Interesting that this question came back up. I noticed in the prior thread, someone mentioned that even the existance or owning a "crack" program is unethical. The justification is that by doing so one encourages the warez community. The situation that bitplayer clarifies here is not abandonware. It would not be legal or ethical to post copies of Poser 5 for free distribution if (as in the situation above) CL went "under". That is not the question here. The question has to do with the rights of the consumer when a product / license has been legally and ethically obtained. It is my oppinion that in the described situation, using a crack program to allow continued use of an ethically obtained license is ethical. To answer the specifics above: 1 - There is an ethical obligation to a now "defunct" entity. (One cannot even in that case freely distibute the product) However, it is not unethical to continue to use one's own license (even if the code must be modified to do so becuase of the now defunct status of the company). 2,3,4 - The ethical obligation exists still (as described in 1) because there is still ownership of the product. It or some portion of it's ownership may someday be sold to another company. The potential value of that sale is undermined if the product is freely available and distributed. But, as in 1 above, no one is harmed in the use of a crack to allow one to continue using one's own license. (Side note: I don't necessarily agree with the concept that if no one is harmed that any particular decision is ethical. It is possible to make unethical choices and still harm no one.) Interesting thread...