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

[desiv]

Does Franko have permission from the copyright holder to distribute Workbench disks?

If he doesn't, it's illegal.

It's really as simple as that.

That is definitely not true..

This is copyright law.  Nothing is simple..  ;-)

It's most likely a violation of the copyright, but even that could be questionable.

In fact, it could be a legally recommended step if he has already taken appropriate actions to try to contact the legal copyright holder...

I'm not saying he has or hasn't..  Just saying..

desiv

[desiv]

I fail to see how. Regardless whether the copyright owner reacts or not, it still is and will remain an infringement.
Trademarks need to be defended, however.

I didn't say it would alleviate the infringement in and of itself.

I said "it could be a legally recommended step"....

That step would be in trying to get the copyright holder to come forward.
It's not uncommon, however you have to go through the process of making serious attempts to contact the copyright holder first.

The "endgame" would be the contact of the copyright holder to get rights, or a specific deny.

I'm not talking trademarks at all here..

As I said, there is no "simple" in this, and those who think it is, on either side, are likely to be wrong..

desiv

[desiv]

Yes, you are entitled to backup your disk and keep it safe.

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

desiv

[desiv]

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.

Are you sure?  There is a version of the DMCA in Europe..  (EUCD??)
No idea how it compares to the USA version..

desiv

[desiv]

(a) they claim 'Workbench' is their trademark (I understand your argument that you don't believe 'Workbench 2.04', 'Workbench 3.0' or 'Workbench 3.1' to be a trademark, but find that hard to believe - although willing to be corrected)

(b) they claim that they are one of several copyright holders for Workbench 3.1 (as co-authors)

(c) they claim that Amiga Inc are copyright holders for Workbench 3.1 (and I assume Workbench 3.0 and Workbench 2.04 as well)

First, I'd like to say that I've seen antonvaltaz on eab and such for a while.
There does seem to be a proclivity to assume that when someone disagrees with someone else here, they are part of some group/conspiracy.  Not from anyone in particular, this happens often..
Its kind of silly, distracts from the discussion and never makes the accuser look good.

OK, enough of the preaching...  ;-)

a)  I'm lost again..  Did Cloanto's complaint to Franko's hosting mention trademarks at all?  I thought that was just a side-note that was mentioned when someone came across it?  I lose track.. ;-)
b) Part of the discussion is whether or not someone who has the right to distribute also has the legal right (regardless of some comment saying they are required to) send cease and decist letters?
c) I think that's the issue, and Amiga Inc might be the ones who are expected to answer..

desiv

[desiv]

DMCA is not a copyright law, it's an anti DRM circumvention law.

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.."

As there is no DRM to circumvent then DMCA is not applicable.

That is true..
I didn't say it was applicable; it was a bit of a side conversation.
I know this thread is tough enough to follow already.. ;-)

desiv

[desiv]

By "ironic" I mean, I think this only works -against- Cloanto.  If we had a legit "Workbench for Classic" repository, it would be place that clearly said it had no roms and could point to Amiga Forever if you want an emulation solution.

How it is now, if some one is only searching for Workbench disks, "Ironically", they are probably going to end up running into an Amiga Forever torrent anyway!  

"SLAPS FOREHEAD"!!!!

+100  

desiv

[desiv]

Neither of the two things it criminilizes is copyright infringement.

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

You know how silly it sounds to say its not a Copyright law, given it's definition as a law involving copyrighted material (albeit a subset that are encrypted)?

Must just be me..  :roflmao:

desiv

[desiv]

It's not semantics.

I disagree..

According to the government, it is:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

But you know best...  

desiv

[desiv]

So it doesn't give or take away any right to copy, therefore it is not a copyright law.

That's where I think you are wrong..
You are assuming that a "Copyright Law" is ONLY the part of the law that involves copying..

I believe it is any law handled by the Copyright Office that involves Copyrights, not just the actual copying..

Which is why I said it's semantics..
 

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.    

So, if someone disagrees with you, they can't read and have no hope..

Interesting...

I just think you're being silly, but probably fairly intelligent..

desiv

[desiv]

I'm not assuming anything. DMCA doesn't cover copying.

It's handled by the Copyright Office.  It involves copying..
I don't see how you don't get this...

Using DeCSS is a DMCA violation even when you are using original DVD's.

True, and when you use DeCSS, you are making a copy from the encrypted version on DVD to an unencrypted version on your hard disk.
It is a copy...  You can't decrypt withOUT copying...
Hence, why the Copyright Office is involved in DMCA...
 

It's no hope as you're purposefully misunderstanding what the act says because you want to win an argument.

And as I have been saying that you are arguing semantics (allowing us both to have valid opinions), I was specifically NOT trying to win the argument..

However, as you can't even understand that, never mind.  It's not semantics..
You're just wrong..  :argue:    :p:p

Relax...

desiv

[desiv]

It's time to stop letting stupid pride get in the way of the thing that brought us all together.

Yes, and that would be:
Making fun of Atari ST owners for being so stupid that they even made 68K Mac owners looks slightly less stupid themselves??



desiv