Posted on 07/27/2010 10:58:07 AM PDT by Still Thinking
WASHINGTON (AP) — Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally unlock their devices so they can run 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 use of copyright-protected material.
For iPhone jailbreakers, the new rules effectively legitimize a practice that has been operating in a legal gray area by exempting it from liability. Apple claims that jailbreaking is an unauthorized modification of its software.
Unless users unlock their handsets, they can only download apps from Apple's iTunes store. Software developers must get such apps pre-approved by Apple, which sometimes demands changes or rejects programs for what developers say are vague reasons.
Apple spokesman Natalie Kerris said Monday that the company is concerned about jailbreaking because the practice can make an iPhone unstable and unreliable.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
— allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
— allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
— allow college professors, film students, documentary filmmakers and producers of noncommercial videos to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.
— allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
— allow blind people to break locks on electronic books so that they can use them with read-aloud software and similar aides.
(Excerpt) Read more at pddnet.com ...
I also love how they're so concerned jailbreaking might hurt your phone that they turn it off remotely! I'm glad I got them on my side protecting me!
Disclaimer: This is not to incite a flame war over products, but intended to be a DRM and DMCA themed thread, so please refrain from trashing each other's computing preferences!
Tech and DRM ping!
If so, that would be inconsistent with the, ahem, dongle ruling. Or at least once the servers have been down more than 48 hours, or something like that.
I still can’t figure out why this is a legal issue at all. Makes me wonder what the government’s payoff from Apple was to get this made a legal issue to start with.
Ok...I am a DRM (Dumb Republicam Male)...how does one unlock the iphone
Consistency? What’s that?
I think the reasoning was, “you haven’t shown that anybody’s been hurt from it enough yet—come back after it’s too late.”
The fact that this action was considered "illegal" in the first place is disturbing.
It wasn't Apple per se, but a lot of content related companies. They bribed a corrupt Congress to repeatedly extend copyright, till now it's almost infinite, and to criminalize any attempts to defeat their technological measures to lock down their products. They tried the tech measures without the criminalization initially, but they're so bad at it that they kept getting embarrassed by some nerdy kid in his mom's basement. These are implementation rules to create exemptions where the strict literal application of the law would be inappropriate.
Hmmm, in that case I recommend a liberal application of beer. To yourself or the phone, it doesn't matter!
Oh, don't get me started on that issue! The same people who are arguing that they don't sell the content, but a license to use the content, and that thus they're allowed to tell you what you can do with the thing you've bought and paid for? They've also argued in court that the sale shouldn't be treated as a license but as a sale, when that would leave them with less responsibilities to the customers!
“Ok...I am a DRM (Dumb Republicam Male)...how does one unlock the iphone”
Do you live in a city?
If so then you are a DRUM - Dumb Republican Urban Male
Ok...I am a DRM (Dumb Republicam Male)...how does one unlock the iphone
Hmmm, in that case I recommend a liberal application of beer. To yourself or the phone, it doesn’t matter!
OK...beer worked...dunked it and it stopped ringing..thanks for the help!
Excellent! Go with God, my son.
Today’s ruling is a very bad thing for Apple and great for customers.
As soon as they figure out unlocking 3GS with iOS4.0.1, I’m doing it and installing Flash on my phone.
Another rumor is Mozilla Firefox and Adobe Flash may team up to make a real browser for the iPhone.
Of course Apple has a for-profit strategy. But I can’t wait to see all your comments in a few months when you discover that the noncertified/unauthorized apps that you’ve loaded on the phones just stole your identity, shared all your contacts with nefarious players and your treasured little iPhones don’t work any more. Will you be demanding that Apple’s warranty still apply? Or will you be looking for the nanny state government to go after those big bad for-profit companies to bail you out for your naive understanding of what opening up a network connected device really means?
You mean, would I expect Apple to make me whole for damage caused by an app they didn't approve? No, of course not, who would?
Or will you be looking for the nanny state government to go after those big bad for-profit companies to bail you out for your naive understanding of what opening up a network connected device really means?
I would have no problem with Apple certifying apps as danger free and people could choose to use the Apple-certified ones or take their chances and use ones that weren't. Oh, wait....that's exactly what this ruling says, that Apple doesn't get to make that choice FOR you.
They go through this every few years. A few civic-minded organizations request exemptions, and the corporations bring their full lobbying power to make sure none are granted. I’m surprised the DVD one made it in this time. The MPAA has been fighting hard against it every time it’s been requested, and the Register of Copyrights (an industry lawyer hack) has consistently agreed until now, and then only partway. Format shifting, an otherwise well-established fair use of copyrighted works, is still not allowed overall.
The anti-circumvention part of this law is bad in many ways, so don’t expect much reasonable to come from it. So, yes, there is no exemption in case the DRM servers go down. They tell you to burn the music to CD and re-import. Thus they shift it upon us to either accept lower-quality sound (re-encoded lossy again) or more disk space (if you use a lossless codec) in order to keep our copy of the copyrighted work. Funny, right there they tell us to format-shift, but still say format shifting of DVDs is wrong.
For copyright questions, and going back to the Founders, I always look to books. Would this make sense if it were a book or song? If not, then it’s probably not within the original constitutional intent of copyright. I doubt Madison thought a publisher could arbitrarily come into his library and render his books unreadable. Madison would be shocked at the state of copyright today, and would have to swallow some of the words he wrote to Jefferson about the populace being able to keep the power of the publishers through copyright in check.
So, who will reimburse Apple for certifying the millions of apps that you think you have the right to put on an iPhone? And Apple doesn’t restrict your choice. You don’t have to buy the product/service that they offer. That’s your choice.
Just don't expect any sympathy when your battery life drops to next to nothing and half the Flash apps don't work anyway because they depend on "mouse over" events.
Well, considering I’m a multimedia developer, I’m not worried about it. This will help expose more Flash Developers to the mobile platforms so they can build better apps for learning and entertainment. But Apple, in their typical Draconian ways, wants to control everything, just like in the 80s.
And I can turn off the Flash anytime I am not using it. It’s not that hard.
Hm. Maybe. Flash could die a horrible painful death today and it wouldn’t bother me one bit, however. Biggest piece of junk and bloat ever invented in computing.
You must be a Mac user.
Flash is also the most widely used plugin out there on computers and other electronic devices.
And HTML 5 replacing Flash is Steve Job’s fantasy that will never happen. He’s pushing for it because he thinks he can control it. It is still years behind Flash in sophistication and in order for it to work, he’ll have to get Microsoft (IE), Mozilla (Firefox), Google (Chrome), and Opera to cooperate and build browsers that read code exactly the same. They have yet to do that with ANY HTML version.
“I still can’t figure out why this is a legal issue at all. Makes me wonder what the government’s payoff from Apple was to get this made a legal issue to start with.”
It was not Apple who sought the ruling initially, but 3rd party application providers who thought the “owner” of an Apple device had certain rights that included the right to use an Apple device in ways not supplied by Apple - if they wanted to. (Like I can buy a Dell Computer with Windows 7 and then clean off the Windows OS entirely and install Linux, even if Dell were to say I shouldn’t. The one difference with Apple devices is that the device, the operating system and the applications are all three “Apple” products or Apple approved.)
I have no problem with the decision.
I would join with Apple though in agreeing that when “non-Apple” software is added to an Apple machine, Apple reserves the right to deny continuation of their warranty, on a case by case basis; in which such cases can be litigated if needed.
I use OS X, Windows, and Linux.
Flash is crap on all of them.
Jesus H. Christ, who the hell pissed in YOUR Wheaties? Presumably the same people will pay Apple to certify those apps that do so now, or at least the ones that find value in it as opposed to doing it because they can't put their own choice into effect. The market for certified apps to which I referred is the one that already exists at their app store. Sheesh. What are you, on the board of directors or something?
Remember, Apple is the one standing there saying they WANT to certify the apps they sell people, so how is your question even rational? (They just don’t want anyone to be able to have a different avenue if that’s more consistent with their needs)
I think you're neglecting a large and obvious factor here -- customer service and warranty. Apple's are very solid and near-legendary in most cases. They sell product at high margin knowing that they also provide world-class service after the fact when needed. So now.... you also said:
> ...would I expect Apple to make me whole for damage caused by an app they didn't approve? No, of course not, who would?
Answer: A LOT OF PEOPLE. In fact, in today's tech market, I'd wager that MOST people who buy a product with a warranty figure that it's a game between them and the manufacturer, in which the consumer "wins" if they can get the manufacturer to pony up under warranty for something stupid the consumer did themselves that voids the warranty.
I designed electronic products for a manufacturer who had a similarly outstanding warranty policy, and the ways in which our customers took advantage of us would absolutely curl your hair. And they are typical. People are not inherently honest in this regard.
Your rhetorical question "Who would?" is incredibly naive, IMO.
Back on-topic, I happen to loathe DRM and everything that it represents in terms of restriction of freedom of ownership. I'm actually really pleased by this ruling and wish it had gone further.
OTOH, if one buys a product with a restricted license, one has accepted the terms. If I see a product I want, but it has DRM, I don't buy it. Sometimes I let the manufacturer know that I avoided their product because of the DRM.
Free market pressure, baby. It's the best way.
I wouldn't have a problem with Apple refusing to honor the warranty in cases where the damage could be shown to have been caused by an unapproved app. But shutting down peoples phones? Especially after claiming their problem with the outside apps was potential to harm the customer experience?? Unh-unh.
In this particular case, smartphones, your point is dead on, as there's Android for those who don't wish to live in a closed system, and voting with my dollars is exactly what I intend to do.
You're quite right of course -- which is why in another 10 years Microsoft will still own the business desktop and most of the home computer market.
Boycotting (or at least, refusing to patronize) companies whose products disgust you is primarily a PERSONAL victory, whether or not the company notices you.
If not enough people do it, and the company ignores them, so be it -- the buying populace has voted and the disgusting whatever-it-is continues.
But people can vote to tell a company to shove a product up their corporate a$$ -- witness Windows Vista. It was awful in some really important ways, and people told Microsoft "No" in no uncertain terms. The result was Windows 7, essentially Vista-Done-Right, and it rocks. Everybody wins.
Problem is, in the world of DRM, all Windows versions have it, just like Apple... Your only real choice if you want to avoid it is Linux. Which is a fine choice -- I've run Linux since about 2001, and for a number of years it was my primary workstation (other times Windows or OS-X). But it ain't for the masses.
Ultimately I see it as, "You don't like the product -- don't buy it. Simple. Find something else that suits you better, or do without." I tolerate the restrictions on my iPod Touch because in the overall balance it's a win. But I do chafe against the restrictions sometimes.
Precisely. In MP3 player and phone markets, there's a viable alternative (generic non-Apple players and Android based phones), and since I have the opportunity to choose, I'll NEVER purchase an iPod or iPhone. You make a good point about Linux, I thought about the same thing a moment after posting my last comment. I keep trying to adopt it, and the learning curve has stopped me so far. Nevertheless, the only right thing to do is to commit the hours to learning it so I can cut off the companies whose practices I don't approve of.
I developed my hatred of Flash as a PC user and Flash developer.
There are a lot of downright nasty, dirty hacks in the Windows NT code because third-party apps would misbehave. People blamed Microsoft for problems in their apps, and the developer wouldn't fix them, so Microsoft put hacks in Windows to make the apps work.
I know it's completely stupid. But that's what happened.
I consider the terms of most EULAs to be unenforceable. They are a classic exercise in a company taking for itself more power than we the people granted through copyright. Since copyright is the only thing keeping the people from freely copying the software and claiming it as their own, I don’t believe the companies have any more power than copyright explicitly gives them.
And what do you develop in now?
C# .NET, getting into Objective C for the Mac. Unfortunately, Objective C isn't quite as elegant a language as I'm used to with C#, but the Mac APIs rock and the new Grand Central multithreading is amazing. I'm thinking of going back to Java to program for the Android, but I was never much of a fan of Java, and I hear the Android APIs aren't all that great.
“Ultimately I see it as, “You don’t like the product — don’t buy it. Simple. Find something else that suits you better, or do without.” I tolerate the restrictions on my iPod Touch because in the overall balance it’s a win. But I do chafe against the restrictions sometimes.”
What if you do like the product and want to make it work better for you? What if you love the product and want to do one thing with it the manufacturer does not want you to do? What if you love the product but hate the phone company that it is associated with?
The way I see it, if the company sells it to the public and I buy it, I can go home and void the warrantee if I choose. My DVR does not have the same drive it was born with, I lost the warrantee as soon as I broke the service seal on the back, but I now have about 3 times the storage that the manufacurer saw fit to give me. They made a sale, I got a product that meets my needs. It’s all good.
I've been hacking products to make them do things their manufacturer didn't intend, since I was about 13 years old (that would be about 45 years now).
> The way I see it, if the company sells it to the public and I buy it, I can go home and void the warrantee if I choose.
I do the same thing.
My ONLY point of contention with that process is that if you do something that voids the warranty, then play fair and don't try to use the warranty. Don't try to scam the manufacturer after breaking the agreement. And if the agreement was a LICENSE to use it in certain ways, not OWNERSHIP, then don't act like you own it.
Maybe I should revise my statement from "If you don't like the product, don't buy it", to: "If you don't like the terms of sale, don't buy it."
The fact is, most consumers are dishonest when it comes to abiding by the terms of the purchase agreement. I see it from both sides. As a consumer, I say, "I bought it, I own it, I can bloody well do what I want with it -- assuming the purchase was a sale, not a license." As a manufacturer, I say, "Sure, do what you like, but don't come crying to me if it doesn't work after you break it."
That includes things like software updates, too -- if you jailbreak your phone, and a later software update from the manufacturer turns it into a brick, well, that's a damn shame, fix it yourself or get support from the folks who made the jailbreak software, don't go crying to the manufacturer.
In other words, just play fair. It's good karma.
In principle I agree. I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrase "void the warranty"; I still expect the manufacturer to stand behind the portion of the product they made, for issues that couldn't logically have been created by the prohibited use, the EULA notwithstanding.
And if the agreement was a LICENSE to use it in certain ways, not OWNERSHIP, then don't act like you own it.
I don't find this at all persuasive because the manufacturers can't decide which side of this issue they want to be on and have argued both at different times. (Actually they have no trouble deciding, the answer is whichever one leads to the result beneficial to them at the time)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.