or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Mozilla, Skype support EFF's case for iPhone jailbreaking
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mozilla, Skype support EFF's case for iPhone jailbreaking

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
In a filling with the US Copyright Office, Mozilla and Skype have added their voices of support to a request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to iPhone jailbreaking.

The exemption would strip Apple of its ability to charge groups with DMCA violations for circumventing the iPhone's security by modifying Apple's internal iPhone software, as long as they did it under the cover of "enabling interoperability," according to the exemption wording proposed by the EFF.

The jailbreak arguments

Users can already bypass Apple's security system by jailbreaking their iPhones using freely available software. This allows the users to run software that Apple does not allow in its App Store. It also allows users to bootleg pirated iPhone software, strips the iPhone of any functional protection from malware, and complicates Apple's ability to release software updates, as the modified firmware on jailbroken phones can result in failed software updates that render the phone unreliable or even unusable until it is restored back to factory default settings.

Speaking for the EFF, Fred von Lohmann has called Apple's argument against the exemption "FUD," "corporate paternalism," and "absurdity." Apple's fillings say the EFF's new exemption request is unnecessary, as the DMCA already has provisions that allow circumvention to enable interoperability. It also claims the EFF is merely trying to use the courts to attack its unique business model, and that the EFF does not present any evidence to back up its claims that legitimizing jailbreaking would result in increased innovation.

Few software companies offer iPhone titles that require jailbreaking, in part because of the grey area under the shadow of threat of a DMCA violation charge from Apple, and in part because of the lack of any profit motive behind distributing software outside of the App Store, where Apple's DRM creates a viable market for mobile software. For developers who can't sell their titles in the App Store, it's an entirely different story however.

Mozilla wants freedom, but won't go on the iPhone

Mozilla insists that Apple would probably not allow it to offer a mobile version of Firefox for the iPhone, based on its reading of the iPhone SDK, which forbids the installation of alternative runtimes. It has neither submitted Firefox nor has it been officially denied a listing by Apple.

A Computerworld report filed by Gregg Keizer quoted Mozilla's CEO, John Lilly, as saying, "The [iPhone] SDK is very clear, that Flash and Firefox and other runtimes are not welcome on the iPhone." However, the report also noted that Lilly "said he doubts Mozilla would venture into the iPhone even if the Copyright Office grants the DMCA exemption over jailbreaking."

Mozilla's mobile version of Firefox, called Fennec, aims to compete against mobile browsers based on Web Kit, including Apple's Mobile Safari and web browsers developed by Nokia, Google for Android, Palm for its upcoming Pre, and RIM for the BlackBerry Storm.

Apple claims in its filing with the Copyright Office that alternative apps which compete with Apple's own software are allowed as long as they meet the other requirements of the SDK. It even specifically cites web browsers; the App Store reveals a handful of alternative web browsers that are already available for download. Most appear to be alternative interfaces to Safari which use the WebKit rendering engine, but at least one appears to use its own.

Skype's missed connection

Skype, which is owned by eBay, a prominent early adopter in iPhone software development, also joined in to endorse the EFF's exemption request, stating "copyright law should not interfere with a user using his or her phone to run Skype and enjoy the benefits of low- or no-cost long-distance and international calling."

However, Apple does not prevent VoIP applications on the iPhone, as long as they use WiFi. The App Store lists a variety of VoIP apps, but Skype currently does not offer an iPhone version of its software.

Unclear intent

If allowed, the EFF's exemption might make it easier for companies that want to offer an alternative to the App Store, including the jailbreak software download tool Cydia, which also filed a comment supporting the EFF's proposal.

The DMCA exemption would not stop Apple from filing a copyright infringement case against groups who modify and distribute its software however. The DMCA only relates to the circumvention of security measures that control access to copyright material. Bypassing security doesn't remove copyright. It also doesn't invalidate Apple's software license or SDK, both of which forbid modifying Apple's internal software. A DMCA exemption would only make it far more difficult for Apple to pursue known pirates.

Apple hasn't yet filed or even threatened to file DMCA complaints against any groups or individuals involved in jailbreaking. Instead, the company has focused on making the App Store attractive enough to render jailbreaking superfluous and irrelevant to most users. Since the release of the iPhone 2.0 SDK, interest in jailbreaking has waned considerably.

The company still opposes the EFF's efforts to legitimize jailbreaking, as it would tear down a barrier to copyright infringement, encourage users to dismantle the malware security measures of the iPhone, expose the company to additional support costs from jailbreakers complaining about having "bricked" their iPhones, and erode the commercial success of the App Store, which was built upon the premise that DRM would allow developers to offer apps at low prices in exchange for a high volume, low piracy marketplace.
post #2 of 47
They call it 'Jailbreaking' but thats just another way of saying 'HACK'

So basically a group wants it to be legal to hack a companies product to enable then to run their own programs and effectively open the door to piracy.

Maybe the EFF should start a case for Sony and Microsoft to make it legal to hack both of their consoles so you can run your own software on them (like backups from torrents).

Apple provides an App store which currently serves over 20,000 applications so its not like they are preventing people from getting their apps out there. As the app store grows and any vulnerabilities on the iPhone OS are worked out the limitations of the SDK will be reduced. We have already seen this with certain Apps which were previously refused but have since been allowed onto the store.

As with any technology you always get a group of so called L33t hackers who think its their god given right to do whatever they want with someone elses product and business. Infact these hackers are simply leeches who provide the gateway for pirates and counterfeiters to abuse products and services.
post #3 of 47
Precisely, as said above. Although this is inevitable, that these bad boy l33tz will crack any new product, demanding that they do so lawfully is laughable, i stand by Apple to do everything they can to maintain that doing so is unlawful, they designed it the way it is meant to be, if you don't like it don't buy it!
post #4 of 47
Will Skype let me use whatever SIP provider I want with their software?

Is it 'closed' software?

I think I'll stick with Fring.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #5 of 47
Will Skype let me use whatever SIP provider I want with their software?

Is it 'closed' software?

I think I'll stick with Fring.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #6 of 47
I can't jailbreak the unix server at my office. And I can't jailbreak my way to see a database table that I'm not granted the permissions to see. Why don't Apple just secure the system? At some point in the jailbreaking process, the jailbreaking software must be getting a legitimate login to do its work, right?

Regardless of the jailbreaking debate, we all benefit from better security.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #7 of 47
Gecko? Sorry, but we don't want Gecko. WebKit has massive momentum, on OS X and Linux, not to mention Windows with Google Chrome and Apple Safari.

Gecko isn't dying. It's just not happy that it's first cousin has grown up?
post #8 of 47
One of the biggest attractions to the iPhone IS because you can't easily pirate software on it. Why should we make it easy for people to then circumvent the system that allows developers to actually make money? This has fostered a whole new era of indie developers who don't have to be working through some uncaring conglomerate company to make a living. That's freedom.
post #9 of 47
Yup, its ridiculous, to me this could cause pirated apps. Imagine how a $1 developer app end up in torrent site and everyone end up downloading it? That would kill small developer motivation to create apps for the iPhone.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #10 of 47
1. Mozilla hasn't actually tried to get Firefox approved

2. skype is basically for using your computer to make contact with a phone on the other side, yes. but with an iphone you have to buy phone service anyway. so why would someone risk killing their iphone to get a program that is going to use wifi to make a call when they have to have phone service. is calling an international number really that expensive.

3. most of the companies that you to hack your phone/touch are so because they were too lazy to try to figure out the official installer. there are only a few practical exceptions like qik which will hopefully be out of business soon and apple will have short video recording on the phone (like my epson still cam has)

4. for the conspiracy nuts: anyone else think this is a ploy by apple to encourage folks to jailbreak, which is a violation of your warranty and then you have to buy another phone. and ATT won't give you that $200 again so they make more as well.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Skype, which is owned by eBay, a prominent early adopter in iPhone software development, also joined in to endorse the EFF's exemption request, stating "copyright law should not interfere with a user using his or her phone to run Skype and enjoy the benefits of low- or no-cost long-distance and international calling."

However, Apple does not prevent VoIP applications on the iPhone, as long as they use WiFi. The App Store lists a variety of VoIP apps, but Skype currently does not offer an iPhone version of its software.

You can even use Skype on your iPhone - you just have to install Fring, a free download from the AppStore - so someone at Skype must have smoked a funny cigarette or being handed the divorce papers.
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

Yup, its ridiculous, to me this could cause pirated apps. Imagine how a $1 developer app end up in torrent site and everyone end up downloading it? That would kill small developer motivation to create apps for the iPhone.

Sorry but you all seem to miss the point.

a) "I dont have to jailbreak my unix system".
No you dont because your system administrator has the root password and you can do whatever you want with the box YOU OWN. This is not the case on the iPhone. It means apple can do whatever THEY want with the phone YOU own.

b) pirates
Pirating software is definitively not the same as jailbreaking. There are very good reasons why jailbreaking is useful to overcome Apple's sometimes stupid limits. Like to use the iPhone as a gateway so you can get on to the internet from your computer over the iPhone. Something totally legitimate. Apple says you are not allowed to write software to do this because AT&T doesnt want you to do it (and the SDK's limits also dont allow it). Theres a world outside AT&T and USA. Those users do want to use it.

I bought my own iPhone 3G without contract. So I'm not bound to any operator. I can do whatever I want with the device I bought and paid money for. Luckily, the rules of USA would not stand up in court in most (if not all) european countries because once the device is sold to the buyer, the buyer has the right to do whatever he wants with it. He might violate his warranty or can't use it as a phone afterwards but that's then his problem. I know many people who have jailbreaked their phone but I have not seen a single one who did it for the purpose of running pirated software.

Frankly, the hassle to run pirated software on the iPhone is way bigger than the few bucks you pay for the software usually. There the App Store does good things. But also its a monopoly which sets up rules which are sometimes ridiculous and prevents invention.
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... The jailbreak arguments... Speaking for the EFF, Fred von Lohmann has called Apple's argument against the exemption "FUD," "corporate paternalism," and "absurdity.". ...

So, that's the entire argument for the EFF side? That's all that's mentioned in any of the articles I have read so far (including this one), sounds like sour grapes to me.

I guess the DMCA only applies until you get successful, then not?

With all that Apple has done for open source and with all they are trying to do for Skype, both of these companies should be ashamed of themselves for trying to roast Apple like this. Anyone who knows anything about the iPhone knows that it's processing power and memory is severely limited. Anyone can see that if Apple had to support multiple run-times and HTML engines it would be crap and come crashing down. What they want is not possible on the iPhone 3G and they know it.

Shameful.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #14 of 47
My iphone is jailbroken. I have not, nor has anyone I know pirated apps for their jailbroken iphone. Also, I still buy apps on the app store AND pay for jailbreak-only apps. Apple is definitely too restrictive with the phone. One of the biggest reasons I bought the iphone 3G (as opposed to waiting) was GPS. I never thought I'd be waiting this long for a useful GPS app. If apple doesn't loosen up, the iphone will be bypassed and i will be very unhappy.
post #15 of 47
I'm with the EFF on this. And I don't see why Apple needs to bother worrying about it: Jailbreaking is fun for the techie hobbyist, but Apple doesn't lift a finger to help jailbreakers when OS updates come out--and the OS is evolving fast. The very fact that the OS is a moving target is enough to keep jailbreaking from being so widespread that it's a huge problem for Apple or app developers. (I understand that jailbreaking is already a SMALL problem for app developers, since it supports piracy.)

So what's the reason, I wonder? I wonder if Apple has to defend their iPhone OS in this way, simply as a necessary companion to their desktop OS battle with Psystar? Psystar a complex issue that has gone in many absurd directions. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has to defend their iPhone software in certain ways or risk losing protection of their desktop OS X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by plum1030 View Post

My iphone is jailbroken. I have not, nor has anyone I know pirated apps for their jailbroken iphone. Also, I still buy apps on the app store AND pay for jailbreak-only apps. Apple is definitely too restrictive with the phone. One of the biggest reasons I bought the iphone 3G (as opposed to waiting) was GPS. I never thought I'd be waiting this long for a useful GPS app. If apple doesn't loosen up, the iphone will be bypassed and i will be very unhappy.

Have hope: Apple HAS been loosening up, and even said months ago that they foresaw 3rd-paty GPS apps coming. IIRC, GPS apps depended on Location Services gaining heading support, which may or may not have happened in the last few OS updates. But it's planned if not. I certainly would love to have a full GPS/voive app, with pre-cached route data! (Supplemented by Google aerial imagery if and when you have a connection?)

But re piracy: it IS a real issue, even if you and your friends are among the good guys. Look on iPhone dev forums and you'll find some developers reporting that MOST of their users are pirates. That varies, but it's a serious concern that I wouldn't want to see grow. Worst case (which has happened): an app with an Internet back-end means the dev is spending big bucks providing 'net services to pirates!
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

So, that's the entire argument for the EFF side? That's all that's mentioned in any of the articles I have read so far (including this one), sounds like sour grapes to me.

I guess the DMCA only applies until you get successful, then not?

The whole case does seem fairly frivolous to me, especially given Apple's own admission that the DMCA already has provisions that allow circumvention and reverse-engineering for the purpose of providing software interoperability.

Quote:
Anyone can see that if Apple had to support multiple run-times and HTML engines it would be crap and come crashing down.

Of course, Apple shouldn't be required to provide support for multiple run-times and HTML engines which they didn't provide. That said, I don't see any reason why 3rd parties shouldn't be allowed to supply their own run-times and HTML rendering engines, provided they assume all liability and responsibility for providing support.

Quote:
What they want is not possible on the iPhone 3G and they know it.

In what way is it "not possible"?
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi66 View Post

Theres a world outside AT&T and USA.

Are you kidding!? Outside USA!? Really!?

post #18 of 47
I wonder if i could apply to a court to make a change in the law just for me so as to allow me to rob my local bank legally?
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I wonder if i could apply to a court to make a change in the law just for me so as to allow me to rob my local bank legally?

The people filing for this exception are probably doing so under the premise that a 3rd party (Apple) is using this law as an excuse to exert undue control over something that would otherwise be somebody else's private property.

Whether or not that premise is correct is still up for debate.

But if it were true, then the proper analogy would be that I am the bank, and a robber is trying to use some loophole in the law as an excuse to steal from me legally, and I am making an application to the court to change the law to clarify the fact that the robber does not have the right to steal from me.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexor View Post

One of the biggest attractions to the iPhone IS because you can't easily pirate software on it. Why should we make it easy for people to then circumvent the system that allows developers to actually make money? This has fostered a whole new era of indie developers who don't have to be working through some uncaring conglomerate company to make a living. That's freedom.

Yeah cause the fart app is great right? All the best apps are the worst sellers. I should rephrase that.... All the most useful and practical apps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

Yup, its ridiculous, to me this could cause pirated apps. Imagine how a $1 developer app end up in torrent site and everyone end up downloading it? That would kill small developer motivation to create apps for the iPhone.

You're kidding right? I can get any app I want at other places if you catch my drift.

True gadget power user realizes the benefit of jailbreaking. Users who don't see it are the same users who buy $2k-$4k computers for email and excel.
post #21 of 47
While I don't think that this filing will succeed, I do agree with what they are saying, in principle. Many iPhone owners already pay a premium for their contracts and would like to enjoy the same benefits that others enjoy.

For example, tethering (Windows Mobile has it, as does Nokia and others); MMS; IM services that run in the background and of course the ability to use another sim in the phone.

The principle being argued is that you own your iPhone, so you should be able to use it to meet your needs, as you wish.

No-one WANTS to jailbreak their phone but are forced to just so that they can tether their Mac to their phone, or just so that they can send an MMS to their friends/family.

If you live in a country and have no plans to move, then you won't worry too much about your phone being locked, but many people live in several countries over time (I've lived in 3 so far and plan to move to the 4th later this year) for various reasons who don't want to have to buy a new phone each time they move.

Especially for EU members. Our countries are not countries anymore, they are states that make up one big country. Yet, if you live in the UK for example, and decide to move to another EU country (be it fo business/retirement/love/better weather etc) you might as well sell your iPhone because you cannot use it in another country. Or jailbreak + unlock it.

To put this into perspective for US readers: what if Apple said you can only use your iPhone in the state you bought it, and nowhere else in the US? So, if you bought it on New York and decided to go to Miami on holiday, you could not use your phone there.....isn't that stupid? wouldn't you try unlock your phone?

Well that's exactly what we Europeans experience with locking, hence we jailbreak/unlock.
(I know the two are seperate, but often the process happens simultaneously)

Apple should sell the iPhone to any network so that we as consumers get better prices as a result of the competition between networks, and we would have the choice of network and the freedom to move.

Secondly, it should at least allow a tethering app in the app store and add an MMS feature to the OS.

I bet at least half of those who have jailbroken or unlocked phones would stop doing it if Apple did this, if not more....
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi66 View Post

Sorry but you all seem to miss the point.

a) "I dont have to jailbreak my unix system".
No you dont because your system administrator has the root password and you can do whatever you want with the box YOU OWN. This is not the case on the iPhone. It means apple can do whatever THEY want with the phone YOU own.

Yo buddy. what YOU own is the HARDWARE. You dont OWN the rights to the Intellectual Property that decides what this device CAN and CANT do. and APPLE has no obligation, in my books, WHETHER YOUR FCKING HAPPY or not, to support an open market, when its current system IS NOT anti-competitive in the sense that it offers apps which compete against its own offerings. IF YOUR SO UNHAPPY WITH THE MILLION THINGS YOUR PHONE CAN DO. go back to whatever other cellphone you had before and Hack the sh!t out of it

In the midst of digital age people are forgetting that being able to so something. In this case hack, jailbreaking WHATEVER, doesnt necessarly mean that its a right to do. Im gettting pretty annoyed of hearing people say that because a product is digital based and they have the skills they dont have the right to FCK with everything. Like man your right is to not purchase a product that your not happy with its limitations.
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciscool View Post

No-one WANTS to jailbreak their phone but are forced to just so that they can tether their Mac to their phone, or just so that they can send an MMS to their friends/family.

If you live in a country and have no plans to move, then you won't worry too much about your phone being locked, but many people live in several countries over time (I've lived in 3 so far and plan to move to the 4th later this year) for various reasons who don't want to have to buy a new phone each time they move.

Especially for EU members. Our countries are not countries anymore, they are states that make up one big country. Yet, if you live in the UK for example, and decide to move to another EU country (be it fo business/retirement/love/better weather etc) you might as well sell your iPhone because you cannot use it in another country. Or jailbreak + unlock it.

To put this into perspective for US readers: what if Apple said you can only use your iPhone in the state you bought it, and nowhere else in the US? So, if you bought it on New York and decided to go to Miami on holiday, you could not use your phone there.....isn't that stupid? wouldn't you try unlock your phone?

Well that's exactly what we Europeans experience with locking, hence we jailbreak/unlock.
(I know the two are seperate, but often the process happens simultaneously)

Apple should sell the iPhone to any network so that we as consumers get better prices as a result of the competition between networks, and we would have the choice of network and the freedom to move.

Secondly, it should at least allow a tethering app in the app store and add an MMS feature to the OS.

I bet at least half of those who have jailbroken or unlocked phones would stop doing it if Apple did this, if not more....

I agree with the above, though it misses some additional points:

No, I don't WANT to Jailbreak my phone, but when apple neglects to enable simple software or firmware updates that would allow such simple references to the hardware as allowing a landscape keyboard on ALL applications within their phone that could utilize it, such as texting, email, etc, and not just safari, or even something as benign as not offering the emojin smilies in the App Store (My wife wants these and is pushing me to jailbreak her phone to get them)

.....Well, they're just asking for a battle similar to this one.

Bottom line is they have dropped the ball on several accounts and done nothing to recover it. It's sad I can get better preferences control, or video, or zoom, or landscape keyboards in nearly all my apps, or asian smilies on a phone which I can already change the keyboard to kanji on, ONLY BY JAILBREAKING IT.

That is ridiculous.

If apple doesn't want this argument, then get on the ball and do what your customers want.

And the MMS and texting plans on a phone that is obviously made for it but has to come at an extra expense?

Ludicrous!!!!
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

... Maybe the EFF should start a case for Sony and Microsoft to make it legal to hack both of their consoles so you can run your own software on them (like backups from torrents). ....

As much as people mostly laugh or roll their eyes when someone says this, I think it's a very key point.

No one at EFF or similar organisations is arguing for XBox or PS3 to be opened up and they've both been around for years and years. The few times any consumer has suggested it, the arguments against it have always been the exact same ones Apple is using here also. But somehow now Apple is doing this it's a corporate "evil" that must be stopped in the name of "electronic freedom" or some such garbage.

The reality is iPhone is being attacked because it's desirable. It's just a case of ..."But Mommy, I want it!!" and stamping their feet.

Sadly the legal system, especially on political hot potatoes like copyright and DMCA, does not turn on the facts. In the current climate, the fact that Apple is right about this doesn't mean that the case will be decided in their favour at all.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciscool View Post

No-one WANTS to jailbreak their phone but are forced to just so that they can tether their Mac to their phone, or just so that they can send an MMS to their friends/family...

you know what NO ONE also needs to do. is what you just listed above. NOONE NEEDS to do these things, they just want to. SOOOO Knowing that the iPhone doesnt fulfill your expectations you should have returned it, and stop talking this propaganda about open crap on ruining one of the BEST business models I have ever seen any company have.

My love for Apple is one part design, one part user interface, and one part my admiration for its business model, REGARDLESS of the little things it renders the phone unable to do. such WHINY little Bs man its not cool.
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I'm with the EFF on this. And I don't see why Apple needs to bother worrying about it: Jailbreaking is fun for the techie hobbyist, but Apple doesn't lift a finger to help jailbreakers when OS updates come out--and the OS is evolving fast. ...

I think this argument misses the point though. No one is saying that jail-breaking should be shut down and the cops should come to your door and drag you into the street etc., least of all Apple. It's as you say, a techie hobbyist thing for the most part.

It's the EFF that is stirring things up and suggesting that it be turned into an approved legal process. In other words they are arguing for the commercialisation of jailbreaking. To turn it from it's nudge-wink status into a thing that any company can legally do. If they are successful, you will see multiple app stores by various companies pop up all over the internet, and pirating applications will take off with a vengeance. Apple's business model will collapse, and all the legal applications will get much more expensive as a result.

What's worse, is that now the EFF has filed their papers, they cannot be taken back. So whereas before Apple was fine with a bit of jailbreaking here and there, if Apple wins this, it will then be officially "illegal" to jailbreak. It will be classed as a direct violation of the DMCA with all those draconian penalties attached.

This is a colossally stupid move by the EFF based on the outmoded idea that the iPhone is a "computer" that should be forced to run whatever software the average idiot wants to put on it. Probably because most of the folks at the EFF are still in 1970's mode.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #27 of 47
Jailbroken on 2.2.1 and loving it. I'm seeing a lot of bug fixes, the keyboard is definitely less laggy. The OS is snappier, one of the best updated yet. Thanks Dev Team
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by talkshowonmute View Post

you know what NO ONE also needs to do. is what you just listed above. NOONE NEEDS to do these things, they just want to. SOOOO Knowing that the iPhone doesnt fulfill your expectations you should have returned it, and stop talking this propaganda about open crap on ruining one of the BEST business models I have ever seen any company have.

My love for Apple is one part design, one part user interface, and one part my admiration for its business model, REGARDLESS of the little things it renders the phone unable to do. such WHINY little Bs man its not cool.

That's a pretty unfair statement, especially considering what was quoted.

No one knew that MMS would no work like any other phone. It was interestingly not included in the keynote, the biggest propaganda machine that could be mentioned here. Neither Keynote, gen 1 or 3G.

The belief is it can text, it has a camera, it can do MMS.

Oh...wait...it can't.

Wow, big design flaw there.

When pictures are sent to a server, they can be looked at by anyone before it gets to you.

You may have been mostly anonymous numbers when you bought the phone, but.....

How about this: I have a friend who works in the security business. He's israeli. They pioneered and perfected facial recognition.

You have now sent numerous pictures to people via an email server on your phone.

That's a pretty big database to work from.

That's no privacy at all.

That's a big design flaw.

By blackberry pearl could send MMS, but AT&T disabled it on the iPhone.

Yes, AT&T. You actually think apple had something to do with that? AT&T owns the transmission system, so instead of mocking this guy and being an apple Zealot (Hey, I own ALL apple ALL over my house, minus apple TV, and even I know they can screw up) why don't you agree to disagree or point out the real culprit in that scenario?

As for the other issues mentioned with the phone, that ALL falls on apple, and when doing their iTunes updates, they could easily fix then and they haven't, so shame on them.
post #29 of 47
This is very true. I've been trying to explain this too. People don't seem to realize Apple has done nothing to directly stop jailbreaking/unlocking.

This EFF suit pushes Apple into a corner where they are forced to declare jailbreaking illegal. Apple does not want to be legally limited to bring a suit at some point in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I think this argument misses the point though. No one is saying that jail-breaking should be shut down and the cops should come to your door and drag you into the street etc., least of all Apple. It's as you say, a techie hobbyist thing for the most part.

It's the EFF that is stirring things up and suggesting that it be turned into an approved legal process. In other words they are arguing for the commercialisation of jailbreaking. To turn it from it's nudge-wink status into a thing that any company can legally do. If they are successful, you will see multiple app stores by various companies pop up all over the internet, and pirating applications will take off with a vengeance. Apple's business model will collapse, and all the legal applications will get much more expensive as a result.

What's worse, is that now the EFF has filed their papers, they cannot be taken back. So whereas before Apple was fine with a bit of jailbreaking here and there, if Apple wins this, it will then be officially "illegal" to jailbreak. It will be classed as a direct violation of the DMCA with all those draconian penalties attached.

This is a colossally stupid move by the EFF based on the outmoded idea that the iPhone is a "computer" that should be forced to run whatever software the average idiot wants to put on it. Probably because most of the folks at the EFF are still in 1970's mode.
post #30 of 47
AT&T makes pure profit from MMS, why would they want to prevent its use?

Their isn't any MMS software on the iPhone AT&T has nothing to do with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

By blackberry pearl could send MMS, but AT&T disabled it on the iPhone.

Yes, AT&T. You actually think apple had something to do with that? AT&T owns the transmission system,
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

The people filing for this exception are probably doing so under the premise that a 3rd party (Apple) is using this law as an excuse to exert undue control over something that would otherwise be somebody else's private property.

Pandora was also altruistic.
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

AT&T makes pure profit from MMS, why would they want to prevent its use?

Their isn't any MMS software on the iPhone AT&T has nothing to do with that.

And the other parts of the argument were ignored, but to focus on the argument, if the iPhone can send texts it's also capable of sending MMS. The fact it goes to a server is questionable. it shows it COULD send MMS, but the provider elected not to enable it.

MMS and SMS work on the same principle, but it does one and not the other.

Why? It's not a software issue as the process is pure data transmission.

At this time it seems AT&T also make profit on the data package that comes with the iPhone, to the point the pricing went up for the 3G version.

The argument had been that 3G was more expensive, but that framework was already implemented when it was still cingular

(Talk about the biggest bankruptcy scam ever. Say you're bankrupt, sell off the cellular arm to many baby bells, then buy them back up right when it all looks profitable and you no longer have to pay the debts you filed bankruptcy on. If we could all do that, there would never be debt....)

Since the profit model changed and they are now subsidizing the phone and off setting that subsidy with an inflated data plan over a two year period, then it stands to reason that they are making pure profit from this relationship, as the data plan over that time period is much more than the amount of just buying a phone.

As for the server and MMS, the argument still stands that they get to look at what is being sent, the part of the message that was ignored.

Remember, and I hate to be a conspiracy nut here, but remember they were never held to task nor have they ever removed the tapping to the trunk lines of their main communication network.

SMS could be read, but must be referenced first. MMS is the same. The pictures going to a server is in essence an email sent to server that could be looked at by your network administrator at any time.

That has nothing to do with apple and ALL to do with AT&T.

it's a simple act of sending the pictures like anyone else does, via coded and parsed transmission, which they elected not to do.

WHY?

I don't see anything in the phone architecture that says it couldn't do that, so why doesn't AT&T just let it happen?
post #33 of 47
I support the EFF. Most people on this board would as well if it weren't Apple we were talking about. The proposed exemption doesn't require 1) iPhone users to jailbreak the phone, 2) doesn't require Apple to support a jailbroken phone, and 3) doesn't prevent Apple from suing for copyright infringement.

It merely allows the iPhone to be jail-broken legally if the intent is to create interoperatable software. THe exemption likely would hardly have any effect on piracy. Most people aren't going to jailbreak the phone because they will not want Apple to void the warranty. Even so, if I buy something, I don't' want any company telling me what I can do with it. Especially a company's who's founders got their start selling illegal black boxes used to get free phone calls from pay phones.
post #34 of 47
But my real issue, and what I was pointing out, was not to attack someone as any mac zealot would do, when someone points out flaws.

The correct thing to have done was to point out those aspects have nothing to do with apple and all to do with the service provider and then address the issues that have to do with this forum and argument that address the APPLE practices directly.

In my case, I am looking at jail breaking to fix bugs in the os, address preferences issues, and also to make t easier to type text into my phone via landscape keyboards.

Those are easily correctable APPLE issues that have been addressed via Jail breaking.

I do agree that the sluice gates would be open for all enterprises to attempt to sell apps for the iPhone if this goes through, but doesn't that happen with the Macs anyway? Not everyone that sells an application for a Mac is featured in the apple stores. There are many other applications out there, so it's not exclusive.

This never would have come u or had much of an argument to stand on if apple had addressed the issues jail breaking addresses on their on, such as landscape keyboards and cut and paste. Also, if they had not been almost like microsoft in their restrictions and forcing all to play by their rules or don't play at all (Microsoft forcing the bundle of IE and windows on nearly every computer made? Why wasn't intel taken to task on that one?)
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

As much as people mostly laugh or roll their eyes when someone says this, I think it's a very key point.

No one at EFF or similar organisations is arguing for XBox or PS3 to be opened up and they've both been around for years and years. The few times any consumer has suggested it, the arguments against it have always been the exact same ones Apple is using here also. But somehow now Apple is doing this it's a corporate "evil" that must be stopped in the name of "electronic freedom" or some such garbage.

The reality is iPhone is being attacked because it's desirable. It's just a case of ..."But Mommy, I want it!!" and stamping their feet.

Sadly the legal system, especially on political hot potatoes like copyright and DMCA, does not turn on the facts. In the current climate, the fact that Apple is right about this doesn't mean that the case will be decided in their favour at all.

And along those same lines of what EFFs priorities are, why have they not petitioned the US Copyright Office to make an explicit ruling that using a tool such as MacTheRipper to copy my DVDs onto my hard drive is legal? It's pretty much the same arguement of circumventing protections for "allowing interoperability" that they are applying to the iPhone. Programs like MTR and Handbrake live in the shadows just like iPhone jailbreak tools do. If an exception to the DMCA is warranted for this case for the iPhone, it should be warranted for copying DVDs, which is supported by a large set of Fair Use doctrine. And in my opionion, such a ruling would benefit far more people than a jailbroken iPhone would.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

And the other parts of the argument were ignored, but to focus on the argument, if the iPhone can send texts it's also capable of sending MMS. The fact it goes to a server is questionable. it shows it COULD send MMS, but the provider elected not to enable it. MMS and SMS work on the same principle, but it does one and not the other. Why? It's not a software issue as the process is pure data transmission.

Sorry but this is totally wrong.

Quote:
At this time it seems AT&T also make profit on the data package that comes with the iPhone, to the point the pricing went up for the 3G version.

The argument had been that 3G was more expensive, but that framework was already implemented when it was still cingular.


The original iPhone used 2G that is why the data plan cost less. AT&T 3G data plans always cost more. Once the iPhone used 3G then AT&T charged what it had always charged for its 3G service.
post #37 of 47
I'm not sure how you can suddenly take a stance you refuse to have a company telling you what you can or cannot do. All media content and software you've purchased over the past 20 years has come with restrictions on what you can and cannot do with it.

The problem with this is that EFF are attempting to use the legal system to usurp Apple's chosen business model in a market where there is free and fair competition. The legal system should not open this can of worms.

The market should be left to decide if Apple's model is viable or not. As other phone makers build desirable platforms that are good enough to compete with the iPhone, Apple will be forced by competition to loosen its restrictions. This should be left work itself out without legal intervention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I support the EFF. Most people on this board would as well if it weren't Apple we were talking about. The proposed exemption doesn't require 1) iPhone users to jailbreak the phone, 2) doesn't require Apple to support a jailbroken phone, and 3) doesn't prevent Apple from suing for copyright infringement.

It merely allows the iPhone to be jail-broken legally if the intent is to create interoperatable software. THe exemption likely would hardly have any effect on piracy. Most people aren't going to jailbreak the phone because they will not want Apple to void the warranty. Even so, if I buy something, I don't' want any company telling me what I can do with it. Especially a company's who's founders got their start selling illegal black boxes used to get free phone calls from pay phones.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

And along those same lines of what EFFs priorities are, why have they not petitioned the US Copyright Office to make an explicit ruling that using a tool such as MacTheRipper to copy my DVDs onto my hard drive is legal? It's pretty much the same arguement of circumventing protections for "allowing interoperability" that they are applying to the iPhone. Programs like MTR and Handbrake live in the shadows just like iPhone jailbreak tools do. If an exception to the DMCA is warranted for this case for the iPhone, it should be warranted for copying DVDs, which is supported by a large set of Fair Use doctrine. And in my opionion, such a ruling would benefit far more people than a jailbroken iPhone would.

Hear hear!

I'd personally like to see Apple take the bull by the horns and add a DVD slot to the AppleTV with an option to rip to your personal library. They talk about being bold leaders a lot, but they don't really have the guts to do stuff like that very often (or at all really).
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #39 of 47
This would be more trouble than its worth. This would completely destroy iTunes, not to mention the lawsuits from studios. All for the few people who bother with ripping DVD's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Hear hear!
I'd personally like to see Apple take the bull by the horns and add a DVD slot to the AppleTV with an option to rip to your personal library. They talk about being bold leaders a lot, but they don't really have the guts to do stuff like that very often (or at all really).
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This would be more trouble than its worth. This would completely destroy iTunes, not to mention the lawsuits from studios. All for the few people who bother with ripping DVD's.

I agree that I wouldn't expect Apple to take it up because of their iTunes business, but the rest of your statement (lawsuits from studios and few people doing it) are exactly the point to my original post.

The EFF claims it filed the iPhone request to remove the fear of being sued by Apple so developers were free to create applications that depended on jailbreaks. Thus they argue, there would be a more open market for developers to create applications to the benefit of consumers. And Apple still has all of their rights to protect their copyrights, etc.

But consumers have billions of dollars invested in DVDs and there is no clear guidance as to if it's legal to rip those DVDs to put them on iPods, AppleTV, or any other media server device. The fear of studios suing based on the DMCA prevents commercial developers from creating an easy tool for consumers to get their movies onto those other devices, which I think would greatly increase the number of consumers doing it. iTunes does it legally for CDs. Someone could make a commercial app that does it for DVDs and places the copy in your iTunes library. The only thing that prevents such an app from being commercially developed is the DMCA.

The studio's business model is that you must repurchase your movies as a digital download to watch a movie you already purchased on your AppleTV (or even your iPhone). This is even more consumer unfriendly that Apple's AppStore business model is. So why isn't the EFF fighting that, too?

To your last point, I suspect there are far fewer people jailbreaking their iPhones than there are using handbrake and similar programs. So why did they pick this issue to fight and not DVDs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Mozilla, Skype support EFF's case for iPhone jailbreaking