�I am not invested in adobe nor do I have any other position in the company. The first thing that I would like to tell you is that I do a lot of graphics work. I currently hold an AAS in computer network Tech and a BS in computer science. Recently I started to do a lot of video editing and making VCD's. A VCD is basically a burned cd with video on it that will play in most DVD players. I also do some web design and and a little graphics design as well.
���� Now to the point at hand. The other day a friend of mine told me that he had roughly about $1500 worth of adobe software that I could use. Knowing damn well that this person had never seen $1500 a day in his life I questioned him about where he obtained the software. This is exactly what he said, "File Sharing Programs". Now I had heard a little about how Adobe wasn't being easy on that russian programmer. I don't know all the facts about that one but at this point I don't really give a damn. Now my question to any investor of this company, Why would this company allow its programs to be freely distributed, constantly, on a daily basis, and not focus its efforts on bringing down this type of illegal behavior? I understand that the laws currently on the books is very vague and doesn't really go in to detail as it should about file sharing, but it isn't just Adobe. The particular file sharing program that my friend mentioned(not Bearshare) had everything from all versions of windows to every adobe software product you could think of. Not to mention that you could download full length dvd movies, and just about any program, game, video, picture you could think of. As a past investor of adobe systems and microsoft this type of behavior concerned me greatly and frankly makes me sick. What concerns me even more when I think about it is that none of these software makers are doing a damn thing about it. Personally as an investor until this type of behavior is dealt with I will put my money else where.
& no I will not post the name of the file sharing program that was mentioned. Just in case some one else decides that they also want to rip some adobe or microsoft programs.�
"Time is money and money is...."
Reminds me of the following algebra:
Time is money:
Time = money
Money is the root of all evil:
Money = square-root (all evil)
Time square = money square = all evil.
New York's Time Square is where all the evil is. :-)
> Boiled dooooooooown: You are risk averse and
> think the world needs to be made less risky.
No, I'm just pointing out that anyone who goes into a risk expecting the best, or even break even, is a fool. These are the same fools that respond to job offers, "Make up to $X dollars per year!" without seeing that little phrase "up to".
Personally I just have no interest playing games with my money whether it be in a casino, on the track, or on the stock market.
> Ya know, someone who lights a Molotov
> cocktail and gets burned....
Now that simply makes no sense.
> Whine among yourselves. Time is money and
> money is....
You are free to respond or ignore. No one here will make that decision for you.
Boiled dooooooooown: You are risk averse and think the world needs to be made less risky. Ya know, someone who lights a Molotov cocktail and gets burned....
Whine among yourselves. Time is money and money is....
> It looks like he went into this knowing full
> well the potential consequences.
Gay couples will often live in states that have laws against "sodomy". They are probably very aware of the law, yet they continue to live in the state because they do not expect that a reasonable person would ever enforce this law.
Dmitry never expected to be arrested. He knew the law, but probably thought, like everyone else, that it would be resolved through civil, not criminal court. From what I've heard he was actually planning on moving to California soon. He's probably changed his mind since.
> One has to ask why you are here then and not
> at a tech convention.
You think I'm here because of money I have in the stock market?
> All stocks are crap
> shoots? Investing in the stock market is
> equal to the chances of in a casino?
Uhh, yup. Psychologists compare the mentality of day traders to those addicted to gambling. The only difference is that in a casino you can't possibly win, whereas on the stock market, the house odds are sometimes in the investor's favor.
If you find something paying out the big dividends, more than you could get on interest in the bank, than sure, go for it. But the risk is still there, the stock could still tank the next day.
I would not invest in a stock unless the dividends are so large and stable that the stock diving 40% in a day wouldn't bother me.
> getcha: money is evil and no one should own
You accuse others of straw men but seem to love them yourself.
Money only has value because others value it. This means that other people will often be willing to give you what you want in exchange for money. And this is only because they expect that yet other people will give them what they want. People don't go to town to trade barley for wheat germ...There is an intermediary called "money".
Ask someone what they want in life, you'll sometimes hear "money". The person doesn't really want money, they want all the things that they can *get with money*. Imagine someone told you that you could "have" 5 billion dollars, but you could never ever spend it. It would be worthless, it would just be a stack of bills taking up space.
I'm not saying anything new, shocking, or even controversial.
> In other words, most who sell don't sell
> because of what ADBE did but because they
> fear they will loose capital if they hold
> ADBE while other stockholders like themselves
> can't stand the worry and sell in fear...
> Learn market psychology to understand the
> market, not the relative righteous value of
> one perceive moral aspect of a company.
More of hearing what you want to hear. You must not have even seen the title of the message, let alone read to the bottom. I said *MORALLY* responsible, not fiscally responsible. If you can't tell the difference between these very two different things, you truly are a droid.
I explicitly said that (1) I don't know where the stock is going, and that (2) I don't care. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I'll be here all the same.
"No, he is now the world-wide celebrity "the cause" has hoped for."
What are you saying "no" to? (would you mind quoting?) Are you saying that jailing is not cruel, because our jails are better than some other jails? Loss of liberty for writing controversial text is cruel and unusual, regardless of how nice the jail might be.
BTW, the "cause" has been on the lookout for a case to demonstrate the harm of the 1998 copyright law changes. The legal process asked for examples of harm, so we are gathering them for the next review.
The Goldstein, Felton, and Pavlovich cases are all good examples of cases where a person was sued under the new law for their controversial writings. Those are civil cases, as they should be, and we believe we will prevail.
We had no idea that we would be presented with such a clear example of someone going to jail for their writings. Not conduct, mind you, but expression of an idea. Software is written instructions, like a recipe. Publishing is not conduct.
Funny, it takes a Russian citizen to teach us about the First Amendment.
No, he is now the world-wide celebrity "the cause" has hoped for. I won't be surprised if he benefits enourmously from this jailing. This is not a gulag cell he is in BTW. He is making a point, period. He is paying a minor cost to make his point, period. It looks like he went into this knowing full well the potential consequences.