The Macintosh Garden

[mraroid]

Cory5412...

I had no idea I could create such a firestorm when I posted that link.  Like I said earlier, almost all the links to even information on my Color Classic (and I am not talking about software now) are dead.  So when I found a link that worked, I posted it. 

So head to ebay or the For Sale forum here for software?  I know so little, and I am still not sure what will run under 512 x 384.

I am happy to obey any rules here. I just did not think about it fully when I posted that link. I do remember seeing something on the main web page of the garden web site.  It said something like "Friends of Macintosh Garden" and this site was listed.  So I guessed everyone were buddies and linked to each other.

I have a copyright question for any moderator here. Before I took my color classic apart to have the analog board re cap'ed, I looked around until I found a Apple branded pdf file which was a copy of Apple's service manual to my color classic.  Is it a copyright violation to down load a copy of this manual?

I am just happy the link I found to this forum still works.  I have learned so much here.  I don't think I would have been able to even boot my Color Classic if it were not for this group. 

And one more question to the moderators or anyone.....

I believe my CC is on line (well it will be when my analog board comes back).  When I went to http://www.google.comwith Netscape 3.0 I received a lot of java errors. 

Is anyone running web sites that is friendly to old time web browsers like Netscape 1,2 or 3?  It would be fun to just see if it my computer is really on line.

If someone knows of such a site (and it can be posted here with permission of the moderators), I would like to see if I go to it.

Thanks.

jack
 

 

[raoulduke]

You know there are other categories, right?  Also can you pick up some eggs on the way home?

 

[uniserver]

Yup shame shame mroid, Just start your own personal archive. Max1zzz. And mcdermd have anything about anyone could ever want , some things just aren't ment for public forums.

 

[Sherry Haibara]

Just to make things clear, mraroid: nobody here's against you! Sometimes it just so happens that one misinterprets the rules, or simply forget/don't know there's a rule regarding a particular subject, and accidentally violates it. It's ok, nobody's here to punish you!

Just remember, for the next time, to avoid linking "questionable" websites on the forum and to fully read and understand the rules - if something isn't clear or you think it you're misinterpreting it, feel free to contact the admins at any time, I'm sure they're totally supportive and understanding and they're doing their best to keep this community safe and in harmony

As uni said, if you happen to need some specific software, either search it on your own (nobody's going to ask you how you got it) or ask privately to max1zzz and mcdermd, they both have very rich archives and I'm sure they will happily help you.

About other questions you might have, feel free to open new topics in the appropriate sections: it helps keeping the forum clean and moderated, and also makes it easier for other users to find them and answer back with relevant information if they can.
(By the way, I don't think there are any legal concerns about having a copy of an Apple's service manual - this is the first time the question has been brought to the table, but I always assumed they were safe to have and redistribute)

 

[uniserver]

my science teacher use to always say "1000 lashings with a wet noodle"... to this day i have no idea why he said that all the time.

might have been easier to say no punishment.  lol    He use to always say " 1000 dollars and a trip to Europe "   alot too.  when he wanted someone volunteer an answer for his question.    crazy teachers...

 

[raoulduke]

The manuals probably are still protected also, sadly. But as I have said, our use of them is precisely what fair use was designed for.

 

[mraroid]

Sherry....

Everyone has been good to me.  I just wanted to let the moderators know I am happy to follow  what ever rules they see fit.  The can of worms that I opened was a lack of knowledge on my part.  I was not trying to break any rules and get away with it.  I am just learning.  I think the moderators understand that. 
 

jack

 

[raoulduke]

(Sorry, just because this subject thrills me like none other.  It is more complicated than I'd set out before.  I read through 17 U.S.C. 101 (the obsolescence stuff before comes from 108).  Basically it only refers to libraries and archives (check) but prevents users from taking copies outside the premises in digital format.  It had a tangible library/archive in mind (which is cool for the issue here).  And it was set up (probably) with the idea of phonograph records or something like that - or paper.  These are not specifically software provisions.  It's really complicated and I think, sadly, the cheapest and easiest way forward is the current limbo.

Okay this is purely my opinion, and purely idle thought: 17 USC 108 goes like this - a) allows libraries or archives to make one copy if 1) made without commercial purpose, 2) the lib/arch is open to the public [etc], 3) there's a copyright notice (or attempt to provide one).  Under a) there is also a right to distribute, but the right of reproduction is limited by b ), c) and d).  [ B) concerns unpublished works.]

c) right of reproduction limited to 3 copies for replacement of lost/damaged/etc or obsolete work if 1) the lib/arch has determined after reasonable effort that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at fair price; and 2) any digital format copy is not made publicly available outside the premises of the lib/arch in lawful possession [i.e. via a) or c)].  Obsolescence would then basically mean if the library can no longer find a way to fairly purchase a machine to display it - so a library or archive can then probably possess obsolete-format software as disk images.

[d)-e) Interlibrary loan stuff]

"f) Nothing in this section-- 1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;..."

//

This suggests quite strongly that one potential legal avenue - which I suspect MacintoshGarden could potentially employ - is for a library or archive, including a digital one, to take actual possession of the digital copy, as a copy of the obsolete software - obviously MacGarden's capacity to filter out non-obsolete software has been called into question.  In possession of said software, they may display their copy on (digital) 'premises,' and they are not liable for unsupervised use of their reproducing equipment - i.e. download feature - so long as they display copyright warnings.

//

Conversely... people who misuse said reproducing equipment are liable - if such use exceeds fair use per section 107.  f)4) explicitly subjects the lib/arch to any 'contractual obligations' when it obtains the copy (probably doesn't implicate EULAs then).  Moreover, section g) 1) is unclear - because it implicates knowing that an individual or group is repeatedly reproducing a work.  Outside the context of a general library it's a little murky.  It probably wasn't directly contemplated [regarding a vintage-Apple digital software library...], regarding the legislative intent.

Basically it means that 68kmla generally serves its interests best just by snipping stuff.  Would it have to?  If this were a free speech forum itching for a test case (which ... it would never get to that point anyway), I think the case would be pretty strong on the same facts.  But to be safe... the current policy is sound and probably the best way forward.  I think it's incumbent on older users to reach out to new users with private messages if they feel so obliged.

But I've also suggested that there may be legal protections in a very stringent vetting of obsolete software.  This may not be the place for that, although perhaps it's a call for a software preservation effort well beyond my expertise.)

**Also, final thought because I don't think I've mentioned this on 68kmla.  I do think that in terms of Apple specifically, there's probably an informal view if it's ever come up that this type of usage - extremely old hardware/software that's still shockingly relevant and arguably continuous.  At worst it possibly allows for minor publicity on occasion.  There are no actual damages - which is really the primary reason most of these issues will never be litigated as civil matters, anyway.

 

[mraroid]

My friend is a copyright lawyer and works with software.  I remember him telling me about a case he handled with a Mac Quadra in a patent litigation suit.  I will ask him what his opinion is on older 68K Mac software and see what he says.  We have worked on several projects together, but none that ever involved software. 

We both are interested in sound formats used in motion picture film from the late 1920s to about the mid 1950s.  We are part of a group that tracks down obscure literature, converts it to pdf files, and then gives it away free to researchers or any one else who is interested.  Now and then he will step in when we need clarification before we can post a photo or some literature.  Sometimes we will find a photograph that is, say, 65 years old, and some one still has a copyright on it.  He has to mail the copyright owner a letter to ask permission to post the photograph and let others have a copy.  We have never been turned down, but it takes time.  In our work, it is always best to follow the law.

jack

 

[olePigeon]

There is an exemption to the DMCA for vintage software, more specifically, software sold on floppy disk.  Older software sold on a CD-ROM is a gray area, and it greatly depends on the software.  So a rule of thumb is to stick to software that was only sold on floppy disk, and you should be safe.  But I'm not a lawyer.

The problem with Macintosh Garden is that I've stumbled upon more recent software that couldn't possibly fall under abandonware.  So it's a mixed bag.  You'll want to be careful.

 

[raoulduke]

Could you cite the exemption please?

 

[raoulduke]

I did a fair amount of research (not a lot, though), olePigeon.  The DMCA does not appear to contain any exception for floppy disks or vintage software, absent the exceptions I referred to above - which pertain exclusively to libraries and archives.

However, as I also mentioned above, it in theory is possible for a (library or archive) user to request, in full, an obsolete computer program - though the boundaries of such an exception are by no means hammered out clearly.

 

[olePigeon]

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2):

2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

 

[raoulduke]

Sorry I wasn't going to post again but I don't like my involvement in having produced this final (now penultimate) response.  olePigeon, et al., if you read up in the thread you will find correct statements of the actual law.  What you're citing there was a 2006 suggestion that has been superseded.  If you actually search 17 U.S.C. § 1201[which I've summarized above] (a)(2) you'll find:

"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
([b )] has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
([C )] is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

And as I noted above in the thread, the outgrowth of the exception you cited (as it is actually law - 17 U.S.C. § 108( c )) really only refers to libraries or archives who previously had possessed physical copies on formats that require machines to display said works (i.e. software) that are no longer available unused at fair market prices.  In other words, if one possessed System 7.1 but you can't get a machine unused at fair value to so display, you can create a digital copy (subject to harsh user-restrictions).  However - and again none of this has been litigated - the presence of emulators severely complicates the law, particularly given its legislative intent.

I'm likely going to write a 'note' (for a law journal) on this subject surveying the legality of vintage collecting.

 

[Paralel]

Bye!