Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy 865
recoiledsnake writes "Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting, however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy.' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"
Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Informative)
Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Informative)
On top of that Apple has a good case here because Blizzard already won similar argument before [slashdot.org]
Blizzard won on two arguments: first, that if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright; second, that selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers.
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rephrase that to say Apple has an effective case... because I certainly wouldn't call what they're doing "good".
They might lose (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Apple will lose this case, given the current legal situation, but if by some slim chance Psystar wins its case on the grounds that Apple should have no control over how their product is used as long as the software license is paid for, i.e. that the EULA doesn't hold in this case, then Apple will have to contend with a legion of people and companies doing this. On the one hand this would be the thing that would enable Apple to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC market, on the other it weigh Apple down with an enormous amount of support costs (unless they specifically exclude this in their EULA) and also do damage to their brand as it would get watered down. The latter is an important part of Apple's strength and I can understand them fighting this for dear life.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or they just require a paper license agreement to be signed pre-sale for all sales of OS X.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that Apple now, or in the future, would offer support for OSX installed on non-Apple hardware. So the argument that it will raise their support costs is bogus. Do they even support all the addon hardware (video, audio cards, etc) that you could put into your legit Mac now? Probably not.
Re:They might lose (Score:4, Informative)
From the (limited) cases I've had involving AppleCare, they'll support what they sold you. That's it. Anything you add is fine... But unless you bought it from Apple directly, that's all they'll cover.
If you get a new video card, and install it yourself and you get no picture, you'll need to remove the card and try again before they'll step in. Which is okay for those of us who'd be adding hardware anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're assuming they know that the person who purchased OS X is running it on a valid piece of Mac hardware. That is where it would get ugly. These OSX86's look like standard hardware when you profile them in System Profile. Apple could waste a lot of time and resources troubleshooting 3rd party hardware without even knowing they were troubleshooting a hackintosh. Especially if they don't inventory all of the hardware, or the hardware matches an actual Mac for the key components.
One the first thing an Apple employee registers is: The Serial-number. All serial-numbers are matched with a database that tells the employee what macintosh is on the other side with the customer. Psystar can't circumvent that.
Re:They might lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple don't need to support the use of their product for a purpose it isn't sold for. If you try to install OSX on a playstation, it isn't going to work, and nobody would expect it to. If you try to install it on a PC with a hacked EFI emulator, it might work, but you can't really complain if it doesn't work very well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If - by some miracle - Apple would be legally forced to allow 3rd parties to install OSX on non-Apple hardware they would be knowingly selling OSX for non-Apple hardware. Wouldn't that automatically give them SOME support requirements?
Can't Apple just lower the service level for OSX?
How do companies like Microsoft and Red Hat handle this?
Re:They might lose (Score:5, Interesting)
If the EULA held up and could be enforced then Apple would have had a legal injuction enforced against Psystar pretty much immediately and wouldn't need to resort to trying to argue flimsy scenarios like this one regarding the applicability of copyright to supposed copies of OS X made. The fact that they haven't managed to do that and this is what they're having to do speaks volumes about what their chances on EULA enforcements are.
It's about the only thing in their EULA that would hold up, and they wouldn't have to provide support for anything they didn't want to. It probably wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so however. You only need to look at Microsoft for the massive profits to be had from a far larger market with a far larger supply of hardware.
Re:They might lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They might lose (Score:5, Insightful)
but if by some slim chance Psystar wins its case on the grounds that Apple should have no control over how their product is used as long as the software license is paid for, i.e. that the EULA doesn't hold in this case...
If the EULA held up and could be enforced then Apple would have had a legal injuction enforced against Psystar pretty much immediately and wouldn't need to resort to trying to argue flimsy scenarios like this one regarding the applicability of copyright to supposed copies of OS X made.
You misunderstand. The EULA is a copyright license. In order for it to apply, Pystar has to have made a copy of the work, such as to disk or RAM.
It's about the only thing in their EULA that would hold up, and they wouldn't have to provide support for anything they didn't want to.
I don't think you understand the law very well.
It probably wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so however. You only need to look at Microsoft for the massive profits to be had from a far larger market with a far larger supply of hardware.
You're confusing cause and effect. MS makes huge profits because they have monopoly influence. Apple being unable to tie their hardware and software would make developing OS X unprofitable for Apple, not suddenly make them huge amounts of money. Every company that tries to compete in that market loses big time (BeOS for example). I know you think all the people making piles of money at Apple are incompetent compared to your economic brilliance and that they have somehow overlooked the idea of decoupling the markets, but the fact is, your theory is lousy.
Of course that is moot since Apple has lots of other ways to tie their hardware and software even if the EULA clause is thrown out. If Pystar were to win completely, Apple could just stop selling their OS as a boxed copy and provide it as a free upgrade to hardware customers. Or they could require users to buy a service (like Mac.com) and provide the upgrades free as part of it. Or add some heavy duty DRM and authentication bring the DMCA into it. In short, if Pystar wins, it sets a good legal precedent, but practically just inconveniences OS X users while gaining Pystar nothing in the long run. OS X users will have to get used to entering a big serial number like Windows users.
Pystar were clearly pretty clueless on a legal front when they started this enterprise and now are hoping to get a payoff and get out. You have to be a complete idiot to think you can include "mac" in the name of a computer you're selling despite Apple having a trademark on that term in the computer market.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You misunderstand. The EULA is a copyright license.
The EULA is not a copyright license. The EULA is a use license. That's why it's the end user licensing agreement, and not the purchasing agreement. P.S. It's also not a legal contract, because you didn't sign it. ESPECIALLY as the user in a corporate environment, where you never saw it.
You have to be a complete idiot to think you can include "mac" in the name of a computer you're selling despite Apple having a trademark on that term in the computer market.
So, this is about copyright, but you think the EULA applies when it's a use license and not a distribution license (it does have some stuff about distribution too, but it's redundant to copyright law) and now you're talking a
Re:They might lose (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand this would be the thing that would enable Apple to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC market
Apple doesn't want to break MS's stranglehold on the PC market. It works out nicely for Apple and MS. Apple gets a niche market for machines which are significantly more expensive and MS makes sure the MS Office runs on their PC's as long as Apple doesn't tread on their turf.
Apple could have ported OSX to PC architecture long ago (at least since they moved to Intel).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When Jobs came, one of the first things he did was up the major version number from 7 to 8 because the license for Mac OS 7 allowed third parties to make computers that could run Mac OS.
Thus fucking over millions of customers and potential customers in the process.
It's just my guess but I think the reason Apple is doing this because some of the price that goes into it's computers is the price of developing the operating system.
That's precisely why each licensee had to pay Apple a fee. If they weren't gettin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you are being too charitable. When you look at Apple's products it's obvious that they make a lot of money by locking you in and putting huge mark-ups on.
Take the iPod. The battery is not supposed to be user replaceable because they want you to either pay them to change it or just buy a new iPod. They also go out of their way to make sure only iTunes works with it, because then you will be exposed to the iTunes store. Only apps sanctioned by Apple can enter the App Store, and Apple get a cut of the
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I'm rooting for Apple on this one. It's their business model, and it has benefits for their users.
Don't do that. You are rooting for someone to win not based on the merits of their arguments, but because you like them and think the other side are jerks. That's very dangerous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Capitalizing it or not has no significance.
Yes it can be. BSD licenses allow software to be restricted in it's use but the BSD is still open source, notice I did not capitalize "open" or "source".
You're using a strawman argument, and you're completely wrong. The BSD license allows me to take the source, modify it, and give you source code with a restriction that you may not use it in a certain way, for example, I may include a restriction that you may not modify the code or re-publish parts of it.
In t
That might be irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications.
However, the section 117 exception gives a specific reason that the software might be allowed to be altered. Take a look (from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html [cornell.edu] ):
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [...]"
So an "adaptation" of the software is allowed if it is necessary to use the software with a machine. Now a court could easily whinge its way around interpreting this as a compatibility measure, but if it doesn't, then in Psystar's case, as long as the third-party modifications are deemed by the court to be only for the purpose of enabling Mac OS X to run on a general purpose PC, then the RAM copy (and potentially all the modified copies) aren't infringing.
Anyway, I don't think this is a big obstacle to Apple; there seems to be enough case law in the US that has allowed for very broad enforceability of software licensing agreements that Apple can still probably out-lawyer Psystar into the dust for breaking their "Apple-labeled" license provision, even without a finding of copyright infringement.
It's that part of the case I'm most interested in, as "Apple-labeled" is a strange choice of wording, and Apple has in the past employed it willy-nilly (for instance in the license of Safari for Windows when they pushed out millions of copies as a selected-by-default Quicktime/iTunes upgrade [http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9904445-7.html])
Re:That might be irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
As I recall, the Glider decision actual is more disturbing. Essentially, they sidestepped section 117 altogether and basically said that the RAM copy is a full blown copy, and is only made legally because the ELUA allows such use. As Glider violated the EULA, making a RAM copy of WoW infringed on Blizzard's copyright.
So not only is making a RAM copy infringement (without a license) ELUA's are also implicitly upheld. Lovely.
On somewhat unrelated, but interesting note: Now that SSDs (and, potentially PRAM) are picking of speed, it may well be possible to to run programs directly off the HD. This would completely sidestep all this 'copying to RAM is infringement' BS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On somewhat unrelated, but interesting note: Now that SSDs (and, potentially PRAM) are picking of speed, it may well be possible to to run programs directly off the HD. This would completely sidestep all this 'copying to RAM is infringement' BS
Not without some major OS (and possibly hardware) re-architecture, seeing as disks aren't usually memory mapped.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that when you call mmap() on something that resides on a disk or similar device (as opposed to a special device such as /dev/mem), the OS will copy data to and from the disk as needed, right? And that you're not actually directly mapping the data on disk?
Neither hard disks nor SSDs expose a memory-like interface that could be used in the manner that Artraze suggests. It can be done with NOR flash, but such memory is slow and small and not something you would want to run general purpose computi
Re:That might be irrelevant (Score:4, Funny)
And that's not even counting processor cache (probably small enough to be considered fair use).
And why stop there? The bits on the wire connecting the hard drive to the motherboard? That's another copy right there. And as the bits travel through each additional stage of gates on the way to RAM and/or the CPU? Another copy.
Cry havoc, and let slip the lawyers of war!
Re:that was over a app with online play and pay to (Score:5, Funny)
that was over a app with online play and pay to play a OS is a buy one time per system and you don't pay per mouth to use it as well.
I vote for worst use of the English language ever?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.
No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM. If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM
You are making an additional copy. This is well settled, both in law and in computer engineering.
If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?
No, because that second copy in RAM is allowed both by Microsoft's EULA and by copyright law itself (see 17 USC 117).
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:4, Informative)
I agree, "unauthorized copy" is the key concept here.
I hate how slashdot posts these half baked articles.
What is this, the Drudge Report?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, "unauthorized copy" is the key concept here.
I hate how slashdot posts these half baked articles.
What is this, the Drudge Report?
The unauthorized copy claim is already covered in the first two copies claims that Apple made. This is about an additional one that Apple claims that happens when the computer is booted.
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Informative)
The two copies here (and the one on psystar's server) are not.
And that's the key point. Psystar admitted to using disk duplication software to install OS X, which is almost assuredly a violation of copyright law. (PC OEMs and corporations need to obtain an special licence from Microsoft to do this.) After that it doesn't really matter how many additional copies were made.
Plus, Apple's legal strategy here is "throw the book at them" -- including traditional copyright, EULAs, derivative works, DMCA, trademarks, and patents. I wouldn't read too much into any particular argument, Apple will find something that sticks.
Apple owners would make same unauthorized copies (Score:4, Informative)
Seems like Apple hardware owners would be making the same unauthorized copies when they boot their computers.
If I'm I'm Psystar's legal team, I'd argue they make the same unauthorized copies that Apple's hardware owners make. If the Psystar process makes unauthorized copies, then Apple's does too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference would be if the EULA specifically gives Apple hardware owners the right to make that extra copy.
Psystar seems to be arguing that the owner of a copy of a program has inherent rights to load it into ram because of section 117, Apple says no, you need additional authorization you get from the EULA. If the EULA doesn't give anyone this right to a 3rd copy then you'd be correct.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First sale doctrine means that Psystar already has the rights the EULA is trying to hoard for apple hardware owners.
Re:Apple owners would make same unauthorized copie (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't. That only deals with people's rights to resell their software package (media and license.) It doesn;t allow Psystar to make a modified version of OSX to load onto their PCs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. And even if it were, it's Apples priveledge as the copyright owner to allow people do do it under whatever terms they chose. i.e. only on APple computers.
It ain't rocket science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even close, fortunately. Go read Title 17 of the U.S. Code some time, in particular sections 101-103,107-109, and 117.
Note especially fair use rights, archival rights, the first sale doctrine, and the right to copy as necessary to use a program on a (single) machine.
Fair use: 17 USC 107
First Sale: 17 USC 109
Copy permitted if necessary to use program: 17 USC 117(1)(a)
Archival rights: 17 USC 117(1)(b)
Re:Apple owners would make same unauthorized copie (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, this isn't concerned with transfer of title
Yes, it is. Apple's attorneys would have an enormous uphill battle fighting against centuries of common law, precedent, and the Uniform Commerical Code to establish that title to those copies did not transfer at each step of the distribution chain from Apple to Psystar.
Did any of those transactions involve a signed lease indicating that the transaction was not a purchase at all, but rather a transferable lease to a copy that was owned by a third party?
Apple owns the copyright, not the copy. Nor do they have any basis for the claim that they have title to copies that they delivered indefinitely in exchange for good money upfront. Nor do they have a basis for the claim that a shrinkwrap "license" is an enforceable license that governs the use of something the customer already owns. No one needs a license to use a copy they own - unless Apple owns the copy they cannot set the terms of its use beyond what is regulated by copyright.
It is worth noting here that generally speaking a license can be retracted on demand. That is why it is a license, not a contract. If I say you can use my swimming pool, that is a license. If I change my mind, I revoke that license. Only if consideration is involved does that license become a contract. "Purchasing a license" is an oxymoron. So is "consideration free contract".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Psystar apparently ships the original DVDs to every customer, a proposition which if true should provide ample evidence for the claim that they did indeed purchase them. I read Apple's latest motion or counter-motion and didn't see any claim to the contrary.
As for the further legal perpetration of the fiction that software is licensed, rather than sold in a retail distribution chain, I guess I haven't read enough to be convinced that proposition is now received common law.
It is as I commented elsewhere, if
Re:Apple owners would make same unauthorized copie (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple hardware owner make *authorized* copies, because those copies are allowed within the terms of license Apple grants. Pystar customers are *not* covered by that license and therefore are making *unauthorized* copies.
I think it might be silly to argue that ephemeral copies constitute copyright infringement, but there is clearly a distinction between authorized and unauthorized copies that comes down right where Apple says it does.
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Funny)
This, in fact, is the logical consequence of the absurdity that is "copyright". Ultimately, when you look at something, the photons bouncing off its surface (a copy) enter your retinas whereby they trigger electro-chemical impulses (a copy) in your receptor cells and travel down axons to other cells (a copy) and end up bouncing around your brain (multiple copies).
As one can easily see, the argument of "unauthorized copies" in any medium, once precedents are established (as they already apparently are), must logically lead to convictions for "unauthorized copies" in your mind (also known as "illegal thoughts"). Otherwise some "copies" are unequal to others based on arbitrary rules pulled out of some law-monkey's ass.
This will become even more apparent once technology advances to the point where computer/brain integration will become feasible and deployed on a large scale in form of mind-enhancing implants, thus blurring the distinction between a "copy" in one's brain or one's implants.
Copyrights (as all so-called "Intellectual Property") are illogical, nonsensical make-believe results of greed overpowering common sense and as the time goes on and technology progresses, their utterly moronic nature will only become more and more odiously apparent.
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Informative)
This goes back to the 80's, or possibly even 70's and deals with how computers work on a fundamental level. As you know, copyright means that the rights holder is the only one allowed to authorize copies. When a program runs, it is copied from the storage medium (i.e., disk, but back then it was tape) and into RAM. That's a copy. Copyright law was modified to explicitly permit these types of copies (I believe they are termed "transient copies") for license holders.
Apple's argument goes back to this statute. Apple's license says that you can only run Mac OS X on Apple hardware. Thus, the copy from disk to RAM on non-Apple hardware is an unauthorized copy.
It makes sense, from a letter-of-the-law point of view, and I find it very interesting because by and large nobody thinks about software copying in that sense anymore, but back in the day it was a very hot issue. I'm not saying I endorse this argument, but IIRC, this is how the law is written. Also, IANAL, so if you want to know more about this, go look it up yourself.
Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Peak Computer, Inc. had a business repairing MAI's Basic/4 computers and MAI got pissy about the "lost" service revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc [wikipedia.org].
It was that case that made it illegal to load copyrighted software into RAM without a license.
Before that, the legality was unclear and there were many heavy-handed lawsuits brought by manufacturers (including MAI) against 3rd party service companies.
Long after it mattered to either of them the court decided that it was ok to boot the system in order to repair it. Peak was never depriving MAI of any software sales, they were preventing MAI from using their software licenses to lock customers into their service contracts.
Similarly, Psystar isn't depriving Apple of any software sales but the are preventing Apple from using their software licenses to lock customers into their own brand of hardware.
Fuck Apple.
Litigated before (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Litigated before (Score:5, Interesting)
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once a license has been granted and rights^Wprivileges have already been exercised you run into 2 problems:
1. Consideration already accepted by the other side cannot be revoked after the fact
2. Promissory estoppel bars one side from revoking a privilege already exercised by the other party.
But you are correct in that it needs to be made more explicit. Corporations get to flex their legal muscles way too much these days.
I don't think psystar will ever survive long enough to either win OR lose the lawsuit.
Re:Litigated before (Score:4, Informative)
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
Yes, but...
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
No. Like Psystar said, 17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it. You don't need a license from the copyright holder; copyright law itself gives you that right.
And before you respond with "it's licensed, not sold": (1) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X, you own a copy -- that's what owning a copy means; (2) most courts have found that software is actually sold, not licensed, regardless of what the company "licensing" it wants you to think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud Pystar's attempt to create an alternative to Apple hardware. But the Apple license is pretty explicit. I think
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Groklaw going down the drain (Score:3, Informative)
Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site. She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?). Even in this article, PJ doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles. Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds. She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences. In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.
Old idea (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?
I remember having a serious WTF feeling maybe 10 years ago when reading about a judge's ruling.
Unauthorized (Score:4, Insightful)
"Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"
Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.
A.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unauthorized (Score:5, Insightful)
They, like the media conglomerates (RIAA and MPAA), are trying to change what copyright law actually is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But why should users need Apple's permission to install OSX on any computer they want?
Because when you "buy" software you aren't actually buying the software. You're buying into a licensing contract. That contract can limit you in any way that doesn't break any laws. It can limit what hardware it's used on.
People may not like, but Apple isn't a monopoly. They can choose something with different licensing terms (or no license at all) if that's their preference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As is the common theme is monopoly suits, it depends on what you define the market as. If the market is hardware that can legally run Mac OS X, then Apple most certainly does have a monopoly. Besides, I said monopolistic tendencies, inferring that it COULD become a problem.
How much money will you make on sales of your hardware/software that prints "hello world" and how much will you make by suing everyone that infringes on your copyrighted software running on non approved hardware as they write their firs
Re:Unauthorized (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless by monopoly you mean the only computers legally allowed to run OS X and the applications written to run under OS X.
When you have monopolies, you have price gouging.
EyeTV ship a Haupage USB digital TV encoder, that costs twice as much as a similar Haupage encoder for Windows. I have a Logitec web cam I stupidly bought as this version was OS X supported, not knowing it was exactly the same under the white plastic as the black one sold for Windows that was $50 cheaper. Odd that Logitec feel they should charge more for supplying a web cam with no drivers (OS X sees it fine) as opposed to the Windows one which does actually come with some nice extra Windows features.
Psystar is 100% wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
The current law is the current law, and Apple is legally correct. If you believe that the current law is not optimal, that's a matter to take up with the legislature. Arguing that the lawyers and courts are wrong for following the law is downright silly.
Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Pystar isn't wrong, just illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Without touching on the ethics or morality part of the question, the legality of Psystar's operations is up for litigation. You may believe it is illegal, but courts have the quaint notion that such decisions are up to them.
CD/downloaded music is then derivative licensed (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know who to root for here. If apple wins then all CD/downloadable music is then by the nature of the distribution system given a derivative allowed copyright license when sold. As the only way to play it is to make several derivative copies of the material. Where the base structure is rearranged and then finally processed Digital to Analog.
1) CD/base store
2) CD buffer, linked associated chain
3) dram copy of data, another linked associated chain with OS and application page tracking
4) audio card input buffer, another linked associated chain
5) audio card processor, digital to analog conversion and final digital encoded analog value, then analog sound
The RIAA and MPAA are going to want to weigh in on this if it goes anywhere.
Not all that controversial (Score:5, Insightful)
The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded _from_ is a legal copy. So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy. That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.
Re:Not all that controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing, if EULAs are upheld as overriding the sale of the software; that road leads to all sorts of absurd and obscene consequences. But Apple's argument against Psystar doesn't require EULAs to be valid.
Someone has to pay for Steve Jobs' livers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh oh. Imagine, if Apple wins this, then REMEMBERING A SONG OR THINKING ABOUT A MOVIE SCENE will have the MAFIAA at your door in a flash, since after all you made an "illegal copy" in your brain...
What Psystar is forgetting about (Score:5, Interesting)
17 USC 117 starts out thusly:
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.
If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.
Re:What Psystar is forgetting about (Score:4, Informative)
Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract. Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.
And, as such, they don't get to run the software. Your argument is nonsensical. I guess I can start distributing unauthorized copies of Windows, because I never signed a distribution agreement with Microsoft?
Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.
No, they would be owners of a shiny plastic disc. Apple retains ownership of the software. Users of software do not become owners of the copyright held in the software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but UCC Article 2 section 401 [cornell.edu] has something to say on the matter, specifically that title to the goods passes to the buyer at the time of delivery by the seller unless there's an explicit agreement otherwise. And that agreement has to be in place before delivery, otherwise title's already passed and the buyer can simply refuse the new agreement and retain title. And you'll note that in most software sales there is no explicit agreement entered into before the clerk hands you your package. There's only
My brain hurts, Steve! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is pretzel logic at its worst. Memo to Apple: build a machine that has a price point between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, that isn't an all-in-one machine, and is internally expandable, and people will buy that machine from YOU rather than buy a PC and make a Hackintosh. People know the difference between a Mac and a crappy PC. They know that the Mac will be the better quality machine. They will pay more -- not a King's Ransom, but modestly more -- for Apple quality. This is why the MacBook has pwn3d most
No, Steve is right and you prove it! (Score:4, Insightful)
People know the difference between a Mac and a crappy PC.
A friend of mine thought he knew the difference but after he found out that he couldn't upgrade the video card of his 24'' Apple he decided to turn it to a tv/media center for his bedroom. He listened to my advice to upgrade the PSU of his crappy Pentium system, install a low cost RAID array, get a modern 3D card, upgrade the memory to 4 GB and finally get a high quality Unicomp keyboard and a 26'' led monitor. Except for the monitor, the upgrades cost him little and his old machine feels twice as fast as the Apple.
He is fuming with Apple because he would really like to play a few modern games but the video card of this model cannot be upgraded. (He didn't research that possibility as he never thought it possible to get a desktop system for 2500 Euros with a crappy portable MXM video without the option to upgrade.)
So he often comes to my apartment just to play Gothic III on my watercooled system which by the way cost only 1500 Euros and turns his Apple to dust.
A year ago, he was about to buy a MacBook but I saved him from that mistake by asking him to compare an equally priced Lenovo. He was blown away and I think this is the time when the Apple myth started fading on him.
I am sure you are not convinced, correct? And this is my point: Apple is right. Their secret recipe is no longer how to make great computers but how to make their users feel superior. "The difference between a Mac and crappy PC" in the eyes of a Mac user is that the PC is crappy by nature while the Mac is not. It's a delusion, but one that feeds Apple since the 90s.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, Steve is right and you prove it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure you are not convinced, correct? And this is my point: Apple is right. Their secret recipe is no longer how to make great computers but how to make their users feel superior. "The difference between a Mac and crappy PC" in the eyes of a Mac user is that the PC is crappy by nature while the Mac is not. It's a delusion, but one that feeds Apple since the 90s.
The thing you have to remember is, Apple is a hardware company. Nokia is also a hardware company. Linksys/Cisco appears to be a hardware company. All these companies make their money off selling hardware, so they need 100% (or higher) margins.
Exception: Apple iTunes
Now, keeping that in mind, compare all the crapware Lenovo bundles. For an educated user like you, it's no problem wiping it out. For most people, it's less hassle to fork over a few hundred extra dollars, because if they actually use that softwa
Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are completely not their target market. Apparently, you want a two inch thick laptop that runs Linux and KDE. There are plenty of them. Buy them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does it have to boot OS X, though? The company that sells OS X puts lots of silly monopolist conditions on how you can use it. They don't care about the "first sale" thing you mention in another post. They use DRM to lock the software to their hardware, you have to hack it to make it work.
Seems to me that any of these by itself would be a pretty good reason to refuse to support that company. Even if you pirate OS X, you're still helping to promote it, and thus still supporting the behaviour of the com
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The first sale doctrine and that they offer the OS separately via both their web site and retail stores; their right to dictate how you use their product ends the moment the deal is done. It's not a work for hire so only copyright law applies.
Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I buy a book, I can legally do whatever I want with it. Read it, shred it, use it for toilet paper. If I then choose to sell the remains of the book, That I can also do this legally...just so long as I do not copy it (copyright infringement). If I buy a legal boxed copy OS X, then I should have the same rights to do as I please, which includes installing it on my own hardware regardless of it been an Apple branded box or not.
Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (Score:4, Insightful)
What Psystar is doing here is the equivalent of copying the book, slapping on a different cover, and selling it for profit.
No... it's the equivalent of buying a book, slapping on a different cover, and selling it for profit.
It's not like reselling a book, or installing Mac OS X on your personal hackintosh.
On the contrary, that is exactly what it's like. Check your facts. Psystar resells copies of OS X that they purchased; they don't make their own copies. And the same law that gives you the right to install your copy of OS X on your personal hackintosh also gives you the right to authorize someone else (like Psystar) to do it on your behalf.
Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the COPY of the OS the customer purchased is OWNED by the customer. They can do whatever they want with it, short of redistributing copies. It should be no different than if I bought a book; I could quote from it, cross out lines, and even read it back to front if I wanted. Yes, I know that the courts don't treat it the same; that's because the courts are wrong.
These arguments about "I'd buy a Mac if it had exactly X configuration, but seeing as they don't I'll just pirate it on my own system" have absolutely zero merit.
I absolutely agree. But the argument "I own a copy of the OS, and I own a computer with exactly X configuration, so I'm going to put my copy of the OS on my computer" DOES have merit.
Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X. Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then? I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.
When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are. But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow? Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft. They're out to make money just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't Apple just sell upgrade licenses at retail?
At least that's how i understood it. And the other licenses are locked to the hardware - just like Microsoft's OEM licenses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of. The $30 Snow Leopard is a Leopard upgrade license; the $170 SL/iLife/iWork pack is generally advertised as "For computers without Leopard", though the system requirements specifically state that you need an Intel Mac.
In practice, every Snow Leopard disc is identical, whether it comes in the cheap upgrade version or the "Mac Box Set" (above), or a family pack of either (aside from a sticker on the box, there's nothing in the family packs about licensing). As such, the installation EULA is going to
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.
They may not have a right (morally, that is), but, since the EULA states what you can run OS X on, they would seem to have a legal right.
Not everyone lives in USA. Different places have different laws. Where I am, that EULA as no validity. You can't impose a contract to use your product after I bought it. You have to make me accept that contract before I buy it. So it looks like eveybody in Quebec can go buy OS X and run it on anything they seem fit, even a toaster if they can make it work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know morals involve some opinion
Correct, hence:
but I think that if you develop a product you should be allowed to sell that product on your terms,
Nice. I don't, and apparently neither does the GP.
and the law agrees with that.
Laws have nothing to do with morality.
Just because someone else wants to sell a product that is a derivative of your work doesn't mean you have to let them.
For many of us, the act of actively prohibiting third parties from modifying and redistributing your work is inherently inmoral, regardless of whether its done for profit or otherwise.
Books, music, DvD's etc all use these sorts of (legal) protections, and while some of us may loathe the methods they use to protect their wishes, not many people would claim they shouldn't have the right to limit reasonable use. i.e. You can't buy a DVD and start screening that movie for money.
What if we are some of those "not many people"? is one deprived of excercising his/her opinion solely because its a minority one?
Saying Apple is being immoral in this instance would imply nearly any contract that dictates how a product may be used is also immoral based on your reasoning for the immorality (EULA stating what can be done).
Hell *FUCKING* yeah. Limiting redistribution and modification is in some sort of a "moral gray a
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is not a flawed assumption. You CLEARLY stated that you think once something is sold you should be able to do ANYTHING with it. If this means copy and redistribute those copies then that is fine right? Or are you taking back your prior statements and saying that there should be some regulations on what it means to sell something. You are now clearly contradicting your own moral assertions because you are saying that there are conditions to the sale i.e. You can't do certain things with the product once you buy it (such as copy and redistribute the copies).
I don't care if I lose karma over this; get the fuck off your high horse. Current copyright is not perfect, but the idea that people should have no control over their creative works because it is "immoral" to place stipulations on the sale of something is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Stipulations on the sale of something is the basis of our modern society.
You are advocating anarchy through your 'morals'.
Normally I respect ones 'morals' but I think you have clearly demonstrated you are a self interested individual. You only care how this affects you and have no considerations to who else if affected by your ideas of right and wrong. You want to just go out and buy shit and have control over it with no thought of the work the creators put into making it. The reasons for wanting something to be sold with conditions is not to screw over the buyer. In fact most of the time it facilitates the buyer into being able to buy (and then get to use) something that would otherwise be too expensive. By reducing the level of control over said purchased item, or by stripping 'unnecessary' qualities from it, the product or service can be sold at a reduced price. The perfect example of this is a DVD. If there were no stipulations a DVD would probably cost in the thousands or higher because anyone could copy, screen, and otherwise profiteer by the purchase of the item. By imposing limitations the price can be reduced to a more reasonable level because the product is sold for a certain purpose. In the case of a DVD; private viewing with friends and family. Without this condition DVDs could not exist because the makers of the movie would not get compensated for their time and effort but someone else would. I really hope I don't need to go into a whole economics lecture here to explain why people need money to do things.
You can argue that morals are held by individuals, but all morals are the product of socialization one way or another. Socialization is the product of a society. Society is very closely involved with shaping the morals of the individual. All you need to do to prove this is compare America to say Iran. The vastly different morals are not due statistical anomalies or rational choices in individual persons. It is due to society socializing its members. Morality is inherently based on a set of generally accepted beliefs that a society has. In some societies it is immoral to do things that are perfectly normal in other societies. Laws are generated off of morals that the general society feels so strongly about that they are willing to FORCE that moral on anyone who is wishing to live within the societal structure. i.e. If you feel like parking in a handicapped spot you will get a ticket. There is nothing inherently wrong with parking in a spot arbitrarily marked as special, yet as a society the general moral belief is that those spots should be reserved for certain people who need them more. If this was not a general moral belief of the society.. it would not exist.
So while you can blab on about what you think is correct, morals are not just opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality [wikipedia.org]
Only in the most abstract sense of morality do you end up in the zone where morality is just an opinion. The generally accepted definition requires some sort of semi-logical justification of the view you take.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You CLEARLY stated that you think once something is sold you should be able to do ANYTHING with it
Then you could easily produce a quote of such an statement.
You are now clearly contradicting your own moral assertions because you are saying that there are conditions to the sale i.e. You can't do certain things with the product once you buy it (such as copy and redistribute the copies).
Technically it'd be the government conditioning the terms of use after the sale, much like I can sell you a gun but you still can't shoot somebody with it, it's not *me* who is prohibiting you from doing so. I did state that *use* of creative works should not be limited, meaning by either the original creator nor the government, but I never did so for redistribution and in fact I conceded there were valid points for both sides.
Current copyright is not perfect, but the idea that people should have no control over their creative works because it is "immoral" to place stipulations on the sale of something is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
The idea that people h
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise, which is why you can search my house:0 NO Apple/Mac, no iDevices, not today, not ever. Not even welcome on the property (a recent guest was surprised but accepted my position).
So to summarize - because of Apple's heavy-handed behavior, you will not associate with anyone who does not allow you to force your beliefs on them.
There's some irony in there, somewhere. But on the bright side, I'm guessing this doesn't affect a significant number of people at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've always been a PC at heart.
Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.
I gaze at the faces going by, the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Things to google:
"First Sale Doctrine"
"Rights of the owner of a purchased item to control its disposition."
If I were, for some reason, to *PURCHASE* a copy of OSX, then there is no 'contract'. I do not agree to any EULA's or shrinkwrap licenses.
I can do FUCK ALL WHATEVER THE HELL I want with that individual copy, as long as I don't distribute copies of it to other people. I *CAN* make a personal copy for backup purposes. I can use the disc as a coaster or I can use its contents as an entropy source for a ra
Re:Nice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is a corporation, that is headed by a chief executive officer and a board of directors. Those officials hire Apple's attorneys for the express purpose of representing Apple's legal interests. The attorneys are under their direction, and make controversial legal arguments only with their assent, explicit or otherwise.
If the officers of Apple Computer Inc. don't think this is a legitimate or wise legal argument to be making, they should fire their attorneys and make a public retraction. Otherwise it i
Re:Are they making this argument? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, apple is. Since their attorneys represent apple, they are apple in a court of law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, it's pretty hard for a fruit or a voiceless entity to make an argument.
As long as their attorneys are authorized by Apple to represent them in court, I think it can be said that Apple's making that argument in court.
And yes, it's the submitter here.
Re:if you buy the software, it's a legal copy (Score:4, Insightful)
Prescription drug makers love it when something like Botox, which was originally developed as a treatment for crossed eyes, is used for "off-label" applications. Now, airline tickets are another matter, but it's not really good marketing to justify your shitty business practices because airlines get away with something similar...
Granted, if I use these products in a manner inconsistent with their labeling, I assume the risk of doing so.
I couldn't give two fucks about the BSA or your Adobe example (I seriously doubt BSA is going to sue one individual for upgrading a pirated serial, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand).
In my theoretical case, I paid for OS X and I can damn well use it how I please. Apple got their money. If they don't want us using OS X on third party hardware, maybe they should stop selling upgrades, embed the OS in ROM and only sell updated OS software with new machines - they'd love that.
If I am Apple and some whiner calls complaining that their Dell Mini 9 got bricked by a software update, it's tough luck, Charlie. It's funny though that Dell support will tell you how to install OS X on your Dell Mini 9, and I don't see the BSA going after them.
Isn't it also funny how Dell has made sure that certain models of their laptops are plug compatible with Macs, which allows you to install OS X onto them without hacking them first...