#Amax disk version?
30 messages in this thread
I've got an Amax, and because of a certain program I'm developing, I
frequently reboot my Amiga and jump between Amax and AmigaDOS. It would be
very helpful if I could reduce the time it takes to start Amax. I've heard
there once was a disk-based version of Amax circulating in pirate circles.
First, did such a thing ever exist? Second, I'm not sure I'd be violating
the law if used a disk-based ROM image, as opposed to waiting the 45
seconds or so it takes Amax to boot. After all, I've bought the ROMs, and
this hack would just use that ROM image. Anyone care to discuss this?
yep. It is very illegal to have the roms diskbased. Apple would not be very
pleased to know about it although lots of bbs' in the mac world have the
source listings of the roms on their bbs' for programmers. In fact, one in
my town has the 64k rom listing on the board but yes it is illegal although
I really don't know if you can if you already have the roms. I wonder if
you can dump the roms to the system. I suppose there is a way to do this.
I think I saw the version you mentioned on a local board, but I didn't
download it because I thought it would be illegal to have here. I'm not
sure whether it was left on that board or not, but you've picqued my
curiosity and I will have to look next time I log on there! I would think
that if you have bought AMAX and have bought the ROMs, it would be legal
for you to use an easier, faster route, but not if you had not made the
purchase. Much like a certain program I use that required password
protection that sent me flying to the unneeded manual every time I used it.
Rather than throw away the program, I found a way around the protection,
and I use it with clear conscience. The program, manual, and original disk
sit in my desk – I cannot see anything illegal about it. Anyone want to
refute that? (And no, I have not passed it along to anyone else, either.)
I tend to agree. There's something to be said for a software license that
disallows hacking at an executable, though. It certainly makes software
harder to support. But then changing "DH0:" in someone's file requester to
"HD0:" would be illegal, too. That's the only aspect of all this that would
be illegal, aside from Apple getting upset that I've bought a set of Mac
ROMs, period. Of course, I own and use the real Amax.
John,
But I believe you would find that most people who used that "disk" based
version of A-MAX not only didn't purchase the requisite MAC ROMS, but also
didn't purchase A-MAX!
Lloyd
John:
I have Amax with 128K ROMs installed in it. I also got a copy of the
pirated version, and found that while it loaded much faster, it was
basically a pain in the rear, as it assumes a mac drive is attached to df1:
and that just ain't possible with an A2000! Needless to say, I've since
reverted to using the standard Amax unit, and eagerly await the AmaxII plus
card. I hope it will allow the use of it's serial ports while in standard
Amiga mode as well as Mac mode. Also on my wish list for AmaxII plus is a
file transfer utility similiar to Mac2dos as I hate having to power down my
machine, just to change the Amax unit for the M2D unit, and rebooting! Also
it would be nice if it would allow using other Amiga devices while in the
Mac mode (like my Supra 2400zi modem!).
Sorry, I didn't intend this to be an Amax wish list, it just sort of
happened!
I saw the ad (finally) for the Amax II…. I'm getting one, I think.
–Eet–
Director of Mayhem
Extra Terrestrial Imports, Ltd.
The reason I think it is illegal is that you buy a LICENSE to use the
companies software. That license does not entitle you to in any way alter
the product. And even if it did, they still don't give you permission to
duplicate it (except for purposes of backup), so the person who changed it
broke the law and the person who copied it for you broke the law. I don't
know if it is illegal for you to use it, or that the illegality is on the
part of the people who gave it to you.
BTW, it doesn't bother my conscience either. 8)
— Ethan
Ethan – no one changed it for me. I changed it myself. I have only one
backup of the program. I still don't think what I have done is illegal,
and I still use it with a clear conscience. This is a rather gray area –
but I do feel that I have the right to use the program I purchased with the
least possible inconvenience to me. I don't have the right to pass that on
to others, but I have the right to use it myself. It would take an AWFUL
lot of evidence to make me believe that I had no right to configure a
program to the way I want it to work if I have the knowledge to do so.
……Betty
Yes, it does exist. I know of people who have had it. As to legalities,
it is 100% illegal because it carries copyrighted code and you didn't buy
it from the holder of the copyright. I don't believe that owning the ROMs
makes it legal for the same reason that owning a magazine doesn't entitle
you to make photocopies of it. People do it anyway, however.
Of course, there are all sorts of unresolved legalities issues about
AMax in the first place. According to Amiga User International (based in
Britain) what Readysoft is doing is perfectly legal, since they don't
actually give you Apple code. However, you are committing the crime because
you are using the ROM chip in a way other than that for which it was
intended. Of course, Apple isn't going to sue 5,000 AMax owners. It all
gets very tricky and quite simply everything is gray. Except, of course,
for the fact that the pirate version is illegal.
If I buy a game, but then use a pirated version of it, that too is
illegal.
— Ethan
If it didn't contain the Apple ROM images, then I imagine only Readysoft
could be upset about it, as it probably hacks their code… if it worked
from scratch, from real ROMs and real Amax software, and created a new
program, then it might be less blank and more white, instead of securely
gray. Either way, I'm running the Amax less, since I've boostrapped
myself, and it might all be moot for me anyhow. Looking forward to Amax II
and Amax III, the Mac II version. 🙂
But the disk DOES contain Apple ROM images, slightly modified
admittedly. But it is Apple ROMs copied to disk with the patches that AMax
produces prechanged. I would give it 4:1 odds that it IS illegal. I don't
use it, but that's primarily cause I haven't cared enough to do it.
— Ethan
I wasn't aware that recent copyright law makes a special exception for ROM
images. As for patching software, it would seem to me to come down to the
intent and effect of the patch. For example, I doubt EA will start sueing
people who've patched the file requester strings in Deluxe Paint, but Apple
is likely to sue ROM patchers, if it ever becomes significant compared to
their sales.
I think the fine line will be that if you read your AMAX ROMS and patched/
copied them to disk yourself, then that is OK. But, if you obtained the
program with ROM as a file from a BBS where you didn't perform the patch,
then y in posession of two copies of said ROM image and such have violated
copyright. Just because you own a copy of the ROM doesn't let you give you
the right to obtain, without compensation to Apple, another copy. (Now it
would be up to Apple to prove that the second copy did'nt originate from
your legal copy)
Apple will sue anyone who they feel infringe on their rights. About 3
years ago there was a European Max emulator for the ST. Like Magic
Sac/AMAX, et al, they required the use of original Mac ROMs. Instead of
copying the ROM to RAM then modifying the RAM copy, they provided a program
to dump the ROM to disk then patch the disk image. Apple sued and got them
closed down.
If you're really interested in this stuff (from someone whose been thru
it all, at least twice with Data Pacific and now with Gadgets By Small)
give Dave Small a call. He's got lots of interesting stories of his
run-ins with Apple.
Ethan, but doesn't the copyright law also state that you're allowed to make
archival backups? Does it say anything about the software _having_ to be
disk based originally? You can't back up software that's in ROM? –Eet–
Director of Mayhem
Extra Terrestrial Imports, Ltd.
Jim,
No. One of the clauses to the copyright act specifically talks about
ROM. You may not back it up in any way. You many _only_ transfer its
contents into a computer so that the code may execute. This is the reason
Gadgets by Small, Data Pacific, and ReadySoft get away from being sued by
Apple. They all require you to have original Mac ROMs. The ROM image is
read into RAM. The RAM image is then modified so it will run on the
ST/Amiga.
-sja
First off, there is confusion as to whether or not you are allowed to
use the Apple ROMs in the first place because you are not using it for its
intended purpose: that is, to run a true Apple Macintosh Plus. The fact
that code is being changed is the main problem.
— Ethan
There is no confusion. If you purchased the ROMs from a legal
source, you are entitled to use them. There is no "must be used for
intended purpose" provision in the copyright law.
The point is whether you have one copy or two and have paid Apple for them.
If you have a game, let's say Mutant Video blasters and have run
SuperDelock IV on it, then the deprotected version stems from your original
and thus has some legal validity. But if you obtained, via some murky
means, a copy that was deprotected by someone else, you have two copies and
only paid for one. No one could probably tell that it didn't stem from your
original, and thus you feel safe, but if your 'murky' source got busted,
for piracy then you could be found out.
I ask the question, what if the deprotected version was slightly newer and
the code was ever so slightly different? The Apple 128K Roms never
changed, until very recently in the MAC II series. Insead they opted for
changes in their system file. So odds are that the disk image is identical
to the ROMs that (most) AMAX owners have. Another example of the problem
was MArauder II. I saw lots of people trading brain files because they
felt it was OK because they owned the program.
Finally, noone has really mentioned that just gettingthe 'disked' version
of AMAX is violating Simon Douglas' and (Readysofts'?) copyrights. There
has been a number of upgrades to that program. how do you know that you are
getting the same version that you might already own?
So, I guess I agree and disagree with you, Don. If you own the program it
is yours to do with as you please. But getting an altered copy, and not
doing the altering yourself is a violation of copyright, no matter how
slight an infraction.
You are correct if talking about non-ROM based code. According to the
copyright act, the only legal method of copying ROM is from ROM into
computer RAM. Nothing else legal. (Guess I'll have to dig up those
portions of the Copyright Act).
I mentioned it. 🙂 This disk-based hack violates their copyright, as
much as it violates Apple's, if it contains an Apple ROM image.
Greg, there hasn't been an upgrade to AMax which Readysoft has charged
for (all free) so that isn't a problem in this case.
— Ethan
Greg,
You must have replied to the wrong message. I never said you could
modify the ROM's, their code or place them on disk. I only said that there
was no "intended use" provision in the copyright laws and that if you
legaly purchased the ROMs, you are entitled to use them.
Don
I took that as an implication of support for putting them on disk. Sorry.
-Greg
Don, you should realize that all the ROMs are bought used. Apple does
not make them available and the supply is all but 100% used parts. That
moves things back into the gray area I'm afraid.
— Ethan
Ethan,
Not so. I can't speak for what's going on now…but for a long
time, you could buy the ROMs directly from an Apple dealer.
However, even if they are bought used, they are perfectly legal as
long as the original source was Apple.
Don