Apple Seeds OS X Snow Leopard Build 10A394 to Developers

[macintoshtoffy]

No, Apple isn't trying to assist thieves. And you aren't helping them by pirating unreleased versions of their software.

Calm down and get down out of the rafters. I personally don't see anything wrong with people downloading, using or what have you with the beta builds as long as they purchase the final version. Apple loses nothing by people using the beta builds. I've used the beta builds and its allowed me to experiment a little - and to get a realistic view of what Snow Leopard will be like.

They do this after builds distributed at WWDC because there are people present who do not have ADC select/premier accounts. Certain people such as lucky student ADC members are present, and are given discs. Releasing updates over software update lets them stay ontop of things even though they can't download new seeds.

That is probably the most logical thing; that and saving money not seeding another 6gb download when it wasn't necessary.

 

[Mactagonist]

But we're not in a court of law.

In common English usage, "taking something without paying the price normally charged by the maker of the thing" is "theft".

However you define it, though, both are wrong.

Your 'common english' statement is silly. So using a coupon or buying on clearance or any other way of "not paying the price normally charged by the maker" would be theft to you?

When I downloaded a copy of 10a380 and updated it to 10a394, was something 'taken' from Apple? Did they lose the use of SL?

No. Nothing was 'taken'. That is precisely why copyright infringement and theft are considered separate concepts.

I would agree that it is wrong, but a very minor wrong. Personally I consider 'non profit' copyright infringement to be akin to breaking a speed limit. Something that shouldnt be done to excess, but that is so common that there are few among us who arnt guilty of it.

 

[AidenShaw]

Your 'common english' statement is silly. So using a coupon or buying on clearance or any other way of "not paying the price normally charged by the maker" would be theft to you? .

The coupon or promotion establishes a "normal price". The maker does not need to keep the price constant over time.

When I downloaded a copy of 10a380 and updated it to 10a394, was something 'taken' from Apple? Did they lose the use of SL?

No. Nothing was 'taken'. That is precisely why copyright infringement and theft are considered separate concepts.

Separate in court lingo, but not in common use.

It's also a bit muddied by the fact that Apple does not sell the 10.6 beta in a retail store. However, it seems that paying Apple for ADC or buying a ticket to WWDC is the only legitimate way to get it. Therefore, it could be argued that Apple is suffering the financial loss of an ADC membership when the beta is stolen over the torrent.

I would agree that it is wrong, but a very minor wrong. Personally I consider 'non profit' copyright infringement to be akin to breaking a speed limit. Something that shouldnt be done to excess, but that is so common that there are few among us who arnt guilty of it.

Obviously, your salary does not depend on people paying for software (or does it, and you are condoning a lower salary for yourself?).

In my mind, sticking a copy of 10.5 inside your jacket and walking out of the store is *exactly* the same wrong as downloading a copy of 10.5 from the torrent.

</tangent>

 

[DMann]

And your concern about 64-bit Windows 7 drivers is pure ininformed FUD (or worse, intentional misinformation).

While I am unfamiliar with the English term "ininformed," I had clearly stated that "Windows driver developers will likely be less motivated to delve into serious 64 bit development." This is merely speculation, nothing more, and hardly seems to qualify as the FUD you have so defensively and insipidly classified it as.

Your post is clearly a case of the camel not seeing the crookedness of his own neck.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black#Similar_idioms_in_other_languages)

The idioms you reference do not apply here, as I was describing something which is external to my own being, i.e., I have no personal ties to either W7 or SL - the pot, from my point of view, from the outside, is black, and the kettle is not. I, however, could not actually be the pot which calls the kettle black anymore than I could assess the state of the camel's neck as my own. Most ironically, a classic example of the aforementioned idiom, "The Pot Calling the Kettle Black," can be most profoundly illustrated by examining your very own posts:

The Pot:

Meh....

Now the tens of thousands of Apple employees who actually make it happen won't be noticed - the spotlight is back on the Lord God Jobs.

Sigh....

Calls the Kettle Black:

Sad to see that so many people think that making juvenile comments about someone at Microsoft is the right way to honor Steve Jobs' return to work at Apple.

They must be really, really scared about Windows 7....





</sarcasm>

 

[mmulin]

Anyone else think they released Snow Leopard 10A394 through Software Updater because they new so many non-developers were testing it?

I am wondering here whether it checks if it is updating to a legit developer. I am able to see and download A394 in my software update as a developer, my friend is not even able to see it in SU. He used a torrent copy to install A380. Reading through the many threats here, I get the picture, many were able to download A394 via SU despite being non-developers.

 

[Mactagonist]

...



Separate in court lingo, but not in common use.

It's also a bit muddied by the fact that Apple does not sell the 10.6 beta in a retail store. However, it seems that paying Apple for ADC or buying a ticket to WWDC is the only legitimate way to get it. Therefore, it could be argued that Apple is suffering the financial loss of an ADC membership when the beta is stolen over the torrent.

theft
Pronunciation:
\ˈtheft\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thīefth; akin to Old English thēof thief
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2obsolete : something stolen
3: a stolen base in baseball

Unless the 'taking' of software deprives its owner of it completely (IE: theft of the only copy of source code) it is not theft. You can say that isnt your idea of "common usage" if you want, but that is reality.

Obviously, your salary does not depend on people paying for software (or does it, and you are condoning a lower salary for yourself?).

In my mind, sticking a copy of 10.5 inside your jacket and walking out of the store is *exactly* the same wrong as downloading a copy of 10.5 from the torrent.

</tangent>

I cant speak to what goes on in your mind, but legally there is a huge difference between the two.

If my salary depended on people paying for software I would do my utmost to ensure that the software had enough value to attract customers. Well made, innovative, compelling software with good support that is sold at a fair price doesnt have to worry about piracy.

Case in point: Snow Leopard. I may be using an early copy because I am impatient, but I have also preordered my 'up to date' copy. The software was sold at a fair price and had enough value to earn my business. Despite the fact that I could simply keep using this pirated copy.

 

[pdjudd]

Case in point: Snow Leopard. I may be using an early copy because I am impatient, but I have also preordered my 'up to date' copy. The software was sold at a fair price and had enough value to earn my business. Despite the fact that I could simply keep using this pirated copy.

AidenShaw is right and I agree with his statement on the matter (and that say something since I usually don't agree!). The pre-release seeds are not intended for public consumption regardless of your intention to get Snow Leopard. Your up to date purchase was for an operating system that is going to be sold to you in September. It does not grant you any access to development builds in any way. By downloading these builds without permission from Apple, you are depriving them of their right under copyright to restrict its availability to the public.

The pre-releases are intended to their paid select developers. If you did not get it from that program you are in fact stealing. Apple did not grant you access to those files. They are not available to the public. It doesn't matter how much you want it, but Apple does not test their OS like Microsoft does - Apple does it privately.

And there is theft going on. Intellectual property can be stolen even if it is not represented in a physical form - its those laws that prevent you from downloading trials of commercial software and cracking them for prate re-distribution.

By illegitimately obtaining non-public software you are:
1) Depriving Apple of the subscription costs to be a ACD member (which they are entitled to ask for)
2) Depriving Apple of their right to control distribution of their intellectual property (again which they are entitled to do).

You may not be going into an Apple store and doing a 5 finger discount on (say) Leopard, but its the same thing. You are depriving something from a property holder. You do not yet possess the necessary usage license for Snow Leopard - that doesn't happen until September.

Here are the terms for the program you signed up for:

Mac OS X updates, which may currently be downloaded from www.apple.com or software update, are not included in this program.

This offer is not valid in conjunction with any other Mac OS offer from Apple (note: this in my mind covers the pre-release)

This program entitles the purchaser of a qualifying product purchased between June 8, 2009, and December 26, 2009, to upgrade to Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard. (Note: This would defiantly preclude any pre-release seeds since that is a different system).

This offer is limited to one Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard upgrade kit per qualifying computer purchased. (Read - not the pre-releases)

I understand that you think you paid market price, but that is irrelevant. You don't get to determine the market price for products that you do not own. That's for Apple to determine.

 

[AidenShaw]

While I am unfamiliar with the English term "ininformed,"

A typo, obviously.

I had clearly stated that "Windows driver developers will likely be less motivated to delve into serious 64 bit development." This is merely speculation, nothing more, and hardly seems to qualify as the FUD you have so defensively and insipidly classified it as.

The "U" in FUD is for "uncertainty", which your speculation seeks to foment.

Your speculation also assumes that the reader is ignorant of the Windows driver development environment and tools, and doesn't realize that common source driver development is supported, facilitated and encouraged. If one's x64 driver isn't "serious", then the x86 driver also isn't "serious".

The idiom referred to the operating systems, obviously, since the post criticized Windows for a "flaw" that OSX shares.

 

[Mactagonist]

In no way do I think that the 'up to date' preorder of SL I did makes my use of the early copy authorized. Why would anyone think that?

I completely understand that using the leaked early SL build is copyright infringement. However this is a civil issue, not a criminal one. (as you seem to imply by mentioning stealing and theft) I consider 'not for profit' copyright infringement to be trivial issue on par with speeding or jaywalking.

I mentioned my 'up to date' order simply as a way to illustrate the success of Apple's approach to 'combating' piracy. They making great software and offer it at a fair price without antagonizing their users. That is how you turn potential pirates into actual customers.

AidenShaw is right and I agree with his statement on the matter (and that say something since I usually don't agree!). The pre-release seeds are not intended for public consumption regardless of your intention to get Snow Leopard. Your up to date purchase was for an operating system that is going to be sold to you in September. It does not grant you any access to development builds in any way. By downloading these builds without permission from Apple, you are depriving them of their right under copyright to restrict its availability to the public.

The pre-releases are intended to their paid select developers. If you did not get it from that program you are in fact stealing. Apple did not grant you access to those files. They are not available to the public. It doesn't matter how much you want it, but Apple does not test their OS like Microsoft does - Apple does it privately.

And there is theft going on. Intellectual property can be stolen even if it is not represented in a physical form - its those laws that prevent you from downloading trials of commercial software and cracking them for prate re-distribution.

By illegitimately obtaining non-public software you are:
1) Depriving Apple of the subscription costs to be a ACD member (which they are entitled to ask for)
2) Depriving Apple of their right to control distribution of their intellectual property (again which they are entitled to do).

You may not be going into an Apple store and doing a 5 finger discount on (say) Leopard, but its the same thing. You are depriving something from a property holder. You do not yet possess the necessary usage license for Snow Leopard - that doesn't happen until September.

Here are the terms for the program you signed up for:


I understand that you think you paid market price, but that is irrelevant. You don't get to determine the market price for products that you do not own. That's for Apple to determine.

 

[pdjudd]

In no way do I think that the 'up to date' preorder of SL I did makes my use of the early copy authorized. Why would anyone think that?

The fact that you illegally obtained it along with the claim that it is not theft gave me that impression. You seemed to justify it by saying that you already bought Slow Leopard up to date and paid fair market value for what you have.

I completely understand that using the leaked early SL build is copyright infringement. However this is a civil issue, not a criminal one. (as you seem to imply by mentioning stealing and theft) I consider 'not for profit' copyright infringement to be trivial issue on par with speeding or jaywalking.

1) You did not obtain it through legitimate means - that is the same as using bit-torrent to get unpaid software. You did not pay for it. Not paying for things is stealing. Stealing is both criminal and civil.

Furthermore, calling it a trivial issue akin to speeding is irrelevant and is no more justifiable. It doesn't amatter how many people violate it and or get away with it. The crime is still on the books and it is enforced. It still is wrong.

I mentioned my 'up to date' order simply as a way to illustrate the success of Apple's approach to 'combating' piracy. They making great software and offer it at a fair price without antagonizing their users. That is how you turn potential pirates into actual customers.

Except by downloading software illegally, you are in fact a pirate.

 

[AidenShaw]

Except by downloading software illegally, you are in fact a pirate.

... and he's giving Apple his name and address so that the legal goons from Cupertino can pay him a visit.

But Apple doesn't need a name on a board to find you - they have your IP address from the connections to software updates.

(...and Bryan might like Sugar Sweet Sunshine cupcakes...}

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

The fact that you illegally obtained it along with the claim that it is not theft gave me that impression. You seemed to justify it by saying that you already bought Slow Leopard up to date and paid fair market value for what you have.



1) You did not obtain it through legitimate means - that is the same as using bit-torrent to get unpaid software. You did not pay for it. Not paying for things is stealing. Stealing is both criminal and civil.

Furthermore, calling it a trivial issue akin to speeding is irrelevant and is no more justifiable. It doesn't amatter how many people violate it and or get away with it. The crime is still on the books and it is enforced. It still is wrong.



Except by downloading software illegally, you are in fact a pirate.

Who cares? You don't work for Apple.

 

[pdjudd]

Who cares? You don't work for Apple.

I care about people pirating software. I work in the technology industry. Even though I don't make software or profit off of it directly, I do care as a customer about people violating the law. Like it or not even supposed "victimless" crimes like speeding still affect the public at large. I attack piracy and defend IP rights because I want the same rights respected when I do create them. I don't want people stealing stuff they don't own - its not the way society should act.

 

[zachplaysguitar]

I care about people pirating software. I work in the technology industry. Even though I don't make software or profit off of it directly, I do care as a customer about people violating the law. Like it or not even supposed "victimless" crimes like speeding still affect the public at large. I attack piracy and defend IP rights because I want the same rights respected when I do create them. I don't want people stealing stuff they don't own - its not the way society should act.

K thanks, dad.

 

[pdjudd]

K thanks, dad.

You do know that is condescending. How about this. Piracy is stealing! It is against the law!

 

[windywoo]

I care about people pirating software. I work in the technology industry. Even though I don't make software or profit off of it directly, I do care as a customer about people violating the law. Like it or not even supposed "victimless" crimes like speeding still affect the public at large. I attack piracy and defend IP rights because I want the same rights respected when I do create them. I don't want people stealing stuff they don't own - its not the way society should act.

He's using software which isn't available for sale yet, no monetary damages have been done, in fact what real damage has been done? I can appreciate you dislike piracy, but to pursue enforcement of regulations when no harm has been done is obsessive and not the way society should act.

 

[MikhailT]

You do know that is condescending. How about this. Piracy is stealing! It is against the law!

Just stop preaching. Everybody knows it is against the law. You are not going to stop them from it.


Anyway, in case anybody is wondering, the update actually bought 64bit kernel support for early 2008 Penyrn MBP models. I was able to get it to boot 64bit via modifying the boot.plist by adding arch=x86_64 as key under Kernel Flags.

I had to revert back to 32bit because little snitch is not 64bit and my logitech mouse doesn't work with LLC in 64bit either.

He's using software which isn't available for sale yet, no monetary damages have been done, in fact what real damage has been done? I can appreciate you dislike piracy, but to pursue enforcement of regulations when no harm has been done is obsessive and not the way society should act.

Actually, companies paid for ADC to get access to the seeding program. So there is some monetary damages. That's beside the point.

 

[pdjudd]

He's using software which isn't available for sale yet, no monetary damages have been done, in fact what real damage has been done? I can appreciate you dislike piracy, but to pursue enforcement of regulations when no harm has been done is obsessive and not the way society should act.

Actually, as it has been stated by AidenShaw,- the only way you are allowed to use it would be if you were an ACD developer with Apple. That is not something that can be garnered for free. Apple was deprived not only of the finances related to the ACD program, but their rights to control something private.

 

[pdjudd]

Just stop preaching. Everybody knows it is against the law. You are not going to stop them from it.

That doesn't change the facts.

 

[fiercetiger224]

He's using software which isn't available for sale yet, no monetary damages have been done, in fact what real damage has been done? I can appreciate you dislike piracy, but to pursue enforcement of regulations when no harm has been done is obsessive and not the way society should act.

Exactly. What damages have been done? First of all, he's not using it to turn in a profit. If he was say, using it for work, like creating a video in Final Cut for a client, then it would be causing some damage. If he downloaded it (legally or illegally) to just play around and test it, then it wouldn't cause any damage. I normally would agree because I'm against piracy, but under the circumstances, if no damages are done, then I'm fine with it. This is why there's trial software, etc, so people can test before they buy.

Besides, this isn't really public software, so no real damages are really done (besides ADC developer fees). Who should be to blame for these software leaks? Who do you think leaked this? Most likely software developers themselves. Ironic eh? So the real people to blame, are the people that SHARE the software.

 

[pdjudd]

Exactly. What damages have been done? First of all, he's not using it to turn in a profit. If he was say, using it for work, like creating a video in Final Cut for a client, then it would be causing some damage. If he downloaded it (legally or illegally) to just play around and test it, then it wouldn't cause any damage. I normally would agree because I'm against piracy, but under the circumstances, if no damages are done, then I'm fine with it. This is why there's trial software, etc, so people can test before they buy.[\quote]

The law doesn't care what your motive was. If you steal something, even for personal testing or non commercial usage it is still stealing. Apple was deprived of the (at least) thousand dollars that you have to pay to get said unreleased software. It s not fair to the people who play fair.

Besides, this isn't really public software, so no real damages are really done (besides ADC developer fees). Who should be to blame for these software leaks? Who do you think leaked this? Most likely software developers themselves. Ironic eh? So the real people to blame, are the people that SHARE the software.

It isn't public at all. The blame lies on all parties involved (the leaker and the pirate). I condemn all guilty parties.

 

[zachplaysguitar]

You do know that is condescending. How about this. Piracy is stealing! It is against the law!

lol, i was kidding

 

[pdjudd]

lol, i was kidding

Humor is not universal. Nor is it obvious. My bad.

 

[Mactagonist]

...

(...and Bryan might like Sugar Sweet Sunshine cupcakes...}

They are delicious! Let me know if you are ever in town, I am always looking for an excuse to go!

 

[fiercetiger224]

It isn't public at all. The blame lies on all parties involved (the leaker and the pirate). I condemn all guilty parties.

Haha you can if you want. But it doesn't change the fact that there is always going to be piracy. Here's a twist: what if Apple leaked the software themselves?

You know what's even more awesome? The law doesn't care what you have to say. The law however, causes more problems than what it fixes. This is starting to sound more and more like 24...