Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses OS X Operating Systems News Apple

Woz, Others Ask Apple To Go Easy On Tiger Leak 521

Posted by timothy
from the pr-opportunity-if-ever-one-was dept.
tabkey12 writes "Drunkenbatman posts this impressive article with a pointed quote from Apple co-creator Steve Wozniak and 24 others from all parts of the Apple Software world, criticising Apple's stance against a 23-year-old pre-med student, desicanuk, who distributed a pre-release Tiger build over a popular Mac Bittorrent site. There's also an interview with desicanuk on drunkenbatman's site. (Original Slashdot article here.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woz, Others Ask Apple To Go Easy On Tiger Leak

Comments Filter:
  • Credibility (Score:5, Funny)

    by Odo (109839) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:46AM (#11743386)
    Posted by "Drunkenbatman". On "drunkenblog.com". Defending "desicanuk". Quotes people from "Delicious Monster", "DaringFireball" and "Unsanity". Submitted to "slashdot.org" by "tabkey12".

    Two questions:

    1. How do we expect to be taken seriously with pseudonyms like this?
    2. How many /.ers didn't even blink while reading the intro?
    Of course look who's talking; Odo, a fictional shapeshifter... <sigh>
  • by prodangle (552537) <matheson.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:46AM (#11743391) Homepage Journal
    As much as I admire Woz's idealism, I wouldn't take business advice from him!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:16AM (#11743546)
      As much as I admire Woz's idealism, I wouldn't take business advice from him!

      Let's see .. Wozniack is a billionaire .. and you .. hmm?

      Let me see here .. remind me again why I should take advice from you over someone who's made billions of dollars? And before you blab something about how it was all Steve Jobs business acumen .. well if Woz was such a business dope he would have told Steve off and stayed in his job at HP instead of taking a mad risk and forming Apple with nearly nothing.
      • by Nexum (516661) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:41AM (#11743695)
        Woz is not a billionaire.
      • Woz is only wealthy because Steve Jobs found a good way to sell his product for him (well, that's the source of his original pile of cash). They worked well together on the Apple computer and Apple II, that's all. It sometimes happens that the brains behind a product only makes money on it because someone else was market or business savvy enough to sell it well. It helps that it's a good product too.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @10:00AM (#11744367)
          "Woz is only wealthy because Steve Jobs found a good way to sell his product for him "

          No, Steve Jobs is only wealthy because Woz figured out how to create an elegant personal computer.

          There are a lot of smart people in the world.

          There are a lot of people who are good at selling.

          Without Woz, there is no Jobs. Without Jobs, there is no Woz.

          There are equally responsible for Apple, along with about 3 other people who you've never heard of.
          • I have to disagree with that, AC.
            There are lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of excellent valuable ideas, concepts, things being made.
            If you don't have someone to sell your idea, concept or thing, you are not going to make any money.
            I know. believe me, I know.
            The only way The Woz would have made a pile of money off the Apple without Jobs, is if he was lucky enough to have another Jobs-type stumble across him.
            • And I have to disagree with that, paganizer :-)

              One person has a great technical idea but no clue on selling, another has great business sense but couldn't rewire a plug. They combine, form a team and get rich. Amen.

              To paraphrase you: "There are lots and lots and lots and lots of excellent business people able to sell valuable ideas, concepts and things. If they don't have someone to have an idea, concept or thing then they are not going to make any money.

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:50AM (#11743760) Homepage Journal
      yes, but that's not the point, the point is that if you continue doing this kind of shit then people will see straight through your companys intentions and when your company is largely dependandt on very zealous fans that buy anything you make because it is from you it's a bad thing to piss them off.

      and then you have a company kick started on money made from making (_black_ hat)hacking tools for the phone system suing some kid that just posts things that people email to him- obviously if they had some values once about freedom to do things they don't have them now.

      like, hello, wtf? if that's not spineless from a company that's trying to act 'better' than the competition then what is..
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @09:07AM (#11743909)
        People are not fans of Apple because Jobs is a nice guy. He's not. He's infamous for his absurdly hot temper.

        People are not fans of Apple because they are warm and fuzzy towards those who they see as a threat to their interests. They're not. This goes all the way back to the Apple ][ and the lawsuits over the Frankline computers which were designed to mimic them.

        People are fans of Apple because they keep cranking out impressive innovations to the way humans and computers interact, and when at their best, sell really spiffy hardware that takes advantage of these innovations.

        As long as they do that, most of us are fine with them being asshats.
  • by uq1 (59540) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:49AM (#11743403)
    This is intellectual property of Apple, and should be treated as such.

    He pirated software, he should pay the penalty.

    No sympathy here.
    • by mirko (198274)
      He distributed non-ready software : in other words, his Tiger distro is already obsolete.
      I suggest the following :
      1. Apple folks leave him alone and eventually revoke his ADC [apple.com] membership
      2. They begin a reward scheme, randomly offering thingies (.Mac, softs... : things that don't have much material value -software is easily reproductible- but that people will like to show off) to some clients so that it will incitate others to buy more stuff from them
      3. They get a nicer image
      4. They profit
      • by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda@eOPENBSDtoyoc.com minus bsd> on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @10:39AM (#11744785) Homepage Journal
        Or:
        1. Rain hell on the moron dumb enough to get caught.
        2. People take your NDA seriously.
        3. You reinforce the image that you are working on stuff so valuable you are willing to go to court over it.
        4. Profit.

        Perhaps you have never worked in a technology company. You walk out the door with a prototype, and it shows up out on the street, you are going to get sued. Unless you work for the company. Then you are fired, then sued.

        Embezzel the company for a few hundred thousand dollars, steal laptops, get caught buying hookers and drugs with company money, they let you go quietly. They often don't press charges.

        But you compromise, or come close to compromising, the crown jewels, they have to tear into you. It's like defending trademarks. The only property they own is what they are willing to defend.

    • penalty? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by essreenim (647659) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:58AM (#11743450)
      he should pay the penalty...of death?

      That's just it. It's a big public taboo over something which is equivalent to shop lifting. Sigh, People always fear what they don't understand!

      The 83 year old dead file swapper, Gertrude, [slashdot.org] would have been laughing her false teeth out at you all if she was alive..

    • I agree except that his fault isn't that he pirated software, he gave away something that wasn't his and he broke several legal agreements I'm sure he had with Apple. It was a very stupid move on his part and I'm sure he will pay legally and professionally. Would you ever hire someone with that on his record?
    • by Myuu (529245) <myuu@pojo.com> on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @10:10AM (#11744482) Homepage
      Normally I would tend to agree with you, but I think Woz getting involved brought out another point to me.

      The fact is that while Woz and Jobs were this guy's age, they did the same and a lot worse crap, blueboxing, drugs, etc. Look at where they took the world. Apple, the company that is supposed to be about going against the grain, is not living up to itself. In addition, by them suing this guy, they are holding back somebody that could have done a lot of good for others.

      I think Apple is just feeding the fears that, as a result of the success of the iPod, the company is changing from what it used to be.
  • by bigtallmofo (695287) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:50AM (#11743408)
    From everything that I've read his defense to Apple's charge of him posting the pre-release software is that he's a kid, please feel sorry for him.

    I feel sympathy for him too, but how do you stop leaks if not punish the people that perpetrate the leaks?
    • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:53AM (#11743425) Homepage Journal
      he's a kid, please feel sorry for him.
      He's 23, for God's sake. He's not a kid, he's an adult.

      And given that he *must* have been aware of the
      i) illegality
      ii) traceability
      of his leaks, he's a particularly stupid adult.

      Spare your sympathy for people who deserve it.
      • Spare your sympathy for people who deserve it.
        • So yes, he doesn't terribly deserve sympathy, but.... What are the penalties being sought? Is Apple going after the maximum allowed by law for this? If so then the penalites far outweight the actual crime. While I don't feel sorry for him (yes, he's old enough to know better and should have known better), I don't think it's right to send someone into financial ruin for the rest of their natural lifes over one fuck up.
        • Penalize him fairly to punish him fo

        • by DenDave (700621)
          Yep, the kid made a mistake. He shouldn't have gotten confused by Apple's Open Source PsychoBabble.. Don't get me wrong, I love my mac, worship the product, though, not the company. Now he can learn from his mistake and download Linux.

        • by wtrmute (721783) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @09:38AM (#11744172)
          Sorry, he does merit sympathy. Let him who has never used P2P to download something of questionable legal status cast the first stone. He's got as much right to sympathy as those shmucks who were bitch-slapped with lawsuits by the RIAA/MPAA... They also downloaded (and shared!) copyrighted material which, while not covered by an explicit NDA, are still not allowed to be given out for free.
          • Unless you count getting GPL'd software via BitTorrent as "download[ing] something of questionable legal status", I'm sure that there are at least a few of us around who have not used P2P in such a manner...

            Some of us do believe in respecting copyright/trademark/patent "property" rights while they exist... even while arguing against them.
            • by MachineShedFred (621896) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @12:07PM (#11745725) Journal
              Oh come on now. Even you must realize that you are the exception to the rule. There's always a few, and they feel compelled to inform everyone that they are the exception.

              Let's just clear this up now: no one ever said that each and every P2P user is violating copyright (well, except maybe the irrational thinkers at the MPAA / RIAA), but it's pretty safe to say that most P2P users are violating copyright law, or have violated copyright law in the past.

              All clear? Mmkay.
      • by Vellmont (569020) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @09:20AM (#11744011) Homepage
        This is clearly a case of a massive corporation against a lone individual. His age is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has no means to defend himself against a multi-billion dollar corporation with an axe to grind, and that his intent wasn't malicious.

        This is a civil matter, so there's no jail involved. However, why should Apple computer be able to ruin someones life through financial means just because they have multi-billions of dollars and he has.. well probbably almost nothing? I'm sure Apple will trump up millions of dollars worth of "damages" in a miss-guided attempt at "sending a message". In this case Microsoft is actually the better company. How many times have pre-releases of windows been leaked, but yet they've never gone out on the warpath with big lawsuits?
        • by Goo.cc (687626) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @12:51PM (#11746225)
          "This is clearly a case of a massive corporation against a lone individual"

          No, this is clearly a case of a lone individual illegally distributing the copyrighted material of a massive corporation.

          "why should Apple computer be able to ruin someones life through financial means just because they have multi-billions of dollars and he has.. "

          So you're saying that if you screw someone with lots of money, they shouldn't be able to sue you in return?
          • by Vellmont (569020)

            So you're saying that if you screw someone with lots of money, they shouldn't be able to sue you in return?

            That's a big load of crap, and you know it. There's no real damage here. This is a beta release of software already given to thousands of people that's going to go public in a few months anyway. This case is about the culture of Apple and likely Steve Jobs going ape-shit every time something "leaks".
    • Two things:

      1) There are several forms of punishment other than financial ruin.

      2) Do you honestly believe that punishing people ever stopped anything? It might, just MIGHT, stop the person being punished from repeating the behavior. But murder and rape have been punished for a loooooong time, and there are no indications that these activities will ever cease.
    • Of course Apple has every right to punish him, but what kind of punishment is fair? Ruining his life seems overzealous.

      Apple wasn't hurt financially or otherwise from his actions. That doesn't make what he did okay, but it should be considered when determining the fairness of the punishment they want to dish out.

      IMHO it would be much more appropriate for Apple to settle this out of court. They could request some form of monetary compensation (an amount that will stretch the finances but not lead to ruin

  • bt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maharg (182366) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @07:50AM (#11743412) Homepage Journal
    TFA suggests that bittorrent is at the heart of tiger. Perhaps Apple should look closer to home ?
    • OT (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
      @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.


      I wonder, why do "The Regents" own the rights? Not "The Students" or "The State of California"? Anyone?
  • Pre-Med (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Refrag (145266) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:00AM (#11743463) Homepage
    I personally don't want a doctor with this sort of ethics to do anything to me in the future. I hope Apple sues him into oblivion.
  • by Willeh (768540) <rwillem@xs4all.nl> on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:00AM (#11743466)
    While i don't agree with Apple's too strong stance on this (if it was an RTM copy of Tiger it would be different), BUT the portrait being painted of him as a samaritan made me very nauseous. I doubt volunteers at hospitals are exempt of NDA's, copyrights and other lala fairytales dreamed up by our corporate friends.

    Bottom line: he should have known better, but Apple shouldn't be giving themselves bad press by continuing. They probably won't now after outcries like this, preferring to show some teeth to discourage potential "innocent" uploaders leaking more stuff, then back off to act as a "Benevolent" corporate entity. Maybe Steve Jobs would do some p.r. by volunteering at the same place as mr. Gentleman Pirate?

  • Undisclosed Sum (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wren337 (182018) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:05AM (#11743484) Homepage

    This would be a great place to see them settle for an "undisclosed sum" (like a dollar), on condition that neither party discuss the matter further. Everyone wins; Apple doesn't publicly "back down", and the guy gets his life back.

    Or they could grind his bones to make their bread, whatever. I don't know him.
  • I say Jobs should take this to court.

    It'll give me lots of jabs to toss at a guy I work with who is as firmly entrenched as a Mac dude as I am a PC dude.

    Heck, I hear about it when Gates and Microsoft do stupid stuff , so why not give me some more ammunition as Jobs gets laughed out of court? It's got all the delicious points - A kid running a web site sued out of existance over disclosing something that ultimately proved to be a mountain out of a molehill. :)
  • Small Fries (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GR1NCH (671035) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:11AM (#11743513)
    Honestly, I think the whole deal is bullshit. Its just the big exec's lashing out at small fries because they can't get their hands on the big fish. Guess what? The real pirates out there aren't scared by you suing a college student that knows nothing about computers and had to have someone teach him how to seed a file. In fact they probably feel safer knowing that you are wasting your time suing this kid instead of them.
    • Re:Small Fries (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cioxx (456323) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @09:41AM (#11744186) Homepage
      What you're describing here is not Apple.

      There is no 'big fish' pirate group breathing down Apple's neck like few notable groups do with Discreet and Steinberg, defeating any elaborate anti-piracy scheme days after it is put into place. 99% of Mac software is either freely installed on multiple machines or can be enabled by a serial key.

      The real pirate, in this case, is Joe Sixpack with an ADC account.

      If Apple fails to enforce their NDA, it could be damaging to the company. On the other hand, if they sue the shit out of this guy and few of his accomplices, the developer community and "fanatics" would get outraged. It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

      Personally, I'd like to see this guy face the consequences in 10k increments. I do, time to time, download something which is not quite legit, but even I'm not stupid enough to touch an official beta seed assigned to my account.

      Having read the interview with desicanuk on drunkenblog, and knowing his medical aspirations, perhaps the world would be better served if he didn't apply such excellent decision-making in the operating room.
  • I think Tiger-pre-release should be made available to ALL ADC members (ADC signup is free). Then you'd still have everyone under the NDA, and no one who didnt want it or wasnt qualified to mess with it would get burned by a partially developed OS.

    I mean, sure I see the point of making people pay for the final version. But for the betas, it seems like the more qualified testers they have the better. Besides, not all developers can afford full ADC memberships with all those software dl keys, they're freak
    • Re:Prerelease (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sounds like you don't really know much about the software seeding in the Premium ADC accounts, bub.

      Here's a hint: If you take the last posted build of an OS before the retail version, you have the retail version. Software Update works on it. Apps install and work on it.

      Millions of Mac users would sign up and download Tiger build 8F61 (or whatever the hell the build number is) and Apple wouldn't make nearly as high of a return on their product, /and/ they'd be paying for the bandwidth to give it away.

      (Thi
  • summary... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by constantnormal (512494) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:16AM (#11743543)
    1) Kid signs up for limited freebee ADC membership, knowing that it does not include access to Tiger beta, in order to have "real" developer (who should certainly know better) place a d/l seed in his area. -- mildly unethical.

    2) Kid, excited with his "prize", sends it out to his web "buddies" so they can share in the radiant joy. Exceedingly stoopid.

    3) A restricted beta of a product Apple intends to make hundreds of millions of $$$ from is released into the wild for free. Entirely predictable.

    4) Apple gets justifiably upset, sues all in sight. About all that Apple can do at this point is make an example of them.

    5) The Woz feels sorry that the Kid is getting punished for his unthinking brush with Reality, donates $1000 to his defense.

    So what can we learn from this?

    1) Apple needs to tighten up ability to transfer software assets between classes of ADC members.

    2) Kids (or anyone) that act in an unthinking manner can expect to be educated. Think of it as Evolution in Action.

    3) People will gawk at a grisly highway accident, whether on concrete or etherial roadways.

    Move along folks.
    • Re:summary... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nutshell42 (557890)
      3) A restricted beta of a product Apple intends to make hundreds of millions of $$$ from is released into the wild for free. Entirely predictable

      And it doesn't affect their bottomline a bit. Come on it's a *beta* for a reason and as soon as they start shipping Tiger, shipping millions of *rippable* CDs I might add, you're gonna find ISOs of the release version on every p2p net. I really don't see why they're making such a fuss about a leaked beta

    • Re:summary... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Vellmont (569020)
      Why is the big mantra on slashdot "this guy is stupid!", as if this is the ultimate sin? I guess "stupid" people don't deserve anything but contempt. Calling someone stupid is the new kike/nigger/dago/wop/chink/gook/raghead/fag/guinea /kraut.

      Did I leave anyone out?
    • Re:summary... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hawk (1151) <hawk@eyry.org> on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @11:33AM (#11745379) Journal

      5) The Woz feels sorry that the Kid is getting punished for his unthinking brush with Reality, donates $1000 to his defense.


      Of course, this *could* just be Woz having flashbacks . . . :)

      hawk
    • Re:summary... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by justins (80659)
      Kids (or anyone) that act in an unthinking manner can expect to be educated. Think of it as Evolution in Action.

      While you're almost certainly just quoting a crappy science fiction novel in an effort to be cute, everyone ought to think about this for a minute: do you really want a legal system based on Social Darwinism?
  • by earthbound kid (859282) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:35AM (#11743658) Homepage
    Who is DrunkenBatman?

    Some have speculated that DrunkenBatman is DrunkenBruceWayne, a theory I too once believed. However, after I publicly aired my suspicions, he and I were kidnapped by the DrunkenPenguin then saved by DrunkenBatman. So I've seen DrunkenBruceWayne and DrunkenBatman, together. ...However, I should note, where was DrunkenRobin during all this? Just hanging around the DrunkenBatcave? We can only drunkenly speculate, I guess.
  • by benja (623818) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:48AM (#11743751)
    Somewhat off-topic, but it amuses the hell out of me when people call copyright infringement "piracy" but then believe that not all copyright infringement is piracy.

    From the interview (one of the admins of the bittorrent tracker speaking):

    [T]he tracker isn't built on pirated files. Drivers, service manuals, user guides, and old games which are not available anymore or are from companies which no longer exist. There are videos of recent events and old favorites which you can't buy. I have never seen the tracker without a significant amount of files which aren't pirated.
    You see, all of these are copyrighted unless they're around a hundred years old (depending on jurisdiction). Of course distributing them is not copyright infringement ("piracy") if you have permission by the copyright holders, but I highly doubt this site has permission to distribute those service manuals and -- especially -- games.

    Just because the company making them is gone doesn't mean there isn't a copyright holder -- there's always some creditor happy to pick them up. They may not sell the game any more (at least currently), but that matters zilch. They may not be suing you because they don't have enough to gain from it, but that doesn't mean they can't and it doesn't mean that this isn't copyright infringement.

    Yes, it sucks. You see, that's one reason why some people think copyright law sucks. Especially with the super-long copyright terms of today.

    I find people annoying who copy old proprietary games, don't feel that they're doing anything wrong, and then go, "I totally respect copyright law! I would never pirate anything!" If you think copyright is so cool, how come you are so happy to bend it when it's inconvenient?

    (NB. I admit that I haven't actually checked the site; the games there may yet be under license terms that permit re-distribution after the company making them has folded. If so, sorry of associating the general rant with this specific case. But I doubt it.)

  • by sacrilicious (316896) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:57AM (#11743830) Homepage
    TFA:
    Going by what [Apple's] asking for in the court papers [drunkenblog.com], this isn't an area where they are planning on being particularly merciful when it comes to damages.

    For the record, the supplied document lists Apple's requests as follows:

    • Compensatory and examplary damages to be determined at trial
    • Injunctions restraining the distribution of the software
    • Injunctions restraining the breach of the agreements (not clear what that means)
    • An accounting of any profits the defendants have derived from their distribution of the software
    • The cost of the suit
    • Any other relief the court deems just and proper.
    Some /. postings on this topic assert that Apple seeks to financially ruin the defendant. Given the lack of a stated dollar amount above, do we have a foundation for believing this? I'm not pro-Apple on this, I'd simply like to know if we're going on (warranted) cynicism, or general precedent, or specific precedent, or logic....
  • by Quarters (18322) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:57AM (#11743833)
    As to the question, did I do exactly what Apple is accusing me of doing? I did share the file. So in that regard yes. But there was no malicious intent.

    He needs to look up the definition of malicious. He came into posession of a piece of copyrighted software and then made the conscious decision to seed it to others. He was pirating and he was trafficing stolen goods.

    Apple has every right to go after him.

    • He needs to look up the definition of malicious. He came into posession of a piece of copyrighted software and then made the conscious decision to seed it to others. He was pirating and he was trafficing stolen goods.

      Apple has every right to go after him.

      I think people are really speaking past each other in this argument. Yes, Apple is legally in the right. They'll have a heck of a time proving they suffered significant damages, but still, these guys obviously violated their contract. Apple wins, and now

  • About Steve Jobs.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by 10Ghz (453478) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @09:03AM (#11743872)
    Off-topic, I know but... I was just reading the article about Woz on Wikipedia. It contained this interesting piece of info:
    Woz left Apple for good on February 6, 1985, nine years after setting up the company. Wozniak then founded a short-lived venture called CL9 which developed home remote control switches.
    Out of spite, Jobs threatened his suppliers to not do business with Wozniak or risk losing Apple's business. Wozniak was able to find suppliers other than the ones he had worked with for years, but was disappointed in his former friend's bitterness.


    I never knew that Jobs was such an ass. Egomaniac? Sure! Asshole? it seems so.
  • The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by catdevnull (531283) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @09:54AM (#11744324)
    I'm not pro-corporate. Let me say that up front.

    Apple has a NDA that they require of all developers who receive "pre-release" copies of software in development. If Apple does not pursue litigation then their NDA basically means nothing. They are perfectly within their legal rights to insist that the agreement be kept. So, the poor bastard who's getting sued should have known better.

    There are open source packages out there to distribute freely without the wrath of the owner. It seems that there are many slashdot readers who are not mature enough to recognize that the world doesn't work that way. I'm not saying it's right--I'm just saying that just because you think IP laws are rubbish or do not apply to you doesn't change the fact that they the law and they do, in fact, apply. It's naive to think that electronic civil disobedience will not be met with the very sharp teeth and claws of the corporate legal eagles/weasels. Everyone always says, "Oh, that poor grandmother or little kid getting picked on by the corporations."

    Fight the law with the law. Vigilante piracy isn't going to magically tip the law in the favor of Utopian RMS world. It's friggin' common sense people--DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN CORPORATIONS. Everyone here knows it's against the law to share copyrighted music, software, or some other IP. If you do it anyway don't bitch if you get caught. Just because we don't like the corporations doesn't make it right to steal from them--that makes us immature miscreant punks. And the legal system will treat you as such.

    This world runs on money--corporations are greedy entities that will suck the lives out of every human being. Don't buy corporate. Fight with your power as a "consumer" by not being one. DON'T BE A CONSUMER WHORE but be a law-abiding citizen, too. [PSA brought to you by catdevnull].
    • The point here is not that this guy should go un-punished, but that the punishment is unjust/excesive. Does this guy really deserve to basiclly have the rest of his life ruined, simply for breaking the NDA and copyright of some software?
  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @10:08AM (#11744463) Homepage
    So, this guy (not a kid, he's 23) makes Apple's OS available on bitorrent and now they're suing him? Okay, that's what happens. I read about how this is going to ruin his life. I guess I'm confused, but his life will go on, he'll just owe some money.

    Ah, but he won't be able to finish med school. Is that what we're so worried about? I'm not sure that I want someone with such poor judgement being a doctor.

    Call me a jerk, mod me down, whatever. The guy did something really stupid, something really illegal, and now he's being asked to pay.

    By the way, Woz. If you want to help the guy, $1000 isn't going to do much.

    One other thing while I'm burning karma. To the guy who wrote that he wonders if the company is being run by Jobs or greedy lawyers: you might want to consider the oh-so-tiny possibility that this is the result of Jobs running the company. I don't blame him, I'd do the same thing.

    I just don't find this surprising, except for the people rushing to his defense.
  • by kanweg (771128) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @10:50AM (#11744910)
    I'm an Apple fan (ok, a little less so if Apple does this kind of things), but I think that Apple is to blame to a major extent.

    - Apple is very much aware of rumor sites and knows their following crave for Apple-news before it is out. This sure keeps people interested in what's comming up from Apple. I for one visit those sites regulary and keep me in touch. (I don't like sites speculating on pricing, because it is too easy to get excited about a product, which may become a disappointment if the product is indeed as good as rumored, but at a higher price. If they'd not speculated it, it would probably still be considered a good price).
    - Apple can easily make the Tiger beta's such that they only run on Macs with registered MAC addresses (ethernet addresses, whatever) which are unique for a computer. So, if a beta gets out in the wild nobody can run it.
    - Apple makes a fool if itself by writing in the writ that they are in such a competitive business and their IP must be protected blah blah blah. Firstly, if they did really care, they had take proper precautions (see previous point). Secondly, Steve said that companies like Microsoft are busy integrating Tiger's Spotlight technology into Office. For that, you need a Tiger beta. So, the competitor who has 95+% marketshare has a copy of
    that intellectual property. Apple can handle the rest: even the current version of Mac OS X is a great product.

    Sure, the guy did something wrong. Apple, oet him pay $2500 Tsunami disaster relief and let it go.

    Bert
    • Apple can easily make the Tiger beta's such that they only run on Macs with registered MAC addresses (ethernet addresses, whatever) which are unique for a computer.

      Easily? What you're suggesting is to distribute the OS in a crippled form (one that wouldn't actually go to production, and would therefore be different software) so that they can guard against people who have accepted NDAs from leaking the IP.

      Of course, one could always distribute the MAC address with it and then you could reprogram the MAC add

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...