not very good at it.

If you’re going to try to belittle people to make yourself feel better, at least make it funny. You didn’t make me laugh, Voivod. You’ve got to make me laugh.

Every newsgroup has at least one resident butthead. Voivod is this group’s. I find it so much more enjoyable to, once they’ve been identified, killfile them and move on.
BV
Branko Vukelic
Jan 14, 2004
William Kious wrote:

If I were a jail janitor, I would be involved in corrections – Not law enforcement. If you’re going to act like an arrogant ass, Voivod, at
least
get your terminology straight.

Not if you were the janitor at the local PD outlet store.

I am a professional, Voivod – At least I do something that contributes to society. What do you do with your life? Flip cheeseburgers at the local Wendy’s? I suppose making vain attempts at snappy, cynical banter could be considered a career – However, you’re not very good at it.

Hey, lighten up. This ng is for pros and newbies alike. 😉

You too, Voivod. Ligten up! 🙂 <- see, it’s a Smiley.

🙂 <- there goes another one!

If you’re going to try to belittle people to make yourself feel better, at least make it funny. You didn’t make me laugh, Voivod. You’ve got to make me laugh.

How ’bout a joke, then? Oh, we’re out. Sorry. How ’bout a burger? 🙂

[Sorry, Voivod, nothing personal. Just couldn’t resist.]


Branko Vukelic ()
V
Voivod
Jan 14, 2004
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:10:54 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine
assumptions
(unlike yourself.)

Of course not, you just jump into every thread about
legal matters with the line "I am in law enforcement and believe me".

Vovoid, you are an ass. Responding to this issue was my FIRST post in this forum. This is an open forum, and if you can’t accept what other people have to say without resorting to infantile discourse, then why participate? Are you THAT insecure?

Perhaps you’d feel better if you looked up the word ‘rhetoric’.
V
Voivod
Jan 14, 2004
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:19:24 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

If I were a jail janitor, I would be involved in corrections – Not law enforcement. If you’re going to act like an arrogant ass, Voivod, at
least
get your terminology straight.

Not if you were the janitor at the local PD outlet store.

I am a professional, Voivod – At least I do something that contributes to

And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

society. What do you do with your life? Flip cheeseburgers at the local Wendy’s? I suppose making vain attempts at snappy, cynical banter could be

Are you related to that moron Alan?

considered a career – However, you’re not very good at it.
If you’re going to try to belittle people to make yourself feel better, at least make it funny. You didn’t make me laugh, Voivod. You’ve got to make me laugh.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.
V
Voivod
Jan 14, 2004
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:46:47 +0100, "Branko Vukelic" scribbled:

How ’bout a joke, then? Oh, we’re out. Sorry. How ’bout a burger? 🙂
[Sorry, Voivod, nothing personal. Just couldn’t resist.]

Hey, that’s Alan’s delusion (and seems BillyBob the cop
has latched onto it now too) it doesn’t bother me. Hell
this is usenet, nothing bothers me.
H
Hecate
Jan 15, 2004
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:03:09 -0000, "RTM"
wrote:

Hmm. Wonder how the law stands on making copies of other countries currencies?
Is it illegal to photograph Austrailian notes in America? or American notes in England? or English notes in… you get the idea. Notes that aren’t legal tender in your particular neck of the woods.
Personally its not a problem, since I have neither need or desire to copy money, and I use an older, unrestricted version of
PS anyway, but I do find it somewhat amusing that so many of the folk who complain about people using illegal copies of Photoshop are so highly indignant when they themselves are prevented from making illegal copies of banknotes with it.

I like this idea. We should set up a web ring for currency copying. The Brits can do the dollars, the Aussies can do sterling, the Americans can do Aussie dollars, and so on… 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
WK
William Kious
Jan 15, 2004
Perhaps you’d feel better if you looked up the word ‘rhetoric’.

There’s a big difference between participating in a diologue and being a jerk.
WK
William Kious
Jan 15, 2004
And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

Read and understand copyright law – I alter the images enough that they aren’t held to the same standard as distributing the original image.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.

I am assuming that you are the type that would start screaming about how they "know their rights" – After speeding through a school zone, mowing down several little kids. Or are you the type who breaks into pharmacies looking for Oxycontin? Wait… I know… You’re a panty bandit.

Of course, you know you’re a prick … And from what I’ve seen … Other people in the forum are aware of the fact. At least you seem to take pride in it.
V
Voivod
Jan 15, 2004
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:02:35 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

Read and understand copyright law – I alter the images enough that they

I have, but then, from my experience cops are the LAST
people you ask about laws. But then, a cop sitting on
the grey area of the copyright violation fence is rather amusing.

aren’t held to the same standard as distributing the original image.

I’m sure the owners of the images wouldn’t agree.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.

I am assuming that you are the type that would start screaming about how they "know their rights" – After speeding through a school zone, mowing down several little kids. Or are you the type who breaks into pharmacies looking for Oxycontin? Wait… I know… You’re a panty bandit.

Oh look, a cop commiting libel, how cute!

Actually I’m the type that jerks your chain and laughs
while you dance.

Of course, you know you’re a prick … And from what I’ve seen … Other people in the forum are aware of the fact. At least you seem to take pride in it.

I’m good at what I do. Watch, you’ll just have to reply to this.
SM
Steve Moody
Jan 16, 2004
In article , William Kious
wrote:

And even if he was a cop, that does not make him an expert in law, much less, laws dealing with counterfeiting. It’s bad enough that many laypeople think cops are legal experts, but it’s worse when a cop thinks he is a legal expert.

I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine assumptions

I didn’t make an asinine assumption. You did. What makes you think I was talking about what you said? I was talking about what he said.
SM
Steve Moody
Jan 16, 2004
In article , William Kious
wrote:

And even if he was a cop, that does not make him an expert in law, much less, laws dealing with counterfeiting. It’s bad enough that many laypeople think cops are legal experts, but it’s worse when a cop thinks he is a legal expert.

I never said I was an expert – I would never make such asinine assumptions (unlike yourself.)

Oh. My first reply is wrong. I thought you were the one I replied to. Turns out that you are the one I was talking about. Still…. no asinine assumptions. You were speaking as if you were an expert – which you are not.
SM
Steve Moody
Jan 16, 2004
In article <bu30n9$vmj$>, RTM
wrote:

Is it illegal to photograph Austrailian notes in America? or American notes in England? or English notes in… you get the idea. Notes that aren’t legal tender in your particular neck of the woods.

In addition to counterfeiting laws, British bank notes are protected by copyright.
R
RTM
Jan 16, 2004
You are absolutely correct, of course.
D’you know, until you mentioned it I’d never looked that closely before. Still, you live and learn, eh.


Ron.

Steve Moody wrote in message
In addition to counterfeiting laws, British bank notes are protected by copyright.
A
Alan
Jan 21, 2004
Open or scan the bill into Image ready CS and then use the "edit in Photoshop" CS and it allows you to edit or open the bill in photoshop At least it did when I tried it with the web picture of the $20 bill which would not open in Photoshop.
Can someone else try and see if it works for them also?
A
Airbreather
Jan 22, 2004
wow, Vovoid, you really are a conceited troll.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:18:14 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:02:35 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

Read and understand copyright law – I alter the images enough that they

I have, but then, from my experience cops are the LAST
people you ask about laws. But then, a cop sitting on
the grey area of the copyright violation fence is rather amusing.

aren’t held to the same standard as distributing the original image.

I’m sure the owners of the images wouldn’t agree.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.

I am assuming that you are the type that would start screaming about how they "know their rights" – After speeding through a school zone, mowing down several little kids. Or are you the type who breaks into pharmacies looking for Oxycontin? Wait… I know… You’re a panty bandit.

Oh look, a cop commiting libel, how cute!

Actually I’m the type that jerks your chain and laughs
while you dance.

Of course, you know you’re a prick … And from what I’ve seen … Other people in the forum are aware of the fact. At least you seem to take pride in it.

I’m good at what I do. Watch, you’ll just have to reply to this.
V
Voivod
Jan 22, 2004
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:31:22 -0500, Airbreather
scribbled:

wow, Vovoid, you really are a conceited troll.

Not bad, just a week late. What other tricks do you do?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:18:14 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:02:35 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

Read and understand copyright law – I alter the images enough that they

I have, but then, from my experience cops are the LAST
people you ask about laws. But then, a cop sitting on
the grey area of the copyright violation fence is rather amusing.

aren’t held to the same standard as distributing the original image.

I’m sure the owners of the images wouldn’t agree.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.

I am assuming that you are the type that would start screaming about how they "know their rights" – After speeding through a school zone, mowing down several little kids. Or are you the type who breaks into pharmacies looking for Oxycontin? Wait… I know… You’re a panty bandit.

Oh look, a cop commiting libel, how cute!

Actually I’m the type that jerks your chain and laughs
while you dance.

Of course, you know you’re a prick … And from what I’ve seen … Other people in the forum are aware of the fact. At least you seem to take pride in it.

I’m good at what I do. Watch, you’ll just have to reply to this.
A
Airbreather
Jan 22, 2004
I pride myself on my killfile trick, thanks for asking.

*PLONK*

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:12:48 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:31:22 -0500, Airbreather
scribbled:

wow, Vovoid, you really are a conceited troll.

Not bad, just a week late. What other tricks do you do?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:18:14 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:02:35 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

Read and understand copyright law – I alter the images enough that they

I have, but then, from my experience cops are the LAST
people you ask about laws. But then, a cop sitting on
the grey area of the copyright violation fence is rather amusing.

aren’t held to the same standard as distributing the original image.

I’m sure the owners of the images wouldn’t agree.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.

I am assuming that you are the type that would start screaming about how they "know their rights" – After speeding through a school zone, mowing down several little kids. Or are you the type who breaks into pharmacies looking for Oxycontin? Wait… I know… You’re a panty bandit.

Oh look, a cop commiting libel, how cute!

Actually I’m the type that jerks your chain and laughs
while you dance.

Of course, you know you’re a prick … And from what I’ve seen … Other people in the forum are aware of the fact. At least you seem to take pride in it.

I’m good at what I do. Watch, you’ll just have to reply to this.
V
Voivod
Jan 22, 2004
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:00:01 -0500, Airbreather
scribbled:

I pride myself on my killfile trick, thanks for asking.

*PLONK*

Quitter.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:12:48 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:31:22 -0500, Airbreather
scribbled:

wow, Vovoid, you really are a conceited troll.

Not bad, just a week late. What other tricks do you do?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:18:14 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:02:35 -0500, "William Kious" scribbled:

And I believe you! So, if you’re a cop why are you using other people’s copy written images to make Shania
wallpapers? Don’t you respect the law you’re supposed
to uphold?

Read and understand copyright law – I alter the images enough that they

I have, but then, from my experience cops are the LAST
people you ask about laws. But then, a cop sitting on
the grey area of the copyright violation fence is rather amusing.

aren’t held to the same standard as distributing the original image.

I’m sure the owners of the images wouldn’t agree.

Actually I don’t. But do pretend you can give orders if it makes you feel better.

I am assuming that you are the type that would start screaming about how they "know their rights" – After speeding through a school zone, mowing down several little kids. Or are you the type who breaks into pharmacies looking for Oxycontin? Wait… I know… You’re a panty bandit.

Oh look, a cop commiting libel, how cute!

Actually I’m the type that jerks your chain and laughs
while you dance.

Of course, you know you’re a prick … And from what I’ve seen … Other people in the forum are aware of the fact. At least you seem to take pride in it.

I’m good at what I do. Watch, you’ll just have to reply to this.
V
vdubelu
Feb 6, 2004
http://s92873501.onlinehome.us/Series2004NoteFrontPROTECTION .jpg

Notice the white square. You can now open the image in photoshop wit no problem

vdubel
———————————————————— ———– Posted via http://www.mcse.m
———————————————————— ———– View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message31450.htm
L
larrybud2002
Feb 6, 2004
"Stephan" …
"Voivod" wrote in message
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:29 GMT, Eric Gill
scribbled:

So you’re mad that Photoshop won’t let you counterfit money anymore? And based on that change alone you’d not have
bought the product if you’d known the ability to counterfit money was no longer available?

I don’t think this is the real issue.
It is all about people putting their nose in your business. Will the next Photoshop version not let you scan nudes?
Maybe you won’t be able to use any photo of W unless it is "approved" by the White House and no filter othe than USM will work.
Maybe your machine will silently report any use of selected words to the "Home Security Thing"
You see where it can go?
I am not paranoid and have nothing to hide but I can tell when "They" step on my feet.

Now, that would be up to Adobe, wouldn’t it? This feature isn’t forced by law, it’s a decision that a company made about it’s product. It no different than Dell deciding what hard drive is standard on their PCs, or the resolution that your particular monitor supports.

If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy Photoshop, nobody is forcing you to.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections