Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs

[pdjudd]

But as it stands, they do offer it for sale. If they didn't, then I'd feel different. I mean, I buy the DVD. I can use it as a coaster, a frisbee, hang it on my wall... do whatever I want with it. Apple made their money off the sale of the OS. If I or whoever else wants to go through the trouble of making it work with the computer parts they have and acknowledge that they can basically get no official support... I don't know what's wrong with that.

They offer the disc for sale. The software is a licenced product (and removing the license gives you no rights to copying it either). That is a major difference.

From Apple’s Legal site:

Your use of Apple-branded hardware and software products is based on the software license and other terms and conditions in effect for the product at the time of purchase. You will be asked to agree to the terms of the applicable agreement at the time that you obtain or install the software or setup the hardware product.

And:

Please be aware, however, that your purchase is subject to the particular agreement that accompanied the software or hardware product at the time of purchase and that you must agree to the terms and conditions of that agreement when you install the software or set up the product. That agreement may differ from the version of the agreements you can review here.

By the by, that’s standard for all software, music, movies, you get the picture.

From Apple’s SLA:

PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, UNLESS YOU RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLE’S RETURN POLICY. IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE APPLE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY, SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE BY CLICKING THE "AGREE " BUTTON. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND CLICK “DISAGREE”. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND, SUBJECT TO APPLE’S RETURN POLICY FOUND AT http://www.apple.com/legal/ sales_policies/. FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.

And most importantly...

General. The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple’s licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

Emphasis mine. These ownerships are backed up and enforced through US copyright law.

Like it or not, saying “I bought it, I can do what I want” is just blatantly wrong. You do not own it, you license it. Thats how all software is sold - and licenses by definition, restrict your rights to something.

 

[CQd44]

I'm not sure how copyright comes into effect if I'm not reselling it, claiming it as my own, or modifying the underlying OS outside of finding compatible drivers.

 

[gr8tfly]

I'm not sure how copyright comes into effect if I'm not reselling it, claiming it as my own, or modifying the underlying OS outside of finding compatible drivers.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I said "(which Psystar seems to have done)". I was getting off your topic and onto the general discussion - which I've been following closely. It's been very interesting.

edit: Actually, you did claim it as your own:

I can use it as a coaster, a frisbee, hang it on my wall... do whatever I want with it.

(emphasis mine)

 

[pdjudd]

DVDs themselves are not $129. They invariably make money on software sales.

I never said that the DVD was blank. Obviously the $129 doesn’t cover the disc, thats the fee you pay to gain access to the software that you are licensing. The selling price of the disc is always based on the value of its contents. That in no way implies that you are buying the software. Like most contacts, their agreements are finalizing a financial transaction that takes place.

You are paying $129 for the ability to enter to enter into a licensing agreement that, upon agreement of the license, grants you the limited rights to the contents of a DVD. The DVD itself is your’s, but it’s worthless without the ability to use its contents which are controlled by licensing.

 

[pdjudd]

I'm not sure how copyright comes into effect if I'm not reselling it, claiming it as my own, or modifying the underlying OS outside of finding compatible drivers.

Well the primary violator is Pystar... But you are in fact violating copyright by copying something that you do not legally own. Thats because you have to copy the software to use it.

Apple is the copyright holder of OSX - they get to decide who can copy it and who cannot.

The biggest difference between a common hackintosher and Psystar is that Psystar is attempting to profit off of copyright infringement. If you build a Hackintosh, chances are, your intent is not to make a profit off of it. Its a real limited market that is limited to individuals. Companies, for example, are not (if they are smart at least) going to engage in copyright violation any more than they would buy stolen art and hang it on their walls. Psystar did, and Apple is predictably suing them.

 

[oban14]

Quite frankly, software "licensing" is all ********. I bought it, I can install it on a single machine.

Let's see how the court case plays out and maybe I'll feel differently.

 

[gr8tfly]

Quite frankly, software "licensing" is all ********. I bought it, I can install it on a single machine.

Let's see how the court case plays out and maybe I'll feel differently.

I wonder if you would feel the same if it were the software you yourself designed, coded, debugged, documented, etc. You must think software engineers itself (not to mention, QC, CM, DC, packaging and distribution).

 

[BaldiMac]

Also the 'oh, and just in case any of this is unenforceable' clause pretty much sums up the whole can of worms to me- they can state whatever they like in the EULA, but if it's not legally enforceable, then big whoop. Quite simply, if there is no actual law -local, state, federal or international- that prohibits me from installing a copy of an OS I purchaced on hardware I purchaced. That's the real act involved in any of this. Apple's corporate wishes aren't law.\

Sure there is no law that prohibits you from installing OS X on your own hardware. But there is a law that gives Apple exclusive rights to the creation of copies and derivatives of OS X, subject to certain significant limitations. The question of whether a personal hackintosh is legal is much cloudier than the pro- and anti- arguments on this thread make it out to be, so I'll avoid that.

But this thread is about Psystar. Federal copyright law specifically forbids the sale of an "adaptation" from a legally owned copy of computer software without the permission of the software owner (in this case, Apple). By installing OS X, Psystar creates an adaptation (as opposed to an exact copy) of the software on the disc.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

(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.

Please note that I am not saying that there are not other laws involved, or that by not installing OS X, Psystar would avoid legal issues.

 

[BaldiMac]

Quite frankly, software "licensing" is all ********. I bought it, I can install it on a single machine.

Let's see how the court case plays out and maybe I'll feel differently.

What about licensing that allows you to install it on multiple machines, or at upgrade pricing? Is that all *******, too?

 

[thermodynamic]

The voracity of these guys is unnerving.

Quite. They should be locked up. Apple's EULA and their Terms and Conditions speak for themselves...

 

[thermodynamic]

Quite frankly, software "licensing" is all ********. I bought it, I can install it on a single machine.

Let's see how the court case plays out and maybe I'll feel differently.

Since "free" is not a business model, people have to make money in order to eat, live, and gain new skills somehow.

Convince us of a better way for a society to be and we'll listen. Until then, licensing and protection of intellectual property is a valid concern.

 

[pdjudd]

Quite frankly, software "licensing" is all ********. I bought it, I can install it on a single machine..

Exactly the mentality that I expect from someone who has never designed and licensed any sort of intellectual property...

 

[oban14]

I wonder if you would feel the same if it were the software you yourself designed, coded, debugged, documented, etc. You must think software engineers itself (not to mention, QC, CM, DC, packaging and distribution).

I'd be thrilled that someone purchased it. I'm not talking about pirating a copy of OSX, I'm talking about installing a copy I bought at the Apple store.

What about licensing that allows you to install it on multiple machines, or at upgrade pricing? Is that all *******, too?

Those restrictions are actually reasonable. While I don't expect Apple to support Hackintosh systems, if someone buys a copy to install on one computer, so be it.

Since "free" is not a business model, people have to make money in order to eat, live, and gain new skills somehow.

Convince us of a better way for a society to be and we'll listen. Until then, licensing and protection of intellectual property is a valid concern.

Free has nothing to do with it. I bought the software, I installed it on a machine. End of story.

Exactly the mentality that I expect from someone who has never designed and licensed any sort of intellectual property...

Wrong. I've designed, bought, and sold all kinds of intellectual property.

 

[BaldiMac]

Those restrictions are actually reasonable. While I don't expect Apple to support Hackintosh systems, if someone buys a copy to install on one computer, so be it.

So upgrade licensing is reasonable? That is exactly what Apple is doing by limiting installation to Macs. Of course, that's assuming that you are the one who get's to decide what's reasonable.

 

[oban14]

So upgrade licensing is reasonable? That is exactly what Apple is doing by limiting installation to Macs. Of course, that's assuming that you are the one who get's to decide what's reasonable.

If they don't like it, they should sell it strictly to registered Mac owners.

But I've got a feeling Apple likes the hackintosh market (and money) a lot more than they're letting on.

 

[KnightWRX]

Psystar isn't the END USER- the "single user" -as you say- that they won't be going against is the end user. So basically, you're saying the EULA is unenforceable as it pertains to the END user. Yup! We're in agreement.

No we're not. Either Psystar is the end-user, installs OS X on the PC they sell, breaking the EULA and then use First Sale Doctrine to sell you the copy of OS X, thus being only guilty of breaking the EULA.

Or Psystar is not the end user, they are a distributor. They don't get First Sale Doctrine but aren't breaking the EULA since they are the end-user. Without first sale doctrine however, they are guilty of copyright infringement because they are distributing copyrighted software without a license that permits distribution.

So which do you prefer ?

For #1, they have to have First Sale Doctrine approved for licensed software, something that is very much debated in the US courts (Psystar is a US company) and no firm precedent exist. They also have to invalidate the clause in the EULA that prevents installing the software on non-apple hardware. In other words, their dismissed counter-suit needed to be a hit, and it was a miss back in november. They are now very open to damage awards for breaking the EULA, and could still be open to copyright infringement if First sale doctrine is not recognized for used software.

EDIT : they also failed to provide their financial documents proving they even acquired the OS X licenses they re-sell. Apple asked for it in discovery, basically "How many PCs sold, How many copies of OS X did you buy and provide bills and receipts for these purchases". Psystar's answer was : "My dog ate it". So they are going to trial without any evidence that they even can use first sale doctrine, having not even bought the licenses in the first place. Opening themselves directly to : Copyright infringement.

For #2, well, they are in for a very painful moment in court when Apple asks for statutory damages on the order of a few million dollars and Psystar gets served with an injunction that prevents them from selling hackintoshes.

So don't put words in my mouth, especially if you don't have a firm grasp of the case at hand, and the case law.

 

[gr8tfly]

I'd be thrilled that someone purchased it. I'm not talking about pirating a copy of OSX, I'm talking about installing a copy I bought at the Apple store.

This was your statement:

Quite frankly, software "licensing" is all ********...

If you think licensing is all b******t, then my statement stands. You would not sell your software the way you imply, unless you wanted to give up all rights to it. That is why software is licensed - so the developer retains rights to their intellectual property.

 

[pdjudd]

I'd be thrilled that someone purchased it. I'm not talking about pirating a copy of OSX, I'm talking about installing a copy I bought at the Apple store.

Nobody is talking piracy. We are talking about copyright infringement regarding derivative works. You cannot do that without explicit permission from the copyright holder. It does not matter what you paid for in the store. For the umpeenth time, YOU DO NOT OWN OSX, YOU LICENSE IT. It even says that on the box.

Those restrictions are actually reasonable. While I don't expect Apple to support Hackintosh systems, if someone buys a copy to install on one computer, so be it.

The problem here is that when a company starts doing this kind of behavior, there is the suggestion that the copyright holder endorses this and is obligated support. Second, Apple, like it or not, has to defend its copyrights, they have a legal obligation. This is not a personal matter, this is a business obligation.

Free has nothing to do with it. I bought the software, I installed it on a machine. End of story.

Wrong. You pay to license it. That is how ALL software is distributed. Unless you are secretly the IP holder of OSX, you DO NOT OWN IT. You do not posses the rights to do with what you want.

Wrong. I've designed, bought, and sold all kinds of intellectual property.

If what you say is true (and I am really skeptical), than you should have a good grounding in IP law and should know what licensing and purchasing entails. By the way, I said “someone”. I was not directing that quote at any one person, but to all the entitled jerks out there.

If they don't like it, they should sell it strictly to registered Mac owners.

They do. See the SLA. It specifically states that if you have no intention of agreeing to the SLA, you should return the product. I don’t know what Apple could do to distribute OSX that couldn’t be bypassed somehow. In a case involving distribution rights and copyrights, the IP holder makes the rules. Apple and the rest of the industry (even ones that bundle hardware and software together like ProTools) have specific licensing agreements that are intended to limit the rights granted to you.

But I've got a feeling Apple likes the hackintosh market (and money) a lot more than they're letting on.

They don’t care about individuals - those folks are the least likely to purchase Apple hardware. Apple does care very much when a company does it. Pystar isn’t a couple of hobbyists working out of their garage or basement. They are a formal business.

 

[Zaap]

Sure there is no law that prohibits you from installing OS X on your own hardware. But there is a law that gives Apple exclusive rights to the creation of copies and derivatives of OS X, subject to certain significant limitations. The question of whether a personal hackintosh is legal is much cloudier than the pro- and anti- arguments on this thread make it out to be, so I'll avoid that.

Personally, I don't care one whit about Psystar. Apple can sue them into the ground... or not. It really doesn't matter to me.

My only argument is with all the people that insist that an individual installing OSX on their own hardware (note: nothing whatsoever to do with Psystar) is a copyright violation, or a violation of any other actual enforceable, on the books, LAW, made by a group of legitimate legislators who actually sat down somewhere and decreed: "it's against this law to buy a copy of an operating system from company A, and install it on the hardware of company B if company A wishes you not to."

Corporations don't make laws. They can make 'agreements' but so long as those don't carry any real legal weight, whoop-de-diddly-freakin'-do.

So again, I'll keep asking for anyone who insists that there's some law being broken to actually CITE it.

 

[pdjudd]

If you think licensing is all b******t, then my statement stands. You would not sell your software the way you imply, unless you wanted to give up all rights to it. That is why software is licensed - so the developer retains rights to their intellectual property.

+1. Plus software is licensed to ensure recurring revenue to make your product more valuable. You sell your brand new, never been seen, no guarantee of a success/failure, nobody would develop IP. That’s why companies keep IP rights - to make sure that they can be rewarded for making good products.

You can’t call licensing BS and try to make a living out of IP, the two are contrary opinions. Either you want to control your IP rights (I guess the exception being if you open source it, but even then I imagine the originator still has some rights), or you don’t.

 

[pdjudd]

Personally, I don't care one whit about Psystar. Apple can sue them into the ground... or not. It really doesn't matter to me.

Well unless you work for Psystar!

My only argument is with all the people that insist that an individual installing OSX on their own hardware (note: nothing whatsoever to do with Psystar) is a copyright violation, or a violation of any other actual enforceable, on the books, LAW, made by a group of legitimate legislators who actually sat down somewhere and decreed: "it's against this law to buy a copy of an operating system from company A, and install it on the hardware of company B if company A wishes you not to."

Except it is. Copying intellectual copy-written material without authorization of the copyright holder is, by definition, copyright violation. You cannot weasel your way out of that. These rights are a part of copyright law.

Corporations don't make laws. They can make 'agreements' but so long as those don't carry any real legal weight, whoop-de-diddly-freakin'-do.

The two main thrusts of Apple’s case is:
Copyright infringement: Covered by Copyright laws. Written by government.

DMCA: Another law that the government passed.

I have cited two different laws here. Both cary tons of legal weight.

So again, I'll keep asking for anyone who insists that there's some law being broken to actually CITE it.

Well when the courts render their decision sometime next year we will tell you. Until then, we can cite tons of prior casework and laws that describe the relevant laws and say (without legal weight) that they are most likely going to be found guilty.

 

[Zaap]

Nobody is talking piracy. We are talking about copyright infringement regarding derivative works.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Once again, PROVE what is being infringed in ACTUAL copyright law, regarding an individual installing OSX on their own hardware. Point out where exactly that was ever made a part of copyright law, and actually CITE the exact clause.

FACT: Apple makes OSX available as a consumer product. YES, we all get that they WANT you to only install it on their hardware. What you and everyone else arguing all this copyright nonsense are failing to do, is actually PROVE that Apple can cite any actual LAW, copyright or otherwise, that actually backs up, legally, their desire that you only use their OS on their hardware.

THERE IS NO SUCH LAW! Nor is any such whim of dictating what brand of product I use another product with part of copyright law.

As has been stated, if we were talking about piracy, just stealing the OS, or making copies of it and reselling it, then sure. But we're talking about the USE of a commercial product.

FACT: companies and individuals are allowed to purchase products and materials from other companies and turn around and use those products as they see fit, and with their suppliers having NO AUTHORITY what-so-ever to dictate to them otherwise.

Apple would be screwed if every company they buy parts and supplies from had some authority to then dictate to Apple the minutia of how they can and cannot use those products in running their business and making products. Does anyone really believe that if the company Apple buys the boxes they ship their products in were to slap a sticker wrapper of the shipping container that read: "By opening this package, you agree to only use these boxes with BOX-CO brand labeled shrink wrap" that Apple saying "whatever, screw you." and then buying their shrink wrap from WRAP-CO, that the box company really has a leg to stand on? Oh noes! It's copyright infringement! No. Apple bought a product sold by another commercial vendor, and now they can use it as they damn please in their own business. If they broke some 'contract' with BOX-CO by breaking the seal, then whoopidy-friggen-do.

(And this example is businesses- when it comes to consumers, it's even more clear that Apple can't dictate what a consumer does with a consumer product, to the level of demanding the use of a certain brand of hardware with that product. They have no authority to dictate that, and it's NOT a copyright issue.)

 

[Zaap]

Except it is. Copying intellectual copy-written material without authorization of the copyright holder is, by definition, copyright violation. You cannot weasel your way out of that. These rights are a part of copyright law.

The issue isn't about copying the OS disk. Anyone who buys OSX and installs it are doing what the product is sold, marketed and INTENDED to do by it's manufacture: install an OS onto hardware.

The issue is, that Apple would like to have the authority of being able to dictate the BRAND of that hardware. They have NO SUCH authority, nor is any such nonsense part of copyright law.

The two main thrusts of Apple’s case is:
Copyright infringement: Covered by Copyright laws. Written by government.

DMCA: Another law that the government passed.

I have cited two different laws here. Both cary tons of legal weight.

You haven't begun to address my questions- what part of any copyright law actually backs up any of your assertions that an individual installing OSX on hardware they own is any violation of copyright law? CITE the clause that supposedly covers this.

Well when the courts render their decision sometime next year we will tell you. Until then, we can cite tons of prior casework and laws that describe the relevant laws and say (without legal weight) that they are most likely going to be found guilty.

The courts aren't rendering any such decision on what we're actually talking about- you're trying to blur the line between Psystar, and the issue of individuals installing an OS on hardware. No court would go near any such "case" because it would be laughed out of court.

Basically, Apple's argument would be "Our customers bought our product, then used it in a way we don't like"

Judge: "Get the hell out of my courtroom".

 

[Zaap]

I believe some of you people would actually believe that if Sony ever slapped a label on CDs or DVDs they sell that said: "You may only play this product on a Sony-labeled player" that saying "Screw that, I'm going to play this in my Samsung player" would actually be a violation of copyright law.

"Oh noes, Zaap! You don't own that CD or DVD! You're only licensed to use it as Sony dictates! And they say you can only use it on Sony's players! If you don't like that, then boo hoo, you should just pony up and buy a Sony player like the rest of us!"

No. I paid my money for the media, and I'm using it for what it was INTENDED for. I'm not copying it, and I'm not claiming to own the material on it, I'm not repackaging it and reselling it to anyone else. I don't give a rip if Sony, Apple, or anyone else wants me to buy their product to use it on, I'll use my copy of it on whatever hardware it will work on as I see fit. Company shills don't like that? Tough.

 

[KnightWRX]

The issue isn't about copying the OS disk. Anyone who buys OSX and installs it are doing what the product is sold, marketed and INTENDED to do by it's manufacture: install an OS onto hardware.

The issue is, that Apple would like to have the authority of being able to dictate the BRAND of that hardware. They have NO SUCH authority, nor is any such nonsense part of copyright law.

You're right, it's under contract law, because it's part of the EULA. And no, your decision in Koleck vs Gateway is not a very firm precedent as higher courts have ruled to the contrary. EULA enforcement is still a very gray area.

But this doesn't concern Psystar at all, and so it's moot to discuss. If even the legal precedents don't make it clear, a thread on Macrumors won't make it either.