Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree to the terms of Software License Agreement found at apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux, but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing), you can't since the bootloader is locked.
Iirc, those shrink wrap licenses are of questionable enforceability. The Wikipedia entry on "shrink wrap contract" agrees, but I'm not well-versed on the topic.
IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software without an appropriate license from the copyright holder is considered a violation of civil copyright law.
Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be invalid. If the EULA is the agreement that grants end-users permission to use the copyrighted software, would the invalidation mean that users were in violation of copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software that's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
It reminds me of a US visa, which is far from free, and you pay for applying whether you is granted it or not. It allows you travel to a border control and ask to be let in. They can refuse you without explanation.
All visas work this way afaik, at least in the few places I’ve traveled where I’ve needed a visa; notably Africa.
I met a Italian man at immigration control in Ethiopia, at the Addis Ababa airport, he had been traveling Africa and this was his third attempt to enter Ethiopia. The first two attempts were via land borders with Kenya and he had been turned around both times, despite having a visa, because border control felt it would be too dangerous for a white man to travel through southern Ethiopia at the time. So he had to travel to Nairobi and get a flight; he was admitted this time, but he had to pay for another visa at the airport. Unclear why? He wasn’t best pleased about the whole thing.
Oh, let's not with my country. We're also the only nation in the world that requires its abroad citizens to pay the same tax rates domestic citizens pay, and only offers a credit-basis for exempting income that you paid taxes on to the country you reside in.
It's the reason nearly all US citizens who move overseas eventually give up their citizenship. My great aunt left for Poland 30 years ago, and renounced her citizenship within 3 years because she was paying taxes on everything she earned twice, one under Polish law and again under US law.
The US doesn't care about your other nationalities. If you have citizenship or permanent residency in the US you need to file taxes (though despite what the other poster is saying, you may not actually need to pay any taxes).
If the nations have a tax treaty, you are usually not double taxed on income below some threshold. Last I checked, it was around the first $100k or so worldwide income, for US taxes anyway. After that, you are taxed at some rate, but I’m not sure if it is reduced at all or how different forms of income may affect this.
I believe the threshold, which is basically a big deduction, always applies if you meet the criterion (living outside the US). Tax treaties come into effect regarding whatever income you have beyond your deductions.
Good points. I should note that my foreign income was taxed and paid in the jurisdiction in which I earned it, so if you are not liable to pay foreign taxes on foreign income, you may not get the deduction advantages of a tax treaty to offset your US tax liability on worldwide income, as the intent is to not double tax. If you weren’t taxed on that income yet, the US may hold a tax liability on any and all income not already taxed, and it may be taxed a second time if said income exceeds limits.
That’s how I understand it, anyway. I hope to be corrected if I’m inaccurate as this is not my area of expertise.
I think this skips a step. You don't need a copyright license to use software. Copyright only protects making copies, making derivative works, and public performance. This is why shrinkwrap EULAs are a thing. You don't actually need a license, but they claim you agree to one just by opening the shrinkwrap. When you buy a CD or download software, the (presumably) authorized manufacturer or server made the copy that you receive.
The idea that you may not be receiving a copy at all and you merely have access through a license is a legal construction that's not well tested in court and to me seems pretty dubious. How can giving someone a transcription of the bits of the software not be a copy of the software? Anyway this court opinion (final appeal in Step-Saver vs Wyse Tech) deals with the issue and you can read what a court thinks: https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/s...
I particularly like this paragraph where they discuss some of the context of the issue even though they decide not to specifically rule on this part.
> When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.
It has been possible to run OSX on PCs for quite a few years now courtesy of the Clover and OpenCore apps. There have been countless Github projects, websites, forums etc dedicated to providing material assistance in using them.
At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g. DCMA or cease and desist letter.
In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
