Neowin.net

Photoshop is expensive so I can understand pirating it. But I can't really imagine someone uploading TurboTax to a warez site or anything lol.

Photoshop is expensive, so I can understand people using free alternatives like GIMP or Paint.NET.

Photoshop is needed if you are a professional, and require advanced colorspaces, such as CYMK. In those cases, I am sure you can afford it or write it off as a business expense.

I don't think he meant "understand" as in "it's justified". I think it was more "I can see why people do it".

The only reason I can see is that people are dumb. They don't realize Paint.NET and GIMP can do the job for home users for free. They see the price tag for the professional level app, and just decide to rip off a copy, whining "but I neeeeeeed it!" like spoiled little brats.

Last edited by John S. on 28 Feb 2008 - 02:34

LOL, your remark was nothing but snide and insulting to basically anyone who doesn't think like you. What gives you the right to throw around the dumb and child remarks? Disregarding my argument as trash outright is often what those who have no valid rebuttal do. Obviously, using logic makes no difference to someone who has already made up their mind. Your argument is baseless and invalid that takes the black and white and rather greedy 'I made it so you don't get to use it at all unless you pay what I demand' viewpoint. Sorry but that doesn't fly with some, including myself.

Last edited by ANova on 27 Feb 2008 - 23:40

Hahahaha. markjensen may or may not be a complete fool.

You want details on your post? Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of your points:

• "paint.net and gimp are nice and all but they are not as feature rich as Photoshop". I already explained that Photoshop's big advantage is its professional CYMK colorspace for print shops. What other features out there for home photo touchup that you used as an example, but don't exist in paint.net or gimp?
• "the people that download photoshop could not afford or would not buy it". This I don't want to buy it, so I will just pirate it is simply no justification for warez.
• "copying 1s and 0s does in no way hurt Adobe". The worn out old they are a big company, so it's ok excuse.

We've seen this "I'll take it if I want it" attitude in the forums plenty of times. There is no way to convince you that it is wrong, as the desire to get it free clouds your reason.

1. What's your point? How does that pertain to my argument at all? Why can't someone who is using it for personal photo touchup use it? Some people may use it for more than simple gamma or red eye adjustments as well.

2. Such a comment is no justification for your claim. I gave reasons, what have you done? All you did was put words in my mouth without citing why. Why is that not a justification? Because the creators aren't making $650 extra per household on a family that wants to use it for general photo editing and playing around with? Again, that reasoning doesn't fly with me. Like I said, if you use the program to make money then you ought to buy it yourself, if you use it only for personal use than it really doesn't or shouldn't matter. No one would know unless they went sticking their noses into people's personal lives for the purpose of personal gain, ie. greed.

3. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. You're right, there is no way to convince me that it is wrong because it isn't. Get it now. You write a piece of code and it gets distributed online, you don't know how many people have it because it neither takes nor puts money in your pocket unless someone buys it, then it only puts money in your pocket. The whole "potential profit loss" is certainly one worn out and old unprovable excuse. It is an excuse by those who would make more money if they could convince the world that everyone that downloaded something would have bought it otherwise and is complete nonsense. That is why they have tried and thus far failed at every attempt to do so.

My reasoning is very logical, your reasoning is not. Your reasoning is based entirely on the me me me generation that believes everyone owes them something. Anyone that believes they are going to make a fortune on writing a program that is based on thin air and costs them nothing to produce is fooling themselves. You must belong in that bracket otherwise you wouldn't care. Sorry to burst your bubble if that is the case.

Oh and thanks John S, you're doing a bang up job deleting posts (and all the info rather than just the "insulting part").

i agree with you about the norton stuff lol... but then again it's probably pirated cause it's a known 'name' unlike MUCH better av software like NOD32.

on a side note... i dont use ANY of that software listed lol ... cause the burning apps they list are crappy especially easy cd creator and lately even nero is getting quite bloated... nero 6 was the last good verson of nero.

nowadays i use FREE burning software like.. ImgBurn (for pretty much all my data burning needs) and Burrrn (for all my audio burning needs)

Last edited by ThaCrip on 27 Feb 2008 - 04:37

No kidding. Wouldn't you want to pirate good antivirus programs?

I'm surprised XP or Vista wasn't listed.

Norton AntiVirus 2008 is a good anti-virus program.

Smctainsh

Same here.

ill third that

Compared to bad AV software maybe it is, but not compared to the best AV software; e.g. Kaspersky, NOD, Avira Antivr, AVG, Avast, and F-Secure.

No it isn't, norton from 1996 is probably better, only good thing is that it has a nice looking interface, other than that it is complete junk

HAHAAAHAHA, dude, now that is funny stuff!!!!

for FREE ftp clients.... i think filezilla aint bad but it lacks stuff that FlashFXP has (which is my prefered ftp client) as it's got a perfect interface and has alot of features like site to site transfers and ssl stuff and a feature i use fairly often like 'right click > sort by > name/date' which filezilla dont have.

Cause filezilla sucks!!!!!!

So you think companies illegally obtain and use an optical media creation suite far more often than security or office software? Or that more Internet pirates steal a professional multimedia creation suite than a virus scanner?

It definitely should be. Everyone has pirated copy of MS Office at home. As a matter of fact, it may be the most pirated software of all, not counting Windows XP.

Based on stats from p2p sites, I'd say these are the top five pirated programs:

1. Windows XP
2. MS Office
3. Photoshop
4. Nero
5. WinRAR

Runners up:

Dreamweaver
NOD32
Zone Alarm (lots of clueless people out there, eh?)
Windows Vista (so much for WGA)

Is there any point in pirating WinRar?! It just keeps on working past it's trial anyway...

It is, without a doubt.

im gonna have to say no, because most computers already come with XP or now Vista installed, so why would people pirate something they already have....now if you have xp and WANT vista, thats a different story, but most people now have vista already, and most users don't care about ultimate, so why pirate it.

lol, Ive chosen that name mainly because of:


... and not because of internet pirate. Im not leeeet enough

because somehow many of us think of some other software titles that are more pirated that those in this list.

i think "our lists" would figure XP, Vista, Office and other programs like LimeWire Pro, WinZIP, Kaspersky, NOD32, WinAmp Pro, and others.

I wonder how they obtain the statistics. I don't think that companies actually share their "phone home" data with other institutions.

Now you've gone and killed a perfectly good conspiracy theory, as well as all the "professionals" arguing why MS products should be higher on the list. You, you come around here with your facts, spoiling the wild guesses and bizarre opinions. You, Sir, should be ashamed of yourself!

How was I (and others) supposed to know that that the "SIIA" doesn't include Microsoft!?

I guess that explains it. It's not like all these people were complaining "conspiracy theory".