[vessenes]

Hmm, MGM claimed that ripping a CD was legal to the SCOTUS, and I am certainly allowed to circumvent CSS on DVDs for non-infringing purposes, but I think my argument holds just fine if you substitute an ISO of Snow Leopard, a DVD I finally found in my basement recently.

I find the claim that I can't remotely backup the ISO over the internet surprising -- I have never even heard of such a stance.

[trotsky]

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.htm

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original.

[vessenes]

This is my point, exactly. A backup to a private DropBox folder of the iso is clearly fine even by Apple's own terms, regardless of what the law says.

However, a backup to a public Dropbox folder with a known, distributed link is.

So far so good. The question is, does DMCA require both to be taken down for a given notice, because they hash to the same file in the Dropbox database?

[trotsky]

Copy #1: the installed version of the OS (permitted)

Copy #2 (backup): The .iso file in your local dropbox folder (permitted if on the same computer as #1)

Copy #3: The .iso file on dropbox's primary storage array (not permitted - second backup copy)

Copy #4: The .iso file on dropbox's high availability storage array (not permitted - third backup copy)

Copy #5: The .iso file as copied to any other of your subscribed dropbox clients (not permitted - forth backup copy)

Not to mention the fact that copies #3 and #4 seem to obviously qualify as "available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time"

While I understand that there may be some difference in interpretation about these clauses I think you should reconsider your working definition of the term "clearly".

[fluidcruft]

> "available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time"

To me, they're clearly describing a network boot setup. i.e. you only have one installed copy of the OS, and you have a bunch of (possibly diskless) client machines boot from that single copy via netboot or similar.

[nitrogen]

To me, they're clearly describing a network boot setup.

Both "to me" and "clearly" will get you into serious trouble when dealing with legal matters. The likely outcome is that, if Apple decided to file a civil suit, or a prosecutor found grounds for criminal copyright infringement prosecution, the prosecuting attorneys would use whatever interpretation is in their favor.

[fluidcruft]

I don't see how "used by multiple computers at the same time" makes any sense in your interpretation but I was trying to be diplomatic.

[nl]

That is a licence agreement, not the law. (I realize they uses OS-X for the example, but it was a bad example because the Apple license confuses things)

Apple could licence you to only use their operating system while wearing white robes and chanting to Steve Jobs, and if you agreed to the license that would have rights against you.

That doesn't mean anything for an arbitary ISO.

[dodedo]

This is not a question of license, which a user may or may not have agreed to participate in. By simply purchasing media I obtain all fair use rights -- I can make a backup of it without ever engaging in a license agreement.

[sliverstorm]

Oh, this is convoluted. Does "Apple Software existing on a computer" encompass both a computer on which it has been installed and a computer holding the iso? Is a copy of the iso on your hard-drive considered a machine-readable backup?

[mukyu]

The current DMCA exceptions granted by the Copyright Office[1] do allow you to circumvent CSS, but only for very specific educational or such use. Making a personal backup copy does not fit the criteria and thus is illegal, even though that is is normally allowed under just copyright.

[1] http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/

[Natsu]

There are other reasons to be careful and get legal advice if you have any reason to worry. They have said that they cannot exempt you from the "trafficking" provisions that cover the tools to circumvent things.

So it's pretty easy to hit a Catch-22 where you're "allowed" to do the act itself, but it's difficult or impossible to legally acquire the tools needed.