If you're going to go back that far, you might as well keep going: what caused Sub-Saharan Africans to become enslaved in the first place? Why did they never build empires or develop technology (on the same scale as civilizations like the Romans, Arabs, or Chinese)? Why didn't they [re-]discover the New World and go enslave the Europeans, instead of the other way around?
They might not be able to enforce it legally if it's not clear enough on the box, but that's what they're officially trying to do.
And that's exactly what people are complaining about: Apple's attempts to legally* enforce that which they cannot legally enforce!
(*Note that I'm excluding Apple's technological attempts here. Some people are complaining about those too, but I have no real problem with Apple merely making it difficult; the problem comes when Apple starts threatening people (and/or Psystar) with the DMCA.)
The only question here is whether you can legally sell a full version of a product for a reduced price to customers of a previous version.
Not quite -- that situation is obviously allowed. I think the question you meant to posit was whether you can sell a full version of a product for a reduced price to owners of a previous version, and legally prevent people who didn't own the previous version from paying the reduced price too.
And it would suck if I couldn't make the updates cheap to these people just because the law forces me to allow people to install my updates over say, pirated software.
Yep, that would suck. But sucking doesn't mean you can magically change the law! You just have to suck it up and deal with it!
And if your business model fails because of it, then it was your business model that was wrong, not the law!
Obviously. You need to read them when you set up the software.
So obviously, you read the EULA, set up the software and then hand the money over to the cashier and tear open the shrink-wrap. Is that the sequence of events you're asserting, hmm? 'Cause that's what your post says! Apparently, in the Bizarro-world you live in, you install the software before buying it!
Do you even realize how utterly asinine and moronic your argument is?! The sheer ridiculousness of it boggles the mind!
Psystar's lawyer (the one famous for increasing his clients fine for copying 24 songs from $220,000 to $1,920,000)
You know, except for the incompetent lawyers Psystar would have had a good chance of winning its case. Instead of dicking around with trying to prove that whatever Apple did didn't count as an "anti-circumvention device" (which is the only plausible reason why they'd give a damn about the documents you mention), what they ought to do is just skip straight to the real issue. And the real issue is that EULAs should be entirely unenforceable because they violate the doctrine of first sale, and that the buyer of a copy may install said copy on whatever computer he wants as a fundamental property right!
Even if they are paying retail price they're still violating the license.
So what? They're "violating" terms that Apple should not have the legal right to impose! Not only is it blatantly anti-competitive, but more importantly, it undermines the genuine property rights of the owner of the copy in favor of the flimsy Imaginary "rights" of the copyright holder (which were never actual Rights at all, but merely privileges bestowed by the People in return for contribution to the Public Domain -- a social contract which is essentially null and void due to the present gross excess in copyright durations anyway!).
And yeah, I know the GPL is a copyright license not an EULA. But in both cases people are using something in a way that the copyright holder has explicitly forbidden. Either you can have a copyright free world, in which case you can run OS X for free and keep your Linux fork closed source, or you live in a world with copyright where both things are illegal.
So basically, you're saying "and yeah, I know the argument I'm about to make is completely and utterly wrong, but I'm going to blatantly ignore that fact and yammer on about it anyway."
Here's a newsflash for you: that difference -- being a copyright license and not an EULA -- is THE SINGLE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE that determines why the GPL is (and should be) enforceable while Apple's EULA is not (and should not be)! So, either you fail to understand the issue or you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Idiot or shill; which are you?
They know that any installation that is running on these processors, is not a legitimate install, so why not block a processor to cut down on pirating?
Because when people buy a copy of OS X off the shelf and install it on their netbooks it IS a legitimate install, regardless of what unenforceable bullshit Apple's delusional lawyers wrote into the damn EULA!
The real problem is that we should recognize that bridges, and especially landmark bridges, stay standing indefinitely and should therefore quit designing the damn things with puny 50-year design lives!
"Bikers" pay gasoline taxes anyway. Cyclists would be perfectly happy with 10- to 12-foot-wide paths (equivalent to one vehicle lane), and those paths can use vastly lighter (i.e., cheaper) construction since bicycles weigh so much less than cars. Moreover, the traditional method of making of "better roads" -- adding lanes, increasing speed limits, etc. -- results in facilities worse for cyclists!
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars. Then what do you tax? Electricity? Now you're taxing people who may or may not use the roads.
Each year when the license tag gets renewed, read the odometer and subtract the previous year's reading. Multiply the distance traveled by the GVWR and the millage rate, and assess accordingly. No mucking about with different rules for different energy sources and no need for Big Brother-esque GPS tracking. It's Not That Fucking Hard!
I run SuperTux (among other things) on my Wii. Although the latest firmware update does try to break homebrew (and fail, by the way), the updates have never been automatic or mandatory.
That's a neat idea -- and I'd like a router like that too -- but I'd bet a socket for a SD card would cost more than 8 GB or so of soldered-on flash, even before you add the actual memory card itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's absolutely clear that the people who put him in power were expected to be the state legislatures!
If you're going to go back that far, you might as well keep going: what caused Sub-Saharan Africans to become enslaved in the first place? Why did they never build empires or develop technology (on the same scale as civilizations like the Romans, Arabs, or Chinese)? Why didn't they [re-]discover the New World and go enslave the Europeans, instead of the other way around?
And that's exactly what people are complaining about: Apple's attempts to legally* enforce that which they cannot legally enforce!
(*Note that I'm excluding Apple's technological attempts here. Some people are complaining about those too, but I have no real problem with Apple merely making it difficult; the problem comes when Apple starts threatening people (and/or Psystar) with the DMCA.)
Not quite -- that situation is obviously allowed. I think the question you meant to posit was whether you can sell a full version of a product for a reduced price to owners of a previous version, and legally prevent people who didn't own the previous version from paying the reduced price too.
Yep, that would suck. But sucking doesn't mean you can magically change the law! You just have to suck it up and deal with it!
And if your business model fails because of it, then it was your business model that was wrong, not the law!
Neither does the EULA!
So obviously, you read the EULA, set up the software and then hand the money over to the cashier and tear open the shrink-wrap. Is that the sequence of events you're asserting, hmm? 'Cause that's what your post says! Apparently, in the Bizarro-world you live in, you install the software before buying it!
Do you even realize how utterly asinine and moronic your argument is?! The sheer ridiculousness of it boggles the mind!
So what? Apple's business model should not trump people's fundamental property rights!
You know, except for the incompetent lawyers Psystar would have had a good chance of winning its case. Instead of dicking around with trying to prove that whatever Apple did didn't count as an "anti-circumvention device" (which is the only plausible reason why they'd give a damn about the documents you mention), what they ought to do is just skip straight to the real issue. And the real issue is that EULAs should be entirely unenforceable because they violate the doctrine of first sale, and that the buyer of a copy may install said copy on whatever computer he wants as a fundamental property right!
So what? They're "violating" terms that Apple should not have the legal right to impose! Not only is it blatantly anti-competitive, but more importantly, it undermines the genuine property rights of the owner of the copy in favor of the flimsy Imaginary "rights" of the copyright holder (which were never actual Rights at all, but merely privileges bestowed by the People in return for contribution to the Public Domain -- a social contract which is essentially null and void due to the present gross excess in copyright durations anyway!).
So basically, you're saying "and yeah, I know the argument I'm about to make is completely and utterly wrong, but I'm going to blatantly ignore that fact and yammer on about it anyway."
Here's a newsflash for you: that difference -- being a copyright license and not an EULA -- is THE SINGLE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE that determines why the GPL is (and should be) enforceable while Apple's EULA is not (and should not be)! So, either you fail to understand the issue or you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Idiot or shill; which are you?
Because when people buy a copy of OS X off the shelf and install it on their netbooks it IS a legitimate install, regardless of what unenforceable bullshit Apple's delusional lawyers wrote into the damn EULA!
So fucking what?! In any sort of sane world, Apple does not have the right to only "license" it for use with particular hardware!
But how much of that soil is organic (from the decomposition of plants) rather than clay minerals (from the weathering of that exposed bedrock)?
The real problem is that we should recognize that bridges, and especially landmark bridges, stay standing indefinitely and should therefore quit designing the damn things with puny 50-year design lives!
There's something very, very wrong with the prison system if it costs more than welfare on a per-capita basis!
"Bikers" pay gasoline taxes anyway. Cyclists would be perfectly happy with 10- to 12-foot-wide paths (equivalent to one vehicle lane), and those paths can use vastly lighter (i.e., cheaper) construction since bicycles weigh so much less than cars. Moreover, the traditional method of making of "better roads" -- adding lanes, increasing speed limits, etc. -- results in facilities worse for cyclists!
Each year when the license tag gets renewed, read the odometer and subtract the previous year's reading. Multiply the distance traveled by the GVWR and the millage rate, and assess accordingly. No mucking about with different rules for different energy sources and no need for Big Brother-esque GPS tracking. It's Not That Fucking Hard!
Just goes to show how thrift store owners often have no clue whatsoever what the stuff they're trying to sell is (or is not) actually worth.
Why is that surprising? It's less than you get with a Gmail account (albeit easier to use since you get a filesystem interface without hacks).
Ah ha! So the best idea is to buy the game once for $20, then a whole bunch more times for $0.01 each! MUAH HA HA HA HA!!!
They're not; they're claiming that in the near future, 50+ Android phones will have been released.
The Wii will never have 1080p; Nintendo will make you buy the next console for that.
I run SuperTux (among other things) on my Wii. Although the latest firmware update does try to break homebrew (and fail, by the way), the updates have never been automatic or mandatory.
22% is a lot!
The other two thirds are mostly Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt.
That's a neat idea -- and I'd like a router like that too -- but I'd bet a socket for a SD card would cost more than 8 GB or so of soldered-on flash, even before you add the actual memory card itself.