English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 25 March 2008, 13:42   #1
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
KS Copyright

Hi,
I'm brushing up a bit on the whole copyright thing and investigating how the latest incarnation of Amiga would have had to protect the KS ROM copyright.
Something really interesting has just turned up when checking the United States copyright office.
I've gone through the whole thing and looked everywhere and can find no reference to the 3.0 or 3.1 ROM's as being copyrighted.
LINK

Last edited by Eclipse; 25 March 2008 at 13:43. Reason: Link
Eclipse is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 25 March 2008, 14:24   #2
DDNI
Targ Explorer

DDNI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Age: 43
Posts: 5,090
Send a message via ICQ to DDNI Send a message via MSN to DDNI
HI do a search for Amiga Operating system,

Amiga OS and Software revision 3.1 is found....
DDNI is offline  
Old 25 March 2008, 14:41   #3
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Hi,
That's interesting.
3.1 is not called Amiga OS which is what they have registered it as.
Also transfer of copyright has to have the express title of the work on all it's mediums. That would be Kickstart 3.1 No. XXXX (Like the old Commodore registered it like) and Workbench v XXXX.
For a copyright to hold you have to express it as a medium. They've goofed up and registered Amiga OS3.1.
If you look back at the copyrights transfered from Commodore you will see everything up to 2.05.
They've made the 3.1 copyright themselves.
I suspect it wasn't transfered and they did it anyway. Transfer has to be granted by writing by the original author.
Now that leaves KS 3.0. I don't see that either.
Eclipse is offline  
Old 25 March 2008, 14:48   #4
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Just incase it turns out I'm right.
Amiga Inc. you can't register a copyright after the fact.
Employer for hire? No they certainly weren't.

Last edited by Eclipse; 25 March 2008 at 14:59.
Eclipse is offline  
Old 25 March 2008, 15:52   #5
Zetr0
Ya' like it Retr0?
Zetr0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 43
Posts: 9,769
hmmm wouldn't a lot of KS3.0 code be protected by IP by the KS2.05 and prior ?
Zetr0 is offline  
Old 25 March 2008, 16:18   #6
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
hmmm wouldn't a lot of KS3.0 code be protected by IP by the KS2.05 and prior ?
They would still have to copyright it. Nothing is copyrighted until it's an actual medium. In this case it would be copyrighted as KS 3.0.
They could then refer to 2.05 as part of the copyright. It's like the same book with 2 different titles, you would copyright both. It's the title and work within that's copyrighted.
Besides transfer of copyright has to be registered, I find no trace of 3.0 and 3.1 looks dubious.
3.1 actually does not include any other titles anyway. Have a look here.
Eclipse is offline  
Old 25 March 2008, 16:32   #7
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Sorry my bad for not explaining clearly.
CBM never released anything called OS3.0 or OS3.1.(Escom did).
Eclipse is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 12:17   #8
FromWithin
Music lord
FromWithin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 595
Send a message via ICQ to FromWithin Send a message via AIM to FromWithin Send a message via MSN to FromWithin Send a message via Yahoo to FromWithin
Don't know where you're reading your copyright law, Mr. Eclipse, but you're very wrong. Nothing needs to be registered for copyright to be enforced. All Kickstart versions are copyrighted from their moment of inception.

In the U.K:
"Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement."

Not only is registration unnecessary, but there is nowhere in the U.K to register with regardless.

In the U.S:
"While copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, registration with the Copyright Office puts a copyright holder in a better position if litigation arises over the copyright. "

Registration is not necessary, and is purely for the paranoid to show proof of creation.
FromWithin is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 14:05   #9
Anubis
Maj. Voodoo

Anubis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: #Confefe
Age: 45
Posts: 2,285
So if original creator of KS didn't copyright kickstart, what proof can Amiga Inc. show that they created KS3.1 or own IP rights?
Anubis is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 14:45   #10
FromWithin
Music lord
FromWithin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 595
Send a message via ICQ to FromWithin Send a message via AIM to FromWithin Send a message via MSN to FromWithin Send a message via Yahoo to FromWithin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
So if original creator of KS didn't copyright kickstart, what proof can Amiga Inc. show that they created KS3.1 or own IP rights?
You never need to actively copyright something. You automatically own the copyright on creation. The proof part is what court cases are always about. It would be easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Commodore created it based on the history of the company versus the history of any challenger that might come about, and there should be documentation of transfer of rights through to Amiga Inc.
FromWithin is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 15:23   #11
meega
Secret Lemonade Drinker
meega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oooh what a feeling yeaaah dancing on the ceiling
Posts: 313
Try booting an Amiga and see what it says there...
meega is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 18:32   #12
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWithin View Post
Don't know where you're reading your copyright law, Mr. Eclipse, but you're very wrong. Nothing needs to be registered for copyright to be enforced. All Kickstart versions are copyrighted from their moment of inception.

In the U.K:
"Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement."

Not only is registration unnecessary, but there is nowhere in the U.K to register with regardless.

In the U.S:
"While copyright in the United States automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, registration with the Copyright Office puts a copyright holder in a better position if litigation arises over the copyright. "

Registration is not necessary, and is purely for the paranoid to show proof of creation.
You do have to register it if you want to transfer the work.
When Commodore went bust, Escom would have had to register as the new copyright holder. It's the only circumstance in which you do need to register it.

From the US Copyright Office:
Quote:
Transfer of Copyright

Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.
3.0 is nowhere to be seen and 3.1OS wasn't registered until 2007. Somethings definately not right.
Do you guys not remember that Escom didn't actually want them? They only really wanted the Commodore name and the Patents that go with it. They wanted nothing really to do with the Amiga.

Last edited by Eclipse; 26 March 2008 at 18:46. Reason: Extra text.
Eclipse is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 19:33   #13
Anubis
Maj. Voodoo

Anubis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: #Confefe
Age: 45
Posts: 2,285
And what's your point?

ps. Is anyone from Amiga Inc. reading this? That's of course if they've learned how to read.
Anubis is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 19:38   #14
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
And what's your point?

ps. Is anyone from Amiga Inc. reading this? That's of course if they've learned how to read.
If the copyright wasn't transfered from Commodore in writing (or the chain was broken) then the current incarnation of Amiga don't own the copyright.
Eclipse is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 20:08   #15
Anubis
Maj. Voodoo

Anubis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: #Confefe
Age: 45
Posts: 2,285
Except for most needed 1.3 and 2.04.

But still, it would be nice to be able to let people use 3.X
Anubis is offline  
Old 26 March 2008, 20:50   #16
Zetr0
Ya' like it Retr0?
Zetr0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 43
Posts: 9,769
truth is though... i can see it being taken to court...

People V's A(_._).STinc

".... so what evidence of the transference of copyright do mr McEwan ?...", said Judge Jones.

Bill pulls smalll crumped up paper from pocket...

"... see if you look carefully.. its says clearly here in crayola and in Fleecy's handwriting that the IP was signed for by CBM.... honest....."

yeah..... its a moot point arguable.... i am not even sure that A.Inc even really OWN them.... i reckon they license them... but from whom?????......
Zetr0 is offline  
Old 27 March 2008, 07:18   #17
Eclipse
Turpentine
Eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
truth is though... i can see it being taken to court...

People V's A(_._).STinc

".... so what evidence of the transference of copyright do mr McEwan ?...", said Judge Jones.

Bill pulls smalll crumped up paper from pocket...

"... see if you look carefully.. its says clearly here in crayola and in Fleecy's handwriting that the IP was signed for by CBM.... honest....."

yeah..... its a moot point arguable.... i am not even sure that A.Inc even really OWN them.... i reckon they license them... but from whom?????......
You have a point that even if I were correct (no way am I saying I am BTW) it would be a pointless folly to prove.
Although.... I used to play city of heroes and was around when Marvel tried to sue them for copyright infringement.
You would be amazed at some of the lengths companies go to to try and claim copyright. The marvel vs Cryptic case is widely reported on the net if you need to take a look.
It transpired that Marvel created the offending copyrights in the game themselves!!
More interestingly some of the so called copyrights they didn't have rights to at all, a lot had not been transferred correctly and some were even public domain. There is a very long thread on the COH website about it.
Eclipse is offline  
Old 27 March 2008, 17:50   #18
Siggy999
Registered User
Siggy999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas/Nevada
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipse View Post
You do have to register it if you want to transfer the work.
When Commodore went bust, Escom would have had to register as the new copyright holder. It's the only circumstance in which you do need to register it.
Quote:
Transfer of Copyright

Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.
3.0 is nowhere to be seen and 3.1OS wasn't registered until 2007. Somethings definately not right.
Do you guys not remember that Escom didn't actually want them? They only really wanted the Commodore name and the Patents that go with it. They wanted nothing really to do with the Amiga.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't say you need to register it - it says that for it to be exclusively transferred it must be in writing.

(from the actual site on US copyright - www.copyright.gov)

Quote:
204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

(b) A certificate of acknowledgment is not required for the validity of a transfer, but is prima facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if —

(1) in the case of a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is issued by a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States; or

(2) in the case of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is issued by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of such an officer.
Now in the section just below that it goes on about recordance of the transfer of copyright.. you'll notice how it says this too is optional.

Quote:
205. Recordation of transfers and other documents4

(a) Conditions for Recordation. — Any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document.
So although they may not have opted to record this - for whatever reason (we are talking about a company claim to have lost the technical info on the AGA chipset.... ) all they need is a signed document saying that they own exclusive rights to it - which will be in the dead tree of documents they signed when they bought the company (basically what they bought) - all they'd need to do is produce this document... (then again.. AGA....... )
Siggy999 is offline  
Old 27 March 2008, 18:09   #19
Zetr0
Ya' like it Retr0?
Zetr0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 43
Posts: 9,769
@Siggy99

Hello there,

Welcome to the EAB, theres plenty of mischief to get up to around here, so kick back and make yourself comfy and enjoy the honey coated retr0-ness that this fair board provides...

although in retrospect, as much as i could wish that KS 3.x was free from AI's tyranny this is not so...

but i can dream, and i can wish... and I would absolutely die laughing if they lost the bit of paper, (and were not clever enough to knock up a new one lol)
Zetr0 is offline  
Old 27 March 2008, 18:11   #20
alexh
Thalion Webshrine
alexh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 11,943
Remember that KS3.1 is post Commodore.

It was published by VillageTronic
alexh is online now  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amiga Games & Copyright Contenance Retrogaming General Discussion 14 21 November 2011 13:01
SetPatch 44+ copyright string amiga_user support.Apps 20 03 April 2011 02:55
Copyright holder field NewDeli project.MAGE 8 19 August 2008 16:14
Workbench 1.3. What files are copyright? redblade request.Apps 8 30 July 2008 11:16

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.25788 seconds with 11 queries