most current 300d firmware??

I don't intend to use it in the near future, but I look at the issue this way.
The Win 'operating system' is probably © 70,000 different ways. Does that mean that I can't modify the way my computer operates? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of programs out there that ‘hack’ Win, most provide better utility & security for the user, & no one is calling them illegal.
I own my camera, too, & wouldn't feel guilty to modify it any way I want to.

Canon installed disabled code in the cams. If we're clever enough to enable it, then I see no ethical reason why we shouldn't.

If you want to see more opinions on this matter, do a search on the dpreview forum. The legality of the hack was discussed to an excessive degree...

It's not that they forgot to activate those features. Probably, to save time and to put the camera on the market as fast as possible, they used fragments developed for the 10D. And, I guess, they did not want the DRebel to have all those features to make it more like the film Rebel's line. As a result, our DRebels now have hidden powers

I though that they may change it after they release the 10D replacement. But now I think that there never will be an official firmware upgrade for the DRebel that will activate intentionally disabled features. They want to keep the DRebel as basic, entry level DSLR.

Yeah, the problem is not whether you can hack your own camera. The sticky part is when someone else hacks their camera, and then posts a modified version of Canon's copyrighted code for download. This is a derived work from copyrighted material, and falls under copyright laws in most jurisdictions.

Now, if they wanted to stay more on the legal side, they would post instead a script that would let you take a legal copy of the Canon code you upload from the camera, modify it, and then re-download. And you can upload your firmware, using software you can download for a Linux system, you can browse the camera's internal DOS-based filesystem, and freely copy any of the files in the internal flash.

At that point, Canon wouldn't have anything to say about copyright infringment. Making a backup copy of your camera's firmware for personal use is considered fair use by most sane folks.

The other issue, though, is the license agreement they make you click through when you go to get the latest firmware update off of their web site. Among other things, they forbid you to disassamble, etc.,etc. the code, which (if you believe that click-through agreements are legal, but that's another long-winded debate) would prohibit you from hacking that particular firmware.

The loophole (if there is one) is that you never had to break a seal on your original carton that said that you agreed to not hack your camera code (the version that was shipped in the camera). You did have to break a seal on the software shipped on CD that was included in the carton, but it doesn't include an image of the firmware in the camera. Neither did you have to do any seal-breaking and agreeing to anything when you opened the bags with the manuals, even though there may be a notice in the manual against hacking the camera code (I don't recall, but it's immaterial, because it's not considered proper notice by most sane people).

All in all, Canon's legal department dropped the ball on this. Anyone that got a camera with the current firmware in it already, could conceiveably download a patches-only script from someone, and use it to patch his own camera (or come up with hacks of their own), and Canon legal would have a hard time proving anything criminal in court.

And frankly, even a big company like Canon can ill-afford to treat their customer like criminals (unlike the RIAA and the MPAA), and stay in business for very long.

My advice is, do what you like to your own camera, but don't go waving it around . I would think it quite unlikely that Canon will send their corporate thugs to your door.