Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!captkidd From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Moebius patch (deprotection) and warning Message-ID: <11111@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 4 May 89 16:13:34 GMT References: Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 68 In article al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes: >William Bumgarner, > You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch >(deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted >that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of >the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law. I'm not so sure about that one, Andy. I don't believe the law states that you cannot modify a program you purchased for your own use, just like the law does not prevent you from writing notes on the margin of your textbooks (which are copyrighted). Furthermore, I believe the law specifically states that you have a RIGHT to a backup copy for archival purposes. By copy-protecting Moebius you are being deprived of that right, and that is another argument which would prevent your point of view from prevailing in a court of law. Deprotecting the software was done for the express purpose of making it usable, since the protection scheme was interfering with proper operation of the program (another point for the deprotector). In fact, I believe that if the legality of PROTECTING software were challenged in court, it would likely be successful, unless the software company supplied a backup copy with the original (the chances of that happening are nil, tho'). >Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message >causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. You are responsible >for any lost of sale due to your message, i.e. those who are going to buy >a copy of the game now can 'copy' from their friends. The money lost in >sale could add up to serveral times your Carnegie Mellon tuition. Again, I don't believe it would be that easy, considering that the posting was for a legitimate purpose (ie making Moebius usable on a Mac+). In the Apple II market, several magazines have been publishing deprotection procedures for years, and I have yet to see a single one taken to court. If what you say were the case, don't you think the software companies' hotshot lawyers would have put these magazines out of circulation a LONG time ago? Probably first amendment provisions would prevent such a lawsuit from succeeding. > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its >author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, >irresponsible, and stupid. Illegal? Not at all. Irresponsible? Possible, but look at the legitimacy of his reasons. Stupid? You are being downright insulting right there. BTW, I believe that piracy is pure and simple theft. Deprotection of programs you purchased, however, I believe is ethical and legal, especially when the protection scheme interferes with legitimate uses of the software in question. When I lived overseas I started deprotecting every Apple II piece of software I bought after my SuperScribe II disk (the word processor) died on me and I had to wait for month + half to get another disk. Copy-protection, I believe, is just a nuisance for the legitimate user and does not deter the hard core pirate (deprotection is pretty damn easy anyway). >Andy A. Lee >al1f@andrew.cmu.edu -Ivan Cavero Belaunde "Rapunzel let her hair down for two suitors down below, So one of them could grab a hold and give the old heave-ho. The prince began to climb at once, but soon came out the worst, For the Engineer rode up a lift, and reached Rapunzel first." -The MIT Engineers' Drinking Song EMail: captkidd@athena.mit.edu USnail: 407 Memorial Dr., Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: (617) 494-0330 Std disclaimer