Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!biar!trebor From: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Moebius patch (deprotection) and warning Message-ID: <539@biar.UUCP> Date: 5 May 89 14:57:24 GMT References: <12752@ut-emx.UUCP> <533@biar.UUCP> <8602@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) Organization: Biar Games, Inc. Lines: 52 In article <8602@boulder.Colorado.EDU> pratt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jonathan Pratt) writes: >In article <533@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >Do you have a statute that you're prepared to quote, or is this simply >opinion? The real question is what laws, if any, could be applied to >restrict the dissemination of such information without colliding with >freedom of expression rights. One of the problems with legal cases like this is that they are all precedent making (with all the risks that that implies). The law is alway "catching up" to society. Thus my comments are informed opinion, based on legal advice. In regards freedom of expression, let me give you an example. Let's say I figure out a way to get money out of ATM's without it being deducted from my account, publish this information, and it causes millions of dollars of losses to Citibank. Should Citibank be able to sue me? Clearly, the answer should be yes. This is an extreme example, of course. Now let's consider the case in question here in comp.sys.mac. Here what was published was a way to fix a bug (Mac+ing) that had (lets be charitable) the side effect of removing the copy protection. The question is, should the author be judged on _intent_ or _effect_? His intent (again, lets be nice) was to publish a fix for a bug; his effect was to publish a method for stealing the software. My personal opinion is that the author should be judged on _intent_, and that the publisher should have to prove some level of malice. >Your comments could greatly broaden the realm of this thread if we >discuss the degree of responsibility the purveyor of information has >for the good and bad things others do with that information. But >we've already digressed too far from Macintoshes. This is a _very_ interesting concept, one that I agree has not been dealt with (to my knowledge) at all clearly. Offhand, I would say it would come down to a "Reasonable Man" judgement of intent. Thus, if I release information that damages someone, I should only be liable if I could reasonably be expected to recognise that this act would cause damages, or if I released it with the intent to damage. Disclaimer : non-lawyers discussing law is a dangerous thing (neat racket they've worked out, eh?) -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep." -- Woody Allen.