04-19-2009, 03:51 PM
You don't kill, you don't steal candy from the mouths of babies and you don't pirate ships on the high seas so yes you do have morals.
This assumes facts not in evidence.
why doesn't the buyer go out and buy Leopard for whatever deal they want, and provide said copy of Leopard to the seller to prep the the machine?
Possibly because the buyer can set whatever terms he or she likes regarding the deal they want to make. As can the seller.
The buyer has made getting Leopard on the machine as part of the deal. His right, his decision.
The seller has agreed to this (his right, his decision) and should include the legal Install disk used for the Installation. The buyer could take the Mac with no OS installed, but any OS on it should be accompanied by the legal disk. Moral? Judgement call, but I'd say so. Legal? Absolutely. Ethical? At the very least. To not include it would be a violation of at least two of the three aforementioned tenants.
if the seller is nice enough to offer to prep the machine...
Again, that's an assumption.
The statement "The buyer wants Leopard on it." and subsequent statements lead me to believe that this is more about making a sale than being nice.
...w/ something other than the original restore DVD, then the buyer should provide whatever that is.
BS. There is no "should". The buyer could make a request such as "if I give you a Leopard disk, would you install it for me?".
Then there is bargaining.
Buyer: "I want Leopard on that Mac."
Seller: "It'll cost you more because it's not the OS on the OEM install disks."
Buyer: "No, it won't. Same price. No Leopard, no deal."
Seller: "Pound salt. Step off. You want a non factory OS, you bring me a Retail disk or pay the price."
Or:
Seller: "You want Leopard, you got Leopard." But the disk will cost you extra, you bastard.
Buyer: "Great. We have a deal!"
It would seem neither party is concerned about the EULA.
The "nice" part is setting any version of X to give the Bienvenidos Experience.
It's OK to steal or in this case violate the EULA. If everybody does it, how can it be wrong? As long as it's just a little bit. And the violator gets to set the bar, gets to define the limits of "just a little". It shouldn't be anymore then he or she is comfortable with. That would be-- just wrong.
Somebody somewhere has done it; many people have done it; therefore everybody has done it. Not only is this another assumption (and brutally flawed logic), it's deflection. And rationalization.
to do anything else is bending or breaking rules somewhere, or taking advantage of someone/something for some sort of personal gain.
And again, the seller is OK with that.
in an economic transaction, personal gain, by definition, comes at the expense of others
Um, where exactly do you find personal gain defined as being at the expense of others?
...so it boils down to whether or not that expense is at the will of, or w/ the knowledge of the others that said expense comes from. all one has to do, is think about what they're doing to know if their transaction is legitimate.
So, in this case it boils down to the seller explaining that there will be no legal Leopard disk included in the transaction unless the buyer is willing to pay more. On that we agree.
caring about what they're doing is clearly a different story.
At this juncture it appears they don't. If that's the case, then what we have here is more than bargaining. It's conspiracy.
(Just thought I'd throw that in, no extra charge.)
This assumes facts not in evidence.
why doesn't the buyer go out and buy Leopard for whatever deal they want, and provide said copy of Leopard to the seller to prep the the machine?
Possibly because the buyer can set whatever terms he or she likes regarding the deal they want to make. As can the seller.
The buyer has made getting Leopard on the machine as part of the deal. His right, his decision.
The seller has agreed to this (his right, his decision) and should include the legal Install disk used for the Installation. The buyer could take the Mac with no OS installed, but any OS on it should be accompanied by the legal disk. Moral? Judgement call, but I'd say so. Legal? Absolutely. Ethical? At the very least. To not include it would be a violation of at least two of the three aforementioned tenants.
if the seller is nice enough to offer to prep the machine...
Again, that's an assumption.
The statement "The buyer wants Leopard on it." and subsequent statements lead me to believe that this is more about making a sale than being nice.
...w/ something other than the original restore DVD, then the buyer should provide whatever that is.
BS. There is no "should". The buyer could make a request such as "if I give you a Leopard disk, would you install it for me?".
Then there is bargaining.
Buyer: "I want Leopard on that Mac."
Seller: "It'll cost you more because it's not the OS on the OEM install disks."
Buyer: "No, it won't. Same price. No Leopard, no deal."
Seller: "Pound salt. Step off. You want a non factory OS, you bring me a Retail disk or pay the price."
Or:
Seller: "You want Leopard, you got Leopard." But the disk will cost you extra, you bastard.
Buyer: "Great. We have a deal!"
It would seem neither party is concerned about the EULA.
The "nice" part is setting any version of X to give the Bienvenidos Experience.
It's OK to steal or in this case violate the EULA. If everybody does it, how can it be wrong? As long as it's just a little bit. And the violator gets to set the bar, gets to define the limits of "just a little". It shouldn't be anymore then he or she is comfortable with. That would be-- just wrong.
Somebody somewhere has done it; many people have done it; therefore everybody has done it. Not only is this another assumption (and brutally flawed logic), it's deflection. And rationalization.
to do anything else is bending or breaking rules somewhere, or taking advantage of someone/something for some sort of personal gain.
And again, the seller is OK with that.
in an economic transaction, personal gain, by definition, comes at the expense of others
Um, where exactly do you find personal gain defined as being at the expense of others?
...so it boils down to whether or not that expense is at the will of, or w/ the knowledge of the others that said expense comes from. all one has to do, is think about what they're doing to know if their transaction is legitimate.
So, in this case it boils down to the seller explaining that there will be no legal Leopard disk included in the transaction unless the buyer is willing to pay more. On that we agree.
caring about what they're doing is clearly a different story.
At this juncture it appears they don't. If that's the case, then what we have here is more than bargaining. It's conspiracy.
(Just thought I'd throw that in, no extra charge.)