DJMW's Profile

@ Chris "but how do you contend DRM? People acted unlawfully to get an unfair licence restriction changed." Do you believe the reason people acted unlawfully was for the purpose of getting the companies to change their rule on DRM? I believe they did it (and neither of us can prove anything here, just attribute motives) because they wanted the music, free is cheaper than $$ and for them it was easier to go to a Torrent site than to a music store. Did that result in DRM getting yanked. Probably. "As one of you said, the next version of OS X might have some form of DRM to stop you installing it on anything but a Mac." Total conjecture. No one knows but Apple. Hopefully they won't. "Which would clearly demonstrate the similarity of music DRM and Apple’s trust based OS X licencing, in regard my argument that unlawful behaviour can achieve its intention." I'm sorry, I see no logical connection. If the inverse is true, no future Apple DRM, does that kill your arguement? No. Way too many factors, suchas, Apple is a hardware company first. "It was interesting reading your first comment again, coz you said music is the same, i.e. “purchasing a record, tape or cd has never conveyed to the purchaser any rights other than to listen to the music.”" Perhaps I stated it poorly, but the similarity is between the Licenses of CD's and Software: we can use it for ourselves, but not copy nor attempt to sale copies. "But, DRM aside, no music I’ve ever purchased restricted me on what device I could play the original media on. My records weren’t restricted to just Sony equipment, even if Sony was the record label parent." No, but the companies tried for years to shut out the shifting the media from Albums to Cassettes and 8tracks. They finally got a piece of the action of blank audio cassette tapes, much like the record companies want a piece of Apple's profit on iPods. (They do under the same principle get a slice of "Audio" CD-R's!) Do you remember what old MS mice were like when Windows 3 came out? They sucked. It wasn't until after Windows 98 that MS and others started paying attention to the little details that make Macs so sweet. Apple wants to control the total experience and keep it at the highest level. Again, I think the marble argument is the clearest and most accurate. If you want to play with the really shiny marbles, you have to play by the rules of the kid who has them. I'm tired of beating the dead horse and repeating myself too often. Goodnight.

@UrbanBard, I wouldn't attribute motives to the hackers, not fair. I want a cheap netbook, which I believe is a very innovative machine. Apple may introduce a Multi-Touch® iPod plus or a Multi-Touch® MacNano, but as you point out it won't be low-end. You argue against low price, but it is only in Apple's going to lower prices that they have continued to further crack market share. Apple has more than enough cash to stay innovative for a long time. I doubt they'll go there, but I want to encourage them to do so. Plus, I was responding to Chris.

Yes, they are illegal. Apple's business model is based on hardware, not software sales. The basic principle of copyright is that the people who create something have rights to control it's profit. EULA's are contracts designed to clarify and control the use of a particular item. This isn't new, music has had this for ages--purchasing a record, tape or cd has never conveyed to the purchaser any rights other than to listen to the music. Apple is making the same demand for it's OS. If you don't want to agree, then don't buy it and hack it on to a PC. Personally, I'm going to buy a netbook eventually and put Ubuntu on it, legally. Perhaps if enough Apple users did that they might take notice and decide to change. But, I doubt it. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. Aside from the law there is also the ethical issues and the question is raised, "Did my momma raise me to steal?"