But who says people are buying these computers to even affect Apple's business?
I never said they were. People aren't trying to affect apple's business, at least not the consumers. They just want a machine that is cheap and upgradable.
Again, you do NOT have to hack updates to work on a hackintosh, which is what pystars are. They can be installed directly from software update. Trust me.
Some point releases require that you manually download the combo update direct from apple and then run a script while you install it.
But no updates have to be modified.
Pystar has completely disabled this type of update from software update and thus hasen't hacked anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.
Updates are NOT why they are being sued as you had originally stated.
"Mac OS X end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware"
That is why they are being sued.
And it doesn't change the fact that on hackintosh's you can use official apple, unmodified, updates. Pystar is also not allowing point updates. The author of the article is mistaken or doesn't quite understand how this all works. However on psystar's own site they make no mention of updates one way or the other. I'm just telling you how updates on hackintosh's work.
Spend some time on some osx86 forums and you'll see how it all works.
Then they jail break their macs and get the software elsewhere. You can't stop any of this. Apple has to sell the products people want at prices that are the same or cheaper than these clones. Then people will buy from apple instead. That is the only option. You can talk about copy protection and other things all you want but the fact remains you can get around all of it.
Sure individuals can get around it BUT to crack it for commercial purposes is not profitable particularly if each Mac had to be cracked individually. Your solution won't work either because the minute Apple lowers the price to clone level, the clone makers will go even lower with cheap junk inside the box.
I never said they were. People aren't trying to affect apple's business, at least not the consumers. They just want a machine that is cheap and upgradable.
Cheap and upgradable aren't words that are associated with Macs.
The old mac will not have the chip and apple will shooting them selfs big time by locking out all the new intel macs on the new os.
Don't you think PA Semi is capable of coding for Intel? All their new machine would have the chip, and yeah the older machines won't have the chip but people said Apple was shooting themselves in the foot when Apple (alone) stopped offering floppy drives. In fact Apple has a history of leaving legacy behind. A great example is OS X itself didn't carry legacy along. That's why they don't have the problems that Windows does.
Cheap and upgradable aren't words that are associated with Macs.
People who understand computers, who have built them, know about the parts inside. There is nothing magical inside a mac that separates it from a PC. They are just off the shelf PC parts. They can be built very inexpensively and still not be "cheap".
You are correct on upgradable. And it's sad really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
Sure individuals can get around it BUT to crack it for commercial purposes is not profitable particularly if each Mac had to be cracked individually. Your solution won't work either because the minute Apple lowers the price to clone level, the clone makers will go even lower with cheap junk inside the box.
You don't have to crack it individually. You just hack the part of the OS that looks for that firmware/chip/whatever and stop it. Then post for download.
Commercially, companies would always purchase from apple, a legitamite source. The legal risk for the company is too great to do otherwise.
You can't go much lower on price than where they are now. Boards are pretty generic and are not expensive until you get into high end boards for overclocking and such. Video cards are all Nvidia and ATI chipsets and all the card makers make good stuff. You can get quality motherboards with no frills for $50 or less. There just isn't much to computer parts. And there reaches a price point where you will just buy direct than something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
Don't you think PA Semi is capable of coding for Intel? All their new machine would have the chip, and yeah the older machines won't have the chip but people said Apple was shooting themselves in the foot when Apple (alone) stopped offering floppy drives. In fact Apple has a history of leaving legacy behind. A great example is OS X itself didn't carry legacy along. That's why they don't have the problems that Windows does.
And it would be cracked in a heart beat. There is no copy protection that can be placed in an OS that cannot be easily cracked. The people who own macs and buy upgrade copies will still do so, those who build hackintosh's will still do so. Nothing will change.
And it would be cracked in a heart beat. There is no copy protection that can be placed in an OS that cannot be easily cracked. The people who own macs and buy upgrade copies will still do so, those who build hackintosh's will still do so. Nothing will change.
If each mac had the OS on an encrypted chip cracking firmware upgrades would not work because most of the core would be already on the chip and each firmware upgrade could be encrypted using the Mac's unique serial plus a secret number that only Apple knows as the random number generated for the key. You have to hack every individual Mac. Cracking the firmware upgrade once would only work for that machine. Sure it still be done by hobbyist geeks but it wouldn't be profitable for the likes of Psystar.
If each mac had the OS on an encrypted chip cracking firmware upgrades would not work because most of the core would be already on the chip and each firmware upgrade could be encrypted using the Mac's unique serial plus a secret number that only Apple knows as the random number generated for the key. You have to hack every individual Mac. Cracking the firmware upgrade once would only work for that machine. Sure it still be done by hobbyist geeks but it wouldn't be profitable for the likes of Psystar.
They aren't going to put the entire OS, gigs and gigs, on an encrypted chip. You would need to write to the OS. All your data would be stored in files. You'd have to have everything on another drive and then your data wouldn't fit in the default folders that are setup. End users would have to setup aliases, it would be a mess.
And it would be too slow and too expensive. And doing every single little operation that would require decrypting and encrypting on that chip would be a nightmare.
Key checks can be disabled/bypassed/cracked. You can fool it to think it's talking to apple for verification. And should your mac not be connected to the net......
At best you can have a TPM module on the motherboard that the OS is tied to. However that is also easy to crack.
Updates are NOT why they are being sued as you had originally stated.
Obviously you have a lot more experience with Hackintosh[es?]. I'd heard that most updates did fine but with ones causing issues every now and then. But, if the suit was purely based on the EULA provisions, Apple wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on (no legal precendent). This is why it took them so long to sue Psystar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDNet
UPDATE 07/15 14:15pm PDT: A note to those who think that this suit is about EULAs ? Psystar did a LOT more than breach the terms of the EULA. The company, through its own admission, modified the copyrighted work, then distributed those modifications without license and for commercial purposes. The company also used at least one Apple trademark in its marketing.
If this was just about the EULA, Apple?s case might not be that strong (remember, the EULA?s never been tested in court), but this goes way beyond the EULA.http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2240
Obviously you have a lot more experience with Hackintosh[es?]. I'd heard that most updates did fine but with ones causing issues every now and then. But, if the suit was purely based on the EULA provisions, Apple wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on (no legal precendent). This is why it took them so long to sue Psystar.
They are talking about the modified OS they are selling. Not modified updates. A modified OS. It would have to, and does, include a EFI emulator.
?The 16-page document, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, states that, in April of this year, Psystar began selling a computer called OpenMac (later renamed Open Computer), which apparently runs a ?modified unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system.? It further alleges that, in June, Psystar began selling rack-mount servers called the OpenServ 100 and Open Serv 2400 - products that again run Leopard.?
Though there are now EFI motherboards and even a USB EFI device that allows you to install OSX directly off the shelf and unmodified. I wonder how apple would react to this when it becomes wide spread?
They are talking about the modified OS they are selling. Not modified updates. A modified OS. It would have to, and does, include a EFI emulator.
?The 16-page document, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, states that, in April of this year, Psystar began selling a computer called OpenMac (later renamed Open Computer), which apparently runs a ?modified unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system.? It further alleges that, in June, Psystar began selling rack-mount servers called the OpenServ 100 and Open Serv 2400 - products that again run Leopard.?
Though there are now EFI motherboards and even a USB EFI device that allows you to install OSX directly off the shelf and unmodified. I wonder how apple would react to this when it becomes wide spread?
Ok. I think I'm pretty solid on the details now. I think you were right in that the part about the modified code being the updates and what caused the delay in action was in fact unfounded speculation by one of the journalist. The problem is, there is a lot of conflicting information about whether or not Psystar made any alterations to any of the updates delivered via their website, aside from the custom updates of their own that they distributed through Software Update. I guess that's why its still in litigation.
Ok. I think I'm pretty solid on the details now. I think you were right in that the part about the modified code being the updates and what caused the delay in action was in fact unfounded speculation by one of the journalist. The problem is, there is a lot of conflicting information about whether or not Psystar made any alterations to any of the updates delivered via their website, aside from the custom updates of their own that they distributed through Software Update. I guess that's why its still in litigation.
Yes, there is alot of conflicting information. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.
If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.
The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.
And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!
What the hell are you talking about?? You have absolutely no clue how copyrights work, especially as they relate to the DMCA. Have you even bothered to follow the case between Psystar and Apple? Or are you just talking in wild assumptions and abstractions?
The question isn't just whether consumers are hacking OS X or using osx86 hacks, but whether those individuals are profiting from it financially - i.e., selling those semi-functional rigs, a la Psystar.
The courts already threw out Psystar's case. It's now up to Psystar to defend themselves against Apple's charges. Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims was granted. This means the counterclaims are gone, and with them any motivation to settle on Apple's side. The judge also dismissed the remainder of Psystar's stated claims for a lack of sufficient evidence to back them up, including allegations that Apple is violating the common law of unfair competition, the Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.
Since then, Apple added new charges, claiming that Psystar Corp. broke antipiracy defenses that lock Apple's operating system to its own hardware, and that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by dodging copy-protection technologies Apple uses to protect Mac OS X. What's more, is that Apple has also alleged that there are corporations and/or individuals behind Psystar, who may be added as defendants once Apple in discovery finds out who they are. This might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's BS case; also why Psystar has been so bold in continuing to sell its products. Psystar's only hope now is that it is not guilty, because it might very well bring others down with it. Apple might pursue the major investors of Psystar individually or even the OSx86 hackers that unwillingly enabled the company's dubious business.
If anything, Apple's position is looking very, very good. As it always has been.
Not to drag this out, but this word choice also implies a direct effect of Psystar on this company's decision making.. If someone at this new company stated, "We saw what Psystar did and we thought this looked like a great time to move into a new market", then you have proof that supports the claim. The article could have stated that "unnamed sources within the company have said...".
Without a source, this is a connection being made in the mind of the author. It's not rocket science.
Well you did drag it out and it is your own overzealous restriction on what the word 'spawns' means that is causing your consternation. If you keep that up the entire English language concepts of metaphor and simile come crashing down in a heap of uselessness.
Wouldn't make any difference. Copy protection of any form can be cracked easily. Not selling copies doesn't matter as your mac comes with a restore disc which will be posted online for download.
Hackintosh's are easy to build, as you can see other companies are forming to sell this desktops running OSX. Really the only choice for apple is to mount a pile of legal fees fighting all these or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.
Yes, true that the encryption is just a roadblock for a determined individual or company. However, it would be in Apple's best interest since someone knowingly breaking encryption is a serious offense legally than someone like Psystar saying that they just bought the retail boxed version in a store and walked out with it.
A hacked OSX image would be illegal from the get-go.
Comments
But who says people are buying these computers to even affect Apple's business?
I never said they were. People aren't trying to affect apple's business, at least not the consumers. They just want a machine that is cheap and upgradable.
Again, you do NOT have to hack updates to work on a hackintosh, which is what pystars are. They can be installed directly from software update. Trust me.
Some point releases require that you manually download the combo update direct from apple and then run a script while you install it.
But no updates have to be modified.
Pystar has completely disabled this type of update from software update and thus hasen't hacked anything.
The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.
Source = http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...r_psystar.html
Source = http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...r_psystar.html
Updates are NOT why they are being sued as you had originally stated.
"Mac OS X end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware"
That is why they are being sued.
And it doesn't change the fact that on hackintosh's you can use official apple, unmodified, updates. Pystar is also not allowing point updates. The author of the article is mistaken or doesn't quite understand how this all works. However on psystar's own site they make no mention of updates one way or the other. I'm just telling you how updates on hackintosh's work.
Spend some time on some osx86 forums and you'll see how it all works.
Then they jail break their macs and get the software elsewhere. You can't stop any of this. Apple has to sell the products people want at prices that are the same or cheaper than these clones. Then people will buy from apple instead. That is the only option. You can talk about copy protection and other things all you want but the fact remains you can get around all of it.
Sure individuals can get around it BUT to crack it for commercial purposes is not profitable particularly if each Mac had to be cracked individually. Your solution won't work either because the minute Apple lowers the price to clone level, the clone makers will go even lower with cheap junk inside the box.
I never said they were. People aren't trying to affect apple's business, at least not the consumers. They just want a machine that is cheap and upgradable.
Cheap and upgradable aren't words that are associated with Macs.
The old mac will not have the chip and apple will shooting them selfs big time by locking out all the new intel macs on the new os.
Don't you think PA Semi is capable of coding for Intel? All their new machine would have the chip, and yeah the older machines won't have the chip but people said Apple was shooting themselves in the foot when Apple (alone) stopped offering floppy drives. In fact Apple has a history of leaving legacy behind. A great example is OS X itself didn't carry legacy along. That's why they don't have the problems that Windows does.
Cheap and upgradable aren't words that are associated with Macs.
People who understand computers, who have built them, know about the parts inside. There is nothing magical inside a mac that separates it from a PC. They are just off the shelf PC parts. They can be built very inexpensively and still not be "cheap".
You are correct on upgradable. And it's sad really.
Sure individuals can get around it BUT to crack it for commercial purposes is not profitable particularly if each Mac had to be cracked individually. Your solution won't work either because the minute Apple lowers the price to clone level, the clone makers will go even lower with cheap junk inside the box.
You don't have to crack it individually. You just hack the part of the OS that looks for that firmware/chip/whatever and stop it. Then post for download.
Commercially, companies would always purchase from apple, a legitamite source. The legal risk for the company is too great to do otherwise.
You can't go much lower on price than where they are now. Boards are pretty generic and are not expensive until you get into high end boards for overclocking and such. Video cards are all Nvidia and ATI chipsets and all the card makers make good stuff. You can get quality motherboards with no frills for $50 or less. There just isn't much to computer parts. And there reaches a price point where you will just buy direct than something else.
Don't you think PA Semi is capable of coding for Intel? All their new machine would have the chip, and yeah the older machines won't have the chip but people said Apple was shooting themselves in the foot when Apple (alone) stopped offering floppy drives. In fact Apple has a history of leaving legacy behind. A great example is OS X itself didn't carry legacy along. That's why they don't have the problems that Windows does.
And it would be cracked in a heart beat. There is no copy protection that can be placed in an OS that cannot be easily cracked. The people who own macs and buy upgrade copies will still do so, those who build hackintosh's will still do so. Nothing will change.
PS: I first tried OSX86, it was amazing, but slow ... then I bought a "real" Mac
And it would be cracked in a heart beat. There is no copy protection that can be placed in an OS that cannot be easily cracked. The people who own macs and buy upgrade copies will still do so, those who build hackintosh's will still do so. Nothing will change.
If each mac had the OS on an encrypted chip cracking firmware upgrades would not work because most of the core would be already on the chip and each firmware upgrade could be encrypted using the Mac's unique serial plus a secret number that only Apple knows as the random number generated for the key. You have to hack every individual Mac. Cracking the firmware upgrade once would only work for that machine. Sure it still be done by hobbyist geeks but it wouldn't be profitable for the likes of Psystar.
If each mac had the OS on an encrypted chip cracking firmware upgrades would not work because most of the core would be already on the chip and each firmware upgrade could be encrypted using the Mac's unique serial plus a secret number that only Apple knows as the random number generated for the key. You have to hack every individual Mac. Cracking the firmware upgrade once would only work for that machine. Sure it still be done by hobbyist geeks but it wouldn't be profitable for the likes of Psystar.
They aren't going to put the entire OS, gigs and gigs, on an encrypted chip. You would need to write to the OS. All your data would be stored in files. You'd have to have everything on another drive and then your data wouldn't fit in the default folders that are setup. End users would have to setup aliases, it would be a mess.
And it would be too slow and too expensive. And doing every single little operation that would require decrypting and encrypting on that chip would be a nightmare.
Key checks can be disabled/bypassed/cracked. You can fool it to think it's talking to apple for verification. And should your mac not be connected to the net......
At best you can have a TPM module on the motherboard that the OS is tied to. However that is also easy to crack.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Updates are NOT why they are being sued as you had originally stated.
Obviously you have a lot more experience with Hackintosh[es?]. I'd heard that most updates did fine but with ones causing issues every now and then. But, if the suit was purely based on the EULA provisions, Apple wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on (no legal precendent). This is why it took them so long to sue Psystar.
UPDATE 07/15 14:15pm PDT: A note to those who think that this suit is about EULAs ? Psystar did a LOT more than breach the terms of the EULA. The company, through its own admission, modified the copyrighted work, then distributed those modifications without license and for commercial purposes. The company also used at least one Apple trademark in its marketing.
If this was just about the EULA, Apple?s case might not be that strong (remember, the EULA?s never been tested in court), but this goes way beyond the EULA.http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2240
Obviously you have a lot more experience with Hackintosh[es?]. I'd heard that most updates did fine but with ones causing issues every now and then. But, if the suit was purely based on the EULA provisions, Apple wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on (no legal precendent). This is why it took them so long to sue Psystar.
They are talking about the modified OS they are selling. Not modified updates. A modified OS. It would have to, and does, include a EFI emulator.
?The 16-page document, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, states that, in April of this year, Psystar began selling a computer called OpenMac (later renamed Open Computer), which apparently runs a ?modified unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system.? It further alleges that, in June, Psystar began selling rack-mount servers called the OpenServ 100 and Open Serv 2400 - products that again run Leopard.?
Though there are now EFI motherboards and even a USB EFI device that allows you to install OSX directly off the shelf and unmodified. I wonder how apple would react to this when it becomes wide spread?
They are talking about the modified OS they are selling. Not modified updates. A modified OS. It would have to, and does, include a EFI emulator.
?The 16-page document, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, states that, in April of this year, Psystar began selling a computer called OpenMac (later renamed Open Computer), which apparently runs a ?modified unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system.? It further alleges that, in June, Psystar began selling rack-mount servers called the OpenServ 100 and Open Serv 2400 - products that again run Leopard.?
Though there are now EFI motherboards and even a USB EFI device that allows you to install OSX directly off the shelf and unmodified. I wonder how apple would react to this when it becomes wide spread?
Ok. I think I'm pretty solid on the details now. I think you were right in that the part about the modified code being the updates and what caused the delay in action was in fact unfounded speculation by one of the journalist. The problem is, there is a lot of conflicting information about whether or not Psystar made any alterations to any of the updates delivered via their website, aside from the custom updates of their own that they distributed through Software Update. I guess that's why its still in litigation.
Ok. I think I'm pretty solid on the details now. I think you were right in that the part about the modified code being the updates and what caused the delay in action was in fact unfounded speculation by one of the journalist. The problem is, there is a lot of conflicting information about whether or not Psystar made any alterations to any of the updates delivered via their website, aside from the custom updates of their own that they distributed through Software Update. I guess that's why its still in litigation.
Yes, there is alot of conflicting information. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.
THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.
Add One!
Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.
If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.
The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.
And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!
What the hell are you talking about?? You have absolutely no clue how copyrights work, especially as they relate to the DMCA. Have you even bothered to follow the case between Psystar and Apple? Or are you just talking in wild assumptions and abstractions?
The question isn't just whether consumers are hacking OS X or using osx86 hacks, but whether those individuals are profiting from it financially - i.e., selling those semi-functional rigs, a la Psystar.
The courts already threw out Psystar's case. It's now up to Psystar to defend themselves against Apple's charges. Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims was granted. This means the counterclaims are gone, and with them any motivation to settle on Apple's side. The judge also dismissed the remainder of Psystar's stated claims for a lack of sufficient evidence to back them up, including allegations that Apple is violating the common law of unfair competition, the Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.
Since then, Apple added new charges, claiming that Psystar Corp. broke antipiracy defenses that lock Apple's operating system to its own hardware, and that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by dodging copy-protection technologies Apple uses to protect Mac OS X. What's more, is that Apple has also alleged that there are corporations and/or individuals behind Psystar, who may be added as defendants once Apple in discovery finds out who they are. This might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's BS case; also why Psystar has been so bold in continuing to sell its products. Psystar's only hope now is that it is not guilty, because it might very well bring others down with it. Apple might pursue the major investors of Psystar individually or even the OSx86 hackers that unwillingly enabled the company's dubious business.
If anything, Apple's position is looking very, very good. As it always has been.
Get a clue.
Show me a Mac where I can add a second internal hard drive for under 2,799.
And, yes, these computers look horrible. But I really don't care when it's hiding under my desk.
The single processor Mac Pro, without any discounts (corporate/student/etc), is $2299. Still high, but that's $500 less than your figure.
Not to drag this out, but this word choice also implies a direct effect of Psystar on this company's decision making.. If someone at this new company stated, "We saw what Psystar did and we thought this looked like a great time to move into a new market", then you have proof that supports the claim. The article could have stated that "unnamed sources within the company have said...".
Without a source, this is a connection being made in the mind of the author. It's not rocket science.
Well you did drag it out and it is your own overzealous restriction on what the word 'spawns' means that is causing your consternation. If you keep that up the entire English language concepts of metaphor and simile come crashing down in a heap of uselessness.
Wouldn't make any difference. Copy protection of any form can be cracked easily. Not selling copies doesn't matter as your mac comes with a restore disc which will be posted online for download.
Hackintosh's are easy to build, as you can see other companies are forming to sell this desktops running OSX. Really the only choice for apple is to mount a pile of legal fees fighting all these or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.
Yes, true that the encryption is just a roadblock for a determined individual or company. However, it would be in Apple's best interest since someone knowingly breaking encryption is a serious offense legally than someone like Psystar saying that they just bought the retail boxed version in a store and walked out with it.
A hacked OSX image would be illegal from the get-go.