When is it legal to use cracked software?
-
@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?
-
Amazon's been closing people's accounts, thus preventing them from accessing their purchased books, which amounts to the same thing. But as with software, you don't actually own Kindle books, you only purchase a licence to read a book, which can be revoked (I believe).
-
It's true that Amazon can and has pulled a book back after it was sold.. but I recall the first case of that 4-5 years ago. The backlash was huge, and Amazon vowed not to do it again.
As for the closed accounts... do you have any details to provide?
-
@Dashrender said:
As for the closed accounts... do you have any details to provide?
If memory serves, I'm basing my post on this article that I read in the paper a few years ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-customers-kindle-deletes-account -
Important to note that that was in Norway and would easily be illegal in the US or UK. Remote wiping of someone's device could constitute hacking in the US and potentially be a criminal, rather than civil, offense.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Amazon's been closing people's accounts, thus preventing them from accessing their purchased books, which amounts to the same thing. But as with software, you don't actually own Kindle books, you only purchase a licence to read a book, which can be revoked (I believe).
Stopping access is sometimes allowed. DRM does that. But that doesn't mean that working around the DRM isn't allowed too.
-
Andy Boxall of Digital Trends said: "Amazon in turn uses the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take your books and privileges away if it finds you've been naughty."
According to Amazon's Kindle Store terms of use, "Kindle content is licensed, not sold". Should you attempt to break the DRM security block or transfer your purchase to another device, Amazon may legally "revoke your access to the Kindle Store and the Kindle Content without refund of any fees."Isn't the DMC US law? Seems to imply they can and will do this if they feel it's warranted.
The article even specifically mentions what I had recalled as being pulled, the George Orwell books that were inappropriately published. What they don't mention is that the money was refunded for those books. The bigger complaint came because those who wanted those books had to either pay a higher price for an appropriately published book, or the book simply wasn't available.
-
@Dashrender said:
Andy Boxall of Digital Trends said: "Amazon in turn uses the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take your books and privileges away if it finds you've been naughty."
According to Amazon's Kindle Store terms of use, "Kindle content is licensed, not sold". Should you attempt to break the DRM security block or transfer your purchase to another device, Amazon may legally "revoke your access to the Kindle Store and the Kindle Content without refund of any fees."Isn't the DMC US law? Seems to imply they can and will do this if they feel it's warranted.
The article even specifically mentions what I had recalled as being pulled, the George Orwell books that were inappropriately published. What they don't mention is that the money was refunded for those books. The bigger complaint came because those who wanted those books had to either pay a higher price for an appropriately published book, or the book simply wasn't available.
Yes, and it is not that clear. DMCA conflicts with other laws and is rarely a clear case. Most uses of the DMCA are illegal and essentially all are unethical.
