True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.
Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.
It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.
This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.
Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.
The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.
Patents and copyrights are two different things. Patents protect designs, methods, and other aspects and does not effect the end user. On the other hand, copyrights protect the original work (the software in the DVD/CD, the text in the book, the images on websites.. etc) and does affect the end user rights to such work.
The EULA is not supplementary document. EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.
Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
Love Mythbusters, especially that quote.
I don't rip Netflix, but I do rip my own DVDs to my aforementioned Atom-based Cube upgrade, even though that is technically illegal. If I had the commitment to delete the image of a ripped Netflix movie after a single viewing, I, again, wouldn't see an ethical problem, but it would be something unenforceable by Netflix and would undoubtedly be abused by others should it be made "legal" to do so.
Abuse of the "honor system" is the reason for these EULAs, but for those who don't abuse or damage the market value of the product, they're an unnecessary inconvenience.
Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.
That seems the most likely reasoning to me.
Apple doesn?t compete with netbooks and they have allowed the OSx86 Project go on unabated this long so doing this now makes no sense with the given information.
Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not. Through my purchase, I have gained the license to use the software. Apple then telling me how I can use that copy personally is infringing on my Fair Use rights.
What seems to be complicating this issue perhaps is that many Hackintoshers have not come by their copies legally. I do not support that. But I am a believer in strong Fair Use rights. The constitution grants rights to individuals - not corporations. Your views may vary and I respect that, but it doesn't make either of our views more right than the other's. That's something for a court and a jury to decide.
Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' can be interpreted as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.
The same exception goes on to say, though, that you cannot transfer any such made copies over to anybody else's ownership without the copyright holder's permission. But, if you also include the original media as part of the transfer, and either include all other copies you made, or else destroy them, then again, you don't need to seek the copyright holder's permission.
I recently spent time travelling in Europe and had my Dell mini 9 running Leopard with me. It fit into my coat pocket which meant I could bring it anywhere w/o even thinking about it, pull it out at a cafe in Oslo or Paris and type so much faster than I can on an iPhone even after 3+ years of iPhone ownership. I could also upload and manage my photos easily and do so much else that's not possible to do, or to do as easily, on my iPhone.
If this rumor is true then it's the final confirmation that Apple plans their own "netbook/tablet" as the netbook hackintosh community is so small and it hasn't cost Apple a dime yet as there's not a single hackintosher that would have bought a macbook instead of a netbook.
I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.
Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time
False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.
This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.
EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.
I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.
Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time
wow, what a rebel!
why not run linux then? granted - it doesn't come with apple stickers, but it seems that's your only way out of supporting evil empires - unless you count google and their 'surveillance' model of business.
In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' is defined as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.
Actually, it says:
"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."
Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.
This was a reply to the original poster who stated that it is a supplemental document, which I understood as it has no legal standing. We all know that every contract is limited by the law
Quote:
This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.
EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.
I already stated that. Refer to my earlier post. However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer
"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."
Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.
So the fact that the original copy from which you're making your installation, the DVD, was labelled as an "upgrade", is irrelevant for this statute.
The whole point is that unless you're creating redistributions (or violating other exclusive rights not covered by 117), a license to make use of a piece of software is not needed to satisfy copyright.
The license is still a potentially valid contract issue, to be sure. But not copyright.
They'll have to do more than buy the $30 upgrade and then they'd still be breaking the EULA.
By installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple, they are breaking the EULA no matter what they do! Then again, I believe the EULA violates consumer rights. Anyhow, 30 bucks is still better than pirated buccaneers. If I want iLife and iWork, I'd get the box set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
I bet if you write Mr. Jobs and promise that you and your three best buddies will buy one each, they'll build it.
"Dear Buhdda: I want a pony, and a rocket ship..."
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak."
I know that SJ wouldn't build a Netbook in a form that we would like, that wasn't the point. My point is that with the same architecture as other netbooks, Apple could charge 200-300 more than the competition and still come out ahead with their margins in tact! And I know they would sell them... although it would cannibalize on the MacBook. It may spur more iMac purchases though, especially with its new screen sharing thing... think of the possibility there!
I assume the tablet will be Apple's responce to the Netbook. Sadly, the writing on the wall will have it as a THIRD platform for devs, and no real Mac OS X, but better than iPhone OS. Not a smart move since Netbooks run all the latest OSs (Ubuntu 9.10, Windows 7, OpenSuse 11.2, OS X 10.6.1) with no dumbing down.
Comments
I would rather Apple charge "full price" for OS X than impose unethical restrictions past the point of sale.
-Clive
Ooops! There's one guy that would pay US$699,00...no? Really? Why not? Cheaper to by the Mac and then the upgrade disc? Thought so.
True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.
Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.
It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.
This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.
Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
Convenient how you missed out emphasising the part I have made red, which completely goes against your point.
Would you care to explain how operating software is an expression of anything? What kind of nonsense argument is that?
No, but razor blade designs are patented.
Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.
The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.
Patents and copyrights are two different things. Patents protect designs, methods, and other aspects and does not effect the end user. On the other hand, copyrights protect the original work (the software in the DVD/CD, the text in the book, the images on websites.. etc) and does affect the end user rights to such work.
The EULA is not supplementary document. EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.
Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
Love Mythbusters, especially that quote.
I don't rip Netflix, but I do rip my own DVDs to my aforementioned Atom-based Cube upgrade, even though that is technically illegal. If I had the commitment to delete the image of a ripped Netflix movie after a single viewing, I, again, wouldn't see an ethical problem, but it would be something unenforceable by Netflix and would undoubtedly be abused by others should it be made "legal" to do so.
Abuse of the "honor system" is the reason for these EULAs, but for those who don't abuse or damage the market value of the product, they're an unnecessary inconvenience.
Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.
That seems the most likely reasoning to me.
Apple doesn?t compete with netbooks and they have allowed the OSx86 Project go on unabated this long so doing this now makes no sense with the given information.
Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not. Through my purchase, I have gained the license to use the software. Apple then telling me how I can use that copy personally is infringing on my Fair Use rights.
What seems to be complicating this issue perhaps is that many Hackintoshers have not come by their copies legally. I do not support that. But I am a believer in strong Fair Use rights. The constitution grants rights to individuals - not corporations. Your views may vary and I respect that, but it doesn't make either of our views more right than the other's. That's something for a court and a jury to decide.
Isn't OQO dead?
yup. not a big market for tiny netbooks with a $3000 price tag.
Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' can be interpreted as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.
The same exception goes on to say, though, that you cannot transfer any such made copies over to anybody else's ownership without the copyright holder's permission. But, if you also include the original media as part of the transfer, and either include all other copies you made, or else destroy them, then again, you don't need to seek the copyright holder's permission.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
Which puts us back in the domain of EULA violations being purely violations of contract, not copyright.
If this rumor is true then it's the final confirmation that Apple plans their own "netbook/tablet" as the netbook hackintosh community is so small and it hasn't cost Apple a dime yet as there's not a single hackintosher that would have bought a macbook instead of a netbook.
I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.
Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time
Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time
Yeah but they sure do make tasty Kool-aid.
The EULA is not supplementary document.
False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.
EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.
This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.
EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.
Love Mythbusters, especially that quote.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
snip
I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.
Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time
wow, what a rebel!
why not run linux then? granted - it doesn't come with apple stickers, but it seems that's your only way out of supporting evil empires - unless you count google and their 'surveillance' model of business.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
It's a start...
Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?
In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' is defined as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.
Actually, it says:
"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."
Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.
This was a reply to the original poster who stated that it is a supplemental document, which I understood as it has no legal standing. We all know that every contract is limited by the law
This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.
EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.
I already stated that. Refer to my earlier post. However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer
Actually, it says:
"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."
Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.
So the fact that the original copy from which you're making your installation, the DVD, was labelled as an "upgrade", is irrelevant for this statute.
The whole point is that unless you're creating redistributions (or violating other exclusive rights not covered by 117), a license to make use of a piece of software is not needed to satisfy copyright.
The license is still a potentially valid contract issue, to be sure. But not copyright.
They'll have to do more than buy the $30 upgrade and then they'd still be breaking the EULA.
By installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple, they are breaking the EULA no matter what they do! Then again, I believe the EULA violates consumer rights. Anyhow, 30 bucks is still better than pirated buccaneers. If I want iLife and iWork, I'd get the box set.
I bet if you write Mr. Jobs and promise that you and your three best buddies will buy one each, they'll build it.
"Dear Buhdda: I want a pony, and a rocket ship..."
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak."
I know that SJ wouldn't build a Netbook in a form that we would like, that wasn't the point. My point is that with the same architecture as other netbooks, Apple could charge 200-300 more than the competition and still come out ahead with their margins in tact! And I know they would sell them... although it would cannibalize on the MacBook. It may spur more iMac purchases though, especially with its new screen sharing thing... think of the possibility there!
I assume the tablet will be Apple's responce to the Netbook. Sadly, the writing on the wall will have it as a THIRD platform for devs, and no real Mac OS X, but better than iPhone OS. Not a smart move since Netbooks run all the latest OSs (Ubuntu 9.10, Windows 7, OpenSuse 11.2, OS X 10.6.1) with no dumbing down.