Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2006 13:04 UTC, submitted by HeLfReZ
Mac OS X As was to be expected, Apple's legal team got busy concerning the OSx86 Project. Just days after OSX 10.4.4 for Intel got cracked, the project closed down its forum with the following notice: "We're sorry to report that despite our best efforts, the OSx86 Project has been served with a DMCA violation notice. The forum will be unavailable while we evaluate its contents to remove any violations present. We thank you for your patience in this matter."
Thread beginning with comment 96574
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE
by nimble on Fri 17th Feb 2006 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE"
nimble
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have sat in front of me a 17" iMac Core Duo, paid for with Pounds Sterling.

I have to the left of me a home built P4 running OSX.

I hae not distributed it to anyone, so I haven't broken any laws whatsoever.


Yes you have, because copyright law only allows one installation copy.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by nicholas on Fri 17th Feb 2006 13:42 in reply to "RE"
nicholas Member since:
2005-07-07

Who said I run them at the same time?

The P4 had it installed as an experiment, to increase my knowledge. It's called learning. All knowledge is power.

Some of us like to learn, strange as it may seem to some people here.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by nimble on Fri 17th Feb 2006 14:02 in reply to "RE"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

Who said I run them at the same time?

Doesn't matter. It's about whether you've got them installed at the same time.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE
by John Nilsson on Fri 17th Feb 2006 16:45 in reply to "RE"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

No matter how you look at it, copyright infrigenemnt != theft. They are parts of completely diffrent sets of law.

Theft is when you remove something from someone else with the intention to give it to yourself (that's the definition by Swedish law atleast).

Downloading a copy of something without the permission of the copyright holder doesn't fit that description. It is a breach of the copyright holders right though.

That takes care of the technicality of the matter.

You might want to argue that depriving someone of his/her monopoly is moraly theft.

Then consider this. Copyright is a time limited monopoly that the state takes upon itself to uphold. By doing so copies and derivative works becomes an artificially scarse resource, therby raising its value, which would otherwise be zero. The purpose of doing so is that the state belives that this is needed to create room for comerce in creative trades such as writing, programming or composing.

No matter if this acrually is true or not. Limiting a resource that could be free for everyone at the cost of noone cannot be defended as a moral right.

You have no inherent right to OWN copyrights. You are granted that right on the hopes that is is beneficial for society.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE
by thabrain on Fri 17th Feb 2006 18:13 in reply to "RE"
thabrain Member since:
2005-06-29

Theft (as defined by Merriam-Webster)


Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Definition of Copyright Infringement (by Wikipedia)

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.


They are not the same.

Theft is a criminal penalty (in the US) and is treated as a criminal offense.

Copyright infringement is a tort crime (once again, in the US), a civil penalty.

Theft is the taking and deprivation of personal property.

Infringement does not deprive the owner of property; it merely infringes on the use of existing property.

IANAL; just a BS in CS.

The legal interpretation you see here is the author's only; it is not meant to be use for any type of legal defense in a case, pending or ongoing.

Reply Parent Score: 3