Apparently some think a crime might have been committed, others don't. Doesn't the word 'controversial' express that? If it a crime was 'shown' to be committed, there wouldn't be much to controverse about, don't you think?gaard wrote:This is just saying that if a crime has been committed, a crime has been committed, but in the case of Houdini nobody has shown that a crime has been committed, let alone under what statue or law.

Well, like I said, "for the purpose of information" is not the same as publishing it. If I buy a book, I am allowed to read it "for the purpose of information". Even if it is in a language that I don't read very well, I am allowed to translate it, or hire a translator to translate it for me. But if I would then start selling that translation, or give it away for free, it would be an infrngement of the copyrights of the original author.On the topic of Ippolit and its legal standing, does this look familiar?
If Vas does not believe Ippolit's legal standing is questionable - which he could not by his own logic that it is legal - why should we condemn Mr. Houdart who took ideas and possibly code from Ippolit?disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.
It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.
Vas
This is all really very elementary legal stuff. Why does everyone seem to have such an incredible difficulty grasping it?
