When is it legal to use cracked software?
-
@Dashrender said:
If the company is no longer around.. who owns the software assets the previous company once did? I'll bet finding that out will be nearly impossible, but you might get lucky.
Borris FX owns it but they only kept making one of the software offerings which doesn't do the same thing.
-
This is only a guess, but unless the new owners turn it over to something like GPL, etc, you probably can't legally crack it... but I could totally be wrong too.
-
@Dashrender said:
This is only a guess, but unless the new owners turn it over to something like GPL, etc, you probably can't legally crack it... but I could totally be wrong too.
This would depend on a few factors. One being the license agreement and things like that. This is what is called abandonware where the owners still exist but the product is gone.
-
You can always ask the vendor if they care via email. "Hey guys, you don't make this product and there is no way for you to get money from me, is it okay if I do X?"
They'd be totally asses to say anything but yes. What do they care? It's not loss to them.
-
Another thing is... damages. If they don't make the product anymore and you use it anyway and they sue you..... guess how many damages they can claim
While they are in the right to sue you, once you get to court and they have to admit that the damages are zero, they are going to look pretty silly.
So calculated risk here. This is a place where it might be a business decision to go over the line and use it.
-
@Dashrender said:
This is only a guess, but unless the new owners turn it over to something like GPL, etc, you probably can't legally crack it... but I could totally be wrong too.
That's not what the law is though. Copyright law in the US allows hacking if the product is no longer available and you own a license too it. The problem I have is does that mean the specific version or can it just be the same product offering and a different version?
-
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
This is only a guess, but unless the new owners turn it over to something like GPL, etc, you probably can't legally crack it... but I could totally be wrong too.
That's not what the law is though. Copyright law in the US allows hacking if the product is no longer available and you own a license too it. The problem I have is does that mean the specific version or can it just be the same product offering and a different version?
It would not mean a different version, sadly. Versions are different products by copyright.
-
Now, however, you have a different situation here.....
-
So when you say that the server to activate it is no longer available, do you mean that it required a code or license from the vendor to work and the vendor is no longer sending you that license because they are defunct?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So when you say that the server to activate it is no longer available, do you mean that it required a code or license from the vendor to work and the vendor is no longer sending you that license because they are defunct?
I'd say this is a sign show's over and especially if there are no updates beyond the version you have which can remedy this. I never understood why people don't at least keep licensing systems going because it can make money, just provide no support, no updates, etc. Some people hate money I guess.
I imagine also that if the company is defunct, as mentioned above, and there's no one who inherited the assets, then it's like stealing from someone's trash I guess. Truthfully, if you manage to find someone who did receive the assets, they'll probably ask for money if you ask them, but in this case if you ever get caught, you do have a sound defence.
My own personal feeling is: if someone is the current asset holder, but is too inept or lazy to run the licensing system, which costs almost nothing and essentially make themselves exist on the edge of the ether, then are they really deserving of money? Do they really want it that badly? This ignoring all legal right/wrongs, just from a moral standpoint. I don't think so.
-
If they aren't selling new licenses, then leaving the license sever on is only good for old customers.. how are they making money? In fact they would be losing it because they are leaving that service running, which isn't free.
-
@Dashrender said:
If they aren't selling new licenses, then leaving the license sever on is only good for old customers.. how are they making money? In fact they would be losing it because they are leaving that service running, which isn't free.
This is a case study of that exact question, because the OP himself would (apparently) pay for it if he could. And the cost is what, a domain and extremely basic web hosting?
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So when you say that the server to activate it is no longer available, do you mean that it required a code or license from the vendor to work and the vendor is no longer sending you that license because they are defunct?
I'd say this is a sign show's over and especially if there are no updates beyond the version you have which can remedy this. I never understood why people don't at least keep licensing systems going because it can make money, just provide no support, no updates, etc. Some people hate money I guess.
I imagine also that if the company is defunct, as mentioned above, and there's no one who inherited the assets, then it's like stealing from someone's trash I guess. Truthfully, if you manage to find someone who did receive the assets, they'll probably ask for money if you ask them, but in this case if you ever get caught, you do have a sound defence.
My own personal feeling is: if someone is the current asset holder, but is too inept or lazy to run the licensing system, which costs almost nothing and essentially make themselves exist on the edge of the ether, then are they really deserving of money? Do they really want it that badly? This ignoring all legal right/wrongs, just from a moral standpoint. I don't think so.
Agreed. No ethical question here. Ethically it is fine to do what it takes to get things working.
Legally this might qualify as "bad faith" or something like that from the copyright holder, which would clear that path too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So when you say that the server to activate it is no longer available, do you mean that it required a code or license from the vendor to work and the vendor is no longer sending you that license because they are defunct?
Yep. But the only cracked version is the newer version (still wasn't the newest). It was required activation against the server.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So when you say that the server to activate it is no longer available, do you mean that it required a code or license from the vendor to work and the vendor is no longer sending you that license because they are defunct?
Yep. But the only cracked version is the newer version (still wasn't the newest). It was required activation against the server.
Right, what I was thinking was that using the other version IS the hacking that you can do to get around the licensing issue. Because they sold you something and THEY decided to "turn it off" illegally, their license with you is forfeit. They have no grounds to complain.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So when you say that the server to activate it is no longer available, do you mean that it required a code or license from the vendor to work and the vendor is no longer sending you that license because they are defunct?
Yep. But the only cracked version is the newer version (still wasn't the newest). It was required activation against the server.
Right, what I was thinking was that using the other version IS the hacking that you can do to get around the licensing issue. Because they sold you something and THEY decided to "turn it off" illegally, their license with you is forfeit. They have no grounds to complain.
That's an interesting take and implies that the license agreement grants the author no rights to put in place the discontinued use of a product.
-
@Dashrender said:
That's an interesting take and implies that the license agreement grants the author no rights to put in place the discontinued use of a product.
That's correct, that would constitute theft. They took the money and sold the product and attempt to then take back what they had sold, that's not legal. That they decided to have a licensing server means that they committed to supporting it as long as customers want to use the software.
Imagine if book authors could, whenever they wanted, force you to hand over books that you had bought. They sold it to you, it is yours. They can't change their minds without giving the money back!!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Imagine if book authors could, whenever they wanted, force you to hand over books that you had bought. They sold it to you, it is yours. They can't change their minds without giving the money back!!
That's pretty much what Amazon can, and do, do to people who've bought Kindle books though.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Imagine if book authors could, whenever they wanted, force you to hand over books that you had bought. They sold it to you, it is yours. They can't change their minds without giving the money back!!
That's pretty much what Amazon can, and do, do to people who've bought Kindle books though.
Has Amazon been taking back books after people have purchased them?
