Apple says booting OS X makes an unauthorized copy
groklaw.net
groklaw.net
Psystar copies the hard drive of a Macintosh computer containing Mac OS X (as depicted above on the left side of the diagram) onto its "imaging station" computer (shown in the middle of the diagram). This is the first unlawful copy.
Psystar then modifies this copy of Mac OS X to create a "master copy" that wil run on non-Apple computers. Psystar next uses "hard drive imaging" to install copies of its "master copy" of Mac OS X from the imaging station onto each computer it assembles. This is the second unlawful copy (a process repeated many times).
Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or "RAM." This is the third unlawful copy.
As it now stands, it is possible to argue that purely incidental copies of digital data are subject to copyright law. The law that used to regulate what a mid-sized or large enterprise did with its printing press now regulates what happens when someone presses "play."
That's not to say that copyright lawyers and "big content" aren't pleased with the law as it stands, but it increasingly fails to generate a beneficial tradeoff between incentivizing content creation and supporting a rich public domain.
A copyright is not absolute ownership of a bit pattern, but a balance of the interests of consumers and producers. Apple is clearly attempting to abuse copyright law; such in-memory copies are implicitly granted with the disc as they're necessarily for the software to operate.
The story isn't saying no-one is allowed turn on their Macs because we're pirating OS X by making copies of it.
Apple's point is Pystar is breaking the license under which OS X is distributed by installing it on a non-Apple computer therefore any copy is an unlawful copy.
No.
This is so ridiculous it is even not funny.
If handgun makers aren't liable for murder (or wrongful death), then Psystar shouldn't be liable for copyright infringement.