It is not OK. You are not entitled to anything because you can't pay for it. If you can't afford it, you do what you can to afford it or look for alternatives that are more affordable. Don't steal - especially don't steal the tools of your trade.
I have always believed the phrase "the end justifies the means" is the truest definition of evil. If one expects good things, one shouldn't start with doing harm to others. I really believe a start like this sets the tone for decisions made later and will come to no good.
// yes, I know, on the scale of things this ranks a lot lower than the monetary fine / years in jail would seem to indicate
I agree with you, but don't use the word "steal" here. It means something completely different and is incorrect in this usage. The proper term here is more "intellectual property rights infringement" or something like that. Since pirating Photoshop does not remove the original copy, it is not theft or "stealing".
The crime may be just as bad, or worse perhaps, but it's not "stealing".
If you are talking about what a lawyer should say when writing up a complaint to file a law suit, you are correct.
However, generally when we speak here, we are speaking English, not Legalese, and "steal" is acceptable.
The theoretical justification for IP law from an economic point of view is to correct the inability of the free market to efficiently allocate resources for the production of IP. The free market fails in this because IP is not appropriable and not indivisible. The IP law solution is to give, by force of law, those attributes to IP, making them behave legally like physical goods.
For me piracy is the virtual equivalent of stealing, really, even if you can pick different words. Just because there the original copy remains doesn't mean it isn't theft.
Depending on which country you live in, it can be considered theft or not, I believe.
Well, on the other hand when the phrase "stole my idea" is used in common usage, it's widely understood that your idea is retained, just someone else took it.
You are correct, legally it is not theft. But we've been using the word in a way that is not legally strict for a quite a while.
I think of it as more of a predictor of future behavior.
Pirating software doesn't necessarily mean you'll lie to your customers (or to me) but from my standpoint - If I see you being dishonest in one fashion, it makes it more likely you'll be dishonest in another.
The more ways I see you being dishonest, the less I will assume you are being honest (about anything).
If you're pirating software, you're sowing seeds of distrust at your company with those that don't approve.
One of the last things you want are your employees or co-founders not trusting you.
You're right, of course, but I suspect a lot of us here have had to plead (sometimes unsuccessfully) with "management" to buy a license for software a lot cheaper than Photoshop.
And while that's an unfortunate waste of most people's time, and self-defeating attempt at 'optimization', "justify it" is a very different policy than "pirate it".
Both of these are really good tools and you don't have to worry about any licensing constraints. The only piece of the puzzle that I haven't found an F/OSS version of is for animation.
I don't really buy the slippery slope argument. People have to draw an ethical line somewhere, and I'd say there's a huge gap between using a pirated copy of Photoshop when you have no revenue and lying to customers and investors about product capabilities and financials. It sounds like the OA had an experience with a crooked founder, and now feels like pirating software is an early sign of serious ethical flaws. Well, it's a firm moral stance and I respect him for it, but the fact that most junkies have smoked weed before doesn't mean that anyone who smokes a joint is destined to become a junky.
using a pirated copy of Photoshop when you have no revenue
If you read the original HN threads, it sounded like the pirating was systematic, on lots of software, not just one copy once. And it seemed to bother no one. That's a serious sign.
It would have been slightly different if, when handed pirated software, the new employee was told something along the lines of: "I know it's a terrible thing to do, but it's just temporary before we figure out what to do". That was not said.
How do you know, as the new employee, that agreeing to use pirated software will not get you in trouble with the law? So your boss is effectively telling you to do something illegal and doesn't care at all what may happen to you? What does that tell you about your boss?
There's a quote that I can't source at the moment to the effect that "In any reasonable sized group of people there are 10% that are incorruptibly good and 10% that are irredeemably bad and the other 80% will do what the leaders do." If you've got an organization where the leaders think it's okay to pirate software then you've also got an organization where it's okay to not pay suppliers on time or be honest about how much runway is left or any number of other things. It means you can't trust those people. Now there are plenty of monetarily successful organization that run on fear and paranoia and some people can excel in that world. But if you're expecting a bonus or a promotion because someone looked you in the eye and promised it, well, get used to disappointment. The article isn't making a slippery slope argument, it's saying that you're already there, you just might not know it yet.
The article isn't making a slippery slope argument, it's saying that you're already there, you just might not know it yet.
I'm sorry but you think that anyone who pirates software regardless of the circumstances is also a person who routinely looks people in the eye and makes false promises? This is a ridiculous premise that should require no refutation.
I actually would not be totally against this (although of course having a paid user would be better). Would you rather have someone use/pirate your product and later possibly buy it (when they can't live without it/have more money/etc), or use a competitors product (or an open source product) and never look back?
It doesn't solve the photoshop problem, but microsoft has a program that more or less is to assuage small company guilt about needing to pirate their tools.
As low as $200-$300 a year buys you 10 "evaluation only" licenses of most microsoft desktop and server software including office, windows, server, visual studio, exchange etc. The air quotes are more or less microsoft's there - they would rather have your company use cheap microsoft tools than go to open source equivalents. I've heard microsoft sales reps recommend technet plus subscriptions to startups for just that very purpose several times.
If the goal of creating open-source software is for people to use it, it seems pretty righteous to then get upset when they do use it - regardless of what its used for.
If you require that someone contributes back to the community in a "meaningful" way, then you should expressly define it in the license agreement.
(Edit: You changed your post after I posted my response.)
If anyone isn't aware of Microsoft's BizSpark program, you should definitely check it out. Basically all of MS's software free for 2 years for startups. This has helped my start up a lot, and makes good sense for them, I think.
From the FAQ:
Who is eligible for BizSpark?
Eligibile Startups must be:
Actively engaged in development of a software-based product or service that will form a core piece of its current or intended business. Startups cannot be in the business of providing services to others such as hosting, Website development, system integration, IT support services or outsourced development. For a full description of the terms of the BizSpark Program click here to view the program guide.
Privately held
In business for fewer than 3 years. Startups that are actively engaged in software development but have not yet completed the formalities of establishing a business are also eligible for entry into BizSpark.
Bringing in less than US $1 million in annual revenue. This requirement has been adjusted to add local variances calibrated to local economic conditions in the Startup’s place of business. If a Startup’s place of business is not listed below, then the revenue limit is US$1 million.
I'm going to go against the grain here because I'd like a discussion, although I'll fully admit I'm not nearly as experienced in start-ups as many of you are. I also know this post and the HN post refers to a fairly large startup doing this, but from the comments here it seems like many of you believe it is /never/ justifiable to use warez software in a startup.
Lets say you are an early start-up,less than 5 people, that has no revenue and is still building a product, with money being little or non-existent. Couldn't it be partially justifiable to use warez software to give you the best advantage to achieve success?
For example, lets say you only bought Office for your PC (since you did most of the marketing, but not all) and installed Open Office on the other computers. Then after one of your co-founders sends you a document he created in OO(a sales document, I don't know), you find out that it doesn't render at ALL in Office as it did in OO. Now you have to spend time redesigning the document (for however long it takes), and you end up wasting time that you didn't have (and you certainly don't have the money). This is not to mean that this exact problem cannot be solved [Bizspark/MSDN, etc], only that this is one hypothetical out of many that could cause problems. When these start adding up, however, suddenly you are running behind the competition because you wanted to do the ethical thing.
I'm not saying you should continue this behavior once you get off the ground and running (and ESPECIALLY after you have broken even/generated profit), nor am I trying to imply that anything is justifiable if you need to catch up to the competition, but I feel like most people here are saying it should never be ok to use warez software in a startup, while I can see scenarios that would make sense to me (That are a lot less morally black than, say, lying to your customers or investors).
If I don't pay my employees the bonuses I promise, don't pay suppliers and lie to customers, it gives me the "Best advantage" to achieve success (for a certain narrow scope). Is that OK?
If I don't follow compliance rules because there's little chance of being found out, is that OK? After all, it helps me achieve success!
Like I said in my last sentence, there is a difference between not paying suppliers and lying to customers, and using warez in a start-up. It's like saying that since I think downloading music is ok (I don't), I must also think killing people is ok (I also don't), because both of them are bad, and I justified doing one bad thing.
There are probably a whole bunch of morally ambiguous situations that aren't patently illegal to the extent your talking about. Would using warez software be illegal? Yes. But would it do any tangible harm to anyone else, as, for example, not paying suppliers for their services and products after you signed the sales contract, or not following compliance rules [which could cause a host of issues]? You might argue for the software companies that distribute the product and their lost profits, but if the choice is either 1)Pirate their software and use it or 2)use an alternative, there is not a hidden option that appears that says "3) Find money that doesn't exist and pay for the software right now!", so the loss of the sale of the products is, in a sense, never materialized to begin with.
Again, I am not advocating that "anything is justifiable if you need to catch up to the competition" (as I also said in my last lines of my last post), nor that using warez software is at all 100% permissible, especially in a start-up past the initial stages. I am saying, however, that I see scenarios where the situation could be at least partially justified, and I don't think every start-up that did it should be vilified as it seems like the comments in this whole thread implied. Perhaps not entirely condoned, but not vilified.
Lets say you are an early start-up,less than 5 people, that has no revenue and is still building a product, with money being little or non-existent. Couldn't it be partially justifiable to not pay your rent/employees/electric bill to give you the best advantage to achieve success?
Like I said in the parent, "[I am not] trying to imply that anything is justifiable if you need to catch up to the competition"
It is also worth noting that while not paying your rent/employees has an immediate harm, it is not so quite clear if there is an immediate harm with warez software. If my startup downloads Photoshop, did I deny Adobe products a sale if I would just grumble and use an alternative if I could not? You could argue either way, but there would be no clear answer. If I don't give someone money for rent, did I deny them money? Well, quite obviously, yes.
In most cases, I think one will find "unaffordable" to mean a lack of will. Except in unusual cases, shouldn't an essential piece of software effectively be affordable at any cost for a viable business? It might require a deeper initial investment, but one must spend money to make money, right? I'm inclined to view a company's promise to pay upon success as an indication of lack of confidence. If one feels strongly about the model, make the debt visible. Furthermore, if the software really is too expensive, doesn't that seem like a business opportunity in itself?
I find it ironic (somewhat in the vein of Alanis) that a company built to derive their income from the sales of software actively combats the idea that other companies deserve to do exactly that.
This just lost all semantic meaning for me, but it's worth it.
YOU'RE SELLING SOFTWARE! How is it hard to understand that you need to honor your own business model in order to be ethical? If you expect people to pay for your software, why not do others the same favour?
To be totally honest, if you think it's OK for you to pirate software because you "deserve" or "need" it, why won't you think it's OK to pay your staff less then they might deserve? What about your customers who "need" your software but can't pay for it?
Don't shit on your own business model and expect to come off clean.
I once worked for a company that was absolutely bulldog fanatically obsessive about the licenses of the very expensive software they sold -- and used pirated copies of MS Word and some other software.
Yeah, I left there pretty quickly. (The owner was an incredibly unethical person.)
I read the original post and the discussion with interest. The conclusion seems to be that there are lots of alternatives to pirating, and most, if not all, of the posters agree that it is at least unethical to use pirated software.
However, there is an idea that still makes me feel uncomfortable. Competitive advantage was mentioned as a factor in the choice, but do you really think that the rest of the world shares your mindset with you?
As an example, take the eLance, vWorker, etc coders for hire . Giving the amount of labor that is being sourced there. Piracy is rampant on developing countries, and you're really competing not only in quality or hourly rates, but also on the amount of investment required to have the necessary tools.
Ironically, all this work is outsourced from companies that likely respect licensing conditions religiously.
The problem has no easy solution. Either pirate in the same level as them or make them pay as you do. The second solution seems to me unrealistic in a short to medium time frame.
This is not an argument in favour of piracy, just an observation on how piracy unbalances the competition.
Personally, I always use free tools. If there is no free tool available for the job, either I pay for it or don't accept the work.
In the past, I accepted a junior student installing an unlicensed copy at home just to learn as something that was not hurting anyone, and even likely to benefit MS/Adobe/Autodesk in the long term. Nowadays, there are "Express" or "Lite" versions of almost everything, including SQL Server and Oracle, and there is little room for such arguments.
Hey, and if you're not sure if your MS Office using customer is going to be able to open your LibreOffice sales proposal, just save it as a PDF.
I'm going to say.. absolutely not. Success takes sacrifice. If that means things are lean for a bit while you save for Creative Suite/Visual Studio/other expensive software, then so be it. Make your software and/or service pay for that software tenfold.
And of course there is the whole point-the-gun-in-your-own-direction argument. But others in this thread have already covered that sufficiently.
From http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm:
"the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required."
From Merriam-Webster:
intransitive verb:
"to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
transitive verb:
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>"
Of course not! You're trying to sell software right?
If you had some customers at your startup coming to you and saying "Well, we want to use your software, but we don't like your pricing, so we're just going to pirate it instead, is that OK?"
Would you say "Sure, go ahead, we just charge a price for the fun of it"? If not, then you know that it's not OK. If yes, WTF?!?!
seriously, if you cant afford it right now... copy it. download the torrent and dont worry.
every single company and former startup i know have now drawers filled with windows, adobe and whatnot license papers... thats just how it is. thats part of the online culture. if you cant afford 4 licenses each 1200 dollar im sure when you have the money youre proud about the fact that you can buy it now and you will buy it...
