They haven't, but they could in the future, simply by asking the customers to hire them to install Mac OS X (after the fact) on the computer they are purchasing.
So, you don't care about the facts of the case, you're just making shit up?
Books can't be legitimately licensed either, by the way, and for the same reason. They can be leased, rented, contracted for, but they cannot be licensed through the ordinary retail sale process because no one needs a license to read a copy they own.
Utter bullshit. Books are licensed all the time, just see Amazon's Kindle and other eBook sales.
1. The copies that Psystar is making could be made legitimate under 17 USC 117(a)(1) by the simple establishment of an agency relationship between the end user and Psystar.
Highly doubtful. but let's entertain this idea for a minute. How has Psystar established this "agency relationship" with its customers?
2. The software industry calls EULAs "licenses" for a reason, the theory is the end user doesn't own a copy the way a end user owns a book, ergo First Sale and 117(a) rights do not apply.
It's no different than the ownership of a book at all. Books can be licensed, just like software. And First Sale doctrine allows you to sell the physical copy, it doesn't allow you to copy the book, slightly modify it, and sell it for profit. Just like software.
Yes, that's an "adaptation" as allowed by section 117. The customer, having bought a copy of OS X from Psystar, authorizes Psystar to make an adaptation of OS X on their behalf.
Where the fuck do you get this bullshit from? Do you really think that Psystar waits for a customer to make an order, sells them the OS, then asks them "do you authorize us to make an adaptation of this OS you bought" and then installs it on a computer and ships it to them? Of course not! They are installing this ahead of time, and shipping them out when they get an order.
I'm not sure what kind of bizarro world you are living in, because you don't really seem to know anything about anything, and are just making shit up, because there's nothing about this in copyright law.
2. Psystar becomes the owner of a copy of OS X the moment they buy a copy of OS X. This is literally the most fundamental economic principle: when you exchange money for goods, you become the owner of the goods and the seller becomes the owner of your money.
The "goods" in this case being a disc, and a license to use it in limited ways, not in the way that Psystar is.
I know that you don't need a license to exercise the rights given to you by copyright law.
Apparently you don't. Copyright law doesn't give Psystar this right, and copyrighted works can be restricted by licenses.
OK, my next question is: what's your point? That's an authorized use. Everybody knows you can do a clean install from the Snow Leopard disc. Were you just reminiscing for no reason whatsoever?
Google is a CIA front operation. Google's search was nothing special in the beginning, and only years later caught up to some of the technologies used by its competitors of the era, such as Hotbot. In my post I excluded Google from consideration as a "black ops" company.
The law doesn't specify that they have to use the original copy. The same bits end up being copied, and thus the same copy is made, no matter where the bits come from
No, the same bits do not end up being copied, as Psystar has modified the copy before installing.
As for whether or not Psystar is actually buying a copy of OS X for every copy they sell, that's an interesting accusation, but the ball is in Apple's court to prove infringement.
No, it's actually in Psystar's court to prove legitimacy, since it has demonstrated distribution quite clearly.
Read it again. It applies to "the owner of a copy of a computer program", and Psystar becomes that owner the moment they buy a copy.
Except, of course that's not true.
The act of installing OS X on a non-Apple computer does not send a ripple back through time to undo the original purchase. At best, it voids the EULA and revokes any extra rights that license might have granted,
Do you have any understanding of copyright law whatsoever?
17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] gives them the right to install it on the hard drive, and then to transfer that copy when they sell the original.
Except that it doesn't. Psystar isn't using the original copy to install the software (it is cloning a different copy from a hard drive), and hasn't actually proven that it is buying original copies for each sale. Additionally, 17 USC 117 only applies to authorized copies, and Psystar isn't using authorized copies, because there is no authorization to install on non-Apple hardware.
You (Dangitman) are arguing about developer freedom, while Mixmatch is arguing about user freedom. Don't conflate the two and you won't be arguing.
I never brought up freedom, mixmatch did. And he never qualified it with "developer freedom" or "user freedom."
In any case, your comment seems bizarre, as only developers would be interested in source code - what user would be interested in source code, who isn't also a developer? I would have thought my comment would be more commonly interpreted by the slashdot readership as being pro-user-freedom, and anti-developer-freedom.
Again, we come back to the problem that freedom means different things to different people.
I bought the $29 Snow Leopard disk and wiped the hard drive before installing.
Yeah, so what? Were you replacing a legally licensed version of Mac OS X, or were you installing it on a machine that was never sold by Apple, and never had a previous version on it?
You can't return the software because you already opened it, you couldn't have known about the terms because they were on the disk and not the packaging
Well, that would be incorrect in this particular case, as Apple posts its EULAs publicly on its website, and also has them in the packaging of the product, not just on the disc. Do you care putting forth any other blatantly false arguments?
The thing about not having copyright on the book is that there could be no 'official' sequels. Everything would be, more or less, fan fiction. Sure, some of that fan fiction could be marketed and sold, but it is not 'official' fan fiction.
That is a non sequitur. You do need legitimate copies, you don't need a distribution agreement.
How is it a non-sequitur? Psystar is distributing unauthorized copies. If I started distributing unauthorized copies of Windows, I'd be in trouble too. What is the difference?
Someone who has purchased a copy of a copyrighted work has the legal right to sell or dispose of it as they please.
But Psystar is not "disposing" of the product - it is making unauthorized copies and selling them.
Copyright does not include arbitrary rights to set terms beyond those granted in copyright law, that is why the software industry really, really wants you to believe that an EULA is an enforceable contract between you and them.
But it is an enforceable contract between you and them. And copyright does allow additional arbitrary terms - publishers of any kind of work can set all kinds of restrictions - because copyright allows them the right to govern the terms of copying and distribution.
The First Sale Doctrine, Title 17 Section 109 perhaps?
So, how would that apply to every use apart from redistributing it, when the First Sale Doctrine is all about redistribution? This makes even less sense than it did before!
You are assuming that EULAs are valid licenses. A license grants permission to do something that the licensee otherwise does not have the right to do. This is not the case - a retail customer does not own the copyright, but they do own the copy. No license is necessary to use something that you own.
Courts have upheld EULAs several times, and yes, you do need to obey the license on licensed media, so long as the license is lawful.
They generally don't. Unless you can cite any cases where they have said it must be signed. In most of the case law so far, non-signed EULAs have been upheld as valid. Not to mention all the cases for copying CDs and DVDs and other entertainment media - you don't have to sign something agreeing not to copy the media in order to be prosecuted for it.
What we should be doing is encouraging people Not to vote, unless they feel very strongly about the person.
So, you advocate rule by uninformed extremists? Just because you feel strongly about some candidate, does not mean you are informed. And vice-versa. Voting on emotion seems the opposite of what we want.
Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire.
No it doesn't. What about my freedom to take GPLed code, and turn it into a closed-source commercial product?If it was about freedom, wouldn't you make the software Public Domain, so there is more freedom?
Because the COPY of the OS the customer purchased is OWNED by the customer. They can do whatever they want with it, short of redistributing copies.
Wrong. They are bound by any legal licensing terms. One does not have to redistribute to break the licensing terms. For example, if you install a piece of software on 10 computers at home, but the software is only licensed for 1 machine, and you get caught and taken to court, you will most likely lose and have to pay compensation or be punished.
I'm not sure where slashdotters get this idea that you are allowed to do anything you like with software you have purchased (besides redistribute it), because it doesn't have any basis in reality.
Except they still bought OS X for each machine they sell, they're not just cranking out copies without any compensation for Apple.
And the license agreement says they can't run it or copy it onto hardware other than Apple sells
Car analogy time: Assume a car manufacturer only sells red cars. Would it be legal to buy one, paint it blue, and sell it for profit to people who prefer blue cars?
But a car is not software or IP, so the analogy fails.
the manufacturer still got compensated for the goods...
Not really - the development of Mac OS is subsidized by hardware sales. The copy of the OS upgrades alone would not fund the development, it would be a loss. Psystar is basically stealing that subsidy by not having to cover all development costs.
No... it's the equivalent of buying a book, slapping on a different cover, and selling it for profit.
But they are copying it. How else does it get installed on the hard drive?
Psystar resells copies of OS X that they purchased; they don't make their own copies.
Except for when they install it on the hard drive, in violation of the license agreement.
And the same law that gives you the right to install your copy of OS X on your personal hackintosh also gives you the right to authorize someone else (like Psystar) to do it on your behalf.
Nonsense. Nothing gives Psystar the right to use the software in violation of the licensing terms.
Except Psystar didn't innovate anything - they are just riding on the back of others' hard work, in an unethical and most likely illegal way. I guess if Psystar are innovators, then the label could also apply do your local mob boss, or some guy who sells pirated DVDs in the street.
Well, OK, they are most likely illegal (awaiting judgement by the courts) but are definitely wrong according to my moral code of "stupid douchebags who want to make a quick buck without doing anything original."
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't, but they could in the future, simply by asking the customers to hire them to install Mac OS X (after the fact) on the computer they are purchasing.
So, you don't care about the facts of the case, you're just making shit up?
Books can't be legitimately licensed either, by the way, and for the same reason. They can be leased, rented, contracted for, but they cannot be licensed through the ordinary retail sale process because no one needs a license to read a copy they own.
Utter bullshit. Books are licensed all the time, just see Amazon's Kindle and other eBook sales.
1. The copies that Psystar is making could be made legitimate under 17 USC 117(a)(1) by the simple establishment of an agency relationship between the end user and Psystar.
Highly doubtful. but let's entertain this idea for a minute. How has Psystar established this "agency relationship" with its customers?
2. The software industry calls EULAs "licenses" for a reason, the theory is the end user doesn't own a copy the way a end user owns a book, ergo First Sale and 117(a) rights do not apply.
It's no different than the ownership of a book at all. Books can be licensed, just like software. And First Sale doctrine allows you to sell the physical copy, it doesn't allow you to copy the book, slightly modify it, and sell it for profit. Just like software.
Yes, that's an "adaptation" as allowed by section 117. The customer, having bought a copy of OS X from Psystar, authorizes Psystar to make an adaptation of OS X on their behalf.
Where the fuck do you get this bullshit from? Do you really think that Psystar waits for a customer to make an order, sells them the OS, then asks them "do you authorize us to make an adaptation of this OS you bought" and then installs it on a computer and ships it to them? Of course not! They are installing this ahead of time, and shipping them out when they get an order.
I'm not sure what kind of bizarro world you are living in, because you don't really seem to know anything about anything, and are just making shit up, because there's nothing about this in copyright law.
2. Psystar becomes the owner of a copy of OS X the moment they buy a copy of OS X. This is literally the most fundamental economic principle: when you exchange money for goods, you become the owner of the goods and the seller becomes the owner of your money.
The "goods" in this case being a disc, and a license to use it in limited ways, not in the way that Psystar is.
I know that you don't need a license to exercise the rights given to you by copyright law.
Apparently you don't. Copyright law doesn't give Psystar this right, and copyrighted works can be restricted by licenses.
OK, my next question is: what's your point? That's an authorized use. Everybody knows you can do a clean install from the Snow Leopard disc. Were you just reminiscing for no reason whatsoever?
Google is a CIA front operation. Google's search was nothing special in the beginning, and only years later caught up to some of the technologies used by its competitors of the era, such as Hotbot. In my post I excluded Google from consideration as a "black ops" company.
So, clearly you are insane.
The law doesn't specify that they have to use the original copy. The same bits end up being copied, and thus the same copy is made, no matter where the bits come from
No, the same bits do not end up being copied, as Psystar has modified the copy before installing.
As for whether or not Psystar is actually buying a copy of OS X for every copy they sell, that's an interesting accusation, but the ball is in Apple's court to prove infringement.
No, it's actually in Psystar's court to prove legitimacy, since it has demonstrated distribution quite clearly.
Read it again. It applies to "the owner of a copy of a computer program", and Psystar becomes that owner the moment they buy a copy.
Except, of course that's not true.
The act of installing OS X on a non-Apple computer does not send a ripple back through time to undo the original purchase. At best, it voids the EULA and revokes any extra rights that license might have granted,
Do you have any understanding of copyright law whatsoever?
Well, at least you're having fun. That's important.
17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] gives them the right to install it on the hard drive, and then to transfer that copy when they sell the original.
Except that it doesn't. Psystar isn't using the original copy to install the software (it is cloning a different copy from a hard drive), and hasn't actually proven that it is buying original copies for each sale. Additionally, 17 USC 117 only applies to authorized copies, and Psystar isn't using authorized copies, because there is no authorization to install on non-Apple hardware.
You (Dangitman) are arguing about developer freedom, while Mixmatch is arguing about user freedom. Don't conflate the two and you won't be arguing.
I never brought up freedom, mixmatch did. And he never qualified it with "developer freedom" or "user freedom."
In any case, your comment seems bizarre, as only developers would be interested in source code - what user would be interested in source code, who isn't also a developer? I would have thought my comment would be more commonly interpreted by the slashdot readership as being pro-user-freedom, and anti-developer-freedom.
Again, we come back to the problem that freedom means different things to different people.
I bought the $29 Snow Leopard disk and wiped the hard drive before installing.
Yeah, so what? Were you replacing a legally licensed version of Mac OS X, or were you installing it on a machine that was never sold by Apple, and never had a previous version on it?
You can't return the software because you already opened it, you couldn't have known about the terms because they were on the disk and not the packaging
Well, that would be incorrect in this particular case, as Apple posts its EULAs publicly on its website, and also has them in the packaging of the product, not just on the disc. Do you care putting forth any other blatantly false arguments?
The thing about not having copyright on the book is that there could be no 'official' sequels. Everything would be, more or less, fan fiction. Sure, some of that fan fiction could be marketed and sold, but it is not 'official' fan fiction.
OK, so what's the difference?
But your previous sentence was "What we care about is freedom" - but that's obviously not all you care about, because you also restrict freedom.
The GPL guarantees everyone certain freedoms, but no, you can't do whatever you want with it.
So, why is that OK with the GPL, but not proprietary software?
That is a non sequitur. You do need legitimate copies, you don't need a distribution agreement.
How is it a non-sequitur? Psystar is distributing unauthorized copies. If I started distributing unauthorized copies of Windows, I'd be in trouble too. What is the difference?
Someone who has purchased a copy of a copyrighted work has the legal right to sell or dispose of it as they please.
But Psystar is not "disposing" of the product - it is making unauthorized copies and selling them.
Copyright does not include arbitrary rights to set terms beyond those granted in copyright law, that is why the software industry really, really wants you to believe that an EULA is an enforceable contract between you and them.
But it is an enforceable contract between you and them. And copyright does allow additional arbitrary terms - publishers of any kind of work can set all kinds of restrictions - because copyright allows them the right to govern the terms of copying and distribution.
The First Sale Doctrine, Title 17 Section 109 perhaps?
So, how would that apply to every use apart from redistributing it, when the First Sale Doctrine is all about redistribution? This makes even less sense than it did before!
You are assuming that EULAs are valid licenses. A license grants permission to do something that the licensee otherwise does not have the right to do. This is not the case - a retail customer does not own the copyright, but they do own the copy. No license is necessary to use something that you own.
Courts have upheld EULAs several times, and yes, you do need to obey the license on licensed media, so long as the license is lawful.
A court of law may see it differently.
They generally don't. Unless you can cite any cases where they have said it must be signed. In most of the case law so far, non-signed EULAs have been upheld as valid. Not to mention all the cases for copying CDs and DVDs and other entertainment media - you don't have to sign something agreeing not to copy the media in order to be prosecuted for it.
What we should be doing is encouraging people Not to vote, unless they feel very strongly about the person.
So, you advocate rule by uninformed extremists? Just because you feel strongly about some candidate, does not mean you are informed. And vice-versa. Voting on emotion seems the opposite of what we want.
Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire.
No it doesn't. What about my freedom to take GPLed code, and turn it into a closed-source commercial product?If it was about freedom, wouldn't you make the software Public Domain, so there is more freedom?
The EULA is not revealed until after the time of purchase.
The EULAs are publicly available on Apple's website for you to read prior to purchase.
I signed no EULA to purchase OS X
You don't have to sign one for it to be valid.
Because the COPY of the OS the customer purchased is OWNED by the customer. They can do whatever they want with it, short of redistributing copies.
Wrong. They are bound by any legal licensing terms. One does not have to redistribute to break the licensing terms. For example, if you install a piece of software on 10 computers at home, but the software is only licensed for 1 machine, and you get caught and taken to court, you will most likely lose and have to pay compensation or be punished.
I'm not sure where slashdotters get this idea that you are allowed to do anything you like with software you have purchased (besides redistribute it), because it doesn't have any basis in reality.
Right. Which is why companies that do nothing but ship Windows on a generic PC are also douchebags.
Except they still bought OS X for each machine they sell, they're not just cranking out copies without any compensation for Apple.
And the license agreement says they can't run it or copy it onto hardware other than Apple sells
Car analogy time: Assume a car manufacturer only sells red cars. Would it be legal to buy one, paint it blue, and sell it for profit to people who prefer blue cars?
But a car is not software or IP, so the analogy fails.
the manufacturer still got compensated for the goods...
Not really - the development of Mac OS is subsidized by hardware sales. The copy of the OS upgrades alone would not fund the development, it would be a loss. Psystar is basically stealing that subsidy by not having to cover all development costs.
No... it's the equivalent of buying a book, slapping on a different cover, and selling it for profit.
But they are copying it. How else does it get installed on the hard drive?
Psystar resells copies of OS X that they purchased; they don't make their own copies.
Except for when they install it on the hard drive, in violation of the license agreement.
And the same law that gives you the right to install your copy of OS X on your personal hackintosh also gives you the right to authorize someone else (like Psystar) to do it on your behalf.
Nonsense. Nothing gives Psystar the right to use the software in violation of the licensing terms.
Except Psystar didn't innovate anything - they are just riding on the back of others' hard work, in an unethical and most likely illegal way. I guess if Psystar are innovators, then the label could also apply do your local mob boss, or some guy who sells pirated DVDs in the street.
Well, OK, they are most likely illegal (awaiting judgement by the courts) but are definitely wrong according to my moral code of "stupid douchebags who want to make a quick buck without doing anything original."