SOFTWARE LAWS

[goflo at pacbell.net]

TBK wrote:
 
> Being in a similar business and involved in "clean" and "dirty" reverse
> engineering at one time or another, the "Disassembly Prohibited" statement
> in much software is a condition of the license, not a law. 

And an unenforceable condition at that, under venerable "Fair Use"
precedent,
which allows purchasers to do pretty much anything with their purchase
EXCEPT copy it for commercial purpose. HR2281 is an attempt to change
this, or at
least to muddy the legal waters sufficiently to allow judicial and
regulatory re-interpretation.

> Nor is
> there any copy protection on the ROM's. Technically, there is in the
> 6801-ish chip in the C3's.

Genuine copy protection is quite expensive and just raises the ante
for the hackers. Proposal could allow publisher to simply assert that
code
is protected, and makes disassembly or duplication a criminal offense,
in addition to civil liability. 

Your post is an accurate representation of things as they are.
Have every sympathy for those whose efforts are ripped off, but don't
think allowing developers to dictate how their product is used is
the answer.

Jack