The IPKat has come across a rather worrying story on The Register. RetroCoder, the maker of pseudo-spyware, is relying on its copyright to prevent the providers of internet security programmes from downloading, running or examining its software. In particular, RetroCoder’s SpyMon purports to be designed to inform parents about the online activities of their children. In doing so, it records users’ keystrokes. However, it also has the ability to take screenshots of users’ computers and to shut those computers down remotely. SpyMon’s download page includes the unequivocal statement that

This software package is a copyrighted product. As such the owner of thecopyright expressly forbids any use, disassembly, examinination and/ormodification by anyone who works for or has any relationship or link toan AntiSpy or AntiVirus software house or related company.

If you do produce a program that will affect this softwares ability to performits function then you may have to prove in criminal court that you have notinfringed this warning.

Infingement of a copyright licence is a criminal offence.

The IPKat saw this one coming. Way back when in the days of the Blaster Worm, the cat discussed (in jest) the prospect of IP being used to protect worms, viruses and other nasties. He’s unhappy to see that his prediction seems to be coming true. Merpel says, what about the poor computer users? Don’t they deserve a say here?
COPYRIGHT TO PROTECT SPYWARE? COPYRIGHT TO PROTECT SPYWARE? Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Hi there IP Dog - what has happened to your blog?


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.