No, you're interpreting my use of the word "legitimate" as "legally allowed." I'm using "legitimate" as meaning "justifiable, fair."
The copyright system WAS designed to be "fair". The fact that you want it to mean what YOU mean as fair is something else.
Quote:
I understand why we have copyright laws and why they are important. I simply contend the massive power we've instilled into the rights that extend from it. That doesn't make me anti-Constitution as you are subtly implying, it means that I disagree with the modern interpretation of the Constitution within the realm of copyright laws.
Copyright holders used to have even more power, except for the extensions of copyright over the times that I am not happy with either, as they've now gotten to be so long so as to be infinite in extent to most all practical purposes. I understand why certain areas should be extended, but not why all areas have been.
What modern interpretation do you mean other than the extension of time granted ?
Quote:
I don't care whether Psystar lives or dies. I just believe that companies should not be able to control use of a product past the point of sale. That goes for modifying, installing, reselling, what have you. So long as that copy goes toward a single installation of OS X, I believe I am within my rights to do with it what I please.
This is your belief, which is something that has nothing to do with the argument about Psystar. It also has nothing to do with the law.
Quote:
No, you are the one who is not understanding. I know what copyright law says. I disagree with the law.
I understand quite well. You are of two thoughts here.
Quote:
I'm looking for ethical reasons as to why you believe the law is correct, not simply "because copyright law says so." That's a circular argument.
The concept of copyright was to make what happens to an original work be fair to bothe the creater of the work, and to those who would like to use the work. The entire concept is based on fairness, which is also therefore about ethics. it isn't ethical to take someone's work against their will. Or, to use it in a way they don't want.
When you understand that you aren't buyinh the work in these cases, but rather licensing them, then the argument become a different one.
If I buy that painting, its mine. that's recognized through caselaw going way back. But it's also recognized through caselaw, going back a ways, that for multiple copies of a work, we are just leasing in a sense.
Also, the modern world is vastly different from the old one when copyright was first established.
No one would buy a copy of a sculpture and admire it as the original, because it couldn't be an exact copy, and those who made the copies weren't as good as the original artist. Because of that, there wasn't that much worry. There's more of a problem with paintings, but even there, most of the time, it can be resolved, esp. if the artist is still alive.
But once printed works came about, copyright became more important. Few people care if a book is printed the same as the original as long as the words are the same, and it can be easily read. That's when the concept of licensing became of importance.
That carries through to todays computer programs, except that it's a bit more complex.
With that book, there was little others could do with original printed editions other than steal them from the bookstore.
But wih software, the computer they are used on is as important as the software itself.
With Apple, most of their sales come from the hardware that the software controls. When someone buys the software and uses it on another piece of hardware, they're taking that sale away from Apple. we already went through this carefully.
Now, according to you, you don't care. You just want what's good for you. But that's a problem.
If Apple were to lose enough sales of its hardware they might not be able to afford to continue developing, and supporting their software, as they are not set up as MS is to be a software company.
You need to take this to its logical end, which isn't being done.
Now today, Apple isn't as dependent on its computer sales as it used to be. But still, if they lost enough business there, it would be a hardship. Would that be fair? After all, Apple has a lot of employees also.
I get the feeling though, that you will gloss over all of this the way you glossed over all my other explanations, as you just want to believe what you believe.
If that's so, we can both admit that there's no point in continuing this.
Sorry to hear your marriage is on the rocks. If there's anything I can do to help?
Quote:
How does that change that they're selling full versions of the OS off-the-shelf? Who cares if they never sell "just the frame?" They sell "just the OS" and that's what matters.
You've just disregarded the entire argument to which we both pretty much agreed to earlier!
You also disregarded your own statements from before.
Quote:
Calling it an upgrade doesn't make it functionally different from a full version. There is no prerequisite to installing OS X. It's available to everyone to purchase. So long as one's hardware has the proper boot-loader and instruction set, the installer will work.
It doesn't have to be functionally different. It just has to be aimed at a certain group. The group of people who bought the computer with the OS already on it.
Are you then saying that if Apple somehow worked it out so that it couldn't be used on a third party machine that it would be ok then? Because that's exactly how what you said comes out.
What if Apple required anyone buying the OS upgrade to have proof they bought a Mac? would that be ok then?
You are now basing your argument solely on the fact that the upgrade can be installed on a third party machine.
Quote:
If Apple only sold OS X through paid software updates, I'd be on Apple's side on this, but they do not. They sell the OS through retail channels as an independent work, as well as in a complete work, bundled with their hardware. That said, I don't believe they should be allowed to control the software's use after the point-of-sale.
-Clive
So you agree with I just said above?
You understand that the main, if not the only reason they sell the upgrade through other channels is because most people couldn't sustain a fast enough connection to be able to download the entire OS?
Why should the channel of distribution be a factor?
To be a bit more precise than I was above; If Apple only allowed someone to buy one copy per serial number of the machine(s) they owned, then would it be ok for them to buy it from a store?
Am I understanding you correctly that it's the fact that anyone can buy it without proof of ownership of an Apple product capable of using it that's bothering you?
I suppose that Apple could do that, and maybe they will. but I imagine that they don't because it would be a burden on those who lose their receipts, or forget to look on the machine for the serial number, and than how would the store check to see if it's a valid purchase?
They would need a device similar to a credit card swiper that could connect to Apple's network repository of serial numbers.
Hey!
Now we know what that billion dollar server farm Apple is going to build is for!
You are creating that definition to strengthen your case. Apple owns the trademark "Macintosh" and by definition no one else can create a Macintosh. Apple cannot claim stake to any computer running OS X. So let's use this in an example and I will show you how not-ridiculous this is.
I am not creating the definition, it exists. It exists because it is true.
Many if not most proprietary products are composed of non-proprietary parts. The fact that you can buy any of these parts individually does not give you right to assemble and sell the product. This in a nutshell is Psystar's entire business plan. They believe (and sadly so do you) that because they can buy the hardware from one place and the operating system from another, that they have a right to combine them and sell the proprietary combination of the two. This is false. If it were true, the entire concept of intellectual property would be fatally damaged. I know this would not bother some people.
Quote:
Say Warhol Jr. sells standalone duplicates of a painting "Ketchup Bottle" but also sells it with a special frame together as "The Complete Tomato." If I buy "Ketchup Bottle" and put it in my own frame, I have not created a "The Complete Tomato." If I purchase several copies of "Ketchup Bottle," frame them myself and then resell them, I am not selling "The Complete Tomato." I am selling framed duplicates of "Ketchup Bottle" (each duplicate legally purchased, by the way).
A ludicrous analogy, but I suppose no more ludicrous than any thing else you've argued.
You need to take this to its logical end, which isn't being done.
Now today, Apple isn't as dependent on its computer sales as it used to be. But still, if they lost enough business there, it would be a hardship. Would that be fair? After all, Apple has a lot of employees also.
I get the feeling though, that you will gloss over all of this the way you glossed over all my other explanations, as you just want to believe what you believe.
If that's so, we can both admit that there's no point in continuing this.
You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have. I understand that Apple makes most of their money on hardware sales. That isn't the point. The point is that Apple is choosing to subsidize software cost. That's a business decision Apple has made. They don't have to do it that way but they do. Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day. If they're too proud to admit that they can't sustain subsidized software sales, then they deserve to suffer for it. That's not a good business practice.
The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X). Certainly it would, but that alone is not a valid argument for Apple's behalf. Lady Justice is blind for a reason. She must not allow irrelevant information to influence her decisions, i.e. her personal affection for OS X.
So I challenge you to see it like Lady Justice sees it: A company sells two products, Product A and Product B, the latter of which is a combination of Product A and Product C. Should that company have the right to force those who purchase standalone product A that it must be used solely with product C? How is that fair to the customer?
Or scenario 2: A company sells a product. Person A buys that product at the manufacturer's asking price. Is it wrong for Person A to resell that product to Person B? Such an activity does no harm to the company that sells the product as Person B could have just as easily bought that product at the same price.
What if Person A bought two products, combined them and sold the bundle. Is that wrong? Both of the manufacturers received the asking price for their respective products. Once again, Person B could have just purchased the two products himself to create the bundle.
What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?
These are philosophical/ethical questions. If you quote existing laws, I will simply assume you can't defend your own beliefs - or better yet, don't have any of your own to follow - and therefore accept the world as it is because you don't have the passion to change it to reflect what you believe is just and right.
You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have.
The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X).
I'm not sure you have thought this through either. And Melgross's arguments have been anything but sentimental.
When he puts forward the scenario of Apple's dwindling hardware sales affecting their ability to develop their software... he is not emphasizing the "misfortune and tragedy" to Apple but to Psystar. Can't you see that? Psystar's whole business model depends on Apple making Mac OSX. Yet Psystar's very success (and the others who would surely follow) could lead to Apple ending development of the desktop OS.
Quote:
Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day.
You keep saying stuff like this and to me it completely undermines your whole "ethical" argument. You are morally outraged by Apple using established laws to protect their property and yet you suggest that just bumping up the price or taking the product off the shelves would be fine. You suggest that laws should be changed so that a company like Psystar can legally compete with Apple. How could Psystar compete if Apple stopped selling OS X or charged $500 a copy? How would that be any more ethical?
A can't face wading through your other 'alphabetti challenges', but I'll take this one on!
Quote:
What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?
How's this for a business idea? Go to iTunes and start buying bundles of individual tracks by .... say ... Pink Floyd. Then try selling those bundles as "Pink Floyd's Greatest Hits" from your own web site. See how far you would get. Pink Floyd don't care that you have paid for every track. They don't want to sell those tracks in that bundle. They don't want that running order. And they certainly object to the great big picture of Clive at Five on the cover.
Pink Floyd did not give you permission to do any of this. You don't have the legal right to do it, why should you have a moral or ethical right to do it. Its not your stuff. This is not nuts and bolts that you are buying and selling. It's another persons intellectual property. Who is being immoral? Pink Floyd or you?
I know that's what the law says. I'm saying I don't agree. If I buy a product, why should I have to have permission to resell that product?
You do have enery right to resell that product you bought. There's even a law that states you can. It the rights you have under the "first sale doctrine". No EULA can take away that right. Psystar can buy a copy of OSX and resell that copy for what ever they can get for it. They can frame it, wrap it in a pretty box, break it in half, paint it or what ever. So long as the original IP is exactly the way they bought it.
It's the copy that they put in their PC that is in question. That's why all your painting analogy don't work. You're talking about reselling the copy that you bought. Psystar is also reselling a copy that they made from the original. And copyright laws protect the IP owner and user in regards to that copy. Software by nature has to be copied before anyone can use it. This would mean that everyone using copyrighted software would be violating the old copyright laws when they make a copy of it to use on their machines. So a special section of the copyright law was written to protect software users and the IP owners when a copy is made to be used on a machine. And that copy is treated differently than the copy Psystar bought.
Theoretically, if that copy of OSX that is in the PC the Psystar sells was legally "derived" from the original copy of OSX that they bought in the store, then it doesn't really need to be in the PC when they sell it. The purchaser should be able to put OSX onto the PC. From the original he got with the purchase. After the purchase. Right?
Dell, HP, Acer needs permission (and maybe pay for a license) from Microsoft to sell PC's with pre-loaded Windows on them. Plus they got to pay for the OEM version of Windows that comes with the PC. Why should it be different for Psystar when it comes to Apple and pre-loaded OSX.
Quote:
Bad analogy. Movies get seen by thousands/millions of people. Copies of OS X purchased then resold by Psystar are 1:1.
It doesn't matter if zero people sees it. You still need permission to use some one elses work in yours, if it's for commercial gain.
Quote:
Then I disagree with the requirements of a "developed nation" and I disagree with strengthening of copyright laws. It also seems pretty hypocritical of an administration that hates big business to armor it with stricter IP/copyright laws.
President Obama didn't seem to hate big businesses like Bio-tech, Silcon Valley, and Hollywood Studios (movies and music). I let you guess what they all have in common. Or maybe you don't think that the likes of Cisco, HP, Apple, Microsoft, MGM, Warner Bros., Disney, Merck and pfiser constitute "big business".
Quote:
Once again, Psystar is not going into an Apple Store and shoplifting OS X. They are paying the full retail price and then reselling it.
Once again. Psystar is also reselling a copy of that OSX on their PC. They are buying one copy and selling two copies. It's the second "adaptation" (derivative) copy that they can't re-sell or give away without Apples permission. "Derivatives have been addressed in copyright laws for as long as copyright laws existed.
Quote:
I agree that if the entire work is the frame + graphic, then yes, Apple has the right to sell it that way. What I don't think Apple should have the right to do is sell you a duplicate of the graphic and force you to put it in a frame that can only be purchased from them.
Why do they get to have it both ways? Either they sell the whole thing as a complete work of art, or they sell the duplicate and let the buyer use it as (s)he chooses. Apple should not have the right to control how I use a product of theirs after I've paid for it and left the store.
-Clive
You're still looking at it backwards. Apple don't force you to buy their computers when you buy a retail copy of OSX. You're suppose to already have an Apple computer when you buy the retail OSX. And Apple isn't forcing you to buy OSX. Want to use OSX? Buy a Mac. Hey, I can buy a retail copy of Halo 3. But guess what? I have to buy an Xbox to play it. No difference.
I know what you're trying to convey about restrictions in copyright laws. But you seem to also have that backwards. You want to restrict the amount of control an IP owner has on his IP so that competitors can step in and use it, without having to pay or even have to ask permission for that right to use it. If this were the case, then most IP would never exist in the form it exist today. Some how you think that competitors having almost free access to some one else's IP will offer a better product. But in reality most will only offer a cheaper inferior product.
You think Apple would pour billions in to R&D to develop OSX if they knew they couldn't protect OSX from companies like Psystar?
Would the Beatles have last long enough to make "Sgt. Pepper" if everyone began using their songs?
Would Rowling have even attemted to write any "Harry Potter" sequels if she had to compete with all the other writers that uses her first book to write their own "enhance" version of "Harry Potter".?
Would any drug company spend the billions it takes to develop drugs to cure diseases if they knew some generic company can come along right after the drug is release and sell a cheaper version because they didn't have to pay for any of the R&D that went into developing that drug?
You're more concern about the rights of a parasite to feed off a host blood, than about the host. But without the host supplying the blood in the first place, there would be no parasites.
You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have. I understand that Apple makes most of their money on hardware sales. That isn't the point. The point is that Apple is choosing to subsidize software cost. That's a business decision Apple has made. They don't have to do it that way but they do. Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day. If they're too proud to admit that they can't sustain subsidized software sales, then they deserve to suffer for it. That's not a good business practice.
I can only go by what you write, not by what you think. I have to assume that what you write is what you think.
Apple does not subsidize their software. They make a lot of profit on OS sales. That's stated every time the have a new upgrade come out.
Quote:
The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X). Certainly it would, but that alone is not a valid argument for Apple's behalf. Lady Justice is blind for a reason. She must not allow irrelevant information to influence her decisions, i.e. her personal affection for OS X.
It's not being sentimental. It's simply stating what is true. And what is true is based on past performance.
Quote:
So I challenge you to see it like Lady Justice sees it: A company sells two products, Product A and Product B, the latter of which is a combination of Product A and Product C. Should that company have the right to force those who purchase standalone product A that it must be used solely with product C? How is that fair to the customer?
If product B is dependent on product A, then yes. If product a is solely intended to be used with product, then again, yes.
Quote:
Or scenario 2: A company sells a product. Person A buys that product at the manufacturer's asking price. Is it wrong for Person A to resell that product to Person B? Such an activity does no harm to the company that sells the product as Person B could have just as easily bought that product at the same price.
If the product is actually a license to use that product, and the person has thereby used that license, then they must get permission from the copyright holder, and give all materials to the person they are selling it to, and wipe any copy they may have. That's the law, and I agree with it. It's what happens if you buy a book, and then sell that book to someone else, or a Cd, or whatever. normally, you don't really need to contact the copyright holder, but if what you bought includes a serial number, or registration of some sort, and you've already done that, then you should.
Quote:
What if Person A bought two products, combined them and sold the bundle. Is that wrong? Both of the manufacturers received the asking price for their respective products. Once again, Person B could have just purchased the two products himself to create the bundle.
It's wrong if the copyright holder doesn't give permission for that act, as they are the sole decider in these matters.
Quote:
What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?
Then again, by law, the breaking of copyright rises to a criminal rather than a civil violation, and can be prosecuted in criminal court.
Quote:
These are philosophical/ethical questions. If you quote existing laws, I will simply assume you can't defend your own beliefs - or better yet, don't have any of your own to follow - and therefore accept the world as it is because you don't have the passion to change it to reflect what you believe is just and right.
-Clive
I have no idea what you're talking about here. If I say that I agree with the present laws, you say I can't defend my beliefs? You've got to be joking!
My "beliefs" are that copyright law is pretty much correct and has evolved over the centuries, because it works, and serves a very important purpose, which is to give the originator protection so that they may make a living off their own works.
I don't see you making any logical argument so far at all. All you've said is that you don't agree with the laws. That's not defending your "beliefs" at all. You haven't given a single cogent reason, other than what amounts to an; I want it, so it must be right.
You also seem to think that having some absurd notion of "changing" society is something you have originated. I ca assure you that you are not the first to think so. Many think they are changing things "with passion" when it's just ignorance about the way things work.
Most people understand that once they grow up and get around in the world, but apparently, some do not.
Here is the bottom line in this whole Psystar/Hachintosh/OSX clone battle going on right now:
OSX - by itself - as an operating system - is the probably the best overall OS available to consumers, and can easily and quite successfully compete on it's own performance/stability-wise, and commercially as a stand alone product - especially against the much inferior Windows OS offerings on the market. Even if it was to sell for as much as $299 retail, if it was an installable option for all computers - whether they be PC, or Mac, I do believe that it would slowly but surely become the dominant OS within a couple of years
Where Apple cannot compete head-on - is in the general computer hardware market - even though they still appear to have an edge - with their superior overall exterior design (my subjective opinion). Sleek looking aluminum Uni-Bodies and heavy, aluminum cheese grater tower cases do not change the the fact that the internal components of Apple's computers are the same, or very similar in technical capability, or quality as their PC counter-parts and are assembled in the very same countries as PC's are (sometimes even in the very same factory). The notion (heavily propagandized by Apple and AppleFlacks here on AI ) that Macs are magically made to a "BMW*", or "Ferrari*" higher quality standard (to further flog the popular pet motor vehicle metaphor widely misused ), and that they are "much better built" (by Jobsian elves perhaps?) - is more legend and legacy* than reality (*Apple was at one time head-and-shoulders above their PC rivals - quality-wise - in the PPC era and did warrant, IMHO, what has become well known as the "Appletax").
(*To my knowledge, nether BMW's, nor Ferrari's are manufactured in some generic, low wage factory in China - as most, if not all of Apple's "premium" computers currently are)
As an Apple Technician/Consultant, I have seen the slow and steady demise of whatever quality edge that Apple may once have held over PC's - especially so in the last few years - in favor of much more of an emphasis on style over substance. This is not to suggest that there isn't a boatload of cheaply made, crappy PC machines currently available. But at least they are correspondingly cheap in price (sub-$500) to match.
With Apple, you also get cheaply made, craptastic, cracking plastic MacBooks that are some the most overpriced, underspec'ed, poorly made 1K+ laptops ever to be sold by anyone. I am seeing them falling apart left and right on many of my clients unfortunate enough to have plunked down 1-2K for them ( never on my recommendation ) - only to suffer from their HD's quickly dying, batteries failing - and with most of them now sporting polycarbonate cases that are rapidly discoloring (white models) and literally fracturing into pieces - and all of that is just within the first year. Many, many of the 24" iMacs have serious video/screen issues - mostly because of cheap LCD panels used, poor assembly, and faulty graphics cards that are frying. Apple has also made replacing/upgrading a simple thing like the HD on all of the Intel iMacs (the most common failure on any computer), nearly impossible without breaking the machine or warranty. And on and on..
Anyone thinking that just because they paid a "premium" for their Mac that they actually have any better hardware than an equivalent PC with the same specs is seriously drinking a little too much of the Apple koolaid.
This is plainly why Apple is white knuckling the OS to the hardware. Without their crown jewel (OSX) inextricably embedded onto the rapidly diminishing quality of their "premium" hardware - they would have to really compete with their inflated "premium" hardware directly in an open market on it's own merits and "value" - independent of OSX - since the same OS could be acquired on any PC of similar "value". Except for their very low end offerings like the iPhone & iPod, Apple would most likely lose a sizable percentage of their "closed-loop" market share in a very short period of time. They just cannot favorably compete with much lower priced PC's of equal, or better performance, features and quality that can also run OSX just as well, or better than anything that Apple is currently offering - "Premium" exterior design notwithstanding.
So it's easy to see why so many here on AI, and other Mac enthusiasts sites get nearly apoplectic when even the slightest suggestion of any kind of a decoupling of OSX from Apple's hardware. They know that their position within Apple (many, many Cuperatino Apple Inc.'ers and those that develop for them here), or their investments in AALP shares would end up take a major hit if OSX was ever "legally" liberated from being installed exclusively on Apple's "premium" hardware. That is why most Appleflacks will reflexively take up the old IP/copywrite sword to quickly undercut any who dare to challenge Apple's OS/Hardware monopoly (and yes, it is a monopoly, but strictly on the OS, and not on the hardware - which is mostly generic components sans Apple's proprietary aluminum exterior designs). We all know what most likely would happen if current PC consumers finally had the free choice (which most Mac users already have if they want to install Windows on their Mac) of buying OSX to run on any machine that APPLE, Dell, HP, Sony, or anyone else sold - especially with sub-1K laptops/desktops...it would most likely be bye, bye to what's left of Apple's junky, hugely overpriced MacBooks - as well as a dramatic sales decline for the overpriced, underspec'ed Mac Minis. Mid-range iMacs would most likely hold their own, but the high end MacBook Pro's (2.5K+), and the Mac Pro's across the line would also suffer steep sales declines in favor of much cheaper, but equivalent PC alternatives.
Lastly, to all of you IP/copywrite absolutist here on MR and your fanatical adherence to Apple's IP party line (like Apple themselves haven't ever, or continue to "appropriate" other lesser folk's IP "illegally): how many of you have ever received, downloaded, or somehow came to acquire something on your "premium" Mac, or Macs - that you didn't actually..shall we say... purchase? Whether it's a just a small program, an MP3 file, a video, an image, a copy of another competing OS (XP, or Vista) etc..? And how many of you have also violated Apple's own EULA by installing your sacrosant copy of OSX on more than one computer that you own, or use at work, or by obtaining a copy from another source without full compensation to Apple?
If any of you who have pilloried Psystar as "thieves", "Hustlers" and so on, have, or have ever had one tiny-tiny shred of someone else IP that you did not fully and completely compensate them for.....then you have undercut your entire high and holy IP/copywrite dogma to it's core. If you are going to live by, and enforce onto others complete IP purity, then you are fully subject to the same, absolute standards. To take a page from your IP/Copywrite scripture bible, it seems that the existing and convoluted IP/Copywrite laws do not care on whit whether it's just a single little file, or it's a company like Psystar reselling "modified" "unathorized" copies of OSX, it's straight-up "infringement", and by definition: it is all "stealing"- big, or small. And so, By most official calculations, the vast majority of us computer/technological users are flagrant "thieves", and should be subject to the very same contempt and scorn and punishment that has become the narrative here on AI, and on other Apple fanboy sites.
Psystar might be kaput (no real surprises there), but the movement to free OSX from increasingly mediocre, overpriced hardware has just begun in earnest.
And now that Psystar seems to be fading out of your wrathful IP infringing sites, will you now move full steam to the next satan of the month who dares to challenge OSX on Apple Hardware only orthodoxy - EFI-X?
Groan. Once again we have to suffer the putrid, regurgitated and utterly baseless argument that if Apple doesn't wish to adopt Microsoft's business plan, it is perfectly legitimate to force them to do so by any available means, legal or otherwise. Where do these screwball ideas come from, and how are they justified? That is what I would like to know.
Beautifully stated. And true. The real question is how might Apple become itself once again - and create excellence? I need a new laptop - to move lots of data very quickly. Should my 20-year relationship with Apple come to an end because their marketing niche does not include the kinds of performance options (speed, graphics, hard drive space) which gamers on the PC take for granted?
That's what I've been saying minus the legal mumbo jumbo. Psystar's unauthorized retailing implies copyright violation. They can't sell pre-loaded PCs like MacMall can.
Psystar isn't simply selling a duplicated work with "changed names." If anything, they're buying the book, whiting-out the English names and typing in Spanish names, then reselling that one copy. They repeat that process for each "book" they sell. There is no market damage to the author because she gets a sale for every copy purchased.
-Clive
No, what they are doing is selling a photocopy of the book..... same words, different hardware... same as going to any book store, buying a book, photocopying it hundreds of times and reselling those copies. its ILLEGAL and should be.
Not either, really. It's more like saying that because a book is nothing more than a combination generic words, paper and ink, that any given combination of the words, paper and ink aren't protected property.
should my 20-year relationship with apple come to an end because their marketing niche does not include the kinds of performance options (speed, graphics, hard drive space) which gamers on the pc take for granted?
I second Piot?s post. Always go with the product that fits your needs and wants best because perfection rarely occurs in life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
yes !
so this is the proof that we are in fact held hostage by our investment in closed systems. and our resentment at having to move on IS the bottom line in stevielee's post.
so this is the proof that we are in fact held hostage by our investment in closed systems.
Bepop, it's really simple. If you feel that a company no longer offers you a solution then you have other choices. I assume that you upgrade and replace your software just as you do your hardware. Probably many times over your 20 year timeframe.
It may be inconvenient and indeed be a bit costly but it's never been easier to change platforms and you can look forward to recouping your money every time you upgrade your new cheaper hardware.
Comments
No, you're interpreting my use of the word "legitimate" as "legally allowed." I'm using "legitimate" as meaning "justifiable, fair."
The copyright system WAS designed to be "fair". The fact that you want it to mean what YOU mean as fair is something else.
I understand why we have copyright laws and why they are important. I simply contend the massive power we've instilled into the rights that extend from it. That doesn't make me anti-Constitution as you are subtly implying, it means that I disagree with the modern interpretation of the Constitution within the realm of copyright laws.
Copyright holders used to have even more power, except for the extensions of copyright over the times that I am not happy with either, as they've now gotten to be so long so as to be infinite in extent to most all practical purposes. I understand why certain areas should be extended, but not why all areas have been.
What modern interpretation do you mean other than the extension of time granted ?
I don't care whether Psystar lives or dies. I just believe that companies should not be able to control use of a product past the point of sale. That goes for modifying, installing, reselling, what have you. So long as that copy goes toward a single installation of OS X, I believe I am within my rights to do with it what I please.
This is your belief, which is something that has nothing to do with the argument about Psystar. It also has nothing to do with the law.
No, you are the one who is not understanding. I know what copyright law says. I disagree with the law.
I understand quite well. You are of two thoughts here.
I'm looking for ethical reasons as to why you believe the law is correct, not simply "because copyright law says so." That's a circular argument.
The concept of copyright was to make what happens to an original work be fair to bothe the creater of the work, and to those who would like to use the work. The entire concept is based on fairness, which is also therefore about ethics. it isn't ethical to take someone's work against their will. Or, to use it in a way they don't want.
When you understand that you aren't buyinh the work in these cases, but rather licensing them, then the argument become a different one.
If I buy that painting, its mine. that's recognized through caselaw going way back. But it's also recognized through caselaw, going back a ways, that for multiple copies of a work, we are just leasing in a sense.
Also, the modern world is vastly different from the old one when copyright was first established.
No one would buy a copy of a sculpture and admire it as the original, because it couldn't be an exact copy, and those who made the copies weren't as good as the original artist. Because of that, there wasn't that much worry. There's more of a problem with paintings, but even there, most of the time, it can be resolved, esp. if the artist is still alive.
But once printed works came about, copyright became more important. Few people care if a book is printed the same as the original as long as the words are the same, and it can be easily read. That's when the concept of licensing became of importance.
That carries through to todays computer programs, except that it's a bit more complex.
With that book, there was little others could do with original printed editions other than steal them from the bookstore.
But wih software, the computer they are used on is as important as the software itself.
With Apple, most of their sales come from the hardware that the software controls. When someone buys the software and uses it on another piece of hardware, they're taking that sale away from Apple. we already went through this carefully.
Now, according to you, you don't care. You just want what's good for you. But that's a problem.
If Apple were to lose enough sales of its hardware they might not be able to afford to continue developing, and supporting their software, as they are not set up as MS is to be a software company.
You need to take this to its logical end, which isn't being done.
Now today, Apple isn't as dependent on its computer sales as it used to be. But still, if they lost enough business there, it would be a hardship. Would that be fair? After all, Apple has a lot of employees also.
I get the feeling though, that you will gloss over all of this the way you glossed over all my other explanations, as you just want to believe what you believe.
If that's so, we can both admit that there's no point in continuing this.
Hah, you wish, buddy
Sorry to hear your marriage is on the rocks. If there's anything I can do to help?
How does that change that they're selling full versions of the OS off-the-shelf? Who cares if they never sell "just the frame?" They sell "just the OS" and that's what matters.
You've just disregarded the entire argument to which we both pretty much agreed to earlier!
You also disregarded your own statements from before.
Calling it an upgrade doesn't make it functionally different from a full version. There is no prerequisite to installing OS X. It's available to everyone to purchase. So long as one's hardware has the proper boot-loader and instruction set, the installer will work.
It doesn't have to be functionally different. It just has to be aimed at a certain group. The group of people who bought the computer with the OS already on it.
Are you then saying that if Apple somehow worked it out so that it couldn't be used on a third party machine that it would be ok then? Because that's exactly how what you said comes out.
What if Apple required anyone buying the OS upgrade to have proof they bought a Mac? would that be ok then?
You are now basing your argument solely on the fact that the upgrade can be installed on a third party machine.
If Apple only sold OS X through paid software updates, I'd be on Apple's side on this, but they do not. They sell the OS through retail channels as an independent work, as well as in a complete work, bundled with their hardware. That said, I don't believe they should be allowed to control the software's use after the point-of-sale.
-Clive
So you agree with I just said above?
You understand that the main, if not the only reason they sell the upgrade through other channels is because most people couldn't sustain a fast enough connection to be able to download the entire OS?
Why should the channel of distribution be a factor?
To be a bit more precise than I was above; If Apple only allowed someone to buy one copy per serial number of the machine(s) they owned, then would it be ok for them to buy it from a store?
Am I understanding you correctly that it's the fact that anyone can buy it without proof of ownership of an Apple product capable of using it that's bothering you?
I suppose that Apple could do that, and maybe they will. but I imagine that they don't because it would be a burden on those who lose their receipts, or forget to look on the machine for the serial number, and than how would the store check to see if it's a valid purchase?
They would need a device similar to a credit card swiper that could connect to Apple's network repository of serial numbers.
Hey!
Now we know what that billion dollar server farm Apple is going to build is for!
You are creating that definition to strengthen your case. Apple owns the trademark "Macintosh" and by definition no one else can create a Macintosh. Apple cannot claim stake to any computer running OS X. So let's use this in an example and I will show you how not-ridiculous this is.
I am not creating the definition, it exists. It exists because it is true.
Many if not most proprietary products are composed of non-proprietary parts. The fact that you can buy any of these parts individually does not give you right to assemble and sell the product. This in a nutshell is Psystar's entire business plan. They believe (and sadly so do you) that because they can buy the hardware from one place and the operating system from another, that they have a right to combine them and sell the proprietary combination of the two. This is false. If it were true, the entire concept of intellectual property would be fatally damaged. I know this would not bother some people.
Say Warhol Jr. sells standalone duplicates of a painting "Ketchup Bottle" but also sells it with a special frame together as "The Complete Tomato." If I buy "Ketchup Bottle" and put it in my own frame, I have not created a "The Complete Tomato." If I purchase several copies of "Ketchup Bottle," frame them myself and then resell them, I am not selling "The Complete Tomato." I am selling framed duplicates of "Ketchup Bottle" (each duplicate legally purchased, by the way).
A ludicrous analogy, but I suppose no more ludicrous than any thing else you've argued.
You need to take this to its logical end, which isn't being done.
Now today, Apple isn't as dependent on its computer sales as it used to be. But still, if they lost enough business there, it would be a hardship. Would that be fair? After all, Apple has a lot of employees also.
I get the feeling though, that you will gloss over all of this the way you glossed over all my other explanations, as you just want to believe what you believe.
If that's so, we can both admit that there's no point in continuing this.
You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have. I understand that Apple makes most of their money on hardware sales. That isn't the point. The point is that Apple is choosing to subsidize software cost. That's a business decision Apple has made. They don't have to do it that way but they do. Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day. If they're too proud to admit that they can't sustain subsidized software sales, then they deserve to suffer for it. That's not a good business practice.
The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X). Certainly it would, but that alone is not a valid argument for Apple's behalf. Lady Justice is blind for a reason. She must not allow irrelevant information to influence her decisions, i.e. her personal affection for OS X.
So I challenge you to see it like Lady Justice sees it: A company sells two products, Product A and Product B, the latter of which is a combination of Product A and Product C. Should that company have the right to force those who purchase standalone product A that it must be used solely with product C? How is that fair to the customer?
Or scenario 2: A company sells a product. Person A buys that product at the manufacturer's asking price. Is it wrong for Person A to resell that product to Person B? Such an activity does no harm to the company that sells the product as Person B could have just as easily bought that product at the same price.
What if Person A bought two products, combined them and sold the bundle. Is that wrong? Both of the manufacturers received the asking price for their respective products. Once again, Person B could have just purchased the two products himself to create the bundle.
What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?
These are philosophical/ethical questions. If you quote existing laws, I will simply assume you can't defend your own beliefs - or better yet, don't have any of your own to follow - and therefore accept the world as it is because you don't have the passion to change it to reflect what you believe is just and right.
-Clive
Sorry to hear your marriage is on the rocks. If there's anything I can do to help?
I think there was a mis-understanding. I thought you were proposing my wife slept naked with you to fix my marriage.
More reply later.
You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have.
The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X).
I'm not sure you have thought this through either. And Melgross's arguments have been anything but sentimental.
When he puts forward the scenario of Apple's dwindling hardware sales affecting their ability to develop their software... he is not emphasizing the "misfortune and tragedy" to Apple but to Psystar. Can't you see that? Psystar's whole business model depends on Apple making Mac OSX. Yet Psystar's very success (and the others who would surely follow) could lead to Apple ending development of the desktop OS.
Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day.
You keep saying stuff like this and to me it completely undermines your whole "ethical" argument. You are morally outraged by Apple using established laws to protect their property and yet you suggest that just bumping up the price or taking the product off the shelves would be fine. You suggest that laws should be changed so that a company like Psystar can legally compete with Apple. How could Psystar compete if Apple stopped selling OS X or charged $500 a copy? How would that be any more ethical?
A can't face wading through your other 'alphabetti challenges', but I'll take this one on!
What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?
How's this for a business idea? Go to iTunes and start buying bundles of individual tracks by .... say ... Pink Floyd. Then try selling those bundles as "Pink Floyd's Greatest Hits" from your own web site. See how far you would get. Pink Floyd don't care that you have paid for every track. They don't want to sell those tracks in that bundle. They don't want that running order. And they certainly object to the great big picture of Clive at Five on the cover.
Pink Floyd did not give you permission to do any of this. You don't have the legal right to do it, why should you have a moral or ethical right to do it. Its not your stuff. This is not nuts and bolts that you are buying and selling. It's another persons intellectual property. Who is being immoral? Pink Floyd or you?
I know that's what the law says. I'm saying I don't agree. If I buy a product, why should I have to have permission to resell that product?
You do have enery right to resell that product you bought. There's even a law that states you can. It the rights you have under the "first sale doctrine". No EULA can take away that right. Psystar can buy a copy of OSX and resell that copy for what ever they can get for it. They can frame it, wrap it in a pretty box, break it in half, paint it or what ever. So long as the original IP is exactly the way they bought it.
It's the copy that they put in their PC that is in question. That's why all your painting analogy don't work. You're talking about reselling the copy that you bought. Psystar is also reselling a copy that they made from the original. And copyright laws protect the IP owner and user in regards to that copy. Software by nature has to be copied before anyone can use it. This would mean that everyone using copyrighted software would be violating the old copyright laws when they make a copy of it to use on their machines. So a special section of the copyright law was written to protect software users and the IP owners when a copy is made to be used on a machine. And that copy is treated differently than the copy Psystar bought.
Theoretically, if that copy of OSX that is in the PC the Psystar sells was legally "derived" from the original copy of OSX that they bought in the store, then it doesn't really need to be in the PC when they sell it. The purchaser should be able to put OSX onto the PC. From the original he got with the purchase. After the purchase. Right?
Dell, HP, Acer needs permission (and maybe pay for a license) from Microsoft to sell PC's with pre-loaded Windows on them. Plus they got to pay for the OEM version of Windows that comes with the PC. Why should it be different for Psystar when it comes to Apple and pre-loaded OSX.
Bad analogy. Movies get seen by thousands/millions of people. Copies of OS X purchased then resold by Psystar are 1:1.
It doesn't matter if zero people sees it. You still need permission to use some one elses work in yours, if it's for commercial gain.
Then I disagree with the requirements of a "developed nation" and I disagree with strengthening of copyright laws. It also seems pretty hypocritical of an administration that hates big business to armor it with stricter IP/copyright laws.
President Obama didn't seem to hate big businesses like Bio-tech, Silcon Valley, and Hollywood Studios (movies and music). I let you guess what they all have in common. Or maybe you don't think that the likes of Cisco, HP, Apple, Microsoft, MGM, Warner Bros., Disney, Merck and pfiser constitute "big business".
Once again, Psystar is not going into an Apple Store and shoplifting OS X. They are paying the full retail price and then reselling it.
Once again. Psystar is also reselling a copy of that OSX on their PC. They are buying one copy and selling two copies. It's the second "adaptation" (derivative) copy that they can't re-sell or give away without Apples permission. "Derivatives have been addressed in copyright laws for as long as copyright laws existed.
I agree that if the entire work is the frame + graphic, then yes, Apple has the right to sell it that way. What I don't think Apple should have the right to do is sell you a duplicate of the graphic and force you to put it in a frame that can only be purchased from them.
Why do they get to have it both ways? Either they sell the whole thing as a complete work of art, or they sell the duplicate and let the buyer use it as (s)he chooses. Apple should not have the right to control how I use a product of theirs after I've paid for it and left the store.
-Clive
You're still looking at it backwards. Apple don't force you to buy their computers when you buy a retail copy of OSX. You're suppose to already have an Apple computer when you buy the retail OSX. And Apple isn't forcing you to buy OSX. Want to use OSX? Buy a Mac. Hey, I can buy a retail copy of Halo 3. But guess what? I have to buy an Xbox to play it. No difference.
I know what you're trying to convey about restrictions in copyright laws. But you seem to also have that backwards. You want to restrict the amount of control an IP owner has on his IP so that competitors can step in and use it, without having to pay or even have to ask permission for that right to use it. If this were the case, then most IP would never exist in the form it exist today. Some how you think that competitors having almost free access to some one else's IP will offer a better product. But in reality most will only offer a cheaper inferior product.
You think Apple would pour billions in to R&D to develop OSX if they knew they couldn't protect OSX from companies like Psystar?
Would the Beatles have last long enough to make "Sgt. Pepper" if everyone began using their songs?
Would Rowling have even attemted to write any "Harry Potter" sequels if she had to compete with all the other writers that uses her first book to write their own "enhance" version of "Harry Potter".?
Would any drug company spend the billions it takes to develop drugs to cure diseases if they knew some generic company can come along right after the drug is release and sell a cheaper version because they didn't have to pay for any of the R&D that went into developing that drug?
You're more concern about the rights of a parasite to feed off a host blood, than about the host. But without the host supplying the blood in the first place, there would be no parasites.
You are assuming I haven't thought it out to the end. I have. I understand that Apple makes most of their money on hardware sales. That isn't the point. The point is that Apple is choosing to subsidize software cost. That's a business decision Apple has made. They don't have to do it that way but they do. Apple could just as easily charge $300+ for OS X and call it a day. If they're too proud to admit that they can't sustain subsidized software sales, then they deserve to suffer for it. That's not a good business practice.
I can only go by what you write, not by what you think. I have to assume that what you write is what you think.
Apple does not subsidize their software. They make a lot of profit on OS sales. That's stated every time the have a new upgrade come out.
The difference between you and I is that you argue sentimentally for Apple (emphasizing the hardship / misfortune / tragedy it would be to lose OS X). Certainly it would, but that alone is not a valid argument for Apple's behalf. Lady Justice is blind for a reason. She must not allow irrelevant information to influence her decisions, i.e. her personal affection for OS X.
It's not being sentimental. It's simply stating what is true. And what is true is based on past performance.
So I challenge you to see it like Lady Justice sees it: A company sells two products, Product A and Product B, the latter of which is a combination of Product A and Product C. Should that company have the right to force those who purchase standalone product A that it must be used solely with product C? How is that fair to the customer?
If product B is dependent on product A, then yes. If product a is solely intended to be used with product, then again, yes.
Or scenario 2: A company sells a product. Person A buys that product at the manufacturer's asking price. Is it wrong for Person A to resell that product to Person B? Such an activity does no harm to the company that sells the product as Person B could have just as easily bought that product at the same price.
If the product is actually a license to use that product, and the person has thereby used that license, then they must get permission from the copyright holder, and give all materials to the person they are selling it to, and wipe any copy they may have. That's the law, and I agree with it. It's what happens if you buy a book, and then sell that book to someone else, or a Cd, or whatever. normally, you don't really need to contact the copyright holder, but if what you bought includes a serial number, or registration of some sort, and you've already done that, then you should.
What if Person A bought two products, combined them and sold the bundle. Is that wrong? Both of the manufacturers received the asking price for their respective products. Once again, Person B could have just purchased the two products himself to create the bundle.
It's wrong if the copyright holder doesn't give permission for that act, as they are the sole decider in these matters.
What if Person A wants to make a business of selling the bundles? What changes?
Then again, by law, the breaking of copyright rises to a criminal rather than a civil violation, and can be prosecuted in criminal court.
These are philosophical/ethical questions. If you quote existing laws, I will simply assume you can't defend your own beliefs - or better yet, don't have any of your own to follow - and therefore accept the world as it is because you don't have the passion to change it to reflect what you believe is just and right.
-Clive
I have no idea what you're talking about here. If I say that I agree with the present laws, you say I can't defend my beliefs? You've got to be joking!
My "beliefs" are that copyright law is pretty much correct and has evolved over the centuries, because it works, and serves a very important purpose, which is to give the originator protection so that they may make a living off their own works.
I don't see you making any logical argument so far at all. All you've said is that you don't agree with the laws. That's not defending your "beliefs" at all. You haven't given a single cogent reason, other than what amounts to an; I want it, so it must be right.
You also seem to think that having some absurd notion of "changing" society is something you have originated. I ca assure you that you are not the first to think so. Many think they are changing things "with passion" when it's just ignorance about the way things work.
Most people understand that once they grow up and get around in the world, but apparently, some do not.
I think there was a mis-understanding. I thought you were proposing my wife slept naked with you to fix my marriage.
More reply later.
Actually, I was assuming that she was sleeping with you.
OSX - by itself - as an operating system - is the probably the best overall OS available to consumers, and can easily and quite successfully compete on it's own performance/stability-wise, and commercially as a stand alone product - especially against the much inferior Windows OS offerings on the market. Even if it was to sell for as much as $299 retail, if it was an installable option for all computers - whether they be PC, or Mac, I do believe that it would slowly but surely become the dominant OS within a couple of years
Where Apple cannot compete head-on - is in the general computer hardware market - even though they still appear to have an edge - with their superior overall exterior design (my subjective opinion). Sleek looking aluminum Uni-Bodies and heavy, aluminum cheese grater tower cases do not change the the fact that the internal components of Apple's computers are the same, or very similar in technical capability, or quality as their PC counter-parts and are assembled in the very same countries as PC's are (sometimes even in the very same factory). The notion (heavily propagandized by Apple and AppleFlacks here on AI ) that Macs are magically made to a "BMW*", or "Ferrari*" higher quality standard (to further flog the popular pet motor vehicle metaphor widely misused ), and that they are "much better built" (by Jobsian elves perhaps?) - is more legend and legacy* than reality (*Apple was at one time head-and-shoulders above their PC rivals - quality-wise - in the PPC era and did warrant, IMHO, what has become well known as the "Appletax").
(*To my knowledge, nether BMW's, nor Ferrari's are manufactured in some generic, low wage factory in China - as most, if not all of Apple's "premium" computers currently are)
As an Apple Technician/Consultant, I have seen the slow and steady demise of whatever quality edge that Apple may once have held over PC's - especially so in the last few years - in favor of much more of an emphasis on style over substance. This is not to suggest that there isn't a boatload of cheaply made, crappy PC machines currently available. But at least they are correspondingly cheap in price (sub-$500) to match.
With Apple, you also get cheaply made, craptastic, cracking plastic MacBooks that are some the most overpriced, underspec'ed, poorly made 1K+ laptops ever to be sold by anyone. I am seeing them falling apart left and right on many of my clients unfortunate enough to have plunked down 1-2K for them ( never on my recommendation ) - only to suffer from their HD's quickly dying, batteries failing - and with most of them now sporting polycarbonate cases that are rapidly discoloring (white models) and literally fracturing into pieces - and all of that is just within the first year. Many, many of the 24" iMacs have serious video/screen issues - mostly because of cheap LCD panels used, poor assembly, and faulty graphics cards that are frying. Apple has also made replacing/upgrading a simple thing like the HD on all of the Intel iMacs (the most common failure on any computer), nearly impossible without breaking the machine or warranty. And on and on..
Anyone thinking that just because they paid a "premium" for their Mac that they actually have any better hardware than an equivalent PC with the same specs is seriously drinking a little too much of the Apple koolaid.
This is plainly why Apple is white knuckling the OS to the hardware. Without their crown jewel (OSX) inextricably embedded onto the rapidly diminishing quality of their "premium" hardware - they would have to really compete with their inflated "premium" hardware directly in an open market on it's own merits and "value" - independent of OSX - since the same OS could be acquired on any PC of similar "value". Except for their very low end offerings like the iPhone & iPod, Apple would most likely lose a sizable percentage of their "closed-loop" market share in a very short period of time. They just cannot favorably compete with much lower priced PC's of equal, or better performance, features and quality that can also run OSX just as well, or better than anything that Apple is currently offering - "Premium" exterior design notwithstanding.
So it's easy to see why so many here on AI, and other Mac enthusiasts sites get nearly apoplectic when even the slightest suggestion of any kind of a decoupling of OSX from Apple's hardware. They know that their position within Apple (many, many Cuperatino Apple Inc.'ers and those that develop for them here), or their investments in AALP shares would end up take a major hit if OSX was ever "legally" liberated from being installed exclusively on Apple's "premium" hardware. That is why most Appleflacks will reflexively take up the old IP/copywrite sword to quickly undercut any who dare to challenge Apple's OS/Hardware monopoly (and yes, it is a monopoly, but strictly on the OS, and not on the hardware - which is mostly generic components sans Apple's proprietary aluminum exterior designs). We all know what most likely would happen if current PC consumers finally had the free choice (which most Mac users already have if they want to install Windows on their Mac) of buying OSX to run on any machine that APPLE, Dell, HP, Sony, or anyone else sold - especially with sub-1K laptops/desktops...it would most likely be bye, bye to what's left of Apple's junky, hugely overpriced MacBooks - as well as a dramatic sales decline for the overpriced, underspec'ed Mac Minis. Mid-range iMacs would most likely hold their own, but the high end MacBook Pro's (2.5K+), and the Mac Pro's across the line would also suffer steep sales declines in favor of much cheaper, but equivalent PC alternatives.
Lastly, to all of you IP/copywrite absolutist here on MR and your fanatical adherence to Apple's IP party line (like Apple themselves haven't ever, or continue to "appropriate" other lesser folk's IP "illegally): how many of you have ever received, downloaded, or somehow came to acquire something on your "premium" Mac, or Macs - that you didn't actually..shall we say... purchase? Whether it's a just a small program, an MP3 file, a video, an image, a copy of another competing OS (XP, or Vista) etc..? And how many of you have also violated Apple's own EULA by installing your sacrosant copy of OSX on more than one computer that you own, or use at work, or by obtaining a copy from another source without full compensation to Apple?
If any of you who have pilloried Psystar as "thieves", "Hustlers" and so on, have, or have ever had one tiny-tiny shred of someone else IP that you did not fully and completely compensate them for.....then you have undercut your entire high and holy IP/copywrite dogma to it's core. If you are going to live by, and enforce onto others complete IP purity, then you are fully subject to the same, absolute standards. To take a page from your IP/Copywrite scripture bible, it seems that the existing and convoluted IP/Copywrite laws do not care on whit whether it's just a single little file, or it's a company like Psystar reselling "modified" "unathorized" copies of OSX, it's straight-up "infringement", and by definition: it is all "stealing"- big, or small. And so, By most official calculations, the vast majority of us computer/technological users are flagrant "thieves", and should be subject to the very same contempt and scorn and punishment that has become the narrative here on AI, and on other Apple fanboy sites.
Psystar might be kaput (no real surprises there), but the movement to free OSX from increasingly mediocre, overpriced hardware has just begun in earnest.
And now that Psystar seems to be fading out of your wrathful IP infringing sites, will you now move full steam to the next satan of the month who dares to challenge OSX on Apple Hardware only orthodoxy - EFI-X?
Beautifully stated. And true. The real question is how might Apple become itself once again - and create excellence? I need a new laptop - to move lots of data very quickly. Should my 20-year relationship with Apple come to an end because their marketing niche does not include the kinds of performance options (speed, graphics, hard drive space) which gamers on the PC take for granted?
That's what I've been saying minus the legal mumbo jumbo. Psystar's unauthorized retailing implies copyright violation. They can't sell pre-loaded PCs like MacMall can.
Psystar isn't simply selling a duplicated work with "changed names." If anything, they're buying the book, whiting-out the English names and typing in Spanish names, then reselling that one copy. They repeat that process for each "book" they sell. There is no market damage to the author because she gets a sale for every copy purchased.
-Clive
No, what they are doing is selling a photocopy of the book..... same words, different hardware... same as going to any book store, buying a book, photocopying it hundreds of times and reselling those copies. its ILLEGAL and should be.
should my 20-year relationship with apple come to an end because their marketing niche does not include the kinds of performance options (speed, graphics, hard drive space) which gamers on the pc take for granted?
yes !
yes !
I second Piot?s post. Always go with the product that fits your needs and wants best because perfection rarely occurs in life.
Here is the bottom line in this whole Psystar/Hachintosh/OSX clone battle....
Where?
I second Piot?s post. Always go with the product that fits your needs and wants best because perfection rarely occurs in life.
yes !
so this is the proof that we are in fact held hostage by our investment in closed systems. and our resentment at having to move on IS the bottom line in stevielee's post.
so this is the proof that we are in fact held hostage by our investment in closed systems.
Bepop, it's really simple. If you feel that a company no longer offers you a solution then you have other choices. I assume that you upgrade and replace your software just as you do your hardware. Probably many times over your 20 year timeframe.
It may be inconvenient and indeed be a bit costly but it's never been easier to change platforms and you can look forward to recouping your money every time you upgrade your new cheaper hardware.