 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Looks like the courts weren't buying any of Psystar's justifications in Califiornia. All the details of the ruling can be found here:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-against-psystar-in-califo/
Nilay Patel, who knows a whole lot more about the legal system than I do, seems to think that this ruling spells almost certain doom in the Florida case.
Discussion is locked
Funny I thought this case was in Florida
Let's see. Engadget article.
Copyright infringement - Psystar was making multiple copies of OS X from its imaging station, and you just can't do that without permission.
They have a point here, that's not allowed.
DMCA violations. Everyone's favorite section of copyright law gets some time in the sun -- the court found that Psystar illegally circumvented the OS X kernel encryption when it hacked OS X and booted it on non-Apple hardware.
No the DMCA act specifically states that it only applies to encryption for the purpose of copy protection. The purpose of tying software or content to a specific type of hardware does not apply under the DMCA.
Creation of derivative works. This is part of copyright infringement, but we're going to break it out because it's a major key to the case. In order to boot OS X on a hackintosh, Psystar replaced the OS X bootloader, disabled and removed Apple kernel extensions, and added its own kernel extensions.
No, copyright law gives a specific exemption for modification of software to work on unsupported hardware, this is not illegal.
law more thoroughly than a lawyer (Nilay Patel) and a CA Judge?
Copyright act section 117:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. ? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
So in other words, it's legal to hack OS X to run on a PC, but it's not legal to resell a pre-hacked version of OS X. Although it would be legal to sell the hacking tools to let you do it yourself. Psystar is actually in the wrong here, but not for the reasons Apple says.
DMCA: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work"
The encryption in OS X does not control access to OS X, it rather controls OS X's access to hardware. It's like the difference between DRM in an mp3 that only enables it to play on certain devices regardless of how much it's been redistributed, to DRM that restricts playback and copying to a single persons account.
I know you want to fight the anti-copyright fight but you are really choosing the wrong poster-boys for your cause. Psystar is not the upstanding freedom fighting rebels they want everyone to believe they are. They are essentially snakes who take other people?s work (both Apple?s and the OSX86 community?s) and then play a clever PR game to make themselves appear to be a David fighting a Goliath.
I think you need to listen to Engadget?s Nilay Patel and Joshua Topolsky rail on just how sleazy Psystar has been through this whole process, both in their legal arguments and their stealing of code from the OSX86 community without giving credit. The pertinent section is from 00:52:10 to 1:04.43
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/13/engadget-podcast-171-11-13-2009/
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic