Hey, you're the one who felt the need to argue with me.
Also, I like how you suddenly stopped refuting my argument, and decided to attack me instead. Could it be that you realized I'm right, hmm?
"OMG! The sky is falling, the sky is falling, someone's LEASING me something instead of selling it to me!"
Oh, this is new!
There's nothing wrong with a lease. However, if it is a lease, then you can't present it as if it were a sale. If it has all the attributes and properties of a sale, then you can't claim that it's really a lease. And Apple's operating system is most certainly sold, not leased.
No, EULA-like contracts are null and void because they don't conform to the requirements set out in the fucking Uniform Commercial Code and other applicable contract law!
That's how copyright actually works in the United States of America according to the Constitution!
And there's a good reason why ideas are not the same as actual, tangible property: if you have actual property, its value to you is lost if you give it away. With an idea, it doesn't have any value until you give it away!
Our morality tells us that giving people jobs, letting them sell their products at a fair market price
Do you realize how stupid that sounds in this context? Copyright is a MONOPOLY. It is explicitly designed to to be the opposite of a "fair market!" What copyright actually is, is a subsidy given to authors in order to artificially increase the number of ideas created. Copyright itself is what's "socialist," Mr. Oh-noes-I'm-scared-of-the-socialist-boogeyman!
By the way, you'd better oppose social security, medicare, welfare, farm subsidies, telecom subsidies, and a whole host of other things, or else you're a dirty hypocrite. (Incidentally, those are all things I oppose, since I am not a socialist.)
Freedom is abolishing copyright and patents entirely, and letting people publish whatever ideas, and make whatever products, they want.
If Apple wants to sell their OS only on Macs, that's the right of all of the individuals proud to call themselves Apple employees.
I agree completely! However, they don't want to sell their OS only on Macs. They also want to sell it by itself. And when I buy a copy that's sold by itself, they have no right whatsoever to dictate what kind of computer I can install it on!
This "government" you speak of was duly elected by yourself
First of all, it was not: all this shit existed before I was old enough to vote. Second, the screwed up, unconstitutional parts of copyright were actually imposed by treaties (e.g. the Berne Convention). Yes, treaties have to be ratified, but it's not the same thing as passing a normal, domestic law because political pressure is applied from external entities.
Don't like it, vote in Socialists.
The socialists are the assholes that came up with the damn Berne Convention and it's "droits d'auteur" bullshit in the first place!
Oh wait, you're probably already planning on voting for Obama.
I was, until he fucked up on telecom immunity. Now I'm likely voting for Bob Barr (the Libertarian candidate). In a sane world I'd be a Republican, but those fuckers are economically liberal and socially conservative, when they're supposed to be economically conservative and socially liberal!
No, because we want to exercise our fundamental right to use our own property! In case your reading comprehension skills were too poor to notice, we're not talking about copyright infringement here! We're talking about using the software you legally purchased in a legal manner, but that is disallowed by an insane, unenforceable EULA.
Do you understand the horrible precedent that would be set if Apple is allowed to get away with this? It undermines the right to own actual, physical property in favor of the nebulous abstract concept of copyright! If you allow this, then what's to stop Ford from partnering with Shell and suing anyone who uses another brand of gasoline? Or Nike suing you for wearing "their" shoes with Addidas socks? Or the builder of your house suing you for changing the paint color? There is nothing whatsoever different about those examples compared to using OS X on non-Apple hardware.
So no, Apple can't impose whatever insane conditions it wants after the sale is complete. And there's a damn good reason for that!
Yes, this heat can be used for things, but its tricky to find a customer for that much heat all of the time.
I wonder if it would make sense to run the leftover heat through a series of heat engines, with each optimized for smaller temperature differentials than the last. E.g., steam turbine -> sterling engine.
Fine, then the software does not require any license to use, any more than a book or a shirt or a lawnmower does.
Because no court has ever agreed with your statement. There has never been a ruling that EULAs are categorically unenforceable
I don't give a shit what the courts have said; I care about what the courts should say based on the fundamental principles of property, copyright, and common sense!
The cashier doesn't care. They're selling you a box. What it contains is immaterial to a merchant.
Ah, good point! I'd forgotten about that; it means that no contract exists between Apple and the buyer at all, and there's even less reason for the license to mean anything!
Exactly. And Apple, being the owner of the copyrights, patents, and trademarks, gets to determine how, when, and to what extent it allows you access to them.
No, it doesn't. It gets to decide what access you get only above and beyond the rights that you already have by law. For example, copyright law does not apply unless and until you make copies. If you don't make a copy, then you haven't violated copyright law. If you haven't violated copyright law, then you don't need any extra permissions that might be conveyed by a license!
In other words, the underlying principle here is that if a holder of copyrights, patents, or trademarks sells you a thing that embodies those monopolies, then they necessarily give you implicit permission to use the thing! Nike cannot sell me a trademarked logo shirt and disallow me from wearing it. Ford cannot sell me a car containing a patented component and disallow me from driving it. Apple cannot sell me a copyrighted piece of software and prevent me from using it! This doesn't require any kind of legal theory; anything else is simply an absurd affront to common sense!
You can do whatever you want with the actual, physical plastic disc.
And I can do whatever I want within the bounds of copyright law with the information on it! If I don't violate copyright law, then I don't need any additional license!
They give you a copy contingent on your using it in accordance with the terms under which they're selling it.
Apple's right to impose terms ended at the point that money was exchanged. The terms in the EULA were not disclosed prior to that point, so they are null and void.
Your blustery argument invalidates the GPL...
Oh, boy. Please tell me you did not just say that, because I'm infinitely weary of explaining this yet again, for the fifty-million and first time!
The argument I'm using to invalidate EULAs is exactly the same as the argument that upholds licenses like the GPL: the GPL actually gives you privileges you did not have before, namely, the ability to modify, copy, and distribute the software without violating copyright law if you meet certain other conditions. This provides the equitable consideration that is missing from EULAs. Furthermore, you are not required to accept the license in order to use the software. You only have to accept it if you want to do something that plain old copyright law otherwise doesn't allow. This means that, unlike EULAs, it does not violate the UCC and is not a contract of adhesion. And if you don't believe me, then read the damn thing:
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. An
It's amazing to me how people want everyone to respect the FOSS license agreements, but refuse to respect Apple's.
Okay, for the fifty-millionth time, there's a difference -- a legal difference, not just a wishful one -- between an end user license like Apple's EULA and a distribution license like the GPL. The former attempts to take away the property rights that you already inherently have, by virtue of the fact that you bought the copy of the software. The latter gives you additional rights that you did not not already have under copyright law.
In other words, FOSS licenses deserve to be respected because they actually provide a benefit to both the licensor and the licensee. EULAs don't. Do you see the difference?
The sale contract is the conveyance of media and its licenses.
The media does not require any "license" to use, any more than a book or a shirt or a lawnmower requires a "license!"
You should review those licenses prior to purchase. The terms don't change. They were there to begin with. You have an opportunity to review before purchase, after purchase but before opening the box, after opening the box but before breaking the seal on the software package, and finally after breaking the seal but prior to using the software. It's unusual to have that many opportunities to back out.
First of all, why should I review the terms when they don't actually matter anyway (as per my previous sentence)? Second, the only situation where I could reasonably be expected to review the terms is if the damn cashier handed them to me and refused to take my money for the software until after I'd read and signed them.
Except that in the case of OS X, the cost is not amortized over the number of units, but predominantly through the sale of Macs.
Once again, Apple's business model is not my problem. The only thing that matters is the terms under which they sell the software, and those terms begin and end with the price unless they want to require me to sign a real contract before the fucking sale is completed!
purchasing one copy does not entitle you to ownership over the entire Ford Focus product
WTF does that mean? Nothing! Why? Because the copy is the product! Nothing more, nothing less! Ford's blueprints are not the product. Ford's trademarks are not the product. The actual physical car, from the body (that happens to be an expression of Ford's design) to the little metal oval on the trunk lid (that happens to be an expression of Ford's trademark) is entirely mine
And it's exactly the same with the software: yes, Apple owns the copyrights and patents and trademarks, but those are not the product! The product is my copy, and I own it!Completely!
You own exactly as much as was offered for sale and no more.
Apple does not have the right to simultaneously claim to be selling me a copy, while also telling me that I'm not allowed to use it. Why the fuck would I buy a thing without expecting to use it?! It's fucking common sense!
My high-school Latin teacher had a saying: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck." Similarly, if it looks like a sale and acts like a sale, then it is a fucking sale!
They most certainly did come with a license.
That's a dirty fucking lie. I'm sure at least some things that I've bought barely had any packaging. And if the only piece of paper you get with the damn thing is the receipt (from the store, not the manufacturer) then there's most certainly not any fucking license!
No they're not. They do it, too.
Liar!
I don't see what land has to do with it.
I didn't say "real estate," I said "real property." That means actual, physical, tangible objects, for which the concept of ownership has existed since people were carving them out of rocks, as opposed to abstract, ephemeral concepts (like copyright or contract law) thought up by lawyers and politicians.
Rant rant rant. Too bad it's just plain, ignorant bullshit.
Yes, I'm also sad that you can't make a non-bullshit argument.
No it doesn't. The entire unit can still be conveyed as a package. DFS challenges are on resale rights, and the case you're relying on made no judgments as to whether the license agreement was binding, but simply that the product purchased can be resold with the sum of its parts, the license being one of them.
Okay, apparently "doctrine of first sale" is the wrong name for what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to say is that one party cannot unilaterally change the terms of the sale contract after the sale has been completed. That's gotta be in the Uniform Commercial Code somewhere -- I mean, it's absurd to think that a person can agree to a contract and then have the terms changed out from under them!
Of course it does. Unless you think that $129 is a fair price for a multimillion dollar product, there's no failure of consideration, and you're the first person deranged enough even to challenge that. Certainly $129 isn't the price of the media.
That's absurd and ridiculous. First of all, it's not a "multimillion dollar product!" It's a $129 product. You can tell, because each instance of the product is $129! Your claim is as stupid as saying that a Ford Focus is a "multi-million dollar product" because that much was put into designing the thing, and ignoring the fact that that cost is amortized over the number of units.
Second, you already own the software, ever since you handed over your money at the store. The act of sale is already done and over with. Because of that, the amount of additional value given by agreeing to the license is precisely zero.
You clicked on 'I agree'
Prove it.
Indeed, without the license, you could not have a legal right to use the software, because beyond the copyright
That's bullshit. The fact that Apple willingly sold it to me gives me that right! Anything else is as absurd as selling me a coat and telling me I'm not allowed to wear it on Tuesdays. That kind of shit doesn't fly with any other product, and there's no reason whatsoever for software to be magically different!
OS X contains patents belonging to Apple and to third parties, and without an express or compulsory license, you can't use the patents at all.
That's absurd, too! My computer hardware didn't come with an EULA. My car didn't come with an EULA. Nothing else I own whatsoever came with an EULA! And you know what? Despite that, I'm sure quite a few of them embody somebody's patents. Therefore, since they didn't need an EULA to license the fucking patents then Apple didn't either! Either Apple provided an implicit -- yet still valid -- patent license by the act of offering the software for sale, or Apple itself violated the patent and did not have the right to sell the software to begin with!
Bottom line: if you and Apple are right in believing an explicit patent license is necessary, then every other manufacturer in the entire world is wrong. And that's pretty fucking unlikely!
They're propping up the essential, fundamental, and omnipresent right to contract freely.
Apple's rights to contract freely end where my real property rights -- specifcally, the right to use the fucking software that I legally purchased -- begin!
See, that's the problem: the fucking lawyers pull weird definitions out of their asses that conflict with the plain language of the shit they write!
Besides, even if what you say were true -- and I'm certainly not conceding that it is -- there's still the matter of the EULA being null and void because it violates the doctrine of first sale, is a contract of adhesion, does not provide equitable consideration to the owner (i.e., the buyer) of the software, and cannot be proven to have been agreed to in the first place!
If they lose the challenge, then Apple will change its business model, since the retail sale of OS X does not even account for 1% of their revenue, and it is the sale of Macs, with their full license, that pays for development. OS X packages are released for Macintosh computers at $129 as an upgrade. That will end if it is ever forced to permit reselling of upgrade packages for white box systems.
Of course, that will never happen, because the discounted upgrade price is a consumer benefit, and no court in its right mind would eliminate that source of low-cost purchasing.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the EULA or the specific terms in it. It should be irrelevant to the court, which has no business whatsoever in propping up Apple's -- or anyone else's -- business model!
Apple is operating under the fair assumption that copyright laws WILL be enforced.
The issue in question is the enforceability of Apple's EULA -- its End User License Agreement. In case that phrase didn't clue you in, an EULA has very little to do with copyright. Why is this? Because otherwise, copyright law would have to apply in the first place. And for copyright to apply, you need -- yep, you guessed it -- copying and distribution to occur! And if the person in question is an "end user," then he's by definition not doing any copying or distributing.
So no, Apple's alleged assumption that copyright laws will be used to enforce its EULA is not "fair." Nor is it reasonable, or moral, or anything else like that!
On the contrary, Apple's (and anybody else's) EULA is nothing more than an attempt to violate the doctrine of first sale and undermine the essential principle of property rights -- and that's real property rights, mind you, not fake created-by-the-government temporary monopolies on things that are rightfully in the Public Domain!
if you don't care about morality...
You want morality?! Here's morality:
All ideas rightfully belong to the Public Domain. They are not property. They are not even slightly like property. The only reason copyright exists in the first place is as a bargain -- a social contract -- by which we lend ideas back from the Public Domain to their creators for what is supposed to be a short while, in hopes that we will get more ideas in the Public Domain later. Copyright (along with patents) is nothing more, and nothing less, than an investment in the Public Domain!
What's immoral are all these corporations and cartels that are trying to take more than their fair share of the bargain, by asserting their "rights" (which are actually not rights at all, but rather temporary monopolies given as privilege at the whim of the government (which, in turn, is supposed to coincide with the whim of the People)) while simultaneously refusing to uphold their responsibilities (e.g. respect for Fair Use, allowing the work to enter the Public Domain, etc.) by sabotaging the works with DRM and EULAs and such!
Apple made the sticker, Apple provided the sticker, the sticker is of Apple's trademarked logo. Obviously, the sticker is intended to be applied by the buyer as Apple's proxy, so that the computer can be "Apple-labeled." Why the fuck else would it be there?
As your phrase is "labeled with an Apple logo", which you're pretending is equivalent to "labeled by Apple" (which IS a valid interpretation of the phrase)
No, I'm fucking NOT pretending those two phrases are equivalent! I am, however, claiming that the phrase "Apple-labeled" -- you know, the ACTUAL FUCKING TEXT IN THE EULA -- is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way.
Indeed, that is a bad car analogy, because buying a car involves a real contract, rather than the Doctrine of First Sale and a useless, unenforceable EULA as is the case here.
Once Apple sells it, it's not "Apple's product" anymore. Instead, it's the buyer's property. I don't understand why it would be so hard to accept that people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own private property. If Apple doesn't like it, then Apple can decide not to sell it!
Sure they could ask for more money for the OS and less for the computers, and then they would probably sell less machines and people would be less willingly to upgrade between releases. You may have liked it better that way, they obviously don't, and it's their product so who are you to decide what they should do with it?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The price Apple chooses to charge has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights the owner has after the product is sold!
Also I don't know if trademark laws would let you call your machine for an Apple one even if you have their sticker on it...
Again, what the fuck? "Apple-labeled" means "Apple-labeled." Nothing more, nothing less. If I stuck one of those stickers on my Thinkpad, then it would become an "Apple-labeled Lenovo Thinkpad." This is not a difficult concept to understand!
And yes, the sticker is Apple's trademark, and Apple provided the damn thing in the box! I'd say that's some pretty strong evidence that Apple intended exactly this -- why else would it provide a sticker of its trademarked logo?
Yeah, but there are some subtleties that make it incorrect. The OO.o one, at least, says something like "you must agree to these terms to use the software" and disables the "forward" button until you scroll to the bottom and/or check the "I agree" checkbox. Instead, it ought to say something like "you may use the software without agreeing to these terms, but they convey additional rights and responsibilities if you choose to modify or distribute it" and not require scrolling or checking the box.
Oh, by the way, here's the relevant portion explaining this concept from the license itself:
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product
That is not even slightly true. There is a fundamental difference between any EULA and a copyright license like the GPL. In fact, the difference is indicated by the name itself: an EULA, or End User License Agreement, is designed to apply to the end user. There is no copying or distribution involved; copyright law does not apply. In contrast, a license like the GPL is a distribution license. It only kicks in when a person tries to perform an act, such as copying or distribution, that would otherwise violate copyright law. You can legally use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL at all; if you perform an act that would require agreeing to the GPL, then that act wasn't mere "use."
Incidentally, this exact issue is explained in the GPL FAQ. To wit:
Can software installers ask people to click to agree to the GPL? If I get some software under the GPL, do I have to agree to anything?
Some software packaging systems have a place which requires you to click through or otherwise indicate assent to the terms of the GPL. This is neither required nor forbidden. With or without a click through, the GPL's rules remain the same.
Merely agreeing to the GPL doesn't place any obligations on you. You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software. If it really bothers you to click through the GPL, nothing stops you from hacking the GPLed software to bypass this.
Incidentally, this means that some software's (e.g. OpenOffice's) practice of presenting the GPL in the installer as if it were an EULA (requiring you to agree to it before continuing the installation) is at best useless, and at worst, dangerously misleading.
But both you and me know that the price for OS X is the same for everyone because it's supposed to be bought by mac users only, and all macs ships with OS X so what you are buying are actually an upgrade more than a complete OS. It just doesn't say it's an update and don't do any checks for a previous version (it do however require you to install the OS on a mac which kind of is proof enough...)
Apple's choice of business model is its problem, not ours!
...it do[sic] however require you to install the OS on a mac...
No it doesn't; it requires you only to install on an "Apple-labeled" computer. Conveniently, Apple includes stickers in the Mac OS retail package, so you can stick an Apple label on whatever computer you want! : )
This (apart from the terminology) is independent of intellectual property rights (or lack thereof). It's a matter of control, which also exists independently of any views about property rights.
You know, I'm speechless. That idea is so wrong, I can barely figure out how to start explaining why!
Don't you realize that property is control, and control is property? What is a property right, if not for the right to control the property? How can you call it property, if you do not control it?
So no, if there is any kind of property right inherent in the creation of a creative work, then copyright is certainly the legal expression of that right. Conversely (or rather, "contrapositively"), if copyright is not a property right (and it isn't), then there is no property right inherent in the creation of a creative work at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you're the one who felt the need to argue with me.
Also, I like how you suddenly stopped refuting my argument, and decided to attack me instead. Could it be that you realized I'm right, hmm?
Oh, this is new!
There's nothing wrong with a lease. However, if it is a lease, then you can't present it as if it were a sale. If it has all the attributes and properties of a sale, then you can't claim that it's really a lease. And Apple's operating system is most certainly sold, not leased.
No, EULA-like contracts are null and void because they don't conform to the requirements set out in the fucking Uniform Commercial Code and other applicable contract law!
That's how copyright actually works in the United States of America according to the Constitution!
And there's a good reason why ideas are not the same as actual, tangible property: if you have actual property, its value to you is lost if you give it away. With an idea, it doesn't have any value until you give it away!
Do you realize how stupid that sounds in this context? Copyright is a MONOPOLY. It is explicitly designed to to be the opposite of a "fair market!" What copyright actually is, is a subsidy given to authors in order to artificially increase the number of ideas created. Copyright itself is what's "socialist," Mr. Oh-noes-I'm-scared-of-the-socialist-boogeyman!
By the way, you'd better oppose social security, medicare, welfare, farm subsidies, telecom subsidies, and a whole host of other things, or else you're a dirty hypocrite. (Incidentally, those are all things I oppose, since I am not a socialist.)
Freedom is abolishing copyright and patents entirely, and letting people publish whatever ideas, and make whatever products, they want.
I agree completely! However, they don't want to sell their OS only on Macs. They also want to sell it by itself. And when I buy a copy that's sold by itself, they have no right whatsoever to dictate what kind of computer I can install it on!
First of all, it was not: all this shit existed before I was old enough to vote. Second, the screwed up, unconstitutional parts of copyright were actually imposed by treaties (e.g. the Berne Convention). Yes, treaties have to be ratified, but it's not the same thing as passing a normal, domestic law because political pressure is applied from external entities.
The socialists are the assholes that came up with the damn Berne Convention and it's "droits d'auteur" bullshit in the first place!
I was, until he fucked up on telecom immunity. Now I'm likely voting for Bob Barr (the Libertarian candidate). In a sane world I'd be a Republican, but those fuckers are economically liberal and socially conservative, when they're supposed to be economically conservative and socially liberal!
No, because we want to exercise our fundamental right to use our own property! In case your reading comprehension skills were too poor to notice, we're not talking about copyright infringement here! We're talking about using the software you legally purchased in a legal manner, but that is disallowed by an insane, unenforceable EULA.
Do you understand the horrible precedent that would be set if Apple is allowed to get away with this? It undermines the right to own actual, physical property in favor of the nebulous abstract concept of copyright! If you allow this, then what's to stop Ford from partnering with Shell and suing anyone who uses another brand of gasoline? Or Nike suing you for wearing "their" shoes with Addidas socks? Or the builder of your house suing you for changing the paint color? There is nothing whatsoever different about those examples compared to using OS X on non-Apple hardware.
So no, Apple can't impose whatever insane conditions it wants after the sale is complete. And there's a damn good reason for that!
You're just resorting to ad-hominem attacks because you have no real refutation for my arguments.
I wonder if it would make sense to run the leftover heat through a series of heat engines, with each optimized for smaller temperature differentials than the last. E.g., steam turbine -> sterling engine.
Fine, then the software does not require any license to use, any more than a book or a shirt or a lawnmower does.
I don't give a shit what the courts have said; I care about what the courts should say based on the fundamental principles of property, copyright, and common sense!
Ah, good point! I'd forgotten about that; it means that no contract exists between Apple and the buyer at all, and there's even less reason for the license to mean anything!
No, it doesn't. It gets to decide what access you get only above and beyond the rights that you already have by law. For example, copyright law does not apply unless and until you make copies. If you don't make a copy, then you haven't violated copyright law. If you haven't violated copyright law, then you don't need any extra permissions that might be conveyed by a license!
In other words, the underlying principle here is that if a holder of copyrights, patents, or trademarks sells you a thing that embodies those monopolies, then they necessarily give you implicit permission to use the thing! Nike cannot sell me a trademarked logo shirt and disallow me from wearing it. Ford cannot sell me a car containing a patented component and disallow me from driving it. Apple cannot sell me a copyrighted piece of software and prevent me from using it! This doesn't require any kind of legal theory; anything else is simply an absurd affront to common sense!
And I can do whatever I want within the bounds of copyright law with the information on it! If I don't violate copyright law, then I don't need any additional license!
Apple's right to impose terms ended at the point that money was exchanged. The terms in the EULA were not disclosed prior to that point, so they are null and void.
Oh, boy. Please tell me you did not just say that, because I'm infinitely weary of explaining this yet again, for the fifty-million and first time!
The argument I'm using to invalidate EULAs is exactly the same as the argument that upholds licenses like the GPL: the GPL actually gives you privileges you did not have before, namely, the ability to modify, copy, and distribute the software without violating copyright law if you meet certain other conditions. This provides the equitable consideration that is missing from EULAs. Furthermore, you are not required to accept the license in order to use the software. You only have to accept it if you want to do something that plain old copyright law otherwise doesn't allow. This means that, unlike EULAs, it does not violate the UCC and is not a contract of adhesion. And if you don't believe me, then read the damn thing:
Okay, for the fifty-millionth time, there's a difference -- a legal difference, not just a wishful one -- between an end user license like Apple's EULA and a distribution license like the GPL. The former attempts to take away the property rights that you already inherently have, by virtue of the fact that you bought the copy of the software. The latter gives you additional rights that you did not not already have under copyright law.
In other words, FOSS licenses deserve to be respected because they actually provide a benefit to both the licensor and the licensee. EULAs don't. Do you see the difference?
The media does not require any "license" to use, any more than a book or a shirt or a lawnmower requires a "license!"
First of all, why should I review the terms when they don't actually matter anyway (as per my previous sentence)? Second, the only situation where I could reasonably be expected to review the terms is if the damn cashier handed them to me and refused to take my money for the software until after I'd read and signed them.
Once again, Apple's business model is not my problem. The only thing that matters is the terms under which they sell the software, and those terms begin and end with the price unless they want to require me to sign a real contract before the fucking sale is completed!
WTF does that mean? Nothing! Why? Because the copy is the product! Nothing more, nothing less! Ford's blueprints are not the product. Ford's trademarks are not the product. The actual physical car, from the body (that happens to be an expression of Ford's design) to the little metal oval on the trunk lid (that happens to be an expression of Ford's trademark) is entirely mine
And it's exactly the same with the software: yes, Apple owns the copyrights and patents and trademarks, but those are not the product! The product is my copy, and I own it! Completely!
Apple does not have the right to simultaneously claim to be selling me a copy, while also telling me that I'm not allowed to use it. Why the fuck would I buy a thing without expecting to use it?! It's fucking common sense!
My high-school Latin teacher had a saying: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck." Similarly, if it looks like a sale and acts like a sale, then it is a fucking sale!
That's a dirty fucking lie. I'm sure at least some things that I've bought barely had any packaging. And if the only piece of paper you get with the damn thing is the receipt (from the store, not the manufacturer) then there's most certainly not any fucking license!
Liar!
I didn't say "real estate," I said "real property." That means actual, physical, tangible objects, for which the concept of ownership has existed since people were carving them out of rocks, as opposed to abstract, ephemeral concepts (like copyright or contract law) thought up by lawyers and politicians.
Yes, I'm also sad that you can't make a non-bullshit argument.
Okay, apparently "doctrine of first sale" is the wrong name for what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to say is that one party cannot unilaterally change the terms of the sale contract after the sale has been completed. That's gotta be in the Uniform Commercial Code somewhere -- I mean, it's absurd to think that a person can agree to a contract and then have the terms changed out from under them!
That's absurd and ridiculous. First of all, it's not a "multimillion dollar product!" It's a $129 product. You can tell, because each instance of the product is $129! Your claim is as stupid as saying that a Ford Focus is a "multi-million dollar product" because that much was put into designing the thing, and ignoring the fact that that cost is amortized over the number of units.
Second, you already own the software, ever since you handed over your money at the store. The act of sale is already done and over with. Because of that, the amount of additional value given by agreeing to the license is precisely zero.
Prove it.
That's bullshit. The fact that Apple willingly sold it to me gives me that right! Anything else is as absurd as selling me a coat and telling me I'm not allowed to wear it on Tuesdays. That kind of shit doesn't fly with any other product, and there's no reason whatsoever for software to be magically different!
That's absurd, too! My computer hardware didn't come with an EULA. My car didn't come with an EULA. Nothing else I own whatsoever came with an EULA! And you know what? Despite that, I'm sure quite a few of them embody somebody's patents. Therefore, since they didn't need an EULA to license the fucking patents then Apple didn't either! Either Apple provided an implicit -- yet still valid -- patent license by the act of offering the software for sale, or Apple itself violated the patent and did not have the right to sell the software to begin with!
Bottom line: if you and Apple are right in believing an explicit patent license is necessary, then every other manufacturer in the entire world is wrong. And that's pretty fucking unlikely!
Apple's rights to contract freely end where my real property rights -- specifcally, the right to use the fucking software that I legally purchased -- begin!
See, that's the problem: the fucking lawyers pull weird definitions out of their asses that conflict with the plain language of the shit they write!
Besides, even if what you say were true -- and I'm certainly not conceding that it is -- there's still the matter of the EULA being null and void because it violates the doctrine of first sale, is a contract of adhesion, does not provide equitable consideration to the owner (i.e., the buyer) of the software, and cannot be proven to have been agreed to in the first place!
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the EULA or the specific terms in it. It should be irrelevant to the court, which has no business whatsoever in propping up Apple's -- or anyone else's -- business model!
The issue in question is the enforceability of Apple's EULA -- its End User License Agreement. In case that phrase didn't clue you in, an EULA has very little to do with copyright. Why is this? Because otherwise, copyright law would have to apply in the first place. And for copyright to apply, you need -- yep, you guessed it -- copying and distribution to occur! And if the person in question is an "end user," then he's by definition not doing any copying or distributing.
So no, Apple's alleged assumption that copyright laws will be used to enforce its EULA is not "fair." Nor is it reasonable, or moral, or anything else like that!
On the contrary, Apple's (and anybody else's) EULA is nothing more than an attempt to violate the doctrine of first sale and undermine the essential principle of property rights -- and that's real property rights, mind you, not fake created-by-the-government temporary monopolies on things that are rightfully in the Public Domain!
You want morality?! Here's morality:
All ideas rightfully belong to the Public Domain. They are not property. They are not even slightly like property. The only reason copyright exists in the first place is as a bargain -- a social contract -- by which we lend ideas back from the Public Domain to their creators for what is supposed to be a short while, in hopes that we will get more ideas in the Public Domain later. Copyright (along with patents) is nothing more, and nothing less, than an investment in the Public Domain!
What's immoral are all these corporations and cartels that are trying to take more than their fair share of the bargain, by asserting their "rights" (which are actually not rights at all, but rather temporary monopolies given as privilege at the whim of the government (which, in turn, is supposed to coincide with the whim of the People)) while simultaneously refusing to uphold their responsibilities (e.g. respect for Fair Use, allowing the work to enter the Public Domain, etc.) by sabotaging the works with DRM and EULAs and such!
Okay, so your opinion is the same as Locke's. Duly noted. Did you have anything actually interesting to say?
Apple made the sticker, Apple provided the sticker, the sticker is of Apple's trademarked logo. Obviously, the sticker is intended to be applied by the buyer as Apple's proxy, so that the computer can be "Apple-labeled." Why the fuck else would it be there?
No, I'm fucking NOT pretending those two phrases are equivalent! I am, however, claiming that the phrase "Apple-labeled" -- you know, the ACTUAL FUCKING TEXT IN THE EULA -- is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way.
Indeed, that is a bad car analogy, because buying a car involves a real contract, rather than the Doctrine of First Sale and a useless, unenforceable EULA as is the case here.
Once Apple sells it, it's not "Apple's product" anymore. Instead, it's the buyer's property. I don't understand why it would be so hard to accept that people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own private property. If Apple doesn't like it, then Apple can decide not to sell it!
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The price Apple chooses to charge has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights the owner has after the product is sold!
Again, what the fuck? "Apple-labeled" means "Apple-labeled." Nothing more, nothing less. If I stuck one of those stickers on my Thinkpad, then it would become an "Apple-labeled Lenovo Thinkpad." This is not a difficult concept to understand!
And yes, the sticker is Apple's trademark, and Apple provided the damn thing in the box! I'd say that's some pretty strong evidence that Apple intended exactly this -- why else would it provide a sticker of its trademarked logo?
And the provided stickers are of Apple's trademark!
Yeah, but there are some subtleties that make it incorrect. The OO.o one, at least, says something like "you must agree to these terms to use the software" and disables the "forward" button until you scroll to the bottom and/or check the "I agree" checkbox. Instead, it ought to say something like "you may use the software without agreeing to these terms, but they convey additional rights and responsibilities if you choose to modify or distribute it" and not require scrolling or checking the box.
Isn't it? Think about it for a second: why else would Apple include those stickers? Microsoft sure doesn't...
On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase.
Besides, if you're using a sticker from the box, then Apple did make the label.
Oh, by the way, here's the relevant portion explaining this concept from the license itself:
That is not even slightly true. There is a fundamental difference between any EULA and a copyright license like the GPL. In fact, the difference is indicated by the name itself: an EULA, or End User License Agreement, is designed to apply to the end user. There is no copying or distribution involved; copyright law does not apply. In contrast, a license like the GPL is a distribution license. It only kicks in when a person tries to perform an act, such as copying or distribution, that would otherwise violate copyright law. You can legally use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL at all; if you perform an act that would require agreeing to the GPL, then that act wasn't mere "use."
Incidentally, this exact issue is explained in the GPL FAQ. To wit:
Incidentally, this means that some software's (e.g. OpenOffice's) practice of presenting the GPL in the installer as if it were an EULA (requiring you to agree to it before continuing the installation) is at best useless, and at worst, dangerously misleading.
Apple's choice of business model is its problem, not ours!
No it doesn't; it requires you only to install on an "Apple-labeled" computer. Conveniently, Apple includes stickers in the Mac OS retail package, so you can stick an Apple label on whatever computer you want! : )
Your reasoning is good, but you blamed the wrong boogeymen; the correct answer in this particular case is racism.
You know, I'm speechless. That idea is so wrong, I can barely figure out how to start explaining why!
Don't you realize that property is control, and control is property? What is a property right, if not for the right to control the property? How can you call it property, if you do not control it?
So no, if there is any kind of property right inherent in the creation of a creative work, then copyright is certainly the legal expression of that right. Conversely (or rather, "contrapositively"), if copyright is not a property right (and it isn't), then there is no property right inherent in the creation of a creative work at all.