Comments on: Maxxuss Releases SS3 Emulator and AMD Enabler for OS X 10.4.4 (Intel)

By: _

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:53:53 +0000

will sse2 machines could execute iTunes and other sse3 aplications with this updates¿¿??

By: Hisham

Hisham — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:28:07 +0000

HAHA I was being sarcastic with the Google comment. I highly doubt that Apple would sue or intimidate Google any time soon so I think all controversial material should be link via that search engine.

Any news on why Maxxuss site is down?

By: Zeth

Zeth — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:40:21 +0000

“I think Google should remove this informtion as well because it tells users where to get OS X 10.4.4.”

Well I don’t Google should ever remove anything, let the bots go free. It is up to the responsibilty of the searcher in my opinion to make the moral judgements, the robots are innocent.

I have not downloaded the CD, not least because I have a G4 around here, that is quite enough OS X for one house. However the CD has been downloaded 7319 times from that one torrent alone, so it will always be out there.

In other news, the maxxuss website is currently down…

By: Hisham

Hisham — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:15:31 +0000

You touch on a great point. The problem is that linking sources may be considered illegal in certain jurisdictions. I want to provide sources to my readers because, like you, I come from an academic background where everything must be cited. If it is not, then it is considered to be fabrication or supposition unless the writer himself did the relevant first-person research. Unfortunately, Apple’s “Spanish inquisition” like tactics scare me because they impinge on what I consider to be my free speech rights protected under the First Amendment of the United States. As it stands, I think that as long as I don’t place any of Apple’s copyrighted materials on my server and continue in my role as an individual using my blog as my personal journal to report of developments, then Apple will have an uphill battle to fight. It’s very hard to play the thought police without Apple earning a ton of bad press. As I said before, people can do what they like but then it’s their responsibility, not mine.

By: Zeth

Zeth — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:00:24 +0000

“So the links are provided in the post and what people do with them is not my responsibility. Quite frankly, I believe people should not even click on them.”

Yeah thats a difficulty I pondered. Most of the big news sites that reported on the Maxxuss story did not inlcude links to Maxxuss website, probably for fear of breaking US laws such as the DMCA and getting contacted by Apple’s lawyers.

However for me, this goes against my years of learning within the academic system, i.e. to always quote your sources with a complete reference so the readers can find it. A Jewish critique of Hilter will still include a full reference to mein kampf so readers can follow the chain of reasoning. Likewise an atheist critique of the Bible will quote chapter and verse.

When it becomes illegal to link to something, I think such laws really damage learning. The spanish inquisition is back…

By: Hisham

Hisham — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:35:55 +0000

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. So if you get sued, don’t blame me.

There is a stark difference between fair use and copyright infringement (not theft). If someone owns an audio CD, they should be able to copy it to cassette or make an MP3 for their personal listening purposes. However, the problem comes in when the songs are shared to people who haven’t bought the album. In that case I think the artists have a legitimate complaint because it hurts their bottom line.

I do agree that Apple, Sony, and others enable people to infringe on the copyright of artists by that argument is no more plausible than saying a windowless van enables thieves to rob a bank. On the other hand, windowless vans are used in the thousands everyday by all sorts of legal businesses to, for example, transport equipment to job sites. The legal uses outweigh the illegal. For Apple, the iPod allows them to sell music in the range of millions of songs a month. This is a legal usage of their service which, in my opinion, outweighs any illegal copyright infringement occurring.

The copyright infringement being committed by people downloading copies of Apple’s OSX is not legal for non-OSX owners and questionable for people who have paid for OSX but want to have a backup copy. I believe that their needs to be some legal precedent set for this through a court case.

With that said, I do think that Apple using the DMCA to squelch First Amendment rights to Free Speech is an abominable crime. Information wants to be free and Apple should stop trying to hamper it because it’s a battle they will lose. So the links are provided in the post and what people do with them is not my responsibility. Quite frankly, I believe people should not even click on them. In other words, just believe someone tells you your neighbor’s door is open does not mean it’s legal to go in.

Again, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. So if you get sued, don’t blame me.

By: Trip

Trip — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:18:56 +0000

Now if only there was some way to illegally rip songs off of CDs.

Oh, that’s right, it’s legal.

By: Zeth

Zeth — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:55:05 +0000

“As always, I don’t condone piracy so please don’t do anything illegal.”

What was that company that made loads of white mp3 players that you could use to illegally rip songs off your CDs with? Oh yeah, its Apple…

Great post, keep up the good work.