How can I explain to my friend that running a "hackintosh" is a violation of the law? I have a friend who has never owned a Mac. He has just built a "hackintosh" by installing VMWare on his PC running Windows, and downloading a pirated, hacked copy of Mac OS X Yosemite in a portable VMWare virtual machine volume from somewhere online.

He claims to be astonished and unbelieving when I tell him that what he's doing is illegal. He's stealing. He's committing piracy.

He tells me that he installed some hacked "distro" of Mac OS X called "Niresh". He tells me that he assumed that it was legitimate because it appeared to be supported by a large community of computer enthusiasts. He actually said to me "It wouldn't be on the Internet if it was illegal".

Now he's hitting me up for help doing further hacks to make his "hackintosh" behave exactly like a real Mac. He's asked me to run a Terminal script on my Macintosh to output my UUID, MLB (Main Logic Board serial number) and ROM values from my real Macintosh so he can clone these identifying numbers to his "hackintosh" volume.

He says, "No way. I've payed plenty of money to Apple. I bought four iPhones for my family, and an iPad too. So what's wrong with running a Hackintosh?"

He's a research scientist, and I believe he might pay attention to an authoritative published source that explains why what he is doing is illegal.

Can anybody help me find information that I can use to prove to him that what he's doing is illegal?

Update

I sent my friend @cmason's information about the Apple OS X License Agreement, and I believe I have convinced my friend that what he is doing is not legal or ethical.

I also warned him that because he'd installed a version of Mac OS X that had been completely and thoroughly hacked, cracked, and had all its Apple-built-in security disabled, this means that it would be likely that what he downloaded and installed is pre-infected with any manner of root kits, rats, malware and viruses, and that he might now be part of some criminal enterprise's botnet. That helped to get his attention as well.
The mere fact that Apple claims that creating a hackintosh violates the DMCA, and that their EULA is an enfoceable contract, does not make either so. There are rulings in their favor from the Psystar case, but it is not clear whether those rulings apply to end-users or only to companies like Psystar who were reselling hackintoshes.

The chance of an individual being sued is essentially zero, because Apple doesn't want the bad PR of exposing their morally repugnant, monopolistic, anti-consumer tactics to the public any more than necessary.

It is my (totally non-authoritative paralegal-school dropout) opinion that even if Apple's EULA were ruled enforceable, the clause forbidding use on non-Apple hardware is clearly a tying agreement in violation of the Clayton anti-trust act of 1914, and so would be thrown out.