Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:8237 comp.sys.amiga:71343 comp.sys.mac.misc:5545 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3494 misc.legal:22497 rec.music.synth:16999 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!arisia!cooper From: cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) 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: <14087@arisia.Xerox.COM> Date: 10 Nov 90 23:34:20 GMT Reply-To: cooper@arisia.UUCP (Martin F N Cooper) Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Lines: 25 In article cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) writes: >While the software company might >object, it has no legal recourse to have such information removed from >either the UseNET or private BBS's. > Sure, but I don't believe the real issue here is a legal one per se. If a company discovers that its copy protection mechanisms are being subverted, and information on how to do this is being disseminated via the net, then they're not likely to be big fans of the net, and may well pull their plug on their link. This may have the effect of removing any informative link we have with that company because they're on the net, and it may also cause a significant net node to go away. Remember, the net exists largely because companies and others pay good money to support it. Organisations that see what they consider to be subversion of attempts to protect corporate prop- erty on the net might pull the plug, thereby reducing the utility of the net as a whole, and depriving thousands of netters of what they've grown used to. Before someone suggests that my message is another "scare tactic", let me just say that I believe the threat is real, because I've seen it happen in private networks before now. And it has nothing to do with the legality or otherwise of the situation, only with how it is viewed. Martin.