Slashdot Mirror
Apple Embeds Message to OS X Hackers
zentechno writes "Apple has confirmed it embedded a message in the form of a poem to those who would hack its version of OS X on Intel hardware." From the article: "The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc.'Apple also put in a separate hidden message, 'Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext,' in another spot for would-be hackers."
Seems Apple has a sense of humor - Bill Gates could learn a little from them.
Would be hackers?
Given the fact that there are sites dedicated to porting OSX, the "Would be" is a matter of opinion.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Missing stories too.
Like the worm crawling around for unpatched Apples.
If you look thru what they've listed so far - there's only one story for two Apple security hacks.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
a prick. slashdot is a little late on stories because a) they have paid subscribers that get to the stories a little earlier and b) because slashdot actually has moderators. They come up with a good headline, a proper description to start off a meaningful discussion.
Basically, you come here for the discussion, go to digg.com for the speed.
Screw that this is straight from the hackers keyboard!
Not bad, but I think a limerick would have been much better. Any creative hackers want to give it a try?
Here, I'll give you a start:
There once was a man from Nantucket...
Oh nevermind...
It's obvious that the Slashdot story approvers are applying for jobs at the USPTO :)
This space left intentionally blank.
At least, I could have sworn that this topic was posted to this site last week.
If the poem is a copyrighted work, then the slashdot editers just commited piracy by quoteing it.
Dear Crackers,
In anticipation of the Intel switch, we believe we have made our legal department 4-5X faster too. We're actively looking to test and confirm those benchmarks.
XOXO, Steve
Already linked to this a while back. Same with the OSx86 forums going down due to a DMCA letter. Bah. Oh well. Let it be late.
I came, I saw, She conquered.
...because it's true (The content of the poem that is). I don't mind people playing around to see if they can get it running on their systems but when they go as far as the release the cracked versions with the intent to use them without even paying for it that is when it gets wrong.
Yep. I submitted this story to /. over 24 hours ago only to have it rejected. I don't care about that, I just think it's an interesting story that should have been on here far earlier.
But then maybe that's just me.
There once was a geek who was bored
All other systems he'd explored
So he added one more to his hoard
Though against his methods the vendor implored.
Now that's what I'm talking about.
I'm not sure what it takes to be an English-language poet (as opposed to code poet) at Apple, but this one stinks. And running one OS, even a fully-copyrighted, commercial OS, on hardware its creator did not intend for it is not piracy -- it's fair use. I know we aren't supposed to have that anymore (after the distribution cartels bribed congress to pass the DMCA, but, hey look, there's still that pesky Supreme Court ruling that says we do), but we do. Fair use is taking the OS software I bought from Apple, even if bundled with one of their machines, and running it on any other hardware, software, combination thereof(, the record player if I want,) so long as I am not simultaneously (in time) running the software somewhere else. So, no mister/madam poet, this isn't piracy. This is, shock of shocks, innovation. Please stop name calling. We aren't children, even if you'd like to treat us like that. And we sure do not deserve to be compared to people who actually break the law. You should reserve those epithets for people who actually do pirate your software, as confusing the two lessens the meaning of the word when used in its proper context.
And, Apple, you are free to innovate by releasing updates that make any progress on this front obsolete. It'll be a fun race that way.
There is a very simple solution here that will alieviate a LOT of the reasons people will hack or want to get the hacked OS. Just sell it seperate. Yeah I know, that means a lot more hardware support, well, there is a VERY simple solution to that, leave the hardware support up to the hardware manufacturers, and let the customers know that if it is not on the "approved hardware" list, that it is unsupported and they are on their own to get it working, or SOL. The biggest reason that Apple has always had about not selling the OS itself is the fact that it only worked on their own hardware. In a sense, they did sell it, though, as upgrades to older systems. Well, guess what, now it runs on x86 hardware... why in the world would you want to limit your market? You have a product, and a good one, but you put an artificial limit of your own on what you will allow it to be used on, which effectively cuts you out of 99% of the market that would potentially purchase your product, and for what reason? Because you don't want to support all that different hardware? Guys get a clue from Sun Microsystems, Solaris 10 x86 is out there available for purchase, but if you don't have supported hardware, well you are SOL for that piece of hardware. You are free to hack away at it to see if you can get that hardware to work, but don't go crying to Sun if it doesn't because they warned you ahead of time. All Apple needs to do is the same thing and I am certain that there would be a LOT of sales generated, which to Apple is basically FREE MONEY!!! I mean, really, it is like they have their own money printing machines, but they stamp out CD's or DVD's and place them in boxes, which then get "exchanged" at the going exchange rate. It only costs a few dollars to make the copy of the physical media, box it, and ship it, why not bring in all the money they can? It is just assinine if they do not.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
"And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster. Sure they are pretty but as PC hardware they just ain't all that. Cheap plastic cases with wimpy power supplies and little expansion for the desktop and useless one button laptops. Gimme a big manly box made of 2mil aluminum and a big ass stable power plant to start, then let me pick out a premium motherboard and memory and an drives of my choice. Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me? And never forget the insane markup they get for their pretty but bland specced hardware."
Where do you get this sense of self-entitlement? Apple spent their money creating Mac OS X. They get to decide how they want to sell it. If you don't like how they sell it, you don't have to buy it. You're not morally, much less legally, entitled to do what you want with their hard work, just because you can.
Apple isn't denying that people are capable of breaking their copy-protection. They're asking that people don't, out of respect for their right as producer of the software to sell it under their terms.
I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!
I mean, I can understand the attitude of "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but I don't care." I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
This space intentionally left blank.
"VAX - when you care enough to steal the very best"
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I've seen quite a few posts on this but here are few links in particular that I found to be good. I will finish up by saying that Apple cannot win this battle. The x86 market is far too large for people not to tinker.
1. OSX 10.4.4 Works on AMD and SSE2 CPUs Check out the "related posts" entries for more info.
2. After OSX86 Project recieved it's DMCA shut down notice, people are moving discussion to the OSX86 China Forums
3. For immediate questions, IRC Channel is availabe.
4. To search old posts go to the 360 Online Forums
5. 10.4.4 restore disc has already been released on bittorrent
Not a dupe. Not a completely original story, maybe more of a slashback, but still, not a dupe.
I don't understand why you think you have the right to do what you want with Mac OS X, just because you're not happy with the conditions that Apple sells it under.
They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?
Let's say you write a book. You spend ten years of your life writing it, living off your savings. At the end of the ten years, you're almost broke, but your book is done, and it's a masterpiece. You go to a publisher, and say "I will sell you the rights to my book, if you give me 50% of the profits it makes." They agree.
The book goes on to make several millions of dollars in profits for the company, and they give you jack shit. When you complain, they say "Giving you 50% of the profits is NOT acceptable."
It's not exactly the same, but the situation is similar. Apple, as author of Mac OS X, can set the conditions under which it is sold. Even if you can come up with some legal loophole that lets you violate those conditions, doing so is still morally wrong. No one is forcing you to buy OS X. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
Why should the OS vendor get to make hardware choices for you? Because that's how they want to do business. If you don't like it, don't buy from them.
This space intentionally left blank.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
"Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
This product that apple sells, includes the hardware, deal with it. You're the whiny bitch.
Jonathanjk.com
What? So now it's okay to steal something if someone won't give it to you?
If you won't give me your credit card info, I'll just take it from you instead! In case you don't get it, you are the publisher of your credit card info, and since you refuse to publish that info, I'll just bootleg it instead.
GPL Deconstructed
There once was a user that whined
The phone companies robbed him blind
He'd do better to phreak
With a 2600Hz beep
So a blue box was designed
Please don't steal phone calls!
Really, that's way uncool.
*saw this over at MacRumors
you're the whiny bitch.
Apple is approaching this with a lot of common sense, respect for legitimate users, and humour.
you're acting like a childish prick because everything doesn't go your way. wah! Han shot first! wah! I can't afford a Mac! wah! stealing makes me a hero! wah!
grow up and get a life.
> But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a
> way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
Because I don't recognize their moral authority to tell me HOW to use their product. Their Copyright only gives them the right to control making copies. Yea I'd violate the letter of that if an iso appeared that would boot on my hardware simply because of curiosity. I wouldn't adopt it for daily use and certainly wouldn't use it at work without buying a copy. (Although until the first upgrade hits retail I'd probably have to buy the PPC copy and call it close enough.)
And I don't recognize any right for them to say their copyrighted work can ONLY be accessed on their brand of player. That is the same sort of bullshit arguments the MPAA and the DVD-CCA use to tell me I can't play DVDs I own on a DVD drive equipped PC I own because they refuse to bless a player for my preferred platform. By your logic I should just forego DVD on Linux or be a good lemming and install Windows. Wrong, I didn't 'license' my season sets of South Park, I BOUGHT copies and I'll read them wherever I damned well please and if I want to skip the trice damned commercials for Drawn Together and the Daily Show I will. And if I ever decided to install OS X I'd BUY a copy of it and do whatever I damned well wanted to with it as well and Steve could just go perform an improbable act of self procreation if he didn't like it. It is just a fscking product people, you don't have to join Steve'e cult and lose all sense of right and wrong.
Democrat delenda est
RIAA to sue Apple for use of copyrighted lyrical style, lack of DON'T STEAL MUSIC hidden message.
And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster.
Michael Dell, is that you!?
Eat the Path.
you sound like the whiny baby. it is not like Steve Jobs took food off your plate and kicked your grandmother in the teeth. they created OS X and they have the right to do with it as they please. if you want full control over hardware and software, build a PC and install OSS. done. problem solved.
some of us like having machines that run really well to use as tools to do work and not spend our days working on them.
I mostly agree with your argument, but I will try to dissuade you a bit. Realize I own a Powerbook and have a MacBook order coming, etc etc, and I have no intent of running OS X on a non-Apple PC, ever. My argument can be summed up in two words: fair use.
Nearly everyone agrees that the majority of EULAs are dumb. If I want to buy OS X at the Apple Store, bring it home, and make it run on my x86 software that is my business. It is equally my business if I follow someone else's directions to do so.
This is what most people would consider "fair use" of something you buy. License agreements (EULAs) try to say you're not buying anything but a license to use the software in a certain way. This is like the music industry saying you don't own a copy of the music on the CD, only a license/rights to listen to it. For instance, the RIAA would like to control the re-sale of CDs through this mechanism but I think they mostly fail at it or gave up.
Anyway, I support these people because I support the argument that they should be allowed to do what they want with software they own, as long as they are within limits of standard copyright and license of that software. ("Standard license" refers to de-facto standard of one paid copy per machine running the software.)
I might even go further and wonder exactly how serious Apple is about fighting this. Obviously it is important that they make it hard for people to do this, because those people must understand they are not going to get one iota of support from Apple. Their machines will probably crash, have unsupported hardware issues, etc, that they'd never have with a Mac. I don't see how detrimental this is to Apple, as its a 0.1% problem anyway.
The space unintentionally left unblank.
> This product that apple sells, includes the hardware, deal with it. You're the whiny bitch.
No, some products they sell includes hardware. They also sell boxed sets of OS X, probably intended for upgrades. I see nothing in the original intent behind Copyright that limits me from doing whatever the hell I want with those bits, including merging in 3rd party patch sets that will allow it to boot and run on generic hardware. The DMCA might say otherwise but it is immoral and every right thinking person should make a point of violating it as a matter of civil disobedience.
It all comes down to whether you believe software is sold or licensed. I hold that since the days when Radio Shack made you sign a dread EULA in the store before allowing any 25- or 26- products to leave the store, all software sold at retail is just that, sold. It is copyrighted, but the EULA is meaningless piffle which should be laughed at.
Democrat delenda est
I agree with your point (legal issues aside) about hacking OSX to run on any hardware you want... if any only if you actually purchased OSX to begin with. At this point in time this means you actually went and bought a Mac, as OSX is not available on its own. The same concept goes for music in my opinion... if you buy a CD you should be able to legally rip it to mp3 (or whatever!) so you can play it on whatever portable player you want. Notice though, that both these ideas involve paying the owner :)
If however, you download OSX, there is no fair use issue. You didn't pay for it, so IMHO you don't have any right to hack it to begin with. Fair is fair, for the owner and the user. Apple make a great OS (my Fiance runs OSX, I run Linux), and we should respect the right of the owner to make their dollar.
I'm not a pirate. I never pirated anything in my life, and never will, either. I only use proprietary software that I licensed and FOSS software. I respect and obey all copyright laws, even some of the most restrictive ones (such as the DMCA).
However, I believe your error in your argument is that you think that all objects must be used in the way that the manufacturer intended. Alright, I'll use some more analogies. Is ripping (not sharing) a CD that you bought from the music store and converting those files to MP3s immoral because you aren't listening to the CD with a CD player? Is using a soccer ball for basketball immoral because soccer balls aren't intended to be used in basketball? Is putting an object wrapped in aluminum foil in a microwave immoral because it will blow up the microwave?
Whatever happened to fair use, i.e., the principle of you using an object in any way, shape, or form, as long as you aren't copying it or "stealing" it? Why should Apple tell me that I can must only use their OS on their computers, or they'll send out their army of ninja lawyers? Why should the MPAA tell the that I must listen to my CDs with my CD player, or they'll send me to jail? Oh wait, the MPAA bought out Congress and passed the DMCA in 1998, forbidding me to do either of those things if they involve some sort of DRM.
Give me a break! Laws such as the DMCA restrict the individual freedoms of the purchasers of the content to the point of foolishness. Nobody should tell me what I can or should do with something that I buy from them, as long as I am not copying and redistributing or selling it to people all over the globe. All of those Congresspeople who passed the DMCA need to be voted out of office this year and be replaced with people who respect liberty, for a change.
But, hey, you are right. We don't have to buy Apple's OS X. We don't need no stinkin' OS X. Anything that you can do with OS X can be handled by us with free *nix, KDE/GNOME, and Wine. That covers all of our bases. Plus, KDE and GNOME has improved to the point that they are almost matching OS X in capabilities and usability. OS X is a very good operating system, but we don't need it. We'll stick on the free side of the fence and use free (as in speech) operating systems and applications. At least RMS, Linus, and Theo doesn't tell us to use their software on only their personally branded boxes, or else.
This is silly; the real reason Apple doesn't want a lot of people putting this stuff on other hardware is they don't want to support it and they don't want Apple's image to be tainted by Apple software running on crappy hardware. I don't think they care about a few people doing this if they know what they're doing, but they don't want every kid whose parents buys them a new Dell telling all their friends "I found this 1337 s173 that lets me put OSX on my computer and makes it like ten times cooler but without games, d00dz!" So they're fighting back with poetry rather than an iron fist. But the bottom line is I don't believe Apple or anyone else should be allowed to set the terms of how a paying consumer may use the product the consumer paid for. If I pay for OSX and I find a way to install it on my girlfriend, Apple should have no legal or moral authority to tell me not to. As long as I don't pirate the software or steal the code, the most they should be allowed to do is spew poetry.
So given your argument, if the RIAA adds language to its license on a CD that you can only use the song data in conjunction with the physical CD, are you legally or morally in the right if you put the CD content on your iPod?
"They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it."
Question: do you think the same applies to MS Office? They wrote it, they get to decide whether you run it under Wine or not. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it? Or to Windows. They charge OEMs for all computers sold regardless of whether they have Windows installed. You are an OEM. They get to decide how to sell it...
Fact is, companies cannot set any conditions they like, because there is in most Western jurisdictions both competition law restraints, and consumer protection restraints.
This is not an argument about whether they should sell OS X or not, its just an argument about whether they have the legal right to impose these kinds of restrictions on use, post sale. Don't believe so.
"However, I believe your error in your argument is that you think that all objects must be used in the way that the manufacturer intended. Alright, I'll use some more analogies. Is ripping (not sharing) a CD that you bought from the music store and converting those files to MP3s immoral because you aren't listening to the CD with a CD player? Is using a soccer ball for basketball immoral because soccer balls aren't intended to be used in basketball? Is putting an object wrapped in aluminum foil in a microwave immoral because it will blow up the microwave?"
No, I don't think all objects must be used in the way the manufacturer intended. However, I think that if a manufacturer sells you an object with the condition that you don't use it in a certain way, it's immoral to ignore their wishes.
So, if you buy a soccer ball for $5 from some manufacturer, under the condition that you not use it for basketball, then using it for basketball would be immoral. The manufacturer gets to set the conditions of the sale. If you want to buy a soccer ball and use it for basketball, then don't buy from that manufacturer. There are plenty of others who are willing to sell one to you unencumbered.
As for CDs: if the CD's publisher sells a CD to you with the restriction that you only play it in a CD player, not in your iPod, then ripping it to your iPod is immoral (even if it's legal, which I think it is, and should be). Simple as that - they make the CD, they can sell it with whatever terms they want. No one is forcing you to buy the CD. If you don't like the terms, find some other CD to buy. And if your favorite artist is only available from a publisher that doesn't want you ripping their CDs, tough shit. Life isn't fair. The fact that you don't like the terms the CD is being sold under doesn't give you the moral right to violate them.
Note that I'm talking about morals, as opposed to legality. I think there is a legal case to be made for fair use rights: if you buy a CD, the manufacturer should not be able to _legally_ control what you do with it. But there are plenty of things in this world that are legal, but not moral.
This space intentionally left blank.
LOL, Slashdork is nothing but pirates, you dipshit.
It's not an argument about legal anything. I'm talking about morality. I believe that, if a company (or a single person) produces something, they should have complete and total control over what conditions it is sold under.
If they want to restrict you to being able to use their product from 12:00 PM to 12:10 PM on the third Tuesday of every month in leap years, then I think they have that right. You don't like it? You think that's too restrictive? Don't buy their product. Simple as that.
This space intentionally left blank.
You are legally in the right (I think, I'm no lawyer), but morally in the wrong. They (or one of their member companies, more accurately) produced the CD, they can set the terms it is sold under.
If you don't like the terms, you don't have to buy the CD. If enough people don't like the terms, the CD won't sell well, and the RIAA will be pressured into changing their policies.
This space intentionally left blank.
There is a lot of this type of chip art... Here's a link: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russia ns.html
Don't feel bad, I couldn't remember it exactly as well, had to look it up!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
It's hardly immoral. An agreement is just an agreement. It has no inherent moral dimension to it. It could be an immoral agreement, in which case the moral thing to do is to break it (e.g. if a house has a restrictive covenant that forces all later buyers to not sell to minorities, it's moral and legal to break it). And if it was a particularly moral agreement, it might be immoral to break it.
But most agreements are pretty amoral.
And yes, life isn't fair. But it's important to reject unfairness and to strive for things to be fair. And if this means not allowing some conditions to be set, and stopping those who would promote unfairness, then so be it. "Life's not fair" is not a philosophy to live by; it's a problem to be overcome.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You don't think it had anything to do with CmdrTaco not wanting to splash your username on the front page, would it?
its not the same situation. The soviets could not have bought vaxen if they had wanted to. It certainly would have been cheaper for them to do so, but the technology was embargoed.
I remember a story that the apollo crew who linked up with a soyuz in the early 70's were surprised to find a mechanical sequencer (a cylinder with pins attached) running the show on the soviet side.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Why?
One way to lose points in an argument is to use phrases such as "tough shit," "life isn't fair," or "that's life" to prove a point. That is called an argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy. It sounds like you are dancing around the question instead of answering it. Tell me why it is immoral, instead of just saying "life isn't fair."
Anyways, getting back to the quote, I feel that in these cases, nobody has the right to tell people what to do with an object once they have purchased it. My CD is my CD; as long as I'm not redistributing it to other people, why should the manufacturer care if I'm listening to it with a CD player or listening to it with an iPod? With software and other "intellectual property" (I hate that phrase, but I'll use it), I still feel that nobody has the right to tell you what you can do with it as long as you don't redistribute copies of it, disassemble it and use your disassembled code for OSS and proprietary projects, etc. There is a difference between following general copyright rules and laws and having manufacturers be complete fascists when dealing with how you can use the product. It gets even worse when the manufacturers and the government get in bed and pass laws that are completely in favor of the manufacturers instead of the freedoms of the people. That is called corporatism, also known as fascism.
This is, of course, largely theoretical at this time in the case of x86 MacOS X, but . . .
If Apple wants to sell me the software under terms other than the legally-established default terms for sales of copies of software, they should present me with them in advance. Presenting me with the terms after payment has been rendered is what is immoral, even if clickthrough EULAs have been blessed by the courts.
What are those default terms?
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 (a) of the United States Code reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner[.]
If I have bought a retail copy of Mac OS X 10.4, when I walked out of the store with the copy, those are the terms I purchased it under. If I need to modify it to get it to run on my Pegasos box, then I have that right, as owner of a copy of the software. If Apple doesn't want me to do that, they could have required I agree to license terms before I bought it. Since they did not, they're the ones in the position of saying the already-concluded implicit contract involved in any purchase is unacceptable. And that, as in the case of the after-the-fact reneging on the book deal, is wrong.
It's kinda funny. When another company forces the DMCA on someone else a story is posted in an eyeblink. We hate them with a passion. But when Apple... . It's the same for patents.
./ they should change "the stuff for nerds" to "fair and balanced". ./ is the FOX of the techsites.
I think on
What's your opinion on academic or personal-use licenses, then?
I can buy a copy of IntelliJ IDEA for academic use for $99, or a license for personal use for $199. They charge (I think) $599 for the commercial license. All have equal functionality. So, you think it's moral for me to buy the personal license for $199, and then use it to create commercial software? After all, that right do they have to tell me what to do with the software I've purchased? I should be able to do whatever I want with it, regardless of what the terms of the sale were.
This space intentionally left blank.
I don't understand why you think you have the right to do what you want with Mac OS X, just because you're not happy with the conditions that Apple sells it under.
They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. Copyright law has a number of limitations, and in many jurisdictions (such as the EU and potentially even the US - see the Lexmark toner suit) clauses limiting which hardware a product can be used with are unlawful.
All of this, of course, is assuming that the EULA is actually a legally binding agreement, which is also unclear.
If Microsoft put a clause in the Office EULA that you couldn't run it on WINE, everyone would be up in arms. This is no different.
Now, as for distributing OS X illegally, that's a pretty clear cut case of copyright infringement.
Funny how Slashdot talks big about how the TPM is "evil" and circumventing it is morally just, yet when Apple goes and uses the TPM to tie their OS to particular hardware, Slashdot jumps to Apple's defense.
It was Apple that brought DRM to the masses with iTunes, and they are the first to create a TPM-encumbered OS. Even Windows Vista will run on systems without a TPM.
It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?
That's quite frankly crap. Should we not be able to rip CDs because "the RIAA gets to set the conditions"? What about letting a friend borrow a DVD? I'm sure that the MPAA doesn't like that. What about running Word on WINE? What about using refilled toner cartridges?
If the company releasing software wants you to agree to certain terms, they need to have you sign a contract - in most cases, EULAs were found to be unenforcable.
Your argument is based on the theory that someone selling a product has a right to determine how that product is used. Without a contract, that right does not exist.
>But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example,
>running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
OK here's an example. You buy the board game Monopoly. You realize you're in a rush to go out tonight, so for today's Monopoly session you decide that all $1 transactions will be rounded up/down to $5, to speed up the gameplay.
Oh no! You've just violated Mattel's rules of the game! Copyright infringement! Piracy! Theft!
Get off the train whenever you want to. It's obvious to the rest of us that you are headed into a ravine.
What's your opinion on academic or personal-use licenses, then?
I can buy a copy of IntelliJ IDEA for academic use for $99, or a license for personal use for $199. They charge (I think) $599 for the commercial license. All have equal functionality. So, you think it's moral for me to buy the personal license for $199, and then use it to create commercial software? After all, that right do they have to tell me what to do with the software I've purchased? I should be able to do whatever I want with it, regardless of what the terms of the sale were.
This space intentionally left blank.
Exactly. You are right about the EULA portion. Unfortunately, in my country (the USA), we have a law called the DMCA that prevents you from circumventing DRM. Since Apple used DRM in OS X for x86 that prevents you from installing OS X on a vanilla x86 PC, cracking it is against the law, and is punishable under a heavy fine and/or even prison time.
Apple's restriction in the EULA is irrelevant, unenforcable, and most likely illegal. It is the DMCA that is the main issue.
You're talking legality. I agree with you, without a contract, nothing I'm talking about is illegal.
But I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking about morality.
And I've never once said on here that TPM is evil. I would not be up in arms if Microsoft put a clause in the Office EULA forbidding it's use under WINE. Don't assume that, just because I post on Slashdot, my opinions are the same as that of the majority here.
If the RIAA decides that it will only sell you a CD under the condition that you don't rip it, then you are definitely morally wrong if you do so. If you don't like it, don't buy the damn CD.
Again, I'm talking morality, not law. Don't start quoting statutes at me.
This space intentionally left blank.
"An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you.
Test of fairness A term is unfair if: * contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance inthe parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers."
"Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
"Consumer Sale of Goods Contracts
"Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore, it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution. For example, notices such as "We do not give refunds" are misleading and cannot be used. Enforcement is undertaken by local Trading Standards Departments."
These quotes are from Department of Trade and Industry Guidelines.
It must be very doubtful that a EULA which forbids you to do things with the product after you have bought it, that you can perfectly well do, and which you have some reasonable reason to want to do, can be lawful in the UK or the EC. In fact, putting clauses in a Eula which mislead the consumer about his rights under the law in this regard appears, from the above, to be criminal.
While I realise that Apple have to protect their technology, Steve Jobs' anti-hacking comments lately have been a bit hypocritical, given his history. Here is a more appropriate poem:
Check the box. You bought an upgrade to an existing copy of MacOS/OS X, not a full copy. Apple doesn't sell full copies of OS X, only upgrades. As such, does your Pegasos box already have OS X running on it? MacOS 9? Didn't think so.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The difference here is that Mattel does not ask you to strictly follow the rules at all times. They don't care. Apple, on the other hand, does: they are explicitly requesting that you not run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.
If Mattel sold you the game under the condition that you only play it in strict accordance with the rules, then yeah, you would be morally wrong in not obeying their request.
If you think that such a requirement is ridiculous, you are free not to buy the board game.
This space intentionally left blank.
Academic or personal-use licenses, qua licenses, must be obeyed just as any contract must be obeyed. However, most software so labelled is not licensed at all, but sold. When you purchase software you do not need a license to use it, therefore no terms other than copyright apply to such use. If you license software you have not purchased it, and are therefore subject to whatever terms the license contains, as well as to copyright.
Why do companies sell academic and personal-use software, rather than license it? Because they are lazy, because licensing is much more complicated, and because they would be unlikely to make as many sales. They prefer to sell it and then lie to me about what rights I have to the product. More specifically, they prefer to sell it to me and then attempt to corral me into agreeing to a restrictive license when I do not, in fact, need any license whatsoever.
See, their intent only matters if there IS a contract. In a sale, intent is irrelevant. If you sell me something, relying on the fact that I know you wish it used in a certain way, you have no recourse if I choose to use it in some other fashion. Even a verbal assent would be enough, but of course I have never given Adobe any assent whatsoever that I intend to abide by their wishes. If you want control, don't sell! If you want control, you must contract. The legally relevant issue here is that software manufacturers are a "sophisticated party". They know the rules, or ought to know the rules, and if they choose to disregard them then they do so at their own risk. The only moral issue would be if a company really hadn't understood that by selling the software they lost all control over use. Then I could see users either returning the software or choosing to abide by the terms. When this situation actually arise on our planet you let me know.
I'll just use vim and javac, like I always do with my Java programs ;). And once the GNU or Apache people complete their Java compilers, I'll move to gcj or Harmony.
Alright, I'll answer the question. I don't think it is right to use the personal edition to create commercial software; however, I also think it is a BS restriction, and I don't think that the creators of IntelliJ IDEA should send out their ninja lawyers to imprison people who used the personal edition to create commercial software. But that is why, for the most part, I use either use FOSS development tools or use development tools that don't have these restrictions.
Now, you think you have me trapped. However, I still maintain that there is a strong difference between certain types of EULA restrictions. The restriction you listed above is a fair restriction for development tools, even though I will personally never develop software in which the development tool told me how to license the software. However, I still maintain that Apple shouldn't force that OS X should only be installed on Macs, just like the record company can't force me to listen to a CD with only a CD player, and the soccer ball manufacturer to force me to play with a soccer ball solely for soccer. Corporations shouldn't be telling people that they must use a product a certain way, or they'll call out the cops. Unfortunately, that seems to be the status quo these days.
But once again, you are right. I don't have to buy the crap. Hopefully this whole Treacherous^WTrusted Computing crap won't happen so that way DRM and all of these restrictions aren't my only option.
Yes, as my current computer is running a multi-button Logitech using Apple's drivers. And in fact, they even sell a multi-button mouse. (Mighty Mouse) Though you are right, there should be a school...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
That's idiotic. They can limit the terms under which you can distribute the work, but not the terms under which you can use the work. What if they say you can only listen to the CD with your left ear, and you must plug your right ear whenever you listen to it. Are you morally obligated to follow these instructions? If you buy the product, you should be morally permitted to use it however you want.
I know this may sound a tad taught
,so Face.
but I am sure you have all read Slash-dot
This hacking we do is not aimed at you
And we don't mind if we all get caught
we find the law a touch stringent
and pedantically we must say its not stealing..
but Copyright infringement .
Though we are sure that this is not always the case.
If we bought it then we own this
You the see problem with the EULA
is that when you pay
Its as binding as an plastic toupee
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
So let me get this straight: In the beginning, removing an item from a store without paying for it was considered "stealing". Then, simple copyright infringement became "stealing". Now, Apple is saying that if I go to the store, buy Mac OS X, and get it to work on my computer, I'm "stealing"? WTF?
http://outcampaign.org/
Image you went to your local baker and bought a loaf of bread and then were threathened with jail time for hacking it up into little bits and feeding it to the ducks when clearly the baker decided it was only to be used for human consumption.
But computers are different. It causes people like you to behave like slaves who lick their masters asses and swallow everything they deliver.
Apple sells software. Once it made the sale I can do with it what I want for my personal use. If I decide to take it apart and chance it to run on other hardware or to function in a way different then it was before then that is my right.
Oh but wait of course, I get it. Games were never intended to run with trainers. So trainers are illegal. They also never meant for you to use someone elses savegame so savegames are illegal. They also do not come with a walkthrough so clearly walkthroughs are illegal.
Running say program X on a emulator is obviously clearly illegal.
But then I got a bit of bad news for you. Your lord and master Steve Jobs is breaking his own laws. By allowing windows software to run in emulation he is hacking that software to run on platforms it was never intended to run on. Could every windows developer sue whenever a mac user runs a bit of windows software?
No, Apple has a right to cry foul when people give away its software for free but when I buy a copy of Mac OS X in the shops I am then free to use it in anyway I please. I can use it as a coaster. I can run it on mac hardware and I can hack it and run it on whatever I like. As long as I respect the fact that I got right to 1 copy of it running at anyone time I am in the clear.
Anyone who tells you different is a fucking tool.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
the EUCD supports DRM in direct contradiction to that trade practices law.
In addition, the way firms are pushing DRM worldwide, by slipping it in furtively and having copyright interests bear down on their news subsidiaries to keep quiet about it, is also in direct contradiction to that trade practices law.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Rolls Royce obviously has a reputation to protect as a superd silent and comfortable vehicle so if I bought a Rolls Royce and hacked it up to make it run with no shocks on square wheels and removed the exhaust could they forbid me to do so? No. What if I took out the engine and put it a Volkswagen Beetle?
An artist obviously intents his art to be enjoyed for generations to come. So if I buy a van Gogh and burn it can anyone stop me? No.
If a game company doesn't include any cheats then obviously they did not intend people to cheat. So can they then say trainers are illegal? Obviously no. Any company that would try to take you to court for playing their game in godmode would get slapped down by the judge.
Or to use your own example of a book. If I buy the latest novel of an author and rip it apart and feed it to the goat is that illegal? If I read it completly at random is that illegal? If I take the copy and translate it into braille then destroy the original and give the braille copy to a blind person is that illegal? I just hacked it to be read on a different platform after all.
So what exactly makes software companies like Apple so fucking special that they can dictate what I do with my copy of Mac OS X I bought from them?
You and software companies need to realize that they are selling a product just like any other company and that people are then free to do with that product what they want.
Copyright is about making copies. It is not about what I do with your product. I am not legally allowed to make other then personal copies for OS X. I am allowed to do whatever I want however with my own copy. If I wish to take every bit and flip it then that is my choice.
Mods who modded you up are insane and just do not understand what rights people have. Sofware ain't special, don't allow tools like the above poster to take away right you have had forever.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I suppose then you would agree with a provision being placed on your PS2 which reads:
"by purchasing this ps2 you hereby agree never to purchase, borrow, or use gaming products produced my microsoft or nintendo, or any subsidiary thereof".
better yet, you would agree with kroger putting labels on their bananas saying you are only allowed to eat them between the hours of 12:00am and 12:01 am, and to do otherwise makes you subject to multimillion dollar suit?
same principal.
This is the free market, in the free market once you sell something ITS NOT YOURS! it now belongs to the customer, and the customer is allowed to use it as he sees fit.
EULAs, DRM, and other such attempts to limit the ways a customer can use a purchased product, if they are allowed to become effective, would mean we no longer actually OWN our property.. . We become serfs again. (yes that's right, serfs were people who worked for private individuals estates *read firms* yet were not allowed to own anything provided by estates *read firms again*).
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Simple, don't want to become your own competitors, stick with architectures which are not compatible with other company's architectures. They don't like power pc then they should move to sparc or cell, or *gasp* engineer their own chips! It's not as if theyre short of capital now, their ipod sales are now so far in the stratosphere theyve reached an area somewhere near the megallanic clouds.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You can't buy OS X for intel at the moment, pal.
There once was a man with a knack
for making an OS without lack
but when it has such a price
the people say "no dice"
and eventually turn to the crack
Yes, apparently if you've bought OS X (including the hardware), you're not allowed to run it on a different machine because it's considered stealing to them. Sort of reminds me how they tried to sell internet here in California long ago. If you had a large family under one household, you were supposed to buy internet for each member of the family, no sharing was allowed or you'd get your internet suspended because it was considered *stealing* then too, no matter how stupid it sounded. This is just a step forward in that same idiotic direction with a different twist, because now they have the DMCA to use against you. Boy, we sure are heading with the right direction with this, aren't we now? eh? What ever happened to all those lawsuits before when Microsoft did this, or all those hardware companies when they tried to lock people in? Is Apple going to face the same thing?
What is up with Slashdot these days? This news is a few days old, most of the Mac news sites have already posted information about this - heck, even the newspapers picked this story up! Every-time I come to Slashdot I'm reading stuff that's either boring, irrelevant or out of date...
> It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them."
No it's not. Sometimes the rules must be violated for progress to happen. Everyone from Martin Luther to George Washington to Gandhi to MLK violated the rules at some time or the other. (of course the real question is, do you believe in your cause enough to risk your liberty (as all these other guys did) for what you believe in? Geeks do not have a good history of civil disobedience -- but I digress.)
In this particular case, running a copy of OSX _you own_ on your own PC is not immoral in any way. It indicates a DIY spirit that ought to be encouraged (cue all the political blather about how We Are Falling Behind In Technical Education, etc).
Distributing this cracked copy of OSX is (IMHO) wrong however-- unless you take the (again IMHO) extreme position that copying commercial software is a 'victimless crime', which frankly makes little sense.
Now, in an ideal world, you would be able to tell others how to run _their_ copies of OSX on their PCs. The DMCA can be an impediment to this (which is why I believe the DMCA is bad law) but it is not an insurmountable impediment, see Ed Felten's DeCSS gallery.
Go somewhere random
If that was so, what exactly are they shipping with the Macbook Pro then?
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
Oops, apparently YOU CAN buy OS X for the Intel at the moment, take your bullshit elsewhere pal.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
A: Don't steal my chair asshole!
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Mac OS X Runs YOU!
So lets get this straight.
Apple takes FreeBSD which runs on just about any platform including Intel and put into Darwin/MacOSX then Apple cripples OS to run on DRM Intel board, and embed messages to be found by people who decripple the OS to run on any Intel board.
Now who's calling who uncool ? Decrippling is totally cool in my book while Crippling is not regardless of legality.
Apple! I'm calling you out. 3PM after school, by sandbox!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
"However, I think that if a manufacturer sells you an object with the condition that you don't use it in a certain way, it's immoral to ignore their wishes."
/. the other day). Do you adhere to their wishes?
The RIAA wishes you didn't buy CD's and rip them to mp3 (at least according to an article here on
Really, you seem to think that the iPod is essentially an immoral device because the bulk of iPod users are ripping their own CD's to listen to on their iPod in contradiction to the record companies' wishes.
The reason that Apple computers are expensive and they are) is not because they are more expensive than an equivalent PC, but because the equivalent PC to a low-end mac is near the top of its range. Simply put: Apple don't sell cheep computers.
James P. Barrett
First, they are trying to avoid having to do the serial-code/validation thing that is required with most software. It adds cost and inconvenience without adding any value to the customer. They've been able to do this for years because most enough mac users upgrade and pay the full fare often enough to cover the people who "borrow" the OS from their friends. The idea of "not stealing" in this context is that if it's cracked for all generic Intel boxen, then it will go up on all the kiddie warez sites, and millions of people will have it for free. Some would argue that this would benefit Apple, but I would side with them on this one, that this would be uncool stealing.
The other side of the equation is that they are indeed a hardware business, and even if nobody pirates the software, but everyone purchases it, their business could be considered devalued because people wouldn't have to buy their hardware in order to use the software. I think their stance on this is less solid, because if there is truly no value added for using their hardware, then there's no good reason--other than corporate profits--for anyone to have to pay a premium for the hardware.
That having been said, I do drink the Apple kool-aid, in that I think that the hardware is often more reliable, easier to upgrade and better optimized than that of generic boxen. Based on my experience with 5 macs and 3 windows boxes over the last decade and a half, the macs--even when slower--are much more reliable machines, and every problem I have had (bad Quadra 650 audio, bad iBook video) has been handled quickly and responsibly under warranty by Apple.
I guess the thing that Apple is most afraid of is that people will (A) hack the software, (B) tell everyone else how to do it, maybe even writing an app to crack it and/or distribute it. Then they will (C) install it on all sorts of generic boxen with less-well-supported hardware. The result of this will be that (D) a lot of people might think that OS X sucks because on their box it was unreliable and crashed a lot, unlike their perfectly stable Windows 2000 system, which hasn't been rebooted in six months.
The only real way to address this is either to go back to non-intel processors--not impossible, but not likely at the moment--or to offer hobbyists a basic box for cheap enough that it's more tempting to just use it the way Apple wants them to. Basically, if they could get a Mini under $300.00, piracy problems would be minimal.
Another way they could do it is build in byzantine software protection and charge twice as much for each software upgrade so that they make back some of the margin lost in their hardware business as well as the costs for increased support, but that sounds a lot like another company's tactics...
Either that, or burn the OS into a ROM cartridge and have it connect to their machines via a proprietary port... but there are still ways around that.
I guess just saying that doing things that the company doesn't want isn't cool is probably the best way to protect the OS :-)
The CB App. What's your 20?
Who the hell tries to rhyme PIRATE (PIE-RET or PIE-RIT) with GREAT?
Where do you get this sense of self-entitlement? Apple spent their money creating Mac OS X. They get to decide how they want to sell it. If you don't like how they sell it, you don't have to buy it. You're not morally, much less legally, entitled to do what you want with their hard work, just because you can.
By paying money for a product. I bought it. I can damn well use it. Why are they entitled to tell me what I can do with somethign after they've taken money from me? What gives them the right to tell me that now I have bought their software, I have to pay them more money for hardware just so i can use it?
> I believe that, if a company (or a single person) produces something, they should have complete and total control
> over what conditions it is sold under.
I won't call you names because the media industry has spent decades and billions indoctrinating you to think that way. But here is a newsflash for you. Intellectual Property is a myth. An author does not "own" their book, at least not in the US. Our form of government permits Congress to grant Copyrights and Patents (read: government granted artificial restrictions on free trade) to authors and inventors for a limited period of time, but ONLY "to promote progress in the useful arts and sciences." And it explicitly says "MAY" to boot. So were Congress to decide they no longer served the stated purpose they could simply do away with them and it would be 100% moral AND legal. (They couldn't invalidate any Copyright or Patent already in effect due to the prohibition of ex post facto laws.)
If the creator 'owned' the rights like real property rights the could not be taken, but they are merely an artificial monopoly grant from the government and it is free to stop handing them out. And those limited exclusive rights granted under Copyright are the SOLE EXTENT of their rights. Current copyright law already violates the 'limited times' restriction by extending over a century from first expression since 99 years is legally 'perpuitity.' Nothing in our Constituition empowered Congress to pass the DMCA for example, which is why in several other posts I assert it is our civic responsibility to violate it publicly as an act of civil disobedience. And nothing permits laws making shrink wrap EULAs enforceable. Reproduction adn public performance are the only acts regulated by Copyright.
Democrat delenda est
Now, on the other hand, I don't know that I could copy all the pages in the book, and mass-produce my sculpture; for it to be fair use, I'd need to purchase as many books as I needed in order to make my sculptures or otherwise come to some agreement with you, the book seller.
The CB App. What's your 20?
In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA.
That should read "Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, at least not under US law and other insane jurisdicitons with (also insane) DMCA-like regulations".
Law 9609/98 (Brasilian "Computer Programs Intelectual Property Act"), art 6: "It is NOT infringement to the rights of the author of a computer program: (...) IV - to integrate it, maintaining its characteristics, to an operating or application system, if it's technically indispensable to the use of the software, and it's promoted by the user". IOW: if you bought your copy of MacOS X, you can hack it to use on your computer.
Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The CB App. What's your 20?
When the very best care enough to steal YOU. VAX.
No, wait, that should be "In the Decadent West" - as the parent quote is its Soviet Russian counterpart. Hmmm.
PLEASE, come on... this is slashdot! You CAN'T write this here, because itS' simply WRONG! I feel insulted from it! Please do:
s/hack/crack/i
on the posting.
Thank you!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
VAX microchips embed hidden phrases in YOU!
You've talked a lot about morality. The problem, I believe, is this: is it moral to ignore an imoral agreement?
What if the sole supplier of milk in your town says "I will sell you this milk on the condition that you don't give any of it to a baby. I hate babies". What is the moral thing to do?
Don't get me wrong, the situation with Apple is nowhere near this baby-starving area. Would it be moral for a software company to tell me that I can only use their software if I am pro-abortion? Is it moral for a record company to tell me that I can't listen to their CDs on the sabbath? These are all arbitrary conditions, they are analagous with the real conditions producers are putting on their works.
I think your position of they made it so it's their terms is far too absolute, and it's certainly not clear that breaking conditions of purchase is "definitely morally wrong", as you put it.
I think I would go further: morality is defined by the grey areas. Should I murder a murderer to stop him murdering? Should I lie to protect someone's feelings? Should I break a promise to one friend in order that I keep faith with another? They aren't easy answers, and their is certainly no one morally correct position.
Carpe Daemon
Let's say you write a book. ... You go to a publisher, and say "I will sell you the rights to my book, if you give me 50% of the profits it makes." They agree.
So, lots of software developers get paid a percentage of sales? While companies profit directly from the number of copies sold, to the best of my knowledge most software developers do not. They receive continued pay only for continued work regardless of how much their employer is coasting on the developer's past successes.
Of course there are logical reasons to pay developers this way, if you allow a developer to coast forever on a single success then you've created a system where the most successful people are constantly being eliminated from the talent pool by that success. The ever-less-talented remainder then floods the market with drivel in a constant search for the next "big score."
The same logic applies to companies, but even moreso. Why should the sale of a product give this company the right to extract indefinite obedience from the customer (apparently on pain of having that product taken away)? How does that motivate the company to continue serving the public in the form of the customer in the best way it can? If it does not then why should it be allowed?
Contracts exist for mutual benefit only, so if your obligation to me is over then my obligation to you must also be over. Try to fit into an agreement of the form "If you stop X then I'll stop Y" here are some good examples: "If you stop working for me, I'll stop paying you (a job)." "If you stop following my instructions I'll stop trying to help you when they don't work (a warranty)." "If you stop returning the things I loan you in good condition, I'll stop loaning you things."
No. They get to decide whether or not they sell it. It's up to them whether they think my money is worth it.
Once they've sold it, it's mine, I'll do what I like with it, and they can fuck off.
I am trolling
You clearly believe in a definition of copyright that goes far beyond what even the (rather broad) US copyright statutes cover. That's your right, but I think that you will find that your view is far out of the mainstream.
Your argument, again, is premised on the belief that the creator of a work has the right to determine how that work is used. From an ethical standpoint, that is extremely dangerous.
Again, why should the creator of a CD have the moral right to determine how I listen to that CD? Despite what the RIAA would have us believe, we have - and should have - the right to rip, back up, sell, trade, or lend our CDs.
When I purchase a book or a painting, I have the right to do whatever I want to it - I can rip out half the pages or black out half the words. So long as I obtained that copy legally, there is neither a moral nor a legal issue.
The next time I buy a car, should the previous owner get to dictate how I drive it? How I maintain it? When I buy a house, should the previous owner be able to dictate how I decorate it?
If the RIAA decides that it will only sell you a CD under the condition that you don't rip it, then you are definitely morally wrong if you do so. If you don't like it, don't buy the damn CD.
If the RIAA establishes that condition in a contract, then, yes, you are in the wrong. I certainly hope that you have never ripped a CD, because the RIAA has stated many times that they consider CD ripping to be unauthorized use of the CD.
And what happens when the RIAA says you can't resell or lend the CD? What then? Are you in the "wrong" simply because you excersized your rights over the property that you purchased?
What about if GM will only sell you a vehicle on the condition that you never buy any other brand again? A requirement not stated in a contract, mind you, but only in an agreement that you have never signed and only shown after you purchase the vehicle.
By viewing this comment, in fact, you agree to give me $1,000,000. Really. Think it's stupid? So do I! But by your standards, you just committed a sin! Don't like my terms? You didn't have to read my comment!
Thankfully, we live in a world where people can't just spell out arbitrary conditions after a transaction. I don't know where you got the idea that a copyright holder has some kind of a moral right to apply conditions to the use of their work, but it certainly wasn't from any kind of law or morality that I've ever seen.
The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.
Nope. Main people they want a hacked OS is because the un-hacked OS does not run on their machines and for the moment they are not interested in new hardware, thank you, just in new software. People who say "no, I don't want the Super Size combo" and "yes, I know two apple pies is just fifty cents more than one, but I will only eat one, thank you". Is that so hard to understand? And, yes, _when_ said people try out the OS and they see "hmm. this is neat, bet it would be faster/prettier on Apple's hardware", what do you think will be the next hardware they'll shop for? Build it, and they will come.
You know what? The proof that this argument is bogus resides in Apple itself and its iTMS. People went in flocks to buy regularly what they couldn't have with CDs (loose tracks) and they could have irregularly (MP3s via P2P).
And besides, "stealing" does not fit on your phrase above. It's impossible to steal software/movies/music. "Stealing" means "subtracting something from others"; when you (irregularly) copy software/movies/music, you may (OR MAY NOT) be "copyright infringing", but you are never "stealing".
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!>
Christ. It's fairly simple. We simply do not believe it is fair for other people to limit our use of electrons (software) in our possession.
It's not hard to understand. If you disagree, say so; don't try and make out that this arguement is not understandable - it's simpler than yours.
If you're still not getting it, look at the GNU reasoning behind why all software should be free. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend like this belief is unreasonable.
Nice try. That's a single license, for the computer that came with it only.
Exellent comment - your example helps illustrate the necessity of law.
Basically, I believe that the problem with the "content producer should have final say" theory is that it fundamentally infringes upon my rights. It's one thing to have a contract that I accept with (in theory) full knowledge of how it limits my rights. It's an entirely different thing to limit my rights based on a sale that was made on the premise that it did not affect my rights at all.
If Apple wants to ensure that OS X is only used in the way that they want it to be, then they need to have individuals agree to their conditions before the sale is made. Otherwise, Apple is limited to the protection offered by the law - copyright.
Note that the GPL is fully aware of this - it explicitly states that it is not a contract and that you are not compelled to follow any of its terms. You are, however, bound by copyright law, and the only thing that gives you the right to distribute the software is the GPL (or whatever other terms the copyright holder has specified). Excluding certain provisions of the DMCA, copyright applies to the right to distribute a work alone - you are well within your rights, for example, to take a GPL application, modify it, and keep your changes secret - so long as you do not copy or distribute the application or any derivitive work based on it.
Well written laws are precise, consistent, and fair. Morality seldom is.
Oh man, you could not have chosen a better verb!
huh? OSX is included with the laptop, so they are indeed selling OSX. Whether it's a single license or not, doesn't matter. You're still buying it included with the laptop.
The Adobe/Betamax case isn't appliccable because they are both corporations, presumably able to negotiate. In the UK (and EU, I believe - an analog, anyway), we have the unfair consumer contract terms act (or something like that). A contract that is handed over with no discussion can have any term it likes in it, but any term that places an unfair or unequal burden on the citizen is not legally enforceable.
It is why most T&Cs/EULAs and shrinkwraps are not enforceable if you take the company to court. Apple WOULD lose in court. What they would do is some technical method to break you. You would then have to go to court to assert your rights, rather than Apple going to court to assert the rights in their EULA.
Ta.
They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
Would you agree with that sentiment if it was on a CD - telling you not to format shift or listen to it in your car? Or how about MS saying you can't run your legally purchased OS under vmware? Or Blizzard saying you can't run WoW under wine? Or how about telling you you can't watch a DVD on your computer?
It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?
Utter nonsense. It is immoral for a company to try and restrict your natural rights.
Your book analogy btw is complete bunk. A better analogy would be selling a digital book tied to an ereader.
My pics.
Yes, it does matter. When the guy said "you can't buy OS X for Intel", it was implied that he meant "you can't buy OS X for Intel standalone so you can have a license you can use on any computer". Hence why you can't legally install OS X on any computer, regardless of Apple's "Apple hardware only" clause in the OS X EULA.
I didn't read anywhere that the guy meant "Intel Standalone", because if he did, that would change the whole meaning and I would have never posted. Thus, I'm still correct, and I win. You lose :P
If after the purchase they want to tell me how to use it, then they can pay for it and I'll use it as they want for free.
Why should they tell me what I can do with what I bought? Because they ask? Well, I don't want my money going to causes I don't agree with, so I abjuer them from using my money in such. If they cannot *prove* that my money did not get used in a fashion that I object, then they are in breach of contract.
Hey, they can always not accept my money.
PS I'll let them know AFTER they've sold me the stuff.
Hmmm, I wonder if Apple will ask Google to censor this so people outside China can't search for it ;)
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
It was in context with the post he replied to. Re-read the thread correctly, starting from the original post. Anyway, this is pointless. Enjoy your pretend victory in a pointless slashdot debacle. I guess you need that to feel good about yourself.
You always claim Apple is better. Pre-OS X you claimed Mac OS was faster because it wasn't Windows and wasn't on Intel. OS-X PPC era, you claimed Apple was faster because it wasn't Windows and wasn't on Intel. Now that Apple is on Intel you claim Apple is faster.
/. article you blame the hackers for wanting to try something new and telling people about it.
How can that be. It seems your opinion's are more shapped by marketing than actual results.
You claim that OS-X has the best designed GUI in the world. However, on large wide screen s users have to scroll more to get to menus that are all on the upper-left side of the screen when their windows are on the right side. How is that a better designed GUI. It is like putting the gas peddle of a car in a fixed location above the dash-board because a committee decided that that was the best place to put it.
Then, you claim that Apple is better than anything else period. Now, when Apple goes and does stupid shit like this
IMO, Apple is not better and in some ways worse than Microsoft.
That's pretty cool of Apple. I need to go find some download sites and see it for myself.
This isn't really an "ah-hah! gotcha!" kind of thing, or an attempt at humour (though it is a little funny). Its about LEGAL protections - copyright, DMCA, etc. We did something similar at AOL - I had just posted about this at my blog.
graphically speaking
This is *really* old news. I'm surpised this isn't a dupe from Jan.
It depends on the market. In the "entry level notebooks known to run properly with a non-Windows OS installed" market the iBook is one of the best offers. In fact the superior price/performance ratio is what made me get one (along with the fact that the price is low - a product can perform as well as it wants, if I can't afford it I can't afford it).
However, it is true: The low-end Mac notebook (the iBook) does compete with Thinkpads and the likes, because Thinkpads are among the few notebooks known for reliable Linux support. Then again, the non-Windws notebook market is quite small so I guess I can be happy that there is an entry level offer at all.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh my goodness,
:)
It never ends does it?
Tell me oh deep and moral oracle...
Where does Apple get it's 'moral authority' from to tell me what i can do with *my* copy of the product that they took *my* cash for AFTER THEY TOOK MY BLOODY MONEY?
If they dont want me to do these things they need to tell me BEFORE they take my money not after, get it?
But thats the thing isn't it? If software companies started making people actually sign real big grown up contracts, instead of these candystore bullshit click-throughs people would actually start treating them like contracts, and most would laugh and laugh and laugh at the utter bullshit that exists within and simply walk. Because to 90% of reasonable people in this world, when they pay for a book, CD, toaster, TV, DVD player or any appliance (which is what normal people see a computer as) if the salesperson tries to make them sign a contract telling them where and how they can use it they will just say fuck off and leave.
Oh yes, and you may shove your warped sense of 'morality' and your hootytooty 'moral superiority' up your arse.
Cheers
And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster. Sure they are pretty but as PC hardware they just ain't all that. Cheap plastic cases with wimpy power supplies and little expansion for the desktop and useless one button laptops. Gimme a big manly box made of 2mil aluminum and a big ass stable power plant to start, then let me pick out a premium motherboard and memory and an drives of my choice. Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me? And never forget the insane markup they get for their pretty but bland specced hardware.
;)
By all means, have fun with your three kilogram space heater that makes noises like a vacuum cleaner even when it's not under load. I'll stick with my light, robust, barely audible iBook.
Besides, what's wrong with the Power Mac? It has an aluminium case, it supports 16 GB of RAM, it supports a quad G5... That should be enough to compensate for a lot of things. And if that's still not enough I have some email offers I could forward to you.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The single worst analogy i have *ever* read on this website.
The fact that it currently at +5, when it is so obviously unlike anything to even remotely do with the situation at hand speaks volumes about the rabid fanaticism and desperation of Apple zealots to ensure only good things are ever said about their religion. Truly you make Linux zealots look like intellectual giants.
You people embarrass the rest of us, stop it now.
Hey Apple, please stop writing poems and release OS X for normal x86 hardware. There's obviously a huge market for this. While I don't condone piracy, I do believe that what you're seeing is the merest indication of the size of the market you might be able to take advantage of if you were to simply get rid of the DRM crap in OSX.
Please... please... don't cripple this great OS.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Steve/Apple doesn't do things without a good reason. Posting poetry to try and disuade hackers from their tasks has some entertainment value---it mad the news didn't it? I think this is a way Apple can keep track of the progress the hackers have made. With all of the code obfuscation in the OS. the revelation of the poetry tells Apple which sections of the OS have beeen compromised, and where Apple has to tighten up the security. I believ announcemnts of this and further Apple poetry will help Apple keep the OS more secure. So what do you think?
You are equating Apple with the author, the software with the book, fair enough, nice metaphor thus far. But just how the hell do you get to identifying a paying consumer who attempts to install his purchased copy of OSX on the hardware of his choice with a publisher who holds back royalty payments?
Apple are their own publisher, are they not? I don't recall having underpaid when I bought my copy of their OS. Apple got their full due, and it's none of their damn business whether I run it on PearPC or wear it as a hat, frankly.
A better example would be that a consumer bought a copy of the author's book, and liked it a lot, but the picture on the dust jacket was not to her tastes, so she sliced out the pages and rebound it by hand. Where's the moral transgression in that? Do you feel the author should have the right to demand another payment?
ok if you are going to hide something in your software it has to at least be cool. This is one of the dumbest things that I have read and what's * way uncool * is that Apple's people couldn't come up with something better. At least the easter egg was funny at the time ...
"Indeed, a hacker encountered the poem recently, and a copy of it has been circulating on Mac-user Web sites this week."
/. guys!"
Indeed this is a good way for Apple to get a report on the hacking of their OS: "Ok, let see when will this poem be published on
..but I guess anybody who's interested in running OS X on their homebuilt shitbox doesn't care about that kind of license, either.
I mean, why are software makers getting so many rights at the expense of consumers? GM can't tell me what the fuck I do with my Corvette after I buy it. I could gut it, turn it into a race car and drive the fuck out of it. I could pull the motor and put it in another car. I'd lose my waranty...but no big deal.
/looking/ product.
Do we remember WHY Apple allowed the clone market in the first place? That's right. All the fashion-victims had already bought their macs. And they were happy. Didn't want faster, didn't really care. And sales dropped.
It seems to me that Apple has proven that boutique computer manfucterors cannot survive very long without radical changes and constant new
Blar.
Violets are semi-blue...
;P
Who does the OS belong to?
Certainly not you!!!
XOXO Steve.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
photograph here
Wow! That'll scare 'm off....
Why? Look at how much money Apple makes on their hardware.
They would have to price standalone OS X for Generic Intel Computers to make up for the pain of a lost hardware sale. It would probably cost as much or more as the computers you people want to run it on. They could not sell it for less and hope to make more money on volume, because most people would STILL steal it even if it cost the same $129 that PPC OS X does now.
Go ahead and tell me "No they wouldn't! They would pay for it!"
My response to that is: Yes, they would still steal it. You want proof? Go to thepiratebay.org and search for iWork, for example. It costs $80, but as I write this the three different torrents of iWork '05 and '06 have 18457 combined downloads. And that's for something that costs 2/3 of what OS X retails for now. If OS X standalone cost $20, people would still be sucking down torrents of it like there was no tomorrow.
Unlike Microsoft, the planet doesn't run on Apple products. There wouldn't be enough people paying for it versus those stealing it to offset the precipitous drop in Apple's revenue from their also massively decreased hardware sales.
Apple would go out of business. It would just be a matter of time.
"for the computer it came with only" is a term of the license. Since licenses aren't laws, in order for the license to have any effect, I'd have to agree to be bound by it first. If I buy the computer+the software and don't agree to the license, I still bought and own that copy of the software.
What on earth is immoral about that. The whole concept of a sale is that the seller is transfering their right to dictate the use of the goods to the buyer.
Its one thing if the transaction is clearly not a sale (say, a rental, or a signed licensing agreement) but if I walk into a standard retail store, hand over money, and walk out with a box then I feel morally that I own that item and the previous owner has no moral rights whatsoever, since the whole concept of a sale is I get all the moral rights to an item in exchange for money.
If Apple or any other manufacturer lets me walk into a normal retail store and hand over my money in what would appear to a reasonable person to be sale but doesn't transfer all the moral rights to me, then they are committing fraud by not giving me what I thought I was paying for.
Hey! I think it worked! He hasn't posted since you posted this request!
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
It seems that Apple's US operations seem to be running a little behind the times... because here in China, while I can get an iPod Shuffle 512MB for $70 (not a typo), the software comes along much cheaper (like I can buy iLife for about $5), and this is at an APPLE STORE. Also, while they didn't tolerate hacking as much in the US (witness this legal threat), they have done nothing to the main OSx86 BBS (I mean forum, to non-Chinese people) in China, OSx86 China and people at the Apple Store have directed me to that web site once they knew that I wouldn't complain to them if I couldn't make it work.
On a related note (disclaimer)... I have been using an example of an official Apple Store where I live to and what it does, but this store may not necessarily be official, just that they look official, and they say that they are official, and have sufficiently proved to me that they are official (showed me that they have access to internal Apple systems and all that).
What I mean is that they should not be trying to deter hackers, but rather encourage those who are smart enough to hack it, and discourage those who can't.
OSx86 FTW
I love seeing stuff like this on Slashdot.
So, when the next story comes out about someone legally downloading GPL code, but using it in a way that is not allowed by the GPL(icense), which side will YOU be on?
First about EULA's:
EULA's have absolutely no meaning for me. I don't even read them. I never agree to them either. I do know one thing though, if I'm using a software that has a EULA and I have to click an I agree radio button or someother input device to contintue, I know the only way I can use it is by pressing that button. Therefore the only way I can use a product for which I have paid real money for is by clicking a button to procede to the next step. I can no longer return this product for the money I have paid for it. Therefore it is mine to do what I want with.
Therefore I have never accepted a EULA and as such am not binded by it. This includes this webstite.
There's not a person on this planet who has the right to tell me what to do. I might take most things under advisement, but that is all.
Where's the morality in forcing your wills upon another person?
There's a lot of twisted people here willing to accept what others tell them. Don't. Question reality. (Even this should be questioned)
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
You always claim Apple is better. Pre-OS X you claimed Mac OS was faster because it wasn't Windows and wasn't on Intel. OS-X PPC era, you claimed Apple was faster because it wasn't Windows and wasn't on Intel. Now that Apple is on Intel you claim Apple is faster.
The claim now is that MacBooks and iMacs with Intel inside are faster than Powerbooks and iMacs with PPC inside. That's it. I haven't seen a single claim that an Intel Mac is faster than an Intel PC. If you have, please link to it.
You claim that OS-X has the best designed GUI in the world. However, on large wide screen s users have to scroll more to get to menus that are all on the upper-left side of the screen when their windows are on the right side. How is that a better designed GUI. It is like putting the gas peddle of a car in a fixed location above the dash-board because a committee decided that that was the best place to put it.
One of the ways OS X is better designed is that the menus are not nearly as important as they are in Windows. Almost everything can accomplished with buttons on the app, key combinations, or floating palettes. In fact this is the primary driver behind the wide screen format on Macs, because it gives you maximum flexibility in palette placement.
In addition, in a program that will have multiple windows open, the Mac system is better because all the windows can float on the desktop. On a Windows machine they sit inside a "super window" that you have to maximise anyway!
Finally, because the menus are always in the same place on the edge of the screen, using them develops muscle memory. Whereas on a Windows machine you always have to spot them first then move to them. This is where I'll point out that the gas pedal IS in a fixed location--it is in the same place on every car.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Now, you're a "pirate" if you try to "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
Whatever happened to "1984 won't be like 1984"?
I agree that specifying the conditions after the transaction is unfair, but that's a peripheral argument. I'm talking about cases where you know about the conditions upfront.
If GM will only sell you a vehicle on the condition that you never buy any other brand again, and they tell you this when you walk into the showroom, that's fine by me. Buy a Ford, or a Toyota instead. But if you buy a GM, and then buy another brand, then that's immoral.
Look at it another way: GM says they'll give you $10,000 "cash-back" on a new car if you promise to buy only new GM cars in the next ten years. Keeping the car you're buying now for ten years is fine (if the POS lasts that long), but you can't buy another brand. Even if they have no legal way to enforce this, if you take their money and then buy a Honda four years later, I think you're morally in the wrong.
"The next time I buy a car, should the previous owner get to dictate how I drive it? How I maintain it? When I buy a house, should the previous owner be able to dictate how I decorate it?"
Sure. If you don't like it, find someone else to buy your car/house from. It's a free market, there will be plenty of people who are selling their house/car without these restrictions.
Similarly, if you post this notice at the top of a comment:
"ATTENTION: I have spent ten minutes of my time composing this comment. I think ten million dollars per reader is fair compensation for the time I have spent working on it. Even though I have no legal or electronic means of enforcing this request, I ask that you please respect my wishes and do not read beyond this line until you have Paypal'd me ten million dollars."
Then, I think it would be immoral to read further. I'm not saying I wouldn't read it, but I would do so with the understanding that what I was doing was immoral.
What if the amount were less extreme? What if it were ten cents, and you included a link within your posts that would securely, anonymously, and safely transfer ten cents into your bank account from mine within a second? And maybe you'd include a teaser paragraph, containing a sample of the blinding wit, logic and reason contained within: you seriously don't think it's immoral for someone to say "Screw that!" and read the rest of your post without paying you?
Never mind the fact that is unenforceable, and that your expectation that people will pay is naive and assumes way too much self-discipline on the part of the average Slashdot reader.
I know I would click the link.
This space intentionally left blank.
Most companies seem to thrive by tricking the customers into entering in agreements that are not legal.
.... that they can upgrade/change my service without my consent at any time'...
My cable company recently added a clause to the effect that 'I agree
And what about the often-used clause 'This agreement may change at anytime without notice'.... (How can I agree to something that may have already changed?)
And of course the general public is as wise to this as they were to phishing in 1990.
Yeah, but they're still a bunch of dirty hippies.
A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by government for a limited time to protect the particular form, way or manner in which an idea or information is expressed. Copyright may subsist in a wide range of creative or artistics forms or "works", including literary works, movies, musical works, sound recordings, paintings, photographs, software, and industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property.
A trademark is a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the business and its products or services from those of other businesses. A trademark is a type of industrial property which is distinct from other forms of intellectual property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
sooo... anybody who isn't going to "steal", but rather disregard the eula, is in the clear?
That is true. But the standard mom and pop users don't have to. Yet, Apple may be forced to it if the pirates get their hands in it.
The exact same side, since there never was and never will be such a story, since it is not possible to to USE GPLed code in a way that violates the GPL since the GPL has absolutely nothing to do with use. It only affects redistribution, and it does so by granting conditional exceptions to the copyright on the code.
Something to eat?
Um, no... I completely wiped out the hard disk of my Mac Mini (using a PPC version of Linux, by the way)
I used the OS X 10.4 CD to COMPLETELY & FULLY install my current configuration.
I bought a full version, not an upgrade.
They do have a copy you can run on *your* hardware. Just pay them currently $1,299 US and you get a nice little iMac to call "your hardware". Hey it even saves you the trouble of an install. Hey if you want to get work done instead of being a hobbyist, then you are truly in luck. The operating system is already tested and certified with your new hardware. Think of the time and frustration savings.
If the $1,299 is too steep for you, then be patient. Apple is sure to release a lower priced version of the operating system with different hardware to call your own very soon.
What if they just want to be free to one day move the OS they own from an old Apple/Intel computer to a new Dell/Intel PC? What if they're used to moving all their existing software onto a new computer from a new vendor, just like copyright law and the free market allows? What if they've seen Apple, Inc. financially saved by customers exercising free use rights to copy CDs onto iPods, and they're pissed off that Apple wants to take those rights away when someone else might see the benefit?
There once were some vendors who thought
They still owned what their customers bought.
Were there contracts we signed?
Cause if not, never mind.
I don't agree, so their EULAs are not.
In the mid-90s, Apple fell to its knees. However, the discovery and development of the Win9x kernel ensured some new business for Apple. Now, with 2K (and soon to be Vista), the kernel is taking the approach apple has been taking all along. This now boils down to hardware. If apple can't find a stable, equal hardware platform, the windows market will win by default.
Of course, all this kernel development occured in unix in the early 90s. apple grabbed on, and it's taken microsoft a decade to catch up. The only difference is the hardware and user base. They want to catch on to x86 (in good stride) because PPC is slowly withering.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
Would it ever occur to them that there are _many_ people who are willing to _actually_ buy the product if only they would release it for regular computers?
Clearly you don't.
Back to you.
*I* use kubuntu. But I know of several non-hacker types who would use OSX instead (of *ubuntu) but will start using *ubuntu to flee windows' plagues.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
And, as such, they are entitled to make whatever they want with the _one_ copy they have rights to? Just a tought. Feel free to ignore me. Ah, and if I go to an Apple store here in Brasil and they don't sell me OSX for Intel w/o a Mac they can't sell it at all... it's called "venda casada" ("married sale") and it's illegal down here.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
There once was a man named jobs
he blew some redmond snobs
with his business near ruin
he agreed to the tune
of a large wad of cash for the doin'
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I honestly don't think Apple cares about if single users here and their hack OS X and put it on their generic PC hardware. Big deal. I'm sure they don't care too much about if those people use a pirated or purchased copy of OS X. Seriously, they don't care too much. That's a handful of people. The losses are in thousands of dollars at worst.
What they do care about though, is if people take that hacked OS X that runs on generic PC hardware and give it to the masses. Why? Why is this the crucial point that makes the big difference? Because once that happens, people are able to run OS X and get the most important part of the Apple experience without paying anything to Apple. ANYTHING. At least if people pirate the genuine OS X version, they will run it in Apple hardware and Apple doesn't suffer too bad from the losses of the lost OS X sale. But if the hacked-to-run-on-generic-PC-hardware OS X gets out, Apple loses significant income.
Even if only 1% of Mac users would decide to run the hacked OS X version on generic PC's, that's still hundreds of thousands of people! That's millions lost in hardware sales! And there's no reason to think that only 1% would do it. More likely, it would be tens of percent and the impact could be very serious on Apple's bottom line. That's why they care.
Now as far as all the bullshit goes about how this is just like if a baker said you can't feed bread to the birds; only eat it yourself. Come on. That's nothing at all like this is. The baker will not lose any money or have any risk with you feeding birds. And if you honestly think that people will go out and buy a copy of OS X and then use some downloaded kit to modify the OS X installation to run on generic PC, then you're insane. Maybe one person in a thousand will do that. Everyone else will just get it pirated.
It's illegal in many countries, but worse, it's immoral in every country.
We'll see what happens, but I for one will have a hard time stopping myself from slapping people I see running OS X on generic PC hardware. I seriously might smack people that do that!
Peppe
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Reminder about morality : your moral values are your moral values, and are not necessarly shared by others. Morallity is something that cannot possibly be objective.
Therefore, people who don't see what's immoral about doing that don't because they don't share your moral values, or at least not all of them.
You just got troll'd!
Pretty much all the discussion I participate in has more to do with society than technology. I generally skip over those "circlejerks."
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Fitts' Law is of course valid, but it has limitations as well. On the original Macs (with what ? A 9" screen ?), you can see the point - it's an easy move from wherever you are on the screen to the top left corner - a definite win.
However, I'm currently sitting in front of 2 23" monitors (and I have 2 30" monitors at work!). That gives me a screen resolution of 3840x1200, and moving the mouse from the right-most screen to the top-left of the left-most screen is by no means a trivial operation. It would be far more convenient for me to move the pointer 3" up to the top of the window than 36" (I've just measured from where I'm typing) to the menubar.
So it's just taken me 3 move-the-mouse, lift-and-reposition-the-mouse-back-where-it-was cycles to get to the menu, and one movement to position the mouse over a link in the quick-links bar in Safari. The latter was far faster than the former, and easier too. It just gets worse with 2 30" monitors, of course...
I've lost count of the number of times I've moved the mouse *almost* to the menubar and clicked too soon, so the Finder menu appears. Damn! Now I have to move the mouse all the way back again to the application, click there, and try again. This never happens with embedded menus.
Fitts' law was useful, but certainly when you're using two displays, it's had its day.
Two solutions spring to mind - either place a menubar optionally on *both* screens, or allow apps (even if just newer cocoa ones) to bind their menubar to their windows (in which case the Finder could be substituted on the menu at the top of the screen). I used to think this would never happen, but now that we have two-button mice....
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Apple embedded a marker in the code to help prove literal copying of Apple code. While hidden signatures in code may have roots in the authors' pride, they also serve a useful purpose in infringement cases. This snippet of text is completely irrelevant to the operation of OS/X, and the courts would presume that nobody except Apple would put it there. Apple isn't the first company to use them, nor will they be the last.
It is copyrighted, but the EULA is meaningless piffle which should be laughed at.
Just for the sake of argument, do you believe the same holds true for "larger" software purchases, where you and a sales rep might spend a couple months negotiating a software contract for $30M? That is, after that negotiation, do you hold that copyright is the only legally binding entity in-force?
Or is the key difference that you've signed the contract before receipt of said software? And then how does the "agree or return for a full refund" concept come into play?
Surely it's not simply the price that decides these things.
I don't have the answers - but you seem to be on the right track, so I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on these cases.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What do you mean? If I download a GPL program, modify it, sell it, but don't redistribute the source, I've just violated the GPL, in the same way that someone buys an iMac, modifies OS X, and installs it on a Dell has violated the Apple license.
Either you agree licenses have power, or they don't. The only thing to argue about is whether the license is valid, whether it is enforceable, and whether it is reasonable.
GPL Deconstructed
Way to get lower piracy rates Hidden porn with OSX registration.
//WR
What if the sole supplier of milk in your town says "I will sell you this milk on the condition that you don't give any of it to a baby. I hate babies". What is the moral thing to do?
Translation: If the biggest milk vendor in an area goes out of his way to define a market where he absolutely will not compete, is it immoral to start a new company to serve that market?
Now, if the milk vendor uses his power in the markets he does serve to kill any company that tries to move into the market he doesn't serve, that's abuse of a monopoly, which is illegal for a completely different body of law. But AFAIK, there's no law that prevents the milk vendor from limiting his market any way he chooses, as long as he sticks to the market he does choose.
You clearly believe in a definition of copyright that goes far beyond what even the (rather broad) US copyright statutes cover. That's your right, but I think that you will find that your view is far out of the mainstream.
And you're trying to push the effects of market forces into the realm of law.
A vendor does have the right to set any limits on the sale and use of his product that he wants. And consumers are bound to obey the terms of the sale. If consumers dislike the terms enough that they abandon the vendor, that vendor will go out of business. Then another one will start serving the market, probably on terms that consumers like better.
Over time, the markets establish a working balance of interests between the vendors and the consumers. You seem to be trying to short-circuit that process by putting artifical restrictions on how vendors can do business.
A: Don't steal my chair asshole!
You forget - in this day and age, he has a design patent plus tradedress trademarks on that chair!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I suppose then you would agree with a provision being placed on your PS2 which reads:
"by purchasing this ps2 you hereby agree never to purchase, borrow, or use gaming products produced my microsoft or nintendo, or any subsidiary thereof".
No, I wouldn't. And if we stick to the doctrine that people don't buy products if they don't accept the terms of sale, such a condition would lead to a massive drop in PS2 sales. Then Sony would have to weigh its desire to sell the PS2 against its desire to put silly-ass restrictions into its terms of sale. If they want the money, they'll drop the restriction. If they want the control, they lose market share, and open a niche for console vendors who don't want that restriction.
But you want it both ways, don't you? You want to buy the PS2 now, and still have a moral/legal right to ignore any terms you don't like.
What? So now it's okay to steal something if someone won't give it to you?
You have to argue that the boxed copy of OSX from the store you paid $129 for is 'stolen.' That's a tough one.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Do you think Apple will change its tune when X.5 is on the store shelves for $129?
If so, you're right. If not, it's a technicality.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
OS X is a combination of an open source kernel (Mach), an open source kernel interface (BSD), open source command line tools (BSD), and open source compiler (GNU). It's a GUI that was bought from NeXT, which originally took the language and much of the library design from Stepstone and Xerox, and the imaging model and imaging system from Adobe. And for the last decade, Apple has not invested much at all in research--pretty much every "innovation" they have shipped was invented elsewhere.
Yes, Apple has the copyright on the whole thing, and BSD doesn't disallow what they are doing, but it's not like OS X is some hugely innovative piece of software that was entirely created by Apple. So, assert your rights in court if you like, but stop the whining--it's inappropriate.
What Apple apparently doesn't clearly see is that there is actually people out there who would like to _buy_ OS X if it would run on their Windows PC. I am one of them.
If I had the choice of OS X and Windows Vista for a new machine, I would pick OS X. Unfortunately I cannot currently afford a Mac, so I won't. I would also buy it for my current desktop, and move the XP license to a gaming machine which needs it.
As Apple is already moving its business to the iPod, this might acutally make more money!
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...and...Tubular Bells!"
By "violating" the GPL none of the conditional rights to redistribute the copyrighted work it would have granted you apply. So now you're redistributing copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder. It is in effect the copyright that you are violating, not the GPL.
How on earth is that the same? In the first instance, you're redistributing copyrighted material. In this second example, you're not redistributing anything. In the first example, you're violating a copyright. Since privately modifying your own copy of a copyrighted work is not against copyright law, you're not violating a copyright in the second example.
Sure I can agree that licenses have power - the question is what kind of power. There's a fundamental difference between the GPL and Apple's license. Open source licenses such as the GPL (should you choose to accept them) grant you additional rights that copyright law has taken away. Commerical licenses attempt to revoke additional rights from you that copyright law did not.
I always preferred this quote:
'Nothing Sucks Like a VAX'.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
It's really difficult to take your position seriously since you're so angry and raving and insulting. Do you possess any social skills as far as holding a mature debate goes?
And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable.
Sure, it is. Gillette can make razor blades that only fit their razor. Apple can make operating system specifically for their hardware.
Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me?
If you don't like their "bland hardware" that kicks the butt of anything in the break-in-six-months PC world, don't buy it! Another whiney issue solved with personal choice.
You and other people on Slashdot just want OS X to be cracked for generic PCs so that you can pirate it and not pay Apple for a dime. All this distraction to try to portray Apple as the immoral one is a red herring to distract from that fact.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Apple knows that once OS X is cracked, all the warez monkeys will put it up on the torrent sites so that nobody will have to pay for it, all the while Slashdotters will pretend it's a-okay and try to justify it with inane reasonings the way they do with music piracy ("The RIAA made me do it!") and game piracy ("The publishers made me do it!") and movie piracy ("The MPAA made me do it!"). So Apple is doing what they can to protect the seven years of hard work they put into OS X from people who would rip them off.
But why do I bother? This is the same website that cries foul and suggests legal action when companies violate the GPL. But when anyone else tries to protect their property, it's immoral and bad!
"Sufferin' succotash."
So let me get this straight. Based on most of the +5 comments right now, it's bad for Apple to protect their property and go after people who would crack OS X for generic PCs (the inevitable outcome being that the cracked version is thrown up on all the torrent sites so that freeloaders don't have to pay Apple for it).
And yet, when a company violates the GPL of some arcane open source code, Slashdotters sing a completely different tune and get raving mad, suggesting legal action against the infringers and throwing out calls to boycott.
Anyone else highly amused at this self-serving contradiction?
"Sufferin' succotash."
There once was a moderator from slash
who had a whole lot of crack in his stash
he smoked up his crack
forgot how to hack
and threw his iMac in the trash
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Would it ever occur to you that:
a) It would not be profitable for Apple to do that because they'd have to price it to make up for at least some of the revenue loss due to the lost hardware sales. The people who are too cheap to buy Macs will not buy an OS that costs as much as their cheap computer did.
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X. In other words, Microsoft would just go back to their old, anticompetitive ways to the degree they could get away with it (and if you think the Bush administration would lift a finger to stop them you're smoking some potent shit).
* How much do you want to bet the five-year agreement they announced at MacWorld included a condition that Apple not release OS X for generic PCs?
~Philly
If you're going to cry about how the mini has no slots or additional internal drive bays, I'd like to point out the large number of nice, used Power Mac G4 and G5 models available on eBay that you can cram with RAM, drives and expansion cards. They are quite affordable, and machines dating all the way back to August of 2000 are still perfectly viable (though I'd stick with dual-CPU models that far back) for running the latest version of OS X.
~Philly
No, I took issue with this statement:
" I really don't see anything wrong with bootlegging a product that the publisher refuses to publish. Same way I WOULD have repurchased the Star Wars Trilogy on DVD to replace my aging VHS print..... but instead I have bootleg a DVD set because George Lucas won't sell them."
Which is, "I think it's okay to steal something if someone won't sell it to me.
Since there is no boxed copy of OS X for Intel, the only way to acquire it is to bootleg it, unless you've bought an iMac or MacBook Pro.
GPL Deconstructed
Actually, use of the word 'stealing' to describe copyright infringement is a at least a hundred years old. Gilbert & Sullivan did it, for example, in around 1900, and I've seen older citations that I can't, off the top of my head, recall. So you're really the one trying to artificially narrow the term.
And a practical question: is buying an upgrade copy, say for $200, of a $2000 program, and then installing it and using it even though you don't have a copy of the program to begin with, just fine? Because the practical consequence of that is to make people stop selling upgrades at all. I guess if that's something that you're bang alongside, then that's perfectly self-consistent, but I suspect that most of society would consider the requirement to pay $2000 for each version of the software to be less of an evil than having the option to pay $200 for the upgrade, in return for agreeing to only buy the upgrade if they have the original software.
I mean, from your arguments you sound like someone who doesn't pay for software (it's not stealing, after all) so perhaps you simply consider all these people dupes?
But if, in fact, upgrade licenses are a good thing, then why shouldn't Apple be able to sell an upgrade license, and only an upgrade license, for its OS? Or is this one of those 'I don't like where reason takes me so I'll ignore it' sorts of things?
Of course, under your argument about licenses (which I still don't buy, but let's assume) this would mean that you could buy a MacBook, install Linux on it, install Mac OS X on your Dell, and then upgrade it later buy buying upgrades. (You do, after all, have the requirements for the upgrade license: a Mac, and a copy of a previous version of Mac OS X.) But I suspect the number of people who would do that are small enough that Apple would feel comfortable with that level of problems.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Since you've started making unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conspiracy, can I be the first to suggest that you only use a Mac because it helps you to lure children into your car? Arsehole..
It's amazing how the same people who want to lynch some GPL violator feel that it's fully within their rights when they violate somebody else's license.
Interesting. Because, of course, there are no Apple Stores in China. There are Apple Authorized Resellers, but they don't belong to Apple and aren't very heavily policed by them, especially in China. So really, what you've got there is someone who is an Apple reseller in the same way that they're a Sony reseller if they have Sony digital cameras.
So basically, y'know, it's fine that they're doing that, but don't mistake that for Apple doing that. Apple would prefer they not do that.
There's a list of all the Apple stores in the world here:
http://www.apple.com/retail/
US, England, Canada, and Japan.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Do you think that software upgrade licenses should be legal? (That is to say, should MS be able to sell Office to me cheaper just because I have the previous version, and at full price otherwise?
If not, you're right. If so, it's not even a technicality... it's just wrong.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
XOXO, Mr. Grammar Person
If I download a GPL program, modify it, sell it, but don't redistribute the source, I've just violated the GPL, in the same way that someone buys an iMac, modifies OS X, and installs it on a Dell has violated the Apple license.
Not the same thing at all. Your first example is not one of use, but of distribution. Your second example is a pure use one. The GPL is not a use license so much as a distribution license - you can use a GPLed product any way you like, you just have restrictions on your redistribution of it.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
> Just for the sake of argument, do you believe the same holds true for "larger" software purchases, where you and a
> sales rep might spend a couple months negotiating a software contract for $30M? That is, after that negotiation, do
> you hold that copyright is the only legally binding entity in-force?
No, if you sign a real contract presale or as the act of sale it is binding upon both parties. Contract law 101.
> Or is the key difference that you've signed the contract before receipt of said software? And then how does the
> "agree or return for a full refund" concept come into play?
It is the changing the terms after the sale that voids it. There is a reason that when you shop the bounty of goods at your friendly neighborhood Walmart that you never ponder the terms of sale on the varied good you pile into your cart. It is because the Uniform Commercial Code set down precise meaning to words like "sale".
But the kicker is that even though a EULA is almost totally one sided, you only get to see it after the sale, etc. the ONE thing they agree to do in it, return your money if you do not agree, they refuse to honor. Show me a software retailer without a sign saying "All sales final" or perhaps "Opened Software may only be exchanged for the same title." So any implied contract is broken irreparably.
No, if they really want software to be licensed and not sold they need to either change the Uniform Commercial Code, and UCITA was exactly that and went down in flames, or put a legally binding contract on the box and insist retailers present it to customers at point of sale and both sign it.
Democrat delenda est
Let's review:
G4 - 128 bit cpu
G5 - 64 bit cpu
x86 - 32 bit cpu (WTF!?)
So now they've move to an architecture that has been kludge'd to oblivion and can only rely on increasing cpu clock speeds to keep going. At least if they moved to a 64 bit architecture they'd have (a) an architecture that hasn't already maxed out it's addressable memory; (b) some clout to push instruction set changes on this still new cpu to reduce the overall pipeline size; and (c) less concern about piracy because 64 bit systems are still the exception rather than the rule.
Oh well, at least their universal binary format means they can keep architecture hopping without stranding their users like they did when they jumped to the PPC.
> Which is, "I think it's okay to steal something if someone won't sell it to me.
It is a bit if a grey area I'll admit. But Copyright is only intended to act as an incentive to authors to create, not to give them absolute control, and I have a hard time imagining the Founding fathers writing the Copyright clause imagining it would someday be widely used to NOT sell works. George Lucas holds the Copyright on his work, giving him the exclusive right to reproduce and publicly perform said works. But I really can't see how his refusal to sell copies of Star Wars, or Disney abusing Copyright to make Song of the South disappear down the memory hole, etc. advance progress in the sciences and useful arts. So until Congress gets their act together and fixes Copyright I ain't going to lose much sleep at direct action to address obvious lapses regarding the growing problem of orphaned and deliberatly supressed works.
Democrat delenda est
Gillette can make razor blades that only fit their razor.
Selling such a blade/holder combo is one thing. Having laws that prohibit me from gluing a Gillette razor-blade onto a toothbrush and using that instead? Such a law would be absurd.
Apple can design their product to be difficult to port all they want. They don't have to support "unnofficial" hardware platforms. But I do not accept that it is illegal for me to port software (that I purchased) to some other platform.
Let's try them for size:
/would/ run on regular x86 machines, this argument should not hold in court.
All your questions about "venda casada" are interesting and intelligent, but there are a lot of them, so I'll begin with an explanation: our caselaw considers "venda casada" when you refuse to sell one integral item without another -- but you would sell them separately, and your concurrence sell them
separately.
The classic example of "venda casada" is: I won't sell you bricks unless you buy mortar from me.
Your "workaround" (selling the pieces each more expensively than the product) is also considered by caselaw "venda casada" -- What you can do is to remove the individual pieces from the market, bundle them together, but even that way you must sell the more expensive piece for at most the piece of the bundle and the less expensive piece for close to zero if you do that and your competitors sell them separatedly. In the case of Apple, I've been told by a consumer rights lawyer that a judge could force Apple to sell OSX for me for ~R$ 500 (~US$ 200) -- the usual price point here of Windows XP. I would be forced to show up in court, most certainly, two times at least... and maybe pay a good lawyer R$ 1000-2000 if we lose (which should not happen, but can also happen) (if we win, Apple will pay the lawyer's fees). So, to your questions:
About notepad/minesweeper/pieces of an operating system: Microsoft would consider them "parts of the whole", like the second verse of "Sactisfaction", and they could refuse to unbundle. But as, with some adaptations, OSX
About software upgrades: under our legislation, they are considered "rebate under special circumstances", ie, you win a rebate over the price of the "full" version of the software if you already own a previous version and accept the "upgrade" version of the CD.
About the sparkling plugs: yeah, it's not "bundling" selling the sparkling plugs with the car, but it would be unless you also sell them without car (and that's what Apple is doing: she bundles OSX with the Macs, and she's refusing to sell OSX alone)
Oh, and about "software modifications": the general caselaw goes here about "you can do whatever you want with software you purchase a license with -- inside the number of copies / number of users terms of the license, because any other clause is most certainly abusive under the consumers' defense code". If you bought from Oracle a license to use 3 server copies and 200 client connections for Oracle/Linux and decide to run those sever copies under NetBSD Linux emulation, you're safe -- even if you have to hexedit your copy of Oracle in the process. BTW, the same consumers' defense lawyer told me that he doesn't know if the "per-processor clause" of Oracle's licenses could be considered abusive or not...
And finally, about the same paragraph, "operating system" is our legal term for "platform" (as I'm told) so yes, adapt OSX to run under beige-boxen is considered most certainly covered by the art. 39, I -- but my lawyer friend tells me that, if you want to do this in a big corporation here in Brasil (ie, lots of machines) you should really hire a lawyer and get a court injunction first... But if you want to do this at home, you feel free. And if you want to explain people all over the net how to do this, you are on the safe side, too.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
they created OS X and they have the right to do with it as they please.
I hate to be pedantic, but I think you mean "They created parts of OS X". Don't forget that large portions of OS X were taken from FreeBSD and not at all created by Apple.
some of us like having machines that run really well to use as tools to do work and not spend our days working on them.
While some actually like to fiddle with their computers. Don't really see the relevance of this statement, though. It's kinda like me saying "Some of use like using proper capitalization in written discourse."
The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
Main people they want a hacked OS is because the un-hacked OS does not run on their machines and for the moment they are not interested in new hardware, thank you, just in new software.
I would love to believe this, but it's not true. That might be the reason *you* want it, but that doesn't explain five thousand other people on BitTorrent. Furthermore it doesn't explain why any of them aren't paying for anything.
_when_ said people try out the OS...what do you think will be the next hardware they'll shop for?
Probably something as cheap as what they already have. Look, I think it's obvious that people who are disinclined to spend money on something now are going to be disinclined to spend money on the same thing later. Your argument here is that stealing something is going to make people want to buy something. Please try again.
"yes, I know two apple pies is just fifty cents more than one, but I will only eat one, thank you"
Unfortunately in this case, pies only come in pairs. Does this give you the right to steal one pie?
The proof that this argument is bogus resides in Apple itself and its iTMS.
Except that that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and ignores every other reason the music store is a success. The only real connection I see is that you're using the same arguments as people who continue to steal music. Namely, that people have a right to steal what isn't for sale, whether it's an OS that runs on your hardware or downloadable music without DRM.
It's impossible to steal software/movies/music.
Aimless pedantry will get you nowhere. You might think it makes you sound smart, but in reality, it makes you sound unwilling to act like a grown-up.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Gfunk said in their sig:
.0125%
t ifier=4591
"Your right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs my right not to get blown up."
Yet your chance of getting "blown up" by terrorists thus far
equals 3000/2,400,000 x 100=
meanwhile your chance of having a heart attack = 480,000/24000000 x 100=`20%
Source the American Heart association:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?iden
Thus your chance of having a hear attack is 2500 times greater than being "blown up by a terrorist." And the terrorist attack was a one time event where as heart attacks are ongoing. Over ten years that means you are 25,000 times more likely to die of a heart attack than from a terrorist attack. Perhaps what we need is a war on Burger King and not a war on terror.
Please THINK before you mindlessly spout off in favor of surrendering our civil liberties based on the neo-cons fear mongering in your sig, MM K?
And yes I do have karma to burn.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
The law does not (and should not) guarantee your marketing plans will work. If a grocery store sells milk below cost to drive traffic, and I just buy the milk, the store may not call me a thief. In fact, the doctrine of first-sale (i.e. publishers may not forbid resale of books) is an example where a court explicitly ruled that the vendors rights are very limited post-sale. Consider an analogy with the inefficiency of barter vs. money. An economy bound up in all sorts of post sale restrictions is much less able to invent, adapt, and improve.
But in the specific case of academic/personal discounts things are different:
- The terms are up front -- often on the box
- The terms are negotiated -- I choose which version to buy
- There is compensation -- I get a reduced rate
This is very different from the average EULA which is hidden, after the fact, non-negotiable, one sided, and uncompensated.OK?
you can buy a Classic Mac for R$ 10, and ask to upgrade your Mac OS 6 with OSX. AND THEY CAN'T REFUSE. That's the point. As I told on my other post, an upgrade sale here is just a rebate you receive for owning a previous version... to do otherwise would be "venda casada".
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You are not buying the software.
For your $100 at the store, you are buying the right to decide if you then accept their license agreement.
If you don't agree to the agreement, keep your $100 box and put it on the shelf, use it as a $100 doorstop... Or you can return to the store or vendor your $100 box/license that you never agreed to and get your money back.
Besides, you are buying a license to use something, you don't own it the bits on the disc, you only own the physical medium it came on... That medium cost $100, but the ability to use the bits on the medium require you to agree to the license agreement.,
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
It's debacle. I don't know where you got the R from.
Apparently 968 other people have used it that way.
You shut your fucking mouth, mongoloid.
I don't understand what the hoopla is all about. So what. Some people hacked Apple's software. And? In a lot of ways, Apple is far worse than Microsoft. The whole DRM thing with Apple and MS has really turned me off. RMS was/is right. We are losing freedoms all in the name of a little innovation. Free/libre software is going to be sooooooooo popular once people start realizing that companies like Apple and MS have poisoned the well. People rush for new deviced like they are crack. Hell, I work in the IT industry as a security engineer, I make good money, and I'm happy with a fast connection, a decent computer, a good browser, and a good text editor. The problem with people is that they think they need things when they don't.
But still, you should quit sucking so much apple dick.
Let's try this:
You are not buying the book.
For your $100 at the store, you are buying the right to decide if you then accept their license agreement.
See how silly that is?
What, the one that is really just malware, and the other one that was patched a long time ago? Neither one of those would make headlines on any other platform, either.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
The really annoying part is that... one can spend hours to weeks in research and experimenting... and come up with something that would have taken half an hour or less if anybody had put the right information together in a usable form. It took me over a month to get my PDA working at an acceptable level.
I'd rather spend the time on something a bit more productive on a computer that on the whole, Just Works.
I don't think I'm the only one... I think there are millions of us tired of hassling with computer systems and who don't want the Windoze security hassles.
I don't see Apple going out of business over selling a few million copies of OSX to people who otherwise wouldn't be buying Apple products, and their hard core fans will happily keep buying Macs.
Tech Public Policy stuff
funny, did you even read the rest of my post.. my main point about what defines serfdom?
you seem to suffer from this notion that individuals have equal power to market dominating monopolist corporations and its just not true. they hold more power, as such there are constitutional and international protections on the human right to private property. private property being defined as once you buy it, you do whatever the flipping heck you want with it, weather its modification, enhancement, or placing it out on the shooting range and filling it full of holes on national tv.
without that right you no longer own your own property, your corporate or government overlords do. granted its not the verbatim repetition of feudal europe, but it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck just the same.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I already paid hundreds dollars premium for the privilege of running OS X on an unexpandible desktop because Apple finally, after years of denial, realised that there was a market for desktop computers that didn't have a monitor bundled. I would pay that much of a premium just for the software, even if I had to buy a new PC to run it on, of that's what it took to get something between a Mac mini and the Powermac G5.
I don't want an all-in-one. Monitors are fragile and Apple's monitors and LCDs are lower resolution (yes, they have lots of pixels, but they take up too much screen area delivering them) than I want, so it's an external for me.
Apple has FINALLY started delivering laptops with decent resolution, but they are so unpleasant to use, with their flat "stylish but sloppy" keyboards and single-button touchpads, that I'd much rather buy a Thinkpad and OS X than a Macbook, even if the Thinkpad solution costs more.
Apple: I'll take a slab, like the NeXTstation, with 2 drive bays and 2 PCIE slots, or another IBM-uh-Lenovo collaboration, or OS X 86, and I'll pay you MORE money than you got in "Mac Tax" on my mini for the privilege... but I'm not spending 2 grand on a Powermac G5 I can't afford to use during the summer, or a laptop that I have to carry an external keyboard to use.
New Mac Minis are $500.00.
Yeh, I bought a Mac mini. For $800 with all the options. And I'm glad Apple made it available, someone must have hit Steve with a clue bat. But... damn... it's pretty trailing edge... I think Steve needs another whack (don't worry, it's made of foam, it won't hurt him).
Radeon 9200 with 32MB VRAM. If you luck out you might get one of the 64MB versions, but either way you can't use Quartz Extreme 3d... and you can't buy a 9200 with as little as 32M or even 64M for a PC... the smallest ones I found new have 128M. For $40.
ONE DIMM slot, max 1GB RAM.
Laptop drive, low power, low performance. Plugging in an external Firewire drive gets you a performance boost, but not as much as the people who hack their minis with a new case an 3.5" drive get.
The USB ports are below spec, and won't even charge an iPod Shuffle without an external powered hub.
It's quiet... unless you do something CPU-intensive like running a Flash animation (!) whereupon the fan goes into overdrive.
Making it a little bigger would have made it REALLY comparable to a $300 PC in hardware, but I can see why people who already have a PC are reluctant to go for the mini. If it ran Windows you'd be lucky to find a taker at $200.
If you're going to cry about how the mini has no slots or additional internal drive bays, I'd like to point out the large number of nice, used Power Mac G4 and G5 models available on eBay
Used Powermac G5s still cost significantly more than comparably equipped PCs, and any G4 that's going to give you comparable performance to even a mini are almost as much. The affordable G4s are... well... not going to excite anyone. When I moved from a G4/466 to the Mini I got a HUGE boost in speed.
If you just want a machine that'll run OS X, you can buy a used G3 and pimp it out for under $100. My first machine running OS X was a used *7500* with a G3 upgrade card.
If you're not going to get something vaguely contemporary, you might as well drop back to 1998 and forget about it.
Nothing new here.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That's very interesting. And, sadly, assuming that's the case, the most profitable thing for Apple to do under the circumstances would be to entirely stop selling its products in Brazil. If this were the law in the rest of the world, Apple would have had no choice but to stay with a non-Intel platform, or making the OS rely upon, for example, some sort of digital media chip on the motherboard that it wouldn't run properly without. (That would have been very easy to do, of course, and not too expensive.)
The issues, as I see them, are two: number one, that would be letting Microsoft set the price of the OS for Apple. If Apple sells 10% of the number that Microsoft does (and, being realistic, that's a very high expectation for, say, the first year or two), since the entire cost of developing an OS is up-front and basically none of it is per unit, then that means that Apple makes 10% of the income that MS does, and is highly unlikely to make a profit at all. (Assuming equal development costs, which isn't quite the case but isn't far off.) So you end up with Apple being forced to sell an OS that can run on whatever machine you want it to run on, and forced to charge whatever its main competitor is charging, and then, in short order, forced out of business.
The second issue is software support. If you can't predicate offering a service based on whether you have purchased something else, that means that Apple is required by law to offer software support for use of Mac OS X on a beige box. Which basically means what? That they are suddenly required to be in Windows Hardware Hell, or to not offer any software support at all to anyone. Neither of those are tenable positions.
Just as a bonus on top of those, there's the case of what happens if the world all had laws like this: Microsoft lowers its OS price to $20. It could do that; it makes most of its money on applications anyway. Suddenly, Apple's price for selling unbundled software is ten times what MS's is. I suspect it wouldn't be long before some judge found that Apple's price for unbundled software was violating that law, and Apple would be forced to lower it. (You can't bring anti-dumping statutes in, because all of the ones that I'm familiar with relate to manufacturing costs, not development costs, and the manufacturing costs for Windows are less than $2 a box.) So unless Brazil has very rigidly-enforced anti-trust laws (far more rigidly enforced than, for example, the US anti-trust laws), that's a perfectly good, absolutely legal way of completely driving Apple out of business, with no more than a year-or-two inconvenience on the part of Microsoft.
Those two laws, in combination, seem very anti-competitive and short-sighted to me.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Who rhymes "pirate" withe "ran great"? Who, I ask you?
Normality is now: overrated.
we're offended that you seem to believe your abstract sense of morality is in some way more valid than ours. i'll help you out here, look up the word "subjective".
But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
what's so tough to see?
if i go out and buy any product and then want to tear it apart and play with it, i don't morally see why i owe you anything after the sale has been complete. if i want to tear apart my radio and make a sculpture i don't see why you are morally justified in telling me that i can't. you brought something to market in a form that you hoped would maximize it's value to me while being at the lowest possible cost for you. what the value you thought you were providing (ie radio) and the value i thought i was getting (ie sculpture parts) might not be the same. but we agreed on it's monetary value for our seperate reasons.
"the rest of us" are waiting for a sensible moral reason that i shouldn't be able to take apart my radio. "the rest of us" are kind of hung up on how making a sculpture is clearly not the purpose this plastic and metal was made for (therefore violating eula), but wonder if you should really have any say in what *i* thought the value of the product was.
i understand why redistributing it is not morally justified. but that's not what we're discussing here. i'm trying to understand how you're ability to control my perception of value is your moral right.
if i wanted to take apart my radio and use it for some screws to fix say, my microwave. i'm assuming you would find that morally reprehensible if inside my radio i found a note restricting me from using the product for unauthorized purposes? these have now become "brandx radio screws"!
you better, because it's the exact same thing.
I don't have the slightest hesitation in using it to produce software that I might end up selling to someone else.
But I would never turn around and expect the same level of service that I would expect as a personal or hobbyist user.
If I was using it while working for a corporation I'd ask for the commercial license and also push for yearly maintenance, just to cover our collective asses.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
... that infamous question of debate....
is Win really worth as good as its "popularity" claimed by the monotholic?
Or now that the primary rival of the easiest to copy software since (yes, and that contributed to the very success of aforementioned monotholic) is on release, will marketshare of actual installed machines be redefined in the near or far future?
If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext is a kernel extension and is not so much of a message as an extension designed to protect Apple's copyright.
But: (1) grownup people (like me, 35) don't say "my ass" -- we leave
such language for teenagers;
(2) grownup people don't confuse copyright infringement with theft --
even because we grownups can be sued for slander or libel if we call a
copyright infringer a "thieve";
(3) I have no intention of sounding smart / looking smart, my only
purpose in my post was to further the discussion. Copyright infringement
may or may not be a criminal offense, depending on your jurisdiction but
theft it isn't.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
That's now two stories that I had submitted and had rejected which now, mysteriously, appear. Don't believe me, go check my Journal. Here's the rejection notice:
Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected
I do have to give the editors a bit of credit. This time it only took 2 1/2 days to get the story posted compared to the 3 days for the story about armor for skiers. Yeah, that one has been in my Journal as well.
Seems that for all the talk by Taco and Company about how things are done they haven't changed at all.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://outcampaign.org/
Well, they wanted an 11/785 pretty badly...
When the 11/785 was still pretty cool technology, the Soviet Union attempted to purchase one and trans-ship it through Basel, Switzerland to try and hide the paper trail.
DOD security people found out about it, opened the crates, took the machines out, filled the crates with cement, and let the Soviets pay shipping on them.
The way one of my relatives tells it, they also wrote things in the cement.
-- Terry
1) i know very well that OS X is written on top of FreeBSD. obviously the part of OS X that these hackers want is not the FreeBSD portions, since they are readily available. when i think of OS X i think of the Apple created interface to FreeBSD. that may totally be my error.
2) not using capital letters is a bad habit, but i continue to do it. some people smoke, pollute, drive cars, start wars, murder etc etc. this is my crime i guess.
my point is that as angry as Apple seems to make some people, there are those of us that LIKE what they make.
you can fiddle with your computer, but if Apple wants to hire a ton of people to make their un-free interface to FreeBSD work on their own hardware, then that seems reasonable to me. nobody is keeping you from having FreeBSD, nobody is keeping you from hacking a Macintosh. if some 16 year old wanna-be hacker can not use P2P to download an OS X install image, and then follow step by step instructions on osx86project.org, i am ok with that.
i think the hacking of OS X on to non-Apple hardware is a two pronged issue.
1) is the use of OS X on non-Apple hardware by anyone
2) the fear (foresight?) that this would lead to massive piracy of OS X over P2P networks (or some other method).
Apple making "the whole widget" creates a balance between hardware and software. Apple can make "free" applications for OS X because to use them you are going to be buying Apple hardware and Apple's OS X. Apple has often sold a ton of retail boxed copies of OS X (you can see this in their quarterly reports). even if there are cases of people "sharing" OS X DVDs, or flat out P2P distribution, those people are still running it on Apple hardware. sooner or later that Apple hardware will get replaced (hopefully) with new Apple hardware.
maybe that is why Mac users act like they are part of a club... they kind of are. even if you only use the default installed applications and OS on your Mac... you are contributing to the platform as a whole every time you upgrade. maybe it's hard to grasp for people that are used to MS Windows or Linux? i don't know, i feel like i get it. you can find a ton of people that scream how much OS X sucks, and it is obviously not required to live..... so go open source with DIY hardware and gain a ton of self satisfaction. or buy MS un-free software with DIY hardware. sounds like a middle ground? at the same time, let people that like Apple products keep using them.