It's Apple's fault that people are pirating the Mac OS, since they don't offer a way of installing it on a computer any other way.
Come on... If I had to guess... I'd say most of the people installing OS X on PC i would not have paid for it and instead rationalize it by saying 'hey I just wanted to see what it was like'.
Nice try, but installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is not in any way the same as shoplifting from WalMart.
It's this type of thinking that makes he *AA's the danger that they are to consumers today.
Gene, it is the same because of something called the law. It sucks, I am guilty of breaking many laws, but in anyway suggesting that Apple is at fault for this is absurd. That is what Pacebo did; he blamed Apple for people's actions (choices).
At what point do we as people realize that rationalizing wrong's into right is a dangerous game? If you want it changed, start a lobby and get the laws changed and throw the lawyers to the Sun (Star Trek reference).
[B]Gene, it is the same because of something called the law.
No, it isn't.
Quote:
It sucks, I am guilty of breaking many laws, but in anyway suggesting that Apple is at fault for this is absurd.
He may be wrong to blame Apple for it, but that doesn't mean y ou can call them shoplifters.
Quote:
At what point do we as people realize that rationalizing wrong's into right is a dangerous game?
Start yourself: stop listening to RIAA/MPAA, and cease calling people shoplifters for installing a piece of software (that they may have even bought!) on their legally purchased home computer.
He may be wrong to blame Apple for it, but that doesn't mean y ou can call them shoplifters.
Start yourself: stop listening to RIAA/MPAA, and cease calling people shoplifters for installing a piece of software (that they may have even bought!) on their legally purchased home computer.
Gene, re-read my post. Never did I say people who installed OS X on WinBoxes were shoplifters. I simply made a comment. Why get so worked up over this? It would seem we are going to disagree on this.
The funny thing about all this is that the approach will sooner or later get apple slapped with a lawsuit, or governmental regulation. Probably not in the US but more likely the EU. It comes down to product tying. In most jurisdictions there are laws against using a dominance in one market (such as software) to enforce sales in another (such as hardware). Traditionally this approach is used to make microsoft unbundle an operating system from a media player, but could be used to force apple to sell it's os separately...
and for the pedant who will say it is separately sold, I'll point out that the eula still bundles the os to the machine.
Just a thought, but sometime in the next 18 months I figure OS x on generic hardware will be made legal, somewhere.
And just as an afterthought... is that what the software upgrade coupons are all about? So that when apple changes it's price structure to fit the generic PC model, apple hardware users get cheap upgrades?
Or am I taking this topic too seriously and should be a little less scientific and a little more religious about apple?
It's Wal-Mart's fault that people shoplift because they don't offer everything for free.
A better analogy would be "it's Walmart's fault its cherry popsicles are getting stolen by blue, green, and black-eyed people because they only sell cherry popsicles to people with brown eyes".
Which, of course, is an analogy that makes no sense whatsoever. Then again, neither did your argument.
A better analogy would be "it's Walmart's fault its cherry popsicles are getting stolen by blue, green, and black-eyed people because they only sell cherry popsicles to people with brown eyes".
Which, of course, is an analogy that makes no sense whatsoever. Then again, neither did your argument.
A better example is they will sell popsicles to anyone who will pay for them but you have to agree to use the popsicle in the manner they specify.
It really is simple. Otherwise, it wouldn't be illegal to do what the OSX86 Project is doing.
I don't agree with the law in this sense but it is the current law and you can't go throwing it out just because you don't agree with it.
A better example is they will sell popsicles to anyone who will pay for them but you have to agree to use the popsicle in the manner they specify.
It really is simple. Otherwise, it wouldn't be illegal to do what the OSX86 Project is doing.
I don't agree with the law in this sense but it is the current law and you can't go throwing it out just because you don't agree with it.
If I buy my popsicle, why should there be limitations on what I can do with it if I'm not using the stick, broken in half, to cut peoples' throats with?
"If I buy my popsicle, why should there be limitations on what I can do with it if I'm not using the stick, broken in half, to cut peoples' throats with?"
and if you buy it under a particular set of terms, why should you be allowed to ignore these restrictions?
If I buy my popsicle, why should there be limitations on what I can do with it if I'm not using the stick, broken in half, to cut peoples' throats with?
That is the focal point here, you purchase a product knowing up front the terms of use, so you can't go breaking that or you may face legal action. In this case, that is a stretch since I doubt Apple can go around determining who has OS X on a PC, but places like the OS X 86 project better beware of Apple legal who seem to be pretty pissy lately. I am pretty sure that website is on Apple's radar. It seemed that posting some liniks to patches that allowed it to run on non-apple hardware also got the website's attention. They are scared to even post links to the stuff. I bet the dude that has OSX (in Russia or something) even paid for it but it would appear they have bowed in submission to Apple Legal.
the following are excerpted from the deleted posts. i believe them to be pertinent to the discussion without being offensive to those in control.
"Nice try, but installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is in no way the same as shoplifting from WalMart."
other than providing an apt analogy. just because a company is unwilling to proffer terms that a consumer wants, it does not give the consumer license to break the law.
"Do EULAa constitute Law?"
nope. on the other hand, they can and often do conform with the law. breech of a eula that is in conformance with the law would be breaking the law.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
It's Apple's fault that people are pirating the Mac OS, since they don't offer a way of installing it on a computer any other way.
Come on... If I had to guess... I'd say most of the people installing OS X on PC i would not have paid for it and instead rationalize it by saying 'hey I just wanted to see what it was like'.
I could be wrong... but I don't think so...
Dave
Originally posted by theapplegenius
It's hella fast. i wish my iBook was that snappy. If/when they put together drivers, i'm running GarageBand off my PC.
Yeah, same here. And if they don't, well, that's their loss.
Originally posted by Placebo
It's Apple's fault that people are pirating the Mac OS, since they don't offer a way of installing it on a computer any other way.
It's Wal-Mart's fault that people shoplift because they don't offer everything for free.
Originally posted by aplnub
It's Wal-Mart's fault that people shoplift because they don't offer everything for free.
Nice try, but installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is in no way the same as shoplifting from WalMart.
It's this type of thinking that makes he *AA's the danger that they are to consumers today.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Nice try, but installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is not in any way the same as shoplifting from WalMart.
It's this type of thinking that makes he *AA's the danger that they are to consumers today.
Gene, it is the same because of something called the law. It sucks, I am guilty of breaking many laws, but in anyway suggesting that Apple is at fault for this is absurd. That is what Pacebo did; he blamed Apple for people's actions (choices).
At what point do we as people realize that rationalizing wrong's into right is a dangerous game? If you want it changed, start a lobby and get the laws changed and throw the lawyers to the Sun (Star Trek reference).
Originally posted by aplnub
[B]Gene, it is the same because of something called the law.
No, it isn't.
It sucks, I am guilty of breaking many laws, but in anyway suggesting that Apple is at fault for this is absurd.
He may be wrong to blame Apple for it, but that doesn't mean y ou can call them shoplifters.
At what point do we as people realize that rationalizing wrong's into right is a dangerous game?
Start yourself: stop listening to RIAA/MPAA, and cease calling people shoplifters for installing a piece of software (that they may have even bought!) on their legally purchased home computer.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, it isn't.
He may be wrong to blame Apple for it, but that doesn't mean y ou can call them shoplifters.
Start yourself: stop listening to RIAA/MPAA, and cease calling people shoplifters for installing a piece of software (that they may have even bought!) on their legally purchased home computer.
Gene, re-read my post. Never did I say people who installed OS X on WinBoxes were shoplifters. I simply made a comment. Why get so worked up over this? It would seem we are going to disagree on this.
and for the pedant who will say it is separately sold, I'll point out that the eula still bundles the os to the machine.
Just a thought, but sometime in the next 18 months I figure OS x on generic hardware will be made legal, somewhere.
And just as an afterthought... is that what the software upgrade coupons are all about? So that when apple changes it's price structure to fit the generic PC model, apple hardware users get cheap upgrades?
Or am I taking this topic too seriously and should be a little less scientific and a little more religious about apple?
Originally posted by aplnub
I simply made a comment.
It's Wal-Mart's fault that people shoplift because they don't offer everything for free.
was your reaction to
t's Apple's fault that people are pirating the Mac OS, since they don't offer a way of installing it on a computer any other way.
It's pretty clear what you said. It wasn't 'just a comment' by any means.
Bye now.
Originally posted by aplnub
It's Wal-Mart's fault that people shoplift because they don't offer everything for free.
A better analogy would be "it's Walmart's fault its cherry popsicles are getting stolen by blue, green, and black-eyed people because they only sell cherry popsicles to people with brown eyes".
Which, of course, is an analogy that makes no sense whatsoever. Then again, neither did your argument.
Originally posted by Placebo
A better analogy would be "it's Walmart's fault its cherry popsicles are getting stolen by blue, green, and black-eyed people because they only sell cherry popsicles to people with brown eyes".
Which, of course, is an analogy that makes no sense whatsoever. Then again, neither did your argument.
A better example is they will sell popsicles to anyone who will pay for them but you have to agree to use the popsicle in the manner they specify.
It really is simple. Otherwise, it wouldn't be illegal to do what the OSX86 Project is doing.
I don't agree with the law in this sense but it is the current law and you can't go throwing it out just because you don't agree with it.
Originally posted by aplnub
A better example is they will sell popsicles to anyone who will pay for them but you have to agree to use the popsicle in the manner they specify.
It really is simple. Otherwise, it wouldn't be illegal to do what the OSX86 Project is doing.
I don't agree with the law in this sense but it is the current law and you can't go throwing it out just because you don't agree with it.
If I buy my popsicle, why should there be limitations on what I can do with it if I'm not using the stick, broken in half, to cut peoples' throats with?
and if you buy it under a particular set of terms, why should you be allowed to ignore these restrictions?
Originally posted by Placebo
If I buy my popsicle, why should there be limitations on what I can do with it if I'm not using the stick, broken in half, to cut peoples' throats with?
That is the focal point here, you purchase a product knowing up front the terms of use, so you can't go breaking that or you may face legal action. In this case, that is a stretch since I doubt Apple can go around determining who has OS X on a PC, but places like the OS X 86 project better beware of Apple legal who seem to be pretty pissy lately. I am pretty sure that website is on Apple's radar.
"Nice try, but installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is in no way the same as shoplifting from WalMart."
other than providing an apt analogy. just because a company is unwilling to proffer terms that a consumer wants, it does not give the consumer license to break the law.
"Do EULAa constitute Law?"
nope. on the other hand, they can and often do conform with the law. breech of a eula that is in conformance with the law would be breaking the law.