retired_kjcurnyn

A purist would argue that as you are only allowed to install on any one concurrent machine at a time that given the client machine performs at least some of the server processing that this would violate the licensing.

Thats getting picky though! </BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the game is only installed on one pc. The other one is simply relaying what's happening on the main pc to it's own monitor and keyboard. I'm sure even a top legal professional would struggle to make that one stick, even with a jury made up of game devs, record label owners and film makers.

retired_kjcurnyn

First two points are called "Realism"... :-p

retired_B_RAN

The mere fact that something is legal or illegal according to local laws says nothing about whether or not it's morally acceptable for an individual.

Slavery was perfectly legal throughout most of the world for thousands of years. Many forms of free expression were illegal for decades in Eastern Europe. That doesn't mean that I would follow those laws or that I believe they were morally acceptable. The same applies to laws that are currently on the books.

You should do whatever you personally believe is morally acceptable. However, if it violates laws in certain places and you advocate it or admit it publicly, you could face legal consequences.

retired_hjsimpsonfamilyguy

From a generic software standpoint. If your remote connection only allows one concurrent connection (ie two people can't both connect to your PC and run separate versions of the game, via Terminal Services of something) then there shouldn't be an issue.

leanwitit

I disagree. He is using remote access software to access a legally installed game e.g. he is playing the game on the PC it was installed on...just using software to access it from another PC. This is fine