Ethics & morals of using pirated software to publish/post process photos

[runrom]

So I'm wondering what everyone's take is regarding the use of pirated software for photography.

For the sake of argument, let's just say someone publishes a photo and they used a pirated copy of Photoshop CS3/Aperture/whatever photo editing software and that post processed photo is used in a magazine or other publication format such as the internet.

In your opinion, does it matter? Would it be any different? Would anyone actually care?

Feel free to correct my opinion/chastise/contest my opinion.

Basically, I think it swings two ways:

1) You process your image, it gets publish and receives some degree of recognition. Nobody cares what was used, whether it be OSX, XP, Vista, or Linux and the associated applications. It's all about the photography.

or

2) One can argue that there is some degree of "dishonesty" in one's photographic work because you justify stealing some tools in order to produce an image.

Btw, if this needs to be moved to the PC or Mac forum, go ahead moderators.

 

[fjbyrne]

So I'm wondering what everyone's take is regarding the use of pirated
software for photography.

For the sake of argument, let's just say someone publishes a photo
and they used a pirated copy of Photoshop CS3/Aperture/whatever photo
editing software and that post processed photo is used in a magazine
or other publication format such as the internet.

In your opinion, does it matter? Would it be any different? Would
anyone actually care?

Feel free to correct my opinion/chastise/contest my opinion.

Basically, I think it swings two ways:
1) You process your image, it gets publish and receives some degree
of recognition. Nobody cares what was used, whether it be OSX, XP,
Vista, or Linux and the associated applications. It's all about the
photography.

or

2) One can argue that there is some degree of "dishonesty" in one's
photographic work because you justify stealing some tools in order to
produce an image.

Btw, if this needs to be moved to the PC or Mac forum, go ahead
moderators.

I'm not sure how I feel about an image processed by pirated SW. I guess it is the same as an image from a stolen camera.

But lets call pirated software what it is - stolen. These euphemisms don't change the fact that you stole something. I find it interesting that people who would otherwise not steal something have no problem doing so when it comes to software (and music and movies).

If you think PS is too expensive get Elements for GIMP. Something being expensive or overpriced doesn't make it right to steal it.

Just my take.
--
fjbyrne

 

[GodSpeaks]

If you are publishing your work and making money from it, then you should at least buy the tools of your trade.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[simpy]

If you think PS is too expensive get Elements for GIMP. Something
being expensive or overpriced doesn't make it right to steal it.

Of course the difference with 'normal' stealing is that the software publisher doesn't lose anything if you would not buy the software in the first place. In fact, they gain market/mind share that way. Take, for example, all the high school kids using Photoshop. There's no way they'd buy the full version.

However, by using a pirated copy of Photoshop, these people are not spending money on a cheaper and less capable product. So, in fact, the true victims of software piracy are not the publishers of high end software, but the smaller software companies whose software ends up not being used and bought!

Interestingly, it seems that Adobe should encourage piracy, at least for those without a lot of cash to burn

Simon

 

[Ken Phillips]

--



http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htm
http://www.phillipsphotographer.com
Voted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati Magazine
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!

'The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.', H. L. Mencken

 

[thr33face]

But lets call pirated software what it is - stolen. These euphemisms
don't change the fact that you stole something. I find it
interesting that people who would otherwise not steal something have
no problem doing so when it comes to software (and music and movies).

One cannot simply substitute the word stolen for pirated.

If someone pirates software, the company still has that piece of software and can continue selling it to customers.

If someone steals software the company no longer has it and cannot sell copies to other users.

Anyway back on topic:

Seeing a great image that was post processed with pirated software still is a great image. Just because the photographer made it with an unauthorized copy of software doesn't change the fact that s/he got the talent and creativity needed to create stunning things.

Using pirated software for pp or any other thing (especially in a commercial area) is certainly not fair/ok but i guess 99% of the audience is just interested in the finished product and doesn't care.

--
temporary Photoblog:
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0605112/php/index.php

 

[ZorSy]

If you are publishing your work and making money from it, then you
should at least buy the tools of your trade.

I agree. The bottom line is as the tool of trade, it is tax deductible so no real excuses but penny-pinching (and here we go about undercutting other legit proffesionals who paid for the tool etc etc).

 

[linuxworks]

you forgot a 3rd option.

continue to use the 'better' pirated version (those are always better since they restore user rights back to the user) but pay for a license to the real product. but just never install the real one.

this happens a LOT more than people in their ivory towers would want to admit.

in some cases, you have only this option. case: hackintosh. you may not want mac hardware but are willing to pay for their sw. you install a hackintosh install kit but also buy the software (even though you can't install THAT version, exactly).

the software payment model is all broken, all over the place. it does not surprise me that people find creative ways to solve problems..

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

 

[RoxLo]

What's not clear about this?
--
RG
Chesapeake, VA.

 

[linuxworks]

What's not clear about this?

everything.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

 

[aardvark7]

One could always produce a hypothetical, although in this case it would have to be pretty stretched, that would forgive the use.

Generally, it would be wrong in almost every occasion if money is made and many occasions where none is involved.

As to the general idea of piracy, it could be argued to be of benefit to the company (a form of advertising, if you will) if an individual, who would certainly never have the means to buy the product, spreads the word of the excellent quality after using the illegal version.

That said, it can be a strange modern concept of 'not having the means'. Often quoted by those carrying a few thousand pounds worth of camera gear...

 

[linuxworks]

how much is the cost to register and attend one evening 'community college' course? that qualifies you as a student and gives you the 'right' (assigned by a corporation - get a load of that - they assign YOU 'rights') to buy the same exact software but at a fraction of the 'normal' price.

who is the thief, again? its not always so obvious. not everyone wears a black hat or a white hat and its not a roy rogers cowboy movie.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works ) ~

 

[Doug J]

It's not very complicated, piracy is stealing/theft plain and simple. The common justification is that people would not buy the SW anyway, this is a lot of nonsense. Some may not buy a license, but many would or they would use a lower cost product.

The cost that SW companies incur fighting piracy goes into the price honest people pay for the SW. So the thieves are stealing from the honest people.

--
Best regards,
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

 

[ojohn]

I can honestly say there is no pirated software on my machines. And portions of a book I wrote were lifted and published by someone else, uncredited, years ago, but it just wasn't worth my time and money to try to recover the meager amount I might have recovered, and I am still p.o.ed.

It is unethical to use pirated software for professional work, even if it is merely -intended- for professional work but doesn't quite make it. (Or for any work.)

And there's plenty of decent free software around to get whatever you need done.

That said, I understand the real world, I think.

But in the case that some pirated software has been used and the user was paid (for photographic use or anything else), the user should instantly purchase the software he used.

 

[Bill Randall]

A few years ago my response to this post would have been: It is wrong to use pirated software. All my software is paid for but -

Within the computer industry ethics and morality are not a standard. Consider the spyware, virus, cookies and other files put on your computer that either slow it down, or cause it to crash. It is ok for the computer/software people to do what they can get away with, but we the consumer should not?

I find it is difficult for me to believe that a system cannot be developed that would allow tracking of these harmful files (not all are harmful) and prosecution of those who initiat them. But no, we the users have to spend time and money on new software to keep our systems safe.

Take for example the file doubleclick[1].txt. While you can block it through the use of software, you accomplish nothing. You will end up with doubleclick[2]. Block that and you get doubleclick[3] and so on, and so on. The bottom line is that you are going to have doubleclick[x] on your machine - want it or not.

If it is acceptable for these companies to place unnecessary files on my computer, then it is acceptable for me to use pirated software. If the computer/software companies want ethics & morality then they must demonstrate it themselves.

Our society is based upon everyone playing by the same rules. Each day it becomes more evident that we are not all playing by the same rules.

Alright. This is a tongue in cheek post, but I think the point is valid.

--

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[tbower]

--
Tom, Ohio USA
(Equipment in profile)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/
http://TommyB.smugmug.com

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

 

[Kaikopere]

However, by using a pirated copy of Photoshop, these people are not
spending money on a cheaper and less capable product.

It hasn't been my experience that a lot of people steal software because they can't afford it. Usually when people say it was too expensive, they really mean "it's not worth what they're charging for it to me". I think it would be the same for the less capable product, even though it's cheaper, it's still not worth it for the thief because it has fewer features. I believe if the value of the product is in line with what is charged for it, most of the people stealing it weren't going to pay for it anyhow. I don't have any hard facts, so take this all as my perception, but I have quite a few acquaintances in the warez world, so I know a little bit about it.

Most people steal software because they want it and they have no qualms about stealing if they're fairly certain that either they won't get caught, or if they do get caught there aren't any serious consequences. There was one acquaintance that stole a really nice utility he used all the time (and raved about how great it was) and it was only $15 - so I just bought him a !#@% license (and one for myself). He could well afford it, he just wasn't going to pay for it if he didn't have to. I know a couple of people who just grab whatever shows up on the 0day sites just to look at it and don't use any of it. I have a suspicion that half of the piracy rates companies are claiming are due to downloads by people that never actually use the software. There are probably a few people that need software they can't afford so they pirate it, but I don't think there are a lot of them.

(People who use cracked versions even though they bought a license don't count here, because they aren't stealing anything)

 

[LightInspire]

Who cares how the image was created...I really have no issue with anyone using pirated software. Take for instance someone who is a photographer starting out and needing the tools to do his/her job but cannot afford the more than $500.00 for a single program..the computer industry really has no one to blame but themselves..they charge so much that makes pirated software more desirable...

 

[tutt]

publisher doesn't lose anything if you would not buy the software in
the first place. In fact, they gain market/mind share that way. Take,
for example, all the high school kids using Photoshop. There's no way
they'd buy the full version.

Adobe has had widespread recognition. High school kids are not going to advertise quality of PS to their peers, they'll advertise method of stealing. They'll try to convince you, that it's lunacy to depart with money that can be better spent on beer, when you can get free cracked software. And why pay affordable $80 for Elements, if you can get newest CS3 for nothing?

However, by using a pirated copy of Photoshop, these people are not
spending money on a cheaper and less capable product. So, in fact,
the true victims of software piracy are not the publishers of high
end software, but the smaller software companies whose software ends
up not being used and bought!

Cheaper and less capable product could be Elements, so Adobe is final loser anyway.

 

[Gary602z]

Kind of like a thief stealing from a thief? How dare they?

Gary
--
Photos at http://www.pbase.com/gary_602z
Very funny Scotty now beam me down my clothes!