The EULA and you.

[Master Chief]

Because we PURCHASE software, there are no restrictions on what we can do with software, unless we agree afterwards on additional restrictions (a EULA).

Err... you do not purchase software but its license, this to use the software bound to that license.

 

Any time in court, where any individuals have been shown to have been bound (agreed to) to a EULA, the EULA has been upheld as a lawfully binding contract.

The Apple EULA is a so called silent agreement, and available on their website. Anyone using their software agrees, silently, to have agreed to the Apple EULA, or otherwise to return the package / software. Using the software, without having seen the EULA is a statement of bad ownership, making you breach the silent agreement.

 

In the second example, you purchase Mac OS X Leopard, remaster your installation disc, removing the confirmation prompt for the license agreement...

Here it stops already, simply because you are not allowed, legally, to alter the media and/or to reverse engineer the content on said media (because of copyrights).

 

Please, talk to a lawyer who knows EULA's because most of what you wrote here is complete and utterly BS (no offense).

[V Plamondon]

Err... you do not purchase software but its license, this to use the software bound to that license.

 

Labeling something as a license does not make it so. When you purchase merchandise, the purchase contract (offer, acceptance, and consideration) is completed and no other terms and conditions apply unless some circumstance changes that.

 

The Apple EULA is a so called silent agreement, and available on their website. Anyone using their software agrees, silently, to have agreed to the Apple EULA, or otherwise to return the package / software. Using the software, without having seen the EULA is a statement of bad ownership, making you breach the silent agreement.

 

The Mac OS X packaging does not indicate that additional terms and conditions apply, and therefore are not part of the initial purchase contract. Knowledge of a EULA does not constitute agreement to a EULA unless by the users action they accept the EULA.

 

Inclusion of EULA's have been upheld in court, because the relevant products in question clearly marked on their packaging that additional terms and conditions apply (the EULA), effectively making use of the product equivalent to agreeing to the EULA.

 

Since Mac OS X's packaging does not conform to that standard, Apple Inc. would not be able to rely on that precedent, and the burden of proof would be upon them to show how the license agreement applies to the user in question.

 

Here it stops already, simply because you are not allowed, legally, to alter the media and/or to reverse engineer the content on said media

 

Because I am not bound by the Apple Software License Agreement, I can freely alter the media and/or to reverse engineer the content on said media.

 

Please, talk to a lawyer or someone like me (the Apple antitrust petition guy) who knows EULA's because most of what you wrote here is complete and utterly BS (no offense).

 

No offense, but if the Apple EULA people knew what they were doing, Apple would not have the Psystar Corporation situation.

 

Additionally, because I have stepped forward to identify myself to Apple Inc.'s lawyers in the Apple Inc. vs. Psystar Corporation litigation as one of the unidentified "John Does", I am figuratively putting my money where my mouth is.

[Master Chief]

I have spoken with two law executives and you are fine, as long as you're using the original retail box - simply because the EULA is void, at least here in Europe, because it is inside the retail box. It doesn't even matter if Apple puts some text on the box referring to the enclosed EULA, because that wouldn't help them either.

 

However, modifying the code on the media (DVD) is a copyright crime in Europe, and most likely elsewhere simply because you may not modify software without the copyright holder's permission - even without being bound to Apple's EULA.

 

Note: Apple could simply close this legal loophole; by letting you sign the EULA when you buy the retail box - that would be the end of story.

 

P.s. I'm not talking about downloaded OS X torrents, because these are always illegal.

[V Plamondon]

The kernel is released under the APSL, so everyone already has permission from Apple to modify the kernel, one of the key component when it comes to getting OS X to run on non-apple computers.

 

The other method of getting OS X to run on non-apple computers is EFI emulation, which allows unmodified code to run on compatible non-apple systems.

 

Additionally, most jurisdictions allow reverse engineering to create compatible software, unless someone has contractually agreed not do so.

 

I have spoken with some law executives and we are fine, as long as we're using the original retail box - simply because the EULA is void, at least here in Europe, because it is inside the retail box. It doesn't even matter if you put text on the box referring to the enclosed EULA.

 

This is because software manufacturers sell merchandise, not licenses, and I'm guessing that fact is obviously clearly recognized in Europe (I have not done much research on European law, so I don't know for sure).

 

However, modifying the code on the media is a copyright crime in Europe, because you may not modify software without the copyright holder's permission - even without being bound to Apple's EULA.

 

This is very true, but there is nothing illegal about replacing portions of modular software with compatible, original code. The caveat being, the unmodified code cannot be redistributed (it belongs to Apple of course), but there is no law that says the new code could not be redistributed with lawfully obtained copies of Apple's software.

 

Note: Apple could simply close this legal loophole; by letting you sign the EULA when you buy the retail box - that would be the end of story.

 

Yet again, so very true. I am guessing software manufacturers do not wish to do this, as it makes buying software inconvenient, and is equivalent to someone buying a Ford Focus, for example, and being told they must sign a license agreement from Ford whereas Ford dictates what they may do with their car, before they buy the car.

[xocoatl]

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

 

What if one buys old/broken Mac and replaces motherboard, CPU with something new.

Then he installs new OS, becouse he finds out that the old one doesn't want to work...

Ooopps... now i need to upgrade the GFX and need bigger harddrive.

Am I breaking the EULA? I'm still using Mac, but an upgraded Mac.

Are there any hardware EULAs limiting mac users from upgrading with not Apple genuine parts?

 

....

 

Last step is to upgrade the case, PSU...

 

If you chane the blade and then change the handle of a knife is it still the same knife?

 

Other thing, what does the US anti trust law say about apple forcing people to use their hardware? Isn't it even worse than what MS is doing when they are forcing users to use their browser etc.?

[sneezymarble]

In any case, actual cases of software piracy have no relation to the terms and conditions of EULA's, and a violation of a EULA does not equate to software piracy.

 

That's not so clear anymore. Have you followed the Blizzard v MDY case? Here's the most interesting bit:

 

Blizzard argued, and Judge Campbell agreed, that when users violated the World of Warcraft EULA, they no longer had a license to play the game and were therefore guilty of copyright infringement. As Siy noted in a blog post last year, Blizzard's theory, if taken literally, would mean that violating any of the rules in the EULA and Terms of Service, such as choosing a screen name that didn't meet Blizzard's guidelines, would be an act of copyright infringement.

That's all irrelevant in the case of finding some clever way to get OSX installed without agreeing to the EULA or violating the DMCA.

[V Plamondon]

That's not so clear anymore. Have you followed the Blizzard v MDY case? Here's the most interesting bit:

 

Blizzard argued, and Judge Campbell agreed, that when users violated the World of Warcraft EULA, they no longer had a license to play the game and were therefore guilty of copyright infringement. As Siy noted in a blog post last year, Blizzard's theory, if taken literally, would mean that violating any of the rules in the EULA and Terms of Service, such as choosing a screen name that didn't meet Blizzard's guidelines, would be an act of copyright infringement.

 

That's all irrelevant in the case of finding some clever way to get OSX installed without agreeing to the EULA or violating the DMCA.

 

In the Blizzard vs. MDY Case, MDY did not contest whether or not they had entered the contracts in question, Blizzard's EULA and TOU, and as such MDY is subject to all the terms and conditions of those contracts. Accordingly, MDY is guilty of copyright infringement, because said contracts revoke the contractees access to Blizzard's intellectual property upon any violation of those contracts.

 

In a court of law, the only practical defense against a license agreement, is to show or prove that such a contract is invalid, void, or not applicable, otherwise, unless illegal, all terms and conditions apply.

 

Since WOW requires a server to play, Blizzard's EULA and TOU cannot be bypassed unless someone prevents the client from administering Blizzard's contracts, or use a non-Blizzard server.

 

You can skip Blizzard's EULA by modifying WOW's config.wtf, but you must agree to Blizzard's TOU, and therefore their EULA as well, when you sign up for an account, so the only way to play WOW without agreeing to Blizzard's contracts is by modifying WOW's config.wtf and using non-Blizzard servers.

 

Blizzard vs. MDY illustrate very well how completely contracts, under the disguise of license agreements or terms of use, restrict our rights.