kchiu@triton.unm.edu (11/10/90)
In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: >NO!!!! ABSOLUTELY NO!!!! > >Do *NOT* reveal, or even mention, any information on how to defeat copy >protection. In the eyes of the law, doing so reduces the NET to the status >of a pirate BBS. More importantly, the owners of the systems that make up >the NET do NOT want the bad public image of pirates and hackers to be >associated with their systems/companies. If the NET gets a bad image, the >system owners will pull the plugs on the NET. > Chill out, dude, It's not as if this Net is designed just for you, it's not as if any one else can't share the informations that you think is wrong. What does piracy has anything to do with the image of the Net? If you don't talk about it, it will still be around, it makes no difference to the net. And besides, the guy just wanted to share some informations on how to defeat copy protections, and it's nothing illegal about that. And if that's what they want to talk about, that's what they will talk about. >>Keep on breaking that code. > >Do *NOT* encourage code breaking, hacking, or other such activity on the >NET. Again, it tends to give the NET a bad image. > >>Remember, however, you also owe it to yourself >>and to the manufacturers to abide by their copyrights. The stuff ain't yours >>to give away. > >This is the *ONLY* thing in your article you said that I can condon being >said on the NET. It is something that cannot be said enough. > >Don't get me wrong, I greatly despise censorship. However, distribution of >this kind of information is illegal. The very existence of the NET depends >on not being perceved (sp?) as a "den of thieves". The same "corporate eyes" >to whom you want to prove your point might just decide to use archives of >articles on the NET to file law suites against contributors to the NET. While >those people would certainly deserve the consequences thereof, the resulting >bad publicity would hurt EVERYBODY on the NET. > It's not illegal about distributing those kind of imformations, yes, you are praticing censorship, and why don't you just admit it. Jeff
cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (11/11/90)
I'm afraid that you are seriously mistaken about most of what you have posted. >Do *NOT* reveal, or even mention, any information on >how to defeat copy protection. In the eyes of the >law, doing so reduces the NET to the status of a >pirate BBS. First, there is nothing illegal or immoral about describing how to defeat a copy protection scheme. Nor is there anything illegal about a "priate BBS" posting such information. While the software company might object, it has no legal recourse to have such information removed from either the UseNET or private BBS's. Copy protection schemes make it difficult to impossible to make a backup copy of a program you have purchased, as you are legally allowed tyo do, regardless of what "shrink-wrap" clauses that program license claims you are required to adhere to. Copy protection also makes modifying, upgrading, improving, or even installing the program on a hard disk drive much more difficult. This is the reason why pretty much all computer manufacturers no longer support copy protection. One example is Apple Computer, Inc. which has requested that all programs written for Apple computers should not be copy protected. Deprotecting a program (assuming you've paid for it) is not illegal, although making major modifications may come under the jurisdiction of the "derivative works" clause of the copyright law. Again, distributing information about how to deprotect a program is NOT illegal. To attempt to prevent the distribution of such information would be a clear violation of the "free speech" (First) Amendment of the Bill of Rights. >The same "corporate eyes" to whom you want to prove >your point might just decide to use archives of >articles on the NET to file law suites against >contributors to the NET. While those people would >certainly deserve the consequences thereof,.... Please note that this isn't a flame, but YOU are interfering with the dissemination of useful information, which is what the UseNET is for. You are doing this by trying to "scare" people from posting articles about deprotecting copy protection schemes by your suggestions that doing so would make them liable in a law suite (sp?). >rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw > sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ > rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks. -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------- -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu