rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (11/09/90)
In article <9011081036.AA12627@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, JROSSI@EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL writes: >As a secondary issue, it is nice to think that the NET does have corporate >ears. I hope that enough anti-copyprotection information can be revealed here >to really shake them up. Copy protection is wrong and the manufacturers >should know that they are only diservicing their loyal customers by employing >it. If we keep showing them we can beat them after all the $$$ in putting >the stuff on the software, maybe they will join the ranks of all the other >software houses who have woken up and removed the vile beast. 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. >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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern kitchen appliances would sneer at...." - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 iwblsys\ rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks.
ddaniel@lindy.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh) (11/09/90)
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 >of a pirate BBS. What is this supposed to mean? I don't see that "pirate BBS's" have a legal "status" which would include the Internet. Your statement sounds something like: "Saying 'It's possible to defeat a Ford lock by putting in a straight piece of metal and catching the whoozig' makes you a felon guilty of grand theft auto in the eyes of the law!" Perhaps you have a point and only couch it in overzealous terms. But the way you say it makes it sound like poppycock. I would like to understand your point, and would appreciate it if you could re-state your position in a slightly less flamboyant manner. Thanks, == Daniel == --------------------------- D. Daniel Sternbergh ddaniel@lindy.stanford.edu
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov9.024111.27112@portia.Stanford.EDU> ddaniel@lindy.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh) 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 >>of a pirate BBS. [Sternbergh's reply omitted] In the eyes of the Secret Service maybe, but I'd like to see you quote the law which says this. BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha file using MacTools. It is possible to copy Castle Wolfenstein once you realize that it is a hacked 13-sector DOS with track numbers doubled. Nybble count. Sync bytes. CRCs. Encrypted serial numbers. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/09/90)
In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: >In article <9011081036.AA12627@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, JROSSI@EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL writes: > >>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. Who died and made you the NET.GOD? >>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. Hardcore Computist (now Computist) has been distributing this information for years. GEnie at one point had a separate board in the Apple IIGS area for this type of information. Distribution of information is NOT illegal. Read the Constitution. Granted, the Secret Service or certain net.sysadmin.jackasses might think so, but they are not supposed to make the law. (obviously, if you post from a corporate site, you are constrained by corporate policy. But this has nothing to do with the law.) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more.
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (11/09/90)
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 >of a pirate BBS. More importantly, the owners of the systems that make up >[other crap deleted] BZZZT! I don't see how it does that at all. Did you ever hear of the fair use doctrine? A handful of software publishers still insist on copy protection, which tends to make their wares difficult or impossible to use in a world where hard disks and RAM disks are more and more common. Distributing information on how to defeat copy protection schemes for the sole purpose of archival copies is perfectly legal--look at magazines such as _Computist_ that do almost nothing but describe how to crack programs. Again, it is perfectly legal to unprotect software for your own use, either to make a backup copy or install it on a hard disk. It is also legal to disseminate information on how to unprotect software. Finally, I'm not a lawyer. While I believe that what I've said is true, don't come running to me if you get yourself in trouble; I have enough problems with my life already. :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
dvlmfs@cs.umu.se (Michael Forselius) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov9.053057.1181@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <1990Nov9.024111.27112@portia.Stanford.EDU> ddaniel@lindy.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh) 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 >>>of a pirate BBS. > >[Sternbergh's reply omitted] >In the eyes of the Secret Service maybe, but I'd like to see you quote >the law which says this. > >BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha >file using MacTools. It is possible to copy Castle Wolfenstein once you >realize that it is a hacked 13-sector DOS with track numbers doubled. > I think that the guy who applied the CP to QuarkXPress 2.xx (don't know about 3.xx) is one of the best - truly tough one, he has my genuine respect as a fellow programmer. And the CADs and Deja Vu II (Hi Paul, this is a funny one! I love _ExitToShell ...) and SimCity and Pirates and this could go on 4-ever. My opinion: If I were to use a program then I would buy it (if it's worth the money of course) since I would like to have the manuals, upgrades and tech support - imagine to use a professional CAD/DTP program without a manual or reference sheet, I would lose money the time spend figuring out commands. The same goes for the games (though there aren't so many good ones). If we're going to have CP programs then remember that the user almost always think it's a pain in the ... This guy who's talking about *NOT* revealing information about how to defeat CP must be jealous... There's no harm in trading information of this kind and the status of a pirate BBS is better than no status at all! Bottom Line : Do as I say - not as I do. >Nybble count. Sync bytes. CRCs. Encrypted serial numbers. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Nibble $D5AA96AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADEAAEB $41773351,$34546788,$94564410 ... >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu >Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more. +---------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Forselius Internet: dvlmfs@cs.umu.se | |---------------------------------------------------------| | Ever heard of 'Pirate Purgatory' !?! - tough one though | +---------------------------------------------------------+
cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (11/10/90)
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
nghiem@ut-emx.uucp (Alex Nghiem) (11/10/90)
In article <2259@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >Again, it is perfectly legal to unprotect software for your own use, >either to make a backup copy or install it on a hard disk. It is also >legal to disseminate information on how to unprotect software. Most software are now covered by shrink-wrap license agreements which forbid you to modify the code. Violation of a shrink wrap agreement entitles the software owner to civil remedies against you, the licensee. Over all, fair use will come into play. It is doubtful that a software company will come after you if you hack or make personal copies of your software. In fact, the goal of software companies is to sell more software--bad p.r. by sueing a little guy will not help sales whereas the little guy will most likely get his company to buy a package if he likes it and he feels he needs it at work. However the software company will likely come after you if you pirate or distribute software on a large scale and they will come after private and government entities if the software company can prove gross negligence on the part of the entity. If your employer is brought to court because of your negligence, you can bet you will lose your job. _________________________________________________________________________ Any article posted to USENET or any other electronic forum by Alex Nghiem are posted for discussion only. Any misrepresentation, inaccuracy, or omission, if any, are purely unintentional. Any opinion expressed or implicit these articles are those of Alex Nghiem and are not necessarily those of the University of Texas or any other agency of the State of Texas. My condolences to those who require this disclaimer. nghiem@emx.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!nghiem nghiem@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf!nghiem nghiem%utxvm.bitnet -------------------------------------------------------------------------
stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) (11/11/90)
nghiem@ut-emx.uucp (Alex Nghiem) writes: > Most software are now covered by shrink-wrap license agreements which > forbid you to modify the code. Violation of a shrink wrap agreement > entitles the software owner to civil remedies against you, the > licensee. The courts have ruled over and over that shrink wrap licenses are NOT enforceable. They often contain unreasonable (unlawful) requirements, and in any case, are generally not provided to the 'licensee' until after the transaction has been completed. > However the software > company will likely come after you if you pirate or distribute > software on a large scale and they will come after > private and government entities if the software company can prove > gross negligence on the part of the entity. De-copy protecting a piece of software implies neither pirating, distribution, nor negligence. Would Lotus care to know the reason I now use Quattro Pro instead of 123? In case they are listening, it is because they copy protect 123, and Borland does not protect Quattro. I have a 5.25 version of 123. I want it on a system with only 3.5. Can I do it? Ha Ha ha hahahahaha. > _________________________________________________________________________ > Any article posted to USENET or any other electronic forum by Alex Nghiem > are posted for discussion only. Any misrepresentation, inaccuracy, or > omission, if any, are purely unintentional. Any opinion expressed or implicit > these articles are those of Alex Nghiem and are not necessarily those of the > University of Texas or any other agency of the State of Texas. > > My condolences to those who require this disclaimer. The proper condolences are to the thousands of people who you make read this, and the tens-of-thousands of systems that copy this from system to system to system ... <> "Aneth! That's a charming place!" "You've been to Aneth?" <> "Yes, but not yet." -- The Doctor and Seth, "The Horns of Nimon". >< <> "Sanity check!" "Sorry, we can't accept it, it's from out of state." - me
cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) (11/11/90)
In article <EbCqmh200WAxQ0mlxX@andrew.cmu.edu> cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) writes: >While the software company might >object, it has no legal recourse to have such information removed from >either the UseNET or private BBS's. > Sure, but I don't believe the real issue here is a legal one per se. If a company discovers that its copy protection mechanisms are being subverted, and information on how to do this is being disseminated via the net, then they're not likely to be big fans of the net, and may well pull their plug on their link. This may have the effect of removing any informative link we have with that company because they're on the net, and it may also cause a significant net node to go away. Remember, the net exists largely because companies and others pay good money to support it. Organisations that see what they consider to be subversion of attempts to protect corporate prop- erty on the net might pull the plug, thereby reducing the utility of the net as a whole, and depriving thousands of netters of what they've grown used to. Before someone suggests that my message is another "scare tactic", let me just say that I believe the threat is real, because I've seen it happen in private networks before now. And it has nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the situation, only with how it is viewed. Martin.
rjc@uk.ac.ed.cstr (Richard Caley) (11/11/90)
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 of a pirate BBS. What has `the law' got to do with it, has the court system started funding usenet feeds or something. I'm fairly certain it is not illegal, even in the USA, to distribute information about how to break the law; though things may be going that way. If it were every set of photocopier instructions would be illegal. I was taught how best to stab someone to death in school, was that teacher doing something horribly illegal? I don't think so. BTW. the best way to beat copy protection is to not buy anything with copy protection. Make sure you write to the manufacturer and tell them that you decided not to buy their product specifically because of this. Also mutter words about `merchantable quality', or US equivalent -- software with copy protection is definitly shoddy goods IMHO. -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.cstr _O_ |<
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (11/11/90)
In article <wFZFs2w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > Would Lotus care to know the reason I now use Quattro Pro instead of >123? In case they are listening, it is because they copy protect 123, and >Borland does not protect Quattro. I have a 5.25 version of 123. I want it >on a system with only 3.5. Can I do it? Ha Ha ha hahahahaha. Actually, Lotus sells 123 with either disk format, and is very nice about providing prompt disk exchange if you call them and have the wrong format or your requirements change. 123 has not been copy protected in years. Actually in version 2.01 you could buy a upgrade package to remove it, since then it hasn't been copy protected. It has been registered/ startup screen sin 'protected'. Once installed completely, you never need the original disks again, burn them if desired. Simply make a copy off the hard disk onto whatever media you need. Further, the copy protection on the startup/sin screen is quite easy to defeat/overcome (basically), but what's the difference. If your going to steal the softwarr, a sin screen is of little relevance. Actually, If I were commenting on how quattro provides support for floppy only systems, I'd say that they copy protected it too, possibly worse. al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
kdb@chinet.chi.il.us (Karl Botts) (11/11/90)
>BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha >file using MacTools. It is possible to copy Castle Wolfenstein once you >realize that it is a hacked 13-sector DOS with track numbers doubled. > >Nybble count. Sync bytes. CRCs. Encrypted serial numbers. >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu >Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more. Isn't their anyone in a position to censor this drivel? I suppose not...
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov11.094939.11327@chinet.chi.il.us> kdb@chinet.chi.il.us (Karl Botts) writes: >>BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha >>file using MacTools. It is possible to copy Castle Wolfenstein once you >>realize that it is a hacked 13-sector DOS with track numbers doubled. >> >>Nybble count. Sync bytes. CRCs. Encrypted serial numbers. >>-- >>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu >>Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more. > >Isn't their anyone in a position to censor this drivel? I suppose not... If you wanted to censor it, why did you repeat it? BTW, yes, there are people in a position to censor my posts-- however, I doubt they will. You are welcome to try. Hmm... this gives me an idea... maybe I could have my .sig be a copy-deprotection of the day... -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) (11/12/90)
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > 123 has not been copy protected in years. Actually in version 2.01 you > could buy a upgrade package to remove it, since then it hasn't been copy > protected. It has been registered/ startup screen sin 'protected'. Once > installed completely, you never need the original disks again, burn them if > desired. Simply make a copy off the hard disk onto whatever media you need. Unless the graphics device you use is different on the other system. The original system was VGA. The new one is CGA. It is the install program, which will only run off the original install disk, and which CANNOT be copied correctly, that sets up the graphics environment. If the seller provides its software (install) which will run only when the one specific installation disk is present, said disk uncopyable, then they are using copy protection. This copy was purchased from the SU bookstore in January, which is much more recently than the 'years' you claim. > Further, the copy protection on the startup/sin screen is quite easy to > defeat/overcome (basically), but what's the difference. If your going to > steal the softwarr, a sin screen is of little relevance. I am not stealing the software and I resent your implication that I am. The only reason I am answering this in the group instead of telling you what I think of you in private mail is because of your worldwide broadcast that I am a thief. <> "Aneth! That's a charming place!" "You've been to Aneth?" <> "Yes, but not yet." -- The Doctor and Seth, "The Horns of Nimon". >< <> "Sanity check!" "Sorry, we can't accept it, it's from out of state." - me
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (Scott Alfter) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov11.094939.11327@chinet.chi.il.us>, kdb@chinet.chi.il.us (Karl Botts) writes: >In article <1990Nov9.053057.1181@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@wam.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >>BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha >>file using MacTools. It is possible to copy Castle Wolfenstein once you >>realize that it is a hacked 13-sector DOS with track numbers doubled. >> >>Nybble count. Sync bytes. CRCs. Encrypted serial numbers. >>-- >>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu >>Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more. > >Isn't their anyone in a position to censor this drivel? I suppose not... Sorry, but that's what happens when stuff gets cross-posted. BTW, is anybody actually using v1.05 anymore? All I ever see installed anywhere on campus is v4.0. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/ P.S.: I hope they fix our rn soon; replying to messages this way is a feat for trained professionals only. Do not attempt this at home. :-)
dlh@polari.UUCP (d h) (11/12/90)
>>system owners will pull the plugs on the NET. I really doubt that, since most of the major links in the NET are either supported by companies which have already realized what a pain in the ass copy protection is to the LEGITIMATE PURCHASERS of their product, or by major educational institutions which have always been the bastions of free speech. >> >>Do *NOT* encourage code breaking, hacking, or other such activity on the >>NET. Again, it tends to give the NET a bad image. >> This might be true to some degree, but the net is generally such a valuable tool that major companies would never drop the net just because there are a few mavericks who have access. Besides, hacking (I am not a hacker, I use CopyII PC for my own purposes ... I only own 2 protected programs, they are both old and I didn't find them worth upgrading) is an exercise in intellectual pursuit and independence .... terrible attributes for a person living in today's world .... with freedom bustin' out all over .... right? ;-) >>>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. >> True, true, true. I buy all the software I run, I copy it all for my own use, and NO ONE gets copies. If that were a universal attitude .... maybe even just prevalent would be enough .... copy protection would just plain go away, and software would probably get cheaper, because companies would get paid by all the users of their product. Just one more point, before I step down off the soap box. SOFTWARE PIRACY is just a romantic, euphemism for STEALING. Face it .... you use it, you didn't pay for it .... you STOLE it. So, go ahead and hack away. It's good for your mind, but don't be freeloading off the efforts of others who are trying to make an honest living from their talents.
csg019@cck.cov.ac.uk (*ZAPHOD* INTUITION) (11/12/90)
In article <EbCqmh200WAxQ0mlxX@andrew.cmu.edu> cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) writes: >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. Are we all from the same planet or what? The whole piracy/deprotection debate is getting to complex. If you buy a game, you can do what you want to it, format is, change it, deprotect it or stand on it as long as you dont try to disribute copys of it, or sell the modified product. Companies have a perfect right to protect thier investment, its a shame its so easy to deprotect. *** By the way, is anyone outside the UK receiving this? ****** -- *********/// O O **A member of S.H.I.T. (Super High Intelegence Team)**///*** * /// u Fight, defeat and kill organized laming. /// * * \\\ /// --- Zaphod of Intuition csg019@uk.ac.cov.cck ok? \\\ /// * ****\\X//**********************************************************\\X//******
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov11.094939.11327@chinet.chi.il.us> kdb@chinet.chi.il.us (Karl Botts) writes: >>BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha >>file using MacTools. It is possible to copy Castle Wolfenstein once you >>realize that it is a hacked 13-sector DOS with track numbers doubled. >> >>Nybble count. Sync bytes. CRCs. Encrypted serial numbers. > >Isn't their anyone in a position to censor this drivel? I suppose not... Nope. You can continue to drivel all you want. Just out of curiosity, if the net could be censored who would you give the job to? I vote for BIFF. :-) -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | I support gun control. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | Let's start with the government! + 416 281 6094 |
dave@compnect.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov11.094939.11327@chinet.chi.il.us>, kdb@chinet.chi.il.us (Karl Botts) writes: > >BTW, it is possible to copy Microsoft Word 1.05 by copying the Kensh Rutha [ ... ] > >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu > >Tax the rich, and feed the poor -- until there are, rich no more. > > Isn't their anyone in a position to censor this drivel? I suppose not... You are your OWN censor on the net. Use your ceNsor key. And stop trying to - decide what should and should NOT be allowed on the net. If you don't like it, dont read it. [------------------------------------------------------ Dave Ratcliffe -----] : uunet!rutgers!psuvax1!eds1!wa3wbu!compnect!dave | The Data Factory BBS : : uunet!wa3wbu!compnect!dave | (717)657-4997 : : dave@compnect.uucp or compnect!dave@uunet.UU.NET | (717)657-4992 : [------------------------------------------------------ Harrisburg Pa. ----]
kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) (11/14/90)
>>>system owners will pull the plugs on the NET. >I really doubt that, since most of the major links in the NET are either >supported by companies which have already realized what a pain in the ass >copy protection is to the LEGITIMATE PURCHASERS of their product, or by >major educational institutions which have always been the bastions of >free speech. Most of the major educational institutions I know of are actually run by people who do not see things quite that way. The people who approve the megabuck computing budgets do NOT tend to smile upon less-than-honorable uses of the mainframes here, and have several times squelched activities that they deemed to be inapropriate or superfluous. So I guess what I'm saying is, you can go ahead and post your "how to subvert copy protection" messages and probably not be held liable even if it IS illegal, but if the volume and freqency of such discussions reaches the ears of the stuffy non-computer-literate budget managers (is there any other kind?) in a large organization, the plug may very well be pulled on groups who don't pay for their own connection. People like me. So even though I'm always curious to hear detailed explanations of any new computing technique, even those involving paper clips, the net as a whole probably doesn't benefit from such traffic. The students are the ones who cry out for free speech, but students have little to do with budget approval. (<Toggle Soapbox> Actually, here at the UW they usually cry out for their right to use profanity in the campus newspaper, which of course has little if anything to do with our first amendment right to free speech. It's been a long, long time since I heard anyone exercise their political right to free speech in order to voice a rational opinion about anything). Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu "Problems generate new knowledge." -- M. Usui
palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) (11/14/90)
From article <11071@milton.u.washington.edu>, by kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno): > It's been a long, long time since I heard > anyone exercise their political right to free speech in order to voice a > rational opinion about anything). Every time we get rational we end up going to war. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda palowoda@fiver | *Home of Fiver BBS* Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda | 415-623-8809 1200/2400 {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda | An XBBS System Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (11/14/90)
(seems to be crossposted a bit too widely -- note the Followups-To) One of the assumptions implicit in the majority of postings in this thread seems to be that USENET is limited to the USA, and that American laws are the only ones that hold jurisdiction. However, most USENET posts do not have a usa distribution and thus are distributed in other countries where laws can be quite different. Re: posting copy-protection info Legal or Illegal US law (Copyright law of '76) states that this information cannot be legally restrained. Well and good (IMO), but French law, based on different legal principles considers this kind of thing to be "unfair competition" (Concurrence Deloyal). Judgements have been handed down to the detriment of companies that distribute software like copyIIpc which bypass copy-protection schemes including heavy monetary damages. As EEC copyright laws are being debated right now and at present appear to be much closer to French laws than their American counterparts, the legality of distributing this kind information throughout USENET is murkier than at first sight. Pat Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, All my knowlege on the subject comes from newspaper articles in the French press so there may be innaccuracies. Also, I've said all I'm going to on this subject. -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) (11/14/90)
In article <14087@arisia.Xerox.COM>, cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) writes: |> In article <EbCqmh200WAxQ0mlxX@andrew.cmu.edu> cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) writes: |> >While the software company might |> >object, it has no legal recourse to have such information removed from |> >either the UseNET or private BBS's. |> > |> |> Sure, but I don't believe the real issue here is a legal one per se. If a |> company discovers that its copy protection mechanisms are being subverted, |> and information on how to do this is being disseminated via the net, then |> they're not likely to be big fans of the net, and may well pull their plug |> on their link. This may have the effect of removing any informative link |> we have with that company because they're on the net, and it may also cause |> a significant net node to go away. Remember, the net exists largely because |> companies and others pay good money to support it. Organisations that see |> what they consider to be subversion of attempts to protect corporate prop- |> erty on the net might pull the plug, thereby reducing the utility of the |> net as a whole, and depriving thousands of netters of what they've grown |> used to. |> |> Before someone suggests that my message is another "scare tactic", let me |> just say that I believe the threat is real, because I've seen it happen in |> private networks before now. And it has nothing to do with the legality or |> otherwise of the situation, only with how it is viewed. I know I'll probably get flamed, but I have to agree with Martin here, that you *NOT* post information about cracking programs on the network (though I have in the past hinted that some programs could be cracked and responded privately by e-mail). The reason is not a legal one, but a practical one. Let me give an example. In March, Steve Jackson Games was raided by the Secret Service and had much of their computer equipment confiscated along with all copies of a book called "GURPS Cyberpunk" and the BBS run by SJG. The reason for the seizure was that one person who worked on the book for a short time had been associated with the Legion of Doom, and the SS believed that he was using the BBS and the book to disseminate information about cracking computer systems. There is, in fact, a section of the book that deals with gaming rules for "cracking" but with no details about how to do it. The last I knew, the equipment has not been returned, even though the SS agreed later that there was no evidence of illegal activity. The loss to the company was substantial, and was almost enough to put them out of business. They are currently involved in a court battle to try to recover damages. If this were the only incident I had heard of where BBSs had been shut down or impounded for the suspicion of spreading cracking information, then I would dismiss it as a fluke. But you have to look at the way the larger culture views the computer network, which it does NOT understand (witness the flap that happened over rec.humor.funny about a year ago that resulted in some very negative press against the net and the moderator of that group). If the media report that the network is a tool of Satan for disseminating pornography, encouraging the use of illegal drugs and gambling, and teaching people how to infiltrate Pentagon computers and fire off nuclear missiles, the vast majority of the public is going to give some credence to the report. Many people will believe it because it makes a good story. If enough people in Congress believe it, perhaps legislation could be passed to "pull the plug" on the net, though I doubt it. One of the changes that has occurred in our culture over the last few years is that people, especially law enforcement officials, are getting much more worried about computer crime and "cracking". When you post cracking information to the net, you give ammunition to those unstable people who do not understand the net, but are looking for some "righteous" cause, or maybe just a good story for their newspaper. So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a conspiracy to overthrow the government, or to slander somebody, then I have still done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we currently have on the network. --Mark
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/15/90)
In article <56332@brunix.UUCP> man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes: >I know I'll probably get flamed, but I have to agree with Martin here, that >you *NOT* post information about cracking programs on the network (though I >have in the past hinted that some programs could be cracked and responded >privately by e-mail). The reason is not a legal one, but a practical one. >Let me give an example. > >In March, Steve Jackson Games was raided by the Secret Service and had much >of their computer equipment confiscated along with all copies of a book called >"GURPS Cyberpunk" and the BBS run by SJG. The reason for the seizure was that >one person who worked on the book for a short time had been associated with >the Legion of Doom, and the SS believed that he was using the BBS and the book >to disseminate information about cracking computer systems. There is, in fact, >a section of the book that deals with gaming rules for "cracking" but with no >details about how to do it. The last I knew, the equipment has not been >returned, even though the SS agreed later that there was no evidence of illegal >activity. The loss to the company was substantial, and was almost enough to >put them out of business. They are currently involved in a court battle to >try to recover damages. > >If this were the only incident I had heard of where BBSs had been shut down or >impounded for the suspicion of spreading cracking information, then I would >dismiss it as a fluke. Steve Jackson Games was raided and the BBS impounded due to a warrant issued relating to the BellSouth E911 papers. Not due to 'suspicion of spreading cracking information) > But you have to look at the way the larger culture views >the computer network, which it does NOT understand (witness the flap that happened >over rec.humor.funny about a year ago that resulted in some very negative press >against the net and the moderator of that group). He's still there, isn't he? > If the media report that the >network is a tool of Satan for disseminating pornography, encouraging the use >of illegal drugs and gambling, and teaching people how to infiltrate Pentagon >computers and fire off nuclear missiles, the vast majority of the public is going >to give some credence to the report. Many people will believe it because it >makes a good story. If enough people in Congress believe it, perhaps legislation >could be passed to "pull the plug" on the net, though I doubt it. WARNING: IMMINENT DEATH OF USENET PREDICTED > >One of the changes that has occurred in our culture over the last few years is >that people, especially law enforcement officials, are getting much more worried >about computer crime and "cracking". When you post cracking information to the >net, you give ammunition to those unstable people who do not understand the net, >but are looking for some "righteous" cause, or maybe just a good story for their >newspaper. This is no reason to give in. >So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading >the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right >under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a >conspiracy to overthrow the government ^^^^^ requires an overt act against the government. Just talk won't cut it. , or to slander somebody, then I have still >done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we >currently have on the network. We can't protect freedom by guessing what the censors would do if they found out, and acting as if they had censored us. That is simply acting like a sheep. ---- The software which came with The Recognizer, used a wierd scheme that didn't seem to use sync bytes, and was slow and unreliable. I was unable to read the disk directly. However, all the programs could be transfered by saving them to cassette tape, rebooting under standard DOS, and re-loading them. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
) (11/15/90)
In article <11071@milton.u.washington.edu> kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) writes: >So I guess what I'm saying is, you can go ahead and post your "how to >subvert copy protection" messages and probably not be held liable even if >it IS illegal, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify it, rewrite it, whatever you want. The only thing you can't do is DISTRIBUTE what you've done. There is NOTHING illegal about removing copy ptotection code from a program. Not according to the United States Code at least... -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| |---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | | It is the spectator and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde |
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (11/15/90)
In article <56332@brunix.UUCP> man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes: > ... But you have to look at the way the larger culture views >the computer network, which it does NOT understand (witness the flap that happened >over rec.humor.funny about a year ago that resulted in some very negative press >against the net and the moderator of that group). If the media report that the >network is a tool of Satan for disseminating pornography, encouraging the use >of illegal drugs and gambling, and teaching people how to infiltrate Pentagon >computers and fire off nuclear missiles, the vast majority of the public is going >to give some credence to the report. Many people will believe it because it >makes a good story. If enough people in Congress believe it, perhaps legislation >could be passed to "pull the plug" on the net, though I doubt it. You know what's right. Go tell them! You elected these people, and if they're about to do something you think is wrong, it is your DUTY to tell them about it. Don't wimp out. And we're not talking about breaking into sensitive Pentagon computers, we're not talking about obscenity, and I can guarantee that nuclear missiles can't be launched by computer. (You too are a victim of the misinformation of "War Games"). >One of the changes that has occurred in our culture over the last few years is >that people, especially law enforcement officials, are getting much more worried >about computer crime and "cracking". When you post cracking information to the >net, you give ammunition to those unstable people who do not understand the net, >but are looking for some "righteous" cause, or maybe just a good story for their >newspaper. > >So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading >the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right >under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a >conspiracy to overthrow the government, or to slander somebody, then I have still >done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we >currently have on the network. I really don't see how in any stretch of the imagination you can equate fair use of software (guaranteed by law) with a plot to overthrow the governmen . Soundt like you're willing to give up your freedoms, only to save some hassle. I can't believe this... I used to think Americans took their liberties for granted. Now I see that they're willing to give them away in the name of the almighty "easy way out". I urge anyone who cares about this nation and the ideals it was founded upon to FIGHT any such attempt at appeasement. The Computer/Information revolution is the fountainhead of learning and progress in the world. What does it make us look like to those who disagree if we're not even willing to fight for what we believe? I'm disgusted. > --Mark -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)
stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) (11/15/90)
[ re: subverting copy protection ] In article <1990Nov14.225343.4867@isis.cs.du.edu> kreme@isis.UUCP (Name? I don't need no stinking name!) writes: >IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can >do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify ^^^^^^^^^^ >it, rewrite it, whatever you want. The only thing you can't do is DISTRIBUTE >what you've done. There is NOTHING illegal about removing copy ptotection code >from a program. Not according to the United States Code at least... However, some software packages clearly state that you are not purchasing a copy of the software, but that you are purchasing a license to use the software. They may also state that the actual software remains the property of the seller, and that the money you paid went only for a license. In this case, you DON'T own it, you're just using a copy supplied with the license. The diskettes in the box still belong to the company, they're just being loaned to you because you hold a valid license. They may continue to say that the software falls under the category of "Trade Secret", and that attempting to reverse-engineer or alter the software may not only be a violation of the license, but also grounds for civil action. As for the *illegality* of such a violation of license, I don't know. "Trade Secrets" are another issue altogether. The consequences are unclear, but what is clear is that just because you purchased the latest-and-greatest from XYZ software you don't necessarily have the right to do what you want with it or to it. Read the license. There's a reason they make you open the triple-sealed packages to get to the diskettes. If you don't like the license don't use the software. -- Steve Groom, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA stevo@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov {ames,usc}!elroy!stevo
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes: >However, some software packages clearly state that you are not purchasing >a copy of the software, but that you are purchasing a license >to use the software. >They may also state that the actual software remains the property of the >seller, and that the money you paid >went only for a license. In this case, you DON'T own it, you're just >using a copy supplied with the license. They can also say that you own them your first born. It doesn't mean it'll hold up in court. >They may continue to say >that the software falls under the category of "Trade Secret", and >that attempting to reverse-engineer or alter the software may not only >be a violation of the license, but also grounds for civil action. "Trade secrets" are kept in safe place. They are *not* distributed to the public. You can't make something available to anyone who wants to hand over some money and then convince a judge that it was a "trade secret". You can call it a trade secret until your face turns blue but it doesn't necessarily make it so. Most of the "agreements" affixed to software are boilerplate efforts that may or may not be meaningful in some extreme cases (where a prosecuter may go overboard in interpreting the agreement). Most people would agree that handing out a copy of the software (or any derivation of the software) to someone else is illegal. -- Scott Amspoker | Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | "I'm going out for a sandwich" (505) 345-5232 | - Ben unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott |
yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) (11/15/90)
Is this Thread getting into "Beating a dead horse?" One can argue over this concept for ever. Is the Problem that we SHOULDEN't discuss Copy Programs? I for one lost a $30 Game when the Disk went bad. and Then I found out a way to back it up, (After the disk was bad, it diden't help) So i for one Feel that "unobtrusive" methods of protection should be "Requested" (is that the right word) by people. and any review of a Game should go into The type of Protection. I know several games ARE major DISK Grinders, and i diden't buy them because they made the Amiga drive sound like a .... (YA all Know the noise) PS: why don't CBM "enforce" a NO custom Bootblock Rule? It'd save a Lot of trouble. (Viruses and all) Just my .03$ -- yorkw@ecn.purdue.edu Willis F York ---------------------------------------------- Macintosh... Proof that a Person can use a Computer all day and still not know ANYTHING about computers.
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (Scott Alfter) (11/15/90)
In article <yorkw.658639433@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) writes: >PS: why don't CBM "enforce" a NO custom Bootblock Rule? >It'd save a Lot of trouble. (Viruses and all) >Just my .03$ I can't speak for what Commodore has done or will do, but I read some time back that Apple won't support any copy protection scheme that "breaks" on any of their machines, now or in the future. In other words, if you write a program that works on an Apple II or Macintosh that exists today and Apple comes out with a new machine (or even new system software) that your program refuses to run with, you're outta luck. It doesn't help you in your situation, though...(unless you have one of those gizmos for your Amiga that lets you run Mac stuff...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/ P.S.: I hope they fix our rn soon; replying to messages this way is a feat for trained professionals only. Do not attempt this at home. :-)
kadoi@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Yasumoto) (11/15/90)
**** ATTENTION **** this next post is a commentary and is NOT the expressed
opinion of the client from which is posted NOR its users. These comments
are purely of my own and are of no ones. I don't want to keep re-hashing
this so if you're tired of reading it, skip it. Otherwise read on, and let
it goes as that. Thanks =) Have a nice day!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hate to continue this (and if you do, skip this article altogether)
but the idea that people are becoming more and more paranoid about the net
being policed in such a way makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, I do understand
that the net is paid by government grants, and companies of various interest.
Yes I understand the question of legality that does arise in situations like
this. BUT, what I do not like and do understand is the overall concensus by
most is to CENSOR information that is 'helpful' yet construed(sp?) as 'illegal'
in some/most cases. THIS IS WRONG. (these opinons are of my own and do not
reflect the opinions of the client nor its users).
If some of you can recall, a few-many months ago, Operation Sun-Devil took
place across the U.S., with a charge of conspiracy and electronic felony
being the main forrunner of the trial. FORTUNATELY, all charges were cleared
and action is/might be taken against Bell South/MCI as well as other agencies
that were involved in this incident. It involved the government as well as
other companies of various interest. The reason: to track down and find
systems' that were distributing a document describing the operations of the
911 telephone network system. Fact: it was a documentation that turned out to
be available to the PUBLIC for $13 via Ma-Bell. Fact: Bell South/MCI ranted
and raved about a possible 911 shut-down when in fact there could never have
been (the pamphlet described how the 911 systems operation works, and if you're
not a technical person that knows telecommunications, the words look like some
unknown foriegn language).
My point: a large company, with many interests was alerted by an employee
about a possible break-in and 'theft' of a file that alledgely contained
information on how to 'disable the 911 system', calls the government, complains
in detail that 'this file is dangerous in the hands of the wrong person and
can cause damage to the phone system as well as the community' so what does
the government do? They pull a stint like this and get theirselves caught
with their pants down because they didn't know what was going on. The point
is that MANY GOOD systems were shut-down because of this 'alledged' file,
one of them here in Chicago, that was a base for INFORMATION, like the library
about many different topics (from SEX to COOKING) and my gripe is what has
happened to this country when our freedom to exchange information under the
free speech act has become so crippled that now, on the net, the paranoia
arises to a pitch that is so high no one can listen nor care anymore?
Are we going to let ourselves submit to a blatent violation of our basic
rights to free speech by the GOVERNMENT when in fact its supposed to be
protecting the interests of the bill of rights OVERSEAS in the middle east???
Again, I do understand the net is not as public as thought to be by most, but
since it IS used by many persons, and this IS a database for information, why
cannot we trade the information so desired? Sure we're not trading military
secrets, but that's understandable if we did. But we aren't. We are here to
give insight, as well as help to others whom are asking, and whom aren't trying
to commit an act of crime. Lets keep thinking that way at least. Lets try
to keep the humanity of this still intact while we can. I know I'd sure like
to try...
re: again, this is a commentary about the recent posts, they do NOT reflect
the client from which is posted, nor any of its users. flames are not welcomed
please. all opinions expressed are of my own. replies not nessesary.
"Freedom Exists, Big Brother is Born" | rick@chinet.chi.il.us | Richard M. Kadoi
"Freedom Suffers, Big Brother Watches"| ...clout!gargoyle!chinet.chi.il.us!rick
"Freedom Dies, Big Brother Controls" | kadoi@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
'If we let ourselves be ruled in tyranny, then we are nothing as humans'sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) (11/15/90)
kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Name? I don't need no stinking name!) writes: >IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can >do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify >it, rewrite it, whatever you want. The only thing you can't do is DISTRIBUTE >what you've done. There is NOTHING illegal about removing copy ptotection code >from a program. Not according to the United States Code at least... Uh, excuse me, but have you *read* the license that comes with just about any software you buy these days? Most of them clearly state, in thick legalese, "You do NOT own this software, you have been given a LICENSE to use this software, Company X still OWNS this software, etc" and they then proceed to restrict just about every right they can think of. Obviously, if you change it, modify it, rewrite it, whatever you want, and they never hear about it (or don't care), that's all well and good. But what people seem to be concerned about here is the technical letter of the law, because that's what the fundies are going to be using when they come for us. If you're feeling paranoid, that is. I couldn't figure out what rec.music.synth had to do with this, so I spared them the discussion. -- Kevin Martin sigma@rpi.edu "england my country, the home of the free (such miserable weather)"
epa@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Eric P. Armstrong) (11/16/90)
yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) writes: >PS: why don't CBM "enforce" a NO custom Bootblock Rule? >It'd save a Lot of trouble. (Viruses and all) >Just my .03$ Better yet NO Bootblock, put it in ROM. ---- Eric Paul Armstrong Kansas State University Bitnet: ericpaul@ksuvm.bitnet Internet: epa@phobos.cis.ksu.edu
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (11/16/90)
In article <1339@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes: >In article <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes: >>They may continue to say >>that the software falls under the category of "Trade Secret", and >>that attempting to reverse-engineer or alter the software may not only >>be a violation of the license, but also grounds for civil action. > >"Trade secrets" are kept in safe place. They are *not* distributed >to the public. You can't make something available to anyone who >wants to hand over some money and then convince a judge that it was >a "trade secret". You can call it a trade secret until your face >turns blue but it doesn't necessarily make it so. "Trade secrets" *are* kept in a safe place, products based on trade secrets *are* distributed to the public. When protecting an invention, a company has basically 3 choices. Patent it, copyright it, or keep it as a trade secret. Which of the 3 choices is appropriate for software is still very much a debatible subject. For a discussion on software patents, see the October 1990 issue (i think) of Dr. Dobbs Journal. In order for an invention to remain a trade secret, the company must take *reasonable* means to insure that the secret is not revealed. This generally entails both a copy protection scheme and a license agreement. The copy protection provides a reasonable level of security for the trade secret and the license agreement is a legal document stating that *you* as the user agree to not reveal/divulge the trade secret in return for being allowed to use the product which is based on the trade secret. These agreements are common in transferring technology as "secrecy" or "non-disclosure" agreements. Breaking of the copy protection is generally in violation of the license agreement and is considered "breach of contract" and can be prosecuted in a civil court. Reverse engineering and/or distribution of an illegally copied "copy protected" software package can be considered industrial espionage and be prosecuted in a criminal court. > >Most of the "agreements" affixed to software are boilerplate >efforts that may or may not be meaningful in some extreme cases >(where a prosecuter may go overboard in interpreting the agreement). Nope, at the very least, the "agreement" is a legal contract between you and the software producer. Violation of that agreement is, at a minimum, considered breach of contract (in the absence of extenuating circumstances). True, the software company *can* put anything they want into such an agreement, but in general, the company is smart enough to exclude any clauses that would not hold up in court. > >Most people would agree that handing out a copy of the software (or >any derivation of the software) to someone else is illegal. > yep, I will agree with you there. Perhaps the best way to get around a copy protection scheme is to not buy software that has it. Basically boycott any company that uses a copy protection scheme. Back to the original thread. Distribution of "cracking" information is not specifically illegal. The morality/immorality of it is questionable and depends on your code of ethics. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but do have *some* experience with inventions and maintaining rights to an invention. These are My views and do not reflect the views of my employers. John Burton (jcburt@cs.wm.edu) (jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov)
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (11/16/90)
In article <5V*^Z|@rpi.edu> sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) writes: >Uh, excuse me, but have you *read* the license that comes with just about >any software you buy these days? Most of them clearly state, in thick >legalese, "You do NOT own this software, you have been given a LICENSE to >use this software, Company X still OWNS this software, etc" and they then >proceed to restrict just about every right they can think of. Except that such a liscense is a contract at best (meaningless at worst), and that means it is enforcable by state law. On the other hand, Copyright law is federal law, which supercedes state law. If the company claims a copyright on the work, and sells it to you with the liscense saying "you may not disassemble this program," then (at least in Louisianna (sp?)) you may disassemble it, because FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW SAYS YOU MAY. Similarly, if they say "you may not back up this software," you are still allowed the one backup provided by federal copyright law. Now, if they don't claim a copyright, then this is not the case. On the other hand, they have no protection unless they make you sign the agreement *first* before they give you the software. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.172428.14527@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes: >"Trade secrets" *are* kept in a safe place, products based on trade secrets >*are* distributed to the public. But programs that are copyrighted are not trade secrets, since you must publish in a publically-accessible place your copyrighted work. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (11/16/90)
>However, some software packages clearly state that you >are not purchasing a copy of the software, but that >you are purchasing a license to use the software. >They may also state that the actual software remains >the property of the seller, and that the money you >paid went only for a license. In this case, you DON'T >own it, you're just using a copy supplied with the >license. The diskettes in the box still belong to the >company, they're just being loaned to you because you >hold a valid license. >Read the license. There's a reason they make you open >the triple-sealed packages to get to the diskettes. >If you don't like the license don't use the software. >Steve Groom, stevo@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov What you are referring to is known as a "shrink-wrap" license. It was decided by Congress that without your signature that this type of licensing DOES NOT form a valid contract. Unless you sign a statement agreeing to their license, you ARE NOT legally required to abide by that license, regardless of what the software company claims. This comes under the "fair use" doctrine of the Computer Software Act of 1986, I think. I got this from a lawyer posting information last year about exactly what the law was in regard to software rights and US law. -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu
jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (11/16/90)
epa@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Eric P. Armstrong) writes: >yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) writes: >>PS: why don't CBM "enforce" a NO custom Bootblock Rule? >>It'd save a Lot of trouble. (Viruses and all) >>Just my .03$ > >Better yet NO Bootblock, put it in ROM. Like the C64? That didn't prevent all kinds of head-bashing, rom-jumping copy protected games, it just made them harder to load. -- Ed Hanway --- uunet!sisd!jeh Contestants may have been briefed on some answers before the show. List was current at time of printing.
kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Fred Zeats IV) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes: >[ re: subverting copy protection ] > >In article <1990Nov14.225343.4867@isis.cs.du.edu> I wrote: >>IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can >>do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify > ^^^^^^^^^^ >>it, rewrite it, whatever you want. The only thing you can't do is DISTRIBUTE >>what you've done. There is NOTHING illegal about removing copy ptotection code >>from a program. Not according to the United States Code at least... > >However, some software packages clearly state that you are not purchasing >a copy of the software, but that you are purchasing a license >to use the software. This is know as "shrinkwrap licensing" and the legality of the has not been settled (or tested). The argument against them is that you can't have someone agree to a contract just be telling them they agree. Without a signature or something there is no agreement. >As for the *illegality* of such a violation of license, I don't know. >"Trade Secrets" are another issue altogether. The consequences >are unclear, but what is clear is that just because you purchased >the latest-and-greatest from XYZ software you don't necessarily >have the right to do what you want with it or to it. It also depends on the state. But regardless, the software with copyprotection is not the same software that is licensed. >Read the license. There's a reason they make you open the triple-sealed >packages to get to the diskettes. If you don't like the license don't >use the software. I don;t think the licenses are legal, and I don;t think they will stand up in federal court. -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| |---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | | It is the spectator and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde |
duerr@motcid.UUCP (Michael L. Duerr) (11/16/90)
From article <39489@ut-emx.uucp>, by nghiem@ut-emx.uucp (Alex Nghiem): > In article <2259@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.uucp (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: > > Most software are now covered by shrink-wrap license agreements which > forbid you to modify the code. Violation of a shrink wrap agreement > entitles the software owner to civil remedies against you, the > licensee. Fine. Civil - if they can demonstrate damages, they can recover them. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt that mods you make to your copy involve any damages to the software publisher. Punitive damages, perhaps, but the courts are quickly dismantling that whole concept. Also, the huge dollar awards tend to be by juries, against companies. An individual would probably fare much better.
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (11/16/90)
OK, OK. If there is any danger of someone thinking that the net is a source of evil copyright breaking intellectual property theft, information on how to hack into top secret computers and start a nuclear war (not to mention any implied threat to Jesse Helms's next re-election campaign), it is as a result of the volume of posts in this thread. Reality check: How many posts have there been in this thread in just one day? How many posts have you seen about cracking copy protection in the last month? -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
chaz@chinet.chi.il.us (Charlie Kestner) (11/16/90)
Gee, folks, this a great discussion for those us (who subscribe to COMP groups so we can read about COMPUTERS) out here that just LOVE excess flammage and non-related topics. How about all you "cross-posters", cross-posting this to OTHER than comp groups? Comp groups are supposed to be software/hardware forums, not places for philosophizing.
tucker@pixel.HAC.COM (George Tucker) (11/16/90)
If someone steals some software covered by a shrinkwrap license
(2 cases, contract signed or not signed by original user), would
the person who bought it (and perhaps signed the agreement) or
the firm that produced it have to complain in order for it to be
a crime? The purchaser does not really own it, but the producer
receives no benefit from it after it is purchased.
If the thief distributes it, who is at fault? The thief,
after all, did not sign a license agreeement or even have the
opportunity to sign one. Or is he/she a thief since no one
owned the property?
Does it belong to a different party depending on how it is
stolen - the user if the physical medium is stolen, and the
producer if only an electronic copy is taken?
Just curious.mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (11/16/90)
stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes: >However, some software packages clearly state that you are not purchasing >a copy of the software, but that you are purchasing a license >to use the software. In most states, courts have held these "shrink-wrap" licenses to be invalid. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 -- -- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 -- -- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
rolee@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Profess'nal Agitator) (11/16/90)
In article <2716@polari.UUCP> dlh@polari.UUCP (d h) writes: >major educational institutions which have always been the bastions of >free speech. Cough, cough, gag. Excuse me while I laugh out my spleen. Bastions of free speech? Not anymore. Talk to a student at a fine bastion of free speech like Stanford, Vassar, UConn, or any UC(alifornia) school. Followups to either talk.politics.misc or soc.college Agitator #-> -- "Caltech -- A Division of rolee@jarthur.claremont.edu // InterNet Harvey Mudd" rolee@hmcvax.bitnet // BITNET -------------- R E M E M B E R B E I J I N G -------\\-//------------- Roderick Lee "The Professional Agitator" Harvey \X/ Mudd College
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/16/90)
In article <PATRICK.HAYES.90Nov14114729@troy.cediag.bull.fr> Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) writes: >(seems to be crossposted a bit too widely -- note the Followups-To) >One of the assumptions implicit in the majority of postings in this thread >seems to be that USENET is limited to the USA, and that American laws are the >only ones that hold jurisdiction. However, most USENET posts do not have a usa >distribution and thus are distributed in other countries where laws can be >quite different. > >Re: posting copy-protection info Legal or Illegal >US law (Copyright law of '76) states that this information cannot be legally >restrained. Well and good (IMO), but French law, based on different legal >principles considers this kind of thing to be "unfair competition" >(Concurrence Deloyal). Judgements have been handed down to the detriment of >companies that distribute software like copyIIpc which bypass copy-protection >schemes including heavy monetary damages. As EEC copyright laws are being >debated right now and at present appear to be much closer to French laws than >their American counterparts, the legality of distributing this kind >information throughout USENET is murkier than at first sight. Then have big brother become the administrator of your gateway, and let them decide exactly which messages go through and which get stopped at the border. If usenet is restricted to those topics which are legal to discuss in all countries Usenet passes through, it will be a very empty place. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (11/17/90)
sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) writes: >Uh, excuse me, but have you *read* the license that comes with just about >any software you buy these days? Most of them clearly state, in thick >legalese, "You do NOT own this software, you have been given a LICENSE to >use this software, Company X still OWNS this software, etc" and they then >proceed to restrict just about every right they can think of. Uh, excuse me, but courts have ruled that "shrink wrap" licenses are not binding... MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 -- -- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 -- -- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
bakke@plains.NoDak.edu (Jeffrey P. Bakke) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov14.225343.4867@isis.cs.du.edu> kreme@isis.UUCP (Name? I don't need no stinking name!) writes: > In article <11071@milton.u.washington.edu> kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) writes: > >So I guess what I'm saying is, you can go ahead and post your "how to > >subvert copy protection" messages and probably not be held liable even if > >it IS illegal, > > IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can > do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify ^^^ If I remember correctly, some products are sold under a license agreement, such as the borland products. If I remember correctly, do don't actually own a copy of the program, you have a copy and pay a license fee to the company to use it. Whether this is legal in some states or not, I'm not sure Remember the Revlon suit? -- Jeffrey P. Bakke | There are a finite number of INTERNET: bakke@plains.NoDak.edu | jokes in the world... UUCP : ...!uunet!plains!bakke | The overflow began BITNET : bakke@plains.bitnet | decades ago. "I am not a number, I am a free man!" - The Prisoner
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (11/17/90)
In article <14476@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <36465@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >>you may disassemble it, because FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW SAYS YOU MAY. > >Reference, please. Fine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..."It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: 1) That such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or 2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued posession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." United States Copyright Code title 17, &117 (17 USC 117) Your right to deprotect a program is ensured by phrase 2). Your right to deprotect a program to use it on a hard drive (depends on the definition of "essential", but I believe the "fair use" doctrine supercedes the term essential here): phrase 1) I hope this stops the discussion. It is quite obvious that it is NOT illegal to deprotect a program ("adaptation") for purposes of fair use or for archival use (note this leaves open the possibility of libraries collecting software, perhaps the Library of Congress does this). And since it's 100% LEGAL to deprotect a program, it's also 100% legal to DESCRIBE how to deprotect a program (this doesn't require arguing about fundamental human rights, which certain people have in the course of this discussion shown that they ignore). I suggest that everyone who cares clip and save this note! Anytime someone tries to tell you what THEY THINK your rights should be, shove the letter of the law up their kazoo! Are we all happy now? Long live the power of the people! p.s. It's also been established that Shrink-wrap licences are not legally binding, because the conditions for a "contract" are not upheld (either for written or oral). -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov17.013618.6493@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >In article <14476@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>In article <36465@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >>>you may disassemble it, because FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW SAYS YOU MAY. >> >>Reference, please. > >Fine. >..."It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer >program to make ... >United States Copyright Code title 17, &117 (17 USC 117) > >Your right to deprotect a program is ensured by phrase 2). >Your right to deprotect a program to use it ... But that is not what this law says. It says that some things are not an infringement of the *Copyright Code*. That does not in any way make it a "right". Note that you can enter into a contract which gives you fewer rights (or more rights) than the Copyright Code. Also note that the Copyright Code portion quoted above refers to the "owner of a copy" - and there may be a question of whether or not you own a copy, or rather own a license to use a copy. --henry schaffer n c state univ
dtiberio@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (11/18/90)
Ever wonder why people pirate so many programs that they in fact will
never even use in their lifetime? Could it be because they are vile,
disgusting human beings? Well...
Ever wonder why companies that sell programs never tell you what you are
getting? Ever notice how once you buy a program you can't use that most
of the time you can't get your money back?
Look in the magazine advertizements. You will a car game, with a beautiful
picture of an expensive car in full color. You will buy the game, and find
that it is in the Atari 2600 level of game quality.
"Best game of the year". Many programs make this claim. According to a
5 or 6 year Amiga history, no more than 6 games should make this claim.
"Great graphics and play" -generico magazine
ooooo...really convincing.
I want to pay good money for good software. And I want to know what it will
do before I buy it.
SUNY Stony Brook has a nice deal on the school UNIX system. Any student
has free access from his dorm. But he can't use that modem he already
spent $200 on. It doesn't work. He can use ours. But he must pay $140 for
the first year, nonrefundable. "I need to know if it will work with my
computer before I pay for it." Well, luckily it works. Now I can say I am
happy that I didn't buy a 19.2k dual standard when I was at my last school.
Another example is all the trouble people have had with Imagine, but I
won't get into that.
I want to buy a hard drive. Very few companies give enough specks as to
what their equipment does, or they try to mislead you. Trumpcard Pro gets
speeds of 1.9 megawhatever with DPERF2 and the new generation drives! Does
that mean that every Trump Pro is shipped with DPERF2 and a new generation
drive? What are current speeds? GVP sells Series II with fast transfers, but
what exactly are the transfer speeds? Also available is ram expansion, but
with what ram chips?
I am tired of being lied to and misled by advertisers. I have to make too
many phone calls just to find out what hardware and software can do what. I
do not agree with all this piracy stuff, but I am not shocked by it either.
David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3605 AMIGA greg@hoss.unl.edu (Hammer T. H.) (11/19/90)
In <5V*^Z|@rpi.edu> sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) writes: >kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Name? I don't need no stinking name!) writes: >>IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can >>do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify >>it, rewrite it, whatever you want. The only thing you can't do is DISTRIBUTE >>what you've done. There is NOTHING illegal about removing copy ptotection code >>from a program. Not according to the United States Code at least... >Uh, excuse me, but have you *read* the license that comes with just about >any software you buy these days? Most of them clearly state, in thick >legalese, "You do NOT own this software, you have been given a LICENSE to >use this software, Company X still OWNS this software, etc" and they then >proceed to restrict just about every right they can think of. However a license in those terms is not recognized as legally binding. Copy II Plus (at least v7.2) has a similar notice on it, and it is DESIGNED to remove copy protection! >I couldn't figure out what rec.music.synth had to do with this, so I spared >them the discussion. I'm still trying to figure out the bit about "was Re: paper clip trick". What, was some deprotection scheme based on sticking a paper clip in your drive? >-- >Kevin Martin >sigma@rpi.edu >"england my country, the home of the free > (such miserable weather)" -- __ _____________ __ \ \_\ \__ __/ /_/ / Do you know what you have done? \greg@hoss.unl.edu/ Do you know what you've begun? \_\ \_\|_|/_/ /_/ --Genesis, _Domino_, _Invisible Touch_
ked01@ccc.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes: > > However, some software packages clearly state that you are not purchasing > a copy of the software, but that you are purchasing a license > to use the software. It may state whatever it wants to. That does not make it so. When was the last time you paid sales tax on a license? /kim -- UUCP: kim@uts.amdahl.com -OR- ked01@juts.ccc.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25
landman@hanami.Eng.Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (11/20/90)
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 >of a pirate BBS. This is, of course, utter hogwash. Software owners have a legal right to make backup copies of their software EVEN IF THE SOFTWARE IS COPY-PROTECTED! Software copy protection can be extremely awkward, and even dangerous. Do you REALLY want to give that 3-year-old who like playing with magnets the uncopyable master disk to Reader Rabbit, so they can run (ruin?) it while you're gone? (Hint: No, you don't.) It is legal to sell copy-protect-breaking software for just this reason. If it's legal to sell it, it's certainly legal to TALK about it. -- Howard A. Landman landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman
landman@hanami.Eng.Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes: >Read the license. There's a reason they make you open the triple-sealed >packages to get to the diskettes. I never open such packages myself. I let someone else do it. The lawyers can take my next-door neighbor's 5-year-old to court if they want, though. :-) I mean, you never know, some court might hold those licenses or portions of them to be legally binding some day! -- Howard A. Landman landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov17.013618.6493@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >In article <14476@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>In article <36465@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >>>you may disassemble it, because FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW SAYS YOU MAY. >> >>Reference, please. > >Fine. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >..."It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer >program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation >of that computer program provided: > 1) That such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that > it is used in no other manner, or > 2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that > all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued posession of > the computer program should cease to be rightful. > Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section >may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which >such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer >of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only >with the authorization of the copyright owner." >United States Copyright Code title 17, &117 (17 USC 117) > >Your right to deprotect a program is ensured by phrase 2). No it does NOT. Phrase 2 grants nothing; rather it places restrictions on the sentence "It is not an infrindement ... provided:" >Your right to deprotect a program to use it on a hard drive (depends on >the definition of "essential", but I believe the "fair use" doctrine >supercedes the term essential here): phrase 1) Again, phrase 1 grants nothing (see above) Furthermore, after talking to one of my lawyer's partners, specifically the partner who specilises in copyright law, I have found out that the term "essential step in the utilization" takes precedence over the "fair use" doctrine. Therefore, since deprotecting is NOT an "essential step in the utilization" of a program, no such right is granted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern kitchen appliances would sneer at...." - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 iwblsys\ rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks.
mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (11/29/90)
In article <2655@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes:
Furthermore, after talking to one of my lawyer's partners, specifically the
partner who specilises in copyright law, I have found out that the term
"essential step in the utilization" takes precedence over the "fair use"
doctrine. Therefore, since deprotecting is NOT an "essential step in the
utilization" of a program, no such right is granted.
If I consider a program unusable because of the copy protection, then
deprotecting it is _clearly_ an "essential step in the utilization" of
the program. At least it is to me.
Of course, my normal reaction to copy-protected software is to not buy
the silly thing in the first place, and return it if it wasn't tagged
as being copy protected.
<mike
--jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (11/29/90)
In article <MWM.90Nov28173431@raven.relay.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <2655@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: > Furthermore, after talking to one of my lawyer's partners, specifically the > partner who specilises in copyright law, I have found out that the term > "essential step in the utilization" takes precedence over the "fair use" > doctrine. Therefore, since deprotecting is NOT an "essential step in the > utilization" of a program, no such right is granted. > >If I consider a program unusable because of the copy protection, then ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ >deprotecting it is _clearly_ an "essential step in the utilization" of >the program. At least it is to me. > unfortunately what you or I would consider unusable due to copy protection would more than likely NOT be considered unusable in the *legal* sense. i.e. just because I think its unusable doesn't mean it *is* unusable...:-( >Of course, my normal reaction to copy-protected software is to not buy >the silly thing in the first place, and return it if it wasn't tagged >as being copy protected. > EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I encourage others to NOT buy copy protected software... John
CMWOLF@MTUS5.BITNET (12/18/90)
Excuse me, but wouldn't it be 'essential' or whatever if the doggone copy protection knecked the heads, etc. Then it would be causing damage, and for normal use, you'd want to remove the knocking instead of paying for damage that the people who put the protection there won't.