PS piracy

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:46:30 +0400, "pS" wrote:

the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive.

True, that.

but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution.

No, it’s stealing.

i am
talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is awful…

Both are stealing.

even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but eventually i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.

Upgraded from a stolen copy? Also stealing, but a step in the right direction.

in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe

If they wanted us to have free copies, they would not charge for it, and remove all serial number and activation requirements. They must feel that they should be paid for their work…the bastards.

because
when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use the pirated version of PS.

But they would have paid for it.

so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.

I’m against it. K?

"pS" wrote in message

hi,

i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution.

You are asking for a solution to a problem that has no dire justification. Period.

On 6-Nov-2003, "pS" wrote:

i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution. i am talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is awful… even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but eventually
i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.

in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use the pirated version of PS.

so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.

It’s theft no matter how you justify it. It’s not like your family will starve if you don’t have PhotoShop.

Further, there are many lower cost or free alternatives like Paint Shop Pro, PhotoImpact, Corel, etc. If you’re a student you can get student discounts. If you buy a scanner, some come with PS LE.

—
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it’s reserved for spammers)

i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution.

No.

The "zero opportunity cost" justification–"I would never be able to afford it anayway, so Adobe doesn’t lose anything if I don’t buy it!"–simply does not hold water when you consider that there are consumer-grade image editors available for as little as $49; if you pirate Photoshop, you won’t buy one of them.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

u wont go 2 heaven

I smell a troll. No. Wait. That’s the scent of an idiot. Well, they’re very close you know. Easy mistake.

— JC

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:46:30 +0400, "pS" wrote:

hi,

i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution. i am talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is awful… even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but eventually i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.

If you are not making money with the software you most probably don’t need press support and CMYK separation.

In that case you are better off with Paint Shop Pro which is less expensive and does a better job for those just learning.

Or buy a cheap scanner and use the PS elements bundled with it.

If you make money from using PS and can not afford it you are doing something wrong, very wrong.

in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use the pirated version of PS.

The theory of filling market niches in an environment where copying is illeagal but possible. Damage is done to (cheaper) competitors of the market leader as the pirated version is still cheape than their alternative product.

so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.

This group in general consists of people who have paid for their software – in real life, think of coming into a truck stop and telling everyone you painted their wheels pink….

Michael

Folks, this guy isn’t serious. I think he is a stand up comedian practicing on us. Substitute any luxury item in his message to see how it sounds. Just in case you are serious, check out ebay…

the ""fact"" is that Z3’s and other BMW’s are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of a BMW Z3, isn’t stealing one the best solution. i am talking of personal use because making profit by uisng a stolen vehicle is awful… even me i started using a stolen BMW. but eventually i managed to get enough money to go for the Z3 upgrade.

"pS" wrote in message

hi,

i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution. i am talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is awful… even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but

eventually

i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.

in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use the pirated version of PS.

so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.

u r dum

"pS" escribi

"pS" wrote in message

hi,

i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of PS, isn’t software piracy the best solution. i am talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is awful… even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but

eventually

i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.

in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use the pirated version of PS.

so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.

All property is theft.

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 – Release Date: 06/11/2003

In article <bofjbt$1c4fks$>, "MALdito"
wrote:

I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should know, I

In article <NVMqb.878$>, "leon"
wrote:

All property is theft.

From whom?

I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should know, I´m a copyright lawyer), but so is paying up to $600 for the software.

That depends on the software.

Photoshop is almost unique in the sense that a program like Photoshop can’t be written by a group of programmers. Photoshop requires people not only skilled in computer programming, but also skilled in color theory, color modelling, printing, prepress, color separation, digital signal processing, color management, workflow management, and so on.

This is why open-source projects like GIMP and programming projects like Paint Shop Pro have yet to produce a program with more than a small fraction of Photoshop’s capabilities.

Adobe employs teams of people with expertise in all of these areas. As a result, development of a program like Photoshop is *significantly* more expensive than development of most other computer programs.

Is like music piracy, 90% of the profits goes to the big company who owns the software and pays the developers.. less than 1% (in most cases)

You obviously are not familiar with Adobe’s compensation plan. I have several friends who are software engineers at Adobe; their compensation plan is rather different than what you think. Indeed, Thomas Knoll lives very well indeed because of Photoshop…

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"jjs" wrote in message

In article <NVMqb.878$>, "leon"
wrote:

All property is theft.

From whom?

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1809-1865.

—
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 – Release Date: 06/11/2003

"Tacit" escribi

"The Data Rat" wrote in message

Folks, this guy isn’t serious. I think he is a stand up comedian

practicing

on us. Substitute any luxury item in his message to see how it sounds. Just in case you are serious, check out ebay…

the ""fact"" is that Z3’s and other BMW’s are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go for the full power of a BMW Z3, isn’t stealing one the best solution. i am talking of personal use because making profit by uisng a stolen vehicle is awful… even me i started using a stolen BMW. but eventually i managed to get enough money to go for the Z3 upgrade.

What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said, it makes no sense whatsoever.

dumbass

"Alan D-W" wrote in message

"The Data Rat" wrote in message

Folks, this guy isn’t serious. I think he is a stand up comedian

practicing

on us. Substitute any luxury item in his message to see how it sounds. Just in case you are serious, check out ebay…

the ""fact"" is that Z3’s and other BMW’s are quite expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to

go

for the full power of a BMW Z3, isn’t stealing one the best solution. i

am

talking of personal use because making profit by uisng a stolen vehicle

is

awful… even me i started using a stolen BMW. but eventually i managed to get enough money to go for the Z3 upgrade.

What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said, it makes no sense whatsoever.

From whom?

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1809-1865.

One of a long line of French socialists.

In article , says…

I smell a troll. No. Wait. That’s the scent of an idiot. Well, they’re very close you know. Easy mistake.

The scent of a troll was pirated from a real troll. That’s illegal, too.

We won’t ask about troll cracks.

Diane

"leon" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in message

In article <NVMqb.878$>, "leon"
wrote:

All property is theft.

From whom?

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1809-1865.

Ah, yes, the Idiot Proudhorn. What a case.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:46:30 +0400, "pS" wrote:

in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use the pirated version of PS.

Adobe just placed an activation scheme on Photoshop CS. I guess they don’t appreciate your help or feel your poverty 😉

<sob> ingrates!

MALdito wrote:

I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should know, I´m a copyright lawyer), but so is paying up to $600 for the software. Is like music piracy, 90% of the profits goes to the big company who owns the software and pays the developers.. less than 1% (in most cases)
Copyright is an aberration .. that´s why the rest of the world calls it "Authors Rights", bacause elsewhere the author (ps developer) should be the one in charge .. not the "copy".

No, not in my country. If the developer is employed by a company to do the development work, that company becomes the copyright (or authors right) holder, not the developer. So, if Adobe was based in my country, Adobe would be the ‘authors right’ holder of Photoshop, not the people who have done the work as employees of Adobe. I would be surprised if that was different in any other country.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" escribi

"PS Capitalist Pig" <*.com> wrote in message

Adobe just placed an activation scheme on Photoshop CS. I guess they don’t appreciate your help or feel your poverty 😉
<sob> ingrates!

Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to ‘kill’ Activation protection.

And there you have it again:
– those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue to do so.
– those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.

…. but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems to legit users by making PS refusing to work or making it unable to install again and reactivate. Additionaly, in a tight schedule it can become tremendous problem.

Think about it.

W.
p.s. Im not against fighting piracy, I just think that software activation is wrong way to do it.

MALdito wrote:

No, not in my country. If the developer is employed by a company to do the development work, that company becomes the copyright (or authors right) holder, not the developer. So, if Adobe was based in my country, Adobe would be the ‘authors right’ holder of Photoshop, not the people who have done the work as employees of Adobe. I would be surprised if that was different in any other country.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

That´s exactly what I meant .. that´s the copyright way .. not the authors right way.

The US began imposing this "aberration" long time ago .. to everybody who wanted to do business with them. Next thing you know, the WIPO and the WTO put it in some article ..

Well, I don’t know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries, but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch ‘authors rights’ laws since the beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <boi6mi$1aiv7l$>, "MALdito"
wrote:

[…]
I

In article <1g43svv.edmkd1152ac82N%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Well, I don’t know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries, but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch ‘authors rights’ laws since the beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed…

Perhaps not. When I worked in commercial software development, I had to sign a contract that said that _everything_ I coded, and _anything_ I contributed otherwise, including ideas (and later derivations of the ideas) conveyed in any way, even in conversation with employees, during meetings, and so-forth was the property of my employer. Fair is fair. They paid me very, very well.

BTW, Johan – why _is_ a Zebra striped? (I’m guessing natural convection cooling).

jjs wrote:

In article <1g43svv.edmkd1152ac82N%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Well, I don’t know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries, but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch ‘authors rights’ laws since the beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed…

Perhaps not. When I worked in commercial software development, I had to sign a contract that said that _everything_ I coded, and _anything_ I contributed otherwise, including ideas (and later derivations of the ideas) conveyed in any way, even in conversation with employees, during meetings, and so-forth was the property of my employer. Fair is fair. They paid me very, very well.

BTW, Johan – why _is_ a Zebra striped? (I’m guessing natural convection cooling).

We will never know for sure. Personally I don’t think the convection cooling theory is very likely, for a number of reasons. The main reason is that zebras do not seem to withstand higher temperatures than other animals, where they should if the convection cooling would work. Zebras go for the shade when some other animals don’t seem to be bothered by the heat. The other reason is that I don’t believe it is effective anyway. Zebra striped vehicles parked in the sunlight do not stay noticably cooler than white ones either. It’s an interesting theory, but I don’t think anyone has ever shown that is really works that way.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"frederickson" wrote in message

dumbass

Ah that explains everything! You’re a dumbass so that’s why you’re inane ramblings made no sense.

In article <1g446bx.1cptcuu1b6j7mgN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

jjs wrote:

BTW, Johan – why _is_ a Zebra striped? (I’m guessing natural convection cooling).

We will never know for sure. Personally I don’t think the convection cooling theory is very likely, for a number of reasons.
[… snip good stuff …]

I agree. Convection is as likely an explanation as mine: Zebras are nature’s telephoto lens resolution targets. Or more seriously, their markings are nature’s version of Razzle Dazzle camoflage. (Remember that trend? It really worked.)

Okay, I’m leaving now. 🙂 Too much coffee.

In article <boj8fj$1eh5ba$>, "MALdito"
wrote:

Yea, you can sell everything BUT the moral rights … something copyright doesn

"Johan W. Elzenga" escribi

"jjs" escribi

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate

problems

to legit users by making PS refusing to work or making it unable to install again and reactivate.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why software activation is wrong, inane, and stupid.

It’s not wrong because it’s a moral problem or because a company has no right to do it; any copyright owner is within its rights to try to stop theft. It’s wrong because it costs users money and does not solve the problem it purports to solve. It’s a stupid, expensive, and ineffective waste of resources.

Every problem has a solution that is logical, neat, elegant, and wrong. If the solution does not solve the problem, then it is, by definition, the wrong solution.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0100, "Wed"
wrote:

"PS Capitalist Pig" <*.com> wrote in message

….

Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to ‘kill’ Activation protection.

And those with cracked versions are actually complaining in the Adobe Forums that their "ctrl" key is not working.

And there you have it again:
– those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue to do so.
– those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.

As they say, a lock doesn’t stop a good burglar…it keeps the honest people honest. One aspect of piracy is people who do buy the legit copy installing it on a whole lot of machines. That’s really what activation is more aimed at.

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems

Microsoft has been using it in Word and Windows XP without much of an issue. I activated my PS CS without any problems. As for workflow interuptions…you do have a backup strategy. right? I mean even if there was a problem with activation after upgrading a machine…you would have a backup machine running it. The license allows one other machine such as a laptop.

Funny, the upgrade is $169….not much of a cost increase afaik. In fact I got a $30 discount via NAPP.

PS CP

PS CP wrote:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0100, "Wed"
wrote:

"PS Capitalist Pig" <*.com> wrote in message

…

Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to ‘kill’ Activation protection.

And those with cracked versions are actually complaining in the Adobe Forums that their "ctrl" key is not working.

And there you have it again:
– those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue to do so.
– those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.

As they say, a lock doesn’t stop a good burglar…it keeps the honest people honest. One aspect of piracy is people who do buy the legit copy installing it on a whole lot of machines. That’s really what activation is more aimed at.

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems

Microsoft has been using it in Word and Windows XP without much of an issue. I activated my PS CS without any problems.

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

Regards,
Uni

As for workflow

interuptions…you do have a backup strategy. right? I mean even if there was a problem with activation after upgrading a machine…you would have a backup machine running it. The license allows one other machine such as a laptop.

Funny, the upgrade is $169….not much of a cost increase afaik. In fact I got a $30 discount via NAPP.

PS CP

MALdito wrote:

Well, I don’t know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries, but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch ‘authors rights’ laws since the beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed…

—

Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it´s Authors Right. You own what you create …

No, you don’t. That’s exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create, if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that’s the law in my country.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <1g44po5.icqq4f19g7z1aN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it

Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it´s Authors Right. You own what you create …

From: (Johan W. Elzenga)

No, you don’t. That’s exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create, if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that’s the law in my country.

It’s the same in the USA at most companies. I was granted six US Patents which were filed while I was working for an electronics company. They paid the attorney fees and gave me a generous bonus for each one but the company owns the patents. I knew that going in and it’s fine with me.

Bill

In article , Bill Hilton
wrote:

No, you don’t. That’s exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create, if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that’s the law in my country.

It’s the same in the USA at most companies. I was granted six US Patents which
were filed while I was working for an electronics company. They paid the attorney fees and gave me a generous bonus for each one but the company owns the patents. I knew that going in and it’s fine with me.

Copyright law and Patent law are not the same thing. Under US law, you have the right to patent what you invent unless (such as your case) you sign an agreement with your employeer otherwise. You do not own the copyright for something you create "for hire" unless your employeer signs an agreement otherwise.

jjs wrote:

In article <1g44po5.icqq4f19g7z1aN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it´s Authors Right. You own what you create …

No, you don’t. That’s exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create, if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that’s the law in my country.

Is that a national law, or a prevailing convention among companies? Or is there no difference there?

It’s the law. A few years ago someone who worked for Philips tried to get his authors rights for an invention he made during his work at the Philips labs. He went to court and lost.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Tacit wrote:

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate

problems

to legit users by making PS refusing to work or making it unable to install again and reactivate.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why software activation is wrong, inane, and stupid.

It’s not wrong because it’s a moral problem or because a company has no right to do it; any copyright owner is within its rights to try to stop theft. It’s wrong because it costs users money and does not solve the problem it purports to solve. It’s a stupid, expensive, and ineffective waste of resources.
Every problem has a solution that is logical, neat, elegant, and wrong. If the solution does not solve the problem, then it is, by definition, the wrong solution.

If you have any better solutions, let’s hear them.

Regards,
Uni

In article <1g45oge.12m34k8bq2gaoN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

jjs wrote:

Is that a national law, or a prevailing convention among companies? Or is there no difference there?

It’s the law. A few years ago someone who worked for Philips tried to get his authors rights for an invention he made during his work at the Philips labs. He went to court and lost.

So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed – or your are incorrect regarding the details of the case.

jjs wrote:

Is that a national law, or a prevailing convention among companies? Or is there no difference there?

It’s the law. A few years ago someone who worked for Philips tried to get his authors rights for an invention he made during his work at the Philips labs. He went to court and lost.

So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed – or your are incorrect regarding the details of the case.

I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don’t think so. What makes you believe that all the laws in my country are ‘socialist laws’?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed – or your are incorrect regarding the details of the case.

I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don’t think so. What makes you believe that all the laws in my country are ‘socialist laws’?

Don’t worry about jjs and the statement that was made.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/wct/index.html This site contains a wealth of information about copyrights and such under the current international treaty. Presently, there are 179 member countries so ALL of these countries will have similar copyright (author’s rights) laws if they want their issued copyrights honored worldwide. http://www.wipo.int/

If you check further into the Philips Labs lawsuit you mentioned, you would probably find the person
was a show to be covered under the work-for-hire doctrine, which means he was a direct hire of Philips whose job was to develop the software.

"jjs" escribi

"Johan W. Elzenga" escribi

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:46:43 -0500, Uni
wrote:

PS CP wrote:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0100, "Wed"
wrote:

"PS Capitalist Pig" <*.com> wrote in message

…

Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to ‘kill’ Activation protection.

And those with cracked versions are actually complaining in the Adobe Forums that their "ctrl" key is not working.

And there you have it again:
– those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue to do so.
– those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.

As they say, a lock doesn’t stop a good burglar…it keeps the honest people honest. One aspect of piracy is people who do buy the legit copy installing it on a whole lot of machines. That’s really what activation is more aimed at.

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems

Microsoft has been using it in Word and Windows XP without much of an issue. I activated my PS CS without any problems.

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

You mean 80% of the casual readers of this group are pirates?

Michael

Regards,
Uni

As for workflow

interuptions…you do have a backup strategy. right? I mean even if there was a problem with activation after upgrading a machine…you would have a backup machine running it. The license allows one other machine such as a laptop.

Funny, the upgrade is $169….not much of a cost increase afaik. In fact I got a $30 discount via NAPP.

PS CP

Xalinai wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:46:43 -0500, Uni
wrote:

PS CP wrote:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0100, "Wed"
wrote:

"PS Capitalist Pig" <*.com> wrote in message

…

Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to ‘kill’ Activation protection.

And those with cracked versions are actually complaining in the Adobe Forums that their "ctrl" key is not working.

And there you have it again:
– those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue to do so.
– those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.

As they say, a lock doesn’t stop a good burglar…it keeps the honest people honest. One aspect of piracy is people who do buy the legit copy installing it on a whole lot of machines. That’s really what activation is more aimed at.

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems

Microsoft has been using it in Word and Windows XP without much of an issue. I activated my PS CS without any problems.

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

You mean 80% of the casual readers of this group are pirates?

Are you able to prove me wrong?

🙂

Uni

Michael

Regards,
Uni

As for workflow

interuptions…you do have a backup strategy. right? I mean even if there was a problem with activation after upgrading a machine…you would have a backup machine running it. The license allows one other machine such as a laptop.

Funny, the upgrade is $169….not much of a cost increase afaik. In fact I got a $30 discount via NAPP.

PS CP

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:50:26 GMT, (Xalinai)
wrote:

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

That’s absurd.
I own all my software (well, the license, anyway), and sometimes ask for help I have trouble finding in the documentation. Besides, getting "real" technical help from larger companies (yes, even Adobe) is frustrating to say the least.

I have a problem with activation simply because I don’t want to rely on someone else’s hardware remaining available when I need to reinstall, and I also don’t want the company to say "your version is no longer supported" and then remove the activation server. Has this happened? Not yet. Will it? Perhaps, if the software companies decide to go with a subscription model instead of just activation. How far behind do you think *that* notion is?

You mean 80% of the casual readers of this group are pirates?

….aarrrrhhhh, matey.

In article <bon6rv$1gj2c3$>, "MALdito"
wrote:

"jjs" escribi

<Roy Petersen> wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:50:26 GMT, (Xalinai)
wrote:

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

That’s absurd.
I own all my software (well, the license, anyway), and sometimes ask for help I have trouble finding in the documentation. Besides, getting "real" technical help from larger companies (yes, even Adobe) is frustrating to say the least.

I have a problem with activation simply because I don’t want to rely on someone else’s hardware remaining available when I need to reinstall, and I also don’t want the company to say "your version is no longer supported" and then remove the activation server. Has this happened? Not yet. Will it? Perhaps, if the software companies decide to go with a subscription model instead of just activation. How far behind do you think *that* notion is?

Not far, read here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Orvile wrote:

<Roy Petersen> wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:50:26 GMT, (Xalinai)
wrote:

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

That’s absurd.
I own all my software (well, the license, anyway), and sometimes ask for help I have trouble finding in the documentation. Besides, getting "real" technical help from larger companies (yes, even Adobe) is frustrating to say the least.

I have a problem with activation simply because I don’t want to rely on someone else’s hardware remaining available when I need to reinstall, and I also don’t want the company to say "your version is no longer supported" and then remove the activation server. Has this happened? Not yet. Will it? Perhaps, if the software companies decide to go with a subscription model instead of just activation. How far behind do you think *that* notion is?

Not far, read here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

Uni

In article <TGWrb.853$>, "Orvile"
wrote:

[…]
Not far, read here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Yep. It’s all about a Back to the Mainframe mentality; in otherwords "we own it, you rent it, we own you, we know what you are doing, you can’t know what we are doing, you don’t mean squat but $$$$."

It’s a regular circle. A marketing thing.

Uni wrote:

Tacit wrote:

… but … whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate

problems

to legit users by making PS refusing to work or making it unable to install again and reactivate.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why software activation is wrong, inane, and stupid.

It’s not wrong because it’s a moral problem or because a company has no right to do it; any copyright owner is within its rights to try to stop theft. It’s wrong because it costs users money and does not solve the problem it purports to solve. It’s a stupid, expensive, and ineffective waste of resources.
Every problem has a solution that is logical, neat, elegant, and wrong. If the solution does not solve the problem, then it is, by definition, the wrong solution.

If you have any better solutions, let’s hear them.

Regards,
Uni

What is the problem? If we knew that we might be able to suggest solutions.

There is a theory out there that says that pirated copies cut *significantly* into sales. If there is any actual
evidence to support that I’ve not seen it. As far as I
know no manufacturer has ever presented any compelling
evidence. All I’ve seen is guesswork.

Consider the required activation for Windows XP. What fraction of people have actually installed XP from scratch? (I have and it sometimes isn’t easy — and yes it was a legal copy.) Most folks buy a computer with the operating system already installed. Very few build their own machines.

But right now activation (and monitoring) seem to be all the rage. We’ll just have to wait and see.

— Paul J. Gans

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

jjs wrote:

Is that a national law, or a prevailing convention among companies? Or is there no difference there?

It’s the law. A few years ago someone who worked for Philips tried to get his authors rights for an invention he made during his work at the Philips labs. He went to court and lost.

So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed – or your are incorrect regarding the details of the case.

I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don’t think so. What makes you believe that all the laws in my country are ‘socialist laws’?

I’d guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been around for more than a century.

The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer belongs to the employer. You’ve not been hired to work for yourself. You’ve been hired to work for a company.

The issue gets complicated by "I did it on my own time" and things like that, but then any general principle does.

And no, I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

—- Paul J. Gans

In article <bopg99$81m$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I’d guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been around for more than a century.

The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer belongs to the employer. You’ve not been hired to work for yourself. You’ve been hired to work for a company.

Usually that is the case. Academe, however, is quite different. In many (many!) cases, an employee of academe can patent and profit from work he did while under the employee of the university or college.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:38:19 -0500, Uni
wrote:

Orvile wrote:

<Roy Petersen> wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:50:26 GMT, (Xalinai)
wrote:

Most people don’t have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period. You can easily spot them in usenet. They’re always asking for PS technical help, because they can’t obtain any official technical help.

That’s absurd.
I own all my software (well, the license, anyway), and sometimes ask for help I have trouble finding in the documentation. Besides, getting "real" technical help from larger companies (yes, even Adobe) is frustrating to say the least.

I have a problem with activation simply because I don’t want to rely on someone else’s hardware remaining available when I need to reinstall, and I also don’t want the company to say "your version is no longer supported" and then remove the activation server. Has this happened? Not yet. Will it? Perhaps, if the software companies decide to go with a subscription model instead of just activation. How far behind do you think *that* notion is?

Not far, read here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

It wouldn’t hit you, you don’t use Photoshop as we know.

Michael

Uni

Paul J Gans wrote:

So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed – or your are incorrect regarding the details of the case.

I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don’t think so. What makes you believe that all the laws in my country are ‘socialist laws’?

I’d guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been around for more than a century.

The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer belongs to the employer. You’ve not been hired to work for yourself. You’ve been hired to work for a company.

Exactly, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. It makes sense too and has little to do with ‘capitalism’ or not. Suppose this would NOT be the case. Suppose I work for a company a do some development work as part of a very large project. Just before the project is finished, I quit my job and claim ‘authors rights’ or copy rights on the work I just did. That way I can extort the company, because without my part the whole project cannot be used. Is that fair to any (moral or legal) standard? I don’t think so!

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <1g49fx5.11wvosu1evi64gN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

Exactly, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. It makes sense too and has little to do with ‘capitalism’ or not. Suppose this would NOT be the case. Suppose I work for a company a do some development work as part of a very large project. Just before the project is finished, I quit my job and claim ‘authors rights’ or copy rights on the work I just did. That way I can extort the company, because without my part the whole project cannot be used. Is that fair to any (moral or legal) standard? I don’t think so!

On the other hand, some of us have what’s called ‘intellectual currency’ that we take from project to project (job to job). For example, one who can cut machine code for certain challenges. While one can argue that algorithms are the propery of a certain employer, it almost never stands up because (IMHO) patenting algoritms is just downright wrong-headed. So some folks do their special thing for employer A, then B, and all the way to Z if possible. That’s okay. It is similar to this thing called ‘talent’ which no employer can own, but that is a different subject.

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product activation, for many reasons:

– It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe’s product activation has already been cracked.

– The hardware dongle is not a mechanism for data collection; activation is. Product activation allows the company to collect unique, personally identifiable information about hte users and their system configurations.

– A hardware dongle still works easily if you change your computer. Re-activating a copy of Adobe’s software if you replace your computer requires contacting Adobe; if you can’t (for whatever reason), or theur systems aren’t working properly, or there’s a problem with their database, you’re screwed.

– A hardware dongle is faster, easier to set up, and does not require an Internet connection.

It’s the second point that’s most telling–and it’s the second point, I suspect, that is the REAL reason for hardware activation.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Consider the required activation for Windows XP. What fraction of people have actually installed XP from scratch?

Funny you should mention XP…

I have a (legal, licensed) copy of XP Pro that I had running on my primary home PC. My PC got hit by lightning; came in through my cable modem connection, destroyed my cable modem, my router, the Ethernet port on one of my iMacs, the motherboard on my PC, and the cabling in between.

I replaced the motherboard on the PC, and got a new graphics card while I was at it, the better to play games. That was enough to trigger XP’s "Help, this is a different computer!" panic; re-installing XP required a phone call to microsoft and all the associated thrashing around. There’s two hours of my life I’ll never get back.

If it happens again, I’ll tell you right now, I’m using the activation hack. Not because I am a pirate; it’s still a legal copy of XP. I’m using the hack because I’ve got better things to do with my life than spend it on the goddamn telephone to Microsoft begging for the activation key to let me use my purchased copy of XP.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" wrote in message

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product

activation,

for many reasons:
[…]

Bring on the Dongle! But wait – what happens when you end up with a chain of dongles so long the computer won’t fit against a wall? And what of conflicts among them? Are there Dongle Standards? Dongle black-markets? (How hard can it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)

But I see a market! Dongle Pins! (Prestige apparel) Dongle Skins! Dongle help groups.

—
jjs – twelve stepping to Gimp

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

[snip]

Bring on the Dongle! But wait – what happens when you end up with a chain of dongles so long the computer won’t fit against a wall? And what of conflicts

Hey, think in three dimensions 😉

But I see the point…this would also be a real problem with laptops. Every software requiring a dongle. Oops, just lost one while on the road. What to do!

among them? Are there Dongle Standards? Dongle black-markets? (How hard can it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)

Don’t know, but they would be harder to get hold of than a software crack. And easier for the police to catch the culprits (and the full force of the DMCA and equivalents).

But I see a market! Dongle Pins! (Prestige apparel) Dongle Skins! Dongle help groups.

Hey, why not use biometrics… 😉

—
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice" – The Clash

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:
[snip]
[snip…]
Hey, why not use biometrics… 😉

Now you are really scaring me. 🙂 Tried something like that a few times in the Old Daze; things like console key monitoring for typing patterns in order to identify individuals. Know how whacked that gets when the operator comes in hung over?

Bring on the Dongle! But wait – what happens when you end up with a chain of dongles so long the computer won’t fit against a wall?

Dongles are only cost-effective for software that has a fairly high retail price; you’re not likely to see a dongle for a $49.95 program.

And what of conflicts
among them? Are there Dongle Standards?

Yes. The EvE standard is daisy-chainable, too.

Dongle black-markets? (How hard can
it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)

The dongles work by containing a passkey in ROM, which is encrypted by a strong encryption algorithm such as TripleDES or RC4. Reverse-engineering a dongle would require being able to crack strong encryption–which is a non-trivial task. If you can do it, you’d be better rewarded by using your skills at the NSA or FBI than using them to bootleg Photoshop.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

jjs wrote:

In article <bopg99$81m$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

I’d guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been around for more than a century.

The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer belongs to the employer. You’ve not been hired to work for yourself. You’ve been hired to work for a company.

Usually that is the case. Academe, however, is quite different. In many (many!) cases, an employee of academe can patent and profit from work he did while under the employee of the university or college.

That’s a more complex issue. If that is allowed, and it is NOT ALLOWED at many universities, it is because the university has specifically granted those rights back to the individual.

If you want to get worked up about something, how about patents taken on the basis of research that was funded by the Federal Government. This is common in the US.

But we are drifting further and further off-topic.

—- Paul J. Gans

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed – or your are incorrect regarding the details of the case.

I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don’t think so. What makes you believe that all the laws in my country are ‘socialist laws’?

I’d guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been around for more than a century.

The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer belongs to the employer. You’ve not been hired to work for yourself. You’ve been hired to work for a company.

Exactly, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. It makes sense too and has little to do with ‘capitalism’ or not. Suppose this would NOT be the case. Suppose I work for a company a do some development work as part of a very large project. Just before the project is finished, I quit my job and claim ‘authors rights’ or copy rights on the work I just did. That way I can extort the company, because without my part the whole project cannot be used. Is that fair to any (moral or legal) standard? I don’t think so!

Yes. We are, I think, in total agreement.

—- Paul J. Gans

Tacit wrote:

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product activation, for many reasons:

– It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe’s product activation has already been cracked.

– The hardware dongle is not a mechanism for data collection; activation is. Product activation allows the company to collect unique, personally identifiable information about hte users and their system configurations.
– A hardware dongle still works easily if you change your computer. Re-activating a copy of Adobe’s software if you replace your computer requires contacting Adobe; if you can’t (for whatever reason), or theur systems aren’t working properly, or there’s a problem with their database, you’re screwed.
– A hardware dongle is faster, easier to set up, and does not require an Internet connection.

It’s the second point that’s most telling–and it’s the second point, I suspect, that is the REAL reason for hardware activation.

Even better, Photoshop could be distributed on a ROM chip, which you’d plug-in to your computer. I’m amazed MS hasn’t thought of this idea yet.

Uni

(Tacit) wrote in
news::

– It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe’s product activation has already been cracked.

And (for example) Quark for UK has been cracked to remove the need for the dongle; copy protection is an effort in futility, period.

re: data gathering in activation:

It’s the second point that’s most telling–and it’s the second point, I suspect, that is the REAL reason for hardware activation.

I suspect you’re entirely correct on that one.

Long live PS7.

MALdito wrote:

Anyway, moral rights are "the kind" only human beings can have. They are the opposite of "patrimonial" rights. You should do a search .. [snip] http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html

An additional read is
http://www.copyright.gov/wipo/wipo5.html#Article%205

Article 5:

Moral Rights of Performers
(1) Independently of a performer’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of those rights, the performer shall
Alternative A: , as regards his musical performances, have the right Alternative B: have the right
to be identified as the performer of his performances and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, his performances that would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.

(2) The rights granted to a performer in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the Contracting Party where protection is claimed. However, those Contracting Parties whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Treaty, does not provide for protection after the death of the performer of all rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights will, after his death, cease to be maintained.

(3) The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted under this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the Contracting Party where protection is claimed.

—
Regards
Christopher Dillon
Onemouse .-‘
+—————————————— _|__–+
| One Man & His Mouse Design Consultancy / \ |
| |()_()| |
| Cambridge \{o o}/ |
| New Zealand =\o/= |
+—————————————— ^ ^ –+

In article ,
says…

Dongle black-markets? (How hard can
it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)

The dongles work by containing a passkey in ROM, which is encrypted by a strong encryption algorithm such as TripleDES or RC4. Reverse-engineering a dongle would require being able to crack strong encryption–which is a non-trivial task. If you can do it, you’d be better rewarded by using your skills at the NSA or FBI than using them to bootleg Photoshop.

Why would you have to break encryption? All you’d have to do is copy the ROM contents.

Personally I’d rather have activation than dongles; besides getting lost, dongles can break, dongles can get damaged (seems I’ve heard several tales of this with parallel port dongles, and parallel ports were never designed for stacked devices anyway), and dongles are a real hassle for mobility.

My primary computer is now a laptop, with a dock. If I had to use a dongle, I’d have to move the dongle from the dock to the laptop, or back, every time I dock or undock. That’s at least twice daily, all for use on a *single* computer. For that reason alone, a dongle is sufficient reason not to buy a piece of software.

Diane

(Tacit) wrote:

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product activation, for many reasons:

– It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe’s product activation has already been cracked.

http://www.woodmann.com/fravia/zee__4.htm

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Tacit" wrote in message

I wouldn’t blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper piracy.

Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product

activation,

for many reasons:
[…]

Bring on the Dongle! But wait – what happens when you end up with a chain of dongles so long the computer won’t fit against a wall? And what of conflicts among them? Are there Dongle Standards? Dongle black-markets? (How hard can it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)

But I see a market! Dongle Pins! (Prestige apparel) Dongle Skins! Dongle help groups.

The first is easy – use a cable. Modern dongles come in USB types – put it in a hub on your desk when you use the application.

Cracks against dongles were widely known in the eighties. But modern devices are a bit more intelligent so chances are it would take a little longer to circumvent them.

Michael

—
jjs – twelve stepping to Gimp

In article ,
(Xalinai) wrote:

[…]
Cracks against dongles were widely known in the eighties. But modern devices are a bit more intelligent so chances are it would take a little longer to circumvent them.

It seems the only way to prevent piracy is to have server-only applications and dumb clients (computer clients), like in the ‘old’ days of timesharing. If we were all on Internet-2 it might even be feasible. _Stupid_ but feasible.

So do we _know_ how many pirated versions of PS are in use? And how do we know? What metrics is Adobe using to justify their activation scheme? It strikes me as an NSA kind of intelligence problem.

Why would you have to break encryption? All you’d have to do is copy the ROM contents.

Nope; doing that would require additional steps as well.

With EvE dongles, each piece of software has a unique serial number. That serial number corresponds to a unique passkey encoded in the dongle and protected by strong crypto. A dongle will not work if the software in question does not have the matching serial number; if you have a copy of, say, Imposition Publisher, and I have a copy of Imposition Publisher with a different serial number, your dongle won’t work on my copy.

Now, I could presumably copy the dongle’s ROM, *and* also give you a copy of Imposition Publisher with the same serial number–but then Farrukh could put that serial number on a "hit list" of known bootlegged serial numbers (much like Adobe does now), cutting you off from future upgrades, software updates, and support.

With a program protected just by hardware activation, I can distribute the crack online, the same way I could distribute the software itself online. With a dongle, I can’t distribute the dongle online–I would actually have to mail out physical objects to my "customers." Physical objects that are locked to one specific serial number, so are likely to end up being of limited usefulness.

What I *can’t* do is crack the dongle *scheme* and produce any dongles I wanted to for any serial numbers I choose, without being able to crack the encryption n the dongle.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

This is a slightly different topic, so I thought it deserved its own reply:

My primary computer is now a laptop, with a dock. If I had to use a dongle, I’d have to move the dongle from the dock to the laptop, or back, every time I dock or undock. That’s at least twice daily, all for use on a *single* computer. For that reason alone, a dongle is sufficient reason not to buy a piece of software.

What kind of ports are built into the laptop, and what kind into the dock?

Currently, there are two popular types of dongles: parallel-port dongles, and USB dongles. USB dongles work on both PCs and Macs, are daisy-chainable, are extremely small (in most cases, small enough to fit in a matchbox), and will work with any laptop that has USBports without the need to transfer from the laptop to a dock. They are also hot-pluggable.

The downside is that the computer must be recent enough to include USB ports. In the case of Photoshop CS, which requires a relatively new system running a new OS (WinXP, Mac OS X, or Mac OS 9.1 or later), it’s unlikely you will find a computer that meets the minimum system requirements but *doesn’t* include USB. With other software, that may not necessarily be true.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

[…]

According to the web page noted earlier, the crackers modify the program code to bypass the dongle. That modified program could be used anywhere. I suppose the software developers could make several different versions of the program so that the code is in a different location, or in different code, but do they?

In article ,
says…

This is a slightly different topic, so I thought it deserved its own reply:

My primary computer is now a laptop, with a dock. If I had to use a dongle, I’d have to move the dongle from the dock to the laptop, or back, every time I dock or undock. That’s at least twice daily, all for use on a *single* computer. For that reason alone, a dongle is sufficient reason not to buy a piece of software.

What kind of ports are built into the laptop, and what kind into the dock?

Both the dock and the laptop have both USB and parallel ports. But that’s irrelevant, really; the dock blocks access to the laptop’s ports, and any devices connected to the laptop would have to be removed for docking.

I haven’t examined all the docking arrangements on the market, but Dell’s docks and port replicators for their Latitude C and D series laptops are built this way. So are the third-party docks I’ve seen for the Mac Powerbook G4s.

One can argue whether this is good or bad design, but the reality is that dongle usage is rare enough that laptops (and docks) have been designed for years without considering dongle-related issues as requirements. For a laptop, particularly, the mobility issue leaves some hard decisions about where you would *want* to put a dongle port, since most laptop carrying cases assume that a tight fit between laptop and padding is a good way to protect the laptop. Anything left protruding from the laptop is a problem.

So the key issues are not about electronics, but about physical issues such as packaging, durability, and mobility. Something that might seem to be a non-issue on a desktop can get very interesting indeed for a laptop.

Diane

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:
[snip]
[snip…]
Hey, why not use biometrics… 😉

Now you are really scaring me. 🙂 Tried something like that a few times in the Old Daze; things like console key monitoring for typing patterns in order to identify individuals. Know how whacked that gets when the operator comes in hung over?

I have enough problems trying to remember the hundred of passwords and PINs required these days!

Have a chip implanted in ever user…a sort of identity tag. That could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen 😉

—
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice" – The Clash

According to the web page noted earlier, the crackers modify the program code to bypass the dongle. That modified program could be used anywhere. I suppose the software developers could make several different versions of the program so that the code is in a different location, or in different code, but do they?

A developer who really cared about solving the problem could protect the code against modification by, for example, running an MD5 or CRC check against the code, and refusing to initialize if it looked like the code had been modified. But even that could, with enough patience, be worked around.

Microsoft tried to protect the XBox from hacking by encrypting the BIOS. The Southbridge chip contains the encryption key embedded within it; it loads the encrypted, compressed BOS image into memory, checks it against a hash value also hard-coded into the chip, decrypts it, and then checks the decrypted BIOS image against another hard-coded hash value.

Yet even this system, as robust as it seems, has been cracked. It took a lot of work from a lot of very dedicated and skilled hackers, who were willing to sacrifice a number of XBoxes and had the tools and equipment to get the hash values and the encryption key out of the Southbridge chip, but it was done.

The book "Hacking the Xbox" ( http://hackingthexbox.com/ ), which I have, can be used as an excellent case study in the futility of copy-control mechanisms. Ultimately, Adobe can’t stop piracy no matter what they do, and if they continue to pursue the chimera, they’ll hit a point of diminishing returns rather quickly.

In my opinion, a dongle offers Adobe better bang for the buck, and offers the user greater transparency and ease, than an activation system. But then, I don’t really believe the hardware activation scheme is about controlling piracy, not really. I think it’s more about compiling a database of personally identifiable demographics and system configurations on their users.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

http://www.woodmann.com/fravia/zee__4.htm

Nice site.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Dongles can be cracked as well. AutoCAD is a good example so is 3D Studio Max.

Robert

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:12:48 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:
[snip]
[snip…]
Hey, why not use biometrics… 😉

Now you are really scaring me. 🙂 Tried something like that a few times in the Old Daze; things like console key monitoring for typing patterns in order to identify individuals. Know how whacked that gets when the operator comes in hung over?

I have enough problems trying to remember the hundred of passwords and PINs required these days!

Have a chip implanted in ever user…a sort of identity tag. That could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen 😉

That looks like a fine idea: Get a bluetooth dongle that can be worn as a wristband, that identifies one user to all his devices and software and you can use every piece of software with a "per user" license.

For companies you could integrate it with the company ID tag.

Michael
—
Hey – you can’t patent that now. This counts as published prior art!

"pS" wrote in message

hi,

so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.

Piracy is theft. OK
But if it is a Microsoft product it is perfectly OK too

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:46:52 GMT, (Xalinai)
wrote:

[snip]

That looks like a fine idea: Get a bluetooth dongle that can be worn as a wristband, that identifies one user to all his devices and

[snip]

—
Hey – you can’t patent that now. This counts as published prior art!

Godamit! 😉

—
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain’t Coca Cola, it’s rice" – The Clash

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" wrote in message

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" wrote:
[snip]
[snip…]
Hey, why not use biometrics… 😉

Now you are really scaring me. 🙂 Tried something like that a few times in the Old Daze; things like console key monitoring for typing patterns in order to identify individuals. Know how whacked that gets when the operator comes in hung over?

I have enough problems trying to remember the hundred of passwords and PINs required these days!

Have a chip implanted in ever user…a sort of identity tag. That could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen 😉

And then you will discover that you are only licensing your body.

🙂

—- Paul J. Gans

In article <bp1h70$mn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

Have a chip implanted in ever user…a sort of identity tag. That could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen 😉

And then you will discover that you are only licensing your body.

Given the cost of medical care here (USA), I _am_ only renting my body.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:50:04 -0600, (jjs) wrote:

In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

[…]

According to the web page noted earlier, the crackers modify the program code to bypass the dongle. That modified program could be used anywhere. I suppose the software developers could make several different versions of the program so that the code is in a different location, or in different code, but do they?

Actually, most times crackers don’t bother bypassing the dongle, but write a simple "dongle emulator" that returns the proper dongle codes whenever the dongle routine is called from anywhere inside the program.

Most modern dongle-protected programs have checks scattered all throughout the software in all sorts of clever hidden places. Patching each one individually would be tedious and time-consuming, and there’s always the possibility that a few well-hidden checks could slip past. It’s also a lot of wasted effort if a new version is released shortly afterwards.

Dongle emulator code can either be a standalone library, or just tacked on the end of the software application in question and the dongle calls re-directed to utilize it. It’s usually quite easy to implement in new versions of released software, so the effort is worthwhile.

And yes, Adobe will not support outdated products forever. It defies logic of money profit.

What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does that mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for several years?

This also helps Adobe to force users to update.

Here is one scenario:
When Adobe will need more money (ie when version 11 will be released), they will just discontinue activation for v8.

And at the moment when v8 is released, I know people that still use PS 5.5

W.

Heres an idea:

In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation and make outdated version of the software work anyway.

In article <bp4ueg$eik$
says…

Heres an idea:

In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation and make outdated version of the software work anyway.

They won’t. At least not as long as they’re still developing newer versions. It cuts directly and unnecessarily into their profits. But they’ll give you a discount when you upgrade to their "latest and greatest".

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:08:22 +0100, "Wed"
wrote:

And yes, Adobe will not support outdated products forever. It defies logic of money profit.

What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does that mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for several years?

That is what "buying a license" means.

This also helps Adobe to force users to update.

Here is one scenario:
When Adobe will need more money (ie when version 11 will be released), they will just discontinue activation for v8.

Activation adds some leverage inforcing users to upgrade…

But if someone uses force without control he might push customers to other products…

Michael

And at the moment when v8 is released, I know people that still use PS 5.5

W.

In article <bp4tso$e1g$>, "Wed"
wrote:

What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does that mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for several years?

Let’s revive the old ‘wear bit’ concept. 🙂 You know, when software wears out after a while. Transformations slip, iterations skip steps, sometimes it won’t start without a tune-up. Good old American built-in obsolescence in Detroit motor terms.

In article ,
(Xalinai) wrote:

Activation adds some leverage inforcing users to upgrade…

Not too darn much. Increased features, better interface, faster, better… that’s the stuff the compells professionals and advanced users to repurchase.

But if someone uses force without control he might push customers to other products…

Upgrade prices are downright reasonable. Would a serious PS user consider going down in functionality and move to an unfamiliar work flow and interface for the _difference_ between an upgrade and a purchase-new of another package? I think not. Upgrade!

On 15-Nov-2003, IK wrote:

In article <bp4ueg$eik$
says…

Heres an idea:

In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation
and make outdated version of the software work anyway.

They won’t. At least not as long as they’re still developing newer versions. It cuts directly and unnecessarily into their profits. But they’ll give you a discount when you upgrade to their "latest and greatest".

They’ve said they will on their web site. www.adobe.com/activation

—
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it’s reserved for spammers)

In article <SFstb.376$>,
says…

On 15-Nov-2003, IK wrote:

In article <bp4ueg$eik$
says…

Heres an idea:

In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation
and make outdated version of the software work anyway.

They won’t. At least not as long as they’re still developing newer versions. It cuts directly and unnecessarily into their profits. But they’ll give you a discount when you upgrade to their "latest and greatest".

They’ve said they will on their web site. www.adobe.com/activation

No. The web site says that they will enable automatic approval when:

– A product is discontinued
– Adobe Shuts down

The release of a newer version does not mean the product is discontinued.

In fact, they specifically state what happens when they release a newer version:

Q: What happens if Adobe releases a newer version of Photoshop CS software? Will I be able to activate the older version?

A: Yes. Even after the older version of the product stops shipping, you can activate your copy of Photoshop CS.

Wed wrote in message

And yes, Adobe will not support outdated products forever. It defies logic of money profit.

What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does that mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for several years?

‘Renting’ it is all you ever have done.
Read the licence agreement.
The software belongs to Adobe, not you. You pay for permission to use it under Adobe-defined conditions.
Adobe does not market a product, they market a licence.
—

Ron.

A very poor anology…More like when new open source graphics programs become availible and software becomes the domain of the artist again…Adobe will be forced to change. Charging over 500 dollars for a software package that you need to "upgrade" every 18 months will become an obsolete way of doing business. If you want to feel smug about it well then the rest of the world can only laugh at you folks.

William Hazen
"jjs" wrote in message

In article <bp4tso$e1g$>, "Wed"
wrote:

What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does

that

mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for several years?

Let’s revive the old ‘wear bit’ concept. 🙂 You know, when software wears out after a while. Transformations slip, iterations skip steps, sometimes it won’t start without a tune-up. Good old American built-in obsolescence in Detroit motor terms.

"IK" wrote in message [..]

In fact, they specifically state what happens when they release a newer version:

Q: What happens if Adobe releases a newer version of Photoshop CS software? Will I be able to activate the older version?

A: Yes. Even after the older version of the product stops shipping, you can activate your copy of Photoshop CS.

This is a blurb on a website, not a part of their licensing agreement. Tomorrow or next week or next year or three years from now they can decide to change their minds.

Rick

In article <bp62eb$1kplde$
says…

"IK" wrote in message
[..]

In fact, they specifically state what happens when they release a newer version:

Q: What happens if Adobe releases a newer version of Photoshop CS software? Will I be able to activate the older version?

A: Yes. Even after the older version of the product stops shipping, you can activate your copy of Photoshop CS.

This is a blurb on a website, not a part of their licensing agreement. Tomorrow or next week or next year or three years from now they can decide to change their minds.

That is true. However, my point was that Adobe will maintain product activation on older versions as long as they continue making upgrades of the product (and remain in business).

In article <5Yvtb.42509$>, "HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote:

A very poor anology…More like when new open source graphics programs become availible and software becomes the domain of the artist again…Adobe will be forced to change. Charging over 500 dollars for a software package that you need to "upgrade" every 18 months will become an obsolete way of doing business. If you want to feel smug about it well then the rest of the world can only laugh at you folks.

Okay, when a programmer writes a better program than Photoshop and gives it away, you write back and let us all know. That’s not a ‘snug attitude’, it’s just realistic.

(and it you are such a friggin wizard, why are you TOP POSTING?)

jjs wrote:

In article <bp1h70$mn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

Have a chip implanted in ever user…a sort of identity tag. That could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen 😉

And then you will discover that you are only licensing your body.

Given the cost of medical care here (USA), I _am_ only renting my body.

<grin>

—- Paul J. Gans, also from the US

IK wrote:

In article <bp4ueg$eik$
says…

Heres an idea:

In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation and make outdated version of the software work anyway.

They won’t. At least not as long as they’re still developing newer versions. It cuts directly and unnecessarily into their profits. But they’ll give you a discount when you upgrade to their "latest and greatest".

Activation support costs money. It will not be maintained forever. And then either they do the right thing and release a patch that removes the need for activation or they screw their customers. After all, by the time version 8 is no longer supported, version 10 or 11 will be out.

Besides, Microsoft will doubtless render it all moot. Companies love Microsoft because by the end of the next five years the now current MS operating systems will be off-support and incompatible with then-current programs. So one will have to upgrade the OS and that will be the end of Version 7 and CS, etc.

We are already seeing some of this.

—- Paul J. Gans

Tom Thackrey wrote:

On 15-Nov-2003, IK wrote:

In article <bp4ueg$eik$
says…

Heres an idea:

In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation
and make outdated version of the software work anyway.

They won’t. At least not as long as they’re still developing newer versions. It cuts directly and unnecessarily into their profits. But they’ll give you a discount when you upgrade to their "latest and greatest".

They’ve said they will on their web site. www.adobe.com/activation

Well, that’s doing the Right Thing. I think they get
credit for that.

— Paul J. Gans

because I have better things to do with my time than deal with the likes of you…. here’s one for you Moron… Coral Graphics Suite…Hopefully you’re making money as a real artist LOL

William Hazen
"jjs" wrote in message

In article <5Yvtb.42509$>, "HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote:

A very poor anology…More like when new open source graphics programs become availible and software becomes the domain of the artist

again…Adobe

will be forced to change. Charging over 500 dollars for a software

package

that you need to "upgrade" every 18 months will become an obsolete way

of

doing business. If you want to feel smug about it well then the rest of

the

world can only laugh at you folks.

Okay, when a programmer writes a better program than Photoshop and gives it away, you write back and let us all know. That’s not a ‘snug attitude’, it’s just realistic.

(and it you are such a friggin wizard, why are you TOP POSTING?)

because I have better things to do with my time than deal with the likes of you…. here’s one for you Moron… Coral Graphics Suite…

"Corel." Not "Coral."

Corel Graphics Suite is not up to Photoshop’s standards. In specific, Corel Photo-Paint produces inferrior-quality color separations (I once stole a client from a competitor because the competitor was using Photo-Paint to produce color separations, and my separations looked better) and does not offer as many tools for high-end color correction.

There’s a reason that Photoshop outsells Corel software, and it’s not because we in the professional advertising and prepress industries like spending money. 🙂

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <Aneub.71831$>, "HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote:

because I have better things to do with my time than deal with the likes of you…. here’s one for you Moron… Coral Graphics Suite…Hopefully you’re making money as a real artist LOL

$72K a year part-time. I do other things, too. Life is good.

Yeah life is good… especailly since I retired at 40. 🙂 Art is a "full time" love for me.

William Hazen
"jjs" wrote in message

In article <Aneub.71831$>, "HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote:

because I have better things to do with my time than deal with the likes

of

you…. here’s one for you Moron… Coral Graphics Suite…Hopefully

you’re

making money as a real artist LOL

$72K a year part-time. I do other things, too. Life is good.

So sorry for the mispelling and I see you’re not up to speed on "Corel" Photopaint or other less expensive graphics apps for "high end" graphics work. Adobe has brainwashed you I guess. Time to go surf 🙂

This forum should be availible to all users and not the sole domain of you "professional" types. It would help if you got a bit more humble.

William Hazen
"Tacit" wrote in message

because I have better things to do with my time than deal with the likes of you…. here’s one for you Moron… Coral Graphics Suite…

"Corel." Not "Coral."

Corel Graphics Suite is not up to Photoshop’s standards. In specific,

Corel

Photo-Paint produces inferrior-quality color separations (I once stole a

client

from a competitor because the competitor was using Photo-Paint to produce

color

separations, and my separations looked better) and does not offer as many

tools

for high-end color correction.

There’s a reason that Photoshop outsells Corel software, and it’s not

because

we in the professional advertising and prepress industries like spending

money.

🙂

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote in message

Yeah life is good… especailly since I retired at 40. 🙂 Art is a "full time" love for me.

And you still go about calling people Morons and misspelling your favorite product? Settle down and relax and things will go better here for you. Or don’t and live in a killfile.

Please by all means put me in your kill file. I have better things to do with my time and I am sure you do too.

I am here to stay and help… no time for Morons.

William Hazen (Real Name)
"jjs" wrote in message

"HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote in message

Yeah life is good… especailly since I retired at 40. 🙂 Art is a

"full

time" love for me.

And you still go about calling people Morons and misspelling your favorite product? Settle down and relax and things will go better here for you. Or don’t and live in a killfile.

"HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote in message

Please by all means put me in your kill file. I have better things to do with my time and I am sure you do too.

I am here to stay and help… no time for Morons.

You are here to help. My butt. You are here with a head full of mush and hostility. Who needs it?

LOL you poor dear…If only the world behaved the way you wished… then you could truely be happy.

William Hazen
"jjs" wrote in message

"HAZEN WILLIAM" wrote in message

Please by all means put me in your kill file. I have better things to do with my time and I am sure you do too.

I am here to stay and help… no time for Morons.

You are here to help. My butt. You are here with a head full of mush and hostility. Who needs it?

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

Marv Raybin wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

And you broke into Stephen Wright’s house and stole his bit. 8^)

In article <y0XDb.72256$>,
"Marv Raybin" wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

To make the analogy work, one must recognize that the original manufacturers of said furniture didn’t get paid for their ideas/work. Software piracy isn’t so much an issue about software. Rather it’s about the ethical compensation of the people and corporations who made it and marketed it.

notouchy wrote:

In article <y0XDb.72256$>,
"Marv Raybin" wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

To make the analogy work, one must recognize that the original manufacturers of said furniture didn’t get paid for their ideas/work. Software piracy isn’t so much an issue about software. Rather it’s about the ethical compensation of the people and corporations who made it and marketed it.

It’s also a case of theft of services – when you buy a license of PS you’re doing so that it will perform some work or service for you that you could not do without it.

Martin

In message <y0XDb.72256$>,
"Marv Raybin" wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

It’s more like the plumber was hypnotized, and made to do work without billing.
—

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy

<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

notouchy wrote:

In article <y0XDb.72256$>,
"Marv Raybin" wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

To make the analogy work, one must recognize that the original manufacturers of said furniture didn’t get paid for their ideas/work. Software piracy isn’t so much an issue about software. Rather it’s about the ethical compensation of the people and corporations who made it and marketed it.

You are right. But there are other ethics involved. It is, in my opinion, unethical to strip-search everyone in a large department store because somebody reported their wallet stolen.

—- Paul J. Gans

Marv Raybin wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

Good analogy. If hardware were exactly duplicatable, using a Jetson’s style matter replicator, what would be the economic incentive to ever design or build another piece of furniture again? Probably none, at least as we know it. But as long as you’ve brought it up, here are some Christmas eve musings on matter replication.

The furniture industry as it exists today, would vanish, as would just about every industry that exists now. Even the manufacture of replicators would vanish as soon as the first user figured out he could replicate his neighbor’s replicator.

The manufacuring industry, with the exception perhaps of providing raw elemental material cartidges (chipped by Epson) for the replicator, would turn into a pure service industry. The job would turn into one of organizing and obtaining objects for replication (I’d like to duplicate Louis XV’s dining room set for a new year’s part).

If a service industry based entirely on designing new furniture for replication came into existence, it’s position would resemble the one the software industry finds itself in today. Given that, and a set of laws making it illegal to steal this service, Stephen right would indeed find it worthwhile to take a break from escalator slinky races to file a lawsuit for unlawful duplication of his furniture. The legal basis for that suit would probably be based on software piracy and copyright laws and legislation.

If we could duplicate each other down to the atom, picture ID, credit and smart cards, memories, and all, then the concept of society and identity would dissolve – I find it hard to imagine what such a world would be like to live in.

If the duplicator worked down to a resolution of a few microns, cells would turn to mush, and life forms, at least, would not be duplicatable. Nor, for that matter, would modern IC’s. So we can build dongles for electronically driven appliances.

And chemical dongles: now we can build an item consisting of chemically unstable elements, separated by thin hexagonal cell walls, that explodes if it is duplicated inaccurately. Even if the matter replicators work down to the atomic level, a sub-atomic electro-chemical dongle could still ensure a unique identity: at birth we have these implanted in our brains, to protect our individuality, so that any duplicate of ourself is instantly killed by an explosion. People without such dongles may be infinitely duplicated, and this have no legal identity.

So now we can build dongles into our automobiles, furniture, etc by artificially making them dependent on a nanotech-sized mechanism of some sort. If duplicated, they self destruct, or are otherwise non-functional, and we have laws making it illegal to reverse engineer this. If we make an intelligent dongle, consisting of an explosive dongle controlled by an electronic component, we can allow an item to be duplicated (perhaps with an upper limit on the number of times it may be replicated before it simply explodes) and then registered after a suitable "demo" interval to prevent its self destruction.

This, of course, is registration. But it gets worse. Since upper class people have electronically controlled dongles to enforce their own identity, we can have our own identities contingent on a periodic upgrade fee. Who would administer this? Adobe of course 🙂

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:45:42 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Marv Raybin wrote:

Oh NO!!! Someone came into my house and stole all of my furniture and replaced it with EXACT duplicates. That rotten thief!!

And you broke into Stephen Wright’s house and stole his bit. 8^)

We need to take a byte out of crime.
—
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

~~~~~~~~
Maybe I should ask Radio Shack. They claim they’ve got answers; but frankly, if Radio Shack were our provider, we’d _really_ be in trouble now, wouldn’t we?
~~~~~~~~

If, if, if…

"No, I don’t believe in if anymore"
-Whittaker

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:57:00 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

Good analogy. If hardware were exactly duplicatable, using a Jetson’s style matter replicator, what would be the economic incentive to ever design or build another piece of furniture again? Probably none, at least as we know it. But as long as you’ve brought it up, here are some Christmas eve musings on matter replication.

The furniture industry as it exists today, would vanish, as would just about every industry that exists now. Even the manufacture of replicators would vanish as soon as the first user figured out he could replicate his neighbor’s replicator.

The manufacuring industry, with the exception perhaps of providing raw elemental material cartidges (chipped by Epson) for the replicator, would turn into a pure service industry. The job would turn into one of organizing and obtaining objects for replication (I’d like to duplicate Louis XV’s dining room set for a new year’s part).

If a service industry based entirely on designing new furniture for replication came into existence, it’s position would resemble the one the software industry finds itself in today. Given that, and a set of laws making it illegal to steal this service, Stephen right would indeed find it worthwhile to take a break from escalator slinky races to file a lawsuit for unlawful duplication of his furniture. The legal basis for that suit would probably be based on software piracy and copyright laws and legislation.
If we could duplicate each other down to the atom, picture ID, credit and smart cards, memories, and all, then the concept of society and identity would dissolve – I find it hard to imagine what such a world would be like to live in.

If the duplicator worked down to a resolution of a few microns, cells would turn to mush, and life forms, at least, would not be duplicatable. Nor, for that matter, would modern IC’s. So we can build dongles for electronically driven appliances.

And chemical dongles: now we can build an item consisting of chemically unstable elements, separated by thin hexagonal cell walls, that explodes if it is duplicated inaccurately. Even if the matter replicators work down to the atomic level, a sub-atomic electro-chemical dongle could still ensure a unique identity: at birth we have these implanted in our brains, to protect our individuality, so that any duplicate of ourself is instantly killed by an explosion. People without such dongles may be infinitely duplicated, and this have no legal identity.

So now we can build dongles into our automobiles, furniture, etc by artificially making them dependent on a nanotech-sized mechanism of some sort. If duplicated, they self destruct, or are otherwise non-functional, and we have laws making it illegal to reverse engineer this. If we make an intelligent dongle, consisting of an explosive dongle controlled by an electronic component, we can allow an item to be duplicated (perhaps with an upper limit on the number of times it may be replicated before it simply explodes) and then registered after a suitable "demo" interval to prevent its self destruction.

This, of course, is registration. But it gets worse. Since upper class people have electronically controlled dongles to enforce their own identity, we can have our own identities contingent on a periodic upgrade fee.

Who would administer this? Adobe of course 🙂

Wrong. Aldous Huxley’s disciples, of course. 🙂

—
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

~~~~~~~~
Maybe I should ask Radio Shack. They claim they’ve got answers; but frankly, if Radio Shack were our provider, we’d _really_ be in trouble now, wouldn’t we?
~~~~~~~~