U.S. Government To Try And Make 'Jailbreaking' Legal

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
(Not sure if this belongs in the Apple forums or here)
Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally break electronic locks on their devices in order to download software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.

The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized uses. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing use of copyright-protected material.

Apple will sue and have this overturned considering their is precedent for sue ToS violations (see PayStar)

When you have unelected bureaucrats making the rules up on the fly you end up with stupid decisions like this one.
 
Last edited:

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
ToS can't preempt laws. Just because there's precedent doesn't mean that once a law is passed the ToS still can apply.

Given they'll still fly in the face of the DMCA though, I'm not so sure how this will play out.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
This stuff usually stands the test of the courts, all Apple can do is say the warranty is now void.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
ToS can't preempt laws. Just because there's precedent doesn't mean that once a law is passed the ToS still can apply.

Given they'll still fly in the face of the DMCA though, I'm not so sure how this will play out.


Um. This isn't a law it is a ruling by a regulatory body. Like I said, Apple will probably sue the federal government and the federal government will get slapped down. It is a very bad ruling.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Um. This isn't a law it is a ruling by a regulatory body. Like I said, Apple will probably sue the federal government and the federal government will get slapped down. It is a very bad ruling.
Oh, well given you didn't give a link or cite an original source, I was assuming it was a judicial review. After re-reading, it appears the this is in fact the DMCA fair-use exemptions that are legally handled by the Library of Congress. I seriously doubt any lawsuit would end up changing this.
 

Glitchny

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2002
5,679
1
0
here is an actual link so people can read up on it.

and I fail to see how this is a bad thing for consumers.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
The government isn't "trying" to make jailbreaking "legal" they just did.

Unlocking was already legal per the LOC.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Like I said, Apple will probably sue the federal government and the federal government will get slapped down. It is a very bad ruling.

And the consumer would lose in that situation.

This is a very good first step from the Library of Congress. Few more steps are really needed though.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Oh, well given you didn't give a link or cite an original source, I was assuming it was a judicial review. After re-reading, it appears the this is in fact the DMCA fair-use exemptions that are legally handled by the Library of Congress. I seriously doubt any lawsuit would end up changing this.

Sorry, thought I pasted in a link to the AP.

Again this might not be bad for the consumer but it is definitely bad precedent. Remember the government doesn't only represent the interest of people, it also represents business.
 

notposting

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2005
3,498
33
91
Don't worry, soon ACTA will be passed in the middle of night and jailbreaking will be a CRIMINAL act.
 

GTSRguy

Senior member
Sep 21, 2009
459
0
0
What an amazingly stupid rule. Apple doesnt approve apps when they crash, dont do what they say, dont use approved APIs (which means they wont work with future iPhones and software updates). There are 200,000 apps to choose from. Apple approved 95% of all submissions. If you accept all submissions, you end up with shit apps, like what you get in the android market.

This is an example of fanboy rage going mainstream...make me do a huge facepalm of disappointment at todays public
 
Last edited:

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
What an amazingly stupid rule. Apple doesnt approve apps when they crash, dont do what they say, dont use approved APIs (which means they wont work with future iPhones and software updates). There are 200,000 apps to choose from. Apple approved 95% of all submissions. If you accept all submissions, you end up with shit apps, like what you get in the android market.

And the problem here is?

<--All Apple products I've ever bought have been jailbroken by me.

Apple just voids the warranty. Although you can just restore the device back to factory settings, problem solved.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Sorry, thought I pasted in a link to the AP.

Again this might not be bad for the consumer but it is definitely bad precedent. Remember the government doesn't only represent the interest of people, it also represents business.

I concur with Ars's analysis - I fail to see how jailbreaking would adversely affect Apple's business model with the iPhone - after all, you can't jailbreak an iPhone if you haven't bought one in the first place.

IMHO, the app-store is censorship in the first place, and shouldn't be legal without an alternative, which is gained by... wait for it... jailbreaking.

ArsTechnica's analysis of it:

Jailbreaking

The most surprising ruling was on "jailbreaking" one's phone (exemption number two), replacing the company-provided operating system with a hacked version that has fewer limitations. Make no mistake: this was all about Apple. And Apple lost.


The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM and then to reuse a small bit of Apple's copyright firmware code. Apple showed up at the hearings to say, in numerous ways, that the idea was terrible, ridiculous, and illegal. In large part, that was because the limit on jailbreaking was needed to preserve Apple's controlled ecosystem, which the company said was of great value to consumers.


That might be true, the Register agreed, but what did it have to do with copyright?


"Apple is not concerned that the practice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iPhones," wrote the Register, explaining her thinking by running through the "four factors" of the fair use test. "Indeed, since one cannot engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone, it would be difficult to make that argument. Rather, the harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation. Apple is concerned that jailbreaking will breach the integrity of the iPhone's ecosystem. The Register concludes that such alleged adverse effects are not in the nature of the harm that the fourth fair use factor is intended to address."


And the Register concluded that a jailbroken phone used "fewer than 50 bytes of code out of more than 8 million bytes, or approximately 1/160,000 of the copyrighted work as a whole. Where the alleged infringement consists of the making of an unauthorized derivative work, and the only modifications are so de minimis, the fact that iPhone users are using almost the entire iPhone firmware for the purpose for which it was provided to them by Apple undermines the significance" of Apple's argument.


The conclusion is sure to irritate Steve Jobs: "On balance, the Register concludes that 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."

Given the Library of Congress maintains sole authority to grant DMCA exemptions as permitted by law, Apple hasn't a leg to stand on (for the next three years).
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I concur with Ars's analysis - I fail to see how jailbreaking would adversely affect Apple's business model with the iPhone - after all, you can't jailbreak an iPhone if you haven't bought one in the first place.

IMHO, the app-store is censorship in the first place, and shouldn't be legal without an alternative, which is gained by... wait for it... jailbreaking.

ArsTechnica's analysis of it:



Given the Library of Congress maintains sole authority to grant DMCA exemptions as permitted by law, Apple hasn't a leg to stand on (for the next three years).

And the Register concluded that a jailbroken phone used "fewer than 50 bytes of code out of more than 8 million bytes, or approximately 1/160,000 of the copyrighted work as a whole. Where the alleged infringement consists of the making of an unauthorized derivative work, and the only modifications are so de minimis, the fact that iPhone users are using almost the entire iPhone firmware for the purpose for which it was provided to them by Apple undermines the significance" of Apple's argument.

Ah so its ok to steal from Apple as long as you steal just a little bit. Got it.

The biggest problem for Apple is some ass clown is going to bring in their broken jailbroken phone into the Apple store for service and Apple is going to laugh at them and show them the door. Who is this consumer going to blame, themselves for violating the warrantee or Apple?
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
Ah so its ok to steal from Apple as long as you steal just a little bit. Got it.

The biggest problem for Apple is some ass clown is going to bring in their broken jailbroken phone into the Apple store for service and Apple is going to laugh at them and show them the door. Who is this consumer going to blame, themselves for violating the warrantee or Apple?
And that's any different from what happens today? :rolleyes:

Really now... who is really being hurt by jailbreaking a phone? There's no financial loss to Apple, the the onus is on the end user. For even 1 jailbroken phone Apple has probably 10000 non-jailbroken phones in the wild. Is modifying 50 bytes of code really making that much of a difference, especially when no money is involved?
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Who is this consumer going to blame, themselves for violating the warrantee or Apple?

Can't speak much for the Apple side of the house, but every root guide for Android, every custom recovery, and every ROM very clearly warn the user what they're about to do voids their warranty. Its clear, plain as day. If you brick your phone in the process, its entirely on you, the end user. Apple, RIM, HTC, Motorola, Samnsung, etc, are fully in their rights to laugh at you if you tried to return a phone after a botched ROM flash or root attempt. Unless you've got some Cadillac insurance policy not normally sold through the carrier.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,210
2,551
136
I'm wondering if this will apply to devices other than phones? Nintendo has been notorious for crusading against ROM cartridges that allow for homebrew. Admittedly these ROM cartridges also permit pirated game files.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I'm wondering if this will apply to devices other than phones? Nintendo has been notorious for crusading against ROM cartridges that allow for homebrew. Admittedly these ROM cartridges also permit pirated game files.

and jailbreak also allows for pirating of applications.....

And that's any different from what happens today? :rolleyes

Well, now you have the government saying that it is OK to do something while before it was clearly not ok. If you can't see the difference than you need to take a step back.

Note: I am not saying that I am against jailbreaking (at your own risk) but exemptions like these from a regulatory body (not law) are bad in general.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
and jailbreak also allows for pirating of applications.....



Well, now you have the government saying that it is OK to do something while before it was clearly not ok. If you can't see the difference than you need to take a step back.

Note: I am not saying that I am against jailbreaking (at your own risk) but exemptions like these from a regulatory body (not law) are bad in general.

Thing is, it is the law. The DMCA was written so that a regulatory body (The Library of Congress, Copyright Register) has legal authority to create temporary exemptions.
 

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
Ah so its ok to steal from Apple as long as you steal just a little bit. Got it.

The biggest problem for Apple is some ass clown is going to bring in their broken jailbroken phone into the Apple store for service and Apple is going to laugh at them and show them the door. Who is this consumer going to blame, themselves for violating the warrantee or Apple?


How is this stealing, even a little bit? I know you would much prefer to see more profit in the corporations hands than in the end-users, but I fail to see how this is theft. Jailbreakers own the iphone, they can buy software from the store if they want, or can use their own. There is no theft or copyright infringement here, which is why the library ruled as it did. Apple is free to sue, but that doesn't make them in the right.