There was an update: a hacker had posted links to _illegal_ tools in their forums, the site was not shut down, the forums were only temporarily shut down, and the offending links were removed.
The site and forums will continue to go strong and many initial reports seem to have blown it way out of context.
[B]I'm not building credentials. It happens to be true.
In your opinion.
Quote:
If you don't believe what I'm saying, post us the relevent law that shows that.
Copyright Act of 1976.
Quote:
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 said that a user, the rightful owner of a copyrighted material, cannot do anything that the copyright holders explicitely tell him/her he/she can do. I'm saying that that's false, because, as evidenced by the Copyright Act of 1976, Fair Use allows a user to make a copy of the media he owns without paying any royalty to the copyright owner.
Quote:
You can make that backup of your OWN copy. But the DCMA clearly prevents you from breaking any protection to do so.
It's DMCA, not DCMA, and while DMCA does prevent you from breaking protection, in not way does it prevent you from making copies of those products if that protection is not available (e.g. some CDs, books, etc.).
Quote:
Apple's products, so far, have no protection, so it clearly is legal.
Yet Apple's EULA states that it is not. Tell me now, which one has priority within the judicial branch of the United States Government, Apple's EULA, an unenforcable wish-list of puritanical behaviour, or the Copyright Act of 1976, which codifies Fair Use and DMCA which further solidify the said Fair Use?
Quote:
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.
The only link(s) they hosted that could be construed as illegal (depending on the country) are links to Maxuss' patches (who lives in Russia btw, so the DMCA is clearly not valid there). They will be back up online as soon as they delete those links and any other links that may have been mentioned by Apple's lawyers. But the website itself is not going down anytime soon.
Quote:
We're having a good discussion about this on ARs.
I read page 1 and 2 there. It is a good discussion.
Modifying Darwin isn't sufficient enough to open OS X for the general PC.
If it was that's all Maxxuss would have done.
Well, he was saying that modifying OS X is BREAKING THE LAW, and, as far as I know, Darwin is part of OS X and you are free to modify Darwin all you want.
What Maxxuss did was different, but some things need to be kept in perspective so copyright zealots don't go overboard with stuff they are not quite familiar with.
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.
This is actually a complex issue.
If the CD isn't DRM'd, then it can be copied onto other media, for your own use.
If it is DRM'd, then you aren't allowed to do that. Even if the DRM is poorly thought out.
My take? I don't care if they pirate OS X or acquire it legally but install it on a PC and break the EULA just as long as the contribute to OS X by developing and porting software. If they're just in for the ride, however, and pirating other software such as FCP, Logic, Aperture, iLife and iWork, they can rot in hell.
That's sort of how I feel about it, too.
Frankly, I think it's all the potential followup fallout from OS X being hacked to run on non-Mac hardware that's Apple's real concern. It's providing them a reason to care, sooner than later. If OSx86 were a relatively stealth underground project rather than being increasingly flaunted around the net it really wouldn't matter (much). Any threshold of tolerance has now been irreversibly crossed.
I might have respect for the technical expertise of certain people doing the actual hacking. But things get fucked up quickly once it reaches the level of irresponsible propagation, especially among unethically careless freeriders who bring nothing to the effort except negative attention.
Some people haven't figured out that you don't just go blatantly yelling "look at me, I'm doing something illegal!" into infringing territories without expecting to possibly face consequences for those actions. And then they act ignorant and surprised when they face confrontation. Thanks so much for the clueless sabotage of creative hacking.
But if the protection exists in any form at all, bypassing it by copying from on a system that does not recognize that protection, however poorly implemented because it was effectively single platform protection, is still breaking the DRM. No way around it.
You said that a user, the rightful owner of a copyrighted material, cannot do anything that the copyright holders explicitely tell him/her he/she can do. I'msaying that that's false, because, as evidenced by the Copyright Act of 1976, Fair Use allows a user to make a copy of the media he owns without paying any royalty to the copyright owner.
It's DMCA, not DCMA, and while DMCA does prevent you from breaking protection, in not way does it prevent you from making copies of those products if that protection is not available (e.g. some CDs, books, etc.).
Yet Apple's EULA states that it is not. Tell me now, which one has priority within the judicial branch of the United States Government, Apple's EULA, an unenforcable wish-list of puritanical behaviour, or the Copyright Act of 1976, which codifies Fair Use and DMCA which further solidify the said Fair Use?
There goes gene again. Ignoring the links that showed his dear copyright act of 1976 does not codify fair use. It just introduces the term without adequate legal definition. Worthless, except it allowed judges to make the call as to what actually constitutes a fair use on a case-by-case basis. No blanket free lunch, even for back-ups.
But if the protection exists in any form at all, bypassing it by copying from on a system that does not recognize that protection, however poorly implemented because it was effectively single platform protection, is still breaking the DRM. No way around it.
Not at all. Just because Sony CDs have Windows-only rootkits, that doesn't mean that I can't listen to my legally purchased CD on my BeOS box. If I purposfully break the protection on an OS that supports that type of protection such as Windows, then there's a case.
As it stands, nobody is breaking any protection because such a protection doesn't exist for that specific system/OS (whatever that system may be, except Windows, of course). Now if I downloaded that CD off of torrent sites, burned it and listened to it on my BeOS box, that is a different case. But even then it wouldn't be DRM breakage on my part - merely a copyright infringement.
Either Sony et al should start creating Universal Binaries ( ) of their protection schemes that run on any OS that includes CD playback capabilities, or I continue to legally listen to my legally purchased CDs on my system that may very well not support Sony rootkits and whatnot. Last I heard, it is not illegal to play music on systems other than rootkit-paradise, Windows.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include?
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Quote:
Worthless, except it allowed judges to make the call as to what actually constitutes a fair use on a case-by-case basis. No blanket free lunch, even for back-ups.
I wouldn't call any law 'worthless' if judges were able to base their decisions of Fair Use largely on that law and other, follow-up laws dealing with the same matter. YMMV.
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.
You know what I meant I am sick to death of your technicalities. if Darwin is meant to be modified then that does not count. Can darwin be modified to make OSX work on a PC? No. The modifications needed to make OSX work on a PC are not ones that are extended to the user.
You License the software. You don't actually own anything not even the media it is on. You pay for a License to use the software and as such enter into a contract with Apple regarding how you use the software.
You buy music
You buy books
you buy art
You license software.
You have a drivers license which may be revoked by the state of issue.
There are usually no rights conferred in the license except those that are explicitly given in the EULA.
I go to the store, I pick up a packege, lets say, Photoshop. The box says Photoshop CS2, not License for Photoshop CS2, not Photoshop CS2 license.
If I buy a book, I can copy a few pages (I think the threshold is like 5%) for say a class project, I can underline, hilight or mark out passeges, I can make notes in the margins, I can cut pages out, I can dog-ear the corners, essentially I can do what efver I want as long as I do not duplicate+redistribute the work, same with CDs and art
Is there is no EULA on DVDs, CDs, books or art, so what makes software so differant?
Imagine going to a resteraunt, paying for your food when you ordered, and just as the waitress is getting ready to serve your dinner, you are presented with an End Diner Licence Agreement stateing that you will not modify the food in any way: no salt, pepper, sugar, syrip, sauce, jam, jelly ETC that is not on the plate...and you can be sued under the DMCA for taking the food off of the plate and putting it in a box/doggiebag...
If we will not take it from our resteraunts, why do we take it from our software vendors?
Before you say "food is tangible, software isnt" I say The food on your plate is tangible just like the CD/DVD, but the recipes and all other elements like flavor, and presentation are the cooks intelectual property, which you can't modify without his blessing
I wouldn't call any law 'worthless' if judges were able to base their decisions of Fair Use largely on that law and other, follow-up laws dealing with the same matter. YMMV.
So gene finally found the introduction of the term that has been found in the courts to be unworkable and unsupportable for broad application of protections. bravo - not.
The language itself does not say what fair use is. it says consider some things and make a ruling. Not a single mention of any of the modifications or backups here either. Is there? Because the law is so pathetic at actually defining fair use it is case by case if you are taken to court.
No congressional protections of any kind. Just some words to tell judges -- "Hey it's up to you if you ever see this!"
If I am not mistaken, the Apple EULA's for their software all state "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."
So it is my understanding that if you install OS X (or any Apple software) on a non-Apple computer, you're violating the EULA.
I go to the store, I pick up a packege, lets say, Photoshop. The box says Photoshop CS2, not License for Photoshop CS2, not Photoshop CS2 license.
If I buy a book, I can copy a few pages (I think the threshold is like 5%) for say a class project, I can underline, hilight or mark out passeges, I can make notes in the margins, I can cut pages out, I can dog-ear the corners, essentially I can do what efver I want as long as I do not duplicate+redistribute the work, same with CDs and art
Is there is no EULA on DVDs, CDs, books or art, so what makes software so differant?
Imagine going to a resteraunt, paying for your food when you ordered, and just as the waitress is getting ready to serve your dinner, you are presented with an End Diner Licence Agreement stateing that you will not modify the food in any way: no salt, pepper, sugar, syrip, sauce, jam, jelly ETC that is not on the plate...and you can be sued under the DMCA for taking the food off of the plate and putting it in a box/doggiebag...
If we will not take it from our resteraunts, why do we take it from our software vendors?
Before you say "food is tangible, software isnt" I say The food on your plate is tangible just like the CD/DVD, but the recipes and all other elements like flavor, and presentation are the cooks intelectual property, which you can't modify without his blessing
No, you don't buy software. You buy a license that gives you the right to use the software as the license allows. If you don't agree, then you should return the software. In the states that don't have a "shrinkwrap" license, you can. In the ones that do, the software company will usually do it as well.
Making bad comparisons doesn't change the argument.
You can make up ideas that fit your belief, but it doesn't change anything. If there actually was a restaurant that operated as you conjecture, then you would be free not to go there. Word of mouth (so to speak) would let it be known that the "no modify" policy was in place. They would be required to place that announcement in public view as well. No excuse on your part.
Notices of license are on the box. The fact that you are here arguing the point makes it very clear that you are aware of it. Again, no excuse.
Your disagreement with it doesn't mean that you can ignore it.
Comments
The site and forums will continue to go strong and many initial reports seem to have blown it way out of context.
All the info is here
If it was that's all Maxxuss would have done.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]I'm not building credentials. It happens to be true.
In your opinion.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, post us the relevent law that shows that.
Copyright Act of 1976.
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 said that a user, the rightful owner of a copyrighted material, cannot do anything that the copyright holders explicitely tell him/her he/she can do. I'm saying that that's false, because, as evidenced by the Copyright Act of 1976, Fair Use allows a user to make a copy of the media he owns without paying any royalty to the copyright owner.
You can make that backup of your OWN copy. But the DCMA clearly prevents you from breaking any protection to do so.
It's DMCA, not DCMA, and while DMCA does prevent you from breaking protection, in not way does it prevent you from making copies of those products if that protection is not available (e.g. some CDs, books, etc.).
Apple's products, so far, have no protection, so it clearly is legal.
Yet Apple's EULA states that it is not. Tell me now, which one has priority within the judicial branch of the United States Government, Apple's EULA, an unenforcable wish-list of puritanical behaviour, or the Copyright Act of 1976, which codifies Fair Use and DMCA which further solidify the said Fair Use?
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.
The only link(s) they hosted that could be construed as illegal (depending on the country) are links to Maxuss' patches (who lives in Russia btw, so the DMCA is clearly not valid there). They will be back up online as soon as they delete those links and any other links that may have been mentioned by Apple's lawyers. But the website itself is not going down anytime soon.
We're having a good discussion about this on ARs.
I read page 1 and 2 there. It is a good discussion.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Modifying Darwin isn't sufficient enough to open OS X for the general PC.
If it was that's all Maxxuss would have done.
Well, he was saying that modifying OS X is BREAKING THE LAW, and, as far as I know, Darwin is part of OS X and you are free to modify Darwin all you want.
What Maxxuss did was different, but some things need to be kept in perspective so copyright zealots don't go overboard with stuff they are not quite familiar with.
Originally posted by Hiro
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.
This is actually a complex issue.
If the CD isn't DRM'd, then it can be copied onto other media, for your own use.
If it is DRM'd, then you aren't allowed to do that. Even if the DRM is poorly thought out.
The lawyer working for Apple was very kind. I'm not mad in the least - I'm happy Apple takes OS X seriously enough that they're willing to protect it.
The Founder and Administrator of OSx86 Project.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
My take? I don't care if they pirate OS X or acquire it legally but install it on a PC and break the EULA just as long as the contribute to OS X by developing and porting software. If they're just in for the ride, however, and pirating other software such as FCP, Logic, Aperture, iLife and iWork, they can rot in hell.
That's sort of how I feel about it, too.
Frankly, I think it's all the potential followup fallout from OS X being hacked to run on non-Mac hardware that's Apple's real concern. It's providing them a reason to care, sooner than later. If OSx86 were a relatively stealth underground project rather than being increasingly flaunted around the net it really wouldn't matter (much). Any threshold of tolerance has now been irreversibly crossed.
I might have respect for the technical expertise of certain people doing the actual hacking. But things get fucked up quickly once it reaches the level of irresponsible propagation, especially among unethically careless freeriders who bring nothing to the effort except negative attention.
Some people haven't figured out that you don't just go blatantly yelling "look at me, I'm doing something illegal!" into infringing territories without expecting to possibly face consequences for those actions. And then they act ignorant and surprised when they face confrontation. Thanks so much for the clueless sabotage of creative hacking.
Originally posted by melgross
This is actually a complex issue.
If the CD isn't DRM'd, then it can be copied onto other media, for your own use.
If it is DRM'd, then you aren't allowed to do that. Even if the DRM is poorly thought out.
True. a-greer, who I was responding to, specifically cited a copy protected CD. So my post was specific to DRM'ed content.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can't break a protection that doesn't exist.
But if the protection exists in any form at all, bypassing it by copying from on a system that does not recognize that protection, however poorly implemented because it was effectively single platform protection, is still breaking the DRM. No way around it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
In your opinion.
Copyright Act of 1976.
You said that a user, the rightful owner of a copyrighted material, cannot do anything that the copyright holders explicitely tell him/her he/she can do. I'msaying that that's false, because, as evidenced by the Copyright Act of 1976, Fair Use allows a user to make a copy of the media he owns without paying any royalty to the copyright owner.
It's DMCA, not DCMA, and while DMCA does prevent you from breaking protection, in not way does it prevent you from making copies of those products if that protection is not available (e.g. some CDs, books, etc.).
Yet Apple's EULA states that it is not. Tell me now, which one has priority within the judicial branch of the United States Government, Apple's EULA, an unenforcable wish-list of puritanical behaviour, or the Copyright Act of 1976, which codifies Fair Use and DMCA which further solidify the said Fair Use?
There goes gene again. Ignoring the links that showed his dear copyright act of 1976 does not codify fair use. It just introduces the term without adequate legal definition. Worthless, except it allowed judges to make the call as to what actually constitutes a fair use on a case-by-case basis. No blanket free lunch, even for back-ups.
Originally posted by Hiro
But if the protection exists in any form at all, bypassing it by copying from on a system that does not recognize that protection, however poorly implemented because it was effectively single platform protection, is still breaking the DRM. No way around it.
Not at all. Just because Sony CDs have Windows-only rootkits, that doesn't mean that I can't listen to my legally purchased CD on my BeOS box. If I purposfully break the protection on an OS that supports that type of protection such as Windows, then there's a case.
As it stands, nobody is breaking any protection because such a protection doesn't exist for that specific system/OS (whatever that system may be, except Windows, of course). Now if I downloaded that CD off of torrent sites, burned it and listened to it on my BeOS box, that is a different case. But even then it wouldn't be DRM breakage on my part - merely a copyright infringement.
Either Sony et al should start creating Universal Binaries (
Originally posted by Hiro
[B]Ignoring the links that showed his dear copyright act of 1976 does not codify fair use.
Yes, yes it does. And it's not 'my' law, it was passed by The United States Congress.
It just introduces the term without adequate legal definition.
You need to read better: From Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include?
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Worthless, except it allowed judges to make the call as to what actually constitutes a fair use on a case-by-case basis. No blanket free lunch, even for back-ups.
I wouldn't call any law 'worthless' if judges were able to base their decisions of Fair Use largely on that law and other, follow-up laws dealing with the same matter. YMMV.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
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.
You know what I meant I am sick to death of your technicalities. if Darwin is meant to be modified then that does not count. Can darwin be modified to make OSX work on a PC? No. The modifications needed to make OSX work on a PC are not ones that are extended to the user.
You License the software. You don't actually own anything not even the media it is on. You pay for a License to use the software and as such enter into a contract with Apple regarding how you use the software.
You buy music
You buy books
you buy art
You license software.
You have a drivers license which may be revoked by the state of issue.
There are usually no rights conferred in the license except those that are explicitly given in the EULA.
EULA
End User LICENSE agreement.
Originally posted by TednDi
You buy music
You buy books
you buy art
You license software.
No...I buy software...
I go to the store, I pick up a packege, lets say, Photoshop. The box says Photoshop CS2, not License for Photoshop CS2, not Photoshop CS2 license.
If I buy a book, I can copy a few pages (I think the threshold is like 5%) for say a class project, I can underline, hilight or mark out passeges, I can make notes in the margins, I can cut pages out, I can dog-ear the corners, essentially I can do what efver I want as long as I do not duplicate+redistribute the work, same with CDs and art
Is there is no EULA on DVDs, CDs, books or art, so what makes software so differant?
Imagine going to a resteraunt, paying for your food when you ordered, and just as the waitress is getting ready to serve your dinner, you are presented with an End Diner Licence Agreement stateing that you will not modify the food in any way: no salt, pepper, sugar, syrip, sauce, jam, jelly ETC that is not on the plate...and you can be sued under the DMCA for taking the food off of the plate and putting it in a box/doggiebag...
If we will not take it from our resteraunts, why do we take it from our software vendors?
Before you say "food is tangible, software isnt" I say The food on your plate is tangible just like the CD/DVD, but the recipes and all other elements like flavor, and presentation are the cooks intelectual property, which you can't modify without his blessing
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yes, yes it does. And it's not 'my' law, it was passed by The United States Congress.
You need to read better: From Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107
I wouldn't call any law 'worthless' if judges were able to base their decisions of Fair Use largely on that law and other, follow-up laws dealing with the same matter. YMMV.
So gene finally found the introduction of the term that has been found in the courts to be unworkable and unsupportable for broad application of protections. bravo - not.
The language itself does not say what fair use is. it says consider some things and make a ruling. Not a single mention of any of the modifications or backups here either. Is there? Because the law is so pathetic at actually defining fair use it is case by case if you are taken to court.
No congressional protections of any kind. Just some words to tell judges -- "Hey it's up to you if you ever see this!"
Thanks for confirming my point! You are a gem!!!
So it is my understanding that if you install OS X (or any Apple software) on a non-Apple computer, you're violating the EULA.
Originally posted by a_greer
No...I buy software...
I go to the store, I pick up a packege, lets say, Photoshop. The box says Photoshop CS2, not License for Photoshop CS2, not Photoshop CS2 license.
If I buy a book, I can copy a few pages (I think the threshold is like 5%) for say a class project, I can underline, hilight or mark out passeges, I can make notes in the margins, I can cut pages out, I can dog-ear the corners, essentially I can do what efver I want as long as I do not duplicate+redistribute the work, same with CDs and art
Is there is no EULA on DVDs, CDs, books or art, so what makes software so differant?
Imagine going to a resteraunt, paying for your food when you ordered, and just as the waitress is getting ready to serve your dinner, you are presented with an End Diner Licence Agreement stateing that you will not modify the food in any way: no salt, pepper, sugar, syrip, sauce, jam, jelly ETC that is not on the plate...and you can be sued under the DMCA for taking the food off of the plate and putting it in a box/doggiebag...
If we will not take it from our resteraunts, why do we take it from our software vendors?
Before you say "food is tangible, software isnt" I say The food on your plate is tangible just like the CD/DVD, but the recipes and all other elements like flavor, and presentation are the cooks intelectual property, which you can't modify without his blessing
No, you don't buy software. You buy a license that gives you the right to use the software as the license allows. If you don't agree, then you should return the software. In the states that don't have a "shrinkwrap" license, you can. In the ones that do, the software company will usually do it as well.
Making bad comparisons doesn't change the argument.
You can make up ideas that fit your belief, but it doesn't change anything. If there actually was a restaurant that operated as you conjecture, then you would be free not to go there. Word of mouth (so to speak) would let it be known that the "no modify" policy was in place. They would be required to place that announcement in public view as well. No excuse on your part.
Notices of license are on the box. The fact that you are here arguing the point makes it very clear that you are aware of it. Again, no excuse.
Your disagreement with it doesn't mean that you can ignore it.
Originally posted by a_greer
This wouldnt be a problem if people could GIVE APPLE MONEY to run it on their perfectly good non-Apple hardware.
Well, currently it works similarly. You give Apple money, and they give you the OS -and- a system to run it on. I see nothing wrong with that.
- Xidius