Apple Cease-And-Desists Stupidity Leak

Remember Apple's "free, plus $19.95 shipping" updater CD for Mac OS X 10.1? Turns out it's actually a full version of the operating system (which helps explain why it's so large) but it adds an extra little package called "CheckForOSX." Remove that and you can install 10.1 on any disk -- or at least, that's the secondhand version I got of what used to be at MacFixIt's Nov. 20 report, which yesterday was taken down after a note from Apple's lawyers. Here's the cease-and-desist story. We've included Apple's letter, below.

Apple cites the Lanham Act (see below) and I have no idea what that covers. But Bill Innanen pointed out on a mailing list that the operating system might be said to violate its own access control rights under the DMCA:

...since the possession of the tools to violate a copyright has been criminalized, we have yet another case of circular legal "logic." The only tool necessary to violate this particular copyright is the very operating system that the copyrighted software (the updater/full-installer) installs (or an earlier version of same).

(Just pop open the installer package with the built-in "context sensitive menu" module, find the CheckForOSX module and drag it to the trash can. Voila!)

Is the possession of MacOS X v10.1 or its installer illegal because it can be used to violate its own copyright?

(Well, actually by the letter of the law in 1201(2) I think you'd have to argue that Mac OS X 10.0 was "primarily" designed to circumvent the access controls in the 10.1 update... but it's still pretty funny.)

Bill goes on to point out: "The problem that this converted updater fixed is that there are reported problems with 10.1.1, and with a 10.0.x and the updater you can't backtrack. With the 10.1 full installer you can."

Apple's lawyers write:

We represent Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") with respect to its intellectual property matters. Recently, it has come to our attention that you are providing unauthorized instructions concerning the modification of the Mac OS X 10.1 update software (the "Software") on your website. Specifically, it appears that you are providing instructions for converting Mac OS X 10.1 update Software to a full install version of Mac OS X from your web site in violation of the Copyright Act and in violation of your software license agreement with Apple.

You should be aware that Apple has never authorized you modify the Software. Moreover, by providing instructions on how to modify and circumvent restrictions within the Software, you are infringing Apple's copyrights in violation of the Copyright Act and engaging in acts of unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act. Additionally, Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.

Consequently, on behalf of our client, we demand that you cease and desist from publishing or distributing the above-referenced materials. We believe that this is a very serious matter, thus we ask that we receive confirmation in writing from you that you have removed the infringing material from your web site.

Thank you for your prompt cooperation on this matter.

how many lawyers does it take...

[jpellino]

to stuff the genie back into the bottle?

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[ConceptJunkie]

Given the progress being made in finding ways around "protection" schemes, the only two possible scenarios in the future are:

1. Companies find another, intelligent way of dealing with intellectual rights issues.

2. The USA (and elsewhere) will become a corporate-financed police state.

Apple's lawyers can and will complain all they want, but it seems to me that the folks who put together the CD are to blame. It's getting to the point where even a little bit of technical knowledge about software brings the lawyers down like a load of bricks.

I hack software regularly, and perhaps do some things which are technically illegal, but don't involve using software that I don't have a license for. Is it technically illegal to have a copy of the MSDN Windows 98 release so I don't have to pull out Windows 3.1 floppies for my upgrade CD every time I want to reinstall Windows 98 for my kids? Probably. Am I stealing anything I didn't pay for? No. Would Microsoft's lawyers destroy me if they had a chance? You bet.

How long before it is illegal to use RegEdit? How long before it is illegal to use "dir"?

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[ryanr]

2. The USA (and elsewhere) will become a corporate-financed police state.

Yup. I'm just waiting for RoboCop to go rogue.

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[ignatzMouse]

2. The USA (and elsewhere) will become a corporate-financed police state.

• Corporations with more rights than people.
  
• Police able to search and detain citizens at will without cause or oversite. (Current law, Japanese American Internment)
  
• Intelligence agencies that sponsor the overthrow of nations that attempt to control their own natural resources. (Chile, Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba(failed) etc...)
  
• A government that ignores international law and refuses to sign treaties on global warming and chemical weapons.
  
• Citizens that don't agree to fight for corporate interests are jailed and if people protest they are shot. (Vietnam)
  
• A government that sponsors dictators and helps sponsor them by promoting the sale of illegal drugs to its own citizens. (Contra Cia Cocain connection, Cambodia, Afghanistan)
  

Oops! Too late.

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who are completely uninformed. Corporations are protected and have all the same rights you do. Corporations are souless spiritless entities who aren't responsible for their actions. So they can dump nuclear waste in your yard, not keep records, and are not accountable except for lawsuits. Lets see lawyers work for money and corporations have all of it. Can you see where this is going?

So what is the solution? We must educate ourselves on the issues, write our congressmen and go to their offices to visit them face to face. Yes I do this. You must vote and educate your neighbors. Together in the end we will make a difference but it is a slow process and takes lots of effort. If your not part of the solution don't bitch when you have no rights. Never forget our system is for the people, by the people. When the people lay down the corporations and government will run right over them.

For the naysayers who don't believe their one voice helps imagine how much worse it would be if there were no voice at all... You can be assured if it weren't for the few people fighting for your rights you wouldn't have the small fragment of them that still exist. The more the people are tread on the more people will join the fight and educate themselves. In the end the people will prevail, I have faith in at least that one thing. If it weren't for that I wouldn't still live here.

And don't let the socialist trick you into believing capitilism makes people greedy. My dogs and cats are greedy without any knowledge of ownership. They decided their toys are theirs not me. Ownership isn't the problem it is unnacountable corporations which we did not originaly have in this country.

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[Nonsanity]

Looking at Apple's summary of their EULA:

...Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.

And looking at the instructions to make a 10.1 install CD from a 10.1 updater:

1. Using instructions posted on this page, create a disk image of the Update CD.
2. Delete the CheckforOSX file from the Essentials.pkg file in System/Installation/Packages folder of the image file. [You need to use the Open Package Contents contextual menu item to access this file.]
3. Burn the image to a CD using Disk Copy.

One might come to the conclusion that burning the modified files onto a new CD is copying the "Software" and therefore in violation of the EULA. Arguing that making a personal backup copy is permitted might get into some grey area if that backup is altered. But unless you give or sell your modified CD to someone else, I can't see that as being a violation.

Chris Innanen
(Son of Bill Innanen)

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[killmenow]

...Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying,

There may be an argument that they copied the CD, but posting instructions is not copying and so is not a violation of this part of the license

decompiling,

Nope...no decompiling going on here

reverse engineering,

This is not reverse engineering. In order to figure out how to do this, it seems all you have to do is poke around a bit. And Apple gives you the tools directly to do it. It's not like you have to have SoftICE or some-such to step through the thing to figure this out. This is simply using a feature of the software itself.

disassembling,

No disassembly going on here...move along.

modifying

Okay...now they've got 'em. Doing this may very well be legally considered modifying the software. Of course, I still want to know what constitutes modifying. If I simply turn [off|on] a feature using the menuing system or some other built-in facility of the OS, is that modifying? I think an argument may be made that if modifying the OS is illegal, then changing your desktop wallpaper as well as a number of other configuration tasks are rendered illegal as well. Hell, setting your TIME ZONE could be illegal!

or creating derivative works of the Software.

Well, burning it onto a CD after deleting that file may very well be creating a derivative work...but the whole point of this is: describing the actions on a website is not anything the license says you can't do. Putting up these instructions on the web may be a violation of the DMCA, but it is most definitely not a violation of the EULA.

Actually following the instructions probably is.

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[quinto2000]

>If the US government was in bed with corporate America, why are businesses saddled with excessive regulations and taxes?
Prove it. Corporate welfare is larger than any other form of welfare. The big corporations get more tax breaks than the average American, that's for sure. And where, exactly, would we be without the limited regulations that we currently have?

Don't forget that although Ralp Nader )through organizations like Public Citizen [publiccitizen.org]) pressured car companies into improving their safety under strong opposition, a year later the car companies themselves were trumpeting the safety features that they had been *forced* to implement! Provide some evidence to back up the assertion that we have "excessive regulation" and "high taxes" for corporations. The fact is that government involvement is needed: economists acknowledge that the market does not solve all problems alone. I am in favor of reducing the entitlement complex that corporations seem to have, however.

Re:how many lawyers does it take...

[Tackhead]

> how many lawyers does it take... to stuff the genie back into the bottle?

Never mind that.

How many genies, at three wishes apiece, will it take to stuff all the lawyers into a bottle?

(keeping in mind that you'll need to save one wish for last - that the bottle, still containing its lawyers, fall past the event horizon of a 14-solar-mass black hole.)

Well, duh.

[boinger]

What they should have done is a package-by-package analysis of the install and tell what each part does. Leave it to the discussion board and newsgroups to establish what taking out a piece does.

Well..

[mindstrm]

Regardless of the technical stupidity...
Publishing information about this does qualify as providing a mechanism to circumvent a copy control mechanism.

Re:Well..

[czardonic]

Publishing information about this does qualify as providing a mechanism to circumvent a copy control mechanism.

Every time I hear this, I am more convinced that it would never stand up against a 1st amendement challenge. So the information can potentially be missused. So what?

Re:Well..

[Bobo the Space Chimp]

If they couldn't make it illegal to tell you how to build an atom bomb, how could they make it illegal to tell you how to delete one file?

Re:Well..

[Mr_Matt]

I think a valid question here is "what exactly is a copy control mechanism?" The current definition seems to be something like "anything that prevents unauthorized use of blank" which of course, necessitates the definition that merely using said blank is in its origin making a copy. Otherwise it's access control, not copy control, right?

A logical extension of the above definition would apply to analog books (you know, ink on paper, that kind of thing :) If mere use constitutes "copying", then simply reading a book could be viewed as unauthorized copying. This of course is patent nonsense, and explains why the DMCA is the Digital Millenium Crap Act, and not applicable to other media. The question I see is, why the hell is digital use any different from analog use? I can see where Apple doesn't want to give away its operating systems for free, but why use specious copyright laws to cover for their screw-ups? Aren't there better ways to CYA? :)

Re:Well..

[mindstrm]

First, DMCA also covers mechanisms that control access to a copyrighted work.

Secondly, reading a book is not 'unauthorized copying'.. the INTENT of the book is to be read.

A book, as has been stated so many times before, is not software. It's not licensed to you, it's SOLD to you, and the only thing preventing you from copying it and re-selling it is copyight law.

Software, on the other hand, is contractual, on top of it all.

Re:Well..

[j7953]

Publishing information about this does qualify as providing a mechanism to circumvent a copy control mechanism.

Yeah, sure. You might also want to consider suing Xerox for shipping manuals with their photocopiers. And what about going after Intel? I've heard they provide documentation of the x86 instruction code, which supports copying bits from processor registers into memory without checking for a license first.

News flash...

[InfinityWpi]

Horses gone. Lawyers hired to close barn door. Non-farmers sick and tired of hearing about it.

Okay, yes, companies are posessive about their software, even when they're stupid with it. We know this. It's not news. Yeesh.

Dear Website Owner

[the_rev_matt]

We are dumb. You have pointed this out, and we'd like you to stop doing so.

This, of course, from the same company that used to let you drag the whole OS to the trash bin and delete it...

Re:Dear Website Owner

[SlamMan]

Actaully, its not quite that easy. Most of the files in the OS are active at any given time, so you can't just delete them. To remove the entire os, you'd have to boot of another drive, or boot of another system ont he same drive drive.

Re:Dear Website Owner

[kimihia]

Drag it to the trash bin? What's wrong with that?

A user tells the computer what to do - a computer does not tell the user what to do.

There are two exceptions:

• You are using Windows
• You are h4x0ring someone elses system

I can ``rm -rf /'' if I want to (and I have root permissions). That's an example of the operating system being done as it is told.

I don't see Apple letting a person (with appropriate permissions) being able to drag the entire operating system to the rubbish bin as being a problem. It's their computer - not OSX's.

Re:Dear Website Owner

[digitalmuse]

I have worked in desk-side and phone support for close to a decade... people can (and will!) do this in whatever OS you give them. I can't tell you how many engineers in my company thought they would save some space by moving the c:/winnt directory to the trash. I mean, c'mon, you guys upgraded me to Windows 2000 last week, I don't need Windows NT any more! Hey, it doesn't work! you broke it!!!
Without some pretty drastic UI-level intervention you are never going to drool-proof a machine. by the time you idiot-proof a process, only an idiot will be interested in using it. besides, the universe is eternally developing bigger, better, and more inventive idiots...

Clearly free speach must prevail

[a1englishman]

I guess it doesn't matter to the lawyers, or even Congress that the instructions are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It should be legal to posess and disseminate said directions, but illegal to use them. The same as plans for making a pipe bomb, or owning a Britainy Spears album.

This is great

[jayhawk88]

Large companies covering up for stupid mistakes with threats of litigation truly is the comedy of the new century.

OK, so IANAL, but that seemed almost nice

[chancycat]

Take the following:

Consequently, on behalf of our client, we demand that you cease and desist from publishing or distributing the above-referenced materials. We believe that this is a very serious matter, thus we ask that we receive confirmation in writing from you that you have removed the infringing material from your web site.

Seemes like Apple is at least not trying to crush them. I give them points for being nice lawyers.
Same time, they really goofed, so they can afford to drive any more (bad) publicity on this matter.

Re:OK, so IANAL, but that seemed almost nice

[DougLandry]

WEll they wouldn't try to "crush" that site. MacFixIt is one of the largest and most-respected Mac sites on the Internet. It's also probably saved Apple tens of thousands of dollars in support costs due ot the help posted on that site everyday.

MacFixIt first was an web-update site for Ted Landau's Sad Macs, Bombs, and Other Disasters [peachpit.com] book. Since then, it has grown to be quite popular and well-known--#3 out of 56 sites on a recent survey [lowendmac.com].

This isn't Apple sending a harsh letter to some corporation in Asia ripping off its iMac or a letter seeking to shut down someone's domain that infringes on copyrights--it's Apple's lawyers politely, but firmly, explaining their problem with the update (the legalese is what makes it seem a bit...shall we say...stern?) to a website that is well known both inside and outside of Apple.

The Lanham Act

[aidoneus]

The Lanham Act [bitlaw.com] is actually a trademark / service mark protection law, not really a copyright law. To see Apple's lawyers use it in this context seems a bit out of the ordinary, although Apple is notorious for vigorously defending their trademark and look-and-feel related concepts (remember the OS X themes debate a few months back?). Still, if they're relying on the Lanham Act to do their bullying, they might be on shakey footing. Stick to the (deservedly despised) DMCA for things like that.

Re:The Lanham Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Prof. Dave Touretzky [cmu.edu] at Carnegie Mellon (you may remember him for the gallery of CSS descramblers he keeps on his page) has an interesting practical reply [cmu.edu] to being threatened with bogus Lanham Act claims (scroll about halfway down for the relevant comments). I'm not sure if the reasoning applies here, but it's worth a read.

Hurry! Quick!

[Rev.LoveJoy]

... put that goddamn genie back in the bottle!

Somebody should tell Apple that security through obscurity only works when you keep your mouth shut about things.

Cheers,
-- RLJ

I'd like to thank apple...

[GreenKiwi]

... for providing a full installer, so that I can do a full clean install of the software. Updaters often leave residue from previous versions of the software.

I just wish people wouldn't take advantage of it.

A little background on the Lanham Act

[atom6]

The Lanham Act essentially includes all the federal laws governing trademark registration and usage (but not state laws). Apple appears to be seeking protection under Title VIII of the Act, which has to do with misappropriation or misrepresentation of trademarks for use in commerce.

I'm just a college student who's taken a few law classes, but it seems to me this is a fairly weak claim, and Apple could make a much stronger one under other areas of federal law. Can anyone with more legal knowledge comment on the strength of Apple's claim?

Here's a link [bitlaw.com] to the complete text of the Act.

Will Slashdot get a letter as well?

[snoozerdss]

Since slashdot posted this story does that mean that they too will receive a letter from apple?

Apple is still a company

[DougLandry]

Apple is a company seeking to profit from the purchase of the hardware and software it produces.

Mac OS X is the culmination of more than 7 years of "next-generation" operating system development of many forms at Apple and untold millions, and probably more than a billion dollars in software development that has not begun to show any return for Apple until March of this year, after Mac OS X's release.

Pure Mac OS X sales will never pay for the development of the operating system. In a way, Mac OS X is the greatest loss-leader of them all--driving the hardware sales with fat margins that keeps the company afloat. While I'm aware that open-source choices in operating systems are free, $130 is not expensive for an OS, considering the price for other mainstream OSs.

The Mac OS 10.1 update is given away for free. You walk into any Mac-carrying retail outlet and they will hand you this nicely-packaged CD with instructions and send you on your way, without asking for proof of OS X ownership. Putting a check for 10.0.x in the software updater is not unexpected.

Apple legal has been heavyhanded in the past. Apple has a very strong brand to protect and does so vigorously. In this case, they're not just protecting the specific look of the iMac or a trademark, but the profits that any company should expect for producing a quality product.

Re:Apple is still a company

[edremy]

The Mac OS 10.1 update is given away for free. You walk into any Mac-carrying retail outlet and they will hand you this nicely-packaged CD with instructions and send you on your way.

Actually, they won't. They will look at you with a confused expression and go "I don't think we have that", or perhaps a "Sorry, Apple didn't send us any- all we have is the full version."

At least, that was my experience when I went to upgrade 10.0. The former was 2 separate Circuit City's, the latter a Mac store (Not one of Apple's). I finally asked a guy I knew online to make me an (illegal) copy.

Apple screwed the pooch bigtime on this upgrade. I'm one of the few folks here who will speak of Macs without spitting and they made it close to impossible for a loyal user to upgrade from a slow, buggy, feature incomplete beta version of the OS.

Eric

I'm sorry but that makes no sense

[donutello]

If you're not convinced of its ridiculousness yet, just substitute Microsoft for Apple and Windows XP for Mac OS X.

Apple is perfectly entitled to want to ship certain things for Mac OS X, of course and they are perfectly entitled to make sure they get the revenue from their software, etc. and of course they are perfectly entitled to put stuff on their CD to prevent it being used any way they don't want it to be.

However, what they are not entitled to do is force a website to stop pointing out blatant and obvious holes in their prevention mechanisms.

Further proof that the MacOS is the friendliest ..

[Wordsmith]

You know, when you want to circumvent the existing install checker on the average PC upgrade edition of a product, you usually have to murk around with the registry or apply cracks with non-standard install methods ... things that would confuse the average joe newby pirate. But on the MacOS, you can crack your software with just a single drag of the mouse! Now that's what I call UI innovation.

OS/2 was the first

[nusuth]

Warp's free trial versions had a time limited kernel related file (I don't remember what it was), which had a non-time limited version in the bootable install medium (floppies or the bootable cd.) You just had to copy it on top of installed one and that could be done a single drag of mouse too.

Re:Further proof that the MacOS is the friendliest

[Rentar]

They even succeeded in providing a point & click local root exploit (for details take a look at Bugtraq [securityfocus.com]).

I don't know if they are the first to offer this feature, but it's definitley nice.

Apple isn't in the wrong here...

[eXtro]

though I don't think that maxfixit.com is in the wrong either. Providing instructions on how to turn the MacOS 10.1 upgrade into a full installer is no different than providing instructions in how to convert the Macromedia Flash demo into a full working version, or providing a CD crack for Quake. All of the examples exist. You can download the Flash demo and make it a fully functioning copy. You can download a file that disables copy protection.

Depending on how you use any of these instructions and/or pieces of software it may be illegal. It also might be legal, or at least grey. Suppose I've got a legitimate copy of MacOS 10. I've also legitimately purchased the 10.1 installer. My hard drive fails and I want to run 10.1 again. I can install MacOS 10, then install MacOS 10.1 - or - I can defeat the protection on MacOS 10.1 and install it in a single step. In this case the end result is the same, I've legally installed a copy of MacOS 10.1.

If I don't legally have MacOS X and use this trick to get a copy of MacOS 10.1 for 20 bucks then I'm at least doing something immoral, and possibly illegal. Apple has the right to try to prevent this (beyond that, they've got an obligation to as well, an obligation to their stock holders).

That said, it will also be ineffective. The crack will appear on some dyndns.org warez site and on gnutella etc. I had suspected that upgrade CD was a full install but didn't have a chance to verify it. I upgraded my sisters G4 over thanksgiving weekend. The CD seemed pretty full for an upgrade, and you could actually boot from it.

Re:Apple isn't in the wrong here...

[ShieldWolf]

I totally disagree. If he created a program that allowed you to convert the installer you would have an arguement, however he is merely pointing out how it could be done, e.g. if I tell you how to pick a lock, that is perfectly legal, but I am not allowed to sell you a lock pick.

-Shieldwolf

Yes they are.

[Chris Burke]

Apple is in most certainly in the wrong here, in as much as it is wrong to be stupid, lazy, and legally defensive of the first two failings.

Look, ignore for a second that the label on the CD reads "10.0 -> 10.1 upgrade" or somesuch. The fact is that you legally purchased a CD that contains the entire 10.1 operating system. It is the fully functional operating system, and the only requirement for having 10.0 is an artificial one that is easily removed. Does Apple wanting it to just be an upgrade CD change the fact that it is the entire OS + 1 package? Not at all.

It's like overclocking. You might buy a processor that is labeled as 1GHz, but it can run at 1.2 if cooled properly. Does the fact that the vendor would rather you buy the actual 1.2GHz part make a difference? They sold you a device with a capability, and you are using it.

Or it'd be like if Stephen King was doing his online book thing, but his "preview" was actually the entire book, with a note to please not read past page 47.

Or it'd be like a video card upgrade that came in the form of a completely new computer, but you were expected to only take out the video card and leave everything else in your closet.

If Apple really wanted the upgrade CD to be just an upgrade CD, it should have contained only the data necessary to make the change, like every other software upgrade I've ever seen in my entire life. That they didn't do this is a sign of laziness on their part, not moral obligation on mine.

They sold me a CD containing data, and I'm using it. I'm not copying anything they didn't sell me; I'm not giving it to someone who didn't pay; I'm not modifying their code and redistributing it. If it is, well, that wouldn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't wrong.

What _would_ be wrong was if I (probably as a reseller) bought a bunch of the upgrade CD's, and resold them as the full thing (at full price). You'll note that in the case of CPU overclocking, the chip makers have made that distinction, and while they make overclocking harder for everyone, they only really care about the dishonest resellers.

I think the only protective action that Apple could take that would put them in the right would be if they stated they would not give technical support to those who used the upgrade CD to do the full install.

Re:Yes they are.

[schwanerhill]

Look, ignore for a second that the label on the CD reads "10.0 -> 10.1 upgrade" or somesuch. The fact is that you legally purchased a CD that contains the entire 10.1 operating system. It is the fully functional operating system, and the only requirement for having 10.0 is an artificial one that is easily removed. Does Apple wanting it to just be an upgrade CD change the fact that it is the entire OS + 1 package? Not at all.

Wrong. You bought a $20 upgrade CD. Full install CDs of OS X 10.1 are available for $130. 10.1 is such a major upgrade from 10.0.x that the only practical way to distribute it is as a full install CD. However, Apple is not giving away (or selling for $20, which, compared to $130, is basically free) the OS; they're only giving 10.1 to the early adopters of OS X so that they now have the basically complete OS that 10.1 is instead of the promising-but-not-ready-for-primetime 10.0.x.

Apple was kinder than they had to be to give us a CD that is capable of fully installing OS X. (In fact, if you have 10.0.x installed on the hard drive, it can erase the hard drive and install 10.1, so it had to be a full copy anyway.) That doesn't mean that we're entitled (legally or morally) to convert it into a CD that can install on machines that don't have 10.0.x.

Theoretically, no one who had not purchased 10.0.x is entitled to own the 10.1 update CD at all; people who didn't buy 10.0.x have to buy the $130 10.1 full install. Therefore, one can argue that Apple should have made the 10.1 "update" CD an unrestricted full install CD. However, given the fact that 10.1 CDs were readily obtainable (even at Apple's own retail stores) without proof of purchase of 10.0.x simply because it was logistically hard to check proofs of purchase, it is fair of Apple to put restrictions on the update CDs and to prevent the most popular Mac web sites from distributing the instructions to circumvent Apple's legitimate copy protection.

Re:No, they're not

[dvdeug]

If I buy a house and associated land, and I dig up a a chest of money on that land, it's mine. If I find an old forgotten manuscript of Mark Twain in the closet, it's mine. If I buy a Greek-English dictionary, and find it also handles German, I'm under no compuction not to translate into German, even if I don't know Greek.

Likewise, Apple sold me a CD. The CD is mine. The fact that they tossed a bonus OS on there is there problem, not mine.

Re:No, they're not

[sg3000]

If that's a condition of the sale, then they shouldn't sell you the upgrade unless you have 10.0. You should have to show a UPC symbol or something. Giving you the full 10.1 and in the shrink-wrap license saying you need 10.0 before you can use it is silly.

Wait, so you're saying that although Apple gave you the full install, and they relied on your honesty to use that updater only if you have a full copy of the previous version, you should have the right to install the full OS because they provided it to you?

Here Apple is, trusting users with a simple updater -- and remember, they're the same company company shipping the iPod, an MP3 player with virtually no copy-protection -- and you're saying that since they had the nerve to trust you with the full version, they deserve to be ripped off.

That's a great argument for software companies to do whatever it takes to restrict distribution of their software. Kind of like how Microsoft ties XP to your hardware profile (hope you weren't one of the ones complaining about that!).

People who advance the argument you just did are the reason why record companies and software companies assume people will pirate anything they can, and to hell with honesty.

Re:No, they're not

[WNight]

Useless laws like the DMCA aside, if you buy software you are legally entitled to do anything with it that you could do with a book.

If CheckForOSX annoys you, remove it. Just the same as you might scribble in the margins of a book, or rip out a page that offends you.

If the seller intends otherwise, then they need to make it a clear part of the pre-sale agreement. EULAs and any software which try to enforce them are void at best, and illegal at worst. (Preventing someone from doing something they are entitled to do until they give you something of value (your compliance) is extortion, the same as if I demanded $50 before I'd let you use your computer which I had snuck in and passworded the night before.)

The only reason this hasn't been pursued is that nobody with enough money has been annoyed by EULAs.

Not everything which harms a company is illegal (though the way they whine, it soon will be) nor is it necessarily immoral. Imagine if you stood outside a major electronics store handing out a competitors fliers, with a lower price that the first store had promised to match. Of course, they always hope nobody tracks these deals down, but they have no right to sue you for you activities, they made the deal and should have made sure they could honor it.

Re:No, they're not

[imadork]

The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.
You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.

Yeah, but if I find that watch in the seat and give it back, do I have to "give back" the identical watch I already own as well?

I already own two copies of 10.0 (one bought retail and one that came with my iBook), as well as two copies of the 10.1 upgrade, (one bought from the Apple Store and one obtained for $.01 from CompUSA). I possess every license I need to run Mac OS 10.1 on BOTH of the Macs in my house. Why am I "stealing" if I use this method to save a step in the installation process if I ever have to reinstall? And why does Apple (and all other Software vendors) automatically assume I'm a thieving, commie Pirate if all I want to do is make a copy to make life easier for myself? Doesn't intent mean anything anymore, or should we outlaw all means to copy anything?

Re:No, they're not

[DunbarTheInept]

It is morally wrong to keep it. It is stealing, no matter how clever your arguments are to the contrary.

Whether it is wrong to steal is is irrelevant since that's not what the complaint is about. Apple isn't going after people doing the stealing. They're going after the people *publicizing* how easy it is to steal it. It's like pointing out that someone left their front door unlocked, and getting sued for pointing it out when someone ELSE uses that information to burgle the house.

It is a disturbing trend that businesses are more concerned with the act of POINTING OUT how crappy their security is than they are with the actual act of exploiting that bad security. They don't give a damn about the theft - they just don't like the bad press, and will gag you for trying to point out a truth about them that they find embarassing.

The DMCA - the law that makes it illegal to tell the truth.

Re:No, they're not

[Chris Burke]

The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.


For that analogy to be even close to correct it would have to be the case that Apple -accidentally- put the entire functional Mac OSX 10.1 on the CD. Since I doubt this is the case -- that the only difference is the CheckForOSX package attests to this -- your analogy is "correct" only for definitions of the word opposite the accepted usage.

Your analogy might be in the same hemisphere as reality if they willfully put the watch in the car, but asked you to kindly just leave it where it is between the seats. Or better, they're selling you the watch, but the box it comes in happens to be a Mercedes.

If it seems like only a complete idiot would do that, then you understand my point -- there is nothing illegal going on, just Apple being very, very dumb.

It is very, very simple. Apple sells you an upgrade CD. They - through incompetence or ignorance - included the whole OSX 10.1 install. You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.

Well, you're right about the simple part, at least. They sold me a CD containing the entire 10.1 operating system, I paid for that CD, and now I'm copying that data to my system. MY system, the one who paid for it. There is nothing on that CD that Apple didn't knowingly give me, and to call it stealing to use that which was knowingly sold to you for the purpose for which it was intended is insane.

I mean, the idea of illegal copying of software being stealing is dubious in and of itself (since copying software leaves the original intact), but here not only is there no loss, I'm not even gaining a single bit of information that I didn't pay for!

Re:No, they're not

[3am]

Come on!

What do we hate here? Current enforcement of copyright law. Why do we hate it? Because it takes laws that exist for good reason (protecting inventors from others immediately stealing their work and profiting from it) and twists their meaning to protect bad behavior (not letting me keep a backup of an ebook, if i stopped my personal boycott of the product). IE, it make morally shaky actions legal.

I won't condescend to you and make the obvious comparison here...

Did the lawyers even read the description?

[j7953]

In their letter, they only talk about reverse engineering and modifying the software and such. Ok, so that's illegal. But no one modified any software here, you just say "hey, don't install this package."

I also don't see how this could violate Apple's license agreement. I'm sure that MacFixIt does have an OS X license, so it's not like they installed the software without a license -- they just chose to install it in a different way. A way that Apple made possible by making the package optional.

amazing

[shibut]

it's amazing to me how may times developers think their users are luddites and will not figure out how to circumvent shortcuts (as in the case of this CD). It's not just the domain of software either, Pentium 90s could be speeded up to 100 with 2 minutes of work by anyone that isn't afraid of a screwdriver.

I guess shortcuts are just too appealing.

The Lanham Act

[Ghoser777]

Here's a link to it: Lanham Act [bitlaw.com].

Here's a little description I found online:
The Lanham Act defines the statutory and common law boundaries to trademarks and service marks. Trademarks (and service marks) are words or designs used in the advertising of goods and services. Rights to use a trademark are defined by the class(es) for which the trademark is used. Therefore, it is possible for different parties to use the same trademark in different classes. The Lanham Act defines the scope of a trademark, the process by which a federal registration can be obtained from the Patent and Trademark Office for a trademark, and penalties for trademark infringement. The Legal Information Institute provides Title 15 of the US Code, which encompasses the Lanham Act.

It sounds like this act has to deal with advertising... so is Apple saying that MacFixIt should take down their post because it advertises away to get a full version of commercial product that costs $129 for $19?

I don't think this should be that big of a deal - they'll probably just stop making the update CD, and most people who bought one already owned a copy of OS X anyway.

F-bacher

Absurd

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

Is the possession of MacOS X v10.1 or its installer illegal because it can be used to violate its own copyright?

This kind of "circular geek logic" astounds me. It is like a Mobius Strip - circular, but one sided.

Of course Mac OS X cannot violate the DMCA. The anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA requires that the software be designed specifically to be a circumvention device that will break protection for copyrighted works. Mac OS X is software that is designed specifically to Operate Your Computer.

Attempts to twist the law in this manner only make the anti-DMCA cause look stupid. Only digital crowbars like DeCSS & Dmitri's software violate the DMCA. The way to win the argument for the DMCA is to convince the people of America that it should be legal to write software to steal from companies - not accuse Apple of being "crackers".

Re:Absurd

[quartz]

to convince the people of America that it should be legal to write software to steal from companies

So you're saying that if I play my DVDs in Linux and read my eBooks on my PDA, I'm "stealing from companies"? And you have a +1 bonus? *sigh* Slashdot is falling apart...

P.S. Nice troll.

Re:Absurd

[Sodium Attack]

So you're saying that if I play my DVDs in Linux and read my eBooks on my PDA, I'm "stealing from companies"? And you have a +1 bonus? *sigh* Slashdot is falling apart...

So you believe no one should have a +1 bonus unless they are in lockstep with the doubleplusgood Slashdot groupthink? *sigh* Slashdot is falling apart...

Hehe

[ecki]

Looks like Apple needs a lesson in software temper resistance. I know that it's hard to do (part of my current job) and security by obscurity sucks, but at least don't name the crucial file "CheckForOSX" ... better use something bland like "OFUpdate", or if you're in the mood, "MicrosoftEngineersAreWeenies" ;)

I wonder

[Gregoyle]

Does the Apple license in this case count as a restrictive software license [slashdot.org] in light of the new Adobe case? I think it might, as the pertinent restrictions here deal with modification and reselling. I would have to study the court documents further, though, and of course I am not a lawyer.

Using the packaged OS as a circumvention device is a funny way to illustrate the silliness of the DMCA, but other than that does it really apply to the cease-and-desist? I mean the Apple lawyers are focusing on the act (the actual modification and copying, etc. etc.) rather than the tool here (the OS ;^)).

Also, does posting instructions on how to do this really qualify as reverse-engineering, copying, modifying or distributing (yell at me if I've left something out)? To me it seems more like saying "if you solder a little connection between jumpers A1E and B3C you can make French toast and waffles with your PS2". Or is it the Lanham Act that covers dissemination of information relating to copyright infringment? Funny, I thought the Lanham Act had more to do with doing business using "ill-gotten gains".

I used to do it with M$

[ruebarb]

Back in the ol' Win 95 days, the Win95 upgrade could be used as long as you had a "WINDOWS" directory and a file named "win386.ini"

so you took edit.com, and created a blank file called win386.ini - presto..the upgrade became the full kitten kaboddle

Upgrade disks will by necessity require the entire OS - all that is required is to figure out how to circument it, and it's end of story...this is barely even news if it wasn't for the fact they sic'd lawyers to prevent a webpage from passing out info every hacker will figure out in about 2 hours

Apple within its rights - and balls for them

[Durindana]

Keep in mind, the folks at MacFixIt must by definition have applied this modification (and that's what it is, specified in the EULA, whether you "feel" it's a mod or not) to be able to publish information on it. The act of publishing the info is not illegal, but the actual package removal was.

Also, this is not only copyright infringement - the letter cites the Lanham Act, which makes it illegal to engage in unfair competition. That's essentially what MacFixIt (and now Slashdot, incidentally) has done - forced Apple's full OS X 10.1 product to compete unfairly with a $19.95 CD. It's a law usually used in advertising administrative law, but it does fit here. Apple doesn't need the DMCA on this one; and given their "piracy is a social problem, not a technological one" stance, they're probably glad for that.

I, for one, would like to see some support on these boards for a major manufacturer, with as much IP as any other, who doesn't give a rat's ass about the DMCA and sells its own "unprotected" MP3 player. Would most companies do that? In this case, Apple has a need to defend its IP - otherwise, they have shown they really do think different.

Re:Apple within its rights - and balls for them

[MikeBabcock]

Making a copy of the CD for your own use is not a violation, by any interpretation of the law in most states and definately not up here in Canada.

Making that copy and skipping over one file while doing it is legally equivalent to creating a backup of a CD and not including song #6 on it because you don't like it.

If the latter is illegal, then the former may also be. Proving that they did this and didn't just simulate the situation, or make it up out of their heads, or just observe it being done by someone else is another issue entirely.

Re:Apple within its rights - and balls for them

[radish]

I agree that the process of deleting this package to get a cheap install is most likely illegal, but why is publishing the process a problem?

It's illegal to murder someone. But should I be prosecuted for posting a website saying "If you hit someone in the head with a brick several times, they will die"? Or what about "If you put your foot hard on the gas pedal and don't use the break, you'll probably end up breaking the speed limit". Seems to me that the responsibility lies with the person actually doing (or not doing) the bad thing, not the person advertising the possibility.

lanham act info (ie karma whoring...)

[3am]

here is a description from cornell law:

"In the United States trademarks may be protected by both Federal statute under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 - 1127, and states' statutory and/or common laws. Congress enacted the Lanham Act under its Constitutional grant of authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. See U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. A trademark registered under the Lanham Act has nationwide protection. See 1115 of the Act.

Under the Lanham Act, a seller applies to register a trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office. The mark can already be in use or be one that will be used in the future. See 1051 of the act. The Office's regulations pertaining to trademarks are found in Parts 1 - 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If the trademark is initially, approved by an examiner, it is published in the Official Gazette of the Trademark Office to notify other parties of the pending approval so that it may be opposed. See 1062 - 1063 of the Act. An appeals process is available for rejected applications. See 1070 - 1071 of the Act."
- from http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html [cornell.edu]

you can browse the sections of United States Code Title 15 at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ [cornell.edu]. As it mentions above, the Lanham Act is comprised of 1051 - 1127.

courtesy of google

Straight from the mouth of Steve Jobs

[cygnus]

didn't Steve Jobs just say something like, "Any security scheme that's based on secrets will be broken sooner or later." about the iPod's lax copy management scheme?

so did Apple do this on purpose, or are they just being hypocrical? seems like the latter.

Am I violating the DMCA?

[Wakko Warner]

By posting a link that tells you how to do it [google.com]?

- A.P.

Am I violating the DMCA even more?

[Wakko Warner]

By posting the entire text of said article?

Convert your Update CD to a full Install CD

In the meantime, we found a work-around that may be even better than the one we were looking for. Instead of finding a file on the hard drive that we could modify to fool the Installer, we found a file on the Installer that we could delete and thereby bypass the checking process altogether!

We found the file by comparing a Mac OS X 10.1 "full" Install CD with an Update CD. Both CDs had the aforementioned VolumeCheck file. However, only the Update CD had the CheckforOSX file. Could this be the only critical difference between the two CDs? What if we made a bootable copy of the OS X Update CD, but with the CheckforOSX file missing? Would it act as a full install CD? We tried it. It worked! In brief, here is what
to do:

1. Using instructions posted on this page, create a disk image of the Update CD.
2.Delete the CheckforOSX file from the Essentials.pkg file in System/Installation/Packages folder of the image file. [You need to use the Open Package Contents contextual menu item to access this file.]
3.Burn the image to a CD using Disk Copy.

You can now boot from this CD. When you do, it will list any volume - even one that has no version of Mac OS X at all - as eligible for an install of Mac OS X 10.1. We did not test to see if this actually correctly installed the OS, but we have no reason to believe it would not. This method thus apparently converts an Update CD into a full install CD! A neat trick (although we suspect Apple may not find this so wonderful).

Re:Am I violating the DMCA even more?

[fobbman]

Not good enough. You need to use the POWER OF ROT-13!!!

Pbaireg lbhe Hcqngr PQ gb n shyy Vafgnyy PQ

Va gur zrnagvzr, jr sbhaq n jbex-nebhaq gung znl or rira orggre guna gur bar jr jrer ybbxvat sbe. Vafgrnq bs svaqvat n svyr ba gur uneq qevir gung jr pbhyq zbqvsl gb sbby gur Vafgnyyre, jr sbhaq n svyr ba gur Vafgnyyre gung jr pbhyq qryrgr naq gurerol olcnff gur purpxvat cebprff nygbtrgure!

Jr sbhaq gur svyr ol pbzcnevat n Znp BF K 10.1 "shyy" Vafgnyy PQ jvgu na Hcqngr PQ. Obgu PQf unq gur nsberzragvbarq IbyhzrPurpx svyr. Ubjrire, bayl gur Hcqngr PQ unq gur PurpxsbeBFK svyr. Pbhyq guvf or gur bayl pevgvpny qvssrerapr orgjrra gur gjb PQf? Jung vs jr znqr n obbgnoyr pbcl bs gur BF K Hcqngr PQ, ohg jvgu gur PurpxsbeBFK svyr zvffvat? Jbhyq vg npg nf n shyy vafgnyy PQ? Jr gevrq vg. Vg jbexrq! Va oevrs, urer vf jung gb qb:

1. Hfvat vafgehpgvbaf cbfgrq ba guvf cntr, perngr n qvfx vzntr bs gur Hcqngr PQ.

2.Qryrgr gur PurpxsbeBFK svyr sebz gur Rffragvnyf.cxt svyr va Flfgrz/Vafgnyyngvba/Cnpxntrf sbyqre bs gur vzntr svyr. [Lbh arrq gb hfr gur Bcra Cnpxntr Pbagragf pbagrkghny zrah vgrz gb npprff guvf svyr.]

3.Ohea gur vzntr gb n PQ hfvat Qvfx Pbcl.

Lbh pna abj obbg sebz guvf PQ. Jura lbh qb, vg jvyy yvfg nal ibyhzr - rira bar gung unf ab irefvba bs Znp BF K ng nyy - nf ryvtvoyr sbe na vafgnyy bs Znp BF K 10.1. Jr qvq abg grfg gb frr vs guvf npghnyyl pbeerpgyl vafgnyyrq gur BF, ohg jr unir ab ernfba gb oryvrir vg jbhyq abg. Guvf zrgubq guhf nccneragyl pbairegf na Hcqngr PQ vagb n shyy vafgnyy PQ! N arng gevpx (nygubhtu jr fhfcrpg Nccyr znl abg svaq guvf fb jbaqreshy).

Re:Am I violating the DMCA even more?

[Fnkmaster]

LOL. This is just too funny. Apple thinks that it is illegal to TELL people to violate their EULAs. What is this, contributory EULA infringement? I don't think it exists. I don't see how telling people that deleting a file from their install CDs will let them use the CDs elsewhere could be illegal under any law, except possible the worst law ever written, the DMCA.

Infringing sentence: Make a copy of the CD without the line "CheckforOSX" in the System/Installation/Packages/Essentials.pkg file". Ooops, I've broken the law. Heh. This is even worse than the 3 line RSA being illegal - this isn't even an algorithm but a tiny fragment of english text.

Free Speech anyone?

[uslinux.net]

Like many, I have to vigorously disagree with Apple on this one. If they did NOT want it to be installable, they should have done a good job preventing it (or not releasing enough to allow it to be a full install - duh!). After all, providing ONLY the updated packages instead of the ENTIRE OS seems like it would have been smarter.

Does this make it illegal for me to walk into the Apple store at the mall and tell people they can do this? If there was code being disseminated which would break the protection (DeCSS for instance), then *maybe* I could see it as a violation of the DMCA (Note: I *disagree* with the DMCA, but from a judge's point of view, I could still see it as a violation). But, simply stating how to do it seems like it should be protected as free speech.

How come printed newspapers get more lienency than electronic sites? If the NYT or Washington Post print Top Secret classified information which could KILL people, it's protected under the First Amendment. But, if someone even thinks of explaining how to circumvent a piece of software, it's not protected? Perhaps if it was printed in the newspaper?

all bark, but it still bites

[frankie]

Remember that anyone can write a Cease and Desist letter. Remember that lawyers are not required to be honest in such letters.

Their job is to convince the "offending" person that it would be a bad idea to piss off their employer. The C&D is basically a more business-like version of sending a 200 pound hired goon [jumpstation.ca] to your door.

EULA?

[TheTomcat]

Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.

*headscratch*
Semantics aside (who's to say that by not installing something, you're "reverse engineering"?), since when do you agree to software EULA at purchase time?

I haven't installed OSX10.1, but any other EULA I agree to presents itself before I open the CD enveloppe, or when I run the installer.

Does Apple really make you agree to the EULA at PURCHASE TIME?

Re:EULA?

[imadork]

Does Apple really make you agree to the EULA at PURCHASE TIME?

So that's why when I got my "free" upgrade at CompUSA, they went through great pains to charge me exactly $.01 for it! (They said I didn't have to give them the penny, but I did anyway).

Apple usually includes a boilerplate license on a sheet of paper (in several languages) in the box with all their software, and a big red dot on the CD pouch that says "By opening this, you agree to the license". I would imagine that's the earliest point at which you agree.

And the license they included really was a boilerplate, including the part where you can only install it on one computer!?!?!! What did they want me to do, get two "free" copies from CompUSA so I could upgrade my "Smurfy" B&W G3 as well as my iBook? If I installed it on more than one computer, am I liable for triple damages?

Now I'm confused?

[twakar]

If I understand this correctly, MacFixIt posted instructions on how to make it easier to install the OS X Upgrade. Since when are written instructions illegal? Wouldn't this fall under "It's illegal if I build a bomb, but not illegal if I tell you how to build a bomb"? Protected speech, NO?

That being said, why are some of the early posters saying that Apple must do this? Why must they muzzle someone whose only intent was to assist others in making it easier to install legitimately acquired software. I cannot see how there was any reverse-engineering, decompilation, or anything of that nature. There isn't even a derivative work as the CheckForOSX utility was merely deleted, never altered or anything. As for the EULA, there was a story yesterday that basically said these silly EULAs are non-binding, in most cases. Am I out in left field on this one?

Nothing New "Magic"

[Irvu]

This isn't the first time that Apple did this. Back in the early days of Hypercard [aol.com] they shipped a "demo" version on all new macs. You could play stacks but not create them. That is, unless you were capable of typing the word "magic" [mit.edu]at which point the demo would "magically" transform itself into the full thing.

Apple never took any legal action to my knowledge. This was well before the "look and feel" days so they were still innocent, sweet and too wealthy to care.

So could I post them?

[DavonZ]

Specifically, it appears that you are providing instructions for converting Mac OS X 10.1 update Software to a full install version of Mac OS X from your web site in violation of the Copyright Act and in violation of your software license agreement with Apple.

So, I do not own a copy of Mac OS X. So therefor I would not be violating any license agreement.

You should be aware that Apple has never authorized you modify the Software.

I did not see the web site state that they modified any software. Deleting a file is something that Apple gave them rights to do when they placed a trashcan on their desktop.

Additionally, Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.

Again, not something the site told anyone to do. Deleting a file is not copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.

Oh man. It is shaky ground. I can fully understand the web site removing the instructions, but their response was pretty weak. If they needed leagal help, they should have asked Slashdot. They have many lawyers that could have assisted in a response.

LD

No big deal, move along, nothing to see here.

[valmont]

I found the exchange of letters to be fair and legitimate, I think both parties did have good reasons to do what they did. Apple are not sharks, neither are their lawyers, they build cool shit, *really* cool shit, and I think they're only legitimately attempting to protect their intellectual property. Nobody's rights are being violated, there is no reason to get on high horses.

The copyright angle

[Mike Hicks]

I presume that the lawyers are talking about the copyright angle because you presumably have to copy the disc and mangle it slightly before being able to install OS X.

Of course, one could argue that they accidentally corrupted the disc while making a backup copy...

Corporate Responsibility?

[Greyfox]

Although personal responsibility has not been in vogue in recent years, it is still typically the response of the courts that you are responsible for your actions. A lot of the laws that have come down recently seem to be designed to absolve corporations from similar responsibility.

Here we have Apple, whose job it is to provide hardware, software and updates for both. Now what you're telling me is that if Apple doesn't know how to do its job correctly, they think it should be illegal for anyone to point that fact out. And it's not just Apple, if anyone things I'm just picking on them. Choose any company that's filed a non-patent related IP lawsuit in the past few years and in nearly every case, the suit originated because someone pointed out that they weren't doing their job very well (and provided details.)

office 97 upgrade

[dildofire]

anyone remember the ms office 97 upgrade cd that you allowed you to point it back to the cd itself when it asked for the location of your office install? i love it when companies spend years designing the software and let an intern write the install procedures.

Apple did the right thing with their update

[maggard]

Honestly I'm glad that Apple didn't put elaborate protections all over their update. As we've seen time & time again these heavy-handed mechanisms just get in the way of the legitimate users, invariably bollix up some percentage of systems and don't deter determined pirates.

So was Apple stupid? No. Customer-service oriented? Yes. Ease-of-use oriented? Yes. Transparency-of-upgrade-process? Yes. Safe-and-reliable-installer prioritized? Yes.

Heck, I'd think the /. crowd would be thrilled there isn't some elaborate product activation scheme or big encrypted block of material. Yeah, it's easy to defeat and steal the product. On the other hand if one's determined it's trivial enough to copy a buddies CD or download the original.

Hey - Apple ENCOURAGED folks to pass along their update! They didn't do what so many other vendors do and require proof of purchase. They didn't charge some outrageous rate. They didn't even go the MS route and call it a new OS. They even stated they'd have made it free for download if it wasn't so honking big.

All Apple did was ask (ok, in a heavy-handed legal fashion but that's how the legal system works) a website to take down directions for circumventing their security mechanism. I've no doubt numerous other companies send out reams of the same boilerplate every day asking folks to stop posting how to crack their demos or post their passwords.

And here we have folks bustin' on 'em.

So - what SHOULD they have done? Would folks REALLY prefer encrypted material doing who-knows-what after some onerous registration process and limited distribution? Crow all you want that Apple "gave away" their product, they went about their technology in a far more responsible way then many others. Think about that the next time you install an MS/Sun/Irix/IBM/HP/Compaq/Unisys/etc. OS.

Think about Time To Market

[valmont]

You gotta give Apple developers some credit for crying out loud. If they packaged the upgrade the way they did, running the risk of someone mucking with their packages, it clearly had to be because it was easier *and* faster to do it that way.

Mac OS X 10.1 is a pure Jewel of an Operating System, and I for one like to see frequent major upgrades that acutally render my work more productive. And this one sure did.

Chances are I am not the only one thinking that.

So Apple saved time and figured their money would be better spent on lawyers sending out semi-generic cease-and-desist letters, rather than delaying the release of their upgrade by a few more months and miss the X-Mas rush.

Are they dumb? NO. It's about money. Time-to-Market translates directly into money. I'm sure they knew the risks they were taking and carefuly measured them.

Does the fact that they released a full working version of an operating system on a demo-disk harm the user in any way? NO. But that's what is unconsciously implied: "oh Apple made a quick upgrade hack that can easily be worked around, quick hacks are dumb, quick hacks are bad, so *I* as a geek, must absolutely go out there and make a big fucking fuss out of it so I can look cool and get some publicity out of it". Again, this is not microsoft quickly hacking their "Passport architecture", loading it with obvious security holes to make a deadline, thereby harming the greater computer user community, we're talking about a legitimate software upgrade that happens to give you more, MUCH more than what you bought.

Exploiting this for any other purpose than recovering from a failed upgrade is *wrong* and, indeed illegal. Beside, keep in mind that even if leveraging this weakness to shorten the installation process to recover from a broken upgrade may be *very* convenient *and* tempting, doing it the regular way, which was installing OS X 10.0.x and *then* using the OS X 10.1 upgrade as just that, an upgrade, still works. While this appears to be a cool, convenient hack to share with close friends and family to save them time, I do believe this information to be a little too sensitive to be permantently published on a web site for everyone to leverage. Again, this is *not* like a security hole, this is publishing information which deliberately violates the Software License Agreement.

MacFixIt most likely understands that.

Are they trashing freedom-of-speech? FUCK NO. Stay real guys and look at this whole thing for what it really is: a very simple, dumb hack which violates a very clear, simple, software license agreement. Software Vendors have those agreements so they can actually make money off of the shit they make. Duh.

MacFixIt handled the situation very maturely but anyone here invoking "freedom of speech" rights for this particular case is merely making a devious use of one of our most cherished inallienable rights, and such behaviour can easily become one day its most threatening enemy.

who'da'thunk'it.

[ctimes2]

I never would have known about this if the Lawyers hadn't tried to play hardball. Damn you meddling kids!

Ctimes2

At the end of the day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple took a shortcut to get an update out faster, and is now paying for it. Next time, the updater probably won't include the full OS, and will be more of a hassle, so customers lose out.

I really couldn't care less whether the original posting was illegal or not, and what Apple's legal standing is regarding the C&D.

The original posting told people how to get OS X for free, without ever buying the software. Either you support that type of piracy (I don't) or you shouldn't be painting Apple out to be the villian here. They are a wronged party, responding perhaps incorrectly. But make no mistake that the original error was on the part of those people who posted the story in the first place.

I'm usually a big free-speech advocate, but every once in a while I get too tired of people trying to justify what is just plain wrong.

Remeber you don't own software.

[UnifiedTechs]

I am surprised this fact has not been pointed out. Remeber software is licensed not bought. For all it matters apple didn't even need to install a checker at all.

The license states you need to own a copy of OS 10.0 to use the CD, that is the illegal part. For all it matters what the CD contains they could make one CD that has 9, 10.0, and 10.1 on one disk, if you only paid for the use of 9 then that is all you can legally install.

I can legally buy a gun, I can legally walk in a store, but if I use that gun to rob that store it is illegal, the tool dosen't matter, that you use it for the legal/approved outcome does.

New ad for Apple

[ajs]

Think Lawyers.

Nice, Clear Instructions on How to Do It

[BoarderPhreak]

Everything Mac has clear instructions on how to do this! [everythingmac.org]

Check it out - very easy to follow.

Surprised at the reaction of some...

[Maktoo]

This really surprises me.

I'm surprised by the fact that people think Apple is wrong in this.

When you buy a $100 cubic-zirconium ring, and then take it home only to find out it's a real diamond... do you take it back? Yes. If you don't you're stealing.

Apple is selling an *upgrade* to an Operating System. People pay $20 for this upgrade. If those people turn around and modify it so that it's a Full Install... then they are getting a $100 product.

Is Apple getting the $80 they deserve from the people modifying their CDs? No. Therefore... those people are morally obligated to not do that.

Whether it's legal or not... I don't care, I assume it's not. However, it's morally wrong... so on those grounds, Apple certainly has a case.

Read: DMCA

[mindstrm]

Providing instructions or a mechanism for circumventing a copy control mechanism that controls access to a work is a violation of the DMCA.

Re:Eh?

[Mr. Sketch]

First of all, I don't suspect most people would consider removing a package from an operating system 'modifying the software' or any of the other list of things stated.

I would agree. Because if I don't like, say, the calculator program and I delete that after installing 'the Software' and install a calculator program that I like better, is that 'modifying the software'? By their logic it sounds like it is. When is 'the Software' no longer 'the Software'? After I install it, am I then permitted to modify it? Would I be in violation of my license agreement if I delete calc.exe after installing 'the Software'?

This sounds like a load of hot air to me.

I couldn't have said it better.

You're a little confused though.

[aidoneus]

remember that Apple has to protect its intellectual property

No, they don't. Copyrights and patentsdo not have to be defended (remember gif, mp3, etc?). It's a good idea to defend them along with patents, or else you can lose out big time (Frauenhoffer and mp3). Trademarks and servicemarks are the only things that need to be defended, lest they be diluted and become generic (kleneex, asperin, etc). Now the law that's being cited, the Lanham Act, is a trademark law so a defense seems reasonable until you realize that they're using a trademark law to prop up a copyright argument. Something about that doesn't seem quite right. Maybe they need to go back to law school.

Re:You're a little confused though.

[toupsie]

So what you are saying is that Apple does not need to protect its intellectual property? Are little garden gnomes going to do it for them?

Re:You're a little confused though.

[Happy Monkey]

Compared to lawyers, the gnomes would probably be as effective, cheaper, and they wouldn't piss off the customers.

Re:Irksome gnomes.

[gorilla]

They have had the vote, and Stallman is not going to be on the board. The register [theregister.co.uk] has the story, and Gnome [gnome.org] has the results. Stallman got 50 votes, putting him 18th, out of 11 places available. The board will therefore be:

JAMES HENSTRIDGE (125 votes)

MICHAEL MEEKS (130 votes)
FEDERICO MENA-QUINTERO (139 votes)
TELSA GWYNNE (139 votes)
JONATHAN BLANDFORD (142 votes)
NAT FRIEDMAN (146 votes)
JODY GOLDBERG (153 votes)
JIM GETTYS (182 votes)
DANIEL VEILLARD (189 votes)
MIGUEL DE ICAZA (191 votes)
HAVOC PENNINGTON (215 votes)

Re:Once again, Apple has too...

[Score Whore]

No, that's trademarks and only trademarks. Other forms of IP don't have the same dilution concerns legally.

Re:Once again, Apple has too...

[dillon_rinker]

You are confusing trademark law with copyright/patent law. Trademarks must be defended or lost. Copyrights and patents need NEVER be defended. Recall the GIF compression patent fiasco - the patent holder did not enforce their patent for 15 years. Everyone who dealt with GIFs was vioating their patent. For 15 years. And then they started enforcing it.

I hereby sentence both you and your moderators to read "The Intellectual Property FAQ." Search for it on google...

Re:Once again, Apple has too...

[iCEBaLM]

Before the bashing begins, remember that Apple has to protect its intellectual property in these little matters in order to protect it when the big boys start violating Apple's TOS or IP.

Wrong.

Copywrites and Patents can be selectively enforced without losing the rights to them. Trademarks cannot. This is not a trademark issue, hell, it's not even a copyright issue!

The original article which is the target of the Cease and Decist never modified the software, never distributed it, never circumvented any restrictions, never decompiled, disassembled, reverse engineered, created a derivitive work or even agreed to the Apple EULA *on purchase* as the lawyer letter said.

What did he do? Wrote an article on how to do it.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Once again, Apple has too...

[toupsie]

Its intellectual property and reverse engineering not just copyright. Also a violation of term of service according to EULA. Think you need to read beyond the briefing on /.

Re:correction

[toupsie]

You have to agree to the EULA if you open and use the software -- fairly standard procedure in commercial software.

Re:MacFixIt's Pathetic Reply

[MrFredBloggs]

Ah - the bravery of being out of range. For all you know `MacFixIts` could be a tiny hobbiest site with no money to waste on expensive lawyers. Its not like this minor story about MacOs version whatever is going to make/break them - fighting Big Scary Lawyers could very easily do that.

Once again, the publicity surrounding all this means that as the info is now out there, it`ll continue to spread - the site gets publicity, apple gets to look stupid - once again - and people get to vent their spleen on SlashDot. Quite literally, everyone is happy.

Re:MacFixIt's Pathetic Reply

[turbine216]

take it easy, there...

It's not a simple thing to go up against a major corporation like Apple. They've got a little money to spend on lawyers and litigation. The people at MacFixIt don't have the same resources, and are perfectly justified in their actions. You can't legitimately blame them for doing what is in their best interest as a small company.

Nobody's selling out here...and besides, now that the cat's out of the bag, MacFixIt has no reason to host the instructions on their website anyway. I'm sure the word will spread just fine without it being on their site...so it really doesn't make any difference that they agreed to Apple's demands. The damage was already done.

Re:Apple can suck it.

[the_2nd_coming]

if apple did not Sue for IP and admark then they would have been crushed long ago by a beast that is so powerful that it does not need to sue, it just buys the infringing company....its cheaper that way ;-)

Re:Amendment I

[dillon_rinker]

US Constitution, Article III, Section 8

"The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..."

Copyright has long been recognized by legal authorities as a limitation on free speech. It is considered an acceptable compromise.

I would like to see the following idea added to IP law, though. You either make your IP available to the people or you lose your exclusive rights. In other words, if you want to prevent someone else from publishing it, you must be publishing it. Do you think there's no longer profit in publishing this game? Fine. It's in the public domain, now. You set an initial price for your IP product; the price can never increase, only decrease. As long as you offer the IP product for that price or less, thus making it available to people, you retain copyright on it. The day you fail to make the product available, it enters the public domain.