Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:9024 comp.sys.amiga:72888 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:4180 misc.legal:22888
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!haven!decuac!bacchus.pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm
From: mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information
Message-ID: <MWM.90Nov28173431@raven.relay.pa.dec.com>
Date: 28 Nov 90 22:34:31 GMT
References: <2655@ttardis.UUCP>
Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: rlw@ttardis.UUCP's message of 28 Nov 90 18:25:51 GMT

In article <2655@ttardis.UUCP> rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes:
   Furthermore, after talking to one of my lawyer's partners, specifically the
   partner who specilises in copyright law, I have found out that the term
   "essential step in the utilization" takes precedence over the "fair use"
   doctrine.  Therefore, since deprotecting is NOT an "essential step in the
   utilization" of a program, no such right is granted.

If I consider a program unusable because of the copy protection, then
deprotecting it is _clearly_ an "essential step in the utilization" of
the program. At least it is to me.

Of course, my normal reaction to copy-protected software is to not buy
the silly thing in the first place, and return it if it wasn't tagged
as being copy protected.

	<mike
--