Why cant install single user Leopard on more than 1 Mac ?

[saltyzoo]

It's not ok for you to shoot me in the head, but it's ok for you to get me to pay for the damage.

Ok, the form of damage compensation I choose is for you to die of a gunshot wound to the head. Fair? You stealing something to make up for a perceived wrong against you is the same thing.

Of course the 2 things are related. If apple doesn't care about its customers, why should its customers care about apple? The way I see it, I should get a free copy of leopard for all the troubles I had with my iMac for 3 long months. But apple doesn't give any kind of compensation.

So if you don't care about me I can shoot you in the head? The way I see it you hit my car from your utter carelessness you deserve to die.

And no, installing 1 disc on 2 machines is not the same as shoplifting, I wish that old example would stop to be brought up. From the point of view of the company it is, from the point of view of the user it isn't.

Me shooting you in the head is ok from my point of view. I assume it wouldn't be from yours. That's an empty argument.


The point as it has been said more eloquently by others is that deciding to steal because you feel you "deserve" it is still stealing. The vast majority of criminals believe that they are entitled in some way because of a past wrong done to them. You are no different than them.

 

[Yvan256]

I may well be overreacting to your post, but I'm afraid you've hit on a bit of a sore point with me here. I lost a *lot* of money trying to establish a record company only to see my investment going down the drain as every one of our releases appeared online for unauthorised free download. You want to tell me that copyright theft is OK? You can talk 'til you're blue in the face, but if you were on the receiving end I'll give you good odds you would change your view.

We're not talking about freeloading and pirating Leopard here (at least in the first few posts), we're talking about the so-called EULA (which isn't even legal or recognized in some countries).

Let's compare music and software:

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.

- someone buys Leopard and wants to install it on his own computers. Why should he buy one DVD for each of his Macs? He's not a "family" he's just the owner of more than one Mac.

And besides, if it's a user license, shouldn't it still apply as it's one user with multiple Macs?

 

[WinterMute]

MacRumors does not condone the piracy of any form of software, it does not condone the theft of hardware and it's dead against forcing people to use Windows against their will.

We're sort of wobbly on the drowning of kittens and global warming however.




In the end you choose to break your agreement with Apple, you choose to shoplift and you choose to lob the sack of cute kitties into the canal, where you draw the line morally is entirely up to you, but there are laws to protect the rightful owners of the software, the six-pack and the kittens, and you should expect to be censured if you are caught doing any of these things.


Burning the planet down is not currently illegal, it's just stupid.

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.

I'm not OK with this at all, piracy costs me hard cash every year, and no I'm not a major record label. By copying my recordings you are taking money out of my pocket and making it much harder for me to earn a living. How is that different from simply taking the money from my wallet?

 

[mpw]

...The vast majority of criminals believe that they are entitled in some way because of a past wrong done to them. You are no different than them.

I'm against stealing too, as I've made clear before, but I sure you'll agree that Apple haven't done enough to protect themselves from this kind of thing. Surely they could've put some kind of lock on the software to prevent this, just leaving a valuable product so highly visible to someone is just irresistibly tempting. The moral lapse it takes to simply insert a DVD in to your Apple without first deleting it from another machine is much smaller than having to break a lock or physically steal it from a store. So you'll agree that Apple are stupid not to do more to stop copyright theft won't you?

 

[Yvan256]

I'm not OK with this at all, piracy costs me hard cash every year, and no I'm not a major record label. By copying my recordings you are taking money out of my pocket and making it much harder for me to earn a living. How is that different from simply taking the money from my wallet?

Wait just a second. I never once mentionned "making copies for friends" or "uploading on the internet for others to leech", nor should you have assumed that I meant that.

What you're saying is that you're not ok with someone buying your CD then making multiple "copies" (i.e. ripping to his own computers and iPods) and think that person should buy one CD per playback device?

I'm sorry, but even Apple doesn't see it this way. You buy from the iTunes Store and can put the movies/TV shows/music on five computers and unlimited iPods and Apple TVs.

 

[mpw]

...I'm not OK with this at all...

I'm kinda amazed to find somebody against ripping CDs to iTunes and iPods, or is it just the etc. you have a problem with?, but I can see a kinda logic there also.

However it got me thinking; you can boot from an external drive can't you? Could you load a retail copy of Leopard onto an external drive then carry that from desk to desk and just boot each of our computers from a single copy of Leopard when using them? could you load a MBP with Leopard and boot from it's HDD when sat at an iMac?

 

[TechHistorian]

Any US schoolchild will have, in his study of Section 8 of The Constitution, learnt the purpose of Copyright law there to have been stated as "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

And any Constitutional scholar would note that a more complete reading of the appropriate clause reveals "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (my emphasis)

Copyright and patents were, to the Framers' eyes, specifically profit-oriented. The idea was that without profit, inventors would have no incentive to innovate. Indeed, that is exactly why one should adhere to the license agreement on OS X: without the profit generated from sales of both the software and the hardware, Apple has no incentive to develop OS X. Install it on a generic beige box, and Apple will devote itself to building platform-independent iPods and the like.

 

[Veri]

1. My iMac started freezing after the 2 weeks return period. Numerous calls to apple and everytime they said they won't take it back.

You indicate that you're in Austria, part of the EU and having implemented 1999/44/EC. Find out what national laws apply. What Apple "say" is irrelevant if it affects your statutory rights, except that it'll take longer as you'll have to dig out the relevant statute and quote it at the right representative of Apple and your credit card company.

Remember:
1. "In the case of non-conformity of the goods with the contract, consumers should be entitled to have the goods restored to conformity with the contract free of charge, choosing either repair or replacement, or, failing this, to have the price reduced or the contract rescinded."
2. "Any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery."
3. "Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods."

 

[saltyzoo]

And besides, if it's a user license, shouldn't it still apply as it's one user with multiple Macs?

No, it's not a user license.

I'm against stealing too, as I've made clear before, but I sure you'll agree that Apple haven't done enough to protect themselves from this kind of thing. Surely they could've put some kind of lock on the software to prevent this, just leaving a valuable product so highly visible to someone is just irresistibly tempting. The moral lapse it takes to simply insert a DVD in to your Apple without first deleting it from another machine is much smaller than having to break a lock or physically steal it from a store. So you'll agree that Apple are stupid not to do more to stop copyright theft won't you?

Yes, but they've decided to value customer convenience over draconian protection.

Some people might even go further out of their way to pay them because of this consideration Apple provided them.

And as I said in the thread you are paraphrasing from "It's still stealing". That's all I am saying.

 

[Krevnik]

What you're saying is that you're not ok with someone buying your CD then making multiple "copies" (i.e. ripping to his own computers and iPods) and think that person should buy one CD per playback device?

Format shifting of media for yourself has been protected by court rulings. The key thing being that you still have a license, and that license is only being used ONCE at a time. However, it doesn't protect you if you rip a CD, listen to the MP3s, while at the same time reselling the CD or loaning it out. When you loan/trade, your format-shifted copies are not legal to listen to (because you have transferred your license to someone else).

I'm sorry, but even Apple doesn't see it this way. You buy from the iTunes Store and can put the movies/TV shows/music on five computers and unlimited iPods and Apple TVs.

That is part of the license for music purchased from iTunes, it is a little more lenient than default copyright law, which applies to CD sales, for example, or digital services that don't spell out their license very, very, very clearly.

Neither of these scenarios apply to the OS itself, because the OS has a license (granted it is click-through to an extent, but it does have a license) which says exactly what you can do with your license to use the software. If you need to use it on more computers than the license allows with your copy, you need a second license (but you don't /need/ a second disc, per se, just the second license). Hell, in this case, why not just buy a freakin' family pack and get 5 licenses in a single household for less than the price of 2?

 

[slu]

- someone buys one music CD and rips it to his computers, his iPods, etc. Why should he buy more than one CD if all the devices belong to him? Everybody (except the big record labels) are ok with this.

From RIAA.com:

• It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
• It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
• Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

I dislike the RIAA as much as the next guy, but this FUD about them not being OK with ripping a CD you own to your PC and iPod needs to stop.

 

[Yvan256]

Format shifting of media for yourself has been protected by court rulings. The key thing being that you still have a license, and that license is only being used ONCE at a time. However, it doesn't protect you if you rip a CD, listen to the MP3s, while at the same time reselling the CD or loaning it out. When you loan/trade, your format-shifted copies are not legal to listen to (because you have transferred your license to someone else).

Yes of course, I also never said anything about buying a CD, ripping it then returning it/selling it.

As for Leopard, well, everybody keeps calling it a "user license", so that's why I said what I said earlier. Still seems strange to me to ask someone to buy multiple licenses for his multiple computers if you ask me. I don't think I would be able to edit two Keynote presentations simultaneously.

slu: you might notice that I'm in Canada, so the RIAA doesn't apply to me (not saying I will go out and do everything the RIAA says we shouldn't do, but from a legal standpoint). Anyway, the CRIA is starting to become even more crazy than the RIAA itself, even ripping our own CDs with iTunes to use on a computer and iPod might become illegal

 

[Krevnik]

Yes of course, I also never said anything about buying a CD, ripping it then returning it/selling it.

It was more for general clarification in the thread than aimed at you specifically... a lot of opinions going on, but so little details, I figured I would flesh them out and hope someone gets a bit of useful info out of it.

As for Leopard, well, everybody keeps calling it a "user license", so that's why I said what I said earlier. Still seems strange to me to ask someone to buy multiple licenses for his multiple computers if you ask me. I don't think I would be able to edit two Keynote presentations simultaneously.

Well, it is a End-User License Agreement... it is an agreement with the end-user, not a license per user. There is a big difference.

And as for not editing two keynotes at the same time, you are right. HOWEVER, I can easily run 10 servers and 1 workstation off a single copy and if it was a 'per person' license, Apple would be mightily pissed at missing out on a fair amount of revenue. It is aimed to prevent businesses and the like from cutting corners by being VERY clear in the terms, and in the end, it creates inconvenience in cases for simple at-home users.

 

[Veri]

Copyright and patents were, to the Framers' eyes, specifically profit-oriented. The idea was that without profit, inventors would have no incentive to innovate.

You appear to be in violent agreement with me on how they saw it, then - the question I was answering in this part is, "Why do we have copyright law?" You have indicated, "(to) secur(e) for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right", but that's just explaining what copyright law is. The rationale here is that copyright law benefits society, and has nothing to do with the notion of ownership of what comes out of your mind. Indeed, the FF were unusually explicit - most of Section 8 doesn't justify itself, but this clause does. So:

• Criticisms based on the notion that the OP is stealing dissonate loudly; stealing causes tangible harm to the victim, whereas copyright's basis is not in protecting the copyright holder from harm, but in giving a cookie to the productive for producing something which benefits society.
• Copyright legitimacy (if you subscribe to the FFs' notion) depends on authors and inventors benefitting society. A violator treated poorly by an author perceives the author as harmful, not beneficial, thus may fail in the violator's mind to qualify for Section 8 protection. This seems fairly hard to argue wrt/ Apple, but is more contentious e.g. for RIAA and patent trolls (esp. pharma) - regardless, it still needs to be argued calmly. It is not as simple as some fundamental freedom (life, liberty, property) being denied to Apple's owners.

Install it on a generic beige box, and Apple will devote itself to building platform-independent iPods and the like.

This is a question of EULA, not copyright. I've yet to see evidence that our clause, which points toward copyright and patents, was intended to restrict the tools an individual may use to read and interpret an author's work, whether that's choice of eyeglasses or choice of computer. Hence objections to DMCA.

 

[WinterMute]

I'm kinda amazed to find somebody against ripping CDs to iTunes and iPods, or is it just the etc. you have a problem with?, but I can see a kinda logic there also.

However it got me thinking; you can boot from an external drive can't you? Could you load a retail copy of Leopard onto an external drive then carry that from desk to desk and just boot each of our computers from a single copy of Leopard when using them? could you load a MBP with Leopard and boot from it's HDD when sat at an iMac?

The problem is simple, Fair Use in the US allows multiple copies for personal use and that is fine, as it's enshrined in copyright law. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't then see a difference between their own systems and their friends systems, even though the law specifically forbids the copying of copyright material. There's the rub, apparently, if it's ok to copy for your own use it's just ok to copy.

Incidentally, Fair Use is not an enacted law in the UK or parts of europe, it is still techncally illegal to copy to your own systems, which does include iPods, however this is now held to be unenforcable.

I have no issue with personal "fair use" but the OP wasn't talking about that the EULA is very specific on the licensing agreement.

We are all intelligent and we all know when we are breaking laws, I simply wanted to point out that its not a victimless crime.

Yvan256, I wasn't actually attacking you but it might have seemed that way, sorry, piracy makes my blood boil, of course you're allowed that usage of your own systems.

I also wanted to mention the kittens.

 

[Yvan256]

Google Ads

If anything, the discussion in this thread only shows us how quick Google is to serve content-specific ads... I see "unprotect your DRM files" and "copy from tape to CD" type ads at the bottom of the page.

Edit: WinterMute, no harm done. As you say, too many people take this issue lightly.

 

[JNB]

I hope you're joking. Someone who does a clueless Mac-owning friend a favour and installs a copy of Tiger on a machine running 10.2, for instance, is hardly committing a capital crime. I'm sure that the posters in this thread who commend your line of thought also refuse to watch DVDs with friends since they lack a public entertainment licence and don't lend music CDs for fear of being prosecuted for copyright infringement.

Actually I'm not, and your analogy is faulty. Watching another's DVD or listening to a borrowed CD for short-term entertainment value are completely incomparable to the long-term utility value of an Operating System (or any other software).

Put another way, I can put my OS to gainful use as it supports my ability to do my job, use my other software, etc, etc. I gain a continuing return on the investment. It's a tool. The movie or CD, on the other hand, provide a transitory benefit, that benefit being essentially non-quantifiable (I can't say that I am more productive or happy by x amount by watching or listening to it). Additionally, the repeated (and shared use) of the movie is factored into it's retail price, because that's the intended use.

I also never graded the severity of the "crime" involved. I agree it's not a capital crime (to me, it's somewhere above littering but below using cellphone while driving ), but that's not the point of the discussion, either.

As I doubt most folks have read it, here 'tis, in all its glory, the salient parts of the EULA (edited and emphasized to address the OT). I'm not defending or justifying them, but the point is that this is what we have agreed to. What's your word worth?

1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled 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, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's and its licensors' intellectual property rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

B. Family Pack. If you have purchased a Mac OS X Family Pack, this License allows you to install and use one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. The Family Pack License does not extend to business or commercial users.

C. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code and other Apple firmware that is embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.

3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.

 

[Krevnik]

This is a question of EULA, not copyright. I've yet to see evidence that our clause, which points toward copyright and patents, was intended to restrict the tools an individual may use to read and interpret an author's work, whether that's choice of eyeglasses or choice of computer. Hence objections to DMCA.

Actually, copyrights and EULAs are intertwined, and you don't even need to bring in the DMCA on it.

Copyright, by default, gives you, the end consume of a copyrighted work ZERO rights beyond what is framed in copyright law... which is usually fair use and that is about it. Under software, multiple in-use copies are NOT covered under the software fair-use clauses written 2 decades ago, but backups are valid fair use copies. A license from the copyright holder, which is usually considered an enforcable contract (click-through EULAs not withstanding), can expand on the basic rights copyright provides(which again, is usually none at all with fair use exceptions), and provide conditions on which the copyright license can be revoked.

Things like Apple's EULA for a single-user license in general are consistent with copyright, and do not restrict your rights beyond what copyrights allow. By law in some places, you cannot give up certain legal rights in a contract, which includes copyright protections, hence why the DMCA is so important to some companies, so they can enforce more restrictive licenses. Then again, the DMCA is a huge mess because it /also/ includes fair-use exceptions which are vague and can be argued that they technically don't exist via Catch-22.

EDIT: My apologies if this doesn't even really reflect what you were trying to say.

 

[Veri]

Actually, copyrights and EULAs are intertwined

To the extent that any (valid) contract can grant or take away privileges, certainly.

Under software, multiple in-use copies are NOT covered under the software fair-use clauses written 2 decades ago

Even though it's the thread topic (sorry!), I'm not suggesting that copyright will allow copies on multiple machines. (Though there are some scary reasons floating around for why this is allowed around the world for e.g. music, such as the government forcing people to pay a small % of every blank audio CD-R/cassette/etc to RIAA or local equivalent. I don't really know much about music, though.)

Things like Apple's EULA for a single-user license in general are consistent with copyright, and do not restrict your rights beyond what copyrights allow.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "restrict my rights beyond what copyrights allow". USC 17.117(a)(1) lets me install a copy of OS X on my beige box, if it's the only non-archival copy, providing I do not agree to the EULA. As to whether I am required to agree to the EULA, I haven't been able to work out when I agree to it, though yeah, sometimes they seem enforcible - but with offer of refund if I decline.

By wiggling your mouse over the tongue-exhibiting emoticon, you agree to send me some pistachio nuts.

 

[Krevnik]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "restrict my rights beyond what copyrights allow". USC 17.117(a)(1) lets me install a copy of OS X on my beige box, if it's the only non-archival copy, providing I do not agree to the EULA. As to whether I am required to agree to the EULA, I haven't been able to work out when I agree to it, though yeah, sometimes they seem enforcible - but with offer of refund if I decline.

Contracts (generally) cannot require you to give up rights given to you by state or federal law. When a contract and legislation collide, the legislation wins, not the contract.

Actually, 17.117(a)(1) is kinda vague in that you are using the 'adapt' aspect of the clause. If that clause holds in court under your specific definition, regardless of the EULA, you still have that right, since the EULA does not trump 17.117. However, the EULA itself states that by using the software, you are agreeing to the EULA, and that you can send it back without using the EULA if you disagree (and physical copies of software will include a physical EULA to help enforcement). However, since it hasn't been tested in court, only a lawyer can tell you with any level of certainty if your interpretation is one worth betting on.

The reasons why EULAs feel like they restrict is that copyright already restricted your abilities quite a bit, we just don't really know it. Since the right to license you a copy is in the hands of the creator, they can simply not grant you a license at all if they wish, but the EULA is meant to set the ground rules of what extent the license provides rights to the end-user and that the software license cannot be revoked by the company unless certain conditions are met.

Books are the same way, and there is a lot of wonderful copyright red tape we just take for granted these days because of the implicit nature of licenses for books/etc.

 

[CanadaRAM]

Ah, now that's a good one.

1. My iMac started freezing after the 2 weeks return period. Numerous calls to apple and everytime they said they won't take it back. If my car breaks down in the warranty period (as it happened to me in february), the mechanics order the parts and I have my car back 1 week later.

Case in point -- they do not give you a brand new car.

 

[mpw]

Case in point -- they do not give you a brand new car.

Just because everyone seems to love car analogies I'll add another.

No they don't hand over a new car, but if the mechanic at a franchised dealership finds something not working and can't figure out why, he doesn't just shrug and tell you to ship the car back to Toyota in Japan. Which is basically what Apple have said to me.

 

[ryanmcd02]

What if a person buys one copy of the rights to any idea, such as a song or in this case, an operating system. The idea comes in a physical form but is of course just an intangible idea. Since they now own the use of it, does it really matter how many machines you install leopard on if you do not use them simultaneously?

If it is written into an agreement that you sign or acknowledge when you purchase the product, then yes you have agreed to to do something (and whether or not you think it makes sense) you should legally and morally abide by it.

But thinking only hypothetically, a person could uninstall and reinstall leopard on a separate machine every time they wanted to use a particular computer and there could be no objection to that. In this sense, by forcing you to buy multiple copies apple would have to be selling the efficiency gained by not having to do this every time you want to use a different computer. But this isn't the case, apple is selling you the information necessary for leopard to be used at a maximum rate of 24 hours per day (if you and your family all shared one computer). It is the same for buying a CD: the music industry doesn't care if you listen to it on one copy or make 5 cds and play them continuously in a 5-disc changer, so why should it be any different for an OS?

I only have 1 computer with leopard, but if I had two it would be difficult justifying buying a family pack since I would not use two different computers at the same time and I live alone.

 

[saltyzoo]

I only have 1 computer with leopard, but if I had two it would be difficult justifying buying a family pack since I would not use two different computers at the same time and I live alone.

Why would you need two computers if you are never going to use them at the same time?

 

[ryanmcd02]

Many people use multiple computers that they do not use simultaneously. As an example, my father uses three: one mac for home internet use, one windows laptop for business use, and one windows laptop for home non-internet use. He never uses these at the same time, but he owns and uses them all.