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."
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
...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.
Hey that's good.
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who saw another BSOD and said fuck it,
He couldn't get any sex,
So he installed OS X,
With love that requires a mop and bucket.
> 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
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.
People keep explaining this, and the Apple folks keep refusing to listen. But here goes one more time. The clause "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer" is, I believe, unlawful under EC competition and consumer protection law. I've never heard this seriously disputed. It does two things: it violates the prohibition on anti competitive linked sales, and it violates consumer protection legislation. If you want to see for yourself, look up the UK sales of goods acts.
Now, ask yourself, what is the legal and moral position of a company which is attempting to lead purchasers of its products to believe they have entered into an agreement which is unlawful in the jurisdiction of sale?
If this is wrong, please do cite a few EC cases or precedents showing it is. But no-one ever has, yet.
You don't think it had anything to do with CmdrTaco not wanting to splash your username on the front page, would it?
"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.
Actually, it's called a violation of their user license agreement.
Which is nonsense, even if clickwrap licenses are nonsense the courts have decided to allow.
I already own a copy of the software before I ever see the license. If Apple wants me to license their software, rather than buy a copy, they can present me with the terms of the license before I pay and make agreement to the license a condition of the transaction. Since the implicit contract of purchase is complete before I see the license, Apple should not be able to add post-facto conditions, any more than I can put post-facto conditions on their use of the money I give them. The transaction, and the opportunity to place conditions on it, is over when payment has been rendered and the goods have entered my posession.
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/
Haiku:
Bad axe in apple tree
Please do not steal our fucking
OS you bastards
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Not exactly: Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated...
-nick
Apple has always had a sense of humor, unlike the darthwader of the sofware kingdom. One thing I remember specifically was when they had an internal code name called Sagan for a new Mac they were working on. When Carl Sagan heard of this, he threatned to sue Apple. Apple promptly renamed the project to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer).
There once was a geek with some time
To write a few poems that did rhyme
But he butchered the meter
And then didn't delete 'er
Since he was apparently wholly unable to count the number of syllables on a line.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.