Entire documents can be fair use. For example, the church of scintology documents that were published were published under fair use (court found it so).
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.
Psystar Winding Down Business as Web Site Goes Dark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Entire documents can be fair use. For example, the church of scintology documents that were published were published under fair use (court found it so).
Someone shut Microsoft, HP, Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Sony, and Compaq down?
Silly point! Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. may operate in Windows but you don't have to use it. They also compete against eachother in pricing and features.
No
I don't think I've ever read one (and I've read a lot of posts in that forum).
Well, I disagree, and I've actually read a lot of the forum posts.
I my case I wanted to try before I bought. I didn't want to risk buying a rather expensive laptop just to realize that I didn't like OS X. So I bought the DVD, installed it on my desktop, used it for 6 months, and then I bought a Macbook. It still use my Hackintosh daily, of course, but I probably wouldn't have bought anything from Apple it this possibility was not there.
BTW: Notice how everyone ignores the fact that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak made money stealing from the phone companies?
It's been mentioned repeatedly. What's your point? That two wrongs make a right?
1. No. See 2
2. http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
3. Before you say it : All computers in the Apple store have Internet access, so you can freely consult the agreement in store while shopping for products.
So will you stop posting now ?
And number 4: If you have the box, it tells you to go to point 2 where you can read the license, reject it, and return the product for a full refund without opening the box assuming you get it from another source...
Of course this has been pointed out before and he still parrots his nonsense. I swear, we need to have a one touch button that quotes this for us so that our fingers can be spared such repeated typings...
Ding ding, we have a winner! I could'nt agree more. I see parents who have done well with kids who barely go outside to play. It's all Xbox, etc! Seems like the parents are enablers!
No. My point is that this "sense of entitlement" as some call it is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run and definitely not a new thing.
Well its irrelevant - both of them have been pretty open about it in the past and they admit that it was not legal. They were (as far as I am aware) never been charged. Steve Jobs also dropped acid - something illegal! It doesnt matter! If we based all legal requirements on ones legal purity we would likely not have many filings. It does not make one a hypocrite or anything when we are talking about actions that happened 30 years ago - thats just character assignation attempts.
If you got something better and newer let us know - quoting ancient history is pointless.
How does your evidence lead you to that conclusion? Only by getting over their sense of entitlement and going and inventing their own thing instead of stealing from the phone company did Jobs and Wozniak achieve success.
By your logic, pancreatic cancer is also a good thing.
I disagree. I think it is the same attitude that is just utilized in different ways.
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Oh, by reading this post beyond this paragraph with an Apple-labelled computer you agree to give me $100. If you disagree, purge all copies of this post in your cache, then print out a copy of this post and mail it to me with the words "I DISAGREE". Yeah, it's gonna waste you time and money, just like the time and money I'm supposed to waste returning my Apple computer if I disagree with its software's EULA. But think of the plus side: at least you're not also $2000+ down while you wait for a refund.
Anyway, the sense of entitlement of corporations today is outstanding. It's our fault, of course, for allowing the government to make way for them.
There was once a time when no-one was entitled to force you not to use an idea, or an expression of an idea. Then it was decided to give people a limited sense of entitlement to an idea, so they'd be motivated by profit to produce ideas and expressions for the greater good. Copyright in the US was never about owning ideas or expressions, but about a creator's entitlement to hoard those ideas for a limited amount of time.
The Disney corporate generation has produced "creators" with a sense of entitlement to ownership of ideas and expressions. By equivocation in the term "intellectual property", they feel entitled to treat ideas and expressions as physical property.
Also, under US Copyright law I can install a single modifiable copy on a computer. I thus make sure no install actually displays an EULA for me to agree to. I've thus made no action to indicate that I agree with the EULA. Since I also haven't made any indication of my intention to agree with an EULA at the time of purchase (obviously - I haven't read it), I conclude that I am not bound by the terms of the EULA. Anyone countering with "but there's a paper copy of the EULA in the box" is required to make a signed statement that they have read all printed and electronic documents supplied with every piece of software they have ever purchased, in case there are some licence terms within that they are required to agree to. You see, I don't recall agreeing to read anything when I made the purchase.
The enforceability of EULAs is merely a sign of the moral bankruptcy of US government. They are an antithesis to US principles of the free relationship between individuals and non-interference of government. There's nothing capitalist about them. There's nothing Constitutionalist about them. I should not ever be expected to accept a contract I haven't read after I've exchanged consideration for the contract. I should not ever be interpreted as accepting a contract by interaction merely with property which I own (as opposed to with another person directly, as when signing a contract in person, or with another person via his property, as when buying something over the Internet).
Shame on you, corporate America and your sense of entitlement. This isn't capitalism. This isn't socialism. It's the corrupt favouring of special interests which your Founding Fathers warned you of so sternly.
Anyway, the sense of entitlement of corporations today is outstanding. It's our fault, of course, for allowing the government to make way for them.
There was once a time when no-one was entitled to force you not to use an idea, or an expression of an idea. Then it was decided to give people a limited sense of entitlement to an idea, so they'd be motivated by profit to produce ideas and expressions for the greater good. Copyright in the US was never about owning ideas or expressions, but about a creator's entitlement to hoard those ideas for a limited amount of time.
The Disney corporate generation has produced "creators" with a sense of entitlement to ownership of ideas and expressions. By equivocation in the term "intellectual property", they feel entitled to treat ideas and expressions as physical property.
Also, under US Copyright law I can install a single modifiable copy on a computer. I thus make sure no install actually displays an EULA for me to agree to. I've thus made no action to indicate that I agree with the EULA. Since I also haven't made any indication of my intention to agree with an EULA at the time of purchase (obviously - I haven't read it), I conclude that I am not bound by the terms of the EULA. Anyone countering with "but there's a paper copy of the EULA in the box" is required to make a signed statement that they have read all printed and electronic documents supplied with every piece of software they have ever purchased, in case there are some licence terms within that they are required to agree to. You see, I don't recall agreeing to read anything when I made the purchase.
The enforceability of EULAs is merely a sign of the moral bankruptcy of US government. They are an antithesis to US principles of the free relationship between individuals and non-interference of government. There's nothing capitalist about them. There's nothing Constitutionalist about them. I should not ever be expected to accept a contract I haven't read after I've exchanged consideration for the contract. I should not ever be interpreted as accepting a contract by interaction merely with property which I own (as opposed to with another person directly, as when signing a contract in person, or with another person via his property, as when buying something over the Internet).
Shame on you, corporate America and your sense of entitlement. This isn't capitalism. This isn't socialism. It's the corrupt favouring of special interests which your Founding Fathers warned you of so sternly.
Psystar loses because they broke the law, so now it's time to blame the law and the government.
Psystar loses because they broke the law, so now it's time to blame the law and the government.
Precisely. The law serves as a prescription for justice; it does not rule as a definition thereof.
When a man in China publishes his opinion, he loses because he broke the law, and it's time to blame the law and the government. When a woman in Saudi Arabia wears jeans and a t-shirt, she loses because she broke the law, and it's time to blame the law and the government.
When 8 brave men take on a multi-billion dollar corporation by applying the American principles of
(i) exploitation of their physical property rights;
(ii) respect of Copyright (not "intellectual property") to the extent that it exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts; and
(iii) a recognition of just contract law based on timely, informed consent,
they lose because... well, they don't even get the chance to be tried, just a Summary Judgment. It's time to blame the law and the government.
Anyway, seems like Macrumors has finally picked up on the less "omg my team won!" story Slashdot inter al. already echoed a while ago: Psystar's yet not closing down after all. And pearc.de aren't even in Apple's firing range.
8 brave men
great, sounds like hollywood will make a movie about these 8 brave heroes. incorruptible, fearless, daring visionaries
great, sounds like hollywood will make a movie about these 8 brave heroes. incorruptible, fearless, daring visionaries
great, sounds like hollywood will make a movie about these 8 brave heroes. incorruptible, fearless, daring visionaries
I was thinking we could call it Triumph of the Nerds. We can create a random three letter alias for Apple to prevent lawsuits.
8 brave men, my ass. What psystar did was no different than crashing a car into the apple store at night and making off with the inventory and selling it on eBay at less than apple charges.
Why did they settle for 2.7 million for copyright infrigement then ? And please tell us what is the difference between copyright and intellectual property ?
The only thing brave about the people at Psystar was to start their business in contempt of so many American laws and expect not to be sued out of existance. It never was about American entrepreneurship and very much about trying to profit off someone else's work.
Fighting Apple is hard. Fighting a lame Judge who issues Summary Judgements is harder. Can you honestly see no reason why a party threatened with criminal or civil legal action might settle, guilty or not?
Copyright is an idea framed in the Constitution, to give limited entitlement to hoard in order to advance the sciences and the useful arts. It conveys no notion of ownership of ideas or their expressions. "Intellectual property", meanwhile, is merely an opportunity for equivocation. The term is the result of corporations' 20th century sense of entitlement, and was not commonplace in discussions of US law until recently.
Put simply, in the US (if we ignore very modern and absolutely un-American innovations to interpretation of the Constitution and founding principles of the country) you don't /own/ ideas or expressions of them. You merely have a limited Copy Right or Patent on them. There are nations where ownership of thought and expression are considered reasonable, and the US spent much of the last 60 years denouncing them.
Actually, intellectual property is just a phrase used to encompass at least patents, copyright, and trademarks. And the constitution does not say that any kind of intellectual property, copyrights included, can be hoarded. Hoarding means "kept to oneself and not shared." On the contrary, to further the sciences, one must use the copyright. A copyright doesn't protect an idea - it provides the idea as embodied in a medium. Patents must be public to be protected. Trademarks must be used in commerce.
The word you are looking for is "monopoly," not "hoard."
EULAs are contracts, which are part of the police power reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. There's nothing wrong with contracts, even when one of the contracting parties is a corporation.
It's not "just a phrase", it's loaded language designed to communicate the false notion that patents and copyright (etc.) are property. They're not. Property cannot be more yours without being less mine, whereas ideas and expression can be. Property can be disposed of by me as and when I please, whereas ideas and their expressions can only be shared and built upon or not, according to detailed limitations described in local law. Property is a considered a natural right, while ideas and their expressions are restricted as a convenient balance.
Jefferson makes for better reading than I do:
Thomas Jefferson said:
EULAs are contracts? In what way have I expressed voluntary agreement to an EULA presented offline? Cancmaier said:
I agree to a contract merely by interacting with my own property? Do I agree to a contract merely because I'm given something with a piece of paper inside it giving me a list of things someone wants me not to do? Unless this is a valid contract, an EULA obviously limits freedom of speech, and of the press. If the EULA is backed up by law, the limitation occurs in an unconstitutional sense, unless "speech" and "the press" are redefined narrowly.Of course, Courts have redefined "speech" and "the press" narrowly, interpreted EULAs as contracts, and backed them up. So ideas and expressions which were supposed to be free except "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors" have become treated more in law as if property, even though they possess none of the natural traits of property, and even though the late 18th century US recognised the difference.
Erm, clearly.
Copy Right is a (limited) monopoly on the right to limit sharing; it is an entitlement to limit, for your own benefit, the exploitation by others of some resource for an amount of time. In this sense, Patent and Copy Rights are entitlements to hoard. It is true that a Patent cannot be secret, but its effect is to allow one man to bury an idea for some amount of time - until someone pays him enough, or until his Patent's time is up. In this sense, Patents are entitlements to hoard, even though they must be public.
Intellectual property doesn't mean you own the IDEA. It means you own the embodiment of the idea.
EULAs are contracts? In what way have I expressed voluntary agreement to an EULA presented offline? Can
You agree to the contract by performing the act of installing and using the software (frequently by clicking an "i agree to this" box). You're not merely given something with a piece of paper inside it - you agree to the contract when you take the action of using the software, knowing or having should have known of the piece of paper. Contracts are formed all the time like this. When you buy a cupcake from the bakery you form a contract without signing anything. If you don't like the EULA and you've already paid for the software without having an opportunity to see the EULA, then by law you can return the software to the manufacturer.
The "freedom of speech and of the press" apply only to the GOVERNMENT. I can pay you a million dollars to agree never to speak another word. Only the government is forbidden from interfering your right to speech. I can interfere with your right to speech as much as I want. If you are burned by the exploding ipod I sell you, we can reach an agreement where you agree to keep it quiet in exchange for money. This is in no way a violation of the First Amendment.
If you are found guilty, you can appeal to higher courts with different judges. If you settle, you can't. Psystar settled a few claims because they knew they were going to lose and they knew an appeal wouldn't give them anything but bigger legal costs.
And you basically proved my point. Copyright is intellectual property. The term isn't loaded at all. Limited time, exclusive ownership of an idea is a kind of property. It does make an idea less yours. This was ratified in your constitution. You only now oppose it because you want to appropriate what someone else has worked hard for (sense of entitlement).
Hence why private organisations are allowed to discriminate. The boy scouts won the right to refuse gays in their ranks in the supreme court. It was not unconstitutional nor a restriction of any rights because the Boy Scouts of America is not a government organisation.
I might not have even clicked on "I Agree" - who is to say I've installed the software in the way you want me to? Regardless, I'm interacting in isolation with my own property. I can sing a loyal oath to the estate of Oliver Hardy in my bathroom or write "I'm going to give all my money away to Scientology" on my bedroom wall, and all sorts of other nonsense - none of these things form contracts. A contract involves interaction with another party.
If I warn you that the next paragraph contains an obligation for you, are you obliged to follow the instructions therein if you continue reading this post? Of course not, because you've not even consented to *this* paragraph.
You owe me an ice cream.
Interaction. Entirely different.
At purchase, I gave Apple some money and they agreed to give me a copy of the software. I didn't agree to later read and agree to any further terms, returning the software otherwise. Similarly, if you sell me any item and I find some sticker giving me extra rules concerning its use - a couch you built with an instruction under a cushion indicating that only people wearing bowties may sit on it, say - I'll laugh and ignore it. You should have provided me terms to explicitly agree to at the time of sale.
EULAs are a travesty to the reasonable notion of a contract.
If EULAs are not a contract, then any abridging of my right to speak or publish Mac OS X comes directly from force of government, rather than voluntary agreement. Since the government can only do this under the Constitution's Copyright and Patents clause (also some 20th century innovations on national security, etc.), it's otherwise breaking the First Amendment. I assume we are agreed that code is speech.
Or couldn't afford the legal costs - especially not costs involved to overturn argued unconstitutional enforcement of EULAs.KnightWRX said:
1. Limited time ownership where time is dictated by government is not ownership at all.
2. For property, exclusivity results from ownership. For Copyrights and Patents, any relation to "ownership" is the result of a fallacious understanding of (i) the purpose of; (ii) the nature of copyright. In detail:
(i) Physical property is naturally (in the sense described by the FFs) owned, and its description in law is a codification of that natural state. Ideas and their expressions cannot be naturally owned. See Jefferson above. Copyright and Patents are merely a pragmatic convenience.
(ii) As such, Copyright and Patents only exist to the extent that they are described in law. Otherwise, ideas and their expressions are as free to pass from man to man as any speech. Meanwhile, physical property exists whether law recognises it or not.
On the contrary, I'm so disappointed by Apple's repeated un-American approach to ideas and their expressions that I've decided to move myself away from Apple. I'm encouraging the same of my clients. I feel neither entitled nor not entitled to what Apple thinks up - I simply don't want to deal with such an entity at all.
Since 16th century England you have been able to accept the terms of a contract merely by accepting the benefit of the bargain. A contract involves interaction, but acceptance may be accomplished merely by an action (and, in some cases, even by inaction). Sorry, but that's the law, and long has been.
Strawman argument. Contracts require consideration, and there was no consideration offered in exchange for my obligation to give you an ice cream. The right to keep reading the paragraph is something I already have - it's not your paragraph, it's macrumors'. You thus offered me nothing.
If you don't like it, then there is no contract of sale and you may return the object, but you cannot choose to take the benefit without the liability. In the case of your couch, the contract governed by the Uniform Commercial Code,
so the rules are different than for the sale of software.
Only if you choose to ignore 400 years of precedent.
EULAs ARE a contract. Code may or may not be speech, but it is certainly not the type of speech entitled to the highest level of protection since it doesn't contain YOUR ideas. It contains someone else's. It's akin to commercial speech which, while protected, is given a lower level of protection. Further, speech can be restricted even without authority of specific Constitutional provisions. You cannot slander someone, for example. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire. You cannot incite violence. You cannot publish top secret information. You may not print your employer's trade secrets.
I have no idea what the rest of your post is talking about.