jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (11/10/90)
In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: >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. SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information. There is NOTHING illegal about describing how to remove copy protection from programs. The copyright law guarantees that posessors of software are entitled to make backup or archival copies of software. If the process of making backups involves modifying the software, so be it. That is protected. If the software is transferred to someone else, all derivatives and modifications must be destroyed. THIS is the law. If you want, I will post the ACTUAL SEGMENT OF THE 1976 COPYRIGHT ACT pertaining to software. I am SICK and TIRED of people trying to take away my rights to think as I please because they think they know what's best for me. This is censorship, plain and simple, whether done "for my good" or not. The law is plain- the consumer has rights above and beyond big business, and I intend to make sure I never lose those rights. FLAME OFF Ron, nothing personal, but you're entirely 100% wrong. -- 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)
mf@ircam.ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) (11/11/90)
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) writes: > SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. >This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing >that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information. >(bla bla bla) Sounds to me like some people think the cold war is still on (y'know, American Imperialism vs. Soviet Totalitarism). Technical argumentation? Pah... Move that to other groups please.
cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: > SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. >This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing >that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information. >I am SICK and TIRED of people trying to take away my rights to think as I please >because they think they know what's best for me. This is censorship, plain >and simple, whether done "for my good" or not. The law is plain- the consumer >has rights above and beyond big business, and I intend to make sure I never >lose those rights. However, remember that many people on the net work for private corporations, and that newsgroups such as rec.music.synth are populated in the main by people who are not employed in areas directly related to the subject at hand. So a company might just decide that in the interest of increasing productivity (as a stated reason, at least) they should cut off access to the net for their employees. That, to me, is certainly to the detriment of the net as a whole. I'm not saying I agree with these ideas, all I'm saying is that they could easily happen, and we wouldn't like the result. Martin.
draphsor@elaine0.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) (11/11/90)
cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) writes: >In article <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >> SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. >>This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing >>that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information. >>I am SICK and TIRED of people trying to take away my rights to think as I please >>because they think they know what's best for me. This is censorship, plain >>and simple, whether done "for my good" or not. The law is plain- the consumer >>has rights above and beyond big business, and I intend to make sure I never >>lose those rights. >However, remember that many people on the net work for private corporations, >and that newsgroups such as rec.music.synth are populated in the main by >people who are not employed in areas directly related to the subject at >hand. So a company might just decide that in the interest of increasing >productivity (as a stated reason, at least) they should cut off access to >the net for their employees. That, to me, is certainly to the detriment of >the net as a whole. >I'm not saying I agree with these ideas, all I'm saying is that they could >easily happen, and we wouldn't like the result. Yes, but would you like the result if we follow *your* advice? Which is, in a nutshell, 'bow down before the all-powerful companies and pray that they won't cut off my net access!' If we are to do this, the net becomes useless. We go from being a free collection of intelligent entities who exchange information, to being a bunch of timid mice, always tiptoeing around the big companies hoping that we won't say something that they'll object to. SELF CENSORSHIP CAN HURT! That is, if by 'self censorship' you mean 'doing what I think the companies want me to do'. If a certain company decides that it ought to cut itself off from the net because information it considers classified is being distributed on that same net, it is merely removing another source of information for itself. True, we will lose a small number of people and contacts from this one company. But the company will lose the entire net. In any sort of loss/gain comparison, it seems fairly obvious that it is the company that loses more than the net. This leaves aside the point that I don't think a company would do such a thing. Again, one assumes that its not the employees of the company that are revealing this information. Does the company really think that by not letting their employees speak on the net, they're going to stop other people from breaking their code? It just doesn't make sense. Well, that's enough for now. I haven't been following this whole thread, so I hope I haven't said too much that's been said before, nor mis-stated anyone's position too badly. However, what I understood from the above post (and the previous one by the same author) was something that I couldn't just let go by. > Martin. -- Draphsor vo'drun-Aelf draphsor@portia.stanford.edu
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (11/12/90)
In article <1990Nov10.213106.2545@ircam.ircam.fr> mf@ircam.ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes: > jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) writes: > > SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. > >This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing > >that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information. > >(bla bla bla) > > Sounds to me like some people think the cold war is still on (y'know, American > Imperialism vs. Soviet Totalitarism). Apart from that, they got it all wrong! The US now abides to the Berne convention with respect to copyright (so I think there must have been an update for the 1976 Copyright Act), the SU did (and does not) respect copyright at all! So, in the SU you could, and can, copy and change everything as much as it pleases you. > > Technical argumentation? Pah... Move that to other groups please. Right. -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland dik@cwi.nl
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: > In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: # #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. # SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. # This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing # that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information. # There is NOTHING illegal about describing how to remove copy protection from # programs. The copyright law guarantees that posessors of software are entitled # Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Indeed. This is America. You can sell books that tell you how to build automatic weapons. The Progressive magazine ran an article titled "How to build an H-bomb", and the courts didn't prevent it. There's certainly nothing illegal about telling how to break copy protection. (Not yet, at least). -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer "Meat is murder!" "Dairy is rape!" -- Animal Liberation Front Fine, then antibiotics are genocide! You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) (11/15/90)
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: >Indeed. This is America. You can sell books that tell you how >to build automatic weapons. The Progressive magazine ran an >article titled "How to build an H-bomb", and the courts didn't >prevent it. There's certainly nothing illegal about telling >how to break copy protection. (Not yet, at least). But, there is a difference there. A book telling how to build an H-bomb does not give information that can be readily used by the average joe to defraud someone or cause harm. You would have to have deuterium, plutonium, or something of the ilk to actually build the H-bomb. (Well, I guess it's actually Uranium, but you get the idea--this isn't misc.atomic.weapons) BUT, a file that gives step-by-step (or worse, a DEBUG script) instructions for unprotecting a program, thereby rendering it easily defraudable, might cause harm in the hands of the average joe. The difference is that anyone with a computer (and people that read here are likely to have a computer) can easily defraud people. Not too many people have access to enriched uranium. Note that I do not condone the illegality of such information. Just because you make it easier for someone to do it doesn't mean that YOU'RE guilty of telling them how to do it. The person who unprotects and distributes is the guilty party. But this is the argument that people that would like to stop publications like Phrack and TAP use. -- David E. Lemson UofI Computing Svcs Student Consultant Internet : lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana
donc@microsoft.UUCP (Don CORBITT) (11/16/90)
[Real interesting discussion about Copyright Law, software piracy, copy protection, rights, free speech, apple pie, and motherhood.] Someone warned the world to not reveal information about breaking copy protection schemes. Every 10th grader on the net flamed back with "I can say and do anything I want to. This is America, d*mn it!" Assuming you are in America, land of constitutionally protected free speech, (and I know many of you are not, but oh, well...), you probably have the right to say some things. But, try saying any of these: 1) "To make an atom bomb, take 8 kilos of U235..." or 2) "Joe <lastname> has a loathsome communicable disease that he got from Jane <othername>..." or 3) "Big Software Company is working on a new product that will ...." or 4) "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre or 5) Getting a newspaper to publish an article that the editor doesn't like. There are all kinds of things you can say where _if_someone_cares_ you can get in trouble for it. However, this isn't even an issue of Libel, National Security, etc. The issue here is InterNet. Much of Usenet depends on the Internet. Much of Internet is funded by the Government. Currently the government is looking for ways to save money. If Congress decides that a major purpose of the Internet is to aid and abet the illegal copying of software, they may stop paying the bills. This isn't the end of the world, just a major expense and hassle. There has already been some bad publicity in newspapers (Texas?) about the number of x-rated gif files being passed around. So, mellow out. I'd recommend if you want to pass info on cracking programs, you do it on private BBSs, so that only those who want the information are exposed to it, or have to pay for it. -- Don Corbitt donc@microsoft.com Mail flames, post apologies. Support short .signatures, 4 lines max. "Bill Gates says to say that I'm not a spokesperson for Microsoft." "Did I say it right, Bill?"
heidia@samba.acs.unc.edu (heidi aycock) (11/17/90)
Were we protecting our first ammendment right to free expression, we could not choose the topics that we want to allow and not allow. For example, if we allow speech that tells how to build an atomic bomb we cannot forbid speech that tells how to crack copy protection schemes. Content-based censorship is rarely tolerated by the Supreme Court (Obscenity is probably a good example of when content-based censorship is tolerated). As someone mentioned to me recently on a different topic, the only way you can censor expression is through time/place/manner restrictions -- and I think they call it "regulating," not "censoring" (two different hoods for the same executioner, if you ask me). On the other hand, just because we have the right to free expression doesn't mean we should feel obligated to say anything and everything. If you choose not to say something because it might endanger the net, that's discretion not self censorship. And discretion is something to be valued.