Industry ethics question

[TheBadger]

Hello,

Struggling to understand the ethics of something. I'm sure I'm going to prattle on in this thread as I often do, but there is a serious question I need help with.

What do you say, is it wrong or right?

I want to buy a learning addition of a software. The learning addition is full featured. The only restraint of the license that I am aware of is, that a user may not earn from any work created with the soft.
And that's just fine. I just want to learn it and use it in my personal work; portfolio and hobby projects.

BUT...

My ethical question is, what happens when I become good enough to make a profit with the tool though do not yet have the cash to pay for a full license?

Now suppose for the sake of this conversation, that after doing two or so jobs, that I would have earned the cash needed to pay for the license. And lets even assume that I would use that income to pay for the license just as soon as I had the necessary amount First thing in fact!

Now lets just be clear. The license agreement is not convoluted. It says cannot be used to make money.

What is a starving artist to do?

I have not yet bought this soft, by the way. But I think about these things. I never set out with the intention of being mediocre (though it happens from time to time ) And everyone reading this knows how costly software is. So I'm sure everyone can understand the question.

What do you say?


Last thing

I wanted to make this question a little harder for you, if I can. Because I find it a hard question my self.

A sociological experiment was conducted. Children were shown video of a thief stealing food. The children were asked if it was wrong for the thief to do what he did. The children in the study group all said yes, they said stealing was wrong.
The children were again shown a video of a thief stealing food, this time (if I remember right) the kids were all made aware that the thief was starving. And again they were asked if the man was wrong for stealing. And again, the kids all said yes, that it was wrong to steal.

Now this is where talk of grey areas came in, and the reporter in the story said some stuff about the extremism of moral views, and was baked up by the researchers.

But I couldn't help but think the kids were right both times. And that what the reporter and the researchers all failed to see was that, they were wrong too (the community) for letting that man get so hungry he had to steal.

So I think the kids were right the whole time. But where the reporter thought they were just to young to understand grey values, I think they were just too young to understand the researchers were shitty for not buying the thief lunch.

Well if that's how I feel, than why am I even asking? Well, I just want to know if using the soft the way I asked is wrong or not. Because if I do something wrong, I think I'm to old to do it by mistake And I am starving (so to speak), and I do have this teaching of "the lessor evils". So what is right, and what is wrong?

What do you say? Would I be guilty, or would I be innocent?

[Dune]

I would say these issues are not black and white, but as you said; grey. If you steal a bread and are really starving is different from stealing a cookie and just having a rumbling stomach, and a craving for a cookie. If software can't be used to make money, I don't think you are very guilty if you make a few bob, but you are if you're really doing a professionally well income out of it. It's up to one's conscience, I suppose. Honesty always feels much better!

[mr-miley]

TheBadger,

Been there, done that, got the Tshirt. There is no easy answer, but let me put it this way. I'm sure the software company would rather you do a couple of earning jobs with their software "illegally" and then pay for it, than you never using it and never paying for it, and therefore them never making "your" money from it. I find that the world is pretty much made up of 256 shades of grey....



Miles

[Hannes]

I think at least some of the companies who sell really expensive softwares are aware that there are people who use trial versions the inappropriate way or even pirated copies. In my opinion they accept that, because some of these people might be potential future customers as soon as they realise that this is what they want to do professionally. And no professional user would use illegal copies to make money. This would definitely not be very smart.
Those who just want to play around with the software wouldn't have bought the software that costs thousands of dollars (or Euros) anyway. So I think these companies don't lose anything at all.
30 days trial periods for example are way too short to learn to use complex softwares.
It's something completely different to talk about softwares that are way more inexpensive. Terragen for example is not the cheapest, but it's affordable, even for hobbyists. So in this case Planetside would really lose money if people would use a pirated version.

Don't get me wrong, using software illegally is definitely a crime, but in the end some major companies benefit from that.

[masonspappy]

Years ago I saw a picture of a bust of Abraham Lincoln.  When the sculpture was created the light was shining down from above, and the resulting shadows on Lincolns face made him somber, almost foreboding. A museum bought the bust and put it on display.  This time, the lighting came from below the bust and gave Lincoln's face a look of bemusement and surprise.   

Same bust, different lighting, different results.

Truth seems to be pretty much the same thing.  Humans have a penchant for playing games with verbal constructs,  de-emphacising some parts, over-emphasizing others, and then wondering if the generally accepted  meaning has somehow changed.  The best practitioners of this pass-time are called 'lawyers' and they make big bucks playing such thought-games.  Leaders and politicians also excel at word-dances (eg Bill Clinton: "...it  depends on what your definition of 'is' is....)

But there's the uncomfortable reality that if we go into a quiet room, clear our minds and think the issue through, chances are good that we'll come up with the correct  answer.  And most time that answer will contradict the other conclusions arrived at through thought-games.

An even better measure of the truth: if you're fortunate enough to still have your mother in your life, go ask her. 

At the end of the day, Lincolns bust is the same bust it always was, no matter the lighting. 'Lawyers' is synonymous with 'liars'. And mom will still probably bust your chops for stepping over the line she knows you know is there.....

[Kadri]

I have a friend with whom we talk every time about this.
All his software is pirated and he makes a living with it. At least he tries to do that.

Last time we spoke he said he would prefer that nobody used pirated software.
Because just now every little kid in his home can download them and can make websites,illustrations, 3D work etc. for 100 $ instead of 1000 $ for example.
He thinks that there isn't any reason to buy the software in this position.

Another aspect...not sure what to say.

[kaedorg]

Not only with softwares but in general, I try to be respectful of other's works.
That's why I accept to pay a software license.
First of all, i just ask myself if my need of something can meet its price. And most of the time, 30 days free evaluation period is enough to answer.
When i see the number of hours I spent on terragen (and the pleasure I get with it), I think its price is reasonable.

[gregtee]

I've been in this business for over 20 years now and seen it all as far as rationalizations for using software one hasn't paid for.  I've done it myself over the years as well.  There is a difference between learning something for free and making money with something for free.  In the end you're going to do what's needed to get the job done to survive, and if your conscious dictates that you come clean at some point and pay for that which has made your livelihood possible then you'll do it.  If not, you won't.  I know people on both sides of that equation. 

The fact that you're a little tortured by this tells me you'll do what needs to be done but will pay the developer when you're in a position to do so, which is something if I were to guess would be something they'd likely be ok with provided you do so as soon as possible.

[jaf]

Here's what I would do.  Write the developer(s) with your concerns, explaining the money aspect.  I suspect you will find many developers will understand your situation.  Maybe tell them what you are doing so they can monitor it -- this should give them confidence that you are serious and dealing honestly with them.  If you get permission, don't advertise what you are doing on a forum -- I'm sure most developers don't want to have a bunch of "special" requests and if they start getting too many, they will likely put a stop to it..

I think this may work.  When I was sick and out of work, I received a upgrade email from a well known 3D company.  I wrote back that I couldn't afford it at this time and received an offer to let me make small payments on the upgrade.  They trusted me -- there was no contract, and that made me very happy and a life-long supporter of their products.

[zaxxon]

Michael I think the main issue  you are pondering is misuse of the license rather than theft of the product.  The very reason that many software creators offer PLE's and demos is an acknowledgement that there needs to be a path to learn those applications for future employment and profitable use (not to mention the purchase of the full package). In the past the Industry certainly has 'benefited' from young users  learning their chops on pirated apps and then arriving with some developed skills at professional shops, but at this point in time most serious production tools have legal, sanctioned and inexpensive learning options. To your point: in my estimation by accepting the EULA for the discounted software, it would then be 'unethical' to not comply with your legal promise. Many PLE's are 'limited' in some fashion, Planetside limits populations and resolution, Isotropix Clarisse has watermarks, etc. , etc.  When an app like RealFlow can be had for $99 USA with no limitations other then 'non-commercial use' that seems to me to be strong statement of trust by the Publisher to assist the 'little guy' and build a knowledgable and loyal future user base. Besides, while it would be unlikely that your 'misuse' would lead to actual legal consequences, the Software Publisher could certainly withhold any future license updates and support: then where  would you be? Just my opinion.

[EdBardet]

In regards to your thievery question. (This is based on 40 year old Business law classes - caveat emptor ) I beleive the case was a freezing person stealing a coat to wear vs shoplifting a nice looking sport coat.
In common law I believe there is the concept of necessity vs necessary. Where necessity (starving) is interpreted differently than other thievery.
Might want to look it up.
Ed

[PabloMack]

I'm going to address the theoretic ethics discussions and not Badger's specific situation.

Some of you might think I am a red neck here but I would venture to guess that the theif was not willing to work when he was offered a job. Did this theif even try to apply for a job? I remember a man telling me that a homeless person approached him one day and asked him for money. He said he was starving. So the man I knew offered to give the homeless person a bushel of peas but that he would have to shell them himself. The homeless person quickly became disinterested. No telling how the money would have been disposed had it been given to him.

When I was in graduate school I was arguably starving myself. I spent most of my money funding my own research. Looking at photos of myself I was really thin. One time a native American came to the restaurant where I worked and told me he was hungry and needed money to buy some food. I gave him five dollars. My manager said I should not have given him any money because he is a wino. Well, the man took the money and I followed him. He made a bee line to the liquor store. You see, people often lie to get what they want. It is my belief that theives are often chronic liars and are unwilling to do an honest day's work. I have even known people to actually get a sense of almost erotic pleasure from taking something that they didn't earn, especially when they have the money to pay for it. It gives them a high. People steal for many reasons and you may never learn the real reason they are stealing or even begging for something for free.

So, just because you read an ostensible story that some ill-informed journalist (or a journalist with some social axe to grind) wrote, there is a high likelyhood that you are not reading the "real" story.

But, Badger, I can relate to your situation. I think that the company that sources the software you want to use will ultimately benefit financially from your efforts. You have the right intent and that is what is important.

[TheBadger]

Hey! thanks for all the thoughtful responses! There is some really great stuff in this thread!

I just wanted to make clear that I have not done what I posed in my OP. I will buy that software soon though (the learning addition).

I also will say its quite clear to me (especially now) that it would be wrong both legally and morally to use the soft against the agreement. IN terms of the law where I live, and my own understanding of right and wrong.

But that is separate and apart from the question of, would I do it. At least I feel it is better to be guilty by intent, than innocent by stupidity.

Though I do hope to avoid the entire conundrum anyway. Circumstances are always changing, and I hope to not have to make that choice. I do really support this industry as it provides things that I feel are very important. And I would not like to do something that somehow works against it.

A few people mentioned Planetside. And I have to agree that some of my respect for this soft comes from planetsides willingness to provide their soft in ways that help to deal with these issues you guys mentioned. no stupid "support" pricing for one, and free upgrades for all minor (and some major) improvements for two. It is good of them, IMO.

That "support" pricing that other soft companies do really pisses me off. "Ah so I bought your product, and it sucks. But oh look, you fixed it, now I can pay you more of the little money I have. Wow! thats just great."
Im sure you guys know what I'm talking about.

Cheers all!

[N-drju]

Maybe I am a little late but I'll answer your question with a question of my own; Even if you earn some good money on a trial software... who's gonna check it...? NSA? IRS?

First, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with using a software to gain some "kick-off" funds as long as you are willing to pay for it later. Ye gods, that's what trials are for!

The clause you mention "...a user may not earn from any work created with the software" is misleading and vague at best. It implies that you can't earn using software... Regardless if it is trial or not...? In my understanding it should read like this; "...a user may not earn from any work created with the trial version of the software if this particular version is used indefinitely by the user." It is not a voice from above wailing "Beware!", but rather a suggestion; "Buy it if you wanna use it for something more than a hobby."

Frankly speaking I must admit that sometimes I do have similar doubts concerning ethical issues (as reflected in my 'On documenting sources...' post  .) I think that it is best to be transparent with others perhaps by asking the software provider how should I understand clause number this-and-that. The most simple solutions are best!