Shot gif animation

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:48 pm

To use software that you have not paid for is theft and, therefore, illegal.

Theft is defined as (Theft act) "If a person dishonestly appropriates property from another with the intention of permenantly depriving them of it they have commited an act of theft". As there is no dishonesty there can not be any theft. However, saying someone has commited an act of theft in writing is a libel.
A Meteorite and CannonBallGuy

That is because in order to install it, he must agree to the EULA, which is a contract with him and Adobe in regard to how he can use the Photoshop software.

No, an end user is an end user the moment he installs the software.

Winny · Post by **Winny** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:50 pm

Which he did install the software, in order to review it.

By even using Abode's software, you are agreeing to the EULA.

Oh, and also, since Adobe is not getting profit from you paying to use their software, they are being deprived. Therefore, theft if being committed.

CannonBallGuy · Post by **CannonBallGuy** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:52 pm

I quoted wikipedia because it said exactly what I wanted to in a clear and concise manner.
I'm a British adult in case you were wondering...

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:55 pm

PETER wrote:
That is because in order to install it, he must agree to the EULA, which is a contract with him and Adobe in regard to how he can use the Photoshop software.
No, an end user is an end user the moment he installs the software.

Funny, that's exactly what I said.

A Meteorite wrote:Your dad is an end-user the moment he installs the software on his computer and uses the Photoshop software.

And yet you said your dad is not an end-user... heh... sounds like a contradiction...

PETER wrote:My dad isn't an end user.

You are intentionally depriving Adobe of licensing costs when you don't pay for their software, use it, and know that it costs a lot. That is indeed theft and the courts agree.

Macrosoft · Post by **Macrosoft** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:57 pm

ok, this will never end this way, no one is going to give in, just try to get back to the real subject of the post, please.

thanks

Winny · Post by **Winny** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:00 pm

Yes, you are indeed correct.

PETER will never admit that he is wrong, but he has successfully ran himself into a corner on this one.

Let him do what he wishes, and encounter his legal troubles, caused by his inability to accept the truth.

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:00 pm

Macrosoft wrote:ok, this will never end this way, no one is going to give in, just try to get back to the real subject of the post, please.

No one has to "give in", it is cut and dry. The manner in which PETER told us how he uses Photoshop breaks the Photoshop EULA, which is breaking a contract. A very great way to get sued by Adobe after you post that on a public forum.

Macrosoft · Post by **Macrosoft** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:03 pm

then its settled, i guess this means you wont be talking about it anymore,
or talking about how right or wrong yourself or anyone else is.
now you can get back to talking about animated gif's and stuff.

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:06 pm

Macrosoft wrote:then its settled, i guess this means you wont be talking about it anymore,
or talking about how right or wrong yourself or anyone else is.
now you can get back to talking about animated gif's and stuff.

Um, and you are in what authority to decide this? This is related to GIFs, the topic creator (PETER) described what sounds like illegally related activity for the use of making GIFs.

Oh, and yes, I think his GIFs are "OK". There are certain inconsistencies with both, and in animation, that does not look very good.

Macrosoft · Post by **Macrosoft** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:09 pm

A Meteorite wrote: Um, and you are in what authority to decide this?

it was only a request, wasnt ordering anyone to do anything, sorry

my fault for trying to help out

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:52 pm

Win Xp and A Meteorite
Adobe is benifiting from their software being used and reviewed, otherwise their press-office wouldn't be allowed to send it out. Therefor, theft is not being committed.
A Meteorite
When I said "No, an end user is an end user the moment he installs the software." I was not speaking about my dad, I was speaking in general.
Win Xp
Quote from "dodge this" forum topic, me saying it....

Thanks Hannibal. It looks much better than my idea....

I will admit when I am wrong when nessissary, but I can safely assure you that on this one I am right, maby you don't understand the laws, maby you don't understand the circumstances. Maby I am wrong, but I have started not to care, so please, please, can we get back onto the real topic, sorry if I am being a bit of a hippocrite by say this.

Macrosoft · Post by **Macrosoft** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:55 pm

thank you, thats what ive been trying to do

Winny · Post by **Winny** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:57 pm

Perhaps you don't get it.

I send out some software, to be reviewed, it is meant to be used for the purpose of REVIEWING only! I do not send out software to be reviewed, then used by others after that period.

Sure, I may allow the original reviewer to continue using the software, but certainly not others. That would be bad for business, no?

Also, what makes you think copyright law applies different to you then to the other 5+ billion people on this planet?

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:58 pm

PETER wrote:Win Xp and A Meteorite
Adobe is benifiting from their software being used and reviewed, otherwise their press-office wouldn't be allowed to send it out. Therefor, theft is not being committed.

Sure, it is. If you use it it is against the EULA which your dad must agree to even if he gets it for free. Cost and contracts are not related. In the EULA your dad must agree (or he can not use it) that he will be the sole person to use the software. If you use the software, then Adobe is not getting their licensing for you. Adobe meant it for one person, not for multiple people. Each person needs to have their own license.

It's as simple as that.

Macrosoft · Post by **Macrosoft** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:59 pm

ALRIGHT, ITS OVER, SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Meteorite · Post by **A Meteorite** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:01 pm

Macrosoft wrote:ALRIGHT, ITS OVER, SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. I believe that's a violation of forum rules...

Winny · Post by **Winny** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:07 pm

Im sorry, we are out of exclamation marks, please come back tomorrow. The interwebz can only take so much.

(In all seriousness, can we all please stop this, NOW.)

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:14 pm

A Meteorite
The inconsistencies I find come and go between OS's and browsers. But I admit that they still arn't perfect unlike this smilies bright shiny teeth

CannonBallGuy · Post by **CannonBallGuy** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:15 pm

Sorry but I really have to straighten some things out here...

PETER wrote:
To use software that you have not paid for is theft and, therefore, illegal.
Theft is defined as (Theft act) "If a person dishonestly appropriates property from another with the intention of permenantly depriving them of it they have commited an act of theft". As there is no dishonesty there can not be any theft. However, saying someone has commited an act of theft in writing is a libel.

First of all, I didn't accuse anyone directly of theft. I made a statement of fact so your "libel" comment is innacurate.
Secondly, theft is also defined as "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully" and " the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent". Taking and using software without permission (for which you would usually have to pay unless you are granted special permission as (for example) a reviewer. While this is the case for your father it does not seem to be for you) is therefore stealing.

PETER wrote:A Meteorite and CannonBallGuy
That is because in order to install it, he must agree to the EULA, which is a contract with him and Adobe in regard to how he can use the Photoshop software.
No, an end user is an end user the moment he installs the software.

You told us you were going to "try out" the software. How do you intend to do this without first installing it?

PETER wrote:Win Xp and A Meteorite
Adobe is benifiting from their software being used and reviewed, otherwise their press-office wouldn't be allowed to send it out. Therefor, theft is not being committed.

Are you reviewing the software?
Are you benefiting Adobe?
Yet you are using the software, correct?

PETER wrote:A Meteorite
When I said "No, an end user is an end user the moment he installs the software." I was not speaking about my dad, I was speaking in general.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Your father is an end user if he installs the software - Fact.

Post by **L4m3r** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:20 pm

Enough. This thread is finished.

While there is a slim chance that PETER could be using his father's copy of PS in a legitimate manner (i.e. his dad uninstalled it from his machine... in favor of CS3 for example), I doubt it.

But, it's no one else's problem. Too much bickering. Play nice, children.

Post by **learner** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:37 am

Does it _really_ matter whether it's illegal or not in this context? It does not. I'd go way out on a limb to venture that Adobe doesn't even care about a single license of their software being used for some petty non-commercial use by the kid of some guy that received the software for trial/review purposes. Even if Adobe did care, it sounds like peter and more importantly his dad aren't too worried, and they're the ones doing the deed in a manner that doesn't affect anyone but themselves so more power to them. Thier risk, their problem. It's an entirely moot point that really shouldn't have surfaced in this thread. The legality of and use of software in that context is entirely off-topic so, seriously, just let it go.