Superdrive 2000?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Superdrive 2000?

Justin-2
This article popped up in The Register this morning that mentions a 1541 clone and some backstory on it not working properly.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/04/who_me/

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
It'll be this one https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/Enhancer_2000

On 04/06/2018 13:35, Justin wrote:
> This article popped up in The Register this morning that mentions a 1541 clone and some backstory on it not working properly.
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/04/who_me/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Gerrit Heitsch
In reply to this post by Justin-2
On 06/04/2018 02:35 PM, Justin wrote:
> This article popped up in The Register this morning that mentions a 1541 clone and some backstory on it not working properly.
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/04/who_me/

I have another 1541 Clone... The Oceanic OC-168

It's a 1541 clone using TTLs, like the long board 1541, very robust
mechanics and a metal case. External power supply that is compatible to
the one used on the 1541-II or 1581.

The ROM (*) carries the following labeling:

SIGOYAN CO. LTD.
G39-251968-03
DG416F

Notice something? :)

(*) OTP-EPROM in reality. Mine started to forget.

I run it now with a real 1541-II-ROM I got from Ebay.

  Gerrit


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

silverdr@wfmh.org.pl

> On 2018-06-04, at 16:56, Gerrit Heitsch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2018 02:35 PM, Justin wrote:
>> This article popped up in The Register this morning that mentions a 1541 clone and some backstory on it not working properly.
>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/04/who_me/
>
> I have another 1541 Clone... The Oceanic OC-168
>
> It's a 1541 clone using TTLs, like the long board 1541, very robust mechanics and a metal case. External power supply that is compatible to the one used on the 1541-II or 1581.
>
> The ROM (*) carries the following labeling:
>
> SIGOYAN CO. LTD.
> G39-251968-03
> DG416F
>
> Notice something? :)

I vaguely recall that there CBM sued one(?) of those companies?

--
SD! - http://e4aws.silverdr.com/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Jim Brain
smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
JiffyDos isn't a rom overlay though

MS Pac Man was a rom overlay, it was originally after they got sued for
distributing missile command code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM8NAMW_VQ

I am pretty sure CMD had a license to distribute the code copyrighted by
commodore & I don't recall anyone saying that it specified that the rom
could only be used in a commodore 1541.

Which is why the clones licensed jiffydos.

On 04/06/2018 17:52, Jim Brain wrote:

> On 6/4/2018 10:36 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> I vaguely recall that there CBM sued one(?) of those companies?
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.cbm/jQV9ZSp4JyE/IyQA-4KQJJ4J
>
> And
>
> http://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46451&sid=cffbb561386d341e9895907560def976 
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Jim Brain
On June 4, 2018 at 3:10 PM smf <[hidden email]> wrote:


JiffyDos isn't a rom overlay though

According to Mark Fellows and the legal docuents I signed, it is...


MS Pac Man was a rom overlay, it was originally after they got sued for
distributing missile command code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM8NAMW_VQ

I am pretty sure CMD had a license to distribute the code copyrighted by
commodore & I don't recall anyone saying that it specified that the rom
could only be used in a commodore 1541.

I'm not sure how to respond to that.  Mark Fellows told me the story as background to why I needed to advertise them as "overlays".  I assume he would know.

Which is why the clones licensed jiffydos.

Which is not correct.  Mark specifically stated he took the stand to note they did not own the CBM code, and the only way they could legally sell JD is that the user (by definition of owning a legitimate 15X1 drive) owned a legitimate copy of the DOS. The fact that part of the code in JiffyDOS was CBM code was a technical limitation of ROMs.  That was the "mutual benefit" that caused CMD to take the stand.  By doing so, they forced CBM to legitimize the overlay concept, which was always a legal gray area.



On 04/06/2018 17:52, Jim Brain wrote:
On 6/4/2018 10:36 AM, [hidden email].pl wrote:
>
>> I vaguely recall that there CBM sued one(?) of those companies?
>>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.cbm/jQV9ZSp4JyE/IyQA-4KQJJ4J
And
http://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46451&sid=cffbb561386d341e9895907560def976
>
>
smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf

On 04/06/2018 20:39, Jim Brain wrote:
>> On June 4, 2018 at 3:10 PM smf <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > JiffyDos isn't a rom overlay though
>>
>> According to Mark Fellows and the legal docuents I signed, it is...

I can't find a write up of the case, but GCC case got sued by atari when
they produced a rom hack for super missile command which included the
original code in the roms as well as the patched code. Similar to Jiffy
Dos being used on 1541s, the super missile attack roms were intended to
be used on atari missile command arcade boards.

A rom overlay would need to use an original commodore rom, with the
original rom and the overlay rom switched at run time. You can't sign an
agreement with someone that allows you to violate a 3rd parties
copyright, so if CMD didn't have a license to distribute commodores
copyright code that they were allowed to transfer to you then you may
have a problem. Similarly I can't produce a patch for Windows 10 and
then sign an agreement with you that lets you distribute it along with
any Microsoft code.

Commodore didn't register many of the roms for copyright because legally
you don't have to, but if you want to go to court and get damages then
it's worth registering. As commodore went to court over the 1541 roms
they did register it and that copyright can be seen passing through the
many owners of commodore IP and I believe is currently held by Cloanto.



smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
On 04/06/2018 21:24, smf wrote:

> so if CMD didn't have a license to distribute commodores copyright
> code that they were allowed to transfer to you then you may have a
> problem.

I'm pretty sure I saw online that CMD claimed to have an agreement with
commodore at the time and that it covered them selling JiffyDos to the
clone drive makers, because commodore hadn't excluded them from doing
it. I tried googling it, but I can't find anything. Whether that
agreement would still be valid because of the state of CMD and whether
it was ever transferrable is another matter.



smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
On 04/06/2018 21:28, smf wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I saw online that CMD claimed to have an agreement
> with commodore at the time and that it covered them selling JiffyDos
> to the clone drive makers,

IIRC it was something along the lines of registered developers were
allowed to ship commodore copyrighted code if it was required for their
product. You had to ask their permission and there will have been no
thought that it could be used in a competitors product.

I'd love to a write up of the case, if I'm wrong then CMD were pretty
lucky to get away with including the code they did.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Jim Brain
In reply to this post by smf
On June 4, 2018 at 4:24 PM smf <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 04/06/2018 20:39, Jim Brain wrote:
>> On June 4, 2018 at 3:10 PM smf <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > JiffyDos isn't a rom overlay though
>>
>> According to Mark Fellows and the legal docuents I signed, it is...

I can't find a write up of the case, but GCC case got sued by atari when
they produced a rom hack for super missile command which included the
original code in the roms as well as the patched code.

http://allincolorforaquarter.blogspot.com/2012/12/ms-pac-man-and-super-missile-attack.html

Similar to Jiffy Dos being used on 1541s, the super missile attack roms were intended to
be used on atari missile command arcade boards.

But, the game was significantly different, not just a minor addition.  As well, the writeup notes they did not overlay any of the code, they just put their ROMs alongside.  Atari's beef was not the copyright infringement, but that people who stepped up the cabinet had an expectation they were playing an Atari game, not a third party game.  If GCC had offered replacement artwork and such, so that the game could not be immediately recognized as a Missile Command, the suit might have been much weaker.  As it was, it's an ironic suit, in that the solution to it was to hire GCC to do Ms. PacMan, which itself spawned a suit from Namco over mis-appropriation of the Pac Man license Namco gave Bally/Midway.



A rom overlay would need to use an original commodore rom, with the
original rom and the overlay rom switched at run time. You can't sign an
agreement with someone that allows you to violate a 3rd parties
copyright,

To be very specific, CMD was granted a special dispensation to bundle the original CBM code in the overlay ROMs, subject to this specific use case only.  That is why I say they did not get a license to the ROMs, as such a license would have allowed CMD to create a clone drive, which CBM did not want.  As well, if CBM had given such a license to CMD, it would have legitimized the FSD-2 clone drive, and thus invalidated CBM's position, which they did win, as far as I know.

so if CMD didn't have a license to distribute commodores copyright code that they were allowed to transfer to you then you may
have a problem. Similarly I can't produce a patch for Windows 10 and
then sign an agreement with you that lets you distribute it along with
any Microsoft code.

Citrix does.  All the time.  Citrix does not have a compelte license for Windows, but can distribute the Windows object code, as modified, as part of Citrix Receiver.


Commodore didn't register many of the roms for copyright because legally
you don't have to, but if you want to go to court and get damages then
it's worth registering. As commodore went to court over the 1541 roms
they did register it and that copyright can be seen passing through the
many owners of commodore IP and I believe is currently held by Cloanto.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Jim Brain
In reply to this post by smf

I agree they had an agreement, but not that it allowed clone sales.  If that were true, it would stand the reason CBM would sue CMD as well, for supplying the ROMs or the ROM images.  No such suit was brought forward, as far as I can tell.

Thus, I posit that FSD, who were less than ethical, simply promised CMD they would get a suitable license, licensed the JiffyDOS mods from CMD, then simply copied a JD ROM for the 1541 and stuffed it into the drive.  I can see a somewhat naive Mark Fellows or Christensen Sr. or Jr. doing that.


Jim


smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
In reply to this post by Jim Brain
On 04/06/2018 21:45, Jim Brain wrote:
>> But, the game was significantly different, not just a minor addition.  As well,
>> the writeup notes they did not overlay any of the code, they just put their ROMs
>> alongside.

In super missile attack they took the original missile command roms,
removed the multi language code and test mode and inserted their own.

Jiffy DOS c64 roms take out the tape code and inserted their own.

The Jiffy DOS transfer routines are significantly different.

>>    Atari's beef was not the copyright infringement, but that people who
>> stepped up the cabinet had an expectation they were playing an Atari game, not a
>> third party game.  If GCC had offered replacement artwork and such, so that the
>> game could not be immediately recognized as a Missile Command, the suit might
>> have been much weaker.

Atari threw everything including the kitchen sink into the case & the
artwork was easily solved as GCC did offer to produce artwork during the
case. I don't think they produced any because they stopped producing
super missile attack as part of the agreement they signed with Atari.

The copyright was the main claim and it's pretty strong. GCC thought so
too, because for the next game they didn't include any copyright code.

>>    As it was, it's an ironic suit, in that the solution to
>> it was to hire GCC to do Ms. PacMan, which itself spawned a suit from Namco over
>> mis-appropriation of the Pac Man license Namco gave Bally/Midway.

Atari had a habit of going into court with a good case and then leaving
court paying the other party money. According to GCC the deal was only
offered so that they would sign a contract with Atari, they don't
believe Atari actually expected them to produce any games. They only GCC
to sign the restrictions, but GCC had a signed agreement and so they
made the most of it.

The agreement annoyed Atari developers, because GCC were allowed to use
the 68000 in their games while Atari's own arcade developers were told
it was too expensive and had to make do with 6809.

> That is why I say they did not get a license to the ROMs, as such a license
> would have allowed CMD to create a clone drive, which CBM did not want.

The copyright is a right to produce copies, the law doesn't get involved
with whether your customers have an existing copy or not. Fair use
requires the end user to make the copy.

So they would need a defacto license to copy the code from the roms,
even if what they signed didn't explicitly say it was a license. It's
unlikely that agreement was transferable, but I personally would want to
see it.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Jim Brain
On 6/4/2018 4:32 PM, smf wrote:
On 04/06/2018 21:45, Jim Brain wrote:
But, the game was significantly different, not just a minor addition.  As well,
the writeup notes they did not overlay any of the code, they just put their ROMs
alongside.

In super missile attack they took the original missile command roms, removed the multi language code and test mode and inserted their own.
You must be reading a different synopsis than I:

"GCC had been careful not to copy any of Atari's code when creating their product. Their enhancement board connected to the original Missile Command board. Operators would remove ROMs from the original board and plug them into the Super Missile Attack board."


Jiffy DOS c64 roms take out the tape code and inserted their own.

The Jiffy DOS transfer routines are significantly different.

You can't use the Atari/GCC case as precedent.  Yes, they sued, but it was never brought to a jury, and it was dropped before a ruling could be made.  For all we know, GCC may have been able to prevail on the merits of the code portion of the argument.



Atari threw everything including the kitchen sink into the case & the artwork was easily solved as GCC did offer to produce artwork during the case. I don't think they produced any because they stopped producing super missile attack as part of the agreement they signed with Atari.
It doesn't matter what they offered to do after the suit started.  If that were true, people would knowingly violate the rules all the time and then "offer" to address the issue after it was discovered, bypassing a suit by implementing the change.  Maybe that's how it works elsewhere, but US law does not offer that recompense.

The copyright was the main claim and it's pretty strong. GCC thought so too, because for the next game they didn't include any copyright code.
I vehemently disagree, but it is an opinion either way, since there is no judgement to back up the opinion.

   As it was, it's an ironic suit, in that the solution to
it was to hire GCC to do Ms. PacMan, which itself spawned a suit from Namco over
mis-appropriation of the Pac Man license Namco gave Bally/Midway.

Atari had a habit of going into court with a good case and then leaving court paying the other party money. According to GCC the deal was only offered so that they would sign a contract with Atari, they don't believe Atari actually expected them to produce any games. They only GCC to sign the restrictions, but GCC had a signed agreement and so they made the most of it.
I have an opinion on this, but I doubt it matters.  We are getting so far afield here.
 
The copyright is a right to produce copies, the law doesn't get involved with whether your customers have an existing copy or not. Fair use requires the end user to make the copy.

I am not disputing the definition of copyright.  My statement was intended to convey that CMD did not receive a license to redistribute CBM ROMs outside of a very narrow use case (as a function of offering a replacement ROM for specific CBM computers and peripherals).  
 
It's unlikely that agreement was transferable, but I personally would want to see it.
Just as CBM has changed hands a number of times over the year, so has CMD, so the likelihood that one can find that is low. 

Still, I'm not sure how we got here.  Someone asked about a drive manufacturer being sued, I posted some links that represent oral history from the JiffyDOS creator.  Even if Mark mis-remembered a few things, I am convinced the term "overlay" is significant from a legal perspective, regardless of how you define it.  I also am convinced that CMD took the stand at a trial, and I am convinced that CMD did so because CBM agreed to somehow legitimize CMD's use of CBM code in the KERNAL and DOS roms. 
Jim
smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
On 05/06/2018 00:48, Jim Brain wrote:
> Even if Mark mis-remembered a few things, I am convinced the term
> "overlay" is significant from a legal perspective, regardless of how
> you define it.

Imagine I produced a video overlay for Star Wars The Last Jedi, do you
think that gives me permission to distribute the video that is not
covered by the overlay? Do you think Disney would agree?



smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
In reply to this post by Jim Brain
On 05/06/2018 00:48, Jim Brain wrote:
> I am convinced the term "overlay" is significant from a legal
> perspective, regardless of how you define it.

BTW by distributing the original unchanged code as well as the
modifications, then the legal definition is a "derivative work". The
original copyright holder has the exclusive right to authorise
derivative works.

CMD thought selling large numbers of JiffyDOS licenses to the clone
drive manufactures was a solution to the infringement. They didn't ship
1541 JiffyDOS kits as the clone drives have no switches, the ROMS need
to be encoded as some lines are swapped. They must have known that CBM
would check.

I'd love to know the exact story CBM & CMD spun the court in the 80's,
because from what you're saying they changed their tune on the stand.

There is no technical reason why JiffyDOS roms had to contain CBM
copyright code, it's just cheaper. Although if they lied to the court
and said it was the only way, then the court would probably have
believed them.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Marko Mäkelä
In reply to this post by smf
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:21:36AM +0100, smf wrote:
>On 05/06/2018 00:48, Jim Brain wrote:
>>Even if Mark mis-remembered a few things, I am convinced the term
>>"overlay" is significant from a legal perspective, regardless of how
>>you define it.
>
>Imagine I produced a video overlay for Star Wars The Last Jedi, do you
>think that gives me permission to distribute the video that is not
>covered by the overlay? Do you think Disney would agree?

I believe that CMD must have made some kind of licensing agreement with
Commodore, with some conditions.

A more appropriate analogy could be that manufacturers of physical
products or video games enter licensing deals with the copyright holders
of movie or cartoon characters. Surely also these contracts could
contain additional conditions; we do not know, because the contracts are
not public.

A more direct analogy could be "cover bands" who create variations of
original songs. For music, there might exist some "compulsory licensing"
rules that force the original copyright holders to sell a license. One
example is the Finnish band Eläkeläiset (Pensioners). Their music could
be considered an "overlay" of the original song. But in the copyright
law, it would be a "derivative work", because the original melody is
recognizable.

In the era of YouTube, the "video overlays" seem to have become a new
"gray area", because there are many parody videos, which often are safe
from takedown notices (maybe due to the Streisand effect, or because the
US copyright law has an exception for parody). I recently learned that
one of my favorite channels "Bad Lip Reading" started with a version of
Rebecca Black's "Friday", which attracted lots of parodies back then.

        Marko

smf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

smf
On 05/06/2018 08:22, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> I believe that CMD must have made some kind of licensing agreement
> with Commodore, with some conditions.
>
I believe they had a license, but if there were conditions then why did
CMD willfully violate those conditions when they sold bulk licenses of
JiffyDOS licences (not JiffyDOS 1541 product) to the clone drive
manufacturers knowing that CBM had sued them and were capable of finding
them out?

Conditions may have been imposed afterwards, but then why did the drives
remain on sale? They were advertised in all of the UK magazines for years.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Marko Mäkelä
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:50:17AM +0100, smf wrote:

>On 05/06/2018 08:22, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
>>I believe that CMD must have made some kind of licensing agreement
>>with Commodore, with some conditions.
>>
>I believe they had a license, but if there were conditions then why
>did CMD willfully violate those conditions when they sold bulk
>licenses of JiffyDOS licences (not JiffyDOS 1541 product) to the clone
>drive manufacturers knowing that CBM had sued them and were capable of
>finding them out?
>
>Conditions may have been imposed afterwards, but then why did the
>drives remain on sale? They were advertised in all of the UK magazines
>for years.

Yeah, even I got an Oceanic OC-118N that I think has JiffyDOS on board.  
I vaguely remember that some address or data lines may have been
shuffled. It is a great drive; in my opinion better than Commodore's
(even counting the 1541-II). A compact design with off-the-shelf 74
series chips. I got my drive for free after submitting something to a
Finnish magazine's coding contest. That must have been in the early
1990s. A funny detail is that the drive was originally shipped with a
110V power adapter (US plug).

        Marko

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Superdrive 2000?

Jim Brain
In reply to this post by smf
On June 5, 2018 at 3:20 AM smf <[hidden email]> wrote:



CMD thought selling large numbers of JiffyDOS licenses to the clone
drive manufactures was a solution to the infringement. They didn't ship
1541 JiffyDOS kits as the clone drives have no switches, the ROMS need
to be encoded as some lines are swapped. They must have known that CBM
would check.

You seem to be under this impression CMD participated in the address line swapping and all of the aspects of the deception.  I'm not here to defend them per se, but the CMD I worked with tried pretty hard to adhere to the rules.  I find it more plausible that they entered into an agreement with the FSD drive manufacturer in good faith, assuming that the manufacturer would handle the rest of the legalities.


I'd love to know the exact story CBM & CMD spun the court in the 80's,
because from what you're saying they changed their tune on the stand.

I have never knowingly stated that, as I have no evidence on that point.


There is no technical reason why JiffyDOS roms had to contain CBM
copyright code,

I can't see where this is correct.  If this were true, there would have been no reason to have a switched JD.  In reality, the games and such were so dependent on the specific sequence of code fragments in the CBM ROMs, even patched JD failed in some cases and required one to swap back to std ROMs.

it's just cheaper. Although if they lied to the court and said it was the only way, then the court would probably have
believed them.

I think they told the truth.

12