Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:8515 comp.sys.amiga:71754 comp.sys.mac.misc:5790 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3704 misc.legal:22631 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!sigma From: sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) Newsgroups: 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: <5V*^Z|@rpi.edu> Date: 15 Nov 90 14:47:41 GMT References: <2716@polari.UUCP> <11071@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Nov14.225343.4867@isis.cs.du.edu> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 27 Nntp-Posting-Host: pawl1.pawl.rpi.edu kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Name? I don't need no stinking name!) writes: >IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. You have every right to subvert copy protection. You can >do anything you want to the program, you OWN it. You can change it, modify >it, rewrite it, whatever you want. The only thing you can't do is DISTRIBUTE >what you've done. There is NOTHING illegal about removing copy ptotection code >from a program. Not according to the United States Code at least... Uh, excuse me, but have you *read* the license that comes with just about any software you buy these days? Most of them clearly state, in thick legalese, "You do NOT own this software, you have been given a LICENSE to use this software, Company X still OWNS this software, etc" and they then proceed to restrict just about every right they can think of. Obviously, if you change it, modify it, rewrite it, whatever you want, and they never hear about it (or don't care), that's all well and good. But what people seem to be concerned about here is the technical letter of the law, because that's what the fundies are going to be using when they come for us. If you're feeling paranoid, that is. I couldn't figure out what rec.music.synth had to do with this, so I spared them the discussion. -- Kevin Martin sigma@rpi.edu "england my country, the home of the free (such miserable weather)"