Why I won't be buying Tiger..

[ChrisBrightwell]

But ethically? I wonder if it's Apple (or any software company) that's wrong. Something just doesn't seem right to make me pay full price twice just because I happen to have two computers.

You pay a $20 premium and can install it on *five* computers. If you pay full price twice, you're a full.

The OS X price hike for the same privilege is $70.

Ethically, I'd say Apple is on much firmer ground than any other comparable software company.

 

[takao]

leaving the whole "copyright" away it is all a thing of definitions in the law...

so far not a _single_ company even _tried_ to sue sombody over that (or any other EULA violation) here in austria or germany ... copyright (which in that specific is defined completly different here as well) is another matter

installing software you _bought_ on a second computer is far from 'pirating'... because you don't step into copyright laws ... which are getting very strict in the last years

doesn't pirating still involve 'selling' the 'copied' software ... in this case, it is neither copied or sold by a customer... so in this case 'pirated' would be wrong ..."morally questionable" would be more correct

offtopic:
(here the iLife 05 EULA isn't available in the net and apple doesn't link to them within the specific linking depth range anyways ... so any the printed EULAs inside of the box would be nothing more than toilet paper here)

'license agreements' are a extremly thin ice here..for example you can't take any 'protection law' away from the customer... one error like this and the whole EULA is completly void
same for the lack of mentioning of the eulas on the outside of software/hardware including software - packages
so there you could still walk into a store,buy a mini and as soon as the store clerk gets the money and you the product the deal is _closed_ ... the EULAs in the package are worth zip,zero,nada after that point if you didn'T had the chance to read the EULA before that...
and it get's even worse: if all above wouldn't exist and the eula would be valid if _you_ click ok udner the button let your child or any other person at minor age at minor age click on the button...that way you and your son wouldn't have to care about 😉
of course this is only in germany and partially in austria

 

[stcanard]

But ethically? I wonder if it's Apple (or any software company) that's wrong.

Just as a note, in Canada the precedent has been set (I'd have to go back to my engineering law books to find where it is though) that EULA's are allowed to restrict you to only one installation at a time, but they are not allowed to restrict to a specific hardware.

So if he's in Canada the original poster is pefectly within his rights to buy a Mac Mini then install Tiger on his Powerbook (or whatever) as long as he never uses Tiger on the Mini (dunno, install YellowDog or something on it).

You can file that along with other sensible decisions like warranty is only void if they can show that working on the system yourself actually did damage, and that in order to charge somebody with copyright violations on P2P networks, you have to show they actually had the intent to distribute.

 

[atomiton]

Don't apologize.

One OS at one computer. Install Tiger on your current mac, reinstall panther over tiger on the mini if it bugs you.

Apple makes money off Music and Hardware.

I wouldn't worry about.... it's not 1984, there's no telescreens.

Clearly and legally, I'm wrong.

But ethically? I wonder if it's Apple (or any software company) that's wrong. Something just doesn't seem right to make me pay full price twice just because I happen to have two computers. I would completely understand if either computer was being shared with others (say one was mine and the other was the family's), but that's not the case. I don't see how Apple is losing any money when I load something onto both computers. Other than the money they would make from making me pay twice. They're not losing any customers though. Anyone else that wants the program would have to pay for it, just as I have. No one is getting any software for free.

But then, these are just random musings, so don't flame me. I'm not attacking Apple, just pondering and maybe posing a question. I already know that, legally, I'm wrong. But who do you think is wrong, ethically speaking?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

leaving the whole "copyright" away it is all a thing of definitions in the law...

so far not a _single_ company even _tried_ to sue sombody over that (or any other EULA violation) here in austria or germany ... copyright (which in that specific is defined completly different here as well) is another matter

installing software you _bought_ on a second computer is far from 'pirating'... because you don't step into copyright laws ... which are getting very strict in the last years

doesn't pirating still involve 'selling' the 'copied' software ... in this case, it is neither copied or sold by a customer... so in this case 'pirated' would be wrong ..."morally questionable" would be more correct

offtopic:
(here the iLife 05 EULA isn't available in the net and apple doesn't link to them within the specific linking depth range anyways ... so any the printed EULAs inside of the box would be nothing more than toilet paper here)

'license agreements' are a extremly thin ice here..for example you can't take any 'protection law' away from the customer... one error like this and the whole EULA is completly void
same for the lack of mentioning of the eulas on the outside of software/hardware including software - packages
so there you could still walk into a store,buy a mini and as soon as the store clerk gets the money and you the product the deal is _closed_ ... the EULAs in the package are worth zip,zero,nada after that point if you didn'T had the chance to read the EULA before that...
and it get's even worse: if all above wouldn't exist and the eula would be valid if _you_ click ok udner the button let your child or any other person at minor age at minor age click on the button...that way you and your son wouldn't have to care about 😉
of course this is only in germany and partially in austria

I'd prefer that the US abandon its draconian copyright law policies and become more like the EU. Software patents, as defined in the US, are a stupid and counter-productive idea.

Anyway...
Copyright laws, and EULAs in particular, are complex no matter where you go (even the countries with poorly defined copyright regulations follow this rule). Copyright, by its very nature, is a complex subject. If I were a lawyer, I'd hate to worm my way through a copyright law case. Even Apple (which has the authority to create copyrighted material and EULAs) isn't immune.

 

[Bibulous]

I just purchased a copy of powerpoint 2003 for XP. Now I'm sure I could have "found" a copy and got it installed, but the upgrade version was only $90, so I went legit. I then realized I wanted a copy on my xp laptop and home pc, and thought so much for the legit part.

However, in the MS EULA it allows for the install on a pc and laptop if they are used by the same person.

Thanks Bill!

 

[logicat2001]

But ethically? I wonder if it's Apple (or any software company) that's wrong. Something just doesn't seem right to make me pay full price twice just because I happen to have two computers

I don't know if it's an issue of ethics, but perhaps it's an issue of our complacency in the matter.

I included the URL re: iLife 04's EULA not to defend it, but to state the facts as they currently exist. I believe this is an area that is still being developed, and it will evolve over time. Everyone who has issue with current EULA's should most definitely let the companies know that it's a problem that will cause them lost revenue in the near-future.

Although I don't have the time to organize a petition at the moment, perhaps somebody out there is interested? Between all the forums/mailing lists I'm a member of, and all the individuals who use particular software packages, I imagine we could compile a huge number of signatures on such a petition.

Any takers?

Best,
Logicat

 

[Mechcozmo]

One OS at one computer. Install Tiger on your current mac, reinstall panther over tiger on the mini if it bugs you.

Unless you have a newer Mac. If the Mac came with Tiger pre installed it may not run Panther. Firmware and all that.

And while our family could certainly get away with just buying one copy of Tiger, we get the Family Pack. 1) More Legal and 2) it isn't overpriced like XP-Pro is.

 

[mkrishnan]

However, in the MS EULA it allows for the install on a pc and laptop if they are used by the same person.

Yeah, MS quietly changed the EULA for MS Office Educational to allow you something like 3 computers within the same family or something like that. Now if I had a windows PC, I guess this means I'd have a free and legal copy of Office '03 for Windows. Eh, not worth it. 😀 And I'm the only one in the fams who has a Mac.

Hmmm...wouldn't it be an interesting tactic for Apple...change the EULA to allow you to install iLife and OS X from the Mini on a few extra machines, convince users like you to buy a Mini instead of an OS ugprade? Cuz I'm sure, given the choice of selling you one or the other, they'd be happier selling you the mini.....

I haven't decided what I'll do yet. I don't think I'll pirate or quasi-pirate Tiger. And I don't want a Mini. I will either buy Tiger educational and iLife 05 or 06 if there is one, or I will stay Panther until I sell my iBook and buy a new one. Guess it depends on how much I can get for my iBook around Tiger time and how badly I want a new one. Having a computer that works this well after a year is a pleasant thing, so maybe I'll stick with it for a while! 🙂

 

[logicat2001]

...convince users like you to buy a Mini instead of an OS ugprade? Cuz I'm sure, given the choice of selling you one or the other, they'd be happier selling you the mini...

I believe it's the other way around: their margins are greater on software than hardware, perhaps especially in the case of the Mac mini.

 

[QCassidy352]

Clearly and legally, I'm wrong.

But ethically? I wonder if it's Apple (or any software company) that's wrong. Something just doesn't seem right to make me pay full price twice just because I happen to have two computers. I would completely understand if either computer was being shared with others (say one was mine and the other was the family's), but that's not the case. I don't see how Apple is losing any money when I load something onto both computers. Other than the money they would make from making me pay twice. They're not losing any customers though. Anyone else that wants the program would have to pay for it, just as I have. No one is getting any software for free.

But then, these are just random musings, so don't flame me. I'm not attacking Apple, just pondering and maybe posing a question. I already know that, legally, I'm wrong. But who do you think is wrong, ethically speaking?

I'll be honest; I just don't care in this case. If I have two computers for my own personal use (I don't, but if I did) I would absolutely install software on both of them and not feel the *slightest* shred of guilt. There is the letter of the law and then there is the spirit. The letter may say "one computer" but the spirit is that the software is for your own personal use, and not to be running on two computers at once.

If you really wanted to, you could delete the software from one computer and install it on the other each time that you used it on one machine or the other and that would abide by the letter of the law. So tell me: how does just putting it on both do anything functionally different from the above (other than save the user hours upon hours of time)?

Telling me that I can't install software that I bought on both my own personal laptop and desktop is greedy and absurd. I'm buying the freakin' thing instead of downloading it, I'm the only person using it, and it's never running on more than one computer at a time. Apple telling me that this is "wrong" or "stealing" does nothing but breed my contempt for DRM laws in general.

 

[Timelessblur]

and people wonder why a lot of software now is requiring activation after X number of days or before it can be used.

I think it just a matter of time now before apple does the same thing for it OS just like MS did for XP after pirating became a really rampaded problem.

I have noticed a lot of the more expisisive software is allowing you to install it on one desktop and one laptop but not 2 desktop or 2 laptop it has to be one of each which personal I find is really nice since I own bother a desktop and a Laptop. The laptop goes home with me the desktop stays at school. but when the software is 134 edu (1grand retail) it a much better idea for that and it requires activation which can be a pain in the rear end but they are protecting there 1 grand piece of software.

Now how long until apple does the same.

 

[jaromski]

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time. 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.

What, praytell, constitutes a "copy"? When the software resides on your hard disk? What if you have a RAID? What about when the machine duplicates the application code into physical memory, technically don't you have multiple "copies" of the application code on your machine at the same time? Or backup copies? Doesn't that violate the license if you have automated backup software that images your drive in case of hardware failure? Or dual-core chips? They can run multiple copies of the application on the different cores at the same time, surely that violates the agreement?

This is where Thoreau would cry for civil disobedience. I have no problem paying for software, it is leverage, it helps me accomplish much greater tasks in a shorter time possible than if I did it some other way. But restricting the user's ability to install or resell "goods&services" hasn't really proved in our legal system over a sufficiently-large timespan to draw any viable conclusions. IP is a quagmire, will be for some time, until users are granted the same rights as buyer/seller has with tangible goods/services. When you sell a piece of property, a car, once it is sold, you can't sell it anymore. Most EULAs disallow this when you accept. How is this even possible? What if Toyota or Honda could restrict your ability, as a good, law-abiding consumer, to resell your car to somebody else. You always had to buy new. It was in your agreement. They would love it! Plus it would artificially boost sales for them and drive their profits up. Their shareholders would rejoice!

I guess my rant is that I think this whole EULA thing will be something to watch in the near future. IP legislation is still in its infancy; they need to dump all this un-enforceable mumbo-jumbo, it is a joke. IP won't be taken seriously until simple, universal tangible/intangible property ownership laws apply throughout the world and we get rid of the whole license-slavery model.

jaromski

 

[ReanimationLP]

Well, at least Apple offers multipacks, unlike M$.

 

[Timelessblur]

Well, at least Apple offers multipacks, unlike M$.

umm I figure I might like to point out that you are wrong. M$ does offer multipacks they just are not on the store shelves. You have to order them though M$ them selves.

 

[Poff]

I've paid for the software. Where's the problem?

Well, actually, you haven't paid for the software.. you paid for a single user lisence.

 

[Poff]

IP is a quagmire, will be for some time, until users are granted the same rights as buyer/seller has with tangible goods/services. When you sell a piece of property, a car, once it is sold, you can't sell it anymore. Most EULAs disallow this when you accept. How is this even possible? What if Toyota or Honda could restrict your ability, as a good, law-abiding consumer, to resell your car to somebody else. You always had to buy new. It was in your agreement. They would love it! Plus it would artificially boost sales for them and drive their profits up. Their shareholders would rejoice!

again, buying os x isn't buying goods, it is buying a lisence. I don't know much about the american laws, but from own experience, if you buy a ticket for a football game you haven't bought any goods; you have bought a lisence. It is not only with software lisencing rules apply.
You get a lisence, and to make everything easy, you get a cd with the program at the same time.

In a perfect world, Apple would make their OS ready for download, and only the ones who had bought the lisence would actually download and install it.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

and people wonder why a lot of software now is requiring activation after X number of days or before it can be used.

I don't think that the situation be discussed is the reason for the shift to activation. Sure the software companies would love it if home users paid $1000 for two or three home systems, but I think that would admit that is unrealistic. The purpose of activation IMO is to prevent some from giving the software away free to friends, or putting it up on P2P networks.

Again I do think that Apple may rethink the whole OS/iLife license thing if it has a negative impact on the bottom line.In the end it could have a positive impact too. For example, someone buys a Mac mini after Tiger comes out in order to upgrade their existing home Macs too. A year and half or so Tabby (in keeping with the "cat" theme of course 😀 ) gets released. There is a high likely hood IMO that one of the first systems might be sold off to a whole new user. (At least for me, when I sell a system I bring it back to the original state, with all the updates.) That means that the new owner may end up buying the new OS and iLife apps.

 

[Yvan256]

I used to think so too.......however, recently I bought a copy of 10.3 from Other World Computing. It was advertised as "full install but no retail box." What arrived were 3 CDs in a plastic wrap with a printed Apple "single user license."

Well, if Apple writes "single user license", that means Apple licenses their software to actual people, meaning you can install the software on all the computers you own for yourself.

I think Microsoft writes "single computer license", meaning you can't install the software on multiple computers (even if you're the only one using the other computers).

So my guess is that installing the software that comes with the Mac mini to your other Macs (as long as you're the user of those other computers) is just fine.

 

[Yvan256]

vtprinz, Have you read the license agreement you've agreed to or have you simply read the title?

Here's the EULA for iLife '04 (also a Single Use License), and specifically what limits you've agree to re: the number of installs (bold copy is my own):
Regardless of what you think the title implies, you explicitly agree to install a single copy on a single machine. That's it.

Best,
Logicat

Unless the license is written on the box, software EULAs have always been deemed useless by court. You see the legal text once you're half-way through installing the software, but you had to open the box for that. And stores don't refund opened boxes.

Companies can't have it both ways.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Unless the license is written on the box, software EULAs have always been deemed useless by court. You see the legal text once you're half-way through installing the software, but you had to open the box for that. And stores don't refund opened boxes.

Companies can't have it both ways.

I looked at the license paperwork that came with the eMac. There was booklet that had the info in it. It is a "single use" license. Taking this a bit further on your point.

A person buys a Mac computer or OS X software. Apple has a return policy of 10 days. There is a but in there, if you open the box or package they charge you a restocking fee of 10%. So if the user gets a system or OS from Apple and decides not to agree to the terms, does Apple make a full refund?

 

[paulypants]

Okay, I'll say this...
If you are a single user w/ 2 CPUs and purchase
1 user license and install it on both, technically
it is 'wrong', however apple knows that realistically
this happens all the time, but they aren't going to
spend the time and effort to prosecute these people.
If a user makes the software readily available to
multiple users, then they may take action against
that user.

 

[Bibulous]

I just got my copy of iwork, and was thinking how much I actually like buying software from apple. I have purchased everything on my powerbook: office, 10.2, 10.3, adobe design, ilife 04 + more. However I do think that eula’s should allow for the simultaneous install on multiple computers owned and used primarily by the eula holder.

Anybody else take pride in owning all of their mac software, but kind of feel like a sucker buying anything for windows?

 

[stcanard]

So if the user gets a system or OS from Apple and decides not to agree to the terms, does Apple make a full refund?

The answer is legally they have to.

Realistically it is very difficult (I have no idea how Apple specifically deals with this).

There are a number of web sites about Linux users trying to refunds for Windows that came bundled with their systems but were never used. Maybe 1 in 10,000 actually succeeds.

It's not fair, it's not legal, but the software industry manages to pull it off anyway.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I just got my copy of iwork, and was thinking how much I actually like buying software from apple. I have purchased everything on my powerbook: office, 10.2, 10.3, adobe design, ilife 04 + more. However I do think that eula’s should allow for the simultaneous install on multiple computers owned and used primarily by the eula holder.

Anybody else take pride in owning all of their mac software, but kind of feel like a sucker buying anything for windows?

I do! I have a Mac and a Windows machine, and I'd rather not buy Windows software if I don't have to - I'd much rather buy Mac software, then find Mac shareware/freeware, then find Windows shareware/freeware, then buy Windows software.