Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy
recoiledsnake writes "Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting, however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy.' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.
Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?
This space for rent.
Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications.
However, the section 117 exception gives a specific reason that the software might be allowed to be altered. Take a look (from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html ):
"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, or [...]"
So an "adaptation" of the software is allowed if it is necessary to use the software with a machine. Now a court could easily whinge its way around interpreting this as a compatibility measure, but if it doesn't, then in Psystar's case, as long as the third-party modifications are deemed by the court to be only for the purpose of enabling Mac OS X to run on a general purpose PC, then the RAM copy (and potentially all the modified copies) aren't infringing.
Anyway, I don't think this is a big obstacle to Apple; there seems to be enough case law in the US that has allowed for very broad enforceability of software licensing agreements that Apple can still probably out-lawyer Psystar into the dust for breaking their "Apple-labeled" license provision, even without a finding of copyright infringement.
It's that part of the case I'm most interested in, as "Apple-labeled" is a strange choice of wording, and Apple has in the past employed it willy-nilly (for instance in the license of Safari for Windows when they pushed out millions of copies as a selected-by-default Quicktime/iTunes upgrade [http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9904445-7.html])
17 USC 117 starts out thusly:
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 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:
(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.
If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.
If the EULA held up and could be enforced then Apple would have had a legal injuction enforced against Psystar pretty much immediately and wouldn't need to resort to trying to argue flimsy scenarios like this one regarding the applicability of copyright to supposed copies of OS X made. The fact that they haven't managed to do that and this is what they're having to do speaks volumes about what their chances on EULA enforcements are.
It's about the only thing in their EULA that would hold up, and they wouldn't have to provide support for anything they didn't want to. It probably wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so however. You only need to look at Microsoft for the massive profits to be had from a far larger market with a far larger supply of hardware.
That is not a flawed assumption. You CLEARLY stated that you think once something is sold you should be able to do ANYTHING with it. If this means copy and redistribute those copies then that is fine right? Or are you taking back your prior statements and saying that there should be some regulations on what it means to sell something. You are now clearly contradicting your own moral assertions because you are saying that there are conditions to the sale i.e. You can't do certain things with the product once you buy it (such as copy and redistribute the copies).
I don't care if I lose karma over this; get the fuck off your high horse. Current copyright is not perfect, but the idea that people should have no control over their creative works because it is "immoral" to place stipulations on the sale of something is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Stipulations on the sale of something is the basis of our modern society.
You are advocating anarchy through your 'morals'.
Normally I respect ones 'morals' but I think you have clearly demonstrated you are a self interested individual. You only care how this affects you and have no considerations to who else if affected by your ideas of right and wrong. You want to just go out and buy shit and have control over it with no thought of the work the creators put into making it. The reasons for wanting something to be sold with conditions is not to screw over the buyer. In fact most of the time it facilitates the buyer into being able to buy (and then get to use) something that would otherwise be too expensive. By reducing the level of control over said purchased item, or by stripping 'unnecessary' qualities from it, the product or service can be sold at a reduced price. The perfect example of this is a DVD. If there were no stipulations a DVD would probably cost in the thousands or higher because anyone could copy, screen, and otherwise profiteer by the purchase of the item. By imposing limitations the price can be reduced to a more reasonable level because the product is sold for a certain purpose. In the case of a DVD; private viewing with friends and family. Without this condition DVDs could not exist because the makers of the movie would not get compensated for their time and effort but someone else would. I really hope I don't need to go into a whole economics lecture here to explain why people need money to do things.
You can argue that morals are held by individuals, but all morals are the product of socialization one way or another. Socialization is the product of a society. Society is very closely involved with shaping the morals of the individual. All you need to do to prove this is compare America to say Iran. The vastly different morals are not due statistical anomalies or rational choices in individual persons. It is due to society socializing its members. Morality is inherently based on a set of generally accepted beliefs that a society has. In some societies it is immoral to do things that are perfectly normal in other societies. Laws are generated off of morals that the general society feels so strongly about that they are willing to FORCE that moral on anyone who is wishing to live within the societal structure. i.e. If you feel like parking in a handicapped spot you will get a ticket. There is nothing inherently wrong with parking in a spot arbitrarily marked as special, yet as a society the general moral belief is that those spots should be reserved for certain people who need them more. If this was not a general moral belief of the society.. it would not exist.
So while you can blab on about what you think is correct, morals are not just opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Only in the most abstract sense of morality do you end up in the zone where morality is just an opinion. The generally accepted definition requires some sort of semi-logical justification of the view you take.