Actually it says: "To upgrade your Mac to OS X Lion, you must be running OS X Snow Leopard. If you have OS X v10.5 Leopard, purchase OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard now and install it on your Mac."
Snow Leopard only sold as an upgrade too. You are only allowed to install it if you have an earlier version of OSX.
As I said, their is no legal way of getting a new copy of OSX other than buying a Mac.
Installing (copying) OSX onto them is not legal though. You need permission of a copyright owner to copy a work. And Apple don't grant it in those circumstances.
Thus they sold me a box containing a copy of the software. First sale doctrine dictates that I own that copy of the software, and can do what I want with it.
That's right you can. And copyright means you aren't allowed to make a copy of it other than a backup for archival purposes. Installing it on a computer would require a copy.
You can install (make a copy) if the copyright owner gives you permission, and if he places conditions on that permission then you don't have permission unless you satisfy them. That's what the license/EULA is there for. It grants you a permission to do something you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to do. To make a copy of the software on that DVD.
First sale doctrine does not entitle you to place a copy of an OSX DVD on the hard disk of a non-Mac PC. Although AFAIK there is nothing stopping you from running it directly from the DVD in a DVD drive if it would technically work.
Per the copyright act, we may install and use a copy of software we own.
There's nothing in the copyright act that allows you to install and use a copy of software. You are allowed to make a backup, but it explicitly states that must be for archival purposes only.
You only get a right to copy (install) the software from the license/EULA. And if that says you can only do so under circumstances then that is enforcable. As you don't have any right to copy apart from under that agreement.
That's copyright.
If Apple is going to try and control what I can do with the things I purchase then I won't purchase them.
Then presumably you aren't going to buy books either. Because you aren't allowed to copy those without permission either. And in that case they don't come with any license granting you to copy under certain circumstances.
Their rights to control the product end when they sell it.
Wrong. Same as a book. You can do what you like with the book but merely owning the book doesn't give you the right to copy it. Making a photocopy of the entire book without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal.
You buy a DVD (or a flash drive) with OSX on it, and you own the DVD or flash drive with OSX on it. You can do what you like with it. Use it as an ornament. Play frizbee with it... You haven't bought the right to copy (install it) anywhere you like.
However, what you bought with the DVD was a licence that does allow you to make copies to any genuine Mac you own. Copying it in any other way, not covered in the licence, such as to a non-Mac PC is a breach of copyright.
Of course? If they sell the software separately, what makes it so obvious that they have the right to say how it will be used?
They sell the DVD with the software on. You can do what you like with that CD. But installing on a computer is an act of copying. That's regulated by the copyright act. Apple have the right to set the terms on which their work can be copied, and that's what the EULA does. You can't copy (install) to a computer that's not a Mac. It's a breach of copyright.
Same goes for a book. You can do what you like with the book. But you're not allowed to create a copy of it by photocopying all the pages.
Cars aren't covered by copyright so car analogies are irrelevant.
this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior. Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
There's nothing illegal in that. See razors, printers, consoles etc.
It was Apple's product, but once you purchase it, it becomes your product.
Sure. The DVD belongs to you. However you can't install it on a computer without Apple's permission as that would be an act of copying and Apple own the copyright. The EULA gives that permission, but only to copy onto a genuine Mac.
The first sale doctrine can't get you OSX on a PC.
If they give you a physical copy of the software in a tangible form the first sale doctrine will generally allow you to on-sell that copy.
Sure. That's not illegal, and Apple have done nothing to stop that practice. Anyone can posses an official Snow Leopard DVD. No problem.
However to install that onto a computer is an act of copying it. And Apple owns the copyright. It's up to them who they authorize to do that copy and under what circumstances. That's why you don't only need a physical copy of software, you need a license. And there are no licenses which allow you to install OSX on any computer that isn't a Mac.
Because OSX won't install in non-Mac computers without software to crack it. Psystar would have had to have shipped that software. And that in itself would breach the DMCA.
Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?
Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.
There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
You seem to have overlooked that this is a criminal case. Rebekah Brookes hasn't been tried yet so we can't say she personally is guilty yet. But the fact that a murdered girl and thousands of others had their phones hacked by the right-wing News International organisation isn't in question, it's established fact.
And if you read the text on the page you see that Snow Leopard is an upgrade from Leopard. When Leopard was on sale you'd find it was an upgrade from Tiger. etc.
There were never any new installations of OSX available without a Mac.
That wasn't true as of the time when Psystar was buying them.
No. I think I was clear that the licensing was against Psystar, and the practical hurdle that eliminates the plea of ignorance is recent.
And here's the crux of the matter, and why I find the ruling so despicable: those are terms that were added after the sale through the EULA clickthrough. At the time Psystar paid Apple for their copies of OS X, there were no signed contracts showing that Psystar agreed to abide by those extra-legal terms and conditions. They were bound by normal copyright law, sure, but I'm not aware that they were ever accused of violating copyright.
Psystar were not that stupid. They knew full well what the license conditions of OSX were. And they, like you thought they weren't valid. This court case proves they and you are wrong.
It's impossible to buy a copy of OSX without buying a Mac. Those boxes you used to be able to buy were not licensed as new installations, but upgrades.
More recently Apple have made that a practical as well as licensing issue. They no longer ship shrinkwrapped upgrades of OSX. You now have to buy it on the App Store and download it. And you can't do that without already having OSX.
There's nothing nannyesque about the fire department (well apart from them driving away things like the use of fireworks).
Ah, "nannyesque". Another classic of right-wing labelling, rather than logical argument.
There's 2 problems with using the "nannying" analogy.
1) It's entirely subjective. Logically there shouldn't be anything more analogous to "nannying" than public schooling. It's taking care of kids whilst they're working after all. Yet rarely are those that call public healthcare "nannying" also wanting to take away public schooling.
2) Nannies are private sector. You hire them. Now, maybe going to seek treatment from a doctor or hospital could be likened to going to nanny. But making it free at the point of delivery rather than paid for doesn't make it any more so.
Actually I am which is why I've not burnt my house down and avoided situations where I would need police to protect me.
Oh wow! Really? You're going for the "probably won't happen to me because I'm careful" approach? Good luck with that. Especially if you have any children. Or you weren't the one that wired your house. And from what you've said earlier you haven't avoided situations where you've needed the police at all. You're contradicting yourself.
No - you didn't THINK. You just FEAR.
"Nannying", "Stockholm Syndrome". Actually you're the one who's not thinking and just repeating propaganda memes.
I've travelled all around the world, and lived outside the U.S. for a few months.
Which is not the same as having lived for a significant time in a country with a state health service.
Anyone who thinks a national health service run the by the government is the "best system" is to my mind suffering Stockholm Syndrome
Ah the Stockholm Syndrome meme. Which when applied to anything which is not people being literally imprisoned by captors, is bullshit. It's just a way of saying "You like something, but because I don't understand it, you must be wrong."
Very stupid.
The fact is that any organization only run by one group is going to be more inefficient.
Completely wrong. Take drugs for example. The British National Health Service pays far less for drugs than American health providers. Same drugs. Why? Because it's a single payer system. It's a buyers market for NHS. The many relatively small health providers have no leverage on drug prices.
And then there's all that wasted bureaucracy in administering vast numbers of insurance schemes.
And then there's all the money taken out of the healthcare system to pay dividends to share holders.
There are three of the reasons why Americans pay 2.5 times as much per capita for healthcare, without even getting universal care. It's grossly inefficient.
So you *are* paying for it, just not at the time you are using it.
Maybe, maybe not. The important point is that money is not required to get treatment.
Also, "some person(s) or company that can easily afford it" is just wealth redistribution. Why not just admit you're taking money from one person and giving it to another?
Taking money from one person and giving health treatment to another. Cash is not dispensed in hospitals.
Since we're on Slashdot, and aware that there isn't just one definition of free, lets start with:
It's free as in beer.
Somebody is playing for it. Probably some person(s) or company that can easily afford it has paid for it. Maybe in the bigger scheme of things you might have put in a contribution. But at the time you draw the draft of frothy ale, no one is asking you for change. If you don't have your wallet with you, you still get the beer. If you're too poor to afford it, you still get the beer. Everyone gets beer.
Of course with beer that's a trivial thing. And you might argue that not everyone deserves it.
But everyone does deserve to be treated if they are seriously ill or have had an accident. It's an uncivilised country which if affluent, yet doesn't give proper medical treatment to the poor. It's an uncivilized country if you can lose your right to be treated if you lose your job.
But free as in beer is not what we call it. It's "healthcare free at the point of delivery". And it's the sign of more civilized country.
And what does it cost Americans for their uncivilized approach to healthcare. They pay 2.5 times as much per capita as Britains do. And it's still doesn't treat everyone. It's an uncivilized AND more expensive system. How dumb is that?
So you'll be rejecting any help from the nanny state fire service if your house is burning down. And the nanny state police if you're a victim of crime. After all you're a self reliant human being.
No, I didn't think so.
That's right, there is NO difference between providing these 3 public services as state services or private services. Yet you accept two of them and call the third names.
Slashdot Mirror
47 European countries who may potentially declare war on the US next year.
Finally, a policy I could vote for!
PHA - Pointy Haired Asteroid?
If piercing is helping you get laid, I hate to think what kind of trash you're sleeping with.
I know full well that they aren't technically restricted to only upgrading rather than installing.
Yes, it's the license that means that you can't legally use the DVDs that they used to sell for a new installation.
Actually it says: "To upgrade your Mac to OS X Lion, you must be running OS X Snow Leopard. If you have OS X v10.5 Leopard, purchase OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard now and install it on your Mac."
Snow Leopard only sold as an upgrade too. You are only allowed to install it if you have an earlier version of OSX.
As I said, their is no legal way of getting a new copy of OSX other than buying a Mac.
Installing (copying) OSX onto them is not legal though. You need permission of a copyright owner to copy a work. And Apple don't grant it in those circumstances.
Thus they sold me a box containing a copy of the software. First sale doctrine dictates that I own that copy of the software, and can do what I want with it.
That's right you can. And copyright means you aren't allowed to make a copy of it other than a backup for archival purposes. Installing it on a computer would require a copy.
You can install (make a copy) if the copyright owner gives you permission, and if he places conditions on that permission then you don't have permission unless you satisfy them. That's what the license/EULA is there for. It grants you a permission to do something you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to do. To make a copy of the software on that DVD.
First sale doctrine does not entitle you to place a copy of an OSX DVD on the hard disk of a non-Mac PC. Although AFAIK there is nothing stopping you from running it directly from the DVD in a DVD drive if it would technically work.
Per the copyright act, we may install and use a copy of software we own.
There's nothing in the copyright act that allows you to install and use a copy of software. You are allowed to make a backup, but it explicitly states that must be for archival purposes only.
You only get a right to copy (install) the software from the license/EULA. And if that says you can only do so under circumstances then that is enforcable. As you don't have any right to copy apart from under that agreement.
That's copyright.
If Apple is going to try and control what I can do with the things I purchase then I won't purchase them.
Then presumably you aren't going to buy books either. Because you aren't allowed to copy those without permission either. And in that case they don't come with any license granting you to copy under certain circumstances.
Their rights to control the product end when they sell it.
Wrong. Same as a book. You can do what you like with the book but merely owning the book doesn't give you the right to copy it. Making a photocopy of the entire book without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal.
You buy a DVD (or a flash drive) with OSX on it, and you own the DVD or flash drive with OSX on it. You can do what you like with it. Use it as an ornament. Play frizbee with it...
You haven't bought the right to copy (install it) anywhere you like.
However, what you bought with the DVD was a licence that does allow you to make copies to any genuine Mac you own. Copying it in any other way, not covered in the licence, such as to a non-Mac PC is a breach of copyright.
Of course? If they sell the software separately, what makes it so obvious that they have the right to say how it will be used?
They sell the DVD with the software on. You can do what you like with that CD. But installing on a computer is an act of copying. That's regulated by the copyright act. Apple have the right to set the terms on which their work can be copied, and that's what the EULA does. You can't copy (install) to a computer that's not a Mac. It's a breach of copyright.
Same goes for a book. You can do what you like with the book. But you're not allowed to create a copy of it by photocopying all the pages.
Cars aren't covered by copyright so car analogies are irrelevant.
this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior. Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
There's nothing illegal in that. See razors, printers, consoles etc.
It was Apple's product, but once you purchase it, it becomes your product.
Sure. The DVD belongs to you. However you can't install it on a computer without Apple's permission as that would be an act of copying and Apple own the copyright. The EULA gives that permission, but only to copy onto a genuine Mac.
The first sale doctrine can't get you OSX on a PC.
If they give you a physical copy of the software in a tangible form the first sale doctrine will generally allow you to on-sell that copy.
Sure. That's not illegal, and Apple have done nothing to stop that practice. Anyone can posses an official Snow Leopard DVD. No problem.
However to install that onto a computer is an act of copying it. And Apple owns the copyright. It's up to them who they authorize to do that copy and under what circumstances. That's why you don't only need a physical copy of software, you need a license. And there are no licenses which allow you to install OSX on any computer that isn't a Mac.
Because OSX won't install in non-Mac computers without software to crack it. Psystar would have had to have shipped that software. And that in itself would breach the DMCA.
Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?
Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.
There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
You seem to have overlooked that this is a criminal case. Rebekah Brookes hasn't been tried yet so we can't say she personally is guilty yet. But the fact that a murdered girl and thousands of others had their phones hacked by the right-wing News International organisation isn't in question, it's established fact.
And if you read the text on the page you see that Snow Leopard is an upgrade from Leopard. When Leopard was on sale you'd find it was an upgrade from Tiger. etc.
There were never any new installations of OSX available without a Mac.
That wasn't true as of the time when Psystar was buying them.
No. I think I was clear that the licensing was against Psystar, and the practical hurdle that eliminates the plea of ignorance is recent.
And here's the crux of the matter, and why I find the ruling so despicable: those are terms that were added after the sale through the EULA clickthrough. At the time Psystar paid Apple for their copies of OS X, there were no signed contracts showing that Psystar agreed to abide by those extra-legal terms and conditions. They were bound by normal copyright law, sure, but I'm not aware that they were ever accused of violating copyright.
Psystar were not that stupid. They knew full well what the license conditions of OSX were. And they, like you thought they weren't valid. This court case proves they and you are wrong.
That's Snow Leopard. The current version of OSX is Lion, and has been since last July.
The fact that you didn't come up with a link to OSX Lion shrinkwrap proves my point. They've stopped doing them.
When you know your topic you don't need to check.
It's impossible to buy a copy of OSX without buying a Mac. Those boxes you used to be able to buy were not licensed as new installations, but upgrades.
More recently Apple have made that a practical as well as licensing issue. They no longer ship shrinkwrapped upgrades of OSX. You now have to buy it on the App Store and download it. And you can't do that without already having OSX.
There's nothing nannyesque about the fire department (well apart from them driving away things like the use of fireworks).
Ah, "nannyesque". Another classic of right-wing labelling, rather than logical argument.
There's 2 problems with using the "nannying" analogy.
1) It's entirely subjective. Logically there shouldn't be anything more analogous to "nannying" than public schooling. It's taking care of kids whilst they're working after all. Yet rarely are those that call public healthcare "nannying" also wanting to take away public schooling.
2) Nannies are private sector. You hire them. Now, maybe going to seek treatment from a doctor or hospital could be likened to going to nanny. But making it free at the point of delivery rather than paid for doesn't make it any more so.
Actually I am which is why I've not burnt my house down and avoided situations where I would need police to protect me.
Oh wow! Really? You're going for the "probably won't happen to me because I'm careful" approach? Good luck with that. Especially if you have any children. Or you weren't the one that wired your house. And from what you've said earlier you haven't avoided situations where you've needed the police at all. You're contradicting yourself.
No - you didn't THINK. You just FEAR.
"Nannying", "Stockholm Syndrome". Actually you're the one who's not thinking and just repeating propaganda memes.
I've travelled all around the world, and lived outside the U.S. for a few months.
Which is not the same as having lived for a significant time in a country with a state health service.
Anyone who thinks a national health service run the by the government is the "best system" is to my mind suffering Stockholm Syndrome
Ah the Stockholm Syndrome meme. Which when applied to anything which is not people being literally imprisoned by captors, is bullshit. It's just a way of saying "You like something, but because I don't understand it, you must be wrong."
Very stupid.
The fact is that any organization only run by one group is going to be more inefficient.
Completely wrong. Take drugs for example. The British National Health Service pays far less for drugs than American health providers. Same drugs. Why? Because it's a single payer system. It's a buyers market for NHS. The many relatively small health providers have no leverage on drug prices.
And then there's all that wasted bureaucracy in administering vast numbers of insurance schemes.
And then there's all the money taken out of the healthcare system to pay dividends to share holders.
There are three of the reasons why Americans pay 2.5 times as much per capita for healthcare, without even getting universal care. It's grossly inefficient.
So you *are* paying for it, just not at the time you are using it.
Maybe, maybe not. The important point is that money is not required to get treatment.
Also, "some person(s) or company that can easily afford it" is just wealth redistribution. Why not just admit you're taking money from one person and giving it to another?
Taking money from one person and giving health treatment to another. Cash is not dispensed in hospitals.
Since we're on Slashdot, and aware that there isn't just one definition of free, lets start with:
It's free as in beer.
Somebody is playing for it. Probably some person(s) or company that can easily afford it has paid for it. Maybe in the bigger scheme of things you might have put in a contribution. But at the time you draw the draft of frothy ale, no one is asking you for change. If you don't have your wallet with you, you still get the beer. If you're too poor to afford it, you still get the beer. Everyone gets beer.
Of course with beer that's a trivial thing. And you might argue that not everyone deserves it.
But everyone does deserve to be treated if they are seriously ill or have had an accident. It's an uncivilised country which if affluent, yet doesn't give proper medical treatment to the poor. It's an uncivilized country if you can lose your right to be treated if you lose your job.
But free as in beer is not what we call it. It's "healthcare free at the point of delivery". And it's the sign of more civilized country.
And what does it cost Americans for their uncivilized approach to healthcare. They pay 2.5 times as much per capita as Britains do. And it's still doesn't treat everyone. It's an uncivilized AND more expensive system. How dumb is that?
So you'll be rejecting any help from the nanny state fire service if your house is burning down. And the nanny state police if you're a victim of crime. After all you're a self reliant human being.
No, I didn't think so.
That's right, there is NO difference between providing these 3 public services as state services or private services. Yet you accept two of them and call the third names.
Great. Thanks.