This is a message about piracy. It has been given that title because the topic to which it is related seems to be anathema to some denizens of this forum. If software wee not being pirated all the time, on a mammoth scale, we would be able to buy licenced versions of the programs for about one quarter of their current retail price, and the manufacturers would still be able to make a tidy profit!
As it is they are forced to take measures to prevent piracy in order to keep prices from rising even more. This is in OUR (the honest users’) interest and is not a plot to remove our rights. Nobody likes these measures, which at the moment are still undergoing development and can cause annoyance and inconvenience, but if the human race was not so intent on getting something for nothing they would not be necessary.
I have always bought my software and refused to let others get a copy – not because I am "holier than thou", but because I want to do my bit to keep prices (and my costs) down. So let’s stop moaning about the inconvenience of anti-piracy measures and do more to discourage the crime itself!
While I agree with you in general, I do not believe the prices of software would significantly drop if there somehow were NO piracy.
The only thing that drives software prices down is same as with any other commodity — realistic competition. If Corel PhotoPaint (near as I can tell, Photoshop’s closest competitor) ever got the market share that Adobe Photoshop now has, its price would go UP.
Fully agree, Mac – it’s naïve to think that piracy has much to do with the pricing of software. Vendors charge what they can get away with, and it follows that a monopoly position typically means extortionate pricing (the canonical example is Quark; they make Adobe, M$ and other monopolies look tame).
If software wee not being pirated all the time, on a mammoth scale, we would be able to buy licenced versions of the programs for about one quarter of their current retail price, and the manufacturers would still be able to make a tidy profit!
Horseshit. The reason Photoshop costs so much is that Adobe has the industry by the balls…plain and simple. And if your too blind or stupid to see that…it’s a pity. The better part of a thousand dollars for a $1.50 plastic disc, a book, and a "license agreement" to use the software…??? (as THEY see fit…?) To be subject to the possibility of that "license agreement" being changed, revoked, or possibly being forced to upgrade it in the future, etc…? (as THEY see fit…?) And after plunking down all that down that money…and actually owning nothing but a piece of plastic and a manual? (and don’t go on about "student discounts"… because not everyone has the great fortune of being a student in art school, and many are self taught.) Piracy has NOTHING to do with the high price of Photoshop…GREED does. You can buy other programs like CorelDraw, Paintshop Pro, and a host of others for a lot less. And their software is pirated just as much. And it isn’t the whole "research and development", "creative effort", or any other that crap people like to spout as an *excuse* for Photoshop costing so much either. There’s just as much R&D, creative effort, yadda-yadda-yadda… put into any big budget movie such as Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, etc… and it still only costs $19.95 for a similar plastic disc with even more digital information enscribed onto it. Here’s a link for ya… Educate yourself.
I have always bought my software and refused to let others get a copy – not because I am "holier than thou", but because I want to do my bit to keep prices (and my costs) down. John
Well aren’t you a good boy scout…? For a group of people who call themselves "artists", who as artists generally go…are supposed to be radical, sometimes outlaw, "free thinkers", Bohemian in nature, "thinking outside the box", non- corporate, non-conformist, non-conservative, non-sellout, friendly, learned, eager-to-teach types… I am surprised to see so many stuck up, whining, tightlipped, arrogant, ultraconservative, goody-two-shoes, corporate, selfish, anal, yuppie tightasses!!! If yer pissed off that you paid $800. dollars for your copy of Photoshop…and the pimple faced computer geek kid next door got his for free… Keep it REAL folks…! It ain’t the kid next door’s fault dat your copy of Photoshop cost so much… Quit yer whining… It’s Adobe’s corporate greed! Class Dismissed. The Magician
Whilst agreeing with you whole-heartedly in principle, I do wonder how many of the folks possibly deterred by current anti-piracy measures would ever have even consider buying the applications. The ‘acquire them purely because they can, not because they need them, and would only actually spend money on software they need.
I believe, for this reason, that protection of operating systems can make a big difference to Microsoft’s sales, but I’m less convinced that it applies nearly so much to those of Adobe.
The sad thing is that those current measures will do little to discourage the crooks that actually make money from pirating.
I definitely disagree in the point that anti-piracy measures are in the interest of us honest users. Here is why I think so:
When a vendor introduces technical means against piracy, this has basically two effects:
1. It takes additional time and work for programmers and technicians which has to be paid => prices go UP.
2. It brings about disadvantages for the users; such as additional effort or restrictions. a) being forced to register or activate portions of the software before full use is possible b) the software is tied to a particular PC by hardware-dependent codes so machines cannot be changed without a new activation c) the easy creation of backup copies is limited or even impossible due to copy protection d) …
When you think these disadvantages are in the interest of us honest users, keep in mind that they apply *only* to us honest users, but *not* to users of pirated copies.
Most interesting software is hacked shortly after release, and a "cracked" version without the above disadvantages is spread. Consequently, we honest users have to mess with all the disadvantages, but the pirates do not. So we end up in a more inconvenient situation than the pirates, yet have to pay the additional price.
I has always been my feeling that honest users should have advantages over the user of a pirated copy. My experiences are that the introduction of protection and activation meachanisms frequently leads to the opposite effect – we have disadvantages, plus we pay more.
I admit I have no alternative idea how Adobe or other vendors might effectively protect their rights against pirates, but I think that means like the above are no solution at all. I would like to read your comments, maybe I can learn some new aspects I haven’t thought of yet.
While this doesn’t solve the problem entirely, I’ll repeat one suggestion I’ve made in the past that, while it applies presently to activation might also apply to other measures of piracy control: As you say, it sometimes seems as though it is the honest users who are most directly affected by piracy control techniques, so perhaps something could be done to ease whatever burden might be created for them. Using the present case of PS CS activation, I think most legitimate owners of PS CS recognize the value of registering their software. Meanwhile, someone using the software illegally obviously isn’t going to register. So, why not add in an extra perk for doing so…provide registered users with a free download that provides whatever files are necessary to disable activation so that they never again have to deal with whatever inconvenience it may otherwise cause. Arguments about such an idea could include 1) such a download might itself become pirated and facilitate more illegal copying/distribution of Photoshop, and 2) if the application is designed so that its activation process can be disabled, perhaps it then also becomes easier for pirates to develop a crack. Both are valid points and I didn’t say my idea was perfect. 🙂
Carrying that idea a bit further, to incorporate your thought of the honest user having an advantage over the user of a pirated copy of Photoshop, maybe that same download provided to the registered user could be a "bonus pack" with a few extra features not provided in the retail product. An example might be to include a few extra plug-ins that could be useful to a broad group of PS users, regardless of their experience level. During the beta development of PS, there are likely certain features that are explored but not delivered; of those, I’d guess some are rather mature but still left out of the product for one reason or another. Perhaps a "bonus pack" would be an appropriate place to offer a few such features.
The irony is that the copy protection is broken before the product hits the street. It annoys the legal owners more than it does the hackers and thieves.
wrote in message
I definitely disagree in the point that anti-piracy measures are in the interest of us honest users. Here is why I think so:
When a vendor introduces technical means against piracy, this has
basically
two effects:
1. It takes additional time and work for programmers and technicians which has to be paid => prices go UP.
2. It brings about disadvantages for the users; such as additional effort
or
restrictions. a) being forced to register or activate portions of the software before
full
use is possible b) the software is tied to a particular PC by hardware-dependent codes so machines cannot be changed without a new activation c) the easy creation of backup copies is limited or even impossible due to copy protection d) …
When you think these disadvantages are in the interest of us honest users, keep in mind that they apply *only* to us honest users, but *not* to users of pirated copies.
Most interesting software is hacked shortly after release, and a "cracked" version without the above disadvantages is spread. Consequently, we honest users have to mess with all the disadvantages, but the pirates do not. So
we
end up in a more inconvenient situation than the pirates, yet have to pay the additional price.
I has always been my feeling that honest users should have advantages over the user of a pirated copy. My experiences are that the introduction of protection and activation meachanisms frequently leads to the opposite effect – we have disadvantages, plus we pay more.
I admit I have no alternative idea how Adobe or other vendors might effectively protect their rights against pirates, but I think that means like the above are no solution at all. I would like to read your comments, maybe I can learn some new aspects I haven’t thought of yet. Jens
The problem with the add on idea you mention is that many of the crackers and pirates work for companies that buy legitimate copies of the program. These copies and their serial numbers often get into the marketstream, and the add ons would just be another program that would be offered by the pirates.
I do wonder how many of the folks possibly deterred by current anti-piracy measures would ever have even consider buying the applications. The ‘acquire them purely because they can, not because they need them, and would only actually spend money on software they need.
If they don’t really need it, they certainly aren’t going to be encouraged to buy it, especially if they know that the legal copy has use restrictions, and the stolen one does not.
Some people collect software–they used to do that with shareware, now they do it with music and video and other peoples’ intellectual property. I can’t imagine that they listen to 50,000 tunes or run 1,000 programs.
Thieves are just that–maybe in different conditions or at a different point in their life they will become customers, but right now, they’re still thieves.
I personally belive the best form of anti-piracy is simply satisfied, and therefore loyal, customers. I (and I’m sure many if not most others) are more than willing to pay a fair price for software that they find useful and a pleasure to use. The better it is, the more users expect from it, and the better it can get (software paradoxically). And all the more I’m willing to encourage that further development by paying for the software, even if I could get a copy it for free illegally.
Hackers can and will always crack software anti-piracy schemes. And anybody who’s even remotely determined will always be able to get free (or very cheap) cracked copy. Its always going to be the honest customers who suffer the most at the expense of throwing out a net to catch the others. And activation is by far the most abrasive net so far, not least of which because even software of decreasingly low prices is increasingly being "equipped" with it, not to mention the power to abuse (forced updates, and big brother activities) it gives manufacturers.
I personally believe the justification for the net increases with the price of the software (and therefore decreasing customer numbers), and that the threshold for "seriously inconvenient" anti-piracy schemes (like dongles, and activation) is of the order of a minimum of several thousand dollars. For such software the price of buying a dedicated computer to run that software becomes negligible.
Also noteworthy is that software piracy is not always a bad thing (in long term at least). Many students, for example, honestly cannot afford to buy software. They uses illegal copies and become proficient in using them. Later they can afford to buy software, and guess which ones they are most inclined to buy…the ones they are already proficient in. Furthermore the best form of advertising is when somebody else you know recommends a product. I has not been infrequent that I have purchased software I originally was recommended by somebody who had a "cracked" copy. Some people use cracked copies as trial versions so that they are in no rush to evaluate (or dont know if they will have the time again to finish evaluating within 2-4 weeks if they start now), and then actually do buy if they like it.
Not to mention, added value support that honest customers could/should be receiving for a low price or included as part of the purchase, which is much less common than it should be.
This is a message about piracy. It has been given that title because the
topic to which it is related seems to be anathema to some denizens of this forum. If software wee not being pirated all the time, on a mammoth scale, we would be able to buy licenced versions of the programs for about one quarter of their current retail price, and the manufacturers would still be able to make a tidy profit!
As it is they are forced to take measures to prevent piracy in order to
keep prices from rising even more. This is in OUR (the honest users’) interest and is not a plot to remove our rights. Nobody likes these measures, which at the moment are still undergoing development and can cause annoyance and inconvenience, but if the human race was not so intent on getting something for nothing they would not be necessary.
I have always bought my software and refused to let others get a copy –
not because I am "holier than thou", but because I want to do my bit to keep prices (and my costs) down. So let’s stop moaning about the inconvenience of anti-piracy measures and do more to discourage the crime itself!
When the electricity goes out in your neighborhood, do you call you power company to report the outage? After all, there are 5,000 other power customers, and surely at least one of them has reported it, right? A few years back, we had a blackout, and after two hours I called. Up until the, they had no clue about an outage!
Discussing activation may be similar to the power problem. Everybody has an opinion on activation. Some make their opinion public while others kept it to themselves. For what it¡¦s worth, here¡¦s mine. Agree or disagree. It doesn¡¦t matter. Maybe, though not likely, Adobe will listen. Maybe this will be the one call that gets the power restored¡K
First, Hackers always will. Even if they can buy the software, even if they never even use it, they will hack it. It¡¦s their sport.
Second, people use hot copies for evaluation purposes? Yep. As the cost of the S/W increases, so does the desire to ¡§try before we buy¡¨. I think PS 7 trial version had it right. It was fully functional except you couldn¡¦t save the work. A set trial period may be fine at the start, but people get sidetracked, and time expires, right? And, yes, students with hot copies are quite likely to buy a program they are familiar with when they go pro.
Next, concerns about being forced to upgrade because current or older versions will not be supported (and therefore reactivated) are probably just. Two calls to Adobe surfaced two responses. The first was that when the version is no longer supported, a patch to remove activation would be issued to registered users. Nothing is writing could be sent to me though. Why not? The response from the second call was that people would all upgrade because there would be tons of new and improved features. Maybe.
Finally, activation is a repetitive speed bump for the legit user, and an issue that the mass-production pirates probably deal with only once. Anyone needing to restore their system either through the restore utility or from another drive will need to reactivate. Each time there is a system or data problem, they¡¦ll need to pick between correcting the problem or dealing with the problem on the PC to avoid yet another PS CS activation. A person should not have to choose between a working machine and one application. Does Adobe think their program is all anyone ever uses their PC for?
Admittedly, PS is the best out there. However, I received mine as a gift, and hate to make people feel badly about their choice of gifts. I understand GIMP is still free, and pretty good at that! I would not have purchased CS for myself for the same reason I haven¡¦t gone with XP. When I buy it, it¡¦s mine. I install it on one machine, but have the ability to install it on my one machine 35 times a day if required and at all hours of the night without getting ¡§permission¡¨ yet again from the publisher.
This is just my opinion on activation and CS in general. Agree or not. Now if you¡¦ll excuse me, I have to contact the power company. Without power or a power backup system on my PC, it¡¦s been difficult getting this message to the forum. º
I just love the piracy is good argument. Seems funny that same people who make that argument laugh at other side of the coin which is the "do you lock your door at night?" line of thought.
Theft is wrong. Anyone who tries to argue that it’s good loses all credibility in my eyes.
I thinnk someof the problem lies with comapnies demos. I think people that pirate at least to some extent are just trying to find the right program for the right job. A 30 trial sometimes just isn’t enough, time wise that is. Then you also have some companies that disable some features in their demos making it harder for people to figure out if the program is what they are looking for or not. Then you have companies like Auto FX that put out useless demos that don’t allow you to use your own files or data, how is someone supposed to be able to figure out if something like this is what they are looking for if they can’t actually use it.
It wouldn’t be so bad either if you could return software that didn’t meet you needs. As it is right now the who buying experience is a leap of faith and I think when it comes to most programs people don’t trust the marketing hype, or that the software won’t be riddled with bugs. The best way to find out and still be safe is to use a pirated copy. In my opinion this falls under the fair use rule.
Now if that persons continues to use the program because it is everything they want, need and expected and they don’t go and buy it then they are just scum. Unfortunately, in the world today everyone is treated as a pirate or crook and not as a loyal customer that the company should trust to do the right thing. As well all know most people do do the right thing. The companies expect us to trust them, but they don’t don’t have to trust use.
Adobe is a good example and so is Macromedia. Photoshop CS has some interesting and annoying bugs. Where is he patch. If I had ran out and paid $600 or more for this program the way it is now I would be rather pissed and a lot more likely to just pirate a copy next time until I could be sure I am not going to get the shaft.
Dreamweave MX 2004 was the same way. Way too many bugs and it took them far too long to get the fix out for it. Piracy is just as much the industries fault as it is the pirates fault. The same is true for the recording industry and hollywood. If everyone would tone down the greed and trust a little, thing would be much better.
A 30 day trial is not enough? A half hour test drive is not enough either, but try to get the salesman to give you the car for a couple weeks to see if it really does what you want.
Software is upgraded every 18 months or so. Extending the limit starts to close that gap up.
As well, with a three month trial, you might find people feeling it worthwhile to reformat the hard drive every three months to renew the trial.
If Adobe’s software engineers had been able to spend more time on ACR rather than goofy anti-piracy schemes maybe a Canon 10D crw image could actually be white balanced! As a consumer of said software my main desire is to have a program that decodes exactly the colors the camera recorded, not to have a program that my neighbor cannot steal without spending some time on the net looking for the crack.
Well Don, you can say whatever you like, but it is part of the problem. As for your car analogy, some car companies are now letting you keep the car for 24 hours. I am not say the trial should be six months or something like that. May 60 days. You have to realize that people have other things to do besides fart around with a program for 30 days straight.
I don’t know where you got the 3 months thing from. As for that anyone that feels it is best to reformat and reinstall and reconfigure everything ever 3 months just so they can keep using the trial is probably not going to buy it anyways. It is clear that they aren’t working as they wouldn’t have time for stuff like that.
I never said it would end piracy, but I think it would help. The only thing that I think is going to make a big dent is piracy, is either better software with less bugs for the high prices or if we have to deal with all of the bugs, half completed features, etc. then the software should be cheaper.
Im on the side of no activation. I don’t like the concept of asking adobe for permission to use a program I paid big bucks for. It has also been a pain in the butt with xp. I hope adobe ports programs to Linux soon. For those products that use activation, I plan to try to find alternatives. I think most of the pirated copies out there are from cracked or stolen copies anyway. I think most of us who have paid for piece of software over 200.00 don’t just hand it out. Adobe should give more perks for registered users. Discounts on books & DVDs? Free monthy training cd roms in your mailbox? Free online training?
You seem to have just as much problem with a company making money as you do with activation. But you haven’t come up with one suggestion to make it better and conveniently remain silent when this type of thread starts:
You seem to have just as much problem with a company making money as you do with activation. But you haven’t come up with one suggestion to make it better and conveniently remain silent when this type of thread starts:
You seem to jump to conclusions.
It’s all black and white, huh? Someone doesn’t like companies restricting rights, therefore someone is a thief, huh? I do not favor the theft of intellectual property (should I explain why stealing is bad?).
Since September 29, 2003 (the day [De]Activation was introduced), I really don’t care. You’ve said alternately that this is and isn’t customer support, so I don’t know what you are expecting of people. It’s just a company; nothing to get attached to.
I’ve favored one brand of camera for more than 30 years; that’s the kind of loyalty a company should strive for.
I didn’t say you were a thief. I just said you don’t seem to have any problem with those who are. I’m glad to see that you do. But, you said nothing in a thread where the OP practically admitted to stealing the software.
IMO, those are the people you should be venting your frustration at. If those people didn’t exist, you wouldn’t have software activation. Of course you’re free to keep accusing Adobe, Microsoft and any other software company using activation schemes of simply not trusting you. Why you take it so personally is beyond me.
And I’m not attached to anything here. If someone comes up with something better, I’ll be using it.
But, you said nothing in a thread where the OP practically admitted to stealing the software.
Since 9/29/03, I’ve answered few questions here. It’s kind of a shame, really, since I was really getting into it.
There are still plenty of people who are willing to jump all over these thieves; you don’t need my comments, too. Some things I say seem to trigger a thread to go off-topic, anyway.
That issue is not addressed well by [De]Activation: people who can rationalize-away anything, or are bumpkins who just don’t understand or care. These are the kind of people for whom [De]Activation is intended. I’ll bet if you did a survey of all intellectual property thieves, you’d find more of these folks, than the kind who consciously go out of their way to crack it and steal it. The latter kind serve as a distribution channel for the rest, and they aren’t potential customers, anyway.
Seems funny that same people who make that argument laugh at other side of the coin which is the "do you lock your door at night?" line of thought.
This isn’t the other side of the coin. Its not even a coin of the same currency.
What many people fail to realise is that there’s a world of difference between acquiring an illegal copy of a piece of software, and a material object. When someone does the latter (eg steals a car) they immediately hurt the owner as well as perhaps others such as his customers. The owner is no longer in possession of that car, and can no longer sell it to anybody.
When someone acquires an illegal copy of a piece of software, in contrast, theyve done no immediate harm to anybody. They just have a copy which in itself doesnt diminish the value or availability of the original(s). If it just sits on their shelf somewhere gathering dust, then nobody will ever know or care. Its only if someone with such a copy actually uses it when they would/should have bought a legal copy that its doing any actual harm.
And even what constitutes this "would/should" is a grey area that manufacturers would like to have us think is cut an dry. Whats illegal isnt necessarily coincident with whats immoral. Laws are and always will be imperfect, and biased toward those who backhand the lawmakers. They change and are generally made/broken by those with enough money (itself often acquired in a much less scrupulous way than many illegal copies of software) to pay the lawyers and politicians to bend and shape the rules to suite them.
"But, big reputable companies don’t really do anything seriously bad. Sure they try to maximise profits,but all part of fair competition. Otherwise people would find out about it, and boycott their software, right?" … think again. For a behind the scenes look, at what Adobe’s role model in things software protection, practices and contributes take a look at <http://www.kmfms.com>
The site is obviously biased against the software bully, but they do a pretty good job of avoiding fanaticism, and backing up their statements with hard facts. It tends to put some perspective on students using a cracked copy of software they egnuinely cant (yet) afford and later buying one when they can, and daft over-generalisations that anyone who every had a copy of any illegally acquired software for any reason, and for any length of time, on their computer is fundamentally a bad person.
If those people didn’t exist, you wouldn’t have software activation
Frankly, this statement is a ridiculous as it is irrelevant. You might as well say, that if it werent for people we wouldn’t need software activation.
Of course you’re free to keep accusing Adobe, Microsoft and any other software company using activation schemes of simply not trusting you.
And youll feel free to stop them getting a chance to express themselves by putting their threads read only or deleting their posts.
You can write a hundred paragraphs if you want. You’re still trying to justify theft.
Stop creating new threads for old subjects, stay on topic, keep to the terms of TOS you agreed to and the thread will remain alive and nothing will be deleted.
Mr. Levine, I don’t think it’s necessary to threaten people who see things differently than you. Your response was a little premature, heavy-handed, insensitive, and it shows a misunderstanding, or one-sided perception, of the issues. ‘Lock the door’ arguments have become laughable.
While I personally have no further interest in purchasing or recommending Photoshop for Windows licenses, I don’t want you to think I’m sliding on another pro-theft thread (I will likely ignore many more to follow).
The fact that some people don’t see things like you, does not make them wrong. The poster above is not flaming–p8mode looks like a former Adobe fan (check the earlier posting record–months inbetween), who has been stomped on since the first expression of concern. p8mode truly had not seen any of the prematurely-squelched threads, since they do get marked read-only, and they quickly fall off the edge of the earth.
I’m sure p8mode just wants to use the software to do creative things, not to think about usage restraints, rights management clamps, and such. I’ll bet that very few people buy software just for the joy of wrestling with licensing.
The poster is showing some naivete in arguments, probably because there was no opportunity to benefit from previous discussions.
p8mode, Intellectual property is still property–somebody created it, and somebody owns it. They created it for a purpose, and with some expectation that intellectual property laws would preserve their rights. Abusing these tenets, is insulting, immoral, and beneath contempt. If you don’t agree with restrictions applied to intellectual property, don’t use it; if you really want to use it, petition the owner to change any policy you find abusive.
A year ago here I said that if a product requires you to wear bunny slippers when you use it, either wear the bunny slippers, or don’t use the product. Complain, if you care enough. If there is not a concomitant increase in bunny slipper sales, the company may change.
Stop creating new threads for old subjects, stay on topic, keep to the terms of TOS you agreed to and the thread will remain alive and nothing will be deleted.
Edit: Oh, and you have smited him mightily in the past, so he is aware of your power.
P8: Software is still an identifiable object, although not physical. Your arguement is lame at best. You differentiate between corporate loss and personal loss, a loss is still a loss.
Also noteworthy is that software piracy is not always a bad thing (in long term at least). Many students, for example, honestly cannot afford to buy software. They uses illegal copies and become proficient in using them.
I respectfully disagree here. When I was a college student, I couldn’t afford my own computer or software. I used the computer lab at the college – it took a lot of time management juggling 3 part time jobs and a full course load to also utilize the lab with it’s limited hours. When I finally could afford my own computer, I also saved for the software.
I can’t see how software piracy can be justified as good.
It is lame to think that you are not hurting anyone when you are stealing software. You are not only hurting research and development of new improvements,(which hurts me as an end user personally) but you may also cause programmers to be laid off because the "revenue stream" wasn’t there! You may cause the next release to be canceled (look at MetaCreations and Painter)because too many pirated copies are floating around.
You can try to justify it all you like, but anyone who steals software is no better than the petty thief who shoplifts. You just do it in an evironment where it is much more difficult to catch you!
Don’t whine to me about trials and pricing. Adobe has the best program going with it’s educational discount and it is very generous with it’s trial period. You don’t see Microsoft letting you try XP for a month for free.
If you are a professional, You Pay for Your Tools, Period!!! If not, I hope you get caught and are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law ($10,000.00 per infringement!)
Somehow the impression seems to have been created that piracy was advocated. I cant really see where but if anybody got this impression from my posts, then they misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Let me try to rephrase. I suggested that realm of software (including its fair use and piracy), by its nature, requires a more abstract and advanced approach than is sufficient for concrete objects like cars and apples. It seemed appropriate in light of analogies to car rental, and house doors to allude to the subtle yet important differences.
(i) That its not the actual acquiring (ie copying) of a pirated copy that generally does any direct harm, but rather the actual use of the copy. (Like I said if someone makes a pirated copy but never actually uses it it hardly has much of an effect on anybody). Similarly taking a car for a test drive is a lot different to evaluating a test version of software. The test car for example, degrades in value (eg scratches, fuel consumed) during test and also is not available for anyone else to use while a potential customer is driving it.
(ii) That there are are at least two interpretations of "theft". Namely the legal version and the moral one. Everything thats legal isn’t necessarily morally correct, and conversely. Also what’s legal changes from one day to the next, and those who decide how arent necessarily motivated primarily by morals. I’m not even saying which is the more important interpretation (I know which is for me, but I don’t presume to try to tell anybody else). I just encourage other users to consider that different interpretations exist, when using words like "theft" and "wrong".
(iii) Seldom is anything wholly bad or wholly good. I think nobody (including myself) is trying to suggest that software piracy is a good thing. The issue here is rather what measures are appropriate to enforce its avoidance. Imagine for example you had a car and every time you changed a tire, it wouldn’t start again until you contacted the manufacturer and asked them to "reactivate" it for you. That would be an intolerable burden you’d say. But the car manufacturer might claim that it helps them to catch car thieves, as a result of which the price of cars and/or insurance goes down, which is good for you. And also that you can implicitly and 100% trust all car manufacturers to reactivate you car if you need it, day or night where ever you are in the world (even if they refuse to give you a written promise to that effect). And if for some strange reason they stopped activating a car model it would because models had been developed that were so superior that you wouldn’t even consider sticking with your old one, but rather want to "upgrade" to the new model immediately. Thats ridiculous you’d say. And you’d be right.
You’re still trying to justify theft. Im not. If anything, I challenged you to define it, instead of making unsupported blanket statements that are as inaccurate as they are unhelpful.
Software is still an identifiable object, although not physical. I never said anything to the contrary.
You differentiate between corporate loss and personal loss
Companies are founded with the prime purpose of differentiating between corporate loss and personal loss
Your arguement is lame at best.
What argument? If there is something specific I said that you disagree with, please feel free to point it out and explain why you disagree. Otherwise I think your argument is a lot more lame than mine: Your first sentence stands in full agreement with mine. Therefore your middle one, which is apparently your conclusion, hangs unsupported in the air. And your third is a curious mix of self-evidence and dubious relevance.
Intellectual property is still property I fully agree with you.
if a product requires you to wear bunny slippers when you use it, either wear the bunny slippers, or don’t use the product. This is a decent objection, but further contemplation will reveal, I think, that this statement is a lot more naive than anything have I said. In a perfect world this might be a valid suggestion. But in face of the reality its a bit like saying as an analogy, that for example, employers should be able to demand anything they wish from employees. No minimum wage, no health insurance benefits, any working conditions, no limit on working hours, or the length of shifts etc. After all, according to your reasoning, if the employee doesn’t like it they could just go and get a different job, right? Sometimes its the system which should change and not the individual.
Complain, if you care enough I do and I am. I’m trying to provoke fellow users to think about what it is that the current developments is doing to software, the (honest) user experience, and the software industry in general, rather than accept it as most unfortunately seem to be doing. If they still feel that current developments (in particular activation and other policies of companies like Microsoft, detailed in the link above), are acceptable, then thats their prerogative, and I accept that. However most people are unfortunately too busy, or disinterested to spend any time thinking about these trends and the changing face of software policing. "The Emperors New Clothes" comes to mind. If I can stimulate even a few others to think more about the whole issue than they would otherwise have done, then it will make the time I spent on these posts worth while, and certainly more so than the unanswered messages I did in fact already write on Adobe and many other manufacturers.
I respectfully disagree here…. I also saved for the software
I have the greatest of respect for your honesty. I suspect however that its atypical. Be that as it may, how honest you are or were, doesn’t alter the validity of the point you seem to be trying top counter with the fact: that piracy isn’t always a bad thing. Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I’m trying to say that like most other things in this world, piracy is neither fully bad nor fully bad. Most things that are bay and large bad, do have some positive side effects for some people, some of the time. This is all I’m saying. Point in case: Someone I know had a pirated version of a piece of software. This was, of course dishonest of him and a bad thing to do. However he recommended the software to me, which I then went and bought. This benefited the software manufacturer and to some limited extent countered the negative effect of his having used a pirated copy in the first place. I’m not saying the balance of these 2 effects is positive, I’m just saying that it wasn’t completely negative, and if he hadn’t had a copy (which might well have been the case if he hadn’t been able to acquire a pirated one) I probably wouldn’t have bought one either.
Also, note that your honesty, though highly commendable, in your student days didn’t actually directly benefit the software companies in any way. By not using any pirated versions you didn’t buy them either. I could go further down this road, but I think its not worth it, as the point I was trying make was just a digression.
Somehow the impression seems to have been created that piracy was advocated. I cant really see where but if anybody got this impression from my posts, then they misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Let me try to rephrase. I suggested that realm of software (including its fair use and piracy), by its nature, requires a more abstract and advanced thinking than is sufficient for concrete objects like cars and apples. It seemed appropriate in light of analogies to car rental, and house doors to allude to the subtle yet important differences.
(i) That its not the actual acquiring (ie copying) of a pirated copy that generally does any direct harm, but rather the actual use of the copy. (Like I said if someone makes a pirated copy but never actually uses it it hardly has much of an effect on anybody). Similarly taking a car for a test drive is a lot different to evaluating a test version of software. The test car for example, degrades in value (eg scratches, fuel consumed) during test and also is not available for anyone else to use while a potential customer is driving it.
(ii) That there are are at least two interpretations of "theft". Namely the legal version and the moral one. Everything thats legal isn’t necessarily morally correct, and conversely. Also what’s legal changes from one day to the next, and those who decide how arent necessarily motivated primarily by morals. I’m not even saying which is the more important interpretation (I know which is for me, but I don’t presume to try to tell anybody else). I just encourage other users to consider that different interpretations exist, when using words like "theft" and "wrong".
(iii) Seldom is anything wholly bad or wholly good. I think nobody (including myself) is trying to suggest that software piracy is a good thing. The issue here is rather what measures are appropriate to enforce its avoidance. Imagine for example you had a car and every time you changed a tire, it wouldn’t start again until you contacted the manufacturer and asked them to "reactivate" it for you. That would be an intolerable burden you’d say. But the car manufacturer might claim that it helps them to catch car thieves, as a result of which the price of cars and/or insurance goes down, which is good for you. And also that you can implicitly and 100% trust all car manufacturers to reactivate you car if you need it, day or night where ever you are in the world (even if they refuse to give you a written promise to that effect). And if for some strange reason they stopped activating a car model it would because models had been developed that were so superior that you wouldn’t even consider sticking with your old one, but rather want to "upgrade" to the new model immediately. Thats ridiculous you’d say. And you’d be right.
You’re still trying to justify theft. Im not. If anything, I challenged you to define it, instead of making unsupported blanket statements that are as inaccurate as they are unhelpful.
Software is still an identifiable object, although not physical. I never said anything to the contrary.
You differentiate between corporate loss and personal loss
Companies are founded with the prime purpose of differentiating between corporate loss and personal loss
Your arguement is lame at best.
What argument? If there is something specific I said that you disagree with, please feel free to point it out and explain why you disagree. Otherwise I think your argument is a lot more lame than mine: Your first sentence stands in full agreement with mine. Therefore your middle one, which is apparently your conclusion, hangs unsupported in the air. And your third is a curious mix of self-evidence and dubious relevance.
Intellectual property is still property I fully agree with you.
if a product requires you to wear bunny slippers when you use it, either wear the bunny slippers, or don’t use the product. This is a decent objection, but further contemplation will reveal, I think, that this statement is a lot more naive than anything have I said. In a perfect world this might be a valid suggestion. But in face of the reality its a bit like saying as an analogy, that for example, employers should be able to demand anything they wish from employees. No minimum wage, no health insurance benefits, any working conditions, no limit on working hours, or the length of shifts etc. After all, according to your reasoning, if the employee doesn’t like it they could just go and get a different job, right? Sometimes its the system which should change and not the individual.
Complain, if you care enough I do and I am. I’m trying to provoke fellow users to think about what it is that the current developments is doing to software, the (honest) user experience, and the software industry in general, rather than accept it as most unfortunately seem to be doing. If they still feel that current developments (in particular activation and other policies of companies like Microsoft, detailed in the link above), are acceptable, then thats their prerogative, and I accept that. However most people are unfortunately too busy, or disinterested to spend any time thinking about these trends and the changing face of software policing. "The Emperors New Clothes" comes to mind. If I can stimulate even a few others to think more about the whole issue than they would otherwise have done, then it will make the time I spent on these posts worth while, and certainly more so than the unanswered messages I did in fact already write on Adobe and many other manufacturers.
I respectfully disagree here…. I also saved for the software
I have the greatest of respect for your honesty. I suspect however that its atypical. Be that as it may, how honest you are or were, doesn’t alter the validity of the point you seem to be trying top counter with the fact: that piracy isn’t always a bad thing. Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I’m trying to say that like most other things in this world, piracy is neither fully bad nor fully bad. Most things that are bay and large bad, do have some positive side effects for some people, some of the time. This is all I’m saying. Point in case: Someone I know had a pirated version of a piece of software. This was, of course dishonest of him and a bad thing to do. However he recommended the software to me, which I then went and bought. This benefited the software manufacturer and to some limited extent countered the negative effect of his having used a pirated copy in the first place. I’m not saying the balance of these 2 effects is positive, I’m just saying that it wasn’t completely negative, and if he hadn’t had a copy (which might well have been the case if he hadn’t been able to acquire a pirated one) I probably wouldn’t have bought one either.
Also, note that your honesty, though highly commendable, in your student days didn’t actually directly benefit the software companies in any way. By not using any pirated versions you didn’t buy them either. I could go further down this road, but I think its not worth it, as the point I was trying make was just a digression.
Somehow the impression seems to have been created that piracy was advocated. I cant really see where but if anybody got this impression from my posts, then they misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Let me try to rephrase. I suggested that realm of software (including its fair use and piracy), by its nature, requires a more abstract and advanced thinking than is sufficient for concrete objects like cars and apples. It seemed appropriate in light of analogies to car rental, and house doors to allude to some subtle yet important differences.
(i) That its not the actual acquiring (ie copying) of a pirated copy that generally does any direct harm, but rather the actual use of the copy. (Like I said if someone makes a pirated copy but never actually uses it it hardly has much of an effect on anybody). Similarly taking a car for a test drive is a lot different to evaluating a test version of software. The test car for example, degrades in value (eg scratches, fuel consumed) during test and also is not available for anyone else to use while a potential customer is driving it.
(ii) That there are are at least two interpretations of "theft". Namely the legal version and the moral one. Everything thats legal isn’t necessarily morally correct, and conversely. Also what’s legal changes from one day to the next, and those who decide how arent necessarily motivated primarily by morals. I’m not even saying which is the more important interpretation (I know which is for me, but I don’t presume to try to tell anybody else). I just encourage other users to consider that different interpretations exist, when using words like "theft" and "wrong".
(iii) Seldom is anything wholly bad or wholly good. I think nobody (including myself) is trying to suggest that software piracy is a good thing. The issue here is rather what measures are appropriate to enforce its avoidance. Imagine for example you had a car and every time you changed a tire, it wouldn’t start again until you contacted the manufacturer and asked them to "reactivate" it for you. That would be an intolerable burden you’d say. But the car manufacturer might claim that it helps them to catch car thieves, as a result of which the price of cars and/or insurance goes down, which is good for you. And also that you can implicitly and 100% trust all car manufacturers to reactivate you car if you need it, day or night where ever you are in the world (even if they refuse to give you a written promise to that effect). And if for some strange reason they stopped activating a car model it would because models had been developed that were so superior that you wouldn’t even consider sticking with your old one, but rather want to "upgrade" to the new model immediately. Thats ridiculous you’d say. And you’d be right.
You’re still trying to justify theft.
Im not. If anything, I challenged you to define it, instead of making unsupported blanket statements that are as inaccurate as they are unhelpful.
Software is still an identifiable object, although not physical.
I never said anything to the contrary.
You differentiate between corporate loss and personal loss
Companies are founded with the prime purpose of differentiating between corporate loss and personal loss
Your arguement is lame at best.
What argument? If there is something specific I said that you disagree with, please feel free to point it out and explain why you disagree. Otherwise I think your argument is a lot more lame than mine: Your first sentence stands in full agreement with mine. Therefore your middle one, which is apparently your conclusion, hangs unsupported in the air. And your third is a curious mix of self-evidence and dubious relevance.
Intellectual property is still property
I fully agree with you.
if a product requires you to wear bunny slippers when you use it, either wear the bunny slippers, or don’t use the product.
This is a decent objection, but further contemplation will reveal, I think, that this statement is a lot more naive than anything have I said. In a perfect world this might be a valid suggestion. But in face of the reality its a bit like saying as an analogy, that for example, employers should be able to demand anything they wish from employees. No minimum wage, no health insurance benefits, any working conditions, no limit on working hours, or the length of shifts etc. After all, according to your reasoning, if the employee doesn’t like it they could just go and get a different job, right? Sometimes its the system which should change and not the individual.
Complain, if you care enough
I do and I am. I’m trying to provoke fellow users to think about what it is that the current developments (in particular activation) are doing to software, the (honest) user experience, and the software industry in general, rather than accept it blindly, as most unfortunately seem to be doing. If they still feel that current developments (in particular activation and other policies of companies like Microsoft, detailed in the link above), are acceptable, then thats their prerogative, and I accept that. However most people are unfortunately too busy, or disinterested to spend any time thinking about these trends and the changing face of software policing. "The Emperors New Clothes" comes to mind. If I can stimulate even a few others to think more about the whole issue than they would otherwise have done, then it will make the time I spent on these posts worth while, and certainly more so than the unanswered messages I did in fact already send to Adobe and many other manufacturers.
I respectfully disagree here…. I also saved for the software
I have the greatest of respect for your honesty. I suspect however that its atypical. Be that as it may, how honest you are or were, doesn’t alter the validity of the point you seem to be trying to counter with the fact: that piracy isn’t always a bad thing. Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly enough. I’m trying to say that like most other things in this world, piracy is neither fully bad nor fully good. Most things that are (by and large) bad, do have some positive side effects for some people, some of the time. This is all I’m saying. Point in case: Someone I know had a pirated version of a piece of software. This was, of course dishonest of him and a bad thing to do. However he recommended the software to me, which I then went and bought. My purchase benefited the software manufacturer and to some limited extent countered the negative effect of his having used a pirated copy in the first place. I’m not saying the balance of these 2 effects is positive, I’m just saying that it wasn’t all completely negative, and if he hadn’t had a copy (which might well have been the case if he hadn’t been able to acquire a pirated one) I probably wouldn’t have bought one either.
Also, note that your honesty, though highly commendable, in your student days, one could argue, didn’t actually directly benefit the software companies in any way. By not using any pirated versions you didn’t buy them either. I could go further down this road, but I think its not worth it, as the point I was trying make was just a digression.
Seems we all still have our opinions on activation, and none us of seems to be swayed by anyone else. I have read them all and while I feel several are very different than my own, everybody has a good point.
I got to thinking about what Christine Krof Shock mentioned. Microsoft doesn’t offer a trial period for XP. Maybe because if they did you would discover the activation requirements would drive you away? The word on the street about XP kept me from upgrading to it. Last fall I would have had to re-activate up to seven times in three weeks as I went through a disastrous time getting my system up to speed to do video capture and editing. Adobe offering PS CS for a month is testament that they feel you will not be scared away once you play with it. That counts for something.
As I mentioned earlier, I was given my PS CS as a gift and enjoy it, but would never have purchased it for myself. Then again, I drive a 15 year old vehicle even though my wife insists I should by a new one.
The activation thing on CS bothers me for some reason even though I have the real deal software. With conflicting comments from Adobe, I’m concerned that Adobe will one day either refuse to support activation leaving me with an expensive CD that can do nothing, or will require me to upgrade to another CD that one day will do nothing.
Has anyone else gotten different stories from Adobe on how they will treat us true owners when a newer version is released?
A: Adobe is fully committed to honoring the terms of its Product License Agreements. In the event that a product is discontinued, Adobe will enable automatic approval of all activation requests for that product or provide a means to remove activation outright. In either case, the customer will not experience any change in software capabilities.
Q: What happens if Adobe releases a newer version of a software program that requires activation? 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.
Q: Will I be able to use the software in perpetuity? What happens if Adobe shuts down?
A: Adobe’s Product License Agreements typically grant the user of an Adobe product the right to use it in perpetuity. Adobe plans to honor these agreements. In the unlikely event of the company’s shutting down, we will enable automatic approval of all activation requests or provide other technical means allowing users to continue using our products.
If I wasn’t told anything by Adobe, I might have checked into the Q&A. At the time, a phone call seemed much faster (though apparently not as reliable) as dial-up Internet. Odd that the customer service people couldn’t quote from it as you did. If Adobe stands by what the Q&A states, there shouldn’t be an issue with activation. Except maybe by the folks who don’t own a legit CD?
University of Baltimore law professor Robert Lande says, "Microsoft, like almost all monopolies, has become fat and lazy. Monopolies do not engage in innovation with the same urgency because they donât have to innovate to stay in business."
Re: piracy,
Ironically I’ve been paying the wage of people like Mr Levine for nearly 20 years now; as an Adobe advocate and hitherto satisfied customer. Unfortunately Adobe stopped listening well over 10 years ago. My studio buys and volume licenses every product we use in our work. Nonetheless, I have two policies: I will not buy any product with Activation; and secondly, I will not pay for bug fixes. Paid upgrades are OK if they deliver new and desirable features.
This means that our studio will not be purchasing Adobe CS to fix the innumerable bugs in post-8.0 Illustrator in particular. Photoshop 7.0 is quite OK and we will not upgrade it. Feed that datum into the marketing-monopolist reptile brain, Bob. And read that article carefully.
If you don’t agree with me, fine. But IMO the use of closed minded as a description of someone usually comes from someone who fits that description far better.
As for paying my salary as a forum host, that’s not very hard to do.
You might want to check into corporate licensing for your studio. There’s no activation.
And you’re right about PS 7.0. It’s just fine. But I would argue the fact that CS is not innovative. Just ask the photographers out there.
I wonder what percentage of 2-million Illustrator users would balk at that. It should be calculable. I’ve used Illustrator since 1991. For many, it’s less approachable than Photoshop, and there is viable competition.
I have genuine respect for Adobe’s decision to publish what they did on this webpage and it shows an admirable commitment to customers well beyond that of many other companies. However, Id personally feel evn better if the promises were made in a legally binding document such a license agreement that comes with the product. Webpages can change overnight, and who’s to say for sure what any page said at any particular time in the past?
And even if I felt that forcing me to update wasn’t a possibility, I still wouldn’t buy a product that required activation, among other reasons because its an inconvenience and degradation in quality (security instead of functionality) I don’t think that I should be paying for.
Thomas Ireland: Odd that the customer service people couldn’t quote from it as you did
Maybe because it didn’t exist at the time, but rather was published in an attempt to quell an enexpectedly large user unrest at the move, itself manifest in part by the postings of users in this forum.
Thomas Ireland: Except maybe by the folks who don’t own a legit CD?
Really? How exactly can any company use activation to reliably and unambiguously distinguish illegal use from legal, without a guilty until proven innocent policy towards users, thats preprogrammed to cause problems and inconvenience for those who aren’t?
Consider all the "activation" experts answering phones, writing software, and otherwise involved in building, oiling and turning the cogs of the activation machine, worldwide in even a single company. How much more valuable would a "legit CD" be if these employees were giving customers genuine support instead, and how much more incentive to buy rather than pirate if this support were part of the deal.
Its been shown that activation isn’t really any better at protecting software from piracy than a simple serial number scheme. WinXp, for example, was cracked and freely available on the internet before the retail version was even in the shops. Yet activation is infinitely more expensive for a company to implement and maintain. Why then are software companies jumping on the activation bandwagon like flies on horse manure? It just doesn’t make sense, especially not economically.
r_harvey: I wonder what percentage of 2-million Illustrator users would balk at that (…Illustrator usinig activation)
I certainly wont touch a future version of Illustrator with a ten foot pole, if it adopts activation.
In the unlikely event of the company’s shutting down, we will enable automatic approval of all activation requests or provide other technical means allowing users to continue using our products.
How can any company guarantee (the continued and perpetual provision of) this after the company no longer exists? In the unlikely event of the company’s shutting down, Adobe will tell everybody well in advance (???) and post an activation free version or crack on their website for the 3 weeks between when demise is eminent and when the company (and their website) no longer exists?? Tough luck for anybody who misses the window? These things tend to happen overnight, and when a company is about to go out of business, the last thing they’ve got on their minds is how then can help their customers before all the rats abandon ship. And though I personally think that Adobe going out of business is a lot less likely than for many other companies adopting activation (by following the footsteps of big representative companies like Adobe, who followed the lead of Micro$oft), it has often happened before and will continue to happen, that an apparently very successful product or company unexpectedly and suddenly gets bought up, merges, or otherwise vanishes, and the last people to know are the customers.
Robert Levine: If you don’t agree with me, fine. But IMO the use of closed minded as adescription of someone usually comes from someone who fits that description far better.
Speaking of open-minded agreeability. A moderator recently marked (yet another) similar thread R/O with the arguments that the therein appropriately formulated and reasonable comments were
…nothing but rants
and because the poster even alluded to the possibility of Adobe not existing any more (in its present form) it was deemed as
"the sky is falling" predictions of Adobe’s demise.
Yet, a few days later the same moderator gracefully quotes from the said companies very own website where they explicitly discuss the same eventuality, as if it were the most natural thing in the world.
This "discussion" IMO is going around in circles. If you want to continue it–within forum rules, of course–go right ahead. But please keep it in this thread.
And I think it’s a little harsh classifying iTunes as spyware.
See, that’s what happens when you use Windows, Gernot. You get so used to being on guard for malware, viruses and all that crap that you start looking for malicious application behavior around every corner, often seeing it where it doesn’t exist.
IMO iTunes is spyware: I’m playing some music; they are offering me immediately other records by the same artist. It seems I’m (OK. have been) wired to the Apple-Shop, or how this criminal organization might be called.
Meddleware is an excellent way of putting it, J.J.
What’s the first thing I do when I install any software for the first time? Go through the preferences so see how I can make it behave how I want prefer, and to turn off any automatic version-checking or updating.
And Dave…I hear ya, but so many unsavvy users (which represents a HUGE demographic) have been hearing so much fear-mongering about the dangers of spam and phishing and malware that they cripple their own computing experience rather than educate themselves about how to take control of it. I don’t think Gernot falls into that category, but I do think it was a little bit of overarching hyperbole to call iTunes spyware.
so then so is amazon, because it recommends things based on what you buy. so is the supermarket where you use your customer loyalty card and then give you coupons for either the same or competing brand’s products. etc.
I had bought a couple of books by Amazon, and therefore they know my E-Mail address. As long as I agree they may send me related offers.
That strange Vinyl copier didn’t work without internet access – sending everything about my habits (only concerning music, fortunately) to a company named Gracenote. Not agreeable, of course.
iTunes was installed automatically. Now I found that this program isn’t required for copying vinyl records or for handling music files at all. Good news. Why the heck should they know my habits ?
If I should want to buy records, I’m sure I’ll find an internet store. But so far I have to copy plenty old vinyls, and to learn how to remove a history of 30…40 years scratches.
As long as I agree they may send me related offers.
that’s not what i mean. i mean now next time you log in there see the link that says "recommendations". or might pop right up. it’ll say something like "Gernot! We’ve got new recommendations for you!"
That strange Vinyl copier didn’t work without internet access – sending everything about my habits (only concerning music, fortunately) to a company named Gracenote.
you should be able to opt out of that, but you should know that Gracenote is a huge database of album information. They were trying to make your life easier by automatically filling in track and artist info and maybe even the album cover artwork.
iTunes was installed automatically.
what? i’ve never heard of that. i’ve always had to install it myself.
Now I found that this program isn’t required for copying vinyl records or for handling music files at all. Good news. Why the heck should they know my habits ?
well they shouldn’t if you don’t use them. in fact i’m not sure how it got installed if you didn’t install it. you should remove it if you don’t use it. but they offer a good service at (imo) more than reasonable prices. i gladly pay 99 cents a music track or 1.99 per television show i want to watch. for convenience and to stay legal. they’re about as far from "spyware" as amazon is.
See, that’s what’s called aggressive marketing. Marketing itself is evil as is advertising (of which I am a member). They rank, in my mind, right up there with politicians and lawyers.
There’s a line between what is acceptable and what is sinister. What Sony did with their music CD’s crossed the line. What the vinyl copier did crossed the line. What Apple does making you install iTunes with Quicktime crosses the line.
Not being a user of iTunes (never having owned an iPod or any other MP3 device), I can’t say for certain if iTunes is spyware; I just know I don’t want anything to do with it.
For the record, you can install Quicktime w/o iTunes. On the Quicktime download page the default is the iTunes version but just below is the Quicktime only version.
For the record, you can install Quicktime w/o iTunes. On the Quicktime download page the default is the iTunes version but just below is the Quicktime only version.
That must be a relatively new change because the last time I needed to get Quicktime for something, iTunes was a part of it.
i’d go through withdrawal if they shut down amazon!
I wouldn’t know it even happened… ****ards only sent me what I ordered after months of nagging even though they were "in stock, usually ships within 24 hours" every time I ordered something from them. I understand most people have had good experiences with them but I never had one good one.
The ease with which people obtain illegal copies of Photoshop is starting to make me feel like a chump.
Why? You’re not going to go to jail if you get audited. They will.
I’m paying for a product and subsidizing the development of future versions that all these jerks are getting for free.
Don’t worry about what they do. Half of them don’t even know how to use the software.
Isn’t there a way they can control this better? A poison pill perhaps they can add to the software that will erase it from the hard drive after a certain amount of time if the copy is illegal or at least make the serial number harder to crack?
Great idea. Why didn’t anyone else think of that before? 8/
In the past I had a great amount of self righteousness knowing I paid for my software but I’m starting to feel a little stupid.
Would you feel a lot better about having the free cracked version, having your business shut down, and having your arse hauled off to jail?
Are you talking about the vinyl copier thing? That’s not pirating music. That’s converting music one has already purchased into a usable format. If that is in turn sold or given to someone who did not purchase the original, then that is piracy.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
