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 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.
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.
It doesn't mean I agree with it. But it doesn't mean I disagree with it either. I just don't want to see Apple lose many sales over it. And because I doubt they would lose many sales, I think they're exaggerating...especially if some of these people contributed to the platform.
If they don't want to buy Apple hardware...it's fine with me as long as the contribute to the platform as a way of thanking Apple. Just buying the OS doesn't cut it. Apple isn't making any money off the OS (or barely any).
In very many instances, companies make tons of money off software...it just happens this isn't the case with Apple...Apple makes their money off large hardware margins.
why don't they release a demo os Mac OSX for PCs? It could be restricted so that you cant install other software, it could come with iLife to play around with and it'd expire after 30 days. This would be less trouble than trying a dodgy hacked version and it would stop people who are curious about the mac experience being lured into stealing OSX.
Yo tambien creo que estan en su derecho, pero me gusta la idea. Hasta que me comprarÃ*a un PC para tener los dos en el mismo sistema. Y un MacIntel, claramente.
Det är ju klart att de kan torska stålar på det, och som jag sa tidigare, identitet. Men i långa loppet kan det ju vara värt det, om det för över folk till Mac-plattformen.
Now can we stop being language snobs and start talking so that everyone understands? ¿Si's plau? M'agradaria molt...
Quote:
In very many instances, companies make tons of money off software...it just happens this isn't the case with Apple...Apple makes their money off large hardware margins.
Yes and no. OS X is a large part of the Mac experience, and the fact that it's Not Windows is what I think attract a lot of switchers...
why don't they release a demo os Mac OSX for PCs? It could be restricted so that you cant install other software, it could come with iLife to play around with and it'd expire after 30 days. This would be less trouble than trying a dodgy hacked version and it would stop people who are curious about the mac experience being lured into stealing OSX.
Sounds good to me
Why would Apple spend a lot of time and money in R&D to support all the weird configurations of PC they'd need to support for a demo when they only ever intend to run it on their own hardware?
If someone is really interested then half an hour in an Apple store would probably be enough.
Apart from that, a demo that ran on normal PC hardware would be the prime target for being hacked. At least with the current OS they've got to get around EFI and SSE3 support.
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.
You can look at the EULA on Apple's web site here without making any purchase:
of note is the following, if you disagree, you can return the software for a refund. I know most people in stores will give you a hard time, but if you contacted Apple directly, they would have to honor your right to decline the EULA and would refund your money:
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND. IF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE". FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
There's an amazing lack of understanding about copyright, and licensing.
Copyright gives the OWNER of the copyright the right to decide, unilaterally, how their product gets distributed. They, and only they, decide on the price, and the methods.
When you "buy" an item that's under copyright, you don't buy the work itself. You pay for the right to read, see, listen to, or use that work, ONLY as the owner of the copyright allows you to.
That's called licensing. You, as the licensee, have ONLY the rights granted to you by the licensor (the owner of the copyright.). If you don't agree with those rights, you either must give the product back (for a refund), or use it as the license states.
When it comes to software, there is something called a "shrinkwrap" license. That means that as soon as you open the shrinkwrap, you are subject to the license. The software companies are not required, under this license, to return your money if you don't agree (but they usually will).
Copyright is usually enforceable under the civil law, such as if you make no more than several copies and give them out. If you make many copies, considered to be a distribution, you can be subject to criminal laws as well. Even if you don't charge for the copies. If you make copies intended for paid distribution, then you will be charged under the felony laws, if the value of the product meets that standard. You are not allowed, for audio, or video copyright, to charge for the right to listen to or to view the copyrighted item(s) unless granted that right, i.e., a bar showing football games, and having a cover charge.
Apple, as do many other software companies, has a statement about accepting the license before using the product. Under that, is Apple's web address. You can go there and read the license first.
Some of the license conditions may not be enforceable in certain states in the US, and parts, or the entire license may not be enforceable in other countries.
But, the international agreements on copyright allow, and mandate, certain areas of reciprocity even if the laws in those countries themselves have no corresponding coverage.
If you can't understand why Apple is doing this, then you are retarded. Do you really want Mac OS X Install Disc and Upgrades to have all the anti-piracy serial numbers and online verification that Windows has???
I'm surprised Apple doesn't do that, though I like the privacy and simplicity.
However, Apple is already showing that their OS is capable of detecting Apple vs Other hardware. If Apple wanted they could "presume innocence" on Apple hardware, but require entry of codes on Other hardware (just as one example).
One thing is for sure - if Apple plans on selling OSX for another platform they should make the current OSX price clearly an "UPGRADE" price, and charge more for a full version (which doesn't check for an old version before installation).
Some of the license conditions may not be enforceable in certain states in the US, and parts, or the entire license may not be enforceable in other countries.
But, the international agreements on copyright allow, and mandate, certain areas of reciprocity even if the laws in those countries themselves have no corresponding coverage.
I hope that's clear.
Clear as mud. The fact of the matter (as someone else noted above) is that most EULAs are untested in a court of law. It would be prohibitively expensive for a consumer to do so. At one point not so long ago it would've been obvious that many of these EULAs contradicted what would've been considered legal for consumers under "Fair Use" in the US (e.g. I bought the software legally on an Intel Mac so fair use would allow you to use it on your generic PC instead). Unfortunately the US federal government is working hard to take those consumer protections away these days, and I doubt we'll ever get them back.
In that context though, this really has "little" to do with copyright. Apple filed a DMCA notice related to the site. What that means is that the site was probably publishing ways to circumvent digital copyright protections, and that is what DMCA covers. Legally, that's very different than a copyright violation (which would have to do with distributing copyrighted material).
Clear as mud. The fact of the matter (as someone else noted above) is that most EULAs are untested in a court of law. It would be prohibitively expensive for a consumer to do so. At one point not so long ago it would've been obvious that many of these EULAs contradicted what would've been considered legal for consumers under "Fair Use" in the US (e.g. I bought the software legally on an Intel Mac so fair use would allow you to use it on your generic PC instead). Unfortunately the US federal government is working hard to take those consumer protections away these days, and I doubt we'll ever get them back.
In that context though, this really has "little" to do with copyright. Apple filed a DMCA notice related to the site. What that means is that the site was probably publishing ways to circumvent digital copyright protections, and that is what DMCA covers. Legally, that's very different than a copyright violation (which would have to do with distributing copyrighted material).
Actually, you are wrong. Many EULA's HAVE been tested in the courts, and very few have been knocked down. Usually, it's the companies (or individuals) who own the copyrights and are the licensors who have gone to the courts, not the licensee's.
I think the explanation is clear. you just don't agree. But it doesn't matter. The law is the law. You may disagree all you want, and it doesn't affect it.
You don't understand what "fair use" means. It doesn't mean that you can break copyright. You might like to think it does, but it doesn't.
Fair use is well understood to mean that you can't modify, or otherwise use the work outside of the license granted to you, except for the purpose of making a backup (for software, and other digital works,) or quoring short passages for the purpose of reviews or to be included in other written works, as long as the passages are properly attributed. for anything else, permission must be asked for, and granted.
The thing that must be understood as well, is that if something has NOT been tested in the courts, but otherwise follows the law in the licensing, the licensing must be followed, unless and until it is decided otherwise in the courts.Individuals do NOT have the right to decide this on their own. I know that we like to think we do, but we don't.
As I've said, many states have made laws about shrinkwrap licenses. Those laws stand.
You, as the licensee, have ONLY the rights granted to you by the licensor (the owner of the copyright.). If you don't agree with those rights, you either must give the product back (for a refund), or use it as the license states.
Simply not true. Though I'm sure you have made up your mind on this one, a United States Congress law says otherwise. It says that you can create a copy of X material for personal use, and that action is labeled as "Fair Use", wether the copyright owner agrees or not.
You can decide for yourself wether it's the EULA(s) that are the supreme law in this case, or laws adopted by The United Statea Congress. I, for one, think Congress is the ultimate law-making body, and not some company restricting rights that the United States Government has granted to me as a user.
Simply not true. Though I'm sure you have made up your mind on this one, a United States Congress law says otherwise. It says that you can create a copy of X material for personal use, and that action is labeled as "Fair Use", wether the copyright owner agrees or not.
You can decide for yourself wether it's the EULA(s) that are the supreme law in this case, or laws adopted by The United Statea Congress. I, for one, think Congress is the ultimate law-making body, and not some company restricting rights that the United States Government has granted to me as a user.
I've already said that in my reply to pmjoe. That's the only relief granted. It has nothing to do with what I want. I don't particularly care one way or the other. The EULA's follow the copyright laws. That doesn't mean that an occasional EULA wasn't incompetently written.
You should actually read the copyright laws instead of referring to them in some general way. you will see that they follow closely what I've said.
I've dealt with copyright and licensing in my business for decades, I'm pretty familiar with it.
My wife is an attorney for Citicorp. She deals with this almost on a daily basis.
I'm not making this up, as some others do when they post what they WANT to be true, rather than looking it up and seeing what is true.
That's good and all, but no need to mention your wife's job here so you can build credentials. You are arguing something that is clearly wrong, at least in terms of what DMCA says. If there's a case where DMCA was used successfuly to limit/ban copies of software/cd/books legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use then I'd like to know it.
That's good and all, but no need to mention your wife's job here so you can build credentials. You are arguing something that is clearly wrong, at least in terms of what DMCA says. If there's a case where DMCA was used successfuly to limit/ban copies of software/cd/books legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use then I'd like to know it.
I'm not building credentials. It happens to be true.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, post us the relevent law that shows that.
I don't understand what you even mean by saying:
"limit/ban copies of software/cd/books [i]legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use"
You can make that backup of your OWN copy. But the DCMA clearly prevents you from breaking any protection to do so.
Apple's products, so far, have no protection, so it clearly is legal.
The problems that the OSx86 project site (which I've been checking out ever since they went online) has, is that they are hosting, and encouraging, even though they deny it, postings of links to illegal modifications to Apple's software.
Apple hardware is beautifull, but I can build a very capable PC for less than half of an equal power mac.
And as for looks: Anteck makes some nice looking cases too...
Heh...yeah.....
One other reason is I could have a Mac laptop with two buttons (yeah, I know, external mouse, but doesn't always work if you don't have a surface to use it).
I'm surprised no one has touched on this because this is the biggest piece of the puzzle.
Poster this and poster that are saying "Why can't I use the Mac OSX I paid for on any PC if I paid for it?
Well this is probably the ultimate cloud over that.
You cannot use the Mac OSX you paid for on any PC because you have to hack it to work, and hacking it MOST DEFINETLY IS ILLEGAL.
That pretty much makes it an open and shut case.
If you could just pop the disk in an have it "just work" it'd be a different story, but you can't, so the rest is irrelevant. Buying a license of the software does not allow you the legal right to hack it.
I´m sick to death of these dumbass "American Laws" and "Intellectual Property" bull**** - move the server somewehere else, and that´s it.
And I´m tired of seeing all these "obedient" Americans who even SUPPORT these kind of ideas - quotes like "..then buy a mac. It´s that easy..." just shows that you do not have a spine worth mentioning, and that you obviously are happy to have huge companies dictate your life.
I, for once, would be VERY happy to host this site, and I´d laugh at any "lawyer" trying to shut down my freedom of speech.
I have copies of this website, and I advise anyone searching for this info to use the Internet Wayback Machine.
I´m sick to death of these dumbass "American Laws" and "Intellectual Property" bull**** - move the server somewehere else, and that´s it.
And I´m tired of seeing all these "obedient" Americans who even SUPPORT these kind of ideas - quotes like "..then buy a mac. It´s that easy..." just shows that you do not have a spine worth mentioning, and that you obviously are happy to have huge companies dictate your life.
I, for once, would be VERY happy to host this site, and I´d laugh at any "lawyer" trying to shut down my freedom of speech.
I have copies of this website, and I advise anyone searching for this info to use the Internet Wayback Machine.
OK, I'll call your bluff.
Please go ahead and host the site in any country you choose. It would be interesting to see how long it would last. You may laugh at the lawyers but I'm fairly sure most of your upstream providers wouldn't.
Even if you had the strength of purpose or desire to even follow through on your bold claim, I am inclined to think you would display just as much spine as those you accuse of having none when faced with the realities and legal aspects of the situation.
When will people realise that the reason Apple doesn't want you to use their software on non-Apple hardware is that it is the hardware sales that subsidise their software development?
Sure, people say: 'Oh, just raise the price of the software', but then you end up with software that is hugely expensive which only the professionals buy. The rest pirate it. If you don't think that is the case just look at Adobe Creative Suite - how many non-professionals buy that? Not many, but far far more have a pirated copy.
Apple do not have sufficient penetration in the enterprise marketplace to be able to subsidise the level of piracy by consumers on their home systems. This is where most of the Mac revenue comes from. Ultimately, this would kill the Mac platform and most likely OS X too.
In order to combat the piracy Apple would have to employ significant countermeasures that would detract from the user experience and require resources to implement and manage. Also Apple would need to expend resources on supporting many different hardware combinations to get anywhere close to the level of stability OS X has at present on Apple hardware.
Personally, I believe that opening up OS X to run on any PC hardware would be a disaster. It's only a small, vocal minority that want to build their own PCs and run OS X on them. Most other potential purchasers couldn't care less if it was Intel, AMD or a lump of cheese inside the case so long as the machine is stable, fast and works.
Apple already caters to the majority in this regard and do not see it worth changing their entire business model and expend lots of extra resources to cater for a minority that would add very little (if anything) to their bottom line. I am inclined to think that a large proportion of the people in this minority would pirate the software anyway.
In short, it is simply not in Apple's interest to allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. It's their ball. If you can't play by their rules then you don't get to play with it at all.
You cannot use the Mac OSX you paid for on any PC because you have to hack it to work, and hacking it MOST DEFINETLY IS ILLEGAL.
BULLSHIT!
EXAMPLE: We replaced a door in our home last year, the new door was a couple of milimeters too wide for the doorway, so we sanded it down to work the way WE DESIRED IT TO WORK! Thats right folks, we HACKED IT!
EXAMPLE 2: When I paint, I usualy use a screw driver to pry the can open, Craftsman didnt intend the tool to be used that way, and if it breaks, it is my fault, they wouldnt be obligated to replace it because I misused it, but they dont sue me because i used it in an unintended way and passed the word on to fellow painters.
It would be ncie if everyone on the project would converge and concentrate on getting Wine working.
Abso-bloody-lutely!
With a killer Wine on Intel OS X, we will have the ultimate hardware, Apple will seriously threaten MS, and the entire industry would be energised unlike anything that's happened since MS sealed their domination with Windows 95.
As for the topic...
Apple needs to sue in instances like this because if it does not, the law will see this as accepting that OS X is public property in the long run, and certainly open bidding for Dell and co in the short term.
Apple don't really need to care about the <0.1% of generic systems out there which may end up with hacked OS X on them, but they have to at least behave as though they do. The pretty hardcore users who are going to go to the bother of getting OS X - and all the hacked drivers they will need - running on their system are quite likely to buy Macs as their next computers if they really like the OS that much, or are just hobbyists who enjoy a challenge and probably never pay for their OS anyway.
Apple certainly does not want to get into the OS for beige boxes business. MS would try everything in and out of the book to kill them, and worse than that, OS X would suck as drivers would cease to be as controlled as they are now and all manner of cruddy systems have to be supported. The only way to make all that work and keep turning a profit is to use MS's model: do it half-assed.
I for one look forward to new Macs for decades to come. I won't be screaming at anyone I find running OS X on unlicenced hardware, but I do understand Apple's need to do what they are doing.
"If Apple did not exist, it would be necessary for the computer market to make them."
Comments
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
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 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.
Oui, mais t'es en train d'�©crire 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.
Je suis d'accord jusqu'Ã* un certain point que la réaction d'Apple est exagérée et que l'utilisation du terme 'steal' n'est pas juste mais, comme tu le dis, Apple veut vendre son hardware. Et je crois que même si il n'y a pas eu de vol et même si il n'y a pas eu d'action illégale, Apple a le droit d'essayer d'empêcher quelqu'un d'installer OS X sur un PC.
It doesn't mean I agree with it. But it doesn't mean I disagree with it either. I just don't want to see Apple lose many sales over it. And because I doubt they would lose many sales, I think they're exaggerating...especially if some of these people contributed to the platform.
If they don't want to buy Apple hardware...it's fine with me as long as the contribute to the platform as a way of thanking Apple. Just buying the OS doesn't cut it. Apple isn't making any money off the OS (or barely any).
In very many instances, companies make tons of money off software...it just happens this isn't the case with Apple...Apple makes their money off large hardware margins.
Sounds good to me
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Je suis d'accord jusqu'Ã* un certain point que la réaction d'Apple est exagérée et que l'utilisation du terme 'steal' n'est pas juste mais, comme tu le dis, Apple veut vendre son hardware. Et je crois que même si il n'y a pas eu de vol et même si il n'y a pas eu d'action illégale, Apple a le droit d'essayer d'empêcher quelqu'un d'installer OS X sur un PC.
Yo tambien creo que estan en su derecho, pero me gusta la idea. Hasta que me comprarÃ*a un PC para tener los dos en el mismo sistema. Y un MacIntel, claramente.
Det är ju klart att de kan torska stålar på det, och som jag sa tidigare, identitet. Men i långa loppet kan det ju vara värt det, om det för över folk till Mac-plattformen.
Now can we stop being language snobs and start talking so that everyone understands? ¿Si's plau? M'agradaria molt...
In very many instances, companies make tons of money off software...it just happens this isn't the case with Apple...Apple makes their money off large hardware margins.
Yes and no. OS X is a large part of the Mac experience, and the fact that it's Not Windows is what I think attract a lot of switchers...
Originally posted by digiology
why don't they release a demo os Mac OSX for PCs? It could be restricted so that you cant install other software, it could come with iLife to play around with and it'd expire after 30 days. This would be less trouble than trying a dodgy hacked version and it would stop people who are curious about the mac experience being lured into stealing OSX.
Sounds good to me
Why would Apple spend a lot of time and money in R&D to support all the weird configurations of PC they'd need to support for a demo when they only ever intend to run it on their own hardware?
If someone is really interested then half an hour in an Apple store would probably be enough.
Apart from that, a demo that ran on normal PC hardware would be the prime target for being hacked. At least with the current OS they've got to get around EFI and SSE3 support.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
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.
You can look at the EULA on Apple's web site here without making any purchase:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx1044.pdf
of note is the following, if you disagree, you can return the software for a refund. I know most people in stores will give you a hard time, but if you contacted Apple directly, they would have to honor your right to decline the EULA and would refund your money:
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND. IF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE". FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
Copyright gives the OWNER of the copyright the right to decide, unilaterally, how their product gets distributed. They, and only they, decide on the price, and the methods.
When you "buy" an item that's under copyright, you don't buy the work itself. You pay for the right to read, see, listen to, or use that work, ONLY as the owner of the copyright allows you to.
That's called licensing. You, as the licensee, have ONLY the rights granted to you by the licensor (the owner of the copyright.). If you don't agree with those rights, you either must give the product back (for a refund), or use it as the license states.
When it comes to software, there is something called a "shrinkwrap" license. That means that as soon as you open the shrinkwrap, you are subject to the license. The software companies are not required, under this license, to return your money if you don't agree (but they usually will).
Copyright is usually enforceable under the civil law, such as if you make no more than several copies and give them out. If you make many copies, considered to be a distribution, you can be subject to criminal laws as well. Even if you don't charge for the copies. If you make copies intended for paid distribution, then you will be charged under the felony laws, if the value of the product meets that standard. You are not allowed, for audio, or video copyright, to charge for the right to listen to or to view the copyrighted item(s) unless granted that right, i.e., a bar showing football games, and having a cover charge.
Apple, as do many other software companies, has a statement about accepting the license before using the product. Under that, is Apple's web address. You can go there and read the license first.
Some of the license conditions may not be enforceable in certain states in the US, and parts, or the entire license may not be enforceable in other countries.
But, the international agreements on copyright allow, and mandate, certain areas of reciprocity even if the laws in those countries themselves have no corresponding coverage.
I hope that's clear.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
If you can't understand why Apple is doing this, then you are retarded. Do you really want Mac OS X Install Disc and Upgrades to have all the anti-piracy serial numbers and online verification that Windows has???
I'm surprised Apple doesn't do that, though I like the privacy and simplicity.
However, Apple is already showing that their OS is capable of detecting Apple vs Other hardware. If Apple wanted they could "presume innocence" on Apple hardware, but require entry of codes on Other hardware (just as one example).
One thing is for sure - if Apple plans on selling OSX for another platform they should make the current OSX price clearly an "UPGRADE" price, and charge more for a full version (which doesn't check for an old version before installation).
Originally posted by melgross
Some of the license conditions may not be enforceable in certain states in the US, and parts, or the entire license may not be enforceable in other countries.
But, the international agreements on copyright allow, and mandate, certain areas of reciprocity even if the laws in those countries themselves have no corresponding coverage.
I hope that's clear.
Clear as mud. The fact of the matter (as someone else noted above) is that most EULAs are untested in a court of law. It would be prohibitively expensive for a consumer to do so. At one point not so long ago it would've been obvious that many of these EULAs contradicted what would've been considered legal for consumers under "Fair Use" in the US (e.g. I bought the software legally on an Intel Mac so fair use would allow you to use it on your generic PC instead). Unfortunately the US federal government is working hard to take those consumer protections away these days, and I doubt we'll ever get them back.
In that context though, this really has "little" to do with copyright. Apple filed a DMCA notice related to the site. What that means is that the site was probably publishing ways to circumvent digital copyright protections, and that is what DMCA covers. Legally, that's very different than a copyright violation (which would have to do with distributing copyrighted material).
Originally posted by pmjoe
Clear as mud. The fact of the matter (as someone else noted above) is that most EULAs are untested in a court of law. It would be prohibitively expensive for a consumer to do so. At one point not so long ago it would've been obvious that many of these EULAs contradicted what would've been considered legal for consumers under "Fair Use" in the US (e.g. I bought the software legally on an Intel Mac so fair use would allow you to use it on your generic PC instead). Unfortunately the US federal government is working hard to take those consumer protections away these days, and I doubt we'll ever get them back.
In that context though, this really has "little" to do with copyright. Apple filed a DMCA notice related to the site. What that means is that the site was probably publishing ways to circumvent digital copyright protections, and that is what DMCA covers. Legally, that's very different than a copyright violation (which would have to do with distributing copyrighted material).
Actually, you are wrong. Many EULA's HAVE been tested in the courts, and very few have been knocked down. Usually, it's the companies (or individuals) who own the copyrights and are the licensors who have gone to the courts, not the licensee's.
I think the explanation is clear. you just don't agree. But it doesn't matter. The law is the law. You may disagree all you want, and it doesn't affect it.
You don't understand what "fair use" means. It doesn't mean that you can break copyright. You might like to think it does, but it doesn't.
Fair use is well understood to mean that you can't modify, or otherwise use the work outside of the license granted to you, except for the purpose of making a backup (for software, and other digital works,) or quoring short passages for the purpose of reviews or to be included in other written works, as long as the passages are properly attributed. for anything else, permission must be asked for, and granted.
The thing that must be understood as well, is that if something has NOT been tested in the courts, but otherwise follows the law in the licensing, the licensing must be followed, unless and until it is decided otherwise in the courts.Individuals do NOT have the right to decide this on their own. I know that we like to think we do, but we don't.
As I've said, many states have made laws about shrinkwrap licenses. Those laws stand.
You, as the licensee, have ONLY the rights granted to you by the licensor (the owner of the copyright.). If you don't agree with those rights, you either must give the product back (for a refund), or use it as the license states.
Simply not true. Though I'm sure you have made up your mind on this one, a United States Congress law says otherwise. It says that you can create a copy of X material for personal use, and that action is labeled as "Fair Use", wether the copyright owner agrees or not.
You can decide for yourself wether it's the EULA(s) that are the supreme law in this case, or laws adopted by The United Statea Congress. I, for one, think Congress is the ultimate law-making body, and not some company restricting rights that the United States Government has granted to me as a user.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Simply not true. Though I'm sure you have made up your mind on this one, a United States Congress law says otherwise. It says that you can create a copy of X material for personal use, and that action is labeled as "Fair Use", wether the copyright owner agrees or not.
You can decide for yourself wether it's the EULA(s) that are the supreme law in this case, or laws adopted by The United Statea Congress. I, for one, think Congress is the ultimate law-making body, and not some company restricting rights that the United States Government has granted to me as a user.
I've already said that in my reply to pmjoe. That's the only relief granted. It has nothing to do with what I want. I don't particularly care one way or the other. The EULA's follow the copyright laws. That doesn't mean that an occasional EULA wasn't incompetently written.
You should actually read the copyright laws instead of referring to them in some general way. you will see that they follow closely what I've said.
I've dealt with copyright and licensing in my business for decades, I'm pretty familiar with it.
My wife is an attorney for Citicorp. She deals with this almost on a daily basis.
I'm not making this up, as some others do when they post what they WANT to be true, rather than looking it up and seeing what is true.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That's good and all, but no need to mention your wife's job here so you can build credentials. You are arguing something that is clearly wrong, at least in terms of what DMCA says. If there's a case where DMCA was used successfuly to limit/ban copies of software/cd/books legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use then I'd like to know it.
I'm not building credentials. It happens to be true.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, post us the relevent law that shows that.
I don't understand what you even mean by saying:
"limit/ban copies of software/cd/books [i]legally bought for backup purposes as envisioned under Fair Use"
You can make that backup of your OWN copy. But the DCMA clearly prevents you from breaking any protection to do so.
Apple's products, so far, have no protection, so it clearly is legal.
The problems that the OSx86 project site (which I've been checking out ever since they went online) has, is that they are hosting, and encouraging, even though they deny it, postings of links to illegal modifications to Apple's software.
We're having a good discussion about this on ARs.
Originally posted by a_greer
Apple hardware is beautifull, but I can build a very capable PC for less than half of an equal power mac.
And as for looks: Anteck makes some nice looking cases too...
Heh...yeah.....
One other reason is I could have a Mac laptop with two buttons (yeah, I know, external mouse, but doesn't always work if you don't have a surface to use it).
Because people have no limits. Inevitably there would be free copies of OS X distributed freely.
Apple will lose a lot of money.
Apple will have to lock OS X down to one computer as Microsoft currently does with Windows. That's something Apple does not do right now.
Poster this and poster that are saying "Why can't I use the Mac OSX I paid for on any PC if I paid for it?
Well this is probably the ultimate cloud over that.
You cannot use the Mac OSX you paid for on any PC because you have to hack it to work, and hacking it MOST DEFINETLY IS ILLEGAL.
That pretty much makes it an open and shut case.
If you could just pop the disk in an have it "just work" it'd be a different story, but you can't, so the rest is irrelevant. Buying a license of the software does not allow you the legal right to hack it.
And I´m tired of seeing all these "obedient" Americans who even SUPPORT these kind of ideas - quotes like "..then buy a mac. It´s that easy..." just shows that you do not have a spine worth mentioning, and that you obviously are happy to have huge companies dictate your life.
I, for once, would be VERY happy to host this site, and I´d laugh at any "lawyer" trying to shut down my freedom of speech.
I have copies of this website, and I advise anyone searching for this info to use the Internet Wayback Machine.
Originally posted by Denmaru
I´m sick to death of these dumbass "American Laws" and "Intellectual Property" bull**** - move the server somewehere else, and that´s it.
And I´m tired of seeing all these "obedient" Americans who even SUPPORT these kind of ideas - quotes like "..then buy a mac. It´s that easy..." just shows that you do not have a spine worth mentioning, and that you obviously are happy to have huge companies dictate your life.
I, for once, would be VERY happy to host this site, and I´d laugh at any "lawyer" trying to shut down my freedom of speech.
I have copies of this website, and I advise anyone searching for this info to use the Internet Wayback Machine.
OK, I'll call your bluff.
Please go ahead and host the site in any country you choose. It would be interesting to see how long it would last. You may laugh at the lawyers but I'm fairly sure most of your upstream providers wouldn't.
Even if you had the strength of purpose or desire to even follow through on your bold claim, I am inclined to think you would display just as much spine as those you accuse of having none when faced with the realities and legal aspects of the situation.
When will people realise that the reason Apple doesn't want you to use their software on non-Apple hardware is that it is the hardware sales that subsidise their software development?
Sure, people say: 'Oh, just raise the price of the software', but then you end up with software that is hugely expensive which only the professionals buy. The rest pirate it. If you don't think that is the case just look at Adobe Creative Suite - how many non-professionals buy that? Not many, but far far more have a pirated copy.
Apple do not have sufficient penetration in the enterprise marketplace to be able to subsidise the level of piracy by consumers on their home systems. This is where most of the Mac revenue comes from. Ultimately, this would kill the Mac platform and most likely OS X too.
In order to combat the piracy Apple would have to employ significant countermeasures that would detract from the user experience and require resources to implement and manage. Also Apple would need to expend resources on supporting many different hardware combinations to get anywhere close to the level of stability OS X has at present on Apple hardware.
Personally, I believe that opening up OS X to run on any PC hardware would be a disaster. It's only a small, vocal minority that want to build their own PCs and run OS X on them. Most other potential purchasers couldn't care less if it was Intel, AMD or a lump of cheese inside the case so long as the machine is stable, fast and works.
Apple already caters to the majority in this regard and do not see it worth changing their entire business model and expend lots of extra resources to cater for a minority that would add very little (if anything) to their bottom line. I am inclined to think that a large proportion of the people in this minority would pirate the software anyway.
In short, it is simply not in Apple's interest to allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. It's their ball. If you can't play by their rules then you don't get to play with it at all.
Originally posted by ecking
You cannot use the Mac OSX you paid for on any PC because you have to hack it to work, and hacking it MOST DEFINETLY IS ILLEGAL.
BULLSHIT!
EXAMPLE: We replaced a door in our home last year, the new door was a couple of milimeters too wide for the doorway, so we sanded it down to work the way WE DESIRED IT TO WORK! Thats right folks, we HACKED IT!
EXAMPLE 2: When I paint, I usualy use a screw driver to pry the can open, Craftsman didnt intend the tool to be used that way, and if it breaks, it is my fault, they wouldnt be obligated to replace it because I misused it, but they dont sue me because i used it in an unintended way and passed the word on to fellow painters.
Originally posted by aplnub
It would be ncie if everyone on the project would converge and concentrate on getting Wine working.
Abso-bloody-lutely!
With a killer Wine on Intel OS X, we will have the ultimate hardware, Apple will seriously threaten MS, and the entire industry would be energised unlike anything that's happened since MS sealed their domination with Windows 95.
As for the topic...
Apple needs to sue in instances like this because if it does not, the law will see this as accepting that OS X is public property in the long run, and certainly open bidding for Dell and co in the short term.
Apple don't really need to care about the <0.1% of generic systems out there which may end up with hacked OS X on them, but they have to at least behave as though they do. The pretty hardcore users who are going to go to the bother of getting OS X - and all the hacked drivers they will need - running on their system are quite likely to buy Macs as their next computers if they really like the OS that much, or are just hobbyists who enjoy a challenge and probably never pay for their OS anyway.
Apple certainly does not want to get into the OS for beige boxes business. MS would try everything in and out of the book to kill them, and worse than that, OS X would suck as drivers would cease to be as controlled as they are now and all manner of cruddy systems have to be supported. The only way to make all that work and keep turning a profit is to use MS's model: do it half-assed.
I for one look forward to new Macs for decades to come. I won't be screaming at anyone I find running OS X on unlicenced hardware, but I do understand Apple's need to do what they are doing.
"If Apple did not exist, it would be necessary for the computer market to make them."