Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:8224 comp.sys.amiga:71313 comp.sys.mac.misc:5538 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3482 misc.legal:22488 rec.music.synth:16992 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!adm!cmcl2!yale!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!cs4w+ From: cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal,rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick) Message-ID: Date: 10 Nov 90 02:57:49 GMT References: <2653@ttardis.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 54 In-Reply-To: <2653@ttardis.UUCP> I'm afraid that you are seriously mistaken about most of what you have posted. >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 of a >pirate BBS. First, there is nothing illegal or immoral about describing how to defeat a copy protection scheme. Nor is there anything illegal about a "priate BBS" posting such information. While the software company might object, it has no legal recourse to have such information removed from either the UseNET or private BBS's. Copy protection schemes make it difficult to impossible to make a backup copy of a program you have purchased, as you are legally allowed tyo do, regardless of what "shrink-wrap" clauses that program license claims you are required to adhere to. Copy protection also makes modifying, upgrading, improving, or even installing the program on a hard disk drive much more difficult. This is the reason why pretty much all computer manufacturers no longer support copy protection. One example is Apple Computer, Inc. which has requested that all programs written for Apple computers should not be copy protected. Deprotecting a program (assuming you've paid for it) is not illegal, although making major modifications may come under the jurisdiction of the "derivative works" clause of the copyright law. Again, distributing information about how to deprotect a program is NOT illegal. To attempt to prevent the distribution of such information would be a clear violation of the "free speech" (First) Amendment of the Bill of Rights. >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,.... Please note that this isn't a flame, but YOU are interfering with the dissemination of useful information, which is what the UseNET is for. You are doing this by trying to "scare" people from posting articles about deprotecting copy protection schemes by your suggestions that doing so would make them liable in a law suite (sp?). >rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw > sharkey.cc.umich.edu/ > rel.mi.org is currently sick - back in 2 weeks. -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu