It would make more sense if you said "calling something a crime is...".
I disagree with this comment due to the level of colloquial discussion. Illegal is (colloquially) whatever you can't do because of the law. (Just about the only exception is a contract, which you might be forced to follow because of the law, but we don't view as part of the law in a colloquial sense.)
Regarding "nothing will happen, you don't even have to feel bad." That is a very narrow view and I disagree that this is the correct way to view all civil torts.
Indeed, the whole idea of a tort is that you have wronged someone. You are literally saying that you don't ever have to feel bad for wronging someone, because they would have to sue you and prove their case, even though an entire field of law has been enacted to give them the possibility of making them whole again.
On a very literal level, you are saying "you don't have to feel bad for wronging your neighbor." (Which is the definition of a tort.)
precisely because of how damaging it is to someone. The terms I use is that it shoudl "be illegal", and I compare it with libel and slander, which are both torts.
Basically, your view is no different from saying that you are innocent until you are proven guilty of a crime. Well, yes and no.
This is a contract question, specifically the End User License Agreement. It is not a case of innocent until proven guilty. It is innocence because there is no guilt. Civil courts do not determine guilt. Civil procedure is concerned with establishing damages. This isn't just semantics. This is the entire definition of what these words mean.
In the case of running Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, Apple is not wronged. Where are the damages? What has Apple lost? Apple has lost nothing.
Running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware damages Apple as much as putting on a Harry Potter puppet show at a children's library damages JK Rowling. Zero. It just makes people more interested in Apple hardware and JK Rowling books and movies respectively.
If Apple can find you, they can send you a cease and desist letter. That is the most action they can take. Likewise for JK Rowling shutting down a puppet show using characters she created.
I disagree with this comment due to the level of colloquial discussion. Illegal is (colloquially) whatever you can't do because of the law. (Just about the only exception is a contract, which you might be forced to follow because of the law, but we don't view as part of the law in a colloquial sense.)
Regarding "nothing will happen, you don't even have to feel bad." That is a very narrow view and I disagree that this is the correct way to view all civil torts.
Indeed, the whole idea of a tort is that you have wronged someone. You are literally saying that you don't ever have to feel bad for wronging someone, because they would have to sue you and prove their case, even though an entire field of law has been enacted to give them the possibility of making them whole again.
On a very literal level, you are saying "you don't have to feel bad for wronging your neighbor." (Which is the definition of a tort.)
Look, I even argue for a new form of a tort (civil liability) here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7910112
precisely because of how damaging it is to someone. The terms I use is that it shoudl "be illegal", and I compare it with libel and slander, which are both torts.
Basically, your view is no different from saying that you are innocent until you are proven guilty of a crime. Well, yes and no.