rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Pinging Stephen Bishop: Photography questions for you, ON-topic for a change
- 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7f04a0b3ecd2b9b4?hl=en
* Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700 - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
* Now he went and did it.... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/65ca924332e76a06?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
* So called Freeware, MPEG-2 licensing and you - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/514dbdd886b02f31?hl=en
* Can you see this Flash site? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/445c408900fc3a17?hl=en
* Adobe gone crazy? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
* Finally, an interesting Antarctica shot - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68565f1dbf4004b8?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75383ce6b288a1df?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3589f9dbd5f68fe9?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pinging Stephen Bishop: Photography questions for you, ON-topic for a
change
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7f04a0b3ecd2b9b4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:56 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>Say, in all of the political crap we've engaged in I've lost
>>track of what you said your current digital camera was. Maybe
>>you never did and we just started talking in the Palestinian
>>attack thread, can't really remember.
>
> Yes, it is very refreshing to actually talk about photography
> instead of constantly trying to swat down the insults of the
> loons at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
>
I haven't bugged you about it because you said it amuses you to
debate with these twits. Personally, I find it best not to try to
reason with fools but each of us must do what they think best.
About the only time I tend to get involved in these codswallop
debates with obvious mordant misanthropes is to correct major
falsehoods masquerading as truth. I think this is why you've been
swatting down all the obvious bilge aimed at both the Israelis and
you personally.
>
>>I've got a Canon Rebel XSi which I really love. I previously
>>used a Rebel XT but decided to upgrade to the XSi even though it
>>was only an incremental change because it has a much larger LCD
>>on the back, finally adopted a noise reduction feature, and I
>>could learn to quickly use it because the ergonomics are almost
>>identical.
>
> I use Nikon gear, having switched over from Canon when the D200
> was introduced. I recently got a D300, but haven't had much
> opportunity to use it. Prior to digital I used Canon 35mm
> cameras along with a Pentax 6x7. I still have all of that, but
> don't shoot film any more.
I went through a couple of not-so-great EVF cameras before making
the jump to a DSLR a few years ago. At the time, I had the Nikon
D70s and Canon Rebel XT on my short-list. Both seemed to get about
the same quality reviews and people were evenly divided as to which
was the better camera. What swayed me was someone on this NG who
said that at the end of the day, prospective buyers should just go
to a store and handle each camera they're considering. That did it
for me. I particularly liked the smaller physical size and lighter
weight of the Rebel as it helps me through some strength problems
resulting from health issues.
In my film days, I used a Nikon Photomic FTN with a number of
outstanding Nikkor lenses, so I was naturally biased in favor of
them and I'm sure that had I chosen the D70s, I'd likely have been
equally satisfied except maybe for hauling around it's greater
heft.
> However, I am in the process of scanning my archive of film,
> mostly b&w negatives. It's interesting going into that time
> machine!
>
Yeah, BIG problem in this area for me, also! I've got at least
5,000 35mm slides in Kodak Carousel trays sitting in my basement
literally gathering dust. Most are Kodachome, some are pushed
Ektachrome. I took thousands of pictures of scenery, castles, and
the like while I was in Europe in the Army circa 1971, including a
leave to London and Paris. A few years back, I came close to buying
a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to start to work on digitizing what I believe
will be about 1,000 "good" slides out of the big bunch downstairs.
I still haven't gotten around to that because of continuing health
problems. Nothing that will kill me, just makes me miserable much
of the time.
I'm VERY interested in how you plan to approach the problem of
scanning your neg and slide collection, as to what scanner you now
have or plant to buy. Thanks in advance, Stephen.
>
>>My primary photographic interest is cars. I particularly enjoy
>>the major Mopar outdoor shows in my area, as well as the annual
>>Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise. And, we've got two great museums
>>near me for cars, the Walter P. Chrysler Museum and the Henry
>>Ford Museum.
>
> I mostly do landscape / nature / outdoor kind of stuff. I also
> like to do airshows and other aviation-related pictures.
>
I did airshows, airports, and the like in my film days, lots of
architecture, etc. both here and in Europe. Also been to the
Smithsonian a couple of times, GREAT place for pictures!
>>
> I'm looking forward to retirement myself, but that won't be for
> another decade unless the economy forces me otherwise.
Back in 2001, Chrysler was undergoing one of it's bigger
restructurings. At that time, I was a senior manager and through
the process, got bounced from job to job getting "downsized" myself
from a high of over 80 people in my department to only 7. So, it
didn't surprise me that I was demoted a grade. Nothing I did or
failed to do, this happened to a LOT of people back then and I
imagine even more these days. So, I asked for a special Special
Retirement package as I was just a year too young at the time for
the packages granted to people during our restructuring. I was
granted a special package and left in early 2002. Maybe if my
health had been better and I hadn't gotten sidelined in my career I
might have stayed on, but I don't for a minute regret the decision
to retire.
I truly hope that our economy will improve so that you can make
your own decision a little easier.
> I've been to the Chrysler corporate headquarters, the palace as
> I call it... and several other Chrysler plants in the course of
> my work. (I'm in the steel industry.) I was at KPT in Kokomo
> in December... that place is almost a ghost town now.
Really?! I was on the 15th Floor a couple of times to visit,
they're pretty strict about security up there after 9/11. I started
as an entry leven engineer in the old Highland Park HQ in April,
1969 the day after graduating engineering school from Oakland
University. I moved to Auburn Hills in early 1992 in the 2nd big
wave moving into the new Technology Center, which opened several
years before the HQ Tower was built.
In my pure engineering days, I did several new car pilot launch
assignments and two plant new car launches. Great way to make money
on overtime, but pretty rugged work. I imagine that if you've been
in the steel biz for a long time, you've also seen your share of
tough plants.
>
>>I've lived in SE Michigan all my life, currently in a NNW suburb
>>of Detroit. If you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to at
>>least know what region of our great country you hail from so I
>>can have a greater appreciation of your background and how you
>>may have developed your views.
>
> Ohio here, so we're almost neighbors.
>
I have a Cyber friend in Cincinnati and another in Dayton. And, I
learned of an Iwo Jima vet alive and well in Dayton. We're good
friends now although we'll likely never meet. If you're interested
in any of my pictures scanned from my father's WWII album, let me
know. I can post them to alt.binaries.pictures.military. Of course,
if you want to post pictures of your military days, I'd be very
interested to see them.
>
>>Just one bit of politics in what I intended to be a fully
>>ON-topic post for a change: I describe myself as right of center
>>but I DO take ideas and platform planks from the left of center
>>as well. As I've said, all meaningful valuable social
>>legislation has pretty much occurred during Democratic eras
>>while building up the military, altering tax policy for the
>>better, and adhering to traditional family values usually occurs
>>only during Republican times. If I had my druthers, I'd like to
>>be able to select items from each party's platforms, I think
>>we'd be a better country if we could more directly influence our
>>elected officials true agendas.
> There is nothing wrong with a healthy mix of political opinions.
> We might disagree a bit on stem cells, especially since some of
> the more promising research is coming from adult stem cells,
> making it less necessary to deal with the ethical dilemma of
> destroying one human life in order to make life better for
> another one.
It wasn't my intent to push any of your hot buttons with stem cell
research, I just picked a couple of obvious examples where I tend
to look to both the Left and the Right in choosing issues I
support. At one time, I was a strong pro-choice person but have
slowly drifted to a strong pro-life advocate as I've aged.
Natually, I do NOT advocate or even condone human cloning from stem
cells OR the use of DNA for sinister purposes like discriminating
in jobs or insurance. I want to see SOMETHING happen with ANY
promising stem cell research to take on such obvious life-
threatening diseases such as cancer and heart failure plus the
ravages of living longer such as Alzheimer's.
If we get off on more OT stuff, we may incur the ire of those in
this NG so if you ever get interested in perhaps going off-line and
E-mailing to discuss the issues that ring our bells, I'd be happy
to give you my addy in munged form.
Again, any more insights on your scanning of negs and slides would
be appreciated as some day, I'll get off my ass and buy a decent
scanner.
Have a great day!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:16 am
From: tray aldler
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:56:45 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>Say, in all of the political crap we've engaged in I've lost
>>>track of what you said your current digital camera was. Maybe
>>>you never did and we just started talking in the Palestinian
>>>attack thread, can't really remember.
>>
>> Yes, it is very refreshing to actually talk about photography
>> instead of constantly trying to swat down the insults of the
>> loons at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
>>
>I haven't bugged you about it because you said it amuses you to
>debate with these twits. Personally, I find it best not to try to
>reason with fools but each of us must do what they think best.
>About the only time I tend to get involved in these codswallop
>debates with obvious mordant misanthropes is to correct major
>falsehoods masquerading as truth. I think this is why you've been
>swatting down all the obvious bilge aimed at both the Israelis and
>you personally.
>>
>>>I've got a Canon Rebel XSi which I really love. I previously
>>>used a Rebel XT but decided to upgrade to the XSi even though it
>>>was only an incremental change because it has a much larger LCD
>>>on the back, finally adopted a noise reduction feature, and I
>>>could learn to quickly use it because the ergonomics are almost
>>>identical.
>>
>> I use Nikon gear, having switched over from Canon when the D200
>> was introduced. I recently got a D300, but haven't had much
>> opportunity to use it. Prior to digital I used Canon 35mm
>> cameras along with a Pentax 6x7. I still have all of that, but
>> don't shoot film any more.
>
>I went through a couple of not-so-great EVF cameras before making
>the jump to a DSLR a few years ago. At the time, I had the Nikon
>D70s and Canon Rebel XT on my short-list. Both seemed to get about
>the same quality reviews and people were evenly divided as to which
>was the better camera. What swayed me was someone on this NG who
>said that at the end of the day, prospective buyers should just go
>to a store and handle each camera they're considering. That did it
>for me. I particularly liked the smaller physical size and lighter
>weight of the Rebel as it helps me through some strength problems
>resulting from health issues.
>
>In my film days, I used a Nikon Photomic FTN with a number of
>outstanding Nikkor lenses, so I was naturally biased in favor of
>them and I'm sure that had I chosen the D70s, I'd likely have been
>equally satisfied except maybe for hauling around it's greater
>heft.
>
>> However, I am in the process of scanning my archive of film,
>> mostly b&w negatives. It's interesting going into that time
>> machine!
>>
>Yeah, BIG problem in this area for me, also! I've got at least
>5,000 35mm slides in Kodak Carousel trays sitting in my basement
>literally gathering dust. Most are Kodachome, some are pushed
>Ektachrome. I took thousands of pictures of scenery, castles, and
>the like while I was in Europe in the Army circa 1971, including a
>leave to London and Paris. A few years back, I came close to buying
>a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to start to work on digitizing what I believe
>will be about 1,000 "good" slides out of the big bunch downstairs.
>I still haven't gotten around to that because of continuing health
>problems. Nothing that will kill me, just makes me miserable much
>of the time.
>
>I'm VERY interested in how you plan to approach the problem of
>scanning your neg and slide collection, as to what scanner you now
>have or plant to buy. Thanks in advance, Stephen.
>>
>>>My primary photographic interest is cars. I particularly enjoy
>>>the major Mopar outdoor shows in my area, as well as the annual
>>>Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise. And, we've got two great museums
>>>near me for cars, the Walter P. Chrysler Museum and the Henry
>>>Ford Museum.
>>
>> I mostly do landscape / nature / outdoor kind of stuff. I also
>> like to do airshows and other aviation-related pictures.
>>
>I did airshows, airports, and the like in my film days, lots of
>architecture, etc. both here and in Europe. Also been to the
>Smithsonian a couple of times, GREAT place for pictures!
>>>
>> I'm looking forward to retirement myself, but that won't be for
>> another decade unless the economy forces me otherwise.
>
>Back in 2001, Chrysler was undergoing one of it's bigger
>restructurings. At that time, I was a senior manager and through
>the process, got bounced from job to job getting "downsized" myself
>from a high of over 80 people in my department to only 7. So, it
>didn't surprise me that I was demoted a grade. Nothing I did or
>failed to do, this happened to a LOT of people back then and I
>imagine even more these days. So, I asked for a special Special
>Retirement package as I was just a year too young at the time for
>the packages granted to people during our restructuring. I was
>granted a special package and left in early 2002. Maybe if my
>health had been better and I hadn't gotten sidelined in my career I
>might have stayed on, but I don't for a minute regret the decision
>to retire.
>
>I truly hope that our economy will improve so that you can make
>your own decision a little easier.
>
>> I've been to the Chrysler corporate headquarters, the palace as
>> I call it... and several other Chrysler plants in the course of
>> my work. (I'm in the steel industry.) I was at KPT in Kokomo
>> in December... that place is almost a ghost town now.
>
>Really?! I was on the 15th Floor a couple of times to visit,
>they're pretty strict about security up there after 9/11. I started
>as an entry leven engineer in the old Highland Park HQ in April,
>1969 the day after graduating engineering school from Oakland
>University. I moved to Auburn Hills in early 1992 in the 2nd big
>wave moving into the new Technology Center, which opened several
>years before the HQ Tower was built.
>
>In my pure engineering days, I did several new car pilot launch
>assignments and two plant new car launches. Great way to make money
>on overtime, but pretty rugged work. I imagine that if you've been
>in the steel biz for a long time, you've also seen your share of
>tough plants.
>>
>>>I've lived in SE Michigan all my life, currently in a NNW suburb
>>>of Detroit. If you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to at
>>>least know what region of our great country you hail from so I
>>>can have a greater appreciation of your background and how you
>>>may have developed your views.
>>
>> Ohio here, so we're almost neighbors.
>>
>I have a Cyber friend in Cincinnati and another in Dayton. And, I
>learned of an Iwo Jima vet alive and well in Dayton. We're good
>friends now although we'll likely never meet. If you're interested
>in any of my pictures scanned from my father's WWII album, let me
>know. I can post them to alt.binaries.pictures.military. Of course,
>if you want to post pictures of your military days, I'd be very
>interested to see them.
>>
>>>Just one bit of politics in what I intended to be a fully
>>>ON-topic post for a change: I describe myself as right of center
>>>but I DO take ideas and platform planks from the left of center
>>>as well. As I've said, all meaningful valuable social
>>>legislation has pretty much occurred during Democratic eras
>>>while building up the military, altering tax policy for the
>>>better, and adhering to traditional family values usually occurs
>>>only during Republican times. If I had my druthers, I'd like to
>>>be able to select items from each party's platforms, I think
>>>we'd be a better country if we could more directly influence our
>>>elected officials true agendas.
>
>> There is nothing wrong with a healthy mix of political opinions.
>> We might disagree a bit on stem cells, especially since some of
>> the more promising research is coming from adult stem cells,
>> making it less necessary to deal with the ethical dilemma of
>> destroying one human life in order to make life better for
>> another one.
>
>It wasn't my intent to push any of your hot buttons with stem cell
>research, I just picked a couple of obvious examples where I tend
>to look to both the Left and the Right in choosing issues I
>support. At one time, I was a strong pro-choice person but have
>slowly drifted to a strong pro-life advocate as I've aged.
>Natually, I do NOT advocate or even condone human cloning from stem
>cells OR the use of DNA for sinister purposes like discriminating
>in jobs or insurance. I want to see SOMETHING happen with ANY
>promising stem cell research to take on such obvious life-
>threatening diseases such as cancer and heart failure plus the
>ravages of living longer such as Alzheimer's.
>
>If we get off on more OT stuff, we may incur the ire of those in
>this NG so if you ever get interested in perhaps going off-line and
>E-mailing to discuss the issues that ring our bells, I'd be happy
>to give you my addy in munged form.
>
>Again, any more insights on your scanning of negs and slides would
>be appreciated as some day, I'll get off my ass and buy a decent
>scanner.
>
>Have a great day!
Get a room. Better yet, go visit so you can play kissy-face and butt-fuck
each other in person.
You know you want it Hemi, the biggest over-compensating closet-case on
usenet. One a desperate fag stalker, the other a desperate closet-case.
What a match.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:24 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
tray aldler added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
> Get a room. Better yet, go visit so you can play kissy-face and
> butt-fuck each other in person.
>
> You know you want it Hemi, the biggest over-compensating
> closet-case on usenet. One a desperate fag stalker, the other a
> desperate closet-case. What a match.
>
Well, I see another closes asshole has been flushed out. You have no
idea how LITTLE I regard your opinion here, so with all sincerity,
Please take a big jump into Lake Fuck Off!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:14 am
From: Douglas Johnson
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>Yeah, BIG problem in this area for me, also! I've got at least
>5,000 35mm slides in Kodak Carousel trays sitting in my basement
>literally gathering dust. Most are Kodachome, some are pushed
>Ektachrome. [...]A few years back, I came close to buying
>a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to start to work on digitizing what I believe
>will be about 1,000 "good" slides out of the big bunch downstairs.
About a year and a half ago, I bought a Coolscan 5000 and feeder off of eBay,
scanned in about 6000 slides of my dad's and mine, then sold it on eBay for
about what I paid.
It was about a 6 week project. I am very pleased with the results, but the
feeder is essential. It takes 2-3 minutes per slide, depending on what options
you select in the software. The feeder lets you go about doing other things,
just checking on it every hour or so.
-- Doug
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:57 am
From: halkentworth@removedforspam.net
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>with walking into his house and taking whatever you want.
Total red-herring nonsense. If you walked into your neighbors' house and
made an exact copy of a book sitting on their shelves using your own
materials, their book is not missing, they have lost nothing, the world is
richer for it. One more person is now capable of knowing what the neighbor
has learned. Two more people make copies, now two more are richer, the
world is richer, society is richer.
Imagine if everyone in the world had a copy of the software that you can't
even figure out how to use. Everyone could be your tutor and teach you how
to get the most out of it. Nobody lost, everyone gained. Except for you,
you'd still be as stupid as you are portraying yourself to be in your
posts. Nobody can help with that. It's genetics.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:51 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-02-04 07:57:05 -0800, halkentworth@removedforspam.net said:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want.
>
> Total red-herring nonsense. If you walked into your neighbors' house and
> made an exact copy of a book sitting on their shelves using your own
> materials, their book is not missing, they have lost nothing, the world is
> richer for it. One more person is now capable of knowing what the neighbor
> has learned. Two more people make copies, now two more are richer, the
> world is richer, society is richer.
>
> Imagine if everyone in the world had a copy of the software that you can't
> even figure out how to use. Everyone could be your tutor and teach you how
> to get the most out of it. Nobody lost, everyone gained. Except for you,
> you'd still be as stupid as you are portraying yourself to be in your
> posts. Nobody can help with that. It's genetics.
Except that if everyone did that there would be no books or software at
all for anyone to copy. I do not buy your thesis that authors are not
entitled to be properly compensated for their work.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:53 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-02-04 07:41:15 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
>> probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line of
>> reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has less
>> money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your windows,
>> climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your house. After
>> all, if you used better protection, no one could do that!
>>
>> Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software piracy.
>> You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on deaf ears.
>> And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad when they drag
>> you away in irons.
>
> Let's be realistic about this, Mr Waddling. No individual is going to
> be carted off in chains for pirating software if he or she is doing so
> for personal use.
That may change. Or people might just stop producing books and music
and software and other intellectual property because they cannot afford
to do it for free.
The one thing software pirates do not understand is the fundamental law
of economics: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything costs
something -- even software piracy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:14 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gmc71t01kc5@news5.newsguy.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:49891ec1$0$1635$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the
>>>>>>> rest
>>>>>>> of us for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any
>>>>>> other program for 'free'
>>>>>
>>>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>>
>>>> You do.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money
>>>>> that might have been used to make the product better.
>>>>
>>>> They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>>
>>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>>> company it could use to produce the software.
>>
>> How ?
>> The company develop software so they can continue to sell more
>> software.
>>
>> As you're not too bright think of it this way, how do the car
>> company
>> Cadillac (or any other high end car manufacturer) loss money when
>> someone steals one of their cars........
>> Answer they they don;t in fact if the 'thief' in the case damages or
>> distorys the car
>> then the owner claims off insurance and buys another so the
>> manufacturer sells another car.
>> So how have they lost money by selling two cars instead of one ?
>>
>> It's a little more complicated with software but if I steal the CS4
>> collection
>> who exactly finds that it is missing from their computer and
>> therefore can no longer work ?
>>
>>
>>>> They are using a copy from
>>>> a library of an unlimited number of copies that cost nobody any
>>>> money to make.
>>>
>>> Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much Adobe spends to
>>> produce Photoshop?
>>
>> Does that matter, it's their choice, if tehy want to spend a few
>> $1000 or designing a new icon
>> then that's fine by me. I've never asked them to do anything for me.
>
>
> The bottom line on this is that it's stealing because the consensus in
> our society is that it's stealing.
But it isn't not in law that is why they had to have a 'special' law to
cover it.
It goes far back to what is property and what isn't.
Do you also feel that something has been stolen from you if you have your
picture taken ?
If someone uses the same words/sentences/paragraphs/passage/book you use,
are they stealing your words ?
I'm not saying that everyone should get any software illegally and use it,
what I am saying is that the idea of theft is wrong because with theft
someone has to loose something.
This argument has been going on for years and IIRC it comes originally from
Jewish law
on what property consists of.
> If you want to call it "counting
> coup" or something that's fine but don't act all surprised when you
> get dragged off to jail.
has anyone been jailed yet for this ?
The only peole I know that have been done for software piracy are kids
'sharing'
music, so they are giving away someone elses work, I also believe that is
wrong.
if any software company wants to sell more products all it has to do is
lower the price.
At $700 I'd never buy Photoshop or any other program for using perhaps a
couple of hours a week, and remember even after
you buy it it still isn;t yours you have only brought the license to use it.
I don;t need a manual I don;t need free on-line support, I don't need a
CD/DVD.
Idealy what I'd prefer is a rental system when you pay say $1 day/hour
whatever.
If they offered it for download at say $70 I'd buy a copy same as people
have been
doing with on-line music stores like iTunes. In fact I even re-brought
something I had on
vinyl, perhaps the record componies should 'pay me back' as they have
already rented
me the right to listen to that track for as long as I have the track.
>
> If you don't _like_ that consensus, you're free to do your best to
> change it and get the copyright laws repealed. But until you have
> done that, regardless of your opinion in the matter, in law it is
> still a property crime.
The law is always the law, that doesn't make it right though.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:08 am
From: "J. Clarke"
tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just
>> fine
>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want. He is
>> probably richer than you are anyway. But then, using the same line
>> of
>> reasoning, you probably only have glass windows. So anyone who has
>> less money than you is perfectly justified in smashing one of your
>> windows, climbing in, and taking whatever they want out of your
>> house. After all, if you used better protection, no one could do
>> that!
>>
>> Don't come whining if you are caught and arrested for software
>> piracy. You can make your argument to the judge. I bet it falls on
>> deaf ears. And you might be surprised: no one is going to feel sad
>> when they drag you away in irons.
>
> Let's be realistic about this, Mr Waddling.
>
> No individual is going to
> be carted off in chains for pirating software if he or she is doing
> so
> for personal use. It just doesn't happen. It's because it doesn't
> happen that the people who do pirate software consider it a
> "victimless crime" that poses no danger to them. They know the
> worst
> that will happen is that their pirated software will become
> disabled.
Only because they are hard to catch. If they do get caught jail is a
definite possibility for copyright violation above a certain dollar
level. So is a civil suit for both actual and punitive damages.
> The software people do police companies who use pirated software,
> but
> only when some disgruntled employee blows the whistle and notifies,
> say, Microsoft that the company is using illegal copies of Excel.
Which has no effect at all on the legality or illegality of an action.
The fact that you can get away with something doesn't make it legal.
If the Unabomber had stopped at one he'd have gotten away with
letter-bombing--does that make it legal?
> The analogy of the person who uses pirated software being the same
> as
> the person who would burgle his/her neighbor's house is also
> unrealistic. This goes back to the "victimless crime" attitude that
> people have about software. They know that burgling their neighbor
> is
> a crime, and that the neighbor will be deprived of possessions if
> they
> do so. They don't feel that Microsoft or Adobe loses anything as a
> result of software theft.
Burglary, theft, and copyright violation are different crimes but they
are all crimes. If you don't want to be crimes write your
legislators.
> Oh, I agree with you that it *is* a crime, and it *does* deprive the
> intellectual property owner of the result of their effort in
> developing the program, but my point is that you aren't going to
> convince any user of highjacked software that he or she is doing the
> same thing as shoplifting or petty theft. It's just not realistic.
There is no way to convince a criminal that what he is doing as wrong.
That doesn't make him any less a criminal and it does not justify
pretending that what he does is socially acceptable.
> Your diatribe, and the other ones like it, are a waste of words.
> Potential software thieves aren't going to pay the slightest
> attention
> to it.
No, but others might.
> If Adobe and Microsoft and the other providers of software want to
> reduce or eliminate software piracy, they are going to have to
> develop
> additional safeguards in the software. Adobe took a step towards
> this
> in the "phone home" code. Their program can still be pirated by
> people like "Robin Hood" and the people who read Robin Hood's post,
> but Adobe cut off the less-informed would-be pirate who knew just
> enough to burn a copy of a legit program.
>
> The software providers are not going to go after individual
> offenders
> with criminal charges. That's not a cost-effective program for the
> software maker or a viable asset-allocation for the local police
> force. Truly, local authorities have better things to do than raid
> the homes of individual pirated software users.
Copyright is Federal. "Local authorities" don't get involved. And
filing criminal charges is done by the Attorney General, not by the
software provider, so where is the cost for them?
> While I agree with your general position, the threats and dangers
> you
> say are out there are - realistically - not out there. Robin Hood
> may
> lack ethics, but he's basically spot-on when he says that Adobe has
> to
> solve the problem or it won't be solved.
I see. So it's the victim's responsibility. If someone breaks into
your house and rapes your wife it's your fault because you didn't have
good enough locks and failed to marry La Femme Nikita. Sorry, but
saying that something is OK because the victim isn't putting what you
consider to be enough effort into protecting against is is a crock.
Software piracy is not OK, no matter who is doing it, and no matter
how often they get away with it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:03 am
From: paul a.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:51:16 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-02-04 07:57:05 -0800, halkentworth@removedforspam.net said:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:21:36 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, if your neighbor leaves his door unlocked, you would be just fine
>>> with walking into his house and taking whatever you want.
>>
>> Total red-herring nonsense. If you walked into your neighbors' house and
>> made an exact copy of a book sitting on their shelves using your own
>> materials, their book is not missing, they have lost nothing, the world is
>> richer for it. One more person is now capable of knowing what the neighbor
>> has learned. Two more people make copies, now two more are richer, the
>> world is richer, society is richer.
>>
>> Imagine if everyone in the world had a copy of the software that you can't
>> even figure out how to use. Everyone could be your tutor and teach you how
>> to get the most out of it. Nobody lost, everyone gained. Except for you,
>> you'd still be as stupid as you are portraying yourself to be in your
>> posts. Nobody can help with that. It's genetics.
>
>Except that if everyone did that there would be no books or software at
>all for anyone to copy. I do not buy your thesis that authors are not
>entitled to be properly compensated for their work.
When they sell copies of their work cheaper than others can make copies of
their work then perhaps they'll have a point in continuing and getting paid
for it. If not, let them starve just as all artists have all throughout
capitalist history. Then afterward the greedy and corporate vultures swoop
in after their death to make a fortune off of their having suffered all
their lives. An author can be nothing but an author, a musician can be
nothing but a musician. Starving is not going to stop them from producing
what they were born to create.
All this is nothing new, it's been going on for centuries. It's how the
conveying of knowledge and the arts has always been handled in capitalist
societies. In earlier communistic cultures the thinkers, artists, and
entertainers where given more than others, either in comforts or in esteem
and respect, without feeding the face of some greedy control-freak
middle-man who creates self-serving "laws". That kind of person would be
the one who would have ended up homeless and starving. Today's CEO should
be the one who is suffering and starving, not the artists and authors that
they live off of, like the true parasites of society that they are.
Capitalism, I might add, is a recent development in civilization.
Capitalism won't last, it's a failed system when it comes to knowledge and
the arts. Only the wealthy should have access to knowledge or the tools to
create art? That's no better than the power-hungry christian control-freak
churches that decree that only priests should have the knowledge of their
god so they may control and manipulate the less educated to do as they
want.
A capitalist model is only ensuring that those who have the most wealth
will control all those around them by doling out knowledge to those that
will do their bidding. Nothing more than that. Worse are those that strive
to be just like those that started and perpetuate this self-serving
nonsense.
On the other hand, if the individual authors of those works were the ones
who were actually getting paid those fortunes then it might be worth
considering paying them. Only then they'd have to lower their price to make
it more available or provide it on a per-exchange assessed donation. Just
like any artist passes the hat. But to pay some greedy CEO and con-artist
promoter, read: Corporate-Pimp & Social Parasite, that's all that any CEO
really is, .... you're either that amazingly stupid or must be joking.
It's time to put a little salt on those social blood-sucker CEOs and watch
them shrivel up in excruciating agony; dying homeless, hungry, ... and
alone.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:45 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>>program for 'free'
>>>>
>>>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>
>>>You do.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>>>might have been used to make the product better.
>>>
>>>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>
>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>> company it could use to produce the software.
>
>How ?
Moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now he went and did it....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/65ca924332e76a06?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 7:57 am
From: "David Ruether"
"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:k-6dndVH5t9yJxXUnZ2dnUVZ_uKWnZ2d@giganews.com...
>I feared this. Bringing high-end audio into a discussion about cameras.
> This opens up the flood gates for every scientifically-illiterate kook
> imaginable. Are we going to see "Shakti Stones" sitting on top of
> platforms mounted on hotshoes now? Or argue about the merits of using 6-
> nines copper in USB cables used for image file transfers? Or lament the
> lack of good quality polystyrene capacitors in the electronics of DSLRs??
> Just because some can't properly quantify what they are seeing is no reason
> to bring voodoo into photographic equipment realm.
> There is no subjectivity concerning image quality. Resolution, sharpness,
> colour rendition, noise control, tonality, dynamic range and control of
> aberrations, that is it.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
It appears to be an excellent and balanced article to me, which
argues (correctly, I think) that quality evaluations made only "by
the numbers" will often arrive at erroneous conclusions. Even if
the numbers are correct, an evaluation consists of a weighting
of the relative values of the many characteristics that are a part
of the whole, and this weighting itself is subjective. Long ago
(1995), I began my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly
Nikkors)", at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html,
and I state in the material preceding the charts and each group
of lens type what my standards are (which would likely be different
from those used by others, but they produce relative quality
values which correlate well for me with how lenses perform for
the way I use them - but others may well agree or disagree with
my judgments). Image quality is VERY subjective, but as you
point out, that realization can encourage the "nutty fringe" to get
somewhat carried away. I'm an audio nut, but my interconnect
wires are cheap RS ones (I figure that if they can carry TV signals,
then audio signals should be easy...;-), but I know why my speaker
cables are heavy-gauge (but cheap...;-), and I don't bother with
gold connectors. And, I once had to violently suppress laughing
when someone I know who seriously advised me to put bricks
on top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what
you mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
--DR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:06 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>
> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
> else a "pinhead".
>
You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC as well. If you're
a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow who
support the Kalyfornia Far Left Loon agenda.
Have a nice day!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:45 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:06:43 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn>
wrote:
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>>
>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
>> else a "pinhead".
>>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
>it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
>see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC as well. If you're
>a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow who
>support the Kalyfornia Far Left Loon agenda.
I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I have liberal views on
certain issues, and conservative views on certain issues.
I dislike O'Reilly because he regularly engages in innuendo and
extremely one-side biased commentary. I don't blame him, though.
He's found a cash cow in pandering to the right. His fans expect the
one-sided drivel he provides, and he makes a good living in doing so.
The only real objection that I have is that he claims to be a
journalist and newsman. He is neither. Like Limbaugh and Hannity, he
preaches to his own choir.
If you like O'Reilly, you like hearing your own views echoed and
dislike hearing any balancing information that more accurately
portrays what we call news.
The hard core O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity listeners are like baby
birds. They want their mind food brought to them by someone else and
pre-digested and fed to them.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:39 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>Here's the thing about people who are otherwise good men and women
>who someday decide to seek public office: they simply MUST make
>damn well sure that there is NOTHING in their past of ANY kind that
>might later be viewed as improper. OR, if they make what many of us
>do - mistakes of our youth - they MUST reveal this to the public
>BEFORE seeking office. To do otherwise is highly unethical and may
>even be illegal, e.g., the recent spate of tax evaders in the Obama
>camp.
Or they can run as a "conservative" where ethical standards are a lot
more ... "flexible".
:-)
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:40 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>>
>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
>> else a "pinhead".
>>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
>it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
>see what is true and untrue.
It doesn't take very long to figure out that sewers are filthy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So called Freeware, MPEG-2 licensing and you
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/514dbdd886b02f31?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:16 am
From: "Ken Maltby"
<TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
news:vp3fo4190okj9u4tirn72oam4rjltfank5@4ax.com...
> This post is offered in FAQ format to answer some question OBVIOUSLY
> some are confused over or simply choose to ignore.
>
> Q. Is it "legal" for any person using his personal computer to "burn"
> a "video" DVD under the de facto MPEG-2 specification using a non
> licensed encoder (CODEC)?
>
> A. No! There really isn't any wiggle room. The reason is the MPEG
> (Motion Picture Experts Group) holds the patent and licenses it's
> use through small licensing fees. You as the USER of the CODEC
> don't pay a dime, however whoever included ANY MPEG-2 encoder is
> required under international law to pay the license free to the
> legal owners.
>
Wrong, The MPEG holds no patent. The MPEG just publishes
a standard. The licencing of the technology mentioned in the
standard is accomplished through a pool that the individual patent
holders have signed onto. Most of them also offer various
adaptations as licences of their technolgy to software developers.
It is quite practical to create a CODEC that can make video that
complies with the MPEG standard, using technology not mentioned
in the standard. You see you can't patent an outcome or the product
of a technology/process, only the technology/process itself.
> Q. I'm confused, the "freeware" I use claims it is covered under the
> GNU or the General Public License, which implies the software is
> free to use as long as the terms of the GNU are followed.
>
> A. Apples and oranges. The GNU, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> is a license to use the freeware itself, not any pirated or
> unauthorized CODEC the freeware author includes or tells you to
> obtain on your own. Even if it is called something else... IF it
> creates a MPEG-2 compliant file and you use the result to burn a
> DVD it is ILLEGAL unless it was licensed for use.
>
Wrong again, see above. Also, what's legal in civil law .vs criminal
law is just a proponderance of court ruleings decided on a case by
case basis (and it is still up to the judge). You can't just go by the
position one side or the other takes, as to "what's legal".
Then there is the fact that this NG is read all over the world, what's
legal in one contry may be a hanging offense in another, and vice versa.
> Q. Why is the MPEG group such a bunch of up tight crybabies about
> this, I'm only making a few DVD's for private use.
>
> A. Ask Microsoft why it protects it's patents and ask Apple while
> you're at it. They like the MPEG group vigorously protect CODECS
> they have developed and have successfully defended that right
> and continue to threaten legal action against software developers
> that attempt to misuse their intellectual property or try to get
> around licensing requirements.
>
The legal sys is a fantasy land with its own perverted logic,
basicly perverted by money (in the form of overpaid lawyers)
when it comes to ownership issues. That said, Microsoft,
Apple, Adobe, are all fighting the use of their technolgy, not
the ability to create the resulting media format. If you can
create a playable .wmv, .mov, or .pdf file, without using
their technology, it wouldn't be illegal. (That wouldn't
neccessarlly prevent a swarm of lawyers from claiming
otherwise, and in the end would be up to the judge on a
case by case basis.)
> Q. OK, I get it, using freeware to burn DVD's legally might be wrong,
> but I don't care. Any other reasons not to use it?
>
> A. Many! One of the common reasons many files don't open or play
> correctly in main stream software like Microsoft's Movie Maker,
> Media Player, much commercial software, some free standing DVD
> Players is the file was encoded with a hacked CODEC that was
> changed just enough to not make it a mirror image of a genuine
> CODEC. This also can and does mess up the generation of thumbnails,
> causes files to not play correctly, stop, sputter, get out of
> sync etc..
>
Almost total BS, the tiny grain of truth that there may be in that
paragraph is swamped by many other, much more likely causes of
any such problems. There have been plenty of examples where
independently developed CODEC out perform the more
established commercial ones.
> Besides, running the risk of messing up your computer causing other
> software to malfunction the quality of hacked codecs is inferior
> to REAL MPEG-2 codecs. That said, their are good and not so good
> licensed codecs. Just like everything else, you get what you pay
> for... or don't.
>
The "REAL" ones, and which would those be? I own many
most came with commercial software, some I purchased directly
from the CODEC developers. I also have the Free Libmpeg2 and
Libavcodec which perform very well. All encode or decode MPEG
using very different code and their own technology.
> Q. Forget the licensing issues, how does freeware video software
> compare to commercial grade?
>
> A. With a few exceptions, it simply doesn't. Just like there will
> always be people that refuse to buckle up when driving or never
> check the air pressure in their tires, they're usually the first
> to bitch and moan when something goes wrong.
>
Total BS, and more of this poster's own halfbaked philosophy.
> Newsgroups like this are filled with people that for lack of a better
> phase are too damn cheap to buy the software they need to do a decent
> job. They much prefer to break the law, slide by with inferior
> results, then puff out their chests and fake being expert on all
> things video. Well, the good news is I doubt any of that crowd read
> this far. ;-)
>
> Remember you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
> People will continue to bitch and moan and keep making the same dumb
> mistakes then blame the blank media, or the DVD burner or the software
> they found somewhere on the web, never the nut sitting behind the
> keyboard. The funny thing is all the money they think they saved they
> more that lost in time wasted. Oh well, that's human nature. ;-)
>
While I know this poster reacts badly to anyone, other than himself,
expressing an opinion - I feel it safe to say his constant harping on
how he has to put up with "human nature" and other posters who
can't recognize how HE is so much above the rest of us, is a little
hard to take seriously.
Luck;
Ken
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:17 am
From: TruthSquad@hope.com
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:16:06 -0600, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
><TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
>news:vp3fo4190okj9u4tirn72oam4rjltfank5@4ax.com...
>> This post is offered in FAQ format to answer some question OBVIOUSLY
>> some are confused over or simply choose to ignore.
>>
>> Q. Is it "legal" for any person using his personal computer to "burn"
>> a "video" DVD under the de facto MPEG-2 specification using a non
>> licensed encoder (CODEC)?
>>
>> A. No! There really isn't any wiggle room. The reason is the MPEG
>> (Motion Picture Experts Group) holds the patent and licenses it's
>> use through small licensing fees. You as the USER of the CODEC
>> don't pay a dime, however whoever included ANY MPEG-2 encoder is
>> required under international law to pay the license free to the
>> legal owners.
>>
>
> Wrong, The MPEG holds no patent. The MPEG just publishes
>a standard. The licencing of the technology mentioned in the
>standard is accomplished through a pool that the individual patent
>holders have signed onto. Most of them also offer various
>adaptations as licences of their technolgy to software developers.
Nice try at attempting to muddy the waters Ken. I'm not going to get
into a debate who as a class or individual holds what patent.
Technically there are several, but that's far beyond the scope of
what's being discussed in this thread.
The bullet you can't dodge is freeware encoders that result in
creating a de facto "video DVD" violate the MPEG-2 patent because
making a TRUE DVD (one that should play on ANY DVD player) requires
spec compliant MPEG-2 encoding which is a licensed technology. So all
freeware that either includes or points to some pirated codec that
isn't licensed by the appropriate authority is a violation of one or
more MPEG-2 patents. Period. So if you must, go ahead and continue to
flap your gums, but no matter how much you do, you still end up with
the short stick.
Still, I'll give you kudos for your feeble attempt to tap dance past
the obvious. That IS the issue as it always is when "freeware" gets
discussed. Those that blindly support freeware without regard to the
legal issues ALWAYS attempt to rationalize and legitimatize whatever
illegal means are used to avoid paying for something either directly
or indirectly. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
> It is quite practical to create a CODEC that can make video that
>complies with the MPEG standard, using technology not mentioned
>in the standard. You see you can't patent an outcome or the product
>of a technology/process, only the technology/process itself.
100% self-serving, pure horse shit to attempt to prompt up thievery.
> The legal sys is a fantasy land with its own perverted logic,
>basicly perverted by money (in the form of overpaid lawyers)
>when it comes to ownership issues. That said, Microsoft,
>Apple, Adobe, are all fighting the use of their technolgy, not
>the ability to create the resulting media format. If you can
>create a playable .wmv, .mov, or .pdf file, without using
>their technology, it wouldn't be illegal. (That wouldn't
>neccessarlly prevent a swarm of lawyers from claiming
>otherwise, and in the end would be up to the judge on a
>case by case basis.)
Shame you can't hear me laughing at you. Your entire "argument" is the
flimsy and often over stated smoke screen that the big boys can afford
to hire fat cat attorneys so, that alone makes what they claim legal
and they always win. Well no. While we all know money talks, in
general the legal system MOST of time is fair even if it takes years
for justice to win out.
A classic example is an individual named Robert Kearms, who invented a
device most of us use (intermittent windshield wipers) who took on the
giants of the auto industry for patent infringement and won. A brief
summary. Several good books on his story. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
> While I know this poster reacts badly to anyone, other than himself,
>expressing an opinion - I feel it safe to say his constant harping on
>how he has to put up with "human nature" and other posters who
>can't recognize how HE is so much above the rest of us, is a little
>hard to take seriously.
Yeah, I heard that all before. Just face reality. I argue better than
you do and have the law on my side. The bottom line is you and others
attempt to justify some illegal means to avoid paying for the software
technology you want to use WITHOUT paying for it. You repeatedly
attempt to argue you're not. <giggles>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can you see this Flash site?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/445c408900fc3a17?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 8:19 am
From: ray
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:10:12 +0000, Focus wrote:
> "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
> news:6LWdnb_FLeZlohXUnZ2dnUVZ8q7inZ2d@novis.pt...
>>A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing
>>happened. It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
>> Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use? Thanks:
>>
>> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/
>>
>>
> Everybody thanks for your contribution!
The point I'd be getting from all this posts is that although you think
glitz is really cool; content is king!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:48 am
From: "Frank ess"
ray wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:10:12 +0000, Focus wrote:
>
>> "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
>> news:6LWdnb_FLeZlohXUnZ2dnUVZ8q7inZ2d@novis.pt...
>>> A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing
>>> happened. It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
>>> Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use? Thanks:
>>>
>>> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/
>>>
>>>
>> Everybody thanks for your contribution!
>
> The point I'd be getting from all this posts is that although you
> think glitz is really cool; content is king!
To paraphrase that conclusion:
"Flash" pages are self-gratification, or
Spilling your seed on sterile ground.
Feels good, but no posterity.
--
Frank ess
"I can't sing,
but I know how to,
which is quite different."
-- Noel Coward
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 9:02 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <6usi7iFgqa88U1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...
> When I use PTLens that's exactly what it does -- global removal in all
> parts. There would be no point in software which behaves in the way
> you describe.
There was no way to make PTlens behave like that yesterday. Optimise it
on the left side and you get more CA on the right side and viceversa. I
might add that the user interface of PTLens is not that good either, but
that is another issue.
> I guess that if you supplied it with an asymmetrically cropped image,
> or one produced by a lens with off-centre elements, or one which had
> been subjected to other kinds of prior editing rather than being a
> straight conversion from RAW, then it might behave as you describe.
It was a completely symmetric image of Hyde park (Sydney) (taken in the
tree-lined path). The camera was parallel to the path, pointed towards
the fountain. Left and right were the rows of trees lining the path.
There was CA mostly in the leaves and branches/twigs of the trees (the
sky was quite bright).
I spent about 20 minutes trying to find the correct parameters with
PTLens and got no global CA reduction. Perhaps CA was too strong. But
with the RAW converter it took perhaps 10-15 seconds to find the right
settings and the result was a global CA reduction.
It is actually not surprising that CA reduction from RAW delivers better
results, because it operates on real data (the individual R, G and B
pixels) as opposed to the interpolated colour data on which a tool such
as PTLens has to rely on.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally, an interesting Antarctica shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68565f1dbf4004b8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:28 am
From: Kulvinder Singh Matharu
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:32:52 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
>Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
Then you won't like this:
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
Heh, heh, heh!
What movie?
I don't think that I'd call Reichmann a yuppie :o
And whoever does go to Antarctica, it's their money, their time,
their experience. I'd say "Go for it". Why not?
And well done Reichmann & Co, some of those photos are much better
than those from 2005, but I wasn't too impressed with the tractored
vehicles. But each to their own ;)
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75383ce6b288a1df?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:38 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>>This is the essential part of the entire debate - namely that for
>>>>>reasons really hard to fathom, much of the world and certainly almost
>>>>>ALL of the Arab/Muslim countries and regions hate Israel so much as
>>>>
>>>>Neonazi bigotry and propaganda.
>>>
>>>How do you deny something that is so easily and openly verifiable?
>>
>>Then why don't you verify it, sleazebag? Instead of spewing your
>>usual bigotry, let's see you provide some actual facts.
>
>The bigot asks for facts while using his request as a platform to spew
The usual smears and hate.
[...]
>http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/25/mideast.html
>
>To quote from that news report:
>
>"The proposal, originally presented in 2002 and rejected by the Jewish
>state, extends an offer from all Arab countries to recognize Israel in
>exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from land captured in the 1967
>Middle East War.
"EXTENDS AN OFFER FROM ALL ARAB COUNTRIES TO RECOGNIZE ISRAEL"
"REJECTED BY THE JEWISH STATE"
So once again bishop is shown to be a stupid, lying, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3589f9dbd5f68fe9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:41 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>>
>>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>>
>>>All good conservative values.
>>
>>Liar.
>
>You're the liar, Ray.
Tell us, asshole: Is killing hundreds of innocent people the sort of
thing that Jesus would have supported?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:42 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> Have you ever noticed how it is the conservatives who tend to
>> give more to charities than the liberals do? The liberals love
>> to give away *other people's money,* but they are QUITE tight
>> with their own. Just look at the tax records of Joe Biden and
>> Obama and see how little either of them gave of their own
>> income.
>
>This was fully exposed by Fox News. Rather than view Fox as a right
>wing conspiracy, if people would only WATCH it and decide for
>themselves, they MIGHT be better informed. But, you are Spot On
>that our most (in)famous Democrats have truly dismal charitible
>giving records in light of the millions they earn.
Of course, a LOT of conservative charity goes to building churches
that they then enjoy the use of.
Charity to oneself isn't much charity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 10:44 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Your inability to put two and two together
>>
>>On the contrary. I have indeed long since figured out that you're a
>>childish, lying rightard. And some of the proof is still above.
>
>One of the characteristics of a dishonest self-righteous bigot like
You like to call people liars even when they're telling the truth.
Below is just one such example.
The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
