Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
It's not supposed to be about controlling how your work is used.

Well, that's an overly general and completely inaccurate statement. The expressed purpose of copyright law in to allow you to control how your work is used.

The idea that a license or contract cannot limit an adherent to the contract past the limitations placed by law is absurd. Unless the limitations themselves are unlawful or unreasonable. This case clearly confirms that Apple's limitation of OS X to Macs is reasonable.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
I am arguing for personal use.

Then you are off-topic. No one has been sued for personal use.

----------

Actually, there's copyrighted code in many engines these days -- in the ECU.

You're not making copies and distributing derivative works when you sell an ECU with its original copyrighted code on it. First-sale doctrine then applies.

Again, the car engine analogy is completely flawed. Forget it, you can't compare this case with it.
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
OK - Use an OS X install CD you purchased to install OS X on a hackintosh, you aren't entitled to any support or upgrade compatibility from Apple. The Hackintosh community accepts this and Apple leaves them alone.

I agree completely with the no support line. Apple should be able to abandon support to anyone who does a Hackintosh, just as Ford should be able to deny warranty and support for someone who fits his Mustang with nitrous. However, Apple has gone after those who provide the tools to make hackintoshes.

NOT OK - Selling non-Apple computers with OS X installed. You are now profiting off the work of Apple in violation of numerous laws and licencses.

So you make a hackintosh for yourself. You realize its junk and want a real Mac. You decide to sell that hackintosh, along with its fully-paid, legal, retail copy of OS X. Not okay?

Strip the OS. Provide a FreeDOS boot with the hackintosh tools installed. Upon first boot it asks for the OS X DVD, does the hack, and installs it on the system. You're just automating what you did yourself, and reselling a still-boxed, unmodified copy of OS X. But the end effect is still the same as selling pre-loaded hackintoshes. Okay or not okay?

What's the difference between these? In reality, nothing. You're selling hackintoshes. We're just talking minor technicalities.


Apple has pumped literally billions of dollars into research and development of their various products and should have the right to protect their business from people seeking to misappropriate their works.

Copyright law is designed to protect copyrighted works, not business models. If your business model fails in light of technological advances, then too bad.

Simple example. You are allowed to buy a CD, copy it to your MP3 player, turn it into a coaster sell it to a friend whatever.

Up until recently the RIAA was saying that ripping a CD to MP3 was copyright infringement. Quote from an RIAA lawyer:

""When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. ... [Making a copy of a song you own is] a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'."

You are NOT allowed to make copies and sell them.

No, but I can resell the original CDs, something many software licenses say you can't do.

----------

You're not making copies and distributing derivative works when you sell an ECU with its original copyrighted code on it. First-sale doctrine then applies.

ECU tweaks are common. So it's okay to resell an engine, as long as the ECU has not been tweaked?

Don't dismiss the leveraging of token code to invoke copyright so easily. That's exactly what Lexmark did to try to kill the third-party toner cartridge market for Lexmark printers through lawsuits.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
o you make a hackintosh for yourself. You realize its junk and want a real Mac. You decide to sell that hackintosh, along with its fully-paid, legal, retail copy of OS X. Not okay?

Nope. Leaving aside the legality of the personal hackintosh, you have no right to distribute copies of OS X. Your first sale right only applies to the original copy that you purchased. The rest of your argument fall apart.
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
Well, that's an overly general and completely inaccurate statement. The expressed purpose of copyright law in to allow you to control how your work is used.

Uh, no. The express purpose of copyright is to define and protect the author's exclusive right to copy and distribute, and, where applicable, publicly perform the work. It was never intended that once a book was sold, the author would have any further power over its use, aside from copying and public performance, and even those powers have limitations.

The idea that a license or contract cannot limit an adherent to the contract past the limitations placed by law is absurd..

Authors derive all of their power in regards to a copyrighted work from copyright. Without it, they have nothing. With it, they are granted certain, limited rights. As I said before, copyright is like buying land with easements. They are restrictions on your power that you cannot expand upon, and you cannot force others to relinquish. Well, at least in a just world.

This case clearly confirms that Apple's limitation of OS X to Macs is reasonable.


This case confirms that the original, constitutionally-intended balance of copyright has drifted so far towards the copyright holders as to absolutely prove Jefferson's fears correct.

----------

Nope. Leaving aside the legality of the personal hackintosh, you have no right to distribute copies of OS X. Your first sale right only applies to the original copy that you purchased. The rest of your argument fall apart.

I would be selling my original purchased copy with the hackintosh. Or does Apple tell me the doctrine of First Sale does not apply?

But as I noted, technicalities.

Current way:
User buys hackintosh
Boots up, types in passwords, etc., for initial config of system

FreeDOS with hackintosh tools:
User buys bare PC with sealed, boxed copy of OS X from hackintosh vendor
Boots up, inserts DVD when told, goes to get lunch
Returns, types in passwords, etc., for initial config of system

This added step makes it legal? As far as OS X sales are concerned, you are reselling an unopened, boxed copy of OS X you purchased at retail, along with a generic PC, an open source operating system, and some free tools.

Thing is, the results are the same across the board: Apple got paid for a copy of OS X, and somebody is running a hackintosh.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
Uh, no. The express purpose of copyright is to define and protect the author's exclusive right to copy and distribute, and, where applicable, publicly perform the work.

And create derivative works.

It was never intended that once a book was sold, the author would have any further power over its use, aside from copying and public performance, and even those powers have limitations.

You forgot about creating derivative works again. Copyright holders do have control after first sale.

Authors derive all of their power in regards to a copyrighted work from copyright. Without it, they have nothing. With it, they are granted certain, limited rights. As I said before, copyright is like buying land with easements. They are restrictions on your power that you cannot expand upon, and you cannot force others to relinquish. Well, at least in a just world.




This case confirms that the original, constitutionally-intended balance of copyright has drifted so far towards the copyright holders as to absolutely prove Jefferson's fears correct.

Let's simplify the scenario.

A software developer agrees to let you use one copy of his software in accordance with copyright law in exchange for money. Is that okay?

A software developer agrees to let you use one copy of his software in accordance with copyright law in exchange for a contractual agreement to have you paint his house one year from now. Is that okay?

A software developer agrees to let you use one copy of his software in accordance with copyright law in exchange for a contractual agreement to prevent you from developing software that competes with his. Is that okay?

A software developer agrees to let you use one copy of his software in accordance with copyright law in exchange for money and a contractual agreement to only use the software on a single, specified computer. After that computer dies, you have no rights to the software. Is that okay?

Where do you draw the line?

I always use the book example: If it doesn't make sense with a dead-tree book, it doesn't make sense with software.

Except you dead-tree book example doesn't hold up with Psystar. Can you make copies of a book and distribute them? Can you modify the contents of the book if it doesn't fit in the number of pages that you have available?
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
ECU tweaks are common. So it's okay to resell an engine, as long as the ECU has not been tweaked?

As a car guy who had a heavily modified Acura Integra before getting the Subaru WRX, I can assure you right here and now you have no idea what you're talking about right now.

ECU code doesn't get "tweaked", it gets flashed with entirely new code or you use a piggy-back between the actual ECU and the engine harness or you just change values in the fuel tables which is not copyrighted (it's just a dataset that's run through the code itself, kind of like a configuration file). No Honda/Ford/Subaru or whatever code is used, so no, you're not creating a derivative work.

Again, your analogy is flawed on many points and just doesn't apply. Stop, just stop. I don't get why you're so hellbent on justifying what Psystar did. Drop it, you're wrong, 2 courts have now told you so, not to mention many posters in this thread.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
I would be selling my original purchased copy with the hackintosh. Or does Apple tell me the doctrine of First Sale does not apply?

Was it not obvious that I was talking about the installed copy on the hackintosh?

But as I noted, technicalities.

Current way:
User buys hackintosh
Boots up, types in passwords, etc., for initial config of system

FreeDOS with hackintosh tools:
User buys bare PC with sealed, boxed copy of OS X from hackintosh vendor
Boots up, inserts DVD when told, goes to get lunch
Returns, types in passwords, etc., for initial config of system

This added step makes it legal? As far as OS X sales are concerned, you are reselling an unopened, boxed copy of OS X you purchased at retail, along with a generic PC, an open source operating system, and some free tools.

Thing is, the results are the same across the board: Apple got paid for a copy of OS X, and somebody is running a hackintosh.

Assuming that a hackintosh falls under fair use (which I would doubt), then distribution changes everything. Fair use considers the effect on the market.
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
I don't get why you're so hellbent on justifying what Psystar did. Drop it, you're wrong, 2 courts have now told you so, not to mention many posters in this thread.

Because abuse of copyright will only end badly for us, with corporations owning us, our culture.

I've already seen people here thinking about the possibility of licensing being used further. It's not a new idea. Next thing, I buy a lawnmower, and it has a license saying it can't be used to cut lawns for money. I need to buy the "commercial" license for that, which is the same machine, but costs $200 more. Sorry kid, no mowing the neighbor's lawn anymore, daddy doesn't have a commercial license for his mower.

Is this the world any of you want to live in? Do you want your life to be so minutely controlled by corporations?
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Because abuse of copyright will only end badly for us, with corporations owning us, our culture.

There was no abuse here, it was all in Psystar's head and in yours it seems. Again, they were free to use any other OS out there or to build there own. They had no rights to Apple's OS. Apple is the copyright holder and gets to determine how to exercise this right to copy.

2 courts have now confirmed what everyone one of us knew about this case. Will it take a 3rd to convince you you're seeing ghosts ?
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
Because abuse of copyright will only end badly for us, with corporations owning us, our culture.

I've already seen people here thinking about the possibility of licensing being used further. It's not a new idea. Next thing, I buy a lawnmower, and it has a license saying it can't be used to cut lawns for money. I need to buy the "commercial" license for that, which is the same machine, but costs $200 more. Sorry kid, no mowing the neighbor's lawn anymore, daddy doesn't have a commercial license for his mower.

Is this the world any of you want to live in? Do you want your life to be so minutely controlled by corporations?

Why would you buy a lawn mower with a license saying it can't be used to cut lawns for money if you wanted to use it to cut lawns for money? Slippery slope arguments are dumb when they assume nobody would make decisions in their own best interests.
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
Let me start with admitting I was wrong. I get caught up in these modern distortions, I forget the truth.

The express purpose of copyright is not to protect the author's exclusive rights. The express purpose of copyright is, and I quote, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Let's not forget that.

You forgot about creating derivative works again. Copyright holders do have control after first sale.

There are hackintosh methods that don't modify OS X. But you might be thinking simply installing a driver or an application creates a derivative work. In that case, re-selling your stock Mac after you've installed an app, maybe fiddled with some deep-down core settings, would be copyright infringement.

A software developer agrees to let you use one copy of his software in accordance with copyright law in exchange for money. Is that okay?

I agree to BUY a copy of that developer's software IAW the Uniform Commercial Code.

For the rest, if the developer does not want to sell his software retail, but instead negotiates individual contracts with all customers for sales of copies for whatever valuable consideration, that's fine. However, contracts cannot be contrary to public policy. IMHO, anything that overreaches copyright is contrary to public policy (the Constitution), and overreaching terms of any such contracts should be unenforceable (I do believe in severability).

Can you make copies of a book and distribute them? Can you modify the contents of the book if it doesn't fit in the number of pages that you have available?

Yes and yes. If I rip off the cover and resell, have I created a derivative work?
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
Why would you buy a lawn mower with a license saying it can't be used to cut lawns for money if you wanted to use it to cut lawns for money?

When all lawnmowers come with that license, or something similar, I won't have much of a choice. Software EULAs didn't used to be this bad either, but over the years the vendors found that they could pile on more and more absurd restrictions, and they'd even get upheld in court. Now it's hard to find a sane EULA in commercial software, impossible for corporate-written commercial software.

Long ago the Bobbs-Merrill Company sold a book with a license in it stating:

"The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a lower price, and a sale at a lower price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright"

You can see the intent to control what is done with that copy the book after sale. This is what EULAs do today only in far more absurd ways, this is what one tried to do over 100 years ago.

Only back then we had a sane court that still remembered the public benefit purpose of copyright, and its intended limitations on copyright holders. The EULA was ruled invalid, First Sale was enshrined in common law. If only modern courts remembered their job like this.

----------

2 courts have now confirmed what everyone one of us knew about this case.

I know, that copyright law in this country is hopelessly broken. It no longer bears much resemblance to its constitutional authorization, or the original intent.

I had no doubts in the beginning that PsyStar would lose. It's like the Moscow Show Trials; regardless of what's right, you know the result is not going to be good for the defendant.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
When all lawnmowers come with that license, or something similar

Again, physical goods. Your analogies make no sense.

I know, that copyright law in this country is hopelessly broken.

Copyright law in this case was fine and used correctly. Psystar has no right to profit off of Apple's work.

2 courts have confirmed that copyright holders retain their rights to dictate terms of distribution of their work. That's what we all knew, don't twist it to fit your agenda. You really either don't understand the situation if you think Psystar was right and there was abuse in this case or you are doing it on purpose.

There is no debate, there is no abuse.
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
Again, physical goods. Your analogies make no sense.

As I have previously noted, all that is required is to put software in it so it can then leverage copyright. Lexmark only barely lost that case. It can be done again learning the lessons, and pass current judicial misprudence.

Copyright law in this case was fine and used correctly. Psystar has no right to profit off of Apple's work.

People profit off of the work of others all the time. Ever heard of a used book store? They are taking the works of others, and reselling them at a profit. Oh, horrors! Aside from the accounting errors, Apple should have no say as long as it was paid for each copy of OS X.

There is no debate, there is no abuse.

The debate is clear. I believe in original constitutional intent copyright, a limited monopoly allowed for the good of society. You apparently believe in today's corporate-purchased, absolute-power, distorted copyright system that also incorporates concepts from countries that have a different basis for copyright than we do.

It's amazing how far we've fallen in less than 40 years. And we'll continue falling as long as people don't complain about these abuses.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
As I have previously noted, all that is required is to put software in it so it can then leverage copyright. Lexmark only barely lost that case. It can be done again learning the lessons, and pass current judicial misprudence.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding. A lawnmower with copyrighted software is still a lawnmower. No one can dictate what you do or don't do with the lawnmower itself nor can they prevent first sale doctrine of you selling said lawnmower.

Lexmark cannot force you to not buy and throw away the cartridges or open them and spill the ink on the floor. What lexmark aimed with the software in the ink cartridges is to prevent others from cloning said cartridges, which would now either require that others distribute Lexmark's copyrighted code or that they reverse engineer it (which could be illegal under the DMCA).

You're not out to clone lawnmowers now are you nor are you out to copy and distribute the copyrighted code on the lawnmower ? No ? Then the license doesn't apply to you. Hence why your physical goods analogies don't hold water.

Psystar wasn't reselling physical goods. They were dabbling in copyrighted intellectual property.

The debate is clear.

Yes, it's quite clear now that you do not understand this conversation or what took place here with Psystar. Go on defending them. Psystar was wrong and by siding with them, you're wrong too.
 

Wondercow

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2008
559
365
Toronto, Canada
but I agree that at the time they hurting Apple sales, although expanding the Apple user base....

They actually weren't expanding the user base which is why Jobs put an end to the clones. The unfortunate reality was that the number of Mac users didn't grow—Apple just redistributed their current users' purchases to other companies, thereby losing more money than the clone licenses brought in.
 

Trudy

macrumors regular
Sep 30, 2004
120
0
Again, you're completely misunderstanding. A lawnmower with copyrighted software is still a lawnmower. No one can dictate what you do or don't do with the lawnmower itself nor can they prevent first sale doctrine of you selling said lawnmower.

Entirely plausible lawnmower EULA that would stand up to modern copyright interpretation, "Home use license. This lawnmower contains copyrighted software that is required for the lawnmower to function. While you have purchased the lawnmower, you have only purchased a license to use the software in the lawnmower, not a copy of the software itself. Before using this software you must accept this EULA. CompanyX grants you the right to use this lawnmower/software combination solely to mow your own lawn. You may not use it to mow any other lawn for profit without first obtaining the Professional license. You may not transfer your license to use this Software to any other entity through gift or sale."

In reality, all the software does to run the lawnmower is maintain an open solenoid to allow fuel to flow. No software running, no fuel. Otherwise maybe it shows distance or time mowed, etc., so it can proclaim to be real, purposeful code to avoid Lexmark's fate.

Lexmark cannot force you to not buy and throw away the cartridges or open them and spill the ink on the floor. What lexmark aimed with the software in the ink cartridges is to prevent others from cloning said cartridges, which would now either require that others distribute Lexmark's copyrighted code or that they reverse engineer it (which could be illegal under the DMCA).

They tried. Sadly for you, their power to abuse copyright law was not deemed to be absolute as it usually is, and it was not deemed a violation of the (industry-purchased) DMCA. But the court left hints as to how a later company can work around Lexmark's problems.

You're not out to clone lawnmowers now are you nor are you out to copy and distribute the copyrighted code on the lawnmower ? No ? Then the license doesn't apply to you. Hence why your physical goods analogies don't hold water.

GPS addendum to the EULA: "When you activated the Software at your home as required by this EULA, the lawnmower was tracked to a set of GPS coordinates. You are only authorized to use the Software within 500 feet of those GPS coordinates. The Software will cease to function outside of those coordinates. Any use of the Software outside of this area is prohibited."

There, if you want to exercise your rights under First Sale and sell your lawnmower to the guy down the street, you must modify the software, invoking the same derivative work argument Apple used. Invoke the DMCA too by using some sort of easily-broken "anti-circumvention" code.

Yes, it's quite clear now that you do not understand this conversation or what took place here with Psystar.

As I said, I do perfectly understand the case. I just think it's an abuse of constitutional copyright, which our current law and courts uphold on a regular basis. Not that I like the company since they were shady from the beginning. But I uphold the principles. Sometimes those fighting for YOUR rights aren't exactly the most respectable, e.g., Larry Flynt fighting for freedom of speech over parody.

The really funny thing in all of this, in addition to me being an author of copyrighted software myself, is that I'd never buy or use a hackintosh of any type, or recommend that anyone do. Two main reasons to get a Mac are tight integration and support, and you lose that with a hackintosh.

So, no, I neither like nor approve of the business. However, I support their right to exist.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
There are hackintosh methods that don't modify OS X. But you might be thinking simply installing a driver or an application creates a derivative work. In that case, re-selling your stock Mac after you've installed an app, maybe fiddled with some deep-down core settings, would be copyright infringement.

No, there aren't hackintosh methods that don't modify OS X. And, yes, the court did find that replacing the appropriate kexts does create a derivative work. No, reselling your Mac after you've installed an app is not infringement because Apple gives you permission to do so.

I agree to BUY a copy of that developer's software IAW the Uniform Commercial Code.

For the rest, if the developer does not want to sell his software retail, but instead negotiates individual contracts with all customers for sales of copies for whatever valuable consideration, that's fine. However, contracts cannot be contrary to public policy. IMHO, anything that overreaches copyright is contrary to public policy (the Constitution), and overreaching terms of any such contracts should be unenforceable (I do believe in severability).

Again, Psystar argued copyright misuse. The argument failed. It is not against the constitution to create a contract to tie certain software to certain hardware.

Yes and yes. If I rip off the cover and resell, have I created a derivative work?

Yes and yes? What gives you the write to make copies of a book and distribute it? And your analogy to tearing off the cover is hardly comparable to modifying software. It's more comparable to tearing off a side of the box.

When all lawnmowers come with that license, or something similar, I won't have much of a choice.

Again you are arguing a slippery slope dependent on nobody looking out for their best interest. When all lawnmowers come with that license, you could be sure that someone would be scrambling to open a lawnmower business hat doesn't come with the license. And if the existing players conspire to prevent that, then you have monopoly issues that would override the license.

Carrying the analogy to the situation we are discussing. All OS software doesn't come with a license tying it to specific hardware. You do have choices.
 
Last edited:

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
As I have previously noted, all that is required is to put software in it so it can then leverage copyright. Lexmark only barely lost that case. It can be done again learning the lessons, and pass current judicial misprudence.

They didn't "just barely" lose. They totally and utterly lost, mostly because, like you, they didn't understand copyright law. Copyright law is about copying. DMCA is about copying when technical measures were taken to prevent it. Lexmark didn't use technical measures to prevent copying, they used technical measures to prevent you from using ink in a Lexmark printer that wasn't made by Lexmark. And neither copyright law nor the DMCA supported them because no copying happened.

So some cartridge maker tricked Lexmark's software into using printer cartridges that were not made by Lexmark. But no Lexmark software was _copied_. And the systems running the software were not owned or controlled by Lexmark, but by the person who bought the printer and agreed that the software should be tricked.


Because abuse of copyright will only end badly for us, with corporations owning us, our culture.

Copyright is about the copyright holder's right to control copying. That's what Apple is doing. Anything that Apple does to control whether Apple's software can be copied or not is one hundred percent anticipated and intended by copyright law and therefore not abuse of copyright. "Abuse of copyright" can only be things where the copyright holder tries to stop you from doing things that don't involve copying the copyrighted software.

And frankly, equating "MacOS X" with "our culture" is nonsense.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Entirely plausible lawnmower EULA that would stand up to modern copyright interpretation

Copyright doesn't apply to lawnmowers. This is the part you're missing. All the rest of your argument falls down from there.

So, no, I neither like nor approve of the business. However, I support their right to exist.

They have a right to exist, they have no rights to OS X, something you are now defending tooth and nail. Again, you have no understanding of the topic at hand and it shows.
 

huperniketes

macrumors regular
Jun 26, 2007
175
45
(0, 0, 0)
You're not out to clone lawnmowers now are you nor are you out to copy and distribute the copyrighted code on the lawnmower ? No ? Then the license doesn't apply to you. Hence why your physical goods analogies don't hold water.

The analogy holds because Trudy demonstrates the absurdity of licenses intended to limit the use of their covered products. What in unenforceable for physical goods should be unenforceable for digital ones as well. However, as in many other products which have adopted "hi-tech" marketing, business models, practices, etc., we can see that this practice will continue to appear in physical goods now that consumers and the courts view them as standard practice.

Psystar wasn't reselling physical goods. They were dabbling in copyrighted intellectual property.

Of course they were selling physical goods. It's precisely why Apple pursued them. Buying the physical product that Apple's business model is built around. It's why Apple drops support for products over 18 months old from their OSes.

The debate is clear.

Yes, it's quite clear now that you do not understand this conversation or what took place here with Psystar. Go on defending them. Psystar was wrong and by siding with them, you're wrong too.

Claiming he doesn't understand the conversation, when clearly he does, makes you sound like a head-burying ostrich in denial that his rights have been usurped by license-wielding corporations and the courts.

Go on defending Apple's erosion of your rights to use the products it no longer derives revenue from even though you gave them fair and proper compensation. Your cell may be shiny and smell new, but it's still a cell.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
The analogy holds because Trudy demonstrates the absurdity of licenses intended to limit the use of their covered products. What in unenforceable for physical goods should be unenforceable for digital ones as well. However, as in many other products which have adopted "hi-tech" marketing, business models, practices, etc., we can see that this practice will continue to appear in physical goods now that consumers and the courts view them as standard practice.



Of course they were selling physical goods. It's precisely why Apple pursued them. Buying the physical product that Apple's business model is built around. It's why Apple drops support for products over 18 months old from their OSes.



Claiming he doesn't understand the conversation, when clearly he does, makes you sound like a head-burying ostrich in denial that his rights have been usurped by license-wielding corporations and the courts.

Go on defending Apple's erosion of your rights to use the products it no longer derives revenue from even though you gave them fair and proper compensation. Your cell may be shiny and smell new, but it's still a cell.

What specific rights were usurped? What specific law grants those rights?
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
The analogy holds because Trudy demonstrates the absurdity of licenses intended to limit the use of their covered products.

The problem is that his analogies are for physical goods while copyright applies to intellectual properties. Something you seem to now join Trudy on in the "We don't understand the scope of copyright" crowd.

Of course they were selling physical goods. It's precisely why Apple pursued them.

No, Apple did not pursue them for selling the physical computers. They pursued them for their lack of a license to copy, make a derivative work of OS X and distribute it.

Again, understand the concepts and the law before commenting, it will save your credibility.
 

snorkelman

Cancelled
Oct 25, 2010
666
155
I'd have thought the simple solution to satisfy those against EULA restrictions would be to see stuff priced accordingly

1 install it on whatever machine you want copy of OSX $1500

1 rental friendly DVD or BluRay $500

1 'mow whatever lawn you like commercial use' Lawnmower $1000

not really doing the public good any favours though is it? Just biting off your nose to spite your face..

I'm sure after a few months folks would then be demanding a non commercial use version of the Lawnmower for $200, a home use only version of the DVd/BluRay for $20, and a for use on an Apple only version of OSX for $30..
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.