Apple's Hidden Message to Hackers: "Dont Steal Mac OS X"

However, I agree that the net effect of pirated OSx86 is great for Apple, more people using OS X and buying Apple products.

People forget this line of argument for pirated software applies to a software company (Microsoft) while apple makes their profit on hardware. Pirated OSX leads to potential loss of sales for apple.

How does pirating OSX actually help sales of apple product? If you have pirated OSX that means they don't get a hardware sale, and you can't even make the argument of "they can sell the OS and i'll buy it" because you won't, you've pirated it. How is this good for apple? Explain?

If you have used the DEV dvd and like the OS, that's great. But don't try to legitimise it so that you can feel like you've done right.

So, at least 17 people here claim to be ordering new Core Duo Macs with 36 more waiting for better models from Apple. That's 95% of responders, with only some 5% have "no intention" of paying for an Apple.

That's out of how many people that are actually on the forum? 5%? 10%?

Also, consider the title of that thread. it asked for people who ARE ordering a new intel mac, so naturally most people who are NOT ordering one will not participate in the discussion, hence the low number of people not intending to buy one.

Just interested, are you among the 36 people going to buy one? Did the 'try' osx first and buy later theory work on you?

Are you actually trying to say that nobody here plans to order a new Core Duo Mac after first playing with OSx86 on their PC for free?

 

Perhaps then the poll results from this thread should interest you: http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?&s...4&mode=show&st=

You sir are the biggest idiot! You actually take a "online" forum poll with a sample (n) size off less than 100? Also since when are "online" polls credible sources? For all I know, all of you hacking pieces of {censored} will do anything to steal OS X ... even if it was for sale as a stand alone OS for generic PCs. So the poll is ruled out because you may say "I want to buy one" in your dreams, but will steal anyway. Every single one of you who pirates OS X is {censored}.

Don't even try to justify it. You are nothing but scum!

Don't say you want to test it before you buy. If you do, you are lying through your teeth. There are plenty of sources (screenshots, flash demos) out there that show you how OS X runs and videos of OS X running on their Apple computers. Don't even say you want to test its performance, because Apple lists the specs and there are 100s of charts/comparisons to Intel/AMD based computers. Do you ever pirate Window XP to test it and then buy it? Nope! You do anything (but pay) for any software.

OS X for generic computers will never work. If ALL software pirates were eliminated ... it may work if everyone paid to use it. And owning a copy does not mean you can do anything with it. You may run it and do your business, but if they say you CANNOT run it on a non-Apple computer .... you are breaking the contract and which means YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO YOUR LEGAL COPY. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS LICENSING IT, NOT OWNING IT.

Many of you who pirate are poor bastards anyway. If you say you can afford one, then buy one.

I know about 99% of you will say that the price is too much for what you get and that you can build for 1/2 the price. I could careless if you could build for 1/2 the price. When you start saying {censored} like that, it truly means you cannot truly afford one!

You actually think if you pirate OS X you become a part of the Upper class. Well guess what? You're not! I'm not the one who is downloading and hacking. All I have to do is buy a Apple computer. You have to install special drivers and do weird booting {censored} for the security settings Apple put. All I have to do is push the lovely power button on my Powerbook.

I hope this site gets shut down and the security settings on OS X will strengthen. We ( True OS X Users) can't have you immature f***s stealing what we have to buy. Apple could go down the drain and we lose the best OS out there. So ... be courteous and DON'T STEAL MAC OS X. Just buy a MacMini or wait a year when I sell my pre-ordered MacBook Pro!

This thread has rapidly degraded. It was just a report on something that has appeared in 10.4.4 x86. If anyone wants to call someone else an idiot, just take it to private messages.

The sample size in that poll is small, anyway. I can't disagree that it is stealing or whatever synonym you want to use if you don't actually own a x86 Mac, but I'm not resorting to name calling or anything.

Anyway, lets please keep this on topic and friendly, please.

Bofors:

I don't know where you live.

But here are how things work with Apple Brazil. Mind that, folks:

http://www2.uol.com.br/macpress/noticias/c035s04108.shtml (if you understand Portuguese)

and here some text links by Mac Owners in Brazil (english):

http://www.petitiononline.com/applebr/petition.html

and this:

http://applebrasuca.blogspot.com/2005/09/w...-way-it-is.html

and here their suggested retail prices:

http://latam.apple.com/pricelist/br/

wanna find how high are those prices? just divide them by 2,3

you'll came to prices like:

iBook (12.1"TFT/1.33GHz G4/512K L2 Cache/512MB/40GB/DVD-ROM/CD-RW Combo drive/VGA-out/Enet/56K/APX/BT) - > R$ 4899 or U$ 2130

Their support suck in Brazil, as their pricing policy.

And Apple's not just hardware as Fungi79 said. Or are you ignoring Final Cut, Logic Pro, Shake, QuickTime, GarageBand, Aperture and so on... Sometimes you pay as much as the hardware for a good AND LEGAL set of software.

Answering your questions: I worked and studied with Macs, encouraged a girlfriend for buying an ibook (and later on she regretted that for lack of good support and available hardware for expansion), but nowadays I've got two PCs, desktop and notebook. I've got better performance this way, since in the past years IBM stuck on the G4 on mobile and working on high-res demanded a G5 tower for serious processing.

Are you actually trying to say that nobody here plans to order a new Core Duo Mac after first playing with OSx86 on their PC for free?

No, what he's trying to say is that *if* Mac OS X for regular intel boxes were available for any given sum, then none of these same folks would pay for it, if it were available as a torrent download. Simple, but you knew that - you just felt the hyperbole of your misrepresenting statements makes your argument sound more exciting. Bzzzt!

You sir are the biggest idiot!

Regarding bofors, you are correct Mr. Slax3r - though this is hardly news...

You're most likely pretty right in with your statements.

DD

Bofors:

I don't know where you live.

But here are how things work with Apple Brazil. Mind that, folks:

Bear in mind, that Brazilian economic politics toss a heavy import tax on any porducts not specifically manufactured in Brazil, which can often amount to 2-300% of the original price. This was meant to encourage foreign manufacturers to build manufacturing plants in Brazil (and thus employ Brazilians). Consequently, as Macs are not built in Brazil (and most likely will not be in the foreseeable future), this explains their prices. This has been going on for a very long time, and in the early times of computers resulted in an interesting cottage industry of Tandy/RS clones as well as Apple II clones manufactured in Brazil, and available for reasonable prices... Likewise, car manufactures all have local plants -- and originally all their cars ran on locally produced alcohol(ethanol) until the petrol lobby won -- but I digress.

Thus, faced with non existent sales, of politically overpriced hardware in a country of poor people, it is not surprising that Apple support sucks.

DD

Fine, but the warning in the "info.plist" file of the "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" should not have simply stated "this file" and "this software" because that "info.plist" itself is implied.

I'm soo very glad that you know what Apple should and should not be doing. I'm sure they'll get right on it.

DD

Yes, this basically right. If the software you bought will run on other machines, you have a legal right to run it on them, regardless of what the eula says. Eulas to the contrary will be unlawful and unenforceable. If you have to hack the software to make it run, this may involve violating US law on hacking. If you are running a different version of the software, which was not made available as a free upgrade to something you previously bought, then again, your previous purchase gives you no rights of running it on anything.

 

It is pretty simple actually, and the analogy is Office for Windows. Regardless of what the Eula says, if my copy, upgraded by purchase or Service Pack, or not upgraded, runs under Wine, its lawful for me to run it (one copy). If I have to decompile it and alter it to make it run, that may be behaviour that is unlawful in itself. If I get a Mac version by downloading, my previous purchase of the Windows version gives me no rights to run this.

 

The thing that makes me a bit uneasy in the above post is the reference to licensing. You have actually bought one copy. The industry talks about licenses, but that is not, legally, what has happened. Legally, you have bought a copy. It is to this copy that copyright applies. This is why they cannot stop you running it on whatever you want. But this is also why they can stop you making multiple copies.

 

There are lot of mac enthusiasts who would like it to be more unlawful to run a bought copy of OSX on a non-mac machine, than it is to run Office under Wine. It isn't. Its exactly the same thing.

The EULA specifically says:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions; Confidentiality.

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time during the term of this License for evaluation and development purposes only. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time...

Note the "single Apple-labeled computer". Your P4 isn't Apple-labeled.

Well, I paid for OS X. I went to piratebay and downloaded 8F1111, but still have 2 licenses left in the family pack I bought for Tiger last year.

 

1st Lic: Sawtooth

2nd Lic: Beige G3

3rd Lic: Pentium 4

 

I have two left.

 

If it was anyone else other than Apple, I probably wouln't even bother paying for it. (Like Windows). And I just don't believe in paying over, and over for software for different machines I own. But it being Apple, I want to show my support for their Innovation, and technology. Its kind of like buying a Slackware CD, when you can download it for free.

 

Sorry, but nobody will ever tell me what I can, and can't do with something I paid for.

YOU did not pay for what you are running.

As I've already pointed out, here is the EULA for the Intel version:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions; Confidentiality.

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time during the term of this License for evaluation and development purposes only. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time...

Where in the world did you get an Apple-labeled x86 computer before the release?

I'm sorry, but if I have a license for Office for Windows, but I don't want to use it, I can't just download Office for Mac and say that it's legal to use that instead.

The EULA specifically says:

Note the "single Apple-labeled computer". Your P4 isn't Apple-labeled.

YOU did not pay for what you are running.

 

As I've already pointed out, here is the EULA for the Intel version:

Where in the world did you get an Apple-labeled x86 computer before the release?

 

I'm sorry, but if I have a license for Office for Windows, but I don't want to use it, I can't just download Office for Mac and say that it's legal to use that instead.

Finally, someone who understands! Thank you for that Stryder.

Fine, but the warning in the "info.plist" file of the "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" should not have simply stated "this file" and "this software" because that "info.plist" itself is implied.

The warning is repeated in the other significant files elsewhere in the kext, and there is a top-level license file which contains variant wording clearly indicating the kext as a whole.

I would recommend more research and less wild ranting.

Ok i want to point something:

Sony launch Playstation: it's easy to hack and use copy software in it what happen? they won millions of dollars and i did not see any of the sSony's chairman complain about it.

Nintendo launch N64: not hackable etc... they lost their first rank place

The same story repeat again and again:

Apple today earn money with music ipod, and itunes not with mac hardware. That's why they will let us pirated their software because it doesn't matter for them. We are far from a OsX86 on beige pc who satisfy professional need because the truth is the professional is the market share of apple not the home user and it's with them that they earn money.

A lot of study says that more piracy have the music more money the majors make, the same with movies etc...

For those who say piracy is a very big financial prejudice proove, because i don't know any company who came to close because of it. Yes it's a losse of money but it's a money they won't earn if the person won't copy it.

With the monalisa is so famous? Because it was copied bilion of time. I make sofware and web app and i know people can pirated my software but i do'nt care why because they will not pay me either. but my numbers clients grows because i close my eyes.

People have to undersatnd that Internet bring a new era, an era who the culture will share freely and the reall good product will earn money. When something is good it rewarded......that's the damm truth...

Bear in mind, that Brazilian economic politics toss a heavy import tax on any porducts not specifically manufactured in Brazil, which can often amount to 2-300% of the original price. This was meant to encourage foreign manufacturers to build manufacturing plants in Brazil (and thus employ Brazilians). Consequently, as Macs are not built in Brazil (and most likely will not be in the foreseeable future), this explains their prices. This has been going on for a very long time, and in the early times of computers resulted in an interesting cottage industry of Tandy/RS clones as well as Apple II clones manufactured in Brazil, and available for reasonable prices... Likewise, car manufactures all have local plants -- and originally all their cars ran on locally produced alcohol(ethanol) until the petrol lobby won -- but I digress.

 

Thus, faced with non existent sales, of politically overpriced hardware in a country of poor people, it is not surprising that Apple support sucks.

 

DD

What an entertaining and enlightening read, DaffyDuck! Thank you very much for bringing this to anyone's attention. I want to add that for the reasons you pointed out so aptly, the Brazilians actually also had worked on an early Mac clone, the Unitron Mac512.

http://www.lowendmac.com/clones/unitron.html

http://www.lsi.usp.br/~jecel/mac512.html

Well blah blah blah nobody 'knows' what's going to happen so it's all conjecture. Sorry you just all go on a bit too much so I didn't bother reading the whole thread, however I do want to have my say.

I like Macs, the design of the hardware is nice, the OS even better. However, right now I have no intention of buying a Mac, I have a pretty good spec PC and I can't afford to pay out for a Mac to replace it. So, I'm not currently a potential Apple customer, I will be however once my PC needs replacing. If OSX for Intel was in the shops, I would be happy to pay £100 for a fully licensed OS to run on my 'PC'. The argument that they need to keep the OS restricted to their own hardware or else nobody will buy their hardware may have some truth, however they should make more of an effort to encourage people to buy their hardware because it's good spec, good value, nicely designed etc not because you have to if you want to run OSX. If they can do this then they will win twice; firstly by moving me as a PC owner (who won't be spending £1000 on new hardware anytime soon) over to their OS early on and therefore introducing me to Apple and their way of thinking--Secondly by keeping me happy now, I'm much more likely to want to support them and pay a little extra for their hardware over some random PC brand later on when I come to replace my current PC setup.

Just my penny, I know a lot of you will argue, that's fine, there isn't really a clear right or wrong here.

Please, not another Why-doesn't-Apple-license-the-OS-thread!

Yup, keep it on track. Posts not related to the thread will just be deleted.

Do the new MacBooks have a TPM inside? I'm curious just what conditions would trigger that message.

I hope that a simple hardware failure won't change the operating environment in such a way that the OS decides to put up that message. A legitimate owner running completely legal on a genuine Apple product is not going to be in a good mood if some electrostatic discharge or improperly-plugged device suddenly makes this message appear.

They'll assume someone gave them a pirated OS, whereas it's the OS itself making assumptions based on (I don't know what) criteria to accuse its user of stealing.

Somehow, I doubt Apple is going to elaborate on the need for this message and just what steps are taken prior to the OS convicting its user of piracy.

I could even imagine a virus cropping up that specifically damages the environment such that this message comes up. Then Apple will be hoisted on their own petard.

Don't Steal Mac OS X is NOT a message. It's just an extensions. THE extension, actually

In a case of strange Matrix-like occurrences, the extension becomes the message.

Ooohhhh.....

nope, mars is too far away right now. missed on this one. waiting the next 5k years

The EULA clause tying MacOS to Apple hardware is invalid. Have a look at DMCA §117:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

I don't want to get banned and am new here but I have a question.

Is it possible to place the MAC OS X on a PC without having to use the real MAC method (meaning you need a real mac to di it)?

Thanks, just wondering and the new mini's are cheap and might get one anyway, but it would be cool to convert the laptop to a mac, of course, I would pay for the OS, just wish it was available to purchase!

The more I think about the statement "Don't Steal Mac OS X" , I can't help but think that it's reverse psychology.

"O please don't throw me in that briar patch!!"

A challenge?

Just my 2 cents.

The EULA clause tying MacOS to Apple hardware is invalid. Have a look at DMCA §117:

 

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

 

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

What law degree do you have? I see nothing in there that says a damn thing even close to what you just claimed it did.

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

This has been picked apart time and time again, as the person licensing the software, you have the right to back it up so you don't loose it. You are not allowed to run both copies.

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

I'm not even sure why you posted that part. Mac OS X does not require "copying itself" as an "essential step in utilizing it."

Go back to law school.

This makes me question my morality and wipe my harddrive in regret and also made me contact apple and pay damages because i was sooooooo sorry Hey, at least they gave us something to read thats not just legal mumbo-jumbo that nobody but laywers and people with no lives read, and even if they do read it it doesnt mean they understand it.

Apple poems, it kind of reminds me of about:mozilla

Bwhsh8r

Doesn't anyone here understand that piracy does not equal sales boom?

 

You all want to write long complicated essays on how throwing a million dollar investment out for free might be beneficial, only because (be it ulterior or not) you don't want to pay for it.

 

Don't lie to yourselves, I find it pathetic. If there is a pirated version around, you're not going to suddenly and unexplainably become a good person and buy it instead of download it. You're going to download it, and try to justify it if made public.

 

Simple, just the way I like it: Piracy will never equal gain, only loss.

 

Apple's marketing and strategy is very respectable, and they take risks. But now it's looking like give people a hand, they'll try to take the arm.

 

Don't Steal Mac OS X

I beg to differ. As a recently graduated high school student, I knew I would need a computer for my next four years of college. I have long been a PC user, and had planned to build a PC for college. Until I stumbled across this site, and downloaded osx86. After using a pirated copy of OS X for some time, I bought a mac for school. Why? Its simple. Legal software is easier to deal with, i can get upgrades directly from apple, and *gasp* IT WORKS 100%.