First Hand with Mac OS X on Toshiba Intel (x86)

[reemas]

anyone waiting to buy a 1st gen. intel mac, deserves the crap he/she will buy. i remember the transition from os 9 to os x was very poor - but look at os x now. application support will be very sub-par initially for these intel-macs.

i say get a powerpc now and buy a intel mac in 2 years.

 

[Nermal]

People don't like Mac's because of the OS, most everyone loves the way they look.

Ha! There's only one reason I buy Apple's systems. Hint: It's not the hardware.

 

[Moonboots]

These are also the people that would never want to touch a Mac in their life, what makes you so sure that they'd want to if it was on a different brand computer?

Simple , a lot cheaper way than having to buy a Mac

 

[Garcia]

This is a little naive. There is absolutely no doubt that OS X for intel will be cracked and, subsequently available to generic pc's. While the usability, and overall damage it does to the Apple platform is unclear, it's inevitability is not. Your average consumer is not going to go through the geek hack-jobs needed to install so I personally think it's going to be a non-issue. Might actually be a good thing for Apple if people had a chance to try out the platform, and learn to love it. After tiring of the perpetual cat and mouse game when Apple chooses to update its software, they might just go out, and purchase an Apple computer. Sounds plausible......I think

Again, wrong.

Its not going to be a case of cracking it to run on every PC. It just wont happen like that.

 

[Staffroomer]

I heard kids at school going on and on about people doing this. Young geeks at play.

 

[Will Cheyney]

Wow, this makes me want to vomit...everywhere.

I don't ever want to see the day when OS X gets put on anything other than Apple Hardware.

By the way, has it occurred to anyone else that any novice at Photoshop could make it appear that they have OS X on their computer?

Here here!

 

[mdavey]

Well, it's piracy

No its not, it is copyright infringement. Software piracy is selling (or renting) software for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright holder.

 

[matticus008]

No its not, it is copyright infringement. Software piracy is selling (or renting) software for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright holder.

No, no, no. Software piracy is unauthorized reproduction or distribution of applications/program code, regardless of whether or not it is for commercial gain.

This hacking is piracy. I'm not necessarily making a judgment, but call it what it is.

 

[mdavey]

Wow! I wonder if they'll get sued for such a blazin violation of the Apple Developer agreement.

That assumes that they signed the Apple Developer agreement in the first place.

 

[matticus008]

That assumes that they signed the Apple Developer agreement in the first place.

No it doesn't. The only authorized means of have a copy of the software is through a developer agreement with Apple. If you download a torrent, you aren't an authorized party, and the notice before you install will remind you of this fact. Downloading and/or installing the software is a violation of copyright law and an act of piracy. Uploading the torrent in the first place is a violation of copyright law, breach of contract, and criminal theft of property owned by Apple Computer. On one side or both, the cracking of the software is a violation of the DMCA and international equivalents. If you're not in the US and are using the US copy, its use is furthermore a breach of United States Export Law.

 

[mdavey]

No, no, no. Software piracy is unauthorized reproduction or distribution of applications/program code, regardless of whether or not it is for commercial gain.

No it really isn't, you have just described copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a serious crime that carries heavy penalties in most juristructions. This crime is allegedly committed by a large percentage of the technically literate, particularly students.

Software piracy is typically committed by career criminals, often criminal gangs and often netts each individual hundreds of thousands each year. Individuals found guilty of software piracy are often charged with other offences such as drugs, money laundering, credit card fraud and gun crimes. Software piracy is particularly problematic in developing countries where they don't have clear laws or police resources to tackle the problem.

Only the large corporations like Microsoft, Adobe, Sony and the like insist on calling copyright infringement as piracy. One can only assume they do that as piracy is an emotive term that helps with prosecutions.

 

[matticus008]

Only the large corporations like Microsoft, Adobe, Sony and the like insist on calling copyright infringement as piracy. One can only assume they do that as piracy is an emotive term that helps with prosecutions.

Actually, the US 9th District Circuit Court agrees with the standard definition of software piracy. Software piracy is governed by copyright law; the two are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Also the Oxford English Dictionary and the Supreme Court. (US v. Harrel established piracy in communications, in case you were wondering).

 

[mdavey]

No it doesn't. The only authorized means of have a copy of the software is through a developer agreement with Apple.

Agreed.

If you download a torrent, you aren't an authorized party

A torrent is just a pointer file, a tracker. I think you mean an unauthorised distribution (the thing the torrent is tracking).

and the notice before you install will remind you of this fact

Assuming the notice is intact.

If you're not in the US and are using the US copy, its use is furthermore a breach of United States Export Law.

No. If those hosting the distribution are in the US and hosting the US copy and the US copy contains material restricted under the United States Export Law and the make it available to those outside the US, then *they* have allegedly breached that law.

 

[mdavey]

Actually, the US 9th District Circuit Court agrees with the standard definition of software piracy. Software piracy is governed by copyright law; the two are not mutually exclusive.

That isn't the standard definition. The US 9th District Circuit Court is in the minority - most other juristrictions describe copyright infringement as unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyright material and pass harsher sentances if the individuals have gained commerically from their activities.

 

[matticus008]

A torrent is just a pointer file, a tracker. I think you mean an unauthorised distribution (the thing the torrent is tracking).

Torrent in the sense of the source of the compressed archive, which can come in varying forms.

Assuming the notice is intact.

Even if it's not, you know that you're liable for knowing the terms or getting that license. If someone hands you the keys to a house without the deed, the courts will still take the house away from you, even if you "didn't know it had a deed."

No. If those hosting the distribution are in the US and hosting the US copy and the US copy contains material restricted under the United States Export Law and the make it available to those outside the US, then *they* have allegedly breached that law.

Both parties are liable. Export law covers both the shipper and the recipient, and government at either end or both may prosecute for it.

That isn't the standard definition. The US 9th District Circuit Court is in the minority - most other juristrictions describe copyright infringement as unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyright material and pass harsher sentances if the individuals have gained commerically from their activities.

No, it is the standard definition of software piracy. The Oxford English Dictionary is the ultimate source and grand arbiter of the English language, and it's in there. The online dictionaries of most legal reference sites refer to the same. Dictionary.com and Wikipedia, popular resources if not definitive ones, also share this definition. My printed legal dictionaries are older editions, but mention piracy in the interception of telephone or cable/satellite TV signals.

Software piracy is an act of copyright infringement. It is governed by applicable laws, and is any kind of unauthorized redistribution or reproduction of computer code. I'm not sure where you're getting your "standard" definition, but it's wrong.

 

[mdavey]

If someone hands you the keys to a house without the deed

That isn't what we are arguing. We are arguing whether the person downloading/installing the software 'signed' an agreement. If there is no agreement, they haven't signed it. Of course, they may still be infringing the copyright but they won't necessarily have broken any contractual agreement.

Both parties are liable. Export law covers both the shipper and the recipient, and government at either end or both may prosecute for it.

Yes, but the US government can't prosecute a French citizen living in France, for instance. Just as the North Korean government can't prosecute US citizens for running websites.

The Oxford English Dictionary is the ultimate source and grand arbiter of the English language

Rubbish, there is no "grand arbiter" of the English language. The English language doesn't have a standards body. That is one of the reasons why Americans and British have different spellings for common words and why the American definition of "pants" is different to the British one. The Oxford English Dictionary tracks usage of words in the media and in printed texts - it is a historical dictionary not a standards text.

Software piracy is an act of copyright infringement.

(my italics)

Agreed.

 

[ksz]

The significant issue here is that Apple has every right to control the total Macintosh system -- hardware plus software -- to deliver a very specific end-user experience. Hardware design is part of the Apple experience, and it's something Apple wants to continue to improve with the transition to a more aggressive and capable component supplier.

Apple does not intended for Mac OS to be installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple is not licensing Mac OS to OEMs or to retailers. When they pulled the plug on Mac OS licensing within weeks of Jobs' return, they made a clear policy decision.

I agree with an earlier post by Matticus in which a more sophisticated node-lock mechanism is described. The shipping version of Mac OSX86 will no doubt implement a far more robust node-lock mechanism that may combine chip Id, signed firmware, and anything else deemed necessary.

 

[matticus008]

That isn't what we are arguing. We are arguing whether the person downloading/installing the software 'signed' an agreement. If there is no agreement, they haven't signed it. Of course, they may still be infringing the copyright but they won't necessarily have broken any contractual agreement.

Au contraire, the contract was broken by the uploading body. If you download a copy of OS X, and it has had the license agreement stripped out, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can throw away a paper contract or refuse to sign, but if I continue to use the product without a contract, the owner may do whatever it wishes to me. The only place you'd be safe is if you had a different contract giving you ownership rights, authorized by the original owner. Ignorance is not an excuse when you know there are rules.

Yes, but the US government can't prosecute a French citizen living in France, for instance. Just as the North Korean government can't prosecute US citizens for running websites.

They don't have to prosecute from the US. Apple has a French corporate office (or an EU one at least) that will do it for them.

Rubbish, there is no "grand arbiter" of the English language. The English language doesn't have a standards body. That is one of the reasons why Americans and British have different spellings for common words and why the American definition of "pants" is different to the British one. The Oxford English Dictionary tracks usage of words in the media and in printed texts - it is a historical dictionary not a standards text.

The OED is the most widely respected dictionary of the English language in the world. It includes both American and Commonwealth spellings (and archaic discards) and is used in courtrooms all around the world and has been for centuries. Its reputation of "grand arbiter" is not something I fabricated in my head. It is THE authority when definitions are contested, from Scrabble to academia to yes, even law. I applaud your bravery going against the OED, but it's the closest English speakers have to an academy on language, and it's never challenged unless its definitions are too vague.

By the way, a law dictionary's definition of piracy:

1: an act of robbery esp. on the high seas

specif
: an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state
(see also aircraft piracy Article I of the Constitution in the back matter)

2 a: the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright
Example: software piracy

b: the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use
Example: the statute's purpose is to proscribe the piracy of programming signals -- United States v. Harrell, 983 F.2d 36 (1993)

3: the crime of committing piracy

 

[iMeowbot]

"Piracy" meaning "copyright infringement" didn't originate with the courts or lawmakers, but was a favorite term used by writers in the 1840s. Dickens made the usage popular, Hawthorne tended to use it too.

 

[matticus008]

"Piracy" meaning "copyright infringement" didn't originate with the courts or lawmakers, but was a favorite term used by writers in the 1840s. Dickens made the usage popular, Hawthorne tended to use it too.

Bingo. 150 years later, and it's an enumerated legal term. Isn't language great? (Dickens and Hawthorne, not so much )

 

[mdavey]

I agree with an earlier post by Matticus in which a more sophisticated node-lock mechanism is described. The shipping version of Mac OSX86 will no doubt implement a far more robust node-lock mechanism that may combine chip Id, signed firmware, and anything else.

The essence of the Mac experience is the combination of the physical look and feel of the hardware (functional, sturdy) and the Mac OS X software itself. Arguably, a key part of Mac OS X is the graphics.

I wonder if we will see Apple continuing to add proprietary extensions to OpenGL and perhaps even creating a graphics firmware. That would effectiely give them a custom graphics card but using standard parts. That would be a particularly effective way to lock the OS to the hardware - any cracker would have to effectively make a standard graphics card emulate the Apple graphics card which would be non-trivial especially if Apple moved the core image and HDTV routines to the graphics card.

Hmm, maybe that is what vingle is Video Interface something Graphics Library Enhancements. Vingle chip / vingle firmware

 

[HiRez]

Also, I wouldn't see the harm in os x running on different machines.

The problem is that there's a HUGE variety of hardware available for PCs, which means Apple needs to support all of them to provide a consistent user experience. Drivers for everything, and many more tech support headaches from the guy who bought the $5 Komputor King ethernet to SCSI adapter at Walmart.

 

[ksz]

I wonder if we will see Apple continuing to add proprietary extensions to OpenGL and perhaps even creating a graphics firmware. That would effectiely give them a custom graphics card but using standard parts. That would be a particularly effective way to lock the OS to the hardware - any cracker would have to effectively make a standard graphics card emulate the Apple graphics card which would be non-trivial especially if Apple moved the core image and HDTV routines to the graphics card.

I think that for a chip-level node-lock mechanism to work, the chip must be captive to the motherboard. Proprietary firmware on a graphics card could be defeated simply by removing the graphics card from the PCIe slot and putting it into another computer. It's not going to be an easy problem to solve, but it's one that Apple has to figure out. They may enlist the aid of security/encryption experts.

 

[ksz]

Also, I wouldn't see the harm in os x running on different machines.

The harm would be to Apple's revenue and profitability. A large percent of Apple's revenue comes from thousand-dollar machines. They could not substitute this with software licensing royalties unless they sell massive quantities of licenses annually. With Macintosh market share being anywhere from 3-5 percent, OS royalties are not going to be spectacular. Apple needs the revenue from its hardware sales.

 

[mdavey]

I think that for a chip-level node-lock mechanism to work, the chip must be captive to the motherboard. Proprietary firmware on a graphics card could be defeated simply by removing the graphics card from the PCIe slot and putting it into another computer.

Perhaps they could have some kind of master-slave graphics card setup where the slaves only work when the master is present. Then put the master one on the motherboard. This would only affect the PowerMacs, right? Because those are the only ones that take PCI/PCIe cards.