I downloaded a software demo a number of years ago. The demo is full featured, but watermarks “Draft” on any outputted pages, essentially making them unreadable, much less usable for their intended purpose. When you pay for a license, the “Draft” watermark is removed.
By dumb luck, I found a workaround where I could output pages without the watermark, essentially granting me a full version of the software without having paid for a license.
My question is: Is it unethical for someone to use a workaround to turn the demo software into a fully functional piece of software? Why or why not? Should I have reported the workaround to the author?
My feeling is that it would be unethical to use the workaround as the author of the program added the watermark feature for a reason. I can only assume that they are unaware of the workaround and if they had known about it, they would have tried to disable that as well.
I suppose I should also put the qualifier in that I will disclose neither the name of the software (which has gone through several iterations since and this loophole may or may not have been closed) nor the workaround.
I don’t see a problem with it, as long as you’re not using illegal hacks. You paid for (or were given) a demo that allows you to use all the features of that demo, and if it comes pre-loaded with a workaround, then that counts as a feature, even if it was an unintended one.
I have a demo version of Word on my computer that I can only open 47 more times before it expires and I’m forced to buy a copy. I work around this by leaving Word open all the time. I don’t see anything wrong with this–the licensing agreement says that I’m allowed to open it a certain number of times, and I’m staying within the parameters. I think that anything you do in a program that utilizes only the features of the program and no outside help by definition can’t be wrong.
I vote for unethical. You know what the author’s intent is, and you’re deliberately bypassing that intent. I’m not sure if you’re obligated to mention the loophole to the author, but IMO you should just cough up the money and pay for the registered version.
I think it’s unethical. The point is that you’re given the software to test out to make sure it suits your needs and such, but if you actually use it to produce finished documents, you should pay for it. Otherwise, you’re basically breaking an unspoken “agreement” between you and the author and ripping him/her/them off. Maybe you could try looking for a freeware solution?
On the other hand, perhaps you don’t think it’s ethical for people to charge for software at all? But that’s a different discussion.
As for reporting the workaround, I doubt it matters. People deliberately wanting to crack demo software will always find ways to do so. Software protection schemes like that just help keep honest people honest
Would you consider it unethical if you downloaded a ‘crack’ to bypass the demo restrictions of the program, if all the crack did was to make use of the workaround that you found?
It’s unethical. But I sold my ethics in college for a few more beers. I’m a notorious cracker of “shareware,” so I’ve no moral ground to tell you that it’s wrong.
If you like it, and it does what you need, buy it. If it doesn’t, don’t. </hipocracy>
How are we supposed to know what the author’s intent is? Okay, maybe it’s a little more clear in CP’s case that this is an iffy workaround, but what about more ambiguous cases? Is what I’m doing unethical? Do I have an obligation to close out Word every time I finish a document because that’s what I’m “supposed” to do? How am I expected to “know” this?
Totally ethical IMHO, the author released a ‘free’ crippleware version and you should be able to use it without restrictions as long as you don’t reverse engineer it.
If the author released a full function shareware program that has unlimited time to try it out then you should pay if you intend to keep it however.
As for telling the author, if you want to it’s OK with me.
Hmm, that’s a tough one. What exactly does Microsoft mean when they call it a “Trial” version, when they’re clearly releasing a version with 50 free uses? Why would they be selling the same thing for over a hundred dollars more – it’s obviously just for people who are too stupid to figure out the clever workaround, right?
I don’t get it. Where’s the gray area, here? There’s freeware, there’s commercial product, and there are demos. The purpose of a trial version is that you try the product to see if it’s useful. If you’ve got the software open on your machine all the time, then it’s useful to you. Ergo, the trial worked and you should buy it.
The purpose of a demo version with watermarked output is that you’re allowed to see how the software works, but for final results you need to buy the real thing. If the software is so useful to you that you keep using it once you figure out your way around the watermark, then it’s useful to you. Ergo, the demo worked and you should buy it.
It’s simple: if you’re going to steal people’s work for your own benefit, then just steal it. Don’t try to rationalize it. Don’t try to find ethical “loopholes.” If you have a feeling it’s wrong, then it’s wrong, and you shouldn’t do it.
The software’s publisher is, as SolGrundy said, releasing a trial version intended to allow you to try the software and determine if you wish to buy it.
The presence or absence of features intended to keep people from dishonestly using a trial version doesn’t change that. To my mind, it’s a bit like asking: “I found a workaround that lets me unlock a car without the keys. Is it unethical for me to use this to drive someone else’s car without their knowledge? Should I report this to the manufacturer?”
I have a slightly different methodology. I’m in computers, I’m involved with folks who program code to put food on the table for their family.
I have no problems with hacking, downloading, cracking, or otherwise obtaining software I won’t use. There have been many many such downloads that never see a second running on my computer, and I really can’t see spending money rewarding someone for that effort.
The software I can’t live without, however, I’ll pay for and upgrade with no complaints.
In your case, If you’ve used it enough to discover the workaround, you’re probably using it enough…you oughta buy it for your conscience.
(I took an engineering ethics course…The instructor opened the course with: “IF you’re going to break the law. Do it for enough money to retire on a carribean island with. Anything less than that is a stupid waste of an opportunity to get caught.” This is NOT a carribean island ethics question - do the right thing.)
