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

One More Time!!

> Daveg5 give up - Gigglebyte does not care about consumer rights.

Although he did make some interesting arguments, I cant help but think he's a corporate mole or something and I respect but strongly disagree with his viewpoints.
Are there anymore Darksiders out there?
This is a great and important thread.
As we consumers are sick and tired of being blamed for all of the industries problems.
Being called thieves and pirates.{when we keep it afloat and promote thier products}
And law breaker when no law was broken except by the corporate cartels
which is better known as"Home Licensing".
This is nothing more than "Protection Money" being paid to greedy (on ocassion to thugs} Company Execs. who cant even be trusted to count thier own money correctly{actually our money too}
I hope the guy who said he works for Apple presents this thread to them and then we can have single home unlimited use and a real money back guarantee.{wishful thinking}
Just for kicks, here goes
"THE EULA IS NOT THE LAW"
Get over it.
 
Down with the EULA!!!

I think we scared or intimadated all of the naysayers.
Once they saw the license and warranty in Apple own words, there was nothing they could say, especially when they have the box themselves at home.

Now "no home user should feel any guilt for loading up software that he bought, game, cd, dvd, OS or otherwise on all of his machines and he can make as many copies as he/her sees fit.{just dont sell or give away}
You are not a criminal and you are not the reason that the industry is down in the dodrums.

And I dare Apple or Microsoft or any one else to prove me wrong in a Court of Law not "Licenses"

"We Shall Overcome"
I cant resist to say it one more time what all software companies hate to hear the truth
The "EULA is NOT THE LAW"
 
Have Fun with your revolution

Good for you. You have found a cause, and are going to fight for you beliefs. I commend you. I disagree with you, but that does not stop me from acknowledging your right to your own opinion. I wish you luck, as I feel that you are going to need it, as there is a long history of preserving the right of ownership in the U.S. Your fight would of course be much easier in China, where the ownership laws are looser. The problem there is that the government pretty much owns everything.

Perhaps there are some EULA’s that are illegal, in part or in whole. I had a lease for an apartment that decreed that I had to refrain from putting my clothes on the floor. Imagine what kind of crap a software company could put in a EULA, it could be scary. Even if they are illegal, your opposition will have a very strong argument that they need to secure some rights as the creator of the intellectual property that they have worked hard and spent money developing. I wonder what a jury made up of average citizens would think of the arguments that both you and Apple could bring to them. We could hold a mock trial here at MacRumors.com. We could have a moderated thread, Arn could be the judge. We could start a different thread first to ask for volunteers for jury duty, who would be required to read all the posts. A representative from the Anti-EULA group and one from the pro-rights of software companies could each pick 6 people from the volunteers. Each side could state their case. I am not sure how we could fairly deal with objections against each others arguments and their validity, though.

We could even limit the argument to a simple statement, such as, “Does a person have the right to install software on as many computers as they wish, as long as they own the computers, and have purchased a box with media containing the aforementioned software?” I am sure that we would have to go to committee to refine the question, of course, as you may disagree with my phrasing of the question.

So, let me know what you think. How far do you want to take this thread? The Piracy thread went to about 300 posts, I believe. I would suggest that we start a new thread, though, as this is becoming somewhat off-topic. Something like EULA – right or wrong. If you wish to start the thread, please be my guest, and if you could post the path to the new thread, I would be glad to join you there. I will promise that I will do my best to refrain from any personal attacks, and hope that the courtesy will returned.
 
Ok. I agree to some extent that having the EULA inside the box instead of outside the box in plain view seems like an under-handed technique. But unless this is your very first interaction with a computer you know it is there. It's not something new.

They all have the same basic information, something along the lines of "this is a license to use, you own the media but the actual software remains the intellectual property of said company, if you don't agree don't use." And that is what it really boils down to, intellectual property. Somebody spent the time and money to develop this piece of software and justly should be compensated for it.

Those of you claim that fair use rights give you the ability to do as you wish with something that you paid for. the following is taken right from the copy right law:
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
Click to expand...

And this section is the law on computer programs taken from the Copyright Law:
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if-

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions.-For purposes of this section-

(1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.
Click to expand...

Take from it what you will.
 
I want to be Perry Mason.

Good for you. You have found a cause, and are going to fight for you beliefs. I commend you. I disagree with you, but that does not stop me from acknowledging your right to your own opinion. I wish you luck, as I feel that you are going to need it, as there is a long history of preserving the right of ownership in the U.S. Your fight would of course be much easier in China, where the ownership laws are looser. The problem there is that the government pretty much owns everything.
Click to expand...

Thank you
lately the right of ownership for individuals has been under constant attacks from home taping with beta vhs, cassette tapes, cd copies, mp3 copies, dvd copies video games and software copies.
It has moved from those making illegalcopies for profit or just giving them away to the purchasers of said media being called criminals and unethicals for using the products that they buy in their on homes as they see fit with out any financial lost to to the corporate entities.
The Only difference in China I agree is the State owns everything no questions ask.
Here in America the state owns a lot but businesses own a equal or greater amount. the ones with the least ownership is we the people.
We elect these sometimes creeps and keep the other ones in business when their not cooking thier books.
Its time for our ownership to be taken seriously.
I dont know how to set up a trial thing but I'm in.

Those of you claim that fair use rights give you the ability to do as you wish with something that you paid for. the following is taken right from the copy right law:
Thanks for the copyright stuff I'm no Lawer but it seems to make my case even stronger
Click to expand...

Until software manufactors get rid of the many catch-22's and hidden agreements. such as you cant return it if it is open, duh how do you know if its defective if you dont open it and if you can return it you must return it for the same item, talk about a forced sale.
To their credit, companies think all users are crooks and if they had a real moneyback warranty we would all copy it and resell it.{sure some would, but not all}
there EULA vary wildly from 1 app to the next-no cohesiveness-Give us a standard and give us a real warranty, not an as is.
I guess it depends on" what is is".

Look at the Apple warranty: is this a not joke or what.
They take absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for anything and clearly state as is. but you dont see that until after you buy. I had to hunt mine down to be sure.
Hopefully someone with gutts and a lot of money will take this to court and end this Protection scheme. not for profit just to give the end user in writing the writes he/she already has morrally, ethically and just old fashion commonsensely
 
I have a question for everyone who thinks its ok to install software on multiple computers. Where do you draw the line?

Should I be able to install my copy of OS X on all my relatives’ computers? My friends’ computers? My school's computers? My company’s computers? What if I passed out free OS X cds in front of the apple store on Friday night?

If you answered no to any of the above questions, what makes that any different than installing it on two computers you own?

[edit: missed a few apostrophes in there]
 
key being you own on what you own.

I have a question for everyone who thinks its ok to install software on multiple computers. Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
Should I be able to install my copy of OS X on all my relatives’ computers? My friends’ computers? My school's computers? My company’s computers? What if I passed out free OS X cds in front of the apple store on Friday night?

If you answered no to any of the above questions, what makes that any different than installing it on two computers you own?
Click to expand...

[edit: missed a few apostrophes in there]
You awnsered your own question in the last line.
It is ok to install your copy of OSX (I'm taking for granted that you bought it legally} on any of the computers that you own and your residence.
This is why I am trying to get apple to call it a single home instead of user purchase.
You step over the line when you install your copy of OSX on your relatives computer{although many may argue that if she lives in your home and you both use the computer}Your friend{she's cute needs to get a job and buy her own Diff Address} , your school{great discounts Diff Address}l, your company{for profit Business diff address}
Friday night is a party night maybe saturday?
Just kidding, I think everyone would agree that last one is a no brainer.
We've been for the most part pretty consistent thru this thread. basically this is it.
You Bought a copy of OSX
You Own 2 desktops and a laptop
you dont give away free things on friday night
Instead you install and use the software you bought on the machines you bought, sometimes even at the same time over your network, i.e. printer sharing file sharing etc.
you make a couple of copies for safe keeping
You become an advocate for apple and try to influence your friends, relatives, school, and company to make the switch.
and you dont install on any machine not yours at your residense.
there may be extreme cases that this may change but for the most part that it.
 
Ok, daveg5. I'm glad you didn't agree agree to those last few. You could've justified it using some of the arguments you mentioned before, its good to see you do draw a line somewhere.

Now another question. Lets say you are going to a concert or a movie and buy one ticket. Is it ok to sneak other family members in? (Lets assume the movie/concert isn't sold out, so you woudn't be taking anyone else's seat).

Just to express my opinion, I think it is wrong to install it on more than one computer, but to be honest, if I had two macs I'd probably do it. (I also think lying is wrong but I've been known to lie on occasion...)
 
Justify my actions

Now another question. Lets say you are going to a concert or a movie and buy one ticket. Is it ok to sneak other family members in? (Lets assume the movie/concert isn't sold out, so you woudn't be taking anyone else's seat).
Click to expand...
It is wrong
But I am guilty of going into a higher paid reserved seat on ocassion or sneaking in the more exspensive movie or r rated movie in my youth.
We are only human. and we justify by saying no one is losing anything which is technically true.

I remembers back then working at mcdonalds night shift. one manager would throw away all the left over food and say it was stealing if he agreed to let us have any.
The other manager would say take home what you want or its gonna get thrown away and by the way get a coke you've all worked hard
You can guess who had the best sales cleanest store and more upbeat employees
Legally he was probably stealing
Morally he was probably wasting good food
But i think what he did was right because everyone involved and not came out better.
Sometimes you can be too strict and unbending to the point of stopping your own growth
This is what Apple is close to becoming
I hope that I am wrong
 
Apple Software Subscription...

Hi everyone---

I'm glad that Apple has a Family Pack available for Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar... I definitely plan on purchasing it for my home.

I've heard, however, the Apple is going to announce an Apple Software Subscription plan... Does anyone know about this?

I'd really look forward to subscribing to this if Apple priced it aggressively (against Microsoft). It seems they would, considering the new Family Pack pricing.

Here's to hopes of iPhone for CDMA (Verizon Wireless)...
 
I'm in

But we're talking about the EULA, not copyright. The former is an attempt to form a contract with the minimum benefit to the consumer (sorry, "licensee") and minimum exposure for the vendor (sorry, "licensor"), probably to such an extent that it contravenes the law, more or less so depending on what each jurisdiction's law will allow. The latter is a question of the law itself: it may be iniquitous or not, but it has the advantage of being agreed.

And I want Pepzhes on our team!
 
Well I think Apple quite nicely ripped everyone off who bought OSX,or a machine with OSX included by default in the last six months who now has to pay full price for it again if they wish to finally enjoy a "functional OSX."
What a jolly bunch of paying to be beta tester suckers we are!
That's $260 US,or $400 Canadian invested in your OS even if you bought X1.5 a day before Jaguar was released.What a joke!
If I had twenty macs,I would install one licence of OSX.2 on all machines just out of spite!

Look out,here comes the new and improved "Mac-rosoft" corporation to steal all your pennies!
 
If you go to the AppleStore site, there's still no indication on the main OS X pages that there is a "family pack" at all. Many people visiting the site will STILL not be aware of their options. What is Apple going to do for all those who might have considered buying a family pack had they known, all those who don't live in the States and can't get one anyway, and all those who have already bought? Are they going to upgrade them to 5-user licences for $70? If they really want to drive adoption of OS X they should (a) be more straightforward about it, and (b) make it cheaper. If this is not just an excercise to create a false impression of the OS uptake (each 5-machine licence will be counted as 5 sales even if only installed on two computers: someone else posted this point but I can't find it), then surely they should offer a deal where you can buy one copy (for, say, $99) and additional licences for $19.95 each. This would be much fairer and would genuinely encourage compliance with the rules Apple stipulate.

As things are, we are being asked to pay a lot of money for a revision of the OS which is only now getting the functionality of OS 9, albeit without support for a lot of relatively recent hardware. I don't understand how we can have had so many updates for the drivers of CD-RW drives and yet so few for scanners and printers: is it that much easier, is Apple writing CD-RW drivers, or what?
 
European Family Pack n/a

I have just spoken to Apple (a) to point out that their US website STILL encourages you to buy the single-user licence without mentioning the Family Pack at all (unless you know where to look), which is incompetent - verging on dishonest - marketing, and (b) it's still not available in Europe at all. But since then, I think I've sussed WHY it's not available: it's a Europe-wide deal, and there are countries like Germany (back me up here please, Pepzhes) where you are PERMITTED BY LAW to install any program on any machine you own, and therefore the whole family pack deal would be irrelevant. These EULAs are looking more perforated by the minute.
 
Re: European Family Pack n/a

Originally posted by skunk
I have just spoken to Apple (a) to point out that their US website STILL encourages you to buy the single-user licence without mentioning the Family Pack at all (unless you know where to look), which is incompetent - verging on dishonest - marketing
Click to expand...

hurm, i go to www.apple.com, click on "store" then click on "apple software" and the first item is Mac OS X 10.2, and the second item is Mac OS X 10.2 Family pack. Boy, that is real tough to find. I would never guess to look in the store for a product.

I will admit that if you go to
www.apple.com -> software -> macos x, and click on buy now, you will taken directly to the single user license version with no mention of the family pack. I think they should have put a three line link to the family pack, such as

New!
Family 5-pack of Jaguar
for $xxx.xx

But I would not go as far as saying that they are incompetent, and that it is difficult to find the software. Personally, when I want to buy something from the apple online store, i go straight to the store, and do not click off of the product pages. YMMV
 
I disagree

Anyone going to the AppleStore for the first time would naturally click on the large OS X picture, which would not tell them about it. Likewise if you click on OS X in the menubar. This is not clever. It may well be an oversight, but it's been like that for three days already, which looks like incompetence to me. It just looks as if they'd be quite happy for you to pay over the odds.

And what the hell is YMMV?
 
Re: I disagree

Originally posted by skunk
Anyone going to the AppleStore for the first time would naturally click on the large OS X picture, which would not tell them about it. Likewise if you click on OS X in the menubar.

And what the hell is YMMV?
Click to expand...

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?lookup=Y

As I said YMMV, or Your Mileage may vary.

So that is how you surf the site. It is unfortunate that apple did not consider this style of purchasing, and instead went with the store approach. As I said, I think that they should at the very least have a licensing options link from the single user page that they take you to. I can see your point. I don't call it incompetent, as I would reserve that word for something like describing how Microsoft implements security. I think that the majority of people who would purchase the family pack, are probably fairly familiar with the Apple web site, and would probably go to the store. The person that you are speaking about,
Anyone going to the AppleStore for the first time
Click to expand...
most likely does not own multiple macs, and that is what they would purchase.

This is all new to apple, and even Microsoft. Microsoft has nothing like this. I am giving apple some time to figure out how to market it. I personally believe that it is more an experiment by apple, and may not be a permanent option. As a compromise by those who pushed for it, to help calm those against it, perhaps they decided to downplay the product, and rely on word of mouth. Is this incompetent? maybe. You obviously think so. I respect your feelings. I am just saying that I disagree with you. I am glad that the product is available at all.
 
Originally posted by skunk
Can we agree on "very untogether"?
Click to expand...

:D

We can definitely agree on that. 100%

Sorry for being such a semantic's bitch. The whole family pack and the lack of "hotnews" or apple email information about it does sound like there is some untogetherness going on at apple about this. Most likely it is Steve J. who is disagreeing, but there must be alot of VPs agreeing with it, otherwise it wouldn't be happening at all. I would think that if Steve was behind it as a supporter, that everyone in the free world would know about it.

So, yes, we can definitely agree on it
 
now Apple will reach thier goal

If you go to the AppleStore site, there's still no indication on the main OS X pages that there is a "family pack" at all. Many people visiting the site will STILL not be aware of their options. What is Apple going to do for all those who might have considered buying a family pack had they known, all those who don't live in the States and can't get one anyway, and all those who have already bought? Are they going to upgrade them to 5-user licences for $70? If they really want to drive adoption of OS X they should (a) be more straightforward about it, and (b) make it cheaper. If this is not just an excercise to create a false impression of the OS uptake (each 5-machine licence will be counted as 5 sales even if only installed on two computers: someone else posted this point but I can't find it), then surely they should offer a deal where you can buy one copy (for, say, $99) and additional licences for $19.95 each. This would be much fairer and would genuinely encourage compliance with the rules Apple stipulate.
I actually suggested that they do this but at $129 on page 2 of these thread
as they can know claim deceptively at the next macworld how many mac osx boxes have been sold. here it is

However my pocketbook is just as important as Apples, more so if you ask me, and my money has intelletual value to it.
If I have supported your machine and convinced others to switch long before the imac and the switch ads.
Then I should be able to load up 10.2 on all the systems in my humble abode no matter how the agree button is clicked. The way I look at it, Apple owes me and needs me just as they think I do them.
And if they really want more switchers make the family pak $129 discontinue the one user pak and then they can claim 5 times more switchers and who actually reads those licenses anyway. Lawyers
 
It's all a question of where you are

As the EULA restriction is not even legal in Germany (and other countries I guess), can't we just say we all went on a day-trip to Berlin and loaded up our secondary computers there? :p
But seriously, I agree, Dave. Apple should be the first to bite the bullet and say the OS can be loaded on all computers in the household anyway. Firstly because they can't (as of now) enforce anything else, secondly because the restriction is against the law in several countries (so the terms change according to what they can get away with - no surprise there!) - and thirdly because they should be begging us all to bring every possible machine up to 10.2 a.s.a.p., to light a fire under the driver-writers if nothing else.

Since they're not even offering this in Europe yet, I find the choice is made for me. I am expecting an iBook in the next couple of days, so I'll have a copy sort of "free" anyway...;) :D Could I cat-sit for Fluffy for a couple of days?:)
 
Sure can.

Just dont let the ipod fall out of his cat back pack
He loves listening to the meow mix song
and the who let the cats out song
meow meow meow meowmeow
 
Re: One More Time!!

Originally posted by daveg5
Daveg5 give up - Gigglebyte does not care about consumer rights.

Although he did make some interesting arguments, I cant help but think he's a corporate mole or something and I respect but strongly disagree with his viewpoints.
Click to expand...

I do care about consumer rights, am not a corporate mole (just somebody that works for a company) and am glad that you think there were some good points. Lets try to put this in every day terms we can all relate to.

You are a programer and you have written this great application. You can see that people will want to use this appliction on all of their computers. Now you are also in this to make money and you charge a fair price for your app but since you ARE in this to make money you want to be paid for every copy that is being used. Now Dave, if you agree that this is a worth while application and will be using it on all of your computers shouldn't the programer get paid for all the machines? Now I know you are going to say that it won't make a difference with a big company like Apple, they make enough money anyway so loading it on your additional machines won't hurt their bottom line. Well you are wrong in that because for every license that isn't paid for but is being used DOES take money away from that programer or company!

Lets make it even easier. You go to work and work 80 hours in a pay period, when you get your pay check should you get paid for all 80 hours or should they only pay you for 60? You put your time in, you did your work, you produced something for them so you should get paid for all your time and work? don't you agree??
 
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