I'm not so sure that this is literally illegal. Yes, an Apple lawyer would say that. And it is entirely possible/likely that the operation could be shut down using said lawyers. But there's a difference between violating the EULA/terms of use and operating illegally. There's no certainty to your statement until there is a court case.
Matter of fact, it might be easier to prove that Giz has just defamed this kid's company.
Hmm, this brings up a good point. If I sell my laptop do I have to uninstall everything, since otherwise I'm selling someone else's IP? Meaning that if I want to sell it I need to completely reformat the harddrive and have no OS installed on it first?
@MarcusMaximus: If you can provide licenses for all the software, there's no reason to have to sell it with no OS on it. Unlike what the software companies would like you to believe, you can transfer your licenses to another person. Doctrine of First Sale is a bitch.
It really isn't that cut and dry.
In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)[1], the first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the point was moot as the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"
Can someone explain to me the reasoning for apple not allowing OS X installs on non-apple devices? Couldn't they sell a ton more software? Do they just think it will canabalize hardware sales? Is it a customer service issue, with callers complaining about functionality on their non-apple hardware? What's the big deal exactly?
I'm sure plenty of people would still spring for the apple hardware even if they could put OS X on another machine legally. It is possible, and quite easy, to do it illegally now, so why do they think this will hurt them so much?
@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.: You own the software to the extent of being able to fully enjoy its functions for as long as it and the hardware it runs on lasts, but you do not own the intellectual rights or limitless freedom to resell it.
@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.: Why wont Blockbuster rent me movies and allow me to set up a table outside of their store to then sell those movies that they rented me. Technically they are mine currently.
@Dillinger23: I am absolutely free to sell the discs I rent from Blockbuster. I'm just accountable for them when I'm due to return them in 3 days' time.
@Kaiser-Machead: That's where you're wrong. I may not own intellectual rights, but I sure as hell do have the freedom to resell it. Doctrine of First Sale is a bitch.
Yet again I'm all cool with someone doing it at home. Whatever.
But whoever does it for a profit on some one else's IP deserves some proverbial kick in the sack, not this kind of promo.
@danradu: What if he was purchasing a copy of OS X for every single install? How is he breaking any ethical code outside of breaking a EULA. He is still compensating Apple for the IP.
@danradu: so, Apple makes money from selling the OS, MSI makes money from selling the netbook, and this kid makes a tiny bit of money for doing the work to to make the two work together. Everything is bought legally, yet everyone here is just fine with Apple throwing the book at him?
@Justinpaulson: I suspect that the same disc is being used over and over again, which would make the most sense, and be the most cost effective. Of course, this has yet to be seen.
@Justinpaulson: what if I'm selling you a discounted something I paid much money to make so you sign up to my service or sell you this hardware thing?
I'd be very unhappy if you broke my trust and our agreement and sold it for a profit, repeatedly, in a way I hadn't intended when we shook hands.
I'm not sure we can know for sure what Apple considers fair compensation for the IP.
You're right, maybe he does buy the copy but the numbers don't add up.
@dan.radu: I think the numbers DO add up, especially if he is getting 5 licenses for 129 dollars. That's only 26 dollars per laptop, 74 dollars profit. If I bought something from you and resold it for more that would be called good business. It wouldn't matter if you were unhappy or not.
@otus: It's not that simple. You also need to be a licensed reseller to dole out this product, and if this person is not selling a sealed copy of OS X along with every MSI, then he's likely just copying the disc over and over again onto each netbook, which is straight piracy.
@Visioned: You know, I was going to add something along those lines to my comment... but if the kid were advertising that he had a grow-op he'd be boned too.
Moral of the story is this: you can smoke a bowl and make a hackintosh in private and be okay. It's when you start spreading the word that it becomes a problem. You dig?
@TheSonOfKrypton: That or sarcasm is difficult to pick up in text further made difficult by lack of context. It's pretty easy to read in a negative manner.
Humbug. Just do what I did when I bought S.O. her Thinkpad. Just have a personalized, meaningful photo as the background before handing it over (No, it's not sexual, you freaks).
08/25/09
Matter of fact, it might be easier to prove that Giz has just defamed this kid's company.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
It really isn't that cut and dry.
In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)[1], the first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the point was moot as the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"
[en.wikipedia.org]
08/25/09
I'm sure plenty of people would still spring for the apple hardware even if they could put OS X on another machine legally. It is possible, and quite easy, to do it illegally now, so why do they think this will hurt them so much?
08/25/09
08/25/09
Sorry, if it were his own for home use fine; but once you start selling things that don't belong to you... well that's just wrong.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
But whoever does it for a profit on some one else's IP deserves some proverbial kick in the sack, not this kind of promo.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
I'd be very unhappy if you broke my trust and our agreement and sold it for a profit, repeatedly, in a way I hadn't intended when we shook hands.
I'm not sure we can know for sure what Apple considers fair compensation for the IP.
You're right, maybe he does buy the copy but the numbers don't add up.
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
08/25/09
It's just too bad it's not, you know, legal.
08/25/09
Moral of the story is this: you can smoke a bowl and make a hackintosh in private and be okay. It's when you start spreading the word that it becomes a problem. You dig?
08/25/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I
07/29/09
07/29/09
08/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
Yeah, the term is definitely being abused. I'd say anything larger than 10" is a notebook, not a netbook.
03/31/09
Wait...what? no way dude.
03/31/09
Well obviously if you don't get it then you don't!
Go ahead and throw the biggest baddest hardware at the smallest lightest applications!
If it makes you feel better or something I suppose.
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
03/31/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
01/21/09
12/15/08