People will reply to me that the EULAs are the rule and all but I would consider that it is ok for a mac user with two computers to buy a single upgrade disk for both his computer. The wordings "single user" and "family pack" feels different than something like "single computer" and "Up to 5 computers".
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.
Single user Snow Leopard on more than one Mac
- Thread starter johngardiner
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what's called bending ethics to your own desires. If you want to cheat that's your choice. Don't come back complaining if Apple someday institutes a product authorization key to prevent it.
I've never really read the t&cs but have always assumed that single user meant one user regardless of no of macs whereas family pack was for more than one user.
I've installed leopard and now SL on two macs with no probs.
I've installed leopard and now SL on two macs with no probs.
Gregg2
macrumors 604
So it is! I must have read too quickly.
Somebody mentioned the 50% support standard. In my household, we fail that one: grad student, self-supporting. But, still on electoral record at home, etc.
lets face it,
apple know that some people will buy the single user and put it on multiple machines.
apple know that some people will buy the single user and put it on multiple machines.
Think about it this way:
You could either spend $49 to install Snow Leopard up to 5 computers in your household, which is still a great deal for an OS upgrade. And possibly enforcing that every upgrade in the future will be around the same low price.
Or you can decide to be cheap about it by only spending $29 for the single-user disc, but installing it over multiple computers; forcing Apple to lose money in the long run; therefore possibly increasing chances in DRM-filled software, numerous serials, online activations, and other un-necessary hassles in the future. Oh and I forgot to mention that you'd probably increase the price of the OS to $200 like some other company... 🙄
You could either spend $49 to install Snow Leopard up to 5 computers in your household, which is still a great deal for an OS upgrade. And possibly enforcing that every upgrade in the future will be around the same low price.
Or you can decide to be cheap about it by only spending $29 for the single-user disc, but installing it over multiple computers; forcing Apple to lose money in the long run; therefore possibly increasing chances in DRM-filled software, numerous serials, online activations, and other un-necessary hassles in the future. Oh and I forgot to mention that you'd probably increase the price of the OS to $200 like some other company... 🙄
You guys take this way too seriously. You all act like you read each EULA while on the crapper and abide by every law and code of honor in the world. I'm sure many of you have watched a DVD you borrowed from your friend but haven't paid for or rented it. Technically that is also wrong since you did not purchase it and got to view it for free. Maybe you all should think back how many movies you watched for free from someone and begin writing checks to the studios, or if you decide to rent a movie and call a girl over to watch it with you, to be sure to charge her $5.00 as a 'viewing expense'. To the OP: Go and install it on each Mac you own, considering the thousands you spent, Apple can afford to the lose the extra $29 bucks, there are always other ways to get our money. You think Apple gives a s*** about how you all feel? You are all just giant wallets to them, none of you are more special than the next person, you are not unique butterflies. They are in the business for the money, that's how they stay afloat. Sure their customer service (which is the best) cannot be outdone, but that doesn't mean they are perfect in every way. I have had countless issues with Apple, you win some battles and you lose some. Sometimes they're great, sometimes they suck. It's $29, it's a recession, use that money you save and put gas in your car to go to work which will help stimulate our economy.
(Anticipating the flames for either my spelling, grammar, or general comments)
(Anticipating the flames for either my spelling, grammar, or general comments)
ok, what if i have two macs that only i use. I load a single SL on them both and always switch one off before using the other would that be immoral.
My question is similar but different (if that can be true!!)
I bought a new Macbook Pro mid June 09, so qualified for the Up-to-Date upgrade. I ordered it, and one option was for the right to install on other machines. At the time of ordering, there were no other Leopard based Macs in our house.
However, in August, my girlfriend decided to buy a 13 inch Macbook Pro, which also qualifies for the Up-to-Date upgrade.
I believe the £7.95 charge was for the cost of sending the install disk. To save her having to pay another £7.95 and wait for weeks to receive it (we are being badly affected by the London postal strikes), is there any way I can retrospectively obtain the right to install on my upgrade disk? I would have thought there was a way of paying a token amount to Apple online and re-use the disk we have?
Hope this makes sense!
Phil
I bought a new Macbook Pro mid June 09, so qualified for the Up-to-Date upgrade. I ordered it, and one option was for the right to install on other machines. At the time of ordering, there were no other Leopard based Macs in our house.
However, in August, my girlfriend decided to buy a 13 inch Macbook Pro, which also qualifies for the Up-to-Date upgrade.
I believe the £7.95 charge was for the cost of sending the install disk. To save her having to pay another £7.95 and wait for weeks to receive it (we are being badly affected by the London postal strikes), is there any way I can retrospectively obtain the right to install on my upgrade disk? I would have thought there was a way of paying a token amount to Apple online and re-use the disk we have?
Hope this makes sense!
Phil
You guys are trying to skate the rules to suit your needs. Bottom line is that you have bought one copy thus you are allowed to load it on ONE machine. It doesn't matter if it is on or off.... 🙄 If I did that on my network servers, the lawyers would have a field day with me.
As for the second guy, pay the 8 pounds and use the disk you have to load it up. After you pay, you own it and the media will on the way.
As for the second guy, pay the 8 pounds and use the disk you have to load it up. After you pay, you own it and the media will on the way.
How? He didn't steal anyone's intellectual property...
You can't apply a religious moral code to man made laws.
No, it would be illegal, but not necessarily immoral. If you see nothing wrong with that, it is not immoral, since morality is relative to the person. If you wanted to uninstall SL every time, I think you'd be legally ok
Gregg2
macrumors 604
No flame here, and also not a response for any of your anticipated reasons. Just this: your logic is flawed. DVD rentals are basically a contract. You get to use it for a specified amount of time. You aren't allowed to copy it, if you could even figure out how. You can play it as many times as possible within the time frame, and return it without a late charge. You don't have to disclose how many friends or family members are going to view it. The rental store does not have a multi-tiered pricing structure based on how many times you play it or for how many people. You need another analogy. This one doesn't work.
That's absurd. It has happened throughout history. Let's see, is there a difference in U.S. law and that of Iran? Hmmm.
Gregg2
macrumors 604
Nor am I a lawyer, but to me, "public showing" would involve more than having a house full of friends over. Wouldn't that mean anyone could come, not just by invitation? I hope there's an attorney following this discussion, 'cause I'm curious. Can one have a "public showing" in a private home? I agree with you about lending it to someone. I think it would have to stay in your possession.
meh i've installed snow leopard on 3 separate machines so far from the same disc that cost me 9.95.
HLdan
macrumors 603
Lots of cities allow people to cordon off a certain area in their town or neighborhood for free outdoor public showings of old movies using a projector and a pull down screen, that's what a public showing is, not inviting friends to your home to watch, that's still considered private viewing.
Public Display Under the CR Act
You are in luck.
The short answer is that unless your video store agreement says otherwise (and frankly, it probably does), you may allow your friends and family to watch videos for which you have paid. But you may not allow people outside that circle to do so. Further, you may not transmit or broadcast those videos — even if in fact no one else ever tunes in.
Here is the longer answer:
The first place to look for an answer is the form you signed when you rented the movie − it is essentially a licensing agreement that spells out the terms and conditions upon which you may use the video store's physical property. Violation of those terms is breach of contract with your video renter.
The second place to look is to the Copyright Act, which sets forth the legal rights that the Copyright owner (e.g., Universal Pictures) has, notwithstanding any agreement between you and the video store.
As a threshold matter, certain terminology is important. The Copyright Act distinguishes between "public performance" and "public display," and each is associated with different legal rights and remedies. Rough rule of thumb: if it moves, like a dance routine, it’s a performance. If it stands still, like a painting, it’s a display. What we are talking about here (sharing rented videos) is "display." Display by the person who owns the work (not the copyright) is permissible, but *public* display generally is not. So, the issue is whether sharing videos obtained by rental counts as "public" or "private."
Under the current version Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 106):
Display:
(1.) The right to display a work belongs to the owner of the work, and permits him to display “to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.” This is a significant limitation, because it forbids broadcast or transmission.
(2.) This limitation therefore allows display in a gallery, but not in a movie theater, over the internet, or a television broadcast.
Public means:
(1.) Display at a place open to the public or where a substantial number of person outside a normal circle of family and social acquaintances, OR
(2.) Transmission or other communication of a performance to a place that is public, or to the public, by means of a device or process, where the performance can be received at separate places or separate times.
So, what does all of that mean? In very general terms, it means this:
(1.) It is okay to play videos or games at small parties.
(2.) But large parties, if they go beyond your “social acquaintances” may pose problems.
(3.) If the place of performance is “open to the public” it doesn’t matter how many people actually view the performance – the definition of public performance includes all public broadcasts even if members of public do not view the copyrighted work at the same time. So, for example, video rental stores cannot provide viewing rooms to customers (it would be public). See, Columbia Pictures v. Aveco, Inc. But hotels can show videos in rooms, because the rooms are not public – the theory is that when a guest rents them they are private. Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate Investors.
You are in luck.
The short answer is that unless your video store agreement says otherwise (and frankly, it probably does), you may allow your friends and family to watch videos for which you have paid. But you may not allow people outside that circle to do so. Further, you may not transmit or broadcast those videos — even if in fact no one else ever tunes in.
Here is the longer answer:
The first place to look for an answer is the form you signed when you rented the movie − it is essentially a licensing agreement that spells out the terms and conditions upon which you may use the video store's physical property. Violation of those terms is breach of contract with your video renter.
The second place to look is to the Copyright Act, which sets forth the legal rights that the Copyright owner (e.g., Universal Pictures) has, notwithstanding any agreement between you and the video store.
As a threshold matter, certain terminology is important. The Copyright Act distinguishes between "public performance" and "public display," and each is associated with different legal rights and remedies. Rough rule of thumb: if it moves, like a dance routine, it’s a performance. If it stands still, like a painting, it’s a display. What we are talking about here (sharing rented videos) is "display." Display by the person who owns the work (not the copyright) is permissible, but *public* display generally is not. So, the issue is whether sharing videos obtained by rental counts as "public" or "private."
Under the current version Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 106):
Display:
(1.) The right to display a work belongs to the owner of the work, and permits him to display “to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.” This is a significant limitation, because it forbids broadcast or transmission.
(2.) This limitation therefore allows display in a gallery, but not in a movie theater, over the internet, or a television broadcast.
Public means:
(1.) Display at a place open to the public or where a substantial number of person outside a normal circle of family and social acquaintances, OR
(2.) Transmission or other communication of a performance to a place that is public, or to the public, by means of a device or process, where the performance can be received at separate places or separate times.
So, what does all of that mean? In very general terms, it means this:
(1.) It is okay to play videos or games at small parties.
(2.) But large parties, if they go beyond your “social acquaintances” may pose problems.
(3.) If the place of performance is “open to the public” it doesn’t matter how many people actually view the performance – the definition of public performance includes all public broadcasts even if members of public do not view the copyrighted work at the same time. So, for example, video rental stores cannot provide viewing rooms to customers (it would be public). See, Columbia Pictures v. Aveco, Inc. But hotels can show videos in rooms, because the rooms are not public – the theory is that when a guest rents them they are private. Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate Investors.
Gregg2
macrumors 604
Indeed!
Thanks!
That pretty much confirms my thinking. Logic is a beautiful thing.
But, I'm sure you know that not all laws are logical. 😉