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 95666
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

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:
2005-07-06

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[7]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:17 in reply to "RE[6]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

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.

Yeah, but if it combines with OEM, retail/upgrade trick. Talk is about Apple and legal restriction of putting OSX on some other PC than Apple. Stick to the point.

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...

No, with these words it is not. But on the other hand Sony could simply make it different (aka. non-workable) and put a sticker "CAUTION: USABLE WITH SONY CD ONLY" on the box and patent his modification without possibility of licensing to other vendors.
What you get here is:
1. Legaly one can't modify his CD player and not break the patent law
2. If you don't break the law in point 1., you can't use that CD anyway.
3. If you succed to listen to that CD anywhere else but Sony CD player, you broke the law

And Apple sold you OEM-like with computer, after that the only thing you can buy are upgrade-retails. There is no retail version of OSX only upgrades. Meaning effect is the same, but method is different. Resale is legal agreement too, you know? And usualy it is in combination with EULA.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:49 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

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