[akerl_]

Can you clarify how pirating Adobe's software is "the only option available to [you]"? I get that it's ridiculously expensive and generally a pain in the ass... but needing to do something expensive doesn't provide justification for bypassing the cost, or in any way make "paying for the product" no longer an option.

[sergiotapia]

Meh, it's an industry monopoly they have on a global scale. And a web developer from india cannot afford the huge price that comes with Adobe Photoshop - so they pirate it. Don't care personally, what do you they expect, in the real world? Shades of gray and all that.

Another example: games.

A AAA game costs 60$ on Steam a price 90% of the people online in South America can't afford. So what happened recently? A lot of latinamerican online stores sell Steam games for a much more realistic price. For example, a AAA game costs $30-$40 on sites like Nuuvem.

[akerl_]

No offense, but there really aren't "shades of gray" here. I've definitely pirated things, but not wanting to pay the cost of something doesn't entitle you to spring forth "illegally downloading" as a justified option.

The article's case, where downloading the software legitimately was actually not an option, does establish that other option: he has paid for the software (or the serial, or the dream of software, or whatever), but Adobe has now made it impossible to legitimately access the software. He didn't contact Adobe and say "I've decided I must use your software, but I do not wish to pay, so it's cool if I pirate, right?"

[MichaelGG]

There may not be "shades of gray" as far as the legality and fact of copyright infringement goes. But morally, it's certainly not so clear cut. A 14-yr-old me pirated Photoshop and used it to screw around with some filters (I've got little artistic talent) and whatnot. There's certainly no harm done to Adobe in that case - I wasn't gonna buy Photoshop for a total few hours of playing around. Someone living in a poor country that simply could not afford the software is in a similar position. It doesn't harm Adobe, but locks them in further - just like Microsoft benefited greatly from piracy, too.

It's still illegal, but there is clearly different levels of morality. If a large, profitable, studio was pirating software, that's sorta sleazy. People that legitimately can't afford it, eh.

[kevingadd]

There's no way to load PSD files other than paying obscene amounts of money. Both pricing models screw the person who has to occasionally open and view PSDs - the monthly fee screws you unless you're opening and editing lots of files; the one-time fee screws you unless you manage to open a bunch of files before the new version comes out and you're not compatible with what artists/designers are sending you anymore.

At least with formats like DOC, there are free reader apps available and free converters, because the format has public specifications and is used for interchange. In comparison, working with artists and designers is just plain expensive, because they all use Photoshop and the only way to consume their work is to buy Photoshop.

You can call the OP names if you want, but I think the larger evil here is what Adobe's done.

[woah]

I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars just to open a file or convert it to SVG for Sketch. If they were going to be moral about it (IMO), Adobe would offer a free converter.

"B.. b.. but", you might say, "you can't just force Adobe to write a free converter!"

Well, you can't force me to pay for their paid software. And I'm someone who has spent thousands of dollars on graphics software of various kinds over the years.