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.
Apple and the EFF both submitted arguments to the Copyright office arguing whether jailbreaking in and of itself was illegal. Both could not be right, but both had arguments. For now (3 years) the EFF seems to have 'won'. Had Apple 'won' they could have gone after the groups and individuals working on the jailbreaks.
As for what rights you have gained? Well, if you wanted to open your own app store and sell legal apps for iPhone, you could do so now. As a consumer, if someone else did this, they could legally sell you software that you might want that would have otherwise been unavailable to you.
...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.
Very true.
People sometimes forget that until an interpretation of the law has been tested, it is not certain whether the interpretation is indeed with the spirit of the law, and thus, legal. Having said this, since the judiciary system still constitute judges, who are human, the interpretation of the law can change over time, depending on who is in power. Even the laws, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court have changed in their context -- abortion, affirmative action, copyright and patents, etc.
It was ambiguous. Apple went to the Copyright office and argued that the act of jailbreaking was itself a copyright infringement. The EFF argued that jailbreaking might make it possible for copyright infringement to occur but was not it itself infringement. They saw it as similar to making copies of your physical media. There are legit and non-legitimate reasons for doing it but that the act itself should be covered by fair use.
The way I remember it the EFF actually "started it" and went to the the Copyright office first, but that doesn't change your analysis.
I find overall that I lament the fact that all of this is supposed to be about "Copyright" when in fact nothing we are talking about has much to do with actually protecting creative works. This is ultimately all about business, about theft, and about who is allowed to make money off of the works.
The bigger picture of the DCMA and copyright law in general is that it has very little to do with what was traditionally called copyright or with protecting the actual works or the artists that create them. It's really just about sales and protecting the markets of the distribution companies. The actual Artists still mostly get the shaft as usual.
Excellent move on the freedom front in regards carriers. Really bad, bad, move on the "your allowed to jailbreak" front. I can't see how anyone can have any data security if jailbreaking is allowed.
Next thing you know, General David Petraeus and Pres. Obama will be having a beer with the founder of Wikileaks...
But seriously, the "news" of this on the surface looks more exciting than the reality. Essentially, nothing is changed.
What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the issue is that 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.
Yet another annoying "the market will solve it" argument. Individuals in a market don't necessarily get their rights protected. Your argument - spoofed by Stephen Colbert - is that "the market has spoken" and therefore is determinative of some inherent "rightness". Competition and the ability to buy another phone through another operator has no bearing on my individual right to do what I want with a piece of property that I own outright ... with the usual caveats that I cannot perform illegal acts or infringe on rights held by others. That's the DMCA's exemption clause. If I own the item, then how can I infringe on someone's copyright by removing the security mechanism? The copyright holder still got fully paid.
The government ought to insert itself in situations where a corporate entity tries to interfere in my property rights. After all, that's one of the core reasons why a government exists.
You are correct. That is pretty funny. The fact that app developers who sell apps on Cydia feel the need to protect themselves from piracy kind of gives lie to the lame protestations we often see that jailbreakers are not doing a significant amount of pirating.
Well Cydia packages have a much smaller potential set of customers, who all can figure out how to get the same app for free, unlike App store apps where there is over 10 million potential customers, where maybe only 500,000 have the ability to pirate.
The way I remember it the EFF actually "started it" and went to the the Copyright office first, but that doesn't change your analysis.
I find overall that I lament the fact that all of this is supposed to be about "Copyright" when in fact nothing we are talking about has much to do with actually protecting creative works. This is ultimately all about business, about theft, and about who is allowed to make money off of the works.
The bigger picture of the DCMA and copyright law in general is that it has very little to do with what was traditionally called copyright or with protecting the actual works or the artists that create them. It's really just about sales and protecting the markets of the distribution companies. The actual Artists still mostly get the shaft as usual.
It's unclear from the information about this released so far, but I believe in the past, Apple has refused to provide warranty services to users who jailbreak, essentially arguing that the warranty terms have been violated. But it would seem now that they will won't be able to claim that the warranties have been voided. Still I don't think that Apple will have to support someone who hoses their iPhone with malware.
Warranties, Service Agreements and End User Licenses have nothing to do with the law. They are basically agreements between the manufacturer and the user. By using the product, the user agrees to specific terms stated in the contracts. Under the warranty, the manufacturer guarantees the product will work as advertised and will replace or fix the product free of charge should an issue arise. However, the warranty only applies as long as the user uses the device as outlined in the contract.
All this new law says, is that Apple cannot sue anyone for providing a method to jailbreak or unlock their devices. Apple can still void the warranty and refuse service as they could before.
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.
The idea that market-driven solutions is necessarily the best solution is not always to the best interest of society. But, that is a perspective that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing here.
While I would not likely jailbreak by phone for my own security, the most difficult laws to pass are those for the protection of the minority or the less powerful.
In the US for example, there was a time that African-Americans did not have the same rights as "whites" -- both as legislated by Congress and interpreted by the US Supreme Court. This was the case also with the rights of women, and at some points, Asians, gay people, etc.
To protect the rights of those who want to jailbreak their phones (most likely in the minority), provided they do not violate the spirit of the law, is another testament to the protection of minorities.
Time changes people though and so do the politicians and judges that make the laws and interpret these laws. Many of the hard fought laws to protect minorities have been erroded or repealed more recently, either through acts of Congress or the judiciary system.
The problem is that the majority of jailbreaking goes on specifically to enable illegal programs on the device (stolen software). So now everyone will be allowed to jailbreak, but 90% of those doing it will still be breaking the law.
Proof, please. I've had a jailbroken iPhone for years and have yet to run a single pirated app on it. I also do not know anyone else who has ever run pirated software on their iPhones. I jailbreak to run software Apple doesn't allow, but I do pay for it through Cydia or other means. I also like having root access....just because.
I will admit to having researched how to install a pirated app, just out of curiosity. I didn't follow through. It actually seems like a real pain in the ass; I'm not clear why anyone would go thru that for a $3 app.
Unless you have stats to back up your "90% of jailbreakers are pirates" claim, I call shenanigans.
Lets not be naive about this. To the extent that this changes anything at all (I would argue things will stay the same to a large degree), it's a change to the worse for everyone except the jailbreaker looking for free programs. Virtually all the effects of this decision will be negative to the end user with one exception.
Either someone will set up a legal second store with the "morally questionable" (girls in bikinis) apps, or Apple will have to relent on their Disney-eque fantasy and allow them in the regular store.
AFAIKS every single other aspect of jailbreaks being legal is a net loss for the average consumer.
(note I'm not talking about unlocking which is a good thing).
This is just crap. The changes give no legal validity to pirating apps and is highly unlikely to drive it. There is zero negative outcomes for consumers and it's overwhelmingly positive.
Where I am almost no one is interested in jailbreaking and the reason for that is the handsets are either never locked or are happily unlocked by the carrier. The big driver of jailbreaking was never about free apps but being able to swap carriers quickly or to ensure that when you travel with your phone you can drop in a local SIM if you need to.
The competitive benefits to consumers of being able to move around between carriers cannot be overstated. This is an important move to begin to abolish just some of the artificial constraints which were designed to limit competition and ensure consumers pay more than they should. Sadly before this move this restraint alone may have helped AT&T pick millions of dollars out of the pockets of iphone users.
It is complete bullshit that customers have to stay with AT&T after they have paid them thousands of dollars over the course of the 2-year iPhone contract. There is a lawsuit about this that just gained class action status. I for one hope we (consumers) win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MomentsofSanity
This seems like a very empty ruling on behalf of the government. So my carrier can still force me to use their network after my contract expires if I want to keep my phone UNLESS I jailbreak and unlock my phone and jump through all the hoops that go with that every time there's an update to iOS etc...?
Grow a pair of balls and mandate they be sold unlocked or, at minimum, force unlocking once a contract term is honored be it full term or paying the ECF.
Warranties, Service Agreements and End User Licenses have nothing to do with the law. They are basically agreements between the manufacturer and the user. By using the product, the user agrees to specific terms stated in the contracts. Under the warranty, the manufacturer guarantees the product will work as advertised and will replace or fix the product free of charge should an issue arise. However, the warranty only applies as long as the user uses the device as outlined in the contract.
All this new law says, is that Apple cannot sue anyone for providing a method to jailbreak or unlock their devices. Apple can still void the warranty and refuse service as they could before.
Yes, I think you are correct, except I'm not so sure Apple still couldn't sue someone for providing a method if they were so inclined, for purposes of testing the law.
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?
No, Apple's EULA prohibits their OS from running on non-Apple hardware. You never actually buy a legal copy of OS X, you buy a legal upgrade. This is what most people fail to realize; the boxed version of OS X you buy in the store is actually an upgrade and is only for Mac users. It is provided mostly out of convenience; rather than needing to purchase and download the upgrade online, which would take a long time to do, they make it available at retail outlets. This is in contrast to iOS, which is only purchased and distributed online.
Secondly, Apple has never sued a private individual for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, all they'll do is refuse warranty service.
This makes me proud to be a citizen of the US. I can't help but think apple is slowly loosing its hold and power after the death grip fiasco apple. Its like what Leia said to Tarkin: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". I love apple but they need to loosen up a bit when it comes to things like third party applications and I don't know...Flash.
Don't glow to much. This will probably only result in Apple locking things down tighter on JB phones. They have to protect the developers of legit apps somehow. Also, the government is not egalitarian. I suspect we will find out why they really did this soon enough and I'm sure it wasn't for "the greater good".
There is no data security with physical access to the device anyways. Jailbreaking doesn't make this any better or worse.
I think it's a sign that they are finally realizing digital rights to date have focused on protecting content providers but not content consumers.
Though I don't have any interest in jailbreaking this is good, means we are starting to get some reform in the laws instead of having a mirky mess surrounding digital content.
They're saying it's not illegal to jailbreak your iphone. They aren't saying Apple needs to treat that device the same as the others.
It's like saying it's legal to buy a car and remove the motor, but the dealership you bought the car from isn't obligated to continue honoring the warranty on that vehicle after you've done something like that.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, but things like this need to be put on the books so that there's no question about it.
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.
Apple will continue to modify to thwart jailbreakers.
Comments
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.
Apple and the EFF both submitted arguments to the Copyright office arguing whether jailbreaking in and of itself was illegal. Both could not be right, but both had arguments. For now (3 years) the EFF seems to have 'won'. Had Apple 'won' they could have gone after the groups and individuals working on the jailbreaks.
As for what rights you have gained? Well, if you wanted to open your own app store and sell legal apps for iPhone, you could do so now. As a consumer, if someone else did this, they could legally sell you software that you might want that would have otherwise been unavailable to you.
...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.
Very true.
People sometimes forget that until an interpretation of the law has been tested, it is not certain whether the interpretation is indeed with the spirit of the law, and thus, legal. Having said this, since the judiciary system still constitute judges, who are human, the interpretation of the law can change over time, depending on who is in power. Even the laws, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court have changed in their context -- abortion, affirmative action, copyright and patents, etc.
CGC
It was ambiguous. Apple went to the Copyright office and argued that the act of jailbreaking was itself a copyright infringement. The EFF argued that jailbreaking might make it possible for copyright infringement to occur but was not it itself infringement. They saw it as similar to making copies of your physical media. There are legit and non-legitimate reasons for doing it but that the act itself should be covered by fair use.
The way I remember it the EFF actually "started it" and went to the the Copyright office first, but that doesn't change your analysis.
I find overall that I lament the fact that all of this is supposed to be about "Copyright" when in fact nothing we are talking about has much to do with actually protecting creative works. This is ultimately all about business, about theft, and about who is allowed to make money off of the works.
The bigger picture of the DCMA and copyright law in general is that it has very little to do with what was traditionally called copyright or with protecting the actual works or the artists that create them. It's really just about sales and protecting the markets of the distribution companies. The actual Artists still mostly get the shaft as usual.
Wow. That was unexpected.
Excellent move on the freedom front in regards carriers. Really bad, bad, move on the "your allowed to jailbreak" front. I can't see how anyone can have any data security if jailbreaking is allowed.
Next thing you know, General David Petraeus and Pres. Obama will be having a beer with the founder of Wikileaks...
But seriously, the "news" of this on the surface looks more exciting than the reality. Essentially, nothing is changed.
What does a jailborken iPhon have to do with running OSX on a Dell or HP? These are FCC rules which govern communications.
Not true at all. There is already plenty of competition among phone manufacturers, so the issue is that 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.
Yet another annoying "the market will solve it" argument. Individuals in a market don't necessarily get their rights protected. Your argument - spoofed by Stephen Colbert - is that "the market has spoken" and therefore is determinative of some inherent "rightness". Competition and the ability to buy another phone through another operator has no bearing on my individual right to do what I want with a piece of property that I own outright ... with the usual caveats that I cannot perform illegal acts or infringe on rights held by others. That's the DMCA's exemption clause. If I own the item, then how can I infringe on someone's copyright by removing the security mechanism? The copyright holder still got fully paid.
The government ought to insert itself in situations where a corporate entity tries to interfere in my property rights. After all, that's one of the core reasons why a government exists.
You are correct. That is pretty funny. The fact that app developers who sell apps on Cydia feel the need to protect themselves from piracy kind of gives lie to the lame protestations we often see that jailbreakers are not doing a significant amount of pirating.
Well Cydia packages have a much smaller potential set of customers, who all can figure out how to get the same app for free, unlike App store apps where there is over 10 million potential customers, where maybe only 500,000 have the ability to pirate.
Hahaha Apple. Now what?
I know how dare Apple send Cyanogen a C&D for jailbreaking their OS.
oh wait...
The way I remember it the EFF actually "started it" and went to the the Copyright office first, but that doesn't change your analysis.
I find overall that I lament the fact that all of this is supposed to be about "Copyright" when in fact nothing we are talking about has much to do with actually protecting creative works. This is ultimately all about business, about theft, and about who is allowed to make money off of the works.
The bigger picture of the DCMA and copyright law in general is that it has very little to do with what was traditionally called copyright or with protecting the actual works or the artists that create them. It's really just about sales and protecting the markets of the distribution companies. The actual Artists still mostly get the shaft as usual.
You are likely right on all points.
What are your feelings on C-32 here at home?
It's unclear from the information about this released so far, but I believe in the past, Apple has refused to provide warranty services to users who jailbreak, essentially arguing that the warranty terms have been violated. But it would seem now that they will won't be able to claim that the warranties have been voided. Still I don't think that Apple will have to support someone who hoses their iPhone with malware.
Warranties, Service Agreements and End User Licenses have nothing to do with the law. They are basically agreements between the manufacturer and the user. By using the product, the user agrees to specific terms stated in the contracts. Under the warranty, the manufacturer guarantees the product will work as advertised and will replace or fix the product free of charge should an issue arise. However, the warranty only applies as long as the user uses the device as outlined in the contract.
All this new law says, is that Apple cannot sue anyone for providing a method to jailbreak or unlock their devices. Apple can still void the warranty and refuse service as they could before.
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.
The idea that market-driven solutions is necessarily the best solution is not always to the best interest of society. But, that is a perspective that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing here.
While I would not likely jailbreak by phone for my own security, the most difficult laws to pass are those for the protection of the minority or the less powerful.
In the US for example, there was a time that African-Americans did not have the same rights as "whites" -- both as legislated by Congress and interpreted by the US Supreme Court. This was the case also with the rights of women, and at some points, Asians, gay people, etc.
To protect the rights of those who want to jailbreak their phones (most likely in the minority), provided they do not violate the spirit of the law, is another testament to the protection of minorities.
Time changes people though and so do the politicians and judges that make the laws and interpret these laws. Many of the hard fought laws to protect minorities have been erroded or repealed more recently, either through acts of Congress or the judiciary system.
CGC
The problem is that the majority of jailbreaking goes on specifically to enable illegal programs on the device (stolen software). So now everyone will be allowed to jailbreak, but 90% of those doing it will still be breaking the law.
Proof, please. I've had a jailbroken iPhone for years and have yet to run a single pirated app on it. I also do not know anyone else who has ever run pirated software on their iPhones. I jailbreak to run software Apple doesn't allow, but I do pay for it through Cydia or other means. I also like having root access....just because.
I will admit to having researched how to install a pirated app, just out of curiosity. I didn't follow through. It actually seems like a real pain in the ass; I'm not clear why anyone would go thru that for a $3 app.
Unless you have stats to back up your "90% of jailbreakers are pirates" claim, I call shenanigans.
Apple disagrees with you.
Apple doesn't make the laws.
It probably will.
Lets not be naive about this. To the extent that this changes anything at all (I would argue things will stay the same to a large degree), it's a change to the worse for everyone except the jailbreaker looking for free programs. Virtually all the effects of this decision will be negative to the end user with one exception.
Either someone will set up a legal second store with the "morally questionable" (girls in bikinis) apps, or Apple will have to relent on their Disney-eque fantasy and allow them in the regular store.
AFAIKS every single other aspect of jailbreaks being legal is a net loss for the average consumer.
(note I'm not talking about unlocking which is a good thing).
This is just crap. The changes give no legal validity to pirating apps and is highly unlikely to drive it. There is zero negative outcomes for consumers and it's overwhelmingly positive.
Where I am almost no one is interested in jailbreaking and the reason for that is the handsets are either never locked or are happily unlocked by the carrier. The big driver of jailbreaking was never about free apps but being able to swap carriers quickly or to ensure that when you travel with your phone you can drop in a local SIM if you need to.
The competitive benefits to consumers of being able to move around between carriers cannot be overstated. This is an important move to begin to abolish just some of the artificial constraints which were designed to limit competition and ensure consumers pay more than they should. Sadly before this move this restraint alone may have helped AT&T pick millions of dollars out of the pockets of iphone users.
This seems like a very empty ruling on behalf of the government. So my carrier can still force me to use their network after my contract expires if I want to keep my phone UNLESS I jailbreak and unlock my phone and jump through all the hoops that go with that every time there's an update to iOS etc...?
Grow a pair of balls and mandate they be sold unlocked or, at minimum, force unlocking once a contract term is honored be it full term or paying the ECF.
Warranties, Service Agreements and End User Licenses have nothing to do with the law. They are basically agreements between the manufacturer and the user. By using the product, the user agrees to specific terms stated in the contracts. Under the warranty, the manufacturer guarantees the product will work as advertised and will replace or fix the product free of charge should an issue arise. However, the warranty only applies as long as the user uses the device as outlined in the contract.
All this new law says, is that Apple cannot sue anyone for providing a method to jailbreak or unlock their devices. Apple can still void the warranty and refuse service as they could before.
Yes, I think you are correct, except I'm not so sure Apple still couldn't sue someone for providing a method if they were so inclined, for purposes of testing the law.
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?
No, Apple's EULA prohibits their OS from running on non-Apple hardware. You never actually buy a legal copy of OS X, you buy a legal upgrade. This is what most people fail to realize; the boxed version of OS X you buy in the store is actually an upgrade and is only for Mac users. It is provided mostly out of convenience; rather than needing to purchase and download the upgrade online, which would take a long time to do, they make it available at retail outlets. This is in contrast to iOS, which is only purchased and distributed online.
Secondly, Apple has never sued a private individual for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, all they'll do is refuse warranty service.
This makes me proud to be a citizen of the US. I can't help but think apple is slowly loosing its hold and power after the death grip fiasco apple. Its like what Leia said to Tarkin: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". I love apple but they need to loosen up a bit when it comes to things like third party applications and I don't know...Flash.
Don't glow to much. This will probably only result in Apple locking things down tighter on JB phones. They have to protect the developers of legit apps somehow. Also, the government is not egalitarian. I suspect we will find out why they really did this soon enough and I'm sure it wasn't for "the greater good".
I don't see how this matters at all.
There is no data security with physical access to the device anyways. Jailbreaking doesn't make this any better or worse.
I think it's a sign that they are finally realizing digital rights to date have focused on protecting content providers but not content consumers.
Though I don't have any interest in jailbreaking this is good, means we are starting to get some reform in the laws instead of having a mirky mess surrounding digital content.
It's like saying it's legal to buy a car and remove the motor, but the dealership you bought the car from isn't obligated to continue honoring the warranty on that vehicle after you've done something like that.
Seems like a no-brainer to me, but things like this need to be put on the books so that there's no question about it.
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.
Apple will continue to modify to thwart jailbreakers.