Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:13 UTC
While the Apple v. Psystar case is currently on hold until the hearing regarding the motions for a summary judgement takes place (November 12) the Psystar v. Apple case (still with me?) is only just beginning. Psystar has amended its original complaint in this second lawsuit, asking the judge to order Apple to cease calling Psystar's business "illegal", claiming it hurts the clone maker financially.
Thread beginning with comment 392708
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 4th Nov 2009 03:53
in reply to "RE[4]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2008-06-02
If an *individual* makes a hackintosh for their own use, that would be legal to do under copyright. That is why Apple has not gone after the hpbbyists.
No, the only reason that Apple hasn't gone after individual hobbyists is because they've seen all the wonderful success the RIAA has had from suing grannies and teenagers. And by "success" I mean "complete and utter PR suicide."
To reiterate, as a *consumer* I am allowed by US Copyright law to make a hackintosh if I so desire.
Funny, I would think that an END USER License Agreement would be more applicable to you (the END USER) than it would be to a reseller like Psystar.
RE[6]: Not OSnews, PSnews
by DrillSgt on Wed 4th Nov 2009 04:09
in reply to "RE[5]: Not OSnews, PSnews"
Member since:2005-12-02
"If an *individual* makes a hackintosh for their own use, that would be legal to do under copyright. That is why Apple has not gone after the hpbbyists.
No, the only reason that Apple hasn't gone after individual hobbyists is because they've seen all the wonderful success the RIAA has had from suing grannies and teenagers. And by "success" I mean "complete and utter PR suicide." "
The RIAA went after people for uploading the music, no matter who did it. I don't agree with it but the law again was on their side. You should check the law out..you can legally download all the music you want. It is the sharing that is against the law. So basically, you are not allowed to upload anything. If you note those cases of Granny's and Teens, they were all uploading. Note that I am not saying I agree with it..just how the law reads that deals with it.
To reiterate, as a *consumer* I am allowed by US Copyright law to make a hackintosh if I so desire.
Funny, I would think that an END USER License Agreement would be more applicable to you (the END USER) than it would be to a reseller like Psystar. [/q]
It would be. That is why I am betting that part of the EULA loses in this battle. Copyright law is on the side of consumers that make hackintoshes, as under fair use I can do whatever I want to with the software I purchased like using the media as a coaster, or installing the software on my dog's collar. Psystar, as I noted, is not considered a consumer and has different copyright rules to follow, namely that someone not a consumer is not allowed to make the backup copies or however you want to call it. That is the key difference in this case, and the reason why Apple may have a shot at winning it.
I hope they don't. All I am pointing out is what the existing copyright law states, not on whether a EULA is valid or not. I will leave the EULA's to the courts to decide. So far in the US, some parts of some EULA's have been deemed valid, while others have been found not valid.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-12-02
People should have the right to run whatever they want in the computers they own, that is probably a no-brainer argument.
A lot of people disagree with that notion, including Apple.
Apple may disagree with it, but there is nothing they can do about it. If an *individual* makes a hackintosh for their own use, that would be legal to do under copyright. That is why Apple has not gone after the hpbbyists.
You're assuming things and not reading enough. I am not trying to pose Psystar as any kind of a champion for Free Software or consumer rights. It just happens that this case does touch those subjects very broadly, that's why it is so important.
This case has nothing to do with consumer rights. Psystar by definition is not a consumer. Copyright law declares a consumer as someone who purchases goods and services without the intent to resell. Psystar has every intention of reselling, which makes all the difference in the world.
To reiterate, as a *consumer* I am allowed by US Copyright law to make a hackintosh if I so desire. What I cannot do is build it with the intention of selling it according to US copyright law. Now, if Psystar took the order, got the money from the customer, and then purchased the copy of OS X and installed as a consumers agent, the original lawsuit from Apple would not be where it is and Psystar would be in the clear.