Actually, as far as analogies on the economics of the AT&T data plan goes, it's more like an "all you can eat" buffet. You can eat as much as you want, while you are there, but you can't take a "doggy bag" home with you, nor can two people share a plate. It's priced based on the expectation that the average person can only eat so much. Tethering your notebook is like sharing your plate with a competitive eater.
I see tethering more akin to being a really hungry guy. They built their pricing around the expectation that everyone would be a 100lbs teenage girl and instead in walks a bunch 500 pounders looking to clear the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Anyway, the data plan is part of the overall service agreement, which does include unlimited data, but also forbids tethering, so obviously, it's only unlimited within that context.
True enough...but should there be a distinction between on device data and tethered data, simply because the tethered system is even more able to use the data? Again, the closest analogy I can think of is using multiple computers on your home ISP connection. The ISP could impose restrictions of one computer per paid line, but in this age, most homes would feel that was overly restrictive.
True enough...but should there be a distinction between on device data and tethered data, simply because the tethered system is even more able to use the data? Again, the closest analogy I can think of is using multiple computers on your home ISP connection. The ISP could impose restrictions of one computer per paid line, but in this age, most homes would feel that was overly restrictive.
Well, the point is that there is a distinction in this case. I think it would be great if there weren't, and if their network could handle the demand.
I think most ISPs gave up on trying to restrict broadband to a single computer because it was too ridiculously easy to circumvent (especially once the first home router added the "clone MAC address" option) that it became more trouble than it was worth to try to police. As far as I know, there's nothing legally to prevent them from doing so, but, now that no one does, it would put any one that did try to impose such a restriction at a serious competitive disadvantage.
The same doesn't apply to cell phones, so, in the absence of a legal requirement, I think it will be some time before this will be the case. Unless, of course, actual competition comes to the U.S. wireless market, but the carriers are in no hurry to see that happen.
I done messed up my Mac. Playing around with changing the MAC address I have somehow removed AirPort from the entire system. A reinstall of the OS and everything else I?ve tried is useless. Luckily, I have tethering enabled so I can use the WiFi from the iPhone to connect my computer via USB or Bluetooth.
I hadn?t thought of this before, but unless you live in a country that allows tethering or have the old profile installed, like I do, you can?t even use tethering on WiFi.
Thank you very much. I can't even put Safari on my lemonbox, the AppleTV.
Welcome Teckstud, wondered how long it would take for you to appear.
Can you put the full desktop IE, Firefox or Opera on a WinMo device? No you can't, because they are different OSes with different hardware restrictions and APIs.
Can you install full Firefox on an Android device just by recompiling (no source modification) for the G1 CPU? No you can't.
I done messed up my Mac. Playing around with changing the MAC address I have somehow removed AirPort from the entire system. A reinstall of the OS and everything else I?ve tried is useless. Luckily, I have tethering enabled so I can use the WiFi from the iPhone to connect my computer via USB or Bluetooth.
I hadn?t thought of this before, but unless you live in a country that allows tethering or have the old profile installed, like I do, you can?t even use tethering on WiFi.
Serves you right for messing around with your MAC address. This issue would go for any device you buggered up the MAC address on. Hardly Apple's problem.
Sorry if this has been posted but here is more stats on the piracy of jb phones:
These analytics show roughly 4 million jailbreak devices, 38% of which are using pirated app(s) (aka cracked apps). In other words, most jailbreakers don’t steal apps.
I don't believe this to be true as there are corporations which use Windows Mobile devices; you can load pretty much any software you want on it from any reputable or disreputable source.
In the corporate environment, policiies can be enforced that prevents the open-ness and "install anything" that you speak of. Especially when the device also connects to the corporate Exchange server etc.
I would argue that in this case, the iPhone and Touch, are virtualy useless without said software. Just a thought.
Wouldn't a favorable judgment necessitate that argument's applicability to any embedded or special-purpose device (microwave, navigation, etc.) which utilizes software/firmware covered by a restricted-use license? An IP legal specialist can weigh in on that.
6) It's MY device, I'm paying ATT a monthly fee, I own it.
If you paid the subsidised price of your handset then I think if you check the fine print of the contract the phone will most likely remain the property of AT&T until you are out of contract.
That was certainly the case in the UK until a few years ago with any mobile phone.
Serves you right for messing around with your MAC address. This issue would go for any device you buggered up the MAC address on. Hardly Apple's problem.
I?ve done it countless times before. Either things changed with SL (more likely) or my AirPort HW is buggered (less likey), but telling people that they shouldn?t use there machines the way they seem fit is just ignorant. Am I breaking an NDA or some other agreement changing my MAC Address? No, didn?t think so.
The fact you only have a license has most certainly been upheld by copyright laws and numerous prosecutions exist as proof.
Still doesn't change the fact you only have a license to use the software though, does it?
Actually It might.
Do you own a car?
If so you have a computer on board with software that determines Brake response, acceleration, etc? you don't have a license to use the software. There are aftermarket companies that sell chips to "enhance' performance.
My argument here is that since the software and the hardware are so entwined, that separating them would render both usless. Any enfrocement of the license regarding any "hacks" that you might want to use, to add to the useability of the device, might not stand up.
You have little understanding of how contracts work. Not to long ago the sellers of land would require buyers to sign a contract as a condition of the sale. The terms would forbid the buyers to ever sell the property to black people. Up until the last forty years, that used to be both a legal and enforceable contract. Today, it would be legal to enter into such a contract, but no court in the Country would enforce such a contract. The US Constitution allows the contract to be made, but doesn't allow it to be enforced by the government.
The point being: Apple can put anything it wants in it's contract and that will be legal. The issue, however, becomes is the contract enforceable in the courts? Companies often like to try and control what consumers like to do with the companies products after the purchase. For instance, many contracts used to forbid a buyer to sell an item he purchased. The law, however, recognizes many terms like that are legal to write in the contract, but not enforceable in the law.
It is perfectly legal to jailbreak a phone because 1) you own the phone, and 2) Fair-Use is a legal concept that allows users of copyrighted works to use such works as they see fit regardless of what the copyright holders wishes are provided the use is both non-commerical in nature, and for personal use. Jail-breaking is non-commerical in nature, and for personal use. It also doesn't interfere with Apple's business model as Apple never intends to sell forbidden applications.
This doesn't mean that Apple has to make it easy for it's customers to exercise it's fair-use rights. It just means Apple cannot sue a user for jail-breaking the phone. If it could, it would have already done so. Apple can, however, rightfully void the warranty. It shouldn't be forced to support an modified product.
There are serious free speech issues involved here. For instance, Apple has denied access to the iPhone for many political applications, and applications of poor taste. For instance, a recent health care application, and the baby shaker application. Other then jail-breaking the device, there is no way other supported way to get those applications on the phone. Copyright law is embedded in the US Constitution and was intended to benefit the public, not companies. So, it is only right that users can do what they wish with products after they purchase them.
I own an iPhone. I paid full price for it (purchase price plus a cancellation fee). I own it. I hate AT&T and run it on T-Moble. It works better then some of my friends who are using AT&T. I also enjoy my baby shaker application. Great stress relief.
Further, most products you buy have contracts that are impossible to read, and you can't even read them until you have the product unwrapped and in your house. Accordingly, there is no real agreement at the store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations
Exactly. You purchased an iPhone, signed a contract with explicit conditions, and you broke the rules. You justify it because "I am so smart....I can jail beak my iPhone"....but you did not follow your end of the agreement. That's grounds for a lawsuit.
Its ALL about piracy. Thats why the jailbreakers do it. Don't kid yourselves that this is about some god given right to do whatever you want with the hardware or some higher purpose these hackers may promote, its all about theft and the 'who has the biggest virtual cock' for these guys.
I have 242 applications, (some free, most paid) and a jailbroken iPhone. I am not a thief. In fact, I often donate to shareware developers and repurchase software, just so developers will have the funds they need to continue making excellent software. I purchase software from Cydia, as well.
I use a jailbroken phone so I can organize my applications in folders. My phone has 3 pages of 12 icons, with page two primarily being folders of apps in type of application. It keeps things neat and easy to use, just as Apple like things to be. How is this stealing? Surely, your holier-than-thou attitude needs to be put aside for a moment while you consider this.
Actually, in most States you are the legal owner of the property subject to a lien. Further, AT&T allows you to end the contract subject to a cancellation fee. That cancellation fee is largely to cover the cost of the subsidized phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
If you paid the subsidised price of your handset then I think if you check the fine print of the contract the phone will most likely remain the property of AT&T until you are out of contract.
That was certainly the case in the UK until a few years ago with any mobile phone.
A person doesn't get prosecuted for simple copyright violations. They get sued in civil court. The only issue here is money. Prosecuting implies somebody did something illegal. The issue there can possibly be jail time along with money.
Violating a licensing agreement is not illegal. It happens all the time. It may, however, subject the violator to potential civil damages.
So, I doubt there have been any such prosecutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
The fact you only have a license has most certainly been upheld by copyright laws and numerous prosecutions exist as proof.
Still doesn't change the fact you only have a license to use the software though, does it?
Depends on what you're after. If you're willing to spend $99/year you can run whatever you want on your own device(s). But that's not a cheap solution and not a route most people are willing to go down....
A bigger impediment than $99 per year is getting the source code to all the apps you might want to use and the skills needed to compile, provision and maintain the apps (there are now three things that are inevitable: death, taxes, and code rot).
You don't own the software, but you do have Fair-Use rights that Apple cannot license away from you. Those rights allow you to use the software for personal uses that are not commercial in nature where your rights do not materially interfere with Apple's sales. Copyright rights are constitutional in origin and were meant to primarily benefit the public by giving copyright holders limited rights to make money of their creations.
If it weren't otherwise, Sony never would have been allowed to sell the first TV recorder over the objection of the copyright holders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.
Comments
Actually, as far as analogies on the economics of the AT&T data plan goes, it's more like an "all you can eat" buffet. You can eat as much as you want, while you are there, but you can't take a "doggy bag" home with you, nor can two people share a plate. It's priced based on the expectation that the average person can only eat so much. Tethering your notebook is like sharing your plate with a competitive eater.
I see tethering more akin to being a really hungry guy. They built their pricing around the expectation that everyone would be a 100lbs teenage girl and instead in walks a bunch 500 pounders looking to clear the table.
Anyway, the data plan is part of the overall service agreement, which does include unlimited data, but also forbids tethering, so obviously, it's only unlimited within that context.
True enough...but should there be a distinction between on device data and tethered data, simply because the tethered system is even more able to use the data? Again, the closest analogy I can think of is using multiple computers on your home ISP connection. The ISP could impose restrictions of one computer per paid line, but in this age, most homes would feel that was overly restrictive.
True enough...but should there be a distinction between on device data and tethered data, simply because the tethered system is even more able to use the data? Again, the closest analogy I can think of is using multiple computers on your home ISP connection. The ISP could impose restrictions of one computer per paid line, but in this age, most homes would feel that was overly restrictive.
Well, the point is that there is a distinction in this case. I think it would be great if there weren't, and if their network could handle the demand.
I think most ISPs gave up on trying to restrict broadband to a single computer because it was too ridiculously easy to circumvent (especially once the first home router added the "clone MAC address" option) that it became more trouble than it was worth to try to police. As far as I know, there's nothing legally to prevent them from doing so, but, now that no one does, it would put any one that did try to impose such a restriction at a serious competitive disadvantage.
The same doesn't apply to cell phones, so, in the absence of a legal requirement, I think it will be some time before this will be the case. Unless, of course, actual competition comes to the U.S. wireless market, but the carriers are in no hurry to see that happen.
I hadn?t thought of this before, but unless you live in a country that allows tethering or have the old profile installed, like I do, you can?t even use tethering on WiFi.
Good for you if you don't rip off apps, but this is a specious argument you are making here.
1) You *do* have control over the phone, you can install Linux on it, hammer nails with the case, ... whatever you want.
2) You don't "own" the software on the phone, you only license it.
3) When you licence the software you agree to the contract.
I wonder if the license restrictions or even the legality of the license has been tested.
I would argue that in this case, the iPhone and Touch, are virtualy useless without said software. Just a thought.
Thank you very much. I can't even put Safari on my lemonbox, the AppleTV.
Welcome Teckstud, wondered how long it would take for you to appear.
Can you put the full desktop IE, Firefox or Opera on a WinMo device? No you can't, because they are different OSes with different hardware restrictions and APIs.
Can you install full Firefox on an Android device just by recompiling (no source modification) for the G1 CPU? No you can't.
The same goes for the AppleTV.
Not a very good point you are trying to make.
I wonder if the license restrictions or even the legality of the license has been tested.
The fact you only have a license has most certainly been upheld by copyright laws and numerous prosecutions exist as proof.
I would argue that in this case, the iPhone and Touch, are virtualy useless without said software. Just a thought.
Still doesn't change the fact you only have a license to use the software though, does it?
I done messed up my Mac. Playing around with changing the MAC address I have somehow removed AirPort from the entire system. A reinstall of the OS and everything else I?ve tried is useless. Luckily, I have tethering enabled so I can use the WiFi from the iPhone to connect my computer via USB or Bluetooth.
I hadn?t thought of this before, but unless you live in a country that allows tethering or have the old profile installed, like I do, you can?t even use tethering on WiFi.
Serves you right for messing around with your MAC address. This issue would go for any device you buggered up the MAC address on. Hardly Apple's problem.
These analytics show roughly 4 million jailbreak devices, 38% of which are using pirated app(s) (aka cracked apps). In other words, most jailbreakers don’t steal apps.
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/10...piracy-iphone/
The rest of the stats posted there are also interesting.
Full report by pinch media here:
http://www.pinchmedia.com/blog/pirac...-from-360idev/
I don't believe this to be true as there are corporations which use Windows Mobile devices; you can load pretty much any software you want on it from any reputable or disreputable source.
In the corporate environment, policiies can be enforced that prevents the open-ness and "install anything" that you speak of. Especially when the device also connects to the corporate Exchange server etc.
...
I would argue that in this case, the iPhone and Touch, are virtualy useless without said software. Just a thought.
Wouldn't a favorable judgment necessitate that argument's applicability to any embedded or special-purpose device (microwave, navigation, etc.) which utilizes software/firmware covered by a restricted-use license? An IP legal specialist can weigh in on that.
Where do I begin??
6) It's MY device, I'm paying ATT a monthly fee, I own it.
If you paid the subsidised price of your handset then I think if you check the fine print of the contract the phone will most likely remain the property of AT&T until you are out of contract.
That was certainly the case in the UK until a few years ago with any mobile phone.
Serves you right for messing around with your MAC address. This issue would go for any device you buggered up the MAC address on. Hardly Apple's problem.
I?ve done it countless times before. Either things changed with SL (more likely) or my AirPort HW is buggered (less likey), but telling people that they shouldn?t use there machines the way they seem fit is just ignorant. Am I breaking an NDA or some other agreement changing my MAC Address? No, didn?t think so.
The fact you only have a license has most certainly been upheld by copyright laws and numerous prosecutions exist as proof.
Still doesn't change the fact you only have a license to use the software though, does it?
Actually It might.
Do you own a car?
If so you have a computer on board with software that determines Brake response, acceleration, etc? you don't have a license to use the software. There are aftermarket companies that sell chips to "enhance' performance.
My argument here is that since the software and the hardware are so entwined, that separating them would render both usless. Any enfrocement of the license regarding any "hacks" that you might want to use, to add to the useability of the device, might not stand up.
The point being: Apple can put anything it wants in it's contract and that will be legal. The issue, however, becomes is the contract enforceable in the courts? Companies often like to try and control what consumers like to do with the companies products after the purchase. For instance, many contracts used to forbid a buyer to sell an item he purchased. The law, however, recognizes many terms like that are legal to write in the contract, but not enforceable in the law.
It is perfectly legal to jailbreak a phone because 1) you own the phone, and 2) Fair-Use is a legal concept that allows users of copyrighted works to use such works as they see fit regardless of what the copyright holders wishes are provided the use is both non-commerical in nature, and for personal use. Jail-breaking is non-commerical in nature, and for personal use. It also doesn't interfere with Apple's business model as Apple never intends to sell forbidden applications.
This doesn't mean that Apple has to make it easy for it's customers to exercise it's fair-use rights. It just means Apple cannot sue a user for jail-breaking the phone. If it could, it would have already done so. Apple can, however, rightfully void the warranty. It shouldn't be forced to support an modified product.
There are serious free speech issues involved here. For instance, Apple has denied access to the iPhone for many political applications, and applications of poor taste. For instance, a recent health care application, and the baby shaker application. Other then jail-breaking the device, there is no way other supported way to get those applications on the phone. Copyright law is embedded in the US Constitution and was intended to benefit the public, not companies. So, it is only right that users can do what they wish with products after they purchase them.
I own an iPhone. I paid full price for it (purchase price plus a cancellation fee). I own it. I hate AT&T and run it on T-Moble. It works better then some of my friends who are using AT&T. I also enjoy my baby shaker application. Great stress relief.
Further, most products you buy have contracts that are impossible to read, and you can't even read them until you have the product unwrapped and in your house. Accordingly, there is no real agreement at the store.
Exactly. You purchased an iPhone, signed a contract with explicit conditions, and you broke the rules. You justify it because "I am so smart....I can jail beak my iPhone"....but you did not follow your end of the agreement. That's grounds for a lawsuit.
Its ALL about piracy. Thats why the jailbreakers do it. Don't kid yourselves that this is about some god given right to do whatever you want with the hardware or some higher purpose these hackers may promote, its all about theft and the 'who has the biggest virtual cock' for these guys.
I have 242 applications, (some free, most paid) and a jailbroken iPhone. I am not a thief. In fact, I often donate to shareware developers and repurchase software, just so developers will have the funds they need to continue making excellent software. I purchase software from Cydia, as well.
I use a jailbroken phone so I can organize my applications in folders. My phone has 3 pages of 12 icons, with page two primarily being folders of apps in type of application. It keeps things neat and easy to use, just as Apple like things to be. How is this stealing? Surely, your holier-than-thou attitude needs to be put aside for a moment while you consider this.
If you paid the subsidised price of your handset then I think if you check the fine print of the contract the phone will most likely remain the property of AT&T until you are out of contract.
That was certainly the case in the UK until a few years ago with any mobile phone.
Violating a licensing agreement is not illegal. It happens all the time. It may, however, subject the violator to potential civil damages.
So, I doubt there have been any such prosecutions.
The fact you only have a license has most certainly been upheld by copyright laws and numerous prosecutions exist as proof.
Still doesn't change the fact you only have a license to use the software though, does it?
Depends on what you're after. If you're willing to spend $99/year you can run whatever you want on your own device(s). But that's not a cheap solution and not a route most people are willing to go down....
A bigger impediment than $99 per year is getting the source code to all the apps you might want to use and the skills needed to compile, provision and maintain the apps (there are now three things that are inevitable: death, taxes, and code rot).
1) You *do* have control over the phone, you can install Linux on it, hammer nails with the case, ... whatever you want.
2) You don't "own" the software on the phone, you only license it.
3) When you licence the software you agree to the contract.
Which contract? I haven't signed a contract when I have purchased a phone before
If it weren't otherwise, Sony never would have been allowed to sell the first TV recorder over the objection of the copyright holders.
Clearly, there is a massive amateurish Misunderstanding regarding what exactly you own.
You own a black or white plastic brick with a glass screen. You don't own the software, or any aspects of it whatsoever.