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

Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?

Amdahl said:
I'm going to quote the section:

I can identify three types of copy here: Exact Copy, Original Copy, and Adaptation. It says that the Exact Copy "prepared in accordance with this section", which includes 117(a)(1), can be transferred along with the Original Copy. That means Psystar is in the clear. If their copy is deemed an adaptation, they are screwed. That simple.
Click to expand...

What part of "exact copy" is unclear? The copy that results from installation is not an exact copy of the original copy on the DVD.

That is permissible. Accolade included a copy of Sega code in every game they sold for the Sega system, and that was not considered infringement. Psystar has a different issue, because they are adapting the software to hardware, rather than making their software work with someone elses hardware. The parallel is clear, and if the Sega v. Accolade defense holds, those copies will likely not be considered infringements.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the legality of Psystar copies in regard to Section 117. Which part of Section 117 gives them the right to make additional copies that are not "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine?"
 
BaldiMac said:
What part of "exact copy" is unclear? The copy that results from installation is not an exact copy of the original copy on the DVD.
Click to expand...
Section 117(a)(1). Is a copy in RAM of an executable from a DVD an 'Exact Copy' of the file on disc? No, it is not, due to potential compression, page alignment, dynamic linking, endian issues, and other technical issues. But legally speaking, it is an Exact Copy. The same principle would apply with the other essential step in question, Installation. Installation decompresses the files, de-combines them from packages, places them in a file structure on disc, makes changes on the fly to fit with the specific hardware configuration, and so on.

Still an 'Exact Copy,' legally speaking.

We were talking about the legality of Psystar copies in regard to Section 117. Which part of Section 117 gives them the right to make additional copies that are not "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine?"
Click to expand...

Section 107, Fair Use, was the section by which the court ruled Accolade had a right that negated any infringements.
 
BaldiMac said:
What entitles you to an Apple netbook other than Apple choosing to offer it for sale?
Click to expand...

Entitle, thats the new fanboy word of the week it seems.

Its not about entitlement its about the freedom to use the technology out there. If Apple doesn't offer a netbook but they offer an OS. People will make it work and there is no 100% legal evidence to show that if they legally own the laptop and said software, they are committing a crime.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
If Apple doesn't offer a netbook but they offer an OS.
Click to expand...


License. Apple licenses an OS under terms. If you cannot accept those terms, Apple isn't going to offer the product to you.

I want a mansion and various home builders offer them, but that doesn't mean that they should offer them at a dollar since I think their terms are egregious.
 
Amdahl said:
Section 117(a)(1). Is a copy in RAM of an executable from a DVD an 'Exact Copy' of the file on disc? No, it is not, due to potential compression, page alignment, dynamic linking, endian issues, and other technical issues. But legally speaking, it is an Exact Copy. The same principal would apply with the other essential step in question, Installation. Installation decompresses the files, de-combines them from packages, places them in a file structure on disc, makes changes on the fly to fit with the specific hardware configuration, and so on.
Click to expand...

Section 117(a) does not require an exact copy, so none of what you have written makes any sense. Section 117(b) does require an exact copy.

Still an 'Exact Copy,' legally speaking.
Click to expand...

No. A "copy" and an "exact copy" are two different things.

Section 107, Fair Use, was the section by which the court ruled Accolade had a right that negated any infringements.
Click to expand...

Psystar is not arguing Fair Use or interoperability or anything like that. They are arguing that the copies that they prepare are permitted under Section 117. 117(a)(1) does not allow for copies that are not an "essential step" in utilizing the program.
 
pdjudd said:
Apple doesn't sell ponies either. That doesn't mean anything. Saying "Apple doesn't" is meaningless.
Click to expand...

GlossyWhite said "grow up, get a Mac".

A lot of the Hackintosh folks are using netbooks and affordable mini-towers - because that is the kind of system that they want.

You can't "grow up, get a Mac" if Apple doesn't sell any system that's interesting and fits your budget and workspace.

Of course I don't condone piracy, but I don't see a criminal issue if someone *buys* a copy of OSX and installs it on a system. In other words, I don't see a technical violation of one short phrase in the EULA as being a criminal act.

And for those claiming that "real Apple users" won't pirate, please try to fit that into the context of the iWork '09 kit with the virus that was on the torrents. Evidence shows that a lot of "real Apple users" aren't that ethical. ;)

How can anyone believe that it's in Apple's best interest to force someone to buy Windows 7 for their system instead of Apple OSX?

I liked the "North Korea of computing" comment.... I'm surprised that people at Apple aren't more acutely aware of PR issues around their actions (actually, they seemed to be more reasonable in 2009 until June, something happened in June to return the spiteful pettiness to Apple).

Apple is benefitting a lot from an "Apple is cool" perception at the moment. A few heavy-handed actions like blocking Atom could quickly damage that perception. We see posts on these fora from long-time Apple users who don't like things about the company's direction. Upset the Ipod/Iphone newbies, and Apple's computer market share would drop from the mid single-digits to the low single-digits faster than you can say "Power Computing" or "Gil Amelio".

Ticking people off just as Windows 7 is released is not a good strategy.

A long time ago, when the idea of putting software on a music disk (early CD era) was floated, I was in a high-level discussion about the risks/benefits of putting mainframe software on these *enormous* 650 MB CDs. (We had external 8-bit SCSI CDROM readers at the time.) Some engineers were arguing that it was dangerous because our software keys weren't completely secure - with several valid keys you could eventually generate as many additional valid keys as you wanted.

The senior engineer working on the CD project simply countered with "Today's pirates are tomorrow's customers". That engineer was an executive vice president when he retired, and we all know what happened with the notion of shipping software on CDROMs.


BaldiMac said:
What entitles you to an Apple netbook other than Apple choosing to offer it for sale?
Click to expand...

Honda doesn't sell turbo-charged Civics, yet they can't do anything if I choose to add one to my car.

If I paid Apple for 10.5 for my Dell Mini, and I paid Apple for my 10.6 upgrade for my Dell mini - what's the issue?
 
BaldiMac said:
Section 117(a) does not require an exact copy, so none of what you have written makes any sense. Section 117(b) does require an exact copy.

No. A "copy" and an "exact copy" are two different things.
Click to expand...
You are inventing meanings that are not there. If the law wanted to differentiate between Exact Copy, Not-Exact-Copy, Derivative work, and Adaptation, it would have done so. When the law does not do so, then you have to use the meanings/words the law provides. In this case, an Exact Copy is any of the permitted copies made from the original copy. The law is not concerned with the technical pedantry of how a particular copy might vary, recognizing that the very nature of computer software requires copies are going to be made in the normal course of use. From disc, to hard drive, to RAM, each slightly different. Your interpretation would mean that it is legal to sell a Nintendo while it is turned off, but if you sell it turned on playing a game, you've commited a violation.


Psystar is not arguing Fair Use or interoperability or anything like that. They are arguing that the copies that they prepare are permitted under Section 117. 117(a)(1) does not allow for copies that are not an "essential step" in utilizing the program.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I haven't read the whole thing, and many of the filings are still under seal. No one can say for certain what is or isn't in those filings. But they have cited Sega v. Accolade, and that case does rely on fair use.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
Entitle, thats the new fanboy word of the week it seems.

Its not about entitlement its about the freedom to use the technology out there. If Apple doesn't offer a netbook but they offer an OS. People will make it work and there is no 100% legal evidence to show that if they legally own the laptop and said software, they are committing a crime.
Click to expand...

Would a synonym have worked better for you?

Copyright infringement is not a crime. I have not claimed that installing OS X on an individual hackintosh is copyright infringement. In fact, I have said that the legality is unclear. Does that make me a fanboy?

Apple offers an OS. Microsoft offers an OS. Both are copyrighted. Both limit your freedom to use the OS. One more than the other.

Most people seem fine with the fact that Microsoft offers an upgrade version of Windows at a reduced price compared to the full version. Apple does the same thing, and they are threatening freedom? Apple only sells upgrade versions at retail. Full versions are only available with Macs.
 
Amdahl said:
You are inventing meanings that are not there. If the law wanted to differentiate between Exact Copy, Not-Exact-Copy, Derivative work, and Adaptation, it would have done so. When the law does not do so, then you have to use the meanings/words the law provides. In this case, an Exact Copy is any of the permitted copies made from the original copy. The law is not concerned with the technical pedantry of how a particular copy might vary, recognizing that the very nature of computer software requires copies are going to be made in the normal course of use. From disc, to hard drive, to RAM, each slightly different. Your interpretation would mean that it is legal to sell a Nintendo while it is turned off, but if you sell it turned on playing a game, you've commited a violation.



Perhaps. I haven't read the whole thing, and many of the filings are still under seal. No one can say for certain what is or isn't in those filings. But they have cited Sega v. Accolade, and that case does rely on fair use.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. An exact copy is, under the law, an exact copy. An "inexact copy" is, legally, a "derivative work." The law most certainly is "concerned with the technical pedantry of how a particular copy might vary."
 
cmaier said:
You are wrong. An exact copy is, under the law, an exact copy. An "inexact copy" is, legally, a "derivative work." The law most certainly is "concerned with the technical pedantry of how a particular copy might vary."
Click to expand...

If the copy created legally under 117(a)(1) was legally an 'inexact copy,' it would have said so. If it was a derivative work, it would have said so. It did not say so; in fact, it specifically recognizes that copies are made in the normal use of a legal, original copy, and exempts those copies from being considered an infringement. The only exception given by 117(b) is adaptations, which 117(a)(1) copies are clearly not.(They would be 117(a)(2) adaptations) Therefore, they would be considered 'Exact Copies' under 117(b).

In fact, if you read 117, the only part that could be the source of the 'Exact copies' is 117(a)(1). So either you're wrong, or the law is flawed.
 
Amdahl said:
If the copy created legally under 117(a)(1) was legally an 'inexact copy,' it would have said so.
Click to expand...

Why? Installation could result in an exact copy or (more commonly) an inexact copy. An exact copy is more likely to result from the archival copy allowed in 117(a)(2).

If it was a derivative work, it would have said so. It did not say so; in fact, it specifically recognizes that copies are made in the normal use of a legal, original copy, and exempts those copies from being considered an infringement.
Click to expand...

117(a) does not apply to derivative works, so why would it say so? And no one has claimed that the result is a derivative work.

Why is the term "exact" used in paragraph (b) and not paragraph (a)? Obviously, the law was differentiating between a copy and an exact copy.

The only exception given by 117(b) is adaptations, which 117(a)(1) copies are clearly not.(They would be 117(a)(2) adaptations) Therefore, they would be considered 'Exact Copies' under 117(b).
Click to expand...

117(a)(1) provides for adaptations in exactly the same way as 117(a)(2). Therefore your logic is completely circular.
 
Baldimac,

If I am not right, then please point to the area of Section 117 that would produce an 'Exact Copy,' under your definition.

Why is the term "exact" used in paragraph (b) and not paragraph (a)? Obviously, the law was differentiating between a copy and an exact copy.
Click to expand...
I believe it was differentiating between adaptations and the word 'exact' is extraneous, as it can not be found anywhere else in the entire Copyright Law chapter.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
Entitle, thats the new fanboy word of the week it seems.

Its not about entitlement its about the freedom to use the technology out there. If Apple doesn't offer a netbook but they offer an OS. People will make it work and there is no 100% legal evidence to show that if they legally own the laptop and said software, they are committing a crime.
Click to expand...

Get it into your head. You don't OWN the software. You own a contract (the EULA) that allows you the use of it under specific terms (detailed in the EULA) By clicking on the I agree under installation, you accept the terms of this contract.
 
AidenShaw said:
Honda doesn't sell turbo-charged Civics, yet they can't do anything if I choose to add one to my car.

If I paid Apple for 10.5 for my Dell Mini, and I paid Apple for my 10.6 upgrade for my Dell mini - what's the issue?
Click to expand...

Simple, you OWN the car, you don't OWN the software, you enter into a contract entitling you to use the software under Apple's conditions.
 
cjmillsnun said:
Simple, you OWN the car, you don't OWN the software, you enter into a contract entitling you to use the software under Apple's conditions.
Click to expand...

No contract is presented, no signature is affixed. You walk in a store, you grab a box containing the disc, you pay the clerk, you walk out. You bought a legal copy of the software. You own the disc, and you have a right to use it under the rights given in Copyright law, same as if you bought a copy of The Matrix on DVD, or Super Mario Brothers.
 
Amdahl said:
No contract is presented, no signature is affixed. You walk in a store, you grab a box containing the disc, you pay the clerk, you walk out. You bought a legal copy of the software. You own the disc, and you have a right to use it under the rights given in Copyright law, same as if you bought a copy of The Matrix on DVD, or Super Mario Brothers.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Because on the box is this wording (I am quoting verbatim from my Snow Leopard Box)

Important Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package. www.apple.com
Click to expand...
 
Amdahl said:
No contract is presented, no signature is affixed. You walk in a store, you grab a box containing the disc, you pay the clerk, you walk out. You bought a legal copy of the software. You own the disc, and you have a right to use it under the rights given in Copyright law, same as if you bought a copy of The Matrix on DVD, or Super Mario Brothers.
Click to expand...

Contracts do not require a signature (except, typically, those under the Statute of Frauds - marriage, land, contracts that take more than a year to execute, etc., and others that are defined by statute). Shrinkwrap licenses are valid in the U.S. (subject to certain conditions).
 
Amdahl said:
No contract is presented, no signature is affixed. You walk in a store, you grab a box containing the disc, you pay the clerk, you walk out. You bought a legal copy of the software. You own the disc, and you have a right to use it under the rights given in Copyright law, same as if you bought a copy of The Matrix on DVD, or Super Mario Brothers.
Click to expand...

Except the box of OSX says specifically that the usage of that product is under licensing terms and to reference Apple.com/legal. This is before you open. You walk into the store and buy a box with a disc. Weather or not you accept the agreement is a whole 'nother matter. Installation may be covered by fair use, but usage does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back