Hackintoshing isn't mainstream at all. There's probably 1000 real macs for every hackintosh out there.
That doesn't make it any less mainstream. Theres probably 1000 Windows boxes to a Mac.
Last edited:
Hackintoshing isn't mainstream at all. There's probably 1000 real macs for every hackintosh out there.
I'm not claiming that it is legal. I'm claiming one cannot directly use the Psystar case to show that it is illegal.
Hackintoshing is about as mainstream it can be..insert a USB and click yes until it's done..
...for direct retail sales of OSX enabled hardware.
Autodesk argued their software was termed leased as per their EULA, which didn't end out too well for them. The specifics of the situation aren't exactly pertinent to the discussion at hand, rather I'm arguing it as proof that the EULA in itself isn't a document legally set in store.
But how do they determine when it is and isn't illegal? It's freely available to all on the assumption that you'll be using it within the boundaries set by the DMCA. The same could and should apply to hackintoshing for personal use.
I'm not saying the specific clause is illegal, rather that just because the clause is buried within a license agreement doesn't necessarily make it enforceable.
To use an overly extreme almost strawman-like example here, if I develop a piece of software, and somewhere between the lines of my EULA, down deep within the small text at the very bottom, I state that by agreeing with the terms and conditions, I have the right to take your first-born son and put him to work on Cannery Row.
I'm saying that the whole thing ultimately comes down to semantics.
It's completely different. Psystar put OSX on PCs with the specific intent of selling PCs with OSX on them retail. I'd be installing OSX for my personal use. They're entirely different situations, only superficially similar in the fact that both situations involve OSX being put on a Not-Mac. Apple does have the right to keep other companies from selling clone OSX machines. But, once again, does that mean they have the right to sue me for going out to buy a copy of OSX to put on another machine?
Also, you get the feeling we're arguing just to argue by this point?
That doesn't make it any less mainstream. Theres probably 1000 Windows boxes to a Mac's.
But Macintoshes do make up a portion of the consumer market share - roughly 10% - the hackintoshes must be a subset of that (due to the OS). Mac's are not a subset of Windows.
Not really, no. The market doesn't make those kinds of distinctions. The market for Personal computers is made up of different manufactures sure, but nobody can legally make and sell branded Macintosh computers. The market for hackintoshes is a subset of the legit mac market since the numbers of the Mac Market will always be larget. Bt if you want to add in all PC vendors into the mix your numbers are going to be smaller still.No their boths subsets of personal computers.
Not really, no. The market doesn't make those kinds of distinctions. The market for Personal computers is made up of different manufactures sure, but nobody can legally make and sell branded Macintosh computers. The market for hackintoshes is a subset of the legit mac market since the numbers of the Mac Market will always be larget. Bt if you want to add in all PC vendors into the mix your numbers are going to be smaller still.
It's not an analogy. I try not to use analogies. It is an example of the fact that there are certain rights that I, as a customer, cannot sign away.
There is a big difference between agreements between companies and the agreements between a seller and a buyer in the eyes of the law - at least in my country.
My point is that you cannot take a ruling from a suit between companies and directly applicate it on the relationship between the seller and the buyer. There is a real difference between selling a hackintosh and building one as a private person.
If mainstream is relative than there is no evidence one way or the other.Mainstream is relative if your a geek hackintoshing is more mainstream than for non-geeks. Linux is more mainstream in certain segments.
Yep. According to that approach, in fact, Apple has complicated their lineup with the Mac Mini additionally. That, or the Mac Pro is the one complicating their lineup. That said, I don't think Apple has too many models, or two few. I think their lineup currently makes a lot of sense, and I can't really see them adding another desktop model with the traditional PC beginning to decline anyways.
jW
And how could you possibly estimate their numbers?
I'm not claiming that it is legal. I'm claiming one cannot directly use the Psystar case to show that it is illegal.
I think I would have to be a lawyer with a special interest in IP and US contract law in order to have an informed opinion on the matter. Since that's never going to happen I think the most reasonable opinion is that it is not illegal until a judge says it is.
There is a real difference between selling a hackintosh and building one as a private person.
You people who think that courts will fix the patent and copyright systems have your heads in the sand. This country is a plutocracy.
Oh, and the EULA? It's a "contract of adhesion", it has no legal validity - assuming the courts follow the law, which is questionable.
Somehow I have my doubts that fact is going to mean much to the person you replied to....If the EULA has no legal validity, you then do not have a valid license to run the software. Enjoy your overpriced paperweight, because without an OS and applications, your Mac is just a big aluminum cube.
Somehow I have my doubts that fact is going to mean much to the person you replied to....![]()
Sure, but you are, again, speaking in generalities. If you are not saying it is illegal, what legal justification are you using to argue that it is unenforceable?
You can take a look at a judgement, understand the reasoning behind it, and then draw conclusions - with the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer.
Apple restricts copying of their software. According to the judge, they are entitled to do so. Which makes it copyright infringement, no matter whether for personal use or for commercial use. Penalties for copyright infringement are different in both cases.
Apple protects their software using copy protection. The copy protection is broken (so broken that some people claim it doesn't exist), but fact is that you cannot take a completely unmodified PC from any manufacturer other than Apple and install a completely unmodified copy of MacOS X on it. At some point you have to do something that is a DMCA violation, no matter whether for personal use or for commercial use. Penalties for 1000 violations are obviously worse than penalties for one violation. ($2,500 per violation in the case of Psystar, the same would apply to a private user).
If there are contracts signed, you are usually in a stronger position as a private person. You can claim that the contract doesn't apply to you, at least easier than a company. In this case, however, no contract (no EULA) means you have no right to copy the software, so you are stuck.
Honestly, I only have the vaguest of vague notions of this, but I believe hackintoshing falls under the same protections emulators do. We'll consider the Playstation 1 as an example, which requires you to have an image of the bios before it can be used.
Making and using a program that creates an emulated environment of the PS hardware is legal. The bios itself? More of a grey area. It's illegal to download an image off the internet, but ripping an image yourself off a PS you own is quite kosher. The existence and use of this PS emulator is perfectly legal, provided you toe the line and don't go crazy pirating software you're otherwise expected to pay for.
I see a hackintosh as being somewhat similar to this. From what I've seen, you don't actually go through hacking and cracking OSX to install it on a non-Mac PC. You're emulating an environment that tricks the software into thinking it's installing on native hardware. The image of the software you're installing is left relatively untouched.
That's completely incorrect. Hackintoshing requires replacing the bootloader and certain kexts within OS X. Which was clearly classified as creating a derivative work in the Psystar ruling. Creating a derivative work from OS X is one of the exclusive rights granted to Apple through copyright law subject to specific limitations.
Not really - it's worse for you if you try and profit off of it, but creating a derivative outside of fair use principals is not legal.BTW does the legality of creating a derivative work depend on whether you sell it or not?
Although I agree that emulation is not what you're doing, hackingtoshing does not require replacing the boot loader. It requires a boot loader but it doesn't replace anything. Furthermore, it doesn't require replacing kexts.
However, it might require modification of kexts depending on your hardware. That might be classified as creating a derivative work but if that is illegal then modifying a kext in order to enable TRIM is also illegal.
BTW does the legality of creating a derivative work depend on whether you sell it or not?
Why would they waste their time on this? Windows outsells OS X by a lot![]()
That's completely incorrect. Hackintoshing requires replacing the bootloader and certain kexts within OS X. Which was clearly classified as creating a derivative work in the Psystar ruling. Creating a derivative work from OS X is one of the exclusive rights granted to Apple through copyright law subject to specific limitations.
I see a hackintosh as being somewhat similar to this. From what I've seen, you don't actually go through hacking and cracking OSX to install it on a non-Mac PC. You're emulating an environment that tricks the software into thinking it's installing on native hardware. The image of the software you're installing is left relatively untouched.
"The Ninth Circuit categorized the EULA term that forbade the use of bots as a "covenant" (i.e. a promise not to do something), rather than a "condition" (i.e. a limit on the scope of the copyright license). And, while a violation of a covenant might be a breach of the EULA, such a breach does not trigger copyright infringement."
BAHHH! You win.![]()
Yes, you can circumvent these measures by modifying the hardware without touching MacOS X.