....Take your logic to far and the general populace would not be able to sell their old computer or paper back books. All the second hand shops selling such would go out of business.
As I pointed out before, this IS exactly the situation in the PC world. My first Mac was an iMac bought from a second-hand computer store for $75, complete with a working copy of Panther. I could have bought a comparable PC for a similar price, but then I would have had to have bought a brand-new copy of Windows XP. Microsoft considers a Windows license non-transferrable, either to a different person or a different computer. I'm morally certain that it's illegal, but they have the power to make it stick, and the DRM to make it happen. I don't want the Apple side to go the same way.
Unfortunately, I think that Apple's loss would likely lead to Apple using hardware authentication with many controls in place (as you suggest, contracts). Maybe Apple increases the price of OSX upgrades to $400 and rebates some amount when you register that copy to a specific serial number. This is decidedly not the experience I wish to endure.
I think HW authentication is inevitable. I wonder if they wanted P.A. Semi to do this very thing.
There is the Exif chip that is suppose to be coming that allow you to install a valid copy of OS X on any hardware by actually using EFI, not the BIOS version of OS X of the Hackintosh. If Psystar went this route I think would have less of a case since they would be using a legit copy of OS X right from the packaging, not some hacked copy that grabbed from TPB.
EULAs are far too restrictive to have a reasonable expectation to be enforceable in any way. Click to accept is just another way of saying "yeah, yeah, whatever". There's no signature, no proof of who accepted what.
"I lied when I clicked accept" is a perfectly reasonable defense anyway, IMO. Why? Because you already bought the product. Paid money for the physical box, without having to sign anything upon purchase. What I do with that box or its contents is none of the manufacturers business after that.
I strongly suspect that the real winner in this case will be Psystar. There will probably be an out of court settlement where either Apple pays them to stop, or buys them outright.
EULAs are far too restrictive to have a reasonable expectation to be enforceable in any way. Click to accept is just another way of saying "yeah, yeah, whatever". There's no signature, no proof of who accepted what.
"I lied when I clicked accept" is a perfectly reasonable defense anyway, IMO. Why? Because you already bought the product. Paid money for the physical box, without having to sign anything upon purchase. What I do with that box or its contents is none of the manufacturers business after that.
I strongly suspect that the real winner in this case will be Psystar. There will probably be an out of court settlement where either Apple pays them to stop, or buys them outright.
Wanna put up some long green to back that? Intellectual property is a valid idea, although not for opportunists.
There will probably be an out of court settlement where either Apple pays them to stop, or buys them outright.
The day either one of those happens is the day that Hackintosh clones becomes a legit business. At that point there would be no reason for Dell, HP or anyone else to start using cracked copies of OS X on their hardware to get out from under MS' thumb and increase their sales.
It is interesting to note that this situation grew out of Avid's and Adobe's indifference towards the Mac platform which required Apple, in a defensive move, to purchase Final Cut from Macromedia. Both Avid and Adobe did what they could to switch Mac users to their Windows software. It is hard to see how Apple, by offering a product that is perceived as better value, should be called to task for people choosing its solution.
It sounds to me that your argument is with Alpine and Harman-Kardan. What has Apple done to preclude the use of other devices with these companies offerings?
That's a fair argument, and I'll admit that you may have me there. It's possible that Apple pays companies like BMW and Alpine to keep everything iPod-exclusive, but I have nothing to support that but conjecture. Touché.
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic
Not to single you out, but your argument is entirely selfish, and self-motivated.
You don't have to run FCP. You choose to run FCP. You have Premiere, Vegas, Media Composer, and several others I can not recall currently. If you are in the "lower realm" of DNLE film makers, then re-examine your budget. Consumers of the 90s weren't screwed. Consumers of the 90s were only screwed if they wanted an easy-to-steal-freebie OS. Windows 95 was easy to steal, so lots of people did. FCP is about the easiest-to-steal-DNLE on the market, and so everybody steals it. If I could get an honest answer out of you, I'd ask how much you paid for your copy of FCP. Chances are better than 80% you just got a copy from a friend. But Apple doesn't mind, its a calculated move, and it forces you to buy their hardware. They make FCP easy to steal for that very reason. Hardware is their Profit base.
Besides, most low-budget movies are crap anyway, it isn't like its a loss to the artistic community.
Ouch, cheap shot. Couldn't resist. sorry.
And yes, I WANT Apple to have this much power, and yes, I WANT Apple to becomes the next microsoft, because then somebody will be motivated to compete with Apple one day, and in the end, I will win by getting a better mousetrap. Microsoft is dying, and one day, far in the future, Apple will too...probably.
but i hope not.
Okay, come on, let's be more mature than that. I don't care if you disagree, but disagree intelligently. Yeah, MOST low-budget movies are crap, but the fact of the matter is that EVERYBODY in the industry starts out making low-budget films. Even *gasp!* Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, etc etc etc. Your declaration that "it isn't like its a loss to the artistic community" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Take people like me away, and you don't have ANYBODY making films, because NOBODY (save for those with family/friend connections) goes straight to the top of the food chain. You sound like some elitist who was born into money, and to a lesser extent, you remind me of Eric Cartman in the South Park episode where they visit Costa Rica.
Anyway, as anybody in the film industry will tell you, you don't just decide, "I'm gonna use Sony Vegas because I like it and find it to be a cost-effective DNLE." You use what the rest of the industry is using, or you sink. I have yet to hear of ANYBODY, working with ANY budget, editing a film with Premiere or Vegas. The producer/director decides what software will be used to edit the film, and they seek out an editor willing to use the software. (And for really low-budget films, the editor usually has to own the software.) End of story.
So, no, this isn't just Apple's fault. Truth be told, the whole damn industry is full of monopolies that you can't get past. So, let me make this clear: I am not singling out Apple. And, as I said before, I like Apple quite a bit, and I prefer Mac OS X to Windows by a lot.
All I'm saying is, with Apple gaining so much momentum, they WILL become the next Microsoft, except it will be worse because you won't just have to buy their software, but their hardware as well. This doesn't sound terrible now, because OS X is the superior OS, but when you're at the top, you tend to get lazy. (In my opinion, Apple is already starting to get lazy when it comes to QC.) And while this means that yet another OS will rise to compete, who is to say that it will be successful? Perhaps we'll only be able to choose between Mac, Mac, and Mac 10 years from now.
Honestly, are you so in love with Apple that you cannot possibly bring yourself to criticize them at all? FYI, people like you are precisely the reason that Apple WILL eventually die. As soon as you mindlessly praise everything a company does, it rests on its laurels, and the quality of the product declines. People like me, who point out everything a company does wrong, may seem obnoxious at times, but WE are the ones keeping the quality in check. My iPod Nano had a crooked screen, so I exchanged it, even though it still functioned. Petty? To some, perhaps. But every crooked-screened iPod Apple gets back will remind them that they need to maintain the quality that got them to where they are today. Which, as I said before, appears to be dwindling.
Ugh, that was annoying. I won't bother to respond to any more stupid rebuttals; I can't believe I just wasted several minutes of my life over this...
The record companies just lost an interesting case that revolved around the resale of CD's given to radio stations. That in the last couple of months. The law here isn't absolute, you do have the right to resell stuff that you purchased from somebody else. If not our junk yards would be filled with a lot of single use stuff.
Mind you this is a specific case, that did not involve duplication or coping but rather CD's given to radio stations. Take your logic to far and the general populace would not be able to sell their old computer or paper back books. All the second hand shops selling such would go out of business.
Even derivative works have some protection.
That all depends on what you mean by complete. Obviously stamping "not for resale" on the CD's didn't help the record companies one bit. Once you make a sale your rights to that one copy sold are limited and not absolute as you would imply.
This is true but at the same time they are currently making the software available to everybody by selling it through a number of vendors. Now the question is can a end user agreement legally prevent you from using something you purchased without a contract. The reality is that unless you signed the contract as part of the transaction there is a big question as to the legality of any supposed contract.
Actually it may come down to something like this. That is people may be forced to sign a contract at the time of purchase acknowledging the exsitance of a contract between the two parties. Obviously this blows a big whole in the warm fuzzy feeling Apple likes to present. If Apple can't keep this legal action focused on a very specific argument about a copyright violation, they may very well blow thing open in such a way that the distribution of OS/X becomes very controlled. I really don't believe Apple has as strong a hand here as many think and is likely why they waited for a specific issue to pop up and address.
Not even remotely relevant other than the reality that Mac OS/X is made up in part with some of that open source code.
Dave
As I stated in an earlier post, the right to resell does not equal the right to copy. You are free to resell a legally acquired copy of a work (as long as you don't retain copies of it). However, installing software involves copying it from the distribution medium, and running it involves copying it to memory, so the copyright holder can control those aspects of using the software, at least unless its ruled otherwise. Please note that there are other, um... creative, ways to use software (ex. reading/studying the binary code), so the license agreement isn't preventing anyone from using entirely.
Anyway, as anybody in the film industry will tell you, you don't just decide, "I'm gonna use Sony Vegas because I like it and find it to be a cost-effective DNLE." You use what the rest of the industry is using, or you sink. I have yet to hear of ANYBODY, working with ANY budget, editing a film with Premiere or Vegas. The producer/director decides what software will be used to edit the film, and they seek out an editor willing to use the software. (And for really low-budget films, the editor usually has to own the software.) End of story.
If that's true, then FCP never would have gotten where it was, because at one time, no one used it for major motion pictures. In the earlier years, were movies rejected because they were edited in FCP? It seems to be a pretty silly concept, because it's the output that should matter, not what brand product was used in the process. It's akin to rejecting a photo because it was taken on a Pentax brand camera, and not a Canon.
You do realize 80% of Mac OS X is Open Source code don't you? This means anyone has the right to modify and distribute most parts of Mac OS X. Whether or not Psystar is legally allowed to distribute modified updates depends on what they modified and how much they modified. A significant amount of modifications would qualify the modified update as a new work and Apple's copyright would no longer apply. This determination will be made at trial.
Note I'm not defending Psystar, I'm a proud owner of several Apple products that I was happy to pay for.
All I'm saying is, with Apple gaining so much momentum, they WILL become the next Microsoft, except it will be worse because you won't just have to buy their software, but their hardware as well. This doesn't sound terrible now, because OS X is the superior OS, but when you're at the top, you tend to get lazy. (In my opinion, Apple is already starting to get lazy when it comes to QC.)
If I may point something out, MS has always operated unethically from the get go. That will always catch up to you sooner or later. Apple on the other hand has not. Lately Apple has made some goofs, but this only due to expansion.
I don't see Apple ever being a MS because Apple's motto is way different, they truly are interested in making a good product and play well with others even when they have substantial reasons not to. Examples: MS, Adobe and now AT&T have been lousy partners. If roles were reversed, MS would have killed the partnership and destroyed the company along with it, they sure tried to kill Apple.
If that's true, then FCP never would have gotten where it was, because at one time, no one used it for major motion pictures. In the earlier years, were movies rejected because they were edited in FCP? It seems to be a pretty silly concept, because it's the output that should matter, not what brand product was used in the process. It's akin to rejecting a photo because it was taken on a Pentax brand camera, and not a Canon.
The fact of the matter is that, initially, Final Cut Pro was rejected because the initial builds were very glitchy. Even after they patched everything up, nobody wanted to use the software because of the bad reputation.
Supposedly, Apple fixed this by paying certain editors (apparently Walter Murch was one of them) to use Final Cut. From there, the software SLOWLY got a good reputation, and word of mouth began to spread. Fast-forward 10 years later, and everybody loves it.
The situation can best be compared to Windows XP being the default OS in most businesses. Suppose I worked for Corporation X, and I wanted to buy a MacBook Pro for business use. Well, since Corporation X uses Program Y, and Program Y only runs on Windows XP, I can't do that. I'm stuck with Windows XP whether I like it or not. If I want a Mac strictly for personal use, that's great, but I MUST own Windows for work.
And the thing is, the output does matter. While all DNLE programs can output their files to work with the industry-standard sound editor, Pro Tools, there are occasional quirks and compatibility issues that come up. (Or at least that's what the common excuse is.) More importantly, take into account the fact that even if you don't have to buy the software yourself, the studios/post houses will give you either Final Cut or Avid to edit with. This means that there is no point in knowing how to use Premiere Pro or Vegas (I sure as hell don't), and hence, you'd have to be a fool to buy the software.
I can't emphasize this enough: I'm not pointing the finger solely at Apple, because it's an industry-wide problem. (Almost a cartel, but not quite.) This whole thing started because I wanted to play devil's advocate and consider the other side of the coin, which is that it would be nice for the lower-budget consumers if they could buy Mac OS X without paying an arm and a leg for the hardware. Unfortunately, the very nature of Apple is that they make all of their profits off of their hardware, so Apple will be damned if this ever happens. (Meaning that people like me, who have student loans to pay off, need to shell out for a premium-priced Mac on top of everything else.) Apple uses its fancy software to lure customers to its expensive hardware, and it's a brilliant strategy, but what happens when OS X is no longer a luxury, but a necessity, as it is rapidly becoming? That's when the whole thing sucks.
Just because I understand where Apple is coming from doesn't mean I have to like it. Unfortunately, I do have to buy it, since I have to use Final Cut to remain relevant. That is precisely what frustrates me.
If I may point something out, MS has always operated unethically from the get go. That will always catch up to you sooner or later. Apple on the other hand has not. Lately Apple has made some goofs, but this only due to expansion.
I don't see Apple ever being a MS because Apple's motto is way different, they truly are interested in making a good product and play well with others even when they have substantial reasons not to. Examples: MS, Adobe and now AT&T have been lousy partners. If roles were reversed, MS would have killed the partnership and destroyed the company along with it, they sure tried to kill Apple.
So you can't compare the two.
I do feel that Apple is already starting to let itself go, and it worries me. The build quality of my 2004 iPod Mini is vastly superior to my brand-new Nano. And the tech support, while still the greatest in the computer industry, isn't as good as it was back in 2005, before Apple REALLY started to get popular (and arrogant).
And it is interesting that you'd bring up AT&T; AT&T is precisely the reason that I'm not getting an iPhone. Did Apple engage in the exclusivity deal for the good of the customer, or for the residuals AT&T gave Apple? The iPhone, while a brilliant product, exists to make money. I'm not faulting Apple for that; I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the selfless company everyone claims it is. Apple, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola all have a common goal, and that is squeezing as much money out of people as possible. Steve Jobs can claim that it's not about money, and that it's all about "making the coolest product there is" all he wants, but at the end of the day, the people he wants to please the most are the stockholders, especially since he's presumably the biggest one.
Apple and Microsoft are very different companies, but they share the exact same goal. That's all I'm saying.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Do you know anything about the price and makeup of components? I do, and I would be glad to take you to school.
And it is interesting that you'd bring up AT&T; AT&T is precisely the reason that I'm not getting an iPhone. Did Apple engage in the exclusivity deal for the good of the customer, or for the residuals AT&T gave Apple? The iPhone, while a brilliant product, exists to make money. I'm not faulting Apple for that; I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the selfless company everyone claims it is. Apple, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola all have a common goal, and that is squeezing as much money out of people as possible. Steve Jobs can claim that it's not about money, and that it's all about "making the coolest product there is" all he wants, but at the end of the day, the people he wants to please the most are the stockholders, especially since he's presumably the biggest one..
About the AT&T deal. Apple made the deal with Cingular and not AT&T. Remember that. Apple is now faced with being in bed with a snake, but Apple (Steve) knows how to play the cards. AT&T, mark my words, being the stupid criminal entity that it is, will itself breach the contract it has with Apple thereby freeing Apple to do business with someone else. The writing is on the wall. Look no further than the iPhone 3G fiasco. Was AT&T upfront with Apple regarding it's intentions on the price chances it made? Did AT&T tell Apple it would sell the iPhone for $199 and $299 but intentionally left out that his would only apply to new customers or current customers that would qualify for an upgrade? Did AT&T not tell Apple that it was raising the price plan for the iPhone? Why would Apple promote "half the price" when this isn't true across the boards? Something is not right here. Apple could get sued for false advertising. Who is at fault here? I smell trickery on the part of AT&T tarnishing Apple's reputation. Remember also that this is new territory for Apple, they do not have experience dealing in this market. Each market has it's own set of rules and Apple has learned much in these past few months.
Regarding making money. There's nothing wrong with having a goal to make lots of money. What is wrong is on how one goes about doing so. At the bottom of the scale we have someone that makes money by stealing or by trickery. This is the criminal. At the top we have someone who makes money by producing a high quality product. Are Apple's products of less quality now than they were a few years ago? There has been some disappointments, but these are not because Apple has become less interested in producing a high quality product, I believe it has more to do with expansion. Anytime one expands one's sphere of action, confusion enters in for a little while. I see Apple taking the necessary steps to remedy this. Look to Snow Leopard. Apple has a history of being honest. I don't see that changing any time soon so long as Steve is at the helm.
The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you rights that, under copyright law, you would not normally have. In particular, it grants you the right to make copies of the software and distribute those copies. The article you link to was a case against someone who was distributing the software without a license.
In granting you those rights that you otherwise don't have under copyright law, it imposes some conditions.
This is totally different from a EULA. A EULA is meant to act as a contract where you agree to not do certain things with the software that you otherwise, under the law, would be allowed to do (such as reverse engineer it, or sell it to someone else).
You sir are an idiot of the highest order. This has nothing to do with liberalism, or progressivism and everything to do with what is actually written in law, and how that law has been interpreted in the past; by even "conservative" judges.
That you have a drum to beat has nothing to do with us, beat it elsewhere please. When you come here, stay the fuck on topic.
EULAs aren't as ironclad as you think and Apple *does* sell the box separately, unlike someone's earlier Xbox example. To just say they "steal" the OS is misleading and just plain stupid. Psystar had their customers purchasing copies of Leopard.
Furthermore but a mere side detail as it does not pertain to the article, you obviously have no fucking clue when it comes to Apple's history with clones. There were dozens of different clone makers, hell even Motorola.
Apple was smart to wait until Psystar screwed up and modified some code; the clone alone was a legal grey area, and Apple did right to wait until something more clearcut occured.
I disagree with others who think this will end the clone debate. I believe another will try eventually, opting not to repeat Psystar's more obvious mistake of code modification, and we'll eventually see how strong that provision is in the EULA.
i dont think u mean that. China is a country with almost no EULA. It means everything goes cheaper because other people can copy and redistribute your creation.
Like i said before
NO EULA MEANS NO MOTIVATION TO INNOVATE
You do know that EULA stands for End User License Agreement, yes? Do you know what this is little boy?
No... STEALING is the right word. They are reselling something.... regardless of whether they paid for it or not.... and modifying code THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FART WITH.....
I/We pay a premium to have something as cool and functionally complete as OSX. Apple has spent probably billions developing it to work on the hardware they sell. The ULA clearly states this relationship.
I'm willing to pay MORE for this.... and trust that Apple will continue to be able to innovate above all others because of the business model I support when I purchase their products.
So.... Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to "borrow" something they don't own... to sell it on their POS hardware.... so... THEY ARE STEALING.... ROBBING... Raping.... taking something they have no right to. It's Illegal... and it's wrong.... and now... they're gonna pay through the ass for that... as they should.
It's black and white dude.... no grey area about this.
You must be one of those people incapable of understanding nuance, but unaware of the limitation. Fascinating.
Comments
....Take your logic to far and the general populace would not be able to sell their old computer or paper back books. All the second hand shops selling such would go out of business.
As I pointed out before, this IS exactly the situation in the PC world. My first Mac was an iMac bought from a second-hand computer store for $75, complete with a working copy of Panther. I could have bought a comparable PC for a similar price, but then I would have had to have bought a brand-new copy of Windows XP. Microsoft considers a Windows license non-transferrable, either to a different person or a different computer. I'm morally certain that it's illegal, but they have the power to make it stick, and the DRM to make it happen. I don't want the Apple side to go the same way.
Unfortunately, I think that Apple's loss would likely lead to Apple using hardware authentication with many controls in place (as you suggest, contracts). Maybe Apple increases the price of OSX upgrades to $400 and rebates some amount when you register that copy to a specific serial number. This is decidedly not the experience I wish to endure.
I think HW authentication is inevitable. I wonder if they wanted P.A. Semi to do this very thing.
There is the Exif chip that is suppose to be coming that allow you to install a valid copy of OS X on any hardware by actually using EFI, not the BIOS version of OS X of the Hackintosh. If Psystar went this route I think would have less of a case since they would be using a legit copy of OS X right from the packaging, not some hacked copy that grabbed from TPB.
"I lied when I clicked accept" is a perfectly reasonable defense anyway, IMO. Why? Because you already bought the product. Paid money for the physical box, without having to sign anything upon purchase. What I do with that box or its contents is none of the manufacturers business after that.
I strongly suspect that the real winner in this case will be Psystar. There will probably be an out of court settlement where either Apple pays them to stop, or buys them outright.
EULAs are far too restrictive to have a reasonable expectation to be enforceable in any way. Click to accept is just another way of saying "yeah, yeah, whatever". There's no signature, no proof of who accepted what.
"I lied when I clicked accept" is a perfectly reasonable defense anyway, IMO. Why? Because you already bought the product. Paid money for the physical box, without having to sign anything upon purchase. What I do with that box or its contents is none of the manufacturers business after that.
I strongly suspect that the real winner in this case will be Psystar. There will probably be an out of court settlement where either Apple pays them to stop, or buys them outright.
Wanna put up some long green to back that? Intellectual property is a valid idea, although not for opportunists.
There will probably be an out of court settlement where either Apple pays them to stop, or buys them outright.
The day either one of those happens is the day that Hackintosh clones becomes a legit business. At that point there would be no reason for Dell, HP or anyone else to start using cracked copies of OS X on their hardware to get out from under MS' thumb and increase their sales.
It is interesting to note that this situation grew out of Avid's and Adobe's indifference towards the Mac platform which required Apple, in a defensive move, to purchase Final Cut from Macromedia. Both Avid and Adobe did what they could to switch Mac users to their Windows software. It is hard to see how Apple, by offering a product that is perceived as better value, should be called to task for people choosing its solution.
It sounds to me that your argument is with Alpine and Harman-Kardan. What has Apple done to preclude the use of other devices with these companies offerings?
That's a fair argument, and I'll admit that you may have me there. It's possible that Apple pays companies like BMW and Alpine to keep everything iPod-exclusive, but I have nothing to support that but conjecture. Touché.
Not to single you out, but your argument is entirely selfish, and self-motivated.
You don't have to run FCP. You choose to run FCP. You have Premiere, Vegas, Media Composer, and several others I can not recall currently. If you are in the "lower realm" of DNLE film makers, then re-examine your budget. Consumers of the 90s weren't screwed. Consumers of the 90s were only screwed if they wanted an easy-to-steal-freebie OS. Windows 95 was easy to steal, so lots of people did. FCP is about the easiest-to-steal-DNLE on the market, and so everybody steals it. If I could get an honest answer out of you, I'd ask how much you paid for your copy of FCP. Chances are better than 80% you just got a copy from a friend. But Apple doesn't mind, its a calculated move, and it forces you to buy their hardware. They make FCP easy to steal for that very reason. Hardware is their Profit base.
Besides, most low-budget movies are crap anyway, it isn't like its a loss to the artistic community.
Ouch, cheap shot. Couldn't resist. sorry.
And yes, I WANT Apple to have this much power, and yes, I WANT Apple to becomes the next microsoft, because then somebody will be motivated to compete with Apple one day, and in the end, I will win by getting a better mousetrap. Microsoft is dying, and one day, far in the future, Apple will too...probably.
but i hope not.
Okay, come on, let's be more mature than that. I don't care if you disagree, but disagree intelligently. Yeah, MOST low-budget movies are crap, but the fact of the matter is that EVERYBODY in the industry starts out making low-budget films. Even *gasp!* Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, etc etc etc. Your declaration that "it isn't like its a loss to the artistic community" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Take people like me away, and you don't have ANYBODY making films, because NOBODY (save for those with family/friend connections) goes straight to the top of the food chain. You sound like some elitist who was born into money, and to a lesser extent, you remind me of Eric Cartman in the South Park episode where they visit Costa Rica.
Anyway, as anybody in the film industry will tell you, you don't just decide, "I'm gonna use Sony Vegas because I like it and find it to be a cost-effective DNLE." You use what the rest of the industry is using, or you sink. I have yet to hear of ANYBODY, working with ANY budget, editing a film with Premiere or Vegas. The producer/director decides what software will be used to edit the film, and they seek out an editor willing to use the software. (And for really low-budget films, the editor usually has to own the software.) End of story.
So, no, this isn't just Apple's fault. Truth be told, the whole damn industry is full of monopolies that you can't get past. So, let me make this clear: I am not singling out Apple. And, as I said before, I like Apple quite a bit, and I prefer Mac OS X to Windows by a lot.
All I'm saying is, with Apple gaining so much momentum, they WILL become the next Microsoft, except it will be worse because you won't just have to buy their software, but their hardware as well. This doesn't sound terrible now, because OS X is the superior OS, but when you're at the top, you tend to get lazy. (In my opinion, Apple is already starting to get lazy when it comes to QC.) And while this means that yet another OS will rise to compete, who is to say that it will be successful? Perhaps we'll only be able to choose between Mac, Mac, and Mac 10 years from now.
Honestly, are you so in love with Apple that you cannot possibly bring yourself to criticize them at all? FYI, people like you are precisely the reason that Apple WILL eventually die. As soon as you mindlessly praise everything a company does, it rests on its laurels, and the quality of the product declines. People like me, who point out everything a company does wrong, may seem obnoxious at times, but WE are the ones keeping the quality in check. My iPod Nano had a crooked screen, so I exchanged it, even though it still functioned. Petty? To some, perhaps. But every crooked-screened iPod Apple gets back will remind them that they need to maintain the quality that got them to where they are today. Which, as I said before, appears to be dwindling.
Ugh, that was annoying. I won't bother to respond to any more stupid rebuttals; I can't believe I just wasted several minutes of my life over this...
The record companies just lost an interesting case that revolved around the resale of CD's given to radio stations. That in the last couple of months. The law here isn't absolute, you do have the right to resell stuff that you purchased from somebody else. If not our junk yards would be filled with a lot of single use stuff.
Mind you this is a specific case, that did not involve duplication or coping but rather CD's given to radio stations. Take your logic to far and the general populace would not be able to sell their old computer or paper back books. All the second hand shops selling such would go out of business.
Even derivative works have some protection.
That all depends on what you mean by complete. Obviously stamping "not for resale" on the CD's didn't help the record companies one bit. Once you make a sale your rights to that one copy sold are limited and not absolute as you would imply.
This is true but at the same time they are currently making the software available to everybody by selling it through a number of vendors. Now the question is can a end user agreement legally prevent you from using something you purchased without a contract. The reality is that unless you signed the contract as part of the transaction there is a big question as to the legality of any supposed contract.
Actually it may come down to something like this. That is people may be forced to sign a contract at the time of purchase acknowledging the exsitance of a contract between the two parties. Obviously this blows a big whole in the warm fuzzy feeling Apple likes to present. If Apple can't keep this legal action focused on a very specific argument about a copyright violation, they may very well blow thing open in such a way that the distribution of OS/X becomes very controlled. I really don't believe Apple has as strong a hand here as many think and is likely why they waited for a specific issue to pop up and address.
Not even remotely relevant other than the reality that Mac OS/X is made up in part with some of that open source code.
Dave
As I stated in an earlier post, the right to resell does not equal the right to copy. You are free to resell a legally acquired copy of a work (as long as you don't retain copies of it). However, installing software involves copying it from the distribution medium, and running it involves copying it to memory, so the copyright holder can control those aspects of using the software, at least unless its ruled otherwise. Please note that there are other, um... creative, ways to use software (ex. reading/studying the binary code), so the license agreement isn't preventing anyone from using entirely.
Anyway, as anybody in the film industry will tell you, you don't just decide, "I'm gonna use Sony Vegas because I like it and find it to be a cost-effective DNLE." You use what the rest of the industry is using, or you sink. I have yet to hear of ANYBODY, working with ANY budget, editing a film with Premiere or Vegas. The producer/director decides what software will be used to edit the film, and they seek out an editor willing to use the software. (And for really low-budget films, the editor usually has to own the software.) End of story.
If that's true, then FCP never would have gotten where it was, because at one time, no one used it for major motion pictures. In the earlier years, were movies rejected because they were edited in FCP? It seems to be a pretty silly concept, because it's the output that should matter, not what brand product was used in the process. It's akin to rejecting a photo because it was taken on a Pentax brand camera, and not a Canon.
You do realize they ARE modifying OSX, right?
You do realize 80% of Mac OS X is Open Source code don't you? This means anyone has the right to modify and distribute most parts of Mac OS X. Whether or not Psystar is legally allowed to distribute modified updates depends on what they modified and how much they modified. A significant amount of modifications would qualify the modified update as a new work and Apple's copyright would no longer apply. This determination will be made at trial.
Note I'm not defending Psystar, I'm a proud owner of several Apple products that I was happy to pay for.
-Tim
All I'm saying is, with Apple gaining so much momentum, they WILL become the next Microsoft, except it will be worse because you won't just have to buy their software, but their hardware as well. This doesn't sound terrible now, because OS X is the superior OS, but when you're at the top, you tend to get lazy. (In my opinion, Apple is already starting to get lazy when it comes to QC.)
If I may point something out, MS has always operated unethically from the get go. That will always catch up to you sooner or later. Apple on the other hand has not. Lately Apple has made some goofs, but this only due to expansion.
I don't see Apple ever being a MS because Apple's motto is way different, they truly are interested in making a good product and play well with others even when they have substantial reasons not to. Examples: MS, Adobe and now AT&T have been lousy partners. If roles were reversed, MS would have killed the partnership and destroyed the company along with it, they sure tried to kill Apple.
So you can't compare the two.
What an enlightening discussion between the finest legal minds Earth has to offer.
Don't assume that all of these minds are from Earth. Some are clearly not.
If that's true, then FCP never would have gotten where it was, because at one time, no one used it for major motion pictures. In the earlier years, were movies rejected because they were edited in FCP? It seems to be a pretty silly concept, because it's the output that should matter, not what brand product was used in the process. It's akin to rejecting a photo because it was taken on a Pentax brand camera, and not a Canon.
The fact of the matter is that, initially, Final Cut Pro was rejected because the initial builds were very glitchy. Even after they patched everything up, nobody wanted to use the software because of the bad reputation.
Supposedly, Apple fixed this by paying certain editors (apparently Walter Murch was one of them) to use Final Cut. From there, the software SLOWLY got a good reputation, and word of mouth began to spread. Fast-forward 10 years later, and everybody loves it.
The situation can best be compared to Windows XP being the default OS in most businesses. Suppose I worked for Corporation X, and I wanted to buy a MacBook Pro for business use. Well, since Corporation X uses Program Y, and Program Y only runs on Windows XP, I can't do that. I'm stuck with Windows XP whether I like it or not. If I want a Mac strictly for personal use, that's great, but I MUST own Windows for work.
And the thing is, the output does matter. While all DNLE programs can output their files to work with the industry-standard sound editor, Pro Tools, there are occasional quirks and compatibility issues that come up. (Or at least that's what the common excuse is.) More importantly, take into account the fact that even if you don't have to buy the software yourself, the studios/post houses will give you either Final Cut or Avid to edit with. This means that there is no point in knowing how to use Premiere Pro or Vegas (I sure as hell don't), and hence, you'd have to be a fool to buy the software.
I can't emphasize this enough: I'm not pointing the finger solely at Apple, because it's an industry-wide problem. (Almost a cartel, but not quite.) This whole thing started because I wanted to play devil's advocate and consider the other side of the coin, which is that it would be nice for the lower-budget consumers if they could buy Mac OS X without paying an arm and a leg for the hardware. Unfortunately, the very nature of Apple is that they make all of their profits off of their hardware, so Apple will be damned if this ever happens. (Meaning that people like me, who have student loans to pay off, need to shell out for a premium-priced Mac on top of everything else.) Apple uses its fancy software to lure customers to its expensive hardware, and it's a brilliant strategy, but what happens when OS X is no longer a luxury, but a necessity, as it is rapidly becoming? That's when the whole thing sucks.
Just because I understand where Apple is coming from doesn't mean I have to like it. Unfortunately, I do have to buy it, since I have to use Final Cut to remain relevant. That is precisely what frustrates me.
If I may point something out, MS has always operated unethically from the get go. That will always catch up to you sooner or later. Apple on the other hand has not. Lately Apple has made some goofs, but this only due to expansion.
I don't see Apple ever being a MS because Apple's motto is way different, they truly are interested in making a good product and play well with others even when they have substantial reasons not to. Examples: MS, Adobe and now AT&T have been lousy partners. If roles were reversed, MS would have killed the partnership and destroyed the company along with it, they sure tried to kill Apple.
So you can't compare the two.
I do feel that Apple is already starting to let itself go, and it worries me. The build quality of my 2004 iPod Mini is vastly superior to my brand-new Nano. And the tech support, while still the greatest in the computer industry, isn't as good as it was back in 2005, before Apple REALLY started to get popular (and arrogant).
And it is interesting that you'd bring up AT&T; AT&T is precisely the reason that I'm not getting an iPhone. Did Apple engage in the exclusivity deal for the good of the customer, or for the residuals AT&T gave Apple? The iPhone, while a brilliant product, exists to make money. I'm not faulting Apple for that; I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the selfless company everyone claims it is. Apple, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola all have a common goal, and that is squeezing as much money out of people as possible. Steve Jobs can claim that it's not about money, and that it's all about "making the coolest product there is" all he wants, but at the end of the day, the people he wants to please the most are the stockholders, especially since he's presumably the biggest one.
Apple and Microsoft are very different companies, but they share the exact same goal. That's all I'm saying.
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
Do you know anything about the price and makeup of components? I do, and I would be glad to take you to school.
And it is interesting that you'd bring up AT&T; AT&T is precisely the reason that I'm not getting an iPhone. Did Apple engage in the exclusivity deal for the good of the customer, or for the residuals AT&T gave Apple? The iPhone, while a brilliant product, exists to make money. I'm not faulting Apple for that; I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't the selfless company everyone claims it is. Apple, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola all have a common goal, and that is squeezing as much money out of people as possible. Steve Jobs can claim that it's not about money, and that it's all about "making the coolest product there is" all he wants, but at the end of the day, the people he wants to please the most are the stockholders, especially since he's presumably the biggest one..
About the AT&T deal. Apple made the deal with Cingular and not AT&T. Remember that. Apple is now faced with being in bed with a snake, but Apple (Steve) knows how to play the cards. AT&T, mark my words, being the stupid criminal entity that it is, will itself breach the contract it has with Apple thereby freeing Apple to do business with someone else. The writing is on the wall. Look no further than the iPhone 3G fiasco. Was AT&T upfront with Apple regarding it's intentions on the price chances it made? Did AT&T tell Apple it would sell the iPhone for $199 and $299 but intentionally left out that his would only apply to new customers or current customers that would qualify for an upgrade? Did AT&T not tell Apple that it was raising the price plan for the iPhone? Why would Apple promote "half the price" when this isn't true across the boards? Something is not right here. Apple could get sued for false advertising. Who is at fault here? I smell trickery on the part of AT&T tarnishing Apple's reputation. Remember also that this is new territory for Apple, they do not have experience dealing in this market. Each market has it's own set of rules and Apple has learned much in these past few months.
Regarding making money. There's nothing wrong with having a goal to make lots of money. What is wrong is on how one goes about doing so. At the bottom of the scale we have someone that makes money by stealing or by trickery. This is the criminal. At the top we have someone who makes money by producing a high quality product. Are Apple's products of less quality now than they were a few years ago? There has been some disappointments, but these are not because Apple has become less interested in producing a high quality product, I believe it has more to do with expansion. Anytime one expands one's sphere of action, confusion enters in for a little while. I see Apple taking the necessary steps to remedy this. Look to Snow Leopard. Apple has a history of being honest. I don't see that changing any time soon so long as Steve is at the helm.
All that freedom of choice was getting to me!
Btw, Linux and other GPLed software have license agreements that restrict what you can do with them: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html
The GPL is a copyright license. It grants you rights that, under copyright law, you would not normally have. In particular, it grants you the right to make copies of the software and distribute those copies. The article you link to was a case against someone who was distributing the software without a license.
In granting you those rights that you otherwise don't have under copyright law, it imposes some conditions.
This is totally different from a EULA. A EULA is meant to act as a contract where you agree to not do certain things with the software that you otherwise, under the law, would be allowed to do (such as reverse engineer it, or sell it to someone else).
Blah Blah Blah.
You sir are an idiot of the highest order. This has nothing to do with liberalism, or progressivism and everything to do with what is actually written in law, and how that law has been interpreted in the past; by even "conservative" judges.
That you have a drum to beat has nothing to do with us, beat it elsewhere please. When you come here, stay the fuck on topic.
EULAs aren't as ironclad as you think and Apple *does* sell the box separately, unlike someone's earlier Xbox example. To just say they "steal" the OS is misleading and just plain stupid. Psystar had their customers purchasing copies of Leopard.
Furthermore but a mere side detail as it does not pertain to the article, you obviously have no fucking clue when it comes to Apple's history with clones. There were dozens of different clone makers, hell even Motorola.
Apple was smart to wait until Psystar screwed up and modified some code; the clone alone was a legal grey area, and Apple did right to wait until something more clearcut occured.
I disagree with others who think this will end the clone debate. I believe another will try eventually, opting not to repeat Psystar's more obvious mistake of code modification, and we'll eventually see how strong that provision is in the EULA.
i dont think u mean that. China is a country with almost no EULA. It means everything goes cheaper because other people can copy and redistribute your creation.
Like i said before
NO EULA MEANS NO MOTIVATION TO INNOVATE
You do know that EULA stands for End User License Agreement, yes? Do you know what this is little boy?
Such a stupid comment.
No... STEALING is the right word. They are reselling something.... regardless of whether they paid for it or not.... and modifying code THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FART WITH.....
I/We pay a premium to have something as cool and functionally complete as OSX. Apple has spent probably billions developing it to work on the hardware they sell. The ULA clearly states this relationship.
I'm willing to pay MORE for this.... and trust that Apple will continue to be able to innovate above all others because of the business model I support when I purchase their products.
So.... Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to "borrow" something they don't own... to sell it on their POS hardware.... so... THEY ARE STEALING.... ROBBING... Raping.... taking something they have no right to. It's Illegal... and it's wrong.... and now... they're gonna pay through the ass for that... as they should.
It's black and white dude.... no grey area about this.
You must be one of those people incapable of understanding nuance, but unaware of the limitation. Fascinating.