Re: Photoshop CS Book

[George Sinos]

Check the Barnes and Noble website.    They list
the CS and CS2 version of both books.

Both titles are very good.  If you're purchasing CS2 make sure you get
the CS2 version of the book.  There is quite a bit of added function
in CS2.  The replacement of the browser with the Bridge program is a
pretty big difference.

You might also want to check out "Photoshop CS2 Classroom In a Book"
by Adobe.  It's more of a structured step by step approach, including
a few video lesson and all of the exercise materials on a CD.

See you later, gs


On 7/2/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/7/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Hi guys
> >Which book exdplaining Photoshop CS is especially recommendable?
> >Thanks
> >Jens Bladt
> 
> I would recommend these two:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think both will have German versions, and the last one does have a CS
> version (could only see the CS2 version on Amazon UK)
> 
> HTH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>  Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
>

Re: Photoshop CS Book

[Cotty]

On 2/7/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Hi guys
>Which book exdplaining Photoshop CS is especially recommendable?
>Thanks
>Jens Bladt

I would recommend these two:





I think both will have German versions, and the last one does have a CS
version (could only see the CS2 version on Amazon UK)

HTH




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Graywolf]

I think you are comparing a kids band to Microsoft. Compare the NY Philharmonic 
to Microsoft instead. It is a fairer comparison.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message ----- From:
Subject: Re: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very good
one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large
crew of software engineers playing with really expensive computers?

When you factor in the years of training to learn to play the 
instrument, instrument costs, the amounts of rehearsal, the studio 
costs, etc., I think it is a reasonable analogy.

Orchestras don't usually buy their expensive instruments. The individual 
musicians are on the hook for that. Software manufacturers buy their own 
computers for the engineers to work on.
Orchestras generally rent space when they need it, around here it is 
from publicly owned concert halls.
Orchestras don't pay for training their musicians. That is most often 
done by the musicians parents.

You are comparing the expenses a company is responsible for to do 
business, and presuming that an orchestra is responsible for all the 
expenses that go into making a musician.
That just doesn't fly.

Where it falls down most noticeably is in the salary costs of the 
individuals.  Which possibly says rather a lot about modern society.

Traditionally, the arts were funded by kings and queens. Recently, the 
societal model has changed, and the arts kind of got left at the side of 
the road.
And yes, it is sad, but I don't think a valid comparison can be made 
between the costs of making a music CD and an expensive piece of software.
All they have in common is that they both come on plastic discs.

William Robb

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Paul Ewins]

That is something that would get you sued very quickly if you tried to sell
it as a kit. As a one off custom it is merely impressive. Rolls Royce and
Ferrari have sued people who tried selling lookalike kits.

Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia


-Original Message-
From: mike.wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Just one final comment, meant to lighten things up a bit.

If copying software is theft, what is this?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=848531

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Graywolf]

It was legal to send jews to the gas chamber in WWII Germany; that didn't make 
it right. It was legal to torture suspected witchs in the not so distanct past; 
that didn't make it right either. The legality of something has very little to 
do with the right or wrong of it.

I do not think Adobe is losing much money or sleep over the issue. Bill Gates on 
the other hand can not sleep if he thinks someone has a penny in their pocket 
that they did not give him.

(grin)
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Anyway, if my friend the Photoshop instructo is correct in his 
assertion that Adobe has sold about 1 in every 10 copies that are in 
use, (an I see no reason to doubt him), I don't see how you can argue 
that pirating isn't causing a problem. If they could sell half of 
what is in use, the price would most likely be significantly lower 
per unit.

Also, I suspect (though I have no studies to back this up) that some people 
in possession of illegal copies of Photoshop might have considered *buying* 
Photoshop Elements if they hadn't had the opportunity to buy the illegal copy 
of Photoshop.
Count me among those who say that "It's illegal" should be a good enough 
reason not to do it. Then there are some more good reasons as well.

ERNR

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Peter J. Alling]

I used to work for Computer Sciences Corp.  We sold among other things a 
mainframe package to manage large financial funds which we "gave away" 
for many hundreds of thousands of dollars per installation, we sold 
licenses for use for may thousands of dollars per seat and we sold 
customization and integration services to get the data to a desktop for 
may hundreds of thousands of dollars per contract,  (and upgrade 
contracts for even more hundreds of thousands of dollars with attendant 
customization and integration, etc., etc.).  If we hadn't collected the 
money I wouldn't have had a job, in fact we stopped collecting the money 
and funny thing I don't.  If someone was using our software without our 
permission, our lawyers would have started with a polite note and then 
rapidly escalated their response.   The majority of computing in the 
financial world is still accomplished on Mainframes and that software 
ain't free.  (If in fact I were a mainframe Cobol programmer, I'd 
probably have a job for life maintaining that very package, but then I'd 
have to slit my wrists)

John Francis wrote:
Mishka mused:
 

it actually *is* on commercial basis. does red hat ring a bell, just to name one
(but not, by far, the only)?
   

I'm well aware of Red Hat, Debian, etc.   But they're not selling the
software - they're selling support services.  If they actually had to
pay for the software development (or even for the software engineering
effort to fix many of the problems) it would be a very different story.
 

but it's a very different (from, say, adobe) business model: free (or
cheap) software,
profit off support. i think, the majority of software development use this model
in some form (except for "shrink-wrapped" products you buy at compusa, but that
a negligible part of all software)
   

Just where did you pull that ridiculous statistic from?
By far the majority of all software (on home PCs and on business systems)
is bought "shrink wrapped", either from CompUSA or from the manufacturer.
Windows, Solaris, OS/X, AIX, Irix, and all those application packages.
That includes systems running Linux - most of the business Linux sites
still run proprietary shrink-wrapped applications on those Linux boxes.
The open-source developer community might only have a negligible amount
of shrink-wrapped software on their average system, but that's only a
negligible part of the total software development world, which in turn
is only a negligible part of the entire computer software marketplace.
 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

ernreed wrote:

Also, I suspect (though I have no studies to back this up) that some people
in possession of illegal copies of Photoshop might have considered *buying*
Photoshop Elements if they hadn't had the opportunity to buy the illegal 
copy
of Photoshop.
Count me among those who say that "It's illegal" should be a good enough
reason not to do it. Then there are some more good reasons as well.

ERNR
Yep, same thing as shoplifting.

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

Amen Larry.
Tom C.

From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:09:01 -0600
Thanks for that Larry.
I'm staying out of this because I'm a reseller of software.
People other than the big corps. stand to lose to pirates.
I think folks forget about us little guys trying to make
a living whe they make moral judgments about piracy.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
>
> Can we just call it what it is - stealing. If I make something I
> am entitled
> to charge whatever I want. You, on the other hand, are entitled
> not to buy
> it. It is not a function of what time and money went into the creation 
of
> the object. It is a function of what I want to charge for it.
>
> If Fred Pollack spent thousands of dollars and weeks creating a 
miniature
> painting and decides he wants $500 for it, that's fine. The
> marketplace will
> decide whether it's over-priced. If his cousin Jackson spends
> 1/10 the time
> and money and yet wants 100 times that for his effort, the
> marketplace again
> will decide. Fred may not sell his work, while Jackson might sell all he
> cares to create. There is no problem here.
>
> To say the producer is charging too much for a product, therefore I am
> entitled to steal, it is simply rationalization for why you want to 
steal
> for your own gratification. To say that no one is getting hurt
> when you copy
> software and use it without buying a license is also rationalization for
> ripping off someone. Just because the act of theft is easy,
> doesn't make it
> morally or legally right.
>
> You guys have hit one of my hot buttons. Thirty years of creating
> software
> will make you aware of just what goes into a product like
> Photoshop CS. That
> plus working at a company that was charging well over $1,000,000
> for for a
> license to its (mainly my) software and yet was using bootleg copies of
> WordPerfect and lifting lines of code from its competitor's
> product has made
> me very sensitive to this issue.
>
> Just because you want something, doesn't mean you're entitled to have 
it.
>
> Larry in Dallas
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.805 / Virus Database: 547 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Jon Glass]

On Dec 9, 2004, at 11:34 AM, mike.wilson wrote:
And they produce a computer programme for playing with pictures.  It 
does it quite well but it's hardly obligatory for the continuation of 
life.  Rather like music.

Photoshop is a tool--often for making money. Music is entertainment. 
Music is a consumable. software is a long-term "investment." There are 
tons of differences, and almost no similarities between the two...

We need that photo of the oraple. :-)
--
-Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/12/09 Thu PM 12:24:40 GMT
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "mike.wilson" 
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> > Just one final comment, meant to lighten things up a bit.
> > 
> > If copying software is theft, what is this?
> > http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=848531
> 
> 
> Copyright infringement?

The machine was never built by the originator of the idea.  It was a concept 
vehicle from about five years ago, I think.

-
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/

Re: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From:
Subject: Re: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very 
good
one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large
crew of software engineers playing with really expensive 
computers?
When you factor in the years of training to learn to play the 
instrument, instrument costs, the amounts of rehearsal, the studio 
costs, etc., I think it is a reasonable analogy.
Orchestras don't usually buy their expensive instruments. The 
individual musicians are on the hook for that. Software manufacturers 
buy their own computers for the engineers to work on.
Orchestras generally rent space when they need it, around here it is 
from publicly owned concert halls.
Orchestras don't pay for training their musicians. That is most often 
done by the musicians parents.

You are comparing the expenses a company is responsible for to do 
business, and presuming that an orchestra is responsible for all the 
expenses that go into making a musician.
That just doesn't fly.

Where it falls down most noticeably is in the salary costs of the 
individuals.  Which possibly says rather a lot about modern 
society.
Traditionally, the arts were funded by kings and queens. Recently, 
the societal model has changed, and the arts kind of got left at the 
side of the road.
And yes, it is sad, but I don't think a valid comparison can be made 
between the costs of making a music CD and an expensive piece of 
software.
All they have in common is that they both come on plastic discs.

William Robb 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike.wilson" 
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Just one final comment, meant to lighten things up a bit.
If copying software is theft, what is this?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=848531

Copyright infringement?
William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike.wilson]

Just one final comment, meant to lighten things up a bit.
If copying software is theft, what is this?
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=848531
CITY OF SUNDERLAND COLLEGE DISCLAIMER
Confidentiality: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If they come to you in error you must take no action based on them, 
nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and 
highlight the error.
Please note that the views or opinions presented in this email are solely those 
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the college.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge 
that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that 
you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments 
are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice 
the recipient should ensure thay are actually virus free.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 01:41:07 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mishka mused:
> >
> > it actually *is* on commercial basis. does red hat ring a bell, just to 
> > name one
> > (but not, by far, the only)?
> 
> I'm well aware of Red Hat, Debian, etc.   But they're not selling the
> software - they're selling support services.  If they actually had to
> pay for the software development (or even for the software engineering
> effort to fix many of the problems) it would be a very different story.

eh? RedHat is probably the biggest (one of the biggest, anyway) developing
free software. They do pay developers. 

> > but it's a very different (from, say, adobe) business model: free (or
> > cheap) software,
> > profit off support. i think, the majority of software development use this 
> > model
> > in some form (except for "shrink-wrapped" products you buy at compusa, but 
> > that
> > a negligible part of all software)
> 
> Just where did you pull that ridiculous statistic from?

a hat, of course, where else?

> By far the majority of all software (on home PCs and on business systems)
> is bought "shrink wrapped", either from CompUSA or from the manufacturer.
> Windows, Solaris, OS/X, AIX, Irix, and all those application packages.
> That includes systems running Linux - most of the business Linux sites
> still run proprietary shrink-wrapped applications on those Linux boxes.

by far the majority of all software is built "in-house", for internal use.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike.wilson]

Hi,
>
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
> > No I'm not.  My argument was based on an orchestra, that has years
> > of training and months of development costs for a performace.  The
> > higher pay is a function of the higher retail price which is a
> > function of the amount customers are willing to pay.  Or believe
> > they need to.
>
> A lot of orchestra musicians have a day job, and are amateur
> musicians.
> A lot of orchestras are getting arts grants, offsetting the cost of
> operation.
> Most orchestras put on the occasional concert, for which they are
> paid.
> Most orchestras (like all musicians) get a royalty for every time
> they sell a CD, or even get played on the radio.
All of which goes towards subsidising the cost of recorded music 
somewhat but does not cover the fact that the public would not pay an 
order of magnitude more for a copy of a music performance.  Especially 
one that might or might not play, might sound different every time you 
used it and occasionally caused your playing mechanism to go into 
stasis.  I really don't understand why it is OK for a software publisher 
to make profits of hundreds of millions and it is equally OK for an 
orchestra to teeter on the edge of insolvency in perpetuity.

>
> Most software writers (at the Photoshop level) are professional
> writers. It's all they do for a living.
And they produce a computer programme for playing with pictures.  It 
does it quite well but it's hardly obligatory for the continuation of 
life.  Rather like music.

> Very few, if any, software companies are getting government grants.
Many of them get government contracts, essentially the same thing.
> Software companies do trade shows and the like, at which they may
> sell some product, but otherwise don't get paid for.
But the costs are set against tax.
> Once a piece of software is sold, that's pretty much it, except for
> those that collect ongoing licensing fees. I don't suppose there are
> all that many of those.
I would think that PS(i.e. Adobe) and most of the other major software 
developers make _most_ of their income from licencing.  If you are a big 
institution, you will not be allowed by many of them to _buy_ your software.

> Your arguments don't hold up, I am afraid.
I'm afraid they do.  I'm also afraid that this is probably boring the 
pants (or panties) off most people.  And inciting others to unspeakable 
things with wax effigies.  Enough said.

m
CITY OF SUNDERLAND COLLEGE DISCLAIMER
Confidentiality: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If they come to you in error you must take no action based on them, 
nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and 
highlight the error.
Please note that the views or opinions presented in this email are solely those 
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the college.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge 
that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that 
you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments 
are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice 
the recipient should ensure thay are actually virus free.

Re: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/12/09 Thu AM 01:26:04 GMT
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> > John Francis wrote:
> >
> >> If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if 
> >> they
> >> gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD 
> >> sales)
> >> you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.
> >
> > I get the impression that most of the larger, more famous 
> > orchestras get most of their income from recorded music sales. 
> > They do that by selling at low profit, high turnover.
> 
> Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very good 
> one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large 
> crew of software engineers playing with really expensive computers?

When you factor in the years of training to learn to play the instrument, 
instrument costs, the amounts of rehearsal, the studio costs, etc., I think it 
is a reasonable analogy.

Where it falls down most noticeably is in the salary costs of the individuals.  
Which possibly says rather a lot about modern society.

mike

-
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/

Re: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "Larry Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> If you think you paid too much money for dodgy software, demand your money 
> back and return the product. Just because Ford Explorers were prone to 
> rollover when Firestones were mounted (certainly worse than the dodgy 
> software you're refering to), didn't mean people were entitled to steal 
> them. Same thing with software licenses.

The problem with that analogy is that only Ford Explorers (or similar vehicles) 
are available.

mike

-
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike.wilson]

Willaim Robb wrote:

I don't understand why you are trying to make a connection between 
music CDs and software. Other than that they are both on little 
plastic discs, they don't really have much in common.
I helped "develop" a music CD a couple of years ago.
It was a buddy of mine recording a buddy of his' music.
The development cost was a couple of cases of beer, plus materials.
We did pretty good too.
Which is a pretty good analogy for free/shareware.  The medium has 
little to do with it.  It's the investment of time and skill/expertise 
that I'm drawing the analogy with.  Whether the product arrives on 
vinyl, tape, diskette, CD or is downloaded is immaterial. (Groan)

Anyway, if my friend the Photoshop instructo is correct in his 
assertion that Adobe has sold about 1 in every 10 copies that are in 
use, (an I see no reason to doubt him), I don't see how you can argue 
that pirating isn't causing a problem. If they could sell half of 
what is in use, the price would most likely be significantly lower 
per unit.
I have never argued that piracy is not causing a problem.  My argument 
is that the retail price is too high, causing piracy.  The forward 
thinking thing to do would be to lower the price (everywhere) and 
provide support in the ex-pirate markets.  As it stands, the high-price 
market profits are supporting the ex-piracy markets.  Your version is, 
in part, supporting some guy in Siberia.  FWIW I do not agree with 
wholesale theft of intellectual property.  If, however, the owner of 
that property gives up at least part of their right I will happily take 
advantage of that.

The answer?  Next version of PS that comes out, don't buy it.  Or take a 
trip to Omsk (bit of a busman's holiday for you - let's say a Black Sea 
resort) and get it there.  You'll pay about the same price in total and 
have a holiday thrown in.  Speaking generally, I suspect that witholding 
of purchase will not happen as the great buying public seems to have 
turned into some masochistic version of Oliver Twist.

Is there a difference in prices of PS between the USA and Canada?  If 
so, what would be the legal/moral issues in buying a copy in the cheaper 
place to use in the dearer?

mike
CITY OF SUNDERLAND COLLEGE DISCLAIMER
Confidentiality: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If they come to you in error you must take no action based on them, 
nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and 
highlight the error.
Please note that the views or opinions presented in this email are solely those 
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the college.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge 
that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that 
you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments 
are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice 
the recipient should ensure thay are actually virus free.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[John Francis]

Mishka mused:
> 
> it actually *is* on commercial basis. does red hat ring a bell, just to name 
> one
> (but not, by far, the only)?

I'm well aware of Red Hat, Debian, etc.   But they're not selling the
software - they're selling support services.  If they actually had to
pay for the software development (or even for the software engineering
effort to fix many of the problems) it would be a very different story.
> 
> but it's a very different (from, say, adobe) business model: free (or
> cheap) software,
> profit off support. i think, the majority of software development use this 
> model
> in some form (except for "shrink-wrapped" products you buy at compusa, but 
> that
> a negligible part of all software)

Just where did you pull that ridiculous statistic from?

By far the majority of all software (on home PCs and on business systems)
is bought "shrink wrapped", either from CompUSA or from the manufacturer.
Windows, Solaris, OS/X, AIX, Irix, and all those application packages.
That includes systems running Linux - most of the business Linux sites
still run proprietary shrink-wrapped applications on those Linux boxes.

The open-source developer community might only have a negligible amount
of shrink-wrapped software on their average system, but that's only a
negligible part of the total software development world, which in turn
is only a negligible part of the entire computer software marketplace.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

there *are* effects of scale. a similar tool (to PS) would cost tens or hundreds
of kilo$ if adobe had a hundred customers in the world. that's what our product
used to sell at my previous job.
i think the price is probably reasonable, however, the business model
is flawed.
enforcing and bitching about "intellectual property" is kinda
pointless, considering
that easily over 80% of the world population doesn't know it exists. 
it's quite far
from being a "universally accepted" concept, like, e.g. physical property.

best,
mishka

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:39:05 +, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know there are other factors involved in the
> argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ overpriced.  It would be
> really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their
> price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market.
> 
> m
> 
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

i second that. you rarely see an orchestra with one or two virtuosos and 
a hundred musicians who can barely read the score. which is a commonplace
in software development.

mishka


On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:01:34 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on my experience in software development I'm not sure the actual
> value isn't the reverse...
> 
> 
> 
> William Robb wrote:
> 
> >
> > - Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson"
> > Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> >
> >
> >> John Francis wrote:
> >>
> >>> If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if they
> >>> gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD sales)
> >>> you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.
> >>
> >>
> >> I get the impression that most of the larger, more famous orchestras
> >> get most of their income from recorded music sales. They do that by
> >> selling at low profit, high turnover.
> >
> >
> > Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very good
> > one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large crew
> > of software engineers playing with really expensive computers?
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war.
> During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings
> and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during 
> peacetime.
> --P.J. O'Rourke
> 
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

it actually *is* on commercial basis. does red hat ring a bell, just to name one
(but not, by far, the only)?

but it's a very different (from, say, adobe) business model: free (or
cheap) software,
profit off support. i think, the majority of software development use this model
in some form (except for "shrink-wrapped" products you buy at compusa, but that
a negligible part of all software)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:34:15 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any idea how much Linux would cost if it was actually on a commercial
> basis?  Look how large Linux is, compared to MS/DOS, CP/M, or even to
> commercial operating systems such as early versions of Unix.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[ernreed2]

Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> 
> Anyway, if my friend the Photoshop instructo is correct in his 
> assertion that Adobe has sold about 1 in every 10 copies that are in 
> use, (an I see no reason to doubt him), I don't see how you can argue 
> that pirating isn't causing a problem. If they could sell half of 
> what is in use, the price would most likely be significantly lower 
> per unit.


Also, I suspect (though I have no studies to back this up) that some people 
in possession of illegal copies of Photoshop might have considered *buying* 
Photoshop Elements if they hadn't had the opportunity to buy the illegal copy 
of Photoshop.
Count me among those who say that "It's illegal" should be a good enough 
reason not to do it. Then there are some more good reasons as well.

ERNR

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

more like, you go to a library and xerox a book.  and the original copy stays
with the library.

best,
mishka

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:04:36 -0700, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's take this to another level.  I walk up to a car
> lot, find the keys in the ignition, and drive off with a brand new Jaguar.
> Does that NOT represent a lost sale for the dealer just because I never
> planned on buying it in the first place? Granted, I could not have
> fabricated a like Jaguar by running it through a Car Duplicating Machine,
> but you see the point.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:32:14 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second. How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop
> raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the
> free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use 
> something
> else.

Bingo!

Mishka (a software developer)

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Based on my experience in software development I'm not sure the 
actual value isn't the reverse...
You are absolutely correct in that.
William Robb 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Peter J. Alling]

Based on my experience in software development I'm not sure the actual 
value isn't the reverse...

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

John Francis wrote:
If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if they
gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD sales)
you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.

I get the impression that most of the larger, more famous orchestras 
get most of their income from recorded music sales. They do that by 
selling at low profit, high turnover.

Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very good 
one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large crew 
of software engineers playing with really expensive computers?

William Robb


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Peter J. Alling]

That should be their cost of course.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Their const would be significantly lower per unit.  Not necessarily 
your cost...

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy 
stands up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so 
much cheaper, given the development costs are similar.  If pirating 
was causing high prices, recorded music prices should be 
astronomical.  What is keeping the price high is that people are 
willing to pay it.

I don't understand why you are trying to make a connection between 
music CDs and software. Other than that they are both on little 
plastic discs, they don't really have much in common.
I helped "develop" a music CD a couple of years ago.
It was a buddy of mine recording a buddy of his' music.
The development cost was a couple of cases of beer, plus materials.
We did pretty good too.

Anyway, if my friend the Photoshop instructo is correct in his 
assertion that Adobe has sold about 1 in every 10 copies that are in 
use, (an I see no reason to doubt him), I don't see how you can argue 
that pirating isn't causing a problem. If they could sell half of 
what is in use, the price would most likely be significantly lower 
per unit.

William Robb



--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Juan Buhler]

Software, orchestras, Photoshop...

So, as Ansel said, if the RAW file is the partiture, then Photoshop is
the orchestra. See? it isn't a bad analogy after all.

:-)


-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

Hmm,
Well a musician playing with a good orchestra probably has gone 
through at least fifteen years of very expensive one-on-one 
training. And the man hours necessary to prepare for a performance 
are mind boggling. Consider as well that a good violin sells for 
about $7000. At least as much as a good computer. Input costs for 
serious music are considerable.
But Paul, the orchestra isn't bearing the cost of all that.
Or rarely is, anyway.
William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[pnstenquist]

Bill Rob asked,
> Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very good 
> one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large 
> crew of software engineers playing with really expensive computers?

Hmm,
Well a musician playing with a good orchestra probably has gone through at 
least fifteen years of very expensive one-on-one training. And the man hours 
necessary to prepare for a performance are mind boggling. Consider as well that 
a good violin sells for about $7000. At least as much as a good computer. Input 
costs for serious music are considerable.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Levy"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Mike,
If you think you paid too much money for dodgy software, demand 
your money back and return the product. Just because Ford Explorers 
were prone to rollover when Firestones were mounted..
I read in some magazine sitting at work that the Explorer problem was 
Fords insistence on not re-engineering (purist, har) the suspension, 
and then compounding it by choosing inadequate tires (the Firestones 
were actually a passenger car tire, not a light truck tire) and 
recommending low air pressures.
I read this sometime after Firestone had taken it on the chin for the 
problem.
I do not purport this to be either true or false, I am just tossing 
it out there as something I had gleaned at some point.

William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Peter J. Alling]

Their const would be significantly lower per unit.  Not necessarily your 
cost...

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy 
stands up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so 
much cheaper, given the development costs are similar.  If pirating 
was causing high prices, recorded music prices should be 
astronomical.  What is keeping the price high is that people are 
willing to pay it.

I don't understand why you are trying to make a connection between 
music CDs and software. Other than that they are both on little 
plastic discs, they don't really have much in common.
I helped "develop" a music CD a couple of years ago.
It was a buddy of mine recording a buddy of his' music.
The development cost was a couple of cases of beer, plus materials.
We did pretty good too.

Anyway, if my friend the Photoshop instructo is correct in his 
assertion that Adobe has sold about 1 in every 10 copies that are in 
use, (an I see no reason to doubt him), I don't see how you can argue 
that pirating isn't causing a problem. If they could sell half of what 
is in use, the price would most likely be significantly lower per unit.

William Robb


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


John Francis wrote:
If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if 
they
gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD 
sales)
you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.
I get the impression that most of the larger, more famous 
orchestras get most of their income from recorded music sales. 
They do that by selling at low profit, high turnover.
Mike, are you presuming that yer basic orchestra (or even a very good 
one) has the same dollar value of input costs compared to a large 
crew of software engineers playing with really expensive computers?

William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


No I'm not.  My argument was based on an orchestra, that has years 
of training and months of development costs for a performace.  The 
higher pay is a function of the higher retail price which is a 
function of the amount customers are willing to pay.  Or believe 
they need to.
A lot of orchestra musicians have a day job, and are amateur 
musicians.
A lot of orchestras are getting arts grants, offsetting the cost of 
operation.
Most orchestras put on the occasional concert, for which they are 
paid.
Most orchestras (like all musicians) get a royalty for every time 
they sell a CD, or even get played on the radio.

Most software writers (at the Photoshop level) are professional 
writers. It's all they do for a living.
Very few, if any, software companies are getting government grants.
Software companies do trade shows and the like, at which they may 
sell some product, but otherwise don't get paid for.
Once a piece of software is sold, that's pretty much it, except for 
those that collect ongoing licensing fees. I don't suppose there are 
all that many of those.
Your arguments don't hold up, I am afraid.

William Robb 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy 
stands up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so 
much cheaper, given the development costs are similar.  If pirating 
was causing high prices, recorded music prices should be 
astronomical.  What is keeping the price high is that people are 
willing to pay it.
I don't understand why you are trying to make a connection between 
music CDs and software. Other than that they are both on little 
plastic discs, they don't really have much in common.
I helped "develop" a music CD a couple of years ago.
It was a buddy of mine recording a buddy of his' music.
The development cost was a couple of cases of beer, plus materials.
We did pretty good too.

Anyway, if my friend the Photoshop instructo is correct in his 
assertion that Adobe has sold about 1 in every 10 copies that are in 
use, (an I see no reason to doubt him), I don't see how you can argue 
that pirating isn't causing a problem. If they could sell half of 
what is in use, the price would most likely be significantly lower 
per unit.

William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Larry Levy]

Mike,
If you think you paid too much money for dodgy software, demand your money 
back and return the product. Just because Ford Explorers were prone to 
rollover when Firestones were mounted (certainly worse than the dodgy 
software you're refering to), didn't mean people were entitled to steal 
them. Same thing with software licenses.

Larry
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:18:39 +
From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Francis wrote:
If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if they
gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD sales)
you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.
I get the impression that most of the larger, more famous orchestras get
most of their income from recorded music sales.  They do that by selling
at low profit, high turnover.
In any case, your legal choice is whether or not to buy the product.
If the company sets the price too high then there is an opportunity
for somebody else to step in and sell a comparable product for less.
Rationalise it as much as you like, but at the end of the day you're
stealing something because you don't want to pay the purchase price.
The point I'm trying to make is that I think software organisations
could make similar profits by using the same model as orchestras.  It's
only because the buyers are conditioned to buying at high price that
they think it is neccessary.  Where buyers have refused to pay the high
prices and resorted to mass piracy, the vendors have dramatically
lowered their prices.  Whether this is possible because they make such
profits from "legitimate" sales that they can subsidise it is something
I have no way of telling.
Everywhere I look in business, there are exhortations to improve
efficiency by reducing overheads and production costs.  Funny how you
can still pay top whack for software and it is as grotty as a (insert
your favourite grotty thing here).  Buggy, crashing, awkward, memory
hogging junk most of it and it doesn't seem to matter what you pay.
mike

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.805 / Virus Database: 547 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike wilson]

John Francis wrote:
If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if they
gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD sales)
you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.
I get the impression that most of the larger, more famous orchestras get 
most of their income from recorded music sales.  They do that by selling 
at low profit, high turnover.

In any case, your legal choice is whether or not to buy the product.
If the company sets the price too high then there is an opportunity
for somebody else to step in and sell a comparable product for less.
Rationalise it as much as you like, but at the end of the day you're
stealing something because you don't want to pay the purchase price.
The point I'm trying to make is that I think software organisations 
could make similar profits by using the same model as orchestras.  It's 
only because the buyers are conditioned to buying at high price that 
they think it is neccessary.  Where buyers have refused to pay the high 
prices and resorted to mass piracy, the vendors have dramatically 
lowered their prices.  Whether this is possible because they make such 
profits from "legitimate" sales that they can subsidise it is something 
I have no way of telling.

Everywhere I look in business, there are exhortations to improve 
efficiency by reducing overheads and production costs.  Funny how you 
can still pay top whack for software and it is as grotty as a (insert 
your favourite grotty thing here).  Buggy, crashing, awkward, memory 
hogging junk most of it and it doesn't seem to matter what you pay.

mike

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Rob Studdert]

On 8 Dec 2004 at 16:34, John Francis wrote:
 
> Then look at the size of open-source projects that try and do what
> PhotoShop (to continue using that example) is doing.  Image Magick,
> Graphics Magick, and the Gimp have had a lot of development effort
> invested, but they still don't come close to what PhotoShop can do.
> Even if you add in some of the popular shareware (VueScan, say, and
> one of the thumbnail cataloguing programs) you're still a long way
> behind full PhotoShop.

And I bought VueScan quite a few years back and I have rights to perpetual 
upgrades, great value. I went to upgrade my copy of PS to CS to find that I 
can't buy the US$169 product, I have to buy the Aussie version (the same DL 
file, nothing physical) for only AU$399 (US$300+), fair?

I've also owned ThumbsPlus since early V3, I've paid for upgrades along the way 
and I've even had a few of my suggestions implemented in new versions, again 
I'm happy to pay.

Stealing something that's copyright protected is wrong, no question. I wonder 
how much code in a lot of these big apps has been acquired via dubious paths?

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[John Francis]

Rob Studdert mused:
> 
> Volume increases should translate to lower cost in software as well as 
> hardware, the cost ratio of software to hardware has become absurd.

I'd suggest that the cost of software *has* decreased.  Unfortunately
the complexity of software has increased significantly faster.

Any idea how much Linux would cost if it was actually on a commercial
basis?  Look how large Linux is, compared to MS/DOS, CP/M, or even to
commercial operating systems such as early versions of Unix.

Then look at the size of open-source projects that try and do what
PhotoShop (to continue using that example) is doing.  Image Magick,
Graphics Magick, and the Gimp have had a lot of development effort
invested, but they still don't come close to what PhotoShop can do.
Even if you add in some of the popular shareware (VueScan, say, and
one of the thumbnail cataloguing programs) you're still a long way
behind full PhotoShop.

If you don't need all the capabilities of PhotoShop (and probably
most people on this list don't) then the $99 LE/Elements versions
should fill the bill.  It's hard to argue that they are overpriced
for what they do (they may be cheaper than equivalent shareware).

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Rob Studdert]

On 8 Dec 2004 at 12:09, Don Sanderson wrote:

> I think folks forget about us little guys trying to make
> a living whe they make moral judgments about piracy.

Yeah but what about the ex-resellers that had to get out as M___soft, Adobe, 
Novell reduced SRPs and increased dealer buy prices as the cost of hardware 
tumbled?

Volume increases should translate to lower cost in software as well as 
hardware, the cost ratio of software to hardware has become absurd.

Trying to lay low on this one.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Bob W]

Hi,

Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 6:30:33 PM, Larry wrote:

> And that's why I left and consulted to the law firm that was representing
> the company from whom they lifted code. It was a really thin line to walk
> while still honoring my original non-disclosure agreement with my former
> employer.

I'd be very surprised indeed if a non-disclosure agreement had any
legal force to stop you from revealing criminal activity.

If you knew your employer was engaged in some illegal activity, and
you were later prosecuted as an accessory, even if you yourself did
not take part in the activity, I don't think you could use the NDA as
a defence either. It would be similar to the discredited 'I was only
following orders' defence.

As far as I know, here in the UK non-disclosure agreements are barely
worth the paper they're written on anyway. At least as far stopping you
from working for a competitor is concerned. I guess the same thing
applies in most of the western countries. It's a free labour market -
you can't be compelled to work for somebody, or prevented from working
for somebody else.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Larry Levy]

And that's why I left and consulted to the law firm that was representing 
the company from whom they lifted code. It was a really thin line to walk 
while still honoring my original non-disclosure agreement with my former 
employer. This helped to stop the activity as they went Chapter 7 leaving me 
as one of a myriad of creditors. I really didn't think that this is the 
venue for going into further details.

Larry
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:37:39 -0500
From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The argument can be made that if you work for a crook, you are a crook. It 
is a
legal priciple called accessory to the act. Many of us manage to justify 
our
conflicting views with such rationalizations as yours.

The above is not intended as an attack, but to illustrate out how we can 
argue
one side of an issue while we are actually on the other side of it.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Larry Levy wrote:
You guys have hit one of my hot buttons. Thirty years of creating
software will make you aware of just what goes into a product like
Photoshop CS. That plus working at a company that was charging well over
$1,000,000 for for a license to its (mainly my) software and yet was
using bootleg copies of WordPerfect and lifting lines of code from its
competitor's product has made me very sensitive to this issue.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.805 / Virus Database: 547 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike wilson]

Larry Levy wrote:

Just because you want something, doesn't mean you're entitled to have it.
That includes outrageous retail prices.
mike

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Don Sanderson]

Thanks for that Larry.
I'm staying out of this because I'm a reseller of software.
People other than the big corps. stand to lose to pirates.
I think folks forget about us little guys trying to make
a living whe they make moral judgments about piracy.

Don


> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
>
> Can we just call it what it is - stealing. If I make something I
> am entitled
> to charge whatever I want. You, on the other hand, are entitled
> not to buy
> it. It is not a function of what time and money went into the creation of
> the object. It is a function of what I want to charge for it.
>
> If Fred Pollack spent thousands of dollars and weeks creating a miniature
> painting and decides he wants $500 for it, that's fine. The
> marketplace will
> decide whether it's over-priced. If his cousin Jackson spends
> 1/10 the time
> and money and yet wants 100 times that for his effort, the
> marketplace again
> will decide. Fred may not sell his work, while Jackson might sell all he
> cares to create. There is no problem here.
>
> To say the producer is charging too much for a product, therefore I am
> entitled to steal, it is simply rationalization for why you want to steal
> for your own gratification. To say that no one is getting hurt
> when you copy
> software and use it without buying a license is also rationalization for
> ripping off someone. Just because the act of theft is easy,
> doesn't make it
> morally or legally right.
>
> You guys have hit one of my hot buttons. Thirty years of creating
> software
> will make you aware of just what goes into a product like
> Photoshop CS. That
> plus working at a company that was charging well over $1,000,000
> for for a
> license to its (mainly my) software and yet was using bootleg copies of
> WordPerfect and lifting lines of code from its competitor's
> product has made
> me very sensitive to this issue.
>
> Just because you want something, doesn't mean you're entitled to have it.
>
> Larry in Dallas
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.805 / Virus Database: 547 - Release Date: 12/5/2004
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[John Francis]

mike wilson mused:
> 
> 
> 
> John Francis wrote:
> 
> > mike wilson mused:
> > 
> >>Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy stands 
> >>up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so much 
> >>cheaper, given the development costs are similar.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You're confusing unit manufacturing cost with product development cost.
> > 
> > A decent music CD can be put together in a year by maybe a couple of
> > dozen people, probably not even working full time on making the CD.
> > 
> > Something like PhotoShop involves more like a couple of hundred people
> > during a multi-year development phase, not to mention needing product
> > support (there's no post-sales support on a music CD).  Factor in the
> > fact that software engineers tend to be rather higher paid than most
> > musicians, and a 40-to-one price ratio doesn't seem that ridiculous.
> > 
> > 
> 
> No I'm not.  My argument was based on an orchestra, that has years of 
> training and months of development costs for a performace.  The higher 
> pay is a function of the higher retail price which is a function of the 
> amount customers are willing to pay.  Or believe they need to.

If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if they
gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD sales)
you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD.

In any case, your legal choice is whether or not to buy the product.
If the company sets the price too high then there is an opportunity
for somebody else to step in and sell a comparable product for less.
Rationalise it as much as you like, but at the end of the day you're
stealing something because you don't want to pay the purchase price.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike wilson]

John Francis wrote:
mike wilson mused:
Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy stands 
up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so much 
cheaper, given the development costs are similar.

You're confusing unit manufacturing cost with product development cost.
A decent music CD can be put together in a year by maybe a couple of
dozen people, probably not even working full time on making the CD.
Something like PhotoShop involves more like a couple of hundred people
during a multi-year development phase, not to mention needing product
support (there's no post-sales support on a music CD).  Factor in the
fact that software engineers tend to be rather higher paid than most
musicians, and a 40-to-one price ratio doesn't seem that ridiculous.

No I'm not.  My argument was based on an orchestra, that has years of 
training and months of development costs for a performace.  The higher 
pay is a function of the higher retail price which is a function of the 
amount customers are willing to pay.  Or believe they need to.

mike

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Graywolf]

The argument can be made that if you work for a crook, you are a crook. It is a 
legal priciple called accessory to the act. Many of us manage to justify our 
conflicting views with such rationalizations as yours.

The above is not intended as an attack, but to illustrate out how we can argue 
one side of an issue while we are actually on the other side of it.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Larry Levy wrote:
You guys have hit one of my hot buttons. Thirty years of creating 
software will make you aware of just what goes into a product like 
Photoshop CS. That plus working at a company that was charging well over 
$1,000,000 for for a license to its (mainly my) software and yet was 
using bootleg copies of WordPerfect and lifting lines of code from its 
competitor's product has made me very sensitive to this issue.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Larry Levy]

Can we just call it what it is - stealing. If I make something I am entitled 
to charge whatever I want. You, on the other hand, are entitled not to buy 
it. It is not a function of what time and money went into the creation of 
the object. It is a function of what I want to charge for it.

If Fred Pollack spent thousands of dollars and weeks creating a miniature 
painting and decides he wants $500 for it, that's fine. The marketplace will 
decide whether it's over-priced. If his cousin Jackson spends 1/10 the time 
and money and yet wants 100 times that for his effort, the marketplace again 
will decide. Fred may not sell his work, while Jackson might sell all he 
cares to create. There is no problem here.

To say the producer is charging too much for a product, therefore I am 
entitled to steal, it is simply rationalization for why you want to steal 
for your own gratification. To say that no one is getting hurt when you copy 
software and use it without buying a license is also rationalization for 
ripping off someone. Just because the act of theft is easy, doesn't make it 
morally or legally right.

You guys have hit one of my hot buttons. Thirty years of creating software 
will make you aware of just what goes into a product like Photoshop CS. That 
plus working at a company that was charging well over $1,000,000 for for a 
license to its (mainly my) software and yet was using bootleg copies of 
WordPerfect and lifting lines of code from its competitor's product has made 
me very sensitive to this issue.

Just because you want something, doesn't mean you're entitled to have it.
Larry in Dallas
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.805 / Virus Database: 547 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[John Francis]

mike wilson mused:
> 
> Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy stands 
> up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so much 
> cheaper, given the development costs are similar.


You're confusing unit manufacturing cost with product development cost.

A decent music CD can be put together in a year by maybe a couple of
dozen people, probably not even working full time on making the CD.

Something like PhotoShop involves more like a couple of hundred people
during a multi-year development phase, not to mention needing product
support (there's no post-sales support on a music CD).  Factor in the
fact that software engineers tend to be rather higher paid than most
musicians, and a 40-to-one price ratio doesn't seem that ridiculous.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike wilson]

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra.  You take years to 
learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along 
with your colleagues.  A huge investment of time and effort. It is 
recorded and released on CD.  Why is it $6, not $600?  The answer, of 
course, is the effect of scale.  At a cheap price, you can sell more 
and make the same, or better, profit.  I know there are other factors 
involved in the argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ 
overpriced.  It would be really interesting to see if any company had 
the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of orders of magnitude 
to try to corner the market.

I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful 
photographer.
On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will 
have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop.
My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of 
the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% being 
legitimate installs.
People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no 
matter what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting 
cheap trinkets out of my store.
Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% 
bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is 
built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks.
Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy stands 
up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so much 
cheaper, given the development costs are similar.  If pirating was 
causing high prices, recorded music prices should be astronomical.  What 
is keeping the price high is that people are willing to pay it.

mike

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

Juan wrote:
Ah, but that "little caveat" is what makes the whole difference. If
you take the Jaguar, the dealer has one less car to sell. If you
duplicate it, maybe even your neighbor will like it, and will go out
and buy a Jaguar for himself, thus benefiting the dealer.
I just don't see that as being likely (maybe I don't understand what you 
mean).  If I steal something, I have no incentive or likely intention to 
purchase it.  If I duplicate something and my neighbor gets it for free, 
they have little incentive to purchase it.  If someone gives me a free 
Jaguar, I won't go purchase one.  Same works for intellectual property.


Just to add my bias to the whole thing, I think corporations in
general are at no risk of suffering much from our doings. If anything,
we need to protect individuals from corporations, and not the other
way around.
In general, I think copyright law has gone out of control, and it is
now something far beyond what it was intended to do.
I agree in general.  I also think the maker of a product has the right to 
make a profit by selling that product.  Any unauthorized distribution of 
that product cuts into potential sales and profits.  Since making a profit 
is just about the only reason a business exists...

Tom C.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Juan Buhler]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:04:36 -0700, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't totally agree with these arguments though I undertsand the point
> your making.  Bootlegged copies do represent lost potential sales and lost
> potential income.  Let's take this to another level.  I walk up to a car
> lot, find the keys in the ignition, and drive off with a brand new Jaguar.
> Does that NOT represent a lost sale for the dealer just because I never
> planned on buying it in the first place? Granted, I could not have
> fabricated a like Jaguar by running it through a Car Duplicating Machine,
> but you see the point.

Ah, but that "little caveat" is what makes the whole difference. If
you take the Jaguar, the dealer has one less car to sell. If you
duplicate it, maybe even your neighbor will like it, and will go out
and buy a Jaguar for himself, thus benefiting the dealer.

The point is, copying software is illegal. This is why it shouldn't be
done, and we can forget about whether it is right or wrong. If we want
to go into the details, you have to factor in all the kids with
bootleg copies of Photoshop, Maya or whatever, who learn to master it,
and become a workforce that knows how to use that software. The
companies that hire them will actually buy the software legally. This
phenomenon is good for the software companies, and I wouldn't
underestimate its effect.


> I have thought this (the arguments above) to some degree myself in the past.
>   It's an easy rationalization that one could make in order to justify use
> without a purchase.  "I never would have bought it, so I'm not doing
> anything wrong".  From the seller's standpoint, it's totally different.
> The picture changes totally depending on whether you're the person
> benefiting from the free use or whether you're the person/corporation being
> deprived of income, losing sales, whatever you want to call it.

Just to add my bias to the whole thing, I think corporations in
general are at no risk of suffering much from our doings. If anything,
we need to protect individuals from corporations, and not the other
way around.

In general, I think copyright law has gone out of control, and it is
now something far beyond what it was intended to do.

More thoughts:  http://www.jbuhler.com/license.html

j

-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


First off Bill, everyone does not steal. There are honest people in
the world.
With computer software, I think the percentage is surprisingly small
though.
Second. How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy
of Photoshop raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume
that the folks using the free copies would not pay $600 for it in
any case. They would just use something else.
Some would, some wouldn't.
Those that would buy if theft wasn't easy are lost sales.
There are many folks who are software collectors. They have a copy
of every piece of software they can find. They do not use the
software. They do not need the software. They do not buy the
software. How do they affect Adobe's sales?
Theft is theft. It doesn't really matter what the end use is.
Now both these classes of non-buyers probable brag on having the
latest version of Photoshop and thus influence others to buy the
software accually helping Adobe's profits.
Actually, both classes of non buyers are probably bootlegging cheap
CD's and putting beer money in their own pockets. This helps
Anheuser-Busch, but not Adobe.
Now the people who sell bootleg copies to unsuspecting bargain
hunters do cost Adobe sales and rip off their own customers. They
are plain and simple crooks and should be dealt with accordingly.
Agreed.
The way I always have seen it, is if I need support I will pay for
it by buying the software. Although there have been a few companies
who both sell at a high price and charge extra for support. Most of
them have not lasted long.
So I can steal your truck as long as I don't want you to do tune-ups
on it?
I have quite a lot of stuff up on my website. If you make a copy of
any of it for your own use it does not hurt me in the least. Now if
you put it in a book and sold the book, I probably would take legal
action against you (Hey, I want my split).
Are you running a commercial website? If I steal what I should
rightfully buy, then I am hurting you. OTOH, if you are like me, and
just put random stuff up for people to amuse themselves with,
downloading it is more of a compliment.
Someone stealing merchandize from the store is taking money; the
store had to pay for the merchandize. Someone using intellectual
property that they would not use if they had to pay for it is not
taking anything away from the owner. In fact it could be argued
that they are providing a service. One of the ways you become the
leader is by having more people use your stuff. The more there who
are using it, the more there are who will buy it.

How is software any different from a pair of jeans that way.
Does a ripped off pair of Levi's help Levi Strauss increase market
share?
William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


I have thought this (the arguments above) to some degree myself in 
the past. It's an easy rationalization that one could make in order 
to justify use without a purchase.  "I never would have bought it, 
so I'm not doing anything wrong".  From the seller's standpoint, 
it's totally different.
The picture changes totally depending on whether you're the person 
benefiting from the free use or whether you're the 
person/corporation being deprived of income, losing sales, whatever 
you want to call it.

A percentage of the freeloaders would buy it if it wasn't possible to 
steal it.
In your scenario with the Jag, the lost sale is if you have the 75 
grand in your pocket to buy the thing, but discover that you can get 
away with stealing it...
Where your scenaio fall apart is that you can't get away with driving 
the stolen Jag on public highways for long, they might just catch 
you.

William Robb 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

Graywolf and Mark Roberts wrote:
Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop
>raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks 
using the
>free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use 
something
>else.

That's something I have thought about. Bootlegged copies of Photoshop
don't represent lost sales for Adobe, they represent lost sales for
Paint Shop Pro (or similar).
Not that that's a good thing, but it's interesting.
--
Mark Roberts
I'm not sure illegal use raises the price of legitimate copies... but 
capitalism being what it is, it certainly doesn't provide a company with the 
incentive to lower the price.

I don't totally agree with these arguments though I undertsand the point 
your making.  Bootlegged copies do represent lost potential sales and lost 
potential income.  Let's take this to another level.  I walk up to a car 
lot, find the keys in the ignition, and drive off with a brand new Jaguar.  
Does that NOT represent a lost sale for the dealer just because I never 
planned on buying it in the first place? Granted, I could not have 
fabricated a like Jaguar by running it through a Car Duplicating Machine, 
but you see the point.

I have thought this (the arguments above) to some degree myself in the past. 
 It's an easy rationalization that one could make in order to justify use 
without a purchase.  "I never would have bought it, so I'm not doing 
anything wrong".  From the seller's standpoint, it's totally different.
The picture changes totally depending on whether you're the person 
benefiting from the free use or whether you're the person/corporation being 
deprived of income, losing sales, whatever you want to call it.

Tom C.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

OK... sending for 3rd time in 2 days (*^*%& hotmail).
It's interesting... I just retraced my steps and found out how I got to 
www.markdownsoftware in the first place.  It was from a link on amazon.com 
under the heading "Customers interested in Photoshop for Astrophotographers 
may also be interested in:".

There's also another link there for www.buysusa.com which offers Adobe 
software at 90% off.  It says that one receives a full CD version which must 
be activated.  I haven't read all the fine print on this one but it says the 
software was originally purchased under a group license and that buyers are 
ineligible for free Adobe support.

If either of these firms are acting illegally I find it amazing that 
amazon.com would be 'complicit' in encouraging copyright infringement.

I have cancelled my credit and had it reissued just in case.
I have to say I don't buy into pirated software or any other pirated 
intellectual property, especially not 'just because millions of other people 
see nothing wrong with it'.  As a software developer myself, I recognize the 
hard work that goes into writing software, especially quality software.  As 
a photographer I would hate to see a photograph I was selling and could make 
a  profit on, be distributed without permission, depriving me of rightful 
income.

I plan on calling Adobe tomorrow and addressing the issue with them and 
determining if my purchase was legal or not.

Tom C.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mark Roberts]

Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop 
>raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the 
>free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use 
>something 
>else.

That's something I have thought about. Bootlegged copies of Photoshop
don't represent lost sales for Adobe, they represent lost sales for
Paint Shop Pro (or similar).
Not that that's a good thing, but it's interesting.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Graywolf]

First off Bill, everyone does not steal. There are honest people in the world.
Second. How does someone using an unlicensed and unsupported copy of Photoshop 
raise the prices of legitimate copies. I would assume that the folks using the 
free copies would not pay $600 for it in any case. They would just use something 
else.

There are many folks who are software collectors. They have a copy of every 
piece of software they can find. They do not use the software. They do not need 
the software. They do not buy the software. How do they affect Adobe's sales?

Now both these classes of non-buyers probable brag on having the latest version 
of Photoshop and thus influence others to buy the software accually helping 
Adobe's profits.

Now the people who sell bootleg copies to unsuspecting bargain hunters do cost 
Adobe sales and rip off their own customers. They are plain and simple crooks 
and should be dealt with accordingly.

The way I always have seen it, is if I need support I will pay for it by buying 
the software. Although there have been a few companies who both sell at a high 
price and charge extra for support. Most of them have not lasted long.

I have quite a lot of stuff up on my website. If you make a copy of any of it 
for your own use it does not hurt me in the least. Now if you put it in a book 
and sold the book, I probably would take legal action against you (Hey, I want 
my split).

Someone stealing merchandize from the store is taking money; the store had to 
pay for the merchandize. Someone using intellectual property that they would not 
use if they had to pay for it is not taking anything away from the owner. In 
fact it could be argued that they are providing a service. One of the ways you 
become the leader is by having more people use your stuff. The more there who 
are using it, the more there are who will buy it.



graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra.  You take years to 
learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along 
with your colleagues.  A huge investment of time and effort. It is 
recorded and released on CD.  Why is it $6, not $600?  The answer, of 
course, is the effect of scale.  At a cheap price, you can sell more 
and make the same, or better, profit.  I know there are other factors 
involved in the argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ 
overpriced.  It would be really interesting to see if any company had 
the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of orders of magnitude to 
try to corner the market.

I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful 
photographer.
On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will 
have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop.
My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of 
the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% being 
legitimate installs.
People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no matter 
what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting cheap 
trinkets out of my store.
Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% 
bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is 
built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks.

William (no stolen software on my machine) Robb

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Don Sanderson]

Thank you William, well said.
Since I make part of my living selling software
I stayed out of this, I get too hot.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra.  You take years to 
> > learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along 
> > with your colleagues.  A huge investment of time and effort. It is 
> > recorded and released on CD.  Why is it $6, not $600?  The answer, 
> > of course, is the effect of scale.  At a cheap price, you can sell 
> > more and make the same, or better, profit.  I know there are other 
> > factors involved in the argument but, for me, software is 
> > _grotesquely_ overpriced.  It would be really interesting to see if 
> > any company had the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of 
> > orders of magnitude to try to corner the market.
> 
> I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful 
> photographer.
> On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will 
> have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop.
> My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of 
> the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% 
> being legitimate installs.
> People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no 
> matter what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting 
> cheap trinkets out of my store.
> Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% 
> bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is 
> built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks.
> 
> William (no stolen software on my machine) Robb 
> 
> 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra.  You take years to 
learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along 
with your colleagues.  A huge investment of time and effort. It is 
recorded and released on CD.  Why is it $6, not $600?  The answer, 
of course, is the effect of scale.  At a cheap price, you can sell 
more and make the same, or better, profit.  I know there are other 
factors involved in the argument but, for me, software is 
_grotesquely_ overpriced.  It would be really interesting to see if 
any company had the mettle to reduce their price by a couple of 
orders of magnitude to try to corner the market.
I did a seminar a few years back with a very good and successful 
photographer.
On pricing, he said that if you want to drop your price 10%, you will 
have to do 40% more work to make up for the price drop.
My Photoshop instructor mentioned one time that something like 90% of 
the installed Photoshop programs are pirated, with the other 10% 
being legitimate installs.
People will take things for free if they have the opportunity, no 
matter what the cost is. I see it every day, with people shoplifting 
cheap trinkets out of my store.
Pirating is what keeps the cost of software high. If those other 90% 
bought, everyone would pay significantly less. The cost of theft is 
built into the price, and the honest consumers pay for the crooks.

William (no stolen software on my machine) Robb 

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Bob W]

Hi,

>  ... It would be
> really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their
> price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market.

it happens quite often. A lot of software is free for non-professional
use, or free through an open source licence. It's not necessarily
done to corner the market. Often it's done just to try and take a
piece away from the market leader. For example, Sun's StarOffice cost
me less than £30- from Amazon; the open source version OpenOffice is
free. For most purposes it's as good as the Microsoft Office suite,
which costs several hundreds of £. In many ways it's better.

The ones who won't reduce their prices are the ones who have already
cornered the market. That's the whole point of a monopoly - you can
charge whatever you want!

Where they face serious competition, or when they're introducing
something new that they want developers to take up, Microsoft also
gives away some very useful software, such as the SQL Server database
engine, Web Matrix and others.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike wilson]

Tom C wrote:
I have to say I don't buy into pirated software or any other pirated 
intellectual property, especially not 'just because millions of other 
people see nothing wrong with it'.  As a software developer myself, I 
recognize the hard work that goes into writing software, especially 
quality software.  As a photographer I would hate to see a photograph I 
was selling and could make a  profit on, be distributed without 
permission, depriving me of rightful income.

I agree in principle but.
Let's say you are a member of a large orchestra.  You take years to 
learn your instrument and weeks to learn a particular piece, along with 
your colleagues.  A huge investment of time and effort. It is recorded 
and released on CD.  Why is it $6, not $600?  The answer, of course, is 
the effect of scale.  At a cheap price, you can sell more and make the 
same, or better, profit.  I know there are other factors involved in the 
argument but, for me, software is _grotesquely_ overpriced.  It would be 
really interesting to see if any company had the mettle to reduce their 
price by a couple of orders of magnitude to try to corner the market.

m

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

I sent this yesterday but never saw it come through...
It's interesting... I just retraced my steps and found out how I got to 
www.markdownsoftware in the first place.  It was from a link on amazon.com 
under the heading "Customers interested in Photoshop for Astrophotographers 
may also be interested in:".

There's also another link there for www.buysusa.com which offers Adobe 
software at 90% off.  It says that one receives a full CD version which must 
be activated.  I haven't read all the fine print on this one but it says the 
software was originally purchased under a group license and that buyers are 
ineligible for free Adobe support.

If either of these firms are acting illegally I find it amazing that 
amazon.com would be 'complicit' in encouraging copyright infringement.

I have cancelled my credit and had it reissued just in case.
I have to say I don't buy into pirated software or any other pirated 
intellectual property, especially not 'just because millions of other people 
see nothing wrong with it'.  As a software developer myself, I recognize the 
hard work that goes into writing software, especially quality software.  As 
a photographer I would hate to see a photograph I was selling and could make 
a  profit on, be distributed without permission, depriving me of rightful 
income.

I plan on calling Adobe tomorrow and addressing the issue with them and 
determining if my purchase was legal or not.

Tom C.

From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:12:20 -0500
common! these guys post their physical address and phone #s!
just call them.
best,
mishka
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:54:50 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I was really scared for a second... I mispelled the URL... it is...
> >
> >http://www.markdownsoftware.com/
>
> Web page hosted by serverbeach.com, an outfit well known for harboring
> spammers and other disreputable types.
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mark Roberts]

"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>It's interesting... I just retraced my steps and found out how I got to 
>www.markdownsoftware in the first place.  It was from a link provided by 
>amazon.com under the heading "Customers interested in Photoshop for 
>Astrophotographers may also be interested in:".
>
>There's also another link there for www.buysusa.com which offers Adobe 
>software at 90% off.  It says that one receives a full CD version which must 
>be activated.  I haven't read all the fine print, but I do find it amazing 
>that amazon.com would be 'complicit' in encouraging copyright infringement.

Those are paid links. As long as the check clears, Amazon probably
doesn't bother investigating each outfit that pays them for clicks. If
you sent Amazon a note about it they might take notice, though. If Adobe
sent them a note I'm sure they would :)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

It's interesting... I just retraced my steps and found out how I got to 
www.markdownsoftware in the first place.  It was from a link provided by 
amazon.com under the heading "Customers interested in Photoshop for 
Astrophotographers may also be interested in:".

There's also another link there for www.buysusa.com which offers Adobe 
software at 90% off.  It says that one receives a full CD version which must 
be activated.  I haven't read all the fine print, but I do find it amazing 
that amazon.com would be 'complicit' in encouraging copyright infringement.

Tom C.

From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:12:13 +

Mishka wrote:
just enjoy the program. adobe hasn't really lost anything. changing
the credit card
number may be a good idea, but other than that, i wouldn't worry about 
anything.
remember, there're india, russia (or, rather, ex-ussr) an china where 
people consider it utterly stupid to buy a legal copy of anything when one
can get it for free.
2 (3?)  billion people cannot possibly be wrong :)
So right, in fact, that the copyright organisations seem to have come to an 
agreement with the pirates in, at least, Russia.  You can now buy 
legitimate copies of software there for a fraction of the full price. The 
on-street price has about doubled.  So Photoshop CS is about £4. The one 
drawback (and it's a doozy for many people on this list) is that English 
language copies seem to have disappeared.

mike

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[mike wilson]

Mishka wrote:
just enjoy the program. adobe hasn't really lost anything. changing
the credit card
number may be a good idea, but other than that, i wouldn't worry about anything.
remember, there're india, russia (or, rather, ex-ussr) an china where people 
consider it utterly stupid to buy a legal copy of anything when one
can get it for free.
2 (3?)  billion people cannot possibly be wrong :)
So right, in fact, that the copyright organisations seem to have come to 
an agreement with the pirates in, at least, Russia.  You can now buy 
legitimate copies of software there for a fraction of the full price. 
The on-street price has about doubled.  So Photoshop CS is about £4. 
The one drawback (and it's a doozy for many people on this list) is that 
English language copies seem to have disappeared.

mike

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Cotty]

On 3/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>> Another quick thought Tom, they disappeared AND they have your CC 
>> number!
>> I'd suggest a phone call.
>
>I'd suggest cancelling that card altogether.

Without a doubt!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

common! these guys post their physical address and phone #s! 
just call them.

best,
mishka

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:54:50 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >I was really scared for a second... I mispelled the URL... it is...
> >
> >http://www.markdownsoftware.com/
> 
> Web page hosted by serverbeach.com, an outfit well known for harboring
> spammers and other disreputable types.
> 
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
> 
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mark Roberts]

"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I was really scared for a second... I mispelled the URL... it is...
>
>http://www.markdownsoftware.com/

Web page hosted by serverbeach.com, an outfit well known for harboring
spammers and other disreputable types.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Paul Ewins]

I don't see how it could be remotely legal to sell copies, regardless of the
intended purpose. You could sell the *original* CD to somebody else or make
a backup copy of software that you have purchased for your own use, but the
license conditions of almost all commercial software will prevent you from
legally making copies and providing them to anybody else regardless of
whether money changes hands.

Most disclaimers are only legal to the point where they contravene existing
law. 

While the company may be based in a country where copyright is ignored, if
they have sold to somebody living in a country where it is enforced they
have little prospect of getting a court to award them anything if payment is
refused.

I also can't see them starting legal action over $100.

Paul

-Original Message-
From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 12:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

You know what they say Tom, if it sounds too good to be true.
I would certainly try the CC company and see if you can cancel the charge.
I wouldn't be too hopeful however, most of these places provide themselves
with a legal "out" of some sort.
The places I've checked out like this usually have two disclaimers:

1.) This software is to be used ONLY for backup to a legally licensed copy.
By this they mean if your media is lost/destroyed, etc.

2.) Absolutely NO refunds on software purchases.
A typical rule in the software world.

Thes are what we used to call "phone booth" operations, never staying
in the same place (or business) for very long.
It is very easy to hide on the internet, one host and e-mail this week,
another the next. (Or sooner if things heat up)

It is NOT illegal to sell "backup" copies of software if the above
disclaimer is made.
It is however illegal to provide a "crack" for that software!

You may want to go back and read the fine print.
It may be only YOU that is unwillingly violating any laws.

Don

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Oy Vey!
I'm sorry this happened to you Tom, really sorry. It's good you 
broached
the subject here, though.  Call your CC company now, and perhaps 
this will
be a lesson of some sort to everyone else on the list.  Good luck!
Did you read the agreement terms?
Reverse the charge and it sounds like they'll be on you like flies on 
poo.

William Robb

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

just enjoy the program. adobe hasn't really lost anything. changing
the credit card
number may be a good idea, but other than that, i wouldn't worry about anything.
remember, there're india, russia (or, rather, ex-ussr) an china where people 
consider it utterly stupid to buy a legal copy of anything when one
can get it for free.
2 (3?)  billion people cannot possibly be wrong :)

best,
mishka


On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:04:37 -0700, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was really scared for a second... I mispelled the URL... it is...
> 
> http://www.markdownsoftware.com/
> 
> After reading the FAQ instead of just skimming the first paragraph it states
> that software is sold w/o  the ability to register it and without a license.
>   If I had read more carefully I would not have purchased it.
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> >From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> >Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:26:00 -0600
> 
> 
> >
> >www.markedownsoftware.com seems to have disappeared as we have been
> >discussing it.
> >
> >Don
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:33 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> > >
> > >
> > > How can this be?
> > >
> > > While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software
> > > at closeout
> > > prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to
> > > www.markedownsoftware.com.
> > >
> >
> > > Tom C.
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Shel Belinkoff]

Oy Vey!

I'm sorry this happened to you Tom, really sorry. It's good you broached
the subject here, though.  Call your CC company now, and perhaps this will
be a lesson of some sort to everyone else on the list.  Good luck!

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 12/3/2004 5:29:40 PM
> Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
> Another quick thought Tom, they disappeared AND they have your CC number!
> I'd suggest a phone call.
>
> Don

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Shel Belinkoff]

Cancel your CC anyway 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 12/3/2004 6:06:20 PM
> Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
> I was really scared for a second... I mispelled the URL... it is...
>
> http://www.markdownsoftware.com/
>
>
> After reading the FAQ instead of just skimming the first paragraph it
states 
> that software is sold w/o  the ability to register it and without a
license. 
>   If I had read more carefully I would not have purchased it.
>
> Tom C.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Herb Chong]

it is not remotely legitimate.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 5:32 PM
Subject: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


> Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous purchasers all be
> given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license
and
> then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small
> company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?
>
> If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of conscience as
> I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of
> suspicious...

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

I was really scared for a second... I mispelled the URL... it is...
http://www.markdownsoftware.com/
After reading the FAQ instead of just skimming the first paragraph it states 
that software is sold w/o  the ability to register it and without a license. 
 If I had read more carefully I would not have purchased it.

Tom C.

From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:26:00 -0600
www.markedownsoftware.com seems to have disappeared as we have been
discussing it.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
>
> How can this be?
>
> While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software
> at closeout
> prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to
> www.markedownsoftware.com.
>

> Tom C.
>
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Doug Franklin]

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:32:36 -0700, Tom C wrote:

> I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't
> imagine someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being
> afraid of the 'Software Police'.

I _completely_ suspect that it's bootleg.  If they're outside the US,
they don't have a ton to worry about.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Don Sanderson"
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement


Another quick thought Tom, they disappeared AND they have your CC 
number!
I'd suggest a phone call.
I'd suggest cancelling that card altogether.
William Robb 

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Don Sanderson]

Another quick thought Tom, they disappeared AND they have your CC number!
I'd suggest a phone call.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> 
> 
> How can this be?
> 
> While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software 
> at closeout 
> prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to 
> www.markedownsoftware.com.

> Tom C.
> 
> 

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Don Sanderson]

www.markedownsoftware.com seems to have disappeared as we have been
discussing it.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
>
> How can this be?
>
> While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software
> at closeout
> prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to
> www.markedownsoftware.com.
>

> Tom C.
>
>

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Don Sanderson]

You know what they say Tom, if it sounds too good to be true.
I would certainly try the CC company and see if you can cancel the charge.
I wouldn't be too hopeful however, most of these places provide themselves
with a legal "out" of some sort.
The places I've checked out like this usually have two disclaimers:

1.) This software is to be used ONLY for backup to a legally licensed copy.
By this they mean if your media is lost/destroyed, etc.

2.) Absolutely NO refunds on software purchases.
A typical rule in the software world.

Thes are what we used to call "phone booth" operations, never staying
in the same place (or business) for very long.
It is very easy to hide on the internet, one host and e-mail this week,
another the next. (Or sooner if things heat up)

It is NOT illegal to sell "backup" copies of software if the above
disclaimer is made.
It is however illegal to provide a "crack" for that software!

You may want to go back and read the fine print.
It may be only YOU that is unwillingly violating any laws.

Don



> -Original Message-
> From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 6:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
>
> Well, I don't feel like I was ripped because I would not have
> downloaded a
> free version, even if I knew it existed.  On the other hand I am
> not happy
> that I purchased a bootleg copy or that I was duped into doing it.
>
> I could have just gone and purchased the upgrade version from Adobe for
> $169.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
> >Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:24:13 -0500
> >
> >Passing on the moral/legal implications, bootleg copies can be
> downloaded
> >for free. You were ripped, coming, and going.
> >
> >graywolf
> >http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> >"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> >---
> >
> >>
> >>>[Original Message]
> >>>From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>How can this be?
> >>>
> >>>While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software at
> >>
> >>closeout
> >>
> >>>prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to
> >>>www.markedownsoftware.com.
> >>>
> >>>It offers a full version Photoshop CS for $95.99 as a download
> only, and
> >>>slightly more if a CD is desired.  I purchased the download
> version.  A
> >>>serial # was not provided in the download.  I e-mailed today asking for
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>serial # and via return e-mail was given a link to a web page
> containing
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>serial # along with special instructions, including a 'fix'
> program.  The
> >>>web page also had serial #'s for a bunch of other products I did not
> >>>purchase.
> >>>
> >>>It essentially said 'Install the software as normal with the serial #
> >>
> >>from
> >>
> >>>the web page and when the activation portion of the install comes up,
> >>
> >>cancel
> >>
> >>>out of it.  Then run the provided little 'fix' program that
> was provided
> >>>with the serial #'.
> >>>
> >>>Well everything worked as described.  When I received the
> serial # (prior
> >>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>reading all the instructions) I did an install and tried to activate,
> >>
> >>which
> >>
> >>>sends serial #, etc., to Adobe.  Activation was denied.  I
> susbsequently
> >>>uninstalled and reinstalled following all the instructions
> regarding the
> >>>'fix'.  The software works like it should.
> >>>
> >>>I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't
> >>
> >>imagine
> >>
> >>>someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being
> afraid of the
> >>>'Software Police'.
> >>>
> >>>Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous
> purchasers all be
> >>>given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license
> >>
> >>and
> >>
> >>>then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small
> >>>company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?
> >>>
> >>>If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of
> conscience as
> >>>I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of
> >>>suspicious...
> >>>
> >>>Tom C.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Shel Belinkoff]

Assuming you were the innocent in this, the problem comes down the line
should you want to upgrade or add some Adobe plug-ins or fixes.  They may
not work on a bootleg version.  My friend couldn't do some kind of upgrade
on his cracked v7.0, and that's when I became susp[icious.

If being honest, and having the ability to upgrade or add features (sat an
updated RAW plug-in) is important to you, then you know what you should do.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 12/3/2004 5:04:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
>
> Well, I don't feel like I was ripped because I would not have downloaded
a 
> free version, even if I knew it existed.  On the other hand I am not
happy 
> that I purchased a bootleg copy or that I was duped into doing it.
>
> I could have just gone and purchased the upgrade version from Adobe for 
> $169.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

Well, I don't feel like I was ripped because I would not have downloaded a 
free version, even if I knew it existed.  On the other hand I am not happy 
that I purchased a bootleg copy or that I was duped into doing it.

I could have just gone and purchased the upgrade version from Adobe for 
$169.

Tom C.

From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:24:13 -0500
Passing on the moral/legal implications, bootleg copies can be downloaded 
for free. You were ripped, coming, and going.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

[Original Message]
From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How can this be?
While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software at
closeout
prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to 
www.markedownsoftware.com.

It offers a full version Photoshop CS for $95.99 as a download only, and 
slightly more if a CD is desired.  I purchased the download version.  A 
serial # was not provided in the download.  I e-mailed today asking for
the
serial # and via return e-mail was given a link to a web page containing
the
serial # along with special instructions, including a 'fix' program.  The 
web page also had serial #'s for a bunch of other products I did not 
purchase.

It essentially said 'Install the software as normal with the serial #
from
the web page and when the activation portion of the install comes up,
cancel
out of it.  Then run the provided little 'fix' program that was provided 
with the serial #'.

Well everything worked as described.  When I received the serial # (prior
to
reading all the instructions) I did an install and tried to activate,
which
sends serial #, etc., to Adobe.  Activation was denied.  I susbsequently 
uninstalled and reinstalled following all the instructions regarding the 
'fix'.  The software works like it should.

I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't
imagine
someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being afraid of the 
'Software Police'.

Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous purchasers all be 
given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license
and
then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small 
company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?

If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of conscience as 
I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of 
suspicious...

Tom C.

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

Yeah,
I face a slight ethical dilemma, huh?
1. Call my credit card company, demand recourse, and uninstall the software, 
assuming my money is returned.

-OR-
2. Figure that if Adobe is aware of this, they should be taking quick 
expedient action, and if they're not, it's more their problem than it is 
mine.

Maybe I'll get a whistleblower's reward and Adobe will give me free upgrades 
to any of their products for life (said with raised eyebrow).

Tom C.

From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:21:13 +1100
If you have used your credit card you may be able to get the transaction
cancelled, as you have bought goods that were misrepresented. If Adobe
confirms that it was a pirate copy then it is clear fraud on the part of 
the
seller.

Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Paul Ewins]

If you have used your credit card you may be able to get the transaction
cancelled, as you have bought goods that were misrepresented. If Adobe
confirms that it was a pirate copy then it is clear fraud on the part of the
seller.

Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Graywolf]

Passing on the moral/legal implications, bootleg copies can be downloaded for 
free. You were ripped, coming, and going.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

[Original Message]
From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How can this be?
While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software at
closeout 

prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to 
www.markedownsoftware.com.

It offers a full version Photoshop CS for $95.99 as a download only, and 
slightly more if a CD is desired.  I purchased the download version.  A 
serial # was not provided in the download.  I e-mailed today asking for
the 

serial # and via return e-mail was given a link to a web page containing
the 

serial # along with special instructions, including a 'fix' program.  The 
web page also had serial #'s for a bunch of other products I did not 
purchase.

It essentially said 'Install the software as normal with the serial #
from 

the web page and when the activation portion of the install comes up,
cancel 

out of it.  Then run the provided little 'fix' program that was provided 
with the serial #'.

Well everything worked as described.  When I received the serial # (prior
to 

reading all the instructions) I did an install and tried to activate,
which 

sends serial #, etc., to Adobe.  Activation was denied.  I susbsequently 
uninstalled and reinstalled following all the instructions regarding the 
'fix'.  The software works like it should.

I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't
imagine 

someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being afraid of the 
'Software Police'.

Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous purchasers all be 
given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license
and 

then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small 
company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?

If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of conscience as 
I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of 
suspicious...

Tom C.

Re: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Mishka]

you could've gotten the same one for free from kazaa. or somewhere else.
best,
mishka


On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:32:36 -0700, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can this be?
> 
> While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software at closeout
> prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to
> www.markedownsoftware.com.
> 
> It offers a full version Photoshop CS for $95.99 as a download only, and
> slightly more if a CD is desired.  I purchased the download version.  A
> serial # was not provided in the download.  I e-mailed today asking for the
> serial # and via return e-mail was given a link to a web page containing the
> serial # along with special instructions, including a 'fix' program.  The
> web page also had serial #'s for a bunch of other products I did not
> purchase.
> 
> It essentially said 'Install the software as normal with the serial # from
> the web page and when the activation portion of the install comes up, cancel
> out of it.  Then run the provided little 'fix' program that was provided
> with the serial #'.
> 
> Well everything worked as described.  When I received the serial # (prior to
> reading all the instructions) I did an install and tried to activate, which
> sends serial #, etc., to Adobe.  Activation was denied.  I susbsequently
> uninstalled and reinstalled following all the instructions regarding the
> 'fix'.  The software works like it should.
> 
> I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't imagine
> someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being afraid of the
> 'Software Police'.
> 
> Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous purchasers all be
> given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license and
> then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small
> company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?
> 
> If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of conscience as
> I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of
> suspicious...
> 
> Tom C.
> 
>

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Tom C]

So, and I don't expect you to know Shel, why isn't Adobe on this guy's butt? 
 Why won't I be receiving a phone call after someone tracks down my 
activation attempt and this serial number?

Tom C.

From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:46:14 -0800
You bougt a cracked version. Illegal. Bootleg.  Call it what you will.  Run
the serial number through Google, see what turns up, and let us know  ;-))
Something similar happened to a friend of mine.  He did the same thing with
v7.0.  When I became suspicious and called PS, they told me it was an
illegal copy, and told me what I just told you.  There were something like
12,000 hits that came up on that serial number from all over the world.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How can this be?
>
> While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software at
closeout
> prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to
> www.markedownsoftware.com.
>
> It offers a full version Photoshop CS for $95.99 as a download only, and
> slightly more if a CD is desired.  I purchased the download version.  A
> serial # was not provided in the download.  I e-mailed today asking for
the
> serial # and via return e-mail was given a link to a web page containing
the
> serial # along with special instructions, including a 'fix' program.  
The
> web page also had serial #'s for a bunch of other products I did not
> purchase.
>
> It essentially said 'Install the software as normal with the serial #
from
> the web page and when the activation portion of the install comes up,
cancel
> out of it.  Then run the provided little 'fix' program that was provided
> with the serial #'.
>
> Well everything worked as described.  When I received the serial # 
(prior
to
> reading all the instructions) I did an install and tried to activate,
which
> sends serial #, etc., to Adobe.  Activation was denied.  I susbsequently
> uninstalled and reinstalled following all the instructions regarding the
> 'fix'.  The software works like it should.
>
> I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't
imagine
> someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being afraid of 
the
> 'Software Police'.
>
> Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous purchasers all be
> given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license
and
> then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small
> company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?
>
> If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of conscience 
as
> I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of
> suspicious...
>
> Tom C.
>

RE: Photoshop CS Bargain Basement

[Shel Belinkoff]

You bougt a cracked version. Illegal. Bootleg.  Call it what you will.  Run
the serial number through Google, see what turns up, and let us know  ;-))

Something similar happened to a friend of mine.  He did the same thing with
v7.0.  When I became suspicious and called PS, they told me it was an
illegal copy, and told me what I just told you.  There were something like
12,000 hits that came up on that serial number from all over the world.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How can this be?
>
> While browsing yesterday I came across a link for Adobe software at
closeout 
> prices, including Photoshop CS.  I followed the link to 
> www.markedownsoftware.com.
>
> It offers a full version Photoshop CS for $95.99 as a download only, and 
> slightly more if a CD is desired.  I purchased the download version.  A 
> serial # was not provided in the download.  I e-mailed today asking for
the 
> serial # and via return e-mail was given a link to a web page containing
the 
> serial # along with special instructions, including a 'fix' program.  The 
> web page also had serial #'s for a bunch of other products I did not 
> purchase.
>
> It essentially said 'Install the software as normal with the serial #
from 
> the web page and when the activation portion of the install comes up,
cancel 
> out of it.  Then run the provided little 'fix' program that was provided 
> with the serial #'.
>
> Well everything worked as described.  When I received the serial # (prior
to 
> reading all the instructions) I did an install and tried to activate,
which 
> sends serial #, etc., to Adobe.  Activation was denied.  I susbsequently 
> uninstalled and reinstalled following all the instructions regarding the 
> 'fix'.  The software works like it should.
>
> I halfway suspect I've bought a bootleg version, except that I can't
imagine 
> someone blatantly advertising this on the web and not being afraid of the 
> 'Software Police'.
>
> Any idea how this can be legitimate?  How can numerous purchasers all be 
> given the same serial #?  Can someone possibly purchase a group license
and 
> then legally resell it indvidually?   How can an indidvidual or small 
> company sell it at this price when Adobe itself sells it for $649?
>
> If it's not legit, I'm not going to have gigantic qualms of conscience as 
> I'm the legitimate owner of versions 3, 4, and 6, but I'm sort of 
> suspicious...
>
> Tom C.
>

Re: PhotoShop CS-First Impressions

[Paul Stenquist]

I've seen some great BW printing from Digi files. A lot of the pro 
books that come through the agency have some BW. Most of it is inkjet 
printed with grayscale inks.

In regard to how PS CS has changed my perspective on digital 
photography, it's all about being able to take it to another level. The 
very fact that the RAW converter allows one to fix a bad digital photo 
suggests that it will also allow one to optimize a good photo. In 
regard to printing, I had been scanning all of my film and printing on 
inkjet for quite some time. This is partly because none of my clients 
want transparencies. They all want digital files. Most of the 
top-dollar pros I've encountered have been printing exclusively inkjet 
for several years. It's very difficult to top it with a wet print, and 
with color, the photographer gives up control.

I still print some BW in the darkroom and hope to do more this winter. 
I have a lot of 25 year old frames that I've never printed. Some great 
pics of my kids. So I hope to get down there and do some of that. I'm 
also hoping to do some more MF studio BW over the winter. But I've had 
fair success printing BW on the Epson 2200 as well. It does have a 
light black ink cartridge and is able to produce a somewhat 
satisfactory grayscale. Of course it works better with some images than 
with others. I'm thinking about getting a custom ink set for BW. I have 
an Epson 1200 that's just sitting. Perhaps I could adapt it for BW.

On Oct 16, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi Paul ...
I've switched to PS CS, but it hasn't changed my perspective of digital
photography.  How has switching changed yours?
One thing I have noticed is that PS CS allows me to be a more careless
shooter because of all the ways a photo can be fudged or fixed in
Photoshop.  Unfortunately, it just sucks me in to the digital side of
things because some of the fixes don't translate directly to the 
darkroom,
which means, from what I've experienced thus far, that the results 
have to
be printed via inkjet or to be sent to a lab that has the equipment to 
make
prints from the files.  And, for a B&W shooter, that's a bit of a 
horror,
even though there are labs here that do EXCEPTIONAL B&W printing from 
digi
files (I wish you guys could see some of the results)

Shel

From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Good move. You won't regret it. Switching to PS CS changed my whole
perspective on digital photography.

Re: PhotoShop CS-First Impressions

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: PhotoShop CS-First Impressions


Good move. You won't regret it. Switching to PS CS changed my whole 
perspective on digital photography.
Gosh Paul, I thought it was the "mediocre snapshot camera" that 
swayed you.


William Robb 

Re: PhotoShop CS-First Impressions

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Paul ...

I've switched to PS CS, but it hasn't changed my perspective of digital
photography.  How has switching changed yours?

One thing I have noticed is that PS CS allows me to be a more careless
shooter because of all the ways a photo can be fudged or fixed in
Photoshop.  Unfortunately, it just sucks me in to the digital side of
things because some of the fixes don't translate directly to the darkroom,
which means, from what I've experienced thus far, that the results have to
be printed via inkjet or to be sent to a lab that has the equipment to make
prints from the files.  And, for a B&W shooter, that's a bit of a horror,
even though there are labs here that do EXCEPTIONAL B&W printing from digi
files (I wish you guys could see some of the results)

Shel 


> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Good move. You won't regret it. Switching to PS CS changed my whole 
> perspective on digital photography.

Re: PhotoShop CS-First Impressions

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Good move. You won't regret it. Switching to PS CS changed my whole 
> perspective on digital photography.

Mine also, I installed PS CS on the iMac, now I have moved to The GIMP
PS is surplus to my needs

Kind regards
Kevin


-
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. 
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Re: PhotoShop CS-First Impressions

[Paul Stenquist]

Good move. You won't regret it. Switching to PS CS changed my whole 
perspective on digital photography.
Paul
On Oct 16, 2004, at 5:13 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:

Got the upgrade to CS installed and the RAW Plugin updated last night.
Other than the new RAW handling and the new tools I've also found
that CS runs MUCH faster than 7.01on my Win-XP Pro PC.
In spite of having only 1GB of RAM and a rather slow scratch disk
I am very impressed.
I took a pretty detailed file up to 12000x8000 and performance was 
still
at least (barely) acceptable.
Version 7.01 bogged down to stop at this size.
The RAW converter seems somewhat more capable and intuitive.
Some of the new tools like "highlight/shadow" are quite amazing.
Thanks to those who suggested this, I feel it was $160 very well spent.

Don

RE: Photoshop CS

[Shawn K.]

Hi,

A 50 Gig fire wire drive is not as fast as an IDE drive, much less a SCSI
drive.  I have a 15K RPM SCSI 160 drive and I still get problems with
Photoshop hiccupping occasionally.

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS


The scratch disk may well be the single most important factor in
running PhotoShop, more important perhaps than processor speed. Like I
said before, a fast 50 gig or so chunk of firewire drive will make
PhotoShop fly. It's wort the investment.
Paul
On May 15, 2004, at 6:00 PM, Shawn K. wrote:

> What's going on apparently has something to do with the difference
> between a
> program designed to handle 8bit images and on designed to handle 16bit
> images, but they can certainly do better than that it seems.  I
> noticed the
> same thing you have, I've had TONS of problems with the scratch disk
> filling
> up that I never had with PS 7.0.
>
> -Shawn
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: Photoshop CS
>
>
> Hi Gang ...
>
> Last night I loaded a trial copy of PS CS and noticed that when I
> loaded a
> 16-bit greyscale image of about 40MB, the scratch disk figures showed
> as
> 640mb/1.35gb, When I loaded the same photo into PS 7.0, the figures
> showed
> as 86.5mb/1.35gb.
>
> What's going on here? After making a few adjustments I ran out of
> memory.
> Checking the prefs in both applications, showed them to be identical
> for
> all practical purposes.
>
> Is the new version REALLY such a memory hog? Where might that memory
> have
> gone? How might it be recovered?  The trial version has some
> non-standard
> help features and tutorials.  Might that be the problem?
>
>
> Shel Belinkoff
>
>

Re: Photoshop CS

[Paul Stenquist]

The scratch disk may well be the single most important factor in 
running PhotoShop, more important perhaps than processor speed. Like I 
said before, a fast 50 gig or so chunk of firewire drive will make 
PhotoShop fly. It's wort the investment.
Paul
On May 15, 2004, at 6:00 PM, Shawn K. wrote:

What's going on apparently has something to do with the difference 
between a
program designed to handle 8bit images and on designed to handle 16bit
images, but they can certainly do better than that it seems.  I 
noticed the
same thing you have, I've had TONS of problems with the scratch disk 
filling
up that I never had with PS 7.0.

-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: Photoshop CS
Hi Gang ...
Last night I loaded a trial copy of PS CS and noticed that when I 
loaded a
16-bit greyscale image of about 40MB, the scratch disk figures showed 
as
640mb/1.35gb, When I loaded the same photo into PS 7.0, the figures 
showed
as 86.5mb/1.35gb.

What's going on here? After making a few adjustments I ran out of 
memory.
Checking the prefs in both applications, showed them to be identical 
for
all practical purposes.

Is the new version REALLY such a memory hog? Where might that memory 
have
gone? How might it be recovered?  The trial version has some 
non-standard
help features and tutorials.  Might that be the problem?

Shel Belinkoff

Re: Photoshop CS

[David Mann]

On May 16, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
OK, I can see that, but then, since all that memory is loaded, 
shouldn't
that cover making a number of adjustments?  Loading the 40mb file uses
640mb of memory, but after a few adjustment layers and some healing 
brush
activity, I'm over 1gb of used memory, and several times I've gone over
1.4gb of ram memory, and into scratch disk territory.  That extra 
500mb+ of
memory doesn't seem to be doing anything useful.
Wow, that sounds pretty crazy.
From a fresh start, Photoshop CS on my machine takes 170Mb with a 50Mb 
file open before any editing.  After all my editing last night (with 
extensive use of the healing brush and several filters) it was using 
about 400Mb.

I have noticed that once Photoshop has allocated some memory, it never 
seems to release it again after the file is closed.  Because of this I 
quit and restart PS once in a while, as I don't often restart my Mac (I 
use the "sleep" mode).

Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

Re: Photoshop CS

[Herb Chong]

BTW, adjustment layers save disk space but use more memory when loaded. one
copy of the image for each adjustment layer plus the base image.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS


> OK, I can see that, but then, since all that memory is loaded, shouldn't
> that cover making a number of adjustments?  Loading the 40mb file uses
> 640mb of memory, but after a few adjustment layers and some healing brush
> activity, I'm over 1gb of used memory, and several times I've gone over
> 1.4gb of ram memory, and into scratch disk territory.  That extra 500mb+
of
> memory doesn't seem to be doing anything useful.

Re: Photoshop CS

[Herb Chong]

it seems to make a complete copy of the image for every edit or adjustment
you do. this is how it does its history.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Photoshop CS


> OK, I can see that, but then, since all that memory is loaded, shouldn't
> that cover making a number of adjustments?  Loading the 40mb file uses
> 640mb of memory, but after a few adjustment layers and some healing brush
> activity, I'm over 1gb of used memory, and several times I've gone over
> 1.4gb of ram memory, and into scratch disk territory.  That extra 500mb+
of
> memory doesn't seem to be doing anything useful.