Greg, With all do respect it is clear the case especially the Godwin ref. are not directly material to the issue / topic here but rather the application of the principles herein as you discussed. I am not clear on what your allusion to self-propagating worm is here, I believe this thread started where a question was asked whether a cracker would be protected from scrutiny by copyright. Be that as it may I appreciate your arguments and they are clarifying to the subject. Eric Eric Williams, Pres. Information Brokers, Inc. Phone: +1 202.889.4395 http://www.infobro.com/ Fax: +1 202.889.4396 mailto:ericat_private For More Info: infoat_private PGP Public Key http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF 7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789 On Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:25 PM, Greg A. Woods [SMTP:woodsat_private] wrote: > [ On Wednesday, July 25, 2001 at 14:22:43 (-0400), Eric D. Williams wrote: ] > > Subject: hacker copyrights was [RE: telnetd exploit code] > > > > Re: the lack of legal backing here are a number of links that appear > > relevant > > to the question (do you violate copyright by publishing hacker code, > > discovered > > subsequent to intrusion?). Indeed it appears that the law is fuzzy on this > > one > > concerning copyright and intellectual property. But, given the > > circumstance > > that a listing or binary of the aformentioned code can not be deterined as > > authorized in the first case - the intrusion itself is illegal, it appears > > it > > can not pass the copyright or intellectual property tests. > > > > Refs with USC refs: > > > > http://www.eff.org/Publications/Mike_Godwin/phrack_riggs_neidorf_godwin.artic > > le > > Ref with USC footnotes: http://www.netatty.com/copyright.html > > Ah, no, the case discused by Godwin in that article is entirely the > opposite of what was suggested initially in this thread -- those cases > revolved around a trade secret document stolen and distributed by a > crackers, not around code written and distributed by the crackers. > > Not only that but it would seem clear that anyone receiving a copy of a > self-propogating worm or virus explicitly released by its author (or > anyone authorised by the author) is in possesion of a legally obtained > copy of that code -- it matters not that the foisting of the copy onto > your machine was itself probably an illegal act. Once the copies are > distributed they're the legal property of whomever has "legally" > acquired them, no matter how illegal the actions of the distributor were > in creating or "releasing" them. > > Some of what is said about case law in the USA does actually clearly > suggest copyright on hacker-owned code is in fact not violated by anyone > analyzing said code The Court in one of those cases even went so far as > to say (here is the Court speaking, as quoted by Godwin): > > "The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A > copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series > of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which > the law affords correspondingly exact protections." > > Taken in context with copyright law this declaration and other related > ones made by the same court suggests (at least to me, a non-lawyer) that > a copyright owner who has explicitly caused his or her work to be freely > and anonymously distributed (as is most certainly the case with a virus > or worm, etc.) has in fact explicitly given up on all rights to the > content of that work as a trade secret or other form of private > intellectual property. I.e. as I say above the holder of any copy of > such code has become a legal owner of that copy and has every right to > read it, run it (so long as they don't as a result commit other offences > such as allowing it to propogate to unauthorised hosts), change it, > destroy it, etc.; just as you can do with a legally obtained copy of a > book. > > Furthermore under most copyright laws it is my opinion this would even > imply the owner has implicitly relinquished all right to control further > free and anonymous redistribution of the work (anonymous distribution > implies that further distribution cannot be detected or proven). > > Regardless of my latter point though the rules of "fair use" under > most(all?) copyright laws will still permit anyone in possession of a > legally obtained copy of the code (eg. one obtained directly from the > author or from his or her directly or indirectly authorised agents) to > analyze it and to publish the results of that analysis. > > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoodsat_private> <woodsat_private> > Planix, Inc. <woodsat_private>; Secrets of the Weird <woodsat_private>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:12:40 PDT