Forums | MacLife

will this be killed by apple too?

I hope so.

I'm hoping not myself.

I can't stand anal smurf like that from companies. Everyone has ideas from everyone else sprinkled about their software. Its how the whole thing moves forward.

I hope so.

I'm hoping not myself.

I can't stand anal smurf like that from companies. Everyone has ideas from everyone else sprinkled about their software. Its how the whole thing moves forward.

I will use this against you if you ever complain about someone making an exact copy of any software you develop.

Being inspired or influenced by the design or function of something is one matter; directly copying it and releasing it as yours because you don't have any original ideas is another.

So, you have no problem with someone taking your stuff that you worked hard for?

Well, in that case, I'm going to drop by your house one of these days, take all the furniture out of your living room, and put it in my room, albeit in a different arrangement.  Then you can get a feel for what I'm capable of in terms of interior design.  I'm sure you won't mind.

I also think Green Day won't mind if I write and release a song called "When I Come To Town" which is identical to their "When I Come Around" song save for the change to the lyric in the title/chorus.  I mean...I'll have to put a lot of hard work into playing, singing, and recording such a song, and it will give them a good idea of what I'm capable of when it comes to playing music.

lots of funny things.

Funny things indeed.

So, you have no problem with someone taking your stuff that you worked hard for?

If by taking stuff you mean someone physically stealing my source code then yeah I'd have a problem with it.

Does it bother me that another ISV and Yahoo implemented software features that were a direct knockoff of my own work ? No. Thats the way the business goes. If you release it expect it to be copied.

Well, in that case, I'm going to drop by your house one of these days, take all the furniture out of your living room, and put it in my room, albeit in a different arrangement.  Then you can get a feel for what I'm capable of in terms of interior design.  I'm sure you won't mind.

What you are talking about is physical theft. You'd be coming into my home to take an object. There isn't anything stopping you from looking around my home, then purchasing the same furniture and making a replica of my living room. I wouldn't care either.

Did this guy physically steal anything ? Is it apple source code running on windows ? Did he rip graphics from the Dock to pull this off ? If he did then yes I'd say he stole their work.

If all he did was study how the dock works and then recreated it from scratch I don't consider that theft personally.

-=Jax=-

I like how you completely ignored my second example, though.

That tells me it was apt and irrefutable, and by you ignoring it, you're silently admitting that it is an accurate analogy.

Actually I thought I was on my way out the door but it looks like I don't have to leave so I'll address it now.

I also think Green Day won't mind if I write and release a song called "When I Come To Town" which is identical to their "When I Come Around" song save for the change to the lyric in the title/chorus. I mean...I'll have to put a lot of hard work into playing, singing, and recording such a song, and it will give them a good idea of what I'm capable of when it comes to playing music.

Would Green day even have to care ? I doubt you'd have many fans.

Along the same lines there are plenty of 'cover' bands that not only use lyrics but perform the exact songs from many bands.

The guys I see in music who get into trouble are the ones who 'sample' a piece of music and incorporate it into their own songs.

So along these lines I'll stick to my original statement. If this guy ripped graphics from the dock and/or somehow took source code to create his dock I'd say he stole something.

I think the courts themselves have had problems deciding when it comes to this kind of thing just what constitues 'theft'.  I think we both have good points and views about it. We percieve it differently for sure.

-=Jax=-

What Jax "forgot" to mention was that he was heading out the door because he was afraid of having to reply to Twisted Guy's comment and was thus changing names and leaving the country without telling anyone where he was going.

I was heading over to Twisted's place to uhhh 'take care of him'. Damn MapQuest just can't get anything right.

He brings up too many good points and makes me think about things. That means one of us has to go.

Yes Jax, I know EXACTLY what you've been plotting, so don't think you'll get away with it this easily next time. YOU'RE THE CRIMINAL MASTERMIND, NOT ME!

God dosen't even know what I'm plotting.

will this be killed by apple too?

Not loading here. Dead already?

Along the same lines there are plenty of 'cover' bands that not only use lyrics but perform the exact songs from many bands.

I anticipated this argument.  My answer is simple: a covered work remains largely unmodified, and is attributed to the original writers and musicians who performed it.

Also, in anticipation of the "well, Weird Al does his spoof songs" that is covered as parody, thus protecting it.

Macs suck!!!!!! I just wanna make my PC look like a Mac, but I would never buy a crappy Mac!!!! Whaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!


The above statement was a big fat sarcasm

Oh for ...

Okay. First up - making exact copies of something cannot be theft. Never. It is copyright infringement.

Removal of physical property is theft. An idea is not physical property, but intellectual property, which is where copyright comes in.

Theft is a more emotive word, which is why bozos like the RIAA bandy it about as though saying it makes it true. It's not, and they only undermine their credibility by going for the soundbite rather than the actual facts.

(If it is theft, then a corollary is that the item in question is not licenced but owned by whoever paid for it, giving them the ability to do whatever the hell they like with it (within the framework of Law). The absolute last thing the entertainment industry wants is for people to believe this, because it makes the entire file-swapping thing extremely murky from an enforcement point of view.)

Copyright law is nice and clear (comparitively), so that's what we're looking at here.

I don't believe that making an identical copy of something is going to move the world forward in any way, but I see it as a relatively harmless homage, nothing more.

I'm not a copyright owner of major intellectual property however, and those who are are obligated to defend their copyright or lose it. If Apple do not push the issue when they discover copying, they will lose the ability to enforce their copyright on their own intellectual property. That's a poor move in business, but in IT and especially software, it's a remarkably bad move.