Is THIS illegal (Not what you are thinking)

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Ownage, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Ownage thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #26
    See, it's not my gun though. It is YOUR gun that YOU bought (downloaded yourself). I just teach you how to load a bullet into it and promise to clean the floor after you're done :). You're paying me for knowledge (no different than you would pay for in a book, Im actually giving the Mac knowledge for free though), and the service of cleaning up after you're done (This is what i charge for).

    btw, I would never tell anyone to pull it, I am just telling them HOW to pull it (big legal difference, and this is what protected many of "How to be a terrorist" books under free speech).
     
  2. AZREOSpecialist macrumors 68020

    AZREOSpecialist

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    #27
    THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL HERE! PSYSTAR HAS DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL!

    If Psystar had done anything illegal, they would be prosecuted by the State or Federal Governments, not taken to court by Apple. Violating a EULA is a civil, not a criminal, matter. You can violate EULAs all you want, there will be no consequences unless those companies actually sue you. They would have to sue you, since there is nothing illegal going on here.

    Technically I can see nothing wrong in selling a generic hardware box that can run Windows, OSX, Linux, etc. as well as retail versions of those OS packages for the consumer to install themselves. Technically it isn't the person or company selling the hardware that is installing the OS, it is the end user. If anyone is violating the EULA, it is the end user. I can re-sell retail OSX boxes until I'm blue in the face, but that doesn't make me responsible for how people install or use the product I sell.

    I think this is a brilliant idea, actually. In fact this appears to be the method employed by Quo Computer - http://quocomputer.com/. Check them out. You can by a generic box that will accept any OS, and then they sell you the OS to install on the box you just bought. Voila, no problems with EULA! Anyone who would have contemplated a Psystar PC should check out Quo. They seem to be doing alright and are not being bothered by Apple.
     
  3. yetanotherdave macrumors 68000

    yetanotherdave

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    #28
    If it's not illegal why are they being made to pay damages? Lawyers have argued the case, in a court of law, and pystar lost the argument.

    There's a difference between criminal acts whch are prosecuted by the state and civil illegal acts which are prosecuted by the individual/business. One will get the police breaking down your door, the other will get lawyers knocking at your door.
     
  4. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #29
    Yawn.

    It's illegal. The EULA says so. To use the software you have to agree with the EULA. Which says in a billion words that you cant build a hackintosh.

    Think of it like a pack of cigarettes. You can buy and enjoy them, as long as you agree not to smoke them in a public place (dunno bout other countries but it's the law in the UK). The excuse that you have bought them therefore they are yours to do what you want with is not an excuse. If you are caught smoking in a public place, you will get into trouble. Same if apple somehow finds out you possess a hackintosh.
     
  5. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #30
    SWIM would be guilty of contributory copyright infringement and DMCA violation. Should this go to court, then Apple would likely ask for $2500 per DMCA violation, that is $2500 for each copy that SWIM "modified". What SWIM and his "customer" agreed to is of no interest to Apple, since Apple wasn't part of the agreement. I also believe that any such contract between SWIM and "customer" would be void.

    Covered by the recent court decision. First, replacing the boot loader creates a derivative work of MacOS X. By replacing Apple files with your own, you modify the whole of MacOS X. Second, whatever you do, DMCA hits you BANG right in the face. And there is no way to get around that.

    To be more precise, if you don't agree to Apple's SLA, then you don't have any rights because agreement to the SLA is a condition that Apple sets (if you don't agree, you can ask for your money back). If you install MacOS X on a non-Apple computer, then as the SLA says, your license disappears in thin air, and you have no right to use MacOS X. From then on, both the initial installation and any use of the software constitutes copyright infringement. It's not the breach of the EULA in itself that is the problem, the problem is the copyright infringement.

    You are wrong (except it is a DMCA key, not DCMA key). See the declaration of John P.J. Kelly at http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-232.pdf. Search for "decryption".
     
  6. Lorenz0 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    #31
    The OP sounds like someone trying to negotiate for a christmas present.. "what if" and "but if I (sorry - if SWIM) does this instead".. Honestly, what a load of bollocks.

    Frankly, this SWIM/OP sounds so smalltime I doubt he'll even register on the radar. That being said, if he goes to prison due to DMCA/EULA and spends many a night being pumped by a big man called Barbara, I'll lose no sleep.
     
  7. cjmillsnun macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    #32
    Except you have broken a legally binding contract by modifying software.
     
  8. Jason Beck macrumors 68000

    Jason Beck

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    #33
    JASON wakes up on Thanksgiving day to see the same thread rehashed
    that JASON has seen a thousand times. OSX, JASON knows is Apple's
    proprietary software. JASON knows that Apple doesn't really care what
    JASON does, as long as JASON doesn't re-distribute Apple's software.
    All he knows really is that "FACEPALM" is most effective in this situation.
    :eek:
     
  9. hitekalex macrumors 68000

    hitekalex

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago, USA
    #34
    My sentiment for this entire thread.
     
  10. HLdan macrumors 603

    HLdan

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #35
    Do you eat and sleep MacRumors? You woke up with posting this on your mind? Geez. More things in the outside world to think about when you first wake up. :D

    No matter which way you're trying to look at this. If Apple ain't doing it (in terms of how you are running Mac OS X) it's illegal on their TOC.
     
  11. ncbill macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    #36
    That's a matter of fact to be decided in civil court.

    But why bother?

    Apple doesn't go after individual users who are installing OS X on PCs, instead preferring to implement changes that render updates useless on non-Apple hardware (such as removing Atom support)

     
  12. Jason Beck macrumors 68000

    Jason Beck

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    #37
    No kidding huh.
     
  13. Buzz Bumble Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #38
    Here we go again - pirate scum trying to self-justify themselves. :(

    Software is totally different to a toaster. You do NOT actually own any software product (with a few exceptions). You purchased a LICENSE to use the software, and you can only use it under the terms of the agreement you "signed" by installing the software in the first place.

    Apple can legally "come knocking at your door" and can take you to court for breaking the licensing agreement. The fact that doing so is not worth Apple's time and money does NOT make it any less illegal, immoral, stupid, or selfish.

    There is no "grey", it's pure black and white in the agreement. You can not do whatever you want just because you selfishly think you can / should be able to.

    If you don't like the agreement, don't use the software.

    END OF STORY.
    {Someone now please lock this stupid topic.}
     
  14. pcorrado macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #39
    You can't waive away liability for illegal activities when you have knowledge they are illegal. If that was the case every hit man who ever existed would have waivers and never be able to go jail. Copyright infringement is different and if there is a mistake of fact going to an element of the the crime, e.g. thinking that persons asking said party to infringe had permission of the owner through a representation of that party, liability may be negated but keep in mind that would just be the case for any criminal copyright infringement which is probably not the issue. The issue is civil infringement and while I don't think the term illegal is correct to use it is wrongful and against copyright law regardless of fault. Basically SWIM can have legal action taken against him even if he is an innocent infringer - this usually means a forfeiture of the infringing property and an injunction.

    To answer your question both parties are violating copyright law and in this case willfully.

    WIth regards to your first edit - if there is truly no modification to apples code so as to constitute an infringement of the copyrights then the issue is solely one of licensing, which is contractual. So a breach or violation of that license by a consumer or non-manfucaturer is not illegal although still wrongful in the sense that it is a breach of contract and civil damages as well as equitable remedies are available against the party in privity of the contract (license) with apple- in this case probably the end user since they bought the OS and entered the contract (license) with Apple.

    However, if the boot loader uses some of Apple's propriety code to work that would be a violation of IP laws either copyright or patent depending on what is specifically done for emulations. Once again both parties are probably liable. There may also be tort liability for enabling the end-user to breach the license.

    Lastly, edit 2, once again, is probably going to be grounded mostly in licensing and if thats case the question turns on how a court interprets the term "apple hardware" my instincts suggest that they will consider hardware to mean the entire computer, ipod, iphone, etc and not just a single component. If I were apple i would argue that a storage medium is not hardware in the sense that it cannot stand alone and interpret the data stored on it. Also, components are not made by apple, apple assembles components into what becomes its hardware.
     
  15. nastebu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    #40
    Which books are you referring to? This sounds like nonsense to me. Free speech does not entitle you to cry "fire" in a crowded room, or to distribute information information with no other use than to commit crimes.
     
  16. No ice please macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    #41
    I wouldn't consider it illegal if they would buy a legit install disk of leopard.
     
  17. Lorenz0 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
  18. Mindinversion macrumors 6502

    Mindinversion

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #43
    It's so funny listening to people that are more than happy to sign away their rights as consumers and human beings just to avoid thought or responsibility for anything in their lives.

    It also says in the OS X EULA that to legally use this software you have to drown a dozen kittens and bludgeon your parents to death in the middle of the night with a dull rusty spoon.

    Obviously not true? Have you READ your EULA? [ok, it's PROBABLY not in there] but the point stands: Just because it is in an EULA does not make it international law.

    If I buy a piece of software, I am not renting it indefinitely, I OWN it. I can do whatever I want with it. I can install it on one computer, more if I'm clever. I can install OS X on any machine I own, whether it's PC or Mac, stock or modified [which is fully legal to do as well, since I PAID FOR IT AND I OWN IT]

    Heck, if I know what I'm doing I can even modify the software I legally purchased, rewrite code and run it on my own personal machine.

    it's mine. OUTRIGHT.

    The tradeoffs:

    Warranty: I may now be denied this based on my non-standard use/modification of said item. I know this going in, and am OK with this.

    PERSONAL USE ONLY: Yep, cannot copy/distribute/sell anything I have modified. My rights over my product apply to me and me only. If I attempt to mass produce and sell my . . "modifications" the original company can and probably will come after me, especially if I blatantly throw my product in their face [ala Psystar] Apple cannot maintain quality control over their product when running in non-standard outside the limits configurations. What happens when a psystar owner has to call apple for an OS X issue? no warranty, and a potentially ignorant consumer that doesn't understand why. . you can see where that could easily head.

    So remember boys and girls: Consumers *DO* have rights, including specific rights to the goods and services they purchase on a daily basis. Large corporations want to do everything they can to make sure consumers are uneducated so they can continue to take advantage of the masses for profits. Knowledge is a weapon.
     
  19. whooleytoo macrumors 604

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #44
    While what you're saying is correct, I wish Apple (and every other software vendor) was prevented from using the word "Buy" in their software sales.

    They could at least be consistent. I've rarely seen a site which "sells" software as "License software from us", or "Buy a license and download from us". Buying implies ownership; it's misleading - little wonder many consumers are confused and annoyed.
     
  20. Greenman85 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #45
    SWIM can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want, it's still illegal.
     
  21. mwchris macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #46
    deleted . . . someone already made my point - hit men!
     
  22. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #47
    They are still an accessory to a CRIME, and would have to use Apple trademarks to advertise their services.

    Why don't you actually read why Psystar is failing in court?
    http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/cour...case-apple-wins-summary-judgement-highlights/

    It's more than the EULA. It's also against copyright protection which is internationally enacted.

    Wrong. Europe has copyright laws too.
     
  23. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #48
    Do it for yourself, you are ok.

    Do it for a couple friends for cash, likely you will be ok.

    Start a business and advertise, and you have crossed the line and are a target.

    Advertise heavily and chum the waters to tease Apple's lawyers, and then jump in ... SWIM at your own risk.

    ---

    Remember that Psystar got nailed for 750+ machines, even got Psystar to ship them several of those to be used against them.

    Any one of your clients can end up an Apple agent once they get wind of you, and anything you have them sign can be used against you, and when hand to them a copy (since in some states contracts are only valid when both parties get a copy) you might be handing them all the ammunition they need to nail you along with the files you place on the drive along with where you get them.

    And I can see Apple's representative going for the throat by getting you to install the $30 copy for a little extra.
     
  24. jhonmagee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    #49
    help

    hey people i dont know how to post a post can anyone help?
     
  25. AZREOSpecialist macrumors 68020

    AZREOSpecialist

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    #50
    This is so silly... If you own a retail copy of OSX, hack away... Apple doesn't care, nobody will come knocking on your door, and people who tell you "this is illegal" and "you are a criminal hacker" are neither prosecutors nor attorneys who have no knowledge of what's legal or illegal. It is not our position as forum members to pass judgment on what others are doing with their Apple hardware or software. If you don't like people installing OSX on non-Apple hardware then you don't have to do it, but don't preach to those who want to do the experiment and need help. I think it's wonderful that we have so many people who are ready, willing, and able to think freely.

    You could also argue that those people who are replacing their stock Xeons with faster ones may also be violating something in Apple's licensing terms. Who the hell cares? I believe everyone should do what makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting someone else. Nothing discussed in this thread is hurting Apple, or its consumers, in any way. Just remember... if you decide to build a hackintosh and/or customize OSX to run on non-Apple hardware, you lose the right to whine if and when Apple updates the OS rendering your hackintosh inoperable. That's the risk you took.

    Stop preaching to people about what's legal or illegal, especially when nobody in here even knows for sure from a legal perspective. Help or don't help.
     

Share This Page