Apple Uses DMCA to Halt DVD burning

VValdo writes "According to news.com, Apple has warned one of its own dealers to stop handing out a patch to allow DVD burning with iDVD on non-Apple hardware." Mmmmm, laws.

Comments

Great

[Quasar1999]

Apple the next microsoft.... Oh, yeah, here's some great technology, but if you don't use it with our hardware, and our software, well then we'll get nasty on your ass... Oh and by the way, you also void your warranty...

What next? Nvidia sues end users over moving their video cards from their AMD to their Intel systems? WTF???

Re:Great

[pi radians]

Actually, its quite the opposite. In order for someone to burn DVDs they need to use Apple's software iDVD.

That software is only licensed to be used if you purchase a machine with one of Apple's Superdrive.

This story is actually on of fighting software piracy. Of course you have to have a little more knowledge to know that because reading the "Slashdot spin" is going to have every company look evil for protecting themselves.

Re:Great

[entrox]

First of all, Apple is in the business of selling _hardware_, not software.

iDVD is part of the i-suite of provided FREE applications with the sole reason to boost sales of Macintosh systems and Apple hardware in general. They don't make a single penny on iDVD per se, but on the drives it supports - if somebody now makes iDVD work with third-party burners, they take away the only reason why it is provided at all (for free).

Re:Great

[ObviousGuy]

So you're saying that Apple doesn't trust its users to be able to be good citizens and not pirate software?

Re:Great

[diamondc]

ha.. what corporations will do to insure a profit...

Re:Great

[pi radians]

It's impossible for them not to pirate the software. iDVD is only supplied as a free application with a SuperDrive that Apple sells you. If you are using another company's DVD burner, then you cannot use Apple's software.

Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

"That software is only licensed to be used if you purchase a machine with one of Apple's Superdrive."

And this is the problem. In many countries there are laws to prevent this kind of abuse: You must sell your different products independently. If you want to sell DVD playing software you must sell it to ANYONE who is interested.

Re:Great

[dschuetz]

If you are using another company's DVD burner, then you cannot use Apple's software.

How's this any different from Microsoft saying "If you throw away your PC and buy a new one, you can't use the software on that box?"

The DMCA allows, if I recall correctly, modifications to software to ensure interoperability. Here's software (iDVD) which doesn't work with a drive (external 3rd party DVD burner). Someone wrote software to make iDVD interoperable with the external drive. Perfectly legal.

In violation of an EULA? Well, that's up to Apple, the people using the patch, and all of us who haven't decided whether we believe EULAs are enforceable or not. Violation of DMCA? No. Can lawyers make your life hell even so? Certainly.

What it comes down to is this breaks Apple's business model for DVD burning. There's an easy solution: Stop giving away iDVD for free. Sheesh.

Re:Great

[MaxVlast]

Does that mean I could go up to BMW Sweden (or whatever) and demand that they sell me that funky new computer control system without the bother and expense of a new car? I could then go install it in my '93 Camry and be the coolest kid on the block?

Re:Great

[realxmp]

I hate to ask the obvious question here but how does using only an Apple Superdrive help fight piracy any more than using another manufacturers? Actually I don't see how this patch violates the DCMA. I doesn't circumvent copy protection, it's merely reverse engineering to allow system interoperablity.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read that article?

It has nothing to do with software piracy. It is purely that Apple doesn't want people burning dvd's on external drives. They limited the iDVD software to work only on the internal drives.

The apple developer sold a patch that allowed users to burn dvds on external drives using iDVD.

Now, I don't believe Apple can prevent someone from coming out with a competitor to iDVD that WILL allow burning dvds on external drives. The DMCA can't prevent THAT.

Re:Great

[gaj]

And if I buy a SuperDrive *AND* another DVD-ROM, and choose to use iDVD on both drives? How the hell would that be "pirating" iDVD?

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Re:Great

[pi radians]

How's this any different from Microsoft saying "If you throw away your PC and buy a new one, you can't use the software on that box?"

A - Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs

B - Microsoft doesn't freely distibute Windows on a PC that they have sold

It's all in the license agreement. iDVD was made and given away for consumers that bought the SuperDrive. It is not Apple's responsibilty to ensure that every DVD burner has software to run it.

Apple does supply software that can use 3rd party burners as a seperate purchase: DVD Studio Pro.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job READING the artcile, dumbass.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this interesting? Yes, corporations are out there to make money. It's bad when they do something illegal or improper, but how is that the case here? It's their program and it's free. They don't force you to use it.

Re:Great

[mwjlewis]

That Makes NO sence.... I don't see the relation, please clarify.....

BTW, BWM - Is German.

Re:Great

[pi radians]

It's not like I'm actually for Apple's descision here, but the way everyone is going about pointing blame is flawed. Its all about the license.

If you read the license it states that iDVD is freely distributed for AppleSuperDrives only. That means if you use the software on another drive you are breaking the license agreement and therefore "pirating" the software. Just because its on your harddrive doesn't legally mean you can do with it what you please.

Do I believe Apple is being totally fair? No. But do I believe they have the right to protect their software? Yes.

Thats what it all come down to.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

They will sell their software, iDVD, for $20 shipping and handeling to anyone!

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects /A ppleStore.woa/81/wo/jKnwD1K9HTbp8ujtyc/1.3.0.3.34. 8.3.12.13.0

the system requirements list an apple with a superdrive but I don't think it's illegal to buy software and try an make it work with your computer if it does not meet the stated requirements.

They bundle it with all new macs regardless of if they have a superdrive (DVD-R) or not eating up more than a gig of customer HD space. It's not a software piracy issue as they basically give it away and treat it like shovel ware.

It's a control issue. Apple has a contract with the DVD consortium on a per "player" basis they interpret as being per drive. They think they need to be dicks like this because of the contracts, when I believe any other DVD-R manufacturer has also had to pay these fees, therefore any customer who has any DVD drive has probably paid the cost perhaps more than once.

Re:Great

[timeOday]

So much for upgrading your internal dvd-writer with a faster external one next year, eh?

Oh I forgot, Macintosh users aren't supposed to be interested in modularity and upgrading stuff.

Re:Great

[big_oaf]

Because when you click the "I Accept" on the EULA, you are agreeing that you will only use it with Apple's DVD-ROM. When you use it with someone else's, you've broken the "contract." Them's the brakes, eh?

Re:Great

[martyn s]

Yes, but if I bought an apple burner, and then I subsequently bought a 3rd party burner, should it be *illegal* to make the apple software compatible with 3rd party hardware? Why don't they just do it the old fashioned way? Make it more difficult to crack. Duh.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

i have come to put down apple zealots once and for all. i have put together enouhg evidence to end this argument forever.
Bruising by Apple Roland Miller III - and other cases against apple

One notable fact concerning Apple's customer base is that it has always tested very highly in the category of brand loyalty. "Once a Mac user, always a Mac user." Apple has depended on this customer loyalty to get it through some rough times. It could always count on a portion of the market to continue to buy Apple products and continue to upgrade with Apple products. Despite (or perhaps due to) this loyalty, Apple has subjected its customers to some decidedly anti-customer abuses.

The latest example of Apple bruising its customers is a doozy. Due to shortages of the higher speed G4 processors, Apple speed reduced its entire line by 50 MHz and kept the prices the same. On top of that, Apple unilaterally cancelled all outstanding G4 orders with instructions that customers should reorder their systems. This has the net effect of increasing everyone's cost for the same system.

Needless to say, this action produced a massive and immediate customer backlash. Based on what I have seen on the net, this uproar lasted a few hours before Apple backed down and started to rejoin reality. After about a day of total confusion and rampant rumors followed by a week of small clarifications, Apple made right and reinstated all G4 orders except the high end 500 MHz model. Those customers were offered the choice of purchasing the "new" 450 MHz model at the original 450 MHz price, which is what should have been done in the first place.

While it is possible for me to see some corporate logic behind the original decision, never the less, this bright idea should not have left the meeting room where it was hatched. It doesn't take an MBA (obviously) to predict the firestorm that was touched off when this decision was implemented. The only positive thing I can see in this fiasco was the speed at which corrective steps were implemented. The corporation responded to its customer's will and proved somewhat nimble in the process.

Another recent example of Apple bruising was with AppleShare IP 6.2. Apple decided to charge several hundred dollars for this upgrade (the previous being 6.1.) The only problem was that aside from a few new features, it was mainly seen as a bug-fix and compatibility upgrade for MacOS 8.6 (which itself was a free upgrade to 8.5.1.) You couldn't run ASIP 6.1 on 8.6 and you couldn't run the upgrade on 8.5. Again, the reaction was very predictable: customer outrage. Apple listened to its customers and eventually made 6.2 a free update to 6.1.

You may have also have heard about Apple purposefully preventing G3 owners from installing G4 CPU upgrades with a firmware upgrade that officially solved another problem. People were again outraged when the rumor was confirmed by all of the CPU upgrade companies. The outrage keyed on false advertising and speculation that Apple released a Trojan horse.

There were unofficial rumors from anonymous Apple employees that this firmware block will be removed with Mac OS 9. However, there has been no official word from Apple concerning this issue. In the meantime, all the CPU upgrade companies have announced that they have gotten around the block and that their respective upgrade will work fine when they ship.

While Apple has responded favorably to two of these examples, all of these misfires do take a toll. Many people simply will not tolerate this sort of behavior from a major corporation. A company simply cannot afford to make too many of these types of decisions and still remain in business.

Ultimately what can be learned from these examples?

The perception of the "bottom-line" doesn't always coincide with the needs of the consumer resulting in corporate mistakes of judgement. Some of them can be bad enough to make the pages of the Laramie Daily Boomerang. I can't speculate on whether these bad decisions were based on stupidity or on over estimating the loyalty of Apple*s customers or both. Apple has taken concrete steps in most of these cases to defuse the situation. As long as Apple continues to admit that it is wrong and make things right immediately, I will still tolerate being one of its customers.

Until next time. . .

dah dah dah.

Apple tried to block G3 owners from upgrading to G4. Nice guys.
PowerForce G4 ZIF

The PowerForce G4 ZIF (Zero Insertion Force) is the only G4 CPU upgrade you will want to upgrade your "Beige" Power Mac G3, "G3 All-in-One" educational model, Blue and White G3's and the Yikes Motherboard Graphite G4's. The PowerForce G4 ZIF is one of the highest performance CPU products when used with "AltiVec enhanced" software. Utilizing the second generation PowerPC 7410 processor ("G4") the PowerForce G4 includes a full 1 megabyte of backside cache running at up to 220MHz.

G4 ZIF Upgrade vs. 800MHz G4 Apple: PowerForce ZIF G4 550/220/1MB Apple G4 733 Price $289 $1599

The Bottom Line: If you already have quite a bit invested in your Power Mac G3, it just makes sense to upgrade the processor rather than opting for the new G4 systems from Apple. Apple has finally eliminated all of the legacy ports with the removal of the ADB port on the new G4 systems, not to mention the removal of the serial ports, and SCSI on the Blue and White G3 systems. So the choice is clear. PowerLogix saves you hundreds of dollars over the cost of buying a new system!

PowerLogix was the first to release a solution for the G4 ROM block for Blue and White G3s.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article2.html?artnum= 60 839
TITLE Firmware Update: Firmware Updates 4.1.7 and Later May Disable Out-of-Spec Third-Party RAM Article ID: Created: Modified: 60839 4/12/01 9/28/01

Read up. Apple is trying to make it harder and harder to use "out of spec" hahahaha memory. Luckily www.crucial.com always works. But imagine, a firmware update that DISABLES YOUR MEMORY.

This is a good start (the buying public is sending a message to Apple, how do the intend
to GROW thier market share????????)

http://www.barefeats.com/pmddr.html - new macs slower DDR

SPEC-CPU-2000 (INT/FP)AthlonXP1800MHz 738/624 -- Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878 -- Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202 -- Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356 -- G4 1000MHz 306 / 187 (read and weep http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/ )

SPEC-CPU-2000 (INT/FP)
AthlonXP1800MHz 738/624
Pentium4 2533 MHz : 893 / 878
Power4 1300 MHz : 804 / 1202
Itanium2 1000 MHz : 807 / 1356
G4 1000MHz 306 / 187 (read and weep http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/ )

AthlonXP 1533Mhz
FreeBSD 4.6-RELEASE
OpenSSL 0.9.6a speed 5 Apr 2001
137.7
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0009s 0.0001s 1109.2 14497.3
rsa 1024 bits 0.0040s 0.0002s 252.8 5308.0
rsa 2048 bits 0.0220s 0.0006s 45.6 1635.9
rsa 4096 bits 0.1419s 0.0021s 7.0 468.6
dsa 512 bits 0.0007s 0.0009s 1377.3 1161.0
dsa 1024 bits 0.0019s 0.0023s 530.2 437.7
dsa 2048 bits 0.0060s 0.0073s 165.9 137.7

P3 550MHZ x 2
FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #3
OpenSSL 0.9.6g 9 Aug 2002
39.5
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0027s 0.0002s 375.7 4308.0
rsa 1024 bits 0.0131s 0.0007s 76.4 1499.7
rsa 2048 bits 0.0760s 0.0022s 13.2 451.7
rsa 4096 bits 0.5066s 0.0076s 2.0 130.8
dsa 512 bits 0.0023s 0.0028s 433.2 360.6
dsa 1024 bits 0.0064s 0.0078s 155.3 127.8
dsa 2048 bits 0.0212s 0.0253s 47.2 39.5

1GHz Motorola PPC OpenSSL 0.9.6
33.0
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0024s 0.0002s 422.7 4565.7
rsa 1024 bits 0.0131s 0.0007s 76.2 1433.4
rsa 2048 bits 0.0850s 0.0025s 11.8 396.5
rsa 4096 bits 0.5872s 0.0092s 1.7 108.9
dsa 512 bits 0.0022s 0.0026s 464.3 387.9
dsa 1024 bits 0.0070s 0.0085s 142.8 117.0
dsa 2048 bits 0.0245s 0.0303s 40.7 33.0

G4 867 / 896MB / 10.1.2
24.2
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0029s 0.0003s 346.3 3521.8
rsa 1024 bits 0.0172s 0.0009s 58.3 1062.2
rsa 2048 bits 0.1149s 0.0034s 8.7 293.4
rsa 4096 bits 0.8009s 0.0128s 1.2 78.3
dsa 512 bits 0.0027s 0.0034s 366.6 295.3
dsa 1024 bits 0.0094s 0.0114s 106.8 87.4
dsa 2048 bits 0.0334s 0.0413s 29.9 24.2

Mystery ClawHammer/.
signs/sec verifies/sec
rsa 512bits 965.9 12211.9
rsa1024 bits 205.0 3980.0
rsa 2048 bits 33.0 1093.3
rsa 4096 bits 4.7 288.5

I laugh at you, as i sit on FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT on an SMP box that will whip your fucking gay shit machine's ass. With a Cherry on top, I get to use win2k for crap-software.

I just installed 6C115 OS 10.2 final on a G4 with 1GB of ram. SNORE. Youd think Apple would pick up on the fact they have a slow implementation of Unix on slow and inferior hardware.

Look to IBM Power4 or Intel for salvation, Motorola sucks. Intel has a larger payroll that Motorola makes on the PPC, and it shows, losers.

You make me sick you MAC zealot maggot. I see through you. Your snarky little "hahahaha," your non chalant elitist proto-communist attitude. You make me sick. You want to legislate mediocrity because you are a communist and dont belive the biggest, fastest or most qualified should win. Feiss isn't aout MAC, It is such a stupid fag-ridden ad campaign, I as a Unix and PC user (as well as SPARC and HPPA) have noticed this CRAP. As far as feiss being cute, I would let her suck me off and I would crap on her for a nice Schei*e video. As far as SPEC marks go, truth hurts, doesnt 'it zealot? You like making Jobs richer? Keep at it losers. The day my company fired an x-apple (& x-NEXT) employee was the day things go better around the office - he was a techno nerd jerk, he wanted technology for technology's sake, not because it was useful. He failed to do his job, and we fired him. I hope you contract terminal cancer you snarky little faceless mac zealot fuck!

Project status as of Oct 1994
CMU is no longer doing general system development work on the Mach Operating System Kernel. The reseach goals of Mach were accomplished and faculty interest in OS research has moved in new directions. As a result, suppport for external users of the Mach kernel is mostly just in the form of on-line help files, documents and unlicensed code. The Mach WWW Home Page will direct you to other sources of information.

There is still some work being done at CMU on the Mach multi-server system (Mach_US) and real-time Mach. Information about both of these areas is accessible from the Mach home page. Mark Stevenson may contacted about Mach_US at jms@cs.cmu.edu. The Mach real-time group can be reached at rt-mach-request@cs.cmu.edu.

Development work on Mach is also continuing at the Open Software foundation, University of Utah's Flexmach project, Helsinki University of Technology's LITES system and the Free Software Foundation's HURD system.

Last updated on Oct, 1994 by mrt@cs.cmu.edu

Apple profits halve in Q2

Jobs preducts flatness ahead

By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 16 July 2002, 22:05

APPLE MADE A NET profit of $32 million for its third quarter, almost half the profit it
made in the same period last year, and turnover fell three per cent to $1.43 billion
compared to the quarter in 2001.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4467

Funny, a BSD platform hanging in the balance because it fails an an MSFT VAR. Its not BSDs
fault, trust me, its Apple.

Will Microsoft dump Mac support?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4485
Two firms slag off each other

By INQUIRER staff: Wednesday 17 July 2002, 12:22

IS MICROSOFT CONTEMPLATING ditching support for Apple Macs?
That's the thrust of an article that appeared on Wininfo a day or two back, but if
Microsoft is getting out of the Mac market, it's not quite yet.

And all is not well in other respects, reports Mac Rumors, which has posted what it says
is an Apple FAQ saying people will have to pay for .mac accounts.

Microsoft has already prepared a press release to time with the Macworld Expo saying that
it has announced a Microsoft Office V.x "triple header", this being an
announcement which offers better mobility with Palm handheld for Entourage X, a way to buy
Office v.X cheaper, and some Windows compatibility with the RDC client.

The Wininfo article, however, quotes Kevin Browne, who runs the Mac Business Unit at
Microsoft as saying Apple hasn't made much of an effort to promote Mac OSX, even though
there are opportunities.

He is quoted as saying that "if things don't dramatically turn round", it might
be Goodnight Mr Chips for Steve Jobs firm.

But the same article says that Apple blames Microsoft for sales problems with Office
v.X.

Jobs and Microsoft's Bill Gates have traditionally had a somewhat strained relationship.
Is this the beginning of the beginning of the end between the two companies?

Wininfo.

Mac Rumors is providing a blow-by-blow account of what's happening at MacExpo on the site
link above - it seems Apple may well announce support for Nforce 2, too.

On the Nvidia site, here, you'll see that Digital Vibrance Control is "currently
unavailable on Mac systems", which is more than just a hint, we guess. *

*JOBS KICKS off MacWorld Expo at the Javitz Center at 09:00 Eastern time. There will be a
live Webcast using Quicktime, natch, here.

Note: The Dell 1650 and 2650 are both cheaper, the 2650 has SMT, and ECC (and nice linux
ecc support as well, it logs ECC errors in syslog). They also include onboard RAID(option
via 7899 asic) and a U160 AIC-7899 by default. And you can buy retail CPUs and retail
memory for Dells often at half the price without voiding the warranty.

Apple charges $500 per 120GB EIDE drive. HAHAHAHA.

Apple is right about one thing, that Alpha has existed for some time, but have you ever
tried actually buying an Alpha? Its hard, I know an engineer who works for
DEC->/Compaq->/HP, and I was dying to buy one, and he couldnt find anyone to call me
about getting one.

Apple's New 1U servers: Sorry. Doesn't fit well in a market where the Dell 1550/1650 and
2550 and 2650 exist. Sorry. THEY DON'T PUBLISH SPEC numbers. Apple is a dying breed, I
just recently tried to revive my interest in them only to be disappointed. The Motorola
PPC architecture is embarrassingly slow, and they always are quick to point out the
near-useless Altivec and some obscure filter in Photoshop, but its not true. I have a Mac,
several PCs and a SPARC at *home*, so trust me people, this box is a bore. And OS X and
Open ClosedROM make putting regular memory, disks and CPU upgrades NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE, they
try to block it so you have to buy the same part from them 3x the cost. And the Dell 530
Dual P4-Xeon with SMT buries the fastest Mac by almost a factor of two.
OS X is no great shakes as of yet because even though most of the porting off of Classic
has been done, there are annoying remnants of classic everywhere, including a gamut of
Apple utilities. These are notoriously the worst Administrator-unfriendly boxes in the
industry, and I have used a few boxen in my time. OS X's Darwin kernel will be sorely
eclipsed by Linux 2.6, and 2.4.X is already superior in all the ways I can tell (This isnt
to say BSD it bad, but I dont think this OS demands a PREMIUM). I tried YellowDog, Madrake
and Debian on PPC as well, and they ran (even with aggressive G3 optimizations) rather
poorly - but interestingly far faster than native OS X.
This is a dying gasp of air from a dead Unix vendor, who has had to turn themselves into a
Microsoft VAR (most popular Mac Application: Microsoft Office X).
If you have an insatiable fetish for PPC, DON*T. Wait for Hammer. Remind yourself about
SMT, and 2.8GHz clock speeds before you go pay for obsolete/deprecated silicon. And the
term RISC? Pathetic.
I happily resell our product on a 1650 and 2650. We "configured" a Mac box
because we were genuinely curious. We laughed at the final price and moved on.
This isn*t a troll, or a flame * its reality. What this box does can be done with a 1650,
with redundant power supplies, with SCSI and hardware raid build ON BOARD, dual gigabit
NICs onboard, dual 1400 MHZ/512cache Tualatin (with SPEC numbers to gauge the performance
by) (2650 gets high clock Xeons), two 64bit/66Mhz slots, onboard video, console
redirection, USB, etc. And for half the price. And you can use retail Intel CPUs,(cheap),
retail hard drives (if you don*t want to buy the Dell ones at a modest premium), and
retail Crucial.com memory (the same memory Dell uses for Half the price). All in all, you
get a box, for half the price, with twice the features and performance. And this is coming
from a person who doesn*t even LIKE Dell. (I feel I can always build better more reliable
systems than most of the PC vendors.)
BBBBBBZT. Apple, you lost, you lost, you will always be niche because OS X isn't where it
needs to be * on an X86.

TO give a better link for you, since you will have trouble finding this on your own, I'll put you right where you need to be to see Motorola PPC chips are, well, so horrible they wont publish industry standard Specmarks.
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cpu2000. ht ml

Sorry. Apple. Steve Jobs keeps them in business but his ego is trash. I know people who work there, personally . You pay for his ego.

Ok. Publish your findings. No, I didnt think so. So its as conjective as my assertations,
which are based on my whim in addition to evideince (or lacktherof), and the reading of
the CPU Report, EE Times, etc. I'm into this industry, and unless you are a zealot, you
would know PPC is IBM now. Motorola is in the dirt.

Bzzt. I like NeXT. Ahead of its time, over priced. Darwin is useless, I have 1.4.1, its
crap. OS X is nice looking, but it is *very* easy to "piss" the system off, its
package manager is so bad compared to RPM I wont even start, and it is, as as what I
consider a *nix to be, wholly inadequate and incomplete. Next.

About being content free, thats a snarky, trollish accusation. Now why dont you use Purify
on yourself and remove all the said cruft and actually say something in Apple's defense
besides naming Mach 3.0+ (like if it was 5.0+ would it make a shit bit of difference.) I
hate zealotry.

And about computing pleasure. This isnt fafenugen or a driving experience, dude, its about
stuff WORKING, well, for the lowest cost with the cheapest parts. There is no sex appeal
in server administration.

Funny, everytime I have gone to a Mac shop they have, for as long as I can ever remember,
always, ALWAYS had NT based servers. Unilaterally.

And I saw a few Mac shops in my time in New York.

You know what, not that I like NT, but they worked more reliably (generally Compaq
servers) than the Macs did. (Mostly these days non parity memory and no SCSI anymore, its
a PC with horrible Mot-PPC).

Funny. When I run a linux or *nix or NT based server I dont have a .DOC reader installed.
Ever. Maybe a PDF reader if I can't figure something out using google, a few nesgroups and
other better-than-manuals-and-man-page sources.

For those wondering why .DOC is still a problem, I have noticed that documents shared even
between Office X, XP and 2002 are very inconsistent. Its MSFT playing the upgrade me to
fix problems game. For complicated layout and manuals, use Framaker or a LaTeX backended
application or something realistic.

As far as OS X being "young", I think its probably the oldest feeling Unix there
is. Old kernel, old Unix specification (I happen to like what I find in a SYS V style /etc) and old binaries included without gcc in the default install. Its only young in that
Apple does not know very well how to serve people who use unix.

I gave OS X a fair shot on a G3 with 1GB of memory. Its good. I wated to use it instead of
Microsoft crap for home use, but I wouldnt switch from Win2k after that. They also block
CPU upgrade cards, which are expensive. They try to block 3rd party memory. The included
keyboard and mouse always sucks. And they try not to partition non-apple drives with Drive
Setup, which is the WORST partitioning utility, and Apple's partition maps are screwed up
and stupid, and trying to run OS X without classic is diffcult because so many fools still
have ported thier stuff to OS X.

I'll stick to PCs for home computing, and think about other vendors for servers.

I gave OS X a fair shake. I have many machines at home and with Gnucleus I was able to get
just about every Mac app compiled native for OS X in existence. (Thank god I wont be
keeping any of them or buying any of them - try before you buy, people)

I have to say that the total lack of incumbent middleware is horrible with OS X. Its
barely an OS out of the box. I hate having to boot from a CD to manage anything, and its
multiboot handling is inferior. The Norton set of tools is pathetically weak for the
money. Office X is admittedly excellent. But thats it. IE was mentioned not too long ago
as rendering incorrectly and having a huge security flaw that is fixed in 5.2.1, but the
response from MSFT took much longer than they do for x86.

If OS X was ported to x86 (looks like it has) I would buy it. Period. Forget buying a PPC
ripp off machine though.

I noticed on the OS X cd there is i386 directories littering the place and darwin
(hahahah) works on like one computer with an intel chip deep in the belly of Apple, but
they are not trying to make Darwin/X86 more appeling than ANY ANY of the other BSDs, they
all destroy Darwin in useablility, even when you get darwin from
http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/.

I came, I saw, I mastered it, I left. Its BORING.

And as far as IPFW. IPF for OpenBSD is out. and there are no decent APP-firewalls for OS X
(Firewalk sucks), Brickhouse is a joke of a GUI.

I am thinking Kerio Winroute/Personal Firewall as a base comparison. The fact nothing
analogous exists in Mac OS X land make this platform more unuseable. Also, if Apple like
fit and finish on Unix, why dont they make the more complicated things useable througha
GUI (like Brickhouse did for IPF). Noo, the only people Apple caters to is those who die
thier hair purple and sucks on pacifier and laugh at baby rattles while they are e-tarded
from thier last bout with Xtasy after the cool rave for mac zealots.

1 - Nope, not a troll opinion. People trying to name trolls are often themselves trolling
by crying wolf.

2 - Pirate, no. I deleted the software. They are liars because they say on their product
literature that the product can do things it simply cannot. Do you buy a car without a
test drive. NO. Do lots of states have cool-off periods. Yes. Are you are one of those
inferior software developers that cant let people try before they buy because you cant
deliver on your promise? Or you just and advocate for that because you benefit somehow?

3 - OS X would be easier to eat (its cheap at $130.) if I could use it on a cheap Intel
box. Then I could leave it there, tinker with it, do more to make what I like about other
Unices available to OS X. I borrowed a Mac G3 (350/1MB cache, 1GB memory, 15GB HDD/2MB
buffer) and * Linux ran better (Debian, Yellowdog and Mandrake * I did try them all) , *
GNU-Darwin was near-useless compared to the Linuxes * let alone that pile of garbage apple
calls Darwin 1.4.1, and * Mac OS X was horribly slow and clunky. I also find that
Administration in OS X is counterintuitive.

Now to address your pathetic complexes. Your quoting is interesting. You were upset about
my thread(s) and were looking to pick apart any of my comments. Grasping at straws. First
tactic you used was name calling / labeling. Cheap shot. Then you tried to confuse good
consumer strategy (protecting my wallet from thieving/lying software developers who often
sell your privacy to marketing companies, and fail to deliver proper support for software
and force version upgrades that should be called service packs) with piracy, and thus ,
you were attempting to assassinate my character. I would never, and have never, created
revenue for myself, any of the businesses I have worked for with unlicensed or pirated
software. I am an advocate for paying for what you use to generate revenue for yourself. I
utterly resent your insinuations. Now you try and hit your own self justified home run by
saying "Nah, wah, why would you want OS X if you don*t like it wash." I don*t
mind the software, I think it is a meritorious endeavor to have a polished UI on Unix. I
don*t see the point in cornering it to a pass* , deprecated, slow SPECmarkless overpriced
platform. I would appreciate it far more if it would be ported to x86, but alas, Microsoft
would pull the Office X plug because it would compete (rather well I might add) with
Windows XP. Therefore, Apple is a Microsoft VAR, their existence is to stay afloat and
give their shareholders money, not innovate anything useful in the community.

Sorry I wasn*t fooled by them like you were. I resent you, you are alike Mao, Stalin,
Hitler. The experts agree, censorship works. If I am a fool, let me foolishness speak for
itself * as writing on this wall* * but you are far more sinister than fool, you want to
dictate, excise, remove. You want the world to be as you see it, and cannot accept a
subjective opinion because you are probably sexless and very pathetic. I resent you.

I RESENT ALL OF YOU APPLE MAC LUNATIC ZEALOTS!

Re:Great

[martyn s]

Wait, what's BWM?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that all this great software Apple produces isn't made for Mac users at all - it's just made for new users?

Well, if iStuff is written specifically as a marketing tool, I think the Apple drones have got their heads screwed on wrong, especially when you consider the drives aren't even manufactured by them... that sucks big time, in a way I haven't quite yet grasped. Certainly makes MS look like an ethical company.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats exactly what coorporations are in business to do, make a profit.

Capitalism 101.

Re:Great

[SnapShot]

Not to imply that you are a moron, but if the software is FREE (as you imply with the word FREE written in your post in capitol letters) how come the Apple Store charges $19.95 for the upgrade?

If I want to purchase a faster, better, more compatible DVD-/+/*/R/W/RW for my Mac I can't use iDVD. Right? I have a legal copy of iDVD, but I can't use it. Right?

All of this is because the RIAA gave "Watch out for that Tree" Bono (or was it Hollings) and non-technical "representitives" a boatload of cash and got poorly designed and probably unconstitutional legislation that is being used to quash technical progress and piss of the very people that generally like to support a company like Apple.

Off topic: wouldn't it be ironic if code from DeCSS was used in the iDVD software?

Re:Great

[GlassUser]

No, but if you go buy a BMW and remove the computer system to put it in your cavalier, and they gripe, will you honor their demands to stop using it?

Re:Great

[diamondc]

Because if you're buying an Apple, you're already buying overpriced hardware. They've already made a lot of money off of you. And to me, it seems you've already 'bought' iDVD so why can't users use it on a faster, non-Apple DVD burner?

Re:Great

[GlassUser]

iDVD is part of the i-suite of provided FREE applications with the sole reason to boost sales of Macintosh systems and Apple hardware in general. They don't make a single penny on iDVD per se, but on the drives it supports - if somebody now makes buggies work with third-party actuators instead of whips, they take away the only reason why it is provided at all.

Apple is a good business. It's up to the US Government to ensure they continue to make a profit, no matter what they want to give away for free.

Re:Great

[EllisDees]

Breaking a license (as if the EULA is enforcable anyway) is not piracy.

Re:Great

[Hallow]

Yes, and I'm sure they're so into selling hardware, not software, that they'll not charge you for a very buggy OS update... oh wait, they want $129. Remind you of any software giant? If MS has the monopoly on software AND hardware like Apple does the PC industry would be in a very sorry state right now.

iDVD is only "free" if you a buy a new system with it preinstalled. Apple calls the version they'll ship you on cd "free", but they charge a $19.95 shipping and handling fee. I think they just want to avoid paying out the sales tax on it.

Re:Great

[joshsisk]

I believe it's legal for YOU to do this, just not for you to distribute the patch that makes it possible, as Other World Computing was doing...

Re:Great

[mjpaci]

iDVD is a DVD authoring package. Not a player.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I always strip out the license before I click accept.

Re:Great

[entrox]

Not to imply that you're a clueless fuckwit, but their software is free of charges. Quote:

You can also order iDVD 2 online from the Apple store. Faxing in a completed order form (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader). Or by calling 1-800-MY-APPLE. There is a shipping and handling charge of $19.95.

Do you understand what that means? Of course you do, else you would have noticed the fucking DOWNLOAD button below it. Look for yourself. Could this mean they only charge $19.95 if you don't want to download and would prefer a CD shipped to you? Nah, only idiots would think that.

Re:Great

[will_die]

The better argument would be, what if microsoft said that you could only use microsoft brand keyboards and mice with microsoft windows.
Since in addition to the drivers they provide all the API that interact with thoses drivers and send signal to the programs.
So if you want to produce a mouse/keyboard you would have to totaly rewrite the API that provide that, and then distribute that with your product.

Re:Great

[joshsisk]

In many countries there are laws to prevent this kind of abuse: You must sell your different products independently. If you want to sell DVD playing software you must sell it to ANYONE who is interested.

1. iDVD isn't DVD playing software, it's DVD creation software.

2. You're saying it's abuse to package software with a DVD-Burner that lets a customer actually USE it? That sounds pretty stupid to me.

Okay, here's a scenario. You make hard drives. You develop a bad ass new disk defragmentor (or whatnot), you package it for your drives. It's designed to only work with YOUR hard drives. A competitor comes along, decompiles your sofware and adds in support for their drives, then they start distributing their version of YOUR software (not open source) with their drives. Doesn't that sound a bit like they have hijacked your work?

That's pretty much what's going on here.

Re:Great

[martyn s]

Same difference. The only reason it's legal for me to do it is because it is absolutely impossible to prevent. If they could prevent it, it would be illegal too.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

You used an apostrophe in your message - dumbass.

Re:Great

[joshsisk]

While you're at it, what's "sence"?

Re:Great

[joshsisk]

the system requirements list an apple with a superdrive but I don't think it's illegal to buy software and try an make it work with your computer if it does not meet the stated requirements.

But it IS illegal for Other World to distribute tools to do this.

Re:Great

[joshsisk]

No, it's really not the same thing at all.

One is an end user making a patch to software they have bought, on their machine.

The other is a company distributing tools to alter the software of one of their competitors, in order to sell more of their competing product.

Re:Great

[Master Bait]

Get the patch from France. France is one of those "free countries".

" How to use iDVD2 without an internal Apple SuperDrive :
I am unaware how many different version of iDVD2 are circulating, but I have already listed 3 versions. This is why I have provided three different patches to cover at least these 3 versions of iDVD2.
A quick reminder on how to apply one of those patches to iDVD2:
- download the patch file
- Make a copy of the iDVD.app package and open it within MacOS 9.
- Move the file "iDVD" to the desktop. The file can be found in Contents/MacOS
- Doubleclick the patch application and patch that iDVD App.
- Once applied, you'll find the file patched and the original file renamed to "iDVDOld"
- Move the file "iDVD" back into the folder "Contents/MacOS"
- close the (MacOS X) Package again and reboot into MacOS X to try it out "

I got these instructions from here.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Canard]

No, but if you go buy a BMW and remove the computer system to put it in your cavalier, and they gripe, will you honor their demands to stop using it?

Of course you will stop using it. Who would want to risk owing them $500k as the result of infringing their DMCA protected software rights (which if they come after you in the first place, they will almost certainly assert.) This said with tongue only half in cheek.

Re:Great

[Alan Partridge]

looks to me like they ARE enforcing it...

Re:Great

[MaxVlast]

I used it correctly. My proposal is this: All people who do not feel fully comfortable over their control of the apostrophe should stop using it at once. Their writing would instantly improve. Once they feel comfortable with its conventions, then should begin using it again in small, friendly environments. Perhaps just family situations. Later, they should give use of the apostrophe in public a shot. With time and patience, they can be productive members of the literate community, possessivizing and contracting words to their hearts' delight!

Re:Great

[Lvcian]

that they'll not charge you for a very buggy OS update... oh wait, they want $129. Remind you of any software giant?

So you got that Windows XP upgrade for free, then? Right... It's been two years since Apple charged for a version of 10.x.x. Version 10.1 was a free upgrade. Apple "full dot" releases are not just little "service packs", then are major revisions to the code. Fuckin' pay the money already and be happy for the next two years! And what's "very buggy" about the release? I've been using it for about two weeks now and not found a problem with it.

Re:Great

[MaxVlast]

What if I buy a lesser BMW and expect that I'll be able to use the sophisticated computer software system for free? If I find a way to do it, I will not be shocked when BMW takes actions in the future to stop me from doing so.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it really costs $19.95 to ship a CD. Sure thing.

Better stop smoking that store-brand crack, d00d.

Re:Great

[TCaptain]

Okay, here's a scenario. You make hard drives. You develop a bad ass new disk defragmentor (or whatnot), you package it for your drives. It's designed to only work with YOUR hard drives. A competitor comes along, decompiles your sofware and adds in support for their drives, then they start distributing their version of YOUR software (not open source) with their drives. Doesn't that sound a bit like they have hijacked your work?

I don't think the company was distributing a stolen version of iDVD, they were distributing a patch that allowed iDVD to work with their drives. I would think its closer to maybe supplying a driver...

To quote the story: "In response, Other World Computing began bundling a product called DVD Enabler with its external Mercury Pro DVD-R/RW FireWire drive. DVD Enabler modified iDVD so the application would save completed DVDs to a FireWire-connected drive."

Re:Great

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The better argument would be, what if microsoft said that you could only use microsoft brand keyboards and mice with microsoft windows.

They'd be on their asses looking up at a Sherman Act antitrust suit. Prima Facia illegal.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This would not be illegal if Micrsoft was not already a monopoly.

Re:Great

[joshsisk]

That's still illegal. It's not illegal (as I understand it) for YOU to patch iDVD to make it work for you (though it might violate the EULA, I don't know, I haven't read the EULA for iMovie), but it is illegal for you to distribute that patch.

To me, this is clear-cut. OWC didn't want to write their own software, so they simply made a tool to alter a competitors. That's not the right way to do business.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm...$100 per annum for a handful of second-rate software titles and an email service? it looks like apple actually IS selling software (wrapped up in an "online services" lie).

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why my daughter(8) installs all my software.

Re:Great

[Xaoswolf]

Not really. It would be mo like if Microsoft said that if you want to use windows, then you have to buy the keyboard mouse set that windows comes free with. Then if you want to use another keyboard or mouse, then you would have to hack it.

Re:Great

[neuroticia]

The "patch" is the same as a "patch" that would allow the version of Nero that came bundled with a $150 24x Sony CDR-RW drive to work with every CDR-RW drive on your network.

It's extremely common to bundle software with a particular drive and attempt to limit the use to that drive only. If a retailer starts selling cheap no-name 24x burners bundled with a patch to make aforementioned copy of Nero work with it, you can bet Nero would go after them.

-Sara

Re:Great

[Alan Partridge]

if you can make and sell one cheaper and within the law, why don't you? If you don't like Apple's hardware then either buy another manufacturers' or build a computer yourself. But, most of all, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's up to the US Government to ensure they continue to make a profit, no matter what they want to give away for free. "

That's a really sad statement and a sign of something really fucked up. It is up to *Apple* to make sure they continue to make a profit...no one else. You know there is a problem when companies are allowed to abuse poorly crafted legislation to prop up their dieing business models .

Re:Great

[homer_ca]

The closest Microsoft analogy would be their free (beer) software like Internet Explorer and Netmeeting. Some of their licenses have said a licensed copy of a Microsoft OS is required to use the software. Under such a license, it would be illegal to run the software in a compatible non-Microsoft environment like Wine.

Re:Great

[ahknight]

Breaking a license (as if the EULA is enforcable anyway) is not piracy.

When you break anything in the EULA you cease to have a licensed copy of the software and have, therefore, a pirate copy (if you keep using it).

So, yes, it is.

Re:Great

[Ninja Programmer]

A - Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs

Ummm excuse me, yes they do. Its called the X-Box, and the version of Windows that it is shipped with does not cost extra.

Re:Great

[Hallow]

My point was, charging money for buggy releases is what Microsoft does on a regular basis. Looks like Apple's headed that way too.

Apparently you don't read macintouch.com, as the reader reports there indicate a host of problems. Some of them, such as broken 3rd party drivers are understandable. Some of them are just plain inexcusable bugs due to the fact that Apple ignored developer's bug reports indicating problems and pushed this release out the door a bit too fast.

I bought mine, and I love OSX, don't get me wrong. But this release has plenty more problems than it should have.

Re:Great

[nolife]

Just like the CueCat..
That business model does not work.
Strange how we have such a range of standards when it comes to modifications of things. Your car, clock radio, and VCR are okay, your computer hardware somewhat but software seems untouchable. What is the difference from modding my VCR compared to a TiVO? What is the REAL difference other then "its always been that way"

Re:Great

[bnenning]

When you break anything in the EULA you cease to have a licensed copy of the software and have, therefore, a pirate copy (if you keep using it).

Which would be relevant if you needed a license to run a piece of software that you acquired legally, but you don't.

I generally support Apple, but I'm very disappointed in their actions here. In the past they've been very good about supporting the rights of users, and I hope they realize that invoking the DMCA for their own purposes plays right into the hands of the **AAs who would love to shut down their entire digital hub strategy (or render it unusable by inserting DRM everywhere).

Re:Great

[Elwood P Dowd]

No... someone might have a second external DVD burner. Someone might sell their copy of iDVD to a third party that does not own an apple DVD burner.

There are reasons why someone might legally own iDVD and at the same time also want to use it with a third party DVD burner. These people have a right to use their own posessions however they see fit.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple sells the software as a seperate package on their website for $20.

Re:Great

[BlackBolt]

[pi radians, this isn't a personal attack on you at all, but a general response to Apple's behaviour and the frothing "Slashdot Mac Zealot Brigade".]

the license... states that iDVD is freely distributed for AppleSuperDrives only

What effete snobbishness on the part of Apple. "Not made in Cupertino" disease again, but on a hardware level. Their goal is obviously to leverage users into constant upgrades through software restrictions, licensing, and the DMCA (which even Uber-Evil MS recently passed up using as a weapon), and using only Apple-created software and hardware (here come the symps and zealots now - [whiny voice] What's wrong with that? companies only exist to make money, you know. They don't have to behave, theyhave to please the shareholders, not the customers, blah blah blah.)

Apple is trying to squeeze the faithful users tighter, at the same time restricting their hardware choices. How does it cost Apple if a user is using iDVD with someone else's drive? Does Apple even SELL a version of iDVD for other drives that this would cut into the sales of? Do they sell it at all? Would Apple rather have Mac users using iDVD or a competitor's product?

It's the system as a WHOLE that Mac people buy, not the specific components (old components, mostly, hyuk hyuk). Apple should protect their systems, not each individual component, from "competitive attack" - ie, as long as iDVD is being used on a Mac, that's enough. It's a reason to buy a Mac. Add "strings" to the use of the iTools and you have less reason to switch. It's elementary, my dear WATSON. Hardware choices are small enough on the Mac platform without Apple dictating how users can use what they buy, even to the point of hurting Mac users and the Mac platform itself, in a short-sighted rage. REAL Mac fanatics should fight Apple to keep them in line, for their own good and yours. Think long-term. More openness and transparency is good. Mandatory and burdensome restrictions on the user are bad, right? Do you want to help Apple improve and stay alive or not? Then help open Apple's eyes, don't accept their crap like they're Moses coming down the mountain with a Holy Decree! Fight their weaknesses and corruptions and help them become the company you want them to be!

Anyway, my prediction? iDVD, iTunes, etc. will be 100% PAY SERVICES in the next year, just like .Mac. All the iApps are going bye bye unless you pay for them. Apple is going to leverage their hardware base to exclude competitors like these DVD guys. They're going to try to kill piracy just like MS is doing. And they'll be more successful, because they have far more control over the user. The G5's will have much higher prices. MUCH higher. And this is just the obvious stuff. Apple is consistently putting the screws to their customer base, and it's only going to get worse unless somebody stands up to what's wrong with Apple and makes it right. And you can't help Apple by kissing their ass when it should be getting kicked.

I hope Apple overestimates the faithfulness and zealotry of their users, though judging from the people around here, maybe they're right. They DO have many of you by the short and curlies, and you really really love it, because you can't see the big picture yet, and you don't understand how too much control in Apple's hands kills the balance of power between the corporation and the customer, and thus hurts everybody.

Sorry to offend everyone, but honesty is better than zealotry, and constructive criticism is exactly that - constructive. Blind zealotry is 100% destructive, though it doesn't feel like it sometimes, when you're defending something you love....

BlackBolt

Re:Great

[jafac]

I tried it on iDVD from the first model flatpanel iMac, this patch did not work.

Re:Great

[SoftwareJuggler]

Nope, I don't have any problems with you patching your own version of iDVD to work however you want it to if you have the copy of it legal.

What people are forgetting is that this was a BUSINESS that was selling DVD Burners by offering hacked version of iDVD that they didn't have the right to distribute.

I do however think that the DMCA may not have been the right mechanism for this, as simple copyright law would have taken care of this on not gotten the slashdot crowd up in such a tizzy.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Apple is in the business of selling _hardware_, not software.

First of all, that statement is so wrong.

Apple *used* to give away software left and right, and *used* to be real loose about it all ... because it sold hardware. That was all a long time ago ... but it created a sense about Apple software that it's not a big deal ... which is no longer true.

But for people who've been Appling for a long time and paid huge premiums for Apple hardware, there is still a sense that they *owe* you software because you paid such insanely great prices for the hardware. And that sense is, fundamentally, correct, which is why Apple always mumbles when they complain.

But that doesn't mean they're not in the business of selling software. It's just that they'll sell it cheaper if you buy their (ridiculously price-inflated)hardware.

If you add a 3rd-party drive to a machine you paid $2000 for, when a comparable PC was $1000, you might be tempted to wonder why the company who took your $2000 wants to charge you again, for software to integrate that drive into your system, because you won't buy the (ridiculously price-inflated) drive hardware they want to sell you.

These are the people who licensed other companies to make the hardware! Meaning they thought they weren't a hardware business! Then, when thousands of people spent thousands on hardware from those licensees, Apple goes "oops" and revokes the hardware licenses. Now you have thousands of people whose machines bear the names of dead companies, who have to form clubs for support, and whose machines are no longer on the list for new hardware & software releases. Yeah, they punished us all for straying from the fold, which they previously encouraged us to stray from.

And if you wanted system software upgrades for those dead company machines, you paid and paid. Not only do they make money with software, they whip you with it.

Wait no, that's Microsoft. With Apple, they only whip you when you demand to be whipped.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Thanks Alan, that added so much.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was, charging money for buggy releases is what Microsoft does on a regular basis. Looks like Apple's headed that way too.

I know, I bought a copy of Redhat 7.1 for $200.00 and it was full of shantily coded daemons and tools which were full of remote and local exploits. Not only that, but there were a few bugs in their bloated init scripts, and their packaging structure was poorly done and they had to redesign it.

I have a modem so I can't download the ISO's. I went back to the store and apparrently for a copy of 7.2 or 7.3 I have to dish out another $200.00! That's actually more than the OS X upgrade! If you want Microsoft look at that crooked RedHat, not Apple.

Re:Great

[ahknight]

Which would be relevant if you needed a license to run a piece of software that you acquired legally, but you don't [cornell.edu].

That page talks about "backup copies" and so on, but nothing about a computer maker requiring you to agree to terms of use for a software package you licensed (not bought).

Re:Great

[necrognome]

I thought clickwrap licenses were evil on /. Oh wait, Apple's the culprit here, so it's opposite day, I guess.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Shipping and handling of $20 is appropriate for a piece of hardware.

Would you order a CD from some record store who wanted to charge you $20 shipping and handling?

Anyone with half a brain realizes that shipping and handling is about $5 of that price, and the rest PAYS FOR THE SOFTWARE.

Not to imply that you're clueless or anything.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

pi radians, this isn't a personal attack on you at all, but a general response to Apple's behaviour and the frothing "Slashdot Mac Zealot Brigade"

Oh, please. Like the "Mac Zealot Brigade" is any worse than the "Open source Zealot Brigade" or the "Cheap Commodity Hardware Zealot Brigade" or any of the other "zealots" you can find on /.

(Lack of proprietary hardware options screed snipped for brevity)

Sorry to offend everyone, but honesty is better than zealotry, and constructive criticism is exactly that - constructive. Blind zealotry is 100% destructive, though it doesn't feel like it sometimes, when you're defending something you love....

Agreed, and most Mac users are also Apple's biggest critics, as they have always been. If your head wasn't so far up your own ass, you'd realize that.

Re:Great

[jasonbw]

gee, if you can get idvd to work on a dvd-rom, i'd like a copy.

Honestly, if you already have an internal drive, why would you want to spend $400 more for the external drive? the only reason that i could think of this is make multiple copies of the same dvd, which idvd doesn't allow anyway.

Re:Great

[EllisDees]

Incorrect. You don't have to agree to any EULA in order to use the software that you have legally purchased. If you really want, you can strip all of the text out of the EULA and agree to that. That doesn't really make a difference though because you've already bought a copy of the software. That copy is your to do with as you like - within the bounds of copyright law of course. It's laughable that they think they can retroactively apply terms after the sale is completed.

Re:Great

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

First of all, Apple is in the business of selling _hardware_, not software.

Apple isn't a hardware company. Apple isn't a software company. Apple is a computer systems company.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

what a useless comment

nicky

Re:Great

[SnapShot]

In my defense here is the blub from the apple store:

iDVD 2.1 Software Upgrade
$19.95
Explore the magic of DVD creation with iDVD 2.1 on Mac OS X and in minutes create eye-popping DVDs that rival Hollywood's best. Improving the simplicity and power of iDVD 2, the 2.1 upgrade adds support for AppleScript, DVD-ROM data support to make hybrid DVDs, and enhances overall performance.

In related news: the OS X.2 operating system is free!*

* Shipping and Hangling charge of $129 applies.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

> most Mac users are also Apple's biggest critics, as they have always been.
> If your head wasn't so far up your own ass, you'd realize that.

Couple points.

1. Then where are the mac users? This forum is almost 100% pro-mac even when Apple pulls shit like this. they're not doing their job (according to you) of criticising Apple.

2. Responding to a hella long post with "your heads up your ass" isn't a comment, it's flamebait.

3. I think Black Bolt knows Apple. Either he has an Apple, or he's following them a lot closer than he lets on.

Re:Great

[mackstann]

its all about their aura of super user friendliness.

you buy a superdrive, you get free iDVD to burn things with. you buy the combo together, and it's guaranteed to work. if you have problems getting your (insert brand) burner to work with iDVD, then its your fault because you're not supposed to be doing that.

the apple philosophy is to buy everything apple. dont run linux on your mac, dont use your apple display on your pc, dont use non-apple burners with apple software.

not that it doesnt kinda suck, but hey, when you buy an apple, you should have some idea of the type of situation you are getting into.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of moronic troll are you? You can copy the RedHat discs at will.

The $199 for RedHat professional includes support, idiot.

As for not being able to download the distro "because you have a modem", I have no fucking sympathy whatsoever.

I downloaded my first Linux install over a modem. At 1200 motherfucking bits per second. Of course, that was before there was such a thing as a "distro".

Re:Great

[BlackBolt]

My father in law is a Mac user. And I agree with you that Mac users aren't doing their "job", that was the whole point of my post. Mister "Head up my Ass" is probably a newbie Mac user who doesn't know that the Apple garden could use a little pruning, so to speak.

BlackBolt

Re:Great

[muphinbreak]

does anyone know of where I can get a copy of iDVD to "play" with?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Mister "Head up my Ass" is probably a newbie Mac user who doesn't know that the Apple garden could use a little pruning, so to speak.

Bzzzt, sorry, BB. Been using Macs since my first SE back in '85. Been consulting for Mac users since '90. I think that gives me better perspective than if my father-in-law was using one. Nonetheless, I never said the garden couldn't "use a little pruning". My point was to illustrate that Apple isn't the only place to look for zealotry. A point you and the other guy seemed to have glossed over entirely.

And please, this place is not 100% pro-mac, not by a long shot. Hell, even Pudge himself takes shots at Apple fairly regularly.

Re:Great

[Rakarra]

All of this is because the RIAA gave "Watch out for that Tree" Bono (or was it Hollings)

I think it was Hatch... but of course he had other supporters. Don't forget it passed unanimously.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What it comes down to is this breaks Apple's business model for DVD burning. There's an easy solution: Stop giving away iDVD for free. Sheesh.

Uhm... they don't give it away for free. That's the whole point. iDVD comes bundled with Apple's DVD burning drives. It's a function of those drives. You can't buy iDVD.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

But I can confirm to you that its trojan payload did.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't argue here. Write Apple with constructive criticism and make a difference.

Where's the problem?

[Amarok.Org]

Apple wrote the software, at their expense, and distributes it *free of charge* in order to sell their hardware. Now, a third party application cracks the hardware restrictions, allowing non-Apple DVD drives (for which they've received no revenue) to utilize their software. Without this crack, to use the software you're required to provide Apple revenue through the purchase of an Apple DVD writer (even if that's bundled in a new system).

If you want to use Apple's software is worth using, it's worth compensating Apple for it's development. If you want to use a non-Apple DVD writer, that's fine - the OS will let you. Just grab one of the other award-winning, easy to use, and powerful DVD authoring apps out there that are free. Now, where did I see those...

Re:Where's the problem?

[inkfox]

To be fair, I don't remember people being this kind to MS when it shipped mere drivers which only worked with the Microsoft Mouse.

Re:Where's the problem?

[gstevens]

Um, if it's a Mac, Apple's received revenue....

Re:Where's the problem?

[Amarok.Org]

Um, if it's a Mac, Apple's received revenue....

For the machine? Yes. For the development of iDVD? No.

iDVD is a great FREE tool for CD authoring, better than many EXPENSIVE tools out there. Apple didn't write it just to be nice, they wrote it to sell DVD burners.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's old revenue.

This is just as thieving as the immoral types who try and get Quartz Extreme on anything less than current production hardware.

Apple relies on sheeple to understand Apple-TM Uber Alles.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any way a third party can legally "buy into" iDVD? Pay apple a royalty for iDVD and they support your drive

Re:Where's the problem?

[motox]

I feel a lot of people already compensates Apple politics on hardware by not buying apple computers :)

Re:Where's the problem?

[91degrees]

However...

People are more likely to buy a Mac in order to use this free software.

The total number of DVD burners from all manufacturers, including Apple will increase if people have the software to use it.

If Apple require you to buy their burner to use the software, then it is not free. It costs the same as the burner.

They are not entitled to a profit just because they have spent money on it. The market doesn't work like that. If they feel they deserve to make a profit on the software, then they should sell it for a profit.

If their business model costs them more money than they make, then they don't deserve to make a profit

Re:Where's the problem?

[Claw919]

Quite honestly, that's an old and flawed argument.

Just because Apple wouldn't be making any money directly (eg. by the sale of their DVD writer drive itself), doesn't mean that other Apple-related purchases would be made. For example, RAM upgrades, etc.

Besides which, the case for the domination of the PC (which, by far, certainly wasn't been the most powerful hardware platform to have competed in the '80s) shows easily that it's all about convenience and sheer weight of numbers. Anything that allows Apple to sell more machines that run on their OSs only increases the probability that better applications will be written for them by third-parties - which increases the likelihood that people will be drawn to those machines in the future.

An even more obvious analogy is VHS vs. Betamax. The latter was a superior standard, but the number of installed VHS machines made it win the market race.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Amarok.Org]

People are more likely to buy a Mac in order to use this free software.

I'm sure that's Apple's intention, yes.

The total number of DVD burners from all manufacturers, including Apple will increase if people have the software to use it.

Agreed. How eager do you think Apple is to support the sale of their competitor's products?

If Apple require you to buy their burner to use the software, then it is not free. It costs the same as the burner.

I'm not disputing that. You're absolutely right, looked at from the right angle, iDVD isn't free - it's included for use with purchased and profit producing Apple DVD hardware.

They are not entitled to a profit just because they have spent money on it. The market doesn't work like that. If they feel they deserve to make a profit on the software, then they should sell it for a profit.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. They *are* entitled to make a profit on it if they wrote it to support only their hardware. For what it's worth, they ARE selling it for a profit. By making it compatible only with Apple DVD drives, they're guaranteed that they sell DVD drives for it's use. If you crack the software, you've circumvented that protection and deprived Apple of revenue. To counter the arguments I can already feel coming about "If it didn't support non-Apple drives, I'd never use it, so they're not losing revenue" this is akin to "It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't have paid for the ticket in the first place." The argument just doesn't hold water, sorry.

If their business model costs them more money than they make, then they don't deserve to make a profit

Presumably, their business model does allow them to make a profit, assuming that people don't illegally modify their code.

Re:Where's the problem?

[zapfie]

Do you even know what you are talking about? Free has more than one definition. A product can be free in one way, and not in another- it does not need to be, as you said "FREE", or "NOT FREE". A program can be freely available with a computer, but not freely distributable. A program can be free as in beer, but not as in speech. Apple did not make a bad business decision- they designed an application that worked with internal burners on their Superdrive based computers that would allow consumers to burn DVDs. Apple is the one who has the say over how that software is used, distributed or modified. Apple markets iDVD as a tool to use on their new Macs. That's their right. Also, they don't sell Superdrives on their own- you get them bundled with a computer. Next time, refrain from posting if you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either it's a FREE tool, in which case, why are you agruing?
OR
It's not a free tool, but subsidised, in which case your defense doesn't hold up.

Fanboy.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple said "buy our drives and use this spiffy software without charge".

Is IS free in the sense that it costs no money.

That still doesn't give you the right to crack it, or the right to use it with drives that aren't sold by Apple.

Re:Where's the problem?

[PainKilleR-CE]

iDVD is a great FREE tool for CD authoring, better than many EXPENSIVE tools out there. Apple didn't write it just to be nice, they wrote it to sell DVD burners.


and to add another item to the list of things OS X supports: DVD Burning

Their users then hyped this up so much that MS will be adding DVD burning support to Windows XP. Of course, if you buy a DVD writer that supports the OS you normally get software that does the job, but the update to XP will give you baseline support for doing it anyway. Apparently now we find out that Apple only supports using the OS-bundled application with their hardware. Really I don't see a problem with this until they tell other developers that developing support for more hardware is illegal. Making their operating system and software more powerful is against the law. Spending money to support their platform is not allowed. Making iDVD (and OS X) a better, more valuable product is against the rules.

Re:Where's the problem?

[sh00z]

They should have bundled it with DVD burners.

That's EXACTLY what they did. In order to get the free software, you have to buy a superdrive-equipped Mac. If you've got the software and want to make it work with a non-Apple drive, chances are that you've pirated the software (ignoring people who may own multiple Macs--in which case, those folks should just use iDVD on the machine it came with). Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Re:Where's the problem?

[PainKilleR-CE]

The mistake they made, which is what I think he's referring to, was in distributing the software with the operating system, instead of with the drives. The software is distributed with OS X or available from Apple, without having to purchase a DVD writer from Apple. If they had wanted to enforce this restriction, they simply would've only included the software with the hardware, and not shipped it with computers that didn't have the drives, or copies of the OS on shelves.

Re:Where's the problem?

[mttlg]

If Apple require you to buy their burner to use the software, then it is not free. It costs the same as the burner.

Actually, it's $20 plus tax, with free shipping (FedEx Ground unfortunately) from the Apple Store, but that's just for an upgrade. iDVD is really (in theory) only available installed on a system with an Apple installed DVD-R drive. Unlike the other iApps, iDVD is not available as a free download from Apple. iDVD isn't free any more than the copy of Mac OS X that comes with a new system is free.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. They *are* entitled to make a profit on it if they wrote it to support only their hardware.

Just a quibble. They are *not* entitled to make a profit on it. They *are* entitled to *try* to make a profit on it.

Re:Where's the problem?

[joshsisk]

Sure, I agree with most of that. but their business model doesn't include a COMPETITOR shipping a patch which alters Apple's own software to work with their competitor's drives.

Apple is not entitled to make a profit. But is their competitor allowed to make a profit by hijacking Apple's work?

Re:Where's the problem?

[joshsisk]

iDVD is a free version of DVD studio. iDVD only works on Apple drives. DVD Studio works on any drive.

Apple gives away iDVD to anyone who buys a Mac with a superdrive. It only works with the superdrive. They also let people download it on their web site.

A competing company wrote a piece of software to alter iDVD to allow it to work with their competing product. They coincidentally distributed their software along with this competing product. I don't see why you everyone is so upset about this. This other company was COMPLETELY trying to make a buck off software they didn't write. They got busted for it, that's the end of it.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Amarok.Org]

They are *not* entitled to make a profit on it. They *are* entitled to *try* to make a profit on it.

Fair enough.

Re:Where's the problem?

[91degrees]

Well, all this depends on whether they give the software away as a free download or not.

If they gave away the software as a free download, then I can get the software for free, and do what the hell I like with it, except make an unauthorised copy. I have received a legitimate copy. Assuming local copyright law allows me to patch it, I can modify it as I want legally. If their business model doesn't take into account this happening, then the model is flawed. Their competitor has every right to take advantage of Apple's risk. Apple needs to develop a business plan that makes a profit for them regardless. If I give anything away, I have no control over other people selling something that takes advantage of my giving it away. I just have to take steps to prevent others from using it. If these steps fail, then its my loss. If they succeed then I gain. It's just a matter of risk.

If Apple want to prevent their competitor from using their software, then they should ship the software only with the drive. Then the only legitimate way to get the software is to buy an Apple DVD burner. The only way to get hold of the software would be to buy an Apple drive, or buy the original software CD from someone who has an Apple drive. Either way, apple has been compensated for their development, and they have made the profit on the software even if I do patch it to work with another drive. Perhaps Apple do this. There seems to be a little confusion here.

Re:Where's the problem?

[joshsisk]

Assuming local copyright law allows me to patch it, I can modify it as I want legally.

Yes, _you_ can. But is their _competitor_ allowed to distribute this tool? I don't believe they are, this is what is the problem. The fact that a company is distributing software to alter to software of a competitor.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

>That's EXACTLY what they did. In order to get the free software, you
>have to buy a superdrive-equipped Mac. If you've got the software and
>want to make it work with a non-Apple drive, chances are that you've
>pirated the software (ignoring people who may own multiple Macs--in
>which case, those folks should just use iDVD on the machine it came
>with). Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
>
>
Why is it so hard for you to understand that people don't give a shit and basically want you MAC Clowns to take a gun and blow your so-called brains out.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

That is incorrect. Apple will allow you to download the software from their website for free. Your point would be correct if Apple did not distribute the software in this manner. However, in this case, it becomes a fair use issue. The software is already on someone's hard drive. Legally. They should be able to do what they like with it.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Except that iDVD is not free when purchased with a superdrive equipped Apple computer. It is a free download available to anyone right now.

Once it is on their hard drive, it becomes an issue of fair use. Apple has already given them the binary. Legally. They should be able to do anything they like with it. So long as they don't distribute any Apple-owned intellectual property, they should be able to inform other people of their modifications.

I really don't understand how you can argue that this isn't a consumer rights issue. If Apple said, "You are only allowed to download this software if you've got an Apple installed SuperDrive", then they'd be in the clear. Even then those superdrive owners should be able to mess with the application so that they can use it on an external DVD burner if they like.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MadMoonie]

Blockquoth the poster:

Except that iDVD is not free when purchased with a superdrive equipped Apple computer. It is a free download available to anyone right now.

That's factually incorrect.

iTunes -- the complete application -- is available from apple.com for download.

At first glance, it looks like the iDVD application is available for download, too -- if you stop reading in the middle of the first line on the page.

If you continue reading that first line, you'll find that what you can download from apple.com is really the updater to version 2.1 from version 2, which you can only get with your SuperDrive-equipped Mac.

If Apple said, "You are only allowed to download this software if you've got an Apple installed SuperDrive", then they'd be in the clear.

How about if they didn't let people download it at all, SuperDrive or no, and shipped it exclusively with SuperDrive-equipped Macs? In fact, one of the system requirements for iDVD is " Any Power Macintosh G4 or G4 iMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive)."

Re:Where's the problem?

[FauxPasIII]

>> If you've got the software and want to make it work with a non-Apple drive, chances are that you've pirated the software

So, because in your expert estimation there's a greater than 50.0% chance that all people in this situation are stealing, we will declare the act itself to be illegal because that's more convenient to enforce than just punishing the ones doing the stealing...

Apologies for the sarcastic tone, but it's this kind of asinine thinking that killed napster, that caused DeCSS so much trouble, that will ultimately leave us having to buy seperate copies of CDs for the home, the car, the office, etc. etc. There are already PERFECTLY good laws against stealing, you don't have to make a law preventing copying as well, and there are very legal and ethical uses of the ability to copy, some of which (backups) are explicitly guaranteed under copyright law.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

That's a shame, because I see it as being basicaly the same thing. But I guess when you buid up a bad rep with your customers, people will deal with you in a less forgiving way. Gee, sorta like the real world.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

They're not telling developers that developing a new buring program to support other drives is illegal. WHat they are saying is that for a distributor to crack their software, and then sell a machine with non-apple hardware is illegal. And it is.

Re:Where's the problem?

[sh00z]

Apple will allow you to download the software from their website for free.

Please provide a URL. For a while, I seem to recall that there was a free iDVD 1.0-->2.0 updater, but even that's gone now. All I can see are updaters for 1.0-->1.01, and for 2.0-->2.05 or 2.1.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

Apple is stopping the end user from patching his own system (via creating or downloading a patch) what they are stopping is an Apple Distributor from selling machines with the patch already.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

And if they want to crack the software on their machine they can. They just can't redistribute the cracked version.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

The software is already on someone's hard drive. Legally. They should be able to do what they like with it

And they can, it's the distributors cracking the software that Apple doesn't like.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yup. I saw that after I made the post. I tried to go back and reply with a correction, but I couldn't find the post.

Anyway. Not the point. Once someone owns iDVD, and they are not Apple, I believe that it is wrong for Apple to restrict their use of the software. I realize that current legislation does not agree with me. Most of all, if I acquire iDVD legally, either by purchasing a superdrive Apple, or by purchasing iDVD from someone else that purchased a superdrive Apple, then I should be able to do anything I like with my posession. I should be able to make it connect to third party devices if I want to, and I should be able to tell other people how to do that as well.

It's *still* fair use.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MrAndrews]

I can't verify this anymore, but I recall that when I installed OS X 10.1 on my old iBook without a DVD-R, it wouldn't install iDVD at all. But the same disc installing on my Quicksilver with the Superdrive installed iDVD without any trouble at all. And since Apple bundles the hardware in the computers by default, that kind of checking is essentially only tying the software to the burner, not to the OS or he computer. In effect, iDVD is simply "part of" the Superdrive in Apple machines, so screwing with either the hardware or the software is dubious.

Legality of it all? Not sure. But they've taken care to distribute things properly.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Right. And if that distributor also happens to own an Apple computer with an internal SuperDrive, then they would also have iDVD on their computers. I believe they should be able to both crack the software and tell other people how to crack the software. It's theirs, they own it, and they aren't distributing Apple's intellectual property.

However, the whole article was fantastically skimpy. They don't even really say specifically, what it was that OtherWorld Computing was doing that upset Apple. They don't explain the legal measures that Apple used, exactly. It's really impossible to tell if/how Apple overstepped their bounds.

Re:Where's the problem?

[PainKilleR-CE]

If they advertise iDVD's DVD-burning capabilities as part of the OS (which they do, you can check their OS X site yourself), they should permit hardware developers to add support for their hardware to the software. Once Microsoft has DVD-burning support built into Windows XP, the hardware developers will simply see one more advantage on that side that they won't get on Apple's OS, because they have to compete with Apple.

The best part, though, is that Apple's buying these drives, which sell for less than $350 retail, slapping their brand name on them, and selling them, with the purchase of a system, for $450. So, even if they bought them at the high retail price they'd be making $100 on each drive they sold, and close to $200 per drive if they were getting them at low retail price.

Re:Where's the problem?

[dwater]

I don't know about your friends, but I tried and failed.

I understand that they might want to use a 'free' iDVD copy to sell their DVD-R/RW drives.

What I don't understand is why they don't sell it separately as well. Kind of like Roxio Toast - it's often included (not 'free', but 'included') with drives, but you can buy it separately too.

Max.

Re:Where's the problem?

[dwater]

No they don't allow you do download it for free. Only the *upgrade) is available.

Although, some have said that the upgrade is actually a full working copy, but that's (sort of) beside the point.

Re:Where's the problem?

[dwater]

You've fallen for another Apple trick. I assume you went here :

where it has a nice inviting button labelled :

"iDVD 2.1"

Well, if you actually press that button, you get a page with the title :

"Get iDVD 2 Updater"

and, sure enough, the minimum system requirements are detailed as :

"
iDVD 2.0 or later.
Mac OS X, v10.1.3 or later.
Any Power Macintosh G4 or G4 iMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive).
Minimum of 256MB of RAM installed with 384MB recommended."

Sigh.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

As I read it, this is what OWC is doing. They are purchasing G4s from apple, as an autorized reseller, without the DVD Burners, and placing a third party DVD burner in the drive (Which makes sense as it comes out to be cheaper). They are then reselling these computers (as they are licensenced to do) but they are bundling or possibly even installing a crack onto the Apple software. Cracking the software in this manner and then redistributing it, regardless of whether you legaly paid for the licence of not, is, AFAIK ilegal under current copyright law. That isn't to say that OWC can do this on their own machines within their company, or provide the crack on their website (though that may also be illegal, I'm not sure) however, Apple's objection is bundling this with a machine, thus inticing those that may have paid extra for the Apple bundle to pay for the cheaper model. As it stands, they have not overstepped theri bounds.

Re:Where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

If they advertise iDVD's DVD-burning capabilities as part of the OS (which they do, you can check their OS X site yourself), they should permit hardware developers to add support for their hardware to the software. Once Microsoft has DVD-burning support built into Windows XP, the hardware developers will simply see one more advantage on that side that they won't get on Apple's OS, because they have to compete with Apple.

Except for the fact that OWC does not manufacture the third-party drives. Were that the case, this may be a different matter. Nor is apple preventing the users from cracking their own software, or preventing them from downloading or purchasing another DVD burning suite. As it stands, one of iDVDs software requirements is that you have an Apple DVD burner. That's no different than making software whihc will only run on x86 hardware. The people who do the mac ports have to buy a right to port said software for other compatibility. OWC did not ask Apple for permission ot increase the compatibility base.

The best part, though, is that Apple's buying these drives, which sell for less than $350 retail, slapping their brand name on them, and selling them, with the purchase of a system, for $450. So, even if they bought them at the high retail price they'd be making $100 on each drive they sold, and close to $200 per drive if they were getting them at low retail price.

Apple is making a profit, they are conducting business, and thus far they have not run into problems. Like everything in life, cost is a trade off. If you choose not to pay the price for the Apple drives, you don't get native iDVD support. Just like with music if you choose to download an album, you don't get the cover art, an original disk or any of the extras that can come with an album. It's that simple, and Apple isn't forcing you to buy their hardware. They are simply telling you if you want to use their software you need their hardware.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Right. It doesn't matter if you can't download it. You can still legally obtain both iDVD and an external DVD burner. You should be able to use both of these posessions in any manner you like.

I realized my post was bogus a couple seconds after I posted it, but I had to run off to work.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yeah, that would be totally messed up of OWC. Zettabyte was doing that, and Apple stopped them. We didn't get the legal specifics in that case either.

The reason that would be messed up of OWC, however, would be that they would have to distribute unlicensed copies of iDVD. If OWC can build a SuperDrive Macintosh for cheaper than Apple, that's competition. Apple can squash them by making it difficult to do business in other ways. Legal methods, IMH and not enforceable O, are messed up.

As for redistributing paid-for-and-cracked software? Gosh. That's exactly what I think should be a protected right. I realize it isn't. You can redistribute a paid-for-and-modified Ford, right?

Re:Where's the problem?

[Brendor]

These system requirements are listed on the download page

iDVD 2.0 or later.
Mac OS X, v10.1.3 or later.
Any Power Macintosh G4 or G4 iMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive). . . .[Emphasis added]
The download available on apple's site is only an upgrade from 2.0 to 2.1. So, no Apple is not distributing the software and punishing you after the fact if you didn't buy a super drive. And they make you enter an Administrator password and click through a EULA before installing. Curiously, they do go out of their way to discourage and disavow DVD "piracy" amongst end users (ie:IMPORTANT NOTE: This software may be used to reproduce materials . . blah blah ) As you can see int the attached license: (FWIW-ie not too bloody much)

English

Apple Computer, Inc.
Software License Agreement
Single Use License

PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE PRESSING THE "AGREE" BUTTON. BY PRESSING "AGREE," YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, PRESS "DISAGREE" AND (IF APPLICABLE) RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This software may be used to reproduce materials. It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. If you are uncertain about your right to copy any material you should contact your legal advisor.

1. General. The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time. The Apple Software may be used to reproduce materials so long as such use is limited to reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof. THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts, original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.

4. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

5. Limited Warranty on Media. Apple warrants the media on which the Apple Software is recorded and delivered by Apple to be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of original retail purchase. Your exclusive remedy under this Section shall be, at Apple's option, a refund of the purchase price of the product containing the Apple Software or replacement of the Apple Software which is returned to Apple or an Apple authorized representative with a copy of the receipt. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES ON THE MEDIA INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, AND OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE LIMITED IN DURATION TO NINETY (90) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL RETAIL PURCHASE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS ON HOW LONG AN IMPLIED WARRANTY LASTS, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THE LIMITED WARRANTY SET FORTH HEREIN IS THE ONLY WARRANTY MADE TO YOU AND IS PROVIDED IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER WARRANTIES (IF ANY) CREATED BY ANY DOCUMENTATION OR PACAKAGING. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY BY JURISDICTION.

6. Disclaimer of Warranties. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY ON MEDIA SET FORTH ABOVE AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND APPLE AND APPLE'S LICENSORS (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "APPLE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7) HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLE SOFTWARE, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY, OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY APPLE OR AN APPLE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SHOULD THE APPLE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

7. Limitation of Liability. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE BE LIABLE FOR PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE APPLE SOFTWARE, HOWEVER CAUSED, REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY (CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) AND EVEN IF APPLE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY, OR OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. In no event shall Apple's total liability to you for all damages (other than as may be required by applicable law in cases involving personal injury) exceed the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00). The foregoing limitations will apply even if the above stated remedy fails of its essential purpose.

8. Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was obtained. In particular, but without limitation, the Apple Software may not be exported or re-exported (a) into (or to a national or resident of) any U.S. embargoed countries (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, or the Taliban Controlled areas of Afghanistan) or (b) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce Denied Person's List or Entity List. By using the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in, under control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list.

9. Government End Users. The Apple Software and related documentation are "Commercial Items", as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "Commercial Computer Software" and "Commercial Computer Software Documentation", as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R. 227.7202, as applicable. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1through 227.7202-4, as applicable, the Commercial Computer Software and Commercial Computer Software Documentation are being licensed to U.S. Government end users (a) only as Commercial Items and (b) with only those rights as are granted to all other end users pursuant to the terms and conditions herein. Unpublished-rights reserved under the copyright laws of the United States.

10. Controlling Law and Severability. This License will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within California between California residents. This License shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is expressly excluded. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, the remainder of this License shall continue in full force and effect.

11. Complete Agreement; Governing Language. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the use of the Apple Software licensed hereunder and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings regarding such subject matter. No amendment to or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by Apple. Any translation of this License is done for local requirements and in the event of a dispute between the English and any non-English versions, the English version of this License shall govern.

Re:Where's the problem?

[91degrees]

The fact that a company is distributing software to alter to software of a competitor.

Yes. It's called a "patch". A piece of software that allows a legally acquired piece of software work with another legally acquired piece of equipment, which is probably legal even if a signed contract forbids its use.

Re:Where's the problem?

[joshsisk]

I think it's only questionably legal. Not saying I agree with the law, but I don't think it is legal.

Re:Where's the problem?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yes. Other posters have pointed out my error. I have replied to them that it does not matter:

3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts, original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.

This means that you can sell your iDVD software to a third party, that owns no Apple SuperDrive. They should be able to use the software however they like. Same for users that have both an internal and an external DVD burner.

RIAAitus is catching

[haplo21112]

Seems like Apple has now joined those with the germ....I was getting close to considering apple cool for its unix factor, oh well I'll wait another 10 years for the next recovery of cool facotedr I guess.

Re:RIAAitus is catching

[Anonymous Coward]

Knee-jerk-not-paying-attention-to-facts in full effect ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a hand.

Re:RIAAitus is catching

[haplo21112]

Actually I was I just was throwing an attempt a humor into the mix.

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Step One: Exclude existing customer base while citing DMCA
Step Two: ???
Step Three: Profit!

do they have a leg to stand on?

[Borealis]

I'm not familiar with the mac systems, but how the hell is this circumvent copy protection? While Apple obviously has these folks by the balls (since they primarily sell macs), I would think that this threat would be empty if somebody else decided to do it. Anybody have more info?

Re:do they have a leg to stand on?

[Quixadhal]

That's the beauty of the DMCA... It doesn't have to really make sense. :)

If I add the line "This post is copy-protected by my YOU-NO-READ-ME encryption tags", and then you go ahead and read it anyways, you have technically circumvented my copy protection (which asked you not to read it), and are in violation of the DMCA.

So, basically, if you put any kind of restriction into a software (or hardware!) product, and someone gets around that restriction (even accidentally!), they are in violation of the DMCA. It has nothing to do with actual duplication, it's just the circumvention that matters.

Any questions citizen? Please place your tongue on the screen for identification...

Re:do they have a leg to stand on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read all the comments before you post. And if you didnt understand try reading one or two more times. If you still did not find the answer for you question, then post.

Re:do they have a leg to stand on?

[monkeydo]

iDVD is given away for free with the Apple's Superdrives and licensed for use only with those drives.

If you want to use Apple DVD burning software with someone else's drive Apple will happily sell it to you, but you may not use the free version of iDVD. Apple (not being stupid) actually wrote code into iDVD to check that you are using a Superdrive with the software.

These folks are selling third party DVD burners with a crack that allows you to use Apple's free software in violation of the license.

Re:do they have a leg to stand on?

[Borealis]

Well dipshit, I posted 9 minutes after the story itself. 8 minutes if you count the time it took to write the post and submit it. There weren't any informative posts around yet. It isn't clear from the news story that the idvd software has measures to prevent copying/altering WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Get off your damn high horse.

Same news, different day . . .

[SimplyCosmic]

Company uses DMCA to prevent competition, film at 11.

It's the same old story, the DMCA is used to stop the use or development of technology that would compete with that of the original corporation, doesn't require the original corporation to change and improve their tech to stay competitive, yet we're to believe the well-compensated politicians that the DMCA doesn't inhibit innovation?

Feh.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[pi radians]

Company uses DMCA to prevent competition, film at 11.

On the contrary, now there is room for another company to come in and develop a DVD authoring application. Apple has stated that their free software is only licensed to buyers of Apple's SuperDrive.

For a user who adds some other company's DVD burner they have to use a competitors product.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[mlh1996]

Actually, they can even use an Apple product: DVD Studio Pro. But it ain't free.

Using the DMCA here is kinda lame, though.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[PainKilleR-CE]

It's the same old story, the DMCA is used to stop the use or development of technology that would compete with that of the original corporation

It's not even about competing with the corporation, it's about extending the corporation's software to support the hardware being sold. It's like MS saying that hardware developers can't offer a patch to allow their CD (or DVD) writers to function with XP's integrated CD burning. The only real difference is that Apple sells DVD-writers and MS does not.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love the rationalizations of Apple fanatics. Had Microsoft done something like this, they'd be ALL OVER THEM like flies to stink. Instead, the Our-Lord-And-Saviour-Apple-Who-Can-Do-No-Wrong gets the passoff.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[JimFromJersey]

I belive it is called the "Stockholm Syndrome" where the abused begin to identify with the abuser. Never thought I'd see it employed as a business model.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[jafac]

it's worse than that, because bundled into the price of the third-party DVD burner is the MPEG license fee. bundled into the price of third-party DVD authoring software is the MPEG license fee. So when you buy Apple's solution, you pay once (with iDVD). When you buy a third party solution, you pay twice.

Then Apple makes sure you can only take advantage of iDVD with a NEW entire system (not making the drives available for separate sale) and highballs their markup, so that they can undercut the price of "paying twice" - where their costs only consider paying once.

I've read many news articles - reviews, of the new iMacs, and the main thing they all said was that it was so easy to create DVD's and that they all reflected horror stories of friends trying to author DVD's on a PC, with great expense and no success. The reason why is this sweet deal Apple has with the MPEG licensing, and the convoluted way they've exploited it to maximize profit.

I really wonder why Apple's stock is so low. Because this plot is deviously brilliant.

Re:Same news, different day . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

it's worse than that, because bundled into the price of the third-party DVD burner is the MPEG license fee

Why would this be the case? A DVD-ROM drive just reads and writes data ... it doesn't care what the data is, and it doesn't compress or decode the video by itself (unlike standalone DVD-Video players and recorders).

There's no logical reason why you would pay a MPEG royalty on the drive.

Move along, nothing to see here

[0xdeadbeef]

After all, the DMCA is harmless, isn't that right Declan?

What's the real APPL's agenda here ?

[defunc]

Why do APPL care if a third party supplies software that allows their users to save iDVD projects to an external drive ? I am sure there are plenty of Mac users out there with no superdrive access. It's just beyond me, and makes me wonder what's is at stake here ? A way to sell more hardware or a really IP issue ...?

Re:What's the real APPL's agenda here ?

[swb]

They make most of their money on hardware. As DVD writable drives become PC, er, mass-market devices their costs are going down. What Apple doesn't want is people bypassing the profit-drenched Apple DVD drives for whitebox DVD drives, at least not yet.

Maybe in a couple of years when DVD writables achieve a more ubiquitous status and can be bought for the same $79-129 price that most whitebox CDR drives can be had for, Apple will modify their stance for upgraders and the like. But if they hold their ground until DVD writable prices are low enough, it will become an included and not extra-cost option in Macs and the bitching about third party drives will be moot, since everyone with a Mac will have an Apple one anyway.

Re:What's the real APPL's agenda here ?

[Phroggy]

Why do APPL care if a third party supplies software that allows their users to save iDVD projects to an external drive ? I am sure there are plenty of Mac users out there with no superdrive access. It's just beyond me, and makes me wonder what's is at stake here ? A way to sell more hardware or a really IP issue ...?

iDVD is licensed for free to anyone who has purchased a Mac with a SuperDrive. So, it's not exactly free; it's sort of included with the price you pay for the computer. This patch allows it to be used on other Macs that were not purchased with the SuperDrive, so Apple is not getting money for the drive to pay for the software.

The solution here is to start offering the software commercially for a fee, and still bundle it free with SuperDrive-equipped Macs. That way, anyone who wants to use it with another drive can buy the software, and anyone who doesn't pay for it is simply pirating it.

Re:What's the real APPL's agenda here ?

[Clanner]

The third party wasn't just supplying software- they were supplying a patch to Apple software to allow third party DVD burners to be used with iDVD. Apple won't stop anyone from writing their own software to do this, but they (rightfully, in my opinion) don't want third parties hacking their free software to do things it wasn't intended to do. Now if iDVD weren't free, then my opinion would change. If pay for it, you can do anything you want with it (more or less).

Re:What's the real APPL's agenda here ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's Apple's interest in selling their hardware (e.g., they'd rather sell you a new G4 Mac than Mac OS X to run on a G4-upgraded older Mac).

There's also the likelihood that Apple is paying MPEG-2 encoder fees for every copy of iDVD. (I don't know if they'd bother with Dolby Digital for 2.0 soundtracks -- PCM is higher-quality and presumably royalty-free.) If they give away iDVD only with factory SuperDrives, they pay royalties only on those machines. If they give it away for use on any Mac, they pay royalties for ALL Macs (including those with CD-RW and Combo drives such as the low-end eMacs/iMacs and all the notebooks).

If the holdup is only the MPEG-2 fees, then perhaps Apple could sell copies of iDVD for $50 or so for those with external Pioneer DVD burners. But who knows?

You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think the profit on their pricey computer systems would be enough to warrant the software development costs. It's not like people are using iDVD on HP's or Compaqs, they're just using 3rd party external DVD drives on their Apple computers.

Think Different

[Anonymous Coward]

Or don't think too different, or our lawyers will beat you to a pulp.

It's funny how apple advertises with free speech heroes, but then use lawyers and an unfair law to stifle speech.

Re:Think Different

[wbajzek]

I just don't get how releasing a crack for the software to violate its license qualifies as "speech"

This is not even "thinking different." "Thinking different" would be writing your own DVD authoring software to distribute with those drives.

hardware specific?

[numbski]

The problem is that I don't think that I've ever seen an instance where software was hardware restricted in such a way that it *could* work with other hardware, but only works with *their* hardware because it checks to make sure it belongs to them first.

I'm talking all platforms, not just Apple.

I think it's rather petty and childish, especially considering that there are little to no other alternatives for DVD burning on OS X outside of iDVD.

anyone?

Re:hardware specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there has. I used to have a special edition of some CD-burning software, I forget what it was called, but it came free with the drive and would only work with that drive.

I had OCR software that came free with a scanner and only worked with that scanner.

Apple's motives here are clean, and correct. Anyone who thinks they're entitled to iDVD without buying the Apple hardware is a flat-out thief.

Re:hardware specific?

[mcwetboy]

There is an alternative that works with external drives, but it costs $1,000.

Would it be better if Apple offered iDVD for external DVD-RWs for, say, $199?

Re:hardware specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no hardware lockout restriction on DVD Studio Pro. You can use any DVD-R, DVD-RW, or DVD-RAM drive you want to with that program.

DVD Studio Pro also costs $999.

Your choice: pay [for DVD Studio Pro] or play [games with Apple's EULA writers and hardware lockouts].

Re:hardware specific?

[Phroggy]

I think it's rather petty and childish, especially considering that there are little to no other alternatives for DVD burning on OS X outside of iDVD.

And you're more than welcome to use those, so why do you need to use iDVD illegally?

Because iDVD is so vastly superior to the other alternatives, perhaps?

Re:hardware specific?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Sure there has. I used to have a special edition of some CD-burning software, I forget what it was called, but it came free with the drive and would only work with that drive.

I had OCR software that came free with a scanner and only worked with that scanner.

Apple's motives here are clean, and correct. Anyone who thinks they're entitled to iDVD without buying the Apple hardware is a flat-out thief.


iDVD isn't distributed with the drives, though, unlike the items you mentioned. iDVD is distributed with OS X, with any Mac you purchase, regardless of whether or not it has an Apple branded DVD-writing drive in it. DVD-burning with iDVD is advertised as a feature of OS X.

Re:hardware specific?

[JatTDB]

I don't know about OS X, but previous versions of MacOS I've used are very much selective about what hard disks they'll recognize. If it's not on the approved list, the system won't let you do anything with it. There's 3rd party software that gets around this restriction, but of course that's additional cash.

This kind of crap is exactly why the only Mac I own is an old 90mhz PowerMac I picked up for $20 just to have another platform sitting around the house. Sure, the hardware's nice...but I don't like being shoved around just to agree with someone else's vision of how computing should be.

Re:hardware specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about OS X, but previous versions of MacOS I've used are very much selective about what hard disks they'll recognize. If it's not on the approved list, the system won't let you do anything with it. There's 3rd party software that gets around this restriction, but of course that's additional cash.

Not true. On pre OSX, the MacOS is not what would recognize the drive. As long as the drive was formatted as HFS or HFS+, it would recognize it. The problem was the included drive formatting utility that came with the MacOS only recognized certain drives (the ones Apple would sell with their Macs) and wouldn't format other drives. Of course, every hard drive I ever bought for my Mac came with it's own formatting software or you could get several utilities like Charis (sp?) that would do it. Once formatted, MacOS could use it just fine.

You could also hack the Apple included drive formatting utility to add your drive to the supported list but I never heard of any drive vendors or resellers doing this and including it with their hardware. 3rd parties always included a 3rd party formatting utility, not a hacked Apple one; nor did they give a patch or instructions on how to do it either. But that didn't mean you couldn't find such a thing on the internet if you wanted to use some old PC hard drive.

Re:hardware specific?

[RatBastard]

If i'm parsing your post correctly, you have not seen software that only works with certain brands/models of hardware?

You've been using a computer for what, ten minutes? I've got a box full of games that no longer work because the video card they were customized for is long gone from my system. I've got sound editing software that no longer works because I don't have a SoundBlaster 16 in my system.

It's called "bundling" and hardware manufacturers do it all the time.

iDVD is bundled with the Mac Superdrive. If you want to use iDVD then you need to buy the Superdrive. That's the terms of sale and if you don't like that, well, tough shit.

Re:hardware specific?

[JatTDB]

I fail to see how you've refuted my point in any way. It's still a clear example of Apple software being coded specifically to only work with certain hardware, which is a pain in the ass for something as commonplace as a hard disk. Especially when Macs were still all SCSI...the only possible excuse for making the software behave in that fashion is to push sales of Apple-branded drives.

Maybe you buy all your drives retail boxed and get little bits of software along with them. I don't. I also pay a little less, because I'm not paying for some software to do what the OS's default tools damn well ought to be able to do in the first place.

Your separation of MacOS and its formatting utility is also pretty half-assed. I certainly consider fdisk a part of DOS, Disk Administrator a part of NT, and the Disk Management utility a part of Win2K. Of course, they are fully within their rights to make their included formatting utility only work with certain disks...but as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty to say that MacOS was designed to recognize a select few disks. All the options you mentioned are hacks and 3rd party workaround programs.

Re:hardware specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen this happen and I've been using the Mac since system 5. Sure HDSC Setup might have had trouble supporting some drives, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Since they switched to Drive Setup I've never bought a SCSI drive that has had problems.

Re:hardware specific?

[JatTDB]

Unless you check the compatibility lists or buy all your drives from Apple, I have an extremely hard time believing that you've never run across this. I've seen it every time I've ever tried to add a random spare SCSI disk to a Mac. Admittedly I don't work with Macs on a regular basis, so I've only tried to do this maybe 3 times, ever. Different Macs and different drives each time. Most recent would be a 90mhz PowerMac (7200, I think) and a 2gb Seagate disk (don't recall the specific product line or model number), under MacOS 8.5. The built-in drive formatting utility refused to deal with the drive at all. I eventually located a copy of HD Toolkit and used that to format the drive, after which everything was fine...but there's no good reason (aside from platform control and marketing) for the built-in utilities to not be able to work with pretty much any disk (excepting size restrictions and the like, but 2gb disks were hardly unheard of when OS8.5 was released).

Re:hardware specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how you've refuted my point in any way.

Since your consider the OS and any utility included on the disk to be part of the OS, then, no, I didn't refute you. If you believe an OS should support any and all vendor's hardware (even what is not available when you bought the OS) by default without the hardware vendor providing squat, then I didn't refute you.

It's still a clear example of Apple software being coded specifically to only work with certain hardware, which is a pain in the ass for something as commonplace as a hard disk. Especially when Macs were still all SCSI...the only possible excuse for making the software behave in that fashion is to push sales of Apple-branded drives.

True. But remember that Apple is primairly a HARDWARE vendor and bundled software for thier hardware. If you wish to get someone elses hardware/harddrive, use their software to format their hardware. No one said you had to buy an Apple branded hard drive. If you pull a hard drive from an old PC, who is to say that drive was even available when the version of MacOS you are using was created. If you are going to hack some hardware together, using a "3rd party workaround" should not be too much for you. And as someone else said, when Apple went from HDSC Setup to Drive Setup, a far wider range of drives were supported. The only one that I found not to be supported was a 6GB drive pulled from a Compaq that had special Compaq ROMs that changed the drive indentification from IBM to COMPAQ.

Re:hardware specific?

[JatTDB]

I said it's perfectly within their rights to do so. It's also perfectly within my rights to consider it a load of bullshit, and vote with my dollars (which I have...the only Mac I own came from a surplus shop, about 5-6 years past its prime).

There's no good (as in technical) reason I can see for not making the built-in disk management utility be able to do what utilities on plenty of other OS's do...query the drive to find out the geometry and go from there. That's the real issue, in my mind...why does the utility *need* a list of drives at all? I highly doubt Win98's fdisk has a big table sitting somewhere with a list of drive ID's and related information. Same goes for the disk utilities on just about every other modern OS.

Re:hardware specific?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can (or could) query the drive and get the geometry. In my old 286/386 days, I had to buy a "hard drive bible" of some sort that listed all the head and cylinder info for hundreds of drives. I then put that into the BIOS of the PC. I think that is where fdisk found out the geometry. The way the Apple tools worked were that they read the drive identifier and mapped that to a table stored in the format utility which made it easier on the user (didn't have to know head/cylinder info). The drawback is that you also could not just put that info in if you knew it. So the Apple utils, at first, just listed the types of drives they sold. Later, with Drive Setup, they included all known SCSI drives at the time the utility was put out. Of course, an IBM hard drive with a custom COMPAQ ROM that changed the drive identifier would not show up in the Apple drive table and therefore it could not recognize it. You could copy the IBM drive table entry that matched the COMPAQ modified drive and change the name to whatever the ROM was showing and it would then work.

People are cheap

[Hanul]

They always want it the cheapest way. Instead of buying a new Mac wit a Supderdrive, they try to upgrade they old crumpy machines to save some bucks. Man, an eMac with DVD burner is just $1.499. Don't hold to your money, give it away to Apple, they deserve it (and desperately need it). I mean that's only around $1.000 more than an external drive. What are $1.000 for those, who consider Macs anyway. And what's this with iDVD, don't you get some software with your drive to author DVDs?

where to get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know where to get this patch?

Don't buy an Apple

[MrFrank]

I just wrote Apple informing them that I would no longer purchase one of there new iMacs. It a nice little machine but if this is the way they want to play, then they will not get my money.

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[avalys]

Why? Because they actually want to profit from the time and effort that went into developing iDVD?

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine - but don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[balloonhead]

But that's missing the point - they are distributing the software free. As such, surely they shouldn't bitch when someone uses it an a way that they don't like?

The problem here is that their plan backfired. It was a good plan in theory - write good program for DVD burning, give away free to get people to use the new superdrive; unfortunately the world as it is doesn't care - it's just free to them now.

So now someone has figured out a way to use it on non-Apple hardware - tha's a bit sucky for Apple, I admit. But in all honesty, they should have realised beforehand that this was going to happen. After all, they're in the computer business. Thye know what's going on.

If they wanted to profit for the time and effort, they should have sold it, or bundled it free with thte superdrive only with protection from the standard anti-copying laws. People might have got round it anyway, but it would have been more low-key, strictly non-legit. This was notihng more than a marketing ploy.

Incidentally, it was stopped because of the DMCA - could the un-modified version not be used in just the same way with the same DMCA violations, but using Apple hardware?

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[frog51]

You should consider reading the article, or maybe even some of the more intelligent comments posted above. None of what Apple has done in this case deserves this sort of moronic knee-jerk reaction.

Think - you develop Cool Gubbins(tm) to sell at $200 and to market it you develop the Cool Gubbins(tm) App which you give away free just to raise interest. If another vendor develops a Handy Widget(tm) which does the same job, they are just benefiting from the first companies efforts if the App is ported. Let them write their own, or do your own at home.

This is a theft issue, even if some morons see it as a "They're evil 'cos they won't give us stuff for free" issue. If you like what Apple does, don't try and put them out of business.

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[Phroggy]

I just wrote Apple informing them that I would no longer purchase one of there new iMacs. It a nice little machine but if this is the way they want to play, then they will not get my money.

No longer? Have you ever bought one before?

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[MrFrank]

And I agree that they should profit for the code that they wrote. They should sell iDVD for external dirves and go after the people that pirate the version they made.

Invoking the DMCA to stop poeple from using iDVD on external drives is like Apple saying, "If you buy my hardware you are not a pirate, but if you buy someone else's DVD burner you must be a pirate"

iDVD can be used for the same purpose on either an internal drive or an external drive. Maybe the solution would be for Apple to trash iDVD across the board.

The only reason that Apple is enforcing the DMCA is to increase hardware sale. It is that simple.

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[MrFrank]

Yes, I have.

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, the less morons and GNU hippies we have using Macs the better.

Re:Don't buy an Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably has an old mac plus that he picked up from a garage sale. Hippies don't have a lot of money; they spend most of it on copies of mandrake.

Translation

[JonTurner]

Apple has sent out a warning to its customers: "We're no different than any other manufactuer, despite the proclamations of our marketing weasels. Don't get under the hood or your machine or attempt to use your hardware to it's potential or our attorneys will slap you down, bi-atch."

How far we've come from the days when The Woz actually encouraged hackers to experiment with the Apple. It looks like we're moving back to the closed architecture days of the early Mac. That's not good.

However, for me this is a blessing in disguise. After being Mac-free, Mac-clean, and Mac-sober for almost five years I was considering buying an iMac for home. I even went CompUSA and played around with one yesterday. However, this article snapped me out of my "Stephen Jobs field effect" judgement fog -- like an abused wife being shown pictures of her cuts and bruises this reminded me what it's like when Apple doesn't behave itself.

Thanks, Apple Computer, Inc. -- I was almost ready to relapse. I guess I'll just spend my quarterly bonus on a new p4 upgrade & a flatscreen for my PC where I can burn all the DVD's I want.

Re:Translation

[Phroggy]

However, this article snapped me out of my "Stephen Jobs field effect" judgement fog

It's called the Reality Distortion Field, or RDF.

Re:Translation

[rampant mac]

Enjoy shackin' up with Bill, he's the abusive husband who'll show you those pictures... ;)

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

It was sort of weird for awhile there, almost like Apple was leaning towards Open Source. This is a good reality check, shows their true colours.

I too was considering an imac, but will figure out linux/laptop instead. It's what I run on my desktop and servers anyway, might as well remain homogenous.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

But you are wrong! If you do not buy a Mac with a superdrive, you did not buy iDVD. What the other company (OWC) was doing was distributing a hack that allowed people that do not own iDVD to use it on a drive that OWC sells. The only purpose of that software is to allow people to use iDVD on machines that did not come with it.

iDVD is not free. They are not disabling the computer with the 3rd party drive. It can still burn DVDs, just not with iDVD. Other CD recording software and DVD Studio Pro (which apple does sell) still works.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Apple Computer, Inc. -- I was almost ready to relapse. I guess I'll just spend my quarterly bonus on a new p4 upgrade & a flatscreen for my PC where I can burn all the DVD's I want.

I'm afraid you did not understand the issue. You can burn all the DVDs you want with third party DVD burners - you just can't pirate Apple's software to do so.

You have to use the software that came with your DVD burner instead of the one that normally comes with Apple's DVD burners and that you would need to steal in order to get anyway.

Think cars!

[oliverthered]

The first most obvious problem is that apple should be 'giving away' the software with there DVD drive not giving you the software expecting you to buy there DVD drive.

If I buy a car from ford, ford expect me to get the car fixed and repaired using only ford authorised mechnics and parts (which they make money on?).

A lot of people will do this, and it keeps the resale value of the car higher.

But, there's nothing to stop me using anyones parts and getting anyone to fix the car.

(n.b. I know there's certian things you need to be authorised to do to cars in places like france)

Re:Think cars!

[entrox]

Your analogy is flawed:

Apple developed iDVD at their expenses and provide it FREE of charges! I highly doubt you'll get the car for free. Selling their own drives is their _only_ stream of revenue in this case.

A better analogy would be razors: Apple provides you with a free Gilette and expects you to buy their razors. If somebody now distributes some kind of adapter (patch) to Apples gilette to fit their own razors, then Apple would lose quite a bit of money, wouldn't they?

Re:Think cars!

[Amarok.Org]

It's nothing like what you described.

iDVD is the authoring tool, the expensive front end to a cheap piece of hardware. If you do this crack, you've essentially "stolen" (I hate to use the word, because it means so many different things in different contexts) Apple's R&D. You've got a product which you didn't pay for that was developed at great expense for the purpose of selling Apple hardware and modified it to work on non-Apple hardware. You've circumvented Apple's methods for protecting their R&D investment.

Re:Think cars!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth the poster:

If I buy a car from ford, ford expect me to get the car fixed and repaired using only ford authorised mechnics and parts (which they make money on?).

A lot of people will do this, and it keeps the resale value of the car higher.

But, there's nothing to stop me using anyones parts and getting anyone to fix the car.

Apple is not stopping anyone from hooking up a non-apple DVD writer. The auto analogy is apt, but the real issue is more like the following: Will your local FORD dealer hack your control computer to allow non-Ford after-market fuel injection system (especially if Ford sells it as an option)? Maybe, but it probably depends on if you know someone in the service dept really well. Will Ford be unhappy about the local dealer doing it? Yes. Will they give the dealer a black mark for doing it? Yes.
The only difference here is that Apple use dumb law instead of extortion to exert control. In the absence of said dumb law, they could have just used extortion and threatened to remove the certified developer designation.

Re:Think cars!

[zyklone]

Having a bad business idea should not give you legal protection.
This is pretty much like the CueCat fiasco where they gave away a product for free and attempted to put restrictions on how it could be used.

If you recieve something FREE of charge you are not required to buy something else to pay for what you recieved for free.

Stupid laws.

Re:Think cars!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I`m supposed to give a sh*t? If they're going to use a flawed business model, that's their problem not mine.

Re:Think cars!

[entrox]

Having a bad business idea should not give you legal protection.

No, but having your product cracked by a competitor should.

Re:Think cars!

[91degrees]

If somebody now distributes some kind of adapter (patch) to Apples gilette to fit their own razors, then Apple would lose quite a bit of money, wouldn't they

Nope. They simply wouldn't gain as much. Giving away a freebie is a calculated risk. X% of people will use the manufacturers product because they know the brand. As long as X/100*profit_per_unit*sales > cost_of_freebie, they make money. If they don't give away the freebie then their total profit is zero.

Re:Think cars!

[radish]

But that's hardware, this is software. Sure, you can do what you like with a physical object. But software has enjoyed different protection for a long time (long before the DMCA) which makes it illegal to modify the object code. This is just saying that cracking software (e.g. warez) is illegal - wow - big news. I can't understand all the fuss.

Re:Think cars!

[parliboy]

How 'bout printer refill kits. Will this work a bit better for ya?

Re:Think cars!

[joshsisk]

Everyone misses the fact that it's NOT (as I understand it) illegal for YOU to patch an iDVD install on your machine (though it's probably against the EULA), however it IS illegal for their competitor to distribute this patch (especially since they are distributing it with their competing product).

Re:Think cars!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what a paragraph is?

Re:Think cars!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I buy a car from ford, ford expect me to get the car fixed and repaired using only ford authorised mechnics and parts (which they make money on?).

How about when you are buying a car. Say you buy a car at a dealer and then go across the street for the free radio from another dealer. The other dealer is not going to give you the radio because you didn't buy their car.

However, Apple should not have used the term "DMCA". That is evil ....

Re:Think cars!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it like those things that the BBC use in there sroties(cut an paste a story to see what I mean!)

There post was in the style of, argument, counter argument, so each paragraph was correct. This may not be a style that most people find easy to read or even recognise. The fact that one of the sentences/paragraphs started 'But, ' should have given you a clue, you should never use but so start a sentence unless it's a narrative.

Re:Think cars!

[ebooher]

Well, since you brought it up, this is exactly like a car if you think about it hard enough. Unfortunately, you used the wrong analogy. You used a hardware/hardware (car/parts) analogy, not a hardware/software analogy.

This would actually be dead on like Buying a car from Ford, let's say the Focus. The Focus comes with an ok 4 cylinder engine, that is controlled by a Ford developed and built computer, that is running software, that tells the Focus' engine how it is to control it's fuel injectors.

Now, you don't like the 4 cylinder engine (DVD Burner) in the Focus, it's underpowered and you want to outfit the thing for rally. You search around on line and find the company F-Tech Conversions (OWC). Now F-Tech is a Ford authorized parts reseller, as well as selling parts for a couple of other rally cars.

F-Tech shows you that it's possible to take a Honda V-Tech High Performance engine (external DVD burner) and fit it into the A frame of the Focus.

An engine computer is expensive, any one who has ever blown one will tell you just how expensive they are. To do a full on engine conversion, you will need a the set of instructions to tell the V-Tech engine how to use it's fuel injectors, and that is stored on an EPROM in the Honda computer. (3rd Party DVD burning software)

However, F-Tech also offers you a patch that you plug into the wiring harness to completely realign the Focus' stock computer and force it to work with the new V-Tech engine (DVD Enabler)

Even though it's perfectly legal to modify certain parts of your car, and plug add ons into it, the government does get involved and say you can't do things like remove the catalytic converter (DMCA). Even though it's theoretically possible to get the stock Ford unit to control the Honda engine, do you think for a minute Ford is going to sit idly by while one of their FoMoCo parts resellers is selling full engine conversions to their Focus for another companies engine that lets you use *their* software to control it instead of selling you the Ford SVT High Performance Focus engine? I think not.

They'd likely slap them with all kinds of legal mumbo jumbo .... just like Apple.

Re:Think cars!

[oliverthered]

'You used a hardware/hardware (car/parts) analogy, not a hardware/software analogy. '

Not really, the ECU is kinda software and a lot of the automated systems could be considered software (even though there hard to the touch).

A few more hard-software analogies might be...

Saying you'r not alowed to decompile software is like saying you'r not allowed to take a sledge hammer to the vase you just brough.

Saying single seat license is like saying that only one person is allowed to sheater under an unbrella.

Saying not for public performance, is like saying your not allowed to walk down the road holding a piece of art.

Oh, no!

[avalys]

Oh yes, God forbid any company ever try to make money. That's not what they're there for - they should be giving us high-quality software for free!

As far as I know, Apple bundles iDVD only with Macs that come with a Superdrive. Obviously, they developed that package to promote it as a benefit of ordering that $200 option. They release it for free because they know they will profit from the SuperDrive sales.

Allowing someone to use iDVD without a SuperDrive is taking advantage of Apple's generosity - they don't have to give iDVD away for free. This patch allows people to basically steal from Apple - why is it so terrible for them to do something about it?

Re:Oh, no!

[pbrice68]

You are correct. iDVD is NOT a *free* program to just give to everyone. iDVD is part of the SuperDrive package. If you do not purchase an Apple SuperDrive, then you do not have rights to iDVD. You can purchase an internal SuperDrive after the fact form Apple to put in your Tower, and guess what, you get iDVD. OWC was freely distributing Apple's software, which was NOT free. On top of that, Apple must pay a licensing fee for every DVD encoder it ships. If Apple didn't bundle iDVD with the SuperDrive, but just gave it away freely, they would have to pay a licensing fee (you wouldn't, they would) for every copy shipped/downloaded. Imagine, they sold 20,000 SuperDrives, but 50,000 copies of iDVD were distributed? They'd be paying for other people *free* access to encoding DVD's. If you want to hack, hack. If you want to encode DVD's without proper authorization, encode. But wehy do you expect Apple to pay for you to do this? Jeesh...

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, it's not high-quality software. It's mediocre compared to its competition on other platforms. The problem is that it's the *only* solution on macs.

If you buy a DVD burner for your mac, it's not going to be a superdrive with iDVD. They don't sell those seperately. You're going to be getting a run-of-the-mill burner that comes with windows software and has linux/bsd software available on the net. No mac software anywhere.

What's so terrible is that apple is exerting control over customers. This is not the way respectable businesses work. Their repeated actions like this are the reason I have not purchased anything from apple since my Apple II ages ago.

Re:Oh, no!

[Belisarivs]

They shouldn't prevent anyone from making and distributing free software.

What this company was doing wasn't piracy, they extended the use of the computer. God forbid the day comes and I can't put a new piece of hardware in my computer for the sole reason of letting a monopoly wanna-be take more of my cash.

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's is "Free" software dipshit. They give it away with every mac regardless of if it has a superdrive. You certanly have the right to this software if APPLE felt compeled to waste more than a GIG of your HD to install it there with or without a superdrive. They give it away free with $20 shipping and handeling..

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects /A ppleStore.woa/81/wo/jKnwD1K9HTbp8ujtyc/1.3.0.3.34. 8.3.12.13.0

There is no "Superdrive" package. If you manage to get a superdrive after the fact IDVD does not magically appear on you HD. Apple certanly does not sell a "super drive package" unless your talking about a computer.

OWC was not "distributing apple's software". Almost everything you said is factually inaccurate yet your post is regarded as informitave.

Re:Oh, no!

[psyclepath]

If you check out their web site you'll see that you can download iDVD for free. You don't HAVE to buy a new Mac to get it for free. Alternately, you can purchase on CD it for $19.95. They still says it free but charge $19.95 for shipping (Free?). You may also note that in minimum system requirements it lists a G4 w/ a built in super drive. I don't see how "minimum" precludes anyone from using a different vendors DVD burner. While I don't agree that it's "stealing" to use this software with another drive, I do agree with Apple on it's demand that the retailer stop distributing the patch. iDVD is not GPL'ed. If you don't like it or can't use it, buy/find something else. However, I will never buy a Mac because of things like this. They are very egocentric. They only want software created by them to run on hardware created by them and visa versa. Thus their higher prices.

Re:Oh, no!

[psyclepath]

Crap! Nice link. Man am I stupid.

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

This patch allows people to basically steal from Apple - why is it so terrible for them to do something about it?

Guess what? This very week I'm ordering a new computer for my job. We're currently burning a fair number of CDs (in lots of 25 or so... not enough to be worth pressing commercially, but enough to be annoying to do by hand) containing LEGAL (note that word) multimedia content. We produce the content and distribute it to our clients.

We're looking at switching to DVD-R, so we can reduce the number of discs we have to burn. We'll still burn 25 at a time, but ideally we'll be able to get ALL the CDs we distribute onto one DVD. This will not only reduce the tedium of disc swapping, but cut down on postage, handling, etc.

I WAS going to specify a Mac with a Superdrive to my boss.

Now I'm not.

If I'm going to wind up buying new software (and training the people in the office to use it) a year from now (say, if a faster third-party drive comes on the market), I might as well just get an external drive and some third-party burning software in the first place.

Chalk up one sale lost to another idiotic Jobs policy. He's managed to bring Apple from THE domininant player in the PC market to a marginal player with maybe 10%.

Smooth move, Steve.

Re:Oh, no!

[DLWormwood]

Just checked, it appears to be only an updater, not the entire program.

But then again, Apple once shipped a version of OS X whole as an updater once...

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

No you fag, it is not shipped or installed on Macs unless there is a superdrive present. And yes there is a superdrive package if you are an apple authorized VAR you can sell them to ppl. EVERYTHING you have said is factually wrong and it's a good thing the moderators are on the ball.

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

iDVD is ONLY for the SuperDrive, if you want to use any other DVD-R's you need to buy a copy of DVD Studio Pro from Apple or use their sofware (if their DVD-R is so good it should come with good software right?). And you do not have to buy iDVD, it is free, so stop your idiotic complaining and do some homework.

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

They release it for free because they know they will profit from the SuperDrive sales.

Correction: They release it for free because they know they will profit from the Macintosh sales.

That "home movies and backups on DVD" option is very attractive ... something like 50% of iMac G4 buyers go with SuperDrive models. That number was apparently higher than Apple expected, and is part of why you can now get SuperDrive-based eMacs. iDVD and iMovie and FireWire are a good part of the added value of choosing a Macintosh for home-based DVD creation needs.

Re:Oh, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do my homework? Maybe you should do yours and learn to read.

I'm not going to buy (and the biggie, TRAIN PEOPLE TO USE) "free" software that's tied to one specific drive. Hardware goes out of date quickly. It's disposable. The time to train people is not.

You'll learn more about this when you grow up and get a job.

And, by the way, it's not "Apple's" drive. It's a standard Pioneer unit with Apple's name slapped on it and sold at a healthy premium.

Re:Oh, no!

[AyeRoxor!]

"But wehy do you expect Apple to pay for you to do this?"

I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck that means.

Steve Jobs Quote of the day.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd like to thank all the open source developers who proudly use the BSD license for the chance to take their source code, use it in my products and sell that code back to you in binary form. Without all your hard work I would be driving some old Ford Escort instead of this brand spanking new BMW M5 I'm driving today. Just think if you had used the GPL instead of the BSD license I would be out looking for a job just like all of you are today. I just love you guys." -Steve Jobs

Consumer vs Professional

[Stu Charlton]

Please not Apple provides professional DVD burning software: DVD Studio Pro, allowing you to burn on any drive for $1000.

Are they within their rights? Sure. Is this wrong? Perhaps.

Re:Consumer vs Professional

[Stu Charlton]

yes "note" has an "e" on the end of it. sigh.

IVAGINAL

[stud9920]

Just a stupid question : could Microsoft use the same trick to disallow linux on the XBox ?

Re:IVAGINAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as far as I understand, since the hardware isn't (and can't be?) covered by any kind of EULA.

Re:IVAGINAL

[seanadams.com]

IVAGINAL? Is that the new iBrator for men?

Re:IVAGINAL

[dissy]

Yes.

If you take microsofts OS loader for the xbox, and patch it to ignore somehow all the encryption features, and boot linux instead of their OS, you are violating the DMCA as it is written.

This is why no one is doing that, and they want to make their OWN software to run on the xbox.

If one made their own full distro of linux to run on the xbox, it will be fine.
Same as if someone wrote a DVD player for the mac hardware, im sure that would be fine as well.
That isnt the case here however.

Re:IVAGINAL

[benjamindees]

Same as if someone wrote a DVD player for the mac hardware

I know the answer to this from a programming perspective, but think about it: from a legal perspective, how is this different from "patching" software? If a patch merely adds functionality to a pre-existing software program, and an OS is definately a pre-existing software program, don't we "patch" an OS every time we install new software?

Re:IVAGINAL

[dissy]

Patching is modifying something that works without the patch.

Legally, one would assume only the creator of the work can actually distribute patches.

This is actually part of copyright law.

If i make something (a program) you cannot modify and redistribute it without the copyright holders permission.

If they recoded a program to do this from scratch (or atleast from an open code base) it would be fine.

Personally i dont see why apple doesnt let the patch exist, as it will be used by so few.
But i do understand their logic.

Its similar to remixes or covers of songs.
Without permission, its illegal, even though its done all the time practically (especially in the techno scene.)

As for patching an os by adding software, that simply doesnt happen. They are 100% seperate as defined by the API (usually provided by the OS) being the border between the two.

Now an actual OS patch is different yet again.
That WOULD be illegal if you didnt have the permission of the OS copyright holders to do it (Yet again this is done all the time.)

The only 'bad' thing apple did was use the DMCA law as a threat instead of the correct copyright laws already in place for this sort of thing.

-- Jon

Apple's "right", but...

[jht]

The DMCA was the wrong club to use in closing this loophole.

iDVD is a nifty, free application that you get from Apple as a "reward" for buying an Apple-supplied DVD burner (the Superdrive). It just so happens that you get the Superdrive by buying a Mac that includes one. They don't sell it as an aftermarket accessory.

That's no surprise - as we've all debated to death here, Apple is not a software company or a peripheral company. They're a hardware vendor, and selling computers is how they make enough money to justify writing cool apps like iDVD and high-octane operating systems like MacOS X. If you patch their software (and not all Apple software is Open Source, just the core OS) to allow it to work with hardware they didn't intend it to, you're looking at Apple losing potential hardware sales.

There are other DVD authoring programs on the market, I'm sure - just not free ones from Apple. Oh well. If you want to use iDVD, buy a Mac with a Superdrive. Otherwise, buy your authoring program separately - that doesn't bug me at all.

However, using the DMCA warclub was stupid on their part. While effective, the DMCA is just the tool that pisses off folks like the Slashdot community - and in Apple's quest to boost market share and gain presence in the geek community those are good people to have on your side. OWC is a Apple dealer - a quick "come to Jesus" call from their Apple sales rep over the issue probably would have been sufficient to shut it down.

Bad PR move, Apple.

Re:Apple's "right", but...

[klparrot]

They really should sell the Superdrive as an aftermarket accessory. I just took advantage of about $270 in rebates (no longer available, sorry) at amazon.com, and bought myself an iBook. But they were sold out of the 700 MHz ones (with the Combo drives), so I'm stuck with a CD-ROM drive.

I'd like to buy an Apple Combo drive or Superdrive, but they don't sell them as add-ons. I'm certainly not going to replace my brand new laptop just to get a Combo drive or Superdrive, I'm just going to get a drive from another manufacturer. If Apple wants to make money on hardware, they should actually try selling it.

Re:Apple's "right", but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators are on crack again. Why would a well thought out post (right or wrong) like this be moderated "flamebait"? Someone offended by the "come to Jebus" remark?

Re:Apple's "right", but...

[spitzak]

After reading more of this stuff, I absolutely agree with this poster. Using the DMCA is stupid. They should have used copyright law, I suspect that the store is violating it by giving away copies of Apple's software, or by giving away something that is useless unless the user violates Apple's copyright by copying the software themselves.

Copyright law is well respected here as it is the basis of the GPL.

This is the last straw

[Jack Wagner]

In conjunction with two other large companies who wish to remain anonymous at this time, Wagner Consulting LLC is instituting a Macintosh buyback program. We are offering $3,000 for any and all makes of Macintosh computers, no questions asked.

Simply contact one of my employees at 1-888-WAGNERC and they will provide you with the details on how to send your Mac to me for full payment. No longer will you need to be oppressed and chastized for your lack of computer knowledge. There is no need to feel ashamed and we won't ask for your name. I realize when you bought your Mac you were tricked into it with slick marketing and you just didn't know any better. Well now I'm here to help you.

I realize you will lose a little money on the deal but we have worked out a special with Dell Computers to receive a %20 discount on all Dells purchased when you show them you Wagner Consulting voucher. Bascially this will enable you to purchase two new faster Dells with more memory and hard drive space.

I plan on donating the obsolete Macs to a third world country.

Warmest regards,
--Jack

Re:This is the last straw

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot

DMCA Challenge?

[imadork]

Excuse me while I put on my Apple Apologist hat for a moment...

This seems way too odd for Apple. While I don't recall them ever stating an explicit opinion on the DMCA, we know that they've embraced MP3s without restrictions, don't put Product Activation in their OS (and recently started selling a 5-license Family Pack of OS X for $200), and Steve Jobs has publically stated that Piracy (in relation to Music, but it can be extended to all media) is a social problem, not a technological one, and technical efforts to combat it will fail. In short, they haven't been the biggest proponent of draconian copyright protection measures.

Now, they seem to be invoking the DMCA to protect what seems to be a small revenue stream: people who already have Macs without an internal DVD burner and want to use iDVD with an external burner. Apple would rather have them buy a new Mac. Truth be told, however, lots of people in this position will buy a new Mac anyway. In truth, the number of people who would use this patch is quite small. Does Apple really think acting belligerent with third-party hardware vendors will lead to increased sales? Furthermore, what right does Apple have to limit their software to working on only internal drives when we all know that there's no technological reason for it? That sounds fishy to me, but totally legal under the DMCA.

The Conspiracy Theorist (and unabashed Apple fanatic) in me wants to believe that Apple knows that this action wouldn't hold water in court, and is trying to find a third-party who is big enough to challenge it, and get the DMCA overturned, so it can protect its future (and much bigger) revenue stream coming from Digital Hub-type applications and devices!

Then again, the realist in me believes that Apple is all in favor of a liberal approach to copyright protection only as long as it can make more money that way.

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid apple fag - I have a theory too. Steve got tired of giving it to all of you up the ass, so now he is giving you a donkeypunch and dirty sanchez as well.

dipshits - as much as the losers here complain about stealing musak and evil M$ - you penis birds are the true bitches of the computing world. "You want me to dress like a japanese school girl while you shove that icube up my ass Steve? Whatever gets you off steve!"

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanna get in on some fingercuffs action?

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you pass me the bong when you're done with it?

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[anonymous loser]

That makes no sense. First off, Apple would lose a DMCA-based case in no time, because what Other World Computing was doing was explicitly allowed under the DMCA in the following section of the code:

(f) Reverse Engineering.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term "interoperability" means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

Roughly translated: You are free to reverse-engineer a copyright product (and use the method you develop) for the purposes of interopability. There is no "challenge" to the DMCA if it's already allowed under that law.

More likely is what former Apple employee Matt Deatherage (cool name) says:

Matt Deatherage, a former Apple employee who edits a daily Macintosh newsletter, said Apple's legal threat reflects the company's underlying business strategy: If iDVD is useful only on internal drives, people may buy more computers.

While this doesn't seem to be a particularly smart business strategy, it seems more likely. Would you *really* buy another $3000 computer, or just try to find 3rd party software for your 3rd party DVD burner? There might even be software already bundled with it!

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to try not be vulgar in my post, but then I got, but then I got high, butt then I got high.

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not at all new for Apple. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft learned all of its tie-everything-together strategies from Apple.

One of the reasons that I dumped Apple back in 1988 was because I got really tired of having have an Apple logo on every peripheral. If someone released an Apple-compatible floppy drive you could be darn sure that the next release of the OS wouldn't boot from it (Apple drives cost about $600 back then - clones were about $250).

Want to use a non-Apple printer? Forget it. Non Apple monitor? Nice try. Even a non Apple mouse caused problems.

If Apple had had the DMCA back then, I don't want to even think about how much an Apple PC would cost these days.

Re:DMCA Challenge?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the same with every platform at the time. Commodore, Atari, all of them had specificly designed periperals for their platform. The only thing they all had in common (besides Apple's computers) were that all their peripherals used Atari's ports for mice and joysticks. Even the IBM PS/2's ports were proprietary crap at the time. I don't blame any manufacturer at the tiem for using such a system, that was the way it was.

no it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

From the "Think Different" Dept.

some possible solutions?

[xirtam_work]

is for apple to allow OEM's to bundle a crippled version of iDVD which will only work with the manufacturers drive (like so many OEM cd burner software bundles). Apple could then licence each manufacturer/bundler to make extra money on the software, rather than buying it directly from Apple. After all, the margins on hardware aren't that great, and no-one is going to buy a brand new Mac just for the superdrive, especially if you just got one a few months back.

Another possible solution is for Apple to release their own external FireWire DVD-RW superdrive product and bundle iDVD with it.

There is other software that will work with 3rd party external drives, Final Cut Pro does as far as I know (but I could be wrong).

Also, couldn't Apple allow the sale and installation of Apple branded SuperDrives a Apple stores and authorised dealers as upgrades for G4 Macs? It's not as if there is a shortage of these drives at the moment. That way they could sell them at whatever cost they wanted.

I know these are not great solutions, the best solution would be for Apple to allow this kind of thing to happen and not cripple their software in this way, but hey, it's probably not going to happen.

Re:some possible solutions?

[jafac]

No. Final Cut Pro does not do DVD authoring.

Basically, yes, if Apple would "play nice" and bundle iDVD with an external drive, that would be great.

But since Apple needs a way to twist peoples' arms to sell new systems (because they are not doing enough on the technology side - CPU/bus speed - to encourage new hardware sales), such a bundle or offer will never be seen.

Frankly there is no technical reason why my current system (upgraded Beige G3) cannot be adequate for Authoring DVDs. It's perfectly adequate for everything else I do (other than gaming, and I don't do gaming). But Apple's strongarm tactics are pushing me to spend the obscene amounts of money for a new system, that is not commesurably faster considering the expense.

If Apple would JUST sell a dual 2 GHz system with DDR fsb, I'd bite on that in a second, even at their current pricing levels. But their systems today just plain aren't worth the money, and the authoring DVD functionality alone, isn't worth it either - particularly since the barriers are legal bullshit and greed, not technical.

ECU hacking

[oliverthered]

ECU hacking is common place

the first and most obvious problem

[oliverthered]

Apple should be either providing the software with the driver or selling the software.
If the software's FREE what do they expect, to get paid for it?

Now that they've applied that rule and sorted out the business model

Think Cars!

Re:the first and most obvious problem

[entrox]

Can I have some of the crack you're smoking?

Just because Apple provides iDVD for free doesn't mean it's Free in the speech sense. You are NOT allowed to modify it, which is exactly what has happened here and why the DMCA has been invoked.

A LAW IS A LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

why does everyone here seem to continually support the breaking of federal laws? speeding is selling drugs is murder is stealing copyrighted software and art.

If you ask me...

[nochops]

If you ask me, I say this is a good use of the DMCA. That's right, a good use.

Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.

What's wrong with that? Picture the average Mac user who's gonna use this software. Now picture the same person when he burns a bunch of coasters, or the program keeps crashing, or something worse. Who's he gonna blame? Apple, because they made the iDVD software, right? Even though though it was the third-party patch that allowed him to run the software on unsupported hardware in the first place.

The fact is, unsupported means unsupported. It's as simple as that. You can bet your sweet ass that [insert company name here] doesn't want to hear about it when their Windows software doesn't work under Wine or Lindows. It's the same thing. Think of Wine as the "patch" that allows you to run the software in an unsupported environment.

I say cheers to apple for standing up for their rights.

Re:If you ask me...

[gleffler]

Their rights? So, would you agree that it's OK for Dell to bundle a modified copy of Windows with their PCs that would only run on Dell hardware? Of course not, you bought Windows, dammit! The point is -- if you've legally acquired a license for the software, you have the right to modify it for interoperability, even per the DMCA. Therefore, anyone who gets a copy of iDVD can modify it to burn whatever they want to whatever drive they want. Apple's heavy-handedness won't work.

/gleffler

Re:If you ask me...

[nochops]

No, I wouldn't agree to Dell modifying Windows, and you've only strengthened my point. I'm not saying that the software shouldn't be modified. I'm saying that once modified, it should no longer carry the name "iDVD", just like a Dell only version of Windows should no longer be called Windows (I dunno, perhaps 'Dindows'?).

The patch should also change the name of the software out of fairness. How many support calls do you think this company will get when someone can't burn a DVD on hardware that was unsupported before? And how many do you think Apple is going to get? As someone else pointed out, there is no version of OSX for Intel. That's why. Also, do you think Apple will give you support when you can't get OS9 to run under Basilisk? No way, but they don't prevent you from running it, do they?

Re:If you ask me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.

And that's precisely the problem. Should it be illegal for me to modify the things I own to get the best out of them?

Re:If you ask me...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying Wine/Lindows should be illegal? Why the fuck does unsupported mean illegal?

Re:If you ask me...

[Stonehand]

You have the right to modify it for interoperability. However, you don't have the right to distribute the method...

Re:If you ask me...

[PhilHibbs]

would you agree that it's OK for Dell to bundle a modified copy of Windows with their PCs that would only run on Dell hardware? Of course not, you bought Windows, dammit!

Wrong, you bought a customised version of Windows! If you buy a cut-down version of a software package for a cut-down price, that does not give you any rights to the full product. I disagree with what Apple are doing, but your analogy is a crock.

Re:If you ask me...

[PhilHibbs]

You so do have the right to redistribute the method, as long as the method itself contains no Apple copyrighted material.

Re:If you ask me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it appears that you are under the mistaken belief that you "own" the computer operating system. You own nothing. Dell does not have to restrict you to using windows on only that machine, MS has already gotten you to agree to a license (on new systems) that restricts the OS to the hardware you purchased, and that hardware only. If you move it to other hardware you are commiting a crime.

The illusion here is that you "own" anything with regards to the software. If you want to own an operating system go download linux.

Oh and with regards to Apples actions. According to its supporters the DMCA was supposed to prevent pirating of digital copyrighted works. What we have here is a third party non-content maker using it to suppress software that does nothing more than allow customers to purchase higher quality hardware (potentially) at lower prices (potentially) as any free market would allow them. It is not preventing copyright infringement, the system already will burn DVD's with the internal drive. What this we have here is suppression of innovation, exactly the result that Mr. Lessig and the EFF has warned everyone about.

This is nothing short of an assault on whether you "own" even the hardware you purchased and is yet another example of what the DMCA has taken away from us.

Re:If you ask me...

[billatq]

"Actually it appears that you are under the mistaken belief that you "own" the computer operating system. You own nothing."

While the rest is flamebait, this is unfortunately true. All you own is a license to use the software, and they determine what the license entails. When you purchase the computer, you purchase a license to use the computer on an OEM system, which would in this case be Dell.

Like anything else, this has advantages and disadvantages:

• Advantages might be:
  
• If the cd breaks, hey no problem--you have a license so you're entitled to replacement media at little or no charge
• Licenses usually come with technical support of some kind, in case the product is difficult to use.

• Disadvantages though, could be:
  
• You are not entitled to do whatever you want with the software, since you don't own it
• Companies don't always replace the media for older products and instead suggest that you foot the bill out of pocket.
• The company can sometimes, revoke the license according to terms in the EULA (if that is enforcable anyway), leaving you without permission to use the software
• The company can put nasty clauses into the EULA and since you don't own the software, you can only agree with it or return the product.

In the case of Apple, they own the software, have determined that they want to allow it to work with a particular DVD drive (theirs) which isn't all that unreasonable. I don't agree with them using the DCMA to enforce it, but they can do whatever they want to with their software.

A decent analogy would be if you pay for a ticket to go to the circus. The ticket's license allows one to enter the circus. If you try to bring fifty people in (without their licenses to enter), then of course they will kick you out. It isn't in the interest of their business to allow fifty free admissions. Why would it be in the interest of apple to allow it to work with other dvd burners. We're not talking about them destroying your hardware here.

Re:If you ask me...

[jafac]

That's bullshit. You can't tell me that I'm going to be burning more coasters on my external firewire DVD burner - same exact fucking Pioneeer A03 model as is used as the internal model on the original flatpanel iMac. Unsupported doesn't have one thing to do with it. This is an artificial, non-technical barrier imposed by lawyers. Not engineers.

Re:If you ask me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, you Apple fanboy faggots are incredible.

Re:If you ask me...

[spitzak]

You do not need the DMCA to allow Apple to say "this is unsupported except on our hardware". You are implying that without the DMCA Apple has an implied guarantee that their software works on any hardware whatsoever. That is totally insane and I find it unbelievable that somebody would think this.

Re:If you ask me...

[deblau]

Apple is using the law to prevent people from modifying it's software with a third-party patch that enables the software to do something it wasn't intended to do.

What's wrong with that?

Apple is stifling innovation. Period. Ever heard of an invention or creative solution which used hardware or software exactly as it was intended? That wouldn't really be innovative, now would it?

Re:If you ask me...

[nochops]

How are they stiffling innovation?

What's to stop this company from making their own damn DVD burning software? That's right, nothing.

Apple said: hey, we don't want our software to be used for burning with this particular burner. What's wrong with that?

You want innovation? Get off your ass and write your own damn software.

Why no OS X on Intel

[chill]

This also highlites why there is no OS X for Intel hardware. Apple makes by far most of its money selling machines. Apple does not sell Intel hardware. Apple couldn't get the same margins selling Intel hardware.

Remember, one of the first things Jobs did upon his return was to kill the recently authorized Mac Clone market.

Apple does what is in Apple's best interests -- selling more Apple hardware. NOT what is necessarily in the user's/dealer's best interest. Frequently there is an overlap, but when they DO conflict, Apple will always side with Apple.

There may eventually be an OS X for Intel, but it will take a major thought-process shift in the upper echelons of Apple.

Re:Why no OS X on Intel

[nochops]

Uhh...wel, duh!

Of course Apple is going to do what is in Apple's best intrest. They are a company, not a charity. They exist in order to make money, not to make your life easier or better.

It's on you as the consumer to treat yourself like a corporation and put yourself first. Do what's in your best interest. If that means buying Apple products, then I guess both of you will be happy. If that means not buying Apple products, then I guess Apple wouldn't be happy. But then it's on them to make you want to buy their products.

Just don't go around slighting Apple for doing what any sound business would by protecting it's interests. If you don't like their policies, don't buy their products. If they give a shit, they'll change their ways. If they don't, who knows.

Getting back on topic, how would you feel if someone plagiarized your Master's Thesis, inserting a bunch of bullshit in the middle, then submitted it with your name still on the paper?

Re:Why no OS X on Intel

[chill]

I agree -- my post was pointing out the obvious, not berating Apple.

However, your comparison of a plagarized Master's Thesis is inaccurate. The patch software DIDN'T plagarize, it was an add-on to the software. Similar to further research. "Hey! You can also do this just by adding this!"

I got the impression from the story that Otherworld Computing was selling a 3rd party add-on/patch and NOT patched versions of iDVD. iDVD was still separate and this program was run to make a change. There is a world of difference.

Re:Why no OS X on Intel

[dspeyer]

Of course Apple is going to do what is in Apple's best intrest. They are a company, not a charity. They exist in order to make money, not to make your life easier or better.

I realize this is something of a formality by now, but corporate charters are supposed to be granted "in the public interest". It's entirely reasonable (in a capitalist society) that they charge enough money to operate, and even to attract investors with profits, but if they cause more harm than good, then by all rights they deserve to be disbanded. I don't think this qualifies as such a case, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Remember, only real people matter. Fictional people (such as Apple) exist only so long as we (and our courts) believe in them, and only because we think it benefitial to do so.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A "crack", but how does the DMCA apply?

[Kjella]

IANAL, but patching a program to create a derivative work which has the ability to write to other CD-burners is extremely similar to a "crack" like you find in the warez community for crippleware demo versions. How the DMCA applies to this I don't understand, then again I get the impression you can apply it to almost anything.

Kjella

Re:A "crack", but how does the DMCA apply?

[Peter Harris]

My guess is it doesn't.

I'm no lawyer either, but this smells as bad as Blizzard's bogus attack on bnetd.

Distributing a cracked version of someone else's software would be copyright violation. However, this is not being alleged here.

Distributing a patch for use on a legally-obtained copy of a program is only a violation of the DMCA if the patch circumvents a copy-prevention method. But in this case it doesn't. It merely circumvents one limitation of the functionality of the program.

It doesn't matter whether the limitation was intended to support a business plan - it's not about copy prevention so the DMCA does not apply.

GrapeJews

[Anonymous Coward]

DEATH TO ALL JEW NIGGERS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiii iiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iii iiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iii iiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYi iiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMM MHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMM MMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiij QMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiii iiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6i iiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMM MN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMM MMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii 5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiii iiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iii iiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
i iiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiii i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiii iii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii

Apple Good? Bad?

[killmenow]

OK, first, is Apple bad today? I thought they were good just the other day?

Second, I think Apple has every right to tell a distributor or reseller that they have to stop selling Macs with patched versions of iDVD and non-Apple DVD burners. After all, Apple wrote the software and they make the rules if you want to be an authorized (by...guess who...Apple...tada!) distributor or reseller.

That being said, I think it's fscked up that Apple would cripple software that comes with its SuperDrives so that it won't work with alternative DVD burners.

I mean, if I bought a Mac with a SuperDrive thereby getting iDVD, then I bought a different DVD burner from a third party...well, Apple's already got my money...and there's no reason iDVD shouldn't be allowed to work on the new drive as well...other than Apple is being pissy about it.

But then, I doubt Apple is going after people in this case. They just don't want dealers selling Macs without SuperDrives but including iDVD and the crack.

Re:Apple Good? Bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

"OK, first, is Apple bad today? I thought they were good just the other day?"

I was beginning to believe that too. I think they're still less evil than MS. Possibly as much as 47% less evil.

iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[GutBomb]

iDVD is an application that comes bundled with apple SuperDrives. It is not freely available (update patches are, but the actual application is not).

Wether or not you think apple should open it up to work with other DVD burners is irrelevant. Apple worte the software, bundled it with thier DVD burners, and sold it.

The only people who would have access to iDVD besides the people who bought a superdrive are the people who pirated it or people who used to have a superdrive, but now use another burner.

Apple put into the license agreement that you can only use the software on apple approved (read superdrive) dvd burners. Any other usage of the software is against the license agreement.

Everyone here cries foul when someone violates the GPL, and no one chastises the author of the software for it (recent xvid fiasco) but if it's another license, whoooo boy, watch out. the hypocricy comes out to play!

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Everyone here cries foul when someone violates the GPL, and no one chastises the author of the software for it (recent xvid fiasco) but if it's another license, whoooo boy, watch out. the hypocricy comes out to play!

Dumbass. There is no hypocrisy. People who support the GPL would prefer if there were NO software licenses, including the GPL. Restrictive licenses are bad. If someone violates the GPL by putting a restrictive license on your software, that's bad. If someone violates a restrictive license, I don't particularly care.

The GPL is a software license designed to prevent software licenses. If you think it's hypocrisy to support that but oppose regular software licenses, well, you're retarded.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Agreed.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Suppafly]

Dumbass. There is no hypocrisy. People who support the GPL would prefer if there were NO software licenses, including the GPL. Restrictive licenses are bad.

If gpl fans were really against restrictive licensing, the gpl would be very similar to the mit style licenses. The gpl is all about restrictions, restricting someone to only writing open source software is just as bad as restricting people to only closed source software.. This is why the gpl will never prevail, this is also why a lot of things that are publically gpl'd are also relicensed privately to companies that would rather pay a few bucks and not have to deal with making their software opensource.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[be-fan]

The gpl is all about restrictions, restricting someone to only writing open source software is just as bad as restricting people to only closed source software
>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh no? Open Source == Good. Closed Source == Bad. The GPL only has restrictions to protect certain freedoms. Just like there is a restriction on murder to protect people right to life.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[overunderunderdone]

People who support the GPL would prefer if there were NO software licenses, including the GPL.

But that's just not true. There IS a way to release software without a license - release it into the public domain. The GPL folks choose not to do so because after you have their software they still want to control what you do with it, just like Apple (though the motivation is different).

Or perhaps it is true but is hopelessly naive. If the GPL folks wanted to emulate a world without licenses they would have written their license to guarantee that derivtative works can't be released under any other license thus emulating a world without IP. But if they were honest they WOULD NOT have included a clause that says you must release the source code for derivitave works. By including that open source clause they are using the IP laws they want to abolish to make you do something you would not have to do absent that law. They, like Apple, are using IP laws to disallow a using technology in a way that they would be free to without IP laws. Because lets face it, if IP laws were all struck down tommorow closed-source, binary-only and copy-protected versions of Linux and Apache et al. would pop up almost immediately. And if in our fit of completely freeing developers from artificial legal constraints is complete the copy-restrictions could be a whole lot nastier than are currently allowed by law. Hey that series of 1's & 0's that comprises my "black ICE" copy protection scheme "wants to be free" just like any other series of 1's & 0's who is the government to tell me it can't be free?

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me stop this right now:

#include <usual_sematical_argument_about_what_freedom_is .h >

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[John Allsup]

It's not possible to release a software product into the public domain such that modified versions of the product must also be public domain.

One of the main purposes of the GPL is to effectively prevent further restrictions being added by a third party.

For example, I write program A and release it as public domain. Somebody else does something fancy-but-simple with it to get program B, most of which is still the same as (my) program A. He is able to release his product B under a license that requires that program B cannot be copied freely (unlike program A) cannot be modified or reverse engineered (unlike program A) etc.

Given the current position with what copyright controls and how rules about derivative works work etc. GPL is a pretty good approximation to the situation where copyright doesn't exist, but Stallman's ideal situation where everything can be copied freely cannot be approximated in the current climate.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[GutBomb]

ok, first i don't understand how this is informative, unless informative applies to him informing us of his opinion... then i guess all of the posts on slashdot should be modded informative.

Anyway... it's not informative. It's just plain wrong. If you do not support software licenses, release your software without a license, no GPL, no BSD, no license whatsoever. oh wait, you can't do that because you want to retail even a little bot of control over your work? what makes you any different than apple? sure thier control is of a different style (restricting what hardware the application will work on) than the GPL (restricting (yes, the GPL has RESTRICTIONS) on what you can and can't do with the source code/binaries.)

you can't have it both ways. if you are against software licenses then you are against the GPL in itself.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Elwood P Dowd]

How about people with a superdrive and an external burner. This is about fair use. For them, at least, if no one else.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[GutBomb]

i think you don't understand what "fair use" means. fair use refers to the right you have to make copies of copyrighted material, not the right to violate licence agreements. seriously, just aobut anyone here at slashdot could kill someoneone and find some way to say that it was in thier fair use rights

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[aaarrrgggh]

iDVD is an application that comes bundled with apple SuperDrives. It is not freely available (update patches are, but the actual application is not).

The problem is that people are misled into believing (through the marketing) that this ability is part of their new Mac. While they might not be able to afford the super drive today, they figure that they can get that functionality later.

Technically, you are correct. The website specifically states:

The SuperDrive
iMac with SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW) lets you burn your own movies and photos on a DVD that plays in almost any standard DVD player.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'm sorry. You are correct. If you remove the legal meaning of "fair use" and restrict it to the common sense meaning of "fair use" then my post stands.

If you purchase a cotton gin, for example, you may modify the cotton gin in absolutely any manner you see fit. The manufacturer could employ technical measures to stop you, but not legal ones.

I realize the law is not on my side. I'm just trying to say that it should be.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[overunderunderdone]

It's not possible to release a software product into the public domain such that modified versions of the product must also be public domain.

Umm.. read the second part of my post.

GPL is a pretty good approximation to the situation where copyright doesn't exist,

Umm.. Again, read the second part of my post.

In case you are too lazy to go back and read my post again (you apparantly didn't get past first paragraph) The GPL is NOT a good aproximation to a situation where copyright doesn't exist because it has an "open source" clause. Get rid of that and you would have a much more accurate emulation of the situation. Without intellecual property rights you would have no way of forcing someone to provide the source along with the binary.

Of course it will be legal to copy the binary so the commercial software (probably including a large amount of code from open source projects, why reinvent the wheel after all) will be tied to much more closed and proprietary hardware as a technological protection to replace the loss of legal protection. Companies like Apple will do OK since they use software to sell hardware. Open source will also do OK though as I noted their code will be used extensivly as the starting point for the closed software tied to closed systems.

There is a lot of room for reform of intellectual property laws but what is forgoten by the zealots is that the purpose of those laws is to open up information that would otherwise be jeolously guarded. Information may "want to be free" but people that develop/invent/create want to derive their livings from it first. If the law does not allow them to "own" that information once it becomes public most creators will find a way to do so in which it does NOT become public. Look at Zildjian's business plan (which was the common one before intellectual property laws). They chose to keep their metalurgical processes secret in order to make their living off of it and have successfully kept the secret (and make a living from it) for hundreds of years. Just think what other uses could have been found for their inventions other than pretty sounding cymbals if they could have been persuaded to disclose the secret of it in return for legal protection rather than the protection that comes from being a secret. That kind of secrecy & extreme of "closed source" is the realistic alternative to Intellectual Property laws.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Bungie]

Uh no? Open Source == Good. Closed Source == Bad. The GPL only has restrictions to protect certain freedoms. Just like there is a restriction on murder to protect people right to life.

This entire statement makes no point in the argument for the GPL, it just goes to prove how much you've been brainwashed into believing the GPL is something more than it is. Comparing the GPL with the right to live is also the worst analogy I've ever seen!

As for restrictions, the GPL is actually restrictive in a way. What turns most developers off of it is the fact that anytime you modify GPL'd code, you must also provide your modifications under the GPL. This is not a true freedom for a developer (he is forced to submit the changes), nor does it protect any freedoms except those of Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[be-fan]

A) Obviously, you don't understand what an analogy is. I never compared the GPL to the right to life. I just said that the GPL restricts in order to protect freedom, just as the Constitution restricts in order to protect freedom. Let me give you an example Gorilla is the Lemeur as Skyscraper is to shanty. The relationship between Gorilla and Lemeur is big::small, just as the relationship between skyscraper and shanty is big::small. Nowhere in the analogy is their an implied relationship between a lemeur and a shanty, aside from the aformentioned similarity in their relationships with another object.
B) The GPL doesn't just protect Stallman's rights (as you say) by restricting software developers. It restricts the rights of the software developer (one person) in return for protecting the right of the entire Open Source community to use free software (many people). Under other licenses, changes to free software do not get put back into the software, which makes the software less free. In the rationale of the GPL, free software is recognized as a right, and the GPL protects people's rights to free software by making sure closed improvements cannot be made to it. Say someone takes a piece of free software, improves it tremendously, and closes it up. Now, people are forced to choose between good software and free software. Just as (here is another analogy coming up here) the Constitution bars people from making others choose between money and life (ie. give us all your money or we will kill you) the GPL prevents people from making otheres choose between quality and freedom.

Re:iDVD is not "free" (as in beer or speech)

[Bungie]

Sorry, after reading your post again, I see that I misread your post and you did not make such a comparison.

Re:First post

[Anonymous Coward]

The summer came and B, in contrast to any hope, remained at St Petersburg. His trip in the south had been canceled but still his case wouldn't come to an end. This case -a trial over a financial dispute- started taking a very bad turn. Before three months it still seemed so simple, almost incontestable, suddenly however everything changed. "I have the impression that lately everything started becoming worse!" This phrase, B, used to say again and again frequently and with malevolence to himself. He had a lawyer worthy, renowed and dearly payed because he didn't spare the expenses. Nevertheless, due to impatience and disbelief, he took the habit of hunting the case and on his own: he would read and write various documents which his lawyer dismissed all, he would run to the competent institions, gather various information and of course upset everything; at least his lawyer grumbled and every now and then advised him to go to the country. But he, neither to the country decided to go. The dust, the unbearable heat, the white nights of St Petersburg which so much irritate the nerves -this is what he enjoyed in the capital. His house was somehwere there near the Grand Theater and it wasn't long that he had it taken, but and in that he was mistaken: "Everything goes wrong with me!" he said. His hypochondria was increasing day by day. Afterall from a while ago he had the predisposition to become hypochondriac.

He was a man who lived a wide and pleasant life. He wasn't young anymore. He must had been 38 or the most 39 and all this "old age" -as he said- came to him "completely unexpected". Nontheless, he felt it himself that he got old probably, not so much from the years, as from the way of life he passed and that althought his inabilities started already, their effect was more internal than external. His appearance showed still that he was fine. He was a fellow tall and courageous, with dense bright-blond hair, and not even one fur white wasn't seen in his head and his long flame-blond beard, that reached almost as the half of his chest. From the first impression he seemed a bit out of shape and like decayed but if one attentively looked at him he would preceive immediately that he had in front him a gentleman excellently preserved, who had received at sometime the most attended breeding. The manners of B and even now were free, brave and elegant despite the fact that with the years he had become crabbed and slow-moving. Even now he was full with that unshaken, the most social, full of impertinence self-confidence, whos extent maybe he didn't even suspect himself, althought he was a man not only smart, but sometimes and reasonable, almost educated and with indisputable gifts. The color of his face, which was merry and ruddy, stood out in the old years for it's female affection and drew the attention of women; but even and now many, when they saw him, said : "What a strong man, as if he was kneaded from blood and milk!" and yet, this strong man had been bout of severe hypochondria. His eyes, which were big and blue, ten years ago also had an expression unrivalled; so bright, so cheerful and carefree these eyes were, that unintentionally excited whoever came in contact with B. Now, at his forty years, almost faded the lucidity and kindness in those eyes, which started already being surrounded by light wrinkles; on the contrary, it showed up on them a certain cynicism of a tired and not entirely moral man; the cunning and even more often the irony and some new expression, which didn't exist in them before; and expression of melancholy and pain -one certain distracted melancholy, a little unjustified but yet possible. That melancholy occured mostly when he was alone. And strage, just two years ago this noisy, so cheerful and enjoyable man, who narrated so pungently so many funny stories, he not loving anything else now but living in absolute lonelyness. He turned aside on purpose from a heap of his acquqintances, whom could still even now socially contact, despite the total disaster of his financials. Of course, to all this added and his vanity : with his suspiciousness and his pride he couldn't put up with his old acquaintances. However and his vanity started slowly changing into isolation. Not that it grew less, on the contrary as a matter of fact. But he started taking a special form of vanity, which he didn't have before. Now he started getting hurt at times by completely different causes than the usual; he was teased by causes completely unexpected and which before didn't imagine at all, by causes "much more superior" than until today -"If anyone can express it like that, if indeed there are causes superior and inferior..." that thought he made it himself.

AppleJews

[Anonymous Coward]

DEATH TO ALL JEW FAGGOTS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiii iiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iii iiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iii iiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYi iiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMM MHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMM MMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiij QMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiii iiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6i iiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMM MN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMM MMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii 5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiii iiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iii iiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
i iiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiii i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiii iii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii

laws protecting business models

[_|()|\|]

to use the software you're required to provide Apple revenue through the purchase of an Apple DVD writer

If there was any vestige of hope that Apple, originator of the infamous "look-and-feel" copyright law suits, was a "good guy," it has quashed it by abusing the DMCA. Apple developed iDVD to make Macs more attractive, so it released it free of charge. It hoped that people would use it on SuperDrives.

Other World Computing didn't circumvent a copy-protection scheme, it circumvented a business model. You know, like writing a Perl script for use with the freely distributed Cue Cat, or a Java program to administer an AirPort base station. I bought an AirPort, because it was cheaper than anything comparable at the time. I'm sure Apple expected me to buy a couple of Macs to go with it.

Re:laws protecting business models

[joshsisk]

Other World Computing didn't circumvent a copy-protection scheme, it circumvented a business model. You know, like writing a Perl script for use with the freely distributed Cue Cat, or a Java program to administer an AirPort base station.

This would be true EXCEPT that, instead of packaging their competing product with a piece of DVD-writing software, they instead packaged it with a piece of software that altered their competitors software. If they had taken the time and written a their own software to burn DVDs, instead of cutting corners and lifting from a competitor, then they would not have gotten in trouble.

Bad marketing does not equal piracy

[gpinzone]

I can understand why Apple would be upset. Their software that's given away for free in order to promote their hardware is used to drive up sales for their competitors. However, who's fault is that? It's Apple's fault. Unless you force me to sign a contract to exclusively use Apple's software with Apple's hardware, you can't stop me from doing otherwise. Well, I mean they shouldn't be able to do that. That's the reason why this action is so bad.

Apple just doesn't get it, do they? Microsoft strived to ensure their Windows 9X operating system worked with as many different hardware products as possible. I can use a third party MS compatible mouse on my Windows box without fear of DCMA reprisal. When are they gonna learn, it's not about the hardware, stupid.

Re:Bad marketing does not equal piracy

[RatBastard]

The license for iDVD is restricted to being used with Apple's SuperDrive. They made sure to enforce that within their software.

Your comparison with Microsoft is flawed. Microsoft sells software, Apple sells hardware. IDVD exists to promote sales of Apple Superdrives, period.

Re:Bad marketing does not equal piracy

[gpinzone]

The license for iDVD is restricted to being used with Apple's SuperDrive. They made sure to enforce that within their software.

And someone else made sure to remove that feature which IMHO is their right to do providing they OWN that copy of iDVD.

Your comparison with Microsoft is flawed. Microsoft sells software, Apple sells hardware. IDVD exists to promote sales of Apple Superdrives, period.

Really? Then what's OSX? Hardware?

Apple's intentions may have been to only allow iDVD to be used with Apple hardware, but so what? They don't have the right to tell me what to do with my computer just because their marketing department is too inept to realize that giving away iDVD for free was a dumb idea.

Re:Bad marketing does not equal piracy

[RatBastard]

Did you even read the article? They stopped a retailer from altering and redistributing iDVD to work on non-Apple DVD burners they (the store) was selling. That has nothing to do with you patching your personal copy.

OSX is the OS that lets you use Apple's hardware. You can't use OSX without an Apple Macintosh. Microsoft Windows works with ANY Intel compatible system, and is Mircosoft's bread and butter (well, Office is). Apple's primary focus is teh hardware, not the software.

And yes they do have the right to tell you what hardware you can and can not use their software on. Don't beleive me? Ask a lawyer. iDVD id bundled for use only with the Apple Superdrive. It's not given away for free to just anybody.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Its an MPEG2 liscencing issue

[TwitchCHNO]

Apple pays for an MPEG 2 liscence for iDVD. iDVD is on the restore disk. If apple allowed this hack to be distributed they would have to pay a liscencing fee for every restore disk w/ iDVD rather than just the Macs that come with a superdrive.

I think this is the first legitmate use of the DMCA in history. Apple should be applauded for the proper use of such laws - not berated for suspected misuse.

OrangeJews

[Anonymous Coward]

PRAISE ALLAH! HEIL ELIZABETH SMART!

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYiiii iiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5iiii iiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5iiii iiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNYii iiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMM HJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMMMM MMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiiijQ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiiiii iitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6ii iiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMMMM N5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NMMM MMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiiii5 WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiii iii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiii iiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
ii iiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii

Stupid Steve... *REALLY* Stupid...

[Arcturax]

Just when he is getting on the good sides of the geek community, he pulls a stunt like this.

Now he might as well burn DMCA into his forehead because he is going to have the stink of that law around him for all time for this stunt.

You know, instead of attacking OWC with a bad law which will definately get them REALLY bad publicity, even among their own ranks, why didn't Jobs cut a deal with OWC instead?

Make iDVD part of the OWC DVD burner bundle? No piracy concerns there now are there?

If he thinks this will boost Mac sales, he's fooling himself. If they are going for a cheaper 3 rd party DVD burner, then maybe it is because they *CAN'T AFFORD A NEW MAC RIGHT NOW* or simply bought one which had no DVD burner at the time or wish to hook one up to a Powerbook or iBook and burn DVD's on the go.

Companies like Dell have to live with the fact that any schmuck can go build their own PC for 2/3 the cost of a premade PC but they are still in buisiness.

So Steve, please learn to fucking compete instead of using unconstitutional laws to hurt your own 3rd party developers.

Re:Stupid Steve... *REALLY* Stupid...

[ihoppancakes]

'the geek community'

Go fuck yourself dumbfuck. You don't speak for geeks.

Re:Stupid Steve... *REALLY* Stupid...

[Arcturax]

I never claimed that I did. Though I notice that some people have modded me down simply because they didn't agree with me or think I'm a troll. I don't worry as I have plenty of good karma and I know my position is correct.

The fact is, I am a Mac user and have been with Apple since the days of the IIe. The reason this DMCA thing upsets me so much is that Steve Jobs should know better than to order this kind of thing. Not only that, but as a Mac user, I am always glad to see 3rd party options and competition between vendors on my platform because it *drives prices down*. When Apple uses the DMCA against its own 3rd party providers, it sends a message of "don't bother porting your hardware to the Mac" and that is why I am upset. I may love Apple and the Mac, but I'm not afraid to criticize them when they deserve it.

They don't want to support it

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple sells the Superdrive with iDVD. They know how iDVD works, they designed it to work with the Superdrive. Now another company releases a hack that let you use iDVD with another DVD writer.
So now you start using iDVD, you create a nice 7 GB movie file showing your dog running around. Cool, you burn it, and...what if iDVD reports some cryptic error? Maybe a Buffer Underrun? Invalid Sense Code? Servo Error? Could be. Call Apple, ask them what went wrong.... NO. Apple doesn't want you to do this. They don't want to support their users that hacked a program not designed to work with 3rd party drivers. Personally I think they better do so, DMCA o not...

Actually, I think I'm a bit confused here....

[91degrees]

If the software only works with their burners, then it makes sense to bundle the software with the burner. I'm not quite sure how they're distributing it.

If people are selling the software separately, then I'd assume that this is a case of traditional piracy, in which case I agree that Apple are well within their rights.

For the record - I'll only make the argument about "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" when people compare copyright infringement with physical theft.

Re:Actually, I think I'm a bit confused here....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they really don't know what they want. They invested money and time and effort into iDVD. They bundle it with Mac OS X or hardware? If I can buy Jaguar for $129 and iDVD is included then I would say they got their money and it is none of their business which burner I use. I f it goes with hardware, then you can only get it with their burner and they got their money. If somebody makes it work with other burner lately, so what?

Re:Actually, I think I'm a bit confused here....

[MoneyT]

Because, if it goes with the burner, and someone else makes it work with another burner andthen sells a machine without the appl eburnere, they haven't made their money on the distribution have they?

software for free?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean apple gives you software for free?
As far as i know Mac OSX 10.2 costs 129 $ to upgrade.
Maybe you consider that free compared to the exorbitant cost of their hardware?

I am sorry but for me a customer that goes to buy an Apple, goes to buy a complete solution, that is to buy hardware and software.

I mean, with your logic i could as well say that you buy the customer support and they trough away the hardware AND software for free!!!

..umm HawaiianPunchJews!@!#

[Anonymous Coward]

FDAHFJLKDAHDS LASKJ FAGG ASS CUNT JEW!~!! *FROTHS*

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijtiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMQtiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMQjiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMMMHJii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii6WMMMMMMMNYii iiiiiiJciiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii5WMMMMMMMN5ii iiiiiiJHMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii5NMMMMMMMW5ii iiiiiiJHMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMNY iiiiiitKMMMMMMMMMW6iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMM MMHJiitQMMMMMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiiii
iiiiitciiiiiiijQMM MMMMMMKDMMMMMMMMQWMMMMMMMN5iiiii
iiitKMWSiiiiiiii jQMMMMMMMMMMMMMMQtiiSWMMMMMMMNYiii
itQMMMMMW6iiii iiiitKMMMMMMMMMMKtiiiiicSMMMMMMMMHJi
iJHMMMMMMMW6 iiiiiicSMMMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiicXMMMMMMN5i
iiiYNMMMMM MMN5iiiSWMMMMMMMMMMMMMDciiiiiiicDMMW6iii
iiiii5NM MMMMMMNSWMMMMMMMHNMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiij5iiiii
iiiiii i5WMMMMMMMMMMMMMN5ii5NMMMMMMMMSciiiiiiiiiiii
iiii iiiii6WMMMMMMMMMW5iiiiii6WMMMMMMMWSiiiiiiiiiii
ii iiiiiiiiiSWMMMMMW6iiiiiiiitKMMMMMMMMXciiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiicSMMWSiiiiiiiitQMMMMMMMMDjiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiic6ciiiiiiijQMMMMMMMMQjiiiiiiiiiiii ii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijDMMMMMMMMQtiiiiiiiiiiii iiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicXMMMMMMMMKtiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijQMMMMMMHJiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitKMMHJiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitYiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii

Battered Housewives

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Apple acting within it's rights? Certainly, but it's still an anti-customer act, and indicative of the general attitude prevailing over there.

Most of your Apple users now are the hardcore (or so Apple seems to beleive) that will take anything from Apple and love it. Reading some of these apologist responses almost makes ME beleive it. You Mac users are like battered housewives, you just keep going back to the guy no matter what he does to you.

Apple has no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the licensing issues surrounding DVD authoring, Apple has no choice but to limit what drives iDVD works with. Apple pays licensing fees *per drive*, not per copy of the application. Therefore. third parties enabling use of iDVD on non-Apple iron open up *Apple* to liability issues. Apple is covering its own ass and nothing more.

So...

[squaretorus]

Apple provide software for FREE. Apple Good.
Apple put limitations on the FREE software. Apple Bad.

Apple produce the software to make the drives they sell more attractive.

So it's not unreasonable to protect the software, or to try to protect the software - otherwise it loses its purpose and they will simply drop it.

I think what grates with most people is the way they use the law (that /.ers dont like) and lawyers (who no one likes) to do it.

BUT. How the fuck else can they do it? I doubt they leapt straight to the 'cuff 'em' stage. If you use lawyers you use the law.

First sale. Period.

[jimhill]

Let's say I buy a Mac with SuperDrive and it comes with a copy of iDVD on CD-ROM. Let's say further that I want the high horsepower of DVD Studio Pro rather than the adequate-but-underpowered iDVD.

I have every right under the doctrine of first sale to sell my CD-ROM of iDVD to anyone who wants it, just as I have the right to sell that goofy one-button mouse that I'll be replacing with a multibutton wireless model.

"Oh, but that's a violation of the license!" Judge Pregerson put it best in his Softman _v_ Adobe ruling: "The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license."

Those of you who argue that it is impossible to get a copy of iDVD without buying a SuperDrive-loaded Mac are incorrect. Buy my copy. Those of you who argue that Apple has the right to control how their product is used once they have sold it are incorrect. Those of you who argue that the restriction placed on iDVD use is in any way covered by the DMCA are incorrect.

None of that changes the fact that the company with more money can and will crush the company with less money -- or that the company with less money will fold instantly if its business model requires staying on good terms with the company with more money, which is the case in this particular instance.

It's all a stinking, festering shitpile.

Re:First post

[Anonymous Coward]

god that was boring my nigga..

The facts (for a change)

[damieng]

The fact is that any software or hardware utilizing DVD technologies has to pay a licence fee.

I clearly recall a discussion recently where it was revealed that Apple do not pay any such recording licence fees on iDVD but instead on the SuperDrive in order to keep costs down.

By allowing people to distribute hacks to let their software work on other drives (which will have just the standard drive licences, not those associated with DVD encoding etc) Apple will loose their position with the DVD licencing authority and end up having to pay such licences for every copy of iDVD.

Yes, perhaps they should have done this but the fact is the software itself is free. Windows doesn't even come with DVD playback let alone authoring and I don't recall anything similar in a Linux distro.

Apple do offer DVD Studio Pro for $1000 that is fully licenced and will work with any mac-compatible DVD-R drive or alternatively pick up a copy of Roxio Toast 5 Titanium for $100.

Not everything in life is free.

Get used to it.

Re:The facts (for a change)

[DiscoOnTheSide]

I know this is kinda nitpicking, but Windows XP *does* have DVD playback support, through Windows Media Player. I wouldnt use it if you held a gun to my head, but it's there.....watching.....waiting.......now if you'll excuse me I have a pillow fort to go hide in

Re:The facts (for a change)

[damieng]

No, Windows XP can only play DVD's if third party codecs are installed such as those that come with WinDVD.

[)

Re:The facts (for a change)

[dusanv]

The fact is that any software or hardware utilizing DVD technologies has to pay a licence fee.

This is something new. Licensing fee for DVD technology? What licensing fees may that be and payable to whom? I know a guy that bought a DVD writer and is using it in Linux pretty happily and legally. What licensing fees did he pay? Please elaborate.

Re:The facts (for a change)

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, what software is your friend using to author and write DVD video under linux?

Oh, you mean he isn't authoring and writing DVD video disks playable in standalone players? Well of course he didn't have pay any licensing fees!

Either way, the DVD technology is protected by trade secret laws, not by patents, so a reverse engineered utility would not be subject to licensing fees, but I'm sure that apple did not reverse engineer the DVD technologies. They probably do have a license agreement.

I don't see how this is an issue, since theoretically if somebody sold their copy the apple software, there is still only one person using it, but that's not what we're talking about.

Re:The facts (for a change)

[damieng]

Right, the people who made his DVD writer will have paid licencing fees to read/write to DVD discs, decode CSS etc.

Sure, if he's just writing files to it then thats pretty much the end of it.

iDVD however is a DVD authoring package and as such does MPEG encoding, Dolby Digital encoding etc. There is a seperate licence fee for this by the manufacturer of the software.

It is not an *end user* licencing fee.

Re:The facts (for a change)

[DiscoOnTheSide]

I stand corrected. Thank you. Mod that man up!

It's not a matter of legal rights

[mblase]

They don't make a single penny on iDVD per se, but on the drives it supports - if somebody now makes iDVD work with third-party burners, they take away the only reason why it is provided at all (for free).

I think we can all agree that Apple is within its rights (at least legally) to discourage this sort of thing: it's their software, and they don't want it patched to work on non-Apple hardware, since the whole point of the free software is to sell expensive Apple hardware. Fine, good.

But it's still an ethical crime -- this is a patch to Apple's well-written program to allow it to work on non-Apple DVD burners. You're still using Apple hardware to run iDVD in the first place, for crying out loud -- it may not be the latest and greatest machine (and if it's a slower processor, it may take ages to do the job), but it's still Apple's motherboard.

Saying "Apple sells hardware, not software" is just false, because they charge over $100 for the latest OS and $50 for AppleWorks -- those two just off the top of my head. Even if it were true, it's not a good reason.

Without meaning to paint Slashdotters with a broad brush, I think I can safely say we'd be in a unified uproar if HP or Compaq used the same reason to prevent third-party patches to their included CD or DVD-burning software, or to prevent Linux OSes from accessing the burner altogether.

And we'd be justified in doing so, because once you buy the machine and/or download the software, it's yours to do with as you please. If I have the moral right to back up my CD-ROMs and DVDs using my home computer, I have the same moral right to patch my DVD-burning software to run on any hardware I happen to own.

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[joshsisk]

If I have the moral right to back up my CD-ROMs and DVDs using my home computer, I have the same moral right to patch my DVD-burning software to run on any hardware I happen to own.

Unless the EULA you have to agree to to install the program says that you aren't allowed to do that, which it most likely does.

Beyond that, everyone seems to be missing the point here... As far as I understand it, it's not against the DMCA for _you_ to patch your iDVD. However, it is against the DMCA for Other World Computing to distribute the patch (which they include with the DVD burners they sell, coincidentally).

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[Happy Monkey]

Pushing "I agree" to install a piece of software no more means that you agree than pushing "yes" means you're a wuss when exiting the game "DOOM".

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[joshsisk]

Pushing "I agree" to install a piece of software no more means that you agree than pushing "yes" means you're a wuss when exiting the game "DOOM".

Well, you could say that... but you'd be wrong (in the US and, I believe EU, anyway). In many countries these contracts have proved to be binding. That's why they are there, after all.

That has nothing to do with the rest of my comment, regardless.

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[Happy Monkey]

Not in the US in general, but in MD and VA, which have passed UCITA. Otherwise, it hasn't been tested in court.

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[monkeydo]

This is a patch to Apple's well-written program to allow it to work on non-Apple DVD burners.

Patches fix bugs. This is not a bug. Apple designed this behavior as a security measure to prevent people from using this free software in a way whixh is contrary to the license it is distributed under.

Therefore this software is not a "patch" it is a "crack".

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[ichimunki]

This software is not free as in beer, nor is it free as in speech. Your use of the word free here is inaccurate. The price of the software has been figured into the price of the drives or other Apple hardware when it is bundled with the hardware-- if Apple thought of the software as "free" in any sense of the word, they wouldn't care about this hack (whether it's a "patch" or a "crack" I am not interested in debating). As far as I can tell, this software is not available except as part of the purchase of an Apple SuperDrive. If it *is* available either for no-charge full download I apologize for the incorrect posting, but the only thing I'm finding is iDVD 2.1 for $20.

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[monkeydo]

This software is not free as in beer, nor is it free as in speech.

It is free as in bundled. You can buy the iDVD 2.1 upgrade, but you still need to have iDVD 2 and a Superdrive.

Of course the cost of this has been figured into the hardware. That's exactly why they only license it for use with their hardware. That's what they are pissed about. If these folks want to sell someone else's hardware and bundle it with someone else's software Apple woudn't care. Instead they are bundling someone else's hardware with Apple's software and providing a crack to make it work in clear violation of the software's license.

Your point that you can't buy the software seems to strengthen Apple's argument that the software is only for use with their drives. Apple does sell DVD Movie Pro that you can use with any drive.

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the EULA you have to agree to to install the program says that you aren't allowed to do that
Yeah but we're talking about the real world here, not the world where everybody plays nice.
Unless you have filed away a copy of EVERY EULA that ever came into your hands.
I didn't think so.

Re:It's not a matter of legal rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Beloved Comrade Leader Attourney General Ashcroft, sir!

This is Open and Shut, Really

[crawling_chaos]

Actually, OWC violated a license agreement. If OWC had violated the GPL, say by taking a Free DVD writing application, bundling it with the external drive and not distributing the source, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune.

Apple's license agreement says that you are not to modify or patch iDVD or distribute any modified binary. Perhaps using the four-letter word in the cease-and-desist was a bit of overkill, but it doesn't change the fact that what they did was a violation of the iDVD license.

Re:This is Open and Shut, Really

[PhilHibbs]

The difference is that violating the GPL is violating copyright, because the GPL is an additional rights grant on top of your copyright rights, which are unchanged whereas Apples licence is a revocation of copyright rights that Judge Dean D. Pregerson says doesn't stand up.

Re:This is Open and Shut, Really

[crawling_chaos]

And modifying and redistributing a binary is not a copyright violation? It's textbook. There is absolutely no shade of gray here.

Now if Apple was going after a web site that described how to do perform the patch, without having a modified binary on the site? Now we have some shades of gray...

Re:This is Open and Shut, Really

[dwater]

> And modifying and redistributing a binary is not a copyright violation?

They didn't modify a binary. All they distributed was a patch that would modify a binary. Even if applying the patch was illegal, I don't think selling the patch is.

Re:This is Open and Shut, Really

[Snaller]

Actually, OWC violated a license agreement.

Except license agreements of that sort are not legally valid...

Re:This is Open and Shut, Really

[PhilHibbs]

And modifying and redistributing a binary is not a copyright violation?

I didn't realise that was what is happening. Are they redistributing it, or are they just supplying a modified version to customers that are legitimately acquiring the software? If I buy a copy of Windows, modify it, and then sell it on, I don't think that is illegal.

DVD Enabler modified iDVD so the application would save completed DVDs to a FireWire-connected drive.

There's nothing in the article that says that the dealer was redistributing copyright material anyway, and if they were, Apple could use traditional copyright law.

Re:This is Open and Shut, Really

[crawling_chaos]

Then the GPL itself is not legally valid. Remember, RMS's cultural jam was to use copyright law against itself.

Re:First post

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, how terribly bored I am" often exclaimed B when he was alone.

Heh, got it in one

[mblase]

If I buy a car from ford, ford expect me to get the car fixed and repaired using only ford authorised mechnics and parts (which they make money on?).

Actually, they do. When your engine has a problem, it flicks on the "check engine" light and generates a code in the car's internal computer. These codes are not standard; they're custom to each manufacturer, and only a Ford repairman has the equipment and reference guide to interpret them. Your average non-branded mechanic has neither the technology nor the information to interpret those codes.

Now, there's some noise being made about this, and independent mechanics are pushing dealers to publish those codes so that they don't have a monopoly on maintenance. But so far, to my knowledge, they've been unsuccessful.

Just letting you know your example was more accurate than you thought.

Re:Heh, got it in one

[xercist]

My '96 Ford's check engine light came on a while ago. I went down to the nearest car parts store, borrowed their *standard* OBDII (On-Board-Diagnostic II) scanner, plugged it in, read the code, looked it up in the manual, and knew exactly why the check engine light had turned on.

Given my car is 6 years old, perhaps they've come up with a new "standard" to piss people off since then?

Re:Heh, got it in one

[zerocool^]

Was it the oxygen sensor on the exhaust manifold?

~Will

Re:Heh, got it in one

[colatek]

Actually you are wrong about car codes not being standard. Since 1996 they have been. ODB2. Being a mechanic I should know. The big reason for the standard is so the mechanics don't have to shell out the cash for a diagnostic unit for each car. Snap-On charges 2k or more for these devices. And the snap-on unit can read everything (except heavy truck, you have to get a Pro-Link or a laptop with manufacturer's software). You just have to update the card each year. Heavy trucks are not standardized.

What I think would work

[cecirdr]

Ok...I understand that Apple includes the software with those macs that have superdrives....and the increased price of the computer essentially "pays" for the iDVD software.

So, for those of us like myself who just (one month ago) bought a new Tibook or some other mac w/o a superdrive, how about creating a version of iDVD to sell. It would give folks without a superdrive an option to burn DVDs and it would be a revenue stream. I can't afford Final Cut Pro or Studio DVD, but I COULD afford a low cost version of iDVD.

Lesseee....what would be reasonable? ...$20...$50? If I were Apple, I wouldn't sneeze at the opportunity to sell another version of iDVD. There's obviously a demand for it.

Re:What I think would work

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, they're not satisfied with that $20-$50. They want $2000+. They want you to buy a whole new machine. Just bought your TiBook? Too bad. Buy another one with the superdrive if you want iDVD.

Re:All the people standing up for Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad this is -1... this guy really sums it all up

Legally they have the right to do so but...

[CarrionBird]

If they only wanted users of thier drives to use it, they should have only distributed it with thier drives. They made it part of the iTools suite, giving it to everyone who buys X. To pull this now is getting close to a bait and switch, but since it was free (as in beer), the injury is minimal.

Although, since the iTools are a big selling point of X, one could aruge that they are a part of the OS package and are therefore paid for. Then it really looks like a bait and switch, except the terms were there all along, buried in the EULA.

It's not like these people are trying to pirate anything, they're just trying to use the software they leaglly paid for (not counting the leeches who just bummed the disc from thier buddies).

All Apple is accomplishing is throwing more of thier karma capitol into the fire. The group of people this effects is small enough to not hurt Apple too much, even if they get pissed off and go elsewhere. My guess is that this is a knee-jerk reaction to what they percieved as a threat to thier control of the platform. A lot of people feel that such control is an necessary part of making the Mac different from other systems.

Before you call this a troll, consider this: What you you say if MS were to pull the same thing? (they dont make drives or editing software, it's just an illustration)

FREE is gratis

[oliverthered]

Hell I've been off the crack for a few months now, have you ever tried crack to comment?

FREE is gratis, here you go, have this

Free is not, 'Hey I have this thing, but I have to pay for it'

Satellite installation in the UK is marketed as FREE with the small print of 'so long as you subscribe for a year'. And they wont do the installation 'UNTIL' you pay for a years subscription.

How is iDVD advertised? as included in the cost of the Mac, combian; as Free, gratis, here you go.

software is physical

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a cd,
turn it to the light
Can you see the croves and slight change in surface texture.

See that's the software, it's physical.

Re:software is physical

[Lars T.]

So change that physical software on the CD then.

Re:software is physical

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I just take an impression of the CD using say light and then modify it electronically and create a new physical CD from it.

Even if it's stored electronicly it's still physical, you'd have to store it using energy not matter. then you get down to weird qauntum ness and seeing as knowone knows whats going on you couldn't prove if it physical or not.

You do get into problems if someone has remembered the whole source of a piece of software and can recite it, maybe then it's not physical.

they have been successful.

[Anonymous Coward]

In europe, well at least I think they have.
You can still get the codes and stuff it just costs, and there's nothing to stop you physically looking for the fault.

Re:they have been successful.

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck europe. too many fags over there.

Correction...

[CarrionBird]

I have been corrected in some of my assertions. Apparantly the software is bundled specifically with the superdrives, so it's not as tricky a manuver as I first thought, just heavy handed.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Clanner]

One small problem- AFAIK, iDVD does not come on a seperate CD-ROM. It comes bundled on your recovery CD-ROM. So how exactly do you go about selling your copy of iDVD? You could make a copy of the CD, but that's piracy, since you you still have your original. And it's pretty well accepted that piracy is illegal.
If you want to hack iDVD to do whatever you want, feel free. But I don't particularly see a problem with Apple asking one of it's retailers to not commercially distribute a patch that does so.
I find it highly ammusing that everybody wants software for free, but then gets into an uproar when the developer tries to have some control over how the software is used. If you have that much of a problem with it, buy some other DVD-authoring software that works with 3rd party drives. Why is this such a big deal?

The REAL reason why Apple have done this...

[pmerrison]

Apple have to pay a royaly for each and every copy of iDVD that they distribute because of the MPEG codecs that it contains. When you buy a SuperDrive from Apple, part of the price that you pay covers that royalty paymeny. If you're using the drive with non-apple hardware, then their not making anything back to cover that payment. I reckon that this is the real reason why Apple have moved to stop this patch.

This is not about copy protection!!!!

[interactive_civilian]

This is about software piracy or violating license agreements.

No really. It is not possible to legally get a free copy of iDVD without the purchase of a Super-Drive equipped Macintosh. You cannot download it for free off of Apple's servers. Of course, you can buy it from the Apple Store but if you notice the system requirements, it says

* Any Power Macintosh G4 or G4 iMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive).

So, Apple has it spelled out pretty clearly (IMHO, and I am willing to bet that it is also somewhere in the EULA but perhaps not as clearly...any iDVD owners wish to clarify?) that iDVD is only for use with a super-drive equipped Macintosh.

Now, is this a DMCA issue? It probably shouldn't have been. I would bet that Apple could have probably just asked nicely* and Other World would have stopped...I base that on this quote:

O'Connor said his company values its close relationship with Apple--it's been a dealer since 1988--and backed down immediately. "No. 1, we don't want to get into a fight with Apple," O'Connor said Wednesday. "No. 2, we're an Apple certified developer. We're not out there to offend Apple."

IMHO, Apple is not in the wrong here as far as protecting themselves. But they probably shouldn't have used the DMCA to do it. They could have probably done it much more gracefully and in a way that wouldn't piss off the /. crowd.

*of course, I am often a naive fool, so maybe asking nicely wouldn't have worked in the real world...

Cheers. :)

Re:This is not about copy protection!!!!

[RatBastard]

They could have probably done it much more gracefully and in a way that wouldn't piss off the /. crowd.

And cowboys can herd cats. There is nothing Apple could have done that would not have gotten the panty-twist reaction they did get here. /. is heavily infested with people that think everything should be free for the taking. Specifically, anything of yours, not theirs. No one exercising any kind of control whatsoever could have escape the wrath of the /. reactionaries.

And you know what? They don't give a wet shit about what the knee-jerk gimmie-gimmies here have to say. No one does. They already know that these people will not buy their products. It's the same as you and I giving a damn about what the "Stephen King is Dead" trolls have to say.

Good for Apple...

[superdan2k]

This is actually a good move on Apple's part, because it's going to help sheild them from the wrath of the MPAA, should the hammer ever fall that way. Apple is using the DMCA to protect itself from the same, and I can't blame them for it.

This is not so much an issue of wanting control of the hardware as an issue of putting up the appearance that they're trying to fight the wholesale duplication of DVDs. Call it a legalistic "Don't Steal Movies" disclaimer.

Tangental to the subject: why bother with DivX? Most of the rips I've seen are horrible quality, a new DVD costs between $15-25 and is usually loaded with special features. Given that a movie is a significantly different experience than a collection of songs from one artist and costs significantly more to produce, I'd say that the money spent on DVDs is well worth it.

Re:Good for Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the ppl here on slashdot want everything to be free, and that's why they love DivX. For you or me $10-$20 for a DVD is well worth it, but for this crowd it is not (as much as they pretend that they would buy it if...).

Did Linux PPC will receive the same medecine ?

[denisbergeron]

The article stand : The DMCA, which took effect two years ago, limits selling software that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner." Linux PPC permit to use the PPC platform to "circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure" and any other Linux distribution (and a lot of Linux Driver) I think so can do thing, that is not permitting with the "normal windows distribution or driver". With the Linux Driver of some ATI Card you can copy protected video that it's not permitted with the "standard Windows Driver". I hope I'm wrong !

What does DMCA stand for, kids?

[krypt0n0mic0n]

Don't Make Copies, Asshole!!!

iDVD not the only burner, and other Apple rants

[clf8]

There are plenty of other solutions (Toast, for instance) that allow you to create DVDs. iDVD just provides a nice package to make it simple. Technically, iDVD can (and should) be decoupled from the hardware. Apple has chosen not to, and there's nothing really wrong with that. I don't think it will have the desired effect, but it's not my decision. I would think that you get them hooked on the software, so when they do upgrade they'll stick with the platform.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of some of Apple's actions, but I do like their products. If you notice the trend, Apple tends to sell products that help drive hardware sales. The iPod with only Mac support to start is a perfect example. Sure, they should allow iDVD to work with third-party drives, since I wouldn't expect most people to upgrade their computers just to get the Superdrive. And what if you *do* get that and want to upgrade it to a faster one 2 years down the road.

Of course, the other issue is support. To make plug and play work as (nearly) flawlessly as it does on the Mac, it's easier to support a single chipset than multiple ones. And even if Apple let manufacturers create their own drivers/hacks, Apple gets blamed if something doesn't work properly. I hate to say it, but with only a 5% market share you've only got so many resources.

Finally, a note on Mac pricing. Sure, they're a little more expensive. Sure, the OS X upgrades have been a little gauging. But you're not buying a computer and an OS, you're buying a system. You can either spend the time configuring Linux/Windows on your own to get all your hardware supported and everything working just right, or you can buy a Mac. I realize "It just works" is overused and cliche, but to a large extent that's how things have worked for me. Sure, I could into the guts of my system and hack, but I don't have to. Apple's brought *nix to the masses (well, 5%) and they've done it pretty darn well. If you crazy /. people would buy the hardware, Apple can bring you a decent gui front end to make your life simpler. One day I got tired of mucking with my config.sys and my autoexec.bat and bought a Mac. Things have been much easier since the.

Please reconsider!!

[Wakko Warner]

Apple's bottom line depends on you! And the three people you may convince to not purchase Apple products as well!

- A.P.

wrong no two counts

[Bobartig]

They will sell their software, iDVD, for $20 shipping and handeling to anyone!

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects /A ppleStore.woa/81/wo/jKnwD1K9HTbp8ujtyc/1.3.0.3.34. 8.3.12.13.0

This is not the full version. This is just the upgrade from iDVD 1.x to 2.x. It isn't legal to use without the original, and will search your HD for it before it installs.

They bundle it with all new macs regardless of if they have a superdrive (DVD-R) or not eating up more than a gig of customer HD space.

This is patently false. It is only bundled with macs with Superdrives, and will refuse to install or run unless the Superdrive firmware is found by the iDVD installer. You, my friend, are full of crack.

Re:wrong no two counts

[firewort]

actually, you're mistaken.

While it's listed as an upgrade version, it installs without hesitation when no prior version is found. I bought it and am very satisfied.

The original iDVD would run with no SuperDrive installed. The iDVD2 software checks when the application is started.

First version of this story did *not* mention DMCA

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Before you all get too worked up over this, please read this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020812/120170_1.html

This happened back on August 12th (a tad old to be "news"). Other World Computing's story back then was that Apple *requested* that they drop their software and support (because it violates the iDVD license).

There was *no* mention of the DMCA, and no need to invoke it as Apple's iDVD license is quite clear.

Note that the reference to the DMCA in the article is purely the quote of Other World Computing's president. There is no quote from any document they received from Apple.

Note too that this is the same silly news site that manufactured the "Apple + Sun = true love and Star Office for OS X" story.

Lacking any actual proof, beyond someone's say-so who has an axe to grind, reported on a flaky news site, I'm going to presume that Apple is innocent here.

After all, who would you believe, a company that has taken the RIAA to task over their anti-piracy excesses, or one who tried to capitalize on someone else's hard work in order to compete with them?

I am breaking with tradition, and ending with a quote not from Mothra, but from her friend, Steve Jobs:

"Apple strives to protect the rights of both intellectual property owners and consumers alike and believes there is a 'middle path' in digital music distribution which actively discourages the theft of music, while at the same time preserving consumers rights to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own,"
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards, as reported on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020227/1/2jun2.html.

If the DMCA applied to automobiles...

[Dairyland.Net]

If the DMCA applied to automobiles, there would be a lot of criminals amongst us. Everyday there are people modifying their vehicles, and there are companies that provide kits to do it. Now I'm in no way a "shop-jockey", but I do believe that some of these kits modify the electronics components as well. Are the auto manufaturers going to be sueing everyone left and right now, too? And what about modifications I do to my home? Because the builder has copyrighted the design, will I be in legal trouble under some broad term in the DMCA for remodeling it? The idiots who came up with this law, and those that passed it, need the big proverbial stick up-side the head.

Re:If the DMCA applied to automobiles...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DMCA applied to automobiles, there would be a lot of criminals amongst us

Absolutely ... everyone who ever modified their car in such a way that they could make a free perfect copy while keeping hold of the original would be a criminal.

Stallman's Lemmings

[reallocate]

I'm surprised, but then, not too surprised, at the number of posts here that castigate Apple as "evil" for doing this. They are in keeping with the widespread notion that "belief" in open souce/free software gives you a right to steal with impunity. I doubt that's what Stallman had in mind.

Many seem to argue that Apple has a moral obligation to allow anyone to reverse engineer any of their products and do with them as they see fit. Some appear upset because Apple is using open source in a commercial product, rather than simply making their own products open source. Others just seem to be on a sophomoric rant against all businesses, as if they are the first in human history to notice issues with unbridled self-interest.

What obligation does Apple have to pay attention to any of those opinions?

I really don't care what Apple does or doesn't do with iDVD -- the ongoing emphasis on copying music and movies plays right into the hands of the media corporations, obscures the true importance of this copyright debate, and diminshes the chances to defeat some really bad legislation -- but a quick check of my OS X license shows it contains the standard prohibitions of disassembly, reverse engineering, etc. Such language has been used in proprietary software licenses for decades. If you violate those terms, you risk Apple's reprisal. Offense should be taken only by those who believe open source/free software represents a moral crusade to eliminate all closed souce. To the contrary, open source and free software are interesting and effective development and distribution models. They are not something to "believe in".

Re:Stallman's Lemmings

[startled]

"They are in keeping with the widespread notion that 'belief' in open souce/free software gives you a right to steal with impunity."

Interesting. From what I could gather from the article, it sounded like they were distributing an additional piece of software, DVD Enabler. Where's the stealing part?

Re:Stallman's Lemmings

[Arcturax]

Once again, they were not giving out copies of iDVD!

They were giving out a patch to iDVD which let the 3rd party DVD drive work with it. That is why Apple is WRONG here.

If Apple was smart, they would back off of this madness and maybe even offer OWC the ability to SELL iDVD, prepatched, with the system (kicking the price up $20) and Apple would get the whole $20 for iDVD and thus satisfy the fears about piracy as well as keep the MPEG licensing people happy and at the same time make a little money off of it while also regaining user goodwill.

Its quite simple really.

It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't hav

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't have paid for the ticket in the first place.

If you sneak into the movies they'll call the police, who will NOT charge you with circumventing copyright. They WILL charge you with criminal tresspass for being on the theater owner's private, physical property.

Lets make that a loud rock band in a bar with a cover charge, instead of a theater. If they catch you sneaking in without paying the cover, they can have you arrested, again, for tresspass.

But you are perfectly free to stand on the sidewalk outside and listen.

Softman _v_ Adobe

[PhilHibbs]

Do you know if that's a final ruling, with all apeals finished? The only info I can find easily on the 'net says "this is sure to be appealed, though".

What a Crock

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be useful to know how iDVD is distributed. One might even look and see if there's an MPEG 2 fee of some sort for Quick Time 6 to play (not encode) MPEG 2. There is.

But that's a secondary issue which seems to have taken center stage.

iDVD is available only from Apple if you buy certain Mac hardware models with the DVD burner drive, the Mac OS, and assorted applications software, including iDVD. None of the software is open source, free software, or anything of the kind. If I buy a Mac I assume I'm paying for the "included" software.

Some software is available from Apple for free download to previous purchasers of Apple hardware. iDVD isn't one of them. Updates maybe.

You buy one Mac with one DVD burner with one copy of the OS and you are entitled to one copy of iDVD. iDVD is "included." It's no more free than the OS or the DVD burner or the Macintosh. You buy the first two and you're stuck, or blessed, depending on your perception, with buying the other.

Making copies of iDVD and selling them or giving them away is in violation of the license and the applicable statute is the DMCA, just as it is for giving away or selling copies of Office XP.

That's the only way you can get iDVD. You buy it. You pay for it no differently than the "included" AppleWorks" that comes with many consumer model Macs, but which costs $79. for use on the "Pro" models.

OWC, a large online Apple products vendor was giving it away. The fact they also "included" a "free" copy of a hack to work with a piece of hardware they wanted to sell isn't relevant.

The DMCA, like it or hate it when the topic is MP3 downloading, is also the law pertaining to software piracy. It's also a bit of an inflammatory term here on /. and that doesn't seem to have helped the discussion in this case.

MOD UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, this is important. Stop getting your panties all in a wad over sensationalistic journalism that's probably stretching the truth. Good ol' Slashdot, read a headline, jump to a conclusion, start bitching and moaning. And even if the DMCA was actually invoked, remember that this is most likely a MPEG2 licensing issue - Apple has no choice. I'm no Apple apologist, but let's take a step back and consider the situation rationally here.

Oh wait, that's not as easy as just having a simple kneejerk reaction...

Sorry, wrong Apple

[HiThere]

Apple Computer has been in favor of copy protection and incompatibility since the days of the Apple ][. Study the file formats used in the apple disk for apple programs (e.g., *.bas) and compare them with the file formats used at the same time on CP/M systems. Apple's formats were non-portable, with no technical advantage gained from that. Their strange floppy disk formats can be defended on the grounds that they allowed more info to be packed onto each disk, but the same defense doesn't work for their proprietary file formats.

To be fair, this is something that Apple keeps waffeling about. Sometimes it thinks it's a hardware company, and wants file specs to be open. At other times it thinks that it's file formats are the crown jewels. (A silly attitude, if you ask me, but I'm not the one calling the shots.) The result is that Apple tends to offer the worst of both worlds, without reaping the benefits of either.

This action fits right in with the standard schitzo nature of Apple.

Re:Sorry, wrong Apple

[benh57]

You are talking about the old apple. This article has nothing to do with "standards" and file specs, but with third parties modifying apple's software without apple's consent (iDVD).

Apple these days is tremendously pro-standard, witness: zeroconf, bluetooth, 802.11, usb, firewire, MPEG4, UNIX, etc. The company that creates incompatible "standards" for their own gain is over ----> there.

Re:Sorry, wrong Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

*.bas files stored the tokenized version of the program so it wouldn't have to re-parse all the time, as well as program-flow information. That's the technical reason. Aside from the fact that ROM disassemblies of the Apple ][ were common, the format was documented all over the place. Compressing "PRINT" to one byte is a hell of a technical advantage.

Re:Sorry, wrong Apple

[HiThere]

Perhaps the Bas files did have a good reason. I rarely used basic, so I don't really remember, What I do remember was being infuriated at file conversion difficulties that appeared to have no valid reason. Details are a bit fuzzy after 30 years. (I switched first to UCSD Pascal, and then to CP/M C to get away from the problems. C worked for that, but it sure wasn't a standard compiler. [Still, it was better than the PL/1 compiler I got at one point!])

Bad article, DMCA confusion

[Sloppy]

This is badly written article. It refers to the anti-circumvention part of DMCA, but doesn't actually explain how (or even if) this is actually relevant.

With the very sketchy information available, it looks like Apple's actual objection may be conventional (pre-DMCA-style) copyright infringement, where copies of their software (or a derivative work of their software) is being redistributed by Apple dealers. If that is the case, then DMCA is probably relevant only because of the notification mechanism that it created.

DMCA was a pretty big law that covers a lot of topics, and some parts of it are worse than others. The anti-circumvention part is the really goofy part, and shouldn't be confused with the other more reasonable parts.

The notification part of DMCA may be a little iffy because of the guilty-until-proven-innocent abuse that it allows, but the basic idea and motivation behind it was sound and justifiable. (Unlike the anti-circumvention part, which is pure evil created with evil intent.) And then there's other parts that I've never even read, like the stuff about boat hull designs (?!), so I can't say if they're sensible or not. Journalists that are going to report about DMCA-related incidents, need to read up on it, so they don't misreport on it.

Re:It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't

[Amarok.Org]

Lets make that a loud rock band in a bar with a cover charge, instead of a theater. If they catch you sneaking in without paying the cover, they can have you arrested, again, for tresspass.

But you are perfectly free to stand on the sidewalk outside and listen.

The problem with this is that standing on the sidewalk, you do NOT receive the same benefits as those ticket paying customers. You get a reduced benefit, namely sound quality, stage view, drink service, etc.

With iDVD, you get FULL benefit of the software once you've illegally modified it. There is no degredation of your benefit based on the fact that you're illegally using it.

mind change....

[karlk79]

Apple you want me to switch, not going to happen now. I was seriously thinking about buying an apple because if the new OS, but now i will not. some people might say oh your just mad they wont give you something for free. no thats not it, i am willing to pay for anything if you give me a good product, but i am getting sick of all the stupid rules, and with my boy linux out there (i love ya tux) i dont have to take this crap anymore. i hate saying this but i can put up with microsoft products but not with the rules they keep coming out with (must have a team working in shifts to come out with all thier rules). and sadly i can see where apple comes from but it goes against the things thay say they are for free thought and creativity. Apple says they are different, but they arent. Why? cause they are a company, and all companys they are out for the dollar. But on little things like this i thought apple would relax. hell i think they should embrace it, for flexability sake. Why limit users to what they can do? i think if they could come out with good, fast, dependable hardware it wouldnt be a problem. So make better hardware, not more rules apple.

I know why Apple is doing this...

[DavidBrown]

I'm a PC user. I once owned an Apple ][c back in the day (loved it and even upgraded it to 1 Meg of RAM), but when I first tried the Mac (the original Mac) I hated the keyboard so much that I walked away and never went back.

But I do know why Apple is doing what they are doing. It's really simple, when you consider their hardware provider philosophy. Apples are marketed as being very easy to use, and being very reliable. They don't crash (or so they say). One of the principal reasons why the Microsoft OS's are much more crash-happy then Apple's OS's is because Apple doesn't attempt to make their OS compatable with every piece of hardware under the sun. They don't want third-party DVD burners because some of them won't work, and people with Apples will start complaining about how their systems are crashing.

I think that Apple is much more concerned with potential hardware compatibility issues than anything else, in order to protect the "sanctity" of their OS reliability.

What does this do? It drives out the upgraders. But Apple isn't marketing to the upgraders. They are selling new machines, not an OS like Microsoft does. They see little profit in attempting to reconcile old hardware with a new OS. And yes, while I know the hardware in this case (external DVD burners) is new, the system hardware is likely to be not new, and the DVD burners have not been waved over by Apple engineers.

This, by the way, is not evil. When I bought my Dell Dimension 8100 two years ago, Dell promised me an upgrade to XP for $20. I had to wait an additional six months or so after XP came out to get the upgrade, because Dell put a considerable amount of effort into patching the bios, etc. and updating their software package to ensure that upgrading XP wouldn't fsck my computer. As a result, I have a very reliable computer running XP, which is much more reliable than my HP notebook that came with XP preinstalled. I normally keep the machine on ALL of the time. Most of the time I reboot only because Microsoft Update tells me to (^_^).

Dell's acts here had a similar motiviation as Apple's (protect system reliability). As a user, I certainly preferred Dell's open-system approach, but Apple's closed-system approach is a viable model. If you don't like it, don't buy Apple. It's that simple.

MPEG Licensing

[hoggy]

I understood the reason that Apple stop people distributing these cracks is that Apple have to pay a licensing fee for the MPEG2 encoding algorithms used in iDVD. Since they effectively give away the software there is no way to track sales and pay the fee. So Apple struck a deal to pay based on sales of the SuperDrive instead - since iDVD can only be used with the SuperDrive.

If people start cracking iDVD to work with someone else's drives then Apple end up effectively breaking their agreement with MPLA. Even though it's not their fault, their software is being used without the fee having been paid. Apple have to enforce the license or stop giving it away and sell it instead.

Re:MPEG Licensing

[dwater]

I don't understand this point. It is the 'no way to track sales' part that doesn't ring true.

The way they have it, it doesn't matter if they pay the mpeg2 fee on iDVD or the Superdrive, since iDVD isn't supplied w/o the superdrive and has been fixed to not work with any other drive (so it doesn't matter if someone sells it on).

If they paid the fee on iDVD, then they could sell it separately and add the mpeg2 fee. Just as easy to track; and Apple would be making it available to more customers too, so could make more money from it[1][2]. People have every right to sell the copy of iDVD that came with their machines if they don't need it, but the fee would be associated with the original iDVD purchase (whether it was included in the OS, or bought separately) and so would be already paid.

I don't understand your argument, apart from "that's the way it is". If so, then (IMO) that is/was a dumb decision by Apple, but they could easily change it with the next release of iDVD.

Max.

[1] They would be losing the customers who upgrade to a new computer simply for the capability of burning DVDs. I doubt that this is a large number of customers.
[2] I assume this is the way it works with DVD Studio Pro and/or Final Cut Pro. IINM, iMovie doesn't have an mpeg2 encoder (it exports to iDVD in 'dv' format), so the fee doesn't apply, but iDVD could be sold under exactly the same terms as DVD Studio Pro; but would cost less due to substantially less capability.

Re:MPEG Licensing

[hoggy]

I don't understand this point. It is the 'no way to track sales' part that doesn't ring true.

The way they have it, it doesn't matter if they pay the mpeg2 fee on iDVD or the Superdrive, since iDVD isn't supplied w/o the superdrive and has been fixed to not work with any other drive (so it doesn't matter if someone sells it on).

Yeah, but because people view it as a "free" program they think it's OK to copy it and use it elsewhere - this being the crux of the problem here. As far as Apple were concerned, you weren't meant to have it if you didn't have a SuperDrive, thus any enablers allowing people to use a copy on another drive represents a problem for them.

If they paid the fee on iDVD, then they could sell it separately and add the mpeg2 fee. Just as easy to track; and Apple would be making it available to more customers too, so could make more money from it[1][2]. People have every right to sell the copy of iDVD that came with their machines if they don't need it, but the fee would be associated with the original iDVD purchase (whether it was included in the OS, or bought separately) and so would be already paid.

The thing is, iDVD isn't meant to make Apple money. Even the SuperDrives aren't designed to make Apple money. A high-end Mac is designed to make Apple money. Apple want a complete seamless solution for people who shell out for a high-end Mac with a SuperDrive. The point of the iApps is to differentiate Apple Macs and make them more attractive to purchasers.

The amount that Apple could charge for iDVD separately wouldn't compensate them for the money they'd lose by people buying a lower-end Mac (or not bothering to buy a new Mac) and a cheap external burner. They'd also need to worry about testing and support of a raft of different drives, costing them more money.

I don't understand your argument, apart from "that's the way it is". If so, then (IMO) that is/was a dumb decision by Apple, but they could easily change it with the next release of iDVD.

Yes, but they won't. Apple are not in the business of selling software. They sell hardware. All of the software Apple gives away or sells at low cost (Web Objects, Final Cut Pro, Shake, and other acquisitions are a fraction of the price of the competition) are designed to make Macs look good.

The best way to think of Apple's software is as very high-level drivers for their hardware ;-)

The NEXT Microsoft ?!?! Apple makes M$

[Archfeld]

look like a childs game. Apple has not only proprietary software, but hardware as well. Jobs has done what is making Gates green with envy..

"make"?

[yerricde]

One is an end user making a patch to software they have bought, on their machine. The other is a company distributing tools to alter the software of one of their competitors, in order to sell more of their competing product.

So then should the patch be distributed as a source code package that the end user ./configures and makes? That didn't work for the DeCSS source code.

Re:"make"?

[joshsisk]

Very funny. By "make" I mean the dictionary definition of the term:

1. To cause to exist; to bring into being; to form; to produce; to frame; to fashion; to create.

To make it more clear for you : If you write a patch for software on your computer, I believe that's perfectly acceptable (though it probably depending on licenses, I would guess). It's probably even okay for you to apply a patch someone else wrote. However, a company _distributing_ this patch to alter the software of a competitor sounds very questionable to me, and I doubt is legal in this circumstances, under the DMCA or maybe even under other laws.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Microsoft does manufacture PCs

[yerricde]

A - Microsoft doesn't manufacture PCs

then what's this?

B - Microsoft doesn't freely distibute Windows on a PC that they have sold

The XBox operating system is based on a stripped-down version of Microsoft Windows 2000.

Besides, even if you don't count the XBox, what happens when hardware prices fall so much that the price of a Windows license becomes more than half the cost of a new computer system? Then who made most of the computer?

Re:Microsoft does manufacture PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

>Besides, even if you don't count the XBox, what happens when hardware prices fall so much that the price of a Windows license becomes more than half the cost of a new computer system? Then who made most of the computer?

Dude, forget the dollar sign for a second. Even if a brand PC (say Dell or whatever) cost 1$ and Windoze cost 99$, that 1$ is still the PC and the 99$ is only software. You can still put Linux on that 1$ PC. A computer is NOT software, it's hardware.

The more I read slashdot, the more I understand why even tech people don't take other tech people's words seriously.

The dumbass speaks

[Anonymous Coward]

And you do.

Right.

You really are a fucktard.

$50 for an office suite IS giving it away

[yerricde]

Saying "Apple sells hardware, not software" is just false, because they charge over $100 for the latest OS and $50 for AppleWorks

Apple's primary competition charges $300 for the latest desktop OS (Windows XP Professional) and $400 for its office suite. At those prices, Apple is practically giving them away, no?

Re:$50 for an office suite IS giving it away

[mblase]

AppleWorks is not an office suite. And $50 is $50, and $100 is $100, and the fact that Microsoft isn't charging more doesn't alter the fact that Apple is making money from their software.

Therefore, they're in the software business. QED.

Re:$50 for an office suite IS giving it away

[Anonymous Coward]

At those prices, Apple is practically giving them away, no?

Right ... and that software will run on any 3rd party computer hardware, right?

Wrong. THERE IS NO 3rd PARTY COMPUTER HARDWARE

Understand ... they are *charging* for what they *used to give away* ... system software to run on their hardware. Now they are charging for *any* software needed to add *any* 3rd party hardware to their hardware. This is hyper-meta-proprietary.

How can you hang around Slashdot and not understand what OPEN is all about?

What color is the sky in your world???

[N3WBI3]

Come on, you have to be kidding us ... NO??

Look this si move M$ would have made and most people here would flip (myself included). But because its apple the new kid in the *nix world many people (mostly apple buffs) are going to overlook this competition squashing move. If this was a move to prevent software piracy so is the move to keep people from designing software to read DVD's in the first place...

The real cost of shipping a CD

[yerricde]

[Only a habitual user of freebase cocaine would believe that] it really costs $19.95 to ship a CD.

What does it cost to produce a glass master and replicate the run of CDs? What does it cost for jewel case? What does it cost to print paper manuals and boxes? What does it cost to hire wage earners to put the CDs and manuals in the boxes? What does it cost to handle the payroll and benefits of said wage earners? What does it cost to insure the business? What does it cost to ship them and insure them?

Re:The real cost of shipping a CD

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, AOL seems to be able to give them away for free.

Large quantity cost for CD, jewel case, label, mastering, shipping, you name it, is less than one buck.

Re:The real cost of shipping a CD

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please sir, may I have another?"

Nice rhetorical questions. Now, if you look up the answers, you'll find that what the other people are saying is true.

Don't cry for Apple and how much their wage earners and insurance costs. Because of people willing to pay $2000 for $1000 computers and $20 for "free" programs, they'll stay in business for a LONG time.

Re:The real cost of shipping a CD

[jasonbw]

its a handling cost, more than not. Also, for the most part, they ship fedex 2 day. This costs a bit more than the bulk mailing that aol uses.

Here's one for ya...i'm actually interested in the answer. Call up microsoft. tell them your xp disk was damaged/destroyed, although you have the remains, plus all the documentation. Ask them how much a replacement is.

W2K sp3 costs 14.95 plus $5 shipping and handling.

Lucasarts used to state in its packaging that they would send you a replacement disk for $5, provided you sent back your original. That was 5 years ago. i'll take a chance and say that that was not a priority package, nor a full sized software box they were shipping. it was probably a disc in a cardboard mailer-practically a bulk mail package sent to a single address.

You're not paying for materials, your paying for effort.

Re:The real cost of shipping a CD

[Anonymous Coward]

Call up microsoft. tell them your xp disk was damaged/destroyed,

Why would I do that when I don't have XP and never WILL have XP?

Are you seriously justifying this ripoff by comparing it to MICROSOFT practices?

Man, I knew you Mac guys were brainwashed, but this is over the top.

Re:The real cost of shipping a CD

[jasonbw]

well, then mandrake offers update cds for $15. Apparently, its a summer special, and they are not charging for shipping.

Re:The real cost of shipping a CD

[Rakarra]

its a handling cost,

There is shipping. The rest is 'handling,' which is pure profit. 'Handling' is a way to charge more for a product without having that amount show up in the purchase price, and without having to pay taxes on that amount.

Hmm...

[satterth]

Apple gives a warning to one of its dealers for distributing a CRACK to iDVD. I don't see the problem here. I think Other World Computing got off easy.

iDVD comes with ALL Power Mac G4's

[greygent]

Pretty much everyone is missing the point here.

iDVD does not "come with the SuperDrive". A legally licensed copy of iDVD comes with ALL Power Macintosh G4's regardless if they have the CD-ROM, CD-RW, or SuperDrives.

These are the kinds of legendary Apple practices that make us "switchers" cringe at the thought of investing our hard-earned cash into Apple hardware. Surprisingly, customers like choice...and freedom...and not paying $999999999 dollars for the SuperDrive itself, because they didn't buy it with their Mac originally.

If you don't want non-SuperDrive users using iDVD, don't fuckin' ship it with non-Superdrive equipped Macs.

You won't look like you're screwing us customers as much, Apple.

Another possible motivation from Apple

[MalleusEBHC]

One of Apple's biggest selling points is the seamless integration of its hardware and software. When Apple makes the computer with the DVD burner pre-installed and gives out (for free I may add) their DVD burning software, they can and have pretty much assured that it will work flawlessly. Take this and compare it to trying to get a random CD burner to work with whatever CD authoring software you are using on Linux or Windows. It is not nearly as easy. When this dealer distributes this patch, Apple can no longer guarantee that it will work as advertise, thus possibly leading to a bad user experience and ultimately a loss of reputation and or possible future revenue for Apple. Don't get me wrong, I agree that Apple wants to make sure that iDVD only works for people who have bought Apple hardware thus providing the incentive to buy a Superdrive rather than an external firewire or other brand drive, but I don't think that is the only reason behind it.

Think Different? Think again...

[umask077]

God, with all there ranting about how different they are one would think they would act a little different then other companies.

If I actually bought apple products Id stop. Last apple sales guy told me how well the monitor swivels when I asked about expandability.

And to think I was considering buying a Mac

[zenyu]

Was thinking of getting one of those milky plastic ones. I thought Jobs had mellowed with age, I guess not.

No use buying hardware from an evil RMS type. Who knows what's next? Must use Apple speakers, one button mouse, 'approved' software?

Why doesn't Apple distribute two versions?

[dpbsmith]

A "free" version bundled with their hardware which works only with their hardware (on which they've paid a licensing fee)... and a $29.95 version which works with third-party hardware and on which they'd pay a licensing fee per-SOFTWARE_copy?

They could pay the licensing fee out of that, make a little money, make their dealers and third-party add-on providers and customers happy... seems like a win-win-win-win scenario to me.

DMCA Philosophy

[ronfar]

My feeling about this is very simple. I don't object to the concept of closed source software as long as Free Software alternatives are legally allowed to exist. I normally wouldn't have a problem with Apple trying to find legal means of preventing people from distributing an unauthorized patch for their software. (I don't think, honestly, that they could come up with legal reasoning that I would find morally acceptible, but if I accepted that the laws of this country were just and the legal system were not corrupt, it wouldn't be a problem.)

However, I think that their use of the DMCA should cause people to think twice about buying Apple hardware or software. In this case, there are so many computer companies out there with dirty hands (any company that requires you to buy a copy of Windows that you will never use) that you will have a hard time buying a computer without compromising your principles.

The DMCA is an evil law, the worst kind of corporate welfare. It essentially has prevented legal Free Software DVD tools from being developed. This particular case is simply an extension of that.

The real problem is the DVD format itself, which is chained down by all sorts of license restrictions but has still become ubiquitous. There needs to be a viable, Free alternative, but I don't see how that will be possible since most people's primary DVD players are not general purpose computers.

No, you're wrong!

[LenE]

I call bullshit!

The Apple ][ BASIC file format was straight ASCII text. The .BAS file format was incompatible because those files were compiled for the 65C02 processor and called AppleSoft specific "tokens" that resided in AppleSoft BASIC in ROM. Essentially, this code is the same concept as Java bytecode, in that the ASCII coded BASIC programs were pre-compiled into calls for ROM based tokens. This used less disk space for the program, and translated to faster execution as it would remove the ASCII parsing step.

Microsoft reverse engineered much of Apple's ROM (a task made easier by the fact that they produced an earlier version of Apple BASIC), and sold this IP to other companies which made 100% compatible clones (Franklin, Laser 128). Nothing prevented any Apple II series programs from running on these clones, as they shared the same processors as the Apple IIs.

If Microsoft wanted to, it could have made code translators for AppleSoft Basic files, but it didn't see a need. Most ASCII basic files would directly translate. The .BAS files would need a 6502 -> 80x86, big ->little endian conversion and a token library to mimic Apple's.

-- Len

Re:No, you're wrong!

[yusing]

the ASCII coded BASIC programs were pre-compiled into calls for ROM based tokens.

The BASIC for the Rat Shack Trash-80 similarly used tokens. Today someone might say "who stole what from whom", but back then copying what other people did was almost always acceptable -- because "microcomputers" (they weren't PC yet) were a hobby thing, not a mega-business-empire thing. The one person who complained loudest was -- Bill Gates. But then, of course, he didn't use tokens in his BASIC.

All right class: who knows where the Trash-80 BASIC came from?

Too easy? How about the Heathkit BASIC?

?Apple protecting it's digital hub strategy

[Hurricane_Bill]

I'm not sure where I stand regards to Apple's idvd demand (especially using DMCA as the reason), but I just started thinking about their digital hub strategy and sort of understand where they might be coming from. Here's an example:

Let's say a consumer is looking for a new stereo system. In part, their decision will come down to the usability of it's interface (digital tuner vs. knob, layout of presets...). Companies invest resources to make products easier to use.

Now lets say that stereos evolve so that the interface is software based. Apple releases a stereo system called istereo which has an amazingly intuitive interface (yet standard hardware components -as is generally the case today). Someone comes up with a way to get the software istereo portion of this product to work with non apple equipment. Now there is nothing to differentiate Apple's products with standard software-interface based hardware.

I think Apple's move has less to do with traditional software mod's than with the direction that Apple wants to -integrate- it's software with traditional hardware.

What's the difference between a software based interface that's tied to a particular product and a hardware based interface that's tied to the product?

Still doesn't make sense

[GPS Pilot]

If Apple has to pay this fee on the SuperDrive, don't manufacturers of third-party DVD-Rs also have to pay this fee? And if they have paid their fees, just like Apple has, what's the problem with using iDVD with the third-party drives?

Also, if Apple was able to avoid paying the fee on iDVD because it pays the fee on the SuperDrive instead, why does it have to pay the fee for DVD Studio Pro? If I purchase a Mac w/SuperDrive, plus a copy of DVD Studio Pro, Apple has paid the fee for me twice; but if I purchase a Mac w/SuperDrive plus iDVD, Apple has paid the fee for me once.

Sounds like handwaving.

Re:Still doesn't make sense

[FauxPasIII]

>> Sounds like handwaving.

So that's what handwaving sounds like...

Re:Still doesn't make sense

[damieng]

Seems you missed my line; ..drives (which will have just the standard drive licences, not those associated with DVD encoding etc)...

i.e. All drive manufacturers will pay the fees relating to raw reading/writing of DVD's, CSS, etc.

What they won't be doing is paying the MPEG/Dolby Digital encoding fees etc. These will be paid by people producing software that actually does this. i.e. DVD Studio Pro, Roxio Toast...

Apple admittedly pulled a fast one by saying they'd pay the encoding fees on machine shipped with the Superdrive and that their free iDVD software shipped to everybody would only work on those said drives, but that's what they did.

[)

this is wrong, the DMCA is still bad law

[Dr. Awktagon]

I guess a lot of the folks here saying this okay, this is Apple's right, etc., these people must be big Apple fans.

Well, I'm an Apple fan, and I think this is ridiculous. If you sell or give away a product that's perfectly capable of doing something that's useful to the recipient, and you purposely turn off, or don't enable, that feature for whatever reason, you must be nuts not to expect that someone will figure out how to turn it.

If someone suggested this with regular, non-software items, they'd be laughed out of the boardroom. "You mean if someone discovers that free Apple hammers can hammer ANY nail, not just $3 Apple nails, we sue them for telling how?"

The guy was supplying something that was useful for iDVD owners. Apple was witholding this useful feature because they thought it would make them more money. What obligation do we have to Apple to keep the secret? None. They don't have the obligation to make their products as useful as possible, but that doesn't mean we should be prevented from finding new uses for them.

I don't feel sorry for Apple in this case. Anyone who sells any item should know, someone out there will take it apart and figure out how it works. And then they'll tell everybody else.

Copyright law, including the overbroad DMCA, basically allows companies to profit from keeping these kinds of secrets. Many of these secrets are inside the very products themselves. This means people will find those secrets. Does this seem like a stable, self-organizing free market to you?

and if you do it yourself?

[lovepot]

I buy the SuperDrive. I break it. I buy a non-Apple DVD writer and make iDVD work with it.
Should Apple try to convince me I am a criminal?
I BOUGHT the product, so its mine and i can do what i want with it.
No one is going to make me think software is different from the rest of things in the world. If you buy something, is yours, and you can do whatever yo want with it. Period.

Mod story down...

[class_A]

Score:-1, Troll

The key thing about Softman vs. Adobe ...

[J. J. Ramsey]

was that Softman never ran the Adobe software he was selling, and never consented to the click-thru license. That meant that the EULA never had a chance to be in force, so the transaction between Softman and Adobe defaulted to being under copyright law.

You CAN use iDVD without an Apple superdrive

[boslaw]

Steps:
1. Buy a mac that is capable of running iDVD (an older, non-superdrive mac will work)

2. Buy the iDVD2 upgrade cd from Apple for $29.95. No serial number is required.

3. Buy a Pioneer A-104 dvd burner from a third party reseller (OEM, non-branded version is around $350).

4. Install the Pioneer drive in place of your current cd drive.

Everyone wins - Apple gets their $30, you get the ease of iDVD without buying a brand new mac.

Of course, you have to use the Pioneer drive, but that drive gets pretty good reviews anyway.

Not surprising..

[AyeRoxor!]

Throughout the entire lifespan of Apple,they've continually shot themselves in the foot by exerting their power over what hardware and software people can use on the mac. Sure, you're given a higher level of compatibility through their stranglehold on the mac market, but this is a price you have to pay for that: loss of freedom.

I was upset until I thought about their history. This fits just perfectly with their decisions/strategies of the past, and ergo really shouldn't be a big surprise.

If microsoft released DVD burning software with windows and then said you can only use it on a microsoft-made DVD drive, the world would be up in arms. But it's not PC. It's Mac.

Welcome to Mac. On PC's, it's tough to decide what DVD drive and software to use. But on a mac, it doesn't give me all these confusing options. It just works.

WRONG.

[Anonymous Coward]

iDVD is *only* distributed on Macs with the Apple Superdrive. If you get OS X as a retail copy, you do not get iDVD. You get iTunes, iPhoto, ..., but no iDVD.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Jobe_br]

As other's have noted - you cannot sell your copy of iDVD because you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer. Not only that, but exactly how much would you sell iDVD for? Apple isn't selling it separately as a standalone product, so what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD? You can see that this gets illegal pretty darn quick. At the very least, the waters are murky.

The quick fact of the matter is quite simple: Apple has produced a piece of software that masters DVDs better than anything else out there, at the consumer level. Its easy to use, it works, its painless. You want to use it? Buy a Mac that comes with it - easy-peasy. Don't have a Mac that comes with it? Upgrade.

Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous. If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but I already have Easy CD Creator or some other software to burn CDs, or I'm running Linux - whatever - I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it. In theory, I could turn around and GIVE it to someone. However, using this case for Apple + iDVD is ludicrous because there aren't hardly ANY people that are just giving away iDVD because they aren't using it, to people who have other DVD burners. iDVD is available on warez servers and that's it. There's no eBay auctions going on for legit copies of iDVD or anything. This is Apple saying: don't encourage the pirating of our software!

One final note: Apple also wishes to ensure some quality of the user experience. They feel confident that they can ensure this by bundling iDVD with a Superdrive equipped Mac. However, as there are a great many DVD burners out there - Apple doesn't want its reputation tarnished by folks saying "This supposedly great iDVD app doesn't even work right with my burner - it just creates junk, even though I downloaded the patch for it." Maybe this would happen, maybe not - who knows? In any case, its Apple's decision to protect their reputation.

Look at free is gratis

[oliverthered]

FREE is gratis, here you go, have this

Free is not, 'Hey I have this thing, but I have to pay for it'

Satellite installation in the UK is marketed as FREE with the small print of 'so long as you subscribe for a year'. And they won't do the installation 'UNTIL' you pay for a years subscription. (see the car radio thing here)

How is iDVD advertised? as included in the cost of the Mac, combian; as Free, gratis, here you go.

The car radio is FREE when you buy a car.

iDVD is 'FREE' or inclusive when you buy a Mac, thats why there fucked, if it was 'FREE' when you brough a DVD driver it would make sense.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Xylantiel]

1) All you succeed in doing is pointing out how little sense copyright makes in the context of digital information. Certainly if I can buy and own something I can sell it. But what if I have copies of it in archival backups, maybe even on read-only media? Shouldn't non-use of those copies be enough avoid copyright infringement after I sell? Making backup copies is fair use right?

2) As you can probably tell, the poster thinks EULA's are a bunch of hooey. Let's put it this way: They can either sell software like a book (i.e. on shelves in a store), and they have no say about what I do with it after I buy it, or they can make a contract with me specifying what I can do with their software (just like I have a contract for my apartment). They can't have it both ways, that is the whole point of copyright law, it supposed to give *all* the rules for the first method of sale. They can decide to exempt me from some rules, but they can't make up new ones. And unless I signed some piece of paper which both they and I have a copy of, I have a hard time saying that any contract was involved.

e.g. software stores should be set up like this: I go in, some guy explains to me the contract for a particular piece of software, what I can and can't do with it and what updates I am entitled to etc. I then sign it and he burns me a CD with the software that I made a contract for. All clean and nice eh? The bookstore model with a EULA is essentially a bait-and-switch.

it IS illegal?

[oliverthered]

Why is it illegal? Can you give me some 'simple' examples of why it might be illegal, say like the car example I gave.

I would say it isn't illegal, just like it's not illegal for somone to sell an oversized casket so i can fit there carb on the engine properly.
or different spark plugs, ECU, injectors, wheels, tires, trim, horn, HT leads, ignition, keyring,windows .........

So why should it be illegal for somone to 'give away' and adapter so that one piece of 'technology' compatable with another;does it make iDVD compatable with there drives or there drives compatable with iDVD?

Re:it IS illegal?

[joshsisk]

Well, your analogy is a little flawed, because a gasket doesn't alter the car. A software patch alters the software. If it were a separate program running on the computer, that acted as a bridge between the DVD drive and iDVD, without changing iDVD in any way, then it would be like a gasket. But their patch (as I understand it from the meaning of the word "patch") alters the iDVD program itself, which is a piece of copywritten software.

Also, it's illegal (as I understand it, and in the US) to distribute a tool to alter a copyrighted work in this way. It's not illegal to do it yourself, but it's illegal for the company to distribute the tool - especially since they are doing it for financial gain, and selling the tool.

Beyond all that, it's just a little ethically questionable. I mean, if OWC wants to sell their drives with DVD writing software, they should get off their ass and write one, or include one that's already out there. Others exist besides iDVD.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Clanner]

While I agree that most EULA's are not worth the bits they're stored in, I disagree with your point #1. Yes, you can make back up copies. I have no problem with this, and neither does copyright law. However, if you sell your original, you are no longer entitled to keep those back up copies you made. And no, non-use of those copies is not enough to avoid copyright violations, since you sold the original to some one else.
As far as the rest, I just don't see Apple offering a product for free asking that it not be commercially exploited by others. If you, as the owner of the software, want to modify, go ahead. But I don't see how Apple pressuring a vendor who is profiting from Apple's work is wrong. Now if John Doe modified his copy of iDVD, and Apple somehow got word of it and sued him, I would be in favor of John Doe. But if John Doe then tries to profit from this, I would side with Apple. There's a big difference between the two.

Modified Firmware?

[Anonymous Coward]

now, what if someone was giving away a patch for the 3rd party drive that changed the firmware's identify/inquiry information to report itself as an apple drive. would apple have less of a case to come after them? :) sure they'restill violating the EULA but they modified the drive and oops iDVD just happened to work.

anyhoo

at least microsoft includes free burning software and will include the superior DVD+RW drag and drop DVD+RW burning for all drives in the next big release of windows.

Patching iDVD? Hmm. That's NOT kosher.

[crovira]

The articlementionned that the patch was screwing around with Apple's own iDVD.

That's the wrong place to apply a patch.

Find the right place to patch. (Wrapper the driver that comes with the hardware and stick the patch in the wrapper.)

car for free

[oliverthered]

Like
this
or
this

Apple, the wanna be Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

There is just one more reason not to waste time on Apple crap. Yeah, their hardware looks like candy, but this is ridiculous. If M$ came out and said this, the reaction would be insane. Fuck Apple, fuck 'em right in the ear!

Why go to a vendor with the MOST expensive systems who also tells you you can only use their DVD drives? FUCK YOU APPLE!
Yeah, I was thinking about getting a system with OSX on it, but forget it now. I'd rather spend it on a new clone system and let Apple fucking rot rather than spend money with their company. I'm SO glad this happened before I spent the grand on a new Apple system. Suck my ass, Jobs.

I don't care what EULA or agreement is there...

[Bobb Sledd]

If I buy an automobile, I can sell the individual parts a la carte if I want to. Even if the parts can fit another manufacturer's model, I can still do that and there's nothing that says I can't.

I can even make spoilers and wide tires and sell those to be used on another manufacturer's model.

If I buy a book, I can tear the pages out and sell them individually if I want to. I can make notes on them and re-sell the book if I want. I can even tear out the pages, re-order them and glue them back in, and there's nothing the author can do about it.

I can sell information about how to make paper airplanes out of the torn pages of a paperback copy of The Stand, and STEPHEN FUCKING KING can't do SHIT about it!

So, why the HELL can't I modify software the way I see fit to work anyway I want it to? As long as only the one and original copy is involved, if someone gave me the CD and wasn't running it themselves, why can't I mod it how I want? Not to mention, why can't I transfer it's ownership (MicroSoft)?

I don't think software piracy is an issue at all here. We're talking about modifying someone else's app to fit your needs, and/or transferring ownership of that application to another person.

Software licensing (in general) is an unnatural and super-artificial area of IP law.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a stinking, festering shitpile.

And so is the moderation on this whole thread ... proving that /. moderation is a stinking, festering shitpile.

A post with an incorrect statement gets a 5, a post correcting that incorrect statement gets a 4.

Let's hear it for a one-post-per-day limit. Except for me, so I can call bullshit on moderation.

While I'm at it, the choice in "meta-moderation" is FAIR or UNFAIR. The concept of "fair" is appropriate at about a 12-year-old level ... hardly meta. /. is the all-singing, all-dancing crap.

I have spoken.

Does this law apply??

[Bork]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/14.html

Sec. 14. - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce

***

Hey, I am a engineer not a lawyer.

Re:First sale. Period.

[FauxPasIII]

>> you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer

The price for the software license came "bundled" into the total purchase price as well, there's no distinction that any reasonably sane person can determine here. I exchanged a sum of money for a drive, some software, cables, a manual, some styrofoam moulding and a cardboard box, and a portion of the sale value went to the manufacturers of every one of those items.

>> Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous

Keep your laws off my wallet. It's clear that you're out of your damn mind.

>> If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator ... I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it.

Sure you did, and sure you can. You don't think adaptec collected a "license fee" from you on that transaction ? Stop speaking nonsense.

>> what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD?

Whatever you wanted. We don't have a state-controlled economy yet. You could sell it for $2000 or offer to trade it for a sack of magic beans and a 1997 low-mileage subaru station wagon if you wanted to, and I could dicker you down to $1845 and a case of oriental-flavored ramen. The transaction would be perfectly legal in all cases.

>> Apple also wishes to ensure some quality of the user experience

Apple's wishes have no bearing on how I use things that I've legally purchased. If they don't want me doing things they might not have anticipated with their hard/software, or even things they explicitly disapprove of, then they'd better withdraw their products from the market.

That does it for me...

[extrarice]

I have used Macs for most of my experience with computers (since the early 90's in System 7.1). I have always stuck by Apple, even during the "dark times" of the Mid-90's. I appreciated their perspective and computing philosophy of "it just works." I appreciated the time and care they took to make application UIs clean understandable. I heartily recommended Macs to anyone who was interested in getting a new computer. Macs used to "just work" with practically whatever you hooked up to them. No muss, no fuss.

All of that is no more.

Apple has burned the final bridge between the company and myself. It started with Apple-branded software requiring MacOS 9 for no particular reason other than Steve wanted it so (example: iTunes v. 1). It continued with Apple completely destroying the elegant Mac UI in MacOS X. Apple has now developed an aura of "My way or the Highway". I tolerated it and stuck by the platform because of the way things "just worked" in the classic MacOS (anything before X). But this is too much. This is the end.

Apple is now in the business of shipping crippled software, and using insane laws to back them up. Apple wrote iDVD to only interface with Apple-branded, internal, originally-came-with-the-machine DVD-ROMs. Fine. They have a right to do that. They can write whatever kind of software they want. But the fact that they used an insane law such as the DMCA to prevent another person from developing a fix for their crippled software...that just blows me away. If I were Steve, I would be happy that someone decided to use valuable resources to allow my software to work in a way I didn't envision, and therefore sell more copies of that software.

But no. "My way or the highway."

The Apple camp used to be a rebellious, we-help-each-other-out kind of group. Now it is headed by a man who wants to be the "Gap" of computers - exclusive, over-priced, stuck-up. Trendy instead of functional. Apple wants to sell the "whole widget". The tower - Apple. The monitor - Apple. Keyboard, mouse, portable MP3 player, speakers, office suite, just damn near everything - Apple.

The fun is over. Apple just lost one of their die-hards. My next computer will be a build-your-own-box PC with BeOS and Linux.

perfect example

[Hohlraum]

This is a perfect example of why I will never buy a Mac. I'll admit OSX looks decent but I refuse to buy hardware that is only available through a single company. AFAIK, Apple is just as bad or worse, at corning people into proprietary solutions, than Microsoft.

A la Hacking the X-Box

[benjamindees]

Wow. With all the +5's being thrown around to quash this argument, you'd think I wouldn't make it, but heregoes:

What's so different between this and hacking the X-Box? In this instance: Apple gives away software, hoping you will buy the hardware. In the other, M$ "gives away" hardware, hoping you will buy the software. Nothing entitles either of them to their *hopes*.

This just goes to show that companies with proprietary products shouldn't give stuff away and hope that someone won't hack it to work with a competitor's product. (don't get me wrong, Apple is well within their rights to cut-off their distributors who do things like this, Apple being a non-monopoly and all, but it doesn't seem to pass the smell-test)

Re:First sale. Period.

[jimhill]

You're wrong. Repeatedly wrong. Allow me to explain:

"you cannot sell your copy of iDVD because you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer."

I did indeed purchase my copy of iDVD. For a price of $X I purchased one computer of model Y, a keyboard, a mouse, software, some cables, plastic bags, and a cardboard box. These components are priced collectively and shipped collectively and that doesn't have One Damn Thing to do with my right to break it all to pieces and resell each and every speck should I so choose. Or do you assert that I cannot sell the mouse that comes in the box, either?

"exactly how much would you sell iDVD for? Apple isn't selling it separately as a standalone product, so what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD?"

I can sell anything that comes in the cardboard box Apple sends me -- or even the cardboard box. I don't quite understand why you're asking what price I'd set, as that's a matter to be agreed between me and the buyer. Do you ask GM how much you can charge for the 1973 Chevy Nova you're looking to get rid of because you don't want it?

"You can see that this gets illegal pretty darn quick. At the very least, the waters are murky."

Nothing is illegal. There is no murk. There is only a company asserting rights it does not possess, and a collection of people stridently demanding that their rights no longer exist.

"Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous."

Nope.

"If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but I already have Easy CD Creator or some other software to burn CDs, or I'm running Linux - whatever - I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it."

The scenario you lay out is IDENTICAL to my own: you have lawfully come into possession of a piece of software you have no intention of using. You have every legal right to sell that to someone who does want to use it. So long as you do not retain a copy of the software, you have broken no laws.

"there aren't hardly ANY people that are just giving away iDVD because they aren't using it, to people who have other DVD burners. iDVD is available on warez servers and that's it. There's no eBay auctions going on for legit copies of iDVD or anything."

I fail to see exactly how the number of people choosing to exercise or not exercise their right of first sale has any bearing on the existence of that right. Further, I disagree with you about the potential market for unwanted iDVD. Every Mac sold with a SuperDrive comes with iDVD, but a nonzero fraction of people buying these machines are going to go directly to DVD Studio Pro for the power -- just as I laid out in my initial scenario. Heck, maybe I'll even throw in my copy of iMovie because I plan to use Final Cut Pro. At the moment, the market for unwanted iDVD is effectively nonexistent because everyone who owns a machine that can run the program has his own copy. The Enabler program that got Apple so spun up would have permitted people who owned formerly-incompatible machines to use the software, thus creating the very market Apple has successfully quashed, with vocal support from chumps like you.

The fact that you don't see that, that you're actually spending time arguing against your own rights and interests, just blows me away. That you think Apple's desire to ensure a quality user experience has one iota of relevance to what you do with your property leaves me slack-jawed and stupefied.

UNTRUE. - was Re:Great

[firewort]

It is impossible for them not to pirate the software. iDVD is only supplied as a free application with a SuperDrive that Apple sells you.

UNTRUE. Apple sells iDVD2 on it's website store for $19.99. It is listed as an upgrade version. The license is standard EULA but doesn't seem to require any prior existing copy of iDVD, and it doesn't check for one. It only checks for the SuperDrive while starting the application.

So, you can buy a SuperDrive, and Apple is happy to sell you the software. I fail to see the problem. In fact, I have a g4/400 powermac which I installed a DVR-104 SuperDrive into.

I then purchased the iDVD2 Upgrade software from Apple and it installed with ease, as expected.

I am using a computer that is out of warranty, so I don't worry about voiding any warranty. It works beautifully, if not a little longer at preparing video for burning onto the DVD disc.

So, that shoots down your piracy argument.

Apple is well within their limits

[Enrique1218]

iDVD purpose is to increase the value of Apple systems whose revenue Apple depends on. It is not to provide anyone with quality dvd editing software. If someone wants to upgrade their system with a third party burner they should look for third party software. According to the article, OWC bundled this add-on to sell their DVD drives instead of licensing a third party alternative. In essence, they stole iDVD just to add value to their drives. Obviously, Apple has every right to put a stop to it.

Mac OS wasn't free

[yerricde]

they are *charging* for what they *used to give away* ... system software to run on their hardware.

Major Mac OS upgrades (7.1 -> 7.5 -> 8.1 -> 8.6 -> 9.1 -> 10.1 -> 10.2) have not been free of charge since System 7 was released back in mid-1991.

Now they are charging for *any* software needed to add *any* 3rd party hardware to their hardware.

Not exactly. You can use any Mac platform DVD software with the third-party drives. Apple is charging for its own DVD software. Just buy a SuperDrive and have your Apple dealer install it for cricket's sake. If you misrepresented your SuperDrive ownership in order to obtain a license to Apple's DVD software, that's your problem.

How about this

[oliverthered]

You analysis of software is flawed,

A gasket alters the car as much as a software patch, you remove the old carb (part of the car) toss it away and use the new casket to fit a non-standard carb.

A mechanic can do what the hell they(you) like to your car, weld it / chop it up whatever.

I can pay somone to come and cut up a book and put there comments in there, that's the same as patching some software.

On the car,
lets say they sell a tapping set so that I can retap a bolt hole to a larger size(apply a patch) and fit there ...... Is that modified enough?

An on ethically questionable why should anyone have to duplicte the effort, if it's such a great tool why not use it. They could spend there time and money on Feeding the world instead.

Re:How about this

[joshsisk]

An on ethically questionable why should anyone have to duplicte the effort, if it's such a great tool why not use it. They could spend there time and money on Feeding the world instead.

Haha, what a great way to argue - they should do it my way so they can feed the starving millions! Nevermind whether they would use the effort saved to do anything of the sort... if that even mattered.

It's ethically questionable because IT'S NOT THEIRS.

You could save a lot of effort by using someone else's term paper, too, but I think you'd still get in trouble if caught, even if you used your extra time to volunteer at the local homeless shelter...

Re:It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't

[MoneyT]

So fine, OWC can have thier customers stand on the sidewalk by writing their own Burning software. Sure you don't get all the nice benifits of iDVD, but them's the breaks. But selling the machine with a crack is akin to opening the back door to let your friends in free of charge

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:First sale. Period.

[dwater]

I don't want the s/w for free; I want to pay for it.

I bought a Powerbook recently.

Apple don't supply external (firewire) DVD-R/RW, so I was forced to get one from a 3rd party (even though I'd rather go with apple).

Apple don't sell iDVD so I can't get it unless I purchase it from someone else (which would then not be supported by Apple, I would assume). But there's not point, because...

Apple have fixed iDVD to not work with external drives.

So, Apple got my initial money for the Powerbook, but they are *forcing* me to go elsewhere for a DVD burning solution. ...and Apple gain from this how, exactly?

I'll answer my own question. If I want to buy from Apple, the only options are a 3rd party drive, and DVD Studio Pro which runs at $999. It could be argued that I have more money than sense, so I went with that option.

I then discover that iMovie, which I was hoping to use to edit my movies, doesn't import files anything over (something like) 20GB and only imports 'dv' files which are very big. Almost all the files I wanted to import are bigger than that. I was informed that this is another 'fix' Apple had done - why I'm not sure. So, if I want to stick with Apple, the only option was to get Final Cut Pro which runs at another $999. Again, I've more money than sense, so I bought that too - which included a $300 mail in rebate since I bought it with DVD Studio Pro. Er thanks Apple.

I don't see how Apple can expect Powerbook owners who want to do basic DVD authoring to feel anything but screwed by Apple. That's certainly the way I feel.

Max.

Where can I buy a superdrive

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do I get an apple DVD 'superdrive' for my new duel g4 powermac? don't tell me apple.com, because apple does not sell dvd drives without buying a computer.

Mod Parent Up!

[yelligsc]

Mod parent up!

The post that he replied to is utter crap.

Kudos to crawling_chaos

Only if you can afford a lawyer

[yerricde]

Roughly translated: You are free to reverse-engineer a copyright product (and use the method you develop) for the purposes of interopability

You left off the last part: "Provided, that you have tons of money to hire attorneys to represent you in a court of law."

Apple, Microsoft, Linux and Standards

[harlows_monkeys]

This reminds me of the days when Apple mostly used SCSI peripherals. Back in those days, if you had a Mac, and bought a generic unformatted hard drive, and hooked it up to your Mac, it would not work. Apple's SCSI software refused to recognize drives that were not bought from Apple (it could tell, because Apple's drives had the IDENTIFY information changed to say APPLE instead of QUANTUM or MAXTOR or SEAGATE). So, you had to go buy third party SCSI driver software to use a generic drive with your Mac.

In the vary early days of SCSI, this made sense. The command set was not standardized, and drivers needed to be written for specific models of drives. However, it didn't take long for the drive manufactures to defined and implement the Common Command Set, and generic drivers became easy to write.

Compare to both Linux and Windows. Both of these provided generic drivers for various classes of SCSI device, and so you did NOT need any special software to use a bare-bones drive.

It was fairly easy in a debugger to get around Apple's brand check. They had left debugging symbols in their HD setup program, so you could just set a breakpoint on "strcmp" and watch for one where it was comparing "APPLE" to "QUANTUM" (or whatever your drive was) and change the return value to say it matched. :-)

Apple sells computers to RIAA, MPAA, et al.

[Sigh Phi]

More than any other single computer manufacturer, Apple's hardware and software is associated with content creation and production. In addition to Apple simply protecting license agreements it may have on Superdrive and DVD burning software, I see it also as a bone thrown to the big gorillas to let them know that Apple's on their side.

Remember "Rip, Mix, Burn"? Apple needs to make doubly sure that at some point in the future, the Macintosh itself isn't ruled by some court to be a circumvention device. It needs both the PR and legal record to show that it has acted in good faith WRT copyrighted material.[1] Apple may be behaving evilly here, but it's within a much larger context of what individual entities must do to survive in a legal framework that is horribly bent.

For what it's worth, I personally think that OWC is completely within its (moral) rights to distribute whatever patch it wants, DMCA or no. Instructions are instructions are instructions, compiled, in C++, in Applescript, or in english. If you bought a computer, it's yours to run whatever you want on it. If you wrote a program that does something on a computer, and someone else wants to use that same program, you can give it to them. It's very simple. The DMCA is a travesty.

--------

1. Everybody creates copyrighted material, but it seems to be the understated goal of the RIAA and others that only copyrighted material that is bankrolled by multinational conglomerates make it into the hands of the general public.

Not all laws are good

[yerricde]

why does everyone here seem to continually support the breaking of federal laws?

Laws are broken (violated) because they're broken (they don't work). Before the mid-1860s, there existed federal laws that regulated slavery, requiring citizens to act as police and return slaves to their owners. Then Congress realized that those laws were unjust and changed the law to ban slavery outright. Once the states signed on, the 13th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution.

speeding is selling drugs is murder is stealing copyrighted software and art.

So do you think people should be imprisoned for life just for going 1 mph over the speed limit?

Please try to make sense next time, Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Re:Not all laws are good

[reallocate]

Serious efforts to ward off the threats posed by the DMCA, the RIAA, etc., don't get any help from /. posters who seem bent on exercising the phony "right" of the post-adoloscent crowd to avoid paying for property that other people are trying to sell.

You don't get to pick which laws to obey unless you're willing to risk arrest and trial. Laws are broken for a lot of reasons. But, whatver the reason, it is still breaking the law. The one that applies here is that a lot of people don't want to pay for software/music/ movies or whatever. Technology gives them the means to engage in theft, so they're doing just that. They point to the selfish behavior of large corporations and their ability to influence politics as if they are the very first people on the planet to discover that money wields power. Their perversion of the open source/free software ideology gives them some words to mouth off with when someone wonders where they get off exhibiting such fundamental disrespect for the laws others live by.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Lars T.]

Formac devideon superdrive

Formac devideon superdrive is the world's first external solution to bring affordable DVD creation to the Apple Macintosh. The new FireWire DVD-R/RW & CD-RW drive is based on Pioneer's new DVR-A04 technology, and comes bundled with Formac's proprietary DVD authoring software.

DVD is patented in the USA

[yerricde]

Either way, the DVD technology is protected by trade secret laws, not by patents

Wrong. DVD uses MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio, which are patented in the United States.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can i distribute a binary only patch that modifies a GPL binary without distributing the source to that patch? If not, how is that different than the apple situation? If yes, is the GPL effectively dead?

running Windows apps on WINE illegal?

[ikekrull]

If all it takes to make the practice of running apps via emulation or other workaround is a statement in the EULA saying 'This software is only for use with ', then won't this have dire effects for VMWare, WINE, Win4Lin, console emulators, etc. etc. ?

If it was that easy 'This software is only for use with a computer not more than 1 year old', 'This software is only for use with Intel CPUs' 'This software is only for use by people with yearly income over $60,000' 'This software is only for use by people we don't currently dislike', then the 'tech' world would be a very different place.

DVD region-coding is a similar issue - This disc is only for use in ,

However, you paid for the disc, you own it, and you should be able to play it anywhere you like. In many countries, DVD region coding is illegal and constitutes an illegal barrier to trade.

If I legally obtain a copy of iDVD, then i am within my rights to modify it, and use it in whatever way i see fit. Even if I break the law by doing this, it has nothing to do with Apple.

I am also well within my rights to reverse engineer and distribute a patch for iDVD, and as long as the patch itself, or the methods i used to create the patch infringes no copyright or patents.

I cannot distribute patched copies of iDVD, of course, but hacking iDVD to work with my own burner, and subsequently distributing a patch to allow others to do so with their iDVD is perfectly legal.

If Apple is not paying the license fees for software they are distributing that is capable of encoding DVDs, then they are the ones who are breaking the law, or quite obviously running the risk of breaking the law by doing this.

The idea that they can control who purchases or owns the software based on what hardware is currently in these peoples posession is laughable.

'You may not purchase this gasoline if you don't own ACME brand car'

'You may not own a DVD disc if you do not also own a licensed player'

Quit your whining!

[z-kungfu]

Apple is absolutely correct on this. If you buy an Apple with a Superdrive you get iDVD bundled with it for free. There is no other way to get iDVD. If you are trying to use it with another DVD burner you are pirating the software to try and use it, plus it won't work without a patch to enable it to work with NON-Apple DVD burners. So quit your whining, most DVD burners come with some sort of software bundled with them, use this ot get an Apple with a Supedrive. Nuff said.

Re:First sale. Period.

[Clanner]

First off, I assume that your recent PowerBook purchase did not include the Combo drive, so you have to use an external DVD-burner in order to author DVD's. That being the case, how is it Apple's responsibility to make their software compatible with other vendor's hardware? While I'm not saying it shouldn't be compatible, I am saying it's Apple's choice. iDVD is intended for use on Apple systems that shipped with a DVD-burner. Why is it so hard for people to figure this out. If you don't have an Apple system with a built-in DVD-burner, use one of the other options for external DVD-burners. It isn't Apple's problem if other vendors' products cost more, or aren't as nice, or whatever.
And for iMovie, it's meant as a basic, consumer friendly movie editor. If you need more features, oh no, you'll have to buy another product! iMovie is free, so don't be surprised if it's a bit more limited than other products out there. Or is Apple supposed to supply all the best software at no charge just because you bought an Apple computer? I don't recall Apple ever advertising iMovie as the be-all, end-all movie editor. It just makes basic editing easy for your average comsumer. It's not intended for anything beyond that, and to complain that it doesn't do as much as Final Cut Pro seems to me to be a bit whiny.
And for PowerBook users to do basic DVD authoring, you have two choices.
1. Buy a PowerBook that has a combo drive.
2. Buy a third party external DVD-burner and third party DVD authoring software.

How exactly is this Apple "screwing" PowerBook users???

Re:First sale. Period.

[dwater]

And your point is?

-=- MOD PARENT UP -=-

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats to the first person to actually READ the article.

Apple has a right to protect their IP

[geekee]

If Apple writes a piece of code and provides a binary, no one has the right to reverse engineer it to use it for something other than intended. If, for example, Nvidia reverse-engineered ATIs drivers, and modified them to use in Nvidia cards, ATI would have the right to complain. if Apple intends iDVD to be used only with their drives, it shouldn't be modified for other drives without their consent. On a side note, this isn't surprising since Apple has a long history of doing whtever is necessary to protect their hardware monopoly since Steve Jobs came back.

Apple vs Disney

[deblau]

Apple is now using the law to stifle innovation. That gives them something in common with Disney. Yeah, you heard me, Disney.

Companies have every right to produce good products and innovate. They have no right to prevent someone else from making the next best thing. DVD Enabler gave people a choice they didn't have before, and now Apple is taking that choice away, restricting the freedoms of people who use those external DVD writers. The software may hurt their business, but Apple have no right to go after people that sell it. My advice: make something better, Apple. Remember your formative years! Don't turn into Disney.

last post honest

[oliverthered]

'It's ethically questionable because IT'S NOT THEIRS.'
I would argue that because your brought xyz and iDVD came 'bundled' that you 'own' a copy of iDVD so technally it's the users copy not Apples

there's a link on some's sig to the full story,
The case was Apple vs Someone(company X),

X was unbundleing shrink wrapped copys of adobe software from OEM hardware and selling the two product seperatly.

Adobe didn't like this ......

The outcome was that X was allowed to resell the bundled coppies because a sale of a product had take place (as apposed to a sale of a licence).

The case was held in a US district court, but is still makes some presedent for other trials.

Re:last post honest

[joshsisk]

Again, as I have said - it's LEGAL for the user to patch the software (at least I think it should be, though it probably violates the EULA), but ILLEGAL for the competitor to distribute the patch.

Wine

[ces]

You wonder if Microsoft might do something like this against wine?

Powerbooks?

[myov]

What about those of us with powerbooks? The superdrive is not available on a powerbook. So, the only way for me to burn a DVD is with an external FireWire drive. I find this really interesting, as Apple pushes (or at least, they used to) the PowerBook as a mobile editing workstation. In fact, that's one of the reasons I bought mine.

But FWIW, I tend to use DVD Studio Pro anyways, when I'm at work on a G4 tower.

Re:..you bunch of thieving animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Toast 5.1.4 makes it possible to burn DVDs with Apples burner or a 3party. Their not preventing you from using other apps with their hardware.... so what's the issue, oh yea you want to boost Apples brilliant software with out paying for the hardware. What the hell is new about how they do business its always been about selling hardware/software. They make kick ass hardware/software and if you want to use it you have to pay for it. And if you don't like it you can use the amazing winblows (snicker) software.

fishy business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't somethign about the way new/cnet.com reports these news items look fishy?

All these long years, and STILL no one gets it...

[Tokerat]

Apple is a hardware company. The only reason they make software (Mac OS X, the iSuite, etc.) is so their hardware is not useless (yea, yea, you're begging to get modded down for bad puns on that.)

Apple makes iDVD as a component of their DVD-Burner enabled machines. As such, it is not MEANT to be used in any other manner. If you buy an external burner, use another program. Why? Because iDVD wan't meant to work with it.

Once again, this software (iDVD) is meant ONLY for use with an Apple Macintosh which was built with the ability to burn DVD disks. It is perfectly legal for someone to develop an alternative and sell it, or even give it away.

The reason the DMCA applies here is because when you apply this patch, you are actually circumventing a security feature in this software (even though it is merely one to secure Apple some hardware sales, heh).

And for those who compare Apple to Microsoft for supposed "lock-in" tactics used here, think of it like this: The deal is, if you buy a DVD burner from Apple, they include the ability to create DVD content for free. They DON'T force you to buy some other product, citing that this computer "has the ability". It's included.

One more thing I would like to mention: iDVD isn't just the "ability" to burn a DVD; iDVD actually lets you create menus and divide movies into chapters, etc. just like a DVD you'd buy from the store (LOTR for example).

Maybe a few of you people should read Apple's iDVD site before you assume this means "no 3rd party DVD burners allowed".

SUCK MY HETRO COCK(please read before mod)

[type40]

Sorry, that was just to get your attention.

I found a story on lowendmac.com that explans all of this:

http://www.lowendmac.com/lite/02/0820.html

The Apple Clock of Doom

Jeff Adkins
2002.08.20

Today I plan to weave for you a complex tapestry of paranoid logic so convoluted, so infused with power and incompetence, it will make the folks over at As the Apple Turns drop their newborn on the floor. It will make the Crazy Apple Rumor mongers write haiku for a week. It will cause the MacOS Rumors site to talk about actual user manuals (in print no less), and Think Secret will change its name to Thought Public. Anne Onymus will finally reveal her true identity just for the opportunity to kick me in the head.

As Forrest Gump would say, "Hang on to your buttocks. This is gonna be a wild ride."

The story is complex enough that I will number the stages to help you keep track.

1) Just prior to the recent Macworld, the Mac Web was abuzz with the effrontery of Apple Computer blacklisting certain non-rumor sites as rumor sites and denying them passes as press.

2) Mainstream press at the David Coursey level was beginning to pick up on the story. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being on the evening news of a major television network, this ranks at about a 6 or so. A score of 8 makes it into the syndicated column of a print newspaper, so this is getting close to the Real World that Apple Pays Attention To. (As The Apple Turns rates about a 4 on this scale, and your friendly neighborhood Lite Side resides at 2,with occasional forays into 3 territory.)

3) Seeking to nip the accelerating bad press in the bud, Steve ("Mr. Steve to you") Jobs decides to use a diversionary tactic. In a bold but desperate gambit, he decides to refocus the building ire of Mac web writers on a new topic: .mac.

4) Before any of us can cook up an article on how tacky the ".mac" name is, given the existence of the vaporware ".Net," he ups the ante by declaring ".mac" a pay service.

5) Poof! That's the last you hear about the blacklisting issue as all laser targeting systems are now focused on the relative value, or lack thereof, of ".mac."

6) Mission accomplished: The rumor site complaints dropped from level 6 (and accelerating) to negative numbers -- meaning, "If you think you've got problems, little rumor site, just look at me, I spent my last dime buying OS9 because it had free web storage included." Suddenly the entire blacklisting issue was less than not important -- people actively discouraged you from bringing it up, didn't they? Don't deny it.

7) Then there's the whole timing thing. I mean, look at the influence AtAT has on the Mac Web. Fans are going nuts trying to hire baby-sitters, just so's these people can type. When better to put faithful Macolytes through the meat grinder when their most popular voice is semiconscious, smeared with sticky ground up peas in pear sauce, and staggering over to 7-11 in search of exactly the right kind of diapers?

8) Not to mention the attempts by Microsoft to upstage Apple just prior to Macworld. Remember those? That whole issue lasted, what, about 30 hours or so? And what does Mr. Jobs (Steve) do to squelch these rumors? He steals Microsoft's ideas right back! Why hasn't anyone said anything about what a low-down cheap shot ".mac" is at the delayed, derided, unsanitary ".Net?" Judging from the smoothness of the transition, it looks like it took, what, 29 hours of work to set up ".mac." Are you following me here?

No?

This is all going to tie together, so trust me.

9) During Macworld, Apple's announcements of no-upgrade Jaguar pricing and no-options ".mac" gouging were apparently supposed to be counterbalanced by the various other announcements he made. But not really. I mean, who even remembers what those other announcements were? Some screen size bump, some new OSX features I'm supposed to be happy to pay for.

Am I right here? Of course I am.

10) Now let's start to tie this together. Steve's a product of his environment, and as we all know, he's into that 70s-liberal-anti-Republican-he's-met-Clinton-North ern-California school of thought, whatever that is. (All I know is what I read on Fox News.) Integral to these exposures is the concept of the Chinese Yin-Yang symbol. (Oh yeah, that's a really clear connection. You just have to live anywhere but California to get it, though.) You know, the one that says "All good must be accompanied by evil," or else you wouldn't know what good is, see?

Now, I used to think Apple was Yin to Microsoft's Yang. That whole worldview got messed up when his Steveness pronounced the war between Microsoft and Apple over -- and did that whole Giant Face of Bill irony thing on a Macworld stage a few years back.

11) But I was wrong. Steve's ego is so large, he isn't Yinging to Gate's Yanger (and you can quote me on that out of context if you like). No, see, here's the thing -- and if you're taking notes, you'll want to put a great big box around this with little winky lights like they used to use on the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show 'cuz it's important -- the thing is, Steve wants it all. He wants his Yin and Yang in one circle (his) and Microsoft isn't even in the equation at all. Or much.

12) This explains the alternating blasts of brilliance with the black holes of despair we've seen put through the metaphor mixer lately. Seems like he can't come up with a great product (flat panel iMac) without crippling it somehow (no choice in port placement). The creation and transition to OSX is a fantastic, incredible achievement, counterbalanced by the lack of upgrade path for early adopters.

The War with Microsoft is Over (see #10) but the Switch ads are a slap in the face at the Wintel hegemony. The Switch ads are meeting a long-standing demand of writers on the Mac Web (face the competition squarely) but they do so using people who need a shot of caffeine or something to wake up properly.

No positive thing Apple does can be viewed in isolation without its corresponding negative aspect. This is the secret to Apple's recent behavior; it's very simple. Steve is attempting to bring balance to the Force ... all by himself.

The obvious thing for us to do, Mac Fans and Smart-Aleck Pundits alike, is to track the changes for him so when he gets too close to the Dark Side or the Lite Side, he can do the appropriate thing to come back. That's why I've decided to establish, following the example of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the countdown until Apple meets its doom clock sponsored by the Bulletin of Mac Web Pundits.

On this clock, 12:00 midnight is the date Apple declares bankruptcy and the following occurs: The Apple logo is purchased by Sony and turned into an off-brand MP3 player logo. Disney buys the rights to OSX and uses it exclusively in Disney World kiosks. The remaining iMac inventory is sold to Pixar. Everything else goes to Dell.

If you want to know how the clock should have been set from 1977 to the present, read the excellent summary at http://www.apple-history.com. All you really need to know is that the Clone Wars occurred from 1993-1997, as Windows was establishing its Mac-like interface, Jobs was not with the company, and Apple suffered a lack of focus, staggering losses, and poor quality control in product development. During those years the clock rarely moved from 1 minute before midnight. After the introduction of the iMac, the clock has been oscillating around 10 minutes before midnight, which is kind of the point of this stupid article.

We begin our analysis just prior to the recent Macworld New York.

June 2002: Clock standing at 10 minutes before midnight. It would be farther out, but an industrywide sales slump plus consumer nervousness following Sept. 11 depresses sales.

July 2002: Rumors circulate that certain Mac Web sites will be banned from MWNY for spreading rumors, a determination which is in and of itself a rumor, ironically. Clock moves to 9 minutes, 45 seconds to midnight. As the month wears on, the clock moves to 9 minutes 30 seconds, and in the days preceding the Expo, the motion accelerates suddenly, all the way to 8 minutes before midnight a couple of days before the keynote due to widening coverage of the fiasco.

July 2002: Microsoft makes several forgettable announcements just prior to Macworld: clock moves to 6 minutes before midnight.

July 2002: Jobs steps on keynote stage: Reality Distortion Field brings clock to 10 minutes before midnight.

July 2002: Jobs announces extra-wide iMac. Clock moves to 11 minutes before midnight.

July 2002: Jobs announces new features for Jaguar: Clock moves to 11 minutes 30 seconds before midnight.

July 2002: Jobs announces Jaguar upgrade price and policy. Clock drops to 9 minutes before midnight.

July 2002: Jobs announces .mac feature set. Clock rises to 10 minutes before midnight.

July 2002: Jobs announces .mac pricing and lack of options for cash-strapped users: Clock drops to 7 minutes before midnight.

July 2002: Macworld ends with clock set at 7 minutes before midnight. Steve is exhausted, but has more fish to fry later in the summer...

July 2002: Rumors circulate that Apple and Sun may develop Office-compatible suite for Mac OSX. Clock jumps to 11 minutes before midnight.

A little later in July: Sun denies rumors and muddles the water a bit: Clock flutters and settles on 8 minutes before midnight.

August 2002: Apple announces $100 price cut on base iMac, bringing price down to level it was before Apple raised the price in first place: Clock moves to 8-1/2 minutes before midnight.

If 10 minutes before midnight is the sweet spot Steve has been oscillating around ever since he killed the Newton, it seems we're overdue for some good news. iWonder what it will be? Stay tuned to the Lite Side. As events develop, we will adjust the Apple Clock of Doom accordingly.

Disclosure notice: The author of this article does not own any Apple stock. In fact, he doesn't own any stock. Moreover, not only does he not have any formal connection with Apple Computer -- he hasn't even done a Marketsource gig in two years -- it is highly unlikely that anyone poised to climb the corporate latter at Apple HQ would be caught reading anything in the Lite Side archive. Therefore, the SEC can take a day off. Enjoy.

hlti/.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Look This Is Slash Dot so we can twist any story around and print it the other way.. these dweebs will never even notice! haha! blah blah.. read it first NIMRODS W>T>F>

Moderators, mod parent up please

[invalid_user]

Sums up my thoughts on some of the highest moderated posts here.

Get a clue. For the kind of money you guys paid Apple... it owes you. Not the other way around.

the truth...

[z-kungfu]

http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/08/2002083 0183312.shtml
nuff said...

ILLEGAL?

[oliverthered]

again, Why, can you prove it, can you give me an analogy?

The only time it could be illegal is if it appeared that the patch was written by Apple or caused some kind of 'deformation of character'

There are no patents violated, no copyright issues? in the most part the ELUA is non-applicable (reverse engineering, disassembling) especially in the EU(under rights of sale and purchase) and quite probably in several US states.

Re:ILLEGAL?

[joshsisk]

Analogy? I believe it's illegal under the DMCA, and that doesn't require the license or any sort of mis-representation.

There are also cases going to court now about distributing modified copyrighted materials, so it would be interesting to see how that applies here.

Re:ILLEGAL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok seeing as the DMCA is so new, a usefull Analogy would be good if you want to win a case using it.

The cases you mention will also probably be kicked out because of history.

Apple is evil, again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Film at 11. They're just like Microsoft, only not as good at it. The sooner the Mac f@nb0yz get that through their thick skulls, the better off they'll be. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying unencumbered hardware that runs free software and is manufactured by companies that don't sue every time their overpriced hardware revenue model is threatened.

~~~