Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:43:46 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
<p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <p19qv4$1f8c$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <p19qv4$1f8c$>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3670283443
X-Received-Bytes: 3573
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/18/2017 8:43 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Eric Stevens"<> wrote
> | >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.
>     He's a utopian socialist. :) Probably doesn't have
> to work for a living. The sad part is that the
> socialists usually turn out to be the most selfish
> capitalists once they get used to having a job.
>     He does have a point, though. Not everyone
> agreed in the early days that software should
> be copyrightable. I found it very inspiring, back
> in the 90s, that so many people were setting
> up websites and just offering whatever they
> could to "chip in". Lots of free information and
> software. I did the same thing. Set up a website
> and gave away things that others might find
> useful. I still do. And most of the software I use
> is free, written by someone who does it for the
> love of it. Also, I get free information almost daily,
> often provided by some anonymous person who
> was just trying to be helpful.
>    nospam called me a "mooch" for using wikimedia,
> but that's what it's there for. Thousands of generous
> people have made it possible. The same is true of
> wikipedia. And Craigslist. They're all great examples
> of sharing and improving peoples' lives with the Internet.
> One could just as well say it's mooching to get free
> info online. Yet we all do that.
>     Which is not to say I think PS should be free. The
> GIMP and Linux are good examples of the limits of free.
> Free products are not so likely to be polished and
> user-friendly, because the authors don't need to
> satisfy customers.

I see a large difference between using another's work product, with 
their consent, and without their consent. If I have a software, or 
hardware issue and ask, if I receive an answer, in a user forum, such as 
this, or the Adobe community,the person responding does not expect to be 
paid, I feel an obligation to help someone, if I have sufficient 
knowledge to give what I think is a helpful answer.