AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar drops antitrust gripes in fresh counterclaim against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Psystar drops antitrust gripes in fresh counterclaim against Apple - Page 3

post #81 of 144
12/10/08 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


You can rip your music to your personal computers and iPods but you cannot start selling iPods on ebay preloaded with music you ripped from you CDs without the proper permissions.

You could if you included the original CD's. Psystar isn't taking one copy of leopard and making copies and selling it on every PC. Each PC includes it's own copy of Leopard which was legally purchased.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 144
12/10/08 at 9:56am
The only reason Psystar/OSx86 has gained the notoriety that it has is because Apple do not sell a mid-range tower. I've priced out Hackintosh builds trying to match an 8-core MacPro spec for spec. It would cost as much or more for me to build it myself, and have none of the Apple customer service goodness to go with it. A nice little 4-core minitower can be built for considerably less, however. If Apple would simply offer something like this for sale, the (apparently) huge pent-up demand for such a box would be satisfied very quickly, Psystar would become irrelevant, OSx86 would recede back into the mists of ubergeekery, and the problem would be solved by the marketplace, with minimal enrichment of lawyers.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You could if you included the original CD's. Psystar isn't taking one copy of leopard and making copies and selling it on every PC. Each PC includes it's own copy of Leopard which was legally purchased.

Psystar is however INSTALLING the software, modifying it with the patched files, and then selling the machine.

THAT is what is illegal under the DMCA. It also breaks the EULA because Psystar has to click I Agree every single time they install it. You have an excuse that you didn't read it before you bought the software only once, when you repeatidly buy the software, you have had ample chance to read the agreement you agreed to in licensing someone elses property (because the buyer doesn't own the software itself under copyright and IP law)
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vercordio View Post

it'd be like suing Nintendo because Wii games only play on the Wii, and not a generic Playstation. How ridiculous.

No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"

Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.

Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #85 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"

Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.

Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.

So illegal is OK as long as you support the cause.
You are the hack

What you are saying is, I can kill someone as long as I have reasons, and its okay, the police should let me be, because laws don't matter.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You can install straight from a retail DVD. You prep the partition with an EFI emulator. Nothing illegal about that. Then install the Retail copy of leopard. An unmodified disc. After it's complete you can then copy some new files over.

So you don't have to modify a thing on the disc itself. And once installed you are free to install software and tweak your system so how would copying over and replacing a couple of files be any different? As long as you never altered the retail DVD itself?

I think that the question here is regarding how those 'modified' files were created. If someone reverse engineered them to bypass the copy protection, I think DCMA has something to say about this.

if they used Apple proprietary information to create these files, I think that there are some other legal issues here.

Close but Apple still wins this one.

P.S. I agree that I don't understand where the money is coming from to support this legal battle. What does Pystar think they will gain in the end? Who's pockets are supporting this activity really? Perhaps it is Pystar's suppliers!?!?!
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

Psystar is however INSTALLING the software, modifying it with the patched files, and then selling the machine.

THAT is what is illegal under the DMCA. It also breaks the EULA because Psystar has to click I Agree every single time they install it. You have an excuse that you didn't read it before you bought the software only once, when you repeatidly buy the software, you have had ample chance to read the agreement you agreed to in licensing someone elses property (because the buyer doesn't own the software itself under copyright and IP law)

If by "modifying OS X" you mean tweaking a few kexts, you'd be accurate... but if that's copyright violation, so is installing drivers for third party hardware, i.e. eyeTV, MIDI controllers, unsupported printers, etc...

The "hacking" is done to the PC's boot sector - NOT OS X.

Won't argue about the EULA part, it's obviously a breach, it's just a matter of whether the EULA is constitutional.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #88 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoloszynski View Post

I think that the question here is regarding how those 'modified' files were created. If someone reverse engineered them to bypass the copy protection, I think DCMA has something to say about this.

if they used Apple proprietary information to create these files, I think that there are some other legal issues here.

Close but Apple still wins this one.

P.S. I agree that I don't understand where the money is coming from to support this legal battle. What does Pystar think they will gain in the end? Who's pockets are supporting this activity really? Perhaps it is Pystar's suppliers!?!?!

Either way, circumventing copy protection is illegal. One's reason (outside of research I believe) doesn't matter. Obviously using it in a commercial situtation clearly makes it not research. Its fairly easy to intercept data passing across a bus, so I'm sure the OSX86 group or whoever it was who found the key just needed a few standard electronic diagnostics tools and a lot of patience.

I've read their attorney over there is a high-payed attorney - my guess? Maybe no one is standing behind them; maybe he's got an agreement for x% of the shares, and there is a belief that they would be worth something if successful...because the ruling would follow them if their business was sold to someone bigger? Who knows. Or maybe they believe if they win, they would get a large chunk of change awarded to them.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

If by "modifying OS X" you mean tweaking a few kexts, you'd be accurate... but if that's copyright violation, so is installing drivers for third party hardware, i.e. eyeTV, MIDI controllers, unsupported printers, etc...

The "hacking" is done to the PC's boot sector - NOT OS X.

Won't argue about the EULA part, it's obviously a breach, it's just a matter of whether the EULA is constitutional.

-Clive

DMCA and Copy Protection is more than just "can this software install". The kexts are part of OS X. They decrypt system files using a key only Apple is supposed to have, and refuse to decrypt on any non Apple system. This isn't about EFI, this is exactly about modifying OS X post-install by replacing kexts. That is the violation of DMCA, the exact same type that has been successful in previous lawsuits by the movie industry, game industry, and music industry. This is what the law was created for. (Note that HP failed in a DMCA suit against a generic cartridge provider, because there wasn't breaking of encryption or other such systems)

You can do whatever you want with the system, you can hose it, install other software, modify the resources so it says I AM A SMURF for all I care. Thats all legal as long as you keep it on your machine. However modifying the system in anyway to BYPASS their copy protection and encryption code is illegal outside of a research project, whether for personal use or commercial use. That is the law of the land and has been the last 10 years.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 144
12/10/08 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

So illegal is OK as long as you support the cause.
You are the hack

What you are saying is, I can kill someone as long as I have reasons, and its okay, the police should let me be, because laws don't matter.

Uh... okay, hyperbole much? The EULA part is a breach of contract, which is not "illegal" per se, but could have legal ramifications, if terms were set. Apple has not set terms of what happens if you breach the EULA, therefore there are no consequences. And by the way, murder in self defense is not illegal. Murder in war is also not illegal. What justifies them? If you want to proclaim that there is no circumstance under which EULA should ever be broken, even if it violates your constitutional rights... say for example (since you like hyperbolistic examples so much) that OS X's EULA says that you must submit your first-born child as human sacrifice to Steve Jobs... you have a right to revolt. Apple's EULA bars legally-purchased copies of OS X from ending up anywhere else but on a bucket of bolts that only Apple sells. This is an abomination of consumer choice. I'm not saying psystar should legal have a right to sell hackintoshes but to bar consumers from building them WOULD be a obstruction of a consumer's rights.

The situation would be akin to this (modifying the Nintendo situation from earlier): Joe buys a PS3 from the store. Joe buys a copy of Super Mario Galaxy (Wii only) from the store. Joe modifies the hardware of the PS3, allowing it to play SMG. Is that illegal?

What if he sells it?

Sony got money for the system. Nintendo got their asking price for the game... what's the problem?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #91 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

This is an abomination of consumer choice.

You could buy a Mac
You could buy a PC
or... build a PC
or... build a Hack'

How much more choice do you need?
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

The situation would be akin to this (modifying the Nintendo situation from earlier): Joe buys a PS3 from the store. Joe buys a copy of Super Mario Galaxy (Wii only) from the store. Joe modifies the hardware of the PS3, allowing it to play SMG. Is that illegal?

What if he sells it?

Sony got money for the system. Nintendo got their asking price for the game... what's the problem?

Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.

If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

DMCA and Copy Protection is more than just "can this software install". The kexts are part of OS X. They decrypt system files using a key only Apple is supposed to have, and refuse to decrypt on any non Apple system. This isn't about EFI, this is exactly about modifying OS X post-install by replacing kexts. That is the violation of DMCA, the exact same type that has been successful in previous lawsuits by the movie industry, game industry, and music industry. This is what the law was created for. (Note that HP failed in a DMCA suit against a generic cartridge provider, because there wasn't breaking of encryption or other such systems)

You can do whatever you want with the system, you can hose it, install other software, modify the resources so it says I AM A SMURF for all I care. Thats all legal as long as you keep it on your machine. However modifying the system in anyway to BYPASS their copy protection and encryption code is illegal outside of a research project, whether for personal use or commercial use. That is the law of the land and has been the last 10 years.

Look. Copyright protection is important. I'm not trying to state otherwise. I'm saying that when it is being used to violate consumer's rights (like Apple is), the law has overstepped its bounds and must be repealed/reworked. This is PRECISELY why the DMCA has the exemptions it does. The most notable one I can think of is the exemption that allows one to break encryption on a mobile phone to make it carrier independent. This circumstance is directly analogous breaking OS X's "encryption" (a misnomer if you ask me) to run it hardware-independent.

This is why I feel it is justified for users to do so... and - if a judge decides that Psystar's process is actually a breach of copyright (I'm not convinced it is) - for Psystar to NOT do so.

Even so, I feel as though Apple is just creating bad blood by trying to forcibly stomp them out. That's why I said that Apple should just leave these guys alone because they will never be a threat to Apple, and, in the short term, they will please the geeks who will never be content with Apple's hardware offerings that come as a result of a closed system.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #94 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

You could buy a Mac
You could buy a PC
or... build a PC
or... build a Hack'

How much more choice do you need?

I'm content with this choice, but even #4 would still be considered "illegal." Besides, it's not really a question of buying a "mac" or a "PC." It's about being able to choose what hardware I want with want operating system I want.

I feel wronged that my choice in OS limits my hardware selection because of a missing vendor ID, rather than something actually consequential, like compatibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.

I think the OSx86 group is getting very close to this, actually... They have boot disks that allow one to install from the Retail DVD.

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #95 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

This time around they are getting closer to issues that I consider important: How much can a software vendor restrict the rights of someone who purchases their product.

But they're not close to that at all.

Apple isn't suing people who buy their product. They are suing a company that is modifying their copyrighted intellectual property and RESELLING it.

The case of a person doing things in the privacy of their own home is completely different than a company reselling in quantity.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You don't have to modify apples code. You just add EFI emulation.

Except that's not what they are doing, they ARE modifying apple's code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

And there are boards starting to show up that use EFI. A retail copy of OSX could boot right up straight out of the box with no modification whatsoever.

Has that been confirmed with one of the new boards or is that just speculation on your part? Link?

It may be possible, but that assumes that apple hasn't customized the EFI code at all, if they do then cloning their EFI would require duplicating copyrighted code. That's what shut down the PSX emulator, since the software emulation app contained bits of proprietary sony code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

Essentially is boils down to the EULA which will not hold up.

Are you forgetting that psystar is shipping a hacked version of OSX which violates the derivative works part of copyright law, or ignoring it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

They are then adding EFI emulation and whatever drivers are needed for the hardware. Not modifiying but rather addition to.

Nope, they are using a hacked version of OSX, looks like they didn't even do it themselves but just used the one people have done and made available online.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

There is no copy protection circumvention. Retail copies of OSX have no copy protection whatsoever.

If there is no copy protection, then why can't you install it on a PC? Sure looks like they protected it to me.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.

If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.

Actually, the difference would be if someone created an interface that ran OSX applications instead of actually running the os. When I ran the Virtual Game station from Connectix it wasn't emulating the PS experience so much as it was just making the games playable. if this was making OSX applications (itunes, iPhoto, even photoshop) able to run on, say, a modified custom os Psystar put together THEN you can draw on the similarities. Games are a third party "application" licensed to run on a platform.
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #98 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.

But that doesn't help Psystar because few people are going to buy a computer like that where they have to install the OS for themselves. The problem has always been there is no off the shelf copy of Mac OS X just the upgrade. They are deceiving potential buyers into thinking 'It is just like a Mac but cheaper'. Aside from no OS installed no automatic updates, no service no support, questionable compatibility and a host of other unknowns - yeah I can see thousands of savvy computer buyers jumping on this deal. You could do the hack for yourself if you are ok with all the disadvantages.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #99 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiana61 View Post

Nice try, but I think that would make Apple guilty of hindering competition.

Nope, you make the same mistake as psystar. How can apple possibly hinder competition when no matter what they do, people have the option of buying windows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

In the past (10.4 and earlier), that WAS the case. It is not any more. You don't have to change a single thing with an OS X disk and certain hardware to get it to boot and install. You can take a fresh disk out of the package, stick it in, boot off of it, and install.... again with certain hardware.

Could you provide a link to an example? Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

So you can't tweak and customize the OS you bought and installed?

Of course you can. You just cant tweak the OS and resell the tweaked version, it's a violation of copyright law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielchow View Post

I'd say they're still an end-user.

That makes no sense at all. They're not USING any of the machines, they're reselling them, and the machine doesn't END in their possession, they sell them to an END USER.

They'd probably be fine if they hacked the machines but never resold them, but that's not much of a business model, is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

You could if you included the original CD's. Psystar isn't taking one copy of leopard and making copies and selling it on every PC. Each PC includes it's own copy of Leopard which was legally purchased.

Except that the copy on the psystar PC's is a modified one, which is the copyright violation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"

The case is there assuming the modded machine contains Nintendo code (modified or not).
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Look. Copyright protection is important. I'm not trying to state otherwise. I'm saying that when it is being used to violate consumer's rights (like Apple is), the law has overstepped its bounds and must be repealed/reworked. This is PRECISELY why the DMCA has the exemptions it does. The most notable one I can think of is the exemption that allows one to break encryption on a mobile phone to make it carrier independent. This circumstance is directly analogous breaking OS X's "encryption" (a misnomer if you ask me) to run it hardware-independent.

OS X and mobile phones are not analogous. Apple does not make a profit from OS X the way Microsoft makes profit from Windows. Apple uses OS X to sell Macs. The Mac is where Apple makes its money. Why would a judge order Apple to open OS X when their business model does not profit from OS X.

Exactly what consumer protections are you talking about?



Quote:
Even so, I feel as though Apple is just creating bad blood by trying to forcibly stomp them out. That's why I said that Apple should just leave these guys alone because they will never be a threat to Apple, and, in the short term, they will please the geeks who will never be content with Apple's hardware offerings that come as a result of a closed system.
-Clive

Apple is still a relative small player in the PC market. Only this year have they exceeded selling 2 million computers per quarter. That's still nothing compared to Dell and HP.

Ultimately the problem is that Psystar is feeding from Apple's work. Apple has spent its own resources and capital to create OS X and the Mac brand. Psystar has put up no risk in OS X or the Macs success or failure. Apple want to keep full control of its property.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:59am
I don't believe that. Can you post a link to this case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 144
12/10/08 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab View Post

Have to say I totally agree. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Sony tried and failed to ban software that allowed PlayStation games to run on PCs, Macs and Dreamcast consoles.

If someone can build a machine that will install and run an off the shelf copy of OS X then, regardless of what the EULA might say, there is very little that Apple can do to stop them selling those machines.

Yes but they weren't trying to profit from it.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 144
12/10/08 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Ultimately the problem is that Psystar is feeding from Apple's work. Apple has spent its own resources and capital to create OS X and the Mac brand. Psystar has put up no risk in OS X or the Macs success or failure. Apple want to keep full control of its property.

Yeah, that's what Linux and GNU are for. I remember back when people sought after Apple pram chips for Amigas in order to to run Mac apps. Also many years ago another company was working on reverse engineering the Mac OS in a clean room, but psystar just want to change the law to make stealing legal.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #104 of 144
12/10/08 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Except that's not what they are doing, they ARE modifying apple's code....Are you forgetting that psystar is shipping a hacked version of OSX which violates the derivative works part of copyright law, or ignoring it?...Nope, they are using a hacked version of OSX, looks like they didn't even do it themselves but just used the one people have done and made available online.

Long time reader, but I feel that there is WAAAY to much mis-information here...But Minderbinder, you're about 6 months out of date.

Psystar is NOT shipping a hacked version of OSX. IT IS RETAIL. There are methods out there now that allow for installation of a (read closely) RETAIL Leopard DVD. Please re-read the last sentence over... In fact, try googling "Boot-132" and see what you get

The caveat is that yes, a dsmos.kext or appledecrypt.kext is needed to decrypt the binaries. How these were obtained, I'm not entirely sure.

Also, they (Psystar) do provide other kext files that 'fix' certain problems (OpenHaltRestart.kext).

I'm not commenting on the legal implications of using dsmos.kext to decrypt the encrypted binaries, I just want people to know that these are RETAIL leopard installations with decryption kext files. There is NO modification of Apple Code.

And before you ask or assume, I don't own a Psystar
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 144
12/10/08 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramermu View Post

Long time reader, but I feel that there is WAAAY to much mis-information here...But Minderbinder, you're about 6 months out of date.

Psystar is NOT shipping a hacked version of OSX. IT IS RETAIL. There are methods out there now that allow for installation of a (read closely) RETAIL Leopard DVD. Please re-read the last sentence over... In fact, try googling "Boot-132" and see what you get

The caveat is that yes, a dsmos.kext or appledecrypt.kext is needed to decrypt the binaries. How these were obtained, I'm not entirely sure.

Also, they (Psystar) do provide other kext files that 'fix' certain problems (OpenHaltRestart.kext).

I'm not commenting on the legal implications of using dsmos.kext to decrypt the encrypted binaries, I just want people to know that these are RETAIL leopard installations with decryption kext files. There is NO modification of Apple Code.

And before you ask or assume, I don't own a Psystar

It is you who doesn't understand.
Hacked is hacked.
It doesn't matter if its hacked before its installed or after its installed.
There is no such thing as a version of those files that include the encryption key legitimately, that key is read out of the Apple hardware. It is a hack, get it through your guys heads. Installing the DVD followed by replacing system files to get around encryption and copy protection issues = HACK
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 144
12/10/08 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

No......... It's like Nintendo suing someone who builds and sells modified PS3s that also play Wii games... to which I say, "where's the case?"

Apple should just leave Psystar alone. They'll never seriously affect their market share, but they'll pacify the alienated Apple nerds who want their mid-tower graphics machines... like me.

Not that I'd buy a Psystar PC. I already built a hack.

If Apple leaves Psystar alone, Dell and HP start marketing their machines with Mac OS X as an option. Psystar will make a very small dent in Apple's cashflow. Too small to notice. It's the Dells, HPs, Lenovos and Acers of the world that Apple wants to keep at bay.

That's why the rumors claim that one of those companies is funding Psystar's legal campaign.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 144
12/10/08 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

It is you who doesn't understand.
. Installing the DVD followed by replacing system files...

But you're not replacing...you're adding. There is no hacking of the actual OS or DVD at all (that might depend on your definition of 'hacking'). But that's not the point...my point was that this is a Retail version of Leopard.

Oh, and BTW, I don't know where the assumption that I don't understand came about...I do understand. Retail Installation + decryption kext = Hackintosh. duh. Anything other than Apple hardware is a hackintosh. Seems rather straightforward..,
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramermu View Post

But you're not replacing...you're adding. There is no hacking of the actual OS or DVD at all (that might depend on your definition of 'hacking'). But that's not the point...my point was that this is a Retail version of Leopard.

Oh, and BTW, I don't know where the assumption that I don't understand came about...I do understand. Retail Installation + decryption kext = Hackintosh. duh. Anything other than Apple hardware is a hackintosh. Seems rather straightforward..,

Incorrect, you dont understand. If it doesn't run without adding or replacing files to get around their encryption, its a hack. Sometimes I wish the OS X DVDs would explode when running in non apple boxes, it would get rid of some of the low life theives and people who should win the Darwin Award....

Reply
Reply
post #109 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramermu View Post

Oh, and BTW, I don't know where the assumption that I don't understand came about...I do understand. Retail Installation + decryption kext = Hackintosh. duh. Anything other than Apple hardware is a hackintosh. Seems rather straightforward..,

Um...Yeah, I know?
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:20pm
And see what prevents apple from continuing to make the software.
What if instead of everyone getting to use the product as the wish, like all the uninformed people think would happen, apple just quit selling Apple OS? Then Nobody wins. It is unlikely since that would hurt the employees in the company, but how many of you thought about that.

This is partially the RIAA's argument, sadly as much as I dont want to admit it. They have it so you agree to be licensed to use their product a certain way, and people want it in a different form... Albeit there isnt a direct agreement...

This sort of shit stifles innovation. You did all the hard work and I want to profit from it. Psystar is ridiculous...
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramermu View Post

Um...Yeah, I know?

Your argument is you aren't hacking to circumvent copy protection, but you are by circumventing encryption with the hack.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

Your argument is you aren't hacking you circumvent copy protection, but you are by circumventing encryption with the hack.

Actually, I have never given my opinion on this matter, nor have I any argument. I was simply stating what is the obvious truth, that this is a retail version of OSX. Retail Leopard DVD. Retail. Retail. Retail. No modification of apple code on the Leopard DVD. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And does decrypting binaries (or cirvumventing decryption) actually = circumventing copy protection? (This is just a question).
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I don't believe that. Can you post a link to this case?

From Wikipedia
Sony perceived VGS as a threat, and filed a lawsuit[2] against Connectix for copyright infringement. The case was eventually closed in favour of Connectix, but Connectix was unable to sell the software in the meantime because Sony had been awarded a temporary injunction[3]. Soon thereafter, Sony purchased VGS from Connectix and discontinued it.

I do remember looking for it and I couldnt find it anywhere, that was during the injunction. I then found it again, but it wasnt the same program as far as functionality, that was after sony had bought it
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:32pm
A shrink-wrap EULA will not hold up in court. But the EULA that you "sign" in order to install the software or use the software the first time generally does hold up.

But all Apple has to do is contantly change their software, but download updates to Psystar customers. Then their machines would stop working.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladinkn00be View Post

And see what prevents apple from continuing to make the software.
What if instead of everyone getting to use the product as the wish, like all the uninformed people think would happen, apple just quit selling Apple OS? Then Nobody wins. It is unlikely since that would hurt the employees in the company, but how many of you thought about that.

This is partially the RIAA's argument, sadly as much as I dont want to admit it. They have it so you agree to be licensed to use their product a certain way, and people want it in a different form... Albeit there isnt a direct agreement...

This sort of shit stifles innovation. You did all the hard work and I want to profit from it. Psystar is ridiculous...

In all honesty Apple just needs to do one thing. Ask for a Hardware serial number when installing a purchased update. That number is found in your system profiler and is unique to each machine. But apple needs to make the software in the box and update, or at the very least make retail copies check for an older version, then make you enter the Hardware Serial Number.
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #116 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

OS X and mobile phones are not analogous. Apple does not make a profit from OS X the way Microsoft makes profit from Windows. Apple uses OS X to sell Macs. The Mac is where Apple makes its money.

That's Apple's choice!!! If they choose to subsidize the price of OS X, that's their freaking problem. It's the risk they accept in trying to create an incentive. All companies have to make those business decisions. Apple should not be legally sheltered from the consequences of that risk. Let me guess, you also support automobile company bail-outs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Psystar has put up no risk in OS X or the Macs success or failure. Apple want to keep full control of its property.

Except when you sell something, you release control of it. Pretty much the definition of "sell."

Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger View Post

It is you who doesn't understand.
Hacked is hacked.
It doesn't matter if its hacked before its installed or after its installed.
There is no such thing as a version of those files that include the encryption key legitimately, that key is read out of the Apple hardware. It is a hack, get it through your guys heads. Installing the DVD followed by replacing system files to get around encryption and copy protection issues = HACK

You're saying "hack" like it's a naughty word or something. Get off your high horse and/or over yourself. Building a hackintosh is no worse than some of the shenanigans Woz & Jobs pulled against self-righteous companies back in their day. Most of us BUY copies of OS X anyway... copies that wouldn't otherwise be purchased. Apple should be thanking us.
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #117 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramermu View Post

Actually, I have never given my opinion on this matter, nor have I any argument. I was simply stating what is the obvious truth, that this is a retail version of OSX. Retail Leopard DVD. Retail. Retail. Retail. No modification of apple code on the Leopard DVD. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And does decrypting binaries (or cirvumventing decryption) actually = circumventing copy protection? (This is just a question).


Sorry, thought you were strongly arguing the position that hacking after the install was not circumventing copy protection. Two things:

1) Its actually an upgrade at retail. You can't buy a stand alone MacOS X install; you can only officially buy it to use on a mac (Says for use on Macintosh computers only on the box), which already came with OS X. Therefore it is automatically sold as an upgrade.

2) Yes, decrypting the binaries is circumventing copy protection just like decrypting the CSS on a DVD is circumventing copy protection and illegal under the DMCA. Thats why it doesn't matter if you can install without hacking it up front; if you have to hack it to get it to bypass the encryption at any point its circumventing copy protection.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:46pm
From what I'm reading Connectix didn't really win the right to continue to sell the PS emulator. If it had it would have left the door open for anyone to make a console emulators.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladinkn00be View Post

From Wikipedia
Sony perceived VGS as a threat, and filed a lawsuit[2] against Connectix for copyright infringement. The case was eventually closed in favour of Connectix, but Connectix was unable to sell the software in the meantime because Sony had been awarded a temporary injunction[3]. Soon thereafter, Sony purchased VGS from Connectix and discontinued it.

I do remember looking for it and I couldnt find it anywhere, that was during the injunction. I then found it again, but it wasnt the same program as far as functionality, that was after sony had bought it
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

You're saying "hack" like it's a naughty word or something. Get off your high horse and/or over yourself. Building a hackintosh is no worse than some of the shenanigans Woz & Jobs pulled against self-righteous companies back in their day. Most of us BUY copies of OS X anyway... copies that wouldn't otherwise be purchased. Apple should be thanking us.

What shenanigans? They paid license fees for the ideas they got from Xerox.
Its not a high horse, I actually understand the law, have morals, and an understanding of right vs wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 144
12/10/08 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

That's Apple's choice!!! If they choose to subsidize the price of OS X, that's their freaking problem. It's the risk they accept in trying to create an incentive. All companies have to make those business decisions. Apple should not be legally sheltered from the consequences of that risk. Let me guess, you also support automobile company bail-outs?

Yes, THEY ARE legally sheltered. It's their Intellectual property. Not yours. Not Psystars. They have the rights to do with it as they please. They can LEGALLY say, HP you can use it and Dell you can not. They can give it away if they want, and they can certainly keep other companies from using it entirely all together. It's how it works. If this system wasn't in place many companies would fold. No engineering would ever take place. Everyone would be ripping each other off and only the person that could steal it and resell it the cheapest would ever make the profit. Our economy would completely collapse (lolol I know it has already). But it would be ten times worse.

Quote:
Except when you sell something, you release control of it. Pretty much the definition of "sell."

You should take another look at the EULA, apple is NOT selling and giving up rights to it. They are basically leasing it for use on an Apple labeled system.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar drops antitrust gripes in fresh counterclaim against Apple