Our old friend Psystar is back in the news saying...
"Apple contends that because Psystar is 'distributing computers with Apple's copyrighted software loaded on them' that 'Apple is within its rights in asserting copyright infringement'," said Psystar in the papers filed Jan. 7. "Apple's assertion that Psystar cannot distribute computers with Apple software (and that a purchaser could not use the same) would run roughshod over 17 U.S.C.," Psystar added, referring to the section of U.S. law that pertains to copyright.
Is all of this really necessary? Can't Psystar just make PCs that are easily Hackintoshed with some simple instructions on how to do so with a link to a Leopard Install disk on Amazon? Is it that hard to make a Hackintosh? Is it worth all of the trouble?
They continue...
To make its point, Psystar claimed that it has purchased some copies of Mac OS X -- which it preinstalls on the Intel-powered machines it sells under the "Open Computer" and "OpenPro" labels -- straight from Apple.
"Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon," the company said. "Many of those copies [were] directly obtained from Apple. While Psystar complies with Section 117(b) of the Copyright Act, Apple attempts to usurp those limitations by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple -- and Apple alone -- will say 'whether, how or by whom its software is ... distributed or used'."
Meh.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
Why do you care so much?
Why do you care so much if some company sells generic computers with OS X loaded on it? How is that effectively different from someone buying a copy of OS X and loading it on to a generic computer?
Copyright isn't supposed to be used to force people to use a particular type of equipment (e.g., a specific brand of CD player) to use copyrighted material.
Are you such an Apple sycophant that you'd side with a multi-billion-dollar company over the rights of billions of people all over the world to use a piece of software that they bought the way they want ... ?
Because you didn't buy the
Because you didn't buy the software. You bought the right to use it on an Apple machine. If enough people make Hackintoshes, Apple will add product activation to MacOS X, and they'll raise the price to what it actually costs to develop it, which is far more than $129 per user.
Is this so hard to understand?
So you wouldn't care ...
... if Sony (or any other company) began mandating what machine you could play their CDs and DVDs on -- after all, according to your (flawed) understanding of copyright, you didn't buy that movie or music, you bought the right to use it on a Sony (or otherwise mandated) piece of hardware ...
And when Microsoft (or any other company) starts telling you what you can use their Office or other software for, you won't object because you just bought the "right" to use it as they see fit ...
Yeah, that's hard for me to understand ...
[P.S. -- The cost of "development" of OS X has nothing to do with the retail price, because the cost is sunk/fixed, and each additional copy of OS X doesn't cost Apple any more to produce. As for product activation, Apple already uses it for some of its software, and it's done wonders for Microsoft, so I'm not sure why you'd object to their adding it to OS X -- which you just bought the "right" to use anyway, right ... ?]
Gosh, You analogy is
Gosh, You analogy is wrong!
Apple sells computers that run OSX. Their product is the computer not the software. They sell the software actually for update purposes only. It's a bundle. Like you buy a Sony CD player that runs a Sony software (that's how the analogy should be). Do you think Sony would like Samsung to use Sony's software on their hardware?
Apple doesn't care what software you use on your MAC (using whatever CD on you CD Player in your analogy) but they mind if someone uses their copyrighted OS on machines that are not theirs. Just imagine Mercedes starting selling their cars with BMW engines without permission.
"We bought the engines" is not gonna help either!
OSX only costs $129, Apple makes the money out of the hardware and I am not willing to start paying $500 for software just because some people want everything for less money.
You want OSX, get a MAC. Can't afford? Get a PC, it's that easy. I don't bitch around that I can't afford a Lamborghini and how overpriced it is. It's called being a grown up!
Gosh, if only that were true ...
Apple is trying to stop people from installing OS X on other hardware — check the headlines on 9to5 today, which is analogous to me buying a Sony CD and not being allowed to play it on a Samsung CD player, or buying a Mercedes and then being told I couldn't swap a BMW engine into it if I want.
Whether Pystar pre-installs the OS X or the end-user does is a related but subsidiary issue: The larger point is whether Apple can use copyright — about which their is much misunderstanding in the general public — to determine what you are allowed to do with a legally purchased product, such as telling people where they are allowed to read a copyrighted book.
As for how much these things cost and who's a grown-up, you're welcome to keep toiling on the Apple plantation you seem to enjoy being a slave to, but the rest of us would prefer to be free ...
There's a flaw to your
There's a flaw to your argument/opinion though - you say when these companies you mention "start telling you..." as to imply when they change their business practices to enforce hardware/OS restrictions. The issue at the heart of this is that Apple hasn't decided this recently, or when Psystar started their business plan, etc. Apple has made a point of not allowing their OS to be installed on non-Apple hardware (excepting that brief period where they licensed some clone makers back in the mid-90's) for the majority of their stint as a computer and OS business.
Also, the cost of developing OS X isn't fixed because it's code base is still being improved by its creators. Those creators are paid, in part, by the profit that the OS and the hardware makes which is decided by the business model Apple choses to follow.
I'm not sure your comparison to Sony works all that well either. The musicians /labels are one entity, Sony's optical disk business is another, and the player of optical disks is a third. Here you only have Apple telling a computer manufacturer (assembler, actually) that they can't install their OS - two parties.
Look, it's as easy as
Look, it's as easy as this.
If I write a OS to work on a computer that I build and start selling it specifically saying that that software can only be used with that brand and you buy it, you are basically signing a contract and agreeing to my terms.
If you use it for something else I can and will sue you.
If I as the "creator" of something in the USA don't have any rights on my work anymore I might as well move to a communist country, where everything is shared and don't bother to innovate and to become the best in a field.
Somehow people think they can have everything they want whenever they want for the terms they think is right.
That's right but, are we missing something here...
Yes, one should have certain rights on what one has created, but look at your analogy one more time.
But, dont you think the terms should not go beyond restricting the copyrights of the software itself as an entity?. How can you sell a tubelight and set the licensing terms to use it only in one's XXXroom??
Apple is trying to do a monopoly here.. and you folks are simply supporting it! That's one of the major reasons why their devices are always overpriced. I never saw a phone being dropped 200& overnight! Don't you see it as creating panic in the market!
And contracts??? Dont get a contract with a costly data plan just to buy an iPhone guys! wake up!!
Copyright
They have purchased "some" copies of OS X. They are making money off OS X.
Psystar, JUST GIVE UP
Psystar, JUST GIVE UP ALREADY!
On second thoughts, don't. I want to know who's backing you.
I think it's a combination of
I think it's a combination of PC manufactures, the Flat Earthers and those who think we never landed on the Moon.
In my estimation, Psystar
In my estimation, Psystar CANNOT make PCs that are easily Hackintoshed with some simple instructions.
Pre-Installing MacOS X convinces customers that a fake Mac is legit and that it works. And therefore the pre-installed OS can help command a substantially higher price than any other no-name home built PC.
Ask yourself: why would ANYONE buy a Psystar instead of doing it themselves for hundreds less? The only answer is that people find value in Psystar because it is much easier than figuring out what parts to buy and then hacking OS X on their own.
So, therefore I contend that without high markups, Psystar cannot afford to be in business. Publishing simple instructions for installing OS X on commodity hardware would basically deep-six the for-profit Mac clone market.
quote: "Copyright isn't
quote:
"Copyright isn't supposed to be used to force people to use a particular type of equipment (e.g., a specific brand of CD player) to use copyrighted material."
When you start a [legally] bought DVD, it usually tells you that "the copyrights' holder lends you the right to use this content in your home, for non-commercial use... etc., etc..."
Music cds are sell to "hear by you," not broadcasting...
They are telling you "which uses" are you allow with the permision.
So --maybe-- Apple can say you in what computer to run (a.k.a. non-comercial in music/videos).
I'm with you Clive - meh. I'm
I'm with you Clive - meh.
I'm not really sure who this product is aimed at.
Either you're happy to run OSX on a non-Apple computer, in which case you are the sort of person who will do that themselves (takes about an hour) OR you are the sort of person who won't, it which case you'll buy from Apple.
Me? I'm in both camps, professionally and personally. But I wouldn't buy from Psystar. While replace Apple's tax with Psystar's?
I do wish Macs weren't quite so overprices though, especially the laptops...
The argument is not about
The argument is not about purchasing the OS. Apple has clearly stated that it only ships a full version of OSX with it's computers. When you purchase OSX in a store, it is only an "upgrade". We all know it contains the full version on it, but as far as Mac is concerned it is only an upgrade.
Technically, Psystar is not buying Full legit copies of OSX
EULA as well.
The Use License of Mac OS X is pretty clear. By using the software (Mac OS X), you are bound to that agreement. It states, in article 2, section A that the license allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
It goes on to say that the software is, in fact, licensed and not bought. I think it should read "Apple Brand" or "Apple Branded" computer, as this gets foggy if someone puts an Apple sticker on the side of their Antec case. So, using the software on a non-Apple machine may not be covered by the copyright, but it is most certainly covered under the License Agreement.
Also, the License Agreement states that the software cannot be used in an application where failure of the software could cause death. I thought that was neat.
Re
watch new movies online
dvd movie download
download divx movies
forex online
trade forex
forex strategy
make solar panel
solar panels for home
solar power generator
play roulette online
play bingo online
play craps online
play slot machines