Good article. Grey areas I'd have to wonder about:

- I'm a non-technical user who wants to backup my Commodore 64 copy of M.U.L.E. According to this I have a legal right to do so. However, I'm technically incapable of doing so on my own. This law says I have a right, but is it legal for (Joe Hacker) to publish information on how to accomplish this (so that I can make my legal backup)?

- Nearly all schemes to defeat copy protection require some degree of reverse engineering. For some sufficiently integrated copy protection schemes, just who decides how much I can reverse engineer the code in order to accomplish this?

- Say that someone decided to release a fully-functional Atari 2600 reissue console to the marketplace (or even re-issue the games themselves). If we previously had the right to archive 2600 titles, would re-issuance then revoke the right we just had? (Probably).

Like most legal issues, I'd suspect whoever has more money is right.




On Oct 31, 2003, at 11:37 PM, Hugh Falk wrote:



---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to


----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/




Reply via email to