how do i crack adobe cs without having to register through..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"haldol is good" <haldolisgood@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119934306.825951.233650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>i read their agreement disclaimer that all activation requests are sent
> to adobe first, then they verify it and send another authentation code.
>
> how do i bypass this and get the actual activation code?

Simple:

1. Type in your full name
2. Pull your head out of your arse.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Fedorenko" <pfedorenko@look.ca> wrote in message
news:sC5we.4647$mK5.362596@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "haldol is good" <haldolisgood@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119934306.825951.233650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>i read their agreement disclaimer that all activation requests are sent
>> to adobe first, then they verify it and send another authentation code.
>>
>> how do i bypass this and get the actual activation code?
>
> If you don't want to activate over the internet, you could always try
> calling them, giving them your info (name, address, CD key, whatever) and
> asking them to give you an activation string over the phone once they've
> confirmed your copy's authenticity. Shouldn't be a big deal. I'm sure
> they get this sort of request all the time.

He's asking how to illegally gain usage of CS.
-Not how to by-pass the online option.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42c12424$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:

>Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS with an
>activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with the privacy
>invasion caused by activation and the ongoing traffic between Adobe and
>their PCs. So they use an activation crack and continue on their merry way.

Personally I find the concept rather distasteful - I don't like Adobe
treating me, thier customer, with the apparent assumption that I'm
untrustworthy, or some sort of criminal. This is why I am in no hurry to
upgrade from Photoshop CS (Mac version) to CS2. If they're going to play at
silly buggers like that, they're not getting my money.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <42c12424$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Ryadia
> <just@the.group> wrote:
>
> >Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS
> >with an activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with
> >the privacy invasion caused by activation and the ongoing
> >traffic between Adobe and their PCs. So they use an activation
> >crack and continue on their merry way.
>
> Personally I find the concept rather distasteful - I don't like
> Adobe treating me, thier customer, with the apparent assumption
> that I'm untrustworthy, or some sort of criminal. This is why I
> am in no hurry to upgrade from Photoshop CS (Mac version) to
> CS2. If they're going to play at silly buggers like that,
> they're not getting my money.

I figure Adobe has the right to force people to go through their
activation software _if and only if_ they state clearly what they
are doing, and don't do any other snooping or privacy invasion on
your computer when sending the activation info to their server.

On the other hand, I agree it's distasteful and undesirable to
have to do this, and it is a burden on the user who may find
himself in some difficulty when he does something perfectly legal
and reasonable like upgrade his computer and transfer the
software to the new machine.

Tired of the tricky things that the proprietary vendors do, I've
switched to the GIMP for photo editing. It's a wonderfully
powerful piece of software that gets better all the time and
costs nothing to use, and nothing to upgrade.

Alan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:b%5we.3982$Eo.3461@fed1read04...

> He's asking how to illegally gain usage of CS.
> -Not how to by-pass the online option.

Eh? Yeah. I know.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>>In article <42c12424$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Ryadia
>><just@the.group> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS
>>>with an activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with
>>>the privacy invasion caused by activation and the ongoing
>>>traffic between Adobe and their PCs. So they use an activation
>>>crack and continue on their merry way.
>>
>>Personally I find the concept rather distasteful - I don't like
>>Adobe treating me, thier customer, with the apparent assumption
>>that I'm untrustworthy, or some sort of criminal. This is why I
>>am in no hurry to upgrade from Photoshop CS (Mac version) to
>>CS2. If they're going to play at silly buggers like that,
>>they're not getting my money.
>
>
> I figure Adobe has the right to force people to go through their
> activation software _if and only if_ they state clearly what they
> are doing, and don't do any other snooping or privacy invasion on
> your computer when sending the activation info to their server.
>
> On the other hand, I agree it's distasteful and undesirable to
> have to do this, and it is a burden on the user who may find
> himself in some difficulty when he does something perfectly legal
> and reasonable like upgrade his computer and transfer the
> software to the new machine.
>
> Tired of the tricky things that the proprietary vendors do, I've
> switched to the GIMP for photo editing. It's a wonderfully
> powerful piece of software that gets better all the time and
> costs nothing to use, and nothing to upgrade.
>
> Alan
>
The key Adobe's server generates identifies the serial number of the
hard drive and the CPU - When Intel announced a few years ago it was
including electronic identity in their CPUs they must have already been
in cahoots with Microsoft and Adobe and known all about the (as then
unannounced) activation of software these firms were planning. Turning
off serial number identification in the computer's BIOS does not seem to
prevent the ID being included in the activation data sent to (at least)
Microsoft.

There are little know utilities for changing the drive ID to match an
old drive. Ghosting the hard drive to a new one doesn't change the
drives unique identifier but at least one enterprising Russian
programmer has a utility to make a new drive identity to match an
existing one.

On the surface of it, I can see no reason why 200 hard drives could not
have the same serial number and therefore, have 200 copies of one
activated Windows with Adobe Photoshop running on them.

No doubt this would get under the skin of these vendors who make obscene
profits in the first place but if man can do it - another man can undo
it. The real tragedy of Computing is the cost of software.

The authors who wrote the books these programmer's who now hold the
world to ransom learnt from, didn't get anywhere near the money the
student made from using their information.

Maybe if one of those authors sued Adobe or Microsoft for a share of
their profits, they might realize a black and white leaflet and plastic
disc in a box capable of holding 10 times the quantity of stuff is not
worth $2000, regardless of how much information is on it?

In 1987 a program developer who specialised in printer drivers for Xerox
Venture (version 1)(now published by Corel)told me that before I could
hope to succeed at publishing anything on a computers I first had to
recognize that Microsoft and Adobe were the enemy... Nothing has changed.

Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This website seems to have good information on Adobe Photoshop CS2 v9.0

http://www.sonic2k.com/ Select "Apps" and scroll down.

Of course, downloading both files and following the easy-to-follow
instructions might give you what you want but some people may consider
this illegal. Use your judgement.

If you plan on using the software after it's trial period, you should
buy it.

Ryadia wrote:
>
> Alan Meyer wrote:
> > Chris Brown wrote:
> >
> >>In article <42c12424$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Ryadia
> >><just@the.group> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS
> >>>with an activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with
> >>>the privacy invasion caused by activation and the ongoing
> >>>traffic between Adobe and their PCs. So they use an activation
> >>>crack and continue on their merry way.
> >>
> >>Personally I find the concept rather distasteful - I don't like
> >>Adobe treating me, thier customer, with the apparent assumption
> >>that I'm untrustworthy, or some sort of criminal. This is why I
> >>am in no hurry to upgrade from Photoshop CS (Mac version) to
> >>CS2. If they're going to play at silly buggers like that,
> >>they're not getting my money.
> >
> >
> > I figure Adobe has the right to force people to go through their
> > activation software _if and only if_ they state clearly what they
> > are doing, and don't do any other snooping or privacy invasion on
> > your computer when sending the activation info to their server.
> >
> > On the other hand, I agree it's distasteful and undesirable to
> > have to do this, and it is a burden on the user who may find
> > himself in some difficulty when he does something perfectly legal
> > and reasonable like upgrade his computer and transfer the
> > software to the new machine.
> >
> > Tired of the tricky things that the proprietary vendors do, I've
> > switched to the GIMP for photo editing. It's a wonderfully
> > powerful piece of software that gets better all the time and
> > costs nothing to use, and nothing to upgrade.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> The key Adobe's server generates identifies the serial number of the
> hard drive and the CPU - When Intel announced a few years ago it was
> including electronic identity in their CPUs they must have already been
> in cahoots with Microsoft and Adobe and known all about the (as then
> unannounced) activation of software these firms were planning. Turning
> off serial number identification in the computer's BIOS does not seem to
> prevent the ID being included in the activation data sent to (at least)
> Microsoft.
>
> There are little know utilities for changing the drive ID to match an
> old drive. Ghosting the hard drive to a new one doesn't change the
> drives unique identifier but at least one enterprising Russian
> programmer has a utility to make a new drive identity to match an
> existing one.
>
> On the surface of it, I can see no reason why 200 hard drives could not
> have the same serial number and therefore, have 200 copies of one
> activated Windows with Adobe Photoshop running on them.
>
> No doubt this would get under the skin of these vendors who make obscene
> profits in the first place but if man can do it - another man can undo
> it. The real tragedy of Computing is the cost of software.
>
> The authors who wrote the books these programmer's who now hold the
> world to ransom learnt from, didn't get anywhere near the money the
> student made from using their information.
>
> Maybe if one of those authors sued Adobe or Microsoft for a share of
> their profits, they might realize a black and white leaflet and plastic
> disc in a box capable of holding 10 times the quantity of stuff is not
> worth $2000, regardless of how much information is on it?
>
> In 1987 a program developer who specialised in printer drivers for Xerox
> Venture (version 1)(now published by Corel)told me that before I could
> hope to succeed at publishing anything on a computers I first had to
> recognize that Microsoft and Adobe were the enemy... Nothing has changed.
>
> Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Do you really think that if everyone in the world bought Photoshop the price
would come down? Piracy is the only factor in pricing. The creators of
software have to price it so that enough users would prefer paying for it
rather than stealing it.


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:_bowe.4932$Eo.1144@fed1read04...
>
> "eric phillips" <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in message
> newsdl3c1ptqoh3tjrikrc4qf98invilea1rl@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:19:12 +1000, Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS with an
> >>activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with the privacy
> >>invasion caused by activation and the ongoing traffic between Adobe and
> >>their PCs. So they use an activation crack and continue on their merry
> >>way.
> >>
> >>Douglas
> > It's a case of they don't trust the public but we have to trust them!
> > eric phillips
>
> As much as I hate the activation hassle, the public has itself to blame.
> There are too many thieves and pirates, and the eat into company profits
to
> the point that they must resort to these tactics.
> I don't blame them a bit.
> If I spent millions of dollars to come up with superior software like
> Photoshop, I would expect those who use it to pay for it. Until people
lose
> their propensity to steal software, we'll all be stuck with the
consequences
> of theft.
>
> All of us know people who use illegal software. Do we speak up to them?
> Most of us not only don't...but too many of us use the same illegal stuff.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1120017628.510759.47240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Alan
Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The situation with Windows and Office is different. There the
> vendor is able to exercise monopoly power over his oem customers
> and all of us end users. I think one day that will change. But
> it will take a while for Linux, Open Office or other alternatives
> to gain the momentum they need for ordinary business and personal
> users to feel that they can switch to these without leaving themselves
> disconnected from the rest of the computing world.

Dreamer...Linux will *NEVER* achieve mainstream popularity on the
desktop.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <1120017628.510759.47240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Alan
> Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The situation with Windows and Office is different. There the
>>vendor is able to exercise monopoly power over his oem customers
>>and all of us end users. I think one day that will change. But
>>it will take a while for Linux, Open Office or other alternatives
>>to gain the momentum they need for ordinary business and personal
>>users to feel that they can switch to these without leaving themselves
>>disconnected from the rest of the computing world.
>
>
> Dreamer...Linux will *NEVER* achieve mainstream popularity on the
> desktop.

Hi...

Microsoft will never be overtaken, until China, or perhaps
India decides they want to.

When that day comes it will be sudden, and completely
overwhelm MS.

Any OS or software for it - price rollback at Wallymart -
3 for 2.68

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"doug" <nospam@this.com> wrote in message
news:42c22393$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "eric phillips" <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in message
>> newsdl3c1ptqoh3tjrikrc4qf98invilea1rl@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:19:12 +1000, Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS with an
>>>>activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with the privacy
>>>>invasion caused by activation and the ongoing traffic between Adobe and
>>>>their PCs. So they use an activation crack and continue on their merry
>>>>way.
>>>>
>>>>Douglas
>>>
>>>It's a case of they don't trust the public but we have to trust them!
>>>eric phillips
>>
>>
>> As much as I hate the activation hassle, the public has itself to blame.
>> There are too many thieves and pirates, and the eat into company profits
>> to the point that they must resort to these tactics.
>> I don't blame them a bit.
>> If I spent millions of dollars to come up with superior software like
>> Photoshop, I would expect those who use it to pay for it. Until people
>> lose their propensity to steal software, we'll all be stuck with the
>> consequences of theft.
>>
>> All of us know people who use illegal software. Do we speak up to them?
>> Most of us not only don't...but too many of us use the same illegal
>> stuff.
> OK, I'll go along with what you say Mark. What I won't go along with is
> now that activation and privacy invasion has been with us for a couple of
> years... Where has all the extra "profit" these measure were claimed to
> create, gone?
>
> These mobs told us the cost of software was as high as it is because of
> piracy hurting the industry. Fair enough. Now they've introduced highly
> invasive measures to (Cough) prevent piracy, why is the cost of software
> still so high? Far be it for me to suggest that maybe the technical
> ability of computer users has risen with the complexity of IP controls so
> lets start seeing some lower prices, eh?

Nobody said the price would be cheaper.
What IS happening is that the companies who invest their time and resources
are now getting paid for their work...as they should have been all along.

It's funny to me that when a photographer posts about having his pictures
stolen, or used without permission...that everyone here voices their anger,
and encourages the photog to go after them. THEN...those same people will
condone piracy without so much as a blink of an eye.
>
> The stupidity of the situation is so crystal clear, not even Adobe can see
> the forest for the trees. So what does it matter if 60% of their software
> is being used by photographers at home? I got led back to Photoshop from
> Corel by installing a (shock Horror) pirate version. I became so familiar
> with it I bought a full retail product and now upgrade it regularly.

You are not a typical pirate.
In my experience, most who steal software never go the other way.

> I can absolutely guarantee if I had to pay out over a grand for the
> software up front, I'd still be using Corel Photopaint.

I don't know anyone who actually has to pay over a grand for Photoshop. If
they do...it is worth the price.
Why is it people will pay $2K and up for photo gear, but balk at paying for
other photography tools that happen to be intellectual property? I'll tell
you why: Because if they had the opportunity to steal camera gear without
anyone knowing it...they would. -Just as is the case with software.

>I know of several photographers who are using unlicensed version of
>Photoshop. At least 2 of them have opted to buy a legal version once it
>dawned on them that they couldn't upgrade the pirate copy.

You seem to believe this is somehow giving Adobe their due.
It isn't.
Those people owe them for a full version...and an upgrade....not just an
upgrade.
Again--you're advocating for thieves.

> As a business user I'll kick and scream heaps at the $1000 cost of 9¢ disc
> but at the end of the day I'll pay whatever the price because my business
> relies on it. What does it matter to Adobe if the office girl uses an
> "illegal" copy on her home PC? Nothing. And it trains new operators who
> would buy the program if and when they need it in the future.

There are many versions of Adobe programs that are legal to install on both
a home and office machine--so long as they're not used simultaneously. This
is helpful and voluntarily offered by Adobe for their educational version
(full version, but sold as educational version).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "eric phillips" <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in message
> newsdl3c1ptqoh3tjrikrc4qf98invilea1rl@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:19:12 +1000, Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS with an
>>>activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with the privacy
>>>invasion caused by activation and the ongoing traffic between Adobe and
>>>their PCs. So they use an activation crack and continue on their merry
>>>way.
>>>
>>>Douglas
>>
>>It's a case of they don't trust the public but we have to trust them!
>>eric phillips
>
>
> As much as I hate the activation hassle, the public has itself to blame.
> There are too many thieves and pirates, and the eat into company profits to
> the point that they must resort to these tactics.
> I don't blame them a bit.
> If I spent millions of dollars to come up with superior software like
> Photoshop, I would expect those who use it to pay for it. Until people lose
> their propensity to steal software, we'll all be stuck with the consequences
> of theft.
>
> All of us know people who use illegal software. Do we speak up to them?
> Most of us not only don't...but too many of us use the same illegal stuff.
>
>
I ask only that they punish the ones using their software without buying
it, not the user who pays. Activation schemes make the life of paying
customers unpleasant, without materially inconveniencing the illegal
users. MS will shortly require a 25 digit code to be entered in order
to get updates. This code is on a sticker on the back, or bottom of my
HP desktop units, and I am not physically able to obtain it at this
time. When the requirement goes into effect, I will file a complaint
under the Americans with Disabilities Act to stop this requirement.
Surely there is technology available to inconvenience the pirate without
making life difficult for the paying customer.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 28 Jun 2005 08:10:08 -0700, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>haldol is good wrote:
>> i read their agreement disclaimer that all activation requests are sent
>> to adobe first, then they verify it and send another authentation code.
>>
>> how do i bypass this and get the actual activation code?
>
>Bypassing Adobe's activation is easy.
>
>First, erase all their software from your machine.
>
>Then download a free copy of the GIMP.
>
>You won't even need any Haldol after you do it
>

you bet .. the first thing this GIMP thing gave me was an
unrecoverable error and that was that .. finito .. to me that is
unreliable software .. sorry .. I cannot go around installing it on a
bunch of user machines when it readily screws up on a clean
testmachine .. garbage ..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
news:4tf4c1djbfknamu3u32tupqd2vb3r46jmb@news.alt.net...
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:03:34 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> [..]
>>As much as I hate the activation hassle, the public has itself to blame.
>>There are too many thieves and pirates, and the eat into company profits
>>to
>>the point that they must resort to these tactics.
>>I don't blame them a bit.
> [..]
>
> I will not enter the debate about whether piracy is good, bad,
> tolerable, justifiable or immoral. I would only like to point out that
> the above tactics (activation etc.) seem to have mainly the effect of
> creating hassles for legitimate users. Whenever a new version of
> popular software comes out, activation cracks are immediately
> plastered all over the Internet, so only the licensed users must slog
> their way through complex and often quirky on-line activation
> procedures.

The vast majority of consumers lack the knowledge to take advantage of
hacks.
Software developers have to concede to more sophisticated hacks that are out
there.
-But activation DOES keep the masses from illegally using their software.
If it wasn't effective, they wouldn't continue to implement it.
It is effective.

Is it a pain the the arse, and does it tick me off too? Absolutely.
The difference between us is that I see why they do it and I don't blame
them.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1119971275.688483.193810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Alan Meyer <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:

>> Personally I find the concept rather distasteful - I don't like
>> Adobe treating me, thier customer, with the apparent assumption
>> that I'm untrustworthy, or some sort of criminal. This is why I
>> am in no hurry to upgrade from Photoshop CS (Mac version) to
>> CS2. If they're going to play at silly buggers like that,
>> they're not getting my money.
>
>I figure Adobe has the right to force people to go through their
>activation software _if and only if_ they state clearly what they
>are doing, and don't do any other snooping or privacy invasion on
>your computer when sending the activation info to their server.

They do indeed have the right to do it, but if they're going to treat me
like some kind of suspect, I'm going to exercise my right to not buy it.
Shame because some of the stuff in CS2 looks pretty decent - I'd like the
upgrades to the healing brush, for example, for despotting my scans.

>Tired of the tricky things that the proprietary vendors do, I've
>switched to the GIMP for photo editing. It's a wonderfully
>powerful piece of software that gets better all the time and
>costs nothing to use, and nothing to upgrade.

Good as the GIMP is, it's no Photoshop. Still, worth keeping an eye on.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:
> Ryadia wrote:
> > ...
> > No doubt this would get under the skin of these vendors who make obscene
> > profits in the first place but if man can do it - another man can undo
> > it. The real tragedy of Computing is the cost of software.
> > ...
>
> I sympathize with your frustration at the high cost some programs.
> However I think it's reasonable for vendors to charge whatever price
> they want **IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY!**
>
> Adobe does not seem to me to have a monopoly on image editors. There
> are several outstanding commercial and open source image editors
> that people can use instead, and many low end image editors that
> will satisfy many needs. I don't think anybody has to buy Photoshop,
> though that may not be true for specialized high end CMYK
> applications.
>
> The situation with Windows and Office is different. There the
> vendor is able to exercise monopoly power over his oem customers
> and all of us end users.


I don't see the situation being much different. For photoshop there is
paintshop pro and corel's, for windows there is linux and the BSDs, for
office there is staroffice and corel's (heck, corel really has some
important software - shame it's not more successful). And for each
there's a plethora of smaller apps.

Besides, photoshop is practicaly as expensive as office and windows
combined.


> I think one day that will change. But
> it will take a while for Linux, Open Office or other alternatives
> to gain the momentum they need for ordinary business and personal
> users to feel that they can switch to these without leaving themselves
> disconnected from the rest of the computing world.


I find linux is almost there. When I installed it in 2000 it was a
pain. Now, I'd much rather go through the installation of linux then
endure windows; linux has much better hardware detection now, and
install a full desktop with all essential apps in one go, whereas with
windows - nevermind the serial/activation nonsense - drives are
required for hardware, and apps must be downloaded and installed
separately, each making the system less pristine in operation.


>
> > The authors who wrote the books these programmer's who now hold the
> > world to ransom learnt from, didn't get anywhere near the money the
> > student made from using their information.
> >
> > Maybe if one of those authors sued Adobe or Microsoft for a share of
> > their profits, they might realize a black and white leaflet and plastic
> > disc in a box capable of holding 10 times the quantity of stuff is not
> > worth $2000, regardless of how much information is on it?
> >
> > In 1987 a program developer who specialised in printer drivers for Xerox
> > Venture (version 1)(now published by Corel)told me that before I could
> > hope to succeed at publishing anything on a computers I first had to
> > recognize that Microsoft and Adobe were the enemy... Nothing has changed.
> >
> > Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
> doug wrote:
>
>> Mark² wrote:
>>
>>> "eric phillips" <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in message
>>> newsdl3c1ptqoh3tjrikrc4qf98invilea1rl@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:19:12 +1000, Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS with an
>>>>> activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with the privacy
>>>>> invasion caused by activation and the ongoing traffic between Adobe
>>>>> and
>>>>> their PCs. So they use an activation crack and continue on their
>>>>> merry way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a case of they don't trust the public but we have to trust them!
>>>> eric phillips
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As much as I hate the activation hassle, the public has itself to blame.
>>> There are too many thieves and pirates, and the eat into company
>>> profits to the point that they must resort to these tactics.
>>> I don't blame them a bit.
>>> If I spent millions of dollars to come up with superior software like
>>> Photoshop, I would expect those who use it to pay for it. Until
>>> people lose their propensity to steal software, we'll all be stuck
>>> with the consequences of theft.
>>>
>>> All of us know people who use illegal software. Do we speak up to
>>> them? Most of us not only don't...but too many of us use the same
>>> illegal stuff.
>>>
>> OK, I'll go along with what you say Mark. What I won't go along with
>> is now that activation and privacy invasion has been with us for a
>> couple of years... Where has all the extra "profit" these measure were
>> claimed to create, gone?
>>
>> These mobs told us the cost of software was as high as it is because
>> of piracy hurting the industry. Fair enough. Now they've introduced
>> highly invasive measures to (Cough) prevent piracy, why is the cost of
>> software still so high? Far be it for me to suggest that maybe the
>> technical ability of computer users has risen with the complexity of
>> IP controls so lets start seeing some lower prices, eh?
>>
>> The stupidity of the situation is so crystal clear, not even Adobe can
>> see the forest for the trees. So what does it matter if 60% of their
>> software is being used by photographers at home? I got led back to
>> Photoshop from Corel by installing a (shock Horror) pirate version. I
>> became so familiar with it I bought a full retail product and now
>> upgrade it regularly.
>>
>> I can absolutely guarantee if I had to pay out over a grand for the
>> software up front, I'd still be using Corel Photopaint. I know of
>> several photographers who are using unlicensed version of Photoshop.
>> At least 2 of them have opted to buy a legal version once it dawned on
>> them that they couldn't upgrade the pirate copy.
>>
>> As a business user I'll kick and scream heaps at the $1000 cost of 9¢
>> disc but at the end of the day I'll pay whatever the price because my
>> business relies on it. What does it matter to Adobe if the office girl
>> uses an "illegal" copy on her home PC? Nothing. And it trains new
>> operators who would buy the program if and when they need it in the
>> future.
>>
>> <\rant
>>
>> Douglas
>
>
> Hi Doug...
>
> Sorry, but I have to ask.
>
> While you were using a - in your words - pirated copy,
> how much, expressed as a percentage, did *you* lower your
> prices to *your* customers?
>
> Ken
>
>
At the time I used a pirate copy Ken, I was recovering from heart
surgery and took the opportunity to compare the use of Photoshop with my
existing (Corel) software. When, a year later, I re-opened my business,
one of the first purchases was a legal version Photoshop.

Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

> -But activation DOES keep the masses from illegally using their software.
> If it wasn't effective, they wouldn't continue to implement it.
> It is effective.
>
> Is it a pain the the arse, and does it tick me off too? Absolutely.
> The difference between us is that I see why they do it and I don't blame
> them.
>
>
You seem to have misunderstood me earlier Mark. I am not an advocate of
Piracy. What I said about "what does it matter to Adobe if 60% of their
software was illegally used" is very valid.

I'd have a guess it's similar to 'how many photographers using Canon
DSLRs actually buy a 1D?' My opinion is that if there were no way to get
a pirate copy, the people using pirate copy's now would use a
different (maybe freeware) program so Adobe would not in fact, increase
their sales revenue by restricting access to their product. I don't
believe activation has had any impact whatsoever on Adobe's sales.

Lets assume the 60% is not just a figment of my imagination. That over
half of Adobe's software is pirated. That's millions of people using
their software without Adobe getting a red cent from them.

So now look at it positively. Millions of people getting to understand
and master one of the most complex photo editing programs in the world.
Bing!! on the 1/6/2006 it has to be upgraded or it doesn't work anymore.

How crystal clear does it have to be for Adobe to see? Already they only
provide permission to use the software. You don't own it, you only own a
9¢ disc and $3 manual. Any time Adobe wants to they can revoke their
permission for you to use the stuff.

Why not just recognize that Piracy is a way of life for half the world
and instead of nuke the pirates with measures that piss off all their
legitimate customers, find ones that will actually imcrease their
likelihood of picking up more sales?

Must be Irish maths?

Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Open source is pie in the sky.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
news:42c3103c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>> -But activation DOES keep the masses from illegally using their software.
>> If it wasn't effective, they wouldn't continue to implement it.
>> It is effective.
>>
>> Is it a pain the the arse, and does it tick me off too? Absolutely.
>> The difference between us is that I see why they do it and I don't blame
>> them.
> You seem to have misunderstood me earlier Mark. I am not an advocate of
> Piracy. What I said about "what does it matter to Adobe if 60% of their
> software was illegally used" is very valid.
>
> I'd have a guess it's similar to 'how many photographers using Canon DSLRs
> actually buy a 1D?' My opinion is that if there were no way to get a
> pirate copy, the people using pirate copy's now would use a different
> (maybe freeware) program so Adobe would not in fact, increase their sales
> revenue by restricting access to their product. I don't believe activation
> has had any impact whatsoever on Adobe's sales.
>
> Lets assume the 60% is not just a figment of my imagination. That over
> half of Adobe's software is pirated. That's millions of people using their
> software without Adobe getting a red cent from them.
>
> So now look at it positively. Millions of people getting to understand and
> master one of the most complex photo editing programs in the world. Bing!!
> on the 1/6/2006 it has to be upgraded or it doesn't work anymore.

That's where your story breaks down.
Since when did Photoshop suddenly stop working?
And...your story assumes that there suddenly won't be opportunities to steal
the newer versions as they come out.

> How crystal clear does it have to be for Adobe to see?

You are basically saying Adobe's software should be shareware...or freeware
with the option to make a "donation."
That's just not reasonable.

>Already they only provide permission to use the software. You don't own it,
>you only own a 9¢ disc and $3 manual.

You own the rights to use it.
You just don't own their intelectual property in terms of distribution
and/or copying and alteration.

>Any time Adobe wants to they can revoke their permission for you to use the
>stuff.

Not so.

> Why not just recognize that Piracy is a way of life for half the world and
> instead of nuke the pirates with measures that piss off all their
> legitimate customers, find ones that will actually imcrease their
> likelihood of picking up more sales?

This argument could be made with regard to ANY and EVERY law in society.
Most people don't need robbery laws because they are honest people.
Most people don't need for there to be beepers that go off in stores when
you accidentally kept an electronic tag on an item you bought.
The assumption that we should then do away with these safeguards...since
most people aren't theives...just doesn't work.
The sad fact is that thieves--by definition--create problems for businesses
AND the rest of us.

I think your anger/frustration is misplaced.
You anger should be directed at those thieves who have forced companies to
take such measures...not the companies themselves.

When you get on a flight at the airport, only a teeny tiny percentage of the
population has ill intent (hijacking, etc.), yet we are all inconvenienced
with checks, sensors, x-rays, etc. Why? Because of bad people. It is no
different in this case.
Would you similarly tell the airports to just hope for the best, and
recognise that a small percentage of planes will be hijacked in the name of
convenience for the masses? Of course not.

Now obviously, we're not talking about a life or death issue with software,
but the principle is similar:
A few bad people mean a lot of hassles for the rest of us.
If you're angry, take it out on the theives...not those companies who
understandably are tired of being ripped off.
-Mark
>
> Must be Irish maths?
>
> Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>Do you really think that if everyone in the world bought Photoshop the price
>would come down? Piracy is the only factor in pricing. The creators of
>software have to price it so that enough users would prefer paying for it
>rather than stealing it.

Then the price should have come down significantly once
Adobe adopted registration, right?

---- Paul J. Gans

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote:


>doug wrote:

>> Mark? wrote:
>>
>>> "eric phillips" <ericp@kooee.com.au> wrote in message
>>> newsdl3c1ptqoh3tjrikrc4qf98invilea1rl@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:19:12 +1000, Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it is not illegal to activate a genuine version of PS with an
>>>>> activation crack. Some people simply don't agree with the privacy
>>>>> invasion caused by activation and the ongoing traffic between Adobe and
>>>>> their PCs. So they use an activation crack and continue on their
>>>>> merry way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a case of they don't trust the public but we have to trust them!
>>>> eric phillips
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As much as I hate the activation hassle, the public has itself to blame.
>>> There are too many thieves and pirates, and the eat into company
>>> profits to the point that they must resort to these tactics.
>>> I don't blame them a bit.
>>> If I spent millions of dollars to come up with superior software like
>>> Photoshop, I would expect those who use it to pay for it. Until
>>> people lose their propensity to steal software, we'll all be stuck
>>> with the consequences of theft.
>>>
>>> All of us know people who use illegal software. Do we speak up to
>>> them? Most of us not only don't...but too many of us use the same
>>> illegal stuff.
>>>
>> OK, I'll go along with what you say Mark. What I won't go along with is
>> now that activation and privacy invasion has been with us for a couple
>> of years... Where has all the extra "profit" these measure were claimed
>> to create, gone?
>>
>> These mobs told us the cost of software was as high as it is because of
>> piracy hurting the industry. Fair enough. Now they've introduced highly
>> invasive measures to (Cough) prevent piracy, why is the cost of software
>> still so high? Far be it for me to suggest that maybe the technical
>> ability of computer users has risen with the complexity of IP controls
>> so lets start seeing some lower prices, eh?
>>
>> The stupidity of the situation is so crystal clear, not even Adobe can
>> see the forest for the trees. So what does it matter if 60% of their
>> software is being used by photographers at home? I got led back to
>> Photoshop from Corel by installing a (shock Horror) pirate version. I
>> became so familiar with it I bought a full retail product and now
>> upgrade it regularly.
>>
>> I can absolutely guarantee if I had to pay out over a grand for the
>> software up front, I'd still be using Corel Photopaint. I know of
>> several photographers who are using unlicensed version of Photoshop. At
>> least 2 of them have opted to buy a legal version once it dawned on them
>> that they couldn't upgrade the pirate copy.
>>
>> As a business user I'll kick and scream heaps at the $1000 cost of 9?
>> disc but at the end of the day I'll pay whatever the price because my
>> business relies on it. What does it matter to Adobe if the office girl
>> uses an "illegal" copy on her home PC? Nothing. And it trains new
>> operators who would buy the program if and when they need it in the future.
>>
>> <\rant
>>
>> Douglas

>Hi Doug...

>Sorry, but I have to ask.

>While you were using a - in your words - pirated copy,
>how much, expressed as a percentage, did *you* lower your
>prices to *your* customers?

If we follow that logic, and perhaps we should, then
Adobe should be saying: "we have activation on Photoshop
now because we make tons of money off it and that's what
we are about -- making money."

Nothing wrong with that. I just don't want to hear the
pius stuff about how their prices are so high because
of piracy.

---- Paul J. Gans

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Only once in my experience has the price of software come down. It was the
early days of the internet...the 56k modems were of two types...it was
before they made the current type that used both protocols....I think I was
running Win95 at that time. 386 computer...but it was a bit long in the
tooth. I worked for a not-for-profit so we asked for a donation of a
software package from a company whose name I forget. It was a package that
would let us make our web page using a WYSIWYG format rather than coding by
hand. I think the software cost over $600. A friend and I went to work
making web pages as we knew we could do it faster and better than anyone
without this package. After we did about half a dozen he brought me a press
release about Microsoft buying the company and we knew we were out of
business. Right we were....the software was FrontPage and the price of
version 2 was only $99 and soon everyone was using it. I never really
thought about it...but I don't imagine that MS lost any money by selling it
cheap.


"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news9vmks$fv6$1@reader1.panix.com...
> Gene Palmiter <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Do you really think that if everyone in the world bought Photoshop the
price
> >would come down? Piracy is the only factor in pricing. The creators of
> >software have to price it so that enough users would prefer paying for it
> >rather than stealing it.
>
> Then the price should have come down significantly once
> Adobe adopted registration, right?
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FeFwe.14148$Q27.10951@trndny02...
>
>> population has ill intent (hijacking, etc.), yet we are all
>> inconvenienced
>> with checks, sensors, x-rays, etc. Why? Because of bad people. It is
>> no
>> different in this case.
>> Would you similarly tell the airports to just hope for the best, and
>> recognise that a small percentage of planes will be hijacked in the name
> of
>> convenience for the masses? Of course not.
>
> Terrorism works by tweaking the nose of a government too powerful to take
> on
> directly. Then the government cracks down on the liberties of everyone and
> these people get upset and think about becoming terrorists themselves.
> This
> is a lot like pirates and software companies. The make their software too
> hard to register so people download a crack. More controls make the crack
> more attractive. The software companies cannot win this. A better tactic
> would be to cut the price to $99. Then anybody making money can buy
> it...people not making money from it might still cheat but are more likely
> to pay when they start making money. Meanwhile more people are learning
> the
> program, and more importantly, fewer are learning the competing programs.

If your description worked, then Adobe would be using it.
It doesn't, and so they don't.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> If your description worked, then Adobe would be using it.
> It doesn't, and so they don't.

So...you think Adobe has a marketing group that meets and decides how little
they can sell it for...and I think they try to see how much they can sell it
for. I think I am right. They decide how much of the market they want. They
have decided they want the cream. With that comes an acceptance that some
people for a variety of reasons will use a pirated version.

It doesn't matter to me...my employer buys mine. But, if I had to know the
program to get a job...I would do what I had to do to learn the program.
Adobe would not loose by it...I wasn't going to pay their outrageous prices
anyway. I would be disturbed to find that an employer was using pirated
softwear though...I would hope my employer would be making enough to pay for
what they needed.