Ummm. you do know that Apple is one of MS biggest customers (Via office for Mac) and that their entire business strategy is based on their ability to control their licensing. MS is the last person to support Psystar.
Psystar Announces Program for Third-Party PC Manufacturers to Enable Snow Leopard Installation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ummm. you do know that Apple is one of MS biggest customers (Via office for Mac) and that their entire business strategy is based on their ability to control their licensing. MS is the last person to support Psystar.
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
You're failing to grasp the nuances of the case I'm carving out. I specifically mentioned the $30 upgrade disc. The bit of EULA you've quoted up there is not for the $30 upgrade disc. Here's the EULA for the $30 upgrade disc:
Read it again. If you buy the $30 upgrade disc and then perform a clean installation by first wiping out your hard drive, you are violating the EULA that corresponds to the disc you paid for. And apparantly, according to what's been said in this thread, it's impossible to be a mere contract breacher because any EULA violation entails a criminal act–piracy. Thus, people with real Macs that wipe the hard drive clean, and then perform a full install of SL with the $30 upgrade disc are pirates. The same holds true for owners of real Macs that install SL over Tiger. They're more than mere EULA violators or contract breachers, they're pirates.
celtikmind
macrumors 6502
Psystar is a chapter of it's own but;
To any and all who critize the needful existence of a Hackintosh and the apparent slot it fills i.e. as an upgradeable, desktop Mac with a seperate display or as a netbook:
Why does it bug you to an extent where you are all the rage?
Does it detract your experience someone else is using it?
Is it because someone has gotten away with a cheaper and more powerful OS X computer because they have the competence and time to?
Why do you automatically assume they are all bad and non-working?
Have you tried it yourself (for longer than i.e. 15 minutes)?
Why do you want to deny and limit your fellow persons to Apple's poor options (this is about you, your view and not Apple's selection)?
and also, to those who uses a jailbroken iPhone but still critizes Hackintoshes;
Why is it OK (and even encouraged) to disregard legality/morality issues on a (smart)phone but not on a computer?
Perhaps something to think about before posting your next enraged statement or forbidding hackintoshes.
Personally I do not enjoy begin told how to manage my modern day workflow anymore than being forced by someone else how to live my life. I appraise freedom of expression, options and choice - something Apple won't let me have. It's their way or no way.
I'd happily buy a Mac again if they would sell the machine I want to buy (or at least make it in the quality they used to do). Until then I'm simply staying non-Apple.
To any and all who critize the needful existence of a Hackintosh and the apparent slot it fills i.e. as an upgradeable, desktop Mac with a seperate display or as a netbook:
Why does it bug you to an extent where you are all the rage?
Does it detract your experience someone else is using it?
Is it because someone has gotten away with a cheaper and more powerful OS X computer because they have the competence and time to?
Why do you automatically assume they are all bad and non-working?
Have you tried it yourself (for longer than i.e. 15 minutes)?
Why do you want to deny and limit your fellow persons to Apple's poor options (this is about you, your view and not Apple's selection)?
and also, to those who uses a jailbroken iPhone but still critizes Hackintoshes;
Why is it OK (and even encouraged) to disregard legality/morality issues on a (smart)phone but not on a computer?
Perhaps something to think about before posting your next enraged statement or forbidding hackintoshes.
Personally I do not enjoy begin told how to manage my modern day workflow anymore than being forced by someone else how to live my life. I appraise freedom of expression, options and choice - something Apple won't let me have. It's their way or no way.
I'd happily buy a Mac again if they would sell the machine I want to buy (or at least make it in the quality they used to do). Until then I'm simply staying non-Apple.
irnchriz
macrumors 65816
Well if Psystar DID win Apples first move (after issuing and appeal) would be to raise the price of Snow Leopard to around $1000 per copy unless you own Apple hardware. That would sort out the thieves and their proponents such as yourself.
Of course the next thing we would see are iPhone clones running the iPhone OS, Clone Nokias, Blackberrys all running the normal firmwares and OS. Xbox 360 clones running the proper 360 OS, PS3's again running the PS3 OS, hey maybe even a hybrid PS3 360 which runs games from both.
These guys are thieves whichever way you want to call it.
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
No, apparently it is based on what's being said in this thread. Suppose my neighbor comes to me and asks to borrow my hammer. I say that he can license the use of my hammer for $10 a day and then I hand him a EULA for the use of my hammer which I assert that he must agree to in order to use my hammer. The EULA includes things like that he agrees to replace the hammer if he breaks it. Also included in my EULA is the following statement: Licensee agrees to not use the hammer with 4 gauge nails. My neighbor agrees to the terms by signing my EULA. During the course of the day he uses the hammer to nail in a 4 gauge nail. He has broken the EULA. Now, if what irnchriz implies is right, he's also stolen the hammer–he's a thief.
People that believe that all Hackintosh users are pirates and that Psystar is pirating OSX must believe that any breach of contract with respect to EULAs is also copyright infringement–piracy. And, of course, that just means that everyone that's ever used computer software is a pirate for the simple reason that everyone has violated some term or other of some EULA at some point, intentionally or not.
This very forum hosts the discussion of loads of pirates–people that hack their iPhones. If it's true that violating a EULA entails that any use of the corresponding software is unauthorized, and if it's true that any use of unauthorized software is copyright infringement (piracy), then it follows that every Jailbroken iPhone user is also a criminal and not just a mere EULA violator. Remember, there are no mere EULA violations with respect to licensed software anymore.
How about this, go to your applications folder and Make two copies of the Safari.app. Congratulations, you're now a pirate because "You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form." You violated a term in the EULA and in doing so your license was immediately revoked. Your license being revoked, you're now using an unauthorized copy of Safari (assuming somebody out there actually uses Safari) and are a software pirate–a criminal.
Frighteningly, the notion that EULA violations are also criminal acts was supported by the decision in the MDY vs Blizzard case. And, it seems that lots of people are apparently content with the idea of having EULA violations conflated with committing crimes. If you don't want to be a pirate, better start reading those EULAs.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
No. Piracy is "the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material." You are doing neither in this case.
None of this is true. The only way selling a Sike-clone would be a problem is if you are violating trademarks or patents, neither of which are specified in this case.
You seem to be the only one trying to make this distinction. I'm not sure why. See the definition of piracy above. Unlicensed reproductions are piracy. Whether or not the piracy reaches a level to be prosecuted under penal law is a different discussion that has nothing to do with the Psystar case at this time.
This argument is ridiculous. Just because you throw money at someone doesn't mean you have paid for something.
There has been a great deal of discussion on this forum on the legality of jailbreaking.
It is only piracy if you are using Sike trademarks or patents to produce your clones.
Of course, that license only entitles you to certain terms. Different terms (such as the ability to install on non-Mac hardware) have a different value.
If the $1 Lemonade was the best lemonade you ever tasted, and someone stole the patented recipe and sold the same lemonade for $0.25, wouldn't you think the original vendor should do something about it? A dumb analogy, but you brought it up.
There is Apple specific hardware in all Macs. The hackintosh boot loaders get around this by emulating the Mac hardware.
Why is this distinction necessary?
Because they are more concerned about their own customers than pirates. Because they only sell upgrade disks because every Mac comes with OS X, so the distinction between an upgrade disk and a full install is meaningless. Because if they sell a version that can install on any PC, they would have to support it. Because a pirate who is going to install the OS in violation of the license isn't going to be concerned if the word "Upgrade" is on the box.
You are probably technically right according to the way licensing terms are written. But I bet there is some fudging in the definition of "installed". If the software was properly installed and then wiped, but the license was never transferred to another computer, I would bet both Apple and the court would consider that a previous valid install.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Property law is not a very good analogy for Copyright law. As written this scenario does not imply any theft has taken place, as the license agreement does not revoke his right to possess the hammer or demand its immediate return.
Which is why this case is in civil court. At some point, reasonableness comes into play.
Your seem to be the only one equating piracy with a criminal offense. You are arguing with yourself.
Again, not a criminal offense. Now mass piracy...
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
In a sense I sort of am arguing with myself. I'm really just trying to come to a better understanding of this particular issue. My interest here is more meta-legal or philosophical than it is practical.
So piracy is not a criminal act? I guess I just don't understand the terms being used. Here's what I want to know:
(1) What is copyright infringement?
(2) What is piracy?
(3) Is copyright infringement piracy?
(4) Is piracy a crime?
(5) Is copyright infringement a crime?
(6) Is violating any term of a EULA also an act of piracy/copyright infringement?
(7) Is violating any term of a EULA also a criminal act?
That seems easy enough to fix. Just add to the EULA that upon violation of any term of the EULA the licensee is no longer authorized to use the hammer. Now he's a thief right? Assuming he nails in one more nail before returning the hammer.
I suppose it's necessary so that I can understand whether what's at issue here is a mere breach of contract or a breach of contract plus something else–a crime. Or, am I mistaken to think that a mere breach of contract (assuming the term being violated is not also a law) is not a crime. Is breaching contracts criminal? The rough difference in my mind being that one sort of violation gets you sued and the other gets you punished.
celtikmind
macrumors 6502
Which is rather interesting why there should even be a discussion whether or not it is since Apple themselves have repeatedly stated that it is illegal, yet so many applezealots still choose to disregard this because it is an inconvenience to them (all the while bashing the average hackintosher).
Actually, in Sweden, and if you bought your iPhone on a Telia payment plan it is illegal as you would have signed a contract stating that you are going to use your iPhone with their service, to which it is locked for at least a year regardless the length of your plan. This is, of course, on top of Apple's usage terms.
But legality issues aside the thing I find disturbing is the hypocrisy in terms of morality issues. So far I read very little on the subject why someone can accept iPhone hacking and still flame hacking OS X. Most just seem to hide behind vague legality excuses like "it's illegal so it doesn't matter what I think". I guess it all ends up in what is accepted by the masses and not what is right or wrong, legal or illegal.
dejo
Moderator emeritus
If you're going to nitpick, you might want to consider that Apple does not license Mac OS X via a EULA; it's called an SLA (Software License Agreement). Now, I wonder why they chose a different nomenclature.
Of course, all you are doing is tweaking. It does not matter if you have a program that automate the process for you and you do not have a clue about what it is doing.
Try putting the CD inside the computer, just as if it were a Mac. And see the results. Nothing happens.
While, placing a windows CD inside, installs.
And now I see your whole preocupation. No matter how hard you try to bend the law: Installing Mac OS X on non Apple hardware is against the law yourself agreed voluntarily to obey. Just like if you marry someone telling them you'll be faithful. If you don't, no matter how hard you try to defend yourself, fact is fact. Wrong is wrong. You cheat, and you have to assume the consequences.
Sadly no. And they are not explicitly saying what they are doing.
They advertise they are creating Mac clones. They are preinstalling software not made for OEM. They tell you they give support for the product (like a Mac) but they tell you they don't give you support for the software (Which is half the computer). And they say they are not pirating a product, because the EULA is not for them, but for you.
And what is a computer without software and support?
Now a question for you...According to you Pystar is being full honest?
What you are asking is something I cannot give you in a Forum. That is not the idea of a forum.
No. They are telling you:
1. 3 Year support.
2. The EULA is broken. (We broke it for you).
3. No support (Because point 2, point 1 is flawed already).
4. We broke the EULA but you, as customer, are responsible. We cannot be prosecuted.
So, we are just troop soldiers, commanded by you to rip Apple off. We had no intention to harm Apple, but we cash in anyway.
This is like if you have gang who steal cars and sells the stolen cars.But the stolen cars have a sticker that says "We give you 3 year support. This car is stolen. We are not responsible for steal it. The only person to blame is you, the buyer of the stolen good. This car has no support."
But GM placed a sticker in the car that says "it is only legal to drive the car by its certified owner".
The main issue here is why is "legal" the sticker of the stolen car, and it is not legal "the GM sticker" of the car. Please bear in mind that a computer is: hardware+software+support. Because, hardware without software does nothing. Software without hardware is not useful and both are connected with support.
Sadly, for Pystar, one you break the initial EULA, everything else that comes after is illegal. In the case of our stolen car, once the car was stolen, everything the robber alleged is illegal, so the robber's sticker is illegal.
It is a simple principle of human justice:
If you do not obey the law, you cannot ask the law to defend you.
If you do not respect others, you cannot ask others to respect you.
That's piracy.
However, it is very difficult to prosecute all those people because:
1. Legal costs are very expensive.
2. They are not perceiving money for it.
But the fact that is difficult, it does no mean is legal.
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
Well, I am trying to nitpick, not to be annoying, but to try to understand things better. In that spirit, I'll stop using EULA and start using SLA. Thanks.
Apple is charging 29 because:
1. SL is an upgrade to Leopard owners.
Apple does not place anti-piracy protection because:
1. Mac owners who buy SL are more than Crackers (Not like Windows, according to the same Microsoft). It is not a good policy to bother a majority of honest consumers, because of some crackers.
2. Crackers are going to find a way to by pass the security anyway.
3. Placing the product at a fair price is the best anti-piracy policy.
Apple provides a full SL instead of an upgrade because:
1. In case you need to reinstall from scratch, is easier to do it.
Apple is an underdog in the PC industry. It has to behave better in the eyes of the customer to be successful. Making the installation process a very convoluted one is directly against customer support policies.
And, no I don't think they want to encourage Hackintosh enthusiast.
star-affinity
macrumors 68020
I don't know about Snow Leopard, but for Leopard it said in the EULA that Mac OS X can only be installed on ”Apple labeled computers”.
Then it's just to put an
sticker from the retail Mac OS X DVD on the computer's case and all is fine! 
Then it's just to put an
sticker from the retail Mac OS X DVD on the computer's case and all is fine! Piracy != EULA violation. You can buy the OS legally but still violate the EULA, and potentially be found guilty (not criminal, civil) in court.
And I think it's pretty clear EULAs have the potential to hold up legally, when the BSA has been cleaning out companies for not only having pirated software, but also software installed as part of a EULA violation.
But hey, I think Apple should lose this case. Then when their business model fails and no one buys their computers because they can have OS X on any computer, Apple will go under, and there will be no OS X. And then we won't have to worry about this silly argument, right?
And I think it's pretty clear EULAs have the potential to hold up legally, when the BSA has been cleaning out companies for not only having pirated software, but also software installed as part of a EULA violation.
But hey, I think Apple should lose this case. Then when their business model fails and no one buys their computers because they can have OS X on any computer, Apple will go under, and there will be no OS X. And then we won't have to worry about this silly argument, right?
That's not true.
Apple is providing SL to Leopard licensers.
It does not say you need to install Leopard first and then SnowLeopard. It only says that you need to have a Leopard licensee (Or Tiger) to buy a Snow Leopard upgrade license (or Tiger upgrade license) and use it on the Apple computer you bought. Nothing else!
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Not necessarily.
Google is your friend. It is "a violation of the rights secured by a copyright."
One definition (the one I have been using) would be "the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material".
For practical purposes, I think the answer would be yes.
In some circumstances. Of course, it depends on how you are using the word. In the context of this discussion, the word "crime" seems to mostly be used to denote a violation of penal law. I have not read much about piracy in this context, so I am not aware of the threshold at which it becomes criminal.
Same as 4.
It depends on the content of the license and the legality of the provisions.
Combine the answers to 4 and 6.
Still not a thief. Theft is unlawful possession, not unlawful use. Your license still does not make any provision requiring the early return of the hammer. Of course, a court will require such provision to be reasonable.
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
Look, I'm in agreement with you that some wrong is being done. What I'm not clear on is whether the wrong is a mere breaching of contract or whether it's a breaching of contract plus something elsecopyright infringement.
Show me that they advertise that. Maybe you're right. But glancing over their web page all I can find is that they claim to make computersregular run-of-the-mill computers on which several OSs can be installed and run.
A computer without software and support.
I don't think I'm in a position to know that. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
I'm just asking whether installation of a store bought copy of Snow Leopard constitutes more than a breach of contract and whether the more than a breach of contract part constitutes something more than a civil matter. Just to be clear, your response to those questions is that the answers can't be given in a forum. I don't understand why.
Aren't you implicitly giving me an answer that you just said you could not give in a forum? If this is like stealing cars, then that means installing store bought copies of Snow Leopard on non-Apple hardware has to be more than a civil matter because stealing is more than a civil matter.
You keep giving analogies where you already presuppose one of the issues in questionwhether the act in question is civil or criminal.
Ok, illegal in what sense. Illegal in the sense that a contract was broken, or illegal in the sense that a contract was broken and a crime was committed?
From your analogy I'm left to assume the latter.
I haven't made claims to the contrary.
I do not understand this.
You are saying, that in Netherlands if you take you SL retail box and look at the bottom of the box (the part that is near the code bar) it does not say:"Important Use of this product is subject to the acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package www.apple.com"?
I do not believe it!
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
Thanks baldimac!
That's not clear at all. Did you actually read the relevent bit of SLA that I quoted? Here it is again:
The SLA seems to say something quite a bit more than that you merely need to posses a Leopard license. It says that the computer on which you install Snow Leopard must have a licensed copy of Leopard "already installed on it." Does that mean that a licensed copy of Leopard just has to have been installed on the computer at some time or other even if it's not installed at the time you install SL? Does it mean that you have to have a operational installation of Leopard at the time you install Snow Leopard? I don't know.
That's not clear at all. Did you actually read the relevent bit of SLA that I quoted? Here it is again:
The SLA seems to say something quite a bit more than that you merely need to posses a Leopard license. It says that the computer on which you install Snow Leopard must have a licensed copy of Leopard "already installed on it." Does that mean that a licensed copy of Leopard just has to have been installed on the computer at some time or other even if it's not installed at the time you install SL? Does it mean that you have to have a operational installation of Leopard at the time you install Snow Leopard? I don't know.
Not necessarily:
Fact A: You had an Apple branded machine with a legal license of Leopard installed on it.
Fact B B: You popped in you SL 30 dollar disc. You are not violating anything.
Fact C: You are starting your upgrade procedure. One way to do it is to restart the computer with the C pressed and wipe the disc. Then launch the SL installer. This wipe of the disc is considered part of the installation (upgrade) process. You wiped your disc because you want to avoid XXX conflict you had with your Mac.
The Fact A states clearly that your computer had installed Leopard before the update process, so nothing is wrong here. Wiping the disc is considered part of the update process.
In fact, even if after your purchased you previously erased your whole Mac an installed Windows on it, the fact is your Mac always had a valid license of Leopard already (or Tiger) on it. Since your Mac came with Leopard (or Tiger) preinstalled. There is no way you bought a Mac with no Mac OS X preinstalled (At least these days).
sneezymarble
macrumors 6502
Of course, the SL SLA only mentions Leopard. So, going from Tiger to SL using a $30 upgrade disc is most certainly piracy based on what's been said in this thread.
Oversimplification is a bitch. Evidently he has not stolen the hammer. He just looses the right to use it. He is not pirating "the hammer", he is pirating the "hammering". You can still hammer but you just cannot do any "hammering the Apple way".
That's not the case. Because you cannot use both copies of Safari at the same time.