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 95677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:25 UTC 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[8]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 02:22 in reply to "RE[7]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

I really can't parse this. My point simply was that hacking a legally-obtained copy of OS X to run on a PC is completely different than copying your friend's software without a license.

1. Legaly one can't modify his CD player and not break the patent law

Sure you can. Patent law has nothing to do with this.

If you don't break the law in point 1., you can't use that CD anyway.

You can modify the CD too. DMCA doesn't apply because you're not modifying it for the purposes of breaking a copy protection mechanism, and you're not redistributing the modified work.

Resale is legal agreement too, you know? And usualy it is in combination with EULA.

It's a circular argument. You're arguing about the validity of the EULA while assuming the EULA is valid!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:55 in reply to "RE[7]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

3. If you succed to listen to that CD anywhere else but Sony CD player, you broke the law

Or rather, you set up the law to be challenged in court and stricken down...

There is a thing known as "fair use", you know...

Reply Parent Score: 1