Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!RStallworthy%pco@cisl-service-multics.arpa
From: RStallworthy%pco@cisl-service-multics.arpa
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Your software rights are in danger
Message-ID: <901@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 16:21:37 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.901
Posted: Thu Dec 19 16:21:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:14:41 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 61

>In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
>>
>>As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous
>>precedent.  If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE
>>REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS!
>>If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY
>>SUCH LAWS!  Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>>
>>>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
>>
>  I'm afraid I don't see what you object to in the law as distributed.  All it
>  says is that the purchaser has the obligation to comply with restrictions
>  imposed on the use of the software by the distributor.  If you don't like
>  the restrictions, don't buy the product.  This is called the "free market,"
>  and I think most people are in favor of it.
>  Personally, I certainly do not plan to buy any software which restricts me
>  from disassembling or modifying it.  When the legislature decides to force
>  me to buy such software, then I will object.
>  In the absence of a monopoly or cartel, which the software industry is not,
>  competition should serve to enforce the desires of the marketplace.
>
>  -- David desJardins

Well, I beg to differ.  This is not called a "free market".  This is
called a special law conferring special privledges or rights on one
group of people (sellers) by taking certain rights away from another
group of people (purchasers) -- rights which by law cannot be taken away
without the special law in question.  These rights are so enshrined in
law that the sellers, and the special law itself, must pretend that a
product is not being sold, that only a licence is being granted for use
of the product, when anyone can see that a product is being sold.  It is
this pretence, I think, that is the "slap in the face" being referred to
above.  [The rights I am referring to are the right to place somewhat
arbitrary restrictions on what a purchaser can do with a product once
the product has been purchased].

It is presumed that the reason ADAPSO wants such a law is the "problem"
which the software industry has with purchasers of software making
illegal copies of software on their personal computers at home, and
giving those copies to their friends.  I don't see how this law will
have much direct effect on that activity.  I don't see it affecting
reverse engineering either--it will just prevent the publication of the
results of such efforts.

I understand that there is a similar, if not more potent law which has
been passed in the state of Louisianna, and that Vault corporation had
brought suit against Quaid Software (re CopyWrite), charging reverse
engineering of Vault's copy protection scheme. [Last I heard, the judge
had trouble accepting jurisdiction of the case.]  This shows the real
use to which the law is intended to be put--to prevent the sale of
programs which make it possible to defeat software protection schemes.
Of course they have attempted to prevent this before, but the rights of
the individual to make archival copies have thus far prevented this.
As copy programs have escalated to the hardware arena, if such a suit
eventually succeeds, it may be a hollow victory.

Disclaimers:
I am not a lawyer.  None of this is to be taken as legal advise.
None of this is to be taken as the opinions of my employer.

RStallworthy%pco at CISL