I guess I'm just saying that a lot of peoples' concept of "buying" and "owning" is outdated, and I'm trying to fundamentally question the doctrine of first sale.
When you have a physical object, and a substantial part of the price is the cost of creating it, transporting it, physically getting it from the mine to the factory to you--and when selling it means you CAN'T reuse it, as a physical limitation--it makes more sense. But we've evolved past that point now.
I really don't see much difference between resale and lending. In a fully developed resale economy, once you put something on the used market, you can buy it back off the used market for a little more than you got for it (or the same amount, depending on how long you wait for its value to go down). The resale economy, to a large extent, IS about lending your copy of a work to the world-at-large, often in exchange for borrowing a copy of another work (yeah, there's a transition through currency, but this is one usual way it happens). And unlike libraries, if you get a game off the used-game market, you are almost guaranteed not to buy it from the original publisher. Sequels maybe, but still.
Anyway. In this hypothetical situation where Alice buys a game and Bob makes use of it, I'd like someone to pinpoint exactly where it STOPS being piracy on Bob's part:
1) Alice installs a cracked copy on Bob's machine. They both play it all they want.
2) Alice makes a copy of the CD that works without needing a crack and gives it to Bob. They both play it all they want.
3) Alice installs it on Bob's machine. It requires a code sheet. She photocopies it for him.
4) Same as above, but they only use it while in the same physical location (Bob is visiting Alice or vice versa).
5) Very similar to above: They play at the same time in the same location, but they both refer to the same uncopied code sheet.
6) Alice installs it on Bob's machine somehow and makes a copy of the code sheet for him. Alice only plays it while Bob is at school, and Bob only plays it while Alice is at school. They live on different continents, so they never play it at the same time.
7) Alice and Bob both have copies of the code sheet. They agree that Alice plays it on odd-numbered days of the month and Bob plays it on even-numbered days.
8) Alice and Bob only have one code sheet, but they both keep the game installed. They trade the code sheet back and forth on even- and odd-numbered days.
9) The game only runs from CD (maybe it's a console game). Alice and Bob trade the entire game back and forth every day.
10) Alice plays through the entire game once, then gives it to Bob, who does the same. They don't have it installed at the same time as each other. When one of them wants to play it, they ask the other for the copy if it's free. They have a large library of games they do this with.
11) Same as 10, but whenever one of them gives the game to the other, they ask for $1 in return. With their large game library, it equals out over time.
Under today's legal system etc, I believe that 1 through 8 are piracy, while 9 through 11 are not. With Steam, 1 through 11 are all piracy. In ALL of these cases, both Alice and Bob get to play through the game to completion, and in ALL of these cases, the publisher is only paid one time. Personally I'm on Steam's side. With the exception of direct household family members (spouse + children under the age of 18), I suggest that it should not be possible to share creative works back and forth once they have been 'opened'.
So I'm curious. Which numbered scenarios *exactly* are immoral, and which scenarios are not? I want to know exactly where you guys draw the line. Also: Do your answers change if instead of it being two friends, it's oh, an entire large frat house (20-30 guys)? What about if it's your workplace? What if it's a small town? What if it's everyone on the Internet?
Do your answers change if it's a book (or an ebook)? Why?
I really wouldn't want to live in the society where people are expected to care more about industry and some guy's profit than their own friends. I don't think people should even ask for the distributor's consent when they want to watch a movie with their girlfriend or play a game together.
Then buy a copy for your friend, then you can care about your friend AND the guy who made whatever you're sharing. As for 'watching a movie with whoever' or 'playing a game together on the same console using two controllers', those are pretty firmly established as okay. Though it would be interesting to contrast 'two players on one console' versus 'two players on two consoles', yeah. Now as for movies, they already say that 'not for public performance', so I'm sure you already know there's a difference between watching it with a friend and showing it at your own homemade drive-up theater.
...The service will never end and leave your media in limbo.
OK man, seriously now, you need to lay off on the Kool-Aid. I might take your ideas about lack of resale more seriously if your post didn't rest upon at least three assumptions that range from naive to idealistic to absurd.
Come on. I'm allowed to suppose those in order to limit the field of discussion. This is about policy, not technical possibility.
Guys. It's hypothetical. I'm arguing way over in left field, I want to see where it goes. Humor me a little?