llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (11/10/90)
In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: >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 ... >Do *NOT* encourage code breaking, hacking, or other such activity on the >NET. Again, it tends to give the NET a bad image. ... If I understand you, we disagree. While it is inadviseable to post information of the form "here is a patch to break the CP on 1-2-3", discussions about the woes of copy protection, and even discussions about general types of copy protection and how to remove them, are perfectly legitimate. It is not illegal to break copy protection. Nor is it unethical. Likewise, it is neither of these to discuss breaking copy protection. Discussions about breaking copy protection should occur in the appropriate newsgroups if people wish to discuss it, and none of us are empowered (or should be) to prevent such discussions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (11/15/90)
In article <25670@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes: >In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: > >>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 >... > >>Do *NOT* encourage code breaking, hacking, or other such activity on the >>NET. Again, it tends to give the NET a bad image. >... > >If I understand you, we disagree. While it is inadviseable to post information >of the form "here is a patch to break the CP on 1-2-3", discussions about >the woes of copy protection, and even discussions about general types of copy >protection and how to remove them, are perfectly legitimate. > >It is not illegal to break copy protection. Nor is it unethical. Likewise, ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >it is neither of these to discuss breaking copy protection. Discussions >about breaking copy protection should occur in the appropriate newsgroups >if people wish to discuss it, and none of us are empowered (or should be) >to prevent such discussions. > I agree with most of your statements except those marked. I believe the companies that use copy protection are attempting to establish that it *is* illegal to break copy protection. It *is* illegal to use a copy of a program that has the copy protection removed (how this is enforced is another story...) according to the "usage agreement" that you're supposed to sign and return to the company. The use of an "unauthorized" copy of software (in this context unauthorized => a copy made from software that has had its copy protection removed) is considered software piracy and *IS* illegal. As far as the ethics of the situation, my code of ethics apparently differs from yours. I consider breaking the copy protection of a software package to be an attempt to illegally acquire resources or information. As such, I wouldn't do it. Before you take this posting the wrong way let me state: I DO NOT agree with copy protection, I think it is useless and a waste of time and money for both the company producing the software and the consumer using the software. Instead of spending time and money first buying the software (we won't even talk about obtaining it illegally) and then trying to break the protection, I propose that the user community boycott ANY and ALL copy protected software. Pretty soon the software producers would get the hint that copy protection is a bad idea and stop doing. either that or go out of business... John Burton (jcburt@cs.wm.edu) (jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.154539.12727@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes: >> >I agree with most of your statements except those marked. I believe the companies >that use copy protection are attempting to establish that it *is* illegal to >break copy protection. It *is* illegal to use a copy of a program that has the >copy protection removed (how this is enforced is another story...) according to >the "usage agreement" that you're supposed to sign and return to the company. >The use of an "unauthorized" copy of software (in this context unauthorized => >a copy made from software that has had its copy protection removed) is considered >software piracy and *IS* illegal. I don't think I've ever signed such a usage agreement. A registration card, yes, but never any usage agreement saying 'I agree to all the terms of that obnoxious license agreement'. As far as I know, those shrink-wrap licenses have never been tested in court, and until a few precedents are set up to the contrary, I am going to treat all commercial software as if I bought it and am only bound by copyright law. >As far as the ethics of the situation, my code of ethics apparently differs from >yours. I consider breaking the copy protection of a software package to be >an attempt to illegally acquire resources or information. As such, I wouldn't >do it. As far as I am concerned, I have bought the right to use the information, and thus don't see anything unethical about trying to obtain a more easily used form of it. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.