Is it ok to use warez software at a startup?
blog.fairsoftware.net
blog.fairsoftware.net
The crime may be just as bad, or worse perhaps, but it's not "stealing".
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.
We, of all people, should appreciate and insist on the distinction.
Depending on which country you live in, it can be considered theft or not, I believe.
Is identity theft stealing? You are merely borrowing someone's information. The original information is never gone, only copied.
I also don't know what you are getting at. It seems most people insist it's not stealing to make it seem like it's alright.
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.
// yes, I know, on the scale of things this ranks a lot lower than the monetary fine / years in jail would seem to indicate
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.
But surely you can buy one license for $1,000. Setup one workspace that is for Photoshop only.
If your business relies on continuous access to Photoshop by all your employees, then you must plan for it.
And I also used a trial version to finish up a few things.
The GIMP to replace PS: http://www.gimp.org/
Inkscape to replace Illustrator: http://inkscape.org/
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.
However if you are hiring a professional designer, they most likely will have their own copy of the software.
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?
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.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/default.asp...
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.
Then, it's not even a legal issue, but more a social contract. (implied or explicit, depending somewhat on the licenses involved)
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.)
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.
That's just silly if people are coming to your site to get office.
(If it doesn't, you've still got the ethical and legal issues discussed here to deal with.)
I'm going with no, it's never ok.
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 follow compliance rules because there's little chance of being found out, is that OK? After all, it helps me achieve success!
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.
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.
All that said, it feels like i'm at a competitive disadvantage cause EVERYONE else I seem to ask pirates this very expensive suite.
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.
Yeah, I left there pretty quickly. (The owner was an incredibly unethical person.)
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.
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>"
(I understand it was his personal experience, but one swallow doesn't make a summer.)
Is it legal? No? Then NO it's not okay.
This doesn't even enter the realm of 'Is it ethical?' since there are LAWS against it.
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?!?!
It's as simple as that.