Painter X student version versus full version

[valdo650]

Is there a functional difference between the student version and full version of Painter X? I qualify to get the student version, but I know some programs are limited in the student version.

Should I get the student version or bite the bullet to get the full version?

[Jin]

It's my understanding the program itself is the same for either full or Education version.

You won't get the hard copy user guide and you're not allowed to use the Education version for commercial work. You'll have to check with Corel to learn if there are any other differences, for instance limited time free technical support, etc.


.................

[kirin5043278]

I don't know where else to turn but here at other Corel Painter 10 User's Post. I'm a new user to Painter 10, just bought it today. I can't even install it? It is a brand new Toshiba laptop. But it was giving me some kind of error message regarding Invalid digital signature for a file in the program. Have anyone ever come across this? I just really want to get it install and start using it. It is a legit unopen store bought copy. And just my luck, it's Good Friday and Easter Weekend so there aren't any support. Please help. Thank you.

[Jin]

Hi kirin.....,

See my response to your post in the other thread.

Again,

Good luck!


.........................

[Arshes Nei]

I own the academic version. If you go to buy.com you can get 10 dollars off of the total purchase using Google Checkout. So that's actually one of the best deals you can get if you're looking to own the program to learn it.

http://www.buy.com/prod/corel-painte...204107801.html

(Customer experience is that the shipping was really fast, I got it the next day so it was worth using that site)

There is one noticeable difference between the Academic version and Full. The academic version's will show a Splash Prompt saying "Academic version"

The other difference is the EULA (End User License Agreement) It requests that you do not make profit from the program. Since this is more learning hobby, not a problem. I also believe no Tech support is available according to said agreement.

http://www.truetestmarketing.com/cor...-x-license.htm

Buying the Educational edition vs downloading the full, means you get access to about 200mbs worth of extras, brushes, gradients, etc.

One little note I don't think many people make mention of when purchasing this product, is that these are "Hand Made" basically assembled by people and I actually had someone who went crazy with the factory glue, which got on the CD and the sleeve it comes in. That meant it scratched though not to affect the CD (I moved it to another sleeve to protect it, and promptly created a backup) So when you get the box be careful.

2nd Little Note: Beware of those "Factory Sealed" scams. I took a picture of the CDs to show that they're obviously pirated to show to some companies that these are being sold. You can register them, however, once you apply the update Corel figured out which were false and will deactivate the software.

If anyone wants to see the photos let me know, because I'm reporting them on ebay and other sites they're showing up.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

The other difference is the EULA (End User License Agreement) It requests that you do not make profit from the program. Since this is more learning hobby, not a problem. I also believe no Tech support is available according to said agreement.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of paying for it?

[Arshes Nei]

Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of paying for it?

Why would it defeat the purpose of paying for it? Do you make money off your Operating System that you have to pay for? There are a lot of programs out there that one may use as a hobbyist that one doesn't make money from. You're not making money off your video games, or dvds you watch. So why pay for it either?

Art is a form of entertainment and I don't NEED the program to make art, but because I want to I'm going to go for the most reasonable cost. I'm not profiting from it, so the Educational Edition works fine. I enjoy the program and want to learn. Not to mention I'd like to have updates when the software goes buggy

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

Why would it defeat the purpose of paying for it? Do you make money off your Operating System that you have to pay for? There are a lot of programs out there that one may use as a hobbyist that one doesn't make money from. You're not making money off your video games, or dvds you watch. So why pay for it either?

That's not the point. The point is that I have a right to profit from work that I create with the program, whether Corel wants me to or not. Imposing these restrictions on what I can and can't do with the software violates my rights as a consumer. If they're not going to provide me with something that allows me to exercise my rights, why should I give them my money in the first place? All I'm basically saying is that companies like Adobe, Corel, and Autodesk need to put up or shut up. If they can't provide a student version of their software that doesn't restrict any of the same rights that we, the consumers, would get with the full version, then don't bother making it at all.

Think of it this way: Let's say you're in an art supply store, and there are some materials (ie brushes, paints, etc) that you really want, but are just too damn expensive. Then you notice that the store is offering a special student discount that allows you to purchase the exact same things for a lot cheaper. You're really happy about these savings, but then you find out that by taking advantage of this offer, you have to agree not to sell any work you create with the art supplies. Wouldn't you feel a little ripped off? I know I would, and I definitely wouldn't be so quick to give them my money if that were the case.

It's the same thing here. What I do with any art-related projects I create with the software is none of Corel's business. The same way that if you were to sell a painting that you created using traditional media, companies like Golden or Windsor and Newton wouldn't start banging on your door asking for royalties. You already paid for their supplies; you don't owe them anything else. I'll admit it's a more complicated issue with intellectual property, but last I checked, copyright law only controls what you, the consumer, can do with the original creator's work. It does not give anybody control over what you create. If I create a digital illustration in Painter or Photoshop, it's MY work. My intellectual property. I may have used commercial software to create this work, but companies like Corel and Adobe have no legal authority to control what I do with my work.

Art is a form of entertainment and I don't NEED the program to make art, but because I want to I'm going to go for the most reasonable cost. I'm not profiting from it, so the Educational Edition works fine. I enjoy the program and want to learn. Not to mention I'd like to have updates when the software goes buggy

More power to you. But what happens when you become good enough---and experienced enough---to start doing it for a living? According to the EULA, you'd have to purchase the full version of the software. The way I see it, I'd be breaking the law either way, so I might as well do it in such a way that gives me the upper hand. As soon as I reach the level of a professional illustrator, I'll start using open source software, which doesn't impose restrictions on my rights as a consumer.

[OldJake666]

I have it. It's exactly the same as the normal version only you have no licence to sell your work. It's great for me!

[Arshes Nei]

That's not the point. The point is that I have a right to profit from work that I create with the program, whether Corel wants me to or not.

Then buy the full retail version. End of story. You're using their software, you're under a LICENSE AGREEMENT. This is not a contract to "Do whatever the hell you want" You don't want to pay the retail, then don't buy it, you don't want to agree to the Academic version's restrictions, then don't agree and don't install/buy the program.

You agree to it, you read the terms and conditions in purchasing the product. Not a big deal.

If you want to really profit from it, the full retail version is not a big deal, you've earned your keep in buying the license/lease of the program.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

Then buy the full retail version. End of story. You're using their software, you're under a LICENSE AGREEMENT. This is not a contract to "Do whatever the hell you want" You don't want to pay the retail, then don't buy it, you don't want to agree to the Academic version's restrictions, then don't agree and don't install/buy the program.

I shouldn't have to. As long as I'm a student, I should qualify for the academic version. Beyond that, Corel has no right to control what I do with work that I create. This isn't about their right to control what people do with their intellectual property; it's about them trying to control what we do with ours.

You agree to it, you read the terms and conditions in purchasing the product. Not a big deal.

Yes a big deal. License agreements have gone way over the line in terms of just how much control a software company has. It basically allows them to impose further restrictions than those set by standard copyright, and allows them to override exceptions granted by fair use. It's nothing but tyrannical BS.

If you want to really profit from it, the full retail version is not a big deal, you've earned your keep in buying the license/lease of the program.

This isn't about the retail version; it's about the academic version. There is absolutely no incentive for the consumers to pay for it if we become deprived of our rights in the process. I agree that it is ethical to legally purchase a piece of software if you intend to use it for commercial purposes; but if an academic version that allows you to do this does not exist, you might as well use a pirated version until it becomes necessary to purchase a license.

[Jin]

That's not the point. The point is that I have a right to profit from work that I create with the program, whether Corel wants me to or not.

No, you do not have the right to use the program in ways not permitted by the license you agreed to when installing the program. In other words, you do not have the right to violate the license agreement that pertains to the Education version of Corel Painter.

You do have the right to either not purchase the Education version of Corel Painter to begin with or to purchase the more expensive Corel Painter version that does allow you to use it for commercial work.

Imposing these restrictions on what I can and can't do with the software violates my rights as a consumer.

That's an absurd statement. You have no rights as a consumer to use a program in ways not allowed by the license agreement.

Again, you do have the right as a consumer to use the program you purchase in all of the ways that program's license agreement allows.

If they're not going to provide me with something that allows me to exercise my rights, why should I give them my money in the first place?

The Education version of Corel Painter does allow you to exercise your rights.

Whether you like it or not, using it for commercial work, is just not one of your rights.

All I'm basically saying is that companies like Adobe, Corel, and Autodesk need to put up or shut up. If they can't provide a student version of their software that doesn't restrict any of the same rights that we, the consumers, would get with the full version, then don't bother making it at all.

If software companies followed your proposed "solution", students would not be able to purchase software at a reduced price to use while learning. That would be a shame since most students do not have a lot of money to spend but still need the opportunity to learn. I'm very grateful for the Education versions of software I was able to purchase several years ago while enrolled full time at a local community college. I later upgraded to the full versions but while a student, the Education versions provided just what I needed at the time, and saved me a lot of money. Without that reduction in price, I would not have been able to purchase the software at all.

Think of it this way: Let's say you're in an art supply store, and there are some materials (ie brushes, paints, etc) that you really want, but are just too damn expensive. Then you notice that the store is offering a special student discount that allows you to purchase the exact same things for a lot cheaper. You're really happy about these savings, but then you find out that by taking advantage of this offer, you have to agree not to sell any work you create with the art supplies. Wouldn't you feel a little ripped off? I know I would, and I definitely wouldn't be so quick to give them my money if that were the case.

Why on earth would you feel "ripped off", when the store has given you a discount?

Are you one who thinks the world owes you a living, perchance? It doesn't, and, as they say, there's no free lunch.

It's the same thing here.

The only "same thing here", is that you'll applying your misguided thinking to both the software program and the art store materials scenarios.

In both cases, your thinking is way out of line with what is reasonable, legal, and realistic.

What I do with any art-related projects I create with the software is none of Corel's business. The same way that if you were to sell a painting that you created using traditional media, companies like Golden or Windsor and Newton wouldn't start banging on your door asking for royalties. You already paid for their supplies; you don't owe them anything else. I'll admit it's a more complicated issue with intellectual property, but last I checked, copyright law only controls what you, the consumer, can do with the original creator's work. It does not give anybody control over what you create. If I create a digital illustration in Painter or Photoshop, it's MY work. My intellectual property. I may have used commercial software to create this work, but companies like Corel and Adobe have no legal authority to control what I do with my work.

Software companies have not control, nor do they attempt to impose control, over what you create.

Software companies licenses are what you pay for, what you agree to when installing the software, and what you are legally bound by.

More power to you. But what happens when you become good enough---and experienced enough---to start doing it for a living? According to the EULA, you'd have to purchase the full version of the software. The way I see it, I'd be breaking the law either way, so I might as well do it in such a way that gives me the upper hand. As soon as I reach the level of a professional illustrator, I'll start using open source software, which doesn't impose restrictions on my rights as a consumer.

Let's hope you, and others who think the way you do, will eventually mature to the point of realizing that copyrights and licenses are there to protect the copyright holders and companies/individuals who produce products. Without those protections, the copyright holders and companies/individuals who produce products lose revenue which they need to continue producing those products.

If they are not able to continue producing those products, all of us who want to continue using them lose.

Respect goes both ways, what we do affects others and what goes around comes around.

Good luck with your growth toward being a mature and responsible human being!


.

[Jin]

This isn't about the retail version; it's about the academic version. There is absolutely no incentive for the consumers to pay for it if we become deprived of our rights in the process. I agree that it is ethical to legally purchase a piece of software if you intend to use it for commercial purposes; but if an academic version that allows you to do this does not exist, you might as well use a pirated version until it becomes necessary to purchase a license.

You might want to think twice about advocating software piracy here, as people have been banned from the site for doing this.

[mambo]

I shouldn't have to. As long as I'm a student, I should qualify for the academic version. Beyond that, Corel has no right to control what I do with work that I create. This isn't about their right to control what people do with their intellectual property; it's about them trying to control what we do with ours.

Yes a big deal. License agreements have gone way over the line in terms of just how much control a software company has. It basically allows them to impose further restrictions than those set by standard copyright, and allows them to override exceptions granted by fair use. It's nothing but tyrannical BS.

This isn't about the retail version; it's about the academic version. There is absolutely no incentive for the consumers to pay for it if we become deprived of our rights in the process. I agree that it is ethical to legally purchase a piece of software if you intend to use it for commercial purposes; but if an academic version that allows you to do this does not exist, you might as well use a pirated version until it becomes necessary to purchase a license.

Are you in highschool or college?
The rebel with out a cause thing is so overdone. Give it a rest.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

No, you do not have the right to use the program in ways not permitted by the license you agreed to when installing the program. In other words, you do not have the right to violate the license agreement that pertains to the Education version of Corel Painter.

I believe I made this perfectly clear, but here it is again for someone so arrogant that they won't accept logic the first time around: This isn't about what I do with the software, it's about what I do with the works that I create. Companies like Corel have absolutely no right to control what I do with my property. Period.

That's an absurd statement. You have no rights as a consumer to use a program in ways not allowed by the license agreement.

Again, you do have the right as a consumer to use the program you purchase in all of the ways that program's license agreement allows.

Again, see above. This isn't about them controlling how many computers I can install the software on, or what I can do with it. This isn't about the software at all; it's about the work that I, the consumer create with it. Once I've created something, Corel has absolutely nothing to do with it. They did not create the work; I did. It is my right as a consumer and a creator do whatever I want with my property. The same way that they, the software company, have a right to restrict what I can and can't do with the software, and whether or not they want to offer a discounted version to qualifying students. But beyond that, they are out of line in imposing this ridiculous restriction in the EULA.

The Education version of Corel Painter does allow you to exercise your rights.

Whether you like it or not, using it for commercial work, is just not one of your rights.

Bullshit. The ability to profit from one's work is exactly what the free market is all about. If you have a product or service to sell (as long as it isn't something illegal---ie drugs, pirated films, weapons, prostitution, etc), you have every right to pursue this opportunity. This is not a privilege; it's a right. A right that we, the consumers, have been stripped of by these unethical, unfair, and illogical license agreements.

If software companies followed your proposed "solution", students would not be able to purchase software at a reduced price to use while learning.

That is completely untrue. Just because a piece of software has been discounted doesn't make it necessary for software companies to impose further restrictions on the rights of their consumers. As long as the students qualify, they should have every right to use the software with no strings attached.

That would be a shame since most students do not have a lot of money to spend but still need the opportunity to learn. I'm very grateful for the Education versions of software I was able to purchase several years ago while enrolled full time at a local community college. I later upgraded to the full versions but while a student, the Education versions provided just what I needed at the time, and saved me a lot of money. Without that reduction in price, I would not have been able to purchase the software at all.

Then do what I did. It may not technically be legal, but what are they going to do about it? The way I see it, I'm just evening the score for the way they're treating the consumers. However, as soon as I'm ready to start profiting from it, I will buy it, so it all balances out.

Why on earth would you feel "ripped off", when the store has given you a discount?

I'm talking about long-term effects. Wise up, will ya?

Are you one who thinks the world owes you a living, perchance? It doesn't, and, as they say, there's no free lunch.

Again, you have completely missed the point. No, I don't believe I am entitled to an income. However, if I create something that clients want, and are willing to pay for, I should have every right to complete the transaction. And yet a license agreement would prevent me from doing this. This would never be the case with traditional media, even if I had obtained it for a fraction of the cost.

The only "same thing here", is that you'll applying your misguided thinking to both the software program and the art store materials scenarios.

In both cases, your thinking is way out of line with what is reasonable, legal, and realistic.

Just thought I'd point out the irony here.

Software companies have not control, nor do they attempt to impose control, over what you create.

Uh, yes they do. That's exactly what the EULA does.

Let's hope you, and others who think the way you do, will eventually mature to the point of realizing that copyrights and licenses are there to protect the copyright holders and companies/individuals who produce products. Without those protections, the copyright holders and companies/individuals who produce products lose revenue which they need to continue producing those products.

If they are not able to continue producing those products, all of us who want to continue using them lose.

And let's hope you develop some common sense, and a general idea of what's right and wrong.

Respect goes both ways, what we do affects others and what goes around comes around.

Good luck with your growth toward being a mature and responsible human being!

Was that really necessary? All I did was express my concern and disapproval of these oppressive software licenses. How does that make me immature, or irresponsible? In all fairness, you're the one who needs to grow up. You're the one who won't tolerate other people's ideas and beliefs. I see something wrong with the amount of control software companies are given, and I wanted to speak up. Did I touch a nerve? If you had an ounce of self control, you'd be able to assert your position by providing rational and logical arguments. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no logic to your position at all, but you couldn't accept it. So you just continued to spew the same ridiculous rhetoric, hoping that you'd eventually convince me through hostile intimidation. And then you realized that didn't work, so you panicked and resorted to childish namecalling. Real mature.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

You might want to think twice about advocating software piracy here, as people have been banned from the site for doing this.

And you might want to think twice about verbally attacking other forum members, as people have been banned for that as well.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

Are you in highschool or college?
The rebel with out a cause thing is so overdone. Give it a rest.

Do you think Lawrence Lessig is a rebel without a cause? What about the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Or the Free Software Foundation? They are fighting for what's right, so that copyright holders don't have a totalitarian control over the economy. And I happen to agree with what they stand for, so please don't treat me like an idiot.

[Improv]

Do you think Lawrence Lessig is a rebel without a cause? What about the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Or the Free Software Foundation? They are fighting for what's right, so that copyright holders don't have a totalitarian control over the economy. And I happen to agree with what they stand for, so please don't treat me like an idiot.

So go use Gnu/Linux if it means that much to you!

Oh wait-you can't use Painter on Linux.

Sounds like you want it both ways.

Azeroth's attitude:

"Wa!Wa! Wa! Mommy, the world's just not fair like they told me it would be! Wa! Wa! "

Grow up and get a life-in that order!

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

Real mature. You'll never get anywhere in life with an ignorant, narrow-minded, childish attitude like that. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about at all, so do your research before you start insulting someone over something you know nothing about. I suggest you see a shrink, and have these unresolved issues sorted out before you start taking your frustration out on others.

I am reporting you for your inappropriate behaviour. Hopefully you'll wise up and start treating others with respect, even if they have different opinions than you.

[Improv]

Real mature. You'll never get anywhere in life with an ignorant, narrow-minded, childish attitude like that. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about at all, so do your research before you start insulting someone over something you know nothing about. I suggest you see a shrink, and have these unresolved issues sorted out before you start taking your frustration out on others.

I am reporting you for your inappropriate behaviour. Hopefully you'll wise up and start treating others with respect, even if they have different opinions than you.

Truth hurts,eh?

Your reply was as expected.

Make all the threats you want, but when the moderator sees that you are advocating piracy, it's you that will get the boot.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

Like hell it will. I have thoroughly read the rules, and vague though they are, it doesn't say anything about expressing your opinion on this issue one way or the other. However, it certainly does say this:

Please be respectful and courteous to each and every member of the forum. Arguing is fine if done without slandering each other personally.

I have tried to be as civil about this as possible without resorting to childish namecalling, but it's something that you, Jin, and countless other users are guilty of.

This is the last reply I'll make to your immature trolling. Hopefully, we'll both move onto more important things later on.

In the meantime, I suggest you get off your high horse about filesharing. I did not condone it at all; I simply mentioned it as an alternative to others who, like myself, cannot accept the restrictions imposed by the educational edition's license agreement. Beyond that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'd rather not get into a heated debate regarding the ethics of filesharing, but this is what I believe.

I do not believe that I'm violating any rules (because like I said, the rules are too vague). However, if an administrator has an issue with some of the thoughts I've posted, I'd expect him/her to address the issue with me in a civil manner. Banning me without warning would not solve a thing. Unlike you, I haven't done anything to justify being banned. However, if this were to happen, then it would only prove the existence of an intolerant, one-sided way of thinking that is prevalent among the majority of members here. Prove me wrong.

And can you please can it with the sarcastic emoticons? It's not adding any validity whatsoever to your argument.

[Improv]

Goodbye. You really are not worth even acknowledging you silly little child.

Onto the twit list you go.


PLONK!

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

I've just reported you again.

[emily g]

However, if an administrator has an issue with some of the thoughts I've posted, I'd expect him/her to address the issue with me in a civil manner.

Azeroth, this forum does not tolerate advocation of any illegal activity. Although many people do feel that some EULA's are overly restrictive, under current laws they are still binding. I am asking you to please leave this topic alone.

[Improv]

Azeroth, this forum does not tolerate advocation of any illegal activity. Although many people do feel that some EULA's are overly restrictive, under current laws they are still binding. I am asking you to please leave this topic alone.

Thank you emil g, your posting in this thread is appreciated by many of us.

Cheers

Improv

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

Azeroth, this forum does not tolerate advocation of any illegal activity. Although many people do feel that some EULA's are overly restrictive, under current laws they are still binding. I am asking you to please leave this topic alone.

Fair enough. I just wish that certain people would have more open mind about it, and wouldn't be so quick to pass judgment without hearing both sides of the issue first. I also wish that even if certain people disagree with me, that they handle it in a mature, assertive, and non-offensive way. I apologize for the way this discussion turned out, but this is an issue I feel really strongly about. So let's all just agree to disagree, and move on.

Interestingly, I contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation yesterday, as well as the Free Software Foundation regarding the issue in question. I haven't heard back from them as of yet, but I'll post their replies as soon as they write back. This is what I said:



To whom it may concern,

I have an important question regarding the restrictions imposed on End User License Agreements for commercial software applications. As you know, commercial software companies often publish educational versions of their software, for a reduced price. Anyone who's a student or teacher can qualify for the offer, but software companies often fear that everybody will take advantage of it, whether they qualify or not. To deter this, they modify the educational version to make it less appealing for commercial users. For example, they may remove some of the most useful features to consumers in a higher position than someone using it for personal learning. However, more often than not, they impose further restrictions on the EULA. Knowing that those who qualify probably won't be using the software for any commercial purposes anyway, they explicitly forbid this in the EULA.

What are your thoughts on this? Most people would think nothing of it, and that it is simply a modified license that qualifying students have to agree to. However, I believe it is a violation of my rights as a consumer. For example, if I purchase the educational version of a graphics program, and then try to sell work that I create with it to clients, shouldn't I have every right to? It's my work. I created it, and I don't believe that software companies have any authority to control what I do with it. Copyright law only governs the original work. It only allows software companies to control what users can and can't do with their software. But when it comes to something that I create using the software, do they really have any right to impose restrictions on what I do with it? Or is this just another example of copyright owners abusing the system?


Thanks.

[Arshes Nei]

I am always amused when people accuse others of being immature simply due to the fact they do not like the fact they're the lone gun standing.

This isn't a right, this is an agreement. Painter is not a need, so using right in the sense that you want the software but don't agree with the rules is inaccurate.

As a consumer our dollars are the indication of whether or not we agree with the seller's practice.

If I see someone selling a jacket I like for 100 bucks but it only comes in blue and I want black, and I find the price expensive, I simply look for another option.

Painter gives you an educational version at a reduced price, with a cost, "it only comes in certain colors (in comparison to the jacket)" I can either not buy those certain colors because I do not like it or agree with it, therefore letting painter know as a consumer, I do not like the practices of their certain color policy. Or I can buy it knowing I'm not going to get what I fully want.

I can also go shop for another jacket. Portalgraphics offers a full version of the latest version of Open Canvas at the same price. However, they also have restrictions on their software. It can go berserk if you installed it on more than one computer since the software "Calls home".

But let's throw out the Jacket analogy for a bit because this is where people get confused.

Software is a lease, not ownership.

Software is more akin to you renting or leasing property than you buying something to own. A Car lease has different terms than Car Ownership. Owning a home, (CCnRs aside) versus renting one. You don't get to paint your car a different color when you lease it versus owning it. You can't make modifications to it because you don't own it. You can't put ceiling fans in the home because you again don't own the property.

Yes this is digital property but the same rules apply. The problem with piracy is you're sending the wrong message and that's when things get messed up for the rest who follow the rules of the agreement.

This is an educational version it's not a freebie, in order to make money you got to spend money. However, when you make comparative arguments you need to compare them properly.

* You do not own (Painter) software, it's a license/lease agreement, You're paying for the ability to use their software for creation - how you purchase it comes at a price/agreement issue.

* You OWN your art supplies for the most part when you purchase them.

* You may or may not OWN an art studio you work in because you also may be LEASING the art studio.

[StupidIsAsStupidDoes]

I am always amused when people accuse others of being immature simply due to the fact they do not like the fact they're the lone gun standing.

No, Jin and Improv were behaving inappropriately. End of story. This has nothing to do with a conflict of interest; if you disagree with me, that's fine. I encourage you to voice your opinion, just as I have, but it doesn't give you the right to act negatively.

Show some respect for others who actually do their research and challenge what they don't believe in, rather than believing everything they're told. It's called being a free thinker; try it sometime.

This isn't a right, this is an agreement. Painter is not a need, so using right in the sense that you want the software but don't agree with the rules is inaccurate.

As a consumer our dollars are the indication of whether or not we agree with the seller's practice.

Again, you have completely missed the point. If you had bothered to read my statements, you'd know that my concern isn't how they control our use of the software; it's how they're attempting to control our right to profit off our work.

And as far as "agreeing with the seller's practice" goes, who are you trying to kid? Do you seriously believe the average consumer even understands, let alone approves of the limitations imposed by the license agreements? Clicking the "I Agree" button doesn't mean jack shit. According to the average garden variety EULA, consumers should return the software for a refund if they don't agree with the license. Do you have any idea how much the industry would suffer if people actually did that? They would lose millions, if not billions of dollars in sales, because they had imposed too many unfair restrictions that nobody in their right mind would agree with.

People just swallow their pride and agree to the EULA because they simply don't have a choice. Either that, or they just click the button without reading it, knowing full well that there is NOTHING software companies can do to stop people from breaching the terms of agreement.

If I see someone selling a jacket I like for 100 bucks but it only comes in blue and I want black, and I find the price expensive, I simply look for another option.

Painter gives you an educational version at a reduced price, with a cost, "it only comes in certain colors (in comparison to the jacket)" I can either not buy those certain colors because I do not like it or agree with it, therefore letting painter know as a consumer, I do not like the practices of their certain color policy. Or I can buy it knowing I'm not going to get what I fully want.

You are using a false analogy. And once again, I remind you that my concern isn't about the software at all; it's about what we're allowed to do with THE WORK WE CREATE.

I can also go shop for another jacket. Portalgraphics offers a full version of the latest version of Open Canvas at the same price. However, they also have restrictions on their software. It can go berserk if you installed it on more than one computer since the software "Calls home".

Which is a breach of our online privacy rights.

But let's throw out the Jacket analogy for a bit because this is where people get confused.

Gee, ya think?

Software is a lease, not ownership.

Yes, this is the sad truth. And yet this is never the case with any other kind of intellectual property. You never have to agree to anything when you open a book, or play a CD, DVD or console game. You just get the little FBI warning, and that's it. Weird, no?

Software is more akin to you renting or leasing property than you buying something to own. A Car lease has different terms than Car Ownership. Owning a home, (CCnRs aside) versus renting one. You don't get to paint your car a different color when you lease it versus owning it. You can't make modifications to it because you don't own it. You can't put ceiling fans in the home because you again don't own the property.

Ooooookaaaay.......now you've lost me. You're using the wrong analogy, because the circumstances are completely different. The reason you're not allowed to make modifications to a rented or leased property, is that they remain the physical property of someone else (ie a landlord, car dealership, etc). They're going to want it back at some point, and expect you to return it in perfect condition. If, however, you wanted the freedom to do these things, you'd have to purchase it for the purchase price (assuming the owner had any intention of selling it at all). This price is naturally a lot higher than what it would cost to rent or lease it, because as soon as you purchase it, the owner can no longer profit from it. This is precisely why the restrictions are so specific in the first place; as soon as you return the rented or leased property, the owner will, in turn, rent it out to somebody else.

But I digress. Software companies claim ownership over copies of their software after they've sold them, even though they do not expect anyone to return them at all. In fact, the only reason it remains their property (and not the consumer's) is because they say so. They want total control over what you can and can't do with it, and they do this by claiming legal ownership. However, hacking into a program and modifying it is clearly not the same as painting your apartment a different colour. The landlord needs the apartment in perfect condition when you move out; the software companies are just being a-holes.

The only thing that even allows them to forbid this kind of activity is the DMCA. In theory, standard copyright law allows users to do whatever they want with copyrighted material that is not a direct violation, as long as it is for private, noncommercial use. The DMCA has anti-circumvention legislation, which also prohibits reverse engineering. However, this is not the case everywhere. It doesn't even apply outside of America (although a few countries have adopted their own laws in compliance with the WIPO treaty). It is a violation of our rights as a consumer, and is completely unnecessary.

Yes this is digital property but the same rules apply. The problem with piracy is you're sending the wrong message and that's when things get messed up for the rest who follow the rules of the agreement.

Or, it can be seen as civil disobedience, as I have suggested. I am not trying to encourage any illegal activity, but that's how it is. If there's a law you don't agree with, break it peacefully. There are consequences, but if enough people do it for the right reasons, it might show media companies that they can't maintain a good relationship with their consumers if they continue to bully us like this.


Now then, I believe I humbly asked everyone to drop the subject and move on. I expected there to be more bigoted responses, so I tried to resolve the issue before it got worse. But apparently that wasn't good enough for you. You couldn't accept the fact that some people had a different opinion than yours, so you persisted with the same ignorant, narrow-minded nonsense.

[Arshes Nei]

Jin has been one of the most pleasant and adult minded people on the forums when it comes to Painter, whenever there is an issue with the program I know where to go. By advocating piracy, you demonstrate a gross lack of maturity, and you were treated upon the basis of which you act.

You don't get to drop the issue, this was a question brought up by another user, in which you decided to interject your opinion and basically say "hey steal Painter, because I don't like their license agreement," now face the consequences of deciding to run your opinion when one just asked a simple question about the fundamental differences.

I'm not using false analogies, because you do not need Painter to create a piece of art In your decision to use Painter you abide by their licensing rules, which is equivalent to a LEASE. You're trying to add in some wiggle room for a false argument.

Painter is not a need, it is a consumer good, and as with all software there are agreements towards its use. Any professional will tell you, that the price tag of Painter is a drop in the bucket when doing art as a career.

A CD, book and else you mentioned are entertainment goods, by using its works under intellectual property agreement for Profit and ownership claim is also a violation, so I don't see what you're getting at here. The penalties are just as harsh, if not moreso if you decide to make a profit from someone's song (besides selling your good due to its rarity). However a collectible is a different animal.

A breach of your privacy is a program that installs spyware on your computer without letting you know in the license agreement that it is doing so. Shutting down your program because your program is sending to the Licensor more than one authentication of the same key/serial for a program is not.

[emily g]

I am asking everyone to please leave this topic alone and I am locking the thread.