Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Mac "Big Iron" rumors  (Read 43579 times)

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2012, 07:31:44 pm »

Is it just a "little bit" wrong to steal just one image from a photographer?  Or to just reproduce it for your own personal use if you're not selling it on?

Yes, it's wrong.

As photogs, we don't like the idea of someone else taking out IP and doing things with it that we have not authorised.  Similarly, Apple is entitled to place whatever restrictions it likes on its software and if we violate those restrictions we are break the law and we are hypocrits if we then complain about things like infringement of copyright.

Steve - I normally agree with you on pretty much any topic, but on this I can't.  Jeremy is right - a professional should not promoting their violation of laws.  There's not grey here, it's illegal (it could even be criminal, if someone sold a hackintosh with the OS pre-installed, but that's another story).  And, there are a number of hackintosh users out there quite proudly telling people that they didn't pay for the OS (i.e. didn't buy a Mac) with all sorts of reasons ranging from "Apple shouldn't be allowed to do this" to "I'm just using it for home testing" (sure you are..).

The concept of a hackintosh is great - it's a technical challenge that was long ago solved.  But to base your business on a model that explicitly requires a breach of contract?  Not a good idea and if anyone takes offence at that idea then too bad - they're the ones breaching or supporting breaching, not me.
Logged
Phil Brown

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2012, 10:30:34 pm »

You are confusing criminal and civil law. I didn't suggest any criminal offence was in issue. Who did?

Oh, I do colour work as well; and what we photographers describe as black and white usually has shades of grey.

Describing something as misguided doesn't make it so. Do you have reasoning to disclose?

Again, you confuse criminal and civil concepts and hence introduce irrelevance.

I apologise if my sesquipedalian terminology induced confusion. Which words did you have to look up?

I could tell. I've read Conan Doyle, so it wasn't difficult.

Jeremy

1.  When you call something "illegal" and insist someone is breaking the law.. you must be talking about criminal law.  Civil law is different, the verdict always comes in "we find in favor of.."  not  "you have been found guilty of.."  The first shows there to be a disagreement, the second shows there to be a broken law.  Blanket statements are fraught with such misunderstandings as yours.

2.  I never would have guessed.  :)

3.  Describing something as "illegal" doesn't make it so, but you were okay with that so..

4.  Oh stop it, stop it, my sides are splitting already..  ;D  If you feel the need to attempt an advantage in this discussion by the improper use of big words then I should never have mentioned it.  My apologies sir.

5.  I am pleased.   I was worried you were losing sleep.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2012, 11:18:56 pm »

Is it just a "little bit" wrong to steal just one image from a photographer?  Or to just reproduce it for your own personal use if you're not selling it on?

Yes, it's wrong.

As photogs, we don't like the idea of someone else taking out IP and doing things with it that we have not authorised.  Similarly, Apple is entitled to place whatever restrictions it likes on its software and if we violate those restrictions we are break the law and we are hypocrits if we then complain about things like infringement of copyright.

Steve - I normally agree with you on pretty much any topic, but on this I can't.  Jeremy is right - a professional should not promoting their violation of laws.  There's not grey here, it's illegal (it could even be criminal, if someone sold a hackintosh with the OS pre-installed, but that's another story).  And, there are a number of hackintosh users out there quite proudly telling people that they didn't pay for the OS (i.e. didn't buy a Mac) with all sorts of reasons ranging from "Apple shouldn't be allowed to do this" to "I'm just using it for home testing" (sure you are..).

The concept of a hackintosh is great - it's a technical challenge that was long ago solved.  But to base your business on a model that explicitly requires a breach of contract?  Not a good idea and if anyone takes offence at that idea then too bad - they're the ones breaching or supporting breaching, not me.

I respect your opinion but I don't agree.  And even if it is "illegal" then fine, we all break laws every day we live, it's part of the society we choose to live in.  Some laws are very serious and treated as such, and some are in the mattress tag category. I just don't feel this reaches the threshold where I care.  Why?  Because there is no damage.  No one is getting hurt, no one is losing a dime.

Here's the thing.. just because someone puts something in an EULA doesn't make it the law, nor does it make it illegal to do differently.  Sometimes manufacturers put EULA's, or EULA type entries in/on their products merely to avoid being sued.  For instance, we've all turned on our GPS and found the "you agree to not operate this GPS while driving, press here to continue.."   How about a hotplate or coffee pot that says "don't let small children operate?"  They really don't care if we do, as long as we can't sue them if we hurt ourselves or others when we do it.    Sometimes they put EULA's to avoid providing support or warranty.  EULA's are one of the most misused documents around.

Let's go further.  A manufacturer writes an EULA.  For this EULA to be enforceable, or rather for it to prevail in court, it must fall within the regulatory laws of our current locality.  So far not one person claiming an EULA is black and white has been able to show me where this is so.  Copyright which were your analogy, are easy to show where it's illegal in almost any locality in the western world. 

For fun, an EULA is included on a product purchased to use on your very own private island which is sovereign.  It might be illegal in Iowa, or might be illegal in Japan, but it can't be illegal when there is no locality with a law that allows/enforces whatever is in that EULA.   I'm asking anyone here to show me where their local laws support the EULA being discussed.

Or.. show me where it's prevailed in court.  They say a law really isn't a law until it's been challenged in court and prevailed.  We might have regulatory laws which appear to one person to support an EULA, but not to another.  No law has been broken so it's not illegal.. but a contract might have been broken so off to court we go.  A judge rules on it, and it's appealed or not.  When this happens enough we end up with settled law.  Or maybe not.  Maybe the court doesn't rule in favor of the manufacturer consistently and this creates issues.. then our lawmakers are lobbied by the industry to change or amend our current regulatory laws which would strengthen the EULA and it's success in court.  If it's a serious enough problem then it becomes state law and then maybe national law.. and if really serious like copyright infringement, then our State Department attempts to get other countries to go along with our views.

I'm asking anyone here who claims the EULA to be illegal.. to show me the law you'd be breaking if in violation for their locality.  Or show me where it's been challenged in court and upheld.  Anyone can write anything they want in an EULA, but without regulatory laws which support the EULA it can't be illegal.   And even if you think you've found a regulatory law which appears to fit.. it might not.  Not unless it's been challenged and upheld.

About the closest thing I can think of along these lines.. is the software which allows someone to copy a DVD movie.  Anyone follow that?  It's been going on for years and AFAIK you can currently legally buy and use the software.  What it did, was remove the DRM of a movie allowing the user to create a backup copy of a movie they legally own.  This was challenged under EULA's and copyright laws.  It prevailed, then it didn't.  Prevailed again, then it didn't.  They had a very hard time showing where the movie companies were being damaged, or if they were that the damage was caused by a legal user of the software using it as intended.  They even argued the software was illegal just by the very nature of what it did.  That prevailed too.. and then it didn't.  A couple good American companies were put out of business along with a substantial number of jobs.. and of course all the taxes and revenue it generated.   The last I heard the software was being sold from overseas, which in the on-line world makes not a wit of difference to someone who wants to buy it.. but it made a difference in the law.  They became the private island.  We can now buy this software legally.. on-line.  From China.  Now they have the jobs and the tax revenue.  I'm sure this will be used in similar cases when challenged in court.

Now you guys can see where I'm coming from.  I really don't think it's illegal to use OSx on a Hackentosh just because Apple said don't do it.  Apple doesn't make or enforce laws, but many manufacturers take liberties with EULA's by including content they know isn't enforceable.   It takes a lot more than that and not one person has even mentioned this or shown what laws it's breaking.  We're just so used to drinking the Kool-aid where such matters are concerned that we believe without cause.  We shouldn't.

Thanks for the great discussion.  We've done it without calling anyone crooks, or immoral, or unprofessional. 
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2012, 11:40:50 pm »


Steve - I normally agree with you on pretty much any topic, but on this I can't.  Jeremy is right - a professional should not promoting their violation of laws.  There's not grey here, it's illegal (it could even be criminal, if someone sold a hackintosh with the OS pre-installed, but that's another story).  And, there are a number of hackintosh users out there quite proudly telling people that they didn't pay for the OS (i.e. didn't buy a Mac) with all sorts of reasons ranging from "Apple shouldn't be allowed to do this" to "I'm just using it for home testing" (sure you are..).

The concept of a hackintosh is great - it's a technical challenge that was long ago solved.  But to base your business on a model that explicitly requires a breach of contract?  Not a good idea and if anyone takes offence at that idea then too bad - they're the ones breaching or supporting breaching, not me.

Some good points in your post, I want to make sure to cover them all.. :)

1.  No one has yet shown there is indeed a violation.  Thinking there is one, or agreeing there should be one.. doesn't one make.  We can plainly get our point across without insulting fellow forum members and we should do so.  How would you feel if you received a summons alledging professional slander based on such a comment?  It's been done, such statements are unnecessary and frankly not what I would expect from anyone here.  I think at least the regular members here have earned the benefit of professional doubt where we can discuss a topic without such unnecessary inflammatory statements.  Such statements serve no purpose other than to make someone feel superior to someone else.

2.  If it's illegal, grey, criminal, etc:  I think I've articulated a strong case for doubt.  Especially when not one law, statute, or evidence showing otherwise has been presented.

3.  To be fair I've taken care to limit this discussion to those who have paid for their copy of OSx.  If you want to include pirated software and copyright infringement then I go on record that our current copyright laws are indeed laws, but I'll stop short of saying I fully support them.  There are areas of current copyright law I feel very strongly against, and since copyright law is an evolving rather than a settled law I think this distinction important.

4.  I'm sorry, but I just don't agree it's "too bad" to imply fellow forum members are criminals, unprofessional, or immoral based on what I've seen.  They're not child molesters or murderers for heavens sake.. they're expressing an opinion on what many agree is an extremely grey area.  Even if you feel strongly you're right.. is it really good for this forum and what we have here to start the accusations and name calling?  I don't think it is.

Sorry for double banging your post.. but it was full of good stuff.. you have a knack for saying a lot with fewer words.  I should be so lucky..  ;)
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #84 on: June 18, 2012, 12:25:29 am »

It's difficult to discuss the issue without discussing what is and what isn't professional or illegal behaviour.  I don't think we've really delved into the morality of it, beyond the usual link between law and morality.

The EULA clearly states it is only to be installed on Apple hardware.  It hasn't been tested in court that anyone knows, so to that extent it's fair to say that it's not proven, but I don't think anyone doubts the intent of the wording at this point.

I don't think it's insulting to others to say that breaking the EULA is a bad business idea.  We discuss business matters often enough.  In particularly it would be perceived as very hypocritical for a photographer to insist on protection of their own IP whilst ignoring the rights of another IP owner.  When someone makes a recommendation to try a hackintosh (as was done) I think it's entirely relevant to express concerns that may be had with regard to that path, in order to make any readers fully informed.

It's clearly not slanderous with regard to the discussion here.  No one has been identified, no one has been accussed specifically.  It's a discussion about what if and so on.  If someone chooses to identify themselves subsequently as falling into that category, that does not make previous (or even subsequent) statements slanderous - particularly not in the US!  Indeed, the more "robust" the discussion the less likely it is to be taken as actionable and the more likely it is to fall under protected speech.  But that's another story, again :-)

I don't think anyone's name calling here, Steve.  We (or at least I am) saying that on the evidence available it's illegal and an IP related breach which I would consider particularly hypocritical for a photographer to engage in given the reliance on IP for that profession.

Finally, I don't think you can take in isolation only users who have other Mac hardware (and you have to at least consider whether they are using that hardware at the same time as the hackinstosh).  There are people here looking for alternatives to Macs so they are unlikely to wnat to buy a Mac in order to get the software, so they would be using it without following the terms of the EULA.

I have a meeting to go to - but it's a worthwhile discussion and up to and including now I ahven't seen anyone be abusive or name calling, really.
Logged
Phil Brown

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #85 on: June 18, 2012, 03:19:04 am »

Wow,
talking about tunnel vision. You must have suffered much, if and when you ever used a windows computer. I am truly sorry for you.

It has been such a long time ago I don't really remember if I really disliked something on Windows. I disliked Vista and just migrated on Ubuntu Hardy from XP. I had very little real trouble with Windows, probably because I know my way around computers (I actually wrote win16 code back in windows 3.11 days). I had debian on my web server and disliked not having it on my desktop, linux ran faster on the same hardware and Vista was bug-infested so I just installed Linux on my box, that was it. You are so far off the mark with your assessment it's not even funny.
Logged
Danijel

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #86 on: June 18, 2012, 03:34:48 am »

Good points but I think Hackentosh's exist simply because someone likes OSx, or wants all their machines to have the continuity of OSx, and wants it on a machine not available through Apple.  

I don't have one, but I have thought about building one for professional reasons.  I never gave much thought to compatibility though, most everything I've read shows them to be as reliable as Mac hardware.

The strong "Dudley Do-Right" admonishments can be irksome, but it's both fun and educational to engage such individuals.  Perspective is key.

One good reason for building a hackintosh has always been, well, Apple, really. They have very significant holes in their product line and some people need products that they don't seem to be making. For instance, they don't seem to be making a mid-range upgradable desktop machine. You have mac mini, which is sometimes underpowered and you can't easily replace a hard drive, and you have an iMac, which is great if you don't already own a great monitor, but less so if you do. Also, if you want to upgrade to a stronger machine, you need to replace the monitor as well, which can be either annoying or painful, depending on your budget. And then there's the mac pro, which doesn't even have thunderbolt and is painfully outdated for something that costs as much.

So basically hackintosh is almost universally Apple's fault, because people want to buy a computer they aren't making.

Laptops are a different matter. Apple's laptop lineup is excellent, I love it. But desktop workstations... I don't know, they seem to be making up their minds about that, post-pc era and similar bullcrap. OK, I understand that some people use computers solely as access points to the internet, but some of us use them for content creation, and no, iPad is not a content creation device, thank you very much. :) I have many gadgets but I also have a need for a strong desktop machine with a big, high quality, anti-glare screen, and that need isn't going away just because they made an iPad.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 03:52:46 am by dturina »
Logged
Danijel

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #87 on: June 18, 2012, 03:48:33 am »

Is it just a "little bit" wrong to steal just one image from a photographer?  Or to just reproduce it for your own personal use if you're not selling it on?

Yes, it's wrong.

You will excuse my lack of compassion for your point of view, but I had a recent experience with a person on dpreview who attempted to persuade me that I needed permission to post *a link to an image* I found on the net. When I see such idiocy, I lose all patience for intellectual property advocates and actually wish everybody would start violating all intellectual property everywhere, just to spite them.
Logged
Danijel

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #88 on: June 18, 2012, 03:49:36 am »

It might be Apple's "fault" that people are finding a lack of a product that they want, but that doesn't give anyone permission to violate the EULA.

I'll go back to the photog analogy - if someone has an image and I want it on 30"x40" canvass but they only print on RC papers, do I have a right to just take the image and print it myself?
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #89 on: June 18, 2012, 03:55:18 am »

You will excuse my lack of compassion for your point of view, but I had a recent experience with a person on dpreview who attempted to persuade me that I needed permission to post *a link to an image* I found on the net. When I see such idiocy, I lose all patience for intellectual property advocates and actually wish everybody would start violating all intellectual property everywhere, just to spite them.

The two are not the same.  Anyone complaining about linking to a site is a fool, not an IP advocate.

However, since you're inviting us to violate IP, I think I'll download all of your images and start selling them to mico-stock sites.  Cheers!
Logged
Phil Brown

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #90 on: June 18, 2012, 04:26:16 am »

The two are not the same.  Anyone complaining about linking to a site is a fool, not an IP advocate.

For most part, "IP advocate" is a thieving company that is used to charging people extreme amounts for the decaying carrier media in order to force them to buy the same record again and again, who grew so fat from the profits they made that way, they started blackmailing the authors, who are forced to work for them for pittance. And of course, when their income source became jeopardized by separation of data and carrier, the hypocrites use sympathy for the authors to justify the fascist laws they are lobbying to pass.

Americans have already allowed themselves to be treated like potential terrorists in airports, because their fascist government introduced fascist laws under some vague justification. Now, also under some vague and false justification, the media companies are trying to pass laws that would allow the entire population to be treated like criminals everywhere. I think the concepts such as intellectual property or safety need to be seriously revised.

Quote
However, since you're inviting us to violate IP, I think I'll download all of your images and start selling them to mico-stock sites.  Cheers!

Go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. They'll ask for more megapixels and reject the submission.
Logged
Danijel

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #91 on: June 18, 2012, 04:50:15 am »

It might be Apple's "fault" that people are finding a lack of a product that they want, but that doesn't give anyone permission to violate the EULA.

I've been thinking about that now.
A company doesn't make the product you want, but tries to prevent you from creating what you want by mixing something they make with something someone else makes. Something like Ford not making strong enough brakes for their sporty model, but suing you if you install stronger aftermarket brakes.

If a car company tried to sue someone for violating their IP on those grounds, they would be laughed at, but for some reason when computers are concerned, we seem to be well trained and allow software companies to treat the things we bought from them as *their* property.

If I buy a hammer in a store, I will use it for either banging nails into walls or breaking tiles or throwing it into a lake for the fun of it. They can't limit the way I use it, because I bought it. They have a right to object if I copy it and sell copies under their brand, but they can't tell me not to hammer walnuts with their nail-banging hammer and justify it with the EU-F-LA.

I hope you understand the reason for my concern. Software companies have managed to bring us to a position of being grateful for the privilege of using their product, instead of it being the other way around, as is common elsewhere. Their legal "rights" should be limited, or soon they'll attempt to sell us license to live in the world where someone uses their product, or demand royalty payment for music because you were in earshot of the music being played. It's just a logical extension of the uncurbed concept of IP.

Someone will say that IP is the basis of big industry and that limitations on it would prevent lots of money from being made. I agree it's a big business, but so is drug dealing, which is prohibited because it is harmful to the society in general. IP has come to the point where it is harmful to the society in general but useful to the organizations that profit from it, which makes it very similar to drug dealing, at least from where I stand.
Logged
Danijel

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #92 on: June 18, 2012, 05:51:39 am »

I'll go back to the photog analogy...

It is an interesting analogy but, like most analogies, perhaps doesn't stand up all that well to close consideration. The photographer would be willingly selling a photograph while purporting to restrict the private use the purchaser could make of it. "You can only hang it on your living room wall but absolutely mustn't laminate it and use it as a tablecloth". I don't think that photographers who object to the unauthorised duplication and resale of their images are necessarily being hypocritical or even inconsistent if they don't accept Apple's understanding of its right to restrict the private use of a single item of software that has been paid for. There is certainly an issue that bears thinking about there, but throwing around terms like "illegal", "unprofessional" and "hypocritical" makes it harder to see the issue clearly.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #93 on: June 18, 2012, 06:17:03 am »

Well, let's vary the analogy to fit your point.

A photographer grants a museum the right to hang their photo, but insists it can only be done under certain lighting and at a certain location.  The museum decides to hang it in another building under different lighting.  Does the photographer have that right?  Of course.  They own the photo and if the agreement says "XYZ" then "XYZ" are the terms of the agreement, not "ABC".

If you don't like Apple's terms and conditions, don't buy their products.  Your lack of liking their terms and conditions does not give you the right to ignore them and do as you please.

It's very simple.  It really is.  If you believe that as a photographer you own your work, then you MUST respect other people's IP and the conditions under which they allow you to use it.  If you don't agree, don't buy it or use it.
Logged
Phil Brown

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #94 on: June 18, 2012, 06:55:26 am »

Well, let's vary the analogy to fit your point.

A photographer grants a museum the right to hang their photo, but insists it can only be done under certain lighting and at a certain location.  The museum decides to hang it in another building under different lighting.  Does the photographer have that right?  Of course.  They own the photo and if the agreement says "XYZ" then "XYZ" are the terms of the agreement, not "ABC".

If you don't like Apple's terms and conditions, don't buy their products.  Your lack of liking their terms and conditions does not give you the right to ignore them and do as you please.

It's very simple.  It really is.  If you believe that as a photographer you own your work, then you MUST respect other people's IP and the conditions under which they allow you to use it.  If you don't agree, don't buy it or use it.

No, it is not very simple. In fact, I think the entire issue is very complex, meaning there are several issues involved. I actually think Apple itself could be very seriously penalized for such, de facto monopolistic move. Microsoft lost billions of dollars for less. They were actually punished for giving a free web browser to go with their OS. So it's very far from "their way or the highway" situation you seem to be portraying.

Not wanting others to copy and use your software without permission, that's understandable. Not wanting others to reverse engineer your software, that's understandable too. Not wanting others to use your software to produce nuclear weapons is also ok. Voiding warranty and not providing support for using your products in uncommon and unsupported ways is also ok.

But threatening lawsuit because you want to block hardware competition, that is called monopoly and can get you in trouble. So it's not really a matter of a hackintosh being a breach of Apple's IP, it's a matter of Apple EULA being a breach of anti-monopoly laws.
Logged
Danijel

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #95 on: June 18, 2012, 07:10:42 am »

Well, let's vary the analogy to fit your point.

If you don't like Apple's terms and conditions, don't buy their products.  Your lack of liking their terms and conditions does not give you the right to ignore them and do as you please.

It's very simple.  It really is

The problem is, varying the analogy in that way makes it less relevant to the point you are trying to prove. Apple isn't conducting an individual negotiation of specific terms with each buyer, it is putting out some identical small print with each of a million copies of software in a situation where its legal right to assert some of its claims is open to dispute.

I don't buy Apple's products, for other reasons, although I wish the business all success, and I certainly have no plans to build a Hackintosh. Believe it or not, I am interested in the ideas in play here and have no personal agenda. Intelligent debate gets very difficult when things are instantly personalised.

It's not so simple. It really isn't. In my experience it rarely if ever is, in a discussion where someone feels the need to assert that it is, and really is.  I think that building a Hackintosh would be problematic, given Apple's views on the matter, but I wouldn't want to call it illegal, immoral, hypocritical or unprofessional and I think a reasonable and thoughtful person could decide to do it without having their character called in question.

I guess some people are into nuances while others are more comfortable with black and white.
Logged
Ken Cameron

John.Murray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
    • Images by Murray
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #96 on: June 18, 2012, 12:44:25 pm »

I think the confusion arises from people misunderstanding what a license conveys, it's *not* ownership.  If you choose to install OS X on non Apple hardware you are violating the license agreement that you accept when installing - there is simply no way around it.

Danijel's point about monopoly's is simply wrong; case in point - Apple shutting down Psystar.  Speculating what Apple will or will not do is equally pointless.

Bernard brings up a very cogent point; what happens when an update disable's current functionality?  If you are relying on such a machine to do business, what then?
Logged

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #97 on: June 18, 2012, 01:51:54 pm »

I think the confusion arises from people misunderstanding what a license conveys, it's *not* ownership. 

Oh yes, it is, in the same way in which, by buying a print of someone's photo, you are buying ownership of that print, as well as a license to use that photo in form of that print.

By paying for a software license you in fact get certain rights, and weighing one right against the others, or against certain restrictions thereof, is a very gray area that is determined by the courts. My opinion is that Apple has no right to forbid installing its software on non-Apple computers, in the same way in which Microsoft would have no right to forbid installation of their software on a virtual machine, or, for that matter, a Chinese computer.

Apple has a right to void warranty and support in case of installation that is not supported by Apple, and that is common practice everywhere. That's where Apple's rights end. They are allowed and expected to say they do not support it and if something goes wrong it's not their fault. But to sue someone for installing OS X on a non-Mac amounts to Microsoft suing someone for installing Windows on a non-Intel.
Logged
Danijel

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #98 on: June 18, 2012, 02:20:55 pm »

I've been following the direction this thread has taken with some interest, but previously had no intention of jumping in.  However, even though I'll probably regret doing so now, I think I might have the appropriate background to offer a few useful technical points.

First, my credentials, which I think are germane to this post:

  • I'm agnostic about operating systems.  I run OS X (and iOS), Windows, mainstream UNIX and Linux.  I've managed an IT organization for a U.S. federal agency that supported a multiplatform environment that included all of these, and others.
  • I'm purely an amateur photographer, and don't have any opinion about what might be considered “professional” or “unprofessional” behavior for those of you who make a living at photography.
  • I'm a lawyer—not currently in practice, but with a degree and a license in the United States (District of Columbia).
  • I've been programming computers for more than 45 years.

Now, first of all, I think it would be best to avoid the terms legal or illegal with respect to the adherence to or violation of a software end-user license agreement.  I think in English (at least as spoken in the United States), there is an imputation that “illegal” refers to a violation of criminal law.

Second, it really doesn't make sense to me to refer to the validity of end-user license agreements except in the context of a particular jurisdiction.  In federated governmental systems, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, China, etc., you may need to consult the law of more than one jurisdictional level to determine an outcome.  In multinational federations such as the European Union, there may be an additional adjudicative layer.  And international treaties also come into play in some areas (e.g., copyright) because many national systems give international treaties the force of domestic law.

Third, in the United States, at least, the enforceability of end-user license agreements is not generally settled.  Depending on the way the agreement came into force, it may be considered an “adhesion” contract (no real meeting of the minds) or a binding bilateral agreement that the courts will enforce.  The amount of “consideration” (the fee paid by the licensee) may be an issue, as well as the expectations of the parties about how the license would be used.  The specific terms of the license may be a factor in whether a court in a particular jurisdiction will enforce it, as well as their clarity and the court's notion of their reasonableness.  The statutory law to be applied, the particular court that hears a dispute (state or federal), and whether there is (in the judge's opinion) relevant controlling authority from a higher court will all make a difference.  In general—again, at least in the United States—any blanket statement about the validity or invalidity of these agreements is incorrect.*

Fourth, if Apple wanted to enforce its end-user license agreement for OS X, its remedy in the United States would probably be limited to its actual monetized damages.  In other words, Apple probably couldn't recover more in damages that the revenue it had actually lost.  Of course, the cost to the licensee of defending a lawsuit brought by Apple might be considerable.

Fifth, if Apple wanted to stop people from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, the company clearly has the engineering talent to develop an effective technical impediment to doing so.  This would be relatively easy to do prospectively, beginning with new hardware releases, but probably very feasible to retrofit to legacy hardware via new OS X releases or patches to existing ones.  (Yes, maybe certain agencies of a few governments could defeat such a scheme, and probably 11 of the most talented teenaged hackers in China, but the government agencies wouldn't be interested and the hackers are too busy selling pirated credit card information to the Russian mob to be bothered with such a niche undertaking.)

Finally, I spend most of my time in an OS X environment because the commercial application software I use the most is available for OS X and I find anything UNIX more congenial than anything Windows.  I have no intention of building a “hackintosh” nor any particular beef with anyone who does.  However, it seems obvious to me that most people who aren't happy with or interested in Apple's hardware products will simply run Windows.  A few computer aficionados may go to the effort to run OS X on generic Intel hardware—probably many of them would assemble their own desktop machines for running Windows—but most end-users want something that runs out-of-the-box.  Apple knows that, which is probably why they haven't taken effective action to stop people from running OS X on third-party hardware.  (That's not to say the won't in the future, of course.)

Chris

_____
* Having said that, I've decided to go out of my way not to refer to them as EULAs, just in case Michael Reichmann should decide that sounds too much like Lu-La and decide to sue me for trademark infringement.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 02:55:06 pm by ck »
Logged

John.Murray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
    • Images by Murray
Re: Mac "Big Iron" rumors
« Reply #99 on: June 18, 2012, 02:23:21 pm »

The license itself describe your "rights" and terms of use - as long as they are not at odds with local jurisdiction - they remain in effect.

Your "opinion" is in direct contradiction of apple's license:

Quote
I. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not
to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to
do so. Unless otherwise permitted by the terms of this License: (i) only one user may use the Apple
Software at a time, and (ii) you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it
could be run or used by multiple computers at the same time. You may not rent, lease, lend, sell,
redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.

A legal decision by anyone rescinding this would be pretty big news - i'm not aware of any.....
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up