Beringer Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Strange how Win2osx.net still claims independence from the DMCA, even though win2osx.net appears to be currently hosted by theplanet.com in Dallas, TX! Same as this site(?) I would have thought that Texas would be DMCA Ground Zero. :-) ehhhh.... =:-) What have I missed? Or have Simon missed something essential? :-) No disrespect here, just asking. ;; ANSWER SECTION: win2osx.net. 14400 IN A 69.93.247.174 traceroute to 69.93.247.174 (69.93.247.174), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1-4 censored 5 kbn-b2-geth15-2.telia.net (213.248.67.125) 19.737 ms 23.057 ms 32.037 ms 6 kbn-bb2-pos1-3-0.telia.net (213.248.64.57) 25.019 ms 18.040 ms 17.284 ms 7 nyk-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.249.24) 112.299 ms 111.869 ms 139.438 ms 8 ash-bb1-pos6-0-0-0.telia.net (213.248.80.69) 112.754 ms 123.887 ms 112.718 ms 9 savvis-02115-ash-bb1.telia.net (213.248.88.62) 154.460 ms 130.107 ms 118.795 ms 10 bcs1-so-3-3-0.washington.savvis.net (206.24.238.97) 120.085 ms 192.357 ms 119.439 ms 11 dcr1-so-3-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net (204.70.192.53) 125.849 ms 125.647 ms 126.440 ms 12 bcs1-so-3-2-0.dallas.savvis.net (204.70.192.82) 151.316 ms 152.508 ms 150.493 ms 13 dpr1-as0-0.dallasequinix.savvis.net (204.70.193.214) 153.244 ms 178.698 ms 150.990 ms 14 aer1-po10.dallasequinix.savvis.net (204.70.134.14) 153.695 ms 150.589 ms 152.172 ms 15 208.175.175.42 (208.175.175.42) 152.295 ms 150.996 ms 151.376 ms 16 vl31.dsr02.dllstx3.theplanet.com (70.85.127.30) 151.287 ms vl32.dsr01.dllstx3.theplanet.com (70.85.127.61) 150.521 ms vl32.dsr02.dllstx3.theplanet.com (70.85.127.62) 150.407 ms 17 vl21.dsr01.dllstx2.theplanet.com (70.85.127.67) 152.559 ms vl22.dsr02.dllstx2.theplanet.com (70.85.127.76) 161.490 ms vl21.dsr01.dllstx2.theplanet.com (70.85.127.67) 151.394 ms 18 vl1.car06.dllstx2.theplanet.com (12.96.160.20) 152.601 ms 153.107 ms 164.322 ms 19 70.69-41-232.reverse.theplanet.com (69.41.232.70) 151.798 ms 151.797 ms 152.035 ms 20 69.93.247.174 (69.93.247.174) 156.276 ms 151.147 ms 151.798 ms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Yeah, several people noticed that when they came back online after their last set of server issues (and there have been a few posts to that effect on their site). They're clearly under US jurisdiction with the new server (hosted down the line, like us, by The Planet). I'm fairly sure that pianoman and simon are aware of this, but they want to keep their site a DMCA free zone. That's certainly their perogative, but I've mentioned on their forum (my one post ) that they should certainly be more careful these days. It could be an entirely different ballgame after the release of the Macintels (as in, Apple may actually care about pursuing those who are hacking it). As I've said from the beginning, our forum here is just for people to talk about OS X on any x86 hardware - both Intel and others. It just so happened that up until recently, the only topic of conversation could be the hacked version, since the real McCoy wasn't out yet. Our site has always tried to maintain it's DMCA loving compliant status (I have real philosophical issues with the DMCA, like many of you - I think it's a horrible law in general). But yeah... no matter how much we hate the law, we're bound to respect and honor it. So that's what we'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bond Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think that Simon and Co. will begin to have more problems when 10.4.4 finally begins to show progress. It kind of surprises me just how leanient Apple has been with us all. I know this site has generally been good with DCMA and whatnot, but with Win2osx in US territory now, things could begin to heat up, with regards to Apple legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quixos Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 shutting down win2osx would only make it harder for apple to monitor progress on hacking their system. hiring three or four people to track down all the sites and searching for all the files and cracks that would pop up until another "win2osx" stabilized, would use lots and lots of REAL money. even when 10.4.4 is cracked and moving on to 10.5 and beyond, what better way to stay ahead of the hackers game than to hang out in their clubhouse? all they have to do is stay one version ahead, to keep the vast majority of folks from simply popping a dvd into their dell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 brilliant. Let's publicize it so every fool knows. Absolutely brilliant. The site is moving to a UK based host very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 quixos has a good point - it might actually make more sense for Apple to let it lie. I have no idea if they will ever do anything, but the fact that no one has gotten a C&D letter is surprising. pianoman, chill - no one is publicizing anything, no one is starting a campaign. This is a thread with 4 posts, hardly one of our largest, and it was started with a legitimate question/concern. Instead of being angry, be glad that people care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New001 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 (my one post ) http://www.win2osx.net/forum/showthread.ph...hlight=mashugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I just found this thread which has been dormant for well over a week. I decided to bump it because it turned out to be quite prophetic and makes interesting reading now. Problem is, no-one much seems to read this subforum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=3235 The letter from Apple Legal to The Planet, win2osx's hosts in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Thats an interesting read munky - good find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrunner Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=3235The letter from Apple Legal to The Planet, win2osx's hosts in Dallas. Question: What does it mean to distribute circumvention tools? Answer: Section 1201(a)(2) defines distribution as the "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" of circumvention tools. This definition can be interpreted extremely broadly as evident in the court's analysis in the DVD encryption Universal v. Corley case. In its decision, the court considered not only making the source code of a program for free a type of distribution, but also found that merely linking to a web site containing illegal tools can constitute "trafficking." I would think a broader interpretation would be that any discussion in this forum about illegal tools and patches is also a type of distribution (of knowledge) and therefore illegal under DMCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
39thRonin Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I would think a broader interpretation would be that any discussion in this forum about illegal tools and patches is also a type of distribution (of knowledge) and therefore illegal under DMCA. How can the mere discussion of tools, patches, and techniques be considered circumvention of the DMCA? Actual binaries, sure. Discussion of the use of those tools - NO. The 1st Amendment covers and protects speech in the US. Merely discussing methodologies and techniques cannot be considered a breech, as it is simply a discussion. Posting the binaries - or modified binaries - or patches to binaries which are, in fact Apple's copyrighted material is, on the other hand, a breech of the DMCA. As an example of the required tolerance of the discussion of "hacking", one need only look at sites like: http://www.tivotechies.com/viewforum.php?f=10 http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/print...?t=265929&pp=50 just to show two examples. I find it quite interesting that in Tivo hacking, a whole sub-industry has sprung up of companies building hardware and software to hack Tivos. From increasing disk space to putting Tivo's on home networks, these are all things that the manufactuer did not intend for these machines to perform - certainly none of it is supported - except via the Tivo forums. In my opinion, Apple has jumped the Shark on this whole Maxxuss thing. They had to have known that using the most well-known (biblically speaking ) chip in the world would have come to this. I'd wager that for every one Apple dev that knows powerpc assembly well enough to do the things that Maxxuss has done, there are 100 or more that are that proficient on Intel chips. Given Apple's current speed-release of the MacOS, and the counter punches thrown by Maxxuss, this is shaping up to be an awesome year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beringer Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 Have anyone heard news from S1mon? :censored2: Legal to mention his name, i hope..? regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrunner Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 How can the mere discussion of tools, patches, and techniques be considered circumvention of the DMCA?I think if you read the DMCA US Code again (below) it is clear that any discussion of patches and hacks in this forum can be broadly interpreted as "offer to the public" .."any technology" to ...(3)circumvent a technological measure ..without the authority of the copyright owner.The situation with Tivo is slightly different in that Tivo has a fairly open architecture and they choose not to enforce some of the technical violations of DMCA concerning their boxes. US Code Section 1201(a)(2) and (3) # (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - * (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; * (B_) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or * (C_) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. # (3) As used in this subsection - * (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and * (B_) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Amusingly, if discussing how to break these protections is illegal under the DMCA, surely Apple's own staff would be in breach. I mean, surely you cant design and implement a protection without discussing ways to break it? I guess it just goes to show how extremely DUMB the DMCA really is... Thats an interesting read munky - good find. Yeah, I find it especially interesting to see Apple specifically refer to Maxxuss by name. It kinda makes it more... real somehow. Gone are the days where we're posting stuff and wondering if Apple are listening. To any Apple employees reading this - a big Hi There Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capper308 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Just a thought here. I was reading some information on this DCMA stuff lately. I have read that it is a crime to circumvent the protection that companies use to protect their product. But this does not make any sense to me. I once wanted to take apart my nintendo 64 (long time ago) and discovered that they used special screws that I had no screwdriver for and that they "hide" screws under stickers and what not. (Xbox as well) They purposely put these protections in place to stop you from taking apart their hardware. As far as I've been led to believe it is not illegal to take apart something that you have bought, even if it has protective measures in place to try and stop you from doing it. So my point is, how can the law men say that it is illegal to circumvent the protective measures that apple and other companies (like Microsoft's DRM) use to protect their products? If I take apart my Xbox and break it, I have no warranty. No law broken. I know that OS X has a EULA that you must agree to, but it should just be a case of if you break it you lose all support for it. Not you break it, you break the law! In other words, if and when 0S X for intel becomes a retail product by itself, I should be able to buy the software, break it open and install it on my non-apple hardware. I own the physical disk, I should be able to "take out the screws" and see what makes it tick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beringer Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 @Capper The Men in Wigs, Capitol Hill and The Ambulance Chasers are the ones you must convince, not us.. We're all with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts