StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dominus Atheos wrote:
I think it's breach of contract or something. Remember, you aren't buying OSX, you're buying a license to use OSX, and must obey the terms of the license.

So am I reading you right in presuming your argument is that it's bad to use OSX on other machines because Apple says that it's bad?

General Zod wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:
I think it's breach of contract or something. Remember, you aren't buying OSX, you're buying a license to use OSX, and must obey the terms of the license.

So am I reading you right in presuming your argument is that it's bad to use OSX on other machines because Apple says that it's bad?

No, breaching a contract (or a license) is against the law. When you buy a license to use OSX, you agree to all the terms of that license/contract, which among other things says that you can't install it on unlicensed hardware. Therefore installing a copy of OSX on a custom built computer is illegal.

Uraniun235 wrote:So, if the music industry were to release music under a license forbidding people to play it via certain means, that would be totally kosher with you?

Completely different scenario for reasons I've already explained.

Because I don't see why Apple should get to dictate to me what hardware I can run their software on.

Of course they can. They're not under any obligation to give you the source code so you can compile it on whatever hardware you want. Microsoft tells you that you can only run Windows on i386 machines, and I don't see you getting all pissed off about that.

If you want a completely open OS, it's simple. Get Linux. Or BSD.

(And I'm not terribly interested in what "copyright law" says about the subject because we all know US copyright law is fucked up.)

Actually, the original copyright law was perfectly reasonable. The extensions to copyright law have been unreasonable.

No, the original copyright law was not perfectly reasonable. A doctor could invent a cure for cancer tomorrow and he'd get exactly 17 years of patent rights to it, before it goes into the public domain. Meanwhile, some dipshit writes a song about how sad he is that his girlfriend left him, and he gets royalties FOR LIFE.

Someone explain to me why the fuck copyright doesn't expire, while patents do.

Darth Wong wrote:No, the original copyright law was not perfectly reasonable. A doctor could invent a cure for cancer tomorrow and he'd get exactly 17 years of patent rights to it, before it goes into the public domain. Meanwhile, some dipshit writes a song about how sad he is that his girlfriend left him, and he gets royalties FOR LIFE.

Someone explain to me why the fuck copyright doesn't expire, while patents do.

Compared to today's copyright period (95 years or so in America), 17 years just seems downright reasonable, I guess.

Darth Wong wrote:No, the original copyright law was not perfectly reasonable. A doctor could invent a cure for cancer tomorrow and he'd get exactly 17 years of patent rights to it, before it goes into the public domain. Meanwhile, some dipshit writes a song about how sad he is that his girlfriend left him, and he gets royalties FOR LIFE.

Someone explain to me why the fuck copyright doesn't expire, while patents do.

I'm pretty sure it was Disney that pushed for long ass copy-rights so their old characters would remain theirs but I'm not sure.

darthdavid wrote:I'm pretty sure it was Disney that pushed for long ass copy-rights so their old characters would remain theirs but I'm not sure.

Yep. They didn't want to have to go back to the drawing board for another Mickey Mouse. And you can bet that when their latest copyright extension expires, they'll be back, begging Congress for yet another one.

Durandal wrote:

darthdavid wrote:I'm pretty sure it was Disney that pushed for long ass copy-rights so their old characters would remain theirs but I'm not sure.

Yep. They didn't want to have to go back to the drawing board for another Mickey Mouse. And you can bet that when their latest copyright extension expires, they'll be back, begging Congress for yet another one.

The problem with people in the media business is that they have become accustomed to a "work once, get paid forever" model. They try to equate piracy to conventional theft, but whatever someone steals in a conventional theft situation was made and bought in a "work once, get paid once" model, not their perverse model. Imagine if you had to pay royalties every year on your TV set to the factory worker who made it. At some point, wouldn't you ask why the fuck he deserves to keep getting paycheques from you?

It's an utterly absurd model and it was only adopted as a social incentive, ie- it was a form of social engineering, to get people to do certain things that they might not otherwise do. Since it has been around for so long, people have started viewing it as some sort of inherent "right". Frankly, copyright should only be as comprehensive as it needs to be, in order to encourage people to make creative entertainment works. Anything more than that (and I think the self-aggrandizing opulence of the movie business says we've gone past that line) and it's just government-assisted gouging.