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.
Is Front Row illegal
- Thread starter R.Youden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
License: Update
On the download page for Front Row 1.0.1, it says "Licence Type: Update". This means that it is only licensed as an UPDATE to an existing copy of Front Row. Yes, anyone can download it. Anyone can force it to install. But it is only legally licensed as part of the license for an existing legal copy of Front Row. If you don't already have a legal copy of Front Row, then the update isn't legal. (Same with all of Microsoft's Windows patches. Yes, even if someone figured out how to get the 'Service Pack 2' updater to produce a working copy of Windows without having Windows pre-installed, the license for Service Pack 2 specifically says it is only valid when applied to an existing legal copy of Windows.)
The actual license text included with the Front Row Update is the license text for OS X itself. This further reinforces the idea that the Front Row Update is not separately licensed, but is only licensed as part of the OS itself. If Front Row wasn't included in your copy of OS X, then it's not legal. (Just like iMovie and iDVD. For a long time, iMovie and iDVD were ONLY avaialble with new computers. They were not included with store-bought OS updates. Did that mean that somehow hacking an iMovie software update to produce a fully working copy of iMovie would make iMovie legal? No. For example, if I wanted to get iMovie running on my Blue and White G3 (which did not include it originally,) I would have to violate Apple's license.)
But, will Apple do anything? Probably not. Without an IR receiver and remote, Front Row is pretty much just an interesting plaything.
As for websites that let you download game cracks? Well, most of them are based/hosted in countries that don't recognize US copyright law, making them legal where they are. (Like [website name removed]. It's 100% legal in Sweden, where they're based.)
On the download page for Front Row 1.0.1, it says "Licence Type: Update". This means that it is only licensed as an UPDATE to an existing copy of Front Row. Yes, anyone can download it. Anyone can force it to install. But it is only legally licensed as part of the license for an existing legal copy of Front Row. If you don't already have a legal copy of Front Row, then the update isn't legal. (Same with all of Microsoft's Windows patches. Yes, even if someone figured out how to get the 'Service Pack 2' updater to produce a working copy of Windows without having Windows pre-installed, the license for Service Pack 2 specifically says it is only valid when applied to an existing legal copy of Windows.)
The actual license text included with the Front Row Update is the license text for OS X itself. This further reinforces the idea that the Front Row Update is not separately licensed, but is only licensed as part of the OS itself. If Front Row wasn't included in your copy of OS X, then it's not legal. (Just like iMovie and iDVD. For a long time, iMovie and iDVD were ONLY avaialble with new computers. They were not included with store-bought OS updates. Did that mean that somehow hacking an iMovie software update to produce a fully working copy of iMovie would make iMovie legal? No. For example, if I wanted to get iMovie running on my Blue and White G3 (which did not include it originally,) I would have to violate Apple's license.)
But, will Apple do anything? Probably not. Without an IR receiver and remote, Front Row is pretty much just an interesting plaything.
As for websites that let you download game cracks? Well, most of them are based/hosted in countries that don't recognize US copyright law, making them legal where they are. (Like [website name removed]. It's 100% legal in Sweden, where they're based.)
The problem is that I think you've got it the wrong way aroung. You're not allowed to install and run software just because you can get hold of the installer. You need a licence. If you don't have a valid licence from the software's maker/publisher then you're not allowed to run the software. If you're running Front Row, show me your valid Front Row licence...jsw said:
That you need to run an enabler to get it to install, then that is not the main problem, but should give you a clue that what you're doing may not be entirely legal...
You know the answer to this one, don't you?Koodauw said:
See the attached Front Row 1.0.1 SLA. It allows any "Apple-labeled computer." All of my Macs are Apple-labeled computers. I suspect most Macs are....Mitthrawnuruodo said:The problem is that I think you've got it the wrong way aroung. You're not allowed to install and run software just because you can get hold of the installer. You need a licence. If you don't have a valid licence from the software's maker/publisher then you're not allowed to run the software. If you're running Front Row, show me your valid Front Row licence...
That you need to run an enabler, to get it to install is not the main problem, but should give you a clue that what you're doing may not be entirely legal...
Your assertion that all software can only be run with a license is flawed (some software comes with no license) [even though FR has an SLA, and my usage is allowed by it], as is your assertion that the use of an enabler indicates illegality. I use iChatUSBCam to enable the use a USB webcam in iChat. I suppose that is illegal? No. It is not.
Front Row 1.0.1 is freely available from Apple. The SLA only requires that you install it on a Mac - or, more specifically, an Apple-labelled computer. The fact that installation on non-remote-equiped Macs is not supported does not mean that it is illegal.
Edit: XPostFacto enables the use of OS X on unsupported Macs. Illegal?
Just to be clear: I don't think the fact that I own an Intel iMac gives me the right to install Front Row (or iLife, or whatever) on my other Macs. I do think the fact that it's completely legal to install Front Row 1.0.1 on any Apple-labeled computer gives me that right.Koodauw said:
And, again, I think FR sucks. I don't even use it on the iMac. I don't personally care to use it on my other Macs except as a novelty, perhaps, because the lack of a remote takes away any advantage to it, IMHO.
I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction that it must be illegal. It isn't.
That's the update licence, not the full licence...jsw said:
That's because you're allowed to use the USB camera, aren't you...jsw said:
You're not using the enabler to install or run software you're not supposed to...
Same with XPostFacto, as long as you use it to run a legal version of OS X (not OEM with another machine) then I don't see any problems...
Which is why I've said twice that the enabler is not the problem, but might serve as a hint...
The updater, which coincidently contains the whole application (most likely because it's brand new and Apple has not been able to make a partial updater, yet), doesn't give you the right to install and run it...jsw said:
I guessed so, that's why I answered the way I did and didn't go through the whole one licence - one machine speach...Koodauw said:
And your point is?Mitthrawnuruodo said:
The update SLA does not refer to the original SLA (which, BTW, is the same in FrontRow.pkg on the iMac).
So, if the update doesn't prohibit my use of it, and the update does not require any files from the original package, why is it illegal? Certainly, the fact that it requires an enabler doesn't make it illegal, unless you want to argue that any enabler is ilegal.
Yes, actually, it does. Read the SLA. And I seriously doubt that Apple was unable to make a partial installer. i think the fact it contains the entire app, and the fact there's no C&D order out for the enabler, strongly implies that they do not oppose its use on other Macs. And, again, the SLA allows it.Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Then I must have missed it. The Update's SLA doesn't refer to any other SLA. The Update's package doesn't require anything from the original version. There is absolutely no link between the update and the original other than the word "Update." And yet, you imply that installing it is illegal.Mitthrawnuruodo said:That was the point...
Again, all I need is a link to something which supports your assertion, as I clearly cannot find it in the SLA. And something is not assumed illegal unless it can be proved legal - the opposite is true.
Provide me proof, and I'll shut up.
And, again, this is just an intellectual exercise to me. I don't even like FR.
Edit: and, perhaps contrary to the tone in these posts, I actually don't much care either way and certainly am not upset about it.
I'd just like to see the assertion proved one way or another.Edit 2: I'm going away for a bit. Plenty of time for research on your part.
Read the first line. The linked SLA is for Mac OS X. It applies to the version of Mac OS X which you got with your computer. On an iMac G5 or Core Duo, this includes Front Row.
If the version of Mac OS X you got with your computer (or purchased afterward) does not include Front Row, then the Mac OS X license does not magically grant you the right to use that program.
If the version of Mac OS X you got with your computer (or purchased afterward) does not include Front Row, then the Mac OS X license does not magically grant you the right to use that program.
It clearly says 'License - Update' on the Apple download page. See the screen shot. Yes, anyone can download it, but the license only permits you to update your software. You can't, by definition, update it if you haven't already got the original, which you can only legally have if it came with your iMac. It's just basic comprehension of simple English.
Attachments
I guess I don't read enough around here. I didn't know about the whole FR + enabler thing. However, my guess is that you're probably doing something that you shouldn't be doing, but if you want to do it then whatever yanno. It's kind of a gray area in my book.
why do people get hung up on trivial things like this.
honestly no one is going to care if you use front row on your ibook or mac mini or whatever... i seriously think people look for things to worry about sometimes... sheesh.
honestly no one is going to care if you use front row on your ibook or mac mini or whatever... i seriously think people look for things to worry about sometimes... sheesh.
MUCKYFINGERS said:
We worry about discussing things like this on this forum because MacRumors, along with several other rumor and news sites are frequently under watch by Apple for unauthorized images and information. I believe Think Secret are currently in legal proceedings for publishing leaked information on upcoming products. Apple may have a team of staff trawling through websites and it would not go down well for Mac Rumors if we were seen to be encouraging mac users to break there user agreements.
Wow, this thread has got me interested enough to post for the first time in a year or two.
Besides the one guy who strongly defends that it is not illegal to run FR on a mac other than one it came with, everyone here is just assuming it's illegal. The strongest point I have seen is that there is no liscense for FR. It is Apple's job to include specifically in the SLA or provide some liscense as to the proper and legal use of their software. If I go out and create the greatest software known to man, post it on the internet where it is downloaded millions of times, I don't have the right afterwards to claim that it is illegal to use unless you pay me $50 or whatever. I need to state it's legal uses before hand. Nothing is implied. If you all have to guess as to why it's illegal than it is probably not illegal. If taken to court for illegal use it is not the job of the user to prove it's legal but the job of the maker to prove that it is illegal.
Besides the one guy who strongly defends that it is not illegal to run FR on a mac other than one it came with, everyone here is just assuming it's illegal. The strongest point I have seen is that there is no liscense for FR. It is Apple's job to include specifically in the SLA or provide some liscense as to the proper and legal use of their software. If I go out and create the greatest software known to man, post it on the internet where it is downloaded millions of times, I don't have the right afterwards to claim that it is illegal to use unless you pay me $50 or whatever. I need to state it's legal uses before hand. Nothing is implied. If you all have to guess as to why it's illegal than it is probably not illegal. If taken to court for illegal use it is not the job of the user to prove it's legal but the job of the maker to prove that it is illegal.
stevep said:
What does "license: update" mean? Why do you think that means people can't use the software? Where does it say that on the web page? Nothing about "license: update" indicates anything about the end user or Apple's obligations.
Having read the license agreement provided by JSW, it looks like he's right. I don't understand the bit about "digital certificates," though, so that may be the sticky point. So call me converted. I'm not a lawyer, but it shouldn't take a lawyer to understand whether I'm allowed to have free software provided by Apple. If Apple doesn't want people to use the update, they should be clearer about it on their Web site.
Wow, that opened a can of worms didn't it! From my legal knowledge, which is not vast but I probably have a better grasp of it than most...
If a download is labled as an 'update' then you require the full version of the software to run the application, but what if the 'update' if the full application? This is a very grey area but I think the law would class this a false labelling by Apple and you are infact downloading an Application rather than an update.
If a download is labled as an 'update' then you require the full version of the software to run the application, but what if the 'update' if the full application? This is a very grey area but I think the law would class this a false labelling by Apple and you are infact downloading an Application rather than an update.
stevep said:
Yup, update to Mac OS X. Nowhere in the original license agreement or in any part of the download or linked files do the legal documents refer to Front Row. In several places they refer to Mac OS X. It is clear (to me at least) that the SLA and the download is an update to Mac OS X.
So, the way that I see it, anyone with a license for Mac OS X is permitted to download this file and update their copy of Mac OS X with it. Now, having installed it, Front Row exits on startup unless you happen to have the appropriate USB device present (the built-in Apple IR remote receiver).
Is modifying the behaviour of software on your own hard disk permitted? In most of the rest of the world, I think both users and the courts would say "yes". The issue is currently debateable in the USA.
Just to clarify the situation, I am not encouraging people to use this software illegally, I just want to hear some peoples opinions on this.
If someone proves without all doubt that running FrontRow on a non FrontRow mac then I will remove the software. I just feel that Apple has been a bit unclear with its licensing.
If someone proves without all doubt that running FrontRow on a non FrontRow mac then I will remove the software. I just feel that Apple has been a bit unclear with its licensing.
Nothing in the original Front Row license precludes use on any Apple labeled computer. Again, simple English. The update license does not prohibit use on any Apple labeled computer, and it does not require the original version (which also has the same SLA).stevep said:
But it does make it illegal to mount any remote drive with any Apple app on it.
Again, just basic comprehension of simple English.
Of course, even Apple won't tell you that the built-in ability to mount a Mac as a Firewire drive, or to connect to another Mac's main drive, is actually illegal. But their SLA says it is.
Regardless, this is unenforceable and Apple doesn't care anyway. But it is legal.
And, if it weren't, those of you who care about such a trivial thing obviously must take great care to never, not once, violate any local speed limits. Because that is actually illegal, and enforceably so.
Yes, you may have a point there. I must admit that it does seem a bit less than clear. And as you say, what's the point if you don't have an iMac with iSight. And, as jsw says, Apple probably don't care, otherwise they'd have made it an incremental update package.mdavey said:
Presumably this update is only available as a standalone download, and not as part of a software update package?
There's very little point even if you do have one.stevep said:
The app isn't all that great.But, for those who want it, other remotes will work with it - those that are usable with other Apple apps.
MUCKYFINGERS said:
I'll agree it probably is not a big deal if one person does this. But what if everyone did it in every "gray" instance that comes up?
I taught third grade and always taught them to ask themselves "what if everyone did it?"
I don't see why different morals apply when it is virtual stuff? In other words, why is it diferent than with actual products???
I know some people that just get a water cup at McDonalds and then put soda in it isntead. Not a big deal but what if everyone did it? Then they wouldn't get money from soda and would end up having to raise prices or else put the soda dispensers behind the counter- either way it costs them money. Gray areas don't always cost people money but there are reasons people create work and sell it or provide it with certian products. They decide to themselves! Pretty simple if you ask me.
- Status