he's right though. monopolies are not illegal. there are tons. the only time the government interferes with one is if the monopolistic company in question is abusing said monopoly. not that apple has a monopoly. you have plenty of choices in computers and operating systems.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
he's right though. monopolies are not illegal. there are tons. the only time the government interferes with one is if the monopolistic company in question is abusing said monopoly. not that apple has a monopoly. you have plenty of choices in computers and operating systems.
Installing OS X on a PC in the privacy of your home, in legal terms, is still not "cool" - especially because a lot of "hackintosh" computing activity goes hand-in-hand with cracked versions of OS X. But Apple has chosen to let it slide, partially because it's an unenforceable situation.
But what Psystar has done is wrong and actionable, as they will soon discover. As BV pointed out so eloquently, what's up with all this "me me me me" entitlement? Apple developed OS X, it's their product - they took all the time and expense and risk to develop, market, sell and support it. They have the legal right to decide whether it can be installed on PCs. Clear as crystal.
The vast number of posts in this thread which have nothing to do with the strict legal aspects of this case would suggest otherwise.
Completely arse about face. If I buy a piece of "work" from its creator, I have the "moral right" to do whatever the hell I want to that copy. If I buy a painting, I can write all over it in black marker, piss on it, then throw it into the fireplace and the artist has absolutely no right - moral or otherwise - to interfere.
Similarly, if I buy a DVD but don't like parts of the movie, I have every "moral right" in the world to make changes to my copy of said movie. Or get someone else to do it for me, to bring this back on track.
The only things I have anything close to no "moral right" to do are misrepresent an altered work as the original and distribute copies without permission (and even the latter is OK in certain contexts, IMHO).
This is just rubbish. In no way is supporting what Psystar is doing "abandoning copyright law". It's not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even playing the same game.
"Abandoning copyright law" would be something like Psystar taking a copy of the OSX source code (or just disassembling it), making changes and then reselling it as their own product.
I have created "things of value" and been suitably reimbursed for them. Once I've been paid, I couldn't give a damn what people do with the things I've made them, as long as they don't a) misrepresent who created it and b) sell copies for a profit.
Finally, suggesting that only those people who are already riding the copyright gravy train are able to offer informed opinions, is just flat-out insulting.
or they could simple stop selling osx. make macs more of an appliance than a computer. no upgrading etc. you want the newest features. you buy a new one. just like a fridge, tv, or a vacuum.
There is no reason "opening up the OS" would cause the Macs Apple sell to be any less reliable than they are now. None.
I hope you were being sarcastic!
If they do that I will just hack my Mac (hey, thats rhymes!) and get the new software, like I do with my iPod coz Apple want me to pay for updates to my £200 media player!
Amazon has copies available...
Starting at $170 used and $236 new, unfortunately...
cool. i didn't realize.. i'm not much of an internet purchaser. but since its there. i bought one.
What kind of crazy worldview do you need to have where "unbundling" = "copyright infringement" and "communist" ?
Copyright is wholely and solely an artificial construct of the law (and by extension the Government). If a particular government changes copyright law to legalise (or enforce) certain behaviours, then they are, by definition, not copyright infringement, no matter what copyright law might say in other countries.
Not once have I suggested or supported the idea of taking a single copy of anything, then sellling it multiple times, yet several times my argument has been "refuted" with variations of "you just want to pirate stuff without paying for it".
I find it hard to believe these 'misinterpretations' can be accidental.
Incidentally, where I stand personally on copyright is completely independent of, and irrelevant to, the arguments I'm making. Concentrate on them, not me.
If Psystar are building a business around performing what for an individual is a legal act, then they're not doing anything wrong. They may be doing something illegal, but that just means the law is wrong (and should be fixed).
Further, and more specifically, I don't believe that making OS X run on a regular PC actually involves modifying any of the OS X binaries. It does require adding certain software and I believe it might even require replacing some files that are distributed with the OS. Neither of those, however, count as "modification" in my book. It is no different from a PC vendor installing additional software and/or drivers (to support their hardware) on a PC with Windows.
The only reason this is true is because of the EULA. The upholding of EULAs (especially the click-through type) has been very spotty.
What kind of crazy worldview do you need to have where "unbundling" = "copyright infringement" and "communist" ?
Czachorski didn't say communist he said fascist which are very different ideals altogether.
Enough of the car (or other physical object) analogies
Can we quit comparing modifying an OS and reselling it to modifying a car or a single copy of a book and reselling it? There is a fundamental difference here--it's not easy for any of us to modify a car and resell it over and over again. And companies like Saleen who do make a living off modifying and reselling Mustangs has an agreement with Ford; they aren't downloading Mustangs off the internet and claiming they are exercising their rights because Ford has a monopoly on the Mustang market.
This is why copywright exists--to protect people and companies who earn a living off creative concepts that are very simple for the general public to duplicate. If the law doesn't protect the owners, why would anyone in their right mind waste time and money investing in something knowing that anyone with an internet connection and some bit torrent software can resell your work and steal your profits?
Can we quit comparing modifying an OS and reselling it to modifying a car or a single copy of a book and reselling it? There is a fundamental difference here--it's not easy for any of us to modify a car and resell it over and over again.
And companies like Saleen who do make a living off modifying and reselling Mustangs has an agreement with Ford; they aren't downloading Mustangs off the internet and claiming they are exercising their rights because Ford has a monopoly on the Mustang market. This is why copywright exists--to protect people and companies who earn a living off creative concepts that are very simple for the general public to duplicate. If the law doesn't protect the owners, why would anyone in their right mind waste time and money investing in something knowing that anyone with an internet connection and some bit torrent software can resell your work and steal your profits?
Can we quit comparing modifying an OS and reselling it to modifying a car or a single copy of a book and reselling it? There is a fundamental difference here--it's not easy for any of us to modify a car and resell it over and over again.
PSYSTAR ARE NOT DOING THIS.
How many times does that point have to be made ? Every copy of OSX they resell, they have bought. They are not reselling the same copy "over and over again".
Further, I don't think anyone has suggested they should be able to. I have a very dim view of copyright and even I would consider such behaviour beyond the pale.
Oh, not that argument again. When you, as a private person and end user, buy a product that comes with a EULA, it can happen that some terms in the EULA are deemed to be unenforceable because they put you, a private person, at a disadvantage to a company. But should you buy Leopard without realising that you can't install it on your Dell computer, you can return it and get your money back, so nothing is putting you at an unacceptable disadvantage. The EULA means that Apple was not offering what you hoped they would offer (an OS to install on your Dell computer), so all you can do is return the software.
But Psystar is _not_ a private person. They are a company. Once you are a company, it doesn't matter what size you are, but contract is contract. For a company, the EULA is absolutely, one hundred percent binding. Apple gave Psystar a license to install Leopard on _one_ Apple-labelled computer, and they installed it on non-Apple computers without a license.
I would argue that Psystar are misrepresenting Apple and are directly profiting from unauthorized use of OS X as a product. Apple has made it clear that OS X is to be run on Macs. Period. Bundling a legally purchased version of OS X with an Open Mac is disingenuous. I agree, and a court of law is about to decide the matter.
oh its not what i would suggest, but its another option. you could hack it all you want, they probably won't go after you, but it will prevent companies like psystar from doing what they do.
They resell the copy of the Mac OS they buy, it is tossed in as a license, no other purpose.
Then there is the second copy of the Mac OS they sell, this is the copy that Apple is angered about -- the hacked and modified copy. It is a different copy, that their arm pit lawyer says is covered by the shrink wrap license.
Takes a lot less time to clone the drive, for a PC manufacturer this is the preferred method of creating bootable drives.
Otherwise, the labor in loading a single shrink wrapped copy of the OS onto the drive will destroy Psystar -- the time it takes to hack the OS thousands of times over and over would be silly insane.
But it doesn't matter if Psystar is selling 1 hacked/modified copy cloned 1,000 times or is repeating the hacking process 1,000 times -- copyright law doesn't allow a modified work to be sold without permission of the copyright holder.
---
Apple has taken a hard stance on modifying OS files for years -- don't do it or their legal team crushes your nuts.
They have allowed people to patch around Apple created files without problems.
By the way, a thought just occurred to me:
There's a new method of installing which uses a retail disk from a pre-existing Leopard partition.
Couldn't PsyStar use this method to perform a vanilla install of OS X, delete the partition with the modified OS X and then resell it legally? Their issue is with reselling *modified* versions of OS X. Reselling unmodified versions is legal. Places like MacMall do it all the time.
The only thing then would be the rejection of the EULA, which the customer would have to do at the point of sale...
-Clive
There's a new method of installing which uses a retail disk from a pre-existing Leopard partition.
Couldn't PsyStar use this method to perform a vanilla install of OS X, delete the partition with the modified OS X and then resell it legally? Their issue is with reselling *modified* versions of OS X. Reselling unmodified versions is legal. Places like MacMall do it all the time.
The only thing then would be the rejection of the EULA, which the customer would have to do at the point of sale...
-Clive
In and of itself, this is a very tenuous argument that, if upheld, would put pretty much everyone selling Windows PCs without a full OEM contract out of business.
The crux of this is the validity of the EULA and exactly what counts as "modification".
I can see no reason why adding and/or replacing OS files wholesale should be considered "modification", when it happens in millions of PC shops every day. If they're disassembling binaries and patching them, that's a different matter - but I don't think they are.
What part of US copyright law section 117 do you see which dictates that the modified copy of the software product (which is legal under section 117 if it's a necessary step to making it run on a computer) must be derived directly from the physical media which contained the original copy of the software?
If that were the case then it would read something like:
"...it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation derived from the same copy of that computer program..."
But the law doesn't include those boldface words.
If the customer is the legal owner of the original media, and they authorize Psystar to produce the adapted copy on their behalf, they may still have a leg to stand on.
clones
Done of the Mac Clones weren't sold when Mac OS X came out. They never made it to the G3 series. HOWEVER there are boot loaders out there that mods Mac OS X to be installed on a Clone with a G3 upgrade in it ( My Power Computing with a G3 upgrade has Mac OS X 2.x on it). (I think there was one for the 68040 that you can install Mac OS X 1.0 on it, but I could be wrong.)
Hugh
Done of the Mac Clones weren't sold when Mac OS X came out. They never made it to the G3 series. HOWEVER there are boot loaders out there that mods Mac OS X to be installed on a Clone with a G3 upgrade in it ( My Power Computing with a G3 upgrade has Mac OS X 2.x on it). (I think there was one for the 68040 that you can install Mac OS X 1.0 on it, but I could be wrong.)
Hugh
goosnarrggh, once you switch from repeating the modification over and over to just doing it once and selling that ... you hop on the slippery slope of a copyright holder saying that you are no longer doing modifications to provide compatibility for each individual.
You are now in the business of selling copies of your derivative work.
There you go then. In all likelihood, installing OS X on to a Mac Clone is a violation of the EULA (and making it work probably entailed a very similar procedure to the one Psystar is using).