Firmware Facts 101

[mrkryz]

Im really getting sick of the board getting clogged up with the trolls and whiny complaining nags regarding the firmware posted.

Here are some items to dispell the myths.

1) Modified firmware is in fact LEGAL. Re-Sale of copyrighted software is NOT. If anyone begins charging for the firmware then that is in fact a copyright infringement. Technically Wasia may be found in violation of international copyrght laws by distributing copyrighted software, however since Canon does NOT sell the software nor is Wasia claiming it is his own work Canon would have a very difficult time showing any punitive damages. BTW: He is in Russia... good luck trying to extradite a russian for modifying copyrighted firmware that is freely distributed via Canon.

2) Canon can NOT legally refuse warranty work on bodies w/modified firmware. Legally for us folks in the USA look into the Magnusson-Moss Act... Unless Canon can prove that as a result of modification a particular part failed then and only then that part is exempt from warranty. Not the whole camera etc...

This basically boils down to modifying your own property. If you purchase a car and tint the windows, change the radio, replace the tires etc ... your perfectly entitled to do so. You own your product and its yours to paint black like a 10D or throw from the highest building in town.

A lot of folks on here suffer from:

Inferiority complex/***** Envy: Afraid someone will have a better product then they do and spent less $$ for it.

If you dont have the stuff needed to update your firmware becuase you are paranoid, ethically conflicted, technologically challenged etc ... then dont download it nor install it. STOP arguing and whining like little pig-tailed school girls over it. The firmware is in fact credible and valid and adds much that is desired by many people here.

Few people say that the 300D is better then the 10D - It isnt in build quality/ features nor some levels of hardware. The new firmware adds functionality that many want and need.... If you own a 10D and your miffed the 300D is a close runner up... take it up w/Canon and stop crying about it here or beating your chests like wild monkey's that your cameras are superior....

Why cant ppl just enjoy their cameras and shut up already?

--

Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

 

[Craig T.]

Screw Kerry.

mrkryz for President.

-Craig

Im really getting sick of the board getting clogged up with the
trolls and whiny complaining nags regarding the firmware posted.

Here are some items to dispell the myths.

1) Modified firmware is in fact LEGAL. Re-Sale of copyrighted
software is NOT. If anyone begins charging for the firmware then
that is in fact a copyright infringement. Technically Wasia may be
found in violation of international copyrght laws by distributing
copyrighted software, however since Canon does NOT sell the
software nor is Wasia claiming it is his own work Canon would have
a very difficult time showing any punitive damages. BTW: He is in
Russia... good luck trying to extradite a russian for modifying
copyrighted firmware that is freely distributed via Canon.

2) Canon can NOT legally refuse warranty work on bodies
w/modified firmware. Legally for us folks in the USA look into the
Magnusson-Moss Act... Unless Canon can prove that as a result of
modification a particular part failed then and only then that part
is exempt from warranty. Not the whole camera etc...

This basically boils down to modifying your own property. If you
purchase a car and tint the windows, change the radio, replace the
tires etc ... your perfectly entitled to do so. You own your
product and its yours to paint black like a 10D or throw from the
highest building in town.

A lot of folks on here suffer from:

Inferiority complex/***** Envy: Afraid someone will have a
better product then they do and spent less $$ for it.

If you dont have the stuff needed to update your firmware becuase
you are paranoid, ethically conflicted, technologically challenged
etc ... then dont download it nor install it. STOP arguing and
whining like little pig-tailed school girls over it. The firmware
is in fact credible and valid and adds much that is desired by many
people here.

Few people say that the 300D is better then the 10D - It isnt in
build quality/ features nor some levels of hardware. The new
firmware adds functionality that many want and need.... If you own
a 10D and your miffed the 300D is a close runner up... take it up
w/Canon and stop crying about it here or beating your chests like
wild monkey's that your cameras are superior....

Why cant ppl just enjoy their cameras and shut up already?

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

 

[ioannis]

Im really getting sick of the board getting clogged up with the
trolls and whiny complaining nags regarding the firmware posted.

Here are some items to dispell the myths.

1) Modified firmware is in fact LEGAL. Re-Sale of copyrighted
software is NOT. If anyone begins charging for the firmware then
that is in fact a copyright infringement. Technically Wasia may be
found in violation of international copyrght laws by distributing
copyrighted software, however since Canon does NOT sell the
software nor is Wasia claiming it is his own work Canon would have
a very difficult time showing any punitive damages. BTW: He is in
Russia... good luck trying to extradite a russian for modifying
copyrighted firmware that is freely distributed via Canon.

2) Canon can NOT legally refuse warranty work on bodies
w/modified firmware. Legally for us folks in the USA look into the
Magnusson-Moss Act... Unless Canon can prove that as a result of
modification a particular part failed

which it CAN NOT since that software was just disabled by a programmer

then and only then that part

is exempt from warranty. Not the whole camera etc...

This basically boils down to modifying your own property. If you
purchase a car and tint the windows, change the radio, replace the
tires etc ... your perfectly entitled to do so. You own your
product and its yours to paint black like a 10D or throw from the
highest building in town.

A lot of folks on here suffer from:

Inferiority complex/***** Envy: Afraid someone will have a
better product then they do and spent less $$ for it.

I hope PHil lets this here it is TRUE

If you dont have the stuff needed to update your firmware becuase
you are paranoid, ethically conflicted, technologically challenged
etc ... then dont download it nor install it. STOP arguing and
whining like little pig-tailed school girls over it. The firmware
is in fact credible and valid and adds much that is desired by many
people here.

Few people say that the 300D is better then the 10D - It isnt in
build quality/ features nor some levels of hardware. The new
firmware adds functionality that many want and need.... If you own
a 10D and your miffed the 300D is a close runner up... take it up
w/Canon and stop crying about it here or beating your chests like
wild monkey's that your cameras are superior....

Why cant ppl just enjoy their cameras and shut up already?

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

--
Yiannis

Show them Amato !!

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino

 

[ioannis]

mrkryz for President.

-Craig

Im really getting sick of the board getting clogged up with the
trolls and whiny complaining nags regarding the firmware posted.

Here are some items to dispell the myths.

1) Modified firmware is in fact LEGAL. Re-Sale of copyrighted
software is NOT. If anyone begins charging for the firmware then
that is in fact a copyright infringement. Technically Wasia may be
found in violation of international copyrght laws by distributing
copyrighted software, however since Canon does NOT sell the
software nor is Wasia claiming it is his own work Canon would have
a very difficult time showing any punitive damages. BTW: He is in
Russia... good luck trying to extradite a russian for modifying
copyrighted firmware that is freely distributed via Canon.

2) Canon can NOT legally refuse warranty work on bodies
w/modified firmware. Legally for us folks in the USA look into the
Magnusson-Moss Act... Unless Canon can prove that as a result of
modification a particular part failed then and only then that part
is exempt from warranty. Not the whole camera etc...

This basically boils down to modifying your own property. If you
purchase a car and tint the windows, change the radio, replace the
tires etc ... your perfectly entitled to do so. You own your
product and its yours to paint black like a 10D or throw from the
highest building in town.

A lot of folks on here suffer from:

Inferiority complex/***** Envy: Afraid someone will have a
better product then they do and spent less $$ for it.

If you dont have the stuff needed to update your firmware becuase
you are paranoid, ethically conflicted, technologically challenged
etc ... then dont download it nor install it. STOP arguing and
whining like little pig-tailed school girls over it. The firmware
is in fact credible and valid and adds much that is desired by many
people here.

Few people say that the 300D is better then the 10D - It isnt in
build quality/ features nor some levels of hardware. The new
firmware adds functionality that many want and need.... If you own
a 10D and your miffed the 300D is a close runner up... take it up
w/Canon and stop crying about it here or beating your chests like
wild monkey's that your cameras are superior....

Why cant ppl just enjoy their cameras and shut up already?

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

--
Yiannis

Show them Amato !!

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino

 

[pbleic]

Modified firmware violates the license that Canon issues you or anyone who downloads the software. It extends to third parties. By violating a term of the license, Canon has the right to withdraw that license from you.

From the license agreement:

"You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so. "
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.html

It is not just the distribution of the software. You can't hack it.
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[Eneref]

Modified firmware violates the license that Canon issues you or
anyone who downloads the software. It extends to third parties.
By violating a term of the license, Canon has the right to withdraw
that license from you.

From the license agreement:

"You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise
reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third
party to do so. "
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.html

It is not just the distribution of the software. You can't hack it.
--

Yes and no.

That's their default license agreement for ALL their software... and, unfortunately for them, since you're not required to agree to the terms when you buy the camera, then they have very little in terms of legal recourse for the firmware unless you download another copy from them.

They can beat their chests and yell a lot in legal terms, but unless they're willing to allow you to use their camera with a warranty and someone else's fully non-Canon firmware, or willing to refund your money if you don't agree to the terms, then they're somewhat stuck.

You can't force a license agreement on someone after the fact.

--
N.

Post your files and links to http://www.rebelwithaclue.net

Let's keep a central repository on redundant OC3s.

 

[mrkryz]

Yeah thats great is only binding under US copyright laws and International copyright laws differ greatly specifically in the Russian Federation. Incidently, My camera is owned and operated by my 4 year old daughter who is a minor child and no minor child may enter into any contractual agreement. So you and your like-minded simpletons can go pound sand

BTW: Look into the factual basis of that agreement ... Just because I publish a "License Agreement" does not make it a contract, more specifically a legally binding contract.

I too have a purchase agreement I publish on my personal website that states "Once my check/payment clears, you the manufacturing party may kiss my rosy red ass and squeel like a little piggy becuase I retain implicit and explicit ownership of everything that my little fingers carry home included under my receipt of sale to do with as I please."

Modified firmware violates the license that Canon issues you or
anyone who downloads the software. It extends to third parties.
By violating a term of the license, Canon has the right to withdraw
that license from you.

From the license agreement:

"You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise
reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third
party to do so. "
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.html

It is not just the distribution of the software. You can't hack it.
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004
All rights reserved.

--

Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

 

[BobHo]

If the difference in recurring costs between the 300D and 10D is only $50, customers can reasonably ask why there is a $500-$600 difference in street price.

Like it or not, people like to think that the price they pay is somehow related to the manufacturer's marginal cost to produce it (i.e, the additional cost to produce 20,001 cameras instead of 20,000) and the seller's cost to buy it for resale. Crippling functionality in software just to create product differentiation strikes a lot of people (OK, maybe just me) as something that only sleezy companies do.

An the problem is made even worse when the 300D and 10D are facing a competitor like the D70.

--
Bob

 

[pbleic]

So you and your like-minded

simpletons can go pound sand

Gee, aren't you a congenial fellow
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[Frank Mattia]

.

Screw Kerry.

mrkryz for President.

-Craig

Im really getting sick of the board getting clogged up with the
trolls and whiny complaining nags regarding the firmware posted.

Here are some items to dispell the myths.

1) Modified firmware is in fact LEGAL. Re-Sale of copyrighted
software is NOT. If anyone begins charging for the firmware then
that is in fact a copyright infringement. Technically Wasia may be
found in violation of international copyrght laws by distributing
copyrighted software, however since Canon does NOT sell the
software nor is Wasia claiming it is his own work Canon would have
a very difficult time showing any punitive damages. BTW: He is in
Russia... good luck trying to extradite a russian for modifying
copyrighted firmware that is freely distributed via Canon.

2) Canon can NOT legally refuse warranty work on bodies
w/modified firmware. Legally for us folks in the USA look into the
Magnusson-Moss Act... Unless Canon can prove that as a result of
modification a particular part failed then and only then that part
is exempt from warranty. Not the whole camera etc...

This basically boils down to modifying your own property. If you
purchase a car and tint the windows, change the radio, replace the
tires etc ... your perfectly entitled to do so. You own your
product and its yours to paint black like a 10D or throw from the
highest building in town.

A lot of folks on here suffer from:

Inferiority complex/***** Envy: Afraid someone will have a
better product then they do and spent less $$ for it.

If you dont have the stuff needed to update your firmware becuase
you are paranoid, ethically conflicted, technologically challenged
etc ... then dont download it nor install it. STOP arguing and
whining like little pig-tailed school girls over it. The firmware
is in fact credible and valid and adds much that is desired by many
people here.

Few people say that the 300D is better then the 10D - It isnt in
build quality/ features nor some levels of hardware. The new
firmware adds functionality that many want and need.... If you own
a 10D and your miffed the 300D is a close runner up... take it up
w/Canon and stop crying about it here or beating your chests like
wild monkey's that your cameras are superior....

Why cant ppl just enjoy their cameras and shut up already?

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

--
Yiannis

Show them Amato !!

http://www.pbase.com/ystasino

 

[C5Driver]

I had the hack on my camera. I didn't violate anything because I never downloaded their 1.1.1 upgrade, so really I never accepted their license agreement.

No telling where the software would be if it were open source.

• Ron

 

[vander]

MRKYZ states: "Once my check/payment clears, you the manufacturing party may kiss my rosy red ass and squeel like a little piggy becuase I retain implicit and explicit ownership of everything that my little fingers carry home included under my receipt of sale to do with as I please."

Well that works both ways then..how about Canon says that to you as well after you purchased their product and you are looking for your camera in need of fixing under your warranty.

So you will stick it to them to keep that end of the bargin?

Unless it's open source you cannot screw with the firmware...that simple.

Look at the "grey market" satellites. So you buy the dish, the receiver and you modify the card to allow you open programming to view every channel.

That is certainly illegal..what's the difference?

You think microsoft would keep quiet if I modified their source in windows to enhance things and re distribute it freely?

Whatever..you know I think the hack is cool and I am not against it one little bit. But I do know right from wrong. I never said I was a saint, or follow all the rules, but laws are laws and this IS Illegal...

 

[DannyV]

Yeah thats great is only binding under US copyright laws and
International copyright laws differ greatly specifically in the
Russian Federation. Incidently, My camera is owned and operated by
my 4 year old daughter who is a minor child and no minor child may
enter into any contractual agreement. So you and your like-minded
simpletons can go pound sand

Gee, you are kind of jacka$$ aren't you?
--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11
300D tips http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
300D FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html

 

[kharlow]

Hi Paul.

Lawyer-speak time! Let's say I bought my camera with firmware 1.1.1. In so doing I made no agreement with Canon re not replacing their firmware with a hack. So I can do as I like. The author of the hack may have an issue with Canon, but it's not my problem.

Now, let's say I DL'd the 1.1.1 upgrade from Canon's site and agreed with their terms. Later I DL'd the hack and installed it. I did not "alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software," nor did I "have any third party to do so." I merely DL'd and installed it!

So it's hard to see how I have any issue with Canon in either case. Of course, Wasia's situation may be different!

In any event, I suspect that Mr. W's efforts are helping sustain 300D sales in the face of some stiff competition with the D70, even if they're possibly hurting EOS-1D sales.

Thoughts?

Modified firmware violates the license that Canon issues you or
anyone who downloads the software. It extends to third parties.
By violating a term of the license, Canon has the right to withdraw
that license from you.

From the license agreement:

"You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise
reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third
party to do so. "
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/E3kr_firmware-e.html

It is not just the distribution of the software. You can't hack it.
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004
All rights reserved.

 

[Eric217138]

Crippling
functionality in software just to create product differentiation
strikes a lot of people (OK, maybe just me) as something that only
sleezy companies do.

Canon wanted to release an entry-level prosumer DSLR. Lesser than the 10D enough to keep them both marketable. They could either:

Replicate the 10D firmware and deactivate certain features that Canon deemed would be "worth paying for" for the professional end of 'prosumer' (10D buyers).

OR

Redesign the firmware from scratch, in the end only to acheive the same outcome of crippling the 10D firmware.

The difference is that starting from scratch would cost a lot more R&D money, and in the end make the DRebel less profitable.

Honestly, would all of us feel better if Canon released a DRebel with non-hackable firmware and a price of $1099? Everybody seems to win with the route Canon took.

 

[DRG]

If the difference in recurring costs between the 300D and 10D is
only $50, customers can reasonably ask why there is a $500-$600
difference in street price.

It all comes down to what is happening to Canon's business. If few people know about the hack and its existence is actually helping to keep advanced amateurs with the camera instead of jumping elsewhere, then it's in their best interest to play ignorant.

I own a TiVo, another product famous for the being hackable. Even though TiVo units with large hard drives cost far more than the incremental cost of the hard drive suggests, they don't complain when someone buys a cheaper unit with small drive and hacks it to a larger size. Indeed, they purposely decided to remain hacker friendly in order to encourage loyalty and respect from the techie crowd, a key part of their initial business. They did draw a line - no tampering with the program guide data or encoded video programming itself - because that went to their core business model (selling program guide subscriptions and maintaining good relations with recording-phobic content providers) and would have been too much of a threat. Because they were hacker friendly and made that line known, most hackers actually appreciated their attitude and respected the line.

David

 

[tommy_douglas_NDP]

Look at the "grey market" satellites. So you buy the dish, the
receiver and you modify the card to allow you open programming to
view every channel.

The issue here is that by hacking a DBS smart-card you are accessing copy-right content without authorization. Here in Canada, for example, this is restricted by the Radio Communications act. The issue is not modifiying the software--per se--but accessing material without authorization (ie. HBO).

On the other hand if you were to hack the DBS card to activate all channels but also pay for all channels (thus obtaining authorization) there would be no harm, no foul, no damages to the rights holders.

The real issue of legality here is Canon's copyright. Wasia is distributing copyright material w/o authorization. As to whether this is something that the Russian Federation enforces is another question.

That is certainly illegal..what's the difference?
You think microsoft would keep quiet if I modified their source in
windows to enhance things and re distribute it freely?

Bingo! The issue is you redisributing copyright material. Nothing prevents you from modifying your own copy of Windows. The arm of the law does not extend into your house that way. Well...there is the potential issue of you inadvertantly infringing upon a patent but this really isn't enforcable.

Whatever..you know I think the hack is cool and I am not against it
one little bit. But I do know right from wrong. I never said I was
a saint, or follow all the rules, but laws are laws and this IS
Illegal...

So many people on this forum like to look at the law in such black and white terms..either illegal or not illegal. Well a lot of things are illegal murder is illegal, robbery is illegal and in many cities spiting on the street is illegal. The reality is that we all violate many laws every day--often laws that we (or even the police) may not know exist!

Think more about the bigger picture and why the law exists. If I choose to modify a few strings of my 300D frimware, I am not injuring Canon, I am not injuring anyone else. Please, lets all keep things in perspective.

Steven

 

[dchao]

If Wasia can proof that he has not modified any part of the "code" and these crippled functions he has enabled are already in your camera. Then, I don't think he is in violation of the copyright law.

Wasia is wrong to distribute copyright material w/o authorization, but this can be workedaround very easily. Wasia can simply write a small utility that patch the 10 or 20 bytes of data into the official Canon firmware that you and I download from the Canon's official web site. Again, there is nothing Canon can do to Wasia.

The only way Canon can nail him is to encrypt the firmware, now, if Wasia patches the firmware, Canon can take him to court under the DMCA. (The DMCA makes is a crime to "circumvent" copyright protection systems. )

On the other hand if you were to hack the DBS card to activate all
channels but also pay for all channels (thus obtaining
authorization) there would be no harm, no foul, no damages to the
rights holders.

The real issue of legality here is Canon's copyright. Wasia is
distributing copyright material w/o authorization. As to whether
this is something that the Russian Federation enforces is another
question.

That is certainly illegal..what's the difference?
You think microsoft would keep quiet if I modified their source in
windows to enhance things and re distribute it freely?

Bingo! The issue is you redisributing copyright material. Nothing
prevents you from modifying your own copy of Windows. The arm of
the law does not extend into your house that way. Well...there is
the potential issue of you inadvertantly infringing upon a patent
but this really isn't enforcable.

Whatever..you know I think the hack is cool and I am not against it
one little bit. But I do know right from wrong. I never said I was
a saint, or follow all the rules, but laws are laws and this IS
Illegal...

So many people on this forum like to look at the law in such black
and white terms..either illegal or not illegal. Well a lot of
things are illegal murder is illegal, robbery is illegal and in
many cities spiting on the street is illegal. The reality is that
we all violate many laws every day--often laws that we (or even the
police) may not know exist!

Think more about the bigger picture and why the law exists. If I
choose to modify a few strings of my 300D frimware, I am not
injuring Canon, I am not injuring anyone else. Please, lets all
keep things in perspective.

Steven

 

[tommy_douglas_NDP]

If Wasia can proof that he has not modified any part of the "code"
and these crippled functions he has enabled are already in your
camera. Then, I don't think he is in violation of the copyright
law.

Wasia has modified the code to activate other parts of the code. This is ok. What might put him in violation of copyright is the fact that he is districuting copyright material. I doubt, however, that Canon would attempt to sue him. Does Russia have a tort system? What would the damages be? This is all highly unlikely.

Wasia is wrong to distribute copyright material w/o authorization,
but this can be workedaround very easily. Wasia can simply write a
small utility that patch the 10 or 20 bytes of data into the
official Canon firmware that you and I download from the Canon's
official web site. Again, there is nothing Canon can do to Wasia.

Yes he could. People on this forum will jump on you over this because in the download agreement from Canon persumes you agree not to modifiy the software. However this is an agreement and not law. It means about as much as the "I will not sue Major League Baseball" does on the back of your ticket stub.

The only way Canon can nail him is to encrypt the firmware, now, if
Wasia patches the firmware, Canon can take him to court under the
DMCA. (The DMCA makes is a crime to "circumvent" copyright
protection systems. )

He is not circumventing a copyright protection scheme (ie. DBS smart-card). Also, do you think a plaintiff from Japan is going to sue a Russian for action he did in Russia in a US court? There is no jurisidctional nexus here for the DCMA to apply. This may be a surprise to some but the US government does not have jurisdiction outside of the United States.

Steven

On the other hand if you were to hack the DBS card to activate all
channels but also pay for all channels (thus obtaining
authorization) there would be no harm, no foul, no damages to the
rights holders.

The real issue of legality here is Canon's copyright. Wasia is
distributing copyright material w/o authorization. As to whether
this is something that the Russian Federation enforces is another
question.

That is certainly illegal..what's the difference?
You think microsoft would keep quiet if I modified their source in
windows to enhance things and re distribute it freely?

Bingo! The issue is you redisributing copyright material. Nothing
prevents you from modifying your own copy of Windows. The arm of
the law does not extend into your house that way. Well...there is
the potential issue of you inadvertantly infringing upon a patent
but this really isn't enforcable.

Whatever..you know I think the hack is cool and I am not against it
one little bit. But I do know right from wrong. I never said I was
a saint, or follow all the rules, but laws are laws and this IS
Illegal...

So many people on this forum like to look at the law in such black
and white terms..either illegal or not illegal. Well a lot of
things are illegal murder is illegal, robbery is illegal and in
many cities spiting on the street is illegal. The reality is that
we all violate many laws every day--often laws that we (or even the
police) may not know exist!

Think more about the bigger picture and why the law exists. If I
choose to modify a few strings of my 300D frimware, I am not
injuring Canon, I am not injuring anyone else. Please, lets all
keep things in perspective.

Steven

 

[loupgarou]

on reverse engineering:
use findlaw and search on:
Sega Enterprises LTD v. Accolade, Inc.
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/fed/case/011108v2&exact=1

on shrink wrap licenses.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-releases/press-release-lofgren-bill/view

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2225