Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project - Page 2

Sadly, "intellectual property" might as well be as permanent as property, as copyrights seem to be extended by 20 years every 18 years. There seems to be no reasonable interpretation of "limited period of time", any number less than infinity was acceptable to SCOTUS.

Je suis d'accord jusqu'Ã* un certain point que la réaction d'Apple est exagérée et que l'utilisation du terme 'steal' n'est pas juste mais, comme tu le dis, Apple veut vendre son hardware. Et je crois que même si il n'y a pas eu de vol et même si il n'y a pas eu d'action illégale, Apple a le droit d'essayer d'empêcher quelqu'un d'installer OS X sur un PC.

It doesn't mean I agree with it. But it doesn't mean I disagree with it either. I just don't want to see Apple lose many sales over it. And because I doubt they would lose many sales, I think they're exaggerating...especially if some of these people contributed to the platform.

If they don't want to buy Apple hardware...it's fine with me as long as the contribute to the platform as a way of thanking Apple. Just buying the OS doesn't cut it. Apple isn't making any money off the OS (or barely any).

In very many instances, companies make tons of money off software...it just happens this isn't the case with Apple...Apple makes their money off large hardware margins.

why don't they release a demo os Mac OSX for PCs? It could be restricted so that you cant install other software, it could come with iLife to play around with and it'd expire after 30 days. This would be less trouble than trying a dodgy hacked version and it would stop people who are curious about the mac experience being lured into stealing OSX.

Sounds good to me

Yo tambien creo que estan en su derecho, pero me gusta la idea. Hasta que me comprarÃ*a un PC para tener los dos en el mismo sistema. Y un MacIntel, claramente.

Det är ju klart att de kan torska stålar på det, och som jag sa tidigare, identitet. Men i långa loppet kan det ju vara värt det, om det för över folk till Mac-plattformen.

Now can we stop being language snobs and start talking so that everyone understands? ¿Si's plau? M'agradaria molt...


Yes and no. OS X is a large part of the Mac experience, and the fact that it's Not Windows is what I think attract a lot of switchers...

Why would Apple spend a lot of time and money in R&D to support all the weird configurations of PC they'd need to support for a demo when they only ever intend to run it on their own hardware?

If someone is really interested then half an hour in an Apple store would probably be enough.

Apart from that, a demo that ran on normal PC hardware would be the prime target for being hacked. At least with the current OS they've got to get around EFI and SSE3 support.

You can look at the EULA on Apple's web site here without making any purchase:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx1044.pdf

of note is the following, if you disagree, you can return the software for a refund. I know most people in stores will give you a hard time, but if you contacted Apple directly, they would have to honor your right to decline the EULA and would refund your money:

PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND. IF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE". FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.

There's an amazing lack of understanding about copyright, and licensing.

Copyright gives the OWNER of the copyright the right to decide, unilaterally, how their product gets distributed. They, and only they, decide on the price, and the methods.

When you "buy" an item that's under copyright, you don't buy the work itself. You pay for the right to read, see, listen to, or use that work, ONLY as the owner of the copyright allows you to.

That's called licensing. You, as the licensee, have ONLY the rights granted to you by the licensor (the owner of the copyright.). If you don't agree with those rights, you either must give the product back (for a refund), or use it as the license states.

When it comes to software, there is something called a "shrinkwrap" license. That means that as soon as you open the shrinkwrap, you are subject to the license. The software companies are not required, under this license, to return your money if you don't agree (but they usually will).

Copyright is usually enforceable under the civil law, such as if you make no more than several copies and give them out. If you make many copies, considered to be a distribution, you can be subject to criminal laws as well. Even if you don't charge for the copies. If you make copies intended for paid distribution, then you will be charged under the felony laws, if the value of the product meets that standard. You are not allowed, for audio, or video copyright, to charge for the right to listen to or to view the copyrighted item(s) unless granted that right, i.e., a bar showing football games, and having a cover charge.

Apple, as do many other software companies, has a statement about accepting the license before using the product. Under that, is Apple's web address. You can go there and read the license first.

Some of the license conditions may not be enforceable in certain states in the US, and parts, or the entire license may not be enforceable in other countries.

But, the international agreements on copyright allow, and mandate, certain areas of reciprocity even if the laws in those countries themselves have no corresponding coverage.

I hope that's clear.

I'm surprised Apple doesn't do that, though I like the privacy and simplicity.

However, Apple is already showing that their OS is capable of detecting Apple vs Other hardware. If Apple wanted they could "presume innocence" on Apple hardware, but require entry of codes on Other hardware (just as one example).

One thing is for sure - if Apple plans on selling OSX for another platform they should make the current OSX price clearly an "UPGRADE" price, and charge more for a full version (which doesn't check for an old version before installation).

Clear as mud. The fact of the matter (as someone else noted above) is that most EULAs are untested in a court of law. It would be prohibitively expensive for a consumer to do so. At one point not so long ago it would've been obvious that many of these EULAs contradicted what would've been considered legal for consumers under "Fair Use" in the US (e.g. I bought the software legally on an Intel Mac so fair use would allow you to use it on your generic PC instead). Unfortunately the US federal government is working hard to take those consumer protections away these days, and I doubt we'll ever get them back.

In that context though, this really has "little" to do with copyright. Apple filed a DMCA notice related to the site. What that means is that the site was probably publishing ways to circumvent digital copyright protections, and that is what DMCA covers. Legally, that's very different than a copyright violation (which would have to do with distributing copyrighted material).

Actually, you are wrong. Many EULA's HAVE been tested in the courts, and very few have been knocked down. Usually, it's the companies (or individuals) who own the copyrights and are the licensors who have gone to the courts, not the licensee's.

I think the explanation is clear. you just don't agree. But it doesn't matter. The law is the law. You may disagree all you want, and it doesn't affect it.

You don't understand what "fair use" means. It doesn't mean that you can break copyright. You might like to think it does, but it doesn't.

Fair use is well understood to mean that you can't modify, or otherwise use the work outside of the license granted to you, except for the purpose of making a backup (for software, and other digital works,) or quoring short passages for the purpose of reviews or to be included in other written works, as long as the passages are properly attributed. for anything else, permission must be asked for, and granted.

The thing that must be understood as well, is that if something has NOT been tested in the courts, but otherwise follows the law in the licensing, the licensing must be followed, unless and until it is decided otherwise in the courts.Individuals do NOT have the right to decide this on their own. I know that we like to think we do, but we don't.

As I've said, many states have made laws about shrinkwrap licenses. Those laws stand.

Simply not true. Though I'm sure you have made up your mind on this one, a United States Congress law says otherwise. It says that you can create a copy of X material for personal use, and that action is labeled as "Fair Use", wether the copyright owner agrees or not.

You can decide for yourself wether it's the EULA(s) that are the supreme law in this case, or laws adopted by The United Statea Congress. I, for one, think Congress is the ultimate law-making body, and not some company restricting rights that the United States Government has granted to me as a user.

I've already said that in my reply to pmjoe. That's the only relief granted. It has nothing to do with what I want. I don't particularly care one way or the other. The EULA's follow the copyright laws. That doesn't mean that an occasional EULA wasn't incompetently written.

You should actually read the copyright laws instead of referring to them in some general way. you will see that they follow closely what I've said.

I've dealt with copyright and licensing in my business for decades, I'm pretty familiar with it.

My wife is an attorney for Citicorp. She deals with this almost on a daily basis.

I'm not making this up, as some others do when they post what they WANT to be true, rather than looking it up and seeing what is true.

That's good and all, but no need to mention your wife's job here so you can build credentials. You are arguing something that is clearly wrong, at least in terms of what DMCA says. If there's a case where DMCA was used successfuly to limit/ban copies of software/cd/books legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use then I'd like to know it.

I'm not building credentials. It happens to be true.

If you don't believe what I'm saying, post us the relevent law that shows that.

I don't understand what you even mean by saying:

"limit/ban copies of software/cd/books [i]legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use"

You can make that backup of your OWN copy. But the DCMA clearly prevents you from breaking any protection to do so.

Apple's products, so far, have no protection, so it clearly is legal.

The problems that the OSx86 project site (which I've been checking out ever since they went online) has, is that they are hosting, and encouraging, even though they deny it, postings of links to illegal modifications to Apple's software.

We're having a good discussion about this on ARs.

Heh...yeah.....

One other reason is I could have a Mac laptop with two buttons (yeah, I know, external mouse, but doesn't always work if you don't have a surface to use it).

Apple cannot roll over on the hacking of OS X.

Because people have no limits. Inevitably there would be free copies of OS X distributed freely.

Apple will lose a lot of money.

Apple will have to lock OS X down to one computer as Microsoft currently does with Windows. That's something Apple does not do right now.

I'm surprised no one has touched on this because this is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

Poster this and poster that are saying "Why can't I use the Mac OSX I paid for on any PC if I paid for it?

Well this is probably the ultimate cloud over that.

You cannot use the Mac OSX you paid for on any PC because you have to hack it to work, and hacking it MOST DEFINETLY IS ILLEGAL.

That pretty much makes it an open and shut case.

If you could just pop the disk in an have it "just work" it'd be a different story, but you can't, so the rest is irrelevant. Buying a license of the software does not allow you the legal right to hack it.

I´m sick to death of these dumbass "American Laws" and "Intellectual Property" bull**** - move the server somewehere else, and that´s it.

And I´m tired of seeing all these "obedient" Americans who even SUPPORT these kind of ideas - quotes like "..then buy a mac. It´s that easy..." just shows that you do not have a spine worth mentioning, and that you obviously are happy to have huge companies dictate your life.

I, for once, would be VERY happy to host this site, and I´d laugh at any "lawyer" trying to shut down my freedom of speech.

I have copies of this website, and I advise anyone searching for this info to use the Internet Wayback Machine.

OK, I'll call your bluff.

Please go ahead and host the site in any country you choose. It would be interesting to see how long it would last. You may laugh at the lawyers but I'm fairly sure most of your upstream providers wouldn't.

Even if you had the strength of purpose or desire to even follow through on your bold claim, I am inclined to think you would display just as much spine as those you accuse of having none when faced with the realities and legal aspects of the situation.

When will people realise that the reason Apple doesn't want you to use their software on non-Apple hardware is that it is the hardware sales that subsidise their software development?

Sure, people say: 'Oh, just raise the price of the software', but then you end up with software that is hugely expensive which only the professionals buy. The rest pirate it. If you don't think that is the case just look at Adobe Creative Suite - how many non-professionals buy that? Not many, but far far more have a pirated copy.

Apple do not have sufficient penetration in the enterprise marketplace to be able to subsidise the level of piracy by consumers on their home systems. This is where most of the Mac revenue comes from. Ultimately, this would kill the Mac platform and most likely OS X too.

In order to combat the piracy Apple would have to employ significant countermeasures that would detract from the user experience and require resources to implement and manage. Also Apple would need to expend resources on supporting many different hardware combinations to get anywhere close to the level of stability OS X has at present on Apple hardware.

Personally, I believe that opening up OS X to run on any PC hardware would be a disaster. It's only a small, vocal minority that want to build their own PCs and run OS X on them. Most other potential purchasers couldn't care less if it was Intel, AMD or a lump of cheese inside the case so long as the machine is stable, fast and works.

Apple already caters to the majority in this regard and do not see it worth changing their entire business model and expend lots of extra resources to cater for a minority that would add very little (if anything) to their bottom line. I am inclined to think that a large proportion of the people in this minority would pirate the software anyway.

In short, it is simply not in Apple's interest to allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. It's their ball. If you can't play by their rules then you don't get to play with it at all.

BULLSHIT!

EXAMPLE: We replaced a door in our home last year, the new door was a couple of milimeters too wide for the doorway, so we sanded it down to work the way WE DESIRED IT TO WORK! Thats right folks, we HACKED IT!

EXAMPLE 2: When I paint, I usualy use a screw driver to pry the can open, Craftsman didnt intend the tool to be used that way, and if it breaks, it is my fault, they wouldnt be obligated to replace it because I misused it, but they dont sue me because i used it in an unintended way and passed the word on to fellow painters.

Abso-bloody-lutely!

With a killer Wine on Intel OS X, we will have the ultimate hardware, Apple will seriously threaten MS, and the entire industry would be energised unlike anything that's happened since MS sealed their domination with Windows 95.

As for the topic...

Apple needs to sue in instances like this because if it does not, the law will see this as accepting that OS X is public property in the long run, and certainly open bidding for Dell and co in the short term.

Apple don't really need to care about the <0.1% of generic systems out there which may end up with hacked OS X on them, but they have to at least behave as though they do. The pretty hardcore users who are going to go to the bother of getting OS X - and all the hacked drivers they will need - running on their system are quite likely to buy Macs as their next computers if they really like the OS that much, or are just hobbyists who enjoy a challenge and probably never pay for their OS anyway.

Apple certainly does not want to get into the OS for beige boxes business. MS would try everything in and out of the book to kill them, and worse than that, OS X would suck as drivers would cease to be as controlled as they are now and all manner of cruddy systems have to be supported. The only way to make all that work and keep turning a profit is to use MS's model: do it half-assed.

I for one look forward to new Macs for decades to come. I won't be screaming at anyone I find running OS X on unlicenced hardware, but I do understand Apple's need to do what they are doing.

"If Apple did not exist, it would be necessary for the computer market to make them."

You are absolutly correct, Apple can specify just how or if the OS is distributed, BUT, they cannot spell out how the user uses it!

Distribution != use

No one here is defending the folks who are DLing illicit software, but if you buy it, you can do whatever you damn well want with it, so long as you do not redistribute it.

Tweakers also have a right under the first ammendment to tell anyone or everyone willing to visit a web site of a cool new use found for an item that the author and viewers have purchased.

Did you door come with a license? Did it have a EULA? If not, whoever sold you there door couldn't care less what you do with the door. Hack away.


Did Craftsman specifically say "Don't use the screw driver to pry open cans" or "Don't use the screw driver for anything other than placing a screw into a solid object"? If not...you're allowed to use it any way you like. I eat ice cream with mine.

Your examples are very weak. You actually bought the object in both cases. Not the right to use the object. Want to give it another try?

How can a EULA be a legaly binding document when for 99.9% of people, a pretty damn good case could be made that it was signed under diress?

You cant use what you have paid for unless you agree to these terms AFTER the purchase is complete???

I really would like to see some case law on this but I cannot find any, has a software EULA ever been tested in a court of law?

Sure:
I own an iPod, and I bought a CD (the content isnt mine, the right to use that copy for non-commercial private use is mine), the CD is intended to be played in a CD player, but I rip it to my HDD and put it on my iPod, some CDs have copy protection to prevent this, but I can circumvent that by using a Mac, as the copy protection is windows only or, like many of my friends, you can make a cassette to use in the car if you dont hava an mp3 player.

The question is - how much profit does Apple make from OS X Tiger? Also how many sales would Apple lose? I bet OS X sales make up an extremely low percentage of Apple's revenue which means they'd have to sell a large number of copies to even meet their current profits from hardware.

Yeah, hmmm.... How terribly ignorant of you.

Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Strauss, Mahler, Wittgenstein, Popper, Porsche, Freud... It seems it just so happens that the "good" things that come out of Austria are intellectuals and thinkers. But some people are just unable to appreciate that, I guess.


While I totally agree with you, I believe this can be highly applied to be based on morals. If you obey all laws without contemplation, what you have is blind faith in your government. A population that doesn't question authority is a population that leaves the way open for leaders like Tse-Tung, Hitler, Pinochet and lately, Mr. Bush to do whatever they please with the resources of a country.

I'd take a moderately "successful" government that respects the rights of their citizens AND other governments and applies MORALS to their ruling and trade over the so called "competitive" countries any day of the week...

In the filmmaking world Panavision is a camera, lens, camera accessory manufacturer and rental house. Many large budget American movies and most American television shows are shot using Panavision cameras and lens.

Panavision manufactures its own cameras and lens. Panavision equipment can only be rented for hire. Panavision equipment is not for sale, Panavision equipment cannot be donated or given away, no one out side the company is allowed to own Panavision equipment.

Panavision clearly states its business model. Panavision believes in providing the highest quality to its customers and believes in achieving this through a singular vision. They only rent their equipment to insure all of their customers recieve the highest quality they are able to provide.

Technically it could be said Panavision has monopoly on Panavision equipment. Just as many claim Apple has a monopoly on OS X. Everyone in the film world understands this is Panavision's business model, so far no one has taken Panavision to court claiming this as unfair business practices.

When we buy software. We buy the right to use the software, we do not own the software code.

There is nothing stated anywhere that gives the general public the right to tamper with the code as we do not own it.

what kind of "doctor" phd, md do, dc, ed?

Funny that you mention Hitler after talking about Austria. (I hope I haven't invoked Godwin's Law)

Those intellectual, thinkers and artists wouldn't have their rights respected in Austria. It's sad but that's exactly what I'm talking about. You talk about respect for these guys but what about respect for Apple or MS...are they exceptions to the rule?

Bush isn't a great president...but he's nothing like Hitler, Tse-Tung and co. and nothing like the dictators in many african countries. And he would never be allowed to use the country's resources for himself. Let's be honest, the president is simply someone that represents the government. Behind this guy there are thousands of people running the show. Bush wouldn't be able to decide to drop a nuke on a country. A whole lot of people are responsible for decisions like these. Bush isn't a dictator. And in North America, we can vote.

Do you truly think that the US or Canada doesn't respect other governments and apply morals to their ruling and trade?

M.D.

There are lots of us out here with degrees in CS.

It's interesting how many people think that they have "rights", only when those rights benefit THEM. It doesn't work that way.

You are NOT allowed to modify a computer program just because you paid for the license to use it. This is pretty definite. Saying otherwise won't change that.

Just remember, for those who are espousing foreign havens, that the DCMA was inspired by international copyright agreements. It was put into place to bring the US UP to the levels of protection found in many other places.

I use this as some of my reference material. Try looking at it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...sup_01_17.html

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/stu...executive.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:H.R.2281.ENR:

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/anticirc.html

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

By breaking a EULA you may have inadvertently gone outside the specs of the software. In Mac OS X's case, it may not work as intended.

It's no mystery why Apple doesn't want people to install its software on something other than a Mac. They don't want to troubleshoot the problems of someone who's installed it on a PC.

Simple as that. Apple is defending itself from unwarranted support calls, lawsuits, and hardware losses. Don't follow the EULA and you can expect Apple to not treat you like a 1st class citizen. They will try to enforce the EULA as much as they can because of this.

Why can't I just go and hack into the FBI's computers??? I as a tax payer bought those computers, so it is my right.

yes, yes you can.

Now you are spouting factually incorrect drivel. There is no such law. Period. Fair use is so poorly defined in copyright law that the only way to determine it is through the judiciary and is at the discretion of state and federal judges to determine what is and is not fair use.

It really helps to do your homework first: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

That's a really bad example. Was the door patented and copyrighted? No, it's just a partially finished building material. Example shot to hell.

And your Craftsman example is even worse, Craftsman
Nothing about how you use it there.

Discussions on the boards would be a lot better if folks just didn't pull crap out their ass sideways.

Then you are technically in violation of the DMCA for breaking the copy protection. Doesn't matter that the copy protection didn't work on a Mac, you still broke it. You may not like it, but its still the way it is.

Also you still didn't meet KKS's test because you don't own the music outright, you only own a license to listen to it.

Unless it was apple's house, or apple's door I fail to see the fucking point.

You buy a door, it's your door. You buy software you do not own the software, you own the right to USE the software. The code is theirs the law DOES NOT state otherwise, therefore modifying the code is BREAKING THE LAW. Unless the door company puts a disclaimer saying that you cannot make the door fit a space it was not intended for, you can whittle the damn thing into fucking toothpicks for all they care. Apple is not the same, they didn't sell me, you or anyone else their code, it is not your right to change that.

Listen pal I'd love to build a sick AMD computer and pop in my OSX disk and have it work, but I can't. Once I alter the code is ceases to be Apple's Mac OSX 10.4 Tiger, because the code alteration turns it into something it is not, OSX was not created with the alterted code in place, so it is no longer the program they sold you, therefore it is illegal.