Can I use my academic discount?

January 28, 2006 9:25 PM

Can I use an academic discount on software and hardware that I eventually will use to generate money?

I am currently a student, yet I also generate money at times.

Apple has the following policy about using academic discounts:

"Statement of Eligibility
I represent that I am a member of one of the defined groups above eligible to purchase and that the products being purchased direct from Apple Computer, Inc. are for my own personal, education, and/ or research use."

Macromedia/Adobe says the following:
What are the restrictions in using education versions of Macromedia products?
Education versions of Macromedia products are intended for instructional and administrative purposes only and may not be used for any commercial purpose. Macromedia will conduct periodic security audits to be certain of your education qualification.

My question . . .

If you are truly a student can they really regulate how you use your hardware/software forever into the future? So for instance if you buy Flash as a student and then freelance when you graduate, you are out of complience?

That just doesn't make sense to me. Macromedia really comes down clearly on the issue, Apple seems a little more lenient for sure.

So first of all, does anyone know where you can find all the intricacies of the rule? And second of all. . . does anyone know of any instances of a company cracking down on academic discounted hardware / software used for commercial purposes (but legitimately purchased and used for academics as well).

posted by visual mechanic to computers & internet (23 comments total)

General logic dictates that "academic" licenses are awarded for academic purposes. Using a content creation tool to generate any money (read: commercial purposes) is in flagrant violation of the license, even if you're actively attending the academic institution in question.

General logic also dictates that, not only is it not traceable, but that they won't come down on you for it. It doesn't mean it's right. And if you get audited ever by your local Business Software Alliance (or... um... somehow, Macromedia), you could very possibly be punished, but generally speaking, using pirated software to turn a buck in a small (one person) organization or freelance capacity won't raise any eyebrows.

I'd imagine even fewer eyebrows pique at the thought of an academic license being used the same way. (However, Macromedia might more closely guard academic licenses since, generally speaking, they have contact information for you, versus the flat-out pirated professional copies of the software. I hadn't considered that, and don't really know what they do to enforce the academic side. Part of me wants to say you're less likely to get in trouble fully pirating the software instead of paying for an academic license. Of course, I would never suggest such a thing.)

I am not a lawyer, naturally, but it's clearly a question of ethics.

To further answer your question, I believe the companies would expect you to upgrade or just flat out purchase a professional or enterprise license once you begin to use their software for commercial purposes. This policy (upgrading versus purchasing flat-out) might vary widely by organization, but they certainly don't want you to continue using their software to make a buck when you bought it under an academic license.

Get the dry details here but remember the source.

Still, if you're serious about starting a real business at any point, you need to pay for and hold the proper commercial licenses for the software you use. That's all there is to it.
posted by disillusioned at 11:14 PM on January 28, 2006

Would anyone like to provide an example of this showing up in court? I'm curious as to if the license agreement is really legally binding. You are in fact buying a copy and you do own it.
posted by geoff. at 11:42 PM on January 28, 2006

There are plenty of examples of companies forced to settle with the BSA for using "unlicensed copies" of software on their News Room page.

They could be using a definition of "unlicensed" to mean academically licensed copies as well, since frankly, those are not licenses to use the software commercially.

I think the point to be made is that there is no distinction. And also, to not pinged by their hotline.
posted by disillusioned at 11:56 PM on January 28, 2006

The key factor for me is that if you're using software to make money, you can claim some or all of the cost of the software against tax, as part of the costs of your business. You can't do that as a student.

However, that technically means that you should buy Flash as a student, learn it, and then as soon as you start making money, buy it all over again.

You wouldn't do that, but software companies don't stay profitable by selling you one version of the software once, they stay profitable by selling you upgrades and other products and versions. And of course, the student version may not be upgradeable/cross-gradeable, so by the time you are making money and Flash version 9 comes out, you'll switch to the professional track anyway.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 12:01 AM on January 29, 2006

One thing I've wondered is when/if companies allow you to break out of the academic discount once you have upgraded the original product, oh, four or five times. I bought Photoshop (4.0) with an academic discount but have upgraded faithfully every version since. What standing does that leave me?
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:04 AM on January 29, 2006

As much as I'm sure that Adobe and Apple would like you to pay for a full license on the products immediately once you start using them commercially, what they'd like most of all is for you to make a good living on using their products so you pay them dutifully for upgrades every time a new version comes out, for the rest of your career.

I doubt their enforcement is very strong, beyond auditing the sellers to make sure they aren't selling copies to just anyone.

What do I know though.
posted by Good Brain at 12:08 AM on January 29, 2006

Here's a little secret: many of these companies, even ones that require complicated serial numbers and Internet activation for their products, have no way to tell whether you have an academic license or a full commercial license. They don't actually care, so they didn't bother to build it into their serial number scheme. If you, say, buy an upgrade later, they don't have separate upgrades for academic and commercial users, and the same upgrade (which comes with a new serial number) will happily install over either previous version. And the license agreement for the upgrade will let you use it commercially.

Adobe wants to get you paying $200 a year for a Photoshop upgrade. Giving you a whopping discount on it up front will have a relatively minor effect on the total amount they shake out of you over the next, say, ten to twenty years. Yeah, they're thinking that far ahead. I've certainly been buying Photoshop upgrades for ten years, you will too eventually.
posted by kindall at 12:54 AM on January 29, 2006

And if you get audited ever by your local Business Software Alliance

Well, it's not like they have the right to waltz into your dorm and examine your computer.
posted by oaf at 1:43 AM on January 29, 2006

This may be of interest: Chem student tames Microsoft's legal eagles

Brief summary is the student bought some MS software with an academic discount, couldn't use it, MS wouldn't accept the return, so he sold it on eBay. Then MS sued him, he counter-sued, MS dropped the case.

If you search around the topic, the student, Zamos, goes into some detail about the legal situation.
posted by MetaMonkey at 5:12 AM on January 29, 2006

You are buying something explicitly licensed for academic uses only (in Apple's case it clearly omits commercial use from the kinds of allowable use). You want to use it commercially. This is both wrong and illegal. You can't even claim ignorance of the restriction, you know you aren't supposed to use the items for commercial gain.

Will you be punished? That is highly unlikely (unless someone gets a bee in their bonnet to make an example out of you). But not having to fear punishment does nothing to ameliorate your guilt.

Furthermore, if you have ideological problems with their licensing, the proper response is to not purchase the items. The proper response is not to purchase the items and use them for commercial purposes in some form of misguided attempt at civil disobedience.
posted by oddman at 6:01 AM on January 29, 2006

You are buying something explicitly licensed for academic uses only

In Apple's case, it's a student discount, and has nothing to do with licensing. The "eligibility statement" is to aver that you are buying the computer for yourself and that you'll use it for school. The Macromedia, on the other hand...

So it might be illegal. But you have to ask yourself this: is it right for a large corporation to dictate your future use of their product?
posted by elisabeth r at 6:16 AM on January 29, 2006

Look, the manufacturers are not dolts. They know that you will eventually use the hardware/software for commercial purposes. The "prohibition" stated in the EULA is just a legal/bookkeeping trollop so they can legitimately write-off the cost of providing the educational discount.
They want as many people as possible to get hooked into using their products as early as possible. Educational discounts are a means to that end.
Hell, I can point to many, many artists and designers who set up their first business with equipment acquired by using their legitimate educational discount.

Don't worry. Buy the stuff.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:41 AM on January 29, 2006

In case you're wondering, I've already thought that Macromedia's licensing is so explicit that I've bought the commercial version. I just wonder "if" they can really be so restrictive and if it's binding. Especially for future use.

For apple hardware, I use the discount. Hardware is just used for so many things that I don't see how anyone can expect to prohibit any of those potential uses. I bought an iMac the other day and the sales rep was encouraging me to make wedding videos with it and sell it, when she knew I was a student. They feel the same way, I think.

I tend to agree with those who say "they'll be making lots of money off of you in the future" and "don't worry."
posted by visual mechanic at 7:56 AM on January 29, 2006

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "this is for academic purposes, you can't use it to make money." Ummm...I get paid to do things for academic purposes. Lots of people do.

Right now I get a stipend for doing academic things. In a few months I'll get a salary for doing academic things. If at that point I use my WordPerfect academic licence to write a papers that get published, I'll get a merit raise for those papers in a year, which means I'll be making money from the papers (and my WordPerfect licence) for the rest of my life. But it's still unquestionably academic use.

So beyond the fact that even if you buy something for one purpose you might later use it for another, even any given single task can have multiple purposes.
posted by duck at 9:00 AM on January 29, 2006

Some academic discounts are specificially to be used for teachers/students at a specific school, doing a specific thing (I've seen a lot tied to departments, for instance). In that case, you usually buy a license through your school somehow. Usually thats software you probably wouldn't be using otherwise, though, like Mathematica or Matlab or the like. I'd have a problem using something designated for a specific task for other stuff. YMMV.

For anything where you go through a random reseller or the company itself... who cares?
posted by devilsbrigade at 9:50 AM on January 29, 2006

It is wrong, you are breaking the license, and you shouldn't do it. When I was in school, my boss was always trying to push me into buying licenses for software at the university for our business, and I took a hard stance on not doing this. Remember you do not own the software, as you do not "buy software" you buy the license to use the software. And if you do something in violation of that license you are in the wrong. In the eyes of the law is it just as bad as pirating the software from the get-go.

But, technically speaking, most companies would rather you pay for an educational license then none at all. No one is going to hunt you down and slap you with fines for mal-software-practice or something like that. But if you are wondering if it is right or wrong:

It is wrong.
posted by nickerbocker at 10:34 AM on January 29, 2006

Look, the manufacturers are not dolts. They know that you will eventually use the hardware/software for commercial purposes. The "prohibition" stated in the EULA is just a legal/bookkeeping trollop so they can legitimately write-off the cost of providing the educational discount.
They want as many people as possible to get hooked into using their products as early as possible. Educational discounts are a means to that end.
Hell, I can point to many, many artists and designers who set up their first business with equipment acquired by using their legitimate educational discount.

Don't worry. Buy the stuff.

Yeah, you could work yourself into justification for doing it because software companies want to get you hooked, and "everyone else is doing it." But I say, everyone else is pirating the software, and profiting from it. Why not just do that? Sure is a lot cheaper that way for you.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. Don't think that this is some shade of grey.
posted by nickerbocker at 10:38 AM on January 29, 2006

which means I'll be making money from the papers (and my WordPerfect licence) for the rest of my life. But it's still unquestionably academic use.

Academia is about making money. The last time I looked at the student loans I am now paying back, I see that they are definitely in the business of making money.

But there is a difference between an academic institution and a commercial one.
posted by nickerbocker at 10:42 AM on January 29, 2006

kindall: Here's a little secret: many of these companies, even ones that require complicated serial numbers and Internet activation for their products, have no way to tell whether you have an academic license or a full commercial license. They don't actually care, so they didn't bother to build it into their serial number scheme.

This is wholly inaccurate in the case of Macromedia products. Different serial number schemes for different licenses, which even activate different splash screens in the same application binaries.

Also, do not assume that Macromedia does not embed identifying information into your compiled Director and Flash files. It's one thing to use Dreamweaver to produce HTML... it's another to use an application out-of-license to compile proprietary file formats.
posted by VulcanMike at 11:25 AM on January 29, 2006

OK, I think the software bit is settled. Even for me. I buy the commercial license. And truly, the discount is huge for software so it's more of an issue.

I care more about hardware, where you AREN'T licensing it, you're buying it, and the discounts are much less. Is that wrong, especially when the rules don't specifically outlaw it like with the software terms.
posted by visual mechanic at 11:31 AM on January 29, 2006

But there is a difference between an academic institution and a commercial one.

But the licence isn't owned by an institution. It's owned by me. When I switch institutions I get to keep it.
posted by duck at 11:35 AM on January 29, 2006

I still haven't seen any evidence that the academic licensing is legal binding (ie that purchasing it in good faith as a student doesn't mean you can't use it in future commercial endeavors). I don't think it's been succesfully challenged in court. As much as software companies want you to believe it, you're not just buying a service you are buying a product (even though they like using terminology such as license). You're not leasing Macromedia Flash, you're buying it from them. If I get a student discount on, say a car, they can't write into it I can't use the same car for future commercial endeavors.

Nor do I think it is "wrong", they price the software so students can buy it (they would just steal it at full price) and take the risks in students using it after they graduate. Did you sign a lenghty contract stating that you would not, under any circumstances, use the product in for-profit enterprises? No you click a radio button.
posted by geoff. at 1:55 PM on January 29, 2006

This is wholly inaccurate in the case of Macromedia products.

Yeah, which is why I said "some." Now that they're under the Adobe umbrella, though -- one can hope.
posted by kindall at 6:57 PM on January 29, 2006