Originally Posted by DavidW
Why Is it so hard to understand that there is a difference between what you can do personally with your copy of OSX and what a business that's trying to make a profit can do with their copy of OSX.
The "fair use" laws only covers "personal use". So you can take your copy of OSX and put it on to your own PC if you want. Apple may not like it but they won't (and haven't) come after anyone that's done this. Just like the RIAA have not gone after anyone that uses some one else's music in their personal home movies.
I believe you're wrong there. Being for "personal use" isn't the sole criterion, maybe not even the most important criterion, and maybe even irrelevant in some cases for determining "fair use."
I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe "Fair Use" has been well defined through court rulings. There are just too many ways that creative works can be copied, distributed and used, and technology is changing too fast for the courts to keep up. One should note that manufacturers of DRMed DVD ripping software seem to be easily shut down when the mood strikes the movie studios, whereas copying of music from one's own CD onto other media for personal use seems to be immune to prosecution after one or more court rulings and, I believe, recording of television broadcasts has been ruled by the courts as being OK for personal use, too.
The Wikipedia is hardly authoritative but it is informative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
"[Fair Use] provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. [...]
the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
People might find the section on "Common Misunderstandings" very interesting:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_us...understandings
wherein this little ditty is stated: "binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights."
This is why the OSX hack (x86) is free. Apple would have a hard time convicting a hacker if he claims he's only doing it as a hobby.
In contrast, Apple should have little difficulty going after a dongle manufacturer, where the only purpose for said dongle is to enable copyright infringement of Mac OS X.