Please explain to my how using your OS, which I paid for in a manner different from which you intended is "stealing" .
Last I checked, this was the definition of "theft" in the dictionary:
* To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
I'd like to know how using your product, which I paid for and now own, according to the doctrine of first sale, in a manner that you don't approve of make that product not really mine.
Oh, you licensed it to me, ok, fine. If my physical copy of the CD gets broken, that means you'll replace it free of charge, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to structure this arrangement in a way in which you get all the advantages of a physical sale (if I break mine I need to buy a new one), and a licensing deal (the license constricts me from doing what I want with the physical copy).
(To be fair, Apple doesn't include copy protection in their installer DVDs.)
So, Apple, please don't pervert the English language and call it "stealing". It's nothing more than "license violation".
kthxbye
Dear Java,
There are several things regarding your recent letter to us that should not be overlooked as they require correction. I think the most important issue was that not only were the individuals in the article linked attempting to "install" software in a manner which violated the terms of the licensing agreement with us into which they voluntarily entered - they were also altering significant portions of code in order to do so.
Secondly, I'm not sure which dictionary you used, however we use the California penal code, which says:
Quote:
Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft
Additionally, your arguement regarding the license vs physical sale makes no sense. We license you a particular piece of our intellectual property for a very specific use. Certainly, if the physical media on which that property was conveyed to you becomes damaged, we will replace it within the terms of the licensing agreement for a cost equal to that of replacing the physical media. This however does not confer any new, or additional rights or licenses.
Well, you know the system disks you receive with a PC? Your not allowed to install those on any other machines either, so you can forget trying to blame Apple. They are merely preventing people from bastardizing their OS.
I have had it out with others on that point too, when I see "includes windows XP _____ edition " I am purchasing as part of the price a license for that version of Windows thus so long as I remove Windows from that unit, I have one license to use on a differant unit - EG If I were to build my own rig to replace the PC I use now alongside my Mac, I already own WinXP home from the current unit, I can just re use it as long as I blow it off the first one-- I have a key on the side of the tower for Christ sake!
I would love to test this in a court of law, as I do not see how one can be legally held to the terms of a EULA that you are unable to read untill after purchase, and opening the packege and installing the item...
It would be like buying a new car and after putting 100 miles on it being told that you can only drive it on one of the three interstate highways that have on rramps in your city.
There are several things regarding your recent letter to us that should not be overlooked as they require correction. I think the most important issue was that not only were the individuals in the article linked attempting to "install" software in a manner which violated the terms of the licensing agreement with us into which they voluntarily entered - they were also altering significant portions of code in order to do so.
Secondly, I'm not sure which dictionary you used, however we use the California penal code, which says:
Additionally, your arguement regarding the license vs physical sale makes no sense. We license you a particular piece of our intellectual property for a very specific use. Certainly, if the physical media on which that property was conveyed to you becomes damaged, we will replace it within the terms of the licensing agreement for a cost equal to that of replacing the physical media. This however does not confer any new, or additional rights or licenses.
Copyright violation is not theft. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a temporary right to copying the material that is the subject of the copyright for a limited period of time. It is a pact made with the people that in order to encourage the creation of such works (that will ultimately belong to the public), a temporary incentive will be provided. Upon expiration of the copyright, the material becomes part of the public domain, at which point it is 100% legal for anybody to copy it to their heart's content.
In the same vein, the term "intellectual property" is disingenuous, because it doesn't involve any real property of any sort. This is another eggegious perversion of the English language.
If I pirate an Apple CD or download an MP3, nobody loses anything. The cost of replicated the copyrighted work is 0. The only thing that is lost is the opportunity cost of the missed potential sale. I could have paid for an Apple CD, or bought that music track on iTunes. I violated the owner's copyright. I did not cause that entity to lose anything, only violated the right to replicate that work conferred upon them by the government.
I consider copyright infringement to be a huge problem for people who develop expensive content currently, such a video game manufacturers, software developers, and movie producers, because producing said content for current consumption is expensive and deserves to be compensated. However, it seems rather silly to me that I can download an MP3 from somebody who's been dead for 50 years, the costs of producing the work having been long paid off, and some immortal corporation can accuse me of "theft". (Note: I'm not accusing Apple per se of doing this, just presenting my argument in a general way.)
You obviously misinterpreted what I said. I'm talking about people who legally acquired a copy of OS X for Intel.
You also chose to ignore my main point, that Apple's use of the term "stealing" is a perversion of the English language.
I didn't misinterpret anything. A company that wants you to follow rules should be allowed to enforce them the way they want (within limits of the law)...just like sport associations can enforce rules, etc.
If you buy OS X legally but install it on a PC, you're breaking the rules and you're going to the penalty box...it's as simple as that. If you don't like it, stop playing the game, do not pass go, and do not get reimbursed 200 dollars.
Who cares if the term 'stealing' is a perversion of the English language. I speak French.
This was one of the Catch-22s of the transition. Before, it was impractical to just get a non-Apple computer to run OS X, because hacker punks couldn't just throw together a PPC system.
One thing to consider is that part of the cost of the computer is the operating system. The $129 price of Mac OS is basically an upgrade price because you can't get a Mac without OS X, and it wouldn't run on anything else. I would bet that the cost would be higher for non-Apple systems if it were ever sold separately to install on a bare system.
I have a few systems that I wouldn't mind installing OS X onto, and would pay the full legal licence fee.
Quote:
Originally posted by zunx
X on any PC out there would be great to expand Mac OS X market share from 3% to 50%.[/B]
This was one of the Catch-22s of the transition. Before, it was impractical to just get a non-Apple computer to run OS X, because hacker punks couldn't just throw together a PPC system.
EXCUSE ME!!!!
Because I want to build my own system to meet my needs, no less and no more, and because I want control of every element of it, I am a "hacker punk"??
The fact is, I am an IT Professional who prefers to get what I need for the best price, and I have found OSX to be the best platform for my day-to-day home computing needs like email, basic document creation, music and media managment and so on, but I also use commodedy hardware for Windows and Linux, which I also use. This hardware is o a large extent identical to the components of the intel Macs, and I want to be able to use my _much_ more powerfull PC equipment to use the power and streight forwardness of OSX.
If it meant that I could run OSX on my non-apple boxes with Apples blessing, then it would be just fine with me.
Would paying $599 for a copy of OS X be fine too? Who knows how much Apple would have to charge to make up for the lost hardware sales if they licensed the OS?
When Amelio listened to his "advisors" and licensed Mac OS 8 to Motorola, Power Computing, DayStar, etc., Steve Jobs said later (when he killed this nonsense) that each clone sold was costing Apple $200.
So Steve knows that you can build an AMD-64 box for $1500. He also knows that you want to run OS X. He also knows that if you can run OS X for $129 on the AMD, you won't buy a Mac. That is why he won't let you do it. They have Ph. Ds at Apple and you can be sure that they have compared the bottom lines in licensing and no-licensing.
No, that won't work, the American government is having a hard time trying to realise where their borders end when it comes to the internet.
There's a vast difference between what the US government realize and reality. WMD's, anyone?
Quote:
I think they're working on the fact if it can be reached by someone in the US then it has to abide by the US law.
Eh? So if it can reach someone in, say, Uganda, it has to abide by Uganda law? Come on... Seriously. Overseas, we're all laughing...
Quote:
Have you seen how the adult content website bill affects sites not hosted in the US? They have to do the exact same thing as American websites.
I'm guessing cause they're doing business in the US. As far as I know OSX86 is a non-commercial site.
Sure, Apple could do a good bit of lobbying to make whichever country's hosting the (according to US law) illegal content contact the ISP in question and make them nullify the contract and remove the offending content. But still, that's a stretch... And by then, you've already switched ISP...
I love the idea of installing OS X on generic peecees. For one thing, there are a lot of nerds who love PCs for playing video games, but occasionally will get bored with that and dual boot Linux to play around. A Mac for them is simply ridiculous; it would be like buying an expensive DVD player when most of your TV use is playing PS2. Others, who don't care so much about their video games, hate Windows and build very cheap boxes for Linux, and many (at least those who are not Free Software idealists) would gladly try out OS X.
Personally, the idea of building a Mac out of used and salvaged parts is very appealing. Furthermore, I'd love an expandable, upgradable Mac for far less than the restrictive mini.
I wouldn't expect Apple to try to support any random configuration, but it would be nice if they turned a blind eye to hobbyists, who are willing (and even eager) to deal with the challenges of this sort of undertaking.
Would paying $599 for a copy of OS X be fine too? Who knows how much Apple would have to charge to make up for the lost hardware sales if they licensed the OS?
Did you sleep through Business 101?
Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.
I would love to test this in a court of law, as I do not see how one can be legally held to the terms of a EULA that you are unable to read untill after purchase, and opening the packege and installing the item...
If this was completely true you might have a point. But the plastic wrap on the CPU says don't open until you read the EULA, which is provided as a paper copy with the users manual package.
Since you can read the EULA before you ever plug the computer in and have the right to return the computer for a refund (as long as you don't rip open the plastic wrap on the CPU) you point is, well, incorrect.
I didn't misinterpret anything. A company that wants you to follow rules should be allowed to enforce them the way they want (within limits of the law)...just like sport associations can enforce rules, etc.
Except we're not talking about a physical contract written in plain English (or whichever language you happen to be dealing with) that's presented to you before you acquire the product. A EULA (End User License Agreement) is presented to you only after you acquire the product (in this case, a Mac). Therefore, if I disagree with the license terms, my only recourse is to decline the license and forfeit the money I spent on purchasing the product. I have absolutely zero leverage as a consumer to negotiate the terms of this agreement. This is not fair trade.
As for the law, if the EULA happens to break the law, what is my recourse? I don't make $200,000 a year, and lawyers are expensive. Chances are, the corporation that sold me the software with the illegal EULA has better and more expensive lawyers than I do. What's more, as a full time employee at my own company, showing up in court requires forfeiting my salary. The corporations' lawyers, however, are full-time litigators.
Let me be clear. I'm not attacking Apple. I'm just attacking your arguments
Quote:
If you buy OS X legally but install it on a PC, you're breaking the rules and you're going to the penalty box...it's as simple as that. If you don't like it, stop playing the game, do not pass go, and do not get reimbursed 200 dollars.
If I were to hypothetically attempt to install OS X on a commodity PC, I sure as hell wouldn't expect to be compensated by Apple.
Given the tenuous nature of EULA's, I wouldn't say the "going to the penalty box" analogy is fair.
Quote:
Who cares if the term 'stealing' is a perversion of the English language. I speak French.
Oui, mais t'es en train d'écrire en anglais
Apple is trying to defend their business model (which depends on hardware sales), pure and simple. I don't blame them for doing so. What aggrevates me to no end is the righteousness with which we're doing so. If they said "we're doing this simply to make money", I'd have much more respect for them.
For the record, I just spent an outrageous amount of money on a 20 inch Intel iMac and I'm happy as hell (aside from the occasional flakiness with Front Row and having to wait another week for an extra gig of RAM). I have no intention of running OS X on commodity hardware. Should Apple do something extreme and totally unexpected (like implementing the kind of DRM Vista will have), then I would install Linux or FreeBSD (not Darwin) on my iMac, but I doubt that it will come to that.
Because I want to build my own system to meet my needs, no less and no more, and because I want control of every element of it, I am a "hacker punk"??
For one, I really don't consider screwing together a few parts "building", it never really was. I can do it, it's not that hard from a hardware perspective, I chose not to. I used to upgrade/reassemble my computer annually, but I don't really get a charge out of it any more.
Another, if you aren't hacking OSx86, then you probably aren't in that group I was referring to.
Personally, the idea of building a Mac out of used and salvaged parts is very appealing. Furthermore, I'd love an expandable, upgradable Mac for far less than the restrictive mini.
Another point that's been heavily discussed is the issue of branding. Sure, OS X on a PC would open up for a lot of exposure for people who would never else be introduced to OS X. But say it performs badly because it's a custom build, people would instead get a negative experience. And yes, that would be a Bad Thing for Apple...
But that's besides my real point, which is... What makes a Mac a Mac? It used to be that it's produced by Apple computer. Then, that it was a PPC computer, licensed by Apple (attack of the Clones). And now, suddenly, it's not so clear anymore. It's still produced by Apple, but uses the same hardware architecture as a PC. So what exactly makes it a Mac? Well, beautiful design, and the Apple brand. Say that suddenly Mac OS X gains another 20% of the user base, but on the PC. Would people then start referring to these computers as "Macs"?
"Hey, that's a nice computer, it's a Mac, right?"
"No, it's a PC, it just runs Mac OS X."
"Oh, so what's the difference between a Mac and a PC, then?"
"Well, practically, none!"
The Macintosh brand would be in for a total loss of identity. And branding is what Apple's all about, that's what makes their sales. If a "Mac" suddenly wasn't produced by Apple, then why should people buy Apple Macs?
Copyright violation is not theft. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a temporary right to copying the material that is the subject of the copyright for a limited period of time.
Sadly, "intellectual property" might as well be as permanent as property, as copyrights seem to be extended by 20 years every 18 years. There seems to be no reasonable interpretation of "limited period of time", any number less than infinity was acceptable to SCOTUS.
Comments
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Dear Apple,
Please explain to my how using your OS, which I paid for in a manner different from which you intended is "stealing" .
Last I checked, this was the definition of "theft" in the dictionary:
* To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
I'd like to know how using your product, which I paid for and now own, according to the doctrine of first sale, in a manner that you don't approve of make that product not really mine.
Oh, you licensed it to me, ok, fine. If my physical copy of the CD gets broken, that means you'll replace it free of charge, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to structure this arrangement in a way in which you get all the advantages of a physical sale (if I break mine I need to buy a new one), and a licensing deal (the license constricts me from doing what I want with the physical copy).
(To be fair, Apple doesn't include copy protection in their installer DVDs.)
So, Apple, please don't pervert the English language and call it "stealing". It's nothing more than "license violation".
kthxbye
Dear Java,
There are several things regarding your recent letter to us that should not be overlooked as they require correction. I think the most important issue was that not only were the individuals in the article linked attempting to "install" software in a manner which violated the terms of the licensing agreement with us into which they voluntarily entered - they were also altering significant portions of code in order to do so.
Secondly, I'm not sure which dictionary you used, however we use the California penal code, which says:
Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft
Additionally, your arguement regarding the license vs physical sale makes no sense. We license you a particular piece of our intellectual property for a very specific use. Certainly, if the physical media on which that property was conveyed to you becomes damaged, we will replace it within the terms of the licensing agreement for a cost equal to that of replacing the physical media. This however does not confer any new, or additional rights or licenses.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, you know the system disks you receive with a PC? Your not allowed to install those on any other machines either, so you can forget trying to blame Apple. They are merely preventing people from bastardizing their OS.
I have had it out with others on that point too, when I see "includes windows XP _____ edition " I am purchasing as part of the price a license for that version of Windows thus so long as I remove Windows from that unit, I have one license to use on a differant unit - EG If I were to build my own rig to replace the PC I use now alongside my Mac, I already own WinXP home from the current unit, I can just re use it as long as I blow it off the first one-- I have a key on the side of the tower for Christ sake!
I would love to test this in a court of law, as I do not see how one can be legally held to the terms of a EULA that you are unable to read untill after purchase, and opening the packege and installing the item...
It would be like buying a new car and after putting 100 miles on it being told that you can only drive it on one of the three interstate highways that have on rramps in your city.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Sometimes, my friend, there are rules and laws.
Sometimes... blah blah blah...
You obviously misinterpreted what I said. I'm talking about people who legally acquired a copy of OS X for Intel.
You also chose to ignore my main point, that Apple's use of the term "stealing" is a perversion of the English language.
Personal attack deleted - JL.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Dear Java,
There are several things regarding your recent letter to us that should not be overlooked as they require correction. I think the most important issue was that not only were the individuals in the article linked attempting to "install" software in a manner which violated the terms of the licensing agreement with us into which they voluntarily entered - they were also altering significant portions of code in order to do so.
Secondly, I'm not sure which dictionary you used, however we use the California penal code, which says:
Additionally, your arguement regarding the license vs physical sale makes no sense. We license you a particular piece of our intellectual property for a very specific use. Certainly, if the physical media on which that property was conveyed to you becomes damaged, we will replace it within the terms of the licensing agreement for a cost equal to that of replacing the physical media. This however does not confer any new, or additional rights or licenses.
Copyright violation is not theft. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a temporary right to copying the material that is the subject of the copyright for a limited period of time. It is a pact made with the people that in order to encourage the creation of such works (that will ultimately belong to the public), a temporary incentive will be provided. Upon expiration of the copyright, the material becomes part of the public domain, at which point it is 100% legal for anybody to copy it to their heart's content.
In the same vein, the term "intellectual property" is disingenuous, because it doesn't involve any real property of any sort. This is another eggegious perversion of the English language.
If I pirate an Apple CD or download an MP3, nobody loses anything. The cost of replicated the copyrighted work is 0. The only thing that is lost is the opportunity cost of the missed potential sale. I could have paid for an Apple CD, or bought that music track on iTunes. I violated the owner's copyright. I did not cause that entity to lose anything, only violated the right to replicate that work conferred upon them by the government.
I consider copyright infringement to be a huge problem for people who develop expensive content currently, such a video game manufacturers, software developers, and movie producers, because producing said content for current consumption is expensive and deserves to be compensated. However, it seems rather silly to me that I can download an MP3 from somebody who's been dead for 50 years, the costs of producing the work having been long paid off, and some immortal corporation can accuse me of "theft". (Note: I'm not accusing Apple per se of doing this, just presenting my argument in a general way.)
Besides, I don't live in California.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You obviously misinterpreted what I said. I'm talking about people who legally acquired a copy of OS X for Intel.
You also chose to ignore my main point, that Apple's use of the term "stealing" is a perversion of the English language.
I didn't misinterpret anything. A company that wants you to follow rules should be allowed to enforce them the way they want (within limits of the law)...just like sport associations can enforce rules, etc.
If you buy OS X legally but install it on a PC, you're breaking the rules and you're going to the penalty box...it's as simple as that. If you don't like it, stop playing the game, do not pass go, and do not get reimbursed 200 dollars.
Who cares if the term 'stealing' is a perversion of the English language. I speak French.
One thing to consider is that part of the cost of the computer is the operating system. The $129 price of Mac OS is basically an upgrade price because you can't get a Mac without OS X, and it wouldn't run on anything else. I would bet that the cost would be higher for non-Apple systems if it were ever sold separately to install on a bare system.
I have a few systems that I wouldn't mind installing OS X onto, and would pay the full legal licence fee.
Originally posted by zunx
X on any PC out there would be great to expand Mac OS X market share from 3% to 50%.[/B]
BTW: OS X market share is about 5% now.
Originally posted by JeffDM
This was one of the Catch-22s of the transition. Before, it was impractical to just get a non-Apple computer to run OS X, because hacker punks couldn't just throw together a PPC system.
EXCUSE ME!!!!
Because I want to build my own system to meet my needs, no less and no more, and because I want control of every element of it, I am a "hacker punk"??
The fact is, I am an IT Professional who prefers to get what I need for the best price, and I have found OSX to be the best platform for my day-to-day home computing needs like email, basic document creation, music and media managment and so on, but I also use commodedy hardware for Windows and Linux, which I also use. This hardware is o a large extent identical to the components of the intel Macs, and I want to be able to use my _much_ more powerfull PC equipment to use the power and streight forwardness of OSX.
Originally posted by a_greer
If it meant that I could run OSX on my non-apple boxes with Apples blessing, then it would be just fine with me.
Would paying $599 for a copy of OS X be fine too? Who knows how much Apple would have to charge to make up for the lost hardware sales if they licensed the OS?
When Amelio listened to his "advisors" and licensed Mac OS 8 to Motorola, Power Computing, DayStar, etc., Steve Jobs said later (when he killed this nonsense) that each clone sold was costing Apple $200.
So Steve knows that you can build an AMD-64 box for $1500. He also knows that you want to run OS X. He also knows that if you can run OS X for $129 on the AMD, you won't buy a Mac. That is why he won't let you do it. They have Ph. Ds at Apple and you can be sure that they have compared the bottom lines in licensing and no-licensing.
Originally posted by wgauvin
No, that won't work, the American government is having a hard time trying to realise where their borders end when it comes to the internet.
There's a vast difference between what the US government realize and reality. WMD's, anyone?
I think they're working on the fact if it can be reached by someone in the US then it has to abide by the US law.
Eh? So if it can reach someone in, say, Uganda, it has to abide by Uganda law? Come on... Seriously. Overseas, we're all laughing...
Have you seen how the adult content website bill affects sites not hosted in the US? They have to do the exact same thing as American websites.
I'm guessing cause they're doing business in the US. As far as I know OSX86 is a non-commercial site.
Sure, Apple could do a good bit of lobbying to make whichever country's hosting the (according to US law) illegal content contact the ISP in question and make them nullify the contract and remove the offending content. But still, that's a stretch... And by then, you've already switched ISP...
Personally, the idea of building a Mac out of used and salvaged parts is very appealing. Furthermore, I'd love an expandable, upgradable Mac for far less than the restrictive mini.
I wouldn't expect Apple to try to support any random configuration, but it would be nice if they turned a blind eye to hobbyists, who are willing (and even eager) to deal with the challenges of this sort of undertaking.
Originally posted by lundy
Would paying $599 for a copy of OS X be fine too? Who knows how much Apple would have to charge to make up for the lost hardware sales if they licensed the OS?
Did you sleep through Business 101?
Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.
I want to be able to use my _much_ more powerfull PC equipment to use the power and streight forwardness of OSX.
Yes, yes, we understand that's what YOU want, because it's cheaper for YOU.
It isn't what APPLE wants, because it loses money for Apple.
And since Apple owns the product, Apple gets to decide.
Originally posted by aplnub
It would be ncie if everyone on the project would converge and concentrate on getting Wine working.
¡Hear, hear!
Originally posted by a_greer
Did you sleep through Business 101?
Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.
You forgot the 101 lost hardware sales.
I'm a doctor; I didn't take Business classes.
Originally posted by a_greer
I would love to test this in a court of law, as I do not see how one can be legally held to the terms of a EULA that you are unable to read untill after purchase, and opening the packege and installing the item...
If this was completely true you might have a point. But the plastic wrap on the CPU says don't open until you read the EULA, which is provided as a paper copy with the users manual package.
Since you can read the EULA before you ever plug the computer in and have the right to return the computer for a refund (as long as you don't rip open the plastic wrap on the CPU) you point is, well, incorrect.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I didn't misinterpret anything. A company that wants you to follow rules should be allowed to enforce them the way they want (within limits of the law)...just like sport associations can enforce rules, etc.
Except we're not talking about a physical contract written in plain English (or whichever language you happen to be dealing with) that's presented to you before you acquire the product. A EULA (End User License Agreement) is presented to you only after you acquire the product (in this case, a Mac). Therefore, if I disagree with the license terms, my only recourse is to decline the license and forfeit the money I spent on purchasing the product. I have absolutely zero leverage as a consumer to negotiate the terms of this agreement. This is not fair trade.
As for the law, if the EULA happens to break the law, what is my recourse? I don't make $200,000 a year, and lawyers are expensive. Chances are, the corporation that sold me the software with the illegal EULA has better and more expensive lawyers than I do. What's more, as a full time employee at my own company, showing up in court requires forfeiting my salary. The corporations' lawyers, however, are full-time litigators.
Let me be clear. I'm not attacking Apple. I'm just attacking your arguments
If you buy OS X legally but install it on a PC, you're breaking the rules and you're going to the penalty box...it's as simple as that. If you don't like it, stop playing the game, do not pass go, and do not get reimbursed 200 dollars.
If I were to hypothetically attempt to install OS X on a commodity PC, I sure as hell wouldn't expect to be compensated by Apple.
Given the tenuous nature of EULA's, I wouldn't say the "going to the penalty box" analogy is fair.
Who cares if the term 'stealing' is a perversion of the English language. I speak French.
Oui, mais t'es en train d'écrire en anglais
Apple is trying to defend their business model (which depends on hardware sales), pure and simple. I don't blame them for doing so. What aggrevates me to no end is the righteousness with which we're doing so. If they said "we're doing this simply to make money", I'd have much more respect for them.
For the record, I just spent an outrageous amount of money on a 20 inch Intel iMac and I'm happy as hell (aside from the occasional flakiness with Front Row and having to wait another week for an extra gig of RAM). I have no intention of running OS X on commodity hardware. Should Apple do something extreme and totally unexpected (like implementing the kind of DRM Vista will have), then I would install Linux or FreeBSD (not Darwin) on my iMac, but I doubt that it will come to that.
Originally posted by a_greer
EXCUSE ME!!!!
Because I want to build my own system to meet my needs, no less and no more, and because I want control of every element of it, I am a "hacker punk"??
For one, I really don't consider screwing together a few parts "building", it never really was. I can do it, it's not that hard from a hardware perspective, I chose not to. I used to upgrade/reassemble my computer annually, but I don't really get a charge out of it any more.
Another, if you aren't hacking OSx86, then you probably aren't in that group I was referring to.
Originally posted by rasnet
Personally, the idea of building a Mac out of used and salvaged parts is very appealing. Furthermore, I'd love an expandable, upgradable Mac for far less than the restrictive mini.
Another point that's been heavily discussed is the issue of branding. Sure, OS X on a PC would open up for a lot of exposure for people who would never else be introduced to OS X. But say it performs badly because it's a custom build, people would instead get a negative experience. And yes, that would be a Bad Thing for Apple...
But that's besides my real point, which is... What makes a Mac a Mac? It used to be that it's produced by Apple computer. Then, that it was a PPC computer, licensed by Apple (attack of the Clones). And now, suddenly, it's not so clear anymore. It's still produced by Apple, but uses the same hardware architecture as a PC. So what exactly makes it a Mac? Well, beautiful design, and the Apple brand. Say that suddenly Mac OS X gains another 20% of the user base, but on the PC. Would people then start referring to these computers as "Macs"?
"Hey, that's a nice computer, it's a Mac, right?"
"No, it's a PC, it just runs Mac OS X."
"Oh, so what's the difference between a Mac and a PC, then?"
"Well, practically, none!"
The Macintosh brand would be in for a total loss of identity. And branding is what Apple's all about, that's what makes their sales. If a "Mac" suddenly wasn't produced by Apple, then why should people buy Apple Macs?
But I digress...
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Copyright violation is not theft. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a temporary right to copying the material that is the subject of the copyright for a limited period of time.
Sadly, "intellectual property" might as well be as permanent as property, as copyrights seem to be extended by 20 years every 18 years. There seems to be no reasonable interpretation of "limited period of time", any number less than infinity was acceptable to SCOTUS.