Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!ipsun.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: On Discussing the Breaking of Copy Protection
Keywords: spam spam spam Copy Protection spam spam Breaking It spam spam
Message-ID: <1990Nov15.154539.12727@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 Nov 90 15:45:39 GMT
References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP> <25670@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Sender: news@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov (USENET File Owner)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Lines: 49

In article <25670@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>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.
>
I agree with most of your statements except those marked. I believe the companies
that use copy protection are attempting to establish that it *is* illegal to
break copy protection. It *is* illegal to use a copy of a program that has the
copy protection removed (how this is enforced is another story...) according to
the "usage agreement" that you're supposed to sign and return to the company.
The use of an "unauthorized" copy of software (in this context unauthorized =>
a copy made from software that has had its copy protection removed) is considered
software piracy and *IS* illegal.

As far as the ethics of the situation, my code of ethics apparently differs from
yours. I consider breaking the copy protection of a software package to be
an attempt to illegally acquire resources or information. As such, I wouldn't
do it. 

Before you take this posting the wrong way let me state: I DO NOT agree with
copy protection, I think it is useless and a waste of time and money for both
the company producing the software and the consumer using the software. Instead
of spending time and money first buying the software (we won't even talk about 
obtaining it illegally) and then trying to break the protection, I propose that
the user community boycott ANY and ALL copy protected software. Pretty soon the
software producers would get the hint that copy protection is a bad idea and
stop doing. either that or go out of business...

John Burton
(jcburt@cs.wm.edu)
(jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov)