Legal Question

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.

[JMI]

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.

Originally Posted by reggae

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 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.

[upb]

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...

[JMI]

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,

[dyn!o]

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.