Is THIS illegal (Not what you are thinking)

Ownage

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 25, 2009
7
0
The debate rages on weather it is illegal to install mac on a pc. Some say yes, some say no. Some say you can modify your OWN software, but not sell it. From the ruling against Pystar, I would say the courts seem to favor apple.

Now they seemed to rule against Pystar because they were selling pre-packaged mac clones.

Now SWIM has successfully installed Mac OS on a PC. SWIM is thinking he can make some money from this, but he dosen't want to face the same fate as Pystar. Now, unlike Pystar, what if SWIM acts as a technician and installs Mac OSX on the customer's behalf. That is for every customer, SWIM requires that they buy Mac OS and then modifies that EXACT COPY (courts didn't like Pystar using imaging) and installs it on behalf of the customer.

SWIM also intends to make sure that each customer signs a waiver saying they understand what they are doing and the reprocussions of doing so, they release the tech of all liabilities, the tech is ONLY performing a service as requested by the customer, etc.

I feel this would be as "illegal" as the customer installing mac os x themselves, however since they do not have the technical expertise they are subcontracting a technician to do it for them.

This will be on a small scale, possibly through craigslist and SWIM's local college.
 

macfan881

macrumors 68020
Feb 22, 2006
2,345
0
I Say Anything that involves Installing OSX on anything but apple products is pretty much illegal.
 

xlii

macrumors 68000
Sep 19, 2006
1,855
64
Millis, Massachusetts
Hey, I'm no lawyer so this is just my country boy law. If you try to make money from it... it is illegal. If you just want to take your PC and put your copy of OSX on it and use it for your enjoyment... it's ok... Apple isn't going to show up at your door with a court order.
 

gr8tfly

macrumors 603
Oct 29, 2006
5,298
50
~119W 34N
No one owns the software, except for Apple. The end user has a license for use only.

The court ruled that modifying OS-X violated DMCA laws. It doesn't matter who does it or where.

It won't matter what the end user agrees to with the technician if what the technician does is illegal. The end user won't be licensed to use OS-X either, since it's been modified and copied without permission from Apple.
 

Ownage

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 25, 2009
7
0
Well SWIM probabally dosen't care what happens to the end user (thats why he will get the waiver).

The question is who is violating the law. The end user who REQUESTS the installation, or the technician who performs it? Remember the tech is not modifying his own product. He is modifying the END USER's product on the END USER's behalf and FULLY DISCLOSING the legality of such a decision to the end user such that he ON HIS OWN can make an informed decision if he wants the technician to preform the work or not.

It seems like a grey area to me

EDIT: What about the installation on bootable USB media. No modification is made to the disk or apple software. EFI is emulated by a 3rd party bootloader loading required KEXTS (still no modification). What is so illegal about emulating EFI on a PC?

EDIT 2: On top of that, let's hypothetically make that bootable USB media an apple external HDD, therefore it is "installed on apple hardware"
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,640
1,274
SWIM would still have the issue of the EULA saying the software can only be installed on Apple branded computers. And while I can understand the argument that a judge might say that's ok if you're doing it in your basement to your own equipment, once you start operating a business based on breaking the EULA, that's another issue.

And if SWIM is advertising using Apples trademarks (such as "Mac OS X"), that's been part of pystar's legal problems too so potentially there's that as a legal problem....assuming SWIM gets caught

edit;
He is modifying the END USER's product on the END USER's behalf and.....
another of pystars legal problems was "inducement" regarding breaking copyrights, etc
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,859
57
Probably would be attacked under a contributory infringement claim.

While they aren't just creating the information a user needs to infringe, they are also actively participating and doing it for an individual.

They are placing modified files (aka, hacked DMCA keys, bootloaders, and drivers) they may be violating copyright by selling these services from a single source to each user.

---

Now if they wrote their own bootloaders, drivers, and found another way to create the DMCA key on the fly without copying a portion of Apple code ... they'd likely be able to pull it off.

Since they are selling modified Apple files and the DMCA key as a service, they may be in some pain.

---

Remember the judge's test was ... if I remove these files from the drive, does the OS still work. A success on the test was something Apple allowed in the Daystar days, create a patch but don't touch any Apple files.
 

Darth.Titan

macrumors 68030
Oct 31, 2007
2,733
443
Austin, TX
SWIM may very well be advising the customer on the legalities of their service, but waiver or no waiver SWIM is still the one doing the deed and profiting from it. They're still liable as far as I can tell. They're also bringing the customer into fault with the signed waiver, so that might even make the customer's actions more actionable than Psystar's clients'.

For example (an extreme example I know, but bear with me):
Say someone pays someone else to "steal" their car in order to collect on an insurance policy. The "thief" may very well inform the person that the act is illegal, but that doesn't make the thief any less liable for fraud than the person who agreed to pay them.

That's just my take on it.
 

Ownage

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 25, 2009
7
0
Ahh I see. Good point about the "contributory infringment"

Now about the bootloaders. They are completly 3rd party. They do not modify apple files. They PRELOAD required KEXTS such that the OS can be booted.

Take this scenario:
If the user does a COMPLETLY vanilla install (no modification of OS), and boots with the bootloader disk EVERY TIME (instead of adding the KEXTs directly into the OS), how is there modification taking place?

DCMA key??? From my understanding there is no "DCMA key." The bootloader just preloads KEXTs such that the OS will recognize the hardware as apple and allows for the support of non-apple hardware. Am I mistaken when I think of KEXTs as drivers?
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,859
57
Ahh I see. Good point about the "contributory infringment"

Now about the bootloaders. They are completly 3rd party. They do not modify apple files. They PRELOAD required KEXTS such that the OS can be booted.

Take this scenario:
If the user does a COMPLETLY vanilla install (no modification of OS), and boots with the bootloader disk EVERY TIME (instead of adding the KEXTs directly into the OS), how is there modification taking place?

DCMA key??? From my understanding there is no "DCMA key." The bootloader just preloads KEXTs such that the OS will recognize the hardware as apple and allows for the support of non-apple hardware. Am I mistaken when I think of KEXTs as drivers?
You files can contain zero Apple code, nada, none ... so even if you do not modify any Apple files placed on the drive. You code cannot contain any Apple code either, just enough to trap a routine and patch around it.

This even means you cannot modify an ATI file and place it in your patch to unlock the rest of the video cards it can run.

And the DMCA key is important, since they are copying Apple code from Mac ROMs, and placing that code in a kext in order to defeat unlock the encrypted OS.
 

Ownage

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 25, 2009
7
0
Do we not already have enough of these threads, where this topic has been pretty much beaten to death?

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=820322
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=817539
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=807461

Personally, I wouldn't put too much stock on the legal opinions posted by the armchair IP lawyers, that MacRumors seems to be so full of ;)
Wow read those threads. Im really starting to hate America. Long gone are the days when you can buy something and do what you want with it...

Since when does a company still OWN (and control the use of) the product that I purchase.

What's next? I can only use Mitsubishi parts in my 3000GT? When that time comes I move to Europe, because badass things like this won't be possible

http://kingsburymotorsports.com/project_car.htm
 

Buzz Bumble

Guest
Oct 19, 2008
802
2
New Zealand
Hey, I'm no lawyer so this is just my country boy law. If you try to make money from it... it is illegal. If you just want to take your PC and put your copy of OSX on it and use it for your enjoyment... it's ok... Apple isn't going to show up at your door with a court order.
It's not "OK" and Apple can "show up at your door with a court order". The fact that it's not worth Apple's time and money tracking down every silly individual breaking the agreement does not make it any less illegal, nor does it make the people doing it any less of a pirate scum.
 

Buzz Bumble

Guest
Oct 19, 2008
802
2
New Zealand
Wow read those threads. Im really starting to hate America. Long gone are the days when you can buy something and do what you want with it...

Since when does a company still OWN (and control the use of) the product that I purchase.
It's not just America and it's not just Apple. The same thing is true for almost all software from every company.

You're under the same delusion as a lot of people. Unlike most products, you do NOT "purchase" software. You instead purchase a LICENSE to use the software, and by installing it you are agreeing to the terms of the license agreement for how, where, and when you can use that software (including what it can be installed on, how many copies can be installed, etc.). The fact that most people don't bother to actually read that agreement is not a defense and you can still be taken to court for breaking the agreement.
 

nufanec

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2005
185
5
Wow read those threads. Im really starting to hate America. Long gone are the days when you can buy something and do what you want with it...

Since when does a company still OWN (and control the use of) the product that I purchase.

What's next? I can only use Mitsubishi parts in my 3000GT? When that time comes I move to Europe, because badass things like this won't be possible

http://kingsburymotorsports.com/project_car.htm
The difference is that you are not buying the software but a license to use it. The code still belongs to Apple but you are paying for the ability to run that code on a computer that meets the terms of the license agreement. It is the same with all software license agreements, the manufacturer still maintains all rights to the software and you buy a license to use it.
 

macrem

macrumors 65816
Mar 11, 2008
1,397
66
Apple & any other company in the US have a legal right to protect their IP, which helps the US to prosper. You're free to reuse opensource software with conditions, but this is not the case. Without IP protection, major legit companies would leave. In any case I would encourage anyone who is starting to hate America to either constructively & democratically influence change or the door is wide open, you're free to leave.
 

yetanotherdave

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2007
1,766
3
Bristol, England
Wow read those threads. Im really starting to hate America. Long gone are the days when you can buy something and do what you want with it...

Since when does a company still OWN (and control the use of) the product that I purchase.

What's next? I can only use Mitsubishi parts in my 3000GT? When that time comes I move to Europe, because badass things like this won't be possible

http://kingsburymotorsports.com/project_car.htm
Why would you think it's different in Europe? There are places where these laws aren't in place, but Apple doesn't operate there, and they tend to be not nice/safe places to live...
 

bmacir

macrumors 6502
Apr 2, 2009
329
27
If you try to make money from it... it is illegal. If you just want to take your PC and put your copy of OSX on it and use it for your enjoyment... it's ok
+1
I vote for not being illegal: if you buy something you own it and can do whatever you want with it.
It's not illegal to buy a toaster and use it for anything you get the hang of, no matter what license the seller is capable of figuring out.
 

bmacir

macrumors 6502
Apr 2, 2009
329
27
It's not "OK" and Apple can "show up at your door with a court order". The fact that it's not worth Apple's time and money tracking down every silly individual breaking the agreement does not make it any less illegal, nor does it make the people doing it any less of a pirate scum.
It's not illegal in terms of against the law, it's a license so you would breach a contract not the law, it's a different story.
 

bmacir

macrumors 6502
Apr 2, 2009
329
27
It's "illegal" in the sense that you break the EULA. You're not breaking any laws, just the long lawyer jargon thing you clicked "accept" to when installing OS X.
Exactly, but the point is when you but a product, software or hardware, you can do whatever you want with it without breaking any law. Of course as a consequence you will not receive any support by the manufacturer because the product you bought doesn't work. But by no means Apple's lawyers could come knocking at your door, even if they wanted.
 

Ownage

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 25, 2009
7
0
I woke up and just got to thinkin.

What if SWIM didn't actually charge to INSTALL mac osx on the PC, but just charged to CONFIGURE it? I.E. SWIM has the user physically click install (possibly even download, burn, and pop in all discs).

The end user is physically doing the installation and breaking the law. The technician is only doing things such as backing up and partitioning the drive and configuring the OS once installed (this is whats charged for), and obviously directing the user where to go and what to click (this is done free of charge however).

The tech gets all this on reciept and a signed document stating that the USER preformed the installation.

As far as advertising, SWIM advertises that he CONFIGURES installations of mac os on PC, he does NOT install them.

This one's gotta work! It's so lawyer loopholeish
 

yetanotherdave

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2007
1,766
3
Bristol, England
I woke up and just got to thinkin.

What if SWIM didn't actually charge to INSTALL mac osx on the PC, but just charged to CONFIGURE it? I.E. SWIM has the user physically click install (possibly even download, burn, and pop in all discs).

The end user is physically doing the installation and breaking the law. The technician is only doing things such as backing up and partitioning the drive and configuring the OS once installed (this is whats charged for), and obviously directing the user where to go and what to click (this is done free of charge however).

The tech gets all this on reciept and a signed document stating that the USER preformed the installation.

This one's gotta work! It's so lawyer loopholeish
what happens if I put the gun in your hand, point it, put your finger on the trigger, tell you to pull it.

Hey, you're the one who shot that guy, and I have a disclaimer to waive me of liability? I don't think so.
 

Similar threads

  • scott59
1
Replies
1
Views
332
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.