A Local Perspective: Miami-based Psystar takes on Apple

I did not read their rebuttal before reading the New Times article.

This brings up an interesting debate:

When I'm reading a print article such as this piece, I would hope it would have the credibility that one might associate with an independent, non-profit newspaper.

But then we have an internet blogging community that has knee-jerk reactions. What is scary is that their hive-mind could be more right and provide more insight than an article or a fluff piece like the one 60 minutes did.

I think this just turned into a discussion, not of Psystar, but of internet blogging vs. journalism vs. what people call "journalism".

Who should be more credible and why? Should one BE more credible than the other? How can we know what sources to turn to?

The New Times Hackintosh article reaches a wide audience, especially among college students.

Some have no tech insight, reading this, like the guy in the coffee shop where I saw this for the first time, were like "I gotta get me one of those".

Then, there are the tech geeks reading the article, like Engadget, and laughing at what they say is being passed off as journalism.

This is an age old debate that may never get answered.

about its subject or at least the author must be resourceful enough to know where to go to get such knowledge. The Miami New Times article is a failure on both accounts. I got the impression that the author pretty much took the Psystar brother's at their word and didn;t both to follow up on any of their claims.

And there were quite a few factual mistakes that were fed to him. Psystar did not "crack OSX"... the OSX86 community did (but the fact that the Psystar brothers stole that from the hackintosh community themselves doesn;t make for as juicy a David and Goliath story now does it?). And Psystar is not "legally purchasing" copies of OSX for 29 dollars... those are UPGRADES not standalone copies. You might think these kinds of little details would be an important fact in a lawsuit about copyright and license law, would you not? Did the author dig to find out if these claims were true or if there might be another side to them? No. Instead we got a two page tear-jerker of a backstory about how these brothers have overcome adversity to get where they are. Seriously, at some point I felt I was reading some hack job full of gushing praise about how "brave" Sarah Palin has been by standing up to the big bad media that's out to get them.

Other than running to the EFF for a quote (who is going to give you about as balanced an argument as the NRA) not a single person was consulted who could accurately describe why Apple might be in the right and what legally is at stake if software authors are not allowed to protect their intellectual property with user licenses.

When someone writes a six page, one-sided article about the rebellious home town boys fight against the big bad corporations I think we can clearly claim its an example of shoddy journalism if not downright puffery.

I'm not defending the article and after reading Engadget's thoughts, I'm more than slightly disappointed with The New Times- especially as a local that reads it on occasion.

{In all honesty, I did not get a chance to read the article in detail and break it apart piece-by-piece before posting in this forum. Therefore I will take the BUZZ OFF that I probably deserve for that.}

However, you could look at this from a different perspective. We could look at this as, this article is giving the public/blogging community a clear view/idea of who these guys REALLY are, and what is REALLY going on in their minds, and just give the bloggers more ammunition. I mean, seriously, did we know this is what they truly thought until this article? That this is what they believed as facts, other than what was in the court documents?

BUT, that would be extremely stretching it.....

Essentially, the Psystar guys had an opportunity to present a logical, rational, and technically sound point of view, and they didn't.

I can't speak for the New Times mindset because I don't work for them. I just had a local sense of pride when I saw the article, but now it's more shame.

SIDENOTE: Do we know if the CNET reporter mentioned in the article was contacted directly, or if they just took a quote from one of his pieces covering this story? Or if it was taken out of context? Haven't had a chance to look.

But the author of the New Times article got his feathers all in a ruffle after Engadget exposed his lack of follow-through and basic fact-finding. You can see his response to them in the comments about midway down the page (they aren't very good and the question of his lack of real inverstigation remains). His defensive attitude throughout his article towards what he terms the "blogoscenti"makes me think he has a rather large chip on his shoulder. He paints a picture where its Psystar against the blogosphere which just isn't true. Some very vocal bloggers have defended Psystar's right to do what they do and many others on the web have cheered the company on.

The way the author made it sound as if Gizmodo was stalking the guys houses was just bizarre. A cursory glance at the photos in question and the accompanying text show that Gizmodo was just trying to figure out why the heck a company would change their address 3 times in one week. Which in my opinion was a valid response to what was shaping up to be a very shady looking situation: http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax

Goodness knows that blogs like Gizmodo have their problems. They are frequently snarky and flip in their reporting and they have been known to act like children to get/create a sensational story http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9849168-7.html?tag=nefd.only But, like Engadget, they do know tech through and through which clearly this Miami Times journalist does not. Maybe a more cautious and thorough approach would be warranted on his part the next time he does a story on a controversial tech story.

If you don't qualify for an upgrade, Apple says you have to get the full version in the $169 box set.
http://www.amazon.com/Mac-Box-2013-Snow-Leopard/dp/B002I0JKE2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1258168318&sr=1-3
Psystar should use this version.

because otherwise they have two very big strikes against them.

According the the ruling, they were loading OSX off of a server and the version on the machine was not even the version included on the DVD that came in the box. Not to mention they neglected to include the DVD at all in the several of the boxes that were examined in the case.

Big mistake on Psystar's part. Their entire case depended on them following the law to the letter.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-against-psystar-in-califo/

That's definitely illegal.

Because it's a loss for consumer rights.

And as long as they do so for personal, non-commercial purposes I'm willing to bet that Apple could care less about them.

This is simply a loss for vultures who pose as freedom fighters and who hide behind the mask of "consumer rights" to make a buck off of other people's intellectual property (not to mention off of the work of the OSX86 community). Take the profit out of the picture and poof.... problem disappears. Even Creative Commons understands that personal use and commercial use are totally different beasts.

If you are paying for the intellectual property. They are, well at least attempting to I'm not sure if they got the upgrade or full version.

They were a reseller (and an unauthorized one at that). I wish people would stop conflating consumers (not for profit Hackintosh enthusiasts) with people out to make money off of other people's IP (Psystar.

The law says you can't resell modified software without permission.
Although, it would be legal for them to give you a Leopard DVD, and software to modify it for you....

or selling you the pot to go in it. One is clearly illegal, the other is a grey area.

Its still likely the Rebel EFI Psystar is selling could get struck down for similar reasons. If they had to break encryption on OSX to produce the software then they could be found guilty and/or liable.

Section 117 copyright act. It's saying, modifying software to work on your hardware is legal, and it also says that it's legal to use someone else to hack it for you, which I assume means you can pay someone to get the hacking tools. What you can not do however, is sell your hacked version of the software to someone else without permission of the copyright holder.

The issue of breaking encryption, is a DCMA issue.
But the DMCA states that it only applies when the encryption is for protecting access to content...
I would think that locking software to hardware does not count as protecting access to content.

to get you the hacking tools are in the clear if they had to violate copyright law or the DMCA to produce said hacking tools. You as a consumer are not going to get in trouble but that hacking tool may not be for sale long so I hope you get your 20 bucks out of it while you can.

It is indeed more of a "grey" area in that Hackintosh enthusiasts are <i>technically</i> violating many of the same sections of copyright law and the DMCA that Psystar was violating. Its just that Apple knows its in their best interest to look the other way and to let these people have their fun. When you start blatantly making a business out of your violations and dragging Apple's brand down into the mess you've created is when they take issue. Just like in politics, you don't tick off the base because, even though they may be small in number, they can make the most noise.

When you drive 8 or 9 miles an hour over the speed limit on the highway generally the police look the other way. Its sort of an unspoken societal agreement. You don;t push it too far and I pretend not to see you. Not for profit hacking is kind of the same way. You take responsibility for your actions and you understand that you are on your own as far as support goes. And you realize that as long as your hacking is for your own personal use people will leave you alone.