Is this is free-tiering or pirating?

[Nord1ing]

Following introduction of term "free-tiering" (do I write it correctly? :D), I would like to know opinions about software license:

1. Is cracking a software, to which publisher refuse to sell license because it does not suite your use-case (in his opinion) *gough... Windows 10 ltsb/ltsc ...gough*?
2. Same question about subscription-type software where publisher force you to update to newer version. Older version just stop to work, newer version have less functionality, etc.
3. Finally, publisher stop to sell old version lifetime licenses and push for newer and "better" version but under subscription?

Mille pardons for mediocre english

 

 

[dilpickle]

Is it piracy? Yes

Is it illegal? Yes

Is it unethical? On #2 and #3 I would say most definitely Yes. On #1 I'm not clear on the situation so I'll let you debate it.

 

[FloRolf]

Well it's kinda all piracy lol. Middle one is at least understandable and last one is company BS. If you sell a lifetime license you should understand the term lifetime. 

[Vishera]

Quote

2. Same question about subscription-type software where publisher force you to update to newer version. Older version just stop to work, newer version have less functionality, etc.

Since you already paid for the software,cracking it is fine in my opinion as long as it's for your own use and yours only.

[manikyath]

you are circumventing the payment structure that is set up by the creator to aquire the digital goods (keeping this broad..), so it is piracy.

whether something is piracy is determined by your means of getting it, not by the reason why you're getting it this way.

 

as for how ethical your actions are.. let's just say that it seems to be a trend for companies to make life difficult for paying customers, while the pirates go free.. in more ways than one.

i'm one of those people who buys movies on disc, and immediately rips the disk to my media server, just so i dont have to sit trough the "you wouldnt steal a purse" ad insisting on telling honest paying customers that piracy is a crime.

[mariushm]

1. Is cracking a software, to which publisher refuse to sell license because it does not suite your use-case (in his opinion) *gough... Windows 10 ltsb/ltsc ...gough*?

 

Yes, you're not ENTITLED to the software. IF you don't like the software or the licensing terms, you're free to use something else, you have alternatives.

 

2. Same question about subscription-type software where publisher force you to update to newer version. Older version just stop to work, newer version have less functionality, etc.

 

Not ethical or cool from the company side, but still not OK to pirate it.   Would be OK with blocking the software from Internet access so that it would not detect a new version or kill itself.

 

3. Finally, publisher stop to sell old version lifetime licenses and push for newer and "better" version but under subscription?

 

Again, you're not entitled to software. Don't like it, find some other alternative.

However ... 

1. You bought lifetime licenses - the company should make a reasonable effort to support those versions for a "lifetime" by releasing critical fixes, for example until the operating system is no longer supported (ex Windows 7  or Windows XP no longer supported and patched, would be reasonable for a lifetime version that's only Windows XP or Windows 7 compatible to be no longer supported.

2. You should be able to BUY lifetime licenses from other companies or private persons that bought them, and licenses should be transferable like any product (ex a TV , a bunch of DVDs  etc)  or you should be able to SELL the licenses like any product.

 

[LogicalDrm]

Is this really a question? This is not same thing as with the Adblock debate. You are explicitly asking about stuff that is not available by other ways than paying. If it would be available by other means than paying, but those other means would be more complicated or restricted, then they would be the "free-tier" and you would be paying to get more options on usage.

 

Is it bit shitty act from company to force upgrades? Yes, thats pretty much what Apple does by bricking battery saving on their old OS'. Does that give you right to break protections? Not really. But I wouldn't held you responsible in court for that. And it wouldn't be against the law in some countries which view using and distributing at two different levels.

Edited March 3, 2022 by LogicalDrm
Small typo

[Nord1ing]

11 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Is this really a question? This is not same thing as with the Adblock debate. You are explicitly asking about stuff that is not available by other ways than paying. If it would be available by other means than paying, but those other means would be more complicated or restricted, then they would be the "free-tier" and you would be paying to get more options on usage.

 

Is it bit shitty act from company to force upgrades? Yes, thats pretty much what Apple does by bricking battery saving on their old OS'. Does that give you right to break protections? Not really. But I wouldn't held you responsible in court for that. And it would be against the law in some countries which view using and distributing at two different levels.

 

The debate about is it legal or illegal to unlock your own your own device is huge.

I don't see, how that can be illegal. From the moment I bought a device (iphone, android, laptop with locked functionality like bounded to only one specific OS. the car with seat heating pre-installed and sold as is to you), I can do what I want with it. I do not understand that acceptance of paradigm ”buying things but do not really owning theme"  o.O

 

About question 1: for example, I bought already Windows 10 pro with "moar features" compared to ltsc realise, downgrading to "cut-off" version whitout that shiny feature updates does not look like actualy pirating for me (I do not write about court  point of view)

[LogicalDrm]

23 minutes ago, Nord1ing said:

 

The debate about is it legal or illegal to unlock your own your own device is huge.

I don't see, how that can be illegal. From the moment I bought a device (iphone, android, laptop with locked functionality like bounded to only one specific OS. the car with seat heating pre-installed and sold as is to you), I can do what I want with it. I do not understand that acceptance of paradigm ”buying things but do not really owning theme"  o.O

I didn't talk about devices, neither did you. I only brought up Apple/iOS as its the  best known case of tampering with older versions to get user to buy newer version.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Nord1ing said:

About question 1: for example, I bought already Windows 10 pro with "moar features" compared to ltsc realise, downgrading to "cut-off" version whitout that shiny feature updates does not look like actualy pirating for me (I do not write about court  point of view)

Now you are writing completely different scenario from what you present as question. Your original question is specifically about breaking protections to allow you to use something you don't have licensed right to. Owning license that allows use of something falls into bit different category. Using your original examples, if you own license to a version, does that give your right to use version you don't own license to? Not automatically. Like many older software were sold per-version licenses. So you don't have any rights to use newer version, you didn't buy that version, you bought the older version.

 

LTSC is available for Enterprise level customers. So if you have bought regular Pro version, I would say that you don't have right to get features of $100 higher licensing fee product.

[TetraSky]

#3 ... I'm thinking of Acronis here.
Old Lifetime versions still work just fine, but they decided to discontinue them and push their subscription cloud bs.

 

That said... It's all piracy if you get them for free. Except #3 if you still have your lifetime license.

[Needfuldoer]

There is no such thing as "free-tiering" commercial software unless the original developer releases it as freeware.

 

Quote

1. Is cracking a software, to which publisher refuse to sell license because it does not suite your use-case (in his opinion) *gough... Windows 10 ltsb/ltsc ...gough*?

Piracy, no question. You don't have the right to steal a version you're not licensed for, just because they wouldn't sell you a license.

 

Quote

2. Same question about subscription-type software where publisher force you to update to newer version. Older version just stop to work, newer version have less functionality, etc.

You're paying for a subscription, you follow the terms of use that come with it. If they don't let you use the old version anymore, that's too bad.

 

Quote

3. Finally, publisher stop to sell old version lifetime licenses and push for newer and "better" version but under subscription?

If you bought a license to a program that requires activation, and down the road the publisher takes down the activation servers so you can't activate a new install, I think getting it to work in spite of that is morally okay.

 

If you didn't buy that version, and the subscription doesn't include them, it's piracy. You don't automatically get free reign to use the old versions by subscribing to the current one.

[tkitch]

Quote

Following introduction of term "free-tiering" (do I write it correctly? :D), I would like to know opinions about software licenses.  

1. 1. Is cracking a software, to which publisher refuse to sell license because it does not suite your use-case (in his opinion) *gough... Windows 10 ltsb/ltsc ...gough*?

2. 2. Same question about subscription-type software where publisher force you to update to newer version. Older version just stop to work, newer version have less functionality, etc.

3. 3. Finally, publisher stop to sell old version lifetime licenses and push for newer and "better" version but under subscription?

 

1) It's going to depend:
Do you already own Windows 10 Enterprise?  No?  Then it's 110% Piracy.  If you do an end-run to acquire software that the manufacturer won't sell you normally, yeah, it's piracy.

 

2) If there's a stand-alone old version?  You can run that, and never upgrade.  (See: Creative Suite 6)

If you don't have that? Yeah, it's fuckin' piracy.

 

3) If you didn't buy a lifetime option when you had the chance?  That's your own fault.  Piracy.

 

You seem to be trying to squeak into some loopholes that don't exist.  Piracy is piracy.  Deal with it.  

 

I'm curious if you can actually provide any case that would be "Free-tiering" cuz...  I doubt it.  You just don't wanna call yourself a pirate.

 

[SolarNova]

1) Piracy

2) Privateering

3) Privateering

 

2 and 3, you have paid for. If the program then updates into a version that reduces functionality and requires further payment to use then thats hugely unethical and in some cases and places its illegal.

 

1 is simple. Its piracy,, there are rules in place to acquire LTSC Windows, it can be done by the average joe if u know who to contact (legitimately), its just a HUGE PITA to get. The question then becomes is it 'ethical Piracy' ?

I use W10 Ghost Spectre, a custom privacy orientated version of W10 stripped of data/telemetry gathering and 'bloat'.

Is it 'cracked' ? No, does the 'Ghost Toolbox' it comes with have the ability to temporarily disable the authentication system in W10 ? ..yes. If used at that point its 'Pirated'. Can it be authenticated legitimately? yes,

is it ethical to use it in that way? ..u decide.

Should such 'unofficial' custom version of Windows have to exist ? u decide.

 

 

[DavidKalinowski]

18 hours ago, FloRolf said:

Well it's kinda all piracy lol. Middle one is at least understandable and last one is company BS. If you sell a lifetime license you should understand the term lifetime. 

most likely in the TOS book lifetime was defined, and not using the dictionary definition. They can define "lifetime" in the context of "lifetime of the original device it is installed on" once that device has been End of Life from its manufacturer your lifetime license is now void. Its all in how its worded in the original agreement.

[PlanetLockdownFilm]

Well to be honest, with all do respect to developers (I also am one) is no different than a razor company (or a beard oil company, to include both old and new Linus). They make the products and shouldn't interfere with how you use them like #1, or interfere with the product you already bought #2 and #3 - that wouldn't be possible for razors, but you get my point. It's one thing to pirate software because you can and another when they take away something you thought you had for as long as it was useful to you or interfere with what you can or can't do. We have to keep in mind that it's not a physical thing that disappears from somewhere. So to sum up:

 

#1. The company isn't loosing any profits, since they won't sell it anyway. It's not or shouldn't be illegal to enjoy something just because Microsoft has deemed you unworthy of something.

#2. You should be entitled to use the older version if you can. Here you can still pay subscription for the new one but not use it.

#3. If you already bought the lifetime version it's clear than you should be able to continue using it. If you didn't buy it when it  was the lifetime version and are using the older version now, that's a bit of a gray area in my opinion. I mean, how old? Is 10 year old software that you can only get as a cracked version off limits? How much are you using it and what for, are you making any money.

 

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with cracking software, only it's generally hard to do. Also, some companies have too much power and they are using it openly to exploit people.

[Nord1ing]

3 hours ago, tkitch said:

I'm curious if you can actually provide any case that would be "Free-tiering" cuz...  I doubt it.  You just don't wanna call yourself a pirate.

 

I don't minde how someone call me, if idosomething it is done with my own beliefs.

The goal this topic is to look to different point of views of different peoples.

Like there was with adblock, thereis stand norpiracy, nor free-tiering

[mr moose]

When it comes to software and content people tend to confuse a company or seller being a cunt with some sort of moral entitlement to said sellers work.  It doesn't work that way, if they don't want to sell it to you then you don't have any right to it.  If they only want to hire it out as a temporary possession then you don't have a right to steal it.   

 

Aussie consumer laws are a good way to determine if the company owes you something or not.

 

 

[LAwLz]

I am not sure what you mean by "free-tiering", but all of the examples given are flat out piracy.

"I don't like the rules regarding this product" does not mean you are allowed to break the rules.

[Sauron]

All the examples you listed would be legally considered piracy.

 

Whether they would be morally right or wrong is a different question.

19 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Privateering

lmao

[Eigenvektor]

On 3/2/2022 at 10:25 PM, Nord1ing said:

Is cracking a software, to which publisher refuse to sell license because it does not suite your use-case (in his opinion) *gough... Windows 10 ltsb/ltsc ...gough*?

A business is free to choose who they do business with. They are under no obligation to sell stuff to you. Them not wanting to do business with you does not entitle you to steal from them. If, for whatever reason, my local supermarket refuses me entry, this does not mean I can now legally take their goods without paying.

 

On 3/2/2022 at 10:25 PM, Nord1ing said:

Same question about subscription-type software where publisher force you to update to newer version. Older version just stop to work, newer version have less functionality, etc.

A subscription is explicitly a time-limited license that needs to be extended for you to be able to legally use the software. You do not own the software and you do not own a perpetual license when you use a subscription based service. Some software subscriptions allow you to continue using the last version you had a license for, so you may be free to continue using that, but you are not free to update to newer versions without renewing the subscription/license.

 

A business is also allowed to discontinue such an offer (subject to the previously agreed to licensing terms). That's why subscriptions are typically cheaper than outright buying a license. Can you legally continue to watch Netflix after you've paid for a subscription once? No. Because when the subscription ends, your legal access to their service does as well.

 

On 3/2/2022 at 10:25 PM, Nord1ing said:

Finally, publisher stop to sell old version lifetime licenses and push for newer and "better" version but under subscription?

If you own a lifetime license for an older version, you are free to keep using that version forever. However, the business is under no obligation to continue selling such a license, nor does owning a license for an older version entitle you to access newer versions (unless specified in the previous version's licensing terms).

 

If a company explicitly offers a free-tier, it is (most likely) legal for you to accept that offer and use the software as specified in their licensing terms for the free-tier. As before, the company is free to cancel such an offer at any time. Such an offer does not make it legal for you to use higher tiers without paying for them, even if the free-tier is discontinued at some point.

[PlanetLockdownFilm]

I like this conversation! Ever since the Romans invented law - well it was not just the Romans, and I don't know if they were the first to "invent" it - it was always about listening to all the sides and considering ethical as well as practical matters, and a good principle was to reach the best possible good for all parties. Such discussions we are having now are a step in that direction, so we should be happy that we are discussing this and we could all become friends.

 

So let's try to formulate some basic principles relevant to this discussion. Companies want to maximize profits, while customers want to enjoy as much quality and freedom at the lowest possible price. This relationship doesn't have to be framed as adversarial, that's actually the worst frame of reference you can choose. A good example for that is a game company that considers user feedback seriously. We want companies to make money because that improves the economy and in the end we get a better standard of living. Also, if the company makes good money it can pay its employees, and you might work yourself in such a company, or the person who buys your product might. As long as companies play fair and work to make good products instead of for  greed. We have both kinds of companies on the market, and in some there's a mix of both. Then on the customer side, if the customer has the tools to get stuff done and the means to ensure a state of well-being, he will produce more, make better decisions and especially be more creative, which is good for everyone. As long as he acts in good faith and isn't only out for free enjoyment.

 

Piracy is mostly a problem in the poorer countries. There it gets a bit complicated because the income is low but the costs of living are also low, while the costs of software are universal. Then you might have someone who possibly owns a house and some land ("traditional" societies tend to be like that), has a salary of about $500-$700 and with that can cover food, utilities clothing and a bit of fun. Education is mostly free in these countries. Maybe  someone in the family does the cooking and basic foods are pretty cheap, clothing can also be cheap if it's locally made, and clothing can also last you long if you take care of it. Transportation can also be cheap in such countries and you can do ball sports and go for hikes and bike rides for entertainment. Then you have a cheaper TV and a PC that's 5-8 years old and was a budget build when you bought it. There are even poorer countries but in this middle of the road example you have all the basic needs met (which is already pretty fortunate) but then comes the catch: using a computer is absolutely necessary and the biggest opportunity for improving your living conditions. The world just doesn't work without it any more. So whether we like it or not piracy was what enabled the poorer countries to be able to compete with the more developed ones, and I do think that competition also means collaboration and it leads to better products and a more robust economy.  Now the obvious solution is open source software which is usually free. I'm writing this text from my Linux OS which I love, and I have all the software that I need that's actually free. My choice doesn't even factor in money because I really like to write in a console, to have access to everything and make my own tools. The learning curve is pretty steep though, but it is getting better. Just a few years ago, open source wasn't a real option for most people. Investing more in "PC literacy" would help with the newer generations, and now it's also cheaper to do with Raspberry PI. With a bit of patience it's not that hard to learn how to use a console. But then, that hurts the profits of many companies, and again the solution is to make the products more appealing so that people want to buy them. That is of course very possible to do.

 

My motto is: consider as many angles as you can and always go for the win-win.

[Vishera]

38 minutes ago, Sauron said:

All the examples you listed would be legally considered piracy.

 

Whether they would be morally right or wrong is a different question.

I think that 2 is not piracy as long as you downloaded it legally,since you pay for the software.

In that case i think it's OK to crack the software and use it as long as you continue paying for the subscription.

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, Vishera said:

I think that 2 is not piracy as long as you downloaded it legally,since you pay for the software.

Breaking DRM is illegal in and by itself in a lot of countries. Cracking by definition means breaking DRM.

[Blademaster91]

All of those are technically piracy, but #2 seems anti-consumer so I can understand if someone doesn't want to pay for software a company decides to stop supporting an older version then go to paid updates.

And #3 is debatable, also understandable if someone wants to pirate the software, as I think subscription only software sucks, subscriptions only benefit the company, and one of the worst ones is Adobe in my opinion.

[Eigenvektor]

25 minutes ago, Vishera said:

I think that 2 is not piracy as long as you downloaded it legally,since you pay for the software.

In that case i think it's OK to crack the software and use it as long as you continue paying for the subscription.

If you used a subscription, you explicitly paid for a time-limited license. You did not pay for a perpetual license or the software as such. The licensing terms may allow you to use the last version you had when the subscription expires, but that isn't always the case.