

Is it ok to use warez software at a startup? - alain94040
http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2010/12/08/is-it-ok-for-a-startup-to-use-warez-software-ethics-vs-reality/

======
jasonfried
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.

~~~
cryptoz
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".

~~~
davidsiems
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions>

~~~
Qz
While I agree 100% with the premise (arguing over definitions is dumb), that
article gave me a headache. Get to the damn point already.

------
davidsiems
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.

------
iwr
What particular piece of software would you want or need but can't afford?
Nowadays there are complete F/OSS development stacks and tools available.

~~~
alain94040
The original HN thread was referring to how expensive Photoshop is.

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.

~~~
roc
If you can afford an employee, I have a hard time picturing how you couldn't
afford, say, 10 grand for proper and properly-licensed tools.

~~~
lylejohnson
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.

~~~
roc
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".

------
dasil003
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.

~~~
smithbits
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.

~~~
dasil003
_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.

------
goatforce5
You'll be giving out paid versions of your startup's product to those who
can't/won't be paying for it, right?

~~~
eggbrain
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?

------
trotsky
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.

[http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/subscriptions/default.asp...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/subscriptions/default.aspx)

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.

------
silentbicycle
What about startups that lean strongly on open-source software, but don't
acknowledge it or contribute back to the community in any meaningful way?

Then, it's not even a legal issue, but more a social contract. (implied or
explicit, depending somewhat on the licenses involved)

~~~
MJR
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.)

------
eggbrain
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).

~~~
Dylanlacey
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!

~~~
eggbrain
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.

------
JeffL
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.

~~~
golgo13
Here is the link for BizSpark: <http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/>

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.

------
johnjhayes
If a company is willing to do something unethical in the beginning, why would
they stop later when much more money is involved?

I'm going with no, it's never ok.

------
daxelrod
Does your startup rely on creating copyrighted works as part of its business
model? Congratulations, using pirated software makes you hypocrites.

(If it doesn't, you've still got the ethical and legal issues discussed here
to deal with.)

------
ghurlman
This article in response to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1981789>

------
gte910h
You can do quite a bit of photoshop in 1 month (aka the trial period). Bunch
all that up and you should be able to afford it.

All that said, it feels like i'm at a competitive disadvantage cause EVERYONE
else I seem to ask pirates this very expensive suite.

------
barbolani
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.

------
Archaeum
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?

------
run4yourlives
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.

~~~
Dylanlacey
This. This This This This This This This.

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.

------
thisisblurry
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.

------
fendrak
Some definitions of "steal":

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>"

------
majak
Why would I lie to my customers? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope>

(I understand it was his personal experience, but one swallow doesn't make a
summer.)

------
wccrawford
I can't believe this is even a question.

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.

------
borland
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?!?!

------
stuaxo
No, just use open source equivalents where possible.

------
damoncali
Is it ok to steal your startup's funding?

------
ra
Use FOSS or properly licensed commercial software.

It's as simple as that.

------
grandalf
I'd be worried about malware.

------
jwcacces
Let's keep this simple - No.

------
to
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...

