[OT] EULA and legality

[Roger Eller]

In this age of digital perfection, legislation as well as digital coding
are applied to personal, private use copies of over-the-air music or media.
 Certain devices which are authorized for making personal, non-commercial
copies have already included royalties in the device cost, which goes
directly to the recording industry, according to what I read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Regarding your comment "and it was dishonest back then", yes it was
dishonest to make bootleg CDs and profit from selling them.  That has not
changed.  A personal one-off copy from over-the-air which may include the
ending of a commercial, or the radio station host talking through the
beginning of a song; it's not a copy worth paying for, but it does offer
the listener a chance to replay it and decide if they wish to purchase it
later.

I won't even entertain a response to your "these are the kind of people"
remark.  People would definitely pay $200+ for a good OS, even when a
$19.99 version exists for Apple hardware owners.  It is the same as a
business paying for the higher priced LiveCode membership even though less
expensive options exist.  The user just needs to understand why the price
is different and what is or is not included.

For those who want to build a custom mac and use OS X, today the only
option is "without support" from Apple, and that's ok because in some ways,
the community support is better.

~Roger


On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Roger Eller wrote:
>
> > There are car stereos that have a record button just like the cassette
> > recorders of the past.  Is it dishonest to press record and get a
> > less-than-perfect mp3 recording that is perfectly acceptable to the
> > listener (for free)?  I don't think so.
>
> Just as dishonest as sitting down in a cinema and pressing record on your
> camcorder.
>
> As for less than perfect, in today's age of Digital broadcasters the
> version you get is a whole heap better than when it was done with a
> cassette recorder. And it was dishonest back then.
>
> > Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Apple (as a business) charging a
> > higher price for their OS for use on non-Apple hardware.  I would gladly
> > pay Windows prices, but for the increased cost, I would expect *some*
> level
> > of support.
>
> Oh right, the people that currently disregard the EULA are going to pop
> over to the Apple Store and when presented with two buttons, one marked
> $19.99 and the other $219.99* they are going to fork over the extra $200
> because these are the kind of people happy to pay a premium for their
> hardware and software when they know the $19.99 version will run just the
> same. Sorry, I don't think you have a chance of convincing Apple of that
> business model.
>
> Actually the Windows Store says Ultimate 'starts at $219.99' so I don't
> know it may be even more expensive if you include some of the features like
> 'sharing photos and music' and 'creating a home network' and 'added
> security'. How novel.