One of the big potential benefits of flash is reliability. Imagine highly modular flash drives for servers with hardware RAID 5? Instead of a disk failure, you get a notification that a module needs replacing. In fact, you could build versions with an extra slot for a failover spare in-place!
How is this any different from today ?
If a drive in one of my servers fails, I get an email saying that it has happened. If said machine has a hot spare, then the RAID array will start rebuilding to that automatically.
Also, with wear leveling, there's the potential for hard drives that can warn you several days before they fail!
No more so than SMART combined with regular disk scrubs can, today.
The very definition of leveraging is forcing a consumer to purchase an unwanted thing to obtain a wanted thing. In this case they are purchasing Vista in order to get XP.
No, they're purchasing XP, just in the form of a downgrade license from Vista, rather than straight out. The price is the same, the end result is the same. Only the method is (slightly) different.
"Downgrade rights" have always been applicable to most versions of Windows. Strictly speaking, what you're buying is a license to use "Windows", then you pick the version you want.
Nonetheless my *upgrade* is installed on five macs with absolutely no issues.
Why wouldn't it ?
"Upgrade" vs "full" is a licensing issue, nothing more.
I'm just worried those jackasses at psystar will spoil it for the rest of us Mac users.
How, exactly ? The worst case scenario is that Apple puts an explicit (and completely transparent to the user) check in their installer code to ensure OS X is being installed on real Apple hardware.
I didn't say that's what Psystar was doing. I was pointing out that copyright laws forbid me from installing software without a license to do so. And you accept that fact in all cases except in those cases which you happen to not like the result. That's not very intellectually rigorous.
No, I d o not. I say that when the copyright infringement involves actual redistribution of copyrighted code, then the infringement is clear cut, but when it involves something like an EULA violation, it is not.
I notice you didn't answer my question: if Cisco built an x86 piece of hardware, would that make their firmware fair-game?
If Cisco make a piece of commodity hardware, and sell their software off the retail shelf, with an EULA stating "must be run on Cisco-labelled hardware), then if someone can piece together some suitably compatible hardware their available-off-the-shelf software is, most certainly, "fair game".
Sorry, but no.
Sorry, but yes.
First of all, you've acknowledged that you need some kind of a license or sense of "fair use" in order to install software.
In fact, I have not.
When OEMs sell Windows, they have a license that allows them to do that. So even if you ignore the modifications, they're already violating Apple's copyright.
No, they've violated the EULA. Which may, or may not, count as copyright infringement (it shouldn't, but in these days of crazy copyright, who knows).
But further, they are modifying OSX beyond its default install. OSX wouldn't install and run on their hardware without alterations.
You mean like a retail version of XP on anything with a SATA hard disk ?
They have to hack system files (I believe they modify the kernel) before selling it.
While I don't know _exactly_ what Psystar is doing, every other method I've seen for getting OSX running on Hackintoshes uses Apple's own open-source code to do so. With 10.5, it's little more than a bootloader (and perhaps some hardware drivers for unsupported soundcards, etc).
When has anyone every said that buying OS X is cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade"?
Pretty much every Slashdot discussion that ever involves a price comparison between OS X and Windows.
Mac OS X is not limited as Windows "upgrade" versions are, in that you can install it on a clean PC without searching for a preexisting edition. But you know that OS X is sold only for Macs, and that all Macs come with it. You're a troll drsmithy.
Heh. *I'm* a troll. You're the one pimping a website dedicated to Apple zealotry with every post, but *I'm* the troll for pointing out hypocrisy. That's the best laugh I've had this week.
If you think pointing out the potential for Apple being sued is "hyperbole," then, well, wow.
What, exactly, do you think they're going to get sued for ?
Microsoft is happy for vendors to install hardware drivers, yes, after they pay for certification and prove their drivers will not make Windows look like a faulty product.
Rubbish. Any PC reseller can (and does, frequently) install drivers necessary to make their hardware work.
Additionally, OEMs bring in 80% of Microsoft's revenue. OEMs and Paystar in particular bring in near zero revenue for Apple, while tarnishing its brand, exposing it to liability, and violating its copyright.
What is this "liability" you keep going on about ?
No, but if I use my corporate Windows XP install disk to install Windows on my company's 200 computers when I only have 5 licenses, I bet the BSA would be happy to get me into some trouble. I can't say, "Well I bought that copy of Windows, so the licensing terms shouldn't apply to me."
Which bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Psystar is doing.
Oh, I wasn't aware that the concept of copyright for software changed depending on what kind of hardware it was installed on. I suppose if Cisco has a router that was x86-based, suddenly their firmware is fair game?
A Cisco router is a specialty piece of hardware. Its software is tied to it by virtue of that fact (and, further, is not available to buy off the shelf from the average - or even non-average - computer shop). A Mac is a commodity PC with racing stripes. Its software is tied to it via an EULA.
What does this have to do with the EULA? We're not talking about end-users operating OSX in violation of a EULA, we're talking about a company that is copying OSX, altering it, and reselling without a license to do so.
Actually, we're talking about a company who is buying retail copies of OS X, installing it onto computers for customers, then selling those computers (along with that copy of OS X).
The "modifications" are conceptually no different to a PC seller preinstalling windows with some hardware drivers.
AFAIK it's still a copyright violation to install software contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Really ? You think you'll get picked up for copyright infringement if you violate an EULA that says you're only allowed to use OS X if you're wearing blue shorts ?
They're completely unambiguous about the fact that the retail package is only to be installed on Apple computers, meaning it's a essentially firmware upgrade.
The actual term is "Apple labelled", which in no way explicitly states the software is an upgrade.
(Indeed, one might wonder if that's why MacOS generally comes with a couple of Apple stickers in the box.)
Except Cisco does sell software updates/upgrades. Not on retail shelves, but then they don't sell their routers/firewalls on retail shelves either. And other vendors aren't permitted to hack those software packages and sell them on their own firewalls. And what's more, we all accept that as valid.
Why? Because we accept that Cisco is a hardware vendor, and that their software is just part of an integrated solution. Except when a PC vendor does the same thing, people get all bent out of shape.
Probably because PCs (including Macs) are generic, commodity hardware.
To use another example, when imagine if Linksys was selling routers with Linux installed, and refused to release the modifications that they'd made to the Linux kernel. How would people feel about that? They would flip out. Because it would be blatant copyright infringement to distribute Linux contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Except it's not the same thing, because the only thing that makes using OS X on non-Apple hardware copyright infringement, is an EULA stipulation.
Your example, OTOH, is full-on redistribution of copyrighted material.
I can come up with one example after another of comparable cases where people here would come down on the other side of the issue. People just have trouble telling the difference between "something that's immoral" and "something I don't like".
In no way whatsoever is what Psystar doing "immoral". With any luck, it won't even be found illegal.
That is my point; Microsoft hasn't stopped selling XP! They force you to buy Vista to get XP; instead of selling XP for $40 and an upgrade to Vista for $20, they sell the bundle of XP+Vista for $60.
You don't get a Vista and an XP license, you get a Vista license and "downgrade rights" to run XP instead.
There is no leveraging of anything. If you want XP, you buy it - just in the form of "downgrade privileges" instead of an explicit license.
By "ripping" I suppose I mean some intended to convey that they got ahold of a copy trough some kind of improper means.
Indeed. Walking into a store and slapping down $129 is incredibly "improper".
So let's say Cisco was selling an upgrade disk for their firmware, and that's where Watchguard got their copy from. Does that make it acceptable?
Not really, because while it is implied, Apple do not explicitly sell retail copies of OS X as upgrades.
Besides, you don't need come up with tortuous analogies, you can just say it straight out - it's like Cisco were selling copies of IOS on store shelves, but with the stipulation that it could only be installed on "Cisco labelled" hardware.
I did a comparison last year and found that a Dell PowerEdge with similar specs to the Xserve cost less than 10% more:
That's funny, because if I compare a reasonable config (2x2.8Ghz quad-core, 8G RAM, 2x300G SAS RAID1, dual PSUs, 3yr NBD warranty) Xserve vs PE1950 now, I get ~$5,000 (PE1950) vs ~$8,000 (Xserve).
In fact, having priced out more than a few PE1950s in the last few years, I'm going to say your comparison above is utter bullshit, unless you were being dishonest by using 3rd party RAM and different warranties.
but when you add in Windows Server, Exchange Standard, and the required CALs to support 100 users, the Dell ends up well over $10,000 more. The Xserve comes with an unlimited license to Mac OS X Server.
Of course, your comparison fails to account for OS X server lacking an equivalent for Exchange. To say nothing of simply being a flat-out lie - but then again, most of your comparisons are, at best, deceptive, so there's nothing surprising there.
Even if that is your argument, how could it possibly be that Paystar has no copyright issue involved with taking Mac OS X, making changes, and reselling it as a derivation? Even if you don't believe in EULA restrictions, Paystar is volating Apple's copyright by selling Apple's software as its own.
Please provide evidence for the claim Psystar is "selling Apple's software as its own".
If I were to start selling PCs running Windows using OEM licenses I acquired, made changes to how Windows works, and began selling them as Mojave PCs, Microsoft would have both an IP licensing case and a copyright infringement case against me.
Psystar aren't changing how OS X works. At least not for any meaningful definitions of "changing" and "works".
Would you think the same thing if you found out that Watchguard was ripping Cisco's OS from their routers and installing it on their own hardware? Would you think the same thing if you found out that Watchguard was ripping Cisco's OS from their routers and installing it on their own hardware? What if Microsoft ripped the software from a TiVO device and put it on their own set-top box? If Cisco and TiVO used the courts to fight these blatantly illegal actions, would you call that immoral bullying?
And by "ripping", here, you mean, "buying from the store", right ?
No, they're trying to play legal games to somehow suggest that the retail copies of OS X are not in fact upgrades, but wholly licensed full copies of the OS. They wouldn't dare try it against Microsoft, because the market for Vista machines is already flooded.
Might also be because upgrade versions of Windows are explicitly labelled as such, rather than in a cryptic fashion so the marketing department can make favourable, albeit inaccurate, price comparisons.
They want to push boxes with the shiny X logo on the front, in the hopes that some sucker will buy one and go whining to Apple when their system goes tits up.
Actually, they appear to be pandering to the market by addressing one of the gaping holes in Apple's hardware lineup.
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X.
What's really funny, is that usually discussions about "buying OS X" are explaining how it's cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade".
You got a better way to describe the pathetic hit-rate of most creative enterprises? What percentage of bands, songs, games, books, paintings, or anything else creative are even vaguely successful? A few will be. Most won't be.
What's your measure of "successful" ? Are you measuring by Hollywood's (et al) famously flexible accounting ?
You think a carpenter sells a chair for the exact cost of what it took to make it, time included?
No.
My mistake, I thought you were actually telling the truth when you talked about wanting copyright to stimulate invention rather than just wanting any excuse possible to ignore copyright. Well, if you have zero interest in making it financially feasible for anyone who isn't independently wealthy to perform creative work, then there's really nothing more for us to discuss.:)
My preference would be for only people who are interested in them, are creating works.
I don't have a silver bullet to solve Copyright, however, the problem with a system that provides reward without effort, is that it will inevitably be abused as such by the greedy. These are a distinctly different group of people to those who want to actually create things, and this distinction needs to be acknowledged.
An opt-in system (for legal recourse in the case of for-profit copying) would be an _excellent_ starting point. Perhaps one where renewal cost a substantial proportion of the previous coverage period's profits.
To say it again in the hopes of phrasing it more clearly - It's not productive to try and limit it explicitly to 'recovering development costs'. The majority of creative endeavors are commercial failures. If you've watched various large investors, you've probably seen them put money into a LOT of different business ventures, all with potential for a high rate of return. They know that most of these business ventures will probably fail, therefore they pick businesses that, if they succeed, may return huge profits in order to make up for all the failures.
So, basically, you think Copyright is the equivalent of throwing a lot of shit at a wall to see what sticks ? Now there's a compelling endorsement...
Similarly, to stimulate invention, you need a single invention to not only make up for its own development cost, but also to cover a handful of your other inventions that flopped.
Why ? The carpenter can only sell chairs that don't fall apart. You think he makes a perfect one every time ?
Otherwise, attempting to live by invention would mean automatic bankruptcy, because *nobody* succeeds with every single creation.
Oh no ! The harsh bright reality of real life is shining on Copyright !
If you could only recoup development costs from each creation, then even with an unthinkable 100% success rate you'd only just be keeping your head above water.
You mistakenly assume that once copyright has expired, it is impossible to make any money at all from a work.
But do you actually know that or are you just assuming it? Many, many games actually incur large losses, not tidy profits. Perhaps not with these super-old retro titles before budgets got so inflated, but more recently, mainstream gaming is something of a loser's market. (Don't look at me, I'm an indie.)
Perhaps I should rephrase. If they *didn't* make a profit off it, then, after ten years, tough luck.
That's already an incredibly generous privilege - normal workers get nowhere near 10 years of return on their efforts.
I earn a living off my IP. It's not a gravy train.
Once you've recovered your development costs, it is most certainly a gravy train. Arguably, even before then, since you are paid multiple times for the same piece of work.
And I *do* go to work every day in order to do it.:) In fact, unlike your average person with a nice wage-earning 9-5 job, I'm likely to be working nights and weekends too. And you certainly don't get paid vacations as a self-employed creator. Or health care. Or a pension.
Yes, you do, just with different accounting.
And lastly, I like making games! Is there anyone who actually creates a copyright hit that *doesn't* want to keep making new things? (Okay, I'm sure there's some example somewhere or other. But for the most part, people do keep working.)
Many, many of the "people" who actually own the copyrights (that is to say, the "creators" from a legal perspective) are not those who actually do the creating. They are the businessmen handling distribution. Rest assured, they most certainly have zero interested in creating new things (which is expensive) so long as they can still wring money out of old things (which is cheap, if not free).
I don't believe in eternal copyright, but I do believe that I have a right to some return on my investments.
Any copyright term longer than the time taken to recover the development costs fails at providing fiscal incentive for future development. This is why Copyright Law is broken (in terms of its ostensible goals) with regards to copyrights held by non-creators.
Individuals who would create regardless of whether or not copyright law existed, are essentially irrelevant to Copyright, because they fall outside the scope of its purpose. With that said, they certainly deserve some return on their (time) investment. Such a system is separate in concept to Copyright, however, and should be treated as such.
I think you need to consider carefully if you were a person in the 70s or 80s involved in a project and someone is suggesting you don't deserve anymore money because it has been 30 years since you made it.
If you still think you deserve to be paid for a day's work you did 20-30 years ago, you're a greedy, morally bankrupt arsehole.
Pretend you made a thing that collects water and washes clothes in the 1700s. Absolutely brilliant and people bring you their clothes and you wash them. Then, 12 years later someone says, "Oh, sorry! Your rights to that device are up! Ours now bitch!" and hauls it away.
Leave the poor straw man alone. He means you no harm.
On the other hand, in a case like this, the properties are clearly still valuable, or he wouldn't be making lots of money from selling them.
Whether they're still valuable is irrelevant.
It's clearly unfair to profit from selling games you made no investment in, while denying any return to the actual creators.
No, it's not. They had their chance. They made a tidy profit. Time for them to come up with a new idea if they want to keep making money.
Every other schmuck has to go to work every day to earn a crust. Why should people who just happen to be part of the copyright gravy train be any different ?
It would be morally fine, in my book, if outdated, abandoned games were sold for cut-price and a share of profits sent back to the owner. See 'compulsory licensing'.
"Moral" copyright terms, in my book, would only last as long as it takes for the work's "creation cost" to be recovered.
Just because these games are older than you doesn't mean their creator is dead and doesn't need food anymore.
Then maybe he should create something new and earn money from that.
You probably rail all day long about how your boss or superior makes money off your back and how he or she is an asshole for doing so. But how quick are you to defend some fuck whose "work" is basically selling a rom collection.
He's doing a lot more work today on those games than the person who originally wrote them is.
Please explain how a copyright is a license to print money. I thought the CONTENT made the money.
Once the initial development cost is recovered (which, in this case, it certainly is), copyright is a license to print money for the copyright owner, because not only are duplication and distribution costs essentially zero, but they are covered by the distributor.
Assuming the justification for copyright is incentive to create, there is little reason for copyright terms to exceed the time necessary to recover the development costs, even less for it to last significantly beyond this point (eg: the ~100 year copyright terms we have now), and none whatsoever for them last an instant past the copyright holders death.
Okay, one of you people that claim piracy is always okay, riddle me this. If this person profited by selling a piece of software that took money, time, and labor to make, how did he not deny someone the money they should have made?
Because these games are old enough that they should be in the public domain. More than a fair return for them has already been made.
Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to create new works, not a license to print money.
Which is why I said specifically beyond insuring that it wont kill you there is nothing for the FDA to do. Fraud is all ready illegal. If you have been duped, call the police, if they don't do anything sue.
Some of us prefer a more pro-active stance when health and safety are involved.
Additionally, as mentioned, the buyer frequently has no practical way of determining whether they are being 'duped'.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the big potential benefits of flash is reliability. Imagine highly modular flash drives for servers with hardware RAID 5? Instead of a disk failure, you get a notification that a module needs replacing. In fact, you could build versions with an extra slot for a failover spare in-place!
How is this any different from today ?
If a drive in one of my servers fails, I get an email saying that it has happened. If said machine has a hot spare, then the RAID array will start rebuilding to that automatically.
Also, with wear leveling, there's the potential for hard drives that can warn you several days before they fail!
No more so than SMART combined with regular disk scrubs can, today.
Are you trying to play semantic word games here?
Only if you call facts "semantic word games".
The very definition of leveraging is forcing a consumer to purchase an unwanted thing to obtain a wanted thing. In this case they are purchasing Vista in order to get XP.
No, they're purchasing XP, just in the form of a downgrade license from Vista, rather than straight out. The price is the same, the end result is the same. Only the method is (slightly) different.
"Downgrade rights" have always been applicable to most versions of Windows. Strictly speaking, what you're buying is a license to use "Windows", then you pick the version you want.
Nonetheless my *upgrade* is installed on five macs with absolutely no issues.
Why wouldn't it ?
"Upgrade" vs "full" is a licensing issue, nothing more.
I'm just worried those jackasses at psystar will spoil it for the rest of us Mac users.
How, exactly ? The worst case scenario is that Apple puts an explicit (and completely transparent to the user) check in their installer code to ensure OS X is being installed on real Apple hardware.
I didn't say that's what Psystar was doing. I was pointing out that copyright laws forbid me from installing software without a license to do so. And you accept that fact in all cases except in those cases which you happen to not like the result. That's not very intellectually rigorous.
No, I d o not. I say that when the copyright infringement involves actual redistribution of copyrighted code, then the infringement is clear cut, but when it involves something like an EULA violation, it is not.
I notice you didn't answer my question: if Cisco built an x86 piece of hardware, would that make their firmware fair-game?
If Cisco make a piece of commodity hardware, and sell their software off the retail shelf, with an EULA stating "must be run on Cisco-labelled hardware), then if someone can piece together some suitably compatible hardware their available-off-the-shelf software is, most certainly, "fair game".
Sorry, but no.
Sorry, but yes.
First of all, you've acknowledged that you need some kind of a license or sense of "fair use" in order to install software.
In fact, I have not.
When OEMs sell Windows, they have a license that allows them to do that. So even if you ignore the modifications, they're already violating Apple's copyright.
No, they've violated the EULA. Which may, or may not, count as copyright infringement (it shouldn't, but in these days of crazy copyright, who knows).
But further, they are modifying OSX beyond its default install. OSX wouldn't install and run on their hardware without alterations.
You mean like a retail version of XP on anything with a SATA hard disk ?
They have to hack system files (I believe they modify the kernel) before selling it.
While I don't know _exactly_ what Psystar is doing, every other method I've seen for getting OSX running on Hackintoshes uses Apple's own open-source code to do so. With 10.5, it's little more than a bootloader (and perhaps some hardware drivers for unsupported soundcards, etc).
When has anyone every said that buying OS X is cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade"?
Pretty much every Slashdot discussion that ever involves a price comparison between OS X and Windows.
Mac OS X is not limited as Windows "upgrade" versions are, in that you can install it on a clean PC without searching for a preexisting edition. But you know that OS X is sold only for Macs, and that all Macs come with it. You're a troll drsmithy.
Heh. *I'm* a troll. You're the one pimping a website dedicated to Apple zealotry with every post, but *I'm* the troll for pointing out hypocrisy. That's the best laugh I've had this week.
If you think pointing out the potential for Apple being sued is "hyperbole," then, well, wow.
What, exactly, do you think they're going to get sued for ?
Microsoft is happy for vendors to install hardware drivers, yes, after they pay for certification and prove their drivers will not make Windows look like a faulty product.
Rubbish. Any PC reseller can (and does, frequently) install drivers necessary to make their hardware work.
Additionally, OEMs bring in 80% of Microsoft's revenue. OEMs and Paystar in particular bring in near zero revenue for Apple, while tarnishing its brand, exposing it to liability, and violating its copyright.
What is this "liability" you keep going on about ?
No, but if I use my corporate Windows XP install disk to install Windows on my company's 200 computers when I only have 5 licenses, I bet the BSA would be happy to get me into some trouble. I can't say, "Well I bought that copy of Windows, so the licensing terms shouldn't apply to me."
Which bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Psystar is doing.
Oh, I wasn't aware that the concept of copyright for software changed depending on what kind of hardware it was installed on. I suppose if Cisco has a router that was x86-based, suddenly their firmware is fair game?
A Cisco router is a specialty piece of hardware. Its software is tied to it by virtue of that fact (and, further, is not available to buy off the shelf from the average - or even non-average - computer shop). A Mac is a commodity PC with racing stripes. Its software is tied to it via an EULA.
What does this have to do with the EULA? We're not talking about end-users operating OSX in violation of a EULA, we're talking about a company that is copying OSX, altering it, and reselling without a license to do so.
Actually, we're talking about a company who is buying retail copies of OS X, installing it onto computers for customers, then selling those computers (along with that copy of OS X).
The "modifications" are conceptually no different to a PC seller preinstalling windows with some hardware drivers.
AFAIK it's still a copyright violation to install software contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Really ? You think you'll get picked up for copyright infringement if you violate an EULA that says you're only allowed to use OS X if you're wearing blue shorts ?
They're completely unambiguous about the fact that the retail package is only to be installed on Apple computers, meaning it's a essentially firmware upgrade.
The actual term is "Apple labelled", which in no way explicitly states the software is an upgrade.
(Indeed, one might wonder if that's why MacOS generally comes with a couple of Apple stickers in the box.)
Except Cisco does sell software updates/upgrades. Not on retail shelves, but then they don't sell their routers/firewalls on retail shelves either. And other vendors aren't permitted to hack those software packages and sell them on their own firewalls. And what's more, we all accept that as valid.
Why? Because we accept that Cisco is a hardware vendor, and that their software is just part of an integrated solution. Except when a PC vendor does the same thing, people get all bent out of shape.
Probably because PCs (including Macs) are generic, commodity hardware.
To use another example, when imagine if Linksys was selling routers with Linux installed, and refused to release the modifications that they'd made to the Linux kernel. How would people feel about that? They would flip out. Because it would be blatant copyright infringement to distribute Linux contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Except it's not the same thing, because the only thing that makes using OS X on non-Apple hardware copyright infringement, is an EULA stipulation.
Your example, OTOH, is full-on redistribution of copyrighted material.
I can come up with one example after another of comparable cases where people here would come down on the other side of the issue. People just have trouble telling the difference between "something that's immoral" and "something I don't like".
In no way whatsoever is what Psystar doing "immoral". With any luck, it won't even be found illegal.
So you're saying Apple should grant cloners the right to inject code into the Mac OS X kernel and then pass it off as being a low cost Mac OS X?
You mean, install drivers for hardware ?
Do you think pissed off customers would sue Paystar, or Apple? Here's a hint: Apple has money.
This kind of stupid hyperbole damages your already sporry credibility even further. Sue them for what, exactly ?
Incidentally, does Microsoft allow OEMs to willy nilly modify the Vista kernel and represent a derivative product as being Vista?
Microsoft are happy for vendors to install hardware drivers, yes.
Running Mac OS X on generic PCs requires making changes to the software, including defeating kexts and installing support for your own hardware.
Installing hardware drivers, you mean ? Just like any one of thousands of PC vendors do every day ?
That changes how it works.
How ? What functionality is changed ?
That is my point; Microsoft hasn't stopped selling XP! They force you to buy Vista to get XP; instead of selling XP for $40 and an upgrade to Vista for $20, they sell the bundle of XP+Vista for $60.
You don't get a Vista and an XP license, you get a Vista license and "downgrade rights" to run XP instead.
There is no leveraging of anything. If you want XP, you buy it - just in the form of "downgrade privileges" instead of an explicit license.
By "ripping" I suppose I mean some intended to convey that they got ahold of a copy trough some kind of improper means.
Indeed. Walking into a store and slapping down $129 is incredibly "improper".
So let's say Cisco was selling an upgrade disk for their firmware, and that's where Watchguard got their copy from. Does that make it acceptable?
Not really, because while it is implied, Apple do not explicitly sell retail copies of OS X as upgrades.
Besides, you don't need come up with tortuous analogies, you can just say it straight out - it's like Cisco were selling copies of IOS on store shelves, but with the stipulation that it could only be installed on "Cisco labelled" hardware.
I did a comparison last year and found that a Dell PowerEdge with similar specs to the Xserve cost less than 10% more:
That's funny, because if I compare a reasonable config (2x2.8Ghz quad-core, 8G RAM, 2x300G SAS RAID1, dual PSUs, 3yr NBD warranty) Xserve vs PE1950 now, I get ~$5,000 (PE1950) vs ~$8,000 (Xserve).
In fact, having priced out more than a few PE1950s in the last few years, I'm going to say your comparison above is utter bullshit, unless you were being dishonest by using 3rd party RAM and different warranties.
but when you add in Windows Server, Exchange Standard, and the required CALs to support 100 users, the Dell ends up well over $10,000 more. The Xserve comes with an unlimited license to Mac OS X Server.
Of course, your comparison fails to account for OS X server lacking an equivalent for Exchange. To say nothing of simply being a flat-out lie - but then again, most of your comparisons are, at best, deceptive, so there's nothing surprising there.
Even if that is your argument, how could it possibly be that Paystar has no copyright issue involved with taking Mac OS X, making changes, and reselling it as a derivation? Even if you don't believe in EULA restrictions, Paystar is volating Apple's copyright by selling Apple's software as its own.
Please provide evidence for the claim Psystar is "selling Apple's software as its own".
If I were to start selling PCs running Windows using OEM licenses I acquired, made changes to how Windows works, and began selling them as Mojave PCs, Microsoft would have both an IP licensing case and a copyright infringement case against me.
Psystar aren't changing how OS X works. At least not for any meaningful definitions of "changing" and "works".
Would you think the same thing if you found out that Watchguard was ripping Cisco's OS from their routers and installing it on their own hardware? Would you think the same thing if you found out that Watchguard was ripping Cisco's OS from their routers and installing it on their own hardware? What if Microsoft ripped the software from a TiVO device and put it on their own set-top box? If Cisco and TiVO used the courts to fight these blatantly illegal actions, would you call that immoral bullying?
And by "ripping", here, you mean, "buying from the store", right ?
No, they're trying to play legal games to somehow suggest that the retail copies of OS X are not in fact upgrades, but wholly licensed full copies of the OS. They wouldn't dare try it against Microsoft, because the market for Vista machines is already flooded.
Might also be because upgrade versions of Windows are explicitly labelled as such, rather than in a cryptic fashion so the marketing department can make favourable, albeit inaccurate, price comparisons.
They want to push boxes with the shiny X logo on the front, in the hopes that some sucker will buy one and go whining to Apple when their system goes tits up.
Actually, they appear to be pandering to the market by addressing one of the gaping holes in Apple's hardware lineup.
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X.
What's really funny, is that usually discussions about "buying OS X" are explaining how it's cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade".
You got a better way to describe the pathetic hit-rate of most creative enterprises? What percentage of bands, songs, games, books, paintings, or anything else creative are even vaguely successful? A few will be. Most won't be.
What's your measure of "successful" ? Are you measuring by Hollywood's (et al) famously flexible accounting ?
You think a carpenter sells a chair for the exact cost of what it took to make it, time included?
No.
My mistake, I thought you were actually telling the truth when you talked about wanting copyright to stimulate invention rather than just wanting any excuse possible to ignore copyright. Well, if you have zero interest in making it financially feasible for anyone who isn't independently wealthy to perform creative work, then there's really nothing more for us to discuss. :)
My preference would be for only people who are interested in them, are creating works.
I don't have a silver bullet to solve Copyright, however, the problem with a system that provides reward without effort, is that it will inevitably be abused as such by the greedy. These are a distinctly different group of people to those who want to actually create things, and this distinction needs to be acknowledged.
An opt-in system (for legal recourse in the case of for-profit copying) would be an _excellent_ starting point. Perhaps one where renewal cost a substantial proportion of the previous coverage period's profits.
To say it again in the hopes of phrasing it more clearly - It's not productive to try and limit it explicitly to 'recovering development costs'. The majority of creative endeavors are commercial failures. If you've watched various large investors, you've probably seen them put money into a LOT of different business ventures, all with potential for a high rate of return. They know that most of these business ventures will probably fail, therefore they pick businesses that, if they succeed, may return huge profits in order to make up for all the failures.
So, basically, you think Copyright is the equivalent of throwing a lot of shit at a wall to see what sticks ? Now there's a compelling endorsement...
Similarly, to stimulate invention, you need a single invention to not only make up for its own development cost, but also to cover a handful of your other inventions that flopped.
Why ? The carpenter can only sell chairs that don't fall apart. You think he makes a perfect one every time ?
Otherwise, attempting to live by invention would mean automatic bankruptcy, because *nobody* succeeds with every single creation.
Oh no ! The harsh bright reality of real life is shining on Copyright !
If you could only recoup development costs from each creation, then even with an unthinkable 100% success rate you'd only just be keeping your head above water.
You mistakenly assume that once copyright has expired, it is impossible to make any money at all from a work.
But do you actually know that or are you just assuming it? Many, many games actually incur large losses, not tidy profits. Perhaps not with these super-old retro titles before budgets got so inflated, but more recently, mainstream gaming is something of a loser's market. (Don't look at me, I'm an indie.)
Perhaps I should rephrase. If they *didn't* make a profit off it, then, after ten years, tough luck.
That's already an incredibly generous privilege - normal workers get nowhere near 10 years of return on their efforts.
I earn a living off my IP. It's not a gravy train.
Once you've recovered your development costs, it is most certainly a gravy train. Arguably, even before then, since you are paid multiple times for the same piece of work.
And I *do* go to work every day in order to do it. :) In fact, unlike your average person with a nice wage-earning 9-5 job, I'm likely to be working nights and weekends too. And you certainly don't get paid vacations as a self-employed creator. Or health care. Or a pension.
Yes, you do, just with different accounting.
And lastly, I like making games! Is there anyone who actually creates a copyright hit that *doesn't* want to keep making new things? (Okay, I'm sure there's some example somewhere or other. But for the most part, people do keep working.)
Many, many of the "people" who actually own the copyrights (that is to say, the "creators" from a legal perspective) are not those who actually do the creating. They are the businessmen handling distribution. Rest assured, they most certainly have zero interested in creating new things (which is expensive) so long as they can still wring money out of old things (which is cheap, if not free).
I don't believe in eternal copyright, but I do believe that I have a right to some return on my investments.
Any copyright term longer than the time taken to recover the development costs fails at providing fiscal incentive for future development. This is why Copyright Law is broken (in terms of its ostensible goals) with regards to copyrights held by non-creators.
Individuals who would create regardless of whether or not copyright law existed, are essentially irrelevant to Copyright, because they fall outside the scope of its purpose. With that said, they certainly deserve some return on their (time) investment. Such a system is separate in concept to Copyright, however, and should be treated as such.
I think you need to consider carefully if you were a person in the 70s or 80s involved in a project and someone is suggesting you don't deserve anymore money because it has been 30 years since you made it.
If you still think you deserve to be paid for a day's work you did 20-30 years ago, you're a greedy, morally bankrupt arsehole.
Pretend you made a thing that collects water and washes clothes in the 1700s. Absolutely brilliant and people bring you their clothes and you wash them. Then, 12 years later someone says, "Oh, sorry! Your rights to that device are up! Ours now bitch!" and hauls it away.
Leave the poor straw man alone. He means you no harm.
On the other hand, in a case like this, the properties are clearly still valuable, or he wouldn't be making lots of money from selling them.
Whether they're still valuable is irrelevant.
It's clearly unfair to profit from selling games you made no investment in, while denying any return to the actual creators.
No, it's not. They had their chance. They made a tidy profit. Time for them to come up with a new idea if they want to keep making money.
Every other schmuck has to go to work every day to earn a crust. Why should people who just happen to be part of the copyright gravy train be any different ?
It would be morally fine, in my book, if outdated, abandoned games were sold for cut-price and a share of profits sent back to the owner. See 'compulsory licensing'.
"Moral" copyright terms, in my book, would only last as long as it takes for the work's "creation cost" to be recovered.
Just because these games are older than you doesn't mean their creator is dead and doesn't need food anymore.
Then maybe he should create something new and earn money from that.
You probably rail all day long about how your boss or superior makes money off your back and how he or she is an asshole for doing so. But how quick are you to defend some fuck whose "work" is basically selling a rom collection.
He's doing a lot more work today on those games than the person who originally wrote them is.
Please explain how a copyright is a license to print money. I thought the CONTENT made the money.
Once the initial development cost is recovered (which, in this case, it certainly is), copyright is a license to print money for the copyright owner, because not only are duplication and distribution costs essentially zero, but they are covered by the distributor.
Assuming the justification for copyright is incentive to create, there is little reason for copyright terms to exceed the time necessary to recover the development costs, even less for it to last significantly beyond this point (eg: the ~100 year copyright terms we have now), and none whatsoever for them last an instant past the copyright holders death.
Okay, one of you people that claim piracy is always okay, riddle me this. If this person profited by selling a piece of software that took money, time, and labor to make, how did he not deny someone the money they should have made?
Because these games are old enough that they should be in the public domain. More than a fair return for them has already been made.
Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to create new works, not a license to print money.
Which is why I said specifically beyond insuring that it wont kill you there is nothing for the FDA to do. Fraud is all ready illegal. If you have been duped, call the police, if they don't do anything sue.
Some of us prefer a more pro-active stance when health and safety are involved.
Additionally, as mentioned, the buyer frequently has no practical way of determining whether they are being 'duped'.