Hey,
Not like I'm going to do so or something but this thought keeps me awake at night lately. If you have illegal commercial software like photoshop it saves some specyfic info to the file you draw so it "knows" that it was made in photoshop. If you use that graphic in commercial project someone can check if you done it in photoshop then ask you if you have a legal license (or something like that, not sure really).
But let's say you make a printscreen of finished drawing and paste it into GIMP. Then save it. What happens? Does the file has GIMP-only info?
I kind of can't belive that this easy way to bypass legal licenses exists 0.o
Does anyone know something about that?
Surely a photo of anything that exists previously still brings up copyright issues...
Quote from: Mods on Tue 28/07/2009 23:26:55
Surely a photo of anything that exists previously still brings up copyright issues...
Well yes but I'm talking about your OWN work. You create something using illegal software (cracked paintshop/photoshop), then printscreen-paste it to open-source software which lets you use the outcome of your work commercially (like GIMP). I know it's still illegal but this seems untrackable 0.0
Spacepaw, I think your talking about the exif information stored in images.
The printscreen-paste option will do the trick but there are also exif-editors around.
Quote from: [ Arj0n ] on Tue 28/07/2009 23:45:04
Spacepaw, I think your talking about the exif information stored in images.
The printscreen-paste option will do the trick but there are also exif-editors around.
But this is insane 0.o this means that everyone can use illegal software and make others belive he/she made it using free alternatives
Yep
EXIF tag number 0131, goes by the named "firm-ver", is used by e.g.
Photoshop to store info/leave their fingerprint.
It's a text string of max 999 bytes long and is editable.
But the only thing someone can see is the software name & version.
For example: "Adobe Photoshop 7.0" is stored in the image.
They can't see if you use a legal or illegal version.
They have to confiscate your hard disk to check that out.
N.b.: JPEG 2000, PNG, and GIF doesnt contain EXIF info.
Yes, obviously the metadata from the original file is going to be lost when you PrintScreen-copy it. It seems a little tedious to me, though, and doesn't work well if the image you've made is too big to fit on the screen at 100% zoom.
Different image formats have different support for metadata. All the main formats (PSD, TIFF, JPEG, PNG, TGA, BMP...) have fields where Photoshop could potentially identify itself as the software used to create the file, although I don't know whether it actually does for all of them. (In some cases it might also be possible to tell that a file was saved in Photoshop because of the way the image is stored and stuff, but we're getting a little bit paranoid here...) However, PPM doesn't support such metadata. So if you take your final image and convert it to PPM (in IrfanView, for example), you'll delete the metadata. You can then optionally convert it back again to the original--or a different--file format (again using a non-Photoshop application).
I'd just look for some app that can strip the image metadata instead. IrfanView can do it with JPEG files. Jhead is a command-line app for removing JPEG metadata. JPEG & PNG Stripper works for both of those file formats.
Quote from: SpacePaw on Tue 28/07/2009 23:46:30
But this is insane 0.o this means that everyone can use illegal software and make others belive he/she made it using free alternatives
I don't know. Seems pretty obvious to me: When you have a file with two pieces of information (the image and the metadata), you can take away one of the parts so that you're left with just the other. What people believe based on the metadata is their concern.
Why does an image even need to tell people what kind of software was used to create it? And what about images that you have worked on in multiple different apps?
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 29/07/2009 00:17:48
Why does an image even need to tell people what kind of software was used to create it? And what about images that you have worked on in multiple different apps?
You have a point but this means you can't really track down people using illegal graphic programs. Not at all 0.o this makes commercial license kind of useless in my head.
This is really no different from the fact that MP3s don't have to include licensing info in the file for it to play. That's the reason we're stuck having to deal with all this DRM crap. Admittedly I've used pirated software and downloaded music I didn't pay for.
I don't think it makes me a bad person.
However the copyright laws are there to protect the rights of the copyright owner as well as the legal use of the content. The point at which those who actually have the right to use the content are more inconvenienced than the pirates thanks to antipiracy measures is the point at which I stop caring.
I will still buy CDs to support my favorite bands as well as software that is worth the asking price. I'm not trying to justify it but that's just my feelings on the matter.
But it is facts like this that the software copyrights are so easily circumnavigated that have ultimately led to the antipiracy measures we have today.
Quote from: SpacePaw on Wed 29/07/2009 04:23:57
You have a point but this means you can't really track down people using illegal graphic programs. Not at all 0.o this makes commercial license kind of useless in my head.
Not sure why you ever thought you could. You're never going to be able to stop people from cracking an application or copying a digital file. Nor are you going to make it impossible for a dedicated individual to cover his tracks.
That doesn't mean you can't catch people: How many people actually scrub their images before uploading? I'm betting most aren't even aware that this kind of data is part of the image file.
Of course, Adobe doesn't go around checking the net at random for images that have been made in Photoshop (and like people have said, there'd be no way to know whether it was a legal or illegal installation of the app). Whether regular people buy their software or not isn't even really the point of their business model (in fact, they may privately prefer that people pirate Photoshop than use one of the competing alternatives; it helps establish them as the de facto industry standard). Their customers are companies and professional artists, for whom a few hundred dollars for a legitimate license is a minor business expense. Most serious companies aren't going to risk running a keygen or crack (carrying god knows what trojans, keyloggers and other crap) on their internal network; or face the risk of a future software audit, for that matter.
But for the ones that do, that's when this feature comes in handy. If some graphic design firm has delivered a major project, and all the files are stamped Photoshop (good luck trying to run a graphics studio where you tell all your employees to make sure to remove the metadata from all files so that no one will discover you're using pirated software), and Adobe knows that that company hasn't purchased a site license... then they might give them a call!
come on really, at $1500 a pop, how many people here actually *own* photoshop??? 90% of casual users are using a pirated copy I reckon.
I havent used it in years now anyway (and I have a licensed version at work). I prefer the GIMP because it loads faster.
I have a legal copy of Photoshop only because I could get the entire Abobe package really cheap through school. But for companies and proffesional artist paying the full prize is not too absurd. They live on Photoshop. It is pretty much the industry standard.
Besides it doesn't seem logical that they would spend so much money on tracking people down to see if might have an illigal copy.
I believe they can check, for instance, flash movie files and see if they were done with the non-commercial student version and give you hell if you're a commercial company.
I own Photoshop. I have these funny opinions that it's wrong to make money using something you stole from someone else.
zabnat I don't think it's that funny at all. I have never done any commercial work at all (using any of these types of software), but if I had I'd definitely feel that there was something wrong about it if I'd used illegal software.
But then again there are those people who would steal a DVD or a watch or MP3 player or car (etc.) and turn around and sell it for a profit. It all depends on your own standards I suppose. To me using a cracked Photoshop for personal and public non-commercial, non-profit efforts isn't some wretched thing to do.
If I were ever to release something commercially and make a huge profit knowing that I'd used a cracked Photoshop...that would eat away at me.
The point of it all is though:
(http://www.cs.uku.fi/~katajama/youwouldnt/xyz.gif)
Other than that I agree wholeheartedly with Snarky.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Wed 29/07/2009 18:25:04
I have never done any commercial work at all (using any of these types of software), but if I had I'd definitely feel that there was something wrong about it if I'd used illegal software.
Even if you're doing all your stuff using an illegal copy of Window$ ? Not me. Fuck them.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Wed 29/07/2009 18:25:04
If I were ever to release something commercially and make a huge profit knowing that I'd used a cracked Photoshop...that would eat away at me.
Again, not me. I couldn't afford a legal version of photoshop, but can use it to gain some money and be able to pay for such things. My philosophy is, if you have the money, pay, if you don't then don't. Same goes for donations and stuff.
Also, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money
either way.
Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 29/07/2009 18:50:22
I couldn't afford a legal version of photoshop, but can use it to gain some money and be able to pay for such things. My philosophy is, if you have the money, pay, if you don't then don't. Same goes for donations and stuff.
But what gives you the right to make that decision?
Would you walk into a shop and say "I know this TV costs $500, but I don't really have any money so can I have it for free?"
Do you go to a restaurant and not pay the bill if you're running low on cash that day?
QuoteAlso, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.
There is a difference between individuals and companies, in so far as a company can have a software audit done on them at any time, and there are large fines involved if they are found to have illegal software. Of course, as a private individual you're unlikely ever to be caught.
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 29/07/2009 18:57:48
But what gives you the right to make that decision?
Nobody, that's why I call it philosophy.
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 29/07/2009 18:57:48
Would you walk into a shop and say "I know this TV costs $500, but I don't really have any money so can I have it for free?"
Do you go to a restaurant and not pay the bill if you're running low on cash that day?
No, I wouldn't and I gotta admit that this only works in the internet. But I think it's great when people who develop get support by people who like it. And that the support depends on the user's (financial) situation.
Well, if I'd try to answer your question in detail I'd have to start a large debate on general societal and political issues here, which isn't really what I want (right now). Let's just say, I have some serious problems with how capitalism works and see possibilities to bypass paying for stuff I don't want to pay for as well as a certain social potential in things like filesharing and the donation system.
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 29/07/2009 18:57:48
QuoteAlso, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.
There is a difference between individuals and companies, in so far as a company can have a software audit done on them at any time, and there are large fines involved if they are found to have illegal software. Of course, as a private individual you're unlikely ever to be caught.
You're right, but I meant it the other way around. There's a difference in illegaly using programs and such from indie developers and large corporations..
Same goes for e.g. music bands. I would purposely try NOT to pay for greedy bands like Metallica or ridiculously expensive bands like U2 or whatsoever, but I'd definitely support not-so-popular newcomer bands.
Quote from: Mr Matti on Wed 29/07/2009 18:50:22
Again, not me. I couldn't afford a legal version of photoshop, but can use it to gain some money and be able to pay for such things. My philosophy is, if you have the money, pay, if you don't then don't. Same goes for donations and stuff.
I'd rearrange your philosophy (to match mine) as such:
"If you have th emoney, pay, if you don't don't use that product, don't watch that movie, don't listen to that mp3".
In fact one of the things that greatly pisses me off is that great greed that comes off people who do pirate. and to explain further. There ARE alternatives to windows, MS office, Cubase, 3-d max, etc. And they are open source and free (most of the times). And I am ready to bet that you can listen to literally 10,000,000 tracks for free in myspace, soundclick, acidworld and the such. Don't you think it's rather ugly to want to listen to the 10-100-100000 that are NOT free? Or to want to use PS, not because you are exchausting it's capabilities, but "because it's PS"?
QuoteAlso, there's a difference between indie developers who need financial support and large corporations who make money either way.
Can you pin down what exactly the difference is? Because as far as I'm concerned I can't (and neither can you) have a look at the tax books of a corporation, neither of an individual, so you can't really be sure who is loosing money and who is not; who is having to pay huge expenses and who is not; who is cheating the IRS and who is not. So based on that I can't really see how on earth you are judging and putting differences between this and that.
(BTW, since Dave is now financing his own games (The Ivy) does this mean that he's turned into a full monster and you will be downloading his games in torrents from now on?)
It all comes down to how you perceive ownership and what you consider the concept of theft to be.
A television is a physical object, and definite verification of ownership (or lack thereof) can be fairly easy to prove in the conventional sense.
Vince Twelve made this argument quite well in another thread.
The difference is that in one case you're illegally making a copy, while in the other you're taking an item away from its owner. The very fact that in many cases there's no way for the copyright holder to even know that you infringed their copyright illustrates this fundamental distinction.
So it's not like going into a bookstore and stealing a book, it's like going into a bookstore and taking pictures of all the pages in the book without buying it.
Yeah, I wanted to add that. Adobe wouldn't get money from me either way, cause I can't afford PS. So there's no harm at all for them if I download a copy of PS without paying for it.
Adobe makes its money on companies, schools and other institutions that pay license money for its software.
Adobe probably doesn't care whether individuals come across pirated versions on the Internet, since a) it's very likely that said individuals would not purchase the software legally even without the piracy-option and b) Adobe doesn't physically lose money from having files copied.
I've never paid for any of my tool-software, but if I ever start a company I'll naturally purchase a license.
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 29/07/2009 20:40:13
So it's not like going into a bookstore and stealing a book, it's like going into a bookstore and taking pictures of all the pages in the book without buying it.
That's a good analogy, actually. And if you knew that the shopkeeper wasn't watching at the time, would that make you more likely to do it?
QuoteAdobe wouldn't get money from me either way, cause I can't afford PS. So there's no harm at all for them if I download a copy of PS without paying for it.
But look at it this way: you are into photography, and you really want a gorgeous $1000 camera. But you can't afford it. Do you:
(a) steal one from the shop
(b) save up your money each week until you can afford the expensive camera, and just use a cheap crappy one in the meantime
Surely if you decided that Photoshop was what you really wanted, you could save up some money each week until you could afford it - and you could use MS Paint for your drawing in the meantime.
Surely it's just that because software is easy to steal, the decision of "do I steal it or save up for a year to buy it" becomes much more of a no-brainer.
CJ, the issue isn't whether something is easy to steal, it's whether you physically deprive someone of something.
I wouldn't take an expensive camera even if I found it on the street; I would leave it at the local police and their lost and found department.
I know a pirated copy does NOT equal a lost sale. I know this.
However, piracy (or photographing the pages of a book in a shop, to keep with the analogy) is supported by the logic "It's okay if I'm the only one doing it."
"It's okay because it's me doing it."
One pirated copy doesn't equal a lot sale. 100% pirated copies equals no sales. And nothing for you to pirate any more.
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Wed 29/07/2009 22:19:00
One pirated copy doesn't equal a lot sale. 100% pirated copies equals no sales. And nothing for you to pirate any more.
Yea.. Torrents made game developers/publishers loose 80% of profit worldwide...
For every commercial piece of software out there, there's a freeware slightly more complicated and not as flashy or annoying equivalent.
If you can't afford commercial, go freeware. All my software is freeware, (Gimp, Buzzmachine, audacity, deepburner, bonkenc, audacity and just about every other freeware audio or other program available).
The only reason to use commercial software is if you own a company and want to get taken seriously.
Quote from: Andail on Wed 29/07/2009 22:00:10
CJ, the issue isn't whether something is easy to steal, it's whether you physically deprive someone of something.
But should this be the issue?
If I steal a camera from a shop, then I physically deprive the shop of the camera. This means the shop loses the camera, and will hit that shop's profits. The manufacturer still gets paid by the shop since they bought it, so the only party to lose out is the shop itself.
Therefore if I steal the camera, the manufacturer and creator of the camera still gets paid for it, and the shop ends up getting hit with the loss.
If I download pirated software, then nobody in the chain (retailer, manufacturer or creator) gets paid. In a sense you could argue this is worse, because at least by stealing the camera from the shop I have shown my support for the camera manufacturer by ensuring they get paid; whereas in the piracy scenario the actual creators of the product get nothing at all.
Saying that it's not stealing, not theft, isn't the same as saying it's OK.
And yes, piracy only does not destroy the system as long as a significant number of people/companies actually buy the product. Fortunately, in well-regulated, prosperous economies, there are usually a lot of people who do.
If someone pirates everything they want (games, software, movies, music, TV shows, books...) and never or rarely buys anything, then yeah, they're being a parasite. That may be excusable for kids and students who have no income, but once you grow up and start earning money and managing your own economy, you really should be doing your part to support the people who create the things you like, in my opinion.
That doesn't mean that occasionally downloading something for free instead of buying it automatically makes you a bad person. Let's say you're making an AGS game and you want to try creating some music, so you get yourself a tracker. Should you shell out hundreds of dollars for an app you're gonna use occasionally for a part-time hobby you're never going to make a dime from? Unless you're rolling in cash, insisting on such strict adherence seems a bit puritan to me. (I get an MSDN developers' license and licenses for most Adobe products through work, which provides most of the software I might need, so I rarely have to worry about this situation. Besides, I usually look for open-source options.)
Similarly, I go to the movies, I have a Netflix account, I have cable TV and a TiVo, and I buy DVDs, so I don't feel too guilty about occasionally downloading a film or TV show I missed. And with all the money I blow on CDs, books and comics, I feel I'm doing enough to support those industries, too. If I sample something electronically and really like it, I'll usually buy it sooner or later anyway (whether it's freely available, like Dr. Horrible or the latest Radiohead album, or not, like Pimsleur language courses or Astro City).
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 29/07/2009 23:15:42
If I download pirated software, then nobody in the chain (retailer, manufacturer or creator) gets paid.
But you could argue that they weren't going to get paid anyway, because the pirate had no intention of buying the software. They're only using it because it was available for free. If it wasn't available illegally, they'd either go without or use a freeware alternative.
If you argue that getting commercial software for free is theft (in the same way as stealing a car/stereo/tv is), you could also argue that freeware harms the profits of smaller independent software companies:
A company develops a low cost alternative to Photoshop. But they enjoy less than profitable sales because everybody is using Gimp or some such, and nobody can be bothered to fork out cash (price is irrelevant) because there is a freely available alternative. An absurd argument*, but things get absurd when we start discussing imaginary monetary gains based not on how many people have bought your product, but on how many people are using your product without license.
This is why I never trust anybody who tries to put a fiscal amount on piracy; they work on the assumption that one pirate negates one paying customer.
It's like believing that for every pirate who uses your product illegally, a paying customer was mugged and their money was stolen before it could get to you.
*Actually, now that I think of it, hasn't there always been resentment among the larger software companies (the American ones, anyway) towards freeware, open-source, and the like, with regards to scoring large multi-licensing deals? Microsoft vs Open Office for example? Wouldn't we then be safe in assuming that
any free software is bad if it deprives these companies of sales?
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 29/07/2009 23:15:42
But should this be the issue?
If I steal a camera from a shop, then I physically deprive the shop of the camera. This means the shop loses the camera, and will hit that shop's profits. The manufacturer still gets paid by the shop since they bought it, so the only party to lose out is the shop itself.
Therefore if I steal the camera, the manufacturer and creator of the camera still gets paid for it, and the shop ends up getting hit with the loss.
If I download pirated software, then nobody in the chain (retailer, manufacturer or creator) gets paid. In a sense you could argue this is worse, because at least by stealing the camera from the shop I have shown my support for the camera manufacturer by ensuring they get paid; whereas in the piracy scenario the actual creators of the product get nothing at all.
But in the first case, someone (the shop) has actually lost money compared to if you had done nothing. Your theft has taken money directly out of their pocket. When they draw up their accounts, they'll have to subtract the camera you took from their assets.
In the second case, it has no impact on anyone's assets; it's a non-transaction, as if you didn't exist. They've only lost money compared to the
hypothetical scenario where you actually buy the software. (And even that "loss" is assuming you don't buy it later. I would speculate that a lot of the people who would actually have paid for the software if they couldn't pirate it eventually do end up purchasing a license.)
This is the fundamental difference between physical objects (like cameras) and digital artifacts (like software and media files): one has a finite supply, and each copy has a cost of production associated with it, while the other can be duplicated infinitely at essentially zero cost. And that's why "intellectual property" should not be thought of in terms of actual property, but as a (limited) privilege, and why copyright infringement is not theft, but a kind of trespass.
Quote from: Thomas JeffersonIf nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
(http://imgur.com/2UDYK.jpg)
And I kind of agree :)
And this comes to the ease of downloading illegal software off the internet. If you'd see a car in the street with the keys in it, would you steal it? What about if you'd see say a pack of beer somewhere you're just passing by and nobodys around, surely you wouldn't get gought? What if you could just get a "serial generator" and replace the serial on the chassis of that car, motor and just put some new plates on it? I mean maybe opportunity makes a thief?
It's funny how usually the people on the software industry are more against software piract than your "normal" person. They understand the effort to make a piece of software. It's really hard to explain and there are people on the industry that have open source mentality. Anybody with a writers block can relate to how hard it really is to create intellectual property.
As for the freeware alternatives: I think it's great that we have lots of great software out there. It's great that some group of computer enthusiasts (or propellerheads, I don't know if this term works in english) have decided to create a program that could replace some high price programs that professionals use (like Photoshop). Although many times these programs just feel too much like hey are develeloped by some propellerheads (not referring to that swedish company). And I bet some of you prefer Photoshop over Gimp just for this.
Actually I would really like to see more of educational and personal licences of those expensive software packages out there. Like if the software would be $5000 to use commercially, you could get a educational version for $100 and a personal edition for maybe $300. And with educational version you have the same requirements as you do now (really beign enrolled on some university or something) and with personal edition you couldn't do any commercial work. Maybe even have an invisible watermark to enforce this or something. I would really like to see more of this business model. Some software companies have implemented something similiar and I really respect them for this.
I have used illegal software myself and I really do understand the point of beign a kid or a student, but nowadays since I (used to) have a job and I have some income, I can just skip that one or two weekends in a bar and save up the money for the software that like to use, even when I'm not using it commercially.
It's really hard to say where I stand in this issue, maybe I'm in there on the gray zone I guess.
ps. I'm sorry if I just threw a provocation for this kind of conversation in my last message. This is pretty much out of topic already and I'm sure this kind of thing has been discussed before in this forum and it will become a long topic if conversations on other forums are of any indication.
Propellorheads? I resent that. A hat would obsure my lovely spock haircut.