Who would win?

5076  2017-12-02 by sidnoway


Here before 2k votes

Here before 200 upboats

Here before 271 upboats

Worlds best? I’ve never used a program which was more difficult about functions we take as a given

My friend LaTeX would like a word (or rather, a string of code that somehow turns into a word) with you.

Well LaTeX is a markup language, not a program.

Guess you've never used ZBrush

I keep being told by my brother how much it's both a pain in the ass and the best thing to have ever existed

I really want to learn how to use maya but the their UI is killing my desires. Thier UI is so full of jpegs. There's so many colored icons in the screen. Adobe Products is still bearable for me because of the user friendly UI

Personally, I use blender. For me, the only advantage of Maya is better support for different renderers.

Blender does that too.

You can get many renderers in blender, not just blender internal and cycles, just install them as plugins

I know that, but the renderers I think are the best, Redshift for speed, Arnold for character quality and V-Ray for Architectural Visualisations. Cycles does have an amazing material setup.

Blender's support for outside rendering is nothing short of non-usable for anyone attempting an efficient workflow. As an extremely frequent blender user, if you're not utilizing cycles, you might as well do your modeling in blender and export to a different program for rendering. The unfortunate thing is that without commercial renderers such as Arnold, you're stuck with things such as luxrender and indigo, which provide little advantages over anything that cycles can accomplish. Without cycles you miss out on material preview, inline render previewing from any angle, and proper interaction with blender's nodes. As far as rendering goes, cycles is literally what makes Blender a viable option.

Blender is even fucking worse.

Like, who the fuck designed the interface? And why did they bastardize mouse left/right clicking? It's as if it was made by a computer.

My setup using the latest blender looks great just using a default theme.

That image looks like it's from 1994. You can swap the mouse buttons in the settings.

Fuck off mate . That screenshot is 10 years old at least. Plus you can change all the keybinds anyway. Have fun clicking through ten menus to find anything while I just press space then search for it and see the shortcut.

Why are you showing 15 years old version as an example of shitty interface?

Google'd it. Though it does seem that's from the older versions; this one is from 2007: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Blender_Screenshot.png

If you look at 3DS Max or Maya from 2007, it's just no contest that they've an immensely better interface.

The new versions do look better.

There's a lot of open source developers. There's not a lot of open source designers.

It's not hard to add tabs. They just needed to sort them into categories, rather than having everything all jumbled up in a mess.

I don't think they care about the average Joe who pirates their software. The big money comes from corporate licensing and a company will be more willing to use a product if their workforce (average joe's) are already familiar with it.

I remember seeing in an ama someone high up from Adobe saying exactly this in response to "would you consider lowering the prices for consumers?"

That's why they moved to the subscription model. I pay 20 a month for the entire suite. It makes it very accessible to the average Joe.

its only 20 a month for the first year, after that they revert back to 30/month. i personally think thats dumb as a $140 price increase is pretty big IMO (for students)...

I use it maybe a few times a month for things that never leave my computer. I'm glad they provided a reasonable way to afford it though, if I ever need it for work I'll definitely be paying for it.

20 a month? How? The student version? Man, I tried getting the full suite at the non-profit/charity price but it wasn't available in my area.

I'm sorry, you're right. It's the student discount. I do one class a year at the local community college to keep my college gym membership and student email for discounts. It's 40 a month regularly.

I don't spend $20 a month on porn I'm not about to spend it so I can make meme's.

Eh, it takes 15 minutes of my time to make. I know this sub is piracy, but it's really a reasonable price if you get use out of the software.

I just wish they had like a $30 a year type subscription for just photoshop (even if it’s a cut down version).

I just need something that isn’t liquid dogshit at quickly editing a video and for some reason only adobe can figure it out.

They have single application subscriptions for $20/mo

The issue I have with SUITE is that if I spend $480 for it(24 months) instead of buying it I don't have access to it if I don't subscribe unless I pay the other $480 again (full price), hence you are forever locked in their bio system.

It is still cheaper than their old buying model if you bought the new software every release. So even if you lose access to the software when not paying, you can re-activate your account when you want it and still overall have paid less.

I (my employer) pay 85,5€/month for the entire package, taxes included. Not that accessible.

For how many users?

Just me.

He should go back to the website and change from a team to an individual license then. He's paying for the team collaboration suite.

That's $240 a year.

What the fuck, just let me buy it.

You get all the software though. It's actually sweet, I've started exploring new mediums just because it's reallly simple

I had a cloud subscription for the last three years or so. And after all that, I canceled my subscription. I no longer have access to these programs installed on my computer, even tho I paid hundreds of dollars for the software. I paid enough to own them, but since they are now subscription only, I don't. They are installed on my computer, but they are just dead weight now. Fuck Adobe.

Schools are also a big one

Yup. Some dumbass at my work had an illegitimate copy of Adobe Pro (I think it was that) and the company got solidly sodomized and audited because of it.

If I personally have pirated software, it would never ever be used for work. Only to make dank memes and shit.

I guess they also make a good amount of money from suing dumb people.

There has beeen more than enough cases where people got their artwork to be published, didn't remove meta infos from said works and couldn't provide a licence for photoshop when asked after that.

Can you elaborate on that? What kind of meta info can be seen?

The meta infos on images can contain the full software information (including version and such) of the tool that was used to create the file.

Most people don't really worry about them, but it get's tricky when you get your artwork published, more and more people ask you about the software you are using and you suddenly realize you basically told everyone what software you are using without the ability to provide a licence for it.

Well I have a question for that since all of the people are using what is available on the internet, doesn't that mean the metadata of all the pirated versions are the same (if they downloaded the same cracked version?)

They don't all download the same version tho.

Most actually use a AMT emulator which just "cracks" the version you download as a (full-)trial from the adobe tool itself. The version of said trial and such can change every here and there, on top of not having everyone update to the newest version all the time.

It also doesn't really matter which version of photoshop you use; It will still state that the file was created/edited with photoshop - a tool you don't have a licence for. Metadata also doesn't only contain the version/tool used. There's like 100+ possible entries down to things like "Did you use a flash when taking the photo".

Damn, I hadn't even considered that. Thanks for the heads up, I could've become one of the dumb people.

As a rule of thumb just don't pirate something you're going to use commercially. But if it's absolutely necessary (like for example being unable to afford a 4 digit price tag) then really do your research on how to not get caught.

I do a lot of digital work, and I have both a pirated copy of CS6, plus a legit copy of CC. I keep the pirated version on archive bc for a while CS6 was resold online for ridiculous prices, and it was the last version to have a proprietary key (IE one time cost). Giant parts of me are bothered this isn't an option anymore, especially from a professional standpoint.

But, my metadata is weird bc my work is glitch based, so a lot of data gets corrupted. Plus I use a combination of PS, GIMP, Corel Paint, the old MSPaint, XnView, as well as some non-graphics based programs like notepad++ & audacity, so good luck trying to pop me for the CS6 copy I keep to install on things like my rig.

Dear Google, How to pirate how to not cd key how to crack how to anonymous how to torrent how to not get caught pirate how to VPN how to

Do you have any suggestions

Question, could you use Photoshop then import into GIMP and claim you made it with that?

While you could change the metadata (even without actually using GIMP), there is still differences between the same copy of a image saved with GIMP and photoshop. You can tell what tool was used to save a file (if it's a commonly used one), even without metadata, if you really need to.

There is also metadata like;

  • History Action
  • History Instance ID
  • History When
  • History Software Agent
  • History Changed
  • History Parameters

and such that will record what you did to the image, if you just open it and save it again. Based on a older image from myself this could look like this for example;

History Action  : saved, saved, derived, saved, saved, converted, derived, saved
History Software Agent  Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.0 (Windows), Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
History Parameters: converted from image/x-canon-cr2 to image/tiff, from image/tiff to image/jpeg

You can use this here to see the metadata and such in a nice overview.

About taking a screenshot of the image? You might lose a small bit of quality, but that should kill all of that.

You technically could, but it's simply not a good way.

  • Rightclick the file; Propertys
  • Details
  • Option to remove personal infos at the bottom
  • Tick the options you want to remove like the used tool
  • Hit "Ok"

Is there any software info in videos? I wanted to make a few youtube videos with Premiere. I don't think there'd be any hidden info left after uploading it to youtube but just thought I'd ask.

I would like to know as well

I'm not actually sure if YouTube is stripping the metadata to begin with, but yes; Videos do contain metadata.

Hm, but why do you have to prove you have a license?

If you are freelancing for a agency for example, you can quickly run into problems providing them with material that is the product of working with programs you are basically not allowed to use in the first place.

Or imagine some company really enjoys your work and wants to hire you - while seeing that you already use photoshop because it's in the images meta info; What are you going to tell them if they ask about your licences?

I'm going to tell them that I have a license? How can they check if I have one or not? Would I be obligated to provide them with actual proof of purchase? That seems a bit strange.

How can they check if I have one or not?

An audit.

Would I be obligated to provide them with actual proof of purchase?


A company hiring you freelance isnt going to ask for proof of licenses because it isnt their problem. An auditor will never check their freelancers for license compliance because those people arent employees of the business. As a contractor youre assuming all liability for making sure youre following the licensing terms. If youre actually an employee of the business, then theyll be providing you with a copy of adobe suite.

A private individual, even one using it for commercial purposes as a freelancer, is never going to be audited. Its not worth anyones time to do it because the stakes are so low. Same with small businesses, no one is bothering to do compliance on a place with 10 employees because theres just not enough money at stake to be worth the thousands and thousands of dollars a compliance audit costs.

Law enforcement would never get involved since software piracy is a civil matter. They can sue you, but the sheriff isnt going to show up and confiscate all the computers as evidence because its not a criminal matter.

Actually I know for a fact that companies like Microsoft do audit small companies (around 10 employes) as well as big ones. At least in my country, Uruguay

Would I be obligated to provide them with actual proof of purchase? That seems a bit strange.

Most agencys i know simply have you sign a contract that you have the licence for the software you are using and don't even worry about it, because even if they publish the work - it's you getting sued.

There are however also companies that do request proof of your licence, because they for example don't provide one themself (which is pretty common when freelancing and not actually being part of said company).

I don't really see how it's "strange" that you have to proof that you own the professional software you are using, if you want to work in a professional environment. Not being able to pay 20$/month for software you are using to "make your money" as a freelancer is also basically the quickest way not to get hired in the first place.

That's like making a musician prove he bought his guitar, a composer show a receipt for his piano, a voice over artist show his invoice for his microphone. It's fucking nuts, actually.

Except that that's absolutely horrible examples.

If you hire a musican with a stolen guitar for your bar and he get's caught, it's (mostly) his problem. If you hire a freelancer without a license for his software and you work with the resulting material your whole company is fucked because of him easily.

You are the one asking for work, you are the one proving that whatever you work with is legaly fine. There is absolutely nothing "fucking nuts" about a company that doesn't want to run into problems because a freelancer doesn't give a fuck.

It's not. The software industry is different because of piracy... They have the right to ask you for proof of licencing.

The software company is not your employer so that's not at all what the commenter was saying

I don't really see how it's "strange" that you have to proof that you own the professional software you are using

I don't have to prove to a company that I have reliable transportation. They just ask me and I say yes.

That's a pretty dumb comparison. They would ask you for your driver's licence. If you are a pizza delivery guy for example, which solely relies on your driving, they'll ask for it just like Uber asks before you deive for them.

That's a pretty huge difference.

Imagine you work as a driver for a company. Said company has a pretty good reason to ask for your licence, because if you get caught somehow, they are screwed also.

The exact same applies to work with illegal software usage on your end.

I can only imagine the if I were to get a freelancing job based on a project I used a pirated copy of Photoshop to create, then the very first thing I'd buy is a licence for Photoshop.
Especially since the only reason I might ever pirate something in the first place would be if I genuinely couldn't afford it or if it was region locked maybe.
These days it's just easier to find some FOSS alternative (such as GIMP in this example)

if I were to get a freelancing job based on a project I used a pirated copy of Photoshop to create, then the very first thing I'd buy is a licence for Photoshop.

I mean, if you make money working with it on basically any professional level - the monthly cost pays itself rather easily.

And yea, i agree. I mean, if someone really just wants to edit pictures; There's completly free tools out there that easily do the job without learning or pirating photoshop. I often edit personal stuff on a chromebook for example, with just android apps - without spending a penny.

That was my first thought. If you are a driver it's perfectly acceptable for a company to ask for your license. If you are using your vehicle in any way/shape/form for their business it's acceptable for them to also ask for insurance information and vehicle registration status. It's a pretty standard business practice.

You'd be amazed what gets asked for in the b2b world. For smaller companies I'm guessing it's much more off the cuff but I work for a worldwide company and when we procure services we ask for some of the craziest shit. Business licenses, insurance information, the T&Cs for our POs to vendors are 3 pages long.

If you're job is transliteration, you need to prove you have a license.

But if your job involves transportation (ex: Uber) they do check.

Sure, but to use the same "transportation" parallel, this is more like applying at Uber or Lyft. What happens when it's discovered that your car is stolen, with out of date inspection and registration stickers?

What do you tell them? Easy, you lie. If it really comes down to it, you fabricate an email receipt to print off and show them. Not like they can force you to provide an audit-quality stack of receipts and bank statements.

What do you tell them? Easy, you lie. If it really comes down to it, you fabricate an email receipt to print off and show them.

That's a pretty solid way to not only get sued if someone finds out (or a co-worker that knows about it tells the chef), but to never get hired again also.

Not like they can force you to provide an audit-quality stack of receipts and bank statements.

As a freelancer it won't be the case, but any bigger/well-known/international company hiring you will do exactly that. I worked for a company doing product design for bigger labels (shopping malls all over europe) once (from home) and had to fill like 2 pages of different informations including software usage and other things to even get hired in the first place. If they don't provide the software for you (most places actually do), they will make absolutely sure that you don't fuck them up with stuff like this. They also can make you sign that you agree to get checked by an audit before you get hired.

Tell them I have one and then go buy it lol

If you are freelancing, you will basically have to.

Most agencys that actually hire you will hook you up with one.

Because their product isn't free. If you're making money from it it's like using stolen tools.

It's the one single licensing thing I agree with, but not the exclusive model. Unity does it well, anyone can use their shit for free but if you want to make money you have to license it. It's usually even a commission and a smaller upfront fee.

Piracy is stealing

Really, mate? Fucking really?!

did you even read the question I was answering? Calm down.

Yes I did.

To make money

It's usually only if you are going to make money from their product. My engineering drafting teacher said if you acquired the software somehow without paying you'll most likely be fine if you are just using it at home. But as soon as you start freelancing absolutely don't use pirated or a student version.
In my case the Solidworks police might end up finding it, then you are slapped with thousands of dollars in fines. And If you are a company using unlicensed software you can be hit with a fine nearing $100,000 or more.

"yeah I just found it online somewhere. That's legal right?"

Reminds me of the whole "Adobe released a free version of CS2!" thing, where basically everyone i knew downloaded a stone old version and claimed it's a "free legacy version".

Lol, I know exactly what you're talking about. I had found it once and discovered the program was so old it didn't even recognize graphic tablets.

So how can I delete the said info..?

Use the "Save for web" function in the file menu and change the option under "metadata" on the right.

What about photos I’ve already edited?

  1. Open in file explorer
  2. Rightclick > Properties
  3. Details Tab
  4. "Remove Properties and Personal Information" at the bottom

Or just opening and saving them via the save for web function to overwrite the old file.

So one could theoretically export the PNG from Photoshop, import it into say, Gimp and export it again into PNG with gimp's metadata instead of Ps'?

You technically could, but you could also just save it (save for web function) without adding the softwares meta infos to begin with.

Imma doin the last save with MS Paint then

Paint won't affect the metadata actually. In fact, images resaved as a new file with Paint will just carry their old metadata.

The only save way is to remove said data.

Just kidding. Some people are more talented creating in paint as I'll ever be creating in Photoshop

You could actually edit something in paint, open it with photoshop, resize it and change the file type (like from BMP to JPG/PNG) and create a new file with it. It will be tagged as "edited with photoshop" in the metadata basically, while it's made with paint.

Then again, that way around it really has.. not much use.

more and more people ask you about the software you are using

So what software you use.



Works, until you noticed you forgot to remove the exif/metadata and the file you just send them literally has the edit history of photoshop/camera raw and other paid softwares in it.

Which is a pretty common thing people fuck up.

Well, on my joke scenario, I would've removed the Metadata, but, edit history? Can you elaborate on that?

Metadata can also contain infos like;

History Action
History Instance ID
History When
History Software Agent
History Changed
History Parameters


History Action  : saved, saved, derived, saved, saved, converted, derived, saved
History Software Agent  Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.0 (Windows), Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
History Parameters: converted from image/x-canon-cr2 to image/tiff, from image/tiff to image/jpeg

Oh. Didn't know that. Is it removed along with the regular metadata or they need a specific process to get rid of?

If you strip metadata from a file, it will also be removed.

You can always check your file to make sure no bad infos are applied. It would show them.

Meta info, would this be present in all file-types that can be output from Photoshop like say a .TGA or .PNG? Or just .PSD?

In all file types that support metadata, like PNG, JPG, etc.

Thank you for the reply, that's really neat!

No Problem :)

Pretty much any saved file on your computer has metadata.

It just depends on the used programm and source (images aved from web are wastly different compared to raw photos for example) how much / which infos are actually saved in the metadata.

Does this happen with mp4 files though? For example, when uploading videos made in the pirated version of Vegas?

Video files also have metadata, yes.

Same goes for microsoft for windows.

This should be a sticky

TIL never to publish my artwork

Save for web, remove meta infos.

How, though?

You could just screenshot it.

It's probably pretty retarded, but I'm not a picture guy.

You’re right, but that’d just fuck up the quality.

If it were 1920x1080, and you had it full screened and took a screenshot, would it still fuck up the quality?

Sorry if the answer is obvious, I basically only use Premier with a bit of Photoshop for cropping/adding transparency.

Yes, a screen shot is only 72dpi. Your original image is probably more like 150 or 300 dpi.

oh okay, thanks :)

(But if you're simply making web graphics, not a big deal)

Did you read their comment? They're literally talking about an image with raw dimensions of 1920x1080. You can the dpi all you like, the number of pixels stay the same. Pixel dimensions =/= dpi.

Pixel for pixel there's no difference between 72dpi and 600dpi.1920x1200 is 1920x1200 in any resolution. It is, however, approx 26 in x 16in at 72 and 3in x 2in at 600, when printed on paper.

Uh, no. You're completely wrong. I mean, if you're just making web graphics, yeah. But for print, a 1900 X 1200 image at 72 dpi is a serious drop in quality from the same image at 300dpi.

It's not a hard concept.

Did you actually read me comment?

If the screenshot is lossless like a png then it will be the same pixel for pixel (depending on colour setting last of the app and OS).

Yes. Screenshots always reduce quality.

I’m no expert, though, and I’m sure there’s a way to take a screenshot without degrading the quality of the image, but most of the time, you don’t want to take a screenshot. There are probably better ways of removing metadata, but I have no idea how to do so, which is why I asked.

Screenshots always reduce quality.

I’m sure there’s a way to take a screenshot without degrading the quality of the image

Way to contradict yourself.

Well, it’s a common mistake.

Anyway, what I meant was that 90% of screenshot methods probably reduce the quality of the image.

90%? MacOS defaults to png, which is lossless. Hitting Win+prtsc will save a png too. Using Snipping Tool lets you save to a bunch of formats, a few being lossless.

Meta data is easily changeable it's just variables anyways. Just don't know a program off the top of my head

It just depends on what kind of screenshot you take. If you take a JPEG, it will blur stuff. A PNG reduces the color pallet. There's nothing preventing a lossless screenshot except the software we tend to use for the purpose.

A PNG doesn't have to reduce the colour pallette, it depends on the colour depth of the exported image. So, a PNG could very well be lossless.

PNG is a lossless image format that all good screenshotting programs use.

I use this handy tool


Now this is useful

Alright then.

This is r/piracy.

You god damned motherfuckers are useless if you can't answer this simple question.

Chill, dude. I posted this comment mere nine minutes ago.

Nono, no offense, boss. I swear. Only a tad drunky, k? :)

What is wrong with you

Dude, a fucking lot. I am seeking professional help, but coveredca and Kaiser can't seem to get their shit together.

That aside, read down the thread before taking a fat dick up your virgin ass hole and realize that me and the poster got tighter than your rectum, k?


Why can't I send you a hug? I want to SO BAD.

and yet you didn't answer the question either?

Okay. Now you're being gay. I will Google and answer upon further request.

Can't tell if I took the bait of a good troll or if you are genuinely this way lmao



Brochick I love u k?

love you too <3

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻)

Save as bmp and compress with another program. Bmp files are raw pixel data and don't contain any meta data

LOL... go to properties and remove all attributes or use any meta editing app.

PhotoME seems like the very thing to edit meta info.

File > Save for Web

opens a dialog with a few more settings, one of them on the right is "metadata". You can just switch that to "none".

Can you elaborate what meta infos is? And are there any find to removing meta infos

Im replying to this thread because I'm interested too. But I think meta info contains the render engine, data about editing, date and time etc. as well as EXIF data

Meta infos are basically little "tags" you stick to files.

  1. Author
  2. Software used
  3. When the file was created
  4. How was the image edited (like "Saturation -12")
  5. Which camera took the photo with which settings

Pretty much anything. There are a few downsides. If you want to show your camera info on pages like flickr (basically showing what settings/setup you used to take the picture) you will have to manually delete just the used programm and such, because completly removing the metainfos will also remove that.

So if I don't really need to show my meta info and stuff, I could just delete it

Definitly, yes.

Alright, thanks

Point me a case other than forever 21, which slatted for nothing. Nobody is going to check your metadata, even if they did, it proves nothing in court of law.

We don't talk to police

Stop scaring people for nothing.

Exactly. "Did it on friend's computer. I don't even know his full name, met him while traveling and he left back to [insert country name]". Prove me I'm lying. Case closed.

Yes, you just have to keep silent when questioned, and they can't even prove you saw their email. Answering copyright trolls is the one thing that makes you end up paying them.

well they can... there's tools for that... Just don't open them.

It would require a tracking pixel/image in the email, which isn't too hard to set up.

Still wouldn't prove that is was YOU who opened though, but would be getting close

Hard to argue especially if they tie into facebook. You shouldn't be letting others use your devices.

You shouldn't be letting others use your devices.

But who's going to police that? If the device is yours, you can use it as you wish as long as you don't hur others on purpouse.

It's age toa disarm you don't let others access your account. Proving it wasn't you is harder than proving it was.

That's true if you are a minor and you have your tech illiterate parents and siblings trying to appear smart, but once you marry you should be open to letting your spouse help you manage your email.

Say, you are away in an unsecure network and you remember it's the last day to pay some bank fee: You can tell him your password via phone and change it when you are back home, risking someone hearing you, or you can tell him beforehand and then just telling them to go pay the fee at X website.

This happened to me more than once, and I was grateful he knew my passwords. There are great perks to marry a reasonable man/woman who you can trust with your info, and trust in a marriage is an important feature to have.

I don't know.. I don't like sharing my passwords with anyone.

Your call. But I do have one person I don't have any problems sharinf passwords with.

I have googles inactivity thing.

What's that?

gives my account over to a trusted member of my family if I die.

well, that's not going to do you much good if you need that trusted relative to pay your bill on the last day because you forgot and aren't home.

Automatic payments

Google has automatic payments for your banks?


My bank is free, my services withdraw automatically.

It's not about companies like Forever 21 (bonus points if you get caught recording a bathroom..), but people.

As someone who had a lot to do with model agencys and such in the past, there's some seriously dumb people out there. The amount of people who show up to a job interview stating they don't have photoshop, yet have their stuff tagged as edited with photoshop isn't even funny. We literally had someone show up to a test shooting (to see how well he works in a given environment) who just went to edit said pictures before showing us the results and every single one was tagged by photoshops newest version. When we asked him a few days later if he owns photoshop he simply denied even having it installed, but he also never showed up again.

If you work with freelancers, it's a pretty common problem in the graphical design/photography area and your company bascially has to trash the resulting material and report them to not get sued or working with it/publishing it ourself. We literally have to make sure they atleast sign that they own the software they use for our work - even if they don't in the end.

About the "proves nothing in law" thing; It does if you are dumb enough to provide your agency the original images that are tagged by a software you are not allowed to use. Good luck explaining why they are tagged, if you don't own a licence.

A quick google search in the "Is your freelancer using illeagal software" direction shows just how big the problem is and how many people actually get sued over it.

images that are tagged by a software you are not allowed to use

The license is required to be able to install the software on devices you own, not to use it.

If your university has a computer lab with Windows PCs running MS Office and Adobe software, you don't need to own all these licenses to use them.

If your Creative Cloud subscription runs out, your previous artwork doesn't suddenly become illegal.

And if your girlfriend lets you use her computer to put some final touches on your portfolio for a job interview, you'll probably not have a SWAT team jumping through your window.

The license is required to be able to install the software on devices you own, not to use it.

This is plain wrong.

If you would actually read adobe's terms of use, you would quickly notice that using the software or any of their services you agree to said terms, which state that without a licence you are not allowed to use said software or service in the first place.

If your university has adobe installed on their PC's, they also own a education license, which allows you to use it in the first place. There is even work-at-home licensing and other stuff. They can also validate your status with a copy of your school ID card, or email adress handed out by the school and such.

You are also making up situations that have pretty much nothing to do with the situation i mentioned; Actually working on any professional level. Nobody cares if you get hired as a designer for some backyard copyshop, but as soon as you try to apply to any bigger/international/well-known company, you will run into this and you can run into a lot of problems easily.

You should not pirate if you dont even understand meta info.

What if I make it with the trial version?

Never worked with a trial version, so i can't tell if the metadata would be any different.

You can test it yourself by saving a file with the trial version of the same update and check the details of the file, which include the version number and such.

But i guess it's legal to work with trial version isnt it? If there is a trial reset then it might solve the licence issue?

But i guess it's legal to work with trial version isnt it?

In most cases it is, yes.

You could tell them if they did, it proves nothing in court of law.

this is is an experimental bot that utilizes markov chains to form sentences from context.

Bad bot

This is the same reason Winrar never bothers making people purchase licenses - It's better to keep it free for personal use, then charge out the ass for corporate licenses. Corporations will flock to the company, because everyone is already familiar with it.

7-Zip FTW

They way I see it, pirate the software if you're playing with it, pay for the software if you're using it to profit. They monthly model is honestly great because it easier for artists to pay for software as they need it and pay in small chunks. I bet more artists are going legit because of that! I have heard many many people complain that they spend $1000s on software only to find it out of date in a couple years. Photoshop is not too bad because in the right hands any version can do the trick... But video editors need to keep updating because the industry moves forward rapidly.

Exactly what Winrar did

Here before lots of upvotes

amtlib.dll would win by itself.

Well, if you didn't modify the registry and hosts as well, the Adobe updater will automatically update your program files, rendering that dll useless and reverting back to a trial.

So I mean, which version of adobes products (and which suite) are you cracking with just this one dll?

CS6 only needs amtlib.dll and honestly CS6 is all I need.

Forget painter or x force and get yourself Adobe Anticloud by VR. All problems forgotten, update all you want.



I need to search this, thanks.

Nice, thank you!

That sounds amazing.

It reminds me of when you could use any key you want, as long as it follows the key scheme by M$, to activate Windows XP, and then you would call into them, sometimes getting a person, read a bunch of numbers to the machine or person, then they would give you verification codes.

Now your system is fully activated.

Like wtf was that piracy ?

I'm gonna Google your stuff now

That only works if your machine included a windows license to begin with though, so, no it's not piracy. The machine included the price of the license when you bought it.

That was way before SLIP and other BIOS keys.

What it really was, was that someone cracked the algorithm s for generating valid licenses, before Microsoft realized people could do that.

Microsoftonly based the legitimacy of the keys based on the algorithm.

So, you ran the keygen, used it's key, so that when you used the call to activate, it would generate a valid check token, and when the Microsoft system would use that check key (effectively a public key), their validation confirmation (effectively the private key) would also be valid, thus forcing a backend system activation which would permanently, and legitimatly, activate Windows.

So much so, that now when you reused that key on a different system, it would instantly activate since now M$'s system has a check and validation confirmation.

It was simply a flaw of merging the legitimacy of keys based purely on algorithm, that was simple to crack. Utilize the algorithm, generate a valid check process to gain actual genuine activation.

Your post made me feel very nostalgic :)

You're very welcome!

I just delete the update executables

That mostly works for me.

I usually make empty files or folders and lock the permissions to no one.

That's my anti virus lol

I used to do that back in the day.

Recent adobe cc versions can be downloaded/updated with the official adobe software and then with the crack you activate it. No hosts edit needed, and if they release a new version you can update to it and crack it againv(sometimes you need a new crack for major version updates)

At this point I believe Adobe doesn't even care.

But Ms paint is the best software suite

Woooow! How is this even possible?

It's ironic. My mother runs a medium sized company and during the week she phoned me because whenever her or one of her employees opened something in Acrobat it would corrupt the PDF. She was in a panic. Turns out some problem with an automatuc update and she couldn't roll it back. So I sent her a portable pirated version and she linked her employees that to use in the meantime. Obviously her it guys fixed it and she's back to using her licenced version. I just found it ironic that the pirated version solved their problem quicker than her multiple thousand euro licences from a support perspective.

And she would have probably gotten fired if she didn't own the company.

Lol Adobe support? That's hilarious.

That's what DRM does for people.

Spend thousands of dollars for a reliable piece of software only for an update to stop piracy screws it up for the paying customer and the pirates are inconvenienced for a couple of days.

What are the gears?

.dll file. Adobe's products cracking method has always been the same, one dll file called amtlib.dll

.dll file that cracks any Adobe product.

So... uh... do you have any more info than that?

Yup, there's a thread about it here in the same subreddit.

Anticloud, PainteR, etc. Yiu download a free Adobe trial of your favorite program, run the software and crack the .dll so it removes the trial and makes sure Adobe can't tell

Does this work on Mac?


Adobe and World's Best software suite?



i mean in terms of actual cohesive software suites that tie into each other with any sense of reliability... what's the alternative? AutoDesk?...... you're lucky if the devs for one autodesk program are even aware that different autodesk programs fucking exist lmao

There are better software that Adobe. I don't use Adobe PDF for example. I don't use photoshop either.

There is literally not a viable competitor to photoshop in existence. GIMP'S workflow and feature set would have a great place in 2006. As for a PDF reader even though I agree, thats not really part of their paid creative suite.

You admit that it's the best yet you're not willing to pay for the best. 🤔


I don't pay for anything software related. Welcome to this sub

For mac users there is: http://www.pixelmator.com/pro/

A 30 dollar toy from the OSX app store that's missing such basic things as RAW support or CMYK color can hardly be called a legitimate competitor to the industry standard. I'm fairly sure freakin GIMP is more feature complete than pixelmator.

Pixelmator Pro supports both RAW and CMYK color.. Do some better research mate... Adobe is trash. Face the facts.

Jesus christ dude I stand corrected. I was looking at the regular Pixelmator release. Does resorting to personal attacks on a comment chain over software preference really accomplish much? Having said that. You're on a fucking piracy sub. Feature completeness aside, the workflow in Photoshop transfers and integrates with every other Adobe program. What argument could be had at that point for not just getting a cracked Photoshop? Pixelmator fills the same niche as GIMP. It's a tolerable alternative to Photoshop for personal use. No high school or college design courses are going to teach it, and no business with design as a focal point is going to use it. For a supposed super viable professional alternative, it hasn't gone much of anywhere in the 10 years since the initial release. I'll again reiterate. Photoshop is the industry standard, and it's going to take a literal fucking miracle to disrupt that.

There are better software that Adobe.

I didn't see you name them.

In my opinion these mac apps are better (and cheaper): Coda > Dreamweaver Ableton > Audition PDF Expert > Acrobat Pixelmator Pro > Photoshop Final Cut Pro > Premiere Sketch > Illustrator

Coda > Dreamweaver Ableton > Audition PDF Expert > Acrobat Pixelmator Pro > Photoshop Final Cut Pro > Premiere Sketch > Illustrator

I doubt peopling pirating their software affects their bottom line.

This is one thing we can blame on Russia.

JonTron has his own file type now?

Please explain this?

JonTron is a youtuber. This is his logo, it has gears in it.

An obscure YouTuber didn't invent gears

Everyone knows Apple invented gears.

Not everyone, I didn't

It's like $50/month now for the whole suite. Anybody who's making ANY money from their artworks, should be able to afford the price tag.

$600 per year is a lot of money though

If you're creating and not bringing in $600/year in revenue then you don't need creative suite. It's not yours. You're not entitled to it. Go use gimp and windows movie maker.

It's not yours. You're not entitled to it

Funny, I never said that I was entitled to it. I just said that $600 a year is an expensive software license.

And I do use Gimp, but not because of the license cost — I use it because it's the only viable photo editing software for Linux. And also, it's FOSS.

$600 is a fairly low business expense.

600 dollars per year.

If you can't get a $50/mo revenue from your creations then you don't need creative suite.

But in order to make money using it, you need to learn to use it first. So where do we go from here?

It's a tool, it doesn't give you the skill set. It helps you to make better creations easier. When you're advanced enough to warrant needing creative suite and you are looking forward to turning a profit on your creations, then you buy creative suite.

Because only professional artists should be allowed to use it.

Yes that's who it's marketed towards.

In reality, Adobe could try to make it harder for people to pirate their software, but that would require money (for additional development/research) and it's more likely they'd actually lose money by doing so. For one, they know that most pirates aren't going to spend the money for their software if they can't pirate it. Also, often times people who pirate it actually end up buying it after liking it so much or whatever. And like other people said, the vast majority of their income comes from corporate licensing anyway.

I like the autocad method. You can just sign up for the education version with no real credentials and get a non pirate version for free. Sure it watermarks your shit as education but seriously if your doing commercial work pony up the dough. Autodesk's knows that if you make it easy to train people on your software then that is what they will want to use in the workplace!

Not to mention, pretty much every pirate would be more than happy to stay on an old version if the new ones are better protected against piracy.

Okay just some help, when ever I pirate it and do the dll file process it always reverts back to the trial and expires, how do I avoid this?

Did you make sure you didn't launch it before doing the DLLs and you had your internet completely connected? And you replaced the dll files not just added the cracked ones?

To be honest it's been a while since I last tried but I'm pretty sure I didn't launch it. I might not have completely replaced the dlls but I'll make sure to next time.

I'm pretty sure you also need to modify the registry and the hosts file in order to properly crack most Adobe programs.

One dll won't do the job these days.

And here i am, doing all my vector work in inkscape.

Does the job i need it for. Easy on the system. No moving around with functions every release. I know my software will be around in x years, and my files will still be opened flawlessly then.

its a darn shame that the most random indie game gets a crack, but actual usefull software like automodeller, IpackThat, marmoset, etc... doesnt get any love :(

I've been finding it really hard to pirate software these days :'(

amtlib.dll too OP


Adobe doesn't give a shit about some home poeple using their software for free. The big money comes from companys and lisences

CCmaker is the best!

geary boy

"Boi" dead meme.

He should go back to the website and change from a team to an individual license then. He's paying for the team collaboration suite.

Well LaTeX is a markup language, not a program.

Never worked with a trial version, so i can't tell if the metadata would be any different.

You can test it yourself by saving a file with the trial version of the same update and check the details of the file, which include the version number and such.

Video files also have metadata, yes.