Building a Hackintosh Apple Can't Sue You For
osnews.com
osnews.com
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.
You may not be violating the DMCA, and chances are Apple isn't going to sue you anyway, but you are violating their software licensing agreement.
Did he not cover this by adding the stickers?
As far as I can tell, it's somewhat vague unless that is accepted legal terminology to denote 'something labeled by Apple', so shame on them for writing a less-than-ironclad TOS (if in fact it isn't.)
If nothing else it (and actually paying for the software) would probably mitigate the resulting punishment.
I'm not arguing that one shouldn't build a Hackintosh, and I'm not making any moral arguments against piracy or the DMCA. I'm just pointing out that use of software outside the bounds of the license agreement is at least grounds for a civil suit.
Except Apple is telling you that you can only hang it on walls painted with Apple branded paint.
Things only become "their right" if we weakly sit by and let it. We are allowed to control what is allowed in contracts and licenses. We can legislate that. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so.
Some people have a hard time going from abstract to concrete, so the analogies in discussions like this are actually quite useful. (read: moral/pragmatic).
And anyway, I roll with Fedora.
From the article:
"The only possible problem here is the EULA, which forbids installing Mac OS X on hardware that is not "Apple-labeled". I solved that issue by placing an actual apple on top of my machine"
To which I say - I really don't think you have solved that issue.
Meanwhile, I will also ignore laws that attempt to tell me what I can do with products I've legally purchased. And now that the DMCA is being applied to physical products (such as, say, cars) it's even more important to fight against it, and I use all the tools at hand to do so -- including violating that law, and doing so publicly.
The DMCA is one of the most dangerous laws ever passed, because it gives private companies the de facto ability to legislate how you use products you legally own. The First Amendment implications, at the least, should be obvious.
[1] http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books...
I take it you also object to laws that prevent you using the gun you've purchased to shoot someone, using the lighter you've bought to start a fire, driving the car you've bought over a pet dog, processing uranium in the reactor you've bought, running off copies of your Stephen King collection on the printing press you've bought, deafening your neighbours with the stereo you've bought ...
I'm not being facetious either. It's a strange notion that took root among hackers that their computers are somehow exempt from the law's regulation of the products we purchase. That someone paid for their computer is utterly irrelevant to the matter, yet continually you hear the cry "how can they tell me what to do with bits in a machine I own!?!"
Well it depends on the context but your example is wrong in any context. I would object to a law prohibiting me to use a gun I bought (as if I could, seeing how I live in Spain) as a hammer for example. Or to paint it pink (as if I would). All stretched counterexamples, I agree, but there is an underlying trend.
> using the lighter you've bought to start a fire
Wrong kind of analogy again. I object to being forbidden from engraving my zippo. Or braking it to pieces.
> driving the car you've bought over a pet dog
Wrong kind of analogy again. I (would) object to being forbidden from repainting the car. Or cutting it in half. Or reselling it to someone else.
I could go on with the reactor (oh please), the printing press (you're trying to hard), the stereo and so on but it's useless because they are all dishonest analogies. They put the focus on forbidden actions for witch the owned items are mere tools. Objections to DRM are generally focused on forbidden actions to witch the owned items are subjects. Like transposing a DVD to watch it on my PMP. Huge difference. And I think you knew that difference already.
I see the distinction you're now drawing in yr comment above, but I don't think it was there in the original. Even if it were, it's still not valid -- I can't paint my car to look like a police car, can't alter my gun to look like a toy (concealed weapons laws prohibit it), and the printing press analogy is closer than you admit.
But the whole "legally purchased" line is entirely the wrong way to go about this. For example, in the case of Apple, the licence specifically prohibits purchasers from installing on a non-Apple machine. Breaking that means using the software in a way that it isn't purchased for, and the whole argument collapses.
The problem with the DCMA and laws like it aren't that they "limit us doing things with stuff we've legally purchased" -- the transfer of cash does not imbue us with special protections. The problems with those laws are that they infringe upon our other rights, such as fair use.
This distinction matters a lot, because by allowing this to be set in terms of purchases and contracts, we're getting caught up in licences and property law, when the argument should be much larger. Time-shifting recording is legal for TV and Radio -- why isn't it also for Spotify or last.fm radio? There are no purchases there, so the earlier arguments are irrelevant, but the same ultimate principle is at stake.
OS X is Apple's property: there's no outcome of playing with property law that lets you install it on any machine you want, DCMA or no. But cast in other terms that aren't nearly as well explored yet, it might be possible. What does "fair use" mean in the context of software?
IP laws depend on our behaving as if these were physical properties we were talking about. They aren't, it's an analogy that only loosely fits, and by accepting their definitions and playing on their turf we are handicapping ourselves.
Without endorsing either of the two opinions, your analogies are invalid because they are examples of the above logical fallacy. You cannot compare using something in a manner that violates a person's right to not be maimed or killed with something that does not voilate the highest universal human rights.
Either way: the poster I was replying to made no reference to human rights, or the ultimate reasons behind the laws. He simply said he wouldn't hold with laws that limited what he could do with items he had purchased. And this is a nonsense position: many laws limit what we can do with possessions, for a multitude of reasons. Look at the example of the printing press -- it has nothing to do with maiming or killing.
The post's getting a lot of downvotes, so is pretty unpopular, but it's not a fallacy, and certainly wasn't intended as trolling. There are arguments against adhering to copyright and licenses. That they're limitations on "something you purchased" isn't one of them.
I think the sweet spot for hackintoshers is the exact market Apple is avoiding. Basically a cheap version of the Mac Pro but more powerful than an iMac. For just under a grand you can build a sweet quad core machine that blows an iMac out of the water and probably comes close to a base Mac Pro in terms of power. If I had to spend more than a grand, I would probably just buy the real thing.
(I'm still a little irked at George Ou for writing an article whose premise rests on the existence of a machine that he didn't even try to build.)
Why should they? Then they'd be obligated to support all of these homegrown abominations that people come up with. Apple made the correct choice when not supporting the DIY crowd. Not that there's anything wrong with doing it, and heck I might even do it just so I can get my MBP back from my wife.
Did they? They certainly lost (didn't gain) the bulk of the PC market which you could argue is a good thing, but also relegates Macs to a much smaller (albeit more profitable per machine) niche market.
Apple's stranglehold on the hardware and software irks my hacker sensibilities, but it's the key to a much better user experience.
That said, I also don't see why they can't let the DIY crowd do it. Sell a version of OS X that is licensed to use on any hardware but not supported. I guess that would go against the perfect Apple experience, though.
Another poster says the structure of the program prevented the cloners from providing a sufficiently varied product - that may be true too.
However, Apple failed to certify more powerful clones (i.e. clones that were better/faster/cheaper than their big iron) on a reasonable timeframe. Cloners also contended that Apple was opening up the boxes to steal their trade secrets.
And the cheaper models -- that were often equal or superior to Apple's offerings, were a no-brainer for Apple's customers.
The long and the short of it is: Apple makes something like 30% profit off direct retail of their hardware system. Even on a mini that's pretty good. Compare that to $115 for the sale of OS X, and you realize they couldn't afford to keep the cloners around.
As I remember it, the opposite happened. Power Computing skimmed the cream off the Mac market because they had faster Macs than Apple.
Cloners also contended that Apple was opening up the boxes to steal their trade secrets.
That's an odd complaint considering that Apple gave them the OS, the ROM, and the chipsets to begin with.
UMAX complained because their C500 model later served to be the exact hardware loadout of the Performa 6400 Tower. Apple let them do "research" on what chipsets could do what, and then took the result for use in their own hardware designs.