Legally dubious? Not sure of the "website is old so pop along to a .ru site" exemption to copyright law. Did the author attempt to contact the copyright owners or discover an alternative?

I did attempt to contact the owner of the site. Nothing happened for 2 months. All other alternatives were expensive or not maintained, so that was the best I could find.

Indeed. It may be legally wrong, but what is the risk that they will actually sue you?

Likely none. The product in question is a translation and upgrade of a Chinese tool anyways.

As a graduate of a Jesuit University...a strong argument can be made that laws are legitimate since they reflect community values. But that same justification means that when laws don't reflect community values (corrupt politicians who may be motivated by greed rather than genuine community values), the laws are not morally legitimate.

I think most would agree that copyright laws fall into the category of "of, by, and for the 1%" as they currently exist. (They would look much different if the only goal was to protect inventors and protect society.)

There is pretty strong evidence that US laws do not reflect community standards[1]. So by that standard, they even by that standard, they are not morally legitimate.

[1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

That's why it's legally dubious.

Probably you are using a non-standard definition of the word dubious.

Not the original poster, but Merriam Webster gives a sense 2b to dubious:

questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality the practice is of dubious legality

Exactly. The usage in question is completely at odds with the legal protection afforded software created in the last few years.