I've screwed up! Can someone help me with the first disk of Escom WB3.1?

[motorollin]

Just use any Workbench. It doesn't matter whether it's the Escom one or not. You're only using it to create your OS3.9 emergency disk. After that you will never need the 3.1 disks again.

--
moto

[motorollin]

kidkoala wrote:
I need it for my a600 :)by the way I will be getting a 630/40 next week in the mail ..is it no prob. to install 3.9 on it? is it any point considering the week graphics of ecs?

It will run on that spec, but it won't be particularly fast.

kidkoala wrote:
i will be installing debian on it anyway, for fun ofcourse, does anyone know if getting a boot-menu with amigaos and debian is difficult/impossible?

You run a command under AmigaDOS to launch Linux m68k. So you could have a boot menu in your startup-sequence which either continues with the Amiga SS, or runs the Linux bootloader.

--
moto

[motorollin]

guru-666 wrote:
The stuff you buy form amigaKit is just NOS!
hello almost 2007 here.

So what? I don't see your point here.

--
moto

[motorollin]

guru-666 wrote:
You can't OFFICIALY/leagaly buy OS3.1 anymore.....

Rubbish. AmigaKit (and probably other retailers) sell original OS3.1 sets which came from the producers of the OS. They are perfectly "official" and "legal".

guru-666 wrote:
So sharing the disk is not realy a crime, IMO.

Again, rubbish. Just because you think software does not exist "officially", that doesn't make it legal to distribute it in ways which infringe the rights of the copyright holder.

guru-666 wrote:
Buying it form amigaKit is the same as buying it of ebay. ( I don't think they are licensed by amiga.inc)

Yes it is the same. What's your point?

[EDIT]
Please read the site policy before you start posting messages saying you think it's ok to pirate software.
[/EDIT]

--
moto

[motorollin]

Those dates may seem like a long time ago now, but in legal terms the software is still copyrighted, so it is still technically illegal to copy them.

Note that I'm not expressing my personal opinion here. I'm just stating legal fact.

--
moto

[motorollin]

kidkoala wrote:
ok, but who would hypothetically sue me for it now?

Realistically: nobody. As I said, I'm not stating an opinion about piracy one way or another. I'm just stating the legal facts because they are different to guru-666's incorrect opinion.

kidkoala wrote:
who owns all the amiga-licences and rights now adays?

No idea :-) AInc?

--
moto

[motorollin]

guru-666 wrote:
@motorilin
My point is simple...

It's no piracy to help a brother that owns an amiga (that presumably came with os disks when bought origionaly) with a  disk that he stupidly wrote over!

I agree with you there. What I don't agree with is your statement that piracy is ok if you don't think the item in question is available "officially" any more.

guru-666 wrote:
Hell I can donate and transfer my licences to anybody I want, and I own lots of os3.1 licenses!  Thats the same thing amiagkit is doing with his stuff or anybody selling the disks on ebay.  

It's only the same if you give your original copy to the person to whom you "transfer your license".

guru-666 wrote:
I have ready the guildlines(have you?).

Yes thank you.

guru-666 wrote:
I actualy CAN'T pirate them, since I own them all from 1.0 up on mint origional disks!

Why does ownership negate piracy? If you make a copy and give it to somebody illegally, it is still piracy even if you personally own the license.

guru-666 wrote:
(do you?)

Yes, for the OSs that I use.

guru-666 wrote:
What are you telling me?  I can't have an opinion that is differnet from your narrow minded perspetive, or else?

I didn't say that. I was just correcting the mistakes you made in your previous post. You are free to have any opinion you want, but that doesn't make them legal.

guru-666 wrote:
Because I don't agree with you. I don't have to, I can think that you are stark raving mad, so what.

Fine.

guru-666 wrote:
You may even be wrong or incorrect, sinse i doubt you know more about the situation than I.

Why do you say that?

--
moto

[motorollin]

guru-666 wrote:
Quote:

    kidkoala wrote:
    ok, but who would hypothetically sue me for it now?


Realistically: nobody.


LOL  :laughing:  :juggler:  :insane:

wow so like then we can just copy the hell out of os3.1 by your own words!  

Don't dare to put words in my mouth. I didn't condone piracy in what I said. I just said that in all likelihood there would be no legal repercussions to giving someone a copy of 3.1. I did NOT state that it was right or legal!

guru-666 wrote:
Hell I can donate and transfer my licences to anybody I want, and I own lots of os3.1 licenses! Thats the same thing amiagkit is doing with his stuff or anybody selling the disks on ebay.


It's only the same if you give your original copy to the person to whom you "transfer your license"."


I can make a copy and toss the origional if I want! I still own it untill i give it to sombody else!

True.

guru-666 wrote:
BTW who cares, becasue like I pointed out, every single amiga sold came with the OS, so if you own the box (a1200 or 4000).....

Personally, I agree with this statement. But discussion of piracy (and that is what was discussed) is not allowed *on this site*.

guru-666 wrote:
I have no idea why you even think there is anything about piracy going on..... or where you can official buy this stuff right now...

In this case I don't. But I object to some of the statements you made surrounding legality of distributing software which you don't think is available any more.

guru-666 wrote:
anyway, you don't know who owns os3.1, I do, it's amiga.inc (or so they claim), I don't see them selling it righ now, do you?

It is for sale from Amigakit.

--
moto

[motorollin]

guru-666 wrote:
I'm in california,

Funny, judging by your writing style I would have placed you somewhere in Europe :-) Are you native to CA?

guru-666 wrote:
maybe rouse some of the self-a-pointed copy write enforcers out there!  Some of them are really out of touch!
 :-D  :laughing:

I assume you mean me? :-) I'm not looking to enforce anything. The reason I reacted to your postings was because they somewhat violated the terms of the site. I actually agree with some of the things you said (but not others), but discussion of distribution of copyrighted material is not permitted on this site as it may jeapordise the site.

It's not personal, just lots of people here are very protective of our community :-)

--
moto