Originally Posted by Clive At Five
No, you're interpreting my use of the word "legitimate" as "legally allowed." I'm using "legitimate" as meaning "justifiable, fair."
The copyright system WAS designed to be "fair". The fact that you want it to mean what YOU mean as fair is something else.
I understand why we have copyright laws and why they are important. I simply contend the massive power we've instilled into the rights that extend from it. That doesn't make me anti-Constitution as you are subtly implying, it means that I disagree with the modern interpretation of the Constitution within the realm of copyright laws.
Copyright holders used to have even more power, except for the extensions of copyright over the times that I am not happy with either, as they've now gotten to be so long so as to be infinite in extent to most all practical purposes. I understand why certain areas should be extended, but not why all areas have been.
What modern interpretation do you mean other than the extension of time granted ?
I don't care whether Psystar lives or dies. I just believe that companies should not be able to control use of a product past the point of sale. That goes for modifying, installing, reselling, what have you. So long as that copy goes toward a single installation of OS X, I believe I am within my rights to do with it what I please.
This is your belief, which is something that has nothing to do with the argument about Psystar. It also has nothing to do with the law.
No, you are the one who is not understanding. I know what copyright law says. I disagree with the law.
I understand quite well. You are of two thoughts here.
I'm looking for ethical reasons as to why you believe the law is correct, not simply "because copyright law says so." That's a circular argument.
The concept of copyright was to make what happens to an original work be fair to bothe the creater of the work, and to those who would like to use the work. The entire concept is based on fairness, which is also therefore about ethics. it isn't ethical to take someone's work against their will. Or, to use it in a way they don't want.
When you understand that you aren't buyinh the work in these cases, but rather licensing them, then the argument become a different one.
If I buy that painting, its mine. that's recognized through caselaw going way back. But it's also recognized through caselaw, going back a ways, that for multiple copies of a work, we are just leasing in a sense.
Also, the modern world is vastly different from the old one when copyright was first established.
No one would buy a copy of a sculpture and admire it as the original, because it couldn't be an exact copy, and those who made the copies weren't as good as the original artist. Because of that, there wasn't that much worry. There's more of a problem with paintings, but even there, most of the time, it can be resolved, esp. if the artist is still alive.
But once printed works came about, copyright became more important. Few people care if a book is printed the same as the original as long as the words are the same, and it can be easily read. That's when the concept of licensing became of importance.
That carries through to todays computer programs, except that it's a bit more complex.
With that book, there was little others could do with original printed editions other than steal them from the bookstore.
But wih software, the computer they are used on is as important as the software itself.
With Apple, most of their sales come from the hardware that the software controls. When someone buys the software and uses it on another piece of hardware, they're taking that sale away from Apple. we already went through this carefully.
Now, according to you, you don't care. You just want what's good for you. But that's a problem.
If Apple were to lose enough sales of its hardware they might not be able to afford to continue developing, and supporting their software, as they are not set up as MS is to be a software company.
You need to take this to its logical end, which isn't being done.
Now today, Apple isn't as dependent on its computer sales as it used to be. But still, if they lost enough business there, it would be a hardship. Would that be fair? After all, Apple has a lot of employees also.
I get the feeling though, that you will gloss over all of this the way you glossed over all my other explanations, as you just want to believe what you believe.
If that's so, we can both admit that there's no point in continuing this.