Re: Best Linux Distributions, Software for Photo Processing?

ray wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:41:09 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

ray wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:27:31 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

"ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7fnkr5F2kqsomU17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:28:08 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

"ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7fla2jF2kqsomU4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:19:27 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

"ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7fku0cF2kqsomU3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:32:30 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

All right, substitute 'ethical' - that's what I really should
have said -

For me ethical has the same problems. is it ethical for me to
spend 100s on software in order to make big bucks for a few or
should I give more to charity ?

at any rate, if it violates the license, it is certainly
illegal.
yes I now and so are many other things, have you read the
license agreement for PS, I bet you haven't.

No, I haven't. That's why I indicated: "if it violates the
license".

But by opening the box, you agree to the license even if you
don;t install the product, well that's what it used to be as I
was a software auditor at work.

Think that one would be a tough sell in court - how can you agree
to something if you can't tell what it is until you've already
agreed?

if yuo break the sticker/seal on the packaging you agreed to the
licence.

Unless they have the license printed on the outside of the package,
I think that would be a tough sell in court - how can you agree to
what you can't read first?


In
the case of other software, you're given a chance to decline the
license agreement when you start install. If you decline, you're
due a refund.
Not on products that have been opened. Well it's in UK law anyway,
with software, if you've opened the product it is no longer new and
returnable as new. I assume it's because people could buy it then
say they haven;t used it and send it back. If the product is faulty
then yes you get a refund.

That's precisely what insane 'registration' procedures are designed
to foil. See MS.



I can;t see any ethical reason why I should pay for two copies
if I can only use one copy at time even M$ doesn;t expect
that. I can't see why if I have a PC and a Mac I need to
purchase two licenses can you?

If the license specifies that you may not, then you disagree
with the license. If you disagree with the license, don't use
the software - pretty simple, huh?

Do you think the software should be fair and reasonable. There
was a time when you weren't allowed to keep/make backup copies.

Yes, I think it should be 'fair and reasonable' - if it isn't, I
don't use it. Pretty simple, huh?
Not really, in a way it's like a religion or a drug. They say
software venders are like drug dealers, otherwise why give you a
free (demo) hit ;-)

Here's the first one free, if you want any more just come back to
me. A line from a New Model army song. (roughly remembered)



The maker has the right to charge 'unfair and unreasonable' if he
wishes - what the market will bear.

Yep that's it.

If you figure it
isn't 'fair and reasonable' that does not give you the right to
use it illegaly.

yes I know I don't have the right, niether do others but that
wonl;t stop people.
People tend to break laws they see as unfair. The more unfair it
seems the more that break it.
Which is one reason why the best software tends to be the ones most
widely used illegal.
It;'s why people are willing to steal money rather than dog***. I
believe that if you rewarded people for handing in dog***, rather
than fine them
the streets would be more clear of dog***.



But then again I believ I should eb paid for advertising PS and
encouraging companies to buy it, otherwiose I might advise
those people to use gimp and lose adobe a sale or two.

Fine, and how much are they paying you?

I'm not, I'm being honest ;-) I truely believe that in general
PS is the best
photo editor available for most jobs although for photographers
Aperture may be a better choice.

You indicated they should pay you for advertising - I suggest you
contact Adobe and work out the details - should be a real bonanza
fro you.

But I only "advertise" things I know about and use, how can I
admit I use an illegal product ?

I'm sure if you explain it to them, they'll grant you an exemption
and be happy to pay you to advertise.


The license is a legal contract between Adobe and you. It is
enforcable in a court of law - just because Adobe does not
prosecute you does not make your stand 'right'. Again - if you
don't abide by the license, don't use the software. It's a trade
off - accept the license and use the software or don't and
don't.

I feel the same way about motorists that cross red lights or
drive about the speed limit, I think their cars should be taken
away from them permanently, no fine, no prison sentance just no
car.

Entirely different situation. You can't relieve folks of their
property without just compensation (at least theoretically).
In gthe UK we have driving licenses.
In the UK you are meant to abide by the law. You can have your car
impounded and have to pay a release fee. If yuo drive in a bus lane
tehy can fine you £120. if you don;t pay up they can send in the
'boys' who can take your property unli the fine is paid.

Sure glad I don't live with the gestapo any more.


s And 'crossing red
lights' or to 'drive about the speed limit' does not deprive
anyone else of their property without compensation.
You are breaking the law. (above rather than about the speed limit)

. Stealing software does - the
software is the creation and property of the creator - to use it
without paying is theft.

No it is NOT, if I use their software or listen to an artists
music it is NOT theft
as I'm not depriving anyone of using the software or listening to
music. This is why the term theft isn;t used in music piracy
because it's NOT theft.
Do you really believe the women in America that was fine IIRC
$1.8million for downloading 21 music tracks thieved that amount
of $ from the record company.
How can 'stealing' a music track be worth thousands of $ when you
can buy it from
iTunes for under a $1 ?
Also remember you are not buying it, you are buying the licence to
use it nothing more, you never own it.

It's the law. If you don't agree with the law - then don't use it.
Quite simple, really. If you feel the law is wrong, then work to
change it. Our society is based on obeying the law, not ignoring
ones you think are wrong.



Remember the good old days when after buying a recorded you weren't
allowed to listen to it in your car because all you had was a
cassette deck to record it on and doing that was piracy ! When I
was young and stupid I brought the album Pin ups by David Bowie
and then brought it again on cassette because it was legal. I only
did that once, never again.
Most don;t think that licence is fair so most copy music
illegally. I bet Michael Jackson is moon walking in his grave.

Ignoring laws you don't like starts down the road to anarchy. You
choose which laws you want to obey, the next person does the same .
.

You mean like Rosa Parks disobeying the law that required her to
give up her bus seat for a white man led to anarchy?

You don't seriously mean to tell me you're comparing the two?

So how are they different?

.

Loading