I am not saying this scenario has been practiced, I am saying the solution to the scenario has been practiced by manual drivers. What you are saying is that it is dumb to assume someone with more knowledge of something will perform better at a task related to that knowledge. I am going to say your assumption that the extra knowledge is worthless is a dumb assumption.
If everyone had your point of view, school would be worthless because extra knowledge would be assumed worthless. Just because someone hasn't trained for a specific situation doesn't mean related knowledge is worthless. The whole idea of 'professionals' in a job is that they have accumulated enough related knowledge in a subject to act in a manner that will result in better outcomes despite having never been in that specific situation.
I find it comical that you have about 6 or 7 assumptions in your post without justification yet call me "overassumptious".
I am going to (maybe dumbly) assume that you don't know how to drive a manual or don't drive one regularly or you would understand my point better. You can't just slam the brakes without downshifting or going to neutral. By driving a manual transmission you do all things a automatic driver does plus more. Manual transmissions require you to learn at minimum that there are gears and the position of neutral. A automatic driver could literally get by not even knowing that neutral exists.
There are many other things a decent manual driver would also understand that a automatic driver wouldn't. In an emergency situation this knowledge could come in handy even if they are generally worse drivers. I am not going to argue that a person who drive a manual is a 'better' driver as there are so many aspects to that opinion it would be impossible to determine. What I can tell you is that more knowledge and understanding of the machine you are using can only be a good thing when in an emergency situation where you need to act fast.
Those that drive manuals would be more clear headed because driving is an active activity where one is engaged with the machine. I don't mean to be a dick but people who drive manuals inherently understand how the fuck a car works because it is required to get the thing moving and stopped. The new generations of people who drive only automatics truly don't understand what is going on with their cars even if they had time to think clearly and then you have the people who may know but have never had to react in that way.
When you drive a manual transmission daily you will probably encounter several situations a year where "both pedals in" is required to keep you safe. Essentially anyone who has driven manual has practiced the solution to this problem. Anyone in a automatic has not. In a automatic cars you can just hit the breaks and forget about what that meant the car had to do.
So I believe the parent is correct in his assumption that manual transmissions create drivers that are better equipped to handle situations on the road than the average automatic only driver. I am not saying that every person who drives a manual is a great driver, just that they are better equipped to handle situations on the road assuming all other variables are equal.
Its not just BMW that does this. I am assuming they do it so they can't be blamed for people going too fast as well as protecting their customers from speeding as often. Its not like your BMW can't go way faster then it needs to anyway so who cares. As others have mentioned car gas gauges work in the same way. Show empty early to protect the customer from running out.
Of course this generates problems once everyone finds out and decides to ignore the gauges.
I think many people fall into this category that are part of online communities similar to this one. I wonder how many people outside of this niche make decisions like this though.
If anyone has data that would be awesome but I doubt it exists:(
While this is true to an extent, I can tell you that the average consumer knows something is wrong but they just don't know the solution. My mother is one of these 'average consumers'. She has no knowledge of torrents or P2P software yet she realizes the problem of "what happens when my digital music collection gets wiped by hardware failure" and thus refuses to buy into it. Saying that these limits only affect those that know how get around them is false. Anyone who has been subjected to an inconvenience due to DRM will have a negative view of how things work regardless of it they are a pirate or not. They just might not know about the potential (illegal) solutions or they may be unwilling to break the law and also unwilling to buy music (my mother).
So these initiatives to stop piracy by the media companies may reduce piracy but they will not boost sales. This is the biggest reason the media companies are going to fail. They are trying to get non-paying customers to pay rather than trying to give paying customers what they want. In the process they are turning more and more currently paying customers into non-paying customers. What I am trying to say is that even if they stomp out piracy 100%, if less people are buying their music they have still lost the battle.
I personally think they should have the RIGHT to do these things, yes. Do I think they should do them, no. For instance:
"If I buy a copy of a movie produced by Sony, Sony should have the right to demand that I only play that movie on Sony branded DVD players?"
Lets assume Sony did this. How much more piracy would begin to pop up? How many actual Sony DVD players and movies would be sold? I think a clear backlash would occur in this case, causing a loss of sales. You can see this happening right now in the music industry without something as drastic as your example. Do I think that the industry should be allowed to shoot themselves in the feet? YES. Do I think it is smart that they are doing it? NO.
Taking away freedoms only ensures the government will have the power to enforce what it wants. The idea of "customer rights" puts governments in control, not the individual customer. What if I as a customer want to buy a heavily limited product so as to reduce its price significantly. If the government says a company can't do it then the CUSTOMER is shit out of luck.
The general idea I support is that each individual has the right to chose what he or she wants to buy. If the company puts limitation on that product don't buy it. People feel like they are entitled to every product invented at their convenience without regard to how the inventors feel.
Once again, the general consumer doesn't see this as much but contracts that contain loads of stipulations basically are the backbone of business and society. It seems the average consumer doesn't understand abstract ideas about selling bits of a whole product. For instance mineral rights to a piece of property will cost less than buying all the rights. This contract(compare to EULA) allows the customer to purchase only what is needed and not 'extras'.
*Apple case study* Now you might ask how this could apply to the Apple case? We have two options here:
1)Apple sells OS X with the rights for anyone to install it anywhere. 2)Apple sells OS X with the right to only install it on Apple hardware.
It can be assumed that the first option creates a more desirable product. Thus the price on it would be higher. This would probably result in Apple no longer selling hardware (like MS).
The second option creates a less desirable product that can be sold for less because Apple can make money off the hardware.
In a free system Apple would be allowed to chose either option but what happens if Apple doesn't get the choice and they are forced to sell only option 1? Apple can't change its business model on a dime. It will have to price OS X lower than its 'value' to consumers. The customers that buy Apple hardware pick up the tab on the software dev costs while Psystar is unjustly enriched by the lower cost to purchase OS X than its value to consumers. In other words Psystar is not making money by running better supply chains and reducing overhead. It is making money by stealing the value difference between the OS X quoted price, and the price consumers are willing to pay for a system with OS X. Calling this consumer protection in a misconception. Currently all OS X customers pick up an equal share of the costs it took to make the product.
I firmly believe that the free market will soon rid itself of these media corporations who make poor decisions. They really aren't that old, they are a blip on the radar of society.
I think EULAs or similar contracts are vital to ensuring software companies can continue to operate. Software uses are way too complicated to simply apply personal property laws to and call it good.
Please read whole thread before commenting. The person I was responding to was saying that even copyright law should not exist and that NO stipulations on the sale of should should be allowed in society.
Here is my analysis on your clear contradiction. In response to everything else, reread my previous post and Wikipedia to let it sink in more.
Your first post: "For many of us, the act of actively prohibiting third parties from modifying and redistributing your work is inherently inmoral, regardless of whether its done for profit or otherwise."
My response: "Basically what you are saying is that an musician cannot sell a copy of their music without selling all rights because copyright should not exist."
Your response to my response: "Wrong, as that falls under "redistribution" and not "use"."
Direct comparison of key contradiction: "prohibiting third parties from modifying and redistributing your work is inherently inmoral"
"Wrong, as that falls under "redistribution" and not "use"."
In your first statement you claim you are against any and all regulations pertaining to the sale of a product. i.e. If I sell you something you can do anything you want with it, including copying and reselling the copies. I am not even implying this, you state that in the quote above.
In your second statement you claim that redistribution should not be allowed, thus placing a LIMIT on the sale.
You have wasted enough of my life: have a good day, I am done.
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.
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.
Apple controls the 'legitmately acquired copies' that you keep speaking of. They can wrap the licensing agreement with any number of terms that would breach the contract if not installed on an Apple computer.
I was assuming the parent was saying there is nothing apple can do *ever* about it. If apple changes their license today to implement these sorts of policies (if they don't exist) then Psystar can no longer continue to make more systems. I would call that "Something" they can do about it. Maybe I misinterpreted the post but it seemed more like a blanket "Apple can't keep people from do this in past, present, or future" statement.
I think my interpretation of the parents post is justified because it contains forward looking statements such as: "short of refusing to sell OSX except bundled with a new mac".
So you seriously think that once you buy a DVD you should be able to open a movie theater and screen the movie at that theater for ~$20. Ignorance is bliss. I really hope you make a movie, I cant wait to ask you to sell me a copy for $20 with no stipulations concerning what I can do with it. (I also hope it is good enough for me to do something with).
Basically what you are saying is that an musician cannot sell a copy of their music without selling all rights because copyright should not exist. So if you sold the music you are selling all rights to that product including copying. Repeat this for all IP and even some specialized physical property.
Under these pretenses a musician could only sell a single CD before a company starts up and sells copies of the CD for less than the musician.
Basically your whole idea that corporations are abusing the system to manipulate people gets turned on its head and even MORE corporate abuse can occur because essentially no one owns anything, so whoever has the biggest and most powerful influence wins.
You seem to be under the impression that we live in a Utopian society where laws, contract and stipulations are not needed because everyone 'will do the right thing'. Well guess what, that is not the case. Without copyright laws I could start selling OS X, Windows, any IP you have ever created in your life and sold, out of my bedroom today and net all the profits with no work. That hardly seems moral to me.
I am NOT saying current copyright laws are good but I am saying that without legitimate copyright and contract law in a society it will fail miserably. Laws are related to the 'average' feeling society has for an issue so to say they are not related to morals is false. All laws are based on morals, specifically the morals of the society that created the laws.
So I guess you are entitled to your view of right and wrong but please understand that your vision of the world would send us back to the dark ages because of the reasons stated above.
I am not referring specifically to this case, I am simply saying there is PLENTY Apple can do legally to prevent this from happening (in the future). The parent was saying that Apple better just learn to deal with it; which is completely false. There are plenty of steps that Apple can take to protect their property.
How do you figure it is morally wrong. I know morals involve some opinion but I think that if you develop a product you should be allowed to sell that product on your terms, and the law agrees with that. i.e. Just because someone else wants to sell a product that is a derivative of your work doesn't mean you have to let them. I would almost say that Psystar is more on the immoral side. They are blatantly going against the wishes of the author of the work. These sort of wishes/contracts have not been prevalent in consumer products but they exist everywhere in the business world. It is not crazy for a company to dictate how their product can be used. Books, music, DvD's etc all use these sorts of (legal) protections, and while some of us may loathe the methods they use to protect their wishes, not many people would claim they shouldn't have the right to limit reasonable use. i.e. You can't buy a DVD and start screening that movie for money.
Saying Apple is being immoral in this instance would imply nearly any contract that dictates how a product may be used is also immoral based on your reasoning for the immorality (EULA stating what can be done). If there is an alternate reason for the immorality please let me know but as you have stated it all I see is a conflict of interest between two companies. That does not constitute immorality.
There is plenty Apple can do about it. It is called a contract and you can pretty much write anything in a contract that doesn't break laws. Thus Apple CAN write their contracts in a way that lets them do just about anything they want. I really hope you are just ignorant or joking because if you claim there is nothing Apple can do about it then you are basically saying the whole idea of contracts and contract law should be thrown out. Apple has the rights to their products just like any other company.
Apple is very likely going to wither a) Win this case, b) modify the contract in such a way that it is very clear what can and cannot be done with a copy of their OS or c) stop caring about hackintosh products.
People have been launching satellites with radioactive materials in them for a long while. There are things that can go wrong but generally the fuel is contained so that if the rocket fails it will not scatter the material. There would be no need for Russia to disguise an attack on the US as a space launch... they could just attempt to use real nukes and not some ******-rigged dirty bomb.
Yeah I completely forgot that if you buy a drink once you are past security you CAN bring it on the plane. You just can't bring it past security. Most large airports offer drinks for sale after you clear security excluding a few I know of.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not saying this scenario has been practiced, I am saying the solution to the scenario has been practiced by manual drivers. What you are saying is that it is dumb to assume someone with more knowledge of something will perform better at a task related to that knowledge. I am going to say your assumption that the extra knowledge is worthless is a dumb assumption.
If everyone had your point of view, school would be worthless because extra knowledge would be assumed worthless. Just because someone hasn't trained for a specific situation doesn't mean related knowledge is worthless. The whole idea of 'professionals' in a job is that they have accumulated enough related knowledge in a subject to act in a manner that will result in better outcomes despite having never been in that specific situation.
I find it comical that you have about 6 or 7 assumptions in your post without justification yet call me "overassumptious".
I am going to (maybe dumbly) assume that you don't know how to drive a manual or don't drive one regularly or you would understand my point better. You can't just slam the brakes without downshifting or going to neutral. By driving a manual transmission you do all things a automatic driver does plus more. Manual transmissions require you to learn at minimum that there are gears and the position of neutral. A automatic driver could literally get by not even knowing that neutral exists.
There are many other things a decent manual driver would also understand that a automatic driver wouldn't. In an emergency situation this knowledge could come in handy even if they are generally worse drivers. I am not going to argue that a person who drive a manual is a 'better' driver as there are so many aspects to that opinion it would be impossible to determine. What I can tell you is that more knowledge and understanding of the machine you are using can only be a good thing when in an emergency situation where you need to act fast.
Those that drive manuals would be more clear headed because driving is an active activity where one is engaged with the machine. I don't mean to be a dick but people who drive manuals inherently understand how the fuck a car works because it is required to get the thing moving and stopped. The new generations of people who drive only automatics truly don't understand what is going on with their cars even if they had time to think clearly and then you have the people who may know but have never had to react in that way.
When you drive a manual transmission daily you will probably encounter several situations a year where "both pedals in" is required to keep you safe. Essentially anyone who has driven manual has practiced the solution to this problem. Anyone in a automatic has not. In a automatic cars you can just hit the breaks and forget about what that meant the car had to do.
So I believe the parent is correct in his assumption that manual transmissions create drivers that are better equipped to handle situations on the road than the average automatic only driver. I am not saying that every person who drives a manual is a great driver, just that they are better equipped to handle situations on the road assuming all other variables are equal.
Its not just BMW that does this. I am assuming they do it so they can't be blamed for people going too fast as well as protecting their customers from speeding as often. Its not like your BMW can't go way faster then it needs to anyway so who cares. As others have mentioned car gas gauges work in the same way. Show empty early to protect the customer from running out.
Of course this generates problems once everyone finds out and decides to ignore the gauges.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/us
I think many people fall into this category that are part of online communities similar to this one. I wonder how many people outside of this niche make decisions like this though.
If anyone has data that would be awesome but I doubt it exists :(
While this is true to an extent, I can tell you that the average consumer knows something is wrong but they just don't know the solution. My mother is one of these 'average consumers'. She has no knowledge of torrents or P2P software yet she realizes the problem of "what happens when my digital music collection gets wiped by hardware failure" and thus refuses to buy into it. Saying that these limits only affect those that know how get around them is false. Anyone who has been subjected to an inconvenience due to DRM will have a negative view of how things work regardless of it they are a pirate or not. They just might not know about the potential (illegal) solutions or they may be unwilling to break the law and also unwilling to buy music (my mother).
So these initiatives to stop piracy by the media companies may reduce piracy but they will not boost sales. This is the biggest reason the media companies are going to fail. They are trying to get non-paying customers to pay rather than trying to give paying customers what they want. In the process they are turning more and more currently paying customers into non-paying customers. What I am trying to say is that even if they stomp out piracy 100%, if less people are buying their music they have still lost the battle.
I personally think they should have the RIGHT to do these things, yes. Do I think they should do them, no. For instance:
"If I buy a copy of a movie produced by Sony, Sony should have the right to demand that I only play that movie on Sony branded DVD players?"
Lets assume Sony did this. How much more piracy would begin to pop up? How many actual Sony DVD players and movies would be sold? I think a clear backlash would occur in this case, causing a loss of sales. You can see this happening right now in the music industry without something as drastic as your example. Do I think that the industry should be allowed to shoot themselves in the feet? YES. Do I think it is smart that they are doing it? NO.
Taking away freedoms only ensures the government will have the power to enforce what it wants. The idea of "customer rights" puts governments in control, not the individual customer. What if I as a customer want to buy a heavily limited product so as to reduce its price significantly. If the government says a company can't do it then the CUSTOMER is shit out of luck.
The general idea I support is that each individual has the right to chose what he or she wants to buy. If the company puts limitation on that product don't buy it. People feel like they are entitled to every product invented at their convenience without regard to how the inventors feel.
Once again, the general consumer doesn't see this as much but contracts that contain loads of stipulations basically are the backbone of business and society. It seems the average consumer doesn't understand abstract ideas about selling bits of a whole product. For instance mineral rights to a piece of property will cost less than buying all the rights. This contract(compare to EULA) allows the customer to purchase only what is needed and not 'extras'.
*Apple case study*
Now you might ask how this could apply to the Apple case? We have two options here:
1)Apple sells OS X with the rights for anyone to install it anywhere.
2)Apple sells OS X with the right to only install it on Apple hardware.
It can be assumed that the first option creates a more desirable product. Thus the price on it would be higher. This would probably result in Apple no longer selling hardware (like MS).
The second option creates a less desirable product that can be sold for less because Apple can make money off the hardware.
In a free system Apple would be allowed to chose either option but what happens if Apple doesn't get the choice and they are forced to sell only option 1? Apple can't change its business model on a dime. It will have to price OS X lower than its 'value' to consumers. The customers that buy Apple hardware pick up the tab on the software dev costs while Psystar is unjustly enriched by the lower cost to purchase OS X than its value to consumers. In other words Psystar is not making money by running better supply chains and reducing overhead. It is making money by stealing the value difference between the OS X quoted price, and the price consumers are willing to pay for a system with OS X. Calling this consumer protection in a misconception. Currently all OS X customers pick up an equal share of the costs it took to make the product.
I firmly believe that the free market will soon rid itself of these media corporations who make poor decisions. They really aren't that old, they are a blip on the radar of society.
I think EULAs or similar contracts are vital to ensuring software companies can continue to operate. Software uses are way too complicated to simply apply personal property laws to and call it good.
Read the whole thread and not just my post before calling me an idiot.
Please read whole thread before commenting. The person I was responding to was saying that even copyright law should not exist and that NO stipulations on the sale of should should be allowed in society.
Here is my analysis on your clear contradiction. In response to everything else, reread my previous post and Wikipedia to let it sink in more.
Your first post:
"For many of us, the act of actively prohibiting third parties from modifying and redistributing your work is inherently inmoral, regardless of whether its done for profit or otherwise."
My response:
"Basically what you are saying is that an musician cannot sell a copy of their music without selling all rights because copyright should not exist."
Your response to my response:
"Wrong, as that falls under "redistribution" and not "use"."
Direct comparison of key contradiction:
"prohibiting third parties from modifying and redistributing your work is inherently inmoral"
"Wrong, as that falls under "redistribution" and not "use"."
In your first statement you claim you are against any and all regulations pertaining to the sale of a product. i.e. If I sell you something you can do anything you want with it, including copying and reselling the copies. I am not even implying this, you state that in the quote above.
In your second statement you claim that redistribution should not be allowed, thus placing a LIMIT on the sale.
You have wasted enough of my life: have a good day, I am done.
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.
Apple controls the 'legitmately acquired copies' that you keep speaking of. They can wrap the licensing agreement with any number of terms that would breach the contract if not installed on an Apple computer.
I was assuming the parent was saying there is nothing apple can do *ever* about it. If apple changes their license today to implement these sorts of policies (if they don't exist) then Psystar can no longer continue to make more systems. I would call that "Something" they can do about it. Maybe I misinterpreted the post but it seemed more like a blanket "Apple can't keep people from do this in past, present, or future" statement.
I think my interpretation of the parents post is justified because it contains forward looking statements such as: "short of refusing to sell OSX except bundled with a new mac".
One thing you may note: licensing is not "sale" so first sale doctrine does not apply. OS X is licensed.
So you seriously think that once you buy a DVD you should be able to open a movie theater and screen the movie at that theater for ~$20. Ignorance is bliss. I really hope you make a movie, I cant wait to ask you to sell me a copy for $20 with no stipulations concerning what I can do with it. (I also hope it is good enough for me to do something with).
Basically what you are saying is that an musician cannot sell a copy of their music without selling all rights because copyright should not exist. So if you sold the music you are selling all rights to that product including copying. Repeat this for all IP and even some specialized physical property.
Under these pretenses a musician could only sell a single CD before a company starts up and sells copies of the CD for less than the musician.
Basically your whole idea that corporations are abusing the system to manipulate people gets turned on its head and even MORE corporate abuse can occur because essentially no one owns anything, so whoever has the biggest and most powerful influence wins.
You seem to be under the impression that we live in a Utopian society where laws, contract and stipulations are not needed because everyone 'will do the right thing'. Well guess what, that is not the case. Without copyright laws I could start selling OS X, Windows, any IP you have ever created in your life and sold, out of my bedroom today and net all the profits with no work. That hardly seems moral to me.
I am NOT saying current copyright laws are good but I am saying that without legitimate copyright and contract law in a society it will fail miserably. Laws are related to the 'average' feeling society has for an issue so to say they are not related to morals is false. All laws are based on morals, specifically the morals of the society that created the laws.
So I guess you are entitled to your view of right and wrong but please understand that your vision of the world would send us back to the dark ages because of the reasons stated above.
I am not referring specifically to this case, I am simply saying there is PLENTY Apple can do legally to prevent this from happening (in the future). The parent was saying that Apple better just learn to deal with it; which is completely false. There are plenty of steps that Apple can take to protect their property.
How do you figure it is morally wrong. I know morals involve some opinion but I think that if you develop a product you should be allowed to sell that product on your terms, and the law agrees with that. i.e. Just because someone else wants to sell a product that is a derivative of your work doesn't mean you have to let them. I would almost say that Psystar is more on the immoral side. They are blatantly going against the wishes of the author of the work. These sort of wishes/contracts have not been prevalent in consumer products but they exist everywhere in the business world. It is not crazy for a company to dictate how their product can be used. Books, music, DvD's etc all use these sorts of (legal) protections, and while some of us may loathe the methods they use to protect their wishes, not many people would claim they shouldn't have the right to limit reasonable use. i.e. You can't buy a DVD and start screening that movie for money.
Saying Apple is being immoral in this instance would imply nearly any contract that dictates how a product may be used is also immoral based on your reasoning for the immorality (EULA stating what can be done). If there is an alternate reason for the immorality please let me know but as you have stated it all I see is a conflict of interest between two companies. That does not constitute immorality.
There is plenty Apple can do about it. It is called a contract and you can pretty much write anything in a contract that doesn't break laws. Thus Apple CAN write their contracts in a way that lets them do just about anything they want. I really hope you are just ignorant or joking because if you claim there is nothing Apple can do about it then you are basically saying the whole idea of contracts and contract law should be thrown out. Apple has the rights to their products just like any other company.
Apple is very likely going to wither a) Win this case, b) modify the contract in such a way that it is very clear what can and cannot be done with a copy of their OS or c) stop caring about hackintosh products.
Except jail time.
If I asked for the best way to kill myself and a reply was "maybe you shouldn't" will you make one of these for me?
"jerry-rigged", my bad. I will leave out the stars next time.
People have been launching satellites with radioactive materials in them for a long while. There are things that can go wrong but generally the fuel is contained so that if the rocket fails it will not scatter the material. There would be no need for Russia to disguise an attack on the US as a space launch... they could just attempt to use real nukes and not some ******-rigged dirty bomb.
Exactly. So if you need to shampoo and brush your teeth while on the plane you can.
Yeah I completely forgot that if you buy a drink once you are past security you CAN bring it on the plane. You just can't bring it past security. Most large airports offer drinks for sale after you clear security excluding a few I know of.