Workbench Disk Sets... What Would Be The Best Way To Obtain Them...

[psxphill]

This leaves the few vendors still selling physical ROM:s and WB floppy disks as the sole legit way of getting hold of them. Truly ridiculous.

And there is no guarantee that what they are selling is legitimate.
 
Maybe it's because I bought the 3.1 upgrade for my a500 when it came out & I bought an Amiga Technologies 1200 that came with 3.1 that I don't see this as a huge issue. Also by allowing someone to legally produce new disks it will actually decrease the value of my property.
 
What is ridiculous is that nobody wants to pirate the disks, but they don't want to spend money on them either. If I offered my 3.1 upgrade for the price I paid plus inflation then I don't think I'd get any offers, but that is what it basically cost me.

[psxphill]

@psxphill
 
I can assure you that the Workbench disks and ROMs we sell are legitimate and genuine. Our ROMs are Mask ROMs, not EEPROMs which we have paid significant costs to obtain this surplus stock:

I wasn't making a specific accusation, although if you want some examples of eproms being sold on ebay:
 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AMIGA-600-Used-Kickstart-Rom-3-1-version-40-63-/270741781951?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f0977bdbf
 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AMIGA-500-kickstart-Rom-3-1-mother-board-rev-6A-/220762490258?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3366784592
 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AMIGA-500-kickstart-Rom-3-1-mother-board-rev-3-5-/270734867677?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f090e3cdd
 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AMIGA-1200-KICKSTART-ROM-3-1-VER-40-68-USED-WORK-/220771996982?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3367095536
 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AMIGA-2000-kickstart-Rom-3-1-VER-40-63-USED-WORKING-/270745000825?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f09a8db79
 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AMIGA-3000-kickstart-Rom-3-1-Ver-40-68-used-working-/220743599028?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33655803b4
 
and this is where they are "honest" and posting a picture of an eprom.
 

I'm half joking and am half serious. How can we be certain what you are selling is legal? Do you have some documentation? Where do the pirate reporting nazis stop?

 
I might still have the original receipt from the 90's, I'd have to check. It's boxed with all manuals, disks, mask rom etc.
 
If someone wants to go to the hassle and expense of getting the manuals, boxes, disks printed & mask roms created then it's going to be difficult to tell unless you buy it & get an expert to identify it. I can't imagine that anyone would bother.

[psxphill]

Now the question is, how "right" is it for me to transfer a copy of a ROM and Workench onto one of my FPGA Amigas (C-One, Minimig, Chameleon64 and FPGA Arcade)?

Legally:
 
Depends on where you live. In the US it's completely legal for you to dump a rom and disks and then use it in an fpga amiga, it would come under fair use. You would have trouble distributing it so others could do the same, if someone noticed who held the copyright.
 
In the UK it's different, we don't have laws that allow such behavior at all. However you don't get the police knocking on your door if you're making a copy of something you own for personal use. If you ended up in court then the case would get dismissed for time wasting.
 
Morally:
 
Yes, why not?

[psxphill]

Well so that you can understand it NamesCo's legal dept who I believe have more knowledge than you or I in this department would disagree with you on that in this particular case...

There isn't much to know about copyright. If you don't have a license then you can't distribute a copyright work. Just because you can't find someone to give you a license is no excuse.
 
If they know more than that, then what they know is probably wrong.

[psxphill]

(Strange how if Copyright laws are so simple that court cases can drag on for years before being resolved...)

Actually I'm the UK. Our copyright law is much simpler than the US. We have no such thing as fair use in law, if you don't have permission then it's wrong. However you just don't end up in court for minor infrigement.
 
Copyright cases drag on when the defendant claims they created the copyright work. This is not that type of case.
 

You are wrong:
There is much more than that. For example there is copyright expiration, fair use, orphaned worK, etc.. And, the fact that law regarding copyright varies from country to country.

It hasn't expired, it's not fair use. Internation copyright is generally consistent. However yes it would be legal in china.

[psxphill]

Second, if stuff was given to PD, ie, Petro gives Workbench 3.0 to PD in 1995, then so what if Cloanto has a agreement a year prior to distribute disks? They can still distribute them fine. We can still get 3.0 free per Petro. Where is the conflict?

There is no way that Petro would have had the authority to release it in the public domain. Besides he'd have had to release the disks in such a way that they didn't assert copyright. As all of the disks I've ever seen claim that commodore or amiga technologies assert their copyright, I can't see how they are in the public domain.

[psxphill]

At least in the US, anyone is allowed to make and use a backup of any software they are legally entitled to, regardless of what it says in the packaging.

Yes, you are entitled to backup your disk and keep it safe. You can't copy someone elses disk and you can't give the disk to anyone else.
 
But I don't see how thats relevant to someone wanting to distribute adf's on a web site.

[psxphill]

Does he have the legal right? I DON'T KNOW? Do you know. No you don't.
 
The only one that would know may be the Copyright holder! If they disagree. (Which as this point they haven't said they do). Then they could either tell Franko, or his ISP, or just take him to court.
 
So far it appears the Copyright holders agrees that Franko does have a right to distribute the disks. Who are you to say otherwise exactly?

If you don't know if you have the legal right, then you don't.
 
You require express permission, saying you couldn't contact the copyright holder is not good enough.
 
Otherwise you could say you tried asking Microsoft whether you could copy Windows but when you went to the local bus station they didn't have a representative there to ask & when you stood there with a sign around your kneck all day nobody told you that you couldn't. A bit extreme, but Franko has been just as effective.

[psxphill]

If they own the original also, its irrelevant who's fingers actually pushed the copy button. They are entitled to use a backup, period...
 
Also, if you read the whole thread, you would see why it's relevant.

Actually it is relevant who's finger pushes the copy button in US fair use law.
 
I have read the whole thread, the reason it's not relevant is that in no way can you class distributing copyright works as fair use. Fair use covers you being able to make a backup of your own disk for yourself, it doesn't cover you making a backup for others. If you think I'm wrong then go read the law and show me.

[psxphill]

Ahhhh! The copyright mafia so knowledgeable about crap they are the true legal expert that the whole world looks to.... i used to have a measure of respect for some people here (not talking about Franko btw) but now i see them as sheep and morons regurgitating the same things over and over again how every sad.
Craptos only have right when it come to their stupid EMULATION package (that i have said elsewhere you can do better in 5 secs and for free). They have no right on REAL CLASSIC AMIGA hardware.

I'm not a legal expert, but seriously the amount of crap in this thread is ridiculous. Referring to cloanto as "craptos" is about as moronic as referring to microsoft as "micro$oft" or "microsucks" (don't forget the equally inane "winblows" instead of windows). Yeah your lack of intelligence really scares me.
 
So cloanto has a right to protect workbench disks used for emulation and not real amiga hardware? Well my real amiga can't boot off adf's, only emulators can. So does it really come as a suprise that they would want to stop you distributing adf's?
 
If you were selling floppy disks with pirate copies of workbench on then cloanto wouldn't care.

[psxphill]

I'm sure EU law dictates you are allowed to make a backup and use a backup of ALL software and this right supersedes all other rights a seller may impose on you.

Nope
 

Not always..
Just ask RealNetworks...
DMCA...
 
desiv

DMCA is not a copyright law, it's an anti DRM circumvention law. As there is no DRM to circumvent then DMCA is not applicable.
 

You forgot to mention that there is the HXC floppy emulator which makes it possible to boot, use, and install amiga software using adfs.

I didn't forget it. As the word "emulator" is in that sentence then I would expect that it falls within Cloanto's emulator use.
 

Not going to argue grey areas with you, I simply don't care.
I'll offer physical copies via mail for anyone who requests them, and I'll never hear a word from Cloanto or Amiga Inc. or anyone else.

I don't care what you do in real life. I don't think that Cloanto will care either as it doesn't have anything to do with emulation and Amiga Inc (or whoever turns out to own the copyright) will have better things to do. However the discussion is about the legality of offering adf's for download, not whether anything bad will happen if you do.
 

And realistically, does anyone who needs a Workbench ADF, for whatever purpose, really have that much difficulty in acquiring it for free with Google's help?

That doesn't solve Franko's problem, but it is the best way of obtaining adf's.
 
It doesn't solve the problem of people who need real disks, however that is a completely different situation with it's own pitfalls. While one would imagine that it's safe to offer the disks as they would have been licensed already, how do you make sure someone isn't upgrading their machine?
 
Providing someone with a set of workbench 3.1 disks and a kickstart rom is piracy & will steal sales from the few remaining dealers.

[psxphill]

er.. yes it is copyright law...
It's the Digital Millenium Copyright Act... From Wikipedia:
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law.."

If you read further:
 
"It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself."
 
Neither of the two things it criminilizes is copyright infringement.
 
It does also create a safe harbour for sites that remove infringing files if removed after receiving a DMCA takedown notice. If they ignore the request then they aren't covered by the safe harbour and will be liable to prosecution under normal copyright law. This is why sites outside the US honour DMCA take down notices, if they ignore it then their local law applies anyway. However it neither adds or removes anything to copyright law about what constitutes an infringement.
 
So it's not actually a copyright law. The act wasn't very well written.
 

And of course DMCA doesn't apply to Franko as foreign laws are not enforceable in Scotland...

No, but EUCD does apply to Franko & it's worse than DMCA.

[psxphill]

As I say both of them are very badly written pieces of legislation but at least with EUCD you get the opportunity to defend yourself first...

EUCD doesn't come into it, it doesn't offer any safe haven.
 
This part of the DMCA is like a plee bargain, it's a get out of jail free card for the site. It's in their interest to blindly take it, if they fight it then the consequences for them are significantly higher than just deleting your files (where the consequences are nothing).
 
Basically whether they ask you or not is irrelevant. You can't really contest it either, you knowingly infringed on copyright. All you are whinging about is how unfair it is that you can't get away with breaking the law. I won't lose any sleep over that.

[psxphill]

You're arguing semantics..
It's a law involving the right to copy certain copyrighted material..

It's not semantics. Copyright law allows the copyright holder to control when copying takes place.
 
DMCA covers removing DRM, even if you haven't infringed on anyones copyright. Your copying might be fair use, but you still can't bypass the DRM.
 
DMCA doesn't give or take away any copyright rights. The safe haven doesn't give anyone a right to copy either, it just says that if they take down copyright infringing files then they won't be prosecuted. This is completely different from them having any rights.

[psxphill]

I disagree..
 
According to the government, it is:
 
www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
 
But you know best...

Thanks for acknowledging that, it's the first intelligent thing you've said.
 
The copyright office is involved in it, circumvention of access control to copyright works is covered by it. However the only part that is involved with copyright infringement is the safe haven, which limits liability and doesn't give any rights to copying.
 
So it doesn't give or take away any right to copy, therefore it is not a copyright law.
 
If you don't get it after I've repeatedly explained it, then there is no hope.
Maybe you could try reading the pdf, but it says the same things with more words.