3 Mac's - Family Pack of Leopard required?

[queshy]

Well, to be honest, if I had 5 Macs that were all going to be used at the same time - I wouldn't cheap out - I'd buy the family pack.

I don't even know how much profit Apple will make on selling copies of Leopard. They'll sell tons of them - and it probably cost them a few bucks to "manufacture" the packaging + disk, but think about the vast amounts of cash they spent in research and development...but because I plan on installing it on my main machine (iMac) and my macbook pro - I will buy the single license because I never use the two machines at once (technically speaking). I only use my mbp in class, in which case I wouldn't be at home on my iMac! I mean, I'm not using this as my "excuse" - but it's pretty true.

But at least I'm not one of the ones who are going to just rip it off the internet or something. Because I'm sure that's possible. but I don't think the $129 they're asking for is ridiculous - it's quite reasonable for what you're getting. A computer game is what, like 50$? Its the equivalent of buying around 3 computer games, and Leopard will certainly bring more enjoyment than that!

 

[Sean Dempsey]

So what are you all saying?

 

[queshy]

if it were as simple as you say, the Aperture and Final Cut and Shake and Motion and all of those Apple "Pro" apps would be free of copy protection as well. It isn't, however, that simple. But I'm not going to spell it out again.

Most people will buy a single copy of OS X and install it on their 2 Macs. Because most Mac users probably have 2 macs. Most of them probably think that buying a copy of OS X should allow them to put it on both of their machines, and that if it weren't "allowed" then it wouldn't happen. Apple decided that it isn't financially worth the backlash they would get from loyal consumers if they put copy protections in place. They're trying to win people over to OS X not so that people will use OS X and be happier people, but so that people will buy more Macs with high profit margins, and ipods and iphones and so forth. OS X isn't a big money maker for Apple, so they aren't too worried about you buying a single license and putting it on two machines.

If your conscience is fine with the implications of that, then for the moment is appears that Apple is fine with it as well. If they want to enforce their license restrictions, they are free to do so, but there will be consequences. They have already decided that they will charge a certain amount for their OS, and they will punish any retailer that charges anything less. Apple has made a conscious decision.

Some of us are morally outraged and think that others of us are going to ruin Apple or "force" apple to put in countermeasures to stop invalid installations. To those in our midst, I say relax. Let those of us who want or need to pay full price for everything continue to do so, and to reap the benefits of doing so. When you buy a CD, make sure you only buy it from somewhere that charges full MSRP, though. You wouldn't want to steal potential profits from someone.

And those of us who want to buy OS X but don't want to buy separate copies for each machine, I hope you can live with yourselves. I know it's hard to wake up every day and know that Apple's revenue was only 20 billion last year. Sometimes I cry about it.

Excellent post. I throughly agree.

People might think this opinion is outrageous - but hey, this is a discussion forum.

I think that if anything, apple would want people to be pirating OS X. I also think that it's piracy that made MS so successful. I don't know about vista, but I know for a fact that a lot of people I know passed around a single copy of XP with the serial key written with a sharpie on the jewel case. The key must have been used on like 10 different computers.
Illegal? Yes. Wrong? Yes.
But in the end, Microsoft wins - that's one of the reasons why I think Windows is the most popular OS - Piracy.

I bet you more than half of the users on this forum didn't pay for Office: Mac - just because it's so easy to get for free. Obviously it's wrong, but a lot of people probably don't consider it stealing because psychologically they're not getting anything "physical" when they install software.

I don't support piracy in any way, shape, or form, but I think I am still doing a service to Apple by paying for leopard, period. Because I'm sure that right after it hits the store shelves it'll be available for download on some sketchy torrent site.

If someone leaves the keys to their car unlocked - should you steal it? Definitely not - but I think it's different here. The car analogy is pretty much the same as seeing this - if someone leaves their laptop in the library (forgetting it), do you take it? No. If anything, you bring it to the help desk, or you go try and find the owner, or whatever. But with software...people probably don't have a guilty conscience pirating because once they get it, it's just "on their computer" - it's not really tangible, like a laptop or a car.

 

[gormond]

Would you like to show me this LAW?

You cannot because it does not exist.

A licence is an agreement beetween two parties and apple would need to sue you for breaking the licence agreement you agreed to. There is no law that covers this. It is a private matter.

It amuses me when people confuse laws with other matters.

The law is the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988"

Using software you agree to the terms of the publisher, breaching it is an infringement of the owners copyright which if found guilty you could face an unlimited fine and up to ten years imprisonment.

To quote The Federation Against Software Theft:

What is a software licence?

These are the terms and conditions of use of a software program, as set out by the software publisher or owner of the copyright. The licence will be issued with the software on paper or in electronic form. It is important that the licence is read and understood, before the software is installed. If you are in breach of the licence conditions it is very likely you have infringed the owners' copyright.

What are the penalties for copyright infringement?

If copyright infringement is proven in a criminal court, on indictment the defendant could receive an unlimited fine and up to ten years imprisonment per offence.

To me that seems clear that it is against the law to install single-use copy of OSX on more than one machine as you have infringed the owner's copyright and can be fined/imprisioned for it.

 

[gormond]

people probably don't have a guilty conscience pirating because once they get it, it's just "on their computer" - it's not really tangible, like a laptop or a car.

What if someone has an amazing idea like cold fusion for example and you copy there idea is that also ok because it also isn't something tangible like a laptop or a car?

Ignoring my point in the above post about it being against the law, I personally would feel guilty.

P.S. I don't own a mac yet as i'm waiting for leopard but I own Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Office 2007 on 3 computers as well as the rest of the software I use.

Whether it is or isn't against the law its unlikely you would ever get caught so it really comes down to a morale decision.

 

[tibi08]

Would you like to show me this LAW?

You cannot because it does not exist.

A licence is an agreement beetween two parties and apple would need to sue you for breaking the licence agreement you agreed to. There is no law that covers this. It is a private matter.

It amuses me when people confuse laws with other matters.

Above poster is right, there are laws governing software piracy in the UK, being the Copyright and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002 and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is against the law to pirate software.

The Apple EULA is a contract and if you are in breach of that contract then presumably Apple could bring you to a civil court if they could demonstrate that they suffered some kind of loss. But if you are pirating their software they won't need to worry about whether you breached the EULA in the first place since it's illegal. As I understand, the EULA is mainly in place to protect Apple against legal claims (i.e. covering their backside).

 

[TBi]

Would you like to show me this LAW?

You cannot because it does not exist.

A licence is an agreement beetween two parties and apple would need to sue you for breaking the licence agreement you agreed to. There is no law that covers this. It is a private matter.

It amuses me when people confuse laws with other matters.

This is why i dislike why people can buy "demi-god" status. Newbies might think this is the equivalent to a moderator and put more faith into what they say. In this case believing there are no legal repercussions for pirating software.

Why not have "Paid Member" as a title for these people and reserve Demi-God for paid members who contribute positively!

 

[gnasher729]

With car tax, the chances of being caught are high as are the penalties.

With lending a DVD to a friend to watch, the chances of being caught are miniscule.

Both are illegal activities, but I suspect number the second is more widespread and morally far less wrong. And I'd be surprised if you'd never done the second.

Since when is it illegal to lend a DVD to a friend to watch?

 

[gnasher729]

Would you like to show me this LAW?

You cannot because it does not exist.

A licence is an agreement beetween two parties and apple would need to sue you for breaking the licence agreement you agreed to. There is no law that covers this. It is a private matter.

It amuses me when people confuse laws with other matters.

There is a thing called "copyright law". Copyright law doesn't allow you to make any copies, with few exceptions, like copies that are required to make the software work, and a backup copy. Once you installed MacOS X on the first computer, until the point where you delete it from that computer, you have no right given to you by law to make any further copies.

For anything beyond that, you need a license. Like the license that comes with the family pack, allowing you to make up to five copies in one household, instead of the one copy allowed by copyright law.

 

[CCStandUpFan]

What Apple Says On The Matter

In the years I've been reading threads like this one, I see a lot of speculation as to what Apple thinks, but rarely do I see people consult what Apple says. In the future, I'd like to see people go to the source. A visit to Apple.com is an easy way to resolve your question and get a clear position from the entity whose positions matter in cases like these.

From store.apple.com's Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger page:

"Choose a single user license for home or office. Got more than one Mac at home? Upgrade up to 5 Macs in your household for one low price with the Family Pack*. "

" * Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one 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. This license does not extend to business or commercial users."

They say "home or office" not "home and office." To me, this indicates even if you are the only user of 2 computers, you need 2 copies of the OS.

Also, Apple clearly states that you can't buy the Family Pack and install it once on your Mac, once on your spouse's Mac, once on your child's Mac, and then once on your parents' Mac on the other side of town. The folks will need to buy their own copy of the software.

 

[bbarnhart]

...

Also, Apple clearly states that you can't buy the Family Pack and install it once on your Mac, once on your spouse's Mac, once on your child's Mac, and then once on your parents' Mac on the other side of town. The folks will need to buy their own copy of the software.

I believe your interpretation of the license is incorrect.

 

[benpatient]

I have not read Apple's EULA, but MOST software companies (ie Adobe etc) says that only ONE copy can be used at a time...that means you can install it on a few machines, but only one instance can run. That's how I see it anyhow.

Then how do you know you aren't violating the EULA? What if reading the EULA is one of the things you agree to do when you click that "accept" button on the pop-up when OS X loads for the first time when you bought your new Mac?

In fact, you ARE required to read the EULA before clicking "accept, so you're in violation of the EULA and no better than someone who puts a single copy of OS X on all 6 of his home computers.

Does that help you understand why an EULA is not the same thing as a law?

 

[gormond]

I believe your interpretation of the license is incorrect.

How is he incorrect ?, As quoted:

" * Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one 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. This license does not extend to business or commercial users."

That clearly states that they need to be in the same household.

 

[CCStandUpFan]

Feel free to explain, however...

I believe your interpretation of the license is incorrect.

Feel free to explain what you see as the flaw in my interpretation, however, Apple is very clear that you can install up to 5 times at one household (except in the case of students living on-campus). Others need a separate license.

The grandparents on the other side of town may be in my family, but they aren't in my household. Therefore, they should purchase a separate copy of the OS.

To be clearer on who is covered by the Family Pack:

Me -- covered
My spouse -- covered
My mother who lives with me -- covered
My child who lives in the dorms at school -- covered
My child who lives off-campus -- NOT covered
My child who graduated and moved to Chicago -- NOT covered
My grandparents who live across town -- NOT covered

All these people are my family, but not all are free to install from the Family Pack.

 

[TBi]

My child who lives off-campus -- NOT covered

I agree with all the rest however i do think Apple would be lenient on this. Your child might not have been able to get campus accommodation due to lack of availability. As long as they are returning home for summers that is and not living all year round by the college. For me this would definitely fall into the lighter side of "gray" area regarding legality.

 

[gormond]

I agree with all the rest however i do think Apple would be lenient on this. Your child might not have been able to get campus accommodation due to lack of availability. As long as they are returning home for summers that is and not living all year round by the college. For me this would definitely fall into the lighter side of "gray" area regarding legality.

Seems to me as if they have spelled it out, the exception is:

"student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location"

So if you are not on-campus for what ever reason then it isn't covered by there conditions.

 

[bbarnhart]

Sorry, I misunderstood your sentence.

 

[TBi]

Seems to me as if they have spelled it out, the exception is:

"student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location"

So if you are not on-campus for what ever reason then it isn't covered by there conditions.

As i said... lenient. Go to court with something like that and the judge would more than likely rule in your favour or just throw it out of court. These old notions of "Good-Will" still live on (hopefully).

 

[gormond]

As i said... lenient. Go to court with something like that and the judge would more than likely rule in your favour or just throw it out of court. These old notions of "Good-Will" still live on (hopefully).

Ohh hell yeah, I doubt very much you would get done for it.

I was just pointing out that I don't think it's a grey area as Apple made it very clear.

 

[benpatient]

The student situation and how Apple has dealt with it in their EULA is a perfect example of how completely arbitrary, non-legal, and non-binding an EULA can be. If someone wanted to, they could file discrimination charges against Apple because of this clause in the family pack EULA. Most college students who live off campus still list their parent's home as their primary, permanent residence. That's where their car is licensed, their annual tax statements go, etc. Apple isn't legally allowed to make a distinction between a student living on campus and one who isn't. The student's official primary address can be reasonably relied upon to determine household status, or possibly "dependent" status on their parents tax return (although this wouldn't apply to a lot of households with elderly live-in parents, etc).

Now, that said, nobody is going to sue Apple for putting that clause in their EULA any time soon...but do you know why? Because Apple isn't going to try and enforce their EULA any time soon. Their lawyers know exactly how many times an "EULA violation" that doesn't already violate a state or federal has been tried in court and successfully prosecuted: Zero.

Nobody even noticed that I added a line to the iTunes EULA that I posted, did they? If you had, you'd know that all Apple products are free to the public now. Too bad you didn't read the EULA!

 

[Sean Dempsey]

Crazy how these threads snowball.

So, essentially, you can use a retail disc on as many machines as you want. Apple doesn't allow this, but they also don't enforce or care if you do.

So really, the EULA on OSX just exists to give uptight Rulesy McRulertons to stroke their ego's about? "Oh man, I followed that EULA to the T!!! I'm such a good U.S. AMERICAN!!"

 

[CCStandUpFan]

What makes you think this?

Apple isn't legally allowed to make a distinction between a student living on campus and one who isn't.

What makes you think this? Which laws prevent them from making such a distinction?

 

[gnasher729]

Crazy how these threads snowball.

So, essentially, you can use a retail disc on as many machines as you want. Apple doesn't allow this, but they also don't enforce or care if you do.

So really, the EULA on OSX just exists to give uptight Rulesy McRulertons to stroke their ego's about? "Oh man, I followed that EULA to the T!!! I'm such a good U.S. AMERICAN!!"

1. Apple cares very much if you do.
2. You are very confused about what a EULA is.
3. If you think that people are not stealing because it strokes their ego to be rule followers, then I can only feel sorry for you.

 

[queshy]

What if someone has an amazing idea like cold fusion for example and you copy there idea is that also ok because it also isn't something tangible like a laptop or a car?

Ignoring my point in the above post about it being against the law, I personally would feel guilty.

P.S. I don't own a mac yet as i'm waiting for leopard but I own Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Office 2007 on 3 computers as well as the rest of the software I use.

Whether it is or isn't against the law its unlikely you would ever get caught so it really comes down to a morale decision.

The whole tangible vs. intangible thing doesn't come from my personal system of values - but I do think that's the reason why people don't think they're stealing.

 

[CCStandUpFan]

Crazy how these threads snowball.

So, essentially, you can use a retail disc on as many machines as you want. Apple doesn't allow this, but they also don't enforce or care if you do.

So really, the EULA on OSX just exists to give uptight Rulesy McRulertons to stroke their ego's about? "Oh man, I followed that EULA to the T!!! I'm such a good U.S. AMERICAN!!"

There are no technical hurdles to overcome to install one copy on multiple machines.

The reason Apple won't come after a person who installs beyond the license is the cost vs. the damage. One hundred twenty-nine dollars won't pay for the lawyer.

It's not about stroking an ego or being any particular nationality. It's about using the version one paid for, rather than the version one had an opportunity to pay for, knew met the installation conditions one has, but chose to not to purchase.

This is a different situation from purchasing a single license and being mailed the Family Pack instead, or if the Family Pack rings up as the single license version at the register. In those cases, it's ok to keep the Family Pack and install it in a way consistent with its license.