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.
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.
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!
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
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?
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.
Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.
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.
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.
Quote:
Not recognizing other people's rights is a big weakness. (Flame deleted -JL)
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote:
If any Craftsman guaranteed forever hand tool fails to provide complete satisfaction, return it for free repair or replacement. Period.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The code is theirs the law DOES NOT state otherwise, therefore modifying the code is BREAKING THE LAW.
What if I modify the code that is commonly known as 'Darwin' and is found on all OS X releases sold today? Would modifying OS X be BREAKING THE LAW then too, since Darwin is, in fact, intended to be modified, and it is, in fact, part of OS X?
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
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.
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.
Originally posted by a_greer
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!
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
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.
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?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
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?
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.
Originally posted by a_greer
Did you sleep through Business 101?
Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.
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.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Blatant flaming deleted - JL
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.
Not recognizing other people's rights is a big weakness. (Flame deleted -JL)
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...
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.
There is nothing stated anywhere that gives the general public the right to tamper with the code as we do not own it.
Originally posted by lundy
You forgot the 101 lost hardware sales.
I'm a doctor; I didn't take Business classes.
what kind of "doctor" phd, md do, dc, ed?
Originally posted by Whyatt Thrash
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...
Funny that you mention Hitler after talking about Austria.
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?
Originally posted by NOFEER
what kind of "doctor" phd, md do, dc, ed?
M.D.
There are lots of us out here with degrees in CS.
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
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.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
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.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
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.
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/
Originally posted by a_greer
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.
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
If any Craftsman guaranteed forever hand tool fails to provide complete satisfaction, return it for free repair or replacement. Period.
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.
Originally posted by a_greer
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.
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.
Originally posted by a_greer
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.
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.
The code is theirs the law DOES NOT state otherwise, therefore modifying the code is BREAKING THE LAW.
What if I modify the code that is commonly known as 'Darwin' and is found on all OS X releases sold today? Would modifying OS X be BREAKING THE LAW then too, since Darwin is, in fact, intended to be modified, and it is, in fact, part of OS X?
Explain this to me please.