Why would you buy a Volvo instead of getting a free stolen one?
1) Because it is illegal
2) Because Volvo loses a potential sale, which if enough people did the same thing, Volvo would quit making cars, and there would eventually not be any Volvos avaliable to steal OR buy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that doesn't apply to an app like Photoshop for you? Weird. If stealing a Volvo was as easy as stealing Photoshop, I bet you would steal one.
But that doesn't apply to an app like Photoshop for you? Weird. If stealing a Volvo was as easy as stealing Photoshop, I bet you would steal one. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not. And I absolutely wouldn't. Adobe is not losing a potential sale. Nor are they losing capital. Adobe only loses money if they lose a potential sale. If people are honest about whether or not they would purchase the product dispite being able to get it free, and purchase it if the answer is YES (or even mabye), then Adobe shouldn't lose any Photoshop sales.
Is it still legal? No.
Is it ethical? Debatable if there truly isn't a victim.
Is it a slippery slope to a very bad practice? Yes.
I would say over 99.999% of my on my computer is spent using legit software. Better than most I'd bet. I use my un-ethical version of photoshop around once every 4-6 months for a few hours.
I have updated OS X both my desktop and laptop using only one legit license. But that has now changed since I happily ordered the Family Pack! What a great thing!
I agree, that if I was a potential Adobe Photoshop customer, they would be losing a potential Photoshop sale. But I'm not, so they aren't.
Hey, I say I buy a family pack and we split the costs for 10.2 and we all pay 40 bucks for our licensed OS... would that be legal? I mean, you guys can be my family! My apple family...
But that doesn't apply to an app like Photoshop for you? Weird. If stealing a Volvo was as easy as stealing Photoshop, I bet you would steal one. <hr></blockquote>
Personally, I would steal a BMW or a Porsche before a Volvo. Uh... hypothetically speaking, of course.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you is generally stealing, unless you're a government.
Violating the EULA isn't always stealing per se, but it is breaking the agreement, and therefore in some cases, the law.
Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether anyone sees you or not. You can't pick and choose which laws you like or don't like. If you don't like a law, buy a congressman/local official to change it like everybody else does.
Now, has anyone noticed this family licensing outside of North America?
They did lose money. You stole something worth a certain amount of money. This money was supposed go towards recouping their initial costs. If the world worked the way you pretend it works, there's be no industry.
You were never going to pay for <insert item> anyway. <insert company> can't lose money it never had!
When did I steal something? I never said I pirated 10.2 and thought it was OK.
I know what you mean, but I think its wrong to say that Apple looses money when people pirate their software since they never had the money in first place.
I just thought that 'lose' was the wrong word to use, I would call it a 'non existent' loss.
I can't figure out the correct english word, but I hope you understand what I mean.
When did I steal something? I never said I pirated 10.2 and thought it was OK.
I know what you mean, but I think its wrong to say that Apple looses money when people pirate their software since they never had the money in first place.
I just thought that 'lose' was the wrong word to use, I would call it a 'non existent' loss.
I can't figure out the correct english word, but I hope you understand what I mean.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm using the past tense in a general sense, not damning you specifically.
Besides, when you say "since they never had the money in first place," do you ever stop to think how ridiculous that statement is? When you take something without paying, of course the company never had that money in the first place!
When I steal (take without paying for) (break a contractual agreement that requires me to pay for) anything from any company, that company doesn't get my money! If I can steal <whatever>, that company that offers <whatever> would have never gotten my money anyway! Somebody call Spielberg so they can make a movie out of this paradox!
Capitialism with pro-competition regulations - whoever can produce the most conveniently avaiable and priced good gets the sale. Anyone can start up a business. There is no such thing as piracy, as PIRACY IS IN NO F***ING WAY STEALING! "Piracy" is starting up a more effecient service than mega-corperations. Some might argue that in this system nothing is developed as there is no incentive to spend R&D dollars.
Capitalism with Intellectual Property - They are ants Michael, THEY ARE ANTS! (BillG on Family Guy). Corperations charge trillions a year in a patent and copyright merry-go-round. This results in a preservation of the establishment. Piracy can land you in jail, because after the Cold War people just feel so f***ing strongly that their ideology has to be preserved, that politicians are bribed and the billionaires of the world are power hungry (arn't we all?).
Pure Socialism doesn't work. Well, it's supposed to work buy having the government controlling all, with people doing their job. This may result in equity, but the loss in effeciency (as seen in Russia in the 1980s) is far to great to sustain a modern economy.
And then there is Isaac Asimov proposing an end to the Cold War by having humanity controlled by 4 omnipresent machines.
Why would I be a potential paying Volvo customer if I could steal a Volvo?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, many people are... Just look at all the Volvos sold. Many people, including myself, purchase software even though we could get it for free via pirating. It sounds as if you also might be a customer that pays for their software even if you have the technical means of getting it free. Why do you do this? Because it is the right thing to do, most likely.
Do you not comprehend what I'm saying? Imagine a world where it is impossible to pirate software. There would still be some people that WOULD purchase and use photoshop, and there are those that would not purchase and use photoshop. Let's say that percentage is 5.000%.
Now imagine that pirating is introduced into this world. However, those in the 5.000% still all purchase photoshop. Only those in the 95.000% group pirate it. Photoshop did not lose any sales. Adobe makes as much money as they did before. Clearly, if some of the 95.000% change their mind and would purchase it IF they couldn't copy it.... they would need to purchase it to prevent Adobe from losing money.
The fact that you find it hard to believe that somebody would pay for software that they could get for free (illegally), confuses me. It seems that you would be one of these persons, yet you ask, "Why would I be a potential paying Volvo customer if I could steal a Volvo?" Isn't the answer obvious? Because it is the right thing to do.
Again, if penny-less, homeless bums were to pirate Adobe Photoshop, would Adobe see their sales drop? Answer: No. Pennyless bums are not potential adobe customers. NOT because they can pirate it, but because they are unwilling to spend their beer money on Photoshop. If they happen to acquire a copy of photoshop, Adobe wouldn't have lost a dime.
Again, if penny-less, homeless bums were to pirate Adobe Photoshop, would Adobe see their sales drop? Answer: No. Pennyless bums are not potential adobe customers. NOT because they can pirate it, but because they are unwilling to spend their beer money on Photoshop. If they happen to acquire a copy of photoshop, Adobe wouldn't have lost a dime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To counter-example:
Now a graphic artist is another story. Likely a graphic artist would be will to pay the $900 for photoshop *IF* they had no way of getting it cheaper. In other words, though they would not like the idea, they would actually purchase it, if they had no other means of getting it. Therefore they are a potential Adobe customer. If THEY were to copy photoshop, Adobe WOULD be losing $900, because they would be losing a potential sale.
Now why would the graphic artist pay for Photoshop even if they could get it for free? Why is the graphic artist a STILL a potential customer even though they could pirate PHotoshop. Answer: Because it is the right thing to do. They (like myself) know that they rely on the development of the product for their needs (whether they be entertainment or business).
Believe me... I hated the idea of paying Microsoft $260.00 x 2 = $520.00 to upgrade two machines to Office v.X. At the time that I ordered both copies, I had 2 working pirated versions running on my two macs with two illegal serial numbers. Both pirated copies run fine, and now I have two unopened Office v.X boxes sitting on my shelf. Truth be told, one of the boxes is opened (I was curious of the contents).
Some people call me a chump for giving microsoft my money win I could have used the pirated copies for free. However, I honestly asked myself if I would fork over the $520.00 IF I didn't have access to the pirated copies. The answer was, "yes"... So, I ordered both copies. It was difficult to do, and that is why I call my methods a dangerous slippery slope.
However, I have no difficulty giving Apple my money... Microsoft was harder to swallow, but I knew I had to do it, because it was the right thing to do.
I haven't paid for photoshop, because the answer is without a doubt, "NO" I wouldn't pay $900 for Photoshop... Heck, when I reformatt it is months and months before I even bother installing it... and even then I don't use it much at all. However, I have purchased GraphicConverter for two machines and even sent them some extra money (which I often do when buying cheap shareware).
Not to sound too uppidy, but I feel like I have pretty good software ethics... especially when compared to the majority of other people.
Back on the discussion of Apple v MS licensing....
Apple is primarily a hardware company. True, they spend a lot of money on software development (more than $129/install of Mac OS X actually), but that expense is focused on _selling_hardware_.
The entire XServe + Family Pack line of thinking is to twist a knife in a spot MS can't defend. MS is a software company. No software company (even with $40B in the bank) can give away their core assets for very long.
I think Apple is better served by keeping the price of Mac OS X down, and letting the comparisons do the talking. Yes, the software division might be able to make more profit by raising the price. I'm not sure that would lead to a net profit _for_Apple_. It might decrease the number of switchers - some of whom are switching BECAUSE they love MS soooo much. It also causes a wider spread across OS versions. Why is it again that MS is trying to force people off of Doz98... 4 YEARS after introduction? Less spread = less overhead for the customer service folk -> lower TCO.
I'm using the past tense in a general sense, not damning you specifically.
Besides, when you say "since they never had the money in first place," do you ever stop to think how ridiculous that statement is? When you take something without paying, of course the company never had that money in the first place!
When I steal (take without paying for) (break a contractual agreement that requires me to pay for) anything from any company, that company doesn't get my money! If I can steal <whatever>, that company that offers <whatever> would have never gotten my money anyway! Somebody call Spielberg so they can make a movie out of this paradox!
Use your head.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't seem to get my point, so I give up, you win.
Anyway, downloading pirated software is bad, Apple is worth the money since OSX is a great OS. And if too many people start to download Apple's commerical software they will be forced to implent some annoying CD-key authorization to OSX.
Again, if penny-less, homeless bums were to pirate Adobe Photoshop, would Adobe see their sales drop? Answer: No. Pennyless bums are not potential adobe customers. NOT because they can pirate it, but because they are unwilling to spend their beer money on Photoshop. If they happen to acquire a copy of photoshop, Adobe wouldn't have lost a dime. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then a penniless bum wouldn't steal it in the first place. But people who do steal it do use it. And if you use it, you are a potential customer and you should pay for it. Why should I pay $600 while you or somebody else downloads it for free? It doesn't matter how much he uses it. That's not how the contract works. If he uses it only for the features replicable in Graphic Converter or Photoshop Elements, why shouldn't that person just buy that instead? Why should I be paying extra for somebody else to use Photoshop 7.0 for free? This is basically what I'm doing, right? I feel like a victim in this supposedly victimless crime scenario.
The ONLY upgrades are those for ppl who buy a new computer or OS after the next version has been announced. The upgrade is sent to you when it is ready.
$100 buys you an "individual" license to install on all personal computers which you own.
$150 buys you a "Mac OS X with .Mac" license, valid until 3 months after the release of the next Mac OS X version
$80 buys you a single computer license for com/edu customers
$300 buys you a 5 computer com/edu license
$800 buys you a 20 computer com/edu license
$2000 buys you a 100 computer com/edu license
Obviously these figures are just examples, I just wish they would simplify everything like above.
Barto: Apple would have to implent a CD-key authorization for that to 'work'. I don't know, but how many people would be honest and buy a 100-computers license for $2000 when they can buy a 1-computer licence for $100 (and it works as good as the 100-computers licence).
Then a penniless bum wouldn't steal it in the first place. But people who do steal it do use it. And if you use it, you are a potential customer and you should pay for it. Why should I pay $600 while you or somebody else downloads it for free? It doesn't matter how much he uses it. That's not how the contract works. If he uses it only for the features replicable in Graphic Converter or Photoshop Elements, why shouldn't that person just buy that instead? Why should I be paying extra for somebody else to use Photoshop 7.0 for free? This is basically what I'm doing, right? I feel like a victim in this supposedly victimless crime scenario.
Well, let's just say that the pennyless bum wanted to make a "Will Work for Food" poster. But that's it. Use it only once.
And you still don't get the financial angle. You aren't paying extra. If Adobe isn't losing any sales due to piracy you would not be paying extra. IF Adobe is losing sales due to piracy then there are lots of victims. You are a victim and Adobe is a victim, and believe it or not the person pirating ends up suffering as well.
The fact is Adobe does lose sales due to piracy and so you are a victim.
There is no doubt that your stance is valid. My original point has always been that if a person uses ethics, one can still pirate and minimize the negative effects of doing so (almost to the point of there not being a victim). I'm not claiming that this is good. I'm just stating that piracy is very different than stealing a volvo.
Your point about buying other software, such as GraphicConverter and PHotoElements is a very good point. And to tell you the truth, I really should buy PhotoElements now that mention it. Because the likely victims of Piracy isn't the company or product that gets pirated, but competing products that are cheaper and offer a little less feature that people would buy IF they didn't pirate the professional version.
Graphic Converter suffers from Photoshop piracy probably as much as Adobe does. I think it is very very wrong for someone to pirate a product they would normally buy.
And if you use it, you are a potential customer and you should pay for it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. I can use photoshop and still not be a potential customer. And the reason I'm not a potential customer is NOT becuase I can pirate it, it is because it is not even close to being worth $600 to me. Yes, the product is worth $600 to many people, but not me. Just as much as someone could drive a rollsroyce and not be a potential RR customer.
Not true. I can use photoshop and still not be a potential customer. And the reason I'm not a potential customer is NOT becuase I can pirate it, it is because it is not even close to being worth $600 to me. Yes, the product is worth $600 to many people, but not me. Just as much as someone could drive a rollsroyce and not be a potential RR customer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pirated use of Photoshop by people who think like you drives up the price. There is no question about it. You're not paying for your piece of the pie and I have to pay extra. Of course I don't understand the your financial rationale. Your the one getting the free ride and I'm the one getting gypped!
Pirated use of Photoshop by people who think like you drives up the price. There is no question about it. You're not paying for your piece of the pie and I have to pay extra. Of course I don't understand the your financial rationale. Your the one getting the free ride and I'm the one getting gypped!
There is a question about it. I say that people who think like me don't drive up the price of Photoshop. It is only those who pirate Photoshop INSTEAD of buying it who drive up the price. Now, I could potentially be driving up the price of Graphic Converter or Photo Elements by pirating Photoshop (since those products WOULD be products that I might buy). However, I have purchased graphic converter 4 times, so that's not even true.
I have purchased Mathematica Professional ($1499). I promise you, if my grandma were to pirate it and use it for her calculator to add up her domino scores (even if every grandma in the world did this) it wouldn't change the price of mathematica, because none of them were potential customers. DO they need mathematica....? Not really. That doesn't make it impossible for them to use it to add up domino scores. That's about how I use photoshop.
Comments
<strong>
Why would you buy a Volvo instead of getting a free stolen one?
1) Because it is illegal
2) Because Volvo loses a potential sale, which if enough people did the same thing, Volvo would quit making cars, and there would eventually not be any Volvos avaliable to steal OR buy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that doesn't apply to an app like Photoshop for you? Weird. If stealing a Volvo was as easy as stealing Photoshop, I bet you would steal one.
<strong>
But that doesn't apply to an app like Photoshop for you? Weird. If stealing a Volvo was as easy as stealing Photoshop, I bet you would steal one.
Absolutely not. And I absolutely wouldn't. Adobe is not losing a potential sale. Nor are they losing capital. Adobe only loses money if they lose a potential sale. If people are honest about whether or not they would purchase the product dispite being able to get it free, and purchase it if the answer is YES (or even mabye), then Adobe shouldn't lose any Photoshop sales.
Is it still legal? No.
Is it ethical? Debatable if there truly isn't a victim.
Is it a slippery slope to a very bad practice? Yes.
I would say over 99.999% of my on my computer is spent using legit software. Better than most I'd bet. I use my un-ethical version of photoshop around once every 4-6 months for a few hours.
I have updated OS X both my desktop and laptop using only one legit license. But that has now changed since I happily ordered the Family Pack! What a great thing!
I agree, that if I was a potential Adobe Photoshop customer, they would be losing a potential Photoshop sale. But I'm not, so they aren't.
However,
<strong>
I agree, that if I was a potential Adobe Photoshop customer, they would be losing a potential Photoshop sale. But I'm not, so they aren't.
However,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would I be a potential paying Volvo customer if I could steal a Volvo?
But that doesn't apply to an app like Photoshop for you? Weird. If stealing a Volvo was as easy as stealing Photoshop, I bet you would steal one.
Personally, I would steal a BMW or a Porsche before a Volvo. Uh... hypothetically speaking, of course.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you is generally stealing, unless you're a government.
Violating the EULA isn't always stealing per se, but it is breaking the agreement, and therefore in some cases, the law.
Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether anyone sees you or not. You can't pick and choose which laws you like or don't like. If you don't like a law, buy a congressman/local official to change it like everybody else does.
Now, has anyone noticed this family licensing outside of North America?
<strong>
They did lose money. You stole something worth a certain amount of money. This money was supposed go towards recouping their initial costs. If the world worked the way you pretend it works, there's be no industry.
You were never going to pay for <insert item> anyway. <insert company> can't lose money it never had!
[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I steal something? I never said I pirated 10.2 and thought it was OK.
I know what you mean, but I think its wrong to say that Apple looses money when people pirate their software since they never had the money in first place.
I just thought that 'lose' was the wrong word to use, I would call it a 'non existent' loss.
I can't figure out the correct english word, but I hope you understand what I mean.
<strong>
When did I steal something? I never said I pirated 10.2 and thought it was OK.
I know what you mean, but I think its wrong to say that Apple looses money when people pirate their software since they never had the money in first place.
I just thought that 'lose' was the wrong word to use, I would call it a 'non existent' loss.
I can't figure out the correct english word, but I hope you understand what I mean.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm using the past tense in a general sense, not damning you specifically.
Besides, when you say "since they never had the money in first place," do you ever stop to think how ridiculous that statement is? When you take something without paying, of course the company never had that money in the first place!
When I steal (take without paying for) (break a contractual agreement that requires me to pay for) anything from any company, that company doesn't get my money! If I can steal <whatever>, that company that offers <whatever> would have never gotten my money anyway! Somebody call Spielberg so they can make a movie out of this paradox!
Use your head.
<strong>Now, has anyone noticed this family licensing outside of North America?</strong><hr></blockquote>
here in switzerland, no.
How economic systems work in practice:
Capitialism with pro-competition regulations - whoever can produce the most conveniently avaiable and priced good gets the sale. Anyone can start up a business. There is no such thing as piracy, as PIRACY IS IN NO F***ING WAY STEALING! "Piracy" is starting up a more effecient service than mega-corperations. Some might argue that in this system nothing is developed as there is no incentive to spend R&D dollars.
Capitalism with Intellectual Property - They are ants Michael, THEY ARE ANTS! (BillG on Family Guy). Corperations charge trillions a year in a patent and copyright merry-go-round. This results in a preservation of the establishment. Piracy can land you in jail, because after the Cold War people just feel so f***ing strongly that their ideology has to be preserved, that politicians are bribed and the billionaires of the world are power hungry (arn't we all?).
Pure Socialism doesn't work. Well, it's supposed to work buy having the government controlling all, with people doing their job. This may result in equity, but the loss in effeciency (as seen in Russia in the 1980s) is far to great to sustain a modern economy.
And then there is Isaac Asimov proposing an end to the Cold War by having humanity controlled by 4 omnipresent machines.
Barto
<strong>
Why would I be a potential paying Volvo customer if I could steal a Volvo?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, many people are... Just look at all the Volvos sold. Many people, including myself, purchase software even though we could get it for free via pirating. It sounds as if you also might be a customer that pays for their software even if you have the technical means of getting it free. Why do you do this? Because it is the right thing to do, most likely.
Do you not comprehend what I'm saying? Imagine a world where it is impossible to pirate software. There would still be some people that WOULD purchase and use photoshop, and there are those that would not purchase and use photoshop. Let's say that percentage is 5.000%.
Now imagine that pirating is introduced into this world. However, those in the 5.000% still all purchase photoshop. Only those in the 95.000% group pirate it. Photoshop did not lose any sales. Adobe makes as much money as they did before. Clearly, if some of the 95.000% change their mind and would purchase it IF they couldn't copy it.... they would need to purchase it to prevent Adobe from losing money.
The fact that you find it hard to believe that somebody would pay for software that they could get for free (illegally), confuses me. It seems that you would be one of these persons, yet you ask, "Why would I be a potential paying Volvo customer if I could steal a Volvo?" Isn't the answer obvious? Because it is the right thing to do.
Again, if penny-less, homeless bums were to pirate Adobe Photoshop, would Adobe see their sales drop? Answer: No. Pennyless bums are not potential adobe customers. NOT because they can pirate it, but because they are unwilling to spend their beer money on Photoshop. If they happen to acquire a copy of photoshop, Adobe wouldn't have lost a dime.
<strong>
Again, if penny-less, homeless bums were to pirate Adobe Photoshop, would Adobe see their sales drop? Answer: No. Pennyless bums are not potential adobe customers. NOT because they can pirate it, but because they are unwilling to spend their beer money on Photoshop. If they happen to acquire a copy of photoshop, Adobe wouldn't have lost a dime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To counter-example:
Now a graphic artist is another story. Likely a graphic artist would be will to pay the $900 for photoshop *IF* they had no way of getting it cheaper. In other words, though they would not like the idea, they would actually purchase it, if they had no other means of getting it. Therefore they are a potential Adobe customer. If THEY were to copy photoshop, Adobe WOULD be losing $900, because they would be losing a potential sale.
Now why would the graphic artist pay for Photoshop even if they could get it for free? Why is the graphic artist a STILL a potential customer even though they could pirate PHotoshop. Answer: Because it is the right thing to do. They (like myself) know that they rely on the development of the product for their needs (whether they be entertainment or business).
Believe me... I hated the idea of paying Microsoft $260.00 x 2 = $520.00 to upgrade two machines to Office v.X. At the time that I ordered both copies, I had 2 working pirated versions running on my two macs with two illegal serial numbers. Both pirated copies run fine, and now I have two unopened Office v.X boxes sitting on my shelf. Truth be told, one of the boxes is opened (I was curious of the contents).
Some people call me a chump for giving microsoft my money win I could have used the pirated copies for free. However, I honestly asked myself if I would fork over the $520.00 IF I didn't have access to the pirated copies. The answer was, "yes"... So, I ordered both copies. It was difficult to do, and that is why I call my methods a dangerous slippery slope.
However, I have no difficulty giving Apple my money... Microsoft was harder to swallow, but I knew I had to do it, because it was the right thing to do.
I haven't paid for photoshop, because the answer is without a doubt, "NO" I wouldn't pay $900 for Photoshop... Heck, when I reformatt it is months and months before I even bother installing it... and even then I don't use it much at all. However, I have purchased GraphicConverter for two machines and even sent them some extra money (which I often do when buying cheap shareware).
Not to sound too uppidy, but I feel like I have pretty good software ethics... especially when compared to the majority of other people.
Apple is primarily a hardware company. True, they spend a lot of money on software development (more than $129/install of Mac OS X actually), but that expense is focused on _selling_hardware_.
The entire XServe + Family Pack line of thinking is to twist a knife in a spot MS can't defend. MS is a software company. No software company (even with $40B in the bank) can give away their core assets for very long.
I think Apple is better served by keeping the price of Mac OS X down, and letting the comparisons do the talking. Yes, the software division might be able to make more profit by raising the price. I'm not sure that would lead to a net profit _for_Apple_. It might decrease the number of switchers - some of whom are switching BECAUSE they love MS soooo much. It also causes a wider spread across OS versions. Why is it again that MS is trying to force people off of Doz98... 4 YEARS after introduction? Less spread = less overhead for the customer service folk -> lower TCO.
<strong>
I'm using the past tense in a general sense, not damning you specifically.
Besides, when you say "since they never had the money in first place," do you ever stop to think how ridiculous that statement is? When you take something without paying, of course the company never had that money in the first place!
When I steal (take without paying for) (break a contractual agreement that requires me to pay for) anything from any company, that company doesn't get my money! If I can steal <whatever>, that company that offers <whatever> would have never gotten my money anyway! Somebody call Spielberg so they can make a movie out of this paradox!
Use your head.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't seem to get my point, so I give up, you win.
Anyway, downloading pirated software is bad, Apple is worth the money since OSX is a great OS. And if too many people start to download Apple's commerical software they will be forced to implent some annoying CD-key authorization to OSX.
<strong>
Again, if penny-less, homeless bums were to pirate Adobe Photoshop, would Adobe see their sales drop? Answer: No. Pennyless bums are not potential adobe customers. NOT because they can pirate it, but because they are unwilling to spend their beer money on Photoshop. If they happen to acquire a copy of photoshop, Adobe wouldn't have lost a dime. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then a penniless bum wouldn't steal it in the first place. But people who do steal it do use it. And if you use it, you are a potential customer and you should pay for it. Why should I pay $600 while you or somebody else downloads it for free? It doesn't matter how much he uses it. That's not how the contract works. If he uses it only for the features replicable in Graphic Converter or Photoshop Elements, why shouldn't that person just buy that instead? Why should I be paying extra for somebody else to use Photoshop 7.0 for free? This is basically what I'm doing, right? I feel like a victim in this supposedly victimless crime scenario.
[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
The ONLY upgrades are those for ppl who buy a new computer or OS after the next version has been announced. The upgrade is sent to you when it is ready.
$100 buys you an "individual" license to install on all personal computers which you own.
$150 buys you a "Mac OS X with .Mac" license, valid until 3 months after the release of the next Mac OS X version
$80 buys you a single computer license for com/edu customers
$300 buys you a 5 computer com/edu license
$800 buys you a 20 computer com/edu license
$2000 buys you a 100 computer com/edu license
Obviously these figures are just examples, I just wish they would simplify everything like above.
Barto
Sure some big companies would, but still..
And do we want to mess with CD-keys?
[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Fobie ]</p>
<strong>
Then a penniless bum wouldn't steal it in the first place. But people who do steal it do use it. And if you use it, you are a potential customer and you should pay for it. Why should I pay $600 while you or somebody else downloads it for free? It doesn't matter how much he uses it. That's not how the contract works. If he uses it only for the features replicable in Graphic Converter or Photoshop Elements, why shouldn't that person just buy that instead? Why should I be paying extra for somebody else to use Photoshop 7.0 for free? This is basically what I'm doing, right? I feel like a victim in this supposedly victimless crime scenario.
[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's just say that the pennyless bum wanted to make a "Will Work for Food" poster. But that's it. Use it only once.
And you still don't get the financial angle. You aren't paying extra. If Adobe isn't losing any sales due to piracy you would not be paying extra. IF Adobe is losing sales due to piracy then there are lots of victims. You are a victim and Adobe is a victim, and believe it or not the person pirating ends up suffering as well.
The fact is Adobe does lose sales due to piracy and so you are a victim.
There is no doubt that your stance is valid. My original point has always been that if a person uses ethics, one can still pirate and minimize the negative effects of doing so (almost to the point of there not being a victim). I'm not claiming that this is good. I'm just stating that piracy is very different than stealing a volvo.
Your point about buying other software, such as GraphicConverter and PHotoElements is a very good point. And to tell you the truth, I really should buy PhotoElements now that mention it. Because the likely victims of Piracy isn't the company or product that gets pirated, but competing products that are cheaper and offer a little less feature that people would buy IF they didn't pirate the professional version.
Graphic Converter suffers from Photoshop piracy probably as much as Adobe does. I think it is very very wrong for someone to pirate a product they would normally buy.
<strong>
And if you use it, you are a potential customer and you should pay for it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. I can use photoshop and still not be a potential customer. And the reason I'm not a potential customer is NOT becuase I can pirate it, it is because it is not even close to being worth $600 to me. Yes, the product is worth $600 to many people, but not me. Just as much as someone could drive a rollsroyce and not be a potential RR customer.
<strong>
Not true. I can use photoshop and still not be a potential customer. And the reason I'm not a potential customer is NOT becuase I can pirate it, it is because it is not even close to being worth $600 to me. Yes, the product is worth $600 to many people, but not me. Just as much as someone could drive a rollsroyce and not be a potential RR customer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pirated use of Photoshop by people who think like you drives up the price. There is no question about it. You're not paying for your piece of the pie and I have to pay extra. Of course I don't understand the your financial rationale. Your the one getting the free ride and I'm the one getting gypped!
[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
Pirated use of Photoshop by people who think like you drives up the price. There is no question about it. You're not paying for your piece of the pie and I have to pay extra. Of course I don't understand the your financial rationale. Your the one getting the free ride and I'm the one getting gypped!
[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a question about it. I say that people who think like me don't drive up the price of Photoshop. It is only those who pirate Photoshop INSTEAD of buying it who drive up the price. Now, I could potentially be driving up the price of Graphic Converter or Photo Elements by pirating Photoshop (since those products WOULD be products that I might buy). However, I have purchased graphic converter 4 times, so that's not even true.
I have purchased Mathematica Professional ($1499). I promise you, if my grandma were to pirate it and use it for her calculator to add up her domino scores (even if every grandma in the world did this) it wouldn't change the price of mathematica, because none of them were potential customers. DO they need mathematica....? Not really. That doesn't make it impossible for them to use it to add up domino scores. That's about how I use photoshop.