OryHara Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 As all of you well know, Apple, Microsoft, commercialism, and the Entertainment Industry, is trying to stifle Freedom of Speech using a paid-for law that was created back in 1998 that in itself is illegal because it prevents you from opening your mouth, or publishing certain material. This law is the DMCA. Now most of you probably live in America where this unconstitutional law was passed. But I would like to bring up the fact that I would love to see someone challenge the DMCA by themselves. The DMCA has yet to be challenged in court. In the name of Freedom I would like to quote the 1st Amendment of the United States of America. Laws written, and died for by our brothers, and sisters. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Im sorry Apple, but you will NEVER tell me what I can, and cannot say. So f*** you. I will publish, and speak of what I damn well please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac OSX Coder Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I think this entire DMCA (whatever, im lazy) issue is a battle between the freedom of speech and doing illegal activities. If I was to write a tutorial on how to install OSX86 on a PC (which has already been done countless # of times), would that be freedom of speech or would that be breaking the law? One view could have been that I was telling people what or what not to do, but the other could say it was implied. Maybe we should just have like a Terms of Service or something... Just my comments that don't make sense. [: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikos Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I was actually thinking about Free Speech and the DMCA when this site was down. When you really think about it, you see that (The Man) is using his power to keep the public from talking about ideas and sharing information. Fortunately, we're not living in the days of the printing press so while can the free flow of information there are places where communication still flows freely as it should. Technology makes communication cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Well, this has been discussed a few times on this forum. Personally, I think the DMCA is {censored} - it's a law essentially written by the media industry, which is always wrong. However, the spirit of it - protecting intellectual property - is legitimate. Take the incident with Apple and the Maxxuss links. Does Apple have an interest in protecting their OS? Yes. Should they send C&D letters to those who post links to the patches? Maybe. (What I think is ironic is that they probably learned about the patches through this site, only then to send a letter to take the links down... :pirate2: ) After all, without links the "Web" would just be the "Strand." So I agree with part of the spirit of the DMCA, but I think it's implimentation, in a lot of ways, sucks (in general, not in the case with Apple links thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarineCorps97 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 First of all, the technical aspect of the DMCA is true to the full extent of the law. However, At this point in time the only thing I can say to APPLE is this: Whose to say MAXXUSS doesn't own a true copy of this software (that hes not actually a developer) and is merely posting patches he is creating from the original clone project of Apple that the, for lack of better words, stupid SOB Steve Jobs, has killed. Personally, copyright laws tend to deal with the reselling of information, kinda like the new warning on DVDs from the FBI - as long as you watch the movie in your home, and don't charge a friend to come watch it, TECHNICALLY, you didn't break that law either. Anyway - before I get to ranting at the fact all we are attempting to do around here is test the ability to make an Operating System work in an environment that it was not intended too, while we all wait on our own MAC INTELs to get here. (because personally, if you have already ordered yours its probably not at your house yet) Its not a copy right violation, if you technically own it right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scousi Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Its not a copy right violation, if you technically own it right..... Technically, you own the physical DVD but not the contents. You have licensed the right to use what`s on it. The DVD is mainly a distribution method and medium. Whether Apple is allowed to stop you from installing it on a PC through it`s EULA is questionable under "fair use" if you have a paid version of OSX86. Right now you just can`t buy a shrink-wrapped OSX86. But this will not always be the case. I also think that there are some interoperability exceptions in the DCMA. Why hasn`t Apple made any attempt to stop their PPC Os in the past from being emulated on X86 PCs ? (We know the answer but it`s a legal argument) . They are not being consistent. It`s like as if Sony printed on the back of their music CD`s that they can only be played on SONY branded CD players even though they work on other players. You would be violating their version of the contract - but would it be upheld in a court of law? Anyways, to restrict an OS to a MINIMUM of hardware goes against business sense. You want your OS to run on a MAXIMUM amount of hardware to expand your market. This is what Linux is doing and this is what Microsoft is doing. Apple goes in the opposite direction. If Apple continues this way, they will only sell their hardware to the same market or people they`ve had for the last 15 years. The market share will stay the same and developers will continue to stay away. Apple has to compete with a lot of development resources that are focused on Vista right now. If they have the confidence that the OS is as good as they say it is, then set it free and let the market decide. If not they are showing a lack of confidence in the quality of their OS. They actually have the largest PC makers knocking on their doors! Nothing stops Apple from still making better X86 machines than Dell and HP. They would still continue selling the same amount of H/W but would get incremental OS revenue by expansion of market share from Microsoft. Will Apple make the same mistake twice? Is Steve Jobs the same Steve Jobs as he was in the eighties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Anyways, to restrict an OS to a MINIMUM of hardware goes against business sense. You want your OS to run on a MAXIMUM amount of hardware to expand your market. This is what Linux is doing and this is what Microsoft is doing. Apple goes in the opposite direction. If Apple continues this way, they will only sell their hardware to the same market or people they`ve had for the last 15 years. The market share will stay the same and developers will continue to stay away. Apple has to compete with a lot of development resources that are focused on Vista right now. Well it depends on apple's business model as to whether it's poor business sense - i wouldn't question the business sense of Steve Jobs. Apple is really making most of thier money out of consumer electronics (read: iPod) and the "little" profit it turns over for its computers is a result of selling a package. Many users buy apple pc's solely for the OS. Even if they did decide to offer it up for sale - how many people would buy it. Very few end consumers will ever upgrade their operating system from what was pre-installed at the factory and it remains to be seen if apple could persuade the big OEM's (read: Dell) to anger microsoft and offer os x preinstalls. Anyway all of that is Back to the matter of the DMCA. I think everyone was agreed that it was needed - unfortunately it was badly implemented and bias towards the industry lobbyists. However i think claiming its unconstitutional is a bit excessive - there are lots of limits to free speech and there seems to be a tendency to cry Xth Ammendment whenever the us government does something somebody doesn't like. For example, inciting religious hatred, publishing material for terrorist purposes, etc. If this site linked to a site providing instructions on producing chemical weapons then i think most people regard it reasonable for that link to be prohibited as well as the offending site. Equally if a site exists that is known to freely publish content protected by copyright law then is it so unreasonable to think that other sites should be required not to link to it? The grey area with software is what constitues fair use - and this is where maxxuss patches lie, as has been stated - if maxxuss "owns" a copy of osx86 then should apple have the right to tell him what he can/cannot do with it in their license? Can he then distribute his modifications trusting that anyone who downloads them also owns a license to the full product? This is debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Have to agree with MarineCorps97, and kikos. The DMCA says you can't post links right? Posting a link is the same as freedom of the press. If I say to a someone, hey, the guy down the road is selling weed, you can get your stash from him, but he is in another country across the border, in Canada 30 ft away. The cop says well, I can't arrest him, but ill arrest you for telling that other guy where to get the weed. Is that not screwed up? Thats the DMCA. Apple may have a right to try to protect whatever they want, even though they havn't, but they have NO right to go after someone else just because they can't get the other guy. They just want something to satisfy their madness. And yes, it is madness. Ive always posted links to what I want on my site. I get letters from some company all the time that doesn't like it. You know what I say? Don't like it? Too bad. Darwin is open source. You can do with it what you want. Changing something that is open source is not illegal. Apple gave it to you to do what you will with it. As far as modding the oah files, that is just a bunch of 1s and 0s, just like everything else, childs play to some. I can't open a hex editor and modify it? Whos to stop me? Apple? By the time its out there there is nothing they can do, the cat is out of the bag now, and we all know, that Tigers don't like to be bagged. Is it illegal to disagree with a licencse agreement after I already bought and paid for somthing? I paid for something, then after I paid for it I can't return it? So im stuck with some licence agreement saying they can take my first born? HEEEEEEEELL NO !!! The REAL world doesn't work like that. EULAs cannot be upheld in court, a judge with common sense would laugh it out of the room. If I buy something I WILL do with it as I will, wether I blow my nose on it, wipe my ass with it, use it as a disk at a firing range, or open it with another peice of software I wrote myself, and make it do what it to do, I paid for it, its MINE. The idea behind Intellectual Property is just that, AN IDEA. I can buy a motorcycle, but nobody can tell me, "Hey, you can only drive that on the road, and not your livingroom." Or who is to tell me I can't reprogram the ECU for my Turbo in my car? Nobody. And nobody can tell me that I can't tell others how to do it as well. Because I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scousi Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Have to agree with MarineCorps97, and kikos. The DMCA says you can't post links right? Posting a link is the same as freedom of the press. If I say to a someone, hey, the guy down the road is selling weed, you can get your stash from him, but he is in another country across the border, in Canada 30 ft away. The cop says well, I can't arrest him, but ill arrest you for telling that other guy where to get the weed. Is that not screwed up? Thats the DMCA. Apple may have a right to try to protect whatever they want, even though they havn't, but they have NO right to go after someone else just because they can't get the other guy. They just want something to satisfy their madness. And yes, it is madness. Ive always posted links to what I want on my site. I get letters from some company all the time that doesn't like it. You know what I say? Don't like it? Too bad. Darwin is open source. You can do with it what you want. Changing something that is open source is not illegal. Apple gave it to you to do what you will with it. As far as modding the oah files, that is just a bunch of 1s and 0s, just like everything else, childs play to some. I can't open a hex editor and modify it? Whos to stop me? Apple? By the time its out there there is nothing they can do, the cat is out of the bag now, and we all know, that Tigers don't like to be bagged. Is it illegal to disagree with a licencse agreement after I already bought and paid for somthing? I paid for something, then after I paid for it I can't return it? So im stuck with some licence agreement saying they can take my first born? HEEEEEEEELL NO !!! The REAL world doesn't work like that. EULAs cannot be upheld in court, a judge with common sense would laugh it out of the room. If I buy something I WILL do with it as I will, wether I blow my nose on it, wipe my ass with it, use it as a disk at a firing range, or open it with another peice of software I wrote myself, and make it do what it to do, I paid for it, its MINE. The idea behind Intellectual Property is just that, AN IDEA. I can buy a motorcycle, but nobody can tell me, "Hey, you can only drive that on the road, and not your livingroom." Or who is to tell me I can't reprogram the ECU for my Turbo in my car? Nobody. And nobody can tell me that I can't tell others how to do it as well. Because I will. Here`s what the eff says about EULAs. http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php DCMA http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/copyrightoffice...king_broken.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I hate the DMCA. I'm proud that I hate the DMCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZakX Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Remember before 1984... No Stats No Ads No Rank No IP No Log No Profile Full Anonymity Just Free! Endorse the philosophy of the Freedom Privacy Group by applying these simple rules everywhere in your web, blog, forum, chat, email... This the very first important step of the Freedom Of Speech. thanks Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts