From: num208jn@MBDS.NRC.CA (John Nash)
Subject: Re: Most Wanted Cracks List
Reply-To: num208jn@MBDS.NRC.CA
Organization: NRC, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:12:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.143830.24235@engage.pko.dec.com>, marshall@tfh.enet.dec.com (Hunting the Snark) writes:
>
>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.

>>>>[stuff we've all read deleted -JN]

>>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

Ethics????  So what's so ethical about the ends justifying the means,
comrade?  A reason (note nit-pickers, NOT THE reason) we have laws is
because people have radically different ethics and/or moral values.

Let's get back to discussing games and cracks.


John Nash                            | Email: Nash@biologysx.lan.nrc.ca.
National Research Council of Canada  | Mail to "num208jn@mbds.nrc.ca"
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              |    is forwarded automatically.

Disclaimer:  All opinions are mine, not NRC's!
Confession:  I've NEVER used a UNIX machine!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games