February 17, 2006 11:17 AM PST

DMCA axes sites discussing Mac OS for PCs

Apple Computer appears to have invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to stop the dissemination of methods allowing Mac OS X to run on chips from Intel and Advanced Micro Devices.

The chatter at the OSx86 Project was stifled Friday after the forum was served with a notice under the DMCA, according to a posting on the site.

"We're sorry to report that despite our best efforts, the OSx86 Project has been served with a DMCA violation notice. The forum will be unavailable while we evaluate its contents to remove any violations present. We thank you for your patience in this matter," the posting read.

Win2osx.net, another Web site that hosts discussions related to getting Mac OS X onto chips with the x86 instruction set, was also down Friday. Earlier this week, Win2osx.net's discussion forums contained a posting from a hacker known as "Maxxuss," who made a patch available on his own Web site that would allow programming-savvy PC users to put a recent version of the Mac operating system on their x86 systems.

Apple has said that it does not authorize the use of the Mac OS on any x86 PC other than the ones it has developed internally using Intel's chips. The company used a Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, to tie Mac OS to the systems it distributed to developers after announcing its switch to Intel's chips last year, but hackers have found ways to circumvent that protection, which is illegal under the DMCA.

The DMCA generally prevents anyone from distributing software or hardware that can "circumvent" copy protection mechanisms, and one federal appeals court has ruled that even links to circumvention software are illegal. But the law is generally understood to allow the theoretical discussion of circumvention techniques.

Administrators for the OSX86 Project and Win2osx.net could not immediately be reached for comment. The OSX86 Project addresses the DMCA in the "About Us" portion of its site. "Our site is fully compliant with the DMCA," it says. "This site intends only to provide a forum for those interested in running OS X on Intel hardware. Anyone engaged in an active DMCA violation will be banned."

An Apple representative had no immediate comment.

See more CNET content tagged:
DMCA, Intel x86, Apple Mac OS, hacker, Apple Macintosh

129 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Let a Million Replicated OSx86 Sites Bloom ...
with archived versions of any banned content, because it's way past the time to keep putting up with the ridiculous DMCA and its obvious trampling on individuals' Freedom of Speech. I have no problems with protecting copyrights and keeping pirates from selling knock-offs for pennies on the dollar, but if I own a legitimate copy of OSX86, no one has any right to tell me what I can run it on, or infringe on my right to share information on how to do it, as long as I'm not selling it. Where do these companies think they're operating - China?

So, warm up your BitTorrent clients and servers to mirror the OSx86 and Maxxuss sites (the latter's download page still seems to be up, at least for the moment).

All the Best,
Joe Blow
Posted by Joe Blow (175 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not really...
>but if I own a legitimate copy of OSX86, no one has any right to
tell me what I can run it on...

Not that I for the DCMA in any way shape or form, but you don't
own the OSX86 software. Apple does. And they have every right to
dictate the terms of it's use in the accompanying license.
Posted by Mystigo (183 comments )
Link Flag
For God's sake!
"I have no problems with protecting copyrights and keeping
pirates from selling knock-offs for pennies on the dollar, but if I
own a legitimate copy of OSX86, no one has any right to tell me
what I can run it on, or infringe on my right to share information
on how to do it, as long as I'm not selling it. "

Er, yes, they do. It's the basis under which you enter into a
contract with Apple. If they don't want you to put it on non-
Apple computers (which is what the EULA says), then they don't
have to let you. It is then your choice whether to accept that
contract or not. And if you don't have a problem with copyright,
why do you think it's fine to give people information about how
to break copyrights?

"Where do these companies think they're operating - China?"

Did you engage your brain before you made such a stupid
comment? I hate to break it you but the DMCA is a US law,
created by the people "you" voted in. If you don't like it, vote for
someone who'll overturn it.

It's a stupid law, created to protect big business - but created by
your politicians.

What's that word I'm struggling for. Oh yes, "democracy". No,
they might not understand that in China but you're meant to in
the US.

And isn't it illegal to "incite" people to break the law as you're
doing? Just a thought...

RB
Posted by ross brown--2008 (57 comments )
Link Flag
If you have no problem with protecting
copyrights, then you shouldn't have a problem with the torrents
being taken down. Their only function is to distribute illegal
copies of OS X for Intel. The only legal copies available right
now are those that came installed on machines sold by Apple.
You cannot buy this software in a box at present.

Now, if you did own a legal copy of OS X for Intel, I might agree
that you are free install it on your PC following instructions
provided by those who have figured out how to do it. You
cannot expect it to run properly, however, since Apple would not
support installation on that machine. Updates probably would
not function. You would be on your own.

I know a lot of people would like to buy OS X for Intel and install
it on their PC. That's great. It is not right, however, to
download it illegally just because Apple refuses to sell it to you
(so far).
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
and because you believe
in and value your freedom of speech you post a comment as joe
blow? lets be real, the same people that talk about freeedom to
install OSX on intel and there freedom to install it, dont realize that
the OSX is not shipping for intel as a seperate OS product so what
are they using if not pirated copies of the OS?
Posted by biggstuu (281 comments )
Link Flag
C'mon, Apple
This is what's wrong with Apple for many years. They should know hardware is dead business and instead of being protective, they should allow anyone with a PC to walk into an Apple store, buy a copy of MacOS and install/run. It will increase their software revenue, (OS plus apps) allow user to experiment with Apple without shelling out thousands of dollars for the hardware, and eventually might convince a few to buy Appple hardware if they like it enough.

I'm a long term wintel user somewhat interested in picking up the new MacBook, but this type of story just ticks me off.

Steve
Posted by net_bull (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
The numpties mount up...
OSX works well for a variety of reasons - but one of them is that
Apple can tie-down what hardware the OS works on (couple of
desktop machines, a couple of laptops and, er, that's pretty
much it). A distinct advantage that goes out of the window if any
geek with some DIY PC box can install OSX and expect it to work
with his 5 year old graphics card, dodgy no-name RAM and
generic DVD-R.

And whilst your suggestion might increase their software
revenue - it'll kill it's hardware revenue. And I very much doubt
that the increase in one will compensate for the loss of the
other.

If the hardware business is dead, then I'd love to have shares in
Apple's dead business (yes, the iPods help I admit). Jobs has
always said that Apple is a hardware business - and I can't see
that changing any time soon.

But, as for buying a MacBook - do it. You won't regret it. You'll
be more productive and enjoy your computing experience more
than you ever could with a Wintel machine.

RB
Posted by ross brown--2008 (57 comments )
Link Flag
Disagree with assumption
Many people seem to believe that Apple would just rake in the
cash by selling OS X to all comers, but there is no evidence to
support this view. Apple is not closed-minded like some people
think -- if they could make money by selling the OS they would
do it.

When Apple licensed its OS to makers of Mac clones in the
1990s, Apple almost went bankrupt. Conditions are a little
different today since the iPod offers a second source of revenue,
but Apple still makes its money selling hardware.

Think about the high percentage of Windows users who still use
old versions of Windows. Most people just keep whatever
system came on their machine. The percentage of people who
are likely to install a completely different operating system has
got to be pretty small. It is hard to see software sales making
up for lost hardware sales.

The second major issue is support costs. There are innumerable
combinations of x86 hardware out there. Mac OS X has no
history on the x86 plaform and thus has no base of drivers for
all this hardware. Selling OS X to anyone who wants to give it a
try is a recipe for generating a huge support bill for Apple and
lots of unhappy customers who get a sub-par experience.

Intel binaries of key Mac software are still not ready, moreover,
such as Photoshop and Office. These programs run decently
through Rosetta translation on the latest hardware, but older
machines are going to struggle. Again, sub-par experience.

Apple needs to proceed carefully. Down the road, I would not be
surprised to see Apple license OS X to company like Dell or HP
under certain terms, such as sets of components. But that is a
far different move than just selling boxes on shelves.
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
Disagree
I disagree with your premise. First, Apple is one of the few PC
makers who actually makes a decent profit on hardware. Apple
is a hardware company first, an a OS company second.

Second, as a Mac user, I like that Apple makes the whole system.
I was often called to fix my stepdad's Windows machine before
he switched. I remember Dell claiming various issues were
Microsoft's problem, and Microsoft claiming the problem had to
do with the hardware. With Apple I know who to blame.
Moreover, Apple is able to respond to problems quicker because
it does create the whole widget.

With that said, I agree Apple should not resort to the DMCA to
shut these people down. It should just do what it did to Real
when it allowed iPod users to use Real's services, shut them
down through technology.

Besides without Apple's support, a Mac on Windows hardware
will never be very stable.
Posted by TerrinBell (293 comments )
Link Flag
Genius
Apple IS and always has been a hardware company. If they quit
selling hardware, they would ony make 1/10 the $ that they do
now.

Apple dowsn't want their OS running on your piece of crap Dell. Get
over it.
Posted by X=0 (52 comments )
Link Flag
Thieves not wanted
Steve, we in the Apple community don't want you. If you have so
much contempt for Apple that you would not buy a Mac, then you
don't deserve any Apple product, including the OS. The sneering
attitude that you hack-a-Mac people have toward Apple is proof
positive that you are only interested in ripping Apple off.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
Say what?
"They should know hardware is dead business"

Then what the heck am I supposed to run this *software* on? Beans
and Franks?
Damn, I made myself hungry, time for dinner!
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
thats just plain dumb from Apple's side
The best strategy for them now is to capitalize on the momentum theyve got from ipod and the x86 architecture, and continue capturing market share. They can get greedy later, when they get at least 40% of the market...

I just began hearing PC people converting to Apple, that is something that didnt happen for the longest time. I myself have been playing with the idea. But, if Jobs is so dumb to not realize that the biggest capital that Microsoft has is not the money they make through licensing, but the fact that many many users know how to use windows, if he does not see that, Apple will remain a niche for ever.

Might he be just success blind?
Posted by sancat (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Steve Jobs
is not dumb. There are a lot of adjectives people have used to
describe him, but dumb just doesn't fit.

On the contrary, I think it is pretty obvious that Apple understands
the marketplace quite well. The transition to Intel may be part of a
long-term strategy to put Apple in the position to be principally a
software vendor like Microsoft. It can happen as quickly as people
seem to think.
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
Not dumb at all
<<Might he be just success blind?>>

Maybe, but I don't think so. Steve Jobs does look into the future and I'm certain he has contemplated the PC OS market for his OS/X product...

Assuming he eventually plans to capitalize on this opportunity, you must realize that there is a mountain of work to complete before such a strategy can be successful. Not only will he have to find a solution to the issue of countless hardware drivers, he'll also have to find a way to continue to promote his hardware when it is no longer required.

This move on Apple's part is legal... and furthermore, it protects Apple and its business model while they either ignore the rest of the market, or prepare for it.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Apple is avoiding the idiots....
There is no end to the PC users out there who will try to run
some version of OS X on their PC. With almost no exceptions, it
either won't work or will run poorly. Apple does not want to get
in the middle of the idiots reaction that their failure is Apple's
fault.

Sure, people will try. Some may have limited success. But Apple
is not about to support a stupid idea.

You want OS X, buy a Mac
You want Windows, buy a PC
Life is simple when you do it right.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ghost reasons...
There's certainly something for Apple to gain from wanting their OS to run as well as possible. Performance perceptions are important. That simply isn't their goal here though. Apple's image really isn't going to be tarnished because people hack the OS to make it run in nonsupported ways. The people who are adept enough to attempt this also are the poeple who know well enough not to direct the blame towards the entity that doesn't support their use. Apple simply has an interest in pushing Mac systems which is subverted if people can run the OS on any hardware they like.

Not that I begrudge them this. They have every right to determine their own licensing arrangments. I do think they have something to gain by supporting such use. Unless they start marketing budget boxes, I'm not sure how much conversion their going to get as is and allowing OS X to run on PCs isn't likely to cut into their current hardware market share. Mac users are a diehard bunch. That said, supporting OS X on non-Mac platforms would really help to increase their OS market share.

They're in an interesting position and speculation on what the best move is could be endless.
Posted by someguy389 (102 comments )
Link Flag
So they've got 10.4.4 working?
I'm confused Earl. You claimed that it would be a cold day in heck before 10.4.4 was running on non-Apple hardware. Yet Apple seems to believe differently. Also, some guy in Russia seems to believe differently because he's released 10.4.4 patches that disable the TPM check.

You need to stop commenting on this topic. You don't know what you're opinion about, as usual.
Posted by (39 comments )
Link Flag
they haven't avoided you... yet
apple is focused on making a profit, just like every other company out there. They aren't releasing OSX on PC because they have good reasoning. They either don't have a version that works on diverse PC hardware, they don't think they have the capacity or capability to deal with success (larger support/development costs), or ... and this is the most likely: they realize they wouldn't realistically gain anymore market share than mozilla has currently in the browser world, and that probably would cancel any benefits they had recieved from selling the hardware. If the componentry is the same: Mac / PC, then why pay more if you only want the software?
Posted by mortis9 (370 comments )
Link Flag
And where does that kinda attitude get you...
Nowhere!!!! We Must Dissent! rolling over and giving up never got anybody anywhere.
Posted by epiccollision (105 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It really doesn't matter....
This whole argument is moot. As long as software is distributed, it will be hacked. Period.

Apple simply makes themselves look bad (and further encourages the hacking and distribution of hacking instructions and tools) by doing things that bring the hacking tools and sites into view on sites like CNET.

How do you like THEM apples?
Posted by Jim Hubbard (326 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If it doesn't really matter...
And it's going to be hacked anyway, why not make it harder for the
information to be distributed.

Some of us actually think it looks good to go after hackers, not the
other way around.
Posted by Deelron (60 comments )
Link Flag
Just delaying the inevitable
The DMCA or threats of prosecution under it will not prevent or deter the legitimate right and duty of users to hack their hardware and software. Making technology work in different ways from that which the manufacturer originally contemplated (like running Mac OS X on any Intel processor) benefits society as a whole because it produces and encourages innovation. Hacking is an inherent and essential part of the use a piece of technology. Apple preventing its users from hacking Mac OS X is as ridiculous as a carmaker preventing car owners from replacing the parts of their cars.
Posted by Bong Dizon (17 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wintel users in for a treat
Just wait 'til Apple lets this happen in a truly Apple way... You
Wintel users won't know what hit you.

Micro-what? What's a registry? Who's Bill Gates? OH! VISTA is the
solution... right... just hop on, you'll enjoy the ride.
Posted by BDEEKMAN (34 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mac for the PC
I suspect you are eluding to a version of Mac that will be allowed to run on existing PC's not designed to be a Mac. If they indeed do this, it will require re-writing their EULA and making some stringent system requirements. They need to ensure the optimal "Mac Experience" for their new users.

I would love to see them do it, release a new version if OS X for free download. Then to make money, charge subscription rates for updates, patches, support, etc. Distributions of Linux and other software already follow this model and Apple could make it work very well.
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Abuse of the law
Abuse of the law, for the DMCA, cannot overide the 1st Amendment!

Oh well, at this rate intel mac's would be extremely lucky to crack even 1% of the total PC market, although SONY's illicit DRM, seems to be doing it's best to kill all windows powered pc's!

Such is life, kill all users as they are evil people!, a good way not to sell any product at any time, for imagine what would happen to a car manufacturer, if they took this attitude, yes you can buy it!, but we won't allow you to drive it outside the showroom!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not a First Amendment issue
The people who want to obtain OS X without buying Macs are not
Apple customers, silly. Those of us who own Macs are. And,
according to the data, we are the most satisfied computer owners
in America.

Furthermore, the First Amendment applies to government stifling
speech. It does not apply to actions by private individuals or
businesses.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
Both MS and APPLE suck..
Both are after your money.
I am tired of this debate and most importantly I just hate 'Mac fanboys'.

Dont take this seriously. I was just having some hard time fixing a PC glitch.
Posted by nonstopdoc1 (29 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You forgot to castigate the PC maker.....
... after all, the glitch has to do with both hardware and software.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Law protects flawed designs
This is a case where a law was created to protect the proven poor designs of software and hardware manufacturers.

I can add 1 bit to a file, say it's my copy protection system and anyone removing this 1 bit is now breaking the law.

This removes the requirement on the industry to create systems that actually work as advertised. They can fall back to the DMCA to protect their protection system that doesn't accomplish it's intended purpose.

The US Government has no place protecting private enterprise from their own inadequacies.
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why the "DMCA" -IS- clearly being misused to violate consumer-rights.
Heres a little-bit of my own analysis of some of the arguments I see here, based upon fairly easily-locatable legal-precedents...

A EULA is NOT a law, and a EULA cannot trump legally-established rights...

I dont know where some people get their information, but frankly, many of these "EULA" (End User License Agreement) myths are literally bordering on deliberate "criminal consumer-fraud". One can only speculate as to who is doing this, and why, but I think it is pretty obvious who would actually benefit from such a farce.

First, a EULA (which is civil-contract) cannot require a consumer to give up any established-rights merely to use a legitimately-purchased product. ...that is the law, despite any counter-claims being made by "software producers", or associated interests.

Second, any "contract" that attempts to exert "unfair", or "deceptive", terms upon one party of a contract, ...is automatically legally-void. That is a fundamental, and well established, element of relevant "contract" case-law. So, if any "contract" claims that a purchaser forfeits "basic consumer-rights", simply by purchasing or using a product, then the "licensing agreement" is automatically invalidated and cannot be legally-enforced.

Third, The Supreme Court of the United States, HAS effectively ruled that "software" IS a product. And, that any consumer who legally purchases a copy of such an, "intellectual property" DOES, in fact, "own" that copy. This recent decision reinforces the decades-old principle, commonly known as the "First Sale Doctrine", which legally prevents "copyright holders" from exerting control contravening basic ownership-rights (such as end-use application, resale, or user-modification for personal-use), after a sale of such a tangible-expression of a "copy-righted work".

In short, the courts HAVE upheld the common-sense consumer-assertion that, ...if you legitimately pay for it, ...you DO own it. This is true regardless of any stipulation in any "EULA" (the so-called "software-license"). So, yes, the consumer IS buying the software, ...despite any false ("...youre only licensing it") claims to the contrary. And, a said "software-owner" CAN do what they like, with their own property, for legal personal-use.

Additionally (to head off the inevitable issue-obfuscation), it does not matter if the consumer has purchased such a product separately, or as a component of another product. Purchase of one copy, ...allows the use of one copy, however the owner reasonably sees fit.

Furthermore, the "DMCA" is supposed to protect legitimate "copy-right protection mechanisms", though most legal-experts have now concluded that, as written, the "DMCA" is, pretty much, a complete disaster. And, one thing the "DMCA" is NOT supposed to do, is allow companies to enforce their own "end-use" whims upon legitimate product-users. In fact, several such abusive "DMCA" claims HAVE gone to the courts, and been thrown-out.

So, since the "DMCA" is being used here to silence mere discussions pertaining to modifying such personal-property (whether the person legitimately owns a copy of the software or not) it is clearly an abusive violation of consumer-rights and therefore, yet another misuse of the "DMCA".

And, for brevitys sake, I am not even going to touch the potential legal-merits, of possible "1st Amendment" ramifications and considerations, associated with this action.
Posted by Gayle Edwards (262 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Interesting - but not quite there...
Interesting points Gayle, you obviously know your law but I'd
argue you're mixing a few things up.

(I'm speaking from a standpoint of English law but I would
extremely surprised if the basics were that different in US law.)

Whether software is a product or not, an EULA forms part of the
contract under which you purchase that software. Part of the
contract is with the retailer (be it Apple, Best Buy or whoever)
and part is with Apple, as manufacturer of the software.

If within that contract, it stipulates that you can *only* install the
software on an Apple-branded computer (which it does), this is
the basis on which Apple enters into its contract with you. If you
choose to continue installing this software, then you have
accepted these conditions and, effectively, "signed" the contract.

Now, whilst I doubt it happens that often, effectively a user
*could* return the software (to the retailer or Apple) and request
their money back if they did not agree with the EULA and did not
wish to proceed with the contract (ie not install the software).

This has nothing to do the consumer giving up any "established-
rights", put simply it's Apple saying "here's the basis on which
we will sell you the product - if you don't want to accept these
perfectly legal stipulations, then don't buy it, thanks."

So, as I said, I think you make a lot of interesting and worthwhile
points but I'd say this part of the "argument" has little to do with
the rights of copyright holders per se, and simply relates to
contracts for the sale of goods from one party to another.

Nothing that Apple wants you to do if you agree with the
contract is illegal - but you must accept it if you wish to
conclude the deal. This applies whether the product is physical
or not, copyrighted or not, software or not.

RB
Posted by ross brown--2008 (57 comments )
Link Flag
The Industry Has Used the DMCA to kill Copyright.
This was the most reasoned and factually correct analysis I have
seen on a forum in a long time. It is written by somebody who
clearly has a little bit of knowledge about copyright. One key
thing worth noting is that the author is exactly correct under
copyright comanies historically could not sell you software and
claim that it was only selling you a license. The courts
disregarded that claim for all the reasons the authors have said.

Nonetheless, it is worth pointing out that some Appeals courts
have been unfortuntely honoring shrink wrap licensing
"agreements." As you say, this is against traditionaly copyright
notions, but companies, with some sucess, are arguing that the
DMCA has changed traditional copyright notions. Check out the
BLizzard suit listed on the EFF's website.


For what it is worth, I do not think software should be
copyrightable. Instead, its protection should fall under patent
law, or some hybrid approach. Copyrights lasts way to long.
Posted by TerrinBell (293 comments )
Link Flag
Software licenses are valid
Gayle, you obvioiusly are not a lawyer. A first-year law student
knows that the First Amendment only applies to government
efforts to stifle free speech. The other arguments you make are
equally baseless.

The DMCA is a valid law, and it is being used in a legal way.
What some people object to is the GOAL of the law because it
projects content providers' interest in their products. That is not
a First Amendment issue.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
I suspect this will be like Apple's attempt stop Hymn
Hymn was developed based on code developed by DVD Jon and allowed users to decrypt files from iTunes without burning a CD or digital to analog back to digital conversion. It was originally posted on SourceForge.net. Apple issued a take down notice and had it removed, after which it was then moved to an India based hosting company. Some how Apple managed to convince the Indian webmaster that U.S law applied in India and that the file had to be removed. Finally it ended up at it's current home where it has remained ever since, out of Apple's reach.

Hymn was only on SourceForge for a day. This information has been up for at least a few days (probably longer). It's out there now and no amount of U.S law is going to put it back under raps.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The files aren't enough?
Earl, I'm shocked. I am a law abiding citizen. I just find it interesting that people living in countries that are not required to abide by the DMCA have circumvented 10.4.4's TPM protection to allow the OS to run on non-Apple hardware, when you have claimed that it would be impossible for it to do so. Besides Earl, if it didn't work, it stands to reason that Apple wouldn't care.

The OSX86 Project wiki had a list of compatible hardware that was far broader than you suggest, but Apple appears to have bullied that site near total submission, which is unfortunate when you consider that the DMCA takedown provisions only require a site to remove specifically identified content.

Fortunately, there's Google cache. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:w6AFxC8_MgsJ:wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.4.3+osx86+wiki+hardware+compatibility+10.4.3&#38;hl=en&#38;gl=us&#38;ct=clnk&#38;cd=1" target="_newWindow">http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:w6AFxC8_MgsJ:wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.4.3+osx86+wiki+hardware+compatibility+10.4.3&#38;hl=en&#38;gl=us&#38;ct=clnk&#38;cd=1</a>
Posted by (39 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We'll see them in court
. . .which the X86 idiots should ask Google to remove before they
are served with a lawsuit. If Apple hasn't already asked that the
Google cache be preserved as evidence, of course. If I represented
Apple, I would be all over it.

You fanboys are way out of your league. Lawyers are going to walk
all over your fantasies.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
WIPO & DMCA need DISBANDED!!! PERIOD!!!
All they do is cause TROUBLE for EVERYONE!!!!!!!

World Intellectual Property Organization = ROOT of World Wide DRM EVIL!!!

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en" target="_newWindow">http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en</a>

...Part of "The New World Order"

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) In USA

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf</a> 'DMCA'

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5922440" target="_newWindow">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5922440</a>

Felten and Halderman on DRM: III Lessons for the future - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7777" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7777</a>

IF any of the links don't work try copying and pasting them. ;)

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/27/dmca_takedown_regs_abused" target="_newWindow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/27/dmca_takedown_regs_abused</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2395" target="_newWindow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2395</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Fair_but_Wrong" target="_newWindow">http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Fair_but_Wrong</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=939" target="_newWindow">http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=939</a>

READ this one: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7602" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7602</a>

Us 'little guys' can only BOYCOTT all members of THESE organizations in the mean time:

The RIAA:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp</a>

Cruise that site thoroughly and find out what the RIAA REALLY are about!!! Along with their member list(s), pay close attention to the physical address given on the page where 'you' can ''Join the RIAA''.

NOTE: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7857" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7857</a> &lt;RIAA uses 'verbal shell game' in court

Sloppy RIAA 'investigation' attacked: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7850" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7850</a>

The MPAA/MPA:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mpaa.org" target="_newWindow">http://www.mpaa.org</a>

Do the same with the MPAA/MPA site as you did with the RIAA site. ;)

EDUCATION/KNOWLEDGE is power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEN go and actually join the EFF:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.eff.org/" target="_newWindow">http://www.eff.org/</a>

to help fight the RIAA.

These sites will also be of interest to those who want the RIAA, and those like them, brought down:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.anti-dmca.org/" target="_newWindow">http://www.anti-dmca.org/</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://FreeCulture.org" target="_newWindow">http://FreeCulture.org</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ricoact.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ricoact.com/</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://sys-con.com/read/175938.htm" target="_newWindow">http://sys-con.com/read/175938.htm</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7802" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7802</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7780" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7780</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/6489" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/6489</a>

RIAA RICO case hearing February 27 - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7767" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7767</a>

Brittany Chan, a 14 year old targeted by RIAA:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv2-&#38;ei=UTF-8&#38;p=Britanny%20Chan" target="_newWindow">http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv2-&#38;ei=UTF-8&#38;p=Britanny%20Chan</a>

About Patti Santangelo, the working mom of five kids being targeted by the RIAA:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv2-&#38;ei=UTF-8&#38;p=Patti%20Santangelo" target="_newWindow">http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv2-&#38;ei=UTF-8&#38;p=Patti%20Santangelo</a>

How to HELP her:

Join the p2net 'community' and donate to her cause. FIRST the RIAA tries ripping her off then her 'lawyer' does, leaving her destitute and still fighting ALONE! She's but one of THOUSANDS targeted by the RIAA...including MINORS! But SHE is the ONLY one so far to stand up to them!!!

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7467" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7467</a>

Update: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7839" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7839</a>

If you can't contribute there then pass all this info along to all you can any way you can. Thanks @;}-

Another RIAA victim says, "NO!"

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7671" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7671</a>

And yet OTHERS:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7742" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7742</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7752" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7752</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7742" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7742</a>

Now, THESE are just plain waaaay toooo 'INTERESTING'!!!!!:::

Hollywood Broadway bust With help from the NYPD - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7768" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7768</a>

Sony BMG guilty in copyright case Lil' Flip's Undaground Legend - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7773" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7773</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.sonybmg.com/labels.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.sonybmg.com/labels.html</a>

DRM in other countries:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11369" target="_newWindow">http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11369</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7758" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7758</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/story/7763" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/story/7763</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dooooooom.blogspot.com/2006/01/drm-go-go.html" target="_newWindow">http://dooooooom.blogspot.com/2006/01/drm-go-go.html</a>

P.S.: p2pnet recently changed servers. IF you have problems getting to their site that could be one reason. Another reason is that your network could be "locked out" of their site somehow so keep trying or try from another computer/network if you are TRULY interested in their articles. Their MAIN URL is:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://p2pnet.net/index.php" target="_newWindow">http://p2pnet.net/index.php</a>
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Reply Link Flag
'Julie' represents X86 community
Hmmm. The hackers keep telling us that X86 has nothing to do
with peer-to-peer networks or other forms of piracy. But,
apparently, at least one of their number missed the memo. The
intentions of these people to rip off content providers is blatantly
demonstrated by visitor Julie. Not that savvy people had any
doubts.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
"'Julie' represents X86 community

Hmmm. The hackers keep telling us that X86 has nothing to do with peer-to-peer networks or other forms of piracy. But, apparently, at least one of their number missed the memo. The intentions of these people to rip off content providers is blatantly demonstrated by visitor Julie.
"

Nice strawman argument. Where did Julie say anything about being for the ripping off of content providers? Indeed her post seem to about the DMCA being a bad law, a position that hardly makes her a pirate.


"Not that savvy people had any doubts."

If your post is represenative of so called "savvy people" I'll gladly count myself as not amoung their ranks cause I don't feel the need to make strawman arguments and baseless assertions in an attempt to discredit people I don't agree with.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
J.G., you did NOT READ my post.....
THEN you accuse me of something I didn't even know existed until you told me about it...which I take quite a bit of offence to!

I suggest you learn to READ posts AND ALL of their Links before spewing your vipid verbosity! Otherwise ****......

No response needed as I will NOT respond back to you J.G.
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
Osx86project is innocent!
Im a member at osx86project, and in no way did they the DMCA laws, As for apple, they can kiss my butt, cause they arnt getting one hard earned shiny cent out of my pocket, there computers are way too expensive, and if they really wanted to get more money out of the windows customers theyd make osx run on any intel computer, to compete with windows, IMO they would smash ms right of the water too, i just dont see why they dont.
Posted by spclffred (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You're not that important.
nt
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
A typical X86er
Child (I am assuming a grown person doesn't have grammar and
spelling problems as bad as yours) you are way out of your
league. What you have done here is state that you intend to
steal Apple's software and run it on an unsupported computer.
THAT is exactly what the law you haven't any grasp of forbids.
You've proven Apple's case for it.

This stupidity needs to end. Until you all heard about Apple
using Intel chips a few months ago, you were happy doing
various things to break your eMachines and trying to write
Trojan horses. Nothing has really changed as far as Apple is
concerned. The Mac was a closed system and it still is. The
X86ers should accept that their grubby little hands were never
meant to touch OS X and get back to their previous past times.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
Also
I think if we pay Apple 3 grand for a computer with they're OS, i think we should be able to do anything we want to and with that computer, as long as we dont sell the goods from it
Posted by spclffred (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Er...
By that logic, if we pay $x for a CD, we should be able to do
what we want to with the tracks - namely rip them and stick
them on a download site.

I doubt whether you'd agree with that would you?

And copying the OS off an Intel- or PPC-based Mac and posting
it for download (for payment or not) is just as illegal.

RB
Posted by ross brown--2008 (57 comments )
Link Flag
Stop, thief!
Jeremy, you already said in a comment above that you would never
pay Apple a penny for anything, and, that you intend to steal OS X.
Be consistent, at least.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
Reports of the OSX86 project's death have been greatly exaggerated
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&#38;task=view&#38;id=120&#38;Itemid=2" target="_newWindow">http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&#38;task=view&#38;id=120&#38;Itemid=2</a>
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Could be....
Running OSX86 on a PC doesn't mean a whole lot. OSX86 was
meant to be run on a PC. So getting OSX86 to run isn't much
more meaningful than getting Windows to run. And so, the
project SHOULD still be alive.

It won't really be going anywhere. There is no Apple follow-on to
OSX86. And the claims that somebody in Lower Slobovia has
patches for running 10.4.4 on a PC are jsut noise until someone
can actually demonstrate it.

And in the long run, it really is a 'who cares' situation. If a way is
found to run OS X, other than OSX86, on a PC, who is going to
sponsor the concept? Without a major up-front organization to
produce the product, it will be an isolated phenomenon in the
hacker world - interesting but of no real value.

Apple certainly doesn't seem to be that organization. And Apple
copyrights preclude any other company from being that
organization. So the idea is really dead before it starts - if it
wasn't dead already

It's a whole lot of tempest in a rather small tea cup.And the
OSX86 group does have a momentary delusion when they say
"welcome to the most talked-about forum on Earth right now."
Now that is certainly someone's ego trying to surface.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Hackers are clueless
. . .about the greater world out there. The spend their time in
their basement flats overclocking their Dells, writing viruses, and
now, trying to crack OS X for Windows-compatible computers.
Except for trips to the store buy more cans of pork and beans
and Mr. Pibb, they don't get out much.

Meanwhile, there is great old bear called the legal system
waiting to eat'em up. Apple's DMCA complaint, and the Easter
egg in the software, are WARNINGS. Their legal purpose is to
put the X86ers on notice that further action will be taken if the
violations continue. Since the only way to hack OS X is by
violating the DMCA, ANY continuation of the hacking is going to
land them in court. People who pass on the instructions are
just as liable as the hacker himself.

It will be interesting to see what Maxuss looks like. I suspect
either emaciated or plump frrom a poor diet and not enough
exercise. And, pale. Hackers don't spend much time outside.
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Link Flag
See u got me all wrong.
OSX86PROJECT in no way allow warez, and even accepted pay. And me i meant i will never buy another product from them again, i have an iMac, i own two discs of osx.
Posted by spclffred (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Confused????
"As for apple, they can kiss my butt, cause they arnt getting one
hard earned shiny cent out of my pocket, there computers are
way too expensive, and if they really wanted to get more money
out of the windows customers theyd make osx run on any intel
computer, to compete with windows,"

How do you square this with......

"i have an iMac, i own two discs of osx."

???????
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Wow
This guy should practice what he preaches...

Has he ever seen a hacker? I mean in real life?
Posted by TheShane (55 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Nice Attempt
But it won't work Steve....hiding behind the DMCA only works in the States...

It is amazing that a country so full of freedoms is getting 'Job'bed by this kind of commie crap.

I encourage everyone to post a link to maxxuss at the end of their signature on every board and blog you belong too.

In fact, I'm writing Apple today and it will be in my signature file.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/" target="_newWindow">http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/</a>
Posted by KsprayDad (375 comments )
Reply Link Flag
To all the experts...
out there. I don't see what is the issue here. If I bought a Mac and have the X86 version MacOS X, why can't I install it on a generic PC (Assumeing that everything works)?

If I know how to do the necessary tinkering to get it going on PC hardware (Sometimes known as Mac) how can Apple stop me?

I am no lawer but I have taken a look at the DMCA

www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

which clearly says that reverse engineering the copyright protection technologies is leagal as long it is for product interoperability.

I am not bying the EULA crap. A ton of PowerPC emulator have always existed that allowed you to rung Mac OS on PC. If that is not against EULA then this can't be either.
Posted by indrakanti (90 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I hope you are right
I think Apple are being un-reasonable. It is time that they got rid of their elitist attitude and re-joined the rest of the computer world. They have done the first step by moving away from PowerPC, now it is time to give consumers the choice of what computer they run their beloved MacOS on.

Besides, it is not like they own all of MacOS anyway. Much of it is borrowed so is it really fair to limit the usage of something that they only wrote half of anyway? It is bad enough that they charge for it.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
Thank you finaly
...someone agrees with me, that if i purchase something i should be able to do what ever the hell i want with it, especially if its a mac product seeing how they are so expensive.
Posted by spclffred (6 comments )
Link Flag
Sometimes it's about cost
You may think it's legal. Most attorneys may think it's legal. Are you willing to spend a hundred thousand dollars in court and legal fees to prove it? A big company can assert it's will in matters like this through intimidation. As long as the area is gray enough to raise the question of legality, they can file lawsuits that will not be summarily dismissed. Lawsuits with the average small company, let alone the average Joe on the street, can't really afford to fight.

Steve Jobs has been short sighted in my opinion. They should have ported OS to Intel when Intel went 32 bit and got out of hardware design. Apple could have been the Microsoft we see today, except with better software. But Apple has never been able to see that. They've always held on to their proprietary hardware and it's always limited them. Computer hardware has become a commodity market. Margins are thin, competition is fierce. Why would you want to be in that business if you didn't have to? The day there's a Mac OS for generic PC software I will go down and buy it. But I've been waiting for that since I first saw a Mac in the late 80's, so don't hold your breath.
Posted by pwinterrowd (18 comments )
Link Flag
DMCA is in conflict with another Federal Law!
Please read <A HREF="http://news.cbsi.com/2100-1047-5939704.html?tag=tb">this article</a> on a recent ruling between a consultant (Mr. Krause) and the company he created a custom application for (TitleServ).

The basic disagreement is that Mr. Krause asserted copyright ownership after failing to negotiate an extention to his consulting contract with TitleServe. However, he allowed them to keep using the suite of applications while disallowing them from making any further code modifications. TitleServe eventually would decompile his applications, fix bugs that were in the system and ultimately add new features to suit the changing business needs.

Mr. Krause then sued TitleServe where he lost and sued again with the same results.

<B>This case is interesting, because it reaffirmed 17 USC SS 117(A)(1) as a legitimate defense against copyright infringement for anyone who
<UL>
<LI>Owns a physical copy of the program
<LI>As an essential step in utilizing the program makes an adaptation in conjunction with a machine
<LI>Uses it in no other manner
</UL>
</B>
Based on this successful case, it appears that we can modify any software we buy.

This law appears to be in direct conflict with DMCA.

What does everyone think? Am I crazy on this??

The actual court opinion is <A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf">here</A> if you want to read it for yourself.

Summary of Case:
Mr. Krause
* Consultant (dba Special-T software)
* Copyright owner
* Terms of license allowed normal usage, no modification of code allowed
* Initiated termination of consulting relationship

Titleserv
* License holder of copyrighted work
* Failed attempt to acquire copyright ownership
* Modified copyrighted code
* Successfully defends itself against copyright infringement via 17 USC SS 117(A)(1)

The Case
* Not about work for hire
* Not about copyright ownership (Mr. Krause's copyright ownership is not in dispute)
* Clarifies what copyright infringement is
Posted by rhyssleary (35 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Only in the USA
Sounds nice but the RIAA owns our law makers right now. In the end you will lose, they will lose, the PC industry will lose, and China with it's censorship will have more freedoms with their PC's than us.

With the DMCA, is it legal for us to even talk about circumventing it?
Posted by GrandpaN1947 (187 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.