Is it a sin to use a crack in order to use my software?

[Kylie]

I think the crucial point is missed here. There is a difference between not buying from an unauthorised reseller and buying it second hand.

Unauthorised reseller do not have the rights to sell a product from the manufacturer. They sell the product as is unused from the manufacturer.

Second hand means that the product is purchased from an authorised reseller which the owner later resell it to another after using the product. It is a fine distinction and there are some gray areas.

But all in all I don't think it is a sin to use software crack on old software even if it purchased off another user. I think of it as just a transfer of ownership. And the new owner should have the right to use any method to activate the software since the company no longer would.

Yes, there is a difference. And that's where the analogy falls apart.

If you sell a watch second hand, then you no longer have it. You can't wear it anymore, and you can't use it to check the time anymore.

But software, by its very nature, can be copied. So if you buy a disk and get the activation key, then you can install it on your computer and use the software. The disk itself is only used to install the software, not run it. So once it is installed, you don't actually need the disk anymore.

So there's nothing to stop you from selling the disk to someone else. You can still use the software anytime you want. The person you sell the disk to can install the software, but they can't use it. And that's fair enough. The software company wants to be paid if someone new wants to use their software.

But this person now goes and cracks it, and can use the software for themselves. Now let's say they sell the disk to someone else, who cracks it, and so on. They pass it around for their friends, and now the company has sold one disk, but twelve people are running it.

Now, if you read the license agreement that you agree to when you install the software, it usually says something like, "You are allowed to install the software on one computer. If you wish to install it on a second computer, you must first uninstall it from the first." And they do this precisely to avoid the situation I described. After all, the software company is, first and foremost, a company, and they aren't going to put out their product for free. They want to actually get paid for what they produce.

I use Photoshop myself, and the agreement that Adobe has is that you can install the software on a few computers, the idea being that you could have one at home, one at the office, and a laptop. After all, many of the users are going to be pro photographers. So they might have a computer at the studio, a computer at home, and a laptop they take on location. So it makes sense that they'll want to install it on a few machines. But Adobe doesn't want you to buy one copy, then let all your friends have it. It's their product, they want you to buy it from them, not your mate.

There are other issues as well. I have old software with the product key (it installed from floppy disks, that's how old it is!), but it simply will not run on my current computer. The reason is that Windows today is based on Windows NT, and the version of Windows it was designed to work with was Windows 95. There are fundamental differences in the way the two operating systems work (don't ask me the details, I have no idea) that mean the software for Windows 95 simply can't work with Windows NT or any OS based on NT, such as Windows 10, which I currently use.

And if we look at Photoshop in particular, there are other issues. Photoshop can deal with Raw files from cameras, but the raw files from different cameras can have differences which means that a program that can read a raw file from Camera A can't read the raw file from Camera B. I experienced this problem myself. I had a small waterproof point and shoot camera, and I sold it to a friend when I upgraded to the next model. It was literally the next model up (I sold an Olympus TG-4 and purchased an Olympus TG-5). Very similar cameras in almost every way. Even the raw file had the same file extension. However, there was some difference in the way the camera created the raw files that meant that the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop could read the raw files from the TG-4, but it could NOT read the raw files from the TG-5. I had to wait a few months for an update to ACR before I could actually use the raw files. (Luckily I didn't have that problem when I bought my R5, since adobe knew that there would be a lot of pros using that camera and so they made sure the update for it came out really fast.) Now, for someone who cracks Photoshop CS3, the raw convertor included isn't going to have support for the new cameras. And the software for Adobe Camera Raw has gone through some major changes, so you can't just get the raw file software and slap it on the old version. And Adobe isn't going to spend a whole bunch of time creating an update for an outdated piece of software. And they don't want to have people saying, "Adobe's software sucks, it doesn't support my new camera!" So they don't provide product keys for it anymore.

In short, software companies requiring product keys is completely justifiable. If the software you are trying to run no longer exists in any form, then it would be understandable to resort to using a cracked version. But when a more recent version of that software is currently available, I don't see how using a cracked version can be justified.

 

[Kylie]

I really have to wonder how this story is in any way related to the topic of this thread.

You tell me. You started the Rolex analogy. It's not my fault if your analogy didn't work because there was nothing that represented the product key in it.

 

[Nithavela]

You tell me. You started the Rolex analogy.

No, that would have been RDKirk in post 43.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That analogy doesn't quite work.

Getting the part you need from a wrecker is not the same thing as cracking the software. The part you get from the wreckers is a legitimate part. Cracking it would be the equivalent of someone reverse engineering the part to create their own version so the car will work. And that would be an infringement of IP laws.

If that was correct no one would be allowed to restore old cars...

 

[Kylie]

No, that would have been RDKirk in post 43.

Ah yes, my apologies.

 

[Kylie]

If that was correct no one would be allowed to restore old cars...

As I explained in post 61, the analogy fails because once you sell a car, you can't drive it anymore. If you sell the software disk, you can still use the software you've installed on your computer.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I don't think that analogy represents what the OP has presented.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think that analogy represents what the OP has presented.

It fits better than the restoring cars analogy. After all, what part of the "restoring old cars" analogy represents the activation code?

 

[Carl Emerson]

It fits better than the restoring cars analogy. After all, what part of the "restoring old cars" analogy represents the activation code?

The ignition key.

 

[Kylie]

The ignition key.

Yeah, it still doesn't work.

Let's say I sell you a car. You don't get the key, so you get one made. But, the important thing is, I can no longer drive the car. I don't have it anymore.

If I buy software, install it with the activation key, then sell the disk to you and you install it with a crack, then there are now TWO copies of the software that came from that disk. You can use the software, and I can keep using the software because it's already installed on my computer.

Unless you are suggesting that I can somehow duplicate the car by selling it to you, or that selling you the software disk uninstalls it from my computer and resets the activation key, the car analogy fails.

 

[Nithavela]

Yeah, it still doesn't work.

Let's say I sell you a car. You don't get the key, so you get one made. But, the important thing is, I can no longer drive the car. I don't have it anymore.

If I buy software, install it with the activation key, then sell the disk to you and you install it with a crack, then there are now TWO copies of the software that came from that disk. You can use the software, and I can keep using the software because it's already installed on my computer.

Unless you are suggesting that I can somehow duplicate the car by selling it to you, or that selling you the software disk uninstalls it from my computer and resets the activation key, the car analogy fails.

Hypothetical:

A person has the CD for a software, which he has bought from a store, as well as the activation key.
His old PC breaks, so he wants to install the software on his new PC, only to find that the activation by activation key is no longer supported by the software developer, so he cant use the software.

Would it be "okay" for him to crack the software so that he can use it?

 

[RDKirk]

This is nonsense. If someone offers me a genuine (!) Rolex on the street for fifty dollars and I give that person fifty dollars and receive the Rolex, I might have supported that persons drug or gambling addiction, but I certainly havent stolen from Rolex.

The idea that you can only buy items from "authorized dealers" and that every other trade with those items is taking money out of the producers pockets is at the heart of todays throwaway society.

Buying a stolen item is illegal. For a Christian, Romans 13 applies.

 

[RDKirk]

What you are saying may apply for an item like a Rolex because of the fake knock-offs that tend to saturate the market. I understand that.

But what you are saying that if someone goes to a yard sale and buys software from an unopened box, he is buying and illegitimate product because it was not purchased from an authorised dealer. Is that right? I don't know.

I bought my Nissan Pulsar from a motor vehicle sales yard that wasn't a Nissan authorised dealer. Does that mean that I shouldn't have bought it?

I really don't think that one size fits all when buying branded products, because it implies that you are saying that church op shops, yard sales, Ebay, etc., are making illegal sales. I know that you are not really saying that, but one can go from the sublime to the ridiculous when trying to convince someone who bought software in its box with product key is accepting an illegitimate sale because it did not come directly from the manufacturer of the software.

I'm not trying to make it "one size fits all"...you are the one trying to make it "one size fits all" by proposing hypotheticals ("I bought a Nisson Pulsar...").

In the specific issue of software (and there are certain other issues), buying an "unopened box" of software from an unauthorized dealer with the expectation of getting the privileges of an authorized purchase (such as customer support) is a copyright infringement.

You're a Christian. Where did Romans 13 say the king's taxes had to make sense to your sensibilities before you should pay them?

 

[Nithavela]

Buying a stolen item is illegal. For a Christian, Romans 13 applies.

Who said anything about buying stolen items?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The thing is software is a different breed of consumer good. You’re not buying a physical item or good, you’re buying access to a service or you’re buying personal/business/family licensing to use said service. You’re entering into an end user agreement that says you will give $X and in exchange they will give you access to said program for a length of time. You don’t own the product, they have licensed it to whomever you mutually agreed was covered in the license. Maybe you keep your access and product support forever, maybe it’s yours until they stop supporting it, maybe it’s subscription based and only yours for as long as you pay the renewal.

In this case, a person knowingly or unknowingly sold a program that was unsupported by the manufacturer and sans valid licensing agreement. Buying a “key” to get access one of those things that, depending on the circumstances, could very well be stealing. If you reached out to the company and said “I bought this on EBay and I can’t use it” and the company says “we don’t support that version anymore, you need the current version” and you access it anyway, it could be a violation of the end user agreement and thus stealing. If you buy a key from somebody authorized to sell it on the understanding that the software is usable but not supported and their key is legit, then fine. But if the “key” you purchased was an installable file created by a third party that makes an unusable program when the manufacturer has said that program isn’t valid anymore… That would be piracy/stealing.

More comparable to the situation than cars or watches would be if in 2023 I sold you a ticket to the 2018 Super Bowl and you went to the gate to redeem them and were told no, it wasn’t valid. You can’t argue it was valid when I bought it 5 years ago, therefore it must be valid for you now. They sold access to me in 2018, not you in 2023.

I mean, a contract made with the person who originated it and that person only (unless another deal is made to include others) is pretty common. It’s how insurance works, after all. My house burns down, I can’t say the person who lived here 5 years ago had insurance and then try to make a claim on it. That was a contract/agreement made between them, not me.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yeah, it still doesn't work.

Let's say I sell you a car. You don't get the key, so you get one made. But, the important thing is, I can no longer drive the car. I don't have it anymore.

If I buy software, install it with the activation key, then sell the disk to you and you install it with a crack, then there are now TWO copies of the software that came from that disk. You can use the software, and I can keep using the software because it's already installed on my computer.

Unless you are suggesting that I can somehow duplicate the car by selling it to you, or that selling you the software disk uninstalls it from my computer and resets the activation key, the car analogy fails.

That's not what happened though...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm not trying to make it "one size fits all"...you are the one trying to make it "one size fits all" by proposing hypotheticals ("I bought a Nisson Pulsar...").

In the specific issue of software (and there are certain other issues), buying an "unopened box" of software from an unauthorized dealer with the expectation of getting the privileges of an authorized purchase (such as customer support) is a copyright infringement.

You're a Christian. Where did Romans 13 say the king's taxes had to make sense to your sensibilities before you should pay them?

All the guy wanted was to get the software he purchased for $90 just to work for him. I don't know about your country but here in NZ we have a Consumers Guarantees Act which states that a product has to perform what it is designed for and is fit for the purpose. Buying software that does not work breaches the Act, and the customer has the right for a refund or a replacement. If the guy bought the product from Ebay, and there is a similar Act in his country, then he should be able to return the product for a refund. But he decided to find a workaround to make it work for him, and I don't see any sin in that at all.

 

[Kylie]

Hypothetical:

A person has the CD for a software, which he has bought from a store, as well as the activation key.
His old PC breaks, so he wants to install the software on his new PC, only to find that the activation by activation key is no longer supported by the software developer, so he cant use the software.

Would it be "okay" for him to crack the software so that he can use it?

In that case I would say yes, because the original install of the software is lost.

 

[Kylie]

That's not what happened though...

How so?

 

[Carl Emerson]

How so?

He bought it legally.

He owns it like a car but with a broken key.

He rings a locksmith.

The locksmith 'cracks' his car lock and opens it for use.

No crime has been committed.

He drives away - problem solved.

Perfect analogy.