Is anyone running OS X 10.4 x86?

[Hex Star]

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_piracy

The copyright infringement of software, also called software piracy,
refers to several practices when done without the permission of the
copyright holder:
Creating a copy and selling it. This is the act most people refer to
as software piracy. This is copyright infringement in most countries
and is unlikely to be fair use or fair dealing if the work remains
commercially available. In some countries the laws may allow the
selling of a version modified for use by blind people, students (for
non-educational product) or similar. Differences in legislation may
also make the copyright invalid in some jurisdictions, but not the
others.
Creating a copy and giving it to someone else. Copyright infringement
in most jurisdictions. Not infringing under specific circumstances
such as fair use and fair dealing.
Creating a copy to serve as a backup. Seen as a fundamental right of
the software-buyer in some countries, e.g., Germany. It can be
infringement, depending on the laws and the case law interpretations
of those laws, currently undergoing changes in many countries. In the
US, legal action was taken against companies which made backup copies
while repairing computers (see MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer,
Inc. (1993)) and as a result, US law was changed to make it clear that
this is not copyright infringement.
Renting the original software. Software licenses often try to restrict
the usual right of a purchaser of a copyrighted work to let others
borrow the work. In some jurisdictions such the validity restrictions
are disputed, but some require permission from the copyright holder to
allow renting the software.
Reselling the original software. Licenses often say that the buyer
does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the
software. In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and
Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are
purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful
regardless of a contractual prohibition. The reasoning in Softman v.
Adobe suggests that resale of student licensed versions, provided they
are accurately described as such, is also not infringing.
Copyright infringement of software is extremely common in Mexico,
China, Russia, Brazil, and several other parts of the world where it
is legal. However it is illegal in mostly English-speaking nations.

Contents
 [hide]
1 Software licenses
2 Unauthorized copying as being the ethically correct choice
3 Existing and proposed laws
4 Preventing copyright infringement
5 The effects of copyright infringement on our culture
6 Objections to the term piracy
7 References
8 See also
9 External links
[edit]
Software licenses

Some people believe that, in some jurisdictions, unauthorized users
may not be violating any software license that is created on consent
by contract. By using an unauthorized copy, they do not become parties
to the sales contract, and hence not bound by the license. Only the
original purchaser may be found in infringement. However, most
software requiring installation has a licensing dialogue that requires
the end user to accept the license before installation is completed
(referred to as a "click-through license"), which obviously prevents
subsequent installations. Most, if not all software now has a first
installation license that a user agrees to by opening the shrink-wrap
around the product (a "shrink-wrap license"), and even though such
installation is gratuitous it may nevertheless be enough to create a
contract between the copyright holder and the end user (who benefits
from the use of the software). However, as the second installation in
the shrink wrap license may not be done by the person who removed the
original shrink wrap (or opened a sealed envelope or some such
variation), the click-through license is preferred because it will
bind all subsequent installations.
Although the question has not been addressed in court, some
journalists have questioned whether such a license is enforceable if a
minor completes the licensing dialogue, since minors are not allowed
to enter into contracts in some jurisdictions and any contracts they
do sign are legally void unless confirmed, though many jurisdictions
do recognize that rental and sales contracts to minors made in the
regular course of business as being valid, otherwise children could
take candy from candy stores without any legal consequences and their
parents could ask for money back after playing video games in arcades.
[edit]
Unauthorized copying as being the ethically correct choice

Some contend that any license not allowing a person to share with his
neighbor to be ethically wrong. Still others, while laying less stress
to the ethics of copyright restrictions in and of themselves,
nevertheless see it as a dangerous slippery slope. Other arguments for
unauthorized copying being the ethically correct choice can include
having bought software, but either losing the original box, the
software being deleted from your hard drive, or both, and you want to
re-use it again without having to re buy the software.
Also, some people, particularly those who live in poverty in the
developed world or who live in third world countries, sometimes argue
that it is OK, or at least morally ambiguous, to copy software which
they could not have otherwise afforded, especially if copyright
infringement serves some other public purpose. For example, a
community center might host a LAN game using multiple copies of
software when only one is licensed, and the organizer may feel that
the good of "keeping the kids off the street" outweighs the bad of
using multiple copies of the software when not licesnsed to do so.
Another example might be a non-profit foundation that installs an
unlicensed copy of Windows when it refurbishes old computers to be
given to the poor. They recognize that a retail boxed licensed version
of Windows can cost more than a new computer, and both of them are
outside the budget for their organization. For various reasons,
Microsoft created Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher Program to provide
legal and reasonable licensing for these organizations.
https://www.techsoup.org/mar/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/citizenship/giving/programs/it_build.asp
[edit]
Existing and proposed laws

To many of these attempts at circumventing these end user license
agreements (EULA) software vendors counter that if a user somehow
obtains software without agreeing to or becoming bound by the end user
license agreement, then they do not have any license to use the
software at all.
In most developed countries, the term of a copyright greatly exceeds
any useful life a program may have. The oldest legacy computer systems
used today are still less than 40 years old. The copyright on them
will not expire in the United States and Europe until about 2030.
Changes in computer hardware, operating systems, network environments
and user expectations usually make programs obsolete much faster than
in 70 years (current copyright length).
Under the proposed US Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act
(UCITA), a controversial model law that has been adopted in Virginia
and Maryland, software manufacturers are granted broad rights to shut
down unauthorized software copiers without court intervention similar
to some of the provisions found in Title II of the US DMCA, the Online
Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which allows
copyright holders to demand that an online service provider (OSP)
expeditiously block access to infringing materials. If the OSP
complies, it is granted a safe harbor, providing it immunity from
infringement claims. If it doesn't comply, it doesn't become liable,
but may instead rely on the protection of the Communications Decency
Act.
Title I of the US DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and
Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent
persons from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work". Thus if a software manufacturer has some
kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in the
software any attempt to bypass such a copy prevention scheme may be
actionable — though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing
anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA — anticircumvention exemptions
that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software
designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient
(child safety and public library website filtering software) and the
circumvention of copy prevention mechanisms that have malfunctioned,
have caused the software to become inoperable or which are no longer
supported by their manufacturers.
Most commercially exploited software is being made in the United
States, Japan and Europe, hence for those located in economically
disadvantaged economies it can be prohibitively expensive to pay for
all the end user licenses for those products rather than to purchase
just one license and then copy the software without paying any
additional licensing fees. Some critics in the developing countries of
the world see this as an indirect technology transfer tax on their
country preventing technological advancement and they use this type of
argument when refusing to accept the intellectual property laws that
are in force in most technologically advanced countries. This idea
applies to patent and trademark laws as well.
[edit]
Preventing copyright infringement

Some approaches used for prevention of software copyright infringement:
Copy prevention and Digital rights management: The addition of
software or hardware systems to make the copying and/or distributing
more difficult.
Legal action against infringers or those who make infringement
possible: penalties can be extreme and vary from country to country.
The recent RIAA settlement with students operating music download file
servers from several universities in the US (including Princeton
University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Michigan
Technological University) is an example of this type of aggressive
prevention policy (though with respect to digital music sharing, not
software).
Prevention of importation of prirated hardware or software into the
US, the Homeland Security confiscates this just as much as they
confiscate weapons and contrabands.
[edit]
The effects of copyright infringement on our culture

Piracy has changed the landscape of our digital culture drastically.
Peer to peer (P2P) file sharing technology and IRC have allowed for
the easy spread of not only pirated software, but also massive amounts
of information. In his book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig, a prominent
figure in science and technology studies, mentions that "the Internet
has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many to participate in
the process of building and cultivating a culture that reaches far
beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the marketplace for
making and cultivating culture generally, and that change in turn
threatens established content industries." Thus, on the surface
software piracy looks like a simple crime of stealing another person's
or company's information or material, when in the regard of software
piracy is never theft, but copyright infringement or piracy; however,
piracy has in a sense opened up once closed doors and has allowed for
the easy spread and access of once closed software and code. Hence,
piracy is not merely about the illegal sharing of software or
protection of personal property, there is more at stake when it comes
to the freedom to share all information without restrictions. In his
book, Lessig argues that the laws imposed through the bidding of big
industry have "massively increased the effective regulation of
creativity in America." The law, in essence, is restricting the spread
of information, technology, and culture. Thus, when addressing the
"problem" of software piracy one cannot just see it in black or white,
right or wrong. Software piracy and piracy in general are complicated
and multifaceted topics which affect almost every aspect of our lives.
What we decide to do about piracy as a society will determine our own
cultural development or lack thereof in the future.
[edit]
Objections to the term piracy

Some groups including the Free Software Foundation object to the term
"software piracy." Their objection stems from the idea that to label
one as a pirate creates a prejudice that is used to gain political
ground. Evidence of this can be seen in the Free Software Foundation's
list of confusing words [2].
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as "piracy." In this way,
they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking
ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and
murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it.
Neutral terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying"
are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a
positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor."
Despite the murdering and kidnapping that has been undertaken by
real-life pirates, pirates can have a romantic Long John Silver image.
This could actually attract some people to participate in software
copyright infringement.
One organization that campaigns against software copyright
infringement refers to the practice as software theft. As software
copyright infringement does not usually involve a deliberate attempt
to deprive the software owner of the software, this term is very
misleading. See Federation Against Software Theft.

On 10/15/05, Sven Luther <sven.luther at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 03:43:30PM -0700, Hex Star wrote:
> > I'll gladly stop but I can't let someone insulting me/mocking me just
> > go...it's not how I work...
>
> Just two points, i did in no way insult you or mock you, altough i guess other
> did, but up to a point, you just did in the above, so i guess maybe you should
> apologize or something :)
>
> What you say is true, pirating x86 os X is illegal and should not be done and
> not be encouraged in any way, but that is not theft, and trying to claim it is
> theft has wide-range implications on the future, so should be discouraged. It
> is especially not theft in the context of running it on MOL, as it is not
> money which would have gone to Apple in any case, as apple makes money on
> hardware sales. Apple turned traitor on us and left powerpc just for better
> ipod cpu prices anyway.
>
> So, please before going all ballistic, try to see the point of the people you
> are discussing with, and don't be so enclosed in your own opinions.
>
> And, no, there is not any insult or mocking intended in the above, nor i think
> in any of my previous messages, and if you feel there is, please put it down
> to english not being my native tongue.
>
> As for MOL being illegal, well, MOL is not, but the mac os driver stuff is.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
>