OSNews

Sony already does exactly that already. Forbidding to copy the music to any other media and enforcing that with "copy protection" is even more than that. Just think about a mobile mp3 player. It is not allowed to copy a "copy protected" CD to that device to enable it playing it.

"

CDs released by Sony music are only playable in Sony playback hardware? And/or the CDs come with licenses that attempt to enforce those restrictions? That's news to me.

I guess you would not mind to read my full comment and not only the first sentence of it. And then it should also not be too hard to think a little bit outside the box to see what I want to imply with my comment. Thank you.

... except that you stated Sony does "exactly that already." Which they don't. Learn to write up a cohesive argument before bashing someone for calling you on bullshit.

Thank's mum! Do I have to sit in a corner now?

Learn this, learn that. Learn to read, learn to argument. Is that how you talk to people in real-life, too? Jesus.

??? Er, you called out the op, I corrected you on your stupidity, and now you're whining that I did so? You fail at the Internet.

I posted about EULA clauses limiting what hardware can be used with a specific piece of IP. And your reply was about copy protection/limitations. IANAL, but I'm still fairly certain that contract law and copyright law are two different topics.

Were you trying to equate the Apple/Pystar situation with the Sony DRM-rootkit fiasco? That's the only possible relevance I can think of it, and even then it's not really an apt comparison.

If Psystar win, it will not mean that Apple has to make OS X work on other hardware. In fact, nothing will change at all.

_all_ it will mean is that _if_ you can get OS X working on other hardware, you can. There is nothing about this legal case that means Apple have to suddenly magically help you and make it easy.

Apple will not defend on EULA terms, it's irrelevant. They will attack on another basis, such as illegally re-using the OSX86 hacker's code and/or DMCA for modifying Apple's binaries.

what's with the stretch you're making..? No one ever claimed this. People want to run OSX on other hardware, Apple doesn't - and this is being tested now. "Apple having to help anyone" is derived from smoking your own crack... no-one needs Apple's help as it is being done without their help already this very moment.

I'm talking on a non-geek sense, but of course, on OSnews, that just goes straight over everybody's head and they get in a tizz.

The simplest, if quite drastic, solution from Apple's end is to stop selling OS X altogether. Move it into a service based model with the purchase of any Mac. It'd be more in line with Apple's actual business model and might just serve as a swift kick in the balls to the warez kiddies if they did it right...

I think the point of Apple's EULA has a lot to do with consistent quality to the user experience. The relationship between Apple hardware and software is what keeps the overall user base happy and loyal- if OS X were to get licensed to any PC it would also need to be supported by Apple. Not because it's an absolute requirement for an OS maker (Microsoft proves it's possible to sell an OS and not give a damn if it doesn't work with your hardware) but because a bad OS X experience brought about by a generic PC would poison the software groundwater. That's why they don't even support Leopard on some of their own hardware. It'll run below the official requirements sure, but the user experience is compromised.

For Mac users there has been and always will be a cohesiveness to computing. It's a complete experience. Apple isn't perfect, but in most cases they have your back. Microsoft is an engine producer that doesn't know much about how to make cars. Apple understands that if any part of your car is of poor quality it will greatly effect your overall experience. Therefore they make or control everything in their cars.

Also, Apple doesn't want to replace Microsoft. Not by simply letting anyone run with half of their product (the OS is PART of the hardware-software package, not some standalone thing) The market share will grow for Linux and OS X because as computing becomes more complicated, and connected to all manner of equipment, people are going to get sick of Windows just not working. with their phones, or cameras, or whatever else crashes Vista.

The Ferrari engine has no business being wedged into a run-down old Chevy. You might get it to run, but who gets blamed when the Chevy craps out?

A ferrari engine isn't durable. And has a horrible high TCO.

Edited 2008-08-03 14:10 UTC

The customer has the preserved right of using the software the way it fits her most, including modifications on the software...."

This is where the break down is actually. If you were a customer of Apple and used the software for your own purposes, doing this would not be an issue. In this case we have a company reselling Apple software without permission, as well as modifying the software to distribute it to others, and make a profit on it. Big difference from the scenario you mentioned.

I want to mention here that German law also invalidates EULA parts which state that you are not allowed to resell the software -- this was tested in court with the back-then EULA of OEM MS Office versions.

But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it, which can be forbidden by the EULA.

p.s.: to clarify: If Apple is sueing Psystar over the EULA (End-user License Agreement) it is obvious that Psystar is buying these end-user licenses from Apple and therefore is a customer like everybody else.

Edited 2008-08-01 01:15 UTC

If you took the time to read, the issue isn't the reselling of the operating system - I've sold old copies of MacOS X without any repercussions from the auction site I did it through.

The issue at play is the fact that this vendor is selling a MODIFIED VERSION of Apple's software - that is the issue. They have hacked up a copy of MacOS X and resold it. Unless they have a special OEM agreement with Apple (which they don't), what they did was illegal.

I wonder why some people go out of their way to be rude to others on this site? This post would have had more value, and been more persuasive, if it had not started out with the above quoted bit.

Edited 2008-08-01 01:27 UTC

It spans way back to newsgroups and is currently upheld by the behavior on many, many mailing lists. Many of these places it seems like at least half of your geek-cred is determined by how much of a belligerent asshole, rigid change-hater, or cranky old fart you can be. The often immature clueless pissyness on osnews is childs-play in comparison, generally speaking.

Don't accuse others of not reading what they are talking about in the very same minute you don't read what you are even quoting yourself (I refer to the second paragraph of my posting here)!

In my previous posting I justed added some general information about the laws in Germany. This is a special issue:
* not allowing modifications to the software is invalid
* not allowing to resell the software is invalid
* the combination of both presumbly gets valid again

I say presumbly as this is not as clear as it looks.

And sure, what they did may be illegal in other countries and even in Germany. You seem to be a little bit overeager at claiming facts though!

Edited 2008-08-01 05:17 UTC

... and you seem a bit over eager to let us know facts about German legislation, which in this case is incredibly pointless as the case is being tried in the USA.


Anyhow, once that Pysstar started reselling OSX they stop being a "customer" and started embarking in a commercial transaction. Modifying other people's IP and reselling is a whole new ball game than an EULA.

If pysstar thinks that apple will go the EULA route, then they are a bigger bunch of morons than I had anticipated. They are in for world of hurt.

It was not Psystar which brought the EULA to the table here. Perhaps it is made up by the press though, that this is about EULA.

I just wanted to contribute something to show different laws applied in Europe compared to the Netherlands which is so damn important for the news poster (as he is from there ;-).

"But I assume it's true that this still excludes modifying the software and then selling it, which can be forbidden by the EULA.

p.s.: to clarify: If Apple is sueing Psystar over the EULA (End-user License Agreement) it is obvious that Psystar is buying these end-user licenses from Apple and therefore is a customer like everybody else."

I agree mostly. This is going to be interesting to see how it goes. According to Apple, OS X on the shelf is sold as an upgrade to an existing system, not as an end product. This will finally answer that question also I think.

Well, Apple is not suing based on the EULA but rather on copyright, trademark, and IP infringement.

They are acting as the purchasers agent though. Different.

The issue here is not that people are hacking OS to run on commodity hardware but that they are trying to monetize it. Apple's lawsuit hsa to do with copyright as far as I know and not with the EULA. Psystar is modifying OSX and selling it to consumers, which I think is illegal. No tot mention that they have also ignored the license and request of the original EFI hack author that his work no be used commercially. So I have very little respect for Psystar at this point and all you guys frothing at the mouth about the EULA that this is not about the EULA this is about copyright.

In Mother Russia, Software Licenses YOU!

So true. This would blow the typical crap judge shows away. Of course, most people don't give a damn about something they don't know about (computers), but do for whatever reason get a kick out of the typical "who's cheating" and "he's not paying rent!" crap they recycle over and over on TV.

TV sucks... I never watch it, and this is why. Nothing "good" is ever on. Well, at least TechTV was pretty good... years ago... before G4 bought it and sent it straight to hell.

Is it just entertainment you are looking for? "Breaking out the popcorn" as stated in the teaser is not adequate. I have the impression some of you guys are just out for entertainment. You afterwards hopefully do not complain that your, the cutsomer's, voice will not be listened to ...

... umm, it's not televised because less than 1/2 of 1 percent of tv viewers would give a shit. Like us.

If we ignore all that id3 stuff you came up with, on the grounds that the analogy sucks.

And if it turns out that the songs were released *only* on ITunes, and can *only* be played on an Iplayer.

Then yes, that is quite similar, and I don't have a problem with people doing that, however technically illegal it may be.

But the added complication with your analogy is the need to compensate the actual artists for their work in the ITunes case, whereas with OSX, the programmers do not expect royalties.

Que?! Since when did programers not expect to be paid? While Music Labels and Music Artists may operate on a different pay scheme than a programer, they all expect to get paid for their work no matter how good or cruddy the result.

I understand your approach, that royalties (re-use) are paid, however there is no re-use paid out with regards to re-selling a CD or Album. Unlike software (depending on the license), you can freely re-sell your physical media. Now the Music industry wants to treat music like licensed software so that you have to rebuy it depending on the platform - no single-user portability is what Sony is after.

Anyways, to point: Yes! The professional programer expects to be paid just as much as the Music Label/Artist.

My point was that programmers don't get paid royalties on the software they write. They are [usually] paid for the time they spend writing it.

But as it turns out, that wasn't a relevant point to my argument anyway, as the OP was suggesting that each track was bought from ITunes, so the royalties would have been paid. I was just being stupid

Er ... so why'd you buy overpriced hardware if you're going to run RHEL on it? Unless you were given the Mac for free.

I don't think Apple NEED to be the majority to succeed do they?

&

What's wrong with Apple specifying what should be done with the software they poured their money into?

I hear this a lot, but, uhm, how is this relevant? What business is it of mine that Apple sells retail copies of their software at a price that doesn't cover its costs? That's an Apple business decision, and has abslutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

This court case is going to be all about Apple needing to prove PsyStar is actually modifying Apple software, something that's going to be difficult for Apple since, as far as I know, PsyStar simply adds some scripts to OS X - it doesn't modify anything.

You're absolutely right, it's not directly related to this case, unless they're able to prove that the hw+sw combo constitute a single product rather than two separate products. But since most of the people seems to be very happy about the perspective of Apple loosing in court and the beginning of a new Clone-era (I know some of us in here would be happy to see Apple loose not because of this but because of the general impact it would have on eulas) I would just say that from a user-perspective (possibly a would be mac user perspective), it would probably end up being worse than it actually sounds.

unless they're able to prove that the hw+sw combo constitute a single product rather than two separate products.

And how could they prove that, if they sell OSX at retail. Isn't that the definition of being a product?

I hear this a lot, but, uhm, how is this relevant? What business is it of mine that Apple sells retail copies of their software at a price that doesn't cover its costs? That's an Apple business decision, and has abslutely nothing to do with the case at hand. "

Would you hold the same position if the case was a bit different - me purchasing an upgrade copy of program X and using a script to remove the step in the installer asking me for the license key of the the previous version? Would it still be DeveloperOfX's problem that they made the business decision to sell upgrade copies? Would I still be absolved of any responsibility because I've payed for the software?

What a nonsensical analogy. You said it yourself - an upgrade copy. An upgrade copy is different from a full retail version - and Mac OS X is sold as a full, stand-alone retail package. It's not an upgrade - and I can know, I bought Panther, Tiger, and Leopard in retail.

Nope. Every copy of OSX is essentially an upgrade license. The theory is that even if you buy your copy of OSX in the store you should initially already have a copy of OSX on your machine, since Apple doesn't sell any hardware without OSX being installed on it already. So that makes any retail version of OSX an upgrade since you already bought the full license when you bought the Mac, this gets rolled into the cost of the machine. Sounds about right to me.

oh but is it really a uppgrade. i have bougth some mac's from the university without a osx licencse becus they have some separate deal with uppgrades and such. And since i got this mac without a licensce there would then be no legal way for me to run osX since i only can buy uppgrade licences. I dont think so i serisuly doubt that
a apple store would deny me to buy osx for that mac.

If they dont deny me then it is a retail version and if they do deny me it's an uppgrade

"i have bougth some mac's from the university without a osx licencse becus they have some separate deal with uppgrades and such. And since i got this mac without a licensce there would then be no legal way for me to run osX since i only can buy uppgrade licences. I dont think so i serisuly doubt that
a apple store would deny me to buy osx for that mac."

Actually, as long as you have a Mac, you are licensed to run OS X. The Mac hardware is what gives you the license to use OS X. This is where Apple differs from Microsoft for an example, as Apple is a hardware company first and foremost, where Microsoft is a software company.

You're wrong. I work at a university and we get a special deal on our OS licenses from Apple. As a result, we can NOT pass them on when we sell off old equipment. The machines are sold with a blank drive. As such, buyers are buying a full retail version of the OS, not an upgrade version.

Nope, I have quite a few Macs here that can run MacOS X and weren't loaded with it when I bought them, and I could STILL buy the retail version of MacOS X and use it with them.

Read the License Terms. MacOS X Retail is NOT an upgrade, it's a full installable OS.

I even have Mac Clones that will run MacOS X that weren't sold with MacOS X on them.

Please don't post things that are wrong and add disinformation to the discussion.

All Macintosh computers ever sold came with an OS (either system 1 -system 7 and offshoots or Mac OS X). You cannot have a Mac that didn't come with an operating system. Therefore as long as you install your brand spanking new copy of Leopard on a Mac it is implicitly an upgrade.

Nope, I have quite a few Macs here that can run MacOS X and weren't loaded with it when I bought them, and I could STILL buy the retail version of MacOS X and use it with them.

Read the License Terms. MacOS X Retail is NOT an upgrade, it's a full installable OS.

I even have Mac Clones that will run MacOS X that weren't sold with MacOS X on them.

Please don't post things that are wrong and add disinformation to the discussion. "


Nope again. A hacked mac isn't a mac and isn't licensed to run OSX. Just because it can run on other hardware doesn't mean that buying OSX retail isn't an upgrade. A real mac gives you the license to upgrade to any version of Mac OS you please, the cost of full OS gets rolled into the prices of the hardware. Having Mac OS anything entitles you to an upgrade, you have to remember that up until 10.4, Apple used to bundle OS9 with OSX.

Nonsensical, really? What if not the license (and price, of course) makes an upgrade copy different from a full, retail one? For just about all of the upgrade versions of software I've bought in the last decade it is true that the data inside the installer package or on the installation disk is the exact same as the one in the respective full version and the only difference is a technological measure enforcing the license terms - namely, usually a screen in the installer asking me for the license key of the previous version.

As far as the license of the standalone version of Mac OS X, it states that you can only run the software on an Apple branded hardware, and since you cannot purchase said hardware without a license and a copy of Mac OS X, the upgrade status is implicit. I really don't see what difference would it make if Apple had slapped an "Upgrade Version" sticker on the box and had thrown a few upgrade references in the EULA of the standalone OS X.

It would, but you definitely need to modify OSX in order to make it install onto a generic Mac. Providing the tools to do the job would probably mean distributing software not only that wasn't meant to be distributed for profit, but that some people might even consider illegal (or breaking the eula). While NOT providing anything but a step by step guide (the user has to connect to the internet and download the thing from P2P) would probably expose the company to accuses of false advertising and the like (and anyway what would be the point in doing such a thing?).

Well, it would theoretically be possible to supply a CD that would take the OSX dvd and install it on nonbranded hardware, this would seem a legal move, but quite probably would fall foul of the DMCA, stupid legislation that it is.

Finally someone .

Apple does not want OS X running on 3rd party hardware, because that would be a mess to support. And even without support, it would be bad for them from marketing POV. People would run it on unexpected HW combinations and sometimes it would not work. People would complain and an idea "OS X does not work on ...." would fly around.

Apple does not want that, I believe.

Exactly. More to wit: "OSX does not work! OSX Sucks!" would fly around and would, ultimately, hurt Apple.

People would expect Apple to make OSX work with the infinate combinations that people expect Microsoft's OSs to work with.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Apple's approach. They treat their set up as an application and as a result have a very decent reputation for having a 'solid' platform. Given that, why would they want to sully it by exposing themselves to such a headache? Course, I am a PC guy, but that has more to do with my current Music and Gaming software investments than anything else.

From their front page:



http://www.psystar.com/

That's a custom installer to bypass the Apple installer's standard procedures.

In short, they have a scripted Installer that simulates a genuine Macintosh Hardware Product capable of installing OS X and thus convincing the Installer.app from the retail DVD that it's installing on Apple Hardware.

They aren't going to win.

In short, they have a scripted Installer that simulates a genuine Macintosh Hardware Product capable of installing OS X and thus convincing the Installer.app from the retail DVD that it's installing on Apple Hardware.

Probably. What is unlawful about that?

There selling this solution to drive hardware sales of their own clone products without an OEM license from Apple to do so; and if they think the responsibility of this software tool will be the responsibility of the hardware purchaser they are completely wrong.

This isn't a reverse engineering case. This is using tools to debug the Apple Installation process and thus write scripts to mimick the Apple certified hardware to allow it to install on their non-licensed hardware which gives them a profit.

This case will end quickly for Psystar.

Yes, all true. None of it is unlawful. What is unlawful at least in the EC is having contractual conditions which prevent people from doing this sort of thing. They do not need an OEM license from anyone to do it. Just buy the bits and assemble them.

They are called 'clone products'. What they actually are is identical hardware, just not bought from Apple. So what? Nothing unlawful about that either. This is what happens when all your components are sourceable on the open market by anyone who chooses to buy them in.

Yes, all true. None of it is unlawful. What is unlawful at least in the EC is having contractual conditions which prevent people from doing this sort of thing. They do not need an OEM license from anyone to do it. Just buy the bits and assemble them.

They are called 'clone products'. What they actually are is identical hardware, just not bought from Apple. So what? Nothing unlawful about that either. This is what happens when all your components are sourceable on the open market by anyone who chooses to buy them in. "

When you actually stop citing the EC we might have a debate. Until then you're pissing in the wind adjacent to my wind that focuses on the US.

I think I may have missed most of your point. Somehow you're bringing FOSS and your apparent distaste for it into a discussion about tying certain software to certain hardware - at least it seems like that's what you're trying to do. I simply cannot grock your argument.

Can you please explain your thoughts on how it harms Apple to have people use purchased Apple software on non-apple hardware?

To flip things around, do you believe that Apple is harmed when someone buys Apple hardware and installs Windows or Linux or what have you on it?

Well, I'm bringing the FOSS to the table because most people that insist on doing this (that is, using Apple SW on non apple hw) have mentioned the FOSS somehow. It is my impression that is "these" people the ones who are more interested in this. My uncle is not going to go to Apple.com and buy OS X for his new Dell notebook, as much as he's not going to install Fedora. So there's a slight connection between these two groups. Windows users who want to move away from Windows are not the types of users who have a computer tied at work and/or use it to check email and talk to their relatives through skype. Those couldn't care less.

Regarding your question about "my point": The truth is I don't have a point. I just think that I prefer Apple to keep their ecosystem working as it is. Opening OS X would be a mess. The company will suffer from every corner. Angry users, things not working, sues, blamings, etcetera. We all know this is what's gonna happen. But then "those who wanted OSX" will be happy. But it's clearly a minor portion of the people. There may be many here on OSNews, there may be many "around", but in the end, the "world" doesn't care about issues like this.
I think Apple would suffer, that's my fear. And this is not about being "elitist" or thinking: "i've paid for Apple, you pay too if you want it". No, far from it. It's just an idea. If it works, don't fix it. Apple works (as a Company). Don't disturb it, because there are people out there, who are happy the way it is.

Apple is not harmed when you install Windows/Linux/Etc through BootCamp, etc. because to do that, you have to have OS X before. You use (or used) OS X and either you disliked (could happen) or you need other OS. But I don't think that buying any Apple computer and wiping OS X is something you'll see very often. Old boxes perhaps, to run some unix, but a brand new MacBook Pro? iMac? Wiped just to install Fedora? There may be somebody doing it, but it's -imo- defeating the true benefit of the Apple Hardware. And that is marriage between HW/SW.

"we" the Apple Users (not the fanboys with flags and t-shirts), are mostly happy with it. We have problems, we hate apple from time to time because of this or that, but we're incredibly happy with the way things work. I speak for the majority of the Mac OS X users I know around "me". And you can read the same stories all over the net. So In General the Mac crowds make fun of the "other" OSs and users who do not enjoy their computers.

But this is way off topic. I think that by now you may disagree or not with me, but you understand my point. Or that I hope.

By the way, it doesn't look like Apple needs to sell OS X for all to start making money, does it?

I'll take this one. It harms Apple because Apple is a hardware company, the software they do develop they sell dirt cheap compared to their competition in the same market to entice users to buy their hardware. Being able to run other OS is a selling point of their hardware, it does not harm Apple in any way in-fact it helps sell their system. Hacking OSX and then selling to run on commodity hardware harms Apple because they already sell their software far lower than their competition in certain areas and if everyone can run OSX, why would they buy Apple hardware, how will Apple recoup their investment?

People would still buy apple hardware because of it's reliability and form. It's pricing isn't too far out of line compared to other hardware.
Lot's of companies sell only hardware and do fine. Others sell only software and do great. Apple can simply do both. They sell tons more copies of OSX as well as their other software and would continue to sell hardware.

OK, but making the reasonable assumption that none of the people who are buying clones would be buying Apple's hardware in any event, I still fail to see how it harms Apple. I am, of course, speaking of people who have bought and paid for the OS not unbridled piracy.

As far as price goes, Leopard is for sale on Amazon for $120 while vista ultimate upgrade is $185. Vista home premium upgrade is $95. I chose upgrade prices since we are discussing a situation where that is the equivalent since if you have apple hardware by definition you must have purchased their OS as well. If you want to discuss OEM prices, the ones on newegg are similar to these prices. An Ubuntu ship-it cd is $0.00. In any event, given these prices, the idea that Apple is giving their OS away for a song while the competition is bankrupting their customers is obviously bogus.

Now, all this said, I don't have an agenda here at all. I was just interested in discussion that wasn't knee-jerk level "PYSTAR FTW!!!" or "APPLE FTW!!!" w/o some discourse.

That's a pretty big assumption to make; maybe they would have bought a Mac, but saw the clone was cheaper. The clone market is tiny right now, but if it became legitimised it's possible it could grow to be reasonably large—large enough to be problematic for Apple. Remember what the clones did to IBM, after all?

Personally, I consider my copies of Mac OS X to be subsidised in part by the hardware, and in practice retail copies are “Upgrade” versions, because every Mac sold similarly at retail already ships with a licensed version, and the license tells me I can't install it on anything else (I have, but the user experience and hassle of installing it on a Dell laptop was so poor I ended up re-installing XP on it and letting my Macs be the ones to run Mac OS X). Whether this is true, right now, in legal terms or not, I don't know. It's possible that Apple missed a trick, but they can always change the license terms to require that you must have a previously-licensed full version of Mac OS X in order to install retail copies and never actually sell them (or sell them at a much higher cost to cover the lost hardware sales).

Despite what some think, I can't for the life of me see why it's possibly in Apple's interests to “go mainstream” with Mac OS X: ask anybody who's done low-level hacking on an operating system kernel how much of a pain in the ass differing hardware configurations are; Apple already supports a fair number of its own, without having to deal with the multitude of unknown combinations customers might throw at it. There's a misapprehension that Apple clearly wants to have Mac OS X running on every desktop it can—perhaps it does, but not if the hardware isn't made by Apple; that route just isn't profitable (and frankly, Apple's business decisions haven't exactly done its shareholders a disservice since Jobs got back to the helm and put a stop to the Mac clones the first time around).

I have a copy of Bleem! on my shelf. Unfortunately, it never made the jump to Win2K, and went out of business shortly after I got it. It is a good precedent, IMO.

That's a pretty fitting legal precedent PsyStar can draw from.

Darn, I totally forgot the blem! case. "

Apple's suit isn't claiming SONY's stance.

No. Only if the contractual terms are lawful. Which, at least in the EU, they will not be, since they will be a post sale restraint on use. Which are not enforceable. So no, you cannot impose any conditions on sale you feel like imposing. Not in the EU. And by the way, even if you could, violating them would not be illegal. It would expose you to suit for breach of contract, its quite different.