Xref: utzoo rec.music.synth:17134 comp.sys.amiga:71696 comp.sys.mac.misc:5754 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3672 misc.legal:22613
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!lemson
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Your Rights under the 1976 Copyright Act
Message-ID: <1990Nov15.044109.12165@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 90 04:41:09 GMT
References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP> <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4859@optilink.UUCP>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 33

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