Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:9085 comp.sys.amiga:73053 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:4245 misc.legal:22946 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!ipsun.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt From: jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) 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: <1990Nov29.141216.1714@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> Date: 29 Nov 90 14:12:16 GMT References: <2655@ttardis.UUCP> Sender: news@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov (USENET File Owner) Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Lines: 25 In article mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >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. > unfortunately what you or I would consider unusable due to copy protection would more than likely NOT be considered unusable in the *legal* sense. i.e. just because I think its unusable doesn't mean it *is* unusable...:-( >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. > EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I encourage others to NOT buy copy protected software... John