The Macintosh Garden

It's an interesting topic.  I don't think 'that place' is discussed because I have heard the administration frowns upon it. I don't know how much of that is hearsay. There doesn't appear to be anything written in the rules about linking to it specifically; however, there is mention of not linking to pirated software.  One can connect the dots if one tries.

I'd be interested to hear Cory's or any of the other admin's take on this firsthand, to get some clarity.  It probably has been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything definitive in my search. Thanks.

I think part of the "problem" with Macintosh Garden is that it's got a very broad definition of abandonware. 
Technically speaking, if a certain software isn't sold anymore and its maker is not anymore interested in making money out of it, it may be considered abandonware: however, it's certainly debatable whether this definition should also include pirated software simply because "it's not being sold anymore". 
Personally speaking, I have no problem with it: if a software is abandoned and realistically no one is claiming its copyright anymore, I think it's fair to use and redistribute it or at least preserve it for the years to come. 
However, this is only my personal position on the matter: others may consider it piracy nonetheless and be against it, and in this case it would be prohibited to publicly link it. I understand this is mostly to avoid any future annoyance from copyright holders who might think, at a certain point, that a product of them is not really abandoned: they could proceed with C&D letters or legal disputes, and that wouldn't be nice.

So to sum up: I'd say if you refer to it in "non-clear terms" (as if, in a secret code), it's ok. People who want to understand the code, will decipher it easily enough. But I'd avoid linking it in public, giving its uncertain legal condition.

Whenever I want to download something from Macintosh Garden I first step into my time machine, purchase the software back in 198* and then come back and download a digital copy.  Honest, every time!

The admins line on it is no linking (Which tbh, as much as i disagree with them on the hole abandonware issue, I can understand their point)

'Pointing' People to sites such as Mac Garden seems to be ignored (I'm not sure what the admin's line on this is though)

Sherry's point on Mac garden is a interesting one, Although i think most regular users would define abandonware as software that is at last 10 years old and is no longer sold or actively supported (At least this is my impression, and from what I have seen of other regular users over there they have a similar definition). The problem comes from the fact anyone with a account can upload, which means there are allot of uploads from non regular users that wouldn't necessarily conform to a more regular user's definition (I have had similar problems on my server, the the point that the OSX folder now has a clause that you have to email me in advance of uploading (as I am not in the business of hosting "warez" but I do keep a small amount or early PPC OSX software)

Interestingly... although this post is in the wrong category... it looks like everything up to System 7.5.5 is still being freely offered by Apple on their servers (although the links are now obscured) - as are all the OS 8 and 9 updates (but not OS 8 or 9 itself).  Meaning any links to Macintosh Garden's hosting of those files shouldn't violate policy - since there are 0 legal implications to something Apple is giving out for free.

7.1 isn't, nor is <6.

Correct.  The updates for 7.6 are up.  Someone had mentioned the 7.1 issue, sorry for the redundancy.  The Updates posted under 7.1 are for 7.1, then, and are not 7.1 themselves?

(i.e. - http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/For_System_7.1.x/System_Update_3.0_1.4MB.sea.bin)

I had no idea that software for 68K macs could be pirated software.  I just assumed that software that is, say, 25 years old, and not made or supported any more would be free.

I know Norton is still around.  But they will not sell me old time software that will run under 512 x 384 for my Color Classic.  I just assumed Norton was OK if someone were to post it on a web site. Is old time Norton software looked at as pirated software if it is that old and given away for free on a web site?  I ended up buying my copy used in a box on ebay.

I tried going to Apple's web site to see if I could either buy or down load for free anything that my Color Classic could use.  After about a hour or so and not finding anything, I gave up looking.

I was actually surprised that the mac garden link worked.  I would say over 95% of the time I start following links that might help my Color Classic, I end up at a dead web site.  It seems that almost all are gone. 

I was so happy when I found that this place is still alive. 

jack

Yea it's conceptually weird.  But in theory copyrights last way too long for the tech world.  (It's something I actually may specialize in or research heavily in law school purely out of curiosity.  It's not a workable system in the long-run.)

However, a lot of the stuff that comes up on this forum (in my opinion, although litigation is sparse precisely for this reason) would fall under fair use - i.e. no legal liability would flow to 68kmla in all reality.  This is an educational site, and if people are really using 68k Macs for commercial purpose then... well I salute you, let's say that.

in the past ( a year ago )

anything that linked the garden would get deleted.

anything that linked like any software in general from anywhere would get deleted.

seems like they have relaxed some.

raoulduke said:

Yea it's conceptually weird.  But in theory copyrights last way too long for the tech world.  (It's something I actually may specialize in or research heavily in law school purely out of curiosity.  It's not a workable system in the long-run.

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson was against copyright on principal, but decided an author ought to be able to make some money from his/her work during his/her lifetime. If you think tech issues are overprotected, check out entertainment and literature. Vested interests/special interest groups have contorted the concept of copyrightand wrangled extensions of protection  to such extremes that the entire notion has become ludicrous over time  .  .  .

.  .  .  so it goes.

I'm not questioning the idea of copyright generally at all, I'm suggesting that within software fields specifically a shorter period of protection is going to have to be the way forward.  The system is beyond unworkable if hardware becomes obsolete year to year or if a 'vital' software company goes under.*

If for whatever reason, MS went under tomorrow, all of a sudden whatever holding company their software goes to could refuse to license it, rendering virtually everything everyone owns inoperable.  i.e. If you ever have to reinstall Windows.  Granted, then Linux etc. would start to take over and maybe you think that's good.  That's honestly an off-the-cuff attempt to think of an impactful modern example.

But the better example for our purposes is with old Mac stuff.  If Apple (which they do) refuses to licenses certain stuff it just becomes perpetually unavailable (in some cases) and not legally usable for decades (effectively perpetually unusable).  As to the abandonware standard, I would suspect it's a lot more complicated because companies rarely just release their intellectual property when they're going under.  And so in theory a lot of unique or vital software could be lost to greed.  I think that's unjust but also unworkable.

However, there's the fair use exception.  Certainly (as I've said) in our cases it would almost universally apply - probably even if you were using the software for commercial purposes.

*For me it isn't just about efficiency or impact, but rather diversity.  I think it's bad if a company can basically withhold a license long enough such that they extinguish people's ability to know about or experience their software - well after it has any real commercial value [but by that I'm thinking like a decade - I'm open to debate (maybe not here though)].  I think it's kind of sad.  Salinger springs to mind actually, but even he recognized that there would be some injustice in keeping papers (rather than having burned them) without any prospect of them getting to people.  And I think it's sad that enthusiasts then have no real legal options in most cases.  That's not the way the law is supposed to work (although this is probably one of the less offensive examples of such disconnect lol).

This is something we've discussed as admins, but aren't really ready to make any changes about. There are some opinions though.

I'll do my very best to delineate which of these are mine and which of these are the site's.

So, from the site's perspective -- posting "abandonware" (even links to it) is not allowed because it is not legal content. There are software preservation efforts that exist, but most of them aren't really targeting systems that this site focuses on. (And rightly, so it makes sense to look at the oldest systems first.)

"Abandonware" as a concept doesn't really exist, and a lot of people hwo try to talk about it (here and elsewhere) don't really understand. In addition, even among people trying to make it a thing, and people who really are lawyers, there's no consensus as to what should be abandonware and what's just "previous versions."

There's also no "fair use" of old software. Fair use tends to apply to media that can be "quoted" or reproduced for satire, explanation, or educational purposes, which isn't really "old Mac stuff" especially since some people really are using 68k Macintoshes professionally, as in part of a workflow that makes them money. As such, it would be unfair to say or presume (and also dangerous to use this in an argument) that "nobody" doing things on 68k Macs benefits from them, commercially. It's uncommon, but it does happen, on this very site, in the last year or two.

Another issue (again, something that is frequently misunderstood) is that almost all Mac software (certainly, anything people actually want) was commercial or shareware. The vast majority was this way, and because of reasons, this is the stuff people want. Nobody wants a six-line utility, and there's almost no interest at all in most shareware. Another thing, for commercial software, the Mac (even software from the early '80s) is recent enough that almost all of that software is still controlled by its copyright-holder, or somebody who still owns that property. Very few things were actually "abandoned."

For example, Aldus doesn't exist anymore, right? Wrong -- Aldus got bought by adobe and PageMaker in particular got developed until 2001. Another interesting situation is stuff that's "said" to be abandoned and released. A lot of people think SimCity 2000 was released, Corel WordPerfect 3.5E, and this discussion has even happened about Adobe Creative Suite 2. A mistake on the FTP server or a kind gesture to registered owners doesn't an abandonware make.

So, now for my personal opinions.

Software preservation is important. This is a point that's lost on many "archivists" who have yet to agree on a standard disk imaging format (there were many, disk images were very common on Macs) and who have yet to come to a concensus on how things should be archived to begin with.

Mac Garden is probably one of the worst sites out there for this. Most of their stuff is outright broken, and because everything's stored in different formats, the site's curators can't agree what is and isn't abandonware (For example, when Illustrator CS3/13 was new, Illustrator 9 had bee posted to the site) and many of the downloads are either lifted straight off of people's hard disks, simply don't work, or have viruses on them.

13-15 years ago, and more, there was a pretty active Hotline/KDX scene. Everybody pirated stuff (just as stuff gets pirated today) but direct links to it were still a no-no on the forum. How you got your software was really up to you. You could have bought it new (AppleWorks 5 and Quark XPress 4 were still on sale in 2000/2001) or you could have gotten it with the machine, or you could have downloaded it from somewhere. It was... typically irrelevant to the discussion on the forum, and I don't think fifteen years ago, software preservation was on anybody's mind quite the way it is these days.

Most of those hotline servers did a better job having things that worked properly and that were virus checked. Part of that is because nobody was making a really big jump to their 68k Mac, usually I downloaded files I wanted for any given computer directly on that computer. These days, there are those kinds of considerations to make, And of course, there's a pretty bit lack of HL/KDX servers even online these days.

This kind of thing is one of the things that I think about, and that I'm fully aware the 68kMLA isn't doing the best it could. This rule was something that was already in place when I joined the forum so many years ago. It has been enforced differently over the years, but the rule itself has been there for a long time.

I personally agree that copyright law in the US (and probably globally) needs to be revisited. However, I don't have the resources or wherewithal to make that point here on this site and try to fight it, so my stance for the site itself is to stay as far away from potential trouble as possible.

I'd still personally prefer that it not get linked, but I also understand the challenge of -- how do new people to the scene get their systems running and get software and games on them?

It's not necessarily an easy question to answer.

[i wasn't criticizing the policy.]  I was just clarifying that I wasn't criticizing the idea of copyright... although that particular point is something I have been thinking a lot about because of my interest in old Macs.  It's an interesting synthesis of subject matters.  And I did enjoy your barb about being a real lawyer.  I'm not; I'd be preemptively disqualified from the bar if I said otherwise.

However, you are wrong about fair use of software.  There is fair use of software new or old.  The Northern District of Illinois case Storm Impact, Inc. v. Software of Month Club (1998) held that just shipping off a bundled shareware package for profit was not fair use because a) they didn't transform the work [not relevant here], and b ) they used it commercially.  [i.e. non-commercial fair of use of software is possible... I suspect Apple hasn't sued a lot of churches though so I couldn't find a good case lol.  And honestly this isn't my best research...]  There's also Sega v. Accolade (1992), a 9th Circuit case, where Sega's use of software for reverse engineering was fair use, despite the commercial aspect, because of the potential public benefit.  I don't even want to touch on AMD and Intel's litigation.  I forget if fair use came in, because there were a lot of contract issues also.  And education (like here) and journalism (not necessarily traditional, which some of the stuff on this forum could qualify as) are privileged in fair use analysis - as is public benefit etc.

**Edit: I also at the DMCA, which includes an exception for reverse engineering software released on obsolete formats.  I doubt there's a lot of administrative guidance on the issue or any case law, but that would likely include anything released on tape, SD and DD floppy disks, arguably 2HD floppy disks as well, and maybe increasingly arguably CD-ROM.  However, the first three neatly coincide with all of the software released by Apple on its server, with the exception of OS 7.1.  If there was an 800k version, it's possible even that meets the exception - where reverse engineering probably encompasses disk imaging an actual disk.

("Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.")

**

I do agree that MacGarden's links are hit or miss, though.  Truly annoying.

Didn't mean to imply that you had, just that such has been a matter of debate from the founding fathers on.

As you said, "fair use" encompasses utilization for educational purposes as well as as limited use for artistic expression. This site and others are all about interactive education within the collective in the use of ancient hardware and operating systems for playing with ancient software packages.

My favorite copyright issue would be for "Fonts" as the term for singular Typeface Designs has been perverted since the advent of desktop publishing. The Copyright Office disallowed copyright protection for "computerized typeface" design in the late 80s. Policy has always been that you can't copyright the Alpha-Bet, printing press mfr's have never been allowed to limit end users to their own Typeface Design products by use of copyright. Vested interests such as Adobe fought tooth and nail to preserve copyright protection for their digitized libraries and finally got a decision that the "Software" for the use of their "computerized/digitized" individual typeface products was protected. Names for typefaces have always been protected by copyright, the typestyle "data" in even Adobe's fonts remains unprotected.

That's background for my favorite experience involving copyright: After a jury session I was getting my car at the parking garage and mentioned the above to someone else doing the same. This New York City Real Estate lawyer got that avaricious gleam in his eye and responded: "AH! Intellectual Property! Now there's a sticky wicket!"

'nuf said.  :  

SimCity2000 definitely isn't abandonware since I bought it on GOG a few years back.

I'm not sure that the DMCA prohibits republication in a modern format, falcon. But also Sc2000 isn't needed to run any machines.

Trash - very cool. I also forgot to mention Apple v. Psystar. Kudos to my ability to compartmentalize.

I think anything that endangers the forum shouldn't be allowed. Full stop.

Cory5412...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

jack
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherry....

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

jack

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

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

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

[d)-e) Interlibrary loan stuff]

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

//

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

//

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

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

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

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

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

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

jack

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

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

Could you cite the exemption please?