Amstrad ROM permissions
Cliff Lawson
Andrew Owen sent me the following email about the Spectrum ROMs and said it
was being discussed on c.s.s but I can't see the relevant thread (I have a
totally crap newsfeed - Psinet - who only carry about half the traffic!!).
So, anyway, here's my reply about these issues:
"I know you have answered the question of Amstrad's policy on the use of the
Spectrum ROMs before but the debate has come up again on comp.sys.sinclair
and as much as I tell people what I believe it is, they want a definitive
answer. So when you have time here are the questions. Thanks!
1) What exactly do you have to do to use Sinclair ROMs in an emulator, such
as acknowledgements etc?"
Amstrad are happy for emulator writers to include images of our copyrighted
code as long as the (c)opyright messages are not altered and we appreciate
it if the program/manual includes a note to the effect that "Amstrad have
kindly given their permission for the redistribution of their copyrighted
material but retain that copyright".
"2) Can you charge a shareware fee for an emulator that uses the Sinclair
ROMs?"
No. No one should be charging for the ROM code because (as a result of the
point above) there are loads of freely available images anyway. If I ever
thought someone was charging for the ROM images then I'd make them available
as a free download on the www.amstrad.com web site. Naturally I imagine that
some emulator writers want to charge a shareware fee for the code they have
written and we have absolutely no problem with that as long as they aren't,
in any sense, charging for the parts of the code that are (c)Amstrad and (c)
Sinclair.
"3) Can you modify the ROMs, for instance to enable tape loading and saving,
and if so what are the requirements?"
The ROM code is simply a tool to let the emulator writers make a program
that works as close to the original machine as possible. If they choose to
modify the behaviour in any way then that's entirely up to them (I guess you
could say that that is exactly what an emulator IS doing (ie modifying the
screen output and keyboard input to go via the PC bits)!!)
"4) Can you distribute modified ROMs?"
If you like (with that (c) proviso).
"5) Does this apply to all ROMs, Interface 1+2, ZX80, ZX81, Spectrum 48,
128,
+2, +2A and +3."
I think Amstrad only bought the rights to Spectrum 48/128 from Sinclair and
then produced the + machines ourselves. I do not believe the (c) for ZXs or
IF1/2 has anything to do with Amstrad.
"6) Does Amstrad own the rights to the QL as well?"
Someone asked me this before and I think our lawyer at that time said that
we may have had the rights to the QL stuff but then sold it on to someone
else but I haven't a clue who.
"7) What is the legal position with regard to distributing ROMs from legal
Spectrum clones such as the Timex 2048?"
Ask Timex. We only hold the copyright for code that was written by Sinclair
or Amstrad for the Spectrum machines. I haven't a clue about the Timex deal
as it was done in the days before Amstrad were ever involved.
"8) What is the legal position with regard to distributing ROMs from illegal
Spectrum clones such as the Russian Scorpion and Pentagon machines?"
Anyone pirating hardware/software should be shot.... though that may be to
quick a death for them. Perhaps nailing them up by the testicles using rusty
nails would be the best thing to do to them?
"9) Is Amstrad happy for software owned by Sinclair to be distributed in a
similar way?"
I think that the majority of software, even that 10/12 game pack bundled
with + machines remains the copyrighted property of its authors (Ocean
etc.). Amstrad/Sincliar merely acted as a publishing house but I don't think
that gave us the copyright to it, just an agreed licence to make copies
IYSWIM.
"10) What is Amstrad's policy on the distribution of electronic versions of
Sinclair documentation?"
The more the merrier. People scanning, OCRing, HTMLing & PDFing any manuals
that are genuinely (c)Amstrad are actually doing us a favour because if
someone asks for a copy we can just point them at a URL (please keep me
informed!! ;-). So we'd welcome as many of them to be put online as possible
if people can take out the time and trouble to do it.
"I sincerly hope this is the last time you will be bothered with such
questions. Thank you again for your time."
Your welcome. It's good to have the opportunity to make our position on this
clear and I've cross-posted this to c.s.a.8 because it applies equally well
to all the CPC stuff (though some bits of that are also (c)Locomotive so you
need to seek their permission too - however I don't think there's ever a
problem in so doing).
Cliff Lawson,
Amstrad plc
Philip Kendall
<ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote
>----------
>In article <37cbc...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>, "Cliff Lawson"
>
>> "8) What is the legal position with regard to distributing ROMs from illegal
>> Spectrum clones such as the Russian Scorpion and Pentagon machines?"
>>
>> Anyone pirating hardware/software should be shot.... though that may be to
>> quick a death for them. Perhaps nailing them up by the testicles using rusty
>> nails would be the best thing to do to them?
>
>peril.
[I've had a few goes at draughting this, but none of them have come out
very well...]
I don't think it does, really. All Cliff has said is "piracy is bad".
Questions which do need to be answered:
1) What is the legal position on the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs? Are they
illegal modifications or was some deal done with Sinclair and/or
Amstrad? (One possibly relevant point here is that the modifications may
well have been done outside Britain)
2) If the modifications are illegal, what is then the legal position on
the ROMs? Do Amstrad have the sole rights to set conditions under which
they may be distributed? I doubt Amstrad would be very happy with people
selling Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs, but I don't think they'd have a problem
with them being given away for free.
3) Where do you draw your conclusions from about _emulating_ the
Pentagon/Scorpion anyway? The only point discussed here is the
distribution of the ROMs.
My guesses of the answers to the first two questions are:
1) No-one has any idea, therefore we probably have to assume they're
illegal modifications.
2) What I would hope the position would be is that the permission of
both Amstrad and the modifier is needed (so that if, for example, I make
changes to a product which I didn't know was under copyright, I would
not lose the rights to my modifications just because the modified
product was under copyright). In that case, distributing the ROMs at all
is a problem, as Amstrad wouldn't be happy with them being sold and
whoever modified the ROMs is (as far as we know) not happy with them
being given away free. Again, it may be relevant here that the
modifications probably happened outside Britain.
I know it still doesn't read very well. Sorry...
Phil
--
/ Philip Kendall (pa...@cam.ac.uk pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk) \
| New? Read the FAQ: http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/cssfaq/ |
| The Threat to Spectrum Emulation: |
\ http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/pak21/spectrum/threat.html /
Andrew Owen
----------
In article <3sR75EAy...@kendalls.demon.co.uk>, Philip Kendall
<pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7qh1ln$uhp$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Andrew Owen
> <ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote
>>In article <37cbc...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>, "Cliff Lawson"
>><cla...@amstrad.com> wrote:
>>> "8) What is the legal position with regard to distributing ROMs from illegal
>>> Spectrum clones such as the Russian Scorpion and Pentagon machines?"
>>>> Anyone pirating hardware/software should be shot.... though that may be to
>>>> quick a death for them. Perhaps nailing them up by the testicles using
rusty
>>>> nails would be the best thing to do to them?
>>I think that settles the Scorpion/Pentagon argument - emulate them at your
>>peril.
> [I've had a few goes at draughting this, but none of them have come out
> very well...]
>
> I don't think it does, really. All Cliff has said is "piracy is bad".
> Questions which do need to be answered:
>
> 1) What is the legal position on the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs? Are they
> illegal modifications or was some deal done with Sinclair and/or
> Amstrad? (One possibly relevant point here is that the modifications may
> well have been done outside Britain)
I'm very sorry I can't prove this so I know it will not stop the debate but
the Pentagon and Scorpion ROMs are definitely illegal modifications of
Amstrad copyright. Under the Berne convention governing copyright (which
almost all countries, including former eastern-bloc, are signatories of) it
does not matter where the infringement takes place for copyright to have
been breached. A deal was not done with anyone because these machines owe
their origins to the Soviet (copyright free) system. Inside Soviet Russia
there was no infringement. Now Soviet Russia is gone, they definitely
infringe.
> 2) If the modifications are illegal, what is then the legal position on
> the ROMs? Do Amstrad have the sole rights to set conditions under which
> they may be distributed? I doubt Amstrad would be very happy with people
> selling Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs, but I don't think they'd have a problem
> with them being given away for free.
I think we have to accept that as the original ROMs were a violation,
Amstrad is not happy with their distribution, for profit or otherwise, as
the company would be seen to be condoning piracy.
> 3) Where do you draw your conclusions from about _emulating_ the
> Pentagon/Scorpion anyway? The only point discussed here is the
> distribution of the ROMs.
From the ISDA view that an emulation whose sole purpose is to infringe a
copyright (which emulating the pentagon/scorpion falls under). I accept that
if you could emulate the behaviour of the machine without using the ROMs the
emulation would be legal so long as it did not need the original ROMs to
work. It should be possible to modify Amstrad's ROMs under the terms it
specifies and get Scorp/Pent software to work but it would take a lot of
work.
> My guesses of the answers to the first two questions are:
>
> 1) No-one has any idea, therefore we probably have to assume they're
> illegal modifications.
In the absence of proof for my viewpoint I agree.
> 2) What I would hope the position would be is that the permission of
> both Amstrad and the modifier is needed (so that if, for example, I make
> changes to a product which I didn't know was under copyright, I would
> not lose the rights to my modifications just because the modified
> product was under copyright). In that case, distributing the ROMs at all
> is a problem, as Amstrad wouldn't be happy with them being sold and
> whoever modified the ROMs is (as far as we know) not happy with them
> being given away free. Again, it may be relevant here that the
> modifications probably happened outside Britain.
Pardon?
> I know it still doesn't read very well. Sorry...
You're forgiven. Basically if you want to ask Cliff to state for the record
that Amstrad takes a very dim view of Scorpion/Pentagon emulation, go ahead.
But I don't like to pester people all the time. I think we are lucky Amstrad
has allowed us to distriubte so much and if we can't use Scorp/Pent legally
we should respect Amstrad's wishes. (I don't need anyone to tell me the
likely effect of this statement - oh well).
-Andrew
Matt Gullam
As this thread seems now to be distinctly a comp.sys.sinclair issue,
perhaps we could remove the crosspostings.
--
Matt Gullam
Kill the earwigs to reply.
"The intelligence of the planet is constant,
and the population is growing"
Brian
Philip Kendall <pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sR75EAy...@kendalls.demon.co.uk...
> 1) What is the legal position on the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs? Are they
> illegal modifications
Yes.
Why do you want you use them?
Are they different in some advantageous way to the legal (Amstrad) ones?
Or are you just a complete-ist who thinks because they exist they should be
available?
If crap, why bother?
--
Brian
Niall Tracey
: Philip Kendall <pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:3sR75EAy...@kendalls.demon.co.uk...
: Yes.
It's seems to be completist in the form of making the games that
required the respective ROMs runnable on an emulator. I don't know how
many there are, but I do know that most people are currently unable to
play them.
: If crap, why bother?
Maybe the ROMs are crap, but there are definitely some good games
available for them. (Mostly illegal rip-offs of 16-bit games, however....)
--
NT As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any
\ \/ /conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for
\ / glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for
/ \ freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with
/ /\ \life itself. -- Arbroath, 1320
Spike!
> I'm very sorry I can't prove this so I know it will not stop the debate but
> the Pentagon and Scorpion ROMs are definitely illegal modifications of
> Amstrad copyright. Under the Berne convention governing copyright (which
> almost all countries, including former eastern-bloc, are signatories of) it
> does not matter where the infringement takes place for copyright to have
> been breached. A deal was not done with anyone because these machines owe
> their origins to the Soviet (copyright free) system. Inside Soviet Russia
> there was no infringement. Now Soviet Russia is gone, they definitely
> infringe.
Is this kind of thing retroactive though?
A copy is produced in a copyright free area (which technically means it's
legal in that area). If that area then signs, are all copies made prior to
the signing covered by the convention???
>> 2) If the modifications are illegal, what is then the legal position on
>> the ROMs? Do Amstrad have the sole rights to set conditions under which
>> they may be distributed? I doubt Amstrad would be very happy with people
>> selling Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs, but I don't think they'd have a problem
>> with them being given away for free.
> I think we have to accept that as the original ROMs were a violation,
> Amstrad is not happy with their distribution, for profit or otherwise, as
> the company would be seen to be condoning piracy.
Hows about we get a copy and then alter it so that the Amstrad copyright
message is forced back in? Or we take a current speccy ROM, reverse engineer
the scorpion ROM, and retrofit the genuine ROM with the things that need
changing?
(Amstrad did say it was OK to alter the ROMs as long as their copyright
message remained intact)
>> 3) Where do you draw your conclusions from about _emulating_ the
>> Pentagon/Scorpion anyway? The only point discussed here is the
>> distribution of the ROMs.
> From the ISDA view that an emulation whose sole purpose is to infringe a
> copyright (which emulating the pentagon/scorpion falls under). I accept that
> if you could emulate the behaviour of the machine without using the ROMs the
> emulation would be legal so long as it did not need the original ROMs to
> work. It should be possible to modify Amstrad's ROMs under the terms it
> specifies and get Scorp/Pent software to work but it would take a lot of
> work.
Or we could do the first of my suggestions and just SAY we'd modified the
ROMS.... Oh... That won't work now... I mentioned it here, which means the
cat's out of the bag....
DARN!
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@mail.freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike!
And verily, didst Matt Gullam <matt....@earwigs.eidosnet.co.uk> eloquently scribe:
> Andrew Owen wrote:
> As this thread seems now to be distinctly a comp.sys.sinclair issue,
> perhaps we could remove the crosspostings.
You posted the entire 100 lines, just for THAT!
Can you spell hypocrit?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@mail.freenet.co.uk | "THIS IS THE VOICE OF THE MYSTERONS......" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "I'm afraid no-one's in at the moment, but if |
| in | you leave your rank and colour, we'll destroy |
| Computer Science | you as soon as we get back..."- The Preventers|
Philip Kendall
<br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote
[newsgroups trimmed]
>Philip Kendall <pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3sR75EAy...@kendalls.demon.co.uk...
>
>> 1) What is the legal position on the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs? Are they
>> illegal modifications
>
>Yes.
>
>Why do you want you use them?
>
>Are they different in some advantageous way to the legal (Amstrad) ones?
Yes. Programs run on them which don't run on the Amstrad ROMs.
Also, with regard to the Scorpion, remind me where Amstrad's 256Kb
Speccy is.
Spike!
> Philip Kendall <pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3sR75EAy...@kendalls.demon.co.uk...
>> 1) What is the legal position on the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs? Are they
>> illegal modifications
> Yes.
> Why do you want you use them?
> Are they different in some advantageous way to the legal (Amstrad) ones?
Many of the new Russian games probably rely on them.
Philip Kendall
<ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote
>
>I'm very sorry I can't prove this so I know it will not stop the debate but
>the Pentagon and Scorpion ROMs are definitely illegal modifications of
>Amstrad copyright. Under the Berne convention governing copyright (which
>almost all countries, including former eastern-bloc, are signatories of) it
>does not matter where the infringement takes place for copyright to have
>been breached. A deal was not done with anyone because these machines owe
>their origins to the Soviet (copyright free) system.
I understood that the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention on
27 May 1973. (see eg http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ38a.pdf).
This (and the fact that the USSR's legal system respected copyrights)
have been stated multiple times previously on this newsgroup, including
at least once by a Russian native.
What evidence do you have that the USSR had a "copyright free" system?
>> 2) What I would hope the position would be is that the permission of
>> both Amstrad and the modifier is needed (so that if, for example, I make
>> changes to a product which I didn't know was under copyright, I would
>> not lose the rights to my modifications just because the modified
>> product was under copyright). In that case, distributing the ROMs at all
>> is a problem, as Amstrad wouldn't be happy with them being sold and
>> whoever modified the ROMs is (as far as we know) not happy with them
>> being given away free. Again, it may be relevant here that the
>> modifications probably happened outside Britain.
>
>Pardon?
If Amstrad had no problem with the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs being
distributed, would we be allowed to, or would we also need the
permission of whoever did the illegal modifications?
Andrew Owen
----------
In article <gCleyBAh...@kendalls.demon.co.uk>, Philip Kendall
<pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I understood that the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention on
> 27 May 1973. (see eg http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ38a.pdf).
> This (and the fact that the USSR's legal system respected copyrights)
> have been stated multiple times previously on this newsgroup, including
> at least once by a Russian native.
>
> What evidence do you have that the USSR had a "copyright free" system?
Because "All property is theft" as someone once said. Under communism you
just used what you needed to get the job done. Copyright protects
intellectual property rights and so was not thought necessary. China took
the same view for many years (until it decided to become a capitalist
country).
> If Amstrad had no problem with the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs being
> distributed, would we be allowed to, or would we also need the
> permission of whoever did the illegal modifications?
If the modification is illegal, which it is, you don't have to ask the guy
who broke the law. I accept that, as stated above, the authors were not
breaking the law of their own country. But in response to an earlier
question, copyright law is most certainly retroactive, eg - that's why
things that were out of copyright under the old 50 year rule are back in
under the new 70 year rule.
And as I've stated before, I think if you ask Cliff Lawson specifically if
it's okay to distribute these ROMs he will tell you no. I've bothered him
enough already so I'm not going to email him again.
-Andrew
Niall Tracey
: <followups restored>
: And verily, didst Matt Gullam <matt....@earwigs.eidosnet.co.uk> eloquently scribe:
: > Andrew Owen wrote:
: > As this thread seems now to be distinctly a comp.sys.sinclair issue,
: > perhaps we could remove the crosspostings.
: You posted the entire 100 lines, just for THAT!
: Can you spell hypocrit?
More to the point, can he spell hypocrite? ;)
Robert J. Baker
Spectrums, they would eventually reproduce the following, which was
posted on Wed, 1 Sep 1999 02:37:15 +0100 by Spike!
<spi...@news.freenet.co.uk>:
<snip>
>Is this kind of thing retroactive though?
>A copy is produced in a copyright free area (which technically means it's
>legal in that area). If that area then signs, are all copies made prior to
>the signing covered by the convention???
AFAIK one of the most important principles of law is that it is NEVER
retroactive -- So, for example, if you go to a country which by a
gross oversight has no law against murder, and you kill someone there,
and the government (horrified by this) rushes in murder legislation,
you technically *still* have not committed murder because *at the time
of your action* there was no such thing as murder in that country.
Unless, of course, they used a time machine to introduce the new laws
*before* you committed your darstadly deed... ;<)
--
--------------------------------------------------
Regards, Robert the Eboreg
New? Read the FAQ: http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/cssfaq/
Got a binary file to post? Go to alt.binaries.emulators.misc
Ian Collier
>Ian, I think you better pull that "Altered by Ian Collier" message out of
>your ROM!
Thanks, draw attention to it why don't you...
(-:
--
---- Ian Collier : i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk : WWW page (including Spectrum section):
------ http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/ian.collier/imc.html
/|ndy |<avanagh
comp.sys.sinclair Spike! <spi...@news.freenet.co.uk> wrote:
><followups restored>
>
>And verily, didst Matt Gullam <matt....@earwigs.eidosnet.co.uk> eloquently scribe:
>> Andrew Owen wrote:
>> As this thread seems now to be distinctly a comp.sys.sinclair issue,
>> perhaps we could remove the crosspostings.
>
>You posted the entire 100 lines, just for THAT!
>Can you spell hypocrit?
>
I can... H Y P O C R I T E ;)
^
/\ndy
--
*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*
) Please read the FAQ before posting to this group! (
( http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/cssfaq/ )
*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*
XorA
> I understood that the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention on
> 27 May 1973. (see eg http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ38a.pdf).
> This (and the fact that the USSR's legal system respected copyrights)
> have been stated multiple times previously on this newsgroup, including
> at least once by a Russian native.
> What evidence do you have that the USSR had a "copyright free" system?
I think from memory what happened is USSR as a whole signed the agreement
but when it split the new seperate state, poland, yugoslavia etc hahdnt
actually signed the agreement in their own right creating a copyright
free hole for a few months. As far as I can tell from what I remeber
reading in the press most of these countries signed up within 6 months
to a year as soon as they could get local legislation in place.
This bit is my own opinion but I think the reason most bootlegs come
out of the eastern lot. Is because the american's who own a lot of
the copyrights dont get much sympathy from local officials.
Graeme
--
XorA
"Twisted beyond Pain,
Existing beyond Life"
Andrew Owen
In article <19958-for...@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian
Collier) wrote:
> Andrew Owen entertained comp.sys.sinclair with the following story:
>>Ian, I think you better pull that "Altered by Ian Collier" message out of
>>your ROM!
>
> Thanks, draw attention to it why don't you...
>
> (-:
Sorry! Oh bugger, I've done it again!
-Andrew
Andrew Owen
----------
In article <37ce6ba4...@news.freeserve.net>, rober...@bigfoot.com
(Robert J. Baker) wrote:
>>Is this kind of thing retroactive though?
>>A copy is produced in a copyright free area (which technically means it's
>>legal in that area). If that area then signs, are all copies made prior to
>>the signing covered by the convention???
>
> AFAIK one of the most important principles of law is that it is NEVER
> retroactive -- So, for example, if you go to a country which by a
> gross oversight has no law against murder, and you kill someone there,
> and the government (horrified by this) rushes in murder legislation,
> you technically *still* have not committed murder because *at the time
> of your action* there was no such thing as murder in that country.
I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for instance,
can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
-Andrew
Richard Fairhurst
> You posted the entire 100 lines, just for THAT!
> Can you spell hypocrit?
Mr Halliwell, could you stop cross-posting to csa8? Please?
--
| Richard Fairhurst www.systemeD.net
| The point is not to put poetry at the disposal of the revolution,
| but to put the revolution at the disposal of poetry.
Brian
Robert J. Baker <rober...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:37ce6ba4...@news.freeserve.net...
> If an infinite number of monkeys were allowed to peck away at Sinclair
> Spectrums, they would eventually reproduce the following, which was
> posted on Wed, 1 Sep 1999 02:37:15 +0100 by Spike!
> <spi...@news.freenet.co.uk>:
>
> <snip>
> >A copy is produced in a copyright free area (which technically means it's
> >legal in that area). If that area then signs, are all copies made prior
to
> >the signing covered by the convention???
Rest cut as it is irrelevant in this case.
The point is the copies of the ROMs in question which were made in the
soviet block were, are, and always (to all intents and purposes) will be
illegal here (in the UK) and all countries which had signed the treaty
before the soviets joined in on the system, because they were pirated from
Sinclair or Amstrad copyright material.
In other words, regardless of who signed what later, they *are* pirate ROMs
which breach copyright now in most countries. Simple as that.
It seems the way round this dilemma is to get some bright spark to write a
patch that enables the soviet-created games to be used with Amstrad/Sinclair
ROMs and their emulator versions.
--
Brian
b00m-R
>but when it split the new seperate state, poland, yugoslavia etc hahdnt
>actually signed the agreement in their own right creating a copyright
>free hole for a few months. As far as I can tell from what I remeber
>reading in the press most of these countries signed up within 6 months
>to a year as soon as they could get local legislation in place.
What's got Yugoslavia to do with Soviet Union? Better learn some
history/geography dude! Regards,
Boris.
Marcus Durham
<ao...@brandnewco.org> shared the following with us in
comp.sys.amstrad.8bit:
[snip]
>If the majority of the lower house
>voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence
Crivens, that's abit OTT. Now Oric users on the other hand......
--
Marcus Durham
The UMTSDW Homepage. News, Reviews, Features and Locations.
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/drwho/drwho.htm
Matt Gullam
anymore, can the crossposts please stop?
Spike!
> : You posted the entire 100 lines, just for THAT!
> : Can you spell hypocrit?
> More to the point, can he spell hypocrite? ;)
No, no...
I was asking him how to spell it....
:)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@mail.freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| |graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company,that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Philip Kendall
<ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote
>
>In article <gCleyBAh...@kendalls.demon.co.uk>, Philip Kendall
><pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I understood that the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention on
>> 27 May 1973. (see eg http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ38a.pdf).
>> This (and the fact that the USSR's legal system respected copyrights)
>> have been stated multiple times previously on this newsgroup, including
>> at least once by a Russian native.
>>
>> What evidence do you have that the USSR had a "copyright free" system?
>
>just used what you needed to get the job done. Copyright protects
>intellectual property rights and so was not thought necessary.
So why did they sign the UCC? Obvious answer: to protect _their_
intellectual property from being stolen by other countries. However, by
doing that that then, IP theft then becomes a crime in the (former)
USSR. Any IP developed in the USSR may have been freely available for
use by any other citizen of the USSR, but by signing the UCC they agreed
to respect the IP rights of other countries.
Whether or not this was enforced is irrelevant -- the USSR was *not* a
copyright free zone, at least after 27 May 1973.
>> If Amstrad had no problem with the Pentagon/Scorpion ROMs being
>> distributed, would we be allowed to, or would we also need the
>> permission of whoever did the illegal modifications?
>
>If the modification is illegal, which it is, you don't have to ask the guy
>who broke the law.
Have you got any evidence for this statement? I can't see anything in
the CDPA or the Berne Convention from which I think you could draw this
conclusion, so I assume you're referring to some case law -- could you
please tell us which case, or at least give us some pointers so we have
a hope of finding it?
(If this is true, I think it's stupid. Consider the following sequence
of events:
1) Somebody writes some code.
2) I write better algorithms to do some small parts of the code written
in (1). This code is obviously copyright me.
3) I incorporate my code into the code of (1), believing that it has
been released into the public domain, when it has not.
4) I now apparently lose the rights to my code!! )
>And as I've stated before, I think if you ask Cliff Lawson specifically if
>it's okay to distribute these ROMs he will tell you no.
We know what you think. Have you got any *evidence* for this, other than
Cliff's statement that "piracy is bad"?
Phil
--
/ Philip Kendall (pa...@cam.ac.uk pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk) \
| New? Read the FAQ: http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/cssfaq/ |
XorA
Sorry, I combined two ideas into one in that sentence. Their should
have been an "as well as" :-) English is only my first language :-)
XorA
> Philip Kendall <pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think from memory what happened is USSR as a whole signed the agreement
> but when it split the new seperate state, poland, yugoslavia etc hahdnt
> actually signed the agreement in their own right creating a copyright
> free hole for a few months. As far as I can tell from what I remeber
> reading in the press most of these countries signed up within 6 months
> to a year as soon as they could get local legislation in place.
Ok, thats try that again, not copyright free hole, place where local
authorities had no legislation on which to act. Though I still got it
in my head that Poland didnt sign the agreement until 90's. I wish
I kept all the newspapers I have read :-)
Graeme
PS Phillip Kendall has read far too much copyright law and make me look
like an idiot. Pay heed to what he says, he can back it up with references.
Cheers Phill for the education. As such I will now bow out.
Niall Tracey
: >In article <gCleyBAh...@kendalls.demon.co.uk>, Philip Kendall
: ><pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >If the modification is illegal, which it is, you don't have to ask the guy
: >who broke the law.
: Have you got any evidence for this statement? I can't see anything in
: the CDPA or the Berne Convention from which I think you could draw this
: conclusion, so I assume you're referring to some case law -- could you
: please tell us which case, or at least give us some pointers so we have
: a hope of finding it?
: (If this is true, I think it's stupid. Consider the following sequence
: of events:
: 1) Somebody writes some code.
: 2) I write better algorithms to do some small parts of the code written
: in (1). This code is obviously copyright me.
: 3) I incorporate my code into the code of (1), believing that it has
: been released into the public domain, when it has not.
: 4) I now apparently lose the rights to my code!! )
Here's another case example:
1) Big company releases crap program.
2) Bloke bug-fixes it.
3) Sends copy to big company saying $20000 and you can distribute
this.
4) Big company says "You can't charge us for this. We have copyright."
and proceed to distribute without remuneration.
Basically, the original copyright holders have no rights to _use_ the
new code, but only to _block_ its unauthorised use. However, should
they decide to sue, an out of court settlement could be the
surrendering of copyrights on the code modifications to the original holder.
: >And as I've stated before, I think if you ask Cliff Lawson specifically if
: >it's okay to distribute these ROMs he will tell you no.
: We know what you think. Have you got any *evidence* for this, other than
: Cliff's statement that "piracy is bad"?
Cliff should have known better than to give a complete
non-answer. It'd serve him right if people started distributing them.
Robert J. Baker
In the meantime, this reply is to the following posted by Marcus
Durham <Mar...@zenn.demon.co.uk> on Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:43:55 +0100:
>In article <7qmluc$5d7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> Andrew Owen
><ao...@brandnewco.org> shared the following with us in
>comp.sys.amstrad.8bit:
>[snip]
>>If the majority of the lower house
>>voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence
>
>Crivens, that's abit OTT. Now Oric users on the other hand......
Let's get such a law passed! Write to your MP now!! ;<)
--
--------------------------------------------------
Regards, Robert the Eboreg
New? Read the FAQ: http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/cssfaq/
Andrew Owen
In article <7qoap7$38j$6...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, nia...@dai.ed.ac.uk (Niall
Tracey) wrote:
I wrote:
>If the modification is illegal, which it is, you don't have to ask the guy
>who broke the law.
Philip Kendall wrote:
> Have you got any evidence for this statement? I can't see anything in
> the CDPA or the Berne Convention from which I think you could draw this
> conclusion, so I assume you're referring to some case law -- could you
> please tell us which case, or at least give us some pointers so we have
> a hope of finding it?
>
> (If this is true, I think it's stupid. Consider the following sequence
> of events:
>
> 1) Somebody writes some code.
> 2) I write better algorithms to do some small parts of the code written
> in (1). This code is obviously copyright me.
> 3) I incorporate my code into the code of (1), believing that it has
> been released into the public domain, when it has not.
> 4) I now apparently lose the rights to my code!! )
Niall Tracey wrote:
> Here's another case example:
>
> 1) Big company releases crap program.
> 2) Bloke bug-fixes it.
> 3) Sends copy to big company saying $20000 and you can distribute
> this.
> 4) Big company says "You can't charge us for this. We have copyright."
> and proceed to distribute without remuneration.
>
> Basically, the original copyright holders have no rights to _use_ the
> new code, but only to _block_ its unauthorised use. However, should
> they decide to sue, an out of court settlement could be the
> surrendering of copyrights on the code modifications to the original holder.
I wrote:
> And as I've stated before, I think if you ask Cliff Lawson specifically if
> it's okay to distribute these ROMs he will tell you no.
Philip Kendall wrote:
> We know what you think. Have you got any *evidence* for this, other than
> Cliff's statement that "piracy is bad"?
I was going to write:
> HEY!, no need to get tetchy!
but I didn't after I read what Niall wrote.
Niall Tracey wrote:
> Cliff should have known better than to give a complete
> non-answer. It'd serve him right if people started distributing them.
So instead all I will say is Philip, why don't you email Cliff and ask him
about anything you want cleared up or would you rather carry on the don't
ask/don't tell policy of the emulation community? I'm not having a go at you
personally but I'm a busy person and I can't be expected to do all the dog
work. I'll let you know when/if I hear back from Timex. I'm looking for a
street address for Sinclair Research to sort out the ZX80/81 and QL
copyrights and if anyone can give me a contact for MicroDigital in Brazil
I'll get in touch with them as well.
-Andrew
Robert J. Baker
Owen" <ao...@brandnewco.org> on Fri, 03 Sep 1999 18:15:33 +0100:
<snip>
> I'm looking for a
>street address for Sinclair Research to sort out the ZX80/81 and QL
>copyrights
Have you tried looking in the FAQ? I'm sure it's there...
Andrew Owen
(Robert J. Baker) wrote:
>>street address for Sinclair Research to sort out the ZX80/81 and QL
>>copyrights
>
> Have you tried looking in the FAQ? I'm sure it's there...
Indeed it is, Question 16. I shall pop a letter in the post ASAP.
-Andrew
Chris Young
wibbled on for an age:
> I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for instance,
> can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
> retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
> voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
> 5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
> Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
I don't even know what a Spectrum is :-)
Chris
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
| http://www.unsatisfactory.freeserve.co.uk |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
| http://www.bigfoot.com/~ysac |
+------------------------------ICQ:28784166-+
John M Dow
>
> On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 21:26:21 +0100, Andrew Owen (of comp.sys.sinclair "fame")
> wibbled on for an age:
>
> > I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for instance,
> > can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
> > retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
> > voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
> > 5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
> > Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
>
> I don't even know what a Spectrum is :-)
Well, there's the legendary differance between being Technical and not.
Technically, yes they can do all those. Actually they can't. You see,
there's this small bit which says if we don't like them we don't vote
for them again. So they tend to lose their jobs if they do silly things
;-)
J
--
John M Dow <j...@dowcarter.com>
Director, Systems : Dow Carter Ltd : Edinburgh, Scotland
http://www.dowcarter.com Let It Run
Duncan Snowden
>> I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for
>> instance, can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote
>> and make it as retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority
>> of the lower house voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence
>> with a suggested sentence of 5 years imprisonment it could make it
>> retroactive to 1982 and, providing the Bill got past its third
>> reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
>
> I don't even know what a Spectrum is :-)
I... er.. I was... somewhere else. Yes. That's it - I was somewhere
else. Not here. With a Spectrum. Nononono. That was someone else.
Who... looks uncannily like me. Erm. Up with the C64! Commies forever!
Gulp.
--
Duncan Snowden
Duncan Snowden
> Well, there's the legendary differance between being Technical and
> not. Technically, yes they can do all those. Actually they can't. You
> see, there's this small bit which says if we don't like them we don't
> vote for them again. So they tend to lose their jobs if they do silly
> things ;-)
Yeah. Well. I'm not taking any chances, mate.
Boo Speccies! Burn 'em all!
--
Duncan Snowden
Andrew Owen
In article <37D0C3DD...@dowcarter.com>, John M Dow <j...@dowcarter.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 21:26:21 +0100, Andrew Owen (of comp.sys.sinclair "fame")
> wibbled on for an age:
>
>> I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for instance,
>> can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
>> retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
>> voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
>> 5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
>> Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
>
> Well, there's the legendary differance between being Technical and not.
> Technically, yes they can do all those. Actually they can't. You see,
> there's this small bit which says if we don't like them we don't vote
> for them again. So they tend to lose their jobs if they do silly things
> ;-)
Yes, but I was making the point that law can be retroactive after someone
else said it could not. In this example for instance then next lot we voted
in could repeal the law, effectively making a new retroactive law.
-Andrew
Thomas Harte
Or just if the various tabloid newspapers are quite bored one day and draw a
politician's name out of a hat to ruin. Though to be honest, I think the hat
is quite full of sports people right now, so the probability of a politician
is low.
-Thomas
Matthew Westcott
"Spike!" wrote:
>
> Hows about we get a copy and then alter it so that the Amstrad copyright
> message is forced back in? Or we take a current speccy ROM, reverse engineer
> the scorpion ROM, and retrofit the genuine ROM with the things that need
> changing?
>
> (Amstrad did say it was OK to alter the ROMs as long as their copyright
> message remained intact)
>
In fact, the Sinclair Research copyright messages still appear on the
Pentagon / Scorpion (there's no Amstrad messages because presumably they
were based on the original 128 rom).
Taking the idea a bit further, could the Russian clones actually be
classed as Spectrum emulators themselves? Or, to put it another way,
could they be covered by the same reasoning that Cliff Lawson uses to
justify emulation (if somewhat more loosely)?
Amstrad's / Sinclair's copyright is acknowledged, and the ROM is
modified for the same sort of purpose as an emulator would be (namely
loading from TR-DOS discs and loading from TAP files respectively). The
only grey area as far as I can see is money; Pentagons and Scorpions
were around at a time when Amstrad could easily have lost sales as a
result of unauthorised clones, although AFAIK the majority of them are
home-built, which suggests that no third party made any money out of
them.
As far as getting permission from the producers (designers /
programmers) of the Pentagon and Scorpion, I'd imagine that they're
still around somewhere (and still supporting it), even if the designs
have been distributed as PD. Perhaps a good place to ask would be the
newsgroup fido7.zx.spectrum, although I'm not sure how they feel about
non-Russian language postings. I only browse it to look for news about
demos, and help out the odd newbie who should be in this group instead
;-)
Matthew Westcott
--
Find out what's happening on the Spectrum TODAY... grab some demos at
Demotopia - http://www.demo.eu.org/
Spike!
> Well, there's the legendary differance between being Technical and not.
> Technically, yes they can do all those. Actually they can't. You see,
> there's this small bit which says if we don't like them we don't vote
Only problem there is, prisoners don't get the right to vote, so if all
speccy users are in prison, we can't vote for the opposition...
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@mail.freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer Science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Owen
<gas...@raww.org.RemoveThisBit> wrote:
> In fact, the Sinclair Research copyright messages still appear on the
> Pentagon / Scorpion (there's no Amstrad messages because presumably they
> were based on the original 128 rom).
> Taking the idea a bit further, could the Russian clones actually be
> classed as Spectrum emulators themselves? Or, to put it another way,
> could they be covered by the same reasoning that Cliff Lawson uses to
> justify emulation (if somewhat more loosely)?
> Amstrad's / Sinclair's copyright is acknowledged, and the ROM is
> modified for the same sort of purpose as an emulator would be (namely
> loading from TR-DOS discs and loading from TAP files respectively). The
> only grey area as far as I can see is money; Pentagons and Scorpions
> were around at a time when Amstrad could easily have lost sales as a
> result of unauthorised clones, although AFAIK the majority of them are
> home-built, which suggests that no third party made any money out of
> them.
>
> As far as getting permission from the producers (designers /
> programmers) of the Pentagon and Scorpion, I'd imagine that they're
> still around somewhere (and still supporting it), even if the designs
> have been distributed as PD. Perhaps a good place to ask would be the
> newsgroup fido7.zx.spectrum, although I'm not sure how they feel about
> non-Russian language postings. I only browse it to look for news about
> demos, and help out the odd newbie who should be in this group instead
> ;-)
I acquiesce, the 'legality of the pentagon/scorpion' argument will go on
forever. I suppose if you don't call the emulator a pentagon or scorpion
emulator then there's no problem. I give up.
Robert Brady
>I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for instance,
>can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
>retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
>voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
>5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
>Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
There are several things standing in the way of such a law :
European Court of Human Rights.
The Human Rights Act (1998).
The Queen.
The Police.
The Army.
--
Robert
Tony Firshman
<cla...@amstrad.com> writes
>"6) Does Amstrad own the rights to the QL as well?"
>
>Someone asked me this before and I think our lawyer at that time said that
>we may have had the rights to the QL stuff but then sold it on to someone
>else but I haven't a clue who.
The US rights _were_ bought by Frank Davis (FWD Computing) many years
ago. I know of no-one having bought the rights outside the US.
If they were, the purchasers certainly have not made themselves known.
You may remember telling me a while back exactly the statement you have
given for the Spectrum ROMs - ie you have no problem as long as Amstrad
get acknowledgement. That is what we are all working too now in the QL
field, except for US, where Frank made it very clear he would not allow
it.
Users were told that they could use free QL rom images outside the US
only. An understandable position but pretty unenforceable in practise,
especially as the ROMs are readily available in chip and electronic form
and easily copyable.
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) (+44)1442-828255
mailto:to...@firshman.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
Voice: (+44)1442-828254 Fax: (+44)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Brian
news:37de...@news.ecs.soton.ac.uk...
> In comp.sys.sinclair Andrew Owen <ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote:
> >I'm afraid that's just not the case. The British Parliament, for
instance,
> >can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
> >retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
> >voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence
of
> >5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing
the
> >Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
>
> There are several things standing in the way of such a law :
>
> European Court of Human Rights.
Messieurs, Mesdames, je vous offre cette ordinateur tres ancienne...
> The Human Rights Act (1998).
Toll not that bell as rises up the sun, the Spectrum shall not hang this
day. Not after a hardware mod, anyway.
> The Queen.
"My has-been and I name this chip "Z80". May Gawd bless her and all who make
sailing games for her."
"Bloody ugly little box, if you ask me..."
"Shut up, Philip!"
> The Police.
" 'Ello, ello, ello! What's going on here?"
"Another Monty variant, but it takes forever to load."
> The Army.
All together now, "Who do you think you are kidding Mr Sugar, if you think
old Sinclair's done?"
--
Brian
Ian
RB> >can introduce any law for which it can get a majority vote and make it as
RB> >retroactive as it damn well pleases. If the majority of the lower house
RB> >voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
RB> >5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
RB> >Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
RB>
RB> There are several things standing in the way of such a law :
RB>
RB> European Court of Human Rights.
RB> The Human Rights Act (1998).
RB> The Queen.
RB> The Police.
RB> The Army.
Blimey, did they all use Spectrums as well ?
--
Bye now,
Ian.
Andrew Owen
<rwb...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Andrew Owen <ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote [edited]:
>> The British Parliament can introduce any law for which it can get a majority
>> vote and make it as retroactive as it damn well pleases.
>> If the majority of the lower house
>> voted to make being a Spectrum owner an offence with a suggested sentence of
>> 5 years imprisonment it could make it retroactive to 1982 and, providing the
>> Bill got past its third reading and the Lords, we'd all be in trouble.
>
> There are several things standing in the way of such a law:
>
> European Court of Human Rights.
Its decisions are not binding on the UK.
> The Human Rights Act (1998).
Could be repealed as there is no written constitution
> The Queen
No monarch has refused assent to a bill since George IV if memory serves
> The Police
Are the instrument of Government, not above it
> The Army.
Bound by the same constraints as the police
I was only saying that law *could* be made retroactive after someone else
said it couldn't and I gave the Spectrum example because it was late and it
was all I could think of. I spent quite a while studying British politics
and the workings of Government in my younger days and if I could have been
bothered I could have looked up some case law but it's not really *that*
important, is it? :/
-Andrew
Robert Brady
>Are the instrument of Government, not above it
>> The Army.
>Bound by the same constraints as the police
>I was only saying that law *could* be made retroactive after someone else
>said it couldn't and I gave the Spectrum example because it was late and it
>was all I could think of. I spent quite a while studying British politics
>and the workings of Government in my younger days and if I could have been
>bothered I could have looked up some case law but it's not really *that*
>important, is it? :/
What I was trying to say there, by listing those, was to say, that if the
Government did try to do something like that, it would be likely that there
would be a coup.
--
Robert
The ASCII Consortium : dragging character encoding kicking and screaming
into the 20th century! <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~rwb197/ascii/>
Andrew Owen
<rwb...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> In comp.sys.sinclair Andrew Owen <ao...@brandnewco.org> wrote:
>>> The Police
>>Are the instrument of Government, not above it
>
>>> The Army.
>>Bound by the same constraints as the police
>
>>I was only saying that law *could* be made retroactive after someone else
>>said it couldn't and I gave the Spectrum example because it was late and it
>>was all I could think of. I spent quite a while studying British politics
>>and the workings of Government in my younger days and if I could have been
>>bothered I could have looked up some case law but it's not really *that*
>>important, is it? :/
>
> What I was trying to say there, by listing those, was to say, that if the
> Government did try to do something like that, it would be likely that there
> would be a coup.
If the Government in the UK manages to get a law on the statute books the
chances are the forces, armed or otherwise, will support it because the UK
is an essentially conservative (small 'c') country. By the same token it is
doubtful the law I used in my explanation would get on the statute books in
the first place. There is no precedent of the army and police ignoring the
Government in support of the people in this country but I could name a
couple of situations where the reverse is true in living memory (but I won't
'cos this isn't the right newsgroup for a serious political debate).
-Andrew
Robert J. Baker
Owen" <ao...@brandnewco.org> spake thus about "Re: Amstrad ROM
permissions":
>[...] There is no precedent of the army and police ignoring the
>Government in support of the people in this country but I could name a
>couple of situations where the reverse is true in living memory (but I won't
>'cos this isn't the right newsgroup for a serious political debate).
Unles you count the "[other machine] is crap!" threads... ;<)
Andrew Owen
(Robert J. Baker) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:31:29 +0100, in comp.sys.sinclair, "Andrew
> Owen" <ao...@brandnewco.org> spake thus about "Re: Amstrad ROM
> permissions":
>
>>[...] There is no precedent of the army and police ignoring the
>>Government in support of the people in this country but I could name a
>>couple of situations where the reverse is true in living memory (but I won't
>>'cos this isn't the right newsgroup for a serious political debate).
>
> Unles you count the "[other machine] is crap!" threads... ;<)
You can't have a serious debate about the C64. It's crap and that's all
there is too it! :) [I knew it was going to come down to this in the end]
-Andrew
Ian Collier
> there is no written constitution
I think there is, actually. It just isn't written all in one place with the
word "Constitution" above it in large letters.
--
---- Ian Collier : i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk : WWW page (including Spectrum section):
------ http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/ian.collier/imc.html
Andrew Owen
Collier) wrote:
> Andrew Owen entertained comp.sys.sinclair with the following story:
>> there is no written constitution
>
> I think there is, actually. It just isn't written all in one place with the
> word "Constitution" above it in large letters.
I understand your argument, which embraces everything from common law and
Magna Carta to present day, but I have to say that none of it is safe from
the whims of future law makers and the essence of a written constitution is
that it should be difficult to change (like the US one) at least as far as I
and signatories of Charter 88 are concerned. For instance, the Bill of
Rights (1668 IIRC) only sets out the priviliges of members of parliament,
not the common man.
-Andrew
P.S. What I like most about this group is that it is possible to have an
intelligent discussion about a wide range of topics. What I like least about
this group is its homogeny, but you can't have everything.
Tony Firshman
mailing list.
A US trader (John Rish) says that as far as he is concerned, all the
Amstrad owned Sinclair copyrights reverted to Sinclair Research 2
years ago. Amstrad, he says, have no Sinclair rights of any sort. Other
than use of the Sinclair ROM in the US, all control of copyright is now
Sinclair Research!
Can anyone confirm this, and if so, whom does one contact in Sinclair
Research?
This does not fit in with what Cliff Lawson has said.
Glen Goodwin
>than use of the Sinclair ROM in the US, all control of copyright is now
>Sinclair Research!
Who, then, has colntrol over use of the ROM in the US???
0/0
Glen Goodwin
ACME Enterprises
Orlando, Florida USA
Brian
news:DAhYdcAJ...@firshman.demon.co.uk...
> There has been a thread on Amstrad Sinclair copyrights in the ql_users
> mailing list.
>
> A US trader (John Rish) says that as far as he is concerned, all the
> Amstrad owned Sinclair copyrights reverted to Sinclair Research 2
> years ago.
Does he give any justification for this opinion.
Frankly, I'd rather take the word of someone from Amstrad who has checked
with their legal department than someone who suddenly comes up with a fairly
unlikely proposition.
--
Brian
Tony Firshman
<br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> writes
>Tony Firshman <to...@firshman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:DAhYdcAJ...@firshman.demon.co.uk...
>> There has been a thread on Amstrad Sinclair copyrights in the ql_users
>> mailing list.
>>
>> A US trader (John Rish) says that as far as he is concerned, all the
>> Amstrad owned Sinclair copyrights reverted to Sinclair Research 2
>> years ago.
>
>Does he give any justification for this opinion.
ago, and has lawyers behind him (8-)#
>
>Frankly, I'd rather take the word of someone from Amstrad who has checked
>with their legal department than someone who suddenly comes up with a fairly
>unlikely proposition.
<fda...@iquest.net> :
>That is simple to answer and if people had been paying attention they
>would
>have known. Amstrad does not at this time and for the last 3-4
>years...own
>any Sinclair copyright. They cannot give anyone permission to do
>anything.
>All of those rights reverted back to old Sir clive. If they want rights
>other than North America, they just have to talk to Sir Clive. Where do
>they
>get this amstrad crap? That was broadly announced when their rights
>expired
>as they did not buy them throughout the patent and copyright periods,
>only for a set time.
I would love to know from Frank _where_ that was 'broadly announced'
No-one in comp.sys.sinclair has mentioned that. I assumed it was just
the Sinclair name itself, hence the appearance of the MW/FM ear!
However even Cliff Lawson seems to have doubts about the QL rights.
Tony Firshman
<glena...@aol.comNOSPAM> writes
Frank Davis <fda...@iquest.net> has control over _all_ Sinclair QL ROMs
for use in the US.
Ian Collier
>that it should be difficult to change (like the US one)
Hmm, that's why they have all those Amendments, then... <g>
(I wonder if anyone in the US has ever claimed their rights under a bit of
the constitution that didn't get amended. (-: )
Brian
> In article <938068471.25068.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Brian
> <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Tony Firshman <to...@firshman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:DAhYdcAJ...@firshman.demon.co.uk...
> >> There has been a thread on Amstrad Sinclair copyrights in the ql_users
> >> mailing list.
> >>
> >> A US trader (John Rish) says that as far as he is concerned, all the
> >> Amstrad owned Sinclair copyrights reverted to Sinclair Research 2
> >> years ago.
> >
> He bought the rights to use of Sinclair ROMs in the US maybe 10 years
> ago, and has lawyers behind him (8-)#
WTF is that supposed to mean? *Anyone* in business has lawyers at their
disposal if they have any sense at all, though the former does not guarantee
the latter.
> >Frankly, I'd rather take the word of someone from Amstrad who has checked
> >with their legal department than someone who suddenly comes up with a
fairly
> >unlikely proposition.
> It seems John Rish only forwarded a comment from Frank Davis
> <fda...@iquest.net> :
I see; "he said, so it must be true, so I said..."
> However even Cliff Lawson seems to have doubts about the QL rights.
To admit to doubts on one thing does not presume he is wrong about the other
thing.
--
Brian
Cliff Lawson
confirmed that when we bouth the rights from Sinclair that included the
copyright to use the software code for production of new Spectrum models. In
order to transfer copyright there must be a written agreement and as far as
she knows (though this is obviously a long long time ago now) we have never
agreed to pass that right to anyone else. (except that I have often five
emulator authors permission to distribute the code but have always
enmphasised that w retain the copyright).
So I don't know what this guy in the US is on about!
Cliff
Brian <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:938113462.19919.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
Tony Firshman
<cla...@amstrad.com> writes
>I'm intrigued by this discussion. I just spoke to our company lawyer and she
>confirmed that when we bouth the rights from Sinclair that included the
>copyright to use the software code for production of new Spectrum models. In
>order to transfer copyright there must be a written agreement and as far as
>she knows (though this is obviously a long long time ago now) we have never
>agreed to pass that right to anyone else. (except that I have often five
>emulator authors permission to distribute the code but have always
>enmphasised that w retain the copyright).
>
>So I don't know what this guy in the US is on about!
OK you retain the Spectrum (and ZX80/81?) rights - that seems clear.
What about the QL rights? I assume you bought them along with the name
'Sinclair' and the Spectrum/ZX rights.
Certainly Sir Clive is now using his name again, so I assume the rights
to the name 'Sinclair' have reverted.
Spike
>>Other
>>than use of the Sinclair ROM in the US, all control of copyright is now
>>Sinclair Research!
> Who, then, has colntrol over use of the ROM in the US???
Frank Davies... But only the QL ROMS.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@mail.freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel |
| in | and get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Brian
--
Brian
Cliff Lawson <cla...@amstrad.com> wrote in message
news:37eb4...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
> I'm intrigued by this discussion. I just spoke to our company lawyer and
she
> confirmed that when we bought the rights from Sinclair that included the
> copyright to use the software code for production of new Spectrum models.
In
> order to transfer copyright there must be a written agreement and as far
as
> she knows (though this is obviously a long long time ago now) we have
never
> agreed to pass that right to anyone else. (except that I have often
Should this read offered?
> five
> emulator authors permission to distribute the code but have always
> emphasised that we retain the copyright).
>
> So I don't know what this guy in the US is on about!
>
Andrew Owen
Collier) wrote:
> Andrew Owen entertained comp.sys.sinclair with the following story:
>> the essence of a written constitution is
>>that it should be difficult to change (like the US one)
>
> Hmm, that's why they have all those Amendments, then... <g>
Each of which had to get a two thirds majority in the Senate, no teasy to do
and considering the constitution is over 200 years old there aren't that
many amendments.
-Andrew
Andrew Owen
<to...@firshman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <37eb4...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>, Cliff Lawson
> <cla...@amstrad.com> writes
>>So I don't know what this guy in the US is on about!
> Neither do we!
>
> OK you retain the Spectrum (and ZX80/81?) rights - that seems clear.
> What about the QL rights? I assume you bought them along with the name
> 'Sinclair' and the Spectrum/ZX rights.
In an earlier part of this thread, Cliff confirmed Amstrad owns the Spectrum
rights. It may have owned the QL ones and sold them. Sinclair Research still
owns the rights to the ZX80/81 Interface I/II.
> Certainly Sir Clive is now using his name again, so I assume the rights
> to the name 'Sinclair' have reverted.
No. Amstrad own the 'Sinclair' name for computers. Sinclair Research never
went away but stopped selling computers under the Sinclair name after it was
bought by Amstrad. The only time anything reverts is if rights expire
because they were licensed for a set duration or the owners cease to exist
without passing on rights AFAIK.
-Andrew
Andrew Owen
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:30:48 +0100, "Andrew Owen"
> <ao...@brandnewco.org> sprachen:
>
>>Each of which had to get a two thirds majority in the Senate, no teasy to do
>>and considering the constitution is over 200 years old there aren't that
>>many amendments.
>
> Though that stupid flag-burning one looks like it will go in, even
> though it's against the spirit of every one of the first half-dozen or
> so.
What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime. That's as much against
freedom of expresion as the McCarthy witch hunts!
-Andrew
GPF
> What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime. That's as much against
> freedom of expresion as the McCarthy witch hunts!
Isn't coin mutilation a crime? (cos of the Queen's head)
Andrew Owen
<y982...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
Yes but that's in the UK which is a monarchy, *not* a republic. On the other
hand if memory serves its a crime in the States too.
-Andrew
/|ndy |<avanagh
as comp.sys.sinclair, someone one calling themselves the dubious name of GPF
spake forth the following gibberish:
>On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Andrew Owen wrote:
>
>> What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime. That's as much against
>> freedom of expresion as the McCarthy witch hunts!
>
>Isn't coin mutilation a crime? (cos of the Queen's head)
Try telling that to my washing machine.
/\ndy
--
*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*
( My Webpage: http://andyk.spedia.net/ )
)Please read the FAQ before posting to this group!(
( http://www.kendalls.demon.co.uk/cssfaq/ )
) Want to earn money while you surf? Try these! (
( http://www.sendmoreinfo.com/id/62987 )
) http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=DXA342 (
*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*'^'*.,.*
James Coupe
<ao...@brandnewco.org> writes
>Yes but that's in the UK which is a monarchy, *not* a republic.
With the interesting problem that we're all citizens... (Pre-requisite
of joining Maastricht).
> On the other
>hand if memory serves its a crime in the States too.
It is. If you go on holiday and put a penny in one of those machines in
places like Disneyworld that stretches and stamps it, they have all the
legislation gumph on the machines, if you're that interested.
--
James Coupe If you read a uk.* newsgroup, read uk.net.news.announce
Words to try and work into conversation #5:
Eirenarch.
Robert J. Baker
<ao...@brandnewco.org> spake thus about "Re: Amstrad ROM permissions":
>What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime. That's as much against
>freedom of expresion as the McCarthy witch hunts!
Reminds me of the one about the US homophobic arsonist -- he got arrested for
lighting a fag...
GPF
> Reminds me of the one about the US homophobic arsonist -- he got arrested for
> lighting a fag...
Not as good as the guy who insured his cigars against fire, smoked them
and made a claim...
He was later arrested for arson.
Niall Tracey
: In article <37f170ae...@news.freeuk.net>, gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk
: wrote:
: > On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:30:48 +0100, "Andrew Owen"
: > <ao...@brandnewco.org> sprachen:
: >
: >>Each of which had to get a two thirds majority in the Senate, no teasy to do
: >>and considering the constitution is over 200 years old there aren't that
: >>many amendments.
: >
: > Though that stupid flag-burning one looks like it will go in, even
: > though it's against the spirit of every one of the first half-dozen or
: > so.
: What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime. That's as much against
: freedom of expresion as the McCarthy witch hunts!
I think it's the Japanese flag that has to buried if it ever touches
the ground. That's always a niusance for someone trying to get it onto
a flagpole without help.
I thought that burning the US flag _was_ a crime. Does that mean
they're making an amendment to /allow/ flag-burning then?
--
NT As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any
\ \/ /conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for
\ / glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for
/ \ freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with
/ /\ \life itself. -- Arbroath, 1320
Andrew Owen
----------
In article <Pine.OSF.4.05.99093...@cpca4.uea.ac.uk>, GPF
<y982...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
I remember reading about that one. It was a couple of years ago I think but
I can't remember the country.
-Andrew
John Elliott
>In article <Pine.OSF.4.05.99092...@cpca4.uea.ac.uk>, GPF
><y982...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>hand if memory serves its a crime in the States too.
I think that's for good sound anti-forgery reasons rather than because of
the Queen's head. If you allow mutilation, then you get horrible arguments
about whether a mutilated coin still counts as a coin. Say I mutilated all
my 50p coins so that when I passed them on they were only 90% as big as
before; then I could keep the remaining 10% of metal and make more 50p coins
with it.
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
Chris Young
wibbled on for an age:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.05.99092...@cpca4.uea.ac.uk>, GPF
> <y982...@cpca6.uea.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Andrew Owen wrote:
> >
> >> What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime. That's as much against
> >> freedom of expresion as the McCarthy witch hunts!
> >
> > Isn't coin mutilation a crime? (cos of the Queen's head)
>
> Yes but that's in the UK which is a monarchy, *not* a republic. On the other
> hand if memory serves its a crime in the States too.
Does this mean those machines where you can insert a cent (or a penny,
depending on which country you happen to be in) and get it reshaped
and stamped with an emblem or something, are illegal?
Chris
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Unsatisfactory Software - "because it is" |
| http://www.unsatisfactory.freeserve.co.uk |
| Your Sinclair: A Celebration |
| http://www.bigfoot.com/~ysac |
+------------------------------ICQ:28784166-+
Alvin Albrecht
gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >What? They're trying to make burning a flag a crime.
>
> It may already be a crime, I'm not very in-touch with the daily news.
AFAIK, it's been a crime forever.
Someone may have noticed that this law is unconstitutional
so they are looking to amend the constitution to
allow it.
Alvin
Glen Goodwin
>they're making an amendment to /allow/ flag-burning then?
Just the opposite -- it's legal here in the States. Perhaps not admirable, but
not illegal, either.
It seems as if there's always a move on to outlaw something over here.
0\0
Nele Abels-Ludwig
[...]
> I think that's for good sound anti-forgery reasons rather than because of
> the Queen's head. If you allow mutilation, then you get horrible arguments
> about whether a mutilated coin still counts as a coin. Say I mutilated all
> my 50p coins so that when I passed them on they were only 90% as big as
> before; then I could keep the remaining 10% of metal and make more 50p coins
> with it.
This fits with medieval and early modern laws which explicetely forbade
clipping coins for this very reason. Coins were made of precious metal
then - so you could make a deal with the clippings.
To get ontopic again - could it be considered blasphemy to clip a
ZX-Spectrum?
Nele
--
"The Borg are Bauhaus".
Dr. phil. Anna Müller
Andrew Owen
glena...@aol.comNOSPAM (Glen Goodwin) wrote:
>>I thought that burning the US flag _was_ a crime. Does that mean
>>they're making an amendment to /allow/ flag-burning then?
>
> Just the opposite -- it's legal here in the States. Perhaps not admirable,
but
> not illegal, either.
>
> It seems as if there's always a move on to outlaw something over here.
It's a shame that a country with as many virtues as the US has so many lousy
politicians - I guess that's the price of freedom.
-Andrew
Andrew Owen
<Pine.LNX.3.96.991001...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE>, Nele
Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, John Elliott wrote:
> [...]
>> I think that's for good sound anti-forgery reasons rather than because of
>> the Queen's head. If you allow mutilation, then you get horrible arguments
>> about whether a mutilated coin still counts as a coin. Say I mutilated all
>> my 50p coins so that when I passed them on they were only 90% as big as
>> before; then I could keep the remaining 10% of metal and make more 50p coins
>> with it.
Oh yes, silly me.
>
> This fits with medieval and early modern laws which explicetely forbade
> clipping coins for this very reason. Coins were made of precious metal
> then - so you could make a deal with the clippings.
>
> To get ontopic again - could it be considered blasphemy to clip a
> ZX-Spectrum?
Would it be considered Spectrumcised?
Alvin Ronald Albrecht
On 1 Oct 1999, Glen Goodwin wrote:
> >I thought that burning the US flag _was_ a crime. Does that mean
> >they're making an amendment to /allow/ flag-burning then?
>
> Just the opposite -- it's legal here in the States. Perhaps not admirable, but
> not illegal, either.
Since 1989 anyway when someone challenged Texas's anti-flag
burning law in the Supreme Court. Before that 48 states
had laws against flag burning.
http://www.asne.org/ideas/flaggile.htm
I had to look it up to make sure I wasn't
going senile :-).
Alvin
/|ndy |<avanagh
comp.sys.sinclair, someone one calling themselves the dubious name of Chris
Young spake forth the following gibberish:
>> Yes but that's in the UK which is a monarchy, *not* a republic. On the other
>> hand if memory serves its a crime in the States too.
>
>Does this mean those machines where you can insert a cent (or a penny,
>depending on which country you happen to be in) and get it reshaped
>and stamped with an emblem or something, are illegal?
Cunningly, the Yanks call one cent a penny. But then they're Yanks and
don't know any better ;)
Glen Goodwin
>Since 1989 anyway when someone challenged Texas's anti-flag
>burning law in the Supreme Court. Before that 48 states
>had laws against flag burning.
>
>http://www.asne.org/ideas/flaggile.htm
>
>I had to look it up to make sure I wasn't
>going senile :-).
>
>
>Alvin
Thanks for the pointer to this site, Alvin. It seems to me that with all of
the real problems facing us here in the States, these "leaders" in Washington
could find something a bit more important to spend their time (and our tax
dollars) on.
0/0
David Cantrell
<aral...@interchange.ubc.ca> said:
a load of off-topic bollocks.
If you're going to discuss this issue, please put a [i] in the subject
line, as is the custom here, so that those of us not interested are
fore-warned.
--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
occasional CPC user
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
Tony Firshman
<Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> writes
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:43:54 -0600, Alvin Albrecht
><aral...@interchange.ubc.ca> said:
>
>a load of off-topic bollocks.
>
>If you're going to discuss this issue, please put a [i] in the subject
>line, as is the custom here, so that those of us not interested are
>fore-warned.
What does [i] stand for? I would have expected [o] or [ot].
What is bollocks - what they said, or simply that it was off-topic (8-)#
russ juckes
Cantrell) scribed:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:43:54 -0600, Alvin Albrecht
><aral...@interchange.ubc.ca> said:
>
>a load of off-topic bollocks.
>
>If you're going to discuss this issue, please put a [i] in the subject
>line, as is the custom here, so that those of us not interested are
>fore-warned.
Unfortunately, the custom in c.s.s is to wander off-topic within eight
followups, preferably less.
I sympathise with newsgroups who get caught up in c.s.s mad posting.
It's no wonder they all think we're all completely hatsand.
Whose idea was it to crosspost to alt.fan.lavalamp, that's what *I*
want to know...
Outta here,
Russ Juckes - Atari Jaguar, Jamma Cabinet & Sinclair ZX Spectrum Owner
--
"Do you *really* want to play?" http://www.raiden.demon.co.uk
Duncan Snowden
>> If you're going to discuss this issue, please put a [i] in the
>> subject line, as is the custom here, so that those of us not
>> interested are fore-warned.
>
> Unfortunately, the custom in c.s.s is to wander off-topic within eight
> followups, preferably less.
I like that "preferably". :-)
> I sympathise with newsgroups who get caught up in c.s.s mad posting.
> It's no wonder they all think we're all completely hatsand.
Wibble.
--
Duncan Snowden.
ke...@rjfm2.freeserve.co.uk
>
>It may already be a crime, I'm not very in-touch with the daily news.
>It's that evil Orrin Hatch if my memory's working,
I've always liked the late Bill Hicks response to the fury over flag
burning: "Buy yourelf a new one"...
Rob.
ke...@rjfm2.freeserve.co.uk
<Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>To get ontopic again - could it be considered blasphemy to clip a
>ZX-Spectrum?
Only if its misbehaving...
Rob.
GPF
> > Unfortunately, the custom in c.s.s is to wander off-topic within eight
> > followups, preferably less.
>
> I like that "preferably". :-)
But it should be "fewer" ;)
JOHN PAZMINO
G > Subject: Re: Amstrad ROM permissions
G > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:28:45 +0100
G > Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR47TJ, UK
G >
G > > Reminds me of the one about the US homophobic arsonist -- he got arrested for
G > > lighting a fag...
G >
G > Not as good as the guy who insured his cigars against fire, smoked them
G > and made a claim...
G >
G > He was later arrested for arson.
Arse-in.
---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004
Jamie P
says...
> Whose idea was it to crosspost to alt.fan.lavalamp, that's what *I*
> want to know...
/me holds up hand and quickly disappears under nearest table.
--
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=bnm465
Now available in the UK. Hurrah.
ICQ: 16528499
mri...@hotmail.com
> Say I mutilated all
> my 50p coins so that when I passed them on they were only 90% as big
as
> before; then I could keep the remaining 10% of metal and make more
50p coins
> with it.
Erm, why go to all this trouble (nowadays)? Why not just buy some
plausible-looking alloy and make 50p coins with that?
Mark
--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert J. Baker
<to...@firshman.demon.co.uk> spake thus about "Re: Amstrad ROM permissions":
>Is that a general custom on usenet - looks useful.
>What does [i] stand for? I would have expected [o] or [ot].
Agreed -- I use (OT). I too would like to know what, if anything, [i] stands
for. (Old ladies on buses? The National Anthem?)
>What is bollocks - what they said, or simply that it was off-topic (8-)#
Bollocks (or cobblers -- the latter being Cockney rhyming slang, "cobblers'
awls") both literally mean the male genitalia, or metaphorically mean rubbish.
Strangely, for something to be "the dog's bollocks" means the exact opposite --
something that's really great. Metaphors, eh?
John Elliott
>j...@seasip.demon.co.uk (John Elliott):
>
>> Say I mutilated all
>> my 50p coins so that when I passed them on they were only 90% as big
>as
>> before; then I could keep the remaining 10% of metal and make more
>50p coins
>> with it.
>
>Erm, why go to all this trouble (nowadays)? Why not just buy some
>plausible-looking alloy and make 50p coins with that?
We don't get rid of things (including laws) just because they're obsolete!
Richard Fairhurst
> Agreed -- I use (OT). I too would like to know what, if anything, [i] stands
> for.
Irrelevant.
--
| Richard Fairhurst www.systemeD.net
| The point is not to put poetry at the disposal of the revolution,
| but to put the revolution at the disposal of poetry.
russ juckes
>j...@seasip.demon.co.uk (John Elliott):
>
>> Say I mutilated all
>> my 50p coins so that when I passed them on they were only 90% as big
>as
>> before; then I could keep the remaining 10% of metal and make more
>50p coins
>> with it.
>
>Erm, why go to all this trouble (nowadays)? Why not just buy some
>plausible-looking alloy and make 50p coins with that?
I used to carry a fake 50p around with me for luck...
I don't know what it was made out of, but it was fairly close to the
real thing.
Spike
> We don't get rid of things (including laws) just because they're obsolete!
True...
Is there still a law in the books that states that it's legal to kill a
welshman outside the walls of Chester after dusk?
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@mail.freenet.co.uk | "THIS IS THE VOICE OF THE MYSTERONS......" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "I'm afraid no-one's in at the moment, but if |
| in | you leave your rank and colour, we'll destroy |
| Computer Science | you as soon as we get back..."- The Preventers|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------