So much for fair use, or, why was my thread removed?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Pepzhez, Sep 26, 2002.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #1
    Yesterday I posted info on how to change the Jaguar upgrade CD into a full installer. Now I notice that the thread has been removed.

    Isn't this going a little too far? As I see it, I gave info on how to exercise one's fair use rights, was not advocating piracy or warez, etc. So what gives? This censorship does seem, at least in this case, Draconian.
     
  2. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #2
    Re: So much for fair use, or, why was my thread removed?

    I didn't remove it...

    One of the mods?

    I actually liked the post.... :)

    arn
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    This is a private forum. Arn is god. Deal.

    While changing an upgrade CD to a full installer can be abit more convenient for licensed users. The primary use for this hack is to steal Jaguar for unlicensed users. Thats at least how I see it. And from the looks of it, the moderators saw it this way, too.

    Taft
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    Re: Re: So much for fair use, or, why was my thread removed?

    Or maybe I was wrong. :embarrassed: (Arn could you implement a little embarrased smily face thingy?? It would be oh so useful! At least for those of us that like to embarrass ourselves. :) )

    Taft
     
  5. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #5
    As a guide, questionable threads should be locked...

    illegal stuff should be edited out.... such as "where can I download xyz application" or "here's a download link to download xyz"

    I could see how this might have been a bit hazy... but even still, in the future, should just be edited out if felt to be offensive, and to keep the thread intact.

    that's cool taft.... appreciate the backup... ;)

    arn
     
  6. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #6
    The point is that I am a licensed Jaguar user - and I did pay the $19.95 to Apple.

    My post was a textbook example of fair use. I have the right to make a backup copy of my Jaguar disc, and I did so. And if I choose to leave one little file out of the backup, that is also within my right. And the harm in passing this info on to other Jaguar users is ...? (You tell me.)

    As far as I am concerned, this is no different than the CD-R backup copy I made of the Beatles' Abbey Road CD. My backup copy was identical to the original except that I left off "Octopus's Garden" (mainly due to matters of personal good taste).

    Taft, your RIAA-like (i.e. - nonsensical) explanation does not hold water. Unlicensed users can d/l Jaguar off Caracho quite easily, and I am sure that a full-installer version is much more common there than the upgrade disc.

    In short, the only ones who suffer from the shortcomings of the upgrade disc are those that paid for it - paid, I should add, one month or so after spending thousands on a new computer from Apple. If there truly exists a cabal of pirates trafficking in Jaguar Upgrade discs, then show me the proof.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #7
    You don't like Octopus' Garden? What the hell is wrong with you?
     
  8. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #8
    Alex,

    Refer to above. Re: personal good taste. Hahaha!

    Call me crazy, but I really prefer "Octopus' Garden" and "Check for OS X" GONE from my discs.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #9
    I think the thread was deleted because that is not fair use. The upgrade CD is just that an upgrade. Apple stipulates that the CD not be altered. They sued sites that posted similar information on 10.1. It is just risky for the site to have that type of information on there.
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #10
    Dude, if you HAVE to erase a song from one of the, if not THE, best album of all time, why not at least allow Ringo his moment of glory and axe Maxwell's Silver Hammer instead? I don't know how you can even consider yourself human!
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #11
    The difference here though, is that the upgrade CD was only available to certain users. The 10.1 upgrade was available to anyone for $20.
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    Guys, you are not understanding what I am saying. It doesn't matter whether it was 10.1 for everyone or 10.2 for certain users. It is a legal issue.

    None of us want Arn getting in a legal battle with Apple right!
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #13
    You know what they say... "Any press is good press." :D
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    I'm as against the RIAA's policies as anyone. But YOUR explanation does not exactly hold up. The exclusion of the file you mention serves only one purpose: to disable a license checking function in Jaguar. It has little other uses. Fair use implies a FAIR and LEGAL use of copyrighted material. What fair and legal uses do you have for this altered software??

    Also...Did you obtain this software legally?? Was it legally yours?? If not, then fair use does not apply to you. Is it fair to use the software if it doesn't belong to you in the first place?? This software was distributed to a select group of people who ALREADY HAD A PREVIOUS VERSION OF OS X. They had little or no need for this hack.

    Therefor, the hack doesn't necessarily constitute fair use.

    Really, I'm playing devils advocate here. I agree with you to an extent. But I don't like the idea of people not buying Jaguar and then modding an upgrade to install it. I think Apple should make a more sophisticated method of upgrade protection. But I also think that users should pay for the software they use.

    Taft
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    #15
    Taft, I see what you're saying. But this isn't 10.1. Apple is only giving this Upgrade CD to new Mac buyers and people who recenlty bought Macs. So, if somebody else got this disc by other means, they're already breaking Apple's agreement. The problem with the upgrade disc is just that: It's an upgrade. A lot of people like to do clean installs when upgrading, or have a full install disc ready incase of a drive failure. Installing 10.1 and then the updates just to clean install Jaguar is a major pain and a waste of time.

    In this situation, the majority of the people with the upgrade disc legally obtained it by purchasing a new Mac, and are licenced to use the software. As long as the modified disc isn't distributed or shared, it's considered fair use, and will just make things a lot easier for the user.
     
  16. Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #16
    I deleted the thread. I also thought it was pretty cool, but I know that there's a "no hacks/warez" policy here, and I honestly felt that it was a violation of it.

    I don't think Apple would really appreciate having someone blow the whistle on how to hack their installers, so I dumped it.

    Sorry if I pissed anyone off here, I was just trying to do the right thing... ;)
     

Share This Page