Slashdot Mirror

"No, you're arguing in left field, and I'm playing hockey."

I'm glad you agree that you're just mouthing off rather than actually addressing the topic.

"If you think that college kids don't spend money on iPods, weed, graphics cards, and other luxury items before they even consider paying hundreds of dollars for software they can easily get for free, you may be beyond the reach of reason. That was the "reality" part of my post. I then constructed a "hypothetical" future based on what would happen if paying for such product was the only way to get it."

No, I never said any of the sort. I'm well aware that college kids will spend every last dime on beer/weed/ipods/itunes/whatever instead of on things they actually *need*. The reality is that they're still not entitled to pirating software because 'they need it', specially since it's *not* the only way to get it.

"People don't give two shits about what tools an artist uses, they just care about the result."

If we're still talking about graphic design in a paid position, actually yah they do care about the tools. What good is having a masterpiece done for a commission if it's in an incompatible format for the print shop? What good is it if the file can't be opened by anyone else in the office for editing, proofing, etc?

"Van Gogh could have shoved the handle of his palette knife up his ass, and it would just make him a little bit weirder. And though our imaginary artist may not be remembered for hundreds of years, his talent as a graphic designer is far more important than his intimate technical knowledge of one computer program."

Somehow, you seem to think that equating a graphic artist to Van Gogh or any of a number of influential artists will lend credibility to your argument.
The reality is that after the commissioned work is complete, and the ad on its way, no one pays that much attention to the graphic artist dude. Are they talented? Of course. Are they 'masters'? Uh... I wouldn't go *that* far for the vast majority of them.

"For your edification, ask a marketing agency if they'd rather have a talented artist who knows how to use the Gimp, or a Photoshop expert with the creative mind of a turnip."

I don't have to. I worked for companies like Poppe Tyson (now part of Modem Media) where there were plenty of 'talented artists' and 'Photoshop experts'. The two don't always have to be one and the same; as long as the 'Photoshop expert' can design what the 'talented artist' visualizes, they're good to go.
I can tell you that anyone who lists Gimp experience on their resume is not considered for any design positions.

"Adobe will never fully prosecute a college kid for pirating their product, because the damage that occurs is far outweighed by having that person hooked on their tools."

Not entirely, it's because it's not cost-effective. It makes no sense for a company like Adobe to spend thousands of dollars to go after Joe Sixpack at Ignoramus U. They will, however, go after bigger operations, like say, this one or this one.

"If they do start sending out the lawyers, it means that there is a better product available for a better price, or Adobe has hired an idiot to run their company."

I don't think they fear a 'better product', specially from the Open Source field. Sorry, that's just the truth.

"In reality, the college kid downloads a multi-thousand dollar package for free, and Adobe looks the other way because it's to their benefit."

That still doesn't change the *fact* that the kid is breaking the law. Him/her not being able to afford it and needing it is not an excuse to steal it, just like not being able to buy a car isn't an excuse to steal one.
If you can't afford it, you shouldn't use it. That's about as clear as it gets.

DON'T be fooled by cheap imatations, NO!

Russell Brown Comes Clean, Reveals All:

"Mr. Brown said in a phone call that he wanted to make a definitive statement regarding the "official story" behind Photoshop, its development by John and Thomas Knoll and exactly how it was acquired by Adobe Systems, Inc."

http://www.photoshopnews.com/2005/05/06/russell-br own-comes-clean

For the impatient:

http://video.photoshopnews.com/Official_Photoshop_ History.mov

Photoshop Splash Screens:

http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/photoshop -splash-screens/

Who loves you baby?

DON'T be fooled by cheap imatations, NO!

Russell Brown Comes Clean, Reveals All:

"Mr. Brown said in a phone call that he wanted to make a definitive statement regarding the "official story" behind Photoshop, its development by John and Thomas Knoll and exactly how it was acquired by Adobe Systems, Inc."

http://www.photoshopnews.com/2005/05/06/russell-br own-comes-clean

For the impatient:

http://video.photoshopnews.com/Official_Photoshop_ History.mov

Photoshop Splash Screens:

http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/photoshop -splash-screens/

Who loves you baby?

DON'T be fooled by cheap imatations, NO!

Russell Brown Comes Clean, Reveals All:

"Mr. Brown said in a phone call that he wanted to make a definitive statement regarding the "official story" behind Photoshop, its development by John and Thomas Knoll and exactly how it was acquired by Adobe Systems, Inc."

http://www.photoshopnews.com/2005/05/06/russell-br own-comes-clean

For the impatient:

http://video.photoshopnews.com/Official_Photoshop_ History.mov

Photoshop Splash Screens:

http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/photoshop -splash-screens/

Who loves you baby?

This shows a process similar to what the OP was talking about:

http://photoshopnews.com/2006/08/04/was-it-done-wi th-a-lens-or-a-brush/

Bzzzzzt. According to this:

http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowland lightroom-development-story/

Lightroom has been in development at Adobe for a long time.

Enjoy my fun little christmas hoax - help me do it for real in 2005! ;-)