Apparently you don't agree with Article III of the Constitution.
Only insofar as the result of the framework conflicts with the rest of the Constitution. You probably think the same, only for other abuses of Congress that were overturned such as Schenck v. United States, Watkins v. United States and Korematsu v. United States.
Loading onto disk IS because the copy is unauthorized, as it violates the EULA. The courts said so. You are wrong.
At what point does it become unauthorized? The law says you can copy to disk and memory for the purpose of running it, thus neither of those acts in itself should make the copy unauthorized. You must start with an unauthorized copy first.
Installing onto a computer for actual use is NOT fair use.
True, it doesn't fall under the general Fair Use. It falls under the statutory law I quoted.
Apple does not attempt to forbid first sale. Instead their EULA provides a limitation to the rights they grant you - you can't install and use on anything other than a Mac.
Installing should not create an unauthorized copy, since it is a legal restriction on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Requiring it be installed on a Mac is purely over-reaching. I bought it, I can do what I want as long as I don't make copies that don't fall under the exemption.
At least that's how it would be if Congress and the courts weren't beholden to the corporations.
Nope. You haven't a clue what "first sale" is. As I've said, the courts have imposed no limitation on your right to sell your physical copy of the OS.
Remember Vernor v. Autodesk that I quoted? He won, then it was reversed. The courts HAVE imposed the ability for a corporation to arbitrarily COMPLETELY DENY your First Sale right.
By your ridiculous argument, all I have to do to circumvent copyright law is buy a copy and then give it to someone else - the recipient would be free to make whatever derivative works he wants because the magical "fair use fairy" eliminates all of the copyright holder's rights.
The exception is only for what is necessary for the you to be able to run your legitimate copy (or copies) of the program. It does not apply to giving away copies without relinquishing your right to run your copy. Same as the exception for backup doesn't mean "backup and then give that backup to a friend." You're going into the absurd.
And I think you need to learn what a derivative work is. It does not simply mean further copies of a work.
The funny thing is, I say all this as a software developer. My software is protected by copyright, period. My "EULA" simply reminds the user of his rights and restrictions under copyright, and has the standard disclaimer that really doesn't have anything to do with copyright. As a copyright holder, I refuse to engage in this unethical overreach of copyright.
----------
You keep speaking in generalities and idealism. No matter how idealistically you look at what Psystar did, they violated copyright law. No limitations to Apple's exclusive rights allow Psystar to create a derivative work from OS X, reproduce it, and distribute it. SLA or no SLA.
Buy a retail copy of Windows. Install it on a computer. Sell that computer.
Do you see a problem with this idea? Apple does, when it's their own operating system. The only difference is in the licensing terms, which attempt to create rights beyond what are granted to Apple by copyright.
Sadly, the courts agree with this creation of extra rights out of thin air.
