From: sobriquet <>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id d69mr963655qkj.0.1513636483131;
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:34:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id u70mr117927vke.10.1513636482975; Mon,
18 Dec 2017 14:34:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:34:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p19er6$101g$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=;
References: <>
<p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <p19er6$101g$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
From: sobriquet <>
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:34:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 50
Print Article
Forward Article
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:18:23 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
> "sobriquet"<> wrote
> | I've been using pirated copies of photoshop for a long time
>   I wouldn't go around talking about it if I were you.

Well, we've had long discussions about the morality of copyright
vs the morality of sharing information, so you know how I feel
about the issue (i.e. all numbers belong to the public domain).

> Though I wonder how much Adobe care. Like MS Office,
> they make their money by pricegouging commercial
> customers for an industry-standard product. For those
> customers, the high cost of using Adobe pays for itself.
> Most others are unlikely to use it. (Aside from a few
> suckers like nospam who think the only way to edit
> photos properly is to buy the very latest version of
> PS.)
>   Another way of putting that: If you made money from
> using PS then using it illegally wouldn't be worth the risk.
> If you don't make money from it then you're not likely
> to ever be an Adobe customer. I wouldn't be surprised
> if a lot of college students use it illegally. And I wouldn't
> be surprised if Adobe likes that. As Bill Gates once said
> about China: "If they're going to steal software we'd
> rather they steal our software. We'll get them to pay for
> it later."

In the near future all work can be done by robots anyway and
at that point when there is such an abundance of material wealth
it no longer makes sense to use money (since monetary value
indicates relative scarcity).

Some people might enjoy inequality and think it's a good thing
that there is a limited group of people enjoying a
disproportionate share of the wealth and resources, while there
is a much larger group of people living on a marginal or no
income, but I think online filesharing is a kind of omen for
the future economy where there is no longer any scarcity and
people don't ascribe great significance to outdated notions
of ownership and property.

If you have a lot of money, you can buy all software you like,
and if you barely have enough money to afford a computer and
an internet connection, you can download all software (cracked
or public domain) for free.
So filesharing kind of levels the playing field and affords
everybody an equal opportunity to enjoy an abundance of
software/content, regardless of their socio-economic status.