iOS jailbreakers thwarted by Apple's latest version of iBooks - Page 2

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

ePubs is an open format and those purchased books can be used elsewhere.

Reading those books via iBooks isn't keeping you from reading those books from a 3rd party application that can be developed and support ePubs format.

You just won't get all the extra little touches like preview a book and then buy the book via iBooks without a third party having to develop those services that Apple developed for it's users, not for it's jailbroken users.

Get it?

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

ePubs is an open format and those purchased books can be used elsewhere.

Reading those books via iBooks isn't keeping you from reading those books from a 3rd party application that can be developed and support ePubs format.

You just won't get all the extra little touches like preview a book and then buy the book via iBooks without a third party having to develop those services that Apple developed for it's users, not for it's jailbroken users.

Get it?

Go get Stanza: http://www.lexcycle.com/

Originally Posted by Euphonious

Have you read the terms and conditions that you agreed to before downloading anything from iTunes?

I certainly haven't - but I'd bet my hat that there's a clause in there which allows Apple to do exactly what it's done. The jury might be out on whether it's immoral, but illegal it ain't.

Originally Posted by Hodar

I bought my iPhone from AT&T for $200
I pay my monthly AT&T bill of $113
I jailbreak my phone

Now, books I have purchased for ~$15 each are not viewable?

How is this not extortion? What I am doing (jailbreaking) is perfectly legal. What Apple has done, is denying me the ability to view a book I have legitimately paid for.

This is nothing short of extortion. Now, this will create a new effort by people to crack the DRM on iBooks; and when the DRM is broken on iBooks - this will create a new Book piracy industry that does not exist today.

As we used to say in grade school - "Nice move, Ex-lax"

Originally Posted by pmz

What Apple is doing with iBooks is not legal, and if this were a court case, Apple would be laughed out.

Get it?

Originally Posted by jubei_nj

25% sounds high. You're assuming that they would buy it in the first place. Since Apple provides no app trials, I know people who use pirated apps as a way to try out an app before jumping in. Do you provide a "lite" version? Is it a fairly inexpensive application? I can't see anyone pirating a $.99 app...

Originally Posted by jubei_nj

Also, Apple has a super easy way to combat piracy - look at the tweaks and utilities that people jailbreak for and put similar technology into your OS. If iOS had SBSettings or BiteSMS (my two major jailbroken apps) I wouldn't jailbreak.

Originally Posted by pmz

What Apple is doing with iBooks is not legal, and if this were a court case, Apple would be laughed out.

Get it?

Originally Posted by disesy

I want to point out, Apple is not allowing them to use a jailbroken phone, the courts are. Apple wants a completely closed system to keep their 30% coming. It might not be extortion, but I would be interested in the usage agreement that you acknowledge when you download the app. I suspect that the policy might conflict with what the courts have said that the iphone must be open.

Originally Posted by Hodar

So, a 'Pre-emtive strike' on iBooks, for something I may, or may not do in the future; is justification for preventing me from accessing iBooks I have legitimately already paid for? Why not block the iPod functionality - just in case? Why not shut down my phone service, just in case?

Jailbreaking is LEGAL.
Denying me access to material that I have legitimately purchased is ILLEGAL.

Simple enough?

Originally Posted by stevetim

What I hear apple saying here is they want me to buy kindle books from now on.

Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot

What you really hear is Apple saying is lets support developers.

Originally Posted by mobility

Nobody's denying you access you dimwit. There's a way to access it. This is necessary because of the content deals. Literally no one of any importance cares about your problem.

Originally Posted by pmz

What Apple is doing with iBooks is not legal, and if this were a court case, Apple would be laughed out.

Get it?

Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot

What you really hear is Apple saying is lets support developers. Jailbreaking is the way apps are pirated. Not all people with jailbroken iPhones (?) steal software but per news reports there are enough of them out there that at times it has been approx 90% stolen 10% purchased (for certain apps). Lets pay people for their hard work. Typically apps are in the $0.99 to $4.99 range with the lower side being more the norm. Is it too much to ask to pay people for their hard work.

I get it that to some folks they feel limited and they want to hack the iPhone. I also see what has happened with the android OS and am glad I am in this walled garden, no virus protection needed, not much in the app store as far as stolen content or apps, malware or the like. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll keep my iPhone.

BTW: I am also a developer.

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

You're less bright than you profess. It's not illegal. If the publishers don't want Apple to keep jailbreakers from respecting their DRM they will stop their licensing deals with Apple which authorizes them to use their works that you buy a license to use on that platform. Good luck in suing that corporation and your defense is that they don't have a right to restrict access to their legally owned properties.

Originally Posted by LuisDias

I, for one, will never buy an e-book. Ever.

Originally Posted by Hodar

In the meanwhile, all my future book purchases will be through Kindle. iBooks has a lot of polish - but Kindle doesn't deny me access to the books I have paid for. And when you have dropped over $100 on books - this is a big deal.

Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin

If I can unlock my iPhone, run MyWi (which I paid for) instead of paying AT&T extra for bandwidth I already purchased, run XBMC, SBSettings, FolderEnhancer...

Until then, I'll jailbreak. The iPhone and iPad are fantastic devices, but they are too restricted by Apple. If they make it impossible to hack them, I will choose one of the many options that are quickly becoming available (Android, WebOS...)
And no, I don't pirate apps or books. I pay for everything. Which is another reason why I, as a paying customer, refuse to let the vendors dictate how I will use the stuff I purchased.

Originally Posted by yensid98

All people with a jailbroken iPhone have decided the benefits of jailbreaking outweigh the benefits of using the iPhone as Apple designed it and have no leg to stand on when complaining that certain features don't work the same or at all. Jailbreaking may be a legal thing to do but Apple is under no obligation to service or make sure those devices work the same as non-jailbroken iPhones. It's very simple.

Originally Posted by lewisdorigo

I'd just like to point out that "law allows jailbreaking" thing is technically inaccurate.

It was decided that distributing custom firmware onto the device wasn't violating copyright. There's a big difference. All it means is that Apple couldn't sue the Dev Team for copyright infringement. It doesn't mean that they have to allow jailbreaking.


You also agreed to various usage terms and conditions when signing up to get the phone, as well as when buying books from the iBooks Store. If you're not happy with the terms you signed up for, then don't agree to them. Simple as that.

This patent gives the impression that Apple believes they have or will have the right to investigate customers they believe are using their device in an unauthorized way.

Abstract
This is generally directed to identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device. In some embodiments, an unauthorized user of the electronic device can be detected by identifying particular activities that may indicate suspicious behavior. In some embodiments, an unauthorized user can be detected by comparing the identity of the current user to the identity of the owner of the electronic device. When an unauthorized user is detected, various safety measures can be taken. For example, information related to the identity of the unauthorized user, the unauthorized user's operation of the electronic device, or the current location of the electronic device can be gathered. As another example, functions of the electronic device can be restricted. In some embodiments, the owner of the electronic device can be notified of the unauthorized user by sending an alert notification through any suitable medium, such as, for example, a voice mail, e-mail, or text message.

You may think you own the device you bought last week from a retailer. But it is increasingly the case that what you own is only the hardware; you dont own the right to use it the way you want to use it, even for entirely legal purposes.....

A lockdown on PCs and a corresponding rise of tethered appliances [like the iPhone] will eliminate what today we take for granted: a world where mainstream technology can be influenced, even revolutionized, out of left field. Stopping this future depends on some wisely developed and implemented locks, along with new technologies and a community ethos that secures the keys to those locks among groups with shared norms and a sense of public purpose, rather than in the hands of a single gatekeeping entity, whether public or private.....

Originally Posted by Hodar

Ummm - Jailbreaking MY iPhone is perfectly LEGAL.

Denying me access to iBooks that I have paid for, is theft.

Not all Jailbreakers are thieves, I know several jailbroken phones - and NOT ONE of them use stolen Apps.

I'd wager that 95% of Jailbreakers go to the effort, because of MyWi. MyWi simply turns on a function that is built into the iPhone, and is turned off by the cell provider. The Cell provider has opted to charge $20/month to enable something my phone has always been able to do. How I consume my 2 GB is MY business - not my cell phone providers.

Would anyone tolerate a $20/month surcharge to use your speakerphone?

Originally Posted by Hodar

snip

In the meanwhile, all my future book purchases will be through Kindle. iBooks has a lot of polish - but Kindle doesn't deny me access to the books I have paid for. And when you have dropped over $100 on books - this is a big deal.

Originally Posted by Cinemagic

So jailbreaking is legal. I purchased books from Apple

Originally Posted by Cinemagic

and Apple has now made it impossible for me to read these books as long as I legally jailbreak. Well, now I'll simply buy from Amazon, use the Kindle reader (on the iPad) and piss on Apple's iBooks. And yes, jailbreaking IS legal. You need to read the statement from the US Government's Library of Congress. If it is not illegal, then it is legal. It is legal to do ANYTHING that is not specifically declared illegal (US Constitution). Unless you live in another country, it's not hazy at all. Now once jailbroken, it becomes easy to do illegal acts like use pirated software. I don't thing there's anyone that will contend that pirated software is legal or moral to use in any fashion. This ability is one reason Apple fights jailbreaking. Apple's desire to control 100% of the user experience is another.

It is correct that Apple is under no obligation to cater to jailbroken devices. They can and do everything they can to block jailbreaking. My gripe right now is that I paid Apple for books. I paid Apple for my iPhone and iPad. By blocking me, I feel that Apple has stolen my money. I didn't steal any of their software, hardware or anything else. The two Cydia apps I have I also paid for. Cydia has not cheated me. But now Apple has cheated me. Allow me to get a refund for books I purchased through iBookstore and I'll be happy.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Let the whining begin.

What possible justification is there for jail breaking in order to pirate a book? Yet, there are those who through tortured logic or by setting up ridiculously improbable hypotheticals will find a justification, or merely assert their right to "do whatever I want because I bought it."

Others like to hack everything as some climb a mountain: "just because it's there."

Originally Posted by jukes

technically you bought a license to view digital content on up to 5 authorized devices which doesn't include jailbroken devices

this is the wrench in the deal to buy digital content from apple

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Agreed.

Additionally, people mis-state things when they say that jailbreaking is "legal."

Jailbreaking has not been declared "legal." What happened is that the decision was made that jailbreaking is "not illegal" (provided certain conditions prevail). It may not seem like it but that's a big difference. One of those conditions is that if the purpose of the jailbreaking is itself to break the law or assist in breaking the law, then it's no longer a legal thing to do.

Originally Posted by TomMcIn

Since developers get most of their sales and return on investment thru legitimate sales, they have to set their price accordingly. If there were no pirated copies, they could lower their price. In effect, legitimate purchasers are paying more so the pirates can freeload.

Originally Posted by jkichline

This isn't extortion. Jailbreaking in this manner compromises built-in security measures on the phone. iBooks uses this API to ensure that purchased books are legitimate and not stolen (the basis of capitalism). Jailbreaking isn't illegal, but if you are messing with the innards of the OS to do it, you can expect some things to not work. It would be like messing around with your car's engine to get more horsepower and then bitching about the manufacturer when you blow a head gasket. Apple simply provides no warranty for you if you are going to mess with your phone's OS.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Agreed.

Additionally, people mis-state things when they say that jailbreaking is "legal."

Jailbreaking has not been declared "legal." What happened is that the decision was made that jailbreaking is "not illegal" (provided certain conditions prevail). It may not seem like it but that's a big difference. One of those conditions is that if the purpose of the jailbreaking is itself to break the law or assist in breaking the law, then it's no longer a legal thing to do.

In other words, if your intention when jailbreaking is to get around the DRM on the iBooks store, then it's 100% illegal. Jailbreaking as it currently exists enables one to get around the DRM on the contents of the iBooks store, therefore it enables an illegal act.

All of this is admittedly quite hazy, but people going on about how "jailbreaking is 100% legal" and that this should somehow trump Apple's attempts to lock down content and so forth are being ignorant at best.

What does the Copyright Office's ruling mean?

The short answer is that jailbreaking your iPhone or other mobile device will no longer violate a controversial federal copyright law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. Bypassing a manufacturer's protection mechanisms to allow "handsets to execute software applications" is now permitted.

How does it affect iPhones specifically?

Apple exercises greater control of its hardware and software than most of its competitors. Anyone remember last fall's court-ordered permanent injunction that Apple won against Psystar, which sold PCs with OS X pre-installed?

On the iPhone, Apple restricts the software that can be loaded onto the device. Applications can be downloaded through the App Store, and to be included in the App Store, the program has to be vetted and approved by Apple....

So does Apple have to support jailbreaking?

Nope. Section 2(c) of the Apple iPhone Software License Agreement (PDF) bans any attempt to "modify" the iPhone software or to reverse-engineer it.

What that means is that Apple can still legally -- if it chooses -- protect its phones from jailbreaking. The contract formed between the user and Apple (and the user and the wireless carrier) when the iPhone owner agrees to the user licensing agreement is binding, says Tom Sydnor, a senior fellow with the Progress and Freedom Foundation who takes an expansive view of copyright law.

Just because the DMCA allows individuals an exemption to jailbreak their own phones, "it doesn't mean Apple or a carrier can't protect contractual restrictions to deal with it," Sydnor said. "Essentially the exemption says this is the sort of thing that falls in bounds of contracts."

Apple could pursue breach of contract if someone jailbreaks their phone, or they could sue a person or company that creates jailbreak software for inducing someone to breach their contract with Apple. In other words, Sydnor said, "even if there was no DMCA, you could still be bound not to circumvent that technological protection."