Psystar Wants To Make A Go Of Just Selling You The Tools To Install Mac OS On Your PC
from the and-the-lawsuits-shall-continue dept
Following Psystar’s big loss to Apple over selling PC’s with Mac OS installed on them, the company’s website has gone dark. However, Psystar claims that it’s going to stay in business and try to sell PCs with other operating systems and its $50 Rebel EFI software, which is what can apparently be used to allow individuals to install MacOS on their own. However, Apple still contends that even Rebel EFI is infringing. Again, this doesn’t make much sense if you think about it. Why should a piece of software that lets you run another piece of legally purchased software be illegal?
Filed Under: computers, copyright, freedom to tinker, macos
Companies: apple, psystar
Comments on “Psystar Wants To Make A Go Of Just Selling You The Tools To Install Mac OS On Your PC”
Surprised?
I’m not. Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to Apple. That’s the way they are and that’s why I don’t buy from them.
What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
Judge grants Apple permanent injunction against PsyStar (at mac.blorge)
“Specifically, the court banned Psystar from: …
Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but to me it seems that the above language might cause problems for the Rebel EFI software.
It seems to me that Psystar is on thin ice with Rebel EFI.
The judge?s injunction specifically includes the company?s software however, ?Whether Rebel EFI violates the terms of the injunction set forth in this order is a factual issue more appropriate for a contempt action.?
The Rebel EFI software is designed to allow the easy installation of ?multiple operating systems? (including Mac OS X). Now I agree with Mike “Why should a piece of software that lets you run another piece of legally purchased software be illegal?” but, as the judgment states ?It is not only inappropriate, but impossible to determine on this record whether Rebel EFI falls within ?thesame type or class of unlawful acts? found at summary judgment. This order declines to ?bless? aproduct about which it knows little of substance. Psystar?s second argument is therefore rejected,and Psystar ? if it continues to do so ? sells Rebel EFI at its peril.?
CNET News(December 16)
ZDNet (Also December 16th)
Re: What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
Punctuation Fail!
Sorry about that.
Re: What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
Oh how I wish I could edit posts after the fact right now.
LOL
Re: What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
Correct me if I am wrong, but to me it seems that the above language might cause problems for the Rebel EFI software.
OK, you’re wrong. That says nothing about tools and fair use permits the owners themselves to bypass DRM for purposes of interoperability.
Rebel EFI is done. Let it go. Besides Mike, your’re not a hackintosh person, and wouldn’t be able to appreciate anything they did.
After all, Rebel was based on another open source project. Rebel. They just wrapped it, encrypted it and sold the open source code for $50
I have a MacPro and MacBook Pro now, because I found value in the OS and found that Win7 was based on a great deal of what OSX had.
Want an anonymous person to sent a Professional version of Windows 7 or a big plastic deer for Christmas? Either will be sent to the Wycombe address.
Yes, it can be illegal
>> Why should a piece of software that lets you run another piece of legally purchased software be illegal?
Same way as firearm which used to shoot on legally purchased targets can be illegal.
There’s nothing special about software. Yes, it can be illegal similarly as some books are illegal. “Mein Kampf” is known example.
Re: Yes, it can be illegal
“”Mein Kampf” is known example.”
Hmm, as best as I can tell, possession and lending of Mein Kampf is only illegal in one country: Austria. Everywhere else possession and non-commercial lending is A Okay, though some places have made it illegal to sell for profit.
Even in Germany, where the copyright for the work is held by the state of Bavaria, owning, discussing, and lending the book is legal.
What’ll be fun is in 2015, when the work enters into the public domain….
Re: Re: Yes, it can be illegal
Oh, you’re awake? Is that you trolling me in another thread?
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it can be illegal
“Oh, you’re awake? Is that you trolling me in another thread?”
Er? A lot of people disagree with me here at times, but I’ve never been accused of trolling….
I saw something that I think was wrong and felt like correcting. Perhaps I have the definition of trolling incorrect?
Re: Yes, it can be illegal
Owning and operating a firearm, in many states, is perfectly legal until you use it to commit a crime. As pretty much any crime committed with the use of a firearm becomes a felony, owning and operating a firearm then becomes illegal for the felon. It is not, however, illegal for the manufacturer of the firearm to continue manufacturing and selling firearms. This is very similar to the file sharing argument. Rebel EFI, bittorrent, and firearms are TOOLS. The tools are not illegal, but the way in which the tools are used can be illegal.
Rebel EFI
Rebel sucks. I actually tried it out just out of curiosity, but it didn’t work worth a shit…good luck to them with basing their whole business model off of shitty software…oh, wait…Microsoft and TONS of others have already proven that a viable model. I welcome our new Rebel overlords.
Apple and the Garage Door.
Anyone who tried to install an apple OS soon find out that they need not only a compatible microchip but also the chips that block others from making it function.
So the OS is DRMed to work only with a certain hardware and if you bypass that it could be seen as a breach.
The OS looks for the security chips the code is inside if you bypass that you can use it.
Many virtual machines have to emulate the security chip of the motherboard of apple computers or take out the code that searches for them in the OS.
That is why maybe apple is claiming it is illegal the OS is DRMed and to use it you have to bypass that “security feature”.
Mike, posts like this make it easier for us to understand that technology is not your strong point.
For Rebel EFI to work, it has to trick the MacOS into thinking it is on a mac. It circumvents restrictions that are placed in the software by the manufacture. To make it work, you have to present the OS installer with false information, to bypass security in place on the software. It isn’t exactly much different from a keygen in many ways, providing you with a method to trick the software into working where by design (and by license agreement) it should not run.
This is one of those deals where you have to accept the simple fact: Apple does not license their OS to run on any other hardcore except the hardware they have approved. Even if you can technically do it (by force) it is still in violation of the usage agreement.
It’s pretty easy to spot circumvention and violation of license terms. Yes, somehow I am not surprised to see you coming down on the side of infringers and license violators, that is pretty much the rule here.
Re: Re:
The Anti-Mike, it is posts like yours that make us understand that discussion is not your strong point.
Thanks for re-stating the technical details, I’m sure no one here knew anything about.
The Anti-Mike does deserve credit for poitning out one of the reasons to not purchase products from Apple.
Re: Re: Re:
I restated the issues because I think Mike is either unaware or just doing the usual “ignore reality” thing. There is more than one force at work here that comes to the same conclusion: If you want to use a MacOS, buy a Mac. Use of the operating system is limited, it’s the nature of their agreement.
I also agree, it is a good indication of why not to buy from Apple, and why they have always been second class citizens in the computer market to Microsoft, who doesn’t care where you use their products as long as you pay.
Re: Re:
You’re assuming that those licenses are enforceable. Mike isn’t. That’s the difference.
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title
to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner
Re: Re:
You are not authorized to circumvent the technical measure used to encrypt this comment. You may purchase a license for a small fee.
The hardware.
Now like in the case of HP that tried to use DRM to block others from refiling the ink cartridges, Psystar could make an OS to work on apple’s hardware that is a gray area at the moment us I understand but I doubt apple would win a case if somebody was to make a “compatible” OS.
The hardware.
Forgot to mention.
In copyright land even doing these stuff would be illegal, but in the real world we all understand that manufactures have limitations on what they can do and this knowledge was gained after centuries of exploitation and misuse of laws.
Once you bought something no one would accept anybody telling you what you can and cannot do with it, but surprisingly when it comes to copyright that is exactly the premise of the whole thing is just crazy.
People making those laws are asking for trouble.
Re: The hardware.
You are making the same mistake that Mike is making, you are thinking you are purchasing a product – you are not. You are purchasing RIGHTS.
Those rights are limited. To assure that their limited rights are respected, Apple not only secures their software, but has other requirements to make sure those rights are respected.
When you pay Apple for an operating system, you are purchasing the rights only to use it on Apple approved hardware. If you don’t like those rights, don’t buy them.
You are not buying a product (like a sofa or a TV), you are buying rights (usage). Once you get past that misconception, the rest of your argument (and much of Mike’s rant) becomes meaningless.
Re: Re: The hardware.
I think you meant to restrict the scope of your statement.
Could it be that you are referring to the purchase of copyright material ie: music, movies, software?
Re: Re: The hardware.
Once again, you’re assuming that those licenses are enforceable, which is extremely arguable.
Rebel is not illegal
Rebel EFI is not illegal. The only rights it violates is Netkas’ open source license because they failed to provide the source code with its sale. Netkas developed PC EFI using code made available by Apple with the apsl2 license before it was changed over a year ago. Not sure where Apple is going with this unless they are trying to find a way to stop all hackintosh development.
Re: Rebel is not illegal
I think the point is they ARE trying to find a way to stop all hackintosh development.
(and using some quasi-legal hijinks to do it)
My point in my earlier post which I ether did not make sufficiently clear (or the trolls chose to ignore) is that based on the language in the decision it seems that the Psystar Rebel EFI Software is probably going to be found to be infringing. I am not saying that it should be just that that is the way this judge sees it. As far as the idea that fair use permits the owners themselves to bypass DRM for purposes of interoperability the problem is that as I understand it the DMCA doesn’t allow any exceptions to the bypass of DRM. So that argument fails to help. I think the Guns and books argument has been sufficiently destroyed already.
RE: “Apple does not license their OS to run on any other hardcore except the hardware they have approved. Even if you can technically do it (by force) it is still in violation of the usage agreement.”?
This goes top the heart of the issue the problem being that you ARE purchasing it and as such should not be limited by a (possibly unenforceable – but it seems to get enforced anyway even if it is wrong) licensing agreement. I don’t see how this type of thing helps anyone. It just feeds itself and certainly destroys the spirit of innovation and completion that the founding fathers worked so hard to protect.
Re: Re: Rebel is not illegal
My point in my earlier post which I ether did not make sufficiently clear (or the trolls chose to ignore) is that based on the language in the decision it seems that the Psystar Rebel EFI Software is probably going to be found to be infringing.
Copyright doesn’t apply to tools that can be used to infringe (or pens would be illegal), only to infringing works. So, you need to explain how distributing the tool would infringe Apple’s copyrights since Apple doesn’t own the copyright on it.
Re: Re: Re: Rebel is not illegal
It would infringe because it is a bypass device, allowing users to bypass security and to effectively hack the OS.
It’s a circumvention tool.
Re: Re: Re:2 Rebel is not illegal
Legally, that doesn’t amount to infringement.
Legally, it doesn’t amount to much.