Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Thread beginning with comment 339012
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Darkmage"
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

"Let's say I'm building my own custom cars to sell for profit. In order to do this, I decide I need an engine. My engine's suck, but Volvo has a great engine, which I can go and buy at the Volvo dealer, even in bulk."

Actually lets forget all the car analogies. Software works are defined as copyright material. So, let us compare apples to apples, or copyright to copyright.

Under this, Apple is accusing Psystar of modifying software, and distributing it without permission. That would be against the law.

My example for a comparison is a book. Books are copyrighted material. If I buy a copy of a book, I can sell that copy of the book, just as I can sell a copy of software. What I cannot do is re-write a chapter in the book and re-sell the book. That is directly against copyright law. I cannot modify a work and sell it or distribute it without getting proper permission from the author.

So, the book is mine. I bought it. The software is mine, I bought it. With either of them I can sell them, rip them to shreds, use them as coasters, etc. What I cannot do is modify it and distribute it.

Cars do not fall under copyright law, software and books do.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage
by tupp on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 06:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I can sell that copy of the book, just as I can sell a copy of software. What I cannot do is re-write a chapter in the book and re-sell the book.

Yes. You can. There are tons of used books, textbooks with notes in the margins that are resold individually and legally every day.

However, you can't take your modified or unmodified copy and make multiple copies and then sell those copies.


I cannot modify a work and sell it or distribute it without getting proper permission from the author.

This is where the analogy breaks down. Psystar is not distributing copies of OSX. They are merely reselling individual, authentic, legally purchased copies of OSX.


So, the book is mine. I bought it. The software is mine, I bought it. With either of them I can sell them, rip them to shreds, use them as coasters, etc. What I cannot do is modify it and distribute it.

Reselling a single used book or a single used piece of software does not constitute "distribution."

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: Comment by Darkmage
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 06:32 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Yes. You can. There are tons of used books, textbooks with notes in the margins that are resold individually and legally every day."

Notes in the margins does not constitute re-writing a chapter of the book. Completely different from what I stated.

"However, you can't take your modified or unmodified copy and make multiple copies and then sell those copies."

Agreed 100%


"This is where the analogy breaks down. Psystar is not distributing copies of OSX. They are merely reselling individual, authentic, legally purchased copies of OSX."

Actually no. They are selling multiple copies of OS X, not a single copy. They are selling a copy with each machine they sell are they not? That is called distribution.


"Reselling a single used book or a single used piece of software does not constitute "distribution.""

Psystar has sold multiple copies of OS X, or have they only sold one machine along with the software? I am betting they have sold much more than a "single" copy, which would be a total of 1. As well, distribution by definition is the delivery or giving out of an item or items to the intended recipients. So yes, even a single item can be considered distribution by definition.

Anyway, I am just watching to see what the courts decide.

Edited 2008-12-03 06:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage
by Darkmage on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 09:12 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Darkmage"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

dundun dun.... except you CAN sell the book unmodified with a nice little booklet with notes and addendums that contain changes and corrections, and that is EXACTLY what psystar is doing. They're not giving you a copy of osx that's been hacked and patched, they give you a complete osx install disc that's unmodified. What is modified is maybe the kernel and bootloader on the machine itself. I've booted up osx86 many times and the way they normally hack it to boot now is to edit the bios of the machine and not the kernel of the mac os itself. At any rate AFAIK the kernel is not under a do not redistribute license... But that should be irrelevant anyway since you're really messing with the bootloader/bios layer not the OS layer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Darkmage
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 15:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"They're not giving you a copy of osx that's been hacked and patched, they give you a complete osx install disc that's unmodified. What is modified is maybe the kernel and bootloader on the machine itself."

This statement contradicts itself. Yes, they are giving you a complete OS X install disc that is unmodified. The installed OS is also called distribution. It is being distributed on a new PC. If Psystar modified it, then Psystar is distributing changed copies of a work. Now whether or not they modified it is another story. My analogy has beeen proven in court enough times, google it. If they did not modify it, Apple is wrong. I understand you hate "The Man" and want to stick it to them. The thing is none of us have a clue on what Psystar did or did not do, unless we have an employee among us. The charges by Apple may be well off base, or they may be right on target.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Darkmage
by looncraz on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 17:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Darkmage"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Exactly, in fact the Kernel and MANY parts of MacOS X are, IIRC, GPL & the like. Darwin is the project to look at :-)

Anything that is within both Darwin x86 and MacOS X is totally fair game. And that constitutes a great deal - just not Aqua and some other kits in the system. When I first used MacOS X I was astonished how much of the system was still just Darwin. The Finder certainly tries to present it differently - but that doesn't change the hard facts.

Responding to another post, copyright law DOES permit modifying a book and reselling it - but there are certainly limits. You cannot, for example, duplicate the book from scratch, you have to buy the book at retail, modify it, and redistribute it while fully describing your modifications and not trying to fool anyone into believing your work is an authorized one.

Oh well, I gotta work :-)

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 3