Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who Needs Windows on A Mac When I'm Gonna Run Mac On A Windows?
- Thread starter tanktowns56
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The same could be said about Microsoft and their EULA.
This argument is so stale and pathetic. If Apple/Microsoft/whoever wanted to enforce their EULA I'd like to see you and your lawyer use that as a defense. Let us know how that goes.
Judge - "You willingly violated the End User License Agreement that you agreed to by clicking the agree button to continue"
Defendant - "Who reads those things anyway, besides your honor, Apple doesn't make the laws in this land"
Judge - "Your right, but the 'violation of XXXXXX' is a law that EULA's fall under and you broke that law regardless of who wrote the EULA"
How bout this one:
Judge - "You knowingly broke into this store knowing the sign on the outside said 'We will prosecute tresspassers' and continued to enter the establishment?"
Defendant - "Yes your honor but they don't make the laws"
All some are pointing out is it's against the EULA which is technically illegal regardless of how sketchy EULA's are. It's a contractual agreement between you and the company. In order to continue you have to "AGREE" to it, which in essence binds you to that contract. Violating that contract is what's actually in question. Is "AGREEING" to the contract via the agree button enough to make it legal. In essence a 'digital signature' of sorts (which digital signatures are legal in most states) to which you would be bound to honor that contract. That's where the 'LAW' come into play is breach of contract. Which is suable. The EULA Apple/Microsoft writes isn't the law, but breach of contract is but in EULA's it's sketchy as all get out. To date there really hasn't been much enforcement on EULA's on end users.
Whats the point of running OS X in a virtual machine? Its not like Windows where it has useful exclusive programs. Just install it on another partition and run it natively, it would be a lot faster and actually useful.
Id like to see Apple/Microsoft actually try... Its not going to happen
Here's the kicker though.....I'm 17 so frak their EULAs because I can't actually enter into a binding contractual agreement until August 27th.
It's not illegal until a judge rules on the legality of the issue, or if you violate a specific law. For the most part, EULAs have been largely untested. EULAs generally cover the basic copyright infringement (like "sharing" copies of their OS over the internet, or even cracking anti-pirating methods). But things like the licensing (OEM licensing, volume licensing, retail licensing), has never been tested in a court of law. So saying things like, putting Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer is illegal is not true. Just because you break the already sketchy legality of an EULA, which I'm sure any good lawyer can tear apart by making claims that it violates the users rights, doesn't mean you're breaking the law. There's a reason why Apple and MS haven't bothered to take it to court yet. Not because it's difficult to prove, but rather, if they take it to court, they risk the entire legality of an EULA.
Even though the EULA has been untested, there are still people, like yourself, who will follow the EULA. If the EULA gets thrown out the window, that means those who followed the EULA, despite there being no legal standing on the legality of the EULA, would more than likely, feel no obligation to follow it. Losing the obedience of people who follow the EULA without question is arguably more harmful than letting those who violate it slip under the microscope.
Here is how I view a EULA.
It's like putting a sticker on a vacuum cleaner that says "Intended for carpets only." Are you breaking the law if you use it on hardwood floors? In the eyes of the law that EULA is nothing more than that sticker on a vacuum cleaner.
The most companies like Apple and MS can do make it difficult of people who violate the EULA, and they are. I believe people who run hacked versions of Mac OS X don't get software updates. People who run cracked versions of MS generally don't get updates either. They can also send nasty letters. But more than likely, they'll still just let it go.
trespassing is a law....
violating a eula is not a criminal offense nor is it a law. it is a END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
then you have the whole issue of fair use
what if apple said in the EULA from songs bought by itunes, you are allowed to only listen to it in one location and cant move it around...so only computer and not car stereo etc. would it be illegal because the eula says so or would fair use say override that and nullify that eula agreement?
i love this quote
does more to support my argument than yours
Two things to note:
1) OS X running in OSx86 shell WILL break. Psystar is very blunt about this on their website. The x86 community will fix those breaks ASAP, but anyone who's interested in this as more than a science project should step carefully.
2) Running OS X in a virtual machine is a violation of the EULA, but most definitely not illegal. AFAIK, nobody has established the legal enforceability of a EULA's terms. (Piracy, etc. IS covered, but not under the EULA.)
The one thing that's frequently enforced is vendors turning off software that they believe is operating outside the terms of the EULA. MSFT is most famous for this, but Adobe's right up there with 'em.
Me, I think this is a perfectly-scaled response to the threat -- not using my software the right way? Then you can't use it anymore.
Apple could have gone after the OSx86-ers years ago. This is nothing new. They've certainly looked the other way at hacking iPhone apps. Unlocking the network is another story of course...and is governed by non-EULA terms as well.
Not disagreeing that there's a karmic price to pay for not keeping your word, and definitely a fan of vendors turning off software as needed....but illegal, no.
Um, I hate to bust your high on this one but you are dead wrong. In the U.S you get licensed to drive a car at 16 years old. You are agreeing to the terms of the license agreement and if you disobey the terms you could lose your license and driving privilege. You are not signing a contract to have a drivers license but you are agreeing to the legal terms of the license.
Remember it's a privilege to drive a car and you are being granted a license to do so. You don't have a "right" to run software on your computer, you are being granted a licensed to do so.
Same goes for software licensing, you don't have to be 18 to abide by the software license terms and conditions. It doesn't have to be contractual for you to agree to the license terms, you can still be sued for violating it and if you are under 18 your parents can be sued so don't think you are exempt because you are minor.
