Subject: Re: A time for action...
Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!nnrp1.sbc.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <398463FF.6AB69E@swbell.net>
From: Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
Reply-To: rubywand@swbell.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
References: <397f0a3d$1@hal.grnco.net> <397F1AFE.878E1F96@swbell.net> <397f20d3$1@hal.grnco.net> <397F6350.D3338C1D@swbell.net> <39803cca$1@hal.grnco.net> <39805C1C.9DD35A49@inetnebr.com> <3980831A.68FA4F6E@swbell.net> <cU%f5.254$Ib7.852131@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net> <3982A88C.85BC844C@swbell.net> <39838D93.FE7CCB38@inetnebr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 223
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:21:03 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.227.21
X-Complaints-To: abuse@swbell.net
X-Trace: nnrp1.sbc.net 964977612 207.193.227.21 (Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:20:12 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:20:12 CDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services



Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
> 
> Rubywand wrote:
> 
> >
> >      Come to think of it, some of QC's postings are kind of fun to read.
> 
> It's the big one Janet!! Where's my nitro!  ;-)
>

Hi, Janet!

Tell him to check his pockets (carefully).


TBO


 
> >
> >
> >      Getting back to the issue ... found your posting-- the one which Roy seems
> > to think establishes the right of a machine owner to transfer and use the ROM
> > code on an emulator.
> >
> >      First, you cite the creation of Section 117 and summarize it as follows:
> 
> > <snip>
> 
> My turn to give Jeff heart failure ;-)

     Go for it!

> 
> >
> > o- It confirms the within-machine interpretation of Section 117.
> >
> > o- It strongly implies that a correct application of the copied ROM code on a
> > non-PlayStation machine must fall under Fair Use limitations.
> >
> >      The Connectrix application allows designers to study program operation
> > parameters-- e.g. use of stacks, RAM requirements, sound interface register
> > values, etc.. It does _not_ allow game players to substitute an emulator using
> > PlayStation ROM code to run PlayStation software.
> >
> >      The IIgs ROM is part of an Apple IIgs computer. You can use the ROM code as
> > necessary to run programs on the IIgs. There is no need to transfer IIgs ROM code
> > to a Mac or PC for use with an emulator in order to use IIgs software on the
> > IIgs.
> >
> >      Clearly, owning a IIgs does not convey a right to transfer IIgs ROM code to
> > another machine, let along to use the ROM code with an emulator for the purpose
> > of running IIgs software.
> 
> If you are correct, not conceding that you are - yet, that would mean then, that the
> only way to give the IIGS further life, without Apple's giving the right to their
> code and chips, is Bill Malcom's PPC turbo card idea. (Or, if someone does manufactor
> a 65832, which isn't likely) Since it's only emulation is of a 65816, it would
> legally use the IIGS's hardware and firmware, even if the latter is mapped into the
> RAM of the turbo card, since that is still physically in the IIGS. Interesting. I'm
> salivating at the idea of this card. I just wish I knew enough about hardware to
> help him.
>

     The "PPC turbo card" sounds like an interesting idea. Is there a web site for the
project?

     My inclination is to pretty much stop trying to patch on cards to the IIgs and
move the locus of upgrades to a new, separate case. Apple's permission to use their ROM
code in this IIgs expansion/upgrade module would not be required because we would not
especially want to use their ROM code in the expansion.

     The GS expansion module (GS/XM) would be a 'box' offering high-speed 65C816
functionality with large RAM, SVGA video, advanced sound, Slots, ..., and its own
monitor in ROM. The IIgs would act as a 'front end' and would gain VGA output of
current displays plus access to 'XM resources.

     The idea is that, eventually, most new software would run from the module under,
perhaps, an improved ProDOS. For new users who do not wish to look for a IIgs (or who
can not find one for sale) there could be a simple 'front end' card to handle tasks
like KB and mouse I/O. These users would not be able to run original-GS software
(except, possible, in some kind of emulation mode on the 'XM).


> >
> >
> >      Besides legal arguments, there is 'common sense'. Were the above sort of ROM
> > transfer not a copyright violation, what would keep a Mac clone maker from wiping
> > Apple out of the important business and institutional markets?
> >
> >      Suppose the Mork is a faster, cheaper Mac clone which guarantees 100% Mac
> > compatibility once you connect a handy cable and suck over the Mac's ROM code to
> > a flash ROM. A large business or university could buy one genuine Mac and, then,
> > save a fortune by going with the faster, cheaper Morks.
> 
> Yet, I do remember the "Hackintosh" as promoted by Computer Shopper - taking Mac
> motherboards and building new machines around them (and what about taking the ROMs
> off those older or damaged motherboards and putting them in your own newly designed
> motherboard - sounds like too much work to me.)
>

     Me, too. The Mork, however, is a whole different ball game.

     For years, we had Mac cloners who, despite being under Apple's thumb, seemed to
make a profit. If the owner of a machine can transfer its ROM code to another,
different machine and use it there in such a way as to substitute for the original
machine without violating any copyrights, then, any cloner could blow off Apple
approval and sell Morks like hot cakes.

     It should be obvious that the reason no cloner has tried such a sure-win strategy
is that their users would be in violation of Apple Mac ROM copyrights and the cloner
would be involved in a conspiracy to violate the copyrights.


> >
> >
> >      Aside from the above (supposedly lawful) situation, there would be thousands
> > of individual users buying Morks and getting the Mac ROM code from friends or
> > warez sites. Apple Computer would soon be out of business.
> >
> >
> >      Of course, it has been nearly 15 years since release of the IIgs. The ROM
> > code is generally believed to have no significant commercial value; and, Apple
> > does not appear to mind having it transferred, downloaded from the net, etc. and
> > used on emulators running on Macs and PC's. Nevertheless, such transfers and uses
> > are copyright violations.
> 
> And therefore illegal.

     That would depend upon whether or not Apple could demonstrate a genuine commercial
loss. So far, Apple does not seem to mind; and, no law enforcement authority seems to
believe that a significant (if any) real loss is occurring under current distribution
arrangements.

     If the IIgs ROM has no significant commercial value, all you have is a technical
violation of the copyright. There are statutes which prohibit violations where there is
commercial gain to a violator and/or significant loss to the rights owner. There
appears to be no statute which prohibits all copyright violations (e.g. regardless of
the absence of loss or presence of gain to the rights owner).

     To insist that any situation which can, technically, be classed as a property
rights violation, is illegal makes the term "illegal" into an absurdity. You find that
walking across the corner of a lawn to get to a bus stop is illegal. So is watering a
neighbor's lawn whose sprinkler system fails while he/she is on vacation. The listing
of so-called "illegal" behaviors in which everyone engages would be virtually endless.

    "Illegal" must mean engaging in an activity actually prohibited by Law. A simple
grant of exclusive copy rights creates a property. The grant itself does not prohibit
unauthorized copying any more than a car title prohibits auto vandalism. That is why
anti-piracy, etc. statutes had to be created.



> Please note however, that Henrik has said that he asked for
> and received permission from Apple executives, in Europe and America. Would that
> stand up in court? I don't know. Of course, if they wanted to be nasty, Apple could
> say that the legal dept. hadn't signed off on it....

     This is what Henrik posted here (07/12/2000):

>>
We have asked Apple, and they know what Bernie is, where the ROM dumps may come from
and where to reach us. They, that is the chef of European Licensing and his counterpart
in Cupertino, have also told us that it's ok with them and they do not object. For me
that means: case closed.
  
 - henrik
<<

     It seems fair to say that the "ok" Henrik says he received from supposedly
responsible Apple authorities could work as a grant of right to distribute the ROM code
(although not in any download which includes Bernie). 

     Since Henrik is already on the record (on Csa2) as stating that he has Apple's
okay to suggest that users download or transfer the IIgs ROM code, he might as well
include a brief statement to this effect on the same page which tells users where to go
for the download.

     Even better would be to add the 'okay' statement and offer the ROM code for
separate download from his own site. (In any case, he should scrap the nonsense about
GS ownership conveying a right to rip off the ROM code for use with his emulator. That
sort of misinformation casts doubt upon everything else on the Bernie site.)

     So, Henrik does not appear to have any significant legal problems.

     What he does have is vogon membership problems. Since the okay from Apple was
certainly supposed to be private and confidential, he has already 'pushed the envelope'
on Apple tolerance. Publishing the actual text of the okay along with names of Apple
authorities who gave it would be asking for trouble. Thus, lacking public verifiable
permission to promote ROM ripping, he is, according to vogon standards, engaged in
theft, law breaking, and, yes, Piracy!.

     His vogon pizza buddies, of course, never attacked his site for piracy. They did
not care ... _until_ their hypocrisy was exposed. Now, the Bernie site is an open
reminder that those who call users "pirates" for downloading ancient games from Asimov
and similar sites always manage to excuse "piracy" when they do it.


> 
> >
> >
> >     _IF_, against all logic and common sense, one insists that any technical
> > copyright violation is Evil, then, one should not promote such violations. One
> > should not, on the one hand, condemn users who download ancient, zero-value
> > software
> 
> Who would download zero value software? If it has no value at all, you wouldn't go to
> the trouble of downloading, would you?
 ....

     When copyright law and associated anti-piracy statutes speak of "value", the
reference is to commercial value. It is highly doubtful that any of the ancient
commercial software offered on sites like Asimov could be sold at anything like the
costs of production, marketing, and distribution. That is, it can not be sold at a
profit. Such an item is said to have no commercial value or "zero value".

     As you say, the fact that there is no commercial market for some old game does not
mean that many users do not enjoy playing it or value it highly. And, as long as the
game is distributed and played, the game maker can benefit from the free publicity.



Rubywand