Legality and Front Row
 

Not sure where to post this, so it's going here.

I recently downloaded a copy of Front Row 1.0.1 and installed a small hack that enabled it on my PB12". I'm now facing a moral dilemma, is it legal? I searched the net looking for articles on the subject, but was unable to find anything that answered the question satisfactorily. The only clue I have is when I went to Apple Legal and found the page that has all of their EULA's. Front Row does not have it's own EULA, so I'd assume that it's included inside of Tiger's EULA. If that's the case, I have Tiger, so it ought to be legal.

But here's my more direct question, for anyone who happens to have a law degree and focuses on patent law (gee, hope there's at least one out there...) Does that EULA's definition change depending on the machine that Tiger is on? I.e., does the EULA for tiger include all copies of Tiger (thus transferring the rights for Front Row to anyone who owns Tiger) or is it redefined for each individual computer (thus meaning the EULA covers only pre-installed software, and anything not pre-installed is against the EULA.)

I will point out that there have been no reports (to my knowledge) of legal action from Apple (or warnings from apple) regarding Front Row. And, as mentioned before, Front Row does not have it's own EULA. My inclination is to believe that it's legal, but I want to be sure because I don't like the idea of pirating software...

I don't know if any DMCA insanity makes what you did illegal and don't see any moral problem with it as long as you don't annoy Apple with problems due to the fact that Front Row is not supported on your machine.

And I don't see what interest Apple would have to annoy customers who don't do anything that could reasonably bother them.

Of course, given the astonishing state of copyright and related law today, there might be legal problems stemming from the fact that you seem to have gotten the software without buying it or a computer it came with and that you used a "hack" to make it run on your machine.

It's definitely not legal.
The license agreement for Tiger governs the use of the software on the DVD on one machine. It is contrary to the license to copy any part of that software from one machine to another.

In any case, thinking that your Tiger license allows you to use a pirated copy of Front Row is analogous to thinking that just because you have a bill of sale for your house indicating that the contents are included, that means that a stolen article that you bring into the house is now somehow legally yours.

Note that Apple has often bundled different pieces of software with different machines. E.g. some Powerbooks came with a copy of OmniGraffle. Just because an application is made by Apple doesn't mean that it automatically comes for free with the OS.

And of course you run the usual risks of using software from shady sources - a strong possibility of trojan horses etc.

With people being murdered on a daily basis, starving, facing oppression, and barely scraping by is your hacked copy of Front Row really a moral dilemma?

Priorities.

Morality and legality are two separate things. Remember the same laws that tell you its bad to backup a DVD once said owning a slave is fine. Legally, picking up a quarter from a sidewalk is likely stealing, alongside riding your bicycle without a helmet and jaywalking. Morally, it's a case-by-base decision.

At some point you have to follow your heart on this. I guess I should feel like a scoundrel for using iDVD even though my machine originally shipped with a CD-RW (sarcasm).

People walk a thin line between blindly following rules/protocol and common sense. The former is one of the reasons we have so many problems today, and a leading cause of stupidity worldwide.

And for the record, I've purchased every piece of software on my machines. Good developers should be rewarded. When Apple offers Front Row as a $19.95 downloadable app, perhaps then the original poster has a 'moral dilemma.'

Okay, bedouin, or should I just say idiot, is there some reason you had to trivialize my question? I'm well aware of the worlds difficulties, and I do what I can, but that doesn't make my question any less legitimate.

The reason I ask is because I want to know Apples intent on the issue. If they want me to pay money for the software I can respect that. There are some very hard working people at Apple, and they use software like this to make a living. I don't want to cause them to lose profits, I have no idea what kind of ramifications that might have. As far as I can see, it's things like this that lead to the demise of my fathers company and put him out on the street at the age of 40 with 6 children. DO NOT TRIVIALIZE PIRACY AGAIN! It isn't as life shattering as a lot of thing (starving children, rape, civil war, the list goes on...), but it isn't exactly J-walking.

I agree with Hayne, and hadn't thought of that before. My only question now is how to get it back off. Thank you.

download
 

zalister

why did you not think about all that stuff before you downloaded
the hack?

if you really feel so strongly about piracy - why do u have a moral dilemna?

you know its not legal software - so frigging trash it now and as Bedouin
suggested it's no big deal.

kind regards

...

Okay, now I feel stupid. Serves me right. I guess I just hoped Apple didn't care. Ah well, I'm young yet.

Still not sure how to uninstall it. It doesn't show up under a search, what to I do?

How does Apple lose profit? Were you going to buy an iMac G5 just for Front Row? Was I going to go out and buy an entirely new PowerMac for a DVD-RW supported by iDVD? If you were sitting at Panera bread with Steve Jobs eating a roast beef sandwich would he denounce you as pure evil and refuse to look you in the eye knowing you used "Front Row Enabler Version 1.1?"

If you are young I hope you learn how to think for yourself, and be comfortable with the millions and billions of things in this world that can't be neatly contained within categories of good and bad. No one is telling you it's okay to have an Applications folder full of apps you downloaded off of BitTorrent; read between the lines.

Bedouin, I'm sorry if something I said (you know, like calling you an idiot) has offended you. I lost myself for a second. I hope that none of my way of thinking offends you either, and I hope you'll base further judgement of me on something other than this particular situation.

Yes I am young, and I make a lot of mistakes. Yes I am naive, and haven't experienced everything. I hope one day that might change, but only time will tell. I hope, in the mean time, you'll forgive me for being uninformed and unable to think things through on occasion.

But my decision still stands. I don't think it's right to break copyright law, and as hayne has pointed out, that's what I'm doing. Maybe I'm wrong for following legal precedence, but the decision stands.

Thus I ask, for the third time, if someone will please tell me what I have to do in order to delete Front Row from my computer.

Well, the thing is, you are sort of on uncharted ground.
I don't know anything about where Front Row installs.
You might look in /Library/Receipts to see if there is a ".pkg" file there for Front Row. If so, that file will tell us where the components get installed.

Or you could just do an "archive & install" of OS X from your Install CD, being sure to select the option to preserve users.

Hayne, I went through the installation process again and as I was doing it this message appeared:

I was able to find the file specified, but I wanted to make sure that deleting things from CoreServices wouldn't screw up my computer. My assumption is no, but having never dealt with it, I'd rather not charge on ahead.

Well, as long as you only delete Front Row, no problem.

It's the same directory the Finder lives in, so deleting stuff at random in there will often make Bad Things happen to your systems integrity.

Okay, I did it. It's dead now.

For anyone else trying to figure out what to do. Go to System/Library/CoreServices/FrontRow.app. Make sure you kill the process with Activity Monitor, then just drag it to the trash can. You'll have to enter an admin password to do it.

Thus ends the saga...

Morality and legality are two separate things. Remember the same laws that tell you its bad to backup a DVD once said owning a slave is fine. Legally, picking up a quarter from a sidewalk is likely stealing, alongside riding your bicycle without a helmet and jaywalking. Morally, it's a case-by-base decision.

Glad to see this problem was resolved, but I just do want to say that there are serious problems with this line of reasoning. E.g., backing up DVDs and owning slaves weren't regulated by the same laws; picking up a wayward quarter on the sidewalk isn't stealing, etc.

Downloading and installing software is not only illegal, but immoral for two reasons:
1. It's a violation of the license agreement that one consents to when installing the program; i.e., one is lying.
2. It is stealing in that it is taking intellectual property and using it without/against the consent of the creator of the product, who alone has the authority to say who can and cannot use the product.

Is this as immoral as credit card theft?

Of course not!

But it's immoral nonetheless, and if everyone did it habitually, there would be serious consequences.

How ethical or moral is it to pay for a product and then be forced into signing a contract stipulating how it can be used after opening the product and possibly voiding any possibility of return, and before being allowed to install it? In these circumstances people are being essentially coerced into 'agreeing' with terms and conditions by unreasonable force; that is, of course, if you think the average busy person has time to print out a 15 page EULA and read it. By their nature they are complicated documents designed so that a person unknowingly throws away their rights.

Secondly, lying is not always immoral. If your wife asks how the food she cooked tastes, and you know it would devastate her if you said you hated it, it might be wrong not to lie. Likewise, if a corporation or government uses its power to impose unreasonable laws and conditions upon its citizens, it might be reasonable to lie.

If a student has a paper to finish by 2 AM, but only owns a single-license copy of Word, is he immoral because he installs Word onto his laptop in addition to his desktop, so he can go to a coffee shop and finish his work? Maybe to you he is, but that's the other thing about morality -- it's absolutely not universal, which is why I don't particularly care if the original poster thinks it's wrong to install a copy of Front Row on this PowerBook; that's his call, he feels comfortable with it, and nobody is going to be harmed either way.

I actually remember being in a Logo class in elementary school. I had a PC at home, while we were using Apple ]['s (this was probably mid-80s). From a friend I had obtained a copy of Logo for the PC, that was manufactured by IBM, and long since discontinued (probably was made around the PC Jr. era). The friend who gave it to me was in the same class, and we were both happy that we could finally play with Logo at home and told the teacher. Instead of being happy that we were getting some out of class practice, she went on a tirade about how copying software was bad. If we could have purchased it, we would have.

Let's say there was a cure for AIDS, and in order to obtain it, doctors had to sign an agreement stating that it was prohibited to export the vaccine to specific nations. One doctor decides to export it to a family member dying in one prohibited nation, did he 'steal' the vaccine because exporting it was against its distribution agreement?

Yeah, a cure for AIDS isn't on the same level as using a copy of Front Row, but the same pedantic, no-questions-asked, submission to authority still applies.

If not done occasionally there would be more serious consequences. Thank God the inventor of the word press didn't know about EULAs, or there would be stipulations regarding which texts could be distributed, how many copies, to who, and a set of permissible topics. The EULA for ACDSee (a Windows image viewing app) actually has a clause in it prohibiting the viewing of porn with the app. How long is it before Microsoft places a clause in a EULA for Windows or Word prohibiting the creation of viewing of political dissent using their software. I guess we'll see in 25 years as this plethora or patents, EULAs, and other silliness take over with the majority of the population's consent, either willingly or out of ignorance.

How ethical or moral is it to pay for a product and then be forced into signing a contract stipulating how it can be used after opening the product and possibly voiding any possibility of return, and before being allowed to install it?

That's not what the opening post was about. And if one purchases defective software, it can generally be returned. Same goes for a car, computer, and you'll even get your money back on a bad meal sometimes. A bad spouse or kid, however . . . ;)

Secondly, lying is not always immoral.

I never said it was. I gave a specific context.

. . . that's the other thing about morality -- it's absolutely not universal

I never said it was. I gave a specific context.

Let's say there was a cure for AIDS, and in order to obtain it, doctors had to sign an agreement stating that it was prohibited to export the vaccine to specific nations. One doctor decides to export it to a family member dying in one prohibited nation, did he 'steal' the vaccine because exporting it was against its distribution agreement?

Why, yes, he did! That doesn't mean it wasn't the better thing to do in such a context, which, again, was not the one we were discussing. Context always has to be considered when evaluating the morality of an action.

. . . the same pedantic, no-questions-asked, submission to authority still applies.

Who does that? ;)

- - -

- Take it easy, bedouin. We have a definite policy here against software piracy of any kind and I'm just making sure any rationalizations about that are countered.

Note that we have nothing against software that allows you to play a pirate:
http://www.puzzlepirates.com/

Software piracy: bad
Piracy software: good
Arrrrr! :)

A good site for you to browse is GrokLaw. I did a search for "end user license agreement" and found some interesting threads.

EULAs are something which law-abiding computer users will continue to adhere to...and law-breaking hooligans will continue to ignore.

The problem with our current state of technology is that obeying the law is getting as convoluted as breaking it.

Yeah, law is a funny thing, depending on the situation it can be right on the money or totally screwing people over.

I think the first mistake I made in this thread was making it sound like I was simply trying to follow the rules (which, at times, means being immoral quite frankly.) I was trying to figure out, to the best of my ability, what Apple wanted done with their software. I figured that since they had made it, they had a right to control it's use. That's what I was looking for, not some justification, but some idea of what Apple intended.

But, I must admit, despite the fact I was being lectured for something I hadn't done (and never would do, quite honestly), the ensuing thread was well worth reading. I think it's very important to take morality one issue at a time, applying pre-existing experience and knowledge to new situations.

In the end it seemed Apple, who made the software, didn't want me to have it on my computer. I can respect that, even if I disagree, because it is their property (I hadn't even bought a copy, remember?)

Anyway, it looks like this thread is over, I just wanted to throw in my last two cents, get a few things off my mind. I feel better now...and I have a strange urge to play Pirate Software too...

Perhaps the Sony rootkit-scandal has enlightened you where the real criminals are ;) .

Anyway, copyright is a lot more complex than one might think at first sight, we have had quite some discussions on the subject here.

I think the interesting tests in the case of Front Row would be, like bedouin detailed in post #8, whether Apple lost income.
It might even be a good thing if you install it, like it so much that you want a new iMac for yourself or recommend one to a friend who would have bought something cheaper otherwise.

Anyway, you get to make your own decisions and those who believe they never broke some silly law or EULA are free to throw the first stone...

While it is true that money is the primary driving force for corporations, I think the issue with copyright is more general.

Don't you think that the creator of a work should be able to put whatever restrictions on its distribution they choose?
E.g. shouldn't Apple be able to say that they don't want anyone who uses a forum username that starts with Z is not allowed to run Front Row?
Why? Just because - a whim of the creator.

It's not necessarily only about money.
Here's a real life example I heard on the radio today. A songwriter wrote a Christmas song for his wife. The radio guy had heard some of his previous songs and wanted to play this new song on the radio. The songwriter refused - he wanted to keep it just for his sweetheart. Now what would you think if someone got a copy of that song somehow and made it available via P2P ? There is no financial loss since the songwriter never intended to sell the song.

Gosh, we've been around the block about legal and moral issue re. piracy so many times on this board, and it's a bit annoying to see the same people throwing out the most absurd justifications again and again.

No, it's not about money. It's about intellectual property, which no one has a right to use contrary to conditions stated by the owner of such property. That's it. All other considerations are self-indulgent rationalizations, imo.

So you're ok with this one for example ?

"...Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought a copy of FrontPage 2002 myself. In the box was the "Microsoft Frontpage 2002" license on a four-page folded sheet, titled "End- User License Agreement For Microsoft Software." Under Section #1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed "Restrictions" states in part: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."... "
full story:
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/09/21/1438251.shtml

I disapprove of what that licence says, but I defend Microsoft's right to say it.

What about Sony installing rootkits on their customers machines ?

detailed discussion in:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=46807

When you say that you defend their right to say it, does that mean you would defend their right to enforce it? In other words, do you think such a thing should be legal?

I think something like Microsoft's EULA for FrontPage is dangerous. I mean, if enforceable, could Apple decree in their contracts, someday, that I cannot use my Mac to disparage them?

I don't think that is relevant to the discussion here.
I'm obviously against Sony's actions. One way of saying it is that they didn't have a licence to modify their customers' machines in that way. Their customers did not agree to this change.

I'm not sure. I think the legal system should probably be reserved for use when other mechanisms of avoiding undesirable behaviour fail.
In this case, I suspect that normal market and PR mechanisms will ensure that the restrictive parts of that licence will get changed.

A more interesting case of despicable licence restrictions is that of the source-code control software "BitKeeper where the licence prohibits users from working on any program that might compete with BitKeeper.

Things like this don't affect me directly since I'm not a developer. Given my profession, I sometimes go days without even touching a computer. But I can see how something like BitKeeper would be a definite thorn in some people's sides.

While I'm an advocate of privacy, I'm also an advocate of keeping things open. As I've learned more over the last few years, I've made an effort to use open source as much as possible, contributing monetarily when I could, because I believe it's a good thing for people to get paid for what they do. I've also made an effort to save all files in non-proprietory file formats and have become a big believer in the text document, basic html, and the like.

I don't understand a society, those people and those corporations, where it can't be as simple as making an honest buck. I don't understand why these entities do what they can to lock people into a type of circularity.

Years ago when I had as my personal computer a machine running Windows 98 and I was much more noobish, technologically, than I am today, although I still am today in many ways, I thought I'd give Gnu-Linux a try. So I backed up all my information, including a 1000 or so emails saved from Outlook Express, and made the transfer. Woe and behold, about half those emails are fairly lost to me having been saved as .msg files. That's the kind of thing that hurts someone who isn't a developer.

I suppose I've gone off topic from the original post of this thread. :)

I get to throw stones? Rad!

And you know, I do wonder about what your saying. It would be interesting if Apple just said "hey, go ahead and use this for whatever you want." And then they go laugh to themselves knowing that you're going to go out and guy an iMac if you get addicted to it.

But, this whole foray into legal precedence and bylaw has really helped me to realize why law school is so hard for my friends... Quite the dilemma between what feels good, what feels right and what is actually legal :).

Hear!! Hear!!

I think the answers to these questions are typically clear cut and those who are making the rationalizations know in their hearts that they are doing so.

One has to know whether or not they are taking the straightforward and direct approach (boycott/purchase/use competitor's product/etc.) or the sneaky approach.

I am reminded of a handful interesting points from page 4 of this thread: http://forums.macosxhints.com/showth...t=39802&page=4

Beyond ensuring that I do not profit from his hard work through outright theft, no. There's a clause somewhere in the XBox's EULA that prohibits the owner from using a modchip to install Linux on it; maybe I want a cheap PVR. I paid hard earned money for the raw materials, who are they to tell me what I can and can not do with it?

There's a problem with making 'rules.' When general, it's fine; when specific, it's a huge problem, because the rule maker never realizes where to stop.

In reality, Apple, Jobs, whoever -- probably doesn't care about a young guy installing FrontRow. However, no corporation (authority) can ever show weakness and say "that's okay." All bases need to be covered, and its perception of a strongman needs to be maintained -- all to ensure its customers (followers) stay in line and never feel as if they have too much clout.

Now, if someone wants to be in that category of people -- who need things spelled out to them to function properly, that's their decision; the majority of the people enjoy being told what to do. Thankfully there's always a small minority who think differently, and that's where great and new ideas emerge.

When I read the history of computer hackers in the 70s -- people ilke Woz, or look at the awesome ingenuity and idea exchange it took to do things like establish early BBS systems, it becomes pretty sickening to watch people bicker over some five page document written in a 6 point font destined for any sane man's trash can when they could just be working together and generating great ideas.

I love OS X and all proprietary apps I've purchased for it, but watching people blindly follow corporate mandates in the name of the Intellectual Property boogeyman makes me seriously contemplate a 100% switch to open source -- for the same 'moral' reasons many claim to be upholding.

I agree in your annoyance with that part of the EULA, but that doesn't make it legal for me to modify the XBox and install Linux on it. Also, this is a legal issue, not a moral issue.

I don't think anybody is telling anyone that they have to be a sheep. I think the point of view of the people here who agree with me is that if you are going to do something illegal, you should admit it is illegal and leave it at that. Any rationalizations one makes might point toward a possible vector which a lawyer could take to challenge the EULA, but they do not make the illegal act into a legal act. Ignoring the EULA by doing things which it forbids might be 'thinking different' but neither improves nor changes the EULA. I don't think it makes one a rebel just because they violate a EULA. The wolfish or rebel thing to do is to challenge the EULA. Similarly, not entering into agreements which one does not intend to keep does not make one a sheep.

I am annoyed by all the legalese these days myself, but (and this does not include the EULA mentioned or others like it mentioned in this thread) some of this is a product of the times we live in. I am a faculty member at a university and I'd like to tell the nervous untenured group here how our department tenure committee operates so as to assuage some of their fears (then they might seek guidance for addressing a weakness rather than trying to mask it). However, I can't do so because anything I say or write to them might be interpretted as a policy. So here we are, all hoping for the same outcome, yet we can't say anything which might aid us in working together toward that outcome. At the present I am involved in negotiations between the faculty and the administration and there are similar legal straight-jackets and hoops to deal with. It annoys and frustrates me to no end.

Now there is a rebel thing to do...and over time with enough people doing so, it would cause change. Myself, any applications I use which did not come on my computer from Apple are shareware applications which I paid the licenses for, or open source applications. I have no Microsoft (or hardware like XBox) or other commercial software whatsoever, partially due to EULA (typically restrictions about how many computers it can reside on, even if they are only used one-at-a-time) but mostly due to an early annoyance with fights I had with Word 6.0.1 to keep it from doing what it wanted to do rather than what I wanted to do.

But speaking of intellectual property (from the XBox EULA) we have moved to something which is a moral issue as well. There are chicken-and-egg issues here. If pirating were not so much of a problem, developers and companies would not have to be as draconian as they sometimes are (or charge as much as they do for the software), and if they were not so draconian or did not charge so much there would not be as much of a backlash resulting in more pirating (due to rationalizations). I don't know all the answers, I only govern myself, and I won't tell anyone else what to do. However, it rankles me to hear that 'it's ok to do X because of Y' when in reality 'X' doesn't change 'Y' one iota.

This has become a Coat Room discussion, so that's where it's going.

I don't own an XBox and never will, but without reading that clause, I must say it sends a chill up my spine. As bedouin pointed out, I own the hardware - I didn't rent it our lease it - I bought it, so if I choose to modify it, that should be up to me. If I buy a car and modify it to race it, that's my decision, not the manufacturer's. I accept that they don't have to honor any guarantees after I do it and their liability for disasters is nil - but the choice is still mine and so are the consequences.

The problem then with a EULA that prohibits modification is that it's like a red light that won't change - unreasonable. Most folks will wait, and then drive on. I'm a hobbiest tweaker, so I have modified hundreds of gadgets over the years to do things they weren't intended for, even gadgets that were clearly never intended to be opened. Similarly, I have repaired hundreds of gadgets that failed even though in this throwaway economy of ours most would have simply bought another.

In a way, we bring this on ourselves. There's a movement afoot, for example, to make manufacturers responsible for recycling their products at the end of their lives. Why isn't that my responsibility? It's mine.

I've never really said disobeying a EULA is legal, I've just pointed out numerous times that the legality of something doesn't make a choice right or wrong; it's all contextual.

For the record, I don't own an XBox either, though not because of the EULA; I'm just opposed to Microsoft attempting to monopolize yet another industry for the sake of media dominance and refuse to let one penny go toward that, even if they are taking a 'loss' on each unit.

There's a lot of drugs (forget recreational ones for the moment) that are not approved by the FDA for use in the US. However if one of those drugs is the sole cure to your chronic pain, perhaps you'll want to break a few laws to obtain it. There's situations where legality is irrelevant. People who commit atrocities and propagate stupidity world-wide are generally "just following the rules."

Well, when a mass of people ignore and dismiss an idea it just becomes antiquated and irrelevant, even if it stays on the books; kind of like some of these laws. Of course, that chain of reaction can't begin unless others start.

If people couldn't pirate say -- Dreamweaver, they'd just use Nvu; if they couldn't pirate Photoshop, they'd just use GIMP. I don't really buy the line that high software prices are the result of piracy; that's a scapegoat. It reminds me of the time when CDs were brand new, and methods to duplicate them digitally (DAT tapes) were too expensive for most consumers; that didn't stop the record companies from charging $18.99 for a album that was $8.99 on vinyl or cassette, despite the fact that the CD's manufacturing costs were lower.

Bedouin, you make some good points, but what still trumps is the right of owners of intellectual property to state the legal terms for the use of their product. When one agrees to these terms and uses the product, one is showing that they value the work of the creator of the product. If one has pirated the product and continues to use it, one should pay the fee (as I'm sure you'd agree). I cannot think of a "context" in which this principle is antiquated or rendered irrelevant.

As most software vendors provide a demo version of their applications, there should seldom be a need to pirate anything. That inclues Dreamweaver and most other prime time apps. There's also extensive documentation online to learn about these apps.

I just paid around $500 for a new digital camera without having a pirated version or even a demo. Why? Documentation, the reputation of the manufacturer, magazine and Internet reviews, etc. People do this kind of stuff all the time and there's absolutely no reason why decisions about purchasing software can't be made that way as well.

But the point I was making vis-a-vis the XBox was that a manufacturer can certainly tell me that modifying the product will void the warranty, but surely not how I might use it. If the product will do something legal and I do it, then the original manufacturer has no beef in my view. Apple, for example, doesn't support processor upgrades and that's fine with me and fair enough - but they don't have a EULA with their products that says I agree not to change some piece of internal hardware. It's just made clear that I do so at my own risk. An XBox is a computer. If I want to use it in some way for which it wasn't intended, how do I misappropriate Microsoft's intellectual property rights? I can't sell my modified version because it still contains their equipment installations, but I can certainly use it myself.

One can almost always finds extremes which illustrate the absurdity of following any train of thought blindly in all instances. I hardly think that is what anyone was talking about.

With respect to NovaScotian's point about the XBox, I agree and I don't believe that what Microsoft is asking is appropriate and wouldn't buy something which I thought was inappropriately restricting me. If one buy's an XBox and then modifies it against the EULA they are doing something illegal by the EULA and perhaps this is something which falls almost in the category of absurd laws and situations that bedouin is referring to. The nature of an issue might make it a badge of honor to violate the law in that instance, and it might be morally correct to violate that law, but it remains an illegal act.

And, of course, what MS is worried about it that someone will set up a nice little business modding XBoxes to be very fast powerful Linux machines or even building and selling kits for you to install yourself. Like a lot of things these days, XBoxen are probably sold at a loss or near cost like ink jet printers - it's the consumables they want to sell at a big profit.

I think we are all irked by basically the same things. We express slightly different components of those things first and in slightly different ways than another would. These set off little alarms in the heads of those who are veterans of previous such discussions and then suddenly there is a disagreement among people who feel roughly (+/- epsilon) the same way.

I can keep certain states of mind going for a long time, but disagreeing with such well-known denizens of this forum is not one of them (particularly when I think that, minus some misunderstanding of the intent and extent of the other's comments, we're basically all on the same page).

A good night (or good morning) to all of you.

I don't believe in EULAs -- period.

When I pay a developer money for a product I'm fulfilling my moral obligation to ensure they are compensated for their hard work. If there is anything immoral, it's the EULA itself which is a kind of usury, where I'm merely renting the software on someone else's terms, even though I've paid money for a physical product.

If one learns anything from history it's that regulations that have a possibility of being abused eventually will be, just very slowly. MS's Front Page clause is a great example of that, and I have no doubt you will see more of that in the future.

Software EULAs are as ridiculous as putting a EULA on a hammer, a can of paint, or on a book before you open it. Imagine an introduction stating,

"Before proceeding to chapter one, I hereby agree not to quote this book in any research, share it with colleagues, or make copies for my own personal use. Additionally, I agree not to highlight the book's pages, write in its margins, or fold its pages without written consent from the author. Lastly, by proceeding to chapter one I am making a binding agreement with the author to only propagate ideas that are in agreement with his/her ideology, and ensure maximum profits, even in the name of stifling innovation or free thought."

Thankfully Emerson and Thearou weren't contracted by publishers who enforced EULAs, or we'd never benefit from any of their writing. Thankfully early scientists didn't put EULAs on their works limiting the ways in which their findings could be applied to others. The whole discussion just illuminates something that's obvious to anyone who's studied the history of computers in the past 40 years: hobbyists and good guys innovate and cultivate new ideas -- usually for no profit; corporations repackage it and find a way to close it for highest profit. BBS software is a great example of that. All of the major BBS software I used back in the day were donationware. I don't remember the specifics, but an unregistered copy of WWIV might have say "unregistered" in the login, but other than that -- it was fully functional. What prompted one to pay was the happiness the software brought to a person's life each day, and a desire to make sure its creator benefits. Later on comes $100 BBS software and boards that charge $15/month for access, usually offering nothing more than some CD-ROMs full of porn and perhaps multiple lines; there's nothing really innovative about that, it just appeals to the lowest common dominator.

I don't mind paying Apple or other kick-ass developers for their products (Rouge Amoeba, Panic -- more I can't remember), but if I discover I can make any piece of their software do something interesting through some hex editing, I'm going to do it, just like we hex edited Renegade and Telegard back in the day. I'm not talking about pirating here; I'm talking about something legitimate -- kind of similar to what the Game Genie did with gaming (Mario having infinite lives or jumping above the sky). There's a slew of modified ROMs in the emulation scene edited in this manner, like 10 year old spots games for the Genesis modified to include 2005 rosters -- cool innovations that are technically 'illegal.' Or how about a piece of educational software I bought last year that was listed as Mac compatible, but the manufacture (Vivendi) refused to acknowledge a bug in? Essentially, it would refuse to run on any machine with a drive lesser than 7200 RPM because a small piece of code checking hard drive space, and Vivendi refused to refund my money (more on that here). The likelihood of a EULA-breaking hacker fixing this issue is much higher than Vivendi ever lifting a finger.

The bottom line is that violation of a EULA is not a moral issue, it's a legal one. If you want to argue over whether or not someone is good/bad for doing so it's the equivalent to arguing over which operating system is the best, and even with that argument people can develop borderline morality arguments (i.e. supporting proprietary software spreads closed standards, empowering the Microsoft empire, etc.) That's on the fringe of things, and people who support those views have a legitimate experience and psychological reasons for doing so. With this matter however, I have no idea why anyone would take a fringe position in favor of EULAs, except for a sadistic need to please authority, or that they benefit from their exploitation first-hand.

Good heavens, Bedouin: Emerson and Thoreau? :eek: You're killing us with strained generalizations and straw man arguments, and your reasoning about what constitutes moral actions also needs much tweaking, imo.

You don't agree with EULA?

Fine. Duly noted. Pass the biscuits, please. ;)

But you also put in a couple of plugs for piracy (that were fairly well rebutted), and that's different from your tweaking code on a program you lawfully purchased. We don't condone piracy here, and I've yet to hear one good reason from anyone why it should be considered licit or moral.

This is a problem that arises every time there's a conflict between strict legality and the public perception of moral and ethical behavior. Perhaps the best example in US history is the Volstead Act: the law that started alcohol prohibition in 1920 and was not repealed until 1933. Consumption of alcoholic beverages actually increased steadily throughout those years: illegal for sure, but not, by many, considered immoral - in fact there was a certain "chic" to breaking it. Similarly there was a substantial exodus of US citizens eligible for the draft to Canada during the Vietnam war (I know two personally). Illegal, but considered by those folks to be the only moral thing to do.

Having said that, it is always the responsibility of a forum like MacOSXHints to stay the course on the legal side. Participants can argue against the law from a moral perspective (at least in the Coat Room), but cannot advocate breaking that law or publish workarounds here. That's responsible behavior whether those of us who hate the law are frustrated by it or not. Blogs are your only outlet.

I originally did not respond because I wasn't sure if bedouin had seen my peace offering the let the dogs (sleeping or not) lie the way they were.

However, if there were a 'roll eyes' smilie with a frown on it, I'd use that.

I'd like to know whether or not anyone's mind has ever been changed in any of these discussions. I used to be opposed to closing threads for any but malicious postings, but now I think I'd support the instant closing of any thread having to do with license agreements or pirating: all that happens is the ire of posters are raised against one another without any minds being opened or changed. No, it would not be censorship in the sense that the thread would not be removed, it would just save everyone a lot of time and angst, it would save the forum a lot of annoyed members as well as some drive space.

So I guess in light of this current thread someone is going to go over the main site with a fine tooth comb and single out the numerous EULA violating 'hints' on this site? I won't do it, but if you insist on being self-righteous why be hypocritical?

If you believe wearing your seat belt, coming to a complete stop at an intersection, and refusing to jaywalk makes you a better person, that's nice. But I'm tired of pedantic individuals equating moral users as pirates and scoundrels simply because they disagree with a law, which has been done to me numerous times here, though I dare you to find one piece of warez in my software collection.

I don't care if anyone changes their mind, but don't wag your finger at someone over a legal disagreement, when law has nothing to do with right or wrong. The whole opposition to me in this thread has been followed a one-track assertion that I'm a pirate and bad guy because I disagree with EULAs as a concept, and never evolved beyond that kind of simplistic logic; piracy was put aside long ago, on the very first page, as anything 'legitimate' -- yet the argument is always brought back to that.

How brainwashed are you?

I do recall you tossing piracy aside as something you do not condone, and I appreciate that.

There is something separate from being brainwashed, being law abiding, or being moral which is called honor. When I give my word, I follow through. If I do not intend to follow through with portions of a EULA, then I will not agree to it and I will not purchase the item/license. People know what to expect from me and I am treated as such, and that has its own reward separate from money or patronization.

We all have such different backgrounds and outlooks that each of us is coming from an angle that the others cannot see (since we don't know each other and are using the medium of typed words). That is why you find me brainwashed when that is not the case and why I find some of what you say to be surprising when you probably have a valid vantage point that you are operating from as well. We look through our own glasses and we see things in such black and white about people we haven't a clue about. The futility of this and the negative feelings generated from so little for so little is what I was talking about above.

I give my word that I am not posting again to this thread.

I wish you well. May we meet in other threads in better circumstances.

I'm finished with it as well, because I feel that anyone who wants to investigate this issue can review this thread and see both sides of the coin.

I'm sorry, but I just can't let this kind of fallacious reasoning pass. First, I was discussing principles, and second, we made it quite clear that we do not condone piracy. Third, if you do search the site, you'll find that wherever illegal activity is being suggested, it is confronted and the threads are promptly closed. That includes "hints," by the way. Rob and the rest of the Admins and Mods aren't into propagating illegal hints.

If you believe wearing your seat belt, coming to a complete stop at an intersection, and refusing to jaywalk makes you a better person, that's nice. . .

Did I say that? Did anyone say that? Was anyone proposing anything analogically equivalent? This is the kind of fallacious reasoning that makes these discussions so difficult.

I don't care if anyone changes their mind, but don't wag your finger at someone over a legal disagreement, when law has nothing to do with right or wrong. . .

Sez you! I'm very much aware of the distinction between morality and legality, but, that said, there's often considerable overlap, which I don't think you're acknowledging.

Anyways . . . I'm closing this one down as we've covered the thread topic and related spin-offs adequately . . . for about the 10th time this year on this board.