No, I don't think they will be pressured to that extent. Other companies, perhaps google, might be willing to set up a 'legitimized' alternative app store where things like that would be accepted.
My hope would be some of the more arbitrary rejection or rejections that were meant to target companies no longer in their good graces (GV). If the app meets their current opinion of what is socially acceptable and actually provides a useful service or feature to their users and if their users now can easily get the apps elsewhere, maybe, just maybe, they might loosen up, just a bit.
I still doubt this small change will make any significant difference. The vast majority of people who buy a product like the iPhone do so it to use the way the manufacturer intended it to be used. The really big issue is the payoff for the added risk. I have not heard of anything compelling that a jailbroken iPhone can do that an out-of-the-box iPhone cannot -- but we do know that it can be hacked and bricked. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does making it "legal" actually change the equation?
I wouldn't like the government telling me how to run my business. For some reason, I just can't get excited about this.
What's next?
Pretty sad that the "right" of an artificial entity (e.g. business) is considered more important to protect than the individual right of a consumer (e.g. person) to do what they want with a piece of property they purchased.
Luckily, the Library of Congress decided differently. Your attempt to frame it as some government intrusion is just annoying, when in fact the opposite just happened. The government protected the rights of individuals.
First, Apple has always argued this is illegal, and they spent money in court arguing that jailbreaking is illegal. They will probably issue a statement saying they are disappointed, and who knows if they have legal challenges left.
"Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use [utilize] unauthorized modification to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in infringement of the copyright in those programs."
To which the EFF responded:
"One need only transpose Apple's arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit.
But we'd never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages. After all, the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy."
Second, this changes a lot of things. Mainly, those coding the jailbreaks can come out and collaborate with others about improving the jailbreaking experience without fear of retribution from Apple. [Edit: WHOOPS, strike that, I'm reading in other publications that Apple may still want to go after the Dev Team]. Apple has been very slow compared to the thousands of very clever coders out there (sanctioned and unsanctioned) to customize the iPhone experience to the end-users needs. Plenty are fine with the iPhone as it stands - its your choice to not jailbreak. But for others, tweaks to the operating system, the core apps, (heck just being allowed to delete those annoying Apple preloaded apps), and allowing third-party apps that Apple rejects like browsers, Flash support, and tethering, are worth jailbreaking.
Finally, it also prevents other OS manufacturers (Microsoft, HP/Palm, and Google) from doing the same (saying its illegal, that is).
When you buy it, its your phone. Ownership means an owner has certain rights. I paid Apple and I finished my contract with AT&T. The phone is mine.
I don't see why they would be obligated if you run unauthorized mods.
Dumping water inside your computer (or tv or whatever) is not illegal but it most certainly voids a warranty.
It doesn't void the warranty, it just wouldn't be covered by the warranty. By the same token, I can see Apple still refusing to replace an iPhone that's been bricked by jailbreaking.
If I take my iPhone to Europe, I want a local number there to call and be called by my friends there. That's easy with a pre-paid SIM if the phone is unlocked.
I don't want to cancel my existing AT&T contract, and will continue to pay it while I'm not even using it. I just want to be able to use my phone there with a local SIM.
So I do hope that this ruling helps them along the "unlock" path. They have lost a couple of Court rulings and will already unlock any phone except iPhone. This may be the push they need.
Until yesterday. JB was a violation of the DCMA, but no one really did anything to enforce it. Apple could have gone after the iPhone Dev Team the same way recording studios put Limewire out of business. Instead, Apple periodically modified its firmware and baseband in a cat-and-mouse game.
"Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act's) anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners. The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing."
That means you are free to strip DRM off your legally owned stuff. Prepare for lots of challenges to this one.
since we can now jailbreak iPhones, can we also run OSX on a Dell or HP computer without fear of prosecution, if we've bought a legal copy of OSX?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.
You're both wrong. First, we don't know legally whether a purchased copy of OSX can be installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple's EULA says it is not permitted, but that's never been legally tested. The Psystar case only tested whether copied versions of OSX violate Apple's copyright when installed on computers. Read the court decision.
Second, no FCC rule or decision is involved here. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) expressely forbids bypassing digital protections on content. One exception allows the Librarian of Congress to decide every three years whether certain exemptions should be permitted. In this situation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that jailbreaking and unlocking are exempt from the digital protection restriction. That's it. There's nothing that changes anything else. Apple doesn't have to honor warranties on jailbroken and/or unlocked phones. The mobile operator can still hold you to the service contract. It doesn't give you license to install non-licensed software.
Shouldn't that make people mistrust 'the powerful' even more?
Hasn't it always been the case? But, The force that can defeat the powerful is a greater power, not simply mistrust. To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace):
"... That if all vicious men are bound together and constitute a force, then all honorable men ought to do the same ..."
In history, this usually takes the form of revolution -- violent (France) or peaceful (India, Philippines 1986, Checkoslovakia split, etc.). This does necessarily always lead to a more progressive society because some of the powerful supporters in the new order may then exploit the new system to their own advantage. If one is a cynic, one will simply give up -- because of the idea that "nothing changes". But there will always be the dreamers in our midst who wouold always hope for the better.
I still doubt this small change will make any significant difference. The vast majority of people who buy a product like the iPhone do so it to use the way the manufacturer intended it to be used. The really big issue is the payoff for the added risk. I have not heard of anything compelling that a jailbroken iPhone can do that an out-of-the-box iPhone cannot -- but we do know that it can be hacked and bricked. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does making it "legal" actually change the equation?
I don't disagree with you. Like I said, it is only a hope. But, to your questions. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does it change the equation? I think it has the potential to change the equation and this would increase the number of people willing to 'take the risk.'
There is a huge market of iPhones that are now out of contract and out warranty, so this by itself is big potential market place. If and when known and trusted sources (to the masses) come out and offer services to 'open' iPhones for consumers, anyone out of warranty might be tempted. Perhaps you want to be able to buy a used phone and use it just for voice on T-Mobible. Perhaps you want to use it as a portable wifi router for your 3G signal (for which you are paying the tethering fee of course). Perhaps google makes Google voice and Google Latitude available now that it is clearly legal. Those under warranty might not take part as much, but as is obviously the case now, there are those under warranty that are jailbreaking and that number is unlikely to shrink as a result of this change.
The equation has changed. It doesn't mean it will change the results.
Don't think the rules force apple to support iPhones that have been jail broken. The rules simply make it officially legal to jail break an iPhone.
And of course in the U.S. Where will you go for a different carrier. Verizon? No. T-mobile? Maybe if the coverage doesn't suck.
Correct. You are legally protected to jailbreak and Apple is legally protected to void your warranty and not required to support your product once you jailbreak that device.
It doesn't void the warranty, it just wouldn't be covered by the warranty. By the same token, I can see Apple still refusing to replace an iPhone that's been bricked by jailbreaking.
As well they should. While you might now be legally allowed to mod your property, if you damage it by doing so, you are on your own.
Why yes I do own an i4. I also don't jailbreak because I don't have a need to. I just think it's funny that Apple goes on and on to try to make jailbreaking illegal on their phones and they get told to eat crap and die by the feds. Good for the government telling them that their crap does stink and they have to follow the rules like everyone else. This doesn't mean that Apple won't make it as hard as possible to JB and existing rules that void the warranty will still remain in place.
AFAIK it's always been legal, just not easy. So, nothing has changed... it's just politicians trying to make points.
Also, hello AI... where is the link to the actual ruling, versus citing AP. Link? Please?
I don't even see why this is newsworthy. Nothing has changed. It never was illegal to jailbreak your phone or unlock it. And there is nothing in this ruling that requires either Apple or ATT to unlock your phone for you or to assist you in jailbreaking your phone.
About the only thing that might have changed is Apple couldn't refuse to fix a hardware problem (like half your screen developing dead pixels) on an unlocked phone. But I've never heard of anyone having an issue like that in getting warranty service.
So can anyone explain what new rights we've gained (in regards to cell phones)? I think this ruling is more proactive than reactive to any current situations.
Pretty sad that the "right" of an artificial entity (e.g. business) is considered more important to protect than the individual right of a consumer (e.g. person) to do what they want with a piece of property they purchased.
Luckily, the Library of Congress decided differently. Your attempt to frame it as some government intrusion is just annoying, when in fact the opposite just happened. The government protected the rights of individuals.
Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the government has inserted itself into an issue that would normally be sorted out by competition. There appears to be relatively little demand for jailbroken phones, so it has not been a consumer-driven issue.
Comments
No, I don't think they will be pressured to that extent. Other companies, perhaps google, might be willing to set up a 'legitimized' alternative app store where things like that would be accepted.
My hope would be some of the more arbitrary rejection or rejections that were meant to target companies no longer in their good graces (GV). If the app meets their current opinion of what is socially acceptable and actually provides a useful service or feature to their users and if their users now can easily get the apps elsewhere, maybe, just maybe, they might loosen up, just a bit.
I still doubt this small change will make any significant difference. The vast majority of people who buy a product like the iPhone do so it to use the way the manufacturer intended it to be used. The really big issue is the payoff for the added risk. I have not heard of anything compelling that a jailbroken iPhone can do that an out-of-the-box iPhone cannot -- but we do know that it can be hacked and bricked. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does making it "legal" actually change the equation?
I wouldn't like the government telling me how to run my business. For some reason, I just can't get excited about this.
What's next?
Pretty sad that the "right" of an artificial entity (e.g. business) is considered more important to protect than the individual right of a consumer (e.g. person) to do what they want with a piece of property they purchased.
Luckily, the Library of Congress decided differently. Your attempt to frame it as some government intrusion is just annoying, when in fact the opposite just happened. The government protected the rights of individuals.
http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectua...f-jailbreaking
Apple argued:
"Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use [utilize] unauthorized modification to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in infringement of the copyright in those programs."
To which the EFF responded:
"One need only transpose Apple's arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit.
But we'd never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages. After all, the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy."
Second, this changes a lot of things. Mainly, those coding the jailbreaks can come out and collaborate with others about improving the jailbreaking experience without fear of retribution from Apple. [Edit: WHOOPS, strike that, I'm reading in other publications that Apple may still want to go after the Dev Team]. Apple has been very slow compared to the thousands of very clever coders out there (sanctioned and unsanctioned) to customize the iPhone experience to the end-users needs. Plenty are fine with the iPhone as it stands - its your choice to not jailbreak. But for others, tweaks to the operating system, the core apps, (heck just being allowed to delete those annoying Apple preloaded apps), and allowing third-party apps that Apple rejects like browsers, Flash support, and tethering, are worth jailbreaking.
Finally, it also prevents other OS manufacturers (Microsoft, HP/Palm, and Google) from doing the same (saying its illegal, that is).
When you buy it, its your phone. Ownership means an owner has certain rights. I paid Apple and I finished my contract with AT&T. The phone is mine.
A big question is- will Apple be required to honor the warranty?
I don't see why they would be obligated if you run unauthorized mods.
Dumping water inside your computer (or tv or whatever) is not illegal but it most certainly voids a warranty.
since we can now jailbreak iPhones, can we also run OSX on a Dell or HP computer without fear of prosecution, if we've bought a legal copy of OSX?
What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.
verizon
9
apple will seel 300000 on this news
And every purchaser will be deeply disappointed to learn that Verizon uses CDMA and not GSM, so their iPhone won't work on the Verizon network.
I don't see why they would be obligated if you run unauthorized mods.
Dumping water inside your computer (or tv or whatever) is not illegal but it most certainly voids a warranty.
It doesn't void the warranty, it just wouldn't be covered by the warranty. By the same token, I can see Apple still refusing to replace an iPhone that's been bricked by jailbreaking.
I don't want to cancel my existing AT&T contract, and will continue to pay it while I'm not even using it. I just want to be able to use my phone there with a local SIM.
So I do hope that this ruling helps them along the "unlock" path. They have lost a couple of Court rulings and will already unlock any phone except iPhone. This may be the push they need.
When was it "officially illegal"?
Until yesterday. JB was a violation of the DCMA, but no one really did anything to enforce it. Apple could have gone after the iPhone Dev Team the same way recording studios put Limewire out of business. Instead, Apple periodically modified its firmware and baseband in a cat-and-mouse game.
A federal court in New Orleans found:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/29099.htm
Judge Garza stated:
"Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act's) anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners. The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing."
That means you are free to strip DRM off your legally owned stuff. Prepare for lots of challenges to this one.
Until yesterday. JB was a violation of the DCMA
No, Apple said it was a violation/illegal but to my knowledge, there was never even single court caset, let alone was ruled on.
Originally Posted by vaporland
since we can now jailbreak iPhones, can we also run OSX on a Dell or HP computer without fear of prosecution, if we've bought a legal copy of OSX?
What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.
You're both wrong. First, we don't know legally whether a purchased copy of OSX can be installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple's EULA says it is not permitted, but that's never been legally tested. The Psystar case only tested whether copied versions of OSX violate Apple's copyright when installed on computers. Read the court decision.
Second, no FCC rule or decision is involved here. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) expressely forbids bypassing digital protections on content. One exception allows the Librarian of Congress to decide every three years whether certain exemptions should be permitted. In this situation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that jailbreaking and unlocking are exempt from the digital protection restriction. That's it. There's nothing that changes anything else. Apple doesn't have to honor warranties on jailbroken and/or unlocked phones. The mobile operator can still hold you to the service contract. It doesn't give you license to install non-licensed software.
Shouldn't that make people mistrust 'the powerful' even more?
Hasn't it always been the case? But, The force that can defeat the powerful is a greater power, not simply mistrust. To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace):
"... That if all vicious men are bound together and constitute a force, then all honorable men ought to do the same ..."
In history, this usually takes the form of revolution -- violent (France) or peaceful (India, Philippines 1986, Checkoslovakia split, etc.). This does necessarily always lead to a more progressive society because some of the powerful supporters in the new order may then exploit the new system to their own advantage. If one is a cynic, one will simply give up -- because of the idea that "nothing changes". But there will always be the dreamers in our midst who wouold always hope for the better.
CGC
I still doubt this small change will make any significant difference. The vast majority of people who buy a product like the iPhone do so it to use the way the manufacturer intended it to be used. The really big issue is the payoff for the added risk. I have not heard of anything compelling that a jailbroken iPhone can do that an out-of-the-box iPhone cannot -- but we do know that it can be hacked and bricked. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does making it "legal" actually change the equation?
I don't disagree with you. Like I said, it is only a hope. But, to your questions. How many people really want to screw around with this? Does it change the equation? I think it has the potential to change the equation and this would increase the number of people willing to 'take the risk.'
There is a huge market of iPhones that are now out of contract and out warranty, so this by itself is big potential market place. If and when known and trusted sources (to the masses) come out and offer services to 'open' iPhones for consumers, anyone out of warranty might be tempted. Perhaps you want to be able to buy a used phone and use it just for voice on T-Mobible. Perhaps you want to use it as a portable wifi router for your 3G signal (for which you are paying the tethering fee of course). Perhaps google makes Google voice and Google Latitude available now that it is clearly legal. Those under warranty might not take part as much, but as is obviously the case now, there are those under warranty that are jailbreaking and that number is unlikely to shrink as a result of this change.
The equation has changed. It doesn't mean it will change the results.
Don't think the rules force apple to support iPhones that have been jail broken. The rules simply make it officially legal to jail break an iPhone.
And of course in the U.S. Where will you go for a different carrier. Verizon? No. T-mobile? Maybe if the coverage doesn't suck.
Correct. You are legally protected to jailbreak and Apple is legally protected to void your warranty and not required to support your product once you jailbreak that device.
Enjoy.
Hahaha Apple. Now what?
Class Action Suit for Apple not warranting a Jail Broke iPhone!
You heard of the Apple Tax...
Here comes the Federal Tax! So what else is new with this gang...
So, to end class action suit, Apple Care will cover iPhones and Jail Broke iPhones alike! Just not at $69.00... Try 469.00!
That's What!
/
/
/
/
It doesn't void the warranty, it just wouldn't be covered by the warranty. By the same token, I can see Apple still refusing to replace an iPhone that's been bricked by jailbreaking.
As well they should. While you might now be legally allowed to mod your property, if you damage it by doing so, you are on your own.
Why yes I do own an i4. I also don't jailbreak because I don't have a need to. I just think it's funny that Apple goes on and on to try to make jailbreaking illegal on their phones and they get told to eat crap and die by the feds. Good for the government telling them that their crap does stink and they have to follow the rules like everyone else. This doesn't mean that Apple won't make it as hard as possible to JB and existing rules that void the warranty will still remain in place.
AFAIK it's always been legal, just not easy. So, nothing has changed... it's just politicians trying to make points.
Also, hello AI... where is the link to the actual ruling, versus citing AP. Link? Please?
Hahaha Apple. Now what?
I don't even see why this is newsworthy. Nothing has changed. It never was illegal to jailbreak your phone or unlock it. And there is nothing in this ruling that requires either Apple or ATT to unlock your phone for you or to assist you in jailbreaking your phone.
About the only thing that might have changed is Apple couldn't refuse to fix a hardware problem (like half your screen developing dead pixels) on an unlocked phone. But I've never heard of anyone having an issue like that in getting warranty service.
So can anyone explain what new rights we've gained (in regards to cell phones)? I think this ruling is more proactive than reactive to any current situations.
Pretty sad that the "right" of an artificial entity (e.g. business) is considered more important to protect than the individual right of a consumer (e.g. person) to do what they want with a piece of property they purchased.
Luckily, the Library of Congress decided differently. Your attempt to frame it as some government intrusion is just annoying, when in fact the opposite just happened. The government protected the rights of individuals.
Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the government has inserted itself into an issue that would normally be sorted out by competition. There appears to be relatively little demand for jailbroken phones, so it has not been a consumer-driven issue.