Larry,
I'm likely to get flamed for this, but here goes:
As I read your correspondence to the list, it seems to me that you have an
attitude about some folks who "have it". It is if you are jealous and
therefore will make a remark regarding that person's ability to own or have
something that is expensive (expensive to you). Let it go! Some have it,
some don't. Be happy with what you have and let your life take you where it
will.
Don't be making snide remarks about a person's car, or software package
because you have determined you can't, or won't afford it.
Regarding Photoshop- that product is made for a certain market. Just like
a Contax, or Leica, or Hasselblad is made for a certain market. Photoshop
is sold with a license to use the product. People that use Photoshop, or
any other software package have just that - a license. Just like you might
possess a driver's license - you don't own the driver's license, the State
does. You have the right to use the driver's license, you have the right to
use the software package. You don't own the driver's license and you don't
own the software package.
At first glance, it seems as though it is unfair for a company to sell a
product that cost so much and has such a small perceived cost. Have you
ever been involved in producing computer software? The upfront cost is
tremendous. Yes, the payback is great, if it sells. But it is always our
choice to buy or not.
Unfortunately, there are people (pirates, they are often called) that have
few if any scruples and will find ways to duplicate a product and make it
available to those who feel it should be available for less money. There is
a cock-eyed justification in this way of thinking and it usually expressed
as "making it available for the little guy".
That is why JASC makes Paint Shop Pro and ADOBE makes Photo Deluxe and
Photoshop LE. Less expensive, or competitive products for the "little guy".
BTW, I use Photo Deluxe, not Photoshop. I just bought version 7 of PSP last
week. I bought the license, not the product.
I guess, in a sentence, I'd say "quit yer bitchin'".
Brian P. Huber
>
> First of all, I'm not selling anything, or making ANY money
> on stolen software.
> I'm simply not affiliated at all with those websites. Period.
> Don't go to them,
> and forget about them. And no, I don't believe that only the
> wealthier you are,
> then you get the higher quality things. Wealthy software
> industry guys--> people
> who can afford overpriced software: Its a nice little club.
> It just isn't that
> cut and dried for me. Interestingly I've recieved a number of
> emails offlist
> happy that I happened to surf across those sites, but your
> sarcastic disgust for
> me is obvious. SO, I will mend my ways and make due with only the most
> rudimentary software, being damn thankful I'm being permitted
> to use even that
> with what I have to spend. I apologize for causing this to
> get this far on-list.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> Mickey Trageser wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > I take it you would think it OK
> > to take my photos, or those of any other list member, and
> sell them as your
> > own. No big deal, go on with life.
> >
> > Perhaps you haven't thought of it that way. Give it a try.
> It's never too
> > late.
> >
> > Mickey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larry" <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 1:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [OM] Re Digital Vs Traditional Photography
> >
> > > Why so complicated?? Get it off the web for free....use
> it....make great
> > > photos....go on with life.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Michael P. Dodson" wrote:
> > >
> > > > on 12/23/00 4:50 AM, Gary Edwards at garyetx@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You're right, Hans. Adobe would experience a lot
> less Photoshop
> > piracy if
> > > > > they sold it at an honest price. Here are some other legal
> > alternatives:
> > > > >
> > > > You are so right. The other alternatives already
> mentioned are a better
> > > > deal.
> > > >
> > > > > Second-hand copies of the previous version from users who have
> > upgraded.
> > > >
> > > > Still not legal. The upgrade fee includes the original
> license. The
> > > > previous "owners" no longer hold a license to the
> earlier versions once
> > they
> > > > upgrade. They therefore have nothing to legally
> transfer to anyone
> > else.
> > > > Just because they have the old media (CD-ROM or floppy
> disks), that does
> > > > mean they still have a license to use it after upgrading.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|