Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Retail Stores Receive Golden Master Copies of OS X Lion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Trying to be a glass-half-full guy, I truly believe that have fixed what was undoubtedly a much-abused unenforced solution that was the "Family Pack."
The prior definition of "Family" in the fine print of the licensing agreement was "a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home, or condominium, including students who are primary residents of that household but reside at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users."
It was necessarily broad because it would have taken pages of legalese to define all other contingencies of what constituted a "Family" as defined by the "Family Pack." Easier to just to make it essentially "any 5 people who live under one roof" than to get into how related people needed to be, if they had to be married, if civil unions count, roommates, etc. I think the name of the product suggests who Apple was really targeting, but the fine print demonstrated the challenge of defining that audience. And of course without any restrictions there's little doubt the licensing agreement was widely abused and disregarded (though not by you, KWRX, the way it was written).
Now there is one simple way to define and regulate "Family" in the year 2011: A group of up to 5 people who are willing to share an iTunes account and a credit card with each other. Unfortunately, as you say, this excludes you and "it is how it is in my situation." Looks like going to an Apple Store may be a viable option for you and the GF.
I understand it is your own situation, but what's all that fuss about?
I don't see how paying for both licenses, yet using one installer isn't moral. Can you explain that?
About being illegal/piracy/whatever other word you used, no it is not. It is pretty much a grey area. It might not be approved, but Apple won't send SWAT.
Yup. Thankfully it's only $30 USD per upgrade, but from Leopard you have to go to Snow Leopard to get to Lion.
The Mac Apple Store was not available until sometime in SL, and Lion is supposed to be available only through the Mac Apple Store.
I don't know, ask all the posters that are trying hard to persuade me that the facts aren't what I say they are, and failing miserably. They are the ones making a big fuss over my simple situation.
You just joined in with them btw.
It isn't moral if you find that breaking copyright law is immoral. That again is left as an exercise to each individual as morality and legality are not intertwined. For my part, as a software developer, I find respecting copyright law to be important.
Nope, it's not a grey area. It is illegal. That Apple will not press charges or file a lawsuit does not make it legal. It simply means that Apple is not willing to bear the costs of litigating (either criminally or civil) for that kind of smallish action.
I say BULL! It is not illegal to buy two copies of Lion but download once and copy it over for installation on the second machine.
Continue to be the self elected Canadian ISP martyr if you wish, but you are making much ado over nothing.
If this is true then who has two thumbs and is never buying Snow Leopard, THIS GUY.
Hehe. No, it is you who is making a fuss, especially with one installer not being moral.
What copyright law are you breaking? You pay the two licences, just use one installer. Whatever you owed is paid.
That is not what I meant. That Apple doesn't approve this specific way of installing doesn't mean it is illegal. So it means it is unapproved, not illegal. Hence the grey area.
No, you only have to download once and pay once. The installer itself can be easily burned to a DVD or copied to a network share.
So the question is; are you a bit inebriated? Apple, MS, Adobe etc. really could care less how you install their software as long as you buy a license. I have a habit of saving .dmg's to an external HDD so I can re install at will. When I change HDD on my laptop do you think I re-download everything? No I go to my .dmg store and re-install stuff thats why licenses are transportable. Get down off the moral horse already.
Actually I think he does and it's the other conversation that is nonsensical. Why do some of you think how Apple distributes store images has anything to do with the data centres and the infrastructure that are in place to support the app stores? The mind boggles. :ek:
Where did I say I wanted worse service ? We have crap service to begin with, I want better. IE : Cheaper, higher caps, higher bandwidth. What we pay here for 30 mbps with 150 GB monthly cap is ridiculous when you look at other countries. For a first world nation with great infrastructure, the oligopoly of telecoms here sure likes to keep the leash tight and expensive and the CRTC is too daft to do something about it.
When I say don't discuss it, it's simple : You don't understand Canadian telecoms politics nor do you seem to have the slightest clue how it operates and works here.
Who said I hate digital downloads ? All my OS installs have been done over the Internet since the 90s (either directly over HTTP/FTP or by downloading an ISO of the OS), ever since I switched to Linux as my operating system. Apple is late to the game as far as OS installs over the Internet goes. Welcome to 1995 is what I say.
Heck, I have a well furnished Steam account for games.
It's the MAS and it's licensing scheme that I dislike. If Apple offered a Family Pack license purchase outside the MAS and a download for an ISO file, that would be the best option.
I'm not throwing any fuzz. I was answering a post. It's the people who keep replying to me offering options of piracy that are throwing a fuzz. Like you just did.
Again guys it's very simple : The facts are the facts. Live with them. No need to reply to me to tell me how many options I have. The legitimate option is plainly : 2 copies, 2 downloads. End of story. Drop it and I will drop it. Keep replying, and I'll need to keep correcting you with the facts.
P.S you couldn't download a digital installer in 95 with linux either..you could get the ISO but that was the extent of it.
Say bull all you want, but the fact is, COPYright is the Right to decide how your work is copied. Downloading is making a copy from Apple's server to your computer. Hence Apple gets to decide.
They have not granted you permission to do as you say. It's not grey. The fact they won't litigate does not make it legal, as you have no right to decide for Apple how their work is to be distributed/copied.
Again, I'm not the one making a fuss, the people who keep replying to me are.
I bet to differ. I installed RedHat over FTP using only a boot floppy. All 400 MB of it.
You think Apple's big data center only serves one purpose ? I have news for you... Our own data centers house both our customer facing applications and our internal systems. That's just how datacenters are.
While I cannot speak for all of Canada, this is surely true within Toronto. All ISPs that aren't distributed over cable use Bell's lines, and as a result are subject to Bell's arbitrary throttling. Thus, there is a universal cap within Toronto on line speed. Furthermore, each ISP reserves the right (and takes advantage of that right) to throttle more, and to set their own caps. There is not an uncapped, unlimited, and high value ISP within Toronto.
I understand Apple's decision to move to an online distribution, and it is not for 'ease of use' for the end user - it is to sell people on the ease of use of the Mac App Store itself, and hopefully gain momentum on that front. Just as updating by purchasing Snow Leopard at an Apple Store might make one purchase other products or accessories while they're there, the Mac App Store expedites people buying Mac OS X 'accessories (software)' while they're in shopping mode. My guess is that if the Mac App Store did not exist, there would be no digital distribution for this OS.
I'm not throwing any fuzz. I was answering a post. It's the people who keep replying to me offering options of piracy that are throwing a fuzz. Like you just did.
Again guys it's very simple : The facts are the facts. Live with them. No need to reply to me to tell me how many options I have. The legitimate option is plainly : 2 copies, 2 downloads. End of story. Drop it and I will drop it. Keep replying, and I'll need to keep correcting you with the facts.
Your life is your life. I'm sorry this new method is an inconvenience for you, it's a bummer!
And you have insider knowledge on exactly how Apple's data centres work and how their retail distribution channel infrastructure is set up? You speak with so much authority yet say so little. I have to make the assumption from your emo posts that you're still quite a young whelp and still have much to learn. Please don't try to tell me how data centres work or what they're used for.
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. The Mac App Store does not track "authorized computers." There are no "slots." There is no 5 computer limit. You don't authorize through iTunes. You don't authorize a computer at all. Individual apps have the option to request authorization if the developer wishes.
You can install an app downloaded for personal use on any number of computers that you own or control. There is no requirement that you redownload the app to install it on an additional computer in Apple's terms.
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS
(Search for "MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES")
You can install an app downloaded for personal use on any number of computers that you own or control. There is no requirement that you redownload the app to install it on an additional computer in Apple's terms.
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS
(Search for "MAC APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES")
Copyright is there to protect the creators, so they can be paid for their work accordingly. If you pay the two licences and use one installer, the only thing you are "infringing" is Apple's approved method. Again, lack of approval doesn't necessarily make it illegal, if at all. You say it is, so show me the law that states it.
And I am much more interested in why you find this immoral.
Personally, I am very surprised as to why you find the one installer method immoral, hence my initial reply and calling it "fuss". Weren't you expecting any replies by posting here?
Amen Brother!!! Got that KinghtWRX???
I wouldn't go that far (and I didn't). We don't know what the final Lion SLA will say. It could be different than the basic terms for other apps.
Some people haven't got the point of this new-dangled "forum discussion" thing yet.
The Lion website states it can only be installed on a Mac that has been authorised under your App Store account. So the limit is the number of machines that can be authorised in this manner.
"You may auto-download Eligible Content or download previously-purchased Eligible Content from an Account on up to 10 Associated Devices, provided no more than 5 are iTunes-authorized computers."