Re: A time for action...

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

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!  ;-)

>
>
>      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 ;-)

>
> 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.

>
>
>      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.)

>
>
>      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. 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....

>
>
>     _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? If I were to use Napster to download music, I
wouldn't download the stuff that my sons' listen to... why? It is "zero-value" music.
So then, if might be hard to figure out the market value of this software, but the
fact that people do go to the trouble to download it shows that it has some value,
even if there isn't a marketplace to put a dollar figure to it.

Roy

> as "pirates" purely because copyrights are violated; while, on the other
> hand, one promotes copyright violations.
>
> Rubywand