AmigaOS on PPC Mac - are there any legal objections?

[DiskDoctor]

Jupp3 wrote:

But on the other hand... ACube wouldn't like it done so it's a matter of an agreement between those parties. If there was no matter of any formal sense, the project should take no more than 3-5 weeks...

Sounds like they should hire you, if you are absolutely sure, you could do all that in such a short period of time.

That does it.

Does 'should take' mean 'absolutely sure that takes' to you?

What the f* makes you think I'm sure about it?? Or even claim this??  Was it said anywhere??  Then I'm missing something???  Why the f* there's always a person generalizing someone's statements thus trying to make an ass of oneself???

And what tha ** makes you think hiring me is any possible??  Should mcdonald hire you for example?  Bollocks!

Are you trying to prove anything or what?  Go hug your kid and tell him you're the best!

What's wrong with you people???

[mongo]

hbarcellos wrote:
Well, probably because if someone release a QEMU version that's capable of running Amiga OS 4 or MorphOS, NO ONE will never ever again spend a penny on something extremely overpriced as a Sam440p board.
PPL would happily buy a brand new Core i7 fully loaded + an Original Amiga OS 4.1 CD and everyone should be happy except the guys who want to earn money out of old hardware...

The software guys don't sell the hardware, so I doubt that is much of a concern.

I think piracy of MorphOS or Amiga OS4 would be a much bigger problem.

[hbarcellos]

You have three sets of users:

1) Guys who already bought AOS4
2) Guys who haven't yet bought AOS4 because they don't have where do run it
3) Guys who will never ever buy AOS4 no matter what.

If you release that QEMU or make AOS4 compatible with something cheap (like old Powermacs), you'll for sure increase piracy on group 3. You would most probably find several versions of AOS4 on torrents all around internet, but, those would never buy it anyway.
On the other way, you'll allow the second group, to spend their money in order to both play with AOS4 and also support the developers...

I can't see a loss relation outside the crappy hardware vendors...

*PS* Look!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227126R

It's cheaper than an incomplete Sam440ep combo!!!!  :idea:

[takemehomegrandma]

Framiga wrote:
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?

Oh I got it the first time. Leeched it, lost it, whatever - it doesn't matter *how* it got out in the wild. Duplicating it and spreading it without the IP owners permission would be a breach against copyright laws, it means stealing in exactly the same way as to duplicate and distribute a music recording, a movie, a book, a computer game, etc. However, you can't claim that "moana is illegal", which is what I replied to.

[Firedawg]

Preface: I'm not an expert in the area of piracy & IPs, just my thinking on the matter.

The Piracy debate will go on forever, but IMO the realized lost for those whose works are being obtained and used on a daily bases for personal/commercial use is without a doubt robbing the IP owner and committing a theft.  My rule of thumb is, if you use it then you should pay for it.  

Now, for those who are in the mindset of advancing various areas of technology by reverse engineering other peoples works to learn and to improve upon them is simply human nature, and should be obtained legally(purchased).  Is it legal? Probably not, well I'm pretty sure its not.  The user agreements that we so quickly read over and click on without understand totally prohibit such activity.  

But, history has shown us that IPs have been stolen since the beginning of time.  You name it and it has been stolen (i.e. weapons tech, recipes, auto designs, software code :-D) and the list goes on.  

So, the question remains, does obtaining certain IPs for research outside the wishes of the IP owner really a bad thing in the scope of the big picture?  Will it force an advancement of the IP?

Should we even consider the economic ramifications of such an uncontrolled breach of IP information and its dissemination, which could financially cripple the future development of an IP if a company cannot secure the market and protect licensed developers and their work?

Something to ponder, my head hurts :crazy: I'm going to get a beer and chill.

 

[Trev]

Not everything in an EULA is enforceable. That's why the suits created the DMCA. Since the DMCA doesn't define "effective technological measures," even loading a bitmap from a specific memory location constitutes an effective technological measure--at least, that's the argument Nintendo used to prevent the import of Gameboy cartridge writers.

Regardless, there's a key exception in the act:

(f) Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

This is US law, of course, but Hyperion and its distributors sell software to US customers.

I'm not exactly sure why software like DeCSS (does anyone even care anymore?) failed in their defense. I'll note that I never heard anyone argue that DVD-Video content is software (it is, which is part of the reason why DVD-Video discs are/were tested for conformance on a wide range of players before being released) and not solely video content.

I've always detested section k for its "automatic gain control" requirement in analog video devices. "Automatic gain control" is Macrovision, and Macrovision is the sole owner and licensor of the technology. So, a US law mandates that all such products sold in the US license and implement technology from a private company, one with ZERO government oversight. I have no idea why an anti-trust case was never pursued.

[itix]

@Framiga

i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ...

Some Amigans are just nuts...

[Framiga]

eh, eh! absolutely! :-)

even if it "seems" ha was coming back from an Amiga related exibition or such.

[DiskDoctor]

takemehomegrandma wrote:

Framiga wrote:
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?

Oh I got it the first time. Leeched it, lost it, whatever - it doesn't matter *how* it got out in the wild. Duplicating it and spreading it without the IP owners permission would be a breach against copyright laws, it means stealing in exactly the same way as to duplicate and distribute a music recording, a movie, a book, a computer game, etc. However, you can't claim that "moana is illegal", which is what I replied to.

Does this belong to a topic?

I was referring to Hyperion's release in Amiga Inc IP prespective.  I do not care about something else.

BTW All you moralizing people keeping repeating that "having Moana is evil" all over: did you manage to get further into the case?  Say since AmigaOS IP is actually being decided in a court now, didn't you ever consider that buying the license now is in fact SUPPORTING one party, not necessarily an owner??

I do not know about the US law here but such cases (software) seem to be following the rule "even if not known whose this is, as long as I have it in my pocket (the source), it's mine".  Great but as said, by buying it now you automatically become a supporter...

Another way - if you see two guys fighting about a wallet, would you with no doubt say "it belongs to the guy having it now"?  Well, that's what you do.

All I want to say is you're off the topic.

[persia]

Somebody put something illegal on TPB!?!?!?  I'm shocked!

takemehomegrandma wrote:

Framiga wrote:
i meant to say that the Moana files were stolen from the author laptop, along the laptop itself ... have you got it now?

Oh I got it the first time. Leeched it, lost it, whatever - it doesn't matter *how* it got out in the wild. Duplicating it and spreading it without the IP owners permission would be a breach against copyright laws, it means stealing in exactly the same way as to duplicate and distribute a music recording, a movie, a book, a computer game, etc. However, you can't claim that "moana is illegal", which is what I replied to.