Illegal Adobe Software

Do you use illegal software?

  • Yes I do

    Votes: 23 36.5%

  • No I don't

    Votes: 12 19.0%

  • I have in the past

    Votes: 28 44.4%
  • Total voters
    63
I've had 2wo occasions were non-legit software has been used.
The first was an upgrade for Quark, which i purchased legally and had trouble upgrading, one very unhelpful phone call to the Quark help desk in the States reviealed that the copy of Quark being updated was regisetered at my previous employer, the man on the other end of the phone was not best pleased! So i still have an un-used update disk @ £200ish collecting dust.

The second, which i am using now, is not so much illegal, but i have the 30 day trial version of a 3d package on a computer i only use for learning the software. As time is very limited in an educational sence, i have set the internal clock to Jan 01 2008 @ 01:00am before installing it, then when ever i use it i keep a note of what time i've finish at. when i re-start i re set the clock to 1 min after i last finished and open up the software. It's amazing how long you can get 30 days @ 24 hours a day, to last!!

I will, when confident i can use the package for commercial gain, buy the legal copy before i start to use it in ernist. (no way i can afford £2000 just to learn)

I'm all for paying for software if it delivers what i need it to do. And for illegal copies, hummmm! time and a place, time and a place!!!! and the commercial world is neither.

There is only one un paid for downloaded music track on my computer and it wasn't me that downloaded it!
 
I'm lucky enough to have had software bought for me by some very very kind people, but i did start on a cracked version of CS.

Although (and i'll try and dig this up) a while back adobe stated their thoughts on the use of their software illegally.

The gist of it was that they will not prosecute people with illegal copies, because they've come to the realisation that people download it illegally, use it, get good, go pro, and buy it. Where as if people didn't download it, and didn't play around on it, they wouldn't get good and wouldn't go pro and thus adobe's sales would drop.

While there are some companies using illegal software, i think most pro companies go legit, i did hear (by word of mouth, not a trusted source) that Trading Standards want to start prosecuting regardless of what adobe say.
 
I have used Copied Adobe Software in the past. It was CS1 Design Premium, given to me by the Mac Tech at college.

All these years later, I feel quite strongly aganst the practice of downloading cracked software. Firstly its taking a living away from the thousands of employees Adobe has. Secondly its stealing and finally I feel its a personal attack on myself and my profession when people steal photoshop, butcher images with the filters and brand it as design.
 
Very anti cracked versions here too... and I have had to stay ligit throughout my freelance career bacause I have a mac techie (who charges a fortune to maintain my mac) who won't touch my machine unless everything is 100% legit. It keeps me on the straight and narrow and I appreciate it.
 
Yeah, like a lot of people I hate to admit it, but I have used illegal software in the past. Personally I feel more guilty about hijacking fonts then I do about CS. Once I started actually doing freelance work for my income I cleaned off all my pirated stuff and purchased what I needed. This meant that I had far fewer fonts, but to be honest that was a good thing in terms of load times and lack of confusion (like many people, I tend to use only a handful of fonts day to day...)

Whether the various places that I occasionally work in have legit software is another question - I have to admit that I kind of abdicate responsibility on that one...

I think the problem is the high price of getting into the industry encourages people to torrent the software they should be paying for. I'm alright now, but when I started up I was looking at making just enough to survive week to week. That's why I'm pleased to see such innovations as the free web-based version of PS; it's not full powered, so eventually you have to switch, but it at least gives you enough to get started. If only Adobe would now focus on ensuring better backwards compatibility (so that I could work on InDesign CS4 during the day and take the doc back to continue working on CS3 in the evening) I'd be laughing.
 
An interesting inconsistency seems to have emerged between the actual poll results and the large number of posts defending a legal-only stance. At the time of my posting this message, the Yes I do's and No I don'ts are tied at 8 (28%) each, with 13 (44%) who Have in the Past. So that is over 70% who use or have used less-than-legal software. Plus, I think it likely that some of the legal-only respondents are employees whose employers provide the software and dictate the policies, so they don't in fact have a choice in the matter.

I won't bore you all with my opinions here, but I have posted about this on my blog if anyone is interested.
 
I dont see no harm with illegally downloading to get the grips of things to then once go into business buy a legit copy, i admit im a current holder of a pirated adobe suite, as theres no way i could afford it, even with student discount, therefore once i start using it commercially i will buy a legit version.
 
It's not ok to steal a new ford fiesta and learn to drive in it so why is it ok to use an illegal copy of the creative suite (or which ever your chosen software) on the basis that you don't yet know how to use it?
 
As an after thought,... When you are a student Adobe offer massive discounts on their products, so why not buy the creative suite at student price (currently £330) and when a new suite is launced you just have the upgrade price to pay (currently £620). I think you'll all agree that with the fees we charge £600 is a fairly low level investment in our incomes.
 
I don't think learning to drive and buying software are comparable.

You can learn to drive without buying a car, use the test centers. And you can learn to drive.

When I started in this industry there was no internet. But our shop still had illegal versions of the software that someone in the office who had a friend of someone else who had bought the software and loaned it to us and we installed it.

It wasn't easy to come by but the illegal versions were always around even before the internet. The internet just makes it far easier to distribute the illegal copies.

I know reputable software authors for Adobe suite who have in the past used the software illegally and they eventually went on to buy the software, and not only that, write books on it, hold conferences and basically through plugging the software they have paid back what once they had for free.

The general consensus from them was if you're can't afford to buy the software it would be ok to have a bootleg copy until you can afford to buy it.

Now I don't wholly agree with this. But I think if you're student and not making much money or getting to grips with the software, doing a few party favours for family and friends - then maybe for a year or so it's ok until you start pulling in a decent wage.

But once you start making a few bucks and feeding your family think that out there someone made this software and they have a family that needs feeding too.

If you are using the software illegally then consider making the turn to buy the full version and pay back what is owed to the developers.

After all it's only fair.


But that's really when the software was priced at something like 2k for the whole suite! Very expensive if you're a startup by yourself.

Nowadays, it's cloud computing and software is about 50 quid a month to use.

And lets face it - if you're not pulling in 50 quid a month to cover the cost of using the software then you should consider a different profession.
 
Interesting debate. I can see arguments on both sides.

Maybe if Adobe weren't such greedy, money grabbing corporate wangers people wouldn't be inclined to use illegal copies of their software so much though.

Look at it this way. Let's suppose someone is a really talented graphics artist, but he/she can't afford to buy the adobe suite. If they steal a copy then they are basically getting a free copy of the software, whereas otherwise they probably wouldn't buy it, so Adobe technically hasn't lost any money. 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.

It's the same argument for music and film piracy. It's all got to be paid for, but should the creation of art in any form be deprived from making people's lives more colourful on the basis of wealth?

In the old days when artists used to create paintings, did they charge people to look at those paintings, or did they want as many people to see their work as possible?

Everything revolves around money these days, and it is to the detriment of happiness, because if there is one thing that can elevate your mood it's creating and experiencing new art.
 
STU9000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Paul Murray said:
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?
Click to expand...

And of course the £45 monthly subscription charge for their new cloud service makes no distinction between a new business or an established one. It's a major disincentive to smaller less experienced businesses with greater financial risks. I think it would be far better if they included two options here-

1. The £45 monthly subscription fee and your profits are yours, or
2. £10-£15 per month for new businesses (in the first year maybe) and you pay then a % of all your profits gained from any work using their software, maybe up to three years. Something like 5-20% maybe, I don't know.

That way it would be less of an incentive for people to use illegal versions and they might even make more money. As it stands though, for smaller businesses it's just a kick in the teeth as far as initial set up costs go.
 
There's this online university (there's probably hundreds now actually I wouldn't be surprised) but you can do actual degrees online there now and gain actual qualifications. It's all out there to be learned if you look for it, the internet is an amazing invention of the modern world all right, and I think it's going to revolutionise tertiary education and in 10-20 years time these qualifications will begin to hold as much credibility as real colleges. Real colleges and virtual ones will combine probably into the one thing that caters for both, exclusively or combined. There is little difference between attending a series of lecture, and watching a recording of them? The only difference is in real ones you can ask a question there and then, but on the other hand with recordings you can pause, repeat, try to research a point you don't quite understand before continuing. There's a clear advantage to recordings. I'd be interested in doing one of these courses myself, both for the qualification and that it would probably help me to fill in gaps that are missing because I'm pretty much self taught. Any I'm going off at a tangent here.

I was wondering if registering for any of these online degree was enough to gain student status for buying the cloud package? How would being both a business and a student affect that? I guess business status would out rule student but I don't know, it's a tricky one.

So many opportunities out there today for anyone who is willing to give it a go and break free from the slavery of third party employment. But it's so difficult for smaller businesses what with tax and businesses who cater for software clearly profiteering and monopolising the industry unfairly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top