Re: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
ray
> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
> does work!!
>
> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>
> Important Note: You must block APCS4 with your firewall. If you don't it
> will reject your serial number eventually!!
>
>
> 1- Add the following line (using Notepad) to your hosts file located:
>
> C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts:
>
> 127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.com
>
> 2- Install and select Custom Install
> Uncheck everything but Adobe Photoshop , Adobe Bridge, Supporting
> Components
>
> 3- When asked use one of the serial numbers
>
> 1330-1102-4806-6896-7634-8166
> 1330-1600-9280-5954-9369-6546
> 1330-1847-4625-1871-2226-7170
> 1330-1233-6855-8945-0814-9160
> 1330-1901-9047-6665-4747-9720
> 1330-1299-7283-4574-0858-5347
> 1330-1682-3373-1316-1759-5651
> 1330-1101-2956-8934-9272-9358
> 1330-1799-0460-5679-1715-2487
> 1330-1219-1782-2141-2280-8785
> 1330-1376-0491-4472-8497-0497
> 1330-1164-2070-1179-2673-9998
>
>
> Note: If you experience a rejected serial number try this test: unplug
> router from the net and put in a new serial. Use Photoshop. It will be
> fine now. This test means that you did not block APCS4 with your
> firewall as instructed!
>
> Now with the money you just saved go buy a new lens!!
>
> If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!
>
> Note:
> all you ubber honest guys should not read this post let alone try it!
>
> This is just information I do not advocte that you actually do this. I
> recommend that you take the $700 out of your meagre paycheck and buy the
> program. (Muahahahahahaha!)
>
> Robin Hood
Or do you photo editing both free and legally with GIMP.
blackm...@gmail.com
Well I'll be damned--it actually works!
DanP
i dont agree with "save" for the same reason why i dont agree with
publishing companies when they claim "loses" everytime someone uses
music/software without a license.
you save something when you have that money and dont spend it on
something you were going to. if you dont have the money you dont save
anything.
so if you do have the money and photoshop is of value to you i advise
you to buy it.
i'll give the gimp a try, this weekend i will install ubuntu.
Allen
under Windows, it's about the most non-intuitive software I've ever
encountered of any type--from PC to mainframe stuff, and devices in
between. But others claim that it is much better in a Linux environment,
so I and probably others would be glad to hear about your experience.
Allen
ray
FWIW - it's not necessary to run GIMP on Linux - there are MS versions
available as well. If you're fiddling with raw files, I'd suggest you
also give ufraw a try - it will do a lot of manipulation of the raw data.
Dave Cohen
I've run Gimp under both Windows and Ubuntu. Although I've only done
this on a limited basis, I think you will find both versions are identical.
Unfortunately, Ubuntu doesn't like me. I've only be able to keep one
version (7.10 I believe) running without random shutdown. It does this
when I'm not doing anything (as well as when I am). Actually, it
probably isn't me it doesn't like as much as my machine, since my Son's
machine has an installation and Ubuntu doesn't seem to take offense when
I'm at the keyboard.
Now for Gimp. I think you will find it has all the basic things a full
featured photo editor should have, that is color management, levels and
curves, channels and paths plus layer management, masking etc. I'm not
familiar with PS but I do use Elements 6. All the popular editors have
extras which although they can be extremely useful aren't essential
since you can manually create the same actions. Not sure if Gimp has a
red eye tool, but that's an example of what I mean. The healing tool in
PS and Elements is a little unique in that it does something not so
readily achieved without it. It's most likely that features will be
added to Gimp as time goes on.
I did see a book on Gimp in Barnes & Noble but for those who want to use
it they will need to do some digging on the web.
As far as my lighthearted approach to Ubuntu, it has great promise but I
really am tied to a few favorite apps in winxp. Right now I have no
issues with winxp and no incentive to dig further.
Dave Cohen
Simon Edge
>under Windows, it's about the most non-intuitive software I've ever
> encountered of any type--from PC to mainframe stuff, and devices in
that's because on Linux, you're surrounded by programs doing things 'the
wrong way' or (like GIMP) that have their confirmation buttons in the
'wrong' place, for example, and it does (at least seem to) fit in better
(or at least _not stand out_) there.
ray
There are a tremendous number of GIMP 'plugins' chances very good to find
one to do whatever you want.
> I did see a book on Gimp in Barnes & Noble but for those who want to use
> it they will need to do some digging on the web. As far as my
> lighthearted approach to Ubuntu, it has great promise but I really am
> tied to a few favorite apps in winxp. Right now I have no issues with
> winxp and no incentive to dig further. Dave Cohen
"Beginning GIMP" is a very good book - readily available. Also an online
tutorial "Grokking the GIMP" is worth looking at - quite extensive.
You will find that Ubuntu is not the only game in town. I use Ubuntu on
several machines, but I also use Debian, Elive, Gentoo and admin several
machines running RedHat RHEL. It sounds as though you may have some
marginal equipment - quite likely, for example, that the power supply
could be weak and MS simply does not use the machine to it's fullest
extent - difficult to tell exactly what without more information.
ray
Hmmmmm. I gues one person's 'intuitive' is another's mess. I've not used
photoshop much, but I've read about it - the GIMP interface seems more
intuitive to me. But then I've been a computer professional for 30 years
- that could make a difference as well.
D.Mac
<blackm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96f9558d-5ecf-4f81...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>> does work!!
>>
>> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>>
It never fails to amaze me the gullibility of people.
Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your system.
Adobe haven't gotten to be the best and most reliable by letting pirates
win. We all pay in the end for the theft of a few idiots who don't have the
brains to use the stuff anyway.
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!
Toby
<RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote in message
news:5th5o4pk6pr77i6ll...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:27:47 -1100, "D.Mac" <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><blackm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:96f9558d-5ecf-4f81...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>>>> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>>>> does work!!
>>>>
>>>> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>>>>
>>
>>It never fails to amaze me the gullibility of people.
>>
>>Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
>>
>>Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your
>>system.
>>
>>Adobe haven't gotten to be the best and most reliable by letting pirates
>>win. We all pay in the end for the theft of a few idiots who don't have
>>the
>>brains to use the stuff anyway.
>
>
> Sorry man but you are the gullible one. Nothing happens to the
> computer. That's just some fairy tale you came up with. I've been
> using it for months and so have many other people I know. PS just
> keeps chuggin along. The system is just fine!
>
>>Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your
>>system.
>
> statement. You don't know much about computers or software do you?
> I'm sorry man but you are frickin du-uumb!
>
> Repeat: Nothing at all happens to your computer!
>
>>Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
>
> been availble on the net for years. Usually before it hits the store.
> If Adobe used better protection it wouldn't happen.
>
> Pfft! a simple bit of text in the hosts file to authenticate PS.
> Serial numbers are all over the net. Not very smart or secure!
>
> Pirates DO win every day and that is a fact!
>
>>We all pay in the end
> there were no 'free' copies. I would never buy it for $700 so they
> didn't lose a dime on me. I don't use it commercially, I'm a home
> user. I think commercial users should buy the software, for sure. They
> use it to make money. I use it for pleasure.
>
> BTW: Why do you 'thing' we don't have the brains to use it? I'm as
> good as anyone with PS. and undoubtedly better than you. I have had
> every version of PS since it came out....for FREE! Also you probably
> paid $700+ for it, but I use it for free, so I know I have more brains
> than you!
>
> Have a nice day!
> Robin Hood
You may find that eventually you will get a screen saying that the licensing
for the product has stopped working.
Good luck,
Toby
whisky-dave
"D.Mac" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:glu6o5$qh$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
> <blackm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:96f9558d-5ecf-4f81...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>>> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>>> does work!!
>>>
>>> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>>>
>
> It never fails to amaze me the gullibility of people.
>
> Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
Is it stupid of them to let some people use it for free, that's the
question.
years ago on ye olde BBC micros there were two mainstream word processors
available both were hardware as in ROM based one was virtually impossible to
copy
the other was very easy, guess which one everyone wanted to use, so guess
which one
we had to buy to support the students that wanted to do word processing.
We brought about 8 copies of the one that could be copied easily and one
copy
of the one that couldn't be copied, no one use the one that couldn't be
copied
because few of the students bothered to find out how to use it.
The average student will find a way of getting copies of most software for
free,
as a training place it's important we have course on things people want to
use.
As with windows the reason windows is the most used[1] is because a lot of
people
copy it and therefore know how to use it, which is advantageous to industry
as they
have a large pool of people that have some idea how to use windows.
The most popular things are those that are copied.
Same with music really.I bet madonna is copied more than you're local bar
band
but I also bet madonna makes more money than the average bar band despite
the huge amount of music sharing.
It's only when those that can and should pay for the products statr usign
pirate copies
is when a company loses money from pirate copies.
Which is why they aren;t too worried about a casual user having a copy.
D-Mac
Talking about power supplies...
When I upgraded all my PCs in November last, I bought "Thermaltake"
cases with real 450 watt power supplies. Then I installed CS4 and hit
the single GPU limit ( I use two monitors) and had to upgrade the
display cards to soem serious stuff.
You can never have too big a power supply what I thought was plenty
needed to be replaced with 550 watt supplies just to drive the blasted
Video card!
A friend of mine who used to rebuild power supplies thought flaky Power
was the number one cause of 90% of computer errors that were put down
to software.I have no doubt that if a PC is behaving badly it is most
likely a dodgy power supply.
--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
31/01/2009 9:01:51 AM
D-Mac
30 years is a looong time Ray. Have you still got some punch cards to
remind you? LOL.
--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
31/01/2009 9:08:24 AM
D-Mac
in a box around here.
Clair
ray
FWIW - the other end of things is nice too. I run my mini-itx quite
comfortably from a 120 watt power supply.
ray
No - but I used them for several classes at Arizona State and when I left
Yuma Proving Ground in the early 80's they were just phasing them out.
Also had a dickens of a time getting all the 7 track tape units replaced
at the radar sites at White Sands.
tony cooper
wrote:
>The memories of FORTRAN on a massive NCR mainframe in 1970 (that makes
>it pretty close to 40 years!!) My current laptop will run circles
>around that old roomful of churning tape drives, magnetic drums, etc.
>This was a two room deal with the works in an air conditioned room(the
>only one in the college) separated from the key boards, card punch
>machine, displays and reader in the non-air conditioned second room.
In the late 50s, when I was in college, I worked for a bank in the
department that created punch cards from checks. I ran a sorter that
was about 10-12 long. There were several sorters in the room, and key
punch stations were cards were punched. The computer room was
adjacent, but I was not allowed in there. Massive banks of computers
in a refrigerated room. Maybe 15 or 20 employees not counting the
computer room people.
I suspect I could now match the entire productivity of both rooms with
one off-the-shelf PC.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. Clarke
There is an emulator called "Hercules" that runs IBM 360/370/390/etc
code on a PC. It runs 370 code several times faster than any 370.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ray Fischer
>This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>does work!!
So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dave
>
>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
no comparison between stealing a program and
supporting Palestinian suicide bomb attacks
against civilians in a crowded bus like you do, idiot.
George Kerby
On 1/31/09 7:49 AM, in article 6il8o456up7jukmh9...@4ax.com,
"Dave" <da...@durbs.koza> wrote:
OUCH! Good ONE!
But when you have a Rotting Fish Brain, logic is a fleeting memory...
Alan Smithee
news:ef5d2b0d-e69d-4f54...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> i dont agree with "save" for the same reason why i dont agree with
> publishing companies when they claim "loses" everytime someone uses
> music/software without a license.
I think that music companies are sometimes too greedy. I have bought a few
albums after hearing a song I liked used as a background track on a amateur
youtube video. In fact, just this week I came across a 5D II video with a
song I liked (http://www.vimeo.com/2675248) and is a song I wouldn't have
otherwise bought. With the likes of Play and Amazon selling individual
tracks now, I think a lot of people will also do this.
As for the OP, sounds like a wind-up to me.
Ray Fischer
>>>This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>>>does work!!
>>
>>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
>
>Yes, thank you, I do think I'm clever.
YOu're not. Any half-witted knuckle drager and copy and paste.
> Are you upset because you
>wasted $700
You're no more clever than a bank-robber.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
>
>no comparison between stealing a program and
>supporting Palestinian suicide bomb attacks
>against civilians in a crowded bus like you do, idiot.
No, that's YOU planning suicide bombings, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Jim <Jim> wrote:
>>>>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
>>>
>>>no comparison between stealing a program and
>>>supporting Palestinian suicide bomb attacks
>>>against civilians in a crowded bus like you do, idiot.
>>
>>How did we get here from there? What has software got to do with
>>middle east terror?
>
>Right, the topic is the liberation of a piece of software
Like thieves "liberate" people of their money.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
D-Mac
> On 31 Jan 2009 07:41:01 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote:
> > > This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and
> > > it does work!!
> >
> > So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
>
> Yes, thank you, I do think I'm clever. Are you upset because you
> wasted $700
>
> Have a nice day!
> Robin Hood
In case you thought you had figured this out for yourself, Closing off
a firewall to Adobe products has been a poor way to keep a cracked
version going since Adobe introduced authentication.
What you and the morons who think it a cool way to get what you don't
deserve and have no entitlement to is that the next update or upgrade
will make it even more difficult for those of us who pay for the
product, to move it from one PC to another.
Ray's right, you're a slimy thief and in case you haven't realized,
your newsgroup provider forbids you from engaging in software piracy.
The information you posted in in defiance of their conditions of use.
There you go... LOL.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:18:11 -0600
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1171
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-aBWjQWoK75wmqeiN/9n2pNWEQ2kv+RaeMA3c03a9j//BJed/xQ0hK98+2q/U8q5X7SdH
jqxPMdtb4n7!eEYsei/QEYdM3/Y2WJho8x+JvfguQhlwQm5RE4uuyCniBH8/hmg2y5dKmGo+
TmAcG5bTQw==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
Have a nice day fuckwit. The best is yet to happen.
pir...@adobe.com sure will welcome getting your IP and tracking you
down like the dog you have proven to be.
It's true they don't mind individules using their pirated software.
They know as soon as you need an update you'll probably buy one. They
sure as hell have it in for fuckwits who publish information in
newsgroups on how to do it!
--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
1/02/2009 8:18:24 AM
Ray Fischer
Telling the truth isn't namecalling. You're a thief.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alfred Molon
> APSCS4 is the easiest version to crack so far.
Is that true? Did Adobe perhaps make it so easily crackable on purpose,
to increase its effective (legal+illegal) market share?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Robert Coe
: On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
: > This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
: > does work!!
: > First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
: >
: > [etc.]
: >
: > If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!
: >
: > Note:
: > all you ubber honest guys should not read this post let alone try it!
: >
: > This is just information I do not advocte that you actually do this. I
: > recommend that you take the $700 out of your meagre paycheck and buy
: > the program. (Muahahahahahaha!)
: >
: > Robin Hood
:
: Well I'll be damned--it actually works!
How long do you goobers think it will take before Adobe fixes the trial
version to plug that leak?
Bob
Robert Coe
: On 30 Jan 2009 05:26:01 -0600, "Toby" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: >You may find that eventually you will get a screen saying that the licensing
: >for the product has stopped working.
: >
: >Good luck,
: >
: >Toby
: >
: Hi Toby
:
: The only way that can happen is if the user doesn't block PS from
: phoning home. Once blocked PS will work indefinitely. If by chance the
: user is forgetful and installs a new firewall and PS does phone home
: then you get a message that the serial number is invalid. The user
: simply re-blocks PS with the firewall and enters a new serial and
: voila! PS is good to go.
:
: BTW: this is the least protection I have seen for PS.
: Previous versions needed a keygen to activate it but now you just have
: to enter a little bit of text into the hosts file. It appears that
: Adobe is lax or just doesn't care.
Robin, how much do you know about what the hosts file actually does? I'd bet
money that it's less than you think, but I'm sure you wouldn't pay me if you
lost. Only a fool makes a bet with a self-confessed thief.
By defining Adobe's site name as your loopback address, you've made it
impossible for Photoshop to check the validity of the serial number you're
using. But that doesn't tell Photoshop that the number *is* valid, which is
why it keeps trying. And if, despite the hosts file tweak, you really do have
to keep blocking messages from Adobe, it suggests that Photoshop may be using
a backdoor address to keep trying to make contact. In any case, Photoshop
knows that it hasn't validated your number. So unless Adobe is dumber than
most of us think, Toby's warning that the program may eventually pull the plug
on you is perfectly plausible. What, if anything, it may decide to do to your
images if and when that happens is up to you to contemplate. (Maybe it has
already watermarked them, and on some future date every copy you've passed out
to anybody will evaporate. Or conspicuously reveal your theft. Or worse.)
Have a nice day! ;^)
Bob
Alan Smithee
news:MPG.23ef6164c...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <45n9o4l6qoav9c3ul...@4ax.com>, says...
>> APSCS4 is the easiest version to crack so far.
> Is that true? Did Adobe perhaps make it so easily crackable on purpose,
> to increase its effective (legal+illegal) market share?
I'm not an IT guy, so forgive the layman's perspective, but here's a thought
for the day.
With the use of technologies such as AJAX, it's possible to create software
that can be run on remote servers instead of local machines. With the likes
of Outlook Web Connector and Zimbra, it's already possible to use software
from browsers that look and feel like local apps. With network speeds
increasing all the time, I personally think that it's inevitable that in the
future all software will be hosted server side. Businesses can host it
themselves if they choose to, consumers will pay a monthly/yearly
subscription service.
Just a thought.
Robert Coe
: DanP wrote:
: > On Jan 28, 10:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
: > i dont agree with "save" for the same reason why i dont agree with
: > publishing companies when they claim "loses" everytime someone uses
: > music/software without a license.
: > you save something when you have that money and dont spend it on
: > something you were going to. if you dont have the money you dont save
: > anything.
: >
: > so if you do have the money and photoshop is of value to you i advise
: > you to buy it.
: >
: > i'll give the gimp a try, this weekend i will install ubuntu.
:
: encountered of any type--from PC to mainframe stuff, and devices in
GIMP under Windows is indeed confusing to learn and annoying to use. All those
individual windows can surely drive one batty. But if it really is the most
unintuitive software you've ever encountered, all I can say is that you
probably have a world of (unpleasant) experience ahead of you!
Bob
Alfred Molon
says...
> How long do you goobers think it will take before Adobe fixes the trial
> version to plug that leak?
Do you think Adobe want to fix it?
Robert Coe
My beefy Lenovo W500, with a 1920 x 1200 screen and TWO built-in
high-resolution display adapters, runs fine on 90W. ;^)
Bob
J. Clarke
Destruction of images would be very costly for Adobe. It's unlawful
for software to destroy content as part of a copy-protection scheme
and their pockets are deep enough to make them worth going after.
Unless the folks at Adobe are fourteen kinds of fool it will simply
disable itself and die quietly.
ray
Intuition, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO GIMP is much
easier to deal with if you haven't invested a lot of time in photoshop -
it's easier to learn something new that to unlearn what you know.
D-Mac
> In article <45n9o4l6qoav9c3ul...@4ax.com>, says...
> > APSCS4 is the easiest version to crack so far.
>
> Is that true? Did Adobe perhaps make it so easily crackable on
> purpose, to increase its effective (legal+illegal) market share?
They must have Alfred.
One bit of information the "nerd" in green forgot to mention is the
dynamic link library that needs to be re-written.
The whole suite of CS4 programs will crash shortly because of this time
bomb Adobe included in all their programs.
Pleanty of people I know started out using pirate copies of PS and
bought upgrades at the next edition... Each edition they buy an upgrade
so Adobe are not stupid in that area.
There's also the Educational version at about half price.
In Australia it is illegal (well not legal might be a better
description) to discriminate with this stuff. In the eyes of the law,
all new users are "learning" and therefore entitled to purchase
"educational" version software.
Microsoft lost a test case about this and now sell their educational
versions on the shelves right next to the retail version. Hoping I
suppose that most who buy software are basically honest people.
--
Meet D-Mac, the man they love to hate.
http://www.D-mac.info
2/02/2009 7:27:14 AM
Ray Fischer
>
>Adobe does not care. PERIOD! For at least a decade this has been going
>on yet Adobe does nothing. They know no matter what they do, in only a
>few days a hacker puts out a new fix. It's like farting in a
>hurricane.
There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
for their own selfish wants.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alfred Molon
pay money to buy the legal version (if they could not get the pirated
version) anyway, so Adobe loses no money here.
On the other hand (part of) those who use the pirated version today
might end up being the paying customers of tomorrow. A friend of mine
got Windows Vista (legal) one year ago. It was his first legal Windows
OS (all previous Windows versions he used were pirated copies). He said
he was so proud of his first legal Windows OS.
Ray Fischer
You _are_ a joke, thief.
>What do Space Aliens and Honest Jews have in common?
>|
>Well... everyone has heard that they exist but nobody has ever
>actually met one!
And you're an anti-semite as well.
An all-round sleazebag.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
-hh
>
> [1950's]
> I suspect I could now match the entire productivity of both
> rooms with one off-the-shelf PC.
IMO, you probably could have done that with a PC from around ten years
ago.
I can recall working on a project in the early 1980s to replace an old
host mini being used for Analog-->Digital data collection. We
specc'ed out two candidate replacement systems. The one was IIRC an
HP-1000 host mini. The other was an Apple ][e with all of its
expansion slots filled.
-hh
TreyCarlson
Software that has to phone-home to validate itself will never be installed
on my computers. When I'm in the outback for 9 months with laptop and solar
panels I'm not about to install something that will disable itself just
because I don't have net access.
Another huge strike against Adobe if what you claim is true. No self
respecting nature photographer would put up with childish shit like that.
Idiots tolerate being dicked-around by some company like that. Unlike you,
I'm not an idiot.
I won't install Photoshop on my machines even if it was handed out for
free. There's better software than that out there. Much better.
TellyHalston
>As I said in one of my other posts - a small company - DXO, has a
>program called DXO Optics 5. To date no one has posted a working copy
>of it. It is virtually uncrackable. Why can't Adobe or Microsoft and
>others do the same? It is truly a mystery to me.
On the contrary. DxO Optics Pro v5.0.4 was released as warez back in May of
2008. The reason you don't see it being passed around or anyone else
providing new cracks for it is that anyone who has tried it found the
program itself to be bloated useless crap. Even free versions aren't worth
the bother.
If it ain't worth stealing, it sure as hell isn't worth buying.
Ray Fischer
>
>I've read many of your posts. I think you are a complete wacko!
That coming from an admitted thief and anti-semite.
Oooo! I'm _so_ concerned.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4986286a$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
> for their own selfish wants.
Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
program for 'free'
has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
Suppose I told you that I have the adobe collection, does this mean you
can't
get a stiffy any longer, or perhaps it gives you AIDS or is it just plain
old fashioned
green eyed jealousy. ?
whisky-dave
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:362087d7-4c2c-4031...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
here in the UK there are the royal institute lections put on basically for
school, kids
this year it was about computers and the main speaker was some bloke from
Microsoft and he said that the 'computer chip' on chip and pin cards
was 30 times faster than the computers that landed man on the moon
and the chip and pin had 1000 times the memory capacity too.
Not too sure how accurate it was to say that but I guess good enough for a
kids lecture.
Don Stauffer
> here in the UK there are the royal institute lections put on basically for
> school, kids
> this year it was about computers and the main speaker was some bloke from
> Microsoft and he said that the 'computer chip' on chip and pin cards
> was 30 times faster than the computers that landed man on the moon
> and the chip and pin had 1000 times the memory capacity too.
> Not too sure how accurate it was to say that but I guess good enough for a
> kids lecture.
>
I think that is pretty conservative. The Apollo and Lunar Lander
computers were really small memory units.
Even today anything that operates in space has a very small memory by
comsumer computer standards. The problem is radiation in space, and the
need for rad hard (radiation hardened) chips, especially memory chips.
The higher the memory density, the easier it is to be affected by
radiation, so the chips have very large memory cells. Features are
larger on the CPU chips also.
Plus, especially for man rated stuff like Apollo, the development of
failure statistics required stuff to either have been in use awhile, or
subject to accelerated life testing, and folks were not too sure of the
validity of accelerated life testing. The result was they went very
conservative on the technology used.
Ray Fischer
>> for their own selfish wants.
>
>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>program for 'free'
Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
might have been used to make the product better.
>Suppose I told you that I have the adobe collection, does this mean you
>can't
>get a stiffy any longer,
Pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NelsonTodd
>whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>
>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>program for 'free'
>
>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>
You do. Thanks for stepping up to the plate! I'm sure they enjoy all that
money of yours that you throw at them for no good reason.
>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>
>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>might have been used to make the product better.
They took away no money so they are not thieves. They are using a copy from
a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any money to
make. Just because you want to donate to overpriced software and overpaid
CEOs who sit on their asses on their yachts while destroying the economy of
the world, and you want to pay to volunteer to be their beta-tester for
them, doesn't mean that everyone wants to be that stupid and gullible.
Just consider yourself one of those people who helps to get the next
version out with fewer bugs than last time. The rest of the world benefits
from your unthinking sacrifice. We applaud you for your stupidity and
naivety.
When the buggy-whip braiders were faced with the automobile, they whined
about it too. You are trying to apply an economic model to a world that
doesn't exist anymore.
Are you that daft that you think you are giving up your rights and freedoms
and actually signing a contract by clicking on a virtual "I Agree" button?
It's not even a real button, doofus. Let alone your signature.
You are delusional if you think that clicking on a virtual "I Agree" button
on a screen is a signed contract. As delusional as those authors that put
that nonsense in their software to try to manipulate the easily fooled.
They can write a Licensing Agreement that's as long as "War & Peace" and it
won't mean shit by clicking on any virtual "I Agree" button. The only time
you actually agree is when they have managed to manipulate you out of your
money. Then its too late for you to do anything about it. They've already
got what they wanted and don't need you anymore, nor will they honor that
virtual contract if they don't want to. Another fool another dollar. That's
all that you mean to them.
A world of virtual idiots clicking on virtual buttons giving up their
virtual rights and their virtual money in their virtual minds and virtual
worlds to make greedy CEOs wealthier than before.
Laughable and ludicrous, to say the least.
What a manipulative scam.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: I have a joke for you Ray:
:
: What do Space Aliens and Honest Jews have in common?
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: |
: Well... everyone has heard that they exist but nobody has ever
: actually met one!
: That should get your keyboard fired up! Muahahahahaha!
What a pathetic shithead you are. One of the fundamental principles of Judaism
is the requirement that all business dealings be conducted with absolute
honesty. Obviously, not all Jews measure up to that standard. But even more
obviously, neither do you. I'm not Jewish, but I guess I know more about Jews
than you do. Slink back into your burrow and think that over, while you enjoy
your bogus copy of Photoshop.
Bob
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>
>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>program for 'free'
>>
>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>
>You do.
Nope.
>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>
>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>might have been used to make the product better.
>
>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
company it could use to produce the software.
> They are using a copy from
>a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any money to
>make.
Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much Adobe spends to produce
Photoshop?
> Just because you want to donate to overpriced software and overpaid
YOU are overpaid. You must sign your next paycheck over to me.
And it won't be stealing because you're only being denied the money
you didn't deserve. Of course, you're a dishonest hypocrite so you
are going to argue that the rules are "different" when they're applied
to you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
> whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>
>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>program for 'free'
>
> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
because they know how to get the best from using such a program.
>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>
> Yes. Adding features costs money.
So, they don;t have to add any features they could have stayed with version
2.5 which
was the first version I ever used (a copy).
The only reasson they added new features was because they wanted to make
more money
by selling version 3.0 (with layers), and I guess they didnt; want any other
software vendor taking their market share. Actually I added to their nmarket
share.
>The thieves take away money that
> might have been used to make the product better.
That's why such people aren't thieves because they don;t remove any money
from anyone. When I was helping students with 2.5 the college they were
attending
only had 2.5, I upgraded to 3.0 about a month before they did, and when the
students
I was helping saw what could be done and asked/demanded thier college get
up to date,
so they brought 3 copies and all because I showed them what could be done
with a copy.
>>Suppose I told you that I have the adobe collection, does this mean you
>>can't
>>get a stiffy any longer,
>
> Pervert.
Cheers
but what has that got to do with the price of photoshop ;-)
whisky-dave
> NelsonTodd <nt...@retriever.org> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>
>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>program for 'free'
>>>
>>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>
>>You do.
>
> Nope.
>
>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>
>>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>>might have been used to make the product better.
>>
>>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>
> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
> company it could use to produce the software.
How ?
The company develop software so they can continue to sell more software.
As you're not too bright think of it this way, how do the car company
Cadillac (or any other high end car manufacturer) loss money when someone
steals one of their cars........
Answer they they don;t in fact if the 'thief' in the case damages or
distorys the car
then the owner claims off insurance and buys another so the manufacturer
sells another car.
So how have they lost money by selling two cars instead of one ?
It's a little more complicated with software but if I steal the CS4
collection
who exactly finds that it is missing from their computer and therefore can
no longer work ?
>> They are using a copy from
>>a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any money to
>>make.
>
> Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much Adobe spends to produce
> Photoshop?
Does that matter, it's their choice, if tehy want to spend a few $1000 or
designing a new icon
then that's fine by me. I've never asked them to do anything for me.
J. Clarke
The bottom line on this is that it's stealing because the consensus in
our society is that it's stealing. If you want to call it "counting
coup" or something that's fine but don't act all surprised when you
get dragged off to jail.
If you don't _like_ that consensus, you're free to do your best to
change it and get the copyright laws repealed. But until you have
done that, regardless of your opinion in the matter, in law it is
still a property crime.
C J Campbell
> If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!
So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!
Maybe someone should just steal your computer and sell all your
pictures. Perhaps Adobe could use some of your Photoshop work for their
advertising without paying you!
I am really beginning to like this idea of taking anything I want from
people and rationalizing it because they are richer than me and,
anyway, if they didn't want me to steal from them they would have
protected themselves better. It means I can justify taking anything
that is not nailed down. Hey, if the neighbor didn't want his Lexus
stolen, he shouldn't have left his keys in his dresser drawer, eh? But
for sure, I think every one of us here should find out who you are so
we can come over to your house and take your stuff. I am sure you will
understand and be real happy about it.
Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
you away in irons. In fact, most people will probably stand and cheer
when you die, if they think about you at all. Pirates and thieves are
usually not nearly as popular as they think they are. All their friends
are really just the circling buzzards.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
tony cooper
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
>probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
>reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
>money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
>climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
>all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!
>
>Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
>You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
>And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
>you away in irons.
Let's be realistic about this, Mr Waddling. No individual is going to
be carted off in chains for pirating software if he or she is doing so
for personal use. It just doesn't happen. It's because it doesn't
happen that the people who do pirate software consider it a
"victimless crime" that poses no danger to them. They know the worst
that will happen is that their pirated software will become disabled.
The software people do police companies who use pirated software, but
only when some disgruntled employee blows the whistle and notifies,
say, Microsoft that the company is using illegal copies of Excel.
The analogy of the person who uses pirated software being the same as
the person who would burgle his/her neighbor's house is also
unrealistic. This goes back to the "victimless crime" attitude that
people have about software. They know that burgling their neighbor is
a crime, and that the neighbor will be deprived of possessions if they
do so. They don't feel that Microsoft or Adobe loses anything as a
result of software theft.
Oh, I agree with you that it *is* a crime, and it *does* deprive the
intellectual property owner of the result of their effort in
developing the program, but my point is that you aren't going to
convince any user of highjacked software that he or she is doing the
same thing as shoplifting or petty theft. It's just not realistic.
Your diatribe, and the other ones like it, are a waste of words.
Potential software thieves aren't going to pay the slightest attention
to it.
If Adobe and Microsoft and the other providers of software want to
reduce or eliminate software piracy, they are going to have to develop
additional safeguards in the software. Adobe took a step towards this
in the "phone home" code. Their program can still be pirated by
people like "Robin Hood" and the people who read Robin Hood's post,
but Adobe cut off the less-informed would-be pirate who knew just
enough to burn a copy of a legit program.
The software providers are not going to go after individual offenders
with criminal charges. That's not a cost-effective program for the
software maker or a viable asset-allocation for the local police
force. Truly, local authorities have better things to do than raid
the homes of individual pirated software users.
While I agree with your general position, the threats and dangers you
say are out there are - realistically - not out there. Robin Hood may
lack ethics, but he's basically spot-on when he says that Adobe has to
solve the problem or it won't be solved.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Gerald Hawks
wrote:
"Laws" are just someone's opinion on paper. No more valid than my opinion.
Even if the majority is claiming that opinion as law, since when has the
majority ever been right.
Just because you are so spineless as to obey the self-serving opinions of
others doesn't mean that everyone is as spineless as you are. Next you'll
be using the law-approved toilet paper because you can't think for yourself
that much or make any of your own choices in life. You live your life
requiring that someone tells you what to do, just like any unthinking
snot-nosed child that needs a mommy or a daddy to tell them what to do at
every turn.
Your opinion is not my law, my opinion is not your law.
Grow up, and deal with it.
halken...@removedforspam.net
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>with walking into his house and taking whatever you want.
Total red-herring nonsense. If you walked into your neighbors' house and
made an exact copy of a book sitting on their shelves using your own
materials, their book is not missing, they have lost nothing, the world is
richer for it. One more person is now capable of knowing what the neighbor
has learned. Two more people make copies, now two more are richer, the
world is richer, society is richer.
Imagine if everyone in the world had a copy of the software that you can't
even figure out how to use. Everyone could be your tutor and teach you how
to get the most out of it. Nobody lost, everyone gained. Except for you,
you'd still be as stupid as you are portraying yourself to be in your
posts. Nobody can help with that. It's genetics.
C J Campbell
Except that if everyone did that there would be no books or software at
all for anyone to copy. I do not buy your thesis that authors are not
entitled to be properly compensated for their work.
C J Campbell
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
>> probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
>> reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
>> money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
>> climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
>> all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!
>>
>> Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
>> You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
>> And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
>> you away in irons.
>
> Let's be realistic about this, Mr Waddling. No individual is going to
> be carted off in chains for pirating software if he or she is doing so
> for personal use.
That may change. Or people might just stop producing books and music
and software and other intellectual property because they cannot afford
to do it for free.
The one thing software pirates do not understand is the fundamental law
of economics: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything costs
something -- even software piracy.
whisky-dave
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gmc71...@news5.newsguy.com...
But it isn't not in law that is why they had to have a 'special' law to
cover it.
It goes far back to what is property and what isn't.
Do you also feel that something has been stolen from you if you have your
picture taken ?
If someone uses the same words/sentences/paragraphs/passage/book you use,
are they stealing your words ?
I'm not saying that everyone should get any software illegally and use it,
what I am saying is that the idea of theft is wrong because with theft
someone has to loose something.
This argument has been going on for years and IIRC it comes originally from
Jewish law
on what property consists of.
> If you want to call it "counting
> coup" or something that's fine but don't act all surprised when you
> get dragged off to jail.
has anyone been jailed yet for this ?
The only peole I know that have been done for software piracy are kids
'sharing'
music, so they are giving away someone elses work, I also believe that is
wrong.
if any software company wants to sell more products all it has to do is
lower the price.
At $700 I'd never buy Photoshop or any other program for using perhaps a
couple of hours a week, and remember even after
you buy it it still isn;t yours you have only brought the license to use it.
I don;t need a manual I don;t need free on-line support, I don't need a
CD/DVD.
Idealy what I'd prefer is a rental system when you pay say $1 day/hour
whatever.
If they offered it for download at say $70 I'd buy a copy same as people
have been
doing with on-line music stores like iTunes. In fact I even re-brought
something I had on
vinyl, perhaps the record componies should 'pay me back' as they have
already rented
me the right to listen to that track for as long as I have the track.
>
> If you don't _like_ that consensus, you're free to do your best to
> change it and get the copyright laws repealed. But until you have
> done that, regardless of your opinion in the matter, in law it is
> still a property crime.
The law is always the law, that doesn't make it right though.
J. Clarke
Only because they are hard to catch. If they do get caught jail is a
definite possibility for copyright violation above a certain dollar
level. So is a civil suit for both actual and punitive damages.
> The software people do police companies who use pirated software,
> but
> only when some disgruntled employee blows the whistle and notifies,
> say, Microsoft that the company is using illegal copies of Excel.
Which has no effect at all on the legality or illegality of an action.
The fact that you can get away with something doesn't make it legal.
If the Unabomber had stopped at one he'd have gotten away with
letter-bombing--does that make it legal?
> The analogy of the person who uses pirated software being the same
> as
> the person who would burgle his/her neighbor's house is also
> unrealistic. This goes back to the "victimless crime" attitude that
> people have about software. They know that burgling their neighbor
> is
> a crime, and that the neighbor will be deprived of possessions if
> they
> do so. They don't feel that Microsoft or Adobe loses anything as a
> result of software theft.
Burglary, theft, and copyright violation are different crimes but they
are all crimes. If you don't want to be crimes write your
legislators.
> Oh, I agree with you that it *is* a crime, and it *does* deprive the
> intellectual property owner of the result of their effort in
> developing the program, but my point is that you aren't going to
> convince any user of highjacked software that he or she is doing the
> same thing as shoplifting or petty theft. It's just not realistic.
There is no way to convince a criminal that what he is doing as wrong.
That doesn't make him any less a criminal and it does not justify
pretending that what he does is socially acceptable.
> Your diatribe, and the other ones like it, are a waste of words.
> Potential software thieves aren't going to pay the slightest
> attention
> to it.
No, but others might.
> If Adobe and Microsoft and the other providers of software want to
> reduce or eliminate software piracy, they are going to have to
> develop
> additional safeguards in the software. Adobe took a step towards
> this
> in the "phone home" code. Their program can still be pirated by
> people like "Robin Hood" and the people who read Robin Hood's post,
> but Adobe cut off the less-informed would-be pirate who knew just
> enough to burn a copy of a legit program.
>
> The software providers are not going to go after individual
> offenders
> with criminal charges. That's not a cost-effective program for the
> software maker or a viable asset-allocation for the local police
> force. Truly, local authorities have better things to do than raid
> the homes of individual pirated software users.
Copyright is Federal. "Local authorities" don't get involved. And
filing criminal charges is done by the Attorney General, not by the
software provider, so where is the cost for them?
> While I agree with your general position, the threats and dangers
> you
> say are out there are - realistically - not out there. Robin Hood
> may
> lack ethics, but he's basically spot-on when he says that Adobe has
> to
> solve the problem or it won't be solved.
I see. So it's the victim's responsibility. If someone breaks into
your house and rapes your wife it's your fault because you didn't have
good enough locks and failed to marry La Femme Nikita. Sorry, but
saying that something is OK because the victim isn't putting what you
consider to be enough effort into protecting against is is a crock.
Software piracy is not OK, no matter who is doing it, and no matter
how often they get away with it.
paul a.
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-02-04 07:57:05 -0800, halken...@removedforspam.net said:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want.
>>
>> Total red-herring nonsense. If you walked into your neighbors' house and
>> made an exact copy of a book sitting on their shelves using your own
>> materials, their book is not missing, they have lost nothing, the world is
>> richer for it. One more person is now capable of knowing what the neighbor
>> has learned. Two more people make copies, now two more are richer, the
>> world is richer, society is richer.
>>
>> Imagine if everyone in the world had a copy of the software that you can't
>> even figure out how to use. Everyone could be your tutor and teach you how
>> to get the most out of it. Nobody lost, everyone gained. Except for you,
>> you'd still be as stupid as you are portraying yourself to be in your
>> posts. Nobody can help with that. It's genetics.
>
>Except that if everyone did that there would be no books or software at
>all for anyone to copy. I do not buy your thesis that authors are not
>entitled to be properly compensated for their work.
When they sell copies of their work cheaper than others can make copies of
their work then perhaps they'll have a point in continuing and getting paid
for it. If not, let them starve just as all artists have all throughout
capitalist history. Then afterward the greedy and corporate vultures swoop
in after their death to make a fortune off of their having suffered all
their lives. An author can be nothing but an author, a musician can be
nothing but a musician. Starving is not going to stop them from producing
what they were born to create.
All this is nothing new, it's been going on for centuries. It's how the
conveying of knowledge and the arts has always been handled in capitalist
societies. In earlier communistic cultures the thinkers, artists, and
entertainers where given more than others, either in comforts or in esteem
and respect, without feeding the face of some greedy control-freak
middle-man who creates self-serving "laws". That kind of person would be
the one who would have ended up homeless and starving. Today's CEO should
be the one who is suffering and starving, not the artists and authors that
they live off of, like the true parasites of society that they are.
Capitalism, I might add, is a recent development in civilization.
Capitalism won't last, it's a failed system when it comes to knowledge and
the arts. Only the wealthy should have access to knowledge or the tools to
create art? That's no better than the power-hungry christian control-freak
churches that decree that only priests should have the knowledge of their
god so they may control and manipulate the less educated to do as they
want.
A capitalist model is only ensuring that those who have the most wealth
will control all those around them by doling out knowledge to those that
will do their bidding. Nothing more than that. Worse are those that strive
to be just like those that started and perpetuate this self-serving
nonsense.
On the other hand, if the individual authors of those works were the ones
who were actually getting paid those fortunes then it might be worth
considering paying them. Only then they'd have to lower their price to make
it more available or provide it on a per-exchange assessed donation. Just
like any artist passes the hat. But to pay some greedy CEO and con-artist
promoter, read: Corporate-Pimp & Social Parasite, that's all that any CEO
really is, .... you're either that amazingly stupid or must be joking.
It's time to put a little salt on those social blood-sucker CEOs and watch
them shrivel up in excruciating agony; dying homeless, hungry, ... and
alone.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> NelsonTodd <nt...@retriever.org> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>>program for 'free'
>>>>
>>>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>
>>>You do.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>>>might have been used to make the product better.
>>>
>>>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>
>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>> company it could use to produce the software.
>
>How ?
Moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net>
>>The bottom line on this is that it's stealing because the consensus in
>>our society is that it's stealing. If you want to call it "counting
>>coup" or something that's fine but don't act all surprised when you
>>get dragged off to jail.
>>
>>If you don't _like_ that consensus, you're free to do your best to
>>change it and get the copyright laws repealed. But until you have
>>done that, regardless of your opinion in the matter, in law it is
>>still a property crime.
>
>"Laws" are just someone's opinion on paper. No more valid than my opinion.
You must be about 15 years old.
Tell it to the judge that his opinion is no more valid than yours.
Then observe who it is that gets hauled off to prison.
>Even if the majority is claiming that opinion as law, since when has the
>majority ever been right.
Prisons are filled with sociopaths like you who don't understand why
they're being punished for being thieves and murderers.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>
>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>program for 'free'
>>
>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>
>Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
>because they know how to get the best from using such a program.
That doesn't even make sense. Adobe doesn't get royalties on photos
produced using Photoshop.
>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>
>> Yes. Adding features costs money.
>
>So, they don;t have to add any features they could have stayed with version
>2.5 which
>was the first version I ever used (a copy).
Which would mean that Adobe would no longer exist.
>>The thieves take away money that
>> might have been used to make the product better.
>
>That's why such people aren't thieves
People who steal are thieves.
>because they don;t remove any money
>from anyone.
That's an stupid lie. If I take your paycheck before you get it, is
that not stealing because I haven't removed any money from you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
><christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>>with walking into his house and taking whatever you want.
>
>Total red-herring nonsense. If you walked into your neighbors' house and
>made an exact copy of a book sitting on their shelves using your own
>materials, their book is not missing, they have lost nothing, the world is
>richer for it.
And if your employer refuses to pay you then you haven't lost anything
and there is no crime committed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> C J Campbell
>>Except that if everyone did that there would be no books or software at
>>all for anyone to copy. I do not buy your thesis that authors are not
>>entitled to be properly compensated for their work.
>
>When they sell copies of their work cheaper than others can make copies of
>their work then perhaps they'll have a point in continuing and getting paid
>for it.
You're one of those sociopaths who believes that you're entitled to
take anything that you want, no matter who gets screwed as a result.
If everybody did as you say then there would be no computers and no
software.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nospam
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> At $700 I'd never buy Photoshop or any other program for using perhaps a
> couple of hours a week,
if you only are going to use it 'a couple of hours a week,' then the
full version is not for you, but rather the consumer version, photoshop
elements.
> If they offered it for download at say $70 I'd buy a copy same as people
> have been
photoshop elements retails for about $100 and can usually be found on
sale for half that. it's even bundled for free with various products.
tony cooper
About as possible as me being snowed in tomorrow. You're comments
are, like Mr Waddling's, unrealistic. A civil suit is brought for two
reasons: 1) a deterrent, or, 2) to obtain compensation. Bring a
civil suit against the person who pirates software for individual use
does not act as a deterrent to others. Bring a civil suit against the
person who uses a crack to use Photoshop and you can get all he's
worth: a skateboard, an MP3 player, and pocket change. Be realistic
about the solutions.
>> The software people do police companies who use pirated software,
>> but
>> only when some disgruntled employee blows the whistle and notifies,
>> say, Microsoft that the company is using illegal copies of Excel.
>
>Which has no effect at all on the legality or illegality of an action.
That wasn't my point at all. I agree it's illegal. I agree it's
unethical. I agree it's wrong. I even agree that it's bad karma.
But, I'm realistic. Software companies cannot effectively use the law
to stop the practice of pirating software for individual use.
>The fact that you can get away with something doesn't make it legal.
Didn't say or imply it was.
>If the Unabomber had stopped at one he'd have gotten away with
>letter-bombing--does that make it legal?
Silly point.
>> The analogy of the person who uses pirated software being the same
>> as
>> the person who would burgle his/her neighbor's house is also
>> unrealistic. This goes back to the "victimless crime" attitude that
>> people have about software. They know that burgling their neighbor
>> is
>> a crime, and that the neighbor will be deprived of possessions if
>> they
>> do so. They don't feel that Microsoft or Adobe loses anything as a
>> result of software theft.
>
>Burglary, theft, and copyright violation are different crimes but they
>are all crimes. If you don't want to be crimes write your
>legislators.
You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?
>> Oh, I agree with you that it *is* a crime, and it *does* deprive the
>> intellectual property owner of the result of their effort in
>> developing the program, but my point is that you aren't going to
>> convince any user of highjacked software that he or she is doing the
>> same thing as shoplifting or petty theft. It's just not realistic.
>
>> If Adobe and Microsoft and the other providers of software want to
>> reduce or eliminate software piracy, they are going to have to
>> develop
>> additional safeguards in the software. Adobe took a step towards
>> this
>> in the "phone home" code. Their program can still be pirated by
>> people like "Robin Hood" and the people who read Robin Hood's post,
>> but Adobe cut off the less-informed would-be pirate who knew just
>> enough to burn a copy of a legit program.
>>
>> The software providers are not going to go after individual
>> offenders
>> with criminal charges. That's not a cost-effective program for the
>> software maker or a viable asset-allocation for the local police
>> force. Truly, local authorities have better things to do than raid
>> the homes of individual pirated software users.
>
>Copyright is Federal. "Local authorities" don't get involved.
How do you think an arrest would be made? You have to have someone
locally involved. You have to have someone there to secure evidence
that a crime has taken place. Whether that someone works for the
federal government or the local government is immaterial. Someone
local has to be involved.
>> While I agree with your general position, the threats and dangers
>> you
>> say are out there are - realistically - not out there. Robin Hood
>> may
>> lack ethics, but he's basically spot-on when he says that Adobe has
>> to
>> solve the problem or it won't be solved.
>
>I see. So it's the victim's responsibility.
Yes. It's the victim's responsibility to determine what can be done
to stop the problem. That may not be fair, but realistically, that's
the way it is.
>If someone breaks into
>your house and rapes your wife it's your fault because you didn't have
>good enough locks and failed to marry La Femme Nikita. Sorry, but
>saying that something is OK because the victim isn't putting what you
>consider to be enough effort into protecting against is is a crock.
>
>Software piracy is not OK, no matter who is doing it, and no matter
>how often they get away with it.
Look, if you want to comment on my comments, do me the courtesy of
reading what I wrote and respond in kind. I did not state or imply
that piracy is OK. My position is that piracy will continue unless
the trade itself determines a way to stop it. That's just a realistic
appraisal of the situation.
tony cooper
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-02-04 07:41:15 -0800, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
>>> probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
>>> reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
>>> money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
>>> climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
>>> all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!
>>>
>>> Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
>>> You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
>>> And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
>>> you away in irons.
>>
>> Let's be realistic about this, Mr Waddling. No individual is going to
>> be carted off in chains for pirating software if he or she is doing so
>> for personal use.
>
>That may change. Or people might just stop producing books and music
>and software and other intellectual property because they cannot afford
>to do it for free.
>
>The one thing software pirates do not understand is the fundamental law
>of economics: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything costs
>something -- even software piracy.
There is also a fundamental law of economics that products will
continue to be produced if there is a market for them and if there are
people willing to pay for the product. The fact that some don't pay
is offset by the fact that most do pay.
Don't make the mistake that Mr Clark seems to making: that I'm
supporting software piracy. I'm not. I'm making the case that
solutions to the problem must be developed by the software providers.
They've got to devise ways to keep one step ahead of the pirates or be
forced to accept that some won't pay.
It's illegal for someone to break into my car and steal my camera. I
have the law on my side in this, and they're willing to investigate
and prosecute. Still, I lock my car and I don't leave my camera in
plain sight when I'm not in my car. I'm not going to depend on
educating the public that theft is illegal, immoral, and otherwise
wrong.
C J Campbell
Oh, I understand what you are saying. And I agree with you that people
should protect themselves against thieves. But if a thief steals from
you, that is solely the responsibility of the thief. Blaming the victim
only goes so far.
The cost of protecting against thieves is an enormous burden on society
that we can really do without. I think you will agree that it is
particularly irritating to hear thieves rationalizing their behavior by
saying that the victim should have done more to protect his property.
C J Campbell
>
> About as possible as me being snowed in tomorrow. You're comments
> are, like Mr Waddling's, unrealistic. A civil suit is brought for two
> reasons: 1) a deterrent, or, 2) to obtain compensation. Bring a
> civil suit against the person who pirates software for individual use
> does not act as a deterrent to others. Bring a civil suit against the
> person who uses a crack to use Photoshop and you can get all he's
> worth: a skateboard, an MP3 player, and pocket change. Be realistic
> about the solutions.
And that is a real problem. One thing that petty thieves do not
understand is that sooner or later people get tired of being ripped off
by crooks who act with impunity. As J.R. Ewing once said, "Once your
ethics go, the rest is easy." The idea that the law offers no real
protection invites vigilantism.
C J Campbell
> Another good post and spot on!
>
> Robin
Really? So no one gets hurt if I counterfeit money?
C J Campbell
>> Copyright is Federal. "Local authorities" don't get involved. And
>> filing criminal charges is done by the Attorney General, not by the
>> software provider, so where is the cost for them?
>
> Just so you know, I am not from the U.S.
> Copyright laws are very different in my country than yours and the
> U.S. laws have very little affect on me. My country does not have a
> comprehensive copyright law as of yet. . What you may feel is illegal
> might not be the case in many other countries.
>
> Robin
While that is true, the fact that your country does not protect
intellectual property has a great deal of bearing on its relations with
other countries. Nations that are perceived as corrupt or harboring
criminals are likely to be subjected all kinds of sanctions ranging
from trade restrictions to war, depending on the seriousness of the
threat. Many countries regard North Korea's insistence on
counterfeiting their currencies to be as great a threat as their work
on nuclear weapons, for example.
tony cooper
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't see that I'm blaming the victim. Rather, I'm saying the onus
for halting the practice is on the victim because there is no viable
way to stop the thief.
That's the key of being realistic in this situation. If the software
people see that piracy cannot be controlled externally, then the
software people have to devise a way to control it themselves.
I am in favor of the software people taking the steps they feel that
are necessary to control their own problem. The alternative is to
involve the government, and then we'll have a "Piracy Czar", a level
of government enforcement that involves costing the taxpayers (most of
which are not involved) money, and a program that is just as
ineffective as the War on Drugs.
My state and city are cutting truly beneficial programs left and right
because of lack of funding. I don't want to see some other beneficial
program cut because we have to allocate money and personnel to hunting
down and prosecuting software pirates who are stealing programs for
their own personal use.