Xref: utzoo rec.music.synth:16984 comp.sys.apple2:8214 comp.sys.amiga:71290 comp.sys.mac:56239 comp.sys.ibm.pc:54542 misc.legal:22480
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!mintaka!olivea!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ogicse!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!triton.unm.edu!kchiu
From: kchiu@triton.unm.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick)
Message-ID: <1990Nov10.063416.5731@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 90 06:34:16 GMT
References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP>
Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM
Lines: 42

In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes:
>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.
>
	Chill out, dude, It's not as if this Net is designed just for
you, it's not as if any one else can't share the informations that
you think is wrong.  What does piracy has anything to do with the image
of the Net? If you don't talk about it, it will still be around, it makes
no difference to the net. And besides, the guy just wanted to share
some informations on how to defeat copy protections, and it's nothing
illegal about that. And if that's what they want to talk about, that's what
they will talk about.
>>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.
>
	It's not illegal about distributing those kind of imformations,
yes, you are praticing censorship, and why don't you just admit it.

							Jeff