Xref: utzoo rec.music.synth:16991 comp.sys.apple2:8220 comp.sys.amiga:71311 comp.sys.mac.misc:5534 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3481 misc.legal:22487
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!mimsy!haven!uflorida!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jb10320
From: jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Your Rights under the 1976 Copyright Act
Message-ID: <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 90 21:03:51 GMT
References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 46

In article <2653@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes:
>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.
  SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY THINK WE LIVE IN THE UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC.
This, this nation is the United States of America, and if there is one thing
that is sacred above ALL ELSE is freedom of thought and freedom of information.
There is NOTHING illegal about describing how to remove copy protection from
programs.  The copyright law guarantees that posessors of software are entitled
to make backup or archival copies of software.  If the process of making backups
involves modifying the software, so be it.  That is protected.
If the software is transferred to someone else, all derivatives and 
modifications must be destroyed.  THIS is the law.  If you want, I will post
the ACTUAL SEGMENT OF THE 1976 COPYRIGHT ACT pertaining to software.

I am SICK and TIRED of people trying to take away my rights to think as I please
because they think they know what's best for me.  This is censorship, plain
and simple, whether done "for my good" or not.  The law is plain- the consumer
has rights above and beyond big business, and I intend to make sure I never
lose those rights.

FLAME OFF

Ron, nothing personal, but you're entirely 100% wrong.

--
Jawaid Bazyar               | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing
Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo)
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu    |      The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark!
   Apple II Forever!        |                             (B O'Cult)
Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)