Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information
Message-ID: <14489@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 16 Nov 90 10:31:32 GMT
References: <1990Nov14.055231.15728@isis.cs.du.edu> <14474@smoke.brl.mil> <8993@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <8993@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes:
-In article <14474@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
->In article <1990Nov14.055231.15728@isis.cs.du.edu> kreme@isis.UUCP (Finnegan's wake-up call) writes:
->>So what's illegal about deprotection?  Not a damn thing.
->The USC fair-use provision you cited does not allow you to modify the
->copyright work.
-	If I buy a book of Shakespeare's works, I can chop it to pieces 

You may not legally make a modified COPY of it.  What I was trying to
say is perhaps better put "The USC does not allow you to modify the
copyright work in the process of making the copy that the USC permits."
For most copyright material you wouldn't even be allowed to make an
exact copy; due to the special characteristics of software the USC had
to allow for a restricted form of copying.  It wasn't meant as any sort
of license to change the basic notion of copyright protection.

Of course, what some court may eventually decide need have little to
do with logic or even the laws.  That's a separate problem.