That doesn't make it any less mainstream. Theres probably 1000 Windows boxes to a Mac.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That doesn't make it any less mainstream. Theres probably 1000 Windows boxes to a Mac.
Copy infringement is copy infringement no matter if you are a business or not. Phystar infringed on copyright. Individual hackintoshing is the exact same.
That's not proof of anything. That just proves that people have made it easy to do. That doesn't make anything mainstream. I want hard numbers and statistics to show that this is a regular activity.
You just made that up yourself. Neither the judge nor the SLA make such a distinction.
No one said that the EULA is set in stone. Obviously, if you include a clause that is illegal or unconscionable, it is not enforceable. However, the specific clause that we are discussing is something that Apple is "certainly entitled to do" according to the judge.
You are talking about two different things. It's is legal to distribute the jailbreak hack because it has significant, non-infringing uses. However, it is illegal to use the jailbreak hack for infringing uses.
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?
That would be illegal and unconscionable, and thus invalid. However the specific clause that we are talking about is reasonable according to the judge.
Not at all. Apple-branded has a specific legal meaning. There is no confusion.
No. Copyright law means they have the right to sue you for making unauthorized copies of OS X and creating derivative works from OS X. Two things that copyright law gives Apple exclusive rights to do, subject to specific limitations.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
You didn't go to the pear.de site did you?
We are comparing personal computers.
Thats the point mac numbers are not a big percentage of the PC market yet you consider it mainstream. Actual numbers does not make something more or less mainstream. Mainstream is relative if your a geek hackintoshing is more mainstream than for non-geeks. Linux is more mainstream in certain segments.
Last edited by a moderator:
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. ($2,500 per violation in the case of Psystar, the same would apply to a private user).
If there are contracts signed, you are usually in a stronger position as a private person. You can claim that the contract doesn't apply to you, at least easier than a company. In this case, however, no contract (no EULA) means you have no right to copy the software, so you are stuck.
If mainstream is relative than there is no evidence one way or the other.
As par as PearC goes, I can't read anything on their website - it's all in German and given that they are only in German I hesitate to say what they are doing is really big or not. The only thing going for them is that they haven't been sued nut that may purely because they aren't in the US. But that's neither here nor there. We aren't arguing German law in this thread. Apple is a US based company. We are debating their copyrights.
Desktop tower sales have been in decline for a few years. Apple exited the "mid-range" market when they dropped their 1200$ PowerMac offerings.
Should be enough of a clue.
----------
The legal precedents I cited (MDY vs Blizzard especially) do. Psystar tried to argue it.
It is illegal for all the reasons I gave you, I don't know what more you want. You're doing something illegal. So what ? Are you happy ? Yes ? You're not getting sued so just be happy and live with it.
----------
No, just read sites that comment and dissect cases for you.
----------
Sure there is, one is guilty of copyright infringment for lack of a distribution license (redistributing the copyrighted work as a derivative in this case, seeing how they modified the kexts, remember kids, EULAs are for End-Users) and breaking the EULA thus not having a valid license.
In the end, both don't apply to physical goods.
Yet another wrong decision.
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.
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.
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....
Somehow I have my doubts that fact is going to mean much to the person you replied to....
Yeah, seems to be one of those "anti-copyright" crowd. Obviously not an author or creator.
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.
Exceptions are provided for certain activities regarding copyrighted software. Emulators, clean room reverse engineering, making backups, ect. It's all in the darkish grey on the legal spectrum, but it's not completely illegal. I believe hackintoshing falls into this category. Provided I buy a, say, Mac Mini to make sure I'm squared away, I should be legally allowed to goof around, play around, poke and prod the various software Apple provided me for my own personal use.
...and yes, I will admit that this argument might be somewhat weak. Since I'm hardly a lawyer, and only have somewhat vague notions of the laws behind it, there's likely something I'm missing that'll render my argument moot. But...this is the way I see it.
I took KnightWRXs advice and looked at MDY v. Blizzard.
http://www.lawyersinagamersworld.com/2011/01/mdy-v-blizzard-court-of-appeals-weighs.html
According to that page it depends on the categorization of the EULA term.
"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."
So it's not as cut and dried as that. On the other hand, MDY was held liable for breach of the DMCA.
In some situations such as jail breaking, circumventing a copy protection is not in breach of the DMCA. With that in mind, it is not completely out of the question that hackintoshing could constitute fair use.
Note that I'm not saying it's legal. I'm only saying that it's complex and that as long as there is no ruling on the matter it shouldn't be presented as a fact that haskintoshing is in fact illegal as long as the software has been legally obtained.
For me personally (I own a hackintosh (surprise, surprise) along with several Apple products) I'm not worrying about the DMCA since I don't live in the US but that's beside the point.
Hardware emulators are not anything like this situation. Because they emulate hardware. Which is not covered by copyright law.
Quite kosher? According to whom? Making a copy for backup purposes may be justifiable. But making a copy to run in an emulator is clearly copyright infringement unless Sony has allowed that use in their license.
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.
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?
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.
I think you are arguing semantics here. The bootloader and kexts are part of OS X. Modifying them or bypassing them or whatever you say is happening changes OS X and creates a derivative work.
I have no idea how Apple's SLA addresses modifying kexts in an otherwise authorized installation.
Nope. A copyright holder has three basic exclusive rights from copyright law.
1) Reproduction
2) Distribution
3) Creation of Derivative Works
Subject to specific limitations, of course.
Why would they waste their time on this? Windows outsells OS X by a lot
You are a young child in a world of monsters.
Okay, I spent a goodly few minutes looking up emulators, hackintoshing, plus a few copyright laws, and...
...damnit...
...you're right. While I don't agree 100% on every single bullet point, I'm gonna have to concede the vast majority of the argument to you. I might look up more later, but right now, it looks like there aren't any loopholes or exceptions for putting a physical copy of OSX on a physical non-Mac PC.
BAHHH! You win.
MacOS X has a license that allows you only to run it on Apple branded computers, and Apple has taken technical measures to prevent you from running it on other hardware. Yes, you can circumvent these measures by modifying the hardware without touching MacOS X. But that falls straight under the DMCA.
In the case of Apple's SLA however the "covenant" or "condition", whatever it is, is that you mustn't install or run MacOS X on a non-Apple branded computer, in other words, that you mustn't make certain copies. So in this case it would indeed be copyright infringement. Let's say Apple added to their SLA: "You agree not to steal money from any Apple employees". If you go against this, then it may be a breach of the SLA or whatever, but it is also theft. If the terms of the SLA say "you mustn't make certain copies" then going against this is copyright infringement.
BAHHH! You win.
Actually, the customer wins. Assume that the laws were different and had always been different: That Psystar were allowed to sell computers with MacOS X against the wishes of Apple. Then obviously Dell and HP and Acer and Toshiba would be allowed to do the same thing (and I dare say they build better computers than Psystar with better service, so Psystar would have lost). Now go back twelve years. So Steve Jobs says "I have this brilliant idea. We buy the Next company for $400 million, then we take their OS, and spend a good billion dollars to turn it into an OS that gives us a competitive advantage, and we sell lots of computers and make lots of money". And Tim Cook's predecessor says "Excellent idea. There's just a problem, all our competiors can just sell computers with the same OS and we can do nothing about it, so that $1.5 bn will be wasted". Result: No MacOS X. Microsoft with nothing to either copy or to force them to innovate. Linux with nothing to copy. Whatever OS you would be using today, it would be rubbish compared to what you _are_ using.
Last edited: