As a response to the No More Photoshop – Use GIMP, in the comment section and also through other mediums, I think I can sum up the top three reasons why Photoshop is pirated.
- There are features in Photoshop that are not available in Open Source alternatives. Adobe has invested a lot of research and filled features into its products that make life much easier to do many tasks for the professionals in the field. Open Source alternatives like GIMP lack built in features like CMYK support (which is quite important for print) or more basic things like grouping layers.
- Adobe has priced Photoshop too high – it is impossible to use it for hobbyists. Shelling out a $600 on Adobe Photoshop is far away from being thrift when the use is for minor touch ups of photos or creating banners for use in forums and other social websites. If they had priced it lower, many would have considered buying it and using it legally.
- Who cares if it is piracy? After all, Adobe can not come after each and every one of us for running priated version of Photoshop on our PCs. Running legal versions of software is something corporations and companies need to worry about.
In spite of these reasons, I am going to stand by my word. I do not condone pirating software – be it Photoshop or something else. I will try to give my views on each of these ‘justifications’ for using pirated Photoshop.
- It is true that Photoshop has features that is not present in another Open Source software. But most of the features can be found in a number of softwares put together. You might not be able to get all features – but you sure can get the features that is really necessary. For example, CMYK support can be got into GIMP by using a plugin. If you need to use a lot of vectors in an artwork – move it over to Inkscape. If you need to do digital painting – ArtRage should be sufficient for most of the work.
- Adobe has put a rather heavy price tag on Photoshop. But that does not mean it is legal for us to pirate the software. There are many things that are costly and getting them with out paying for them is considered stealing. And if you are just using it for honing your skills or doodling, why do you need Photoshop. As a member of one of the forums I frequent, (Kyle) said:
- There is no real arguing with this. It is just ones conscience that can answer that. I can not create an artwork with a pirated software and display it as my creation.
If someone is doodling for fun, why doodle with Photoshop? Its like learning to drive in a Ferrari?
Use the software you can afford – open source or other wise and improve your skills. Once you get ‘pro’, you can afford Photoshop. Priacy is not the way to go.
-
Pingback from Bounty For Open Source | Splat on August 2, 2007 at 12:04 pm
-
Ok. Pirating is illegal. So you don’t do it. Its not worth the possible penalties.
-
It is that, and in my opinion, it is just morally not right.
-
Illegal, immoral… I find none of this logical. You all seem to forget a couple simple facts:
1) A book is simply a collection of letters and number that when arranged in a specific order produce meaning.
2) A computer program is a collection of ‘binary bits’ that when arranged in a specific order also produce meaning.
The major difference between the two is that one is physical and the other is meta-physical. Now consider this when I ask you these questions:
1) When was the last time you were called a thief for ‘borrowing’ a $75.00 book from the library?
2) Was it a crime for you to read that book because you did not purchase it?
I think you and most other people would answer ‘never’ to the first question and ‘no’ to the second.
Is it a crime to use pirated software? Yes it is because ‘mans law’ says it is.
Is it immoral? Absolutely not because you wouldn’t consider borrowing a book from the library immoral.
Over the years I have considered the issue of piracy quite deeply. What I have discovered is that those who are using pirated software are normal people, like you and I. These people are not seasoned criminals and they damn sure cannot afford $1,700 for a piece of software regardless of it’s use.
The problem that I see with the current situation is that most people are blind to the consequences of using pirated software. The threat of legal action is miniscule compared to the threat of espionage, identity theft and terrorism.
Do you think that true hackers are expending massive amounts of time, energy and expertise providing you with cracked software out of the kindness of their hearts? Absolutely not.
You will find several months or years later that the most wonderfully cracked software have extremely clever trojans built in that happily transmitted all of your activities and data to an anonymous destination.
IF you ever found out about it, the reason would be because your Anti-Virus or Anti-Spyware vendor found the trojan and added it to their definitions.
The better question would be: Is it legally and morally acceptable to crack popular software, embed trojan capabilities into it, then distribute it free on the internet so that unsuspecting NORMAL people find and download it.
That’s like planting a wireless microphone/camera inside a library book and returning it for someone else to check out so you can listen/watch in on their private life without their knowledge.
-
When a book is borrowed from the library, it is legal. The book was paid for, by the library, and it is being used only by a single person at any given time. The author and the publishers of the book have been paid for their efforts.
When a software is pirated, the copy is not paid for. It is illegal, and in my opinion, it is immoral. That is logical.
Are there not greater illegal activities out there other than piracy (of software)? Yes of course. But ‘the lesser of the evil is stil evil’.
-
Yes Vyoma that is the classical argument that has been used since the inception of software and the discovery of piracy.
Regardless of the fact that a library has purchased a single copy – dozens or even hundreds of people are allowed to read that book.
Those people did not pay the retail value of the book because they read it by borrowing it from the library. The company producing the book will normally not suffer losses because those people may never have intended to purchase the book in the first place. No matter how you look at it – none of these people paid for the experience they received from reading that book.
Likewise – a software application is cracked and distributed throughout the internet and dozens or hundreds of people download it and use it. None of those people paid the retail price of the software but once again – the producing company will likely not suffer losses because those hundreds of people may never have intended to purchase the software to begin with. Similarly, none of these people paid for the experience they gained using that software.
Using your example Vyoma – if I were to purchase a single copy of some software and loan it out to people one at a time (even if I were to loan it out to hundreds of people over a period of time) it would not be a crime or immoral because I had paid for the initial copy.
-
Yes indeed – Nullflux. When you get a some software – legally and pay for it – it would not be immoral or illegal when it is used by only one person (or as much as the license allows). On the other hand, when the software is cracked and distributed, many people – simultaneously – use the software and the entity that created the software (individual or the company) incurs losses.
-
Why would the fact that a hundred people used the book/software instantly or over a period of time matter. In the end a hundred people still read the book or used the software.
-
The difference between the two cases is being ’simultaneously used’. And it matters because that determines how many copies are out there and is available to service the people who possess it. The library lending the book is not same as software piracy. The library does not make pirated copies of the book. How many ever copies it has – it is bought from the author. The author gets the due credit. When a software is pirated and multiple copies are made, the company/individual does not get the returns for all those copies.
-
Immorality is illogical, Nulflux?
Try working and developing a program for a couple of years. All that programming, designing, use of scripting, imagine that – All gone in one instant when someone just decides that they can’t pay for Photoshop, and they decide to download it illegally. Is that illogical all of a sudden? Think of it as plagiarism. You’re stealing their works, without giving them credit. Without the credit, all they’ve done has gone to waste, and the hard months they had to put through to develop this program suddenly fades away. Is it right to take that away from those who have worked so hard to make the program that you so use? Just because you can’t afford it means it’s suddenly alright to just take it from their hands when they’re not looking?
Adobe is a corporation. They get their profit from their product. Without their profit, they won’t be much of a company if they don’t get paid for what they’ve been doing. Wouldn’t you feel the same way if you were a programmer on Adobe and then one of your friends can’t pay for it, so he downloads it illegally, taking profit away from you.
If you can find it in your soul to say that stealing is right…. You ought to rethink that.
-
Adobe went after me when I tried to pirate Acrobat 8.0. It sent an e-mail to my ISP with a log of the torrent download. Adobe charges $449 for Acrobat. It charges $999 for Photoshop CS3 Extended. If those prices aren’t theft, they’re definitely extortion. The fact that Adobe took offense at my unwillingness to pay that much for their software shows how cold-hearted they are. I am a student, so I can’t afford them. I tried CS3 and it installed spyware on my computer called “Bonjour.” Given their behavior, Adobe doesn’t deserve any money at all from any one. Microsoft is a better company than Adobe. [snip], Adobe. Pirate their products. Never buy them.
-
Hmmm – after all that, why do you feel you need to use Photoshop? You do not agree with the price, which I too agree. But then, that is the software that belongs to them.
Just go ahead and use GIMP. It wont cost you a penny and for most purposes it suffices – and is getting better. You could use Scribus as a Acrobat alternative, though I am not exactly sure of the uses of Acrobat.
-
I disagree about the extreme cost of the program that makes it completely unaffordable to students and someone who only wants to learn.
But I also disagree about the ones that are professionals and use pirated software in order to gain money.
-
Chris, for students there are student licenses – not sure how much less it costs – because I am not a student any more.
(Gosh! I miss those days).Or even then – if we are talking about Adobe Photoshop CS3, you could try out Adobe Photoshop Elements – costs under $100. Even after that – you have GIMP.
-
You still miss the point #9, someone who has the money to purchase the software is not normally the one trying to find a free copy. The people pirating your software WERE NOT POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS to begin with.
-
By the way Steve when somebody cannot pay for something it is not a decision it is a reality. You act as if by changing their mind they would pay you. They simply cannot.
-
Nullflux, could you clarify where the point #9 is? In one of your comments above?
If somebody is not in a position to buy something, then if they get it – it is stealing. If you are not a potential customer, then do not make a copy of it at all.
There are always alternate choices, and that, is a choice. The have a choice to not do piracy when they cannot pay for something.
-
I am only trying to show that this piracy issue has been blown out of proportion and when someone downloads a copy of some software for free that the company does not necessarily incur a loss because a profit may not have been there to gain in the first place.
I AM a software engineer, I’ve been designing software, art and music since roughly 1993. I DO have commercial applications available that people pirate regularly but I don’t automatically assume that I have taken a loss because of it.
-
Nullflux, I was in no way undermining your opinion.
I too am a software engineer, and am an artist. (My attempts at music have been pathetic
).When someone downloads and makes illegal copies of my work, it is my opinion that I did incur a loss. I am not blowing it out of proportions or anything.
That said, you are entitled for your opinion – and I respect that.
Let us just agree to disagree.
-
The one reason I am tempted to pirate photoshop is that there are tutorials and support for photoshop that I have not been able to find for the open-source alternatives I currently use. Photoshop has a massive user base and for that reason, it’s far easier to find help, addons and support for their software than programs like GIMP.
That said, I haven’t downloaded it because I believe piracy is wrong, but all the same, if it wasn’t priced so high, then I’d buy it legally. I’m only a hobbyist. I can’t afford to pay $600 for it – and then inflated prices for the UK on top of that!
-
I can actually relate to you, in terms of availability of tutorials for GIMP, Fern. That was one of my initial drives for starting this blog (and still is).
If we are not looking for specific photo-manipulations, then GIMP can do almost what Photoshop can do – at you can follow those Photoshop tutorials.
And practice works too. No matter what the software. -
Piracy is not the same as theft. If you steal something from me, I lose it. If I write a program, and you take it without paying, I don’t lose anything. I don’t gain, but I don’t lose.
If a non-professional individual, the kind who would never pay 1000 dollars for Photoshop (or even 100 dollars!) pirates a copy, Adobe doesn’t lose a dime. In fact they make money. How? Free marketing. That person will help popularize the product. If I were Adobe, I would give the product for free to non-professionals.
By pricing its software so high, Adobe makes it clear that their target customers are corporations, not individuals. Consider video games, which often cost a lot more to make and earn much higher profits than Photoshop or similar products. At 50 bucks, they are priced for individuals, and a strong case can be made against game piracy, because if you pirate and play a game you *are* the kind of person that would have gone out and bought it, and therefore, the company that made it deserves that money.
-
You make a good argument there, Mike, though I do not agree to the fact that it cannot be called theft. Just because software is intangible and copies can be made with nominal expense, it does not mean that not paying for the software is not theft.
When a software creator is not paid for the software when someone else uses it, then I class it as ‘theft’. Seems like we cannot come to an agreement between this difference in view, so we can leave it at that.
On a more curious note, what is the cut-off price for a piece of software, above which do you think priacy is allowable?
-
Software like photoshop has UNLIMITED “COPIES”
a book doesn’t. it needs physical materials.
-
When a book is sold, it carries a price not because of the medium (the physical materials), but for the effort put in by the author. I do not see why software creators should be deprived of that.
-
Stealing from Adobe is like stealing from Enron. It’s really hard to feel guilty for pirating their software, even if you call it stealing. If they charged $25 for Photoshop, I might agree with you. I’d use the GIMP, but I’ve already read books and watched training videos on how to use Photoshop. I’ve also customized it with plug-ins. My friend told me to use Photoshop a few years ago and I know any better.
-
Well, Primetime – if the outlook you want to take is of stick it to the man, then I think it would be more effective if we started using GIMP and other resources.
It is when we go to the extend of piracy/stealing to use a software, then it is us who is creating this demand for Photoshop giving Adobe the monopoly on pricing their software.
What we have to do is, not depend on Photoshop for our workflow – make extensive use of alternatives, and influence others to do the same, then Adobe has competition.
The demand we create in the market makes them not to lower their prices.
-
I think too many people kiss up to money and power, espousing the belief that you only “deserve” something if you can “afford” it. What does that mean, anyway? That is an elitist (or wanna be elitist) mentality that ignores the fact that most wealth in this world is either inherited or built on the premise of exploiting and/or excluding the weak, in some cases to the extent of child-labor and slavery.
When you look at it from that point of view, any corporation with multi-billion dollar annual profits and fat cats at the helm that excludes the struggling little guy from being competitive in business by wantonly overpricing the laborless copy fees of their so-called intellectual property, so that they can go from rich to richer, is more of an “immoral” bane to society than end-user piracy.
The little guy is just trying to get his fair share. The idea that only the rich are noble and deserving of good things is a propagandist sham. Ask for reasonable compensation for reasonable labor, stop kissing up to the rich and powerful, share and share alike… and the world will be a better place.
Notice how Adobe reduces the price ONLY when they see a poor market (as in China) that is driven to piracy for sheer survival… then they sweep in like vultures and try to bleed as much money out of the situation as they can. Suddenly, they are rewarding the “immoral” behavior with a discount?
“Immorality” is sometimes not such a black and white phenomenon. I personally think piracy is fueled by years of debauchery and immoral behavior on the side of shameless, greedy, exploitative copyright holders such as the RIAA, and this is their comeuppance.
-
Well, tid, you have put forward a compelling argument there, and I have only this to say.
It is when you pirate and keep using the multi-billion dollar annual profit corporation’s software, you are empowering them to overprice.
Here is how I think of it. It doesn’t matter when the ‘little guy’ pirates software. But when there are only these little guys who are used to working with only the software made by these corporations, there is a market, only for those who possess the skills using those software.
You want to put a better case and a stronger hold against these corporations, start using and contributing to open source initiatives (like GIMP when compared to Photoshop). Make it, what one would call an industry norm. That is when they cannot overprice their software.
That is when you would have made if fair for everyone.
-
Adobe’s pricing is just outrageous. In the EU at least. After using the student licence I commited myself to legal ways and actually was willing to purchase it. Allas, as it seems the US-pricing was steep but reasonable (and even understandable), but once entering the local Adobe site these prices were blown up with almost 200%!!! Yes thats right, if that’s the way Adobe wants to play…… all I got to say for myself is :
ARRRRR ARRRRRHHH matey! ARRRRRRRR!!!!!! -
If the question is morality, then we need a strict definition of “stealing” as most moral codes would not condone stealing. As an artist, I deal with copyright issue all the time. It is unfortunate not to secure a contract that ensures the author’s(me in this case) control over future sales of the product and subsequent royalties at times of resale. Certainly with more money and a copyright lawyer, I too might be able to deactivate unauthorized reproductions of my paintings(maybe a sort of self destruct mechanism, but a kind one).
If I don’t create that contract, however, down the line a collector or even gallery owner might sell my product for astounding amounts of money without anything in it for me right? But there is. Copyright extends itself only so far partly because of the beneficial aspects of copyright infringement. My paintings would now have greater market value.Adobe and other companies inflate the prices of the software to partly subsidize the “losses” experienced from pirate hobbyists, but secure their status as industry standard in the process. That is pure marketing genius and actually benefits the company. The “losses” are simply a reason to inflate the prices for professional users, who when confronted with the fear of suit and loss of business, are not the suspect pirates. The mere proliferation of the product creates it’s inherent value and that of the author company.
So, stealing can and is defined by the English language according to Webster in a few ways.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
in def. 3 one steals the basketball in the context of a game. This would be a positive ability. Def. 1 denotes a moral significance to taking something that someone else doesn’t want you to take. My argument is that Adobe does want the hobbyist to take the product to help proliferate it’s use in creating an industry standard which increases the value of the product for legitimate inflated sales and ensures longevity. It looks as though Adobe is the better basketball player because they are dribbling to the hoop and we’re all standing at half court wondering if we did something wrong.
-
Why learn to drive a Pinto if you’re going to be using a Ferrari? Easy: if something happens to the Pinto, it’s no big loss. The same can’t be said for software. You’re better off learning with the software you’re going to be using and investing more of your time in skill and technique than you will by learning the button layout of a dozen applications and searching for plugins.
The pricing of Photoshop is up to Adobe, but it is tantamount to usury against the low income base and the natural response in an easy-to-copy medium is piracy.
As far as morals are concerned, once you decide to sell your first work, you should buy it.
-
Hell yes it’s immoral, ONLY if you plan on making a profit off of what you make from said pirated software. Find a college student, pay them 200 dollars to buy you photoshop, or if you’re a student or a teacher do it yourself. It’s well worth the money.
-
I was fortunate enough to find a newly released documentary that explains this entire situation much better than any comments posted here. Vyoma, I urge you to view the video and then post back your thoughts. I understand that this video relates to the media industry and not software specifically – but the concepts that are conveyed could similarly apply.
Video Link: (Hulu) RiP! A Remix Manifesto 2009 | Not Rated
http://www.hulu.com/watch/88782/rip-a-remix-manifesto?c=News-and-Information -
Well, Nulflux. I am not able to watch that video:
Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States
Feed
37 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://kalaalog.com/2007/07/19/top-3-reasons-to-priate-photoshop/trackback/