📄 opinion_05.html
字号:
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"><html><head><title>Opinion - Copyright and copying</title><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" /><meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en" /><meta name="resource-type" content="document"><meta name="copyright" content="This document copyright 2002 by Richard Murray. Use for non-profit and education purposes explicitly granted."><meta name="author" content="Richard Murray"><meta name="rating" content="general"></head><!-- /assembler/opinion_05.html --><!-- --><!-- (C) Copyright 2002 Richard Murray --><!-- Designed by Richard Murray --><!-- rmurray@heyrick.co.uk --><!-- --><body bgcolor="#f0f0f0" text="#000000" link="#0022dd" vlink="#002288"><table border = "0" width="100%"> <tr> <td align=center width=100> <img src="arm3.gif" width=79 height=78 align = middle> </td> <td> <h1 align="center"><font color="#800080">Opinion<br>Copyright and copying</font></h1> </td> <td align=center width=100> <img src="arm3.gif" width=79 height=78 align = middle> </td></table><p> <p><font size = "1"><i>The views expressed in this article are purely the opinions of theauthor, Richard Murray, and should not be taken as truth, fact, or resembling anythingwhatsoever. So there.</i></font><p> <p> <p><div align="right">12th May 2002</div><p> <p>It has always been my understanding that, in British/European law, you - as a purchaser - hadcertain 'rights' which could not be revoked by some stupid licence condition, namely:<ul> <li>You are allowed to hack out copy protection for the purposes of making the backup copy that you are legally entitled to make; if the software is constructed in such a way as to make it impossible to do this in normal operation - like a weirdly modified install disc.<br> <br> <br> <li>You are allowed to remove various protection methods for reasonable use of the software. An example could be hacking a (-n old) game that only runs off floppy so it'll work from your harddisc, if this wasn't provided for by the software. <br> <br> <li>You are allowed to disassemble/modify code for the purposes of fixing faults, and also to gain sufficient information about its internals to allow you to write software designed to be compatible with it.</ul>Some quotes from EN 391L0250:<ul> <li><em>Whereas a person having a right to use a computer program should not be prevented from performing acts necessary to observe, study or test the functioning of the program, provided that these acts do not infringe the copyright in the program;</em> <br> <br> <li>Whereas, nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs;<br> Whereas it has therefore to be considered that in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorization of the rightholder; <br> <br> <li>Aricle 5 Exceptions to the restricted acts <ol> <li>In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in Article 4 (a) and (b) shall not require authorization by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction. <li>The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract insofar as it is necessary for that use. <li>The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorization of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do. </ol></ul>Basically, as I read it, this is being quite clear that you may <em>not</em> modify a programwith the intention of passing around ripped off copies, but also on your behalf, program authorscannot get away with statements like that found inside Argo's <em>!Voyager</em> software, whichstates "Any reverse engineering, object code modifications or other such changes areillegal.". You'll find a lot of references to what it not legal, but very few to what ISlegal.<p>In America, this is excerbated twice. Firstly, we have UCITA which is essentially allowing thesoftware companies to take your money and then punch you in the face, and then say "We'llpunch you again, if and when we feel like it". In any other industry (consider used cars ordouble glazing) law suits abound in similar situations, but for some reason, people just expectsoftware to be buggy just like they expect to be charged to fix the bugs. And consider this wholedeal with licencing. In the UK and the US (but apparently not in Germany), when you buy softwareyou are buying two things. You are buying a piece of plastic (the CD) and you are buying alicence allowing you to use the software, provided you accept lots of conditions. You have nobargaining power here. You can't argue the licence. You can only take it or leave it.<p>Next, the DMCA (or is it DCMA?). Basically some legislation that takes away all your abilities todo anything with the software under some crap excuse of prevention of electronic terrorism. Itgoes a lot further in that I run a risk if I try to forcibly hack into my own network from aremote location.<p>For UCITA, it simply beggars belief that people take it seriously. And I have said, and willmaintain, that when UCITA becomes the law in whatever country I reside in, I will simply stopprogramming. Well, I won't, but I'll never release another product again, nor will I purchaseanything. UCITA is evil. Look on Google for a selection of thoughts on the matter.<p>As for the DMCA (DCMA?), it shows the typical ass-backwardsness of the people making the rules inAmerica. They have this misconception that "making it illegal" will make their computerterrorism problems go away. So, what, there's a law allowing kids to shoot each other at school?It was permitted to crash aircraft into skyscrapers in the middle of a city?<br>The solution is not to make hacking illegal. The solution is to shore up your defences. I am infull support of the people that <em>write</em> macro viral code for MS Outlook, like Melissa andThe Love Bug. They are not criminals. Because one attack you can stand. When it happens thethird or fourth time around, surely you should be asking yourself what the hell people are doingstill using such insecure software? The criminals are not the people that make the viri. They areshowing us how insecure the software really is. Yet we treat them as if they've done somethingreally bad. <em>WRONG!</em> The criminals are the people with something to lose who fail to dumpthe broken software and use something decent. The biggest criminals of all are those who releasenew 'fixed' versions of the software that are just as susceptible.<br>Maybe it is totally valid to cause global chaos and hours of downtime, lost data, and estimatesof millions in damage. Because this isn't the first time an email virus has bitten. I ambeginning to think those that suffer do so deservedly. Everybody has an option. That doesn't meanto change your entire operating system - such drastic methods are simply not necessary. Most ofthe bitching comes from emotion. I feel, personally, emotion from people who really should haveknown better, who got caught out.<p>Did you hear about one of the UCITAish terms apparently inserted into FrontPage? It basicallystates you cannot use that software to disparage the company. So saying Outlook is an insecurecrock would break your UCITA-powered licence if you have FrontPage2000. Luckily I write my HTMLin a seven-year-old text editor, and anyway it was written by a bunch of Brits who wouldcertainly have frowned on the lunacy of UCITA.<p> <p>So you might be thinking... okay, I'm a Brit (living in France) and UCITA/DMCA is bogus in theEU. That is correct, but for how long? With all this terrorism nonsense, those in power in the EUare thinking of legislation like that being instigated in the US.<p> <p>I'll leave you with a final thought. There's a storm coming and your defences may not be goodenough. You don't fancy your house being flooded, so do you:<dl> <dd>a, Build up the defences <dt>or <dd>b, Shout at the storm, and erect a sign saying "NO STORMS"</dl>?<p>The wise man would make the defences better. So why do politicians seem to prefer the unwiseapproach?<p> <p><hr size = "3">Disclaimer: I'm not a solicitor, I have not been trained as a solicitor. The comments and ideaswithin this article are personal opinion, not legal guidance.<hr size = "3"><a href="index.html#16">Return to assembler index</a><hr size = "3"><address>Copyright © 2002 Richard Murray</address></body></html>⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -