Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:34:42 -0800 (PST), sobriquet<email@example.com> wrote:
>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:18:23 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
>> "sobriquet"<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
>> 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people don't ascribe great significance to outdated notions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.
You are a contemptible leech upon society.