i1Studio Spectrophotometer logistical question

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Gentlemen, thank you both for your further explanations, and generally your patience with me. It is clear to me that I have not read enough parts of Schewe's The Digital Print, even though my copy sitting right here.

At this point my takeaways and further explanations are:
(1) I might as well spend the $47 + s/h to rent the device and see what I get, because nobody has suggested a specific alternative, at least that is readily rentable in that price range.
(2) Argyll + CMS are by all accounts more capable than the lower-end X-Rite software. My concern is that if getting up to speed with their use is a slow process, many reports indicate that they will cause problems with my using the X-Rite software. Currently I use it to (periodically) run my ColorMunki Display, and I could use it to build printing profiles. Maybe I need to dive in--but I do worry that a week's rental, during which time I'll have my regular work and family duties, won't suffice.
(3) I'm sure the lighting at my work can be a problem, but there is no good solution because for the large majority of the time I'm there, window light is a major contributor to viewing light on any photo there, and of course it changes a lot with cloud cover, season, time of day, etc.

Anyway, thanks!

[smilem]

"Interesting that one can rent this equipment from another license-holder for making one's own profiles, but if one owns the equipment, without a commercial license X-Rite allows us to make profiles for others only under very restrictive conditions. But I can see the distinction."

AFAIK X-rite made this license to obviously make more money.
But it works in US only, as other countries don't give sh*t about such crap. You can always hack the profiles built so they do not contain X-rite copyright stuff, and numbers are numbers.

[Mark D Segal]

"Interesting that one can rent this equipment from another license-holder for making one's own profiles, but if one owns the equipment, without a commercial license X-Rite allows us to make profiles for others only under very restrictive conditions. But I can see the distinction."

AFAIK X-rite made this license to obviously make more money.
But it works in US only, as other countries don't give sh*t about such crap. You can always hack the profiles built so they do not contain X-rite copyright stuff, and numbers are numbers.

I think you were quoting me in your first paragraph in quotation marks.

You are factually incorrect that other countries don't care about these matters, to put it more politely. "basICColor Print", an application from Germany, is also profile-making software and has a very similar licensing provision; in both cases the applicability, as far as I know, is international. It's obviously done with the purpose of selling more software. Philosophically I don't like such provisions - they are a restriction on how I may want to use the software, but the companies are free to impose such restrictive trade practices unless they are challenged in court and found to violate some provision of competition law or other commercial law. To the best of my knowledge no-one anywhere has undertaken the very considerable expense and effort of doing that. So those are the rules and they are in good standing until overturned. Your solution is to violate the most basic terms of almost any software license, which is the prohibition to modify the software in any way, and in this case to obscure the source of the profile for the purpose of violating one term of an agreement you entered into when you bought the license to use it. If it were me, I wouldn't be advertising such advise on a public forum, whether or not I liked each and every provision of the license I signed-up to.

[smilem]

Your solution is to violate the most basic terms of almost any software license, which is the prohibition to modify the software in any way, and in this case to obscure the source of the profile for the purpose of violating one term of an agreement you entered into when you bought the license to use it. If it were me, I wouldn't be advertising such advise on a public forum, whether or not I liked each and every provision of the license I signed-up to.

It's strange that without advice nobody would think about it, is free speech banned in US? It is banned in allot of countries I know that but strange to hear such from US poster.

To know how to do it and actually do it are two entirely different things. I don't force anyone to do so, but in third world countries it's fact nobody buys software they do not profit from. And it's absurd to think otherwise.

And all those talented designers etc. they learn on hacked software. All of them. I know nobody from 1995 the first computer I got was back then who learned on legal software. It's sad, but it' fact. And because people give back money as taxes when they actually are hired I see no problem here.

I for one bought gretagmacbeth stuff not X-rite. So no nonsense license agreement.

If somebody actually claims to sell profiles that are X-rite made, then that is another thing. But seems the profilesbyrick still operate, so seems x-rite does not care much.

[Mark D Segal]

I am not a US poster, and no one is limiting your "free speech". Carry on as you wish, but I shall abstain from further dialog on this matter.

[digitaldog]

AFAIK X-rite made this license to obviously make more money.
But it works in US only, as other countries don't give sh*t about such crap. You can always hack the profiles built so they do not contain X-rite copyright stuff, and numbers are numbers.

You’re going to have to “hack” a lot more than the copyright “stuff” and it appears this attitude doesn’t come from an actual Photograher who cares about the concept of Intellectual property of images or otherwise!   

[smilem]

The need to hide behind an alias while posting is now clear.

Nobody is hiding, there is a link to my site on my profile like it is on yours. I for one make profiles for profit with gretagmacbeth and argyll, no need for license headaches for me.

You’re going to have to “hack” a lot more than the copyright “stuff”

Sure you must not include the optimization in such profiles too.

[digitaldog]

Nobody is hiding, there is a link to my site on my profile like it is on yours. I for one make profiles for profit with gretagmacbeth and argyll, no need for license headaches for me.
Sure you must not include the optimization in such profiles too.

You ever create anything of value yourself, that you sell? Anything that would require a copyright or EULA? Ask me, the answer is yes to both.
IF you answer yes, then your comments about hacking X-rite's copyright shows your massive hypocrisy. If you don't, then maybe you're posting in the wrong forum. Pro photographers don't sell images, they sell the rights to image usage. We take copyright very seriously. Some of us also produce software and we take our EULA seriously too. That you'd suggest here that one hack a copyright shows you don't know too much about either producing or selling anything of intellectual value. That much you made very clear bud.

[digitaldog]

It's strange that without advice nobody would think about it, is free speech banned in US? It is banned in allot of countries I know that but strange to hear such from US poster.

Let two American's help you out, you're confused.
 As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences.’ ”
Your assumptions of who are US poster's is noted too.... 

[digitaldog]

And all those talented designers etc. they learn on hacked software. All of them. I know nobody from 1995 the first computer I got was back then who learned on legal software. It's sad, but it' fact.

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -Bertrand Russel
Extrapolated:
"If fifty million people do an illegal act, it is still an illegal act" -The Digital Dog
ALL of them you once again assume all do this.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Doug Gray]

And all those talented designers etc. they learn on hacked software. All of them. I know nobody from 1995 the first computer I got was back then who learned on legal software. It's sad, but it' fact. And because people give back money as taxes when they actually are hired I see no problem here.

I've never hacked or used licensed software incorrectly and I've probably spend well over 100k USD buying software for various personal purposes. Some of that turned out to later enhance my productivity and no doubt boosted my income substantially. And, of course, the companies I worked for also only used legal software.

These days it's very possible to do quite well with open source software in almost any area of interest. I use many open source tools and found the general quality outstanding. I've even contributed to Argyll because, well. I found the software valuable.

[Mark D Segal]

I've never hacked or used licensed software incorrectly and I've probably spend well over 100k USD buying software for various personal purposes. Some of that turned out to later enhance my productivity and no doubt boosted my income substantially. And, of course, the companies I worked for also only used legal software.

These days it's very possible to do quite well with open source software in almost any area of interest. I use many open source tools and found the general quality outstanding. I've even contributed to Argyll because, well. I found the software valuable.

Ya, the problem underlying some of the commentary in this thread is most likely affordability. The kind of territory you're talking about is either for corporate budgets or the .05% on the US income ladder. I don't condone copyright or licensing infringement on principle, but one has to recognize that the incentive to do so is likely an inverse function of affordability.

[Doug Gray]

Ya, the problem underlying some of the commentary in this thread is most likely affordability. The kind of territory you're talking about is either for corporate budgets or the .05% on the US income ladder. I don't condone copyright or licensing infringement on principle, but one has to recognize that the incentive to do so is likely an inverse function of affordability.

True. Though I paid for software even when I first started working and made a pretty small income.

OTOH, I did hack Microsofts Basic after buying it and discovering they had added stuff in it to keep it from functioning on a Z80 and would only work on a 8080. That was what Altair used but I had a Chromemco Z80 S100 system and I was completely annoyed that it didn't work on it. They had to go out of their way to make it work only on the 8080 and it was probably to limit theft and use on non-Altair systems. However, nothing in their sales info indicated that. I spend a couple days writing out the op codes, discovering the hooks they put in to lock out Z80s, and writing patches to get around it.

I told a couple others about it and found myself getting asked to publish it. So I did in Dr. Dobbs as well as Interface Age (I think) They actually sent me a few hundred bucks for doing it. Only time I ever hacked software but I figured I bought it full retail and they didn't warn me it didn't work on Z80s. That was totally legal back then but is not now.

I actually used it at work a year later to optimize an unrelated hardware design which went on to make the company a lot of money. Within a few years there were also other alternatives too. Things have moved fast in tech.

BTW, that software, which cost me about $400 (real money in the late 70's) came on paper tape. I can't imagine doing that today.

[Mark D Segal]

Interesting story - OMG, paper tape - do I remember those days - and the boxes of punch cards one spent hours pruning for errors.......thank goodness for human ingenuity and the processes of investing in technical change, we've come quite a way in a short period of time relative to the long sweep of societal history!

[Doug Gray]

Interesting story - OMG, paper tape - do I remember those days - and the boxes of punch cards one spent hours pruning for errors.......thank goodness for human ingenuity and the processes of investing in technical change, we've come quite a way in a short period of time relative to the long sweep of societal history!

Yep, There was a device called an OP-80 IIRC that you could read the paper tape with. You'd enter the bootstrap code using the front panel switches and then you could pull the paper tape through quite quickly. One could also use a teletype ASR-33 but it clunked along at 10 CPS.

Hard to believe I could tolerate doing that. But in those days one had no choice and it seemed almost like magic. At the time.