Apple Sues Tiger Leaks

[cwedl]

Good for Apple for taking a stand. Apple software is actually worth paying money for (unlike a lot of other software out there) so I think this is a good thing. I don't care if they shut the torrent sites down, I never use them anyways..

The only thing I use bittorrent for is to download the OC each friday morning.

 

[bishopduke]

!

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

The only thing I use bittorrent for is to download the OC each friday morning.

It's been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure that's also illegal.

FYI, of course.

 

[JJTiger1]

Upgrading to Tiger.

oh whoopdy... sueing over a non documented os that is buggy and slower than panther.... woo... Big trade secrets ..... It is not like it is hardware, it is just an os that othjers will copy no matter what. But for the most part no one is going to copy core image ,,, more than likely spotlight will get cloned onto pc but really what else is there ?

Jusrt release it as public beta, that way EVeRYone can send in bugs, as it seems there bug testers dont find them all anyway as is the case of 10.3.6
Sue happy this week yes..

10.3.0 was the Panther Beta, wasn't it? 10.3.1 through 10.3.7 are bug fixes. After a while, 10.3.2 got into the retail box. I don't know which version is actually in the retail box on the shelf today.

Why should 10.4.0 be any different? 10.4.1 through 10.4.x will be bug fixes.

This time, I will wait for a bug fixed 10.4.x.x to be in the Retail Box before I buy 10.4 Tiger. I might wait long enough for a deeply discounted price like you can find at several websites, before I buy 10.4. Then I would download a Combo updater.
... I might even skip Tiger altogether. I don't need a slower OS, do you?

I like Panther's GUI, and I like 10.3.7's speed.
=-=
Those people who have leaked the Tiger developer versions are in violation of their signed non-disclosure agreements. Therefore they should be sued.

That is how "agreements" work.

 

[AidenShaw]

There's a solution out there

Nobody will be surprised when Apple is forced to add an activation feature to its software and operating systems, will they?

Apple wouldn't be concerned with the torrent or whatever else happens to promote illegal file sharing if they had that simple feature.

 

[toughboy]

its not just one bittorent site, you can find pre-release beta copies of Tiger in EVERY P2P platform..
I understand Apple and their act to protect themselves, but if this is why Suprnova is shut down, Apple will get a lot of "dislikers" instead of "switchers"...

 

[proprietary]

What many of you guys don't get is that Apple has a legal responsibility to pursue illegal copying. If you know someone is stealing something that belongs to you and you don't pursue stopping them, you implicitly give up you copyrights and patents.

WRONG.

"Defend it or lose it" only applies to trademarks, not copyrights or patents.

Oh, and according to the Supreme Court, copyright infringement isn't theft. Consider yourself educated.

 

[TheMasin9]

Clarification?

From CNET News:

Question, is this lawsuit the same one we heard about a few days earlier? A few days ago apple was sueing unnamed parties or persons could this be a clarification of that lawsuit?

 

[Heart Break Kid]

speaking of ethics, thanks for bringing my mom into it. You are so much better then me! You just did something worse than dl a worthless program. You do not decide what is ethical, so get over yourself.

You all should relax - honestly. This is a suit involving 2 college kids...was what they did wrong? Sure, and if you read the threads at MTKA, they openly admit it. For one of the guys, it was his first seed - he seems genuinly appologetic - he understands he made a mistake and he' seems to just want to pay for his mistake and get on with his life.

Thier is no real need to villafy each other or demonize the people involved or apple for that matter. It was a mistake that was made, and they'll pay for it.

 

[toughboy]

Nobody will be surprised when Apple is forced to add an activation feature to its software and operating systems, will they?

Apple wouldn't be concerned with the torrent or whatever else happens to promote illegal file sharing if they had that simple feature.

That would be as boring as windows..

I dont want to activate and give my information to Apple just like M$ does..

Apple has the dignity and grace, which M$ doesnt..

 

[Laslo Panaflex]

Nobody will be surprised when Apple is forced to add an activation feature to its software and operating systems, will they?

I will, becuase there is no viable way to run OS X on anything other than a macintosh computer, which, the last time I checked you couldn't download off a bittorrent site. The actual Apple hardware is in essence the activation feature, they pretty much give the OS away, they make their money on hardware.

And FWIW, all of the Apple pro apps, ie FCP, DVDSP, Shake and motion all have serial key activation.

 

[karlb]

Flame galore

You know when seeing this rumor tonite I just knew there would be a lovely load of flaming, it's nice to see it done in a fairly restrained way, Macrumor regulars are such a bunch of nice folk!

Anyway on the topic of the tiger pre-release being leaked I am fairly split in opinion. Whilst I personally do not like pirated software it's easy to see that little harm is done in this case... competitors will have developer copies anyway ($500 isnt that much), but this doesn't make it 'right' ofcourse.

I think Apple's decision to sue is a simple comercial one, it makes the folk who shelled out the $500 feel more special, protected even, it also makes the p2p folk a little more nervous, which I guess makes apple feel they'll get more sales.

Personally I'm kinda curious about Tiger and despite what I've said I think I would download, just to feed that curiousity (although I cba to install, then revert, and all that).

As I'm quite deeply in love with OSX and am a fairly recent convert there is no question that I will be buying the Tiger family pack for my various machines, and this is simply because Apple are doing such a grand job of it and I think you'll all agree it's worth every penny.

It all makes me wish apple would do a CD/DVD bootable 'preview' version for download, kinda like knoppix.

 

[musicpyrite]

Well, its not just that. I think they know what they did is wrong. I read thier forums and they sound remorsful. Its one thing to punish them, but these guys are just college kids. How can you expect these kids to pay for lawyers fees, damages etc?

Just because they are college kids does not give them the right to steal, or distribute copyrighted material. The law is the same for everyone (except minors, which isn't an issue here). Should older people get ticketed more for speeding compared to a younger person? Though I do hope Apple doesn't blow their stack at them, like forcing them to pay $250,000 or go to jail for more than a reasonable amount of time. They can do that when Tiger is officially released.


By they way, how is your stomach feeling? I hope things are getting better.

 

[fener]

its not just one bittorent site, you can find pre-release beta copies of Tiger in EVERY P2P platform..
I understand Apple and their act to protect themselves, but if this is why Suprnova is shut down, Apple will get a lot of "dislikers" instead of "switchers"...

Well, Suprnova is not down, and, actually, ticking pretty well,

Maybe ur ISP has blocked the access,

 

[mrgreen4242]

News flash: It's still illegal. I understand what you're saying, but it's still illegal.

It's not so much the holier-than-thou types as much as it is, you know, the real definition of what you are doing. Borrowing something implies permission from the owner. P2P apps, for the most part, do not impart that permission.

It's not much different, in a literal sense, from borrowing a CD and listening to it. Borrowing the CD, though, doesn't require creating an explicitly illegal copy of the material on the disc. Downloading it from KaZaA or another P2P network does, which is where we have this "illegal downloading" problem.
<snip>

Well, just to knit-pick, but downloading a song, or copying it from a CD, isn't actually illegal. Making a copy of that CD isn't either... assuming you own the license to do so. If I buy a CD and the disc later cracks in half (it happens) do you think that I would be both legally and morally within my rights to download it from a P2P network or burn a copy from a friend? My understand is that the law says that you are in the clear... it is the DISTRIBUTION of the content that is illegal. If you host files for sharing on a P2P network, and have no way of verifying if the downloader is in fact licensed to have that file, you are breaking intellectual property distribution laws.

It's a small detail, but it is important none-the-less.

Rob

 

[ASP272]

It all makes me wish apple would do a CD/DVD bootable 'preview' version for download, kinda like knoppix.

A CD preview would be awesome! And I agree with you . . . I'm split on how I feel about the leaked software/piracy thing. Like you, I agree that OS X is worth every penny! I feel sorry for those that have to buy copies of Windoze only to be thwarted with .dll failures and daily malicious virus attacks.

As Plankton might say on SpongeBob "I'll take this OS X and RULE THE WORLD!!!!!"

 

[zac4mac]

suprnova IS down

http://www.silentdragz.net/suprfaq/

Z

 

[toughboy]

Well, Suprnova is not down, and, actually, ticking pretty well,

Maybe ur ISP has blocked the access,

it is down... your torrent files will work, but you wont be able to get torrent access from suprnova anymore...

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

Well, just to knit-pick, but downloading a song, or copying it from a CD, isn't actually illegal. Making a copy of that CD isn't either... assuming you own the license to do so. [...]

Sure, I can copy a disc for my own personal use -- but I can't copy it and give it to a friend. That was my point. Perhaps I should have stated it explicitly.

Downloading a song that you do not already have the right to "own" is illegal. If I do not own a single Black Sabbath album, but I download the entire Black Sabbath catalog, it's illegal. Just like ripping MP3s from a CD your borrowed from me would be illegal, as is me sending you MP3s of a CD that I bought and ripped myself.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if I go and buy the songs that I downloaded, those MP3s magically become legit -- but not until then.

You're right, though. The right to download songs that you bought on CD (or from iTMS, I would assume) is clearly yours. There's a mess of rules that disallow the distribution on P2P networks, but you actualy downloading them is fine, assuming you already had the right to do so.

 

[quagmire]

For all those people who think downloading Tiger Beta version does no harm to anyone and apple and say we should be able to download tiger Beta freely; just be happy I am not an admin.

I agree with Apple. With apple being the small innovative company(in the computer world) and always being copied, it is a good thing to enforce your rules. I can't stand when people say, " Tiger is all over the internet, what is the big deal?" Or say, " Apple is being stupid to waste time on suing people."

 

[karlb]

re: copyright

Sure, I can copy a disc for my own personal use -- but I can't copy it and give it to a friend. That was my point. Perhaps I should have stated it explicitly.

Downloading a song that you do not already have the right to "own" is illegal. If I do not own a single Black Sabbath album, but I download the entire Black Sabbath catalog, it's illegal. Just like ripping MP3s from a CD your borrowed from me would be illegal, as is me sending you MP3s of a CD that I bought and ripped myself.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if I go and buy the songs that I downloaded, those MP3s magically become legit -- but not until then.

You're right, though. The right to download songs that you bought on CD (or from iTMS, I would assume) is clearly yours. There's a mess of rules that disallow the distribution on P2P networks, but you actualy downloading them is fine, assuming you already had the right to do so.

Hmmmm, how does rendevous listening fit into this, I listen to tracks everyday at work that are on other peoples machines. Tracks that I personally do not own.

Just out of pure curiosity.

 

[shamino]

What many of you guys don't get is that Apple has a legal responsibility to pursue illegal copying. If you know someone is stealing something that belongs to you and you don't pursue stopping them, you implicitly give up you copyrights and patents.

This is only true for trademarks. You can lose a trademark (even a registered one) if you don't prosecute violators. One famous case is that of Bayer aspirin - the word "aspirin" was a trademark, but Bayer lost it because they chose to not prosecute those who violated it.

Trade secrets have no legal protection whether or not your prosecute - you can prosecute someone who violates an NDA, but you can't do anything about the information that was illegally disclosed.

Copyrights and patents, however, are not lost due to lack of enforcement. As a matter of fact, it is common for companies to choose to not sue over patent violations until the patent is about to expire, in order to maximize the damages claimed in the suit. (Yes, this is an unethical business practice, but it is common.)

It is almost certainly in Apple's best interest to prosecute those who violate NDAs and illegally distribute software, but they are not under a legal obligation to do so. (This is very different from a case of trademark violation - if someone else sold an "iPod" for instance. In that case, they would be legally obligated to sue.)

It's about protecting your copyrights, trying to stay ahead of the competition as much as possible while still getting third party developers on board to release new products at the time of official launch, and limiting the distribution to keep the buzz factor under the control of the marketeers.

Copyrights only protect the expression of an idea - the code itself. They do not protect the idea - that's what patents are for. Microsoft implementing a Spotlight clone for Windows might violate a patent, but there is no way it could violate a copyright, because the Macintosh code won't run as a part of Windows.

 

[gwangung]

"I'm not sure" telling everyone all they need to know, right there.

Okay, let's assume you're right, for laughs. So your logic is, the same guy, that you're so worried about, that would download a copy of Tiger for free, and then "copy" features and pass them off as his own (which he couldn't possibly do anyway because Apple's already copyrighted/patented everything in Tiger) would then be STOPPED by the NDA from doing the same thing if he paid $500?

No, it's just a heckuva of a lot more ironclad. As well, if you DON'T prosecute a clear violation here, it will weaken your cases in subsequent cases.

On the logic scale of 1 to 10, that rates about a negative 2. I AM thinking - at this point, sounds like you're just reaching for anything that will allow you to make a snappy comeback, whether it makes sense or not.

Sorry, but you're not thinking from a legal perspective (which requires more formalism).

 

[gwangung]

This is only true for trademarks. You can lose a trademark (even a registered one) if you don't prosecute violators. One famous case is that of Bayer aspirin - the word "aspirin" was a trademark, but Bayer lost it because they chose to not prosecute those who violated it.

Trade secrets have no legal protection whether or not your prosecute - you can prosecute someone who violates an NDA, but you can't do anything about the information that was illegally disclosed.

Copyrights and patents, however, are not lost due to lack of enforcement. As a matter of fact, it is common for companies to choose to not sue over patent violations until the patent is about to expire, in order to maximize the damages claimed in the suit. (Yes, this is an unethical business practice, but it is common.)

It is almost certainly in Apple's best interest to prosecute those who violate NDAs and illegally distribute software, but they are not under a legal obligation to do so. (This is very different from a case of trademark violation - if someone else sold an "iPod" for instance. In that case, they would be legally obligated to sue.)
Copyrights only protect the expression of an idea - the code itself. They do not protect the idea - that's what patents are for. Microsoft implementing a Spotlight clone for Windows might violate a patent, but there is no way it could violate a copyright, because the Macintosh code won't run as a part of Windows.

Hmmm....I believe that damages would be lowered in subsequent civil suits if no efforts were made to defend previous infringements (and surely that's something we as consumers would care about); at the very least, the defendants could strongly argue this.

 

[swissmann]

Good for Apple for taking a stand. Apple software is actually worth paying money for (unlike a lot of other software out there) so I think this is a good thing. I don't care if they shut the torrent sites down, I never use them anyways..

How do torrent sites work. It must be different from P2P. I'm just pretty clueless regarding this stuff.