Moreover, OSX is priced like Microsoft would price an upgrade [with the exception of Snow Leopard, which is priced significantly less]. Microsoft charges double for a full install version of Windows. It is reasonable to think if Apple were forced to supply it's OS to the masses, it would be able to charge a price to reflect it being a full install.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Stab in the dark . . . Elevation Partners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I know. Burning a CD, whether it be a mix, or an exact replicate and giving it to a friend is not illegal. The copyright code specifically provides, "
§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
As a simple example, ripping a copy of a CD that I own in order to listen to it on my iPod does not appear to be illegal. Providing this copy to others via filesharing seems to be illegal in the US. Trying to sell the copy is almost certainly illegal. Burning it to a "mix CD" (do people even do that anymore?) and giving it to my significant other is probably illegal, but who knows.
Actually, Psystar is now giving REbell EFI away for free, when it was charging $49.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Well, it appears that Psystar's website is officially down. Good riddance to those thieves. I wonder what the psystar-lickers that supported them think of the final outcome.
The unfortunate part is that we may never know who really was behind the scenes bankrolling this sham. Perhaps someday, a mole can have a drink with the owner, get him drunk and sing like a canary.
I know. Burning a CD, whether it be a mix, or an exact replicate and giving it to a friend is not illegal. The copyright code specifically provides, "
§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
That's great, although I don't see anything specifically anything about giving the resulting copy to others. Read in the vacuum this clause merely says its OK for me to make recordings, but not about what I'm entitled to do with them. This could merely mean that its ok in the context of backing something up, right? In particular, it seems unlikely that I'm allowed to make 10,000 copies of something and hand them out to all of the students at some University.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't appear obvious to me that the Psystar case has settled anything about the Hackintosh community in general as copyright is context sensitive, which is not to say that I believe that personal Hackintoshes are in some way legal, just that I'm not convinced that the case would be as cut and dry as Apple v Psystar. In particular, I'm not sure that the same DMCA opinion will apply.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't appear obvious to me that the Psystar case has settled anything about the Hackintosh community in general as copyright is context sensitive, which is not to say that I believe that personal Hackintoshes are in some way legal, just that I'm not convinced that the case would be as cut and dry as Apple v Psystar. In particular, I'm not sure that the same DMCA opinion will apply.
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
Clearly, but does the SL upgrade DVD refuse to install on an Apple system that does not have 10.5 installed? Is there any mechanism included to require proof of 10.5?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems likely that without any provisions for this, there are many countries that would find that this is not an "upgrade" no matter what Apple wants to call it. In particular I'm thinking of places like Brazil, which have extremely friendly consumer protection laws, and have a non-zero probability of saying that Apple can't call it an upgrade if it's not actually an upgrade.
Clearly, but does the SL upgrade DVD refuse to install on an Apple system that does not have 10.5 installed? Is there any mechanism included to require proof of 10.5?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems likely that without any provisions for this, there are many countries that would find that this is not an "upgrade" no matter what Apple wants to call it. In particular I'm thinking of places like Brazil, which have extremely friendly consumer protection laws, and have a non-zero probability of saying that Apple can't call it an upgrade if it's not actually an upgrade.
There are no checks to ensure you are running 10.5. SL will upgrade any system that meets minimum requirements (hardware wise). The point was that you are only legally licensed to install SL on Mac hardware. In order to get Mac hardware, you must already have some version of the OS that came with it when you purchased your Mac, so any disk you buy would always be an upgrade.
Was there something unclear about my pointing out that that clause, without any additional information, says nothing about what I am permitted to do with the copy that I've made, and thus doesn't actually prove anything about the mix tape situation?
Was there something unclear about my pointing out that that clause, without any additional information, says nothing about what I am permitted to do with the copy that I've made, and thus doesn't actually prove anything about the mix tape situation?
There are no checks to ensure you are running 10.5. SL will upgrade any system that meets minimum requirements (hardware wise). The point was that you are only legally licensed to install SL on Mac hardware. In order to get Mac hardware, you must already have some version of the OS that came with it when you purchased your Mac, so any disk you buy would always be an upgrade.
Right, I didn't really have a point other than that there's "upgrade" and then there's the EULA "Upgrade" license, but it's unclear to me that the Upgrade clause would fly in many countries.
As a side note, anyone installing a $29.00 upgrade package on a system that does not already have Leopard installed on it is breaching the EULA in a way that is exactly comparable to someone installing SL on a Hackintosh, but I don't hear people howling about that.
Right, I didn't really have a point other than that there's "upgrade" and then there's the EULA "Upgrade" license, but it's unclear to me that the Upgrade clause would fly in many countries.
As a side note, anyone installing a $29.00 upgrade package on a system that does not already have Leopard installed on it is breaching the EULA in a way that is exactly comparable to someone installing SL on a Hackintosh, but I don't hear people howling about that.
It was definitely brought up. I recall people speculating on the legality. I wonder if anyone had the stats for the number of folks that weren't on Leopard before the upgrade?
It was definitely brought up. I recall people speculating on the legality. I wonder if anyone had the stats for the number of folks that weren't on Leopard before the upgrade?
I imagine Apple can make a conservative estimate. It knows roughly how many Leopard installations are out there, and how many SL upgrade DVDs it's sold, and can thus infer a lower bound on how many EULA violations there are once SL > L.
There's also the family pack problem. I bought a family pack to upgrade my two Macs since I can afford it and am happy to support Apple, but I doubt that most people would do that.
Selectively enforcing the EULA seems questionable. I don't recall hearing any arguments of this sort from Psystar, so maybe it's not a problem in the US, though they have always seemed like a bunch of clowns.
My personal conspiracy theory is that Psystar's "backers" are actually Apple, and that their obvious violations and apparent incompetence are just a front to get favorable court rulings for future precedent, in a "not possible to lose" setting.
I imagine Apple can make a conservative estimate. It knows roughly how many Leopard installations are out there, and how many SL upgrade DVDs it's sold, and can thus infer a lower bound on how many EULA violations there are once SL > L.
There's also the family pack problem. I bought a family pack to upgrade my two Macs since I can afford it and am happy to support Apple, but I doubt that most people would do that.
Selectively enforcing the EULA seems questionable. I don't recall hearing any arguments of this sort from Psystar, so maybe it's not a problem in the US, though they have always seemed like a bunch of clowns.
My personal conspiracy theory is that Psystar's "backers" are actually Apple, and that their obvious violations and apparent incompetence are just a front to get favorable court rulings for future precedent, in a "not possible to lose" setting.
I don't know if any of the software vendors have actually tried to enforce one yet. They have always been legally very shaky. I don't think they would hold up in court given you can't even return sotware to most stores once you open it. In this case against Psystar, I don't think the judge even mentioned the Eula. Just licensing, DMCA, and copyright law in general.
I don't know if any of the software vendors have actually tried to enforce one yet. They have always been legally very shaky. I don't think they would hold up in court given you can't even return sotware to most stores once you open it. In this case against Psystar, I don't think the judge even mentioned the Eula. Just licensing, DMCA, and copyright law in general.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The relevant parts of the EULA appear on the first page of the 11/13 opinion here.
The opinion is actually pretty easy to read. Some of the findings seem crazy to me, like the fact that booting a psystar hackintosh from a hard drive containing Mac OS X creates an unauthorized copy of the OS in "RAM" (uh, ok), and that the bootloader is somehow part of the OS (really? I'm pretty sure that the load part of the bootloader "loads" the OS), but I don't know the legal ins and outs of this.
Most of all, you get the impression that Psystar and its lawyers were either incompetent or knew that their case was a lost cause so just didn't care. Hence my Apple is Psystar conspiracy theory.
Clearly, but does the SL upgrade DVD refuse to install on an Apple system that does not have 10.5 installed? Is there any mechanism included to require proof of 10.5?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems likely that without any provisions for this, there are many countries that would find that this is not an "upgrade" no matter what Apple wants to call it. In particular I'm thinking of places like Brazil, which have extremely friendly consumer protection laws, and have a non-zero probability of saying that Apple can't call it an upgrade if it's not actually an upgrade.
That makes no sense at all. Where in copyright law does it say you only have rights if you impose a mechanism to enforce those rights?? If I buy a single license copy of a piece of software does that mean I'm allowed to install it on infinitely many different computers as long as the software doesn't include a mechanism to stop that?
An upgrade is an upgrade because the license says you need a previous license, not because the installer checks for that and refuses to install otherwise.
There are several noted copyright professors, one named Jessica Litman who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School, who will back up my interpretation. She was my professor, and was around in Washington when this portion of the code was negotiated. The code specifically says that consumers cannot be found liable for copyright infringement for non-commerical copying. If I give a copy of music CD to a friend because I love the music and want to share it, this clearly is a non-commerical use.
You have to understand Industry writes laws, not Congress. So, various parties wanted changes in the copyright code mostly to line their own pockets. To get something passed, the various players had to agree to compromise. Moreover, the laws were passed before the Internet was big.
The content holders, like the record labels, agreed to this Section 1008 in a compromise with hardware makers like Sony. The labels got what they wanted - longer copyright times (it used to be fourteen years, it is now over a hundred) - whereas the hardware manufacturers were allowed to sell equipment [e.g. CD/DVD recorders] to consumers that the consumers could use to make copies of content for non-commercial use without fear of copyright liability. The labels got more though. Attached to the sale of blank music CDs is a special tax that is paid to the music labels to cover the cost of non-commerical copying. The labels also got a provision passed making the rental of music CDs illegal, except in the case of public libraries. So, when you buy a blank music CD, you are paying the labels money.
Consumers mostly got screwed because they lost the right to use works that were about to go into the public domain, which was part of the original copyright bargain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
That's great, although I don't see anything specifically anything about giving the resulting copy to others. Read in the vacuum this clause merely says its OK for me to make recordings, but not about what I'm entitled to do with them. This could merely mean that its ok in the context of backing something up, right? In particular, it seems unlikely that I'm allowed to make 10,000 copies of something and hand them out to all of the students at some University.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't appear obvious to me that the Psystar case has settled anything about the Hackintosh community in general as copyright is context sensitive, which is not to say that I believe that personal Hackintoshes are in some way legal, just that I'm not convinced that the case would be as cut and dry as Apple v Psystar. In particular, I'm not sure that the same DMCA opinion will apply.
I think you're stressing over a EULA, when DMCA was the focus of the issue. This wasn't about some legally shaky text on a software package, it was about violating copyright. No where in the judges ruling does he even mention EULAs from what I saw.
Fair enough point.
Quote:
Why are you surprised that the things you mention are illegal? They always were. They were illegal before the ruling. It wasn't 'maybe illegal', or 'possibly illegal', it was Illegal. If you do it, will you get caught? Extremely unlikely. This equates to tearing off the 'do not remove' stickers on a bed mattress. However, start selling the mattress without the tag and big brother will come knocking.
Want to mod your mac? Feel free, just don't try selling it for a business.
I'm not surprised, I just don't think it's right. This is an EULA issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Maybe they own significant amounts of Apple stock. I agree with you though, some people root for Apple like a sports fan roots for his hometown team.
It's unreal. I've been here for about 9 year (pre-blackout). I've never seen the number of Apple Apologists and Fanboys that we have now. This place used to be really critical of Apple at times.
Quote:
I think it's illegal for the people who furnish you with the means to install OS-X on non-Apple hardware. It's a fine distinction, but crucial nonetheless. That said, Apple will in all likelihood not waste resources going after the hobbyists who build the hackintosh tools as long as 1) they don't try to make a business out of it, and 2) they don't scale up their operations to Linux like levels. Or perhaps even Handbrake levels.
Agreed. It's more the principle I have a problem with. I also think that Apple really shouldn't be able to prevent someone from selling a device or piece of software that allows OS X to run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadIvan
Yes, it is a violation of your contract with Apple if you install OS X on a non-Apple computer. You haven't purchased anything. You have entered into a contract allowing you the use of the software with all of the conditions stipulated in that contract.
Thanks, professor, for stating the obvious. This part of the law is what I'm taking issue with on moral grounds. I know what the law is. I simply don't like it.
Quote:
If you don't like it, negotiate your own terms with Apple. If you can offer them enough money, perhaps they will grant you a less restrictive license. EULAs are sleezy, especially the provisions about fitness for a particular purpose, but they have not been shown to be illegal. Your confusing of the difference between purchasing and licensing doesn't change anything.
Don't be ridiculous.
Quote:
It would probably not be illegal in the criminal sense. I don't know enough about the DMCA to say.
If you sell it, I think it's considered criminal. Otherwise it's civil.
Quote:
To take your example, if you LEASE a car from Toyota, they certainly can tell you what roads to drive on. For example, they might say you may not take the car onto a race track. If you do, you will be liable for whatever is spelled out in the terms of that contract. Your insurance company or financing entity may also place restrictions on your use of the car.
1. You're not leasing OS X.
2. #1 aside, Toyota only restricts your use to the extent it will effect the value (residual) at the end of the lease. Apple doesn't have this issue. The other entities don't place restrictions as far as I know, unless you're talking gross negligence/insurance fraud.
Quote:
I'm not telling you what to do, that's your own business. It should be clear though that 1,000 people installing OS X on their own Hacintoshes has nearly the same effect on Apple as 1,000 people buying Psystar systems. In both cases, Apple is deprived of the hardware sales that are the basis of their business model.
I agree with that. I'm just not sure Apple can or should prevent you from taking a product you purchased and using it anyway you chose, within reason. Now, if you buy that product and sell it as part of your own, we have a problem. If you modify that product and sell it, we have a problem. But if you modify YOUR product to allow it run others, I don't see the problem. Really, if Psystar had done the latter without mentioning Apple beyond a listing of compatible OSes, they might be OK. But they went a lot further than that.
Quote:
I am not apologizing for Apple, as I don't think they need to apologize in this matter. I also don't have any particular venom for Psystar, no more than I do for the guys selling fake Rolex watches on street corners.
Not the same thing. They weren't selling knock offs exactly (OpenMac was close, though).
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I'm afraid you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The hardware doesn't come with a license, friend. The software does. Apple doesn't have you sign an End User License Agreement for the hardware. It doesn't tell you not to install another OS on the machine. Speaking of which...according to your logic, since the the Mac can also run Windows, you're actually buying a license to use Windows too.
It was also my understanding that Psystar was buying copies of OS X at retail. They weren't upgrade discs.
Comments
Stab in the dark . . . Elevation Partners.
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
As a simple example, ripping a copy of a CD that I own in order to listen to it on my iPod does not appear to be illegal. Providing this copy to others via filesharing seems to be illegal in the US. Trying to sell the copy is almost certainly illegal. Burning it to a "mix CD" (do people even do that anymore?) and giving it to my significant other is probably illegal, but who knows.
Well, it appears that Psystar's website is officially down. Good riddance to those thieves. I wonder what the psystar-lickers that supported them think of the final outcome.
The unfortunate part is that we may never know who really was behind the scenes bankrolling this sham. Perhaps someday, a mole can have a drink with the owner, get him drunk and sing like a canary.
Good bye Psystar. You.will.not.be.missed.
Interestingly, Psystar's site is currently listing Rebel EFI for the low, low price of $0.00!
edit: Just re-checked, although the front page is listing it as $0, the product page is listing it as $50
I know. Burning a CD, whether it be a mix, or an exact replicate and giving it to a friend is not illegal. The copyright code specifically provides, "
§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
That's great, although I don't see anything specifically anything about giving the resulting copy to others. Read in the vacuum this clause merely says its OK for me to make recordings, but not about what I'm entitled to do with them. This could merely mean that its ok in the context of backing something up, right? In particular, it seems unlikely that I'm allowed to make 10,000 copies of something and hand them out to all of the students at some University.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't appear obvious to me that the Psystar case has settled anything about the Hackintosh community in general as copyright is context sensitive, which is not to say that I believe that personal Hackintoshes are in some way legal, just that I'm not convinced that the case would be as cut and dry as Apple v Psystar. In particular, I'm not sure that the same DMCA opinion will apply.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't appear obvious to me that the Psystar case has settled anything about the Hackintosh community in general as copyright is context sensitive, which is not to say that I believe that personal Hackintoshes are in some way legal, just that I'm not convinced that the case would be as cut and dry as Apple v Psystar. In particular, I'm not sure that the same DMCA opinion will apply.
This is what I heard when I read your post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JA47vAz77A
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
Clearly, but does the SL upgrade DVD refuse to install on an Apple system that does not have 10.5 installed? Is there any mechanism included to require proof of 10.5?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems likely that without any provisions for this, there are many countries that would find that this is not an "upgrade" no matter what Apple wants to call it. In particular I'm thinking of places like Brazil, which have extremely friendly consumer protection laws, and have a non-zero probability of saying that Apple can't call it an upgrade if it's not actually an upgrade.
Clearly, but does the SL upgrade DVD refuse to install on an Apple system that does not have 10.5 installed? Is there any mechanism included to require proof of 10.5?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems likely that without any provisions for this, there are many countries that would find that this is not an "upgrade" no matter what Apple wants to call it. In particular I'm thinking of places like Brazil, which have extremely friendly consumer protection laws, and have a non-zero probability of saying that Apple can't call it an upgrade if it's not actually an upgrade.
There are no checks to ensure you are running 10.5. SL will upgrade any system that meets minimum requirements (hardware wise). The point was that you are only legally licensed to install SL on Mac hardware. In order to get Mac hardware, you must already have some version of the OS that came with it when you purchased your Mac, so any disk you buy would always be an upgrade.
This is what I heard when I read your post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JA47vAz77A
I don't get it.
Was there something unclear about my pointing out that that clause, without any additional information, says nothing about what I am permitted to do with the copy that I've made, and thus doesn't actually prove anything about the mix tape situation?
I don't get it.
Was there something unclear about my pointing out that that clause, without any additional information, says nothing about what I am permitted to do with the copy that I've made, and thus doesn't actually prove anything about the mix tape situation?
Lighten up. Just poking a little fun at ya
Lighten up. Just poking a little fun at ya
<adds coffee>
<adds more coffee>
There are no checks to ensure you are running 10.5. SL will upgrade any system that meets minimum requirements (hardware wise). The point was that you are only legally licensed to install SL on Mac hardware. In order to get Mac hardware, you must already have some version of the OS that came with it when you purchased your Mac, so any disk you buy would always be an upgrade.
Right, I didn't really have a point other than that there's "upgrade" and then there's the EULA "Upgrade" license, but it's unclear to me that the Upgrade clause would fly in many countries.
As a side note, anyone installing a $29.00 upgrade package on a system that does not already have Leopard installed on it is breaching the EULA in a way that is exactly comparable to someone installing SL on a Hackintosh, but I don't hear people howling about that.
Right, I didn't really have a point other than that there's "upgrade" and then there's the EULA "Upgrade" license, but it's unclear to me that the Upgrade clause would fly in many countries.
As a side note, anyone installing a $29.00 upgrade package on a system that does not already have Leopard installed on it is breaching the EULA in a way that is exactly comparable to someone installing SL on a Hackintosh, but I don't hear people howling about that.
It was definitely brought up. I recall people speculating on the legality. I wonder if anyone had the stats for the number of folks that weren't on Leopard before the upgrade?
It was definitely brought up. I recall people speculating on the legality. I wonder if anyone had the stats for the number of folks that weren't on Leopard before the upgrade?
I imagine Apple can make a conservative estimate. It knows roughly how many Leopard installations are out there, and how many SL upgrade DVDs it's sold, and can thus infer a lower bound on how many EULA violations there are once SL > L.
There's also the family pack problem. I bought a family pack to upgrade my two Macs since I can afford it and am happy to support Apple, but I doubt that most people would do that.
Selectively enforcing the EULA seems questionable. I don't recall hearing any arguments of this sort from Psystar, so maybe it's not a problem in the US, though they have always seemed like a bunch of clowns.
My personal conspiracy theory is that Psystar's "backers" are actually Apple, and that their obvious violations and apparent incompetence are just a front to get favorable court rulings for future precedent, in a "not possible to lose" setting.
I imagine Apple can make a conservative estimate. It knows roughly how many Leopard installations are out there, and how many SL upgrade DVDs it's sold, and can thus infer a lower bound on how many EULA violations there are once SL > L.
There's also the family pack problem. I bought a family pack to upgrade my two Macs since I can afford it and am happy to support Apple, but I doubt that most people would do that.
Selectively enforcing the EULA seems questionable. I don't recall hearing any arguments of this sort from Psystar, so maybe it's not a problem in the US, though they have always seemed like a bunch of clowns.
My personal conspiracy theory is that Psystar's "backers" are actually Apple, and that their obvious violations and apparent incompetence are just a front to get favorable court rulings for future precedent, in a "not possible to lose" setting.
I don't know if any of the software vendors have actually tried to enforce one yet. They have always been legally very shaky. I don't think they would hold up in court given you can't even return sotware to most stores once you open it. In this case against Psystar, I don't think the judge even mentioned the Eula. Just licensing, DMCA, and copyright law in general.
I don't know if any of the software vendors have actually tried to enforce one yet. They have always been legally very shaky. I don't think they would hold up in court given you can't even return sotware to most stores once you open it. In this case against Psystar, I don't think the judge even mentioned the Eula. Just licensing, DMCA, and copyright law in general.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The relevant parts of the EULA appear on the first page of the 11/13 opinion here.
The opinion is actually pretty easy to read. Some of the findings seem crazy to me, like the fact that booting a psystar hackintosh from a hard drive containing Mac OS X creates an unauthorized copy of the OS in "RAM" (uh, ok), and that the bootloader is somehow part of the OS (really? I'm pretty sure that the load part of the bootloader "loads" the OS), but I don't know the legal ins and outs of this.
Most of all, you get the impression that Psystar and its lawyers were either incompetent or knew that their case was a lost cause so just didn't care. Hence my Apple is Psystar conspiracy theory.
Clearly, but does the SL upgrade DVD refuse to install on an Apple system that does not have 10.5 installed? Is there any mechanism included to require proof of 10.5?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems likely that without any provisions for this, there are many countries that would find that this is not an "upgrade" no matter what Apple wants to call it. In particular I'm thinking of places like Brazil, which have extremely friendly consumer protection laws, and have a non-zero probability of saying that Apple can't call it an upgrade if it's not actually an upgrade.
That makes no sense at all. Where in copyright law does it say you only have rights if you impose a mechanism to enforce those rights?? If I buy a single license copy of a piece of software does that mean I'm allowed to install it on infinitely many different computers as long as the software doesn't include a mechanism to stop that?
An upgrade is an upgrade because the license says you need a previous license, not because the installer checks for that and refuses to install otherwise.
You have to understand Industry writes laws, not Congress. So, various parties wanted changes in the copyright code mostly to line their own pockets. To get something passed, the various players had to agree to compromise. Moreover, the laws were passed before the Internet was big.
The content holders, like the record labels, agreed to this Section 1008 in a compromise with hardware makers like Sony. The labels got what they wanted - longer copyright times (it used to be fourteen years, it is now over a hundred) - whereas the hardware manufacturers were allowed to sell equipment [e.g. CD/DVD recorders] to consumers that the consumers could use to make copies of content for non-commercial use without fear of copyright liability. The labels got more though. Attached to the sale of blank music CDs is a special tax that is paid to the music labels to cover the cost of non-commerical copying. The labels also got a provision passed making the rental of music CDs illegal, except in the case of public libraries. So, when you buy a blank music CD, you are paying the labels money.
Consumers mostly got screwed because they lost the right to use works that were about to go into the public domain, which was part of the original copyright bargain.
That's great, although I don't see anything specifically anything about giving the resulting copy to others. Read in the vacuum this clause merely says its OK for me to make recordings, but not about what I'm entitled to do with them. This could merely mean that its ok in the context of backing something up, right? In particular, it seems unlikely that I'm allowed to make 10,000 copies of something and hand them out to all of the students at some University.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't appear obvious to me that the Psystar case has settled anything about the Hackintosh community in general as copyright is context sensitive, which is not to say that I believe that personal Hackintoshes are in some way legal, just that I'm not convinced that the case would be as cut and dry as Apple v Psystar. In particular, I'm not sure that the same DMCA opinion will apply.
I think you're stressing over a EULA, when DMCA was the focus of the issue. This wasn't about some legally shaky text on a software package, it was about violating copyright. No where in the judges ruling does he even mention EULAs from what I saw.
Fair enough point.
Why are you surprised that the things you mention are illegal? They always were. They were illegal before the ruling. It wasn't 'maybe illegal', or 'possibly illegal', it was Illegal. If you do it, will you get caught? Extremely unlikely. This equates to tearing off the 'do not remove' stickers on a bed mattress. However, start selling the mattress without the tag and big brother will come knocking.
Want to mod your mac? Feel free, just don't try selling it for a business.
I'm not surprised, I just don't think it's right. This is an EULA issue.
Maybe they own significant amounts of Apple stock. I agree with you though, some people root for Apple like a sports fan roots for his hometown team.
It's unreal. I've been here for about 9 year (pre-blackout). I've never seen the number of Apple Apologists and Fanboys that we have now. This place used to be really critical of Apple at times.
I think it's illegal for the people who furnish you with the means to install OS-X on non-Apple hardware. It's a fine distinction, but crucial nonetheless. That said, Apple will in all likelihood not waste resources going after the hobbyists who build the hackintosh tools as long as 1) they don't try to make a business out of it, and 2) they don't scale up their operations to Linux like levels. Or perhaps even Handbrake levels.
Agreed. It's more the principle I have a problem with. I also think that Apple really shouldn't be able to prevent someone from selling a device or piece of software that allows OS X to run.
Yes, it is a violation of your contract with Apple if you install OS X on a non-Apple computer. You haven't purchased anything. You have entered into a contract allowing you the use of the software with all of the conditions stipulated in that contract.
Thanks, professor, for stating the obvious. This part of the law is what I'm taking issue with on moral grounds. I know what the law is. I simply don't like it.
If you don't like it, negotiate your own terms with Apple. If you can offer them enough money, perhaps they will grant you a less restrictive license. EULAs are sleezy, especially the provisions about fitness for a particular purpose, but they have not been shown to be illegal. Your confusing of the difference between purchasing and licensing doesn't change anything.
Don't be ridiculous.
It would probably not be illegal in the criminal sense. I don't know enough about the DMCA to say.
If you sell it, I think it's considered criminal. Otherwise it's civil.
To take your example, if you LEASE a car from Toyota, they certainly can tell you what roads to drive on. For example, they might say you may not take the car onto a race track. If you do, you will be liable for whatever is spelled out in the terms of that contract. Your insurance company or financing entity may also place restrictions on your use of the car.
1. You're not leasing OS X.
2. #1 aside, Toyota only restricts your use to the extent it will effect the value (residual) at the end of the lease. Apple doesn't have this issue. The other entities don't place restrictions as far as I know, unless you're talking gross negligence/insurance fraud.
I'm not telling you what to do, that's your own business. It should be clear though that 1,000 people installing OS X on their own Hacintoshes has nearly the same effect on Apple as 1,000 people buying Psystar systems. In both cases, Apple is deprived of the hardware sales that are the basis of their business model.
I agree with that. I'm just not sure Apple can or should prevent you from taking a product you purchased and using it anyway you chose, within reason. Now, if you buy that product and sell it as part of your own, we have a problem. If you modify that product and sell it, we have a problem. But if you modify YOUR product to allow it run others, I don't see the problem. Really, if Psystar had done the latter without mentioning Apple beyond a listing of compatible OSes, they might be OK. But they went a lot further than that.
I am not apologizing for Apple, as I don't think they need to apologize in this matter. I also don't have any particular venom for Psystar, no more than I do for the guys selling fake Rolex watches on street corners.
Not the same thing. They weren't selling knock offs exactly (OpenMac was close, though).
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I'm afraid you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The hardware doesn't come with a license, friend. The software does. Apple doesn't have you sign an End User License Agreement for the hardware. It doesn't tell you not to install another OS on the machine. Speaking of which...according to your logic, since the the Mac can also run Windows, you're actually buying a license to use Windows too.
It was also my understanding that Psystar was buying copies of OS X at retail. They weren't upgrade discs.