4 ms·

Are you saying that it should be legal to steal another company's work and use it in your product? Because Apple makes a good product and I don't think it shoul

by unalone 17y ago

Are you saying that it should be legal to steal another company's work and use it in your product? Because Apple makes a good product and I don't think it should be legal to break it and force it into your box. If I was doing something so despicable I'd hope it was against the law. I'm a happy guy, though. I trust my government not to go batshit.

jrockway 17y ago
How is any stealing taking place? The Psystar folks are inserting a DVD they bought at the Apple Store into their computer and are booting it. They then sell that computer and DVD to someone else. (The "illegal part" is that Apple's DVD will only work if the hardware gives it a magic number. The Psystar folks made their computers give Apple's software the magic number, which is apparently a crime.) If Apple's business model is to prosecute anyone that puts their shiny widget into a computer that They Don't Like, then that is a pretty shaky business model. (But of course, that is not their business model, they are just being dicks.)
- unalone 17y ago
  You can make registration codes sound silly by calling them "magic numbers" all you'd like, but they're there to make sure things go according to their designer's plans. This isn't grey territory. It's not DRM, which inconveniences anybody. It's black-and-white. Apple sells you the DVD and lets you know up front it works with Macs and only Macs. They're so nice they don't even prevent you from installing one copy of a program on a hundred Macs. And their DVD doesn't work on a non-Mac, and you know this buying it. When you get the DVD with any other intention, you're buying it with false intent. You've agreed not to do what you're about to do.
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    That's like suggesting that I could write some robotic surgery software and design it such that it would work only on certified surgery hardware. Oh, wait....
    - jrockway 17y ago
      You can do that, just don't let people buy the install DVDs at Best Buy.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Re-purposing your own possessions is not illegal. I bought a "dining table" at IKEA, but I use it as a "computer desk". IKEA also sells "computer desks". Am I doing something illegal by not using it for the purpose they sold it to me for? Of course not. (What makes OS install DVDs so special?) Continuing with the analogy of tables, imagine there exists a set of tables and chairs and the table has special slots so that only approved chairs can slide under the table. You can use unapproved chairs, but they don't work very well, and don't slide under the table for storage. Is it a crime to saw off the things that prevent normal chairs from fitting under the table and reselling the table? So then why is it illegal when someone does the exact same thing but with software.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Re-purposing your own possessions is not illegal. Mac OS X does not become your own posession just because you bought a copy on DVD. The DVD, however, is yours. If you want to re-purpose it as a coaster, go right ahead. I think you'll find Apple has no problem with that or any power to legal recourse to stop you if they do.
      - gloob 17y ago
        The software on the DVD is a physical property of the DVD, if you look at a low enough level. Repurposing the item based on that physical property, than than (e.g.) it's shape or weight, is the same thing, in principle.
        pohl 17y ago
        ...but not in law. (in the relevant jurisdiction)
        GHFigs 17y ago
        It is only the same if you throw out the extremely relevant difference that the software is under copyright. You do not hold the copyright on a book just because you own a copy of it made from ink on paper. Why do so many intelligent people not understand this?
- pohl 17y ago
  From the article: "The judge said [the first sale doctrine] only applies to legal copies and that the way in which Psystar had modified the software to let it run on clones meant that the copies did not meet this standard."
  - jrockway 17y ago
    But of course, the judge is simply wrong about modification. Saying this is modification is like saying that an orange is "modified" if you duct-tape an apple to it. (In this case, the duct-taped apple is the software that fakes the hardware encryption keys.) Similarly, if this is illegal, so are the "imaging" procedures employed by every IT department I have ever encountered. I wonder why Apple wants to go down that road. (Of course, laws are only applied when someone is bothered. If modifying Apple's software makes them money, it's fine. If they don't make enough money, it's suddenly a violation of federal law. Just like if you're a rich white guy with cocaine, it's a fine, but if you're a poor black guy, it's life in prison. Glad that we approve of this here on HN...)
    - simonk 17y ago
      The DMCA has an exemption for backups.
    - pohl 17y ago
      Your description does not match the description in the judgement: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf Psystar first bought a copy of Mac OS X and then installed it on an Apple Mac mini. Next, Psystar copied Mac OS X from the Mac mini onto a non-Apple computer. This non-Apple computer was used as an “imaging station.” Once on the imaging station, Mac OS X was modified. Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X “bootloader.” The bootloader runs when a computer first comes on and locates and loads portions of the operating system into random access memory. Without a bootloader, Mac OS X would not operate. Psystar also disabled and/or removed Mac OS X kernel extension files and replaced them with other kernel extension files. Psystar’s modifications enabled Mac OS X to run on non-Apple computers. The modified copy became the “master copy” that was used for mass reproduction and installation onto other Psystar computers. Yes, the IT department at my organization images workstations too. They do so within the scope of the software's license, though, and they certainly do not resell the workstations afterward.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  Pystar didn't actually do this. They made duplicates and copied them onto all the computers. It would have been interesting to see whether the court would have provided summary judgment if Psystar actually had inserted a DVD in each computer. Probably on the DMCA clause, but I personally think that clause sucks so would have felt a little better for Psystar had that been the case.

by unalone 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

How is any stealing taking place? The Psystar folks are inserting a DVD they bought at the Apple Store into their computer and are booting it. They then sell that computer and DVD to someone else. (The "illegal part" is that Apple's DVD will only work if the hardware gives it a magic number. The Psystar folks made their computers give Apple's software the magic number, which is apparently a crime.) If Apple's business model is to prosecute anyone that puts their shiny widget into a computer that They Don't Like, then that is a pretty shaky business model. (But of course, that is not their business model, they are just being dicks.)

unalone 17y ago
You can make registration codes sound silly by calling them "magic numbers" all you'd like, but they're there to make sure things go according to their designer's plans. This isn't grey territory. It's not DRM, which inconveniences anybody. It's black-and-white. Apple sells you the DVD and lets you know up front it works with Macs and only Macs. They're so nice they don't even prevent you from installing one copy of a program on a hundred Macs. And their DVD doesn't work on a non-Mac, and you know this buying it. When you get the DVD with any other intention, you're buying it with false intent. You've agreed not to do what you're about to do.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  That's like suggesting that I could write some robotic surgery software and design it such that it would work only on certified surgery hardware. Oh, wait....
  - jrockway 17y ago
    You can do that, just don't let people buy the install DVDs at Best Buy.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 17y ago
  Re-purposing your own possessions is not illegal. I bought a "dining table" at IKEA, but I use it as a "computer desk". IKEA also sells "computer desks". Am I doing something illegal by not using it for the purpose they sold it to me for? Of course not. (What makes OS install DVDs so special?) Continuing with the analogy of tables, imagine there exists a set of tables and chairs and the table has special slots so that only approved chairs can slide under the table. You can use unapproved chairs, but they don't work very well, and don't slide under the table for storage. Is it a crime to saw off the things that prevent normal chairs from fitting under the table and reselling the table? So then why is it illegal when someone does the exact same thing but with software.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Re-purposing your own possessions is not illegal. Mac OS X does not become your own posession just because you bought a copy on DVD. The DVD, however, is yours. If you want to re-purpose it as a coaster, go right ahead. I think you'll find Apple has no problem with that or any power to legal recourse to stop you if they do.
    - gloob 17y ago
      The software on the DVD is a physical property of the DVD, if you look at a low enough level. Repurposing the item based on that physical property, than than (e.g.) it's shape or weight, is the same thing, in principle.
      - pohl 17y ago
        ...but not in law. (in the relevant jurisdiction)
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        It is only the same if you throw out the extremely relevant difference that the software is under copyright. You do not hold the copyright on a book just because you own a copy of it made from ink on paper. Why do so many intelligent people not understand this?
pohl 17y ago
From the article: "The judge said [the first sale doctrine] only applies to legal copies and that the way in which Psystar had modified the software to let it run on clones meant that the copies did not meet this standard."
- jrockway 17y ago
  But of course, the judge is simply wrong about modification. Saying this is modification is like saying that an orange is "modified" if you duct-tape an apple to it. (In this case, the duct-taped apple is the software that fakes the hardware encryption keys.) Similarly, if this is illegal, so are the "imaging" procedures employed by every IT department I have ever encountered. I wonder why Apple wants to go down that road. (Of course, laws are only applied when someone is bothered. If modifying Apple's software makes them money, it's fine. If they don't make enough money, it's suddenly a violation of federal law. Just like if you're a rich white guy with cocaine, it's a fine, but if you're a poor black guy, it's life in prison. Glad that we approve of this here on HN...)
  - simonk 17y ago
    The DMCA has an exemption for backups.
  - pohl 17y ago
    Your description does not match the description in the judgement: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf Psystar first bought a copy of Mac OS X and then installed it on an Apple Mac mini. Next, Psystar copied Mac OS X from the Mac mini onto a non-Apple computer. This non-Apple computer was used as an “imaging station.” Once on the imaging station, Mac OS X was modified. Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X “bootloader.” The bootloader runs when a computer first comes on and locates and loads portions of the operating system into random access memory. Without a bootloader, Mac OS X would not operate. Psystar also disabled and/or removed Mac OS X kernel extension files and replaced them with other kernel extension files. Psystar’s modifications enabled Mac OS X to run on non-Apple computers. The modified copy became the “master copy” that was used for mass reproduction and installation onto other Psystar computers. Yes, the IT department at my organization images workstations too. They do so within the scope of the software's license, though, and they certainly do not resell the workstations afterward.
ghshephard 17y ago
Pystar didn't actually do this. They made duplicates and copied them onto all the computers. It would have been interesting to see whether the court would have provided summary judgment if Psystar actually had inserted a DVD in each computer. Probably on the DMCA clause, but I personally think that clause sucks so would have felt a little better for Psystar had that been the case.