Are Hackintoshes Illegal?

by Chris Howard Mar 11, 2009

Note: Apple Matters is not providing legal advice here. If you are concerned, or have additional questions please discuss this with an lawyer. 

After last week's article about possibly building a hackintosh, I had the unsettling thought of doing something illegal. I usually avoid illegal behaviour, especially pirating software, music and movies, as that is depriving someone of their legally entitled income. But who is missing out if I build a hackintosh for my personal use?

As I want to focus on on the issues of you building your own hackintosh, I'm not about to discuss the Pystar situation, short of saying, if it simply sold an OS X ready computer, Apple wouldn't have much of a case. If you are interested in that argument, there is a very good discussion on the Pystar case over at OSNews.

If I build a hackintosh it would be done using a purchased retail off-the-shelf version of Mac OS X. That is, the full version OS X, not any pre-installed version from a Mac. So there's no pirating or breach of copyright there.

Some folks will argue off-the-shelf Mac OS X is an upgrade version so can only be used on existing Macs, but that is not the case. Nowhere in the End User Licence (EULA) or on the packaging does it indicate that it is an upgrade version. Nor does it behave as such. For instance, an upgrade version of software would normally look for an earlier version before installing. So, whenever I buy Mac OS X off-the-shelf, no one is losing any money, least not Apple.

Apple might claim that if you build a hackintosh it loses money because you're not buying a Mac. That is flawed on two counts.

First, every retail copy of OS X sold doesn't equate to a Mac sold, and probably rarely does, as it will instead be used to upgrade an existing Mac. Over the years I've bought Panther, Tiger and Leopard without buying a new Mac. So in fact, Apple's selling of OS X encourages you not to buy a new Mac.

Second, this restriction discourages people from switching to Macs. Imagine if you're a Windows user and Apple comes out tomorrow and says "We can't and won't provide technical support, but from now on we don't care if you install OS X on any PCs that will support it." This is why Linux has garnered the success it has. It allowed people to try it out without having to buy a new computer. Although, as an unsupported machine, the hackintosh market is always going to be very limited, mainly to geeksters and nerdiacs, so it's not like it's going to massively dent the Mac market.

That said, the uptake begins with geeks and nerds. If more of them got OS X on their PCs, we might see the walls built by bigotry towards Macs break down and the flow on effect could be quite beneficial to Apple to say the least.

Precedent?
Software aside, is there a precedent for the restrictive licence? Do car manufacturers restrict what roads you can use you car on? Fridge makers, do they say "I'm sorry, your kitchen is too ugly, you can't use our fridge in it."? Can any manufacturer control how their product is used? "I'm sorry, your going to priz. It clearly says on our shampoo's label only to be used on blonde hair."

The astute among you will be pointing out that these are all products you buy outright, whereas software you buy a licence to use. Man, whoever came up with that scam is owed big time by the software industry!

So lets consider software. MS Office does have limitations in its EULA, but all you who are defending Apple, how would you feel if Microsoft decided to change Office's EULA so you could only use it on Microsoft branded computers? Or ditto Windows? Or maybe if MS showed some compassion and limited it to only Dell and HP?

I trust there'd be many Apploids who'd be screaming for Microsoft's binary blood to be spilled.

Apple's view
Anyone who's looked at the mess the Windows world is in because of driver and compatibility issues will understand why Apple doesn't want to go down that path. Apple would do better to turn a blind eye to hackintoshes, and to some extent it has. Hadley has not been asked to take down his articles on building an OS X netbook, and nor most others who've done the same.

Am I breaching some other hidden clause if I build a computer capable of running OS X? Apparently not, as according to research on the web, many Dell computers are already OS X compatible. (Makes you wonder if Dell is up to something.)

When all's done and dusted, you shouldn't be made to feel like a criminal because you installed OS X on a non-Apple computer, should you?

So, are hackintoshes illegal? Well, Apple would like you to think so. Technically, selling a hackintosh is illegal simply because you're selling an illegal product. But for you knocking one up in your back yard, provided you're using a legit version of OS X and only on that machine, it's not worth Apple pursuing it. So go for it! And let us know how it goes.

Note: Apple Matters is not providing legal advice here. If you are concerned, or have additional questions please discuss this with an lawyer. 

Comments

  • I bought this really awesome exhaust system from BMW and made it fit my Mazda.  My Mazda now sounds really cool and it runs faster.  But wait, based on the arguments of many of you fanboys here, I’m hurting R&D;at BMW because I didn’t purchase a BMW which comes with this exhaust.  This exhaust is only an upgrade for existing BMW’s.

    Do you realize how silly you guys sound trying to defend a EULA?

    jocknerd had this to say on Mar 13, 2009 Posts: 23
  • @UrbandBard,  When I said you can unlawfully record TV, I also said the TV stations openly allow it, and have even allowed programming codes to be published in TV guides.

    This despite it being blatantly illegal.

    You’re right. We don’t have a right to record TV, nor breach the OS X EULA.

    But (like the TV guide publishers) I am going to encourage people to build hackintoshes because Apple - just like the TV stations - seems quite happy to let it pass, provided - again like the TV stations - it is for personal use.

    (If you tried using a hackintosh in the enterprise, Apple would have you drawn and quartered. Likewise, if you tried selling hackintoshes - as Pystar is finding out.)

    Apple appears to be deliberately leaving the personal use guys alone. They haven’t even gone after the sites that promote breaching the EULA, such as hackint0sh.org and InsanelyMac.

    I’m happy if you can provide sufficent evidence to the contrary.

    And yes, you’re very right. If Apple does include some sort of DRM in Snow Leopard, I’ll look a right fool. (I doubt it though after Steve’s letter to the world about being against DRM on music.)

    BTW Reading your last couple of posts, your main issue seems to be about me encouraging illegal behaviour. For that WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ME, you say I have no integrity or morality.

    On that, you are seriously wrong. And as that is a personal attack, it totally undermines your own integrity and the integrity of your argument. (I’m not saying it means you have no integrity, just merely makes people question it.)

    I’m happy for you to say me encouraging this unlawful behaviour questions my integrity, but to say I (or anyone else defending breaching the EULA) therefore have *none*? Pfft! It just reflects badly on you and your argument.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Mar 13, 2009 Posts: 1209
  • Jacknerd, dId you violate any promises to BMW when you modified the car? No.

    Again, many people here contend that they bought OS software when they bought and upgrade box of Mac OSX. They did not. They bought a license to use it which included a DVD for ease of use. Do you catch the distinction? Why are these people so anti-property rights?

    UrbanBard had this to say on Mar 13, 2009 Posts: 111
  • Chris Howard said:
    “@UrbandBard,
    When I said you can unlawfully record TV, I also said the TV stations openly allow it, and have even allowed programming codes to be published in TV guides.
    This despite it being blatantly illegal.
    You’re right. We don’t have a right to record TV, nor breach the OS X EULA.”

    I believe the case is not as clear as you say regarding the recording of TV signals, since the US courts have allowed some “Fair Use” provisions.

    As I said, a support network can spring up around an illegal or questionable activity. That support network does not justify the activity. This would not be a good analogy though. You must use an OS in its entirety against the wishes of the owner of the Operating System.


    “Apple appears to be deliberately leaving the personal use guys alone. They haven’t even gone after the sites that promote breaching the EULA, such as hackint0sh.org and InsanelyMac.”

    That is Apple’s choice. This leniency may be temporary. I was merely replying to false arguments.

    “And yes, you’re very right. If Apple does include some sort of DRM in Snow Leopard, I’ll look a right fool. (I doubt it though after Steve’s letter to the world about being against DRM on music.)”

    I still don’t know why you think it would be wrong of Apple to defend itself and its property from misuse. Most people are honest; they don’t want to steal music. Most have no interest in stealing software. But, there is a moral question here.

    I merely objected to the tiny portion who think is permissible to steal software so long as they are unlikely to be punished for it. I questioned the practice of defending thieves and hypocrites.

    “BTW Reading your last couple of posts, your main issue seems to be about me encouraging illegal behavior.”

    If the shoe fits wear it. If you are not defending the rights of the hackers to steal software, then don’t.

    Your attitude seemed mixed. You kept supplying arguments which excused the practice without directly encouraging it. You said that Apple was foolish to disagree with hackers misusing its OS. You made the argument that Hackintoshes were in Apple’s interest. I merely said that this was not your decision to make.


    “For that WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ME, you say I have no integrity or morality.”

    You are caught on the crux of your ambiguity. I made a general statement that people defending the right of others to steal have no integrity or morality. You then applied that statement to yourself. You want to be offended at me, when you are not being honest with yourself. I did not demean you, you demeaned you. Therefore, it is not a personal attack.

    A personal attack demeans you as a person. I merely disputed your actions. If you were innocent, then you would be falling all over yourself denying that you were giving the hackers cover. Your taking offense says that you have chosen sides with them. Fine, then drop the hypocrisy. Accept the label of scofflaw.

    “I’m happy for you to say me encouraging this unlawful behavior questions my integrity, but to say I (or anyone else defending breaching the EULA) therefore have *none*? Pfft! It just reflects badly on you and your argument.”

    Mostly, your problem is an inability to think clearly. Your many arguments place you on the side of the hackers. Why not proudly accept that? The problem is the hypocrisy of trying to defend both sides while secretly being with the hackers.

    UrbanBard had this to say on Mar 13, 2009 Posts: 111
  • @UrbanBard,

    Another scenario, I owned a Miata.  I looked into putting a Ford 5.0L V8 motor in it. Would it be in Ford’s rights to say I couldn’t buy a motor from them and drop it in a car that wasn’t a Ford?  Even if Ford had a EULA attached to the motor?  This was tried in the 50’s by Ford and GM.  Courts shot them down.  So why is it different for software?  As long as I’m buying that copy of OS X, it is mine, not Apple’s.  I have the right to do with it as I please.  Its my copy.  If I want to use it to power a toaster, its my right.  EULA’s are useless and lawless, especially those that come inside the packaging yet tell you by opening the package, you accept the rules of the EULA.  How can you accept it?  You had to open the package to even read it.  I guess we just have different opinions on what constitutes property.  You believe that DVD you purchase belongs to Apple.  I believe that DVD that I purchase belongs to me.

    jocknerd had this to say on Mar 13, 2009 Posts: 23
  • It’s simple morality, jacknerd. You may not understand such complex topics. It’s about respecting other people’s rights and keeping the promises you made when you opened the box and installed the software.

    The Multi-cultural Leftists are all into power. If you have the power to get away with something, then who is to deny you? “Why should there be ramifications, “they would say?

    Of course, there are always ramifications. When you treat people as though they are the enemy and violate their property rights, then they take evasive action. They fight back. And it doesn’t matter if you pout and declare, “They have no right!”

    I’m not saying that you are a Liberal Fascist or a crypto-communist, but I could scarcely tell the difference from your words. Linux socialists sound about the same. They hate commercial software, but they sure love to exploit another person’s efforts.

    “@UrbanBard,
    Another scenario, I owned a Miata.  I looked into putting a Ford 5.0L V8 motor in it. Would it be in Ford’s rights to say I couldn’t buy a motor from them and drop it in a car that wasn’t a Ford?  Even if Ford had a EULA attached to the motor?  This was tried in the 50’s by Ford and GM.  Courts shot them down.  So why is it different for software?  “

    The point that the courts shot down was that you could not be bound to a dealership, when it was a generic part.

    So, how is the software different? The Mac OS is not a generic part. It is a specific and integral part of the Mac experience. If you want to install Window or Linux on a Mac then go ahead. Apple has given you permission to do so. But, you need to buy a license from Microsoft to use its OS.

    The PC hardware manufacturer had no right to install Mac OS on generic PC hardware and neither do you. Apple gives you no such permission when you purchase a license and expressly forbids using non Apple hardware.

    “As long as I’m buying that copy of OS X, it is mine, not Apple’s. “

    Sorry, you never bought a copy of OSX. You purchased a license to use OSX under certain conditions which you want to violate. If I can’t press onto you this distinction, then there is no point in talking to you. You would have shown yourself to be an amoral person—a scofflaw.

    “I have the right to do with it as I please. “

    Not so. The only way to do anything you please with it is to break you promises. If promises are worthless to you, then you are acting like a barbarian. Or a spoiled brat.

    “It’s my copy.  If I want to use it to power a toaster, it’s my right.  EULA’s are useless and lawless, especially those that come inside the packaging yet tell you by opening the package, you accept the rules of the EULA.  How can you accept it?  You had to open the package to even read it. “

    If you can’t abide with the conditions, then take it back to the store. Get your money back.  Don’t install it on your machine if you can’t agree to the conditions.

    You want to have it both ways—to break your promises and use the software. Then, you use specious logic to justify your immoral behavior. I’m not buying it.

    If you can’t keep your promises then you need to grow up a bit. It doesn’t matter what your age is. You could be 80 years old and be untrustworthy.

    “I guess we just have different opinions on what constitutes property.  “

    Yes, you want to misuse people then use sophistry to excuse yourself. I don’t.

    “You believe that DVD you purchase belongs to Apple.  I believe that DVD that I purchase belongs to me.”

    No, you own the DVD. You could sell it to someone else. But they would be bound by the same conditions that you are. You own the DVD, but you don’t own the information inside it. All you have is a license to use the OS under Apple’s conditions.

    I keep wondering if you understand plain English. But, it’s more than that, isn’t it?  Your problem is that you want to make Apple’s decisions, for them. You don’t believe that Apple has a right to protect itself from you. It does.

    If enough of you Linux hackers steal Apple’s software, then Apple will take action to take you down. Very soon, it will have the software in place in Snow Leopard which will allow them to do that.

    UrbanBard had this to say on Mar 13, 2009 Posts: 111
  • @UrbanBard,

    Its a shame you love OS X so much considering how much leftist socialist software is included in it.  FreeBSD, Apache, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, Sqlite, traceroute, whois, curl, etc.  I could go on and on, but I don’t want to upset you knowing that your beloved OS contains a lot of socialist software.  You should be really thinking the open source movement, because without it, OS X would cease to exist in its current form, and Microsoft would control the Internet.

    jocknerd had this to say on Mar 14, 2009 Posts: 23
  • UrbanBard said: “If enough of you Linux hackers steal Apple’s software, then Apple will take action to take you down. Very soon, it will have the software in place in Snow Leopard which will allow them to do that.”

    FUD

    It’s reasonable of you to be against me promoting hackintoshes, but to suggest the above is just scaremongering. If Apple really was worried about hackintoshes, it would issue cease and desist letters against hackint0sh.org, InsanelyMac and even Apple Matters.

    But I’ll say no more on that, because I will write about it next week in a piece about why Apple likes hackintoshes.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Mar 14, 2009 Posts: 1209
  • “Fair use”.

    Thanks UrbanBard! That’s exactly what we’re about! Progress brings challenges to old ways of thinking. The video recorder meant the “fair use” clause had to be added.

    Personal hackintoshes will see a need for a fair use clause in OS X if Apple tries to fight.

    An article I read today about the web (which you might find uncomfortable), but worth a read, says:

    Each phase had an overlap period, where the old world tried to prevent the new one from being born. Books can be banned, heretics burned, research forbidden, commerce halted, but eventually new forces define old institutions.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Mar 14, 2009 Posts: 1209
  • Chris

    “The video recorder meant the “fair use” clause had to be added.”

    Please do some homework. Start at wikipedia. Video isn’t the reason, it’s much older, part of common law for a long time.

    But do you really want to bark up that tree? IMHO EULA as unenforceable, as contract agreed to under duress, or as monopolistic in effect, all have more merit than fair use. Fair use is about research, teaching (and no educational system that I know of has tried to use any OS claiming fair use) criticism, reporting and satire. Even if I could claim one of those categories for my laptop, I wouldn’t because I use it for personal (therefore not Fair Use) uses.

    And yes, personally I still believe it is illegal and unethical to break the EULA.

    David

    DJMW had this to say on Mar 16, 2009 Posts: 6
  • Thanks, David. I knew I shoulda checked before I threw that line in.

    Looking at Wikipedia though, you can see a reference to a court case regarding recording TV broadcasts (called the Betamax case). In part it says “a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.”

    So although the “fair use” clause actually wasn’t added as I erroneously said, it did need to be tested in court in relation to a new technology, in this case video recorders.

    So “fair use” wasn’t added to the law, instead video recording for the purpose of time shifting was. Six of one, half dozen of the other, really.

    From what I can understand of the “fair use” clause as it has been applied so far, it may not infact be able to be applied to allowing you to install OS X on any capable machine for personal use.

    However, like the video recorder, I imagine before long someone will, if prosecuted, challenge the EULA in court claiming the right of fair use. Who knows if they’ll win.

    The exemptions for fair use as you list them are interesting though, because there’s no mention there (or on Wikipedia) of any that apply to personal use.

    Looking around Australia, I did find a Fact Sheet that expressly allows recording for time-shifting purposes.  There is one particularly interesting condition listed:
    - A library of copied television and radio programs is not allowed. A time-shift copy can’t be stored for repeated use.

    I imagine there’s a lot of people in Australia unknowingly breaking that law.

    But that, of course, is neither here nor there regards the OS X EULA.

    It is something similar to the fair use though we want for the software EULAs, and in our case, OS X.

    Chris Howard had this to say on Mar 16, 2009 Posts: 1209
  • Jacknerd said:
    “@UrbanBard,
    Its a shame you love OS X so much considering how much leftist socialist software is included in it.  FreeBSD, Apache, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, Sqlite, traceroute, whois, curl, etc.  I could go on and on, but I don’t want to upset you knowing that your beloved OS contains a lot of socialist software.  “

    I neither love Mac OSX or hate Open Source. I’m discussing moral issues, here.

    People have a right to be generous and community minded. Much of science and technology is built on the foundations laid by great minds who then contributed their developments for others to use.

    The only thing wrong the Linux Socialists is that they expect to continue controlling something after they give it away. They often have an antipathy to companies and capitalism. They expect that companies have no right to build on what they have created. And yet, the various open source licenses allows those companies to do so. It is in the FOSS community’s interest for them to do so.  Almost all old proprietary Software is, eventually, given to the community.

    Apple’s Unix foundations are under GPL and BSD licenses. Apple uses a GPL license when it intends to give back to the community and a BSD license for the software that it expects to keep proprietary.

    Unix is not Open Source; it has been in existence for 35 years and started off as AT&T;‘s property. BSD is older than Linux and most of Apple’s code is based on it. The Linux Socialists have contributed little to Apple. But, they want to take credit for everything.

    Nor should you think that Apple had no part in shaping those technologies that you listed. The World Wide Web was developed on a NeXT computer in Switzerland. And Apple has contributed greatly to Open Source, although, it is up to Apple to decide what should remain proprietary.

    It is good for the Free & Open Source Software Community to have a huge commercial company like Apple involved in Open Source development. It extends the Unix base. It gives Linux users a desktop and applications to do common functions without having to put up with Microsoft Windows. Besides, Apple makes cute hardware. Lots of Linux users buy it. It is a win-win situation.


    “You should be really thinking the open source movement, because without it, OS X would cease to exist in its current form, and Microsoft would control the Internet.”

    This is a mutual endeavor. Where the FOSS community is in error is in thinking that THEY control Open Source when no one controls Open Source. Everyone can take from it and give back according to the various licenses.

    Again, my part in this discussion is in disputing a supposed right to steal and misuse Apple’s proprietary software.

    You have no idea how many discussions I’ve had with FOSS people who think that Apple is ripping them off— stealing their software. That is, taking from Open Source and not giving anything back. This is untrue: Apple is likely the largest single contributor to Open Source followed by the Universities. Moreover, Apple does the grungy coding that is too unsexy to capture a volunteer’s interest.

    So far as I see, Apple abides with its licenses. All I’m asking for is some moral consistency, here. You don’t like the idea of Apple ripping off Open Source, but think it’s okay to violate Apple’s license? Phooey.

    UrbanBard had this to say on Mar 16, 2009 Posts: 111
  • Chris Howard said:
    “UrbanBard said: “If enough of you Linux hackers steal Apple’s software, then Apple will take action to take you down. Very soon, it will have the software in place in Snow Leopard which will allow them to do that.”
    FUD
    It’s reasonable of you to be against me promoting hackintoshes, but to suggest the above is just scaremongering.”

    I do not know what Apple intends. I merely know what Snow Leopard’s 64 bit security will allow Apple to do, which can’t be easily done now in 32 bit security. I am saying that you are tempting retribution.

    ” If Apple really was worried about hackintoshes, it would issue cease and desist letters against hackint0sh.org, InsanelyMac and even Apple Matters.
    But I’ll say no more on that, because I will write about it next week in a piece about why Apple likes hackintoshes.”

    Apple is not likely to take a stance where it does not have the power to back it up. That runs the risk of being laughed at. We will see what happens after Snow Leopard is issued.

    Perhaps, nothing will. But it is foolish to think that Apple will never attack you. Or has no right to attack you.

    UrbanBard had this to say on Mar 16, 2009 Posts: 111
  • David,

    The concept of “fair use” goes back to using excerpts of novels or plays as a means to critique them in newspapers and magazines. Part of the idea is that the author gained benefits from having his works exposed to the public, although he lost a tiny portion of the control over his property.

    But, taking an author’s work and publishing it in its entirety is stealing. An operating system has to be used in its entirety, so that is stealing, too.

    David said:

    “ IMHO EULA as unenforceable, as contract agreed to under duress, or as monopolistic in effect, all have more merit than fair use.”

    What duress is there? All contracts demand that the parties which gain benefits, must also comply with conditions. Money is only part of it. No one compels you to place the Mac OS on PC hardware. That is your choice. And you must break your word to do it.

    Nor is it monopolistic. You are allowed to use other software. You can use Linux or Windows if you comply with their conditions. Or write your own OS. No one is keeping you from doing that.

    Besides, it is not against the law, in America, to have a monopoly. You simply can’t use a monopoly for extortionate means. But, it is the extortionate means—higher prices and poorer services—which prompts people to go into competition with you. Every monopoly, which is not backed with governmental force, fails eventually.

    Whether a contract is enforceable depends on the courts. In free market conditions, a EULA would be strictly enforced because it is voluntary. Under a communist society, no contracts are enforced, because the government can set them aside at will.

    We, in America, live in a semi-Fascistic society where it varies depending upon whoever is in power. The Democrat Party tends to be anti-property and thus, anti-contract.

    “Fair use is about research, teaching (and no educational system that I know of has tried to use any OS claiming fair use) criticism, reporting and satire. Even if I could claim one of those categories for my laptop, I wouldn’t because I use it for personal (therefore not Fair Use) uses.
    And yes, personally I still believe it is illegal and unethical to break the EULA.”

    That is all that I’ve said.

    UrbanBard had this to say on Mar 16, 2009 Posts: 111
  • UrbanBard:

    I guess one of my concerns with your stance is it seems to be “Like it or lump it.” No fight at all! Correct me if I’m wrong.

    If I’m wrong, how would you suggest we lawfully fight to get Apple to allow individuals to install OS X on a PC for personal use?

    If I’m not, then shouldn’t the same have applied to those complaining about MS bundling IE with Windows, and all that went with that case?

    In both situations, a major corporation is using its position of strength to control its product in the market. MS did it to sell Windows, Apple is doing it to sell Macs.

    Is there any real difference?

    Chris Howard had this to say on Mar 16, 2009 Posts: 1209
  • Page 3 of 6 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »
You need log in, or register, in order to comment