I'm well aware of the differences in terms, hence my use of the term enforceable.
For the kiddies in the audience then, let's maintain that it's still illegal.
Quote:
I don't agree that a blanket black/white outcome can be determined if Open Tech doesn't break any copyright laws. Is suppling details on how tumblers in a lock work the same as breaking and entering?
That's why we likely won't see criminal prosecution, but I've no doubt Apple will seek intervention through civil court. Assuming Apple succeeds, if Open Tech then persists, criminal prosecution would soon follow.
I don't get the impression that you understood solipsism's point.
I believe I fully understood his point, in spite of his not providing good examples to illustrate his point. Do you not understand that it's a crime in itself to knowingly help someone else commit a crime, even if it's "just" copyright infringement? A court of law isn't going to care one whit what a narrow, vocal slice of the public's opinion might be on the matter, it's flatly illegal.
Quote:
I think you need to restate that. If you put a new hard drive in a Mac, and run the install disc, you're basically installing OS X.
Thank you for pointing out my mis-statement. Yes, the EULA allows for installing and running the software only on an Apple computer, regardless of who installs it.
I believe I fully understood his point, in spite of his not providing good examples to illustrate his point. Do you not understand that it's a crime in itself to knowingly help someone else commit a crime, even if it's "just" copyright infringement? A court of law isn't going to care one whit what a narrow, vocal slice of the public's opinion might be on the matter, it's flatly illegal.
I provided examples of legitimate businesses provide others with means for breaking the law without breaking the law themselves. These are called loopholes.
Quote:
Thank you for pointing out my mis-statement. Yes, the EULA allows for installing and running the software only on an Apple computer, regardless of who installs it.
Why are there a set of people who are focused on the EULA and not on the big picture?
I believe I fully understood his point, in spite of his not providing good examples to illustrate his point.
I thought he did, but it seems you chose to ignore it.
Quote:
Do you not understand that it's a crime in itself to knowingly help someone else commit a crime, even if it's "just" copyright infringement? A court of law isn't going to care one whit what a narrow, vocal slice of the public's opinion might be on the matter, it's flatly illegal.
I know it's true at least for some crimes, but I don't know about all.
Copyright cases aren't always open and shut or absolute, and the EsquireMac article seemed to suggest that this point is kind of fuzzy.
TThey've obviously been busy today though. By now, there is no direct reference to Apple or OS X anywhere on their site. Also, earlier today, they had not even finished the obviously template site, since several pages still had things like "title" and "subtitle" and "Page content here" or something like that.
The EULA isn't really enforceable and since the DMCA should allow you to alter copyrighted code to suit your personal needs?something that Psystar wasn't doing as a reseller?this method should work fine. After all, all they are doing is supplying instructions that you can get at OSx86 Project and InsaneyMac. Like how head shops can sell bongs as tobacco pipes but not the weed the hippies smoke, or how you can legally buy stills or instructions to build stills online even if your state doesn't allow the the production of alcohol.
Plus, they may not be telling them how to break the copyright protection, but how to install a copy of OS X and get it working properly after the copyright protection is already broken.
Encouraging infringement is illegal under the copyright laws. If it can be shown that it's being done for profit, it can rise to the level of criminal behavior.
The is no "enforcement" involved, as that assumes the government will automatically intervene. not true. The copyright holder must file the complaint.
You aren't simply allowed to change code. You must use "cleanroom" techniques to write your own code for the workaround.
What they can do is to provide these computers with Linux (or no OS), and state that they can run more than one operating system, say, such as Vista, and, er, others, without mentioning which others. It could be Solarus.
If this comes before a judge, rather than a jury, the judge could read behind the lines, esp. if Apple could provide some proof that the computers are mostly being used to run X.
Encouraging infringement is illegal under the copyright laws.
Even if the plans/instructions they sell you are for 'academic' purposes, don't supply a link to to location of the hacked software, and they inform you over and over again that you should not actually attempt to install anything that violates the copyright? There seems to be plenty of precedent that protects this sort of behavior? There are plenty of game console emulators that at least cover the 2nd part of not supplying you with the copyrighted content, only a way of using it once it's in hand.
The analogy works this way. If you sell a $20 case of beer to an adult and then tell him that he can turn a quick profit by selling that case of beer for $30 to the high school kids down the block, you are as guilty has he is for supplying alcohol to minors.
The same would be true if you sold alcohol to an adult that you knew was supplying alcohol to minors.
The law that Apple should be able to win on, against these Mac clones, is that no can profit from your copyrighted material without your permission (license).
The classic example of this is the movie you buy or rent. On it is the EULA that states that it's for personal viewing and that you can only view the movie in a home. Another words, you can not set up your own little neighborhood theater and charge admission to others to watch on your home theater system. Nor can you show it in a place of business in hopes of making money from your customers.
And this EULA is enforcable. A while back my health club use to have movie nights. On Wednesday nights my club would show a couple of movies that they rented from the local Blockbuster. They did not charge admission, they served free popcorn and charged a dollar for a pitcher of beer. They weren't dong this to make money. It was just a benifit for the members.
Well an attorney showed up one day and told them they had to stop it. Even if my health club didn't think they were profiting by selling dollar beer. the attorney made a case that by having the members hang around the club a few extra hours, the club could be making extra money on other items those member could buy. Like soda, candy bars, can/bottle beers, potato chips, etc. My health club got the advise from it's own attorney that they could no longer have movie nights. Unless they show actual non-copyrighted home movies.
The same law applies here with the Mac clones. They can not use someone elses copyrighted work to make money. Not without the permission of the copyright owner. Just like you can't use someone elses copyrighted movie to make money. Even if you bought and own the movie. The copyright owner has every right to protect all potential income derieved from using his coyrighted work.
This is why most hackers don't profit from their hacks. They are right on the border of legal and illegal when they hack other peoples copyrighted software. But they cross over to the illegal side once they try to sell their hacks. They would now be profiting by using others people copyrighted material. Without permission.
So it shouldn't matter whether it's illegal to hack OSX. Or that they encourage the buyers to hack OSX. The only thing that matters is that the Mac clones are using OSX to sell their ware. OSX is copyrighted by Apple. And therefore the Mac clones shouldn't be allow to use OSX as a means of selling their ware. Without Apple's permission or license.
And I won't even get into the RIAA and copyrighted music.
I didn't get to your post before I responded to Solipsism.
You're correct. As for your club, they would be in violation even if they didn't sell beer.
The mere fact that it was being shown in a place if business, which is a for profit establishment, would be enough. It could be that some members paid their dues because of that social night, in addition to the usual pursuits held there.
Even non-profit organizations must gain permission first.
for example; My daughters elementary school PA performed a play every year to raise money for the school. We, the parents acted in it (don't ask!), did the sets, props, etc. Even though the plays are available in book form from the library, or for purchase, we had to pay over $1,000 for the script for our performance.
In addition to that, if the play was being performed in any establishment for profit that could be determined to be within range of our little fiasco, we weren't allowed to do our performance.
No way round it. We also couldn't change a single word, or major stage direction subject to the actual availability of a local theater (the school auditorium).
The same thing is true for computer works when referring to permission or changes.
Even if the plans/instructions they sell you are for 'academic' purposes, don't supply a link to to location of the hacked software, and they inform you over and over again that you should not actually attempt to install anything that violates the copyright? There seems to be plenty of precedent that protects this sort of behavior? There are plenty of game console emulators that at least cover the 2nd part of not supplying you with the copyrighted content, only a way of using it once it's in hand.
hasn't been taken down. But they are not a commercial establishment.
Well, Sony took the company to court that wrote the PS2 emulator for the Mac. I forgot their name. Sony would likely have won that, but they settled, and the program ended in Sony's hands, from which it disappeared. I believe there have been other suits.
I thought he did, but it seems you chose to ignore it.
Sorry, I thought the legalities had been pretty well sketched out here. But okay, with the requisite disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, here goes...
Quote:
Like how head shops can sell bongs as tobacco pipes but not the weed the hippies smoke, or how you can legally buy stills or instructions to build stills online even if your state doesn't allow the the production of alcohol.
In the case of a head shop, who is going to sue or prosecute the proprietor if the pipes aren't advertised as being for smoking pot and when the pipes can be used for smoking legal substances other than pot? Probably no one.
In the case of a seller of stills, who is going to prosecute the proprietor if the still might well be used for distilling substances other than alcohol? Probably no one.
In the case of a system designed and advertised specifically for assisting with breaching the license Apple provides with every copy of Mac OS X, when Apple has notified the proprietor directly that no one has been licensed to install the OS on anything other than an Apple computer, who is going to pursue the proprietor? Probably Apple!
In the case of a head shop, who is going to sue or prosecute the proprietor if the pipes aren't advertised as being for smoking pot and when the pipes can be used for smoking legal substances other than pot? Probably no one.
Actually, head shops have been closed in various communities.
I provided examples of legitimate businesses provide others with means for breaking the law without breaking the law themselves. These are called loopholes.
See my posting above for the reason why Open Tech likely won't survive in its efforts, if Apple chooses to pursue them.
Quote:
Why are there a set of people who are focused on the EULA and not on the big picture?
IMHO, the big picture is copyright law and that's what most of us here are focused on. Copyright law is very old, very well established, and very strong. The EULA is the only thing that smacks of being a license for anyone to do anything at all with Apple's copyrighted software. Even if a EULA wasn't bundled with the software, there is nowhere--not in the EULA and not anywhere else--that Apple says it's okay to copy their software onto a non-Apple computer. Consequently, as far as what Open Tech is apparently going to do, the EULA doesn't really matter. Once Apple notifies Open Tech that no one has a license to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, Open Tech can no longer claim ignorance, even if ignorance would be an excuse, which it's not.
I found this case interesting, considering that we all wouldn't be reading this blog if it wasn't for blatant copyright infringement and the profiting from it, that built the internet. Google, Yahoo Groups, MSN, et al. still profit immensely everyday from repackaging other peoples copyrighted content, specifically photos, artwork, books, etc. Recently including of course films and music, see the Viacom battle against Google... which, while I hate it personally, definately has it's legal merits.
I found this case interesting, considering that we all wouldn't be reading this blog if it wasn't for blatant copyright infringement and the profiting from it, that built the internet. Google, Yahoo Groups, MSN, et al. still profit immensely everyday from repackaging other peoples copyrighted content, specifically photos, artwork, books, etc. Recently including of course films and music, see the Viacom battle against Google... which, while I hate it personally, definately has it's legal merits.
I think we'd still be reading this without Google and others retaining unlicensed, complete copies of creative works. In fact, it might be a whole lot easier to find quality information if so dang many snippets weren't copied, munged and misinterpreted all over the Internet.
IMHO, the big picture is copyright law and that's what most of us here are focused on. Copyright law is very old, very well established, and very strong. The EULA is the only thing that smacks of being a license for anyone to do anything at all with Apple's copyrighted software. Even if a EULA wasn't bundled with the software, there is nowhere--not in the EULA and not anywhere else--that Apple says it's okay to copy their software onto a non-Apple computer.
In fact, in the complete absence of any license agreement, US copyright law chapter 1 section 117 clearly states that creating modified duplicates of a copyrighted software product for the purpose of running it on a machine, is an act that is not protected by a copyright holder's exclusive rights, provided the person performing the installation obtained his copy of the software legitimately, and provided that, in the event that the original legitimately obtained copy is sold or otherwise transferred, such duplicated copies are either destroyed or (in some cases) transferred along with the original.
That is to say, if Apple didn't distribute its software with a license agreement, then there wouldn't be any question of Apple's ability to dictate whether or not the software was authorized to be installed on any particular computer - they categorically wouldn't have such an ability.
It is only by adding a license agreement to the equation, that Apple is able to attempt to regulate the type of computer on which the installation may take place, so the validity of EULA clauses which attempt to add such restrictions is absolutely of central importance.
IMO, a license agreement can legitimately be used by the copyright holder to confer some limited extra abilities to the customer, to do things which would otherwise have been prohibited by the copyright holder's exclusive rights. In this case it's being used to take away abilities that the customer already had under pure copyright law. If I refused to accept the license agreement, I would nonetheless still be the legitimate owner of the physical media on which is held a copy of the software, so under pure copyright law Apple would not have the ability to prevent me from installing it on the computer of my choice.
In the case of a seller of stills, who is going to prosecute the proprietor if the still might well be used for distilling substances other than alcohol? Probably no one.
And these computers could well be used to run Windows or Linux. Sure, it might just be a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scenario that they are designed for the purpose of running OS X, but how is that different than the already mentioned selling of stills or bongs?
Comments
I'm well aware of the differences in terms, hence my use of the term enforceable.
For the kiddies in the audience then, let's maintain that it's still illegal.
I don't agree that a blanket black/white outcome can be determined if Open Tech doesn't break any copyright laws. Is suppling details on how tumblers in a lock work the same as breaking and entering?
That's why we likely won't see criminal prosecution, but I've no doubt Apple will seek intervention through civil court. Assuming Apple succeeds, if Open Tech then persists, criminal prosecution would soon follow.
I don't get the impression that you understood solipsism's point.
I believe I fully understood his point, in spite of his not providing good examples to illustrate his point. Do you not understand that it's a crime in itself to knowingly help someone else commit a crime, even if it's "just" copyright infringement? A court of law isn't going to care one whit what a narrow, vocal slice of the public's opinion might be on the matter, it's flatly illegal.
I think you need to restate that. If you put a new hard drive in a Mac, and run the install disc, you're basically installing OS X.
Thank you for pointing out my mis-statement. Yes, the EULA allows for installing and running the software only on an Apple computer, regardless of who installs it.
I believe I fully understood his point, in spite of his not providing good examples to illustrate his point. Do you not understand that it's a crime in itself to knowingly help someone else commit a crime, even if it's "just" copyright infringement? A court of law isn't going to care one whit what a narrow, vocal slice of the public's opinion might be on the matter, it's flatly illegal.
I provided examples of legitimate businesses provide others with means for breaking the law without breaking the law themselves. These are called loopholes.
Thank you for pointing out my mis-statement. Yes, the EULA allows for installing and running the software only on an Apple computer, regardless of who installs it.
Why are there a set of people who are focused on the EULA and not on the big picture?
I believe I fully understood his point, in spite of his not providing good examples to illustrate his point.
I thought he did, but it seems you chose to ignore it.
Do you not understand that it's a crime in itself to knowingly help someone else commit a crime, even if it's "just" copyright infringement? A court of law isn't going to care one whit what a narrow, vocal slice of the public's opinion might be on the matter, it's flatly illegal.
I know it's true at least for some crimes, but I don't know about all.
Copyright cases aren't always open and shut or absolute, and the EsquireMac article seemed to suggest that this point is kind of fuzzy.
The EULA isn't really enforceable and since the DMCA should allow you to alter copyrighted code to suit your personal needs?something that Psystar wasn't doing as a reseller?this method should work fine. After all, all they are doing is supplying instructions that you can get at OSx86 Project and InsaneyMac. Like how head shops can sell bongs as tobacco pipes but not the weed the hippies smoke, or how you can legally buy stills or instructions to build stills online even if your state doesn't allow the the production of alcohol.
Plus, they may not be telling them how to break the copyright protection, but how to install a copy of OS X and get it working properly after the copyright protection is already broken.
Encouraging infringement is illegal under the copyright laws. If it can be shown that it's being done for profit, it can rise to the level of criminal behavior.
The is no "enforcement" involved, as that assumes the government will automatically intervene. not true. The copyright holder must file the complaint.
You aren't simply allowed to change code. You must use "cleanroom" techniques to write your own code for the workaround.
If this comes before a judge, rather than a jury, the judge could read behind the lines, esp. if Apple could provide some proof that the computers are mostly being used to run X.
Encouraging infringement is illegal under the copyright laws.
Even if the plans/instructions they sell you are for 'academic' purposes, don't supply a link to to location of the hacked software, and they inform you over and over again that you should not actually attempt to install anything that violates the copyright? There seems to be plenty of precedent that protects this sort of behavior? There are plenty of game console emulators that at least cover the 2nd part of not supplying you with the copyrighted content, only a way of using it once it's in hand.
The analogy works this way. If you sell a $20 case of beer to an adult and then tell him that he can turn a quick profit by selling that case of beer for $30 to the high school kids down the block, you are as guilty has he is for supplying alcohol to minors.
The same would be true if you sold alcohol to an adult that you knew was supplying alcohol to minors.
The law that Apple should be able to win on, against these Mac clones, is that no can profit from your copyrighted material without your permission (license).
The classic example of this is the movie you buy or rent. On it is the EULA that states that it's for personal viewing and that you can only view the movie in a home. Another words, you can not set up your own little neighborhood theater and charge admission to others to watch on your home theater system. Nor can you show it in a place of business in hopes of making money from your customers.
And this EULA is enforcable. A while back my health club use to have movie nights. On Wednesday nights my club would show a couple of movies that they rented from the local Blockbuster. They did not charge admission, they served free popcorn and charged a dollar for a pitcher of beer. They weren't dong this to make money. It was just a benifit for the members.
Well an attorney showed up one day and told them they had to stop it. Even if my health club didn't think they were profiting by selling dollar beer. the attorney made a case that by having the members hang around the club a few extra hours, the club could be making extra money on other items those member could buy. Like soda, candy bars, can/bottle beers, potato chips, etc. My health club got the advise from it's own attorney that they could no longer have movie nights. Unless they show actual non-copyrighted home movies.
The same law applies here with the Mac clones. They can not use someone elses copyrighted work to make money. Not without the permission of the copyright owner. Just like you can't use someone elses copyrighted movie to make money. Even if you bought and own the movie. The copyright owner has every right to protect all potential income derieved from using his coyrighted work.
This is why most hackers don't profit from their hacks. They are right on the border of legal and illegal when they hack other peoples copyrighted software. But they cross over to the illegal side once they try to sell their hacks. They would now be profiting by using others people copyrighted material. Without permission.
So it shouldn't matter whether it's illegal to hack OSX. Or that they encourage the buyers to hack OSX. The only thing that matters is that the Mac clones are using OSX to sell their ware. OSX is copyrighted by Apple. And therefore the Mac clones shouldn't be allow to use OSX as a means of selling their ware. Without Apple's permission or license.
And I won't even get into the RIAA and copyrighted music.
I didn't get to your post before I responded to Solipsism.
You're correct. As for your club, they would be in violation even if they didn't sell beer.
The mere fact that it was being shown in a place if business, which is a for profit establishment, would be enough. It could be that some members paid their dues because of that social night, in addition to the usual pursuits held there.
Even non-profit organizations must gain permission first.
for example; My daughters elementary school PA performed a play every year to raise money for the school. We, the parents acted in it (don't ask!), did the sets, props, etc. Even though the plays are available in book form from the library, or for purchase, we had to pay over $1,000 for the script for our performance.
In addition to that, if the play was being performed in any establishment for profit that could be determined to be within range of our little fiasco, we weren't allowed to do our performance.
No way round it. We also couldn't change a single word, or major stage direction subject to the actual availability of a local theater (the school auditorium).
The same thing is true for computer works when referring to permission or changes.
Even if the plans/instructions they sell you are for 'academic' purposes, don't supply a link to to location of the hacked software, and they inform you over and over again that you should not actually attempt to install anything that violates the copyright? There seems to be plenty of precedent that protects this sort of behavior? There are plenty of game console emulators that at least cover the 2nd part of not supplying you with the copyrighted content, only a way of using it once it's in hand.
It's even true then.
Admittedly, it's a sticky road. For example, the
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
hasn't been taken down. But they are not a commercial establishment.
Well, Sony took the company to court that wrote the PS2 emulator for the Mac. I forgot their name. Sony would likely have won that, but they settled, and the program ended in Sony's hands, from which it disappeared. I believe there have been other suits.
I thought he did, but it seems you chose to ignore it.
Sorry, I thought the legalities had been pretty well sketched out here. But okay, with the requisite disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, here goes...
Like how head shops can sell bongs as tobacco pipes but not the weed the hippies smoke, or how you can legally buy stills or instructions to build stills online even if your state doesn't allow the the production of alcohol.
In the case of a head shop, who is going to sue or prosecute the proprietor if the pipes aren't advertised as being for smoking pot and when the pipes can be used for smoking legal substances other than pot? Probably no one.
In the case of a seller of stills, who is going to prosecute the proprietor if the still might well be used for distilling substances other than alcohol? Probably no one.
In the case of a system designed and advertised specifically for assisting with breaching the license Apple provides with every copy of Mac OS X, when Apple has notified the proprietor directly that no one has been licensed to install the OS on anything other than an Apple computer, who is going to pursue the proprietor? Probably Apple!
S
In the case of a head shop, who is going to sue or prosecute the proprietor if the pipes aren't advertised as being for smoking pot and when the pipes can be used for smoking legal substances other than pot? Probably no one.
Actually, head shops have been closed in various communities.
I provided examples of legitimate businesses provide others with means for breaking the law without breaking the law themselves. These are called loopholes.
See my posting above for the reason why Open Tech likely won't survive in its efforts, if Apple chooses to pursue them.
Why are there a set of people who are focused on the EULA and not on the big picture?
IMHO, the big picture is copyright law and that's what most of us here are focused on. Copyright law is very old, very well established, and very strong. The EULA is the only thing that smacks of being a license for anyone to do anything at all with Apple's copyrighted software. Even if a EULA wasn't bundled with the software, there is nowhere--not in the EULA and not anywhere else--that Apple says it's okay to copy their software onto a non-Apple computer. Consequently, as far as what Open Tech is apparently going to do, the EULA doesn't really matter. Once Apple notifies Open Tech that no one has a license to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, Open Tech can no longer claim ignorance, even if ignorance would be an excuse, which it's not.
What do you see as the big picture?
Actually, head shops have been closed in various communities.
Surely, but surely not for selling pipes.
What do you see as the big picture?
I think it's clear that I've been focusing on copyright.
Surely, but surely not for selling pipes.
As a public nuisance.
I found this case interesting, considering that we all wouldn't be reading this blog if it wasn't for blatant copyright infringement and the profiting from it, that built the internet. Google, Yahoo Groups, MSN, et al. still profit immensely everyday from repackaging other peoples copyrighted content, specifically photos, artwork, books, etc. Recently including of course films and music, see the Viacom battle against Google... which, while I hate it personally, definately has it's legal merits.
I think we'd still be reading this without Google and others retaining unlicensed, complete copies of creative works. In fact, it might be a whole lot easier to find quality information if so dang many snippets weren't copied, munged and misinterpreted all over the Internet.
IMHO, the big picture is copyright law and that's what most of us here are focused on. Copyright law is very old, very well established, and very strong. The EULA is the only thing that smacks of being a license for anyone to do anything at all with Apple's copyrighted software. Even if a EULA wasn't bundled with the software, there is nowhere--not in the EULA and not anywhere else--that Apple says it's okay to copy their software onto a non-Apple computer.
In fact, in the complete absence of any license agreement, US copyright law chapter 1 section 117 clearly states that creating modified duplicates of a copyrighted software product for the purpose of running it on a machine, is an act that is not protected by a copyright holder's exclusive rights, provided the person performing the installation obtained his copy of the software legitimately, and provided that, in the event that the original legitimately obtained copy is sold or otherwise transferred, such duplicated copies are either destroyed or (in some cases) transferred along with the original.
That is to say, if Apple didn't distribute its software with a license agreement, then there wouldn't be any question of Apple's ability to dictate whether or not the software was authorized to be installed on any particular computer - they categorically wouldn't have such an ability.
It is only by adding a license agreement to the equation, that Apple is able to attempt to regulate the type of computer on which the installation may take place, so the validity of EULA clauses which attempt to add such restrictions is absolutely of central importance.
IMO, a license agreement can legitimately be used by the copyright holder to confer some limited extra abilities to the customer, to do things which would otherwise have been prohibited by the copyright holder's exclusive rights. In this case it's being used to take away abilities that the customer already had under pure copyright law. If I refused to accept the license agreement, I would nonetheless still be the legitimate owner of the physical media on which is held a copy of the software, so under pure copyright law Apple would not have the ability to prevent me from installing it on the computer of my choice.
In the case of a seller of stills, who is going to prosecute the proprietor if the still might well be used for distilling substances other than alcohol? Probably no one.
And these computers could well be used to run Windows or Linux. Sure, it might just be a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scenario that they are designed for the purpose of running OS X, but how is that different than the already mentioned selling of stills or bongs?