Clearly, you do not believe in consumer rights or 'fair use'
Oh please. This has nothing to do with either. Consumers absolutely have rights. Not among them, however, is the right to take for themselves what was not offered for sale.
As I said, consumers now have less rights with software than they do solid concrete hardware in this country, which is just patently absurd.
They do not. Such generalizations are what is patently absurd. Consumers have exactly what they buy, and as regards IP ownership, consumers have exactly the same rights.
Like I said, it's a lesser crime for me to steal a DVD than to make a backup copy of it!
You're not talking about backups at all throughout any of this, and it's not a lesser crime. It has substantially lesser economic consequences, however.
You do not support the rights of citizens but the rights of the few (namely the rich) to control the actions of citizens.
Stop making this about the "rich" and the "citizens". It's moronic. The "rights of the citizens" include the right to determine what you're willing to sell, and at what price you're willing to sell it. If you sell a car part at a garage sale, I imagine you'd be pretty upset if the buyer showed up the next day and took your whole car.
It doesn't have anything to do with the rich, or corporations, or anything else that might be rattling around in your head. A person, of any degree of wealth or incorporation, has a right to sell however much or little of what he owns. What's despicable is listening to repeated boneheaded arguments that it's a consumer rights issue to seize more than was sold.
When you sell a product in a country, you abide by their market rules.
Apparently not to you. The market rules in this country are that the owner may choose to sell what he pleases to whom he pleases. The buyer may accept the terms or may elect not to buy.
Please explain how purchasing a legitimate copy of OS X is 'screwing' Apple.
The product is offered at a price, cognizant of its limitations. That price is lower than it would be without those restrictions. Ignoring the restrictions while enjoying the benefit of the lower price is not fair competition economically, it's not legal contractually, and it's not authorized by copyright.
This idea that Apple is somehow ENTITLED to a monopoly on hardware for their computer operating system is based on what?
Their ownership of their computer operating system.
The idea that in a free society that a corporation should be allowed to dictate how and what you can do with something you purchase?
They're not dictating what you can do with what you purchase. They're dictating what you can do with what you
don't own and they're allowing you to use.
No.
But the case here is absolutely different. Psystar did not steal any software. They're giving you Leopard bought from Apple without charging you a single penny more of its price (so they don't make money with other people's work, but Apple is the one making money with it).
No. They make money by encouraging and materially contributing to copyright infringement. They make money solely by piggybacking off Apple's expenditures and investments in the development and marketing of OS X--without contributing anything back. They take advantage of a price offered to specific customers on a conditional basis in order to keep their costs down.
All of that is stealing in its myriad forms, from unjust enrichment to copyright infringement. Commission of larceny is not the definition of stealing.
In other words, if I legally buy Leopard, can really Apple tell me (with any legal value) where to install it?.
This really isn't rocket science. You haven't bought anything legally if you ignore its terms. If I sell you a piece of land only if you agree not to build higher than two stories, and you ignore that, you will be liable. If I offer a product for teachers only, and you buy but aren't a teacher, you will be liable. This is no different.
last i checked, this is not a professional setting and i intentiaonally choose not to write in a professional manner...get it? good thought so
No.
seriously, as i said, some cases have proven its not enforceable.
No. Some provisions are not enforceable in some license agreements. Just like some provisions in some contracts are not enforceable. How you make the colossally ignorant leap from there to "SLAs are not enforceable" boggles the mind. That's tantamount to saying that all contracts are not legally binding because some of them are overturned in court.
also, im not a child so once again get off your high horse and grow up
Then please, for the love of Aisha, talk like an adult.
Who said anything about theft?
if apple does not want people to BUY their software, then they shouldnt sell it in the open at places like best buy.
Buying the software isn't the issue. The issue is people acting like they've bought more than they have.
