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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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" ;)
Its intellectual property and reverse engineering not just copyright. Also a violation of term of service according to EULA. Think you need to read beyond the briefing on /.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Ah - the bravery of being out of range. For all you know `MacFixIts` could be a tiny hobbiest site with no money to waste on expensive lawyers. Its not like this minor story about MacOs version whatever is going to make/break them - fighting Big Scary Lawyers could very easily do that.
Once again, the publicity surrounding all this means that as the info is now out there, it`ll continue to spread - the site gets publicity, apple gets to look stupid - once again - and people get to vent their spleen on SlashDot. Quite literally, everyone is happy.
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.
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.
I would agree. Because if I don't like, say, the calculator program and I delete that after installing 'the Software' and install a calculator program that I like better, is that 'modifying the software'? By their logic it sounds like it is. When is 'the Software' no longer 'the Software'? After I install it, am I then permitted to modify it? Would I be in violation of my license agreement if I delete calc.exe after installing 'the Software'?
This sounds like a load of hot air to me.
I couldn't have said it better.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
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.
No, that's trademarks and only trademarks. Other forms of IP don't have the same dilution concerns legally.
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.
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?
You are confusing trademark law with copyright/patent law. Trademarks must be defended or lost. Copyrights and patents need NEVER be defended. Recall the GIF compression patent fiasco - the patent holder did not enforce their patent for 15 years. Everyone who dealt with GIFs was vioating their patent. For 15 years. And then they started enforcing it.
I hereby sentence both you and your moderators to read "The Intellectual Property FAQ." Search for it on google...
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.
Wrong.
Copywrites and Patents can be selectively enforced without losing the rights to them. Trademarks cannot. This is not a trademark issue, hell, it's not even a copyright issue!
The original article which is the target of the Cease and Decist never modified the software, never distributed it, never circumvented any restrictions, never decompiled, disassembled, reverse engineered, created a derivitive work or even agreed to the Apple EULA *on purchase* as the lawyer letter said.
What did he do? Wrote an article on how to do it.
-- iCEBaLM
take it easy, there...
It's not a simple thing to go up against a major corporation like Apple. They've got a little money to spend on lawyers and litigation. The people at MacFixIt don't have the same resources, and are perfectly justified in their actions. You can't legitimately blame them for doing what is in their best interest as a small company.
Nobody's selling out here...and besides, now that the cat's out of the bag, MacFixIt has no reason to host the instructions on their website anyway. I'm sure the word will spread just fine without it being on their site...so it really doesn't make any difference that they agreed to Apple's demands. The damage was already done.
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.
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?
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.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 8
"The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..."
Copyright has long been recognized by legal authorities as a limitation on free speech. It is considered an acceptable compromise.
I would like to see the following idea added to IP law, though. You either make your IP available to the people or you lose your exclusive rights. In other words, if you want to prevent someone else from publishing it, you must be publishing it. Do you think there's no longer profit in publishing this game? Fine. It's in the public domain, now. You set an initial price for your IP product; the price can never increase, only decrease. As long as you offer the IP product for that price or less, thus making it available to people, you retain copyright on it. The day you fail to make the product available, it enters the public domain.
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
You have to agree to the EULA if you open and use the software -- fairly standard procedure in commercial software.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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...
This is also a EULA, Lanham and copyright case as well not just IP. If Apple were to sit on its hands they will have a much tougher time in the future. You must be consistent to be effective. If Apple were to brush off all the minor incidents like this it will make their future protection against the major ones much more difficult.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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
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.
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!
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.
So you are not going to buy an iBook to run Linux on because Apple have an OS upgrade CD (with a license that says that it can only be used for OS upgrades I would imagine) that can be modified (thus breaching the aforementioned license) to install a full MacOSX 10.1 on any Mac instead of only on Macs with 10.0 preinstalled.
No, I'm not going to buy an iBook because Apple uses lawyers to bully a journalist into killing a story on bogus legal grounds because it exposes something stupid Apple did.
Their action doesn't prevent anybody from pirating their software; if you're going to pirate a copy of the upgrade disk, you'd certainly be equally willing to pirate a copy of the full disk.
Or perhaps you were never going to buy an iBook to run Linux on anyway, but thought you would post that ill conceived reasoning anyway?
Think what you want; I have a saved shopping cart on Apple's web site for the iBook, and mailing list posts in a local LUG's list asking if anybody else around here is running Linux on one, and if so what distribution they recommend. That's an awful lot of work to go to for something I am "never going to buy".
But if you use the upgrade CD to install the OS when you don't have OSX, then you are breaking the law. I can't put it any simpler than that.
That's very true. But if you're willing to break that law, you're just as willing to pirate it from a full disk as from an upgrade. They won't sell you the upgrade disk unless you have purchased the OS, remember?
Publishing details that enable people to break the law is a moral issue though.
Yes, and it's one where the law has usually sided with the Constitution and against the censor. Or did you forget about the First Amendment?
No-one can prevent you from printing details on how to build an atomic bomb, or make nerve gas in your kitchen, but you can't publish "delete this file and you can install what you already purchased from an alternate disk". Does that strike you as logical? It must, since you're asserting that disagreeing with it is illogical.
Perhaps you should spend a few more minutes pursuing the logic before you assume I didn't.
They may not be used to hacking from UNIX dweebs, but they are by no means unaccustomed to it...ever heard of the annual Mac Hack conference?
You are right, but fundamentally as a people we were at one time guaranteed in plain English the Bill of Rights. It was written in plain English, not legalese. Through the years all the "what ifs" are added and the lawyers have fooled us into thinking there are all these clauses where the Bill of Rights does not apply and whadaya know.. the damn constitution doesn't mean a thing. We keep tacking on all these clauses where the constituion doesn't apply and shit.. well we might as well throw away the first ten amendments because we have fooled ourselves into thinking we are free. We're a free country when it comes to waving the flag and patriotism, but in the real world for good intentions or bad the lawyers and the people (including myself) who have sat idly by have allowed the circumvention of the Bill of Rights.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
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.
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.
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
All very good points, however if your looking to by a laptop from a company that has nevered used its lawyers in this manner, your going to be looking for a long time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
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
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.
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.
Or like, say, post something to Slashdot with several flawed analogies, and put a Sig below saying "Please don't flame me for my post, I left my brain in the other pair of pants."
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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?
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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
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.
Not true, as there is a clear distinction between consumer and seller.
The CD is the 10.0 -> 10.1 upgrade CD. That is what it is. It has the functionality of the 10.1 full installation CD. As a seller, you are responsible for selling based on what an item is.
For example, a generic monitor may be as good as a Sony Trinitron(tm), and in fact identical except for the lack of the Sony brand and an extra capacitor on the PCB. It would be dishonest for the seller to slap a Sony sticker on the generic model and sell it as such, but it is not dishonest to buy the (presumeably cheaper) generic one knowing it is equal to the name brand.
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.
That is a stupid argument, but since it isn't mine I'm not worried.
My argument is that you have been sold something, and are thus entitled to use it. This isn't entering an unlocked house, this is buying a house but not getting keys to the cellar.
I suppose the difficulty comes from the fact that a physical analogy or similar event is hard to come by, because this is such an incredibly stupid thing for Apple to have done.
The best I can come up with is AMD's XP vs MP processors. By several accounts the chips are completely identical and the XP is fully SMP-enabled. The only difference is the XP chips are not tested in SMP environments. Is it therefore immoral, illegal, and theft to put two (vastly cheaper) XP processors in an SMP motherboard? Not at all.
The enemies of Democracy are
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."
Why?
The iBook comes with OSX installed. You don't have to pirate it.
Do you expect them to just go "We fucked up! I guess everyone can have our new OS for free now! Shucks! Well, won't do that again, ha ha!"
Stupid Cheap Guitars
Do you expect them to just go "We fucked up! I guess everyone can have our new OS for free now! Shucks! Well, won't do that again, ha ha!"
Do you expect AOL to just let you have that post on rograndom.com about using LICQ to get around their efforts to restrict use of their ICQ service?
Would you think it fair if their lawyers sent you a cease and desist notice to remove that post?
The folks who wrote the article didn't pirate OSX, and they didn't advocate pirating it. You do expect people to use LICQ to violate the terms of the ICQ usage policy, however; so Apple is on shakier legal ground with this than AOL would be if they tried to stop you.
And, BTW, if this story were that AOL had served you such a notice, I'd be flaming them in this thread.
Everything Mac has posted some very clear instructions on how to do this!
I want to be sued too... Here is my link to your link.
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.
if McDonald's hamburgers were made with a secret, trademarked recipe, they would sue you till they owned your right to vote.
it's not the question of whether it's ethical or not.
companies will do whatever it takes to protect their product, no matter how shitty it is.
i'm not advocating Apple, i'm simply saying that unless you have lots of dough to spend on lawyer fees, it's unpractical to raise a stink over these kind of issues.
--- sig moved for great justice.
OSX is a good product. Apple wants to make some money. They definetely have enough to put MacFixIt out of business if this would've gone to court. Why should MacFixIt be defiant on the issue? The site, after all, is dedicated to Apple products.
Fact is, that the 10.1 update CD is free.
Yes, if you order it you have to pay shipping and handling .
But if you go to your local Apple dealer you can get the update kit for $ 0.
Apple doesn't make much money on their software.
The reason is very simple.
They sell computers.
MacOS X is $120.
For this money you get a MacOS 9.1 CD, MacOS 10 CD and the developers tools.
All in a nice cardboard box.
The money they ask for it is to pay for the development of it.
Compare this with the insane prices M$ ask for their crappy software and you'll see that Apple is a completely different company who isn't ripping of their customers.
Yes, R&D costs money and Apple spends large amounts of cash on it.
The result is lots of nice new computers and technology's.
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.
Do you expect AOL to just let you have that post on rograndom.com about using LICQ to get around their efforts to restrict use of their ICQ service?
:)
Nope. They have other ways of stopping me from using LICQ, like changing their protocol. Apple cannot do this as the CDs are already out in the wild. Although they do have a right to send a letter if they feel so inclined, I am within my rights to ignore it if I feel fit. MacFixIt could've igorned the letter they got, but they didn't.
BTW, on my site I complain that I can't use LICQ or Fire.app any more because they (last time I checked) don't work anymore, so you can't really violate the usage policies with them
Stupid Cheap Guitars
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'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
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.
:)
:)
:)
Yeah, what you said.
I just talked to a lawyer friend over lunch, and we were talking about such issues
IAAFOAL?
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.
I would, but none of my software tends to come with restrictive EULA's these days.
The enemies of Democracy are
How about if someone sells you "Everything you can carry from my house" and forgets to chain down something they wanted to keep.
.WAV files if they are renamed to .BMP?
Even so, analogies of software to physical property are fundamentally flawed.
Until we get free replicators (ala Trek) physical and information property are completely seperate topics.
The issue is that if you are sold something and you use it in a way that the tool is capable of being used, but the seller didn't intend you to use, are you obliged to stop that use?
What if you buy pliers and use them to hammer small nails as well? (As another posted described.) What if you buy Photoshop and find out it also edits
More importantly, if you did find out any of these unintended uses, should you be prevented from telling others?
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?
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.
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) (-;
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.
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
-Legion
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
D'ohhhh!
There might be more than one party, but I think how it works is that the seller acts as an agent for the publisher, at least in a lot of cases. Much like buying something from a cashier, it's not a contract with them, it's with the store and they act as the representative of the store.
The thing is nothing changes when you open the box. If you are bound by an license it's when you buy the software, if you're not, the EULA is powerless.
This is for a bunch of contract reasons, like for everything you agree to seperately you must get "consideration" which means something of value. If you don't get something, it's not a contract. Hence the token $1 you see people use in movies.
Also, if you aren't legally entitled to use the software, then you aren't entitled to run it far enough to see the EULA. If you are entitled to run it, then the EULA is irrelevant.
No matter how you slice it, by traditional law, EULAs aren't binding and you don't need a license to use software you buy, unless you want to do something beyond what copyright law would allow. (As with distributable runtime libraries, and the GPL, etc.)
The only way this sort of stuff becomes legal is with the UCITA (Shrinkwraps, limited warranties, etc) and the DMCA (No right to use it once you've bought it.) If these laws stick around, you will find EULAs to be binding eventually, but now, no...
Isn't it obvious by now that just because it's Federal law doesn't make it right?
Or could I use the same justification for the DMCA and the US PATRIOT act?
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
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...
Now it seems that telling someone that guns can be used to kill people is illegal.
Actually this is closer to telling someone HOW to kill someone with a gun, but your point is valid.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
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
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....
Err.... bollocks. That would be France you were thinking about, with Italy ranked number two (or so says a relatively recent survey). This survey had the US in number twenty or thirty something. France spends way less than the US on health care (as a % of GDP), but seems to have, according to this survey) a much better healthcare system.
The only cases I know of where shrinkwrap licenses were held to be valid were cases where the buyer tried to use the data (it was a list of names/adresses/phone numbers) in a dialing program which they then distributed. They also handled the case badly, and were sued by a corporation with way more money than they had.
As for judges not being bought... Hah! There have been a lot of scandals where single judges and groups of them have been on the take. That guy in Chicago, I think, back in the 60s or 70s. And then look at the judge in the first DeCSS case (Against 2600). He worked for a major member of the MPAA, in the DVD licensing issue, and refused to recuse himself. Obvious conflict of interest.
And, you don't need a license for a book. To legally sell it they have to implicitly give you the permission to use it as you need to use it as advertised which is a collection of words you may read or not, in any order, etc.
You can't copy a book without an additional license, but neither can you legally bludgeon someone to death with it.
Perhaps some judges will find that EULAs are valid, but it goes against so much other law that you can't assume anything other than the prosecution using technicalities to ensnare the unprepared defendant, or picking a bought judge.
I don't live in Montana, nor belong to a militia, nor think that black helicopters are coming. Your implication is a groundless attack. Perhaps if there were no known cases of corruption in the legal and governmental system, might you have a point.
Would be much like me suggesting that you either have a judge/politician for a parent (or are one) or own a lot of MS/Adobe/etc stock and are willing to lie in public to manipulate the value of the stock.
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?
EULA is based on copyright. Copyrighted information IS intellectual property, aka IP. Lanham I know nothing about. Do its provisions require enforcement?
If the framers of the Constitution had wanted to grant copyrights and patents for anything at all, that clause would not have been necessary.
You missed the tenth amendment. Any powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the Federal government in the constitution or amendments is reserved to the states. Had that clause not been in the constitution, we'd currently be looking at 50 patent and copyright offices.
Your observation about useful arts is intriguing...I must go think on this...
But what if there's a glitch in your cash flow or other SNAFU situations?
If a company goes out of business (the worst case SNAFU), should its IP perish? One of my favorite old games (Armada 2525) was published by a company that died and vanished shortly after its publication. The game disappeared. This is a silly and unimportant example, but I believe it is typical.
Patents and copyrights were intended to benefit the public by giving incentive to inventors and authors. In other words, in exchange for a brief monopoly, you agree to benefit the public. The public should not have to bear the brunt of your mismanagement of your business; if you fail to benefit the public by producing your product, it becomes the property of the public.
As long as you are selling the book, you own the IP. Should you run out of books AND cash, and you no longer have the book available for sale, it is in the public domain. If I make a good-faith effort to locate a seller of new or original product and am unable to find any, I may freely reproduce it for sale to others.
Also, you should allow increase in price to match inflation at the very least.
Of course...didn't want to go into too much detail in the original post.
BTW, the barrier against price increase springs from the following. TSR's role-playing game "Star Frontiers." They stopped producing this in order to market their "Buck Rogers" game. Fans of the former were left out in the cold. A more recent and topical example (as well as more useful and less silly), of course, would be Win 3.1. Microsoft stops selling it in order to market Win 9x. Under my proposed structure, neither MS nor TSR should be allowed to say "Yeah, the product's still for sale...got a billion dollars?"
But, yeah, it'd need to be fleshed out more. What if demand goes sky-high but there's limited product availability? I've thought about this a bit and think that mandatory licensing would be necessary. The cost license for producing one copy of the product could be set at the retail cost of one copy of the product; this would allow other producers to meet demand while allowing the original producer to retain IP ownership and profitability. If you have any interesting thoughts, I'd be interested. Of course, since you're an AC you'll probably never read this...but it's been mildly useful to write it.
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..