Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion' started by Evangelion, Aug 30, 2006.
Didn't they charge for one of the win98 service packs?
Fairplay is an aspect of one application (which you don't have to run if you don't want to). Is there ANY drm in the OS? Windows has drm required to even install and run the damn operating system.
You lose this one, big-time!
Intel-based Macs use Trusted Computing/Trusted Platform Module (TPM) Digital Rights Management (DRM)?
Yes, but all of the specifics are not known. At this time, it appears TPM is just used to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. In the meantime, see this article for a good overview. The shipping Intel-based Macs do include an active kernel extension (kext) called com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X.
Yes, you also need DRM to boot OSX86 !!
And if the DRM is so transparent to the user that they don't even know it's there, how is that a big deal? Especially compared to an OS that requires reading serial numbers over a phone to activate?
Changing your tune, aren't you?
Your question was:
Is there ANY drm in the OS? Windows has drm required to even install and run the damn operating system.
Clearly, OSX86 and WinXP are exactly the same in that both require DRM to run.
But, now you're saying that DRM is OK if you don't see it? I sense a problem with your intellectual honesty - you seem to change the rules so that "Apple can do no wrong" always applies.
Sounds like what happened when I got my new MasterCard - had to read numbers over the phone to activate it. Big whoop.
And, of course, if you have an internet connection there is no need to read numbers at all.
I'm not changing my tune at all. I was asking an honest question, since as an OSX user, there's no DRM visible to me in the OS (sure, there may be DRM present, but if it doesn't actually stop me from doing anything, what's to complain about). And I think its absolutely reasonable and defensible to be OK with things that literaly have no effect on me. What's apologist about that?
I've never made the argument that all DRM is bad, have I? Don't put words in my mouth. My objection is to a system that requires activation and stops working if you udpate your computer. In this particular case, that happens to apply to MS but not to Apple. Don't fret, if Apple goes with a similar activation system, I won't change my tune but will complain about them as well.
Honestly, are you really trying to argue that there's no difference between a system that requires activation (and reactivation after hardware changes) and a system that can be installed on any mac? "Big whoop" or not, there no question that there's a difference.
If that was the case, about 95% of the Windows computers in the world would be bots and spam machines.
-I think not.-
In Milo's defense - he does have a somewhat valid point (although whether you can correlate it with "DRM" is anyone's guess) because of all of the activation and Genuine Advantage BS that was implemented in XP (and will undoubtedly be in every future Windows release including Vista), which is absent and nonexistent in OSX. My end point - do both OS's have DRM? Sure, no question. Microsoft took it a step further and implemented more "nag schematics" whereas Apple did not.
Whether you consider those things DRM or not...and technically by definition, they're "not", but they are still troublesome and annoying. People can say "well activation only takes a few seconds". To those I say - try sitting on hold on [Microsoft's] god awful phone hold system waiting to activate over the phone because the stupid internet activation didn't go through (for undisclosed reasons).
Sorry, but I interpreted your use of the adjective "damn" to imply an aversion to DRM.
If that isn't the case, my apologies.
I was referring specifically to the fact that with XP the user has to activate the DRM to use the OS, which obviously isn't present in OSX. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
Yeah and the DRM that stops people from loading OSX on generic PC boxes is "transparent".
Umm, usage of software outside of the EULA can't exactly be expected to be transparent, can it? If we're comparing use of licensed OSs here then there is obviously a difference.
I couldn't see how MS could survive without the activation code key required to install their OS. I don't see how Apple has done it this long.
We're being trolled here again apparently, but the implication seems to be that any copy protection that prevents software from being bootlegged or used outside of the EULA is a problem, even if it's completely invisible to a legitimate user. That kind of logic sort of speaks for itself.
Incidentally, possibly the most significant "DRM" barrier to installing OSX on generic PC hardware has nothing to do with Apple's planning. I don't think it's even theoretically possible to boot OSX on a PC without EFI, and due to Microsoft's lack of support for EFI, few (if any) PC-makers are building boxes with EFI boot ROMs.
Exactly. Legal users of XP are faced with the DRM, on OSX only illegal users face it. And even if there was nothing preventing people from installing OSX on generic boxes, installing it and getting it to work right still wouldn't be "transparent" due to other necessary hacks caused by hardware differences.
MS survived for years before they implemented it, didn't they? And even now, the activation thing doesn't do much as it's easily bypassed by using code generators (I think there are even install discs of versions that don't even ask for any numbers). It's a simple explanation - many people are willing to pay for software instead of stealing it, and even if nobody bought upgrades, both apple and MS make money every time a computer is sold with the OS already installed.
It's possible, hackers have been doing it for months now. But I do agree that even without DRM, the install would still be a pain and require hacking and additional things like drivers.
Since OS X only installs on specific hardware, then yes, I would say that there most certainly IS DRM in there. So Windows requires license-numbers and the like. And OS X requires specific hardware. Implementation is different, but reasons are the same.
Huh? If I try to burn my iTunes-playlists too many times, or I decide to share then with my friends, I'm an "illegal user", even though such actions are legal?
I don't buy into that logic. At least part of the reason OSX only installs on specific hardware is that it's only compatible with specific hardware. You can't run Xbox games on a Playstation, and it's not because of DRM. Not to mention that any DRM in OSX isn't fairplay, as you mentioned.
And even if you think the reasons are the same, OSX not running on PC's isn't really comparable to XP requiring activation. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
iTunes is an app, not the operating system. When I said OSX, I meant OSX.
But they are not legal, in that these uses violate the terms you agreed to when you bought the music, and even if you hadn't, "sharing" with your friends is not protected fair use and never has been, DRM or no.
Right. This concept of DRM is being applied very, very loosely, and in ways it doesn't really apply. A Macintosh computer is Apple hardware + OSX. Just because the PC market evolved in the unique and freakish way it did, doesn't mean that Apple's approach is somehow abnormal. In fact, it is far more "normal" than the larger PC market.
No, the DRM here is called copyright enforcement of an OS which must be linked to the customized hardware, nothing else...it's the wish of the author called Apple, and should be defended at all costs, as long as such author wishes so.
"Fair use". Go look it up
EULA's are more or less proven to be useless and not valid
Sharing IS in fact legal. Sure, it might be a bit different from one jurisdiction to another, but at least here it's perfectly legal to make copies of your music to your friends and family.
But you CAN run OS X on other hardware besides Apple's. The hardware itself is more or less identical to PC's, so there is no technical reason for it to not work. So why is it so difficult to do? Could it be.... DRM? No, I'm not advocating pirating OS X for PC's, I'm just disputing the "There is no DRM in OS X"-claim.
Fairplay is a central part of an app that ships with OS X. There is other DRM besides Fairplay in there though.
You can, but it requires some hacking (apart from any DRM) and finding drivers to make it work right. I still don't see how that makes OSX comparable to the activation in XP though.
I'm not claiming there's no DRM in OSX. I honestly didn't know when I asked. At this point I'll say that there's no DRM in osx that imposes on the user, or even is noticed when you install the OS on a mac.
An app that ships with OSX isn't OSX. Unlike XP, you can run the OSX operating system without encountering any visible DRM.
Your beef is with iTunes. It's a stretch to pretend that all apps that apple gives out free are part of the OS.
I don't know where "here" is for you, but in the United States, it's a violation of copyright law. Fair use covers copies made for your use, not distribution to others. If fair use permitted copying for "friends and family" then obviously copyrights would be meaningless. Which is why it doesn't.
Glad someone pointed that out... making 'mix tapes' and giving them to friends has been held up in court as fair use. It's legal to take your iTMS purchases, burn them to CD and give them away to people you personally know, as long as you don't charge for them.
Err, nope. Perfectly legal to do that here in the US, for now at least. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 is (somewhat) clear on this. The RIAA is trying to change that of course, and if you study the language they use when talking about personal/one-of compilations it is clear they KNOW it's legal but they want people to think it is illegal. Apparantly that's working.
Huh? I don't follow you. Read any explanation of fair use and music, and you will find that fair use permits copies to be made for personal use, but not for distribution to others. A good, straight-forward explanation can be found at the bottom of this page:
Maybe the EFF has also been deluded by the RIAA, but I doubt it.