From: yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung)
Subject: Re: Poor Mr. Pirate can't afford to *pay for* games (was Re: Ci
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 02:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.052615.23825@nuscc.nus.sg> law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN YEW KEONG) writes:
>Amos Yung (yung@r-node.gts.org) wrote:
>: >If you give your used software away - let's say it's a RPG - you have
>: >deprived the author of a chance to make another killing by selling his
>: >package to another RPGer. It's quite fair - you paid your money, got
>: >your hots from the game - and that's what you get. If you pass your game
>: >to another person, free, then two people will get their hots, but the
>: >programmer only gets one payment.
>: >
>: 
>: Would you apply the same reasoning to the usage of toaster or coffee machine? 
>: 
>:
>No, we cannot apply the same reasoning to the usage of a toaster or a
>coffee machine. There is a fundamental difference between a poster and a
>RPG. (sorry not poster - toaster). A toaster is almost totally
>utilitarian in nature - to toast. If you sell away a toaster, you are
>deprived of its use. However, where RPGs are concerned, a lot of the
>value of the RPG lies within its plot and storyline, and a part of its
>value also lies in the excitement during gameplay. 
>
>With regard to the plot and the storyline, it is a one-off matter, and
>once somebody gets the whole plot or story, repeatedly playing the game
>does not give him any more of this plot or story,but the plot is
>retained in memory forever.   
>

>.... A great deal deleted.....


I don't see it this way. When I purchased a toaster, it became my property.
I can do with it WHATEVER way I see fit. Not only I have the right to give
it away, if I ever make a million bucks from a $20 toaster, the manufacturer
won't even entitle to a single penny. Same thing with software, I purchased
the software then it belongs to me. Yes, I know. Today nobody sell software.
They only sell you a license to use it so I don't actually own the stuff.
Rest assure I comply to this kind of condition because of the lack oqf choice, not out of mutual agreement.

Besides, what would you say to other kind of intellectual properties? Should I
not have the right to give my friend a book, a video tape, an audio tape?

>
>I am sorry if the reasoning is complicated and obtuse, but I am just
>coming to grips in this incredibly complicated area of computer law.
>Never has the law had to deal with literature meant for computers
>(computer programs) and hitherto, have only dealt with literature for
>humans (books etc). Therefore, some homocentric laws, which are totally
>unworkable, are tailored to work with computers, and fall flat on their
>faces.
>

That I agree.

>By the way, this is just a rationalisation for the law. The law is
>simple - it is contract based - you open the shrink wrap, you accept the
>term that you cannot sell the program to any third party. Easy shit, but
>if you want some justification, read the above!

From what I've heard, many states court in USA rejected the claim that the 
customer automatically (and by default) agree to the contract if he/she
opened the shrink wrap. w

   
>--
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Michael Tan Yew Keong | law40003@nusunix1.nus.sg | law40003@nusvm.nus.sg|
>Final Year Law student - OH GOD, IT'S BEEN A HELLUVA LONG TIME!!!       |
>________________________________________________________________________|
>Singapore is a FINE country - FINE for littering, FINE for chewing gum,| 
>FINE for smoking, FINE for not flushing public toilets ... et cetera.  |
>_______________________________________________________________________|


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung          | Macintosh Jr.: The power to crush the other kid.
yung@r-node.gts.org| 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------