subsection (b) right below that, however, states that 'adaptations' may not be transferred without the copyright holder's permission. As Pystar must modify OS X before it will work on their hardware, transferring (selling) the 'copy' it associates with any given machine against apple's wishes is not eligible for section 117 protection. This protects Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of its copyrighted OS X code.

the kind of memory used is discussed in the case law defining copy for the purposes evaluating software under copyright law. obviously, unlike a book, software is copied from some manner of ROM to some manner of RAM to be used. As this is an essential step in the proper use of software it is not, as a matter of law, considered an unauthorized copying when in the course of legal use of software.

The basic argument in the case really isnt about the number of copies made. It strikes me as silly for apple to have even mentioned this, and from the linked article it is quite clear that this was taken somewhat out of context. The real technological issue as i read it is whether Pystar is modifying OS X or simply adding applications that allow it to be loaded. Pystar likens tinkering with the bootloader to adding Firefox or Word in place of Safari or TextEdit. It seems to me that code that determines how the OS is loaded is more properly classified as a part of the OS than a mere application. It is this modification of copyrighted code, not the copying of the modified OS X into RAM, that creates the unauthorized derivative work. From there, selling this modified OS X violates apple's right to create derivatives of its copyrighted work. the summary really takes 'unauthorized copy' out of context. copy of unauthorized derivative work is more accurate. If the version of OS X Pystar sells is found to be a derivative work rather than a pure copy, the "we purchase one copy of OS X per computer we sell, so it is all legitimate' defense falls flat.

So in this case, though i'm personally of the opinion that software is property not service, i'm more persuaded by apple's argument. Pystar is altering some of apple's code and then shipping it as if it is simply reselling it.

apple hardware owners are authorized to make the RAM copy both by the license agreement with apple and explicitly by copyright law. The key point you're missing is that if the copy on the hard drive is authorized, the RAM copy is also. If the hard drive copy is UNauthorized, the RAM copy is also.

setting aside for a moment the fact that "we'd like faster internet" and "we love oppressing minorities" are apples and oranges, please show your work. specifically, i'd like to know what rules and laws prohibit a local government from providing a service that private industry has refused to roll out. I think you're thinking of 'unreasonable' government competition. hint: if the private sector has refused to provide a service, the government isnt competing by providing it.

yeah, the whole 'access model' can just fuck right off. i have a netflix subscription for things i only want access to. Some movies are, i have decided, awesome enough to have on hand at all times. Those I will OWN. If the possible of ownership is denied me, i will infringe. If they seriously think making it more of a hassle/expensive to acquire their content will encourage people to do so legally, they are too deluded to be in the movie business. Go be a patent troll or something, then you wouldn't even have to bother creating content...

Until ALI manages to work an acceptable take on the Uniform Computer Information Transfer Act, though, i think the court was right to keep to federal copyright precedent. Also, it seems like the reference to 'Congress' was less in terms of the sales transaction, and more in terms of clearly delineating whether a property interest is created in the sale of a copy of software.

...yeah, there's a huge difference between 'some homo sapiens evolved here' and 'upright-walking hominids originated here.' guess which of these i was talking about?

i was in beijing 10 years ago, and we visited an archaeological site, conveniently located just over an hour outside town, that claimed to house fossilized remains proving that China was actually the birthplace of the human race. it was pretty awesome.

yeah, tho its been a few years since i had a lan party. Mainly my social and professional situation has made me prefer games that can be played w/ a group of people over beers.

'social aspects' matter greatly to me insofar as i enjoy games w/ a local multiplayer component, if not the whole point of the game. I like a good rip through a beautifully rendered and well written fps campaign as much as the next guy, but wii sports and rockband make up at least 90% of my gaming hours.

Actually it really depends on how heavily altered the 'normal' food one gets at the supermarket is. generally speaking, an onion is an onion (and i lived in walla walla eating sweets for 4 years) a bell pepper is a bell pepper and white rice is white rice. however, milk, eggs, and a lot of veggies and fruit that have been bred for size and shelf-ripening by agribusines (tomatoes and cucumbers spring to mind) are noticeably different. that said, since you can't tell the difference, continue shopping where you shop. unlike many of my fellow coop shoppers, i could give a less of a flying fuck what everyone else eats.

...how do you mouse-over in a book? I'm hoping magic, sciece will be involved.

they also glossed over the fact that organic foods generally taste better. like loads better.

he's probably just hiking the Appalachian Trail...

you dont really understand the history of copyright. its the IP clause of the constitution that provides for copyright, so, we as a nation have had it for, well a while. like the whole while that we have been a nation under the constitution. and also, 'People recognized (the situation) as being unfair so they invented the idea of (insert law here)' isnt exactly a recipe for evil subjugation of the people. there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of copyrights any more than there is anything inherently wrong with the idea of imposing any other laws on society. the application of the idea is totally fucked, and is having totally fucked repercussions in society, *that* is the problem. see pretty much any other area of constitutional interpretation for other examples of fucked up application of constitutional clauses that seem innocuous or even well-meaning. its not uncommon. so why don't you keep the history lecture for a subject on which you are actually mildly informed