Slashdot Mirror
Woz, Others Ask Apple To Go Easy On Tiger Leak
tabkey12 writes "Drunkenbatman posts this impressive article with a pointed quote from Apple co-creator Steve Wozniak and 24 others from all parts of the Apple Software world, criticising Apple's stance against a 23-year-old pre-med student, desicanuk, who distributed a pre-release Tiger build over a popular Mac Bittorrent site. There's also an interview with desicanuk on drunkenbatman's site. (Original Slashdot article here.)"
And given that he *must* have been aware of the
i) illegality
ii) traceability
of his leaks, he's a particularly stupid adult.
Spare your sympathy for people who deserve it.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
I wonder, why do "The Regents" own the rights? Not "The Students" or "The State of California"? Anyone?
If this was software piracy there'd be a clear case for damages. If I spent a huge amount on developing a new product aimed at commercial resale and some dude released it onto the net, I'd sue him too.
But Apple do not really sell software at all. They sell hardware, and they sell fashion. What are the real damages from such an act? Not very significant. Apple users tend to pay for their software because otherwise it's not worth having.
The publicity alone - Apple software being so valuable that someone is prepared to go to jail in order to leak it - is worth a lot.
They should probably do a deal with the guy: hire him for a pittance where he can put his notoriety to use helping Apple.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
This would be a great place to see them settle for an "undisclosed sum" (like a dollar), on condition that neither party discuss the matter further. Everyone wins; Apple doesn't publicly "back down", and the guy gets his life back.
Or they could grind his bones to make their bread, whatever. I don't know him.
Just how can a NDA restrict the redistribution of an opensource based OS?
If it's 50% based on BSD software does this mean they can only sue for 50% of damages?
And if tiger was a bit of music or art or something i was working on . Then some guy(23 is not a kid , I'm 23 I stopped being a kid a long time ago) I was showing it to , decided to make a copy of the work and hand it out. I imagine i would be rather pissed off , and probably want to punch the guy, so from this i can understand the actions of apple up to this point. .He has suffered his virtual punch from Apple,Although he comes out with the "I'm so Naive"
Which would probably make me want him to suffer a while longer for coming out with such a load of nonsense .
But that would be it , I doubt he will do it again
Now as much as i believe that all software should follow the GNU way , I also respect the rights of developers to decide how they distribute the work they have created.
distributing Commercial software over Bittorent in the USA is not a good idea , its playing with fire and if you're caught you will get burnt.
I do feel sorry for him though
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
yes, but that's not the point, the point is that if you continue doing this kind of shit then people will see straight through your companys intentions and when your company is largely dependandt on very zealous fans that buy anything you make because it is from you it's a bad thing to piss them off.
and then you have a company kick started on money made from making (_black_ hat)hacking tools for the phone system suing some kid that just posts things that people email to him- obviously if they had some values once about freedom to do things they don't have them now.
like, hello, wtf? if that's not spineless from a company that's trying to act 'better' than the competition then what is..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Also, bankruptcy is ceasing to be much of an option for anything except perhaps large companies. Banks and credit card companies have managed to get the laws changed, I think you can't dissolve all, or at least most, of credit card debt anymore so a bankruptcy isn't helpful even if you're drowning in debt. Kinda sad, I'm sure there were some deadbeats who filed it just to avoid paying, but I really doubt _all_ of bankruptcies were like that.
No - this is a lawsuit on a Beta release that the lawsuit claims permanent and egregious damages from.
One would be led to belive that apple will lose the company all over the leak of a beta.. developer.. safari...
So now, some kid in Canada is facing fighting a lawsuit in California where no matter what - He's screwed financially no matter which way he goes. Over something that won't cost apple a dime.
Nice.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Does anyone know the consequences of the following.
1. A person breaks into apple HQ and steals 20 copies of Tiger on CD. They get caught.
2. A person uploads tiger via Bittorrent. They get caught
I assume for the first you'd get a suspended sentence for first offence or a few months in Jail.
But for the second I guess you'll be paying for it for the rest of your life.
Conclusion throw away your keyboard and trade in for a crowbar.
People are not fans of Apple because Jobs is a nice guy. He's not. He's infamous for his absurdly hot temper.
People are not fans of Apple because they are warm and fuzzy towards those who they see as a threat to their interests. They're not. This goes all the way back to the Apple ][ and the lawsuits over the Frankline computers which were designed to mimic them.
People are fans of Apple because they keep cranking out impressive innovations to the way humans and computers interact, and when at their best, sell really spiffy hardware that takes advantage of these innovations.
As long as they do that, most of us are fine with them being asshats.
Yes, he's an adult legally. "Not otherwise though," says the 40-some year old computer programmer.
A) They should punish himB) They punishment should not be harsh unless Steve Job's tax returns were hidden in the released code. Suggest Multi-thousand dollar fine - like @$5-10K + community service.
C) He should definitely loose all rights to anything MAC unless he ponies up money like the rest of us; this includes loosing any apple accounts at iTunes, etc.
Why is the big mantra on slashdot "this guy is stupid!", as if this is the ultimate sin? I guess "stupid" people don't deserve anything but contempt. Calling someone stupid is the new kike/nigger/dago/wop/chink/gook/raghead/fag/guinea /kraut.
Did I leave anyone out?
AccountKiller
If someone gives respect because of my name and not what I have to say, then I don't really care if they're not listening; they're not the type of person I want to associate with.
How many /.ers didn't even blink while reading the intro?
At least this one.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
So yes, there does seem to be some truth in the claim. Funny, people seem to get mighty upset when it's hinted that maybe Steve Jobs is not that great of a guy. Personality-cult, perhaps?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
No kidding. We need a law for this kind of stuff similar to the federal truth in lending laws that require you to basically put the gist of an agreement, the important details, at the top of the contract in plain english.
...which, I guess, means it'll never happen :)
Better yet, since I'm sure there will still be loopholes in that sort of thing, it could be interesting if there were some sort of universal file format for legal documents (and I don't mean word perfect, har, har) where I could have one generic agreement that I read in detail once and check what I agree with, will and won't do, then when I get a new one from a manufacturer it can show me how they differ. I'd like that...
He didn't pirate software. He distributed a private beta OS illegally, breaking an NDA and violating copyright. Piracy implies that money was exchanged.
There are some not so subtle differences between what he did and piracy.
Pirate: Makes illegal copies, generally with pirated packaging, and sells them for money.
Warez Kid: Makes illegal copies and gives them away for free.
He's a warez kid. The difference is that a warez kid isn't stealing from the person who recieves the illegal copy, or selling it as a legit copy, just stealing from the author of the work.
In that respect a warez kid has done less damage to the population at large, but just as much, if not significantly more damage than a pirate, to the owner of the work, since the distribution audience can be unlimited, whereas a pirate is only giving it to people who pay him.
l8,
AC
Defamation is defamation. Free speech is free speech. The boundary between the two has been an ongoing debate since before the founding of this country. Take out "megacorps" and insert "Nobility" or "Celebrity" and you have the same cases going back for centures.
Trade marks are another item that are government registered and widely published. And like free speech, debate over common usage versus the trade mark owner goes back to the beginning of case law.
As far as trade secrets go, a trade secret can be between 2 people, or 2 million. The size of the distribution doesn't matter. What the law cares about is a) do you own the material and b) did you attempt to limit the distribution of it. Don't bitch at me, that is what case law dictates.
And as far as monetary damage goes, if someone takes your product and starts minting a cheap copies, that hurts your bottom line. This is Econ 101. This is why there are Patent and Trademark laws on the books. This is why there is a civil court system. That is why we have Copyrights.
One of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, was, after all, a retired printer.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
He probably isn't going to have to pay any money. The publicity is going to do exactly what Apple hoped to do with the fine, convince people it isn't worth it to release beta Apple software into the wild. Once all the publicity dies down Apple will probably just let him off the hook (although now that he has this defense fund they'll probably want that, he certainly has no right to it if the case is dropped).
I have never understood the Warez mentality. Oh, sure, I'll gladly download from bittorrent all day, but why would someone put themselves at risk just to let other people download software?
Perhaps it is because they have a philosophy where charging for software, or charging too much for software is wrong. They would have to be pretty retarded for this to be the reason though, since Warez certainly HELPS non-free software compete against free software in the long run. Every person who downloads Photoshop, who wouldn't have gone out and bought it, is actually helping Adobe. They are learning a propriatary program. At worst they get free use out of it. At best they will become skilled at it and someday use it at a job. When they are employed they will want to use Photoshop, and the business will purchase it (or if the business already uses it then there will be more available skilled people, driving the wage down, which encourages them to keep using it).
If Warez weren't available, then this person would probably use The Gimp or something, now repeat the above argument, except The Gimp gets wider use. Plus this guy will show all his friends how he got this awesome peice of software, and it's free!
I guess Warez is best explained by some kind of nerd fetish for getting software, and the 'leetness' of letting people download it.