Jump to content
Swad

OSx86

179 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't apple include an AMD patch in the Developer version installer?

 

You're wrong. In fact, the very first developer version didn't include any prohibitions against installing on an AMD chip. That was added with 10.4.3 or 10.4.4 (can't remember for sure since it never affected me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

I believe, fundamentaly, that all software and operating systems, should be completely free to the non-comercial user. Hence I see no wrong in pirating as much software I can get my hands on.

 

Little "how's your father", I know.

 

Apple has it's own monopoly over an OS, that, was only really 1/4 (or whatever you want) developed by them. They've basically stollen (or borrowed) open source technology and put a massive price tag on it, saying you can only have it if you buy our stuff. Which is fair enough really, they should be allowed to do that. The flip side is that we are allowed to pirate it and run it on our vanilla pCs. Tough luck Apple.

 

I love running OSx86, it's like everytime I boot up I am sticking it to Steve Jobs. Hell, I love apple, I'm a massive apple enthusiast, but they've dicked me round for years with their exorberant price tags and {censored} hardware. I would continually tell myself was better than the rest. I realised that wasn't true, and steve had been lying the whole time. So I'm happy to steal from apple. It's called karma, jobsy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folks buy Toyotas, Some buy Fords, Mercedes, BMW, etc. Some people buy only Levi's and some buy Kirkland Jeans. I think a computer system is a preference, just like any thing else. People will still buy Apple Hardware because they like how it looks. They might not even put OS X on it and run only Windows. Apple needs to increase it's Market Share. It only holds 5% of the PC market. It is doing really well with iPod sales. You can't really count iTunes sales because they only get like 2 cents. So do you think the switch to Intel was just about going with a new CPU? There is a much bigger plan. You could have the ability to now run windows applications and Linux applications, perhaps anything written to run with an x86 processor on a Mac and the ability to run your OS X x86 applications in Windows. Apple needs more developers. Look at Adobe. Photoshop used to be only on Macs, now they sell more copies to Windows users.

 

Think about it. If you develop software for 5% of the market, your sales are going to be 5% or less. But if you develop for 95% of the market, your sales are going to be 95% or less. Which would you rather make thousands or hundreds of thousands? Heck, StuffIt now has a Windows version.

 

What good is your hardware if nobody wants to use its software? Macs are better, but everyone wants to go with the most popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I go in a store and buy a copy of Mac OSX 10.5 (129$) and it's a universal one (x86 and PPC). I own the copy.

They might support only macs with g4/g5 and mac intel.

The reality is that I paid for, and nobody can stop me from installing it on whatever I want: pc, toaster, mac, tv set, my own invention . . .

 

This is my copy, if there is a problem with it and I didn't installed it on supported hardware I understand that's not apple fault.

 

Otherwise it's my copy and if a run only one version of my copy, wherever that copy is running, i'm legal.

 

 

Not really. Read the OSX EULA. There is a clause that forbids you from installing it on non-Apple hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first im sorry for the English im not fluent.

 

Well if Steve job could realize 1 thing he as a tough choice export OSX to every platform or sooner or later get pirated and hack until no more .......

That easy as that period ......

 

Piracy will NEVER be stop neither by Law or by any mean you cannot the whole planet .....

 

At the moment Microsoft is trying with the WGA shiit to put pressure on user rumor of kill code that will terminate the OS( bad move )

 

If Apple refuse to give support great just sell the OS as is will manage the rest ........

If apple is so nervous on hardware profit they should sell spare part we will built our own machine let the part maker design the driver if the demand is there.

 

Its very easy

and its simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. Read the OSX EULA. There is a clause that forbids you from installing it on non-Apple hardware.

 

So if I can't read, the EULA doesn't apply to me. EULA's are a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I can't read, the EULA doesn't apply to me. EULA's are a joke.

 

EULAs are a huge joke even if you can read. Whoever thinks that someone would consider a click or two to be equal to an actual signature or contract has to be kidding themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the three (3) groups, I'd consider myself between Group 2 and 3. Group 2 is the ones who install OSx86 and love/hate Apple. Group 3 is the ones who are so impressed with OS X that they would go out and buy an actual Mac.

 

Since I've heard that Apple was coming out with MacTel's, I've had renewed in Apple. I used to own iMac G3 (green) and iBook G3.

 

Even OSx86 10.4.1 was much faster than 10.2 or 10.3 on the old G3's. I was impressed by the performance. Just opening up System Profiler only took couple seconds instead of what seemed like a minute.

 

I find myself interested in all things Apple, even buying Apple-related magazines and even software (old Blizzard titles that run on both platforms). Diablo II runs surprisingly well even using non-native Rosetta.

Although I did not personally go out and buy the actual Apple Mac yet, I may go out and buy an iPod Nano soon and my interest in Apple has piqued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its just a question of time and there will be a (half) legal way to run it on pcs, maybe with an original logic board from apple, if you can get one.

 

i think when the mac pro and 10.5 is out you can't stop "OS X86" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see some of your points AppleLegal, but then again I don't. The Intel Macs have standard hard drives, standard cd/dvd/burners, intel/standard network cards, standard ram, and standard usb/firewire controllers. The only thing they custom support is the graphics cards and CPU's(that might be in the motherboards for the cpu's). That is it. Just get an "OSX compliant" motherboard, cpu, and graphics card then the computer is a Mac. No hacking, no {censored}, and you have the same damn thing Jobs sells. Maybe we can't make him put OSX on regular PC's but there are laws against price gouging (sp?) and that was shown when the last jump in gas prices came around. Now that Macs run Vista/XP Apple just shows they have slightly tweaked PCs, nothing more and charging outrageous prices is illegal, if somebody wanted to press it. Will it happen? No, but if Jobs was intelligent he would act like he was, lower prices to compete with Dell etc, and not be a prick.

Is this why my DVD Burner doesnt like to work in osx86 unless it's the primary slave?

 

And you need MORE then osx86 compliant hardware for it to run. AFAIK, there's still a TPM chip.

 

"no hacking, no {censored}" Might i remind you, that the original definition of hacking was doing stuff in an unexpected way, thinking outside of the box. So building your own "osx86-compliant" computer would indeed be hacking.

 

Any law your referring to is concerned with preventing MONOPOLIES. Apple hardly has a monopoly when your discussing Hardware or Operating Systems. And when you compare the MacBook Pro/Macbook with a dell of the same spec's, the price is pretty much the same. The iMac's arent the same as your desktop. The iMac has that nice small case, where you cant buy it and allt he parts fit in - your desktop's not like that :D It's a difference. Besides, componet for componet, I'd imagine that a Conroe + 945 Motherboard + Airport Card + everything else that's identical to a iMac would be similar, if not the same in price. After all, we're talking Identical, not "Similar but not quite."

 

He DOES NOT need to compete with dell. He's not selling XP. He's not selling generic windows boxes. His OS is Apple's Proprietary OS. He can do what he wants with it, price it how he wants. If he wanted to charge $10k per Box, he could do so. Why? HE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. You cant apply laws that are aimed at a monopolistic company to a Company with a limited marketshare - 4.8% is small, whether you realize it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

For my part, I'm in group 3. I'm a long term windows users -- MCSE, I used to teach Microsoft certification courses, would never ever ever have considered getting a mac. But Mac users were complaining my web site sucked, so I tried out OSX86 last fall on my crappy Toshiba laptop, so I could test my sites on Safari and IE 5 Mac.

 

The day they announced boot camp, I bought a Macbook Pro. I still run Windows all the time (inside Parallels) so I can test both platforms at the same time, but the only time I ever boot up to Windows in boot camp is so I can play half-life. Then, when our 8 year old pc with tv-tuner died, I replaced it with a mac mini. I guess I'm a convert, thanks to this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its just a question of time and there will be a (half) legal way to run it on pcs, maybe with an original logic board from apple, if you can get one.

 

i think when the mac pro and 10.5 is out you can't stop "OS X86" :D

 

 

It will stop me a lot of others on the forum from using it if it has the check for Core Duo CPUs in the kernel like the Tiger updates do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul.G

Well, you said we should feel free to oppose intellectual property, here's most of an article I wrote against it. It's from a Christian and free market moral perspective, there is plenty of more intellectual/secular type information here: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/inte...ntellectual.htm And from the Linux people here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

 

 

 

Copyright or the right to copy?

 

 

 

Imagine with me the person who first invented the wheel; and imagine this person living under a patent/copyright regime like ours. So, for 25 years, he is the only one who can make wheels. Anyone else has to pay him for a license.

 

Other than stumbling upon the idea of the wheel inadvertently (maybe he tripped up and rolled down a hill...) let's suppose he is not very smart. Let's imagine also he is not a very good wheel maker.

 

But no matter how bad his business plan or his wheels are, unless he is a complete imbecile, one thing we can be sure of is that by the time 25 years are up, he is going to be running the biggest business on planet earth. Big enough, probably, to influence politicians enough to add another 25 years to the patent monopoly.

 

You can imagine everyone as this man's slave, because no-one can do much without paying him. Yet, rather than blaming the copyright/patent system, some people report unregistered wheels and call for more government regulation, maybe even price controls, on the monopoly. Few can see anything other than a 'dog eat dog world of dangerous wheels' if ever the system was 'unregulated' and besides, hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the 'industry'.

 

'Pirated' wheels are everywhere, of course, as people need them. The news corporations, whose airway monopolies are granted in similar manner, report regularly that people have been killed by 'dangerous pirated wheels,' that they are a menace to society and a threat to the 'legitimate' economy. Believing this, most of these 'pirates' have vaguely guilty consciences, half believing themselves to be thieves while throwing up a few weak excuses. Many decent people with clear (but also ill informed) consciences and limited means, just walk everywhere. There are calls for the government to provide these people with wheels to make 'society more just'. There has been some delay however, due to a related lobbying corruption scandal involving affiliates of the Wheel Maker set to benefit from the resulting government contracts.

 

As we imagine this scenario, I wonder how many would join me in hoping that there would be at least some, with clear consciences, who see right through the whole scam and make just as many wheels as they want and share them freely with their friends?

 

Think about it. Look at it objectively. Do you really believe that every wheel became the moral or 'intellectual' property of the inventor?

 

It was there all the time in creation - the 'inventor' just discovered it. Certainly of course, any wheels he made himself were his own. But if one was purchased, without any legitimate nondisclosure or other agreement, or even if a wheel was just visually observed - would there be anything wrong with duplicating wheels with one's own materials?

 

The real advantage the wheel inventor had was being first. He could have made some money just from that. If he was also a good wheelwright, at a good price, maybe he could be in big demand. But he certainly should not have been able to build a global monster corporation all because the force of the state backed his monopoly.

 

 

Now let's get up to date:

 

When a CD is purchased, for example, money is put down and a product is received. I submit that there is no proper lease/non distribution agreement. If there was, it would indeed be dishonest to violate an agreement voluntarily entered into.

 

A key moral issue here is the legitimacy of an agreement.

 

Most governments recognize something called ‘constructive notice’. For example, this means that if a business sticks ‘LLC’ or ‘Ltd.’ after its name and you become a customer or supplier, you are taken to have agreed that the owners can dodge their debts to you (‘limited liability’) if it asks the government for permission (declares bankruptcy etc.) To incorporate in this way is a moral choice made by the owners to join in this alliance with the State, as it is perfectly possible to operate without incorporation and there are good sized businesses which do not. In the US at least, churches are free to operate without incorporation also and an increasing number do so.

 

Another form of ‘constructive notice’ is the small print that comes with a product like a CD. Does this constitute a real agreement?

 

Of course not - it is one sided. You might just as well scribble 'sold, absolutely' on your own sales receipt and call that an agreement. On the internet, the same goes for 'click here to accept terms.' With no less moral legitimacy you could, prior to purchase, send an email stating your terms and that if they did not prevent the transaction, take it as agreed to.

 

It is perfectly acceptable in private business to enter into proper, signed or verbal, nondisclosure agreements. Software enhancements are often done in this way. But mass sellers do not require this, it would hit mass sales and it is practically impossible to prevent purchaser’s friends or third parties accessing and copying software or music/video.

 

Instead, everything is turned on its head through a government monopoly grant called 'copyright.' It is entirely involuntary. We are forced into an agreement, like it or not. But it is a lie: you never did agree not to copy.

 

This is the basis of a big business/big government alliance that affects many areas of life and business. It is one pillar of our modern hierarchical corporate state along with forced limited liability (ie. not referring to private arrangements with lenders), monopoly central banking (huge loans to favoured corporations with money created from thin air), zoning, ‘eminent domain’ and other land control – and of course taxes, regulations and mandates. These and other factors have created the trend of big business getting bigger along with its master, big government.

 

Economically and politically this is known as 'fascism.' Contrary to socialist PR, fascism is not the opposite of socialism. Superficially and very vocally, socialists do point out the errors of big business. However their solution is not liberty, but merging everything into one mega monopoly corporation, in the vain idolatrous hope that it will not behave like one - if it is renamed the 'Government.' One corporation to rule them all is not the solution – beware of such propaganda each time lesser corporate abuse comes to light.

 

So now let us look at another key moral issue at stake: If I sold you an item without requiring you to personally sign a separate written 'strings attached' agreement, is that not final? Does it not belong to you, rather than the government or to me?

 

Certainly it does and you would have every right to do with it as you please. At a minimum, I would expect a sharp rebuke if I tried to control what you do with it afterward.

 

Encryption keys, serial numbers and hardware/dongle dependency for mass market software is invariably a manifestation of an un-free market. It goes against the nature of things that can be easily duplicated. A business model that does not take into account the reality that, with a click of a mouse (or at most a few lines of code) data can be duplicated, is just not sound. It inevitably involves threatening customers that the government will act against them, should they decide to investigate the software code of their purchase, or make any changes to (ie. 'crack') the program they have purchased or been given.

 

Sellers are on a more solid moral foundation when selling subscriptions for support, upgrades and enhancements from one convenient, reliable, up to date and virus-free source. Just like the Linux operating system vendors, some of whom are running moderate sized profitable businesses. As a reaction to the un-free, proprietary legal environment, the software functions under a license called Gnu Public License that turns the law back on itself. This is a most commendable development which ensures users’ legal right to copy, share and improve freely.

 

But if a seller does go the ‘proprietary’ route (acting as if it owned the data on other’s computers) and the software gets hacked/cracked (as it surely will), it really is their own fault. They are then left to hope the majority (sometimes a 10-1 majority) who are cracked software users feel satisfied enough to send some money or make a purchase anyway. But if a seller tries to put them under surveillance by requiring personal details they really have no business with; or forces them to seek permission every time they upgrade their computer - users are going to resist.

 

Is it really right to blame hackers/crackers, who are not committing some actual harm like stealing money from an account or damaging a system? If it is simply duplicating software and bypassing serial numbers, are they not merely adjusting code on their own computers and sharing it with others? It is true there are some criminal and morally confused elements among hackers. But so it is with any unjust law - call to mind Prohibition in the USA... this attracted criminal elements as well as ordinary people.

 

Even supporters of 'intellectual property' become especially annoyed by the obnoxious, tyrannical coercion of the government/corporate monopoly and the fascist police state methods required to enforce the granted monopoly. To give recent examples: putting internet users under surveillance; demanding private records from ISPs; threatening or prosecuting 12 year old girls on the 'evidence', and setting up anonymous 'rat on your neighbour' call lines.

 

The moral discussion of 'intellectual property' often brings up the word 'stealing.' More recently, corporate fascists have claimed 'file sharing is communism' (like the 'pot calling the kettle, black.')

 

They are speaking based on present copyright law - and which varies from country to country. The big news these people need is - government is not God. Remember also that ‘democracy’ gave us Hitler - so a majority vote does not represent the perfect 'will of God' either.

 

If we believe in private property then we must accept that what is ours is so absolutely, to modify, share or do with as we wish - if it is bought and paid for, or is given by someone who owns it in like manner. Furthermore, if someone chooses to make music publicly available through a radio or computer - without first getting a valid personal, voluntary agreement from us - then morally it is our choice what we do with it, including recording and sharing. Nobody forced them to make it publicly available on a radio station or the internet.

 

If they do not want anyone to copy it, let them keep it in the privacy of their own studio. This is exactly how concerts and cinemas operate and is one answer to the concern as to how artists can make money. Public appearances do generate big money for artists. For artists, the wider their recordings are distributed, the better known they become and the more people will likely attend a concert.

 

Also, if voluntary contributions can work well for many subway 'buskers' and street musicians, there's no reason this cannot work for other musicians. Low cost downloads and CD's are another option, especially considering that a CD can be produced for pennies. Why would anyone want an mp3 copy if a high quality original is cheap?

 

Yet, those in favour of intellectual property constantly trumpet, as the supposed moral high ground, that the big idea is to save the 'entertainment industry'. But what is really so good about a few huge corporations owning most of the media; elite media bosses choosing what is available to view or listen to; and a few big (morally bankrupt, financially anything but) superstars. Below this artificial corporate hierarchy are the vast majority of musicians and artists. No matter how good they are, they are on the bottom because they haven't been chosen by the elite. The only dream of many is the remote chance, like winning a lottery, that they will be chosen. In the present corporate hierarchical system, everyone is spoon fed by and controlled from the top.

 

Some people want to live and make a living in this environment and others just do not realize that this is not a normal state of affairs. Some, who may have climbed a way up the corporate wage-slave ladder, or depend on one of the corporations in some way, may hate what I am saying, because it is an immediate term threat. But when big media giants downsize, this is good not bad: the tentacles are unwinding and more ‘slaves’ are released to do something more productive - like maybe start their own business or make their own music. Let us all start looking at the big picture and let things 'rip'.

 

Popular support can free up the system, and millions of file sharers are doing just that. The more things adapt to this free market, the more ordinary artists can find free market ways to earn money - if they are good enough. Aside from live concerts, once prices come down to a reasonable level, original CD's or fast convenient downloads will sell like hot cakes and there will be very little profit or demand for 'piracy,' so called. Music lovers can have much more music for their money. Compared to current output, standards and trends could only improve. Large media giants would be obsolete and the artists can all make more money in accordance with how much they are enjoyed, without the oppressive middle men.

 

 

Finally, we have been talking about morality a lot, so what does the Bible say about intellectual 'property'?

 

The answer is… nothing.

 

That is, you will not find any scripture, Old or New Testament, referring to 'intellectual property'. You will find a lot against the power of the State, however. I recommend a thorough, slow reading of 1 Samuel Chapter 8 and beyond to start with. This will show you that government is not God's idea at all. According to this chapter, it is idolatry and slavery, tolerated by God rather than endorsed and given a strict limit of toleration at 10% of profit/increase. Governments today are close to 50% and in some cases beyond.

 

Those who love rules, regulations and generally directing other people's affairs, should think about whether they are willing to use violent force against people who do not want such direction. Or in the case of artists, against their customers, who may wish to do as they choose with that they have purchased from you.

 

That is the nature of government - violence. Can’t see that? Then, as a totally innocent person, try publicly ignoring a minor bureaucratic order you disapprove of and are satisfied is unsound and unjust. Then ignore the court that fines you. Then resist officers coming to take your goods. Finally, resist the police who come with guns... Get the point now?

 

 

 

 

*** For the origins and history of copyright read Gary North's excellent article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north224.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's best that OSX is left the way it is, and that we install with our own hacks and steps because these steps are very complicated and it is not put in the frontpage of the internet. so no siple person does this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's best that OSX is left the way it is, and that we install with our own hacks and steps because these steps are very complicated and it is not put in the frontpage of the internet. so no siple person does this.

And yet whenever there's a new guide, its put on the front page of Digg, which, arguably, puts it on the 'front page of the internet'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to put OSX86 in the same category as XPostFacto. Both allow you to do overt infringement (let's not get into a consumer rights argument, as consumers have no rights). Is it a bad thing? Not when you consider the small number of people actually doing it and the massive opportunity costs involved (such as possible software incompatibility, an inherently unstable system, and time spent in working around security updates). Those three things alone won't allow most casual users to pirate OS X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Each of these three groups might be treated individually or they may all three be wrong - I'll let you decide. I can tell you, however, that there is a very large number of OSx86 users (myself included) who wouldn't have considered buying a Mac a year ago but, thanks to OSx86, are looking forward to purchasing one.

 

A year ago, if you'd have suggested I buy a Mac, I probably would have laughed at you. In New Zealand, we pay a high premium for computers in general, and especially on Apple products, thanks to importation costs, lack of a large consumer base, and a generally horrible exchange rate. Even a lowly Mac Mini here is $1,600+. Compare that to the Pentium D 930 desktop I built for around the same cost, and it's pretty obvious why Apple products weren't high on the list of computers being considered. Now before someone points out that the $1,600 I'm quoting is in New Zealand Dollars, and not US Dollars, consider that if you earn $USD100,000 living in the US, you'll likely earn $NZD100,000 (or possibly slightly less) living in NZ, so the impact of that $1,600 purchase on me would be the same as the impact of a $USD1,600 purchase on someone living in the US.

 

I'm digressing a bit, but I thought it important to point out why Apple products weren't really an option when choosing computers. When I built my new desktop, I thought I'd give OS X a try, so I headed over here, found what I needed, and got OS X installed and running. Within a few short months, I was so hooked there was no way I could consider going back to Windows or Linux.

 

When it was time to replace my laptop this past month, I considered all of the options (Dell, Toshiba, HP, Acer, etc.) In looking at those options, I realised none of them were really what I wanted. So, I bit the bullet, and am typing this on a brand new 17" MacBook Pro. Not only did I end up buying an Apple computer because of my experience with OSx86, but I did so in a very big way. Between the laptop and the upgrade to 2GB RAM, this laptop came to almost $6,500. But I can honestly say it was the right choice, and I have no regrets in having spent that money.

 

Is running OSx86 moral? Morality is relative. Those who benefit from your actions may call those actions moral, while those who don't may label them amoral or immoral. In my case, I know Apple gained a sale and a very loyal user they would not otherwise have had. I was so happy with the construction and design of the MBP that I also bought a 30GB video iPod instead of the Creative MP3 player i had been considering. And, when it's time to replace my desktop, I will probably look in Apple's direction again.

 

While running OS X on non-Apple hardware is certainly illegal, I don't believe in my case, or in others like mine, that it was immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here we go.. i'll try not to make this post too long.. so u actually might read it.

right now intel apple and intel PC's are essentially the same except for the fancy design of the iMac which doesn't allow any other components to be changed by the end user (except ram/HD). so, since apple is making less hardware AND software than ever before... its critical that they have a product ppl can think of when APPLE is mentioned. steve jobs essentially saved a fortune by employing a very intelligent community as his BETA testers who were previously comprised of devout, biased mac retards, while restricting access to osx86 for the average joe... remember, money doesn't discriminate. to lose that product they paid so much to enclose and convince ppl is faster than the exact same hardware of higher clock speeds in an uglier machine would show those loyal mac elitists that they've been paying for style over substance for all these years, and that mac is not much of a company at all, especially not a friendly company that you would entrust to babysit your autistic nephew.

so they embrace the console mentality. keeping it all in the family so that optimizations for code work in ALL of their computers, but not in anyone elses. gaming consoles do a lot more w/ a lot less power, simply because the developers only have one specific platform they have to code for and get the most out of.

from a piracy standpoint, its a shady area that both parties benefit from. developers get exposure to new potential buyers w/o stabbing their original supporters in the back, while shady ppl get to try new things for free. check this interview out http://www.midiwarez.net/oldsite/interview...r_interview.htm .

its all about the money and mac has advertising and brand recognition keeping them alive. their products come in as often as PC's (not emachines though... please stay away from emachines... im begging you) and i send a ridiculous amount of ipods out for service at work (be$t buy). but as long as silhouettes keep dancing, and frumpy office ppl keep embarassing themselves on TV, mac will convince the "GENERAL PUBLIC" that they are the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is a very hard one to come up with a right answer, and I believe that the way things are, the only entity that can really decide wether or not this is "right or wrong" is apple. You can banter and babble on and on about pros and cons for either side of the debate, but when you get right down to it, we are stealing, no matter what level it is on, we are still stealing. The argument of "Well, we wouldn't of bought a mac anyway" can also be interpreted differently, depending on who the interpreter is; You can see it as a benefit to Apple because people will find they like to get a Mac, when otherwise they would not. However, there is also this interpretation;

would you go to the mall you can try on some clothes to see if you like/suit you, but you cannot keep them, and use them freely, that is theft, that is not right. If apple wanted you to be testing out their OS before you buy it, then they will offer such a thing, otherwise they do NOT wish to have their product being used for free, and you are in the wrong--end of story. The problems that arise here do not involve money, quiet frankly Apple probably doesn't give a rats a$$ wether or not we use OSX in a profit gain/loss sense, but the fact that their hard work is being used for free, when it is their product and are entitled to a payment for the service or goods they provide, regardless of wether you would buy it or not if you had the chance to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest: Brian_*

The DMCA doesn't apply outside of the US, and while certain other laws may, they are by no means universal. Rational people have no problems breaking the DMCA. If you have ever ripped a DVD, hacked your cellphone so that you can upload ringtones, or decrypted a track you purchased on iTunes, you have broken the DMCA. That isn't a big deal for me. The DMCA is an unjust and unreasonable law that was put in by corporate interests. It does nothing to protect the small-time copyright holder. It has nothing to do with encouraging the arts, and nothing to do with protecting the public. It has everything to with keeping big media companies in business.

 

As for the EULA; EULAs are generally not considered legally-enforcable contracts. The EULA cannot offer any more restrictions than are already offered by copyright protection. Apple cannot, for example, say that you can't run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware and expect a court to uphold that restriction.

 

As for BitTorrent/Usenet/etc. - there we have something that is clearly illegal. Copyright infringement isn't particularly new, and it isn't limited to Apple. It's the same here as it is everwhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the EULA; EULAs are generally not considered legally-enforcable contracts. The EULA cannot offer any more restrictions than are already offered by copyright protection. Apple cannot, for example, say that you can't run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware and expect a court to uphold that restriction.

 

As for BitTorrent/Usenet/etc. - there we have something that is clearly illegal. Copyright infringement isn't particularly new, and it isn't limited to Apple. It's the same here as it is everwhere else.

However, Apple can go to court and say "He's hacking our OS. We dont want him to do that. We aslo want damages done - he now knows internal secrets of the OS.

 

Bittorrent and Usenet are PERFECTLY legal. They're protocol's for transfering files. Usenet wasnt even designed to trasnfer files - it was originally meant for Communications & transfering messages back in the 1970's & early 1980's. Bittorrent's used in World of Warcraft to transfer game patches. Also used by a movie studio to sell movies online - Warner Bro's i believe - hardly illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Apple can go to court and say "He's hacking our OS. We dont want him to do that. We aslo want damages done - he now knows internal secrets of the OS.

 

Bittorrent and Usenet are PERFECTLY legal. They're protocol's for transfering files. Usenet wasnt even designed to trasnfer files - it was originally meant for Communications & transfering messages back in the 1970's & early 1980's. Bittorrent's used in World of Warcraft to transfer game patches. Also used by a movie studio to sell movies online - Warner Bro's i believe - hardly illegal.

 

And again, there is nothing illegal about releasing the tools to do OSX86. It only becomes illegal when those tools are used (similar to XPostFacto--it's merely a tool). Now when someone uses the tool and starts giving away OSX86, why would you not expect Apple to sue them into dust? Like it or not, as AppleLegal says, it's Apple's trade secrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is a very hard one to come up with a right answer, and I believe that the way things are, the only entity that can really decide wether or not this is "right or wrong" is apple. You can banter and babble on and on about pros and cons for either side of the debate, but when you get right down to it, we are stealing, no matter what level it is on, we are still stealing. The argument of "Well, we wouldn't of bought a mac anyway" can also be interpreted differently, depending on who the interpreter is; You can see it as a benefit to Apple because people will find they like to get a Mac, when otherwise they would not. However, there is also this interpretation;

would you go to the mall you can try on some clothes to see if you like/suit you, but you cannot keep them, and use them freely, that is theft, that is not right. If apple wanted you to be testing out their OS before you buy it, then they will offer such a thing, otherwise they do NOT wish to have their product being used for free, and you are in the wrong--end of story. The problems that arise here do not involve money, quiet frankly Apple probably doesn't give a rats a$$ wether or not we use OSX in a profit gain/loss sense, but the fact that their hard work is being used for free, when it is their product and are entitled to a payment for the service or goods they provide, regardless of wether you would buy it or not if you had the chance to.

 

You really cannot compare theft of intellectual property to theft of physical property. In your example of clothes if u were to steal some clothes so u could try them out (because for some strange reason the store won't let you try them on) and you decide that you don't like them, if you returned them to the store the store would not be able to sell them again and would lose money from having a product go to waste. The same would go for if you just disposed of the clothes.

 

Now if you were to download a piece of software illegally to try it out and decided you didn't like it obviously there is no option of returning anything here but if you can dispose of it. The software company really didn't lose any manufacturing costs because of you therefore they really didn't lose anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legal

 

There's no doubt that running OS X on your PC is illegal. If you used a torrent to download the installation disc, you're sharing copyrighted material. In the off-chance that you hacked it yourself, you're violating the EULA and the DMCA. Any way you look at it, it's obviously against the law.

 

The question here, though, is whether or not that's acceptable. The sharing of copyrighted material is something that many folks generally accept as wrong but do anyway (Feel free to argue that it's not wrong). But what about the acronyms of doom? Does Apple have the right (and there are a few legal battles in the past that apply here... I'll leave that to someone else to introduce into the debate) to restrict their operating system to their own hardware? Furthermore, is it wrong for them to prosecute anyone who tries to break that restriction, via the DMCA? Is the DMCA law just?

 

i could care less about any law and i've no concept or respect of copyright , actually the only fun in hacking and running it for me it's because it's supposed to be illegal and because i'm not supposed to use it

 

About apple right maybe but unless you live in some policia state like the usa again you couldn't care less

 

Moral

 

well it's not theft for sure because i'm not depriving anyone of anything , it's not a lost sale and lost money because i wouldn't never ever buy it so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About apple right maybe but unless you live in some policia state like the usa again you couldn't care less

well it's not theft for sure because i'm not depriving anyone of anything , it's not a lost sale and lost money because i wouldn't never ever buy it so.....

 

Yes it is theft. You stole an item that you could have very well paid for. It's just like stealing a physical item.

 

*insert loose morals comment here*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×