Apple to Settle with Tiger Leaker Vivek Sambhara

AC writes "According to DrunkenBlog which has the court papers, Apple will settle their case against Sunny (Vivek Sambhara) who was accused of taking a developer release of Tiger and putting it on a torrent site. Sunny was the student who gave an interview, and had Steve Wozniak donate to his defense. It is noted in the article that there is still a named defendant going to court and "a score of jon does"."

Comments

Sensationalized

[HRbnjR]

The article has this overwhelming tone of "thank god the poor kid was saved" and "this could happen to anyone", but I don't think it could. I certainly don't agree with how Apple handled the situation, but in my opinion this guy should have had more sense. I think taking a pre-release from an early access developer program and creating a torrent for it should set off alarm bells in anyones head. I have a hard time believing he didn't understand the possible repercussions of his actions in this case.

Re:Sensationalized

[Baricom]

Apple handled this well. Had they followed through with their threat, the negative publicity from such a stunt would be enormous. (For comparison, consider how most people view the RIAA right now.) Yes, he should have had alarm bells in his head, along with a flashing sign with "IDIOT" in red letters. The settlement is good for everybody - he got a second chance, and Apple didn't destroy their customer goodwill in one fell swoop.

Re:Sensationalized

[qw(name)]

I have a hard time believing he didn't understand the possible repercussions of his actions in this case.

You're right. This couldn't happen to anyone. For him to do what he did, Sunny needed to willfully create and make available the image. He signed (either electronically or physically) an NDA to get the early release so he has no excuse whatsoever.

Re:Sensationalized

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time believing he didn't understand the possible repercussions of his actions in this case.

Suppose he was that stupid. I want him penalised as harshly as possible, to lower the chance of him breeding.

Humanity demands it! Won't somebody think of the gene pool?

Re:Sensationalized

[GaryPatterson]

Perhaps, but if we penalised stupidity harshly enough to remove people from the gene pool (!) then governments around the world would be decimated.

There'd probably be only a handful of people running the planet.

Of course, being super-intelligent (or at least, not morons) they'd probably work together to ensure a new golden age of peace and prosperity for the planet.

Thanks heavens we live in a civilised world, where even the sub-moronic have the right to breed and populate the world in their image.

Re:Sensationalized

[spir0]

The settlement is good for everybody - he got a second chance, and Apple didn't destroy their customer goodwill in one fell swoop.

I am an Apple customer and I wouldn't have thought less of them had they sued this guy into dust.

Relevant point 1: He signed an NDA which legally bound him to Non Disclosure.

Relevant point 2: Apple are well within their rights, morally and legally, to uphold their contracts.

from TFA:

while I do understand where Apple was coming from I can definitely say it's colored my view of Apple and their products. There's a bad aftertaste here

what a cock smoker.

what is it with faggots who think less of companies because they uphold their legal contracts and don't give everything away for free?

Apple don't need you, you gonad. Go and buy a PC and stick Windows on it. You deserve all the spyware and viruses you can get.

Flame on.

Re:Sensationalized

[wallykeyster]

While I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time on this piece of flamebait (I guess it's because I have no mod points to use), here I go.

Relevant point 1: He signed an NDA which legally bound him to Non Disclosure.

He "signed" an NDA by clicking okay on an electronic license. This is hardly the same as physically signing your name to a mortgage or any other legal contract.

Relevant point 2: Apple are well within their rights, morally and legally, to uphold their contracts.

Yes, but it would be neither moral nor logical to sue this guy into dust. He is an unwealthy college student and a Mac fanboy. He just did something stupid. Apple made their point and he learned a lesson.

I must say that it was a complete surprise to check out your posting history and see as many Flamebait, Redundant, and Troll modifiers as anything else. It seems that after 244 posts you are getting better only at being an ass.

Re:Sensationalized

[topham]

Every time I get en envelope with pre-release software from Apple in it it comes with a small piece of paper, about 3x5 which states the material is confidential.

This guy is supposed to be a med student; does this mean he's going to say 'sorry, I didn't read the last page on how to perform this surgery'.

He's an idiot and caused himself self-inflicted trouble. Why should I feel sorry for him? (I am glad to see something was worked out which is acceptable to all parties).

Re:Sensationalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, he's a Med student...I didn't catch that. I'll be he plays it the same way with the Federal Prosecutor when he "doesn't realize the implications of breaking the HIPAA laws". I doubt the feds will be as lenient.

Re:Sensationalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you homophobic because your ignorant or because your represing your urges.
Your first point may have been somewhat valid , but we don't need ignorant morons

Re:Sensationalized

[FidelCatsro]

Wrong actualy , the NDA is not comparable to a EULA .
The NDA is a valid contract as it is not forced upon you after purchase , he went into this contract fully aware(or with the resonible chance of being) and it is a very valid contract.
Aplle are very definantly legaly within their rights , Morally and ethicaly though sueing a student for contract infringment is really bad PR i agree with you there

Re:Sensationalized

[wallykeyster]

A EULA is defined as follows:

Short for End-User License Agreement, the type of license used for most software. An EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes (e.g., most EULA's of proprietary software prohibit the user from sharing the software with anyone else).

Have you looked at the ADC agreement? It is exactly a EULA. The NDA portion begins on page four of ten.

I agree that he was wrong in what he did and he clearly broke the licensing agreement. I'm just pointing out the details for the "He signed a contract and needs put under the jail" crowd. He failed to fully read and comprehend the detailed click-through license agreement. He made a mistake and Apple dealt with it appropriately.

Re:Sensationalized

[FidelCatsro]

Hm well the ADC(i should of made it clear i was contesting after the point EULAS as i belive the great grandparent post was thinking the ADC was) he had done also must have involved paying apple that membership fee which complicates things somewhat.
Howevr yes you are right , But i personaly would of givin him hell if i were apple and made him retract the statment that he didnt know what he was doing , god the guy is in his 20s .. but thats a side point as he probably panicked after realising he got caught so i guess we can forgive him for the virtual trouser acident.

Re:Sensationalized

[wallykeyster]

According to Sunny, he did not pay for the ADC account:

Some time back I met a developer who implied he had a friend who didn't mind sending me a copy of Tiger, so long as I signed up for an ADC account. From what I understood about the ADC, you had to pay $500 to become a member to get Tiger. As a student, $500 is a lot of money. I barely have enough to pay for college expenses that aren't covered by my scholarship. I was then informed that it was possible to obtain a "free online ADC account". I figured that there couldn't be any harm in signing up for one, so I did. I later found a seed-key sitting in my ADC account, sent by that individuals friend. I used it to download the Tiger build 8A323.

Re:Sensationalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but remember what people said back then?

OMG. Apple is just like a Microsoft.
Apple is an evil bully
Apple only destroys little guys
I will never ever buy an Apple product anymore

Forget that it was only the beginning of the process. I and many others had even predicted that they would settle at the end. OMG, did Slashdot overreacted?

Re:Sensationalized

[Anonymous Coward]

that makes it look rather like he knew what he was doing then.If he had been informed by a freind he would need to sign a contract to be able to recive it , he is a very lucky man that apple decided PR was better than vengance.
fcat

Re:Sensationalized

[dgatwood]

Funny, that. In the second novel in the trilogy I'm writing, one of the subplots is that idiots are mass-deported to another planet. (Granted, a lot less extreme than removing them from the gene pool, but still a fascinating "what-if" story. The end effect is similar for everybody but them....)

Not quite the Douglas Adams view of surreptitiously deporting everyone who does a useless job, though I can see why one would come up with such an idea if one ever did government/civil service work. My story shows them being deported in a much more public way.

The concept gets introduced when a really stupid kid is being bullied to leave the planet by school administrators, which causes him to be much more open to anti-teacher manipulation by another student. (You'd have to read it to understand what I mean.) The kid ends up trapping a teacher in a bathroom and setting off an explosive to "scare her", but being an idiot, usees way too much of the explosive substance. The teacher lives (the explosive blows the blocked door off its hinges, IIRC), but a section of the school collapses moments later....

There's a heartwarming scene afterwards as the parents try to keep the kid there, but are eventually deported. The parents die in a freak transport ship accident, the sister has to take care of him, and we basically see the reasons why she eventually ends up being a freedom fighter, fighting for the independent government of a colony of (mostly political) prisoners. I believe in back-story. Can you tell? :-)

Anyway, while I agree that the gradual dumbing down of the planet is a problem, it isn't just stupidity and/or lack of common sense that's a problem; it's also poverty leading to a lack of education. Anyway, my real-life solution to the problem is very different. I actively encourage intelligent people to have more than two children apiece.

Re:Sensationalized

[geoffspear]

It's unlikely that part of the remedy granted to Apple in a case like this would involve sterilization or death.

Re:Sensationalized

[geoffspear]

Have you looked at it? It presents no terms having to do with end users of software or anything else. It's a membership agreement, which doesn't include any software.

Re:Sensationalized

[spir0]

He "signed" an NDA by clicking okay on an electronic license. This is hardly the same as physically signing your name to a mortgage or any other legal contract.

it is actually. If Microsoft shows you some of their source code and make you "sign" an electronic NDA, and you publish that source on the net, what do you think they will do, smart guy?

I must say that it was a complete surprise to check out your posting history and see as many Flamebait, Redundant, and Troll modifiers as anything else. It seems that after 244 posts you are getting better only at being an ass.

the truth hurts doesn't it? People don't seem to like it when I point it out.

Re:Sensationalized

[spir0]

He made a mistake and Apple dealt with it appropriately.

"Oh, Apple, I pirated your software, but it was just a mistake. I wasn't aware that I mounted the image into my bittorrent share directory.

"Sorry, I fucked up. Don't be too harsh. Being a student, I don't have a fully developed brain yet. But this has definitely taught me a lesson. Yessir."

Re:Sensationalized

[spir0]

Your first point may have been somewhat valid , but we don't need ignorant morons

for the record, I don't consider myself ignorant. I'm not disputing anything else as they're purely conjecture.

Re:Sensationalized

[wallykeyster]

I guess you're right. Although, page two does mention:

You certify that pre-release software will only be used for testing and development purposes, and will not be rented, sold, leased, sublicensed, assigned, or otherwise transferred (except as provided in Section 3 above).

But, I guess that one clause doesn't mean much. I wonder if:

Your use of pre-release Apple software and related documentation and information (collectively the "Prototype") is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Prototype License and Confidentiality Agreement ("PLCA").

is important? I also remember something about

Subject to your compliance with the terms and conditions of this PLCA, Apple hereby grants you a nonexclusive, nontransferable right and license to use the Prototype only for the limited purposes set forth in this Section 2.

It even mentions "end users" in relation to the provided software on page six.

I guess you aren't completely wrong - it is a membership agreement, but it also contains an NDA and a generic EULA for the pre-release software that the user will be able to access.

Re:Sensationalized

[geoffspear]

It's still not a license for software. It's a legal contract by which you're agreeing not to break confidentiality or distribute pre-release software. It's an NDA, not a EULA.

The individual software packages come with their own licenses, which are considerably more detailed than the little clauses in the ADC agreement.

Re:Sensationalized

[wallykeyster]

If the Prototype is accompanied by a separate license agreement, you agree that the license agreement accompanying the Prototype in addition to sections 2, 3, and 4 of this PLCA shall govern your use of the Prototype. Any inconsistencies between the provisions of the license agreement accompanying the Prototype and Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this PLCA shall be governed by this PLCA.

Serves him right

[Ryan Koppanhaver]

This leaves no bad taste in my mouth - Apple acted correctly from the start. Sunny broke a legal and binding contract, unlike the people sued by the RIAA who had no contractual agreement.

The rule about not suing poor people is oft quoted. I have heard it used by more than one poor student I know as a justification for any action they care to take. They figure that there are no consequences to their actions. This lawsuit is a consequence with a capital C. Frankly, if this convinces students that their actions might just have consequences, then it was worth the trouble.

Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended. You may not - Sunny did not in this case - but you most certainly can. That is a valuable lesson, and it appears that it was learned.

Had Sunny driven drunk, he might have faced felony criminal prosecution, jail time, and a lot of problems in future life, even if he did not hurt anyone. One extra drink at a bar, and a misjudgment about your own impairment, and your life takes a sudden, dramatic, explosive downward turn. Sunny had a misjudgment that took about the same amount of time, and harmed about as many people as getting caught in a holiday sobriety test. He suffered worry, but his life was not ruined, he did not get jail time, and he did not have to give up his future. That was quite a win for him, and I suspect he, and a lot of other people, are going to be more careful in the future.

What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.

If nothing else, such leaks make Apple less likely to distribute proprietary information in the future. I need that information, and I want companies to trust in their NDAs, as otherwise, they will not tell me what I need to know to plan my future products. So, I do want people to take an NDA seriously, just like I want people to take all contracts they sign seriously. You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.

Re:Serves him right

[wallykeyster]

To be fair, he didn't sit down with Apple Legal, his parents, and an attorney, then sign a clear NDA. As I understand, he signed up for an ADC account and had to click an electronic agreement before proceeding. He admits that sharing it on an invite-only torrent site was wrong, but he claims that he didn't have a full grasp of the ramifications at the time. I have no trouble believing this

What I do have trouble with is you equating this with drunken driving. Breach of contract is a whole different ball game than a dangerous criminal activity. Yes, what he did was wrong (both legally and ethically) and he admits it. He is a Mac fan and claims to feel terrible about doing something to damage Apple. It looks to me that Apple did the right thing in suing him and in taking it easy on him once the details came out. He learned something from the event and didn't lose his future in the process.

Re:Serves him right

[citog]

Not understanding the full ramifications worries me a bit - he's 23. He's been around long enough to have a basic understanding. That said, it's not worth 'hanging' someone of his age over a civil issue.

Re:Serves him right

[superpulpsicle]

Only problem I have is they called this guy a "LEAKER".

Re:Serves him right

[wallykeyster]

Perhaps he wet himself when Apple's legal folks first called him?

Re:Serves him right

[wallykeyster]

If he didn't fully understand what it means to have an ADC account, didn't completely read the full electronic agreement, and had never uploaded anything to a Torrent site, why is this worrisome? Sure, he is med student, but how many of us top geeks actually read the contents of the EULAs we accept when installing HL2 or Adobe Acrobat Reader? When was the last time you made it through Clause 14-A-ii in the click-through license?

Re:Serves him right

[node 3]

Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended.

Yes, that's the way things are, but it's not the way things have to be. Apple could have chosen not to sue him.

In Apple's defence, they played this very well. They sued, then settled for what everyone is assuming are reasonable terms (and not $10k or whatever the RIAA suits have been). The fear people had was that Apple was just going to act like the greedy bully that corporate America tends to create.

Had Sunny driven drunk

That's an awful comparison. Drunk driving kills, maims, and is an all around public danger. Copying a pre-release program might cost Apple a couple of ADC sales.

What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.

I disagree with you on the magnitude of this, although I agree there are differences. When you click "I Agree" it's not equivalent (I'm speaking about it being truly equal, not just legally equal, which it may or may not be) to reading it, understanding it, and knowingly agreeing to all of the terms. Likewise, with buying a CD, you are legally agreeing to the terms of copyright law, which include "agreeing" not to make copies for people.

You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.

Good advice, but I don't think it's fair to place all of the burden onto the end user. I don't mean removing all liability of the consumer. Just that it makes it far to easy to prey on those who don't really understand the legal consequences of their actions.

In comparing this to Apple's and the RIAA's actions, I think Apple struck a fairly acceptable balance--they didn't ream the guys, but didn't let them off scot-free either. The RIAA really shouldn't be, essentially, stealing $10k from people who are just doing what everyone's doing (I know, just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right, but if everyone's in a gang, you at least know killing people is wrong, but how many people really think copying music on the internet is wrong?).

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

If said license is a fucking non-disclosure agreement, I've read through every single one (and that's several, including the Apple Developer Connection agreement).

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight.

1) I sign up to an Apple Developer Connection account.
2) Click past license agreement, non disclosure, etc.
3) I download pre-release materials that I know aren't available to the general public.
4) I then publish said materials on a P2P network

This guy (remember, he's not a kid, he's an adult) is a fscking idiot, pure and simple.

I get that he didn't read the contract, who the hell does. But once he took step #4 the click-through agreement doesn't even matter - he didn't even need to sign a non-disclosure contract to get sued. If he even made a copy for a friend he could get sued into the gutter. Copyright law was broken, pure and simple. Just because he thought he thought the internet was anonymous and it wouldn't get back to him is no excuse for taking step #4.

Personally, I feel sorry for whoever end up with this guy as their doctor. The complete lack of foresight speaks to his judgement, and his decision to take up the sob story after realizing the consequences of his actions speaks to his character.

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's the way things are, but it's not the way things have to be. Apple could have chosen not to sue him.

Since we're talking about magical fantasy land, Apple could have chosen to publish the source code and binaries for 10.4 on their FTP site.

If Apple does not defend their copyrights, they lose all ability to use them in the future. Period. This guy broke copyright law. Click-through licenses don't fscking matter, they're basically just the icing on the cake (allows Apple to get even more strict judgements).

Just because he didn't pay a dime to get access to the software doesn't implicitly mean he got the legal right to redistribute that software to every Tom, Dick, & Harry that connects to his .torrent.

What he downloaded was copyrighted software. He then willfully shared that copyrighted software with others. This simple act against the law in most civilized countries. It was against the law in his country of residence. He clearly knew this. He went ahead and did it anyway.

It sickens me that this guy may end up with a life or death decision some day. His lack of foresight speaks volumes about his judgement, and his sob story actions after the fact speak volumes about his character. I pity the poor patients who end up with this quack.

Re:Serves him right

[numark]

Apple makes it quite abundantly clear throughout the Apple Developer Connection program by various means that most software you get through the program is considered confidential and under an NDA. There's a big section on different pages that tells exactly what you're not allowed to do with each piece of software that you're given, and if someone claimed to say that they never saw it, I'd be quite unable to believe them. I know I've certainly seen it a bunch of times (I have an ADC membership).

Re:Serves him right

[node 3]

If Apple does not defend their copyrights, they lose all ability to use them in the future. Period.

That's just plain not true.

Just because he didn't pay a dime to get access to the software doesn't implicitly mean he got the legal right to redistribute that software to every Tom, Dick, & Harry that connects to his .torrent.

No one is saying he had that right.

It sickens me that this guy may end up with a life or death decision some day. His lack of foresight speaks volumes about his judgement

What foresight? Do you really think it's rational to assume you'd get sued by Apple, when no one has *ever* been sued for setting up a torrent? And you certainly can't compare a non-life-or-death decision with a life-or-death one. Do you litter? Would that somehow preclude you from diagnosing cancer?

Then again, you did say:

Since we're talking about magical fantasy land

So maybe your entire post was meant to be nonsense?

Re:Serves him right

[Have Blue]

The crux of your argument appears to be "I don't think leaking confidential software is really so bad." Unfortunately, Apple does not share this opinion, and Vivek agreed, in the eyes of the law, to align his opinion with Apple's when he got his ADC account and agreed to the NDA accompanying it. Had they decided to throw the book at him, there's nothing in current contract or IP law that could have stopped them.

And it's simply insane to argue that he may not have understood the consequences of his actions. He's a 23-year-old college student and an ADC member; he's obviously quite intelligent. If I was in his situation, I'd be insulted if anyone attempted to defend me with that argument.

Re:Serves him right

[node 3]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here...

The crux of your argument appears to be "I don't think leaking confidential software is really so bad."

Remove the word "confidential" (how "confidential" is it, really, if anyone is allowed to buy it for $500?), and that's generally what I'm saying.

Unfortunately, Apple does not share this opinion, and Vivek agreed, in the eyes of the law, to align his opinion with Apple's when he got his ADC account and agreed to the NDA accompanying it.

Right.

Had they decided to throw the book at him, there's nothing in current contract or IP law that could have stopped them.

Right.

And it's simply insane to argue that he may not have understood the consequences of his actions.

I agree, but only up to a point. I don't buy the claim that he didn't know it was "wrong", but I don't think he thought much would come of it.

There's been so many people who call the guy a complete idiot for doing what he did, but exactly how many people have been sued for distributing software via BitTorrent? None. Assuming he was fully aware of the details of what creating and seeding a torrent entails, he really had no reason to expect the lawsuit.

The problem is that pretty much everyone violates copyright now and then, and while this is technically a contract violation, it really plays out like a copyright infringement from the guilty party's point of view. I mean, what's one click-through license vs another? It's not like you had to go to some secure area in Cupertino and sign a few contracts to pick up your copy of a disc, accompanied by an unforgettable demonstration and personal warning of the need for confidentiality.

For those who keep saying that he's a moron, and should be subject to the full extent of the contract, I don't see much difference, in practical terms, between what he did, and what everyone does when they copy that floppy. I think (as I've already said) that Apple handled it fairly well, but the fear was that Apple was crossing a line from what people see as a legitimate need to protect their IP (by suing bootleggers and corporations who copy Apple products and software) and stomping on their fan base (who just want to try out a product that Apple hypes up like crazy). Fortunately, Apple didn't actualize people's worst fears, but these vocal outbursts of opinion are important. Without them, the company lawyers might just start fishing for dollars. See DirectTV and the RIAA for examples of this.

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is saying he had that right.

So, you think he doesn't have the right, but for some reason you also think he should get some kind of form letter telling him they know he broke the law and that he should stop doing it immediately. Thieves the world over would stop breaking the law if they knew they were going to get a form letter. Or two! Three! Thieves will be scared of dying under the weight of all that paperwork.

The world is a scary place. The rest of us were not put here to coddle you like an infant. If you break the law you are going to be punished. Either through legal channels or, when that fails, swift and bloody retribution from your fellow man. Just because you think you live in a consequence-free world doesn't mean the rest of the world has to play by the rules you made up.

Do you really think it's rational to assume you'd get sued by Apple, when no one has *ever* been sued for setting up a torrent?

Yeah, nobody's ever been sued for distributing pirated software in the past. Er, wait a minute - they've been suing people for it since before this guy was born.

Thinking you were competely anonymous is not justification for performing illegal actions. That he thought he was anonymous, and chose to do what he did, does speak to his character. That he was thought stealing was okay speaks to his judgement.

BTW, have you been asleep for a while, or did you simply miss past few years of MPAA/RIAA lawsuits against P2P users? Just because a P2P program is new, and there's a slight chance it isn't being monitored yet, doesn't mean you can ignore all laws and trade kiddy porn left and right.

You need to obey the law or it will fly right back into your face and gouge your eyeballs out. Murphy's Law is a bitch. Ken Lay thought he could keep the Enron shell game going forever.

And you certainly can't compare a non-life-or-death decision with a life-or-death one. Do you litter?

Actually, no, I don't litter. I stopped being a punk well over a decade ago. It's called growing up. I decided to be a man well before I turned 23. That this guy, who's attempting to become a doctor, still trying to be a child disturbs me on multiple levels.

I'm one of the few considerate people left who'll take their shopping cart up to the front of the grocery store after unloading, so the poor guy who's stuck gathering carts in the lot can get back inside. It's cold up here in the winter.

I am comparing a judgement call made on one action to a judgement call made on another action. By your logic Charles Manson could make a great doctor because he hasn't made any bad medical decisions.

So maybe your entire post was meant to be nonsense?

Not nearly as nonsensical as your original response, which is arguing the following:

Copyrights should be ignored, not enforced.
Companies are stupid for not allowing college students to P2P copyrighted software. This is because their actions can't possibly hurt profits, no matter how buggy and problematic the pre-release title is, no matter that most P2P users aren't actually enrolled in college.
Clickthrough agreements override basic copyright laws, so if you don't read the clickthrough agreement, you don't have to obey the agreement - or copyright law.
People shouldn't be forced to deal with the consequences of breaking the law, because they don't know that stealing is illegal.
If it's unbelievably easy to break the law, that means you shouldn't be punished for breaking it.

Yeah, and my post is gibberish.

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell should he have to sit down with Apple Legal, his parents, and an attorney?

He is an adult. Legally he is liable for his own actions. His parents don't need to be around, an attorney does not need to be present, for him to make legal decisions.

His parents should have taught him right from wrong a long time ago. If he's just learning it now, at 23, then maybe he should move back in with mommy and daddy, instead of pretending to be an adult.

Especially a med student. Holy crap, let's see him try and pull a sob story in 10 years about how he didn't know he wasn't supposed to remove someone's fully-functioning pancreas during exploratory surgery.

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

"but he claims that he didn't have a full grasp of the ramifications at the time."

Translation: Fuck. Didn't think I'd get caught.

Re:Serves him right

[Anonymous Coward]

"I agree, but only up to a point. I don't buy the claim that he didn't know it was "wrong", but I don't think he thought much would come of it."

Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live fake commercial for "bad idea" jeans, where some guy says "So I figure I can do it without condom. I mean, when am I going to be in Haiti again?"

(This was at a time when Haiti was considered a hotbed of AIDS infection.)

Lots of very bad things can happen when you think nothing will come of a seemingly minor act. Like getting HIV. Or getting someone pregnant. Just for neglecting to use a cheap piece of latex.

Re:Serves him right

[node 3]

Lots of very bad things can happen when you think nothing will come of a seemingly minor act.

Some things are risky because the physical make up of the world just is that way (for example, crossing the street, having sex in Haiti, walking home during a thunderstorm). Other things are risky because other people can choose to attack you (walking down a dark alley, calling a guy names at a bar).

If you are crossing a freeway, and get run over, we tend to blame the pedestrian since the driver, most likely, didn't choose to run the person over. Apple, however, chose to sue these people. The design of a system, and the make-up of its components, defines the sort of actions which can take place, and the criticism isn't so much that Apple can't be allowed to protect their interests, but that they had available to them means that far exceed anything that seems "reasonable" for those purposes. Fortunately, Apple, it appears (since we don't really know the terms of the settlement), actually chose a reasonable solution, but the system, as defined, didn't require, or even encourage, it.

Unlike your AIDS example, our system of laws and corporations is one that people define (although we all certainly do not get an equal say in the matter). Criticizing rivers for being dangerous doesn't do anything, but educating people who go rafting does. This places the burden on the individual. Criticizing corporate power for being dangerous *does* do good, as it can lead to reform, instead of putting more and more of the burden on the individual, which is what we (America) are doing.

Re:And in other news...

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

I wouldn't use eastgame if I were you. Eastgame is being tracked by the Hong Kong Police and Customs, because it is a very popular site here. Gamesir is too.

What's the problem?

[wallykeyster]

Apple would be stupid to let the issue go completely and Sunny was clearly in the wrong. Apple got an admission of guilt and any of their property he still had, and he got off with a slap on the wrist. Considering the situation, it looks like it turned out relatively good for everyone. Pushing it further would only bring more negative press to Apple and what's the point of getting a big court judgment against a college student?

no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit Jon Doe, you can't stay out of trouble can you?

John Does?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any list of the IP addresses of the unnamed defendants? I'm sure a number of people would be curious to know if they might be about to be screwed...

Re:And in other news...

[dmarcoot]

it also is being tracked here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0 00 2G71T0/qid=1113974181/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-7114 522-1743308?v=glance&s=software&n=507846

What were the terms?

[venicebeach]

Does anyone know what the terms of the settlement were? I could not find this info in TFA. I see a lot of posts claiming victory for one side or the other, but how do we know if we do not know what the terms of the settlement were? Or am I missing something?

Re:What were the terms?

[wallykeyster]

According to the PDF linked from TFA, a judgment was entered in favor of Apple. Sunny was permanently barred from possessing, controlling, copying, sharing, etc, any information or property belonging to Apple, and he had to return all information gained via his ADC account. BTW, the limitations do not apply to any Apple hardware or software purchased in a retail setting, so this doesn't limit him from remaining a Mac fanboy. It just means that he can't be in the early adopter club. It also means that he didn't have to pay anything, which is a big win for Sunny.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone finished the download? What build number is it?

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

i have. it's A428 aka goldmaster aka the Real Thing on Retail Shelf

Give me -1

[Ilgaz]

What the heck Wozniak was thinking? That guy is either stupid or been used by some big company to hurt Apple.

He is a pirate, stealing years of work of real people.

Also responsible for dozens of machines crashing, problems if you think other way. No, I don't feel sorry for those pirates.

Bittorrent, a great idea is wasted by pirates. Thats why I have to pay god damn $30 more to package company to get 1982 style CDs while I have 512kbit sitting idle here and a cd recorder.

I'd get myself courted to defend RMS, Linus etc but NOT that lamer which is simply a lifeless pirate.

A Hypothetical Legal Question

[TheRaven64]

I have already pre-ordered Tiger from Apple. Since I have paid for it, I own a license for it. Currently, my copy of Tiger is in physical possession of Apple, but this does not alter the fact that it is mine. If I were to download the torrent, what would be the legal status of the copy? I would be in possession of one copy, and I would have paid for one license. I could probably argue that the copy I had downloaded was a backup copy (permitted under the fair use terms), since it would be a bitwise identical copy of the original.

I don't actually intend to download it, since I am loath to trust a random internet source for my OS, but the question of legality is still interesting.

Re:A Hypothetical Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the nature of BitTorrent, that if you're downloading it, you're also uploading it. That, you're not allowed to do.

Oh, and legally speaking, you don't own something just because you've already paid for it, when the delivery is still pending. Apple's still entitled to refund your money and not ship the product.

Re:A Hypothetical Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the previous post, I'll add:

The only legal "copy" you are allowed to use is one you make yourself from your original media.

Even if you had the Tiger media in your posession, it's still illegal to use a copy you didn't create from your Tiger media.

Re:A Hypothetical Legal Question

[nordicfrost]

Good question. I know that where I live (Norway) you wouldn't have the legal right to the work because of two reasons: 1) the work has to be published in order to let others have fair use and third party protection and 2) the copyright act specifically excludes fair use from computer programs.

Re:A Hypothetical Legal Question

[UnknowingFool]

If I were to download the torrent, what would be the legal status of the copy? I would be in possession of one copy, and I would have paid for one license. I could probably argue that the copy I had downloaded was a backup copy (permitted under the fair use terms), since it would be a bitwise identical copy of the original.

Your legal argument fails in the last statement. You are buying the Apple Tiger release version which is covered by any customer/vendor agreement that you sign with Apple. The torrent of Tiger was a pre-release and not the same version and thus not an identical copy. It is not covered by your agreement with Apple.

Now if you got a torrent of the Tiger release after Tiger gets shipped, you might still have issues. For all purposes you are not creating a backup copy which is covered by fair use. You are obtaining an illegally distributed copy of Tiger that you intend to use as backup. If you were to burn a DVD copy of your Tiger discs, that would be fair use.

Re:A Hypothetical Legal Question

[Have Blue]

Your situation is equivalent to buying an apple in a grocery store, leaving it on the counter, and stealing a different apple. You'd still be arrested for shoplifting.

Re:A Hypothetical Legal Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically, when you download a torrent you also upload simultaneously. License for Tiger or not, I doubt you have the right to share the code.

isn't it "john"?

[surfsalot]

Isn't it "John Doe"? I thought the whole point was a generic name... Jon (short for Jonathan) seems more specific... Just lookin out for the Jon Doe's of the world who's homonyms just can't keep themselves out of trouble...

Forgiveness

[thewiz]

In many of the posts on this story, I see quite a bit of "Apple should have sued his pants off", "Sunny was an idiot", "He's and adult and should pay for his actions", etc. In this day and age, we seem to have gotten used to beating up people for making mistakes under the idea that they should have "known better". We all have done things in our past that seemed justifiable or logical at the time, but later we realize it wasn't a wise thing to do.

Did Sunny do something illegal? Yes.
Should he have take the time to read the agreement he agreed to when he signed up for the ADC account? Yes.
Should he have posted it to a p2p network? No.
Did he admit that he had made a mistake? Yes.
Has he learned from this mistake? Yes.

Apple chose to go easy on him, not just to prevent bad PR, but also to show that they are willing to forgive their customers for making mistakes. Even Steve Jobs isn't perfect and has made mistakes (remember NeXT?). Perhaps we all need to be more forgiving the next time someone makes a mistake against us. You'll find that most people won't make the mistake again.

Re:Forgiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first heard about the story I didn't really have a problem with him. After he went to the press and went on and on with his contrived spiel that's when I completely turned against him.

He didn't actually say "I'm sorry, I did it, I was stupid, I was wrong." He admitted he was wrong, then launched into a series of rationalizations for why he did it. That's not "I did it, I was wrong", that's "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, and this is why". It naturally leaves a very bad taste into your mouth.

After that gaffe he went on to the whole sob story about his background, his hopeful future, what a big judgement would do to his future, yada, yada, yada, and the entire fair goes from being a "oh shit, sucks to be him" into a "what a spineless little prick".

If he was a man about this I would have forgiven him. That he behaved like a 5 year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar just pissed me off.

(On a tangent, Godwin's Law deals with the increasing probability of Hitler/Nazis/etc. being brought up in a conversation the longer it continues. It has nothing to do with "automatically losing the argument for bringing up Hitler/Nazis/etc." - that corruption of the rule was made by whiny little bitches who suck at debating issues. Rather than continue the conversation, it's "oh, nope, it's all over, you lose, ha ha, yeah I know it's because I'm looking for an out because I suck at debate but, ha ha, you lose anyway." The joke's on them though - they lost the use of their gonads a long time ago)

post BEFORE you get the lobotomy

[Scudsucker]

Your situation is equivalent

You are both wrong, because among other things, copyright infringment is not stealing, its copyright infringement. So your analogy is just stupid. And while yes, what he's doing is against the law, but fat chance of Apple actually collecting any damages from him.

Re:post BEFORE you get the lobotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. That's odd. What is it then?

You get something for free, that others are legally required to pay for, because it's illegal for you to get it for free. This isn't stealing... why?

Because there's no physical apple involved, it's not stealing? P2P is all magical little elves and pixie dust, trading kiddie porn is okay, and hey have you downloaded those pictures from that Tijuana dog and pony show? It's okay man, it's not stealing, it's not child pornography, it's not beastiality, it's all virtual, nothing exists man, not even you or me.

Apple couldn't collect damages from him? If you get a judgement against you, and you can't pay the full judgement, the rest of the judgement doesn't magically vanish. You still have to pay the rest. You may need to work the rest of your life as a dishwasher to pay it off in small installments, but that lein is legally required to be paid. You can try to avoid paying it, in which case you're breaking the law, and will likely end up in even deeper waters.

Seriously, you should really take your own advice. That and put down the fscking bong for a while. Duuuuuuuuuuude.

Re:post BEFORE you get the lobotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright infringment is not stealing, its copyright infringement.

Heh, Yeah, let's see you use that logic on the cops after boosting a car - Grand theft auto isn't stealing, man, it's Grand theft auto.

Re:post BEFORE you get the lobotomy

[Scudsucker]

Yeah, let's see you use that logic on the cops after boosting a car

What, they're going to arrest me after I make a duplicate of a car in the street, leaving the owners car untouched? Just how stupid are you?