Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:11234 comp.misc:1714
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!im4u!ut-sally!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!lim
From: lim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kian-Tat Lim)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Copy protection and the consumer (dongles)
Summary: Better reason needed
Message-ID: <5312@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 25 Jan 88 02:27:26 GMT
References: <4663@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <22628@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1852@optilink.UUCP> <6622@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1869@optilink.UUCP>
Reply-To: lim@cit-vax.UUCP (Kian-Tat Lim)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 19

In article <1869@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>As much as I hate copy protection schemes, I appreciate why they exist --
>I've worked with far too many people over the years who think nothing of
>buying a program, then offering everyone they know a copy of it.  The
>rationalization is usually, "I wanted it, and it was overpriced."  I
>usually respond with, "A Mercedes is overpriced also.  Are you planning
>to steal one?"  The conversation usually ends right there.
>

As one of my roommates pointed out, there is a fundamental difference
between physical property such as the Mercedes and intellectual property such
as a computer program: you can copy the program, but not the Mercedes.  By
stealing the Mercedes, you are taking it away from someone else.  By copying a
program, you aren't depriving the original owner of its use.  I agree that
copying of software is not only illegal but immoral; yet theft of intellectual
property is much harder to define (and enforce laws against) than that of
physical property.

-- Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1)