Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 6/26/2013 9:16 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> peternew <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> If I pirate the software you developed, you can't pay your employees,
>>> rent, bills, etc.


>> You're not even aware that at least 90% of the software written
>> (and 90+% of all programmers' works) isn't for sale anyway.
>> Oh, yes, you see all the Windows and OS X and the games and
>> Photoshop and the office bundles and so on ... but that's only
>> a tiny part of software.


>> I get paid for /solving problems/, not for or by selling software.
>> Software *creates* problems ...
>> ... the more software, the happier I am.


> Whoosh!


Obviously.

You're so entrenched in your thinking that the whole idea of
service goes WHOOSH right over your head.

Please never find out how Red Hat makes money. Your head
would explode.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2013
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 17:38:55 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I would, if I could trust you would be able to understand it.

>
> >

>
> > I think I'd be able to undersatnd it

>
>
>
> I don't.


yes I know you don't understand that was my point.

>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sandman[.net]


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2013
On Friday, 28 June 2013 04:15:45 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> On 6/26/2013 5:59 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > In article <2013062608502413512-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

>
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>
> >

>
> >>> I thought you used to be a police officer. I would expect you to

>
> >>> understand the difference between an offense under Title 18 of the US

>
> >>> Code and an offense under Title 17 (just taking the Federal examples).

>
> >>

>
> >> Oh! I understand the Law, and the differences between theft of a

>
> >> physical item, theft of intellectual property, license and copyright

>
> >> infringement. Where do you draw the line? It's OK to steal from a

>
> >> multi-million dollar corporation, but reprehensible to mug a little old

>
> >> lady. (BTW: I know of a case where three teenage punks met their match

>
> >> taking on an 84 year old lady outside a supermarket.)

>
> >

>
> > nobody said it's ok.

>
> >

>
> > what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than

>
> > taking physical property, and it is.

>
> >

>
> >> There is also a morality component to all of this, especially when

>
> >> starting at a young age kids see no wrong in illegal music or software

>
> >> downloads. Ultimately this can develop into a criminal mindset, and I

>
> >> have personal experience of dealing with individuals who see no wrong

>
> >> in a life of crime.

>
> >

>
> > that's just bullshit.

>
> >

>
> > it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try

>
> > marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.

>
> >

>
>
>
>
>
> So now you're a sociologist. Do you even have qualifications to
>
> determine the physiology of addiction?


One doesn;t have to if you have experiences of such things.
Not everyone that drinks turns into an alcoholic, not everyone that has sex turns into a rapist.


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2013
On 6/28/2013 8:33 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Friday, 28 June 2013 04:15:45 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>> On 6/26/2013 5:59 PM, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2013062608502413512-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

>>
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>
>>>

>>
>>>>> I thought you used to be a police officer. I would expect you to

>>
>>>>> understand the difference between an offense under Title 18 of the US

>>
>>>>> Code and an offense under Title 17 (just taking the Federal examples).

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>> Oh! I understand the Law, and the differences between theft of a

>>
>>>> physical item, theft of intellectual property, license and copyright

>>
>>>> infringement. Where do you draw the line? It's OK to steal from a

>>
>>>> multi-million dollar corporation, but reprehensible to mug a little old

>>
>>>> lady. (BTW: I know of a case where three teenage punks met their match

>>
>>>> taking on an 84 year old lady outside a supermarket.)

>>
>>>

>>
>>> nobody said it's ok.

>>
>>>

>>
>>> what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than

>>
>>> taking physical property, and it is.

>>
>>>

>>
>>>> There is also a morality component to all of this, especially when

>>
>>>> starting at a young age kids see no wrong in illegal music or software

>>
>>>> downloads. Ultimately this can develop into a criminal mindset, and I

>>
>>>> have personal experience of dealing with individuals who see no wrong

>>
>>>> in a life of crime.

>>
>>>

>>
>>> that's just bullshit.

>>
>>>

>>
>>> it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try

>>
>>> marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.

>>
>>>

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So now you're a sociologist. Do you even have qualifications to
>>
>> determine the physiology of addiction?

>
> One doesn;t have to if you have experiences of such things.
> Not everyone that drinks turns into an alcoholic, not everyone that has sex turns into a rapist.
>
>


Irrelevant.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> On 6/28/2013 8:33 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Friday, 28 June 2013 04:15:45 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> >> On 6/26/2013 5:59 PM, nospam wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <2013062608502413512-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >>
> >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>> I thought you used to be a police officer. I would expect you to
> >>
> >>>>> understand the difference between an offense under Title 18 of the US
> >>
> >>>>> Code and an offense under Title 17 (just taking the Federal examples).
> >>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> Oh! I understand the Law, and the differences between theft of a
> >>
> >>>> physical item, theft of intellectual property, license and copyright
> >>
> >>>> infringement. Where do you draw the line? It's OK to steal from a
> >>
> >>>> multi-million dollar corporation, but reprehensible to mug a little old
> >>
> >>>> lady. (BTW: I know of a case where three teenage punks met their match
> >>
> >>>> taking on an 84 year old lady outside a supermarket.)
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> nobody said it's ok.
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than
> >>
> >>> taking physical property, and it is.
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>>> There is also a morality component to all of this, especially when
> >>
> >>>> starting at a young age kids see no wrong in illegal music or software
> >>
> >>>> downloads. Ultimately this can develop into a criminal mindset, and I
> >>
> >>>> have personal experience of dealing with individuals who see no wrong
> >>
> >>>> in a life of crime.
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> that's just bullshit.
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try
> >>
> >>> marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So now you're a sociologist. Do you even have qualifications to
> >>
> >> determine the physiology of addiction?

> >
> > One doesn;t have to if you have experiences of such things.
> > Not everyone that drinks turns into an alcoholic, not everyone that has sex turns into a rapist.
> >
> >

>
> Irrelevant.


Actually it's quite relevant. I tried marijuana in the '60s, found it
didn't do much for me, and haven't had any interest in it since. I'm
also a two pack a decade smoker--every once in a while I'll get a
hankering for a cigarette, buy a pack, smoke them all, and not touch
them for another 10 years or so. I've also been on various supposedly
highly addictive medications for certain medical conditions, and never
understood why anybody would take them for recreation--too high a dose
made me feel bad, not good.

The chemistry by which this occurs is in fact irrelevant to the
observational fact that many people who try drugs do not become
addicted.

In 1898 Bayer developed what they believed to be a nonaddictive
painkiller stronger than Morphine. They tested it and their test
subjects did not become addicted, so they took it to market, not only as
an analgesic but also as a cough suppressant. There were more than a
hundred papers published about it over the next five years, few of which
found any indication that it was addictive. It wasn't until hospitals
started filling up with addicts that its addictive potential was
recognized.

The name of this medication? "Heroin".


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > > I would, if I could trust you would be able to understand it.

> >
> > > I think I'd be able to undersatnd it

> >
> > I don't.

>
> yes I know you don't understand that was my point.


You don't have a point.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2013
On 6/28/2013 3:57 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>>
>> On 6/28/2013 8:33 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Friday, 28 June 2013 04:15:45 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2013 5:59 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <2013062608502413512-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you used to be a police officer. I would expect you to
>>>>
>>>>>>> understand the difference between an offense under Title 18 of the US
>>>>
>>>>>>> Code and an offense under Title 17 (just taking the Federal examples).
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh! I understand the Law, and the differences between theft of a
>>>>
>>>>>> physical item, theft of intellectual property, license and copyright
>>>>
>>>>>> infringement. Where do you draw the line? It's OK to steal from a
>>>>
>>>>>> multi-million dollar corporation, but reprehensible to mug a little old
>>>>
>>>>>> lady. (BTW: I know of a case where three teenage punks met their match
>>>>
>>>>>> taking on an 84 year old lady outside a supermarket.)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> nobody said it's ok.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than
>>>>
>>>>> taking physical property, and it is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There is also a morality component to all of this, especially when
>>>>
>>>>>> starting at a young age kids see no wrong in illegal music or software
>>>>
>>>>>> downloads. Ultimately this can develop into a criminal mindset, and I
>>>>
>>>>>> have personal experience of dealing with individuals who see no wrong
>>>>
>>>>>> in a life of crime.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that's just bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try
>>>>
>>>>> marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now you're a sociologist. Do you even have qualifications to
>>>>
>>>> determine the physiology of addiction?
>>>
>>> One doesn;t have to if you have experiences of such things.
>>> Not everyone that drinks turns into an alcoholic, not everyone that has sex turns into a rapist.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Irrelevant.

>
> Actually it's quite relevant. I tried marijuana in the '60s, found it
> didn't do much for me, and haven't had any interest in it since. I'm
> also a two pack a decade smoker--every once in a while I'll get a
> hankering for a cigarette, buy a pack, smoke them all, and not touch
> them for another 10 years or so. I've also been on various supposedly
> highly addictive medications for certain medical conditions, and never
> understood why anybody would take them for recreation--too high a dose
> made me feel bad, not good.
>
> The chemistry by which this occurs is in fact irrelevant to the
> observational fact that many people who try drugs do not become
> addicted.


I agree. There are too many unknown factors.
>
> In 1898 Bayer developed what they believed to be a nonaddictive
> painkiller stronger than Morphine. They tested it and their test
> subjects did not become addicted, so they took it to market, not only as
> an analgesic but also as a cough suppressant. There were more than a
> hundred papers published about it over the next five years, few of which
> found any indication that it was addictive. It wasn't until hospitals
> started filling up with addicts that its addictive potential was
> recognized.
>
> The name of this medication? "Heroin".
>



I have been fortunate in that although I was taking Oxy for some severe
pain, I had the luck to be able to stop. In school I would take uppers,
and just stop, right after the exam. Although I drink, I do not do so,
other than for social reasons. I know people who cannot stop smoking,
because on an addiction to nicotine.
Not everybody is affected the same way. I have a friend who is very
proud of himself, that he only drinks in the evening. I have another
friend who has been sober for over 17 years. If he touches a drop, it
would force him into a relapse, where he could not control his consumption.
my point is that people react in different ways. Yes, there was a lot of
false propaganda on the evils of marijuana, and that one drag leads down
a slippery slope. For the majority of people it is a myth. However, I
have seen enough to know not to make a blanket assumption that something
is perfectly safe. That is the implication to which I object.
BTW I strongly believe that medical marijuana should be legalized. I had
a friend with prion disease, who was in constant pain, and given six
months to live. The A-holes at his hospital were carefully regulating
his morphine because they didn't want him to become addicted.
IIRC I have seen some studies showing that marijuana arrests brain
development, although I have no personal interest in pursuing them.



--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Yes, there was a lot of
> false propaganda on the evils of marijuana, and that one drag leads down
> a slippery slope. For the majority of people it is a myth.


exactly my point, so why did you attack?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> I thought you used to be a police officer. I would expect you to
> >>> understand the difference between an offense under Title 18 of the US
> >>> Code and an offense under Title 17 (just taking the Federal examples).
> >>
> >> Oh! I understand the Law, and the differences between theft of a
> >> physical item, theft of intellectual property, license and copyright
> >> infringement. Where do you draw the line? It's OK to steal from a
> >> multi-million dollar corporation, but reprehensible to mug a little old
> >> lady. (BTW: I know of a case where three teenage punks met their match
> >> taking on an 84 year old lady outside a supermarket.)

> >
> > nobody said it's ok.
> >
> > what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than
> > taking physical property, and it is.
> >
> >> There is also a morality component to all of this, especially when
> >> starting at a young age kids see no wrong in illegal music or software
> >> downloads. Ultimately this can develop into a criminal mindset, and I
> >> have personal experience of dealing with individuals who see no wrong
> >> in a life of crime.

> >
> > that's just bullshit.
> >
> > it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try
> > marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.

>
> So now you're a sociologist. Do you even have qualifications to
> determine the physiology of addiction?


as you like to say, 'whoosh'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>>> OK IP is property that has an owner. If someone appropriates it without
> >>>> the permission of the owner, it is common theft.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think you need to re-define theft the law already has this
> >>> 'sorted'
> >>>
> >>> As you've implied theft and property are linked, theft of an idea or
> >>> something that doesn't physically exist in the real world isn;t the same.
> >>
> >> Patent & copyright law say otherwise.

> >
> > <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/207/>
> >
> > (a) The language of § 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover
> > such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen,
> > converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of § 2314. The section's
> > language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items
> > unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some
> > prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily
> > defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character
> > distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods,
> > wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily
> > equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright
> > does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly
> > deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex
> > set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft,
> > conversion, or fraud. Pp. 473 U. S. 214-218.

>
> You quoted out of context.
> You also snipped to imply that I said something i did not.


both of those statements are false.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" nospam Digital Photography 1 07-03-2013 06:03 AM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" nospam Digital Photography 10 06-07-2013 12:45 PM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" philo  Digital Photography 10 06-05-2013 09:24 PM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" PeterN Digital Photography 0 06-04-2013 11:56 PM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" nospam Digital Photography 0 06-04-2013 12:07 AM



Advertisments