Because the 30" ACD and Mac Pro is a bitch to fit on the fold down table in the economy section of an airplane.
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.
Why cant install single user Leopard on more than 1 Mac ?
- Thread starter XheartcoreboyX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because the 30" ACD and Mac Pro is a bitch to fit on the fold down table in the economy section of an airplane.
I'd be willing to bet that statement is not 100% accurate. I'll bet he leaves them all running, with tasks running in the background. Email for example.
mpw says it best, and was actually what I had in mind: people often have a laptop and a mac pro, using the mac pro for video editing and the like and using their laptop for everything not at home.
In the case of my father, it is correct, because he actually (and different from many I am sure) turns off his computers whenever he finishes using them. He uses a PDA to answer emails at home, so he doesn't need to leave one on. But that is not really the point, I am saying that hypothetically this could be the case.
For example, if you have three computers but only one hard drive, and you plug this hard drive into the computer you want to use and then plug it into the next one when you are done. You've only got one copy of leopard, obviously, and you are for all practical terms entirely within the user agreement so long as the computers are yours. So really, what is the difference between doing that and simply requiring yourself to only use one computer at a time when they all have hard drives with one license?
Again, if the agreement explicitly states this is not okay then it isn't okay, but I think that in terms of what a person has paid for they should be allowed to use leopard on any machine that they are the sole user of. A family pack is for when more people will use it or you use two machines at once.
In the case of my father, it is correct, because he actually (and different from many I am sure) turns off his computers whenever he finishes using them. He uses a PDA to answer emails at home, so he doesn't need to leave one on. But that is not really the point, I am saying that hypothetically this could be the case.
For example, if you have three computers but only one hard drive, and you plug this hard drive into the computer you want to use and then plug it into the next one when you are done. You've only got one copy of leopard, obviously, and you are for all practical terms entirely within the user agreement so long as the computers are yours. So really, what is the difference between doing that and simply requiring yourself to only use one computer at a time when they all have hard drives with one license?
Again, if the agreement explicitly states this is not okay then it isn't okay, but I think that in terms of what a person has paid for they should be allowed to use leopard on any machine that they are the sole user of. A family pack is for when more people will use it or you use two machines at once.
I guess if you look at the case where a EULA went wrong, you can generally see that a EULA probably can be enforced in Apple's case ... so saying I didn't read it, didn't like it, etc. means nothing, because you are still bound by it.
The 'agreement' that sparked a storm
I guess the case where the EULA went wrong, the Sony DRM Eula case is probably a big one ... where they were far beyond typical copyright laws, and really restricted the user while trying limit their liability for damages -- while causing problems and damages.
The 'agreement' that sparked a storm
I guess more than a lot of people can't afford 30'' Apple displays & expensive software & music CDs.
Apple karmic response, you do it and you will start getting bad Apple Care service, dud machines time after time, people that cannot speak English when when you call in for service, etc.
Apple tracks you and retaliates ...
Just look at all the threads where people complain about how many times in a row they have gotten bad Macs.
So, how'd I get on that list?
I am very careful with regards to licenses, and am one of the few I know who actually obey the laws and EULA agreements.
Or, is Apple just punishing me because everyone else is pirating their software?
Perhaps Apple's tracking mechanism needs a bit of refinement. Then they could punish the pirates
I did finally get a good Mac (my Mac Pro). But, it took a lot of duds (iMac's) before I got this one.
Perhaps Apple's tracking mechanism needs a bit of refinement. Then they could punish the pirates
This will never happen. Pirates are a sophistacted bunch of folks who are, generally speaking, always 1-2 steps ahead of anti-piracy measures.
How about 15-days to activate or the computer blows-up
Apple's new support line: "sorry sir, running pirated versions of OS X on your system will void your warranty. We don't know why your system quit working, but it will cost you $129 to reactivate it."
Then they hang-up and go pat Steve on the back while saying: "We got them again sir."
"Everybody else is doing it."
"I've only got one turned on at a time."
"Most of the people saying it's wrong are being hypocritical."
"It's a stupid agreement, and anyway, they can't enforce it."
There's a word for this. It's called rationalization. I think the issue really boils down to this: If you don't want to buy a license for what you use, don't seek justification or approval here, and don't call us hypocrites when we don't agree wholeheartedly.
Either you can be trusted at your word, or you can't. At the end of the day, that's really all you've got, and it seems to me that sticking by your good name and reputation, even when you don't necessarily agree with the conditions, is more important than a little transitory satisfaction.
Do what you're going to do, don't act offended when I don't buy into the argument, and don't assume me a fool for playing by the agreed upon rules. I didn't get where I am in tenure or station by being an idiot (or at least broadcasting my idiocy).
"I've only got one turned on at a time."
"Most of the people saying it's wrong are being hypocritical."
"It's a stupid agreement, and anyway, they can't enforce it."
There's a word for this. It's called rationalization. I think the issue really boils down to this: If you don't want to buy a license for what you use, don't seek justification or approval here, and don't call us hypocrites when we don't agree wholeheartedly.
Either you can be trusted at your word, or you can't. At the end of the day, that's really all you've got, and it seems to me that sticking by your good name and reputation, even when you don't necessarily agree with the conditions, is more important than a little transitory satisfaction.
Do what you're going to do, don't act offended when I don't buy into the argument, and don't assume me a fool for playing by the agreed upon rules. I didn't get where I am in tenure or station by being an idiot (or at least broadcasting my idiocy).
I never I said I did such things.
I am only saying what others think & feel & are too afraid to voice:
Who cares? Why does it all have to cost so much (seriously $1000+ for some pieces of software and 90% of the people who download it illegally will probably delete it anyway as its too complex)?
Seems to me high prices in music & movies for example is too much for people to pay for when they have families to feed.
Why should they not pirate some music? Why does entertainment have to be a middle class or higher thing? Maybe poor people DO need to have something to listen to & watch to get out their thoughts, out of their cycle of poverty.
I am only saying what others think & feel & are too afraid to voice:
Who cares? Why does it all have to cost so much (seriously $1000+ for some pieces of software and 90% of the people who download it illegally will probably delete it anyway as its too complex)?
Seems to me high prices in music & movies for example is too much for people to pay for when they have families to feed.
Why should they not pirate some music? Why does entertainment have to be a middle class or higher thing? Maybe poor people DO need to have something to listen to & watch to get out their thoughts, out of their cycle of poverty.
So, that brings-up another question.
If you are going to ignore the license agreement, and thereby steal "additional" installations to use on other computers, then why bother buying a copy at all?
Just ignore the license altogether, and save all the money.
I'm not saying it's right. And, I wouldn't do it. But, why pay anything if you don't intend to pay it all?
Edit: Just to be clear, I used the word "You" above in a generic sense meaning anyone. It is not pointed at anyone in this thread. Just meaning "You" as in if "You" were to do this, then... Purely generic as in anyone.
Whether or not it's physically difficult, it ought to be morally difficult. There should be some kind of restraint upon you to not steal simply because you feel like it.
I don't see my arguments as a simple excuse or rationalization of the argument. Again, if the rules say "you can only use this on one computer throughout this license's lifetime," than I think it could be easily said that you cannot install it on multiple computers.
But referring to my original post, the real point of this is that it seems odd to charge a single person twice for rights to the same information. iTunes allows you to burn a copy of a song onto a cd so that you may listen to it on your cd player while it also lets you put it onto your ipod. See? You bought the rights, so now you get a reasonable amount of use for one person. In Apple's words, "Rip, mix, burn." You can't really use it twice at once unless you illegally give it to someone else, so you are allowed to have multiple copies. I don't understand why operating systems would be handled that differently. I could see the problem being that if they stated it my way, people would stop buying the family pack because they would assume wrongly that since they bought the computer they are the sole user in apple's eyes and don't need 5 licenses. But, apple is already relying on the honor system.
But for a third time, this is does not change the legality or morality of buying all of your copies, it only questions why they have arranged their user agreement in such a way that seems inconsistent with their other policies.
But referring to my original post, the real point of this is that it seems odd to charge a single person twice for rights to the same information. iTunes allows you to burn a copy of a song onto a cd so that you may listen to it on your cd player while it also lets you put it onto your ipod. See? You bought the rights, so now you get a reasonable amount of use for one person. In Apple's words, "Rip, mix, burn." You can't really use it twice at once unless you illegally give it to someone else, so you are allowed to have multiple copies. I don't understand why operating systems would be handled that differently. I could see the problem being that if they stated it my way, people would stop buying the family pack because they would assume wrongly that since they bought the computer they are the sole user in apple's eyes and don't need 5 licenses. But, apple is already relying on the honor system.
But for a third time, this is does not change the legality or morality of buying all of your copies, it only questions why they have arranged their user agreement in such a way that seems inconsistent with their other policies.
As someone said above, it is nothing more than rationalization to think it's "ok".
As I've said above, I could care less whether you do it or not, but it's still stealing in any case.
Quoted from the Leopard EULA for those too lazy to read it themselves. The red bold is mine.
As I've said above, I could care less whether you do it or not, but it's still stealing in any case.
Quoted from the Leopard EULA for those too lazy to read it themselves. The red bold is mine.
One case where installing a single-user licence twice might be OK.
One case where installing a single-user licence twice might be OK:
We had an iBook with Tiger. It got stolen in an office break-in. (and the the theft was reported to the police).
We still had the Tiger DVDs.
So I asked here if it was ok to use them to upgrade an old PowerMac G3 that I had. The general consensus was that since we no longer had access to the iBook, yes it was OK.
The thief was using the ibook illegally, and we retained the legal right to use the licence of that OSX installation. Hence we could transfer that right to another mac of our choosing.
So I guess if you have a mac machine that is stolen or has a terminal malfunction, you can transfer your OSX licence to another machine.
It may not be exactly within the wording to install an OEM OSX dvd on another machine, but as long as each machine / installation you have has its own licence / genuine install DVDs, I guess it's morally OK.
One case where installing a single-user licence twice might be OK:
We had an iBook with Tiger. It got stolen in an office break-in. (and the the theft was reported to the police).
We still had the Tiger DVDs.
So I asked here if it was ok to use them to upgrade an old PowerMac G3 that I had. The general consensus was that since we no longer had access to the iBook, yes it was OK.
The thief was using the ibook illegally, and we retained the legal right to use the licence of that OSX installation. Hence we could transfer that right to another mac of our choosing.
So I guess if you have a mac machine that is stolen or has a terminal malfunction, you can transfer your OSX licence to another machine.
It may not be exactly within the wording to install an OEM OSX dvd on another machine, but as long as each machine / installation you have has its own licence / genuine install DVDs, I guess it's morally OK.
It's a combination of morals and common sense. Humans are not mindless automatons and are reluctant to follow rules and regulations that may appear non-sensical.
Whilst the concept of handing over money for a physical program is perfectly reasonable, the concept of handing over more money in exchange for permission is not as acceptable, because there's no tangible benefit for the cash you've handed over.
I don't anyone thinks it's 'ok' - it's a conscious flouting of the EULA. However, people are more savvy than I think some are given them credit for - people are more intelligent than to blindly follow an agreement and realise they are paying money merely for permission and the fact that nothing will happen to them if they don't seek this.
Not every law is sensible just because it is 'the law'. I could sell an item tomorrow that had a licence agreement that stipulated I wanted money for the permission to let them use the item on a Thursday.
So according to the EULA, it cannot exist on more than one computer at the same time. We've got that. But it still doesn't matter for the sake of what I am trying to show. I agree that when you buy leopard, under its agreement you cannot install it on two machines, period.
But, if you have one hard drive that you use for all of your computers, and you had some easy method of unplugging and replugging it to each CPU that you wanted to use, it would never exist on more than one computer at a time, and would be fully compatible with the EULA. So would that not be fine? You are using one copy, no greater than once at a time, on each computer, always from the same hard drive.
Why would anyone do this? Because if you had a way to easily remove HDs from laptops, you could plug it into your more powerful mac pro when not traveling.
The point is that regardless of what the user agreement says, if a person does not leave one computer on while using the other then it is an odd concept to charge them for using identical knowledge again since they are simply applying a different CPU to the exact same knowledge. If we are buying rights to knowledge, I think it makes sense to say that the buyer could even install leopard on any computer they used for the duration of their use.
Please don't respond to this to say what the rules are, because I obviously agree that a contract is a contract and I don't do it myself etc. But imagine that you had to sign a contract when you bought gloves that said you could only use one at a time. If you wanted gloves, you would abide by it because it is a contract, although you think it could be written or sold better. I am interested in this particularly because I am currently writing a thesis on property rights, so a theoretical perspective is not a waste of time to me.
But, if you have one hard drive that you use for all of your computers, and you had some easy method of unplugging and replugging it to each CPU that you wanted to use, it would never exist on more than one computer at a time, and would be fully compatible with the EULA. So would that not be fine? You are using one copy, no greater than once at a time, on each computer, always from the same hard drive.
Why would anyone do this? Because if you had a way to easily remove HDs from laptops, you could plug it into your more powerful mac pro when not traveling.
The point is that regardless of what the user agreement says, if a person does not leave one computer on while using the other then it is an odd concept to charge them for using identical knowledge again since they are simply applying a different CPU to the exact same knowledge. If we are buying rights to knowledge, I think it makes sense to say that the buyer could even install leopard on any computer they used for the duration of their use.
Please don't respond to this to say what the rules are, because I obviously agree that a contract is a contract and I don't do it myself etc. But imagine that you had to sign a contract when you bought gloves that said you could only use one at a time. If you wanted gloves, you would abide by it because it is a contract, although you think it could be written or sold better. I am interested in this particularly because I am currently writing a thesis on property rights, so a theoretical perspective is not a waste of time to me.
If you had it only installed on one hd, I think you'd be following the spirit and intention of the EULA. There is no way you could use it on more than one machine at a time. I don't think that would be stealing. Incredibly cheap, but not stealing.
Well the glove example doesn't do it for me. When someone buys gloves, it's expected that they are to be used to protect one's hands from the cold. It would be wholly ridiculous to use one glove at a time. The same is not true for a computer. A computer works just fine with only one OS on it. Now I know that you were comparing one OS to one pair of gloves, but the analogy just doesn't fit. By installing one copy of an OS onto two computers, you are increasing your productivity.
Even if you swore to only use one machine at a time, the writer/seller of the software (in this case Apple) would have no way of checking up on you. Otherwise, I think it's perfectly logical to say that "one machine at a time" would work. However, simply because Apple has no way of ensuring that you only use one computer at a time, they write the contract to say that it cannot be installed on more than one computer at a time.
Now, how about the nature of property rights? In the case of creative works (including books, music, etc), the writer generally does not give you the right to the software/book/music in question; he/she cedes the right to use that particular software. If you feel that there is a more efficient or better way to disseminate the material, perhaps you ought to contact the writer of such software to broker a better contract.
Ultimately, I think that's what it comes down to. Property rights are the core of any functioning economy. The ability to set terms is crucial for the success of future innovations. (you did ask for a theoretical perspective
).