| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3604.1 | | BAGELS::BRANNON | Dave Brannon | Fri Mar 23 1990 00:21 | 6 |
| I saw the ad too. It was worded like the descriptions of things
that hang off a C64 user port. If I recall correctly, it referred
to the Amiga expansion port. Didn't sound like it has a pass-thru,
after all it's just a port, not a bus :-)
-Dave
|
| 3604.2 | more than one brand | SALEM::LEIMBERGER | | Fri Mar 23 1990 04:12 | 9 |
| Steve at system Eyes bought another vendors version back from
amiEXpo in Washington last week.I own a 2000 so i was not interested
enough to look into it.However it appears that we are in for a rash
of such products. It will be interesting to see how this market
develops.Of course this will add fuel to the pirate wars.While you
have the right to backup a product,I have never ever seen a copyright
that did not state explicity that altering,dissasembling,ect of
the software was prohibited.
bill
|
| 3604.3 | | FILTON::FENTON_R | Potassium Ethoxide Rules C2H5OOK | Fri Mar 23 1990 09:00 | 8 |
| The other thing is, of course, that if you save it to a standard
format using this type of technique it won't give you loading screens
etc. (if you're a perfectionist like me). The other problem is with
games like "Shadow of the Beast", which need constant access to
the original disks...
-Rog
|
| 3604.4 | Licenses | TLE::RMEYERS | Randy Meyers | Fri Mar 23 1990 16:18 | 24 |
| Re: .2
>While you have the right to backup a product, I have never ever seen
>a copyright that did not state explicity that altering,dissasembling,
>ect of the software was prohibited.
You mean a license.
Under copyright law, you have a right to make two "archival" copies
of copyrighted software for the purposes of backup.
Most software manufactures don't like this, so in addition to copyrighting
their works, they only provide them under the terms of a license. A
license, which is an agreement between two parties, can stipulate almost
any conditions, and one party can agree to give up almost any right.
So, on the back of many software packages, there is printed license
terms like are quoted in .2 along with some statement to the effect that
opening the package constitutes acceptance of the license.
It isn't clear if these "shrink wrap licenses" are legal. Legal or not,
there are moral and ethical issues that users of software face here.
(Please don't volunteer your personal ethical position here: full blown
discussions of piracy become pretty tedious.)
|
| 3604.5 | | ENOVAX::BARRETT | Beam me up Lord | Fri Mar 23 1990 17:01 | 19 |
| My understanding is that these "opening" or "breaking seal" agreements
are not binding - especially here in Connecticut where the comsumer
protection laws are very good. There is no proof that the end user
is the one who broke the seal or that they read and understood the
terms (the person may not be able to read English for instance), the
company has no signed or verbal agreement stating acceptance, there is no
witnessed breaking of the seal or usage of the product, and in some cases
it can be considered entrapment. I remember hearing of court cases where
this type of agreement was proved unbinding. It mostly relies on the
ignorance and fear of the end user.
There are, however, many laws that do prevent the unauthorized
duplication and distribution of software. These tend to fall into the
catagory of "loss of potential income", "theft of service", or
violation of copyright. These are the same concepts that make it
illegal to pirate cable TV service even though there is no loss of
funds to the cable company.
I don't know if any of this applies outside of the U.S.
|