Adobe LM Service
Rick
Thanks,
Rick
noone
"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bouh1e$1i8d9n$1...@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
Rick
Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.
Rick
-----
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.
2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate
3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
-----
"noone" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:vr5n4ks...@corp.supernews.com...
crapbottom
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bouotj$1il3rq$1...@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
Rick
service. BTW it was said in one group that the LM service will
re-enable itself if it's disabled. Amazing, no?
Rick
"crapbottom" <cra...@inmypants.com> wrote in message news:vr6hds8...@corp.supernews.com...
Rick
and if the installer dll is renamed PS doesn't load at all.
At least now we know the real reason why Win2K or XP is required.
Hey Chris, how does it feel to be a corporate whore as well as a
bald-faced liar?
Rick
"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:bovj1h$1jtsca$1...@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
noone
still have ps load
"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bovrt0$1hjhp9$1...@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
Rick
> i'll type a doc later - the service can be removed and perm. disabled and
> still have ps load
Looking forward to it. In the meantime I apologize to Chris for the
rude comment, he probably had little or nothing to do with it. I just
cannot believe Adobe is resorting to this. Services that enable
themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy
protection. Shame on them.
Rick
Tacit
>themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy
>protection.
A worm is a computer program that copies itself from one system to another. A
trojan is a program that claims to do one thing (like show pictures of tennis
stars naked) but actually does something else (like email your AOL passwords
back to the writer).
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Rick
> >Services that enable
> >themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy
> >protection.
>
> A worm is a computer program that copies itself from one system to another. A
> trojan is a program that claims to do one thing (like show pictures of tennis
> stars naked) but actually does something else (like email your AOL passwords
> back to the writer).
And both can be found as services which enable themselves
without permission. I've been administering NT for as long as
it's existed and this is the first time I've run into a "legitimate"
service that does this.
Rick
Tacit
>without permission.
True, but that's not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms
and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are
worms or Trojans.
But you knew that already. :)
I've seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It's used on a
form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it
tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you
allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with
direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
You don't have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny
partition that's in ISO format, it's just a regular audio CD.
Rick
> >And both can be found as services which enable themselves
> >without permission.
>
> True, but that's not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms
> and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are
> worms or Trojans.
>
> But you knew that already. :)
Right. I never claimed that.
> I've seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It's used on a
> form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it
> tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you
> allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with
> direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option.
What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of
quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.
Rick
jjs
> Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option.
> What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of
> quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.
Dog gone it, I missed this thread. What do you claim Adobe is doing? Calling
home?
Rick
That's the problem -- we don't know what it's doing. This much
has been established, or at least I think it has:
1. The service wants internet access.
2. The service checks for hardware changes, and will prevent
PS from running if it decides too much hardware in a system
has been changed.
3. The service cannot be permanently disabled.
4. When the service is manually disabled it re-enables itself
each time PS is started.
As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided
for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia's version
of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision's* documentation it
would be most welcome, since that's who apparently wrote it.
Rick
Tacit
>for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia's version
>of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision's* documentation it
>would be most welcome, since that's who apparently wrote it.
The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There's an FAQ on it at
http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq.shtml
I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back
in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it's the USER who
should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used...
More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even
after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a
pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you've paid your money for CS, and you don't
like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.
The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke
it. Looks like I'm staying with 7; I don't think I'll be be buying 8.
Rick
> >As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided
> >for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia's version
> >of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision's* documentation it
> >would be most welcome, since that's who apparently wrote it.
>
> The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There's an FAQ on it at
>
> http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq.shtml
>
> I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back
> in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it's the USER who
> should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used...
>
> More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even
> after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a
> pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you've paid your money for CS, and you don't
> like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.
>
> The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke
> it. Looks like I'm staying with 7; I don't think I'll be be buying 8.
Thanks for the link. Despite Macrovision's claim to the contrary
SafeCast is a form of spyware.
This is akin to buying a book, taking it home, then discovering
some pages are blank, except for an instruction to call the
publisher to receive their permission to read them.
It's official -- the bean counters at Adobe are out of control.
Rick
jjs
<mac...@nomail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$1...@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> [...]
> > That's the problem -- we don't know what it's doing. This much
> > has been established, or at least I think it has:
> >
> > 1. The service wants internet access.
According to Adobe it does not need internet access. That would be just nuts.
> Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?
That's not at all like Adobe. Even when their software checked the local
net for other copies running the same serial number it would not bomb the
program if there was no network. (Maybe it still does. Dunno.)
Xalinai
>>And both can be found as services which enable themselves
>>without permission.
>
>True, but that's not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms
>and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are
>worms or Trojans.
>
>But you knew that already. :)
>
>I've seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It's used on a
>form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it
>tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you
>allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with
>direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
>
>You don't have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny
>partition that's in ISO format, it's just a regular audio CD.
I'd consider that a trojan. It installs on my system and disables a
feature of the existing system....
Tacit
>feature of the existing system....
Particularly in light of the fact that the dialog which comes up says the user
*must* install the software in order for the CD to work, which is manifestly
not the case.
jjs
> Thanks for the link. Despite Macrovision's claim to the contrary
> SafeCast is a form of spyware.
Are you sure? SafeNet is spyware, but SafeCast? Can you support your
statement?
Rick
> In article <bp2nat$6jr$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>, l
> <mac...@nomail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$1...@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> > > That's the problem -- we don't know what it's doing. This much
> > > has been established, or at least I think it has:
> > >
> > > 1. The service wants internet access.
>
> According to Adobe it does not need internet access. That would be just nuts.
Wants, not needs. If SafeCast can't get internet access there are
other ways of activating PS. By phone, fax etc. But the point is,
it attempts an internet connection without explicit permission or
even notification to the user or admin. Not even a log entry in
Event Viewer. Nada.
> > Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?
>
> That's not at all like Adobe. Even when their software checked the local
> net for other copies running the same serial number it would not bomb the
> program if there was no network. (Maybe it still does. Dunno.)
If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all.
In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of
activations (anyone know what the magic number is?), beyond
which one needs to contact Adobe directly. With all the hardware
swapping I do on a routine basis, CS is virtually unusable. It's
the exact same reason I can't upgrade the OSes on my systems
to WinXP. If this trend continues among software developers
eventually I'll have obsolete and/or unsupported versions of most
everything.
Rick
Bill Hilton
>If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all.
>In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of
>activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)
You can definitely activate it on two computers, I've already done that (two
desktops).
Haven't tried it a third time but I gather it will not do three.
> With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis,
> CS is virtually unusable.
So don't buy it. End of problem.
Bill
jjs
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20031114170629...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Yeah, I suppose we could all stay with an earlier version and be happy.
Hell, eventually we would be called dinosaurs, hardware hippies, start some
kinda electronic commune. To the streets, I say! Down with the Activation
Pigs! Ya know, we just gotta get our Brothers and Sisters in the Euro
economy in with us, 'specially our socialist friends. What they pay for PS
is outrageous.
End of problem.
Friday. Late. Stupid Tired.
Annika1980
>buy the legal version
>apply the latest crack
>disable the service
>works just fine
That's funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that
people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they
wish.
Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop's undoing. My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop.
But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be
interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product,
thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other
graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe's position atop
the graphics world.
John
>>As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided
>>for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia's version
>>of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision's* documentation it
>>would be most welcome, since that's who apparently wrote it.
>
>The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There's an FAQ on it at
>
>http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq.shtml
>
>I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back
>in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it's the USER who
>should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used...
>
>More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even
>after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a
>pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you've paid your money for CS, and you don't
>like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.
>
>The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke
>it. Looks like I'm staying with 7; I don't think I'll be be buying 8.
Considering the soeed that the Macrovision was cracked I hope that
Adobe did not pay much for it. The best solution seems to be to
follow "crapbottom's" system earlier in this thread. By a legit copy,
install with any serial number you like and apply the two cracked
files.
Rick
American software developers either have very short memories
or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention
of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is
heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster.
Lotus (remember 1-2-3?), Novell (remember their hardware
based protection scheme?), etc. It won't be any different in
Adobe's case. Microsoft got away with WPA because they
have an effective monopoly in their market and consumers did
not have any viable (or at least practical) alternatives.
If their theories about casual piracy, and the claims that copy
protection will reduce the price of software were true, Microsoft
should have seen their revenues skyrocket with the release of
WinXP, and it should have resulted in a lowering of prices for
their products. But guess what? If you look at MS's financials
since the release of XP they're spending far more supporting
WPA than they're receiving in increased revenue, and the price
of XP hasn't been reduced one red cent.
And as usual, when all's said and done, the only people who are
bearing the burden of copy protection are legitimate customers.
Rick
John
wrote:
or refer to the post by "crapbotom" earlier in this thread
Xalinai
>"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031114190404...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>> >From: "crapbottom" cra...@inmypants.com
>>
>> >buy the legal version
>> >apply the latest crack
>> >disable the service
>> >works just fine
>>
>> That's funny!
>> Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that
>> people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they
>> wish.
>>
>> Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop's undoing. My
>> theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop.
>> But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
>> those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
>>
>> Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be
>> interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product,
>> thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other
>> graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe's position atop
>> the graphics world.
>
>American software developers either have very short memories
>or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention
>of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is
>heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster.
I don't think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is
that they cancel business-to-home-copying - the most effective
marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly
only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with
two or more trained users.
Instead people will buy a software for home use that is cheaper or
copy something different and recommend that when upgrading becomes a
topic at their workplace.
>Lotus (remember 1-2-3?), Novell (remember their hardware
>based protection scheme?), etc. It won't be any different in
>Adobe's case. Microsoft got away with WPA because they
>have an effective monopoly in their market and consumers did
>not have any viable (or at least practical) alternatives.
>And as usual, when all's said and done, the only people who are
>bearing the burden of copy protection are legitimate customers.
I'd like to see a law that requires a working copy protection system
that enforces individual licensing per user once a certain market
share (20%) was reached. This would suddenly eliminate the tendency to
create monopolies.
Michael
>
>Rick
>
>
jjs
(Xalinai) wrote:
> I don't think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
> When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is
> that they cancel business-to-home-copying - the most effective
> marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly
> only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with
> two or more trained users.
Isn't it a good idea to first limit this to our agenda: Adobe PS/CS? Do we
know that Adobe is trying to limit the licensing in that manner? As I
understand it, Adobe is permitting a home copy and work copy as long as
both cannot (or are not) used at the same time.
> I'd like to see a law that requires a working copy protection system
> that enforces individual licensing per user once a certain market
> share (20%) was reached. This would suddenly eliminate the tendency to
> create monopolies.
Seems more like an attempt at some kind of silly socialist metric. 20%?
That's crazy. What of a case like PS which has created the very best
general purpose photographic manipulation software? You are saying that
after their ground-breaking (and continuing) innovation they are limited
to 20% success (of sorts). When you mandate such a thing, then the courts
might revert to judgements similar to that which justified them to let
authors copy proprietary software in order to compete (Apple case, early
Eighties.) So 'developers' could reverse engineer PS, re-arrange the
interface and sell Adobe's investment. No way is that right.
crapbottom
device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall
it, just disable it.
no more garbled music =)
"Tacit" <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031113161351...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Tacit
>theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop.
>But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and
>many of
>those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no
competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of
professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
>Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will
>be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different
product,
>thus hurting Adobe in the long run.
Switch to what? While casual users and amateurs have many alternatives to
choose from, people who work in the fields of professional prepress and
printing don't. It's Photoshop or nothing.
>I think the time is right for some other
>graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe's position
>atop the graphics world.
Microsoft might be able to come up with an image editor suitable for home
users, but there's no way they could ever come up with an image editor that
professionals will use. I mean, look at the utter scorn and contempt the
prepress industru has for Microsoft's page-layout application, Publisher--and
rightly so. Writing a world-class image editor is more difficult than writing a
page-layout app, and Microsoft can't even get a page-layout app right.
The problem is, a program like Photoshop can't be written by a computer
programmer. Writing a program like Photoshop requires not only a team of
programmers but *also* experts inthe fields of color theory, color modelling,
printing, prepress, color separation, and so on. It's tough to picture many
companies other than Adobe who have the skills available to write something
like Photoshop.
Tacit
>in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall
>it, just disable it.
Best be careful; according to the article on The Register, people who
distribute that information are being prosecuted under the DMCA... :)
Rick
> >these are easy as well - start up your *cough* protected audio cd, look
> >in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall
> >it, just disable it.
>
> Best be careful; according to the article on The Register, people who
> distribute that information are being prosecuted under the DMCA... :)
If it ever gets to the point in this country where the free exchange
of information is met with a visit from the federal government, it's
time to find another, less fascist and repressive place to live.
Land of the free indeed. We've become a nation of pussy whipped
corporate whores.
Rick
Tacit
>of information is met with a visit from the federal government, it's
>time to find another, less fascist and repressive place to live.
Actually, what happens is that the free exchange of information is met with a
visit from lawyers and subpoenas. Just ask the owner of 2600 Magazine, who was
prosecuted (and convicted!) under the DMCA for *linking to* information about
DeCSS, the DVD player software.
Not for hosting it, mind you--linking to it.
>Land of the free indeed. We've become a nation of pussy whipped
>corporate whores.
No argument here. In fact, I even have the T-shirt: "I am a consumer whore."
Bill Hilton
>
>Microsoft might be able to come up with an image editor suitable for home
>users, but there's no way they could ever come up with an image editor that
>professionals will use.
What they'd probably do is declare the imaging editor a "vital part of the
Operating System" and imbed it in Win 2006, then make it so Windoze could
hardly run without it, and any and all attempts to load competing solutions
would be thwarted in various subtle ways.
If you don't believe me ask the guys who used to be Netscape :)
Bill
(tongue in cheek)
Paul J Gans
I agree about the pirating, but I wonder how much money
pirating actually costs Adobe. Many private individuals
who pirate would not buy Photoshop if they could not pirate
it. It is simply not worth it to them.
Where big money has been lost in the past is with companies
that did massive piracy, putting Photoshop on 50 machines
without paying for it -- or paying for only one copy. That
sort of thing.
Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how
they might be enforced? I understand that one does not have
to activate such copies. If I am right Adobe is not closing
their largest money loss hole.
And it is aggravating for customers.
I have not as yet upgraded. I will probably do so by the
end of the month. Between home and office I have five
machines. Three run Windows. Which one do I leave out?
What I'll likely do is run version 7 on one machine and
CS on the other two. There's no hope for the Linux machines
though if Photoshop and Dreamweaver ran on Linux I could
chuck Windows and not have to worry about *that* problem.
But what if I were a new user?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
[snip]
With feature sets in such programs getting better and
better, many companies will decide to save money and
buy the cheaper programs. After all, as you point out,
their employees will already know how to use them.
Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?
When your version is made non-functional by operating
system changes, will you buy another copy or will you
get a cheaper Office Suite that does everything you
normally want?
---- Paul J. Gans
Timo Autiokari
>Do we know that Adobe is trying to limit the licensing in that manner?
>As I understand it, Adobe is permitting a home copy and work copy
>as long as both cannot (or are not) used at the same time.
In companies/corporations the installation set in most cases is not
available for the employee so even if Adobe permits the home copy the
company does not, the installation set (Corporate version btw that
currently does not require Activation) is sitting there in a server on
the intranet and only the IT people have access to it.
What comes to the issue of the benefits of Activation, for instance I
am responsible for the workflow at our lab, we have ten licenses and
we will stay with the v7. I made this decision because we will never
accept the Activation so Photoshop is no longer an option for us. When
the time comes that v7 is not enough we will switch to another
software.
Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
Timo Autiokari
>Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how
>they might be enforced?
There is no site-licences for Photoshop but the Corporate distribution
has been there for several years, they come with 5 or more licenses.
Could someone pls give examples about the pricing?
>I understand that one does not have to activate such copies.
Currently that is so.
Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
Bill Hilton
>Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
>Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?
Having worked 20 years in a Dilbert-like corporate environment I can answer
that ... as soon as your biggest customer sends you a document using the latest
version of Word or Excel you'll find you *REALLY* need to upgrade :)
Paul J Gans
>Currently that is so.
Thanks Timo.
Ihen I'd guess that there is far more financial loss to
Adobe because of piracy there than piracy by single
individuals. There would be a major temptation for
someone in IT to "borrow" it.
In other words, does piracy *really* cost Adobe money?
The quick answer of "yes" could easily be wrong. I think
that most pirates would not buy the software if they did
not have access to a pirated copy.
And among those that would, I think that companies are
a major source of such people.
It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and
other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course,
we have no site license for Word...
Luckily Open Office will read Word formatted documents.
---- Paul J. Gans, who needs his extra cash for Photoshop CS
jjs
> It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
> movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
> copies come out of the studios themselves and not
> from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
> on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
> going on.
Can you substantiate that or any of your claims? Sounds like
impressionistic speculation to me.
jjs
wrote:
> Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and
> other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course,
> we have no site license for Word...
You metion quite often that you know of stolen software, and here you
mention it again. So, are you saying that New York University has pirated
licensed software? Be a hero. Turn them in. Hell, if you don't have tenure
by now, then you may as well go out with a bang.
Xalinai
wrote:
>>From: Paul J Gans ga...@panix.com
That's the moment you either find someone with a budget for an upgrade
or change to the next cheaper package that has an import filter...
Best chances for an upgrade: The moron who sends incompatible files is
the controller for the budget....
Michael
Xalinai
>>My
>>theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop.
>>But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and
>>many of
>>those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
>
>Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no
>competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of
>professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
Yes.
But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don't
even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free"
version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives
available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of
Word for things they could do in Wordpad.
>>Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will
>>be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different
>>product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run.
>
>Switch to what? While casual users and amateurs have many alternatives to
>choose from, people who work in the fields of professional prepress and
>printing don't. It's Photoshop or nothing.
People who work for prepress/printing are how many percent of the
current users?
Michael
Xalinai
It is well known that many illegal film copies have marks and
distribution signs that show that they come from promotional
distribution. But backtracking is impossible when marks are not
identifying each copy or if a studio doen't want to accuse their most
favourite and prominent critics...
Michael
Paul J Gans
Nope. I'm not the FBI. But it has been in the papers
for weeks now. That's how illegal duplicators get
DVD versions of films that have not even been released
out in a hurry.
Or are you talking about the current bruhaha over stolen
movies?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Come on. My knowlege of stolen software comes from reading
the newspapers. Software companies began cracking down a
few years ago -- going to customer's sites and asking to
see documentation for the copies of their programs that
were in use.
They collected some big bucks at the time.
Another thing that's been in the papers is "piracy" in
the government, both state and national. Often the
software budget is small to non-existant and so small
miracles happen.
Most universities don't pirate (though students sometimes
do, witness the music downloading business). They get
excellent academic prices or site licenses. Except my
place does not have an Office site license. So I have
to use other software to read what could have been sent
out as ASCII text. Turns out that Open Office does quite
well. And no activation....
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>>>My
>>>theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop.
>>>But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and
>>>many of
>>>those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
>>
>>Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no
>>competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of
>>professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
>Yes.
>But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don't
>even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free"
>version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives
>available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of
>Word for things they could do in Wordpad.
That may be true but I'm not certain. Photoshop is hard for a
novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple
program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features)
or pirate one of *those*.
[...]
---- Paul J. Gans
Xalinai
wrote:
>Xalinai <xalin...@xalinai.de> wrote:
I don't know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks
in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to
a certain view - even if those who ask for help here are already from
the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the
downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates...
The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of
questions to the paint shop pro group...
Michael
Paul J Gans
<grin>
Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little
to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same
way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once
one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up
the next one more quickly.
But if it is your first program.....
---- Paul J. Gans
notouchy
annik...@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:
> >From: "crapbottom" cra...@inmypants.com
>
> >buy the legal version
> >apply the latest crack
> >disable the service
> >works just fine
>
> That's funny!
> Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that
> people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they
> wish.
>
> Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop's undoing. My
> theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop.
> But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many
> of
> those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
>
> Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be
> interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different
> product,
> thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other
> graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe's position
> atop
> the graphics world.
Microsoft? Make a run for Adobe's dinner? May <insert favorite deity
here> forbid that! Microsoft has got its pigopolistic paws in everything
else. I sure the heck don't want it anywhere near the graphic arts
field. And if they did, they would screw it up big time...oh wait they
have! With M$ Publisher! Talk to your local, friendly (well most of them
are anyway) prepress and printing experts to discover why Publisher is
*not* a professional grade tool for page layout...And then wonder just
where and how M$ spends its billions.
Xalinai
wrote:
>Xalinai <xalin...@xalinai.de> wrote:
>>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>That may be true but I'm not certain. Photoshop is hard for a
>>>novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple
>>>program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features)
>>>or pirate one of *those*.
>>>
>>I don't know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks
>>in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to
>>a certain view - even if those who ask for help here are already from
>>the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the
>>downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates...
>
>>The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of
>>questions to the paint shop pro group...
>
><grin>
>
>Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little
>to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same
>way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once
>one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up
>the next one more quickly.
>
>But if it is your first program.....
You try, ask questions, get sufficiently rude answers - then go and
pay a pro to do the work and, with a little kink, pay for a part of a
legal photoshop license..... :-))
Michael
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Michael
Yeah, but some unskilled users are stubborn and wish to become
skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want
them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <bpgala$osa$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want
>> them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.
>The pro would never have become a pro by asking the trivial questions in
>usenet. There just is not not enough time to learn enough things if one
>does not do their own homework. Checking the same question from the
>programs?s Help or looking it up the manual would, in the case of the
>trivial questions, take only a few seconds and one could continue while
>the task is still hot.
>Don?t take me wrong, I do not think that no-one should post to usenet to
>ask things. But I have seen that only a small fraction of those
>questions have not yet been answered. So if one really needs the info,
>why not get it now and not wait till tomorrow. That?s part of what
>separates the ones that will be pros and the ones that will not; a
>motivation to get the info, now. Another important part is of course to
>get the basic education first. Going to a Photoshop class will teach so
>much more to a beginner than hanging out in newsgroups. Once one knows
>the major outlines of the subject, learning new things from books and
>the net will be much easier.
>.lauri
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Almost everyone asks trivial
questions in the beginning.
But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it
was for non-novices should it not have been named something
like
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only
:-)
There is a large change going on in society today. Instead
of looking things up in a book like a manual, folks just go
to the web. And what do they find? This newsgroup.
As for the rest, I'n not a pro. And there was no way I was
going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I've been involved
with computers since Knuth was a kid I did what I always did
-- I bought a book and read it. *Then* I bought the program.
And *then* I lurked on newsgroups. I've been here for almost
two years but did not post until a week or so ago.
But I'm well aware that most folks don't do that. Most manuals
are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones
out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?
So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer
not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such
as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only
thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <bpjqtm$2ij$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it
>> was for non-novices should it not have been named something
>> like
>>
>> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only
>>
>> :-)
>>
>No, no, no, sorry. I certainly did not mean this or any groups should
>exclude newbies. Just looking at the questions most asked and answered
>here shows that a lot of them are, well, newbie questions. So obviously
>there is a market for them.
>> As for the rest, I'n not a pro. And there was no way I was
>> going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I've been involved
>Not everyone needs a Photoshop class. But those willing to become pros
>in just about anything, not just in Photoshop, usually do go to some
>sort of class about the subject. Well, at least the ones that have done
>so, usually find the education worth it. But all that is of course worth
>the money only for the ones trying to seriously learn the subject.
>> But I'm well aware that most folks don't do that. Most manuals
>> are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones
>> out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?
>Ah, a newbie obviously asks if someone can recommend a good book that
>requires minimum prior knowledge of the subject from the reader. And,
>since the net has been populated with people for quite some time, the
>newbie that wants to know this now and not tomorrow asks mr Google first
>;) If the newbie finds even the answers of mr Google impossible to read,
>he might then better save his money and not buy any book at all.
>> So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer
>> not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such
>> as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only
>> thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.
>Not only the Photoshop users may be nasty, especially in usenet. A
>question that yields a lot of RTFM or Read the FAQ answers is usually
>one asked three times a week and there may even be active threads about
>the very subject in the same group. I think that not reading the
>possible answers before asking the question is rude. Replying in a
>snotty way is of course equally rude, but hey, there are just people
>behind the answers, not machines. Cannot expect them all to behave nice
>all the time.
>.lauri
I agree with what you say. But I've been lurking here for a quite
a while (over a year) and in my verys subjective opinion there are
more flames and a bit less welcome for newbies then there was a
year ago.
--- Paul J. Gans