[skemple]

I was wondering if there was any way on my Mac or online that I can view the license agreement for OSX and print it out. I am a Multimedia major and the department is now requiring students in upper division classes to have a laptop. We have a meeting later on today to discuss the issue. One of my teachers, who is on the department board told my class a little bit about it today and he was talking about how Windows XP now boots on the Intel Macs and also mentioned one of the other people in the department had OS X on his Dell laptop and how both would be an option to students. I attempted to chime in and explain that in the OS X license agreement it states that it must be installed on Apple Hardware and that this would be a violation of the agreement. Another student said I was wrong and my teacher pretty much just shrugged it off saying it would help Apple sell more copies of OS X and be a good thing. Anyway when I go to the meeting I would like to show them a copy of the license agreement and what it states about what machines it can be installed on. I really think they should have looked into this more before presenting it to the students. It would be horrible if my college ended up being sued by Apple for showing students how to hack OS X to run on their PCs. Any help is appreciated.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by skemple

I was wondering if there was any way on my Mac or online that I can view the license agreement for OSX and print it out. I am a Multimedia major and the department is now requiring students in upper division classes to have a laptop. We have a meeting later on today to discuss the issue. One of my teachers, who is on the department board told my class a little bit about it today and he was talking about how Windows XP now boots on the Intel Macs and also mentioned one of the other people in the department had OS X on his Dell laptop and how both would be an option to students. I attempted to chime in and explain that in the OS X license agreement it states that it must be installed on Apple Hardware and that this would be a violation of the agreement. Another student said I was wrong and my teacher pretty much just shrugged it off saying it would help Apple sell more copies of OS X and be a good thing. Anyway when I go to the meeting I would like to show them a copy of the license agreement and what it states about what machines it can be installed on. I really think they should have looked into this more before presenting it to the students. It would be horrible if my college ended up being sued by Apple for showing students how to hack OS X to run on their PCs. Any help is appreciated.

Report them to the Business Software Association and let them get sued. It would definitely change your college's cavalier attitude towards software licenses.

You have to click through the license agreement when installing the software. I think that can be saved as a separate file during the install process. If not, I'm sure someone can find a way to extract it and make it separately available.

Also, go to the department above the department your teacher works for and let them know that one of their teachers is advocating license infringement, which could get the school sued. I'm sure they'd be interested to know that.

Oh, you could try sending an e-mail to [email protected] and ask them for a copy. I'm sure they'd be happy to send it to you.

[skemple]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Report them to the Business Software Association and let them get sued. It would definitely change your college's cavalier attitude towards software licenses.

You have to click through the license agreement when installing the software. I think that can be saved as a separate file during the install process. If not, I'm sure someone can find a way to extract it and make it separately available.

Also, go to the department above the department your teacher works for and let them know that one of their teachers is advocating license infringement, which could get the school sued. I'm sure they'd be interested to know that.

Oh, you could try sending an e-mail to [email protected] and ask them for a copy. I'm sure they'd be happy to send it to you.

I just downloaded the 10.4.5 update and went to the point where it shows the license and was able to save it there. Thanks again for the help.

[Chuckit]

You can't install current boxed copies of OS X on a generic Dell either, to my knowledge, so he was wrong in saying it would help Apple sell more. It would lead people to pirate more Dell-compatible copies off the Internet.

[Mr. Blur]

No wonder so many kids are so ignorant when it comes to license agreements when their teachers/professors are teaching them it is no big deal.

[TETENAL]

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

In particular:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

[ghporter]

It's amazing how many people who should know better pass on rubbish like "he has OS X running on his Dell laptop." Either the person in question does NOT have anything like OS X running on his Dell, or he's violating the software license for the Intel version of OS X 10.4 and should know better-at least better than to have his collegues telling the world about it.

But then, not all computer science academecians are particularly smart about things outside which sort algorithm is faster given a specific disk access strategy, or how to optimize a register swap when the registers are of different sizes.

[alphasubzero949]

And this kind of thing is why I have one foot already in the door with Linux...

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

And this kind of thing is why I have one foot already in the door with Linux...

Well excuse Apple for trying to protect their multi-million dollar investment. I hope you enjoy Linux, while the rest of us stay with real desktop operating systems.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

I hope you enjoy Linux, while the rest of us stay with real desktop operating systems.

Spoken like a true fanboy.

I'd really love to see if the software industry - namely Apple - will really break down his door and haul him off to the gray-bar motel for that ONE instance of breaching the EULA.

Maybe they could make better use of their "multi-million dollar investment" by plugging their security holes and fixing the damn Finder.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

Spoken like a true fanboy.

Nah, I've just used a bunch of OSes long enough to know which ones are crap, and which ones aren't. Linux makes a crappy desktop OS. For servers, it's not so bad -- but FreeBSD still trumps it.

Oh, and you talk about the Finder and OS X's security holes as if Linux didn't suffer from security holes and had perfect UI applications. :-)

Spoken like a true fanboy perhaps?

[skemple]

Thought I would post an update. The meeting yesterday was given by the head of the department himself and during his presentation he stated that they would not support anything illegal and the department would not ask students to do anything illegal with their laptops. That made me feel a lot better. I don't know if my teacher was misinformed or they changed their tune after I sent him the email with the license agreement.

[Mr. Blur]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

I'd really love to see if the software industry - namely Apple - will really break down his door and haul him off to the gray-bar motel for that ONE instance of breaching the EULA.

You totally miss the point. It is not about 'one instance' - it is about a teacher/professor basically telling a class of kids it is okay to break the EULA - that is more than one instance and you just know that once these kids think it's okay to break one they'll break them all and pirate anything they can. Of course some will do that anyway, and of course some won't....but it is still very wrong for this teacher to teach them this 'lesson.'

[Dork.]

EULA's are not necessarily legally binding. Once Apple starts selling shrink-wrapped copies of OS X that can run on the Intel Architecture, I don't think they can legally prohibit anyone from runnign a legally-bought copy of OS X on a legally-bought piece of hardware that didn't come from them. Otherwise, VW would be able to dictate that my Jetta has to use tires made in Germany. Your department is a different story, because they didn't pay the full retail price for OS X, the school probably have a site-license agreement which is cheaper per unit but has more limitations.

Now, Apple has every right to refuse to support such setups, and that's where your department should take its stand. It should provide support for running Windows on PC Hardware, and (if it wants to) OS X on Mac hardware, because that's what the corresponding software companies would support. If individual students want to put a square peg in a round hole, then they're responsible for supporting themselves.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Oh, and you talk about the Finder and OS X's security holes as if Linux didn't suffer from security holes and had perfect UI applications. :-)

Quoted for truth. Switching to Linux because of UI problems with OS X is like a SWAT officer taking off his bulletproof vest because it's uncomfortable.

[shiff]

Originally Posted by Dork.

EULA's are not necessarily legally binding. Once Apple starts selling shrink-wrapped copies of OS X that can run on the Intel Architecture, I don't think they can legally prohibit anyone from runnign a legally-bought copy of OS X on a legally-bought piece of hardware that didn't come from them. Otherwise, VW would be able to dictate that my Jetta has to use tires made in Germany. Your department is a different story, because they didn't pay the full retail price for OS X, the school probably have a site-license agreement which is cheaper per unit but has more limitations.

Now, Apple has every right to refuse to support such setups, and that's where your department should take its stand. It should provide support for running Windows on PC Hardware, and (if it wants to) OS X on Mac hardware, because that's what the corresponding software companies would support. If individual students want to put a square peg in a round hole, then they're responsible for supporting themselves.

EULA's are most certaintly binding. If it says on the license agreement that this software can only be used on an Apple branded machine; then it is illegal to install it on anything else even if it will work. Most software when you purchase it; you dont actually own it at all. You own a license to use the software under the conditions you agreed to.

Your example of VW and tires isnt at all the same thing as VW could dictate that you could only use tires from Germany and if you signed the contract agreeing; you would have to do so or be in violation.

Now, Obviously we can all agree that you may be able to get away with either one as no one would possibly even know; but that doesnt make it any less illegal.

[Angus_D]

Not to mention, at this point you can't buy a boxed retail copy of OS X for Intel - if you're installing it on your PC you've either pirated it or bought an Intel Mac and are installing the same OS on a second machine without a license.

[FireWire]

Wow! The reaction here has been... surprising! I'll quote the first one, but that's valid for the subsequent messages too.

Originally Posted by Person Man

Report them to the Business Software Association and let them get sued. It would definitely change your college's cavalier attitude towards software licenses.

Use a little common sense please. Now before anyone accuse me of condoning "piracy" or licence-breaking, let me state this clearly: what they want to do is clearly against the licence they have to accept, and probably illegal*. As such, you could simply have said that it was not permitted and that they should refrain fom doing it, for this and this reason. But to suggest that they get their school sued, or to have that poor teacher fired Come on! You know better than this!

You have to think outside the box.. After all, they are willing to pay Apple for these licences. It's not like they were going to pirate it. And as a rule of thumb, educational institution are often "permitted" to be a little mor lax on pecuniary matters. So it is "legitimate" to think that, being in good will, the school could "bypass" the normal EULA, which would still be illegal, don't get me wrong. But there's a little margin between giving a simple warning and reminder and bringing the law into that. Calm down people, why always take the most drastic approach for small and benign matters like this?

After all, this is only unethical. What they wanted to do would have benefited everyone, while - I repeat - it should not be done. No need to fire anyone or to report it. Just explain the fact and forget about it.

* I'm not sure about the legality of this. Like Dork pointed out, a company can say that you should only use their product that way, but I don't think they can sue you for that. They could stop supporting it, they could revoke your licence, but in the end, once you paid, you can do whatever you want. And this tendency is about to change, as the recent iTunes lawsuit in France demonstrated. They don't want any more of the "You buy it here, it only works here" attitude. After all, a company could sell you a glass for left-handed use only, but the court would laugh it's ass off if they tried to sue you because you used it with your right hand! Same thing for automotive parts. Honda states that I must only use genuine Honda part, but all they can do is void my warranty (and that has been debunked in court). It's only a matter of time before this applies to the computing world as well. So don't pretend to be all upset about this. It is currently wrong as it is right now, but on a global approach, it is not very immoral.

As for the licencing agreement, I don't know how it works in the States, but in Québec, they can make you accept whatever licence they want, they cannot override the common sense of the law. A great example is the little "By lending us your coat, you agree that we are not responsible for theft of loss" sign next to the coat check room. You agree to that, but they remain in fact responsible. The court agreed.

[Edit] As I feel some people will try to misinterpret what I said, let me point this out: this message targets the reaction of the people, not the fact in itself, even if I responded to a few allegations as well. I'm not saying they should do it, just that the fact that at some point they considered doing it doesn't deserve them to get sued. That said, a school shouldn't suggest its student to use a non-official and non-supported setup, albeit forbidden.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by shiff

EULA's are most certaintly binding. If it says on the license agreement that this software can only be used on an Apple branded machine; then it is illegal to install it on anything else even if it will work. Most software when you purchase it; you dont actually own it at all. You own a license to use the software under the conditions you agreed to.

Your example of VW and tires isnt at all the same thing as VW could dictate that you could only use tires from Germany and if you signed the contract agreeing; you would have to do so or be in violation.

Now, Obviously we can all agree that you may be able to get away with either one as no one would possibly even know; but that doesnt make it any less illegal.

I'm no lawyer, but I tend to spout random lawyer-like nonsense until someone like Simey or Capn's kangarooski or Obvious comes in with an intelligent opinion. I am generally full of it, but that's never stopped me from gracing the Internet with by bloviations before.

Not all contracts are binding just because one side says they are, and EULA's are rather weak in this respect. EULA's are not negotiated between two parties, they are dictated by one party to the other. You never actually sign them, you just "consent" to them by opening the package. (If I let my dog open my package, is the EULA binding on me? Can you prove I opened it and not my dog?) In most cases, you can't even read a copy of the EULA until you purchase the piece of software and open it, and once you open the software, the retail establishment where you purchased it will not let you return it if you object to it. So the EULA is essentially forced upon a consumer, and is by definition one-sided.

I'm told that courts tend to frown on this, preferring contracts to be mutually agreed to by both parties, and will give the benefit of the doubt to the party who did not dictate the terms of the contract as long as it is clear that the party is acting in good faith. This doesn't mean that EULA's are null and void, but it does mean that the terms in them need to be reasonable. And "You can only install this software on hardware that we sell" may or may not be judged reasonable. At the very least, it looks anti-competitive.

What if Microsoft were to say "You can only install Windows on an Intel-based computer" in an attempt to stop people from running windows in emulation on PPC-based Macs. Or "you cannot install any other OS on a computer where you have installed this copy of Windows" in an attempt to stop people from dual-booting Linux. Do you think those ought to be enforcable just beacuse Microsoft wants them to be? And how are they different than Apple saying "You can only install OS X on Apple-branded hardware"?

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Dork.

... What if Microsoft were to say "You can only install Windows on an Intel-based computer" in an attempt to stop people from running windows in emulation on PPC-based Macs. Or "you cannot install any other OS on a computer where you have installed this copy of Windows" in an attempt to stop people from dual-booting Linux. Do you think those ought to be enforcable just beacuse Microsoft wants them to be? And how are they different than Apple saying "You can only install OS X on Apple-branded hardware"?

Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in the hardware that the OS runs on. Apple does. Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware hurts Apple's bottom line.

Microsoft doesn't care where you install Windows or if it is installed alongside multiple operating systems. Either way, they've got your money.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by msuper69

Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in the hardware that the OS runs on. Apple does. Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware hurts Apple's bottom line.

I don't want this to be considered an argument, but what if you possesse very old Apple hardware, that is currently unsupported by Mac OS X (or even supported, but old nonetheless). Apple got your money once, and you can buy OS X to install on it. It's legal, but it didn't help Apple's bottom line.

Now say you install the same OS (paid separately) on an unsupported Dell PC. Ultimately, it doesn't change anything to Apple's bottom line. You didn't purchase new hardware for it. OK, you'd have to prove that every student once had an Apple hardware, but that's only for the example.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by msuper69

Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in the hardware that the OS runs on. Apple does. Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware hurts Apple's bottom line.

Microsoft doesn't care where you install Windows or if it is installed alongside multiple operating systems. Either way, they've got your money.

Last I checked, laws were not supposed to be made to protect corporate profits. Business models should not enter into determining what rights consumers have. The law should apply equally to everyone.

Besides, once Apple starts selling retail versions of OS X for Intel, if I buy it and install it on a single piece of PC hardware, haven't I given Apple their money for that copy anyway? What right should they have to sell me software and then tell me after I have bought it that it's illegal to install it on hardware that I own just because they don't want me to use it that way?

(As an aside, this whole time I've been assuming that we are putting retail copies (which don't exist yet) of OS X on PC's, in case you didn't pick up on that. Putting a copy of OS X that was bundled with a Mac onto PC hardware is a little more dubious. The license agreement clearly prohibits putting the software on more than one machine at the same time, and that concept is more understood at the time of purchase, and more enforceable. Even if you take OS X comepletely off your MacBook Pro and put it on a Dell (aside from the factor), there is an argument that the copy of OS X that shipped with your MBP shouldn't be transferred to other hardware. I'm not sure if I buy that argument, but at least it's believeable ....)

[shiff]

Well then, on that idea, why not buy a copy of OSX and make copies and sell them for 100 bucks. I mean you bought it; so you own it right?

Apple has every right to tell you EXACTLY how to use THEIR software. It does not belong to you in any way, shape, or form. You own a license. You agreed to it when you installed it. If you do not like those business practices; then dont use the software.. It is that simple.

It is talk like this that is going to cause Apple to add in crazy anti-piracy stuff like serial numbers, product activation; and having software update check if you have a valid serial that isnt pirated. I would really hate to see it come to that, but it is going to.

People can argue about it for days, but stealing is stealing. If you are ok with breaking the law; then by all means carry on. All it does is end up hurting the consumers anyways.

[FireWire]

Objection, your honor! While I get where you're going. I feel there's a slight difference in the situation. While in both cases, you are violating the agreement, you are not stealing in both! If you buy 1 copy and sell 100 copies, Apple lost money on 100 copies*. On the other hand, if you buy one copy, and install it on the computer at your right, instead of the computer at your left, you're not depriving Apple of any money, potential or not.

I'll refine my previous example. So you have your old trusty Apple hardware that has been collecting dust for the past few years. One day, you decide to shell out 150$ and buy Mac OS X and to install it. But, meanwhile, you discover that it runs perfectly fine on generic PC hardware and that it would in fact be faster than on your obsolete Mac (but that is still entitled to a legal OS upgrade). Whether you chose computer A or computer B, Apple sees no difference in its income or bottom line. Under no circumstance, this is to be considered "theft" or "stealing". Simply licence violation, and as Dork said it, I don't think the law could do a thing about it. (I could be wrong, but at least, money-wise, it's the same thing).

That said, I'm still not saying the school should proceed with that idea.

* for this example, this could be debated on whether Apple would have really sold 100 copies, but that's another thing.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

Spoken like a true fanboy.

I'd really love to see if the software industry - namely Apple - will really break down his door and haul him off to the gray-bar motel for that ONE instance of breaching the EULA.

Maybe they could make better use of their "multi-million dollar investment" by plugging their security holes and fixing the damn Finder.

Spoken like a true linux/RMS fanboy.

I would wager that you don't write software for a living. I do. I am also aware of the true cost of software development for both the initial development of a product and after market maintenance.

OS X is subsidized by hardware sales. Without hardware sales, OS X would cost at least double of what it costs right now. You should consider the prices for boxed versions of OS X as upgrade versions. While installation does not technically require a previous installation of OS X, it is assumed that the machine you are installing it on came with a previous version because you are only licensed to install on Apple branded machines.

They only sell the full version bundled with new macs and you cannot purchased it separately.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Spoken like a true linux/RMS fanboy.

I would wager that you don't write software for a living. I do. I am also aware of the true cost of software development for both the initial development of a product and after market maintenance.

OS X is subsidized by hardware sales. Without hardware sales, OS X would cost at least double of what it costs right now. You should consider the prices for boxed versions of OS X as upgrade versions. While installation does not technically require a previous installation of OS X, it is assumed that the machine you are installing it on came with a previous version because you are only licensed to install on Apple branded machines.

They only sell the full version bundled with new macs and you cannot purchased it separately.

Hardly. If Apple wanted to make a retail copy of OS X an upgrade that required a pre-existing copy of the OS installed, they could do so. It isn't no matter what you say.

The $129 that Apple charges for a retail copy of OS X is pure gross profit, since the only manufacturing costs involve pressing the CD's and packaging them up. Note I said gross profit here, I'm deliberately leaving out the extensive R&D expenses that are incurred writing high-quality software to make my point. They make a profit on the hardware as well, but not nearly the game gross profit margins on a percentage basis, and some of that has to go toward hardware R&D. If anything, retail software upgrades are subsidizing the copies of the OS that you get with the hardware. Or do you really think that $129 of the cost of the $599 Mac Mini comes from the software?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by shiff

Well then, on that idea, why not buy a copy of OSX and make copies and sell them for 100 bucks. I mean you bought it; so you own it right?

Apple has every right to tell you EXACTLY how to use THEIR software. It does not belong to you in any way, shape, or form. You own a license. You agreed to it when you installed it. If you do not like those business practices; then dont use the software.. It is that simple.

It is talk like this that is going to cause Apple to add in crazy anti-piracy stuff like serial numbers, product activation; and having software update check if you have a valid serial that isnt pirated. I would really hate to see it come to that, but it is going to.

People can argue about it for days, but stealing is stealing. If you are ok with breaking the law; then by all means carry on. All it does is end up hurting the consumers anyways.

Stop turning everything I say into a bizarre absolute! I never advocated making copies and selling them here, and you know it, you're just being disingenuous. Nor did I ever say that you had any title to the software when you buy a copy. All that I said is that just because Apple may write in a future shrink-wrap license that you can only install OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean that the clause will stand up in court. Everything else is stuff you just made up.

Your mind is made up, and I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. But consider this: if Microsoft tried to enforce a clause like this, everyone would be all over them for their anti-competitive practices. Why should we treat Apple differently?

[Person Man]

Actually, you're all wrong about how Apple will enforce the "Apple Hardware Only" requirement: the DMCA.

Part of the protection of OS X for Intel is encrypted portions of the operating system, that require the presence of the TPM chip to decode. Under the DMCA it is illegal to break encryption.

To get the OS to run on non-Apple hardware, the encryption must be broken, which would be a violation of federal law. (At least in the US).

This doesn't mean I agree with it (I don't), but it is how Apple will do it.

[Tomchu]

Dork: Every copy of OS X sold is not gross profit, because you're ignoring the money that went into initial R&D, the ongoing R&D, and support in the form of security updates and the like.

OS development is *not* cheap.

[shiff]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Stop turning everything I say into a bizarre absolute! I never advocated making copies and selling them here, and you know it, you're just being disingenuous. Nor did I ever say that you had any title to the software when you buy a copy. All that I said is that just because Apple may write in a future shrink-wrap license that you can only install OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't mean that the clause will stand up in court. Everything else is stuff you just made up.

Your mind is made up, and I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. But consider this: if Microsoft tried to enforce a clause like this, everyone would be all over them for their anti-competitive practices. Why should we treat Apple differently?

Only a few of my sentences were aimed at you; the rest was just theories on what could happen. I made nothing up.

Microsoft's license on a bought box copy is way different then Apples. I am not saying either one is better, but they are vastly different. In fact, Microsoft does do this on alot of its sales of its Operating System. When you purchase from the top computer manufacturers; you only get a restore cd that is only to be used on the machine you purchased it with. Cracking its copy protection is a violation of the license agreement and is illegal.

And yes, my mind is made up because it is the law. Installing OSX on a non apple machine, at least as it stands now, is piracy ad is breaking the law. I would love seeing them change that as I hate paying a premium for hardware that can be bought for hundreds less just because I love the Operating system, but that is what we do, and I have no real issues with it.

I am not meaning to be harsh but when you have had to make a living by selling software that you wrote and you use all the proceeds to feed your family; piracy really really hurts. It gets to the point where you need to spend time developing more and more anti-piracy things into your software instead of spending time putting in all the new features your customers want. When people start justifying piracy; it hits home a bit.

It just seems weird that people pirate software. The same people would never commit a crime on anything else, but would have no problem with software because it doesnt seem wrong.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Dork: Every copy of OS X sold is not gross profit, because you're ignoring the money that went into initial R&D, the ongoing R&D, and support in the form of security updates and the like.

OS development is *not* cheap.

Gross Profit does not include those things. That's why I used the term.

My point is that you can't say that the retail OS sales are being "subsidized" by anything, because the higher gross profit margin means that Apple can put more money from a retail OS sale toward OS development than from a hardware sale. I'm willing to bet that the gross margins on a Mac Mini are not only less on a percentage basis, they're probably less on a per-unit basis, too.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by shiff

Microsoft's license on a bought box copy is way different then Apples. I am not saying either one is better, but they are vastly different. In fact, Microsoft does do this on alot of its sales of its Operating System. When you purchase from the top computer manufacturers; you only get a restore cd that is only to be used on the machine you purchased it with. Cracking its copy protection is a violation of the license agreement and is illegal.

Actually, the only reason you have that limitation on copies of Windows that you buy with a new computer is that Microsoft provides these copies at a steep discount to OEM's, which means that the license is different. That limitation does not exist on the license for full-price retail copies of Windows. You can install them on one computer, then remove it from that one later and put your licensed copy on another computer. (The Windows Product Activation scheme may make this more burdensome for the end user, but you still retain that right with a retail copy.)

[shiff]

That is correct.. I meant to put that in... No more posting for me at 6am.

[yticolev]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Last I checked, laws were not supposed to be made to protect corporate profits. Business models should not enter into determining what rights consumers have. The law should apply equally to everyone.

Last time I checked, laws are made and do protect corporate IP and trademarks. This protects profits if any.

Seems to me end user agreements are weak as well as other posters. Is the agreement on the box before you purchase it? Would they also prohibit you from making a sculpture from the installation disks? How would they verify who was breaking the agreement? Can they prosecute a user who did not install or agree?

[24klogos]

Ehem,

going back to this kid's situation and his careless multimedia tutor. Even if breaking the agreenment would be a mess on its own (read above - the last 20 posts) - you have to understand the position these "giant" companies have put themselves into to begin with.
These kind of situations are nothing but unavoidable consequences of the companies own marketing plans and competing architectures doing one single thing: pushing ones and ceros through a piece of sillicon.

It's pure logic Apple would have to join the X86 sooner or later, and that events like these generate transitional stages - like the ones they had even experienced in the past), new rules have to be made, new restaurant, different menu. This is all calculated on their budgets and its knows as collateral - and be sure you pay to compensate it when you actually pay for your software.

So yeah, teacher had a big mouth and thought he was on a bar with his friends giving them a "sleezy" smooth, pseudo hacker advice. He clearly did not measure the consequences. Now if hes also passing flyiers where it says you can get Flash8 for $10 bucks, do make a fuzz about it. Kids, Do not steal your appz, don't screw the people that make these machines what they are and DO pay for their hard work, but chill if someone is commenting about issues like these, and EDUCATE them also, many people don't know and aren't as passionate about these kinda crap as WE are.