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.
Apple's warranty is, as always, subject to limits imposed by the laws designed to protect consumers. If the law now effectively provides for interoperability the warranty can't take away those rights.
You're right that they can test the law, and they clearly will be unhappy about this (as they submitted to the Copyright Office not to provide the exemption) but given it's out in the open that government is working to help consumers Apple would have to obviously go against it's customers interests to do so. They've again said they like making their customers happy and to make that credible they need to see that consumers are sick of locked phones just like people were with DRM.
As the Antennagate issue is still settling down they will also think twice about how the groundswell of a solid fanbase will work against them when it wants to.
I welcome all carriers in the US selling phones that are not locked down. I want the option to pay for the whole phone on day one instead of a carrier spreading the cost over the length of the contract and enslaving me to a steep contract buy-out. I don't like paying the same per month when my contract is up and I've paid back the subsidy + interest.
It's going to take a good while for US carriers to converge on a network standard. I can see the monthly rates increasing or at a minimum higher connect/disconnect fees. Also, phone costs going up since they'd have to support protocols and frequencies normally not needed for single carrier use. I'd like to travel internationally and just drop in a local SIM and pay by the byte.
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". ...
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.
Actually, it is. It's freedom FOR USERS and relief from constraints that we'd been under up until now.
Quote:
Enjoy.
Thanks, I very much will.
It continues to amaze me that people who benefit from gov't regulations are so quick to criticize them. Yet they'd be the first to complain if a loved one were killed in unregulated airspace or from eating uninspected tainted meat.
Apple will continue to modify to thwart jailbreakers.
I don't think Apple modifies to thwart jailbreakers. They update their OS as they do - mostly for the benefit of their customers. And it sometimes breaks the hack, sometimes not. Frankly, I think Apple gets too many great ideas from the jailbreak community to have any real ire for it. The kind of effort Apple's put into shutting down Flash and Psystar is totally absent here. Apple couldn't stop jailbreaking if they wanted to, but they could make it a lot harder, and they really haven't so far.
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) won three critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anticircumvention provisions today, carving out new legal protections for consumers who modify their cell phones and artists who remix videos — people who, until now, could have been sued for their non-infringing or fair use activities.
"By granting all of EFF's applications, the Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress have taken three important steps today to mitigate some of the harms caused by the DMCA," said Jennifer Granick, EFF's Civil Liberties Director. "We are thrilled to have helped free jailbreakers, unlockers and vidders from this law's overbroad reach."
The exemptions were granted as part of a statutorily prescribed rulemaking process, conducted every three years to mitigate the danger the DMCA poses to legitimate, non-infringing uses of copyrighted materials. The DMCA prohibits "circumventing" digital rights management (DRM) and "other technical protection measures" used to control access to copyrighted works. While the DMCA still chills competition, free speech, and fair use, today's exemptions take unprecedented new strides towards protecting more consumers and artists from its extensive reach.
The first of EFF's three successful requests clarifies the legality of cell phone "jailbreaking" — software modifications that liberate iPhones and other handsets to run applications from sources other than those approved by the phone maker. More than a million iPhone owners are said to have "jailbroken" their handsets in order to change wireless providers or use applications obtained from sources other than Apple's own iTunes "App Store," and many more have expressed a desire to do so. But the threat of DMCA liability had previously endangered these customers and alternate applications stores.
In its reasoning in favor of EFF's jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses."
"Copyright law has long held that making programs interoperable is fair use," confirmed Corynne McSherry, EFF's Senior Staff Attorney. "It's gratifying that the Copyright Office acknowledges this right and agrees that the anticircumvention laws should not interfere with interoperability."
EFF also won a groundbreaking new protection for video remix artists currently thriving on Internet sites like YouTube. The new rule holds that amateur creators do not violate the DMCA when they use short excerpts from DVDs in order to create new, noncommercial works for purposes of criticism or comment if they believe that circumvention is necessary to fulfill that purpose. Hollywood has historically taken the view that "ripping" DVDs is always a violation of the DMCA, no matter the purpose.
"Noncommercial videos are a powerful art form online, and many use short clips from popular movies. Finally the creative people that make those videos won't have to worry that they are breaking the law in the process, even though their works are clearly fair uses. That benefits everyone — from the artists themselves to those of us who enjoy watching the amazing works they create," added McSherry.
On EFF's request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones.
"The Copyright Office recognizes that the primary purpose of the locks on cell phones is to bind customers to their existing networks, rather than to protect copyrights," said Granick. "The Copyright Office agrees with EFF that the DMCA shouldn't be used as a barrier to prevent people who purchase phones from keeping those phones when they change carriers. The DMCA also shouldn't be used to interfere with recyclers who want to extend the useful life of a handset."
Along with the exemptions that EFF championed, several other DMCA exemptions were expanded, granted or narrowed including one for documentary filmmakers and college-level educators, as well as some for security researchers.
There are some updates on Macrumors about this case that should be checked by everyone.
However, more than one million iPhone users is between 1-2% of iPhone users.
Nothing new here.
From Macrumors:
Quote:
Update 2: Some observers have pointed out the the Library of Congress ruling today also addresses the issue of mobile phone unlocking, which involves moving a device to another wireless carrier for which support is not generally offered. Today's ruling only states, however, that copyright concerns can not be used to prohibit unlocking of mobile phones under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Carriers are still free to prevent unlocking in many circumstances and can pursue cases against individuals by citing breach of contract under the carriers' Terms of Service.
My feelings are both too long to discuss here, (and probably too vitriolic as well). There's a lot involved, and some of the arguments hinge on issues that are themselves hot-button topics like whether a corporation is even entitled to the same protection as an individual.
In general I believe that copyright laws do relatively little to actually protect the originating artist and are mostly about protecting the publishing corporations right to exclusivity. The original purpose of copyright law was to protect the works of those that create them from being copied or sold by others, but little work has been done on that part of the law for many years.
Almost all recent (last fifty years) changes to the laws have focussed exclusively on the rights of corporations to hold on to the IP long after the original artist has died, extending copyright protection far beyond any reasonable expiry date, and draconian changes to the rights of the consumers to keep, copy, or use legally purchased items. Meantime, the artist is in no different a position than he or she was all that time ago.
All these changes (IMO), have had a stifling effect on creativity that's seems pretty obvious to me, but I rarely get anyone who agrees with me.
(2)Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking
Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.
The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.
[Two of ]The six classes of works are:
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
My understanding of the new copyright rulings re the iPhone are as follows:
Exemption (2) it is not illegal to use third-party software, i.e., not currently available via the iTunes store.
Exemption (3) it is not illegal to use firmware or software to let you use another carrier.
Nothing in this ruling, or anything that the Library of Congress could mandate, could make Apple or AT&T provide the necessary hardware, firmware or software, as well as, service and support for any software or hardware to facilitate the use of apps other than those available on the iTunes store, or connecting your iPhone to just any other carrier of your choosing.
[QUOTE=Prof. Peabody;1683710]My feelings are both too long to discuss here, (and probably too vitriolic as well). There's a lot involved, and some of the arguments hinge on issues that are themselves hot-button topics like whether a corporation is even entitled to the same protection as an individual.
In general I believe that copyright laws do relatively little to actually protect the originating artist and are mostly about protecting the publishing corporations right to exclusivity. The original purpose of copyright law was to protect the works of those that create them from being copied or sold by others, but little work has been done on that part of the law for many years.
Almost all recent (last fifty years) changes to the laws have focussed exclusively on the rights of corporations to hold on to the IP long after the original artist has died, extending copyright protection far beyond any reasonable expiry date, and draconian changes to the rights of the consumers to keep, copy, or use legally purchased items. Meantime, the artist is in no different a position than he or she was all that time ago.
All these changes (IMO), have had a stifling effect on creativity that's seems pretty obvious to me, but I rarely get anyone who agrees with me.[/QUOTE]
It's probably an impossible task but what would be really interesting is if somehow this creativity could be worked out. An ISBN count could be a partial measure.
...The government protected the rights of individuals.
Amen to that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia
Apple doesn't make the laws.
Amen to that, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
...
It continues to amaze me that people who benefit from gov't regulations are so quick to criticize them. Yet they'd be the first to complain if a loved one were killed in unregulated airspace or from eating uninspected tainted meat.
I can understand Mr. Jobs' point on pornography. At his age...
Now some of Internet users do not need education how to use the tool. Not all pornography is illegal and so be it.
I wonder if people at Apple ever researched public interest in Internet pornography and the revenue coming from it.
On another note, what type of application I purchase and install on my legitimate hardware is none of vendor business (except perhaps for crimes). I honestly do not appreciate education via limitation.
... and the only reason i do not buy iPhone is... At&T. It is small company worldwide comparing to T-Mobile. I travel nd I do not care how AT&T looks at this with their plans and roaming agreements. I am satisfied with treatment I get from T-Mobile in foreign countries and in the USA. BTW T-Mobile owns half of the owrld outside of the USA. Some small operators.... belong to them as well. What does AT&T own outside? I do not have clue.
I am happy that I might one day have iPhone not bound to some operator and pick my own favorite. Also I am happy that I may use some alternative GPS solution with aftermarket dongles rather what's Apple prescribed and what agreements I am bound with indirectly.
Other than that I still consider Android while being fan of Apple in general.
I don't think Apple modifies to thwart jailbreakers. They update their OS as they do - mostly for the benefit of their customers. And it sometimes breaks the hack, sometimes not. Frankly, I think Apple gets too many great ideas from the jailbreak community to have any real ire for it. The kind of effort Apple's put into shutting down Flash and Psystar is totally absent here. Apple couldn't stop jailbreaking if they wanted to, but they could make it a lot harder, and they really haven't so far.
?It?s a cat-and-mouse game, We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it?s our job to stop them breaking in.?
"The worm does not affect most iPhone users; only those with jailbroken iPhones that are running a Unix utility called SSH (Secure Shell) with the iPhone?s default password, ?alpine,? still in use."
My understanding of the new copyright rulings re the iPhone are as follows:
Exemption (2) it is not illegal to use third-party software, i.e., not currently available via the iTunes store.
Exemption (3) it is not illegal to use firmware or software to let you use another carrier.
Nothing in this ruling, or anything that the Library of Congress could mandate, could make Apple or AT&T provide the necessary hardware, firmware or software, as well as, service and support for any software or hardware to facilitate the use of apps other than those available on the iTunes store, or connecting your iPhone to just any other carrier of your choosing.
I think your understanding is correct. Nothing in any of the articles or posts about this that I have read imply Apple would be obligated to open or unlock anyone's iPhone. But, it does mean they won't be able to go after those that do so or provide the means to do it...for the next 3 years anyway.
Comments
Enjoy.
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.
Apple's warranty is, as always, subject to limits imposed by the laws designed to protect consumers. If the law now effectively provides for interoperability the warranty can't take away those rights.
You're right that they can test the law, and they clearly will be unhappy about this (as they submitted to the Copyright Office not to provide the exemption) but given it's out in the open that government is working to help consumers Apple would have to obviously go against it's customers interests to do so. They've again said they like making their customers happy and to make that credible they need to see that consumers are sick of locked phones just like people were with DRM.
As the Antennagate issue is still settling down they will also think twice about how the groundswell of a solid fanbase will work against them when it wants to.
It's going to take a good while for US carriers to converge on a network standard. I can see the monthly rates increasing or at a minimum higher connect/disconnect fees. Also, phone costs going up since they'd have to support protocols and frequencies normally not needed for single carrier use. I'd like to travel internationally and just drop in a local SIM and pay by the byte.
-Chris
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". ...
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.
VERY well stated. Kudos.
iPads are already unlocked. No reason why Apple couldn't do the same with iPhones. (Not sure how this matters for iPods, though).
Oops sorry my bad. I meant to say iPod Touch, although i wasn't aware iPad was unlocked. How did i miss that one
More freedom in the land of the free.
Actually, it is. It's freedom FOR USERS and relief from constraints that we'd been under up until now.
Enjoy.
Thanks, I very much will.
It continues to amaze me that people who benefit from gov't regulations are so quick to criticize them. Yet they'd be the first to complain if a loved one were killed in unregulated airspace or from eating uninspected tainted meat.
Apple will continue to modify to thwart jailbreakers.
I don't think Apple modifies to thwart jailbreakers. They update their OS as they do - mostly for the benefit of their customers. And it sometimes breaks the hack, sometimes not. Frankly, I think Apple gets too many great ideas from the jailbreak community to have any real ire for it. The kind of effort Apple's put into shutting down Flash and Psystar is totally absent here. Apple couldn't stop jailbreaking if they wanted to, but they could make it a lot harder, and they really haven't so far.
Rulemaking Fixes Critical DMCA Wrongs
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) won three critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anticircumvention provisions today, carving out new legal protections for consumers who modify their cell phones and artists who remix videos — people who, until now, could have been sued for their non-infringing or fair use activities.
"By granting all of EFF's applications, the Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress have taken three important steps today to mitigate some of the harms caused by the DMCA," said Jennifer Granick, EFF's Civil Liberties Director. "We are thrilled to have helped free jailbreakers, unlockers and vidders from this law's overbroad reach."
The exemptions were granted as part of a statutorily prescribed rulemaking process, conducted every three years to mitigate the danger the DMCA poses to legitimate, non-infringing uses of copyrighted materials. The DMCA prohibits "circumventing" digital rights management (DRM) and "other technical protection measures" used to control access to copyrighted works. While the DMCA still chills competition, free speech, and fair use, today's exemptions take unprecedented new strides towards protecting more consumers and artists from its extensive reach.
The first of EFF's three successful requests clarifies the legality of cell phone "jailbreaking" — software modifications that liberate iPhones and other handsets to run applications from sources other than those approved by the phone maker. More than a million iPhone owners are said to have "jailbroken" their handsets in order to change wireless providers or use applications obtained from sources other than Apple's own iTunes "App Store," and many more have expressed a desire to do so. But the threat of DMCA liability had previously endangered these customers and alternate applications stores.
In its reasoning in favor of EFF's jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses."
"Copyright law has long held that making programs interoperable is fair use," confirmed Corynne McSherry, EFF's Senior Staff Attorney. "It's gratifying that the Copyright Office acknowledges this right and agrees that the anticircumvention laws should not interfere with interoperability."
EFF also won a groundbreaking new protection for video remix artists currently thriving on Internet sites like YouTube. The new rule holds that amateur creators do not violate the DMCA when they use short excerpts from DVDs in order to create new, noncommercial works for purposes of criticism or comment if they believe that circumvention is necessary to fulfill that purpose. Hollywood has historically taken the view that "ripping" DVDs is always a violation of the DMCA, no matter the purpose.
"Noncommercial videos are a powerful art form online, and many use short clips from popular movies. Finally the creative people that make those videos won't have to worry that they are breaking the law in the process, even though their works are clearly fair uses. That benefits everyone — from the artists themselves to those of us who enjoy watching the amazing works they create," added McSherry.
On EFF's request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones.
"The Copyright Office recognizes that the primary purpose of the locks on cell phones is to bind customers to their existing networks, rather than to protect copyrights," said Granick. "The Copyright Office agrees with EFF that the DMCA shouldn't be used as a barrier to prevent people who purchase phones from keeping those phones when they change carriers. The DMCA also shouldn't be used to interfere with recyclers who want to extend the useful life of a handset."
Along with the exemptions that EFF championed, several other DMCA exemptions were expanded, granted or narrowed including one for documentary filmmakers and college-level educators, as well as some for security researchers.
For the full rulemaking order:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/d.../RM-2008-8.pdf
For more on the DMCA rulemaking:
http://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking
There are some updates on Macrumors about this case that should be checked by everyone.
However, more than one million iPhone users is between 1-2% of iPhone users.
Nothing new here.
From Macrumors:
Update 2: Some observers have pointed out the the Library of Congress ruling today also addresses the issue of mobile phone unlocking, which involves moving a device to another wireless carrier for which support is not generally offered. Today's ruling only states, however, that copyright concerns can not be used to prohibit unlocking of mobile phones under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Carriers are still free to prevent unlocking in many circumstances and can pursue cases against individuals by citing breach of contract under the carriers' Terms of Service.
You are likely right on all points.
What are your feelings on C-32 here at home?
My feelings are both too long to discuss here, (and probably too vitriolic as well). There's a lot involved, and some of the arguments hinge on issues that are themselves hot-button topics like whether a corporation is even entitled to the same protection as an individual.
In general I believe that copyright laws do relatively little to actually protect the originating artist and are mostly about protecting the publishing corporations right to exclusivity. The original purpose of copyright law was to protect the works of those that create them from being copied or sold by others, but little work has been done on that part of the law for many years.
Almost all recent (last fifty years) changes to the laws have focussed exclusively on the rights of corporations to hold on to the IP long after the original artist has died, extending copyright protection far beyond any reasonable expiry date, and draconian changes to the rights of the consumers to keep, copy, or use legally purchased items. Meantime, the artist is in no different a position than he or she was all that time ago.
All these changes (IMO), have had a stifling effect on creativity that's seems pretty obvious to me, but I rarely get anyone who agrees with me.
(2)Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking
Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.
The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.
[Two of ]The six classes of works are:
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/L...Statement.html
My understanding of the new copyright rulings re the iPhone are as follows:
Exemption (2) it is not illegal to use third-party software, i.e., not currently available via the iTunes store.
Exemption (3) it is not illegal to use firmware or software to let you use another carrier.
Nothing in this ruling, or anything that the Library of Congress could mandate, could make Apple or AT&T provide the necessary hardware, firmware or software, as well as, service and support for any software or hardware to facilitate the use of apps other than those available on the iTunes store, or connecting your iPhone to just any other carrier of your choosing.
In general I believe that copyright laws do relatively little to actually protect the originating artist and are mostly about protecting the publishing corporations right to exclusivity. The original purpose of copyright law was to protect the works of those that create them from being copied or sold by others, but little work has been done on that part of the law for many years.
Almost all recent (last fifty years) changes to the laws have focussed exclusively on the rights of corporations to hold on to the IP long after the original artist has died, extending copyright protection far beyond any reasonable expiry date, and draconian changes to the rights of the consumers to keep, copy, or use legally purchased items. Meantime, the artist is in no different a position than he or she was all that time ago.
All these changes (IMO), have had a stifling effect on creativity that's seems pretty obvious to me, but I rarely get anyone who agrees with me.[/QUOTE]
It's probably an impossible task but what would be really interesting is if somehow this creativity could be worked out. An ISBN count could be a partial measure.
Would this only apply to the US do you think?
As usual, US laws apply to the US exclusively.
When was it "officially illegal"?
Dunno, maybe it used to be unofficially legal?
...The government protected the rights of individuals.
Amen to that!
Apple doesn't make the laws.
Amen to that, too!
...
It continues to amaze me that people who benefit from gov't regulations are so quick to criticize them. Yet they'd be the first to complain if a loved one were killed in unregulated airspace or from eating uninspected tainted meat.
Hold your horses. I was NOT being sarcastic.
Will it blend?
Yes.
Now some of Internet users do not need education how to use the tool. Not all pornography is illegal and so be it.
I wonder if people at Apple ever researched public interest in Internet pornography and the revenue coming from it.
On another note, what type of application I purchase and install on my legitimate hardware is none of vendor business (except perhaps for crimes). I honestly do not appreciate education via limitation.
(European living in the USA)
I am happy that I might one day have iPhone not bound to some operator and pick my own favorite. Also I am happy that I may use some alternative GPS solution with aftermarket dongles rather what's Apple prescribed and what agreements I am bound with indirectly.
Other than that I still consider Android while being fan of Apple in general.
I don't think Apple modifies to thwart jailbreakers. They update their OS as they do - mostly for the benefit of their customers. And it sometimes breaks the hack, sometimes not. Frankly, I think Apple gets too many great ideas from the jailbreak community to have any real ire for it. The kind of effort Apple's put into shutting down Flash and Psystar is totally absent here. Apple couldn't stop jailbreaking if they wanted to, but they could make it a lot harder, and they really haven't so far.
?It?s a cat-and-mouse game, We try to stay ahead. People will try to break in, and it?s our job to stop them breaking in.?
-Steve Jobs 2009
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.
You don't know what your talking about:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1437...hone_worm.html
"The worm does not affect most iPhone users; only those with jailbroken iPhones that are running a Unix utility called SSH (Secure Shell) with the iPhone?s default password, ?alpine,? still in use."
As posted in part by the Library of Congress, http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/L...Statement.html
My understanding of the new copyright rulings re the iPhone are as follows:
Exemption (2) it is not illegal to use third-party software, i.e., not currently available via the iTunes store.
Exemption (3) it is not illegal to use firmware or software to let you use another carrier.
Nothing in this ruling, or anything that the Library of Congress could mandate, could make Apple or AT&T provide the necessary hardware, firmware or software, as well as, service and support for any software or hardware to facilitate the use of apps other than those available on the iTunes store, or connecting your iPhone to just any other carrier of your choosing.
I think your understanding is correct. Nothing in any of the articles or posts about this that I have read imply Apple would be obligated to open or unlock anyone's iPhone. But, it does mean they won't be able to go after those that do so or provide the means to do it...for the next 3 years anyway.