I agree with the opinion of it being absurd. At issue here is the extension of the copyright in the DMCA. The no reverse engineering clause was added and many believe it contradicts some of the fair use doctrine that has been part of copyright for a long time. Specifically since the latest extensions on copyright period create an almost permanent copyright on all work. Yes the company has a right to protect itself, but it will be interesting to see how they claim it hurts them. The only thing I can think of is that now they can't sell a "kit" to do the customization since there is already one out there. Or maybe that's the point. They get a court to declare what was done illegal and then release a software package that does the same thing. (Maybe even taking the existing code to do it!) Jack On Saturday 12 February 2005 10:28 am, Sam MacDonald wrote: > I'm going to get flamed for this! > > If the copy write says they should not reverse engineer the game or > change it in any way, explain to me why the company in question should > not stand up for their rights? > The idea that "this is just a game" isn't acceptable when the product is > not open source. From what I've read this is a closed source program not > an open source program. What we need to recognize is, in the United > States everyone has a right to due process. If we agree or not with what > someone does, they have a right to due process. > > Even SCO has the right, but they must produce evidence that I don't > think they have and it looks like a judge is saying the same thing. > Remember SCO gets lots of money from M$. > > Doom, Quake, Call of Duty, and others have many mods for the original > games, but the people who make the games said making the mods is cool. > > Yes contribute to EFF, yes stand up for what we believe in, but we must > let others do the same no mater what we think. > -- Jack Ungerleider jack at jacku.com