People have to get a grip. The company makes some excellent devices. That doesn't mean you have to go to bed with them. There are plenty of things the company does that deserve critizism and this is one of them.
So if someone disagrees with you they "gone to bed" with a company and are without "a grip'. The "you don't agree with me so you must be a fanboy" attack doesn't help your argument.
Psystar is stealing. If I buy a TV, does that mean I am entitled to all other TVs of that type. Of course not. Psystar bought an copy of OS X which it ships to it's foolish customers, but that is not the software they installed on the system they sold. What they sold was a hacked, illegally downloaded, non-reverse engineered copy of OS X. Code is protected under law.
And using phrases like 'closet socialist' (as if socialism was a bad thing) just makes you sound like a free-market fundamentalist.
Although don't get me wrong, I'm not on Psystar's side here at all.
Amen! I'm totally on Apple's side in this, although you won't find too many people more left-wing than I am!
If there were anything resembling a "free market" in Operating Systems, things might be different, but Microsoft destroyed that a long time ago. Does anybody but me see a parallel between this Psystar business and the establishment of Microsoft's software monopoly? They bought a small company called Seattle Computer Products that had written a (probably illegal) 16-bit port of Digital Research's CP/M, and then sold it to IBM. When DR tried to sell their version of it (DR DOS,) MS spread a lot of lies and FUD about how it could damage your computer, and thus established their OS monopoly. All we need is for some pirate with deep pockets to buy out Psystar and try to lawyer up enough to make this hijacking of OS X stick.
Wow, good thread!! Had to register to respond. Just to add some validity to my post (hopefully!) I am a Mac user, .Mac subscriber. nano and shuffle owner and..if I could find one A soon to be iPhone owner. I am in the UK and they are tres scarce!
I have also attempted to take MS to court over the EULA agreement with Windows but they settled out of court...so I have some knowledge of this sort of thing. Of course I am only talkin about UK law.
1/ The EULA... as it is written is basically useless from Apple's point of view. Once purchased the owner has the right to do with it as they see fit..(constrained by law) as has been mentioned before. Going to court on that basis alone would be futile IMO and is the legal advice that I suspect Apple has given.
2/ The modifying of code and re-distribution would seem to be the issue but they could well be covered by the original EULA too rendering that point useless. Besides a free update for a fully paid product would be hard to get a judgement on.
3/ Apple specifically mentions 'copyright infringement' so I wonder if Psy have used some proprietary code to get the OS to work in the first place.? and as they are making money from it..... it could be deemed as damaging. I don't see from what I've read that Apple have a case at all...not for copyright anyway, but I guess there will be something behind the scenes.
This could just be a big publicity thing anyhow...where Apple rattle their sabres then buy the company and get the founders to sign NDA's and future restrictive policies.
You want the infringer to make some money from stealing so you can take it from them -- three times! Had Apple stopped them on Day One, the amount of damage would be based on the revenue of that day, but after a few months, the suit is timely enough, but now Psystar has presumably sold a significant number of rip-off clones, so Apple will get a lot more money if they win.
Huh? I'm sure Phystar has made sooooo much money from a couple hundred or maybe a couple thousand computers that it will still be profitable after paying a team of high-end lawyers to sue. Especially profitable compared to Apple selling 1 million iPhones in 3 days.
i don't get it... why are people siding with pystar? if you don't like what apple is offering, go to dell or whomever. the choice is there.
the whole reason i switched from pc (dos + windows 95) to mac many many years ago, is that i like what they offer and i like how they do things. sure sometimes i can't afford their high end stuff, but you know what i do? i save up, and buy what i can. i needed a low end machine once and i bought a cheapo pc. yes, this is while i was using macs for almost everything. you don't have to use a mac. not for video or audio or anything. there are software equivalents on the pc. if you care that the software you need is only on the mac and its an industry standard, then as a professional, you should understand why its an industry standard.
oh well. i guess this is what we get from a bunch of PC users converting to mac.
How is it illegal? When you buy Mac OS X your buying a license for that product. You have to agree to that license in order to use it.
very easily... the MS EULA is borderline legal... over here anyway.
We would term it an 'unfair term in contract' if for example you agreed to something that made you pay an unreasonable price or commit an unreasonable act.
Research Bank charge cases over here for an idea. Lots of bank account customers who have been charged money AND signed an agreement for the account are trying to sue for that very reason.
Going further you would be amazed at how many contracts would fail the acid test in LAw.
Wow, good thread!! Had to register to respond. Just to add some validity to my post (hopefully!) I am a Mac user, .Mac subscriber. nano and shuffle owner and..if I could find one A soon to be iPhone owner. I am in the UK and they are tres scarce!
I have also attempted to take MS to court over the EULA agreement with Windows but they settled out of court...so I have some knowledge of this sort of thing. Of course I am only talkin about UK law.
1/ The EULA... as it is written is basically useless from Apple's point of view. Once purchased the owner has the right to do with it as they see fit..(constrained by law) as has been mentioned before. Going to court on that basis alone would be futile IMO and is the legal advice that I suspect Apple has given.
2/ The modifying of code and re-distribution would seem to be the issue but they could well be covered by the original EULA too rendering that point useless. Besides a free update for a fully paid product would be hard to get a judgement on.
3/ Apple specifically mentions 'copyright infringement' so I wonder if Psy have used some proprietary code to get the OS to work in the first place.? and as they are making money from it..... it could be deemed as damaging. I don't see from what I've read that Apple have a case at all...not for copyright anyway, but I guess there will be something behind the scenes.
This could just be a big publicity thing anyhow...where Apple rattle their sabres then buy the company and get the founders to sign NDA's and future restrictive policies.
will be interesting...!
Buying Psystar wouldn't solve anything, but make it worse. If that were to happen then there would be no reason why anyone else coudn't just illegally DL a cracked copy of OSx86 to install on off-the shelf parts along side a copy of OS X from the Apple Store. They aren't a big production and didn't even have an address that wasn't pointing to their house for the first week.
As stated, Psystar isn't modifying the code, expect for the Software Updater so it points to their servers, not Apples. The code they are using for OS X is hacked from another source to allow it to run on BIOS. I think this is where Apple has a case.
Buying Psystar wouldn't solve anything, but make it worse. If that were to happen then there would be no reason why anyone else coudn't just illegally DL a cracked copy of OSx86 to install on off-the shelf parts along side a copy of OS X from the Apple Store. They aren't a big production and didn't even have an address that wasn't pointing to their house for the first week.
As stated, Psystar isn't modifying the code, expect for the Software Updater so it points to their servers, not Apples. The code they are using for OS X is hacked from another source to allow it to run on BIOS. I think this is where Apple has a case.
yeah maybe... still not sure whether it would be considered copyright infringement though.
Not to single you out, but I'm sick of hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is that not everybody can choose. For instance, if you have to run Final Cut Pro (which is gradually overtaking Avid as the industry standard in DNLE's), then you must buy a Mac. No, there isn't "always Vista."
On the other hand, Avid Media Composer and all of the Adobe applications run on both Mac and WIndows. Users of those applications DO have a choice. But like I said, when it comes to DNLE's, fewer and fewer people in the lower-budget realm of film are using Avid anymore; in order to remain relevant, you have have Final Cut Pro. As a result, editors are in the same situation that most consumers found themselves in back in the mid '90's with Windows: you either use the operating system, or you don't use anything at all. (Meaning, you're screwed.)
Is all this fair? Do we REALLY want Apple to have so much power?
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.
Why can't I copy a file onto the device anywhere I want? Why can't I have a terminal with SSH? Why can't I record video? Why can't I use a SIP/VoIP client?
Why can't you stop whining and learn to write your own goddam code?
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.
exactly. there are so many choices out there. i wonder what is it that some of these people say they HATE apple, but want apple to be so flexible so they can buy their products. if you hate it, don't buy it!
I won't get you wrong, I hope, but Socialism is a very bad thing. I meant it that way.
No, Marxism-Leninism is a very bad thing. Socialism, as embodied in the Progressive-Era reforms of 1912-1920, that the Republicans are now trying to destroy, is a very good thing! You will notice that they have wholeheartedly embraced the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall part of them to destroy the rest.
Physical property and intellectual property are both property. The fact that stealing music is easier to do and harder to catch do not make it any more legal than walking into BestBuy and snagging a CD.
I never said copyright infringement was *legal*. I merely said it was NOT *stealing*. Copying music is not the same as taking a CD from BestBuy. If I take a CD from BestBuy, then that's one less CD that BestBuy has on the shelf to sell. However, if I make a copy of that CD somewhere else, BestBuy has not lost anything except the chance that I might have bought it.
Both of my acts are against the law, but one is copyright infringement and the other is theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
This appears to be a fertile source of confusion. Apple doesn't "sell a cheap OS" just to make money on the hardware. It sells you the hardware with an OS installed, and the price covers both, or they would be out of business by now.
Every other version you buy in a shrink-wrapped box is an upgrade. That's why it's $129 instead of $400 or whatever Vista Ultimate is. If Psystar wins, and everybody and his dog can start selling computers with OS X installed, then Apple will have to start charging full price for every upgrade. Does anybody really want that?
Whether Apple calls it "an upgrade" or not is irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. Under US law, if Apple sells someone a copy of OS X, that person can do what they like with except distribute a copy of it (modified or not). They are perfectly within their legal rights to hack it so that it runs on Non-Apple hardware. That one copy that was purchased is the buyer's property. They can also sell that one copy to someone else. This is called the First Sale Doctrine and it's why you can by used CDs and books.
The fact that, if everyone did this, would hurt Apple's business model is totally irrelevant when it comes to what's legal. Just because Apple has decided to make money by selling hardware and software together, doesn't mean they can make the law whatever they like.
Car makers would love it if they could force everyone who bought their car to only use their parts to repair them, but they can't. Same with Apple.
In other words, Apple's wishes about their business model are fine, but they're not law.
I never said copyright infringement was *legal*. I merely said it was NOT *stealing*. Copying music is not the same as taking a CD from BestBuy. If I take a CD from BestBuy, then that's one less CD that BestBuy has on the shelf to sell. However, if I make a copy of that CD somewhere else, BestBuy has not lost anything except the chance that I might have bought it.
Both of my acts are against the law, but one is copyright infringement and the other is theft.
Whether Apple calls it "an upgrade" or not is irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. Under US law, if Apple sells someone a copy of OS X, that person can do what they like with except distribute a copy of it (modified or not). They are perfectly within their legal rights to hack it so that it runs on Non-Apple hardware. That one copy that was purchased is the buyer's property. They can also sell that one copy to someone else. This is called the First Sale Doctrine and it's why you can by used CDs and books.
The fact that, if everyone did this, would hurt Apple's business model is totally irrelevant when it comes to what's legal. Just because Apple has decided to make money by selling hardware and software together, doesn't mean they can make the law whatever they like.
Car makers would love it if they could force everyone who bought their car to only use their parts to repair them, but they can't. Same with Apple.
In other words, Apple's wishes about their business model are fine, but they're not law.
everything you said is valid and true, but i believe selling the modified code is illegal because the was copyright. if they modified the code for personal use, it would be within the boundaries. i believe.. but maybe i am wrong.
Comments
Not if the 'legally binding contract' is illegal.
How is it illegal? When you buy Mac OS X your buying a license for that product. You have to agree to that license in order to use it.
People have to get a grip. The company makes some excellent devices. That doesn't mean you have to go to bed with them. There are plenty of things the company does that deserve critizism and this is one of them.
So if someone disagrees with you they "gone to bed" with a company and are without "a grip'. The "you don't agree with me so you must be a fanboy" attack doesn't help your argument.
Psystar is stealing. If I buy a TV, does that mean I am entitled to all other TVs of that type. Of course not. Psystar bought an copy of OS X which it ships to it's foolish customers, but that is not the software they installed on the system they sold. What they sold was a hacked, illegally downloaded, non-reverse engineered copy of OS X. Code is protected under law.
And using phrases like 'closet socialist' (as if socialism was a bad thing) just makes you sound like a free-market fundamentalist.
Although don't get me wrong, I'm not on Psystar's side here at all.
Amen! I'm totally on Apple's side in this, although you won't find too many people more left-wing than I am!
If there were anything resembling a "free market" in Operating Systems, things might be different, but Microsoft destroyed that a long time ago. Does anybody but me see a parallel between this Psystar business and the establishment of Microsoft's software monopoly? They bought a small company called Seattle Computer Products that had written a (probably illegal) 16-bit port of Digital Research's CP/M, and then sold it to IBM. When DR tried to sell their version of it (DR DOS,) MS spread a lot of lies and FUD about how it could damage your computer, and thus established their OS monopoly. All we need is for some pirate with deep pockets to buy out Psystar and try to lawyer up enough to make this hijacking of OS X stick.
And using phrases like 'closet socialist' (as if socialism was a bad thing) just makes you sound like a free-market fundamentalist.
And using phrases like 'free-market fundamentalist' (as if a free-market was a bad thing) just makes you sound like a communist.
(I wonder how long we can keep this going)
I have also attempted to take MS to court over the EULA agreement with Windows but they settled out of court...so I have some knowledge of this sort of thing. Of course I am only talkin about UK law.
1/ The EULA... as it is written is basically useless from Apple's point of view. Once purchased the owner has the right to do with it as they see fit..(constrained by law) as has been mentioned before. Going to court on that basis alone would be futile IMO and is the legal advice that I suspect Apple has given.
2/ The modifying of code and re-distribution would seem to be the issue but they could well be covered by the original EULA too rendering that point useless. Besides a free update for a fully paid product would be hard to get a judgement on.
3/ Apple specifically mentions 'copyright infringement' so I wonder if Psy have used some proprietary code to get the OS to work in the first place.? and as they are making money from it..... it could be deemed as damaging. I don't see from what I've read that Apple have a case at all...not for copyright anyway, but I guess there will be something behind the scenes.
This could just be a big publicity thing anyhow...where Apple rattle their sabres then buy the company and get the founders to sign NDA's and future restrictive policies.
will be interesting...!
You want the infringer to make some money from stealing so you can take it from them -- three times! Had Apple stopped them on Day One, the amount of damage would be based on the revenue of that day, but after a few months, the suit is timely enough, but now Psystar has presumably sold a significant number of rip-off clones, so Apple will get a lot more money if they win.
Huh? I'm sure Phystar has made sooooo much money from a couple hundred or maybe a couple thousand computers that it will still be profitable after paying a team of high-end lawyers to sue. Especially profitable compared to Apple selling 1 million iPhones in 3 days.
give me a break.
the whole reason i switched from pc (dos + windows 95) to mac many many years ago, is that i like what they offer and i like how they do things. sure sometimes i can't afford their high end stuff, but you know what i do? i save up, and buy what i can. i needed a low end machine once and i bought a cheapo pc. yes, this is while i was using macs for almost everything. you don't have to use a mac. not for video or audio or anything. there are software equivalents on the pc. if you care that the software you need is only on the mac and its an industry standard, then as a professional, you should understand why its an industry standard.
oh well. i guess this is what we get from a bunch of PC users converting to mac.
How is it illegal? When you buy Mac OS X your buying a license for that product. You have to agree to that license in order to use it.
very easily... the MS EULA is borderline legal... over here anyway.
We would term it an 'unfair term in contract' if for example you agreed to something that made you pay an unreasonable price or commit an unreasonable act.
Research Bank charge cases over here for an idea. Lots of bank account customers who have been charged money AND signed an agreement for the account are trying to sue for that very reason.
Going further you would be amazed at how many contracts would fail the acid test in LAw.
Wow, good thread!! Had to register to respond. Just to add some validity to my post (hopefully!) I am a Mac user, .Mac subscriber. nano and shuffle owner and..if I could find one A soon to be iPhone owner. I am in the UK and they are tres scarce!
I have also attempted to take MS to court over the EULA agreement with Windows but they settled out of court...so I have some knowledge of this sort of thing. Of course I am only talkin about UK law.
1/ The EULA... as it is written is basically useless from Apple's point of view. Once purchased the owner has the right to do with it as they see fit..(constrained by law) as has been mentioned before. Going to court on that basis alone would be futile IMO and is the legal advice that I suspect Apple has given.
2/ The modifying of code and re-distribution would seem to be the issue but they could well be covered by the original EULA too rendering that point useless. Besides a free update for a fully paid product would be hard to get a judgement on.
3/ Apple specifically mentions 'copyright infringement' so I wonder if Psy have used some proprietary code to get the OS to work in the first place.? and as they are making money from it..... it could be deemed as damaging. I don't see from what I've read that Apple have a case at all...not for copyright anyway, but I guess there will be something behind the scenes.
This could just be a big publicity thing anyhow...where Apple rattle their sabres then buy the company and get the founders to sign NDA's and future restrictive policies.
will be interesting...!
Buying Psystar wouldn't solve anything, but make it worse. If that were to happen then there would be no reason why anyone else coudn't just illegally DL a cracked copy of OSx86 to install on off-the shelf parts along side a copy of OS X from the Apple Store. They aren't a big production and didn't even have an address that wasn't pointing to their house for the first week.
As stated, Psystar isn't modifying the code, expect for the Software Updater so it points to their servers, not Apples. The code they are using for OS X is hacked from another source to allow it to run on BIOS. I think this is where Apple has a case.
And using phrases like 'free-market fundamentalist' (as if a free-market was a bad thing) just makes you sound like a communist.
(I wonder how long we can keep this going)
Er - I think Nazi would logically come next. Followed by C.H.U.D. I think.
Buying Psystar wouldn't solve anything, but make it worse. If that were to happen then there would be no reason why anyone else coudn't just illegally DL a cracked copy of OSx86 to install on off-the shelf parts along side a copy of OS X from the Apple Store. They aren't a big production and didn't even have an address that wasn't pointing to their house for the first week.
As stated, Psystar isn't modifying the code, expect for the Software Updater so it points to their servers, not Apples. The code they are using for OS X is hacked from another source to allow it to run on BIOS. I think this is where Apple has a case.
yeah maybe... still not sure whether it would be considered copyright infringement though.
The 'clever' men will decide.
Not to single you out, but I'm sick of hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is that not everybody can choose. For instance, if you have to run Final Cut Pro (which is gradually overtaking Avid as the industry standard in DNLE's), then you must buy a Mac. No, there isn't "always Vista."
On the other hand, Avid Media Composer and all of the Adobe applications run on both Mac and WIndows. Users of those applications DO have a choice. But like I said, when it comes to DNLE's, fewer and fewer people in the lower-budget realm of film are using Avid anymore; in order to remain relevant, you have have Final Cut Pro. As a result, editors are in the same situation that most consumers found themselves in back in the mid '90's with Windows: you either use the operating system, or you don't use anything at all. (Meaning, you're screwed.)
Is all this fair? Do we REALLY want Apple to have so much power?
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.
You fan boys are pathetic.
Why can't I copy a file onto the device anywhere I want? Why can't I have a terminal with SSH? Why can't I record video? Why can't I use a SIP/VoIP client?
Why can't you stop whining and learn to write your own goddam code?
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.
exactly. there are so many choices out there. i wonder what is it that some of these people say they HATE apple, but want apple to be so flexible so they can buy their products. if you hate it, don't buy it!
And using phrases like 'closet socialist' (as if socialism was a bad thing) just makes you sound like a free-market fundamentalist.
Although don't get me wrong, I'm not on Psystar's side here at all.
I won't get you wrong, I hope, but Socialism is a very bad thing. I meant it that way.
I won't get you wrong, I hope, but Socialism is a very bad thing. I meant it that way.
how is socialism a bad thing?
I won't get you wrong, I hope, but Socialism is a very bad thing. I meant it that way.
No, Marxism-Leninism is a very bad thing. Socialism, as embodied in the Progressive-Era reforms of 1912-1920, that the Republicans are now trying to destroy, is a very good thing! You will notice that they have wholeheartedly embraced the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall part of them to destroy the rest.
Physical property and intellectual property are both property. The fact that stealing music is easier to do and harder to catch do not make it any more legal than walking into BestBuy and snagging a CD.
I never said copyright infringement was *legal*. I merely said it was NOT *stealing*. Copying music is not the same as taking a CD from BestBuy. If I take a CD from BestBuy, then that's one less CD that BestBuy has on the shelf to sell. However, if I make a copy of that CD somewhere else, BestBuy has not lost anything except the chance that I might have bought it.
Both of my acts are against the law, but one is copyright infringement and the other is theft.
This appears to be a fertile source of confusion. Apple doesn't "sell a cheap OS" just to make money on the hardware. It sells you the hardware with an OS installed, and the price covers both, or they would be out of business by now.
Every other version you buy in a shrink-wrapped box is an upgrade. That's why it's $129 instead of $400 or whatever Vista Ultimate is. If Psystar wins, and everybody and his dog can start selling computers with OS X installed, then Apple will have to start charging full price for every upgrade. Does anybody really want that?
Whether Apple calls it "an upgrade" or not is irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. Under US law, if Apple sells someone a copy of OS X, that person can do what they like with except distribute a copy of it (modified or not). They are perfectly within their legal rights to hack it so that it runs on Non-Apple hardware. That one copy that was purchased is the buyer's property. They can also sell that one copy to someone else. This is called the First Sale Doctrine and it's why you can by used CDs and books.
The fact that, if everyone did this, would hurt Apple's business model is totally irrelevant when it comes to what's legal. Just because Apple has decided to make money by selling hardware and software together, doesn't mean they can make the law whatever they like.
Car makers would love it if they could force everyone who bought their car to only use their parts to repair them, but they can't. Same with Apple.
In other words, Apple's wishes about their business model are fine, but they're not law.
how is socialism a bad thing?
If you do not recognize that socialism can only exist where freedom and a free market don't exist, then you have not spent enough years on Earth.
I never said copyright infringement was *legal*. I merely said it was NOT *stealing*. Copying music is not the same as taking a CD from BestBuy. If I take a CD from BestBuy, then that's one less CD that BestBuy has on the shelf to sell. However, if I make a copy of that CD somewhere else, BestBuy has not lost anything except the chance that I might have bought it.
Both of my acts are against the law, but one is copyright infringement and the other is theft.
Whether Apple calls it "an upgrade" or not is irrelevant. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. Under US law, if Apple sells someone a copy of OS X, that person can do what they like with except distribute a copy of it (modified or not). They are perfectly within their legal rights to hack it so that it runs on Non-Apple hardware. That one copy that was purchased is the buyer's property. They can also sell that one copy to someone else. This is called the First Sale Doctrine and it's why you can by used CDs and books.
The fact that, if everyone did this, would hurt Apple's business model is totally irrelevant when it comes to what's legal. Just because Apple has decided to make money by selling hardware and software together, doesn't mean they can make the law whatever they like.
Car makers would love it if they could force everyone who bought their car to only use their parts to repair them, but they can't. Same with Apple.
In other words, Apple's wishes about their business model are fine, but they're not law.
everything you said is valid and true, but i believe selling the modified code is illegal because the was copyright. if they modified the code for personal use, it would be within the boundaries. i believe.. but maybe i am wrong.