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.)"
Two questions:
- How do we expect to be taken seriously with pseudonyms like this?
- How many
/.ers didn't even blink while reading the intro?
Of course look who's talking; Odo, a fictional shapeshifter... <sigh>As much as I admire Woz's idealism, I wouldn't take business advice from him!
This is intellectual property of Apple, and should be treated as such.
He pirated software, he should pay the penalty.
No sympathy here.
From everything that I've read his defense to Apple's charge of him posting the pre-release software is that he's a kid, please feel sorry for him.
I feel sympathy for him too, but how do you stop leaks if not punish the people that perpetrate the leaks?
I'm a big tall mofo.
That's just it. It's a big public taboo over something which is equivalent to shop lifting. Sigh, People always fear what they don't understand!
The 83 year old dead file swapper, Gertrude, would have been laughing her false teeth out at you all if she was alive..
I personally don't want a doctor with this sort of ethics to do anything to me in the future. I hope Apple sues him into oblivion.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Bottom line: he should have known better, but Apple shouldn't be giving themselves bad press by continuing. They probably won't now after outcries like this, preferring to show some teeth to discourage potential "innocent" uploaders leaking more stuff, then back off to act as a "Benevolent" corporate entity. Maybe Steve Jobs would do some p.r. by volunteering at the same place as mr. Gentleman Pirate?
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
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.
But Apple do not really sell software at all.
Take a look at Apple's software page and tell me how many applications you see there. Most of these are not provided for free, and some are pretty expensive.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
> But Apple do not really sell software at all. They sell hardware,
> and they sell fashion
Awesome. Since Microsoft do not really sell hardware at all - they sell software... It must be OK for me to just go take a Microsoft Intellimouse, and a Microsoft keyboard.
Cool.
RST
Welcome to the real world...
The real problem is that you don't agree with apple's naming conventions.
Call a product Windows 98 and then change it's "upgrade" to Windows Me (please no ME jokes...) and everything is dandy.
Call a product OS X 10.3 and then its "upgrade" OS X 10.4 and people moan and bitch.
The truth of the matter is, $129 ($99 for students) for a new operating system is a steal. If you can't afford it, fine, no reason for you to upgrade. Microsoft will charge you around three times that.
1) Kid signs up for limited freebee ADC membership, knowing that it does not include access to Tiger beta, in order to have "real" developer (who should certainly know better) place a d/l seed in his area. -- mildly unethical.
2) Kid, excited with his "prize", sends it out to his web "buddies" so they can share in the radiant joy. Exceedingly stoopid.
3) A restricted beta of a product Apple intends to make hundreds of millions of $$$ from is released into the wild for free. Entirely predictable.
4) Apple gets justifiably upset, sues all in sight. About all that Apple can do at this point is make an example of them.
5) The Woz feels sorry that the Kid is getting punished for his unthinking brush with Reality, donates $1000 to his defense.
So what can we learn from this?
1) Apple needs to tighten up ability to transfer software assets between classes of ADC members.
2) Kids (or anyone) that act in an unthinking manner can expect to be educated. Think of it as Evolution in Action.
3) People will gawk at a grisly highway accident, whether on concrete or etherial roadways.
Move along folks.
> Of course they do but the point is that if this was a GPL'd
> piece of software there would have been problem with the guy
> distributing it in this way
And if it rained liquid iron from the sky we'd all be burned. We aren't in a fantasy world where Tiger is a piece of GPL software.
Tiger is licensed to people under licenses decided upon by Apple. People break that license and Apple gets upset. Many slashdotters seem to think Apple shouldn't, and should just turn a blind eye to it.
If they think that, then they should also not get upset when a company breaks the license terms of GPL software, ie by incorporating GPL code into a proprietary closed source app.
So why is it OK to break Apple's license and go all "awwww Apple should turn a blind eye" when if the GPL was being broken by the same guy, most of slashdot would call for his lynching, be posting his home phone number, address, contact details, criminal records or what have you, online.
What? Apple had $213 million in 1Q05 in software sales, and estimates $1 billion in software revenues for this year. And you think Apple doesn't really sell software??
I agree with you about it not damaging software sales, but what they're really worried about is people trying a buggy, unfinished version of Tiger and getting put off by it. They don't want their unfinished code getting into the hands of the public -no matter how unjust, some animosity from buggy code could develop which may affect the brand perception Apple rely on.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
Who is DrunkenBatman?
...However, I should note, where was DrunkenRobin during all this? Just hanging around the DrunkenBatcave? We can only drunkenly speculate, I guess.
Some have speculated that DrunkenBatman is DrunkenBruceWayne, a theory I too once believed. However, after I publicly aired my suspicions, he and I were kidnapped by the DrunkenPenguin then saved by DrunkenBatman. So I've seen DrunkenBruceWayne and DrunkenBatman, together.
From the interview (one of the admins of the bittorrent tracker speaking):
You see, all of these are copyrighted unless they're around a hundred years old (depending on jurisdiction). Of course distributing them is not copyright infringement ("piracy") if you have permission by the copyright holders, but I highly doubt this site has permission to distribute those service manuals and -- especially -- games.Just because the company making them is gone doesn't mean there isn't a copyright holder -- there's always some creditor happy to pick them up. They may not sell the game any more (at least currently), but that matters zilch. They may not be suing you because they don't have enough to gain from it, but that doesn't mean they can't and it doesn't mean that this isn't copyright infringement.
Yes, it sucks. You see, that's one reason why some people think copyright law sucks. Especially with the super-long copyright terms of today.
I find people annoying who copy old proprietary games, don't feel that they're doing anything wrong, and then go, "I totally respect copyright law! I would never pirate anything!" If you think copyright is so cool, how come you are so happy to bend it when it's inconvenient?
(NB. I admit that I haven't actually checked the site; the games there may yet be under license terms that permit re-distribution after the company making them has folded. If so, sorry of associating the general rant with this specific case. But I doubt it.)
He needs to look up the definition of malicious. He came into posession of a piece of copyrighted software and then made the conscious decision to seed it to others. He was pirating and he was trafficing stolen goods.
Apple has every right to go after him.
I never knew that Jobs was such an ass. Egomaniac? Sure! Asshole? it seems so.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
If someone distributed the Linux kernel under conditions that do not meet the GPL, what would you be saying then? The code was licensed under an agreement, whatever agreement that happens to be, and this person broke the terms of that agreement.
I'm not pro-corporate. Let me say that up front.
Apple has a NDA that they require of all developers who receive "pre-release" copies of software in development. If Apple does not pursue litigation then their NDA basically means nothing. They are perfectly within their legal rights to insist that the agreement be kept. So, the poor bastard who's getting sued should have known better.
There are open source packages out there to distribute freely without the wrath of the owner. It seems that there are many slashdot readers who are not mature enough to recognize that the world doesn't work that way. I'm not saying it's right--I'm just saying that just because you think IP laws are rubbish or do not apply to you doesn't change the fact that they the law and they do, in fact, apply. It's naive to think that electronic civil disobedience will not be met with the very sharp teeth and claws of the corporate legal eagles/weasels. Everyone always says, "Oh, that poor grandmother or little kid getting picked on by the corporations."
Fight the law with the law. Vigilante piracy isn't going to magically tip the law in the favor of Utopian RMS world. It's friggin' common sense people--DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN CORPORATIONS. Everyone here knows it's against the law to share copyrighted music, software, or some other IP. If you do it anyway don't bitch if you get caught. Just because we don't like the corporations doesn't make it right to steal from them--that makes us immature miscreant punks. And the legal system will treat you as such.
This world runs on money--corporations are greedy entities that will suck the lives out of every human being. Don't buy corporate. Fight with your power as a "consumer" by not being one. DON'T BE A CONSUMER WHORE but be a law-abiding citizen, too. [PSA brought to you by catdevnull].
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
So, this guy (not a kid, he's 23) makes Apple's OS available on bitorrent and now they're suing him? Okay, that's what happens. I read about how this is going to ruin his life. I guess I'm confused, but his life will go on, he'll just owe some money.
Ah, but he won't be able to finish med school. Is that what we're so worried about? I'm not sure that I want someone with such poor judgement being a doctor.
Call me a jerk, mod me down, whatever. The guy did something really stupid, something really illegal, and now he's being asked to pay.
By the way, Woz. If you want to help the guy, $1000 isn't going to do much.
One other thing while I'm burning karma. To the guy who wrote that he wonders if the company is being run by Jobs or greedy lawyers: you might want to consider the oh-so-tiny possibility that this is the result of Jobs running the company. I don't blame him, I'd do the same thing.
I just don't find this surprising, except for the people rushing to his defense.
Do you have ESP?
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice on slashdot, your psychiatric problems are more serious than your legal ones.
That has *absolutely* nothing to to with the state.
The bankruptcy code definces certain types of debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, including debts for
1) support payments
2) recent taxes
3) intentionally caused harm
4) fraud
5) student loans for several years
and many others
Liability for disclosing the information in this case would be far-fetched. *HOWEVER*, if he "induced" the employee to break the NSA, that could be the tort of interference with contract, and could come under the intentionally caused harm category.
hawk, esq.
That phrasing should be for the macrumors litigation, not this one.
Uploading it to share it would certainly be an intentional copyright violation, no matter how many he expected to download it (1 or 1,000,000). It's not the general liability, however, that would be nondischargeable. It's the intent to cause the harm that matters.
hawk, esq.
As a nation, the US is struggling with that "proportionate" part.
Think of all the ways in which we're drifting, semi-consciously, toward authoritarian responses to crime. The death penalty, "three strikes" mandatory sentencing rules that take sentencing away from judges in order for politicians to appear "tough on crime," drug sentences that put people away for disproportionate sentences compared with the punishment violent criminals get hit with. Any sense of proportion goes out the window once you've got the public responding to politicians who'll play to that. We've got plenty of /. posters who reacted to the "webcam break-in" story last week by saying "throw away the key" when they found out the guy only got 11 months in prison. Politicians eat that stuff up.
(Or take a look at Martha Stewart; it's completely freaking clear that she didn't do anything other big stock players aren't doing right now. She's being made into an example. Meanwhile Ken Lay? Connected to our President, and I don't notice him doing crime for destroying countless Enron employees' retirements through his quite extreme reckless behavior and that of his entire energy junta. That's not proportionate justice.)
Meanwhile, the corporate influence on government is simultaneously de-fanging potential civil suits against big corporations and giving them those corporate entities the ability to completely ream individuals who can't defend themselves in any real way against the money the big players can array against them.
This guy sounds like a fool -- the "I'm not hiring a lawyer" idiocy that some posters here are backing has partly gotten him into this spot. ("The person who represents himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client.") But he shouldn't be destroyed. He should be made aware that he has to think about what he's doing, and he needs to feel that message.
What needs to happen is that he gets a lawyer, Apple makes a big show of being amiable about this but also bares its teeth for a while, and everybody goes home with the usual "undisclosed settlement" -- equivalent to a month's salary for him, or something like, but never to be disclosed.
How this public letter approach is going to play will be interesting. Apple doesn't want to take bad PR, no -- so they need a way to come out of this as the Good Company.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.