Amiga PCs on the way....

[vidarh]

Right, this isn't a religion. So why would someone pay a premium for a Cybernet Zero footprint PC with a brand label slapped on it?

People pay extra to get labels they like on a product all the time. Why would computers be any different?

[runequester]

That is how it legally is. That doesn't mean that we all agree that is how it should be. Nor has it been like that for very long.

Copyright as it became inshrined in law in the US and most of Europe at least, was intended to provide a time limited incentive in order to encourage innovation and creation. Once it does not serve that purpose, it may still legally be wrong to reuse a work, but morally there is no longer any need for the work to be protected and there's little reason to be concerned about it.

It may not have been a very classy move, nor legal, but on the other hand I completely fail to get even slightly annoyed that someone took an image that has been floating around for years, that has minimal commercial value for the original artist, and put it on their site after allegedly trying to contact him and failing to get a response.

He's taking a legal risk, and that is all on him.

I'm even conflicted about the removal/restoration of the artists name. On one hand it seems disrespectful. On the other hand, is it better to leave the name on if the artist may possibly object to being associated with a commercial venture?

In many countries, such as Norway since that's the case I know best, copyrights and creators rights are separate. That is, you can give/sell/rent copyrights, but creators right *always* remains with the creator of a work, and they include both the absolute right to get credit for your work if you wish, but also the right to have your name taken *off* a work that you feel have been altered or used in such a way that it does not reflect you.

Arguably, in some cases, if you are prepared to take the risk of using a work you have not secured rights t - whether or not that is justified - it may be morally the right thing to do to consider whether or not to remove the name of the creator of the work as long as you don't know the wishes of the creator of the work.

As for restoring it - since the community has in this case plastered the name all over the place, that pretty much removed any reason to keep the name off the image.

Frankly, unless Marko Hirv shows up and raises hell over the abuse of the image, I don't see the point of caring about this.

Do you think he'd be as cavalier about me putting amiga stickers on some PC's I build myself, and selling them as CommodoreUSA ?

[Belial6]

Do you think he'd be as cavalier about me putting amiga stickers on some PC's I build myself, and selling them as CommodoreUSA ?

Yes.  I do.  I think he would either just ignore you and not feel bad about it, or call you up and hash out a deal where you paid to continue doing you rebadging.  Either way I don't think he would be upset about it in the slightest.  He would see it as pretty standard in the business world, and he would be right.

[Iggy]

Clearly you didn't bother reading the response directed at you.

Your (and his) "point" is utter bunkum.

Even ignoring for the moment that Amiga.inc have stated in the past that there is no issue with AO,  Trademarks do not work that way.

Oh, you can here for an argument. Well try and actually have a point, rather than just a negative response.

As to his point, "bunkum" or not, he did pay to use Amiga and Commodore.

Do I think there's a problem with Amiga.org's use of the term Amiga? Of course not (if you'd read my response on this matter).

As to taking sides in this, I personally can't because I consider it to be a dead issue. The Amiga name was sold like the commodity it is.

Personally, as a MorphOS user, I don't currently use and do not ever expect to use anything with an Amiga label (be it an OS or a computer).
But, its interesting seeing all of you get up in arms over the matter.

[runequester]

Yes.  I do.  I think he would either just ignore you and not feel bad about it, or call you up and hash out a deal where you paid to continue doing you rebadging.  Either way I don't think he would be upset about it in the slightest.  He would see it as pretty standard in the business world, and he would be right.

Maybe things are different if you run a theoretical business on the internet, but I can assure you that in the corporate world where money is changing hands and identity has monetary value, nobody thinks like that.

[Belial6]

Maybe things are different if you run a theoretical business on the internet, but I can assure you that in the corporate world where money is changing hands and identity has monetary value, nobody thinks like that.

The rebadging of products and licensing of trademarks that happen all the time proves beyond a shadow otherwise.

[runequester]

The rebadging of products and licensing of trademarks that happen all the time proves beyond a shadow otherwise.

If a product is licensed, then money is changing hands and the lawyers are happy.

Give it a shot though. Buy some cheap chinese knock off mp3 players, brand them as ipods, call your company "apple" and start selling them.

Let me know how that works out.

[Iggy]

If a product is licensed, then money is changing hands and the lawyers are happy.

Give it a shot though. Buy some cheap chinese knock off mp3 players, brand them as ipods, call your company "apple" and start selling them.

Let me know how that works out.

I don't want to be the one to break this to you, but Apple hardware generally is made in China with cheap labor (haven't you heard about Foxconn's employee suicide problems).

And that's not really to the point. If Apple was out of business and a holding company had the brand name in its assets, I'm sure you could work out a deal to brand your products as Apples.

[runequester]

I don't want to be the one to break this to you, but Apple hardware generally is made in China with cheap labor (haven't you heard about Foxconn's employee suicide problems).

Most consumer electronics in the west are built that way. Its the only way to push the prices down.

It's entirely irrelevant to the point. Substitute any other company name if you will.

And that's not really to the point. If Apple was out of business and a holding company had the brand name in its assets, I'm sure you could work out a deal to brand your products as Apples.

You would do this by contacting the holding company first, and working out a deal.
Appropriating IP and then asking if its okay later tends to lead to lawyers.


Of course, at this moment, we don't even know if the amiga.inc deal was legal to begin with. Hyperion seems to disagree but we'll see what comes out of that.

[Iggy]

Most consumer electronics in the west are built that way. Its the only way to push the prices down.

It's entirely irrelevant to the point. Substitute any other company name if you will.



You would do this by contacting the holding company first, and working out a deal.
Appropriating IP and then asking if its okay later tends to lead to lawyers.


Of course, at this moment, we don't even know if the amiga.inc deal was legal to begin with. Hyperion seems to disagree but we'll see what comes out of that.

That is a fair point. According to Altman, when he first started using the Commodore name his license (from a company that apparently was only a licensee itself, and then only for game products) wasn't valid for selling computers. He has since negotiated a license with the proper company and his license for the Amiga name is from Bill McEwen at Amiga Inc.

Further, he's offered to answer any questions we have (just call) and he's perfectly willing to produce his licensing agreements. Finally, as I've said before, he's stated that he'd like to pay for the use of the artwork everyone is so upset by. So all this furor over assumed improprieties is nonsense.

[the_leander]

That is a fair point. According to Altman, when he first started using the Commodore name his license (from a company that apparently was only a licensee itself, and then only for game products) wasn't valid for selling computers. He has since negotiated a license with the proper company and his license for the Amiga name is from Bill McEwen at Amiga Inc.

You know, sooner or later he's going to try that with a company which has lawyers and teeth.

And he is going to get absolutely mauled.

As for my wanting an argument, I was talking to someone else in the thread, not you. Wind your neck in.

Finally LOL@Belia's ideas about Trademark.

You do realise that Apple, amongst others have been lobbying for years about Chinese companies producing and selling knock-offs of their kit, right?

[Boudicca]

Heres my pennies worth.

Its a name ! It's a brand ! Its not that important ! and the Amiga PC will just fail......even if it did....once a few computers have been sold, Mr Comode will just get sued by Amiga.Inc because they have found a better bedfellow to fleece.

If the Amiga name is so precious....get out ya cheque book or go get someone else's cheque book and buy the bloody thing!

Even then it ain't worth the paper its written on....get over it.

The only thing worth anything is the OS and thats not Amiga stINCs anymore.

Let them build Amiga PC's if they make a success of it, good luck to them, so far it and commodore have been a bit of a boulder round every other pc vendors neck who have tried to cash in....

Everyone knows its a sacred cow and trying to rebrand it on everything just makes a stock room full of used coffee coasters.

[billt]

Barry's rant reminds me of a story. A kid wanted a bicycle, and asked his parents for it as a gift, but he did not get one. So he stole one and asked god for forgiveness.

OK, so that's doable, and there's examples where courts ruled for the theives, that don't make it something that everyone needs to be happy about. You should try a little harder to not piss off those who you'd like as customers. As we're only a small bunch now, we kindof stick together, when we're not arguing over which color rules, and are somewhat protective of our friends.

So you can't contact the guy. In situations like this, morality says that a lack of an explicit yes means no. That doesn't mean we should be happy that you steal it and leave it to him to sue you later.

[Belial6]

You know, sooner or later he's going to try that with a company which has lawyers and teeth.

And he is going to get absolutely mauled.

As for my wanting an argument, I was talking to someone else in the thread, not you. Wind your neck in.

Finally LOL@Belia's ideas about Trademark.

You do realise that Apple, amongst others have been lobbying for years about Chinese companies producing and selling knock-offs of their kit, right?

Seriously, have you never heard of Asprin?  

Also, you are posting in a public forum.  Telling a member of the forum that he shouldn't be getting involved in the discussion is ridiculous.

The fact is, he is NOT going to get mauled.  The worst he is going to get is a sternly written letter from the other parties lawyer.  You are completely delusional about how these things work.

[eb15]

Sales volume and profits is the only thing that will determine the outcome of this exercise.  About the only thing a small upstart company like this could do for AROS is supply a few machines and whatever hardware info they get from their suppliers to dedicated AROS developers, and some website links to the AROS related sites for buyers of their machines to visit.

[the_leander]

Seriously, have you never heard of Asprin?  

Apparently you haven't. Aspirin lost its trademark as part of Germany's war reparations after WW1.

Last I checked, Commodore was a company that went bankrupt and as cool as the Amiga was, doesn't nearly come into the same level of ubiquity as Apirin and it's derivatives.

Also, the USA, whilst it may have lost Vietnam, has never been pulverised into submission on its own turf AFAIK.

Also, you are posting in a public forum.  Telling a member of the forum that he shouldn't be getting involved in the discussion is ridiculous.

I told him to wind his neck in because the very thing he was having a pop at me over had been answered in a post specifically replying to him. He may have missed it, but as it was he looked a little silly responding to something said that was unrelated to him.

As for you: pot, kettle, black.

The fact is, he is NOT going to get mauled.  The worst he is going to get is a sternly written letter from the other parties lawyer.  

Apple have form for spanking small companies that commit acts of copyright infringement against them. As do most large multinationals. Watch Slashdot for any length of time and you'll see any number of stories under about big companies going after smaller ones that have taken liberties with their IP.

They'll ignore him now most likely, but the moment they see him turn a half decent profit using their IP, he is royally boned.

You are completely delusional about how these things work.

I'm sorry, I'm still waiting for your backing up of your baseless ad hom against everyone here who disagreed with you on the previous threads about being hypocrites.