6 ms·

No one but Apple owns a copy of macOS. They own a license to use it according to the terms of that license.

by amarshall 5y ago

Tomte 5y ago
Not according to German law.
- amarshall 5y ago
  Do tell more (genuinely curious).
Mordisquitos 5y ago
Which is another argument against using the term "stealing". At no point does the user deprive Apple of the ownership of macOS.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  Control is a part of ownership. If you don't control how something is used and by whom, you don't really own it. So either using it in unauthorized ways is in a manner theft, or Apple's "ownership" is not real ownership. I'm not sure what the solution is, but IP is a tricky concept no matter your position.
  - CTDOCodebases 5y ago
    It sounds like Apple don’t even own it then if they can’t prevent people from pirating it.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I can’t prevent someone from robbing me, just make it harder for them to do so and have legal recourse if they do it anyway. This still counts as “having control”.
    - amarshall 5y ago
      It has nothing to do with actually preventing all infringement, but instead seeking enforcement in at least some cases. If a copyright owner is aware of substantial infringement and chooses not to pursue (or license) they may lose their copyright through genericization or other means. (Caveat: I’m not a lawyer, but I learned broadly the above from an IP lawyer.)
- amarshall 5y ago
  Sure, and I didn’t argue for or against the use of that term. The legal definition of theft varies by jurisdiction, but is not necessarily limited to physical objects (e.g. services). I have no idea whether it’s appropriate in this case (I’m not a lawyer), but feels more like copyright infringement.
account42 5y ago
As with all information, society as a whole "owns" macOS - Apple only has been granted a temporary monopoly of this information in order to encourage them to create more.
- amarshall 5y ago
  Practically, what’s the difference until their copyright expires?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Innumerable court cases have turned on what are often negligible practical differences. Apple is said, legally, to "hold" copyright. Saying they "own" it would mean they have all sorts of rights and powers around it that we as a society choose not to grant to them. That is not to say that numerous judges have not, on their own initiative, elected to grant holders many such powers. Judges can be just as confused as anyone, and more than some, and so exceed their statutory authority. Congress, moreso. But there is still a difference.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Actually I own several dvds that contain legitimate copies of Mac OS X (back when it came on dvds)
- amarshall 5y ago
  You may own the physical disc, but to use the software on it you need to accept the license terms.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Because to do that, I have to make another copy into the memory of my computer.
passivate 5y ago
You're technically correct, but its debatable whether all parts of EULAs are legally binding/enforceable.

No one but Apple owns a copy of macOS. They own a license to use it according to the terms of that license.

Tomte 5y ago

Not according to German law.

amarshall 5y ago
Do tell more (genuinely curious).

Mordisquitos 5y ago

Which is another argument against using the term "stealing". At no point does the user deprive Apple of the ownership of macOS.

JasonFruit 5y ago
Control is a part of ownership. If you don't control how something is used and by whom, you don't really own it. So either using it in unauthorized ways is in a manner theft, or Apple's "ownership" is not real ownership. I'm not sure what the solution is, but IP is a tricky concept no matter your position.
- CTDOCodebases 5y ago
  It sounds like Apple don’t even own it then if they can’t prevent people from pirating it.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I can’t prevent someone from robbing me, just make it harder for them to do so and have legal recourse if they do it anyway. This still counts as “having control”.
  - amarshall 5y ago
    It has nothing to do with actually preventing all infringement, but instead seeking enforcement in at least some cases. If a copyright owner is aware of substantial infringement and chooses not to pursue (or license) they may lose their copyright through genericization or other means. (Caveat: I’m not a lawyer, but I learned broadly the above from an IP lawyer.)
amarshall 5y ago
Sure, and I didn’t argue for or against the use of that term. The legal definition of theft varies by jurisdiction, but is not necessarily limited to physical objects (e.g. services). I have no idea whether it’s appropriate in this case (I’m not a lawyer), but feels more like copyright infringement.

account42 5y ago

As with all information, society as a whole "owns" macOS - Apple only has been granted a temporary monopoly of this information in order to encourage them to create more.

amarshall 5y ago
Practically, what’s the difference until their copyright expires?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Innumerable court cases have turned on what are often negligible practical differences. Apple is said, legally, to "hold" copyright. Saying they "own" it would mean they have all sorts of rights and powers around it that we as a society choose not to grant to them. That is not to say that numerous judges have not, on their own initiative, elected to grant holders many such powers. Judges can be just as confused as anyone, and more than some, and so exceed their statutory authority. Congress, moreso. But there is still a difference.

tinus_hn 5y ago

Actually I own several dvds that contain legitimate copies of Mac OS X (back when it came on dvds)

amarshall 5y ago
You may own the physical disc, but to use the software on it you need to accept the license terms.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Because to do that, I have to make another copy into the memory of my computer.

passivate 5y ago

You're technically correct, but its debatable whether all parts of EULAs are legally binding/enforceable.