Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the slice-the-ram-nodes-to-find-copy-four dept.

OS X 865

recoiledsnake writes "Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting, however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy.' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Unauthoriazed Copy (5, Informative)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943452)

Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?

I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943504)

On top of that Apple has a good case here because Blizzard already won similar argument before []

Blizzard won on two arguments: first, that if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright; second, that selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers.

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (5, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943886)

I'd rephrase that to say Apple has an effective case... because I certainly wouldn't call what they're doing "good".

That might be irrelevant (5, Interesting)

rakslice (90330) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943900)

Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications.

However, the section 117 exception gives a specific reason that the software might be allowed to be altered. Take a look (from [] ):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [...]"

So an "adaptation" of the software is allowed if it is necessary to use the software with a machine. Now a court could easily whinge its way around interpreting this as a compatibility measure, but if it doesn't, then in Psystar's case, as long as the third-party modifications are deemed by the court to be only for the purpose of enabling Mac OS X to run on a general purpose PC, then the RAM copy (and potentially all the modified copies) aren't infringing.

Anyway, I don't think this is a big obstacle to Apple; there seems to be enough case law in the US that has allowed for very broad enforceability of software licensing agreements that Apple can still probably out-lawyer Psystar into the dust for breaking their "Apple-labeled" license provision, even without a finding of copyright infringement.

It's that part of the case I'm most interested in, as "Apple-labeled" is a strange choice of wording, and Apple has in the past employed it willy-nilly (for instance in the license of Safari for Windows when they pushed out millions of copies as a selected-by-default Quicktime/iTunes upgrade [])

Re:That might be irrelevant (3, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944064)

As I recall, the Glider decision actual is more disturbing. Essentially, they sidestepped section 117 altogether and basically said that the RAM copy is a full blown copy, and is only made legally because the ELUA allows such use. As Glider violated the EULA, making a RAM copy of WoW infringed on Blizzard's copyright.

So not only is making a RAM copy infringement (without a license) ELUA's are also implicitly upheld. Lovely.

On somewhat unrelated, but interesting note: Now that SSDs (and, potentially PRAM) are picking of speed, it may well be possible to to run programs directly off the HD. This would completely sidestep all this 'copying to RAM is infringement' BS

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (2, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943548)

Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?

I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.

No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM. If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (2, Informative)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943928)

No, what they're clearly saying from their brief is that you're making an additional copy of the program by loading it into RAM

You are making an additional copy. This is well settled, both in law and in computer engineering.

If Apple wins can MS successfully sue it's customers for having two copies of Windows or Office but license for only one?

No, because that second copy in RAM is allowed both by Microsoft's EULA and by copyright law itself (see 17 USC 117).

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (3, Informative) (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943600)

I agree, "unauthorized copy" is the key concept here.

I hate how slashdot posts these half baked articles.

What is this, the Drudge Report?

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (2, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943712)

I agree, "unauthorized copy" is the key concept here.

I hate how slashdot posts these half baked articles.

What is this, the Drudge Report?

The unauthorized copy claim is already covered in the first two copies claims that Apple made. This is about an additional one that Apple claims that happens when the computer is booted.

Apple owners would make same unauthorized copies (3, Informative)

leftie (667677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943664)

Seems like Apple hardware owners would be making the same unauthorized copies when they boot their computers.

If I'm I'm Psystar's legal team, I'd argue they make the same unauthorized copies that Apple's hardware owners make. If the Psystar process makes unauthorized copies, then Apple's does too.

Re:Apple owners would make same unauthorized copie (2, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943758)

The difference would be if the EULA specifically gives Apple hardware owners the right to make that extra copy.

Psystar seems to be arguing that the owner of a copy of a program has inherent rights to load it into ram because of section 117, Apple says no, you need additional authorization you get from the EULA. If the EULA doesn't give anyone this right to a 3rd copy then you'd be correct.

Re:Apple owners would make same unauthorized copie (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943838)

Apple hardware owner make *authorized* copies, because those copies are allowed within the terms of license Apple grants. Pystar customers are *not* covered by that license and therefore are making *unauthorized* copies.

I think it might be silly to argue that ephemeral copies constitute copyright infringement, but there is clearly a distinction between authorized and unauthorized copies that comes down right where Apple says it does.

Re:Apple owners would make same unauthorized copie (1)

AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944128)

apple hardware owners are authorized to make the RAM copy both by the license agreement with apple and explicitly by copyright law. The key point you're missing is that if the copy on the hard drive is authorized, the RAM copy is also. If the hard drive copy is UNauthorized, the RAM copy is also.

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (5, Funny)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943728)

Careful, you just made an unauthorized copy of a registered trademark on my monitor!

Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (5, Funny)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944004)

I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.

This, in fact, is the logical consequence of the absurdity that is "copyright". Ultimately, when you look at something, the photons bouncing off its surface (a copy) enter your retinas whereby they trigger electro-chemical impulses (a copy) in your receptor cells and travel down axons to other cells (a copy) and end up bouncing around your brain (multiple copies).

As one can easily see, the argument of "unauthorized copies" in any medium, once precedents are established (as they already apparently are), must logically lead to convictions for "unauthorized copies" in your mind (also known as "illegal thoughts"). Otherwise some "copies" are unequal to others based on arbitrary rules pulled out of some law-monkey's ass.

This will become even more apparent once technology advances to the point where computer/brain integration will become feasible and deployed on a large scale in form of mind-enhancing implants, thus blurring the distinction between a "copy" in one's brain or one's implants.

Copyrights (as all so-called "Intellectual Property") are illogical, nonsensical make-believe results of greed overpowering common sense and as the time goes on and technology progresses, their utterly moronic nature will only become more and more odiously apparent.

yep... (-1, Troll)

Emesee (1155401) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943462)

that really makes me not want an eye phone; seriously

Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (1, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943904)

So, we're opposed to copyright in this article discussion, Slashdot? I'm confused, because the GPL is a copyright license, and violations of the GPL are met with anger on the part of Slashdot's readers. However, any non-GPL situation in which copyright infringement occurs is met with jeers and sarcasm.

Supporting the GPL's copyright protections in some situations while favoring copyright infringement in other situations benefits you guys by getting you free stuff in both kinds of situations. Your viewpoints are driven by pure selfishness.

I'm sure I'll get modded down again for speaking out about this, but I believe it needs to be pointed out.

Re:Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944012)

Actually I'd say that in general when GPL software has attempted to defend prohibitions against dynamic linking the /. crowd has been opposed as well. In general the /. crowd is fairly hostile to most restrictions placed upon derived works whether GPL or commercial licensed.

Re:Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (4, Informative)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944088)

Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.

Litigated before (5, Informative)

metaomni (667105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943466)

This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.

Re:Litigated before (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943532)

A couple weeks ago, while (browsing around the library downtown|working late in the computer labs), I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

I sat naked on the bench in the health club locker room, staring at the tiles on the floor between my feet, but really looking at nothing. I was waiting for Barack to decide to come up and talk to me. He was this muscular teenage nigger who frequented the club and had ruined my life in the last few weeks. I was ordered to sit naked on the bench without a towel or anything to cover my nakedness. I had to keep my legs spread and my cock and balls visible for the anyone in the locker room who wanted a look. I knew instantly that it had been a mistake to sign up at the inner city health club which was eighty percent black, but it was near my house and cheap which was even more important.

The harassment had started on my first visit. Dark skinned, muscular black boys bouncing around the locker room with their huge dicks and pendulous sacks of balls swinging, high fiving each other and laughing and rapping, and there I was, this moderately built white guy of thirty two.

I will never forget coming back from the shower and one chocolate skinned thug of about eighteen let out a "weeeeeeeow" kind of sound and then said very loudly to me, loudly enough for all his pals to hear, "White man, how the hell can you fuck wit such a small dick?" They all roared with laughter and I turned bright red. Before I left that first time, I met Barack. He eased up to me while I was packing my gym bag. He is one good looking darkie, I will say that for him. He flashed me a big white toothed smile and said he hoped I wasn't thinking of quitting the club. He said he was friends with the manager and they had my address and shit, and it would be really unfortunate if I decided to quit. Then he laid one large basketball player sized hand on my shoulder and said that he would see me at the same time the next day.

Well, that's how it started. It got worse each time I went to the club. Barack and the other niggers got me to get towels for them, had me scrub their backs in the shower, even made me pick their dirty stinking jock straps up off the floor. They sent their filthy jocks and socks home with me to wash for them.

Now let me state here once and for all, that I am in no way at all gay. I don't think I ever even had a gay thought. So all of this really repulsed me. They would brush up against me so their big fat black dicks rubbed my body. They would make constant jokes about me being a faggot.

So I had it out with Barack. I told him I was a single parent with a thirteen year old daughter and in no way gay, and I wanted to quit the club. That mention of my daughter was the biggest mistake of my life. Barack demanded to see a photo of her. Her name is Crissy. After that, all they talked about was "Crissy the Cunt" in the locker room.

"Some fourteen year old school boy probably shoving his dick in her right now while you is at da club." They would say things like that. Barack would ask, "Do you suppose she had ever sucked black dick?" I told them she was totally innocent, and they should keep their foul mouths to themselves. They beat the shit out of me.

I didn't go to the club for a week. All the windows were broken on my car, and my newspaper was stolen, and somebody pissed all over our door. I received a package at work, and when I opened it, there was a pile of shit in a box. I was going nuts with anguish. I thought of going to the police, but I knew I would face even worse if I did. So I went back to the club. That was two months ago. A lot had happened in those two months.

Now I sat waiting for Barack to speak with me. He walked up, stark naked. The first thing I saw were his huge brown feet next to me. I looked up at his long muscular legs. How could I miss the seven inch flaccid dick, thick as a flashlight and the ball sack that looked like it had oranges in it. It was fucking obscene. His stomach was hard and tight. His ass was one of those round tight nigger bubble butts. His chest well defined with large nipples. He had a killer smile, thick nigger lips, and dark flashing eyes that often looked drugged. He had only recently gotten out of reform school for molesting a girl on the playground.

"So, my man, how's that little dick of yours hangin'?"

I spread my legs wider so he could see my pathetic shriveled white prick and small ball sack. If I didn't keep myself on display for them at all times, they would have a wet towel snapping session where my scrotum was the target. It hurt like hell and was totally humiliating.

"So, bro, is everything set up for tomorrow?" He stood close to close that his huge flaccid hunk of fuck meat brushed my shoulder. His dick was so huge, it was just fucking obscene, and that was in its flaccid state. He had not showered yet, and his body reeked of the nigger stink of his workout.

"Please. Please don't do this. I know I agreed, but that was after you had beaten me almost senseless. Please, isn't there some other way?"

He lifted one leg and put his foot on the bench next to me. His gigantic balls swung back and forth in their fleshy sack.

"Dere is no other fucking way, man. You don't wanna even think of what we gonna do to you next time you disobeys us. Dere is no other way. Now it so happens dat I needs me a new girlfriend, and your pretty little daughter fills da bill."

I felt my stomach turn over. I tried to relax, to breath deeply, but I felt like I was choking. This teenage nigger thug was talking about my daughter. My little Crissy. My thirteen year old angel. He had announced to me that he wanted her to become his girlfriend! Jesus Christ!

At first I had bluntly refused, letting my anger and disgust show. All the niggers in the club gathered around me, about fifteen of them, and Barack announced that I was racially prejudiced and didn't want him dating his white daughter. They started to slap and punch me.

"It's not that. Honest to God, I swear, it's not that you are black. It's that she is only thirteen. She's my innocent baby!"

Barack roared with laughter. "Any bitch of thirteen is totally ready for dick! She probably sucking da boys at school every day anyway by now." He looked at the photo of her which he had taken from me. "Yeah, she got real cocksucker lips, she shore do!"

"Oh God no, she's just a baby." I was crying in front of all of them.

"No, daddy, you gots it wrong. She is a babe...not a baby. Dat pretty little pussy is ready for some nigger popping!" Half the niggers surrounding me were getting hard ons, and I don't there there was one under eight and a half inches.

For weeks I had argued, begged, pleaded, tried to bargain with Barack, but he only wanted one thing. My daughter's virgin pussy. Once I stood up to them and told them I would go to the police. They had dragged me naked and screaming into the health club bathroom and forced me to eat turds out of the toilet bowl. I was sick for two days. The next time I went to the club, Barack had made me suck his dick. That was the first time I saw it erect. Over twelve inches of throbbing leaking nigger cock. I had a panic attack and literally tried to run out of the club. They held me down on a bench and Barack fed me his black fuck meat. His balls almost suffocated me. His dick choked me. He even made me suck his ass. What could I do? I agreed to let them have my daughter. I know, I am an awful man. A sinner. It is unforgivable, but I am scared out of my wits.

"So, tomorrow, I comes over to yo house dressed up real good. You introduce me to yo bitch daughter. Now when I sees her, dis is how I wants her dressed. A very tight tee shirt dat says printed on it, "I Love Nigga Dick!" She will wear no bra under it so I can see the tips of her budding little titties through the material. Den she is to wear her nice pleated cheer leader skirt like in da photo, only I don want her to wear no panties under it. From now on, yo daughter is forbidden to ever wear any panties. We want dat fresh young cunt and ass ready and available at all times. I want you to have some really top drawer booze at yo house ready for me. I am not sure what I will want, so you better have enough to satisfy me, whatever my taste might be. Who da fuck knows, I may want a cosmo, or maybe some of dat Louis XIII Brandy dat costs three hundred dollars. You better have it all. After I has a drink, you pretty little bitch and I gonna sit on da couch and get acquainted. Dat means you as da daddy get to watch me finger her cunt and play wit her titties. You gets to see her meet my big fat old dick and even lick and suck it a little. I always insists on sex on da first date, cause how else you know how a bitch perform, right? Shit, I insist on sex on every date. I mean dat is da only reason for da fucking plow some pussy! Right? Otherwise I'd rather hang wit da home boys. Now she gonna be a little uptight and scared at firs...right? Specially when she see my dick and she know dat huge motherfucker is gonna plow her virgin twat! Oh yea, if she got any hair on her cunt yet, you make sure she shave it all off before tomorrow. I wanna see bald thirteen year old pussy."

While he said all of this to me at the health club, his dick got thicker and thicker and long strings of pre-fuck started to hang from the fat pisshole.

"Please don't hurt her...please." I was shaking in my naked agony.

"Hurt her? No why the fuck would I hurt my new girlfriend? I gonna love her. I gonna show her da pleasures of lovemaking. Shore, it gonna hurt a little da first time I ram my twelve and a half inch motherfucking dick balls deep into her tight little teenage pussy. Shore it gonna hurt when I pounds her as hard as I can, and den pull out and shove it as hard as I can up her little asshole. Shore dat gonna hurt a little, but dat is jus' part of growin' up. A her daddy, you understand dat. Right? Better to hab some nice boy like me who wants her for his girlfriend fucking her, den every boy at school who don't give a shit about her.

"Now don't you worry, I gonna take her into the bedroom to fuck her cunt and ass. I think dat is private. I mean, you can watch da first time she suck my balls and lick my dick and such. But fucking is between a guy and his girlfriend. I wants you dere at the the sucking part, cause she is gonna be scared like I say, and you can calm her. Tell her it is a natural part of life, and she just gotta learn to please a man. She, she shoulda learned dat couple of years ago already. She is a late bloomer.

Now I am gonna want to use her bedroom for da first fuck,cause I wants to fuck her little bitch body in her teenage bed, wit all her teenage shit around. It will be so hot. But den, I is moving into your master bedroom. You can sleep on da couch. I wants a nice big bed and luxury for future fucks. I gotta fuck at least three times a day, usually more. Now of course I still going to be bangin' other cunt, but I will fuck your daughter regularly cause she is my number one girlfriend. My special bitch. I ain't gonna introduce her to my bros until after I fuck her for a week or so. Den when she broken in, I gonna share her with all da boys from dis here health club. Dere about twenty of us here as you know, so she gonna be pretty busy sucking nigga dick and getting ass and cunt fucked. We gonna do mos' of it over at yo house. You have lots of food dere at all times fo my brothers when dey comes over to fuck your daughter. Since she be fucking most every day all day and night from now on, I suggest you apply to home school her. Dat way, she don't even need to think about school and she can concentrate on nigga cock all da time."

"Please, please use condoms...." I had tears running down my face.

Barack roared with laughter. "Condoms? We never use condoms. It ruins da fuck. Dat little bitch gonna be pregnant in a couple of weeks at mos'. You gonna be da grand daddy of a nigga chile! And who knows. She young. If she stay tight enough and cute enough, maybe we fuck her for three or four years, you know, pass her around, pimp her out. Shit, she still young enough. She could hab five or six nigga babies! We don' allow no abortions. She gonna breed. Now my brothers and daddy be comin' over lots to fuck her too, so you better have lots of keys to yo house made, or jus' leave the fucking place unlocked. She don't leave da house without permission. I would hate it for both of you if some black bro comes over for a good hard fuck, and she not dere! Now I know you worried about her. Don' be. After a few days of getting nigga dick, she gonna love it so much, dat all she gonna live for. I seen it in young white bitches lots of times. Someday she gonna thank you for all dis. I mean how many girls her age so lucky to get ten to fifteen black cocks a day? Long as her pussy and asshole hold up, she be happy. One thing, she gonna hab to be a really good cocksucker, cause One thig is dat when da boys in my hood meet up wit guys from other gangs...we got dis thing. We hab our girlfriends suck da cocks of all da members of the other gangs, as kind of a peace signal, you know, a sign dat we is kewl and everything is okay. So she gonna pretty much hab a dick in her mouth twenty-four seven for da next few months. She gonna be sucking on nigga dick even when she getting fucked by my bros. Dis house gonna be pretty packed full of black boys! Now, after a bitch has sucked fifteen to twenty dicks a day, she often get a real tired jaw and swollen lips and a sore tongue, so you gonna have to tell her no matter how tired she get, da last dick of da day she suck, gets jus' as good a suck as da first one in da morning. You gotta make sue she understand that. I can't have no bad reports from rival gangs dat my bitch can't suck!

Now we gots one more problem. Da little bitch gonna be so busy getting fucked and sucking dick, she ain't gonna hab no proper time to clean up da dicks after dey fuck her cunt and ass! You know it da bitch's job to clean a dick wit her mouth after a brother fuck her. I mean, you can't expect a brother to walk around wit pussy slime or ass juice on his dick. But she gonna be so busy, she ain't always gonna hab time to clean up, so you my friend is going to have to step up to da plate to help her. You gonna be the official dick cleaner. You gonna lick and suck da dicks clean after dey fuck yo bitch of a daughter. I want you naked on you hands and knees at all times around da house, ready to lick and suck dick clean. And you gonna do a fine job too, I just know it. You get all dat stink off da cock. Maybe you can entertain da brothers waiting next in line to fuck yo daughter too by lickig dere balls and assholes. I never thought of dat until just now. Hot damn, dat is a good idea, ain't it? So dey don't get bored while dey waitin. And den, to keep your daughter fresh and tight, after every three or four fucks, you gonna crawl in and suck the nigga cum right outta her pussy and asshole. Think how great dat is. You gonna get to suck some thirteen year old pussy and asshole! How lucky is dat? You gonna clean out her cunt real good with yo tongue so it is ready for da next nigga.

We gonna be da happiest family you ever seen! Now come on, white boy, suck my dick, can't you see it dripping all over da floor?"

I put my mouth over the head of the huge leaking hunk of fuckmeat, and resigned myself and my daughter to our new destiny.

Re:Litigated before (1)

freak132 (812674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943626)

Out curiosity, does this ruling include file caches in RAM as well as the running executable?

Re:Litigated before (4, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943630)

This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.

Really? From their Snow Leopard EULA:

A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Ugrade License for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.

Looks like Apple doesn't grant you a license to make another copy(as they argue you do by booting). If Apple wins this, can they successfully sue their customers for making unauthorized copies when the computer boots?

Re:Litigated before (1)

coppro (1143801) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943836)

It says you have the license to run it, which would, I suppose, include copying it into RAM since that's how computer programs are usually designed to be run.

Re:Litigated before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943922)

It says you have the license to run it, which would, I suppose, include copying it into RAM since that's how computer programs are usually designed to be run.

I run my programs with a stylus and slate, you insensitive clod!

Re:Litigated before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944030)

The license also says that they can change the terms of the license at any time. Really the only safe way to run software is to have that right written into law.

Re:Litigated before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944080)

You just made Psystar's argument for them...

Thank you!

Re:Litigated before (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943828)

I don't see how, as a matter of fact, a court could find any differently. It is an objective reality that a copy in RAM is made of data on a disk when a program is loaded. That is the "loading" part. ;-)

Whether or not such copying should be subject to restriction by copyright law is a different question entirely, and from a legal point of view it is much more interesting. As mentioned in TFS, some major jurisdictions (including IIRC both the US and the EU) have specific and/or general wording in some of their laws that might exclude these copies. It that were the case, it could negate any legal argument about controlling the use of software based purely on ability to load and run an otherwise legal copy.

That matters profoundly, because it could have huge repercussions for the validity of EULAs and similar arrangements: for software purchased via a third party, the copying-into-memory angle could be the only influence the original copyright holder has, and if that is negated then there is nothing in it for the consumer to agree to an EULA. It's not clear how any sort of binding contractual agreement, such as any other EULA terms, could be valid at that point.

Re:Litigated before (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944100)

I'm still in awe that people are so stupid and complacent to accept the concept of a software "license" that would restrict what you can do with a product you purchased for no reason other than to appease the greedy control freaks in big business. Software needs to be treated like books and that's the end of it. Copyright protection, first sale doctrine, do what you want, but don't copy for people.

Every time I read about the heinous abuses of the legal system like this, I feel inclined to go break a few related laws out of spite.

People need to rise up and tell the government that it needs to put an end to shit like this and other abuses of the public in general (cough cough, banking system, cough)

Cortical Copyright Infringement (1, Insightful)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943470)

There's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon .

My brain hurts, Steve! (3, Insightful)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943566)

This is pretzel logic at its worst. Memo to Apple: build a machine that has a price point between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, that isn't an all-in-one machine, and is internally expandable, and people will buy that machine from YOU rather than buy a PC and make a Hackintosh. People know the difference between a Mac and a crappy PC. They know that the Mac will be the better quality machine. They will pay more -- not a King's Ransom, but modestly more -- for Apple quality. This is why the MacBook has pwn3d most lappies for years, and why the MacBook Pro is the best damn lappie experience currently available. Build something BETTER for a little more than a Dell or a HP or a Compaq and you will have the business back. I guarantee it.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (1, Flamebait)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943704)

I won't pay more for a Mac. I'd pay MUCH more for workstation-quality PC parts, with the RAID and Video controllers of MY choosing, than pay the premium of a Mac Pro. I will (and did) end up with a vastly superior hackintosh.

Likewise for notebooks: wake me up when Apple comes out with a trackpointer+trackpad+three mouse buttons making running Linux+KDE an enjoyable experience, and also give me internal RAID like the Dell Precision M6400. Until then I am not interested at all in Apple-manufactured notebooks. They sure are pretty but are limited, and god DAMN the person who keeps the notebooks stuck with a single-button "mouse" solution, because the "virtual" mouse button solution just doesn't cut it, especially when you need a "middle" click. Oh sure, I can carry around a mouse or a trackball, but that's a hack of a solution one should not have to resort to.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (5, Insightful)

outZider (165286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943792)

You are completely not their target market. Apparently, you want a two inch thick laptop that runs Linux and KDE. There are plenty of them. Buy them.

Two inch thick? Hardly (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944032)

Have you noticed the new Acer netbook - the Ferrari One? It comes with Windows 7 64 bit running on an AMD dual core, with 2G RAM and 320G hard drive, and a 5 hour battery life. And it is a netbook, ffs, with an 11.6 inch screen. I'm probably going to buy myself one for Christmas and put Ubuntu on it in dual boot, but compared to a Macbook Air it's almost free. The prospect of actually being able to do work on 64 bit system coding while flying economy should appeal to more than one developer.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944172)

Actually I want a notebook that dual boots Linux and OS X and has a decent touchpad, but thanks for playing.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (1)

AmunRa (166367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943934)

It's Apple's OS, they developed it, spend years and millions of $$$ making it - why shouldn't they be allowed to say what machines can and can't run it?

These arguments about "I'd buy a Mac if it had exactly X configuration, but seeing as they don't I'll just pirate it on my own system" have absolutely zero merit. Just because the developers of Windows and Linux have chosen to let you run their OS on any x86 machine, doesn't mean you automatically have the right to run any piece of software you like on your machine.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944000)

Uh.. The notebooks have moved beyond the single-button mouse solution. There's a touch pad that knows how many fingers you're using. Two fingers means secondary click, and there are gestures to do many other things.

If you buy the actual mouse, it knows where your finger is and has a legitimate middle click. In addition to the multi-finger gestures. It's a touch pad now too.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (1, Offtopic)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943734)

Apple quality? Last time I was inside an apple they were still using leaky electrolytic caps and even worse hardware than low end PCs.

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944050)

Or even better have Apple simply drop this case. In general Apple caters to people who want A) A headache-free user experience, a hackintosh even with Psystar's tools will never offer this B) People who want style, again, Psystar won't offer this because their machines are typical PC-looking C) People who have used Macs for ages, which again, they won't get from Psystar.

All Psystar is appealing to is people who really want OS X or a machine that Apple doesn't have either an actually -cheap- machine (I can buy a pre-made machine for $350 or less and get a faster/better machine), a good expandable desktop (Mac Pros are too expensive, and neither the iMac nor the Mac Mini can be expanded), a cheap laptop (even though they do have good laptops, when you can buy a laptop that for most users meets their needs for $300, compared to ones -starting- at $999, most people would pick the cheapest one). Since Psystar isn't stealing Apple's customers, why bother with a lengthy suit?

Re:My brain hurts, Steve! (0, Flamebait)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944118)

Uuum, the Mac IS a crappy PC! Just an expensive one. I found their quality to be sub-par to what I'm used in a price range below their prices. Or in other words: They are too expensive for what they are. Also, I can't even choose what I want in there!
I see no reason to ever buy a Mac, other than when I'm forcibly drugged to do so.

You sound like a total fanboy. Because it's astonishing how you really believe that those products have a good quality for their price! Really really astonishing!
I bet you never built your own system, or checked out anything without their logo.

Re:Cortical Copyright Infringement (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943976)

There's a copy of Red October on my retina too for a couple of nanoseconds too - I suppose the lawyers will be knocking on my door pretty soon

That's not a copy. See 17 USC 101.

Here are the relevant definitions:

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.


A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

The embodiment of "Red October" on your retina for a couple of couple of nanoseconds fails to meet the definition of being fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and hence fails to meet the definition of a copy.

Re:Cortical Copyright Infringement (1)

rawg (23000) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943990)

No, it's not an "unauthorized copy". You are allowed to watch it. So no lawyers at your door.

Anyone surprised? (0, Troll)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943482)

Someone wants to make a buck off of OS X without paying the Apple tax and Apple is upset. Is anyone really surprised?

Re:Anyone surprised? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943538)

No surprise, which is why you can search my house:0 NO Apple/Mac, no iDevices, not today, not ever. Not even welcome on the property (a recent guest was surprised but accepted my position).

Re:Anyone surprised? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943582)

I hope to God you're trolling. Because as stupid as Apple's policies are, yours trumps them.

Re:Anyone surprised? (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944068)

No surprise, which is why you can search my house:0 NO Apple/Mac, no iDevices, not today, not ever. Not even welcome on the property (a recent guest was surprised but accepted my position).

So to summarize - because of Apple's heavy-handed behavior, you will not associate with anyone who does not allow you to force your beliefs on them.

There's some irony in there, somewhere. But on the bright side, I'm guessing this doesn't affect a significant number of people at all.

Re:Anyone surprised? (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943552)

Presumably, either Psystar (or the end user) *do* have to buy a copy/license of/for OSX in order to run it. The fact that they choose to run it on hardware not sold by Apple may make Apple unhappy, but short of refusing to sell OSX except bundled with a new mac, there isn't anything they can legally do about it.

Re:Anyone surprised? (1)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943800)

There is plenty Apple can do about it. It is called a contract and you can pretty much write anything in a contract that doesn't break laws. Thus Apple CAN write their contracts in a way that lets them do just about anything they want. I really hope you are just ignorant or joking because if you claim there is nothing Apple can do about it then you are basically saying the whole idea of contracts and contract law should be thrown out. Apple has the rights to their products just like any other company.

Apple is very likely going to wither a) Win this case, b) modify the contract in such a way that it is very clear what can and cannot be done with a copy of their OS or c) stop caring about hackintosh products.

Re:Anyone surprised? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943980)

There is plenty Apple can do about it.

That is not the issue on the table. The question is, out of all those plenty of things that they can do, has Apple done any of them?

There is no signed contract here. There is only a shrink-wrapped EULA, and those have only met limited success when tested in court. Still further, does this EULA truly address this issue?

Re:Anyone surprised? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943590)

Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X. Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then? I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.

When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are. But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow? Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft. They're out to make money just like everyone else.

Re:Anyone surprised? (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943652)

I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.

They may not have a right (morally, that is), but, since the EULA states what you can run OS X on, they would seem to have a legal right.

And don't forget Apple legal have honed their skills on things like 'look and feel' suits, so don't hold your breath on common sense breaking out

Re:Anyone surprised? (1)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943946)

How do you figure it is morally wrong. I know morals involve some opinion but I think that if you develop a product you should be allowed to sell that product on your terms, and the law agrees with that. i.e. Just because someone else wants to sell a product that is a derivative of your work doesn't mean you have to let them. I would almost say that Psystar is more on the immoral side. They are blatantly going against the wishes of the author of the work. These sort of wishes/contracts have not been prevalent in consumer products but they exist everywhere in the business world. It is not crazy for a company to dictate how their product can be used. Books, music, DvD's etc all use these sorts of (legal) protections, and while some of us may loathe the methods they use to protect their wishes, not many people would claim they shouldn't have the right to limit reasonable use. i.e. You can't buy a DVD and start screening that movie for money.

Saying Apple is being immoral in this instance would imply nearly any contract that dictates how a product may be used is also immoral based on your reasoning for the immorality (EULA stating what can be done). If there is an alternate reason for the immorality please let me know but as you have stated it all I see is a conflict of interest between two companies. That does not constitute immorality.

Re:Anyone surprised? (5, Informative)

Windowser (191974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943984)

I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.

They may not have a right (morally, that is), but, since the EULA states what you can run OS X on, they would seem to have a legal right.

Not everyone lives in USA. Different places have different laws. Where I am, that EULA as no validity. You can't impose a contract to use your product after I bought it. You have to make me accept that contract before I buy it. So it looks like eveybody in Quebec can go buy OS X and run it on anything they seem fit, even a toaster if they can make it work.

Re:Anyone surprised? (3, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943736)

Doesn't Apple just sell upgrade licenses at retail?

At least that's how i understood it. And the other licenses are locked to the hardware - just like Microsoft's OEM licenses.

Re:Anyone surprised? (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943882)

Apple doesn't sell upgrade disks, never since OS X has been on release. It isn't like the other licenses are locked to the hardware either. I can take my newly purchased Snow Leopard disk and install it on any machine I wanted that was Intel Inside (TM). What I couldn't do is install the original system disks on another machine unless they are the same type. A system disk for a MacBook won't work for a MacPro for example, but every Mac comes with OS X and always has.

Re:Anyone surprised? (2, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943948)

I can take my newly purchased Snow Leopard disk and install it on any machine I wanted that was Intel Inside

Yes, but were talking about licensing here, not about technical possibilities.

That said, the Snow Leopard 29$ is an upgrade-only offer. You may use to do a full uninstall, but without an underlying Leopard license, you're unlicensed.

Re:Anyone surprised? (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943906)

Sort of. The $30 Snow Leopard is a Leopard upgrade license; the $170 SL/iLife/iWork pack is generally advertised as "For computers without Leopard", though the system requirements specifically state that you need an Intel Mac.

In practice, every Snow Leopard disc is identical, whether it comes in the cheap upgrade version or the "Mac Box Set" (above), or a family pack of either (aside from a sticker on the box, there's nothing in the family packs about licensing). As such, the installation EULA is going to be the same, and I don't think there's any doubt that Psystar is in violation of the EULA - just whether doing so can constitute copyright infringement by tripping this "unauthorized" clause.

Re:Anyone surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944008)

Apple sells OS X standalone so people can upgrade their existing machines. Believe it or not, they don't feel like making 12 SKUs of their product at different price points.

Because they only allow people to install the OS on their own hardware, they can counter it by making it much cheaper. Software costs are constant regardless of how many licenses they sell, yet the still keep OS X at a fraction of the cost of Windows. If they were to make money off of the OS, they would have to sell it for a lot more than $30.

Re:Anyone surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943866)

What "Tax"? They provide an OS cheaply to buyers of their hardware. Notice that Microsoft sells their OS for radically more? The upgrade to Windows 7 is twice what the full copy of OSX Snow Leopard runs. The upgrade is under $30. The Mac OS is a bargain for Mac users. This was never about striking a blow for freedom this was always about Psystar making a buck off Mac selling cheap in demand Mac clones. If they want to build inexpensive computers build PCs. It's been said endlessly but it never seems to sink in, Apple isn't a software company they make hardware. They produce OSX for THEIR hardware. What's hard to wrap your head around about that? If they sold it as a standalone it would probably run more not less than Windows. The irony is if they sold it for the same price as a standalone Win 7 then people would whine that Mac users get it cheaper. Okay so their only option would be then to raise the price for everyone including Mac users and then they get the headache of dealing with people insisting on building systems with unsupported hardware. Then the fight becomes "if they are going to sell their OS to anyone then is should support all hardware". Okay now they have to ramp up and deal with frankensteining their OS to kind of sort of support an ocean of hardware with really casual standards. Wow, guess what, now OSX looks a lot like Windows under the hood. Mac users loose and no one gains. Want a cheap PC? Buy a Windows machine. Want to use Mac OS? Buy a Mac. Look up the term Microsoft Tax. It has nothing to do with how Apple does business it's strictly referring to the Microsoft business model.

Groklaw going down the drain (3, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943494)

Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site. She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?). Even in this article, PJ doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles. Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds. She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences. In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.

Lalalalalala, I hear nothing,.... Lalalalalala (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943782)

Anytime its something people dont want to hear, right away the name calling starts.
Talk about JFK magic bullet, WMD in Iraq, Racak in Yugoslavia, 9/11 and anything that is not in the official truth and people get all defensive.

Read the Comes vs Microsoft documents on Groklaw and you will see that all those 'theories' people had about Microsoft barely scratched the surface.
Hundreds of juicy quotes from the head people in Redmond are to be found in those court documents.
You show me a 'Microsoft' theory that you dont agree with and I can show you equivalent version of their past deeds.

We know about Baystar and other proxies that MS uses and we know about their shady deals of the past. While they might not be reprensentative of the present (nothign coming from the head of the company says otherwise.), their history is so replete with examples of underhandedness that to simply close your eyes and cover your ears and go LALALALALALA and crying conspiracy is what you suggest.

History is there to teach us lessons about the future and those who dont heed those lessons are doomed to repeat them.

once bitten, twice shy... better safe than sorry...
I got also cutesy sayings just like you...

Oh yeah, ostrich head in sand... lets not forget that classic.

Old idea (3, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943516)

Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?

I remember having a serious WTF feeling maybe 10 years ago when reading about a judge's ruling.

Unauthorized (3, Insightful)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943554)

"Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"

Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.


Re:Unauthorized (3, Insightful)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943624)

But why should users need Apple's permission to install OSX on any computer they want? They payed for it, and they are not distributing unauthorized copies to other people, so I don't see why Apple should have any legal right to dictate how users can use it. Imagine if Microsoft decreed that the only browser Windows users can install is Explorer because they never authorized Firefox. That would be the same kind of twisted logic that Apple is trying to employ.

Re:Unauthorized (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943718)

They, like the media conglomerates (RIAA and MPAA), are trying to change what copyright law actually is.

Re:Unauthorized (0, Redundant)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943894)

Apple Users agreed not to do it when they clicked 'Okay' on the EULA. So they don't have permission no.

Re:Unauthorized (1)

Capt_Morgan (579387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943954)

EULA's are garbage... it's clearly a contract of adhesion regardless of what any court says.... The problem is the corrupt courts

Re:Unauthorized (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944152)

Yeah, and EULAs are a joke. You already paid for the software, you already opened the software, you already took out the disk and if the terms are against your liking what do you do? You can't return the software because you already opened it, you couldn't have known about the terms because they were on the disk and not the packaging. So in the end you have no knowledge of the terms beforehand yet they require you to accept them and if you don't accept them you are out the amount of money you spent on your purchase. And don't say that you could get them on the internet because I'm sure no judge would accept a contract that they didn't even see yet agreed to and you are suing them on breach of contract and you claim that they didn't even ask to see the contract because they didn't know there was a contract. I don't think that would fly by any reasonably competent judge.

Re:Unauthorized (2, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943974)

But why should users need Apple's permission to install OSX on any computer they want?

Because when you "buy" software you aren't actually buying the software. You're buying into a licensing contract. That contract can limit you in any way that doesn't break any laws. It can limit what hardware it's used on.

People may not like, but Apple isn't a monopoly. They can choose something with different licensing terms (or no license at all) if that's their preference.

Re:Unauthorized (0, Troll)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943628)

Yet if MS tried the same tactic of requiring MS branded hardware, the whole world would cry foul. Sounds like monopolistic tendencies in the EULA.

Re:Unauthorized (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943766)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so they can do whatever the fuck they want regarding monopoly laws. And that's how it should be.

For example, i could start selling computers that are loaded with a piece of software written by me that just says "hello world", and license the software that it could only be used on the computer it was sold on.

Re:Unauthorized (2, Insightful)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943938)

As is the common theme is monopoly suits, it depends on what you define the market as. If the market is hardware that can legally run Mac OS X, then Apple most certainly does have a monopoly. Besides, I said monopolistic tendencies, inferring that it COULD become a problem.

How much money will you make on sales of your hardware/software that prints "hello world" and how much will you make by suing everyone that infringes on your copyrighted software running on non approved hardware as they write their first code that prints "hello world"? I'm interested in your business model.

Re:Unauthorized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944052)

FYI. One does not have to have a monopoly to fall under anti-trust laws.

Re:Unauthorized (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943942)

You have to have a monopoly before you can engage in monopolistic practices. Even in the portable music player market, Apple with its vast marketshare doesn't constitute anything near a monopoly, as there are dozens if not hundreds of competing products.

As for Microsoft... I can't speak as to whether them doing such a thing would be illegal, but it would certainly be stupid. They use other people's hardware sales to leverage their own software sales, while Apple uses their and others software to leverage their own hardware sales.

ho8o (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943562)

it. IUts mission is

Psystar is 100% wrong (4, Informative)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943568)

The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM. This is a legally settled matter, and Psystar is quite wrong.

Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943644)

If that was the ruling, then the law, or its interpretation are quite wrong. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (3, Insightful)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943686)

Yes, but Apple is making their argument in a court of Law, not a court of Nebulously Undefined Rights and Wrongs.

The current law is the current law, and Apple is legally correct. If you believe that the current law is not optimal, that's a matter to take up with the legislature. Arguing that the lawyers and courts are wrong for following the law is downright silly.

Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944002)

One court interpreting the law to mean one thing does not mean another cannot interpret it to mean something else, especially if that something else is sufficiently more sane.

Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944044)

Pystar isn't wrong, just illegal.

Re:Psystar is 100% wrong (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944184)

Where in that ruling did it address that matter? It all points to the Sonny Bono copyright extension act but I can't find any mention of what you're suggesting.

I guess the answer is Yes (1)

ctmurray (1475885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943654)

If you read Apple's response they do indeed make that claim. And since it is in a legal case I guess you can say they are serious. The real question is are they correct?

Problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943658)

Psystar doesn't own the software and Apple does. Psystar purchases copies of Mac OS X on DVD, along with a license to use the software in certain ways, but that's IT.

CD/downloaded music is then derivative licensed (2, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943746)

I don't know who to root for here. If apple wins then all CD/downloadable music is then by the nature of the distribution system given a derivative allowed copyright license when sold. As the only way to play it is to make several derivative copies of the material. Where the base structure is rearranged and then finally processed Digital to Analog.

1) CD/base store
2) CD buffer, linked associated chain
3) dram copy of data, another linked associated chain with OS and application page tracking
4) audio card input buffer, another linked associated chain
5) audio card processor, digital to analog conversion and final digital encoded analog value, then analog sound

The RIAA and MPAA are going to want to weigh in on this if it goes anywhere.

Reading, it's important. (1)

minsk (805035) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943754)

Every time there is a computer-related Copyright suit, some bright light notices that... OMG, someone's claiming in-memory copies are unauthorized.

117 says: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to [...]". Apple asserts that Psystar does not own the copy they are duplicating, therefore 117 does not apply.

IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it.

Well, that was easy.

Re:Reading, it's important. (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943924)

"IM-non-lawyer-O, the ownership vs licensing debate is pretty well settled in Apple's favor. So if you buy a copy, you don't need additional permissions to run it. If you license a copy, the license needs to grant you permission to run it."

On LWN the other day someone made a point... and running with it, we need to call bunk on anyone showing TCO analysis in their favour while claiming to license the software and not sell it. TCL or TCR perhaps but not TCO... Not that I have ever seen Apple making TCO arguments, but perhaps I was not looking.

all the best,


Re:Reading, it's important. (1)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944096)

You're pretty much the only person in this entire discussion so far who deserves mod points.

I gave up trying to actually respond to copyright discussions on Slashdot after my first two and a half years of law school. It's just too time-consuming to correct all the armchair lawyer bullshit spewed here.

I just wanted to give you credit where credit is due.

VMWare ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943784)

How does not being able to make a copy in RAM relate to VMWare ?
Are we no longer allowed to use virtualization ?!

Re:VMWare ? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944158)

Virtualization doesn't change the legal requirement that you have a separate license for each instance of a virtual machine you create. This has nothing to do with copying in RAM... your VM instance has a separate copy on disk as well.

Not all that controversial (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943798)

The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded _from_ is a legal copy. So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy. That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.

Playing digital music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943812)

So MP3 players are also making illegal copies of songs when buffering. This of course depends on what kind of license/DRM the music has.

Someone has to pay for Steve Jobs' livers... (3, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943824)

Uh oh. Imagine, if Apple wins this, then REMEMBERING A SONG OR THINKING ABOUT A MOVIE SCENE will have the MAFIAA at your door in a flash, since after all you made an "illegal copy" in your brain...

my 2 cents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943848)

Fuck Apple.

Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29943876)

So, is every program considered an un-authorized copy? After all, every program can be loaded into memory....

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29944130)

Every program??? Come on. If you're interested for a particular program, check the license.

What Psystar is forgetting about (4, Interesting)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943914)

17 USC 117 starts out thusly:

Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.

If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.

Nice! (1)

joaommp (685612) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943916)

I've got 7 computers around me right this moment. Some are running virtual machines. So, two copies of the OS each computer, more two copies each virtual machine. Does that mean I'm a very successful pirate?

Re:Nice! (3, Insightful)

AmunRa (166367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943964)

Depends if you have a licence to run the OS in question.

Are they making this argument? (0)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 4 years ago | (#29943940)

Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"

No, their attorneys are.

System with NO RAM (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29944120)

Pystar just has to change the System Configuration at time of sale ship the systems with absolutely no RAM.

Or at least 640k. It won't be enough for OS X but it will be enough for everybody to be happy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?