Where is the "No Comment" option on this poll? :icon_eek:
On the other hand if they can't afford to buy it, and choose not to steal it, then they wont have the software they need to create their art. So in a sense by charging so much for their software Adobe are depriving some people of the ability to realise their own creative potential, and the world of whatever art they may go on to create using their software. Now I am not saying Adobe has an obligation to give it's software out as a charity, but certainly it could be argued that by being so profit motivated as opposed to doing it also for the love of the art they are sort of depriving people who have no money and are very talented of the opportunity to use this new technology to be creative. They are making it an exclusive enterprise for the rich, whereas in an ideal world it ought to be there for everyone and anyone who has a talent for it. The world would be a better place overall for it.
The Adobe suite of products are designed for businesses and professionals who make a living by using the software. It's not about allowing people to realise their creative potential, it's about their target market having the best tools they can to do their job. There are cheaper/free alternatives to Adobe programmes. Yes, they're not on a par with the Adobe versions but that's the sacrifice.
I don't actually see the Adobe CS packages as that expensive in the long-run. It's a business investment, and if you use them everyday for a living then you'll pay them off in no-time. Hell, one decent project can pay it off straight away.
There seems to be a consensus that because the software isn't tangible, it doesn't hold as much value as a physical object. Whilst I don't really have a problem with someone using the packages illegally to learn how to use them, but I think if you're making money from them, then you should be paying for them. I wouldn't use stolen hardware, or run my business from offices I'm squatting in, so why should software piracy be seen differently?