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


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
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.

Posted by net_bull (1 comment )
Reply 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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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=";hl=en&#38;gl=us&#38;ct=clnk&#38;cd=1" target="_newWindow">;hl=en&#38;gl=us&#38;ct=clnk&#38;cd=1</a>
Posted by (39 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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:


<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>


<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
Posted by J.G. (837 comments )
Reply 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
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
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
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
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


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
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
<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
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

* 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

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



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.