Slashdot Mirror
Apple Cease-And-Desists Stupidity Leak
Apple cites the Lanham Act (see below) and I have no idea what that covers. But Bill Innanen pointed out on a mailing list that the operating system might be said to violate its own access control rights under the DMCA:
...since the possession of the tools to violate a copyright has been criminalized, we have yet another case of circular legal "logic." The only tool necessary to violate this particular copyright is the very operating system that the copyrighted software (the updater/full-installer) installs (or an earlier version of same).(Just pop open the installer package with the built-in "context sensitive menu" module, find the CheckForOSX module and drag it to the trash can. Voila!)
Is the possession of MacOS X v10.1 or its installer illegal because it can be used to violate its own copyright?
(Well, actually by the letter of the law in 1201(2) I think you'd have to argue that Mac OS X 10.0 was "primarily" designed to circumvent the access controls in the 10.1 update... but it's still pretty funny.)
Bill goes on to point out: "The problem that this converted updater fixed is that there are reported problems with 10.1.1, and with a 10.0.x and the updater you can't backtrack. With the 10.1 full installer you can."
Apple's lawyers write:
We represent Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") with respect to its intellectual property matters. Recently, it has come to our attention that you are providing unauthorized instructions concerning the modification of the Mac OS X 10.1 update software (the "Software") on your website. Specifically, it appears that you are providing instructions for converting Mac OS X 10.1 update Software to a full install version of Mac OS X from your web site in violation of the Copyright Act and in violation of your software license agreement with Apple.
You should be aware that Apple has never authorized you modify the Software. Moreover, by providing instructions on how to modify and circumvent restrictions within the Software, you are infringing Apple's copyrights in violation of the Copyright Act and engaging in acts of unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act. Additionally, Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.
Consequently, on behalf of our client, we demand that you cease and desist from publishing or distributing the above-referenced materials. We believe that this is a very serious matter, thus we ask that we receive confirmation in writing from you that you have removed the infringing material from your web site.
Thank you for your prompt cooperation on this matter.
to stuff the genie back into the bottle?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
What they should have done is a package-by-package analysis of the install and tell what each part does. Leave it to the discussion board and newsgroups to establish what taking out a piece does.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Regardless of the technical stupidity...
Publishing information about this does qualify as providing a mechanism to circumvent a copy control mechanism.
Horses gone. Lawyers hired to close barn door. Non-farmers sick and tired of hearing about it.
Okay, yes, companies are posessive about their software, even when they're stupid with it. We know this. It's not news. Yeesh.
Before the bashing begins, remember that Apple has to protect its intellectual property in these little matters in order to protect it when the big boys start violating Apple's TOS or IP. Its a stupid, jerky thing to do but the sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers would eat Apple alive if it dropped the ball on the protection of its IP.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
This, of course, from the same company that used to let you drag the whole OS to the trash bin and delete it...
this is getting old and so are you
blog
I guess it doesn't matter to the lawyers, or even Congress that the instructions are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It should be legal to posess and disseminate said directions, but illegal to use them. The same as plans for making a pipe bomb, or owning a Britainy Spears album.
This sounds rather peculiar to me.
First of all, I don't suspect most people would consider removing a package from an operating system 'modifying the software' or any of the other list of things stated.
Secondly, giving people instructions on how to break the copyright of an item is not against any copyright laws that I know of. I can quite easily walk up to a person holding a copy of a book in a bookshop and suggest they could take a copy of it by using a photocopier if they so desired. The only laws that I may possibly be breaking concern enticement into breaking laws and dubiously applicable here (I expect they may apply following DMCA, but probably wouldn't have done before).
This sounds like a load of hot air to me.
(IANAL, of course...)
Large companies covering up for stupid mistakes with threats of litigation truly is the comedy of the new century.
Seemes like Apple is at least not trying to crush them. I give them points for being nice lawyers.
Same time, they really goofed, so they can afford to drive any more (bad) publicity on this matter.
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
The Lanham Act is actually a trademark / service mark protection law, not really a copyright law. To see Apple's lawyers use it in this context seems a bit out of the ordinary, although Apple is notorious for vigorously defending their trademark and look-and-feel related concepts (remember the OS X themes debate a few months back?). Still, if they're relying on the Lanham Act to do their bullying, they might be on shakey footing. Stick to the (deservedly despised) DMCA for things like that.
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
Somebody should tell Apple that security through obscurity only works when you keep your mouth shut about things.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
... for providing a full installer, so that I can do a full clean install of the software. Updaters often leave residue from previous versions of the software.
I just wish people wouldn't take advantage of it.
Summary of MacFixIt's reply:
1) We're going to roll over and do whatever Apple says.
2) Just to make sure that our readers don't think that we're selling-out, we'll state that "we were not doing anything illegal". Of course we won't be taking a stand or anything that might involve a little bit of courage.
[lots of useless justification snipped]
They were to busy trying to make the packsage look good and make sure that no one else was using there patnend Aqua envelopes
The Lanham Act essentially includes all the federal laws governing trademark registration and usage (but not state laws). Apple appears to be seeking protection under Title VIII of the Act, which has to do with misappropriation or misrepresentation of trademarks for use in commerce.
I'm just a college student who's taken a few law classes, but it seems to me this is a fairly weak claim, and Apple could make a much stronger one under other areas of federal law. Can anyone with more legal knowledge comment on the strength of Apple's claim?
Here's a link to the complete text of the Act.
Providing instructions or a mechanism for circumventing a copy control mechanism that controls access to a work is a violation of the DMCA.
Since slashdot posted this story does that mean that they too will receive a letter from apple?
Snoozer.
who archved the actual instructions?
IMWTK
Apple is a company seeking to profit from the purchase of the hardware and software it produces.
Mac OS X is the culmination of more than 7 years of "next-generation" operating system development of many forms at Apple and untold millions, and probably more than a billion dollars in software development that has not begun to show any return for Apple until March of this year, after Mac OS X's release.
Pure Mac OS X sales will never pay for the development of the operating system. In a way, Mac OS X is the greatest loss-leader of them all--driving the hardware sales with fat margins that keeps the company afloat. While I'm aware that open-source choices in operating systems are free, $130 is not expensive for an OS, considering the price for other mainstream OSs.
The Mac OS 10.1 update is given away for free. You walk into any Mac-carrying retail outlet and they will hand you this nicely-packaged CD with instructions and send you on your way, without asking for proof of OS X ownership. Putting a check for 10.0.x in the software updater is not unexpected.
Apple legal has been heavyhanded in the past. Apple has a very strong brand to protect and does so vigorously. In this case, they're not just protecting the specific look of the iMac or a trademark, but the profits that any company should expect for producing a quality product.
You know, when you want to circumvent the existing install checker on the average PC upgrade edition of a product, you usually have to murk around with the registry or apply cracks with non-standard install methods ... things that would confuse the average joe newby pirate. But on the MacOS, you can crack your software with just a single drag of the mouse! Now that's what I call UI innovation.
Depending on how you use any of these instructions and/or pieces of software it may be illegal. It also might be legal, or at least grey. Suppose I've got a legitimate copy of MacOS 10. I've also legitimately purchased the 10.1 installer. My hard drive fails and I want to run 10.1 again. I can install MacOS 10, then install MacOS 10.1 - or - I can defeat the protection on MacOS 10.1 and install it in a single step. In this case the end result is the same, I've legally installed a copy of MacOS 10.1.
If I don't legally have MacOS X and use this trick to get a copy of MacOS 10.1 for 20 bucks then I'm at least doing something immoral, and possibly illegal. Apple has the right to try to prevent this (beyond that, they've got an obligation to as well, an obligation to their stock holders).
That said, it will also be ineffective. The crack will appear on some dyndns.org warez site and on gnutella etc. I had suspected that upgrade CD was a full install but didn't have a chance to verify it. I upgraded my sisters G4 over thanksgiving weekend. The CD seemed pretty full for an upgrade, and you could actually boot from it.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
You are taking a $19.95 "free" update and making it a $129 peice of software (The full cost of Mac OS X). Any company with an ounce of brains is going to pounce all over you for it, I mean they are losing $110 on the deal. That said, I wondered why the 10.1 update wasn't a free download.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
how many links in a chainsaw does it take to rip all those lawyers to bloody shreds? i'd like to find out.
In their letter, they only talk about reverse engineering and modifying the software and such. Ok, so that's illegal. But no one modified any software here, you just say "hey, don't install this package."
I also don't see how this could violate Apple's license agreement. I'm sure that MacFixIt does have an OS X license, so it's not like they installed the software without a license -- they just chose to install it in a different way. A way that Apple made possible by making the package optional.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
it's amazing to me how may times developers think their users are luddites and will not figure out how to circumvent shortcuts (as in the case of this CD). It's not just the domain of software either, Pentium 90s could be speeded up to 100 with 2 minutes of work by anyone that isn't afraid of a screwdriver.
I guess shortcuts are just too appealing.
Here's a link to it: Lanham Act.
Here's a little description I found online:
The Lanham Act defines the statutory and common law boundaries to trademarks and service marks. Trademarks (and service marks) are words or designs used in the advertising of goods and services. Rights to use a trademark are defined by the class(es) for which the trademark is used. Therefore, it is possible for different parties to use the same trademark in different classes. The Lanham Act defines the scope of a trademark, the process by which a federal registration can be obtained from the Patent and Trademark Office for a trademark, and penalties for trademark infringement. The Legal Information Institute provides Title 15 of the US Code, which encompasses the Lanham Act.
It sounds like this act has to deal with advertising... so is Apple saying that MacFixIt should take down their post because it advertises away to get a full version of commercial product that costs $129 for $19?
I don't think this should be that big of a deal - they'll probably just stop making the update CD, and most people who bought one already owned a copy of OS X anyway.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Is the possession of MacOS X v10.1 or its installer illegal because it can be used to violate its own copyright?
This kind of "circular geek logic" astounds me. It is like a Mobius Strip - circular, but one sided.
Of course Mac OS X cannot violate the DMCA. The anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA requires that the software be designed specifically to be a circumvention device that will break protection for copyrighted works. Mac OS X is software that is designed specifically to Operate Your Computer.
Attempts to twist the law in this manner only make the anti-DMCA cause look stupid. Only digital crowbars like DeCSS & Dmitri's software violate the DMCA. The way to win the argument for the DMCA is to convince the people of America that it should be legal to write software to steal from companies - not accuse Apple of being "crackers".
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Looks like Apple needs a lesson in software temper resistance. I know that it's hard to do (part of my current job) and security by obscurity sucks, but at least don't name the crucial file "CheckForOSX" ... better use something bland like "OFUpdate", or if you're in the mood, "MicrosoftEngineersAreWeenies" ;)
Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software
Huh?
So Apple makes you sign a license agreement when you buy their software? (you're not actually BUYING it, they're giving it to you for free!) Never seen that before.
If there's a "click-wrap", how do they know the person posting this info to the web is the same person who clicked "Accept"?
Sounds fishy to me.
No, they don't. Copyrights and patentsdo not have to be defended (remember gif, mp3, etc?). It's a good idea to defend them along with patents, or else you can lose out big time (Frauenhoffer and mp3). Trademarks and servicemarks are the only things that need to be defended, lest they be diluted and become generic (kleneex, asperin, etc). Now the law that's being cited, the Lanham Act, is a trademark law so a defense seems reasonable until you realize that they're using a trademark law to prop up a copyright argument. Something about that doesn't seem quite right. Maybe they need to go back to law school.
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
if apple did not Sue for IP and admark then they would have been crushed long ago by a beast that is so powerful that it does not need to sue, it just buys the infringing company....its cheaper that way ;-)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Does the Apple license in this case count as a restrictive software license in light of the new Adobe case? I think it might, as the pertinent restrictions here deal with modification and reselling. I would have to study the court documents further, though, and of course I am not a lawyer.
;^)).
Using the packaged OS as a circumvention device is a funny way to illustrate the silliness of the DMCA, but other than that does it really apply to the cease-and-desist? I mean the Apple lawyers are focusing on the act (the actual modification and copying, etc. etc.) rather than the tool here (the OS
Also, does posting instructions on how to do this really qualify as reverse-engineering, copying, modifying or distributing (yell at me if I've left something out)? To me it seems more like saying "if you solder a little connection between jumpers A1E and B3C you can make French toast and waffles with your PS2". Or is it the Lanham Act that covers dissemination of information relating to copyright infringment? Funny, I thought the Lanham Act had more to do with doing business using "ill-gotten gains".
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Back in the ol' Win 95 days, the Win95 upgrade could be used as long as you had a "WINDOWS" directory and a file named "win386.ini"
so you took edit.com, and created a blank file called win386.ini - presto..the upgrade became the full kitten kaboddle
Upgrade disks will by necessity require the entire OS - all that is required is to figure out how to circument it, and it's end of story...this is barely even news if it wasn't for the fact they sic'd lawyers to prevent a webpage from passing out info every hacker will figure out in about 2 hours
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
Keep in mind, the folks at MacFixIt must by definition have applied this modification (and that's what it is, specified in the EULA, whether you "feel" it's a mod or not) to be able to publish information on it. The act of publishing the info is not illegal, but the actual package removal was.
Also, this is not only copyright infringement - the letter cites the Lanham Act, which makes it illegal to engage in unfair competition. That's essentially what MacFixIt (and now Slashdot, incidentally) has done - forced Apple's full OS X 10.1 product to compete unfairly with a $19.95 CD. It's a law usually used in advertising administrative law, but it does fit here. Apple doesn't need the DMCA on this one; and given their "piracy is a social problem, not a technological one" stance, they're probably glad for that.
I, for one, would like to see some support on these boards for a major manufacturer, with as much IP as any other, who doesn't give a rat's ass about the DMCA and sells its own "unprotected" MP3 player. Would most companies do that? In this case, Apple has a need to defend its IP - otherwise, they have shown they really do think different.
here is a description from cornell law:
"In the United States trademarks may be protected by both Federal statute under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 - 1127, and states' statutory and/or common laws. Congress enacted the Lanham Act under its Constitutional grant of authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. See U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. A trademark registered under the Lanham Act has nationwide protection. See 1115 of the Act.
Under the Lanham Act, a seller applies to register a trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office. The mark can already be in use or be one that will be used in the future. See 1051 of the act. The Office's regulations pertaining to trademarks are found in Parts 1 - 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If the trademark is initially, approved by an examiner, it is published in the Official Gazette of the Trademark Office to notify other parties of the pending approval so that it may be opposed. See 1062 - 1063 of the Act. An appeals process is available for rejected applications. See 1070 - 1071 of the Act."
- from http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html
you can browse the sections of United States Code Title 15 at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/. As it mentions above, the Lanham Act is comprised of 1051 - 1127.
courtesy of google
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
JOhn "Non-Hancock"
Campaign for Liberty
My mistake-- the license agreement was mentioned. It was not the primary charge, however, nor was there any evidence that a EULA was agreed to.
Most times when a company finds a website they don't like, they start with a "cease and desist", and only move on to (expensive) legal action if that doesn't get the result they want.
didn't Steve Jobs just say something like, "Any security scheme that's based on secrets will be broken sooner or later." about the iPod's lax copy management scheme?
so did Apple do this on purpose, or are they just being hypocrical? seems like the latter.
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Well, here we have the nah sayers...just because apple has figured out how to build a better desktop than most of you gnu hacks can do...that includes crappy ass wms like E and sawblow for what it is worth, apple has done a great job with osx. I want to see more inuitive improvements to it but its getting there.
admark
Wow, you even used marketing jargon.
You're one of those boingy marketing guys who clings to his Mac for dear life, eh?
By posting a link that tells you how to do it?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Like many, I have to vigorously disagree with Apple on this one. If they did NOT want it to be installable, they should have done a good job preventing it (or not releasing enough to allow it to be a full install - duh!). After all, providing ONLY the updated packages instead of the ENTIRE OS seems like it would have been smarter.
Does this make it illegal for me to walk into the Apple store at the mall and tell people they can do this? If there was code being disseminated which would break the protection (DeCSS for instance), then *maybe* I could see it as a violation of the DMCA (Note: I *disagree* with the DMCA, but from a judge's point of view, I could still see it as a violation). But, simply stating how to do it seems like it should be protected as free speech.
How come printed newspapers get more lienency than electronic sites? If the NYT or Washington Post print Top Secret classified information which could KILL people, it's protected under the First Amendment. But, if someone even thinks of explaining how to circumvent a piece of software, it's not protected? Perhaps if it was printed in the newspaper?
I'm pretty sure Apple kept their mouth shut about it. The only problem was that their "hammer update" was another hammer in a box that said "open box with hammer v10.0". Too bad the box contained a full-fledged hammer and could be opened by hand.
Such reports are not information about how to circumvent technology, they ARE newsworthy however. If a company can be so blatently stupid about writing their software, they are probably being stupid in some non-obvious things. Remember the IPOD formating your hard drive problem a few weeks back?
People need to know that these guys are getting sloppy so that they can make informed decisions in the future. Saying that the media shouldn't discuss Apple's problems for fear of lowering their profits would be like forbidding all reports of crime for a given town... after all if a town gets a bad reputation, its tax base will be reduced.
Remember that anyone can write a Cease and Desist letter. Remember that lawyers are not required to be honest in such letters.
Their job is to convince the "offending" person that it would be a bad idea to piss off their employer. The C&D is basically a more business-like version of sending a 200 pound hired goon to your door.
to publish the instructions in all their glory..?
This is my favorite part of the net.. try to supress information and all you do is draw attention to it so it spreads wider.
Semantics aside (who's to say that by not installing something, you're "reverse engineering"?), since when do you agree to software EULA at purchase time?
I haven't installed OSX10.1, but any other EULA I agree to presents itself before I open the CD enveloppe, or when I run the installer.
Does Apple really make you agree to the EULA at PURCHASE TIME?
I'm sorry, maybe I'm clueless, but how is "clicking on a program and dragging it into the Trash" modifying the software.
When I buy a book, it has 560 pages. I don't like a page I rip it out. I do this with my magazines all the time. I do this with my software all the time - I rip out Help and other useless space wasters and get a lean system.
You will take away my right to delete when you remove the chip from my brain!
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
all you have to do is stop by an authorized dealer and sign on the dotted line. but, i was kind of confused by the installer, because it was acting as if it could perform a new install. check the dialog boxes as you proceed. the install was clean any way, but i do prefer a complete, clean install to an update--m$. the win 2000 from nt 4 upgrade was a nightmare.
Dmitri's software was designed specifically to allow blind people to use e-books. DeCSS was designed specifically to allow people to watch the DVDs they'd purchased on Linux machines. They can be used to steal from companies as well.
The Mac OS X 10.1 installer was designed specifically to upgrade Mac OS X 10.0 to Mac OS X 10.1. It can also be used to steal from Apple.
Please explain the difference.
I have been narrowing down my choices for a laptop for several weeks now, planning to buy when I get my bonus.
I'd figured that since I run Linux, platform didn't really matter much as Linux will run on pretty much any laptop that exists, so the only important things to consider were:
1) Looks pretty.
2) Good keyboard.
With that in mind, the iBook was on my short list.
You've narrowed my list by one more, Apple. I thank you.
After 16 years of publishing a proprietary, difficult-to-hack OS, it appears that UNIX hacking culture is catching Apple off-guard. It's quite true that whoever put together that CD seriously miscalculated the possible repercussions, but it's also very possible that they've done the same sort of thing in the past without incident.
The difference here being that, upon hearing that OS X is *NIX, about a million people cry out at once, "Cool! Lemme hack it!"
This is going to require a major shift in corporate thinking over in Cupertino. We can only hope that the outcome of this shift is hacker-friendly, instead of the user-hostile solutions that the folks in Redmond have come up with.
If I understand this correctly, MacFixIt posted instructions on how to make it easier to install the OS X Upgrade. Since when are written instructions illegal? Wouldn't this fall under "It's illegal if I build a bomb, but not illegal if I tell you how to build a bomb"? Protected speech, NO?
That being said, why are some of the early posters saying that Apple must do this? Why must they muzzle someone whose only intent was to assist others in making it easier to install legitimately acquired software. I cannot see how there was any reverse-engineering, decompilation, or anything of that nature. There isn't even a derivative work as the CheckForOSX utility was merely deleted, never altered or anything. As for the EULA, there was a story yesterday that basically said these silly EULAs are non-binding, in most cases. Am I out in left field on this one?
Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
By posting the entire text of said article?
Convert your Update CD to a full Install CD
In the meantime, we found a work-around that may be even better than the one we were looking for. Instead of finding a file on the hard drive that we could modify to fool the Installer, we found a file on the Installer that we could delete and thereby bypass the checking process altogether!
We found the file by comparing a Mac OS X 10.1 "full" Install CD with an Update CD. Both CDs had the aforementioned VolumeCheck file. However, only the Update CD had the CheckforOSX file. Could this be the only critical difference between the two CDs? What if we made a bootable copy of the OS X Update CD, but with the CheckforOSX file missing? Would it act as a full install CD? We tried it. It worked! In brief, here is what
to do:
1. Using instructions posted on this page, create a disk image of the Update CD.
2.Delete the CheckforOSX file from the Essentials.pkg file in System/Installation/Packages folder of the image file. [You need to use the Open Package Contents contextual menu item to access this file.]
3.Burn the image to a CD using Disk Copy.
You can now boot from this CD. When you do, it will list any volume - even one that has no version of Mac OS X at all - as eligible for an install of Mac OS X 10.1. We did not test to see if this actually correctly installed the OS, but we have no reason to believe it would not. This method thus apparently converts an Update CD into a full install CD! A neat trick (although we suspect Apple may not find this so wonderful).
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This isn't the first time that Apple did this. Back in the early days of Hypercard they shipped a "demo" version on all new macs. You could play stacks but not create them. That is, unless you were capable of typing the word "magic" at which point the demo would "magically" transform itself into the full thing.
Apple never took any legal action to my knowledge. This was well before the "look and feel" days so they were still innocent, sweet and too wealthy to care.
Apple has a semi-painless way of minimizing loss on this: Start carding its customers---NOT that kind of card. Every bundled or retail package of MacOS X 10.0 comes with several "software coupon"s which verify ownership of the Apple product in question. No coupon, no 10.1 for you. (Personally I find this greatly amusing as I brought one of the coupons with me to the Mall of America Apple Store when I went to get my 10.1 update---Employee said, "We don't need those as the update checks to see if 10.0 is installed.")
Unfortunately the little buggers are insanely easy to fake. Unlike the debates raging as to whether or not Apple has a DMCA leg to stand-on, duplicating the coupons would be a fairly clear case of forging documentation of ownership, clearly illegal.
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Note: these instructions are from the Xspot website.
People who slam RMS for being uncompromising about the importance of software freedom should keep in mind incidents like this. I'd really love to live in a world where we don't have lawyers breathing down our necks because we modify software and discuss and share our modifications.
In a way, Mac OS X is the greatest loss-leader of them all--driving the hardware sales with fat margins that keeps the company afloat
If such is the case they why are they so upset about the possibility of the updater being misused? Its not like you can install OSX on your common beige box clone.
This issue probably has alot more to do with apple's corporate culture than rampant sharing of their software: They value their patents, copyrights, look and feel, and other intellectual restictions disproportionally as if they were a primary revenue stream. They wont take a stance on whether or not the freetype project may decode their pantented bytecode, They wont clarify that spec following SVG and PNG implementations do not infringe their alpha mask patent, they send cease and desist to any theme reminicent of any of their GUI's, etc... Note that none of the following concessions could hurt apple, and the proliferation of common standards could only help them.
Sadly it seems that Microsoft allows apple to exist only so as to have a token competitor. (And even that they contrive to whither away with mass "donations" of software to schools) while apple wedges itself further into a corner by refusing the only strategy that could redeem them. (Openness & common API/Protocols/Formats)
Their hardware is truely top-notch, and if they would only loosen their iron grasp a bit they could flourish selling more of it.
Last week (or was it two weeks ago), more than a few of you decided to make fun of the Linux community for a piece of buggy code in the Linux kernel, saying, in essence, "Hahaha... Apple screwed up the iTunes install script, but you screwed up the kernel!"
At least a few Linux users (myself included) tried to state that there were no parallels to be drawn, as the Apple bug was in a piece of shell script written by a large company which should be able to audit its code, whereas the Linux bug was hidden inside the kernel source to a release of the kernel that was rushed out the door by a man who has enough to do already without working (for free) on the kernel.
Now that Apple has done it again (by protecting its IP with an obviously-named system check program that can easily be deleted), I have nothing to say but: who's laughing now?
Specifically, it appears that you are providing instructions for converting Mac OS X 10.1 update Software to a full install version of Mac OS X from your web site in violation of the Copyright Act and in violation of your software license agreement with Apple.
So, I do not own a copy of Mac OS X. So therefor I would not be violating any license agreement.
You should be aware that Apple has never authorized you modify the Software.
I did not see the web site state that they modified any software. Deleting a file is something that Apple gave them rights to do when they placed a trashcan on their desktop.
Additionally, Apple's license agreement, which you accepted upon purchasing a copy of the Software, specifically prohibits you from copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.
Again, not something the site told anyone to do. Deleting a file is not copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.
Oh man. It is shaky ground. I can fully understand the web site removing the instructions, but their response was pretty weak. If they needed leagal help, they should have asked Slashdot. They have many lawyers that could have assisted in a response.
LD
I found the exchange of letters to be fair and legitimate, I think both parties did have good reasons to do what they did. Apple are not sharks, neither are their lawyers, they build cool shit, *really* cool shit, and I think they're only legitimately attempting to protect their intellectual property. Nobody's rights are being violated, there is no reason to get on high horses.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Apple is not much different than M$ like other non Open Source software company.
They made mistakes then blame to user for their fault.
All about obeys for one rule.
Make more profit at all costs.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
I presume that the lawyers are talking about the copyright angle because you presumably have to copy the disc and mangle it slightly before being able to install OS X.
Of course, one could argue that they accidentally corrupted the disc while making a backup copy...
Here we have Apple, whose job it is to provide hardware, software and updates for both. Now what you're telling me is that if Apple doesn't know how to do its job correctly, they think it should be illegal for anyone to point that fact out. And it's not just Apple, if anyone things I'm just picking on them. Choose any company that's filed a non-patent related IP lawsuit in the past few years and in nearly every case, the suit originated because someone pointed out that they weren't doing their job very well (and provided details.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I call it "customer loyalty," for which they're just trying to suppress popularity. I mean, consider this: I had to rebuild EVERYTHING on my mac the other day, it was just toasted. Now, when I rebuilt, I didn't have to reinstall OSX 10 over my busted 10.1 install...and then reinstall 10.1, as you might have to do with other OSs. Everything I needed was on the 10.1 disc, which I got free from my friends at the mac store.
This is really no different than Microsoft allowing time-kill downloads of XP RC, and you really don't expect MS not to get all uptight about people hacking the time-kill code, do you? THe OSX upgrade is similar in that you have to modify it to get a full version of the software, which is justifiably more expensive. Sure, for the hackers who want a whole OS of 10.1, it's in there, but it also allows Joe Q. iMac to get a functional OS without spending $100 to get the "full retail" version. By this I mean that OSX 10.0.1 was NOT a truly functional OS, and 10.1.0 was...giving people who have essentially been paid beta testers a very close to retail version of the software is unheard of customer loyalty, and I think it's rude to complain that they are trying to suppress information that allows people to take advantage of their generosity.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
$130 is not expensive for an OS, considering the price for other mainstream OSs.
:)
Huh?? Did I miss something? Unless the price for "other mainstream OSs" just doubled, I don't think $130 is in the "not expensive" range, considering Windows XP is about $85.
Of course, I think nobody should pay for a required element like an OS, but that's just my belief
Zodiac Survey
If you're not convinced of its ridiculousness yet, just substitute Microsoft for Apple and Windows XP for Mac OS X.
Apple is perfectly entitled to want to ship certain things for Mac OS X, of course and they are perfectly entitled to make sure they get the revenue from their software, etc. and of course they are perfectly entitled to put stuff on their CD to prevent it being used any way they don't want it to be.
However, what they are not entitled to do is force a website to stop pointing out blatant and obvious holes in their prevention mechanisms.
Mmmm.. Donuts
It's interesting to note that if you run the unix file command on the CheckFor OSX binary you get:
CheckForOSX: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures
CheckForOSX (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc
CheckForOSX (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
anyone remember the ms office 97 upgrade cd that you allowed you to point it back to the cd itself when it asked for the location of your office install? i love it when companies spend years designing the software and let an intern write the install procedures.
NT upgrades.
I recall the "upgrade" required a previous version. Yet, you could boot off the disk and install normally...WTF? 'kay.
Win9X full version would not upgrade/downgrade and version, except that exact version.
You know what I found? Delete win.com or rename it, and you can take any version of windows up/down grade wise. Could not believe how easy that was.
One cavet on that, if the system is really messed up, it won't help 70% of the time. Others it will fix whatever ails the prvious version.
This remove the "checkforosx" script is almost laughable....perhaps you could leave the script there and rename it to win.com? Heh.
I may be asking a silly question, but has anyone done a comparison of the "changed" X.1 vs the "full" X.1? A file by file or bit by bit check of everything?
Any other differences than 1 file?
Or is this some artificial difference...(artificial, ain't quite right...but all I can think of)...the addition of one script?
Anyone tried adding the script to a full version?
Does it use it or ignore it?
Inquiring minds and all...
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Warp's free trial versions had a time limited kernel related file (I don't remember what it was), which had a non-time limited version in the bootable install medium (floppies or the bootable cd.) You just had to copy it on top of installed one and that could be done a single drag of mouse too.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Once on any file system an image of software is fair game by its nature. If you move an icon on your desktop or change a single setting you have created a personal derivative work. This must be allowed for by the nature of the product. The version on my hard-drive with its unique structure and time stamps is a derivative of the original.
Deleteing a file from a file system image is a perfectly acceptable and normal operation. Any individual should clearly be able to make a modification of that sort by the nature of the system. Just as a user could add files or edit files on a file system.
The nature of the OS is that the file system will be added to and modified by the user. The user must also be allowed to make backup copies of the modified system.
I am repeating myself but I can't see how modifying a file system image is in violation of anything.
There seems to be a common philosophy among license security engineers that goes kinda like this, "Most people are honest. We can't stop someone who really wants to crack our stuff. We want to prevent the honest people from being tempted to violate the license agreement."
That philosophy seems to work well in certain environments (my companys sells SW strictly to semiconductor companies, for instance) but not in others (PC gamers and Chinese Windows users).
At some point, a company has to weigh how much they spend making sure someone doesn't use their stuff for free against how much potential revenue is lost due to "theft." If the first is greater than the last, it MAY not be worth making your stuff more secure.
Perhaps there is a disconnect in Apple about how tight to make things. I'd like to hear the Apple engineers their speak up about it.
Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
It's time to get rid of EULAs and establish a single common legal usage code. No other consumer product is subject to this ridiculous patchwork system of pseudo-contracts.
I had OS X 10.0 installed when I received 10.1. However, just as I was about to install 10.1 9.1 crashed it's partition beyond repair, so I had to format reinstall the whole thing again.
:)
After that I tried to install 10.1, but apparently this CheckForOSX couldn't find 10.0 anymore... And refused to install. I wasn't able to boot to 9.1 anymore ("press buttom to boot old OS" trick wouldn't work).
I'm fairly new with Macs so I didn't know the trick to eject the CD on boot.
So my Mac kept on booting OS X 10.1 CD that refused to install...
Well, at least I learned some Mac tricks during from that experience
The middle mind speaks!
Have you usurped the Supreme Court as being the definitive interpreter of the Constitution? Because according to the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court is final word in judicial review.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....[Their] judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."
- US Constitution, Article III sec 1-2
Because they haven't struck down the Lanham Act yet. So not a SINGLE THING IN MY POST WAS WRONG.
It you disagree with the law, fine, go ahead. If I think that the first amendment gives me the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, I'll still go to jail for yelling it. (Schenk v US)
Furthermore, with respect to your last point:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"
-US Constitution, Article V.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
This upgrade requires you to download and print a form which includes terms and conditions, a sort of EULA.
However, I don't think that should be a major issue.. as it does not mention anything about discovering flaws in the software packaging or discovering ways to steal the full version from it... It just says that it requires the full version.
This is clearly an issue of freedom of speech, since all the parties involved are in the United States.
Genie out of the bottle. Too late. Bygones.
copying, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, modifying or creating derivative works of the Software.
It is just moving a file, and as far as I knew, people are allowed to move files.
haha now their site is down! dont fuck with apple!
:P
btw I'm not a lawyer but I fail to see how a web site distributing this information would break the EULA - they don't even need to open the software or "agree" to the EULA to post information on a web site.
but of course, lawyers dont give a shit about tiny details like that..
Well, at least it's clear that it's immoral (and probably illegal) to install the upgrade without paying for the original.
But what counts as a "modification" is an interesting question, and my questions below are not at all rhetorical--answers would be appreciated. What kind of actions legally count as "modifications"? The one EULA I found on Apple's web site says: "Except as expressly permitted in this License, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the Apple Software in whole or part or transmit the Apple Software over a network." This isn't really very clear.
Under Windows, is changing the registry a "modification" of a program? After all, the registry is not a part of the program.
Where is the line to be drawn between code and data? I assume I may legally edit the document templates in Microsoft Word, and yet they contain code.
What if a program includes self-modifying code and you know about it? (E.g., because you recognize as it's listing the files it's installing that it uses some library notorious for including self-modifying code.)
Does running a self-modifying program normally violate its own EULA? Probably not, because the EULA states that you are allowed to "install and use the Apple Software on a single computer at a time". But what if the self-modification is triggered by some user action: e.g., if you know (without reverse engineering: e.g., because you're an experienced programmer and know that this is the standard way to implement something) that pressing a dialog button causes self-modifying code to execute? (Besides, the distinction between code and internal variables is a dubious one--I recently wrote a peephole optimizer for Z80 code that tries whenever possible to store byte or word length data directly within the N of a LD R,N--and we know that every button press modifies internal variables.)
So maybe it's OK to use the program to modify itself? But no: surely that is what is at issue here. Microsoft wouldn't be happy if I used the DEBUG utility included with Windows as a binary editor for various Windows files, and Apple is unhappy when we delete a file from the installation disk using the program itself if I understood correctly. So what's going on? Where is the distinction between running a self-modifying program and modifying a program?
Is it that we have to second-guess the software engineers--without reverse engineering!--and decide which sorts of modifications of a program with itself they would count as part of "standard use" and which they do not? Is there maybe here some vague standard of "standard use" that is in play here? It's a rather amorphous concept, though, because obviously users often put software to various uses that the software writers never expected, without this being illegal. (E.g., a spreadsheet might have been designed for financial operations, but one might put it to use as a handy chessboard for playing a game of chess with a friend.)
Perhaps the idea is that one is allowed to make those modifications of the program which a reasonable person would think the software company would likely consider a part of licensed "use". Often legally we do have to rely on "what a reasonable person would think". But it's tricky. Has anyone tried to define it more precisely?
So was Apple stupid? No. Customer-service oriented? Yes. Ease-of-use oriented? Yes. Transparency-of-upgrade-process? Yes. Safe-and-reliable-installer prioritized? Yes.
Heck, I'd think the /. crowd would be thrilled there isn't some elaborate product activation scheme or big encrypted block of material. Yeah, it's easy to defeat and steal the product. On the other hand if one's determined it's trivial enough to copy a buddies CD or download the original.
Hey - Apple ENCOURAGED folks to pass along their update! They didn't do what so many other vendors do and require proof of purchase. They didn't charge some outrageous rate. They didn't even go the MS route and call it a new OS. They even stated they'd have made it free for download if it wasn't so honking big.
All Apple did was ask (ok, in a heavy-handed legal fashion but that's how the legal system works) a website to take down directions for circumventing their security mechanism. I've no doubt numerous other companies send out reams of the same boilerplate every day asking folks to stop posting how to crack their demos or post their passwords.
And here we have folks bustin' on 'em.
So - what SHOULD they have done? Would folks REALLY prefer encrypted material doing who-knows-what after some onerous registration process and limited distribution? Crow all you want that Apple "gave away" their product, they went about their technology in a far more responsible way then many others. Think about that the next time you install an MS/Sun/Irix/IBM/HP/Compaq/Unisys/etc. OS.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I doubt that the lawyers are confused at all. Lawyers routinely cite irrelevant legislation in these cease-and-desist letters in the hopes that it will scare the supposed offender into complying with their requests.
It's a legal trick. Usually if they use one of these tricks, it means that they really don't have any solid legal ground to stand on.
This has personally happened to me regarding an open source project I started. My lawyer advised me that, although their claims had no legal merit, it would cost me plenty of money just to defend myself from the unwarranted infringement claims.
Knowledge should not be illegal.
Everyday TV programs show me a various ways to kill a person, but that doesn't make the TV networks accessories to murder if a similar crime is commited. It is still up to the individual to commit the crime, be it murder or copyright infringement.
Well that's the latest thing man... just make everything you do with the product illegal, everyone will cower in feer, and those that you don't agree with, you can prosecute.
It's genious.
It's a very dangerous thing, but I see it happening more and more. Which is one of the many reasons I switched to a free os awhile back.
no actualy I like the Mac cause of system Design but I also have a PC with Windows ME and SUSE 7.2 on it.
and the admark was a type: admark was suposed to be Trademark
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
They should counter sue apple for negligence. I mean lets say:
;)
I park my car on the street somewhere, and I leave the keys sitting on top of the car, with a note saying, "Don't steal my car, these keys are for me. If you take them you are in violation of..."
And on the key ring there is a big shiny gold key on it, with another note attached to it saying, "Do not use this key to come into my house, located at 5555 NE 5th Ave, SomeCity, USA"
And next to your keys, you place your wallet there, with a note on it saying, "Do not take my wallet. It is for my personal use only. Do not use my duplicate Visa Cards, Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, etc etc. They are spares for me only..."
Maybe AMD should change their pricing structure. Sell the exact same processor, but charge according to what the customer sets the clock rate to. Make it part of a licensing scheme or something. If you "overclock" you must send us more money. I woner how well that system will work
So if you cannot dissasemble or reverse engineer something licensed, then you can 'execute' it but not 'read' it. For example, I bought a license for a program. I can 'run' the program, but it would be illegal to throw the program into a text editor. So if this is true, in theory, you are not allowed to open up your computer's HD and, using a theoretical microscope, look at the 1s and 0s on the disk; for you are not permitted to look at them? I respect Software Licenses for their practical protection, and strongly believe in fair market buying (I buy everything I have), but when you think about it in this way, it's kinda' weird!
http://pixelcort.com/
Yeah,
what about this same question with Microsoft and IE. What if I don't like the installed browser and I install a new browser? I'm sure MS has a similar licensing agreement.
hmm.....very interesting....
publishing a web site telling everyone how to take everyday household chemicals and turn them into illegal drugs.
Apple is in most certainly in the wrong here, in as much as it is wrong to be stupid, lazy, and legally defensive of the first two failings.
Look, ignore for a second that the label on the CD reads "10.0 -> 10.1 upgrade" or somesuch. The fact is that you legally purchased a CD that contains the entire 10.1 operating system. It is the fully functional operating system, and the only requirement for having 10.0 is an artificial one that is easily removed. Does Apple wanting it to just be an upgrade CD change the fact that it is the entire OS + 1 package? Not at all.
It's like overclocking. You might buy a processor that is labeled as 1GHz, but it can run at 1.2 if cooled properly. Does the fact that the vendor would rather you buy the actual 1.2GHz part make a difference? They sold you a device with a capability, and you are using it.
Or it'd be like if Stephen King was doing his online book thing, but his "preview" was actually the entire book, with a note to please not read past page 47.
Or it'd be like a video card upgrade that came in the form of a completely new computer, but you were expected to only take out the video card and leave everything else in your closet.
If Apple really wanted the upgrade CD to be just an upgrade CD, it should have contained only the data necessary to make the change, like every other software upgrade I've ever seen in my entire life. That they didn't do this is a sign of laziness on their part, not moral obligation on mine.
They sold me a CD containing data, and I'm using it. I'm not copying anything they didn't sell me; I'm not giving it to someone who didn't pay; I'm not modifying their code and redistributing it. If it is, well, that wouldn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't wrong.
What _would_ be wrong was if I (probably as a reseller) bought a bunch of the upgrade CD's, and resold them as the full thing (at full price). You'll note that in the case of CPU overclocking, the chip makers have made that distinction, and while they make overclocking harder for everyone, they only really care about the dishonest resellers.
I think the only protective action that Apple could take that would put them in the right would be if they stated they would not give technical support to those who used the upgrade CD to do the full install.
The enemies of Democracy are
Aqua
PNG patent
Quicktime Pro
There is only one answer:
DEATH TO APPLE, DEATH TO THE MAC
~~~
Let me get this straight.. Apple puts out an upgrade package, and doesn't cripple it to such a degree that it is nearly impossible to install under unusual circumstances. An individual then posts information, and I have read this article in the past, and complained to the author, explaining how to use the upgrade in lieu of a full install, as a way to circumvent paying for OS X.
Apple gets a bit annoyed, desiring payment for their hard work, and probably feeling rather self-righteous, since they made a serious effort in good faith to update a product for free, and fires a shot across this individual's bow, not only because of the information he is sharing, but also due to his article's tone.
And Jamie wants us to be up in arms about Apple's 'abuse' of the legal system? Do we really want to drive Apple in Microsoft's camp of 'Charge them for stability fixes', like Windows 98 / ME ?
Weapons of Mass Analysis
You gotta give Apple developers some credit for crying out loud. If they packaged the upgrade the way they did, running the risk of someone mucking with their packages, it clearly had to be because it was easier *and* faster to do it that way.
Mac OS X 10.1 is a pure Jewel of an Operating System, and I for one like to see frequent major upgrades that acutally render my work more productive. And this one sure did.
Chances are I am not the only one thinking that.
So Apple saved time and figured their money would be better spent on lawyers sending out semi-generic cease-and-desist letters, rather than delaying the release of their upgrade by a few more months and miss the X-Mas rush.
Are they dumb? NO. It's about money. Time-to-Market translates directly into money. I'm sure they knew the risks they were taking and carefuly measured them.
Does the fact that they released a full working version of an operating system on a demo-disk harm the user in any way? NO. But that's what is unconsciously implied: "oh Apple made a quick upgrade hack that can easily be worked around, quick hacks are dumb, quick hacks are bad, so *I* as a geek, must absolutely go out there and make a big fucking fuss out of it so I can look cool and get some publicity out of it". Again, this is not microsoft quickly hacking their "Passport architecture", loading it with obvious security holes to make a deadline, thereby harming the greater computer user community, we're talking about a legitimate software upgrade that happens to give you more, MUCH more than what you bought.
Exploiting this for any other purpose than recovering from a failed upgrade is *wrong* and, indeed illegal. Beside, keep in mind that even if leveraging this weakness to shorten the installation process to recover from a broken upgrade may be *very* convenient *and* tempting, doing it the regular way, which was installing OS X 10.0.x and *then* using the OS X 10.1 upgrade as just that, an upgrade, still works. While this appears to be a cool, convenient hack to share with close friends and family to save them time, I do believe this information to be a little too sensitive to be permantently published on a web site for everyone to leverage. Again, this is *not* like a security hole, this is publishing information which deliberately violates the Software License Agreement.
MacFixIt most likely understands that.
Are they trashing freedom-of-speech? FUCK NO. Stay real guys and look at this whole thing for what it really is: a very simple, dumb hack which violates a very clear, simple, software license agreement. Software Vendors have those agreements so they can actually make money off of the shit they make. Duh.
MacFixIt handled the situation very maturely but anyone here invoking "freedom of speech" rights for this particular case is merely making a devious use of one of our most cherished inallienable rights, and such behaviour can easily become one day its most threatening enemy.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
They should have complained under DMCA or Copyright, but using a trademark law? Puhleeze.
Of course, anyone with half a brain cell still active should realize that the DMCA is custom built for this kind of complaint. Of course, the DMCA is a law built to protect companies from their own stupidity, pure and simple. "Hey look, it's illegal for you to crack our simple encryption, so we don't have to make it decent. Yeah, a five year old with an abacus could decrypt it, but we've made the abacus illegal because it's a decryption tool."
Between this and our speech/privacy rights being blatantly ignored, I think this country's headed for a real quick meltdown. It's painfully obvious the people making and enforcing laws don't have a clue as to how the Digital Age works, so they fear what they don't understand. That fear is being used to push laws that defy everything this country used to stand for. It's truly pathetic.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
OK so Apple gets lazy with their installer.
Some guy figures this out and posts it on a popular Mac site.
Apple releases the dogs after them?
Why?
OSX runs on a few (seemingly very few) APPLE machines. It's not like this hack alows you to install OSX.1 on your shiny new Dell P4 1.8mHz machine.
You still have to have invested in Apple HW.
The botom line is Apple should have never tried to charge anyone for what is a Service Pack anyway.
OSX was a train wreck of sloth and missing parts.
OSX.1 is what they should have released in the first place. Hell, Apple should be sending OSX.1 Full Install disks to everyone who has registered OSX! Problem solved.
Apple has made YAM (Yet Another Mistake.)
This
With System 7 there was included a stripped-down version of Hypercard for running stacked-based help files, etc.
There was a well-known backdoor where you could open a script window and type "magic" or somesuch word and the stripped-down version would become functionally identical to the $149 or whatever retail version, without documentation of course.
I pointed this out at a Mac user group meeting where there were a few Apple reps present. A couple days later, I received a harassing phone call from Apple legal.
I thought this was ludricous, to say the least. (I read the tip in MacUser, for God's sake)
Michael-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Upgrade disks will by necessity require the entire OS
I'm not a mac guy and I may be wrong, but didn't apple release updaters for OS 8 and 9 that you could download from their site? They certainly didn't contain the whole operating system. Anyway I'm sure Apple had a good reason to include the entire OSX on this upgrade disc, but they have done it the other way in the past.
For long companies have used cryptic License Agreements to exploit the user . It may be a good time to teach them a good lesson using their own weapon against them.
They even succeeded in providing a point & click local root exploit (for details take a look at Bugtraq).
I don't know if they are the first to offer this feature, but it's definitley nice.
If someone is willing to rip off Apple by buying 10.1 at the cheap upgrade price, then can't they just as easily pirate 10.1 the old-fashioned way?
This represents no new significant threat to Apple. The same people who would normally deal fairly with Apple, will continue to do so. The same people who would normally pirate Apple's OS, will still do so. Nothing changes.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This sounds like an example out of the id Software "How not to distribute software" textbook.
Are they still giving/selling these update CDs?
I am not an American, nor do I live in the USA, so I am not knowledgable on American law.
Having said that, wouldn't the recent ruling that permits a repackager to ignore the EULA when breaking apart and repackaging software legally permit someone to break off the licence manager, and repackage the rest of the upgrade as a MacOS 10.1 full install?
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
This is by far the politest "cease and desist" letter I have ever seen. Apple must give its lawyers a lot of Valium.
And not just Apple. I wonder why a company like MS, with all its resources, can't find a way to "diff" an upgrade install. Or are they just too lazy?
and linux is any better?
Stupid ass
There was a similar situation (full versions of software on what was supposed to be a "shareware" disk) with a certain Quake shareware CD distributed in stores. The CD also contained (weakly protected) full versions of almost every, if not every iD software released to that point. The crack for the CD is still floating around on the net.
The lesson is: Don't put full versions of software on shareware/free/upgrade only CD's. It will be circumvented, DMCA or no DMCA.
The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.
It is morally wrong to keep it. It is stealing, no matter how clever your arguments are to the contrary.
It is very, very simple. Apple sells you an upgrade CD. They - through incompetence or ignorance - included the whole OSX 10.1 install. You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
On a random note, it occurs to me that it would have been quite amusing if it was revealed that the person who worked out this kluge was... none other than Mr. Dmitri Skylarov himself! :-) The fallout from such a revalation woiuld no doubt have been life without parole, and what's worse, Skylarov himself would live on in our memories as the lamest, erm, hacker ,who ever lived. Cracked not only the formidable ROT-13, but also deleted checkforOSX! Woooohoooo!
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Apple is not concerned about your ability to modify their 'software'. They are concerned about peoples ability to use the freely distributed upgrade cd to give all their friends copies of OS X. They are just trying to find something in the law to protect that.
Not that I believe that is the right way to solve the issue....
Steve Jobs said that, in essence, it's impossible to protect something that's going to be used. This is a very well-known "fact", and a company that's trying to beat it in a world like computer software is just wasting its time.
On the other hand, Apple put "don't steal music" stickers on the iPod. This is just the same sort of thing--they're not using technology to enforce IP rights, they're using advertising and lawyers.
I went to CompUSA the morning of the 10.1 release. There were 15 - 20 others there. CompUSA got a box of 100 nicely packaged disks overnighted from Apple, and we all left with completely free upgrades.
A friend at Apple told me the Apple Store wanted to sell all upgrades, but when Steve found out, he specifically ordered free disks overnighted to stores. The Apple Store then began calling registered OS X users, saying the free copies would be scarce, and offering free overnight shipping if they bought from them. Apple is a large company, and different departments sometimes have different interests.
Lies about crimes
Please, please, please make the effort to squeeze this concept into your little brain: When Apple sells you a CD, they are selling you a piece of plastic and they are licensing the software on that piece of plastic. A license is a restricted right to use. Therefore, your use of the software is restricted by the license terms. You are free to do whatever you like with the piece of plastic, except violate the license terms. For instance, you might use the piece of plastic to barter for a clue.
Thank you.
Copyrights and patents do not have to be defended (remember gif, mp3, etc?). It's a good idea to defend them along with patents, or else you can lose out big time (Frauenhoffer and mp3).
That's a bit like saying "you do not have to breath, but it's a good idea, otherwise you'll suffocate."
Personally, I wish new versions of Apple's OS were free, like they used to be, but $120 is certainly not exhorbitant, especially considering that it isn't crippled as a "home" version.
The only difference is that there is clarifying legislation about trademarks, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Since when has obligation in civil matters been limited to the letter of the law? If it were, half of the threads to Slashdot wouldn't be here.
Really, Apple had to do this. It was also legitimate. The cease-and-desist letter was so polite by the standards of lawyers that it's hard to imagine a lawyer drafting it.
Personally, I wish new Mac OS versions were free, as they were in the early days. However, $120 is certainly not exhorbitant, especially for an OS that isn't crippled as a "home" version.
Is this related to this slashdot article posted yesterday? What I mean is you're not obligated to agree to the EULA simply by purchasing or even opening the software (the ruling stated that you are essentially agreeing to it by installing it, but the licence is questionable because it's much more restrictive than existing copyright laws). The letter from the lawyer stated that you accept their agreement "upon purchasing a copy of the software." But then if this decision stands, you don't have to agree to their license, and you're free to do pratically whatever you want with the software.
Apple has also forgotten that as soon as something hits the net, it's very hard to retract. I'm interested in seeing what they'll do in response to this method of installation getting out....
t.
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
> Are they trashing freedom-of-speech?
Actually they are... do you think the EFF and various other folks actually give that much of a fuck about pirating DVD's? No, they're concerned about politicians being successfully lobbied to rob us of our constitutional rights.
Hell, I wore my DeCSS shirts long before I ever owned a DVD or a DVD player, for that matter. It's not about DVD's specifically, it's about our rights being eroded a small chunk at a time. "They came for the jews, and I did nothing, They can for the blacks and I did nothing, They came for me, and no one was left to help me" sort of thing. I think Jesse Helms of all people, said it best when asked why he was such a nazi bastard: (paraphrased) "If we bow down even a little now, they'll take more, later".
I don't particularly see why someone would waste so much time copying a DVD, when they could just buy it for $25. Hell, you can even rent it at Blockbuster before you buy it, to make sure you want to make the $25 investment into it. Try doing that with Windows XP legally.
Besides, do you think the average Mac user has the scruples to do ANYTHING beyond find and click the Install icon? No, they don't, and even if they did, they're Mac owners who invested a significant amount of their hard-earned cash into Apple, hoping at some point they'd finish Taligent, err I mean Copland, err I mean Rhapsody, err I mean OS X. It's not like they aren't Apple customers. It's not like some guy at home building a PC and pirating a copy of XP to run on it. These people gamble on Apple.
I personally purchased my Mac with great reservations about Apple's direction. I don't want to have my nice new G4/867 obsoleted in 6 months when OS X 10.5 with Aqua++ comes out. Even G3 users are fucked. OS X 10.1 on an iMac is painfully slow. Rhapsody was speedy.
I never would have known about this if the Lawyers hadn't tried to play hardball. Damn you meddling kids!
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Apple took a shortcut to get an update out faster, and is now paying for it. Next time, the updater probably won't include the full OS, and will be more of a hassle, so customers lose out.
I really couldn't care less whether the original posting was illegal or not, and what Apple's legal standing is regarding the C&D.
The original posting told people how to get OS X for free, without ever buying the software. Either you support that type of piracy (I don't) or you shouldn't be painting Apple out to be the villian here. They are a wronged party, responding perhaps incorrectly. But make no mistake that the original error was on the part of those people who posted the story in the first place.
I'm usually a big free-speech advocate, but every once in a while I get too tired of people trying to justify what is just plain wrong.
I am surprised this fact has not been pointed out. Remeber software is licensed not bought. For all it matters apple didn't even need to install a checker at all.
The license states you need to own a copy of OS 10.0 to use the CD, that is the illegal part. For all it matters what the CD contains they could make one CD that has 9, 10.0, and 10.1 on one disk, if you only paid for the use of 9 then that is all you can legally install.
I can legally buy a gun, I can legally walk in a store, but if I use that gun to rob that store it is illegal, the tool dosen't matter, that you use it for the legal/approved outcome does.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
You forgot:
6. Repeat as necessary.
Anyone have a copy of these instructions from the website it was removed from?
What _would_ be wrong was if I (probably as a reseller) bought a bunch of the upgrade CD's, and resold them as the full thing (at full price).
Huh? A reseller can't sell this as a full version, but you can use it as a full version? Either people can treat this as a full version or not, make up your mind.
The worrying thing here is the supression of free speech. IP issues also bring up the wider question of ownership and compensation for a commodity that can be freely copied. But the argument that if someone forgets to lock their door, you are entitled to everything in their house, is a stupid one and obscures important issues IMHO.
Lies about crimes
Just insert the header, "I heard that:"
;)
Then it all becomes opinion
Announcer: Name the most likely outcome of the intellectual rights war?
Joe: Companies find an intelligent way of dealing with intellectual rights issues.
Announcer: AND the survey SAYS.....
Ding! 3%
Bob: The USA will become a corporate-financed police state.
Announcer: AND the survey SAYS...
Ding! 80%
Announcer: Bob wins that round...
AND the rest of the answers in the survey are....
Ding! Huh...7%
Ding! What?...6%
Ding! I don't understand the question....3%
Ding! Diablo II rocks!!....1%
Think Lawyers.
Well I guess the even more correct analogy is that a watch manufacturer is offering a free car with the purchase of an expensive watch (much more expensive than the car, mind you).
But you decide to just buy the car alone, for less money than the watch. After buying the car, you discover that all the cars are being shipped from the factory with the expensive watch included between the seats.
Is it legal to keep the watch then? Well I suppose so, as long as you never actually wear it or sell it. Or if you do wear it, you can't use it to tell time. This is starting to not make sense. Is it morally wrong to keep and wear the watch, even if it's only inside your own house?
Naturally these analogies fall flat on their face when we realize that material objects have much greater costs associated per unit than do copies of software, so maybe the whole "watch" analogy was silly to begin with.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Check it out - very easy to follow.
um.. sorry about that.
We can't say that sort of thing, now, can we?
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
yeah ok. lets substitute one police state with another. fuck him and fuck that.
If they couldn't make it illegal to tell you how to build an atom bomb, how could they make it illegal to tell you how to delete one file?
Welcome to the new milenium. It is apparently now also legal to arrest people without warrant, deny access to lawyers, and use military tribunals. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Lies about crimes
that was pretty much true. don't know why some mod marked it as flamebait. I still think Apple is wrong, but this guy has a point
BTW, even if doing it is illegal, how is MacFixit telling you how to do it illegal? oh yeah...DMCA. uggh
MacFixit is a pro-Macintosh site that wants to see Apple succeed.
When Apple sent the cease-and-desist letter, it indicated they really didn't like the forum posting.
MacFixit, seeing an understandable reason for Apple to be upset (it makes the free upgrade into a full version), removed the information from their site.
I don't think the MacFixit people were scared into doing this, they just don't want to screw over their favorite company.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Compared to lawyers, the gnomes would probably be as effective, cheaper, and they wouldn't piss off the customers.
Er, not if Stallman ends up representing the GNOMEs, like he's trying to. I'd rather deal with a whole pile of lawyers, and I _hate_ lawyers.
--saint
"It's not my fault! They told me they fixed it!"
You should be aware that Apple has never authorized you modify the Software.
So, by choosing not to install a package, you are illegally modifying software even though the software itself is specifically designed to choose packages? I think Apple has no basis to stand on here. You cannot claim this is circumvention when this is exactly what they designed the software to do.
Not bright Apple, not bright.
Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
MacOSX is worth $130. Now people can get it for free. How do you stop this? Apple chose the cease-and-desist method, which may not be agreeable, but if you don't agree, suggest another way they can stop the ripping off of their product? You think people will just stop if Apple says "please?" Yes I know they are dumbasses for including the whole CD (I personally speculate they did: 'make world && make release' and just cat'd the new filesystem skeleton on to the cd :)
Say the professor of your class handed you the answer key for an exam by accident. Everyone asked you for a copy so you made them. The prof finds out, and reports you to the dean for cheating. Are you going to say the prof was a dumbass for accidentally giving out exam answers and therefore it wasn't your fault?
It's time for Apple legal to patent the "One-Click Crack" method and go after other companies who are trying to do the same. Bah, ah haha.
What a bunch of morons! BTW, I never could understand why this company with about 500 programmers had to license the One-click order from Amazon (which has been withdrawn little time after.) It's not like you would buy a computer as quickly as a book, right?
Seems like all the good Apple programmers left the company after NeXT was brought in (and that the good programmers at NeXT left before they moved to Cupertino.)
-- PPA
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Apple did design proof of OSX ownership (store receipt, 1 of 3 coupons, or walk in with the retail package) in its original scheme, or pay $20. Some retailers had very specific rules.
When it got to the stores, the retail staff handed out 1, 2, 3, many... with nothing but a pulse for a requirement.
Hence these were selling on eBay by the first day for up to $70...
There were 150 in the entire state of CT until the Apple store opened up, 4 days before the upgrade offer was set to expire.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Coincidentally, right now I'm watching a TV programme with an undercover reporter showing how you can fake your own death in Haiti to claim life insurance. Is he now doing something illegal? Will the insurance companies be sending a cease and desist letter?
Honestly, if a plague which infected only lawyers was loosed upon the world, I'd party all night.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Apple has no right to abridge macfixit.com's right to freedom of speech. The website is telling people how to get around a potentially troublesome issue, which may pose problems for many of them.
Irrelevant of "why" the information is being distributed or used, macfixit has a right to do so. They have the right to point out flaws in software and provide workaround. Furthermore, they have the right to state what we know as being the truth, or their opinion regarding it, and a way to use it to one's advantage.
Finally, since when does a companies idiotic conduct protect them? Apple dropped the ball, so now they get to say, "No no, you can't tell other people how we dropped the ball or how they can pick it up"? I don't think so. This is just like the Prof. Felton case regarding SDMI. Its a legitimate criticism of a "technology" and an explanation of how to get around that technology: just like what Prof. Felton did with SDMI. If this goes to trial, it won't hold up.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
That's pretty easy too. Just a down arrow or two...
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
about $15B in annual revenues. You can put Jobs and Gates in bag, and it wouldn't matter which one you pulled out first.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
Hi -
Flame me all you want because I won't be back to this topic to read them, but the reality is that Apple should be thankful that anyone is still using their OS. I think they have about 4% of the market. They had a huge headstart on Windows in the late 80's, but kept thinking they were a hardware company. As such they focused on higher priced proprietary hardware, not realizing that the real money was to be made in software.
Instead of starting a legal battle, they should be happy to give away OS 10 to anyone who wants it.
btw, I agree that Windows sucks in many ways, yet so does McDonald's and Americans keep lining up for it.
I think they call that the "finders" law. You can find more about it at your local lawyers office.
But since your trying to apply a law that doesn't apply to the software you need to step back and change your thoughts.
And your right, it's very simple. If Apple SELLS me and upgrade on CD and includes the whole OSX 10.1 on it, I have BOUGHT and PAID for it's use, regardless if that was their intention or not. And since I did PAY for it, it's mine to do with as I want.
Where is the option for CowboyNeal???
When you buy something, its yours. They can throw licences in your face all they want, they can have lawyers bitch and moan that 'you can't do that,' but the thing is, that unless the CD is programmed to explode when you try to do something with it you aren't supposed to, its not going to stop people. So they should save money and use it to PREVENT stupid mistakes like this instead of trying to cover up their past ones. What can they accomplish by spending thousands/millions on lawyers to sue into oblivion some people? Corporations aren't held to the same laws as individuals, so they shouldn't be able to litigate as individuals.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This article is already making its way around the Gnutella network:
Mac OS X - Convert the Free 10.1 Update CD to a Full Install.txt
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Everything Mac has posted some very clear instructions on how to do this!
My god - what a fucking stupid name to give the app that checks if OSX is installed. Might as well have named it DoNotRemoveOrElseYouWillGetTheFullVersionFor19.99
Instead of sicking lawyers, Steve Jobs should be slapping the developer who named that app upside his thick head.
I want to be sued too... Here is my link to your link.
I hope everyone puts it up their webpages. I'd like to see Apple sending those letters to everyone.
I love the Apple software, but hate the way they act. We've seen this kind of behaveour several times now in different issues.
Ciryon
even apple has decided to give away its operating system for free...it seems!
vikas
This really surprises me.
I'm surprised by the fact that people think Apple is wrong in this.
When you buy a $100 cubic-zirconium ring, and then take it home only to find out it's a real diamond... do you take it back? Yes. If you don't you're stealing.
Apple is selling an *upgrade* to an Operating System. People pay $20 for this upgrade. If those people turn around and modify it so that it's a Full Install... then they are getting a $100 product.
Is Apple getting the $80 they deserve from the people modifying their CDs? No. Therefore... those people are morally obligated to not do that.
Whether it's legal or not... I don't care, I assume it's not. However, it's morally wrong... so on those grounds, Apple certainly has a case.
Federal law says that if you receive anything in the mail with your name on it, it is YOURS, whether you ordered it or not. Period.
If you get a cd in the mail w/ an OS on it, it is YOURS.
I'm sure they will look at their software protection people pretty closely. No one says they aren't, in fact I promise you they are. This legal stuff is just half of what Apple is doing to fix this...it is pretty silly to assume otherwise.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
The whole concept of shrink-wrapped licenses that you don't see prior to purchase is silly ;)
Here let me sell you this candy jar for 50 cents. You take it home, and open it, and inside you'll find the license that says, "Buy purchasing this, and opening this jar you hereby agree to transfer ownership of all your assests to...."
What kind of person throws away OS disks? First, someone who love the company enough to buy Apple, and second, OS X was supposed to be groundbreaking and all that. Keep it for posterity, at least...
At least, keep it until you KNOW that it isn't required for the 10.1 install...
-Dave
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for.
You are leaving critical information out of your argument. If you wanted to be accurate, what you should have written was, "You inadvertently received something which can be duplicated infinitely and flawlessly at nominal cost that you didn't pay for." How much is something worth if you can duplicate that something infinitely and flawlessly at nominal cost?
You can't call it "stealing" if no property is missing.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
...then Apple's fax machine would be getting a damn good slashdotting with order forms for the update CD.
;-)
Ohh...is that a blue&white G3 sitting in my dining room/home office? Excuse me I have some business to atttend to
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
You said:
d u
Look, ignore for a second that the label on the CD reads "10.0 -> 10.1 upgrade" or somesuch. The fact is that you legally purchased a CD that contains the entire 10.1 operating system. It is the fully functional operating system, and the only requirement for having 10.0 is an artificial one that is easily removed. Does Apple wanting it to just be an upgrade CD change the fact that it is the entire OS + 1 package? Not at all.
No no no... the fact is that you DIDN'T legally purchase the full 10.1. You paid 20$ for a liscense to the upgrade. Just because the way they chose to implement the upgrade included putting the whole version on the CD DOES NOT MEAN that it is legal for you to circumvent the CheckForOSX and install it without owning the previous version. Nor does it make it legal for someone to distribute instructions on how to do so. Therefore, you cannot ignore the "10.0 -> 10.1 upgrade" label unless you went out and bought the full 10.1 CD for 130$. (In which case it wouldn't have this label.)
You said: If Apple really wanted the upgrade CD to be just an upgrade CD, it should have contained only the data necessary to make the change, like every other software upgrade I've ever seen in my entire life. That they didn't do this is a sign of laziness on their part, not moral obligation on mine.
Perhaps they should have made a CD that only contained the upgrade information and made it harder for you to steal it. But then, how much do you honestly know about the 10.1 upgrade? Maybe it was so different from 10.0 that it was not practical to patch the whole thing. The statement that "it should have contained only the data necessary to make the change, like every other software upgrade I've ever seen in my entire life" is just ignorant, because I think you will find that most major software upgrades do contain the full version. Maybe you just couldn't figure out how to unlock it? In any case, just because they used a weak copy protection method does not make it legal for you to break it, or help anyone else break it. Therefore it SHOULD BE a moral obligation of yours not to steal the full version. But I guess that depends on your morals.
You said: They sold me a CD containing data, and I'm using it. I'm not copying anything they didn't sell me; I'm not giving it to someone who didn't pay; I'm not modifying their code and redistributing it. If it is, well, that wouldn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't wrong.
Oye, ok they sold you a liscense to use the code on the CD and for $20 dollars that liscense says you can upgrade a previous version of MacOS 10. What particularly troubles me is that you think that by publishing this information you (or macfixit) are "not giving it to someone who didn't pay", when in fact that is exactly what you are doing, and is exactly what this whole thing is about.
wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.e
As a michigan grad, I am ashamed... sheesh! Go back to your hotline server.
1.) He deleted a file. This is different than discovering a file that wasn't supposed to be there. So he didn't get something he didn't pay for, he deleted something hid did pay for.
,and I pay for it. Just because the price tag says its costs 5 bucks is irrelevant. If the store gives me 20 dollars in change, they in affect made the sale price be $-15.00
2.) Above is irrelevent, because when you bought the CD, you are paying for the CD. You were not paying for a license for the content on the CD. So to use your own analogies:
a.) Finding an expensive watch in the car. Then the watch is yours. The sales contract referes to the car, which includes all its contents unless otherwise noted. Meaning, if you buy a Mercedes, can Mercedes approach you later and say, "Hey, you didn't pay for the carpeting, you didn't pay for the windows, you didn't pay for the spare tire, etc etc. How would you prove you paid for it? Does your sales contract show an itemized list? No? Then its all inclusive, case closed.
2.) Wrong change. So what? As a customer, I want to purchase something. The store sets the price
So I'm not obligated to return the money. I may feel guilty and return it out of remorse, but not because I face criminal charges if I don't. Sales dotrine says that when money changes hand, then the property ownership transfers. Money changed hands. Its not my fault the other party didn't know what they were doing.
If you bought something from a store, and they lost the money before they were able to deposit it, are you required to give them the money again? If they lost the check for example... Do you have to cut them a new one? NO!!!! Once the money left my hand, the product is mine. If you deposit the money, burn it, or wipe your a$$ with it, is none of my concern...
Stealing? I thought that stealing was when you take something from another person to keep it yourself. I cannot see that has happened here. Please refrain from using these kind of terms for the wrong things. You might have said "license infringement" or something like that, but not stealing, no no no.
Or?
Mac OS X 10.1 is a whole new operating system. 10.0 and its brethren are based on Darwin 1.3, and the new 10.1 is based on Darwin 1.4.1, and many other low-level upgrades. Of course the CD boots the system up, it contains a whole new kernel and everything a computer needs. It is a wholly new operating system and Apple made it an update disk because they didn't want their software labeled as a whole new OS, because people would criticize them for being too much like MS. Don't criticize Apple, they're trying to keep themselves in good light, and you're deliberately trying to shame them because you don't know as much about Darwin as you know about kernel32.dll and your windows s'. OS X is the best operating system on the market, as of right now, and that should raise the competition to its level. Bring it.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
So I am right. Get over it. Hope you got your ticket punched for the Clue Train.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
So you tell the world about Apples lazy upgrade fopaux and you are jumped by Apples attack lawyers? Had Apple never heard of Journalism? Freedom of Speech? Aren't these American inventions? The sort of invention that doesn't need an upgrade.
... creature.
Someone please check and see if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are actually one in the same
No no no... the fact is that you DIDN'T legally purchase the full 10.1. You paid 20$ for a liscense to the upgrade. Just because the way they chose to implement the upgrade included putting the whole version on the CD DOES NOT MEAN that it is legal for you to circumvent the CheckForOSX and install it without owning the previous version.
:)
You weren't made aware of such a license at purchase, so this becomes a sales, thus the Sales Doctrine applies. And even if you were, there is no financial gain for Apple afterwards. Meaning, it is a one time benafit for Apple. Then that makes this a sale and NOT a license, and the Sales Doctrine still applies, irregardless if you were aware of the licensing agreement.
I just talked to a lawyer friend over lunch, and we were talking about such issues
The only problem is nobody really challenges these shrink-wrapped EULA/UCITA crap... Hopefully one day they will be, and exposed for the BS that they are.
It can't vote, can't spend, eat, screw, or anything else that people like to do. You might look to find out who the people are that benefit from corporate rights. They are not machines, and they are not sentient.
Corporations are pieces of paper that grant individual people power.
Hilter might have said, "the Reich made me do it" but no one would have believed him then.
Remember that little End User License Agreement that you clicked "agree" to?
Is a click-through EULA even a contract? Where's the consideration on both sides? Did I click 'agree', or did my dog? Some courts have been known to overturn contracts where a party has little or no bargaining power as to the terms of the contract.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No, they dont. Thats trademarks - this is (c)opyright
However, a corporation's shareholders will take its board of directors to court if the corporation does not act in such a manner as to create value for the shareholders.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Copywrites and Patents can be selectively enforced without losing the rights to them. Trademarks cannot.
A corporation must defend whatever monopoly it has if the corporation wants to try to create value for its shareholders and not risk a lawsuit from shareholders.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Ethics," says the boy.
"You don't need to read any books about that," says the uncle. "I'll tell you all you even need to know about ethics."
"OK"
"Imagine a customer comes in here and buys a pack of gum, and gives me a dollar bill. I give him change, and he leaves. When I'm checking the register before closing, I finger the bill, and discover that there is a twenty stuck to it.", says the uncle. "What is the ethical question, Kevin?"
"Should I keep the money or try to find the customer to give it back?"
"No, Kevin. The ethical question is, 'should I tell my partner?'"
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Love lost, fire at will...
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
>The company has infact only lost money if you, as a consumer, were sufficiently interested in the software as to purchase it for 3000 dollars.
You were interested enough to find a pirate copy, so you were obviously interested in obtaining a copy.
The moral and legal way to do that is to pay $3000.
The immoral and illegal way is to download a pirate copy.
Since you're dealing with someone else's intellectual property, which those people have spent considerable time and resources to produce, you have every obligation to pay them back for that time in exchange for the right to use that software.
To download a copy you can use without paying the authors is a crime. Calling it theft, piracy, or whatever is semantics; you're taking a product you haven't paid for the right to use. It doesn't matter if that product can be magically duplicated, since you still have no right, or permission, from the copyright owners to use that software.
If I install the Apple OS from the CD I bought from Apple I am simply using what I have legaly purchased. Apple can claim a loss (hypotheticly) but I have paied them for the right to install the software on that disk.
No, you're abusing what you've licensed. You've paid for the right to upgrade a previous installation, not install a new copy of the OS. This is perfectly within their rights as the holders of the copyright, as well as the producers of the software. For example, you have every ability to circumvent the protection on music you've licensed from the copyright holder, but that doesn't give you the legal right to take that action.
You may not like the way the law works, but it's the law. If you want to change it, work hard getting in touch with your elected representatives and encourage them to change it. If it doesn't get changed, tough cookies - there are obviously people with more important interests than your love of larceny who are pushing for the maintenance of those laws, and enough people who can't be bothered to take an interest either way to get those laws overturned.
I would argue no.
I would argue yes. Check the latest issue of 2600, which includes a letter from a Microsoft developer regarding the encoding in Microsoft Script Encoder. He states that it isn't there to provide effective protection, but to provide legal protection; if someone decodes the script, they're breaking the law. Similarly, if you install a full version of OS X 10.1 by getting around the protection on the software (as lame as it may seem, the package is still a form of protection), you are committing a crime, and are liable.
Don't like it? Deal.
Apple's licensing agreement gives you rights, because accepting it is an implicit part of the contract of buying the software
IANAL, but I seem to remember that US federal and state contract law requires that all parties know the terms of the contract before the exchange of consideration (that is, before the sale).
and if they don't agree to a contract, you get the default rights for using software that doesn't belong to you (namely, zero rights at all).
Not under 17 USC 117 and 17 USC 107.
Will I retire or break 10K?
at least not in the way you put it.
(1) Apple's right, but
(2) they're not sending an order to cease and desist because it's morally wrong for consumers to fully install v10.1 from their upgrade cd.
Moreover, you're right that you'd be stealing something by doing a full installation of the OS from the upgrade disc, but the thing you are stealing is not that $10k Rolex you found between the seats of your shiny new Porsche; rather you're stealing the privilege to wear it on your wrist (or have it in your possession).
This is a matter of licensing. Anybody can have in their possession a copy of commercial software they don't own, but they can't use it unless they have a license--and that's the crux of Apple's gripe.
Information on how to do this can be obtained from Michael Holve's website article on the subject. If you want to really understand it, go to his website -- he has graphic illustrations along with the instruction:
www.everythingmac.org/articles/UpdateCDHack/
Note, that I am not hyperlinking this becaue I do not know how. Interestingly, according to a recent Appeals Court Decision, providing the text to a controversial website is OK, but hyperlinking to it is bad.
I suggest that you all go to this website, copy it to your hard drive, print it out, and scatter it accross the earth like DeCSS.
----------
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
No no no... the fact is that you DIDN'T legally purchase the full 10.1. You paid 20$ for a liscense to the upgrade.
No, I legally purchased a CD which contains 10.1. It had a different label, but the same bits. This purchase was completely legal.
You paid 20$ for a liscense to the upgrade.
No, I paid for the CD. There was no license involved until I got it home. I never agreed to any license in the store, when the vendor accepted my money in exchange for the CD.
Just because the way they chose to implement the upgrade included putting the whole version on the CD DOES NOT MEAN that it is legal for you to circumvent the CheckForOSX and install it without owning the previous version.
You have a wonderfully corporate view of copyright law, complete with buzzwords.
Copyright law, which is supposedly what this is all about. But I'm not violating copyright when I take the bits off the CD I paid for and put them on my HD. I bought it, I'm the only one using it, I'm not giving it to anyone. Apple's copyright is intact.
No, this is not about copyright. It's about shrink-wrap licensing, and the validity thereof.
There are parts of these licenses that are reasonable, such as restrictions on copying and distribution (usually "no" on all counts). These parts, however, are related to copyright, and should be expected from any shrink-wrap software. But when it goes beyond that, and into the realm not of copyright but of pure corporate bullying is when the license is telling me that I can't use the bits on the CD I paid for!
I say no. This is as ridiculous as telling me I can't rip a music CD to make mp3s, or that I can't loan a book to a friend, or that I can't use a corporate logo in a parody (all things corporations have tried to make us think were illegal). We still have the right to fair use. Corporations and their tools may want us to think these things are not only illegal but morally wrong and equivalent to theft at gunpoint, but I plan to leave their dreams of a cow-like consumer populace unfullfilled.
What particularly troubles me is that you think that by publishing this information you (or macfixit) are "not giving it to someone who didn't pay", when in fact that is exactly what you are doing, and is exactly what this whole thig is about.
What I find distrubing is that you think that giving information on how to do something is the same as doing it. That's very alarming. But since I'm guessing you wouldn't think publishing a story about how terrorists destroyed the WTC was the same as doing it, I'll just pass it off as more selective corporate logic.
As a michigan grad, I am ashamed... sheesh! Go back to your hotline server.
Your shame amuses me. What school did you graduate from? I was CSE. I'm guessing you were B-school, but then again I didn't think Corporate Tool was part of the curriculum.
The enemies of Democracy are
you need a licence to copy it and install it.
No you don't, at least not in the United States of America.
Will I retire or break 10K?
My SO's Mac does not have a burner so I'd have to do this "update" process from my PC with Linux. Is the update CD Apple sends a regular ISO9660 that can be read by a PC or is it in HFS+ or some variant? If it's HFS+, I could use BeOS to read it.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Anybody can have in their possession a copy of commercial software they don't own, but they can't use it unless they have a license
Bullshit. United States copyright law states that if you lawfully purchased a copy, you have the right to copy it as necessary to use it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You'll have to take that out of its cover before you run it over the photocopier - oh, hello officers, is there anything I can do for you?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How is releasing this information unfair competition to Apple? Are they releasing this information on their site somewhere? =)
And burning a CD image is definitely copying the Software, and since you've changed it a little bit, it's probably a "derivative work".
Derivative, but not infringing. 17 USC 117 gives software users in the United States the right to "make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner". IANAL, but I'd consider deleting CheckForOSX (perhaps on a GNU/Linux box so you never have to agree to any quasi-enforceable Apple EULA in the process) to count as "an essential step."
Will I retire or break 10K?
... people stop assuming that because you can do something, that you ought to.
Use OSX, don't use it, who cares?! Perhaps this "civil disobedience" in protest of licenses would ring a bit more true if it weren't always tied so closely with people stealing software. Yes stealing. If I create something, I have a reasonable expectation that I can keep it or share it. Your whining about my having to share something is the result of a bunch of people who don't know the difference between free(dom) and no cost.
Fuck this whole argument. If you don't like someones terms, write your own shit.
You are so completely wrong. However, because Slashdot lacks a "-1, Completely Stupid" moderation, someone was forced to use "-1, Flamebait". Forgive them, they were giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were merely lying instead of ignorant of the world you live in.
The only party that would tell you that purchasing a CD only "licenses" the contents to you would be a software company or a lawyer for the same.
EULAs violate basic contract law in many ways. The UCITA has been proposed (and passed in some corrupt states) as a way around this, but where it's not law, you can't be bound by a contract that you didn't know about before you agreed.
No law except the DMCA and UCITA even hints that there's a difference between a book and a CD, in what you are allowed to do with them. The only exception is that the definition of a "performance" under the Copyright act is different.
You do not need a license to read a book, as decided by judges who aren't around now to be bribed by today's megacorps, so why would you think you need a license to read data from a CD?
I Just thought I'd point out that Apple released System 7.5.3 on their software update FTP site. They were supposed to be releasing the 7.5.3 update for 7.5 users, but somehow posted the entire install. The Mac* sites wrote articles about this, and were never approached by Apple. Instead, Apple just left the OS on their site.
So my question is... what's changed between then (1995?) and now?
OK, I already installed it because some guy gave me the update CD for a day or two, so I didn't tested it, but the user manual is neat... ;-)
- Benad
Was there not a court case on
Are be now going to ban opening the hood on your car and tinkering with the engine? Do we need permission from GM to say how to tune your car, or replace a lightglobe?
How about a letter just asking him stop, stating that if it had to be re-worked properly, it would add hours to the installation process, and many,many reboots, and waste bilions in man-hours. I now think highly of Apple for having a honest upgrade process, that respects peoples time.
I would like MKII just to check the rubbish bin, so the hole can be re-opened, with file crc in the bin with public read access cache for the last n files - and the log.
Users should be allowed to do this, and at the same time the instructions updated to warn users, that evidence in audit logs and file timestamps, and disk serial numbers remain, and these instructions are purposely incompletes so software pirates can be prosecued. Legal upgrade holders have nothing to fear.
...since the possession of the tools to violate a copyright has been criminalized, we have yet another case of circular legal "logic." The only tool necessary to violate this particular copyright is the very operating system that the copyrighted software (the updater/full-installer) installs (or an earlier version of same).
Huh? 'tools to violate copyright' have not been criminalized, tools to violate copyright controll mechanisms have been criminalized. Since OSX dosn't have any extra protection, that part of the DMCA dosn't cover it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This post is off topic because it has nothing to do with the story. This post exists to draw attention to the fact that maggard (the person I am replying to) is a pretentious cock.
/. hive (pretentious cocks like you) they get slammed.
As evidence I offer his sig:
Anonymous Cowards filtered. If their words aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should I value them any more?
Seriously, how could you possibly show yourself to more of a pretentious cock? You can't!
Maggard, you complete moron, sometime's AC's have something to say, and they don't want to post logged in because if they disagree with the rest of the
I'm going to spend a little karma on this rant, every time I see this guy's sig it pisses me off
I guess I'm done.
That's your opinion, and nothing more. Laws in the US says that this is illegal and like it or not, that's the law. Here.
- Benad
excellent post.
I'm sick of people supporting Apple, MS (err.. in other forums), RIAA, as they stomp over our free speech rights just to make money. When the hell did making money become a guaranteed right? If you screw up and ship a completed product, don't gag the third party which tells the world of your mistakes. Suck it up and take the loss.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Apple clearly did not want you to use it, the fact that you "found it" is far from being relevant to the situation. Exploiting the hole clearly involves somehow altering their software. It is hence against the agreement u *contractually* accept by installing the software. You are contractually bound. The fact that you didn't read the contract doesn't render you immune to prosecution.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
"Apple Cease-And-Desists Stupidity Leak"
Does this mean that apple products are no longer legal in the US? Surely they'll at least have a buyback program.. but you'd think they'd have detected a stupidity leak 15 years ago..
Sorry.. not a fan of companies that perpetuate proprietary software and codecs. Just an opinion folks, take it or leave it. (and yes, that was a disclaimer) (-;
which law are you referring to anyway? i've never actually heard of this being the law, and i've lived in the US for quite some time..
f*cken wiznerd
How the heck did the parent comment get moderated as "troll?" Read the moderation rules-- you can't mod a comment down just because you disagree with the comment!
This guy is right. I got my copy of Mac OS 10.1 for free. No charge, no questions, nothing. The sales person gave it to me, along with a coupon for free coffee.
Now Apple's upset because some showed that the free update CD can be used to install the complete version of Mac OS X 10.1. So what's Apple supposed to do now? Force users to bring in their Mac OS X original CD before they can get the update? Remember, unlike with Windows, Apple doesn't require serial numbers to install the OS, and I'd rather they kept it that way.
I wish the people at MacFixIt had thought it though a bit more before they gleefully spread that information around.
To the guy who had a bad experience at CompUSA -- that's not Apple's fault. Particularly because you said they were giving copies away days later. Blame CompUSA, not Apple.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Remember! The US has the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE health care system in the world. And it's far from perfect, but thanks to federal research, and even the system it's under, people are living longer and healthier than ever before.
But before we go and blame the inflated prices on GREEDY coporations, and doctors, and all. Think about the costs these people face from government agencies when introducing/prescribing a new drug, and the costs associated with the risk of these decisions (I'm talking lawsuit threats) even if the company doesn't do anything wrong. Lawyer science has dominated the courtroom for decades (remember Dow Corning folks?), that's why a doctor can get sued if a child is born with Cerebral Palsy if it was inflicted during pregnancy. That's why GENETIC problems are the fault of doctors in many cases.
Add that to the fact that taxpayers are supposedly paying for the healthcare costs of people on Medicare and Medicaid. In reality, those programs pay whatever they deem "appropriate" for the services rendered, which is usually far below what gets charged. In fact, almost all insurance companies run like that. If you don't believe me, talk to the billing people at your doctor's office, they'll be more than happy to explain how doctors have to take what they can get from those orginizations. that's the whole reason for "inflated prices."
And honestly, my doctor understands how hard it is to pay for this stuff in cash. He is always happy to extend professional courtesy to people who do pay in cash because it is expensive, but also because his staff doesn't have to get screwed by some insurance company.
Best way to fix the situation:
1. Don't use medical insurance to go and visit the doctor, use it for major medical expenses (Surgery, hospital time, etc.)
2. TORT REFORM
3. Start to appreicate how good we have it here, even with the costs. It's better than waiting on a list for three months for a checkup in many government run medical systems.
Never overestimate the intelligence of the individual, and never underestimate the stupidity of the masses.
You could install a full OS/2 Warp 3 install in almost the same way. That meant you could save a bundle by buying the upgrade CD over the costly non-upgrade CD.
Just format a clean disk or partition with a DOS filesystem. Make sure the disk or partition is not marked as active (bootable).
Make a "os2"directory, then inside that, make a directory called "install". In other words, have a directory called "\os2\install".
Finish by just making a file with "copy con" called "syslevel.os2". At the end you should have a file called "os2\install\syslevel.os2".
Boot up with the upgrade CD and the boot disks. Installation sniffer is happy and the install proceeds. I don't know if this works with the Warp 4 CD, but the Warp 3 CD never gave me a problem!
Sorry, but journalists have every right to publish this information. After all, they had the right to publish the Pentagon Papers. The issue is that the folks at MacFixIt were first-parties to a breach of contract, not that they provided information, which is their First Amendment right.
Separate yourself from the person who broke the EULA and contract law no longer applies AT ALL since you are a third-party. So, any site that wants to publish this sort of information should say that it comes from a third party, and that no one working at the site has verified the information. That completely frees the site from having broken any contract, whether the EULA is a valid contrat or not (where I live, it is NOT A VALID CONTRACT ANYWAY).
Now, that only leaves Apple with the argument that the MPAA used against DeCSS, which is hardly very applicable since putting a plainly labeled piece of software on a CD does not constitute a trade secret, whereas keeping the CSS keys secret did. And it doesn't qualify as a copy control mchanism either under the DMCA, since its purpose is not to prevent copies of the CD from being made, whereas the purpose of CSS is. You can easily copy the MacOS Update CD using any standard CD-R(W) drive, whereas even with a DVD-R(W) you cannot copy a DVD because CSS requirs data that won't be copied to the copy.
The best argument Apple could make is that it's an access control mechanism under the DMCA, but an equally valid argument could be made that it is not due to the fact that the user has free access to the data on the disc since no effort is made at keeping its contents inaccessible. Anyone can browse to it, copy whatever packages he wants to a hard disk, etc. Again, this is something that isn't true under a real access control mechanism like CSS, which effectively renders any copies of any data files "scrambled" and unusable.
In other words, breaking the EULA is Apple's only valid legal leg to stand on, and so sites should be smart enough to lie and say that third parties gave them this information. If you didn't dirctly break the EULA, you didn't violate your silly "contract" with Apple. If Apple demands to know who, cite journalistic privileges and the need to protect your sources.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
No, it's fact.
I can most certainly use a corporate logo in a parody, and I can most certainly loan a book to a friend, and I can most certainly rip a music CD to make mp3's! What planet are you on that you think this is currently illegal?
Oh, right, you're another corporate tool that is trying to make me think that these actions are illegal.
Sound ridiculous? An RIAA spokesperson would not admit under oath that a person has the right to make a copy of a CD to use in their car.
Hint: that's just fine. The judge said so himself. So don't try to pull the crap-flavored wool over my eyes.
The enemies of Democracy are
Interesting idea. IANAL so I can't really say if you're right. Has this ever been tested in court? I don't think so.
You're definitely wrong about one thing, though. Typically, the seller != the software publisher. Joe User buys a CD (a physical object) from CompUSA. There is no doubt that the CD now belongs to Joe. When Joe opens the box he (implicitly) licenses the software therein from the publisher. So, technically, it seems like there are two separate transactions here. No?
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Spinning 10.1 updater CDs, snazzy music.....
screen blacks out, and a quick little message flashes:
Don't steal software.
So, by purchasing an office 2000 (or office XP) upgrade, and entering a full version CD key that you get off the net, is that in breach of any EULAs?
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
D'ohhhh!
Yup! Map a drive letter to your friend's install over the LAN and you're done! A friend of a friend of this girl's boyfriend's uncle's brother's son's roommate installed Illustrator this way. :)
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
According to the dealer I got my copy of the 10.1 upgrade from, they were only allowed to give this disk to people who had receipts from the purchase of 10.0 (which I did). If this was really the case (I've not seen the paperwork), then the only people who legally own a copy of this CD also have paid for a full operating system. Therefore, it's important to remember that the problem isn't really that someone's going to pay $20 for a full operating system. It's that if you hose your drive or repartition or some such, you can now do your reinstall in one step instead of two. This hack does NOTHING to install software that you wouldn't legally own anyway.
Except the dealer you talked to was wrong.
I got my copy from an Apple retail store (Boston, MA area) where the staff was practically tossing them out to the crowds. My girlfriend and I both got a copy without showing any proof of purchase of any kind; anyone who expressed interest in the upgrade got a package.
So, I ordered the $20.00 upgrade, which left a bad taste in my mouth after buying both the Beta and the full copy of X 10.0
If you did everything right, you would have gotten $30 off the first retail release of Mac OS X, negating the the cost of the public beta.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
I must be missing something obvious, because this is just too silly:
/. consists of 702 comments
- MacFixIt describes how to easily get the $130 version of Mac OS X for $20 or $0
- Apple politely asks them to not do that
- The resulting thread on
Help.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
How about sueing Apple for releasing an upgrade
with which this is possible? They are giving
you the tools to circumvent their own license.
I'm sorry your experience was so bad, though I'm not surprised. I've never found any Mac competence at Circuit City (or CompuSA, Sears, etc.).
I'm fortunate to have one of the first few Apple Stores within 25 miles of my (very rural) home here in Texas.
The day OS X 10.1 was released, I went in and got an upgrade CD. After spending a few minutes drooling over the 22" Cinema Display, I went to the counter and asked if they had the 10.1 upgrade CDs. I was immediately handed the package from a stack on the counter -- no questions asked. AFTER handing it to me, the guy said, "You have OS X already installed, right?" I said "yes" and was on my way.
I discovered when I got home it was the full install (along with the 9.2 upgrade for Classic).
I was thoroughly impressed that I was required to show no proof of purchase. A wonderful customer service experience -- especially considering that it was a FREE UPGRADE.
Granted, OS X 10.0 rightfully should have been a beta. But 10.1 kicks the proverbial ass!
The way Apple handled this upgrade process sets a new standard, IMHO.
I mean really. Do Apple's lawyers think any differently than Microsquash's?
Rocky J. Squirrel
Exactly! Apple engineers screwed up the copy protection on this release, big time. But that's no problem, Apple's lawyers can fix it all by prohibiting free speech. We've got a BIG problem when prohibiting speech is both possible and convenient.
Rocky J. Squirrel
And that is why I said:
I mentioned it before - I am master of my operating system. If I want to tell dpkg (I use Debian) that I have something installed that I don't I should be able to tell the operating system that. There are certain other operating systems that make backups and won't let you remove viruses because they are "Important system files".
Great, now whining comments get modded up. Anyway, it seems that for every person that had issues getting the update, there were 2 that had absolutely NO problems visiting a number of retailers and getting their update CDs.
I know a few people that got several copies of the CD. Yes, a lot of places ran out, but they at least *admitted* that they had run out.
It wasn't the huge fiasco people are trying to make it out to be. 1)Have you ever seen another computer company do stuff like that? I have not. 2)You know how people are, the ones that didn't get what they want will squawk the loudest....
Yes, they did.
Let's not get all hung up on the fact that, unlike certain other (laughably referred to as) OSs out there, OSX has a distiction between root and 'joe user'. Which ever-so-slightly reduces the likelihood of Outlook-vectored virii infecting the important bits of the OS.
<aside>This would be the same for free OSs such as Linux, of course, but laying down your $130 for OSX does buy you a rather nice UI and a full set of developer tools.</aside>
And let's also not mention the fact that they had a fix out in double-quick time for a local root exploit. As in one where you actually had to be sitting at the machine.
How many nimda requests have you had recently?
[giving you a developer license see http://otn.oracle.com]
...but requires you to pay on deployment.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
According to this letter that Apple sent, I'm surprised they even listend.
1. There was no complicated coding, cracking or other junk involved, the "hack" is done with ALL Apple utilities.
2. Breaking a copywrite, and telling someone else how to break a copywrite are different things, therefore by listing them both as violations of the copywrite act, Apple was lame.
3. UNIX is s'posed to be open! What happend to gzip -dc patchfile.gz | patch -p0? Apple would gain more exceptance from the "UNIX people" if they used more code, less laywers and advertisements, and 'snow' iMacs.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
What happened to fair use rights???
They still exist, in 17 USC 107.
Will I retire or break 10K?
From a book automatically mean you can then copy it and distribute it to others? I don't think so. That is what Macfixit was essentially suggesting to do. Unfortunately, there is always a legally implied copyright for any work of art. Even if you did manage to hack the Mac OS X 10.1 update CD, it still essentially is legally a copyrighted material. Regardless, Apple is in the right here to protect its copyright.
This OSX and the iPod lame attempts at security are only a smokescreen to make it look like Apple is TRYING to thwart copiers. Especially with the Ipod, they don't want the RIAA sueing them, so put in something you can call security, that everyone can circumvent(size).
Most older Microsoft Windows Updates before Win98 SE accepted the very upgrade CD as a valid Windows Installation qualified for Upgrade.
OK, now we know it all, why dont we leave it at that.
It's curious that you are so certain that shrink-wrap or click through agreements are not enforceable under "basic contract law." Here's some basic contract law for you: many judges in many jurisdictions have upheld the validity of shrink-wraps. While UCITA explicitly makes them enforceable, it does so on the condition that the consumer is permitted to reject the software once they've had a chance to review the full license terms. So, UCITA is actually more pro-consumer than the common law in many jurisdictions. How many jurisdictions have rejected the validity of shrink/click agreements? None that I know of. So much for your assertion that they violate "basic contract law." As for your claim that judges are bought and sold by corporations, you clearly don't know any judges personally. They must not visit your mountain retreat in Idaho much, I guess. And finally, yes, you have a license to the content of a book. Do you think you own the publishing rights when you buy a copy? You need to get the whole "bundle of rights" concept straight, buddy. Your ignorance of the law is totally inexcusable. It's people like you that drag this world down through Quixote-esque antagonism of the very social mechanisms designed to permit you to open the gaping hole in your head. Begone, fool!
There are cases where you remove the old product before installing the upgrade. What if you upgraded, then the drive melted? Do you install the old version, then the new version?
Fight Spammers!
Ok, those of you that own shares of Apple stock (and I don't mean just one) will understand that this issue is serious. If users aren't already posting a .dmg image to pirate sites, then for $20 from Apple, they will have a full blown 10.1
Do the math.
Those of you not owning any Apple stock, ask yourself: why not?
I am for freedom of speech. But giving out instructions on how I can get into your house and take whatever I want...that's cool too!
Search google and you'll find another document (with pictures) to circumvent the update disc from about dot com.
Booo.
Trash is violating DMCA. You can use it to bypass copyright protection...
No, the DCMA violates my constitutional rights. The constitution trumps everything.
And I can trash any file I darned well want, with the possible exception of the license file itself.
Noone can take away my right to delete code. They will remove my trash can from my cold dead hands.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Apple may have intended for people without MacOS X to be able to make a full installation with this update CD, in which case it would have "cease-and-dessisted" the people who provided the "circumvention device" (the file deletion instructions that it may have provided in the form of "leaked" information) in order to bring this "feature" of the update CD to the attention of the MacOS 9-using public.
This type of manoeuvre is not without precedent: IIRC, the French monarchy popularized the potato in their domains by planting it in a royal garden, citing the beauty of its flowers as the reason, and then forbidding the ownership of potatoes to the unwashed masses. Predictably, soon after, everybody in France was eating potatoes. I may be wrong about the details of the story, but I'm sure you get the idea anyway.
Anyway. I am posting this on Mozilla for MacOS X 10.0.4 running on a 400MHz G3, and I can understand why users of low-end Apple hardware aren't eager to upgrade to any version of MacOS X: mine runs like molasses going uphill in a bad Michigan winter. Maybe this (the "forbidden fruit" approach) was the only way to get the other G3 users to upgrade. Or perhaps the plan is even more sinister... nah, I don't want to think about that.
Please, pardon my murder of the English language above. I wrote:
but I should have written something like:
I'm sure Mozilla isn't that picky about the particular version of MacOS X.
Now take a deep breath. Better, yes?
I know well the quite common argument that EULA's are not 'enforcable' because it's not a real contract. No negotiation, no signatures, etc.
And certain facets of EULA's have been overturned in certain courts. However...
other parts of them can and will be enforced.
So.. when I buy an 'upgrade' version of XP, but find out I can do a tiny little hack and install the real thing.. I"m not breaking any rules, right? I bought the 'hardware' (CD) legitimately, and whatever I click on is not binding.. so..
I knew all those years watching Cound Floyd weren't a waste!
Lanham I know nothing about. Do its provisions require enforcement?
The Lanham Act covers trademark law and unfair competition. Trademarks must be enforced.
Will I retire or break 10K?