Good guide, but I don't care if it's legal or not, because I feel it is my duty to break unjust laws.
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!?!"
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.
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.