<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hostage taking business model</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/</link>
	<description>Chronicles of people and ideas to inspire and achieve freedom from a 9 to 5 job</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:05:16 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brandon Doyle</title>
		<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1367</link>
		<dc:creator>Brandon Doyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/#comment-1367</guid>
		<description>Michael, 

That is just wrong. If that happened to me, I would be super pissed off. This makes my blood boil. I wonder if a third party app could pull off a screen capture. I mean hell, you paid for it! What gives?!

I guess NOTHING in this modern world is ever as it seems. Companies will screw with you left and right.

On a brighter note, with my daughter, service was handled correctly at Kiddie Kandids 9 times out of 10.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, </p>
<p>That is just wrong. If that happened to me, I would be super pissed off. This makes my blood boil. I wonder if a third party app could pull off a screen capture. I mean hell, you paid for it! What gives?!</p>
<p>I guess NOTHING in this modern world is ever as it seems. Companies will screw with you left and right.</p>
<p>On a brighter note, with my daughter, service was handled correctly at Kiddie Kandids 9 times out of 10.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Sica</title>
		<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1291</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/#comment-1291</guid>
		<description>Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the tip, but I remember trying that and I don&#039;t think it worked. If I remember correctly, the application disables the print screen button.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mitch,</p>
<p>Thanks for the tip, but I remember trying that and I don&#8217;t think it worked. If I remember correctly, the application disables the print screen button.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Director Mitch</title>
		<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1226</link>
		<dc:creator>Director Mitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/#comment-1226</guid>
		<description>Michael,

One way to get around your problem that I have used lots of times for other applications:

- Open and view your picture in the &quot;protected&quot; application.

- Hit &quot;PrtSc&quot; (Print Screen).  This should do a screen capture of your screen and put it in the clipboard.

- Open up Microsoft PhotoEditor or whatever photo editing software you have.

- Select &quot;Paste&quot; from the menu

- Crop out anything from your screen shot you don&#039;t want

You should then be able to save a JPEG.  Not perfect, but &quot;good enough&quot; to get your picture in a non-proprietary mode.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>One way to get around your problem that I have used lots of times for other applications:</p>
<p>- Open and view your picture in the &#8220;protected&#8221; application.</p>
<p>- Hit &#8220;PrtSc&#8221; (Print Screen).  This should do a screen capture of your screen and put it in the clipboard.</p>
<p>- Open up Microsoft PhotoEditor or whatever photo editing software you have.</p>
<p>- Select &#8220;Paste&#8221; from the menu</p>
<p>- Crop out anything from your screen shot you don&#8217;t want</p>
<p>You should then be able to save a JPEG.  Not perfect, but &#8220;good enough&#8221; to get your picture in a non-proprietary mode.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Sica</title>
		<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1212</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/#comment-1212</guid>
		<description>I completely agree!

My wife and her mother found a photographer they liked for our wedding and engagement photos. They gave me a run down of everything that was included in the package - one of those items was a CD with the pictures on it.

I was happy with that! I thought I would be able to put them on my web site and since their digital I&#039;ll never have to worry about them aging. I&#039;ll have a perfect digital copy forever!

WRONG!

I received a CD with a really crappy photo-viewing application on it. I have to use this application to view the photos. I tried just opening the .jpg&#039;s that were on the CD, but they are encrypted or something.

So in 20 years when modern computers won&#039;t run this crappy Windows application - I won&#039;t have &quot;digital&quot; versions of my wedding photos.

There is definitely a whole in the market!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree!</p>
<p>My wife and her mother found a photographer they liked for our wedding and engagement photos. They gave me a run down of everything that was included in the package &#8211; one of those items was a CD with the pictures on it.</p>
<p>I was happy with that! I thought I would be able to put them on my web site and since their digital I&#8217;ll never have to worry about them aging. I&#8217;ll have a perfect digital copy forever!</p>
<p>WRONG!</p>
<p>I received a CD with a really crappy photo-viewing application on it. I have to use this application to view the photos. I tried just opening the .jpg&#8217;s that were on the CD, but they are encrypted or something.</p>
<p>So in 20 years when modern computers won&#8217;t run this crappy Windows application &#8211; I won&#8217;t have &#8220;digital&#8221; versions of my wedding photos.</p>
<p>There is definitely a whole in the market!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Kwarsick</title>
		<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1211</link>
		<dc:creator>John Kwarsick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/#comment-1211</guid>
		<description>Eric:

I had a very similar experience not long ago.  My thinking here is that it is only a matter of time.  

A little while back, Money magazine published an article &quot;The 10 most over-paid jobs&quot; and weddding photographers were at the top of the list.  Yes, the is some artistic aspects of there craft which   allow for a premium to be paid, by in a studio, where the factors are fairly controlled, it is not hard to stand behind a camera and snap photos. 

In addition, the margins (how much it truly costs to produce the photos versus what they charge) has changed.  You can reproduce high-quality photos, store them and send them at a much lower cost than a decade ago, so charging the same rates just does not make sense.  

As with many things, we will see a change in the photography business as more and more consumers become acquinated with the digital aspects of the industry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric:</p>
<p>I had a very similar experience not long ago.  My thinking here is that it is only a matter of time.  </p>
<p>A little while back, Money magazine published an article &#8220;The 10 most over-paid jobs&#8221; and weddding photographers were at the top of the list.  Yes, the is some artistic aspects of there craft which   allow for a premium to be paid, by in a studio, where the factors are fairly controlled, it is not hard to stand behind a camera and snap photos. </p>
<p>In addition, the margins (how much it truly costs to produce the photos versus what they charge) has changed.  You can reproduce high-quality photos, store them and send them at a much lower cost than a decade ago, so charging the same rates just does not make sense.  </p>
<p>As with many things, we will see a change in the photography business as more and more consumers become acquinated with the digital aspects of the industry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin McAllister</title>
		<link>http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/comment-page-1/#comment-1210</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin McAllister</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freefrom9to5.com/2005/07/24/hostage-taking-business-model/#comment-1210</guid>
		<description>I know this doesn&#039;t help you now, but it may help some of your readers.  The simple solution to this is to negotiate up front with the photographer to get the negatives.  I know the group we went with offered the negatives for little or no extra cost.  That way there is no lock in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know this doesn&#8217;t help you now, but it may help some of your readers.  The simple solution to this is to negotiate up front with the photographer to get the negatives.  I know the group we went with offered the negatives for little or no extra cost.  That way there is no lock in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
