It’s super cute that you think Apple cares you or your privacy….
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.
Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He wants Apple do be able to whatever they want, that’s all.
I honestly don’t know whether to allow for sideloading or not is a good, bad, safe or unsafe thing… will let the experts explain and those in the knowledge that came with examples, thanks, I think in the end I don’t care if it has to be extremely convoluted to unlock it, since for me, it points to the feature being probably harder to enforce security (it’s at least not easier dealing with two venues than one) and the premise “well, there are already criminals on the street anyways, so let’s have the option unlock all the jails for those that feel like it” kinda doesn’t hold… but what do I know.
So, on the interesting topic about EULA, phone ownerships, contracts and whatnot. Let’s suppose for a second that I actually have a clue about security implications (I really don’t but let’s entertain that) and I’m hellbent on not having any sort of sideloading capabilities on my phone: that’s how I bought the phone, that was the original contract, that’s how it was promised and that’s how I organized my work/research/security/life around it including all the iOS/iPad/watch/tvOS peripherals, hell, I even skipped having a Mac because of exactly that… but somehow, this specific instance of a feature can be rolled back into that original understanding? They can retrofit an EULA or whatever law acronyms it is for this specific sideloading case? Why it isn’t applied both ways the same?
Edit: in case it’s taken literal, because it does sound like it, I do own several macs and do install apps on the side, but it’s more hassle when they aren’t on the Mac AppStore, I find it so convenient that if I find an equivalent one I drop the none AppStore one. Actually would rather all come from there where possible (the sandboxing is apparently sometimes too limiting, is my understanding, for some).
Last edited:
I’m sorry - i think this is inaccurate.
There is no distinction. How can there be? The copyright is on the image and not the physical copy of the image.
The image is sold under license- if there is no license for commercial use and the client uses the image for commercial purposes then it will infringe the copyright. it doesn’t matter which copy of the image they use.
Again, no I don’t think so. Copyright is in place immediately after creation, nothing else needs to be done.
The agreement is to let the client do what they want from my point of view - not the clients.
There should be an agreement - but if there is no agreement by using the image for commercial purposes the client is breaking copyright by default.
First of all, it‘s not strictly true. You can sideload.
Second, I can‘t recall Apple ever promising they‘d never ever allow sideloading of any sorts.
Third, there are scam / phishing apps on the app store, so not sideloading doesn‘t reliably protect you from such - it only somewhat does so.
Fourth, Apple has changed the functionality of their OS in many small ways since you bought your phone.
Fifth: if you’re hellbent on not sideloading, you don‘t enable it, even if you have - or later get - the option.
Commercial use do not cover what you do with the provided copy. In EU as with already provided case law for consumers.
1: first sale exhaustion includes software and hardware as exactly the same thing.
2: selling a goods means you revoke any copyright claim on the sold copy and transfer it to the new owner for one time fee. Anything but this is renting or time limited service
3: you can ether sell a good or provide a service, but not both at the same time for a fixed fee
This is not how copyright works in EU.
- A license is a right to use a property or intellectual property that belongs to somebody else. When you read "this software is licensed, not sold" in a software EULA, whether it's for an OS like Windows 10, a game, or an application, "this software" refers to the software Intellectual Property and not the copy of that intellectual property that you've purchased via a software license. Software licenses and the instances of a software's intellectual property that they represent are indeed and obviously sold. Both of the following phrases are simultaneously true: This software (IP) is licensed, not sold; This software (instance / license) is sold, not licensed or leased.
- All the mass-produced items you've bought, including your clothing, your vehicles, your TV, your computer hardware, are licensed instances of the intellectual property (IP) for those things. When you purchase any of those things, you aren't purchasing the intellectual property (IP) and so you don't become entitled to mass-produce, to control marketing, to receive profits from exploiting the brands of any of those things, and you don't gain any ownership of the patents for the patented technology in those things. But you are purchasing a one-off copy of the IP of those things, and upon the point of sale of the instances of those IPs there is a transfer of ownership over those instances and you become the sole owner of that instance of that IP. This is exactly the same with software as it is with physical goods - you own your non-reproduceable instance and have full property rights over it.
- In law, there are Goods and there are Services, and every thing you pay for is classified into one of these two categories. A service is a temporal and transient action (like a car wash, meal delivery, movie streaming) that may or may not deliver a good. A good, by definition, is an item and piece of property that undergoes a transfer of ownership upon its point of sale, from the seller to the buyer, granting the buyer full property rights over that purchased item, and removing all rights from the seller over the item which they sold. As of February 2020, there are 88 countries signatory to the Nice Agreement treaty. The Nice Agreement (called such because it was signed in Nice, France, in 1957), is a multinational treaty that contains the International Classification of Goods and Services (also known as the Nice Classification), and that treaty assigns the classification of goods and services for its signatory countries under the jurisdiction and authority of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The World Intellectual Property Organization classifies all software as Class 9 goods. An elaborate look at what goods are under law is in this post.
- There are perpetual software licenses and there are subscription software licenses. A perpetual license is non-exhaustive, meaning that the right it grants is eternal, forever-lasting, and never expires. A subscription license is a duration-limited right to access a software or service. All the most common software including games, OSes, and programs are perpetual licenses. Some games that are sold via perpetual licenses, like MMOs, require an additional service subscription to use the base software with a publisher's own servers, with the software not being functional on its own due to the servers handling the game world's AI and other systems. Steam itself is a subscription service, but the games sold through Steam are perpetual licensed software and goods. The Steam service is used to purchase and deliver goods.
- A perpetual license is a good and a product, and whenever a perpetual license is sold it undergoes transfer of ownership upon the point of sale. Whoever owns a perpetual license owns the instance of software it grants a right to use the intellectual property (IP) of. After the transfer of ownership of a perpetual licensed software, the seller of the license no longer holds any rightful say over anything regarding that non-reproduceable instance of software represented by its perpetual license. This legal fact is not always honoured by perpetual license software sellers (for example, Microsoft with Windows 10 automatic updates and data-harvesting) and it can take lawsuits to force software companies to comply with their legal and moral obligations and to respect the property of others and not violate that property, including software, system, and data property.
- EULAs are not laws but are subject to laws. And corporations do not possess law-making powers. Many EULAs are not written by legal experts but by people who just see the formats of previous EULAs and make assumptions from seeing those about what the nature of an EULA is, and then just copy and paste the terms they like the sound of from other EULAs. And many EULAs even from large companies like Microsoft (for example, the Windows 10 EULA) contain made-up and non legally-enforceable stuff in them. Considering that it is even unreasonable to expect people to read EULAs, there is a question of how could an EULA-based argument pass the "reasonable person" or "the man on the Clapham omnibus" legal tests. An EULA can often be nothing more than an extremely long-winded and self-aggrandizing equivalent of printing a © symbol, with the parts of it that reach beyond the meaning of a © symbol being invalid
You would very easily circumvent this by not updating your phone an press (do not accept terms) to prevent an upgrade and forever stay on whatever the current version would be before it’s changed with no side loading untill apple stops supporting the device/iOS version 5 years down the line
So…
Yes you can. The law already contains an exhaustive list of legal protections and obligations of what you can or can’t do. There is zero reason to include this on sale.
We don’t do this on tangible goods and don’t need to for intangible goods considering they are legally equivalent.
Unless the goods contains a service needed for the hardware to work, every sale automatically grants A perpetual license is a good and a product, and whenever a perpetual license is sold it undergoes transfer of ownership upon the point of sale. Whoever owns a perpetual license owns the instance of software/hardware it grants a right to use the intellectual property (IP) of. After the transfer of ownership of a perpetual licensed software, the seller of the license no longer holds any rightful say over anything regarding that non-reproduceable instance of software represented by its perpetual license.
If I take a photo, the moment it is shot, I own the copyright. I need not register or do anything. It is my copyright. Even if it’s of another person or if it’s of a protected landmark. In these cases I would be unable to use it for commercial purposes without a release, but I still own the copyright.
If I am commissioned to take a photograph for someone else, the moment I take the photo I own the copyright - exactly the same.
When I am commissioned to take the photograph we discuss a contract whereby the client is licensed for certain usage of the photograph. They do not own the rights to do what they want with this photograph, no matter what they have purchased or which physical copy they own.
The only way around this is when I am commissioned to take a photograph and we haven’t discussed a contract, they may be able to prove some sort of intent in court; or if I sell or give them the full rights.
I don’t know how that translates to Eula or the general discussions within this thread, as I already stated - but with regards to our tangent discussion on photographic copyright within the EU - That is how copyright works in the EU.
The point is that this could drive manufacturers to force the end user to accept a Eula prior to sale of merchandise.
Maybe being forced to allow sideloading on an iOS update will cause Apple to reconsider on their stance of not supporting old versions of iOS anymore…
Don’t think apple will ever really support “old” iOS versions…but let people install them if they want?
Rather than focus on security and privacy of one’s products, Apple is resorting to scare tactics while these things are occurring or possible under its present situation. It’s a contradiction, but but it will get worse or it may lead to better designed products and software while encouraging Apple to try hard to make the point their are the better choice.
I se no problem with this considering
1: EULA aren’t legal right now
2: contracts should always be presented before payment if the company wants legal protection. This have been law for decades
Honestly I can’t think of any EULA term apple have that is legally enforceable in EU that would be worth providing.
If we barely have EULA when we buy a car to full warranty and services during X amount of years an miles…Then I can barely think of legal EULA term for consumer to worth printing
I would agree.
I have replied to a few threads about this whole IAP thing and my argument is that Apple should get something for the market that allows copanies to reach. They have build a device and a market share that can really help any business to grow (I assume). That is why companies that would benefit from a mobile presense to use iPhone (there are other options) instead of creating their own device.
Apple justifies the cut with maintenance (hosting, code reviews, security, the whole iOS maintenance, the new devices that allow those apps to be evevn better) - Whould it be more fairer if Apple were to start charging a certain amout for every x downloads?
The app owner could do what they want with the app (even use the IAP without Apple taking a cut) but every x downloads, the app owner has to pay a certain amount. Or for every x IAP regardless of its value. The maintenance (whatever that means to Apple) of a 1 euro charge is the same of a 100 euro charge.
Thanks
What do you mean EULA's aren't legal? Does this mean I can literally use my single Windows 10 license on hundreds of computers? And if I encounter activation lock, I can sue Microsoft because even though it states in the EULA I can only install it X times, but since the EULA is illegal, I should have that right to use it hundreds of times?
So every single software out there that has an EULA is doing something illegal?
If sideloading can be from anywhere, we will have stuff like this able to be installed. Malware is not just viruses.