Where to find Adobe 4 beta or clone
D M K
Can anyone point me to an Adobe 4 beta, or possibly a clone for the
program...
Thanks
David Klein
dmk...@pipeline.com
post
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:41:45 GMT, gree...@cyberspace.net (David
Copperhead) wrote:
>Well, it looks like those "Inner Circle" weenies have posted it in the
>warez newsgroup...Hope Adobe does something about those idiots.
And just what were YOU doing in the warez groups when you happened to
notice that?
Keith Clark
You don't have to hang out in the warez groups (which I don't).
Those morons have bragged enough about it here in this one. Personally
I wish the Justice department or whatever could fiqure out a way to shut
those people down.
wergild
without warez some of the worlds greatest graphic artists would of never
had
a chance to even be.........elitist, rich, "i live in a hole" peole like
you make it
harder and harder for peole to live their lives.
don't worry about other peole, you obviously have the program - so don't
worry
about how others get ahold of it.
wergild
Gene A. Townsend
wer...@mailmasher.com (wergild) wrote:
>Those morons have bragged enough about it here in this one. Personally
>>I wish the Justice department or whatever could fiqure out a way to shut
>>those people down.
>without warez some of the worlds greatest graphic artists would of never
>had
>a chance to even be.........elitist, rich, "i live in a hole" peole like
>you make it
>harder and harder for peole to live their lives.
>don't worry about other peole, you obviously have the program - so don't
>worry
>about how others get ahold of it.
>wergild
Worry about people having a program? Wake up. You are not talking
about food or shelter here. Nobody "needs" Photoshop.
I also doubt that the "worlds greatest artists" hang out in the warez
newsgroups.
You cannot justify theft of property with this argument
I'm just a working guy...but yet I can afford Photoshop. Since most
of us had to pay, so should you.
I guess being the "worlds greatest artist" entitles you to a few
benefits? I'll bet you've never paid income tax either. Probably a
compulsive speeder, too. But its okay for the world greatest artist
to take a few liberties.
Rot in hell, thieves.
Hope it DOESN'T help.
Gene A. Townsend
Christopher Wood
>
> without warez some of the worlds greatest graphic artists would of never
> had
> a chance to even to be
Hahahahaha. Yeah, lots of the world's greatest graphic artists hang out in
the Warez groups just waiting for Photoshop to come along so they can
achieve fame.
> .........elitist, rich, "i live in a hole" peole like
> you make it
> harder and harder for peole to live their lives.
Good. If someone's vigilance makes it harder for you to be a thief and a
criminal, I'm all for it.
As for elitist and rich, I think you'll find that applies to very few
hard-working designers that have to tighten their belts to afford upgrades
of half a dozen applications every year.
> don't worry about other peole, you obviously have the program - so don't
> worry
> about how others get ahold of it.
>
> wergild
Sure, I can't afford a car, so I'll steal one. I can't afford a gold
necklace, so I'll kill someone and take it. I can't afford Photoshop, so
I'll steal it off a newsgroup. Bullshit.
OTOH, I'd rather have the Justice Dept. pursuing murderers than
intellectual property theft.
-C
Keith Clark
But doesn't Interstate distribution of stolen property fall under their
mandate? Especially when we're talking about thieves that distribute
hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stolen property? Look, this
activity makes the rest of us pay higher prices. :<
Sorry...I had to say it. OK I'll shut up now so this won't turn into a
political forum. ;>
William Vynck
Keith Clark wrote:
>
> post only wrote:
> >
>
> You don't have to hang out in the warez groups (which I don't).
>
> Those morons have bragged enough about it here in this one. Personally
> I wish the Justice department or whatever could fiqure out a way to shut
> those people down.
YES i agree and i'm not agree ? Why ?
I'm a registered user of Photoschop 3.0.5
Nobody ask us if we would like to be betatesting the new PhotoShop. I'm
only use software i buy, you may check my computer there is no copy or
something i don't own on my PC.
Buth i'm just a small user and do not have a employment of 100 people,
so i don't get software for beta testing, this is only for the company's
with lots of money.
I ask lot of software developers to become a beta-tester, no answer...
even for us who lifes in Europe we never get the change to get beta
software on legal base. Still i'm keep on buying software as sonn its
released, i also would like to test new featers in new software,.......
So for those who reading this...keep on asking, specialy on those living
in Europe, we pay the same price (or lots more) for our software and
need to get the same rights as US users.
The US users of PhotoShop 3.0.4 could get the update to version 3.0.5 on
CD for a litle charge, here in Europe we get those updates ONLY on
disks, for the CD we have to pay the complete upgrade price !!!!
William
--
Visit my Homepage : http://uc2.unicall.be/creart
e-mail : creart...@unicall.be - fidonet : 2:291/1800.15
wergild
>I ask lot of software developers to become a beta-tester, no answer...
>even for us who lifes in Europe we never get the change to get beta
>software on legal base. Still i'm keep on buying software as sonn its
>released, i also would like to test new featers in new software,.......
do you guys see anything wrong with using the pirated beta to test it out
and see what it's going to be like so that you can make an informed
decision as to whether or not you want to buy the final version?
i personally don't, because this doesn't hurt the company in any way -
not that they would be hurt much any ways, i'm just trying to propose
this from your anit-warez perspective.
wergild
Keith Clark
Actually you bring up a valid point. I'm totally opposed to the
distribution of pirated software or images, or pirated anything.
But you have a point about the "try before you buy" concept. This
doesn't
justify stealing software though.
I WOULD like to see more companies put out either crippled demos (no
"save" function) or limited use (self destruct after 10 uses, 30 days
or whatever) demos. Heck, put a big ugly red "SAMPLE" on every image
or printout, at least average folks would get to try stuff before
shelling out their hard earned cash.
So from -that- point of view I have to say that I think Microsoft has
been following a trend I'd like to see more of by releasing time-limited
free software demos.
Of course with an industry standard like Photoshop there's no need to
try before you buy...you either buy it or fall behind. ;>
Keith
Jerry Kindall
>>I ask lot of software developers to become a beta-tester, no answer...
>>even for us who lifes in Europe we never get the change to get beta
>>software on legal base. Still i'm keep on buying software as sonn its
>>released, i also would like to test new featers in new software,.......
>
>do you guys see anything wrong with using the pirated beta to test it out
>and see what it's going to be like so that you can make an informed
>decision as to whether or not you want to buy the final version?
>
>i personally don't, because this doesn't hurt the company in any way -
>not that they would be hurt much any ways, i'm just trying to propose
>this from your anit-warez perspective.
A lot of people probably do this, and while you can make a case for it
from a ethical standpoint, it's nevertheless against the letter of the
law. Adobe, as the owner of the software, has the legal right to control
its distribution, and if they say they don't want you posting copies on
Usenet, then you shouldn't post copies on Usenet.
I'm sure Adobe would love to release a non-crippled shareware version of
Photoshop (which is essentially what you propose) IF they could trust
people to actually pay for the software if they used it past the trial
period. But you have only to look at the kind of money most shareware
authors make to see how naive such trust is. (There is also the fact that
this type of distribution has a low-budget, non-professional reputation,
which Adobe probably does not want for its high-end products.)
Still, if you're going to pirate software for this purpose -- and I don't
condone it -- it's still smarter to wait a couple of extra months for the
final release. Otherwise you may decide not to buy the product based on a
bug which doesn't exist in the release version. That's hardly fair.
Legal ways to get demonstrations do exist. You can visit a dealer, attend
a trade show, find someone who has purchased the software and arrange to
use their computer for a couple of hours, or buy the software from a
vendor which offers a money-back guarantee on the product you're
interested in.
As a bonus, popular products like Photoshop appear in magazine reviews,
have entire books written about them, and are discussed frequently on
Usenet. If you need to know something about the product, you can find out
without having to copy it and try it for yourself.
>wergild
--
Jerry Kindall <kin...@manual.com>
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/>
Technical Writing; Internet & WWW Consulting
Gene A. Townsend
wer...@mailmasher.com (wergild) wrote:
>>I ask lot of software developers to become a beta-tester, no answer...
>>even for us who lifes in Europe we never get the change to get beta
>>software on legal base. Still i'm keep on buying software as sonn its
>>released, i also would like to test new featers in new software,.......
>do you guys see anything wrong with using the pirated beta to test it out
>and see what it's going to be like so that you can make an informed
>decision as to whether or not you want to buy the final version?
>i personally don't, because this doesn't hurt the company in any way -
>not that they would be hurt much any ways, i'm just trying to propose
>this from your anit-warez perspective.
>wergild
Almost everyone that owns Photoshop 3.05 is going to upgrade to 4.0,
without testing it. Especially those of us with win95! We all know
this is a very significant upgrade to true 32-bit operation, with some
additional features.
Gene A. Townsend
Blake Winton
In article <kindall-2310...@news.sojourn.com>,
>I'm sure Adobe would love to release a non-crippled shareware version of
>Photoshop (which is essentially what you propose) IF they could trust
>people to actually pay for the software if they used it past the trial
>period. But you have only to look at the kind of money most shareware
>authors make to see how naive such trust is. (There is also the fact that
>this type of distribution has a low-budget, non-professional reputation,
>which Adobe probably does not want for its high-end products.)
Yeah, like those id people, who released DooM and Quake. They're not
making any money off of those. And their products are so
unprofessional. :) I think many people would be happy if they could get
to test out a product before they dropped down almost $1000. I wouldn't
buy a car without taking a test drive. I wouldn't buy a $700 stereo
system without listening to it first. I wouldn't even buy a $200
discman without listening to a CD of my selection, and trying to make it
skip. So why do some software companies expect me to pay a lot of money
(which is in short supply because I'm in university) when they only give
me screenshots on the box (often on a different OS) as a demo?
>Legal ways to get demonstrations do exist. You can visit a dealer, attend
>a trade show, find someone who has purchased the software and arrange to
>use their computer for a couple of hours, or buy the software from a
>vendor which offers a money-back guarantee on the product you're
>interested in.
Yes, these do exist, and they're all good ideas, but (with the exception
of the last one, and the last one is pretty rare these days), they don't
give you any sort of idea as to how the product will run on _my_
machine.
(as a side note, after I had ordered the registered version of Quake, I
copied it off of a friend of mine. I'm glad that I did, because my CD
got lost in the mail, and it took well over a month and a half for it
to finally reach me. In that time, I used the features of the
registered version to learn more about the program. If id wants to
e-mail me, I'll gladly give them the name of the person who gave me a
copy, just as soon as I get a written apology for the massive delay it
took to get the CD to me in the first place (and a promise that they'll
have rotating brushes in Quake2), but that's all horribly off-topic,
but then again, so is the rest of this thread.)
Blake.
Jason Kratz
kin...@manual.com (Jerry Kindall) wrote:
>
>A lot of people probably do this, and while you can make a case for it
>from a ethical standpoint, it's nevertheless against the letter of the
>law.
Sure its against the letter of the law....so is jaywalking and lots of
other things that people do on a daily basis that are really against
the law. This is not to say I condone piracy but I'm sure that
everyone on this newsgroup has broken many a law in their time.
>
>Legal ways to get demonstrations do exist. You can visit a dealer, attend
>a trade show, find someone who has purchased the software and arrange to
>use their computer for a couple of hours, or buy the software from a
>vendor which offers a money-back guarantee on the product you're
>interested in.
>
Sorry but all of those ways to get a legal demonstration in my mind
arent options. Those ways will not let me know if the software has
the depth that I need. I once saw a dealer demo of 3d studio. The
demo didnt show me why I should spend $3k on the product. The best
option would be to have a full-functioning demo with no save. That
would let anyone fool around to their hearts content to see if the
product is right for them.
>As a bonus, popular products like Photoshop appear in magazine reviews,
>have entire books written about them, and are discussed frequently on
>Usenet. If you need to know something about the product, you can find out
>without having to copy it and try it for yourself.
>
Reviews, usenet discussions, etc will never make up for hands-on use
of the product. Like I said..I'm not condoning piracy but I do see
why people would do it in a try-before-you-buy situation.
Jason
Alan Boucek
Jason Kratz wrote:
>
> Sorry but all of those ways to get a legal demonstration in my mind
> arent options. Those ways will not let me know if the software has
> the depth that I need. I once saw a dealer demo of 3d studio. The
> demo didnt show me why I should spend $3k on the product. The best
> option would be to have a full-functioning demo with no save. That
> would let anyone fool around to their hearts content to see if the
> product is right for them.
>
Adobe makes available fully functioning demos of most of their software packages. They don't of
course, make demo versions of unpublished beta software, nor should they.
If you don't know why you should spend the money for a package, you probably don't need the
software in question.
--
Alan Boucek
Jerry Kindall
In article <54obhi$4...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>,
bwi...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Blake Winton) wrote:
>In article <kindall-2310...@news.sojourn.com>,
>kin...@manual.com (Jerry Kindall) wrote:
>>I'm sure Adobe would love to release a non-crippled shareware version of
>>Photoshop (which is essentially what you propose) IF they could trust
>>people to actually pay for the software if they used it past the trial
>>period. But you have only to look at the kind of money most shareware
>>authors make to see how naive such trust is. (There is also the fact that
>>this type of distribution has a low-budget, non-professional reputation,
>>which Adobe probably does not want for its high-end products.)
>
>Yeah, like those id people, who released DooM and Quake. They're not
>making any money off of those. And their products are so
>unprofessional. :)
id is an exception, and you probably know that. The folks at id have an
advantage that most companies don't have, and that is that they're bloody
geniuses. For every id, there are 1,000 struggling shareware authors, and
probably about 10 shareware companies which are pulling in adequate money
to survive but who are not yet rich. (Ambrosia, a fairly well-known Mac
shareware company, comes to mind. I'm sure they're making money, but I
don't see any articles in WIRED about Andrew Welch's Ferrari.)
They started the shareware distribution with Wolfenstein 3D because they
DIDN'T have any advertising money, and they continue that because it IS so
inexpensive, hence my term "low-budget." Furthermore, you can't say that
Doom and Quake are non-crippled in their shareware versions -- they do NOT
have all the levels that come with the full version. Finally, I don't
really see how you can compare a <$50 game aimed at the home/consumer
market to a >$500 graphics production application usually purchased by
corporations. The markets and advertising stratgies are totally
different.
>Blake.
Marc Pawliger
> >I ask lot of software developers to become a beta-tester, no answer...
We don't automatically OK everyone who asks to be a beta tester. We
typically only use a small amount (100 or so) of users to do beta testing.
They are usually people known to us via their work, books, articles, etc.
They range from the very low end to the very high end in terms of
experience, hardware and knowledge.
From a previous post of mine:
The best way to become a beta tester for Adobe prducts is to be known to
the right Adobe people associated with that product well before the
product ever goes beta, by which time it's probably too late. This might
mean making yourself known by meeting people at tradeshows or just coming
in contact with them them through your work. We try to pick a broad
spectrum of users when deciding who to include in the beta testing group
and usually do so well before the time comes to actually send out the
program.
> >even for us who lifes in Europe we never get the change to get beta
> >software on legal base.
Many Photoshop 4.0 beta testers were not located in the US. Any any betas
you may have seen were leaked in breach of signed contract.
> >Still i'm keep on buying software as sonn its released, i also would
> >like to test new featers in new software,.......
Test, or use before we release it?
> do you guys see anything wrong with using the pirated beta to test it
> out and see what it's going to be like so that you can make an informed
> decision as to whether or not you want to buy the final version?
That's why we will gladly ship a CD with save and print disabled versions
of all our software to you for free (or maybe a small mailing charge)
AFTER the software is released for sale.
> i personally don't, because this doesn't hurt the company in any way -
> not that they would be hurt much any ways, i'm just trying to propose
> this from your anit-warez perspective.
Hmm, and when those same people leak the version to magazines, and it has
features that aren't completely finished and we get prematurely hammered
because magazine reviewers take the early version and review it as a final
and report that as fact? It could happen :-)
Not to mention the absolute Einsteins who call up tech support with stolen
serial numbers asking questions about a problem beta version...
--marc
--
| Marc Pawliger pawl...@adobe.com 408.536.4918 |
| Adobe Systems Photoshop Wiseguy(tm) San Jose, CA |
William Vynck
Marc Pawliger wrote:
>
> In article <3270924d...@news.alt.net>, wer...@mailmasher.com (wergild) writes:
>
> > >I ask lot of software developers to become a beta-tester, no answer...
>
> > >even for us who lifes in Europe we never get the change to get beta
> > >software on legal base.
Tell me who in Belgium is a official Beta tester for Adobe Photoshop ? I
don't know enybody.
> Many Photoshop 4.0 beta testers were not located in the US. Any any betas
> you may have seen were leaked in breach of signed contract.
Even when Adobe released the 3.0.5 i called customer service in England.
We in Belgium only get
the update (for free) on diskettes. I wasn't possible for us to get the
update on CD-Rom.
I specially asked for it and would pay the same price as US users. It
just wasn't possible. What i could do, so says the person on the
telephone, was ordering a compleet new update for the normal price of a
full upgrade.
Why could US users ordering a CD-Rom upgrade from version 3.0.4 to 3.0.5
on a price of postage and we Belgian users not ? We pay the same prices
(sometimes allot more) for the software and din't get the same service ?
I have a lot graphical software and i'm always registered, i have seen
that it is VERY difficul to get service in Belgium or get the same
faccilitys as a US user. The only firm i get FULL FREE support is Corel.
When i send a fax to them about new releases of there products (bv. from
version 6.0.163 to 6.0.168) i get it witin 48 hours free of anny charge.
I even would like to pay a normal fair price to get the service i have
the right on. ( like the CD version of PhotoShop 3.0.5)
Could you answer my questions on a fair way, without saying US have
another policy as Europe, for me Adobe is Adobe.
Thanks,
W.Vynck
Manager
CreArt Design Center
Registered user of Adobe Photoshop
Jason Kratz
Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com> wrote:
>Jason Kratz wrote:
>Perhaps Adobe would rather devote their finite server bandwidth to other things. If you phone them, they'll
>send you a demo CD with *all* their major products. Every major product comes on a CD that also contains
>complete demo versions. I'm pretty sure that most of the demo versions *are* on the web.
>
Nope. Unless its totally invisible I looked at every page in the
Photoshop section and there is no mention of a demo anywhere...either
on their ftp site or this CD.
>Nope, betas are not meant for public consumption, despite Netscape's attempts to redefine the development
>process. Netscape's browser isn't used for production work, Photoshop is. Adobe does not have the capacity to
>productively deal with feedback from a public beta.
>
Says who? You? Please don't make up my mind for me. I realize
exactly what I a beta is and realize the consequences of using one.
Not all of us are using Photoshop for production work. I use it as a
hobby. Using a beta product wouldnt affect everyone out there. I
can't comment on Adobe's capacity or lack of capacity in dealing with
public feedback. Fractal Design released a beta of Expression and
seemed to be able to deal with everything....always thought they were
smaller than Adobe.
>and you can get demo versions. If the demo doesn't convince you, the people selling the package in question
>will find some other way to convince you.
>
Bzzzzzt. Dont think so. If I cant use the product in some fashion
before buying it they wont get my money no matter how well they talk.
Jason
Alan Boucek
Jason Kratz wrote:
>
> Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com> wrote:
> >Jason Kratz wrote:
>
> >Perhaps Adobe would rather devote their finite server bandwidth to other things. If you phone them, they'll
> >send you a demo CD with *all* their major products. Every major product comes on a CD that also contains
> >complete demo versions. I'm pretty sure that most of the demo versions *are* on the web.
> >
>
> Nope. Unless its totally invisible I looked at every page in the
> Photoshop section and there is no mention of a demo anywhere...either
> on their ftp site or this CD.
>
> >Nope, betas are not meant for public consumption, despite Netscape's attempts to redefine the development
> >process. Netscape's browser isn't used for production work, Photoshop is. Adobe does not have the capacity to
> >productively deal with feedback from a public beta.
> >
>
> Says who? You? Please don't make up my mind for me. I realize
> exactly what I a beta is and realize the consequences of using one.
> Not all of us are using Photoshop for production work. I use it as a
> hobby. Using a beta product wouldnt affect everyone out there. I
> can't comment on Adobe's capacity or lack of capacity in dealing with
> public feedback. Fractal Design released a beta of Expression and
> seemed to be able to deal with everything....always thought they were
> smaller than Adobe.
Says whomever owns the code- in this case Adobe. The primary reason for
Adobe to do a pre-release beta is to make sure that customers who do use it
in production will not find that the new version disrupts their production.
I've played with (and formally tested) enough beta code over the years to
know that it's often not worth the trouble to use early versions of
software.
Note a number of things about Expression- first, it was a new product,
second, it didn't have an installed base. Fractal was attempting to gain
mindshare for a new product.
> >and you can get demo versions. If the demo doesn't convince you, the people selling the package in question
> >will find some other way to convince you.
> >
>
> Bzzzzzt. Dont think so. If I cant use the product in some fashion
> before buying it they wont get my money no matter how well they talk.
Which to be more blunt, is what I meant- salespeople can and will arrange
for hands on demo time for pricey products.
--
___________________________________________________________
alan_boucek|abo...@walrus.com| speaking for myself, of course
Alan Boucek
> >course, make demo versions of unpublished beta software, nor should they.
> >
>
> functioning demos'. Why doesn't Adobe, in its infinite wisdom, make
> the Photoshop demo available from its Web page? Just about everything
> else is there. I suppose some will say because the download is too
> large or some such piece of wisdom. Heres a hint...let *me* decide if
> a file is too large to download. Make the demo version of Photoshop,
> if one does exist, available from the web page like everyone else
> seems to be doing these days.
Perhaps Adobe would rather devote their finite server bandwidth to other things. If you phone them, they'll
send you a demo CD with *all* their major products. Every major product comes on a CD that also contains
complete demo versions. I'm pretty sure that most of the demo versions *are* on the web.
> I totally agree on the second point....they shouldn't release a demo
> version of a beta. What they should do is release the fully
> functioning version of the beta with a time limit of some sort.
> Someone from Adobe posted that they beta test with 100 or so people.
> The amount of bugs in the software could be found more easily by
> letting more people beta test. With a time limit coded in people
> wouldnt be able to just keep using the beta after the product is
> released. They would be crazy to anyways.
Nope, betas are not meant for public consumption, despite Netscape's attempts to redefine the development
process. Netscape's browser isn't used for production work, Photoshop is. Adobe does not have the capacity to
productively deal with feedback from a public beta.
> >If you don't know why you should spend the money for a package, you probably don't need the
> >software in question.
> >
>
> Sorry but this just doesn't fly. A prime example is rendering
> packages. There is a wide gap in pricing of the various packages
> available on the PC. I need good solid reasons as to why I should
> spend $3k on 3DS vs. $1800 on Lightwave. Reading a feature list in a
> magazine or having some sales drone give me a demo of something he/she
> most likely doesnt know anything about doesnt do that. A demo does.
>
and you can get demo versions. If the demo doesn't convince you, the people selling the package in question
will find some other way to convince you.
--
___________________________________________________________
alan_boucek|abo...@walrus.com|al...@tippett.com|berkeley_ca
Jason Kratz
Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com> wrote:
>
>Adobe makes available fully functioning demos of most of their software packages. They don't of
>course, make demo versions of unpublished beta software, nor should they.
>
I'll nitpick here for a moment. You say 'makes available fully
functioning demos'. Why doesn't Adobe, in its infinite wisdom, make
the Photoshop demo available from its Web page? Just about everything
else is there. I suppose some will say because the download is too
large or some such piece of wisdom. Heres a hint...let *me* decide if
a file is too large to download. Make the demo version of Photoshop,
if one does exist, available from the web page like everyone else
seems to be doing these days.
I totally agree on the second point....they shouldn't release a demo
version of a beta. What they should do is release the fully
functioning version of the beta with a time limit of some sort.
Someone from Adobe posted that they beta test with 100 or so people.
The amount of bugs in the software could be found more easily by
letting more people beta test. With a time limit coded in people
wouldnt be able to just keep using the beta after the product is
released. They would be crazy to anyways.
>If you don't know why you should spend the money for a package, you probably don't need the
>software in question.
>
Sorry but this just doesn't fly. A prime example is rendering
packages. There is a wide gap in pricing of the various packages
available on the PC. I need good solid reasons as to why I should
spend $3k on 3DS vs. $1800 on Lightwave. Reading a feature list in a
magazine or having some sales drone give me a demo of something he/she
most likely doesnt know anything about doesnt do that. A demo does.
Jason
k...@golden.net
jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
>I totally agree on the second point....they shouldn't release a demo
>version of a beta. What they should do is release the fully
>functioning version of the beta with a time limit of some sort.
I can understand why they don't release timed betas ... it's not that
difficult to figure out how to reset the timer.
____________________
Visit Kim's Mostly Cats at http://www.golden.net/~kim
Bob Driskell
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:56:13 GMT, jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
>k...@golden.net wrote:
>>jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
>>
>>>I totally agree on the second point....they shouldn't release a demo
>>>version of a beta. What they should do is release the fully
>>>functioning version of the beta with a time limit of some sort.
>>
>>I can understand why they don't release timed betas ... it's not that
>>difficult to figure out how to reset the timer.
>>
>
>fine. let them figure reset the timer. while they're collecting beta
>copies the rest of us will be using and paying for the release
>product. If anyone is dumb enough to keep using beta when the
>release is out then let them....they deserve all the possible
>headaches.
>
>Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
resetting the timer is a simple as changing the date on your system clock...
(I am a neutral here) if there was any more illegal software floating around
out there, less and less people would "buy" the product. They would simply
go to the catalog sales sector and order an "upgrade" version. This in turn
drives up the cost to YOU and ME...er... you do have a registered version, no?
Anyone that wants an illegal copy bad enough can get one easily , but he may
as well kiss-off support, and help here in the newsgroups until he buys a reg
istered copy anyway. Thay brings up another point...it would probably require
more personnel in the tech-support dept. just to screen out all of the trouble
calls made by users of non-registered copies, (with questions covered in the
manuals shipped with photoshop). Just my pennies' worth Bob
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----------------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Should one unhitch his cart before or after passing by the horses?"
Bob Driskell@ http://www.driskell.interworld.net
Home of Digital Alchemy
Jerry Kindall
>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:56:13 GMT, jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
>
>>fine. let them figure reset the timer. while they're collecting beta
>>copies the rest of us will be using and paying for the release
>>product. If anyone is dumb enough to keep using beta when the
>>release is out then let them....they deserve all the possible
>>headaches.
>>
>>Jason
>
>resetting the timer is a simple as changing the date on your system clock...
Unless, of course, the programmers of the application have done something
sneaky, like saving the date and time of the last run in an invisible file
somewhere, and refusing to run if the current date is less than the saved
date (indicating that you've turned your clock back)...
Besides which, turning back the date will screw up lots of things on your
system, including incremental backups and many Internet applications. You
could set the date back, launch the app, and then set the date to the real
date, but that's a pain, and can easily be circumvented by numerous
time/date checks throughout the program.
Even these measures won't stop a determined pirate, but they at least help
to keep honest people honest.
Jason Kratz
k...@golden.net wrote:
>jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
>
>>I totally agree on the second point....they shouldn't release a demo
>>version of a beta. What they should do is release the fully
>>functioning version of the beta with a time limit of some sort.
>
>I can understand why they don't release timed betas ... it's not that
>difficult to figure out how to reset the timer.
>
fine. let them figure reset the timer. while they're collecting beta
dmented
In article <326E42...@ccm.jf.intel.com>,
KeithX...@ccm.jf.intel.com says...
I think you are full of s**t!! Software "pirates" provide some of
the best advertising available..for free. Ask Bill Gates.
dmented
In article <christopher-23...@async71.city-net.com>,
chris...@woodworks.com says...
Sounds like the Tiny Penis syndrome to me. Are you jealous?
Besides, we do not steal anything...just borrow for awhile. At least
until it's obsolete. <g>
R.S. Little
Ya then you use resedit to find the invisable file and delete it. then it
just writes a new one or you re install.
There is no way around a hack. or you can find that line of code that
says to not run and change it. I have seen hack that let you do that.
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jerry Kindall wrote:
> In article <327c457e...@snews.zippo.com>, alc...@interworld.net wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:56:13 GMT, jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
> >
> >>fine. let them figure reset the timer. while they're collecting beta
> >>copies the rest of us will be using and paying for the release
> >>product. If anyone is dumb enough to keep using beta when the
> >>release is out then let them....they deserve all the possible
> >>headaches.
> >>
> >>Jason
> >
SPENCRONI
< while you can make a case for it from a ethical standpoint>
Wrong. Since when is it ethical to steal? The code is copyrighted. It is
intellectual property. Treated just like physical stuff as far as the law
is concerned.
So far this thread has gotten filled up with a bunch of whiners who will
say anything to try and justify stealing from others. It does not matter
how large Adobe is, if other companies choose to distribute their software
in a different manner, if you happen to disagree with their policies about
demos, or whatever. Who made you above the law so that you have to be
treated differently?
It sounds to me like those of you who expect to be given this stuff are
just saying: the world owes me a living. This stuff is not food for
someone incapable of feeding themselves, or shelter for someone who is
without. It is the result of thousands of hours of hard work. Adobe has
the right to distribute their software through whatever legal means are
available. If you are unhappy with this situation, just don't buy it.
And you have a double standard. If something of yours is stolen, you are
the ones hollering the loudest. Your arrogance and hypocricy is
disgusting.
Jerry Kindall
In article <55d0aj$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, spen...@aol.com
(SPENCRONI) wrote:
>< while you can make a case for it from a ethical standpoint>
>
>Wrong. Since when is it ethical to steal? The code is copyrighted. It is
>intellectual property. Treated just like physical stuff as far as the law
>is concerned.
>
>So far this thread has gotten filled up with a bunch of whiners who will
>say anything to try and justify stealing from others. It does not matter
>how large Adobe is, if other companies choose to distribute their software
>in a different manner, if you happen to disagree with their policies about
>demos, or whatever. Who made you above the law so that you have to be
>treated differently?
As the author of the statement you quoted (without attribution) I must
point out that I went on to mention the reasons why this line of reasoning
is not a good argument for piracy. I am not one of the whiners you are
referring to.
Regardless of your contention, it IS, however, possible to make a case for
it from an ethical standpoint. You are confusing "legal" with "ethical."
If you consider a moral philosophy which states that any action which does
not harm another is by default a moral action, then this becomes clear.
Making a copy of a program for purposes of evaluation, and then either
deleting it or purchasing it, does not deprive anyone of anything (since a
copy was made), nor does it harm anyone, and thus such an action would be
ethical. Note that I am not making such an argument, nor do I necessarily
agree with it (I subscribe to a rather more strict view of property than
this philosophy allows), I am only noting that such an argument can be
made.
Jason Kratz
spen...@aol.com (SPENCRONI) wrote:
>< while you can make a case for it from a ethical standpoint>
>
>Wrong. Since when is it ethical to steal? The code is copyrighted. It is
>intellectual property. Treated just like physical stuff as far as the law
>is concerned.
[lots of stuff deleted]
When was the last time you photocopied an article from a magazine?
youre stealing it since you didnt pay for the magazine. how is this
ok and doing the same with software essentially not?
Mark Durgee
k...@golden.net wrote in article <5545nl$4...@gtnews.golden.org>...
> jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz) wrote:
>
> >I totally agree on the second point....they shouldn't release a demo
> >version of a beta. What they should do is release the fully
> >functioning version of the beta with a time limit of some sort.
>
> I can understand why they don't release timed betas ... it's not that
> difficult to figure out how to reset the timer.
>
On any of the timed programs I use, resetting the system clock doesn't do
anything. The programmers of these programs aren't stupid and they know
(most) people using their trial or beta versions aren't stupid.
Mark Durgee
Yankees!
Marc Pawliger
In article <327C36...@host.org>, user@host. writes:
> Bob Driskell wrote:
> > Anyone that wants an illegal copy bad enough can get one easily , but he
> > may as well kiss-off support, and help here in the newsgroups until he
> > buys a reg istered copy anyway. Thay brings up another point...it would
> > probably require more personnel in the tech-support dept. just to screen
> > out all of the trouble calls made by users of non-registered copies,
> > (with questions covered in the manuals shipped with photoshop)
> Hell, I even stopped in to SEE them while on a biz-trip to Sunnyvale and
> the 3 "experts" (their word, not mine) I tried to talk to couldn't do a
> d@mn thing for me with questions about Photoshop and Premiere. And, to
> top it off, they wouldn't let me demonstrate my problems on a machine
> there (I brought examples with me on a diskette). If you'd ever seen
> their buildings, you'd feel absolutely no guilt about owning an
> unregistered copy of any/all of their wares. After the help I didn't
> get from them I'm kinda sorry I *did* buy for-real copies.
Umm, Adobe was in Mt. View and is now in San Jose. Never Sunnyvale.
Plus, the tech support folks are mostly in Seattle. If normal channels
weren't to your satisfaction, had you asked your question here in the
newsgroup, you probably could have gotten your question answered quite
thoroughly. Plus, it wouldn't use up any of the "support credits" you get
when you register your product. But instead you come here and flame
without even indicating the kind of question you say tech support was
unable to answer. And given your comment I have to ask - you _do_ have
legitimate registered products, don't you?
> PS: I *did* end up getting answers to all my questions through the
> Sunnyvale chapter of the "Legion of Doom" - [...]
Ah. Real "tech" support. :-) Glad you got your answer, though.
> PPS: while out there, you HAVE to check out Faultline Brewing Co on
> Oakmead Pkwy in Sunnyvale! (fault...@aol.com & http://www.flbc.com)
Gotta agree with you on this one... good brews.
Andrei Herasimchuk
Jason Kratz <jkr...@uic.edu> wrote in article <327a6dcb...@news.uic.edu>...
> spen...@aol.com (SPENCRONI) wrote:
Well... since you bring it up, if you were to use that article for profit work, or for your own benefit (like in the inclusion in a research paper that gets published) then you would very much be stealing. That is a crime, recognized as such.
When you get right down to it, that is what the real problem is. This is strictly my opinion and my opinion alone, not my company's, but most software companies really couldn't care about people who copy their software just to play around with it at home late at night. (Having helped build a software company from scratch, not Adobe, I can speak from experience about his.) Most software companies care about people and businesses who use software to make money without paying for the right to produce that work in the first place. And this also includes cases where people use multiple copies (to get more work done) without paying for those extras versions.
It's really that simple. If you make money or publish work (and yes, that includes web publishing) using software I worked my tail off on, which is what we are talking about here for most cases, I expect to be compensated.
--
Andrei Herasimchuk
User Interface Designer, Adobe Systems
aher...@adobe.com
__________________________________________________
Current movie review: This feature disabled for Newsgroups
Jason Kratz
pawl...@mv.us.adobe.com (Marc Pawliger) wrote:
>> Hell, I even stopped in to SEE them while on a biz-trip to Sunnyvale and
>Umm, Adobe was in Mt. View and is now in San Jose. Never Sunnyvale.
I feel like nitpicking here. The poster said they were on a business
trip to Sunnyvale. They never stated that Adobe was/is in Sunnyvale.
:)
Jason
Jason Kratz
"Andrei Herasimchuk" <aher...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> When was the last time you photocopied an article from a magazine?
>> youre stealing it since you didnt pay for the magazine. how is this
>> ok and doing the same with software essentially not?
>
>Well... since you bring it up, if you were to use that article for profit
>work, or for your own benefit (like in the inclusion in a research paper
>that gets published) then you would very much be stealing. That is a crime,
>recognized as such.
>
Your coworker Marc seems to think not. Thats another post though :)
>This is
>strictly my opinion and my opinion alone, not my company's, but most
>software companies really couldn't care about people who copy their
>software just to play around with it at home late at night. (Having helped
>build a software company from scratch, not Adobe, I can speak from
>experience about his.) Most software companies care about people and
>businesses who use software to make money without paying for the right to
>produce that work in the first place. And this also includes cases where
>people use multiple copies (to get more work done) without paying for those
>extras versions.
>
Very interesting point. I would also think that most companies would
pretty much write off single users pirating their software as there is
no return in trying to go after them. I would think that in most
cases software companies are really concerned with the situation
mentioned above: companies, not people, purchasing one copy of a
program and installing it on multiple machines. In this case there
could be a lot gained from suing a company violating the license
agreement money-wise. This is not saying this makes software piracy
valid.
>It's really that simple. If you make money or publish work (and yes, that
>includes web publishing) using software I worked my tail off on, which is
>what we are talking about here for most cases, I expect to be compensated.
>
This is a completely fair claim. So...do you mind people pirating PS4
beta? ;)
Jason
David Paradowski
Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal user pay $500 for a program that
he/she use once or twice a week ofr personal use, and a large company pays the same price to use it
every day all day and use it to make much more money that it cost to buy. There should be a version
that is affordable for the home user.
kin...@manual.com (Jerry Kindall) wrote:
>In article <55d0aj$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, spen...@aol.com
>(SPENCRONI) wrote:
>
>>< while you can make a case for it from a ethical standpoint>
>>
>>Wrong. Since when is it ethical to steal? The code is copyrighted. It is
>>intellectual property. Treated just like physical stuff as far as the law
>>is concerned.
>>
*************************************
* David M. Paradowski *
* dave...@buffnet.net *
* http://www.buffnet.net/~davep575 *
*************************************
Keith Clark
David Paradowski wrote:
>
> Here is a point that nobody made yet.
>
There is: Adobe PhotoDeluxe. It's easier to use than Photoshop,
is designed for casual home user, runs on the Mac AND the Wintel
and is $49 direct from Adobe.
Check it out. There's a huge ad right on their main page.
http://www.adobe.com
BTW, this wasn't posted to be dissin' anybody's opinions. It's just
my 2 cents worth. ;>
Keith
Alan Boucek
David Paradowski wrote:
>
> Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal user pay $500 for a program that
> he/she use once or twice a week ofr personal use, and a large company pays the same price to use it
> that is affordable for the home user.
There are a variety of packages aimed at the home user. Photoshop isn't
one of them. If your use is that casual and infrequent, you probably
don't really need photoshop.
at $500 Photoshop is priced for the casual professional user. Pro users
paid $5,000-$500,000 for similar tools 3-5 years ago.
___________________________________________________________
alan_boucek|
Kevin Van Sant
On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 17:38:07 -0800, Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com>
wrote:
>
>at $500 Photoshop is priced for the casual professional user. Pro users
>paid $5,000-$500,000 for similar tools 3-5 years ago.
>
I'm curious.... just what one have gotten for $500,000 ?
================================================
Kevin Van Sant kvan...@pobox.com
Jazz Guitar
calendar and booking information at:
http://www.webbuild.com/~kvansant/kvs_home.htm
For a complete index of internet jazz resources:
http://www.pobox.com/~onestopjazz
================================================
Andrei Herasimchuk
My Name <na65...@anon.penet.fi> wrote in article
<327e9242....@snews.zippo.com>...
> I've said it before and I'll say it again,
> If any of you can honestly say he has never copied a music CD or LP to tape
or
> taken a photocopy of something you didn't write then you can call others
thieves
> and pirates. If not, you are all hypocrites as well as thieves. If you
ignore
> this valid point and continue this thread you're all just twits.
I did respond to that point.
Alan Boucek
Kevin Van Sant wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 17:38:07 -0800, Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >at $500 Photoshop is priced for the casual professional user. Pro users
> >paid $5,000-$500,000 for similar tools 3-5 years ago.
> >
>
> I'm curious.... just what one have gotten for $500,000 ?
>
Quantel PrintBoxes. Shima Seikis, Loaded Scitex systems (scanner,
workstation combos). Barco systems- Barco creator still sells for around
$20K, running on $20K SGI workstations, and some people still buy it.
Keith Clark
Maybe this belongs in another thread, but since you mentioned Quantel,
what ever happened to their lawsuit against Adobe? Just curious.
Hopeffully everyone settled out of court?
kc
Marc Pawliger
In article <55lf50$i...@enquirer.corp.adobe.com>, pawl...@mv.us.adobe.com (Marc Pawliger) writes:
> In article <327C36...@host.org>, user@host. writes:
> > Hell, I even stopped in to SEE them while on a biz-trip to Sunnyvale and
> > the 3 "experts" (their word, not mine) I tried to talk to couldn't do a
> > d@mn thing for me with questions about Photoshop and Premiere. And, to
> > top it off, they wouldn't let me demonstrate my problems on a machine
> > there (I brought examples with me on a diskette). [...]
> Umm, Adobe was in Mt. View and is now in San Jose. Never Sunnyvale.
> Plus, the tech support folks are mostly in Seattle.
OK, OK I was wrong. Adobe did have a site in Sunnyvale up to about two
years ago - a manufacturing site where products were boxed up to be
shipped out. Those operations were then moved to Santa Clara. I guess
I'd have to say I'm not surprised a packaging plant was unable to provide
you with in-depth technical help :-)
Andrei Herasimchuk
Andrei Herasimchuk <aher...@adobe.com> wrote in article
> Adobe makes a program called PhotoDeluxe, which sells for something like
$149
> I think, for that very reason.
Oops. I just checked our web page. That would be $89. There's a Xmas special
price going for $49 right now though. Check it out on www.adobe.com
Even better.
Andrei Herasimchuk
David Paradowski <dave...@buffnet.net> wrote in article
<3281c6d0...@news.buffnet.net>...
> Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal user pay
$500 for a program that
> he/she use once or twice a week ofr personal use, and a large company pays
the same price to use it
> every day all day and use it to make much more money that it cost to buy.
There should be a version
> that is affordable for the home user.
Adobe makes a program called PhotoDeluxe, which sells for something like $149
I think, for that very reason.
--
Andrei Herasimchuk
> "Andrei Herasimchuk" <aher...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >> When was the last time you photocopied an article from a magazine?
> >> youre stealing it since you didnt pay for the magazine. how is this
> >> ok and doing the same with software essentially not?
> >
> >Well... since you bring it up, if you were to use that article for profit
> >work, or for your own benefit (like in the inclusion in a research paper
> >that gets published) then you would very much be stealing. That is a crime,
> >recognized as such.
> >
Well... obviously, Marc is wrong.
8^)
Keith Clark
Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
>
> David Paradowski <dave...@buffnet.net> wrote in article
> <3281c6d0...@news.buffnet.net>...
> > Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal user pay
> $500 for a program that
> > he/she use once or twice a week ofr personal use, and a large company pays
> the same price to use it
> > every day all day and use it to make much more money that it cost to buy.
> There should be a version
> > that is affordable for the home user.
>
> Adobe makes a program called PhotoDeluxe, which sells for something like $149
> I think, for that very reason.
>
Uhhhh, Andrei: please check Adobe's web page. It advertised there for
-$49-. :> That's even better. Heck, that's cheaper than Paint Shop Pro.
;>
kc
Federico Mena
> Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal
> user pay $500 for a program that he/she use once or twice a week ofr
> personal use, and a large company pays the same price to use it every
> day all day and use it to make much more money that it cost to buy.
> There should be a version that is affordable for the home user.
People who can't afford those programs should look into free
software. For example,
http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~gimp
http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~federico/gimp
Quartic
Andrei Herasimchuk
>>includes web publishing) using software I worked my tail off on, which is
>>what we are talking about here for most cases, I expect to be compensated.
> This is a completely fair claim. So...do you mind people pirating PS4
> beta? ;)
Only if they promise to get ten of their closest friends to fork over the
upgrade price, and those friends tell ten friends, and so on, and so on, and
so on....
8^)
Take care.
Bobby Henderson
Kevin Van Sant wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 17:38:07 -0800, Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >at $500 Photoshop is priced for the casual professional user. Pro users
> >paid $5,000-$500,000 for similar tools 3-5 years ago.
> >
>
> I'm curious.... just what one have gotten for $500,000 ?
Quantel Paintbox! I heard they're suing Adobe for patent infringements.
Jerry Kindall
Yeah. It always does amuse me that when something like Photoshop comes
along and cuts the price of doing something by an order of magnitude or
two, people STILL think it's too expensive. Same thing happened when the
Video Toaster came out.
R.S. Little
The graphic paint box 2 is selling for around $250,000 these days what a
bargin. The law suit between Quatel and Adobe is over the air brush. Ya
quantel has a chance on this one. I know they have won cases against
adobe before but over the air brush give me a break.
spen...@aol.com
>As the author of the statement you quoted (without attribution)
In article <kindall-0111...@news.sojourn.com>, kin...@manual.com
(Jerry Kindall) writes:
Attribution. Happy?
>>So far this thread has gotten filled up with a bunch of whiners
>I am not one of the whiners you are referring to.
OK, you're not.
>Regardless of your contention, it IS, however, possible to make a case
for
>it from an ethical standpoint. You are confusing "legal" with "ethical."
>If you consider a moral philosophy which states that any action which
does
>not harm another is by default a moral action, then this becomes clear.
>Making a copy of a program for purposes of evaluation, and then either
>deleting it or purchasing it, does not deprive anyone of anything (since
a
>copy was made), nor does it harm anyone, and thus such an action would be
>ethical. Note that I am not making such an argument, nor do I
necessarily
>agree with it (I subscribe to a rather more strict view of property than
>this philosophy allows), I am only noting that such an argument can be
>made.
And your point is???
Look, an argument can be MADE taking any position. So what? If you
subscribe to a rather more strict view of property, why do you argue from
a position you do not take?
spen...@aol.com
In article <327a6dcb...@news.uic.edu>, jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz)
writes:
>When was the last time you photocopied an article from a magazine?
>youre stealing it since you didnt pay for the magazine. how is this
>ok and doing the same with software essentially not?
>
>
The point is that stealing is wrong. Our legal system has defined software
to be intellectual property, and copying it without permission to be
stealing and against the law. Whether I did or did not break the law is
irrelevent. Let's say someone who has never stolen a car points out that
stealing cars is illegal and just plain wrong. We all agree. A second
person who is guilty of car theft declares that stealing cars is wrong.
Again we all agree. His guilt in the matter does not change the matter.
As for photocopying, it is not stealing to copy an article from a magazine
(unless you are Kinkos.) It is allowed in a limited sense by the law, for
educational purposes. The law treats software differently.
spen...@aol.com
In article <327FEB...@tippett.com>, Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com>
writes:
>David Paradowski wrote:
>>
>> Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal
user
>pay $500 for a program that
>> he/she use once or twice a week ofr personal use, and a large company
pays
>the same price to use it
This situation is not fair. Yet it is just. The software company can sell
their product for whatever they want. It is their right. Don't confuse
fairness and justice. They are very different.
spen...@aol.com
In article <327e9242....@snews.zippo.com>, na65...@anon.penet.fi
(My Name) writes:
>>And you have a double standard. If something of yours is stolen, you are
>>the ones hollering the loudest. Your arrogance and hypocricy is
>>disgusting.
>I've said it before and I'll say it again,
>If any of you can honestly say he has never copied a music CD or LP to
tape
>or taken a photocopy of something you didn't write then you can call
others >thieves and pirates. If not, you are all hypocrites as well as
thieves. If you ignore
>this valid point and continue this thread you're all just twits.
>
>
Your point is NOT valid. Stealing is wrong. If someone steals, they can
still point out accurately that stealing is wrong.
Bob Driskell
On 10 Nov 1996 17:22:36 GMT, spen...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <327FEB...@tippett.com>, Alan Boucek <al...@tippett.com>
>writes:
>
>>David Paradowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a point that nobody made yet. Why should a single personal
>user
>>pay $500 for a program that
>>> he/she use once or twice a week ofr personal use, and a large company
>pays
>>the same price to use it <------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>------------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Take a class in one of the local city colleges...most of them have Photoshop. If you like
it so much (for professed "personal use") buy it with a student discount. The point still
and always will remain that to pirate the program IS stealing. Are you saying that
personal use is creating a graphic and keeping it in an archive on your desktop? I somehow
doubt it though I don't know you. The fact that you are HERE expressing your opinions to
the world tend to help me disbelieve that. I am not trying to be harsh (hehe), but I have received
requests for help, advice, and FINALLY serial numbers. It pisses me off. I am using photoshop to
further my career....I paid for it. Are you going to pay me back when you can afford to go out
and steal MY customers? If you can't afford it, find something you can afford...work toward the
time you CAN afford it. In the meantime, respect the rest of us who have worked for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-----------------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Should one unhitch his cart before or after passing by the horses?"
Bob Driskell@ http://www.driskell.interworld.net
Home of Digital Alchemy
Jason Kratz
spen...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <327a6dcb...@news.uic.edu>, jkr...@uic.edu (Jason Kratz)
>writes:
>
>>When was the last time you photocopied an article from a magazine?
>>youre stealing it since you didnt pay for the magazine. how is this
>>ok and doing the same with software essentially not?
>>
>>
>As for photocopying, it is not stealing to copy an article from a magazine
>(unless you are Kinkos.) It is allowed in a limited sense by the law, for
>educational purposes. The law treats software differently.
Boioioioioioioinnnnnggggg! Sorry bud but not everyone out there
copying things from books and magazines is doing it for 'educational
purposes'. And while I agree with the rest of your post (deleted
here) you of course skipped completely over recorded music and movies.
My point is not to say that stealing is right or wrong but to point
out to the high and mighty (or so they think) on this newsgroup that
when they copy a movie or a cd from a friend it is no different than
pirating software...plain and simple.
Jason
Jason Kratz
"Andrei Herasimchuk" <aher...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Jason Kratz <jkr...@uic.edu> wrote in article
>>>It's really that simple. If you make money or publish work (and yes, that
>>>includes web publishing) using software I worked my tail off on, which is
>>>what we are talking about here for most cases, I expect to be compensated.
>
>> This is a completely fair claim. So...do you mind people pirating PS4
>> beta? ;)
>
>Only if they promise to get ten of their closest friends to fork over the
>upgrade price, and those friends tell ten friends, and so on, and so on, and
>so on....
>
>8^)
Heh. Any idea how much the educational pricing on PS4 will be when
its released?
Jason
Marc Pawliger
In article <01bbcd1e$91e5f3a0$2031...@cherish.corp.adobe.com>, "Andrei Herasimchuk" <aher...@adobe.com> writes:
> Jason Kratz <jkr...@uic.edu> wrote in article
> > >> When was the last time you photocopied an article from a magazine?
> > >> youre stealing it since you didnt pay for the magazine. how is this
> > >> ok and doing the same with software essentially not?
> > >Well... since you bring it up, if you were to use that article for profit
> > >work, or for your own benefit (like in the inclusion in a research paper
> > >that gets published) then you would very much be stealing. That is a crime,
> > >recognized as such.
> > Your coworker Marc seems to think not. Thats another post though :)
We were just talking fair use, which certainly is a whole 'nother long
discussion...
> Well... obviously, Marc is wrong.
Hey, goatee-boy, let's take it outside - all these nice people don't have
to see the seamier side of the Photoshop team, ok?
Andrei Herasimchuk
Marc Pawliger <pawl...@adobe.com> wrote in article
> Hey, goatee-boy, let's take it outside - all these nice people don't have
> to see the seamier side of the Photoshop team, ok?
Special Note: A little inside humor for you folks if anyone cares... Marc sits
right across from my office (he got a window, I didn't) and I'm looking at his
smug face smiling sarcastically as I type this right now...
So Marc... care to get fragged at Quake? Or shall I have to teach you yet
*another* lesson with Vidmaster rules in Marathon? (Ahhhh.... the joys of
having a Mac at one elbow and a PC at the other.)
K Pfeiffer
Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
> So Marc... care to get fragged at Quake? Or shall I have to teach you yet
> *another* lesson with Vidmaster rules in Marathon? (Ahhhh.... the joys of
> having a Mac at one elbow and a PC at the other.)
Ooohh - you're "bi-OSal"
--
Kevin Pfeiffer <pfei...@pacbell.net>
http://205.147.29.130/pfeiffer/
waldo
Wow!! Hold on a minute guys. I don't think anyone will argue the fact
that copying software is illegal. That is a fact! Now, whether one
chooses to abide by the law or not is his or her perogative. Life is
full of rules and choices. We all make a subjective decision, based on
our life experiences, as to which rules we follow and what choices we
make. Every single one of us has, at some point, made a choice to
disregard a rule or law. If anyone denys this, may I commend you on
your God like status and say you are a liar. Some may say that there
is a difference between copying a tape and copying a software program
and some may say there is not. The fact is that morally there is not.
It happens and we make a choice to accept the consequences. The
consequences for copying a tape are a lot less frightening than
copying software and more people condone copying tapes, lp's, or cd's.
It all comes down to what we believe. Face it we can all talk until we
are blue in the face and not get anywhere. Stop trying to play god and
force your moral beliefs on other people. If people want to pirate
software let them and if you don't then don't. Feel free to voice your
moral opinions that is everyones right but, don't judge and preach to
people. Opinions are opinions and nothing more. People get alot
farther when opinions are voiced in a dialectic and communicative
fashion and not with a judgmental, holier than thou, tone.
susan
In article <01bbd0f5$0cf57b40$2031...@cherish.corp.adobe.com>
"Andrei Herasimchuk" <aher...@adobe.com> writes:
> Special Note: A little inside humor for you folks if anyone cares... Marc sits
> right across from my office (he got a window, I didn't) and I'm looking at his
> smug face smiling sarcastically as I type this right now...
>
> So Marc... care to get fragged at Quake? Or shall I have to teach you yet
> *another* lesson with Vidmaster rules in Marathon? (Ahhhh.... the joys of
> having a Mac at one elbow and a PC at the other.)
Ahhh, so that's why it takes you guys so long to get an update out. ;)
su...@boxtopsoft.com | http://www.boxtopsoft.com
ProJPEG 2.0 is the best tool for saving JPEG and progressive JPEG
images for the web. Never guess again what your JPEGs will look like or
how big they will be with the live quality and compression preview that
allows you to take your graphics to the edge for smaller files and
faster load times. Download a demo today from
ftp://ftp.boxtopsoft.com/pub/ and find out why MacUser gives ProJPEG
2.0 a 4 mouse rating.
aher...@aol.com
>> So Marc... care to get fragged at Quake? Or shall I have to teach you
yet
> >*another* lesson with Vidmaster rules in Marathon? (Ahhhh.... the joys
of
>> having a Mac at one elbow and a PC at the other.)
>Ahhh, so that's why it takes you guys so long to get an update out. ;)
What?!?!?!? We shipped EARLY...