Pirate PS

Hi, I’ve spent a lot of time on this and other Photoshop forums and I’m often amazed at some of the questions that get asked – I’m talking about very basic things which people with even rudimentary knowledge of image editing would know. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but it appears to
me that many of these people can’t have bought a copy of the software – they
are either using a version that’s been given to them with their work, as a present (lucky buggers!) or (holds breath) pirated copies.
Now, I’m not on any mission to rid the world of illegal software here – I do
feel that programme developers deserve their reward, I also feel that PS is
priced rather high. But the thing that bothers me is – why would somebody attempt to use such a complex and (at first) daunting programme as if it was
one of the thousands of other "freebies" that are out there. The chances are
they are not going to be able to achieve anything useful with it because even simple tasks that other image editors do at a mouse click (albeit less
well) are much more complicated in PS.

Surely it would be better for such people to buy (or steal, if that’s their
thing!) a consumer-level application and avoid the frustration of finding they’re way out of their depth when they fire up PS the first time?
I don’t mean to offend anyone – I know a lot of people collect pirate software like others collect stamps. It just seems to me that PS is too powerful and complex a tool for anybody who doesn’t want to climb a hell of
a steep learning curve.

Oh, and I’m not criticising people for asking questions (however basic) – that’s the only way to learn. I just doubt how much benefit somebody who’s downloaded a hacked version of PS for fun is actually going to get.
Cheers.

Hi there.

I think you are confusing 2 entirely different situations.
Just because someone asks a really basic, and perhaps stupid question, ( like how do I print a 500 x 500 pixel image at 10 x 8 inches), does not

they have a pirate copy.

They ask equally stupid questions about how their expensive Cameras / Printers etc work, and we can’t just assume that those are also stolen.

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just

to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive.

often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

This is not a new situation, but it is getting to be more widespread. I remember my local Camera dealer being amused, when in the 1980s, someone came into his shop and asked him to put a film into a Leica M6. "What

of film?" "Whatever is the best"

Roy G

But the thing that bothers me is – why would somebody
attempt to use such a complex and (at first) daunting programme as if it was one of the thousands of other "freebies" that are out there. The chances are they are not going to be able to achieve anything useful with it because even simple tasks that other image editors do at a mouse click (albeit less well) are much more complicated in PS.

Surely it would be better for such people to buy (or steal, if that’s their thing!) a consumer-level application and avoid the frustration of finding they’re way out of their depth when they fire up PS the first time?
I don’t mean to offend anyone – I know a lot of people collect pirate software like others collect stamps. It just seems to me that PS is too powerful and complex a tool for anybody who doesn’t want to climb a hell of a steep learning curve.

Mike writes …

I’m often amazed at some of the questions that get asked – I’m talking

about very basic things which people with even rudimentary knowledge of image editing would know … it appears to me that many of these people can’t have bought a copy of the software …

priced rather high. But the thing that bothers me is – why would somebody attempt to use such a complex and (at first) daunting programme as if it

one of the thousands of other "freebies" that are out there. The chances

they are not going to be able to achieve anything useful with it because even simple tasks that other image editors do at a mouse click (albeit

well) are much more complicated in PS.

Surely it would be better for such people to buy (or steal, if that’s their thing!) a consumer-level application and avoid the frustration of finding they’re way out of their depth when they fire up PS the first time?
I don’t mean to offend anyone – I know a lot of people collect pirate software like others collect stamps. It just seems to me that PS is too powerful and complex a tool for anybody who doesn’t want to climb a hell of a steep learning curve.

Oh, and I’m not criticising people for asking questions (however basic) – that’s the only way to learn. I just doubt how much benefit somebody who’s downloaded a hacked version of PS for fun is actually going to get.

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Hi there.

I think you are confusing 2 entirely different situations.
Just because someone asks a really basic, and perhaps stupid question, (

Now you’re making me jealous!!

of film?" "Whatever is the best"

Roy G

Thanks for the reply, I take your comments on board. I only recently found out how easy it is to get a cracked copy of CS (have you ever seen Shareazza
at work – it’s scary?!!) and it set me thinking about the number of people with this beast of a programme sitting on the computers with no idea how to
use it. I still think it explains a lot of the posts I read in the forums.
Personally, I think the updates and support available to registered users makes buying legit copies worthwhile, even though it’s a big initial outlay.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:50:05 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need
to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They
often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

PS isn’t any different than any other type of software. Generally, people who make a living from graphic design and editing buy legal copies of PS, while those who just want to play with it don’t feel compelled to pay anything for it. Nor should they.

The sooner software developers wake up to this simple reality the better, and the fewer First Amendment, Fair Use and First Use rights (at least in the U.S.) we’ll flush down the toilet.

"Mike" wrote in message

As for your comments about photoshop ownership, I attended a lecture by a Ps guru, who has been using Ps since before it was even called Ps. I can’t recall the number he gave for copies in use worldwide, but I do recall that registered copies were around 4% of that total. I think this demonstrates that there is an issue regarding the price Software Vendors charge for their programs and their marketing philosophies.
Roy G

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:50:05 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:50:05 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need
to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They
often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hi there.

As usual a very succinct comment, which goes straight to the heart of the matter.

You are spot on, I very often can’t believe the degree of stupidity put on display in these groups. Sometimes, even in spite of getting a sensible answer from someone who does know the subject. We must remember that Joe Public really knows next to nothing about photography, and the Camera makers take full advantage of that situation – Disc Cameras and APS are perfect examples.

Roy G

Mike writes …

I’m often amazed at some of the questions that get asked – I’m talking

about very basic things which people with even rudimentary knowledge of image editing would know … it appears to me that many of these people can’t have bought a copy of the software …

Well, I have a fairly decent knowledge of image editing, enough to pass the Adobe Certified Expert exam on Photoshop, but when I pick up a new program I often can’t find the right buttons for even simple tasks. For example, I have a legal copy of Corel Painter but struggle with it a bit … recently I and drew a line and wanted to erase part of it and can’t find out how. There is apparently no eraser tool and a search via Help came up empty. Doesn’t mean I stole the software, and I’m sure to an experienced Painter user there’s a ridiculously simple answer (probably under a different name), but not to me.
Bill

PS isn’t any different than any other type of software. Generally, people who make a living from graphic design and editing buy legal copies of PS, while those who just want to play with it don’t feel compelled to pay anything for it. Nor should they.

Rick wrote:

PS isn’t any different than any other type of software. Generally, people who make a living from graphic design and editing buy legal copies of PS, while those who just want to play with it don’t feel compelled to pay anything for it. Nor should they.

I cannot believe that last sentence. Beyond belief!!! "Nor should they"!!! So if someone goes to a stationery store, they should be given reams of paper for free because it is not for business use? But show a business card and you will be charged? (Keep in mind that reams if paper cost a lot less than PS).

So if someone is curious what a digital SLR is like, they should be allowed to have it for free, as long as they don’t make any money from selling the images? They just want to use it for fun.

So many hours of programming, research, development, etc. not to mention business running costs, etc. to create a product like PS. That should be given away for free should it, just so that dabblers can play with it. What do you think the 30 day trial is for? To do just that, try it, and hopefully, if you like it enough….buy it!

That is the most stupid statement I have ever read!

"Brian" wrote in message

Rick wrote:

PS isn’t any different than any other type of software. Generally, people who make a living from graphic design and editing buy legal copies of PS, while those who just want to play with it don’t feel compelled to pay anything for it. Nor should they.

I cannot believe that last sentence. Beyond belief!!! "Nor should they"!!! So if someone goes to a stationery store, they should be given reams of paper for free because it is not for business use? But show a business card and you will be charged? (Keep in mind that reams if paper cost a lot less than PS).

So if someone is curious what a digital SLR is like, they should be allowed to have it for free, as long as they don’t make any money from selling the images? They just want to use it for fun.

So many hours of programming, research, development, etc. not to mention business running costs, etc. to create a product like PS. That should be given away for free should it, just so that dabblers can play with it. What do you think the 30 day trial is for? To do just that, try it, and hopefully, if you like it enough….buy it!

That is the most stupid statement I have ever read!

Sheesh Brian, don’t get your panties all bunched up. Read for comprehension next time. I didn’t say people shouldn’t use PS’s trial version if they want to play with it for free. What I’m saying is, there’s no fiscal difference to Adobe whether people who never intend on buying PS use the trial version to play with it or use a pirated copy.

None. Zilch. Zero.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:50:05 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need
to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They
often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

Hi there.

As usual a very succinct comment, which goes straight to the heart of the matter.

You are spot on, I very often can’t believe the degree of stupidity put on display in these groups. Sometimes, even in spite of getting a sensible answer from someone who does know the subject. We must remember that Joe Public really knows next to nothing about photography, and the Camera makers take full advantage of that situation – Disc Cameras and APS are perfect examples.

In article ,
says…

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:50:05 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Now, now, Hecate. There are also instances where one cannot possibly see the answer, regardless of how hard they try. About the time that CS came out, I posted a simple question, regarding something that was very evident in all other versions that I have owned (every one since it first hit the PC, with the exception of 5.5). I could not find the answer and needed it badly. I ordered the manuals, which no longer come with upgrades, or at least did not with CS Premium and paid for express shipping. I picked up the only two books out at that moment, and nothing. The answer eluded me and I haven’t been a newbie, since the early 90’s. I posted the message here, and within moments I had the answer. Whatever the hell it was, was right under my nose, but I just could NOT see it. Only regret that I had was the US$60 for the manuals, which basically say, "See Online Help." Heck, I’d done that for three days, and never could find what I needed, regardless of what naming conventions I used.

Now, that diatribe over, it would be refreshing for some people to do more than ask, "hey, can I stick one dude’s head on another’s body… ?"

For you personally, check out Frances Del Rio’s "saving PS image… " article. Didn’t you comment on thumbnails and viewability some months back?

In article <k7_5e.2255$
guesthouse.co.uk says…

"Mike" wrote in message

[SNIP]

As for your comments about photoshop ownership, I attended a lecture by a Ps guru, who has been using Ps since before it was even called Ps. I can’t recall the number he gave for copies in use worldwide, but I do recall that registered copies were around 4% of that total. I think this demonstrates that there is an issue regarding the price Software Vendors charge for their programs and their marketing philosophies.
Roy G

Roy, is this a typo – 4%? I find that one hard to believe, however I have no data to back up my belief.

As for the price we pay (if we do, indeed pay it), I feel that it is inconsequential to the cost of trying to do the work WITHOUT PS! I recall having to send my images out of state to a Scitex shop to have the assembly done. I want Adobe to be financially viable, so I can get the "improvements" to my PS, as soon as they come out. I pay for that, and gladly. I earn far more $ with PS, than I pay out by a great ratio. I would have it no other way. It’s like me charging for what I do. I expect the client to do so gratfully, and feel that they got true value for their money – I know that I sure do with PS.

Rick wrote:

PS isn’t any different than any other type of software. Generally, people who make a living from graphic design and editing buy legal copies of PS, while those who just want to play with it don’t feel compelled to pay anything for it. Nor should they.

I cannot believe that last sentence. Beyond belief!!! "Nor should they"!!! So if someone goes to a stationery store, they should be given reams of paper for free because it is not for business use? But show a business card and you will be charged? (Keep in mind that reams if paper cost a lot less than PS).

Hi, I’ve spent a lot of time on this and other Photoshop forums and I’m often amazed at some of the questions that get asked – I’m talking about very basic things which people with even rudimentary knowledge of image editing would know. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but it appears to me that many of these people can’t have bought a copy of the software – they are either using a version that’s been given to them with their work, as a present (lucky buggers!) or (holds breath) pirated copies.

Just how should your statement be taken, if not as a warning to beginners that their quesitons may lead to being accused of piracy? If this is your attitude, I disagree completely.

Photoshop certainly is a heavily pirated program – the volume of manual style books on sale in the book stores proves this. But no question, however basic, means that the particular person asking it is using stolen software. For example, site licenses typically do not include manuals for each license.

Many people lack even the rudimetary knowledge of image editing that you describe. They have no context for their question and it’s answer, so they can’t easily use reference materials. Fear of being called a pirate should not be a reason for any of them to hold back from asking a question.

1) A copy doesn’t make the original disappear, so there’s no less goods around but more.
2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

3) Money is earned with support and teaching. Look at oracle, where you can just go and download their database. But to use it productively you pay (gladly) for their (excellent) support.

2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

Bill wrote …

For example, I have a legal copy of Corel Painter but struggle with it a bit … recently I and drew a line and wanted to erase

of it and can’t find out how

Brian writes …

… do you use a graphics tablet? Turn the stylus upside down and it erases!

guess what, it (Painter) does (have an erase tool), it actually has 25 options for the eraser tool too! Guess what else, it is in an obvious place too! Erasers is sitting there, in ALPHABETICAL order in the brush palette.

please get your facts right on "other"
products so as to not have a damaging effect on their credibility.

I have an old Wacom ArtPad tablet … turning the stylus upside down just scratches the tablet 🙂 I ordered an Intuous 3 which does the erase function but it isn’t in yet.

Volker Hetzer wrote:

1) A copy doesn’t make the original disappear, so there’s no less goods around but more.
2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

But he would buy Photoshop Elements or something similarly priced if you couldn’t copy anything, so business *is* lost.

3) Money is earned with support and teaching. Look at oracle, where you can just go and download their database. But to use it productively you pay (gladly) for their (excellent) support.

It’s not up to you to decide how Adobe should do business,

I’ve used Photoshop almost since day one and I have yet to call the support line for the first time.

Don’t use these lame excuses
for being a thief.

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message

2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

That’s a textbook example of criminal rationalization.

1) A copy doesn’t make the original disappear, so there’s no less goods around but more.
2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

But he would buy Photoshop Elements or something similarly priced if you couldn’t copy anything, so business *is* lost.

What if it doesn’t do what I’d like to do?

It’s not up to you to decide how Adobe should do business,

Of course it is. I’m part of the market.

Don’t use these lame excuses for being a thief.

We’ve established above that theft is taking something away.

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Volker Hetzer wrote:
But he would buy Photoshop Elements or something similarly priced if you couldn’t copy anything, so business *is* lost.

What if it doesn’t do what I’d like to do?

It’s not up to you to decide how Adobe should do business,

We’ve established above that theft is taking something away. I’ve not taken
anyting away because no one complains about his missing CD.

jjs wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message

2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

That’s a textbook example of criminal rationalization.

So? Doesn’t change the fact.

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Volker Hetzer wrote:

1) A copy doesn’t make the original disappear, so there’s no less goods around but more.
2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

I used to counsel at a Drug and Alchohol Center. I never met an entry patient who did not have an explanation as to why he "was not an addict (read thief)."

I used to counsel at a Drug and Alchohol Center. I never met an entry patient who did not have an explanation as to why he "was not an addict (read thief)."
It was invariably a contrived nonsequitur. And so it goes . . . . patrick_

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Volker Hetzer wrote:

1) A copy doesn’t make the original disappear, so there’s no less goods around but more.
2) The guy copying it does so because he wouldn’t pay the full price anyway, so no business has been lost either.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:50:05 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

The problem is that in this affluent Western World a lot of people just need to own the very best, simply because it is the best or most expensive. They often have no real interest in the activity for which this equipment (or software) was designed, and are therefore lacking in the most basic knowledge of the subject.

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Of course, there is another possible reason – there are a lot of stupid people out there 😉

I guess you haven’t seen ‘Total Training for PhotoshopCS2’ a three DVD set of training videos that are often posted in alt.binaries.cbts. There are tons of other excellent traiining videos as well. Pirates aren’t as stupid as you seem to think…..they even might be a lot smarter than you!