2 ms·

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

by 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.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Your analogy is flawed. Fruit-taping is not a violation of copyright law. Circumventing content protection measures for non-excempt purposes is. Presumably the law factored into the judge's decision.

by pohl 17y ago

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.
GHFigs 17y ago
Your analogy is flawed. Fruit-taping is not a violation of copyright law. Circumventing content protection measures for non-excempt purposes is. Presumably the law factored into the judge's decision.