Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Jul 2008 22:03 UTC
Legal There are probably lots and lots of lawsuits going on every day in the technology world, and generally, they are quite uninteresting to all of us. Exceptions exist, of course, and the case of Apple and PsyStar is definitely one of them. It's a lawsuit that could test one of the most debated issues in the world of software: the EULA issue. To refresh your memory: PsyStar started offering Macintosh clones earlier this year, which caused quite the uproar in the Mac community. Apple was silent on the issue at first, but a few weeks ago the company decided to take legal action against PsyStar, claiming PsyStar violated Apple's copyright and license agreements (EULAs), and motivated others to do the same. While several legal experts agree that Apple's EULA will stand the test of court in The Netherlands, the situation in the US might be completely different. PsyStar seems prepared for the worst, as they have hired lawyers from Carr & Ferrell LLP, a firm who successfully fought Apple in court over IP issues before. I'm breaking out the popcorn, because this is hopefully going to be a big one.
Thread beginning with comment 325215
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
maybe
by Bounty on Thu 31st Jul 2008 23:45 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

it's more like buying DRM'd music from iTunes, then cracking the DRM (which also breaks EULA/DCMA), then put the .mp3 on a usb drive and delete it from your iTunes, so that the .mp3 on the usb drive is the only copy. Then sell that, not personally.... but as a business.

Maybe in the process (of breaking the DRM)jacking up the id3 tags, which then people think "gosh this came from iTunes before it was cracked, so iTunes must suck at tagging their music?) and damaging thier name? But that's ok because "WE_SELL_xTUNES_ON_USB_DRIVES.COM" will re-update your broken id3 tags by grabbing them from Apple, making them compatible(ish) with the brokenDRM'd version of your mp3's, then updating them.

or something

Reply Score: 4

RE: maybe
by stestagg on Fri 1st Aug 2008 10:57 in reply to "maybe"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: maybe
by Ressev on Fri 1st Aug 2008 21:41 in reply to "RE: maybe"
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1