Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS X Family Pack... Now Available

Re: Hey...

Originally posted by lilscoy
Hey MacArtist,
You, of course, can feel how you want to feel about it. I totally respect each and everyone's opinion. But, I just feel like I have to say something. It's not fair to say that if people followed the EULA, developers could afford to drop their prices. There is no reason why the developers couldn't drop their prices and still make plenty of profit. Not just with Apple, but other companies are skyrocketing their prices. You can't say that it has to do with the unstable economy, or inflation. If you know anything about the econmoics in this country (which unfortunately, I do) you would see that the numbers don't match up. And, you definitely can't say higher prices are due to the fact of people using their software more than once. That's just silly too. In fact, I believe it's the opposite. People are pirating and such due to the fact of higher prices. Another thing I have to say, is that I don't want to single out dvelopers. They are awesome. It's just they aren't getting paid enough. But that hasn't nothing to do with sales. Like I said before, if the CEO's would stop taking million dollar bonuses and giving it back to the developers, it would start to make more sense.
Click to expand...
This is the whole "which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate. I'm not saying that the only reason that software prices are sky high is because of piracy. And to say that people pirate software because the prices are so high, doesn't mean that it is right.

And while it could result in better profit margins for a company if the CEO's refused the million dollar bonuses, they developers for these companies are actually getting paid pretty good. The developers that aren't making a suitable paycheck don't have millionare CEOs.

Back to the topic at hand, the "Family Pack OS X" is a good idea and the only viable legal way to install OS X on to your multiple Mac home computers.
 
Re: Re: Hey...

Originally posted by MacArtist

And while it could result in better profit margins for a company if the CEO's refused the million dollar bonuses, they developers for these companies are actually getting paid pretty good. The developers that aren't making a suitable paycheck don't have millionare CEOs.
Click to expand...

Off topic - I couldn't agree with you more...for those of you who think CEO's are overpaid (and I will admit that some of them are) they also make the major decisions that effect not just the employees of that company but all of their customers too. Now who should get the big bucks...the programers who are using company equipment, while working for the company in the company labs/facalities and being paid BY the companies to do what they are doing PROGRAMING or the ones that make the major decisions. Just imagine if you built up a company from nothing to a multi billion dollar business but you paid all your programers millions of dollars...how long would they stay? not verry if you ask me.

On topic - I think it is a great idea to have the family pack as an option and I would hope that people are honest enough to follow it.
 
Originally posted by Pants


EXACTLY - if the damn thing insists on installing or shipping with (and therefore Im paying for it) something I dont want, i have NO choice but to not use any of it. That hardly seems an 'agreement'. And who here honestly has read pages of EULA ? and of those who understood all the ramifications? I doubt many here....

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....

it shipped with this here iBook. A computer without a working os is a merely a fancy, expensive box. The OS is intrisic to the computer working, and if it doesnt work, then why treat it any different to, say, a new but broken toaster?

The old, tired arguement about buying licences and dropping prices is merely industry guff. Its not been shown to happen - after all, billy boy has how much money in the bank? and office is how much? 500 sheets? the price hasnt dropped because I bought 100 licences - nope, it goes up, because its easy to skin people for money and lay on the emotional blackmail. Sell it for a reasonable price and I'll buy - skin me, and expect me to treat the company with equal contempt.

How many times does apples marketing have to boob for people here to stop defending them? some time companies need to be *told* they are behaving like fools, especially by those most loyal to them. I am seriously having a hard time convincing anyone around here that apple are a 'decent' firm, especially when i have to defend their crass marketing stunts like single speed 'ddr'. [/B]
Click to expand...

On every machine that shipped with OS X 10 or 10.1 was there not also a full copy of OS 9 that most of the people with grips about OS X claims is a better OS. Couldn't you also install Linux PPC on your Mac. Just because it came with OS X 10 or 10.1 doesn't mean that you had no choice but to use it.

And your right about buying licences and dropping prices is merely industry guff. It's standard economics of supply and demand. More people want it, charge more money for it, make more money. Less poeple buying it, charge more money for it, cover profit margins. Ideally, more people buy it, charge less for it, still cover desired profit margin.

As mentioned in one of my previous posts, Apple could always put copy protection measures that limit the istallation of the OS on one computer. And this could, as another poster said, be the framework for that path.

The "family pack" is the best, legal way to install OS X on multiple Macs. If you choose to use it great, if you don't so be it. There's nothing to stop you yet.
 
woah cool off!!!, will you just a dicussiopn

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here...

You have to be stupid to say that you didn't agree to the software license and still installed the software. It won't let you install it unless you click 'agree', and once you do that, you Have agreed to the license. If you don't agree, don't click. A court of law isn't going to believe that your cat can click the mouse button only when the software licenses come up. Besides, even if your cat could, and you didn't agree, you shouldn't use the software, and uninstall it immediately.

Dave g5 : why the name calling, I thought the forums were here to post opinions on the subject at hand, not to make personal attacks on those with whom you disagree, are you Steve Jobs or what? First off I did not agree to the EULA license.
and I am still training fluufy (he says hi, I'll sell uh, that's license him to you if you want. The "Eula has not been proven legal yet you act like it is the U.S. Constitution" or something. why should I uninstall what I did not agree to use{pop up ads anyone}

As for your "10 and 10.1 were still beta's" gripe, you can go shove it up your @$$. Is windoze 98 what 3.1 was supposed to be? I think not. OS X is a new OS, and I don't know what the hell you're comparing it to. OS 9 may feel snappier, but that's about it. Apple's been working hard to make many improvements under the hood of OS X, and they can't do everything at once. It takes time to develop an OS. If Apple had waited until now to release the first version of OS X, it wouldn't be half of what Jaguar is, and you would hardly have any applications
.
Dave g5: whos to say 10.2 is not Beta Apple did not put Beta on the box of 10.-10.1 did they. OSX 10.2 is the same as 10.0 except with bug fixes, drivers, quatz extreme and I admit a few new and copied apps{Watson anyone -who they bought in order to stop a lawsuit) that should have been there in the first place. If Apple had waited until it was ready I would not have had to indure such sluggishness and if they were betas then they should have been priced accordingly.
Is Apple really being greedy by asking for money to support an internet service that costs millions a year to keep running, or charging for an upgrade to an OS that costed them 9 million in R&D? It is you who is being greedy by asking for Apple to give you the best of what they got while paying as little as you can. If anyone should shove 10.2 anywhere it should be you, just make sure you by another copy before you shove it down their(fluffy is hitting the mouse button now}, how did that feel?
According to you the EULA is more sacred then the" Bible and Constitution" and will still debate those daily, and they have been around alot longer.

You can install jaguar on as many computers as you want, and i personally dont give a flying rat's @$$. Just remember that it's people who buy the single license and install it on 5 machines that will make Apple put in piracy protection. If you made an intelligent complaint to Apple about the price of their software, they might do something nicer, but as long as you violate the user license, you have no right to complain if Apple puts in piracy protection, so **** and quit your bitching, because we've already heard it from tons of other people, and you are no different than the bigots who think that they can do whatever they please with software because they bought it.

Dave g5: You could have fooled me Im not a pirate I buy my software and dont give it away.Actually it is people like you that will tempt Apple to add piracy protection as they see an opertunity to add to thier pockets. people like me have cats name fluffy that know how to get what you pay for no more, no less. I think you are the one doing the bword I,m just an Apple fan and user trying to prevent Apple from becoming a Microsoft.
And you sound like Bill Gates closest friend.
Apple a great company but they would be no where without user like me telling it like it is. I'm not in anyones pocket not even Apple's when they start
behaving badly and that is what they are doing.

The only thing here outrageous is how you think that you are the victim of a company trying to make money in a crappy economy. If nobody pays for Jaguar, then don't expect the next version of OS X to be much better, because Apple will cut the R&D costs so that they aren't developing their OS at a loss.

Dave g5: I'm not a victim, me and fluffy get our money's worth. I "buy" all the upgrades and install them on my 3 computers, with the cats help in the future.
With $4 billion in the bank I dont think they are operating at a loss
Seriously for a second:Dont you think Apple should "allow" a user with a Powermac and a Powerbook to install 10.2 on both machines.
Is that so far fetch.
Well I'm not waiting for Apples blessing.

Cut the crap about how Apple is making sub standard equipment and charging too much for it. If you really love Apple, stop your bitching in these forums and write to Apple about your complaints. Whining here won't do anything about it.

It's idiots like you who really piss me off...

Dave g5: I think you do the pword buy your self
Someone that works for Apple is in this thread so it is getting to thier attention. whining wont do anything for it .
but telling it like it is will.
Apple is making great hardware I have no problem with that its just the moto chip and controllers that prevent ddr from working to its potential ata133? why limit us to 137Gb, firwire2? only 2 firewire and usb front jacks. 1.25Ghz tower? Tibook 800MHZ ibook with cdrom! $1499.
even so I will gladly pay more for a mac and osx just not multi copies of 10.2 for each cpu

__________________
"She's gone from suck, to blow!"
The best way to accelerate your pee-cee is at 9.8 meters/second^2
Ailce! Who the **** is Alice
 
199 for 5 !?!

Even for educational licensing, it would cost 100 bucks for five sites licenses of a Windows OS. This is not a bad deal.
Also, this thinking has caused mac gaming to suffer. In tight knit Mac communities, one copy of a mac game shows up and soon everyone has a copy. Many companies shy away from making Mac games since the Mac market share is soo small. If they sell a game on a PC, sure 50 % of the people playing it never bought it, but that still a lot of people did. 100 % Mac users need to buy the software they love to encourage companies to keep making software for the mac.
I think the talk about CEOs making to much is right. Steve J. should only be getting 50 cents instead of the whole dollar;) :p
 
I do agree that it would be nice to be able to buy one copy of a program, and legally be able to install it on all of my computers. Maybe Apple will do this in the future, and maybe they won't (OS X server has an unlimited client use, whereas other OS's charge up the nose).

Once again, as for the "10.2 is what Mac OS X should've been" argument, I don't see how some people can say that. 10.2 is an upgrade to 10.1. It offers some new and upgraded features. If windoze 2000 is what NT 4.0 should've been from the start, then microsoft is also behind the times. Apple works hard to make their OS the best that they can, but it takes time and research to make the enhancements that they do. It would've been nice to have OS X up to the speed of 10.2 when it first came out, but that's like asking to go 300mph in a ford escort a week from today. Besides, I don't think that anyone here has the right to say what OS X should've been like when it first came out.

If you look at the EULA, you will see that is says something to the effect of: Do not use this product if you do not agree to the EULA. Apple takes your word for it, and doesn't put in any serial codes or anything like that, but companies like microsoft have resorted to using extreme measures for copy protection. I do agree that it is outrageous to have to spend $1600 for Office for all of my computers, and that companies should let you legally install it on more than 1 computer, or just charge a fraction of what the original cost is for an extra license.

dave, I am not calling you a pirate, I'm just saying that you might want to look at what you're saying. I understand that it's easier to buy 1 copy of some software and install it on more than 1 machine, and I'm sure that everybody in these forums has done it more than once (including me.) The only thing is that defiance isn't the best way to tell Apple that you think they're charging too much. You should try writing e-mails to Apple, or calling them (that may be an expensive way to contact them, though...) The family pack isn't the best way to discount multiple users, but it's a start for something that could help Apple, and us in the long run. If Apple sees that people are willing to pay a bit more for 5 licenses instead of buying the single license copy and install it on 5 computers, they may offer better multiple license discounts in the future.

I'm sorry to flame you, but your ideas, and some others on this thread have been quite obscure... That, and I was in a bad mood...
 
You can call Apple's Customer Care line at 1-800-767-2775 on Monday.

I would suggest Apple require the serial numbers of the Family Machines and
then allow them the single copy price (up to five machines).

I remember those days when the OS was free and came on floopies.
Just go down to your Apple dealer and make the copies.
But then my first computer was a Heathkit 8080.

Oh well I digress. Change is hard.

Danny
 
sarcasm off...

Most of these arguments are about whether or not it is legal for an individual with more than one machine to install a single copy of Mac OS X on multiple machines.

According to the EULA, the answer is NO.

Arguments can be made about whether or not "click" EULAs are truly enforceable because there has not been a significant case in the United States that challenged their enforceability. However, EVERY MAJOR SOFTWARE COMPANY HAS USED SUCH AGREEMENTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. The longer we go with no challenge to such agreements, the more likely they will be considered "standard practice" by the courts and become enforceable by default assuming that the particular agreement is not deemed "unreasonable". (Not likely, if that agreement says the same thing as the thousands of others out there.)

Clearly software is not exactly like a book, a music album or a movie.
If it was, there would be much less argument as we have a lot of prior experience, accepted practice and law regarding "fair use" for these items.

Part of the problem is our natural inclination to attempt to simplify and organize everything into well-established categories. The truth is that while many pieces of software are like books, many are not.

In the case of a book, music or movie, no value is gained in "simultaneous use" by an individual. There is convenience in having multiple copies of a music album or movie. Having 100 copies of the latest Britney Spears album does not make the album sound better.

Additional value only starts to come from a music album or movie if you start giving those extra copies to other people (ie, friends and family).

For example, single player games are like this. There is no intrinsic value (beyond convenience) in having the same copy of Solitaire running on several machines simultaneously.

Alternatively, there is a lot of value in running multiple copies of a rendering package simultaneously on several machines. Should someone be able to run 100 copies of RenderMan for the price of a single license?

Some software is more fuzzy...
For example, having Mac OS X.2 running on two machines simultaneously and printing from one machine through the other or using the disk of another machine over the network, or accessing the internet via a gateway, or using one machine as a mail server...

Does this constitute "using" two copies of software simultaneously? There's an argument as to whether the machine is being used as a type of "proxy". This can be argued as a "convenience use" of multiple copies though it's not exactly the same as a music CD.

It's difficult to argue against someone having a single copy of an operating system installed on both a Desktop and a Laptop if they only use one at a time because it's similiar to the "copy for personal use" types of law that apply to books.

However, if I put Mac OS X on my computer and then I put it on my wife's computer and then I put it on my daughter Janie's computer and we're all using it for our own "personal use", then I think we've got a small problem from both the legal and ethical perspective.

I'm applaud Apple for recognizing the situation and at least attempting to address it with a "family license". We can only hope that other companies also start to address this as multi-computer families become more common.
 
Residentcial agreement.

First off let it be known I think "the Eula is a bunch of crap" when it concerns computers in one resident. and I am not to shy to say it.
It is not Law and is untested and unproven.
Virtually everyone on this thread has installed mac OS's on multiple machines whether they admit it or not and I'm just coming straight out and saying I dont feel one bit guilty in the least and will continue to do so.

I also installed Logic gold and Cubase 5.0 which I paid for $799. Its on all 3 of my machines and I'm not about to give them a check for $1600.
It will have a new feature called system link that allows you to sync up more then 1 cpu on there next release and I will use 1 piece of software for all my computers bought of course and I dont feel guilty.

At least Adobe reconizes that people are keeping there desktops and buying a laptop to compliment it. however if I ever do buy Photshop, its going on all my machines, not just 2 and if I need to use usb print sharing and share files over my home network you better believe I will.
Basically I use my g4 upgraded Biege G3 for my audio video intense stuff. my 8600 for usb printing and storage it has four drives and cd burning and my powerbook for conveinance.
Apple could really start something fresh and new here.
A unlimited residential agreement for non business home users
they could show comercials showing the cost difference between a typical home with 3-5 cpu's on xp and OSX.(then fluffy could retire}
but the handwriting is on the wall 10.3 will have copy protection and its not my fault. instead its the fault of a greedy Apple and some Apple user's who are afraid to say anything bad about Apple. these are the people that Apple is targeting with their new "dual" buy everything twice strategy.
However I am a little less militant now cause many of the points are well taken and I may alter my opinion slightly.
CEO's are overpaid, why? they get bonuses whether they decisions are good or bad they dont get fired they get severence pay. give them double what the programmers developers get and give everyone equal bonuses from Jobs to the Janitor when times are great and take it away when times are bad to all employees equally. then you would see companies step up to the plate

The Eula is something that each company makes up indivdually to fit thier whim. every license by every company for every piece of software is different and as such totally unenforcable for the home users.
why does server buyers get to install unlimited on all thier machines
and home users who pay almost as must for thier cpu is ridiculous
It is not illegal to install your software that you bought on all your machines you bought in your home.
Show me a case(and there might be one) where some Judge has ruled so.
The" EULA is not LAW"
In other words you own the copy of software you have purchased, and as a home user can treat it the same way you can treat a book.

Which pretty much means you can do anything you want when using it yourself, even changing the splash screen to give yourself credit as programmer. You of course cannot sell or distribute any modified copies.
 
And I'm still right

As you've indicated, there have been very few court cases on software EULAs
(most instead on copyright issues)

In the absence of any definitive guidance from court decisions, standard contract law appplies, under which EULAs are unenforceable contracts of adhesion.

The software companies have no legal basis for claiming EULAs are enforcable in the absence of a statute such as UCITA, which was written so overbroad it was doomed from the start.

It matters little that all software companies include these agreements when none have been held to be valid in court (there is _one_ case but that is more of a copyright violation involving derivative use for profit)

Whether you like it or not our industrial age copyright laws treat software for the home non-commercial user as one treats a book for that same person.

Whether you like it or not those laws include broad fair use provisions. You may make as many backup copies as you like of the software, or modify it in any way for your own personal non-commercial use.

This doesn't address how you think software should be treated (especially if you own a software company) but it is the state of the law today, and you can't wish it away by printing legal verbage where the consumer can't see it prior to purchase, even if you have been doing it for years.

This is no argument, but the state of the law tooday.

If you want to change it pass a law or bring a number of successful civil actions.

oldmac writes:

Arguments can be made about whether or not "click" EULAs are truly enforceable because there has not been a significant case in the United States that challenged their enforceability. However, EVERY MAJOR SOFTWARE COMPANY HAS USED SUCH AGREEMENTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. The longer we go with no challenge to such agreements, the more likely they will be considered "standard practice" by the courts and become enforceable by default assuming that the particular agreement is not deemed "unreasonable". (Not likely, if that agreement says the same thing as the thousands of others out there.)

Clearly software is not exactly like a book, a music album or a movie.
If it was, there would be much less argument as we have a lot of prior experience, accepted practice and law regarding "fair use" for these items.

Part of the problem is our natural inclination to attempt to simplify and organize everything into well-established categories. The truth is that while many pieces of software are like books, many are not.

In the case of a book, music or movie, no value is gained in "simultaneous use" by an individual. There is convenience in having multiple copies of a music album or movie. Having 100 copies of the latest Britney Spears album does not make the album sound better.
 
Well stated, however I disagree

In the case of a book, music or movie, no value is gained in "simultaneous use" by an individual. There is convenience in having multiple copies of a music album or movie. Having 100 copies of the latest Britney Spears album does not make the album sound better.
Say you have a book or magazine with a great picture of Halley Berry or Jennifer Love Hewitt and you scan the picture enlarge edit to Dave g5 with love and hang it on your wall while at the same time reading the book it came from why not 4 pictures 4 all 4 walls. I can even make one of Morris for my cat from the nine lives ads.
Company comes over and we want to watch snow dogs. thier is to many people for the living room so I send the kids upstairs with a copy of the movie to watch at the same time the grown ups do downstairs.
There is a party over my house every one is listening to Bruce Springsteen's new cd copies or in the boombox outside and in the kitchen inside. I listen while taking fluffy for a walk on my ipod.
all this is happening simutaneously.
in most instances you are right no value is gain by simutaneous use.
but sometime it is what makes ownership great
 
I am one of the people that asked for this

Within 2 weeks after 10.2 was announced I submitted feedback on the OSX feedback page requesting the ability to be able to purchase a "family pack" and even used those words. I have 3 macs at my house that I want to upgrade to 10.2 and since I am a software developer I strongly feel that it is a good idea to support the companies that produce the software you like to use. I like to feel that in some way they listened to my request although I am probably not the only one to ask for some relief in a full priced upgrade.

I will buy this thing even if I am the only one that will purchase the "legit" multi-computer license. I'm glad I didn't pre-order the regular copy. No - I don't have an extra $100 or so to just throw away - and no - I'm not perfect when it comes to software piracy.

I hope 10.2 is as good as everybody says it is - if so it is worth the price.

I don't think apple is a perfect company - and sure I'd be even more happy if this was a $19.95 upgrade - even buying 3 of them - BUT - I do want them to be around to make os 10.5 for a quad g5 machine. Even though they aren't JUST a software company - they can't afford to give their software away for free. If you want free software - go use Linux or something.

And there are WAY too many posts in this thread for me to think that people will actually READ what I have said - let alone care :)
 
So it was YOU!!

Within 2 weeks after 10.2 was announced I submitted feedback on the OSX feedback page requesting the ability to be able to purchase a "family pack" and even used those words. I have 3 macs at my house that I want to upgrade to 10.2 and since I am a software developer I strongly feel that it is a good idea to support the companies that produce the software you like to use. I like to feel that in some way they listened to my request although I am probably not the only one to ask for some relief in a full priced upgrade.



Dont be to hard on your self
But now since you havae thier ear ask them to make the family pak $129.
No one on this thread is advocating free or illegal copies
there is nothing illegit to buying 1 copy of said software and using it on all your personal use machine.
However that said, you said you were a developer and I gather you are a business making money from said use of software. that throws a different curve to discussion.
How big of enterprise is this, are the macs at home for home use.
The EULA is not law or legal it is a wish list of the software company to scare users into submission and to prevent piracy from honest folk.
However even in your case if this is a true home residence install the single copy bump mouse accidently.
you bought it it is yours.
Just dont make or give awy illegal copies
 
Re: So it was YOU!!

Originally posted by daveg5

No one on this thread is advocating free or illegal copies
there is nothing illegit to buying 1 copy of said software and using it on all your personal use machine.
Click to expand...

and this is where you are still wrong as it IS illegal to load the sw on multiple machines

you bought it it is yours.
Click to expand...

still wrong as you only have the right to USE the sw and only OWN the media it came on and you can do with that what you want. if you want to to make a wind chime out of it great...it is your CD to do with what you want. The sw that is on that CD is a different matter because unless your name is Apple Computer you don't OWN the software.

Now dave...why don't you call Apple's legal department and tell them that you don't agree with the pricing structure and are going to load 10.2 on any and all the computers you want and see what the response is.


but thehandwriting is on the wall 10.3 will have copy protection and its not my fault. instead its the fault of a greedy Apple and some Apple user's who are afraid to say anything bad about Apple.
Click to expand...

now why isn't this your fault...aren't you going to buy a single copy (if you are even going to buy it) and load it on all your machines? and it sounds like you are not affraid to say things in this forum but will you actually contact Apple and let them know that you aren't affraid to say something bad about them? Call customer relations, call legal, plead your case there and let us know the results.
 
In the piracy thread I said - about 10,000 times - that the EULA is not a legally binding document. No software company is exactly willing to test it in court mainly because they are deathly afraid that it will be found legally invalid. As it stands now, the EULA is simply wishful thinking. Anyone can write anything they want in a EULA. Wasn't there a brief controversy not too long ago about some Microsoft drawing or paint app whose EULA stated that the program could not be used to produce any work which "ridiculed Microsoft Corporation" or some words to that effect? I wonder if they ever deleted this from the EULA?

Now if an Apple EULA, say for FCP stated that FCP could not be used to ridicule Apple or Steve Jobs - in other words, if they were dictating your content, would you stand for that? It seems to me that many people here would, as so many of the defenders of the EULA on this thread are following the logic that the EULA is the law, therefore we must obey. No questions asked.

What amazes me in this (and the piracy thread as well) is that so many people here are not only misinformed about copyright law and what their legal rights are (there are plenty of informative web sites on this subject - why don't you look them up?), preferring instead to believe everything Apple or Microsoft tells them, but even stranger, are more than happy to forfeit their fair use rights. But I will not. If I buy a CD or DVD, it is my right to make as many backup copies as I damn well please, and if I feel like plugging in 300 hi-fi systems at once and play each copy simultaneously, then that is my businesss. And I defy you or Apple or the RIAA to stand up in court and give one believable reason how such an action in any way harms them. Lost sales? Give me a break! I am sure that a judge would find that as laughable as the jury would.

I really have to disagree that this "family pack" is a good alternative for those of "high ethical standards", as someone here said. I actually think the offer is a scam aimed at those in possession of a high level of stupidity. Only Apple is implying that this is an issue of "ethics", as the EULA on a single copy of Jaguar is not even in accordance with current law anyway, so please tell me how it has come to pass that what is and isn't ethical is now decided by the Apple Corporation? If you want to send extra money to Apple for no real reason, so be it, but I find it deeply disturbing that your peace of mind, your sense of what is right and wrong is being dictated by a corporation.

All of you Apple fetishists really should read Ulrike Meinhof's theory of Konsumterror.
 
Granted there is not going to be a case brought up against joe consumer for installing one copy OS X on more than one home computer. It just isn't financially feasable for Apple to spend several $100 an hour for their lawers to press the matter.

The EULA is not there just for S&G, it is a legal contract that you enter into, whether you believe in it or not, when you install and use a piece of software. Thus it can be enforced if the company so chooses.

Apple has in fact been fairly lax in enforcing it's EULA because if you so choose, you can install OS X or most any other Apple software on as many computers without a problem. This could and most likely will change in the future.

Other companies have not been so nice in this respect. From putting in code that checks the local network for mutliple copies of the serial number being use a one time, to complex software keys being required in order to install a piece of software.

And to all of you preaching about fair use rights. They are very subject, and vary from one copyrighted material to another.
 
Wake up THE EULA IS not LEGAL or BINDING

It is actually Illegal and I should start a class action suit against these companies telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home on my own systems bought from thier own companies.
What other industry has the nerve to hide agreements inside the box out of site on the cd and then tell you you are only buying the box and the blank cdrom and if you use this or that it must be used in this or that way.
It wont stand up in any court. At least not in the free USA.
What I do in my home is my business and does not take a penny away from Apples profits as everyone who thinks as I do will not magically overnight offer Apple $$$ for each of or computer.
Last I checked this is a free country.

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....
[/B]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.
peterjhill

Dave g5: no one here is pirating software. we are buying it

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lilscoy
Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use the software, against the terms set-forth in your agreement with them, then they will have lost a sale, and therefore WOULD LOSE MONEY.
peterjhill
Dave g5 Apple does not lose a sale when people such as I install on multiple machines in our house because we are not going to buy another copy no matter what so no sell is lost period.

Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.

Whereas a rental car company will probably sell you the car for a reasonable price, as they can easily purchase another, Apple does not have the ability or desire to go out and purchase a replacement OS, and would probably not want to sell you Mac OS, and then need to license the software from you so that they could include a copy of it with their hardware. It would turn apple into dell, and you into microsoft.

So, my arguement is quite valid, and your complaints against it are very weak.

Dave g5: Oh no here goes the rental car again At least the renteal and car leasing companies are upfront .
They tell you right out the gate you are renting or leasing and must return said vehicle at said time or pay a penalty.
and if you want to buy the tell you right out that you are buying.
Compare this with Apple and others "Buy now $129 less then a dollar per feature" Just check Apples site, if I am leasing or renting OSX than should I retrun it when I am done.? Nothing to suggest not owning is printed on the box.
This is false advertisement if you are correct and therefore negates any so called binding contract.
I can down load 7.5 for free its has an EULA also and that should tell you how much creedance it has.
NONE!
open your eyes EULA are
1. hidden from plain site. makes it illegal
2.are different for every app from every company. no standard again illegal
3.are not and have not ever been enforced because they are unenforcable and an envasion of privacy{It would work well in a dictorial society with drones}
4. Eula is simply stupid, dont believe the hype
 
Wake up THE EULA IS not LEGAL or BINDING

It is actually Illegal and I should start a class action suit against these companies telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home on my own systems bought from thier own companies.
What other industry has the nerve to hide agreements inside the box out of site on the cd and then tell you you are only buying the box and the blank cdrom and if you use this or that it must be used in this or that way.
It wont stand up in any court. At least not in the free USA.
What I do in my home is my business and does not take a penny away from Apples profits as everyone who thinks as I do will not magically overnight offer Apple $$$ for each of or computer.
Last I checked this is a free country.

no one has, as yet , pointed me to case justifying the full legal authority of an EULA, but has just spouted that they are 'law'. If they can, I'll take their arguments more seriously....
[/B]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go look near the end of the piracy and mac os x thread and you will see some links and quotes of the US criminal code outlining why software piracy is illegal.
peterjhill

Dave g5: no one here is pirating software. we are buying it

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lilscoy
Apple WILL NEVER LOSE MONEY from people using their software on more than one computer of their own. The profit they make will be plenty. I totally give them props for the software they create, and I do feel like they are doing us favors by making it, but they would be nowhere without us buying it and supporting them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you use the software, against the terms set-forth in your agreement with them, then they will have lost a sale, and therefore WOULD LOSE MONEY.
peterjhill
Dave g5 Apple does not lose a sale when people such as I install on multiple machines in our house because we are not going to buy another copy no matter what so no sell is lost period.

Hello dense person. I think the arguement is quite valid. When you rent a car you are entering into an agreement with the car rental company that you will abide by certain conditions, and in return will get use of the vehicle, which you do not own.

When you purchase a box of software, you are paying money and entering into an agreement with a company for the right to use the software, agreeing to certain conditions, one being that you do not own the software.

Whereas a rental car company will probably sell you the car for a reasonable price, as they can easily purchase another, Apple does not have the ability or desire to go out and purchase a replacement OS, and would probably not want to sell you Mac OS, and then need to license the software from you so that they could include a copy of it with their hardware. It would turn apple into dell, and you into microsoft.

So, my arguement is quite valid, and your complaints against it are very weak.

Dave g5: Oh no here goes the rental car again At least the renteal and car leasing companies are upfront .
They tell you right out the gate you are renting or leasing and must return said vehicle at said time or pay a penalty.
and if you want to buy the tell you right out that you are buying.
Compare this with Apple and others "Buy now $129 less then a dollar per feature" Just check Apples site, if I am leasing or renting OSX than should I retrun it when I am done.? Nothing to suggest not owning is printed on the box.
This is false advertisement if you are correct and therefore negates any so called binding contract.
I can down load 7.5 for free its has an EULA also and that should tell you how much creedance it has.
NONE!
open your eyes EULA are
1. hidden from plain site. makes it illegal
2.are different for every app from every company. no standard again illegal
3.are not and have not ever been enforced because they are unenforcable and an envasion of privacy{It would work well in a dictorial society with drones}
4. Eula is simply stupid, dont believe the hype
 
Re: Wake up THE EULA IS not LEGAL or BINDING

Originally posted by daveg5
It is actually Illegal and I should start a class action suit against these companies telling me what I can and cannot do in my own home on my own systems bought from thier own companies.
Click to expand...

Dave...why don't you just do that then. I would love to see this taken to court and find out just how enforcable the EULA is.

Bottom line is if Apple decides to do copy protection on their future apps and OS YOU could be one of the reasons.
 
Perhaps it would be rather an expensive excercise. Especially in the case of domestic use, the EULA is probably on very shaky legal ground. Let's get this straight once and for all: IT IS NOT LAW. There is a huge difference between the law and a contract drawn up by a buyer or seller of goods in order to maximise their own benefit. Many contracts are not lawful even when agreed by both parties, and aspects of many EULAs are probably not lawful likewise. When one party cannot even read the thing until the seal is broken and the money paid, the whole "contract" could probably be overturned in any court.

However, it would far harder to argue against a serial no which simply prevented simultaneous networked use of identical copies (as with PS etc), and it would be so easy for Apple to make the installation identifiable, that this should really be seen as a period of grace.
 
How would this go down in any other industry?

6. Disclaimer of Warranties. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, ACCURACY AND EFFORT IS WITH YOU. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTY ON MEDIA SET FORTH ABOVE AND TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND APPLE AND APPLE'S LICENSORS (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "APPLE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7) HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLE SOFTWARE, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY, OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY APPLE OR AN APPLE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SHOULD THE APPLE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

I'd say that several parts of this EULA clause are highly questionable. Whoops! All those who say they're OK because they never read these things had better look away now....TOO LATE!
 
I really want to but dont have the wherewithall of those CEO's

Dave...why don't you just do that then. I would love to see this taken to court and find out just how enforcable the EULA is.

Bottom line is if Apple decides to do copy protection on their future apps and OS YOU could be one of the reasons.

I would love to it would be a scream, just think
A hard working blue collar family man with his cat{fluffy} in the courtroom
demonstrating how he installs he software without agreeing to anything.
Giving the history of how he stated on the atari 800xl then atari st, amiga and macintosh and how he threw awy his dreaded P.C. and copycat windows
for a mac classic then 7500, beigeg3, powerbook 3400, how he loves the software but thinks the hardware is underpowered.
I would bring in all my switchers that I caused to switch to Apple.
Show them my family photos, movies and music I make with "my software and my machine"
I would bring a copy of all the software and OS's that I bought and 7.5 with is free. reseal them and accuse apple of false advertising.
I would show all there ads , print and media and witch they say buy and purchase repeatedly.
never lease or rent
I would show thier warranty to show how much faith they have in thier product{how much they cover thier own butt}

Thier lawyers could then ask my cat if he agrees with the EULA
And who taught him to click
They could then explain that they lost 2 "sells"(key word being sell not lease, not rent} to me because I did not buy a box for each computer.
They would close by saying because of Dave g5 we will implement a system lockout like microsoft to stop this blatant stealing.
If you read between the lines what they are really saying is because of uninformed users, the ones like sheep that we have thought control we can make more money buy making them feel guilty enough to by the same thing 2 and 3 times over. cause their is no way Dave g5 and othersmart freedom non sheep non conformist will never go for this.
people who believe in the EULA are the reason for the upcoming security measures not me
they can get money from them not me
Simple Logic
Case close I when and finally Apple reaches 2GHZ in 2005 I reinvest in the company and get rid of the EULA for home users!
 
Many contracts are not lawful even when agreed by both parties, and aspects of many EULAs are probably not lawful likewise. When one party cannot even read the thing until the seal is broken and the money paid, the whole "contract" could probably be overturned in any court.
Click to expand...

Well said! And consider that every software retailer's return policy requires that the returned item be "unopened" in order for you to get your money back (I've never seen an exception). So if you happen to disagree with the EULA (which you cannot read before opening the seal) and choose not to run the software because of this, you are unable to get your money back regardless.

If this isn't the most unethical business practice imaginable! Now how in the world does anyone find this to be legally binding (much less "ethical"). Indeed, which other industry tries to pass off such a scam?

And just how quickly do you think this ridiculous "contract" - a contract you cannot read beforehand and one that gives you no rights, not even the right to get your money back should you disagree with it - would be laughed out of court?

Let's say it again: the EULA is NOT the law!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back