nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) (03/17/88)
In article <560@teemc.UUCP> wayne@teemc.UUCP (/\/\ichael R. \/\/ayne) writes: > I agree about that this is a bad policy and complained directly >to Telebit about it (one would think that free exchange on EPROMs for a >year would be reasonable). They did not seem supportive of this notion. >My suggestion is to find yourself somebody with 4.0 firmware and a PROM >burner. Note, however, that you really should keep your original EPROMs >around so that you can put them in if you need service. I find it very, >very strange that Telebit would take this type of stand considering how >reasonable they are on everything else. I hope I miss-read you here, you are suggesting firmware piracy? I can only hope you realy meant something else as virtualy everyone who reads the technical groups on the net has some concept of what the "rewards" for software (firmware being nothing more than re-packaged software) piracy. I have no problems with your doing this in your basement, that is something for you to work out with your own sense of values, but to suggest it in a public forum??? Iresponsible is the first word that comes to mind. Another point, while there may have been some bug fixes in the 4.00 roms the packet size is NOT a bug fix, the modem was designed this way from the start and has been documented to function this way all along. It is a new feature which has been added, you are getting more value (if you use the modem interactively) by upgrading to the new PROMs, it is only fair that you should pay for it, after all, Telebit's programmers were most likely not working for free when they came up with the new FEATURE. -michael -- Michael Galassi | If my opinions happen to be the same as ...!tektronix!tessi!percival!nerd | my employer's it is ONLY a coincidence, ...!uunet!littlei!percival!nerd | of cource coincidences DO happen.
dvac@drutx.ATT.COM (VachonD) (03/19/88)
In article <1167@percival.UUCP>, nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) writes: > In article <560@teemc.UUCP> wayne@teemc.UUCP (/\/\ichael R. \/\/ayne) writes: > > I agree about that this is a bad policy and complained directly > >to Telebit about it (one would think that free exchange on EPROMs for a > >year would be reasonable). They did not seem supportive of this notion. > >My suggestion is to find yourself somebody with 4.0 firmware and a PROM > >burner. > > I hope I miss-read you here, you are suggesting firmware piracy? ... > > Another point, while there may have been some bug fixes in the 4.00 roms > the packet size is NOT a bug fix, the modem was designed this way from > the start and has been documented to function this way all along. It is > a new feature which has been added, you are getting more value (if you > use the modem interactively) by upgrading to the new PROMs, it is only > fair that you should pay for it, after all, Telebit's programmers were > most likely not working for free when they came up with the new FEATURE. Maybe Telebit should be a little more friendly to their customers.... If one thing promotes software/firmware piracy the most, it seems to be companies that fail to support their products willfully after they leave their building. Especially if it is a deal where bugs have been fixed in the firmware of a modem. I have a friend that bought the Practical Peripherals 2400 baud modem for a BBS and had problems with it disconnecting on people. He sent the firmware back to Practical Peripherals and they sent him a new set of firmware free of charge. Thats is the kind of support these companies should provide... Not a "you bought it, now you are stuck with it" attitude! ][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][ ][ !rutgers!moss \ ][ ][ Later Days -=> Daniel Vachon <=- !ucbvax!ihnp4 > !drutx!dvac ][ ][ !mtune!ihnp4 / ][ ][ "This project is so secret, even ][ ][ I don't know what I'm doing!" Apple ][ Forever ][ ][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu (03/19/88)
You bring up an interesting point, but I don't think it's so clear cut.
Firmware updates frequently do nothing but fix problems. Do you
consider it ethical to copy firmware in that case? Or do you insist
that we're stuck with the products we buy, despite their faults, while
people who order the same item a week later pay the same price and
get a more error-free unit?
Why should the company object to having their modems upgraded in
the field, unless the upgrade is a high-profit item for them?
I was under the impression that the upgraded ROMs were a
convenience, and not a part of the general product line.
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics
Science, Technology, and Society
University of Illinois
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!bergerhoney@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) (03/20/88)
if their roms are copyrighted, then you don't have the right to copy them. case closed. peter
root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) (03/21/88)
Multi-Tech Systems puts their latest ROM code on their BBS (612/631-0922) for all of their dealers AND registered modem owners to download. This is the way it should be done. Larry Dighera -- USPS: The Consultants' Exchange, PO Box 12100, Santa Ana, CA 92712 TELE: (714) 842-6348: BBS (N81); (714) 842-5851: Xenix guest account (E71) UUCP: conexch Any ACU 2400 17148425851 ogin:-""-ogin:-""-ogin: nuucp UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!icnvax!conexch!root || ...!trwrb!ucla-an!conexch!root
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/22/88)
In article <3888@umix.cc.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes: >if their roms are copyrighted, then you don't >have the right to copy them. case closed. Copyright law contains a "fair use" provision that lets you make a copy of a copyrighted work for certain limited purposes. Given an eloquent enough appeal, a judge might rule that copying a upgraded ROM was fair use, since the ROM that the person already paid for didn't work right. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (03/22/88)
Of course, you could call Telebit and ask for permission to copy. $150 to cover purhasing, duplicating roms, and mailing them out is probably pretty close to cost. Assuming Telebit is in the business of selling Modems rather than ROM's, they might be willing to permit you to make copies for use in other Telebit modems. We've asked for and gotten permission from other companies to do the same thing. -Ron
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu (03/22/88)
The "if it's copyrighted, you're out of luck" attitude is entirely
unrealistic. IBM no longer sells a BIOS rom for the early model
PC. So if my BIOS rom goes bad, are you suggesting I willingly
throw away the computer? If IBM no longer sells or supports the
BIOS rom, copyright or not, it doesn't hurt them if I copy it.
I also think you may be mislead as to what the law states. The
fair use provision of the copyright law gives us the right to
copy copyrighted material for private, non-commercial use. In
that case, then, is it correct to assume that it doesn't
violate your ethics to copy a ROM for upgrading a modem,
provided the modem is for personal use only?
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics
Science, Technology, and Society
University of Illinois
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!bergerhoney@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) (03/22/88)
rahul, where did you get the idea that the rev 3 roms "don't work right"? they work just fine. i'm told, however, that the rev 4 roms are even better. peter
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (03/22/88)
In article <3897@umix.cc.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes: |rahul, where did you get the idea that the rev 3 roms "don't work |right"? they work just fine. i'm told, however, that the rev 4 |roms are even better. Depends on what he means by "don't work right". Mine exhibited occassional seconds of delay between keying and the subsequent echo of characters. I'd call that "don't work right"! -- Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334 Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/23/88)
In article <18600045@clio> berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu writes: >The >fair use provision of the copyright law gives us the right to >copy copyrighted material for private, non-commercial use. In >that case, then, is it correct to assume that it doesn't >violate your ethics to copy a ROM for upgrading a modem, >provided the modem is for personal use only? Actually, "fair use" cannot be claimed simply because you copied something for private non-commercial use. There are some activities explicitly listed as being fair use, such as classroom use under certain conditions. But "fair use" is really a catch-all phrase with a broad meaning. The exact interpretation is, and will be decided, as case law develops. As an example, because of a Supreme Court decision, copying broadcast television programs for home use is now considered "fair use", even though copyright law doesn't mention this. Ethics are a different matter. As Heinlein says in one of his science fiction novels, "Man is not a rational animal. Man is a rationalizing animal." -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/23/88)
In article <3897@umix.cc.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes: >rahul, where did you get the idea that the rev 3 roms "don't work >right"? they work just fine. i'm told, however, that the rev 4 >roms are even better. i was playing devil's advocate--you did make a sweeping generalization, peter, so i presented a counterexample. i don't have a telebit modem so i won't claim that it doesn't work, i'm sure it does, i hear good things about it. but what if... -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (03/24/88)
You are allowed to make backups of copyrighted software that you have to guard against media failure (the ROMs blowing up in your example), it is quite another thing to copy the latest and greatest release of a piece of software from someone else when you haven't the permission of the copyright holder. -Ron
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (03/24/88)
In article <18600045@clio> berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu writes: > > I also think you may be mislead as to what the law states. The > fair use provision of the copyright law gives us the right to > copy copyrighted material for private, non-commercial use. In > that case, then, is it correct to assume that it doesn't > violate your ethics to copy a ROM for upgrading a modem, > provided the modem is for personal use only? Fair use implies that once *YOU HAVE BOUGHT* the copyrighted material you can do certain things with it, like make a backup copy or use a backup copy in case the EPROMs in your modem got corrupted. It does not mean that you can copy someone else EPROMs for your own use or if you buy two modems that you can legally buy one set of upgrade EPROMs and make copies for use in the second modem. I am somewhat dissapointed that this discussion has broken down into arguments about whether or not it is ok to rip off Telebit. You have a Telebit representative on-line, don't go out of the way to convince them that being accessible can generate too much adverse publicity or that offering upgrades creates more problems than it's worth. It may be that Telebit can be persuaded to improve their upgrade policies. If so, making constructive suggestions or comparisons here or sending mail to Rich would probably be a lot more productive than these "Firmware Piracy" messages. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|ihnp4|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
truett@cup.portal.com (03/27/88)
If the firmware code is copyrighted, then the current owner of the copyright has the right to permit anbody he/she/it deems qualifed to copy it. Case re-opened. Which is to say, the shoe is on a foot bearing the name Trailblazer. truett#cup.portal.com
brw@jim.odr.oz (Brian Wallis) (03/29/88)
In article <494@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) writes: > In article <3897@umix.cc.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes: > |rahul, where did you get the idea that the rev 3 roms "don't work > |right"? they work just fine. i'm told, however, that the rev 4 > |roms are even better. > > Depends on what he means by "don't work right". Mine exhibited > occassional seconds of delay between keying and the subsequent echo of > characters. I'd call that "don't work right"! So what if it is OCCASIONAL, I get that at 2400 baud with a Dataplex DPX224 when error correcting is enabled. I'd rather the delay to the errors and I'd also rather be running at >9600 baud. -- Brian Wallis (brw@jim.odr.oz) (03) 562-0100 Fax: (03) 562-0616, Telex: Jacobs Radio (Bayswater) 152093
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (03/30/88)
Replacing a defective BIOS ROM in an IBM PC-1 with a ROM duplicated from and associates PC-1 is merely changing a part. The end user agreement presumably signed as part of the warranty registration licenses the user to the software therein under nondisclosure, limited use, etc. In such a case the person copying and the person offering the copy of the ROM are probably within the bounds of the IBM agreement, as each user's software use has not been extended and nothing has been disclosed to 3rd parties. This, of course, presumes that the defective ROM and the one being copied are of the save REV level. In the case of going ver 3.x to 4.x on a Telebit, the person offering the copy would be violating at least nondisclosure clauses of the user agreement re: the firmware. As has been stated, 4.x contains Lev Zimpel compression and uucp spoofing algorithms that were not part of rev 3.x. The licensee of 4.x is bound to not disclose the algorithms therein to 3rd parties. This means in a word, "thou shalt not dupe". (Unless it is for your own archival purposes) I wouldn't feel morally offended if you dumped your ROMS to disk or made backup chips for yourself, but that is being rather obsessive, isn't it? Don't be chintzy, --Bill