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 325268
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: maybe
by stestagg on Fri 1st Aug 2008 10:57 UTC 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

RE[3]: maybe
by stestagg on Fri 1st Aug 2008 22:51 in reply to "RE[2]: maybe"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

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

Reply Parent Score: 3