This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > January 2004 > PS piracy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| hi,
i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution. i am
talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
awful... even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but eventually
i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
the pirated version of PS.
so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
| |
| Roy Petersen 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:46:30 +0400, "pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote:
> the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
>expensive.
True, that.
>but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
>for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution.
No, it's stealing.
>i am
>talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
>awful...
Both are stealing.
>even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but eventually
>i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
Upgraded from a stolen copy? Also stealing, but a step in the right
direction.
>in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe
If they wanted us to have free copies, they would not charge for it,
and remove all serial number and activation requirements. They must
feel that they should be paid for their work...the bastards.
>because
>when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
>out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
>the pirated version of PS.
But they would have paid for it.
>so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
I'm against it. K?
| |
|
| "pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote in message news:bof7k6$i6h$1@news.intnet.mu...
> hi,
>
> i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
> software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
> expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
> for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution.
You are asking for a solution to a problem that has no dire justification.
Period.
| |
| Tom Thackrey 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
|
On 6-Nov-2003, "pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote:
> i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
> software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
> expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
> for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution. i am
> talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
> awful... even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but
> eventually
> i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
>
> in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
> when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
> out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
> the pirated version of PS.
>
> so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
It's theft no matter how you justify it. It's not like your family will
starve if you don't have PhotoShop.
Further, there are many lower cost or free alternatives like Paint Shop Pro,
PhotoImpact, Corel, etc. If you're a student you can get student discounts.
If you buy a scanner, some come with PS LE.
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to jamesbutler@willglen.net (it's reserved for spammers)
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| >i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
>software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
>expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
>for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution.
No.
The "zero opportunity cost" justification--"I would never be able to afford it
anayway, so Adobe doesn't lose anything if I don't buy it!"--simply does not
hold water when you consider that there are consumer-grade image editors
available for as little as $49; if you pirate Photoshop, you won't buy one of
them.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| frederickson 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| u wont go 2 heaven
| |
|
|
I smell a troll. No. Wait. That's the scent of an idiot. Well, they're
very close you know. Easy mistake.
-- JC
| |
| Xalinai 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:46:30 +0400, "pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote:
>hi,
>
>i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
>software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
>expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
>for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution. i am
>talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
>awful... even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but eventually
>i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
If you are not making money with the software you most probably don't
need press support and CMYK separation.
In that case you are better off with Paint Shop Pro which is less
expensive and does a better job for those just learning.
Or buy a cheap scanner and use the PS elements bundled with it.
If you make money from using PS and can not afford it you are doing
something wrong, very wrong.
>in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
>when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
>out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
>the pirated version of PS.
The theory of filling market niches in an environment where copying is
illeagal but possible. Damage is done to (cheaper) competitors of the
market leader as the pirated version is still cheape than their
alternative product.
>
>so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
This group in general consists of people who have paid for their
software - in real life, think of coming into a truck stop and telling
everyone you painted their wheels pink....
Michael
| |
| The Data Rat 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| Folks, this guy isn't serious. I think he is a stand up comedian practicing
on us. Substitute any luxury item in his message to see how it sounds.
Just in case you are serious, check out ebay...
the ""fact"" is that Z3's and other BMW's are quite
expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
for the full power of a BMW Z3, isn't stealing one the best solution. i am
talking of personal use because making profit by uisng a stolen vehicle is
awful... even me i started using a stolen BMW. but eventually
i managed to get enough money to go for the Z3 upgrade.
"pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote in message news:bof7k6$i6h$1@news.intnet.mu...
> hi,
>
> i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
> software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
> expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
> for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution. i am
> talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
> awful... even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but
eventually
> i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
>
> in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
> when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
> out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
> the pirated version of PS.
>
> so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
>
>
| |
| frederickson 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| u r dum
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| "pS" <mail@someone.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:bof7k6$i6h$1@news.intnet.mu...
> hi,
>
> i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
> software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
> expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
> for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution. i am
> talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
> awful... even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but
eventually
> i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
>
> in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
> when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
> out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
> the pirated version of PS.
>
> so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
>
>
I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should
know, I´m a copyright lawyer), but so is paying up to $600 for the software.
Is like music piracy, 90% of the profits goes to the big company who owns
the software and pays the developers.. less than 1% (in most cases)
Copyright is an aberration .. that´s why the rest of the world calls it
"Authors Rights", bacause elsewhere the author (ps developer) should be the
one in charge .. not the "copy". However .. instead of the US changing to
what "we" (the rest of the world) think is better, "they" make us change our
system .. to what "they" think should be better .. now "we" have to treat
Big Software Companies as authors .. and forget about the developers. That´s
why p2p is so popular .. not because kids want the latest britney spears ..
but because developers are building better and better ways to get even ...
and let´s face it .. opensource isn´t ennough.
I know p2p isn´t legal, nor right .. and that 2 wrongs don´t make a right ..
but they sure as hell make us a little more even!
| |
|
|
"pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote in message news:bof7k6$i6h$1@news.intnet.mu...
> hi,
>
> i would like to ask about a sensible matter concerning PS and other Adobe
> software. the ""fact"" is that PS and other Adobe software are quite
> expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
> for the full power of PS, isn't software piracy the best solution. i am
> talking of personal use because making profit by uisng pirated software is
> awful... even me i started using a pirated version of PS5.5. but
eventually
> i managed to get enough money to go for the 7 upgrade.
>
> in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
> when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
> out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
> the pirated version of PS.
>
> so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
>
>
All property is theft.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003
| |
|
| In article <bofjbt$1c4fks$1@ID-122517.news.uni-berlin.de>, "MALdito"
<maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
> I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should
> know, I´m a copyright lawyer), but so is paying up to $600 for the software.
> Is like music piracy, 90% of the profits goes to the big company who owns
> the software and pays the developers.. less than 1% (in most cases)
Has the profession sunk so low that an attorney will admit in a world-wide
forum that he promotes theft of intellectual property? I don't believe you
are an attorney.
> Copyright is an aberration .. that´s why the rest of the world calls it
> "Authors Rights", bacause elsewhere the author (ps developer) should be the
> one in charge .. not the "copy". However .. instead of the US changing to
> what "we" (the rest of the world) think is better, "they" make us change our
> system .. to what "they" think should be better .. now "we" have to treat
> Big Software Companies as authors .. [....]
Ah, so are you a Marxist? FWIW, I rather suspect the PS developers are
pretty well paid, and there is no single individual who could possibly
code and proof that work in a reasonable period of time to make the
product. It would not exist without the very good team that puts it all
together. And they are probably rather well paid, too.
Dream on, Mr. Solicitor.
| |
|
| In article <NVMqb.878$QC3.6247@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, "leon"
<who@where.test> wrote:
> All property is theft.
From whom?
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| >I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should
>know, I´m a copyright lawyer), but so is paying up to $600 for the software.
That depends on the software.
Photoshop is almost unique in the sense that a program like Photoshop can't be
written by a group of programmers. Photoshop requires people not only skilled
in computer programming, but also skilled in color theory, color modelling,
printing, prepress, color separation, digital signal processing, color
management, workflow management, and so on.
This is why open-source projects like GIMP and programming projects like Paint
Shop Pro have yet to produce a program with more than a small fraction of
Photoshop's capabilities.
Adobe employs teams of people with expertise in all of these areas. As a
result, development of a program like Photoshop is *significantly* more
expensive than development of most other computer programs.
>Is like music piracy, 90% of the profits goes to the big company who owns
>the software and pays the developers.. less than 1% (in most cases)
You obviously are not familiar with Adobe's compensation plan. I have several
friends who are software engineers at Adobe; their compensation plan is rather
different than what you think. Indeed, Thomas Knoll lives very well indeed
because of Photoshop...
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
|
"jjs" <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote in message
news:nospam-0711030858410001@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
> In article <NVMqb.878$QC3.6247@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, "leon"
> <who@where.test> wrote:
>
>
> From whom?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1809-1865.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| "Tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20031107133827.13006.00000415@mb-m14.aol.com...
should[color=blue]
software.[color=blue]
>
> That depends on the software.
>
> Photoshop is almost unique in the sense that a program like Photoshop
can't be
> written by a group of programmers. Photoshop requires people not only
skilled
> in computer programming, but also skilled in color theory, color
modelling,
> printing, prepress, color separation, digital signal processing, color
> management, workflow management, and so on.
>
> This is why open-source projects like GIMP and programming projects like
Paint
> Shop Pro have yet to produce a program with more than a small fraction of
> Photoshop's capabilities.
>
> Adobe employs teams of people with expertise in all of these areas. As a
> result, development of a program like Photoshop is *significantly* more
> expensive than development of most other computer programs.
>
>
> You obviously are not familiar with Adobe's compensation plan. I have
several
> friends who are software engineers at Adobe; their compensation plan is
rather
> different than what you think. Indeed, Thomas Knoll lives very well indeed
> because of Photoshop...
I´m glad to hear that .. really!
| |
| Alan D-W 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
|
"The Data Rat" <kia_1957@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BvEqb.3660$0d2.3138@lakeread06...
> Folks, this guy isn't serious. I think he is a stand up comedian
practicing
> on us. Substitute any luxury item in his message to see how it sounds.
> Just in case you are serious, check out ebay...
>
> the ""fact"" is that Z3's and other BMW's are quite
> expensive. but for some people who do not have enough cash but want to go
> for the full power of a BMW Z3, isn't stealing one the best solution. i am
> talking of personal use because making profit by uisng a stolen vehicle is
> awful... even me i started using a stolen BMW. but eventually
> i managed to get enough money to go for the Z3 upgrade.
>
What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said, it makes no sense
whatsoever.
| |
| frederickson 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| dumbass
"Alan D-W" <alansworld@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3fac094d$0$2393$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "The Data Rat" <kia_1957@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BvEqb.3660$0d2.3138@lakeread06...
> practicing
go[color=blue]
am[color=blue]
is[color=blue]
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Read what you said, it makes no sense
> whatsoever.
>
>
>
| |
| Jimmy 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
|
>
> Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1809-1865.
>
>
One of a long line of French socialists.
| |
|
|
"leon" <who@where.test> wrote in message
news:iwSqb.1089$QC3.8521@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> "jjs" <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote in message
> news:nospam-0711030858410001@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
>
> Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1809-1865.
Ah, yes, the Idiot Proudhorn. What a case.
| |
| Diane Wilson 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| In article <FMaqP2izW1fKPWoOQhN6MBx809nJ@4ax.com>, null@nowhere.net says...
>
> I smell a troll. No. Wait. That's the scent of an idiot. Well, they're
> very close you know. Easy mistake.
The scent of a troll was pirated from a real troll. That's illegal,
too.
We won't ask about troll cracks.
Diane
| |
| PS Capitalist Pig 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:46:30 +0400, "pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote:
>in a sense i think that the software piracy may benefit to Adobe because
>when you have been using PS pirated copy and have managed to get the grips
>out of it and when you go for a job in a design company they will not use
>the pirated version of PS.
Adobe just placed an activation scheme on Photoshop CS. I guess they
don't appreciate your help or feel your poverty ;)
<sob> ingrates!
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| MALdito <maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
> I for one see the logic in his question. YES, piracy is stealing (I should
> know, I´m a copyright lawyer), but so is paying up to $600 for the software.
> Is like music piracy, 90% of the profits goes to the big company who owns
> the software and pays the developers.. less than 1% (in most cases)
>
> Copyright is an aberration .. that´s why the rest of the world calls it
> "Authors Rights", bacause elsewhere the author (ps developer) should be the
> one in charge .. not the "copy".
No, not in my country. If the developer is employed by a company to do
the development work, that company becomes the copyright (or authors
right) holder, not the developer. So, if Adobe was based in my country,
Adobe would be the 'authors right' holder of Photoshop, not the people
who have done the work as employees of Adobe. I would be surprised if
that was different in any other country.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
|
"Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:1g432tg.ep6i0212ijs7kN%nomail@please.invalid...
> MALdito <maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
>
should[color=blue]
software.[color=blue]
owns[color=blue]
the[color=blue]
>
> No, not in my country. If the developer is employed by a company to do
> the development work, that company becomes the copyright (or authors
> right) holder, not the developer. So, if Adobe was based in my country,
> Adobe would be the 'authors right' holder of Photoshop, not the people
> who have done the work as employees of Adobe. I would be surprised if
> that was different in any other country.
>
>
> --
> Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
> Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
That´s exactly what I meant .. that´s the copyright way .. not the authors
right way.
The US began imposing this "aberration" long time ago .. to everybody who
wanted to do business with them. Next thing you know, the WIPO and the WTO
put it in some article ..
I´m not against big companies financing software development .. I´m just not
happy about the way big companies are "calculating" their fee.
| |
|
|
"PS Capitalist Pig" <no@email*.com> wrote in message
news:eb7oqv8h33k2mccpbo0jh2bkrtm2idn0pe@4ax.com...
> Adobe just placed an activation scheme on Photoshop CS. I guess they
> don't appreciate your help or feel your poverty ;)
> <sob> ingrates!
Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to 'kill' Activation
protection.
And there you have it again:
- those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue
to do so.
- those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.
.... but ... whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual
money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for
it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems
to legit users by making PS refusing to work or making it unable to install
again and reactivate. Additionaly, in a tight schedule it can become
tremendous problem.
Think about it.
W.
p.s. Im not against fighting piracy, I just think that software activation
is wrong way to do it.
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:55 pm |
| MALdito <maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
>
>
> That´s exactly what I meant .. that´s the copyright way .. not the authors
> right way.
>
> The US began imposing this "aberration" long time ago .. to everybody who
> wanted to do business with them. Next thing you know, the WIPO and the WTO
> put it in some article ..
Well, I don't know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries,
but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch 'authors rights' laws since the
beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose
what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights
in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could
stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming
his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed...
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
|
| In article <boi6mi$1aiv7l$1@ID-122517.news.uni-berlin.de>, "MALdito"
<maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
> [...]
> I´m not against big companies financing software development .. I´m just not
> happy about the way big companies are "calculating" their fee.
Calculating their fee by what the market will bear is a bad thing? Seems
to be the defining metric that works. But aside from that, do apparenlty
have no idea at all what it takes to build, test, prove, market, insure,
employ, and support a product like Photoshop. It _is_ about people - they
are expensive.
| |
|
| In article <1g43svv.edmkd1152ac82N%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> Well, I don't know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries,
> but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch 'authors rights' laws since the
> beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose
> what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights
> in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could
> stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming
> his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed...
Perhaps not. When I worked in commercial software development, I had to
sign a contract that said that _everything_ I coded, and _anything_ I
contributed otherwise, including ideas (and later derivations of the
ideas) conveyed in any way, even in conversation with employees, during
meetings, and so-forth was the property of my employer. Fair is fair. They
paid me very, very well.
BTW, Johan - why _is_ a Zebra striped? (I'm guessing natural convection
cooling).
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
> In article <1g43svv.edmkd1152ac82N%nomail@please.invalid>,
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps not. When I worked in commercial software development, I had to
> sign a contract that said that _everything_ I coded, and _anything_ I
> contributed otherwise, including ideas (and later derivations of the
> ideas) conveyed in any way, even in conversation with employees, during
> meetings, and so-forth was the property of my employer. Fair is fair. They
> paid me very, very well.
>
> BTW, Johan - why _is_ a Zebra striped? (I'm guessing natural convection
> cooling).
We will never know for sure. Personally I don't think the convection
cooling theory is very likely, for a number of reasons. The main reason
is that zebras do not seem to withstand higher temperatures than other
animals, where they should if the convection cooling would work. Zebras
go for the shade when some other animals don't seem to be bothered by
the heat. The other reason is that I don't believe it is effective
anyway. Zebra striped vehicles parked in the sunlight do not stay
noticably cooler than white ones either. It's an interesting theory, but
I don't think anyone has ever shown that is really works that way.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
| Alan D-W 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
|
"frederickson" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0QTqb.47513$SV2.34417@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> dumbass
>
Ah that explains everything! You're a dumbass so that's why you're inane
ramblings made no sense.
| |
|
| In article <1g446bx.1cptcuu1b6j7mgN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
>
>
> We will never know for sure. Personally I don't think the convection
> cooling theory is very likely, for a number of reasons.
> [... snip good stuff ...]
I agree. Convection is as likely an explanation as mine: Zebras are
nature's telephoto lens resolution targets. Or more seriously, their
markings are nature's version of Razzle Dazzle camoflage. (Remember that
trend? It really worked.)
Okay, I'm leaving now. :) Too much coffee.
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
|
"Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:1g43svv.edmkd1152ac82N%nomail@please.invalid...
> MALdito <maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
>
country,[color=blue]
authors[color=blue]
who[color=blue]
WTO[color=blue]
>
> Well, I don't know how long ago the US "imposed" it on other countries,
> but AFAIK it has been in the Dutch 'authors rights' laws since the
> beginning of the LAST century. And it makes a lot of sense too. Suppose
> what could happen if the individual developer would hold the copyrights
> in such a case. ONE disgruntled (or just greedy) ex-Adobe employee could
> stop the next version of Photoshop from coming onto the market, claiming
> his/her copyrights over the part he/she developed...
>
>
> --
Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it´s Authors Right. You own what
you create ... but you can sell the modifications right. After that you can
only get royalties .. isn´t that a beauty? The difference is, the author
gets treated like a person, and not just another production variable..
> Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
> Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
|
"jjs" <nospam@nospam.xxx> escribió en el mensaje
news:nospam-0811030845060001@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
> In article <1g43svv.edmkd1152ac82N%nomail@please.invalid>,
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps not. When I worked in commercial software development, I had to
> sign a contract that said that _everything_ I coded, and _anything_ I
> contributed otherwise, including ideas (and later derivations of the
> ideas) conveyed in any way, even in conversation with employees, during
> meetings, and so-forth was the property of my employer. Fair is fair. They
> paid me very, very well.
>
> BTW, Johan - why _is_ a Zebra striped? (I'm guessing natural convection
> cooling).
Yea, you can sell everything BUT the moral rights ... something copyright
doesn´t know of..
| |
|
| In article <boj8fj$1eh5ba$1@ID-122517.news.uni-berlin.de>, "MALdito"
<maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
> Yea, you can sell everything BUT the moral rights ... something copyright
> doesn´t know of..
What the heck are 'moral rights' in terms of author's or copyright?
Elaborate. I strongly suspect you will put forth some kind of Marxist
view.
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| >... but ... whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual
>money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash
>for it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate
problems
>to legit users by making PS refusing to work or making it unable to install
>again and reactivate.
And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why software activation is wrong, inane,
and stupid.
It's not wrong because it's a moral problem or because a company has no right
to do it; any copyright owner is within its rights to try to stop theft. It's
wrong because it costs users money and does not solve the problem it purports
to solve. It's a stupid, expensive, and ineffective waste of resources.
Every problem has a solution that is logical, neat, elegant, and wrong. If the
solution does not solve the problem, then it is, by definition, the wrong
solution.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| PS CP 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0100, "Wed" <drol_remove_@dereth.ac>
wrote:
>
>"PS Capitalist Pig" <no@email*.com> wrote in message
....
>Yet it took crackers 3 or 4 days, after PS release, to 'kill' Activation
>protection.
And those with cracked versions are actually complaining in the Adobe
Forums that their "ctrl" key is not working.
>And there you have it again:
>- those who were using pirated versions in the past will probably continue
>to do so.
>- those who were using legit copies will probably continue to do so.
As they say, a lock doesn't stop a good burglar...it keeps the honest
people honest. One aspect of piracy is people who do buy the legit
copy installing it on a whole lot of machines. That's really what
activation is more aimed at.
>... but ... whole activation code, servers and people involved cost actual
>money and I know that *legit users* are the ones who are gonna pay cash for
>it. Not to mention that activation routine can potentially generate problems
Microsoft has been using it in Word and Windows XP without much of an
issue. I activated my PS CS without any problems. As for workflow
interuptions...you do have a backup strategy. right? I mean even if
there was a problem with activation after upgrading a machine...you
would have a backup machine running it. The license allows one other
machine such as a laptop.
Funny, the upgrade is $169....not much of a cost increase afaik.
In fact I got a $30 discount via NAPP.
PS CP
| |
|
| PS CP wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0100, "Wed" <drol_remove_@dereth.ac>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
> And those with cracked versions are actually complaining in the Adobe
> Forums that their "ctrl" key is not working.
>
>
>
>
> As they say, a lock doesn't stop a good burglar...it keeps the honest
> people honest. One aspect of piracy is people who do buy the legit
> copy installing it on a whole lot of machines. That's really what
> activation is more aimed at.
>
>
>
>
> Microsoft has been using it in Word and Windows XP without much of an
> issue. I activated my PS CS without any problems.
Most people don't have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated
before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period.
You can easily spot them in usenet. They're always asking for PS
technical help, because they can't obtain any official technical help.
Regards,
Uni
As for workflow
> interuptions...you do have a backup strategy. right? I mean even if
> there was a problem with activation after upgrading a machine...you
> would have a backup machine running it. The license allows one other
> machine such as a laptop.
>
> Funny, the upgrade is $169....not much of a cost increase afaik.
> In fact I got a $30 discount via NAPP.
>
> PS CP
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| MALdito <maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
>
> Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it´s Authors Right. You own what
> you create ...
No, you don't. That's exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create,
if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that's
the law in my country.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
|
| In article <1g44po5.icqq4f19g7z1aN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
>
> No, you don't. That's exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create,
> if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that's
> the law in my country.
Is that a national law, or a prevailing convention among companies? Or is
there no difference there?
| |
| Bill Hilton 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| >> Not really .. remember is NOT copyright, it´s Authors Right. You own what
[color=blue]
>From: nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga)
>
>No, you don't. That's exactly my point; you do NOT own what you create,
>if you created it as a part of your work as an employee. At least that's
>the law in my country.
It's the same in the USA at most companies. I was granted six US Patents which
were filed while I was working for an electronics company. They paid the
attorney fees and gave me a generous bonus for each one but the company owns
the patents. I knew that going in and it's fine with me.
Bill
| |
| Steve Moody 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| In article <20031108191559.00930.00000595@mb-m04.aol.com>, Bill Hilton
<bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote:
>
> It's the same in the USA at most companies. I was granted six US Patents
> which
> were filed while I was working for an electronics company. They paid the
> attorney fees and gave me a generous bonus for each one but the company owns
> the patents. I knew that going in and it's fine with me.
Copyright law and Patent law are not the same thing. Under US law,
you have the right to patent what you invent unless (such as your case)
you sign an agreement with your employeer otherwise. You do not own
the copyright for something you create "for hire" unless your employeer
signs an agreement otherwise.
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
> In article <1g44po5.icqq4f19g7z1aN%nomail@please.invalid>,
> nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
>
>
> Is that a national law, or a prevailing convention among companies? Or is
> there no difference there?
It's the law. A few years ago someone who worked for Philips tried to
get his authors rights for an invention he made during his work at the
Philips labs. He went to court and lost.
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
|
| Tacit wrote:
>
> problems
>
>
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why software activation is wrong, inane,
> and stupid.
>
> It's not wrong because it's a moral problem or because a company has no right
> to do it; any copyright owner is within its rights to try to stop theft. It's
> wrong because it costs users money and does not solve the problem it purports
> to solve. It's a stupid, expensive, and ineffective waste of resources.
>
> Every problem has a solution that is logical, neat, elegant, and wrong. If the
> solution does not solve the problem, then it is, by definition, the wrong
> solution.
If you have any better solutions, let's hear them.
Regards,
Uni
>
>
>
| |
|
| In article <1g45oge.12m34k8bq2gaoN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
>
> It's the law. A few years ago someone who worked for Philips tried to
> get his authors rights for an invention he made during his work at the
> Philips labs. He went to court and lost.
So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It
strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a
capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed - or your are incorrect
regarding the details of the case.
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
>
> So you are saying it is a national law. I can hardly believe it. It
> strikes me that the ideal socialist law would not give such power to a
> capitalist enterprise. So, your system is flawed - or your are incorrect
> regarding the details of the case.
I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don't think so. What makes
you believe that all the laws in my country are 'socialist laws'?
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
| Jimmy 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
|
"Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:1g46i81.1k9atjnckc9eeN%nomail@please.invalid...
>
> I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don't think so. What makes
> you believe that all the laws in my country are 'socialist laws'?
Don't worry about jjs and the statement that was made.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/wct/index.html This site contains a wealth of information about
copyrights and such under the current international treaty. Presently, there are 179 member
countries so ALL of these countries will have similar copyright (author's rights) laws if they want
their issued copyrights honored worldwide. http://www.wipo.int/
If you check further into the Philips Labs lawsuit you mentioned, you would probably find the person
was a show to be covered under the work-for-hire doctrine, which means he was a direct hire of
Philips whose job was to develop the software.
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
|
"jjs" <nospam@nospam.xxx> escribió en el mensaje
news:nospam-0811031125520001@ip-0-251.sprint-rev.hbci.com...
> In article <boj8fj$1eh5ba$1@ID-122517.news.uni-berlin.de>, "MALdito"
> <maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
>
copyright[color=blue]
>
> What the heck are 'moral rights' in terms of author's or copyright?
> Elaborate. I strongly suspect you will put forth some kind of Marxist
> view.
Not at all. And if I would .. what´s so evil about that?
Anyway, moral rights are "the kind" only human beings can have. They are the
opposite of "patrimonial" rights. You should do a search .. they are as
popular as the REAL football. Only the US doesn´t recognize them. Actually
they do, but only in paper (Berne Treaty)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html
| |
| MALdito 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| "Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid> escribió en el mensaje
news:1g46i81.1k9atjnckc9eeN%nomail@please.invalid...
> jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
>
Or is[color=blue]
>
> I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don't think so. What makes
> you believe that all the laws in my country are 'socialist laws'?
>
>
> --
> Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
> Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
1- Your country signed the Berne Convention.
2- Your country HAS moral rights.
3- The authors in your country can sell all their rights EXCEPT the moral
rights.
4- You can lose a trial, even if there is a law, and you are right.
Specially when it is agains bit companies.
| |
| Xalinai 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:46:43 -0500, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid>
wrote:
>PS CP wrote:
>
>Most people don't have a problem with the activation. And, as I stated
>before, those who complain about it are hackers and piraters, period.
>You can easily spot them in usenet. They're always asking for PS
>technical help, because they can't obtain any official technical help.
You mean 80% of the casual readers of this group are pirates?
Michael
>
>Regards,
>Uni
>
>
> As for workflow
>
>
| |
|
| Xalinai wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:46:43 -0500, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You mean 80% of the casual readers of this group are pirates?
Are you able to prove me wrong?
:-)
Uni
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Roy Petersen 2003-11-19, 10:56 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:50:26 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai)
wrote:
That's absurd.
I own all my software (well, the license, anyway), and sometimes ask
for help I have trouble finding in the documentation. Besides, getting
"real" technical help from larger companies (yes, even Adobe) is
frustrating to say the least.
I have a problem with activation simply because I don't want to rely
on someone else's hardware remaining available when I need to
reinstall, and I also don't want the company to say "your version is
no longer supported" and then remove the activation server.
Has this happened? Not yet. Will it? Perhaps, if the software
companies decide to go with a subscription model instead of just
activation. How far behind do you think *that* notion is?
[color=blue]
>You mean 80% of the casual readers of this group are pirates?
....aarrrrhhhh, matey.
| |
|
| In article <bon6rv$1gj2c3$1@ID-122517.news.uni-berlin.de>, "MALdito"
<maldito@webbasica.com> wrote:
> "jjs" <nospam@nospam.xxx> escribió en el mensaje
>
> Not at all. And if I would .. what´s so evil about that?
>
> Anyway, moral rights are "the kind" only human beings can have. They are the
> opposite of "patrimonial" rights. You should do a search .. they are as
> popular as the REAL football. Only the US doesn´t recognize them. Actually
> they do, but only in paper (Berne Treaty)
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html
We are drifting far OT, but I had to smile when I read the REAL football
comment. Very good analogy, too.
| |
| Orvile 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
|
<Roy Petersen> wrote in message
news:4f5vqv42cc13i150b6617dfvt88to5vu3u@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:50:26 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai)
> wrote:
>
>
> That's absurd.
> I own all my software (well, the license, anyway), and sometimes ask
> for help I have trouble finding in the documentation. Besides, getting
> "real" technical help from larger companies (yes, even Adobe) is
> frustrating to say the least.
>
> I have a problem with activation simply because I don't want to rely
> on someone else's hardware remaining available when I need to
> reinstall, and I also don't want the company to say "your version is
> no longer supported" and then remove the activation server.
> Has this happened? Not yet. Will it? Perhaps, if the software
> companies decide to go with a subscription model instead of just
> activation. How far behind do you think *that* notion is?
Not far, read here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
>
| |
|
| Orvile wrote:
> <Roy Petersen> wrote in message
> news:4f5vqv42cc13i150b6617dfvt88to5vu3u@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> Not far, read here:
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
I wouldn't blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper
piracy.
Uni
>
>
>
| |
|
| In article <TGWrb.853$up3.815@fe1.columbus.rr.com>, "Orvile"
<orv@colubus.rr.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Not far, read here:
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Yep. It's all about a Back to the Mainframe mentality; in otherwords "we
own it, you rent it, we own you, we know what you are doing, you can't
know what we are doing, you don't mean squat but $$$$."
It's a regular circle. A marketing thing.
| |
| Paul J Gans 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>Tacit wrote:
[color=blue]
>If you have any better solutions, let's hear them.
>Regards,
>Uni
What is the problem? If we knew that we might be able to
suggest solutions.
There is a theory out there that says that pirated copies
cut *significantly* into sales. If there is any actual
evidence to support that I've not seen it. As far as I
know no manufacturer has ever presented any compelling
evidence. All I've seen is guesswork.
Consider the required activation for Windows XP. What fraction
of people have actually installed XP from scratch? (I have
and it sometimes isn't easy -- and yes it was a legal copy.)
Most folks buy a computer with the operating system already
installed. Very few build their own machines.
But right now activation (and monitoring) seem to be all
the rage. We'll just have to wait and see.
--- Paul J. Gans
| |
| Paul J Gans 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| Johan W. Elzenga <nomail@please.invalid> wrote:
>jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I might be wrong regarding the details, but I don't think so. What makes
>you believe that all the laws in my country are 'socialist laws'?
I'd guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.
It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been
around for more than a century.
The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer
belongs to the employer. You've not been hired to work for
yourself. You've been hired to work for a company.
The issue gets complicated by "I did it on my own time" and
things like that, but then any general principle does.
And no, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
---- Paul J. Gans
| |
|
| In article <bopg99$81m$6@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> I'd guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.
> It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been
> around for more than a century.
>
> The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer
> belongs to the employer. You've not been hired to work for
> yourself. You've been hired to work for a company.
Usually that is the case. Academe, however, is quite different. In many
(many!) cases, an employee of academe can patent and profit from work he
did while under the employee of the university or college.
| |
| Xalinai 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:38:19 -0500, Uni <no.email@no.email.invalid>
wrote:
>Orvile wrote:
>
>I wouldn't blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper
>piracy.
It wouldn't hit you, you don't use Photoshop as we know.
Michael
>
>Uni
>
>
>
>
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'd guess it has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.
> It is a part of contract law and a part that has probably been
> around for more than a century.
>
> The basic idea is that the work that you do for an employer
> belongs to the employer. You've not been hired to work for
> yourself. You've been hired to work for a company.
Exactly, that's what I've been saying all along. It makes sense too and
has little to do with 'capitalism' or not. Suppose this would NOT be the
case. Suppose I work for a company a do some development work as part of
a very large project. Just before the project is finished, I quit my job
and claim 'authors rights' or copy rights on the work I just did. That
way I can extort the company, because without my part the whole project
cannot be used. Is that fair to any (moral or legal) standard? I don't
think so!
--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
| |
|
| In article <1g49fx5.11wvosu1evi64gN%nomail@please.invalid>,
nomail@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> Exactly, that's what I've been saying all along. It makes sense too and
> has little to do with 'capitalism' or not. Suppose this would NOT be the
> case. Suppose I work for a company a do some development work as part of
> a very large project. Just before the project is finished, I quit my job
> and claim 'authors rights' or copy rights on the work I just did. That
> way I can extort the company, because without my part the whole project
> cannot be used. Is that fair to any (moral or legal) standard? I don't
> think so!
On the other hand, some of us have what's called 'intellectual currency'
that we take from project to project (job to job). For example, one who
can cut machine code for certain challenges. While one can argue that
algorithms are the propery of a certain employer, it almost never stands
up because (IMHO) patenting algoritms is just downright wrong-headed. So
some folks do their special thing for employer A, then B, and all the way
to Z if possible. That's okay. It is similar to this thing called 'talent'
which no employer can own, but that is a different subject.
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| >I wouldn't blame Adobe if they decided to use a hardware plug to hamper
>piracy.
Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product activation,
for many reasons:
- It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe's product
activation has already been cracked.
- The hardware dongle is not a mechanism for data collection; activation is.
Product activation allows the company to collect unique, personally
identifiable information about hte users and their system configurations.
- A hardware dongle still works easily if you change your computer.
Re-activating a copy of Adobe's software if you replace your computer requires
contacting Adobe; if you can't (for whatever reason), or theur systems aren't
working properly, or there's a problem with their database, you're screwed.
- A hardware dongle is faster, easier to set up, and does not require an
Internet connection.
It's the second point that's most telling--and it's the second point, I
suspect, that is the REAL reason for hardware activation.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| >Consider the required activation for Windows XP. What fraction
>of people have actually installed XP from scratch?
Funny you should mention XP...
I have a (legal, licensed) copy of XP Pro that I had running on my primary home
PC. My PC got hit by lightning; came in through my cable modem connection,
destroyed my cable modem, my router, the Ethernet port on one of my iMacs, the
motherboard on my PC, and the cabling in between.
I replaced the motherboard on the PC, and got a new graphics card while I was
at it, the better to play games. That was enough to trigger XP's "Help, this is
a different computer!" panic; re-installing XP required a phone call to
microsoft and all the associated thrashing around. There's two hours of my life
I'll never get back.
If it happens again, I'll tell you right now, I'm using the activation hack.
Not because I am a pirate; it's still a legal copy of XP. I'm using the hack
because I've got better things to do with my life than spend it on the goddamn
telephone to Microsoft begging for the activation key to let me use my
purchased copy of XP.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
|
"Tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031111143750.28568.00000044@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product
activation,
> for many reasons:
> [...]
Bring on the Dongle! But wait - what happens when you end up with a chain of
dongles so long the computer won't fit against a wall? And what of conflicts
among them? Are there Dongle Standards? Dongle black-markets? (How hard can
it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)
But I see a market! Dongle Pins! (Prestige apparel) Dongle Skins! Dongle
help groups.
--
jjs - twelve stepping to Gimp
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote:
[snip]
>Bring on the Dongle! But wait - what happens when you end up with a chain of
>dongles so long the computer won't fit against a wall? And what of conflicts
Hey, think in three dimensions ;-)
But I see the point...this would also be a real problem with laptops.
Every software requiring a dongle. Oops, just lost one while on the
road. What to do!
>among them? Are there Dongle Standards? Dongle black-markets? (How hard can
>it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)
Don't know, but they would be harder to get hold of than a software
crack. And easier for the police to catch the culprits (and the full
force of the DMCA and equivalents).
>But I see a market! Dongle Pins! (Prestige apparel) Dongle Skins! Dongle
>help groups.
Hey, why not use biometrics... ;-)
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
| |
|
|
"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:ekh2rvsavplcogis408pn7q2j01sj0o37g@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> [snip...]
> Hey, why not use biometrics... ;-)
Now you are really scaring me. :) Tried something like that a few times in
the Old Daze; things like console key monitoring for typing patterns in
order to identify individuals. Know how whacked that gets when the operator
comes in hung over?
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| >Bring on the Dongle! But wait - what happens when you end up with a chain
>of dongles so long the computer won't fit against a wall?
Dongles are only cost-effective for software that has a fairly high retail
price; you're not likely to see a dongle for a $49.95 program.
>And what of conflicts
>among them? Are there Dongle Standards?
Yes. The EvE standard is daisy-chainable, too.
>Dongle black-markets? (How hard can
>it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)
The dongles work by containing a passkey in ROM, which is encrypted by a strong
encryption algorithm such as TripleDES or RC4. Reverse-engineering a dongle
would require being able to crack strong encryption--which is a non-trivial
task. If you can do it, you'd be better rewarded by using your skills at the
NSA or FBI than using them to bootleg Photoshop.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
| Paul J Gans 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| jjs <nospam@nospam.xxx> wrote:
>In article <bopg99$81m$6@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Usually that is the case. Academe, however, is quite different. In many
>(many!) cases, an employee of academe can patent and profit from work he
>did while under the employee of the university or college.
That's a more complex issue. If that is allowed, and it is NOT
ALLOWED at many universities, it is because the university
has specifically granted those rights back to the individual.
If you want to get worked up about something, how about patents
taken on the basis of research that was funded by the Federal
Government. This is common in the US.
But we are drifting further and further off-topic.
---- Paul J. Gans
| |
| Paul J Gans 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| Johan W. Elzenga <nomail@please.invalid> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Exactly, that's what I've been saying all along. It makes sense too and
>has little to do with 'capitalism' or not. Suppose this would NOT be the
>case. Suppose I work for a company a do some development work as part of
>a very large project. Just before the project is finished, I quit my job
>and claim 'authors rights' or copy rights on the work I just did. That
>way I can extort the company, because without my part the whole project
>cannot be used. Is that fair to any (moral or legal) standard? I don't
>think so!
Yes. We are, I think, in total agreement.
---- Paul J. Gans
| |
|
| Tacit wrote:
>
>
> Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using product activation,
> for many reasons:
>
> - It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe's product
> activation has already been cracked.
>
> - The hardware dongle is not a mechanism for data collection; activation is.
> Product activation allows the company to collect unique, personally
> identifiable information about hte users and their system configurations.
>
> - A hardware dongle still works easily if you change your computer.
> Re-activating a copy of Adobe's software if you replace your computer requires
> contacting Adobe; if you can't (for whatever reason), or theur systems aren't
> working properly, or there's a problem with their database, you're screwed.
>
> - A hardware dongle is faster, easier to set up, and does not require an
> Internet connection.
>
> It's the second point that's most telling--and it's the second point, I
> suspect, that is the REAL reason for hardware activation.
>
Even better, Photoshop could be distributed on a ROM chip, which you'd
plug-in to your computer. I'm amazed MS hasn't thought of this idea yet.
Uni
| |
| Eric Gill 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote in
news:20031111143750.28568.00000044@mb-m14.aol.com:
> - It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe's product
> activation has already been cracked.
And (for example) Quark for UK has been cracked to remove the need for the
dongle; copy protection is an effort in futility, period.
re: data gathering in activation:
> It's the second point that's most telling--and it's the second point,
> I suspect, that is the REAL reason for hardware activation.
I suspect you're entirely correct on that one.
Long live PS7.
| |
| Chris Dillon 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| MALdito wrote:
> Anyway, moral rights are "the kind" only human beings can have. They are the
> opposite of "patrimonial" rights. You should do a search .. [snip]
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/6bis.html
An additional read is
http://www.copyright.gov/wipo/wipo5.html#Article%205
Article 5:
Moral Rights of Performers
(1) Independently of a performer's economic rights, and even after the
transfer of those rights, the performer shall
Alternative A: , as regards his musical performances, have the right
Alternative B: have the right
to be identified as the performer of his performances and to object to
any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory
action in relation to, his performances that would be prejudicial to his
honour or reputation.
(2) The rights granted to a performer in accordance with the preceding
paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the
expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons
or institutions authorized by the legislation of the Contracting Party
where protection is claimed. However, those Contracting Parties whose
legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this
Treaty, does not provide for protection after the death of the performer
of all rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some
of these rights will, after his death, cease to be maintained.
(3) The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted under this
Article shall be governed by the legislation of the Contracting Party
where protection is claimed.
--
Regards
Christopher Dillon
Onemouse .-'
+------------------------------------------ _|__--+
| One Man & His Mouse Design Consultancy / \ |
| |()_()| |
| Cambridge \{o o}/ |
| New Zealand =\o/= |
+------------------------------------------ ^ ^ --+
| |
| Diane Wilson 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| In article <20031111172735.27873.00000030@mb-m06.aol.com>, tacitr@aol.com
says...
>
> The dongles work by containing a passkey in ROM, which is encrypted by a strong
> encryption algorithm such as TripleDES or RC4. Reverse-engineering a dongle
> would require being able to crack strong encryption--which is a non-trivial
> task. If you can do it, you'd be better rewarded by using your skills at the
> NSA or FBI than using them to bootleg Photoshop.
Why would you have to break encryption? All you'd have to do is
copy the ROM contents.
Personally I'd rather have activation than dongles; besides getting
lost, dongles can break, dongles can get damaged (seems I've heard
several tales of this with parallel port dongles, and parallel
ports were never designed for stacked devices anyway), and dongles
are a real hassle for mobility.
My primary computer is now a laptop, with a dock. If I had to use
a dongle, I'd have to move the dongle from the dock to the laptop,
or back, every time I dock or undock. That's at least twice daily,
all for use on a *single* computer. For that reason alone, a
dongle is sufficient reason not to buy a piece of software.
Diane
| |
| phaedrus 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
>
>Using a dongle would, IMO, be a whole lot better than using
>product activation, for many reasons:
>
>- It actually solves the problem. Activation does not; Adobe's
>product activation has already been cracked.
http://www.woodmann.com/fravia/zee__4.htm
| |
| Xalinai 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:46:56 -0600, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote:
>
>"Tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20031111143750.28568.00000044@mb-m14.aol.com...
>activation,
>
>Bring on the Dongle! But wait - what happens when you end up with a chain of
>dongles so long the computer won't fit against a wall? And what of conflicts
>among them? Are there Dongle Standards? Dongle black-markets? (How hard can
>it be to reverse engineer a Dongle?)
>
>But I see a market! Dongle Pins! (Prestige apparel) Dongle Skins! Dongle
>help groups.
The first is easy - use a cable. Modern dongles come in USB types -
put it in a hub on your desk when you use the application.
Cracks against dongles were widely known in the eighties. But modern
devices are a bit more intelligent so chances are it would take a
little longer to circumvent them.
Michael
>
>--
>jjs - twelve stepping to Gimp
>
>
| |
|
| In article <3fb26368.796583187@news.t-online.de>, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de
(Xalinai) wrote:
> [...]
> Cracks against dongles were widely known in the eighties. But modern
> devices are a bit more intelligent so chances are it would take a
> little longer to circumvent them.
It seems the only way to prevent piracy is to have server-only
applications and dumb clients (computer clients), like in the 'old' days
of timesharing. If we were all on Internet-2 it might even be feasible.
_Stupid_ but feasible.
So do we _know_ how many pirated versions of PS are in use? And how do we
know? What metrics is Adobe using to justify their activation scheme? It
strikes me as an NSA kind of intelligence problem.
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| >Why would you have to break encryption? All you'd have to do is
>copy the ROM contents.
Nope; doing that would require additional steps as well.
With EvE dongles, each piece of software has a unique serial number. That
serial number corresponds to a unique passkey encoded in the dongle and
protected by strong crypto. A dongle will not work if the software in question
does not have the matching serial number; if you have a copy of, say,
Imposition Publisher, and I have a copy of Imposition Publisher with a
different serial number, your dongle won't work on my copy.
Now, I could presumably copy the dongle's ROM, *and* also give you a copy of
Imposition Publisher with the same serial number--but then Farrukh could put
that serial number on a "hit list" of known bootlegged serial numbers (much
like Adobe does now), cutting you off from future upgrades, software updates,
and support.
With a program protected just by hardware activation, I can distribute the
crack online, the same way I could distribute the software itself online. With
a dongle, I can't distribute the dongle online--I would actually have to mail
out physical objects to my "customers." Physical objects that are locked to one
specific serial number, so are likely to end up being of limited usefulness.
What I *can't* do is crack the dongle *scheme* and produce any dongles I wanted
to for any serial numbers I choose, without being able to crack the encryption
n the dongle.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
| In article <20031112123003.05888.00000079@mb-m13.aol.com>, tacitr@aol.com
(Tacit) wrote:
> [...]
According to the web page noted earlier, the crackers modify the program
code to bypass the dongle. That modified program could be used anywhere. I
suppose the software developers could make several different versions of
the program so that the code is in a different location, or in different
code, but do they?
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0600, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote:
>
>"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:ekh2rvsavplcogis408pn7q2j01sj0o37g@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>Now you are really scaring me. :) Tried something like that a few times in
>the Old Daze; things like console key monitoring for typing patterns in
>order to identify individuals. Know how whacked that gets when the operator
>comes in hung over?
>
I have enough problems trying to remember the hundred of passwords
and PINs required these days!
Have a chip implanted in ever user...a sort of identity tag. That
could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen ;-)
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
| |
| Tacit 2003-11-19, 10:57 pm |
| >According to the web page noted earlier, the crackers modify the program
>code to bypass the dongle. That modified program could be used anywhere.
>I suppose the software developers could make several different versions of
>the program so that the code is in a different location, or in different
>code, but do they?
A developer who really cared about solving the problem could protect the code
against modification by, for example, running an MD5 or CRC check against the
code, and refusing to initialize if it looked like the code had been modified.
But even that could, with enough patience, be worked around.
Microsoft tried to protect the XBox from hacking by encrypting the BIOS. The
Southbridge chip contains the encryption key embedded within it; it loads the
encrypted, compressed BOS image into memory, checks it against a hash value
also hard-coded into the chip, decrypts it, and then checks the decrypted BIOS
image against another hard-coded hash value.
Yet even this system, as robust as it seems, has been cracked. It took a lot of
work from a lot of very dedicated and skilled hackers, who were willing to
sacrifice a number of XBoxes and had the tools and equipment to get the hash
values and the encryption key out of the Southbridge chip, but it was done.
The book "Hacking the Xbox" ( http://hackingthexbox.com/ ), which I have, can
be used as an excellent case study in the futility of copy-control mechanisms.
Ultimately, Adobe can't stop piracy no matter what they do, and if they
continue to pursue the chimera, they'll hit a point of diminishing returns
rather quickly.
In my opinion, a dongle offers Adobe better bang for the buck, and offers the
user greater transparency and ease, than an activation system. But then, I
don't really believe the hardware activation scheme is about controlling
piracy, not really. I think it's more about compiling a database of personally
identifiable demographics and system configurations on their users.
--
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
| |
|
|
| nospam 2003-11-19, 10:58 pm |
| Dongles can be cracked as well. AutoCAD is a good example so is 3D Studio
Max.
Robert
| |
| Xalinai 2003-11-19, 10:58 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:12:48 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0600, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>I have enough problems trying to remember the hundred of passwords
>and PINs required these days!
>
>Have a chip implanted in ever user...a sort of identity tag. That
>could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen ;-)
That looks like a fine idea: Get a bluetooth dongle that can be worn
as a wristband, that identifies one user to all his devices and
software and you can use every piece of software with a "per user"
license.
For companies you could integrate it with the company ID tag.
Michael
--
Hey - you can't patent that now. This counts as published prior art!
| |
| Stuart 2003-11-19, 10:58 pm |
|
"pS" <mail@someone.com> wrote in message news:bof7k6$i6h$1@news.intnet.mu...
> hi,
>
> so i was asking the opinion of the ng concerning PS software piracy.
>
Piracy is theft. OK
But if it is a Microsoft product it is perfectly OK too
| |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu 2003-11-19, 10:58 pm |
| On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:46:52 GMT, xalinai_Two@xalinai.de (Xalinai)
wrote:
[snip]
>That looks like a fine idea: Get a bluetooth dongle that can be worn
>as a wristband, that identifies one user to all his devices and
[snip]
>--
>Hey - you can't patent that now. This counts as published prior art!
Godamit! ;-)
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/
"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
| |
| Paul J Gans 2003-11-19, 10:58 pm |
| Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:56 -0600, "jjs" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I have enough problems trying to remember the hundred of passwords
>and PINs required these days!
>Have a chip implanted in ever user...a sort of identity tag. That
>could have an induction loop link to the PC. It will happen ;-)
And then you will discover that you are only licensing your body.
:-)
---- Paul J. Gans
| |
|
| In article <bp1h70$mn$2@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> And then you will discover that you are only licensing your body.
Given the cost of medical care here (USA), I _am_ only renting my body.
| |
| Just a Guy You Know 2003-11-19, 10:58 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:50:04 -0600, nospam@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote:
>In article <20031112123003.05888.00000079@mb-m13.aol.com>, tacitr@aol.com
>(Tacit) wrote:
>
>
>According to the web page noted earlier, the crackers modify the program
>code to bypass the dongle. That modified program could be used anywhere. I
>suppose the software developers could make several different versions of
>the program so that the code is in a different location, or in different
>code, but do they?
Actually, most times crackers don't bother bypassing the dongle, but
write a simple "dongle emulator" that returns the proper dongle codes
whenever the dongle routine is called from anywhere inside the
program.
Most modern dongle-protected programs have checks scattered all
throughout the software in all sorts of clever hidden places.
Patching each one individually would be tedious and time-consuming,
and there's always the possibility that a few well-hidden checks could
slip past. It's also a lot of wasted effort if a new version is
released shortly afterwards.
Dongle emulator code can either be a standalone library, or just
tacked on the end of the software application in question and the
dongle calls re-directed to utilize it. It's usually quite easy to
implement in new versions of released software, so the effort is
worthwhile.
| |
|
|
And yes, Adobe will not support outdated products forever. It defies logic
of money profit.
What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does that
mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for
several years?
This also helps Adobe to force users to update.
Here is one scenario:
When Adobe will need more money (ie when version 11 will be released), they
will just discontinue activation for v8.
And at the moment when v8 is released, I know people that still use PS 5.5
W.
| |
|
| Heres an idea:
In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its
activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation
and make outdated version of the software work anyway.
| |
|
|
In article <bp4ueg$eik$1@ls219.htnet.hr>, drol_rem0ve.th1s_@dereth.ac
says...
> Heres an idea:
>
> In several years, when Adobe stops supporting certin product (and its
> activation), they should release a program that would kill the activation
> and make outdated version of the software work anyway.
They won't. At least not as long as they're still developing newer
versions. It cuts directly and unnecessarily into their profits. But
they'll give you a discount when you upgrade to their "latest and
greatest".
| |
| Xalinai 2003-11-19, 10:59 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:08:22 +0100, "Wed"
<drol_rem0ve.th1s_@dereth.ac> wrote:
>
>And yes, Adobe will not support outdated products forever. It defies logic
>of money profit.
>
>What happens when Adobe discontinues activation for PS CS (v8)? Does that
>mean we are not actually buying Photoshop now, but just renting it for
>several years?
That is what "buying a license" means.
>This also helps Adobe to force users to update.
>
>Here is one scenario:
>When Adobe will need more money (ie when version 11 will be released), they
>will just discontinue activation for v8.
Activation adds some leverage inforcing users to upgrade...
But if someone uses force without control he might push customers to
other products...
Michael
| | |