🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu> 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.  ...

Just what we need, a self-righteous network policeman.  I for one will
vehemently defend the original poster since his intention was clearly
to make software more usable to those who had already paid $$$ for it,
and not to encourage piracy.

>....  Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law.

No doubt such alterations violate the letter of the law, as well as
licensing agreements etc.  Nonetheless, how often do buyers know in
advance when they are purchasing protected software?  Most Mac users
I know wouldn't even glance at software that admitted you couldn't run
it from your hard disk.  How about some truth in advertising?

>Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message
>causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software.

About as easy as proving that the posting encouraged 10,000 more people
to buy the product.  Just look at all the free advertising.

In every case I've seen, copy protection encumbers legitimate users
and entertains pirates.
>
>     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.

The latter two adjectives represent unnecessary hostility.  As for the former,
I'd like to see comments for someone who is acquainted with the letter of
the law.  Sorry about flogging the expired stallion some more.

Jonathan

/* Jonathan Pratt          Internet: pratt@boulder.colorado.edu     *
 * Campus Box 525              uucp: ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!pratt *
 * University of Colorado                                           *
 * Boulder, CO 80309          Phone: (303) 492-4293                 */