Why cant install single user Leopard on more than 1 Mac ?

[XheartcoreboyX]

I know you cant install leopard/tiger on more than one machine..

but whats the reason/secret behind that..what kind of security ??

i just want to know so i can answer some noobs who were arguing that yes you can install it on more than 1 as its just a CD ... lol ..

thanks for any answers,,

[abijnk]

Eula?

[Nugget]

It is not allowed, but it is also not prevented. So your "noob" friends are correct (well, it's a DVD, not a CD). There's nothing preventing you from installing a single copy of Leopard on more than one machine except for the license.

See: Everything you want to know bout Leopard licensing/activation (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=372709)

[Sun Baked]

Apple karmic response, you do it and you will start getting bad Apple Care service, dud machines time after time, people that cannot speak English when when you call in for service, etc.

Apple tracks you and retaliates ... ;)

Just look at all the threads where people complain about how many times in a row they have gotten bad Macs.

[tersono]

Physically, you can. Legally and morally, you can't.

[Blubbert]

There is really nothing that prevents you from installing OSX on several different machines with a single licence. There is no activation, no registration, nothing. The thing that does exist is the EULA, which if i recall correctly, is not really a binding contract, and your own sense of honor. Basically OSX is released on a honor code licence :) .

[arkitect]

Well, if your own conscience allows you to, you can install it on as many Macs as you want…

Morally right? No.

A misuse of Apple's "trust"? Yes.

If it does get misused — like the Edu discounts — Apple will sooner or later introduce Microsoft like lock-ins and activations.

[feyn-man]

I know you cant install leopard/tiger on more than one machine..

but whats the reason/secret behind that..what kind of security ??

i just want to know so i can answer some noobs who were arguing that yes you can install it on more than 1 as its just a CD ... lol ..

thanks for any answers,,

I think the most important reason is: that is illegal.
If you don't care the law, you can always find the way to do that. That's not a problem in technology.

[DesignerOnMac]

I know you cant install leopard/tiger on more than one machine..

but whats the reason/secret behind that..what kind of security ??

i just want to know so i can answer some noobs who were arguing that yes you can install it on more than 1 as its just a CD ... lol ..

thanks for any answers,,

The agreement you "read" and agreed to BEFORE installing the OS states that you can't legelly install more than 1 copy of the installed OS on more than 1 computer! It is as simple as that! You want to install on more than 1 computer you need to buy the family pack! But like anything else, Apple expects you be to "honest" and abid by the agreement you agreed to.

[Rantipole]

I think the most important reason is: that is illegal.

Are you sure about that? What about "fair use"? If I have two computers, why can't I buy one DVD and install the OS on both? Seems like fair use to me. Even if that isn't legal, I would argue it is morally OK, again following the fair use logic.

EDIT: by the way, I only have one computer, I have no intention of doing this, I just truly wonder if doing this is illegal, despite what the EULA says.

[XheartcoreboyX]

Come on people !!!

why pay lots of money more ???

i can get this leopard DVD and do 100 copies and give them to my friends and relatives.... thats so damn confusing .... :eek::eek::eek:

[Chillijam]

Come on people !!!

why pay lots of money more ???

i can get this leopard DVD and do 100 copies and give them to my friends and relatives.... thats so damn confusing .... :eek::eek::eek:

You could also break into a store, steal all their big screen TVs and give them to your friends. You'd still be breaking the law.

[wwooden]

Come on people !!!

why pay lots of money more ???

i can get this leopard DVD and do 100 copies and give them to my friends and relatives.... thats so damn confusing .... :eek::eek::eek:

Where do you think Apple gets the money to develop new features and products?

[Eidorian]

Are you sure about that? What about "fair use"? If I have two computers, why can't I buy one DVD and install the OS on both? Seems like fair use to me. Even if that isn't legal, I would argue it is morally OK, again following the fair use logic.

EDIT: by the way, I only have one computer, I have no intention of doing this, I just truly wonder if doing this is illegal, despite what the EULA says.Maybe you should read up on what Fair Use (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=fair+use&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) actually is.

[Sun Baked]

EDIT: by the way, I only have one computer, I have no intention of doing this, I just truly wonder if doing this is illegal, despite what the EULA says.

It isn't something people are going to go after you for.

But if you were running a business, and ask this question ... we would call you a complete ****ing idiot for considering it.

Why: Because the reward for turning in businesses who don't have licenses for all there software has been bumped to a million dollar max. Which makes you a target for pissed off people. And it isn't Apple going after you but a group considered as bad as a pissed off IRS.

[emw]

i can get this leopard DVD and do 100 copies and give them to my friends and relatives.... thats so damn confusing .... :eek::eek::eek:What's confusing?

- That there's a major application vendor that still trusts it's customers?

- Why there aren't more dishonest people out there selling bootleg copies of Mac OS DVDs?

- That you actually have 100 friends with Macs?

- That Apple makes more money on iPods than it does on OS X and so doesn't really give a crap that people might bootleg it?

[arkitect]

Come on people !!!

why pay lots of money more ???

i can get this leopard DVD and do 100 copies and give them to my friends and relatives.... thats so damn confusing .... :eek::eek::eek:

Surely you are not being serious… are you?

What part of "don't steal software"* do you find confusing? :confused:

* Read the small print on the side of your Leopard DVD box…

[XheartcoreboyX]

Ok people i just was tottaly shocked... i though that Apple has some kind of security that doesnt let you install a software or OS on more than one machine....

still i WOULD NEVER EVER steal anything from Apple ...

the whole thread is just "out of curious" thing ..

thanks for the replays =)

[Sun Baked]

i can get this leopard DVD and do 100 copies and give them to my friends and relatives.... thats so damn confusing .... :eek::eek::eek:

That is piracy, and if you did that you are somebody that would be nabbed as somebody doing Software Counterfeiting.

End user piracy isn't something that pays to go after somebody for.

But raise the bar and begin manufacturing leopard DVDs for sale, and they will likely put you in prison.

Edit: this is actually one of the cases where the reward is actually paid for on small idiots trying to be cute.

[TuckBodi]

Link (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Pirate_Flag.txt&characters=Steve%20Capps&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1)

[gnasher729]

There is really nothing that prevents you from installing OSX on several different machines with a single licence. There is no activation, no registration, nothing. The thing that does exist is the EULA, which if i recall correctly, is not really a binding contract, and your own sense of honor. Basically OSX is released on a honor code licence :) .

You are, of course, forgetting the small detail called copyright law. You buy Leopard, and copyright law allows you to make _one_ copy of it by installing it on your computer. What the EULA says doesn't matter at all here; as soon as you make a second copy without permission by Apple you are breaking the law.

People who buy a family pack have permission by Apple to make four further copies according to Apple's terms. Since copyright law doesn't give you the right to do this, Apple's license there is absolutely legally binding.

[gnasher729]

Are you sure about that? What about "fair use"? If I have two computers, why can't I buy one DVD and install the OS on both? Seems like fair use to me. Even if that isn't legal, I would argue it is morally OK, again following the fair use logic.

You are completely misunderstanding the term "fair use" in copyright law. "Fair use" would be for example a screenshot including icons that are copyrighted by Apple in a Guide How To Use Time Machine. "Fair use" would be quoting three lines of source guide in a book about different programming styles. The whole complete copying of a DVD is never, ever fair use.

[Eraserhead]

The whole complete copying of a DVD is never, ever fair use.

Well except as a backup for your one copy.

[benpatient]

You could also break into a store, steal all their big screen TVs and give them to your friends. You'd still be breaking the law.

this argument keeps getting dumber every time I see it written out.

Do people really have such a hard time with analogy?

For the TV analogy to work, you'd have to buy a single TV, take it home, and then magically clone it so that you could watch TV in two rooms at the same time. It isn't the same thing and it never will be.

You can say "you're depriving the TV manufacturers of the money they would make from selling you that other TV," but that's just not true, because honestly, I wouldn't buy the other TV to begin with. If I could make copies of my 50" plasma TV, I would have one in almost every room of my house! I would make a wall of them upstairs and turn on their "matrix" feature and have one of those giant TV matrix walls 100's of inches wide.

But only if that were free or close to free. If I had the $50,000 it would take to do this, I wouldn't spend it on a bunch of TVs. I would spend it elsewhere or keep my money for later.

I probably wouldn't buy another copy of 10.5 if I already had a single license of it and wanted to put it on another Mac that only had 10.4.

[Chillijam]

this argument keeps getting dumber every time I see it written out.

Do people really have such a hard time with analogy?

For the TV analogy to work, you'd have to buy a single TV, take it home, and then magically clone it so that you could watch TV in two rooms at the same time. It isn't the same thing and it never will be.

You can say "you're depriving the TV manufacturers of the money they would make from selling you that other TV," but that's just not true, because honestly, I wouldn't buy the other TV to begin with. If I could make copies of my 50" plasma TV, I would have one in almost every room of my house! I would make a wall of them upstairs and turn on their "matrix" feature and have one of those giant TV matrix walls 100's of inches wide.

But only if that were free or close to free. If I had the $50,000 it would take to do this, I wouldn't spend it on a bunch of TVs. I would spend it elsewhere or keep my money for later.

OK, so my choice of analogy may not have been the best example once you take it apart like that, but the underlying principle still holds true. If you want ti pick holes in the specific example, then go right ahead. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

I probably wouldn't buy another copy of 10.5 if I already had a single license of it and wanted to put it on another Mac that only had 10.4.

Then that is in contravention of the law. I know you're going to argue about how it isn't important, how you wouldn't buy a second copy anyway, and that it isn't going to hurt anyone (or their pockets) by installing it on a second machine. The fact, though, is that it is illegal.

I may well be overreacting to your post, but I'm afraid you've hit on a bit of a sore point with me here. I lost a *lot* of money trying to establish a record company only to see my investment going down the drain as every one of our releases appeared online for unauthorised free download. You want to tell me that copyright theft is OK? You can talk 'til you're blue in the face, but if you were on the receiving end I'll give you good odds you would change your view.

[vanmacguy]

Answering this question is such a waste of everyone's time.

Look, we all know what's right and we know what's wrong. Just do the right thing. Don't argue the semantics.

People that want to do the wrong thing (like, I suspect the OP) will do it anyway, knowing full well it's wrong. They're just posting here to gauge the community's reaction.

As long as the rest of us don't degenerate into the same moral-less mess, we're ok. But please let's not make it so that we have to have registration and authentication every time we re-install that's no fun for anyone.

This isn't a question of what's legal, illegal, moral or immoral, it's a question of doing the right thing. And we all know what that is.

Simple really.

Bill Gates once said he'd rather people pirate Windoze than buy other OS's because at least they're using Windoze. So OP, go steal that one.

[psychofreak]

I'm happy to pay for a few softwares now an then, but I'm still hoping for an open-source revolution in my lifetime :)

[Can]

I'm happy to pay for a few softwares now an then, but I'm still hoping for an open-source revolution in my lifetime :)

Salut!

I remember downloading a lot of illegal programs and movies+music when I was younger. The first: "MS visual basic". Spending 1 year of my "week-pay" savings from my parents to buy it legally seemed impossible at the time. So me and a friend went down the road to obtain it the illegal way. The years that followed I don't think I bought a single product, be it music, games or programs.

After I got a job, a credit card and passed the "legal" age that kind of behavior got archived under "childhood". It's still a process but at least I'm buying all my music through ITunes these days and I even bought a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2 last year after running pirated versions of Photoshop 4, 6, 7, and CS1.

:apple:

The fact that apple don't ask you to type in serial keys and whines one time every month to get you to validate your copy online, download this do that then click this just so you can use your OS is reason enough for me to never ever pirate the loved OSX :apple:

[EngBrian]

Just out of curiosity why do they call it a single-USER license. Technically if I have two macs and I am the only user then it would fall under this title of single-user. Much like MS office is allowed to be installed on a home computer and a portable if they are used by the same user. Keep in mind i am talking about the title not the EULA or other legal stuff.

[billmister]

The way i see it. The Leopard Operating System is ONLY about 129 bucks... I mean come on!... Compared to Windows Os, it's really cheap and you get a great Operating system. If apply put this much effore in making a great os, 129 is a REALLY good price. Come on you can't be cheap.

Second, If i work, which i do, i don't want to take 129 buck out of my account to buy one, just to give it to a cheap person and let him get my copy of osx. I mean it's like saying, you buying Adobe CS1 or any os that's like over 200 dollars, and giving it to someone. They DON'T care that you worked for your money, and in some cases people save to buy these softwares, and to share it to someone... I mean that seems low. IF someone would ask me for a copy, i would tell them to 1)get a job and buy one, 2)don't be cheap it's only 129.

Regarding what the OP asked. Nothing is stopping you from installing ONE single user dvd on other computers, but if you want to keep it legal and moral... That shouldn't even be a options. YES you can, but why should you?

[lil'homunculus]

you can accomplish anything with the injudicious use of 'rationalization':p

[Macsterling]

I installed my disc of Leopard on a friends mac and it went just fine. We even registered it and everything. No blocks, no codes etc.... Works great

[Rantipole]

Maybe you should read up on what Fair Use (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=fair+use&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) actually is.
Um, maybe you should read up on "private non-commercial use".

[balamw]

Um, maybe you should read up on "private non-commercial use".

Link please. :p

B

[roland.g]

I installed my disc of Leopard on a friends mac and it went just fine. We even registered it and everything. No blocks, no codes etc.... Works great

You're my idol. I mean can I like have your autograph.
I hope your hard drive fails.

On a another note, I got a copy of Leopard for free. Well not exactly. My wife bought it for me for an anniversary present. She got it at Microcenter for $129.99 plus tax, so about $140. She also got a $40 Mail-in Rebate for $40 bringing her cost to $100. Best deal I've seen for 10.5

Unless you're spineless that is.

[saltyzoo]

this argument keeps getting dumber every time I see it written out.

Do people really have such a hard time with analogy?

For the TV analogy to work, you'd have to buy a single TV, take it home, and then magically clone it so that you could watch TV in two rooms at the same time. It isn't the same thing and it never will be.

You can say "you're depriving the TV manufacturers of the money they would make from selling you that other TV," but that's just not true, because honestly, I wouldn't buy the other TV to begin with. If I could make copies of my 50" plasma TV, I would have one in almost every room of my house! I would make a wall of them upstairs and turn on their "matrix" feature and have one of those giant TV matrix walls 100's of inches wide.

But only if that were free or close to free. If I had the $50,000 it would take to do this, I wouldn't spend it on a bunch of TVs. I would spend it elsewhere or keep my money for later.

I probably wouldn't buy another copy of 10.5 if I already had a single license of it and wanted to put it on another Mac that only had 10.4.

You aren't buying the software. You are buying a license to use the software. The license you purchase is not good for more than one computer.

If you want a different analogy: If you pay a clown to perform for your kids birthday does that mean he has to perform that same act for every birthday you want him to? I mean, you did pay for the performance. He should do it at your whim.

Oh yeah, and if you cloned a tv you'd still be breaking Patent and trademark law.

Face it, you're stealing.

[roland.g]

You aren't buying the software. You are buying a license to use the software. The license you purchase is not good for more than one computer.

If you want a different analogy: If you pay a clown to perform for your kids birthday does that mean he has to perform that same act for every birthday you want him to? I mean, you did pay for the performance. He should do it at your whim.

Or how about movies. If I buy a DVD, is it right to make copies of that DVD and give it to my friends so that they can watch it. No.

I can invite them over to watch it. I can rip it to my computer for use with my Apple TV or to make a backup copy so that the kids don't trash it, but that is for my own personal viewing and backup needs.

[illegalprelude]

so I play it fair. I stole my PMG5 but bought Leopard :D

[Arip]

i think that people are not aware about the effort to create the most secure, flexible, beautifull, and reliable OS.

Think just for one second, microchoft has like 10 versions of their OS, they charge you like 500 usd for the most "advanced" one.

Leopard just cost 129 usd, and not only is the best OS, it comes with all you need.

[crap freakboy]

Simple answer to the OP- by accepting to install you are asked to follow Apples legal rules.
However, each to his own. I wouldn't wish to pass judgement upon someone for not following the 'rules' to the letter. Its your life, do want you feel you can justify to yourself based upon your circumstances at that moment.
I've never met anyone , and I mean ANYONE, who could say that they haven't done something that they considered either illegal or immoral. Happy to say that most interesting characters that I have had the pleasure of meeting were the ones who don't follow the rules either morally or legally 24/7. Long may that continue imo.

[bigslidehimself]

Someone got an 840 on their SATs. Installing several copies of Leopard off of one license is NOT like breaking into a place and stealing bigscreen TVs. From a legal standpoint these are completely different laws at issue. From a practical standpoint, stealing bigscreen TVs steals an actual tangible resource - the parts used to manufacture - that can't be replaced. Of course stealing Leopard is still stealing, but it's entirey different. You want to make a good analogy? How about, if you BUY a Toshiba bigscreen TV, but then install the OS from a Sony bigscreen TV on it.

[playridefly]

I read many of the posts here carefully and I agreed with some and disagreed with some. I understand morally you shouldnt install one license on two computers or what have you, It's just a touchy subject. 3 apple computers. an ibook, a macbook and a macbook pro. I used them all for different things, but none the less I bought them from apple and it cost me a pretty penny, so why should I spend extra money?
Well, the truth is, I shouldn't have to. And the reason for this is, Apple is practically being a hypocrite.

You have three macs you go and buy one copy of the osx and put it on 3 of your computers. "which is morally wrong and apple doesn't make money"

You have 3 iPods, you go and buy a MUSIC CD and put it on all three iPods. "but, it's okay for a musician to get their cd ripped off"

Some of you may not agree, but it's the truth.
The same is for the entire household.
Well, I'm buying one copy for 3 of my computers and when Apple decides to start paying me for how many iPods my cd is loaded into.. then apple can get the rest of my money.

[unknown87]

If you were worth the time of effort, I'd report you to Apple. If you have 3 Apple computers, I'm sure you can afford to buy a 'family pack'.

[smartalic34]

there's also the notion that Apple has already gotten $ from the potential evil-doers. if someone has a stolen copy of Windows, they put it on their homemade machine and voila, microsoft hasnt made a dime. however, apple has already gotten paid from those macs that you're about to load up with the same Leopard DVD, so I think it's also less of an issue in that Apple doesn't care as much

[PhotoPhoenix]

ok, i'm all for buying things and doing it the right way but i also sometimes think it's ok to support these things.

people are getting entirely way too serious with their apples. it's gotten to be some weird trend. everyone is obsession over their apples. it's just a computer. if someone wants to copy leopard onto their mac then that's them. don't e-murder them just because they're asking it. it's like, "oh noo! why would you ever not want to pay 120 bucks and just get it for free!!?" geez louise..

yeah, i'm sure people are going to go crazy over this post but i just had to say what i was thinking. reading this thread just seemed like some kind of high school obsession. they're just computers.. not air.

[JNB]

Because the entire point is that it's called stealing otherwise.

"It's only gas."

"It's only groceries."

"It's only a DVD."

"It's only a book."

"It's only a song."

"It's only software."

It's not an Apple thing. Most of us aren't into pirating software (or theft in general), period.

Try looking at it this way: we don't have a problem with you doing it, but you have to go to an Apple Store and shoplift your own copy. Does it still feel like not a big deal?

[saltyzoo]

ok, i'm all for buying things and doing it the right way but i also sometimes think it's ok to support these things.

people are getting entirely way too serious with their apples. it's gotten to be some weird trend. everyone is obsession over their apples. it's just a computer. if someone wants to copy leopard onto their mac then that's them. don't e-murder them just because they're asking it. it's like, "oh noo! why would you ever not want to pay 120 bucks and just get it for free!!?" geez louise..

yeah, i'm sure people are going to go crazy over this post but i just had to say what i was thinking. reading this thread just seemed like some kind of high school obsession. they're just computers.. not air.

I haven't criticized anybody for doing it - not because I don't think it's wrong but because I've done it myself in the past. Doesn't mean it's right, but I'm not going to play holier than thou about it.

However, I'm also not going to pretend it's not stealing so they can feel better about doing it. Because it is stealing.

[kaiwai]

Well except as a backup for your one copy.

Or if you transfer the licence from one comptuer to another; you remove the operating system, and replace it with the older one, then install it onto a new one.

[mpw]

I haven't read the license agreement that came with the OS, but I have read the agreement that came with MS Office and it does let a single USER install the software on more than one machine, which I think is a reasonable situation.

The argument that you don't pay for the software, but the license to use the software does seem to support, morally, a single user using it at separate times on multiple machines too.

At the end of the day it's a business decision by Apple, not a question of morals anyway, they're not in the business to make my life easier or to make the best computing experience, just to make themselves as much money as possible. So why not ask to be paid over and over again for essentially one product.

[saltyzoo]

I haven't read the license agreement that came with the OS, but I have read the agreement that came with MS Office and it does let a single USER install the software on more than one machine, which I think is a reasonable situation.

The argument that you don't pay for the software, but the license to use the software does seem to support, morally, a single user using it at separate times on multiple machines too.

However, apply this scenario to the operating system and you would not be able to boot both machines at once.

[chaosbunny]

So, if I buy a single copy and install it on my 2 macs that is bad karma, evil doing, stealing and will get me straight to hell?

But if apple sells me an iMac that is freezing 3 times a week and it takes them 3 months to come up with a fix that is perfectly ok?

Something is seriously wrong here.

[James0001]

Physically, you can. Legally and morally, you can't.


Physically, you can
Legally, you can't
Morally, you should ! ;)

[saltyzoo]

So, if I buy a single copy and install it on my 2 macs that is bad karma, evil doing, stealing and will get me straight to hell?

But if apple sells me an iMac that is freezing 3 times a week and it takes them 3 months to come up with a fix that is perfectly ok?

Something is seriously wrong here.

If you run into my car is it ok for me to shoot you in the head?

The two things are not related.

"Two wrongs do not make a right".

[mrwizardno2]

...

Try looking at it this way: we don't have a problem with you doing it, but you have to go to an Apple Store and shoplift your own copy. Does it still feel like not a big deal?

This is my favorite post in this entire thread. Couldn't have put it better.

[kaiwai]

This is my favorite post in this entire thread. Couldn't have put it better.

True. For me, I like the idea of being able to look at my shelf and say, "hey, I bought all that" and know that its mine. Maybe its that feel good feeling I have knowing I did the 'right thing'.

[chaosbunny]

If you run into my car is it ok for me to shoot you in the head?

The two things are not related.

"Two wrongs do not make a right".

It's not ok for you to shoot me in the head, but it's ok for you to get me to pay for the damage.

Of course the 2 things are related. If apple doesn't care about its customers, why should its customers care about apple? The way I see it, I should get a free copy of leopard for all the troubles I had with my iMac for 3 long months. But apple doesn't give any kind of compensation.

And no, installing 1 disc on 2 machines is not the same as shoplifting, I wish that old example would stop to be brought up. From the point of view of the company it is, from the point of view of the user it isn't.

[chaosbunny]

Physically, you can
Legally, you can't
Morally, you should ! ;)

I have to agree on that one! ;)

[Mal]

Of course the 2 things are related. If apple doesn't care about its customers, why should its customers care about apple? The way I see it, I should get a free copy of leopard for all the troubles I had with my iMac for 3 long months. But apple doesn't give any kind of compensation.

Wait, you deserve to be able to steal software because you got a bad machine? How does that equate? Please, show me the logic that successfully gets you from the proposition to the conclusion.

I need a good laugh.

And no, installing 1 disc on 2 machines is not the same as shoplifting, I wish that old example would stop to be brought up. From the point of view of the company it is, from the point of view of the user it isn't.

It's only not the same from your point of view because you've justified it in your mindset. To a reasonable person, it is indeed exactly the same thing, because even though you're not walking out of a store with a physical object, you are illegally obtaining a copy of the software that this company put time, money, and effort into creating and is selling in order to make that effort worthwhile.

jW

[kaiwai]

It's not ok for you to shoot me in the head, but it's ok for you to get me to pay for the damage.

Of course the 2 things are related. If apple doesn't care about its customers, why should its customers care about apple? The way I see it, I should get a free copy of leopard for all the troubles I had with my iMac for 3 long months. But apple doesn't give any kind of compensation.

And no, installing 1 disc on 2 machines is not the same as shoplifting, I wish that old example would stop to be brought up. From the point of view of the company it is, from the point of view of the user it isn't.

So you wouldn't have any problems if I came into your house and watched your television? I mean, I haven't stolen your television, and sure, I'm free loading, but using your logic, you haven't lost anything in the process.

[slu]

I hate to say this, but a lot of this is a generational thing. The younger generations who have grown up in the age of the internet tend to think they are entitled to violate copyrights, no matter if it is for music, movies, or software. There are many people in the younger generations who have never paid for any of these things, and they are proud of this fact. I always wonder the age of the people in threads like this that support copyright violation.

They rationalize this in many ways: Violating copyrights is OK because they are not stealing a physical product, but making a copy. The copyrighted product is "too expensive" (read: they can't afford it). The artist/creator doesn't get any money from the sale anyway, so it is OK. It is a only a greedy corporation. The product is crap (not sure why you still want it then?). It goes on and on...

Like others have said, I am no angel, but being someone who is in the software development profession (albeit it is not software for resale), and an amateur musician, I appreciate the effort it takes to create something and this effort should not be minimized by ignoring the wishes of the creators. They created the software/music/etc and are entitled to put whatever terms of use on it they want (as long as it is within the law). If you don't like it, you don't have to steal it; you can create it yourself and then YOU can dictate the terms of its use. Let see if after you spend hours writing and recording an album or years creating some software, if you still think everyone should just do what they want it regardless of your wishes?

DISCLAIMER: I know not all people of younger generations are the like this, but statistics show that they are majority of willful copyright violators.

[chaosbunny]

Ok, so let me get one thing clear, I BOUGHT my copy of Adobe CS3 Design Standard, I BOUGHT my copy of Cinema 4D and I BUY my music in form of cds (and got plenty:))

I'm just saying that in my opinion, if I have to deal with a faulty product from a company I have the right for compensation.

If I as a designer deliver rgb files for print and the client gets a crappy folder I won't get any money.

I think one is allowed to question a companies practices.

This may be an extreme example, but was it ok to kill the jews because it was in the Nazis license agreement signed when Hitler was elected?

[mpw]

...There are many people in the younger generations who have never paid for any of these things, and they are proud of this fact. I always wonder the age of the people in threads like this that support copyright violation...
...statistics show that they are majority of willful copyright violators.
Maybe because they're often too young to have yet created anything of commercial value.

I'm pretty sure that somebody who has to get up, commute to work, work to other's deadlines to create something, work 40hrs a week to collect a wage ravished by taxes will be more supportive of the copyright protection on other's work than somebody who lazes about at home ripping stuff of the 'net without a care in the world while somebody else (be it parent or State or partner) picks up the bills.

[bartelby]

Try looking at it this way: we don't have a problem with you doing it, but you have to go to an Apple Store and shoplift your own copy. Does it still feel like not a big deal?

That is fantastic!
I shall use that when other people ask this question, if you don't mind. Or maybe it can be made a sticky!

[feyn-man]

I have to agree on that one! ;)

You really think so?
But that's unfair to those people who buy two copies for their two machines.

[mpw]

This is my favorite post in this entire thread. Couldn't have put it better.

That is fantastic!
I shall use that when other people ask this question, if you don't mind. Or maybe it can be made a sticky!
I bet JohnNotBeatle is wishing he'd copyrighted his statement now:)

[CanadaRAM]

Are you sure about that? What about "fair use"? If I have two computers, why can't I buy one DVD and install the OS on both? Seems like fair use to me. Even if that isn't legal, I would argue it is morally OK, again following the fair use logic.

EDIT: by the way, I only have one computer, I have no intention of doing this, I just truly wonder if doing this is illegal, despite what the EULA says.

Please don't invoke the concept of "Fair Use" as a defense unless you know what it means.

It does NOT mean it is fair to use it any way that you think should be fair.

Fair Use is a specific provision in the US Copyright Act that allows a defense for (NOT the right to) limited copying of copyrighted materials for use in education, reporting, commentary, parody, and a restricted range of non-commercial purposes.

[Eidorian]

Please don't invoke the concept of "Fair Use" as a defense unless you know what it means.

It does NOT mean it is fair to use it any way that you think should be fair.It's not the first time (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4498920&postcount=14)...

[dejo]

I'm just saying that in my opinion, if I have to deal with a faulty product from a company I have the right for compensation.
Sure, that sounds reasonable. But you do not have the right to choose, on your own, the form of that compensation. Besides, Apple has a pretty good track record of properly compensating customers for faulty product. There are many threads here that bear that out.

[slu]

Ok, so let me get one thing clear, I BOUGHT my copy of Adobe CS3 Design Standard, I BOUGHT my copy of Cinema 4D and I BUY my music in form of cds (and got plenty:))

I'm just saying that in my opinion, if I have to deal with a faulty product from a company I have the right for compensation.

If I as a designer deliver rgb files for print and the client gets a crappy folder I won't get any money.

I think one is allowed to question a companies practices.

This may be an extreme example, but was it ok to kill the jews because it was in the Nazis license agreement signed when Hitler was elected?

Nice Godwin. And it is not an extreme example; it is completely irrelevant.

1. Your product is under warranty for a period of time. If it is faulty, it will be fixed or replaced. Yes, that may take time and be an inconvenience. But that is the name of the game. If your car breaks down in the warranty period, do you demand that in addition to fixing the problem, that they must now upgrade you with the GPS system?

2. You do not "have to deal" with a faulty product from a faulty company. Nobody forced you to buy an aluminum iMac. You chose to be bleeding edge and you got caught. That is one of the risks. You could have bought a mature white iMac that would have caused you no problems. You could have bought a Mac Pro. You could have bought a PC. You could have bought nothing. You could have returned it.

3. Apple fixed the issue.

You are using the aforementioned "The product is crappy" defense for copyright violation, you just put a twist on it.

[mpw]

...Besides, Apple has a pretty good track record of properly compensating customers for faulty product. There are many threads here that bear that out.
Mostly in the US, in Europe they don't seem to give a ****.:mad:

[J@ffa]

Also, can people STOP saying that to install Leopard on multiple machines would be illegal? It would, in fact, be unlawful. The FBI is *not* going to prosecute you if you cross state lines with a laptop running Leopard that you've already installed on your desktop at home. Apple could, if they wanted to, initiate a civil action against you for violating your EULA and thus contract law. On the other hand, they've already been paid for the Mac you're using and have far better things to do with their time.

Try looking at it this way: we don't have a problem with you doing it, but you have to go to an Apple Store and shoplift your own copy. Does it still feel like not a big deal?

I hope you're joking. Someone who does a clueless Mac-owning friend a favour and installs a copy of Tiger on a machine running 10.2, for instance, is hardly committing a capital crime. I'm sure that the posters in this thread who commend your line of thought also refuse to watch DVDs with friends since they lack a public entertainment licence and don't lend music CDs for fear of being prosecuted for copyright infringement.

[Father Jack]

And no, installing 1 disc on 2 machines is not the same as shoplifting
Your probably correct on that score, I think it's more like going to the store checkout with an expensive item that you had changed the price tag from the correct price to something a lot cheaper .. ;)

[slu]

Maybe because they're often too young to have yet created anything of commercial value.

I'm pretty sure that somebody who has to get up, commute to work, work to other's deadlines to create something, work 40hrs a week to collect a wage ravished by taxes will be more supportive of the copyright protection on other's work than somebody who lazes about at home ripping stuff of the 'net without a care in the world while somebody else (be it parent or State or partner) picks up the bills.

I agree. What is unfortunate is that the somebody else who is picking up the bills is not educating these young people on the value of this work.

[Veri]

So, if I buy a single copy and install it on my 2 macs that is bad karma, evil doing, stealing and will get me straight to hell? But if apple sells me an iMac that is freezing 3 times a week and it takes them 3 months to come up with a fix that is perfectly ok? Something is seriously wrong here.

Warning: Friday wind-down follows, cos Apple's one day UK sale (http://www.apple.com/ukstore) is srsly lacking.

Going into meta-debate mode for a moment, the problem with a thread full of moral rather than technical/legal judgments is that people omit to state their premises. You're having three dozen people tell you that what you're doing is immoral; what that means is, "I, your castigator, subscribe to moral code X, which I have concluded prohibits what you're doing."

Any post condemning you thus likely contains one of two implicit messages:
You are subscribing to an incorrect moral code;
You may have a good moral code, but you're not applying it correctly.


Usually the person ends up justifying their act, and it comes down to the first message. The debate then either becomes one of belief systems or degenerates into people repeatedly spewing out the same logic without realising that they're working from different axioms. Failing to come to this realisation, many commenters end up stating something like, "Stealing is wrong because it's taking work from another without their permission." But the real meat of that sentence is the definition "taking work from another without their permission" for "stealing". It can then be shortened to "stealing is wrong because it's stealing", which is unhelpful.

Let's consider the origins of copyright. I'm unaware of copyright being codified because of any sort of "it's wrong to steal" principle. In C15-16 Italy the State/Church would grant privilegium for a limited time to those in their rulers' favour - hence the need for mathematicians, scientists, etc to gain patronage. Where the grip of the State was not so tight as to otherwise prohibit publication, most books would go into the public domain. Looking to England for the first copyright act, the 1710 Statute of Anne (http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html) broke the monopoly on printing "for the Encouragement of Learning". Any US schoolchild will have, in his study of Section 8 of The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html), learnt the purpose of Copyright law there to have been stated as "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Intellectual property was created as a concept to benefit society by encouraging scientific and artistic innovation by providing productive thinkers with a limited monopoly (14 years iirc for Anne).

Capitalism's recent success has brought free market philosophers to develop systems in which it is asserted that man owns his thoughts as he might own his shirt. This idea is far from self-evident; to Platonists or Pythagoreans, one's intellectual ability was a gift, with which came duty to be virtuous by applying that knowledge to enlighten others. This humanist ideal was developed in the Neohumanism displayed by some of the more successful technical authors of C16 - Recorde, Dee, influenced by Ramus; they published on geometry, on arithmetic, on navigation, etc. to educate the merchant classes, to improve the fairness of application of law, and to destroy the blinkers of authoritarianism. Newton was one of a chain of innovators who, perhaps prodding fun at his dimuntive rival, trotted out the "shoulders of giants" maxim - every thought is due to the input of many other thoughts, and every work is a derivative work of many other works.

Anyway, my point with this is that most of us have made money from selling our brainpower, but the fact that we're protected when doing this is likely because philosophers and lawmakers before us have seen the benefit to society, not because they consider an inherent right to intellectual property. To discuss the alternative views on the moral basis for copyright (or lack thereof) is interesting, but to so harshly condemn a man for a minor violation in this particular case is not only entirely unproductive, but is to take a fairly narrow, modern conception of copyright and try to impose it on a world which was not even built on that conception.

(Knee-jerk flame caveat: No, reader, I didn't just say we can all steal your hard work. ;))

[chaosbunny]

Nice Godwin. And it is not an extreme example; it is completely irrelevant.

1. Your product is under warranty for a period of time. If it is faulty, it will be fixed or replaced. Yes, that may take time and be an inconvenience. But that is the name of the game. If your car breaks down in the warranty period, do you demand that in addition to fixing the problem, that they must now upgrade you with the GPS system?

2. You do not "have to deal" with a faulty product from a faulty company. Nobody forced you to buy an aluminum iMac. You chose to be bleeding edge and you got caught. That is one of the risks. You could have bought a mature white iMac that would have caused you no problems. You could have bought a Mac Pro. You could have bought a PC. You could have bought nothing. You could have returned it.

3. Apple fixed the issue.

You are using the aforementioned "The product is crappy" defense for copyright violation, you just put a twist on it.

Ah, now that's a good one.

1. My iMac started freezing after the 2 weeks return period. Numerous calls to apple and everytime they said they won't take it back. If my car breaks down in the warranty period (as it happened to me in february), the mechanics order the parts and I have my car back 1 week later.

2. Yes, I chose to be bleeding edge, let me explain why. So far I have purchased 5 apple computers. A G4 Cube rev A which I still have, a 12" powerbook rev A now owned by my father, a 12" ibook 1,33 ghz G4 for my girlfriend and a 15" powerbook G4 1,67 ghz for me, and said iMac. Before the purchase of the iMac, I have never had a single problem with both rev A machines, but the powerbook rev C or D? had 2 logic board replacements and the ibook had 1 and died 1,5 years after purchase (girlfriend didn't buy applecare). So I thought it would be a good idea to try a rev A again.;)

3. Yes, apple fixed the issue, 3 months after my purchase, and 3 months after I paid them money. If I create a website for a client that is not working as expected for 3 months, I won't see any money until the bug is fixed. Or, if I have been paid in advance, I'll have to offer some refund. But I guess it's ok to get srewed by a big company, because you can't defend yourself anyway.

And apart from that, I said I buy my software. I'm just thinking twice this time.;)

[saltyzoo]

It's not ok for you to shoot me in the head, but it's ok for you to get me to pay for the damage. Ok, the form of damage compensation I choose is for you to die of a gunshot wound to the head. Fair? You stealing something to make up for a perceived wrong against you is the same thing.

Of course the 2 things are related. If apple doesn't care about its customers, why should its customers care about apple? The way I see it, I should get a free copy of leopard for all the troubles I had with my iMac for 3 long months. But apple doesn't give any kind of compensation. So if you don't care about me I can shoot you in the head? The way I see it you hit my car from your utter carelessness you deserve to die.

And no, installing 1 disc on 2 machines is not the same as shoplifting, I wish that old example would stop to be brought up. From the point of view of the company it is, from the point of view of the user it isn't.

Me shooting you in the head is ok from my point of view. I assume it wouldn't be from yours. That's an empty argument.


The point as it has been said more eloquently by others is that deciding to steal because you feel you "deserve" it is still stealing. The vast majority of criminals believe that they are entitled in some way because of a past wrong done to them. You are no different than them.

[Yvan256]

I may well be overreacting to your post, but I'm afraid you've hit on a bit of a sore point with me here. I lost a *lot* of money trying to establish a record company only to see my investment going down the drain as every one of our releases appeared online for unauthorised free download. You want to tell me that copyright theft is OK? You can talk 'til you're blue in the face, but if you were on the receiving end I'll give you good odds you would change your view.

We're not talking about freeloading and pirating Leopard here (at least in the first few posts), we're talking about the so-called EULA (which isn't even legal or recognized in some countries).

Let's compare music and software:

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.

- someone buys Leopard and wants to install it on his own computers. Why should he buy one DVD for each of his Macs? He's not a "family" he's just the owner of more than one Mac.

And besides, if it's a user license, shouldn't it still apply as it's one user with multiple Macs?

[WinterMute]

MacRumors does not condone the piracy of any form of software, it does not condone the theft of hardware and it's dead against forcing people to use Windows against their will.

We're sort of wobbly on the drowning of kittens and global warming however.




In the end you choose to break your agreement with Apple, you choose to shoplift and you choose to lob the sack of cute kitties into the canal, where you draw the line morally is entirely up to you, but there are laws to protect the rightful owners of the software, the six-pack and the kittens, and you should expect to be censured if you are caught doing any of these things.


Burning the planet down is not currently illegal, it's just stupid.

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.


I'm not OK with this at all, piracy costs me hard cash every year, and no I'm not a major record label. By copying my recordings you are taking money out of my pocket and making it much harder for me to earn a living. How is that different from simply taking the money from my wallet?

[mpw]

...The vast majority of criminals believe that they are entitled in some way because of a past wrong done to them. You are no different than them.
I'm against stealing too, as I've made clear before, but I sure you'll agree that Apple haven't done enough to protect themselves from this kind of thing. Surely they could've put some kind of lock on the software to prevent this, just leaving a valuable product so highly visible to someone is just irresistibly tempting. The moral lapse it takes to simply insert a DVD in to your Apple without first deleting it from another machine is much smaller than having to break a lock or physically steal it from a store. So you'll agree that Apple are stupid not to do more to stop copyright theft won't you?

[Yvan256]

I'm not OK with this at all, piracy costs me hard cash every year, and no I'm not a major record label. By copying my recordings you are taking money out of my pocket and making it much harder for me to earn a living. How is that different from simply taking the money from my wallet?

Wait just a second. I never once mentionned "making copies for friends" or "uploading on the internet for others to leech", nor should you have assumed that I meant that.

What you're saying is that you're not ok with someone buying your CD then making multiple "copies" (i.e. ripping to his own computers and iPods) and think that person should buy one CD per playback device?

I'm sorry, but even Apple doesn't see it this way. You buy from the iTunes Store and can put the movies/TV shows/music on five computers and unlimited iPods and Apple TVs.

[mpw]

...I'm not OK with this at all...
I'm kinda amazed to find somebody against ripping CDs to iTunes and iPods, or is it just the etc. you have a problem with?, but I can see a kinda logic there also.

However it got me thinking; you can boot from an external drive can't you? Could you load a retail copy of Leopard onto an external drive then carry that from desk to desk and just boot each of our computers from a single copy of Leopard when using them? could you load a MBP with Leopard and boot from it's HDD when sat at an iMac?

[TechHistorian]

Any US schoolchild will have, in his study of Section 8 of The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html), learnt the purpose of Copyright law there to have been stated as "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

And any Constitutional scholar would note that a more complete reading of the appropriate clause reveals "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (my emphasis)

Copyright and patents were, to the Framers' eyes, specifically profit-oriented. The idea was that without profit, inventors would have no incentive to innovate. Indeed, that is exactly why one should adhere to the license agreement on OS X: without the profit generated from sales of both the software and the hardware, Apple has no incentive to develop OS X. Install it on a generic beige box, and Apple will devote itself to building platform-independent iPods and the like.

[Veri]

1. My iMac started freezing after the 2 weeks return period. Numerous calls to apple and everytime they said they won't take it back.
You indicate that you're in Austria, part of the EU and having implemented 1999/44/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31999L0044&model=guichett). Find out what national laws apply. What Apple "say" is irrelevant if it affects your statutory rights, except that it'll take longer as you'll have to dig out the relevant statute and quote it at the right representative of Apple and your credit card company.

Remember:
1. "In the case of non-conformity of the goods with the contract, consumers should be entitled to have the goods restored to conformity with the contract free of charge, choosing either repair or replacement, or, failing this, to have the price reduced or the contract rescinded."
2. "Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery."
3. "Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods."

[saltyzoo]

And besides, if it's a user license, shouldn't it still apply as it's one user with multiple Macs?

No, it's not a user license.

I'm against stealing too, as I've made clear before, but I sure you'll agree that Apple haven't done enough to protect themselves from this kind of thing. Surely they could've put some kind of lock on the software to prevent this, just leaving a valuable product so highly visible to someone is just irresistibly tempting. The moral lapse it takes to simply insert a DVD in to your Apple without first deleting it from another machine is much smaller than having to break a lock or physically steal it from a store. So you'll agree that Apple are stupid not to do more to stop copyright theft won't you?

Yes, but they've decided to value customer convenience over draconian protection.

Some people might even go further out of their way to pay them because of this consideration Apple provided them.

And as I said in the thread you are paraphrasing from "It's still stealing". That's all I am saying.

[Krevnik]

What you're saying is that you're not ok with someone buying your CD then making multiple "copies" (i.e. ripping to his own computers and iPods) and think that person should buy one CD per playback device?

Format shifting of media for yourself has been protected by court rulings. The key thing being that you still have a license, and that license is only being used ONCE at a time. However, it doesn't protect you if you rip a CD, listen to the MP3s, while at the same time reselling the CD or loaning it out. When you loan/trade, your format-shifted copies are not legal to listen to (because you have transferred your license to someone else).


I'm sorry, but even Apple doesn't see it this way. You buy from the iTunes Store and can put the movies/TV shows/music on five computers and unlimited iPods and Apple TVs.

That is part of the license for music purchased from iTunes, it is a little more lenient than default copyright law, which applies to CD sales, for example, or digital services that don't spell out their license very, very, very clearly.

Neither of these scenarios apply to the OS itself, because the OS has a license (granted it is click-through to an extent, but it does have a license) which says exactly what you can do with your license to use the software. If you need to use it on more computers than the license allows with your copy, you need a second license (but you don't /need/ a second disc, per se, just the second license). Hell, in this case, why not just buy a freakin' family pack and get 5 licenses in a single household for less than the price of 2?

[slu]

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.


From RIAA.com (http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law):



It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:


The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.



I dislike the RIAA as much as the next guy, but this FUD about them not being OK with ripping a CD you own to your PC and iPod needs to stop.

[Yvan256]

Format shifting of media for yourself has been protected by court rulings. The key thing being that you still have a license, and that license is only being used ONCE at a time. However, it doesn't protect you if you rip a CD, listen to the MP3s, while at the same time reselling the CD or loaning it out. When you loan/trade, your format-shifted copies are not legal to listen to (because you have transferred your license to someone else).

Yes of course, I also never said anything about buying a CD, ripping it then returning it/selling it.

As for Leopard, well, everybody keeps calling it a "user license", so that's why I said what I said earlier. Still seems strange to me to ask someone to buy multiple licenses for his multiple computers if you ask me. I don't think I would be able to edit two Keynote presentations simultaneously. ;)

slu: you might notice that I'm in Canada, so the RIAA doesn't apply to me (not saying I will go out and do everything the RIAA says we shouldn't do, but from a legal standpoint). Anyway, the CRIA is starting to become even more crazy than the RIAA itself, even ripping our own CDs with iTunes to use on a computer and iPod might become illegal :rolleyes:

[Krevnik]

Yes of course, I also never said anything about buying a CD, ripping it then returning it/selling it.

It was more for general clarification in the thread than aimed at you specifically... a lot of opinions going on, but so little details, I figured I would flesh them out and hope someone gets a bit of useful info out of it.


As for Leopard, well, everybody keeps calling it a "user license", so that's why I said what I said earlier. Still seems strange to me to ask someone to buy multiple licenses for his multiple computers if you ask me. I don't think I would be able to edit two Keynote presentations simultaneously. ;)


Well, it is a End-User License Agreement... it is an agreement with the end-user, not a license per user. There is a big difference.

And as for not editing two keynotes at the same time, you are right. HOWEVER, I can easily run 10 servers and 1 workstation off a single copy and if it was a 'per person' license, Apple would be mightily pissed at missing out on a fair amount of revenue. It is aimed to prevent businesses and the like from cutting corners by being VERY clear in the terms, and in the end, it creates inconvenience in cases for simple at-home users.

[Veri]

Copyright and patents were, to the Framers' eyes, specifically profit-oriented. The idea was that without profit, inventors would have no incentive to innovate.
You appear to be in violent agreement with me on how they saw it, then ;) - the question I was answering in this part is, "Why do we have copyright law?" You have indicated, "(to) secur(e) for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right", but that's just explaining what copyright law is. The rationale here is that copyright law benefits society, and has nothing to do with the notion of ownership of what comes out of your mind. Indeed, the FF were unusually explicit - most of Section 8 doesn't justify itself, but this clause does. So:

Criticisms based on the notion that the OP is stealing dissonate loudly; stealing causes tangible harm to the victim, whereas copyright's basis is not in protecting the copyright holder from harm, but in giving a cookie to the productive for producing something which benefits society.
Copyright legitimacy (if you subscribe to the FFs' notion) depends on authors and inventors benefitting society. A violator treated poorly by an author perceives the author as harmful, not beneficial, thus may fail in the violator's mind to qualify for Section 8 protection. This seems fairly hard to argue wrt/ Apple, but is more contentious e.g. for RIAA and patent trolls (esp. pharma) - regardless, it still needs to be argued calmly. It is not as simple as some fundamental freedom (life, liberty, property) being denied to Apple's owners.


Install it on a generic beige box, and Apple will devote itself to building platform-independent iPods and the like.
This is a question of EULA, not copyright. I've yet to see evidence that our clause, which points toward copyright and patents, was intended to restrict the tools an individual may use to read and interpret an author's work, whether that's choice of eyeglasses or choice of computer. Hence objections to DMCA.

[WinterMute]

I'm kinda amazed to find somebody against ripping CDs to iTunes and iPods, or is it just the etc. you have a problem with?, but I can see a kinda logic there also.

However it got me thinking; you can boot from an external drive can't you? Could you load a retail copy of Leopard onto an external drive then carry that from desk to desk and just boot each of our computers from a single copy of Leopard when using them? could you load a MBP with Leopard and boot from it's HDD when sat at an iMac?

The problem is simple, Fair Use in the US allows multiple copies for personal use and that is fine, as it's enshrined in copyright law. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't then see a difference between their own systems and their friends systems, even though the law specifically forbids the copying of copyright material. There's the rub, apparently, if it's ok to copy for your own use it's just ok to copy.

Incidentally, Fair Use is not an enacted law in the UK or parts of europe, it is still techncally illegal to copy to your own systems, which does include iPods, however this is now held to be unenforcable.

I have no issue with personal "fair use" but the OP wasn't talking about that the EULA is very specific on the licensing agreement.

We are all intelligent and we all know when we are breaking laws, I simply wanted to point out that its not a victimless crime.

Yvan256, I wasn't actually attacking you but it might have seemed that way, sorry, piracy makes my blood boil, of course you're allowed that usage of your own systems.

I also wanted to mention the kittens.

[Yvan256]

If anything, the discussion in this thread only shows us how quick Google is to serve content-specific ads... I see "unprotect your DRM files" and "copy from tape to CD" type ads at the bottom of the page.

Edit: WinterMute, no harm done. As you say, too many people take this issue lightly.

[JNB]

I hope you're joking. Someone who does a clueless Mac-owning friend a favour and installs a copy of Tiger on a machine running 10.2, for instance, is hardly committing a capital crime. I'm sure that the posters in this thread who commend your line of thought also refuse to watch DVDs with friends since they lack a public entertainment licence and don't lend music CDs for fear of being prosecuted for copyright infringement.

Actually I'm not, and your analogy is faulty. Watching another's DVD or listening to a borrowed CD for short-term entertainment value are completely incomparable to the long-term utility value of an Operating System (or any other software).

Put another way, I can put my OS to gainful use as it supports my ability to do my job, use my other software, etc, etc. I gain a continuing return on the investment. It's a tool. The movie or CD, on the other hand, provide a transitory benefit, that benefit being essentially non-quantifiable (I can't say that I am more productive or happy by x amount by watching or listening to it). Additionally, the repeated (and shared use) of the movie is factored into it's retail price, because that's the intended use.

I also never graded the severity of the "crime" involved. I agree it's not a capital crime (to me, it's somewhere above littering but below using cellphone while driving :p), but that's not the point of the discussion, either.

As I doubt most folks have read it, here 'tis, in all its glory, the salient parts of the EULA (edited and emphasized to address the OT). I'm not defending or justifying them, but the point is that this is what we have agreed to. What's your word worth?

1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's and its licensors' intellectual property rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

B. Family Pack. If you have purchased a Mac OS X Family Pack, this License allows you to install and use one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. The Family Pack License does not extend to business or commercial users.

C. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code and other Apple firmware that is embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.

3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.

[Krevnik]

This is a question of EULA, not copyright. I've yet to see evidence that our clause, which points toward copyright and patents, was intended to restrict the tools an individual may use to read and interpret an author's work, whether that's choice of eyeglasses or choice of computer. Hence objections to DMCA.

Actually, copyrights and EULAs are intertwined, and you don't even need to bring in the DMCA on it.

Copyright, by default, gives you, the end consume of a copyrighted work ZERO rights beyond what is framed in copyright law... which is usually fair use and that is about it. Under software, multiple in-use copies are NOT covered under the software fair-use clauses written 2 decades ago, but backups are valid fair use copies. A license from the copyright holder, which is usually considered an enforcable contract (click-through EULAs not withstanding), can expand on the basic rights copyright provides(which again, is usually none at all with fair use exceptions), and provide conditions on which the copyright license can be revoked.

Things like Apple's EULA for a single-user license in general are consistent with copyright, and do not restrict your rights beyond what copyrights allow. By law in some places, you cannot give up certain legal rights in a contract, which includes copyright protections, hence why the DMCA is so important to some companies, so they can enforce more restrictive licenses. Then again, the DMCA is a huge mess because it /also/ includes fair-use exceptions which are vague and can be argued that they technically don't exist via Catch-22.

EDIT: My apologies if this doesn't even really reflect what you were trying to say.

[Veri]

Actually, copyrights and EULAs are intertwined
To the extent that any (valid) contract can grant or take away privileges, certainly.

Under software, multiple in-use copies are NOT covered under the software fair-use clauses written 2 decades ago
Even though it's the thread topic (sorry!), I'm not suggesting that copyright will allow copies on multiple machines. (Though there are some scary reasons floating around for why this is allowed around the world for e.g. music, such as the government forcing people to pay a small % of every blank audio CD-R/cassette/etc to RIAA or local equivalent. I don't really know much about music, though.)

Things like Apple's EULA for a single-user license in general are consistent with copyright, and do not restrict your rights beyond what copyrights allow.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "restrict my rights beyond what copyrights allow". USC 17.117(a)(1) lets me install a copy of OS X on my beige box, if it's the only non-archival copy, providing I do not agree to the EULA. As to whether I am required to agree to the EULA, I haven't been able to work out when I agree to it, though yeah, sometimes they seem enforcible - but with offer of refund if I decline (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4437604#post4437604).

By wiggling your mouse over the tongue-exhibiting emoticon, you agree to send me some pistachio nuts. :p

[Krevnik]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "restrict my rights beyond what copyrights allow". USC 17.117(a)(1) lets me install a copy of OS X on my beige box, if it's the only non-archival copy, providing I do not agree to the EULA. As to whether I am required to agree to the EULA, I haven't been able to work out when I agree to it, though yeah, sometimes they seem enforcible - but with offer of refund if I decline (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4437604#post4437604).

Contracts (generally) cannot require you to give up rights given to you by state or federal law. When a contract and legislation collide, the legislation wins, not the contract.

Actually, 17.117(a)(1) is kinda vague in that you are using the 'adapt' aspect of the clause. If that clause holds in court under your specific definition, regardless of the EULA, you still have that right, since the EULA does not trump 17.117. However, the EULA itself states that by using the software, you are agreeing to the EULA, and that you can send it back without using the EULA if you disagree (and physical copies of software will include a physical EULA to help enforcement). However, since it hasn't been tested in court, only a lawyer can tell you with any level of certainty if your interpretation is one worth betting on.

The reasons why EULAs feel like they restrict is that copyright already restricted your abilities quite a bit, we just don't really know it. Since the right to license you a copy is in the hands of the creator, they can simply not grant you a license at all if they wish, but the EULA is meant to set the ground rules of what extent the license provides rights to the end-user and that the software license cannot be revoked by the company unless certain conditions are met.

Books are the same way, and there is a lot of wonderful copyright red tape we just take for granted these days because of the implicit nature of licenses for books/etc.

[CanadaRAM]

Ah, now that's a good one.

1. My iMac started freezing after the 2 weeks return period. Numerous calls to apple and everytime they said they won't take it back. If my car breaks down in the warranty period (as it happened to me in february), the mechanics order the parts and I have my car back 1 week later.

Case in point -- they do not give you a brand new car.

[mpw]

Case in point -- they do not give you a brand new car.
Just because everyone seems to love car analogies I'll add another.

No they don't hand over a new car, but if the mechanic at a franchised dealership finds something not working and can't figure out why, he doesn't just shrug and tell you to ship the car back to Toyota in Japan. Which is basically what Apple have said to me.

[ryanmcd02]

What if a person buys one copy of the rights to any idea, such as a song or in this case, an operating system. The idea comes in a physical form but is of course just an intangible idea. Since they now own the use of it, does it really matter how many machines you install leopard on if you do not use them simultaneously?

If it is written into an agreement that you sign or acknowledge when you purchase the product, then yes you have agreed to to do something (and whether or not you think it makes sense) you should legally and morally abide by it.

But thinking only hypothetically, a person could uninstall and reinstall leopard on a separate machine every time they wanted to use a particular computer and there could be no objection to that. In this sense, by forcing you to buy multiple copies apple would have to be selling the efficiency gained by not having to do this every time you want to use a different computer. But this isn't the case, apple is selling you the information necessary for leopard to be used at a maximum rate of 24 hours per day (if you and your family all shared one computer). It is the same for buying a CD: the music industry doesn't care if you listen to it on one copy or make 5 cds and play them continuously in a 5-disc changer, so why should it be any different for an OS?

I only have 1 computer with leopard, but if I had two it would be difficult justifying buying a family pack since I would not use two different computers at the same time and I live alone.

[saltyzoo]

I only have 1 computer with leopard, but if I had two it would be difficult justifying buying a family pack since I would not use two different computers at the same time and I live alone.

Why would you need two computers if you are never going to use them at the same time?

[ryanmcd02]

Many people use multiple computers that they do not use simultaneously. As an example, my father uses three: one mac for home internet use, one windows laptop for business use, and one windows laptop for home non-internet use. He never uses these at the same time, but he owns and uses them all.

[mpw]

Why would you need two computers if you are never going to use them at the same time?

Because the 30" ACD and Mac Pro is a bitch to fit on the fold down table in the economy section of an airplane.

[saltyzoo]

Many people use multiple computers that they do not use simultaneously. As an example, my father uses three: one mac for home internet use, one windows laptop for business use, and one windows laptop for home non-internet use. He never uses these at the same time, but he owns and uses them all.

I'd be willing to bet that statement is not 100% accurate. I'll bet he leaves them all running, with tasks running in the background. Email for example.

[ryanmcd02]

mpw says it best, and was actually what I had in mind: people often have a laptop and a mac pro, using the mac pro for video editing and the like and using their laptop for everything not at home.

In the case of my father, it is correct, because he actually (and different from many I am sure) turns off his computers whenever he finishes using them. He uses a PDA to answer emails at home, so he doesn't need to leave one on. But that is not really the point, I am saying that hypothetically this could be the case.

For example, if you have three computers but only one hard drive, and you plug this hard drive into the computer you want to use and then plug it into the next one when you are done. You've only got one copy of leopard, obviously, and you are for all practical terms entirely within the user agreement so long as the computers are yours. So really, what is the difference between doing that and simply requiring yourself to only use one computer at a time when they all have hard drives with one license?

Again, if the agreement explicitly states this is not okay then it isn't okay, but I think that in terms of what a person has paid for they should be allowed to use leopard on any machine that they are the sole user of. A family pack is for when more people will use it or you use two machines at once.

[SavageMac]

Wow, I read through most of this thread & I am shocked:

"Don't pirate that is illegal and MORALLY wrong!!!"

Are you fooling yourselves? 80% of the people who wrote that have PIRATED music they got from torrents...

[Sun Baked]

I guess if you look at the case where a EULA went wrong, you can generally see that a EULA probably can be enforced in Apple's case ... so saying I didn't read it, didn't like it, etc. means nothing, because you are still bound by it....Let's begin with establishing a few important points pertaining to EULAs. Most users typically see them in the form of click-through agreements, which require acceptance of the terms and conditions prior to allowing installation of software. True to their purpose, EULAs, for the most part, play a valuable role in protecting the software developer's work. It is also fair to say that a few rancorous EULAs create a whole lot of bad press for the legitimate majority.

At the most basic level, click-through agreements are enforceable, provided they comply with the normal rules of contract formation, such as offer and acceptance. Because of the medium in which they appear, it is generally the case that when properly presented — the EULA must be legible, timely and complete — there is usually very little controversy about them.

It is also equally well established that when these factors are in place, a user need not have read nor even understood a EULA to be bound to it; it only matters that he or she had an opportunity to read it...
I guess the case where the EULA went wrong, the Sony DRM Eula case is probably a big one ... where they were far beyond typical copyright laws, and really restricted the user while trying limit their liability for damages -- while causing problems and damages.

The 'agreement' that sparked a storm (http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2007-01-02/kahana.shtml)

[SavageMac]

Wow, I read through most of this thread & I am shocked:

"Don't pirate that is illegal and MORALLY wrong!!!"

Are you fooling yourselves? 80% of the people who wrote that have PIRATED music they got from torrents..

[Nugget]

Are you fooling yourselves? 80% of the people who wrote that have PIRATED music they got from torrents..

Guess what? That's wrong too.

(I'm part of the 20% I guess)

[SavageMac]

Guess what? That's wrong too.

(I'm part of the 20% I guess)

I guess more than a lot of people can't afford 30'' Apple displays & expensive software & music CDs.

[flyinmac]

Apple karmic response, you do it and you will start getting bad Apple Care service, dud machines time after time, people that cannot speak English when when you call in for service, etc.

Apple tracks you and retaliates ... ;)

Just look at all the threads where people complain about how many times in a row they have gotten bad Macs.

So, how'd I get on that list? :confused:

I am very careful with regards to licenses, and am one of the few I know who actually obey the laws and EULA agreements.

Or, is Apple just punishing me because everyone else is pirating their software?

Perhaps Apple's tracking mechanism needs a bit of refinement. Then they could punish the pirates :p

I did finally get a good Mac (my Mac Pro). But, it took a lot of duds (iMac's) before I got this one.

[SavageMac]

Perhaps Apple's tracking mechanism needs a bit of refinement. Then they could punish the pirates :p


This will never happen. Pirates are a sophistacted bunch of folks who are, generally speaking, always 1-2 steps ahead of anti-piracy measures.

[flyinmac]

This will never happen. Pirates are a sophistacted bunch of folks who are, generally speaking, always 1-2 steps ahead of anti-piracy measures.

How about 15-days to activate or the computer blows-up :eek:

Apple's new support line: "sorry sir, running pirated versions of OS X on your system will void your warranty. We don't know why your system quit working, but it will cost you $129 to reactivate it."

Then they hang-up and go pat Steve on the back while saying: "We got them again sir."

[JNB]

"Everybody else is doing it."
"I've only got one turned on at a time."
"Most of the people saying it's wrong are being hypocritical."
"It's a stupid agreement, and anyway, they can't enforce it."

There's a word for this. It's called rationalization. I think the issue really boils down to this: If you don't want to buy a license for what you use, don't seek justification or approval here, and don't call us hypocrites when we don't agree wholeheartedly.

Either you can be trusted at your word, or you can't. At the end of the day, that's really all you've got, and it seems to me that sticking by your good name and reputation, even when you don't necessarily agree with the conditions, is more important than a little transitory satisfaction.

Do what you're going to do, don't act offended when I don't buy into the argument, and don't assume me a fool for playing by the agreed upon rules. I didn't get where I am in tenure or station by being an idiot (or at least broadcasting my idiocy).

[SavageMac]

I never I said I did such things.

I am only saying what others think & feel & are too afraid to voice:

Who cares? Why does it all have to cost so much (seriously $1000+ for some pieces of software and 90% of the people who download it illegally will probably delete it anyway as its too complex)?

Seems to me high prices in music & movies for example is too much for people to pay for when they have families to feed.

Why should they not pirate some music? Why does entertainment have to be a middle class or higher thing? Maybe poor people DO need to have something to listen to & watch to get out their thoughts, out of their cycle of poverty.

[flyinmac]

"Everybody else is doing it."
"I've only got one turned on at a time."
"Most of the people saying it's wrong are being hypocritical."
"It's a stupid agreement, and anyway, they can't enforce it."

There's a word for this. It's called rationalization. I think the issue really boils down to this: If you don't want to buy a license for what you use, don't seek justification or approval here, and don't call us hypocrites when we don't agree wholeheartedly.

Either you can be trusted at your word, or you can't. At the end of the day, that's really all you've got, and it seems to me that sticking by your good name and reputation, even when you don't necessarily agree with the conditions, is more important than a little transitory satisfaction.

Do what you're going to do, don't act offended when I don't buy into the argument, and don't assume me a fool for playing by the agreed upon rules. I didn't get where I am in tenure or station by being an idiot (or at least broadcasting my idiocy).

So, that brings-up another question.

If you are going to ignore the license agreement, and thereby steal "additional" installations to use on other computers, then why bother buying a copy at all?

Just ignore the license altogether, and save all the money.

I'm not saying it's right. And, I wouldn't do it. But, why pay anything if you don't intend to pay it all?

Edit: Just to be clear, I used the word "You" above in a generic sense meaning anyone. It is not pointed at anyone in this thread. Just meaning "You" as in if "You" were to do this, then... Purely generic as in anyone.

[JNB]

So, that brings-up another question.

If you are going to ignore the license agreement, and thereby steal "additional" installations to use on other computers, then why bother buying a copy at all?

Just ignore the license altogether, and save all the money.

I'm not saying it's right. And, I wouldn't do it. But, why pay anything if you don't intend to pay it all?

Exactly. Or, as I said a few days ago...


Try looking at it this way: we don't have a problem with you doing it, but you have to go to an Apple Store and shoplift your own copy. Does it still feel like not a big deal?

[SavageMac]

Stealing from a store is not very difficult...

[CalBoy]

Stealing from a store is not very difficult...

Whether or not it's physically difficult, it ought to be morally difficult. There should be some kind of restraint upon you to not steal simply because you feel like it.

[ryanmcd02]

I don't see my arguments as a simple excuse or rationalization of the argument. Again, if the rules say "you can only use this on one computer throughout this license's lifetime," than I think it could be easily said that you cannot install it on multiple computers.

But referring to my original post, the real point of this is that it seems odd to charge a single person twice for rights to the same information. iTunes allows you to burn a copy of a song onto a cd so that you may listen to it on your cd player while it also lets you put it onto your ipod. See? You bought the rights, so now you get a reasonable amount of use for one person. In Apple's words, "Rip, mix, burn." You can't really use it twice at once unless you illegally give it to someone else, so you are allowed to have multiple copies. I don't understand why operating systems would be handled that differently. I could see the problem being that if they stated it my way, people would stop buying the family pack because they would assume wrongly that since they bought the computer they are the sole user in apple's eyes and don't need 5 licenses. But, apple is already relying on the honor system.

But for a third time, this is does not change the legality or morality of buying all of your copies, it only questions why they have arranged their user agreement in such a way that seems inconsistent with their other policies.

[saltyzoo]

As someone said above, it is nothing more than rationalization to think it's "ok".

As I've said above, I could care less whether you do it or not, but it's still stealing in any case.

Quoted from the Leopard EULA for those too lazy to read it themselves. The red bold is mine.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

[RedTomato]

One case where installing a single-user licence twice might be OK:

We had an iBook with Tiger. It got stolen in an office break-in. (and the the theft was reported to the police).

We still had the Tiger DVDs.

So I asked here if it was ok to use them to upgrade an old PowerMac G3 that I had. The general consensus was that since we no longer had access to the iBook, yes it was OK.

The thief was using the ibook illegally, and we retained the legal right to use the licence of that OSX installation. Hence we could transfer that right to another mac of our choosing.

So I guess if you have a mac machine that is stolen or has a terminal malfunction, you can transfer your OSX licence to another machine.

It may not be exactly within the wording to install an OEM OSX dvd on another machine, but as long as each machine / installation you have has its own licence / genuine install DVDs, I guess it's morally OK.

[AlexisV]

So, that brings-up another question.

If you are going to ignore the license agreement, and thereby steal "additional" installations to use on other computers, then why bother buying a copy at all?

Just ignore the license altogether, and save all the money.

I'm not saying it's right. And, I wouldn't do it. But, why pay anything if you don't intend to pay it all?

Edit: Just to be clear, I used the word "You" above in a generic sense meaning anyone. It is not pointed at anyone in this thread. Just meaning "You" as in if "You" were to do this, then... Purely generic as in anyone.

It's a combination of morals and common sense. Humans are not mindless automatons and are reluctant to follow rules and regulations that may appear non-sensical.

Whilst the concept of handing over money for a physical program is perfectly reasonable, the concept of handing over more money in exchange for permission is not as acceptable, because there's no tangible benefit for the cash you've handed over.

As someone said above, it is nothing more than rationalization to think it's "ok".

As I've said above, I could care less whether you do it or not, but it's still stealing in any case.

Quoted from the Leopard EULA for those too lazy to read it themselves. The red bold is mine.

I don't anyone thinks it's 'ok' - it's a conscious flouting of the EULA. However, people are more savvy than I think some are given them credit for - people are more intelligent than to blindly follow an agreement and realise they are paying money merely for permission and the fact that nothing will happen to them if they don't seek this.
Not every law is sensible just because it is 'the law'. I could sell an item tomorrow that had a licence agreement that stipulated I wanted money for the permission to let them use the item on a Thursday.

[gauchogolfer]

Because the 30" ACD and Mac Pro is a bitch to fit on the fold down table in the economy section of an airplane.

That's why I refuse to fly anything other than first class these days. Such inconveniences!

[ryanmcd02]

So according to the EULA, it cannot exist on more than one computer at the same time. We've got that. But it still doesn't matter for the sake of what I am trying to show. I agree that when you buy leopard, under its agreement you cannot install it on two machines, period.

But, if you have one hard drive that you use for all of your computers, and you had some easy method of unplugging and replugging it to each CPU that you wanted to use, it would never exist on more than one computer at a time, and would be fully compatible with the EULA. So would that not be fine? You are using one copy, no greater than once at a time, on each computer, always from the same hard drive.

Why would anyone do this? Because if you had a way to easily remove HDs from laptops, you could plug it into your more powerful mac pro when not traveling.

The point is that regardless of what the user agreement says, if a person does not leave one computer on while using the other then it is an odd concept to charge them for using identical knowledge again since they are simply applying a different CPU to the exact same knowledge. If we are buying rights to knowledge, I think it makes sense to say that the buyer could even install leopard on any computer they used for the duration of their use.

Please don't respond to this to say what the rules are, because I obviously agree that a contract is a contract and I don't do it myself etc. But imagine that you had to sign a contract when you bought gloves that said you could only use one at a time. If you wanted gloves, you would abide by it because it is a contract, although you think it could be written or sold better. I am interested in this particularly because I am currently writing a thesis on property rights, so a theoretical perspective is not a waste of time to me.

[saltyzoo]

So according to the EULA, it cannot exist on more than one computer at the same time. We've got that. But it still doesn't matter for the sake of what I am trying to show. I agree that when you buy leopard, under its agreement you cannot install it on two machines, period.

But, if you have one hard drive that you use for all of your computers, and you had some easy method of unplugging and replugging it to each CPU that you wanted to use, it would never exist on more than one computer at a time, and would be fully compatible with the EULA. So would that not be fine? You are using one copy, no greater than once at a time, on each computer, always from the same hard drive.

Why would anyone do this? Because if you had a way to easily remove HDs from laptops, you could plug it into your more powerful mac pro when not traveling.

The point is that regardless of what the user agreement says, if a person does not leave one computer on while using the other then it is an odd concept to charge them for using identical knowledge again since they are simply applying a different CPU to the exact same knowledge. If we are buying rights to knowledge, I think it makes sense to say that the buyer could even install leopard on any computer they used for the duration of their use.

Please don't respond to this to say what the rules are, because I obviously agree that a contract is a contract and I don't do it myself etc. But imagine that you had to sign a contract when you bought gloves that said you could only use one at a time. If you wanted gloves, you would abide by it because it is a contract, although you think it could be written or sold better. I am interested in this particularly because I am currently writing a thesis on property rights, so a theoretical perspective is not a waste of time to me.

If you had it only installed on one hd, I think you'd be following the spirit and intention of the EULA. There is no way you could use it on more than one machine at a time. I don't think that would be stealing. Incredibly cheap, but not stealing. :D

[CalBoy]

<snip hypothetical>
Please don't respond to this to say what the rules are, because I obviously agree that a contract is a contract and I don't do it myself etc. But imagine that you had to sign a contract when you bought gloves that said you could only use one at a time. If you wanted gloves, you would abide by it because it is a contract, although you think it could be written or sold better. I am interested in this particularly because I am currently writing a thesis on property rights, so a theoretical perspective is not a waste of time to me.

Well the glove example doesn't do it for me. When someone buys gloves, it's expected that they are to be used to protect one's hands from the cold. It would be wholly ridiculous to use one glove at a time. The same is not true for a computer. A computer works just fine with only one OS on it. Now I know that you were comparing one OS to one pair of gloves, but the analogy just doesn't fit. By installing one copy of an OS onto two computers, you are increasing your productivity.

Even if you swore to only use one machine at a time, the writer/seller of the software (in this case Apple) would have no way of checking up on you. Otherwise, I think it's perfectly logical to say that "one machine at a time" would work. However, simply because Apple has no way of ensuring that you only use one computer at a time, they write the contract to say that it cannot be installed on more than one computer at a time.

Now, how about the nature of property rights? In the case of creative works (including books, music, etc), the writer generally does not give you the right to the software/book/music in question; he/she cedes the right to use that particular software. If you feel that there is a more efficient or better way to disseminate the material, perhaps you ought to contact the writer of such software to broker a better contract.

Ultimately, I think that's what it comes down to. Property rights are the core of any functioning economy. The ability to set terms is crucial for the success of future innovations. (you did ask for a theoretical perspective :o).

[JNB]

The point is that regardless of what the user agreement says, if a person does not leave one computer on while using the other then it is an odd concept to charge them for using identical knowledge again since they are simply applying a different CPU to the exact same knowledge. If we are buying rights to knowledge, I think it makes sense to say that the buyer could even install leopard on any computer they used for the duration of their use.

Your post makes a lot of sense, and I'm mostly in agreement. It's not an uncommon concept, though. Using another car analogy, even though you can only drive one at a time, each requires separate and unique licensing. (I'm aware of the holes in that particular argument, it was just the first thing that came to mind).

Remember, too, that the "rights" are those very specifically and narrowly granted, subject to particular conditions and limitations (that we've all flogged pretty well), and also subject to termination by the grantor at any time for any reason.

Actually, all the parsing of phrases and language in the EULA exemplifies the continuing argument in legislatures and the courts. They (the EULAs) are nasty, vague, cumbersome, and subject to too much interpretation by reasonable people. On that point alone they are lousy tools to grant use of something.

For that reason alone, I would almost be willing to be subjected to an authentication scheme that would abrogate the need for the rather foggy moral and legal quandary this presents.

Maybe a self-terminating subscription of say, 5 bucks a month? Over two years (an approximate lifespan between versions), that would bring the price to $120. Spreads the cost to the consumer (who's paying in inflated dollars over that span, BTW), and from Apple's accounting perspective, a real winner.

[mpw]

...Using another car analogy, even though you can only drive one at a time, each requires separate and unique licensing...
Do they? I thought the driver was licensed to drive and the cars were simply registered to the owner, who may not necessarily be the licensed user. I can't remember any specific clause in my license, but I'm pretty sure I can only drive one car at a time legally.

[AlexisV]

Automotive insurance, licensing and tax are subject to harsher penalties and we're talking about possible personal harm and the funds a society requires to run and maintain its infrastructure. It's a different kettle of fish.

Software licenses are merely a profit generating mechanism.

[flyinmac]

But imagine that you had to sign a contract when you bought gloves that said you could only use one at a time.


The difference is that gloves are sold in pairs.

License agreements are sold as one (unless you buy a multi-pack / family pack license.

But, staying with gloves:

The license remains the same as with software. You can install one glove on one hand at a time. Since they come in pairs, you can install them on two hands at a time (one on each hand). You can choose which / who's hands you want them on. But, you cannot install any glove on more than one hand at a time. If you want them on another hand, you must first remove it from the hand it is currently installed on.

So, that seems pretty consistent. One glove, one hand. Two gloves, two hands.

One software license, one computer. Two licenses, two computers.

Same thing.

Just like gloves, you can uninstall a given program from one computer and then install it on another.

Let the glove pirating begin :D

[ryanmcd02]

Thank you all for your patience with me, I should have found a way to better get to the root of it before I began.

CalBoy, I think you are correct that it is actually just a less efficient distribution scheme than otherwise might be possible. The property rights that my thesis actually deals with are particularly the intellectual properties of pharmaceutical companies and health care. Your conclusion sums it up: without patent laws the incentives to innovate become null.

For JohnNotBeatle, I can see how you car analogy does work. The license plate on a car taxes you to use that vehicle and you must pay for plates no matter how many vehicles you own. And that carries on to what you said about paying per month of use. I think we could even benefit if leopard packs came in all sizes, depending on user configurations, such as 2 comps 1 user, 3 comps 2 users, etc, like a phone plan. Although of course then EULAs would just get that much more complicated...

EDIT: Yeah, the gloves example is poor. I really just mean to say that I think the contract should be arranged differently.

[mpw]

The difference is that gloves are sold in pairs.

License agreements are sold as one (unless you buy a multi-pack / family pack license.

But, staying with gloves:

The license remains the same as with software. You can install one glove on one hand at a time. Since they come in pairs, you can install them on two hands at a time (one on each hand). You can choose which / who's hands you want them on. But, you cannot install any glove on more than one hand at a time. If you want them on another hand, you must first remove it from the hand it is currently installed on.

So, that seems pretty consistent. One glove, one hand. Two gloves, two hands...
What about muffs? can I use more than one muff at a time? what if I don't use my hands as the muffs owner wanted me to? would that be a violation? what if I had a friend join me and use the muff at the same time as me? do you think the muff supplier would complain?

[CalBoy]

CalBoy, I think you are correct that it is actually just a less efficient distribution scheme than otherwise might be possible. The property rights that my thesis actually deals with are particularly the intellectual properties of pharmaceutical companies and health care. Your conclusion sums it up: without patent laws the incentives to innovate become null.

Yeah, I really think that's what most people find irritating about EULA; the contract is a bit too restrictive. There probably are better ways to do it, but the costs of administration would probably nullify any possible gains.

EDIT: Yeah, the gloves example is poor. I really just mean to say that I think the contract should be arranged differently.

How about an example using books? Let's say that I write a book and sell it to you. Now, assuming that there are 4 people in your home, it would be rather impossible for all of them to read the book simultaneously right? You must all take turns. I think that EULA is after a similar goal. It's ok to recycle the software onto different computers (like sharing a book) but it must be done one at a time (like reading a book). However, books have that built-in advantage of being difficult to copy and bind (it would be a pain-I think most people would shell out the extra $10 for a second copy); software doesn't have that built-in defense. It's very easy to copy software, and very easy to use it multiple times without paying for it.

[Sun Baked]

What about muffs? can I use more than one muff at a time? what if I don't use my hands as the muffs owner wanted me to? would that be a violation? what if I had a friend join me and use the muff at the same time as me? do you think the muff supplier would complain?

Yes, I think the muff supplier would complain, if two men want to use the muff at the same time -- it's gonna cost you extra.

And you better watch those wandering hands if you don't pay for the merchandise. :o

Edit: Oops, got the wrong definition of a word again. :(

[ryanmcd02]

I like the book example, I believe it wins. I should be glad apple does this instead of tracking my use.


What if someone distributes the mittens through torrents? Is it okay to be the receiver of said mittens but not the giver?

[CalBoy]

I like the book example, I believe it wins. I should be glad apple does this instead of tracking my use.

*Bows*

What's my prize?:p


What if someone distributes the mittens through torrents? Is it okay to be the receiver of said mittens but not the giver?

I would rather think not. It's an accessory to a breach of contract (and it also happens to be larceny). If the original writer wanted the software to be torrented, wouldn't they have done it themselves?;)

[mpw]

...How about an example using books? Let's say that I write a book and sell it to you. Now, assuming that there are 4 people in your home, it would be rather impossible for all of them to read the book simultaneously right?...
WHat if one of your 4 was deaf and a skilled lip reader, and another is a bit stupid and moves his lips while reading. He's not intentionally sharing the story, but the deaf guy is essentially using it at the same time, has anybody broken the law?

Also once they've all read the book, say a "Dummies Guide To Programming" they can all go and use the information contained within the book to program PCs at the same time. Should that be allowed?

[flyinmac]

I like the book example, I believe it wins. I should be glad apple does this instead of tracking my use.


What if someone distributes the mittens through torrents? Is it okay to be the receiver of said mittens but not the giver?

Nah, you'll be fine.

Don't expect them to be very warm though. After being shoved through hundreds of thousands of data lines, re-routed, and redirected, and then passed back and forth a few million times, I think they'll be rather thread-bare by the time you get them.

After a few thousand people exchange clothing this way, the internet will probably start crawling due to the thick tufts of fluff clogging the lines.

Let's see your computer spit out that fur ball :eek:

[CalBoy]

WHat if one of your 4 was deaf and a skilled lip reader, and another is a bit stupid and moves his lips while reading. He's not intentionally sharing the story, but the deaf guy is essentially using it at the same time, has anybody broken the law?

Well that seems perfectly reasonable, as EULA doesn't stop two people (or more) from sharing that computer, just as multiple people can share a book. I think it would be rather hard to share software in the same way you describe the book being shared though.

Also once they've all read the book, say a "Dummies Guide To Programming" they can all go and use the information contained within the book to program PCs at the same time. Should that be allowed?

This is always allowed. They've gained knowledge from the book, and now they're applying it to new things. Writers know this, even software writers. I use OS X to create new things. The writer doesn't care about this; the writer only cares that I haven't short-changed him by usurping his right to sell his own material (which I would do if I bought a single copy for five machines, or torrented my single copy for others to get for free).

[ryanmcd02]

Then grandmothers will sue 'Knitster' for distributing their artwork.

[JNB]

If we're going to use clothing analogies in the "one copy, many users" scenario, I have one example of why it's a bad idea.

Bowling shoes...

[Hmac]

I just bought a 2.4 ghz MacBook Pro (delivered today) from B&H. Although it was advertised as coming with Leopard, I noted as soon as I booted it up that it was actually 10.4.1 Tiger. I called B&H and they readily acknowledged the error and are sending me Leopard. So, I have two licenses (or will have when it arrives) so after doing all the new-machine software updates, I went ahead and installed Leopard on it from the disk I bought from Apple and installed on my MacPro. It installed with no problems, and is running fine.

[MBHockey]

Maybe you should read up on what Fair Use (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=fair+use&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) actually is.

Thank you. I was laughing at his previous post.

[RaceTripper]

If you install an unlicensed copy of Mac OS X, your machine will turn into a Dell.

And all of a sudden, the OS will crash, hardware will fail, and everyone you turn to for fixes and repairs will tell you in broken English with thick Indian accents to update your anti-virus software, apply the latest IE security patches, and reinstall everything from the restore disk. Also, your startup sound will scream out "Dude, you're goin' to Hell"

[pianojoe]

Will everybody who deems it perfectly legal and ethically "the right thing to do" to buy a single license and use it as if it were a double license, please raise his/her hand?

No-one? Thank you. Next topic.

[sowillo14]

Apple karmic response, you do it and you will start getting bad Apple Care service, dud machines time after time, people that cannot speak English when when you call in for service, etc.

Apple tracks you and retaliates ... ;)

Just look at all the threads where people complain about how many times in a row they have gotten bad Macs.

Ha! I LOL'd at that.

[alanduffy]

First, I personally know both Steve Wozniak along with Steve Jobs. I was taught how to hack pac bell by one of them, you can guess witch one. second Apple flat out STOLE everything you see in thier OS.

Now for an argument that makes sense. If you go to a pizza restaurant and get a goat cheese pizza, and then go home and replicate it with you own kitchen, that is both legal and moral. but if you then sell this for a profit then it becomes a legal problem. In order for ANY of these laws that all of you UNEDUCATED people are talking about, there are certain parts that you have to prove in a court of Law. The most important is that in duplicating the OS, The company can show that there is a loss in profit. The only legal way (the world over) to show this in copy write law is by selling the OS to people that would otherwise purchased it from Apple. The one other way is by producing something with it that you can profit from. Like the well known photoshop, you steel it, make photos with it, and then sell the photos. that is illegal. But to this day there is absolutely NO law that prevents you from taking ANY pice of information and using it. If I go around telling all of you my cure for cancer, even if I have a paten on it, you are still within you rights to use that information to cure yourself of cancer. It is so sad so see such a lack of intelligence of people that can at very least turn on a computer. I also didn't know that republicans used Apples.

I would like to see any of you who are protecting apple try and tell me that what they are doing is MORAL. If I buy it, I do with it whatever I want within the laws of the land. That they try to get you to agree to a contract that is in total violation with both state and federal law and have fooled you all, flat out illegally coned people out of billions of dollars, how do you drones still write this gibberish. shame on all of you. Didn't you learn in high school history to always question everything.

I use a mac, and a pc, and all OS's, when possible, or when I feel that I will be violating OUR LAWS of THE STATE OR THE FEDRAL LAW, NOT APPLES rules, I pay for the OS or software.

To all, do what you feel is right, think for yourself and don't asks questions of people you don't know when you can go visit your local Law library.

Ha! I LOL'd at that.

[saltyzoo]

First, I personally know both Steve Wozniak along with Steve Jobs. I was taught how to hack pac bell by one of them, you can guess witch one. second Apple flat out STOLE everything you see in thier OS.

Now for an argument that makes sense. If you go to a pizza restaurant and get a goat cheese pizza, and then go home and replicate it with you own kitchen, that is both legal and moral. but if you then sell this for a profit then it becomes a legal problem. In order for ANY of these laws that all of you UNEDUCATED people are talking about, there are certain parts that you have to prove in a court of Law. The most important is that in duplicating the OS, The company can show that there is a loss in profit. The only legal way (the world over) to show this in copy write law is by selling the OS to people that would otherwise purchased it from Apple. The one other way is by producing something with it that you can profit from. Like the well known photoshop, you steel it, make photos with it, and then sell the photos. that is illegal. But to this day there is absolutely NO law that prevents you from taking ANY pice of information and using it. If I go around telling all of you my cure for cancer, even if I have a paten on it, you are still within you rights to use that information to cure yourself of cancer. It is so sad so see such a lack of intelligence of people that can at very least turn on a computer. I also didn't know that republicans used Apples.

I would like to see any of you who are protecting apple try and tell me that what they are doing is MORAL. If I buy it, I do with it whatever I want within the laws of the land. That they try to get you to agree to a contract that is in total violation with both state and federal law and have fooled you all, flat out illegally coned people out of billions of dollars, how do you drones still write this gibberish. shame on all of you. Didn't you learn in high school history to always question everything.

I use a mac, and a pc, and all OS's, when possible, or when I feel that I will be violating OUR LAWS of THE STATE OR THE FEDRAL LAW, NOT APPLES rules, I pay for the OS or software.

To all, do what you feel is right, think for yourself and don't asks questions of people you don't know when you can go visit your local Law library.

Very good job of sounding like you have a clue about something which you have none. Congratulations.

Do you know what a contract is? Are you aware that breaking a contract makes you liable? Are you aware that if, for example you have a contract to pay someone $10,000 for a car, and you take the car and don't give them the $10,000 that is against the law? It's called stealing. Maybe you ought to look in the law books that aren't pop-ups. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I don't claim to know Jobs or Wozniak personally. ROTFL. That was a good touch.

[Moof1904]

Can we please create a sticky post about this f--king topic and immediately and forever delete all posts that begin with "can I install my single user copy of MacOS whatever on the 93 Macs in my trailer park..."

I see a post every couple of freakin' days asking this same (insipid) question.

Yes, it's possible. No, don't do it. Now move on...


Christ.

[RedTomato]

I personally know God, who taught me how to hack the Acorn Electron and the Archimedes, and he just told me the goat is pretty annoyed at having his cheese cooked. Oh and he also told me that he's a Republican and uses a Mac Pro 32 core, and the Pope has a pimple on his ass and wears Doc Marten boots.

Next!

[martyrk]

I personally know God, who taught me how to hack the Acorn Electron and the Archimedes, and he just told me the goat is pretty annoyed at having his cheese cooked. Oh and he also told me that he's a Republican and uses a Mac Pro 32 core, and the Pope has a pimple on his ass and wears Doc Marten boots.

Next!

HA! Love it!

Lets just say:
So my friend finally buys a mac after me convincing him that macs are seriously the best computer to have! He gets his mac home with the preloaded Leopard on, finds out that what people complain about most about Leopard is happening to his computer. Now after convincing him to get a mac, he is finding reason to hate macs since Windows worked for him perfectly(vista). He is hating the mac experience and is ready to get rid of it and go back to his PC with perfectly running Vista.

1. Take advantage of the situation buy the computer from him for a discount of course (I see 1/2 off sale coming)

2. Let him suffer and complain about Macs until an update comes out and hopefully he still likes the mac after all the bugs

3. Give him my copy of Tiger to HELP apple in converting a member of our mac cult and keeping him to buy more apple products because he finds that Tiger is awesome and loves macs and tells everyone about macs and how everyone should get a mac and he wants to marry his mac.

Oh but wait! Sorry, I cant give you my copy of Tiger because of the User agreement. One copy, one computer. So instead he is stuck either getting rid of the mac and telling everyone his mac experience was terrible and reinforces himself and others that PCs are better then macs

[flyinmac]

HA! Love it!

Lets just say:
So my friend finally buys a mac after me convincing him that macs are seriously the best computer to have! He gets his mac home with the preloaded Leopard on, finds out that what people complain about most about Leopard is happening to his computer. Now after convincing him to get a mac, he is finding reason to hate macs since Windows worked for him perfectly(vista). He is hating the mac experience and is ready to get rid of it and go back to his PC with perfectly running Vista.

1. Take advantage of the situation buy the computer from him for a discount of course (I see 1/2 off sale coming)

2. Let him suffer and complain about Macs until an update comes out and hopefully he still likes the mac after all the bugs

3. Give him my copy of Tiger to HELP apple in converting a member of our mac cult and keeping him to buy more apple products because he finds that Tiger is awesome and loves macs and tells everyone about macs and how everyone should get a mac and he wants to marry his mac.

Oh but wait! Sorry, I cant give you my copy of Tiger because of the User agreement. One copy, one computer. So instead he is stuck either getting rid of the mac and telling everyone his mac experience was terrible and reinforces himself and others that PCs are better then macs


Or...

4. He can just install Windows on it, and keep using it as a PC that can also run Mac software.

[martyrk]

Or...

4. He can just install Windows on it, and keep using it as a PC that can also run Mac software.


He then would be violating Windows user agreement

[maxrobertson]

He then would be violating Windows user agreement

Uh... no, he wouldn't. The EULA says it can't be used in a virtualized environment. Boot Camp isn't virtualization.

And I suggest you let him have Tiger... Leopard isn't ready yet, but it will be soon, I think.

[flyinmac]

Uh... no, he wouldn't. The EULA says it can't be used in a virtualized environment. Boot Camp isn't virtualization.

And I suggest you let him have Tiger... Leopard isn't ready yet, but it will be soon, I think.


Absolutely correct. Any version of Windows can be legally run directly on the computer (as in with Boot Camp).

And, if he really wanted to run it in a virtual environment, he could use Windows Vista Ultimate (which permits running in a virtual environment).

But, if he doesn't like the Mac OS, then he could legally run any version of Vista or XP directly on the hardware just like he would on a real PC. Set it up as a dual-boot and switch between them if he likes. Or, format the whole hard drive and just install Windows if he likes. Doing it that way, it would behave just like a regular PC.

I have mine set to dual Boot Vista Ultimate and Leopard. Work great. I just reboot and choose what I want.

But, he could set it up without OS X if he didn't care to have the option of booting into OS X.

[martyrk]

But running windows on the computer he is not going to be convinced that apple is a better product. Just a more expensive machine to run his windows. You would want the friend to find that yes apple has very good products and would like to expand his horizon in apple products, but if he cant get that through leopard as a friend I would , in this case, illegally give him my tiger to keep him convinced that apple really is a great product.



Remember it was just hypothetical story.

[kaiwai]

But running windows on the computer he is not going to be convinced that apple is a better product. Just a more expensive machine to run his windows. You would want the friend to find that yes apple has very good products and would like to expand his horizon in apple products, but if he cant get that through leopard as a friend I would , in this case, illegally give him my tiger to keep him convinced that apple really is a great product.



Remember it was just hypothetical story.

Interesting, I've yet to, or by brother (a recent convert) have a problem with Leopard. Maybe we're in the minority, but we've had no problems.

[RedTomato]

I dunno the letter of the law, but as your friend has a legal version of OSX Leopard and an Intel Mac, I think it would be morally acceptable for you to give him a copy of Tiger. He would be running that instead of his Leopard install.

I don't think companies are too bothered if you pay for their latest software but choose to use an older version.

[superman666]

I think it's pretty stupid (or nice!) for Apple to expect people to not install leopard on more than one machine. It's very naive for them to think people will actually do that. 90% of people who install anything never read the terms, and just check it in (I do anyway)... Why should a person have any reason to buy a 'family' pack if they don't need it? It's pretty rediculous, and installing leopard onto multiple computers is not 'morally wrong' it's just being smart. Why should a person waste money on something that isn't really needed...

[gnasher729]

I think it's pretty stupid (or nice!) for Apple to expect people to not install leopard on more than one machine. It's very naive for them to think people will actually do that. 90% of people who install anything never read the terms, and just check it in (I do anyway)... Why should a person have any reason to buy a 'family' pack if they don't need it? It's pretty rediculous, and installing leopard onto multiple computers is not 'morally wrong' it's just being smart. Why should a person waste money on something that isn't really needed...

It is smart in the same way that stealing someone's food from the fridge at your company is smart. It is one hundred percent illegal (as if you care), and if you install it on two Macs that are in use, it is morally wrong.

[gnasher729]

I dunno the letter of the law, but as your friend has a legal version of OSX Leopard and an Intel Mac, I think it would be morally acceptable for you to give him a copy of Tiger. He would be running that instead of his Leopard install.

I don't think companies are too bothered if you pay for their latest software but choose to use an older version.

I think his friend was rather hypothetical. The last person I meet who just bought a computer with Vista asked me if I could install Windows on their computer instead :rolleyes: People who switch from XP to Vista mostly regret it, and I cannot imagine anyone wanting to switch from Leopard to Vista.

That said, you cannot install Tiger on a new computer that shipped with Leopard. Tiger versions that came with a computer are specifically made for that computer (the Tiger that came with your 2006 iMac won't install on a brand new 2008 iMac), and the retail versions of Tiger are PowerPC only.

[gnasher729]

We're not talking about freeloading and pirating Leopard here (at least in the first few posts), we're talking about the so-called EULA (which isn't even legal or recognized in some countries).

Let's compare music and software:

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.

- someone buys Leopard and wants to install it on his own computers. Why should he buy one DVD for each of his Macs? He's not a "family" he's just the owner of more than one Mac.

And besides, if it's a user license, shouldn't it still apply as it's one user with multiple Macs?

You are confusing EULA and copyright law.

You are correct in saying that the legal status of EULAs in some countries is at least unclear. However, in all these countries there is a copyright law, that doesn't allow you to make more copies of the software than absolutely needed - that means you can install one copy of MacOS X on one computer. If the MacOS X EULA has additional limitations then we can debate whether they apply, but installing on two computers is illegal by plain old copyright law, even if there is no EULA whatsoever or if it is invalid for any reason.

Note that if you buy a family pack, then you are definitely bound by the EULA (because copyright law only allows one copy to be made; it is the EULA that allows you to make four more copies).

[ezekielrage_99]

It is not allowed, but it is also not prevented. So your "noob" friends are correct (well, it's a DVD, not a CD). There's nothing preventing you from installing a single copy of Leopard on more than one machine except for the license.

See: Everything you want to know bout Leopard licensing/activation (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=372709)

Thanks for the link, I was wondering what the user constraints are for using Leopard.

Cheers :apple:

The one thing that I am wondering however is it illegal for me to make a back up of the CD, I tend to do this just in case I loose the install disc (and it has happened to me before when I moved house).

[SawTooth500]

However, apply this scenario to the operating system and you would not be able to boot both machines at once.

Huh?

What, pray tell, would keep the second machine from working at the same time as the first one?:confused:

[saltyzoo]

Huh?

What, pray tell, would keep the second machine from working at the same time as the first one?:confused:

The context of the quote you snipped was an ethical one not a technical one.

You could have two OS's installed, but if you booted them both you'd be violating the EULA. With application software it can be installed on two machines, but not running on both. With an OS, if it's installed on two machines and both are running, then you are violating the license.

[clevin]

I think it's pretty stupid (or nice!) for Apple to expect people to not install leopard on more than one machine. It's very naive for them to think people will actually do that.

well, Im pretty sure apple never really expect that, does apple look like a naive company? lol

[spatlese44]

Why doesn't Apple just make the upgrades free?

Call me crazy, but do they really make that much money on this? Don't get me wrong, I paid for a copy of Leopard, but honestly one of my big selling points for switching was that Xcode was free. Visual Studio is far from free.

It just seems like in the PC world everyone is trying to nickel and dime you for everything. I'd rather pay a little extra up front for the machine, knowing, that's it.

Then there's the, "when should I buy?" thing. I waited thinking I would get Leopard, but eventually bought a month before, because I really just wanted my *explicitive* computer. I'm having a hard time seeing how morally I did the right thing paying for something I would have got installed for free in a months time had I waited. My old OS was only good for a month?

[SawTooth500]

Tiger versions that came with a computer are specifically made for that computer (the Tiger that came with your 2006 iMac won't install on a brand new 2008 iMac), and the retail versions of Tiger are PowerPC only.[/QUOTE]



Where'd you get this from?:confused:
Tiger will install on IntelMacs as well as PPCMacs. Nothing earlier will.:apple::cool:

[SawTooth500]

Consider this, then.

We have the EULA, and the license from Apple.
However a lot of the underlying software is OpenSoftware.
I can copy that to any machine I want and run it. That is the beauty of OpenSoftware. The OSX is really only a window manager, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Gnome works really well and is just as pretty and maybe prettier than OSX.:apple:

[flyinmac]

Tiger versions that came with a computer are specifically made for that computer (the Tiger that came with your 2006 iMac won't install on a brand new 2008 iMac), and the retail versions of Tiger are PowerPC only.



Where'd you get this from?:confused:
Tiger will install on IntelMacs as well as PPCMacs. Nothing earlier will.:apple::cool:[/QUOTE]


Go ahead and try it. Just for fun, try it. After you've tried it, then report back.

First, there was no universal version of Tiger. There was a separate PPC and a separate Intel version. One could not be installed on the other type of system. You had to use the Intel version with the Intel's, and the PowerPC version with the PowerPC systems.

Second, there was no retail version of Tiger for the Intel systems (it wasn't needed since they all came with Tiger until Leopard shipped). And, the retail PowerPC (and OEM PowerPC) version would not install on an Intel system.

Third, Apple has always made it so that the OS X disks that shipped with a particular computer could not be used with a different revision or different model Mac system. So, the iMac disks will not work with an iMac that has a slight revision or boot ROM version, or other alteration. They have always been keyed to work only on the exact model and revision computer that they shipped with. This has been the case through history with OS X and PowerPC systems. It will likely continue on with the Intel systems for the remaining future of OS X.

[SawTooth500]

Fine.
try to install the PPC version of Leopard on your IntellMac. Go ahead, try it and report what happens here.

Leopard is either installed as Intel or installed as PPC. Not both.
As for Tiger, you'll have to lend me your IntellMac long enough for me to try it.
Mine are all PPC machines.
On the other hand PPC machines will also handle some of the IBM software. That is where the PPC stuff started at. It is more readily noticeable with Linux Distros for PPC, though.:apple:

[flyinmac]

Fine.
try to install the PPC version of Leopard on your IntellMac. Go ahead, try it and report what happens here.

Leopard is either installed as Intel or installed as PPC. Not both.
As for Tiger, you'll have to lend me your IntellMac long enough for me to try it.
Mine are all PPC machines.
On the other hand PPC machines will also handle some of the IBM software. That is where the PPC stuff started at. It is more readily noticeable with Linux Distros for PPC, though.:apple:

I think you must not have actually read what I wrote. Try it again.

[SawTooth500]

I have 10.4.6 rtl version. Doesn't say whether PPC or Intel. I don't have an IntelMac to try it on. Being of limited resources at the moment, I need to borrow an IntelMac from some one to try to load it on. According to Mac's website, it should install.:D

[smartalic34]

SawTooth500:

what is trying to be explained is that the retail version of Tiger will not install on Intel machines. This is due to the fact that all Intel machines were shipped with Tiger (therefore no Intel mac owner would need a retail copy- they have their discs that came with the machine). The retail Tiger disks were never released as a Universal Binary because there was no need.

However, retail Leopard disks are Universal Binaries i.e. they will install on either PPC or Intel machines (the disk will install the matching version). This is because many Intel macs shipped with Tiger (and all PPC macs shipped Tiger or earlier OS X versions).

Therefore, I'd venture to say that using a retail Tiger disk on an Intel mac won't work.

[kingtj]

... but at least morally-speaking, I tend to agree with you. It's certainly not a brand new, unique way of looking at software licensing either. Microsoft has, in the past, offered some customers a license allowing simultaneous installation of a product (like MS Office) on both a portable and a desktop Windows PC. (The theory being, it's impossible for you to sit in front of your desktop at work AND in front of your laptop someplace else at the same time. So the simultaneous install still amounts to one person using only 1 copy at a time.)

I guess the problem comes in with the fact that *someone else* might sign onto one of your computers and use the application while you were off using it elsewhere on the other installation. Then, you're suddenly violating the licensing agreement. That's probably why this type of license has traditionally been limited to being granted to large (volume) license customers in big businesses or research labs. In a large corporate setting, there's much less incentive for someone to "get on your computer" to get some work done, because they probably already have their own assigned workstation to use. (And in all likelihood, the business already purchased THAT user a license for the same software, too.) Furthermore, there's presumably an I.T. department of some kind to help enforce said licensing agreements.


Are you sure about that? What about "fair use"? If I have two computers, why can't I buy one DVD and install the OS on both? Seems like fair use to me. Even if that isn't legal, I would argue it is morally OK, again following the fair use logic.

EDIT: by the way, I only have one computer, I have no intention of doing this, I just truly wonder if doing this is illegal, despite what the EULA says.

[flyinmac]

SawTooth500:

what is trying to be explained is that the retail version of Tiger will not install on Intel machines. This is due to the fact that all Intel machines were shipped with Tiger (therefore no Intel mac owner would need a retail copy- they have their discs that came with the machine). The retail Tiger disks were never released as a Universal Binary because there was no need.

However, retail Leopard disks are Universal Binaries i.e. they will install on either PPC or Intel machines (the disk will install the matching version). This is because many Intel macs shipped with Tiger (and all PPC macs shipped Tiger or earlier OS X versions).

Therefore, I'd venture to say that using a retail Tiger disk on an Intel mac won't work.


Exactly :)

[Justinerator]

... but at least morally-speaking, I tend to agree with you. It's certainly not a brand new, unique way of looking at software licensing either. Microsoft has, in the past, offered some customers a license allowing simultaneous installation of a product (like MS Office) on both a portable and a desktop Windows PC. (The theory being, it's impossible for you to sit in front of your desktop at work AND in front of your laptop someplace else at the same time. So the simultaneous install still amounts to one person using only 1 copy at a time.)

I guess the problem comes in with the fact that *someone else* might sign onto one of your computers and use the application while you were off using it elsewhere on the other installation. Then, you're suddenly violating the licensing agreement. That's probably why this type of license has traditionally been limited to being granted to large (volume) license customers in big businesses or research labs. In a large corporate setting, there's much less incentive for someone to "get on your computer" to get some work done, because they probably already have their own assigned workstation to use. (And in all likelihood, the business already purchased THAT user a license for the same software, too.) Furthermore, there's presumably an I.T. department of some kind to help enforce said licensing agreements.

this man speaks the truth! :apple:

[martyrk]

Or...

4. He can just install Windows on it, and keep using it as a PC that can also run Mac software.



But from my experience, I run parallels, and do not think that would be a solution, Computer runs very slow, and have issues with running it as virtual

I thought you meant before was just wiping out leopard and just installing XP as the OS only, my bad

[Jphillippe]

Physically, you can. Legally and morally, you can't.
what's illegal is not necessarily morally wrong. I don't consider it stealing installing a software in 2 machines when Apple oversells all of their products sold. They pay $90 dollars for a chipset and oversell it at about $300. So yep my conscience is clear I will use single copy for myself and mother's computer.

[RaceTripper]

what's illegal is not necessarily morally wrong. I don't consider it stealing installing a software in 2 machines when Apple oversells all of their products sold. They pay $90 dollars for a chipset and oversell it at about $300. So yep my conscience is clear I will use single copy for myself and mother's computer.What, did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to overpay for your Apple products? :rolleyes: Your rationalization for pirating the OS is really pretty flawed. Apple's fees for the OS are really pretty reasonable. The Leopard Family Pack costs what M$ charged for the XP Pro Upgrade alone.