From: marshall@tfh.enet.dec.com (Hunting the Snark)
Subject: Re: Most Wanted Cracks List
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:04:06 GMT


In article <54634@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, adam@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Adam) writes...
>In article <1992Jul21.051200.17195@engage.pko.dec.com> marshall@tfh.enet.dec.com (Hunting the Snark) writes:
>>
>>In article <54571@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, adam@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Adam) writes...
>>>I'm sure that isn't what he meant.  The example he was using was one of a
>>>few friends sharing the cost of the game and ALL running copies of it.
>>>Yes, this is illegal, ...
>>> 
>>I am still quite unclear what the distinction being made here is. If say four
>>people chip in to buy a game, does it really matter whether they play it
>>serially or in parallel? It is still 4 people playing off one purchased copy.
>>I think that it is just plain silly to say that if they wait their turn its
>>okay but if they all fire it up at the same time it's illegal.(think of it as
>>timeshifting).
> 
>Ok, look, it's simple.  "Silly" or not, it's the law:  

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. There is also the 
concept of the "letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law". At time
A one copy of program X is purchased. at time B, program X has been played
on three machines by three different people and then deleted. If the issue
of piracy is lost revenue, then what difference does it make what the details
of the events between time A and B are. The net effect is the same no matter
what order the game is played on the three machines. The same question also 
applies to books. 3 guys buy a book, they make two photocopies, all three read
at the same time, the two copies are then destroyed. At time B' you now have
three guys who have read one book. What difference does it make if they do it
this way as opposed to passing around just one book? (and please don't tell
me "its illegal, that's why").

>If three people buy a game, it's only legal if ONE copy of the program is 
>running at one
>time.  If two or more of them have operable copies at the same time, it's
>piracy.  It makes sense if you think about it.  

No it doesn't make sense, I _have_ been thinking about it. I believe I am
asking a reasonable question and all I get for responses is "its the law, man".
Which is nothing short of a form of religious fundamentalism ("because the Bible
says so, that's why") and not an answer at all.

>>Now this argument really only applies to games that tend to be relatively
>>short lived, that is, can be "solved", and once solved are likely to be tossed
>>overboard. As opposed to something like Excel or Quatro etc. where it is 
>>likely to be kept and used on a regular basis.
> 
>What do you mean "applies?"  This applies for everything, man, regardless of
>the software's "replay" value.  I doubt any SPA members are gonna say
>"Well, since our program can't be "completed" very quickly, it's ok
>for you and your friends to pass it around..."

I think you misunderstood me (sorry I wasn't clear). I meant that my argument 
about there being no difference between serial and parallel play only applies
to games and such that are played and discarded. Like a trashy paperback book.
I did not mean to imply that it is okay to pass around "serious" applications
like spreadsheets etc.


>It's painfully obvious that this argument has no end, and no one is going
>to win it.  Regardless of what newsgroup it comes up in, it always ends up
>going around in circles... ugh!

Only becuase the discussion usually becomes one of religion where the only
argument presented is "its illegal". Besides, if you would actually read and
think about my argument, it is actually a much stronger definition of "piracy"
than yours.

Sm

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games