I would never, ever buy MATLAB. Ever. It's a piece of crap. In fact, I probably wouldn't take a home copy for free.
And, yeah, I have to say that textbooks are quite obscenely priced.
Well, I use it quite often for my classes. Some actually required me to use it, at which point I didn't feel like hanging out in the computer lab. Considering I've used it for at least three classes at this point, it was worth the money to me.
EDIT: And yes, textbooks in the US are overpriced. But still, $100 on a piece of software that will be used for multiple classes doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I'd like to see how reasonable you'd find it if you had to shell out exorbitant sums for tuition, books, software, and equipment, whilst also covering your living expenses and only being able to work part-time. Software represents, admittedly, only a small portion of a student's daily expenses, but it certainly doesn't help matters for anyone when it's expensive as fuck.
edit: now, I'm not saying the shit is overpriced. I'm well aware of the development costs of, and the relatively small market for, professional software like photoshop. I just think people need to lay the fuck off those who happen to engage in the occasional bittorrent download, and those people need to not talk about their illegal activities unless it's appropriate to do so. The first rule of breaking the law: don't fucking tell people that you're doing it.
Before anyone trundles out the theory that Adobe's business model includes massive piracy, I will point out that Photoshop's copy protection has become more strict with each version. They really do want you to give them money.
Apparently CS3's protection is supposed to be completely unbreakable.
THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN ISSUED!
I give it 3 months, tops.
I'm really going to get reamed for this but it's definitely not unbreakable.
I just tested it. I was able to download 1 copy with a legitimate s/n and everything. I deleted that one and downloaded another with a crack. Both worked perfectly.
I would never, ever buy MATLAB. Ever. It's a piece of crap. In fact, I probably wouldn't take a home copy for free.
And, yeah, I have to say that textbooks are quite obscenely priced.
Well, I use it quite often for my classes. Some actually required me to use it, at which point I didn't feel like hanging out in the computer lab. Considering I've used it for at least three classes at this point, it was worth the money to me.
EDIT: And yes, textbooks in the US are overpriced. But still, $100 on a piece of software that will be used for multiple classes doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I'd like to see how reasonable you'd find it if you had to shell out exorbitant sums for tuition, books, software, and equipment, whilst also covering your living expenses and only being able to work part-time. Software represents, admittedly, only a small portion of a student's daily expenses, but it certainly doesn't help matters for anyone when it's expensive as fuck.
Um, I may have my bills paid by Uncle Sam, but I had to get blown the fuck up to get that money...so it's not like I don't care when it's spent on stupid shit. And yeah, I pay for all of those things (still a student, dontchaknow). When you get down to it, I pay more in athletics fees (compulsory support for the local football team, or in other words extortion) every fucking year than I paid for my copy of MATLAB once. Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.
The Laffer curve is for tax revenue, you dimbulb. If you're going to try to justify software theft, at least get the terminology correct.
I am well aware of what the original context of the Laffer curve is. If you would have thought about what the Laffer curve actually meant, you would understand that.
The original Laffer curve showed that at a given point, taxes would become so high that the government would stand to lose tax revenue because people would not pay the high taxes. I was saying that photoshop is in the same boat. Since their product is priced so high, people who would buy it at a lower price end up pirating it.
Adobe probably knows this and has set the price right at the peak of the Laffer curve for its product revenue. They stand to make the most money by selling it to businesses at a high price rather than to the mass market at a low price. I am willing to bet that they aren't idiots and actually take piracy into account when deciding those prices. Essentially, their only competition is their own pirated software.
Yes, they're trying to protect their trademark, but then again they're seriously suggesting that you say "The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software." Yes, it would benefit them if everyone did it, but really it's just an obnoxious and condescending request. When someone says "don't call them legos, they're LEGO® brand building blocks" I want to deliver to them a brisk cockpunch. Companies aren't going to change the way I speak.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
My take on this is that there is no way I would have paid for photoshop in the first place, so I am not harming anyone by getting a pirate copy. I am not making any profit from using it, and only use it as a toy.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Adobe's customers are corporations and professionals, who see the software as an investment which will pay off in the end. They can easily justify the price, and couldn't get away with pirate copies.
Compare that with small game developers who's target audience is tech-savy students short on money, who pay for games mostly to encourage the gaming industry.
In college we had a site license with 15-ish license for Photoshop. When you fired it up it talked to a server somewhere to see how many were in use, and wouldn't start if all 15 were running.
Didn't take long for us to discover how to beat that: unplug network cable. Photoshop goes "oh, standalone mode." Reconnect network.
And I readily admit to pirating Photoshop back then. I studied graphical design. Of course I needed more time with Photoshop than what was available in school.
I am well aware of what the original context of the Laffer curve is. If you would have thought about what the Laffer curve actually meant, you would understand that.
The original Laffer curve showed that at a given point, taxes would become so high that the government would stand to lose tax revenue because people would not pay the high taxes. I was saying that photoshop is in the same boat. Since their product is priced so high, people who would buy it at a lower price end up pirating it.
Adobe probably knows this and has set the price right at the peak of the Laffer curve for its product revenue. They stand to make the most money by selling it to businesses at a high price rather than to the mass market at a low price. I am willing to bet that they aren't idiots and actually take piracy into account when deciding those prices. Essentially, their only competition is their own pirated software.
Yes, except that there's a name for what you're talking about, which is the profit curve. And the way it's computed is dramatically different from how you compute a theoretical Laffer curve. And the situation is further complicated by the fact that Photoshop may well be a Veblen good. And also, you've given no good reason to believe that they could increase revenue, much less profit, by selling PS at a lower price. Have you considered the possibility that someone much smarter than you - someone who knows the difference between a Laffer curve and a profit curve, for example - has performed this sort of analysis, and determined that $700 was the profit-maximizng price?
So yeah, I know what a Laffer curve is, and I know what you were trying to get at. I'm just trying to let you know that it was a silly statement to make.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I am well aware of what the original context of the Laffer curve is. If you would have thought about what the Laffer curve actually meant, you would understand that.
The original Laffer curve showed that at a given point, taxes would become so high that the government would stand to lose tax revenue because people would not pay the high taxes. I was saying that photoshop is in the same boat. Since their product is priced so high, people who would buy it at a lower price end up pirating it.
Adobe probably knows this and has set the price right at the peak of the Laffer curve for its product revenue. They stand to make the most money by selling it to businesses at a high price rather than to the mass market at a low price. I am willing to bet that they aren't idiots and actually take piracy into account when deciding those prices. Essentially, their only competition is their own pirated software.
Yes, except that there's a name for what you're talking about, which is the profit curve. And the way it's computed is dramatically different from how you compute a theoretical Laffer curve. And the situation is further complicated by the fact that Photoshop may well be a Veblen good. And also, you've given no good reason to believe that they could increase revenue, much less profit, by selling PS at a lower price. Have you considered the possibility that someone much smarter than you - someone who knows the difference between a Laffer curve and a profit curve, for example - has performed this sort of analysis, and determined that $700 was the profit-maximizng price?
So yeah, I know what a Laffer curve is, and I know what you were trying to get at. I'm just trying to let you know that it was a silly statement to make.
I may have not used the correct term, but to be fair it is the same concept.
And I never said they could increase revenue or profit by selling PS at a lower price, In fact I said "Adobe probably knows this and has set the price right at the peak of the Laffer curve for its product revenue. They stand to make the most money by selling it to businesses at a high price rather than to the mass market at a low price. I am willing to bet that they aren't idiots and actually take piracy into account when deciding those prices." which is exactly the same thing as "$700 was the profit-maximizng price".
I may have not used the correct term, but to be fair it is the same concept.
No, it's not. The Laffer curve isn't premised on the idea that people won't pay high taxes. The Laffer curve is premised on the idea that high taxes serve as a disincentive to work more, and wind up impeding the economy such that even if everyone paid all the taxes they owed, the government would realize less revenue.
Just... just stop talking about the Laffer curve now. It really is nothing like profit maximization, except in the sense that in each case, there's something being maximized.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I may have not used the correct term, but to be fair it is the same concept.
No, it's not. The Laffer curve isn't premised on the idea that people won't pay high taxes. The Laffer curve is premised on the idea that high taxes serve as a disincentive to work more, and wind up impeding the economy such that even if everyone paid all the taxes they owed, the government would realize less revenue.
Just... just stop talking about the Laffer curve now. It really is nothing like profit maximization, except in the sense that in each case, there's something being maximized.
Ah, well that just isn't how my economics professor described it. If that is the case then sorry, they really aren't analogous. He described it as a disincentive to actually pay the taxes rather than a disincentive to work, thus increasing tax evasion. He really wasn't a great professor though, him being wrong really shouldn't surprise me much.
My take on this is that there is no way I would have paid for photoshop in the first place, so I am not harming anyone by getting a pirate copy. I am not making any profit from using it, and only use it as a toy.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Thing is, you have absolutely no right to use that piece of software, no matter if you are directly harming Adobe or not.
Adobe has a right to control distribution and sales of its products. This is one of the fundamental principles of economics and is good for everyone for pretty obvious reasons. Therefore, you as a consumer have the right to use the product under the terms that the product owner chooses as long as those terms are legal. Adobe's terms are legal (I think we can all agree on that).
If you do not want to abide by their terms, then you should not use the product no matter what the reason. You are coming at this like you have a fundamental right to use anything you want as long as there is no "harm" to the producer in your estimation (this is the entitlement I spoke of earlier). You do not have that right and furthermore, you may be damaging Adobe indirectly (weakening of public respect for IP, if you use bittorrent than actually distributing pirated copies yourself, etc.).
Yes, they're trying to protect their trademark, but then again they're seriously suggesting that you say "The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software." Yes, it would benefit them if everyone did it, but really it's just an obnoxious and condescending request. When someone says "don't call them legos, they're LEGO® brand building blocks" I want to deliver to them a brisk cockpunch. Companies aren't going to change the way I speak.
To keep the trademark, they have to show that they are actively protecting it. This is just them covering their legal bases, not them trying to alter your speech
I first started using Adobe Photoshop at the age of 14 to make websites. I didn't know how much I'd enjoy making websites, I just knew that to have a go I'd need something slightly more advanced than MS Paint. If GIMP was available in those days, you certainly didn't find it being sold by some shady sod in the nearest car boot sale. With the joys of 56k, I doubt it would have been too possible for me to download it, either.
At this point, should I have spent the £500 required to buy Adobe Photoshop?
Over the next four years I got quite competent with Photoshop, making more websites and doing a spate of work experience for a web design company. I can imagine that without Photoshop that work experience would have been spent in a less-creative office somewhere. For two of these years, I made about £120 a month after expenses, bought a PC after a year's saving, and then had to start saving for University.
Is it at this point that I should have been expected to pay £500 for Photoshop?
Then, three years of debt-inducing University where my Photoshop use declined until the last year and I was using it to design the student magazine. They had their own copies on ancient, almost unusable eMacs. So, £12,000 in debt, should I have been expected to to find £500 for a copy of Photoshop?
Since leaving, I've used Photoshop and Dreamweaver (£350) to produce a new site that I want to launch in the next two weeks before going for a job hunt. When I get a professional job, thanks to the seven years of illegal Photoshopping that I've enjoyed that would never ever have happened had I been forced to pay for the software, I think that then, then I should be expected to find £500 for a copy of Photoshop.
I first started using Adobe Photoshop at the age of 14 to make websites. I didn't know how much I'd enjoy making websites, I just knew that to have a go I'd need something slightly more advanced than MS Paint. If GIMP was available in those days, you certainly didn't find it being sold by some shady sod in the nearest car boot sale. With the joys of 56k, I doubt it would have been too possible for me to download it, either.
At this point, should I have spent the £500 required to buy Adobe Photoshop?
Over the next four years I got quite competent with Photoshop, making more websites and doing a spate of work experience for a web design company. I can imagine that without Photoshop that work experience would have been spent in a less-creative office somewhere. For two of these years, I made about £120 a month after expenses, bought a PC after a year's saving, and then had to start saving for University.
Is it at this point that I should have been expected to pay £500 for Photoshop?
Then, three years of debt-inducing University where my Photoshop use declined until the last year and I was using it to design the student magazine. They had their own copies on ancient, almost unusable eMacs. So, £12,000 in debt, should I have been expected to to find £500 for a copy of Photoshop?
Since leaving, I've used Photoshop and Dreamweaver (£350) to produce a new site that I want to launch in the next two weeks before going for a job hunt. When I get a professional job, thanks to the seven years of illegal Photoshopping that I've enjoyed that would never ever have happened had I been forced to pay for the software, I think that then, then I should be expected to find £500 for a copy of Photoshop.
But not before.
Sorry if appeals to emotion aren't particularly convincing, at least to me. But in case you want a counterexample, consider the following:
In 8th grade I wanted to learn how to play guitar but I didn't own a guitar. I'd been a singer in bands but never an instrumentalist (studied classical piano, not really useful for rock) so I wanted to give it a shot.
So I did odd jobs in my neighborhood and saved every penny I got. I saved my $5 a week allowance and helped fix my friend's computers for $10. I didn't go out to dinner and a movie with my friends and instead convinced them (sometimes) to chill out at my place and watch a tape. I went over to a friend's house who owned some guitars and started learning on his. I woke up early during Christmas break to pet-sit and walk a neighbor's dog. I did pretty much everything I could think of to save money.
In less than a year, I scraped up more than $800 USD and bought myself a California Strat and Fender amp. Last year I founded an audio-video project with my best friend and recorded original songs at Monster Island in NYC and got Shawn Pelton (the drummer for SNL who has toured with Billy Joel, Sheryl Crow, and others) to play drums on one track.
I'm not any smarter or more resourceful than you and I'm not saying I'm any better than you either. But the fact remains that you could have done pretty much the same thing. You chose not to. It sucks that getting stuff that we want and even need is really, really hard sometimes. It doesn't change the right and wrong, though.
Well sorry, appeals to conscience aren't particularly convincing, at least to me. Especially when, and I know this argument holds no water with you but I don't think that excuses ignorance, there'd only be a correlation between our situations if you had the alternative of somehow physically copying an $800 guitar via a replicator ala Star Trek at not the expense of another person. But you didn't, and I did.
Your view stems from a sad belief in victimless crimes.
Well sorry, appeals to conscience aren't particularly convincing, at least to me. Especially when, and I know this argument holds no water with you but I don't think that excuses ignorance, there'd only be a correlation between our situations if you had the alternative of somehow physically copying an $800 guitar via a replicator ala Star Trek at not the expense of another person. But you didn't, and I did.
Your view stems from a sad belief in victimless crimes.
Its not victim less, your hurting the people who provide cheaper editing software by not buying their product.
Well sorry, appeals to conscience aren't particularly convincing, at least to me. Especially when, and I know this argument holds no water with you but I don't think that excuses ignorance, there'd only be a correlation between our situations if you had the alternative of somehow physically copying an $800 guitar via a replicator ala Star Trek at not the expense of another person. But you didn't, and I did.
Your view stems from a sad belief in victimless crimes.
Its not victim less, your hurting the people who provide cheaper editing software by not buying their product.
Actually, alright, that's quite a good point and one I'll concede. In this specific instance, it's slightly off-kilter: I have, as has any aspiring designer, needed to learn on Photoshop. The portfolio I'm making would be absolutely worthless without that keyword. The quality of the work would suffer dramatically without it too, as programs like Paint Shop Pro and the free GIMP really lack the quality of the 'shop.
A friend of mine bought a ds cartridge that takes an sd card. He downloads games and plays them for free. I could do the same but I'd feel guilty. My DS brings me a lot of joy. Long train rides would suck without it. I appreciate what i recieve and don't mind paying what I feel is a very reasonable price for it.
But I get the impression that the extent of my feelings on the matter are fairly rare.
No, generally on video-game forums people are pretty staunchly against game piracy. It just doesn't seem to extend to other fields..
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that among my friends I feel it is a rare outlook. I appreciate that on here people may share my feelings in so far as they relate to games.
My take on this is that there is no way I would have paid for photoshop in the first place, so I am not harming anyone by getting a pirate copy. I am not making any profit from using it, and only use it as a toy.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Thing is, you have absolutely no right to use that piece of software, no matter if you are directly harming Adobe or not.
I have no right to cross the street against the light. Technically, jaywalking is wrong. That doesn't mean that the amount of harm caused by jaywalking isn't negligible. Likewise, the amount of harm caused by a college student pirating a piece of software he can't afford and wouldn't buy anyway is negligible.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
To keep the trademark, they have to show that they are actively protecting it. This is just them covering their legal bases, not them trying to alter your speech
As I read it, the issues of abandonment (not using your trademark) and genericide (the public uses your trademark as a non-specific noun) are separate. Is there a case where a company would have lost their trademark due to genericide, but stopped it merely by the act of telling people not to refer to it that way?
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
My take on this is that there is no way I would have paid for photoshop in the first place, so I am not harming anyone by getting a pirate copy. I am not making any profit from using it, and only use it as a toy.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Thing is, you have absolutely no right to use that piece of software, no matter if you are directly harming Adobe or not.
Adobe has a right to control distribution and sales of its products. This is one of the fundamental principles of economics and is good for everyone for pretty obvious reasons. Therefore, you as a consumer have the right to use the product under the terms that the product owner chooses as long as those terms are legal. Adobe's terms are legal (I think we can all agree on that).
If you do not want to abide by their terms, then you should not use the product no matter what the reason. You are coming at this like you have a fundamental right to use anything you want as long as there is no "harm" to the producer in your estimation (this is the entitlement I spoke of earlier). You do not have that right and furthermore, you may be damaging Adobe indirectly (weakening of public respect for IP, if you use bittorrent than actually distributing pirated copies yourself, etc.).
You are totally right. I act as if I had the right to use Photoshop. I have grown up with little respect for intellectual properties laws, and evaluate my software purchases depending on who my money ends up supporting. I don't want to support Adobe, so I believe my money is better spent elsewhere.
My take on this is that there is no way I would have paid for photoshop in the first place, so I am not harming anyone by getting a pirate copy. I am not making any profit from using it, and only use it as a toy.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Thing is, you have absolutely no right to use that piece of software, no matter if you are directly harming Adobe or not.
I have no right to cross the street against the light. Technically, jaywalking is wrong. That doesn't mean that the amount of harm caused by jaywalking isn't negligible. Likewise, the amount of harm caused by a college student pirating a piece of software he can't afford and wouldn't buy anyway is negligible.
Right. Technically, a student pirating Photoshop so he can learn it when he otherwise honestly wouldn't be able to pay for it, and when it's critical to his career, is still wrong. It's just not the sort of wrong that anybody gets up in arms about because the damage is so minuscule. Like jaywalking.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You are totally right. I act as if I had the right to use Photoshop. I have grown up with little respect for intellectual properties laws, and evaluate my software purchases depending on who my money ends up supporting. I don't want to support Adobe, so I believe my money is better spent elsewhere.
If you don't want to support Adobe, then why are you using their software? Part of the problem, yadda yadda.
What you're really saying is that you have no good reason why your piracy should be acceptable, so you're just going to hide under the banner of "you can't control information, maaaaan," and steal everything you want because you're you and that makes you special.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My only issue is when people say, "Well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway" when they clearly would have. Games a pretty typical example. If you spend hundreds of dollars modding an Xbox and adding a huge hard drive so you can play pirated games on your plasma TV, you're a shitheel no matter what way you slice it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My only issue is when people say, "Well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway" when they clearly would have. Games a pretty typical example. If you spend hundreds of dollars modding an Xbox and adding a huge hard drive so you can play pirated games on your plasma TV, you're a shitheel no matter what way you slice it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My take on this is that there is no way I would have paid for photoshop in the first place, so I am not harming anyone by getting a pirate copy. I am not making any profit from using it, and only use it as a toy.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Thing is, you have absolutely no right to use that piece of software, no matter if you are directly harming Adobe or not.
I have no right to cross the street against the light. Technically, jaywalking is wrong. That doesn't mean that the amount of harm caused by jaywalking isn't negligible. Likewise, the amount of harm caused by a college student pirating a piece of software he can't afford and wouldn't buy anyway is negligible.
Right. Technically, a student pirating Photoshop so he can learn it when he otherwise honestly wouldn't be able to pay for it, and when it's critical to his career, is still wrong. It's just not the sort of wrong that anybody gets up in arms about because the damage is so minuscule. Like jaywalking.
Considering that a) I punch code for a living, b) I've bought software that I've needed for school, and c) I have, in fact, been ticketed for jaywalking (you would think the LAPD would have better things to do, but no...), I do not find this argument convincing.
It's part of a program they have where they provide the software you use for cheap: for 170$ CAD, you get a permanent copy of Windows XP and Office which you own, and they install lots of software like Matlab and Maple which are technically owned by the university, and which you are supposed to uninstall once you are out of the university.
I believe that is a good compromise between pirating the software and buying full-priced copies.
Over here (in Finland) similar deals through schools and universities are the norm. I get to download a lot of expensive software for free, the university pays for it all, or most of it. A friend of mine studies graphics design and had to pay 25 euros to get Photoshop on his home computer.
I have downloaded tons of games though, to try them out. My friends are either complete non-gamers, or else they don't have very diverse tastes (they play WoW), and demo versions generally don't tell me enough about a game, so I just go and download them. If I like the game, I buy it. I think I end up buying about 75% of the games I download.
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well sorry, appeals to conscience aren't particularly convincing, at least to me. Especially when, and I know this argument holds no water with you but I don't think that excuses ignorance, there'd only be a correlation between our situations if you had the alternative of somehow physically copying an $800 guitar via a replicator ala Star Trek at not the expense of another person. But you didn't, and I did.
Your view stems from a sad belief in victimless crimes.
Actually, "victimless" crimes is a misnomer. Common examples of victimless crimes are speeding tickets and jaywalking. It's not that they are "victimless," it's simply hard to pinpoint the exact victims. For example, if there were no enforcement of speed limits, accidents (and thus, injuries and fatalities) would increase. It would be impossible to pinpoint exactly which ones stemmed from the resulting lack of enforcement but they would still exist. Same with jaywalking; there are more pedestrian related accidents due to lack of enforcement. Same thing applies, however.
As one person already noted, pirating weakens public perception of the importance of IP. This is damage to companies selling products based on IP (or entirely IP). Just because you can't put your finger on the exact figures of such damage or exactly which sales are lost does not make these damages non-existent.
how do you guys feel about the legitimacy of downloading stuff like Windows, Photoshop, etc, when you've previously owned the software (the same version), and many, many other versions over the course of their career?
because often times, software will get lost around here... you know, we're talking huge software, all the big names, that cost hundreds of dollars to replace.
since we were once a legitimate customer, does it make it right? or just useful?
Xenocide Geek on
i wanted love, i needed love
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
how do you guys feel about the legitimacy of downloading stuff like Windows, Photoshop, etc, when you've previously owned the software (the same version), and many, many other versions over the course of their career?
because often times, software will get lost around here... you know, we're talking huge software, all the big names, that cost hundreds of dollars to replace.
since we were once a legitimate customer, does it make it right? or just useful?
First off, I highly recommend most people write down all their license keys in a safe place...at which point merely downloading the ISO of something like Windows really shouldn't be any big deal (since you're using your own key). In fact, most companies will provide replacement copies for either free or cheap. Just not, you know, keys.
Aside from that, I'd place this in the "ultimately harmless" category.
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
It'd be interesting to know how much of the "positive effects of piracy" software companies factor in. The creators of GalCiv2 practically encouraged illegal downloads, and the game was a huge commercial success. I for one downloaded it, played one game, and bought it.
It'd be interesting to know how much of the "positive effects of piracy" software companies factor in. The creators of GalCiv2 practically encouraged illegal downloads, and the game was a huge commercial success. I for one downloaded it, played one game, and bought it.
If piracy more commonly encouraged by game developers, it wouldn't have had nearly as much media coverage. Throw in some people's hatred Starforce and I'm skeptical as to how much of it was strictly based on being able to try the game at more or less no effort or risk.
how do you guys feel about the legitimacy of downloading stuff like Windows, Photoshop, etc, when you've previously owned the software (the same version), and many, many other versions over the course of their career?
because often times, software will get lost around here... you know, we're talking huge software, all the big names, that cost hundreds of dollars to replace.
since we were once a legitimate customer, does it make it right? or just useful?
Perfectly right in my books. Aren't we just buying the license for software anyway? By their own logic, downloading the actual code is rendered perfectly fine.
Posts
edit: now, I'm not saying the shit is overpriced. I'm well aware of the development costs of, and the relatively small market for, professional software like photoshop. I just think people need to lay the fuck off those who happen to engage in the occasional bittorrent download, and those people need to not talk about their illegal activities unless it's appropriate to do so. The first rule of breaking the law: don't fucking tell people that you're doing it.
I'm really going to get reamed for this but it's definitely not unbreakable.
I just tested it. I was able to download 1 copy with a legitimate s/n and everything. I deleted that one and downloaded another with a crack. Both worked perfectly.
Um, I may have my bills paid by Uncle Sam, but I had to get blown the fuck up to get that money...so it's not like I don't care when it's spent on stupid shit. And yeah, I pay for all of those things (still a student, dontchaknow). When you get down to it, I pay more in athletics fees (compulsory support for the local football team, or in other words extortion) every fucking year than I paid for my copy of MATLAB once. Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.
What the christ? It's bullshit like this which was the reason voluntary student unionism actually made sense.
Abstract, nebulous concepts of "right" and "wrong" just seem so bizarre to me.
I am well aware of what the original context of the Laffer curve is. If you would have thought about what the Laffer curve actually meant, you would understand that.
The original Laffer curve showed that at a given point, taxes would become so high that the government would stand to lose tax revenue because people would not pay the high taxes. I was saying that photoshop is in the same boat. Since their product is priced so high, people who would buy it at a lower price end up pirating it.
Adobe probably knows this and has set the price right at the peak of the Laffer curve for its product revenue. They stand to make the most money by selling it to businesses at a high price rather than to the mass market at a low price. I am willing to bet that they aren't idiots and actually take piracy into account when deciding those prices. Essentially, their only competition is their own pirated software.
Also, the product clearly isn't marketed for me, as a good portion of the price goes into support and various things I don't need. The product is meant for professionals and businesses.
Adobe's customers are corporations and professionals, who see the software as an investment which will pay off in the end. They can easily justify the price, and couldn't get away with pirate copies.
Compare that with small game developers who's target audience is tech-savy students short on money, who pay for games mostly to encourage the gaming industry.
Didn't take long for us to discover how to beat that: unplug network cable. Photoshop goes "oh, standalone mode." Reconnect network.
And I readily admit to pirating Photoshop back then. I studied graphical design. Of course I needed more time with Photoshop than what was available in school.
Yes, except that there's a name for what you're talking about, which is the profit curve. And the way it's computed is dramatically different from how you compute a theoretical Laffer curve. And the situation is further complicated by the fact that Photoshop may well be a Veblen good. And also, you've given no good reason to believe that they could increase revenue, much less profit, by selling PS at a lower price. Have you considered the possibility that someone much smarter than you - someone who knows the difference between a Laffer curve and a profit curve, for example - has performed this sort of analysis, and determined that $700 was the profit-maximizng price?
So yeah, I know what a Laffer curve is, and I know what you were trying to get at. I'm just trying to let you know that it was a silly statement to make.
I may have not used the correct term, but to be fair it is the same concept.
And I never said they could increase revenue or profit by selling PS at a lower price, In fact I said "Adobe probably knows this and has set the price right at the peak of the Laffer curve for its product revenue. They stand to make the most money by selling it to businesses at a high price rather than to the mass market at a low price. I am willing to bet that they aren't idiots and actually take piracy into account when deciding those prices." which is exactly the same thing as "$700 was the profit-maximizng price".
No, it's not. The Laffer curve isn't premised on the idea that people won't pay high taxes. The Laffer curve is premised on the idea that high taxes serve as a disincentive to work more, and wind up impeding the economy such that even if everyone paid all the taxes they owed, the government would realize less revenue.
Just... just stop talking about the Laffer curve now. It really is nothing like profit maximization, except in the sense that in each case, there's something being maximized.
Ah, well that just isn't how my economics professor described it. If that is the case then sorry, they really aren't analogous. He described it as a disincentive to actually pay the taxes rather than a disincentive to work, thus increasing tax evasion. He really wasn't a great professor though, him being wrong really shouldn't surprise me much.
Thing is, you have absolutely no right to use that piece of software, no matter if you are directly harming Adobe or not.
Adobe has a right to control distribution and sales of its products. This is one of the fundamental principles of economics and is good for everyone for pretty obvious reasons. Therefore, you as a consumer have the right to use the product under the terms that the product owner chooses as long as those terms are legal. Adobe's terms are legal (I think we can all agree on that).
If you do not want to abide by their terms, then you should not use the product no matter what the reason. You are coming at this like you have a fundamental right to use anything you want as long as there is no "harm" to the producer in your estimation (this is the entitlement I spoke of earlier). You do not have that right and furthermore, you may be damaging Adobe indirectly (weakening of public respect for IP, if you use bittorrent than actually distributing pirated copies yourself, etc.).
To keep the trademark, they have to show that they are actively protecting it. This is just them covering their legal bases, not them trying to alter your speech
At this point, should I have spent the £500 required to buy Adobe Photoshop?
Over the next four years I got quite competent with Photoshop, making more websites and doing a spate of work experience for a web design company. I can imagine that without Photoshop that work experience would have been spent in a less-creative office somewhere. For two of these years, I made about £120 a month after expenses, bought a PC after a year's saving, and then had to start saving for University.
Is it at this point that I should have been expected to pay £500 for Photoshop?
Then, three years of debt-inducing University where my Photoshop use declined until the last year and I was using it to design the student magazine. They had their own copies on ancient, almost unusable eMacs. So, £12,000 in debt, should I have been expected to to find £500 for a copy of Photoshop?
Since leaving, I've used Photoshop and Dreamweaver (£350) to produce a new site that I want to launch in the next two weeks before going for a job hunt. When I get a professional job, thanks to the seven years of illegal Photoshopping that I've enjoyed that would never ever have happened had I been forced to pay for the software, I think that then, then I should be expected to find £500 for a copy of Photoshop.
But not before.
Sorry if appeals to emotion aren't particularly convincing, at least to me. But in case you want a counterexample, consider the following:
In 8th grade I wanted to learn how to play guitar but I didn't own a guitar. I'd been a singer in bands but never an instrumentalist (studied classical piano, not really useful for rock) so I wanted to give it a shot.
So I did odd jobs in my neighborhood and saved every penny I got. I saved my $5 a week allowance and helped fix my friend's computers for $10. I didn't go out to dinner and a movie with my friends and instead convinced them (sometimes) to chill out at my place and watch a tape. I went over to a friend's house who owned some guitars and started learning on his. I woke up early during Christmas break to pet-sit and walk a neighbor's dog. I did pretty much everything I could think of to save money.
In less than a year, I scraped up more than $800 USD and bought myself a California Strat and Fender amp. Last year I founded an audio-video project with my best friend and recorded original songs at Monster Island in NYC and got Shawn Pelton (the drummer for SNL who has toured with Billy Joel, Sheryl Crow, and others) to play drums on one track.
I'm not any smarter or more resourceful than you and I'm not saying I'm any better than you either. But the fact remains that you could have done pretty much the same thing. You chose not to. It sucks that getting stuff that we want and even need is really, really hard sometimes. It doesn't change the right and wrong, though.
Your view stems from a sad belief in victimless crimes.
Its not victim less, your hurting the people who provide cheaper editing software by not buying their product.
Actually, alright, that's quite a good point and one I'll concede. In this specific instance, it's slightly off-kilter: I have, as has any aspiring designer, needed to learn on Photoshop. The portfolio I'm making would be absolutely worthless without that keyword. The quality of the work would suffer dramatically without it too, as programs like Paint Shop Pro and the free GIMP really lack the quality of the 'shop.
I have no right to cross the street against the light. Technically, jaywalking is wrong. That doesn't mean that the amount of harm caused by jaywalking isn't negligible. Likewise, the amount of harm caused by a college student pirating a piece of software he can't afford and wouldn't buy anyway is negligible.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
As I read it, the issues of abandonment (not using your trademark) and genericide (the public uses your trademark as a non-specific noun) are separate. Is there a case where a company would have lost their trademark due to genericide, but stopped it merely by the act of telling people not to refer to it that way?
You are totally right. I act as if I had the right to use Photoshop. I have grown up with little respect for intellectual properties laws, and evaluate my software purchases depending on who my money ends up supporting. I don't want to support Adobe, so I believe my money is better spent elsewhere.
Right. Technically, a student pirating Photoshop so he can learn it when he otherwise honestly wouldn't be able to pay for it, and when it's critical to his career, is still wrong. It's just not the sort of wrong that anybody gets up in arms about because the damage is so minuscule. Like jaywalking.
If you don't want to support Adobe, then why are you using their software? Part of the problem, yadda yadda.
What you're really saying is that you have no good reason why your piracy should be acceptable, so you're just going to hide under the banner of "you can't control information, maaaaan," and steal everything you want because you're you and that makes you special.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Considering that a) I punch code for a living, b) I've bought software that I've needed for school, and c) I have, in fact, been ticketed for jaywalking (you would think the LAPD would have better things to do, but no...), I do not find this argument convincing.
It's part of a program they have where they provide the software you use for cheap: for 170$ CAD, you get a permanent copy of Windows XP and Office which you own, and they install lots of software like Matlab and Maple which are technically owned by the university, and which you are supposed to uninstall once you are out of the university.
I believe that is a good compromise between pirating the software and buying full-priced copies.
I have downloaded tons of games though, to try them out. My friends are either complete non-gamers, or else they don't have very diverse tastes (they play WoW), and demo versions generally don't tell me enough about a game, so I just go and download them. If I like the game, I buy it. I think I end up buying about 75% of the games I download.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Actually, "victimless" crimes is a misnomer. Common examples of victimless crimes are speeding tickets and jaywalking. It's not that they are "victimless," it's simply hard to pinpoint the exact victims. For example, if there were no enforcement of speed limits, accidents (and thus, injuries and fatalities) would increase. It would be impossible to pinpoint exactly which ones stemmed from the resulting lack of enforcement but they would still exist. Same with jaywalking; there are more pedestrian related accidents due to lack of enforcement. Same thing applies, however.
As one person already noted, pirating weakens public perception of the importance of IP. This is damage to companies selling products based on IP (or entirely IP). Just because you can't put your finger on the exact figures of such damage or exactly which sales are lost does not make these damages non-existent.
because often times, software will get lost around here... you know, we're talking huge software, all the big names, that cost hundreds of dollars to replace.
since we were once a legitimate customer, does it make it right? or just useful?
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
First off, I highly recommend most people write down all their license keys in a safe place...at which point merely downloading the ISO of something like Windows really shouldn't be any big deal (since you're using your own key). In fact, most companies will provide replacement copies for either free or cheap. Just not, you know, keys.
Aside from that, I'd place this in the "ultimately harmless" category.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
You too? ;-)
Perfectly right in my books. Aren't we just buying the license for software anyway? By their own logic, downloading the actual code is rendered perfectly fine.