Xref: utzoo rec.music.synth:16947 comp.sys.apple2:8123 comp.sys.amiga:71192 comp.sys.mac.misc:5459 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3428 misc.legal:22422
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!lindy.stanford.edu!ddaniel
From: ddaniel@lindy.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick)
Message-ID: <1990Nov9.024111.27112@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 9 Nov 90 02:41:11 GMT
References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP>
Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Stanford University, Scool of Enginereing
Lines: 22

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