Who even pays for photoshop anyway?

[azraelx401]

I just started trying out Gimp and i gotta say that it sucks. I hate the fact that the tools and the main window are on 3 different windows. why? i hate that. when i'm working on a piece i like to have my tools over the image not under. that doesn't make any sense to me. i do like that it has pretty much the same layer effects that photoshop has but it's lacking in the filtering department. I don't know if i'll ever really switch to Gimp. It's not as an effective program as Photoshop. And by the way, who the hell even buys programs anymore. I sure don't. Only thing i bought was Windows XP Media Center but that came with my laptop. There are ways to make any "non free" program free. you just have to look for it. Photoshop and the Macromedia suite are the only reasons for me to have dual boot.

[mssever]

I had a hard time with Gimp, too, at first. But I like it OK now--especially because I can't afford Photoshop.

Also, remember that pirating software is stealing. And stealing is never OK. Period. If you can't afford commercial software, use free/open source software. And even if there isn't a good open source alternative, that still doesn't justify stealing.

[pufuwozu]

I had a hard time with Gimp, too, at first. But I like it OK now--especially because I can't afford Photoshop.

Also, remember that pirating software is stealing. And stealing is never OK. Period. If you can't afford commercial software, use free/open source software. And even if there isn't a good open source alternative, that still doesn't justify stealing.

That's a horrible analogy. Sure, I think piracy is wrong but I don't think it is stealing.

Stealing means that you're actually taking the software away from someone else. When you copy software, this is not the case. Don't get confused between copying and stealing.

[mssever]

That's a horrible analogy. Sure, I think piracy is wrong but I don't think it is stealing.

Stealing means that you're actually taking the software away from someone else. When you copy software, this is not the case. Don't get confused between copying and stealing.

I disagree. When you pirate software, you're stealing potential revenue, and you're using something without paying for it when payment is expected. Remember, whatever your feelings about intelectual property (I believe that there is too much, which is one reason why I use free software), it still is property that can be stolen. And the law defines it as such--at least here in the US.

[OmniDistortion]

You're attitude towards paying for software is horrible. Photoshop costs money for a reason. And that reason is because many programmers spent their time in an office setting creating the software as their job. The GIMP is a very very good piece of software that's only marginally worse than Photoshop yet it costs nothing.

[Lord Illidan]

I just started trying out Gimp and i gotta say that it sucks. I hate the fact that the tools and the main window are on 3 different windows. why? i hate that. when i'm working on a piece i like to have my tools over the image not under. that doesn't make any sense to me. i do like that it has pretty much the same layer effects that photoshop has but it's lacking in the filtering department. I don't know if i'll ever really switch to Gimp. It's not as an effective program as Photoshop. And by the way, who the hell even buys programs anymore. I sure don't. Only thing i bought was Windows XP Media Center but that came with my laptop. There are ways to make any "non free" program free. you just have to look for it. Photoshop and the Macromedia suite are the only reasons for me to have dual boot.

Photoshop is a commercial application. It costs money. Legally, you have to buy it. Otherwise, you are a thief, period. If you don't want to buy programs anymore, than use opensource and free as in beer software. Don't pirate!

[azraelx401]

You're attitude towards paying for software is horrible. Photoshop costs money for a reason. And that reason is because many programmers spent their time in an office setting creating the software as their job. The GIMP is a very very good piece of software that's only marginally worse than Photoshop yet it costs nothing.

well wouldn't somebody of spent hours creating Gimp? but yet they charge nothing.

[Lord Illidan]

well wouldn't somebody of spent hours creating Gimp? but yet they charge nothing.

The difference is that unlike the Photoshop developers, the GIMP developers don't get much income to continue working on the project. Thus they have to give it less priority. You want GIMP to improve, give them a donation. Or else jump in with them. Bitching never solves anything!

[HanZo]

I bough an old copy of PS7 on ebay some years ago... it's an original one, though I'm not really sure if it's completely legal since it's part of a bundle... but it seems like according to german law it's legal (so the shop statet). Anyway... I'll be soon having my own studio and I'm planning to buy the whole CS3.

I'm pretty much against software pirating... in fact I try to use oss wherever I can. Sometimes I download cracked stuff... but just for trying out... usually in 30 days I find the time to open the program 3 times...

The Gimp will hardly be a program I use often.
It's not bad... in fact I used it for some projects, but it lacks one big thing: professional level. As I have mentioned often here on the forum... there are some things you cannot live without when doing some professional work for print: colour profiles, multichannel/duotone/CMYK, proper type tool, good tablet support, actions, batch processing... and son on. some things are present on gimp, but aren't as good... others just miss.
But hey!
I imagine that if Gimp was better Adobe would have to work a bit harder... instead of releasing new versions that just are the old one with some cosmetic change... I mean photoshop is not perfect... far from beign it, but since version 7 they haven't really changed a lot...

edit: but I think Gimp does not need to be like Photoshop... it's better than paint shop, and there are far more people needing an app for simple photo mainpulation than ppl like me who need it for professional work. Gimp just needs to improve a bit on the interface side I think to be a good solution for these people.

[azraelx401]

I had a hard time with Gimp, too, at first. But I like it OK now--especially because I can't afford Photoshop.

Also, remember that pirating software is stealing. And stealing is never OK. Period. If you can't afford commercial software, use free/open source software. And even if there isn't a good open source alternative, that still doesn't justify stealing.

Adobe sells thousands of copies of Photoshop a year but yet they charge $649 bucks per copy. i'm sure they put alot of hard work into it that's why it just blows everyone out. but they expect a regular consumer to pay 649 bucks for it, that's kinda crazy. that's why some people switch from using Windows to using Linux. They can afford to lower the price on this thing buy a bunch of hundreds of dollars but they choose not to.

[_simon_]

I hate the fact that the tools and the main window are on 3 different windows.

You can add them all to one panel.

On the main gimp tool panel (the one with the menu at the top)

Click on the small arrow to the right of the panel next to the close icon then select Add to Tab and add in what you want. Then just close the other panels you have open.

See attached pic.

[Lord Illidan]

Adobe sells thousands of copies of Photoshop a year but yet they charge $649 bucks per copy. i'm sure they put alot of hard work into it that's why it just blows everyone out. but they expect a regular consumer to pay 649 bucks for it, that's kinda crazy. that's why some people switch from using Windows to using Linux. They can afford to lower the price on this thing buy a bunch of hundreds of dollars but they choose not to.

I agree that it is kinda crazy. But programmers have to be paid, no?

Plus, it is a professional package.. You pay for what you get!

[smartalecks]

I disagree. When you pirate software, you're stealing potential revenue, and you're using something without paying for it when payment is expected. Remember, whatever your feelings about intelectual property (I believe that there is too much, which is one reason why I use free software), it still is property that can be stolen. And the law defines it as such--at least here in the US.

If someone pirates something, I bet they weren't going to buy it anyway, so they weren't "potential revenue" in the first place. This may not be the case all the time, but I bet it is more than half. Pirating is wrong, tho.

Anyway, keep at the GIMP. At first I hated it too, but eventually I became used to it and it is a very powerful program.

There's also always Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12).

[Lord Illidan]

If someone pirates something, I bet they weren't going to buy it anyway, so they weren't "potential revenue" in the first place. This may not be the case all the time, but I bet it is more than half. Pirating is wrong, tho.

Anyway, keep at the GIMP. At first I hated it too, but eventually I became used to it and it is a very powerful program.

There's also always Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12).

Sometimes yes, they weren't going to buy it. But sometimes, people pirate things even when they have enough money...they just don't want to pay for anything.

[HanZo]

There's also always Pixel.
oh I'm really looking fordward to pixel32... it's got a lot of features I like in ps, plus it is a bit cheaper... and for somebody like me who's not that rich it would be perfect... unfortunately not everything in the program is working as expected, and several features are still to be implemented... but still I think it's impressive how far that program is come beign developed mainly by one guy alone...
now that makes me ask one question: if pixel does certain things, why not gimp? I mean... neither pixel has not a big stuff of well paid developers like PS...

[Klaidas]

Who even pays for photoshop anyway?
Umm... People who need it?

[BLTicklemonster]

You can get gimp to load all together in one window. (see my sig)

Imho, if a professional used pirated software and charged for what they did while using it, then that's a crime. There is a genuine loss of revenue on the part of the software company.

If a private individual who could choose between any freeware like Gimp, or a pirated version of photoshop and chose pirated photoshop, then Adobe isn't out any money, so even though it's unethical, there was no loss of revenue incurred by Adobe now, is there?

(downloading music from kazaa then burning it and listening to it? It actually costs people more money to do that than it does to listen to the songs on FM radio, and usually the quality is nowhere near as good. Whoop dee doo. BFD. What is it going to come to, are we going to have to start stuffing pennies in our ears every time we hear a song we don't own?)

[azraelx401]

i'm not saying that i would never pay for Photoshop....but why shouldn't i be able to use it just cause i can't afford it. Let's face it, not many people out there can afford it, but if that's the only reason they shouldn't use the program, well that's just plain bull. I do understand that the programmers have to get paid for there hard work but if you guys truely understud business you would know that you make money on "warrenty" or "support". Not the actual program or product itself. trust me guys, i've worked at some high corporate places and they know that they make there money's of the extras not the actual tool or product.

[azraelx401]

people that say that's it's wrong to pirate programs think about yourself, can you honestly say you've NEVER in your HOLE like stolen or taken something without permission. because if you can say that.....i'd like to meet you to tell you that your full of it. we've all stolen something or "borrowed" something without permission. so i say F you if you think that pirating is wrong because in some shape or another you've done it too.

[akniss]

so i say F you if you think that pirating is wrong because in some shape or another you've done it too.

Don't try to make us feel bad because you steal things...

I can honestly say that I don't use illegal software. I don't steal paperclips from the office, either. Its not because I have exceptional moral values, just because I see no need to do so. I don't mind going to the store to buy paperclips, and I don't see the need to use proprietary software that I haven't paid for.

Pirating software is a crime. I don't care that you are stealing a potential sale from Adobe when you use photoshop. What I don't like is that you criticize FREE products instead of trying to learn them, donate to them, or help make them better. Every potential user of software like the GIMP or Audacity or OpenOffice that instead choose to use illegal copies of Photoshop, Sonic, or MS Office reduces the number of users of free software, which in turn gives us less of a voice instead of building our numbers and making the software community take notice. The quality of a free software package tends to be directly correlated with the number of users of that product.

[mssever]

i'm not saying that i would never pay for Photoshop....but why shouldn't i be able to use it just cause i can't afford it. Let's face it, not many people out there can afford it, but if that's the only reason they shouldn't use the program, well that's just plain bull. I do understand that the programmers have to get paid for there hard work but if you guys truely understud business you would know that you make money on "warrenty" or "support". Not the actual program or product itself. trust me guys, i've worked at some high corporate places and they know that they make there money's of the extras not the actual tool or product.
Who makes money off a warranty or support? If you sell the warranty or support services, you might make money, but if it comes with the product, it's an additional expense.

I'd like to have a boat, but I can't afford one. Does that make it OK for me to steal one? If you think that it's OK, you have really messed up values. Regardless, the law in every place I know of says that you can go to jail for stealing a boat. In the same way, not being able to afford software doesn't make it OK to steal it.

Also, remember that companies like Adobe are obligated by their shareholders to make a profit. They have certain expenses they have to cover in order to break even and make that profit. The fewer people who buy their software, the more they have to charge for it to cover those expenses and make a profit.

And, by the way, the world needs companies to make a profit, because that's a major factor that drives the economy--through the stock market, etc. If you take away profit, you have the economic problems that caused the breakup of the USSR and the demise (mostly) of communism.
people that say that's it's wrong to pirate programs think about yourself, can you honestly say you've NEVER in your HOLE like stolen or taken something without permission. because if you can say that.....i'd like to meet you to tell you that your full of it. we've all stolen something or "borrowed" something without permission. so i say F you if you think that pirating is wrong because in some shape or another you've done it too.

I've never pirated/stolen anything. However, it's irrelevant whether I have or not. Even if every person in the world stole regularly, that wouldn't change the fact that it's still wrong.

[HanZo]

I'm not going to defend people pirating software, since It were like people stealing the comic books I make from the shop instead of buying me... so I get even less money than I already (don't) get, or maybe buying one and making copies for everybody... same thing.
But one thing we must all keep in mind is, that there is no absolute good or bad, it's not that using software without having payd for it is bad per se, it's bad becuase the system we live in makes it bad (because the system is as it is, people will suffer loss from people don't paying).
If we were living in a different system, all this would be different, maybe...
and then another thing to think about.
let's say adobe sells 2000 copies of PS worldwide (just a placeholder number), and 5000 copies abe beign used by people not paying for it. how much would they really sell more if there was no piracy? and what about all the students? I studied graphic design and where I was most people had a laptop, everybody had the basic software on the comp (photoshop, indesing, freehand and so on...) but I'm sure nobody had been paying for it. but still most of them now work, some have their own studio and have bought all the programs. if they hadn't had the possibility to get it for free they would maybe never got the chance to learn it properly... and maybe Adobe would have sold one less later on...

All of this is not to excuse anybody, I'm the first person to be against piracy... but I think we must pay attention not to fall into moralism and black&white thinking.

[mssever]

I'm not going to defend people pirating software, since It were like people stealing the comic books I make from the shop instead of buying me... so I get even less money than I already (don't) get, or maybe buying one and making copies for everybody... same thing.
But one thing we must all keep in mind is, that there is no absolute good or bad, it's not that using software without having payd for it is bad per se, it's bad becuase the system we live in makes it bad (because the system is as it is, people will suffer loss from people don't paying).
If we were living in a different system, all this would be different, maybe...
and then another thing to think about.
let's say adobe sells 2000 copies of PS worldwide (just a placeholder number), and 5000 copies abe beign used by people not paying for it. how much would they really sell more if there was no piracy? and what about all the students? I studied graphic design and where I was most people had a laptop, everybody had the basic software on the comp (photoshop, indesing, freehand and so on...) but I'm sure nobody had been paying for it. but still most of them now work, some have their own studio and have bought all the programs. if they hadn't had the possibility to get it for free they would maybe never got the chance to learn it properly... and maybe Adobe would have sold one less later on...

All of this is not to excuse anybody, I'm the first person to be against piracy... but I think we must pay attention not to fall into moralism and black&white thinking.
Here in the US, nobody legally gets Photoshop or other such software for free. Students either are required to buy it, or the cost is included in their tuition (or somehow covered by grant money).

The idea that there isn't any absolute right or wrong seems illogical to me. It's easy to say that it's all gray area, or that it depends on the system we're in, but if someone murders your mother (just to give an example) in a random act of violence, can you really say that that might be OK? Or is that abolutely wrong? There are societies where violence is more tolerated than in others; but still, if it's your mother, is it OK? And if we recognize that there could be right and wrong in those extreme situations, then there probably are some absolutes in other situations.

Is it concievable that it could be OK for me to steal from you? I'm not talking about borrowing--I've been to parts of the world where borrowing without asking permission is perfectly acceptable--I'm talking about stealing. You yourself said that you wouldn't want people stealing and/or copying your comic books. So there must be some kind of absolute right and wrong. Of course, to define that, we get into the subject of religion...

[HanZo]

we're maybe gettin a bit off topic... but anyway...
There are some fundamental rights the persona has, like a right to live, a right to express his thoughs and opinions, and so on... there is a declaration of human rights, and I think we all agree that those rights are universal and have to be globally accepted. Because there must be some kind of fundamental right for the more specific rules to built on.
So if somebody murders somebody (may it be my mother or any stranger) I will not hesitate to call it wrong.
And again, I'm not saying that software piracy is right, I'm just saying that thinking too much black and white when talking about complex structures is dangerous, black&white thinking is at the base of fundamental religious thoughts, and I hope you'll agree with me when I say, while religion is a good thing when it gets fundamental, as all things, it gets bad and dangerous.
but let's get back to stealing, our society is based on the capitalistic-consumistic system, this means we work, get money for it and this money we invest in goods, which again means that other people earn money. in this system if we take something that would cost money we steal, this is bad because it goes against the way the system works, because if too many people would steal too much stuff... the whole thing collapses.
Now let's think in a more utopian way... let's say the system we live in has no private property and people don't get money based on how much they work, and you don't spend money on the goods because you just take what you need... in a world like this there would be just opensource software... in a world like this there would be no stealing.
I know... we don't live in a world like this, so stealing exists and when I donwnload Photosp via torrent and install it hacking the activation it's basically stealing. I'm not argueing on this.
still... we like oss, that's why most of us are here, we like to think somehow about a world where you cannot steal software because it's yours anyway... the ideas that have been turned into a program are somehow your ideas too.
Now this makes me wonder... what is it exacltly that Adobe sells us when we buy Photoshop or any other app? is it the dvd with the data on it, an object? is it the right to use the data? or is it the ideas? you'll notice that the more you'll dig into it the more it will all get blurred... the more you'll find it difficult to really find the thin blue line that separates the wrong from the right.
Getting a pirated copy is really easy, just download the stuff and install it. it's easier than buying it. it's not like stealing a car... it's not even like stealing sweeties in a shop... they hardly will catch you and it's just a question of waiting for the download to complete.
This is why we should think about it, this is why we should take a decision about if we want it or not.
but if we think that it's wrong because it's immoral... well, that's not really a good reason. I mean, it's just not a good reason... I think if you decide that you don't like software piracy you should do it beacause it is damaging a system you live in, it may be a wrong system (it certainly is for a lot of things) but you still depend on it, so damaging it is like making holes in the boat you're in.
at least that's how I see it, and that's why I don't use pirated software.

but...
when we talk about microsoft and pirating windows... well... that's another story I think.
microsoft deserves to be pirated... no better, I think the whole world should pirate windows so we'd finally get rid of them! pirating windows is not stealing, but a form of social resistence!

ok
I've bored you long enough... but I hope now that what I wanted to say now is a bit clearer.

[azraelx401]

we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. i don't want to try to convince anyone that pirating software isn't wrong. i think that a good business practice would be to offer a great product for a reasonable price. price is always going to be a deal breaker. be it software, a home, or a car. unlike alot of people out there i don't see anything that i create using photoshop. i do graphics for myself and that's it. the second that i ever plan on selling anything i will be buying the software. i use pirated software because i make no money off of it. i'm not out there charging people for websites or graphics. i do that for free. that's just me. but like i said if i ever want to make money off of it i will buy the product because without purchancing a license for the software i can't make money off of it. so yea i know that it's a crime and that it's wrong. but i do it because i'm not making anything from it.


For those of you who don't think that they make money of a warrenty think about this. whenever your at a store and your looking at a high priced item. 9 times out of 10 you will be given 2 warrenty options. that is extended warrenty. one from the manufacter and one from the place you buy it. I know when i bought my IPod i bought an extended warrenty because it's kind of a big purchase and i want to keep my investment safe. (i buy my music through itunes, i've stopped downloading free mp3's). But anyways that's what retailers are keeping in mind, that there are some people that are will to spend more money for a sense of security. and selling support is also a huge business, i mean look at Red Hat. They make a lot of money on support.

[the_french_canadian]

Piracy is stealing; Full Stop! You are stealing the programmers code which they have worked many hours on. If OpenSource programmers (god bless them) want to give away their time and coding for free it is their choice, but you have to respect the morals of employed programmers as well!

It is also not up to us to decide if the programming companies should charge for their programs! Piracy is stealing; would you employed people out here enjoyed it if some random person stole your goods or services?!

Finally, the law is cristal clear on this matter. All programs (exepting freeware/OpenSource) have copyright laws applied to them, and some even have patents on their software! If you are found (and i hope pirates are found), you could be fined, arrested and put into jail for stealing!

Piracy is a crime!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BLTicklemonster]

Piracy is piracy. If I got a file and burned it to a cd and ran it, no one's inventory is messed up. If my buddy sees the disk, physically steals it and runs it, someone is missing some tangible property.

So guess who gets in the most trouble if we both get caught. The one using pirated software will catch t total bloody hell, whereas the actual thief will get a slap on the wrist.

So don't pirate or steal! Get open source and put the cyber fuzz out of work.

[zxee]

edit: but I think Gimp does not need to be like Photoshop... it's better than paint shop, and there are far more people needing an app for simple photo mainpulation than ppl like me who need it for professional work. Gimp just needs to improve a bit on the interface side I think to be a good solution for these people.

There is gimpshop; info here: http://www.gimpshop.net/ There are several links and descriptions there too.
I haven't used gimpshop but I think it's attempt to address some of the issues you brought up.
Gimp IMO is really good for what it is-I've used photoshop and it does have issues too it's just that again IMO people who use it are comfortable with those issues.

[scannerdarkly]

pirating software is wrong and a crime. but if somebody does it that's there deal. i don't do it myself but i do see the point about the pricing on some of the software out there. it gets a little rediculous sometimes. but that's how companies make money.

[PingunZ]

Inkscape, gimp, xaralx, photoshop :)

[gruvsyco]

I have fully licensed Adobe Photoshop CS, Illustrator 9 and Pagemaker 6.5, Macromedia Studio MX and Director 8, Newtek Lightwave 3D 8, Eyeon DFX+.

I can only marginally get some of those to work on Linux so, I use Gimp, XaraLX, Inkscape and Blender. They all are taking some adjusting. Xara rocks, Inkscape is decent, Gimp and Blender both could really use some workflow and interface improvements but neither camp really wants to hear that.

So, to sum up... I actually do pay for software but, am choosing to try to adapt to OSS.

[zxee]

I think I wasn't clear enough before.
There is a opensource photoshop-like program called Gimpshop
http://freshmeat.net/projects/gimpshop/ & http://linux.suramya.com/tutorials/Install_GIMPShop/

[Ravenseye]

pirateing=stealing

No matter what self-aggrandizing thieves say about it, it's stealing...if I had your IP address, I'd report your *** to Adobe...I payed for CS1, and you're one of the reasons I have to pay the amount I have to.

If you steal the software, all you are doing is justifying the costs that Adobe charges for their software. You are proving that there is a huge demand for the software, so Adobe can charge what they want.

opensource=free (as in thought, sometimes as in cost)

I am supporting the OpenSource community as well. I love the fact that there are people out there coding long into the night so that there is an alternative to the "big bad software companies." I don't think that the Gimp or inkscape or blender are examples of usability, or finish yet...but, they will get there, with our help!

We can actually affect the paths that the Gimp, and Inkscape, and Blender take because they are projects taken on by people like you and I. Just normal folks who love computer art.

-Mike

[slimdog360]

I havent read all the messages so I dont dont if someone has already said this but you can download something called gimpshop. Its gimp but made to look like photoshop.

[HanZo]

Gimpshop is a good attempt to get people who are used to photoshop tu use the Gimp... in fact Gimpshop is Gimp, just with menues and keyboard shortcuts rearraged to be more similar to photoshop, but that's all... it doesn't have anything the regular Gimp desn't.

[Ravenseye]

I have gimp installed here on my mini-penguin machine. It's good software.

Leaps and bounds beyond some of the choices out there.

But, Photoshop is still better for a plethora of uses that Gimp hasn't got quite the chops for yet.

If I knew what the heck I was doing, I'd offer to help them get to that point. Unfortunately, I can't program my way out of a wet, holey, paper bag...

I can make things pretty though ;)

-Mike

P.S. I didn't make a selection on the poll because I use most of those software packages...I can only select one...so, no vote from me.

[tenshi-no-shi]

nevermind

[BLTicklemonster]

nevermind

Insightful, brief, to the point. Great post!

[Schalken]

I love GIMP.

I hate it's multi-window/toolbox interface, but you can set it up so it's pertty much the same as photoshop as in the attached screenshot by doing the following:

Move all the dialogues to the toolbox (main dock). You can do this by dragging the tabs to that tiny long flat bar at the bottom of the toolbox, which, when you hold your mouse over, says 'You can drop dockable dialogues here.' Feel free to move tham around as you wish.
In the toolbox, go to File->Preferences->Window Management and set the hint for the toolbox to 'utility window'.

This means it will always stay on top of windows belonging to the same process, that is, it will stay above Gimp's image windows, but will go behind other windows belonging to other processes. The toolbox won't be considered a seperate window on the taskbar either. Also, if the toolbox gets in your way just hold alt and drag the body of it.

[BLTicklemonster]

I guess you were waiting for me to say this, so, "do what?"



Move as in how, and to where? Drag them over the window that you use to open a file? (note to self, that has a name now) I don't get it. Please elaborate?

[Schalken]

Edited. Any help?

[alexandermimix]

Adobe lost no income from me 'stealing' their software... I wouldn't use it if I had to pay for it (I really cant afford it and even if I could I can think of better things to drop $600 on). So either I use their software for free as I do, or I use it not at all, either way adobe gains no income.

Adobe does gain somewhat out of this arrangement however. Sure their profit margins don't go up or down however I don't lend any support for the opposition either.

[HanZo]

honestly I don't see the point of having the toolbox window hovering over the picture you're working on... it will always end up beign in your way. I usually combine all the panels in one window so that it will take up all the space to the left of the screen (in hight), and use the rest for the window I'm working on. In fact I find this solution even better than photoshop, you loose less space and it's all a bit easier to find and handle.

as we're talking about how to do things in the gimp... one thing I have often been looking for but never been able to find:
in photoshop I can click and drag the top-left corner of the rulers and drag the "zero" point (looks like a kind of crosshair). this is very practical when it comes to placing guides. Is there a way to do this in Gimp? And another thing, is there a way to make guides snap to selections, and the centre of the selection... my workflow (you won't believe it) highly depends on these stupid things... and I'd like to use the Gimp a bit more...

[Magnes]

I was never a fan of Photoshop. To be honest, I hate the program. I used Deluxe Paint on Amiga, then TVPaint, Aura and Mirage on Windows. Now I use GIMP and I think it's... better - FOR ME - than Photoshop. Some people don't want to learn - they don't use GIMP or Blender because the programs are so different. But after few tutorials and you discover that they are - in fact - very easy to use and powerful.
(sorry for my English)

[missmoondog]

I just started trying out Gimp and i gotta say that it sucks. I hate the fact that the tools and the main window are on 3 different windows. why? i hate that. when i'm working on a piece i like to have my tools over the image not under. that doesn't make any sense to me. i do like that it has pretty much the same layer effects that photoshop has but it's lacking in the filtering department. I don't know if i'll ever really switch to Gimp. It's not as an effective program as Photoshop. And by the way, who the hell even buys programs anymore. I sure don't. Only thing i bought was Windows XP Media Center but that came with my laptop. There are ways to make any "non free" program free. you just have to look for it. Photoshop and the Macromedia suite are the only reasons for me to have dual boot.

Man, you're so far out in left field, it isn't funny. To openly admit that you're a crook/thief, I hope you end up getting busted just from this post. That's the attitude that has the whole world all screwed up.

[argie]

I personally use GIMP but I got some old crippled Photoshop version that came with my dad's digicam.

It's true that most people don't pay for photoshop. Perhaps that's contributed to its popularity.

[scannerdarkly]

i think everybody is over reacting to a post on a forum. so people steal or pirate software, i thinks there's bigger problems out in the world today then software. one way to think about it, if it wasn't for people pirating things then some software programmers might not even have jobs because they wouldn't be spending time in actually trying to come up with new ways to protect the software. but that's just what i think anyways.

[BLTicklemonster]

Edited. Any help?

Figures. You can't do it with layers, which is the primary one I use. Thanks for clearing that up.

And yes, if you have no intention of forking out big bucks for something, get it illegally, and don't use it professionally, then it's still wrong, but big freaking deal, they aren't out anything.

Gimp is so much better now than when I first started using it, I'm sure that before too long it will be a lot closer. Will it ever catch up? Probably not, but it keeps getting better and it's free, so who cares :) ?

[CarpKing]

The ease with which Photoshop can be pirated is a major factor in its continued usership dominance over the GIMP. Most people can not or are not willing to shell out the prices Adobe charges, but they still use the program because they can pirate it. They may never have heard of the GIMP, or they may have only heard of it through stories of its inferiority to PS.

When people pirate Photoshop, it doesn't technically cost Adobe much, because most of those people would never buy it anyway. Rather, Adobe benefits from the ubiquity of PS. When longtime PS pirates decide to "go legit," they will buy PS, whether they actually need the features the GIMP lacks or not (they most likely do not). If everyone for whom the GIMP was sufficient actually used it, it would benefit from the community much the way Ubuntu has. Thus, pirating PS hurts the GIMP more than it does Adobe.

[alexandermimix]

The ease with which Photoshop can be pirated is a major factor in its continued usership dominance over the GIMP. Most people can not or are not willing to shell out the prices Adobe charges, but they still use the program because they can pirate it. They may never have heard of the GIMP, or they may have only heard of it through stories of its inferiority to PS.

When people pirate Photoshop, it doesn't technically cost Adobe much, because most of those people would never buy it anyway. Rather, Adobe benefits from the ubiquity of PS. When longtime PS pirates decide to "go legit," they will buy PS, whether they actually need the features the GIMP lacks or not (they most likely do not). If everyone for whom the GIMP was sufficient actually used it, it would benefit from the community much the way Ubuntu has. Thus, pirating PS hurts the GIMP more than it does Adobe.

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say in my post.

I remember a post a while back with someone saying how much they hate people who pirate microsoft software for this exact reason.

[zoram]

well wouldn't somebody of spent hours creating Gimp? but yet they charge nothing.


and surely they live on fresh water and geeky-love and pay their rent with monopoly bills ?

Or do they also have a job that bring them an income ?
I bet most of the people who work "for free" (in their free time) arn't plumbers, or are they.

Maybe I'm wrong but I assume lot of them probably work in the software industry, and get money out of working for commercial companies.

Strikes me how so many people can oppose free to commercial softwares as mortal ennemies. for **** sake, without commercial softwares, there wouldn't be free softwares either.

[akniss]

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say in my post.

I remember a post a while back with someone saying how much they hate people who pirate microsoft software for this exact reason.

So why, then, do you pirate photoshop???? You seem to realize that its not Adobe that you are hurting, but GIMP... And you still do it? Why not switch to GIMP and help the free alternative, rather than steal the commercial software and hurt the free alternative, thus keeping the commercial software insanely expensive??? I just don't get it...

[azraelx401]

i didn't realize how big this topic got. when i wrote it i thought that people would read it and pass on by. everybody made some really good points. i noticed that some people were saying that pirating photoshop hurts gimp. i'm gonna say that's half true. everyone is never going to see things in the same way because we are all different.


Just an FYI, yesturday i was only my laptop and Windows desided it would be Windows and just stop working all together. after spending hours trying to get it to work i gave up and cleared my hard drive. so now i have a fresh copy of windows and ubuntu on my laptop. i've yet to put anything back on my laptop except for ITunes. i'll give gimp a little more of a chance and try to use it and some of the other software out there. i mean this is why i have linux on my laptop so i can leave windows behind.

[mrgotea]

That's a horrible analogy. Sure, I think piracy is wrong but I don't think it is stealing.

Stealing means that you're actually taking the software away from someone else. When you copy software, this is not the case. Don't get confused between copying and stealing.

Duh... if you have and use a copy of Photoshop without paying for it, you are breaking the rules. Can I borrow your car (without asking) if I promise not to seal it?

I just made my first graphic in GIMP, and while it was difficult, I am impressed. Very slick for open source, and it sure blows the door off Paint. It took years of development and lots of money to make photoshop what it is today. I bet GIMP would not exsist if Photoshop had not become an industry standard.

So I be very happy myself when I can stop using my pirated version of Photoshop and hop on GIMP full time.

[rattlerviper]

I have paid for Photoshop from 6.0 all the way to CS2(9.0). I wish that they would come out with a port for Linux, as I would gladly pay for that too. If you don't want to pay for it don't use it I have a word for that...Thief!

[azraelx401]

so it's stealing when someone that buys it gives you a copy? that's how i got my copy. so how is that stealing? a person that bought his copy gave me mine. i didn't steal anything. i was given a copy.

[BLTicklemonster]

yeah, that's the ticket!

[elvis]

I disagree. When you pirate software, you're stealing potential revenue, and you're using something without paying for it when payment is expected.
I disagree with your first point. You absolutely cannot steal "potential" anything. Such things can't even be measured empirically nor absolutely. You have made the mistake of assuming that for every "stolen" piece of software, the company at hand has lost a sale. I ask you: when a student growing up in China, Thailand, Indonesia or East Timor earning as little as $5 a day in wages "steals" a copy of Photoshop, do you honestly mean to tell me that the same individual would purchase this $1000+ software if "theft" was not a viable alternative? Check the average annual income statistics for the countries I mention above and consider how long an individual needs to save for one piece of software that has an arbitrary price assigned to it by a US corporate based on US corporate thinking and marketability.

"Theft" requires you to remove something from an individual and thus deprive them of it. Copying electronic data makes an exact duplicate of something. this is not theft - in fact you are creating information!

"Theft", "stealing" and "piracy" are rediculous terms, and should not be used when referring to people copying software EVER. These terms apply only to physical items. Copyrights apply to copying non-physical items. Ideas, formulas, code, text, essays, digital bits, etc, etc. Making duplicates of any of these is not "theft" by the very definition of the word.

With that said, when you copy UNLICENSED SOFTWARE you are breeching a license agreement. This is a perfectly apt description of the crime at hand. This is very much illegal in most places in the western world. It is not theft, but it is still a crime.

Simply put, if you don't agree with a license tied to a piece of software, don't use it. Copying software and using it when you don't agree to the license is not only immoral, it is also counter-intuitive if you wish to push a particular type of software or licensing philosophy.

I use GIMP. I don't use Photoshop. I don't care what features the programs do or don't have - if the software requires me to agree to a license that I disagree with, I won't use it.

People who do use non-free software and don't pay for it are acting irresponsibly. By all means, use the software if (a) you agree with the license and (b) are willing to pay the financial price as set by the seller of the software. But if you disagree with either, don't. Black and white, plain and simple.

[egon spengler]

Duh... if you have and use a copy of Photoshop without paying for it, you are breaking the rules.

Absolutely true.

Can I borrow your car (without asking) if I promise not to seal it?

Completely unrelated, that is not at all comparable to what actually happened. Let me tell you this though, if you could somehow make a 100% working duplicate of my car that left mine untouched and available for me to use then I honestly would tell you to go ahead and feel free to do so

[BLTicklemonster]

If I have an idea that makes me fart green bubbles, and I can make money doing it, then you find out about it, and use for your own amusement, but do not compete with me for money or anything, you just sit around smiling about it (the dog leaves, the wife divorces you, etc), then have you stolen anything from me? Anything tangible? Something retarded, maybe, but you haven't taken anything tangible from me at all. You haven't stolen, you have pirated green fart bubbles. I bet your mom's real proud of you now, huh. Anyway, I think I'll shut up before I do any more damage.

[elvis]

Let me tell you this though, if you could somehow make a 100% working duplicate of my car that left mine untouched and available for me to use then I honestly would tell you to go ahead and feel free to do so

Precisely.

There's a larger issue at hand, and that is the fact that modern law does not and can not accurately describe software. The laws that most of us here are goverened by were all designed to deal with mass reproduction of books when the mechanical printing press first appeared. Before that, books needed to be hand copied, and mass production was not an issue. Afterwards, the idea of mass copying and reproduction of an item became a reality.

The problem there of course is that books are physical items. Very frequently the laws governing copyright are based on the sale of a physical item. Electronic data is not phsyical. It cannot be measured physically. If I copy a file to my hard disk, my hard disk doesn't become heavier. There is no more mass added to my system. I've merely aligned a few magnetic sectors on a metal platter to look like the sectors on someone else's platter. In fact it can be argued that I had the data all along, merely rearranged incorrectly!

The inherent problem with law and the entire legal system is that it is slow. It takes decades (sometimes centuries) for law to catch up with modern thought and beliefs. And as everyone on these forums knows, a decade in the technology or software field may as well be a millenium in any other industry in terms of progress made as well as capacity for storage.

So we have a dilemma: we have a populace who use software in a way that has evolved well beyond the laws that govern it, to the point where these laws can no longer protect the people they are designed to protect, or worse can be used to attack innocent bystanders.

I don't see any short-term solution to be honest. As long as software continues to be thought of as a tangible product, the problem will remain.

I find the biggest irony in all of this that once apon a time we had the opposite problem. In the 70's and early 80's, software was merely something that made hardware run, and it was never thought of as a standalone product. In fact, Microsoft struggled for quite some time to convince investors that they could even sell software!

Read Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning was the Command Line" for a bit of a history lesson in this field:
http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

Of note, this is a published book which you may download for electronically free. It's good to see some people understand this modern era. :)

[me1on]

Completely unrelated, that is not at all comparable to what actually happened. Let me tell you this though, if you could somehow make a 100% working duplicate of my car that left mine untouched and available for me to use then I honestly would tell you to go ahead and feel free to do so

I'm sure that if cloning cars were possible, it would still be illegal (at least outside of manufacturing companies ;)). You would still be taking away potential revenue from the car dealer if you cloned a friend's car instead of buying a new one.

Pirating is against the law, so it is wrong, no matter what excuses people might come up with.

[BLTicklemonster]

Well, it's not like anyone is pirating digital embroidery software or anything.... (go look THAT one up on slash dot)

Better yet, here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/12/2352207

Jail teh Grannies!!!

[________]

Please consider the following. If you took a completely random COPYRIGHTED book, and photocopied the entire text, either for personal reading or for mass distribution, would this be ethically acceptable. Even if you ignore the loss of "potential revenue" for both publisher and author, would it be acceptable. In my mind, there is no doubt: Photocopying the entire book (not small sections for educational purposes, mind you) WOULD BE STEALING. No asides.

[mssever]

Please consider the following. If you took a completely random COPYRIGHTED book, and photocopied the entire text, either for personal reading or for mass distribution, would this be ethically acceptable. Even if you ignore the loss of "potential revenue" for both publisher and author, would it be acceptable. In my mind, there is no doubt: Photocopying the entire book (not small sections for educational purposes, mind you) WOULD BE STEALING. No asides.

Photocopying your own random book depends on what you're doing with it. If you're distributing those copies, it's the same as software piracy: stealing. If those copies are for your own personal use, that's fair use. This is how DRM prevents even fair use. But it's driven by mass piracy. So, even though I disagree with a lot of this DRM nonsense, it's easy to see why we have it.

[pravuil]

I do. I also have macromedia fireworks, flash 8 and freehand. If your new to the whole graphic arts thing you can probably get used to gimp a lot faster but if your used to working with other products it can be somewhat of a shift.

Out of all of them the Gimp is the worst. If the Gimp provided a windowed workspace it wouldn't be so back but having to switch from window to window slows down the process which in turn makes users less productive. How the Gimp handles layers can be a little aggravating at times but once you understand a couple of methods it's not that hard. The Gimp reminds me of how Photoshop used to be 10 years ago. I know that might be perceived as flamebait but it is the truth.

Gimpshop is better and even though the author of the software took a lot of flack for trying to emulate the Photoshop environment, the changes are actually welcomed. I'm so glad that the project has got some steam again. It was dead for quite a while as I recall.

I forget my piracy law because it's been a long while since I was last a pirate. (Arrrr!) If you use proprietary software for profit you are breaking the law and there is no excuse for that. Trying to profit from someone else's effort is like cheating off of someone else’s exam. You ultimately don't benefit from it because pirates can't really market themselves without putting their reputations on the line. On the other side of the coin, the internet is supposed to be a library of sorts where people are supposed to research things to improve their quality of life. I can't say that the Internet is a good authority without some sort of mentorship (college, apprenticeships, etc.) but it does provide a lot of tools easily available to anyone who would like to know more. It used to be that pirated software could only be allowed for educational purposes or a means to provide support for software currently labeled as legacy (in cases where the manufacturer no longer exists or is not willing to provide a reasonable way to activate the product.) The DMCA has changed a lot since then, especially since Bush got into office, and the application process for abandonware has its limitations so it’s hard to say what is/isn’t legal anymore. If you want to run yourself ragged, you’ll probably waste your time doing something illegal. In the end if you wish to avoid the cost of proprietary software focus on using OSS. It will save you the hassle of having to pay court costs not to mention the felony behind the act. Or you can do what I did; shell out several grand, an arm, and then a leg just to realize that there was a thing called OSS all along.

Europe has it right with how they deal with software patents. They don't really consider software to be intellectual property. Even though this is the case, Europe still has to adhere to international patent law. An uphill battle, what can you say.

[BLTicklemonster]

Please consider the following. If you took a completely random COPYRIGHTED book, and photocopied the entire text, either for personal reading or for mass distribution, would this be ethically acceptable. Even if you ignore the loss of "potential revenue" for both publisher and author, would it be acceptable. In my mind, there is no doubt: Photocopying the entire book (not small sections for educational purposes, mind you) WOULD BE STEALING. No asides.

Good point. It would be easier to just check it out at the library anyway. (I wonder how long they are going to last, come to think of it)

[willowhisp]

Pirating software is a crime.

So is using free-source software to decode mp3 files.

By contrast, since the fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of
circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
(From summery of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 )

Generally, I'm against pirating software, but I don't think it's really a cut-and-dry thing.

Incedentally, advising or admitting to pirating software on an open forum is really a pretty bad idea.

[elvis]

So is using free-source software to decode mp3 files.
Maybe in your country. Luckily my government isn't stupid enough to allow such asinine laws that destroy a free market.

[willowhisp]

Maybe in your country. Luckily my government isn't stupid enough to allow such asinine laws that destroy a free market.

Well, the worst part is, the people who use the DMCA to back up such lawsuits, and the people who produce 'protected' software don't even follow the parts of the DMCA that are supposed to protect fair use and privacy.

[TheMono]

I have to say, the multi window gimp interface is a godsend if you use multiple monitors.

[scannerdarkly]

Here's why i my thoughts on the whole "potential revenue" argueement that i see people using.....Adobe and some of the other programming companies offer free trials. But those "free trials" are actually the real program but with a code that will deactivate it with in an amount of time. so lets say you download that free trial. which is really a only 1 copy of the program on the server that anybody can download. then you crack it. be it with a crack program or a key generator. this is how i see it. people that pirate that way are not really steeling. yes they have an unlawful copy of the program but they have the exact same one that anybody can download. Now it's a different story if lets say you were to go to a store and they had 10 copies for sale. you steel one and of course that leaves 9. That's the only way anyone is steeling this "potential revenue." You can't make money off of 1 copy multipul times. For example there's no way i can sell you a soda and then sell it to somebody else and you both have 1 if i was only selling one. If you really think of the process of "pirating" software you can some what see how alot of people don't see it as steeling. Now it's a totally different thing when you get the copy, crack it and sell it. that's the only way to take "potential revenue" away. I can't see any other way.

[willowhisp]

Here's why i my thoughts on the whole "potential revenue" argueement that i see people using.....Adobe and some of the other programming companies offer free trials. But those "free trials" are actually the real program but with a code that will deactivate it with in an amount of time. so lets say you download that free trial. which is really a only 1 copy of the program on the server that anybody can download. then you crack it. be it with a crack program or a key generator. this is how i see it. people that pirate that way are not really steeling. yes they have an unlawful copy of the program but they have the exact same one that anybody can download. Now it's a different story if lets say you were to go to a store and they had 10 copies for sale. you steel one and of course that leaves 9. That's the only way anyone is steeling this "potential revenue." You can't make money off of 1 copy multipul times. For example there's no way i can sell you a soda and then sell it to somebody else and you both have 1 if i was only selling one. If you really think of the process of "pirating" software you can some what see how alot of people don't see it as steeling. Now it's a totally different thing when you get the copy, crack it and sell it. that's the only way to take "potential revenue" away. I can't see any other way.

Well, I think what they mean when they say 'potential revenue' is that the people who use the pirated software were potential customers.

[scannerdarkly]

Well, I think what they mean when they say 'potential revenue' is that the people who use the pirated software were potential customers.

I find that highly unlikely. someone is either going to do something or not. so people that pirate software where really never intended on buying said software. even when people say "i'm thinking about going to the beach", you either do it or you don't. there's no middle way. that's my point. i just find that the term "potential revenue" holds no grounds in the piracy issue. Cause if it did then my "potential revenue" is 1 million bucks today. Yea i guess there is a such thing as "potential revenue" but people that pirate software are not taking anything away from the said company. Everyone is a potential buyer. but you either do it or you don't. If anything they are losing money that they never had in the first place. but even still if you think about it that doesn't make any sense. how do you lose something you never had?

[willowhisp]

I find that highly unlikely. someone is either going to do something or not. so people that pirate software where really never intended on buying said software. even when people say "i'm thinking about going to the beach", you either do it or you don't. there's no middle way. that's my point. i just find that the term "potential revenue" holds no grounds in the piracy issue. Cause if it did then my "potential revenue" is 1 million bucks today. Yea i guess there is a such thing as "potential revenue" but people that pirate software are not taking anything away from the said company. Everyone is a potential buyer. but you either do it or you don't. If anything they are losing money that they never had in the first place. but even still if you think about it that doesn't make any sense. how do you lose something you never had?


Well, that sounds reasonable, but various corporations have convinced people that the 'potential revenue' idea that I discribed holds water. I'm not going to get into whether or not it does or not (I don't want to start a flame war).

The idea is that some of the people who aquire the pirated software would otherwise have bought the software. The whole 'potential revenue' idea is the same reason companies create cheaper downgraded versions of their product; the people who wouldn't normally buy the more expensive version might buy the cheaper version, and the people who are willing to buy the expensive version would buy it instead of the cheap version for the features not included in the cheaper version.

[BLTicklemonster]

Well, I think what they mean when they say 'potential revenue' is that the people who use the pirated software were potential customers.

They are tripping if they think I could afford to buy it. (which is why I use gimp)

[HanZo]

there is another point in the whole piracy thing that I find interesting... piracy is inflicting probably more damage to the opensource world that to the commercial one.
this is simply because if I can have photoshop for free, why should I use Gimp? it's like people who buy a new computer with linux preinstalled and then ditch it to install a pirated copy of windows on it. not that I am against pirating windows (that's the least we can do to get revenge!) but in the end this is just hurting oss.
i think a lot more people would be using Gimp if photshop could bot be copied... but that's just utopian thinking... as long as there are things that can be done... people will do them!

[egon spengler]

I'm sure that if cloning cars were possible, it would still be illegal (at least outside of manufacturing companies ;)). You would still be taking away potential revenue from the car dealer if you cloned a friend's car instead of buying a new one.

Pirating is against the law, so it is wrong, no matter what excuses people might come up with.

I don't know if it's me that you are accusing of making up excuses but if you had quoted me entire previous post instead of just a fraction of it then you would have seen that I agree, copyright infringement is against the rules.

As far as the idea of potential revenue goes I can't believe that people give any credence to this absurd idea. There is no such thing as "taking away potential revenue". You may just as well say that riding a bike to work or using public transport is illegal because that is taking away potential revenue from car manufacturers.

In my opinion people mindlessly chanting "potential revenue" undermine the anti-piracy movement tremendously. Anyone with half a brain can see that it doesn't stand up to much examination (is Pepsi stealing potential revune from Coca Cola? Levis stealing potential revenue from Versace? If there was no such thing as Pepsi you would've bought Coke, Pepsi are clearly stealing from Coke) and I think that it allows a lot of people to feel justified in piracy seeing as the arguments against seem so incredibly flimsy.

The best argument against piracy (especially on a Linux forum) is bringing up the simple argument of should people have the freedom to create and release software as they see fit? If the answer is yes then you surely have to respect the right of Adobe to release their products the way that they do with the license that they do. The people that won't respect that are simply the people that say "I know it's wrong, I don't care though" and there is no argument to be made against them anyway

[Cope57]

To the pirates out there...
Continue to pirate, maybe one day your butt will be in jail.

This is your butt

( . )


This is your butt in jail

( O )


Any questions?

[shinkaide]

Well, I guess it may suck for some people, but IMHO, it usually comes down to how you make the best use of what you have. I use the GIMP for my hobby/wannabe_profession (http://www.evergreensd.com) and I really don't believe I'll be needing photoshop ever.

I bet that at least half of the people who don't like the GIMP just don't like it's interface (compared to photosho). I could be wrong, tho.

[bobbob94]

Some posters seem to think that pointing out that using pirated software is illegal is the end of the argument. Most people's ideas of right and wrong are not identical to what their government has decided is legal/illegal, we have the responsibility to decide that for ourselves, and to act accordingly! Personally I don't have an ethical problem with people using pirated commercial software, but I think that doing so actually hurts OSS in the long run. This is the reason why Microsoft are happy for people in developing countries to use pirated versions of their software until they can afford the "real thing"- it reinforces windows and office as global standards, when sucessfully copy protecting them would effectively force people in large areas of the world to use free software instead.

[HanZo]

Some posters seem to think that pointing out that using pirated software is illegal is the end of the argument
well said! doind this people only show that they don't think about the world that they are living in. Doubt is the only real weapon we have against those that want to use us!
So doubting the rightness of law is the first thing you must to if don't want to be a slave of the system!
Stop shitting in your pants because somebody sayd you'll end up in jail if you do this and that... find your own reasons to do or no to do something!
Dictature is only possible because people don't think with their own mind!
Religius fanatism is only possible because people don't think with their own mind!
Or are you using linux just because it desn't cost you any money and you don't have to break the law?

[egon spengler]

To the pirates out there...
Continue to pirate, maybe one day your butt will be in jail.

This is your butt

( . )


This is your butt in jail

( O )


Any questions?

Excellent, more pointless hyperbole. I'm quite sure that everyone who reads this thread will realise full well that there is next to no chance of anyone being sent to prison for infringing the copyright on Photoshop.

Traditionally people have found it best to use logic and sound reasoning when trying to convince others of the strength of their argument, when you use foolish anti piracy arguments you taint the whole anti piracy movement as foolish

[me1on]

Some posters seem to think that pointing out that using pirated software is illegal is the end of the argument.

Shouldn't it be? Pirating is illegal, therefore it is immoral (Even if you live in a country where pirating is legal, it's still disrespectful to the developers). If you don't agree with the law, you still have to follow it. I don't see any way someone can say it's okay to break the law, because obviously breaking the law is wrong. If you can't pay for photoshop, either pay for it, or use an alternative such as gimp.

[bobbob94]

Shouldn't it be? Pirating is illegal, therefore it is immoral (Even if you live in a country where pirating is legal, it's still disrespectful to the developers). If you don't agree with the law, you still have to follow it. I don't see any way someone can say it's okay to break the law, because obviously breaking the law is wrong. If you can't pay for photoshop, either pay for it, or use an alternative such as gimp.

Absolutely not. Illegal and immoral are not the same thing at all. As a random example, in some countries homosexuality is illegal, but plenty of people who live there don't think its immoral. In other countries homosexuality is legal, but plenty of people there think it is immoral.

As for saying it's never ok to break the law, again I disagree. How about the racial purity laws in Nazi Germany for example? I could make a long list of other laws most people would consider it ok to have broken... There's a long and important history of people and movements breaking laws they felt were immoral to try and change society. I'm not saying ripping off Photoshop is the equivalent of the civil rights movement here by the way, just saying there's a big and important difference between illegal and immoral. If people want to persuade others not to use pirated software they're going to have to do more than just say its illegal, they have to persuade them it's immoral. If they can ;)

[HanZo]

and we could even say that there is plenty of states where saying what you think is illegal... people get jailed and killed because they do it... and it's not just those bad bad countries in the underdeveloped parts of the world... our great civilized Europe or USA are often not much better... just open your eyes!
so please saying things like "it's illegal, therefore it is immoral" is really very stupid.
And it's a slap in the face of people who fought paying with their lives against laws that where not right!

[BLTicklemonster]

Excellent, more pointless hyperbole. I'm quite sure that everyone who reads this thread will realise full well that there is next to no chance of anyone being sent to prison for infringing the copyright on Photoshop.

Traditionally people have found it best to use logic and sound reasoning when trying to convince others of the strength of their argument, when you use foolish anti piracy arguments you taint the whole anti piracy movement as foolish

Good gosh, lighten up already.

Hey, here's a good one:

( * ) <--- this is your ****

O <--- this is a hole in the ground.

Now you know the difference!


Though I'm not directing that at you, Egon, or anyone else. I did get to use that in a board room one time at a place I don't work at anymore. Seems they didn't care to know the difference after all. They went out of business, so apparently they never figured it out, either. Anyway, yes, great post you made, just lighten up on the knucklehead.

[BLTicklemonster]

and we could even say that there is plenty of states where saying what you think is illegal... people get jailed and killed because they do it... and it's not just those bad bad countries in the underdeveloped parts of the world... our great civilized Europe or USA are often not much better... just open your eyes!
so please saying things like "it's illegal, therefore it is immoral" is really very stupid.
And it's a slap in the face of people who fought paying with their lives against laws that where not right!

Um, if you ask me, knowing that something is illegal and doing it anyway is immoral. If you can't distinguish between right and wrong, or "can but chose to cross the line as you see fit", then what use are you to a society that is trying to maintain some semblence of law and order? (not that there is such a thing.. I just wondered)

[bobbob94]

Um, if you ask me, knowing that something is illegal and doing it anyway is immoral. If you can't distinguish between right and wrong, or "can but chose to cross the line as you see fit", then what use are you to a society that is trying to maintain some semblence of law and order? (not that there is such a thing.. I just wondered)

Well,let's see, civil rights movement in the US, the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, the fight against Apartheid in South Africa, anti-fascists in Nazi Germany, democratic dissidents in the Soviet Union, etc, etc. Illegal according to the laws of those countries at the time? Yes. Immoral? Everyone'll have their own opinion on that i guess...:rolleyes:
And no, I don't suppose the South African government thought Nelson Mandela was any use at all to a society trying to maintain a semblance of law and order, what with all that "crossing the line as he saw fit". Could probably say much the same about Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many,many others. Illegal does not equal immoral imho...

[HanZo]

Um, if you ask me, knowing that something is illegal and doing it anyway is immoral. If you can't distinguish between right and wrong, or "can but chose to cross the line as you see fit", then what use are you to a society that is trying to maintain some semblence of law and order? (not that there is such a thing.. I just wondered)
do you realize how fascist and reactionary a statement like this is? what's next... throw all those "immoral" people into a cell and gas them? because anyway they are not useful to society... how moral is that?
often a government is much more "immoral" for the laws it makes than the people who don't follow them because they think different.

[Kdar]

I disagree. When you pirate software, you're stealing potential revenue, and you're using something without paying for it when payment is expected. Remember, whatever your feelings about intelectual property (I believe that there is too much, which is one reason why I use free software), it still is property that can be stolen. And the law defines it as such--at least here in the US.

It's called sharing :rolleyes:

"We Share, Not Steal"

[SoloSalsa]

I use photoshop elements. Mostly for resizing etc. It came with my XP mediacenter.
Adobe overprices it. It's got the good, (though, maybe sorta basic) functionality included, but costs so much. AND THEN, you GOTTA buy the 'filters' tools for making a .ICO and just about anything shmancy. If they had a free database of GOOD plugons, maybe... But paying more for 3rdparty-made functionality... fuhgetuboutit

[mssever]

I use photoshop elements. Mostly for resizing etc. It came with my XP mediacenter.
Adobe overprices it. It's got the good, (though, maybe sorta basic) functionality included, but costs so much. AND THEN, you GOTTA buy the 'filters' tools for making a .ICO and just about anything shmancy. If they had a free database of GOOD plugons, maybe... But paying more for 3rdparty-made functionality... fuhgetuboutit

When it comes to resizing and basic photo touchups, it's hard to beat Google Picasa--which is free and available for both Linux (Google even runs their own repo) and Windows.

[HanZo]

If they had a free database of GOOD plugons, maybe... But paying more for 3rdparty-made functionality...
there's plenty of good photoshop plugs around... but then... I never really use anything apart from gaussian blur and some others because filters tend to make things look like they have beenmade using a filter...

[BLTicklemonster]

Well,let's see, civil rights movement in the US, the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, the fight against Apartheid in South Africa, anti-fascists in Nazi Germany, democratic dissidents in the Soviet Union, etc, etc. Illegal according to the laws of those countries at the time? Yes. Immoral? Everyone'll have their own opinion on that i guess...:rolleyes:
And no, I don't suppose the South African government thought Nelson Mandela was any use at all to a society trying to maintain a semblance of law and order, what with all that "crossing the line as he saw fit". Could probably say much the same about Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many,many others. Illegal does not equal immoral imho...

Can you see the difference between the two? Taking something when no one is looking compared to refusing to sit at the back of a bus. Let's see.... To equate the two, as you and so many others do does Rosa Parks and Mohatma Ghandi et al a disservice. So in your opinion, laws against stealing are to be considered immoral and people ought to disobey the law? You want to run that one by me again?


That said, where the heck can I get some decent python-fus for Gimp? I got tons of them on my windows box at work, and maybe two here on linux.

[BLTicklemonster]

do you realize how fascist and reactionary a statement like this is? what's next... throw all those "immoral" people into a cell and gas them? because anyway they are not useful to society... how moral is that?
often a government is much more "immoral" for the laws it makes than the people who don't follow them because they think different.

Read above. That either of you would take this angle is quite juvenile.

[HanZo]

oh c'mon... if you don't get it, I can't help it. no one is comparing the civil rights movement with software pirates, I think we have clearly stated that, as I think I have clearly defined my position towards piracy in several previous posts (did you read the whole discussion or have you just popped in now?).
What I think is juvenile is the limited view some here have of the problem. stating that law = moral and ******** like this (sorry but I honestly think that is pure ********).
please read the posts with more care before answering, that makes a lot of things easier.

[BLTicklemonster]

oh c'mon... if you don't get it, I can't help it. no one is comparing the civil rights movement with software pirates, I think we have clearly stated that, as I think I have clearly defined my position towards piracy in several previous posts (did you read the whole discussion or have you just popped in now?).
What I think is juvenile is the limited view some here have of the problem. stating that law = moral and ******** like this (sorry but I honestly think that is pure ********).
please read the posts with more care before answering, that makes a lot of things easier.

I've been posting in this thread for quite a while now. You were the 9th poster, I was the 17th. So I didn't just pop up.

I agree with most sentiments here regarding "sharing software isn't pirating" and "personal use where a person would not have purchased it in the first place", etc. I also do not believe in "you aren't guilty if you aren't caught" and "illegal doesn't mean immoral". I think those attitudes diminishes us all.

Therefore I'm one of those dichotomical entities. (new word prolly)

[HanZo]

I agree with most sentiments here regarding "sharing software isn't pirating" and "personal use where a person would not have purchased it in the first place" etc. I also do not believe in "you aren't guilty if you aren't caught" and "illegal doesn't mean immoral"
you didn't sound like it in the first place...
Um, if you ask me, knowing that something is illegal and doing it anyway is immoral.
but maybe we just didn't understand each other... still you must admit that you are a bit contraddicting yourself.

[lassegs]

Pirating isnt stealing, pirating is sharing. Sharing is nice = pirating is nice.

The key factor is that PS like other software isnt a material product, it is information. And the definition of information is something you dont lose if you share it. The only thing you lose is the monopoly of the information, and monopoly of information is evil. = pirating is nice.

You must not forget that propriaritary software isnt only an unproductive way to create software, it is also evil and the enemy = pirating is nice.

Bottom line: Pirating is sharing, sharing is nice, pirating is nice.

[dolson]

I just started trying out Gimp and i gotta say that it sucks. I hate the fact that the tools and the main window are on 3 different windows. why? i hate that. when i'm working on a piece i like to have my tools over the image not under. that doesn't make any sense to me.

OK, you know you can fix that? Probably someone else said it in the 10 pages of this thread, but if not, then here it is:

Right-click the title bar for the toolbox, then go to On Top. Done.

Or go to File > Preferences, then go to Window Management and set the Hint for Toolbox and/or Hint for docks to Keep Above or Utility Window, and then you don't have to right-click and select On Top every time you open Gimp.

Simple problem, simple solution.

[Echo35]

GIMP ftw! It's almost as good as photoshop and it's FREE! The best price ever!

[megamania]

pirateing=stealing

No matter what self-aggrandizing thieves say about it, it's stealing...if I had your IP address, I'd report your *** to Adobe...I payed for CS1, and you're one of the reasons I have to pay the amount I have to.


Simply NOT true. Or maybe true, but not for the reasons you think.

Photoshop (like Windows and all major programs) gets great advantage from piracy. When everybody uses Windows / Photoshop / MS Office, be it original or pirated, it becomes a standard and the producers benefit from that.

So you're probably right. You pay more for Photoshop because a lot of people use pirated copies. However, that's not because you pay for the ones who use illegal copies, but because the widespread illegal copies helped making it a de-facto standard, thus allowing the producers to push prices up.

I'm not saying piracy is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out some facts.

[doobit]

I use Photoshop professionally because the company I work for buys a license for it. It is one of the Windows and Mac OS killer apps, not doubt. I use Gimp at home because it is also a really great image editing program. It replaced an old copy of Photoshop Elements.I've even paid a little to the developers because I like it so much. I would encourage anyone who uses Open source to give a little cash to the developers if you really appreciate the product - not because you HAVE to, but because you WANT to.

[BLTicklemonster]

you didn't sound like it in the first place...

but maybe we just didn't understand each other... still you must admit that you are a bit contraddicting yourself.

No problem. I never said I wasn't immoral now, did I? Admiting my own shortcomings is no problem for me.

[DirtDawg]

There's no "both" option. I use both and, yes, I paid for my Photoshop. A lot. And now it's obsolete (version 7), but it gets the <CMYK> job done.

Anyway, as I've said 100 times before in threads like this, GIMP rawks. It takes getting used to and it's not perfect, but it's designed for very efficient workflow once you get used to it.

[Kdar]

Is there any one image editing soft.. like FireWorks or Photoshop in Linux??

Some thing beside GIMP...
I head there were few of them.. But any one use some thing else beside GIMP in Linux.

[HanZo]

No problem. I never said I wasn't immoral now, did I? Admiting my own shortcomings is no problem for me.
I appreciate that. :)

[willowhisp]

Can you see the difference between the two? Taking something when no one is looking compared to refusing to sit at the back of a bus. Let's see.... To equate the two, as you and so many others do does Rosa Parks and Mohatma Ghandi et al a disservice. So in your opinion, laws against stealing are to be considered immoral and people ought to disobey the law? You want to run that one by me again?


You stated that breaking a law was immoral. Rosa Park's refusal to sit at the back of the bus was breaking the law, as is stealing. You equated the two implicitly. 'The law' refers to all laws, not just the ones about such things as stealing.

[BLTicklemonster]

You stated that breaking a law was immoral. Rosa Park's refusal to sit at the back of the bus was breaking the law, as is stealing. You equated the two implicitly. 'The law' refers to all laws, not just the ones about such things as stealing.

:) there's the law, then there's THE LAW. You know sometimes, trying to simplify things just complicates them.


Whoa, off on a tangent: whether you believe is irrelevant, just stick with the topic- if Roman law stated that all Jews must sit in the back of the bus, where would Jesus have sat?

[willowhisp]

:) there's the law, then there's THE LAW. You know sometimes, trying to simplify things just complicates them.


Whoa, off on a tangent: whether you believe is irrelevant, just stick with the topic- if Roman law stated that all Jews must sit in the back of the bus, where would Jesus have sat?

So... the rules that can officially be inforced by the police and the courts aren't neccessarily 'THE LAW'?

law
–noun
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Which laws are part of 'the law' and which laws are part of 'THE LAW' is subjective.

[BLTicklemonster]

So... the rules that can officially be inforced by the police and the courts aren't neccessarily 'THE LAW'?

law
–noun
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Which laws are part of 'the law' and which laws are part of 'THE LAW' is subjective.

Thanks for copying and pasting that from the dictionary ;)

There's the laws which the state mandates which suppress some portion of society, then there's the laws which come from humanity, where... you know what, I don't really think people today even recognize the difference between the two.

For the sake of keeping the thread on track, suffice it to say forget I said anything. You are all perfectly right in the way you think. What was I thinking?

(funny thing is, there are soooo many people who hold to the other side of the coin. They wouldn't think twice about stealing from other people, but wouldn't dare steal from family. odd ain't it?)

[willowhisp]

Thanks for copying and pasting that from the dictionary ;)

There's the laws which the state mandates which suppress some portion of society, then there's the laws which come from humanity, where... you know what, I don't really think people today even recognize the difference between the two.

For the sake of keeping the thread on track, suffice it to say forget I said anything. You are all perfectly right in the way you think. What was I thinking?


My point was just that one says 'the law' it refers to the rules that are inforced, not to general morals, which implies that, and I interpreted it as meaning that, you think breaking any laws is immoral. If you mean the basic social rules that are innate in most people, then you should use a term other than 'the law'. It's just a issue of clarity.

[willowhisp]

(funny thing is, there are soooo many people who hold to the other side of the coin. They wouldn't think twice about stealing from other people, but wouldn't dare steal from family. odd ain't it?)

Well, in a sense, when you uphold laws of a society, or help another person in that society, you're treating that society as part of a sort of extended family (not in a biological sense). Taking land or property in a war is stealing from those outside that extended family. The restictions on that theft (by international law) would then place that foreign country in another teir of the extended family.

If that sounds weird, I should point out that that idea was inspired by something from War and Peace, so blame Tolstoy.:p

[HanZo]

I think this thread now got to some interesting point... this difference between the law and THE LAW you mentioned is in fact a point that has been discussed by sociology and athropology for years... and will be discussed for the next 20 centuries for sure... there are a lot of different opinions on the whole but basically all agree on the fact that society has a lot of rules, these rules come from the fact that some behaviours get through a process of objectivation because other people discover they work for them too... and later discover they work for the whole group (they think they are parto of). as time passes these bahaviours become rules (or norms or how we want to call them), those rules a society thinks are really important get writte down and become laws. laws always are enforeced by some donuts-eating guys who beat you up if you dont follow them.
the point now is that rules and laws always depend on the circumstances they derive from, these are relative to a majority of people, depend on the context they have been developed... things change but laws tend to be very bureaucratic and are slow to adapt to a new context.
I don't think there is THE LAW, there are some basic rules we all must respect for the sake of civilized living (a lot of people in a limited space needs those rules) these rules are simple things like don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, don't beat up people and stuff like that.
now while it is easy do understand what killing means, because the concept of killing depends on the concept of life, and that is a 1bit concept either yes or no, either dead or alive, it's not so easy to define stealing, beacause that depends on property and that is mora a 64bit concept...
life is a biological thing, property is a society made concept. in fact while all societies have people who are either dead or alive, not all societies have private property, or the same kind of private property.
I mentioned above that rules depend on the context they were developed in, this applies of course to the more complex ones, the ones that depend on other complex concepts. you'll all agree that if the idea of property changes the concept of stealing changes too. now I think we are in the middle of a change like that... and opensource, creative commons, copyleft, wikipedia and so on are certainly part of this change, the problem is just that the organizations we know as state or commercial company are much slower in adapting than the rest of society is... that's the real problem... nothing to do with moral (BLTicklemonster that was not directed at you).
sorry I'm no sociologist... so my explanation may lack a certain scientific rigour...

[BLTicklemonster]

Yep.


Hey, how many people here would consider using a pirated copy of photoshop, but would not dare to steal it off a shelf if there were no way they would get caught, because "that's stealing"?

(raises hand)

How many people here scream at the goalie for letting a ball get by, yet you couldn't play soccer if your life depended on it? Ever coached a football team full of people who were more talented than you are?

(do as I say, not as I do is what I'm getting at here. Which is to say, no, I can't levitate, but I know all you got to do is float in midair. So yes, I will say stuff like make a picture in adobe saying OMGOMGOMG PIRACY LAME! across the bottom. Which pretty much makes me human, right?)

-BLDichotomyMonster

[HanZo]

http://javoice.seeingwithsound.com/hand.gif
yet I'm not sure I fully got your point.

[mssever]

I think this thread now got to some interesting point... this difference between the law and THE LAW you mentioned is in fact a point that has been discussed by sociology and athropology for years... and will be discussed for the next 20 centuries for sure... there are a lot of different opinions on the whole but basically all agree on the fact that society has a lot of rules, these rules come from the fact that some behaviours get through a process of objectivation because other people discover they work for them too... and later discover they work for the whole group (they think they are parto of). as time passes these bahaviours become rules (or norms or how we want to call them), those rules a society thinks are really important get writte down and become laws. laws always are enforeced by some donuts-eating guys who beat you up if you dont follow them.
the point now is that rules and laws always depend on the circumstances they derive from, these are relative to a majority of people, depend on the context they have been developed... things change but laws tend to be very bureaucratic and are slow to adapt to a new context.
I don't think there is THE LAW, there are some basic rules we all must respect for the sake of civilized living (a lot of people in a limited space needs those rules) these rules are simple things like don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, don't beat up people and stuff like that.
now while it is easy do understand what killing means, because the concept of killing depends on the concept of life, and that is a 1bit concept either yes or no, either dead or alive, it's not so easy to define stealing, beacause that depends on property and that is mora a 64bit concept...
life is a biological thing, property is a society made concept. in fact while all societies have people who are either dead or alive, not all societies have private property, or the same kind of private property.
I mentioned above that rules depend on the context they were developed in, this applies of course to the more complex ones, the ones that depend on other complex concepts. you'll all agree that if the idea of property changes the concept of stealing changes too. now I think we are in the middle of a change like that... and opensource, creative commons, copyleft, wikipedia and so on are certainly part of this change, the problem is just that the organizations we know as state or commercial company are much slower in adapting than the rest of society is... that's the real problem... nothing to do with moral (BLTicklemonster that was not directed at you).
sorry I'm no sociologist... so my explanation may lack a certain scientific rigour...
Yet, there is such a thing as basic human rights. Granted, those rights haven't always been recognized, but they do exist. Of course, what those rights are is a subject of some debate. Even the right to life isn't recognized by all. For example, there are some who think that the right to life doesn't apply to unborn babies--though they probably would never express it that way.

So it comes down to deciding the standard of rights and morals. For example, the US Constitution spells out a list of some specific human rights recognized by the American people. And it takes a whole lot more than a majority opinion to change it. But ultimately, the rights recognized by society are dependant on morals. And for a society to rise above mediocrity, those morals must be built upon some absolute timeless principles.

[airtonix]

ok explain to me why you actually need photoshop? are you designing stuff for magazines?

pantone anyone?

proly not if you mention you also need dreamweaver.....which is a piffy excuse to not code properly.


I reckon you should bite the bullet and become a real web developer and use leafpad and nautlius....

I run a group that creates websites for non-profit organistaions....for free. My main issue here is that many of the people who come onto our team aren't savy with html....

Ask them what CSS is and what the WAGI is and they give you blank looks.

And we actually wnet out and bought twenty or so licenses for the latest dreamweaver mx....we thought it would negate the need to teach our team members html or css....

How wrong i was.

I put my foot down, and threw the dreamweaver to the office training team .... (let them deal with piffy userland guff), and my team now use a mix of Bluefish, Screem and Nautilus.

As a result of being thrown in the deep end (only works on receptive people who have a strong will to improve themselves) the guys now understand my rants about standards and accesibility.....

lol they join in too. now we all have fun making websites.

[BLTicklemonster]

I don't neeeeeeed photoshop, but I do like the way it does 3d fonts. And once you set a layer with all the 3d stuff, you can use a brush in it and the brush looks 3d. Like you can do some really cool gooey writing freehand with it.

[skirkpatrick]

BLTicklemonster, I thought you were supposed to throw yourself at the ground and miss? :D


So, if I were to write a wonderful program and sell it over the Internet to support myself as I'm spending all my time working on the program, then it's okay if you make a copy of it to use and don't pay me?

[Josh_b]

Everyone is focusing on how 'immoral' it is to pirate software. The question should be is it moral for the companies to be charging up to thousands of dollars for ONE copy. Seriously, they would make more money if they halved the sale price, as more people would buy the software, rather than pirate it.

[mssever]

Everyone is focusing on how 'immoral' it is to pirate software. The question should be is it moral for the companies to be charging up to thousands of dollars for ONE copy. Seriously, they would make more money if they halved the sale price, as more people would buy the software, rather than pirate it.
They have a right to charge whatever they want. Nothing immoral about that. If you make a product, don't you have a right to charge whatever you think you can get? Or are you opposed to a free market?

[DirtDawg]

They have a right to charge whatever they want. Nothing immoral about that. If you make a product, don't you have a right to charge whatever you think you can get? Or are you opposed to a free market?

The ability to pirate software is part of the "free market".

[BLTicklemonster]

BLTicklemonster, I thought you were supposed to throw yourself at the ground and miss? :D

all the time bro, all the time

So, if I were to write a wonderful program and sell it over the Internet to support myself as I'm spending all my time working on the program, then it's okay if you make a copy of it to use and don't pay me?
Well duh, I can't be expected to support my family and yours too, can I?

;)


good point. which is exaclty why I'm here using ubuntu now! (even the birds have a name for me "cheap cheap cheap" :rolleyes:

[willowhisp]

They have a right to charge whatever they want. Nothing immoral about that. If you make a product, don't you have a right to charge whatever you think you can get? Or are you opposed to a free market?

Perhaps, but we don't live in a free market. Bussiness leaders don't even want a free market; there goal is to make money, not play fair. To quote Adam Smith, "To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
".

[skirkpatrick]

I used to use cracked copies and keygens and decided that I had had enough of it. The biggest reason is that the place I work for wants, of course, to charge for all of their services, software, hardware but almost everything we use is cracked.

One thing you have to remember is that companies aren't run by just the guys in charge. They are also run by their shareholders, who are looking for a good return on investment. If the board members and CEOs aren't doing a good job of making money, the shareholders will either dump their shares (devaluing the company) or vote for replacements.

Software isn't the only thing that companies charge a lot of money for. The car companies were very happy when the US when nuts for SUVs. They only cost slightly more to manufacture than a regular car but they have a much higher profit margin. It's a matter of supply and demand. If people are willing to pay for it, then the company will charge what it can.

As far as "stealing" software, using a pirated or cracked copy is stealing: you are using a product that you did not legally acquire.

[Tomosaur]

I'm not against paying for software, I just can't afford the absurd prices for stuff like Photoshop. If the price was lower, I'd probably buy stuff more, but as it is, I just get by on the free alternatives. The prices just do not seem to reflect the cost of production in any way, especially since Photoshop is not Adobe's ONLY source of income.

[Ben Sprinkle]

Photoshop is a commercial Otherwise, you are a thief, period
I am a thief then. :rolleyes:

[egon spengler]

Hey, how many people here would consider using a pirated copy of photoshop, but would not dare to steal it off a shelf if there were no way they would get caught, because "that's stealing"?

(raises hand)

It's not much a revelation that some/many/most people view two completely different actions in two completely different lights.

[Ben Sprinkle]

Originally Posted by BLTicklemonster
Hey, how many people here would consider using a pirated copy of photoshop, but would not dare to steal it off a shelf if there were no way they would get caught, because "that's stealing"?

(raises hand)

*Raises hand*
Aye to that.

[willowhisp]

One thing you have to remember is that companies aren't run by just the guys in charge. They are also run by their shareholders, who are looking for a good return on investment. If the board members and CEOs aren't doing a good job of making money, the shareholders will either dump their shares (devaluing the company) or vote for replacements.


Actually, that's exclusive to joint stock companies.

[willowhisp]

I just had a thought: What about abondonware and generaly old products that are nolonger sold? For example if Company sells Software v.5, but stops selling it when they start selling Software v.6? Perhaps it's still stealing to pirate Software v.5, and it's probably still illegal, but it does seem that it's not entirely the same as pirating Software v.6.

[skirkpatrick]

It's still the same. A company's intellectual property rights belong to them in perpetuity, even if they go defunct or are acquired by somebody else (who would then also get the rights).


I agree, the price of some of the software is outlandish (you guys ought to check out the price of professional CAD systems: $60,000 - $100,000. Or SAP software) and I use alternatives when I can. If you want the features and the ability of the software, then you need to pay for it whether you can justify the expense or not. A lot of people complain that they can't afford Photoshop but these people are using it personally, not for a business. If it was a business, then you write it off as an expense of doing business.

[willowhisp]

It's still the same. A company's intellectual property rights belong to them in perpetuity, even if they go defunct or are acquired by somebody else (who would then also get the rights).


I didn't say the intellectual property rights didn't still belong to them, and I said it was probably still illegal. I just meant that it wasn't entirely the same. It's not exactly 'stealing food out of their mouths', but it's still illegal. Legally, it's the same, though it's unlikely (for the most part) that they would bother exercising that, but morally, it's not exactly the same. I'm not saying it's ok, just that it's not exactly the same.

Copyright does expire, but not until some number of years (depending on whether it is officialy authored by a human being, or by a corporation, or on which country the copyright is issued in ) after the death of the original copyright owner.

[mabhatter]

The Gimp will hardly be a program I use often.
It's not bad... in fact I used it for some projects, but it lacks one big thing: professional level. As I have mentioned often here on the forum... there are some things you cannot live without when doing some professional work for print: colour profiles, multichannel/duotone/CMYK, proper type tool, good tablet support, actions, batch processing... and son on. some things are present on gimp, but aren't as good... others just miss.
But hey!
I imagine that if Gimp was better Adobe would have to work a bit harder... instead of releasing new versions that just are the old one with some cosmetic change... I mean photoshop is not perfect... far from beign it, but since version 7 they haven't really changed a lot...

What I'd like to see is a mini-Gimp front end to Gimp, that cleaned up the interface to be like photo paint or paintshop pro.. with pretty wizards and "kai" interface. while keeping the base program underneath. That would make Gimp more accessable, and not step on toes either.

edit: but I think Gimp does not need to be like Photoshop... it's better than paint shop, and there are far more people needing an app for simple photo mainpulation than ppl like me who need it for professional work. Gimp just needs to improve a bit on the interface side I think to be a good solution for these people.

Much of what you mentioned Gimp cannot distribute in the US because of Adobe and other company patents.. so the developers don't spend time working on stuff they can't distribute. From what I've seen the code is "out there" but the offical sites are hosted by the FSF in the USA, so nobody can "say" where to get it legally. The other thing missing you mention is filters, but many of them Adobe didn't buy or create either, they just mooch off the community. But they (adobe) do take the time to get rights/pay money/have lawyers so they can get away with "borrowing" when places like the FSF have to play fair. Also, remember, that Gimp is an Offical FSF project unlike many others out there. That means they have to be legal and keep the Free Software philosophy, so no "cheating" for them.

[skirkpatrick]

willowhisp, I understand. I was just making the statement for others to read.

[HanZo]

I agree, the price of some of the software is outlandish (you guys ought to check out the price of professional CAD systems: $60,000 - $100,000. Or SAP software) and I use alternatives when I can. If you want the features and the ability of the software, then you need to pay for it whether you can justify the expense or not.
I've been in film business for some time, you know how much a moviecam professinal movie camera costed back then if you wanted to buy one, 180.000 € professional animation software like Toonz was about 15.000 € per licence... if you want to do professional stuff then you need to pay... but it's not like you cannot make a good film with a cheap super8 camera from ebay, ideas are either good or bad but that never depends on the tools you use to make something out of the idea.
so using Photoshop does not mean you work will be better than the work of somebody that uses the Gimp.
just that if you want to work professionaly and you need to fullfill some requirements, then you need certain tools... but then you are working to earn money so it is ok that you have to pay for those tools. that's how the system works.
I don't think that this is a good system, but if we don't want to destroy it (which is certainly an option in some cases) you need to live with it.
the price of a software depends highly on how much they sell, and thus on how specialized the software is.
The above mentioned Moviecam costs a lot because they'll probably sell 20 a year... the same for certain software.
btw... Photoshop does not cost a lot more than Microsoft Office does... at least here in Europe.

[Ben Sprinkle]

Scottish pirate for life. ;)