academic version question

This is what the Adobe educational FAQ used to say:

++++++

Professional/commercial use Student question

"I'm very interested in buying the Education version of Adobe Creative Suite, but first I want to know if the software can be used to produce work for paying customers once I am working in the industry, or do I have to buy a different version of Creative Suite once I'm working in the industry?”
Answer

Good news! You can use Adobe Education software (any title!) to produce commercial/professional paid-for work when you leave school, or even while you are in school. In this regard, Adobe does not limit how student software is used. So students can use it to learn and to make money!
(Of course, students must agree to the terms of the End User Licensing Agreement — which appears during installation — just as every software customer must do.)

++++++

I can't find anything even closely related on the current site, but here's the page at archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070819035913/http://www.adobe.com/education/purchasing/faq.html
 
But how old is the page? It also says that the educational version is upgradeable. Which I am certain that it is not. So the EULA has probably changed for the current software.
 
JonathanLB said:
Haha, you're seriously being silly. It's not property, it's INTELLECTUAL property, it's not the same at all. It's only the same when you're damaging the financial potential of that intellectual property, which you clearly aren't if you are unable to buy it in the first place.

I don't need to defend my choices, I spend a lot of money on intellectual property every year, I have almost 3,000 DVDs and spend probably an average of at least $10,000 on entertainment every year. One of the songs I "pirated," or that someone sent me over AIM, doesn't even exist in the United States. It's a foreign song and I found no way to buy a CD even, let alone purchase it online. I heard the song on a YouTube video, I thought it was funny, and I wanted to listen to it. I don't think I'm hurting an artist when that artist has no commercial ability in this country yet, and I bet the artist would agree. They'd probably blame their label or manager for not making it available to worldwide audiences.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical question....

I've written a great script for a movie. Somebody wants that script, but I don't want to sell it. Does that give them the right to steal a copy and use it anyway? Does it make it okay if they pay me a chunk of money when the movie sells? At what point is it MY right to decide whether I want MY work out there or not?
 
JonathanLB said:
I don't think I'm hurting an artist when that artist has no commercial ability in this country yet, and I bet the artist would agree.
Click to expand...

He's LESS likely to ever GET 'commercial ability' in this country if people are stealing his songs for free. And if that ain't 'hurting' him as an artist, then I don't know what is.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
He's LESS likely to ever GET 'commercial ability' in this country if people are stealing his songs for free. And if that ain't 'hurting' him as an artist, then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I've always had conversations like these with my friends and they say things are okay when they pirate. They believe that music CDs, DVD movies, all media-related materials are expensive. I tell them, if we had not pirate the media we wouldn't be seeing such a high price on these materials. Artists are rarely rich, mostly struggle to even pay their bills. I will only download an album should the artist decide to put it up for free.

8 years ago, I bought several academic versions of software so that I can learn and use without paying the full price. This helped me, as a student, tremendously by giving the freedom I need to develop my skills and creativity. By the time that I had enough technical knowledge and skills, I went ahead and purchased most of those softwares at full price. Till this day on, I try demos then buy it if I decide I need it. Simple. No budget? Then work or find a decent job that will help support your needs.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Hypothetical question....

I've written a great script for a movie. Somebody wants that script, but I don't want to sell it. Does that give them the right to steal a copy and use it anyway? Does it make it okay if they pay me a chunk of money when the movie sells? At what point is it MY right to decide whether I want MY work out there or not?
Click to expand...

That is your work, it hasn't been distributed. Your analogy is seriously terrible. As a philosophy major who spent the better part of 3+ years debating issues, that's the worst argument I've heard in a long time. Your screenplay has commercial value, and you have the right to decide when to sell it because it's not even available publicly, but these songs are already on the market and just not readily available commercially. Not my problem. If you fail to make your commercial work easy to obtain legally, you have to figure people are going to obtain it another way. Your argument fails on another level, too -- you're not talking about personal use of that screenplay, you're talking about using it commercially or selling it as your own. How do you equate that - in ANY WAY - with downloading a song to listen to it?

I won't argue more about this because I have 1,980 songs and I think only 3-4 of them haven't been paid for legally. For all I know one of them isn't even for sale, I mean how do I know? If I didn't see it for sale anywhere why should I even assume it has commercial value? Maybe it's freely available online. I don't charge people to watch my music video, which certainly has more value than many songs out there, haha.

Additionally, RE: Other Terrible Argument above -- if you took shots from my work and then edited it into your own work and distributed it, obviously that's a dishonest use of the work, but if you took my work and downloaded it for free for your own personal viewing, because you couldn't find it available for sale anywhere, that's perfectly fair. Do you think I care? I find that flattering. If I thought my work had serious commercial potential it would be for sale somewhere. It doesn't, and it isn't. That's the same with these songs. If they had obvious commercial value they should be commercially available. If they aren't available for sale, I have to assume the artist doesn't care if I personally enjoy their music however I see fit. If they at a later point make it easy for me to buy that song for 99 cents or heck even twice that, I'll gladly pay it because I've enjoyed it all this time and I'm a fair guy.

I think it's hilarious to have you idiots throwing stones at me, when I freakin' guarantee I've spent more money on software than all of you, more money on legal music than all of you, and WAY WAY more money on DVDs than probably most of you put together. So if you all have never pirated any software in your lives (I've never pirated any software that I don't own; I had a pirated version of photoshop briefly once in 8th grade, but I've paid for that software now and I've even bought Premiere twice, so Adobe hasn't lost any money on my account), and you've never pirated any movies or TV shows, and you've never pirated any songs, ok maybe you can throw stones, but I really doubt that's the case. We all used Napster back in the day. I, however, later bought all of those songs that I already owned, because that's how honest I am. I didn't say, "Ah well, I already own them, why should I pay?" NO. I downloaded them all from iTunes even though it was money out of my pocket because I thought it's only fair to pay the artists AND the labels for this copyrighted work.

Again, if I cannot pay because you make it impossible for me to do so, I have to assume you don't mind me enjoying the work personally free. There is plenty of work out there like this, anyway.
 
Last edited:
JonathanLB said:
...
Again, if I cannot pay because you make it impossible for me to do so, I have to assume you don't mind me enjoying the work personally free. There is plenty of work out there like this, anyway.
Click to expand...

Wrong assumption! You should conclude that if I haven't made it available for you to purchase or otherwise obtain in a legitimate manner, it's because I don't want you to have it at all. Whether my reasons make any sense to you is beyond the point - if I haven't made it available to you, it's because I want to deprive you of any enjoyment of it altogether.
 
I have the academic version and I make money with it. Gas is $4.00 a gallon and I have kids so no matter what version I have, I'm making a profit. And no one else should care how YOU make YOUR money. It's not like your selling crack.
I just don't can't see why anyone gives a damn about how the next man obtains software, music, etc. I just don't have the time to worry about what other people do. I have to put food on the table and keep the lights on in my home. That is the ONLY thing I can concentrate on.
 
filthrich said:
I have the academic version and I make money with it. Gas is $4.00 a gallon and I have kids so no matter what version I have, I'm making a profit. And no one else should care how YOU make YOUR money. It's not like your selling crack.
I just don't can't see why anyone gives a damn about how the next man obtains software, music, etc. I just don't have the time to worry about what other people do. I have to put food on the table and keep the lights on in my home. That is the ONLY thing I can concentrate on.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the person who owns the copyright to the software, music, MOVIES, etc. has to put food on HIS table too.

How are you going to feel when people decide it's okay to steal YOUR movies and deprive YOU of any income?
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Yes, and the person who owns the copyright to the software, music, MOVIES, etc. has to put food on HIS table too.

How are you going to feel when people decide it's okay to steal YOUR movies and deprive YOU of any income?
Click to expand...

Very good point. I Never said it was okay. And when it affects me personally then I will react accordingly. This is why I don't steal music or software. But If that's what you do, than walk your walk. I'm sure you know that you just can't argue with fools. Especailly ones that have a million ways to justify stealing. I would rather direct my energy to something postive within my Own life. But using academic software and making money hardly qualifies as stealing IMO.
 
filthrich said:
But using academic software and making money hardly qualifies as stealing IMO.
Click to expand...

My beef with it is that everyone who buys the academic version for commercial work is cutting the profit the software company makes. If I buy Media Composer for $2,500, a certain portion of that is profit that can be used for R&D so I get a better product in the next upgrade. Someone else buys the academic version for $300 and Avid doesn't have money to improve the product. We all lose in that situation.

Michael.
 
LB - your argument is equivalent to a cop saying "I've made hundreds of legitimate arrests, so why should I be punished for deliberateley arresting 4 or 5 innocent people?" No matter how much you've done legally, you don't have the right to break the law.

We abide by things analogous to an EULA in many facets of life. Your apartment lease, your driving license, etc. Do you find these restrictions problematic?

The software companies, IMHO, do a great service to the community by providing software at low prices for academic use. If this service is abused, they will stop offering it, and as has been said, we'll all lose out. Further, in the very competitive market, professionals realize that it's very important for the companies who make the software they rely on to be in good financial shape; stealing from them is to some extent shooting yourself in the foot.

JonathanLB, seriously, do you really think you have the right to get everything you want? And, what do you mean by "but these songs are already on the market and just not readily available commercially"?
 
ullanta said:
The software companies, IMHO, do a great service to the community by providing software at low prices for academic use. If this service is abused, they will stop offering it, and as has been said, we'll all lose out. Further, in the very competitive market, professionals realize that it's very important for the companies who make the software they rely on to be in good financial shape; stealing from them is to some extent shooting yourself in the foot.
Click to expand...

In LB's defense, I think he made it pretty clear that he DOES pay for software, music, etc. whenever possible. The distinction here is that if he CAN'T find a song (for instance) for SALE anywhere, then he thinks it's okay to simply take it. But he'd probably be the first to agree that software companies are not only entitled to their profits, they NEED them if we expect them to keep improving their products to keep up with ever-changing technologies.
 
The software companies, IMHO, do a great service to the community by providing software at low prices for academic use. If this service is abused, they will stop offering it, and as has been said, we'll all lose out.
Click to expand...
I'm completely with you on your argument EXCEPT the above statement. Software companies are not being philanthropical in offering Academic versions. If you learn a particular program in school, you are much more likely to use it afterward. This is just smart marketing on the part of the software companies.
 
Last edited:
Did I say philanthropical? i wouldn't! Doesn't stop it from being a great service that can disappear if abused. It's cutthroat marketing, and I'm sure to some extent aimed at CUTTING sales of other companies' products. But nice for academics.

Chapel: Yeah, we sorta have two threads in this discussion... content piracy and software EULA abuse... I'm jumping between 'em....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top