Buying a program half-half with a friend?

[Shannon]

Just wondering Shannon, what's the point of antipiracy if more people can be exposed and benefit from a single copy of a program, like in the dorm room example above?

The others guys don't own a physical or digital copy of the program, but they're using it anyway without having paid for it.
Is there an intentionality/unintentionality thing to that?

In all of this, I do not wish to subject my customers to anything I myself would consider unfair. Anti-piracy and copy protection has gone too far in a lot of cases, and it has caused me to have ill will towards certain bands, brands and groups as a result. I am not saying that from the point of view of a pirate or a copyright breaker, but rather an honest consumer who is tired of being treated like a thief or guilty without having done anything wrong. That is why I went to such great lengths to craft anti-piracy that is fair, effective and reasonable.

As IceAlive states, it is not unreasonable for one person to rent or purchase a movie and then play it while an entire room full of people is present. The same is true of my programs, and it can be that someone might use it this way, and in that case, I would have to surrender those potential profits to fair use.

The key is fair use. If I have a copy I have paid for, I paid not just for the right to have a copy, but to use it for my personal benefit when, where and how I see fit within the confines of gaining the benefits the program is designed to get me. So if I play my copy in the living room, and I have speakers all through the house, my intent is to benefit from it myself - and if others benefit from my use of my copy, it is acceptable because I am using my copy in a way that benefits me and is still reasonable.

The problem arises when people don't want to put up with the inconvenience of that setup, and they want to use someone else's copy in their car, say, or on headphones while they sleep, or after the original purchaser has decided to stop using it. In that case, one copy is paid for, but someone else is benefiting from that copy in addition to the user, without fair use.

If you want to save money, you can take the bus to get to work, or you can carpool with a friend. If you want convenience, you have to buy your own car and then assume the cost and hassle of insurance, gas, oil, maintenance, repairs, parking, new tires, alignments, and so on and so forth. You cannot just wander over to your neighbor's house and drive off with his car whenever you want.

So even though in this case fair use may lose me money, it is important to maintain fair use because that is important for maintaining a reasonable balance between my interests and those of the purchaser. There must be a balance, and both parties must "win". Which is why not only do I maintain this position on fair use, but I make the program's anti-piracy scripting transparent and completely undetectable for legal users. I don't want my customers to feel that they are being treated poorly in the interests of anti-piracy, so it does not even turn on unless they are pirating the program.

Just because I can do something does not necessarily mean I should. Witness the effects of "digital rights management" in some of its incarnations. Andrew has an embroidery machine that requires specialty software to use. But that software is so heavily copy protected that even though he spent literally thousands of dollars to buy it, and has a legal copy, he cannot easily, reasonably or consistently use it. That is an example of copy protection that has gone too far.

My goal is a win-win situation for everyone.