Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:32:45 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
[..]
in other words, you are advocating pirating software, just as you do
with images taken from other web sites.

photoshop was one of the most pirated apps, if not *the* most pirated
app, along with other adobe software, which is why adobe moved to
activation over a decade ago and a major reason why they currently only
offer it as subscription. while not impossible, it's *much* harder to
pirate now.

How is it *much* harder?!

It's as easy as ever to pirate software, including
photoshop CC.

https://i.imgur.com/lnDloZF.png

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

in other words, you are advocating pirating software, just as you do
with images taken from other web sites.

photoshop was one of the most pirated apps, if not *the* most pirated
app, along with other adobe software, which is why adobe moved to
activation over a decade ago and a major reason why they currently only
offer it as subscription. while not impossible, it's *much* harder to
pirate now.

How is it *much* harder?!

because it periodically pings adobe's servers to verify, versus
supplying a valid serial one time.

It's as easy as ever to pirate software, including
photoshop CC.

no it isn't.

that doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it's harder than it used
to be.

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:08:23 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

in other words, you are advocating pirating software, just as you do
with images taken from other web sites.

photoshop was one of the most pirated apps, if not *the* most pirated
app, along with other adobe software, which is why adobe moved to
activation over a decade ago and a major reason why they currently only
offer it as subscription. while not impossible, it's *much* harder to
pirate now.

How is it *much* harder?!

because it periodically pings adobe's servers to verify, versus
supplying a valid serial one time.

Oh really, and you think people who come up with cracks and
patches can't figure out how to to prevent the software from doing
this?
If you download the software from a torrent site, you have the
software and you can use it and there is no need whatsoever for
the software to keep in touch with adobe.


It's as easy as ever to pirate software, including
photoshop CC.

no it isn't.

that doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it's harder than it used
to be.

I've been using pirated copies of photoshop for a long time and
I haven't noticed any difference in how hard it was to fetch a
copy from p2p, apply the crack and enjoy the software.

If it was hard there wouldn't be so many people downloading a
copy from filesharing sites. That photoshop CC 2018 version on
rutracker in the screenshot has been downloaded over 17000 times.

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

in other words, you are advocating pirating software, just as you do
with images taken from other web sites.

photoshop was one of the most pirated apps, if not *the* most pirated
app, along with other adobe software, which is why adobe moved to
activation over a decade ago and a major reason why they currently only
offer it as subscription. while not impossible, it's *much* harder to
pirate now.

How is it *much* harder?!

because it periodically pings adobe's servers to verify, versus
supplying a valid serial one time.

Oh really, and you think people who come up with cracks and
patches can't figure out how to to prevent the software from doing
this?

i didn't say they couldn't. i said it's harder.

If you download the software from a torrent site, you have the
software and you can use it and there is no need whatsoever for
the software to keep in touch with adobe.

if you download cracked software, it's already cracked.

It's as easy as ever to pirate software, including
photoshop CC.

no it isn't.

that doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it's harder than it used
to be.

I've been using pirated copies of photoshop for a long time

we know that.

and
I haven't noticed any difference in how hard it was to fetch a
copy from p2p, apply the crack and enjoy the software.

fetching an already cracked app is not the same as figuring out the
crack.

If it was hard there wouldn't be so many people downloading a
copy from filesharing sites. That photoshop CC 2018 version on
rutracker in the screenshot has been downloaded over 17000 times.

17000 is nothing.

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:31:29 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

in other words, you are advocating pirating software, just as you do
with images taken from other web sites.

photoshop was one of the most pirated apps, if not *the* most pirated
app, along with other adobe software, which is why adobe moved to
activation over a decade ago and a major reason why they currently only
offer it as subscription. while not impossible, it's *much* harder to
pirate now.

How is it *much* harder?!

because it periodically pings adobe's servers to verify, versus
supplying a valid serial one time.

Oh really, and you think people who come up with cracks and
patches can't figure out how to to prevent the software from doing
this?

i didn't say they couldn't. i said it's harder.

Harder? You mean they had to drink an extra cup of coffee to figure
out how to crack it?


If you download the software from a torrent site, you have the
software and you can use it and there is no need whatsoever for
the software to keep in touch with adobe.

if you download cracked software, it's already cracked.

No it's not. You install the uncracked software as a trial version
and then you apply the crack.


It's as easy as ever to pirate software, including
photoshop CC.

no it isn't.

that doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it's harder than it used
to be.

I've been using pirated copies of photoshop for a long time

we know that.

and
I haven't noticed any difference in how hard it was to fetch a
copy from p2p, apply the crack and enjoy the software.

fetching an already cracked app is not the same as figuring out the
crack.

Well, that's basically the idea of filesharing as it applies to
software. Someone cracks it and then all the other people can use
that crack and they don't have to waste time and energy coming up
with their own crack.


If it was hard there wouldn't be so many people downloading a
copy from filesharing sites. That photoshop CC 2018 version on
rutracker in the screenshot has been downloaded over 17000 times.

17000 is nothing.

It's just the latest version.. older versions have been downloaded
nearly 100000 times (like photoshop CC 2017).
If you add it all up (rutracker is just one of the many torrent
sites out there) it's millions of people enjoying the cracked
software. So it's not hard at all to pirate photoshop CC.

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:


i didn't say they couldn't. i said it's harder.

Harder? You mean they had to drink an extra cup of coffee to figure
out how to crack it?

much more than that.

photoshop 7, before adobe added activation and long before creative
cloud subscriptions, needed only a valid serial number, which were
widely distributed.

photoshop cc pings adobe's servers to verify it's active, so that check
must be spoofed somehow, which is more work than just typing in a known
valid serial number.

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:46:38 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
sobriquet wrote:


i didn't say they couldn't. i said it's harder.

Harder? You mean they had to drink an extra cup of coffee to figure
out how to crack it?

much more than that.

photoshop 7, before adobe added activation and long before creative
cloud subscriptions, needed only a valid serial number, which were
widely distributed.

photoshop cc pings adobe's servers to verify it's active, so that check
must be spoofed somehow, which is more work than just typing in a known
valid serial number.

Whatever. Given the numbers of people enjoying a cracked version of adobe photoshop CC, it's obviously easy to pirate and it seems that their
anti-piracy measures aren't terribly effective at preventing this.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"sobriquet" wrote
| I've been using pirated copies of photoshop for a long time

I wouldn't go around talking about it if I were you.

unfortunately, he's proud of it.

Though I wonder how much Adobe care.

adobe cares quite a bit, which is why they've been cracking down on
piracy.

Like MS Office,
they make their money by pricegouging commercial
customers for an industry-standard product.

adobe does not gouge.

For those
customers, the high cost of using Adobe pays for itself.

what high cost?

photoshop elements is typically $50, comparable to the photo app you
keep pimping, and is often bundled for free with various hardware
products.

professionals generally need more than what elements can do, so they
buy professional quality tools, such as the full photoshop.

some pros might be able to get by with just elements, while some
consumers might want a bit more.

Most others are unlikely to use it.

most others, i.e., consumers, definitely do use adobe's consumer
products, which cost about the same as the app you keep pimping.

(Aside from a few
suckers like nospam who think the only way to edit
photos properly is to buy the very latest version of
PS.)

i never said any such thing, you lying sack of ****.

"sobriquet" wrote

| I wouldn't go around talking about it if I were you.
|
| Well, we've had long discussions about the morality of copyright
| vs the morality of sharing information, so you know how I feel
| about the issue (i.e. all numbers belong to the public domain).
|

I wasn't making a moral statement. Just
practical. It's not wise to advertise that you're
breaking the law. Adobe has a lot more lawyers
and congressmen than you do. That's just how
it works.

| In the near future all work can be done by robots anyway and
| at that point when there is such an abundance of material wealth
| it no longer makes sense to use money (since monetary value
| indicates relative scarcity).
|

People actually thought that back in the 50s
and 60s. Technology would mean less work to do.
We'd all get a break. One Juliet Schor wrote an
interesting book about it called The Overworked
American. She made a fascinating claim: That the
microwave is the only appliance that's reduced
work time. For instance, we used to have to scrub
our clothes clean, but we didn't wash them nearly
so often. As our lives became easier we found ways
to make them harder -- manufacturing sense of
purpose.

She also talked about the popular idea that technology
would make our lives easier. People expected we could
all move to 3-day work weeks. But it's not that simple.

* We make our lives more busy for sense of purpose.
People get bored and most people get into trouble if
they have free time.

* Economic changes have resulted in a greater imbalance
between rich and poor. There's less work to do, yet the
standard of living has gone down. Plutocrats have bought
the gov't in many countries, including, increasingly, the US.
This week's tax bill is intended to widen that gap.

* The great reduction in the need for housework and
manual labor has meant that women can now do most
jobs and often have free time. That's resulted in profound
gender role changes. The current sexual harassment
craze is part of that, as we try to work out functional
roles and standards for child-raising with the nuclear
family no longer being critical to survival. Will we
socialize child-raising? Will women take it over, with
taxes to support them? Right now it's becoming a
pastime for the rich. Upper middle class women have
children, with or without a husband, and pay low-wage
helpers to raise them. The helpers, in turn, can't
afford to have kids.

* Changes in technology also bring changes in costs.
Cars are more expensive due to improved safety. Houses
are more expensive due to complicated permitting,
safety regulations, etc.

That's just scratching the surface. But basically, we've
already arrived in the Golden Age of leisure and it turns
out to be not all it's cracked up to be. Lots of people
doing pointless work. Lots of poverty. Lots of planned
obsolescence. We yak about the environment yet we've
created an economy that's increasingly dependent on
disposable items. From diapers to windows -- nothing's
designed to last. Use it and throw it away.
I grew up in the 60s and early 70s. Life was much
easier then. A janitor could own a house and raise a
family. These days a janitor will probably need to share
rent on a 4-bedroom apt with 3 other people.

In a very basic, practical sense we no longer need to
work nearly so much. But that just hasn't panned out
in practice.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I grew up in the 60s and early 70s. Life was much
easier then. A janitor could own a house and raise a
family. These days a janitor will probably need to share
rent on a 4-bedroom apt with 3 other people.

these days, a janitor can write an ios/android app in their spare time
and likely cease being a janitor. that could *never* have happened in
the 60s or 70s. there are *so* many more opportunities than ever
before.

or they could take classes while working as a janitor:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/coll...an-michael-vau
dreuil-lands-engineering-job-after-getting-degree-54-n596336
A college custodian who cleaned classrooms at night and learned the
intricacies of mechanical engineering during the day will soon hang
up his janitor's mop for good.

Michael Vaudreuil, 54, graduated from Worcester Polytechnic Institute
in Massachusetts in May after eight years of taking classes in
addition to working his graveyard shift. Now the unlikely college
grad has another feather in his cap ‹ a job with aerospace firm Pratt
& Whitney in Connecticut.
....
To get his mind off his hardship, Vaudreuil decided to take classes,
which are offered for free to WPI employees.
....
...He'll work as an engineer, focusing on jet engine combustion
chambers and exhaust and turbine systems.