Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No Mac operating system has ever had any technological measures that would prevent you in any way from using it for the purpose it was sold and bought for.

but that's not DRM, is it? DRMed music you bought from itunes are sold for listening to in itunes and ipod, not anywhere else. aka there's no technological measure that would prevent you in any way from playing it in itunes (for the purpose it was sold and bought for)

Yep. Does it stop anyone from freely copying OS X an infinite number of times and installing it on any and all Macs that one can get one's hands on? Nope. The music/DRM analogy doesn't hold water.

--Eric

but it does stop ppl (supposedly) from installing it on non macintosh computers.. just like preventing ppl from listening fairplay-DRMed music on non itunes and ipod

Now to OP.

what is your point in this thread? i've gone back to read your original post, it doesn't to make a whole lot of sense. what is your question, or objective, or purpose?

are you trying to convince people something? if so, what?

are you trying to express your frustration of something? if so, what?

if i'm the only dumb one and everyone else knows, please enlighten me.
 
what got into you, fanboy? he merely said media center in windows is more capable than the equivalent in OS X(front row). can't you accept the fact that apple is not the best in everyting?


Not for me....being able to record TV would be nice, but the other pros of Front Row, outweight the TV thing.
 
It never did make sense bearbo. The title is nothing but flamebait. He is what I like to call a troll.

Freeing up music from DRM has nothing to do with this imagined "DRM" in OS X. Nor does that all of a sudden mean it should be free, unless OP meant "free of DRM."

And to say that Leopard should be free because you can get Vista free is ludicrous. Personally, Vista is more like XP SP3, with a new look. They couldn't even write it from the ground up. They scratched it and built upon 2k3 if I am not mistaking (I might be).

Not to mention you have to buy a new computer for it. They better give it to you for free, that is the only way it is going to get into as many computers as possible. If you bought a computer 6 months ago, chances are it wont run well, so chances are you would need a new computer anyhow. (I am assuming most people buy low end computers, which is generally true, if you bought a top end machine I am sure it would be fine.)

And, you had to buy the computer within a certain period of it releasing, I have heard Apple does something similar I am not sure of the timeframe though.
 
No, features aren't stripped and nor are there different versions of OS X. The single OS just hasn't got the features to begin with. Look at Front Row vs Media Center capabilities for a very good example. It makes for a much simpler choice for those who don't know what they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

So you believe Windows (Vista) has more/better features than OS X? Look at Exposé vs that Aero effect for a very good example. The first is a really useful feature where the second is just resource hungry eye candy with almost no actual use.

I understand your "mission" to defend windows and pcs in every single post on this board, I just think you must be a little bored.:)

Not for me....being able to record TV would be nice, but the other pros of Front Row, outweight the TV thing.

i wasn't talking about you. sorry.
 
This thread is a trainwreck, but I wanted to say that I will pay for Leopard. I probably won't buy a new Mac until it's out, but I'll still pay for it. Possibly just the $69 student price upgrade, and I'll probably install it on like four Macs, and maybe even my mom's. And I won't be buying the family pack. Audio CDs, movies, and other copyright-restricted items need only be purchased once for a household, and I believe that software should be the same. Corporate environments with hundreds of PCs making money off of them are different, but there's no way I'm buying a family license for me and my S.O. and our Macs, and my mom (who couldn't afford to buy it for her old eMac anyway). I still think Apple deserves something. But then again, if I purchased a $2500 MBP like 32 days before Leopard came out, I would probably be singing a different story, and TOTALLY steal Leopard. Apple owes it to anyone who purchases a Mac within 90-120 days, IMHO. (Though I could understand if they only charged like $9.99 for the CD and S&H. That would be fair.)
 
Wow, I dont' know where to start!

so your analogy does not work in this case- Those Cds, movies, etc example you gave there is only one copy so only one is in use at any one time, with the software you are possibly using it on multiple computers at the same time. I believe most software license do allow you to install software on more than one computer.

As far as the policy of software upgrade after purchase...do car manufacturers let you get a 2007 accessory on your 2006 car just because you bought it two days before the 2007 came out? It is Apple's policy and while I understand you have an opinion, it IS their policy. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to steal anything! I dont' agree with that Corvette pricing policy- I should just be able to give them $1000 and take the corvette- I think I will do that. Just becuase someone can "steal" something doesn't mean anyone should. I have been burned by it before, but they have to draw the line someplace and no matter where they draw it someone will have bought a computer one day later and get "screwed!"


Oh yeah, I am getting ready to buy phones for my family- I think I will just go and pay for one phone, and then take the other two phones I need cause I don't agree that I should pay for all three phones when we all live in one household!

Oh yeah, you are right- this is a train wreck!:D
 
This thread is a trainwreck, but I wanted to say that I will pay for Leopard. I probably won't buy a new Mac until it's out, but I'll still pay for it. Possibly just the $69 student price upgrade, and I'll probably install it on like four Macs, and maybe even my mom's. And I won't be buying the family pack. Audio CDs, movies, and other copyright-restricted items need only be purchased once for a household, and I believe that software should be the same.

It's people like you that will destroy the goodwill that Apple shows towards it's customers... thanks!

Corporate environments with hundreds of PCs making money off of them are different, but there's no way I'm buying a family license for me and my S.O. and our Macs, and my mom (who couldn't afford to buy it for her old eMac anyway).

You forgot to ask the very simple question... why does she NEED leopard? That eMac will continue to hum along just fine with whatever pirated version of the OS you have on there already.

I still think Apple deserves something. But then again, if I purchased a $2500 MBP like 32 days before Leopard came out, I would probably be singing a different story, and TOTALLY steal Leopard. Apple owes it to anyone who purchases a Mac within 90-120 days, IMHO. (Though I could understand if they only charged like $9.99 for the CD and S&H. That would be fair.)

It's not these users are flying blind... they still get a top notch laptop and OS, but you think they *are owed* an OS upgrade? Personally I think it would make good business sense, as I am currently waiting for leopard before making my jump. If I knew that I could get a almost free upgrade to leopard I would probably buy now. But that's Apple's loss and it's not like I'm in a position for them to demand they change their business practices.

This would also be complicated by the fact that Apple is so secretive about it's launches. So what would they do, announce that any system bought after a specific date would get a free upgrade? Then they would basically be forced into a specific timeline for release since each passing day is a liability. Would they announce the "free upgrade" date after the launch? They do this already, although it's only a few weeks IIRC.

Fact the facts kid, Apple *owes* you nothing more than what you got with the system. Your actions are the exact reason why other OS's have activation and end up treating their customers like criminals.
 
Tom, there is no drm measurement in OSX that disallows you to install on regular computers. the only thing that's stopping most people are the driver problems. Apple has drivers only for the computers they ship.

if you are wanting to install OSX on a non-mac computer, you can (even though you are going against the eula). all you need is a computer that has the exact same specs as a mac. you might have to alter a file or 2 because of the mac-only components (i believe there is a proprietary controller or chip, or something like that in macs).

anyways, i think this topic is stupid and is just here to flame at how apple doesn't go with your ideology. also, i really don't think people care if you use mac's or pc's.

and no, you don't sound like a programmer.
 
Wow, I dont' know where to start!

so your analogy does not work in this case- Those Cds, movies, etc example you gave there is only one copy so only one is in use at any one time, with the software you are possibly using it on multiple computers at the same time. I believe most software license do allow you to install software on more than one computer.

As far as the policy of software upgrade after purchase...do car manufacturers let you get a 2007 accessory on your 2006 car just because you bought it two days before the 2007 came out? It is Apple's policy and while I understand you have an opinion, it IS their policy. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to steal anything! I dont' agree with that Corvette pricing policy- I should just be able to give them $1000 and take the corvette- I think I will do that. Just becuase someone can "steal" something doesn't mean anyone should. I have been burned by it before, but they have to draw the line someplace and no matter where they draw it someone will have bought a computer one day later and get "screwed!"


Oh yeah, I am getting ready to buy phones for my family- I think I will just go and pay for one phone, and then take the other two phones I need cause I don't agree that I should pay for all three phones when we all live in one household!

Oh yeah, you are right- this is a train wreck!:D

My analogy does work. In the case of comparisons to an audio CD, this is a conversation I have often. If the CD is encoded into a computer, and shared over AirTunes, to both our stereo and also our TiVo, and to all of our wireless computers with iTunes, as well as on several mp3 devices, then the CD is being used in potentially 6-10 applications at any given time, for only having purchased one audio CD license. Sure, it's less than chanceable that the same thing is playing in more than one place at the same time, but it's happened. More likely when you consider the number of tracks on a particular new album we've bought, like say the 2-disc DreamGirls soundtrack that has like 40 tracks on it altogether. (Just when I've had my fill, someone else in the house feels a need to listen to it. Ugh.)

As far as the upgrade, your analogies with cars and phones all fail. Cars and phones are physical objects that have each individually had materials and workmanship and custom work put into, and to steal or take them would be not only depriving the company of those raw materials, but depriving another customer of the opportunity of buying them. In the case of software, music, movies, whatever, making a copy might be ethically similar to stealing, but it is not literally and physically similar. All I am depriving Apple of by installing OS X on more than one machine is my additional $69 (or $129, as I forget if students can buy at the discount price more than once per year)... and as I've said I don't think that it should be on a per-machine basis. I'd pay more for Leopard, but I don't think I should pay 2, 3, 5, 8 times as much if I were to install it on ALL of my machines and my mom's (who lives out of town btw, and any machine update that cuts down on problems and adds ease of use is good for her since I can only do so much remotely). The other problem with your car analogies is that cars are known to be updated every year, and the old model year cars are discounted when the next year is approaching. Is Apple discounting Tiger? Does Apple release a new OS every single year on an exact timeframe? Does everyone know that Leopard is coming out? Do salespeople in the stores tell people before they buy a new Mac that Leopard will be out soon, and how much it'll cost them?

Phones are also a bad analogy, because you're getting the phone as a tool to use the service, which is the real product. And I'm pretty sure you won't be buying 4 $40 plans with 400 minutes, you'll get like a $120 plan with 2000 minutes shared, or something similar (which is akin to a family pack). Now, if all of the phones are really being used, including simultaneously, then I think that is fair, and good for you. But in the case of my half-dozen computers lying around, I am not using wireless towers and wireless network services, and I am not contributing to network bandwidth of the provider like you would be. Wireless towers cost beyond what you can imagine, with continual upgrades and upkeep and colocation fees and e-911 usage. So that's not really the same.

A better analogy to my opinions would be a magic duplicator machine. Buy one TV, duplicate it for all of the rooms in your house and for your friends (as a gift, not for resale). Is that ethical?
 
It's people like you that will destroy the goodwill that Apple shows towards it's customers... thanks!

You forgot to ask the very simple question... why does she NEED leopard? That eMac will continue to hum along just fine with whatever pirated version of the OS you have on there already.

It's not these users are flying blind... they still get a top notch laptop and OS, but you think they *are owed* an OS upgrade? Personally I think it would make good business sense, as I am currently waiting for leopard before making my jump. If I knew that I could get a almost free upgrade to leopard I would probably buy now. But that's Apple's loss and it's not like I'm in a position for them to demand they change their business practices.

This would also be complicated by the fact that Apple is so secretive about it's launches. So what would they do, announce that any system bought after a specific date would get a free upgrade? Then they would basically be forced into a specific timeline for release since each passing day is a liability. Would they announce the "free upgrade" date after the launch? They do this already, although it's only a few weeks IIRC.

Fact the facts kid, Apple *owes* you nothing more than what you got with the system. Your actions are the exact reason why other OS's have activation and end up treating their customers like criminals.

Snarky. Also, you're wrong. The reason that the one operating system with activation has it is because of MASS piracy in 2nd- and 3rd-world countries, as well as mass-piracy-distribution-networks like gnutella and mldonkey and torrents and newsgroups and such. Companies didn't introduce activation on products because some college students installed the software on a few of their own household computers and their mom's, too. How asinine a claim. Do you know how many businesses pirate THOUSANDS of copies of software, all being used simultaneously, all being used by different individuals and departments, day in and day out, for profit-making ventures? Now THAT is truly criminal piracy. There's no reason that profitable businesses can't purchase corporate licenses for software and make it into some crazy tax writeoff that they went into debt because of it.

She doesn't need Leopard any more than you or I do. I'd like her to have an easier to use, less bug-ridden, safer computer (from accidental deletion, not just external security risks). If it came to spending $70-130 on it, she just wouldn't, and neither of us can afford to buy her a new Mac... I bought the one she has and broke the bank. And anyway, her eMac came with Tiger. :rolleyes: So pirate my behind.

Apple doesn't owe me anything, but to revisit my hypothetical, if I had purchased their hardware, in the example a $3,000 MacBook Pro, with the pseudo-guarantee of it being current, I would be P.O.ed if I had to spend another $130+tax two months later to keep it up to date (and to give it an OS that was actually well-made for its Intel proc). I've never been one to complain about Apple prices, but for the price they're charging, they could do a little better than 20 or 30 days' of customer purchases before Leopard. Microsoft goes 4-6 times further. I would feel in that scenario that Apple hadn't even tried to help me out (even a 25% off because you just bought a Mac in the past 3 months would change my mind), so I'd feel they had gotten enough profit with their $800+ profit on my MBP and accessories. That's all that I'm saying. The reality is that I know Leopard is coming and I won't buy a Mac until after it's out, and I don't know why that scenario would happen, but to a layperson it could.
 
All I am depriving Apple of by installing OS X on more than one machine is my additional $69 (or $129, as I forget if students can buy at the discount price more than once per year)... and as I've said I don't think that it should be on a per-machine basis. I'd pay more for Leopard, but I don't think I should pay 2, 3, 5, 8 times as much if I were to install it on ALL of my machines and my mom's (who lives out of town btw, and any machine update that cuts down on problems and adds ease of use is good for her since I can only do so much remotely). The other problem with your car analogies is that cars are known to be updated every year, and the old model year cars are discounted when the next year is approaching. Is Apple discounting Tiger? Does Apple release a new OS every single year on an exact timeframe? Does everyone know that Leopard is coming out? Do salespeople in the stores tell people before they buy a new Mac that Leopard will be out soon, and how much it'll cost them?

whatever you think does not matter at all. it doesn't.

what matters is what the EULA says, in which case, you can install one copy of leopard on one macintosh, end of story.

and about your music analogy, you are not supposed to duplicate the music many many times either. there is a number of times you can legally duplicate it onto different devices, but that number does not equal to infinity.

Snarky. Also, you're wrong. The reason that the one operating system with activation has it is because of MASS piracy in 2nd- and 3rd-world countries, as well as mass-piracy-distribution-networks like gnutella and mldonkey and torrents and newsgroups and such. Companies didn't introduce activation on products because some college students installed the software on a few of their own household computers and their mom's, too. How asinine a claim. Do you know how many businesses pirate THOUSANDS of copies of software, all being used simultaneously, all being used by different individuals and departments, day in and day out, for profit-making ventures? Now THAT is truly criminal piracy. There's no reason that profitable businesses can't purchase corporate licenses for software and make it into some crazy tax writeoff that they went into debt because of it.
there is no conceptual difference between what you were doing and what those ppl are doing, you are all violating the EULA and should be sued.

She doesn't need Leopard any more than you or I do. I'd like her to have an easier to use, less bug-ridden, safer computer (from accidental deletion, not just external security risks). If it came to spending $70-130 on it, she just wouldn't, and neither of us can afford to buy her a new Mac... I bought the one she has and broke the bank. And anyway, her eMac came with Tiger. :rolleyes: So pirate my behind.
her emac came with tiger does not mean you can legally install leopard without additional license.

Apple doesn't owe me anything, but to revisit my hypothetical, if I had purchased their hardware, in the example a $3,000 MacBook Pro, with the pseudo-guarantee of it being current, I would be P.O.ed if I had to spend another $130+tax two months later to keep it up to date (and to give it an OS that was actually well-made for its Intel proc). I've never been one to complain about Apple prices, but for the price they're charging, they could do a little better than 20 or 30 days' of customer purchases before Leopard. Microsoft goes 4-6 times further. I would feel in that scenario that Apple hadn't even tried to help me out (even a 25% off because you just bought a Mac in the past 3 months would change my mind), so I'd feel they had gotten enough profit with their $800+ profit on my MBP and accessories. That's all that I'm saying. The reality is that I know Leopard is coming and I won't buy a Mac until after it's out, and I don't know why that scenario would happen, but to a layperson it could.
again, what you think means smaller than rat's arse to apple and to ppl here.
you don't need leopard to be up-to-date in term of updates, leopard introduce more features, which is what you are paying for if you get it.
when you bought your machine, you bought it with the assumption that it only has tiger, so you get what you paid for, how in hell do you deserve leopard?
 
Snarky. Also, you're wrong.

No, you are wrong.. rationalize it all you wish, you are wrong

She doesn't need Leopard any more than you or I do. I'd like her to have an easier to use, less bug-ridden, safer computer (from accidental deletion, not just external security risks). If it came to spending $70-130 on it, she just wouldn't, and neither of us can afford to buy her a new Mac... I bought the one she has and broke the bank. And anyway, her eMac came with Tiger. :rolleyes: So pirate my behind.

There goes your *moral* argument up in smoke. You *WANT* the new OS and have no moral ground to stand on.

Apple doesn't owe me anything, but to revisit my hypothetical, if I had purchased their hardware, in the example a $3,000 MacBook Pro, with the pseudo-guarantee of it being current, I would be P.O.ed if I had to spend another $130+tax two months later to keep it up to date (and to give it an OS that was actually well-made for its Intel proc).

Once again... MBP is sold with the current OS.

If you *WANT* the latest OS and are willing to pirate, so be it. Don't try to defend your actions as either *LEGAL* or *MORAL* since you are just kidding yourself.
 
I'm confused as to where I said anything about my opinions being legal. Also, I think you mean ethical, not moral. Morals are subjective and morality is based on the way things affect others. I clearly spelled out with my example situation and my analogies of the magical duplication machine how in some scenarios, morality does not come into play because the only arguable negative effect (the case of a party not supplying Apple additional revenue for additional Leopard disc copies) is not an option, and no one is being deprived of any monies.

If there were any realistic way of me being sued, as you put it, for violating the EULA, I (and hundreds of thousands of others) would boycott the MANY uber-restrictive and consumer-unfriendly EULAs out there. As things stand, with or without easily-circumventable DRM of software, EULAs are mostly there for corporate legal disputes, liability lawsuits, and for 2nd-/3rd-world country piracy rings.

No, you are wrong.. rationalize it all you wish, you are wrong

This is a fascinating example of litigious behavior. You took what I said completely out of context and ignored what I was saying you were wrong about--your analogy. I didn't say your opinion was wrong, nor did I disrespect your opinion. I was merely stating my own, which I never marauded as being legal or steadfast, let alone not arguable by others' moral compasses. Obviously I was inviting discussion.

But change the subject all you wish, your analogies with cars and phones and burglary/theft are still wrong. :)
 
Leave him alone jeez! He just wants to take a jab at you guys for the sake of making an argument. Get off your high horses. OSX is indeed superior to Windows Vista, but come one... Windows is a good operating system. However, it needs a lot of tweaking and fine-tuning to make it run smooth. I have been running XP-Pro SP2 for years and it is reliable as hell. Macs are good for people who do not like to worry about basic system maintenance. OS X is a superior OS because it does what a computer is suppose to do.

I enjoy my ibook, but I also enjoy my Windows Xp desktop, it is powerful, yet reliable. Then again, I need to do a lot more updates frequently via the updates. Remember, not everyone can afford a Mac because of their high price tag, but what you get in return is a peace of mind and less maintenance required. Yet, you have to be tech savvy to some extent in order to really enjoy it.

Spidey... :p
 
This is a fascinating example of litigious behavior. You took what I said completely out of context and ignored what I was saying you were wrong about--your analogy. I didn't say your opinion was wrong, nor did I disrespect your opinion. I was merely stating my own, which I never marauded as being legal or steadfast, let alone not arguable by others' moral compasses. Obviously I was inviting discussion.

But change the subject all you wish, your analogies with cars and phones and burglary/theft are still wrong. :)

wongulous, I never made an analogy so, I'm not sure how my analogy could be wrong.

I'll go out on a limb here since you seem to need the help. Your proposed actions are illegal, immoral, and unethical. You want to spend $70 rather than $200 to upgrade all of you Mac's and that is illegal. You don't have a good excuse and therefore it's unethical as well. Apple sells a 5-pack for families for a bargain price of only $200, a $150 savings over even the educational pricing for OS X.

If you want, why don't you forgo the movies, cable tv, or some other non-essential in order to afford a legitimate copy for each system? What about asking Mom to chip-in? Have you even told her what you are planning to do is illegal?

Can't squeeze a few dollars here and there then why not forgo this round of upgrades and save up for next year and 10.6?
 
My analogy does work. In the case of comparisons to an audio CD, this is a conversation I have often. If the CD is encoded into a computer, and shared over AirTunes, to both our stereo and also our TiVo, and to all of our wireless computers with iTunes, as well as on several mp3 devices, then the CD is being used in potentially 6-10 applications at any given time, for only having purchased one audio CD license. Sure, it's less than chanceable that the same thing is playing in more than one place at the same time, but it's happened. More likely when you consider the number of tracks on a particular new album we've bought, like say the 2-disc DreamGirls soundtrack that has like 40 tracks on it altogether. (Just when I've had my fill, someone else in the house feels a need to listen to it. Ugh.)

I totally understand about a CD being played all too much!! Must drive you nuts with that many stereos playing it!

But about the CD vs. software issue- I agree with your thoughts on a CD being played on AirTunes, but that CD is not imperative to the operation of the stereo it is playing on, where as the software OS is. You can't have one mac in the house and "airTune" the OS to the other Macs. You have to install that software onto the computers for them to run.

As far as the upgrade, your analogies with cars and phones all fail. Cars and phones are physical objects that have each individually had materials and workmanship and custom work put into, and to steal or take them would be not only depriving the company of those raw materials, but depriving another customer of the opportunity of buying them. In the case of software, music, movies, whatever, making a copy might be ethically similar to stealing, but it is not literally and physically similar. All I am depriving Apple of by installing OS X on more than one machine is my additional $69 (or $129, as I forget if students can buy at the discount price more than once per year)... and as I've said I don't think that it should be on a per-machine basis. I'd pay more for Leopard, but I don't think I should pay 2, 3, 5, 8 times as much if I were to install it on ALL of my machines and my mom's (who lives out of town btw, and any machine update that cuts down on problems and adds ease of use is good for her since I can only do so much remotely). The other problem with your car analogies is that cars are known to be updated every year, and the old model year cars are discounted when the next year is approaching. Is Apple discounting Tiger? Does Apple release a new OS every single year on an exact timeframe? Does everyone know that Leopard is coming out? Do salespeople in the stores tell people before they buy a new Mac that Leopard will be out soon, and how much it'll cost them?
Products such as cars are not just raw materials...marketing, management, human resource services, cleaning of offices/factories, etc. all have to be paid for.

With software and services you have physical "products" that must be paid for such as computers for programmers, desks, heat, chairs, buidlings, DVD's, manufacturing materials/machines, etc.

So as with any product, service, or "software" product the producer/provider is deserving of getting what they want for their products...free market!!! If you buy one then pay for one. If you buy two pay for two. In fact, Apple is being generous by giving a family the option of getting many at a discount. I don't see car companies doing that.

I don't see how depriving a customer is any part of this discussion- just don't see the connection. They just produce more in demand is high.

Phones are also a bad analogy, because you're getting the phone as a tool to use the service, which is the real product. And I'm pretty sure you won't be buying 4 $40 plans with 400 minutes, you'll get like a $120 plan with 2000 minutes shared, or something similar (which is akin to a family pack). Now, if all of the phones are really being used, including simultaneously, then I think that is fair, and good for you. But in the case of my half-dozen computers lying around, I am not using wireless towers and wireless network services, and I am not contributing to network bandwidth of the provider like you would be. Wireless towers cost beyond what you can imagine, with continual upgrades and upkeep and colocation fees and e-911 usage. So that's not really the same.

Well, I am pretty sure you won't be buying 4 $129 copies of Leopard...you would have to purchase a family plan similar to what you note above! Leopard upgrade is not necessary for a Mac to continue working- it is not required by any means.

And yes, your cloning machine would be unethical at the very least in that the TV company designed the TV, tested it, decided how it would work, wrote software for the onscreen menu, tested materials to be used for the internal workings of the TV, etc. And why would it matter it is for in your own house...or for friends? If you need two gatorades(product) but you are using them in your house do you only have to pay for one? IF you need two toilets unclogged (service) do you only have to pay for one to be unclogged by a plumber cause they are in the same house? NO!

Also, I think you mean ethical, not moral. Morals are subjective and morality is based on the way things affect others. I clearly spelled out with my example situation and my analogies of the magical duplication machine how in some scenarios, morality does not come into play because the only arguable negative effect (the case of a party not supplying Apple additional revenue for additional Leopard disc copies) is not an option, and no one is being deprived of any monies.


If morality is based on the way things affect others...and you say no one is being deprived of any monies...I would have to disagree with your other comments as someone might be deprived of monies. If everyone used your arguments of duplicating and not purchasing multiple items (incl. copies) what would happen- people might lose their jobs who work in those companies which in turn deprives them of money. And not just those companies...remember the employees of Apple are not the only ones affected...marketing firms that buy ad space, create ads, etc. manufacturing plants that make the products, shipping companies, cleaning services, companies that make the desks, chairs, etc., the retail space owners that lease space to Apple for their stores, the printing companies that print sales material for Apple, the loggers that cut the trees for the paper that the printers use, and so on. They are are affected to some extent if Apple didn't make enough money to survive. Obviously many of those are not affected in a drastic way, but they are affected to some extent at least. This is actually one of my pet peeves- is that we are not just talking about one company here...but many different organizations that are all affected in various ways. Same reason why Walmart is so bad for our world! But that is discussed on another thread.

I am done here- written plenty- (too much by most people's standards) and seems as if we are at a stalemate anyway. Good luck with your multile copies of Leopard.

Oh yeah, one more thing- you said your mom deserves a more stable copy of an OS...actually leopard will probably be less stable than what she is running now so good luck with that!!:D :rolleyes:
 
My analogy does work. In the case of comparisons to an audio CD, this is a conversation I have often. If the CD is encoded into a computer, and shared over AirTunes, to both our stereo and also our TiVo, and to all of our wireless computers with iTunes, as well as on several mp3 devices, then the CD is being used in potentially 6-10 applications at any given time, for only having purchased one audio CD license. Sure, it's less than chanceable that the same thing is playing in more than one place at the same time, but it's happened. More likely when you consider the number of tracks on a particular new album we've bought, like say the 2-disc DreamGirls soundtrack that has like 40 tracks on it altogether. (Just when I've had my fill, someone else in the house feels a need to listen to it. Ugh.)


You are correct, audio works differently. Thanks to the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act private, non-commercial copying of music is not copyright infringement. This exemption works only for audio recordings and does not extend to other forms of copyrighted works.
 
I'm confused as to where I said anything about my opinions being legal. Also, I think you mean ethical, not moral. Morals are subjective and morality is based on the way things affect others. I clearly spelled out with my example situation and my analogies of the magical duplication machine how in some scenarios, morality does not come into play because the only arguable negative effect (the case of a party not supplying Apple additional revenue for additional Leopard disc copies) is not an option, and no one is being deprived of any monies.

If there were any realistic way of me being sued, as you put it, for violating the EULA, I (and hundreds of thousands of others) would boycott the MANY uber-restrictive and consumer-unfriendly EULAs out there. As things stand, with or without easily-circumventable DRM of software, EULAs are mostly there for corporate legal disputes, liability lawsuits, and for 2nd-/3rd-world country piracy rings.

EULA is protected by law, so by violating that, you are violating the copyright law and other related ones. and guess what's the definition of illegal?
dictionary.com said:
il·le·gal /ɪˈligəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-guhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

so yes, what you are doing, is illegal, immoral, and unethical. (how can you say what you are doing is legal, moral, or ethical?)

if you are violating the EULA, Apple has all the legal ground to stand on for suing you. the only reason they are not likely to do that is the legal cost is not too much. but that doesn't mean what you do is legal, or that you cannot be sued for doing what you are planning on doing.

there's nothing about this EULA that's consumer unfriendly. you can argue that Windows's activation is consumer unfriendly, but hey, it's probably because of people like you, that shamelessly copy over and over again their software.

EULA is for corporate, 2nd / 3rd world country, and any individual. if you have pirated enough, apple one day might just find it financially feasible to sue you.
 
Hi Folks,

Well, we’re finally getting to the crux of my point. I used the acronym “DRM” as a generic term relating to protecting intellectual property rights of the creator, be it music, programming, video etc. And, of course, there are many ways to protect one’s intellectual rights (assuming you even accept that there is such a thing as intellectual rights or that a creator(s) deserves them). And just now someone is thinking about the ethical issues relating to intellectual property rights.

I’m sorry that some significant percentage of responders on this forum were so predictable in their hysteria. Claims and flames like mindless, name calling responses (Oh my, I've been called a Troll, Oh Och, Oh Och ;) attacking me personally, criticizing my editing or the length of my posts do absolutely nothing to promote an open interesting conversation that we can all learn by…

I choose this forum to post my thoughts on because I happen to follow MacRumors (among others) to keep up with what’s new and up-coming in the Apple world. I also enjoy some of the information and advice offered, particularly from the experienced uses.

I believe that there is no better source of information than an experienced user; obviously some of you believe that there is no other opinion than your own... I have also noticed that the person shouting the loudest in a discussion is usually least sure of him or herself and/or their position!

I am reminded as I reread through this thread that:

Those that fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it.

To that I would add the following corollary:

Those who live to flame, will be left with nothing but ashes to support themselves with.

Having said that, I’m moving on as this has not been a very satisfying endeavor. Thanks to those who posted interesting, informative posts!

So long and the best of luck to all of you. Yes, even those of you trolling for trolls :) !

Tom
 
Having said that, I’m moving on as this has not been a very satisfying endeavor. Thanks to those who posted interesting, informative posts!

Cool. So you admit that your original post was flawed, and you've seen the error of your ways? Me luvs a happy ending. :)

--Eric
 
Thanks for your responses, fish, snow, and bear. You make some very good points. I'm really with you on this now, but I do have to disagree that what I'm doing has any effect on Apple. As I've said, if there were any realistic chance of repercussion, or it was effectively prevented via DRM, I just wouldn't install Leopard on more than one Mac with my single user license. I would not buy it for my other Macs, or my mom's (and no, she wouldn't buy it either... it'd probably be another 2+ years before she bought any Apple software license again, likely with a new Mac). With the only two scenarios being (a) me buying a SLU (single user license) and installing it on one Mac only and (b) me buying a SLU and installing it on six Macs, Apple won't have been deprived of any materials, any paper printing, any additional money... and I will have paid for a single license's share of the marketing, the programming, the heating of the building for the programmers, the chairs for the programmers, etc etc as you mention in your elaboration.

I guess this comes down to how I feel as a customer that EULAs and the architecture of software copyright doesn't benefit me fairly (why I won't buy multiple user licenses for my multiple Macs with one use), but it also shows how I hadn't considered that I really do owe Apple what is fair for a product for another computer in another household used by another person (my mother). So, I take back part of my previous claims. Ultimately I now will not install my copy of Leopard on anyone else's machine, but maybe I'd go halfsies on a family pack. (But I am not buying a family pack for myself just for my Macs.)
 
Woo Hoo:apple: :apple: :apple: :apple: :apple: !!!

i got the MAJOR DUH Award!!! :cool:

I'd have to read the thread to give this thread the award it deserves, but the textual torrent from all the long posts would drown me.

So I'm sorry that you will have to keep the award until a moderator is tortured and forced to read these posts.
 
Even though the original post was rant-like, I think Apple should open their OS to non-Apple PCs.

Apple currently makes a large portion of their profit through selling hardware, however that could all change if Apple sold OS X for any Intel computer. The driver issue would be a bitch to work around but maybe that would be more reason to buy Macs.
 
Even though the original post was rant-like, I think Apple should open their OS to non-Apple PCs.

Apple currently makes a large portion of their profit through selling hardware, however that could all change if Apple sold OS X for any Intel computer. The driver issue would be a bitch to work around but maybe that would be more reason to buy Macs.

you dont actually think OS X can compete with Windows in real world, right?

even if, hypothetically apple open their OS to non-apple computers, apple might sell 50% more copy of OS X, and have 100% more of their OS X being pirated and distributed around torrent site.

so... 50% more on OS X in revenue.. yay

mean while, hardware sale will decrease 75%...

and each OS X is $130, each mac hardware, on average, is about $1500

you do the math.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.