[Biallystock]

Oh please stop this rubbish.

Psystar is reselling Apple's OSX that is all.

Psystar are the equivalent of the barrow boy selling the Calvin Klein jocks except in this case they are actually the real thing and Calvin Klein has got his full cut.

[Biallystock]

That anvil analogy has to be the worst ever.

Glad you are not on Apple's legal defence.

Corporations seek to extend their legal control well past what is reasonable. I am on the side of users who say sell it and let me decide what I do with it.

[Don_Quixote]

Wondercow said:

> BTW, even if Apple says Psystar can't install their intellectual property, there's nothing to stop individuals from doing it.
There certainly is but Apple has so far not shown interest in prosecuting such individuals.

Since you mentioned it, let me ask you a question about it. I'm just curious what you think about those individual Mac users who use OS X for non-commercial personal purpose--someone like those who want to transfer the legally obtained license of OS X from a broken Mac to a Dell PC. Let's take the companies like Psystar aside for a moment.

1. Do you think they are violating the copyright law and Apple should go after them?

2. You think they're violating the copyright law but you (and perhaps Apple too?) are willing to accept them pragmatically because it's hard to stop them all.

3. Or, do you think that kind of non-commercial use is legitimate?

[Wondercow]

Biallystock said:

That anvil analogy has to be the worst ever.

That's because it's not an analogy; it's a simple extension of what the OP claimed. Phuney said "it's up to the court to decide how you can use something you have paid for." So my anvil example simply works from that: I paid for my anvil therefore it's "up to the court to decide how you can use" it. Find me a court ruling that says that dropping anvils on people is illegal.

Quote

Corporations seek to extend their legal control well past what is reasonable. I am on the side of users who say sell it and let me decide what I do with it.

Licensing rights to something goes back at least a thousand years and permeates many--if not all--cultures. You don't buy the software, you pay for the right to use it under the terms as dictated by the owner. You may do what you please with what you own, i.e. the hardware--in this case.

[Biallystock]

Wondercow said:

Find me a court ruling that says that dropping anvils on people is illegal.

Assault, murder? You really make me wonder at how you come up with these.

Quote

Licensing rights to something goes back at least a thousand years and permeates many--if not all--cultures.

Oh what rubbish! You haven't a clue on this. America was busy stealing IP from Britain right up to the 1890's.

When Dickens, whom they worshipped, toured the States twice and had the effrontery to ask that Americans actually pay instead of steal his works, they turned on him as some kind of ingrate.

America only got all high and mighty on this once they got to lose more than they gained from stealing.

Odd that!

[UbuntuProgrammer]

Your argument is so terrible I would almost thinks it's an attempt to create a straw man argument!

EDIT: sorry I wasn't paying attention, you are not the OP! Apologies.

[Wondercow]

[quote name='Don_Quixote']
>

Wondercow said:

> > BTW, even if Apple says Psystar can't install their intellectual property, there's nothing to stop individuals from doing it.
> There certainly is but Apple has so far not shown interest in prosecuting such individuals.




Since you mentioned it, let me ask you a question about it. I'm just curious what you think about those individual Mac users who use OS X for non-commercial personal purpose--someone like those who want to transfer the legally obtained license of OS X from a broken Mac to a Dell PC.

If it's being installed on a Dell it becomes a violation of the agreement--regardless of the legality of the acquisition.
>Let's take the companies like Psystar aside for a moment.

Quote

1. Do you think they are violating the copyright law and Apple should go after them?

2. You think they're violating the copyright law but you (and perhaps Apple too?) are willing to accept them pragmatically because it's hard to stop them all.

>

Quote

3. Or, do you think that kind of non-commercial use is legitimate?

These individuals are breaking the law; it's a violation of both copyright and contract law. Now, should Apple pursue these people is a question that I can't answer because it really depends on what Apple wants. If they're OK with the hacker community doing it then there's no problem since it's Apple's software and Apple's decision. If Apple were OK with Psystar that would their decision as well. The same with non-commercial use: it's not OK in principle under the theory that "but it's not commercial use!" but it would be OK if Apple said "well, at least they're not selling it." I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have no opinion regarding if Apple should go after individuals--I defer to Apple's authority.

[ericole]

People have such a skewed notion of what the courts are for in this country that it saddens me. It is also going to be the death of us. They are NOT the arbitrators of what is right and what is wrong. These intellectual property rights things have already been settled, they ARE breaking the law, and everyone knows it. Pystar is going to try to get some idiot judge who has no real knowledge of intellectual property to find some NEW right, one that will allow them to break the current law.

[Wondercow]

[quote name='Biallystock']
>

Wondercow said:

> Find me a court ruling that says that dropping anvils on people is illegal.

Assault, murder? You really make me wonder at how you come up with these.

Those don't specifically apply to anvils; however, you just made my point: just because we buy something doesn't automatically mean that it's up to a court to decide if its use is illegal. As I've pointed out many, many times now Phuney said "it's up to the court to decide how you can use something you have paid for" which is clearly incorrect.

Quote

> Licensing rights to something goes back at least a thousand years and permeates many--if not all--cultures.

Oh what rubbish! You haven't a clue on this. America was busy stealing IP from Britain right up to the 1890's.

And how does that prove that leasing, lending, and licensing haven't been occurring? When did I specify IP? When did I say that no one ever stole instead of licensing or leasing? Are you telling me that peasants didn't lease land from the nobility in order to grow crops? Are you saying that slaves were never lent nor leased?

Quote

When Dickens, whom they worshipped, toured the States twice and had the effrontery to ask that Americans actually pay instead of steal his works, they turned on him as some kind of ingrate.

What's your point?

Quote

America only got all high and mighty on this once they got to lose more than they gained from stealing.

Ahh, I see, you're still confused (and bitter toward Americans). Please quote where I stated or implied that IP is the only thing that can be leased and that everyone was pure and noble in their quests to secure proper rights from the owner before using his or her works.

[Wondercow]

UbuntuProgrammer said:

EDIT: sorry I wasn't paying attention, you are not the OP! Apologies.

:-) Welcome to the forums

[MacPro2007]

Thanks Biallystock, for the history lesson (or reminder - whichever).

I think we can blame our own (U.S.) historians and history teachers for omitting such information. It seems to be consciously selective as well. We have a more complete picture of the rights and wrongs in histories of our War Between the States. One would expect that such a valuable (balanced) treatment would be applied more completely.

It's also interesting that we're still flogging this issue of copy right infringement - provoked I suppose by the ease computers provide in stealing.

However, I wouldn't say that this phenomenon is restricted to citizens of the U.S. It's a human nature thing and there are versions of it in every country. No one need ask where our impulse to steal came from: we have only to look at the other primates.

As for Apple vs Psystar: it's a sideshow. Little to be gained or lost for Apple, Inc. since they are quixotic on the question of what they themselves want to do with the lower tier market. For now, it appears Apple is merely playing dog in the manger.

While I agree with those who say that Psystar is infringing Apple's rights: this case has little chance of going down in history as significant or unusual.

[Biallystock]

MacPro2007

I am very aware of the big picture and it isn't what often gets played out in public or in these forums.

People have a startlingly short view of almost everything.

They say that possession is 90% of the law. What they don't say is that that is because 90% of the law is made by people who possess 90% of everything.

Wondercow threw in all sorts of unsubstantiated claims, some of which actually vividly demonstrate my statement above. Peasants, who never "leased" or "licensed" the land they were forcibly bound to by the nobility, who had stolen it off them in the first place. Slaves who had their lives, rights and bodies stolen and then sold on by force, which was wrapped up in the "legalities" which Wondercow seems to think are immutable.

I am used to his reaction, which comes from a belief in the stories that he has been told since childhood and are "True, because everyone says so." Any evidence that it is really a convenient hypocritical nonsense, is just dismissed without even thinking about it.

The big corporations have made a huge grab for the newly invented IPRs that have been framed in US courts in recent years. They are seeing how much they can grab, a lot of which was in the public domain, before China takes over and leaves them with nothing. They have happily stolen from many small enterprises and each other whenever they could get away with it and fiercely defended their gains once they got it in their hands.

Their ability to enforce, what often seems in commonsense to be ridiculous, terms and conditions on customers, is only possible because they can get the Government to write legislation in their favor. Legislation that will come and go. Europe because it is less "owned" by big money has legislated away those same so-called "rights".

Eddy Izzard has a very funny skit about how the Imperialists powers stole people's lands from under them, because they had stuck a flag in their soil. We've got a flag. Do you have one?

Well we have the choice of ignoring Apple's flag, the EUL, because it only has power if anybody thinks it is important.

[Wondercow]

Biallystock said:

MacPro2007

Wondercow threw in all sorts of unsubstantiated claims . . .

Name one.
>. . . some of which actually vividly demonstrate my statement above. Peasants, who never "leased" or "licensed" the land they were forcibly bound to by the nobility, who had stolen it off them in the first place.
Check your history. While what you say is true it was by no means the only system in use, but using your contention:
In feudalism the serfdom class of peasants were slaves. The Slaves and the Cottagers would work the land as property of the master. However, the Freemen were tenants of the lord who paid rent to him for the right to live on and work the land.

Please explain to us how this is unsubstantiated.
>Slaves who had their lives, rights and bodies stolen and then sold on by force, which was wrapped up in the "legalities" which Wondercow seems to think are immutable.
I prove you wrong and you can't admit your mistake. You try to twist what I said to make me out as supporting slavery; when you're not able to come up with a decent argument you resort obfuscation--your usual tactic has gone unchanged. The fact remains that leasing, licensing, lending, etc. have gone on for millennia. The point of this debate is not "was slavery a bad thing or a good thing" but "have people been leasing things for millennia." Slaves were leased.

You have yet to show that I'm wrong; you also have yet to give any evidence of any claim you've made. Stick to the topic and prove me wrong using actual evidence

Please explain to us how this is unsubstantiated.

Quote

I am used to his reaction, which comes from a belief in the stories that he has been told since childhood and are "True, because everyone says so." Any evidence that it is really a convenient hypocritical nonsense, is just dismissed without even thinking about it.

Support your insult. Offer up some proof of what you say. What stories have I been told since childhood? About what do I think "it's true, because everyone says so"?

You speak of me being hypocritical and throwing out unsubstantiated claims, yet here's this gem from you. So, you're making an unsubstantiated claim about me and thus you are a hypocrite. You are so lost in the majesty of your own mind that you don't even realize how much you undermine your own illogical argument.

Quote

Their ability to enforce, what often seems in commonsense to be ridiculous, terms and conditions on customers, is only possible because they can get the Government to write legislation in their favor. Legislation that will come and go. Europe because it is less "owned" by big money has legislated away those same so-called "rights".

Really, so I take it then that you're saying that Europe is completely devoid of EULAs? Not a single EULA in existence in Europe. Not for software, not for hardware, not for firmware, no lease agreements for housing, rental cars, or rental equipment. Do I have that right?

Quote

Well we have the choice of ignoring Apple's flag, the EUL, because it only has power if anybody thinks it is important.

You sweat ignorance, don't you?
Message was edited by: Wondercow; spelling and grammar

[mdawson]

Quote

Wondercow wrote:

>

Quote

Please explain to us how this is unsubstantiated.

He cannot. As you wisely pointed out, and are well aware having engaged in this debate since it arose about a year ago, those supporting Psystar have no point. All these people care about is what they want, all else be damned, and should you dare disagree with their self-absorbed grand wisdom then they resort to insults and ad hominem because they have nothing with which to debate.