Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:8189 comp.sys.amiga:71247 comp.sys.mac.misc:5495 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3453 misc.legal:22447
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bu.edu!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!llama
From: llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: On Discussing the Breaking of Copy Protection
Summary: Radio Free Usenet
Keywords: spam spam spam Copy Protection spam spam Breaking It spam spam
Message-ID: <25670@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 9 Nov 90 18:51:14 GMT
References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Followup-To: comp.sys.apple2
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 23

In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes:

>Do *NOT* reveal, or even mention, any information on how to defeat copy
>protection.  In the eyes of the law, doing so reduces the NET to the status
...

>Do *NOT* encourage code breaking, hacking, or other such activity on the
>NET.  Again, it tends to give the NET a bad image.
...

If I understand you, we disagree. While it is inadviseable to post information 
of the form "here is a patch to break the CP on 1-2-3", discussions about
the woes of copy protection, and even discussions about general types of copy
protection and how to remove them, are perfectly legitimate.

It is not illegal to break copy protection.  Nor is it unethical.  Likewise,
it is neither of these to discuss breaking copy protection.  Discussions
about breaking copy protection should occur in the appropriate newsgroups
if people wish to discuss it, and none of us are empowered (or should be)
to prevent such discussions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding