Software burning. Moral and legal opinions.

Great Debates
21

If the license says it can be installed on more than one computer as long as it is only in use on one at a time, then there is no legal problem with what you are proposing. I don’t think I have ever seen a license agreement like that, though.

My example of paying full price for one game and only paying cost for the other is good, but maybe I should add you pay the full cost of manufacturing and stocking the game. It would still be unethical. You are depriving the seller of the profit they would otherwise gain. No, they did not lose anything they had already, they lost their potential sales.

Time and again games that are difficult to pirate sell unusually high numbers of copies. This is because an estimated 50% of games out there are pirated copies. One of the reasons StarCraft is STILL one of the top selling games years after it’s realease is that if you want to play it with your friends over Battle.net you have to have the key code off of the CD case. When the game first came out the biggest ‘bug-report’ was that people were taking the game home, starting it up, and finding they weren’t allowed to play online. It turned out that it was because people were buying the game, making a copy, and registering on Battle.net with the code on the case, then returning the game to the store - somebody later buys the re-shrinkwrapped game and couldn’t enjoy it to it’s fullest because someone had stolen the key-code they bought the rights to. When they took care of this, all the people who got hooked on their pirated games had to go buy it again to play.

Piracy is stealing, plain and simple. You may feel more justified stealing from people you will never see face to face, but that doesn’t make it right.

22

They’re very common in business. It’s called a “floating license.” One use I was just dealing with came in the form of a code maintenence system. It came with five of these licenses, but you could install it on many computers. But, because of the nature of code maintence libraries, it was unlikely that more than five people would be accessing it at the same time.

23

We have three computers at home. Whenever we buy a new game, it usually ends up being installed on each one. However, we do NOT make copies of the actual CD… it’s a matter of convenience, since sometimes one computer may be used for homework or something. Is there a legal problem with this? Just wondering.

Very few games require a second copy to be played. In fact, I can’t think of a single one. Games either A: have a single-player mode, or B: are designed to be played mainly over the Internet (such as Quake 3… it’s engine was optimized for 'Net play).

24

QuakeWorld, Sole Survivor, and EverQuest are games that require more than one copy… in a sense. You don’t have to own more than one yourself, but if no one else bought the game, you wouldn’t be able to play.

Rise of the Triad was actually sold in license packs. Buying 5 or 10 copies at a time got you discounts and extra features (map editors, new multiplayer maps, various utilities and sound files).

25

The newest Delta Force game (Land Warrior) allows you to install the one game on upto 4 more machines. These “extra” installs are for LAN only though. But in the OP’s situation this would be ideal. I hope this practice becomes common. And I cant see how NovaLogic (NOLogic ussually) came up with this idea first. But it works great for LAN games.
deadman

26

NovaLogic wasn’t the first to come up with it. Blizzard was doing it back when they released Warcraft II. You just install your game on somebody else’s machine, take your CD home with you, and they have a copy that can only be played for interney multiplayer because they need a file on the CD to initialize the single-player campaign. This can also act as a demo. It shows you what the game can do without having to write a separate program.

27

Being used, of course. As to the whys, how does it matter

Background - I work for a software manufacturer. I do graphics for a computer game. In fact, my work on this computer game paid my tuition for the last academic year, so I have a bit of a stake in it.

Guess what? I uploaded a copy of this game to my friend. For another friend, I installed one of my most cherished games on his computer. I kept the CD, and I searched and searched, but could not find a crack for the newest version for him to play it – so I made one. (I do wish developers would stop insulting us with aggravating copy protection) I have no qualms about software piracy, even though it’s a “known fact” that it hurts my livelihood. Hogwash, I say:

Consider a public library, and pick any given book from it. Thousands of people may check out this book and read it cover to cover as many times as they’d like. Many, many people get full use out of this book without ever having paid a dime for it. Having now read this book, quite a few of them will probably never have an urge to buy it. Thus, using this logic, publishing companies must be losing IMMENSE amounts of money because of public libraries…therefore, using a library is stealing from these companies.

What about movie rentals? Console game rentals? Software return policies? All of these are “stealing” too, as you can use the product without paying (practically) anything to the seller.

Obviously, this is all flawed logic: there are reasons to own a book, movie or game other than simply getting use out of it.

As to the whys of piracy: Back from my experience as a software pirate many years back, I learned that most piracy falls into two categories: those demo’ing the software (and there was a time when software demos were rare) and those collecting the software. Believe it not, these collectors, or whatever term you want to use, often never even used what they got. It was simply a status symbol, a bartering chip in the strange high-tech gang-war-style jockeying that is broadscale software piracy. What both sects have in common is that they (generally) both believe in and practice the “buy it if you like it” dogma. Maybe it’s changed since then (possible, considering the average age of online use, in general, has fallen) but that’s how it really was at one time.

So next time you go to rent a movie, stop and consider if you’re really any different from a software pirate.

28

Oh come on, that’s reaching so far for a rationalization I’m surprised you didn’t dislocate a shoulder.

While I don’t see copying a game as the same sort of illegality as robbing a liquor store at gunpoint, there is obviously a fundamental difference between renting (or borrowing from a lending library) a piece of software, and pirating it. What difference? The consent of the entity that holds the rights to the software.

If I choose to allow my software to be rented, so be it. If I choose to give it away, so be it. If I choose to distribute it in such a way that I just barely break even, or even lose money, that’s my business.

These are decisions I (or my agents) made, based on any of many factors. It might be a decision that I think will maximize my profit (although I could be mistaken), or it might be a decision that I don’t care about the profitability of that product, or it might be based on something else entirely. The point is, it’s mine, so I get to choose.

If you, against the express wishes of the owner, take something that does not belong to you, then you are stealing. Whether the owner would or would not have gotten any compensation is beside this particular point.

The owner’s compensation (or lack of it) may decide the amount of damage done, but it doesn’t change the fact that if you take something of mine (especially against my expressly stated wishes), you are stealing. Live with it or don’t do it, but don’t try to rationalize it away.

Can the argument be made that software piracy does less (possibly far less) damage to software producers that the industry usually claims? Probably, although it’s a very difficult thing to pin down.

But IMHO, I don’t think you can make the argument that it does no damage. For example, I’ve been damaged by it, although only to the tune of a few thousands of dollars, and that over the period of ten years or so. So my damage was pretty small. But it was damage, none the less.

Ugly

29

Why? To make software makers feel better? If I can have it for free, even though I wouldn’t ever buy it, why should I turn it down? If my buddy wants to install some groovy $900 graphics software on my harddrive for me to use, I’m supposed to say no? Why? Who’s watching? Who am I hurting? No one…since I would never have spent $900 for that software, it’s not like I’m robbing the manufacturer of their sale…no such sale was ever going to take place.

This is all very much like the Napster issues. This stuff is digital, and it is very easy to get for free. I am an avid Napster user, and I am madly burning CD"s right and left. However, virtually all of the music I download is music I would NEVER have made it a point to go out and buy. NEVER. A, it would cost a fortune, B., it’s not worth it since it is single songs and in order to get my hands on each individual song I would have to buy whole CD’s (90% of what I DL are oldies, no CD singles available).

On the other hand, there have been one or two times when, if Napster had not existed, I would have bought the CD. And yes, this troubles me. I don’t know exactly what to do about this…so I’m going to let the legal system decide. I’m hoping against hope that there will be some kind of monthly fee arrangement. I will JOYFULLY pay it.

And back to software specifically: if I use illegal software that I really, really want and can afford, I will end up buying it. I feel a special responsibility to do so because I am a MAC user and in order to support the MAC platform it behooves me to buy the software for it or they will stop making it.

But I will never be buying thousand-dollar graphics packages just to noodle around with, and I will continue to let my friends give me such things.

stoid