Interesting People mailing list archives
more on OS X hack sites closed;
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:24:51 -0500
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IP] more on OS X hack sites closed; Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:44:13 -0800 From: John David Galt <jdg () diogenes sacramento ca us> Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society To: dave () farber net References: <43F9BEB8.8090609 () farber net> Dave Farber wrote:
I hardly see how "fair use" can be argued here. This isn't a record company saying that music that you purchased can't be copied for online sharing. This isn't a movie studio prohibiting you from making a backup copy of the DVD you purchased or quoting/excerpting material from it for fair use. This is a company protecting their assets (software) from reverse engineering and modification to run on hardware which they do not support. This is a company protecting what they see as the value of their intellectual property.
This is a company preventing the porting of its OS to other machines. The correct analogy for a work of recorded music would be if a music publisher designed its CDs so that you can't copy the music to a cassette tape so you can play it in your car -- and then used the law to shut down people who tried to defeat that restriction. Such music porting is an accepted part of fair use; software porting should be too.
A "Macintosh" is sold not as a OS or a piece of hardware, but as a complete system.
That marketing decision by Apple does not constitute a moral obligation on the part of its users. Similar "tying" arrangements have repeatedly been overturned by the courts. DEC vs. System Industries (a maker of third party hard-disks for VAXes, a product DEC tried to kill by using a patented connector on its backplanes and refusing to license the patent to third party hardware makers) is an example from about 1990.
This situation is no different then when DEC tied VMS OS licenses to their VAX machines. The license stayed with the machine, not the owner of the system. OS and hardware were considered integrated. This is the value Apple stress when buying a Mac, the synergies they can provide by tuning hw and sw. Breaking this bundle "breaks" their product and destroys the value they attempt to create. While this could be acceptable if you had actually purchased the OS, in this case you didn't, a copy of the OS was granted to you for use on the machine it was purchased on only.
I continue to believe, based on the Uniform Commercial Code, that these users have in fact purchased the OS and that "clickwrap" licenses have no legal effect, at least if the purchase was made in one of the 48 states that did not ratify UCITA. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on OS X hack sites closed; Dave Farber (Mar 04)