Don't you hate it when you're the 2nd person to comment on a story, but the 1st comment gets replied to so many times, you're pushed so far down you get rated redundant...
Thus I give you the slashdot comment system
The Mac Box Set has a full retail copy of OSX that does not require a previous license to use.
Also, I can "sell" OSX from my mac. I can sell the license that I bought when buying the computer. Apple cannot stop me from reselling my license under the first sale doctrine.
Really? That has nothing to do with this. Bobbs-Merrill Co. vs. Straus says that the creator cannot limit resale. Thats it. I can license a book, so that I will always retain the ownership of the book, but the licensee will have possession of the book under certain terms. The licensee has the right to sell his license to someone else under the same terms, yet he can not sell the book, since I retain the ownership of the book.
Your argument is flawed. You assume that 100% of the people who buy/build hackintoshes would not buy Apple hardware if they could not have hackintoshes. If someone wants the "Apple Experience" then they'll buy an Apple computer. Apple makes the software for one purpose: to sell hardware. To argue otherwise is pointless and incorrect. Not to mention that you have no proof that people building hackintoshes are even buying copies of OSX. Hell Psystar even failed to prove sales records, effectively admitting that they're 100% retarded, or pirating OSX.
Its not my argument, its fact. You may not be able to return it to BB or a retail store, but you can always return it to Apple. You don't have to open the package to read the EULA either.
And yes, the licensing argument does cut it, and will continue to cut it, because its the contract you WILLINGLY accepted. Don't like the rules, don't buy the license.
I don't like this whole license thing myself, and I'd build a hackintosh too if I had the time, but that doesn't mean that its not illegal to do so, and people need to understand that it is in fact a license. Whether it is moral for software companies to do or if it is moral to break such contracts is all relative to the person; morals are dependent on the entity. The law, however, corresponds to all.
Because you didn't buy your computer software? You bought a license. The first sale doctrine 100% applies to that license. You can print the license, burn it, sell it if you want, that is all fine. However, you didn't buy the software. It is still owned by the company, and you have been given the right to use it, under certain conditions.
If you want, you can license your book, too. You can restrict where people can read it and that they can not sell the book themselves. You can't prevent them from selling the license, but they couldn't sell the book.
False. EULA stands for End-User License Agreement. Like the name suggests, its the terms to which you are licensed the software. It has nothing to do with support. Apple didn't go after the hackintosh community because:
1. Its as impossible as stopping piracy. 2. Apple, despite common belief, isn't out to fuck anyone over.
Psystar is cutting into Apple's profits in an illegal manner. Apple only LICENSES OSX, and Psystar is breaking that license (or contributing to the end user to do so) and thus makes it a matter of copyright infringment. If Psystar has OSX but no license, then it has an illegal copy. Apple will put a legal end to Psystar, and if it can't, it'll put a technical end to both Psystar and the hackintosh community
Your logic falls over after the bit where you never BOUGHT the software in the first place. You paid for a license to use the software included in the box. Apple hasn't sold a single copy of OSX EVER. You've licensed this software and therefore agree to the terms of the license. If you don't agree, return the software.
And to those "but the EULA doesn't count because I couldn't read it before i bought it" people, the EULA is supposed to be available upon request, is available on apple's website, AND apple will let you return the purchase if you decline the EULA upon running the program.
But your argument breaks down here: Had you not bought the iPhone, you wouldn't have to buy from the iTMS. Everybody is bashing apple for the whole app store thing, but let me see if I can explain something.
Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers. Remember the Google Voice app rejection? Ever consider that apple had a contract with ATT that prevented them from allowing alternate voice apps to run on the iPhone? Jailbreaking assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you jailbreak, you pirate) Out of respect for their app developers, they should try to fight piracy.
You do realize that they're not playing by the free market, but instead are putting limitations which would not exist if there was competition. If piracy could be eliminated (in their perfect world), would you expect prices to drop? I'm sure they'd skyrocket
Well, they wouldn't really. The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries. The airlines would just take advantage of the situation (like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).
People devoted to certain airlines wouldn't switch because of this if they're all doing it. And remember, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
You're Right, they don't listen. But it's not their job to listen. You don't walk into a store and tell the janitor what products that the store should stock.
These security agents are paid $14/hr, and probably don't have any connection to the TSA rulemakers. Whether the security guards can honestly tell a security suggestion from a security threat, I do not know, but I'd like to think they have to treat them all with caution.
The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit.
Knowing the airlines, they could turn this into some type of profit scheme. Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)
i've seen a few services like this. I honestly didn't read up about how this particular one works, but I sure would hate it if the "Hey, are you still alive?" email went to the spam folder and the service sent out all of those emails...
Yeah its 100% bullshit. The cloud is a horrible idea. Whats the point of storing all of my information and applications on someone else's computer, only to use the internet to access them. The only "web" applications I use are flash games and stuff for school.
Want to know the irony of this whole "3-strikes" bullshit? Nicolas Sarcozy, (Pres of France for my fellow ignorants) was the one who started this whole thing. His administration has openly engaged in copyright infringment...
Apparently some DVD was made about him, to which the publisher only made 50 copies. Sarcozy's people then made an additional 400 copies without permission.
No, not a derivative work, but a completely different work altogether. A torrent file is a file that points to where you can download another file. If BREIN doesn't own the file, how can they demand it be removed? NO part of the file actually contains ANYTHING they own.
Slashdot Mirror
I"VE BEEN STUCK ON 98% FOR 3 DAYS!!!!!!1111!!!1!! SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED.
Oh boo hoo. Russia has a bad history, it should expect criticism
Don't you hate it when you're the 2nd person to comment on a story, but the 1st comment gets replied to so many times, you're pushed so far down you get rated redundant... Thus I give you the slashdot comment system
Or it destroys the whole planet!!!!111!!11!!1!!
Well my scouter says its pretty weak, but sometimes it can be over 9000
Sure you can.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC209Z/A
The Mac Box Set has a full retail copy of OSX that does not require a previous license to use.
Also, I can "sell" OSX from my mac. I can sell the license that I bought when buying the computer. Apple cannot stop me from reselling my license under the first sale doctrine.
Really? That has nothing to do with this. Bobbs-Merrill Co. vs. Straus says that the creator cannot limit resale. Thats it. I can license a book, so that I will always retain the ownership of the book, but the licensee will have possession of the book under certain terms. The licensee has the right to sell his license to someone else under the same terms, yet he can not sell the book, since I retain the ownership of the book.
Your argument is flawed. You assume that 100% of the people who buy/build hackintoshes would not buy Apple hardware if they could not have hackintoshes. If someone wants the "Apple Experience" then they'll buy an Apple computer. Apple makes the software for one purpose: to sell hardware. To argue otherwise is pointless and incorrect. Not to mention that you have no proof that people building hackintoshes are even buying copies of OSX. Hell Psystar even failed to prove sales records, effectively admitting that they're 100% retarded, or pirating OSX.
Its not my argument, its fact. You may not be able to return it to BB or a retail store, but you can always return it to Apple. You don't have to open the package to read the EULA either.
And yes, the licensing argument does cut it, and will continue to cut it, because its the contract you WILLINGLY accepted. Don't like the rules, don't buy the license.
I don't like this whole license thing myself, and I'd build a hackintosh too if I had the time, but that doesn't mean that its not illegal to do so, and people need to understand that it is in fact a license. Whether it is moral for software companies to do or if it is moral to break such contracts is all relative to the person; morals are dependent on the entity. The law, however, corresponds to all.
Because you didn't buy your computer software? You bought a license. The first sale doctrine 100% applies to that license. You can print the license, burn it, sell it if you want, that is all fine. However, you didn't buy the software. It is still owned by the company, and you have been given the right to use it, under certain conditions.
If you want, you can license your book, too. You can restrict where people can read it and that they can not sell the book themselves. You can't prevent them from selling the license, but they couldn't sell the book.
If you're speeding and nobody is around to report it, are you still breaking the law?
False. EULA stands for End-User License Agreement. Like the name suggests, its the terms to which you are licensed the software. It has nothing to do with support. Apple didn't go after the hackintosh community because:
1. Its as impossible as stopping piracy.
2. Apple, despite common belief, isn't out to fuck anyone over.
Psystar is cutting into Apple's profits in an illegal manner. Apple only LICENSES OSX, and Psystar is breaking that license (or contributing to the end user to do so) and thus makes it a matter of copyright infringment. If Psystar has OSX but no license, then it has an illegal copy. Apple will put a legal end to Psystar, and if it can't, it'll put a technical end to both Psystar and the hackintosh community
Well, a contract is valid unless proven otherwise, so you like me to a court judgment invalidating ALL EULAs or even an entire EULA?
You can't. There have been cases in the past to invalidate SPECIFIC CLAUSES of a EULA, but never the whole thing.
Your logic falls over after the bit where you never BOUGHT the software in the first place. You paid for a license to use the software included in the box. Apple hasn't sold a single copy of OSX EVER. You've licensed this software and therefore agree to the terms of the license. If you don't agree, return the software.
And to those "but the EULA doesn't count because I couldn't read it before i bought it" people, the EULA is supposed to be available upon request, is available on apple's website, AND apple will let you return the purchase if you decline the EULA upon running the program.
But your argument breaks down here: Had you not bought the iPhone, you wouldn't have to buy from the iTMS. Everybody is bashing apple for the whole app store thing, but let me see if I can explain something.
Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers. Remember the Google Voice app rejection? Ever consider that apple had a contract with ATT that prevented them from allowing alternate voice apps to run on the iPhone? Jailbreaking assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you jailbreak, you pirate) Out of respect for their app developers, they should try to fight piracy.
This isn't a black and white issue
You do realize that they're not playing by the free market, but instead are putting limitations which would not exist if there was competition. If piracy could be eliminated (in their perfect world), would you expect prices to drop? I'm sure they'd skyrocket
Well, they wouldn't really. The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries. The airlines would just take advantage of the situation (like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).
People devoted to certain airlines wouldn't switch because of this if they're all doing it. And remember, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
You're Right, they don't listen. But it's not their job to listen. You don't walk into a store and tell the janitor what products that the store should stock.
These security agents are paid $14/hr, and probably don't have any connection to the TSA rulemakers. Whether the security guards can honestly tell a security suggestion from a security threat, I do not know, but I'd like to think they have to treat them all with caution.
Yeah, because the TSA would be happy to see you jerry-rigging aluminum foil to your laptop
The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit.
Knowing the airlines, they could turn this into some type of profit scheme. Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)
http://www.mylastemail.com/
i've seen a few services like this. I honestly didn't read up about how this particular one works, but I sure would hate it if the "Hey, are you still alive?" email went to the spam folder and the service sent out all of those emails...
How many Library of Congresses will all this data take up???
Yeah its 100% bullshit. The cloud is a horrible idea. Whats the point of storing all of my information and applications on someone else's computer, only to use the internet to access them. The only "web" applications I use are flash games and stuff for school.
Want to know the irony of this whole "3-strikes" bullshit? Nicolas Sarcozy, (Pres of France for my fellow ignorants) was the one who started this whole thing. His administration has openly engaged in copyright infringment...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091008/2344176470.shtml
Apparently some DVD was made about him, to which the publisher only made 50 copies. Sarcozy's people then made an additional 400 copies without permission.
What a dumb fuck
No, not a derivative work, but a completely different work altogether. A torrent file is a file that points to where you can download another file. If BREIN doesn't own the file, how can they demand it be removed? NO part of the file actually contains ANYTHING they own.