Great, take iOS out of your iPhone and see how useful it is as a phone.
What would stop you from installing Android? Or an OS of your own development?
Great, take iOS out of your iPhone and see how useful it is as a phone.
Except none of that has anything to do with Psystar. Even if you consider Psystar's installation of OS X to be legal under 17 USC 117 (a), then 17 USC 117 (b) specifically prohibits the installed copy to be transferred without the permission of the copyright holder. And, once again, 17 USC 117 does not allow for creating a derivative work.
Yes, it does. If you bought a copy of software, such things could be subject to Fair Use and First Sale.
Yes, it does. If you bought a copy of software, such things could be subject to Fair Use and First Sale.
But let's say you're right. Then as I noted before PsyStar simply did it wrong.
I'll make it easier this time. Include a copy of FreeDOS (or other free OS) and hackintosh software. The computer ships with boxed OS X (legally purchased at retail), although the DVD is already in the drive. Upon first boot into the free OS, it installs OS X onto the hard drive using the hackintosh software, ("Please wait, configuring the system for first use...").
The company did not create a derivative work. It simply resold a retail boxed copy of OS X that had at the time never been installed on a computer. Of course it's sad to have to go through all of that to achieve the same end result -- user bought a hackintosh.
It is rather silly, however, that it's merely the lack of an 8-characters string that prevents OS X from running flawlessly on some 3rd party hardware...
First Sale. Accounting errors aside, they buy a retail copy and resell a retail copy. Fair Use: It doesn't constitute a creative work significantly different from the original in the way a person would use it. It shouldn't be considered derivative, and if it is, still Fair Use.
Supposedly, but Apple and others want to control a lot more than just copying, which is my main complaint here.
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.
They attempted to control access, but the court didn't buy it. The big part, and non-DMCA issue, is that Lexmark made the act of copying their code required in order to use a toner cartridge in the printer. If the printer detected any other program, it would refuse to work. .
Only for your bought copy of the software. A moot point, Psystar was not reselling the same copy they bought (in fact, they couldn't even prove having bought the copies in the first place and admitted to creating a derivative work and distributing said unauthorised derivative).
Obviously Psystar had the right to buy as many boxes with MacOS X as they wanted, and then they had the right to sell these boxes with MacOS X to anyone willing to buy them. That's what "First Sale" allowed them to do.
*yawn* Fair Use would include making extremely slight (a tiny fraction of a percent of the whole, like changing one letter in War and Peace) alterations for compatibility.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
Contributory infringement isn't any more legal.
You call it an adaptation, I call it a necessary working copy in the course of using the program
Fair Use doesn't cover distribution.
And keep trumpeting that Accounting error. 830 or so missing licenses out of 830 required licenses is not an accounting error, no matter how you spin it.
The Fair Use part is alteration for compatibility.
I already said I don't defend PsyStar in this case. You keep harping on this to avoid the larger issue.
What would stop you from installing Android? Or an OS of your own development?
There is no larger issue since we're talking in the context of what Psystar did. That's all this judgment covers.
Exactly. I hope you won't deny that creating MacOS X did "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Lexmark tried to control access to the use of their printers. That's not protected by copyright, nor by the DMCA. The bit of code that was copied was then deemed so insignificant that copying it didn't mean copyright infringement either.
You call it an adaptation, I call it a necessary working copy in the course of using the program. But I'll grant you could be right, depending on how beholden to the corporations that particular judge tends to be.
The end user is not distributing any copies, derivative or not. That part of the law says nothing about modifying a version of OS X currently on disk. Althought it is corporate-purchased, the DMCA still has exceptions for interoperability and Fair Use that should apply. At most he is violating terms of a EULA that, in a sane world of copyright, would be rendered unenforceable.
In fact, in other Western countries this is perfectly legal due to better consumer protection laws and copyright that's a bit less corporate-owned. PearC still legally sells hackintoshes in Germany. They're a reputable firm, sell their base hardware equivalent to a Mac Pro for 1,200 Euros less (2,200 vs. 3,400).
The Fair Use part is alteration for compatibility. Otherwise, you are transferring legally as an authorized copy of the software.
Then it is no longer the original product, does not have the same resale value. Because software is attached, you have fewer rights in relation to your device (which is the whole system, not hardware and software separately)
The larger issue is legal Mac clones
the even larger issue is abuse of copyright and the erosion of our rights due to EULAs and corporate-purchased copyright law that becomes ever more restrictive.