[oscar]

[edited by mindwaves]

Please lemme know if this works, I have confirmed this in 2 cases, with an older install

[viruscool]

Not sure if this is allowed to posted here, better watch yourself

[ism]

I'd be suprised if it did work. I wouldn't have thought Apple would be that stupid.

[ManOfSteal]

[Krypton]

I thought the download was a bit on the large side...

[mitchell_pgh]

Ha... the down side is, iPhoto has become the one iLife app. I actually use/need (minus iTunes, but that's always been free). Garage Band, iMovie, etc. etc. all cool, but are used about 4-5 times a year (if that).

[wataru]

Originally Posted by oscar

waalaa

voilà

[:dragonflypro:]

IBL.

voilå

T

[CharlesS]

I wouldn't do this for two reasons:

1. This sounds like piracy

2. If you use Pacifist's Verify feature with the real iPhoto 5 package on an iPhoto app extracted from the update package, it shows that while the update does contain a huge majority of the files in the iPhoto app bundle, it is missing a few things. One effect is that the "Book" feature probably will not work properly.

I do appreciate it when people recommend my app for things, but not for purposes which are likely illegal (and which will result in an only partially-functional app anyway).

Just stick with the real iPhoto 5.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I wouldn't do this for two reasons:
1. This sounds like piracy

Well, does Apple specifically DISCOURAGE that procedure in their licensing agreement ?

-t

[oscar]

Yes, why is this piracy? Im obtaining all the files from apple, while it MIGHT be covered by the DMCA, i t5hink if aple wante to protect themselves from this, they could of...easily...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

voilå

-t

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by oscar

Yes, why is this piracy? Im obtaining all the files from apple, while it MIGHT be covered by the DMCA, i t5hink if aple wante to protect themselves from this, they could of...easily...

Of course it's piracy. You don't have a license to install iPhoto 5 on your computer.

[Kristoff]

Smacks head.....

Using software that you do not have a license for is stealing.

[osxisfun]

No need to buy Car:
1> Go to car dealer
2> Hot wire car
3> Drive off in said car, waalaa

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

No need to buy Car:
1> Go to car dealer
2> Hot wire car
3> Drive off in said car, waalaa

Hey now, if they didn't really want you to have the car, they could have put up a fence or something, so I'm sure it's cool with them.

[MartiNZ]

I think it's more like: car dealer offers replacement parts for cars -> you don't have such a car but get hold of such parts anyway -> hidden somewhere, somehow (come on) in these parts is actually the whole car -> you find it using a nifty piece of software and claim it as your own. Unfortunately with that story I can't work out how to then relate it to being part of iLife, but I like it as it stands well enough .

[Photo678]

drags stinky nuts across oscars face

[oscar]

That was rude Photo678, why do you nned to say something like that? If the mods thought this was piracy, this thread would be closed by now.

[GSixZero]

Riiiight.... "If I haven't gotten caught, then it's not illegal!"

You're full of good logic.

[madmacgames]

This is not really piracy and is not illegal (at its face). Piracy is illegal copying & distribution of software.

fact:
Both packages can be freely obtained. Apple offers the iPhoto Updater free and Pacifist is shareware app which has a free demo and a low price if your demo is expired.

Nor is figuring out something through reverse engineering illegal.

Further distribution of knowledge is not now nor will it ever be illegal.

We have a guy (oscar), who obtained 2 software packages legally, figured out something via some simple "reverse engineering" and posted the information. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. Sorry fellers, the communist world is over, and information & knowledge are free and most certainly not illegal.

Now, if you personally use the information to obtain a "full" copy of iPhoto 5 without having a license, then it is YOU who have committed a crime, not oscar... dumbasses

Note that reverse engineering might be in violation of the iPhoto EULA, I don't know, but even if it was, it would questionable whether that was even an enforceable provision. If you understand contract law, you know that just because something is in a contract does not make it enforceable or legal. I personally know of no cases where an EULA provision banning reverse engineering was tested in the legal system.

[wataru]

Reverse engineering is figuring out how something works. This isn't reverse engineering, it's just a clever way to gain access to software you don't have a license for, a.k.a. piracy.

[madmacgames]

Originally Posted by wataru

Reverse engineering is figuring out how something works. This isn't reverse engineering, it's just a clever way to gain access to software you don't have a license for, a.k.a. piracy.

There is nothing illegal about figuring out that Apple's updater contains the *nearly* full version. And there is nothing illegal about posting that knowledge.

As I said, if you take it and use it for something illegal (e.g. installing iPhoto 5 without a license), that is your own damn problem, and your own damn fault, and it is YOU who have breached the law... not the person you got the information from.

[GSixZero]

IANAL, but from the DMCA:

`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

So the question is: Does Apple's packaging of the updater qualify as a measure to effectively control access to copyrighted work (iPhoto)?

That's a tough call. On one had they did sort of a crappy job of 'effectively controlling access' to iPhoto, but then on the hand, it's not that hard to strip the DRM out of ITMS tracks, but that's clearly against the DMCA. All-in-all, I wouldn't want to be the one trying to claim that using iPhoto through this hack is perfectly legal.

[brutal]

Works like a charm!

[Spook E]

in before the lockdown!

your gone beeeeatch

[Wevah]

Piracy or not, it's not very honest.

But hey...

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by madmacgames

This is not really piracy and is not illegal (at its face). Piracy is illegal copying & distribution of software.

I think its piracy what's the difference of going this route vs. d/l from a warez site.

Some people seem to be over analyzing and using some pretty indepth logic to justify their position.

Fact Apple sells iPhoto as its part of a suite of applications
Fact Apple doesn't give away iPhoto but tells people to buy iLife
Fact using this method you are getting something without paying for it and without permission of the owner (apple).

Seems pretty simple your getting iphoto without paying for it and without permission from the owner. Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck - its a duck.

On the other hand If you wish to test this out and see about the true legality of this, I'd say go into walmart grab a video game, disasemble the packaging of a video game and stuff in your pants. You can tell the police later that the product was just sitting there freely distributable and inside the package you did nothing wrong and its not stealing

If someone is going this route don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying its ok because they downloaded it from apple. I can pretty much guarantee if you contacted apple and basically told them what you did they'd not be too happy.

Regards
Mike

[Wevah]

I don't really like comparisons between software copying and stealing a tangible object for one reason: software copying leaves the original behind.

Aside from that, I still agree that it's dishonest.

[siMac]

Alright then, take your iBook into Walmart, take the game CD from its packaging, take a Toast 6 CD from its packaging, install Toast and use it to make a copy of the game cd. Then return the game/Toast CDs to their respective packages and walk out, leaving the original copies behind.

Is that a preferable analogy?

[Wevah]

Better, but no, not quite.

[Kristoff]

It might not be "piracy", but it sure as heck is stealing.

I repeat from my first post:

Using software that you do not have a license for is stealing.

[ism]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Riiiight.... "If I haven't gotten caught, then it's not illegal!"

You're full of good logic.

My daughter thinks that if we don't see her do something wrong she can't get told off for it even if we find out later. But she is 4.

I take it from all this Apple really were that stupid.

[CharlesS]

Remember those old 10.1 upgrade disks that they used to give out for free in Apple stores back in the day? I see this as being about as legal as taking one of those, turning it into a full OS X install disc, and using it to install 10.1 when you didn't have a license to it. That is to say, not at all. If you remember, Apple sent cease and desists to many web sites that put that little tidbit up...

And again, you don't get a full version of iPhoto this way. You get an almost full version of iPhoto in which several features, such as making a book, don't work right.

[Wevah]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

It might not be "piracy", but it sure as heck is stealing.

I repeat from my first post:

Using software that you do not have a license for is stealing.

That's not my point. I'm arguing semantics because it's fun. :D

I do think it's wrong, I just don't think it's theft (by strict definition, at any rate).

[albook]

Works like a charm.

Note: If you dont want to buy Pacifist, unpkg works fine as well.

[Busemann]

Piracy or not, Apple should offer iPhoto as a separate download for those who don't need the complete iLife package. But then again, less people would care about iLife if they did.

I'd be happy to pay 10-20 bucks for it through the online applestore

[Mike S.]

On the DMCA example I don't know if it's applicable to this.

The download is nothing but a compressed archive, like a tar/gzip file. It is not secured in any way other than the fact that Apple doesn't provide a way to manually access the contents of the archive.

Apple is basically distributing this software to anybody who chooses to download it off of their servers. There is no authentication or protection method in place. From a DMCA perspective it's probably about as illegal as extracting the contents of a non-DRMed CD to your hard drive. Everything you need but the method by which to extract are included in the distribution in an unprotected way.

This would still be a form of piracy in that you're not authorized to use it unless of course there is an EULA at first launch granting you usage rights (like iTunes) that doesn't specifically state that to use this version you must have a license to use version 5/iLife '05 or whatever. If that's the case that Apple really screwed themselves on this one.

IANAL, the above is my interpretation of things.

[oscar]

I still think its funny, the same people that complain about this, are the same people dload movies, or mp3's off p2p networks.
That being said, it is dishonest, but alas, i dont think its piracy

[madmacgames]

As I've already said, if you use the information to obtain a copy you don't have a license for, it is you who are at fault and perpetrated a crime, not the poster of the information. The information is NOT illegal and WILL NEVER BE illegal.

As for the DMCA, it still remains to be seen whether the section quotes is even legally enforceable, and even if, it doesn't seem to apply here. Further, much of the DMCA is unconstitutional and it is only a matter of time until those parts are challenged and rejected by the courts.

[MaxPower2k3]

piracy |ˈpīrəsē|
noun
the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
• a similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking : air piracy.
• the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work : software piracy.

Seems like piracy to me...

[tavilach]

Originally Posted by Wevah

Piracy or not, it's not very honest.

But hey...

[bmedina]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

Using software that you do not have a license for is stealing.

Only if you use the legal term "steal" (a.k.a. "theft") incorrectly.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by oscar

I still think its funny, the same people that complain about this, are the same people dload movies, or mp3's off p2p networks.

they are?

[mindwaves]

Although it is possible, doesn't mean you should.