> > I understand your point, but on the other hand he wasn't pirating
> > the software and he wasn't making illegal copies to sell. He just
> > re-arranged the software so he could view it on his computer.
>
> And that could also just be lawyer talk to get him off the hook....

Here's part of a pretty typical licence

"The Product is licensed to you only for your personal use and enjoyment
and may not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever.  You may
not loan, rent, lease, give, sell.........yadda yadda yadda........"

Fair enough

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Product contains personal
computer software, you may either (a) make one copy of the software
solely for backup or archival purposes, or (b) transfer the software to
a single hard disk provided you keep the original solely for backup
or archival purposes"

So, you go to make your allowed copy and guess what ? The CD is
copy-protected against both CD--CD transfer and CD-disk transfer.
I felt like a hacker searching the web for a CD copier that would get
around the protection. I now have an archive copy, but got a bit pissed
off finding out the trouble (well, not a lot really) I'd have to go to to do
it.
The point is though, if it was so easy to defeat, why bother putting it on
in the first place ?

And are the writers of cloning programs like the one I used in for trouble ?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.