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 339021
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Darkmage
by tupp on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Darkmage"
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

Notes in the margins does not constitute re-writing a chapter of the book.

Writing in a printed book is modifying that book. If I cross out a paragraph in a book and rewrite that paragraph in the white space of the book so that it is a completely different paragraph, I can legally resell that single book. I own that book -- I can modify it and then resell that individual copy. Nothing illegal there.


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.

Nope. As I and others have mentioned a zillion times in this and other forums, Psystar is legally purchasing individual copies and then reselling those copies, individually. They are not making multiple copies of one original and then distributing those copies -- that would violate copyright law.

There is nothing illegal about reselling legally purchased copies of software. Used software is legally bought and sold all the time.


Psystar has sold multiple copies of OS X, or have they only sold one machine along with the software?

Again, nope. It is important to be specific.

Psystar has re-sold individual copies of OSX. There is nothing illegal about reselling copies of software on an individual basis. It doesn't matter if a company resells one copy individually or one billion copies individually. Such "re-sales" are completely legal, and the software maker can not have any say in such transactions.


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.

The term "distribution" in copyright cases usually refers to making and selling multiple copies of one original.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Comment by Darkmage
by DrillSgt on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 15:47 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Darkmage"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Writing in a printed book is modifying that book. If I cross out a paragraph in a book and rewrite that paragraph in the white space of the book so that it is a completely different paragraph, I can legally resell that single book. I own that book -- I can modify it and then resell that individual copy. Nothing illegal there."

In that sense you would be correct. The question is Psystar doing any modification to the copy of OS X that is installed on the machines?


"Nope. As I and others have mentioned a zillion times in this and other forums, Psystar is legally purchasing individual copies and then reselling those copies, individually. They are not making multiple copies of one original and then distributing those copies -- that would violate copyright law."

I can agree here to an extent. Does anyone know for sure that they were not copying the OS and selling it? Or are we just taking Psystar's word for it?

"There is nothing illegal about reselling legally purchased copies of software. Used software is legally bought and sold all the time."

The selling of the used software is not the problem. Apple is going after them for modification of it.


"Again, nope. It is important to be specific.

Psystar has re-sold individual copies of OSX. There is nothing illegal about reselling copies of software on an individual basis. It doesn't matter if a company resells one copy individually or one billion copies individually. Such "re-sales" are completely legal, and the software maker can not have any say in such transactions."


Re-selling and selling have the same definition. Like I indicated before, Psystar may be perfectly legit and legal. It is up to the courts to decide, not you or I. We do not have the facts in front of us. All we have is hearsay on this and other forums. Normally silence indicates guilt, and I find it funny that Psystar has remained silent.

"The term "distribution" in copyright cases usually refers to making and selling multiple copies of one original."

In the case of a book or software, it is automatically a copy of the original work. Distribution has nothing at all to do with making the copies yourself, just that you are distributing them. If you go buy OS X at an Apple Store or best Buy, you are buying a copy of OS X, not OS X itself. Granted, you can sell that copy that you have without modification to it. The proof will be if there is any modification done to the copy of os x that is installed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by Darkmage
by tupp on Thu 4th Dec 2008 17:32 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Darkmage"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Re-selling and selling have the same definition.

No. These two terms have different meanings, especially regarding fair trade law and copyright law.

Basically, the trade laws in most jurisdictions allow the manufacturer to have control of the first retail sale, even if that is made through a third party, such as a dealer or distributor.

However, after that first sale, the manufacturer can have no say in what the purchaser does with the product. The purchaser owns the item, and they can do as they please with the product, without interference from the manufacturer nor any one else. One of the things that the purchaser is free to do is resell the product.

Do you now understand the difference between "selling" and "reselling?"

In copyright law there is a specific provision regarding music that is somewhat related to this selling/reselling scenario. This provision is commonly know as the "right of first release," and it pertains to the songwriter/publisher having the right to determine who is the first artist to release the song. After the song is released commercially for the first time, anyone can then record and release the same song, without having to get permission from the writer/publisher. Of course, anyone re-releasing the song will be subject to compulsory royalties.

Furthermore, the existence of used record stores and used book stores attest to the fact that reselling copyrighted items (with or without the manufacturer's blessing) is not illegal.

Edited 2008-12-04 17:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2