I'll have to side with Bob Blick and David VanHorn on this one. There are many legitimate reasons to reverse-engineer things, without stealing the code. In my youth I learned a great many programming tricks by studying other people's code, including object code when source was not available. But I have not stolen a single line of code from anyone else. While the prices that were advertised were generally too high for casual use, there are several devices I currently own that I would actually consider paying that kind of money just so that I would have the capability of making some small improvements. Keep in mind that (in the US) intellectual property law was established with the objective of promoting progress in the arts and sciences. There does not exist any natural right of ownership to ideas, but such a right was legally established with limited duration. The intent is that copyrighted works and patented apparatuses would eventually become public domain, increasing the wealth of information available to everyone. The time-limited right of ownership is intended to provide the carrot to the writer or inventor, when the alternative might be that works not be created, or be kept secret. However, by law I am allowed to study copyrighted works and patented devices, and create derivative works by making improvements or changes in order to better suit my needs. By doing so, I don't gain any additional rights to the underlying work. However, I am allowed (for instance) to buy a licensed copy, modify it, and resell it. The reason that I bring all this up is to point out that while code protection bits are obviously attractive to developers, they are actually contrary to the intent of intellectual property law, and to the benefits of society as a whole. When a device is created containing embedded firmware that is code-protected, the consumer is denied the opportunity to make changes or improvements. Also, while the copyright will eventually expire, the code will never be made available in a usable form, so for all practical intents, it will not actually enter the public domain. Given the duration of copyrights, and the rapid evolution of computers, this may seem rather pointless. But think about how it relates to other fields. Would you like to live in a world that had no classic literature or musical works in the public domain? And what if techniques similar to code protection could be used on other kinds of devices, such as automobiles? How would you like to buy a car with components that were impenetrable black boxes, that you couldn't open up, study, or replace (except with identical replacements from the original manufacturer)? That's exactly what code protection does to firmware, and yet most people automatically seem to think that it is a good idea. Note that the US Congress is currently working on legislation that will effectively make reverse engineering of software (and even some hardware) illegal. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act would criminalize any effort to defeat or even just study a "technological copyright protection system", and yet has only the most vague definition of what that is. Vendors will be free to implement nearly anything they want and call it a protection system. In case anyone is interested in this subject, and willing to contact your representatives about it, I've attached below a copy of some of my comments on this issue which were previously posted to slashdot.org. The base article was http://slashdot.org/articles/9804161058215.shtml Cheers, Eric Subject: more rights for copyright owners, less for users by Eric Smith (eric@brouhaha.com) on Sunday May 17, @03:03 http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/ What this bill really does is to give copyright owners new, almost unlimited rights to control the ways in which their works are used, while at the same time taking away many of the rights that consumers used to have. In the past, if I bought a software package, I didn't own the actual program, but I had fairly clear rights to use it on one computer at any time and in any way I wanted. If I bought an audio CD, I didn't own the music, but I could listen to it whenever I wanted (with only some small exceptions for public performance). If I wanted to modfiy the software (or the music), I was free to do so. For instance, if I was ambitious I could add a new feature to the software, or fix a bug myself. I could run the music through filtering software to clean up noise, or just to make it sound different. As long as I didn't infringe the copyright by offering copies to others, I could basically do whatever I wanted to it. But this new bill will allow the copyright owners to make any arbitrary restrictions they want on the software (or music, or video, or whatever), and call it a copyright protection device. I will not be allowed to even attempt to circumvent these restrictions, no matter how arbitrary or silly they are. For example, a software publisher could supply a program with a dongle. It so happens that my Libretto portable computer does not have any built-in serial or parallel ports for a dongle, unless I plug it into a docking station. There is a program I use now that requires a dongle, and I have a third party program that eliminates the need for the dongle. I don't use this to defraud the publisher; I use it because the software would not be usable on my computer without it. But under the new bill, it would be illegal for the third party to sell me their program, or even to reverse engineer the dongle and write the program in the first place. Now let's suppose that the publisher doesn't want me to use the software on Tuesdays. Under current law, the only way he can do that is to make me sign a license agreement. Under the new law, he can simply make that part of his copyright protection system (be it a dongle or whatever), and he now has the force of law on his arbitary and silly restriction. Of course, nothing prevents the publisher from attempting to impose such a restriction today. He can build a dongle that does exactly that. But the key difference is that unless he gets me to sign a license agreement, it is entirely lawful for me to figure out how to circumvent the restriction. In essence, this bill gives vast new powers to copyright owners (and takes them away from consumers), far beyond what the Constitution authorized in Article I Section 8 Clause 8: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Bear in mind that this clause of the Constitution and ratified treaties (including WIPO) are the only authorization that the government has for implementing copyrights at all. But this bill goes way beyond what WIPO required. The copyright law as it exists today (before this bill is signed into law) does an adequate job of protecting copyrights. While it is reasonable to make some minor changes to bring the US into compliance with WIPO, the real point of the bill is greed. If you'll notice, the Constitution didn't say "to guarantee that Authors and Inventors squeeze every possible dollar out of consumers," yet that is basically what this bill is about. It follows the Golden Rule of Arts and Sciences: He Who Has the Gold, Makes the Rules. It's too late to call your senators on this one, but please let your representatives know what you think about it.