Legal Question
 

Hello, I live in the USA and want to host a cracking tutorial site however, I do not want any crap from the goverment. I'm curious about Disclaimers and or what content is legal.

Now I know theres nothing illegal about "Crack Me's" however, some of my tutorials refer to cracking ACTUAL copyrighted programs. Is it illegal to host these type of tutorials? And is there a proper disclaimer which Semi-Protects you?

Hope this is a fair question and has not been asked before if it has, please give me the link :D

I think generally speaking hosting any information on decompiling is indeed illegal in the states. I think this issue came up with the hosting of how to defeat the DVD protection schemes.

Now, whether I'm right I can't gurantee but, it seems only logical that that decisions also reside over the idea of hosting documentation on how to detroy security measures.

but you could always remove the direct indication of what program should be cracked or what program is to be the target...The more vague the tutorial as to what should be cracked the safer you are. You can then file it under general knowlege about security.

Hello,

Eskimobob is right, you have to pretend that your site is related to software security than cracking related.

There are many "lamers" that supervises your web content and they dont understand a sh*t about what's cracking and whats not. As soon as they see something like "how to crack",.."hacking..." they ban that site.

So, my suggestion is giving all your page sections under "legal" names, that will save you from morons supervisors :)

Regards

I think one of the best people you could e-mail about this is probably good ole Woodmann.

He's managed to keep many a corporate 'pitbull' lawyer type away from my door ;-). He also seems to have a fetish for legal wrangling, the DMCA, but thats another quite different story altogether.

Regards

CrackZ.

IMO it is not too wise to rely on legal recommendations issued by technical people. Such recommendations could seems logical and almost irrefutable, but judges uses other logic which is very different from technical one.

If you really concerned about legality of publishing some stuff - spend some money and get advise from good lawyer.

Yeah, I wouldn't generally put too much stock in John Q. Cracker's beliefs about what is or isn't legal. IMHO hackerlore is usually dead wrong about basic legal principles. The classic example is the "use a disclaimer" mantra. I have some lawyers in my family, and let me tell you - disclaimers and waivers typically don't mean jack squat. It's actually somewhat rare to find one that's written well enough to be legally binding. And there is no disclaimer you can write that will automagically make something illegal become legal. Disclaimers and waivers are to protect you from civil claims when someone else does something stupid and/or illegal, they aren't to protect you from the criminal courts when you do something illegal.

That said, I second CrackZ's suggestion. As I said, I wouldn't trust your average cracker's legal advice (myself included), but Woodmann probably has some answers that have actually been put to the test in the real world and not just cracker fantasy land. And keep in mind that the rules that govern one legal arena don't necessarily hold true in others. Computers are a special case with special laws governing them. The usual rule of "you can talk about how to do something illegal as long as you don't follow through" no longer holds true in many cases involving copy protections because of the DMCA. Unless/until someone succesfully challenges the constitutionality of the DMCA in the supreme court, I would be very wary of hosting any tutorials with "live" examples in the U.S.

On a side note - where is Woodmann, anyway? Am I the only one who hasn't been able to reach RCE for 3 days? I hope everything is okay over there. They usually make it known when they're doing upgrades.

Actually, Woodmann's server has had to be moved several times because of "supposed" legal issues and is in the process of moving again because of such claims. Suprisingly, this time it was claims about CrackZ's site and material on there. :eek: But we believe that was only an excuse to dump the site because of complaints about its content. The point being that there does not need to be a "legal" reason for the ISP to dump you, only their "wish" to be rid of a problem. I will post a notice about the Woodmann move with its own title.

Regards,

I've never had any legal issues with my website, unless you count copyright issues for people stealing images and posting them in the forums (runescape.com). Denial of any connection with or knowledge of, helps a lot. If you plan on hosting anything to do with reverse engineering, I would recommend use of one.

Thank you all for your great replies, and specially to Andy. ;)
However I would like to enquiry a little on this:
[quote]
Denial of any connection with or knowledge of, helps a lot.
[/qoute]
What's "Denial of any connection"? Is this somewhat like a disclaimer?

From all your posts, I see that it's either smart to host the content on a free site not affiliated with me, or to host CRACK ME'S and check with my host before hand. However, I did host a LOT of warez on my site 1.5 Gigs of apps mostly, but some good games. A total worth of $250,000. My host never complained and I removed the warez on my own say.

However, I have been thinking about this "Crack Me" thing alot, and myself... found alot of the crack me's useless. This was my thought: Crack the program then make a crack me that is basicly a simulator of that program.
IE The protection scheme Slightly modified, packed the same, etc...

What does everyone think about this idea? Would you like crack me's like this?

Respect, Lilmeanman

Another option you might consider is obtaining a server in a country NOT subject to the DMCA. Woodmann has made arrangements for a server in Panama. Hopefully it will end such problems. :eek:

Regards,

JMI is right on target, I fully agree with the idea of looking for servers out of the country. There's many hosts in other countries where security laws are more defined. Along with that the right to have something on a server that is "security" related is indeed different than right to serv files that have everything to do with cracking. In the states these differences are not boldly outlined rather interpreted to the discression of the judge. When fighting a company, a single home user generally loses.

I contest about the lawyer part of this conversation because I believe that in no way is having a good lawyer going to stop a company from killing your site. I would think that finding a country that either doesn't participate in DMCA or will legally allow hosting a site like that is the way to go.

Just my thoughts,
EskimoBob

I believe that servers outside of the US only apply to their country's rules, and when opting out of the country, be sure to look up what laws apply. When a company complains about your website in the US, they can get subpoena, or even contact FBI in your area. Providing enough evidence, FBI can show up at your door without knowledge and hold temporary possession of your computer equipment. Programmers seem to be going to prison for "murder" these days. . . .

You all have very good points there... yet I have seen so many russian and french sites hosting illegal / cracking / "Security" related content.

I think crack me's are the way to go, and as long as you have permission from your host, there shouldn't be a problem. However, I am going to research this alot more.

Can anyone tell me a little more about the DMCA? Or give me a link to the "Law"?
Did anyone read my last post? What does everyone think about my Crack Me idea? I thought it'd be quite useful for newbie's, and still help people to crack REAL LIFE programs without doing anything illegal.

Hey... How difficult could it be to put DMCA in your favorite search engine and find out a great deal of information about the law. :eek:

Regards,

Ohh yea :(
Sorry JMI I punched myself for that stupidity. I looked DMCA up, and am contacting a legal friend about the law, ask him if he can basicly convert what I found into human readable form. I'll post what he says here tommorow.

Post Summary
 

OK Me and my friend went over the DMCA. It basicly says you aren't allowed to copy protected programs / cd's and or break and protection unless for legal copying (backup) purposes.

There are Six exceptions however, here's one of them:
2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law.

Therefor, crack me's ARE acceptable since the author is permitting you to crack the program. So my idea from above (Simulating REAL programs with crack me's) will work just fine.

I hope this helps some other people with their question(s) also.

One of the principle purposes of the DMCA is to protect Copyrighted materials. After all, it IS "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998."

Since crackme's are, generally, not copyrighted, their are, generally, not within the context of the DMCA.

Regards,

Actually, the most amusing thing about the DMCA is that you are still entitled to make a single backup copy of any software, movies, etc. that you legally own. But the DMCA forbids you to circumvent the copy protection, so any legal backup you make will be entirely useless. Basically they're saying, "oh yes, you're allowed to make a backup copy. You just aren't allowed to make, distribute, or use any tools that make backups."

Another exception I believe is if you are a researcher looking for security problems. The problem is that although it may seem that you fall within an exception, you can be taken to court. This costs huge amounts of money. So even if your innocent, you may not be able to afford the lawyers needed to prove it.

You're guilty till proved innocent.

Isn't that always how the system works?
And one other exception (That no one has noticed yet), is if a program is collecting any personal information (IE Credit card ETC...) you are allowed to circumvent the protection. Maybe Key Loggers?

Heh that's funny :D Does that mean we can "Circumvent" the protections on Parental "CONTROL" tools?

That'd be hillarious.

But my god... Why in the hell do we woory ourselves about this crap?
But then again... Why Do We Reverse?
That's what I'd like to ask everyone: Why Do You Reverse?
Seems simple. But isn't.

hehe, jmi, are you sure that crackmes are not copyrighted?
atleast here in europe the copyright applies automatically to certain works, you dont have to 'request' it...

In the U.S. one can attach a copyright symbol to their work and make it effectively "copyrighted", but that does not happen here automatically. There are also some rules which come into play when people post materials on "public" forums, such as this one, particularily if they have notices which state that materials posted on the Forum become the property of the Board.

Leaving that all aside, I belive a "crackme" author might be considered in the U.S. to have given "implied consent" for "fair use" of the material for its "intended purpose," which in this case would be to figure out how to "crack it." I also believe that the DMCA requires the copyright holder send "notification" of the alleged violation of their copyrighted materials to the operator of the web site and then the website generally can avoid problems by "removing the materials." The website can also send notice to their ISP that they dispute the claim of copyright infringment, agree to accept legal service from the claimant, and then the claimant has 10 days to commence formal litigation in a local Federal Court, or the claim may be invalidated.

This is what happened originally on the Woodmann site, a "reported" claim of coryrighted materials which Woodmann disputed and notified the ISP of his willingness to accept service of process. In otherwords, he "called the bluff" of the ISP and they immediately changed their tune and said there was no DMCA claim but they would be booting us off anyway for "violating their policies, revealed through their unexplained "internal investigation." There really isn't a hell of a lot one can do is the ISP really wants to terminate your contract. So now the server has been moved again, and this time to a country which is not bound by the DMCA. :) But, again, they could always boot us again, for almost any private reason they wanted to use also. But maybe, this time, the desire for "money" with prevail. ;)

Regards,

UPB: JMI wrote "generally not copyrighted" which means (I suppose) that almost none of the crackers issues copyright note on crackmes. Of course, bearing in mind intelectual property law, crackme can be copyrighted, just like any other work.

Anyway, the funny (?) situation with inelectual property copyrights is the endless topic: "...you are allowed to make a single back-up of your software/CD/DVD, etc. ...". A very strange situation occurs if you will ask yourself why you cannot make a backup copy of your game CD, audio CD or film DVD. I have been studying this topic a little wider (theory + practical solutions) so I will tell you one interesting thing: no company can answer this question and they break the law consciously. When I have been talking with few serious corporations and asked the same question, I always hear the same answer: [silence] or "and what would you do?". They break the same law as crackers/pirates do. Of course not in the same sense, but the same law.

Obviously there are smart solutions, like Microsoft did for example, but they compose a topic for another thread.

Regards.