Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:44 UTC
Apple The website of a Miami-based networking and security solutions reseller became inaccessible Monday, shortly after the company began advertising an unauthorized Mac clone for a fraction of the cost of Apple's cheapest system. Dubbed OpenMac, the USD 400 offering from Psystar Corporation is described as 'a low-cost high-performance computing platform' based on the ongoing OSX86Project - a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs. The website is back online now, and the machine has been renamed to Open Computer. Update: Psystar says they will continue to sell the Open Computer system, despite the fact that it appears to violate Apple's EULA. "We're not breaking any laws," they insisted.
Permalink for comment 309667
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Doc Pain on Tue 15th Apr 2008 12:54 UTC in reply to "DMCA"
Doc Pain
Member since:

I haven't read the whole thread but I think we're forgetting something. Isn't it illegal in USA to circumvent protection mechanisms like DRM in OSX?

You're mentioning a valid point. Let me add an idea:

What exactly is circumvention? First of all, a vendor claims a product, let's say a DVD media, to be "copy protected", but if I put it into my drive and type "cdrdao copy" and then get a copy without no problems, have I circumvented something?

Or more simple: I make a drawing on a piece of paper and sign it with "This paper is copy protected!" Then, you put it on your copier and press "Start", you'll get a copy without any problems. Have you circumvented my copy protection?

That's just for the principle, or for the semantics of "circumvention". Circumventing seems to mean something like to bypass a working means to prevent a certain action.

In order to circumvent the restrictions of Mac OS X ("does not run on generic x86 hardware"), which means would have to been taken to make it running? As I questioned in a posting above, excahnging a computer's BIOS would eventually work, but according to your idea, this would have nothing to do with Mac OS X itself - it wouldn't be touched.

For example, libdvdcss2 seems to be illegal to use there so why would cracking OSX kernel and modules wouldn't be? And no "I've bought this DVD" or "I own my machine" arguments seem to work.

I hate this "illegal" stuff. The same stupidity usually causes problems when trying to implement something to work "out of the box"; just because some company uses proprietary codecs instead using free ones... I'm sure you get the idea.

The same is true for DRM. If you change something within the system's kernel in order to avoid the DRM mechanisms to work, are you doing something illegal? This is according to my example above: When the mechanism does not work at all, has it been circumvented effectively?

Edited 2008-04-15 12:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2