From: marshall@tfh.enet.dec.com (Hunting the Snark)
Subject: Re: Most Wanted Cracks List
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:12:21 GMT


In article <76784@ut-emx.uucp>, ddt@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Taylor) writes...
>marshall@tfh.enet.dec.com (Hunting the Snark) writes:
> 
>>> User A buys game Z for $40 finishes the game and sells to user B.
>>> User B buys game Z for $30 (from A), finishes the game and sells to user C.
>>> User C buys game Z for $20 (from B), finishes the game and sells to user D.
>>> User D buys game Z for $10 (from C), finishes the game and throws it away.
>>>
>>> According to all the "Software Avatars", this is perfectly legal and ethical.
>>> Consider this scenario:
>>>
>>> Users A,B,C,D chip in $10 apiece to buy game Z for $40.
>>> they make 3 copies, play the game simultaneously and when finished, throw
>>> their copy away.
>>>
>>> I just don't see the difference. In both cases, the producer makes 1 sale and
>>> gets $40, 4 people play the game for a net cost to each of $10.
> 
>adam@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Adam) writes:
> 
>> I agree totally with you.  I tend to think that ethically, these two
>> scenarios are identical.
> 
>Oh god, I swore I'd never get sucked into this argument again, but
>what the hell- you guys need correcting.  Your "ethics" aren't.
> 
>You're leaving out a small but **IMPORTANT** detail.  When using and
>selling serially, you ERASE YOUR DAMN GAME FROM THE HARD DISK AFTER
>SELLING IT.  Now how many games exist out there?  1 (one) (pronounced
>"wuhn")  How many exist when you copy it?  4 (four) (pronounced "fohr")

Look, the purpose of the two scenarios was to get someone to explain the ethical
difference between the two, saying that in #1 there is only "wun" copy versus
"fohr" does not _explain_ anything.

Also, I'd like to make clear that the scenarios were meant to generate
discussion and was not an argument to justify scenario #2.
In fact it was actually just the opposite, I was trying to get an argument that
scenario #1 is ethical given that #2 isn't. The problem I was trying to get
solved was that the two seemed to be the same, but it is necessary that they be
different.

>First off, it's legal and ethical to resell damn near anything you've
>purchased.  What's illegal is copying copyrighted material without the
>author's permission.  

Yes, but again you are arguing legality, not ethics.

>So why doesn't everyone use the serial A then B then C then D method
>of buying software?  Because people WANT NEW STUFF NOW- that's how human
>wants work.  They're urgent, and they're NOW.  Person D certainly doesn't
>want to wait several weeks to several months to buy an adventure game.

True, but is this really the basis of an ethical argument?

>The market will show that there aren't many people willing to wait for
>a second-hand copy of a game to play it, so this scenario will happen
>rarely.  Most *purchases* are made from the store, not second-hand.
>That means that while Persons B, C, and D are waiting for their turns
>to play, they're probably going to get ancy, run to the store, and buy
>their own copies.

So, it comes down to: #1 is ethical because it won't happen, while #2 is not
ethical because it does happen?  

I WANT #1 to be ethical and #2 not, but I haven't seen a good argument 
yet for that case. The best have been the "time/impatience" argument that B,C,
and D will break down and buy the game because they just cant wait for the
other guys to finish. This may be true but it just doesn't seem satisfactory as
an ethical argument. So Scenario #1a is 4 guys buy 4 different games so
everybody has something to do while waiting for the other guys to finish.


Sm
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games