Are Hackintoshes Illegal?

@UrbandBard,  When I said you can unlawfully record TV, I also said the TV stations openly allow it, and have even allowed programming codes to be published in TV guides.

This despite it being blatantly illegal.

You’re right. We don’t have a right to record TV, nor breach the OS X EULA.

But (like the TV guide publishers) I am going to encourage people to build hackintoshes because Apple - just like the TV stations - seems quite happy to let it pass, provided - again like the TV stations - it is for personal use.

(If you tried using a hackintosh in the enterprise, Apple would have you drawn and quartered. Likewise, if you tried selling hackintoshes - as Pystar is finding out.)

Apple appears to be deliberately leaving the personal use guys alone. They haven’t even gone after the sites that promote breaching the EULA, such as hackint0sh.org and InsanelyMac.

I’m happy if you can provide sufficent evidence to the contrary.

And yes, you’re very right. If Apple does include some sort of DRM in Snow Leopard, I’ll look a right fool. (I doubt it though after Steve’s letter to the world about being against DRM on music.)

BTW Reading your last couple of posts, your main issue seems to be about me encouraging illegal behaviour. For that WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ME, you say I have no integrity or morality.

On that, you are seriously wrong. And as that is a personal attack, it totally undermines your own integrity and the integrity of your argument. (I’m not saying it means you have no integrity, just merely makes people question it.)

I’m happy for you to say me encouraging this unlawful behaviour questions my integrity, but to say I (or anyone else defending breaching the EULA) therefore have *none*? Pfft! It just reflects badly on you and your argument.

Chris Howard said:
“@UrbandBard,
When I said you can unlawfully record TV, I also said the TV stations openly allow it, and have even allowed programming codes to be published in TV guides.
This despite it being blatantly illegal.
You’re right. We don’t have a right to record TV, nor breach the OS X EULA.”

I believe the case is not as clear as you say regarding the recording of TV signals, since the US courts have allowed some “Fair Use” provisions.

As I said, a support network can spring up around an illegal or questionable activity. That support network does not justify the activity. This would not be a good analogy though. You must use an OS in its entirety against the wishes of the owner of the Operating System.

“Apple appears to be deliberately leaving the personal use guys alone. They haven’t even gone after the sites that promote breaching the EULA, such as hackint0sh.org and InsanelyMac.”

That is Apple’s choice. This leniency may be temporary. I was merely replying to false arguments.

“And yes, you’re very right. If Apple does include some sort of DRM in Snow Leopard, I’ll look a right fool. (I doubt it though after Steve’s letter to the world about being against DRM on music.)”

I still don’t know why you think it would be wrong of Apple to defend itself and its property from misuse. Most people are honest; they don’t want to steal music. Most have no interest in stealing software. But, there is a moral question here.

I merely objected to the tiny portion who think is permissible to steal software so long as they are unlikely to be punished for it. I questioned the practice of defending thieves and hypocrites.

“BTW Reading your last couple of posts, your main issue seems to be about me encouraging illegal behavior.”

If the shoe fits wear it. If you are not defending the rights of the hackers to steal software, then don’t.

Your attitude seemed mixed. You kept supplying arguments which excused the practice without directly encouraging it. You said that Apple was foolish to disagree with hackers misusing its OS. You made the argument that Hackintoshes were in Apple’s interest. I merely said that this was not your decision to make.

“For that WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ME, you say I have no integrity or morality.”

You are caught on the crux of your ambiguity. I made a general statement that people defending the right of others to steal have no integrity or morality. You then applied that statement to yourself. You want to be offended at me, when you are not being honest with yourself. I did not demean you, you demeaned you. Therefore, it is not a personal attack.

A personal attack demeans you as a person. I merely disputed your actions. If you were innocent, then you would be falling all over yourself denying that you were giving the hackers cover. Your taking offense says that you have chosen sides with them. Fine, then drop the hypocrisy. Accept the label of scofflaw.

“I’m happy for you to say me encouraging this unlawful behavior questions my integrity, but to say I (or anyone else defending breaching the EULA) therefore have *none*? Pfft! It just reflects badly on you and your argument.”

Mostly, your problem is an inability to think clearly. Your many arguments place you on the side of the hackers. Why not proudly accept that? The problem is the hypocrisy of trying to defend both sides while secretly being with the hackers.

It’s simple morality, jacknerd. You may not understand such complex topics. It’s about respecting other people’s rights and keeping the promises you made when you opened the box and installed the software.

The Multi-cultural Leftists are all into power. If you have the power to get away with something, then who is to deny you? “Why should there be ramifications, “they would say?

Of course, there are always ramifications. When you treat people as though they are the enemy and violate their property rights, then they take evasive action. They fight back. And it doesn’t matter if you pout and declare, “They have no right!”

I’m not saying that you are a Liberal Fascist or a crypto-communist, but I could scarcely tell the difference from your words. Linux socialists sound about the same. They hate commercial software, but they sure love to exploit another person’s efforts.

“@UrbanBard,
Another scenario, I owned a Miata.  I looked into putting a Ford 5.0L V8 motor in it. Would it be in Ford’s rights to say I couldn’t buy a motor from them and drop it in a car that wasn’t a Ford?  Even if Ford had a EULA attached to the motor?  This was tried in the 50’s by Ford and GM.  Courts shot them down.  So why is it different for software?  “

The point that the courts shot down was that you could not be bound to a dealership, when it was a generic part.

So, how is the software different? The Mac OS is not a generic part. It is a specific and integral part of the Mac experience. If you want to install Window or Linux on a Mac then go ahead. Apple has given you permission to do so. But, you need to buy a license from Microsoft to use its OS.

The PC hardware manufacturer had no right to install Mac OS on generic PC hardware and neither do you. Apple gives you no such permission when you purchase a license and expressly forbids using non Apple hardware.

“As long as I’m buying that copy of OS X, it is mine, not Apple’s. “

Sorry, you never bought a copy of OSX. You purchased a license to use OSX under certain conditions which you want to violate. If I can’t press onto you this distinction, then there is no point in talking to you. You would have shown yourself to be an amoral person—a scofflaw.

“I have the right to do with it as I please. “

Not so. The only way to do anything you please with it is to break you promises. If promises are worthless to you, then you are acting like a barbarian. Or a spoiled brat.

“It’s my copy.  If I want to use it to power a toaster, it’s my right.  EULA’s are useless and lawless, especially those that come inside the packaging yet tell you by opening the package, you accept the rules of the EULA.  How can you accept it?  You had to open the package to even read it. “

If you can’t abide with the conditions, then take it back to the store. Get your money back.  Don’t install it on your machine if you can’t agree to the conditions.

You want to have it both ways—to break your promises and use the software. Then, you use specious logic to justify your immoral behavior. I’m not buying it.

If you can’t keep your promises then you need to grow up a bit. It doesn’t matter what your age is. You could be 80 years old and be untrustworthy.

“I guess we just have different opinions on what constitutes property.  “

Yes, you want to misuse people then use sophistry to excuse yourself. I don’t.

“You believe that DVD you purchase belongs to Apple.  I believe that DVD that I purchase belongs to me.”

No, you own the DVD. You could sell it to someone else. But they would be bound by the same conditions that you are. You own the DVD, but you don’t own the information inside it. All you have is a license to use the OS under Apple’s conditions.

I keep wondering if you understand plain English. But, it’s more than that, isn’t it?  Your problem is that you want to make Apple’s decisions, for them. You don’t believe that Apple has a right to protect itself from you. It does.

If enough of you Linux hackers steal Apple’s software, then Apple will take action to take you down. Very soon, it will have the software in place in Snow Leopard which will allow them to do that.

UrbanBard said: “If enough of you Linux hackers steal Apple’s software, then Apple will take action to take you down. Very soon, it will have the software in place in Snow Leopard which will allow them to do that.”

FUD

It’s reasonable of you to be against me promoting hackintoshes, but to suggest the above is just scaremongering. If Apple really was worried about hackintoshes, it would issue cease and desist letters against hackint0sh.org, InsanelyMac and even Apple Matters.

But I’ll say no more on that, because I will write about it next week in a piece about why Apple likes hackintoshes.

Chris

“The video recorder meant the “fair use” clause had to be added.”

Please do some homework. Start at wikipedia. Video isn’t the reason, it’s much older, part of common law for a long time.

But do you really want to bark up that tree? IMHO EULA as unenforceable, as contract agreed to under duress, or as monopolistic in effect, all have more merit than fair use. Fair use is about research, teaching (and no educational system that I know of has tried to use any OS claiming fair use) criticism, reporting and satire. Even if I could claim one of those categories for my laptop, I wouldn’t because I use it for personal (therefore not Fair Use) uses.

And yes, personally I still believe it is illegal and unethical to break the EULA.

David

Jacknerd said:
“@UrbanBard,
Its a shame you love OS X so much considering how much leftist socialist software is included in it.  FreeBSD, Apache, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, Sqlite, traceroute, whois, curl, etc.  I could go on and on, but I don’t want to upset you knowing that your beloved OS contains a lot of socialist software.  “

I neither love Mac OSX or hate Open Source. I’m discussing moral issues, here.

People have a right to be generous and community minded. Much of science and technology is built on the foundations laid by great minds who then contributed their developments for others to use.

The only thing wrong the Linux Socialists is that they expect to continue controlling something after they give it away. They often have an antipathy to companies and capitalism. They expect that companies have no right to build on what they have created. And yet, the various open source licenses allows those companies to do so. It is in the FOSS community’s interest for them to do so.  Almost all old proprietary Software is, eventually, given to the community.

Apple’s Unix foundations are under GPL and BSD licenses. Apple uses a GPL license when it intends to give back to the community and a BSD license for the software that it expects to keep proprietary.

Unix is not Open Source; it has been in existence for 35 years and started off as AT&T;‘s property. BSD is older than Linux and most of Apple’s code is based on it. The Linux Socialists have contributed little to Apple. But, they want to take credit for everything.

Nor should you think that Apple had no part in shaping those technologies that you listed. The World Wide Web was developed on a NeXT computer in Switzerland. And Apple has contributed greatly to Open Source, although, it is up to Apple to decide what should remain proprietary.

It is good for the Free & Open Source Software Community to have a huge commercial company like Apple involved in Open Source development. It extends the Unix base. It gives Linux users a desktop and applications to do common functions without having to put up with Microsoft Windows. Besides, Apple makes cute hardware. Lots of Linux users buy it. It is a win-win situation.

“You should be really thinking the open source movement, because without it, OS X would cease to exist in its current form, and Microsoft would control the Internet.”

This is a mutual endeavor. Where the FOSS community is in error is in thinking that THEY control Open Source when no one controls Open Source. Everyone can take from it and give back according to the various licenses.

Again, my part in this discussion is in disputing a supposed right to steal and misuse Apple’s proprietary software.

You have no idea how many discussions I’ve had with FOSS people who think that Apple is ripping them off— stealing their software. That is, taking from Open Source and not giving anything back. This is untrue: Apple is likely the largest single contributor to Open Source followed by the Universities. Moreover, Apple does the grungy coding that is too unsexy to capture a volunteer’s interest.

So far as I see, Apple abides with its licenses. All I’m asking for is some moral consistency, here. You don’t like the idea of Apple ripping off Open Source, but think it’s okay to violate Apple’s license? Phooey.

David,

The concept of “fair use” goes back to using excerpts of novels or plays as a means to critique them in newspapers and magazines. Part of the idea is that the author gained benefits from having his works exposed to the public, although he lost a tiny portion of the control over his property.

But, taking an author’s work and publishing it in its entirety is stealing. An operating system has to be used in its entirety, so that is stealing, too.

David said:

“ IMHO EULA as unenforceable, as contract agreed to under duress, or as monopolistic in effect, all have more merit than fair use.”

What duress is there? All contracts demand that the parties which gain benefits, must also comply with conditions. Money is only part of it. No one compels you to place the Mac OS on PC hardware. That is your choice. And you must break your word to do it.

Nor is it monopolistic. You are allowed to use other software. You can use Linux or Windows if you comply with their conditions. Or write your own OS. No one is keeping you from doing that.

Besides, it is not against the law, in America, to have a monopoly. You simply can’t use a monopoly for extortionate means. But, it is the extortionate means—higher prices and poorer services—which prompts people to go into competition with you. Every monopoly, which is not backed with governmental force, fails eventually.

Whether a contract is enforceable depends on the courts. In free market conditions, a EULA would be strictly enforced because it is voluntary. Under a communist society, no contracts are enforced, because the government can set them aside at will.

We, in America, live in a semi-Fascistic society where it varies depending upon whoever is in power. The Democrat Party tends to be anti-property and thus, anti-contract.

“Fair use is about research, teaching (and no educational system that I know of has tried to use any OS claiming fair use) criticism, reporting and satire. Even if I could claim one of those categories for my laptop, I wouldn’t because I use it for personal (therefore not Fair Use) uses.
And yes, personally I still believe it is illegal and unethical to break the EULA.”

That is all that I’ve said.