"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."
Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
...However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer
It's not that it is a violation under any law, but they can't dictate a contract that restricts rights given by a law, in this case the fair use doctrine specified under Copyright law. That would invalidate the contract.
You're right, there is no constitutional law that says I have the right to install OS X on a computer and you could argue the same applies to Apple (if you want to take the law (or absence there of) literally). That's why there are other laws that clarify the rights we do have such as the provisions under Copyright law regarding the fair use of software.
You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!
Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.
Because it's an upgrade - not a full retail copy. You're only allowed to use it to upgrade a machine with an existing licensed copy of Mac OS X on it. If you copy it other than in accordance with the license that's illegal and no different from any other breach of copyright.
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
The listed requirements are for an Intel Mac with 1GB RAM, a DVD drive (and that doesn't even have to be physically connected to the Mac), and 5GB free disk space. There is no mention of requiring that the Mac have any previous version of MacOS X installed on it, and in fact it is not required in theory or practice.
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
The first generation Macbook Air uses the 1.6 GHz P7500 intel processor
Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!
Is code named the intel ATOM processor
So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.
However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....
Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!
Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.
I don't see how. The chipsets used by Atom are lower power versions of the Intel 945 and Nvidia 9400, both used by Apple with full driver support in the O.S. The reasons that these netbooks work so well is that all the drivers needed are already there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.
Problem with EULA and contract laws is you "agree" after money has changed hands.
The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation.
Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.
Meh, at least there is still desktop hackingtoshing. Been waiting to buy like a $300 dollar desktop and put OSx on it, just for the experience, but if that goes away i can stay with linux mint.
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
From the Apple Store:
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack
Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]
Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
The first generation Macbook Air uses the 1.6 GHz P7500 intel processor
Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!
Is code named the intel ATOM processor
So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.
However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....
Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!
The MBA uses a small-formfactor ultralow-voltage Core2 Duo, sometimes written as SFF ULV C2D. The first two MBA releases used the P7500 and P7700. These are Merom processors with 4MB L2 cache and 800Mhz system bus. The current revision moved to L9300 and L9400. These are Penryn with 6MB L2 cache and 1066Mhz system bus. They are all dual-core and 64-bit.
You can verify this information from Intel’s CPU price lit and the AnandTech review. Note the price of the CPU itself on Intel’s site.
There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!
Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.
I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.
I thought Sarbanes-Oxley makes this illegal.. So illegal, they have to charge for iPhone software updates. At least, that was the excuse the first time they did it!
Or how about fixing the SATA II issue with third-party HDDs and SSDs on the June '09 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.
I am all with you. Mine has been escalated to engineering and there has been talk about a motherboard replacement (which I highly doubt will fix the problem).
Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.
Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.
The EULA is the only thing restricting what you can do with it (on a personal basis), and I know that I wasn't asked by the Apple store employee what my intention was, so shame on Apple (BTW I bought it to upgrade my MacBook - I don't have a Hackintosh because it won't work with my Pentium D processor in my desktop unless someone wants to post a link to a tutorial ).
I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.
The debate started regarding whether Mac OS was copyrighted material or not
Quote:
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it
Building a hackintosh requires lots of patience and a fair bit of technical know how. Most people wouldn't even bother trying, so why not let the tinkerers tinker.
I know there are lots of downloadable custom build's of OS X out there but if you actually look at a good hackintosh tutorial, a lot of them use a retail disc to install from. I say as long you paid for that disc and only intend to use it privately, why not?
Of course, you seem like the sort of person who's word (your personal integrity) is worthless.
You bought that DVD with conditions attached. Those conditions are that the DVD is to used on only Apple hardware. You had to tell a lie to even install it. Hence, your word is meaningless.
If Apple were selling its operating system to PC owners, it should charge between 500 to a thousand dollars. Perhaps, that is the way to nip this illegality in the bud. Apple should charge an outrageous sum with a rebate attached to people who register their legitimately Apple hardware. Then if the Mac OS is put out on Bit Torrent, then anyone who is using the Mac OS illegitimately can be sued in small claims court for the difference between what they bought the upgrade DVD for and the legal price. Should be a slam dunk case.
Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.
Only with a legally obtained copy. You have no rights under any law for what you can do with a copy obtained illegally. Apple clearly sells it as an upgrade, so, if you purchase it for some other purpose, you do not have any rights to use it for any purpose. It may be a gray area, although forbidden by the EULA, if you buy it to upgrade a Mac and later decide you want to use it on some other computer. You would, however, certainly have to "destroy" the copy installed on the Mac if you install it on another computer.
Comments
Actually, it says:
"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."
Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.
You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
...However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer
It's not that it is a violation under any law, but they can't dictate a contract that restricts rights given by a law, in this case the fair use doctrine specified under Copyright law. That would invalidate the contract.
You're right, there is no constitutional law that says I have the right to install OS X on a computer and you could argue the same applies to Apple (if you want to take the law (or absence there of) literally). That's why there are other laws that clarify the rights we do have such as the provisions under Copyright law regarding the fair use of software.
You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!
Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use
Psystar != personal use.
Because it's an upgrade - not a full retail copy. You're only allowed to use it to upgrade a machine with an existing licensed copy of Mac OS X on it. If you copy it other than in accordance with the license that's illegal and no different from any other breach of copyright.
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
The listed requirements are for an Intel Mac with 1GB RAM, a DVD drive (and that doesn't even have to be physically connected to the Mac), and 5GB free disk space. There is no mention of requiring that the Mac have any previous version of MacOS X installed on it, and in fact it is not required in theory or practice.
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!
Is code named the intel ATOM processor
So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.
However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....
Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!
Thank You
Whiskey
www.WFKU.org Gotham's Dark Alternative
Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.
I don't see how. The chipsets used by Atom are lower power versions of the Intel 945 and Nvidia 9400, both used by Apple with full driver support in the O.S. The reasons that these netbooks work so well is that all the drivers needed are already there.
Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.
Problem with EULA and contract laws is you "agree" after money has changed hands.
The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation.
Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
From the Apple Store:
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack
Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]
Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
The first generation Macbook Air uses the 1.6 GHz P7500 intel processor
Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!
Is code named the intel ATOM processor
So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.
However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....
Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!
The MBA uses a small-formfactor ultralow-voltage Core2 Duo, sometimes written as SFF ULV C2D. The first two MBA releases used the P7500 and P7700. These are Merom processors with 4MB L2 cache and 800Mhz system bus. The current revision moved to L9300 and L9400. These are Penryn with 6MB L2 cache and 1066Mhz system bus. They are all dual-core and 64-bit.
You can verify this information from Intel’s CPU price lit and the AnandTech review. Note the price of the CPU itself on Intel’s site. Welcome to the forum.
There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!
Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.
I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
Psystar != personal use.
Agreed and I already mentioned that several times. This story is all about personal Hackintoshes and the bricking of Atom-based systems.
Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.
I thought Sarbanes-Oxley makes this illegal.. So illegal, they have to charge for iPhone software updates. At least, that was the excuse the first time they did it!
Or how about fixing the SATA II issue with third-party HDDs and SSDs on the June '09 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.
I am all with you. Mine has been escalated to engineering and there has been talk about a motherboard replacement (which I highly doubt will fix the problem).
Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.
Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.
The EULA is the only thing restricting what you can do with it (on a personal basis), and I know that I wasn't asked by the Apple store employee what my intention was, so shame on Apple (BTW I bought it to upgrade my MacBook - I don't have a Hackintosh because it won't work with my Pentium D processor in my desktop unless someone wants to post a link to a tutorial
I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.
The debate started regarding whether Mac OS was copyrighted material or not
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it
Building a hackintosh requires lots of patience and a fair bit of technical know how. Most people wouldn't even bother trying, so why not let the tinkerers tinker.
I know there are lots of downloadable custom build's of OS X out there but if you actually look at a good hackintosh tutorial, a lot of them use a retail disc to install from. I say as long you paid for that disc and only intend to use it privately, why not?
Of course, you seem like the sort of person who's word (your personal integrity) is worthless.
You bought that DVD with conditions attached. Those conditions are that the DVD is to used on only Apple hardware. You had to tell a lie to even install it. Hence, your word is meaningless.
If Apple were selling its operating system to PC owners, it should charge between 500 to a thousand dollars. Perhaps, that is the way to nip this illegality in the bud. Apple should charge an outrageous sum with a rebate attached to people who register their legitimately Apple hardware. Then if the Mac OS is put out on Bit Torrent, then anyone who is using the Mac OS illegitimately can be sued in small claims court for the difference between what they bought the upgrade DVD for and the legal price. Should be a slam dunk case.
I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it
PowerPC kernel up to Tiger is open, the Intel kernel is closed, or at least not available to the public:
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic..._Piracy_Fears/
Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.
Only with a legally obtained copy. You have no rights under any law for what you can do with a copy obtained illegally. Apple clearly sells it as an upgrade, so, if you purchase it for some other purpose, you do not have any rights to use it for any purpose. It may be a gray area, although forbidden by the EULA, if you buy it to upgrade a Mac and later decide you want to use it on some other computer. You would, however, certainly have to "destroy" the copy installed on the Mac if you install it on another computer.