Posted on 12/15/2009 11:16:26 PM PST by Swordmaker
Unenforceable terms.
Another person with a "total disconnect from the reality of life on this planet and in these United States..." LOL...
It's "unenforceable" -- except -- for the fact it was just enforced... :-)
“And did conservatives vote for him?”
Many did. That didn’t make him a conservative.
“It’s “unenforceable” — except — for the fact it was just enforced... :-)”
Gun control laws are almost entirely illegal and unenforceable. You probably champion the anti-Constitutional “enforcement” of those too.
Gun control laws are almost entirely illegal and unenforceable. You probably champion the anti-Constitutional “enforcement” of those too.
Your "aim" is getting pretty wild here... another sign of a liberal...
Do you want to bring in the "kitchen sink" to the Psycho-star slap-down judgment by a judge... :-)
Or perhaps we can bring in the Evolution/Creation debate here, too... or the abortion/choice argument... I'm sure they all relate to Psycho-star and their illegal activities... LOL...
Many did. That didn’t make him a conservative.
Quite a few did...? Ummmm..., in fact just about all the conservatives that anyone could "muster" in the United States did -- which is why it's "absolutely hilarious" in light of your statement... LOL...
“Quite a few did...? Ummmm..., in fact just about all the conservatives that anyone could “muster” in the United States did — which is why it’s “absolutely hilarious” in light of your statement... LOL...”
Just how does that make him a conservative?
“Your “aim” is getting pretty wild here... another sign of a liberal...”
Nonsense.
“I’m sure they all relate to Psycho-star and their illegal activities...”
Was it you or your friend who brought “socialism” into a discussion of and disagreement with the application of copyright law to void fair use and grant all power to the holder?
Title 17, 109 isn't about reproduction right, it's about control of a sold item, specifically resale. It says that something that has been sold may be sold again without the say of the first seller.
The argument that the O/S is illegally copied when the computer loads it into RAM while it boots is outrageous and ludicrous. Such a "copy" is absolutely essential to the very purpose of an O/S and MUST occur during the use of ANY copy of EVERY O/S. Because that act is inherent in the very meaning of the term O/S, it's despicably dishonest of Apple to claim that it's illegal. The very argument is offensive to the meaning of the law.
If you have a license to use ANY software, you have a license to "copy" it into your computer's RAM so it can execute.
You can drop the Title 117 arguments, because they aren't the point. This isn't a "fair use" issue, but a "first sale" one.
The copies of OSX obtained by Psystar were legal copies and were purchased from Apple. Title 17 (not 117) says that the new owner of the licenses may subsequently resell those licenses without infringing on copyright.
INHERENT in the license of an O/S is the right to actually install and use it, otherwise the license is entirely meaningless. For the license seller to attempt to control HOW it is used, WHERE it is used, or on WHAT it is installed AFTER the sale is a direct violation of Title 17, 109 and is therefore null and void.
You CANNOT control how your customer subsequently uses something he legally buys from you or the legal copies he buys from you, nor can you control who he sells them to.
Psystar was a customer, a purchaser of OS X... therefore, they had agreed to the terms of the contract and were in violation of that contract as well in egregious violation of Apple's copyrights.
Wrong.
Here's Title 17, 109 for you again. Read it.
Also, here's the definition of "null and void".
A provision in the license which violates Title 17, 109 is null and void, as it violates that law.
The judge is simply being an Apple puppet and ignoring the law.
Many states, whos judges better understand this law, have struck down software licenses as null and void for that very reason. Microsoft tries to deny you the right to resell your license after you no longer need it, a direct violation of the same law. Some states ignore the law to Microsoft's advantage, while others do not.
Apple is playing the same game, and this judge winked and nodded to allow them to violate the law and destroy Psystar.
Just how does that make him a conservative?
What it makes it is -- absolutely hilarious -- in light of your statement... LOL...
A sample from a conservative: "I'm voting for Bush, who is not a conservative, in order to have a non-conservative as leader for all the conservatives in order for my conservative values to be preserved..."
LOL..., in fact ROTFLMAO... :-)
Do you have any more jokes for us...
...in complete disregard for the law.
Corrupt or ignorant judges do it all the time.
...in complete disregard for the law.
Ummmm..., that sounds like a "line" that you would hear from Saddam Hussein, saying that he violated no laws and whatever "law" was being used against him is illegitimate...
Yes..., that argument is the "refuge" for the criminal element in this world -- we do know that... :-)
We know that Psyco-star is the criminal element here and we do expect them to "take up the line" of a type of person like Saddam Hussein, saying that these laws don't apply to him (or to Psycho-star) and that whatever laws are used are "illegitimate" and they were applied by judges who are "in the pockets" of his enemies...
So typical... LOL...
Have you got any new and "fresh lines" in your pocket, there...? :-)
Was it you or your friend who brought “socialism” into a discussion of and disagreement with the application of copyright law to void fair use and grant all power to the holder?
Well, if I didn't do that, please excuse me... LOL.. I'll correct that now...
You sound like a card-carrying socialist... :-)
“A sample from a conservative: “I’m voting for Bush, who is not a conservative, in order to have a non-conservative as leader for all the conservatives in order for my conservative values to be preserved...””
You don’t participate in the political focus of this website, do you? Conservatives voted for Bush based on wanting to believe he was one of them and later choosing the lesser of the two evils after it was clear he was not.
Yeah, that whole "contractual relationship" thing. I have problems with the validity of unsigned, un-negotiated adhesion contracts, especially ones that exceed the legal basis for them. Remember that without the grant of copyright they couldn't prevent anyone from widely redistributing their works without any restriction.
Another problem here and in other places is that the DMCA isn't being used to prevent actual piracy, which is what it was meant for, but to protect chosen business models. Copyright should not be a club to protect business models. Using the DMCA to protect business models has already been shot down a few times.
There is a DVD disk in the box with a copy of OS X in the box... but what is on it is NOT SOLD TO YOU! Apple retains title to the content on that disk.
That's the same thing that happens with a book. You retain the copy and all of the rights copyright gives you to that copy, and the publisher retains the copyright on the work. Yet books aren't licensed, they're protected by copyright.
YOU do not own it. LEGALLY, under the law, you do not have ANY RIGHTS AT ALL
Copyright gives me rights that Apple does not have the authority to take away under any contract. I can back it up, I can resell it, etc., and Apple has no right to say I can't. Imagine you bought some property that already had an easement for a walking path -- you can't tell people to stop walking on it. The law has defined the limits of your power, and you cannot extend your power beyond those limits through legal artifices. You can't post a "License to enter" to restrict the right the people have to that path.
Apple is merely providing that disk as a convenient way for you to gain access to their property to further THEIR ends, not yours
Their copyrights are allowed to exist in order to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not their ends. Allowing their financial interests to exist is only a means to an end. Copyright is supposed to be a balance.
Once you have made that agreement, you are bound by it... and the courts will, as they have done before, side with the publisher.
The courts have also not sided with the publishers. Precedent is uneven right now.
How can you implement your "Doctrine of First Sale" now? You have not bought a physical copy of the software. All you bought was a license.
I can resell the system with the software on it. I can revert to the older version and sell that file to someone else to install. IMHO, anything I have to do in order to make that happen despite any technological measures taken by Apple should be legal. Even the DMCA says about circumvention, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." That is the most ignored clause in the law.
This is the old copy/license issue where content producers want it both ways. If I bought a copy I have various rights under copyright and the UCC, but if it gets stolen out of my car or my kids destroy it, then I'm out that copy. I have to buy another. But if I only bought a license, then supposedly I lose a bunch of my rights. However, the content producer owes me new free copies for my lifetime as my old ones get broken, lost or stolen, because I bought a license to have a copy. Of course they don't want to live up to that, so they then say I bought my copy and I'm out of luck. But if I bought a copy I keep my rights, and we're back to the beginning.
Trust that the licensed person will not ignore the license. Trust that the laws will be obeyed. Trust that others will not be tempted to accept obviously infringed copies. Trust that you will use it as it is intended to be used. Trust in the honesty of other people.
Trust that the author isn't exceeding his authority under copyright. Trust that various provisions don't run contrary to law and are thus unenforceable.
Apple NEVER relinquishes control of their rights.
An author never relinquishes control of his rights in a straightforward sale of a copy either. The extent and limits of the rights a user has when buying a copy, and the extent and limits of the rights retained by an author selling a copy, are well-established.
No, and you're being a jerk for comparing me with Saddam.
I quoted and provided links to the law I referred to. Have you read them?
The judge ruled in Apple's favor and ignored Title 17, 109. He should have found the restrictions in the license to be null and void.
This is pure, unadulterated judicial legislation.
I think the big problem here is that Psystar’s lawyers SUCKED!
This was a bad company, with bad representation, to be defending such an important test case.
That certainly appears to be the case.
No, and you're being a jerk for comparing me with Saddam.
Well, that's a typical "line" that I can just hear ringing in my ears from some criminal element ["Why are you comparing me with Saddam Hussein" said in a most indignant fashion, of course... LOL...]
As to why you would use such a criminal's line, I have no idea...
The judge ruled in Apple's favor and ignored Title 17, 109. He should have found the restrictions in the license to be null and void.
You may be a "judge-wannabe" but the fact of the matter is that you're posting on this board and an "actual judge" has already determined the facts of the matter...
And so am I posting on this board, but I'm not so crazy as to tell that judge how to do his job... :-)
I love hearing from "wannabes"..., they're always so entertaining when they try to tell the guys who are actually "doing something in their own profession" how they should do it... LOL...
This was a bad company, with bad representation, to be defending such an important test case.
Well now..., the "big money" that was behind Psycho-star, just shoulda given them more money for attorneys then....
Of course, when the big money saw what was about to happen, and to avoid them being exposed -- they cut and ran, leaving Psycho-star hanging out there by itself... ooops... (for Psycho-star... LOL...).
LOL!
Really? LOL!
Do you comment on, say, politicians and post on how THEY have made wrong decisions? LOL!
Gosh, it looks like every FReeper is a "wannabe", eh? LOL!
You're just being an annoying twit and making this about me, because you won't (can't?) argue the facts of the case and the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.