Freeware to merge two portraits into a realistic composite!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wildlife Sensitive, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. And that is fraud why? Exactly what makes it fraud? Note that "I don't
    think you should do that " is NOT an explanation. Fraud has a very
    specific legal definition.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Again, theft? Exactly what makes it theft? It might be license
    violation or something else, but theft? Not everything you do not like is Theft.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    apps with free trials will usually install hidden files or use some
    other method to determine that they were once installed and the trial
    has been used. that way, subsequent attempts will fail, even if the app
    is uninstalled and reinstalled, because the hidden bits remain.

    software developers are not stupid (most of them, anyway) and know that
    the first thing someone is going to do to avoid paying is uninstall and
    reinstall, so they have additional checks in place.

    the easy way around that is use a second machine, but if you know what
    to look for and what to remove, you can fool the app into thinking it's
    an initial install. there are various ways to implement it and various
    ways around it, so in many cases, it may not be all that simple.

    and if you're thinking i spend my days cracking apps, you would be
    wrong. some of the apps i've written had trials and used one or more
    methods.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #23
  4. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    yes it does, so let's take a look:
    <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud>
    Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved
    five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2)
    knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
    (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged
    victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the
    statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

    using multiple emails with the intent to get multiple free trials hits
    all 5 rather well.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #24
  5. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    pirating software is not theft, however, in this case, it's not pirated
    software.

    adobe makes photoshop and other apps available on their servers, so
    there's no need to look for it on the warez sites and get an illicit
    copy. just go to www.adobe.com and download the real deal.

    you get 30 days to evaluate it for free. beyond that requires payment.
    obtaining something without paying is considered theft.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #25
  6. Wildlife Sensitive

    Jasen Betts Guest

    No, Not at all. May or may not be illegal depending on what the law
    is where you are.

    Last I heard reverse-engineering and/or modifying software that you
    legally hold a copy of was considered "fair use" here.
     
    Jasen Betts, Feb 8, 2014
    #26
  7. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    How is it any different to use the trial period for a project when
    there is no intention of ever buying the product?

    Neither is criminal fraud, though. And, the identities are real, not
    false. Adobe considers the email address to be the identity. What
    Adobe blocks is the same email address from downloading the free trial
    a second time.

    With the exception of a credit card transaction, there's no
    requirement from Adobe to supply the user's name. They want *a* name,
    but you can enter Joe Blow and Adobe accepts it.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #27
  8. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    And yet you encourage the OP to willfully deceive and defraud Adobe by
    using the free trial for the sole purpose of completing a project with
    no intent to purchase the program or interest in the program for other
    purposes.

    While he may *become* interested in purchasing the program by using
    the trial, the person who uses a second email address to try the
    program a second time is just as likely to become interested and
    purchase the program. More so, in fact, because that person is not
    out to do just one project.

    What you've suggested is that it's OK to borrow the IP of Adobe and
    use it for your project without any intent to remunerate Adobe...as
    long as you don't do it twice. Rob 'em once and it's OK, but rob 'em
    twice and it's a crime.

    How nice it must be to have the conveniently slippery set of ethics
    that you have.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #28
  9. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    using something for which you haven't paid is not 'fair use',
    regardless of how you do it.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #29
  10. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    because adobe doesn't say what can and can't be done with the trial
    version. it's a fully functional trial.

    if they didn't want one-offs, then they could have disabled save or
    watermarked the output, which some apps do in trial versions. they did
    not.
    you can, but using a fake name to get something is fraud.

    but at least we know where your ethics are.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #30
  11. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    no they won't. the person who uses a second email to get a second trial
    has demonstrated that they *are* interested in the app, otherwise why
    get a *second* free trial?

    it's a 30 day trial.

    it's not a 60 day trial nor is it multiple 30 day trials.
    nope. adobe says you have 30 days to do whatever you want. they don't
    restrict it in any way, including one-offs or watermarking the output.
    back to your usual ad hominems, and it's not me with the slippery
    ethics.

    in another post you said:
    in other words, you advocate lying to get services/products.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #31
  12. Wildlife Sensitive

    Jasen Betts Guest

    Adobe's free trial is exactly that.


    Fair use is part of the Copyright Act, unless you are a justice it's not
    subject to your opinion. I don't know whether the agreement needed to
    download PS demo constitutes a binding contact, but if it does not the
    only protection they have is copyright law.
     
    Jasen Betts, Feb 8, 2014
    #32
  13. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    correct. it's a free trial.

    that means you don't get to use it beyond the trial period unless you
    pay for it.
    the agreement is that you use it for up to 30 days for free and then
    pay for it if you wish to continue using it beyond that.

    copyright law does not get you a free pass to keep using it for free.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #33
  14. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    I don't know where "here" might be for you, but in the US such reverse
    engineering for the purpose of defeating copy protection is a violation
    of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #34
  15. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    Would you be kind enough to identify the "protective measures" that are
    being "bypassed"?

    Adobe has a copy protection scheme for their software that requires the
    possession of tools banned by the DMCA to defeat.

    They also have free trials that can be accessed multiple times without
    using such tools.

    Apparently Adobe considers the inconvenience in removing and
    reinstalling the application every 30 days to be sufficient
    "protection" for the trialware.
    So? What "protective alarm system" is being "defeated"? The "alarm
    system" in this case pretty much has a sign on it "for access enter some
    number that you made up". Is doing what the sign says "fraud"?
    Do you have an example of a person being successfully prosecuted for
    multiple use of a software trial using multiple email addresses? Or
    _any_ example of a person being successfully prosecuted for "fraud" when
    the sole "deception" was the use of multiple email addresses?

    If so, please present it.
    So you're saying that if a company puts a bunch of products on display
    and says "show us a piece of paper with a name scribbled on it and you
    can take one" someone is committing "fraud" by scribbling two names on
    two pieces of paper? Because that is essentially what a system that
    relies on email addresses for "ID" is doing.
    You as cop can arrest anybody for anything but I think if you try that
    one the DA is going to tear you a new asshole for wasting his time with
    such a ludicrous accusation.
    And Adobe has no intention of asking them for one so where's the
    problem?
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #35
  16. Wildlife Sensitive

    J. Clarke Guest

    Yep. That's the nature of advertising, Tony. When a supermarket puts a
    stack of flyers by the door they know that some people are going to take
    one and go through it diligently looking for bargains while others are
    going to take several of them and use them to line the bird cage.

    Your logic seems to be that using it to line the bird cage instead of
    looking for bargains is "fraud".

    It's up to the advertiser to decide when they are going to limit
    distribution of their advertisement. Until they do, taking however many
    copies of their ad you want is not "fraud". Adobe has made an
    advertisement available to anyone who provides an email address. They
    don't have to do this--they could require some more stringent form of
    identification, but they do not.
    Yep. Use it enough and after a while spending 10 bucks a month becomes
    more convenient than removing and reinstalling it every 30 days.
    It's OK to put as many copies of their flyer in the bottom of the bird
    cage as they are willing to provide you. When they decide that too many
    people are putting the flyer in the bird cage they'll stop providing
    them.
    His ethics may be slippery, but "unethical" and "criminal" are two
    different things and your argument that he is committing "fraud" which
    is a criminal offense fall flat.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 8, 2014
    #36
  17. Wildlife Sensitive

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I don't consider either use to be illegal, and doubt if the slightest
    case can be made that either is illegal. However, if one is
    unethical, then the other is equally unethical. Both violate the
    intent of Adobe's offering.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #37
  18. I have not read the agreement-- adobe does not let me. But at most this
    would probably be a civil action of violating the terms of the agreement
    (assumi ng that the agreement is even valid-- a lot are not). And it is
    Adobe that makes the rules, and their rules seem to be -- give us an
    email and we will give you 30 days. They could send an agent to your
    house to verify who you are. That they, not you, have decided not to do
    that is their decision, not yours. That the person has no intention of
    purchase is completely irrelevant. There is NO requirement in the
    agreement that you HAVE to purchase afterwards as far as I know (it
    would violate their statements in the sections I have seen if it were
    there.)

    As I said fraud is a very specific offense. It is not simply-- I do not
    like it, therefor it is fraud. You are throwing around legal terms
    simply as a pejorative to express your dislike. I could say that your
    engaged in 1st degree murder when you questioned my statement. That
    would not make it murder.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #38
  19. I see. So it comes down to "If you do not behave as I do, you are
    guilty of criminal fraud". Great. The claims of tyrants everywhere.
    For all I know you send cheques to companies from whom you have never
    brought a product because you feel it is important that companies get
    money. That means it should be a crime not to?
    Adobe sets the rules. It is they who decide on what basis to give out
    their free trials. If those rules to not accomplish what they wish, they
    are free to change the rules. It is not anyone else's duty to guess
    their intention behind those rules and comply with those intentions.

    Who knows. All your duty under law is to comply with that (despite the
    DCMA being completely stupid law). You have no further duty toward them.
    For all we know they did that completely by accident. Their intention is
    irrelevant.



    Where is Adobe's license which you may or may not have to agree to does
    it say you cannot. Noone is under any obligation to obey rules that they
    guess Adobe might have meant but never expressed. And it is a civil
    issue, not a criminal as far as I can see.

    Who cares. One does not have to comply with what one guesses what Adobe
    might have meant by their license. One may (or may not, depending on the
    legality of the license) have to comply with the explicit terms of their
    license.
    It is not a matter of "Everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden."
    It is "everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed".


    It is exlicitly forbidden under law to break and enter someone else's
    hourse, burglar alarm or not. However, if the owner puts up a sign
    saying "As long as you push the doorbell you are allowed in" then as
    long as you push the doorbell you are allowed in, not matter what
    burglar alarms they have installed.

    What is a "good faith agreement"? An agreement is an agreement, limited
    by the terms of that agreement, espcially as the terms of the agreement
    are imposed by Adobe and Adlobe alone. They give you no option to
    negotiate the terms with them. They, one would assume, have competent
    legal advise and help, so what they say in their agreement ( which as I
    say I have not, and cannot see-- I run Linux and thus am not allowed to
    read the agreement) must be exactly what they meant to say.
    How is it a "clear violation". Could you please quote the provisions
    which this is a clear violation of ?

    What you do, or do not, consider moral is of course your affair. But it
    is not binding on the world. Some people in Colorado consider the sale
    of M to be immoral. Some consider the sale of alcohol immoral. But that
    does not make it illegal. That does not make someone who buys it as
    being engaged in criminal fraud, or murder, or any other law.
    Stealing that car IS explicitly against the law. You are depriving the
    dealer of a physical good. There is absolutely nothing that prevents you
    from showing up day after day and taking test drives. Now the dealer
    also has the right (maybe-- depending on the wording of his offer) to
    limit how often he will allow you to do that. But it is up to him to
    enforce that, not up to you.

    It IS a criminal act to accuse someone of a crime which they did not
    commit. You are accusing people of engaging in criminal fraud.

    It is up to Adobe to decide what they want to do. As I said they could
    send someone over to your house to see your driver's license before they
    allow you to have a free trial. Certainly the Ferrari dealer would do
    that, and would almost certainly send a salesman to drive with you in
    that Ferrari. That Adobe decided not to do that it their decision.

    It is clear that that is what you would like them to do. But again, your
    likes are not law, and you were making legal claims.
     
    William Unruh, Feb 8, 2014
    #39
  20. Wildlife Sensitive

    Guest Guest

    thanks for that. i was looking for their license agreement last night.
    however, his use might qualify for internal, non-commercial use.
     
    Guest, Feb 8, 2014
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.