Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Thread beginning with comment 95661
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
Member since:

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car?

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:04 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Strawman argument? Yeah, while you use your "strawman excuse": "original stayed intact, so it can't be stealing".

Simple story of one my friends. He was developing special and pretty large software. Sold one copy and gone broke. Why? Next three years he couldn't sell any copies. And although he knew where and which companies (in fact quite a few) use his software without paying, he simply couldn't afford legal costs.

Now place your self in his position and say "strawman argument"

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:25 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:

You're still missing the reason why your argument was a strawman. We're not talking about copyright infringement here. Everybody acknowledges that redistributing a work without a license is illegal. What is under contention here is what terms a copyright owner is allowed to impose on the use of a legally obtained copy of a work.

To put it simply: Sony is entirely within its rights to sue you for making a copy of a CD without paying. They are likely not within their rights to say that you must use Sony CDs you've purchased in a Sony-labled CD player...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:49 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:

Your friend, if he really existed, is an idiot. If he had such obvious knowledge of copyright infringement from these companies, any lawyer would have taken the case without asking for money upfront...

Just by curiosity, what's the name of your friend, and the name of the program that was allegedly stolen?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: hmm..
by Chreo on Wed 15th Feb 2006 10:43 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Chreo Member since:

Yup if he had only used the car manufacturer instead of "the owner" of "one particular car" then it may even have had some validity. Ofc the direct counter to that is that the car manufacturer wants to sell as many cars as they can. Thay could not care less about who it is that buys (except for marketing purposes =).

Reply Parent Score: 1